Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Gordon, Lord George" to "Grasses" (part 2)

Goethe’s Faust had for years exercised a strong fascination over Gounod, and he at last determined to turn it to operatic account. The performance at a Paris theatre of a drama on the same subject delayed the production of his opera for a time. In the meanwhile he wrote in a few months the music for an operatic version of Molière’s comedy, Le Médecin malgré lui, which was produced at the Théâtre Lyrique in 1858. Berlioz well described this charming little work when he wrote of it, “Everything is pretty, piquant, fluent, in this ‘opéra comique’; there is nothing superfluous and nothing wanting.” The first performance of Faust took place at the Théâtre Lyrique on the 19th of March 1859. Goethe’s masterpiece had already been utilized for operatic purposes by various composers, the most celebrated of whom was Spohr. The subject had also inspired Schumann, Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner, to mention only a few, and the enormous success of Gounod’s opera did not deter Boito from writing his Mefistofele. Faust is without doubt the most popular French opera of the second half of the 19th century. Its success has been universal, and nowhere has it achieved greater vogue than in the land of Goethe. For years it remained the recognized type of modern French opera. At the time of its production in Paris it was scarcely appreciated according to its merits. Its style was too novel, and its luscious harmonies did not altogether suit the palates of those dilettanti who still looked upon Rossini as the incarnation of music. Times have indeed changed, and French composers have followed the road opened by Gounod, and have further developed the form of the lyrical drama, adopting the theories of Wagner in a manner suitable to their national temperament. Although in its original version Faust contained spoken dialogue, and was divided into set pieces according to custom, yet it differed greatly from the operas of the past. Gounod had not studied the works of German masters such as Mendelssohn and Schumann in vain, and although his own style is eminently Gallic, yet it cannot be denied that much of its charm emanates from a certain poetic sentimentality which seems to have a Teutonic origin. Certainly no music such as his had previously been produced by any French composer. Auber was a gay trifler, scattering his bright effusions with absolute insouciance, teeming with melodious ideas, but lacking depth. Berlioz, a musical Titan, wrestled against fate with a superhuman energy, and, Jove-like, subjugated his hearers with his thunderbolts. It was, however, reserved for Gounod to introduce la note tendre, to sing the tender passion in accents soft and languorous. The musical language employed in Faust was new and fascinating, and it was soon to be adopted by many other French composers, certain of its idioms thereby becoming hackneyed. Gounod’s opera was given in London in 1863, when its success, at first doubtful, became enormous, and it was heard concurrently at Covent Garden and Her Majesty’s theatres. Since then it has never lost its popularity.

Although the success of Faust in Paris was at first not so great as might have been expected, yet it gradually increased and set the seal on Gounod’s fame. The fortunate composer now experienced no difficulty in finding an outlet for his works, and the succeeding decade is a specially important one in his career. The opera from his pen which came after Faust was Philémon et Baucis, a setting of the mythological tale in which the composer followed the traditions of the Opéra Comique, employing spoken dialogue, while not abdicating the individuality of his own style. This work was produced at the Théâtre Lyrique in 1860. It has repeatedly been heard in London. La Reine de Saba, a four-act opera, produced at the Grand Opéra on the 28th of February 1862, was altogether a far more ambitious work. For some reason it did not meet with success, although the score contains some of Gounod’s choicest inspirations, notably the well-known air, “Lend me your aid.” La Reine de Saba was adapted for the English stage under the name of Irene. The non-success of this work proved a great disappointment to Gounod, who, however, set to work again, and this time with better results, Mireille, the fruit of his labours, being given for the first time at the Théâtre Lyrique on the 19th of March 1864. Founded upon the Mireio of the Provençal poet Mistral, Mireille contains much charming and characteristic music. The libretto seems to have militated against its success, and although several revivals have taken place and various modifications and alterations have been made in the score, yet Mireille has never enjoyed a very great vogue. Certain portions of this opera have, however, been popularized in the concert-room. La Colombe, a little opera in two acts without pretension, deserves mention here. It was originally heard at Baden in 1860, and subsequently at the Opéra Comique. A suavely melodious entr’acte from this little work has survived and been repeatedly performed.

Animated with the desire to give a pendant to his Faust, Gounod now sought for inspiration from Shakespeare, and turned his attention to Romeo and Juliet. Here, indeed, was a subject particularly well calculated to appeal to a composer who had so eminently qualified himself to be considered the musician of the tender passion. The operatic version of the Shakespearean tragedy was produced at the Théâtre Lyrique on the 27th of April 1867. It is generally considered as being the composer’s second best opera. Some people have even placed it on the same level as Faust, but this verdict has not found general acceptance. Gounod himself is stated to have expressed his opinion of the relative value of the two operas enigmatically by saying, “Faust is the oldest, but I was younger; Roméo is the youngest, but I was older.” The luscious strains wedded to the love scenes, if at times somewhat cloying, are generally in accord with the situations, often irresistibly fascinating, while always absolutely individual. The success of Roméo in Paris was great from the outset, and eventually this work was transferred to the Grand Opéra, after having for some time formed part of the répertoire of the Opéra Comique. In London it was not until the part of Romeo was sung by Jean de Reszke that this opera obtained any real hold upon the English public.

After having so successfully sought for inspiration from Molière, Goethe and Shakespeare, Gounod now turned to another famous dramatist, and selected Pierre Corneille’s Polyeucte as the subject of his next opera. Some years were, however, to elapse before this work was given to the public. The Franco-German War had broken out, and Gounod was compelled to take refuge in London, where he composed the “biblical elegy” Gallia for the inauguration of the Royal Albert Hall. During his stay in London Gounod composed a great deal and wrote a number of songs to English words, many of which have attained an enduring popularity, such as “Maid of Athens,” “There is a green hill far away,” “Oh that we two were maying,” “The fountain mingles with the river.” His sojourn in London was not altogether pleasant, as he was embroiled in lawsuits with publishers. On Gounod’s return to Paris he hurriedly set to music an operatic version of Alfred de Vigny’s Cinq-Mars, which was given at the Opéra Comique on the 5th of April 1877 (and in London in 1900), without obtaining much success. Polyeucte, his much-cherished work, appeared at the Grand Opéra the following year on the 7th of October, and did not meet with a better fate. Neither was Gounod more fortunate with Le Tribut de Zamora, his last opera, which, given on the same stage in 1881, speedily vanished, never to reappear. In his later dramatic works he had, unfortunately, made no attempt to keep up with the times, preferring to revert to old-fashioned methods.

The genius of the great composer was, however, destined to assert itself in another field—that of sacred music. His friend Camille Saint-Saëns, in a volume entitled Portraits et Souvenirs, writes:

Gounod did not cease all his life to write for the church, to accumulate masses and motetts; but it was at the commencement of his career, in the Messe de Sainte Cécile, and at the end, in the oratorios The Redemption and Mors et vita, that he rose highest.

Saint-Saëns, indeed, has formulated the opinion that the three above-mentioned works will survive all the master’s operas. Among the many masses composed by Gounod at the outset of his career, the best is the Messe de Sainte Cécile, written in 1855. He also wrote the Messe du Sacré Cœur (1876) and the Messe à la mémoire de Jeanne d’Arc (1887). This last work offers certain peculiarities, being written for solos, chorus, organ, eight trumpets, three trombones, and harps. In style it has a certain affinity with Palestrina. The Redemption, which seems to have acquired a permanent footing in Great Britain, was produced at the Birmingham Festival of 1882. It was styled a sacred trilogy, and was dedicated to Queen Victoria. The score is prefixed by a commentary written by the composer, in which the scope of the oratorio is explained. It cannot be said that Gounod has altogether risen to the magnitude of his task. The music of The Redemption bears the unmistakable imprint of the composer’s hand, and contains many beautiful thoughts, but the work in its entirety is not exempt from monotony. Mors et vita, a sacred trilogy dedicated to Pope Leo XIII., was also produced for the first time in Birmingham at the Festival of 1885. This work is divided into three parts, “Mors,” “Judicium,” “Vita.” The first consists of a Requiem, the second depicts the Judgment, the third Eternal Life. Although quite equal, if not superior to The Redemption, Mors et vita has not obtained similar success.

Gounod was a great worker, an indefatigable writer, and it would occupy too much space to attempt even an incomplete catalogue of his compositions. Besides the works already mentioned may be named two symphonies which were played during the ’fifties, but have long since fallen into neglect. Symphonic music was not Gounod’s forte, and the French master evidently recognized the fact, for he made no further attempts in this style. The incidental music he wrote to the dramas Les Deux Reines and Jeanne d’Arc must not be forgotten. He also attempted to set Molière’s comedy, Georges Dandin, to music, keeping to the original prose. This work has never been brought out. Gounod composed a large number of songs, many of which are very beautiful. One of the vocal pieces that have contributed most to his popularity is the celebrated Meditation on the First Prelude of Bach, more widely known as the Ave Maria. The idea of fitting a melody to the Prelude of Bach was original, and it must be admitted that in this case the experiment was successful.

Gounod died at St Cloud on the 18th of October 1893. His influence on French music was immense, though during the last years of the 19th century it was rather counterbalanced by that of Wagner. Whatever may be the verdict of posterity, it is unlikely that the quality of individuality will be denied to Gounod. To be the composer of Faust is alone a sufficient title to lasting fame.

(A. He.)

Photographed from specimens in the British Museum.

1-5. Various forms of bottle gourd, Lagenaria vulgaris.

6. Giant gourd, Cucurbita maxima.

GOURD, a name given to various plants of the order Cucurbitaceae, especially those belonging to the genus Cucurbita, monoecious trailing herbs of annual duration, with long succulent stems furnished with tendrils, and large, rough, palmately-lobed leaves; the flowers are generally large and of a bright yellow or orange colour, the barren ones with the stamens united; the fertile are followed by the large succulent fruit that gives the gourds their chief economic value. Many varieties of Cucurbita are under cultivation in tropical and temperate climates, especially in southern Asia; but it is extremely difficult to refer them to definite specific groups, on account of the facility with which they hybridize; while it is very doubtful whether any of the original forms now exist in the wild state. Charles Naudin, who made a careful and interesting series of observations upon this genus, came to the conclusion that all varieties known in European gardens might be referred to six original species; probably three, or at most four, have furnished the edible kinds in ordinary cultivation. Adopting the specific names usually given to the more familiar forms, the most important of the gourds, from an economic point of view, is perhaps C. maxima, the Potiron Jaune of the French, the red and yellow gourd of British gardeners (fig. 6), the spheroidal fruit of which is remarkable for its enormous size: the colour of the somewhat rough rind varies from white to bright yellow, while in some kinds it remains green; the fleshy interior is of a deep yellow or orange tint. This valuable gourd is grown extensively in southern Asia and Europe. In Turkey and Asia Minor it yields, at some periods of the year, an important article of diet to the people; immense quantities are sold in the markets of Constantinople, where in the winter the heaps of one variety with a white rind are described as resembling mounds of snowballs. The yellow kind attains occasionally a weight of upwards of 240 ℔. It grows well in Central Europe and the United States, while in the south of England it will produce its gigantic fruit in perfection in hot summers. The yellow flesh of this gourd and its numerous varieties yields a considerable amount of nutriment, and is the more valuable as the fruit can be kept, even in warm climates, for a long time. In France and in the East it is much used in soups and ragouts, while simply boiled it forms a substitute for other table vegetables; the taste has been compared to that of a young carrot. In some countries the larger kinds are employed as cattle food. The seeds yield by expression a large quantity of a bland oil, which is used for the same purposes as that of the poppy and olive. The “mammoth” gourds of English and American gardeners (known in America as squashes) belong to this species. The pumpkin (summer squash of America) is Cucurbita Pepo. Some of the varieties of C. maxima and Pepo contain a considerable quantity of sugar, amounting in the sweetest kinds to 4 or 5%, and in the hot plains of Hungary efforts have been made to make use of them as a commercial source of sugar. The young shoots of both these large gourds may be given to cattle, and admit of being eaten as a green vegetable when boiled. The vegetable marrow is a variety (ovifera) of C. Pepo. Many smaller gourds are cultivated in India and other hot climates, and some have been introduced into English gardens, rather for the beauty of their fruit and foliage than for their esculent qualities. Among these is C. Pepo var. aurantia, the orange gourd, bearing a spheroidal fruit, like a large orange in form and colour; in Britain it is generally too bitter to be palatable, though applied to culinary purposes in Turkey and the Levant. C. Pepo var. pyriformis and var. verrucosa, the warted gourds, are likewise occasionally eaten, especially in the immature state; and C. moschata (musk melon) is very extensively cultivated throughout India by the natives, the yellow flesh being cooked and eaten.

The bottle-gourds are placed in a separate genus, Lagenaria, chiefly differing from Cucurbita in the anthers being free instead of adherent. The bottle-gourd properly so-called, L. vulgaris, is a climbing plant with downy, heart-shaped leaves and beautiful white flowers: the remarkable fruit (figs. 1-5) first begins to grow in the form of an elongated cylinder, but gradually widens towards the extremity, until, when ripe, it resembles a flask with a narrow neck and large rounded bulb; it sometimes attains a length of 7 ft. When ripe, the pulp is removed from the neck, and the interior cleared by leaving water standing in it; the woody rind that remains is used as a bottle: or the lower part is cut off and cleared out, forming a basin-like vessel applied to the same domestic purposes as the calabash (Crescentia) of the West Indies: the smaller varieties, divided lengthwise, form spoons. The ripe fruit is apt to be bitter and cathartic, but while immature it is eaten by the Arabs and Turks. When about the size of a small cucumber, it is stuffed with rice and minced meat, flavoured with pepper, onions, &c., and then boiled, forming a favourite dish with Eastern epicures. The elongated snake-gourds of India and China (Trichosanthes) are used in curries and stews.

All the true gourds have a tendency to secrete the cathartic principle colocynthin, and in many varieties of Cucurbita and the allied genera it is often elaborated to such an extent as to render them unwholesome, or even poisonous. The seeds of several species therefore possess some anthelmintic properties; those of the common pumpkin are frequently administered in America as a vermifuge.

The cultivation of gourds began far beyond the dawn of history, and the esculent species have become so modified by culture that the original plants from which they have descended can no longer be traced. The abundance of varieties in India would seem to indicate that part of Asia as the birthplace of the present edible forms; but some appear to have been cultivated in all the hotter regions of that continent, and in North Africa, from the earliest ages, while the Romans were familiar with at least certain kinds of Cucurbita, and with the bottle-gourd. Cucurbita Pepo, the source of many of the American forms, is probably a native of that continent.

Most of the annual gourds may be grown successfully in Britain. They are usually raised in hotbeds or under frames, and planted out in rich soil in the early summer as soon as the nights become warm. The more ornamental kinds may be trained over trellis-work, a favourite mode of displaying them in the East; but the situation must be sheltered and sunny. Even Lagenaria will sometimes produce fine fruit when so treated in the southern counties.

For an account of these cultivations in England see paper by Mr J. W. Odell, “Gourds and Cucurbits,” in Journ. Royal Hort. Soc. xxix. 450 (1904).

GOURGAUD, GASPAR, Baron (1783-1852), French soldier, was born at Versailles on the 14th of September 1783; his father was a musician of the royal chapel. At school he showed talent in mathematical studies and accordingly entered the artillery. In 1802 he became junior lieutenant, and thereafter served with credit in the campaigns of 1803-1805, being wounded at Austerlitz. He was present at the siege of Saragossa in 1808, but returned to service in Central Europe and took part in nearly all the battles of the Danubian campaign of 1809. In 1811 he was chosen to inspect and report on the fortifications of Danzig. Thereafter he became one of the ordnance officers attached to the emperor, whom he followed closely through the Russian campaign of 1812; he was one of the first to enter the Kremlin and discovered there a quantity of gunpowder which might have been used for the destruction of Napoleon. For his services in this campaign he received the title of baron, and became first ordnance officer. In the campaign of 1813 in Saxony he further evinced his courage and prowess, especially at Leipzig and Hanau; but it was in the first battle of 1814, near to Brienne, that he rendered the most signal service by killing the leader of a small band of Cossacks who were riding furiously towards Napoleon’s tent. Wounded at the battle of Montmirail, he yet recovered in time to share in several of the conflicts which followed, distinguishing himself especially at Laon and Reims. Though enrolled among the royal guards of Louis XVIII. in the summer of 1814, he yet embraced the cause of Napoleon during the Hundred Days (1815), was named general and aide-de-camp by the emperor, and fought at Waterloo.

After the second abdication of the emperor (June 22nd, 1815) Gourgaud retired with him and a few other companions to Rochefort. It was to him that Napoleon entrusted the letter of appeal to the prince regent for an asylum in England. Gourgaud set off in H.M.S. “Slaney,” but was not allowed to land in England. He determined to share Napoleon’s exile and sailed with him on H.M.S. “Northumberland” to St Helena. The ship’s secretary, John R. Glover, has left an entertaining account of some of Gourgaud’s gasconnades at table. His extreme sensitiveness and vanity soon brought him into collision with Las Cases and Montholon at Longwood. The former he styles in his journal a “Jesuit” and a scribbler who went thither in order to become famous. With Montholon, his senior in rank, the friction became so acute that he challenged him to a duel, for which he suffered a sharp rebuke from Napoleon. Tiring of the life at Longwood and the many slights which he suffered from Napoleon, he desired to depart, but before he could sail he spent two months with Colonel Basil Jackson, whose account of him throws much light on his character, as also on the “policy” adopted by the exiles at Longwood. In England he was gained over by members of the Opposition and thereafter made common cause with O’Meara and other detractors of Sir Hudson Lowe, for whose character he had expressed high esteem to Basil Jackson. He soon published his Campagne de 1815, in the preparation of which he had had some help from Napoleon; but Gourgaud’s Journal de Ste-Hélène was not destined to be published till the year 1899. Entering the arena of letters, he wrote, or collaborated in, two well-known critiques. The first was a censure of Count P. de Ségur’s work on the campaign of 1812, with the result that he fought a duel with that officer and wounded him. He also sharply criticized Sir Walter Scott’s Life of Napoleon. He returned to active service in the army in 1830; and in 1840 proceeded with others to St Helena to bring back the remains of Napoleon to France. He became a deputy to the Legislative Assembly in 1849; he died in 1852.

Gourgaud’s works are La Campagne de 1815 (London and Paris, 1818); Napoléon et la Grande Armée en Russie; examen critique de l’ouvrage de M. le comte P. de Ségur (Paris, 1824); Réfutation de la vie de Napoléon par Sir Walter Scott (Paris, 1827). He collaborated with Montholon in the work entitled Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de France sous Napoléon (Paris, 1822-1823), and with Belliard and others in the work entitled Bourrienne et ses erreurs (2 vols., Paris, 1830); but his most important work is the Journal inédit de Ste-Hélène (2 vols., Paris, 1899), which is a remarkably naïf and life-like record of the life at Longwood. See, too, Notes and Reminiscences of a Staff Officer, by Basil Jackson (London, 1904), and the bibliography to the article Lowe, Sir Hudson.

(J. Hl. R.)

GOURKO, JOSEPH VLADIMIROVICH, Count (1828-1901), Russian general, was born, of Lithuanian extraction, on the 15th of November 1828. He was educated in the imperial corps of pages, entered the hussars of the imperial bodyguard as sub-lieutenant in 1846, became captain in 1857, adjutant to the emperor in 1860, colonel in 1861, commander of the 4th Hussar regiment of Mariupol in 1866, and major-general of the emperor’s suite in 1867. He subsequently commanded the grenadier regiment, and in 1873 the 1st brigade, 2nd division, of the cavalry of the guard. Although he took part in the Crimean War, being stationed at Belbek, his claim to distinction is due to his services in the Turkish war of 1877. He led the van of the Russian invasion, took Trnovo on the 7th July, crossed the Balkans by the Hain Bogaz pass, debouching near Hainkioi, and, notwithstanding considerable resistance, captured Uflani, Maglish and Kazanlyk; on the 18th of July he attacked Shipka, which was evacuated by the Turks on the following day. Thus within sixteen days of crossing the Danube Gourko had secured three Balkan passes and created a panic at Constantinople. He then made a series of successful reconnaissances of the Tunja valley, cut the railway in two places, occupied Stara Zagora (Turkish, Eski Zagra) and Nova Zagora (Yeni Zagra), checked the advance of Suleiman’s army, and returned again over the Balkans. In October he was appointed commander of the allied cavalry, and attacked the Plevna line of communication to Orkhanie with a large mixed force, captured Gorni-Dubnik, Telische and Vratza, and, in the middle of November, Orkhanie itself. Plevna was isolated, and after its fall in December Gourko led the way amidst snow and ice over the Balkans to the fertile valley beyond, totally defeated Suleiman, and occupied Sophia, Philippopolis and Adrianople, the armistice at the end of January 1878 stopping further operations (see Russo-Turkish Wars). Gourko was made a count, and decorated with the 2nd class of St George and other orders. In 1879-1880 he was governor of St Petersburg, and from 1883 to 1894 governor-general of Poland. He died on the 29th of January 1901.

GOURMET, a French term for one who takes a refined and critical, or even merely theoretical pleasure in good cooking and the delights of the table. The word has not the disparaging sense attached to the Fr. gourmand, to whom the practical pleasure of good eating is the chief end. The O. Fr. groumet or gromet meant a servant, or shop-boy, especially one employed in a wine-seller’s shop, hence an expert taster of wines, from which the modern usage has developed. The etymology of gourmet is obscure; it may be ultimately connected with the English “groom” (q.v.). The origin of gourmand is unknown. In English, in the form “grummet,” the word was early applied to a cabin or ship’s boy. Ships of the Cinque Ports were obliged to carry one “grummet”; thus in a charter of 1229 (quoted in the New English Dictionary) it is laid down servitia inde debita Domino Regi, xxi. naves, et in qualibet nave xxi. homines, cum uno gartione qui dicitur gromet.

GOUROCK, a police burgh and watering-place of Renfrewshire, Scotland, on the southern shore of the Firth of Clyde, 3¼ m. W. by N. of Greenock by the Caledonian railway. Pop. (1901) 5261. It is partly situated on a fine bay affording good anchorage, for which it is largely resorted to by the numerous yacht clubs of the Clyde. The extension of the railway from Greenock (in 1889) to the commodious pier, with a tunnel 11⁄3 m. long, the longest in Scotland, affords great facilities for travel to the ports of the Firth, the sea lochs on the southern Highland coast and the Crinan Canal. The eminence called Barrhill (480 ft. high) divides the town into two parts, the eastern known as Kempoch, the western as Ashton. Near Kempoch point is a monolith of mica-schist, 6 ft. high, called “Granny Kempoch,” which the superstitious of other days regarded as possessing influence over the winds, and which was the scene, in 1662, of certain rites that led to the celebrants being burned as witches. Gamble Institute (named after the founder) contains halls, recreation rooms, a public library and baths. It is said that Gourock was the first place on the Clyde where herrings were cured. There is tramway communication with Greenock and Ashton. About 3 m. S.W. there stands on the shore the familiar beacon of the Cloch. Gourock became a burgh of barony in 1694.

GOURVILLE, JEAN HERAULD (1625-1703), French adventurer, was born at La Rochefoucauld. At the age of eighteen he entered the house of La Rochefoucauld as a servant, and in 1646 became secretary to François de la Rochefoucauld, author of the Maximes. Resourceful and quick-witted, he rendered services to his master during the Fronde, in his intrigues with the parliament, the court or the princes. In these negotiations he made the acquaintance of Condé, whom he wished to help to escape from the château of Vincennes; of Mazarin, for whom he negotiated the reconciliation with the princes; and of Nicolas Fouquet. After the Fronde he engaged in financial affairs, thanks to Fouquet. In 1658 he farmed the taille in Guienne. He bought depreciated rentes and had them raised to their nominal value by the treasury; he extorted gifts from the financiers for his protection, being Fouquet’s confidant in many operations of which he shared the profits. In three years he accumulated an enormous fortune, still further increased by his unfailing good fortune at cards, playing even with the king. He was involved in the trial of Fouquet, and in April 1663 was condemned to death for peculation and embezzlement of public funds; but escaping, was executed in effigy. He sent a valet one night to take the effigy down from the gallows in the court of the Palais de Justice, and then fled the country. He remained five years abroad, being excepted in 1665 from the amnesty accorded by Louis XIV. to the condemned financiers. Having returned secretly to France, he entered the service of Condé, who, unable to meet his creditors, had need of a clever manager to put his affairs in order. In this way he was able to reappear at court, to assist at the campaigns of the war with Holland, and to offer himself for all the delicate negotiations for his master or the king. He received diplomatic missions in Germany, in Holland, and especially in Spain, though it was only in 1694, that he was freed from the condemnation pronounced against him by the chamber of justice. From 1696 he fell ill and withdrew to his estate, where he dictated to his secretary, in four months and a half, his Mémoires, an important source for the history of his time. In spite of several errors, introduced purposely, they give a clear idea of the life and morals of a financier of the age of Fouquet, and throw light on certain points of the diplomatic history. They were first published in 1724.

There is a modern edition, with notes, an introduction and appendix, by Lecestre (Paris, 1894-1895, 2 vols.).

GOUT, the name rather vaguely given, in medicine, to a constitutional disorder which manifests itself by inflammation of the joints, with sometimes deposition of urates of soda, and also by morbid changes in various important organs. The term gout, which was first used about the end of the 13th century, is derived through the Fr. goutte from the Lat. gutta, a drop, in allusion to the old pathological doctrine of the dropping of a morbid material from the blood within the joints. The disease was known and described by the ancient Greek physicians under various terms, which, however, appear to have been applied by them alike to rheumatism and gout. The general term arthritis (ἄρθρον, a joint) was employed when many joints were the seat of inflammation; while in those instances where the disease was limited to one part the terms used bore reference to such locality; hence podagra (ποδάγρα, from πούς, the foot, and ἅγρα, a seizure), chiragra (χείρ, the hand), gonagra (γόνυ, the knee), &c.

Hippocrates in his Aphorisms speaks of gout as occurring most commonly in spring and autumn, and mentions the fact that women are less liable to it than men. He also gives directions as to treatment. Celsus gives a similar account of the disease. Galen regarded gout as an unnatural accumulation of humours in a part, and the chalk-stones as the concretions of these, and he attributed the disease to over-indulgence and luxury. Gout is alluded to in the works of Ovid and Pliny, and Seneca, in his 95th epistle, mentions the prevalence of gout among the Roman ladies of his day as one of the results of their high living and debauchery. Lucian, in his Tragopodagra, gives an amusing account of the remedies employed for the cure of gout.

In all times this disease has engaged a large share of the attention of physicians, from its wide prevalence and from the amount of suffering which it entails. Sydenham, the famous English physician of the 17th century, wrote an important treatise on the subject, and his description of the gouty paroxysm, all the more vivid from his having himself been afflicted with the disease for thirty-four years, is still quoted by writers as the most graphic and exhaustive account of the symptomatology of gout. Subsequently Cullen, recognizing gout as capable of manifesting itself in various ways, divided the disease into regular gout, which affects the joints only, and irregular gout, where the gouty disposition exhibits itself in other forms; and the latter variety he subdivided into atonic gout, where the most prominent symptoms are throughout referable to the stomach and alimentary canal; retrocedent gout, where the inflammatory attack suddenly disappears from an affected joint and serious disturbance takes place in some internal organ, generally the stomach or heart; and misplaced gout, where from the first the disease does not appear externally, but reveals itself by an inflammatory attack of some internal part. Dr Garrod, one of the most eminent authorities on gout, adopted a division somewhat similar to, though simpler than that of Cullen, namely, regular gout, which affects the joints alone, and is either acute or chronic, and irregular gout, affecting non-articular tissues, or disturbing the functions of various organs.

It is often stated that the attack of gout comes on without any previous warning; but, while this is true in many instances, the reverse is probably as frequently the case, and the premonitory symptoms, especially in those who have previously suffered from the disease, may be sufficiently precise to indicate the impending seizure. Among the more common of these may be mentioned marked disorders of the digestive organs, with a feeble and capricious appetite, flatulence and pain after eating, and uneasiness in the right side in the region of the liver. A remarkable tendency to gnashing of the teeth is sometimes observed. This symptom was first noticed by Dr Graves, who connected it with irritation in the urinary organs, which also is present as one of the premonitory indications of the gouty attack. Various forms of nervous disturbance also present themselves in the form of general discomfort, extreme irritability of temper, and various perverted sensations, such as that of numbness and coldness in the limbs. These symptoms may persist for many days and then undergo amelioration immediately before the impending paroxysm. On the night of the attack the patient retires to rest apparently well, but about two or three o’clock in the morning awakes with a painful feeling in the foot, most commonly in the ball of the great toe, but it may be in the instep or heel, or in the thumb. With the pain there often occurs a distinct shivering followed by feverishness. The pain soon becomes of the most agonizing character: in the words of Sydenham, “now it is a violent stretching and tearing of the ligaments, now it is a gnawing pain, and now a pressure and tightening; so exquisite and lively meanwhile is the part affected that it cannot bear the weight of the bedclothes, nor the jar of a person walking in the room.”

