Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Gichtel, Johann" to "Glory" (part 2)

GINGHAM, a cotton or linen cloth, for the name of which several origins are suggested. It is said to have been made at Guingamp, a town in Brittany; the New English Dictionary derives the word from Malay ging-gang, meaning “striped.” The cloth is now of a light or medium weight, and woven of dyed or white yarns either in a single colour or different colours, and in stripes, checks or plaids. It is made in Lancashire and in Glasgow, and also to a large extent in the United States. Imitations of it are obtained by calico-printing. It is used for dresses, &c.

GINGI, or Gingee, a rock fortress of southern India, in the South Arcot district of Madras. It consists of three hills, connected by walls enclosing an area of 7 sq. m., and practically impregnable to assault. The origin of the fortress is shrouded in legend. When occupied by the Mahrattas at the end of the 17th century, it withstood a siege of eight years against the armies of Aurangzeb. In 1750 it was captured by the French, who held it with a strong force for eleven years. It surrendered to the English in 1761, in the words of Orme, “terminated the long hostilities between the two rival European powers in Coromandel, and left not a single ensign of the French nation avowed by the authority of its government in any part of India.”

GINGUENÉ, PIERRE LOUIS (1748-1815), French author, was born on the 27th of April 1748 at Rennes, in Brittany. He was educated at a Jesuit college in his native town, and came to Paris in 1772. He wrote criticisms for the Mercure de France, and composed a comic opera, Pomponin (1777). The Satire des satires (1778) and the Confession de Zulmé (1779) followed. The Confession was claimed by six or seven different authors, and though the value of the piece is not very great, it obtained great success. His defence of Piccini against the partisans of Gluck made him still more widely known. He hailed the first symptoms of the Revolution, joined Giuseppe Cerutti, the author of the Mémoire pour le peuple français (1788), and others in producing the Feuille villageoise, a weekly paper addressed to the villages of France. He also celebrated in an indifferent ode the opening of the states-general. In his Lettres sur les confessions de J.-J. Rousseau (1791) he defended the life and principles of his author. He was imprisoned during the Terror, and only escaped with life by the downfall of Robespierre. Some time after his release he assisted, as director-general of the “commission exécutive de l’instruction publique,” in reorganizing the system of public instruction, and he was an original member of the Institute of France. In 1797 the directory appointed him minister plenipotentiary to the king of Sardinia. After fulfilling his duties for seven months, very little to the satisfaction of his employers, Ginguené retired for a time to his country house of St Prix, in the valley of Montmorency. He was appointed a member of the tribunate, but Napoleon, finding that he was not sufficiently tractable, had him expelled at the first “purge,” and Ginguené returned to his literary pursuits. He was one of the commission charged to continue the Histoire littéraire de la France, and he contributed to the volumes of this series which appeared in 1814, 1817 and 1820. Ginguené’s most important work is the Histoire littéraire d’Italie (14 vols., 1811-1835). He was putting the finishing touches to the eighth and ninth volumes when he died on the 11th of November 1815. The last five volumes were written by Francesco Salfi and revised by Pierre Daunou.

In the composition of his history of Italian literature he was guided for the most part by the great work of Girolamo Tiraboschi, but he avoids the prejudices and party views of his model.

Ginguené edited the Décade philosophique, politique et littéraire till it was suppressed by Napoleon in 1807. He contributed largely to the Biographie universelle, the Mercure de France and the Encyclopédie méthodique; and he edited the works of Chamfort and of Lebrun. Among his minor productions are an opera, Pomponin ou le tuteur mystifié (1777); La Satire des satires (1778); De l’autorité de Rabelais dans la révolution présente (1791); De M. Neckar (1795); Fables nouvelles (1810); Fables inédites (1814). See “Éloge de Ginguené” by Dacier, in the Mémoires de l’institut, tom. vii.; “Discours” by M. Daunou, prefixed to the 2nd ed. of the Hist. litt. d’Italie; D. J. Garat, Notice sur la vie et les ouvrages de P. L. Ginguené, prefixed to a catalogue of his library (Paris, 1817).

GINKEL, GODART VAN (1630-1703); 1st earl of Athlone, Dutch general in the service of England, was born at Utrecht in 1630. He came of a noble family, and bore the title of Baron van Reede, being the eldest son of Godart Adrian van Reede, Baron Ginkel. In his youth he entered the Dutch army, and in 1688 he followed William, prince of Orange, in his expedition to England. In the following year he distinguished himself by a memorable exploit—the pursuit, defeat and capture of a Scottish regiment which had mutinied at Ipswich, and was marching northward across the fens. It was the alarm excited by this mutiny that facilitated the passing of the first Mutiny Act. In 1690 Ginkel accompanied William III. to Ireland, and commanded a body of Dutch cavalry at the battle of the Boyne. On the king’s return to England General Ginkel was entrusted with the conduct of the war. He took the field in the spring of 1691, and established his headquarters at Mullingar. Among those who held a command under him was the marquis of Ruvigny, the recognized chief of the Huguenot refugees. Early in June Ginkel took the fortress of Ballymore, capturing the whole garrison of 1000 men. The English lost only 8 men. After reconstructing the fortifications of Ballymore the army marched to Athlone, then one of the most important of the fortified towns of Ireland. The Irish defenders of the place were commanded by a distinguished French general, Saint-Ruth. The firing began on June 19th, and on the 30th the town was stormed, the Irish army retreating towards Galway, and taking up their position at Aughrim. Having strengthened the fortifications of Athlone and left a garrison there, Ginkel led the English, on July 12th, to Aughrim. An immediate attack was resolved on, and, after a severe and at one time doubtful contest, the crisis was precipitated by the fall of Saint-Ruth, and the disorganized Irish were defeated and fled. A horrible slaughter of the Irish followed the struggle, and 4000 corpses were left unburied on the field, besides a multitude of others that lay along the line of the retreat. Galway next capitulated, its garrison being permitted to retire to Limerick. There the viceroy Tyrconnel was in command of a large force, but his sudden death early in August left the command in the hands of General Sarsfield and the Frenchman D’Usson. The English came in sight of the town on the day of Tyrconnel’s death, and the bombardment was immediately begun. Ginkel, by a bold device, crossed the Shannon and captured the camp of the Irish cavalry. A few days later he stormed the fort on Thomond Bridge, and after difficult negotiations a capitulation was signed, the terms of which were divided into a civil and a military treaty. Thus was completed the conquest or pacification of Ireland, and the services of the Dutch general were amply recognized and rewarded. He received the formal thanks of the House of Commons, and was created by the king 1st earl of Athlone and baron of Aughrim. The immense forfeited estates of the earl of Limerick were given to him, but the grant was a few years later revoked by the English parliament. The earl continued to serve in the English army, and accompanied the king to the continent in 1693. He fought at the sieges of Namur and the battle of Neerwinden, and assisted in destroying the French magazine at Givet. In 1702, waiving his own claims to the position of commander-in-chief, he commanded the Dutch serving under the duke of Marlborough. He died at Utrecht on the 11th of February 1703, and was succeeded by his son the 2nd earl (1668-1719), a distinguished soldier in the reigns of William III. and Anne. On the death of the 9th earl without issue in 1844, the title became extinct.

GINSBURG, CHRISTIAN DAVID (1831- ), Hebrew scholar, was born at Warsaw on the 25th of December 1831. Coming to England shortly after the completion of his education in the Rabbinic College at Warsaw, Dr Ginsburg continued his study of the Hebrew Scriptures, with special attention to the Megilloth. The first result of these studies was a translation of the Song of Songs, with a commentary historical and critical, published in 1857. A similar translation of Ecclesiastes, followed by treatises on the Karaites, on the Essenes and on the Kabbala, kept the author prominently before biblical students while he was preparing the first sections of his magnum opus, the critical study of the Massorah. Beginning in 1867 with the publication of Jacob ben Chajim’s Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English, with notices, and the Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, in Hebrew, with translation and commentary, Dr Ginsburg took rank as an eminent Hebrew scholar. In 1870 he was appointed one of the first members of the committee for the revision of the English version of the Old Testament. His life-work culminated in the publication of the Massorah, in three volumes folio (1880-1886), followed by the Masoretico-critical edition of the Hebrew Bible (1894), and the elaborate introduction to it (1897). Dr Ginsburg had one predecessor in the field, the learned Jacob ben Chajim, who in 1524-1525 published the second Rabbinic Bible, containing what has ever since been known as the Massorah; but neither were the materials available nor was criticism sufficiently advanced for a complete edition. Dr Ginsburg took up the subject almost where it was left by those early pioneers, and collected portions of the Massorah from the countless MSS. scattered throughout Europe and the East. More recently Dr Ginsburg has published Facsimiles of Manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible (1897 and 1898), and The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Abbreviations (1903), in addition to a critical treatise “on the relationship of the so-called Codex Babylonicus of A.D. 916 to the Eastern Recension of the Hebrew Text” (1899, for private circulation). In the last-mentioned work he seeks to prove that the St Petersburg Codex, for so many years accepted as the genuine text of the Babylonian school, is in reality a Palestinian text carefully altered so as to render it conformable to the Babylonian recension. He subsequently undertook the preparation of a new edition of the Hebrew Bible for the British and Foreign Bible Society. He also contributed many articles to J. Kitto’s Encyclopaedia, W. Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Biography and the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

GINSENG, the root of a species of Panax (P. Ginseng), native of Manchuria and Korea, belonging to the natural order Araliaceae, used in China as a medicine. Other roots are substituted for it, notably that of Panax quinquefolium, distinguished as American ginseng, and imported from the United States. At one time the ginseng obtained from Manchuria was considered to be the finest quality, and in consequence became so scarce that an imperial edict was issued prohibiting its collection. That prepared in Korea is now the most esteemed variety. The root of the wild plant is preferred to that of cultivated ginseng, and the older the plant the better is the quality of the root considered to be. Great care is taken in the preparation of the drug. The account given by Kaempfer of the preparation of nindsin, the root of Sium ninsi, in Korea, will give a good idea of the preparation of ginseng, ninsi being a similar drug of supposed weaker virtue, obtained from a different plant, and often confounded with ginseng. “In the beginning of winter nearly all the population of Sjansai turn out to collect the root, and make preparations for sleeping in the fields. The root, when collected, is macerated for three days in fresh water, or water in which rice has been boiled twice; it is then suspended in a closed vessel over the fire, and afterwards dried, until from the base to the middle it assumes a hard, resinous and translucent appearance, which is considered a proof of its good quality.”

Ginseng of good quality generally occurs in hard, rather brittle, translucent pieces, about the size of the little finger, and varying in length from 2 to 4 in. The taste is mucilaginous, sweetish and slightly bitter and aromatic. The root is frequently forked, and it is probably owing to this circumstance that medicinal properties were in the first place attributed to it, its resemblance to the body of a man being supposed to indicate that it could restore virile power to the aged and impotent. In price it varies from 6 or 12 dollars to the enormous sum of 300 or 400 dollars an ounce.

Lockhart gives a graphic description of a visit to a ginseng merchant. Opening the outer box, the merchant removed several paper parcels which appeared to fill the box, but under them was a second box, or perhaps two small boxes, which, when taken out, showed the bottom of the large box and all the intervening space filled with more paper parcels. These parcels, he said, “contained quicklime, for the purpose of absorbing any moisture and keeping the boxes quite dry, the lime being packed in paper for the sake of cleanliness. The smaller box, which held the ginseng, was lined with sheet-lead; the ginseng further enclosed in silk wrappers was kept in little silken-covered boxes. Taking up a piece, he would request his visitor not to breathe upon it, nor handle it; he would dilate upon the many merits of the drug and the cures it had effected. The cover of the root, according to its quality, was silk, either embroidered or plain, cotton cloth or paper.” In China the ginseng is often sent to friends as a valuable present; in such cases, “accompanying the medicine is usually given a small, beautifully-finished double kettle, in which the ginseng is prepared as follows. The inner kettle is made of silver, and between this and the outside vessel, which is a copper jacket, is a small space for holding water. The silver kettle, which fits on a ring near the top of the outer covering, has a cup-like cover in which rice is placed with a little water; the ginseng is put in the inner vessel with water, a cover is placed over the whole, and the apparatus is put on the fire. When the rice in the cover is sufficiently cooked, the medicine is ready, and is then eaten by the patient, who drinks the ginseng tea at the same time.” The dose of the root is from 60 to 90 grains. During the use of the drug tea-drinking is forbidden for at least a month, but no other change is made in the diet. It is taken in the morning before breakfast, from three to eight days together, and sometimes it is taken in the evening before going to bed.

The action of the drug appears to be entirely psychic, and comparable to that of the mandrake of the Hebrews. There is no evidence that it possesses any pharmacological or therapeutic properties.

See Porter Smith, Chinese Materia Medica, p. 103; Reports on Trade at the Treaty Ports of China (1868), p. 63; Lockhart, Med. Missionary in China (2nd ed.), p. 107; Bull. de la Société Impériale de Nat. de Moscou (1865), No. 1, pp. 70-76; Pharmaceutical Journal (2), vol. iii. pp. 197, 333, (2), vol. ix. p. 77; Lewis, Materia Medica, p. 324; Geoffroy, Tract. de matière médicale, t. ii. p. 112; Kaempfer, Amoenitates exoticae, p. 824.

GIOBERTI, VINCENZO (1801-1852), Italian philosopher, publicist and politician, was born in Turin on the 5th of April 1801. He was educated by the fathers of the Oratory with a view to the priesthood and ordained in 1825. At first he led a very retired life; but gradually took more and more interest in the affairs of his country and the new political ideas as well as in the literature of the day. Partly under the influence of Mazzini, the freedom of Italy became his ruling motive in life,—its emancipation, not only from foreign masters, but from modes of thought alien to its genius, and detrimental to its European authority. This authority was in his mind connected with papal supremacy, though in a way quite novel—intellectual rather than political. This must be remembered in considering nearly all his writings, and also in estimating his position, both in relation to the ruling clerical party—the Jesuits—and also to the politics of the court of Piedmont after the accession of Charles Albert in 1831. He was now noticed by the king and made one of his chaplains. His popularity and private influence, however, were reasons enough for the court party to mark him for exile; he was not one of them, and could not be depended on. Knowing this, he resigned his office in 1833, but was suddenly arrested on a charge of conspiracy, and, after an imprisonment of four months, was banished without a trial. Gioberti first went to Paris, and, a year later, to Brussels, where he remained till 1845, teaching philosophy, and assisting a friend in the work of a private school. He nevertheless found time to write many works of philosophical importance, with special reference to his country and its position. An amnesty having been declared by Charles Albert in 1846, Gioberti (who was again in Paris) was at liberty to return to Italy, but refused to do so till the end of 1847. On his entrance into Turin on the 29th of April 1848 he was received with the greatest enthusiasm. He refused the dignity of senator offered him by Charles Albert, preferring to represent his native town in the Chamber of Deputies, of which he was soon elected president. At the close of the same year, a new ministry was formed, headed by Gioberti; but with the accession of Victor Emmanuel in March 1849, his active life came to an end. For a short time indeed he held a seat in the cabinet, though without a portfolio; but an irreconcilable disagreement soon followed, and his removal from Turin was accomplished by his appointment on a mission to Paris, whence he never returned. There, refusing the pension which had been offered him and all ecclesiastical preferment, he lived frugally, and spent his days and nights as at Brussels in literary labour. He died suddenly, of apoplexy, on the 26th of October 1852.

Gioberti’s writings are more important than his political career. In the general history of European philosophy they stand apart. As the speculations of Rosmini-Serbati, against which he wrote, have been called the last link added to medieval thought, so the system of Gioberti, known as “Ontologism,” more especially in his greater and earlier works, is unrelated to other modern schools of thought. It shows a harmony with the Roman Catholic faith which caused Cousin to declare that “Italian philosophy was still in the bonds of theology,” and that Gioberti was no philosopher. Method is with him a synthetic, subjective and psychological instrument. He reconstructs, as he declares, ontology, and begins with the “ideal formula,” “the Ens creates ex nihilo the existent.” God is the only being (Ens); all other things are merely existences. God is the origin of all human knowledge (called l’idea, thought), which is one and so to say identical with God himself. It is directly beheld (intuited) by reason, but in order to be of use it has to be reflected on, and this by means of language. A knowledge of being and existences (concrete, not abstract) and their mutual relations, is necessary as the beginning of philosophy. Gioberti is in some respects a Platonist. He identifies religion with civilization, and in his treatise Del primato morale e civile degli Italiani arrives at the conclusion that the church is the axis on which the well-being of human life revolves. In it he affirms the idea of the supremacy of Italy, brought about by the restoration of the papacy as a moral dominion, founded on religion and public opinion. In his later works, the Rinnovamento and the Protologia, he is thought by some to have shifted his ground under the influence of events. His first work, written when he was thirty-seven, had a personal reason for its existence. A young fellow-exile and friend, Paolo Pallia, having many doubts and misgivings as to the reality of revelation and a future life, Gioberti at once set to work with La Teorica del sovrannaturale, which was his first publication (1838). After this, philosophical treatises followed in rapid succession. The Teorica was followed by Introduzione allo studio della filosofia in three volumes (1839-1840). In this work he states his reasons for requiring a new method and new terminology. Here he brings out the doctrine that religion is the direct expression of the idea in this life, and is one with true civilization in history. Civilization is a conditioned mediate tendency to perfection, to which religion is the final completion if carried out; it is the end of the second cycle expressed by the second formula, the Ens redeems existences. Essays (not published till 1846) on the lighter and more popular subjects, Del bello and Del buono, followed the Introduzione. Del primato morale e civile degli Italiani and the Prolegomeni to the same, and soon afterwards his triumphant exposure of the Jesuits, Il Gesuita moderno, no doubt hastened the transfer of rule from clerical to civil hands. It was the popularity of these semi-political works, increased by other occasional political articles, and his Rinnovamento civile d’Italia, that caused Gioberti to be welcomed with such enthusiasm on his return to his native country. All these works were perfectly orthodox, and aided in drawing the liberal clergy into the movement which has resulted since his time in the unification of Italy. The Jesuits, however, closed round the pope more firmly after his return to Rome, and in the end Gioberti’s writings were placed on the Index (see J. Kleutgen, Über die Verurtheilung des Ontologismus durch den heiligen Stuhl, 1867). The remainder of his works, especially La Filosofia della Rivelazione and the Protologia, give his mature views on many points. The entire writings of Gioberti, including those left in manuscript, have been edited by Giuseppe Massari (Turin, 1856-1861).

See Massari, Vita de V. Gioberti (Florence, 1848); A. Rosmini-Serbati, V. Gioberti e il panteismo (Milan, 1848); C. B. Smyth, Christian Metaphysics (1851); B. Spaventa, La Filosofia di Gioberti (Naples, 1854); A. Mauri, Della vita e delle opere di V. Gioberti (Genoa, 1853); G. Prisco, Gioberti e l’ ontologismo (Naples, 1867); P. Luciani, Gioberti e la filosofia nuova italiana (Naples, 1866-1872); D. Berti, Di V. Gioberti (Florence, 1881); see also L. Ferri, L’Histoire de la philosophie en Italie au XIXe siècle (Paris, 1869); C. Werner, Die italienische Philosophie des 19. Jahrhunderts, ii. (1885); appendix to Ueberweg’s Hist. of Philosophy (Eng. tr.); art. in Brownson’s Quarterly Review (Boston, Mass.), xxi.; R. Mariano, La Philosophie contemporaine en Italie (1866); R. Seydel’s exhaustive article in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyclopädie. The centenary of Gioberti called forth several monographs in Italy.

GIOIOSA-IONICA, a town of Calabria, Italy, in the province of Reggio Calabria, from which it is 65 m. N.E. by rail, and 38 m. direct, 492 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) town, 9072; commune, 11,200. Near the station, which is on the E. coast of Calabria 3 m. below the town to the S.E., the remains of a theatre belonging to the Roman period were discovered in 1883; the orchestra was 46 ft. in diameter (Notizie degli scavi, 1883, p. 423). The ruins of an ancient building called the Naviglio, the nature of which does not seem clear, are described (ib. 1884, p. 252).

GIOJA, MELCHIORRE (1767-1829), Italian writer on philosophy and political economy, was born at Piacenza, on the 20th of September 1767. Originally intended for the church, he took orders, but renounced them in 1796 and went to Milan, where he devoted himself to the study of political economy. Having obtained the prize for an essay on “the kind of free government best adapted to Italy” he decided upon the career of a publicist. The arrival of Napoleon in Italy drew him into public life. He advocated a republic under the dominion of the French in a pamphlet I Tedeschi, i Francesi, ed i Russi in Lombardia, and under the Cisalpine Republic he was named historiographer and director of statistics. He was several times imprisoned, once for eight months in 1820 on a charge of being implicated in a conspiracy with the Carbonari. After the fall of Napoleon he retired into private life, and does not appear to have held office again. He died on the 2nd of January 1829. Gioja’s fundamental idea is the value of statistics or the collection of facts. Philosophy itself is with him classification and consideration of ideas. Logic he regarded as a practical art, and his Esercizioni logici has the further title, Art of deriving benefit from ill-constructed books. In ethics Gioja follows Bentham generally, and his large treatise Del merito e delle recompense (1818) is a clear and systematic view of social ethics from the utilitarian principle. In political economy this avidity for facts produced better fruits. The Nuovo Prospetto delle scienze economiche (1815-1817), although long to excess, and overburdened with classifications and tables, contains much valuable material. The author prefers large properties and large commercial undertakings to small ones, and strongly favours association as a means of production. He defends a restrictive policy and insists on the necessity of the action of the state as a regulating power in the industrial world. He was an opponent of ecclesiastical domination. He must be credited with the finest and most original treatment of division of labour since the Wealth of Nations. Much of what Babbage taught later on the subject of combined work is anticipated by Gioja. His theory of production is also deserving of attention from the fact that it takes into account and gives due prominence to immaterial goods. Throughout the work there is continuous opposition to Adam Smith. Gioja’s latest work Filosofia della statistica (2 vols., 1826; 4 vols., 1829-1830) contains in brief compass the essence of his ideas on human life, and affords the clearest insight into his aim and method in philosophy both theoretical and practical.

See monographs by G. D. Romagnosi (1829), F. Falco (1866); G. Pecchio, Storia dell’ economia pubblica in Italia (1829), and article in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyclopädie; for Gioja’s philosophy, L. Ferri, Essai sur l’histoire de la philosophie en Italie au XIXe siècle (1869); Ueberweg’s Hist. of Philosophy (Eng. tr., appendix ii.); A. Rosmini-Serbati, Opuscoli filosofici, iii. (1844) (containing an attack on Gioja’s “sensualism”); for his political economy, list of works in J. Conrad’s Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften (1892); L. Cossa, Introd. to Pol. Econ. (Eng. trans., p. 488). Gioja’s complete works were published at Lugano (1832-1849). He was one of the founders of the Annali universali di statistica.

GIOLITTI, GIOVANNI (1842- ), Italian statesman, was born at Mondovì on the 27th of October 1842. After a rapid career in the financial administration he was, in 1882, appointed councillor of state and elected to parliament. As deputy he chiefly acquired prominence by attacks on Magliani, treasury minister in the Depretis cabinet, and on the 9th of March 1889 was himself selected as treasury minister by Crispi. On the fall of the Rudinì cabinet in May 1892, Giolitti, with the help of a court clique, succeeded to the premiership. His term of office was marked by misfortune and misgovernment. The building crisis and the commercial rupture with France had impaired the situation of the state banks, of which one, the Banca Romana, had been further undermined by maladministration. A bank law, passed by Giolitti failed to effect an improvement. Moreover, he irritated public opinion by raising to senatorial rank the director-general of the Banca Romana, Signor Tanlongo, whose irregular practices had become a byword. The senate declined to admit Tanlongo, whom Giolitti, in consequence of an interpellation in parliament upon the condition of the Banca Romana, was obliged to arrest and prosecute. During the prosecution Giolitti abused his position as premier to abstract documents bearing on the case. Simultaneously a parliamentary commission of inquiry investigated the condition of the state banks. Its report, though acquitting Giolitti of personal dishonesty, proved disastrous to his political position, and obliged him to resign. His fall left the finances of the state disorganized, the pensions fund depleted, diplomatic relations with France strained in consequence of the massacre of Italian workmen at Aigues-Mortes, and Sicily and the Lunigiana in a state of revolt, which he had proved impotent to suppress. After his resignation he was impeached for abuse of power as minister, but the supreme court quashed the impeachment by denying the competence of the ordinary tribunals to judge ministerial acts. For several years he was compelled to play a passive part, having lost all credit. But by keeping in the background and giving public opinion time to forget his past, as well as by parliamentary intrigue, he gradually regained much of his former influence. He made capital of the Socialist agitation and of the repression to which other statesmen resorted, and gave the agitators to understand that were he premier they would be allowed a free hand. Thus he gained their favour, and on the fall of the Pelloux cabinet he became minister of the Interior in Zanardelli’s administration, of which he was the real head. His policy of never interfering in strikes and leaving even violent demonstrations undisturbed at first proved successful, but indiscipline and disorder grew to such a pitch that Zanardelli, already in bad health, resigned, and Giolitti succeeded him as prime minister (November 1903). But during his tenure of office he, too, had to resort to strong measures in repressing some serious disorders in various parts of Italy, and thus he lost the favour of the Socialists. In March 1905, feeling himself no longer secure, he resigned, indicating Fortis as his successor. When Sonnino became premier in February 1906, Giolitti did not openly oppose him, but his followers did, and Sonnino was defeated in May, Giolitti becoming prime minister once more.

GIORDANO, LUCA (1632-1705), Italian painter, was born in Naples, son of a very indifferent painter, Antonio, who imparted to him the first rudiments of drawing. Nature predestined him for the art, and at the age of eight he painted a cherub into one of his father’s pictures, a feat which was at once noised abroad, and induced the viceroy of Naples to recommend the child to Ribera. His father afterwards took him to Rome, to study under Pietro da Cortona. He acquired the nickname of Luca Fa-presto (Luke Work-fast). One might suppose this nickname to be derived merely from the almost miraculous celerity with which from an early age and throughout his life he handled the brush; but it is said to have had a more express origin. The father, we are told, poverty-stricken and greedy of gain, was perpetually urging his boy to exertion with the phrase, “Luca, fà presto.” The youth obeyed his parent to the letter, and would actually not so much as pause to snatch a hasty meal, but received into his mouth, while he still worked on, the food which his father’s hand supplied. He copied nearly twenty times the “Battle of Constantine” by Julio Romano, and with proportionate frequency several of the great works of Raphael and Michelangelo. His rapidity, which belonged as much to invention as to mere handiwork, and his versatility, which enabled him to imitate other painters deceptively, earned for him two other epithets, “The Thunderbolt” (Fulmine), and “The Proteus,” of Painting. He shortly visited all the main seats of the Italian school of art, and formed for himself a style combining in a certain measure the ornamental pomp of Paul Veronese and the contrasting compositions and large schemes of chiaroscuro of Pietro da Cortona. He was noted also for lively and showy colour. Returning to Naples, and accepting every sort of commission by which money was to be made, he practised his art with so much applause that Charles II. of Spain towards 1687 invited him over to Madrid, where he remained thirteen years. Giordano was very popular at the Spanish court, being a sprightly talker along with his other marvellously facile gifts, and the king created him a cavaliere. One anecdote of his rapidity of work is that the queen of Spain having one day made some inquiry about his wife, he at once showed Her Majesty what the lady was like by painting her portrait into the picture on which he was engaged. Soon after the death of Charles in 1700 Giordano, gorged with wealth, returned to Naples. He spent large sums in acts of munificence, and was particularly liberal to his poorer brethren of the art. He again visited various parts of Italy, and died in Naples on the 12th of January 1705, his last words being “O Napoli, sospiro mio” (O Naples, my heart’s love!). One of his maxims was that the good painter is the one whom the public like, and that the public are attracted more by colour than by design.

Giordano had an astonishing readiness and facility, in spite of the general commonness and superficiality of his performances. He left many works in Rome, and far more in Naples. Of the latter one of the most renowned is “Christ expelling the Traders from the Temple,” in the church of the Padri Girolamini, a colossal work, full of expressive lazzaroni; also the frescoes of S. Martino, and those in the Tesoro della Certosa, including the subject of “Moses and the Brazen Serpent”; and the cupola-paintings in the Church of S. Brigida, which contains the artist’s own tomb. In Spain he executed a surprising number of works,—continuing in the Escorial the series commenced by Cambiasi, and painting frescoes of the “Triumphs of the Church,” the “Genealogy and Life of the Madonna,” the stories of Moses, Gideon, David and Solomon, and the “Celebrated Women of Scripture,” all works of large dimensions. His pupils, Aniello Rossi and Matteo Pacelli, assisted him in Spain. In Madrid he worked more in oil-colour, a Nativity there being one of his best productions. Other superior examples are the “Judgment of Paris” in the Berlin Museum, and “Christ with the Doctors in the Temple,” in the Corsini Gallery of Rome. In Florence, in his closing days, he painted the Cappella Corsini, the Galleria Riccardi and other works. In youth he etched with considerable skill some of his own paintings, such as the “Slaughter of the Priests of Baal.” He also painted much on the crystal borderings of looking-glasses, cabinets, &c., seen in many Italian palaces, and was, in this form of art, the master of Pietro Garofolo. His best pupil, in painting of the ordinary kind, was Paolo de Matteis.

Bellori, in his Vite de’ pittori moderni, is a leading authority regarding Luca Giordano. P. Benvenuto (1882) has written a work on the Riccardi paintings.

GIORGIONE (1477-1510), Italian painter, was born at Castelfranco in 1477. In contemporary documents he is always called (according to the Venetian manner of pronunciation and spelling) Zorzi, Zorzo or Zorzon of Castelfranco. A tradition, having its origin in the 17th century, represented him as the natural son of some member of the great local family of the Barbarelli, by a peasant girl of the neighbouring village of Vedelago; consequently he is commonly referred to in histories and catalogues under the name of Giorgio Barbarelli or Barbarella. This tradition has, however, on close examination been proved baseless. On the other hand mention has been found in a contemporary document of an earlier Zorzon, a native of Vedelago, living in Castelfranco in 1460. Vasari, who wrote before the Barbarella legend had sprung up, says that Giorgione was of very humble origin. It seems probable that he was simply the son or grandson of the afore-mentioned Zorzon the elder; that the after-claim of the Barbarelli to kindred with him was a mere piece of family vanity, very likely suggested by the analogous case of Leonardo da Vinci; and that, this claim once put abroad, the peasant-mother of Vedelago was invented on the ground of some dim knowledge that his real progenitors came from that village.

