Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Gordon, Lord George" to "Grasses" (part 3)

GRAHAM, SIR JAMES ROBERT GEORGE, Bart. (1792-1861), British statesman, son of a baronet, was born at Naworth, Cumberland, on the 1st of June 1792, and was educated at Westminster and Oxford. Shortly after quitting the university, while making the “grand tour” abroad, he became private secretary to the British minister in Sicily. Returning to England in 1818 he was elected to parliament as member for Hull in the Whig interest; but he was unseated at the election of 1820. In 1824 he succeeded to the baronetcy; and in 1826 he re-entered parliament as representative for Carlisle, a seat which he soon exchanged for the county of Cumberland. In the same year he published a pamphlet entitled “Corn and Currency,” which brought him into prominence as a man of advanced Liberal opinions; and he became one of the most energetic advocates in parliament of the Reform Bill. On the formation of Earl Grey’s administration he received the post of first lord of the admiralty, with a seat in the cabinet. From 1832 to 1837 he sat for the eastern division of the county of Cumberland. Dissensions on the Irish Church question led to his withdrawal from the ministry in 1834, and ultimately to his joining the Conservative party. Rejected by his former constituents in 1837, he was in 1838 elected for Pembroke, and in 1841 for Dorchester. In the latter year he took office under Sir Robert Peel as secretary of state for the home department, a post he retained until 1846. As home secretary he incurred considerable odium in Scotland, by his unconciliating policy on the church question prior to the “disruption” of 1843; and in 1844 the detention and opening of letters at the post-office by his warrant raised a storm of public indignation, which was hardly allayed by the favourable report of a parliamentary committee of investigation. From 1846 to 1852 he was out of office; but in the latter year he joined Lord Aberdeen’s cabinet as first lord of the admiralty, in which capacity he acted also for a short time in the Palmerston ministry of 1855. The appointment of a select committee of inquiry into the conduct of the Russian war ultimately led to his withdrawal from official life. He continued as a private member to exercise a considerable influence on parliamentary opinion. He died at Netherby, Cumberland, on the 25th of October 1861.

His Life, by C. S. Parker, was published in 1907.

GRAHAM, SYLVESTER (1794-1851), American dietarian, was born in Suffield, Connecticut, in 1794. He studied at Amherst College, and was ordained to the Presbyterian ministry in 1826, but he seems to have preached but little. He became an ardent advocate of temperance reform and of vegetarianism, having persuaded himself that a flesh diet was the cause of abnormal cravings. His last years were spent in retirement and he died at Northampton, Massachusetts, on the 11th of September 1851. His name is now remembered because of his advocacy of unbolted (Graham) flour, and as the originator of “Graham bread.” But his reform was much broader than this. He urged, primarily, physiological education, and in his Science of Human Life (1836; republished, with biographical memoir, 1858) furnished an exhaustive text-book on the subject. He had carefully planned a complete regimen including many details besides a strict diet. A Temperance (or Graham) Boarding House was opened in New York City about 1832 by Mrs Asenath Nicholson, who published Nature’s Own Book (2nd ed., 1835) giving Graham’s rules for boarders; and in Boston a Graham House was opened in 1837 at 23 Brattle Street.

There were many Grahamites at Brook Farm, and the American Physiological Society published in Boston in 1837 and 1838 a weekly called The Graham Journal of Health and Longevity, designed to illustrate by facts and sustain by reason and principles the science of human life as taught by Sylvester Graham, edited by David Campbell. Graham wrote Essay on Cholera (1832); The Esculapian Tablets of the Nineteenth Century (1834); Lectures to Young Men on Chastity (2nd ed., 1837); and Bread and Bread Making; and projected a work designed to show that his system was not counter to the Holy Scriptures.

GRAHAM, THOMAS (1805-1869), British chemist, born at Glasgow on the 20th of December 1805, was the son of a merchant of that city. In 1819 he entered the university of Glasgow with the intention of becoming a minister of the Established Church. But under the influence of Thomas Thomson (1773-1852), the professor of chemistry, he developed a taste for experimental science and especially for molecular physics, a subject which formed his main preoccupation throughout his life. After graduating in 1824, he spent two years in the laboratory of Professor T. C. Hope at Edinburgh, and on returning to Glasgow gave lessons in mathematics, and subsequently chemistry, until the year 1829, when he was appointed lecturer in the Mechanics’ Institute. In 1830 he succeeded Dr Andrew Ure (1778-1857) as professor of chemistry in the Andersonian Institution, and in 1837, on the death of Dr Edward Turner, he was transferred to the chair of chemistry in University College, London. There he remained till 1855, when he succeeded Sir John Herschel as Master of the Mint, a post he held until his death on the 16th of September 1869. The onerous duties his work at the Mint entailed severely tried his energies, and in quitting a purely scientific career he was subjected to the cares of official life, for which he was not fitted by temperament. The researches, however, which he conducted between 1861 and 1869 were as brilliant as any of those in which he engaged. Graham was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1836, and a corresponding member of the Institute of France in 1847, while Oxford made him a D. C. L. in 1855. He took a leading part in the foundation of the London Chemical and the Cavendish societies, and served as first president of both, in 1841 and 1846. Towards the close of his life the presidency of the Royal Society was offered him, but his failing health caused him to decline the honour.

Graham’s work is remarkable at once for its originality and for the simplicity of the methods employed obtaining most important results. He communicated papers to the Philosophical Society of Glasgow before the work of that society was recorded in Transactions, but his first published paper, “On the Absorption of Gases by Liquids,” appeared in the Annals of Philosophy for 1826. The subject with which his name is most prominently associated is the diffusion of gases. In his first paper on this subject (1829) he thus summarizes the knowledge experiment had afforded as to the laws which regulate the movement of gases. “Fruitful as the miscibility of gases has been in interesting speculations, the experimental information we possess on the subject amounts to little more than the well-established fact that gases of a different nature when brought into contact do not arrange themselves according to their density, but they spontaneously diffuse through each other so as to remain in an intimate state of mixture for any length of time.” For the fissured jar of J. W. Döbereiner he substituted a glass tube closed by a plug of plaster of Paris, and with this simple appliance he developed the law now known by his name “that the diffusion rate of gases is inversely as the square root of their density.” (See Diffusion.) He further studied the passage of gases by transpiration through fine tubes, and by effusion through a minute hole in a platinum disk, and was enabled to show that gas may enter a vacuum in three different ways: (1) by the molecular movement of diffusion, in virtue of which a gas penetrates through the pores of a disk of compressed graphite; (2) by effusion through an orifice of sensible dimensions in a platinum disk the relative times of the effusion of gases in mass being similar to those of the molecular diffusion, although a gas is usually carried by the former kind of impulse with a velocity many thousand times as great as is demonstrable by the latter; and (3) by the peculiar rate of passage due to transpiration through fine tubes, in which the ratios appear to be in direct relation with no other known property of the same gases—thus hydrogen has exactly double the transpiration rate of nitrogen, the relation of those gases as to density being as 1 : 14. He subsequently examined the passage of gases through septa or partitions of india-rubber, unglazed earthenware and plates of metals such as palladium, and proved that gases pass through these septa neither by diffusion nor effusion nor by transpiration, but in virtue of a selective absorption which the septa appear to exert on the gases in contact with them. By this means (“atmolysis”) he was enabled partially to separate oxygen from air.

His early work on the movements of gases led him to examine the spontaneous movements of liquids, and as a result of the experiments he divided bodies into two classes—crystalloids, such as common salt, and colloids, of which gum-arabic is a type—the former having high and the latter low diffusibility. He also proved that the process of liquid diffusion causes partial decomposition of certain chemical compounds, the potassium sulphate, for instance, being separated from the aluminium sulphate in alum by the higher diffusibility of the former salt. He also extended his work on the transpiration of gases to liquids, adopting the method of manipulation devised by J. L. M. Poiseuille. He found that dilution with water does not effect proportionate alteration in the transpiration velocities of different liquids, and a certain determinable degree of dilution retards the transpiration velocity.

With regard to Graham’s more purely chemical work, in 1833 he showed that phosphoric anhydride and water form three distinct acids, and he thus established the existence of polybasic acids, in each of which one or more equivalents of hydrogen are replaceable by certain metals (see Acid). In 1835 he published the results of an examination of the properties of water of crystallization as a constituent of salts. Not the least interesting part of this inquiry was the discovery of certain definite salts with alcohol analogous to hydrates, to which the name of alcoholates was given. A brief paper entitled “Speculative Ideas on the Constitution of Matter” (1863) possesses special interest in connexion with work done since his death, because in it he expressed the view that the various kinds of matter now recognized as different elementary substances may possess one and the same ultimate or atomic molecule in different conditions of movement.

Graham’s Elements of Chemistry, first published in 1833, went through several editions, and appeared also in German, remodelled under J. Otto’s direction. His Chemical and Physical Researches were collected by Dr James Young and Dr Angus Smith, and printed “for presentation only” at Edinburgh in 1876, Dr Smith contributing to the volume a valuable preface and analysis of its contents. See also T. E. Thorpe, Essays in Historical Chemistry (1902).

GRAHAME, JAMES (1765-1811), Scottish poet, was born in Glasgow on the 22nd of April 1765, the son of a successful lawyer. After completing his literary course at Glasgow university, Grahame went in 1784 to Edinburgh, where he qualified as writer to the signet, and subsequently for the Scottish bar, of which he was elected a member in 1795. But his preferences had always been for the Church, and when he was forty-four he took Anglican orders, and became a curate first at Shipton, Gloucestershire, and then at Sedgefield, Durham. His works include a dramatic poem, Mary Queen of Scots (1801), The Sabbath (1804), British Georgics (1804), The Birds of Scotland (1806), and Poems on the Abolition of the Slave Trade (1810). His principal work, The Sabbath, a sacred and descriptive poem in blank verse, is characterized by devotional feeling and by happy delineation of Scottish scenery. In the notes to his poems he expresses enlightened views on popular education, the criminal law and other public questions. He was emphatically a friend of humanity—a philanthropist as well as a poet. He died in Glasgow on the 14th of September 1811.

GRAHAM’S DYKE (or Sheugh = trench), a local name for the Roman fortified frontier, consisting of rampart, forts and road, which ran across the narrow isthmus of Scotland from the Forth to the Clyde (about 36 m.), and formed from A.D. 140 till about 185 the northern frontier of Roman Britain. The name is locally explained as recording a victorious assault on the defences by one Robert Graham and his men; it has also been connected with the Grampian Hills and the Latin surveying term groma. But, as is shown by its earliest recorded spelling, Grymisdyke (Fordun, A.D. 1385), it is the same as the term Grim’s Ditch which occurs several times in England in connexion with early ramparts—for example, near Wallingford in south Oxfordshire or between Berkhampstead (Herts) and Bradenham (Bucks). Grim seems to be a Teutonic god or devil, who might be credited with the wish to build earthworks in unreasonably short periods of time. By antiquaries the Graham’s Dyke is usually styled the Wall of Pius or the Antonine Vallum, after the emperor Antoninus Pius, in whose reign it was constructed. See further Britain: Roman.

(F. J. H.)

GRAHAM’S TOWN, a city of South Africa, the administrative centre for the eastern part of the Cape province, 106 m. by rail N.E. of Port Elizabeth and 43 m. by rail N.N.W. of Port Alfred. Pop. (1904) 13,887, of whom 7283 were whites and 1837 were electors. The town is built in a basin of the grassy hills forming the spurs of the Zuurberg, 1760 ft. above sea-level. It is a pleasant place of residence, has a remarkably healthy climate, and is regarded as the most English-like town in the Cape. The streets are broad, and most of them lined with trees. In the High Street are the law courts, the Anglican cathedral of St George, built from designs by Sir Gilbert Scott, and Commemoration Chapel, the chief place of worship of the Wesleyans, erected by the British emigrants of 1820. The Roman Catholic cathedral of St Patrick, a Gothic building, is to the left of the High Street. The town hall, also in the Gothic style, has a square clock tower built on arches over the pavement. Graham’s Town is one of the chief educational centres in the Cape province. Besides the public schools and the Rhodes University College (which in 1904 took over part of the work carried on since 1855 by St Andrew’s College), scholastic institutions are maintained by religious bodies. The town possesses two large hospitals, which receive patients from all parts of South Africa, and the government bacteriological institute. It is the centre of trade for an extensive pastoral and agricultural district. Owing to the sour quality of the herbage in the surrounding zuurveld, stock-breeding and wool-growing have been, however, to some extent replaced by ostrich-farming, for which industry Graham’s Town is the most important entrepôt. Dairy farming is much practised in the neighbourhood.

In 1812 the site of the town was chosen as the headquarters of the British troops engaged in protecting the frontier of Cape Colony from the inroads of the Kaffirs, and it was named after Colonel John Graham (1778-1821), then commanding the forces. (Graham had commanded the light infantry battalion at the taking of the Cape by the British in the action of the 6th of January 1806. He also took part in campaigns in Italy and Holland during the Napoleonic wars.) In 1819 an attempt was made by the Kaffirs to surprise Graham’s Town, and 10,000 men attacked it, but they were repulsed by the garrison, which numbered not more than 320 men, infantry and artillery, under Lieut.-Colonel (afterwards General Sir) Thomas Willshire. In 1822 the town was chosen as the headquarters of the 4000 British immigrants who had reached Cape Colony in 1820. It has maintained its position as the most important inland town of the eastern part of the Cape province. In 1864 the Cape parliament met in Graham’s Town, the only instance of the legislature sitting elsewhere than in Cape Town. It is governed by a municipality. The rateable value in 1906 was £891,536 and the rate levied 2½d. in the pound.

See T. Sheffield, The Story of the Settlement ... (2nd ed., Graham’s Town, 1884); C. T. Campbell, British South Africa ... with notices of some of the British Settlers of 1820 (London, 1897).

GRAIL, THE HOLY, the famous talisman of Arthurian romance, the object of quest on the part of the knights of the Round Table. It is mainly, if not wholly, known to English readers through the medium of Malory’s translation of the French Quête du Saint Graal, where it is the cup or chalice of the Last Supper, in which the blood which flowed from the wounds of the crucified Saviour has been miraculously preserved. Students of the original romances are aware that there is in these texts an extraordinary diversity of statement as to the nature and origin of the Grail, and that it is extremely difficult to determine the precise value of these differing versions. Broadly speaking the Grail romances have been divided into two main classes: (1) those dealing with the search for the Grail, the Quest, and (2) those relating to its early history. These latter appear to be dependent on the former, for whereas we may have a Quest romance without any insistence on the previous history of the Grail, that history is never found without some allusion to the hero who is destined to bring the quest to its successful termination. The Quest versions again fall into three distinct classes, differentiated by the personality of the hero who is respectively Gawain, Perceval or Galahad. The most important and interesting group is that connected with Perceval, and he was regarded as the original Grail hero, Gawain being, as it were, his understudy. Recent discoveries, however, point to a different conclusion, and indicate that the Gawain stories represent an early tradition, and that we must seek in them rather than in the Perceval versions for indications as to the ultimate origin of the Grail.