When the affected part is examined it is found to be swollen and of a deep red hue. The superjacent skin is tense and glistening, and the surrounding veins are more or less distended. After a few hours there is a remission of the pain, slight perspiration takes place, and the patient may fall asleep. The pain may continue moderate during the day but returns as night advances, and the patient goes through a similar experience of suffering to that of the previous night, followed with a like abatement towards morning. These nocturnal exacerbations occur with greater or less severity during the continuance of the attack, which generally lasts for a week or ten days. As the symptoms decline the swelling and tenderness of the affected joint abate, but the skin over it pits on pressure for a time, and with this there is often associated slight desquamation of the cuticle. During the attacks there is much constitutional disturbance. The patient is restless and extremely irritable, and suffers from cramp in the limbs and from dyspepsia, thirst and constipation. The urine is scanty and high-coloured, with a copious deposit, consisting chiefly of urates. During the continuance of the symptoms the inflammation may leave the one foot and affect the other, or both may suffer at the same time. After the attack is over the patient feels quite well and fancies himself better than he had been for a long time before; hence the once popular notion that a fit of the gout was capable of removing all other ailments. Any such idea, however, is sadly belied in the experience of most sufferers from this disease. It is rare that the first is the only attack of gout, and another is apt to occur within a year, although by care and treatment it may be warded off. The disease, however, undoubtedly tends to take a firmer hold on the constitution and to return. In the earlier recurrences the same joints as were formerly the seat of the gouty inflammation suffer again, but in course of time others become implicated, until in advanced cases scarcely any articulation escapes, and the disease thus becomes chronic. It is to be noticed that when gout assumes this form the frequently recurring attacks are usually attended with less pain than the earlier ones, but their disastrous effects are evidenced alike by the disturbance of various important organs, especially the stomach, liver, kidneys and heart, and by the remarkable changes which take place in the joints from the formation of the so-called chalk-stones or tophi. These deposits, which are highly characteristic of gout, appear at first to take place in the form of a semifluid material, consisting for the most part of urate of soda, which gradually becomes more dense, and ultimately quite hard. When any quantity of this is deposited in the structures of a joint the effect is to produce stiffening, and, as deposits appear to take place to a greater or less amount in connexion with every attack, permanent thickening and deformity of the parts is apt to be the consequence. The extent of this depends, of course, on the amount of the deposits, which, however, would seem to be in no necessary relation to the severity of the attack, being in some cases even of chronic gout so slight as to be barely appreciable externally, but on the other hand occasionally causing great enlargement of the joints, and fixing them in a flexed or extended position which renders them entirely useless. Dr Garrod describes the appearance of a hand in an extreme case of this kind, and likens its shape to a bundle of French carrots with their heads forward, the nails corresponding to the stalks. Any of the joints may be thus affected, but most commonly those of the hands and feet. The deposits take place in other structures besides those of joints, such as along the course of tendons, underneath the skin and periosteum, in the sclerotic coat of the eye, and especially on the cartilages of the external ear. When largely deposited in joints an abscess sometimes forms, the skin gives way, and the concretion is exposed. Sir Thomas Watson quotes a case of this kind where the patient when playing at cards was accustomed to chalk the score of the game upon the table with his gouty knuckles.

The recognition of what is termed irregular gout is less easy than that form above described, where the disease gives abundant external evidence of its presence; but that other parts than joints suffer from gouty attacks is beyond question. The diagnosis may often be made in cases where in an attack of ordinary gout the disease suddenly leaves the affected joints and some new series of symptoms arises. It has been often observed when cold has been applied to an inflamed joint that the pain and inflammation in the part ceased, but that some sudden and alarming seizure referable to the stomach, brain, heart or lungs supervened. Such attacks, which correspond to what is termed by Cullen retrocedent gout, often terminate favourably, more especially if the disease again returns to the joints. Further, the gouty nature of some long-continued internal or cutaneous disorder may be rendered apparent by its disappearance on the outbreak of the paroxysm in the joints. Gout, when of long standing, is often found associated with degenerative changes in the heart and large arteries, the liver, and especially the kidneys, which are apt to assume the contracted granular condition characteristic of one of the forms of Bright’s disease. A variety of urinary calculus—the uric acid—formed by concretions of this substance in the kidneys is a not unfrequent occurrence in connexion with gout; hence the well-known association of this disease and gravel.

The pathology of gout is discussed in the article on Metabolic Diseases. Many points, however, still remain unexplained. As remarked by Trousseau, “the production in excess of uric acid and urates is a pathological phenomenon inherent like all others in the disease; and like all the others it is dominated by a specific cause, which we know only by its effects, and which we term the gouty diathesis.” This subject of diathesis (habit, or organic predisposition of individuals), which is regarded as an essential element in the pathology of gout, naturally suggests the question as to whether, besides being inherited, such a peculiarity may also be acquired, and this leads to a consideration of the causes which are recognized as influential in favouring the occurrence of this disease.

It is beyond dispute that gout is in a marked degree hereditary, fully more than half the number of cases being, according to Sir C. Scudamore and Dr Garrod, of this character. But it is no less certain that there are habits and modes of life the observance of which may induce the disease even where no hereditary tendencies can be traced, and the avoidance of which may, on the other hand, go far towards weakening or neutralizing the influence of inherited liability. Gout is said to affect the sedentary more readily than the active. If, however, inadequate exercise be combined with a luxurious manner of living, with habitual over-indulgence in animal food and rich dishes, and especially in alcoholic beverages, then undoubtedly the chief factors in the production of the disease are present.

Much has been written upon the relative influence of various forms of alcoholic drinks in promoting the development of gout. It is generally stated that fermented are more injurious than distilled liquors, and that, in particular, the stronger wines, such as port, sherry and madeira, are much more potent in their gout-producing action than the lighter class of wines, such as hock, moselle, &c., while malt liquors are fully as hurtful as strong wines. It seems quite as probable, however, that over-indulgence in any form of alcohol, when associated with the other conditions already adverted to, will have very much the same effect in developing gout. The comparative absence of gout in countries where spirituous liquors are chiefly used, such as Scotland, is cited as showing their relatively slight effect in encouraging that disease; but it is to be noticed that in such countries there is on the whole a less marked tendency to excess in the other pleasures of the table, which in no degree less than alcohol are chargeable with inducing the gouty habit. Gout is not a common disease among the poor and labouring classes, and when it does occur may often be connected even in them with errors in living. It is not very rare to meet gout in butlers, coachmen, &c., who are apt to live luxuriously while leading comparatively easy lives.

Gout, it must ever be borne in mind, may also affect persons who observe the strictest temperance in living, and whose only excesses are in the direction of over-work, either physical or intellectual. Many of the great names in history in all times have had their existence embittered by this malady, and have died from its effects. The influence of hereditary tendency may often be traced in such instances, and is doubtless called into activity by the depressing consequences of over-work. It may, notwithstanding, be affirmed as generally true that those who lead regular lives, and are moderate in the use of animal food and alcoholic drinks, or still better abstain from the latter altogether, are less likely to be the victims of gout even where an undoubted inherited tendency exists.

Gout is more common in mature age than in the earlier years of life, the greatest number of cases in one decennial period being between the ages of thirty and forty, next between twenty and thirty, and thirdly between forty and fifty. It may occasionally affect very young persons; such cases are generally regarded as hereditary, but, so far as diet is concerned, it has to be remembered that their home life has probably been a predisposing cause. After middle life gout rarely appears for the first time. Women are much less the subjects of gout than men, apparently from their less exposure to the influences (excepting, of course, that of heredity) which tend to develop the disease, and doubtless also from the differing circumstances of their physical constitution. It most frequently appears in females after the cessation of the menses. Persons exposed to the influence of lead poisoning, such as plumbers, painters, &c., are apt to suffer from gout; and it would seem that impregnation of the system with this metal markedly interferes with the uric acid excreting function of the kidneys.

Attacks of gout are readily excited in those predisposed to the disease. Exposure to cold, disorders of digestion, fatigue, and irritation or injuries of particular joints will often precipitate the gouty paroxysm.

With respect to the treatment of gout the greatest variety of opinion has prevailed and practice been pursued, from the numerous quaint nostrums detailed by Lucian to the “expectant” or do-nothing system recommended by Sydenham. But gout, although, as has been shown, a malady of a most severe and intractable character, may nevertheless be successfully dealt with by appropriate medicinal and hygienic measures. The general plan of treatment can be here only briefly indicated. During the acute attack the affected part should be kept at perfect rest, and have applied to it warm opiate fomentations or poultices, or, what answers quite as well, be enveloped in cotton wool covered in with oil silk. The diet of the patient should be light, without animal food or stimulants. The administration of some simple laxative will be of service, as well as the free use of alkaline diuretics, such as the bicarbonate or acetate of potash. The medicinal agent most relied on for the relief of pain is colchicum, which manifestly exercises a powerful action on the disease. This drug (Colchicum autumnale), which is believed to correspond to the hermodactyl of the ancients, has proved of such efficacy in modifying the attacks that, as observed by Dr Garrod, “we may safely assert that colchicum possesses as specific a control over the gouty inflammation as cinchona barks or their alkaloids over intermittent fever.” It is usually administered in the form of the wine in doses of 10 to 30 drops every four or six hours, or in pill as the acetous extract (gr. ½-gr. i.). The effect of colchicum in subduing the pain of gout is generally so prompt and marked that it is unnecessary to have recourse to opiates; but its action requires to be carefully watched by the physician from its well-known nauseating and depressing consequences, which, should they appear, render the suspension of the drug necessary. Otherwise the remedy may be continued in gradually diminishing doses for some days after the disappearance of the gouty inflammation. Should gout give evidence of its presence in an irregular form by attacking internal organs, besides the medicinal treatment above mentioned, the use of frictions and mustard applications to the joints is indicated with the view of exciting its appearance there. When gout has become chronic, colchicum, although of less service than in acute gout, is yet valuable, particularly when the inflammatory attacks recur. More benefit, however, appears to be derived from potassium iodide, guaiacum, the alkalis potash and lithia, and from the administration of aspirin and sodium salicylate. Salicylate of menthol is an effective local application, painted on and covered with a gutta-percha bandage. Lithia was strongly recommended by Dr Garrod from its solvent action upon the urates. It is usually administered in the form of the carbonate (gr. v., freely diluted).

The treatment and regimen to be employed in the intervals of the gouty attacks are of the highest importance. These bear reference for the most part to the habits and mode of life of the patient. Restriction must be laid upon the amount and quality of the food, and equally, or still more, upon the alcoholic stimulants. “The instances,” says Sir Thomas Watson, “are not few of men of good sense, and masters of themselves, who, being warned by one visitation of the gout, have thenceforward resolutely abstained from rich living and from wine and strong drinks of all kinds, and who have been rewarded for their prudence and self-denial by complete immunity from any return of the disease, or upon whom, at any rate, its future assaults have been few and feeble.” The same eminent authority adds: “I am sure it is worth any young man’s while, who has had the gout, to become a teetotaller.” By those more advanced in life who, from long continued habit, are unable entirely to relinquish the use of stimulants, the strictest possible temperance must be observed. Regular but moderate exercise in the form of walking or riding, in the case of those who lead sedentary lives, is of great advantage, and all over-work, either physical or mental, should be avoided. Fatiguez la bête, et reposez la tête is the maxim of an experienced French doctor (Dr Debout d’Estrées of Contrexéville). Unfortunately the complete carrying out of such directions, even by those who feel their importance, is too often rendered difficult or impossible by circumstances of occupation and otherwise, and at most only an approximation can be made. Certain mineral waters and baths (such as those of Vichy, Royat, Contrexéville, &c.) are of undoubted value in cases of gout and arthritis. The particular place must in each case be determined by the physician, and special caution must be observed in recommending this plan of treatment in persons whose gout is complicated by organic disease of any kind.

Dr Alexander Haig’s “uric acid free diet” has found many adherents. His view as regards the pathology is that in gouty persons the blood is less alkaline than in normal, and therefore less able to hold in solution uric acid or its salts, which are retained in the joints. Assuming gout to be a poisoning by animal food (meat, fish, eggs), and by tea, coffee, cocoa and other vegetable alkaloid-containing substances, he recommends an average daily diet excluding these, and containing 24 oz. of breadstuffs (toast, bread, biscuits and puddings) together with 24 oz. of fruit and vegetables (excluding peas, beans, lentils, mushrooms and asparagus); 8 oz. of the breadstuffs may be replaced by 21 oz. of milk or 2 oz. of cheese, butter and oil being taken as required, so that it is not strictly a vegetarian diet.

Precisely the opposite view as to diet has recently been put forward by Professor A. Robin of the Hôpital Beaujon, who says serious mistakes are made in ordering patients to abstain from red meats and take light food, fish, eggs, &c. The common object in view is the diminished output of uric acid. This output is chiefly obtained from food rich in nucleins and in collagenous matters, i.e. young white meats, eggs, &c. Consequently the gouty subject ought to restrict himself to the consumption of red meat, beef and mutton, and leave out of his dietary all white meat and internal organs. He should take little hydrocarbons and sugars, and be moderate in fats. Vegetarian diet he regards as a mistake, likewise milk diet, as they tend to weaken the patient. To prevent the formation of uric acid Robin prescribes quinic acid combined with formine or urotropine.

GOUTHIÈRE, PIERRE (1740-1806), French metal worker, was born at Troyes and went to Paris at an early age as the pupil of Martin Cour. During his brilliant career he executed a vast quantity of metal work of the utmost variety, the best of which was unsurpassed by any of his rivals in that great art period. It was long believed that he received many commissions for furniture from the court of Louis XVI., and especially from Marie Antoinette, but recent searches suggest that his work for the queen was confined to bronzes. Gouthière can, however, well bear this loss, nor will his reputation suffer should those critics ultimately be justified who believe that many of the furniture mounts attributed to him were from the hand of Thomire. But if he did not work for the court he unquestionably produced many of the most splendid belongings of the duc d’Aumont, the duchesse de Mazarin and Mme du Barry. Indeed the custom of the beautiful mistress of Louis XV. brought about the financial ruin of the great artist, who accomplished more than any other man for the fame of her château of Louveciennes. When the collection of the duc d’Aumont was sold by auction in Paris in 1782 so many objects mounted by Gouthière were bought for Louis XVI. and Marie Antoinette that it is not difficult to perceive the basis of the belief that they were actually made for the court. The duc’s sale catalogue is, however, in existence, with the names of the purchasers and the prices realized. The auction was almost an apotheosis of Gouthière. The precious lacquer cabinets, the chandeliers and candelabra, the tables and cabinets in marquetry, the columns and vases in porphyry, jasper and choice marbles, the porcelains of China and Japan were nearly all mounted in bronze by him. More than fifty of these pieces bore Gouthière’s signature. The duc d’Aumont’s cabinet represented the high-water mark of the chaser’s art, and the great prices which were paid for Gouthière’s work at this sale are the most conclusive criterion of the value set upon his achievement in his own day. Thus Marie Antoinette paid 12,000 livres for a red jasper bowl or brûle-parfums mounted by him, which was then already famous. Curiously enough it commanded only one-tenth of that price at the Fournier sale in 1831; but in 1865, when the marquis of Hertford bought it at the prince de Beauvais’s sale, it fetched 31,900 francs. It is now in the Wallace Collection, which contains the finest and most representative gathering of Gouthière’s undoubted work. The mounts of gilt bronze, cast and elaborately chased, show satyrs’ heads, from which hang festoons of vine leaves, while within the feet a serpent is coiled to spring. A smaller cup is one of the treasures of the Louvre. There too is a bronze clock, signed by “Gouthière, cizileur et doreur du Roy à Paris,” dated 1771, with a river god, a water nymph symbolizing the Rhône and its tributary the Durance, and a female figure typifying the city of Avignon. Not all of Gouthière’s work is of the highest quality, and much of what he executed was from the designs of others. At his best his delicacy, refinement and finish are exceedingly delightful—in his great moments he ranks with the highest alike as artist and as craftsman. The tone of soft dead gold which is found on some of his mounts he is believed to have invented, but indeed the gilding of all his superlative work possesses a remarkable quality. This charm of tone is admirably seen in the bronzes and candelabra which he executed for the chimney-piece of Marie Antoinette’s boudoir at Fontainebleau. He continued to embellish Louveciennes for Madame du Barry until the Revolution, and then the guillotine came for her and absolute ruin for him. When her property was seized she owed him 756,000 livres, of which he never received a sol, despite repeated applications to the administrators. “Réduit à solliciter une place à l’hospice, il mourut dans la misère.” So it was stated in a lawsuit brought by his sons against du Barry’s heirs.

GOUVION SAINT-CYR, LAURENT, Marquis de (1764-1830), French marshal, was born at Toul on the 13th of April 1764. At the age of eighteen he went to Rome with the view of prosecuting the study of painting, but although he continued his artistic studies after his return to Paris in 1784 he never definitely adopted the profession of a painter. In 1792 he was chosen a captain in a volunteer battalion, and served on the staff of General Custine. Promotion rapidly followed, and in the course of two years he had become a general of division. In 1796 he commanded the centre division of Moreau’s army in the campaign of the Rhine, and by coolness and sagacity greatly aided him in the celebrated retreat from Bavaria to the Rhine. In 1798 he succeeded Masséna in the command of the army of Italy. In the following year he commanded the left wing of Jourdan’s army in Germany; but when Jourdan was succeeded by Masséna, he joined the army of Moreau in Italy, where he distinguished himself in face of the great difficulties that followed the defeat of Novi. When Moreau, in 1800, was appointed to the command of the army of the Rhine, Gouvion St-Cyr was named his principal lieutenant, and on the 9th of May gained a victory over General Kray at Biberach. He was not, however, on good terms with his commander and retired to France after the first operations of the campaign. In 1801 he was sent to Spain to command the army intended for the invasion of Portugal, and was named grand officer of the Legion of Honour. When a treaty of peace was shortly afterwards concluded with Portugal, he succeeded Lucien Bonaparte as ambassador at Madrid. In 1803 he was appointed to the command of an army corps in Italy, in 1805 he served with distinction under Masséna, and in 1806 was engaged in the campaign in southern Italy. He took part in the Prussian and Polish campaigns of 1807, and in 1808, in which year he was made a count, he commanded an army corps in Catalonia; but, not wishing to comply with certain orders he received from Paris (for which see Oman, Peninsular War, vol. iii.), he resigned his command and remained in disgrace till 1811. He was still a general of division, having been excluded from the first list of marshals owing to his action in refusing to influence the troops in favour of the establishment of the Empire. On the opening of the Russian campaign he received command of an army corps, and on the 18th of August 1812 obtained a victory over the Russians at Polotsk, in recognition of which he was created a marshal of France. He received a severe wound in one of the actions during the general retreat. St-Cyr distinguished himself at the battle of Dresden (August 26-27, 1813), and in the defence of that place against the Allies after the battle of Leipzig, capitulating only on the 11th of November, when Napoleon had retreated to the Rhine. On the restoration of the Bourbons he was created a peer of France, and in July 1815 was appointed war minister, but resigned his office in the November following. In June 1817 he was appointed minister of marine, and in September following again resumed the duties of war minister, which he continued to discharge till November 1819. During this time he effected many reforms, particularly in respect of measures tending to make the army a national rather than a dynastic force. He exerted himself also to safeguard the rights of the old soldiers of the Empire, organized the general staff and revised the code of military law and the pension regulations. He was made a marquess in 1817. He died at Hyères (Var) on the 17th of March 1830. Gouvion St-Cyr would doubtless have obtained better opportunities of acquiring distinction had he shown himself more blindly devoted to the interests of Napoleon, but Napoleon paid him the high compliment of referring to his “military genius,” and entrusted him with independent commands in secondary theatres of war. It is doubtful, however, if he possessed energy commensurate with his skill, and in Napoleon’s modern conception of war, as three parts moral to one technical, there was more need for the services of a bold leader of troops whose “doctrine”—to use the modern phrase—predisposed him to self-sacrificing and vigorous action, than for a savant in the art of war of the type of St-Cyr. Contemporary opinion, as reflected by Marbot, did justice to his “commanding talents,” but remarked the indolence which was the outward sign of the vague complexity of a mind that had passed beyond the simplicity of mediocrity without attaining the simplicity of genius.

He was the author of the following works, all of the highest value: Journal des opérations de l’armée de Catalogne en 1808 et 1809 (Paris, 1821); Mémoires sur les campagnes des armées de Rhin et de Rhin-et-Moselle de 1794 à 1797 (Paris, 1829); and Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire militaire sous le Directoire, le Consulat, et l’Empire (1831).

See Gay de Vernon’s Vie de Gouvion Saint-Cyr (1857).

GOVAN, a municipal and police burgh of Lanarkshire, Scotland. It lies on the south bank of the Clyde in actual contact with Glasgow, and in a parish of the same name which includes a large part of the city on both sides of the river. Pop. (1891) 61,589; (1901) 76,532. Govan remained little more than a village till 1860, when the growth of shipbuilding and allied trades gave its development an enormous impetus. Among its public buildings are the municipal chambers, combination fever hospital, Samaritan hospital and reception houses for the poor. Elder Park (40 acres) presented to the burgh in 1885 contains a statue of John Elder (1824-1869), the pioneer shipbuilder, the husband of the donor. A statue of Sir William Pearce (1833-1888), another well-known Govan shipbuilder, once M.P. for the burgh, stands at Govan Cross. The Govan lunacy board opened in 1896 an asylum near Paisley. Govan is supplied with Glasgow gas and water, and its tramways are leased by the Glasgow corporation; but it has an electric light installation of its own, and performs all other municipal functions quite independently of the city, annexation to which it has always strenuously resisted. Prince’s Dock lies within its bounds and the shipbuilding yards have turned out many famous ironclads and liners. Besides shipbuilding its other industries are match-making, silk-weaving, hair-working, copper-working, tube-making, weaving, and the manufacture of locomotives and electrical apparatus. The town forms the greater part of the Govan division of Lanarkshire, which returns one member to parliament.

GOVERNMENT (O. Fr. governement, mod. gouvernement, O. Fr. governer, mod. gouverner, from Lat. gubernare, to steer a ship, guide, rule; cf. Gr. κυβερνᾶν), in its widest sense, the ruling power in a political society. In every society of men there is a determinate body (whether consisting of one individual or a few or many individuals) whose commands the rest of the community are bound to obey. This sovereign body is what in more popular phrase is termed the government of the country, and the varieties which may exist in its constitution are known as forms of government. For the opposite theory of a community with “no government,” see Anarchism.

How did government come into existence? Various answers to this question have at times been given, which may be distinguished broadly into three classes. The first class would comprehend the legendary accounts which nations have given in primitive times of their own forms of government. These are always attributed to the mind of a single lawgiver. The government of Sparta was the invention of Lycurgus. Solon, Moses, Numa and Alfred in like manner shaped the government of their respective nations. There was no curiosity about the institutions of other nations—about the origin of governments in general; and each nation was perfectly ready to accept the traditional νομοθέται of any other.

The second may be called the logical or metaphysical account of the origin of government. It contained no overt reference to any particular form of government, whatever its covert references may have been. It answered the question, how government in general came into existence; and it answered it by a logical analysis of the elements of society. The phenomenon to be accounted for being government and laws, it abstracted government and laws, and contemplated mankind as existing without them. The characteristic feature of this kind of speculation is that it reflects how contemporary men would behave if all government were removed, and infers that men must have behaved so before government came into existence. Society without government resolves itself into a number of individuals each following his own aims, and therefore, in the days before government, each man followed his own aims. It is easy to see how this kind of reasoning should lead to very different views of the nature of the supposed original state. With Hobbes, it is a state of war, and government is the result of an agreement among men to keep the peace. With Locke, it is a state of liberty and equality,—it is not a state of war; it is governed by its own law,—the law of nature, which is the same thing as the law of reason. The state of nature is brought to an end by the voluntary agreement of individuals to surrender their natural liberty and submit themselves to one supreme government. In the words of Locke, “Men being by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community” (On Civil Government, c. viii.). Locke boldly defends his theory as founded on historical fact, and it is amusing to compare his demonstration of the baselessness of Sir R. Filmer’s speculations with the scanty and doubtful examples which he accepts as the foundation of his own. But in general the various forms of the hypothesis eliminate the question of time altogether. The original contract from which government sprang is likewise the subsisting contract on which civil society continues to be based. The historical weakness of the theory was probably always recognized. Its logical inadequacy was conclusively demonstrated by John Austin. But it still clings to speculations on the principles of government.

The “social compact” (see Rousseau) is the most famous of the metaphysical explanations of government. It has had the largest history, the widest influence and the most complete development. To the same class belong the various forms of the theory that governments exist by divine appointment. Of all that has been written about the divine right of kings, a great deal must be set down to the mere flatteries of courtiers and ecclesiastics. But there remains a genuine belief that men are bound to obey their rulers because their rulers have been appointed by God. Like the social compact, the theory of divine appointment avoided the question of historical fact.

The application of the historical method to the phenomena of society has changed the aspect of the question and robbed it of its political interest. The student of the history of society has no formula to express the law by which government is born. All that he can do is to trace governmental forms through various stages of social development. The more complex and the larger the society, the more distinct is the separation between the governing part and the rest, and the more elaborate is the subdivision of functions in the government. The primitive type of ruler is king, judge, priest and general. At the same time, his way of life differs little from that of his followers and subjects. The metaphysical theories were so far right in imputing greater equality of social conditions to more primitive times. Increase of bulk brings with it a more complex social organization. War tends to develop the strength of the governmental organization; peace relaxes it. All societies of men exhibit the germs of government; but there would appear to be races of men so low that they cannot be said to live together in society at all. Modern investigations have illustrated very fully the importance of the family (q.v.) in primitive societies, and the belief in a common descent has much to do with the social cohesion of a tribe. The government of a tribe resembles the government of a household; the head of the family is the ruler. But we cannot affirm that political government has its origin in family government, or that there may not have been states of society in which government of some sort existed while the family did not.

I. Forms of Government

Three Standard Forms.—Political writers from the time of Aristotle have been singularly unanimous in their classification of the forms of government. There are three ways in which states may be governed. They may be governed by one man, or by a number of men, small in proportion to the whole number of men in the state, or by a number large in proportion to the whole number of men in the state. The government may be a monarchy, an aristocracy or a democracy. The same terms are used by John Austin as were used by Aristotle, and in very nearly the same sense. The determining quality in governments in both writers, and it may safely be said in all intermediate writers, is the numerical relation between the constituent members of the government and the population of the state. There were, of course, enormous differences between the state-systems present to the mind of the Greek philosopher and the English jurist. Aristotle was thinking of the small independent states of Greece, Austin of the great peoples of modern Europe. The unit of government in the one case was a city, in the other a nation. This difference is of itself enough to invalidate all generalization founded on the common terminology. But on one point there is a complete parallel between the politics of Aristotle and the politics of Austin. The Greek cities were to the rest of the world very much what European nations and European colonies are to the rest of the world now. They were the only communities in which the governed visibly took some share in the work of government. Outside the European system, as outside the Greek system, we have only the stereotyped uniformity of despotism, whether savage or civilized. The question of forms of government, therefore, belongs characteristically to the European races. The virtues and defects of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are the virtues and defects manifested by the historical governments of Europe. The generality of the language used by political writers must not blind us to the fact that they are thinking only of a comparatively small portion of mankind.

Greek Politics.—Aristotle divides governments according to two principles. In all states the governing power seeks either its own advantage or the advantage of the whole state, and the government is bad or good accordingly. In all states the governing power is one man, or a few men or many men. Hence six varieties of government, three of which are bad and three good. Each excellent form has a corresponding depraved form, thus:—

The good government of one (Monarchy) corresponds to the depraved form (Tyranny).

The good government of few (Aristocracy) corresponds to the depraved form (Oligarchy).

The good government of many (Commonwealth) corresponds to the depraved form (Democracy).

The fault of the depraved forms is that the governors act unjustly where their own interests are concerned. The worst of the depraved forms is tyranny, the next oligarchy and the least bad democracy. Each of the three leading types exhibits a number of varieties. Thus in monarchy we have the heroic, the barbaric, the elective dictatorship, the Lacedemonian (hereditary generalship, στρατηγία), and absolute monarchy. So democracy and oligarchy exhibit four corresponding varieties. The best type of democracy is that of a community mainly agricultural, whose citizens, therefore, have not leisure for political affairs, and allow the law to rule. The best oligarchy is that in which a considerable number of small proprietors have the power; here, too, the laws prevail. The worst democracy consists of a larger citizen class having leisure for politics; and the worst oligarchy is that of a small number of very rich and influential men. In both the sphere of law is reduced to a minimum. A good government is one in which as much as possible is left to the laws, and as little as possible to the will of the governor.