Of the facts of his life we are almost as meagrely informed as of the circumstances of his birth. The little city, or large fortified village, for it is scarcely more, of Castelfranco in the Trevisan stands in the midst of a rich and broken plain at some distance from the last spurs of the Venetian Alps. From the natural surroundings of Giorgione’s childhood was no doubt derived his ideal of pastoral scenery, the country of pleasant copses, glades, brooks and hills amid which his personages love to wander or recline with lute and pipe. How early in boyhood he went to Venice we do not know, but internal evidence supports the statement of Ridolfi that he served his apprenticeship there under Giovanni Bellini; and there he made his fame and had his home. That his gifts were early recognized we know from the facts, recorded in contemporary documents, that in 1500, when he was only twenty-three (that is if Vasari gives rightly the age at which he died), he was chosen to paint portraits of the Doge Agostino Barberigo and the condottiere Consalvo Ferrante; that in 1504 he was commissioned to paint an altarpiece in memory of Matteo Costanzo in the cathedral of his native town, Castelfranco; that in 1507 he received at the order of the Council of Ten part payment for a picture (subject not mentioned) on which he was engaged for the Hall of the Audience in the ducal palace; and that in 1507-1508 he was employed, with other artists of his own generation, to decorate with frescoes the exterior of the newly rebuilt Fondaco dei Tedeschi or German merchants’ hall at Venice, having already done similar work on the exterior of the Casa Soranzo, the Casa Grimani alii Servi and other Venetian palaces. Vasari gives also as an important event in Giorgione’s life, and one which had influence on his work, his meeting with Leonardo da Vinci on the occasion of the Tuscan master’s visit to Venice in 1500. In September or October 1510 he died of the plague then raging in the city, and within a few days of his death we find the great art-patroness and amateur, Isabella d’Este, writing from Mantua and trying in vain to secure for her collection a night-piece by his hand of which the fame had reached her.

All accounts agree in representing Giorgione as a personage of distinguished and romantic charm, a great lover, a great musician, made to enjoy in life and to express in art to the uttermost the delight, the splendour, the sensuous and imaginative grace and fulness, not untinged with poetic melancholy, of the Venetian existence of his time. They represent him further as having made in Venetian painting an advance analogous to that made in Tuscan painting by Leonardo more than twenty years before; that is as having released the art from the last shackles of archaic rigidity and placed it in possession of full freedom and the full mastery of its means. He also introduced a new range of subjects. Besides altarpieces and portraits he painted pictures that told no story, whether biblical or classical, or if they professed to tell such, neglected the action and simply embodied in form and colour moods of lyrical or romantic feeling, much as a musician might embody them in sounds. Innovating with the courage and felicity of genius, he had for a time an overwhelming influence on his contemporaries and immediate successors in the Venetian school, including Titian, Sebastian del Piombo, the elder Palma, Cariani and the two Campagnolas, and not a little even on seniors of long-standing fame such as Giovanni Bellini. His name and work have exercised, and continue to exercise, no less a spell on posterity. But to identify and define, among the relics of his age and school, precisely what that work is, and to distinguish it from the kindred work of other men whom his influence inspired, is a very difficult matter. There are inclusive critics who still claim for Giorgione nearly every painting of the time that at all resembles his manner, and there are exclusive critics who pare down to some ten or a dozen the list of extant pictures which they will admit to be actually his.

To name first those which are either certain or command the most general acceptance, placing them in something like an approximate and probable order of date. In the Uffizi at Florence are two companion pieces of the “Trial of Moses” and the “Judgment of Solomon,” the latter the finer and better preserved of the two, which pass, no doubt justly, as typical works of Giorgione’s youth, and exhibit, though not yet ripely, his special qualities of colour-richness and landscape romance, the peculiar facial types of his predilection, with the pure form of forehead, fine oval of cheek, and somewhat close-set eyes and eyebrows, and the intensity of that still and brooding sentiment with which, rather than with dramatic life and movement, he instinctively invests his figures. Probably the earliest of the portraits by common consent called his is the beautiful one of a young man at Berlin. His earliest devotional picture would seem to be the highly finished “Christ bearing his Cross” (the head and shoulders only, with a peculiarly serene and high-bred cast of features) formerly at Vicenza and now in the collection of Mrs Gardner at Boston. Other versions of this picture exist, and it has been claimed that one in private possession at Vienna is the true original: erroneously in the judgment of the present writer. Another “Christ bearing the Cross,” with a Jew dragging at the rope round his neck, in the church of San Rocco at Venice, is a ruined but genuine work, quoted by Vasari and Ridolfi, and copied with the name of Giorgione appended, by Van Dyck in that master’s Chatsworth sketch-book. (Vasari gives it to Giorgione in his first and to Titian in his second edition.) The composition of a lost early picture of the birth of Paris is preserved in an engraving of the “Teniers Gallery” series, and an old copy of part of the same picture is at Budapest. In the Giovanelli Palace at Venice is that fascinating and enigmatical mythology or allegory, known to the Anonimo Morelliano, who saw it in 1530 in the house of Gabriel Vendramin, simply as “the small landscape with the storm, the gipsy woman and the soldier”; the picture is conjecturally interpreted by modern authorities as illustrating a passage in Statius which describes the meeting of Adrastus with Hypsipyle when she was serving as nurse with the king of Nemea. Still belonging to the earlier part of the painter’s brief career is a beautiful, virginally pensive Judith at St Petersburg, which passed under various alien names, as Raphael, Moretto, &c., until its kindred with the unquestioned work of Giorgione was in late years firmly established. The great Castelfranco altarpiece, still, in spite of many restorations, one of the most classically pure and radiantly impressive works of Renaissance painting, may be taken as closing the earlier phase of the young master’s work (1504). It shows the Virgin loftily enthroned on a plain, sparely draped stone structure with St Francis and a warrior saint (St Liberale) standing in attitudes of great simplicity on either side of the foot of the throne, a high parapet behind them, and a beautiful landscape of the master’s usual type seen above it. Nearly akin to this masterpiece, not in shape or composition but by the type of the Virgin and the very Bellinesque St Francis, is the altarpiece of the Madonna with St Francis and St Roch at Madrid. Of the master’s fully ripened time is the fine and again enigmatical picture formerly in the house of Taddeo Contarini at Venice, described by contemporary witnesses as the “Three Philosophers,” and now, on slender enough grounds, supposed to represent Evander showing Aeneas the site of Troy as narrated in the eighth Aeneid. The portrait of a knight of Malta in the Uffizi at Florence has more power and authority, if less sentiment, than the earlier example at Berlin, and may be taken to be of the master’s middle time. Most entirely central and typical of all Giorgione’s extant works is the Sleeping Venus at Dresden, first recognized by Morelli, and now universally accepted, as being the same as the picture seen by the Anonimo and later by Ridolfi in the Casa Marcello at Venice. An exquisitely pure and severe rhythm of line and contour chastens the sensuous richness of the presentment: the sweep of white drapery on which the goddess lies, and of glowing landscape that fills the space behind her, most harmoniously frame her divinity. It is recorded that the master left this piece unfinished and that the landscape, with a Cupid which subsequent restoration has removed, were completed after his death by Titian. The picture is the prototype of Titian’s own Venus at the Uffizi and of many more by other painters of the school; but none of them attained the quality of the first exemplar. Of such small scenes of mixed classical mythology and landscape as early writers attribute in considerable number to Giorgione, there have survived at least two which bear strong evidences of his handiwork, though the action is in both of unwonted liveliness, namely the Apollo and Daphne of the Seminario at Venice and the Orpheus and Eurydice of Bergamo. The portrait of Antonio Grocardo at Budapest represents his fullest and most penetrating power in that branch of art. In his last years the purity and relative slenderness of form which mark his earlier female nudes, including the Dresden Venus, gave way to ideals of ampler mould, more nearly approaching those of Titian and his successors in Venetian art; as is proved by those last remaining fragments of the frescoes on the Grand Canal front of the Fondaco dei Tedeschi which were seen and engraved by Zanetti in 1760, but have now totally disappeared. Such change of ideal is apparent enough in the famous “Concert” or “Pastoral Symphony” of the Louvre, probably the latest, and certainly one of the most characteristic and harmoniously splendid, of Giorgione’s creations that has come down to us, and has caused some critics too hastily to doubt its authenticity.

We pass now to pictures for which some affirm and others deny the right to bear Giorgione’s name. As youthful in style as the two early pictures in the Uffizi, and closely allied to them in feeling, though less so in colour, is an unexplained subject in the National Gallery, sometimes called for want of a better title the “Golden Age”; this is officially and by many critics given only to the “school of” Giorgione, but may not unreasonably be claimed for his own work (No. 1173). There is also in England a group of three paintings which are certainly by one hand, and that a hand very closely related to Giorgione if not actually his own, namely the small oblong “Adoration of the Magi” in the National Gallery (No. 1160), the “Adoration of the Shepherds” belonging to Lord Allendale (with its somewhat inferior but still attractive replica at Vienna), and the small “Holy Family” in the collection of Mr R. H. Benson. The type of the Madonna in all these three pieces is different from that customary with the master, but there seems no reason why he should not at some particular moment have changed his model. The sentiment and gestures of the figures, the cast of draperies, the technical handling, and especially, in Lord Allendale’s picture, the romantic richness of the landscape, all incline us to accept the group as original, notwithstanding the deviation of type already mentioned and certain weaknesses of drawing and proportion which we should have hardly looked for. Better known to European students in general are the two fine pictures commonly given to the master at the Pitti gallery in Florence, namely the “Three Ages” and the “Concert.” Both are very Giorgionesque, the “Three Ages” leaning rather towards the early manner of Lorenzo Lotto, to whom by some critics it is actually given. The “Concert” is held on technical grounds by some of the best judges rather to bear the character of Titian at the moment when the inspiration of Giorgione was strongest on him, at least so far as concerns the extremely beautiful and expressive central figure of the monk playing on the clavichord with reverted head, a very incarnation of musical rapture and yearning—the other figures are too much injured to judge.

There are at least two famous single portraits as to which critics will probably never agree whether they are among the later works of Giorgione or among the earliest of Titian under his influence: these are the jovial and splendid half-length of Catherine Cornaro (or a stout lady much resembling her) with a bas-relief, in the collection of Signor Crespi at Milan, and the so-called “Ariosto” from Lord Darnley’s collection acquired for the National Gallery in 1904. Ancient and half-effaced inscriptions, of which there is no cause to doubt the genuineness, ascribe them both to Titian; both, to the mind of the present writer at least, are more nearly akin to such undoubted early Titians as the “Man with the Book” at Hampton Court and the “Man with the Glove” at the Louvre than to any authenticated work of Giorgione. At the same time it should be remembered that Giorgione is known to have actually enjoyed the patronage of Catherine Cornaro and to have painted her portrait. The Giorgionesque influence and feeling, to a degree almost of sentimental exaggeration, encounter us again in another beautiful Venetian portrait at the National Gallery which has sometimes been claimed for him, that of a man in crimson velvet with white pleated shirt and a background of bays, long attributed to the elder Palma (No. 636). The same qualities are present with more virility in a very striking portrait of a young man at Temple Newsam, which stands indeed nearer than any other extant example to the Brocardo portrait at Budapest. The full-face portrait of a woman in the Borghese gallery at Rome has the marks of the master’s design and inspiration, but in its present sadly damaged condition can hardly be claimed for his handiwork. The head of a boy with a pipe at Hampton Court, a little over life size, has been enthusiastically claimed as Giorgione’s workmanship, but is surely too slack and soft in handling to be anything more than an early copy of a lost work, analogous to, though better than, the similar copy at Vienna of a young man with an arrow, a subject he is known to have painted. The early records prove indeed that not a few such copies of Giorgione’s more admired works were produced in his own time or shortly afterwards. One of the most interesting and unmistakable such copies still extant is the picture formerly in the Manfrin collection at Venice, afterwards in that of Mr Barker in London, and now at Dresden, which is commonly called “The Horoscope,” and represents a woman seated near a classic ruin with a young child at her feet, an armed youth standing looking down at them, and a turbaned sage seated near with compasses, disk and book. Of important subject pictures belonging to the debatable borderland between Giorgione and his imitators are the large and interesting unfinished “Judgment of Solomon” at Kingston Lacy, which must certainly be the same that Ridolfi saw and attributed to him in the Casa Grimani at Venice, but has weaknesses of design and drawing sufficiently baffling to criticism; and the “Woman taken in Adultery” in the public gallery at Glasgow, a picture truly Giorgionesque in richness of colour, but betraying in its awkward composition, the relative coarseness of its types and the insincere, mechanical animation of its movements, the hand of some lesser master of the school, almost certainly (by comparison with his existing engravings and woodcuts) that of Domenico Campagnola. It seems unnecessary to refer, in the present notice, to any of the numerous other and inferior works which have been claimed for Giorgione by a criticism unable to distinguish between a living voice and its echoes.

Bibliography.—Morelli, Notizie, &c. (ed. Frizzoni, 1884): Vasari (ed. Milanesi), vol. iv.; Ridolfi, Le Maraviglie dell’ arte, vol. i.; Zanetti, Varie Pitture (1760); Crowe-Cavalcaselle, History of Painting in North Italy; Morelli, Kunstkritische Studien; Gronau, Zorzon da Castelfranco, la sua origine, &c. (1894); Herbert Cook, Giorgione (in “Great Masters” series, 1900); Ugo Monneret de Villard, Giorgione da Castelfranco (1905). The two last-named works are critically far too inclusive, but useful as going over the whole ground of discussion, with full references to earlier authorities, &c.

(S. C.)

GIOTTINO (1324-1357), an early Florentine painter. Vasari is the principal authority in regard to this artist; but it is not by any means easy to bring the details of his narrative into harmony with such facts as can now be verified. It would appear that there was a painter of the name of Tommaso (or Maso) di Stefano termed Giottino; and the Giottino of Vasari is said to have been born in 1324, and to have died early, of consumption, in 1357,—dates which must be regarded as open to considerable doubt. Stefano, the father of Tommaso, was himself a celebrated painter in the early revival of art; his naturalism was indeed so highly appreciated by contemporaries as to earn him the appellation of “Scimia della Natura” (ape of nature). He, it seems, instructed his son, who, however, applied himself with greater predilection to studying the works of the great Giotto, formed his style on these, and hence was called Giottino. It is even said that Giottino was really the son (others say the great-grandson) of Giotto. To this statement little or no importance can be attached. To Maso di Stefano, or Giottino, Vasari and Ghiberti attribute the frescoes in the chapel of S. Silvestro (or of the Bardi family) in the Florentine church of S. Croce; these represent the miracles of Pope S. Silvestro as narrated in the “Golden Legend,” one conspicuous subject being the sealing of the lips of a malignant dragon. These works are animated and firm in drawing, with naturalism carried further than by Giotto. From the evidence of style, some modern connoisseurs assign to the same hand the paintings in the funeral vault of the Strozzi family, below the Cappella degli Spagnuoli in the church of S. Maria Novella, representing the crucifixion and other subjects. Vasari ascribes also to his Giottino the frescoes of the life of St Nicholas in the lower church of Assisi. This series, however, is not really in that part of the church which Vasari designates, but is in the chapel of the Sacrament; and the works in that chapel are understood to be by Giotto di Stefano, who worked in the second half of the 14th century—very excellent productions of their period. They are much damaged, and the style is hardly similar to that of the Sylvester frescoes. It might hence be inferred that two different men produced the works which are unitedly fathered upon the half-legendary “Giottino,” the consumptive youth, solitary and melancholic, but passionately devoted to his art. A large number of other works have been attributed to the same hand; we need only mention an “Apparition of the Virgin to St Bernard,” in the Florentine Academy; a lost painting, very popular in its day, commemorating the expulsion, which took place in 1343, of the duke of Athens from Florence; and a marble statue erected on the Florentine campanile. Vasari particularly praises Giottino for well-blended chiaroscuro.

GIOTTO [Giotto di Bondone] (1267?-1337), Italian painter, was born at Vespignano in the Mugello, a few miles north of Florence, according to one account in 1276, and according to another, which from the few known circumstances of his life seems more likely to be correct, in 1266 or 1267. His father was a landowner at Colle in the commune of Vespignano, described in a contemporary document as vir praeclarus, but by biographers both early and late as a poor peasant; probably therefore a peasant proprietor of no large possessions but of reputable stock and descent. It is impossible to tell whether there is any truth in the legend of Giotto’s boyhood which relates how he first showed his disposition for art, and attracted the attention of Cimabue, by being found drawing one of his father’s sheep with a sharp stone on the face of a smooth stone or slate. With his father’s consent, the story goes on, Cimabue carried off the boy to be his apprentice, and it was under Cimabue’s tuition that Giotto took his first steps in the art of which he was afterwards to be the great emancipator and renovator. The place where these early steps can still, according to tradition, be traced, is in the first and second, reckoning downwards, of the three courses of frescoes which adorn the walls of the nave in the Upper Church of St Francis at Assisi. These frescoes represent subjects of the Old and New Testament, and great labour, too probably futile, has been spent in trying to pick out those in which the youthful handiwork of Giotto can be discerned, as it is imagined, among that of Cimabue and his other pupils. But the truth is that the figure of Cimabue himself, in spite of Dante’s testimony to his having been the foremost painter of Italy until Giotto arose, has under the search-light of modern criticism melted into almost mythical vagueness. His accepted position as Giotto’s instructor and the pioneer of reform in his art has been attacked from several sides as a mere invention of Florentine writers for the glorification of their own city. One group of critics maintain that the real advance in Tuscan painting before Giotto was the work of the Sienese school and not of the Florentine. Another group contend that the best painting done in Italy down to the last decade of the 13th century was not done by Tuscan hands at all, but by Roman craftsmen trained in the inherited principles of Italo-Byzantine decoration in mosaic and fresco, and that from such Roman craftsmen alone could Giotto have learnt anything worth his learning. The debate thus opened is far from closed, and considering how scanty, ambiguous and often defaced are the materials existing for discussion, it is perhaps never likely to be closed. But there is no debate as to the general nature of the reform effected by the genius of Giotto himself. He was the great humanizer of painting; it is his glory to have been the first among his countrymen to breathe life into wall-pictures and altar-pieces, and to quicken the dead conventionalism of inherited practice with the fire of natural action and natural feeling. Upon yet another point there is no question; and that is that the reform thus effected by Giotto in painting had been anticipated in the sister art of sculpture by nearly a whole generation. About the middle of the 13th century Nicola Pisano had renewed that art, first by strict imitation of classical models, and later by infusing into his work a fresh spirit of nature and humanity, perhaps partly caught from the Gothic schools of France. His son Giovanni had carried the same re-vitalising of sculpture a great deal further; and hence to some critics it would seem that the real inspirer and precursor of Giotto was Giovanni Pisano the sculptor, and not any painter or wall-decorator, whether of Florence, Siena or Rome.

In this division of opinion it is safer to regard the revival of painting in Giotto’s hands simply as part of the general awakening of the time, and to remember that, as of all Italian communities Florence was the keenest in every form of activity both intellectual and practical, so it was natural that a son of Florence should be the chief agent in such an awakening. And in considering his career the question of his possible participation in the primitive frescoes of the upper courses at Assisi is best left out of account, the more so because of the deplorable condition in which they now exist. But with reference to the lowest course of paintings on the same walls, those illustrating the life of St Francis according to the narrative of St Bonaventura, no one has any doubt, at least in regard to nineteen or twenty of the twenty-eight subjects which compose the series, that Giotto himself was their designer and chief executant. In these, sadly as they too have suffered from time and wholesale repair, there can nevertheless be discerned the unmistakable spirit of the young Florentine master as we know him in his other works—his shrewd realistic and dramatic vigour, the deep sincerity and humanity of feeling which he knows how to express in every gesture of his figures without breaking up the harmony of their grouping or the grandeur of their linear design, qualities inherited from the earlier schools of impressive but lifeless hieratic decoration. The “Renunciation of the Saint by his Father,” the “Pope’s Dream of the Saint upholding the tottering Church,” the “Saint before the Sultan,” the “Miracle of the Spring of Water,” the “Death of the Nobleman of Celano,” the “Saint preaching before Pope Honorius”—these are some of the most noted and best preserved examples of the painter’s power in this series. Where doubt begins again is as to the relations of date and sequence which the series bears to other works by the master executed at Assisi and at Rome in the same early period of his career, that is, probably between 1295 and 1300. Giotto’s remaining undisputed works at Assisi are the four celebrated allegorical compositions in honour of St Francis in the vaulting of the Lower Church,—the “Marriage of St Francis to Poverty,” the “Allegory of Chastity,” the “Allegory of Obedience” and the “Vision of St Francis in Glory.” These works are scarcely at all retouched, and relatively little dimmed by time; they are of a singular beauty, at once severe and tender, both in colour and design; the compositions, especially the first three, fitted with admirable art into the cramped spaces of the vaulting, the subjects, no doubt in the main dictated to the artist by his Franciscan employers, treated in no cold or mechanical spirit but with a full measure of vital humanity and original feeling. Had the career and influence of St Francis had no other of their vast and far-reaching effects in the world than that of inspiring these noble works of art, they would still have been entitled to no small gratitude from mankind. Other works at Assisi which most modern critics, but not all, attribute to Giotto himself are three miracles of St Francis and portions of a group of frescoes illustrating the history of Mary Magdalene, both in the Lower Church; and again, in one of the transepts of the same Lower Church, a series of ten frescoes of the Life of the Virgin and Christ, concluding with the Crucifixion. It is to be remarked as to this transept series that several of the frescoes present not only the same subjects, but with a certain degree of variation the same compositions, as are found in the master’s great series executed in the Arena chapel at Padua in the fullness of his powers about 1306; and that the versions in the Assisi transept show a relatively greater degree of technical accomplishment than the Paduan versions, with a more attractive charm and more abundance of accessory ornament, but a proportionately less degree of that simple grandeur in composition and direct strength of human motive which are the special notes of Giotto’s style. Therefore a minority of critics refuse to accept the modern attribution of this transept series to Giotto himself, and see in it later work by an accomplished pupil softening and refining upon his master’s original creations at Padua. Others, insisting that these unquestionably beautiful works must be by the hand of Giotto and none but Giotto, maintain that in comparison with the Paduan examples they illustrate a gradual progress, which can be traced in other of his extant works, from the relatively ornate and soft to the austerely grand and simple. This argument is enforced by comparison with early work of the master’s at Rome as to the date of which we have positive evidence. In 1298 Giotto completed for Cardinal Stefaneschi for the price of 2200 gold ducats a mosaic of Christ saving St Peter from the waves (the celebrated “Navicella”); this is still to be seen, but in a completely restored and transformed state, in the vestibule of St Peter’s. For the same patron he executed, probably just before the “Navicella,” an elaborate ciborium or altar-piece for the high altar of St Peter’s, for which he received 800 ducats. It represents on the principal face a colossal Christ enthroned with adoring angels beside him and a kneeling donor at his feet, and the martyrdoms of St Peter and St Paul on separate panels to right and left; on the reverse is St Peter attended by St George and other saints, receiving from the donor a model of his gift, with stately full-length figures of two apostles to right and two to left, besides various accessory scenes and figures in the predellas and the margins. The separated parts of this altar-piece are still to be seen, in a quite genuine though somewhat tarnished condition, in the sacristy of St Peter’s. A third work by the master at Rome is a repainted fragment at the Lateran of a fresco of Pope Boniface VIII. proclaiming the jubilee of 1300. The “Navicella” and the Lateran fragment are too much ruined to argue from; but the ciborium panels, it is contended, combine with the aspects of majesty and strength a quality of ornate charm and suavity such as is remarked in the transept frescoes of Assisi. The sequence proposed for these several works is accordingly, first the St Peter’s ciborium, next the allegories in the vaulting of the Lower Church, next the three frescoes of St Francis’ miracles in the north transept, next the St Francis series in the Upper Church; and last, perhaps after an interval and with the help of pupils, the scenes from the life of Mary Magdalene in her chapel in the Lower Church. This involves a complete reversal of the prevailing view, which regards the unequal and sometimes clumsy compositions of this St Francis series as the earliest independent work of the master. It must be admitted that there is something paradoxical in the idea of a progress from the manner of the Lower Church transept series of the life of Christ to the much ruder manner of the Upper Church series of St Francis.

A kindred obscurity and little less conflict of opinion await the inquirer at almost all stages of Giotto’s career. In 1841 there were partially recovered from the whitewash that had overlain them a series of frescoes executed in the chapel of the Magdalene, in the Bargello or Palace of the Podestà at Florence, to celebrate (as was supposed) a pacification between the Black and White parties in the state effected by the Cardinal d’Acquasparta as delegate of the pope in 1302. In them are depicted a series of Bible scenes, besides great compositions of Hell and Paradise, and in the Paradise are introduced portraits of Dante, Brunetto Latini and Corso Donato. These recovered fragments, freely “restored” as soon as they were disclosed, were acclaimed as the work of Giotto and long held in especial regard for the sake of the portrait of Dante. Latterly it has been shown that if Giotto ever executed them at all, which is doubtful, it must have been at a later date than the supposed pacification, and that they must have suffered grievous injury in the fire which destroyed a great part of the building in 1332, and been afterwards repainted by some well-trained follower of the school. To about 1302 or 1303 would belong, if there is truth in it, the familiar story of Giotto’s O. Pope Benedict XI., the successor of Boniface VIII., sent, as the tale runs, a messenger to bring him proofs of the painter’s powers. Giotto would give no other sample of his talent than an O drawn with a free sweep of the brush from the elbow; but the pope was satisfied and engaged him at a great salary to go and adorn with frescoes the papal residence at Avignon. Benedict, however, dying at this time (1305), nothing came of this commission; and the remains of Italian 14th-century frescoes still to be seen at Avignon are now recognized as the work, not, as was long supposed, of Giotto, but of the Sienese Simone Martini and his school.

At this point in Giotto’s life we come to the greatest by far of his undestroyed and undisputed enterprises, and one which can with some certainty be dated. This is the series of frescoes with which he decorated the entire internal walls of the chapel built at Padua in honour of the Virgin of the Annunciation by a rich citizen of the town, Enrico Scrovegni, perhaps in order to atone for the sins of his father, a notorious usurer whom Dante places in the seventh circle of hell. The building is on the site of an ancient amphitheatre, and is therefore generally called the chapel of the Arena. Since it is recorded that Dante was Giotto’s guest at Padua, and since we know that it was in 1306 that the poet came from Bologna to that city, we may conclude that to the same year, 1306, belongs the beginning of Giotto’s great undertaking in the Arena chapel. The scheme includes a Saviour in Glory over the altar, a Last Judgment, full of various and impressive incident, occupying the whole of the entrance wall, with a series of subjects from the Old and New Testament and the apocryphal Life of Christ painted in three tiers on either side wall, and lowest of all a fourth tier with emblematic Virtues and Vices in monochrome; the Virtues being on the side of the chapel next the incidents of redemption in the entrance fresco of the Last Judgment, the Vices on the side next the incidents of perdition. A not improbable tradition asserts that Giotto was helped by Dante in the choice and disposition of the subjects. The frescoes, though not free from injury and retouching, are upon the whole in good condition, and nowhere else can the highest powers of the Italian mind and hand at the beginning of the 14th century be so well studied as here. At the close of the middle ages we find Giotto laying the foundation upon which all the progress of the Renaissance was afterwards securely based. In his day the knowledge possessed by painters of the human frame and its structure rested only upon general observation and not upon detailed or scientific study; while to facts other than those of humanity their observation had never been closely directed. Of linear perspective they possessed but elementary and empirical ideas, and their endeavours to express aerial perspective and deal with the problems of light and shade were rare and partial. As far as painting could possibly be carried under these conditions, it was carried by Giotto. In its choice of subjects, his art is entirely subservient to the religious spirit of his age. Even in its mode of conceiving and arranging those subjects it is in part still trammelled by the rules and consecrated traditions of the past. Many of those truths of nature to which the painters of succeeding generations learned to give accurate and complete expression, Giotto was only able to express by way o£ imperfect symbol and suggestion. But among the elements of art over which he has control he maintains so just a balance that his work produces in the spectator less sense of imperfection than that of many later and more accomplished masters. In some particulars his mature painting, as we see it in the Arena chapel, has never been surpassed—in mastery of concise and expressive generalized line and of inventive and harmonious decorative tint; in the judicious division of the field and massing and scattering of groups; in the combination of high gravity with complete frankness in conception, and the union of noble dignity in the types with direct and vital truth in the gestures of the personages.

The frescoes of the Arena chapel must have been a labour of years, and of the date of their termination we have no proof. Of many other works said to have been executed by Giotto at Padua, all that remains consists of some scarce recognizable traces in the chapter-house of the great Franciscan church of St Antonio. For twenty years or more we lose all authentic data as to Giotto’s doings and movements. Vasari, indeed, sends him on a giddy but in the main evidently fabulous round of travels, including a sojourn in France, which it is certain he never made. Besides Padua, he is said to have resided and left great works at Ferrara, Ravenna, Urbino, Rimini, Faenza, Lucca and other cities; in some of them paintings of his school are still shown, but nothing which can fairly be claimed to be by his hand. It is recorded also that he was much employed in his native city of Florence; but the vandalism of later generations has effaced nearly all that he did there. Among works whitewashed over by posterity were the frescoes with which he covered no less than five chapels in the church of Santa Croce. Two of these, the chapels of the Bardi and the Peruzzi families, were scraped in the early part of the 19th century, and very important remains were uncovered and immediately subjected to a process of restoration which has robbed them of half their authenticity. But through the ruins of time we can trace in some of these Santa Croce frescoes all the qualities of Giotto’s work at an even higher and more mature development than in the best examples at Assisi or Padua. The frescoes of the Bardi chapel tell again the story of St Francis, to which so much of his best power had already been devoted; those of the Peruzzi chapel deal with the lives of St John the Baptist and St John the Evangelist. Such scenes as the Funeral of St Francis, the Dance of Herodias’s Daughter, and the Resurrection of St John the Evangelist, which have to some extent escaped the disfigurements of the restorer, are among acknowledged classics of the world’s art. The only clues to the dates of any of these works are to be found in the facts that among the figures in the Bardi chapel occurs that of St Louis of Toulouse, who was not canonized till 1317, therefore the painting must be subsequent to that year, and that the “Dance of Salome” must have been painted before 1331, when it was copied by the Lorenzetti at Siena. The only other extant works of Giotto at Florence are a fine “Crucifix,” not undisputed, at San Marco, and the majestic but somewhat heavy altar-piece of the Madonna, probably an early work, which is placed in the Academy beside a more primitive Madonna supposed to be the work of Cimabue.