The character of this talisman or relic varies greatly, as will be seen from the following summary.

1. Gawain, included in the continuation to Chrétien’s Perceval by Wauchier de Denain, and attributed to Bleheris the Welshman, who is probably identical with the Bledhericus of Giraldus Cambrensis, and considerably earlier than Chrétien de Troyes. Here the Grail is a food-providing, self-acting talisman, the precise nature of which is not specified; it is designated as the “rich” Grail, and serves the king and his court sans serjant et sans seneschal, the butlers providing the guests with wine. In another version, given at an earlier point of the same continuation, but apparently deriving from a later source, the Grail is borne in procession by a weeping maiden, and is called the “holy” Grail, but no details as to its history or character are given. In a third version, that of Diu Crône, a long and confused romance, the origin of which has not been determined, the Grail appears as a reliquary, in which the Host is presented to the king, who once a year partakes alike of it and of the blood which flows from the lance. Another account is given in the prose Lancelot, but here Gawain has been deposed from his post as first hero of the court, and, as is to be expected from the treatment meted out to him in this romance, the visit ends in his complete discomfiture. The Grail is here surrounded with the atmosphere of awe and reverence familiar to us through the Quête, and is regarded as the chalice of the Last Supper. These are the Gawain versions.

2. Perceval.—The most important Perceval text is the Conte del Grael, or Perceval le Galois of Chrétien de Troyes. Here the Grail is wrought of gold richly set with precious stones; it is carried in solemn procession, and the light issuing from it extinguishes that of the candles. What it is is not explained, but inasmuch as it is the vehicle in which is conveyed the Host on which the father of the Fisher king depends for nutriment, it seems not improbable that here, as in Diu Crône, it is to be understood as a reliquary. In the Parzival of Wolfram von Eschenbach, the ultimate source of which is identical with that of Chrétien, on the contrary, the Grail is represented as a precious stone, brought to earth by angels, and committed to the guardianship of the Grail king and his descendants. It is guarded by a body of chosen knights, or templars, and acts alike as a life and youth preserving talisman—no man may die within eight days of beholding it, and the maiden who bears it retains perennial youth—and an oracle choosing its own servants, and indicating whom the Grail king shall wed. The sole link with the Christian tradition is the statement that its virtue is renewed every Good Friday by the agency of a dove from heaven. The discrepancy between this and the other Grail romances is most startling.

In the short prose romance known as the “Didot” Perceval we have, for the first time, the whole history of the relic logically set forth. The Perceval forms the third and concluding section of a group of short romances, the two preceding being the Joseph of Arimathea and the Merlin. In the first we have the precise history of the Grail, how it was the dish of the Last Supper, confided by our Lord to the care of Joseph, whom he miraculously visited in the prison to which he had been committed by the Jews. It was subsequently given by Joseph to his brother-in-law Brons, whose grandson Perceval is destined to be the final winner and guardian of the relic. The Merlin forms the connecting thread between this definitely ecclesiastical romance and the chivalric atmosphere of Arthur’s court; and finally, in the Perceval, the hero, son of Alain and grandson to Brons, is warned by Merlin of the quest which awaits him and which he achieves after various adventures.

In the Perlesvaus the Grail is the same, but the working out of the scheme is much more complex; a son of Joseph of Arimathea, Josephe, is introduced, and we find a spiritual knighthood similar to that used so effectively in the Parzival.

3. Galahad.—The Quête du Saint Graal, the only romance of which Galahad is the hero, is dependent on and a completion of the Lancelot development of the Arthurian cycle. Lancelot, as lover of Guinevere, could not be permitted to achieve so spiritual an emprise, yet as leading knight of Arthur’s court it was impossible to allow him to be surpassed by another. Hence the invention of Galahad, son to Lancelot by the Grail king’s daughter; predestined by his lineage to achieve the quest, foredoomed, the quest achieved, to vanish, a sacrifice to his father’s fame, which, enhanced by connexion with the Grail-winner, could not risk eclipse by his presence. Here the Grail, the chalice of the Last Supper, is at the same time, as in the Gawain stories, self-acting and food-supplying.

The last three romances unite, it will be seen, the quest and the early history. Introductory to the Galahad quest, and dealing only with the early history, is the Grand Saint Graal, a work of interminable length, based upon the Joseph of Arimathea, which has undergone numerous revisions and amplifications: its precise relation to the Lancelot, with which it has now much matter in common, is not easy to determine.

To be classed also under the head of early history are certain interpolations in the MSS. of the Perceval, where we find the Joseph tradition, but in a somewhat different form, e.g. he is said to have caused the Grail to be made for the purpose of receiving the holy blood. With this account is also connected the legend of the Volto Santo of Lucca, a crucifix said to have been carved by Nicodemus. In the conclusion to Chrétien’s poem, composed by Manessier some fifty years later, the Grail is said to have followed Joseph to Britain, how, is not explained. Another continuation by Gerbert, interpolated between those of Wauchier and Manessier, relates how the Grail was brought to Britain by Perceval’s mother in the companionship of Joseph.

It will be seen that with the exception of the Grand Saint Graal, which has now been practically converted into an introduction to the Quête, no two versions agree with each other; indeed, with the exception of the oldest Gawain-Grail visit, that due to Bleheris, they do not agree with themselves, but all show, more or less, the influence of different and discordant versions. Why should the vessel of the Last Supper, jealously guarded at Castle Corbenic, visit Arthur’s court independently? Why does a sacred relic provide purely material food? What connexion can there be between a precious stone, a baetylus, as Dr Hagen has convincingly shown, and Good Friday? These, and such questions as these, suggest themselves at every turn.

Numerous attempts have been made to solve these problems, and to construct a theory of the origin of the Grail story, but so far the difficulty has been to find an hypothesis which would admit of the practically simultaneous existence of apparently contradictory features. At one time considered as an introduction from the East, the theory of the Grail as an Oriental talisman has now been discarded, and the expert opinion of the day may be said to fall into two groups: (1) those who hold the Grail to have been from the first a purely Christian vessel which has accidentally, and in a manner never clearly explained, acquired certain folk-lore characteristics; and (2) those who hold, on the contrary, that the Grail is aborigine folk-lore and Celtic, and that the Christian development is a later and accidental rather than an essential feature of the story. The first view is set forth in the work of Professor Birch-Hirschfeld, the second in that of Mr Alfred Nutt, the two constituting the only travaux d’ensemble which have yet appeared on the subject. It now seems probable that both are in a measure correct, and that the ultimate solution will be recognized to lie in a blending of two originally independent streams of tradition. The researches of Professor Mannhardt in Germany and of J. G. Frazer in England have amply demonstrated the enduring influence exercised on popular thought and custom by certain primitive forms of vegetation worship, of which the most noteworthy example is the so-called mysteries of Adonis. Here the ordinary processes of nature and progression of the seasons were symbolized under the figure of the death and resuscitation of the god. These rites are found all over the world, and in his monumental work, The Golden Bough, Dr Frazer has traced a host of extant beliefs and practices to this source. The earliest form of the Grail story, the Gawain-Bleheris version, exhibits a marked affinity with the characteristic features of the Adonis or Tammuz worship; we have a castle on the sea-shore, a dead body on a bier, the identity of which is never revealed, mourned over with solemn rites; a wasted country, whose desolation is mysteriously connected with the dead man, and which is restored to fruitfulness when the quester asks the meaning of the marvels he beholds (the two features of the weeping women and the wasted land being retained in versions where they have no significance); finally the mysterious food-providing, self-acting talisman of a common feast—one and all of these features may be explained as survivals of the Adonis ritual. Professor Martin long since suggested that a key to the problems of the Arthurian cycle was to be found in a nature myth: Professor Rhys regards Arthur as an agricultural hero; Dr Lewis Mott has pointed out the correspondence between the so-called Round Table sites and the ritual of nature worship; but it is only with the discovery of the existence of Bleheris as reputed authority for Arthurian tradition, and the consequent recognition that the Grail story connected with his name is the earliest form of the legend, that we have secured a solid basis for such theories.

With regard to the religious form of the story, recent research has again aided us—we know now that a legend similar in all respects to the Joseph of Arimathea Grail story was widely current at least a century before our earliest Grail texts. The story with Nicodemus as protagonist is told of the Saint-Sang relic at Fécamp; and, as stated already, a similar origin is ascribed to the Volto Santo at Lucca. In this latter case the legend professes to date from the 8th century, and scholars who have examined the texts in their present form consider that there may be solid ground for this attribution. It is thus demonstrable that the material for our Grail legend, in its present form, existed long anterior to any extant text, and there is no improbability in holding that a confused tradition of pagan mysteries which had assumed the form of a popular folk-tale, became finally Christianized by combination with an equally popular ecclesiastical legend, the point of contact being the vessel of the common ritual feast. Nor can there be much doubt that in this process of combination the Fécamp legend played an important rôle. The best and fullest of the Perceval MSS. refer to a book written at Fécamp as source for certain Perceval adventures. What this book was we do not know, but in face of the fact that certain special Fécamp relics, silver knives, appear in the Grail procession of the Parzival, it seems most probable that it was a Perceval-Grail story. The relations between the famous Benedictine abbey and the English court both before and after the Conquest were of an intimate character. Legends of the part played by Joseph of Arimathea in the conversion of Britain are closely connected with Glastonbury, the monks of which foundation showed, in the 12th century, considerable literary activity, and it seems a by no means improbable hypothesis that the present form of the Grail legend may be due to a monk of Glastonbury elaborating ideas borrowed from Fécamp. This much is certain, that between the Saint-Sang of Fécamp, the Volto Santo of Lucca, and the Grail tradition, there exists a connecting link, the precise nature of which has yet to be determined. The two former were popular objects of pilgrimage; was the third originally intended to serve the same purpose by attracting attention to the reputed burial-place of the apostle of the Grail, Joseph of Arimathea?

Bibliography.—For the Gawain Grail visits see the Potvin edition of the Perceval, which, however, only gives the Bleheris version; the second visit is found in the best and most complete MSS., such as 12,576 and 12,577 (Fonds français) of the Paris library. Diu Crône, edited by Scholl (Stuttgart, 1852). vol. vi. of Arthurian Romances (Nutt), gives a translation of the Bleheris, Diu Crône and Prose Lancelot visits.

The Conte del Graal, or Perceval, is only accessible in the edition of M. Potvin (6 vols., 1866-1871). The Mons MS., from which this has been printed, has proved to be an exceedingly poor and untrustworthy text. Parzival, by Wolfram von Eschenbach, has been frequently and well edited; the edition by Bartsch (1875-1877), in Deutsche Classiker des Mittelalters, contains full notes and a glossary. Suitable for the more advanced student are those by K. Lachmann (1891), Leitzmann (1902-1903) and E. Martin (1903). There are modern German translations by Simrock (very close to the original) and Hertz (excellent notes). English translation with notes and appendices by J. L. Weston. “Didot” Perceval, ed. Hucher, Le Saint Graal (1875-1878), vol. i. Perlesvaus was printed by Potvin, under the title of Perceval le Gallois, in vol. i. of the edition above referred to; a Welsh version from the Hengwert MS. was published with translation by Canon R. Williams (2 vols., 1876-1892). Under the title of The High History of the Holy Grail a fine version was published by Dr Sebastian Evans in the Temple Classics (2 vols., 1898). The Grand Saint Graal was published by Hucher as given above; this edition includes the Joseph of Arimathea. A 15th century metrical English adaptation by one Henry Lovelich, was printed by Dr Furnivall for the Roxburghe Club 1861-1863; a new edition was undertaken for the Early English Text Society. Quête du Saint Graal can best be studied in Malory’s somewhat abridged translation, books xiii.-xviii. of the Morte Arthur. It has also been printed by Dr Furnivall for the Roxburghe Club, from a MS. in the British Museum. Neither of these texts is, however, very good, and the student who can decipher old Dutch would do well to read it in the metrical translation published by Joenckbloet, Roman van Lanceloet, as the original here was considerably fuller.

For general treatment of the subject see Legend of Sir Perceval, by J. L. Weston, Grimm Library, vol. xvii. (1906); Studies on the Legend of the Holy Grail, by A. Nutt (1888), and a more concise treatment of the subject by the same writer in No. 14 of Popular Studies (1902); Professor Birch-Hirschfeld’s Die Sage vom Gral (1877). The late Professor Heinzel’s Die alt-französischen Gral-Romane contains a mass of valuable matter, but is very confused and ill-arranged. For the Fécamp legend see Leroux de Lincey’s Essai sur l’abbaye de Fescamp (1840); for the Volto Santo and kindred legends, Ernest von Dobschütz, Christus-Bilder (Leipzig, 1899).

(J. L. W.)

The etymology of the O. Fr. graal or greal, of which “grail” is an adaptation, has been much discussed. The Low Lat. original, gradale or grasale, a flat dish or platter, has generally been taken to represent a diminutive cratella of crater, bowl, or a lost cratale, formed from the same word (see W. W. Skeat, Preface to Joseph of Arimathie, Early Eng. Text Soc).—Ed.

GRAIN (derived through the French from Lat. granum, seed, from an Aryan root meaning “to wear down,” which also appears in the common Teutonic word “corn”), a word particularly applied to the seed, in botanical language the “fruit,” of cereals, and hence applied, as a collective term to cereal plants generally, to which, in English, the term “corn” is also applied (see Grain Trade). Apart from this, the chief meaning, the word is used of the malt refuse of brewing and distilling, and of many hard rounded small particles, resembling the seeds of plants, such as “grains” of sand, salt, gold, gunpowder, &c. “Grain” is also the name of the smallest unit of weight, both in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Its origin is supposed to be the weight of a grain of wheat, dried and gathered from the middle of the ear. The troy grain = 1/5760 of a ℔, the avoirdupois grain = 1/7000 of a ℔. In diamond weighing the grain = ¼ of the carat, = .7925 of the troy grain. The word “grains” was early used, as also in French, of the small seed-like insects supposed formerly to be the berries of trees, from which a scarlet dye was extracted (see Cochineal and Kermes). From the Fr. en graine, literally in dye, comes the French verb engrainer, Eng. “engrain” or “ingrain,” meaning to dye in any fast colour. From the further use of “grain” for the texture of substances, such as wood, meat, &c., “engrained” or “ingrained” means ineradicable, impregnated, dyed through and through. The “grain” of leather is the side of a skin showing the fibre after the hair has been removed. The imitating in paint of the grain of different kinds of woods is known as “graining” (see Painter-Work). “Grain,” or more commonly in the plural “grains,” construed as a singular, is the name of an instrument with two or more barbed prongs, used for spearing fish. This word is Scandinavian in origin, and is connected with Dan. green, Swed. gren, branch, and means the fork of a tree, of the body, or the prongs of a fork, &c. It is not connected with “groin,” the inguinal parts of the body, which in its earliest forms appears as grynde.