The Politics of Aristotle, from which these principles are taken, presents a striking picture of the variety and activity of political life in the free communities of Greece. The king and council of heroic times had disappeared, and self-government in some form or other was the general rule. It is to be noticed, however, that the governments of Greece were essentially unstable. The political philosophers could lay down the law of development by which one form of government gives birth to another. Aristotle devotes a large portion of his work to the consideration of the causes of revolutions. The dread of tyranny was kept alive by the facility with which an over-powerful and unscrupulous citizen could seize the whole machinery of government. Communities oscillated between some form of oligarchy and some form of democracy. The security of each was constantly imperilled by the conspiracies of the opposing factions. Hence, although political life exhibits that exuberant variety of form and expression which characterizes all the intellectual products of Greece, it lacks the quality of persistent progress. Then there was no approximation to a national government, even of the federal type. The varying confederacies and hegemonies are the nearest approach to anything of the kind. What kind of national government would ultimately have arisen if Greece had not been crushed it is needless to conjecture; the true interest of Greek politics lies in the fact that the free citizens were, in the strictest sense of the word, self-governed. Each citizen took his turn at the common business of the state. He spoke his own views in the agora, and from time to time in his own person acted as magistrate or judge. Citizenship in Athens was a liberal education, such as it never can be made under any representative system.

The Government of Rome.—During the whole period of freedom the government of Rome was, in theory at least, municipal self-government. Each citizen had a right to vote laws in his own person in the comitia of the centuries or the tribes. The administrative powers of government were, however, in the hands of a bureaucratic assembly, recruited from the holders of high public office. The senate represented capacity and experience rather than rank and wealth. Without some such instrument the city government of Rome could never have made the conquest of the world. The gradual extension of the citizenship to other Italians changed the character of Roman government. The distant citizens could not come to the voting booths; the device of representation was not discovered; and the comitia fell into the power of the town voters. In the last stage of the Roman republic, the inhabitants of one town wielded the resources of a world-wide empire. We can imagine what would be the effect of leaving to the people of London or Paris the supreme control of the British empire or of France,—irresistible temptation, inevitable corruption. The rabble of the capital learn to live on the rest of the empire. The favour of the effeminate masters of the world is purchased by panem et circenses. That capable officers and victorious armies should long be content to serve such masters was impossible. A conspiracy of generals placed itself at the head of affairs, and the most capable of them made himself sole master. Under Caesar, Augustus and Tiberius, the Roman people became habituated to a new form of government, which is best described by the name of Caesarism. The outward forms of republican government remained, but one man united in his own person all the leading offices, and used them to give a seemingly legal title to what was essentially military despotism. There is no more interesting constitutional study than the chapters in which Tacitus traces the growth of the new system under the subtle and dissimulating intellect of Tiberius. The new Roman empire was as full of fictions as the English constitution of the present day. The master of the world posed as the humble servant of a menial senate. Deprecating the outward symbols of sovereignty, he was satisfied with the modest powers of a consul or a tribunus plebis. The reign of Tiberius, little capable as he was by personal character of captivating the favour of the multitude, did more for imperialism than was done by his more famous predecessors. Henceforward free government all over the world lay crushed beneath the military despotism of Rome. Caesarism remained true to the character imposed upon it by its origin. The Caesar was an elective not an hereditary king. The real foundation of his power was the army, and the army in course of time openly assumed the right of nominating the sovereign. The characteristic weakness of the Roman empire was the uncertainty of the succession. The nomination of a Caesar in the lifetime of the emperor was an ineffective remedy. Rival emperors were elected by different armies; and nothing less than the force of arms could decide the question between them.

Modern Governments.—Feudalism.—The Roman empire bequeathed to modern Europe the theory of universal dominion. The nationalities which grew up after its fall arranged themselves on the basis of territorial sovereignty. Leaving out of account the free municipalities of the middle ages, the problem of government had now to be solved, not for small urban communities, but for large territorial nations. The medieval form of government was feudal. One common type pervaded all the relations of life. The relation of king and lord was like the relation between lord and vassal (see Feudalism). The bond between them was the tenure of land. In England there had been, before the Norman Conquest, an approximation to a feudal system. In the earlier English constitution, the most striking features were the power of the witan, and the common property of the nation in a large portion of the soil. The steady development of the power of the king kept pace with the aggregation of the English tribes under one king. The conception that the land belonged primarily to the people gave way to the conception that everything belonged primarily to the king. The Norman Conquest imposed on England the already highly developed feudalism of France, and out of this feudalism the free governments of modern Europe have grown. One or two of the leading steps in this process may be indicated here. The first, and perhaps the most important, was the device of representation. For an account of its origin, and for instances of its use in England before its application to politics, we must be content to refer to Stubbs’s Constitutional History, vol. ii. The problem of combining a large area of sovereignty with some degree of self-government, which had proved fatal to ancient commonwealths, was henceforward solved. From that time some form of representation has been deemed essential to every constitution professing, however remotely, to be free.

The connexion between representation and the feudal system of estates must be shortly noticed. The feudal theory gave the king a limited right to military service and to certain aids, both of which were utterly inadequate to meet the expenses of the government, especially in time of war. The king therefore had to get contributions from his people, and he consulted them in their respective orders. The three estates were simply the three natural divisions of the people, and Stubbs has pointed out that, in the occasional treaties between a necessitous king and the order of merchants or lawyers, we have examples of inchoate estates or sub-estates of the realm. The right of representation was thus in its origin a right to consent to taxation. The pure theory of feudalism had from the beginning been broken by William the Conqueror causing all free-holders to take an oath of direct allegiance to himself. The institution of parliaments, and the association of the king’s smaller tenants in capite with other commoners, still further removed the government from the purely feudal type in which the mesne lord stands between the inferior vassal and the king.

Parliamentary Government.—The English System.—The right of the commons to share the power of the king and lords in legislation, the exclusive right of the commons to impose taxes, the disappearance of the clergy as a separate order, were all important steps in the movement towards popular government. The extinction of the old feudal nobility in the dynastic wars of the 15th century simplified the question by leaving the crown face to face with parliament. The immediate result was no doubt an increase in the power of the crown, which probably never stood higher than it did in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth; but even these powerful monarchs were studious in their regard for parliamentary conventionalities. After a long period of speculative controversy and civil war, the settlement of 1688 established limited monarchy as the government of England. Since that time the external form of government has remained unchanged, and, so far as legal description goes, the constitution of William III. might be taken for the same system as that which still exists. The silent changes have, however, been enormous. The most striking of these, and that which has produced the most salient features of the English system, is the growth of cabinet government. Intimately connected with this is the rise of the two great historical parties of English politics. The normal state of government in England is that the cabinet of the day shall represent that which is, for the time, the stronger of the two. Before the Revolution the king’s ministers had begun to act as a united body; but even after the Revolution the union was still feeble and fluctuating, and each individual minister was bound to the others only by the tie of common service to the king. Under the Hanoverian sovereigns the ministry became consolidated, the position of the cabinet became definite, and its dependence on parliament, and more particularly on the House of Commons, was established. Ministers were chosen exclusively from one house or the other, and they assumed complete responsibility for every act done in the name of the crown. The simplicity of English politics has divided parliament into the representatives of two parties, and the party in opposition has been steadied by the consciousness that it, too, has constitutional functions of high importance, because at any moment it may be called to provide a ministry. Criticism is sobered by being made responsible. Along with this movement went the withdrawal of the personal action of the sovereign in politics. No king has attempted to veto a bill since the Scottish Militia Bill was vetoed by Queen Anne. No ministry has been dismissed by the sovereign since 1834. Whatever the power of the sovereign may be, it is unquestionably limited to his personal influence over his ministers. And it must be remembered that since the Reform Act of 1832 ministers have become, in practice, responsible ultimately, not to parliament, but to the House of Commons. Apart, therefore, from democratic changes due to a wider suffrage, we find that the House of Commons, as a body, gradually made itself the centre of the government. Since the area of the constitution has been enlarged, it may be doubted whether the orthodox descriptions of the government any longer apply. The earlier constitutional writers, such as Blackstone and J. L. Delolme, regard it as a wonderful compound of the three standard forms,—monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. Each has its place, and each acts as a check upon the others. Hume, discussing the question “Whether the British government inclines more to absolute monarchy or to a republic,” decides in favour of the former alternative. “The tide has run long and with some rapidity to the side of popular government, and is just beginning to turn toward monarchy.” And he gives it as his own opinion that absolute monarchy would be the easiest death, the true euthanasia of the British constitution. These views of the English government in the 18th century may be contrasted with Bagehot’s sketch of the modern government as a working instrument.

Leading Features of Parliamentary Government.—The parliamentary government developed by England out of feudal materials has been deliberately accepted as the type of constitutional government all over the world. Its leading features are popular representation more or less extensive, a bicameral legislature, and a cabinet or consolidated ministry. In connexion with all of these, numberless questions of the highest practical importance have arisen, the bare enumeration of which would surpass the limits of our space. We shall confine ourselves to a few very general considerations.

The Two Chambers.—First, as to the double chamber. This, which is perhaps more accidental than any other portion of the British system, has been the most widely imitated. In most European countries, in the British colonies, in the United States Congress, and in the separate states of the Union, there are two houses of legislature. This result has been brought about partly by natural imitation of the accepted type of free government, partly from a conviction that the second chamber will moderate the democratic tendencies of the first. But the elements of the British original cannot be reproduced to order under different conditions. There have, indeed, been a few attempts to imitate the special character of hereditary nobility attaching to the British House of Lords. In some countries, where the feudal tradition is still strong (e.g. Prussia, Austria, Hungary), the hereditary element in the upper chambers has survived as truly representative of actual social and economic relations. But where these social conditions do not obtain (e.g. in France after the Revolution) the attempt to establish an hereditary peerage on the British model has always failed. For the peculiar solidarity between the British nobility and the general mass of the people, the outcome of special conditions and tendencies, is a result beyond the power of constitution-makers to attain. The British system too, after its own way, has for a long period worked without any serious collision between the Houses,—the standing and obvious danger of the bicameral system. The actual ministers of the day must possess the confidence of the House of Commons; they need not—in fact they often do not—possess the confidence of the House of Lords. It is only in legislation that the Lower House really shares its powers with the Upper; and (apart from any such change in the constitution as was suggested in 1907 by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman) the constitution possesses, in the unlimited power of nominating peers, a well-understood last resource should the House of Lords persist in refusing important measures demanded by the representatives of the people. In the United Kingdom it is well understood that the real sovereignty lies with the people (the electorate), and the House of Lords recognizes the principle that it must accept a measure when the popular will has been clearly expressed. In all but measures of first-class importance, however, the House of Lords is a real second chamber, and in these there is little danger of a collision between the Houses. There is the widest possible difference between the British and any other second chamber. In the United States the Senate (constituted on the system of equal representation of states) is the more important of the two Houses, and the only one whose control of the executive can be compared to that exercised by the British House of Commons.

The real strength of popular government in England lies in the ultimate supremacy of the House of Commons. That supremacy had been acquired, perhaps to its full extent, before the extension of the suffrage made the constituencies democratic. Foreign imitators, it may be observed, have been more ready to accept a wide basis of representation than to confer real power on the representative body. In all the monarchical countries of Europe, however unrestricted the right of suffrage may be, the real victory of constitutional government has yet to be won. Where the suffrage means little or nothing, there is little or no reason for guarding it against abuse. The independence of the executive in the United States brings that country, from one point of view, more near to the state system of the continent of Europe than to that of the United Kingdom. The people make a more complete surrender of power to the government (State or Federal) than is done in England.

Cabinet Government.—The peculiar functions of the English cabinet are not easily matched in any foreign system. They are a mystery even to most educated Englishmen. The cabinet (q.v.) is much more than a body consisting of chiefs of departments. It is the inner council of the empire, the arbiter of national policy, foreign or domestic, the sovereign in commission. The whole power of the House of Commons is concentrated in its hands. At the same time, it has no place whatever in the legal constitution. Its numbers and its constitution are not fixed even by any rule of practice. It keeps no record of its proceedings. The relations of an individual minister to the cabinet, and of the cabinet to its head and creator, the premier, are things known only to the initiated. With the doubtful exception of France, no other system of government presents us with anything like its equivalent. In the United States, as in the European monarchies, we have a council of ministers surrounding the chief of the state.

Change of Power in the English System.—One of the most difficult problems of government is how to provide for the devolution of political power, and perhaps no other question is so generally and justly applied as the test of a working constitution. If the transmission works smoothly, the constitution, whatever may be its other defects, may at least be pronounced stable. It would be tedious to enumerate all the contrivances which this problem has suggested to political societies. Here, as usual, oriental despotism stands at the bottom of the scale. When sovereign power is imputed to one family, and the law of succession fails to designate exclusively the individual entitled to succeed, assassination becomes almost a necessary measure of precaution. The prince whom chance or intrigue has promoted to the throne of a father or an uncle must make himself safe from his relatives and competitors. Hence the scenes which shock the European conscience when “Amurath an Amurath succeeds.” The strong monarchical governments of Europe have been saved from this evil by an indisputable law of succession, which marks out from his infancy the next successor to the throne. The king names his ministers, and the law names the king. In popular or constitutional governments far more elaborate precautions are required. It is one of the real merits of the English constitution that it has solved this problem—in a roundabout way perhaps, after its fashion—but with perfect success. The ostensible seat of power is the throne, and down to a time not long distant the demise of the crown suspended all the other powers of the state. In point of fact, however, the real change of power occurs on a change of ministry. The constitutional practice of the 19th century settled, beyond the reach of controversy, the occasions on which a ministry is bound to retire. It must resign or dissolve when it is defeated in the House of Commons, and if after a dissolution it is beaten again, it must resign without alternative. It may resign if it thinks its majority in the House of Commons not sufficiently large. The dormant functions of the crown now come into existence. It receives back political power from the old ministry in order to transmit it to the new. When the new ministry is to be formed, and how it is to be formed, is also clearly settled by established practice. The outgoing premier names his successor by recommending the king to consult him; and that successor must be the recognized leader of his successful rivals. All this is a matter of custom, not of law; and it is doubtful if any two authorities could agree in describing the custom in language of precision. In theory the monarch may send for any one he pleases, and charge him with the formation of a government; but the ability to form a government restricts this liberty to the recognized head of a party, subject to there being such an individual. It is certain that the intervention of the crown facilitates the transfer of power from one party to another, by giving it the appearance of a mere change of servants. The real disturbance is that caused by the appeal to the electors. A general election is always a struggle between the great political parties for the possession of the powers of government. It may be noted that modern practice goes far to establish the rule that a ministry beaten at the hustings should resign at once without waiting for a formal defeat in the House of Commons.

The English custom makes the ministry dependent on the will of the House of Commons; and, on the other hand, the House of Commons itself is dependent on the will of the ministry. In the last result both depend on the will of the constituencies, as expressed at the general election. There is no fixity in either direction in the tenure of a ministry. It may be challenged at any moment, and it lasts until it is challenged and beaten. And that there should be a ministry and a House of Commons in harmony with each other but out of harmony with the people is rendered all but impossible by the law and the practice as to the duration of parliaments.

Change of Power in the United States.—The United States offers a very different solution of the problem. The American president is at once king and prime minister; and there is no titular superior to act as a conduit-pipe between him and his successor. His crown is rigidly fixed; he can be removed only by the difficult method of impeachment. No hostile vote on matters of legislation can affect his position. But the end of his term is known from the first day of his government; and almost before he begins to reign the political forces of the country are shaping out a new struggle for the succession. Further, a change of government in America means a considerable change in the administrative staff (see Civil Service). The commotion caused by a presidential election in the United States is thus infinitely greater and more prolonged than that caused by a general election in England. A change of power in England affects comparatively few personal interests, and absorbs the attention of the country for a comparatively short space of time. In the United States it is long foreseen and elaborately prepared for, and when it comes it involves the personal fortunes of large numbers of citizens. And yet the British constitution is more democratic than the American, in the sense that the popular will can more speedily be brought to bear upon the government.

Change of Power in France.—The established practice of England and America may be compared with the constitutionalism of France. Here the problem presents different conditions. The head of the state is neither a premier of the English, nor a president of the American type. He is served by a prime minister and a cabinet, who, like an English ministry, hold office on the condition of parliamentary confidence; but he holds office himself on the same terms, and is, in fact, a minister like the others. So far as the transmission of power from cabinet to cabinet is concerned, he discharges the functions of an English king. But the transmission of power between himself and his successor is protected by no constitutional devices whatever, and experience would seem to show that no such devices are really necessary. Other European countries professing constitutional government appear to follow the English practice. The Swiss republic is so peculiarly situated that it is hardly fair to compare it with any other. But it is interesting to note that, while the rulers of the states are elected annually, the same persons are generally re-elected.

The Relation between Government and Laws.—It might be supposed that, if any general proposition could be established about government, it would be one establishing some constant relation between the form of a government and the character of the laws which it enforces. The technical language of the English school of jurists is certainly of a kind to encourage such a supposition. The entire body of law in force in a country at any moment is regarded as existing solely by the fiat of the governing power. There is no maxim more entirely in the spirit of this jurisprudence than the following:—“The real legislator is not he by whom the law was first ordained, but he by whose will it continues to be law.” The whole of the vast repertory of rules which make up the law of England—the rules of practice in the courts, the local customs of a county or a manor, the principles formulated by the sagacity of generations of judges, equally with the statutes for the year, are conceived of by the school of Austin as created by the will of the sovereign and the two Houses of Parliament, or so much of them as would now satisfy the definition of sovereignty. It would be out of place to examine here the difficulties which embarrass this definition, but the statement we have made carries on its face a demonstration of its own falsity in fact. There is probably no government in the world of which it could be said that it might change at will the substantive laws of the country and still remain a government. However well it may suit the purposes of analytical jurisprudence to define a law as a command set by sovereign to subject, we must not forget that this is only a definition, and that the assumption it rests upon is, to the student of society, anything but a universal fact. From his point of view the cause of a particular law is not one but many, and of the many the deliberate will of a legislator may not be one. Sir Henry Maine has illustrated this point by the case of the great tax-gathering empires of the east, in which the absolute master of millions of men never dreams of making anything in the nature of a law at all. This view is no doubt as strange to the English statesman as to the English jurist. The most conspicuous work of government in his view is that of parliamentary legislation. For a large portion of the year the attention of the whole people is bent on the operations of a body of men who are constantly engaged in making new laws. It is natural, therefore, to think of law as a factitious thing, made and unmade by the people who happen for the time being to constitute parliament. It is forgotten how small a proportion the laws actually devised by parliament are of the law actually prevailing in the land. No European country has undergone so many changes in the form of government as France. It is surprising how little effect these political revolutions have had on the body of French law. The change from empire to republic is not marked by greater legislative effects than the change from a Conservative to a Liberal ministry in England would be.

These reflections should make us cautious in accepting any general proposition about forms of government and the spirit of their laws. We must remember, also, that the classification of governments according to the numerical proportion between governors and governed supplies but a small basis for generalization. What parallel can be drawn between a small town, in which half the population are slaves, and every freeman has a direct voice in the government, and a great modern state, in which there is not a single slave, while freemen exercise their sovereign powers at long intervals, and through the action of delegates and representatives? Propositions as vague as those of Montesquieu may indeed be asserted with more or less plausibility. But to take any leading head of positive law, and to say that monarchies treat it in one way, aristocracies and democracies in another, is a different matter.

II. Sphere of Government

The action of the state, or sovereign power, or government in a civilized community shapes itself into the threefold functions of legislation, judicature and administration. The two first are perfectly well-defined, and the last includes all the kinds of state action not included in the other two. It is with reference to legislation and administration that the line of permissible state-action requires to be drawn. There is no doubt about the province of the judicature, and that function of government may therefore be dismissed with a very few observations.

The complete separation of the three functions marks a high point of social organization. In simple societies the same officers discharge all the duties which we divide between the legislator, the administrator and the judge. The acts themselves are not consciously recognized as being of different kinds. The evolution of all the parts of a highly complex government from one original is illustrated in a striking way by the history of English institutions. All the conspicuous parts of the modern government, however little they may resemble each other now, can be followed back without a break to their common origin. Parliament, the cabinet, the privy council, the courts of law, all carry us back to the same nidus in the council of the feudal king.

Judicature.—The business of judicature, requiring as it does the possession of a high degree of technical skill and knowledge, is generally entrusted by the sovereign body or people to a separate and independent class of functionaries. In England the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords still maintains in theory the connexion between the supreme legislative and the supreme judicial functions. In some states of the American Union certain judicial functions of the upper house were for a time maintained after the example of the English constitution as it existed when the states were founded. In England there is also still a considerable amount of judicial work in which the people takes its share. The inferior magistracies, except in populous places, are in the hands of private persons. And by the jury system the ascertainment of fact has been committed in very large measure to persons selected indiscriminately from the mass of the people, subject to a small property qualification. But the higher functions of the judicature are exercised by persons whom the law has jealously fenced off from external interference and control. The independence of the bench distinguishes the English system from every other. It was established in principle as a barrier against monarchical power, and hence has become one of the traditional ensigns of popular government. In many of the American states the spirit of democracy has demanded the subjection of the judiciary to popular control. The judges are elected directly by the people, and hold office for a short term, instead of being appointed, as in England, by the responsible executive, and removable only by a vote of the two Houses. At the same time the constitution of the United States has assigned to the supreme court of the Union a perfectly unique position. The supreme court is the guardian of the constitution (as are the state courts of the constitution of the states: see United States). It has to judge whether a measure passed by the legislative powers is not void by reason of being unconstitutional, and it may therefore have to veto the deliberate resolutions of both Houses of Congress and the president. It is admitted that this singular experiment in government has been completely justified by its success.

Limits of State Interference in Legislation and Administration.—The question of the limits of state action does not arise with reference to the judiciary. The enforcement of the laws is a duty which the sovereign power must of absolute necessity take upon itself. But to what conduct of the citizens the laws shall extend is the most perplexing of all political questions. The correlative question with regard to the executive would be what works of public convenience should the state undertake through its own servants. The whole question of the sphere of government may be stated in these two questions: What should the state do for its citizens? and How far should the state interfere with the action of its citizens? These questions are the direct outcome of modern popular government; they are equally unknown to the small democracies of ancient times and to despotic governments at all times. Accordingly ancient political philosophy, rich as it is in all kinds of suggestions, has very little to say that has any bearing on the sphere of government. The conception that the power of the state can be and ought to be limited belongs to the times of “government by discussion,” to use Bagehot’s expression,—to the time when the sovereign number is divided by class interests, and when the action of the majority has to be carried out in the face of strong minorities, capable of making themselves heard. Aristotle does indeed dwell on one aspect of the question. He would limit the action of the government in the sense of leaving as little as possible to the personal will of the governors, whether one or many. His maxim is that the law should reign. But that the sphere of law itself should be restricted, otherwise than by general principles of morality, is a consideration wholly foreign to ancient philosophy. The state is conceived as acting like a just man, and justice in the state is the same thing as justice in the individual. The Greek institutions which the philosophers are unanimous in commending are precisely those which the most state-ridden nations of modern times would agree in repudiating. The exhaustive discussion of all political measures, which for over two centuries has been a fixed habit of English public life, has of itself established the principle that there are assignable limits to the action of the state. Not that the limits ever have been assigned in terms, but popular sentiment has more or less vaguely fenced off departments of conduct as sacred from the interference of the law. Phrases like “the liberty of the subject,” the “sanctity of private property,” “an Englishman’s house is his castle,” “the rights of conscience,” are the commonplaces of political discussion, and tell the state, “Thus far shalt thou go and no further.”

The two contrasting policies are those of laissez-faire (let alone) and Protection, or individualism and state-socialism, the one a policy of non-interference with the free play of social forces, the other of their regulation for the benefit of the community. The laissez-faire theory was prominently upheld by John Stuart Mill, whose essay on Liberty, together with the concluding chapters of his treatise on Political Economy, gives a tolerably complete view of the principles of government. There is a general presumption against the interference of government, which is only to be overcome by very strong evidence of necessity. Governmental action is generally less effective than voluntary action. The necessary duties of government are so burdensome, that to increase them destroys its efficiency. Its powers are already so great that individual freedom is constantly in danger. As a general rule, nothing which can be done by the voluntary agency of individuals should be left to the state. Each man is the best judge of his own interests. But, on the other hand, when the thing itself is admitted to be useful or necessary, and it cannot be effected by voluntary agency, or when it is of such a nature that the consumer cannot be considered capable of judging of the quality supplied, then Mill would allow the state to interpose. Thus the education of children, and even of adults, would fairly come within the province of the state. Mill even goes so far as to admit that, where a restriction of the hours of labour, or the establishment of a periodical holiday, is proved to be beneficial to labourers as a class, but cannot be carried out voluntarily on account of the refusal of individuals to co-operate, government may justifiably compel them to co-operate. Still further, Mill would desire to see some control exercised by the government over the operations of those voluntary associations which, consisting of large numbers of shareholders, necessarily leave their affairs in the hands of one or a few persons. In short, Mill’s general rule against state action admits of many important exceptions, founded on no principle less vague than that of public expediency. The essay on Liberty is mainly concerned with freedom of individual character, and its arguments apply to control exercised, not only by the state, but by society in the form of public opinion. The leading principle is that of Humboldt, “the absolute and essential importance of human development in its richest diversity.” Humboldt broadly excluded education, religion and morals from the action, direct and indirect, of the state. Mill, as we have seen, conceives education to be within the province of the state, but he would confine its action to compelling parents to educate their children.

The most thoroughgoing opponent of state action, however, is Herbert Spencer. In his Social Statics, published in 1850, he holds it to be the essential duty of government to protect—to maintain men’s rights to life, to personal liberty and to property; and the theory that the government ought to undertake other offices besides that of protector he regards as an untenable theory. Each man has a right to the fullest exercise of all his faculties, compatible with the same right in others. This is the fundamental law of equal freedom, which it is the duty and the only duty of the state to enforce. If the state goes beyond this duty, it becomes, not a protector, but an aggressor. Thus all state regulations of commerce, all religious establishments, all government relief of the poor, all state systems of education and of sanitary superintendence, even the state currency and the post-office, stand condemned, not only as ineffective for their respective purposes, but as involving violations of man’s natural liberty.

The tendency of modern legislation is more a question of political practice than of political theory. In some cases state interference has been abolished or greatly limited. These cases are mainly two—in matters of opinion (especially religious opinion), and in matters of contract.

The mere enumeration of the individual instances would occupy a formidable amount of space. The reader is referred to such articles as England, Church of; Establishment; Marriage; Oath; Roman Catholic Church, &c., and Company; Contract; Partnership, &c. In other cases the state has interfered for the protection and assistance of definite classes of persons. For example, the education and protection of children (see Children, Law Relating to; Education; Technical Education); the regulation of factory labour and dangerous employment (see Labour Legislation); improved conditions of health (see Adulteration; Housing; Public Health, Law of, &c.); coercion for moral purposes (see Bet and Betting; Criminal Law; Gaming and Wagering; Liquor Laws; Lotteries, &c.). Under numerous other headings in this work the evolution of existing forms of government is discussed; see also the bibliographical note to the article Constitution and Constitutional Law.

Aristotle elsewhere speaks of the error of those who think that any one of the depraved forms is better than any other.

None of the free states of Greece ever made extensive or permanent conquests; but the tribute sometimes paid by one state to another (as by the Aeginetans to the Athenians) was a manifest source of corruption. Compare the remarks of Hume (Essays, part i. 3, That Politics may be reduced to a Science), “free governments are the most ruinous and oppressive for their provinces.”

Ultimately, in the theory of English law, the king may be said to have become the universal successor of the people. Some of the peculiarities of the prerogative rights seem to be explainable only on this view, e.g. the curious distinction between wrecks come to land and wrecks still on water. The common right to wreckage was no doubt the origin of the prerogative right to the former. Every ancient common right has come to be a right of the crown or a right held of the crown by a vassal.

See Bagehot’s English Constitution; or, for a more recent analysis, Sidney Low’s Governance of England.

For an account of the double chamber system in the state legislatures see United States: Constitution and Government, and also S. G. Fisher, The Evolution of the Constitution (Philadelphia, 1897).

A government “defeat” may, of course, not really represent a hostile vote in exceptional cases, and in some instances a government has obtained a reversal of the vote and has not resigned.

GOVERNOR (from the Fr. gouverneur, from gouverner, O. Fr. governer, Lat. gubernare, to steer a ship, to direct, guide), in general, one who governs or exercises authority; specifically, an official appointed to govern a district, province, town, &c. In British colonies or dependencies the representative of the crown is termed a governor. Colonial governors are classed as governors-general, governors and lieutenant-governors, according to the status of the colony or group of colonies over which they preside. Their powers vary according to the position which they occupy. In all cases they represent the authority of the crown. In the United States (q.v.) the official at the head of every state government is called a governor.