Towards the end of Giotto’s life we escape again from confused legend, and from the tantalizing record of works which have not survived for us to verify, into the region of authentic document and fact. It appears that Giotto had come under the notice of Duke Charles of Calabria, son of King Robert of Naples, during the visits of the duke to Florence which took place between 1326 and 1328, in which year he died. Soon afterwards Giotto must have gone to King Robert’s court at Naples, where he was enrolled as an honoured guest and member of the household by a royal decree dated the 20th of January 1330. Another document shows him to have been still at Naples two years later. Tradition says much about the friendship of the king for the painter and the freedom of speech and jest allowed him; much also of the works he carried out at Naples in the Castel Nuovo, the Castel dell’ Uovo, and the church and convent of Sta Chiara. Not a trace of these works remains; and others which later criticism have claimed for him in a hall which formerly belonged to the convent of Sta Chiara have been proved not to be his.

Meantime Giotto had been advancing, not only in years and worldly fame, but in prosperity. He was married young, and had, so far as is recorded, three sons, Francesco, Niccola and Donato, and three daughters, Bice, Caterina and Lucia. He had added by successive purchases to the plot of land inherited from his father at Vespignano. His fellow-citizens of all occupations and degrees delighted to honour him. And now, in his sixty-eighth year (if we accept the birth-date 1266/7), on his return from Naples by way of Gaeta, he received the final and official testimony to the esteem in which he was held at Florence. By a solemn decree of the Priori on the 12th of April 1334, he was appointed master of the works of the cathedral of Sta Reparata (later and better known as Sta Maria del Fiore) and official architect of the city walls and the towns within her territory. What training as a practical architect his earlier career had afforded him we do not know, but his interest in the art from the beginning is made clear by the carefully studied architectural backgrounds of many of his frescoes. Dying on the 8th of January 1336 (old style 1337), Giotto only enjoyed his new dignities for two years. But in the course of them he had found time not only to make an excursion to Milan, on the invitation of Azzo Visconti and with the sanction of his own government, but to plan two great architectural works at Florence and superintend the beginning of their execution, namely the west front of the cathedral and its detached campanile or bell-tower. The unfinished enrichments of the cathedral front were stripped away in a later age. The foundation-stone of the Campanile was laid with solemn ceremony in the presence of a great concourse of magistrates and people on the 18th of July 1334. Its lower courses seem to have been completed from Giotto’s design, and the first course of its sculptured ornaments (the famous series of primitive Arts and Industries) actually by his own hand, before his death. It is not clear what modifications of his design were made by Andrea Pisano, who was appointed to succeed him, or again by Francesco Talenti, to whom the work was next entrusted; but the incomparable structure as we now see it stands justly in the world’s esteem as the most fitting monument to the genius who first conceived and directed it.

The art of painting, as re-created by Giotto, was carried on throughout Italy by his pupils and successors with little change or development for nearly a hundred years, until a new impulse was given to art by the combined influences of naturalism and classicism in the hands of men like Donatello and Masaccio. Most of the anecdotes related of the master are probably inaccurate in detail, but the general character both as artist and man which tradition has agreed in giving him can never be assailed. He was from the first a kind of popular hero. He is celebrated by the poet Petrarch and by the historian Villani. He is made the subject of tales and anecdotes by Boccaccio and by Franco Sacchetti. From these notices, as well as from Vasari, we gain a distinct picture of the man, as one whose nature was in keeping with his country origin; whose sturdy frame and plain features corresponded to a character rather distinguished for shrewd and genial strength than for sublimer or more ascetic qualities; a master craftsman, to whose strong combining and inventing powers nothing came amiss; conscious of his own deserts, never at a loss either in the things of art or in the things of life, and equally ready and efficient whether he has to design the scheme of some great spiritual allegory in colour or imperishable monument in stone, or whether he has to show his wit in the encounter of practical jest and repartee. From his own hand we have a contribution to literature which helps to substantiate this conception of his character. A large part of Giotto’s fame as painter was won in the service of the Franciscans, and in the pictorial celebration of the life and ordinances of their founder. As is well known, it was a part of the ordinances of Francis that his disciples should follow his own example in worshipping and being wedded to poverty,—poverty idealized and personified as a spiritual bride and mistress. Giotto, having on the commission of the order given the noblest pictorial embodiment to this and other aspects of the Franciscan doctrine, presently wrote an ode in which his own views on poverty are expressed; and in this he shows that, if on the one hand his genius was at the service of the ideals of his time, and his imagination open to their significance, on the other hand his judgment was shrewdly and humorously awake to their practical dangers and exaggerations.

Authorities.—Ghiberti, Commentari; Vasari, Le Vite, vol. i.; Crowe-Cavalcaselle, History of Painting in Italy, ed. Langton Douglas (1903); H. Thode, Giotto (1899); M. G. Zimmermann, Giotto und die Kunst Italiens im Mittelalter (1899); B. Berenson, Florentine Painters of the Renaissance; F. Mason Perkin, Giotto (in “Great Masters” series) (1902); Basil de Sélincourt, Giotto (1905).

(S. C.)

Not to be confused with Giotto di Buondone, a contemporary citizen and politician of Siena.

GIPSIES, or Gypsies, a wandering folk scattered through every European land, over the greater part of western Asia and Siberia; found also in Egypt and the northern coast of Africa, in America and even in Australia. No correct estimate of their numbers outside of Europe can be given, and even in Europe the information derived from official statistics is often contradictory and unreliable. The only country in which the figures have been given correctly is Hungary. In 1893 there were 274,940 in Transleithania, of whom 243,432 were settled, 20,406 only partly settled and 8938 nomads. Of these 91,603 spoke the Gipsy language in 1890, but the rest had already been assimilated. Next in numbers stands Rumania, the number varying between 250,000 and 200,000 (1895). Turkey in Europe counted 117,000 (1903), of whom 51,000 were in Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, 22,000 in the vilayet of Adrianople and 2500 in the vilayet of Kossovo. In Asiatic Turkey the estimates vary between 67,000 and 200,000. Servia has 41,000; Bosnia and Herzegovina, 18,000; Greece, 10,000; Austria (Cisleithania), 16,000, of whom 13,500 are in Bohemia and Moravia; Germany, 2000; France, 2000 (5000?); Basque Provinces, 500 to 700; Italy, 32,000; Spain, 40,000; Russia, 58,000; Poland, 15,000; Sweden and Norway, 1500; Denmark and Holland, 5000; Persia, 15,000; Transcaucasia, 3000. The rest is mere guesswork. For Africa, America and Australia the numbers are estimated between 135,000 and 166,000. The estimate given by Miklosich (1878) of 700,000 fairly agrees with the above statistics. No statistics are forthcoming for the number in the British Isles. Some estimate their number at 12,000.

The Gipsies are known principally by two names, which have been modified by the nations with whom they came in contact, but which can easily be traced to either the one or the other of these two distinct stems. The one group, embracing the majority of Gipsies in Europe, the compact masses living in the Balkan Peninsula, Rumania and Transylvania and extending also as far as Germany and Italy, are known by the name Atzigan or Atsigan, which becomes in time Tshingian (Turkey and Greece), Tsigan (Bulgarian, Servian, Rumanian), Czigány (Hungarian), Zigeuner (Germany), Zingari (Italian), and it is not unlikely that the English word Tinker or Tinkler (the latter no doubt due to a popular etymology connecting the gaudy gipsy with the tinkling coins or the metal wares which he carried on his back as a smith and tinker) may be a local transformation of the German Zigeuner. The second name, partly known in the East, where the word, however, is used as an expression of contempt, whilst Zigan is not felt by the gipsies as an insult, is Egyptian; in England, Gipsy; in some German documents of the 16th century Aegypter; Spanish Gitano; modern Greek Gyphtos. They are also known by the parallel expressions Faraon (Rumanian) and Phárao Nephka (Hungarian) or Pharaoh’s people, which are only variations connected with the Egyptian origin. In France they are known as Bohémiens, a word the importance of which will appear later. To the same category belong other names bestowed upon them, such as Walachi, Saraceni, Agareni, Nubiani, &c. They were also known by the name of Tartars, given to them in Germany, or as “Heathen,” Heydens. All these latter must be considered as nicknames without thereby denoting their probable origin. The same may have now been the ease with the first name with which they appear in history, Atzigan. Much ingenuity has been displayed in attempts to explain the name, for it was felt that a true explanation might help to settle the question of their origin and the date of their arrival in Europe. Here again two extreme theories have been propounded, the one supported by Bataillard, who connected them with the Sigynnoi of Herodotus and identified them with the Komodromoi of the later Byzantine writers, known already in the 6th century. Others bring them to Europe as late as the 14th century; and the name has also been explained by de Goeje from the Persian Chang, a kind of harp or zither, or the Persian Zang, black, swarthy. Rienzi (1832) and Trumpp (1872) have connected the name with the Changars of North-East India, but all have omitted to notice that the real form was Atzigan or (more correct) Atzingan and not Tsigan. The best explanation remains that suggested by Miklosich, who derives the word from the Athinganoi, a name originally belonging to a peculiar heretical sect living in Asia Minor near Phrygia and Lycaonia, known also as the Melki-Zedekites. The members of this sect observed very strict rules of purity, as they were afraid to be defiled by the touch of other people whom they considered unclean. They therefore acquired the name of Athinganoi (i.e. “Touch-me-nots”).

Miklosich has collected seven passages where the Byzantine historians of the 9th century describe the Athinganoi as soothsayers, magicians and serpent-charmers. From these descriptions nothing definite can be proved as to the identity of the Athinganoi with the Gipsies, or the reason why this name was given to soothsayers, charmers, &c. But the inner history of the Byzantine empire of that period may easily give a clue to it and explain how it came about that such a nickname was given to a new sect or to a new race which suddenly appeared in the Greek Empire at that period. In the history of the Church we find them mentioned in one breath with the Paulicians and other heretical sects which were transplanted in their tens of thousands from Asia Minor to the Greek empire and settled especially in Rumelia, near Adrianople and Philippopolis. The Greeks called these heretical sects by all kinds of names, derived from ancient Church traditions, and gave to each sect such names as first struck them, on the scantiest of imaginary similarities. One sect was called Paulician, another Melki-Zedekite; so also these were called Athinganoi, probably being considered the descendants of the outcast Samer, who, according to ancient tradition, was a goldsmith and the maker of the Golden Calf in the desert. For this sin Samer was banished and compelled to live apart from human beings and even to avoid their touch (Athinganos: “Touch-me-not”). Travelling from East to West these heretical sects obtained different names in different countries, in accordance with the local traditions or to imaginary origins. The Bogomils and Patarenes became Bulgarians in France, and so the gypsies Bohémiens, a name which was also connected with the heretical sect of the Bohemian brothers (Böhmische Brüder). Curiously enough the Kutzo-Vlachs living in Macedonia (q.v.) and Rumelia are also known by the nickname Tsintsari, a word that has not yet been explained. Very likely it stands in close connexion with Zingari, the name having been transferred from one people to the other without the justification of any common ethnical origin, except that the Kutzo-Vlachs, like the Zingari, differed from their Greek neighbours in race, as in language, habits and customs; while they probably followed similar pursuits to those of the Zingari, as smiths, &c. As to the other name, Egyptians, this is derived from a peculiar tale which the gipsies spread when appearing in the west of Europe. They alleged that they had come from a country of their own called Little Egypt, either a confusion between Little Armenia and Egypt or the Peloponnesus.

Attention may be drawn to a remarkable passage in the Syriac version of the apocryphal Book of Adam, known as the Cave of Treasures and compiled probably in the 6th century: “And of the seed of Canaan were as I said the Aegyptians; and, lo, they were scattered all over the earth and served as slaves of slaves” (ed. Bezold, German translation, p. 25). No reference to such a scattering and serfdom of the Egyptians is mentioned anywhere else. This must have been a legend, current in Asia Minor, and hence probably transferred to the swarthy Gipsies.

A new explanation may now be ventured upon as to the name which the Gipsies of Europe give to themselves, which, it must be emphasized, is not known to the Gipsies outside of Europe. Only those who starting from the ancient Byzantine empire have travelled westwards and spread over Europe, America and Australia call themselves by the name of Rom, the woman being Romni and a stranger Gaži. Many etymologies have been suggested for the word Rom. Paspati derived it from the word Droma (Indian), and Miklosich had identified it with Ḍoma or Ḍomba, a “low caste musician,” rather an extraordinary name for a nation to call itself by. Having no home and no country of their own and no political traditions and no literature, they would naturally try to identify themselves with the people in whose midst they lived, and would call themselves by the same name as other inhabitants of the Greek empire, known also as the Empire of New Rom, or of the Romaioi, Romeliots, Romanoi, as the Byzantines used to call themselves before they assumed the prouder name of Hellenes. The Gipsies would therefore call themselves also Rom, a much more natural name, more flattering to their vanity, and geographically and politically more correct than if they called themselves “low caste musicians.” This Greek origin of the name would explain why it is limited to the European Gipsies, and why it is not found among that stock of Gipsies which has migrated from Asia Minor southwards and taken a different route to reach Egypt and North Africa.

Appearance in Europe.—Leaving aside the doubtful passages in the Byzantine writers where the Athinganoi are mentioned, the first appearance of Gipsies in Europe cannot be traced positively further back than the beginning of the 14th century. Some have hitherto believed that a passage in what was erroneously called the Rhymed Version of Genesis of Vienna, but which turns out to be the work of a writer before the year 1122, and found only in the Klagenfurt manuscript (edited by Ditmar, 1862), referred to the Gipsies. It runs as follows: Gen. xiii. 15—“Hagar had a son from whom were born the Chaltsmide. When Hagar had that child, she named it Ismael, from whom the Ismaelites descend who journey through the land, and we call them Chaltsmide, may evil befall them! They sell only things with blemishes, and for whatever they sell they always ask more than its real value. They cheat the people to whom they sell. They have no home, no country, they are satisfied to live in tents, they wander over the country, they deceive the people, they cheat men but rob no one noisily.”

This reference to the Chaltsmide (not goldsmiths, but very likely ironworkers, smiths) has wrongly been applied to the Gipsies. For it is important to note that at least three centuries before historical evidence proves the immigration of the genuine Gipsy, there had been wayfaring smiths, travelling from country to country, and practically paving the way for their successors, the Gipsies, who not only took up their crafts but who probably have also assimilated a good proportion of these vagrants of the west of Europe. The name given to the former, who probably were Oriental or Greek smiths and pedlars, was then transferred to the new-comers. The Komodromoi mentioned by Theophanes (758-818), who speaks under the date 554 of one hailing from Italy, and by other Byzantine writers, are no doubt the same as the Chaltsmide of the German writer of the 12th century translated by Ducange as Chaudroneurs. We are on surer ground in the 14th century. Hopf has proved the existence of Gipsies in Corfu before 1326. Before 1346 the empress Catherine de Valois granted to the governor of Corfu authority to reduce to vassalage certain vagrants who came from the mainland; and in 1386, under the Venetians, they formed the Feudum Acindanorum, which lasted for many centuries. About 1378 the Venetian governor of Nauplia confirmed to the “Acingani” of that colony the privileges granted by his predecessor to their leader John. It is even possible to identify the people described by Friar Simon in his Itinerarium, who, speaking of his stay in Crete in 1322, says: “We saw there a people outside the city who declare themselves to be of the race of Ham and who worship according to the Greek rite. They wander like a cursed people from place to place, not stopping at all or rarely in one place longer than thirty days; they live in tents like the Arabs, a little oblong black tent.” But their name is not mentioned, and although the similarity is great between these “children of Ham” and the Gipsies, the identification has only the value of an hypothesis. By the end of the 15th century they must have been settled for a sufficiently long time in the Balkan Peninsula and the countries north of the Danube, such as Transylvania and Walachia, to have been reduced to the same state of serfdom as they evidently occupied in Corfu in the second half of the 14th century. The voivode Mircea I. of Walachia confirms the grant made by his uncle Vladislav Voivode to the monastery of St Anthony of Voditsa as to forty families of “Atsigane,” for whom no taxes should be paid to the prince. They were considered crown property. The same gift is renewed in the year 1424 by the voivode Dan, who repeats the very same words (i Acigăne, m, čeliudi. da su slobodni ot vstkih rabot i dankov) (Hăjdău, Arhiva, i. 20). At that time there must already have been in Walachia settled Gipsies treated as serfs, and migrating Gipsies plying their trade as smiths, musicians, dancers, soothsayers, horse-dealers, &c., for we find the voivode Alexander of Moldavia granting these Gipsies in the year 1478 “freedom of air and soil to wander about and free fire and iron for their smithy.” But a certain portion, probably the largest, became serfs, who could be sold, exchanged, bartered and inherited. It may be mentioned here that in the 17th century a family when sold fetched forty Hungarian florins, and in the 18th century the price was sometimes as high as 700 Rumanian piastres, about £8, 10s. As late as 1845 an auction of 200 families of Gipsies took place in Bucharest, where they were sold in batches of no less than 5 families and offered at a “ducat” cheaper per head than elsewhere. The Gipsies followed at least four distinct pursuits in Rumania and Transylvania, where they lived in large masses. A goodly proportion of them were tied to the soil; in consequence their position was different from that of the Gipsies who had started westwards and who are nowhere found to have obtained a permanent abode for any length of time, or to have been treated, except for a very short period, with any consideration of humanity.

Their appearance in the West is first noted by chroniclers early in the 15th century. In 1414 they are said to have already arrived in Hesse. This date is contested, but for 1417 the reports are unanimous of their appearance in Germany. Some count their number to have been as high as 1400, which of course is exaggeration. In 1418 they reached Hamburg, 1419 Augsburg, 1428 Switzerland. In 1427 they had already entered France (Provence). A troupe is said to have reached Bologna in 1422, whence they are said to have gone to Rome, on a pilgrimage alleged to have been undertaken for some act of apostasy. After this first immigration a second and larger one seems to have followed in its wake, led by Zumbel. The Gipsies spread over Germany, Italy and France between the years 1438 and 1512. About 1500 they must have reached England. On the 5th of July 1505 James IV. of Scotland gave to “Antonius Gaginae,” count of Little Egypt, letters of recommendation to the king of Denmark; and special privileges were granted by James V. on the 15th of February 1540 to “oure louit johnne Faw Lord and Erle of Litill Egypt,” to whose son and successor he granted authority to hang and punish all Egyptians within the realm (May 26, 1540).

It is interesting to hear what the first writers who witnessed their appearance have to tell us; for ever since the Gipsies have remained the same. Albert Krantzius (Krantz), in his Saxonia (xi. 2), was the first to give a full description, which was afterwards repeated by Munster in his Cosmographia (iii. 5). He says that in the year 1417 there appeared for the first time in Germany a people uncouth, black, dirty, barbarous, called in Italian “Ciani,” who indulge specially in thieving and cheating. They had among them a count and a few knights well dressed, others followed afoot. The women and children travelled in carts. They also carried with them letters of safe-conduct from the emperor Sigismund and other princes, and they professed that they were engaged on a pilgrimage of expiation for some act of apostasy.

The guilt of the Gipsies varies in the different versions of the story, but all agree that the Gipsies asserted that they came from their own country called “Litill Egypt,” and they had to go to Rome, to obtain pardon for that alleged sin of their forefathers. According to one account it was because they had not shown mercy to Joseph and Mary when they had sought refuge in Egypt from the persecution of Herod (Basel Chronicle). According to another, because they had forsaken the Christian faith for a while (Rhaetia, 1656), &c. But these were fables, no doubt connected with the legend of Cartaphylus or the Wandering Jew.

Krantz’s narrative continues as follows: This people have no country and travel through the land. They live like dogs and have no religion although they allow themselves to be baptized in the Christian faith. They live without care and gather unto themselves also other vagrants, men and women. Their old women practise fortune-telling, and whilst they are telling men of their future they pick their pockets. Thus far Krantz. It is curious that he should use the name by which these people were called in Italy, “Ciani.” Similarly Crusius, the author of the Annales Suevici, knows their Italian name Zigani and the French Bohémiens. Not one of these oldest writers mentions them as coppersmiths or farriers or musicians. The immunity which they enjoyed during their first appearance in western Europe is due to the letter of safe-conduct of the emperor. As it is of extreme importance for the history of civilization as well as the history of the Gipsies, it may find a place here. It is taken from the compilation of Felix Oefelius, Rerum Boicarum scriptores (Augsburg, 1763), ii. 15, who reproduces the “Diarium sexennale” of “Andreas Presbyter,” the contemporary of the first appearance of the Gipsies in Germany.

“Sigismundus Dei gratia Romanorum Rex semper Augustus, ac Hungariae, Bohemiae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, &c. Rex Fidelibus nostris universis Nobilibus, Militibus, Castellanis, Officialibus, Tributariis, civitatibus liberis, opidis et eorum iudicibus in Regno et sub domino nostro constitutis ex existentibus salutem cum dilectione. Fidèles nostri adierunt in praesentiam personaliter Ladislaus Wayuoda Ciganorum cum aliis ad ipsum spectantibus, nobis humilimas porrexerunt supplicationes, huc in sepus in nostra praesentia supplicationum precum cum instantiâ, ut ipsis gratiâ nostra uberiori providere dignaremur. Unde nos illorum supplicatione illecti eisdem hanc libertatem duximus concedendam, qua re quandocunque idem Ladislaus Wayuoda et sua gens ad dicta nostra dominia videlicet civitates vel oppida pervenerint, ex tunc vestris fidelitatibus praesentibus firmiter committimus et mandamus ut eosdem Ladislaum Wayuodam et Ciganos sibi subiectos omni sine impedimento ac perturbatione aliquali fovere ac conservare debeatis, immo ab omnibus impetitionibus seu offensionibus tueri velitis: Si autem inter ipsos aliqua Zizania seu perturbatio evenerit ex parte, quorumcunque ex tunc non vos nec aliquis alter vestrum, sed idem Ladislaus Wayuoda iudicandi et liberandi habeat facultatem. Praesentes autem post earum lecturam semper reddi iubemus praesentanti.

“Datum in Sepus Dominica die ante festum St Georgii Martyris Anno Domini MCCCCXXIII., Regnorum nostrorum anno Hungar. XXXVI., Romanorum vero XII., Bohemiae tertio.”

Freely translated this reads: “We Sigismund by the grace of God emperor of Rome, king of Hungary, Bohemia, &c. unto all true and loyal subjects, noble soldiers, commanders, castellans, open districts, free towns and their judges in our kingdom established and under our sovereignty, kind greetings. Our faithful voivode of the Tsigani with others belonging to him has humbly requested us that we might graciously grant them our abundant favour. We grant them their supplication, we have vouchsafed unto them this liberty. Whenever therefore this voivode Ladislaus and his people should come to any part of our realm in any town, village or place, we commit them by these presents, strongly to your loyalty and we command you to protect in every way the same voivode Ladislaus and the Tsigani his subjects without hindrance, and you should show kindness unto them and you should protect them from every trouble and persecution. But should any trouble or discord happen among them from whichever side it may be, then none of you nor anyone else belonging to you should interfere, but this voivode Ladislaus alone should have the right of punishing and pardoning. And we moreover command you to return these presents always after having read them. Given in our court on Sunday the day before the Feast of St George in the year of our Lord 1423. The 36th year of our kingdom of Hungary, the 12th of our being emperor of Rome and the 3rd of our being king of Bohemia.”

There is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this document, which is in no way remarkable considering that at that time the Gipsies must have formed a very considerable portion of the inhabitants of Hungary, whose king Sigismund was. They may have presented the emperor’s grant of favours to Alexander prince of Moldavia in 1472, and obtained from him safe-conduct and protection, as mentioned above.

No one has yet attempted to explain the reason why the Gipsies should have started in the 14th and especially in the first half of the 15th century on their march westwards. But if, as has been assumed above, the Gipsies had lived for some length of time in Rumelia, and afterwards spread thence across the Danube and the plains of Transylvania, the incursion of the Turks into Europe, their successive occupation of those very provinces, the overthrow of the Servian and Bulgarian kingdoms and the dislocation of the native population, would account to a remarkable degree for the movement of the Gipsies: and this movement increases in volume with the greater successes of the Turks and with the peopling of the country by immigrants from Asia Minor. The first to be driven from their homes would no doubt be the nomadic element, which felt itself ill at ease in its new surroundings, and found it more profitable first to settle in larger numbers in Walachia and Transylvania and thence to spread to the western countries of Europe. But their immunity from persecution did not last long.

Later History.—Less than fifty years from the time that they emerge out of Hungary, or even from the date of the Charter of the emperor Sigismund, they found themselves exposed to the fury and the prejudices of the people whose good faith they had abused, whose purses they had lightened, whose barns they had emptied, and on whose credulity they had lived with ease and comfort. Their inborn tendency to roaming made them the terror of the peasantry and the despair of every legislator who tried to settle them on the land. Their foreign appearance, their unknown tongue and their unscrupulous habits forced the legislators of many countries to class them with rogues and vagabonds, to declare them outlaws and felons and to treat them with extreme severity. More than one judicial murder has been committed against them. In some places they were suspected as Turkish spies and treated accordingly, and the murderer of a Gipsy was often regarded as innocent of any crime.

Weissenbruch describes the wholesale murder of a group of Gipsies, of whom five men were broken on the wheel, nine perished on the gallows, and three men and eight women were decapitated. This took place on the 14th and 15th of November 1726. Acts and edicts were issued in many countries from the end of the 15th century onwards sentencing the “Egyptians” to exile under pain of death. Nor was this an empty threat. In Edinburgh four “Faas” were hanged in 1611 “for abyding within the kingdome, they being Egiptienis,” and in 1636 at Haddington the Egyptians were ordered “the men to be hangied and the weomen to be drowned, and suche of the weomen as hes children to be scourgit throw the burg and burnt in the cheeks.” The burning on the cheek or on the back was a common penalty. In 1692 four Estremadura Gipsies caught by the Inquisition were charged with cannibalism and made to own that they had eaten a friar, a pilgrim and even a woman of their own tribe, for which they suffered the penalty of death. And as late as 1782, 45 Hungarian Gipsies were charged with a similar monstrous crime, and when the supposed victims of a supposed murder could not be found on the spot indicated by the Gipsies, they owned under torture and said on the rack, “We ate them.” Of course they were forthwith beheaded or hanged. The emperor Joseph II., who was also the author of one of the first edicts in favour of the Gipsies, and who abolished serfdom throughout the Empire, ordered an inquiry into the incident; it was then discovered that no murder had been committed, except that of the victims of this monstrous accusation.

The history of the legal status of the Gipsies, of their treatment in various countries and of the penalties and inflictions to which they have been subjected, would form a remarkable chapter in the history of modern civilization. The materials are slowly accumulating, and it is interesting to note as one of the latest instances, that not further back than the year 1907 a “drive” was undertaken in Germany against the Gipsies, which fact may account for the appearance of some German Gipsies in England in that year, and that in 1904 the Prussian Landtag adopted unanimously a proposition to examine anew the question of granting peddling licences to German Gipsies; that on the 17th of February 1906 the Prussian minister issued special instructions to combat the Gipsy nuisance; and that in various parts of Germany and Austria a special register is kept for the tracing of the genealogy of vagrant and sedentary Gipsy families.

Different has been the history of the Gipsies in what originally formed the Turkish empire of Europe, notably in Rumania, i.e. Walachia and Moldavia, and a careful search in the archives of Rumania would offer rich materials for the history of the Gipsies in a country where they enjoyed exceptional treatment almost from the beginning of their settlement. They were divided mainly into two classes, (1) Robi or Serfs, who were settled on the land and deprived of all individual liberty, being the property of the nobles and of churches or monastic establishments, and (2) the Nomadic vagrants. They were subdivided into four classes according to their occupation, such as the Lingurari (woodcarvers; lit. “spoonmakers”), Caldarari (tinkers, coppersmiths and ironworkers), Ursari (lit. “bear drivers”) and Rudari (miners), also called Aurari (gold-washers), who used formerly to wash the gold out of the auriferous river-sands of Walachia. A separate and smaller class consisted of the Gipsy Lăeshi or Vătrashi (settled on a homestead or “having a fireplace” of their own). Each shatra or Gipsy community was placed under the authority of a judge or leader, known in Rumania as jude, in Hungary as aga; these officials were subordinate to the bulubasha or voivod, who was himself under the direct control of the yuzbasha (or governor appointed by the prince from among his nobles). The yuzbasha was responsible for the regular income to be derived from the vagrant Gipsies, who were considered and treated as the prince’s property. These voivodi or yuzbashi who were not Gipsies by origin often treated the Gipsies with great tyranny. In Hungary down to 1648 they belonged to the aristocracy. The last Polish Krolestvo cyganskie or Gipsy king died in 1790. The Robi could be bought and sold, freely exchanged and inherited, and were treated as the negroes in America down to 1856, when their final freedom in Moldavia was proclaimed. In Hungary and in Transylvania the abolition of servitude in 1781-1782 carried with it the freedom of the Gipsies. In the 18th and 19th centuries many attempts were made to settle and to educate the roaming Gipsies; in Austria this was undertaken by the empress Maria Theresa and the emperor Francis II. (1761-1783), in Spain by Charles III. (1788). In Poland (1791) the attempt succeeded. In England (1827) and in Germany (1830) societies were formed for the reclamation of the Gipsies, but nothing was accomplished in either case. In other countries, however, definite progress was made. Since 1866 the Gipsies have become Rumanian citizens, and the latest official statistics no longer distinguish between the Rumanians and the Gipsies, who are becoming thoroughly assimilated, forgetting their language, and being slowly absorbed by the native population. In Bulgaria the Gipsies were declared citizens, enjoying equal political rights in accordance with the treaty of Berlin in 1878, but through an arbitrary interpretation they were deprived of that right, and on the 6th of January 1906 the first Gipsy Congress was held in Sofia, for the purpose of claiming political rights for the Turkish Gipsies or Gopti as they call themselves. Ramadan Alief, the tzari-bashi (i.e. the head of the Gipsies in Sofia), addressed the Gipsies assembled; they decided to protest and subsequently sent a petition to the Sobranye, demanding the recognition of their political rights. A curious reawakening, and an interesting chapter in the history of this peculiar race.