GRAINS OF PARADISE, Guinea Grains, or Melegueta Pepper (Ger. Paradieskörner, Fr. graines de Paradis, maniguette), the seeds of Amomum Melegueta, a reed-like plant of the natural order Zingiberaceae. It is a native of tropical western Africa, and of Prince’s and St Thomas’s islands in the Gulf of Guinea, is cultivated in other tropical countries, and may with ease be grown in hothouses in temperate climates. The plant has a branched horizontal rhizome; smooth, nearly sessile, narrowly lanceolate-oblong alternate leaves; large, white, pale pink or purplish flowers; and an ovate-oblong fruit, ensheathed in bracts, which is of a scarlet colour when fresh, and reaches under cultivation a length of 5 in. The seeds are contained in the acid pulp of the fruit, are commonly wedge-shaped and bluntly angular, are about 1¼ lines in diameter and have a glossy dark-brown husk, with a conical light-coloured membranous caruncle at the base and a white kernel. They contain, according to Flückiger and Hanbury, 0.3% of a faintly yellowish neutral essential oil, having an aromatic, not acrid taste, and a specific gravity at 15.5° C of 0.825, and giving on analysis the formula C20H32O, or C10H16 + C10H16O; also 5.83% of an intensely pungent, viscid, brown resin.

Grains of paradise were formerly officinal in British pharmacopoeias, and in the 13th and succeeding centuries were used as a drug and a spice, the wine known as hippocras being flavoured with them and with ginger and cinnamon. In 1629 they were employed among the ingredients of the twenty-four herring pies which were the ancient fee-favour of the city of Norwich, ordained to be carried to court by the lord of the manor of Carleton (Johnston and Church, Chem. of Common Life, p. 355, 1879). Grains of paradise were anciently brought overland from West Africa to the Mediterranean ports of the Barbary states, to be shipped for Italy. They are now exported almost exclusively from the Gold Coast. Grains of paradise are to some extent used illegally to give a fictitious strength to malt liquors, gin and cordials. By 56 Geo. III. c. 58, no brewer or dealer in beer shall have in his possession or use grains of paradise, under a penalty of £200 for each offence; and no druggist shall sell the same to a brewer under a penalty of £500. They are, however, devoid of any injurious physiological action, and are much esteemed as a spice by the natives of Guinea.

See Bentley and Trimen, Medicinal Plants, tab. 268; Lanessan, Hist. des Drogues, pp. 456-460 (1878).

GRAIN TRADE. The complexity of the conditions of life in the 20th century may be well illustrated from the grain trade of the world. The ordinary bread sold in Great Britain represents, for example, produce of nearly every country in the world outside the tropics.

Wheat has been cultivated from remote antiquity. In a wild state it is practically unknown. It is alleged to have been found growing wild between the Euphrates and the Tigris; but the discovery has never been authenticated, and, unless the plant be sedulously cared for, the species dies out in a surprisingly short space of time. Modern experiments in cross-fertilization in Lancashire by the Garton Brothers have evolved the most extraordinary “sports,” showing, it is claimed, that the plant has probably passed through stages of which until the present day there had been no conception. The tales that grains of wheat found in the cerements of Egyptian mummies have been planted and come to maturity are no longer credited, for the vital principle in the wheat berry is extremely evanescent; indeed, it is doubtful whether wheat twenty years old is capable of reproduction. The Garton artificial fertilization experiments have shown endless deviations from the ordinary type, ranging from minute seeds with a closely adhering husk to big berries almost as large as sloes and about as worthless. It is conjectured that the wheat plant, as now known, is a degenerate form of something much finer which flourished thousands of years ago, and that possibly it may be restored to its pristine excellence, yielding an increase twice or thrice as large as it now does, thus postponing to a distant period the famine doom prophesied by Sir W. Crookes in his presidential address to the British Association in 1898. Wheat well repays careful attention; contrast the produce of a carelessly tilled Russian or Indian field and the bountiful yield on a good Lincolnshire farm, the former with its average yield of 8 bushels, the latter with its 50 bushels per acre; or compare the quality, as regards the quantity and flavour of the flour from a fine sample of British wheat, such as is on sale at almost every agricultural show in Great Britain, with the produce of an Egyptian or Syrian field; the difference is so great as to cause one to doubt whether the berries are of the same species.

It may be stated roundly that an average quartern loaf in Great Britain is made from wheat grown in the following countries in the proportions named:—

U.S.A. U.K. Russia. Argentina. British
India. Canada. Rumania-
Bulgaria. Australia. Other
Countries.

Oz. Oz. Oz. Oz. Oz. Oz. Oz. Oz. Oz.

26 13 9 5 4 3 2 1 1

Or expressed in percentages as follows:—

40 20 14 8 6 5 3 2 2

For details connected with grain and its handling see Agriculture, Corn Laws, Granaries, Flour, Baking, Wheat, &c.

Wheat occupies of all cereals the widest region of any food-stuff. Rice, which shares with millet the distinction of being the principal food-stuff of the greatest number of human beings, is not grown nearly as widely as is wheat, the staple food of the white races. Wheat grows as far south as Patagonia, and as far north as the edge of the Arctic Circle; it flourishes throughout Europe, and across the whole of northern Asia and in Japan; it is cultivated in Persia, and raised largely in India, as far south as the Nizam’s dominions. It is grown over nearly the whole of North America. In Canada a very fine wheat crop was raised in the autumn of 1898 as far north as the mission at Fort Providence, on the Mackenzie river, in a latitude above 62°—or less than 200 m. south of the latitude of Dawson City—the period between seed-time and harvest having been ninety-one days. In Africa it was an article of commerce in the days of Jacob, whose son Joseph may be said to have run the first and only successful “corner” in wheat. For many centuries Egypt was famous as a wheat raiser; it was a cargo of wheat from Alexandria which St Paul helped to jettison on one of his shipwrecks, as was also, in all probability, that of the “ship of Alexandria whose sign was Castor and Pollux,” named in the same narrative. General Gordon is quoted as having stated that the Sudan if properly settled would be capable of feeding the whole of Europe. Along the north coast of Africa are areas which, if properly irrigated, as was done in the days of Carthage, could produce enough wheat to feed half of the Caucasian race. For instance, the vilayet of Tripoli, with an area of 400,000 sq. m., or three times the extent of Great Britain and Ireland, according to the opinion of a British consul, could raise millions of acres of wheat. The cereal flourishes on all the high plateaus of South Africa, from Cape Town to the Zambezi. Land is being extensively put under wheat in the pampas of South America and in the prairies of Siberia.

In the raising of the standard of farming to an English level the volume of the world’s crop would be trebled, another fact which Sir William Crookes seems to have overlooked. The experiments of the late Sir J. B. Lawes in Hertfordshire have proved that the natural fruitfulness of the wheat plant can be increased threefold by the application of the proper fertilizer. The results of these experiments will be found in a compendium issued from the Rothamsted Agricultural Experimental Station.

It is by no means, however, the wheat which yields the greatest number of bushels per acre which is the most valuable from a miller’s standpoint, for the thinness of the bran and the fineness and strength of the flour are with him important considerations, too often overlooked by the farmer when buying his seed. Nevertheless it is the deficient quantity of the wheat raised in the British Islands, and not the quality of the grain, which has been the cause of so much anxiety to economists and statesmen.

Sir J. Caird, writing in the year 1880, expressed the opinion that arable land in Great Britain would always command a substantial rent of at least 30s. per acre. His figures were based on the assumption that wheat was imported duty free. He calculated that the cost of carriage from abroad of wheat, or the equivalent of the product of an acre of good wheat land in Great Britain, would not be less than 30s. per ton. But freights had come down by 1900 to half the rates predicated by Caird; indeed, during a portion of the interval they ruled very close to zero, as far as steamer freights from America were concerned. In 1900 an all-round freight rate for wheat might be taken at 15s. per ton (a ton representing approximately the produce of an acre of good wheat land in England), say from 10s. for Atlantic American and Russian, to 30s. for Pacific American and Australian; about midway between these two extremes we find Indian and Argentine, the greatest bulk coming at about the 15s. rate. Inferior land bearing less than 4½ quarters per acre would not be protected to the same extent, and moreover, seeing that a portion of the British wheat crop has to stand a charge as heavy for land carriage across a county as that borne by foreign wheat across a continent or an ocean, the protection is not nearly so substantial as Caird would make out. The compilation showing the changes in the rates of charges for the railway and other transportation services issued by the Division of Statistics, Department of Agriculture, U.S.A. (Miscellaneous series, Bulletin No. 15, 1898), is a valuable reference book. From its pages are culled the following facts relating to the changes in the rates of freight up to the year 1897. In Table 3 the average rates per ton per mile in cents are shown since 1846. For the Fitchburg Railroad the rate for that year was 4.523 cents per ton per mile, since when a great and almost continuous fall has been taking place, until in 1897, the latest year given, the rate had declined to .870 of a cent per ton per mile. The railway which shows the greatest fall is the Chesapeake & Ohio, for the charge has fallen from over 7 cents in 1862 and 1863 to .419 of a cent in 1897, whereas the Erie rates have fallen only from 1.948 in 1852 to .609 in 1897. Putting the rates of the twelve returning railways together, we find the average freight in the two years 1859-1860 was 3.006 cents per ton per mile, and that in 1896-1897 the average rate had fallen to .797 of a cent per ton per mile. This difference is very large compared with the smallness of the unit. Coming to the rates on grain, we find (in Table 23) a record for the forty years 1858-1897 of the charge on wheat from Chicago to New York, via all rail from 1858, and via lake and rail since 1868, the authority being the secretary of the Chicago Board of Trade. From 1858 to 1862 the rate varied between 42.37 and 34.80 cents per bushel for the whole trip of roundly 1000 m., the average rate in the quinquennium being 38.43. In the five years immediately prior to the time at which Sir J. Caird expressed the opinion that the cost of carriage from abroad would always protect the British grower, the average all-rail freight from Chicago to New York was 17.76 cents, while the summer rate (partly by water) was 13.17 cents. These rates in 1897, the last year shown on the table, had fallen to 12.50 and 7.42 respectively. The rates have been as follows in quinquennial periods, via all rail:—

Chicago to New York in Cents per Bushel.

1858-
1862. 1863-
1867. 1868-
1872. 1873-
1877. 1878-
1882. 1883-
1887. 1888-
1892. 1893-
1897.

38.43 31.42 27.91 21.29 16.77 14.67 14.52 12.88

Calculating roundly a cent as equal to a halfpenny, and eight bushels to the quarter, the above would appear in English currency as follows:—

Chicago to New York in Shillings and Pence per Quarter.

1858-
1862. 1863-
1867. 1868-
1872. 1873-
1877. 1878-
1882. 1883-
1887. 1888-
1892. 1893-
1897.

s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d.

12 8 10 6 9 3 7 1 5 7 4 10½ 4 10 4 3

Another table (No. 38) shows the average rates from Chicago to New York by lakes, canal and river. These in their quinquennial periods are given for the season as follows:—

In Cents per Bushel of 60 ℔.

1857-1861. 1876-1880. 1893-1897.

22.15 10.47 4.92

In Shillings and Pence per Quarter of 480 ℔.

1857-1861. 1876-1880. 1893-1897.

s. d. s. d. s. d.

7 4 3 6 1 7

In Shillings and Pence per Ton of 2240 ℔.

1857-1861. 1876-1880. 1893-1897.

s. d. s. d. s. d.

34 6 16 6 7 6

This latter mode is the cheapest by which grain can be carried to the eastern seaboard from the American prairies, and it can now be done at a cost of 7s. 6d. per ton. The ocean freight has to be added before the grain can be delivered free on the quay at Liverpool. A rate from New York to Liverpool of 2½d. per bushel, or 7s. 10d. per ton, a low rate, reached in Dec. 1900, is yet sufficiently high, it is claimed, to leave a profit; indeed, there have frequently been times when the rate was as low as 1d. per bushel, or 3s. 1d. per ton; and in periods of great trade depression wheat is carried from New York to Liverpool as ballast, being paid for by the ship-owner. Another route worked more cheaply than formerly is that by river, from the centre of the winter wheat belt, say at St Louis, to New Orleans, and thence by steamer to Liverpool. The river rate has fallen below five cents per bushel, or 7s. per ton, 2240 ℔. In Table No. 71 the cost of transportation is compared year by year with the export price of the two leading cereals in the States as follows:—

Wheat and Corn—Export Prices and Transportation Rates compared.

Year. Wheat. Corn.

Export
Price per
Bushel. Rate, Chicago
to New York
by Lake
and Canal,
per Bushel. Number
of Bushels
carried
for Price
of One
Bushel. Export
Price per
Bushel. Rate, Chicago
to New York
by Lake
and Canal,
per Bushel. Number
of Bushels
carried
for Price
of One
Bushel.

Cents. Cents.

1867 $0.92 15.95 5.77 $0.72 14.58 4.94

1868 1.36 16.23 8.38 .84.1 13.57 6.20

1869 1.05 17.20 6.10 .72.8 14.98 4.86

1870 1.12 14.85 7.54 .80.5 13.78 5.84

1871 1.18 17.75 6.65 .67.9 16.53 4.11

1872 1.31 21.55 6.08 .61.8 19.62 3.15

1873 1.15 16.89 6.81 .54.3 15.39 3.53

1874 1.29 12.75 10.12 .64.7 11.29 5.73

1875 .97 9.90 9.80 .73.8 8.93 8.26

1876 1.11 8.63 12.86 .60.3 7.93 7.60

1877 1.12 10.76 10.41 .56.0 9.41 5.95

1878 1.33 9.10 14.62 .55.8 8.27 6.75

1879 1.07 11.60 9.22 .47.1 10.43 4.52

1880 1.25 12.27 10.19 .54.3 11.14 4.87

1881 1.11 8.19 13.55 .55.2 7.26 7.60

1882 1.19 7.89 15.08 .66.8 7.23 9.24

1883 1.13 8.37 13.50 .68.4 7.66 8.93

1884 1.07 6.31 16.96 .61.1 5.64 10.83

1885 .86 5.87 14.65 .54.0 5.38 10.04

1886 .87 8.71 9.99 .49.8 7.98 6.24

1887 .89 8.51 10.46 .47.9 7.88 6.08

1888 .85 5.93 14.33 .55.0 5.41 10.17

1889 .90 6.89 13.06 .47.4 6.19 7.66

1890 .83 5.86 14.16 .41.8 5.10 8.20

1891 .93 5.96 15.60 .57.4 5.36 10.71

1892 1.03 5.61 18.36 .55 5.03 10.93

1893 .80 6.31 12.68 .53 5.71 9.28

1894 .67 4.44 15.09 .46 3.99 11.53

1895 .58 4.11 14.11 .53 3.71 14.29

1896 .65 5.38 12.08 .38 4.94 7.69

1897 .75 4.35 17.24 .31 3.79 8.18

The farmers of the United States have now to meet a greatly increased output from Canada—the cost of transport from that country to England being much the same as from the United States. So much improved is the position of the farmer in North America compared with what it was about 1870, that the transport companies in 1901 carried 17¼ bushels of his grain to the seaboard in exchange for the value of one bushel, whereas in 1867 he had to give up one bushel in every six in return for the service. As regards the British farmer, it does not appear as if he had improved his position; for he has to send his wheat to greater distances, owing to the collapse of many country millers or their removal to the seaboard, while railway rates have fallen only to a very small extent; again the farmer’s wheat is worth only half of what it was formerly; it may be said that the British farmer has to give up one bushel in nine to the railway company for the purpose of transportation, whereas in the ’seventies he gave up one in eighteen only. Enough has been said to prove that the advantage of position claimed for the British farmer by Caird was somewhat illusory. Speaking broadly, the Kansas or Minnesota farmer’s wheat does not have to pay for carriage to Liverpool more than 2s. 6d. to 7s. 6d. per ton in excess of the rate paid by a Yorkshire farmer; this, it will be admitted, does not go very far towards enabling the latter to pay rent, tithes and rates and taxes.