GOW, NIEL (1727-1807), Scottish musician of humble parentage, famous as a violinist and player of reels, but more so for the part he played in preserving the old melodies of Scotland. His compositions, and those of his four sons, Nathaniel, the most famous (1763-1831), William (1751-1791), Andrew (1760-1803), and John (1764-1826), formed the “Gow Collection,” comprising various volumes edited by Niel and his sons, a valuable repository of Scottish traditional airs. The most important of Niel’s sons was Nathaniel, who is remembered as the author of the well-known “Caller Herrin,” taken from the fishwives’ cry, a tune to which words were afterwards written by Lady Nairne. Nathaniel’s son, Niel Gow junior (1795-1823), was the author of the famous songs “Flora Macdonald’s Lament” and “Cam’ ye by Athol.”

GOWER, JOHN (d. 1408), English poet, died at an advanced age in 1408, so that he may be presumed to have been born about 1330. He belonged to a good Kentish family, but the suggestion of Sir Harris Nicolas that the poet is to be identified with a John Gower who was at one time possessed of the manor of Kentwell is open to serious objections. There is no evidence that he ever lived as a country gentleman, but he was undoubtedly possessed of some wealth, and we know that he was the owner of the manors of Feltwell in Suffolk and Moulton in Norfolk. In a document of 1382 he is called an “Esquier de Kent,” and he was certainly not in holy orders. That he was acquainted with Chaucer we know, first because Chaucer in leaving England for Italy in 1378 appointed Gower and another to represent him in his absence, secondly because Chaucer addressed his Troilus and Criseide to Gower and Strode (whom he addresses as “moral Gower” and “philosophical Strode”) for criticism and correction, and thirdly because of the lines in the first edition of Gower’s Confessio amantis, “And gret wel Chaucer whan ye mete,” &c. There is no sufficient ground for the suggestion, based partly on the subsequent omission of these lines and partly on the humorous reference of Chaucer to Gower’s Confessio amantis in the introduction to the Man of Law’s Tale, that the friendship was broken by a quarrel. From his Latin poem Vox clamantis we know that he was deeply and painfully interested in the peasants’ rising of 1381; and by the alterations which the author made in successive revisions of this work we can trace a gradually increasing sense of disappointment in the youthful king, whom he at first acquits of all responsibility for the state of the kingdom on account of his tender age. That he became personally known to the king we learn from his own statement in the first edition of the Confessio amantis, where he says that he met the king upon the river, was invited to enter the royal barge, and in the conversation which followed received the suggestion which led him to write his principal English poem. At the same time we know, especially from the later revisions of the Confessio amantis, that he was a great admirer of the king’s brilliant cousin, Henry of Lancaster, afterwards Henry IV., whom he came eventually to regard as a possible saviour of society from the misgovernment of Richard II. We have a record that in 1393 he received a collar from his favourite political hero, and it is to be observed that the effigy upon Gower’s tomb is wearing a collar of SS. with the swan badge which was used by Henry.

The first edition of the Confessio amantis is dated 1390, and this contains, at least in some copies, a secondary dedication to the then earl of Derby. The later form, in which Henry became the sole object of the dedication, is of the year 1393. Gower’s political opinions are still more strongly expressed in the Cronica tripartita.

In 1398 he was married to Agnes Groundolf, and from the special licence granted by the bishop of Winchester for the celebration of this marriage in John Gower’s private oratory we gather that he was then living in lodgings assigned to him within the priory of St Mary Overy, and perhaps also that he was too infirm to be married in the parish church. It is probable that this was not his first marriage, for there are indications in his early French poem that he had a wife at the time when that was written. His will is dated the 15th of August 1408, and his death took place very soon after this. He had been blind for some years before his death. A magnificent tomb with a recumbent effigy was erected over his grave in the chapel of St John the Baptist within the church of the priory, now St Saviour’s, Southwark, and this is still to be seen, though not quite in its original state or place. From the inscription on the tomb, as well as from other indications, it appears that he was a considerable benefactor of the priory and contributed largely to the rebuilding of the church.

The effigy on Gower’s tomb rests its head upon a pile of three folio volumes entitled Speculum meditantis, Vox clamantis and Confessio amantis. These are his three principal works. The first of these was long supposed to have perished, but a copy of it was discovered in the year 1895 under the title Mirour de l’omme. It is a French poem of about 30,000 lines in twelve-line stanzas, and under the form of an allegory of the human soul describes the seven deadly sins and their opposing virtues, and then the various estates of man and the vices incident to each, concluding with a narrative of the life of the Virgin Mary, and with praise of her as the means of reconciliation between God and man. The work is extremely tedious for the most part, but shows considerable command over the language and a great facility in metrical expression.

Gower’s next work was the Vox clamantis in Latin elegiac verse, in which the author takes occasion from the peasants’ insurrection of 1381 to deal again with the faults of the various classes of society. In the earlier portion the insurrection itself is described in a rather vivid manner, though under the form of an allegory: the remainder contains much the same material as we have already seen in that part of the French poem where the classes of society are described. Gower’s Latin verse is very fair, as judged by the medieval standard, but in this book he has borrowed very freely from Ovid, Alexander Neckam, Peter de Riga and others.

Gower’s chief claim, however, to reputation as a poet rests upon his English work, the Confessio amantis, in which he displays in his native language a real gift as a story-teller. He is himself the lover of his poem, in spite of his advancing years, and he makes his confession to Genius, the priest of Venus, under the usual headings supplied by the seven deadly sins. These with their several branches are successively described, and the nature of them illustrated by tales, which are directed to the illustration both of the general nature of the sin, and of the particular form which it may take in a lover. Finally he receives at once his absolution, and his dismissal from the service of Venus, for which his age renders him unfit. The idea is ingenious, and there is often much quaintness of fancy in the application of moral ideas to the relations of the lover and his mistress. The tales are drawn from very various sources and are often extremely well told. The metre is the short couplet, and it is extremely smooth and regular. The great fault of the Confessio amantis is the extent of its digressions, especially in the fifth and seventh books.

Gower also wrote in 1397 a short series of French ballades on the virtue of the married state (Traitié pour essampler les amantz mariés), and after the accession of Henry IV. he produced the Cronica tripartita, a partisan account in Latin leonine hexameters of the events of the last twelve years of the reign of Richard II. About the same time he addressed an English poem in seven-line stanzas to Henry IV. (In Praise of Peace), and dedicated to the king a series of French ballades (Cinkante Balades), which deal with the conventional topics of love, but are often graceful and even poetical in expression. Several occasional Latin pieces also belong to the later years of his life.

On the whole Gower must be admitted to have had considerable literary powers; and though not a man of genius, and by no means to be compared with Chaucer, yet he did good service in helping to establish the standard literary language, which at the end of the 14th century took the place of the Middle English dialects. The Confessio amantis was long regarded as a classic of the language, and Gower and Chaucer were often mentioned side by side as the fathers of English poetry.

A complete edition of Gower’s works in four volumes, edited by G. C. Macaulay, was published in 1899-1902, the first volume containing the French works, the second and third the English, and the fourth the Latin, with a biography. Before this the Confessio amantis had been published in the following editions: Caxton (1483); Berthelette (1532 and 1554); Chalmers, British Poets (1810); Reinhold Pauli (1857); H. Morley (1889, incomplete). The two series of French ballades and the Praise of Peace were printed for the Roxburghe Club in 1818, and the Vox clamantis and Cronica tripartita were edited by H. O. Coxe for the Roxburghe Club in 1850. The Cronica tripartita, the Praise of Peace and some of the minor Latin poems were printed in Wright’s Political Poems (Rolls series, 14). The Praise of Peace appeared in the early folio editions of Chaucer, and has been edited also by Dr Skeat in his Chaucerian and other Pieces. Reference may be made to Todd’s Illustrations of the Lives and Writings of Gower and Chaucer; the article (by Sir H. Nicolas) in the Retrospective Review for 1828; Observations on the Language of Chaucer and Gower, by F. J. Child; H. Morley’s English Writers, iv.; Ten Brink’s History of Early English Literature, ii.; and Courthope’s History of English Poetry, i.

(G. C. M.)

GOWER, a seigniory and district in the county of Glamorgan, lying between the rivers Tawe and Loughor and between Breconshire and the sea, its length from the Breconshire border to Worm’s Head being 28 m., and its breadth about 8 m. It corresponds to the ancient commote of Gower (in Welsh Gwyr) which in early Welsh times was grouped with two other commotes stretching westwards to the Towy and so formed part of the principality of Ystrad Tywi. Its early association with the country to the west instead of with Glamorgan is perpetuated by its continued inclusion in the diocese of St Davids, its two rural deaneries, West and East Gower, being in the archdeaconry of Carmarthen. What is meant by Gower in modern popular usage, however, is only the peninsular part or “English Gower” (that is the Welsh Bro-wyr, as distinct from Gwyr proper), roughly corresponding to the hundred of Swansea and lying mainly to the south of a line drawn from Swansea to Loughor.

The numerous limestone caves of the coast are noted for their immense deposits of animal remains, but their traces of man are far scantier, those found in Bacon Hole and in Paviland cave being the most important. In the Roman period the river Tawe, or the great morass between it and the Neath, probably formed the boundary between the Silures and the Goidelic population to the west. The latter, reinforced perhaps from Ireland, continued to be the dominant race in Gower till their conquest or partial expulsion in the 4th century by the sons of Cunedda who introduced a Brythonic element into the district. Centuries later Scandinavian rovers raided the coasts, leaving traces of their more or less temporary occupation in such place-names as Burry Holms, Worms Head and Swansea, and probably also in some cliff earthworks. About the year 1100 the conquest of Gower was undertaken by Henry de Newburgh, first earl of Warwick, with the assistance of Maurice de Londres and others. His followers, who were mostly Englishmen from the marches and Somersetshire with perhaps a sprinkling of Flemings, settled for the most part on the southern side of the peninsula, leaving the Welsh inhabitants of the northern half of Gower practically undisturbed. These invaders were probably reinforced a little later by a small detachment of the larger colony of Flemings which settled in south Pembrokeshire. Moated mounds, which in some cases developed into castles, were built for the protection of the various manors into which the district was parcelled out, the castles of Swansea and Loughor being ascribed to the earl of Warwick and that of Oystermouth to Maurice de Londres. These were repeatedly attacked and burnt by the Welsh during the 12th and 13th centuries, notably by Griffith ap Rhys in 1113, by his son the Lord Rhys in 1189, by his grandsons acting in concert with Llewelyn the Great in 1215, and by the last Prince Llewelyn in 1257. With the Norman conquest the feudal system was introduced, and the manors were held in capite of the lord by the tenure of castle-guard of the castle of Swansea, the caput baroniae.

About 1189 the lordship passed from the Warwick family to the crown and was granted in 1203 by King John to William de Braose, in whose family it remained for over 120 years except for three short intervals when it was held for a second time by King John (1211-1215), by Llewelyn the Great (1216-1223), and the Despensers (c. 1323-1326). In 1208 the Welsh and English inhabitants who had frequent cause to complain of their treatment, received each a charter, in similar terms, from King John, who also visited the town of Swansea in 1210 and in 1215 granted its merchants liberal privileges. In 1283 a number of de Braose’s tenants—unquestionably Welshmen—left Gower for the royal lordship of Carmarthen, declaring that they would live under the king rather than under a lord marcher. In the following year the king visited de Braose at Oystermouth Castle, which seems to have been made the lord’s chief residence, after the destruction of Swansea Castle by Llewelyn. Later on the king’s officers of the newly organized county of Carmarthen repeatedly claimed jurisdiction over Gower, thereby endeavouring to reduce its status from that of a lordship marcher with semi-regal jurisdiction, into that of an ordinary constituent of the new county. De Braose resisted the claim and organized the English part of his lordship on the lines of a county palatine, with its own comitatus and chancery held in Swansea Castle, the sheriff and chancellor being appointed by himself. The inhabitants, who had no right of appeal to the crown against their lord or the decisions of his court, petitioned the king, who in 1305 appointed a special commission to enquire into their alleged grievances, but in the following year the de Braose of the time, probably in alarm, conceded liberal privileges both to the burgesses of Swansea and to the English and Welsh inhabitants of his “county” of English Gower. He was the last lord seignior to live within the seigniory, which passed from him to his son-in-law John de Mowbray. Other troubles befell the de Braose barons and their successors in title, for their right to the lordship was contested by the Beauchamps, representatives of the earlier earls of Warwick, in prolonged litigation carried on intermittently from 1278 to 1396, the Beauchamps being actually in possession from 1354, when a decision was given in their favour, till its reversal in 1396. It then reverted to the Mowbrays and was held by them until the 4th duke of Norfolk exchanged it in 1489, for lands in England, with William Herbert, earl of Pembroke. The latter’s granddaughter brought it to her husband Charles Somerset, who in 1506 was granted her father’s subtitle of Baron Herbert of Chepstow, Raglan and Gower, and from him the lordship has descended to the present lord, the duke of Beaufort.

Gower was made subject to the ordinary law of England by its inclusion in 1535 in the county of Glamorgan as then reorganized; its chancery, which from about the beginning of the 14th century had been located at Oystermouth Castle, came to an end, but though the Welsh acts of 1535 and 1542 purported to abolish the rights and privileges of the lords marchers as conquerors, yet some of these, possibly from being regarded as private rights, have survived into modern times. For instance, the seignior maintained a franchise gaol in Swansea Castle till 1858, when it was abolished by act of parliament, the appointment of coroner for Gower is still vested in him, all writs are executed by the lord’s officers instead of by the officers of the sheriff for the county, and the lord’s rights to the foreshore, treasure trove, felon’s goods and wrecks are undiminished.

The characteristically English part of Gower lies to the south and south-west of its central ridge of Cefn y Bryn. It was this part that was declared by Professor Freeman to be “more Teutonic than Kent itself.” The seaside fringe lying between this area and the town of Swansea, as well as the extreme north-west of the peninsula, also became anglicized at a comparatively early date, though the place-names and the names of the inhabitants are still mainly Welsh. The present line of demarcation between the two languages is one drawn from Swansea in a W.N.W. direction to Llanrhidian on the north coast. It has remained practically the same for several centuries, and is likely to continue so, as it very nearly coincides with the southern outcrop of the coal measures, the industrial population to the north being Welsh-speaking, the agriculturists to the south being English. In 1901 the Gower rural district (which includes the Welsh-speaking industrial parish of Llanrhidian, with about three-sevenths of the total population) had 64.5% of the population above three years of age that spoke English only, 5.2% that spoke Welsh only, the remainder being bilinguals, as compared with 17% speaking English only, 17.7% speaking Welsh only and the rest bilinguals in the Swansea rural district, and 7% speaking English only, 55.2% speaking Welsh only and the rest bilinguals in the Pontardawe rural district, the last two districts constituting Welsh Gower.

More than one-fourth of the whole area of Gower is unenclosed common land, of which in English Gower fully one-half is apparently capable of cultivation. Besides the demesne manors of the lord seignior, six in number, there are some twelve mesne manors and fees belonging to the Penrice estate, and nearly twenty more belonging to various other owners. The tenure is customary freehold, though in some cases described as copyhold, and in the ecclesiastical manor of Bishopston, descent is by borough English. The holdings are on the whole probably smaller in size than in any other area of corresponding extent in Wales, and agriculture is still in a backward state.

In the Arthurian romances Gower appears in the form of Goire as the island home of the dead, a view which probably sprang up among the Celts of Cornwall, to whom the peninsula would appear as an island. It is also surmised by Sir John Rhys that Malory’s Brandegore (i.e. Brân of Gower) represents the Celtic god of the other world (Rhys, Arthurian Legend, 160, 329 et seq.). On Cefn Bryn, almost in the centre of the peninsula, is a cromlech with a large capstone known as Arthur’s Stone. The unusually large number of cairns on this hill, given as eighty by Sir Gardner Wilkinson, suggests that this part of Gower was a favourite burial-place in early British times.

See Rev. J. D. Davies, A History of West Gower (4 vols., 1877-1894); Col. W. Ll-Morgan, An Antiquarian Survey of East Gower (1899); an article (probably by Professor Freeman) entitled “Anglia Trans-Walliana” in the Saturday Review for May 20, 1876; “The Signory of Gower” by G. T. Clark in Archaeologia Cambrensis for 1893-1894; The Surveys of Gower and Kilvey, ed. by Baker and Grant-Francis (1861-1870).

(D. Ll. T.)

GOWN, properly the term for a loose outer garment formerly worn by either sex but now generally for that worn by women. While “dress” is the usual English word, except in such combinations as “tea-gown,” “dressing-gown” and the like, where the original loose flowing nature of the “gown” is referred to, “gown” is the common American word. “Gown” comes from the O. Fr. goune or gonne. The word appears in various Romanic languages, cf. Ital. gonna. The medieval Lat. gunna is used of a garment of skin or fur. A Celtic origin has been usually adopted, but the Irish, Gaelic and Manx words are taken from the English. Outside the ordinary use of the word, “gown” is the name for the distinctive robes worn by holders of particular offices or by members of particular professions or of universities, &c. (see Robes).

GOWRIE, JOHN RUTHVEN, 3rd Earl of (c. 1577-1600), Scottish conspirator, was the second son of William, 4th Lord Ruthven and 1st earl of Gowrie (cr. 1581), by his wife Dorothea, daughter of Henry Stewart, 2nd Lord Methven. The Ruthven family was of ancient Scottish descent, and had owned extensive estates in the time of William the Lion; the Ruthven peerage dated from the year 1488. The 1st earl of Gowrie (? 1541-1584), and his father, Patrick, 3rd Lord Ruthven (c. 1520-1566), had both been concerned in the murder of Rizzio in 1566; and both took an active part on the side of the Kirk in the constant intrigues and factions among the Scottish nobility of the period. The former had been the custodian of Mary, queen of Scots, during her imprisonment in Loch Leven, where, according to the queen, he had pestered her with amorous attentions; he had also been the chief actor in the plot known as the “raid of Ruthven” when King James VI. was treacherously seized while a guest at the castle of Ruthven in 1582, and kept under restraint for several months while the earl remained at the head of the government. Though pardoned for this conspiracy he continued to plot against the king in conjunction with the earls of Mar and Angus; and he was executed for high treason on the 2nd of May 1584; his friends complaining that the confession on which he was convicted of treason was obtained by a promise of pardon from the king. His eldest son, William, 2nd earl of Gowrie, only survived till 1588, the family dignities and estates, which had been forfeited, having been restored to him in 1586.

When, therefore, John Ruthven succeeded to the earldom while still a child, he inherited along with his vast estates family traditions of treason and intrigue. There was also a popular belief, though without foundation, that there was Tudor blood in his veins; and Burnet afterwards asserted that Gowrie stood next in succession to the crown of England after King James VI. Like his father and grandfather before him, the young earl attached himself to the party of the reforming preachers, who procured his election in 1592 as provost of Perth, a post that was almost hereditary in the Ruthven family. He received an excellent education at the grammar school of Perth and the university of Edinburgh, where he was in the summer of 1593, about the time when his mother, and his sister the countess of Atholl, aided Bothwell in forcing himself sword in hand into the king’s bedchamber in Holyrood Palace. A few months later Gowrie joined with Atholl and Montrose in offering to serve Queen Elizabeth, then almost openly hostile to the Scottish king; and it is probable that he had also relations with the rebellious Bothwell. Gowrie had thus been already deeply engaged in treasonable conspiracy when, in August 1594, he proceeded to Italy with his tutor, William Rhynd, to study at the university of Padua. On his way home in 1599 he remained for some months at Geneva with the reformer Theodore Beza; and at Paris he made acquaintance with the English ambassador, who reported him to Cecil as devoted to Elizabeth’s service, and a nobleman “of whom there may be exceeding use made.” In Paris he may also at this time have had further communication with the exiled Bothwell; in London he was received with marked favour by Queen Elizabeth and her ministers.

These circumstances owe their importance to the light they throw on the obscurity of the celebrated “Gowrie conspiracy,” which resulted in the slaughter of the earl and his brother by attendants of King James at Gowrie House, Perth, a few weeks after Gowrie’s return to Scotland in May 1600. This event ranks among the unsolved enigmas of history. The mystery is caused by the improbabilities inherent in any of the alternative hypotheses suggested to account for the unquestionable facts of the occurrence; the discrepancies in the evidence produced at the time; the apparent lack of forethought or plan on the part of the chief actors, whichever hypothesis be adopted, as well as the thoughtless folly of their actual procedure; and the insufficiency of motive, whoever the guilty parties may have been. The solutions of the mystery that have been suggested are three in number: first, that Gowrie and his brother had concocted a plot to murder, or more probably to kidnap King James, and that they lured him to Gowrie House for this purpose; secondly, that James paid a surprise visit to Gowrie House with the intention, which he carried out, of slaughtering the two Ruthvens; and thirdly, that the tragedy was the outcome of an unpremeditated brawl following high words between the king and the earl, or his brother. To understand the relative probabilities of these hypotheses regard must be had to the condition of Scotland in the year 1600 (see Scotland: History). Here it can only be recalled that plots to capture the person of the sovereign for the purpose of coercing his actions were of frequent occurrence, more than one of which had been successful, and in several of which the Ruthven family had themselves taken an active part; that the relations between England and Scotland were at this time more than usually strained, and that the young earl of Gowrie was reckoned in London among the adherents of Elizabeth; that the Kirk party, being at variance with James, looked upon Gowrie as an hereditary partisan of their cause, and had recently sent an agent to Paris to recall him to Scotland as their leader; that Gowrie was believed to be James’s rival for the succession to the English crown. Moreover, as regards the question of motive it is to be observed, on the one hand, that the Ruthvens believed Gowrie’s father to have been treacherously done to death, and his widow insulted by the king’s favourite minister; while, on the other, James was indebted in a large sum of money to the earl of Gowrie’s estate, and popular gossip credited either Gowrie or his brother, Alexander Ruthven, with being the lover of the queen. Although the evidence on these points, and on every minute circumstance connected with the tragedy itself, has been exhaustively examined by historians of the Gowrie conspiracy, it cannot be asserted that the mystery has been entirely dispelled; but, while it is improbable that complete certainty will ever be arrived at as to whether the guilt lay with James or with the Ruthven brothers, the most modern research in the light of materials inaccessible or overlooked till the 20th century, points pretty clearly to the conclusion that there was a genuine conspiracy by Gowrie and his brother to kidnap the king. If this be the true solution, it follows that King James was innocent of the blood of the Ruthvens; and it raises the presumption that his own account of the occurrence was, in spite of the glaring improbabilities which it involved, substantially true.

The facts as related by James and other witnesses were, in outline, as follows. On the 5th of August 1600 the king rose early to hunt in the neighbourhood of Falkland Palace, about 14 m. from Perth. Just as he was setting forth in company with the duke of Lennox, the earl of Mar, Sir Thomas Erskine and others, he was accosted by Alexander Ruthven (known as the master of Ruthven), a younger brother of the earl of Gowrie, who had ridden from Perth that morning to inform the king that he had met on the previous day a man in possession of a pitcher full of foreign gold coins, whom he had secretly locked up in a room at Gowrie House. Ruthven urged the king to ride to Perth to examine this man for himself and to take possession of the treasure. After some hesitation James gave credit to the story, suspecting that the possessor of the coins was one of the numerous Catholic agents at that time moving about Scotland in disguise. Without giving a positive reply to Alexander Ruthven, James started to hunt; but later in the morning he called Ruthven to him and said he would ride to Perth when the hunting was over. Ruthven then despatched a servant, Henderson, by whom he had been accompanied from Perth in the early morning, to tell Gowrie that the king was coming to Gowrie House. This messenger gave the information to Gowrie about ten o’clock in the morning. Meanwhile Alexander Ruthven was urging the king to lose no time, requesting him to keep the matter secret from his courtiers, and to bring to Gowrie House as small a retinue as possible. James, with a train of some fifteen persons, arrived at Gowrie House about one o’clock, Alexander Ruthven having spurred forward for a mile or so to announce the king’s approach. But notwithstanding Henderson’s warning some three hours earlier, Gowrie had made no preparations for the king’s entertainment, thus giving the impression of having been taken by surprise. After a meagre repast, for which he was kept waiting an hour, James, forbidding his retainers to follow him, went with Alexander Ruthven up the main staircase and passed through two chambers and two doors, both of which Ruthven locked behind them, into a turret-room at the angle of the house, with windows looking on the courtyard and the street. Here James expected to find the mysterious prisoner with the foreign gold. He found instead an armed man, who, as appeared later, was none other than Gowrie’s servant, Henderson. Alexander Ruthven immediately put on his hat, and drawing Henderson’s dagger, presented it to the king’s breast with threats of instant death if James opened a window or called for help. An allusion by Ruthven to the execution of his father, the 1st earl of Gowrie, drew from James a reproof of Ruthven’s ingratitude for various benefits conferred on his family. Ruthven then uncovered his head, declaring that James’s life should be safe if he remained quiet; then, committing the king to the custody of Henderson, he left the turret—ostensibly to consult Gowrie—and locked the door behind him. While Ruthven was absent the king questioned Henderson, who professed ignorance of any plot and of the purpose for which he had been placed in the turret; he also at James’s request opened one of the windows, and was about to open the other when Ruthven returned. Whether or not Alexander had seen his brother is uncertain. But Gowrie had meantime spread the report below that the king had taken horse and had ridden away; and the royal retinue were seeking their horses to follow him. Alexander, on re-entering the turret, attempted to bind James’s hands; a struggle ensued, in the course of which the king was seen at the window by some of his followers below in the street, who also heard him cry “treason” and call for help to the earl of Mar. Gowrie affected not to hear these cries, but kept asking what was the matter. Lennox, Mar and most of the other lords and gentlemen ran up the main staircase to the king’s help, but were stopped by the locked door, which they spent some time in trying to batter down. John Ramsay (afterwards earl of Holdernesse), noticing a small dark stairway leading directly to the inner chamber adjoining the turret, ran up it and found the king struggling at grips with Ruthven. Drawing his dagger, Ramsay wounded Ruthven, who was then pushed down the stairway by the king. Sir Thomas Erskine, summoned by Ramsay, now followed up the small stairs with Dr Hugh Herries, and these two coming upon the wounded Ruthven despatched him with their swords. Gowrie, entering the courtyard with his stabler Thomas Cranstoun and seeing his brother’s body, rushed up the staircase after Erskine and Herries, followed by Cranstoun and others of his retainers; and in the melée Gowrie was killed. Some commotion was caused in the town by the noise of these proceedings; but it quickly subsided, though the king did not deem it safe to return to Falkland for some hours.

The tragedy caused intense excitement throughout Scotland, and the investigation of the circumstances was followed with much interest in England also, where all the details were reported to Elizabeth’s ministers. The preachers of the Kirk, whose influence in Scotland was too extensive for the king to neglect, were only with the greatest difficulty persuaded to accept James’s account of the occurrence, although he voluntarily submitted himself to cross-examination by one of their number. Their belief, and that of their partisans, influenced no doubt by political hostility to James, was that the king had invented the story of a conspiracy by Gowrie to cover his own design to extirpate the Ruthven family. James gave some colour to this belief, which has not been entirely abandoned, by the relentless severity with which he pursued the two younger, and unquestionably innocent, brothers of the earl. Great efforts were made by the government to prove the complicity of others in the plot. One noted and dissolute conspirator, Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig, was posthumously convicted of having been privy to the Gowrie conspiracy on the evidence of certain letters produced by a notary, George Sprot, who swore they had been written by Logan to Gowrie and others. These letters, which are still in existence, were in fact forged by Sprot in imitation of Logan’s handwriting; but the researches of Andrew Lang have shown cause for suspecting that the most important of them was either copied by Sprot from a genuine original by Logan, or that it embodied the substance of such a letter. If this be correct, it would appear that the conveyance of the king to Fast Castle, Logan’s impregnable fortress on the coast of Berwickshire, was part of the plot; and it supplies, at all events, an additional piece of evidence to prove the genuineness of the Gowrie conspiracy.

Gowrie’s two younger brothers, William and Patrick Ruthven, fled to England; and after the accession of James to the English throne William escaped abroad, but Patrick was taken and imprisoned for nineteen years in the Tower of London. Released in 1622, Patrick Ruthven resided first at Cambridge and afterwards in Somersetshire, being granted a small pension by the crown. He married Elizabeth Woodford, widow of the 1st Lord Gerrard, by whom he had two sons and a daughter, Mary; the latter entered the service of Queen Henrietta Maria, and married the famous painter van Dyck, who painted several portraits of her. Patrick died in poverty in a cell in the King’s Bench in 1652, being buried as “Lord Ruthven.” His son, Patrick, presented a petition to Oliver Cromwell in 1656, in which, after reciting that the parliament of Scotland in 1641 had restored his father to the barony of Ruthven, he prayed that his “extreme poverty” might be relieved by the bounty of the Protector.

See Andrew Lang, James VI. and the Gowrie Mystery (London, 1902), and the authorities there cited; Robert Pitcairn, Criminal Trials in Scotland (3 vols., Edinburgh, 1833); David Moysie, Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, 1577-1603 (Edinburgh, 1830); Louis A. Barbé, The Tragedy of Gowrie House (London, 1887); Andrew Bisset, Essays on Historical Truth (London, 1871); David Calderwood, History of the Kirk of Scotland (8 vols., Edinburgh, 1842-1849); P. F. Tytler, History of Scotland (9 vols., Edinburgh, 1828-1843); John Hill Burton, History of Scotland (7 vols., Edinburgh, 1867-1870). W. A. Craigie has edited as Skotlands Rimur some Icelandic ballads relating to the Gowrie conspiracy. He has also printed the Danish translation of the official account of the conspiracy, which was published at Copenhagen in 1601.