Origin and Language of the Gipsies.—The real key to their origin is, however, the Gipsy language. The scientific study of that language began in the middle of the 19th century with the work of Pott, and was brought to a high state of perfection by Miklosich. From that time on monographs have multiplied and minute researches have been carried on in many parts of the world, all tending to elucidate the true origin of the Gipsy language. It must remain for the time being an open question whether the Gipsies were originally a pure race. Many a strange element has contributed to swell their ranks and to introduce discordant elements into their vocabulary. Ruediger (1782), Grellmann (1783) and Marsden (1783) almost simultaneously and independently of one another came to the same conclusion, that the language of the Gipsies, until then considered a thieves’ jargon, was in reality a language closely allied with some Indian speech. Since then the two principal problems to be solved have been, firstly, to which of the languages of India the original Gipsy speech was most closely allied, and secondly, by which route the people speaking that language had reached Europe and then spread westwards. Despite the rapid increase in our knowledge of Indian languages, no solution has yet been found to the first problem, nor is it likely to be found. For the language of the Gipsies, as shown now by recent studies of the Armenian Gipsies, has undergone such a profound change and involves so many difficulties, that it is impossible to compare the modern Gipsy with any modern Indian dialect owing to the inner developments which the Gipsy language has undergone in the course of centuries. All that is known, moreover, of the Gipsy language, and all that rests on reliable texts, is quite modern, scarcely earlier than the middle of the 19th century. Followed up in the various dialects into which that language has split, it shows such a thorough change from dialect to dialect, that except as regards general outlines and principles of inflexion, nothing would be more misleading than to draw conclusions from apparent similarities between Gipsy, or any Gipsy dialect, and any Indian language; especially as the Gipsies must have been separated from the Indian races for a much longer period than has elapsed since their arrival in Europe and since the formation of their European dialects. It must also be borne in mind that the Indian languages have also undergone profound changes of their own, under influences totally different from those to which the Gipsy language has been subjected. The problem would stand differently if by any chance an ancient vocabulary were discovered representing the oldest form of the common stock from which the European dialects have sprung; for there can be no doubt of the unity of the language of the European Gipsies. The question whether Gipsy stands close to Sanskrit or Prakrit, or shows forms more akin to Hindi dialects, specially those of the North-West frontier, or Dardestan and Kafiristan, to which may be added now the dialects of the Pisāca language (Grierson, 1906), is affected by the fact established by Fink that the dialect of the Armenian Gipsies shows much closer resemblance to Prakrit than the language of the European Gipsies, and that the dialects of Gipsy spoken throughout Syria and Asia Minor differ profoundly in every respect from the European Gipsy, taken as a whole spoken. The only explanation possible is that the European Gipsy represents the first wave of the Westward movement of an Indian tribe or caste which, dislocated at a certain period by political disturbances, had travelled through Persia, making a very short stay there, thence to Armenia staying there a little longer, and then possibly to the Byzantine Empire at an indefinite period between 1100 and 1200; and that another clan had followed in their wake, passing through Persia, settling in Armenia and then going farther down to Syria, Egypt and North Africa. These two tribes though of a common remote Indian origin must, however, be kept strictly apart from one another in our investigation, for they stand to each other in the same relation as they stand to the various dialects in India. The linguistic proof of origin can therefore now not go further than to establish the fact that the Gipsy language is in its very essence an originally Indian dialect, enriched in its vocabulary from the languages of the peoples among whom the Gipsies had sojourned, whilst in its grammatical inflection it has slowly been modified, to such an extent that in some cases, like the English or the Servian, barely a skeleton has remained.

Notwithstanding the statements to the contrary, a Gipsy from Greece or Rumania could no longer understand a Gipsy of England or Germany, so profound is the difference. But the words which have entered into the Gipsy language, borrowed as they were from the Greeks, Hungarians, Rumanians, &c., are not only an indication of the route taken—and this is the only use that has hitherto been made of the vocabulary—but they are of the highest importance for fixing the time when the Gipsies had come in contact with these languages. The absence of Arabic is a positive proof that not only did the Gipsies not come via Arabia (as maintained by De Goeje) before they reached Europe, but that they could not even have been living for any length of time in Persia after the Mahommedan conquest, or at any rate that they could not have come in contact with such elements of the population as had already adopted Arabic in addition to Persian. But the form of the Persian words found among European Gipsies, and similarly the form of the Armenian words found in that language, are a clear indication that the Gipsies could not have come in contact with these languages before Persian had assumed its modern form and before Armenian had been changed from the old to the modern form of language. Still more strong and clear is the evidence in the case of the Greek and Rumanian words. If the Gipsies had lived in Greece, as some contend, from very ancient times, some at least of the old Greek words would be found in their language, and similarly the Slavonic words would be of an archaic character, whilst on the contrary we find medieval Byzantine forms, nay, modern Greek forms, among the Gipsy vocabulary collected from Gipsies in Germany or Italy, England or France; a proof positive that they could not have been in Europe much earlier than the approximate date given above of the 11th or 12th century. We then find from a grammatical point of view the same deterioration, say among the English or Spanish Gipsies, as has been noticed in the Gipsy dialect of Armenia. It is no longer Gipsy, but a corrupt English or Spanish adapted to some remnants of Gipsy inflections. The purest form has been preserved among the Greek Gipsies and to a certain extent among the Rumanian. Notably through Miklosich’s researches and comparative studies, it is possible to follow the slow change step by step and to prove, at any rate, that, as far as Europe is concerned, the language of these Gipsies was one and the same, and that it was slowly split up into a number of dialects (13 Miklosich, 14 Colocci) which shade off into one another, and which by their transitional forms mark the way in which the Gipsies have travelled, as also proved by historical evidence. The Welsh dialect, known by few, has retained, through its isolation, some of the ancient forms.

Religion, Habits and Customs.—Those who have lived among the Gipsies will readily testify that their religious views are a strange medley of the local faith, which they everywhere embrace, and some old-world superstitions which they have in common with many nations. Among the Greeks they belong to the Greek Church, among the Mahommedans they are Mahommedans, in Rumania they belong to the National Church. In Hungary they are mostly Catholics, according to the faith of the inhabitants of that country. They have no ethical principles and they do not recognize the obligations of the Ten Commandments. There is extreme moral laxity in the relation of the two sexes, and on the whole they take life easily, and are complete fatalists. At the same time they are great cowards, and they play the rôle of the fool or the jester in the popular anecdotes of eastern Europe. There the poltroon is always a Gipsy, but he is good-humoured and not so malicious as those Gipsies who had endured the hardships of outlawry in the west of Europe.

There is nothing specifically of an Oriental origin in their religious vocabulary, and the words Devla (God), Bang (devil) or Trushul (Cross), in spite of some remote similarity, must be taken as later adaptations, and not as remnants of an old Sky-worship or Serpent-worship. In general their beliefs, customs, tales, &c. belong to the common stock of general folklore, and many of their symbolical expressions find their exact counterpart in Rumanian and modern Greek, and often read as if they were direct translations from these languages. Although they love their children, it sometimes happens that a Gipsy mother will hold her child by the legs and beat the father with it. In Rumania and Turkey among the settled Gipsies a good number are carriers and bricklayers; and the women take their full share in every kind of work, no matter how hard it may be. The nomadic Gipsies carry on the ancient craft of coppersmiths, or workers in metal; they also make sieves and traps, but in the East they are seldom farriers or horse-dealers. They are far-famed for their music, in which art they are unsurpassed. The Gipsy musicians belong mostly to the class who originally were serfs. They were retained at the courts of the boyars for their special talent in reciting old ballads and love songs and their deftness in playing, notably the guitar and the fiddle. The former was used as an accompaniment to the singing of either love ditties and popular songs or more especially in recital or heroic ballads and epic songs; the latter for dances and other amusements. They were the troubadours and minstrels of eastern Europe; the largest collection of Rumanian popular ballads and songs was gathered by G. Dem. Teodorescu from a Gipsy minstrel, Petre Sholkan; and not a few of the songs of the guslars among the Servians and other Slavonic nations in the Balkans come also from the Gipsies. They have also retained the ancient tunes and airs, from the dreamy “doina” of the Rumanian to the fiery “czardas” of the Hungarian or the stately “hora” of the Bulgarian. Liszt went so far as to ascribe to the Gipsies the origin of the Hungarian national music. This is an exaggeration, as seen by the comparison of the Gipsy music in other parts of south-east Europe; but they undoubtedly have given the most faithful expression to the national temperament. Equally famous is the Gipsy woman for her knowledge of occult practices. She is the real witch; she knows charms to injure the enemy or to help a friend. She can break the charm if made by others. But neither in the one case nor in the other, and in fact as little as in their songs, do they use the Gipsy language. It is either the local language of the natives as in the case of charms, or a slightly Romanized form of Greek, Rumanian or Slavonic. The old Gipsy woman is also known for her skill in palmistry and fortune-telling by means of a special set of cards, the well-known Tarok of the Gipsies. They have also a large stock of fairy tales resembling in each country the local fairy tales, in Greece agreeing with the Greek, and in Rumania with the Rumanian fairy tales. It is doubtful, however, whether they have contributed to the dissemination of these tales throughout Europe, for a large number of Gipsy tales can be shown to have been known in Europe long before the appearance of the Gipsies, and others are so much like those of other nations that the borrowing may be by the Gipsy from the Greek, Slav or Rumanian. It is, however, possible that playing-cards might have been introduced to Europe through the Gipsies. The oldest reference to cards is found in the Chronicle of Nicolaus of Cavellazzo, who says that the cards were first brought into Viterbo in 1379 from the land of the Saracens, probably from Asia Minor or the Balkans. They spread very quickly, but no one has been able as yet to trace definitely the source whence they were first brought. Without entering here into the history of the playing-cards and of the different forms of the faces and of the symbolical meaning of the different designs, one may assume safely that the cards, before they were used for mere pastime or for gambling, may originally have had a mystical meaning and been used as sortes in various combinations. To this very day the oldest form is known by the hitherto unexplained name of Tarock, played in Bologna at the beginning of the 15th century and retained by the French under the form Tarot, connected direct with the Gipsies, “Le Tarot des Bohémiens.” It was noted above that the oldest chronicler (Presbyter) who describes the appearance of the Gipsies in 1416 in Germany knows them by their Italian name “Cianos,” so evidently he must have known of their existence in Italy previous to any date recorded hitherto anywhere, and it is therefore not impossible that coming from Italy they brought with them also their book of divination.

Physical Characteristics.—As a race they are of small stature varying in colour from the dark tan of the Arab to the whitish hue of the Servian and the Pole. In fact there are some white-coloured Gipsies, especially in Servia and Dalmatia, and these are often not easily distinguishable from the native peoples, except that they are more lithe and sinewy, better proportioned and more agile in their movements than the thick-set Slavs and the mixed race of the Rumanians. By one feature, however, they are easily distinguishable and recognize one another, viz. by the lustre of their eyes and the whiteness of their teeth. Some are well built; others have the features of a mongrel race, due no doubt to intermarriage with outcasts of other races. The women age very quickly and the mortality among the Gipsies is great, especially among children; among adults it is chiefly due to pulmonary diseases. They love display and Oriental showiness, bright-coloured dresses, ornaments, bangles, &c.; red and green are the colours mostly favoured by the Gipsies in the East. Along with a showy handkerchief or some shining gold coins round their necks, they will wear torn petticoats and no covering on their feet. And even after they have been assimilated and have forgotten their own language they still retain some of the prominent features of their character, such as the love of inordinate display and gorgeous dress; and their moral defects not only remain for a long time as glaring as among those who live the life of vagrants, but even become more pronounced. The Gipsy of to-day is no longer what his forefathers have been. The assimilation with the nations in the near East and the steps taken for the suppression of vagrancy in the West, combine to denationalize the Gipsy and to make “Români Chib” a thing of the past.

Bibliography.—The scientific study of the Gipsy language and its origin, as well as the critical history of the Gipsy race, dates (with the notable exception of Grellmann) almost entirely from Pott’s researches in 1844.

I. Collections of Documents, &c.—Lists of older publications appeared in the books of Pott, Miklosich and the archduke Joseph; Pott adds a critical appreciation of the scientific value of the books enumerated. See also Verzeichnis von Werken und Aufsätzen ... über die Geschichte und Sprache der Zigeuner, &c., 248 entries (Leipzig, 1886); J. Tipray, “Adalékok a czigányokról szóló írodalomhoz,” in Magyar Könyvszemle (Budapest, 1877); Ch. G. Leland, A Collection of Cuttings ... relating to Gypsies (1874-1891), bequeathed by him to the British Museum. See also the Orientalischer Jahresbericht, ed. Müller (Berlin, 1887 ff.).

II. History.—(a) The first appearance of the Gipsies in Europe. Sources: A. F. Oefelius, Rerum Boicarum scriptores, &c. (Augsburg, 1763); M. Freher, Andreae Presbyteri ... chronicon de ducibus Bavariae ... (1602); S. Munster, Cosmographia ... &c. (Basel, 1545); J. Thurmaier, Annalium Boiorum libri septem, ed. T. Zieglerus (Ingolstad, 1554); M. Crusius, Annales Suevici, &c. (Frankfurt, 1595-1596), Schwäbische Chronik ... (Frankfurt, 1733); A. Krantz, Saxonia (Cologne, 1520); Simon Simeon, Itineraria, &c., ed. J. Nasmith (Cambridge, 1778). (b) Origin and spread of the Gipsies: H. M. G. Grellmann, Die Zigeuner, &c. (1st ed., Dessau and Leipzig, 1783; 2nd ed., Göttingen, 1787); English by M. Roper (London, 1787; 2nd ed., London, 1807), entitled Dissertation on the Gipsies, &c.; Carl von Heister, Ethnographische ... Notizen über die Zigeuner (Königsberg, 1842), a third and greatly improved edition of Grellmann and the best book of its kind up to that date; A. F. Pott, Die Zigeuner in Europa und Asien (2 vols., Halle, 1844-1845), the first scholarly work with complete and critical bibliography, detailed grammar, etymological dictionary and important texts; C. Hopf, Die Einwanderung der Zigeuner in Europa (Gotha, 1870); F. von Miklosich, “Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Zigeuner-Mundarten,” i.-iv., in Sitzungsber. d. Wiener Akad. d. Wissenschaften (Vienna, 1874-1878), “Über die Mundarten und die Wanderungen der Zigeuner Europas,” i.-xii., in Denkschriften d. Wiener Akad. d. Wissenschaften (1872-1880); M. J. de Goeje, Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der Zigeuners (Amsterdam, 1875), English translation by MacRitchie, Account of the Gipsies of India (London, 1886); Zedler, Universal-Lexicon, vol. lxii., s.v. “Zigeuner,” pp. 520-544 containing a rich bibliography; many publications of P. Bataillard from 1844 to 1885; A. Colocci, Storia d’ un popolo errante, with illustrations, map and Gipsy-Ital. and Ital.-Gipsy glossaries (Turin, 1889); F. H. Groome, “The Gypsies,” in E. Magnusson, National Life and Thought (1891), and art. “Gipsies” in Encyclopaedia Britannica (9th ed., 1879); C. Améro, Bohémiens, Tsiganes et Gypsies (Paris, 1895); M. Kogalnitschan, Esquisse sur l’histoire, les mœurs et la langue des Cigains (Berlin, 1837; German trans., Stuttgart, 1840)—valuable more for the historical part than for the linguistic; J. Czacki, Dziela, vol. iii. (1844-1845)—for historic data about Gipsies in Poland; I. Kopernicki and J. Moyer, Charakterystyka fizyczna ludrości galicyjskiéj (1876)—for the history and customs of Galician gipsies; Ungarische statistische Mitteilungen, vol. ix. (Budapest, 1895), containing the best statistical information on the Gipsies; V. Dittrich, A nagy-idai czigányok (Budapest, 1898); T. H. Schwicker, “Die Zigeuner in Ungarn u. Siebenbürgen,” in vol. xii. of Die Völker Österreich-Ungarns (Vienna, 1883), and in Mitteilungen d. K. K. geographischen Gesellschaft (Vienna, 1896); Dr J. Polek, Die Zigeuner in der Bukowina (Czernowitz, 1908); Ficker, “Die Zigeuner der Bukowina,” in Statist. Monatschrift, v. 6, Hundert Jahre 1775-1875: Zigeuner in d. Bukowina (Vienna, 1875), Die Völkerstämme der österr.-ungar. Monarchie, &c. (Vienna, 1869); V. S. Morwood, Our Gipsies (London, 1885); D. MacRitchie, Scottish Gypsies under the Stewarts (Edinburgh, 1894); F. A. Coelho, “Os Ciganos de Portugal,” in Bol. Soc. Geog. (Lisbon, 1892); A. Dumbarton, Gypsy Life in the Mysore Jungle (London, 1902).

III. Linguistic.—[Armenia], F. N. Finck, “Die Sprache der armenischen Zigeuner,” in Mémoires de l’Acad. Imp. des Sciences, viii. (St Petersburg, 1907). [Austria-Hungary], R. von Sowa, Die Mundart der slovakischen Zigeuner (Göttingen, 1887), and Die mährische Mundart der Romsprache (Vienna, 1893); A. J. Puchmayer, Români Čib (Prague, 1821); P. Josef Ješina, Romáňi Čib (in Czech, 1880; in German, 1886); G. Ihnatko, Czigány nyelvtan (Losoncon, 1877); A. Kalina, La Langue des Tsiganes slovaques (Posen, 1882); the archduke Joseph, Czigány nyelvtan (Budapest, 1888); H. von Wlislocki, Die Sprache der transsilvanischen Zigeuner (Leipzig, 1884). [Brazil], A. T. de Mello Moraes, Os ciganos no Brazil (Rio de Janeiro, 1886). [France, the Basques], A. Baudrimont, Vocabulaire de la langue des Bohémiens habitant les pays basques-français (Bordeaux, 1862). [Germany], R. Pischel, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der deutschen Zigeuner (Halle, 1894); R. von Sowa, “Wörterbuch des Dialekts der deutschen Zigeuner,” in Abhandlungen f. d. Kunde d. Morgenlandes, xi. 1, very valuable (Leipzig, 1898); F. N. Finck, Lehrbuch des Dialekts der deutschen Zigeuner—very valuable (Marburg, 1903). [Great Britain, &c.], Ch. G. Leland, The English Gipsies and their Language (London and New York, 1873; 2nd ed., 1874), The Gipsies of Russia, Austria, England, America, &c. (London, 1882)—the validity of Leland’s conclusions is often doubtful; B. C. Smart and H. J. Crofton, The Dialect of the English Gypsies (2nd ed., London, 1875); G. Borrow, Romano lavo-lil (London, 1874, 1905), Lavengro, ed. F. H. Groome (London, 1899). [Rumania], B. Constantinescu, Probe de Limba şi literatura Ţiganilor din România (Bucharest, 1878). [Russia, Bessarabia], O. Boethlingk, Über die Sprache der Zigeuner in Russland (St Petersburg, 1852; supplement, 1854). [Russia, Caucasus], K. Badganian, Cygany. Nêskolĭko slovŭ o narêčijahŭ zakavkazskihŭ cyganŭ (St Petersburg, 1887); Istomin, Ciganskij Jazykŭ (1900). [Spain], G. H. Borrow, The Zincali, or an Account of the Gipsies of Spain (London, 1841, and numerous later editions); R. Campuzano, Origen ... de los Gitanos, y diccionario de su dialecto (2nd ed., Madrid, 1857); A. de C., Diccionario del dialecto gitano, &c. (Barcelona, 1851); M. de Sales y Guindale, Historia, costumbres y dialecto de los Gitanos (Madrid, 1870); M. de Sales, El Gitanismo (Madrid, 1870); J. Tineo Rebolledo, ”A Chipicalli” la lengua gitana: diccionario gitano-español (Granada, 1900). [Turkey], A. G. Paspati, Études sur les Tchinghianés, ou Bohémiens de l’empire ottoman (Constantinople, 1870), with grammar, vocabulary, tales and French glossary; very important. [General], John Sampson, “Gypsy Language and Origin,” in Journ. Gypsy Lore Soc. vol. i. (2nd ser., Liverpool, 1907); J. A. Decourdemanche, Grammaire du Tchingané, &c. (Paris, 1908)—fantastic in some of its philology; F. Kluge, Rotwelsche Quellen (Strassburg, 1901); L. Günther, Das Rotwelsch des deutschen Gauners (Leipzig, 1905), for the influence of Gipsy on argot; L. Besses, Diccionario de argot español (Barcelona); G. A. Grierson, The Pi’sāca Languages of North-Western India (London, 1906), for parallels in Indian dialects; G. Borrow, Criscote e majaró Lucas ... El evangelio segun S. Lucas ... (London, 1837; 2nd ed., 1872)—this is the only complete translation of any one of the gospels into Gipsy. For older fragments of such translations, see Pott ii. 464-521.

IV. Folklore, Tales, Songs, &c.—Many songs and tales are found in the books enumerated above, where they are mostly accompanied by literal translations. See also Ch. G. Leland, E. H. Palmer and T. Tuckey, English Gipsy Songs in Romany, with Metrical English Translation (London, 1875); G. Smith, Gipsy Life, &c. (London, 1880); M. Rosenfeld, Lieder der Zigeuner (1882); Ch. G. Leland, The Gypsies (Boston, Mass., 1882), Gypsy Sorcery and Fortune-Telling (London, 1891); H. von Wlislocki, Märchen und Sagen der transsilvanischen Zigeuner (Berlin, 1886)—containing 63 tales, very freely translated; Volksdichtungen der siebenbürgischen und südungarischen Zigeuner (Vienna, 1890)—songs, ballads, charms, proverbs and 100 tales; Vom wandernden Zigeunervolke (Hamburg, 1890); Wesen und Wirkungskreis der Zauberfrauen bei den siebenbürgischen Zigeuner (1891); “Aus dem inneren Leben der Zigeuner,” in Ethnologische Mitteilungen (Berlin, 1892); R. Pischel, Bericht über Wlislocki vom wandernden Zigeunervolke (Göttingen, 1890)—a strong criticism of Wlislocki’s method, &c.; F. H. Groome, Gypsy Folk-Tales (London, 1899), with historical introduction and a complete and trustworthy collection of 76 gipsy tales from many countries; Katadá, Contes gitanos (Logroño, 1907); M. Gaster, Zigeunermärchen aus Rumänien (1881); “Ţiganii, &c.,” in Revista pentru Istorie, &c., i. p. 469 ff. (Bucharest, 1883); “Gypsy Fairy-Tales” in Folklore. The Journal of the Gipsy-Lore Society (Edinburgh, 1888-1892) was revived in Liverpool in 1907.

V. Legal Status.—A few of the books in which the legal status of the Gipsies (either alone or in conjunction with “vagrants”) is treated from a juridical point of view are here mentioned, also the history of the trial in 1726. J. B. Weissenbruch, Ausführliche Relation von der famosen Zigeuner-Diebes-Mord und Räuber (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1727); A. Ch. Thomasius, Tractatio juridica de vagabundo, &c. (Leipzig, 1731); F. Ch. B. Avé-Lallemant, Das deutsche Gaunertum, &c. (Leipzig, 1858-1862); V. de Rochas, Les Parias de France et d’Espagne (Paris, 1876); P. Chuchul, Zum Kampfe gegen Landstreicher und Bettler (Kassel, 1881); R. Breithaupt, Die Zigeuner und der deutsche Staat (Würzburg, 1907); G. Steinhausen, Geschichte der deutschen Kultur (Leipzig and Vienna, 1904).

(M. G.)

GIRAFFE, a corruption of Zarāfah, the Arabic name for the tallest of all mammals, and the typical representative of the family Giraffidae, the distinctive characters of which are given in the article Pecora, where the systematic position of the group is indicated. The classic term “camelopard,” probably introduced when these animals were brought from North Africa to the Roman amphitheatre, has fallen into complete disuse.

In common with the okapi, giraffes have skin-covered horns on the head, but in these animals, which form the genus Giraffa, these appendages are present in both sexes; and there is often an unpaired one in advance of the pair on the forehead. Among other characteristics of these animals may be noticed the great length of the neck and limbs, the complete absence of lateral toes and the long and tufted tail. The tongue is remarkable for its great length, measuring about 17 in. in the dead animal, and for its great elasticity and power of muscular contraction while living. It is covered with numerous large papillae, and forms, like the trunk of the elephant, an admirable organ for the examination and prehension of food. Giraffes are inhabitants of open country, and owing to their length of neck and long flexible tongues are enabled to browse on tall trees, mimosas being favourites. To drink or graze they are obliged to straddle the fore-legs apart; but they seldom feed on grass and are capable of going long without water. When standing among mimosas they so harmonize with their surroundings that they are difficult of detection. Formerly giraffes were found in large herds, but persecution has reduced their number and led to their extermination from many districts. Although in late Tertiary times widely spread over southern Europe and India, giraffes are now confined to Africa south of the Sahara.

Apart from the distinct Somali giraffe (Giraffa reticulata), characterized by its deep liver-red colour marked with a very coarse network of fine white lines, there are numerous local forms of the ordinary giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis). The northern races, such as the Nubian G. c. typica and the Kordofan G. c. antiquorum, are characterized by the large frontal horn of the bulls, the white legs, the network type of coloration and the pale tint. The latter feature is specially developed in the Nigerian G. c. peralta, which is likewise of the northern type. The Baringo G. c. rothschildi also has a large frontal horn and white legs, but the spots in the bulls are very dark and those of the females jagged. In the Kilimanjaro G. c. tippelskirchi the frontal horn is often developed in the bulls, but the legs are frequently spotted to the fetlocks. Farther south the frontal horn tends to disappear more or less completely, as in the Angola G. c. angolensis, the Transvaal G. c. wardi and the Cape G. c. capensis, while the legs are fully spotted and the colour-pattern on the body (especially in the last-named) is more of a blotched type, that is to say, consists of dark blotches on a fawn ground, instead of a network of light lines on a dark ground.

For details, see a paper on the subspecies of Giraffa camelopardalis, by R. Lydekker in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London for 1904.

(R. L.*)

GIRALDI, GIGLIO GREGORIO [Lilius Gregorius Gyraldus] (1479-1552), Italian scholar and poet, was born on the 14th of June 1479, at Ferrara, where he early distinguished himself by his talents and acquirements. On the completion of his literary course he removed to Naples, where he lived on familiar terms with Jovianus Pontanus and Sannazaro; and subsequently to Lombardy, where he enjoyed the favour of the Mirandola family. At Milan in 1507 he studied Greek under Chalcondylas; and shortly afterwards, at Modena, he became tutor to Ercole (afterwards Cardinal) Rangone. About the year 1514 he removed to Rome, where, under Clement VII., he held the office of apostolic protonotary; but having in the sack of that city (1527), which almost coincided with the death of his patron Cardinal Rangone, lost all his property, he returned in poverty once more to Mirandola, whence again he was driven by the troubles consequent on the assassination of the reigning prince in 1533. The rest of his life was one long struggle with ill-health, poverty and neglect; and he is alluded to with sorrowful regret by Montaigne in one of his Essais (i. 34), as having, like Sebastian Castalio, ended his days in utter destitution. He died at Ferrara in February 1552; and his epitaph makes touching and graceful allusion to the sadness of his end. Giraldi was a man of very extensive erudition; and numerous testimonies to his profundity and accuracy have been given both by contemporary and by later scholars. His Historia de diis gentium marked a distinctly forward step in the systematic study of classical mythology; and by his treatises De annis et mensibus, and on the Calendarium Romanum et Graecum, he contributed to bring about the reform of the calendar, which was ultimately effected by Pope Gregory XIII. His Progymnasma adversus literas et literatos deserves mention at least among the curiosities of literature; and among his other works to which reference is still occasionally made are Historiae poëtarum Graecorum ac Latinorum; De poëtis suorum temporum; and De sepultura ac vario sepeliendi ritu. Giraldi was also an elegant Latin poet.

His Opera omnia were published at Leiden in 1696.

GIRALDI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1504-1573), surnamed Cynthius, Cinthio or Cintio, Italian novelist and poet, born at Ferrara in November 1504, was educated at the university of his native town, where in 1525 he became professor of natural philosophy, and, twelve years afterwards, succeeded Celio Calcagnini in the chair of belles-lettres. Between 1542 and 1560 he acted as private secretary, first to Ercole II. and afterwards to Alphonso II. of Este; but having, in connexion with a literary quarrel in which he had got involved, lost the favour of his patron in the latter year, he removed to Mondovi, where he remained as a teacher of literature till 1568. Subsequently, on the invitation of the senate of Milan, he occupied the chair of rhetoric at Pavia till 1573, when, in search of health, he returned to his native town, where on the 30th of December he died. Besides an epic entitled Ercole (1557), in twenty-six cantos, Giraldi wrote nine tragedies, the best known of which, Orbecche, was produced in 1541. The sanguinary and disgusting character of the plot of this play, and the general poverty of its style, are, in the opinion of many of its critics, almost fully redeemed by occasional bursts of genuine and impassioned poetry; of one scene in the third act in particular it has even been affirmed that, if it alone were sufficient to decide the question, the Orbecche would be the finest play in the world. Of the prose works of Giraldi the most important is the Hecatommithi or Ecatomiti, a collection of tales told somewhat after the manner of Boccaccio, but still more closely resembling the novels of Giraldi’s contemporary Bandello, only much inferior in workmanship to the productions of either author in vigour, liveliness and local colour. Something, but not much, however, may be said in favour of their professed claim to represent a higher standard of morality. Originally published at Monteregale, Sicily, in 1565, they were frequently reprinted in Italy, while a French translation by Chappuys appeared in 1583 and one in Spanish in 1590. They have a peculiar interest to students of English literature, as having furnished, whether directly or indirectly, the plots of Measure for Measure and Othello. That of the latter, which is to be found in the Hecatommithi (iii. 7), is conjectured to have reached Shakespeare through the French translation; while that of the former (Hecat. viii. 5) is probably to be traced to Whetstone’s Promos and Cassandra (1578), an adaptation of Cinthio’s story, and to his Heptamerone (1582), which contains a direct English translation. To Giraldi also must be attributed the plot of Beaumont and Fletcher’s Custom of the Country.

GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS (1146?-1220), medieval historian, also called Gerald de Barri, was born in Pembrokeshire. He was the son of William de Barri and Augharat, a daughter of Gerald, the ancestors of the Fitzgeralds and the Welsh princess, Nesta, formerly mistress of King Henry I. Falling under the influence of his uncle, David Fitzgerald, bishop of St David’s, he determined to enter the church. He studied at Paris, and his works show that he had applied himself closely to the study of the Latin poets. In 1172 he was appointed to collect tithe in Wales, and showed such vigour that he was made archdeacon. In 1176 an attempt was made to elect him bishop of St David’s, but Henry II. was unwilling to see any one with powerful native connexions a bishop in Wales. In 1180, after another visit to Paris, he was appointed commissiary to the bishop of St David’s, who had ceased to reside. But Giraldus threw up his post, indignant at the indifference of the bishop to the welfare of his see. In 1184 he was made one of the king’s chaplains, and was elected to accompany Prince John on his voyage to Ireland. While there he wrote a Topographia Hibernica, which is full of information, and a strongly prejudiced history of the conquest, the Expugnatio Hibernica. In 1186 he read his work with great applause before the masters and scholars of Oxford. In 1188 he was sent into Wales with the primate Baldwin to preach the Third Crusade. Giraldus declares that the mission was highly successful; in any case it gave him the material for his Itinerarium Cambrense, which is, after the Expugnatio, his best known work. He accompanied the archbishop, who intended him to be the historian of the Crusade, to the continent, with the intention of going to the Holy Land. But in 1189 he was sent back to Wales by the king, who knew his influence was great, to keep order among his countrymen. Soon after he was absolved from his crusading vow. According to his own statements, which often tend to exaggeration, he was offered both the sees of Bangor and Llandaff, but refused them. From 1192 to 1198 he lived in retirement at Lincoln and devoted himself to literature. It is probably during this period that he wrote the Gemma ecclesiastica (discussing disputed points of doctrine, ritual, &c.) and the Vita S. Remigii. In 1198 he was elected bishop of St David’s. But Hubert Walter, the archbishop of Canterbury, was determined to have in that position no Welshman who would dispute the metropolitan pretensions of the English primates. The king, for political reasons, supported Hubert Walter. For four years Giraldus exerted himself to get his election confirmed, and to vindicate the independence of St David’s from Canterbury. He went three times to Rome. He wrote the De jure Meneviensis ecclesiae in support of the claims of his diocese. He made alliances with the princes of North and South Wales. He called a general synod of his diocese. He was accused of stirring up rebellion among the Welsh, and the justiciar proceeded against him. At length in 1202 the pope annulled all previous elections, and ordered a new one. The prior of Llanthony was finally elected. Gerald was immediately reconciled to the king and archbishop; the utmost favour was shown to him; even the expenses of his unsuccessful election were paid. He spent the rest of his life in retirement, though there was some talk of his being made a cardinal. He certainly survived John.

The works of Giraldus are partly polemical and partly historical. His value as a historian is marred by his violent party spirit; some of his historical tracts, such as the Liber de instructione principum and the Vita Galfridi Archiepiscopi Eborecensis, seem to have been designed as political pamphlets. Henry II., Hubert Walter and William Longchamp, the chancellor of Richard I., are the objects of his worst invectives. His own pretensions to the see of St David are the motive of many of his misrepresentations. But he is one of the most vivid and witty of our medieval historians.

See the Rolls edition of his works, ed. J. S. Brewer, J. F. Dimock and G. F. Warner in 8 vols. (London, 1861-1891), some of which have valuable introductions.

GIRANDOLE (from the Ital. girandola), an ornamental branched candlestick of several lights. It came into use about the second half of the 17th century, and was commonly made and used in pairs. It has always been, comparatively speaking, a luxurious appliance for lighting, and in the great 18th-century period of French house decoration the famous ciseleurs designed some exceedingly beautiful examples. A great variety of metals has been used for the purpose—sometimes, as in the case of the candlestick, girandoles have been made in hard woods. Gilded bronze has been a very frequent medium, but for table purposes silver is still the favourite material.

GIRARD, JEAN BAPTISTE [known as “Le Père Girard” or “Le Père Gregoire”] (1765-1850), French-Swiss educationalist, was born at Fribourg and educated for the priesthood at Lucerne. He was the fifth child in a family of fourteen, and his gift for teaching was early shown at home in helping his mother with the younger children; and after passing through his noviciate he spent some time as an instructor in convents, notably at Würzburg (1785-1788). Then for ten years he was busy with religious duty. In 1798, full of Kantian ideas, he published an essay outlining a scheme of national Swiss education; and in 1804 he began his career as a public teacher, first in the elementary school at Fribourg (1805-1823), then (being driven away by Jesuit hostility) in the gymnasium at Lucerne till 1834, when he retired to Fribourg and devoted himself with the production of his books on education, De l’enseignement régulier de la langue maternelle (1834, 9th ed. 1894; Eng. trans. by Lord Ebrington, The Mother Tongue, 1847), and Cours éducatif (1844-1846). Father Girard’s reputation and influence as an enthusiast in the cause of education became potent not only in Switzerland, where he was hailed as a second Pestalozzi, but in other countries. He had a genius for teaching, his method of stimulating the intelligence of the children at Fribourg and interesting them actively in learning, and not merely cramming them with rules and facts, being warmly praised by the Swiss educationalist François Naville (1784-1846) in his treatise on public education (1832). His undogmatic method and his Liberal Christianity brought him into conflict with the Jesuits, but his aim was, in all his teaching, to introduce the moral idea into the minds of his pupils by familiarizing them with the right or wrong working of the facts he brought to their attention, and thus to elevate character all through the educational curriculum.

GIRARD, PHILIPPE HENRI DE (1775-1845), French mechanician, was born at Lourmarin, Vaucluse, on the 1st of February 1775. He is chiefly known in connexion with flax-spinning machinery. Napoleon having in 1810 decreed a reward of one million francs to the inventor of the best machine for spinning flax, Girard succeeded in producing what was required. But he never received the promised reward, although in 1853, after his death, a comparatively small pension was voted to his heirs, and having relied on the money to pay the expenses of his invention he got into serious financial difficulties. He was obliged, in 1815, to abandon the flax mills he had established in France, and at the invitation of the emperor of Austria founded a flax mill and a factory for his machines at Hirtenberg. In 1825, at the invitation of the emperor Alexander I. of Russia, he went to Poland, and erected near Warsaw a flax manufactory, round which grew up a village which received the name of Girardow. In 1818 he built a steamer to run on the Danube. He did not return to Paris till 1844, where he still found some of his old creditors ready to press their claims, and he died in that city on the 26th of August 1845. He was also the author of numerous minor inventions.

GIRARD, STEPHEN (1750-1831), American financier and philanthropist, founder of Girard College in Philadelphia, was born in a suburb of Bordeaux, France, on the 20th of May 1750. He lost the sight of his right eye at the age of eight and had little education. His father was a sea captain, and the son cruised to the West Indies and back during 1764-1773, was licensed captain in 1773, visited New York in 1774, and thence with the assistance of a New York merchant began to trade to and from New Orleans and Port au Prince. In May 1776 he was driven into the port of Philadelphia by a British fleet and settled there as a merchant; in June of the next year he married Mary (Polly) Lum, daughter of a shipbuilder, who, two years later, after Girard’s becoming a citizen of Pennsylvania (1778), built for him the “Water Witch,” the first of a fleet trading with New Orleans and the West Indies—most of Girard’s ships being named after his favourite French authors, such as “Rousseau,” “Voltaire,” “Helvétius” and “Montesquieu.” His beautiful young wife became insane and spent the years from 1790 to her death in 1815 in the Pennsylvania Hospital. In 1810 Girard used about a million dollars deposited by him with the Barings of London for the purchase of shares of the much depreciated stock of the Bank of the United States—a purchase of great assistance to the United States government in bolstering European confidence in its securities. When the Bank was not rechartered the building and the cashier’s house in Philadelphia were purchased at a third of the original cost by Girard, who in May 1812 established the Bank of Stephen Girard. He subscribed in 1814 for about 95% of the government’s war loan of $5,000,000, of which only $20,000 besides had been taken, and he generously offered at par shares which upon his purchase had gone to a premium. He pursued his business vigorously in person until the 12th of February 1830, when he was injured in the street by a truck; he died on the 26th of December 1831. His public spirit had been shown during his life not only financially but personally; in 1793, during the plague of yellow fever in Philadelphia, he volunteered to act as manager of the wretched hospital at Bush Hill, and with the assistance of Peter Helm had the hospital cleansed and its work systematized; again during the yellow fever epidemic of 1797-1798 he took the lead in relieving the poor and caring for the sick. Even more was his philanthropy shown in his disposition by will of his estate, which was valued at about $7,500,000, and doubtless the greatest fortune accumulated by any individual in America up to that time. Of his fortune he bequeathed $116,000 to various Philadelphia charities, $500,000 to the same city for the improvement of the Delaware water front, $300,000 to Pennsylvania for internal improvements, and the bulk of his estate to Philadelphia, to be used in founding a school or college, in providing a better police system, and in making municipal improvements and lessening taxation. Most of his bequest to the city was to be used for building and maintaining a school “to provide for such a number of poor male white orphan children ... a better education as well as a more comfortable maintenance than they usually receive from the application of the public funds.” His will planned most minutely for the erection of this school, giving details as to the windows, doors, walls, &c.; and it contained the following phrase: “I enjoin and require that no ecclesiastic, missionary or minister of any sect whatsoever, shall ever hold or exercise any duty whatsoever in the said college; nor shall any such person ever be admitted for any purpose, or as a visitor, within the premises appropriated to the purposes of the said college.... I desire to keep the tender minds of orphans ... free from the excitements which clashing doctrines and sectarian controversy are so apt to produce.” Girard’s heirs-at-law contested the will in 1836, and they were greatly helped by a public prejudice aroused by the clause cited; in the Supreme Court of the United States in 1844 Daniel Webster, appearing for the heirs, made a famous plea for the Christian religion, but Justice Joseph Story handed down an opinion adverse to the heirs (Vidals v. Girard’s Executors). Webster was opposed in this suit by John Sergeant and Horace Binney. Girard specified that those admitted to the college must be white male orphans, of legitimate birth and good character, between the ages of six and ten; that no boy was to be permitted to stay after his eighteenth year; and that as regards admissions preference was to be shown, first to orphans born in Philadelphia, second to orphans born in any other part of Pennsylvania, third to orphans born in New York City, and fourth to orphans born in New Orleans. Work upon the buildings was begun in 1833, and the college was opened on the 1st of January 1848, a technical point of law making instruction conditioned upon the completion of the five buildings, of which the principal one, planned by Thomas Ustick Walter (1804-1887), has been called “the most perfect Greek temple in existence.” To a sarcophagus in this main building the remains of Stephen Girard were removed in 1851. In the 40 acres of the college grounds there were in 1909 18 buildings (valued at $3,350,000), 1513 pupils, and a total “population,” including students, teachers and all employes, of 1907. The value of the Girard estate in the year 1907 was $35,000,000, of which $550,000 was devoted to other charities than Girard College. The control of the college was under a board chosen by the city councils until 1869, when by act of the legislature it was transferred to trustees appointed by the Common Pleas judges of the city of Philadelphia. The course of training is partly industrial—for a long time graduates were indentured till they came of age—but it is also preparatory to college entrance.

See H. A. Ingram, The Life and Character of Stephen Girard (Philadelphia, 1884), and George P. Rupp, “Stephen Girard—Merchant and Mariner,” in 1848-1898: Semi-Centennial of Girard College (Philadelphia, 1898).

GIRARDIN, DELPHINE DE (1804-1855), French author, was born at Aix-la-Chapelle on the 26th of January 1804. Her mother, the well-known Madame Sophie Gay, brought her up in the midst of a brilliant literary society. She published two volumes of miscellaneous pieces, Essais poétiques (1824) and Nouveaux Essais poétiques (1825). A visit to Italy in 1827, during which she was enthusiastically welcomed by the literati of Rome and even crowned in the capitol, was productive of various poems, of which the most ambitious was Napoline (1833). Her marriage in 1831 to Émile de Girardin (see below) opened up a new literary career. The contemporary sketches which she contributed from 1836 to 1839 to the feuilleton of La Presse, under the nom de plume of Charles de Launay, were collected under the title of Lettres parisiennes (1843), and obtained a brilliant success. Contes d’une vieille fille à ses neveux (1832), La Canne de Monsieur de Balzac (1836) and Il ne faut pas jouer avec la douleur (1853) are among the best-known of her romances; and her dramatic pieces in prose and verse include L’École des journalistes (1840), Judith (1843), Cléopâtre (1847), Lady Tartufe (1853), and the one-act comedies, C’est la faute du mari (1851), La Joie fait peur (1854), Le Chapeau d’un horloger (1854) and Une Femme qui déteste son mari, which did not appear till after the author’s death. In the literary society of her time Madame Girardin exercised no small personal influence, and among the frequenters of her drawing-room were Théophile Gautier and Balzac, Alfred de Musset and Victor Hugo. She died on the 29th of June 1855. Her collected works were published in six volumes (1860-1861).

See Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi, t. iii.; G. de Molènes, “Les Femmes poètes,” in Revue des deux mondes (July 1842); Taxile Delord, Les Matinées littéraires (1860); L’Esprit de Madame Girardin, avec une préface par M. Lamartine (1862); G. d’Heilly, Madame de Girardin, sa vie et ses œuvres (1868); Imbert de Saint Amand, Mme de Girardin (1875).

GIRARDIN, ÉMILE DE (1802-1881), French publicist, was born, not in Switzerland in 1806 of unknown parents, but (as was recognized in 1837) in Paris in 1802, the son of General Alexandre de Girardin and of Madame Dupuy, wife of a Parisian advocate. His first publication was a novel, Émile, dealing with his birth and early life, and appeared under the name of Girardin in 1827. He became inspector of fine arts under the Martignac ministry just before the revolution of 1830, and was an energetic and passionate journalist. Besides his work on the daily press he issued miscellaneous publications which attained an enormous circulation. His Journal des connaissances utiles had 120,000 subscribers, and the initial edition of his Almanach de France (1834) ran to a million copies. In 1836 he inaugurated cheap journalism in a popular Conservative organ, La Presse, the subscription to which was only forty francs a year. This undertaking involved him in a duel with Armand Carrel, the fatal result of which made him refuse satisfaction to later opponents. In 1839 he was excluded from the Chamber of Deputies, to which he had been four times elected, on the plea of his foreign birth, but was admitted in 1842. He resigned early in February 1847, and on the 24th of February 1848 sent a note to Louis Philippe demanding his resignation and the regency of the duchess of Orleans. In the Legislative Assembly he voted with the Mountain. He pressed eagerly in his paper for the election of Prince Louis Napoleon, of whom he afterwards became one of the most violent opponents. In 1856 he sold La Presse, only to resume it in 1862, but its vogue was over, and Girardin started a new journal, La Liberté, the sale of which was forbidden in the public streets. He supported Émile Ollivier and the Liberal Empire, but plunged into vehement journalism again to advocate war against Prussia. Of his many subsequent enterprises the most successful was the purchase of Le Petit Journal, which served to advocate the policy of Thiers, though he himself did not contribute. The crisis of the 16th of May 1877, when Jules Simon fell from power, made him resume his pen to attack MacMahon and the party of reaction in La France and in Le Petit Journal. Émile de Girardin married in 1831 Delphine Gay (see above), and after her death in 1855 Guillemette Joséphine Brunold, countess von Tieffenbach, widow of Prince Frederick of Nassau. He was divorced from his second wife in 1872.

The long list of his social and political writings includes: De la presse périodique au XIXe, siècle (1837); De l’instruction publique (1838); Études politiques (1838); De la liberté de la presse et du journalisme (1842); Le Droit au travail au Luxembourg et à l’Assemblée Nationale (2 vols., 1848); Les Cinquante-deux (1849, &c.), a series of articles on current parliamentary questions; La Politique universelle, décrets de l’avenir (Brussels, 1852); Le Condamné du 6 mars (1867), an account of his own differences with the government in 1867 when he was fined 5000 fr. for an article in La Liberté; Le Dossier de la guerre (1877), a collection of official documents; Questions de mon temps, 1836 à 1856, articles extracted from the daily and weekly press (12 vols., 1858).

GIRARDON, FRANÇOIS (1628-1715), French sculptor, was born at Troyes on the 17th of March 1628. As a boy he had for master a joiner and wood-carver of his native town, named Baudesson, under whom he is said to have worked at the château of Liébault, where he attracted the notice of Chancellor Séguier. By the chancellor’s influence Girardon was first removed to Paris and placed in the studio of François Anguier, and afterwards sent to Rome. In 1652 he was back in France, and seems at once to have addressed himself with something like ignoble subserviency to the task of conciliating the court painter Charles Le Brun. Girardon is reported to have declared himself incapable of composing a group, whether with truth or from motives of policy it is impossible to say. This much is certain, that a very large proportion of his work was carried out from designs by Le Brun, and shows the merits and defects of Le Brun’s manner—a great command of ceremonial pomp in presenting his subject, coupled with a large treatment of forms which if it were more expressive might be imposing. The court which Girardon paid to the “premier peintre du roi” was rewarded. An immense quantity of work at Versailles was entrusted to him, and in recognition of the successful execution of four figures for the Bains d’Apollon, Le Brun induced the king to present his protégé personally with a purse of 300 louis, as a distinguishing mark of royal favour. In 1650 Girardon was made member of the Academy, in 1659 professor, in 1674 “adjoint au recteur,” and finally in 1695 chancellor. Five years before (1690), on the death of Le Brun, he had also been appointed “inspecteur général des ouvrages de sculpture”—a place of power and profit. In 1699 he completed the bronze equestrian statue of Louis XIV., erected by the town of Paris on the Place Louis le Grand. This statue was melted down during the Revolution, and is known to us only by a small bronze model (Louvre) finished by Girardon himself. His Tomb of Richelieu (church of the Sorbonne) was saved from destruction by Alexandre Lenoir, who received a bayonet thrust in protecting the head of the cardinal from mutilation. It is a capital example of Girardon’s work, and the theatrical pomp of its style is typical of the funeral sculpture of the reigns of Louis XIV. and Louis XV.; but amongst other important specimens yet remaining may also be cited the Tomb of Louvois (St Eustache), that of Bignon, the king’s librarian, executed in 1656 (St Nicolas du Chardonneret), and decorative sculptures in the Galerie d’Apollon and Chambre du roi in the Louvre. Mention should not be omitted of the group, signed and dated 1699, “The Rape of Proserpine” at Versailles, which also contains the “Bull of Apollo.” Although chiefly occupied at Paris Girardon never forgot his native Troyes, the museum of which town contains some of his best works, including the marble busts of Louis XIV. and Maria Theresa. In the hôtel de ville is still shown a medallion of Louis XIV., and in the church of St Rémy a bronze crucifix of some importance—both works by his hand. He died in Paris in 1715.

See Corrard de Breban, Notice sur la vie et les œuvres de Girardon (1850).

GIRART DE ROUSSILLON, an epic figure of the Carolingian cycle of romance. In the genealogy of romance he is a son of Doon de Mayence, and he appears in different and irreconcilable circumstances in many of the chansons de geste. The legend of Girart de Roussillon is contained in a Vita Girardi de Roussillon (ed. P. Meyer, in Romania, 1878), dating from the beginning of the 12th century and written probably by a monk of the abbey of Pothières or of Vezelai, both of which were founded in 860 by Girart; in Girart de Roussillon, a chanson de geste written early in the 12th century in a dialect midway between French and Provençal, and apparently based on an earlier Burgundian poem; in a 14th century romance in alexandrines (ed. T. J. A. P. Mignard, Paris and Dijon, 1878); and in a prose romance by Jehan Wauquelin in 1447 (ed. L. de Montille, Paris, 1880). The historical Girard, son of Leuthard and Grimildis, was a Burgundian chief who was count of Paris in 837, and embraced the cause of Lothair against Charles the Bald. He fought at Fontenay in 841, and doubtless followed Lothair to Aix. In 855 he became governor of Provence for Lothair’s son Charles, king of Provence (d. 863). His wife Bertha defended Vienne unsuccessfully against Charles the Bald in 870, and Girard, who had perhaps aspired to be the titular ruler of the northern part of Provence, which he had continued to administer under Lothair II. until that prince’s death in 869, retired with his wife to Avignon, where he died probably in 877, certainly before 879. The tradition of his piety, of the heroism of his wife Bertha, and of his wars with Charles passed into romance; but the historical facts are so distorted that in Girart de Roussillon the trouvère makes him the opponent of Charles Martel, to whom he stands in the relation of brother-in-law. He is nowhere described in authentic historic sources as of Roussillon. The title is derived from his castle built on Mount Lassois, near Châtillon-sur-Seine. Southern traditions concerning Count Girart, in which he is made the son of Garin de Monglane, are embodied in Girart de Viane (13th century) by Bertrand de Bar-sur-l’Aube, and in the Aspramonte of Andrea da Barberino, based on the French chanson of Aspremont, where he figures as Girart de Frete or de Fratte. Girart de Viane is the recital of a siege of Vienne by Charlemagne, and in Aspramonte Girart de Fratte leads an army of infidels against Charlemagne. Girart de Roussillon was long held to be of Provençal origin, and to be a proof of the existence of an independent Provençal epic, but its Burgundian origin may be taken as proved.

See F. Michel, Gerard de Rossillon ... publié en français et en provençal d’après les MSS. de Paris et de Londres (Paris, 1856); P. Meyer, Girart de Roussillon (1884), a translation in modern French with a comprehensive introduction. For Girart de Viane (ed. P. Tarbé, Reims, 1850) see L. Gautier, Épopées françaises, vol. iv.; F. A. Wulff, Notice sur les sagas de Magus et de Geirard (Lund, 1874).

It is of interest to note that Freta was the old name for the town of Saint Remy, and that it is close to the site of the ancient town of Glanum, the name of which is possibly preserved in Garin de Monglane, the ancestor of the heroes of the cycle of Guillaume d’Orange.

GIRAUD, GIOVANNI, Count (1776-1834), Italian dramatist, of French origin, was born at Rome, and showed a precocious passion for the theatre. His first play, L’Onestà non si vince, was successfully produced in 1798. He took part in politics as an active supporter of Pius VI., but was mainly occupied with the production of his plays, and in 1809 became director-general of the Italian theatres. He died at Naples in 1834. Count Giraud’s comedies, the best of which are Gelosie per equivoco (1807) and L’Ajonell’ imbarazzo (1824), were bright and amusing on the stage, but of no particular literary quality.

His collected comedies were published in 1823 and his Teatro domestico in 1825.

GIRDLE (O. Eng. gyrdel, from gyrdan, to gird; cf. Ger. Gürtel, Dutch gordel, from gürten and gorden; “gird” and its doublet “girth” together with the other Teutonic cognates have been referred by some to the root ghar—to seize, enclose, seen in Gr. χείρ, hand, Lat. hortus, garden, and also English yard, garden, garth, &c.), a band of leather or other material worn round the waist, either to confine the loose and flowing outer robes so as to allow freedom of movement, or to fasten and support the garments of the wearer. Among the Romans it was used to confine the tunica, and it formed part of the dress of the soldier; when a man quitted military service he was said, cingulum deponere, to lay aside the girdle. Money being carried in the girdle, zonam perdere signified to lose one’s purse, and, among the Greeks, to cut the girdle was to rob a man of his money.

Girdles and girdle-buckles are not often found in Gallo-Roman graves, but in the graves of Franks and Burgundians they are constantly present, often ornamented with bosses of silver or bronze, chased or inlaid. Sidonius Apollinaris speaks of the Franks as belted round the waist, and Gregory of Tours in the 6th century says that a dagger was carried in the Frankish girdle.

In the Anglo-Saxon dress the girdle makes an unimportant figure, and the Norman knights, as a rule, wore their belts under their hauberks. After the Conquest, however, the artificers gave more attention to a piece whose buckle and tongue invited the work of the goldsmith. Girdles of varying richness are seen on most of the western medieval effigies. That of Queen Berengaria lets the long pendant hang below the knee, following a fashion which frequently reappears.

In the latter part of the 13th century the knight’s surcoat is girdled with a narrow cord at the waist, while the great belt, which had become the pride of the well-equipped cavalier, loops across the hips carrying the heavy sword aslant over the thighs or somewhat to the left of the wearer.

But it is in the second half of the following century that the knightly belt takes its most splendid form. Under the year 1356 the continuator of the chronicle of Nangis notes that the increase of jewelled belts had mightily enhanced the price of pearls. The belt is then worn, as a rule, girdling the hips at some distance below the waist, being probably supported by hooks as is the belt of a modern infantry soldier. The end of the belt, after being drawn through the buckle, is knotted or caught up after the fashion of the tang of the Garter. The waist girdle either disappears from sight or as a narrow and ornamented strap is worn diagonally to help in the support of the belt. A mass of beautiful ornament covers the whole belt, commonly seen as an unbroken line of bosses enriched with curiously worked roundels or lozenges which, when the loose strap-end is abandoned, meet in a splendid morse or clasp on which the enameller and jeweller had wrought their best. About 1420 this fashion tends to disappear, the loose tabards worn over armour in the jousting-yard hindering its display. The belt never regains its importance as an ornament, and, at the beginning of the 16th century, sword and dagger are sometimes seen hanging at the knight’s sides without visible support.

In civil dress the magnificent belt of the 14th century is worn by men of rank over the hips of the tight short-skirted coat, and in that century and in the 15th and 16th there are sumptuary laws to cheek the extravagance of rich girdles worn by men and women whose humble station made them unseemly. Even priests must be rebuked for their silver girdles with baselards hanging from them. Purses, daggers, keys, penners and inkhorns, beads and even books, dangled from girdles in the 15th and early 16th centuries. Afterwards the girdle goes on as a mere strap for holding up the clothing or as a sword-belt. At the Restoration men contrasted the fashion of the court, a light rapier hung from a broad shoulder-belt, with the fashion of the countryside, where a heavy weapon was supported by a narrow waistbelt. Soon afterwards both fashions disappeared. Sword-hangers were concealed by the skirt, and the belt, save in certain military and sporting costumes, has no more been in sight in England. Even as a support for breeches or trousers, the use of braces has gradually supplanted the girdle during the past century.

In most of those parts of the Continent—Brittany, for example—where the peasantry maintains old fashions in clothing, the belt or girdle is still an important part of the clothing. Italian non-commissioned officers find that the Sicilian recruit’s main objection to the first bath of his life-time lies in the fact that he must lay down the cherished belt which carries his few valuables. With the Circassian the belt still buckles on an arsenal of pistols and knives.

Folklore and ancient custom are much concerned with the girdle. Bankrupts at one time put it off in open court; French law refused courtesans the right to wear it; Saint Guthlac casts out devils by buckling his girdle round a possessed man; an earl is “a belted earl” since the days when the putting on of a girdle was part of the ceremony of his creation; and fairy tales of half the nations deal with girdles which give invisibility to the wearer.

(O. Ba.)

GIRGA, or Girgeh, a town of Upper Egypt on the W. bank of the Nile, 313 m. S.S.E. of Cairo by rail and about 10 m. N.N.E. of the ruins of Abydos. Pop. (1907) 19,893, of whom about one-third are Copts. The town presents a picturesque appearance from the Nile, which at this point makes a sharp bend. A ruined mosque with a tall minaret stands by the river-brink. Many of the houses are of brick decorated with glazed tiles. The town is noted for the excellence of its pottery. Girga is the seat of a Coptic bishop. It also possesses a Roman Catholic monastery, considered the most ancient in the country. As lately as the middle of the 18th century the town stood a quarter of a mile from the river, but is now on the bank, the intervening space having been washed away, together with a large part of the town, by the stream continually encroaching on its left bank.

GIRGENTI (anc. Agrigentum, q.v.), a town of Sicily, capital of the province which bears its name, and an episcopal see, on the south coast, 58 m. S. by E. of Palermo direct and 84½ m. by rail. Population (1901) 25,024. The town is built on the western summit of the ridge which formed the northern portion of the ancient site; the main street runs from E. to W. on the level, but the side streets are steep and narrow. The cathedral occupies the highest point in the town; it was not founded till the 13th century, taking the place of the so-called temple of Concord. The campanile still preserves portions of its original architecture, but the interior has been modernized. In the chapter-house a famous sarcophagus, with scenes illustrating the myth of Hippolytus, is preserved. There are other scattered remains of 13th-century architecture in the town, while, in the centre of the ancient city, close to the so-called oratory of Phalaris, is the Norman church of S. Nicolo. A small museum in the town contains vases, terra-cottas, a few sculptures, &c. The port of Girgenti, 5½ m. S.W. by rail, now known as Porto Empedocle (population in 1901, 11,529), as the principal place of shipment for sulphur, the mining district beginning immediately north of Girgenti.

(T. As.)

GIRISHK, a village and fort of Afghanistan. It stands on the right bank of the Helmund 78 m. W. of Kandahar on the road to Herat; 3641 ft. above the sea. The fort, which is garrisoned from Kandahar and is the residence of the governor of the district (Pusht-i-Rud), has little military value. It commands the fords of the Helmund and the road to Seistan, from which it is about 190 m. distant; and it is the centre of a rich agricultural district. Girishk was occupied by the British during the first Afghan War; and a small garrison of sepoys, under a native officer, successfully withstood a siege of nine months by an overwhelming Afghan force. The Dasht-i-Bakwa stretches beyond Girishk towards Farah, a level plain of considerable width, which tradition assigns as the field of the final contest for supremacy between Russia and England.

GIRNAR, a sacred hill in Western India, in the peninsula of Kathiawar, 10 m. E. of Junagarh town. It consists of five peaks, rising about 3500 ft. above the sea, on which are numerous old Jain temples, much frequented by pilgrims. At the foot of the hill is a rock, with an inscription of Asoka (2nd century B.C.), and also two other inscriptions (dated 150 and 455 A.D.) of great historical importance.