The subject of the rates of ocean carriage at different periods requires consideration if a proper understanding of the working of the foreign grain trade is to be obtained. Only a very small proportion of the decline in the price of wheat since 1880 is due to cheapened transport rates; for while the mileage rate has been falling, the length of haulage has been extending, until in 1900 the principal wheat fields of America were 2000 m. farther from the eastern seaboard than was the case in 1870, and consequently, notwithstanding the fall in the mileage rate of 50 to 75%, it still costs the United Kingdom nearly as much to have its quota of foreign wheat fetched from abroad as it did then. The difference in the cost of the operation is shown in the following tabular statement, both the cost in the aggregate on a year’s imports and the cost per quarter:—

Quantity of Wheat and Wheaten Flour (as wheat) imported into the United Kingdom from various sources during the calendar year 1900, together with the average rate of freight.

1900.

Countries of Origin. Quantities.
Qrs. 480 ℔ Ocean Freight
to United
Kingdom.
Per 480 ℔. Total Cost
of Ocean
Carriage.

s. d. £

Atlantic America 11,171,100 2 3 1,257,100

South Russia 569,000 2 2 62,000

Pacific America 2,389,900 8 1 966,000

Canada 1,877,100 2 8 250,000

Rumania 176,400 2 6 22,000

Argentina and Uruguay 4,322,300 4 10 1,045,000

France 251,900 1 3 16,000

Bulgaria and Rumelia 30,600 2 6 4,000

India 2,200 4 0 400

Austria-Hungary 389,300 1 9 34,000

Chile 600 .. ..

North Russia 462,700 1 6 35,000

Germany 438,700 1 6 33,000

Australasia 883,900 6 5 284,000

Minor Countries 225,100 2 6 28,000

Total 23,190,800 Average 3s. 6d. £4,036,500

Comparing these figures with a similar statement for the year 1872, the most remote year for which similar facts are available, it will be found that the actual total cost per quarter for ocean carriage has not much decreased.

Quantity of Wheat and Wheaten Flour (as wheat) imported into the United Kingdom from various sources during the calendar year 1872, together with the average rate of freight.

1872.

Countries of Origin. Quantities.
Qrs. Ocean Freight
to United
Kingdom.
Per qr. Total Cost
of Carriage.

s. d. £

South Russia 3,678,000 8 6 1,563,000

United States 2,030,000 6 6 659,000

Germany 910,000 2 0 91,000

France 660,000 3 0 99,000

Egypt 536,000 4 6 120,000

North Russia 490,000 2 0 49,000

Canada 400,000 7 6 150,000

Chile 330,000 12 0 198,000

Turkey 195,000 7 6 72,000

Spain 130,000 3 6 23,000

Scandinavia 160,000 2 0 16,000

Total, Chief Countries 9,519,000 Average 6s. 5d. £3,040,000

N.B.—A trifling quantity of Californian and Australian wheat was imported in the period in question, but the Board of Trade records do not distinguish the quantities, therefore they cannot be given. The freight in that year from those countries averaged about 13s. per quarter.

The exact difference between the average freight for the years 1872 and 1900 amounts to about 2s. 11d. per quarter (480 ℔), a trifle in comparison with the actual fall in the price of wheat during the same years.

The following data bearing upon the subject, for selected periods, are partly taken from the Corn Trade Year-Book:—

Year. United Kingdom
Annual Imports.
Wheat and Flour.
Qrs. Ocean Freight
to United
ingdom.
Per qr. Aggregate Cost
of Carriage.

s. d. £

1872 9,469,000 6 5 3,040,000

1882 14,850,000 7 4 5,420,000

1894 16,229,000 3 9 3,041,000

1895 25,197,000 3 0 3,825,000

1896 23,431,000 2 9 3,258,000

1900 23,196,000 3 6 4,036,000

In passing, it may be pointed out that for a period of four years, from 1871 to 1874, the price of wheat averaged 56s. per quarter (or 7s. per bushel), with the charge for ocean carriage at 6s. 5d. per quarter, whereas in 1901 wheat was sold in England at 28s. (or 3s. 6d. per bushel), and the charge for ocean carriage was 3s. 6d. per quarter; the ocean transport companies carried eight bushels of wheat across the seas in 1901 for the value of one bushel, or exactly at the same ratio as in 1872.

The contrast between the case of railway freight and ocean freight is to be explained by the greater length of the present ocean voyage, which now extends to 10,000 miles in the case of Europe’s importation of white wheat from the Pacific Coast of the United States and Australia, in contrast with the short voyage from the Black Sea or across the English Channel or German Ocean. It is largely due to the overlooking of this phase of the question that an American statistician has fallen into the error of stating that about 16s. per quarter of the fall in the price of wheat, which happened between 1880 and 1894, is attributable to the lessened cost of transport.

Wheat Prices

The following figures show the fluctuations from year to year of English wheat, chiefly according to a record published by Mr T. Smith, Melford, the period covered being from 1656 to 1905:

Price per Quarter

s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d. s. d.

1656 38 2 1706 23 1 1756 40 1 1806 79 1 1856 69 2

1657 41 5 1707 25 4 1757 53 4 1807 75 4 1857 56 4

1658 57 9 1708 36 10 1758 44 5 1808 84 4 1858 44 2

1659 58 8 1709 69 9 1759 35 3 1809 97 4 1859 43 9

1660 50 2 1710 69 4 1760 32 5 1810 106 5 1860 53 3

1661 62 2 1711 48 0 1761 26 9 1811 95 3 1861 55 4

1662 65 9 1712 41 2 1762 34 8 1812 126 6 1862 55 5

1663 50 8 1713 45 4 1763 36 1 1813 109 9 1863 44 9

1664 36 0 1714 44 9 1764 41 5 1814 74 4 1864 40 2

1665 43 10 1715 38 2 1765 48 0 1815 65 7 1865 41 10

1666 32 0 1716 42 8 1766 43 1 1816 78 6 1866 49 11

1667 32 0 1717 40 7 1767 57 4 1817 96 11 1867 64 5

1668 35 6 1718 34 6 1768 53 9 1818 86 3 1868 63 9

1669 39 5 1719 31 1 1769 40 7 1819 74 6 1869 48 2

1670 37 0 1720 32 10 1770 43 6 1820 67 10 1870 46 11

1671 37 4 1721 33 4 1771 47 2 1821 56 1 1871 56 8

1672 36 5 1722 32 0 1772 50 8 1822 44 7 1872 57 0

1673 41 5 1723 30 10 1773 51 0 1823 53 4 1873 58 8

1674 61 0 1724 32 10 1774 52 8 1824 63 11 1874 55 9

1675 57 5 1725 43 1 1775 48 4 1825 68 6 1875 45 2

1676 33 9 1726 40 10 1776 38 2 1826 58 8 1876 46 2

1677 37 4 1727 37 4 1777 45 6 1827 60 6 1877 56 9

1678 52 5 1728 48 5 1778 42 0 1828 60 5 1878 46 5

1679 53 4 1729 41 7 1779 33 8 1829 66 3 1879 43 10

1680 40 0 1730 32 5 1780 35 8 1830 64 3 1880 44 4

1681 41 5 1731 29 2 1781 44 8 1831 66 4 1881 45 4

1682 39 1 1732 23 8 1782 47 10 1832 58 8 1882 45 1

1683 35 6 1733 25 2 1783 52 8 1833 52 11 1883 41 7

1684 39 1 1734 34 6 1784 48 10 1834 46 2 1884 35 8

1685 41 5 1735 38 2 1785 51 10 1835 49 4 1885 32 10

1686 30 2 1736 35 10 1786 38 10 1836 48 6 1886 31 0

1687 22 4 1737 33 9 1787 41 2 1837 55 0 1887 32 6

1688 40 10 1738 31 6 1788 45 0 1838 64 7 1888 31 10

1689 26 8 1739 34 2 1789 51 2 1839 70 8 1889 29 9

1690 30 9 1740 45 1 1790 54 9 1840 66 4 1890 31 11

1691 30 2 1741 41 5 1791 48 7 1841 64 4 1891 37 0

1692 41 5 1742 30 2 1792 43 0 1842 57 3 1892 30 3

1693 60 1 1743 22 1 1793 49 3 1843 50 1 1893 26 4

1694 56 10 1744 22 1 1794 52 3 1844 51 3 1894 22 10

1695 47 1 1745 24 5 1795 75 2 1845 50 10 1895 23 1

1696 63 1 1746 34 8 1796 78 7 1846 54 8 1896 26 2

1697 53 4 1747 30 11 1797 53 9 1847 69 9 1897 30 2

1698 60 9 1748 32 10 1798 51 10 1848 50 6 1898 34 0

1699 56 10 1749 32 10 1799 69 0 1849 44 3 1899 25 8

1700 35 6 1750 28 10 1800 113 10 1850 40 3 1900 26 11

1701 33 5 1751 34 2 1801 119 6 1851 38 6 1901 26 9

1702 26 2 1752 37 2 1802 69 10 1852 40 9 1902 28 1

1703 32 0 1753 39 8 1803 58 10 1853 53 3 1903 26 9

1704 41 4 1754 30 9 1804 62 3 1854 72 5 1904 28 4

1705 26 8 1755 30 1 1805 89 9 1855 74 8 1905 29 8

Average
50
years 42 10 36 0 51 9 65 10 *42 7

* Average for 46 years only.

Thus, whatever the cause of the decline in the price of wheat may be, it cannot be attributed solely to the fall in the rate of rail or ocean freights. Incidental charges are lower than they were in 1870; handling charges, brokers’ commissions and insurance premiums have been in many instances reduced, but all these economies when combined only amount to about 2s. per quarter. Now if we add together all these savings in the rate of rail and ocean freights and incidental expenses, we arrive at an aggregate economy of 8s. per quarter, or not one-third of the actual difference between the average price of wheat in 1872 and 1900. To what the remaining difference was due it is difficult to say with certitude; there are some who argue that the tendency of prices to fall is inherent, and that the constant whittling away of intermediaries’ profits is sufficient explanation, while bi-metallists have maintained that the phenomenon is clearly to be traced to the action of the German government in demonetizing silver in 1872.

Valuable information will also be found in Bulletin No. 38 (1905), “Crop Export Movement and Port Facilities on the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts”; in Bulletin No. 49 (1907), “Cost of Hauling Crops from Farms to Shipping Points”; and in Bulletin No. 69 (1908), “European Grain Trade.”

GRAM, or Chick-pea, called also Egyptian pea, or Bengal gram (from Port. grão, formerly gram, Lat. granum, Hindi Chanā, Bengali Chholā, Ital. cece, Span. garbanzo), the Cicer arietinum of Linnaeus, so named from the resemblance of its seed to a ram’s head. It is a member of the natural order Leguminosae, largely cultivated as a pulse-food in the south of Europe, Egypt and western Asia as far as India, but is not known undoubtedly wild. The plant is an annual herb with flexuose branches, and alternately arranged pinnately compound leaves, with small, oval, serrated leaflets and small eared stipules. The flowers are borne singly in the leaf-axils on a stalk about half the length of the leaf and jointed and bent in the middle; the corolla is blue-purple. The inflated pod, 1 to 1½ in. long, contains two roundish seeds. It was cultivated by the Greeks in Homer’s time under the name erebinthos, and is also referred to by Dioscorides as krios from the resemblance of the pea to the head of a ram. The Romans called it cicer, from which is derived the modern names given to it in the south of Europe. Names, more or less allied to one another, are in vogue among the peoples of the Caucasus, the Caspian Sea, Armenia and Persia, and there is a Sanskrit name and several others analogous or different in modern Indian languages. The plant has been cultivated in Egypt from the beginning of the Christian era, but there is no proof that it was known to the ancient Egyptians. Alphonse de Candolle (Origin of Cultivated Plants, p. 325) suggests that the plant originally grew wild in the countries to the south of the Caucasus and to the north of Persia. “The western Aryans (Pelasgians, Hellenes) perhaps introduced the plant into southern Europe, where, however, there is some probability that it was also indigenous. The western Aryans carried it to India.” Gram is largely cultivated in the East, where the seeds are eaten raw or cooked in various ways, both in their ripe and unripe condition, and when roasted and ground subserve the same purposes as ordinary flour. In Europe the seeds are used as an ingredient in soups. They contain, in 100 parts without husks, nitrogenous substances 22.7, fat 3.76, starch 63.18, mineral matters 2.6 parts, with water (Forbes Watson, quoted in Parkes’s Hygiene). The liquid which exudes from the glandular hairs clothing the leaves and stems of the plant, more especially during the cold season when the seeds ripen, contains a notable proportion of oxalic acid. In Mysore the dew containing it is collected by means of cloths spread on the plant over night, and is used in domestic medicine. The steam of water in which the fresh plant is immersed is in the Deccan resorted to by the Portuguese for the treatment of dysmenorrhoea. The seed of Phaseolus Mungo, or green gram (Hind. and Beng. moong), a form of which plant with black seeds (P. Max of Roxburgh) is termed black gram, is an important article of diet among the labouring classes in India. The meal is an excellent substitute for soap, and is stated by Elliot to be an invariable concomitant of the Hindu bath. A variety, var. radiatus (P. Roxburghii, W. and Arn., or P. radiatus, Roxb.) (vern. urid, māshkalāi), also known as green gram, is perhaps the most esteemed of the leguminous plants of India, where the meal of its seed enters into the composition of the more delicate cakes and dishes. Horse gram, Dolichos biflorus (vern. kulthi), which supplies in Madras the place of the chick-pea, affords seed which, when boiled, is extensively employed as a food for horses and cattle in South India, where also it is eaten in curries.

See W. Elliot, “On the Farinaceous Grains and the various kinds of Pulses used in Southern India,” Edin. New Phil. Journ. xvi. (1862) 16 sq.; H. Drury, The Useful Plants of India (1873); U. C. Dutt, Materia Medica of the Hindus (Calcutta, 1877); G. Watt, Dictionary of the Economic Products of India (1890).