(R. J. M.)

GOWRIE, a belt of fertile alluvial land (Scotice, “carse”) of Perthshire, Scotland. Occupying the northern shore of the Firth of Tay, it has a generally north-easterly trend and extends from the eastern boundaries of Perth city to the confines of Dundee. It measures 15 m. in length, its breadth from the river towards the base of the Sidlaw Hills varying from 2 to 4 m. Probably it is a raised beach, submerged until a comparatively recent period. Although it contained much bog land and stagnant water as late as the 18th century, it has since been drained and cultivated, and is now one of the most productive tracts in Perthshire. The district is noteworthy for the number of its castles and mansions, almost wholly residential, among which may be mentioned Kinfauns Castle, Inchyra House, Pitfour Castle, Errol Park, Megginch Castle, dating from 1575; Fingask Castle, Kinnaird Castle, erected in the 15th century and occupied by James VI. in 1617; Rossie Priory, the seat of Lord Kinnaird; and Huntly Castle, built by the 3rd earl of Kinghorne.

GOYA, a river town and port of Corrientes, Argentine Republic, the commercial centre of the south-western departments of the province and chief town of a department of the same name, on a riacho or side channel of the Paraná about 5 m. from the main channel and about 120 m. S. of the city of Corrientes. Pop. (1905, est.) 7000. The town is built on low ground which is subject to inundations in very wet weather, but its streets are broad and the general appearance of its edifices is good. Among its public buildings is a handsome parish church and a national normal school. The productions of the neighbourhood are chiefly pastoral, and its exports include cattle, hides, wool and oranges. Goya had an export of crudely-made cheese long before the modern cheese factories of the Argentine Republic came into existence. The place dates from 1807, and had its origin, it is said, in the trade established there by a ship captain and his wife Gregoria or Goya, who supplied passing vessels with beef.

GOYANNA, or Goiana, a city of Brazil in the N.E. angle of the state of Pernambuco, about 65 m. N. of the city of Pernambuco. Pop.(1890) 15,436. It is built on a fertile plain between the rivers Tracunhaem and Capibaribe-mirim near their junction to form the Goyanna river, and is 15 m. from the coast. It is surrounded by, and is the commercial centre for, one of the richest agricultural districts of the state, which produces sugar, rum, coffee, tobacco, cotton, cattle, hides and castor oil. The Goyanna river is navigable for small vessels nearly up to the city, but its entrance is partly obstructed and difficult. Goyanna is one of the oldest towns of the state, and was occupied by the Dutch from 1636 to 1654. It has several old-style churches, an orphans’ asylum, hospital and some small industries.

GOYA Y LUCIENTES, FRANCISCO (1746-1828), Spanish painter, was born in 1746 at Fuendetodos, a small Aragonese village near Saragossa. At an early age he commenced his artistic career under the direction of José Luzan Martinez, who had studied painting at Naples under Mastroleo. It is clear that the accuracy in drawing Luzan is said to have acquired by diligent study of the best Italian masters did not much influence his erratic pupil. Goya, a true son of his province, was bold, capricious, headstrong and obstinate. He took a prominent part on more than one occasion in those rival religious processions at Saragossa which often ended in unseemly frays; and his friends were led in consequence to despatch him in his nineteenth year to Madrid, where, prior to his departure for Rome, his mode of life appears to have been anything but that of a quiet orderly citizen. Being a good musician, and gifted with a voice, he sallied forth nightly, serenading the caged beauties of the capital, with whom he seems to have been a very general favourite.

Lacking the necessary royal patronage, and probably scandalizing by his mode of life the sedate court officials, he did not receive—perhaps did not seek—the usual honorarium accorded to those students who visited Rome for the purpose of study. Finding it convenient to retire for a time from Madrid, he decided to visit Rome at his own cost; and being without resources he joined a “quadrilla” of bull-fighters, passing from town to town until he reached the shores of the Mediterranean. We next hear of him reaching Rome, broken in health and financially bankrupt. In 1772 he was awarded the second prize in a competition initiated by the academy of Parma, styling himself “pupil to Bayeu, painter to the king of Spain.” Compelled to quit Rome somewhat suddenly, he appears again in Madrid in 1775, the husband of Bayeu’s daughter, and father of a son. About this time he appears to have visited his parents at Fuendetodos, no doubt noting much which later on he utilized in his genre works. On returning to Madrid he commenced painting canvases for the tapestry factory of Santa Barbara, in which the king took much interest. Between 1776 and 1780 he appears to have supplied thirty examples, receiving about £1200 for them. Soon after the revolution of 1868, an official was appointed to take an inventory of all works of art belonging to the nation, and in one of the cellars of the Madrid palace were discovered forty-three of these works of Goya on rolls forgotten and neglected (see Los Tapices de Goya; por Cruzado Villaamil, Madrid, 1870).

His originality and talent were soon recognized by Mengs, the king’s painter, and royal favour naturally followed. His career now becomes intimately connected with the court life of his time. He was commissioned by the king to design a series of frescoes for the church of St Anthony of Florida, Madrid, and he also produced works for Saragossa, Valencia and Toledo. Ecclesiastical art was not his forte, and although he cannot be said to have failed in any of his work, his fame was not enhanced by his religious subjects.

In portraiture, without doubt, Goya excelled: his portraits are evidently life-like and unexaggerated, and he disdained flattery. He worked rapidly, and during his long stay at Madrid painted, amongst many others, the portraits of four sovereigns of Spain—Charles III. and IV., Ferdinand VII. and “King Joseph.” The duke of Wellington also sat to him; but on his making some remark which raised the artist’s choler, Goya seized a plaster cast and hurled it at the head of the duke. There are extant two pencil sketches of Wellington, one in the British Museum, the other in a private collection. One of his best portraits is that of the lovely Andalusian duchess of Alva. He now became the spoiled child of fortune, and acquired, at any rate externally, much of the polish of court manners. He still worked industriously upon his own lines, and, while there is a stiffness almost ungainly in the pose of some of his portraits, the stern individuality is always preserved.

Including the designs for tapestry, Goya’s genre works are numerous and varied, both in style and feeling, from his Watteau-like “Al Fresco Breakfast,” “Romeria de San Isidro,” to the “Curate feeding the Devil’s Lamp,” the “Meson del Gallo,” and the painfully realistic massacre of the “Dos de Mayo” (1808). Goya’s versatility is proverbial; in his hands the pencil, brush and graver are equally powerful. Some of his crayon sketches of scenes in the bull ring are full of force and character, slight but full of meaning. He was in his thirty-second year when he commenced his etchings from Velasquez, whose influence may, however, be traced in his work at an earlier date. A careful examination of some of the drawings made for these etchings indicates a steadiness of purpose not usually discovered in Goya’s craft as draughtsman. He is much more widely known by his etchings than his oils; the latter necessarily must be sought in public and private collections, principally in Spain, while the former are known and prized in every capital of Europe. The etched collections by which Goya is best known include “Los Caprichos,” which have a satirical meaning known only to the few; they are bold, weird and full of force. “Los Proverbios” are also supposed to have some hidden intention. “Los Desastres de la Guerra” may fairly claim to depict Spain during the French invasion. In the bull-fight series Goya is evidently at home; he was a skilled master of the barbarous art, and no doubt every sketch is true to nature, and from life.

Goya retired from Madrid, desiring probably during his latter years to escape the trying climate of that capital. He died at Bordeaux on the 16th of April 1828, and a monument has been erected there over his remains. From the deaths of Velasquez and Murillo to the advent of Fortuny, Goya’s name is the only important one found in the history of Spanish art.

See also the lives by Paul Lefort (1877), and Yriarte (1867).

GOYÁZ, an inland state of Brazil, bounded by Matto Grosso and Pará on the W., Maranhão, Bahia and Minas Geraes on the E., and Minas Geraes and Matto Grosso on the S. Pop. (1890) 227,572; (1900) 255,284, including many half-civilized Indians and many half-breeds. Area, 288,549 sq. m. The outline of the state is that of a roughly-shaped wedge with the thin edge extending northward between and up to the junction of the rivers Araguaya and Upper Tocantins, and its length is nearly 15° of latitude. The state lies wholly within the great Brazilian plateau region, but its surface is much broken towards the N. by the deeply eroded valleys of the Araguaya and Upper Tocantins rivers and their tributaries. The general slope of the plateau is toward the N., and the drainage of the state is chiefly through the above-named rivers—the principal tributaries of the Araguaya being the Grande and Vermelho, and of the Upper Tocantins, the Manoel Alves Grande, Somno, Paranan and Maranhão. A considerable part of southern Goyáz, however, slopes southward and the drainage is through numerous small streams flowing into the Paranahyba, a large tributary of the Paraná. The general elevation of the plateau is estimated to be about 2700 ft., and the highest elevation was reported in 1892 to be the Serra dos Pyreneos (5250 ft.). Crossing the state N.N.E. to S.S.W. there is a well-defined chain of mountains, of which the Pyreneos, Santa Rita and Santa Martha ranges form parts, but their elevation above the plateau is not great. The surface of the plateau is generally open campo and scrubby arboreal growth called caatingas, but the streams are generally bordered with forest, especially in the deeper valleys. Towards the N. the forest becomes denser and of the character of the Amazon Valley. The climate of the plateau is usually described as temperate, but it is essentially sub-tropical. The valley regions are tropical, and malarial fevers are common. The cultivation of the soil is limited to local needs, except in the production of tobacco, which is exported to neighbouring states. The open campos afford good pasturage, and live stock is largely exported. Gold-mining has been carried on in a primitive manner for more than two centuries, but the output has never been large and no very rich mines have been discovered. Diamonds have been found, but only to a very limited extent. There is a considerable export of quartz crystal, commercially known as “Brazilian pebbles,” used in optical work. Although the northern and southern extremities of Goyáz lie within two great river systems—the Tocantins and Paraná—the upper courses of which are navigable, both of them are obstructed by falls. The only outlet for the state has been by means of mule trains to the railway termini of São Paulo and Minas Geraes, pending the extension of railways from both of those states, one entering Goyáz by way of Catalão, near the southern boundary, and the other at some point further N.

The capital of the state is Goyáz, or Villa-Boa de Goyáz, a mining town on the Rio Vermelho, a tributary of the Araguaya rising on the northern slopes of the Serra de Santa Rita. Pop. (1890) 6807. Gold was discovered here in 1682 by Bartholomeu Bueno, the first European explorer of this region, and the settlement founded by him was called Santa Anna, which is still the name of the parish. The site of the town is a barren, rocky mountain valley, 1900 ft. above sea-level, in which the heat is most oppressive at times and the nights are unpleasantly cold. Goyáz is the see of a bishopric founded in 1826, and possesses a small cathedral and some churches.

GOYEN, JAN JOSEPHSZOON VAN (1596-1656), Dutch painter, was born at Leiden on the 13th of January 1596, learned painting under several masters at Leiden and Haarlem, married in 1618 and settled at the Hague about 1631. He was one of the first to emancipate himself from the traditions of minute imitation embodied in the works of Breughel and Savery. Though he preserved the dun scale of tone peculiar to those painters, he studied atmospheric effects in black and white with considerable skill. He had much influence on Dutch art. He formed Solomon Ruysdael and Pieter Potter, forced attention from Rembrandt, and bequeathed some of his precepts to Pieter de Molyn, Coelenbier, Saftleven, van der Kabel and even Berghem. His life at the Hague for twenty-five years was very prosperous, and he rose in 1640 to be president of his gild. A friend of van Dyck and Bartholomew van der Helst, he sat to both these artists for his likeness. His daughter Margaret married Jan Steen, and he had steady patrons in the stadtholder Frederick Henry, and the chiefs of the municipality of the Hague. He died at the Hague in 1656, possessed of land and houses to the amount of 15,000 florins.

Between 1610 and 1616 van Goyen wandered from one school to the other. He was first apprenticed to Isaak Swanenburgh; he then passed through the workshops of de Man, Klok and de Hoorn. In 1616 he took a decisive step and joined Esaias van der Velde at Haarlem; amongst his earlier pictures, some of 1621 (Berlin Museum) and 1623 (Brunswick Gallery) show the influence of Esaias very perceptibly. The landscape is minute. Details of branching and foliage are given, and the figures are important in relation to the distances. After 1625 these peculiarities gradually disappear. Atmospheric effect in landscapes of cool tints varying from grey green to pearl or brown and yellow dun is the principal object which van Goyen holds in view, and he succeeds admirably in light skies with drifting misty cloud, and downs with cottages and scanty shrubbery or stunted trees. Neglecting all detail of foliage he now works in a thin diluted medium, laying on rubbings as of sepia or Indian ink, and finishing without loss of transparence or lucidity. Throwing his foreground into darkness, he casts alternate light and shade upon the more distant planes, and realizes most pleasing views of large expanse. In buildings and water, with shipping near the banks, he sometimes has the strength if not the colour of Albert Cuyp. The defect of his work is chiefly want of solidity. But even this had its charm for van Goyen’s contemporaries, and some time elapsed before Cuyp, who imitated him, restricted his method of transparent tinting to the foliage of foreground trees.

Van Goyen’s pictures are comparatively rare in English collections, but his work is seen to advantage abroad, and chiefly at the Louvre, and in Berlin, Gotha, Vienna, Munich and Augsburg. Twenty-eight of his works were exhibited together at Vienna in 1873. Though he visited France once or twice, van Goyen chiefly confined himself to the scenery of Holland and the Rhine. Nine times from 1633 to 1655 he painted views of Dordrecht. Nimeguen was one of his favourite resorts. But he was also fond of Haarlem and Amsterdam, and he did not neglect Arnheim or Utrecht. One of his largest pieces is a view of the Hague, executed in 1651 for the municipality, and now in the town collection of that city. Most of his panels represent reaches of the Rhine, the Waal and the Maese. But he sometimes sketched the downs of Scheveningen, or the sea at the mouth of the Rhine and Scheldt; and he liked to depict the calm inshore, and rarely ventured upon seas stirred by more than a curling breeze or the swell of a coming squall. He often painted winter scenes, with ice and skaters and sledges, in the style familiar to Isaac van Ostade. There are numerous varieties of these subjects in the master’s works from 1621 to 1653. One historical picture has been assigned to van Goyen—the “Embarkation of Charles II.” in the Bute collection. But this canvas was executed after van Goyen’s death. When he tried this form of art he properly mistrusted his own powers. But he produced little in partnership with his contemporaries, and we can only except the “Watering-place” in the gallery of Vienna, where the landscape is enlivened with horses and cattle by Philip Wouvermans. Even Jan Steen, who was his son-in-law, only painted figures for one of his pictures, and it is probable that this piece was completed after van Goyen’s death. More than 250 of van Goyen’s pictures are known and accessible. Of this number little more than 70 are undated. None exist without the full name or monogram, and yet there is no painter whose hand it is easier to trace without the help of these adjuncts. An etcher, but a poor one, van Goyen has only bequeathed to us two very rare plates.

GOZLAN, LÉON (1806-1866), French novelist and play-writer, was born on the 1st of September 1806, at Marseilles. When he was still a boy, his father, who had made a large fortune as a ship-broker, met with a series of misfortunes, and Léon, before completing his education, had to go to sea in order to earn a living. In 1828 we find him in Paris, determined to run the risks of literary life. His townsman, Joseph Méry, who was then making himself famous by his political satires, introduced him to several newspapers, and Gozlan’s brilliant articles in the Figaro did much harm to the already tottering government of Charles X. His first novel was Les Mémoires d’un apothicaire (1828), and this was followed by numberless others, among which may be mentioned Washington Levert et Socrate Leblanc (1838), Le Notaire de Chantilly (1836), Aristide Froissart (1843) (one of the most curious and celebrated of his productions), Les Nuits du Père Lachaise (1846), Le Tapis vert (1855), La Folle du logis (1857), Les Émotions de Polydore Marasquin (1857), &c. His best-known works for the theatre are—La Pluie et le beau temps (1861), and Une Tempête dans un verre d’eau (1850), two curtain-raisers which have kept the stage; Le Lion empaillé (1848), La Queue du chien d’Alcibiade (1849), Louise de Nanteuil (1854), Le Gâteau des reines (1855), Les Paniers de la comtesse (1852); and he adapted several of his own novels to the stage. Gozlan also wrote a romantic and picturesque description of the old manors and mansions of his country entitled Les Châteaux de France (2 vols., 1844), originally published (1836) as Les Tourelles, which has some archaeological value, and a biographical essay on Balzac (Balzac chez lui, 1862). He was made a member of the Legion of Honour in 1846, and in 1859 an officer of that order. Gozlan died on the 14th of September 1866, in Paris.

See also P. Audebrand, Léon Gozlan (1887).

GOZO (Gozzo), an island of the Maltese group in the Mediterranean Sea, second in size to Malta. It lies N.W. and 3¼ m. from the nearest point of Malta, is of oval form, 8¾ m. in length and 4½ m. in extreme breadth, and has an area of nearly 25 m. Its chief town, Victoria, formerly called Rabato (pop. in 1901, 5057) stands near the middle of the island on one of a cluster of steep conical hills, 3½ m. from the port of Migiarro Bay, on the south-east shore, below Fort Chambray. The character of the island is similar to that of Malta. The estimated population in 1907 was 21,911.

GOZZI, CARLO, Count (1722-1806), Italian dramatist, was descended from an old Venetian family, and was born at Venice in March 1722. Compelled by the embarrassed condition of his father’s affairs to procure the means of self-support, he, at the age of sixteen, joined the army in Dalmatia; but three years afterwards he returned to Venice, where he soon made a reputation for himself as the wittiest member of the Granelleschi society, to which the publication of several satirical pieces had gained him admission. This society, nominally devoted to conviviality and wit, had also serious literary aims, and was especially zealous to preserve the Tuscan literature pure and untainted by foreign influences. The displacement of the old Italian comedy by the dramas of Pietro Chiari (1700-1788) and Goldoni, founded on French models, threatened defeat to all their efforts; and in 1757 Gozzi came to the rescue by publishing a satirical poem, Tartana degli influssi per l’ anno bisestile, and in 1761 by his comedy, Fiaba dell’ amore delle tre melarancie, a parody of the manner of the two obnoxious poets, founded on a fairy tale. For its representation he obtained the services of the Sacchi company of players, who, on account of the popularity of the comedies of Chiari and Goldoni—which afforded no scope for the display of their peculiar talents—had been left without employment; and as their satirical powers were thus sharpened by personal enmity, the play met with extraordinary success. Struck by the effect produced on the audience by the introduction of the supernatural or mythical element, which he had merely used as a convenient medium for his satirical purposes, Gozzi now produced a series of dramatic pieces based on fairy tales, which for a period obtained great popularity, but after the breaking up of the Sacchi company were completely disregarded. They have, however, obtained high praise from Goethe, Schlegel, Madame de Staël and Sismondi; and one of them, Re Turandote, was translated by Schiller. In his later years Gozzi set himself to the production of tragedies in which the comic element was largely introduced; but as this innovation proved unacceptable to the critics he had recourse to the Spanish drama, from which he obtained models for various pieces, which, however, met with only equivocal success. He died on the 4th of April 1806.

His collected works were published under his own superintendence, at Venice, in 1792, in 10 volumes; and his dramatic works, translated into German by Werthes, were published at Bern in 1795. See Gozzi’s work, Memorie inutili della vita di Carlo Gozzi (3 vols., Venice, 1797), translated into French by Paul de Musset (1848), and into English by J. A. Symonds (1889); F. Horn, Über Gozzis dramatische Poesie (Venice, 1803); Gherardini, Vita di Gasp. Gozzi (1821); “Charles Gozzi,” by Paul de Musset, in the Revue des deux mondes for 15th November 1844; Magrini, Carlo Gozzi e la fiabe: saggi storici, biografici, e critici (Cremona, 1876), and the same author’s book on Gozzi’s life and times (Benevento, 1883).

GOZZI, GASPARO, Count (1713-1786), eldest brother of Carlo Gozzi, was born on the 4th of December 1713. In 1739 he married the poetess Luise Bergalli, and she undertook the management of the theatre of Sant’ Angelo, Venice, he supplying the performers with dramas chiefly translated from the French. The speculation proved unfortunate, but meantime he had attained a high reputation for his contributions to the Gazzetta Veneta, and he soon came to be known as one of the ablest critics and purest and most elegant stylists in Italy. For a considerable period he was censor of the press in Venice, and in 1774 he was appointed to reorganize the university system at Padua. He died at Padua on the 26th of December 1786.

His principal writings are Osservatore Veneto periodico (1761), on the model of the English Spectator, and distinguished by its high moral tone and its light and pleasant satire; Lettere famigliari (1755), a collection of short racy pieces in prose and verse, on subjects of general interest; Sermoni, poems in blank verse after the manner of Horace; Il Mondo morale (1760), a personification of human passions with inwoven dialogues in the style of Lucian; and Giudizio degli antichi poeti sopra la moderna censura di Dante (1755), a defence of the great poet against the attacks of Bettinelli. He also translated various works from the French and English, including Marmontel’s Tales and Pope’s Essay on Criticism. His collected works were published at Venice, 1794-1798, in 12 volumes, and several editions have appeared since.

GOZZOLI, BENOZZO, Italian painter, was born in Florence in 1424, or perhaps 1420, and in the early part of his career assisted Fra Angelico, whom he followed to Rome and worked with at Orvieto. In Rome he executed in Santa Maria in Aracoeli a fresco of “St Anthony and Two Angels.” In 1449 he left Angelico, and went to Montefalco, near Foligno in Umbria. In S. Fortunate, near Montefalco, he painted a “Madonna and Child with Saints and Angels,” and three other works. One of these, the altar-piece representing “St Thomas receiving the Girdle of the Virgin,” is now in the Lateran Museum, and shows the affinity of Gozzoli’s early style to Angelico’s. He next painted in the monastery of S. Francesco, Montefalco, filling the choir with a triple course of subjects from the life of the saint, with various accessories, including heads of Dante, Petrarch and Giotto. This work was completed in 1452, and is still marked by the style of Angelico, crossed here and there with a more distinctly Giottesque influence. In the same church, in the chapel of St Jerome, is a fresco by Gozzoli of the Virgin and Saints, the Crucifixion and other subjects. He remained at Montefalco (with an interval at Viterbo) probably till 1456, employing Mesastris as assistant. Thence he went to Perugia, and painted in a church a “Virgin and Saints,” now in the local academy, and soon afterwards to his native Florence, the headquarters of art. By the end of 1459 he had nearly finished his important labour in the chapel of the Palazzo Riccardi, the “Journey of the Magi to Bethlehem,” and, in the tribune of this chapel, a composition of “Angels in a Paradise.” His picture in the National Gallery, London, a “Virgin and Child with Saints,” 1461, belongs also to the period of his Florentine sojourn. Another small picture in the same gallery, the “Rape of Helen,” is of dubious authenticity. In 1464 Gozzoli left Florence for S. Gimignano, where he executed some extensive works; in the church of S. Agostino, a composition of St Sebastian protecting the City from the Plague of this same year, 1464; over the entire choir of the church, a triple course of scenes from the legends of St Augustine, from the time of his entering the school of Tegaste on to his burial, seventeen chief subjects, with some accessories; in the Pieve di S. Gimignano, the “Martyrdom of Sebastian,” and other subjects, and some further works in the city and its vicinity. Here his style combined something of Lippo Lippi with its original elements, and he received co-operation from Giusto d’Andrea. He stayed in this city till 1467, and then began, in the Campo Santo of Pisa, from 1469, the vast series of mural paintings with which his name is specially identified. There are twenty-four subjects from the Old Testament, from the “Invention of Wine by Noah” to the “Visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon.” He contracted to paint three subjects per year for about ten ducats each—a sum which may be regarded as equivalent to £100 at the present day. It appears, however, that this contract was not strictly adhered to, for the actual rate of painting was only three pictures in two years. Perhaps the great multitude of figures and accessories was accepted as a set-off against the slower rate of production. By January 1470 he had executed the fresco of “Noah and his Family,”—followed by the “Curse of Ham,” the “Building of the Tower of Babel” (which contains portraits of Cosmo de’ Medici, the young Lorenzo Politian and others), the “Destruction of Sodom,” the “Victory of Abraham,” the “Marriages of Rebecca and of Rachel,” the “Life of Moses,” &c. In the Cappella Ammannati, facing a gate of the Campo Santo, he painted also an “Adoration of the Magi,” wherein appears a portrait of himself. All this enormous mass of work, in which Gozzoli was probably assisted by Zanobi Macchiavelli, was performed, in addition to several other pictures during his stay in Pisa (we need only specify the “Glory of St Thomas Aquinas,” now in the Louvre), in sixteen years, lasting up to 1485. This is the latest date which can with certainty be assigned to any work from his hand, although he is known to have been alive up to 1498. In 1478 the Pisan authorities had given him, as a token of their regard, a tomb in the Campo Santo. He had likewise a house of his own in Pisa, and houses and land in Florence. In rectitude of life he is said to have been worthy of his first master, Fra Angelico.

The art of Gozzoli does not rival that of his greatest contemporaries either in elevation or in strength, but is pre-eminently attractive by its sense of what is rich, winning, lively and abundant in the aspects of men and things. His landscapes, thronged with birds and quadrupeds, especially dogs, are more varied, circumstantial and alluring than those of any predecessor; his compositions are crowded with figures, more characteristically true when happily and gracefully occupied than when the demands of the subject require tragic or dramatic intensity, or turmoil of action; his colour is bright, vivacious and festive. Gozzoli’s genius was, on the whole, more versatile and assimilative than vigorously original; his drawing not free from considerable imperfections, especially in the extremities and articulations, and in the perspective of his gorgeously-schemed buildings. In fresco-painting he used the methods of tempera, and the decay of his works has been severe in proportion. Of his untiring industry the recital of his labours and the number of works produced are the most forcible attestation.

Vasari, Crowe and Cavalcaselle, and the other ordinary authorities, can be consulted as to the career of Gozzoli. A separate Life of him, by H. Stokes, was published in 1903 in Newnes’s Art library.

(W. M. R.)

GRAAFF REINET, a town of South Africa, 185 m. by rail N.W. by N. of Port Elizabeth. Pop. (1904) 10,083, of whom 4055 were whites. The town lies 2463 ft. above the sea and is built on the banks of the Sunday river, which rises a little farther north on the southern slopes of the Sneeuwberg, and here ramifies into several channels. The Dutch church is a handsome stone building with seating accommodation for 1500 people. The college is an educational centre of some importance; it was rebuilt in 1906. Graaff Reinet is a flourishing market for agricultural produce, the district being noted for its mohair industry, its orchards and vineyards.

The town was founded by the Cape Dutch in 1786, being named after the then governor of Cape Colony, C. J. van de Graaff, and his wife. In 1795 the burghers, smarting under the exactions of the Dutch East India Company proclaimed a republic. Similar action was taken by the burghers of Swellendam. Before the authorities at Cape Town could take decisive measures against the rebels, they were themselves compelled to capitulate to the British. The burghers having endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to get aid from a French warship at Algoa Bay surrendered to Colonel (afterwards General Sir) J. O. Vandeleur. In January 1799 Marthinus Prinsloo, the leader of the republicans in 1795, again rebelled, but surrendered in April following. Prinsloo and nineteen others were imprisoned in Cape Town castle. After trial, Prinsloo and another commandant were sentenced to death and others to banishment. The sentences were not carried out and the prisoners were released, March 1803, on the retrocession of the Cape to Holland. In 1801 there had been another revolt in Graaff Reinet, but owing to the conciliatory measures of General F. Dundas (acting governor of the Cape) peace was soon restored. It was this district, where a republican government in South Africa was first proclaimed, which furnished large numbers of the voortrekkers in 1835-1842. It remains a strong Dutch centre.

See J. C. Voight, Fifty Years of the History of the Republic in South Africa 1795-1845, vol. i. (London, 1899).

GRABBE, CHRISTIAN DIETRICH (1801-1836), German dramatist, was born at Detmold on the 11th of December 1801. Entering the university of Leipzig in 1819 as a student of law, he continued the reckless habits which he had begun at Detmold, and neglected his studies. Being introduced into literary circles, he conceived the idea of becoming an actor and wrote the drama Herzog Theodor von Gothland (1822). This, though showing considerable literary talent, lacks artistic form, and is morally repulsive. Ludwig Tieck, while encouraging the young author, pointed out its faults, and tried to reform Grabbe himself. In 1822 Grabbe removed to Berlin University, and in 1824 passed his advocate’s examination. He now settled in his native town as a lawyer and in 1827 was appointed a Militärauditeur. In 1833 he married, but in consequence of his drunken habits was dismissed from his office, and, separating from his wife, visited Düsseldorf, where he was kindly received by Karl Immermann. After a serious quarrel with the latter, he returned to Detmold, where, as a result of his excesses, he died on the 12th of September 1836.