GIRODET DE ROUSSY, ANNE LOUIS (1767-1824), French painter, better known as Girodet-Trioson, was born at Montargis on the 5th of January 1767. He lost his parents in early youth, and the care of his fortune and education fell to the lot of his guardian, M. Trioson, “médecin de mesdames,” by whom he was in later life adopted. After some preliminary studies under a painter named Luquin, Girodet entered the school of David, and at the age of twenty-two he successfully competed for the Prix de Rome. At Rome he executed his “Hippocrate refusant les présents d’Artaxerxès” and “Endymion dormant” (Louvre), a work which was hailed with acclamation at the Salon of 1792. The peculiarities which mark Girodet’s position as the herald of the romantic movement are already evident in his “Endymion.” The firm-set forms, the grey cold colour, the hardness of the execution are proper to one trained in the school of David, but these characteristics harmonize ill with the literary, sentimental and picturesque suggestions which the painter has sought to render. The same incongruity marks Girodet’s “Danaë” and his “Quatre Saisons,” executed for the king of Spain (repeated for Compiègne), and shows itself to a ludicrous extent in his “Fingal” (St Petersburg, Leuchtenberg collection), executed for Napoleon I. in 1802. This work unites the defects of the classic and romantic schools, for Girodet’s imagination ardently and exclusively pursued the ideas excited by varied reading both of classic and of modern literature, and the impressions which he received from the external world afforded him little stimulus or check; he consequently retained the mannerisms of his master’s practice whilst rejecting all restraint on choice of subject. The credit lost by “Fingal” Girodet regained in 1806, when he exhibited “Scène de Déluge” (Louvre), to which (in competition with the “Sabines” of David) was awarded the decennial prize. This success was followed up in 1808 by the production of the “Reddition de Vienne” and “Atala au Tombeau”—a work which went far to deserve its immense popularity, by a happy choice of subject, and remarkable freedom from the theatricality of Girodet’s usual manner, which, however, soon came to the front again in his “Révolte de Caire” (1810). His powers now began to fail, and his habit of working at night and other excesses told upon his constitution; in the Salon of 1812 he exhibited only a “Tête de Vierge”; in 1819 “Pygmalion et Galatée” showed a still further decline of strength; and in 1824—the year in which he produced his portraits of Cathelineau and Bonchamps—Girodet died on the 9th of December.

He executed a vast quantity of illustrations, amongst which may be cited those to the Didot Virgil (1798) and to the Louvre Racine (1801-1805). Fifty-four of his designs for Anacreon were engraved by M. Chatillon. Girodet wasted much time on literary composition, his poem Le Peintre (a string of commonplaces), together with poor imitations of classical poets, and essays on Le Génie and La Grâce, were published after his death (1829), with a biographical notice by his friend M. Coupin de la Couperie; and M. Delécluze, in his Louis David et son temps, has also a brief life of Girodet.

GIRONDE, a maritime department of south-western France, formed from four divisions of the old province of Guyenne, viz. Bordelais, Bazadais, and parts of Périgord and Agenais. Area, 4140 sq. m. Pop. (1906) 823,925. It is bounded N. by the department of Charente-Inférieure, E. by those of Dordogne and Lot-et-Garonne, S. by that of Landes, and W. by the Bay of Biscay. It takes its name from the river or estuary of the Gironde formed by the union of the Garonne and Dordogne. The department divides itself naturally into a western and an eastern portion. The former, which is termed the Landes (q.v.), occupies more than a third of the department, and consists chiefly of morass or sandy plain, thickly planted with pines and divided from the sea by a long line of dunes. These dunes are planted with pines, which, by binding the sand together with their roots, prevent it from drifting inland and afford a barrier against the sea. On the east the dunes are fringed for some distance by two extensive lakes, Carcans and Lacanau, communicating with each other and with the Bay of Arcachon, near the southern extremity of the department. The Bay of Arcachon contains numerous islands, and on the land side forms a vast shallow lagoon, a considerable portion of which, however, has been drained and converted into arable land. The eastern portion of the department consists chiefly of a succession of hill and dale, and, especially in the valley of the Gironde, is very fertile. The estuary of the Gironde is about 45 m. in length, and varies in breadth from 2 to 6 m. It presents a succession of islands and mud banks which divide it into two channels and render navigation somewhat difficult. It is, however, well buoyed and lighted, and has a mean depth of 21 ft. There are extensive marshes on the right bank to the north of Blaye, and the shores on the left are characterized, especially towards the mouth, by low-lying polders protected by dikes and composed of fertile salt marshes. At the mouth of the Gironde stands the famous tower of Cordouan, one of the finest lighthouses of the French coast. It was built between the years 1585 and 1611 by the architect and engineer Louis de Foix, and added to towards the end of the 18th century. The principal affluent of the Dordogne in this department is the Isle. The feeders of the Garonne are, with the exception of the Dropt, all small. West of the Garonne the only river of importance is the Leyre, which flows into the Bay of Arcachon. The climate is humid and mild and very hot in summer. Wheat, rye, maize, oats and tobacco are grown to a considerable extent. The corn produced, however, does not meet the wants of the inhabitants. The culture of the vine is by far the most important branch of industry carried on (see Wine), the vineyards occupying about one-seventh of the surface of the department. The wine-growing districts are the Médoc, Graves, Côtes, Palus, Entre-deux-Mers and Sauternes. The Médoc is a region of 50 m. in length by about 6 m. in breadth, bordering the left banks of the Garonne and the Gironde between Bordeaux and the sea. The Graves country forms a zone 30 m. in extent, stretching along the left bank of the Garonne from the neighbourhood of Bordeaux to Barsac. The Sauternes country lies to the S.E. of the Graves. The Côtes lie on the right bank of the Dordogne and Gironde, between it and the Garonne, and on the left bank of the Garonne. The produce of the Palus, the alluvial land of the valleys, and of the Entre-deux-Mers, situated on the left bank of the Dordogne, is inferior. Fruits and vegetables are extensively cultivated, the peaches and pears being especially fine. Cattle are extensively raised, the Bazadais breed of oxen and the Bordelais breed of milch-cows being well known. Oyster-breeding is carried on on a large scale in the Bay of Arcachon. Large supplies of resin, pitch and turpentine are obtained from the pine woods, which also supply vine-props, and there are well-known quarries of limestone. The manufactures are various, and, with the general trade, are chiefly carried on at Bordeaux (q.v.), the chief town and third port in France. Pauillac, Blaye, Libourne and Arcachon are minor ports. Gironde is divided into the arrondissements of Bordeaux, Blaye, Lesparre, Libourne, Bazas and La Réole, with 49 cantons and 554 communes. The department is served by five railways, the chief of which are those of the Orleans and Southern companies. It forms part of the circumscription of the archbishopric, the appeal-court and the académie (educational division) of Bordeaux, and of the region of the XVIII. army corps, the headquarters of which are at that city. Besides Bordeaux, Libourne, La Réole, Bazas, Blaye, Arcachon, St Emilion and St Macaire are the most noteworthy towns and receive separate treatment. Among the other places of interest the chief are Cadillac, on the right bank of the Garonne, where there is a castle of the 16th century, surrounded by fortifications of the 14th century; Labrède, with a feudal château in which Montesquieu was born and lived; Villandraut, where there is a ruined castle of the 13th century; Uzeste, which has a church begun in 1310 by Pope Clement V.; Mazères with an imposing castle of the 14th century; La Sauve, which has a church (11th and 12th centuries) and other remains of a Benedictine abbey; and Ste Foy-la-Grande, a bastide created in 1255 and afterwards a centre of Protestantism, which is still strong there. La Teste (pop. in 1906, 5699) was the capital in the middle ages of the famous lords of Buch.

GIRONDISTS (Fr. Girondins), the name given to a political party in the Legislative Assembly and National Convention during the French Revolution (1791-1793). The Girondists were, indeed, rather a group of individuals holding certain opinions and principles in common than an organized political party, and the name was at first somewhat loosely applied to them owing to the fact that the most brilliant exponents of their point of view were deputies from the Gironde. These deputies were twelve in number, six of whom—the lawyers Vergniaud, Guadet, Gensonné, Grangeneuve and Jay, and the tradesman Jean François Ducos—sat both in the Legislative Assembly and the National Convention. In the Legislative Assembly these represented a compact body of opinion which, though not as yet definitely republican, was considerably more advanced than the moderate royalism of the majority of the Parisian deputies. Associated with these views was a group of deputies from other parts of France, of whom the most notable were Condorcet, Fauchet, Lasource, Isnard, Kersaint, Henri Larivière, and, above all, Jacques Pierre Brissot, Roland and Pétion, elected mayor of Paris in succession to Bailly on the 16th of November 1791. On the spirit and policy of the Girondists Madame Roland, whose salon became their gathering-place, exercised a powerful influence (see Roland); but such party cohesion as they possessed they owed to the energy of Brissot (q.v.), who came to be regarded as their mouthpiece in the Assembly and the Jacobin Club. Hence the name Brissotins, coined by Camille Desmoulins, which was sometimes substituted for that of Girondins, sometimes closely coupled with it. As strictly party designations these first came into use after the assembling of the National Convention (September 20th, 1792), to which a large proportion of the deputies from the Gironde who had sat in the Legislative Assembly were returned. Both were used as terms of opprobrium by the orators of the Jacobin Club, who freely denounced “the Royalists, the Federalists, the Brissotins, the Girondins and all the enemies of the democracy” (F. Aulard, Soc. des Jacobins, vi. 531).

In the Legislative Assembly the Girondists represented the principle of democratic revolution within and of patriotic defiance to the European powers without. They were all-powerful in the Jacobin Club (see Jacobins), where Brissot’s influence had not yet been ousted by Robespierre, and they did not hesitate to use this advantage to stir up popular passion and intimidate those who sought to stay the progress of the Revolution. They compelled the king in 1792 to choose a ministry composed of their partisans—among them Roland, Dumouriez, Clavière and Servan; and it was they who forced the declaration of war against Austria. In all this there was no apparent line of cleavage between “La Gironde” and the Mountain. Montagnards and Girondists alike were fundamentally opposed to the monarchy; both were democrats as well as republicans; both were prepared to appeal to force in order to realize their ideals; in spite of the accusation of “federalism” freely brought against them, the Girondists desired as little as the Montagnards to break up the unity of France. Yet from the first the leaders of the two parties stood in avowed opposition, in the Jacobin Club as in the Assembly. It was largely a question of temperament. The Girondists were idealists, doctrinaires and theorists rather than men of action; they encouraged, it is true, the “armed petitions” which resulted, to their dismay, in the émeute of the 20th of June; but Roland, turning the ministry of the interior into a publishing office for tracts on the civic virtues, while in the provinces riotous mobs were burning the châteaux unchecked, is more typical of their spirit. With the ferocious fanaticism or the ruthless opportunism of the future organizers of the Terror they had nothing in common. As the Revolution developed they trembled at the anarchic forces they had helped to unchain, and tried in vain to curb them. The overthrow of the monarchy on the 10th of August and the massacres of September were not their work, though they claimed credit for the results achieved.

The crisis of their fate was not slow in coming. It was they who proposed the suspension of the king and the summoning of the National Convention; but they had only consented to overthrow the kingship when they found that Louis XVI. was impervious to their counsels, and, the republic once established, they were anxious to arrest the revolutionary movement which they had helped to set in motion. As Daunou shrewdly observes in his Mémoires, they were too cultivated and too polished to retain their popularity long in times of disturbance, and were therefore the more inclined to work for the establishment of order, which would mean the guarantee of their own power. Thus the Girondists, who had been the Radicals of the Legislative Assembly, became the Conservatives of the Convention. But they were soon to have practical experience of the fate that overtakes those who attempt to arrest in mid-career a revolution they themselves have set in motion. The ignorant populace, for whom the promised social millennium had by no means dawned, saw in an attitude seemingly so inconsistent obvious proof of corrupt motives, and there were plenty of prophets of misrule to encourage the delusion—orators of the clubs and the street corners, for whom the restoration of order would have meant well-deserved obscurity. Moreover, the Septembriseurs—Robespierre, Danton, Marat and their lesser satellites—realized that not only their influence but their safety depended on keeping the Revolution alive. Robespierre, who hated the Girondists, whose lustre had so long obscured his own, had proposed to include them in the proscription lists of September; the Mountain to a man desired their overthrow.

The crisis came in March 1793. The Girondists, who had a majority in the Convention, controlled the executive council and filled the ministry, believed themselves invincible. Their orators had no serious rivals in the hostile camp; their system was established in the purest reason. But the Montagnards made up by their fanatical, or desperate, energy and boldness for what they lacked in talent or in numbers. They had behind them the revolutionary Commune, the Sections and the National Guard of Paris, and they had gained control of the Jacobin club, where Brissot, absorbed in departmental work, had been superseded by Robespierre. And as the motive power of this formidable mechanism of force they could rely on the native suspiciousness of the Parisian populace, exaggerated now into madness by famine and the menace of foreign invasion. The Girondists played into their hands. At the trial of Louis XVI. the bulk of them had voted for the “appeal to the people,” and so laid themselves open to the charge of “royalism”; they denounced the domination of Paris and summoned provincial levies to their aid, and so fell under suspicion of “federalism,” though they rejected Buzot’s proposal to transfer the Convention to Versailles. They strengthened the revolutionary Commune by decreeing its abolition, and then withdrawing the decree at the first sign of popular opposition; they increased the prestige of Marat by prosecuting him before the Revolutionary Tribunal, where his acquittal was a foregone conclusion. In the suspicious temper of the times this vacillating policy was doubly fatal. Marat never ceased his denunciations of the “faction des hommes d’État,” by which France was being betrayed to her ruin, and his parrot cry of “Nous sommes trahis!” was re-echoed from group to group in the streets of Paris. The Girondists, for all their fine phrases, were sold to the enemy, as Lafayette, Dumouriez and a hundred others—once popular favourites—had been sold.

The hostility of Paris to the Girondists received a fateful advertisement by the election, on the 15th of February 1793, of the ex-Girondist Jean Nicolas Pache (1746-1823) to the mayoralty. Pache had twice been minister of war in the Girondist government; but his incompetence had laid him open to strong criticism, and on the 4th of February he had been superseded by a vote of the Convention. This was enough to secure him the suffrages of the Paris electors ten days later, and the Mountain was strengthened by the accession of an ally whose one idea was to use his new power to revenge himself on his former colleagues. Pache, with Chaumette, procureur of the Commune, and Hébert, deputy procureur, controlled the armed organization of the Paris Sections, and prepared to turn this against the Convention. The abortive émeute of the 10th of March warned the Girondists of their danger, but the Commission of Twelve appointed on the 18th of May, the arrest of Marat and Hébert, and other precautionary measures, were defeated by the popular risings of the 27th and 31st of May, and, finally, on the 2nd of June, Hanriot with the National Guards purged the Convention of the Girondists. Isnard’s threat, uttered on the 25th of May, to march France upon Paris had been met by Paris marching upon the Convention.

The list drawn up by Hanriot, and endorsed by a decree of the intimidated Convention, included twenty-two Girondist deputies and ten members of the Commission of Twelve, who were ordered to be detained at their lodgings “under the safeguard of the people.” Some submitted, among them Gensonné, Guadet, Vergniaud, Pétion, Birotteau and Boyer-Fonfrède. Others, including Brissot, Louvet, Buzot, Lasource, Grangeneuve, Larivière and Bergoing, escaped from Paris and, joined later by Guadet, Pétion and Birotteau, set to work to organize a movement of the provinces against the capital. This attempt to stir up civil war determined the wavering and frightened Convention. On the 13th of June it voted that the city of Paris had deserved well of the country, and ordered the imprisonment of the detained deputies, the filling up of their places in the Assembly by their suppléants, and the initiation of vigorous measures against the movement in the provinces. The excuse for the Terror that followed was the imminent peril of France, menaced on the east by the advance of the armies of the Coalition, on the west by the Royalist insurrection of La Vendée, and the need for preventing at all costs the outbreak of another civil war. The assassination of Marat by Charlotte Corday (q.v.) only served to increase the unpopularity of the Girondists and to seal their fate. On the 28th of July a decree of the Convention proscribed, as traitors and enemies of their country, twenty-one deputies, the final list of those sent for trial comprising the names of Antiboul, Boilleau the younger, Boyer-Fonfrède, Brissot, Carra, Duchastel, the younger Ducos, Dufriche de Valazé, Duprat, Fauchet, Gardien, Gensonné, Lacaze, Lasource, Lauze-Deperret, Lehardi, Lesterpt-Beauvais, the elder Minvielle, Sillery, Vergniaud and Viger, of whom five were deputies from the Gironde. The names of thirty-nine others were included in the final acte d’accusation, accepted by the Convention on the 24th of October, which stated the crimes for which they were to be tried as their perfidious ambition, their hatred of Paris, their “federalism” and, above all, their responsibility for the attempt of their escaped colleagues to provoke civil war.

The trial of the twenty-one, which began before the Revolutionary Tribunal on the 24th of October, was a mere farce, the verdict a foregone conclusion. On the 31st they were borne to the guillotine in five tumbrils, the corpse of Dufriche de Valazé—who had killed himself—being carried with them. They met death with great courage, singing the refrain “Plutôt la mort que l’esclavage!” Of those who escaped to the provinces the greater number, after wandering about singly or in groups, were either captured and executed or committed suicide, among them Barbaroux, Buzot, Condorcet, Grangeneuve, Guadet, Kersaint, Pétion, Rabaut de Saint-Étienne and Rebecqui. Roland had killed himself at Rouen on the 15th of November, a week after the execution of his wife. Among the very few who finally escaped was Jean Baptiste Louvet, whose Mémoires give a thrilling picture of the sufferings of the fugitives. Incidentally they prove, too, that the sentiment of France was for the time against the Girondists, who were proscribed even in their chief centre, the city of Bordeaux. The survivors of the party made an effort to re-enter the Convention after the fall of Robespierre, but it was not until the 5th of March 1795 that they were formally reinstated. On the 3rd of October of the same year (11 Vendémiaire, year III.) a solemn fête in honour of the Girondist “martyrs of liberty” was celebrated in the Convention. See also the article French Revolution and separate biographies.

Of the special works on the Girondists Lamartine’s Histoire des Girondins (2 vols., Paris, 1847, new ed. 1902, in 6 vols.) is rhetoric rather than history and is untrustworthy; the Histoire des Girondins, by A. Gramier de Cassagnac (Paris, 1860) led to the publication of a Protestation by J. Guadet, a nephew of the Girondist orator, which was followed by his Les Girondins, leur vie privée, leur vie publique, leur proscription et leur mort (2 vols., Paris, 1861, new ed. 1890); with which cf. Alary, Les Girondins par Guadet (Bordeaux, 1863); also Charles Vatel, Charlotte de Corday et les Girondins: pièces classées et annotées (3 vols., Paris, 1864-1872); Recherches historiques sur les Girondins (2 vols., ib. 1873); Ducos, Les Trois Girondines (Madame Roland, Charlotte Corday, Madame Bouquey) et les Girondins (ib. 1896); Edmond Biré, La Légende des Girondins (Paris, 1881, new ed. 1896); also Helen Maria Williams, State of Manners and Opinions in the French Republic towards the close of the 18th Century (2 vols., London, 1801). Memoirs or fragments of memoirs also exist by particular Girondists, e.g. Barbaroux, Pétion, Louvet, Madame Roland. See, further, the bibliography to the article French Revolution.

(W. A. P.)

Daunou, “Mémoires pour servir à l’hist. de la Convention Nationale,” p. 409, vol. xii. of M. Fr. Barrière, Bibl. des mém. rel à l’hist. de la France, &c. (Paris, 1863).

GIRTIN, THOMAS (1775-1802), English painter and etcher, was the son of a well-to-do cordage maker in Southwark, London. His father died while Thomas was a child, and his widow married Mr Vaughan, a pattern-draughtsman. Girtin learnt drawing as a boy, and was apprenticed to Edward Doyes (1763-1804), the mezzotint engraver, and he soon made J. M. W. Turner’s acquaintance. His architectural and topographical sketches and drawings soon established his reputation, his use of water-colour for landscapes being such as to give him the credit of having created modern water-colour painting, as opposed to mere “tinting.” His etchings also were characteristic of his artistic genius. His early death from consumption (9th of November 1802) led indeed to Turner saying that “had Tom Girtin lived I should have starved.” From 1794 to his death he was an exhibitor at the Royal Academy; and some fine examples of his work have been bequeathed by private owners to the British Museum and the Victoria and Albert Museum.

GIRVAN, a police burgh, market and fishing town of Ayrshire, Scotland, at the mouth of the Girvan, 21 m. S.W. of Ayr, and 63 m. S.W. of Glasgow by the Glasgow & South-Western railway. Pop. (1901) 4024. The principal industry was weaving, but the substitution of the power-loom for the hand-loom nearly put an end to it. The herring fishery has developed to considerable proportions, the harbour having been enlarged and protected by piers and a breakwater. Moreover, the town has grown in repute as a health and holiday resort, its situation being one of the finest in the west of Scotland. There is excellent sea-bathing, and a good golf-course. The vale of Girvan, one of the most fertile tracts in the shire, is made so by the Water of Girvan, which rises in the loch of Girvan Eye, pursues a very tortuous course of 36 m. and empties into the sea. Girvan is the point of communication with Ailsa Craig. About 13 m. S.W. at the mouth of the Stinchar is the fishing village of Ballantrae (pop. 511).

GIRY (Jean Marie Joseph), ARTHUR (1848-1899), French historian, was born at Trévoux (Ain) on the 29th of February 1848. After rapidly completing his classical studies at the lycée at Chartres, he spent some time in the administrative service and in journalism. He then entered the École des Chartes, where, under the influence of J. Quicherat, he developed a strong inclination to the study of the middle ages. The lectures at the École des Hautes Études, which he attended from its foundation in 1868, revealed his true bent; and henceforth he devoted himself almost entirely to scholarship. He began modestly by the study of the municipal charters of St Omer. Having been appointed assistant lecturer and afterwards full lecturer at the École des Hautes Études, it was to the town of St Omer that he devoted his first lectures and his first important work, Histoire de la ville de Saint-Omer et de ses institutions jusqu’au XIVe siècle (1877). He, however, soon realized that the charters of one town can only be understood by comparing them with those of other towns, and he was gradually led to continue the work which Augustin Thierry had broadly outlined in his studies on the Tiers État. A minute knowledge of printed books and a methodical examination of departmental and communal archives furnished him with material for a long course of successful lectures, which gave rise to some important works on municipal history and led to a great revival of interest in the origins and significance of the urban communities in France. Giry himself published Les Établissements de Rouen (1883-1885), a study, based on very minute researches, of the charter granted to the capital of Normandy by Henry II., king of England, and of the diffusion of similar charters throughout the French dominions of the Plantagenets; a collection of Documents sur les relations de la royauté avec les villes de France de 1180 à 1314 (1885); and Étude sur les origines de la commune de Saint-Quentin (1887).

About this time personal considerations induced Giry to devote the greater part of his activity to the study of diplomatic, which had been much neglected at the École des Chartes, but had made great strides in Germany. As assistant (1883) and successor (1885) to Louis de Mas Latrie, Giry restored the study of diplomatic, which had been founded in France by Dom Jean Mabillon, to its legitimate importance. In 1894 he published his Manuel de diplomatique, a monument of lucid and well-arranged erudition, which contained the fruits of his long experience of archives, original documents and textual criticism; and his pupils, especially those at the École des Hautes Études, soon caught his enthusiasm. With their collaboration he undertook the preparation of an inventory and, subsequently, of a critical edition of the Carolingian diplomas. By arrangement with E. Mühlbacher and the editors of the Monumenta Germaniae historica, this part of the joint work was reserved for Giry. Simultaneously with this work he carried on the publication of the annals of the Carolingian epoch on the model of the German Jahrbücher, reserving for himself the reign of Charles the Bald. Of this series his pupils produced in his lifetime Les Derniers Carolingiens (by F. Lot, 1891), Eudes, comte de Paris et roi de France (by E. Favre, 1893), and Charles le Simple (by Eckel, 1899). The biographies of Louis IV. and Hugh Capet and the history of the kingdom of Provence were not published until after his death, and his own unfinished history of Charles the Bald was left to be completed by his pupils. The preliminary work on the Carolingian diplomas involved such lengthy and costly researches that the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres took over the expenses after Giry’s death.

In the midst of these multifarious labours Giry found time for extensive archaeological researches, and made a special study of the medieval treatises dealing with the technical processes employed in the arts and industries. He prepared a new edition of the monk Theophilus’s celebrated treatise, Diversarum artium schedula, and for several years devoted his Saturday mornings to laboratory research with the chemist Aimé Girard at the Conservatoire des Arts et Métiers, the results of which were utilized by Marcellin Berthelot in the first volume (1894) of his Chimie au moyen âge. Giry took an energetic part in the Collection de textes relatifs à l’histoire du moyen âge, which was due in great measure to his initiative. He was appointed director of the section of French history in La Grande Encyclopédie, and contributed more than a hundred articles, many of which, e.g. “Archives” and “Diplomatique,” were original works. In collaboration with his pupil André Réville, he wrote the chapters on “L’Émancipation des villes, les communes et les bourgeoisies” and “Le Commerce et l’industrie au moyen âge” for the Histoire générale of Lavisse and Rambaud. Giry took a keen interest in politics, joining the republican party and writing numerous articles in the republican newspapers, mainly on historical subjects. He was intensely interested in the Dreyfus case, but his robust constitution was undermined by the anxieties and disappointments occasioned by the Zola trial and the Rennes court-martial, and he died in Paris on the 13th of November 1899.

For details of Giry’s life and works see the funeral orations published in the Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, and afterwards in a pamphlet (1899). See also the biography by Ferdinand Lot in the Annuaire de l’École des Hautes Études for 1901; and the bibliography of his works by Henry Maistre in the Correspondance historique et archéologique (1899 and 1900).

GISBORNE, a seaport of New Zealand, in Cook county, provincial district of Auckland, on Poverty Bay of the east coast of North Island. Pop. (1901) 2733; (1906) 5664. Wool, frozen mutton and agricultural produce are exported from the rich district surrounding. Petroleum has been discovered in the neighbourhood, and about 40 m. from the town there are warm medicinal springs. Near the site of Gisborne Captain Cook landed in 1769, and gave Poverty Bay its name from his inability to obtain supplies owing to the hostility of the natives. Young Nick’s Head, the southern horn of the bay, was named from Nicholas Young, his ship’s boy, who first observed it.

GISLEBERT (or Gilbert) OF MONS (c. 1150-1225), Flemish chronicler, became a clerk, and obtained the positions of provost of the churches of St Germanus at Mons and St Alban at Namur, in addition to several other ecclesiastical appointments. In official documents he is described as chaplain, chancellor or notary, of Baldwin V., count of Hainaut (d. 1195), who employed him on important business. After 1200 Gislebert wrote the Chronicon Hanoniense, a history of Hainaut and the neighbouring lands from about 1050 to 1195, which is specially valuable for the latter part of the 12th century, and for the life and times of Baldwin V.

The chronicle is published in Band xxi. of the Monumenta Germaniae historica (Hanover, 1826 fol.); and separately with introduction by W. Arndt (Hanover, 1869). Another edition has been published by L. Vanderkindere in the Recueil de textes pour servir à l’étude de l’histoire de Belgique (Brussels, 1904); and there is a French translation by G. Menilglaise (Tournai, 1874).

See W. Meyer, Das Werk des Kanzlers Gislebert von Mons als verfassungsgeschichtliche Quelle (Königsberg, 1888); K. Huygens, Sur la valeur historique de la chronique Gislebert de Mons (Ghent, 1889); and W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, Band ii. (Berlin, 1894).

GISORS, a town of France, in the department of Eure, situated in the pleasant valley of the Epte, 44. m. N.W. of Paris on the railway to Dieppe. Pop. (1906) 4345. Gisors is dominated by a feudal stronghold built chiefly by the kings of England in the 11th and 12th centuries. The outer enceinte, to which is attached a cylindrical donjon erected by Philip Augustus, king of France, embraces an area of over 7 acres. On a mound in the centre of this space rises an older donjon, octagonal in shape, protected by another enceinte. The outer ramparts and the ground they enclose have been converted into promenades. The church of St Gervais dates in its oldest parts—the central tower, the choir and parts of the aisles—from the middle of the 13th century, when it was founded by Blanche of Castile. The rest of the church belongs to the Renaissance period. The Gothic and Renaissance styles mingle in the west façade, which, like the interior of the building, is adorned with a profusion of sculptures; the fine carving on the wooden doors of the north and west portals is particularly noticeable. The less interesting buildings of the town include a wooden house of the Renaissance era, an old convent now used as an hôtel de ville, and a handsome modern hospital. There is a statue of General de Blanmont, born at Gisors in 1770. Among the industries of Gisors are felt manufacture, bleaching, dyeing and leather-dressing.

In the middle ages Gisors was capital of the Vexin. Its position on the frontier of Normandy caused its possession to be hotly contested by the kings of England and France during the 12th century, at the end of which it and the dependent fortresses of Neaufles and Dangu were ceded by Richard Cœur de Lion to Philip Augustus. During the wars of religion of the 16th century it was occupied by the duke of Mayenne on behalf of the League, and in the 17th century, during the Fronde, by the duke of Longueville. Gisors was given to Charles Auguste Fouquet in 1718 in exchange for Belle-Ile-en-Mer and made a duchy in 1742. It afterwards came into the possession of the count of Eu and the duke of Penthièvre.