GRAMMAR (from Lat. grammatica, sc. ars; Gr. γράμμα, letter, from γράφειν, to write). By the grammar of a language is meant either the relations borne by the words of a sentence and by sentences themselves one to another, or the systematized exposition of these. The exposition may be, and frequently is, incorrect; but it always presupposes the existence of certain customary uses of words when in combination. In what follows, therefore, grammar will be generally employed in its primary sense, as denoting the mode in which words are connected in order to express a complete thought, or, as it is termed in logic, a proposition.

The object of language is to convey thought, and so long as this object is attained the machinery for attaining it is of comparatively slight importance. The way in which we combine our words and sentences matters little, provided that our meaning is clear to others. The expressions “horseflesh” and “flesh of a horse” are equally intelligible to an Englishman and therefore are equally recognized by English grammar. The Chinese manner of denoting a genitive is by placing the defining word before that which it defines, as in koue jin, “man of the kingdom,” literally “kingdom man,” and the only reason why it would be incorrect in French or Italian is that such a combination would be unintelligible to a Frenchman or an Italian. Hence it is evident that the grammatical correctness or incorrectness of an expression depends upon its intelligibility, that is to say, upon the ordinary use and custom of a particular language. Whatever is so unfamiliar as not to be generally understood is also ungrammatical. In other words, it is contrary to the habit of a language, as determined by common usage and consent.

In this way we can explain how it happens that the grammar of a cultivated dialect and that of a local dialect in the same country so frequently disagree. Thus, in the dialect of West Somerset, thee is the nominative of the second personal pronoun, while in cultivated English the plural accusative you (A.-S. eow) has come to represent a nominative singular. Both are grammatically correct within the sphere of their respective dialects, but no further. You would be as ungrammatical in West Somerset as thee is in classical English; and both you and thee, as nominatives singular, would have been equally ungrammatical in Early English. Grammatical propriety is nothing more than the established usage of a particular body of speakers at a particular time in their history.

It follows from this that the grammar of a people changes, like its pronunciation, from age to age. Anglo-Saxon or Early English grammar is not the grammar of Modern English, any more than Latin grammar is the grammar of modern Italian; and to defend an unusual construction or inflexion on the ground that it once existed in literary Anglo-Saxon is as wrong as to import a peculiarity of some local dialect into the grammar of the cultivated speech. It further follows that different languages will have different grammars, and that the differences will be more or less according to the nearer or remoter relationship of the languages themselves and the modes of thought of those who speak them. Consequently, to force the grammatical framework of one language upon another is to misconceive the whole nature of the latter and seriously to mislead the learner. Chinese grammar, for instance, can never be understood until we discard, not only the terminology of European grammar, but the very conceptions which underlie it, while the polysynthetic idioms of America defy all attempts to discover in them “the parts of speech” and the various grammatical ideas which occupy so large a place in our school-grammars. The endeavour to find the distinctions of Latin grammar in that of English has only resulted in grotesque errors, and a total misapprehension of the usage of the English language.

It is to the Latin grammarians—or, more correctly, to the Greek grammarians, upon whose labours those of the Latin writers were based—that we owe the classification of the subjects with which grammar is commonly supposed to deal. The grammar of Dionysius Thrax, which he wrote for Roman schoolboys in the time of Pompey, has formed the starting-point for the innumerable school-grammars which have since seen the light, and suggested that division of the matter treated of which they have followed. He defines grammar as a practical acquaintance with the language of literary men, and as divided into six parts—accentuation and phonology, explanation of figurative expressions, definition, etymology, general rules of flexion and critical canons. Of these, phonology and accentuation, or prosody, can properly be included in grammar only in so far as the construction of a sentence and the grammatical meaning of a word are determined by accent or letter-change; the accentual difference in English, for example, between íncense and incénse belongs to the province of grammar, since it indicates a difference between noun and verb; and the changes of vowel in the Semitic languages, by which various nominal and verbal forms are distinguished from one another, constitute a very important part of their grammatical machinery. But where accent and pronunciation do not serve to express the relations of words in a sentence, they fall into the domain of phonology, not of grammar. The explanation of figurative expressions, again, must be left to the rhetorician, and definition to the lexicographer; the grammarian has no more to do with them than he has with the canons of criticism.

In fact, the old subdivision of grammar, inherited from the grammarians of Rome and Alexandria, must be given up and a new one put in its place. What grammar really deals with are all those contrivances whereby the relations of words and sentences are pointed out. Sometimes it is position, sometimes phonetic symbolization, sometimes composition, sometimes flexion, sometimes the use of auxiliaries, which enables the speaker to combine his words in such a way that they shall be intelligible to another. Grammar may accordingly be divided into the three departments of composition or “word-building,” syntax and accidence, by which is meant an exposition of the means adopted by language for expressing the relations of grammar when recourse is not had to composition or simple position.

A systematized exposition of grammar may be intended for the purely practical purpose of teaching the mechanism of a foreign language. In this case all that is necessary is a correct and complete statement of the facts. But a correct and complete statement of the facts is by no means so easy a matter as might appear at first sight. The facts will be distorted by a false theory in regard to them, while they will certainly not be presented in a complete form if the grammarian is ignorant of the true theory they presuppose. The Semitic verb, for example, remains unintelligible so long as the explanation of its forms is sought in the conjugation of the Aryan verb, since it has no tenses in the Aryan sense of the word, but denotes relation and not time.

A good practical grammar of a language, therefore, should be based on a correct appreciation of the facts which it expounds, and a correct appreciation of the facts is only possible where they are examined and co-ordinated in accordance with the scientific method. A practical grammar ought, wherever it is possible, to be preceded by a scientific grammar.

Comparison is the instrument with which science works, and a scientific grammar, accordingly, is one in which the comparative method has been applied to the relations of speech. If we would understand the origin and real nature of grammatical forms, and of the relations which they represent, we must compare them with similar forms in kindred dialects and languages, as well as with the forms under which they appeared themselves at an earlier period of their history. We shall thus have a comparative grammar and an historical grammar, the latter being devoted to tracing the history of grammatical forms and usages in the same language. Of course, an historical grammar is only possible where a succession of written records exists; where a language possesses no older literature we must be content with a comparative grammar only, and look to cognate idioms to throw light upon its grammatical peculiarities. In this case we have frequently to leave whole forms unexplained, or at most conjecturally interpreted, since the machinery by means of which the relations of grammar are symbolized is often changed so completely during the growth of a language as to cause its earlier shape and character to be unrecognizable. Moreover, our area of comparison must be as wide as possible; where we have but two or three languages to compare, we are in danger of building up conclusions on insufficient evidence. The grammatical errors of the classical philologists of the 18th century were in great measure due to the fact that their area of comparison was confined to Latin and Greek.

The historical grammar of a single language or dialect, which traces the grammatical forms and usages of the language as far back as documentary evidence allows, affords material to the comparative grammarian, whose task it is to compare the grammatical forms and usages of an allied group of tongues and thereby reduce them to their earliest forms and senses. The work thus carried out by the comparative grammarian within a particular family of languages is made use of by universal grammar, the object of which is to determine the ideas that underlie all grammar whatsoever, as distinct from those that are peculiar to special families of speech. Universal grammar is sometimes known as “the metaphysics of language,” and it has to decide such questions as the nature of gender or of the verb, the true purport of the genitive relation, or the origin of grammar itself. Such questions, it is clear, can only be answered by comparing the results gained by the comparative treatment of the grammars of various groups of language. What historical grammar is to comparative grammar, comparative grammar is to universal grammar.

Universal grammar, as founded on the results of the scientific study of speech, is thus essentially different from that “universal grammar” so much in vogue at the beginning of the 19th century, which consisted of a series of a priori assumptions based on the peculiarities of European grammar and illustrated from the same source. But universal grammar, as conceived by modern science, is as yet in its infancy; its materials are still in the process of being collected. The comparative grammar of the Indo-European languages is alone in an advanced state, those of the Semitic idioms, of the Finno-Ugrian tongues and of the Bantu dialects of southern Africa are still in a backward condition; and the other families of speech existing in the world, with the exception of the Malayo-Polynesian and the Sonorian of North America, have not as yet been treated scientifically. Chinese, it is true, possesses an historical grammar, and Van Eys, in his comparative grammar of Basque, endeavoured to solve the problems of that interesting language by a comparison of its various dialects; but in both cases the area of comparison is too small for more than a limited success to be attainable. Instead of attempting the questions of universal grammar, therefore, it will be better to confine our attention to three points—the fundamental differences in the grammatical conceptions of different groups of languages, the main results of a scientific investigation of Indo-European grammar, and the light thrown by comparative philology upon the grammar of our own tongue.

The proposition or sentence is the unit and starting-point of speech, and grammar, as we have seen, consists in the relations of its several parts one to another, together with the expression of them. These relations may be regarded from various points of view. In the polysynthetic languages of America the sentence is conceived as a whole, not composed of independent words, but, like the thought which it expresses, one and indivisible. What we should denote by a series of words is consequently denoted by a single long compound—kuligatchis in Delaware, for instance, signifying “give me your pretty little paw,” and aglekkigiartorasuarnipok in Eskimo, “he goes away hastily and exerts himself to write.” Individual words can be, and often are, extracted from the sentence; but in this case they stand, as it were, outside it, being represented by a pronoun within the sentence itself. Thus, in Mexican, we can say not only ni-sotsi-temoa, “I look for flowers,” but also ni-k-temoa sotsitl, where the interpolated guttural is the objective pronoun. As a necessary result of this conception of the sentence the American languages possess no true verb, each act being expressed as a whole by a single word. In Cherokee, for example, while there is no verb signifying “to wash” in the abstract, no less than thirteen words are used to signify every conceivable mode and object of washing. In the incorporating languages, again, of which Basque may be taken as a type, the object cannot be conceived except as contained in the verbal action. Hence every verbal form embodies an objective pronoun, even though the object may be separately expressed. If we pass to an isolating language like Chinese, we find the exact converse of that which meets us in the polysynthetic tongues. Here each proposition or thought is analysed into its several elements, and these are set over against one another as so many independent words. The relations of grammar are consequently denoted by position, the particular position of two or more words determining the relation they bear to each other. The analysis of the sentence has not been carried so far in agglutinative languages like Turkish. In these the relations of grammar are represented by individual words, which, however, are subordinated to the words expressing the main ideas intended to be in relation to one another. The defining words, or indices of grammatical relations, are, in a large number of instances, placed after the words which they define; in some cases, however, as, for example, in the Bantu languages of southern Africa, the relation is conceived from the opposite point of view, the defining words being prefixed. The inflexional languages call in the aid of a new principle. The relations of grammar are denoted symbolically either by a change of vowel or by a change of termination, more rarely by a change at the beginning of a word. Each idea, together with the relation which it bears to the other ideas of a proposition, is thus represented by a single word; that is to say, the ideas which make up the elements of a sentence are not conceived severally and independently, as in Chinese, but as always having a certain connexion with one another. Inflexional languages, however, tend to become analytical by the logical separation of the flexion from the idea to which it is attached, though the primitive point of view is never altogether discarded, and traces of flexion remain even in English and Persian. In fact, there is no example of a language which has wholly forsaken the conception of the sentence and the relation of its elements with which it started, although each class of languages occasionally trespasses on the grammatical usages of the others. In language, as elsewhere in nature, there are no sharp lines of division, no sudden leaps; species passes insensibly into species, class into class. At the same time the several types of speech—polysynthetic, isolating, agglutinative and inflexional—remain clear and fixed; and even where two languages belong to the same general type, as, for instance, an Indo-European and a Semitic language in the inflexional group, or a Bantu and a Turkish language in the agglutinative group, we find no certain example of grammatical interchange. A mixed grammar, in which the grammatical procedure of two distinct families of speech is intermingled, is almost, if not altogether, unknown.

It is obvious, therefore, that grammar constitutes the surest and most important basis for a classification of languages. Words may be borrowed freely by one dialect from another, or, though originally unrelated, may, by the action of phonetic decay, come to assume the same forms, while the limited number of articulate sounds and conceptions out of which language was first developed, and the similarity of the circumstances by which the first speakers were everywhere surrounded, naturally produce a resemblance between the roots of many unconnected tongues. Where, however, the fundamental conceptions of grammar and the machinery by which they are expressed are the same, we may have no hesitation in inferring a common origin.

The main results of scientific inquiry into the origin and primitive meaning of the forms of Indo-European grammar may be summed up as follows. We start with stems or themes, by which are meant words of two or more syllables which terminate in a limited number of sounds. These stems can be classed in groups of two kinds, one in which the groups consist of stems of similar meanings and similar initial syllables, and another in which the final syllables alone coincide. In the first case we have what are termed roots, the simplest elements into which words can be decomposed; in the second case stems proper, which may be described as consisting of suffixes attached to roots. Roots, therefore, are merely the materials out of which speech can be made, the embodiments of isolated conceptions with which the lexicographer alone has to deal, whereas stems present us with words already combined in a sentence and embodying the relations of grammar. If we would rightly understand primitive Indo-European grammar, we must conceive it as having been expressed or implied in the suffixes of the stems, and in the order according to which the stems were arranged in a sentence. In other words, the relations of grammar were denoted partly by juxtaposition or syntax, partly by the suffixes of stems.

These suffixes were probably at first unmeaning, or rather clothed with vague significations, which changed according to the place occupied in the sentence by the stem to which they were joined. Gradually this vagueness of signification disappeared, and particular suffixes came to be set apart to represent particular relations of grammar. What had hitherto been expressed by mere position now attached itself to the terminations or suffixes of stems, which accordingly became full-grown words. Some of the suffixes denoted purely grammatical ideas, that is to say, were flexions; others were classificatory, serving to distinguish nouns from verbs, presents from aorists, objects from agents and the like; while others, again, remained unmeaning adjuncts of the root. This origin of the flexions explains the otherwise strange fact that the same suffix may symbolize wholly different grammatical relations. In Latin, for instance, the context and dictionary will alone tell us that mus-as is the accusative plural of a noun, and am-as the second person singular of a verb, or that mus-a is the nominative singular of a feminine substantive, bon-a the accusative plural of a neuter adjective. In short, the flexions were originally merely the terminations of stems which were adapted to express the various relations of words to each other in a sentence, as these gradually presented themselves to the consciousness and were extracted from what had been previously implied by position. Necessarily, the same suffix might be used sometimes in a classificatory, sometimes in a flexional sense, and sometimes without any definite sense at all. In the Greek dative-locative πόδ-εσ-σι, for example, the suffix -ες is classificatory; in the nominative πόδ-ες it is flexional.