Grabbe had real poetical gifts, and many of his dramas contain fine passages and a wealth of original ideas. They largely reflect his own life and character, and are characterized by cynicism and indelicacy. Their construction also is defective and little suited to the requirements of the stage. The boldly conceived Don Juan und Faust (1829) and the historical dramas Friedrich Barbarossa (1829), Heinrich VI. (1830), and Napoleon oder die Hundert Tage (1831), the last of which places the battle of Waterloo upon the stage, are his best works. Among others are the unfinished tragedies Marius and Sulla (continued by Erich Korn, Berlin, 1890); and Hannibal (1835, supplemented and edited by C. Spielmann, Halle, 1901); and the patriotic Hermannsschlacht or the battle between Arminius and Varus (posthumously published with a biographical notice, by E. Duller, 1838).

Grabbe’s works have been edited by O. Blumenthal (4 vols., 1875), and E. Grisebach (4 vols., 1902). For further notices of his life, see K. Ziegler, Grabbes Leben und Charakter (1855); O. Blumenthal, Beiträge zur Kenntnis Grabbes (1875); C. A. Piper, Grabbe (1898), and A. Ploch, Grabbes Stellung in der deutschen Literatur (1905).

GRABE, JOHN ERNEST (1666-1711), Anglican divine, was born on the 10th of July 1666, at Königsberg, where his father, Martin Sylvester Grabe, was professor of theology and history. In his theological studies Grabe succeeded in persuading himself of the schismatical character of the Reformation, and accordingly he presented to the consistory of Samland in Prussia a memorial in which he compared the position of the evangelical Protestant churches with that of the Novatians and other ancient schismatics. He had resolved to join the Church of Rome when a commission of Lutheran divines pointed out flaws in his written argument and called his attention to the English Church as apparently possessing that apostolic succession and manifesting that fidelity to ancient institutions which he desired. He came to England, settled in Oxford, was ordained in 1700, and became chaplain of Christ Church. His inclination was towards the party of the nonjurors. The learned labours to which the remainder of his life was devoted were rewarded with an Oxford degree and a royal pension. He died on the 3rd of November 1711, and in 1726 a monument was erected to him by Edward Harley, earl of Oxford, in Westminster Abbey. He was buried in St Pancras Church, London.

Some account of Grabe’s life is given in R. Nelson’s Life of George Bull, and by George Hickes in a discourse prefixed to the pamphlet against W. Whiston’s Collection of Testimonies against the True Deity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. His works, which show him to have been learned and laborious but somewhat deficient in critical acumen, include a Spicilegium SS. Patrum et haereticorum (1698-1699), which was designed to cover the first three centuries of the Christian church, but was not continued beyond the close of the second. A second edition of this work was published in 1714. He brought out an edition of Justin Martyr’s Apologia prima (1700), of Irenaeus, Adversus omnes haereses (1702), of the Septuagint, and of Bishop Bull’s Latin works (1703). His edition of the Septuagint was based on the Codex Alexandrinus; it appeared in 4 volumes (1707-1720), and was completed by Francis Lee and by George Wigan.

GRACCHUS, in ancient Rome, the name of a plebeian family of the Sempronian gens. Its most distinguished representatives were the famous tribunes of the people, Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus, (4) and (5) below, usually called simply “the Gracchi.”

1. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, consul in 238 B.C., carried on successful operations against the Ligurian mountaineers, and, at the conclusion of the Carthaginian mercenary war, was in command of the fleet which at the invitation of the insurgents took possession of the island of Sardinia.

2. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, probably the son of (1), distinguished himself during the second Punic war. Consul in 215, he defeated the Capuans who had entered into an alliance with Hannibal, and in 214 gained a signal success over Hanno near Beneventum, chiefly owing to the volones (slave-volunteers), to whom he had promised freedom in the event of victory. In 213 Gracchus was consul a second time and carried on the war in Lucania; in the following year, while advancing northward to reinforce the consuls in their attack on Capua, he was betrayed into the hands of the Carthaginian Mago by a Lucanian of rank, who had formerly supported the Roman cause and was connected with Gracchus himself by ties of hospitality. Gracchus fell fighting bravely; his body was sent to Hannibal, who accorded him a splendid burial.

3. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (c. 210-151 B.C.), father of the tribunes, and husband of Cornelia, the daughter of the elder Scipio Africanus, was possibly the son of a Publius Sempronius Gracchus who was tribune in 189. Although a determined political opponent of the two Scipios (Asiaticus and Africanus), as tribune in 187 he interfered on their behalf when they were accused of having accepted bribes from the king of Syria after the war. In 185 he was a member of the commission sent to Macedonia to investigate the complaints made by Eumenes II. of Pergamum against Philip V. of Macedon. In his curule aedileship (182) he celebrated the games on so magnificent a scale that the burdens imposed upon the Italian and extra-Italian communities led to the official interference of the senate. In 181 he went as praetor to Hither Spain, and, after gaining signal successes in the field, applied himself to the pacification of the country. His strict sense of justice and sympathetic attitude won the respect and affection of the inhabitants; the land had rest for a quarter of a century. When consul in 177, he was occupied in putting down a revolt in Sardinia, and brought back so many prisoners that Sardi venales (Sardinians for sale) became a proverbial expression for a drug in the market. In 169 Gracchus was censor, and both he and his colleague (C. Claudius Pulcher) showed themselves determined opponents of the capitalists. They deeply offended the equestrian order by forbidding any contractor who had obtained contracts under the previous censors to make fresh offers. Gracchus stringently enforced the limitation of the freedmen to the four city tribes, which completely destroyed their influence in the comitia. In 165 and 161 he went as ambassador to several Asiatic princes, with whom he established friendly relations. Amongst the places visited by him was Rhodes, where he delivered a speech in Greek, which he afterwards published. In 163 he was again consul.

4. Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus (163-133 B.C.), son of (3), was the elder of the two great reformers. He and his brother were brought up by their mother Cornelia, assisted by the rhetorician Diophanes of Mytilene and the Stoic Blossius of Cumae. In 147 he served under his brother-in-law the younger Scipio in Africa during the last Punic war, and was the first to mount the walls in the attack on Carthage. When quaestor in 137, he accompanied the consul C. Hostilius Mancinus to Spain. During the Numantine war the Roman army was saved from annihilation only by the efforts of Tiberius, with whom alone the Numantines consented to treat, out of respect for the memory of his father. The senate refused to ratify the agreement; Mancinus was handed over to the enemy as a sign that it was annulled, and only personal popularity saved Tiberius himself from punishment. In 133 he was tribune, and championed the impoverished farmer class and the lower orders. His proposals (see Agrarian Laws) met with violent opposition, and were not carried until he had, illegally and unconstitutionally, secured the deposition of his fellow-tribune, M. Octavius, who had been persuaded by the optimates to veto them. The senate put every obstacle in the way of the three commissioners appointed to carry out the provisions of the law, and Tiberius, in view of the bitter enmity he had aroused, saw that it was necessary to strengthen his hold on the popular favour. The legacy to the Roman people of the kingdom and treasures of Attalus III. of Pergamum gave him an opportunity. He proposed that the money realized by the sale of the treasures should be divided, for the purchase of implements and stock, amongst those to whom assignments of land had been made under the new law. He is also said to have brought forward measures for shortening the period of military service, for extending the right of appeal from the judices to the people, for abolishing the exclusive privilege of the senators to act as jurymen, and even for admitting the Italian allies to citizenship. To strengthen his position further, Tiberius offered himself for re-election as tribune for the following year. The senate declared that it was illegal to hold this office for two consecutive years; but Tiberius treated this objection with contempt. To win the sympathy of the people, he appeared in mourning, and appealed for protection for his wife and children, and whenever he left his house he was accompanied by a bodyguard of 3000 men, chiefly consisting of the city rabble. The meeting of the tribes for the election of tribunes broke up in disorder on two successive days, without any result being attained, although on both occasions the first divisions voted in favour of Tiberius. A rumour reached the senate that he was aiming at supreme power, that he had touched his head with his hand, a sign that he was asking for a crown. An appeal to the consul P. Mucius Scaevola to order him to be put to death at once having failed, P. Scipio Nasica exclaimed that Scaevola was acting treacherously towards the state, and called upon those who agreed with him to take up arms and follow him. During the riot that followed, Tiberius attempted to escape, but stumbled on the slope of the Capitol and was beaten to death with the end of a bench. At night his body, with those of 300 others, was thrown into the Tiber. The aristocracy boldly assumed the responsibility for what had occurred, and set up a commission to inquire into the case of the partisans of Tiberius, many of whom were banished and others put to death. Even the moderate Scaevola subsequently maintained that Nasica was justified in his action; and it was reported that Scipio, when he heard at Numantia of his brother-in-law’s death, repeated the line of Homer—“So perish all who do the like again.”

See Livy, Epit. 58; Appian, Bell. civ. i. 9-17; Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus; Vell. Pat. ii. 2, 3.

5. Gaius Sempronius Gracchus (153-121 B.C.), younger brother of (4), was a man of greater abilities, bolder and more passionate, although possessed of considerable powers of self-control, and a vigorous and impressive orator. When twenty years of age he was appointed one of the commissioners to carry out the distribution of land under the provisions of his brother’s agrarian law. At the time of Tiberius’s death, Gaius was serving under his brother-in-law Scipio in Spain, but probably returned to Rome in the following year (132). In 131 he supported the bill of C. Papirius Carbo, the object of which was to make it legal for a tribune to offer himself as candidate for the office in two consecutive years, and thus to remove one of the chief obstacles that had hampered Tiberius. The bill was then rejected, but appears to have subsequently passed in a modified form, as Gaius himself was re-elected without any disturbance. Possibly, however, his re-election was illegal, and he had only succeeded where his brother had failed. For the next few years nothing is heard of Gaius. Public opinion pointed him out as the man to avenge his brother’s death and carry out his plans, and the aristocratic party, warned by the example of Tiberius, were anxious to keep him away from Rome. In 126 Gaius accompanied the consul L. Aurelius Orestes as quaestor to Sardinia, then in a state of revolt. Here he made himself so popular that the senate in alarm prolonged the command of Orestes, in order that Gaius might be obliged to remain there in his capacity of quaestor. But he returned to Rome without the permission of the senate, and, when called to account by the censors, defended himself so successfully that he was acquitted of having acted illegally. The disappointed aristocrats then brought him to trial on the charge of being implicated in the revolt of Fregellae, and in other ways unsuccessfully endeavoured to undermine his influence. Gaius then decided to act; against the wishes of his mother he became a candidate for the tribuneship, and, in spite of the determined opposition of the aristocracy, he was elected for the year 123, although only fourth on the list. The legislative proposals brought forward by him had for their object:—the punishment of his brother’s enemies; the relief of distress and the attachment to himself of the city populace; the diminution of the power of the senate and the increase of that of the equites; the amelioration of the political status of the Italians and provincials.

A law was passed that no Roman citizen should be tried in a matter affecting his life or political status unless the people had previously given its assent. This was specially aimed at Popilius Laenas, who had taken an active part in the prosecution of the adherents of Tiberius. Another law enacted that any magistrate who had been deprived of office by decree of the people should be incapacitated from holding office again. This was directed against M. Octavius, who had been illegally deprived of his tribunate through Tiberius. This unfair and vindictive measure was withdrawn at the earnest request of Cornelia.

He revived his brother’s agrarian law, which, although it had not been repealed, had fallen into abeyance. By his Lex Frumentaria every citizen resident in Rome was entitled to a certain amount of corn at about half the usual price; as the distribution only applied to those living in the capital, the natural result was that the poorer country citizens flocked into Rome and swelled the number of Gaius’s supporters. No citizen was to be obliged to serve in the army before the commencement of his eighteenth year, and his military outfit was to be supplied by the state, instead of being deducted from his pay. Gaius also proposed the establishment of colonies in Italy (at Tarentum and Capua), and sent out to the site of Carthage 6000 colonists to found the new city of Junonia, the inhabitants of which were to possess the rights of Roman citizens; this was the first attempt at over-sea colonization. A new system of roads was constructed which afforded easier access to Rome. Having thus gained over the city proletariat, in order to secure a majority in the comitia by its aid, Gaius did away with the system of voting in the comitia centuriata, whereby the five property classes in each tribe gave their votes one after another, and introduced promiscuous voting in an order fixed by lot.

The judices in the standing commissions for the trial of particular offences (the most important of which was that dealing with the trial of provincial magistrates for extortion, de repetundis) were in future to be chosen from the equites (q.v.), not as hitherto from the senate. The taxes of the new province of Asia were to be let out by the censors to Roman publicani (who belonged to the equestrian order), who paid down a lump sum for the right of collecting them. It is obvious that this afforded the equites extensive opportunities for money-making and extortion, while the alteration in the appointment of the judices gave them the same practical immunity and perpetuated the old abuses, with the difference that it was no longer senators, but equites, who could look forward with confidence to being leniently dealt with by men belonging to their own order; Gaius also expected that this moneyed aristocracy, which had taken the part of the senate against Tiberius, would now support him against it. It was enacted that the provinces to be assigned to the consuls, should be determined before, instead of after their election; and the consuls themselves had to settle, by lot or other arrangement, which province each of them would take.

These measures raised Gaius to the height of his popularity, and during the year of his first tribuneship he may be considered the absolute ruler of Rome. He was chosen tribune for the second time for the year 122. To this period is probably to be assigned his proposal that the franchise should be given to all the Latin communities and that the status of the Latins should be conferred upon the Italian allies. In 125 M. Fulvius Flaccus had brought forward a similar measure, but he was got out of the way by the senate, who sent him to fight in Gaul. This proposal, more statesmanlike than any of the others, was naturally opposed by the aristocratic party, and lessened Gaius’s popularity amongst his own supporters, who viewed with disfavour the prospect of an increase in the number of Roman citizens. The senate put up M. Livius Drusus to outbid him, and his absence from Rome while superintending the organization of the newly-founded colony, Junonia-Carthago, was taken advantage of by his enemies to weaken his influence. On his return he found his popularity diminished. He failed to secure the tribuneship for the third time, and his bitter enemy L. Opimius was elected consul. The latter at once decided to propose the abandonment of the new colony, which was to occupy the site cursed by Scipio, while its foundation had been attended by unmistakable manifestations of the wrath of the gods. On the day when the matter was to be put to the vote, a lictor named Antyllius, who had insulted the supporters of Gaius, was stabbed to death. This gave his opponents the desired opportunity. Gaius was declared a public enemy, and the consuls were invested with dictatorial powers. The Gracchans, who had taken up their position in the temple of Diana on the Aventine, offered little resistance to the attack ordered by Opimius. Gaius managed to escape across the Tiber, where his dead body was found on the following day in the grove of Furrina by the side of that of a slave, who had probably slain his master and then himself. The property of the Gracchans was confiscated, and a temple of Concord erected in the Forum from the proceeds. Beneath the inscription recording the occasion on which the temple had been built some one during the night wrote the words: “The work of Discord makes the temple of Concord.”

Bibliography.—See Livy, Epit. 60; Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 21; Plutarch, Gaius Gracchus; Orosius v. 12; Aulus Gellius x. 3, xi. 10. For an account of the two tribunes see Mommsen, Hist. of Rome (Eng. trans.), bk. iv., chs. 2 and 3; C. Neumann, Geschichte Roms während des Verfalles der Republik (1881); A. H. J. Greenidge, History of Rome (1904); E. Meyer, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Gracchen (1894); G. E. Underhill, Plutarch’s Lives of the Gracchi (1892); W. Warde Fowler in English Historical Review (1905), pp. 209 and 417; Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chs. 10-13, 17-19, containing a careful examination of the ancient authorities; G. F. Hertzberg in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyclopädie; C. W. Oman, Seven Roman Statesmen of the later Republic (1902); T. Lau, Die Gracchen und ihre Zeit (1854). The exhaustive monograph by C. W. Nitzsch, Die Gracchen und ihre nächsten Vorgänger (1847), also contains an account of the other members of the family, with full references to ancient authorities in the notes.

(J. H. F.)

These measures cannot be arranged in any definite chronological order, nor can it be decided which belong to his first, which to his second tribuneship. See W. Warde Fowler in Eng. Hist. Review, 1905. pp. 209 sqq., 417 sqq.

It is suggested by W. Warde Fowler that Gracchus proposed to add a certain number of equites to the senate, thereby increasing it to 900, but the plan was never carried out.

GRACE, WILLIAM GILBERT (1848- ), English cricketer, was born at Downend, Gloucestershire, on the 18th of July 1848. He found himself in an atmosphere charged with cricket, his father (Henry Mills Grace) and his uncle (Alfred Pocock) being as enthusiastic over the game as his elder brothers, Henry, Alfred and Edward Mills; indeed, in E. M. Grace the family name first became famous. A younger brother, George Frederick, also added to the cricket reputation of the family. “W. G.” witnessed his first great match when he was hardly six years old, the occasion being a game between W. Clarke’s All-England Eleven and twenty-two of West Gloucestershire. He was endowed by nature with a splendid physique as well as with powers of self-restraint and determination. At the acme of his career he stood full 6 ft. 2 in., being powerfully proportioned, loose yet strong of limb. A non-smoker, and very moderate in all matters, he kept himself in condition all the year round, shooting, hunting or running with the beagles as soon as the cricket season was over. He was also a fine runner, 440 yds. over 20 hurdles being his best distance; and it may be quoted as proof of his stamina that on the 30th of July 1866 he scored 224 not out for England v. Surrey, and two days later won a race in the National and Olympian Association meeting at the Crystal Palace. The title of “champion” was well earned by one who for thirty-six years (1865-1900 inclusive) was actively engaged in first-class cricket. In each of these years he was invited to represent the Gentlemen in their matches against the Players, and, when an Australian eleven visited England, to play for the mother country. As late as 1899 he played in the first of the five international contests; in 1900 he played against the players at the Oval, scoring 58 and 3. At fifty-three he scored nearly 1300 runs in first-class cricket, made 100 runs and over on three different occasions and could claim an average of 42 runs. Moreover, his greatest triumphs were achieved when only the very best cricket grounds received serious attention; when, as some consider, bowling was maintained at a higher standard and when all hits had to be run out. He, with his two brothers, E. M. and G. F., assisted by some fine amateurs, made Gloucestershire in one season a first-class county; and it was he who first enabled the amateurs of England to meet the paid players on equal terms and to beat them. There was hardly a “record” connected with the game which did not stand to his credit. Grace was one of the finest fieldsmen in England, in his earlier days generally taking long-leg and cover-point, in later times generally standing point. He was, at his best, a fine thrower, fast runner and safe “catch.” As a bowler he was long in the first flight, originally bowling fast, but in later times adopting a slower and more tricky style, frequently very effective. By profession he was a medical man. In later years he became secretary and manager of the London County Cricket Club. He was married in 1873 to Miss Agnes Day, and one of his sons played for two years in the Cambridge eleven. He was the recipient of two national testimonials: the first, amounting to £1500, being presented to him in the form of a clock and a cheque at Lord’s ground by Lord Charles Russell on the 22nd of July 1879; the second, collected by the M.C.C., the county of Gloucestershire, the Daily Telegraph and the Sportsman, amounted to about £10,000, and was presented to him in 1896. He visited Australia in 1873-1874 (captain), and in 1891-1892 with Lord Sheffield’s Eleven (captain); the United States and Canada in 1872, with R. A. Fitzgerald’s team.

Dr Grace played his first great match in 1863, when, being only fifteen years of age, he scored 32 against the All-England Eleven and the bowling of Jackson, Tarrant and Tinley; but the scores which first made his name prominent were made in 1864, viz. 170 and 56 not out for the South Wales Club against the Gentlemen of Sussex. It was in 1865 that he first took an active part in first-class cricket, being then 6 ft. in height, and 11 stone in weight, and playing twice for the Gentlemen v. the Players, but his selection was mainly due to his bowling powers, the best exposition of which was his aggregate of 13 wickets for 84 runs for the Gentlemen of the South v. the Players of the South. His highest score was 400 not out, made in July 1876 against twenty-two of Grimsby; but on three occasions he was twice dismissed without scoring in matches against odds, a fate that never befell him in important cricket. In first-class matches his highest score was 344, made for the M.C.C. v. Kent at Canterbury, in August 1876; two days later he made 177 for Gloucestershire v. Notts, and two days after this 318 not out for Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire, the two last-named opposing counties being possessed of exceptionally strong bowling; thus in three consecutive innings Grace scored 839 runs, and was only got out twice. His 344 was the third highest individual score made in a big match in England up to the end of 1901. He also scored 301 for Gloucestershire v. Sussex at Bristol, in August 1896. He made over 200 runs on ten occasions, the most notable perhaps being in 1871, when he performed the feat twice, each time in benefit matches, and each time in the second innings, having been each time got out in the first over of the first innings. He scored over 100 runs on 121 occasions, the hundredth score being 288, made at Bristol for Gloucestershire v. Somersetshire in 1895. He made every figure from 0 to 100, on one occasion “closing” the innings when he had made 93, the only total he had never made between these limits. In 1871 he made ten “centuries,” ranging from 268 to 116. In the matches between the Gentlemen and Players he scored “three figures” fifteen times, and at every place where these matches have been played. He made over 100 in each of his “first appearances” at Oxford and Cambridge. Three times he made over 100 in each innings of the same match, viz. at Canterbury, in 1868, for South v. North of the Thames, 130 and 102 not out; at Clifton, in 1887, for Gloucestershire v. Kent, 101 and 103 not out; and at Clifton, in 1888, for Gloucestershire v. Yorkshire, 148 and 153. In 1869, playing at the Oval for the Gentlemen of the South v. the Players of the South, Grace and B. B. Cooper put on 283 runs for the first wicket, Grace scoring 180 and Cooper 101. In 1886 Grace and Scotton put on 170 runs for the first wicket of England v. Australia; this occurred at the Oval in August, and Grace’s total score was 170. In consecutive innings against the Players from 1871 to 1873 he scored 217, 77 and 112, 117, 163, 158 and 70. He only twice scored over 100 in a big match in Australia, nor did he ever make 200 at Lord’s, his highest being 196 for the M.C.C. v. Cambridge University in 1894. His highest aggregates were 2739 (1871), 2622 (1876), 2346 (1895), 2139 (1873), 2135 (1896) and 2062 (1887). He scored three successive centuries in first-class cricket in 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874 and 1876. Playing against Kent at Gravesend in 1895, he was batting, bowling or fielding during the whole time the game was in progress, his scores being 257 and 73 not out. He scored over 1000 runs and took over 100 wickets in seven different seasons, viz. in 1874, 1665 runs and 129 wickets; in 1875, 1498 runs, 192 wickets; in 1876, 2622 runs, 124 wickets; in 1877, 1474 runs, 179 wickets; in 1878, 1151 runs, 153 wickets; in 1885, 1688 runs, 118 wickets; in 1886, 1846 runs, 122 wickets. He never captured 200 wickets in a season, his highest record being 192 in 1875. Playing against Oxford University in 1886, he took all the wickets in the first innings, at a cost of 49 runs. In 1895 he not only made his hundredth century, but actually scored 1000 runs in the month of May alone, his chief scores in that month being 103, 288, 256, 73 and 169, he being then forty-seven years old. He also made during that year scores of 125, 119, 118, 104 and 103 not out, his aggregate for the year being 2346 and his average 51; his innings of 118 was made against the Players (at Lord’s), the chief bowlers being Richardson, Mold, Peel and Attewell; he scored level with his partner, A. E. Stoddart (his junior by fifteen years), the pair making 151 before a wicket fell, Grace making in all 118 out of 241. This may fairly be considered one of his most wonderful years. In 1898 the match between Gentlemen v. Players was, as a special compliment, arranged by the M.C.C. committee to take place on his birthday, and he celebrated the event by scoring 43 and 31 not out, though handicapped by lameness and an injured hand. In twenty-six different seasons he scored over 1000 runs, in three of these years being the only man to do so and five times being one out of two.

During the thirty-six years up to and including 1900 he scored nearly 51,000 runs, with an average of 43; and in bowling he took more than 2800 wickets, at an average cost of about 20 runs per wicket. He made his highest aggregate (2739 runs) and had his highest average (78) in 1871; his average for the decade 1868-1877 was 57 runs. His style as a batsman was more commanding than graceful, but as to its soundness and efficacy there were never two opinions; the severest criticism ever passed upon his powers was to the effect that he did not play slow bowling quite as well as fast.

(W. J. F.)

GRACE (Fr. grâce, Lat. gratia, from gratus, beloved, pleasing; formed from the root cra-, Gr. χασ- cf. χαίρω, χάρμα, χάρις), a word of many shades of meaning, but always connoting the idea of favour, whether that in which one stands to others or that which one shows to others. The New English Dictionary groups the meanings of the word under three main heads: (1) Pleasing quality, gracefulness, (2) favour, goodwill, (3) gratitude, thanks.

It is in the second general sense of “favour bestowed” that the word has its most important connotations. In this sense it means something given by superior authority as a concession made of favour and goodwill, not as an obligation or of right. Thus, a concession may be made by a sovereign or other public authority “by way of grace.” Previous to the Revolution of 1688 such concessions on the part of the crown were known in constitutional law as “Graces.” “Letters of Grace” (gratiae, gratiosa rescripta) is the name given to papal rescripts granting special privileges, indulgences, exemptions and the like. In the language of the universities the word still survives in a shadow of this sense. The word “grace” was originally a dispensation granted by the congregation of the university, or by one of the faculties, from some statutable conditions required for a degree. In the English universities these conditions ceased to be enforced, and the “grace” thus became an essential preliminary to any degree; so that the word has acquired the meaning of (a) the licence granted by congregation to take a degree, (b) other decrees of the governing body (originally dispensations from statutes), all such degrees being called “graces” at Cambridge, (c) the permission which a candidate for a degree must obtain from his college or hall.

To this general sense of exceptional favour belong the uses of the word in such phrases as “do me this grace,” “to be in some one’s good graces” and certain meanings of “the grace of God.” The style “by the grace of God,” borne by the king of Great Britain and Ireland among other sovereigns, though, as implying the principle of “legitimacy,” it has been since the Revolution sometimes qualified on the continent by the addition of “and the will of the people,” means in effect no more than the “by Divine Providence,” which is the style borne by archbishops. To the same general sense of exceptional favour belong the phrases implying the concession of a right to delay in fulfilling certain obligations, e.g. “a fortnight’s grace.” In law the “days of grace” are the period allowed for the payment of a bill of exchange, after the term for which it has been drawn (in England three days), or for the payment of an insurance premium, &c. In religious language the “Day of Grace” is the period still open to the sinner in which to repent. In the sense of clemency or mercy, too, “grace” is still, though rarely used: “an Act of Grace” is a formal pardon or a free and general pardon granted by act of parliament. Since to grant favours is the prerogative of the great, “Your Grace,” “His Grace,” &c., became dutiful paraphrases for the simple “you” and “he.” Formerly used in the royal address (“the King’s Grace,” &c.), the style is in England now confined to dukes and archbishops, though the style of “his most gracious majesty” is still used. In Germany the equivalent, Euer Gnaden, is the style of princes who are not Durchlaucht (i.e. Serene Highness), and is often used as a polite address to any superior.

In the language of theology, though in the English Bible the word is used in several of the above senses, “grace” (Gr. χάρις) has special meanings. Above all, it signifies the spontaneous, unmerited activity of the Divine Love in the salvation of sinners, and the Divine influence operating in man for his regeneration and sanctification. Those thus regenerated and sanctified are said to be in a “state of grace.” In the New Testament grace is the forgiving mercy of God, as opposed to any human merit (Rom. xi. 6; Eph. ii. 5; Col. i. 6, &c.); it is applied also to certain gifts of God freely bestowed, e.g. miracles, tongues, &c. (Rom. xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10; Eph. iii. 8, &c.), to the Christian virtues, gifts of God also, e.g. charity, holiness, &c. (2 Cor. viii. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 18). It is also used of the Gospel generally, as opposed to the Law (John i. 17; Rom. vi. 14; 1 Pet. v. 12, &c.); connected with this is the use of the term “year of grace” for a year of the Christian era.

The word “grace” is the central subject of three great theological controversies: (1) that of the nature of human depravity and regeneration (see Pelagius), (2) that of the relation between grace and free-will (see Calvin, John, and Arminius, Jacobus), (3) that of the “means of grace” between Catholics and Protestants, i.e. whether the efficacy of the sacraments as channels of the Divine grace is ex opere operato or dependent on the faith of the recipient.