GISSING, GEORGE ROBERT (1857-1903), English novelist, was born at Wakefield on the 22nd of November 1857. He was educated at the Quaker boarding-school of Alderley Edge and at Owens College, Manchester. His life, especially its earlier period, was spent in great poverty, mainly in London, though he was for a time also in the United States, supporting himself chiefly by private teaching. He published his first novel, Workers in the Dawn, in 1880. The Unclassed (1884) and Isabel Clarendon (1886) followed. Demos (1886), a novel dealing with socialistic ideas, was, however, the first to attract attention. It was followed by a series of novels remarkable for their pictures of lower middle class life. Gissing’s own experiences had preoccupied him with poverty and its brutalizing effects on character. He made no attempt at popular writing, and for a long time the sincerity of his work was appreciated only by a limited public. Among his more characteristic novels were: Thyrza (1887), A Life’s Morning (1888), The Nether World (1889), New Grub Street (1891), Born in Exile (1892), The Odd Women (1893), In the Year of Jubilee (1894), The Whirlpool (1897). Others, e.g. The Town Traveller (1901), indicate a humorous faculty, but the prevailing note of his novels is that of the struggling life of the shabby-genteel and lower classes and the conflict between education and circumstances. The quasi-autobiographical Private Papers of Henry Ryecroft (1903) reflects throughout Gissing’s studious and retiring tastes. He was a good classical scholar and had a minute acquaintance with the late Latin historians, and with Italian antiquities; and his posthumous Veranilda (1904), a historical romance of Italy in the time of Theodoric the Goth, was the outcome of his favourite studies. Gissing’s powers as a literary critic are shown in his admirable study on Charles Dickens (1898). A book of travel, By the Ionian Sea, appeared in 1901. He died at St Jean de Luz in the Pyrenees on the 28th of December 1903.

See also the introductory essay by T. Seccombe to The House of Cobwebs (1906), a posthumous volume of Gissing’s short stories.

GITSCHIN (Czech Jičin), a town of Bohemia, Austria, 65 m. N.E. of Prague by rail. Pop. (1900) 9790, mostly Czech. The parish church was begun by Wallenstein after the model of the pilgrims’ church of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, but not completed till 1655. The castle, which stands next to the church, was built by Wallenstein and finished in 1630. It was here that the emperor Francis I. of Austria signed the treaty of 1813 by which he threw in his lot with the Allies against Napoleon. Wallenstein was interred at the neighbouring Carthusian monastery, but in 1639 the head and right hand were taken by General Banér to Sweden, and in 1702 the other remains were removed by Count Vincent of Waldstein to his hereditary burying ground at Münchengrätz. Gitschin was originally the village of Zidinĕves and received its present name when it was raised to the dignity of a town by Wenceslaus II. in 1302. The place belonged to various noble Bohemian families, and in the 17th century came into the hands of Wallenstein, who made it the capital of the duchy of Friedland and did much to improve and extend it. His murder, and the miseries of the Thirty Years’ War, brought it very low; and it passed through several hands before it was bought by Prince Trauttmannsdorf, to whose family it still belongs. On the 29th of June 1866 the Prussians gained here a great victory over the Austrians. This victory made possible the junction of the first and second Prussian army corps, and had as an ultimate result the Austrian defeat at Königgrätz.

GIUDICI, PAOLO EMILIANO (1812-1872), Italian writer, was born in Sicily. His History of Italian Literature (1844) brought him to the front, and in 1848 he became professor of Italian literature at Pisa, but after a few months was deprived of the chair on account of his liberal views in politics. On the re-establishment of the Italian kingdom he became professor of aesthetics (resigning 1862) and secretary of the Academy of Fine Arts at Florence, and in 1867 was elected to the chamber of deputies. He held a prominent place as an historian, his works including a Storia del teatro (1860), and Storia dei comuni italiani (1861), besides a translation of Macaulay’s History of England (1856). He died at Tonbridge in England, on the 8th of September 1872.

A Life appeared at Florence in 1874.

GIULIO ROMANO, or Giulio Pippi (c. 1492-1546), the head of the Roman school of painting in succession to Raphael. This prolific painter, modeller, architect and engineer receives his common appellation from the place of his birth—Rome, in the Macello de’ Corbi. His name in full was Giulio di Pietro de Filippo de’ Giannuzzi—Giannuzzi being the true family name, and Pippi (which has practically superseded Giannuzzi) being an abbreviation from the name of his grandfather Filippo. The date of Giulio’s birth is a little uncertain. Vasari (who knew him personally) speaks of him as fifty-four years old at the date of his death, 1st November 1546; thus he would have been born in 1492. Other accounts assign 1498 as the date of birth. This would make Giulio young indeed in the early and in such case most precocious stages of his artistic career, and would show him as dying, after an infinity of hard work, at the comparatively early age of forty-eight.

Giulio must at all events have been quite youthful when he first became the pupil of Raphael, and at Raphael’s death in 1520 he was at the utmost twenty-eight years of age. Raphael had loved him as a son, and had employed him in some leading works, especially in the Loggie of the Vatican; the series there popularly termed “Raphael’s Bible” is done in large measure by Giulio,—as for instance the subjects of the “Creation of Adam and Eve,” “Noah’s Ark,” and “Moses in the Bulrushes.” In the saloon of the “Incendio del Borgo,” also, the figures of “Benefactors of the Church” (Charlemagne, &c.) are Giulio’s handiwork. It would appear that in subjects of this kind Raphael simply furnished the design, and committed the execution of it to some assistant, such as Giulio,—taking heed, however, to bring it up, by final retouching, to his own standard of style and type. Giulio at a later date followed out exactly the same plan; so that in both instances inferiorities of method, in the general blocking-out and even in the details of the work, are not to be precisely charged upon the caposcuola. Amid the multitude of Raphael’s pupils, Giulio was eminent in pursuing his style, and showed universal aptitude; he did, among other things, a large amount of architectural planning for his chief. Raphael bequeathed to Giulio, and to his fellow-pupil Gianfrancesco Penni (“Il Fattore”), his implements and works of art; and upon them it devolved to bring to completion the vast fresco-work of the “Hall of Constantine” in the Vatican—consisting, along with much minor matter, of the four large subjects, the “Battle of Constantine,” the “Apparition of the Cross,” the “Baptism of Constantine” and the “Donation of Rome to the Pope.” The two former compositions were executed by Pippi, the two latter by Penni. The whole of this onerous undertaking was completed within a period of only three years,—which is the more remarkable as, during some part of the interval since Raphael’s decease, the Fleming, Adrian VI., had been pope, and his anti-aesthetic pontificate had left art and artists almost in a state of inanition. Clement VII. had now, however, succeeded to the popedom. By this time Giulio was regarded as the first painter in Rome; but his Roman career was fated to have no further sequel.

Towards the end of 1524 his friend the celebrated writer Baldassar Castiglione seconded with success the urgent request of the duke of Mantua, Federigo Gonzaga, that Giulio should migrate to that city, and enter the duke’s service for the purpose of carrying out his projects in architecture and pictorial decoration. These projects were already considerable, and under Giulio’s management they became far more extensive still. The duke treated his painter munificently as to house, table, horses and whatever was in request; and soon a very cordial attachment sprang up between them. In Pippi’s multifarious work in Mantua three principal undertakings should be noted. (1) In the Castello he painted the “History of Troy,” along with other subjects. (2) In the suburban ducal residence named the Palazzo del Te (this designation being apparently derived from the form of the roads which led towards the edifice) he rapidly carried out a rebuilding on a vastly enlarged scale,—the materials being brick and terra-cotta, as there is no local stone,—and decorated the rooms with his most celebrated works in oil and fresco painting—the story of Psyche, Icarus, the fall of the Titans, and the portraits of the ducal horses and hounds. The foreground figures of Titans are from 12 to 14 ft. high; the room, even in its structural details, is made to subserve the general artistic purpose, and many of its architectural features are distorted accordingly. Greatly admired though these pre-eminent works have always been, and at most times even more than can now be fully ratified, they have suffered severely at the hands of restorers, and modern eyes see them only through a dull and deadening fog of renovation. The whole of the work on the Palazzo del Te, which is of the Doric order of architecture, occupied about five years. (3) Pippi recast and almost rebuilt the cathedral of Mantua; erected his own mansion, replete with numerous antiques and other articles of vertu; reconstructed the street architecture to a very large extent, and made the city, sapped as it is by the shallows of the Mincio, comparatively healthy; and at Marmiruolo, some 5 m. distant from Mantua, he worked out other important buildings and paintings. He was in fact, for nearly a quarter of a century, a sort of Demiurgus of the arts of design in the Mantuan territory.

Giulio’s activity was interrupted but not terminated by the death of Duke Federigo. The duke’s brother, a cardinal who became regent, retained him in full employment. For a while he went to Bologna, and constructed the façade of the church of S. Petronio in that city. He was afterwards invited to succeed Antonio Sangallo as architect of St Peter’s in Rome,—a splendid appointment, which, notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of his wife and of the cardinal regent, he had almost resolved to accept, when a fever overtook him, and, acting upon a constitution somewhat enfeebled by worry and labour, caused his death on the 1st of November 1546. He was buried in the church of S. Barnaba in Mantua. At the time of his death Giulio enjoyed an annual income of more than 1000 ducats, accruing from the liberalities of his patrons. He left a widow, and a son and daughter. The son, named Raffaello, studied painting, but died before he could produce any work of importance; the daughter, Virginia, married Ercole Malatesta.

Wide and solid knowledge of design, combined with a promptitude of composition that was never at fault, formed the chief motive power and merit of Giulio Romano’s art. Whatever was wanted, he produced it at once, throwing off, as Vasari says, a large design in an hour; and he may in that sense, though not equally so when an imaginative or ideal test is applied, be called a great inventor. It would be difficult to name any other artist who, working as an architect, and as the plastic and pictorial embellisher of his architecture, produced a total of work so fully and homogeneously his own; hence he has been named “the prince of decorators.” He had great knowledge of the human frame, and represented it with force and truth, though sometimes with an excess of movement; he was also learned in other matters, especially in medals, and in the plans of ancient buildings. In design he was more strong and emphatic than graceful, and worked a great deal from his accumulated stores of knowledge, without consulting nature direct. As a general rule, his designs are finer and freer than his paintings, whether in fresco or in oil—his easel pictures being comparatively few, and some of them the reverse of decent; his colouring is marked by an excess of blackish and heavy tints.

Giulio Romano introduced the style of Raphael into Mantua, and established there a considerable school of art, which surpassed in development that of his predecessor Mantegna, and almost rivalled that of Rome. Very many engravings—more than three hundred are mentioned—were made contemporaneously from his works; and this not only in Italy, but in France and Flanders as well. His plan of entrusting principally to assistants the pictorial execution of his cartoons has already been referred to; Primaticcio was one of the leading coadjutors. Rinaldo Mantovano, a man of great ability who died young, was the chief executant of the “Fall of the Giants”; he also co-operated with Benedetto Pagni da Pescia in painting the remarkable series of horses and hounds, and the story of Psyche. Another pupil was Fermo Guisoni, who remained settled in Mantua. The oil pictures of Giulio Romano are not generally of high importance; two leading ones are the “Martyrdom of Stephen,” in the church of that saint in Genoa, and a “Holy Family” in the Dresden Gallery. Among his architectural works not already mentioned is the Villa Madama in Rome, with a fresco of Polyphemus, and boys and satyrs; the Ionic façade of this building may have been sketched out by Raphael.

Vasari gives a pleasing impression of the character of Giulio. He was very loving to his friends, genial, affable, well-bred, temperate in the pleasures of the table, but liking fine apparel and a handsome scale of living. He was good-looking, of middle height, with black curly hair and dark eyes, and an ample beard; his portrait, painted by himself, is in the Louvre.

Besides Vasari, Lanzi and other historians of art, the following works may be mentioned: C. D. Arco, Vita di G. Pippi (1828); G. C. von Murr, Notice sur les estampes gravées après dessins de Jules Romain (1865); R. Sanzio, two works on Etchings and Paintings (1800, 1836).

(W. M. R.)

GIUNTA PISANO, the earliest Italian painter whose name is found inscribed on an extant work. He is said to have exercised his art from 1202 to 1236. He may perhaps have been born towards 1180 in Pisa, and died in or soon after 1236; but other accounts give 1202 as the date of his birth, and 1258 or thereabouts for his death. There is some ground for thinking that his family name was Capiteno. The inscribed work above referred to, one of his earliest, is a “Crucifix,” long in the kitchen of the convent of St Anne in Pisa. Other Pisan works of like date are very barbarous, and some of them may be also from the hand of Giunta. It is said that he painted in the upper church of Assisi,—in especial a “Crucifixion” dated 1236, with a figure of Father Elias, the general of the Franciscans, embracing the foot of the cross. In the sacristy is a portrait of St Francis, also ascribed to Giunta; but it more probably belongs to the close of the 13th century. He was in the practice of painting upon cloth stretched on wood, and prepared with plaster.

GIURGEVO (Giurgiu), the capital of the department of Vlashca, Rumania; situated amid mud-flats and marshes on the left bank of the Danube. Pop. (1900) 13,977. Three small islands face the town, and a larger one shelters its port, Smarda, 2½ m. E. The rich corn-lands on the north are traversed by a railway to Bucharest, the first line opened in Rumania, which was built in 1869 and afterwards extended to Smarda. Steamers ply to Rustchuk, 2½ m. S.W. on the Bulgarian shore, linking the Rumanian railway system to the chief Bulgarian line north of the Balkans (Rustchuk-Varna). Thus Giurgevo, besides having a considerable trade with the home ports lower down the Danube, is the headquarters of commerce between Bulgaria and Rumania. It exports timber, grain, salt and petroleum; importing coal, iron and textiles. There are also large saw-mills.

Giurgevo occupies the site of Theodorapolis, a city built by the Roman emperor Justinian (A.D. 483-565). It was founded in the 14th century by Genoese merchant adventurers, who established a bank, and a trade in silks and velvets. They called the town, after the patron saint of Genoa, San Giorgio (St George); and hence comes its present name. As a fortified town, Giurgevo figured often in the wars for the conquest of the lower Danube; especially in the struggle of Michael the Brave (1593-1601) against the Turks, and in the later Russo-Turkish Wars. It was burned in 1659. In 1829, its fortifications were finally razed, the only defence left being a castle on the island of Slobosia, united to the shore by a bridge.

GIUSTI, GIUSEPPE (1809-1850), Tuscan satirical poet, was born at Monsummano, a small village of the Valdinievole, on the 12th of May 1809. His father, a cultivated and rich man, accustomed his son from childhood to study, and himself taught him, among other subjects, the first rudiments of music. Afterwards, in order to curb his too vivacious disposition, he placed the boy under the charge of a priest near the village, whose severity did perhaps more evil than good. At twelve Giusti was sent to school at Florence, and afterwards to Pistoia and to Lucca; and during those years he wrote his first verses. In 1826 he went to study law at Pisa; but, disliking the study, he spent eight years in the course, instead of the customary four. He lived gaily, however, though his father kept him short of money, and learned to know the world, seeing the vices of society, and the folly of certain laws and customs from which his country was suffering. The experience thus gained he turned to good account in the use he made of it in his satire.

His father had in the meantime changed his place of abode to Pescia; but Giuseppe did worse there, and in November 1832, his father having paid his debts, he returned to study at Pisa, seriously enamoured of a woman whom he could not marry, but now commencing to write in real earnest in behalf of his country. With the poem called La Ghigliottina (the guillotine), Giusti began to strike out a path for himself, and thus revealed his great genius. From this time he showed himself the Italian Béranger, and even surpassed the Frenchman in richness of language, refinement of humour and depth of satirical conception. In Béranger there is more feeling for what is needed for popular poetry. His poetry is less studied, its vivacity perhaps more boisterous, more spontaneous; but Giusti, in both manner and conception, is perhaps more elegant, more refined, more penetrating. In 1834 Giusti, having at last entered the legal profession, left Pisa to go to Florence, nominally to practise with the advocate Capoquadri, but really to enjoy life in the capital of Tuscany. He fell seriously in love a second time, and as before was abandoned by his love. It was then he wrote his finest verses, by means of which, although his poetry was not yet collected in a volume, but for some years passed from hand to hand, his name gradually became famous. The greater part of his poems were published clandestinely at Lugano, at no little risk, as the work was destined to undermine the Austrian rule in Italy. After the publication of a volume of verses at Bastia, Giusti thoroughly established his fame by his Gingillino, the best in moral tone as well as the most vigorous and effective of his poems. The poet sets himself to represent the vileness of the treasury officials, and the base means they used to conceal the necessities of the state. The Gingillino has all the character of a classic satire. When first issued in Tuscany, it struck all as too impassioned and personal. Giusti entered heart and soul into the political movements of 1847 and 1848, served in the national guard, sat in the parliament for Tuscany; but finding that there was more talk than action, that to the tyranny of princes had succeeded the tyranny of demagogues, he began to fear, and to express the fear, that for Italy evil rather than good had resulted. He fell, in consequence, from the high position he had held in public estimation, and in 1848 was regarded as a reactionary. His friendship for the marquis Gino Capponi, who had taken him into his house during the last years of his life, and who published after Giusti’s death a volume of illustrated proverbs, was enough to compromise him in the eyes of such men as Guerrazzi, Montanelli and Niccolini. On the 31st of May 1850 he died at Florence in the palace of his friend.

The poetry of Giusti, under a light trivial aspect, has a lofty civilizing significance. The type of his satire is entirely original, and it had also the great merit of appearing at the right moment, of wounding judiciously, of sustaining the part of the comedy that “castigat ridendo mores.” Hence his verse, apparently jovial, was received by the scholars and politicians of Italy in all seriousness. Alexander Manzoni in some of his letters showed a hearty admiration of the genius of Giusti; and the weak Austrian and Bourbon governments regarded them as of the gravest importance.

His poems have often been reprinted, the best editions being those of Le Monnier, Carducci (1859; 3rd ed., 1879), Fioretti (1876) and Bragi (1890). Besides the poems and the proverbs already mentioned, we have a volume of select letters, full of vigour and written in the best Tuscan language, and a fine critical discourse on Giuseppe Parini, the satirical poet. In some of his compositions the elegiac rather than the satirical poet is seen. Many of his verses have been excellently translated into German by Paul Heyse. Good English translations were published in the Athenaeum by Mrs T. A. Trollope, and some by W. D. Howells are in his Modern Italian Poets (1887).

GIUSTINIANI, the name of a prominent Italian family which originally belonged to Venice, but established itself subsequently in Genoa also, and at various times had representatives in Naples, Corsica and several of the islands of the Archipelago.

In the Venetian line the following are most worthy of mention:—

1. Lorenzo (1380-1465), the Laurentius Justinianus of the Roman calendar, at an early age entered the congregation of the canons of St George in Alga, and in 1433 became general of that order. About the same time he was made by Eugenius IV. bishop of Venice; and his episcopate was marked by considerable activity in church extension and reform. On the removal of the patriarchate from Grado to Venice by Nicholas V. in 1451, Giustiniani was promoted to that dignity, which he held for fourteen years. He died on January 8, 1465, was canonized by Pope Alexander VIII., his festival (semi-duplex) being fixed by Innocent XII. for September 5th, the anniversary of his elevation to the bishopric. His works, consisting of sermons, letters and ascetic treatises, have been frequently reprinted,—the best edition being that of the Benedictine P. N. A. Giustiniani, published at Venice in 2 vols. folio, 1751. They are wholly devoid of literary merit. His life has been written by Bernard Giustiniani, by Maffei and also by the Bollandists.

2. Leonardo (1388-1446), brother of the preceding, was for some years a senator of Venice, and in 1443 was chosen procurator of St Mark. He translated into Italian Plutarch’s Lives of Cinna and Lucullus, and was the author of some poetical pieces, amatory and religious—strambotti and canzonetti—as well as of rhetorical prose compositions. Some of the popular songs set to music by him became known as Giustiniani.

3. Bernardo (1408-1489), son of Leonardo, was a pupil of Guarino and of George of Trebizond, and entered the Venetian senate at an early age. He served on several important diplomatic missions both to France and Rome, and about 1485 became one of the council of ten. His orations and letters were published in 1492; but his title to any measure of fame he possesses rests upon his history of Venice, De origine urbis Venetiarum rebusque ab ipsa gestis historia (1492), which was translated into Italian by Domenichi in 1545, and which at the time of its appearance was undoubtedly the best work upon the subject of which it treated. It is to be found in vol. i. of the Thesaurus of Graevius.

4. Pietro, also a senator, lived in the 16th century, and wrote on Historia rerum Venetarum in continuation of that of Bernardo. He was also the author of chronicles De gestis Petri Mocenigi and De bello Venetorum cum Carolo VIII. The latter has been reprinted in the Script. rer. Ital. vol. xxi.

Of the Genoese branch of the family the most prominent members were the following:—

5. Paolo, di Moniglia (1444-1502), a member of the order of Dominicans, was, from a comparatively early age, prior of their convent at Genoa. As a preacher he was very successful, and his talents were fully recognized by successive popes, by whom he was made master of the sacred palace, inquisitor-general for all the Genoese dominions, and ultimately bishop of Scio and Hungarian legate. He was the author of a number of Biblical commentaries (no longer extant), which are said to have been characterized by great erudition.

6. Agostino (1470-1536) was born at Genoa, and spent some wild years in Valencia, Spain. Having in 1487 joined the Dominican order, he gave himself with great energy to the study of Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee and Arabic, and in 1514 began the preparation of a polyglot edition of the Bible. As bishop of Nebbio in Corsica, he took part in some of the earlier sittings of the Lateran council (1516-1517), but, in consequence of party complications, withdrew to his diocese, and ultimately to France, where he became a pensioner of Francis I., and was the first to occupy a chair of Hebrew and Arabic in the university of Paris. After an absence from Corsica for a period of five years, during which he visited England and the Low Countries, and became acquainted with Erasmus and More, he returned to Nebbio, about 1522, and there remained, with comparatively little intermission, till in 1536, when, while returning from a visit to Genoa, he perished in a storm at sea. He was the possessor of a very fine library, which he bequeathed to the republic of Genoa. Of his projected polyglot only the Psalter was published (Psalterium Hebraeum, Graecum, Arabicum, et Chaldaicum, Genoa, 1616). Besides the Hebrew text, the LXX. translation, the Chaldee paraphrase, and an Arabic version, it contains the Vulgate translation, a new Latin translation by the editor, a Latin translation of the Chaldee, and a collection of scholia. Giustiniani printed 2000 copies at his own expense, including fifty in vellum for presentation to the sovereigns of Europe and Asia; but the sale of the work did not encourage him to proceed with the New Testament, which he had also prepared for the press. Besides an edition of the book of Job, containing the original text, the Vulgate, and a new translation, he published a Latin version of the Moreh Nevochim of Maimonides (Director dubitantium aut perplexorum, 1520), and also edited in Latin the Aureus libellus of Aeneas Platonicus, and the Timaeus of Chalcidius. His annals of Genoa (Castigatissimi annali di Genova) were published posthumously in 1537.

The following are also noteworthy:—

7. Pompeio (1569-1616), a native of Corsica, who served under Alessandro Farnese and the marquis of Spinola in the Low Countries, where he lost an arm, and, from the artificial substitute which he wore, came to be known by the sobriquet Bras de Fer. He also defended Crete against the Turks; and subsequently was killed in a reconnaissance at Friuli. He left in Italian a personal narrative of the war in Flanders, which has been repeatedly published in a Latin translation (Bellum Belgicum, Antwerp, 1609).

8. Giovanni (1513-1556), born in Candia, translator of Terence’s Andria and Eunuchus, of Cicero’s In Verrem, and of Virgil’s Aeneid, viii.

9. Orsatto (1538-1603), Venetian senator, translator of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles and author of a collection of Rime, in imitation of Petrarch. He is regarded as one of the latest representatives of the classic Italian school.

10. Geronimo, a Genoese, flourished during the latter half of the 16th century. He translated the Alcestis of Euripides and three of the plays of Sophocles; and wrote two original tragedies, Jephte and Christo in Passione.

11. Vincenzo, who in the beginning of the 17th century built the Roman palace and made the art collection which are still associated with his name (see Galleria Giustiniana, Rome, 1631). The collection was removed in 1807 to Paris, where it was to some extent broken up. In 1815 all that remained of it, about 170 pictures, was purchased by the king of Prussia and removed to Berlin, where it forms a portion of the royal museum.

GIUSTO DA GUANTO [Jodocus, or Justus, of Ghent] (fl. 1465-1475), Flemish painter. The public records of the city of Ghent have been diligently searched, but in vain, for a clue to the history of Justus or Jodocus, whom Vasari and Guicciardini called Giusto da Guanto. Flemish annalists of the 16th century have enlarged upon the scanty statements of Vasari, and described Jodocus as a pupil of Hubert Van Eyck. But there is no source to which this fable can be traced. The registers of St Luke’s gild at Ghent comprise six masters of the name of Joos or Jodocus who practised at Ghent in the 15th century. But none of the works of these masters has been preserved, and it is impossible to compare their style with that of Giusto. It was between 1465 and 1474 that this artist executed the “Communion of the Apostles” which Vasari has described, and modern critics now see to the best advantage in the museum of Urbino. It was painted for the brotherhood of Corpus Christi at the bidding of Frederick of Montefeltro, who was introduced into the picture as the companion of Caterino Zeno, a Persian envoy at that time on a mission to the court of Urbino. From this curious production it may be seen that Giusto, far from being a pupil of Hubert Van Eyck, was merely a disciple of a later and less gifted master, who took to Italy some of the peculiarities of his native schools, and forthwith commingled them with those of his adopted country. As a composer and draughtsman Giusto compares unfavourably with the better-known painters of Flanders; though his portraits are good, his ideal figures are not remarkable for elevation of type or for subtlety of character and expression. His work is technically on a level with that of Gerard of St John, whose pictures are preserved in the Belvedere at Vienna. Vespasian, a Florentine bookseller who contributed much to form the antiquarian taste of Frederick of Montefeltro, states that this duke sent to the Netherlands for a capable artist to paint a series of “ancient worthies” for a library recently erected in the palace of Urbino. It has been conjectured that the author of these “worthies,” which are still in existence at the Louvre and in the Barberini palace at Rome, was Giusto. Yet there are notable divergences between these pictures and the “Communion of the Apostles.” Still, it is not beyond the range of probability that Giusto should have been able, after a certain time, to temper his Flemish style by studying the masterpieces of Santi and Melozzo, and so to acquire the mixed manner of the Flemings and Italians which these portraits of worthies display. Such an assimilation, if it really took place, might justify the Flemings in the indulgence of a certain pride, considering that Raphael not only admired these worthies, but copied them in the sketch-book which is now the ornament of the Venetian Academy. There is no ground for presuming that Giusto ad Guanto is identical with Justus d’Allamagna who painted the “Annunciation” (1451) in the cloisters of Santa Maria di Castello at Genoa. The drawing and colouring of this wall painting shows that Justus d’Allamagna was as surely a native of south Germany as his homonym at Urbino was a born Netherlander.

GIVET, a town of northern France, in the department of Ardennes, 40 m. N. by E. of Mézières on the Eastern railway between the town and Namur. Pop. (1906) town, 5110; commune, 7468. Givet lies on the Meuse about 1 m. from the Belgian frontier, and was formerly a fortress of considerable importance. It is divided into three portions—the citadel called Charlemont and Grand Givet on the left bank of the river, and on the opposite bank Petit Givet, connected with Grand Givet by a stone bridge of five arches. The fortress of Charlemont, situated at the top of a precipitous rock 705 ft. high, was founded by the emperor Charles V. in the 16th century, and further fortified by Vauban at the end of the 17th century; it is the only survival of the fortifications of the town, the rest of which were destroyed in 1892. In Grand Givet there are a church and a town-hall built by Vauban, and a statue of the composer Étienne Méhul stands in the fine square named after him. Petit Givet, the industrial quarter, is traversed by a small tributary of the Meuse, the Houille, which is bordered by tanneries and glue factories. Pencils and tobacco-pipes are also manufactured. The town has considerable river traffic, consisting chiefly of coal, copper and stone. There is a chamber of arts and manufactures.

GIVORS, a manufacturing town of south-eastern France, in the department of Rhône, on the railway between Lyons and St Étienne, 14 m. S. of Lyon. Pop. (1906) 11,444. It is situated on the right bank of the Rhone, here crossed by a suspension bridge, at its confluence with the Gier and the canal of Givors, which starts at Grand Croix on the Gier, some 13 m. distant. The chief industries are metal-working, engineering-construction and glass-working. There are coal mines in the vicinity. On the hill overlooking the town are the ruins of the château of St Gerald and of the convent of St Ferréol, remains of the old town destroyed in 1594.

GJALLAR, in Scandinavian mythology, the horn of Heimdall, the guardian of the rainbow bridge by which the gods pass and repass between earth and heaven. This horn had to be blown whenever a stranger approached the bridge.

GLABRIO. 1. Manius Acilius Glabrio, Roman statesman and general, member of a plebeian family. When consul in 191 B.C. he defeated Antiochus the Great of Syria at Thermopylae, and compelled him to leave Greece. He then turned his attention to the Aetolians, who had persuaded Antiochus to declare war against Rome, and was only prevented from crushing them by the intercession of T. Quinctius Flamininus. In 189 Glabrio was a candidate for the censorship, but was bitterly opposed by the nobles. He was accused by the tribunes of having concealed a portion of the Syrian spoils in his own house; his legate gave evidence against him, and he withdrew his candidature. It is probable that he was the author of the law which left it to the discretion of the pontiffs to insert or omit the intercalary month of the year.

Censorinus, De die natali, xx.; Macrobius, Saturnalia, i. 13; index to Livy; Appian, Syr. 17-21.

2. Manius Acilius Glabrio, Roman statesman and general, grandson of the famous jurist P. Mucius Scaevola. When praetor urbanus (70 B.C.) he presided at the trial of Verres. According to Dio Cassius (xxxvi. 38), in conjunction with L. Calpurnius Piso, his colleague in the consulship (67), he brought forward a severe law (Lex Acilia Calpurnia) against illegal canvassing at elections. In the same year he was appointed to supersede L. Lucullus in the government of Cilicia and the command of the war against Mithradates, but as he did absolutely nothing and was unable to control the soldiery, he was in turn superseded by Pompey according to the provisions of the Manilian law. Little else is known of him except that he declared in favour of the death punishment for the Catilinarian conspirators.

Dio Cassius xxxvi. 14, 16. 24; Cicero, Pro lege Manilia, 2. 9; Appian, Mithrid. 90.

GLACE BAY, a city and port of entry of Cape Breton county, Nova Scotia, Canada, on the Atlantic Ocean, 14 m. E. of Sydney, with which it is connected both by steam and electric railway. It is the centre of the properties of the Dominion Coal Company (founded 1893), which produce most of the coal of Nova Scotia. Though it has a fair harbour, most of the shipping is done from Sydney in summer and from Louisburg in winter. Pop. (1892) 2000; (1901) 6945; (1906) 13,000.