When a particular termination or suffix once acquired a special sense, it would be separated in thought from the stem to which it belonged, and attached in the same sense to other stems and other terminations. Thus in modern English we can attach the suffix -ize to almost any word whatsoever, in order to give the latter a transitive meaning, and the Gr. πόδεσσι, quoted above, really contains no less than three suffixes, -ες, -συ and -ι, the last two both denoting the locative, and coalescing, through σϝι, into a single syllable -σι. The latter instance shows us how two or more suffixes denoting exactly the same idea may be tacked on one to another, if the original force and signification of the first of them comes to be forgotten. Thus, in O. Eng. sang-estre was the feminine of sang-ere, “singer,” but the meaning of the termination has so entirely died out of the memory that we have to add the Romanic -ess to it if we would still distinguish it from the masculine singer. A familiar example of the way in which the full sense of the exponent of a grammatical idea fades from the mind and has to be supplied by a new exponent is afforded by the use of expletives in conversational English to denote the superlative. “Very warm” expresses little more than the positive, and to represent the intensity of his feelings the Englishman has recourse to such expressions as “awfully warm” like the Ger. “schrecklich warm.”

Such words as “very,” “awfully,” “schrecklich,” illustrate a second mode in which Indo-European grammar has found means of expression. Words may lose their true signification and become the mere exponents of grammatical ideas. Professor Earle divides all words into presentive and symbolic, the former denoting objects and conceptions, the latter the relations which exist between these. Symbolic words, therefore, are what the Chinese grammarians call “empty words”—words, that is, which have been divested of their proper signification and serve a grammatical purpose only. Many of the classificatory and some of the flexional suffixes of Indo-European speech can be shown to have had this origin. Thus the suffix tar, which denotes names of kinship and agency, seems to come from the same root as the Lat. terminus and trans, our through, the Sans. tar-āmi, “I pass over,” and to have primarily signified “one that goes through” a thing. Thus, too, the Eng. head or hood, in words like godhead and brotherhood, is the A.-S. hâd, “character” or “rank”; dom, in kingdom, the A.-S. dôm, “judgment”; and lock or ledge, in wedlock and knowledge, the A.-S. lâc, “sport” or “gift.” In all these cases the “empty words,” after first losing every trace of their original significance, have followed the general analogy of the language and assumed the form and functions of the suffixes with which they had been confused.

A third mode of representing the relations of grammar is by the symbolic use of vowels and diphthongs. In Greek, for instance, the distinction between the reduplicated present δίδωμι and the reduplicated perfect δέδωκα is indicated by a distinction of vowel, and in primitive Aryan grammar the vowel â seems to have been set apart to denote the subjunctive mood just as ya or i was set apart to denote the potential. So, too, according to M. Hovelacque, the change of a into i or u in the parent Indo-European symbolized a change of meaning from passive to active. This symbolic use of the vowels, which is the purest application of the principle of flexion, is far less extensively carried out in the Indo-European than in the Semitic languages. The Semitic family of speech is therefore a much more characteristic type of the inflexional languages than is the Indo-European.

The primitive Indo-European noun possessed at least eight cases—nominative, accusative, vocative, instrumental, dative, genitive, ablative and locative. M. Bergaigne has attempted to show that the first three of these, the “strong cases” as they are termed, are really abstracts formed by the suffixes -as (-s), -an, -m, -t, -i, -â and -ya (-i), the plural being nothing more than an abstract singular, as may be readily seen by comparing words like the Gr. ἔπο-ς, and ὄπε-ς, which mean precisely the same. The remaining “weak” cases, formed by the suffixes -sma, -sya, -syâ, -yâ, -i, -an, -t, -bhi, -su, -i, -a and -â, are really adjectives and adverbs. No distinction, for example, can be drawn between “a cup of gold” and “a golden cup,” and the instrumental, the dative, the ablative and the locative are, when closely examined, merely adverbs attached to a verb. The terminations of the strong cases do not displace the accent of the stem to which they are suffixed; the suffixes of the weak cases, on the other hand, generally draw the accent upon themselves.

According to Hübschmann, the nominative, accusative and genitive cases are purely grammatical, distinguished from one another through the exigencies of the sentence only, whereas the locative, ablative and instrumental have a logical origin and determine the logical relation which the three other cases bear to each other and the verb. The nature of the dative is left undecided. The locative primarily denotes rest in a place, the ablative motion from a place, and the instrumental the means or concomitance of an action. The dative Hübschmann regards as “the case of the participant object.” Like Hübschmann, Holzweissig divides the cases into two classes—the one grammatical and the other logical; and his analysis of their primitive meaning is the same as that of Hübschmann, except as regards the dative, the primary sense of which he thinks to have been motion towards a place. This is also the view of Delbrück, who makes it denote tendency towards an object. Delbrück, however, holds that the primary sense of the ablative was that of separation, the instrumental originally indicating concomitance, while there was a double locative, one used like the ablative absolute in Latin, the other being a locative of the object.

The dual was older than the plural, and after the development of the latter survived as a merely useless encumbrance, of which most of the Indo-European languages contrived in time to get rid. There are still many savage idioms in which the conception of plurality has not advanced beyond that of duality. In the Bushman dialects, for instance, the plural, or rather that which is more than one, is expressed by repeating the word; thus tu is “mouth,” tutu “mouths.” It may be shown that most of the suffixes of the Indo-European dual are the longer and more primitive forms of those of the plural which have grown out of them by the help of phonetic decay. The plural of the weak cases, on the other hand (the accusative alone excepted), was identical with the singular of abstract nouns; so far as both form and meaning are concerned, no distinction can be drawn between ὄπες and ἔπος. Similarly, humanity and men signify one and the same thing, and the use of English words like sheep or fish for both singular and plural shows to what an extent our appreciation of number is determined by the context rather than by the form of the noun. The so-called “broken plurals” of Arabic and Ethiopic are really singular collectives employed to denote the plural.

Gender is the product partly of analogy, partly of phonetic decay. In many languages, such as Eskimo and Choctaw, its place is taken by a division of objects into animate and inanimate, while in other languages they are separated into rational and irrational. There are many indications that the parent Indo-European in an early stage of its existence had no signs of gender at all. The terminations of the names of father and mother, pater and mater, for example, are exactly the same, and in Latin and Greek many diphthongal stems, as well as stems in i or ya and u (like ναῦς and νέκυς, πόλις and λῖς), may be indifferently masculine and feminine. Even stems in o and a (of the second and first declensions), though the first are generally masculine and the second generally feminine, by no means invariably maintain the rule; and feminines like humus and ὁδός, or masculines like advena and πολίτης, show that there was a time when these stems also indicated no particular gender, but owed their subsequent adaptation, the one to mark the masculine and the other to mark the feminine, to the influence of analogy. The idea of gender was first suggested by the difference between man and woman, male and female, and, as in so many languages at the present day, was represented not by any outward sign but by the meaning of the words themselves. When once arrived at, the conception of gender was extended to other objects besides those to which it properly belonged. The primitive Indo-European did not distinguish between subject and object, but personified objects by ascribing to them the motives and powers of living beings. Accordingly they were referred to by different pronouns, one class denoting the masculine and another class the feminine, and the distinction that existed between these two classes of pronouns was after a time transferred to the nouns. As soon as the preponderant number of stems in o in daily use had come to be regarded as masculine on account of their meaning, other stems in o, whatever might be their signification, were made to follow the general analogy and were similarly classed as masculines. In the same way, the suffix i or ya acquired a feminine sense, and was set apart to represent the feminine gender. Unlike the Semites, the Indo-Europeans were not satisfied with these two genders, masculine and feminine. As soon as object and subject, patient and agent, were clearly distinguished from each other, there arose a need for a third gender, which should be neither masculine nor feminine, but denote things without life. This third gender was fittingly expressed either by the objective case used as a nominative (e.g. regnum), or by a stem without any case ending at all (e.g. virus).

The adverbial meaning of so many of the cases explains the readiness with which they became crystallized into adverbs and prepositions. An adverb is the attribute of an attribute—“the rose smells sweetly,” for example, being resolvable into “the rose has the attribute of scent with the further attribute of sweetness.” In our own language once, twice, needs, are all genitives; seldom is a dative. The Latin and Greek humi and χαμαί are locatives, facillime (facillumed) and εὐτυχῶς ablatives, πάντη and ἄμα instrumentals, πάρος, ἑξῆς and τηλοῦ genitives. The frequency with which particular cases of particular nouns were used in a specifically attributive sense caused them to become, as it were, petrified, the other cases of the nouns in question passing out of use, and the original force of those that were retained being gradually forgotten. Prepositions are adverbs employed to define nouns instead of verbs and adjectives. Their appearance in the Indo-European languages is comparatively late, and the Homeric poems allow us to trace their growth in Greek. The adverb, originally intended to define the verb, came to be construed with the noun, and the government of the case with which it was construed was accordingly transferred from the verb to the noun. Thus when we read in the Odyssey(iv. 43), αὐτοὺς δ᾽ εἰσῆγον θεῖον δόμον, we see that εἰς is still an adverb, and that the accusative is governed by the verb; it is quite otherwise, however, with a line like Ἀτρείδης δὲ γέροντας ἀολλέας ἦγεν Ἀχαιῶν ἐς κλισίην (Il. i. 89) where the adverb has passed into a preposition. The same process of transformation is still going on in English, where we can say indifferently, “What are you looking at?” using “at” as an adverb, and governing the pronoun by the verb, and “At what are you looking?” where “at” has become a preposition. With the growth and increase of prepositions the need of the case-endings diminished, and in some languages the latter disappeared altogether.

Like prepositions, conjunctions also are primarily adverbs used in a demonstrative and relative sense. Hence most of the conjunctions are petrified cases of pronouns. The relation between two sentences was originally expressed by simply setting them side by side, afterwards by employing a demonstrative at the beginning of the second clause to refer to the whole preceding one. The relative pronoun can be shown to have been in the first instance a demonstrative; indeed, we can still use that in English in a relative sense. Since the demonstrative at the beginning of the second clause represented the first clause, and was consequently an attribute of the second, it had to stand in some case, and this case became a conjunction. How closely allied the adverb and the conjunction are may be seen from Greek and Latin, where ὡς or quum can be used as either the one or the other. Our own and, it may be observed, has probably the same root as the Greek locative adverb ἔτι, and originally signified “going further.”

Another form of adverb is the infinitive, the adverbial force of which appears clearly in such a phrase as “A wonderful thing to see.” Various cases, such as the locative, the dative or the instrumental, are employed in Vedic Sanskrit in the sense of the infinitive, besides the bare stem or neuter formed by the suffixes man and van. In Greek the neuter stem and the dative case were alone retained for the purpose. The first is found in infinitives like δόμεν and φέρειν (for an earlier φερε-ϝεν), the second in the infinitives in -αι. Thus the Gr. δοῦναι answers letter for letter to the Vedic dative dāvāne, “to give,” and the form ψεύδεσθαι is explained by the Vedic vayodhai, for vayās-dhai, literally “to do living,” dhai being the dative of a noun from the root dhā, “to place” or “do.” When the form ψεύδεσθαι had once come into existence, analogy was ready to create such false imitations as γράψασθαι or γραφθήσεσθαι. The Latin infinitive in -re for -se has the same origin, amare, for instance, being the dative of an old stem amas. In fieri for fierei or fiesei, from the same root as our English be, the original length of the final syllable is preserved. The suffix in -um is an accusative, like the corresponding infinitive of classical Sanskrit. This origin of the infinitive explains the Latin construction of the accusative and infinitive. When the Roman said, “Miror te ad me nihil scribere,” all that he meant at first was, “I wonder at you for writing nothing to me,” where the infinitive was merely a dative case used adverbially.

The history of the infinitive makes it clear how little distinction must have been felt at the outset between the noun and the verb. Indeed, the growth of the verb was a slow process. There was a time in the history of Indo-European speech when it had not as yet risen to the consciousness of the speaker, and in the period when the noun did not possess a plural there was as yet also no verb. The attachment of the first and second personal pronouns, or of suffixes resembling them, to certain stems, was the first stage in the development of the latter. Like the Semitic verb, the Indo-European verb seems primarily to have denoted relation only, and to have been attached as an attribute to the subject. The idea of time, however, was soon put into it, and two tenses were created, the one expressing a present or continuous action, the other an aoristic or momentary one. The distinction of sense was symbolized by a distinction of pronunciation, the root-syllable of the aorist being an abbreviated form of that of the present. This abbreviation was due to a change in the position of the accent (which was shifted from the stem-syllable to the termination), and this change again was probably occasioned by the prefixing of the so-called augment to the aorist, which survived into historical times only in Sanskrit, Zend and Greek, and the origin of which is still a mystery. The weight of the first syllable in the aorist further caused the person-endings to be shortened, and so two sets of person-endings, usually termed primary and secondary, sprang into existence. By reduplicating the root-syllable of the present tense a perfect was formed; but originally no distinction was made between present and perfect, and Greek verbs like δίδωμι and ἣκω are memorials of a time when the difference between “I am come” and “I have come” was not yet felt. Reduplication was further adapted to the expression of intensity and desire (in the so-called intensive and desiderative forms). By the side of the aorist stood the imperfect, which differed from the aorist, so far as outward form was concerned, only in possessing the longer and more original stem of the present. Indeed, as Benfey first saw, the aorist itself was primitively an imperfect, and the distinction between aorist and imperfect is not older than the period when the stem-syllables of certain imperfects were shortened through the influence of the accent, and this differentiation of forms appropriated to denote a difference between the sense of the aorist and the imperfect which was beginning to be felt. After the analogy of the imperfect, a pluperfect was created out of the perfect by prefixing the augment (of which the Greek ἐμέμηκον is an illustration); though the pluperfect, too, was originally an imperfect formed from the reduplicated present.

Besides time, mood was also expressed by the primitive Indo-European verb, recourse being had to symbolization for the purpose. The imperative was represented by the bare stem, like the vocative, the accent being drawn back to the first syllable, though other modes of denoting it soon came into vogue. Possibility was symbolized by the attachment of the suffix -ya to the stem, probability by the attachment of -a and -ā, and in this way the optative and conjunctive moods first arose. The creation of a future by the help of the suffix -sya seems to belong to the same period in the history of the verb. This suffix is probably identical with that used to form a large class of adjectives and genitives (like the Greek ἵπποιο for ἱπποσιο); in this case future time will have been regarded as an attribute of the subject, no distinction being drawn, for instance, between “rising sun” and “the sun will rise.” It is possible, however, that the auxiliary verb as, “to be,” enters into the composition of the future; if so, the future will be the product of the second stage in the development of the Indo-European verb when new forms were created by means of composition. The sigmatic or first aorist is in favour of this view, as it certainly belongs to the age of Indo-European unity, and may be a compound of the verbal stem with the auxiliary as.