In the third general sense, of thanks for favours bestowed, “grace” survives as the name for the thanksgiving before or after meals. The word was originally used in the plural, and “to do, give, render, yield graces” was said, in the general sense of the French rendre grâces or Latin gratias agere, of any giving thanks. The close, and finally exclusive, association of the phrase “to say grace” with thanksgiving at meals was possibly due to the formula “Gratias Deo agamus” (“let us give thanks to God”) with which the ceremony began in monastic refectories. The custom of saying grace, which obtained in pre-Christian times among the Jews, Greeks and Romans, and was adopted universally by Christian peoples, is probably less widespread in private houses than it used to be. It is, however, still maintained at public dinners and also in schools, colleges and institutions generally. Such graces are generally in Latin and of great antiquity: they are sometimes short, e.g. “Laus Deo,” “Benedictus benedicat,” and sometimes, as at the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, of considerable length. In some countries grace has sunk to a polite formula; in Germany, e.g. it is usual before and after meals to bow to one’s neighbours and say “Gesegnete Malzeit!” (May your meal be blessed), a phrase often reduced in practice to “Malzeit” simply.

GRACES, THE, (Gr. Χάριτες, Lat. Gratiae), in Greek mythology, the personification of grace and charm, both in nature and in moral action. The transition from a single goddess, Charis, to a number or group of Charites, is marked in Homer. In the Iliad one Charis is the wife of Hephaestus, another the promised wife of Sleep, while the plural Charites often occurs. The Charites are usually described as three in number—Aglaia (brightness), Euphrosyne (joyfulness), Thalia (bloom)—daughters of Zeus and Hera (or Eurynome, daughter of Oceanus), or of Helios and Aegle; in Sparta, however, only two were known, Cleta (noise) and Phaënna (light), as at Athens Auxo (increase) and Hegemone (queen). They are the friends of the Muses, with whom they live on Mount Olympus, and the companions of Aphrodite, of Peitho, the goddess of persuasion, and of Hermes, the god of eloquence, to each of whom charm is an indispensable adjunct. The need of their assistance to the artist is indicated by the union of Hephaestus and Charis. The most ancient seat of their cult was Orchomenus in Boeotia, where their oldest images, in the form of stones fallen from heaven, were set up in their temple. Their worship was said to have been instituted by Eteocles, whose three daughters fell into a well while dancing in their honour. At Orchomenus nightly dances took place, and the festival Charitesia, accompanied by musical contests, was celebrated; in Paros their worship was celebrated without music or garlands, since it was there that Minos, while sacrificing to the Charites, received the news of the death of his son Androgeus; at Messene they were revered together with the Eumenides; at Athens, their rites, kept secret from the profane, were held at the entrance to the Acropolis. It was by Auxo, Hegemone and Agraulos, the daughter of Cecrops, that young Athenians, on first receiving their spear and shield, took the oath to defend their country. In works of art the Charites were represented in early times as beautiful maidens of slender form, hand in hand or embracing one another and wearing drapery; later, the conception predominated of three naked figures gracefully intertwined. Their attributes were the myrtle, the rose and musical instruments. In Rome the Graces were never the objects of special religious reverence, but were described and represented by poets and artists in accordance with Greek models.

See F. H. Krause, Musen, Gratien, Horen, und Nymphen (1871), and the articles by Stoll and Furtwängler in Roscher’s Lexikon der Mythologie, and by S. Gsell in Daremberg and Saglio’s Dictionnaire des antiquités, with the bibliography.

GRACIÁN Y MORALES, BALTASAR (1601-1658), Spanish prose writer, was born at Calatayud (Aragon) on the 8th of January 1601. Little is known of his personal history except that on May 14, 1619, he entered the Society of Jesus, and that ultimately he became rector of the Jesuit college at Tarazona, where he died on the 6th of December, 1658. His principal works are El Héroe (1630), which describes in apophthegmatic phrases the qualities of the ideal man; the Arte de ingenio, tratado de la Agudeza (1642), republished six years afterwards under the title of Agudeza, y arte de ingenio (1648), a system of rhetoric in which the principles of conceptismo as opposed to culteranismo are inculcated; El Discreto (1645), a delineation of the typical courtier; El Oráculo manual y arte de prudencia (1647), a system of rules for the conduct of life; and El Criticón (1651-1653-1657), an ingenious philosophical allegory of human existence. The only publication which bears Gracián’s name is El Comulgatorio (1655); his more important books were issued under the pseudonym of Lorenzo Gracián (possibly a brother of the writer) or under the anagram of Gracian de Marlones. Gracián was punished for publishing without his superior’s permission El Criticón (in which Defoe is alleged to have found the germ of Robinson Crusoe); but no objection was taken to its substance. He has been excessively praised by Schopenhauer, whose appreciation of the author induced him to translate the Oráculo manual, and he has been unduly depreciated by Ticknor and others. He is an acute thinker and observer, misled by his systematic misanthropy and by his fantastic literary theories.

See Karl Borinski, Baltasar Gracián und die Hoflitteratur in Deutschland (Halle, 1894); Benedetto Croce, I Trattatisti italiani del “concettismo” e Baltasar Gracián (Napoli, 1899); Narciso José Liñán y Heredia, Baltasar Gracián (Madrid, 1902). Schopenhauer and Joseph Jacobs have respectively translated the Oráculo manual into German and English.

GRACKLE (Lat. Gracculus or Graculus), a word much used in ornithology, generally in a vague sense, though restricted to members of the families Sturnidae belonging to the Old World and Icteridae belonging to the New. Of the former those to which it has been most commonly applied are the species known as mynas, mainas, and minors of India and the adjacent countries, and especially the Gracula religiosa of Linnaeus, who, according to Jerdon and others, was probably led to confer this epithet upon it by confounding it with the Sturnus or Acridotheres tristis, which is regarded by the Hindus as sacred to Ram Deo, one of their deities, while the true Gracula religiosa does not seem to be anywhere held in veneration. This last is about 10 in. in length, clothed in a plumage of glossy black, with purple and green reflections, and a conspicuous patch of white on the quill-feathers of the wings. The bill is orange and the legs yellow, but the bird’s most characteristic feature is afforded by the curious wattles of bright yellow, which, beginning behind the eyes, run backwards in form of a lappet on each side, and then return in a narrow stripe to the top of the head. Beneath each eye also is a bare patch of the same colour. This species is common in southern India, and is represented farther to the north, in Ceylon, Burma, and some of the Malay Islands by cognate forms. They are all frugivorous, and, being easily tamed and learning to pronounce words very distinctly, are favourite cage-birds.

In America the name Grackle has been applied to several species of the genera Scolecophagus and Quiscalus, though these are more commonly called in the United States and Canada “blackbirds,” and some of them “boat-tails.” They all belong to the family Icteridae. The best known of these are the rusty grackle, S. ferrugineus, which is found in almost the whole of North America, and Q. purpureus, the purple grackle or crow-blackbird, of more limited range, for though abundant in most parts to the east of the Rocky Mountains, it seems not to appear on the Pacific side. There is also Brewer’s or the blue-headed grackle, S. cyanocephalus, which has a more western range, not occurring to the eastward of Kansas and Minnesota. A fourth species, Q. major, inhabits the Atlantic States as far north as North Carolina. All these birds are of exceedingly omnivorous habit, and though destroying large numbers of pernicious insects are in many places held in bad repute from the mischief they do to the corn-crops.

(A. N.)

By some writers the birds of the genera Acridotheres and Temenuchus are considered to be the true mynas, and the species of Gracula are called “hill mynas” by way of distinction.

For a valuable monograph on the various species of Gracula and its allies see Professor Schlegel’s “Bijdrage tot de Kennis von het Geschlacht Beo’” (Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde i. 1-9).

GRADISCA, a town of Austria, in the province of Görz and Gradisca, 10 m. S.W. of Görz by rail. Pop. (1900) 3843, mostly Italians. It is situated on the right bank of the Isonzo and was formerly a strongly fortified place. Its principal industry is silk spinning. Gradisca originally formed part of the margraviate of Friuli, came under the patriarchate of Aquileia in 1028, and in 1420 to Venice. Between 1471 and 1481 Gradisca was fortified by the Venetians, but in 1511 they surrendered it to the emperor Maximilian I. In 1647 Gradisca and its territory, including Aquileia and forty-three smaller places, were erected into a separate countship in favour of Johann Anton von Eggenberg, duke of Krumau. On the extinction of his line in 1717, it reverted to Austria, and was completely incorporated with Görz in 1754. The name was revived by the constitution of 1861, which established the crownland of Görz and Gradisca.

GRADO, a town of northern Spain, in the province of Oviedo; 11 m. W. by N. of the city of Oviedo, on the river Cubia, a left-hand tributary of the Nalon. Pop. (1900) 17,125. Grado is built in the midst of a mountainous, well-wooded and fertile region. It has some trade in timber, live stock, cider and agricultural produce. The nearest railway station is that of the Fabrica de Trubia, a royal cannon-foundry and small-arms factory, 5 m. S.E.

GRADUAL (Med. Lat. gradualis, of or belonging to steps or degrees; gradus, step), advancing or taking place by degrees or step by step; hence used of a slow progress or a gentle declivity or slope, opposed to steep or precipitous. As a substantive, “gradual” (Med. Lat. graduale or gradale) is used of a service book or antiphonal of the Roman Catholic Church containing certain antiphons, called “graduals,” sung at the service of the Mass after the reading or singing of the Epistle. This antiphon received the name either because it was sung on the steps of the altar or while the deacon was mounting the steps of the ambo for the reading or singing of the Gospel. For the so-called Gradual Psalms, cxx.-cxxxiv., the “songs of degrees,” LXX. ᾠδὴ ἀνὰ βαθμῶν, see Psalms, Book of.

GRADUATE (Med. Lat. graduare, to admit to an academical degree, gradus), in Great Britain a verb now only used in the academical sense intransitively, i.e. “to take or proceed to a university degree,” and figuratively of acquiring knowledge of, or proficiency in, anything. The original transitive sense of “to confer or admit to a degree” is, however, still preserved in America, where the word is, moreover, not strictly confined to university degrees, but is used also of those successfully completing a course of study at any educational establishment. As a substantive, a “graduate” (Med. Lat. graduatus) is one who has taken a degree in a university. Those who have matriculated at a university, but not yet taken a degree, are known as “undergraduates.” The word “student,” used of undergraduates e.g. in Scottish universities, is never applied generally to those of the English and Irish universities. At Oxford the only “students” are the “senior students” (i.e. fellows) and “junior students” (i.e. undergraduates on the foundation, or “scholars”) of Christ Church. The verb “to graduate” is also used of dividing anything into degrees or parts in accordance with a given scale. For the scientific application see Graduation below. It may also mean “to arrange in gradations” or “to adjust or apportion according to a given scale.” Thus by “a graduated income-tax” is meant the system by which the percentage paid differs according to the amount of income on a pre-arranged scale.

GRADUATION (see also Graduate), the art of dividing straight scales, circular arcs or whole circumferences into any required number of equal parts. It is the most important and difficult part of the work of the mathematical instrument maker, and is required in the construction of most physical, astronomical, nautical and surveying instruments.

The art was first practised by clockmakers for cutting the teeth of their wheels at regular intervals; but so long as it was confined to them no particular delicacy or accurate nicety in its performance was required. This only arose when astronomy began to be seriously studied, and the exact position of the heavenly bodies to be determined, which created the necessity for strictly accurate means of measuring linear and angular magnitudes. Then it was seen that graduation was an art which required special talents and training, and the best artists gave great attention to the perfecting of astronomical instruments. Of these may be named Abraham Sharp (1651-1742), John Bird (1709-1776), John Smeaton (1724-1792), Jesse Ramsden (1735-1800), John Troughton, Edward Troughton (1753-1835), William Simms (1793-1860) and Andrew Ross.

The first graduated instrument must have been done by the hand and eye alone, whether it was in the form of a straight-edge with equal divisions, or a screw or a divided plate; but, once in the possession of one such divided instrument, it was a comparatively easy matter to employ it as a standard. Hence graduation divides itself into two distinct branches, original graduation and copying, which latter may be done either by the hand or by a machine called a dividing engine. Graduation may therefore be treated under the three heads of original graduation, copying and machine graduation.

Original Graduation.—In regard to the graduation of straight scales elementary geometry provides the means of dividing a straight line into any number of equal parts by the method of continual bisection; but the practical realization of the geometrical construction is so difficult as to render the method untrustworthy. This method, which employs the common diagonal scale, was used in dividing a quadrant of 3 ft. radius, which belonged to Napier of Merchiston, and which only read to minutes—a result, according to Thomson and Tait (Nat. Phil.), “giving no greater accuracy than is now attainable by the pocket sextants of Troughton and Simms, the radius of whose arc is little more than an inch.”

The original graduation of a straight line is done either by the method of continual bisection or by stepping. In continual bisection the entire length of the line is first laid down. Then, as nearly as possible, half that distance is taken in the beam-compass and marked off by faint arcs from each end of the line. Should these marks coincide the exact middle point of the line is obtained. If not, as will almost always be the case, the distance between the marks is carefully bisected by hand with the aid of a magnifying glass. The same process is again applied to the halves thus obtained, and so on in succession, dividing the line into parts represented by 2, 4, 8, 16, &c. till the desired divisions are reached. In the method of stepping the smallest division required is first taken, as accurately as possible, by spring dividers, and that distance is then laid off, by successive steps, from one end of the line. In this method, any error at starting will be multiplied at each division by the number of that division. Errors so made are usually adjusted by the dots being put either back or forward a little by means of the dividing punch guided by a magnifying glass. This is an extremely tedious process, as the dots, when so altered several times, are apt to get insufferably large and shapeless.

The division of circular arcs is essentially the same in principle as the graduation of straight lines.

The first example of note is the 8-ft. mural circle which was graduated by George Graham (1673-1751) for Greenwich Observatory in 1725. In this two concentric arcs of radii 96.85 and 95.8 in. respectively were first described by the beam-compass. On the inner of these the arc of 90° was to be divided into degrees and 12th parts of a degree, while the same on the outer was to be divided into 96 equal parts and these again into 16th parts. The reason for adopting the latter was that, 96 and 16 being both powers of 2, the divisions could be got at by continual bisection alone, which, in Graham’s opinion, who first employed it, is the only accurate method, and would thus serve as a check upon the accuracy of the divisions of the outer arc. With the same distance on the beam-compass as was used to describe the inner arc, laid off from 0°, the point 60° was at once determined. With the points 0° and 60° as centres successively, and a distance on the beam-compass very nearly bisecting the arc of 60°, two slight marks were made on the arc; the distance between these marks was divided by the hand aided by a lens, and this gave the point 30°. The chord of 60° laid off from the point 30° gave the point 90°, and the quadrant was now divided into three equal parts. Each of these parts was similarly bisected, and the resulting divisions again trisected, giving 18 parts of 5° each. Each of these quinquesected gave degrees, the 12th parts of which were arrived at by bisecting and trisecting as before. The outer arc was divided by continual bisection alone, and a table was constructed by which the readings of the one arc could be converted into those of the other. After the dots indicating the required divisions were obtained, either straight strokes all directed towards the centre were drawn through them by the dividing knife, or sometimes small arcs were drawn through them by the beam-compass having its fixed point somewhere on the line which was a tangent to the quadrantal arc at the point where a division was to be marked.

The next important example of graduation was done by Bird in 1767. His quadrant, which was also 8-ft. radius, was divided into degrees and 12th parts of a degree. He employed the method of continual bisection aided by chords taken from an exact scale of equal parts, which could read to .001 of an inch, and which he had previously graduated by continual bisections. With the beam-compass an arc of radius 95.938 in. was first drawn. From this radius the chords of 30°, 15°, 10° 20′, 4° 40′ and 42° 40′ were computed, and each of them by means of the scale of equal parts laid off on a separate beam-compass to be ready. The radius laid off from 0° gave the point 60°; by the chord of 30° the arc of 60° was bisected; from the point 30° the radius laid off gave the point 90°; the chord of 15° laid off backwards from 90° gave the point 75°; from 75° was laid off forwards the chord of 10° 20′; and from 90° was laid off backwards the chord of 4° 40′; and these were found to coincide in the point 85° 20′. Now 85° 20′ being = 5′ × 1024 = 5′ × 210, the final divisions of 85° 20′ were found by continual bisections. For the remainder of the quadrant beyond 85° 20’, containing 56 divisions of 5′ each, the chord of 64 such divisions was laid off from the point 85° 40′, and the corresponding arc divided by continual bisections as before. There was thus a severe check upon the accuracy of the points already found, viz. 15°, 30°, 60°, 75°, 90°, which, however, were found to coincide with the corresponding points obtained by continual bisections. The short lines through the dots were drawn in the way already mentioned.

The next eminent artists in original graduation are the brothers John and Edward Troughton. The former was the first to devise a means of graduating the quadrant by continual bisection without the aid of such a scale of equal parts as was used by Bird. His method was as follows: The radius of the quadrant laid off from 0° gave the point 60°. This arc bisected and the half laid off from 60° gave the point 90°. The arc between 60° and 90° bisected gave 75°; the arc between 75° and 90° bisected gave the point 82° 30’, and the arc between 82° 30′ and 90° bisected gave the point 86° 15’. Further, the arc between 82° 30′ and 86° 15′ trisected, and two-thirds of it taken beyond 82° 30′, gave the point 85°, while the arc between 85° and 86° 15′ also trisected, and one-third part laid off beyond 85°, gave the point 85° 25′. Lastly, the arc between 85° and 85° 25′ being quinquesected, and four-fifths taken beyond 85°, gave 85° 20′, which as before is = 5′ × 210, and so can be finally divided by continual bisection.

The method of original graduation discovered by Edward Troughton is fully described in the Philosophical Transactions for 1809, as employed by himself to divide a meridian circle of 4 ft. radius. The circle was first accurately turned both on its face and its inner and outer edges. A roller was next provided, of such diameter that it revolved 16 times on its own axis while made to roll once round the outer edge of the circle. This roller, made movable on pivots, was attached to a frame-work, which could be slid freely, yet tightly, along the circle, the roller meanwhile revolving, by means of frictional contact, on the outer edge. The roller was also, after having been properly adjusted as to size, divided as accurately as possible into 16 equal parts by lines parallel to its axis. While the frame carrying the roller was moved once round along the circle, the points of contact of the roller-divisions with the circle were accurately observed by two microscopes attached to the frame, one of which (which we shall call H) commanded the ring on the circle near its edge, which was to receive the divisions and the other viewed the roller-divisions. The points of contact thus ascertained were marked with faint dots, and the meridian circle thereby divided into 256 very nearly equal parts.

The next part of the operation was to find out and tabulate the errors of these dots, which are called apparent errors, in consequence of the error of each dot being ascertained on the supposition that its neighbours are all correct. For this purpose two microscopes (which we shall call A and B) were taken, with cross wires and micrometer adjustments, consisting of a screw and head divided into 100 divisions, 50 of which read in the one and 50 in the opposite direction. These microscopes were fixed so that their cross-wires respectively bisected the dots 0 and 128, which were supposed to be diametrically opposite. The circle was now turned half-way round on its axis, so that dot 128 coincided with the wire of A, and, should dot 0 be found to coincide with B, then the two dots were 180° apart. If not, the cross wire of B was moved till it coincided with dot 0, and the number of divisions of the micrometer head noted. Half this number gave clearly the error of dot 128, and it was tabulated + or − according as the arcual distance between 0 and 128 was found to exceed or fall short of the remaining part of the circumference. The microscope B was now shifted, A remaining opposite dot 0 as before, till its wire bisected dot 64, and, by giving the circle one quarter of a turn on its axis, the difference of the arcs between dots 0 and 64 and between 64 and 128 was obtained. The half of this difference gave the apparent error of dot 64, which was tabulated with its proper sign. With the microscope A still in the same position the error of dot 192 was obtained, and in the same way by shifting B to dot 32 the errors of dots 32, 96, 160 and 224 were successively ascertained. In this way the apparent errors of all the 256 dots were tabulated.

From this table of apparent errors a table of real errors was drawn up by employing the following formula:—

½ (xa + xc) + z = the real error of dot b,

where xa is the real error of dot a, xc the real error of dot c, and z the apparent error of dot b midway between a and c. Having got the real errors of any two dots, the table of apparent errors gives the means of finding the real errors of all the other dots.

The last part of Troughton’s process was to employ them to cut the final divisions of the circle, which were to be spaces of 5′ each. Now the mean interval between any two dots is 360°/256 = 5′ × 167⁄8, and hence, in the final division, this interval must be divided into 167⁄8 equal parts. To accomplish this a small instrument, called a subdividing sector, was provided. It was formed of thin brass and had a radius about four times that of the roller, but made adjustable as to length. The sector was placed concentrically on the axis, and rested on the upper end of the roller. It turned by frictional adhesion along with the roller, but was sufficiently loose to allow of its being moved back by hand to any position without affecting the roller. While the roller passes over an angular space equal to the mean interval between two dots, any point of the sector must pass over 16 times that interval, that is to say, over an angle represented by 360° × 16/256 = 22° 30′. This interval was therefore divided by 167⁄8, and a space equal to 16 of the parts taken. This was laid off on the arc of the sector and divided into 16 equal parts, each equal to 1° 20′; and, to provide for the necessary 7⁄8ths of a division, there was laid off at each end of the sector, and beyond the 16 equal parts, two of these parts each subdivided into 8 equal parts. A microscope with cross wires, which we shall call I, was placed on the main frame, so as to command a view of the sector divisions, just as the microscope H viewed the final divisions of the circle. Before the first or zero mark was cut, the zero of the sector was brought under I and then the division cut at the point on the circle indicated by H, which also coincided with the dot 0. The frame was then slipped along the circle by the slow screw motion provided for the purpose, till the first sector-division, by the action of the roller, was brought under I. The second mark was then cut on the circle at the point indicated by H. That the marks thus obtained are 5′ apart is evident when we reflect that the distance between them must be 1⁄16th of a division on the section which by construction is 1° 20′. In this way the first 16 divisions were cut; but before cutting the 17th it was necessary to adjust the micrometer wires of H to the real error of dot 1, as indicated by the table, and bring back the sector, not to zero, but to 1⁄8th short of zero. Starting from this position the divisions between dots 1 and 2 were filled in, and then H was adjusted to the real error of dot 2, and the sector brought back to its proper division before commencing the third course. Proceeding in this manner through the whole circle, the microscope H was finally found with its wire at zero, and the sector with its 16th division under its microscope indicating that the circle had been accurately divided.

Copying.—In graduation by copying the pattern must be either an accurately divided straight scale, or an accurately divided circle, commonly called a dividing plate.

In copying a straight scale the pattern and scale to be divided, usually called the work, are first fixed side by side, with their upper faces in the same plane. The dividing square, which closely resembles an ordinary joiner’s square, is then laid across both, and the point of the dividing knife dropped into the zero division of the pattern. The square is now moved up close to the point of the knife; and, while it is held firmly in this position by the left hand, the first division on the work is made by drawing the knife along the edge of the square with the right hand.

It frequently happens that the divisions required on a scale are either greater or less than those on the pattern. To meet this case, and still use the same pattern, the work must be fixed at a certain angle of inclination with the pattern. This angle is found in the following way. Take the exact ratio of a division on the pattern to the required division on the scale. Call this ratio α. Then, if the required divisions are longer than those of the pattern, the angle is cos−1 α, but, if shorter, the angle is sec−1 α. In the former case two operations are required before the divisions are cut: first, the square is laid on the pattern, and the corresponding divisions merely notched very faintly on the edge of the work; and, secondly, the square is applied to the work and the final divisions drawn opposite each faint notch. In the second case, that is, when the angle is sec−1 α, the dividing square is applied to the work, and the divisions cut when the edge of the square coincides with the end of each division on the pattern.

In copying circles use is made of the dividing plate. This is a circular plate of brass, of 36 in. or more in diameter, carefully graduated near its outer edge. It is turned quite flat, and has a steel pin fixed in its centre, and at right angles to its plane. For guiding the dividing knife an instrument called an index is employed. This is a straight bar of thin steel of length equal to the radius of the plate. A piece of metal, having a V notch with its angle a right angle, is riveted to one end of the bar in such a position that the vertex of the notch is exactly in a line with the edge of the steel bar. In this way, when the index is laid on the plate, with the notch grasping the central pin, the straight edge of the steel bar lies exactly along a radius. The work to be graduated is laid flat on the dividing plate, and fixed by two clamps in a position exactly concentric with it. The index is now laid on, with its edge coinciding with any required division on the dividing plate, and the corresponding division on the work is cut by drawing the dividing knife along the straight edge of the index.

Machine Graduation.—The first dividing engine was probably that of Henry Hindley of York, constructed in 1740, and chiefly used by him for cutting the teeth of clock wheels. This was followed shortly after by an engine devised by the duc de Chaulnes; but the first notable engine was that made by Ramsden, of which an account was published by the Board of Longitude in 1777. He was rewarded by that board with a sum of £300, and a further sum of £315 was given to him on condition that he would divide, at a certain fixed rate, the instruments of other makers. The essential principles of Ramsden’s machine have been repeated in almost all succeeding engines for dividing circles.

Ramsden’s machine consisted of a large brass prate 45 in. in diameter, carefully turned and movable on a vertical axis. The edge of the plate was ratched with 2160 teeth, into which a tangent screw worked, by means of which the plate could be made to turn through any required angle. Thus six turns of the screw moved the plate through 1°, and 1⁄60th of a turn through 1⁄360th of a degree. On the axis of the tangent screw was placed a cylinder having a spiral groove cut on its surface. A ratchet-wheel containing 60 teeth was attached to this cylinder, and was so arranged that, when the cylinder moved in one direction, it carried the tangent screw with it, and so turned the plate, but when it moved in the opposite direction, it left the tangent screw, and with it the plate, stationary. Round the spiral groove of the cylinder a catgut band was wound, one end of which was attached to a treadle and the other to a counterpoise weight. When the treadle was depressed the tangent screw turned round, and when the pressure was removed it returned, in obedience to the weight, to its former position without affecting the screw. Provision was also made whereby certain stops could be placed in the way of the screw, which only allowed it the requisite amount of turning. The work to be divided was firmly fixed on the plate, and made concentric with it. The divisions were cut, while the screw was stationary, by means of a dividing knife attached to a swing frame, which allowed it to have only a radial motion. In this way the artist could divide very rapidly by alternately depressing the treadle and working the dividing knife.

Ramsden also constructed a linear dividing engine on essentially the same principle. If we imagine the rim of the circular plate with its notches stretched out into a straight line and made movable in a straight slot, the screw, treadle, &c., remaining as before, we get a very good idea of the linear engine.

In 1793 Edward Troughton finished a circular dividing engine, of which the plate was smaller than in Ramsden’s, and which differed considerably in simplifying matters of detail. The plate was originally divided by Troughton’s own method, already described, and the divisions so obtained were employed to ratch the edge of the plate for receiving the tangent screw with great accuracy. Andrew Ross (Trans. Soc. Arts, 1830-1831) constructed a dividing machine which differs considerably from those of Ramsden and Troughton.

The essential point of difference is that, in Ross’s engine, the tangent screw does not turn the engine plate; that is done by an independent apparatus, and the function of the tangent screw is only to stop the plate after it has passed through the required angular interval between two divisions on the work to be graduated. Round the circumference of the plate are fixed 48 projections which just look as if the circumference had been divided into as many deep and somewhat peculiarly shaped notches or teeth. Through each of these teeth a hole is bored parallel to the plane of the plate and also to a tangent to its circumference. Into these holes are screwed steel screws with capstan heads and flat ends. The tangent screw consists only of a single turn of a large square thread which works in the teeth or notches of the plate. This thread is pierced by 90 equally distant holes, all parallel to the axis of the screw, and at the same distance from it. Into each of these holes is inserted a steel screw exactly similar to those in the teeth, but with its end rounded. It is the rounded and flat ends of these sets of screws coming together that stop the engine plate at the desired position, and the exact point can be nicely adjusted by suitably turning the screws.

A description is given of a dividing engine made by William Simms in the Memoirs of the Astronomical Society, 1843. Simms became convinced that to copy upon smaller circles the divisions which had been put upon a large plate with very great accuracy was not only more expeditious but more exact than original graduation. His machine involved essentially the same principle as Troughton’s. The accompanying figure is taken by permission.