GLACIAL PERIOD, in geology, the name usually given, by English and American writers, to that comparatively recent time when all parts of the world suffered a marked lowering of temperature, accompanied in northern Europe and North America by glacial conditions, not unlike those which now characterize the Polar regions. This period, which is also known as the “Great Ice Age” (German Die Eiszeit), is synchronous with the Pleistocene period, the earlier of the Post-Tertiary or Quaternary divisions of geological time. Although “Glacial period” and “Pleistocene” (q.v.) are often used synonymously it is convenient to consider them separately, inasmuch as not a few Pleistocene formations have no causal relationship with conditions of glaciation. Not until the beginning of the 19th century did the deposits now generally recognized as the result of ice action receive serious attention; the tendency was to regard such superficial and irregular material as mere rubbish. Early ideas upon the subject usually assigned floods as the formative agency, and this view is still not without its supporters (see Sir H. H. Howorth, The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood). Doubtless this attitude was in part due to the comparative rarity of glaciers and ice-fields where the work of ice could be directly observed. It was natural therefore that the first scientific references to glacial action should have been stimulated by the Alpine regions of Switzerland, which called forth the writings of J. J. Scheuchzer, B. F. Kuhn, H. B. de Saussure, F. G. Hugi, and particularly those of J. Venetz, J. G. von Charpentier and L. Aggasiz. Canon Rendu, J. Forbes and others had studied the cause of motion of glaciers, while keen observers, notably Sir James Hall, A. Brongniart and J. Playfair, had noted the occurrence of travelled and scratched stones.

The result of these efforts was the conception of great ice-sheets flowing over the land, grinding the rock surfaces and transporting rock débris in the manner to be observed in the existing glaciers. However, before this view had become established Sir C. Lyell evolved the “drift theory” to explain the widely spread phenomenon of transported blocks, boulder clay and the allied deposits; in this he was supported by Sir H. de la Beche, Charles Darwin, Sir R. I. Murchison and many others. According to the drift theory, the transport and distribution of “erratic blocks,” &c., had been effected by floating icebergs; this view naturally involved a considerable and widespread submergence of the land, an assumption which appeared to receive support from the occasional presence of marine shells at high levels in the “drift” deposits. So great was the influence of those who favoured the drift theory that even to-day it cannot be said to have lost complete hold; we still speak of “drift” deposits in England and America, and the belief in one or more great submergences during the Glacial period is still held more firmly by certain geologists than the evidence would seem to warrant. The case against the drift theory was most clearly expressed by Sir A. C. Ramsay for England and Scotland, and by the Swedish scientist Otto Torell. Since then the labours of Professor James Geikie, Sir Archibald Geikie, Professor P. Kendall and others in England; von Verendt, H. Credner, de Geer, E. Geinitz, A. Helland, Jentzsch, K. Keilhack, A. Penck, H. Schröder, F. Wahnschaffe in Scandinavia and Germany; T. C. Chamberlin, W. Upham, G. F. Wright in North America, have all tended to confirm the view that it is to the movement of glaciers and ice-sheets that we must look as the predominant agent of transport and abrasion in this period. The three stages through which our knowledge of glacial work has advanced may thus be summarized: (1) the diluvial hypothesis, deposits formed by floods; (2) the drift hypothesis, deposits formed mainly by icebergs and floating ice; (3) the ice-sheet hypothesis, deposits formed directly or indirectly through the agency of flowing ice.

Evidences.—The evidence relied upon by geologists for the former existence of the great ice-sheets which traversed the northern regions of Europe and America is mainly of two kinds: (1) the peculiar erosion of the older rocks by ice and ice-borne stones, and (2) the nature and disposition of ice-borne rock débris. After having established the criteria by which the work of moving ice is to be recognized in regions of active glaciation, the task of identifying the results of earlier glaciation elsewhere has been carried on with unabated energy.

1. Ice Erosion.—Although there are certain points of difference between the work of glaciers and broad ice-sheets, the former being more or less restricted laterally by the valleys in which they flow, the general results of their passage over the rocky floor are essentially similar. Smooth rounded outlines are imparted to the rocks, markedly contrasting with the pinnacled and irregular surfaces produced by ordinary weathering; where these rounded surfaces have been formed on a minor scale the well-known features of roches moutonnées (German Rundhöcker) are created; on a larger scale we have the erosion-form known as “crag and tail,” when the ice-sheet has overridden ground with more pronounced contours, the side of the hill facing the advancing ice being rounded and gently curved (German Stossseite), and the opposite side (Leeseite) steep, abrupt and much less smooth. Such features are never associated with the erosion of water. The rounding of rock surfaces is regularly accompanied by grooving and striation (German Schrammen, Schliffe) caused by the grinding action of stones and boulders embedded in the moving ice. These “glacial striae” are of great value in determining the latest path of the vanished ice-sheets (see map). Several other erosion-features are generally associated with ice action; such are the circular-headed valleys, “cirques” or “corries” (German Zirkus) of mountain districts; the pot-holes, giants’ kettles (Strudellöcher, Riesentöpfe), familiarly exemplified in the Gletschergarten near Lucerne; the “rock-basins” (Felsseebecken) of mountainous regions are also believed to be assignable to this cause on account of their frequent association with other glacial phenomena, but it is more than probable that the action of running water (waterfalls, &c.)—influenced no doubt by the disposition of the ice—has had much to do with these forms of erosion. As regards rock-basins, geologists are still divided in opinion: Sir A. C. Ramsay, J. Geikie, Tyndall, Helland, H. Hess, A. Penck, and others have expressed themselves in favour of a glacial origin; while A. Heim, F. Stapff, T. Kjerulf, L. Rütimeyer and many others have strongly opposed this view.

2. Glacial deposits may be roughly classified in two groups: those that have been formed directly by the action of the ice, and those formed through the agency of water flowing under, upon, and from the ice-sheets, or in streams and lakes modified by the presence of the ice. To differentiate in practice between the results of these two agencies is a matter of some difficulty in the case of unstratified deposits; but the boulder clay may be taken as the typical formation of the glacier or ice-sheet, whether it has been left as a terminal moraine at the limit of glaciation or as a ground moraine beneath the ice. A stratified form of boulder clay, which not infrequently rests upon, and is therefore younger than, the more typical variety, is usually regarded as a deposit formed by water from the material (englacial, innenmorän) held in suspension within the ice, and set free during the process of melting. Besides the innumerable boulders, large and small, embedded in the boulder clay, isolated masses of rock, often of enormous size, have been borne by ice-sheets far from their original home and stranded when the ice melted. These “erratic blocks,” “perched blocks” (German Findlinge) are familiar objects in the Alpine glacier districts, where they have frequently received individual names, but they are just as easily recognized in regions from which the glaciers that brought them there have long since been banished. Not only did the ice transport blocks of hard rock, granite and the like, but huge masses of stratified rock were torn from their bed by the same agency; the masses of chalk in the cliffs near Cromer are well known; near Berlin, at Firkenwald, there is a transported mass of chalk estimated to be at least 2,000,000 cubic metres in bulk, which has travelled probably 15 kilometres from its original site; a block of Lincolnshire oolite is recorded by C. Fox-Strangways near Melton in Leicestershire, which is 300 yds. long and 100 yds. broad if no more; and instances of a similar kind might be multiplied.

When we turn to the “fluvio-glacial” deposits we find a bewildering variety of stratified and partially bedded deposits of gravel, sand and clay, occurring separately or in every conceivable condition of association. Some of these deposits have received distinctive names; such are the “Kames” of Scotland, which are represented in Ireland by “Eskers,” and in Scandinavia by “Åsar.” Another type of hillocky deposit is exemplified by the “drums” or “drumlins.” Everywhere beyond the margin of the advancing or retreating ice-sheets these deposits were being formed; streams bore away coarse and fine materials and spread them out upon alluvial plains or upon the floors of innumerable lakes, many of which were directly caused by the damming of the ordinary water-courses by the ice. As the level of such lakes was changed new beach-lines were produced, such as are still evident in the great lake region of North America, in the parallel roads of Glen Roy, and the “Strandlinien” of many parts of northern Europe.

Viewed in relation to man’s position on the earth, no geological changes have had a more profound importance than those of the Glacial period. The whole of the glaciated region bears evidence of remarkable modification of topographic features; in parts of Scotland or Norway or Canada the old rocks are bared of soil, rounded and smoothed as far as the eye can see. The old soil and subsoil, the product of ages of ordinary weathering, were removed from vast areas to be deposited and concentrated in others. Old valleys were filled—often to a great depth, 300-400 ft.; rivers were diverted from their old courses, never to return; lakes of vast size were caused by the damming of old outlets (Lake Lahontan, Lake Agassiz, &c., in North America), while an infinite number of shifting lakelets—with their deposits—played an important part along the ice-front at all stages of its career. The influence of this period upon the present distribution of plant and animal life in northern latitudes can hardly be overestimated.

Much stress has been laid upon supposed great changes in the level of the land in northern regions during the Glacial period. The occurrence of marine shells at an elevation of 1350 ft. at Moel Tryfaen in north Wales, and at 1200 ft. near Macclesfield in Cheshire, has been cited as evidence of profound submergence by some geologists, though others see in these and similar occurrences only the transporting action of ice-sheets that have traversed the floor of the adjoining seas. Marine shells in stratified materials have been found on the coast of Scotland at 100 ft. and over, in S. Scandinavia at 600 to 800 ft., and in the “Champlain” deposits of North America at various heights. The dead shells of the “Yoldia clay” cover wide areas at the bottom of the North Atlantic at depths from 500 to 1300 fathoms, though the same mollusc is now found living in Arctic seas at the depth of 5 to 15 fathoms. This has been looked upon as a proof that in the N.W. European region the lithosphere stood about 2600 ft. higher than it does now (Brögger, Nansen, &c.), and it has been suggested that a union of the mainland of Europe with that of North America—forming a northern continental mass, “Prosarctis”—may have been achieved by way of Iceland, Jan Mayen Land and Greenland. The pre-glacial valleys and fjords of Norway and Scotland, with their deeply submerged seaward ends, are regarded as proofs of former elevation. The great depth of alluvium in some places (236 metres at Bremen) points in the same direction. Evidences of changes of level occur in early, middle and late Pleistocene formations, and the nature of the evidence is such that it is on the whole safer to assume the existence only of the more moderate degree of change.

The Cause of the Glacial Period.—Many attempts have been made to formulate a satisfactory hypothesis that shall conform with the known facts and explain the great change in climatic conditions which set in towards the close of the Tertiary era, and culminated during the Glacial period. Some of the more prominent hypotheses may be mentioned, but space will not permit of a detailed analysis of theories, most of which rest upon somewhat unsubstantial ground. The principal facts to be taken into consideration are (1) the great lowering of temperature over the whole earth; (2) the localization of extreme glaciation in north-west Europe and north-east America; and (3) the local retrogression of the ice-sheets, once or more times repeated.

Some have suggested the simple solution of a change in the earth’s axis, and have indicated that the pole may have travelled through some 15° to 20° of latitude; thus, the polar glaciation, as it now exists, might have been in this way transferred to include north-west Europe and North America; but modern views on the rigidity of the earth’s body, together with the lack of any evidence of the correlative movement of climatic zones in other parts of the world, render this hypothesis quite untenable. On similar grounds a change in the earth’s centre of gravity is unthinkable. Theories based upon the variations in the obliquity of the ecliptic or eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, or on the passage of the solar system through cold regions of space, or upon the known variations in the heat emitted by the sun, are all insecure and unsatisfactory. The hypothesis elaborated by James Croll (Phil. Mag., 1864, 28, p. 121; Climate and Time, 1875; and Discussion on Climate and Cosmology, 1889) was founded upon the assumption that with the earth’s eccentricity at its maximum and winter in the north at aphelion, there would be a tendency in northern latitudes for the accumulation of snow and ice, which would be accentuated indirectly by the formation of fogs and a modification of the trade winds. The shifting of the thermal equator, and with it the direction of the trade winds, would divert some of the warm ocean currents from the cold regions, and this effect was greatly enhanced, he considered, by the configuration of the Atlantic Ocean. Croll’s hypothesis was supported by Sir R. Ball (The Cause of the Great Ice Age, 1893), and it met with very general acceptance; but it has been destructively criticized by Professor S. Newcomb (Phil. Mag., 1876, 1883, 1884) and by E. P. Culverwell (Phil. Mag., 1894, p. 541, and Geol. Mag., 1895, pp. 3 and 55). The difficulties in the way of Croll’s theory are: (1) the fundamental assumption, that midwinter and midsummer temperatures are directly proportional to the sun’s heat at those periods, is not in accordance with observed facts; (2) the glacial periods would be limited in duration to an appropriate fraction of the precessional period (21,000 years), which appears to be too short a time for the work that was actually done by ice agency; and (3) Croll’s glacial periods would alternate between the northern and southern hemispheres, affecting first one then the other. Sir C. Lyell and others have advocated the view that great elevation of the land in polar regions would be conducive to glacial conditions; this is doubtless true, but the evidence that the Glacial period was primarily due to this cause is not well established. Other writers have endeavoured to support the elevation theory by combining with it various astronomical and meteorological agencies. More recently several hypotheses have been advanced to explain the glacial period as the result of changes in the atmosphere; F. W. Harmer (“The Influence of Winds upon the Climate during the Pleistocene Epoch,” Q.J.G.S., 1901, 57, p. 405) has shown the importance of the influence of winds in certain circumstances; Marsden Manson (“The Evolution of Climate,” American Geologist, 1899, 24, p. 93) has laid stress upon the influence of clouds; but neither of these theories grapples successfully with the fundamental difficulties. Others again have requisitioned the variability in the amount of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—hypotheses which depend upon the efficiency of this gas as a thermal absorbent. The supply of carbon dioxide may be increased from time to time, as by the emanations from volcanoes (S. Arrhenius and A. G. Hogböm), or it may be decreased by absorption into sea-water, and by the carbonation of rocks. Professor T. C. Chamberlin based a theory of glaciation on the depletion of the carbon dioxide of the air (“An Attempt to frame a Working Hypothesis of the cause of Glacial Periods on an Atmospheric Basis,” Jl. Geol., 1899, vii. 752-771; see also Chamberlin and Salisbury, Geology, 1906, ii. 674 and iii. 432). The outline of this hypothesis is as follows: The general conditions for glaciation were (1) that the oceanic circulation was interrupted by the existence of land; (2) that vertical circulation of the atmosphere was accelerated by continental and other influences; (3) that the thermal blanketing of the earth was reduced by a depletion of the moisture and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and that hence the average temperature of the surface of the earth and of the body of the ocean was reduced, and diversity in the distribution of heat and moisture introduced. The localization of glaciation is assignable to the two great areas of permanent atmospheric depression that have their present centres near Greenland and the Aleutian Islands respectively. The periodicity of glacial advances and retreats, demanded by those who believe in the validity of so-called “interglacial” epochs, is explained by a series of complicated processes involving the alternate depletion and completion of the normal charge of carbon dioxide in the air.

Whatever may be the ultimate verdict upon this difficult subject, it is tolerably clear that no simple cause of glacial conditions is likely to be discovered, but rather it will appear that these conditions resulted from the interaction of a complicated series of factors; and further, until a greater degree of unanimity can be approached in the interpretation of observed facts, particularly as regards the substantiality of interglacial epochs, the very foundations of a sound working hypothesis are wanting.

Classification of Glacial Deposits—Interglacial Epochs.—Had the deposits of glaciated regions consisted solely of boulder clay little difficulty might have been experienced in dealing with their classification. But there are intercalated in the boulder clays those irregular stratified and partially stratified masses of sand, gravel and loam, frequently containing marine or freshwater shells and layers of peat with plant remains, which have given rise to the conception of “interglacial epochs”—pauses in the rigorous conditions of glaciation, when the ice-sheets dwindled almost entirely away, while plants and animals re-established themselves on the newly exposed soil. Glacialists may be ranged in two schools: those who believe that one or more phases of milder climatic conditions broke up the whole Glacial period into alternating epochs of glaciation and “deglaciation”; and those who believe that the intercalated deposits represent rather the localized recessional movements of the ice-sheets within one single period of glaciation. In addition to the stratified deposits and their contents, important evidence in favour of interglacial epochs occurs in the presence of weathered surfaces on the top of older boulder clays, which are themselves covered by younger glacial deposits.

The cause of the interglacial hypothesis has been most ardently championed in England by Professor James Geikie; who has endeavoured to show that there were in Europe six distinct glacial epochs within the Glacial period, separated by five epochs of more moderate temperature. These are enumerated below:

6th Glacial epoch, Upper Turbarian, indicated by the deposits of peat which underlie the lower raised beaches.

5th Interglacial epoch, Upper Forestian.

5th Glacial epoch, Lower Turbarian, indicated by peat deposits overlying the lower forest-bed, by the raised beaches and carse-clays of Scotland, and in part by the Littorina-clays of Scandinavia.

4th Interglacial epoch, Lower Forestian, the lower forests under peat beds, the Ancylus-beds of the great freshwater Baltic lake and the Littorina-clays of Scandinavia.

4th Glacial epoch, Mecklenburgian, represented by the moraines of the last great Baltic glacier, which reach their southern limit in Mecklenburg; the 100-ft. terrace of Scotland and the Yoldia-beds of Scandinavia.

3rd Interglacial epoch, Neudeckian, intercalations of marine and freshwater deposits in the boulder clays of the southern Baltic coasts.

3rd Glacial epoch, Polandian, glacial and fluvio-glacial formations of the minor Scandinavian ice-sheet; and the “upper boulder clay” of northern and western Europe.

2nd Interglacial epoch, Helvetian, interglacial beds of Britain and lignites of Switzerland.

2nd Glacial epoch, Saxonian, deposits of the period of maximum glaciation when the northern ice-sheet reached the low ground of Saxony, and the Alpine glaciers formed the outermost moraines.

1st Interglacial epoch, Norfolkian, the forest-bed series of Norfolk.

1st Glacial epoch, Scanian, represented only in the south of Sweden, which was overridden by a large Baltic glacier. The Chillesford clay and Weybourne crag of Norfolk and the oldest moraines and fluvio-glacial gravels of the Arctic lands may belong to this epoch.

In a similar manner Professor Chamberlin and other American geologists have recognized the following stages in the glaciation of North America:

The Champlain, marine substage.

The Glacio-lacustrine substage.

The later Wisconsin (6th glacial).

The fifth interglacial.

The earlier Wisconsin (5th glacial).

The Peorian (4th interglacial).

The Iowan (4th glacial).

The Sangamon (3rd interglacial).

The Illinoian (3rd glacial).

The Yarmouth or Buchanan (2nd interglacial).

The Kansan (2nd glacial).

The Aftonian (1st interglacial).

The sub-Aftonian or Jerseyan (1st glacial).

Although it is admitted that no strict correlation of the European and North American stages is possible, it has been suggested that the Aftonian may be the equivalent of the Helvetian; the Kansan may represent the Saxonian; the Iowan, the Polandian; the Jerseyan, the Scanian; the early Wisconsin, the Mecklenburgian. But considering how fragmentary is much of the evidence in favour of these stages both in Europe and America, the value of such attempts at correlation must be infinitesimal. This is the more evident when it is observed that there are other geologists of equal eminence who are unable to accept so large a number of epochs after a close study of the local circumstances; thus, in the subjoined scheme for north Germany, after H. W. Munthe, there are three glacial and two interglacial epochs.

Post-Glacial epoch The Mya time = beech-time.
The Littorina time = oak-time.
The Ancylus time = pine- and birch-time.

3rd Glacial epoch Including the upper boulder clay, “younger Baltic moraine”
with the Yoldia or Dryas phase in the retrogressive stage.

2nd Interglacial epoch including the Cyprina-clay.

2nd Glacial epoch, the maximum glaciation.

1st Interglacial epoch.

1st Glacial epoch, “older boulder clay.”

Again, in the Alps four interglacial epochs have been recognized; while in England there are many who are willing to concede one such epoch, though even for this the evidence is not enough to satisfy all glacialists (G. W. Lamplugh, Address, Section C, Brit. Assoc., York, 1906).

This great diversity of opinion is eloquent of the difficulties of the subject; it is impossible not to see that the discovery of interglacial epochs bears a close relationship to the origin of certain hypotheses of the cause of glaciation; while it is significant that those who have had to do the actual mapping of glacial deposits have usually greater difficulty in finding good evidence of such definite ameliorations of climate, than those who have founded their views upon the examination of numerous but isolated areas.

Extent of Glacial Deposits.—From evidence of the kind cited above, it appears that during the glacial period a series of great ice-sheets covered enormous areas in North America and north-west Europe. The area covered during the maximum extension of the ice has been reckoned at 20 million square kilometres (nearly 8 million sq. m.) in North America and 6½ million square kilometres (about 2½ million sq. m.) in Europe.

In Europe three great centres existed from which the ice-streams radiated; foremost in importance was the region of Fennoscandia (the name for Scandinavia with Finland as a single geological region); from this centre the ice spread out far into Germany and Russia and westward, across the North Sea, to the shores of Britain. The southern boundary of the ice extended from the estuary of the Rhine in an irregular series of lobes along the Schiefergebirge, Harz, Thüringerwald, Erzgebirge and Riesengebirge, and the northern flanks of the Carpathians towards Cracow. Down the valley of the Dnieper a lobe of the ice-sheet projected as far as 40° 50′ N.; another lobe extended down the Don valley as far as 48° N.; thence the boundary runs north-easterly towards the Urals and the Kara Sea. The British Islands constituted the centre second in importance; Scotland, Ireland and all but the southern part of England were covered by a moving ice-cap. On the west the ice-sheets reached out to sea; on the east they were conterminous with those from Scandinavia. The third European centre was the Alpine region; it is abundantly clear from the masses of morainic detritus and perched blocks that here, in the time of maximum glaciation, the ice-covered area was enormously in excess of the shrivelled remnants, which still remain in the existing glaciers. All the valleys were filled with moving ice; thus the Rhone glacier at its maximum filled Lake Geneva and the plain between the Bernese Oberland and the Jura; it even overrode the latter and advanced towards Besançon. Extensive glaciation was not limited to the aforesaid regions, for all the areas of high ground had their independent glaciers strongly developed; the Pyrenees, the central highlands of France, the Vosges, Black Forest, Apennines and Caucasus were centres of minor but still important glaciation.

The greatest expansion of ice-sheets was located on the North American continent; here, too, there were three principal centres of outflow: the “Cordilleran” ice-sheet in the N.W., the “Keewatin” sheet, radiating from the central Canadian plains, and the eastern “Labrador” or “Laurentide” sheet. From each of these centres the ice poured outwards in every direction, but the principal flow in each case was towards the south-west. The southern boundary of the glaciated area runs as an irregular line along the 49° parallel in the western part of the continent, thence it follows the Mississippi valley down to its junction with the Ohio (southern limit 37° 30′ N.), eastward it follows the direction of that river and turns north-eastward in the direction of New Jersey. As in Europe, the mountainous regions of North America produced their own local glaciers; in the Rockies, the Olympics and Sierras, the Bighorn Mountains of Wyoming, the Uinta Mountains of Utah, &c. Although it was in the northern hemisphere that the most extensive glaciation took place, the effects of a general lowering of temperature seem to have been felt in the mountainous regions of all parts; thus in South America, New Zealand, Australia and Tasmania glaciers reached down the valleys far below the existing limits, and even where none are now to be found. In Asia the evidences of a former extension of glaciation are traceable in the Himalayas, and northward in the high ranges of China and Eastern Siberia. The same is true of parts of Turkestan and Lebanon. In Africa also, in British East Africa moraines are discovered 5400 ft. below their modern limit. In Iceland and Greenland, and even in the Antarctic, there appears to be evidence of a former greater extension of the ice. It is of interest to note that Alaska seems to be free from excessive glaciation, and that a remarkable “driftless” area lies in Wisconsin. The maximum glaciation of the Glacial period was clearly centred around the North Atlantic.

Glacial Epochs in the Older Geological Periods.—Since Ramsay drew attention to the subject in 1855 (“On the occurrence of angular, subangular, polished and striated fragments and boulders in the Permian Breccia of Shropshire, Worcestershire, &c., and on the probable existence of glaciers and icebergs in the Permian epoch,” Q.J.G.S., 1855, pp. 185-205), a good deal of attention has been paid to such formations. It is now generally acknowledged that the Permo-carboniferous conglomerates with striated boulders and polished rock surfaces, such as are found in the Karoo formation of South Africa, the Talkir conglomerate of the Salt Range in India, and the corresponding formations in Australia, represent undeniable glacial conditions at that period on the great Indo-Australian continent. A glacial origin has been suggested for numerous other conglomeratic formations, such as the Pre-Cambrian Torridonian of Scotland, and “Geisaschichten” of Norway; the basal Carboniferous conglomerate of parts of England; the Permian breccias of England and parts of Europe; the Trias of Devonshire; the coarse conglomerates in the Tertiary Flysch in central Europe; and the Miocene conglomerates of the Ligurian Apennines. In regard to the glacial nature of all these formations there is, however, great divergence of opinion (see A. Heim, “Zur Frage der exotischen Blöcke in Flysch,” Eclogae geologicae Helvetiae, vol. ix. No. 3, 1907, pp. 413-424).

Authorities.—The literature dealing directly with the Glacial period has reached enormous dimensions; in addition to the works already mentioned the following may be taken as a guide to the general outline of the subject: J. Geikie, The Great Ice Age (3rd ed., London, 1904), also Earth Sculpture (1898); G. F. Wright, The Ice Age in North America (4th ed., New York, 1905) and Man and the Glacial Period (1892); F. E. Geinitz, Die Eiszeit (Braunschweig, 1906); A. Penck and E. Brückner, Die Alpen im Eiszeitalter (Leipzig, 1901-1906, uncompleted). Many references to the literature will be found in Sir A. Geikie’s Textbook of Geology, vol. ii. (4th ed., 1903); Chamberlin and Salisbury, Geology, vol. iii. (1906). As an example of glacial theories carried beyond the usual limits, see M. Gugenhan, Die Ergletscherung der Erde von Pol zu Pol (Berlin, 1906). See also Zeitschrift für Gletscherkunde (Berlin, 1906 and onwards quarterly); Sir H. H. Howorth (opposing accepted glacial theories), The Glacial Nightmare and the Flood, i., ii. (London, 1893), Ice and Water, i., ii. (London, 1905), The Mammoth and the Flood (London, 1887).

(J. A. H.)

GLACIER (adopted from the French; from glace, ice, Lat. glacies), a mass of compacted ice originating in a snow-field. Glaciers are formed on any portion of the earth’s surface that is permanently above the snow-line. This line varies locally in the same latitudes, being in some places higher than in others, but in the main it may be described as an elliptical shell surrounding the earth with its longest diameter in the tropics and its shortest in the polar regions, where it touches sea-level. From the extreme regions of the Arctic and Antarctic circles this cold shell swells upwards into a broad dome, from 15,000 to 18,000 ft. high over the tropics, truncating, as it rises, a number of peaks and mountain ranges whose upper portions like all regions above this thermal shell receive all their moisture in the form of snow. Since the temperature above the snow-line is below freezing point evaporation is very slight, and as the snow is solid it tends to accumulate in snow-fields, where the snow of one year is covered by that of the next, and these are wrapped over many deeper layers that have fallen in previous years. If these piles of snow were rigid and immovable they would increase in height until the whole field rose above the zone of ordinary atmospheric precipitation, and the polar ice-caps would add a load to these regions that would produce far-reaching results. The mountain regions also would rise some miles in height, and all their features would be buried in domes of snow some miles in thickness. When, however, there is sufficient weight the mass yields to pressure and flows outwards and downwards. Thus a balance of weight and height is established, and the ice-field is disintegrated principally at the edges, the surplus in polar regions being carried off in the form of icebergs, and in mountain regions by streams that flow from the melting ends of the glaciers.

Formation.—The formation of glaciers is in all cases due to similar causes, namely, to periodical and intermittent falls of snow. After a snow-fall there is a period of rest during which the snow becomes compacted by pressure and assumes the well-known granular character seen in banks and patches of ordinary snow that lie longest upon the ground when the snow is melting. This is the firn or névé. The next fall of snow covers and conceals the névé, but the light fresh crystals of this new snow in turn become compacted to the coarsely crystalline granular form of the underlying layer and become névé in turn. The process goes on continually; the lower layers become subject to greater and greater pressure, and in consequence become gradually compacted into dense clear ice, which, however, retains its granular crystalline texture throughout. The upper layers of névé are usually stratified, owing to some individual peculiarity in the fall, or to the accumulation of dust or débris upon the surface before it is covered by fresh snow. This stratification is often visible on the emerging glacier, though it is to be distinguished from the foliation planes caused by shearing movement in the body of the glacier ice.

Types.—The snow-field upon which a glacier depends is always formed when snow-fall is greater than snow-waste. This occurs under varying conditions with a differently resulting type of glacier. There are limited fields of snow in many mountain regions giving rise to long tongues of ice moving slowly down the valleys and therefore called “valley glaciers.” The greater part of Greenland is covered by an ice-cap extending over nearly 400,000 sq. m., forming a kind of enormous continuous glacier on its lower slopes. The Antarctic ice region is believed to extend over more than 3,000,000 sq. m. Each of these continental fields, besides producing block as distinguished from tongue glaciers, sends into the sea a great number of icebergs during the summer season. These ice-caps covering great regions are by far the most important types. Between these “polar” or “continental glaciers” and the “alpine” type there are many grades. Smaller detached ice-caps may rest upon high plateaus as in Iceland, or several tongues of ice coming down neighbouring valleys may splay out into convergent lobes on lower ground and form a “piedmont glacier” such as the Malaspina Glacier in Alaska. When the snow-field lies in a small depression the glacier may remain suspended in the hollow and advance no farther than the edge of the snow-field. This is called a “cliff-glacier,” and is not uncommon in mountain regions. The end of a larger glacier, or the edge of an ice-sheet, may reach a precipitous cliff, where the ice will break from the edge of the advancing mass and fall in blocks to the lower ground, where a “reconstructed glacier” will be formed from the fragments and advance farther down the slope.