After the separation of the Indo-European languages, composition was largely employed in the formation of new tenses. Thus in Latin we have perfects like scrip-si and ama-vi, formed by the help of the auxiliaries as (sum) and fuo, while such forms as amaveram (amavi-eram) or amarem (ama-sem) bear their origin on their face. So, too, the future in Latin and Old Celtic (amabo, Irish carub) is based upon the substantive verb fuo, “to be,” and the English preterite in -ed goes back to a suffixed did, the reduplicated perfect of do. New tenses and moods, however, were created by the aid of suffixes as well as by the aid of composition, or rather were formed from nouns whose stems terminated in the suffixes in question. Thus in Greek we have aorists and perfects in -κα, and the characteristics of the two passive aorists, ye and the, are more probably the suffixes of nominal stems than the roots of the two verbs ya, “to go,” and dhâ, “to place,” as Bopp supposed. How late some of these new formations were may be seen in Greek, where the Homeric poems are still ignorant of the weak future passive, the optative future, and the aspirated perfect, and where the strong future passive occurs but once and the desiderative but twice. On the other hand, many of the older tenses were disused and lost. In classical Sanskrit, for instance, of the modal aorist forms the precative and benedictive almost alone remain, while the pluperfect, of which Delbrück has found traces in the Veda, has wholly disappeared.

The passive voice did not exist in the parent Indo-European speech. No need for it had arisen, since such a sentence as “I am pleased” could be as well represented by “This pleases me,” or “I please myself.” It was long before the speaker was able to imagine an action without an object, and when he did so, it was a neuter or substantival rather than a passive verb that he formed. The passive, in fact, grew out of the middle or reflexive, and, except in the two aorists, continued to be represented by the middle in Greek. So, too, in Latin the second person plural is really the middle participle with estis understood, and the whole class of deponent or reflexive verbs proves that the characteristic r which Latin shares with Celtic could have had at the outset no passive force.

Much light has been thrown on the character and construction of the primitive Indo-European sentence by comparative syntax. In contradistinction to Semitic, where the defining word follows that which is defined, the Indo-European languages place that which is defined after that which defines it; and Bergaigne has made it clear that the original order of the sentence was (1) object, (2) verb, and (3) subject. Greater complication of thought and its expression, the connexion of sentences by the aid of conjunctions, and rhetorical inversion caused that dislocation of the original order of the sentence which reaches its culminating point in the involved periods of Latin literature. Our own language still remains true, however, to the syntax of the parent Indo-European when it sets both adjective and genitive before the nouns which they define. In course of time a distinction came to be made between an attribute used as a mere qualificative and an attribute used predicatively, and this distinction was expressed by placing the predicate in opposition to the subject and accordingly after it. The opposition was of itself sufficient to indicate the logical copula or substantive verb; indeed, the word which afterwards commonly stood for the latter at first signified “existence,” and it was only through the wear and tear of time that a phrase like Deus bonus est, “God exists as good,” came to mean simply “God is good.” It is needless to observe that neither of the two articles was known to the parent Indo-European; indeed, the definite article, which is merely a decayed demonstrative pronoun, has not yet been developed in several of the languages of the Indo-European family.

We must now glance briefly at the results of a scientific investigation of English grammar and the modifications they necessitate in our conception of it. The idea that the free use of speech is tied down by the rules of the grammarian must first be given up; all that the grammarian can do is to formulate the current uses of his time, which are determined by habit and custom, and are accordingly in a perpetual state of flux. We must next get rid of the notion that English grammar should be modelled after that of ancient Rome; until we do so we shall never understand even the elementary principles upon which it is based. We cannot speak of declensions, since English has no genders except in the pronouns of the third person, and no cases except the genitive and a few faint traces of an old dative. Its verbal conjugation is essentially different from that of an inflexional language like Latin, and cannot be compressed into the same categories. In English the syntax has been enlarged at the expense of the accidence; position has taken the place of forms. To speak of an adjective “agreeing” with its substantive is as misleading as to speak of a verb “governing” a case. In fact, the distinction between noun and adjective is inapplicable to English grammar, and should be replaced by a distinction between objective and attributive words. In a phrase like “this is a cannon,” cannon is objective; in a phrase like “a cannon-ball,” it is attributive; and to call it a substantive in the one case and an adjective in the other is only to introduce confusion. With the exception of the nominative, the various forms of the noun are all attributive; there is no difference, for example, between “doing a thing” and “doing badly.” Apart from the personal pronouns, the accusative of the classical languages can be represented only by position; but if we were to say that a noun which follows a verb is in the accusative case we should have to define “king” as an accusative in such sentences as “he became king” or “he is king.” In conversational English “it is me” is as correct as “c’est moi” in French, or “det er mig” in Danish; the literary “it is I” is due to the influence of classical grammar. The combination of noun or pronoun and preposition results in a compound attribute. As for the verb, Sweet has well said that “the really characteristic feature of the English finite verb is its inability to stand alone without a pronominal prefix.” Thus “dream” by itself is a noun; “I dream” is a verb. The place of the pronominal prefix may be taken by a noun, though both poetry and vulgar English frequently insert the pronoun even when the noun precedes. The number of inflected verbal forms is but small, being confined to the third person singular and the special forms of the preterite and past participle, though the latter may with more justice be regarded as belonging to the province of the lexicographer rather than to that of the grammarian. The inflected subjunctive (be, were, save in “God save the King,” &c.) is rapidly disappearing. New inflected forms, however, are coming into existence; at all events, we have as good a right to consider wont, shant, cant new inflected forms as the French aimerai (amare habeo), aimerais (amare habebam). If the ordinary grammars are correct in treating forms like “I am loving,” “I was loving,” “I did love,” as separate tenses, they are strangely inconsistent in omitting to notice the equally important emphatic form “I do love” or the negative form “I do not love” (“I don’t love”), as well as the semi-inflexional “I’ll love,” “he’s loving.” It is true that these latter contracted forms are heard only in conversation and not seen in books; but the grammar of a language, it must be remembered, is made by those who speak it and not by the printers.

Our school grammars are the inheritance we have received from Greece and Rome. The necessities of rhetoric obliged the Sophists to investigate the structure of the Greek language, and to them was accordingly due the first analysis of Greek grammar. Protagoras distinguished the three genders and the verbal moods, while Prodicus busied himself with the definition of synonyms. Aristotle, taking the side of Democritus, who had held that the meaning of words is put into them by the speaker, and that there is no necessary connexion between sound and sense, laid down that words “symbolize” objects according to the will of those who use them, and added to the ὄνομα or “noun,” and the ῥῆμα or “verb,” the σύνδεσμος or “particle.” He also introduced the term πτῶσις, “case,” to denote any flexion whatsoever. He further divided nouns into simple and compound, invented for the neuter another name than that given by Protagoras, and starting from the termination of the nominative singular, endeavoured to ascertain the rules for indicating a difference of gender. Aristotle was followed by the Stoics, who separated the ἄρθρον or “article” from the particles, determined a fifth part of speech, πανδέκτης or “adverb,” confined the term “case” to the flexions of the nouns, distinguishing the four principal cases by names, and divided the verb into its tenses, moods and classes. Meanwhile the Alexandrian critics were studying the language of Homer and the Attic writers, and comparing it with the language of their own day, the result being a minute examination of the facts and rules of grammar. Two schools of grammarians sprang up—the Analogists, headed by Aristarchus, who held that a strict law of analogy existed between idea and word, and refused to admit exceptions to the grammatical rules they laid down, and the Anomalists, who denied general rules of any kind, except in so far as they were consecrated by custom. Foremost among the Anomalists was Crates of Mallos, the leader of the Pergamenian school, to whom we owe the first formal Greek grammar and collection of the grammatical facts obtained by the labours of the Alexandrian critics, as well as an attempt to reform Greek orthography. The immediate cause of this grammar seems to have been a comparison of Latin with Greek, Crates having lectured on the subject while ambassador of Attalus at Rome in 159 B.C. The zeal with which the Romans threw themselves into the study of Greek resulted in the school grammar of Dionysius Thrax, a pupil of Aristarchus, which he published at Rome in the time of Pompey and which is still in existence. Latin grammars were soon modelled upon it, and the attempt to translate the technical terms of the Greek grammarians into Latin was productive of numerous blunders which have been perpetuated to our own day. Thus tenues is a mistranslation of the ψιλά, “unaspirated”; genetivus of γενική, the case “of the genus”; accusativus of αἰτιατική, the case “of the object”; infinitivus of ἀπαρέμφατος, “without a secondary meaning” of tense or person. New names were coined to denote forms possessed by Latin and not by Greek; ablative, for instance, was invented by Julius Caesar, who also wrote a treatise De analogia. By the 2nd century of the Christian era the dispute between the Anomalists and the Analogists was finally settled, analogy being recognized as the principle that underlies language, though every rule admits of exceptions. Two eminent grammarians of Alexandria, Apollonius Dyscolus and his son Herodian, summed up the labours and controversies of their predecessors, and upon their works were based the Latin grammar composed by Aelius Donatus in the 4th century, and the eighteen books on grammar compiled by Priscian in the age of Justinian. The grammar of Donatus dominated the schools of the middle ages, and, along with the productions of Priscian, formed the type and source of the Latin and Greek school-grammars of modern Europe.

A few words remain to be said, in conclusion, on the bearing of a scientific study of grammar upon the practical task of teaching and learning foreign languages. The grammar of a language is not to be confined within the rules laid down by grammarians, much less is it the creation of grammarians, and consequently the usual mode of making the pupil learn by heart certain fixed rules and paradigms not only gives a false idea of what grammar really is, but also throws obstacles in the way of acquiring it. The unit of speech is the sentence; and it is with the sentence therefore, and not with lists of words and forms, that the pupil should begin. When once a sufficient number of sentences has been, so to speak, assimilated, it will be easy to analyse them into their component parts, to show the relations that these bear to one another, and to indicate the nature and varieties of the latter. In this way the learner will be prevented from regarding grammar as a piece of dead mechanism or a Chinese puzzle, of which the parts must be fitted together in accordance with certain artificial rules, and will realize that it is a living organism which has a history and a reason of its own. The method of nature and science alike is analytic; and if we would learn a foreign language properly we must learn it as we did our mother-tongue, by first mastering the expression of a complete thought and then breaking up this expression into its several elements.

(A. H. S.)

See Philology, and articles on the various languages. Also Steinthal, Charakteristik der hauptsächlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues (Berlin, 1860); Schleicher, Compendium of the Comparative Grammar of the Indo-European Languages, translated by H. Bendall (London, 1874); Pezzi, Aryan Philology according to the most recent Researches, translated by E. S. Roberts (London, 1879); Sayce, Introduction to the Science of Language (London, 1879); Lersch, Die Sprachphilosophie der Alten (Bonn, 1838-1841); Steinthal, Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft bei den Griechen und Römern mit besonderer Rücksicht auf die Logik (Berlin, 1863, 2nd ed. 1890); Delbrück, Ablativ localis instrumentalis im Altindischen, Lateinischen, Griechischen, und Deutschen (Berlin, 1864); Jolly, Ein Kapitel vergleichender Syntax (Munich, 1873); Hübschmann, Zur Casuslehre (Munich, 1875); Holzweissig, Wahrheit und Irrthum der localistischen Casustheorie (Leipzig, 1877); Draeger, Historische Syntax der lateinischen Sprache (Leipzig, 1874-1876); Sweet, Words, Logic, and Grammar (London, 1876); P. Giles, Manual of Comp. Philology (1901); C. Abel, Ägypt.-indo-eur. Sprachverwandschaft (1903); Brugmann and Delbrück, Grundriss d. vergl. Gram. d. indogerm. Spr. (1886-1900); Fritz Mauthner, Beiträge zu einer Kritik der Sprache vol. iii. (1902); T. G. Tucker, Introd. to a Nat. Hist. of Language (1908).

GRAMMICHELE, a town of Sicily, in the province of Catania, 55 m. S.W. of it by rail and 31 m. direct. Pop. (1901) 15,075. It was built in 1693, after the destruction by an earthquake of the old town of Occhialà to the north; the latter, on account of the similarity of name, is generally identified with Echetla, a frontier city between Syracusan and Carthaginian territory in the time of Hiero II., which appears to have been originally a Sicel city in which Greek civilization prevailed from the 5th century onwards. To the east of Grammichele a cave shrine of Demeter, with fine votive terra-cottas, has been discovered.

See Mon. Lincei, vii. (1897), 201; Not. degli scavi (1902), 223.

GRAMMONT (the Flemish name Gheeraardsbergen more clearly reveals its etymology Gerardi-mons), a town in East Flanders, Belgium, near the meeting point with the provinces of Brabant and Hainaut. It is on the Dender almost due south of Alost, and is chiefly famous because the charter of Grammont given by Baldwin VI., count of Flanders, in A.D. 1068 was the first of its kind. This charter has been styled “the most ancient written monument of civil and criminal laws in Flanders.” The modern town is a busy industrial centre. Pop. (1904) 12,835.

GRAMONT, ANTOINE AGÉNOR ALFRED, Duc de, Duc de Guiche, Prince de Bidache (1819-1880), French diplomatist and statesman, was born at Paris on the 14th of August 1819, of one of the most illustrious families of the old noblesse, a cadet branch of the viscounts of Aure, which took its name from the seigniory of Gramont in Navarre. His grandfather, Antoine Louis Marie, duc de Gramont (1755-1836), had emigrated during the Revolution, and his father, Antoine Héraclius Geneviève Agénor (1789-1855), duc de Gramont and de Guiche, fought under the British flag in the Peninsular War, became a lieutenant-general in the French army in 1823, and in 1830 accompanied Charles X. to Scotland. The younger generation, however, were Bonapartist in sympathy; Gramont’s cousin Antoine Louis Raymond, comte de Gramont (1787-1825), though also the son of an émigré, served with distinction in Napoleon’s armies, while Antoine Agénor, duc de Gramont, owed his career to his early friendship for Louis Napoleon.