The plate A is 46 in. in diameter, and is composed of gun-metal cast in one solid piece. It has two sets of 5’ divisions—one very faint on an inlaid ring of silver, and the other stronger on the gun-metal. These were put on by original graduation, mainly on the plan of Edward Troughton. One very great improvement in this engine is that the axis B is tubular, as seen at C. The object of this hollow is to receive the axis of the circle to be divided, so that it can be fixed flat to the plate by the clamps E, without having first to be detached from the axis and other parts to which it has already been carefully fitted. This obviates the necessity for resetting, which can hardly be done without some error. D is the tangent screw, and F the frame carrying it, which turns on carefully polished steel pivots. The screw is pressed against the edge of the plate by a spiral spring acting under the end of the lever G, and by screwing the lever down the screw can be altogether removed from contact with the plate. The edge of the plate is ratched by 4320 teeth which were cut opposite the original division by a circular cutter attached to the screw frame. H is the spiral barrel round which the catgut band is wound, one end of which is attached to the crank L on the end of the axis J and the other to a counterpoise weight not seen. On the other end of J is another crank inclined to L and carrying a band and counterpoise weight seen at K. The object of this weight is to balance the former and give steadiness to the motion. On the axis J is seen a pair of bevelled wheels which move the rod I, which, by another pair of bevelled wheels attached to the box N, gives motion to the axis M, on the end of which is an eccentric for moving the bent lever O, which actuates the bar carrying the cutter. Between the eccentric and the point of the screw P is an undulating plate by which long divisions can be cut. The cutting apparatus is supported upon the two parallel rails which can be elevated or depressed at pleasure by the nuts Q. Also the cutting apparatus can be moved forward or backward upon these rails to suit circles of different diameters. The box N is movable upon the bar R, and the rod I is adjustable as to length by having a kind of telescope joint. The engine is self-acting, and can be driven either by hand or by a steam-engine or other motive power. It can be thrown in or out of gear at once by a handle seen at S.

Mention may be made of Donkin’s linear dividing engine, in which a compensating arrangement is employed whereby great accuracy is obtained notwithstanding the inequalities of the screw used to advance the cutting tool. Dividing engines have also been made by Reichenbach, Repsold and others in Germany, Gambey in Paris and by several other astronomical instrument-makers. A machine constructed by E. R. Watts & Son is described by G. T. McCaw, in the Monthly Not. R. A. S., January 1909.

References.—Bird, Method of dividing Astronomical Instruments (London, 1767); Duc de Chaulnes, Nouvelle Méthode pour diviser les instruments de mathématique et d’astronomie (1768); Ramsden, Description of an Engine for dividing Mathematical Instruments (London, 1777); Troughton’s memoir, Phil. Trans. (1809); Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, v. 325, viii. 141, ix. 17, 35. See also J. E. Watkins, “On the Ramsden Machine,” Smithsonian Rep. (1890), p. 721; and L. Ambronn, Astronomische Instrumentenkunde (1899).

(J. Bl.)

GRADUS, or Gradus ad Parnassum (a step to Parnassus), a Latin (or Greek) dictionary, in which the quantities of the vowels of the words are marked. Synonyms, epithets and poetical expressions and extracts are also included under the more important headings, the whole being intended as an aid for students in Greek and Latin verse composition. The first Latin gradus was compiled in 1702 by the Jesuit Paul Aler (1656-1727), a famous schoolmaster. There is a Latin gradus by C. D. Yonge (1850); English-Latin by A. C. Ainger and H. G. Wintle (1890); Greek by J. Brasse (1828) and E. Maltby (1815), bishop of Durham.

GRAETZ, HEINRICH (1817-1891), the foremost Jewish historian of modern times, was born in Posen in 1817 and died at Munich in 1891. He received a desultory education, and was largely self-taught. An important stage in his development was the period of three years that he spent at Oldenburg as assistant and pupil of S. R. Hirsch, whose enlightened orthodoxy was for a time very attractive to Graetz. Later on Graetz proceeded to Breslau, where he matriculated in 1842. Breslau was then becoming the headquarters of Abraham Geiger, the leader of Jewish reform. Graetz was repelled by Geiger’s attitude, and though he subsequently took radical views of the Bible and tradition (which made him an opponent of Hirsch), Graetz remained a life-long foe to reform. He contended for freedom of thought; he had no desire to fight for freedom of ritual practice. He momentarily thought of entering the rabbinate, but he was unsuited to that career. For some years he supported himself as a tutor. He had previously won repute by his published essays, but in 1853 the publication of the fourth volume of his history of the Jews made him famous. This fourth volume (the first to be published) dealt with the Talmud. It was a brilliant resuscitation of the past. Graetz’s skill in piecing together detached fragments of information, his vast learning and extraordinary critical acumen, were equalled by his vivid power of presenting personalities. No Jewish book of the 19th century produced such a sensation as this, and Graetz won at a bound the position he still occupies as recognized master of Jewish history. His Geschichte der Juden, begun in 1853, was completed in 1875; new editions of the several volumes were frequent. The work has been translated into many languages; it appeared in English in five volumes in 1891-1895. The History is defective in its lack of objectivity; Graetz’s judgments are sometimes biassed, and in particular he lacks sympathy with mysticism. But the history is a work of genius. Simultaneously with the publication of vol. iv. Graetz was appointed on the staff of the new Breslau Seminary, of which the first director was Z. Frankel. Graetz passed the remainder of his life in this office; in 1869 he was created professor by the government, and also lectured at the Breslau University. Graetz attained considerable repute as a biblical critic. He was the author of many bold conjectures as to the date of Ruth, Ecclesiastes, Esther and other biblical books. His critical edition of the Psalms (1882-1883) was his chief contribution to biblical exegesis, but after his death Professor Bacher edited Graetz’s Emendationes to many parts of the Hebrew scriptures.

A full bibliography of Graetz’s works is given in the Jewish Quarterly Review, iv. 194; a memoir of Graetz is also to be found there. Another full memoir was prefixed to the “index” volume of the History in the American re-issue of the English translation in six volumes (Philadelphia, 1898).

(I. A.)

GRAEVIUS (properly Gräve or Greffe), JOHANN GEORG (1632-1703). German classical scholar and critic, was born at Naumburg, Saxony, on the 29th of January 1632. He was originally intended for the law, but having made the acquaintance of J. F. Gronovius during a casual visit to Deventer, under his influence he abandoned jurisprudence for philology. He completed his studies under D. Heinsius at Leiden, and under the Protestant theologians A. Morus and D. Blondel at Amsterdam. During his residence in Amsterdam, under Blondel’s influence he abandoned Lutheranism and joined the Reformed Church; and in 1656 he was called by the elector of Brandenburg to the chair of rhetoric in the university of Duisburg. Two years afterwards, on the recommendation of Gronovius, he was chosen to succeed that scholar at Deventer; in 1662 he was translated to the university of Utrecht, where he occupied first the chair of rhetoric, and from 1667 until his death (January 11th, 1703) that of history and politics. Graevius enjoyed a very high reputation as a teacher, and his lecture-room was crowded by pupils, many of them of distinguished rank, from all parts of the civilized world. He was honoured with special recognition by Louis XIV., and was a particular favourite of William III. of England, who made him historiographer royal.

His two most important works are the Thesaurus antiquitatum Romanarum (1694-1699, in 12 volumes), and the Thesaurus antiquitatum et historiarum Italiae published after his death, and continued by the elder Burmann (1704-1725). His editions of the classics, although they marked a distinct advance in scholarship, arc now for the most part superseded. They include Hesiod (1667), Lucian, Pseudosophista (1668), Justin, Historiae Philippicae (1669), Suetonius (1672), Catullus, Tibullus et Propertius (1680), and several of the works of Cicero (his best production). He also edited many of the writings of contemporary scholars. The Oratio funebris by P. Burmann (1703) contains an exhaustive list of the works of this scholar; see also P. H. Külb in Ersch and Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyklopädie, and J. E. Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship, ii. (1908).

GRAF, ARTURO (1848- ), Italian poet, of German extraction, was born at Athens. He was educated at Naples University and became a lecturer on Italian literature in Rome, till in 1882 he was appointed professor at Turin. He was one of the founders of the Giornale della letteratura italiana, and his publications include valuable prose criticism; but he is best known as a poet. His various volumes of verse—Poesie e novelle (1874), Dopo il tramonto versi (1893), &c.—give him a high place among the recent lyrical writers of his country.

GRAF, KARL HEINRICH (1815-1869), German Old Testament scholar and orientalist, was born at Mülhausen in Alsace on the 28th of February 1815. He studied Biblical exegesis and oriental languages at the university of Strassburg under E. Reuss, and, after holding various teaching posts, was made instructor in French and Hebrew at the Landesschule of Meissen, receiving in 1852 the title of professor. He died on the 16th of July 1869. Graf was one of the chief founders of Old Testament criticism. In his principal work, Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments (1866), he sought to show that the priestly legislation of Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers is of later origin than the book of Deuteronomy. He still, however, held the accepted view, that the Elohistic narratives formed part of the Grundschrift and therefore belonged to the oldest portions of the Pentateuch. The reasons urged against the contention that the priestly legislation and the Elohistic narratives were separated by a space of 500 years were so strong as to induce Graf, in an essay, “Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pentateuchs,” published shortly before his death, to regard the whole Grundschrift as post-exilic and as the latest portion of the Pentateuch. The idea had already been expressed by E. Reuss, but since Graf was the first to introduce it into Germany, the theory, as developed by Julius Wellhausen, has been called the Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis.

Graf also wrote, Der Segen Moses Deut. 33 (1857) and Der Prophet Jeremia erklärt (1862). See T. K. Cheyne, Founders of Old Testament Criticism (1893); and Otto Pfleiderer’s book translated into English by J. F. Smith as Development of Theology (1890).

GRÄFE, ALBRECHT VON (1828-1870), German oculist, son of Karl Ferdinand von Gräfe, was born at Berlin on the 22nd of May 1828. At an early age he manifested a preference for the study of mathematics, but this was gradually superseded by an interest in natural science, which led him ultimately to the study of medicine. After prosecuting his studies at Berlin, Vienna, Prague, Paris, London, Dublin and Edinburgh, and devoting special attention to ophthalmology he, in 1850, began practice as an oculist in Berlin, where he founded a private institution for the treatment of the eyes, which became the model of many similar ones in Germany and Switzerland. In 1853 he was appointed teacher of ophthalmology in Berlin university; in 1858 he became extraordinary professor, and in 1866 ordinary professor. Gräfe contributed largely to the progress of the science of ophthalmology, especially by the establishment in 1855 of his Archiv für Ophthalmologie, in which he had Ferdinand Arlt (1812-1887) and F. C. Donders (1818-1889) as collaborators. Perhaps his two most important discoveries were his method of treating glaucoma and his new operation for cataract. He was also regarded as an authority in diseases of the nerves and brain. He died at Berlin on the 20th of July 1870.

See Ein Wort der Erinnerung an Albrecht von Gräfe (Halle, 1870) by his cousin, Alfred Gräfe (1830-1899), also a distinguished ophthalmologist, and the author of Das Sehen der Schielenden (Wiesbaden, 1897); and E. Michaelis, Albrecht von Gräfe. Sein Leben und Wirken (Berlin, 1877).

GRAFE, HEINRICH (1802-1868), German educationist, was born at Buttstädt in Saxe-Weimar on the 3rd of May 1802. He studied mathematics and theology at Jena, and in 1823 obtained a curacy in the town church of Weimar. He was transferred to Jena as rector of the town school in 1825; in 1840 he was also appointed extraordinary professor of the science of education (Pädagogik) in that university; and in 1842 he became head of the Bürgerschule (middle class school) in Cassel. After reorganizing the schools of the town, he became director of the new Realschule in 1843; and, devoting himself to the interests of educational reform in electoral Hesse, he became in 1849 a member of the school commission, and also entered the house of representatives, where he made himself somewhat formidable as an agitator. In 1852 for having been implicated in the September riots and in the movement against the unpopular minister Hassenpflug, who had dissolved the school commission, he was condemned to three years’ imprisonment, a sentence afterwards reduced to one of twelve months. On his release he withdrew to Geneva, where he engaged in educational work till 1855, when he was appointed director of the school of industry at Bremen. He died in that city on the 21st of July 1868.

Besides being the author of many text-books and occasional papers on educational subjects, he wrote Das Rechisverhältnis der Volksschule von innen und aussen (1829); Die Schulreform (1834); Schule und Unterricht (1839); Allgemeine Pädagogik (1845); Die deutsche Volksschule (1847). Together with Naumann, he also edited the Archiv für das praktische Volksschulwesen (1828-1835).

GRÄFE, KARL FERDINAND VON (1787-1840), German surgeon, was born at Warsaw on the 8th of March 1787. He studied medicine at Halle and Leipzig, and after obtaining licence from the Leipzig university, he was in 1807 appointed private physician to Duke Alexius of Anhalt-Bernburg. In 1811 he became professor of surgery and director of the surgical clinic at Berlin, and during the war with Napoleon he was superintendent of the military hospitals. When peace was concluded in 1815, he resumed his professorial duties. He was also appointed physician to the general staff of the army, and he became a director of the Friedrich Wilhelm Institute and of the Medico-Chirurgical Academy. He died suddenly on the 4th of July 1840 at Hanover, whither he had been called to operate on the eyes of the crown prince. Gräfe did much to advance the practice of surgery in Germany, especially in the treatment of wounds. He improved the rhinoplastic process, and its revival was chiefly due to him. His lectures at the university of Berlin attracted students from all parts of Europe.

The following are his principal works: Normen für die Ablösung grosser Gliedmassen (Berlin, 1812); Rhinoplastik (1818); Neue Beiträge zur Kunst Theile des Angesichts organisch zu ersetzen (1821); Die epidemisch-kontagiöse Augenblennorrhoë Ägyptens in den europäischen Befreiungsheeren (1824); and Jahresberichte über das klinisch-chirurgisch-augenärztliche Institut der Universität zu Berlin (1817-1834). He also edited, with Ph. von Walther, the Journal für Chirurgie und Augenheilkunde. See E. Michaelis, Karl Ferdinand von Gräfe in seiner 30 jährigen Wirken für Staat und Wissenschaft (Berlin, 1840).

GRAFFITO, plural graffiti, the Italian word meaning “scribbling” or “scratchings” (graffiare, to scribble, Gr. γράφειν), adopted by archaeologists as a general term for the casual writings, rude drawings and markings on ancient buildings, in distinction from the more formal or deliberate writings known as “inscriptions.” These “graffiti,” either scratched on stone or plaster by a sharp instrument such as a nail, or, more rarely, written in red chalk or black charcoal, are found in great abundance, e.g. on the monuments of ancient Egypt. The best-known “graffiti” are those in Pompeii and in the catacombs and elsewhere in Rome. They have been collected by R. Garrucci (Graffiti di Pompei, Paris, 1856), and L. Correra (“Graffiti di Roma” in Bolletino della commissione municipale archaeologica, Rome, 1893; see also Corp. Ins. Lat. iv., Berlin, 1871). The subject matter of these scribblings is much the same as that of the similar scrawls made to-day by boys, street idlers and the casual “tripper.” The schoolboy of Pompeii wrote out lists of nouns and verbs, alphabets and lines from Virgil for memorizing, lovers wrote the names of their beloved, “sportsmen” scribbled the names of horses they had been “tipped,” and wrote those of their favourite gladiators. Personal abuse is frequent, and rude caricatures are found, such as that of one Peregrinus with an enormous nose, or of Naso or Nasso with hardly any. Aulus Vettius Firmus writes up his election address and appeals to the pilicrepi or ball-players for their votes for him as aedile. Lines of poetry, chiefly suited for lovers in dejection or triumph, are popular, and Ovid and Propertius appear to be favourites. Apparently private owners of property felt the nuisance of the defacement of their walls, and at Rome near the Porta Portuensis has been found an inscription begging people not to scribble (scariphare) on the walls.

Graffiti are of some importance to the palaeographer and to the philologist as illustrating the forms and corruptions of the various alphabets and languages used by the people, and occasionally guide the archaeologist to the date of the building on which they appear, but they are chiefly valuable for the light they throw on the everyday life of the “man in the street” of the period, and for the intimate details of customs and institutions which no literature or formal inscriptions can give. The graffiti dealing with the gladiatorial shows at Pompeii are in this respect particularly noteworthy; the rude drawings such as that of the secutor caught in the net of the retiarius and lying entirely at his mercy, give a more vivid picture of what the incidents of these shows were like than any account in words (see Garrucci, op. cit., Pls. x.-xiv.; A. Mau, Pompeii in Leben und Kunst, 2nd ed., 1908, ch. xxx.). In 1866 in the Trastevere quarter of Rome, near the church of S. Crisogono, was discovered the guardhouse (excubitorium) of the seventh cohort of the city police (vigiles), the walls being covered by the scribblings of the guards, illustrating in detail the daily routine, the hardships and dangers, and the feelings of the men towards their officers (W. Henzen, “L’ Escubitorio della Settima coorte dei Vigili” in Bull. Inst. 1867, and Annali Inst., 1874; see also R. Lanciani, Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Discoveries, 230, and Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, 1897, 548). The most famous graffito yet discovered is that generally accepted as representing a caricature of Christ upon the cross, found on the walls of the Domus Gelotiana on the Palatine in 1857, and now preserved in the Kircherian Museum of the Collegio Romano. Deeply scratched in the wall is a figure of a man clad in the short tunica with one hand upraised in salutation to another figure, with the head of an ass, or possibly a horse, hanging on a cross; beneath is written in rude Greek letters “Anaxamenos worships (his) god.” It has been suggested that this represents an adherent of some Gnostic sect worshipping one of the animal-headed deities of Egypt (see Ferd. Becker, Das Spottcrucifix der römischen Kaiserpaläste, Breslau, 1866; F. X. Kraus, Das Spottcrucifix vom Palatin, Freiburg in Breisgau, 1872; and Visconti and Lanciani, Guida del Palatino).

There is an interesting article, with many quotations of graffiti, in the Edinburgh Review, October 1859, vol. cx.

(C. We.)

GRAFLY, CHARLES (1862- ), American sculptor, was born at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 3rd of December 1862. He was a pupil of the schools of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, Philadelphia, and of Henri M. Chapu and Jean Dampt, and the École des Beaux Arts, Paris. He received an Honorable Mention in the Paris Salon of 1891 for his “Mauvais Présage,” now at the Detroit Museum of Fine Arts, a gold medal at the Paris Exposition, in 1900, and medals at Chicago, 1893, Atlanta, 1895, and Philadelphia (the gold Medal of Honor, Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts), 1899. In 1892 he became instructor in sculpture at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, also filling the same chair at the Drexel Institute, Philadelphia. He was elected a full member of the National Academy of Design in 1905. His better-known works include: “General Reynolds,” Fairmount Park, Philadelphia; “Fountain of Man” (made for the Pan-American Exposition at Buffalo); “From Generation to Generation”; “Symbol of Life”; “Vulture of War,” and many portrait busts.

GRÄFRATH, a town in Rhenish Prussia, on the Itterbach, 14 m. E. of Düsseldorf on the railway Hilden-Vohwinkel. Pop. (1905) 9030. It has a Roman Catholic and two Evangelical churches, and there was an abbey here from 1185 to 1803. The principal industries are iron and steel, while weaving is carried on in the town.

GRAFT (a modified form of the earlier “graff,” through the French from the Late Lat. graphium, a stylus or pencil), a small branch, shoot or “scion,” transferred from one plant or tree to another, the “stock,” and inserted in it so that the two unite (see Horticulture). The name was adopted from the resemblance in shape of the “graft” to a pencil. The transfer of living tissue from one portion of an organism to another part of the same or different organism where it adheres and grows is also known as “grafting,” and is frequently practised in modern surgery. The word is applied, in carpentry, to an attachment of the ends of timbers, and, as a nautical term, to the “whipping” or “pointing” of a rope’s end with fine twine to prevent unravelling. “Graft” is used as a slang term, in England, for a “piece of hard work.” In American usage Webster’s Dictionary (ed. 1904) defines the word as “the act of any one, especially an official or public employé, by which he procures money surreptitiously by virtue of his office or position; also the surreptitious gain thus procured.” It is thus a word embracing blackmail and illicit commission. The origin of the English use of the word is probably an obsolete word “graft,” a portion of earth thrown up by a spade, from the Teutonic root meaning “to dig,” seen in German graben, and English “grave.”

GRAFTON, DUKES OF. The English dukes of Grafton are descended from Henry Fitzroy (1663-1690), the natural son of Charles II. by Barbara Villiers (countess of Castlemaine and duchess of Cleveland). In 1672 he was married to the daughter and heiress of the earl of Arlington and created earl of Euston; in 1675 he was created duke of Grafton. He was brought up as a sailor, and saw military service at the siege of Luxemburg in 1684. At James II.’s coronation he was lord high constable. In the rebellion of the duke of Monmouth he commanded the royal troops in Somersetshire; but later he acted with Churchill (duke of Marlborough), and joined William of Orange against the king. He died of a wound received at the storming of Cork, while leading William’s forces, being succeeded as 2nd duke by his son Charles (1682-1757).

Augustus Henry Fitzroy, 3rd duke of Grafton (1735-1811), one of the leading politicians of his time, was the grandson of the 2nd duke, and was educated at Westminster and Cambridge. He first became known in politics as an opponent of Lord Bute; in 1765 he was secretary of state under the marquis of Rockingham; but he retired next year, and Pitt (becoming earl of Chatham) formed a ministry in which Grafton was first lord of the treasury (1766) but only nominally prime minister. Chatham’s illness at the end of 1767 resulted in Grafton becoming the effective leader, but political differences and the attacks of “Junius” led to his resignation in January 1770. He became lord privy seal in Lord North’s ministry (1771) but resigned in 1775, being in favour of conciliatory action towards the American colonists. In the Rockingham ministry of 1782 he was again lord privy seal. In later years he was a prominent Unitarian.

Besides his successor, the 4th duke (1760-1844), and numerous other children, he was the father of General Lord Charles Fitzroy (1764-1829), whose sons Sir Charles Fitzroy (1798-1858), governor of New South Wales, and Robert Fitzroy (q.v.), the hydrographer, were notable men. The 4th duke’s son, who succeeded as 5th duke, was father of the 6th and 7th dukes.

The 3rd duke left in manuscript a Memoir of his public career, of which extracts have been printed in Stanhope’s History, Walpole’s Memories of George III. (Appendix, vol. iv.), and Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors.

GRAFTON, RICHARD (d. 1572). English printer and chronicler, was probably born about 1513. He received the freedom of the Grocers’ Company in 1534. Miles Coverdale’s version of the Bible had first been printed in 1535. Grafton was early brought into touch with the leaders of religious reform, and in 1537 he undertook, in conjunction with Edward Whitchurch, to produce a modified version of Coverdale’s text, generally known as Matthew’s Bible (Antwerp, 1537). He went to Paris to reprint Coverdale’s revised edition (1538). There Whitchurch and he began to print the folio known as the Great Bible by special licence obtained by Henry VIII. from the French government. Suddenly, however, the work was officially stopped and the presses seized. Grafton fled, but Thomas Cromwell eventually bought the presses and type, and the printing was completed in England. The Great Bible was reprinted several times under his direction, the last occasion being 1553. In 1544 Grafton and Whitchurch secured the exclusive right of printing church service books, and on the accession of Edward VI. he was appointed king’s printer, an office which he retained throughout the reign. In this capacity he produced The Booke of the Common Praier and Administracion of the Sacramentes, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Churche: after the Use of the Churche of Englande (1549 fol.), and Actes of Parliament (1552 and 1553). In 1553 he printed Lady Jane Grey’s proclamation and signed himself the queen’s printer. For this he was imprisoned for a short time, and he seems thereafter to have retired from active business. His historical works include a continuation (1543) of Hardyng’s Chronicle from the beginning of the reign of Edward IV. down to Grafton’s own times. He is said to have taken considerable liberties with the original, and may practically be regarded as responsible for the whole work. He printed in 1548 Edward Hall’s Union of the ... Families of Lancastre and Yorke, adding the history of the years from 1532 to 1547. After he retired from the printing business he published An Abridgement of the Chronicles of England (1562), Manuell of the Chronicles of England (1565), Chronicle at large and meere Historye of the Affayres of England (1568). In these books he chiefly adapted the work of his predecessors, but in some cases he gives detailed accounts of contemporary events. His name frequently appears in the records of St Bartholomew’s and Christ’s hospitals, and in 1553 he was treasurer-general of the hospitals of King Edward’s foundation. In 1553-1554 and 1556-1557 he represented the City in Parliament, and in 1562-1563 he sat for Coventry.

An elaborate account of Grafton was written in 1901 by Mr J. A. Kingdon under the auspices of the Grocers’ Company, with the title Richard Grafton, Citizen and Grocer of London, &c., in continuation of Incidents in the Lives of T. Poyntz and R. Grafton (1895). His Chronicle at large was reprinted by Sir Henry Ellis in 1809.

GRAFTON, a city of Clarence county, New South Wales, lying on both sides of the Clarence river, at a distance of 45 m. from its mouth, 342 m. N.E. of Sydney by sea. Pop. (1901) 4174, South Grafton, 976. The two sections, North Grafton and South Grafton, form separate municipalities. The river is navigable from the sea to the town for ships of moderate burden, and for small vessels to a point 35 m. beyond it. The entrance to the river has been artificially improved. Grafton is the seat of the Anglican joint-bishopric of Grafton and Armidale, and of a Roman Catholic bishopric created in 1888, both of which have fine cathedrals. Dairy-farming and sugar-growing are important industries, and there are several sugar-mills in the neighbourhood; great numbers of horses, also, are bred for the Indian and colonial markets. Tobacco, cereals and fruits are also grown. Grafton has a large shipping trade with Sydney. There is rail-connexion with Brisbane, &c. The city became a municipality in 1859.

GRAFTON, a township in the S.E. part of Worcester county, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Pop. (1905) 5052; (1910) 5705. It is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford, and the Boston & Albany railways, and by interurban electric lines. The township contains several villages (including Grafton, North Grafton, Saundersville, Fisherville and Farnumsville); the principal village, Grafton, is about 7 m. S.E. of Worcester. The villages are residential suburbs of Worcester, and attract many summer residents. In the village of Grafton there is a public library. There is ample water power from the Blackstone river and its tributaries, and among the manufactures of Grafton are cotton-goods, boots and shoes, &c. Within what is now Grafton stood the Nipmuck Indian village of Hassanamesit. John Eliot, the “apostle to the Indians,” visited it soon after 1651, and organized the third of his bands of “praying Indians” there; in 1671 he established a church for them, the second of the kind in New England, and also a school. In 1654 the Massachusetts General Court granted to the Indians, for their exclusive use, a tract of about 4 sq. m., of which they remained the sole proprietors until 1718, when they sold a small farm to Elisha Johnson, the first permanent white settler in the neighbourhood. In 1728 a group of residents of Marlboro, Sudbury, Concord and Stowe, with the permission of the General Court, bought from the Indians 7500 acres of their lands, and agreed to establish forty English families on the tract within three years, and to maintain a church and school of which the Indians should have free use. The township was incorporated in 1735, and was named in honour of the 2nd duke of Grafton. The last of the pure-blooded Indians died about 1825.

GRAFTON, a city and the county-seat of Taylor county, West Virginia, U.S.A., on Tygart river, about 100 m. by rail S.E. of Wheeling. Pop. (1890) 3159; (1900) 5650, including 226 foreign-born and 162 negroes; (1910) 7563. It is served by four divisions of the Baltimore & Ohio railway, which maintains extensive car shops here. The city is about 1000 ft. above sea-level. It has a small national cemetery, and about 4 m. W., at Pruntytown, is the West Virginia Reform School. Grafton is situated near large coal-fields, and is supplied with natural gas. Among its manufactures are machine-shop and foundry products, window glass and pressed glass ware, and grist mill and planing-mill products. The first settlement was made about 1852, and Grafton was incorporated in 1856 and chartered as a city in 1899. In 1903 the population and area of the city were increased by the annexation of the town of Fetterman (pop. in 1900, 796), of Beaumont (unincorporated), and of other territory.

GRAHAM, SIR GERALD (1831-1899), British general, was born on the 27th of June 1831 at Acton, Middlesex. He was educated at Dresden and Woolwich Academy, and entered the Royal Engineers in 1850. He served with distinction through the Russian War of 1854 to 1856, was present at the battles of the Alma and Inkerman, was twice wounded in the trenches before Sevastopol, and was awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry at the attack on the Redan and for devoted heroism on numerous occasions. He also received the Legion of Honour, and was promoted to a brevet majority. In the China War of 1860 he took part in the actions of Sin-ho and Tang-ku, the storming of the Taku Forts, where he was severely wounded, and the entry into Peking (brevet lieutenant-colonelcy and C.B.). Promoted colonel in 1869, he was employed in routine duties until 1877, when he was appointed assistant-director of works for barracks at the war office, a position he held until his promotion to major-general in 1881. In command of the advanced force in Egypt in 1882, he bore the brunt of the fighting, was present at the action of Magfar, commanded at the first battle of Kassassin, took part in the second, and led his brigade at Tell-el-Kebir. For his services in the campaign he received the K.C.B. and thanks of parliament. In 1884 he commanded the expedition to the eastern Sudan, and fought the successful battles of El Teb and Tamai. On his return home he received the thanks of parliament and was made a lieutenant-general for distinguished service in the field. In 1885 he commanded the Suakin expedition, defeated the Arabs at Hashin and Tamai, and advanced the railway from Suakin to Otao, when the expedition was withdrawn (thanks of parliament and G.C.M.G.). In 1896 he was made G.C.B., and in 1899 colonel-commandant Royal Engineers. He died on the 17th of December 1899. He published in 1875 a translation of Goetze’s Operations of the German Engineers in 1870-1871, and in 1887 Last Words with Gordon.