Educated at the École Polytechnique, Gramont early gave up the army for diplomacy. It was not, however, till after the coup d’état of the 2nd of December 1851, which made Louis Napoleon supreme in France, that he became conspicuous as a diplomat. He was successively minister plenipotentiary at Cassel and Stuttgart (1852), at Turin (1853), ambassador at Rome (1857) and at Vienna (1861). On the 15th of May 1870 he was appointed minister of foreign affairs in the Ollivier cabinet, and was thus largely, though not entirely, responsible for the bungling of the negotiations between France and Prussia arising out of the candidature of Prince Leopold of Hohenzollern for the throne of Spain, which led to the disastrous war of 1870-71. The exact share of Gramont in this responsibility has been the subject of much controversy. The last word may be said to have been uttered by M. Émile Ollivier himself in his L’Empire libéral (tome xii., 1909, passim). The famous declaration read by Gramont in the Chamber on the 6th of July, the “threat with the hand on the sword-hilt,” as Bismarck called it, was the joint work of the whole cabinet; the original draft presented by Gramont was judged to be too “elliptical” in its conclusion and not sufficiently vigorous; the reference to a revival of the empire of Charles V. was suggested by Ollivier; the paragraph asserting that France would not allow a foreign power to disturb to her own detriment the actual equilibrium of Europe was inserted by the emperor. So far, then, as this declaration is concerned, it is clear that Gramont’s responsibility must be shared with his sovereign and his colleagues (Ollivier op. cit. xii. 107; see also the two projets de déclaration given on p. 570). It is clear, however that he did not share the “passion” of his colleagues for “peace with honour,” clear also that he wholly misread the intentions of the European powers in the event of war. That he reckoned upon the active alliance of Austria was due, according to M. Ollivier, to the fact that for nine years he had been a persona grata in the aristocratic society of Vienna, where the necessity for revenging the humiliation of 1866 was an article of faith. This confidence made him less disposed than many of his colleagues to make the best of the renunciation of the candidature made, on behalf of his son, by the prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. It was Gramont who pointed out to the emperor, on the evening of the 12th, the dubious circumstances of the act of renunciation, and on the same night, without informing M. Ollivier, despatched to Benedetti at Ems the fatal telegram demanding the king of Prussia’s guarantee that the candidature would not be revived. The supreme responsibility for this act must rest with the emperor, “who imposed it by an exercise of personal power on the only one of his ministers who could have lent himself to such a forgetfulness of the safeguards of a parliamentary régime.” As for Gramont, he had “no conception of the exigencies of this régime; he remained an ambassador accustomed to obey the orders of his sovereign; in all good faith he had no idea that this was not correct, and that, himself a parliamentary minister, he had associated himself with an act destructive of the authority of parliament.” “On his part,” adds M. Ollivier, “it was the result only of obedience, not of warlike premeditation” (op. cit. p. 262). The apology may be taken for what it is worth. To France and to the world Gramont was responsible for the policy which put his country definitely into the wrong in the eyes of Europe, and enabled Bismarck to administer to her the “slap in the face” (soufflet)—as Gramont called it in the Chamber—by means of the mutilated “Ems telegram,” which was the immediate cause of the French declaration of war on the 15th.

After the defeat of Weissenburg (August 4) Gramont resigned office with the rest of the Ollivier ministry (August 9), and after the revolution of September he went to England, returning after the war to Paris, where he died on the 18th of January 1880. His marriage in 1848 with Miss Mackinnon, a Scottish lady, remained without issue. During his retirement he published various apologies for his policy in 1870, notably La France et la Prusse avant la guerre (Paris, 1872).

Besides M. Ollivier’s work quoted in the text, see L. Thouvenel, Le Secret de l’empereur, correspondance ... échangée entre M. Thouvenel, le duc de Gramont, et le général comte de Flahaut 1860-1863 (2nd ed., 2 vols., 1889). A small pamphlet containing his Souvenirs 1848-1850 was published in 1901 by his brother Antoine Léon Philibert Auguste de Gramont, duc de Lesparre.

Compare with this Bismarck’s remarks to Hohenlohe (Hohenlohe, Denkwürdigkeiten, ii. 71): “When Gramont was made minister, Bismarck said to Benedetti that this indicated that the emperor was meditating something evil, otherwise he would not have made so stupid a person minister. Benedetti replied that the emperor knew too little of him, whereupon Bismarck said that the emperor had once described Gramont to him as ‘un ancien bellâtre.’”

GRAMONT, PHILIBERT, Comte de (1621-1707), the subject of the famous Memoirs, came of a noble Gascón family, said to have been of Basque origin. His grandmother, Diane d’Andouins, comtesse de Gramont, was “la belle Corisande,” one of the mistresses of Henry IV. The grandson assumed that his father Antoine II. de Gramont, viceroy of Navarre, was the son of Henry IV., and regretted that he had not claimed the privileges of royal birth. Philibert de Gramont was the son of Antoine II. by his second marriage with Claude de Montmorency, and was born in 1621, probably at the family seat of Bidache. He was destined for the church, and was educated at the collège of Pau, in Béarn. He refused the ecclesiastical life, however, and joined the army of Prince Thomas of Savoy, then besieging Trino in Piedmont. He afterwards served under his elder half-brother, Antoine, marshal de Gramont, and the prince of Condé. He was present at Fribourg and Nordlingen, and also served with distinction in Spain and Flanders in 1647 and 1648. He favoured Condé’s party at the beginning of the Fronde, but changed sides before he was too severely compromised. In spite of his record in the army he never received any important commission either military or diplomatic, perhaps because of an incurable levity in his outlook, He was, however, made a governor of the Pays d’Aunis and lieutenant of Béarn. During the Commonwealth he visited England, and in 1662 he was exiled from Paris for paying court to Mademoiselle de la Motte Houdancourt, one of the king’s mistresses. He went to London, where he found at the court of Charles II. an atmosphere congenial to his talents for intrigue, gallantry and pleasure. He married in London, under pressure from her two brothers, Elizabeth Hamilton, the sister of his future biographer. She was one of the great beauties of the English court, and was, according to her brother’s optimistic account, able to fix the count’s affections. She was a woman of considerable wit, and held her own at the court of Louis XIV., but her husband pursued his gallant exploits to the close of a long life, being, said Ninon de l’Enclos, the only old man who could affect the follies of youth without being ridiculous. In 1664 he was allowed to return to France. He revisited England in 1670 in connexion with the sale of Dunkirk, and again in 1671 and 1676. In 1688 he was sent by Louis XIV. to congratulate James II. on the birth of an heir. From all these small diplomatic missions he succeeded in obtaining considerable profits, being destitute of scruples whenever money was in question. At the age of seventy-five he had a dangerous illness, during which he became reconciled to the church. His penitence does not seem to have survived his recovery. He was eighty years old when he supplied his brother-in-law, Anthony Hamilton (q.v.), with the materials for his Mémoires. Hamilton said that they had been dictated to him, but there is no doubt that he was the real author. The account of Gramont’s early career was doubtless provided by himself, but Hamilton was probably more familiar with the history of the court of Charles II., which forms the most interesting section of the book. Moreover Gramont, though he had a reputation for wit, was no writer, and there is no reason to suppose that he was capable of producing a work which remains a masterpiece of style and of witty portraiture. When the Mémoires were finished it is said that Gramont sold the MS. for 1500 francs, and kept most of the money himself. Fontenelle, then censor of the press, refused to license the book from considerations of respect to the strange old man, whose gambling, cheating and meannesses were so ruthlessly exposed. But Gramont himself appealed to the chancellor and the prohibition was removed. He died on the 10th of January 1707, and the Mémoires appeared six years later.

Hamilton was far superior to the comte de Gramont, but he relates the story of his hero without comment, and no condemnation of the prevalent code of morals is allowed to appear, unless in an occasional touch of irony. The portrait is drawn with such skill that the count, in spite of his biographer’s candour, imposes by his grand air on the reader much as he appears to have done on his contemporaries. The book is the most entertaining of contemporary memoirs, and in no other book is there a description so vivid, truthful, and graceful of the licentious court of Charles II. There are other and less flattering accounts of the count. His scandalous tongue knew no restraint, and he was a privileged person who was allowed to state even the most unpleasing truths to Louis XIV. Saint-Simon in his memoirs describes the relief that was felt at court when the old man’s death was announced.

Mémoires de la vie du comte de Grammont contenant particulièrement l’histoire amoureuse de la cour d’Angleterre sous le règne de Charles II was printed in Holland with the inscription Cologne, 1713. Other editions followed in 1715 and 1716. Memoirs of the Life of Count de Grammont ... translated out of the French by Mr [Abel] Boyer (1714), was supplemented by a “compleat key” in 1719. The Mémoires “augmentées de notes et d’éclaircissemens” was edited by Horace Walpole in 1772. In 1793 appeared in London an edition adorned with portraits engraved after originals in the royal collection. An English edition by Sir Walter Scott was published by H. G. Bohn (1846), and this with additions was reprinted in 1889, 1890, 1896, &c. Among other modern editions are an excellent one in the Bibliothèque Charpentier edited by M. Gustave Brunet (1859); Mémoires ... (Paris, 1888) with etchings by L. Boisson after C. Delort and an introduction by H. Gausseron; Memoirs ... (1889), edited by Mr H. Vizetelly; and Memoirs ... (1903), edited by Mr Gordon Goodwin.

GRAMOPHONE (an invented word, formed on an inversion of “phonogram”; φωνή, sound, γράμμα, letter), an instrument for recording and reproducing sounds. It depends on the same general principles as the phonograph (q.v.), but it differs in certain details of construction, especially in having the sound-record cut spirally on a flat disk instead of round a cylinder.

GRAMPIANS, THE, a mass of mountains in central Scotland. Owing to the number of ramifications and ridges it is difficult to assign their precise limits, but they may be described as occupying the area between a line drawn from Dumbartonshire to the North Sea at Stonehaven, and the valley of the Spey or even Glenmore (the Caledonian Canal). Their trend is from south-west to north-east, the southern face forming the natural division between the Lowlands and Highlands. They lie in the shires of Argyll, Dumbarton, Stirling, Perth, Forfar, Kincardine, Aberdeen, Banff and Inverness. Among the highest summits are Ben Nevis, Ben Macdhui, and Cairngorms, Ben Lawers, Ben More, Ben Alder, Ben Cruachan and Ben Lomond. The principal rivers flowing from the watershed northward are the Findhorn, Spey, Don, Dee and their tributaries, and southward the South Esk, Tay and Forth with their affluents. On the north the mass is wild and rugged; on the south the slope is often gentle, affording excellent pasture in many places, but both sections contain some of the finest deer-forests in Scotland. They are crossed by the Highland, West Highland and Callander to Oban railways, and present some of the finest scenery in the kingdom. The rocks consist chiefly of granite, gneiss, schists, quartzite, porphyry and diorite. Their fastnesses were originally inhabited by the northern Picts, the Caledonians who, under Galgacus, were defeated by Agricola in A.D. 84 at Mons Graupius—the false reading of which, Grampius, has been perpetuated in the name of the mountains—the site of which has not been ascertained. Some authorities place it at Ardoch; others near the junction of the Tay and Isla, or at Dalginross near Comrie; while some, contending for a position nearer the east coast, refer it to a site in west Forfarshire or to Raedykes near Stonehaven.

GRAMPOUND, a small market town in the mid-parliamentary division of Cornwall, England, 9 m. E.N.E. of Truro, and 2 m. from its station (Grampound Road) on the Great Western railway. It is situated on the river Fal, and has some industry in tanning. It retains an ancient town hall; there is a good market cross; and in the neighbourhood, along the Fal, are several early earthworks.

Grampound (Ponsmure, Graundpont, Grauntpount, Graundpond) and the hundred, manor and vill of Tibeste were formerly so closely associated that in 1400 the former is found styled the vill of Grauntpond called Tibeste. At the time of the Domesday Survey Tibeste was amongst the most valuable of the manors granted to the count of Mortain. The burgensic character of Ponsmure first appears in 1299. Thirty-five years later John of Eltham granted to the burgesses the whole town of Grauntpount. This grant was confirmed in 1378 when its extent and jurisdiction were defined. It was provided that the hundred court of Powdershire should always be held there and two fairs at the feasts of St Peter in Cathedra and St Barnabas, both of which are still held, and a Tuesday market (now held on Friday) and that it should be a free borough rendering a yearly rent to the earl of Cornwall. Two members were summoned to parliament by Edward VI. in 1553. The electors consisted of an indefinite number of freemen, about 50 in all, indirectly nominated by the mayor and corporation, which existed by prescription. The venality of the electors became notorious. In 1780 £3000 was paid for a seat: in 1812 each supporter of one of the candidates received £100. The defeat of this candidate in 1818 led to a parliamentary inquiry which disclosed a system of wholesale corruption, and in 1821 the borough was disfranchised. A former woollen trade is extinct.

GRAMPUS (Orca gladiator, or Orca orca), a cetacean belonging to the Delphinidae or dolphin family, characterized by its rounded head without distinct beak, high dorsal fin and large conical teeth. The upper parts are nearly uniform glossy black, and the under parts white, with a strip of the same colour over each eye. The O. Fr. word was grapois, graspeis or craspeis, from Med. Lat. crassus piscis, fat fish. This was adapted into English as grapeys, graspeys, &c., and in the 16th century becomes grannie pose as if from grand poisson. The final corruption to “grampus” appears in the 18th century and was probably nautical in origin. The animal is also known as the “killer,” in allusion to its ferocity in attacking its prey, which consists largely of seals, porpoises and the smaller dolphins. Its fierceness is only equalled by its voracity, which is such that in a specimen measuring 21 ft. in length, the remains of thirteen seals and thirteen porpoises were found, in a more or less digested state, while the animal appeared to have been choked in the endeavour to swallow another seal, the skin of which was found entangled in its teeth. These cetaceans sometimes hunt in packs or schools, and commit great havoc among the belugas or white whales, which occasionally throw themselves ashore to escape their persecutors. The grampus is an inhabitant of northern seas, occurring on the shores of Greenland, and having been caught, although rarely, as far south as the Mediterranean. There are numerous instances of its capture on the British coasts. (See Cetacea.)

GRANADA, LUIS DE (1504-1588), Spanish preacher and ascetic writer, born of poor parents named Sarriá at Granada. He lost his father at an early age and his widowed mother was supported by the charity of the Dominicans. A child of the Alhambra, he entered the service of the alcalde as page, and, his ability being discovered, received his education with the sons of the house. When nineteen he entered the Dominican convent and in 1525 took the vows; and, with the leave of his prior, shared his daily allowance of food with his mother. He was sent to Valladolid to continue his studies and then was appointed procurator at Granada. Seven years after he was elected prior of the convent of Scala Caeli in the mountains of Cordova, which after eight years he succeeded in restoring from its ruinous state, and there he began his work as a zealous reformer. His preaching gifts were developed by the orator Juan de Avila, and he became one of the most famous of Spanish preachers. He was invited to Portugal in 1555 and became provincial of his order, declining the offer of the archbishopric of Braga but accepting the position of confessor and counsellor to Catherine, the queen regent. At the expiration of his tenure of the provincialship, he retired to the Dominican convent at Lisbon, where he lived till his death on the last day of 1588. Aiming, both in his sermons and ascetical writings, at development of the religious view, the danger of the times as he saw it was not so much in the Protestant reformation, which was an outside influence, but in the direction that religion had taken among the masses. He held that in Spain the Catholic faith was not understood by the people, and that their ignorance was the pressing danger. He fell under the suspicion of the Inquisition; his mystical teaching was said to be heretical, and his most famous book, the Guia de Peccadores, still a favourite treatise and one that has been translated into nearly every European tongue, was put on the Index of the Spanish Inquisition, together with his book on prayer, in 1559. His great opponent was the restless and ambitious Melchior Cano, who stigmatized the second book as containing grave errors smacking of the heresy of the Alumbrados and manifestly contradicting Catholic faith and teaching. But in 1576 the prohibition was removed and the works of Luis de Granada, so prized by St Francis de Sales, have never lost their value. The friend of St Teresa, St Peter of Alcantara, and of all the noble minds of Spain of his day, no one among the three hundred Spanish mystics excels Luis de Granada in the beauty of a didactic style, variety of illustration and soberness of statement.

The last collected edition of his works is that published in 9 vols. at Antwerp in 1578. A biography by L. Monoz, La Vida y virtudes de Luis de Granada (Madrid, 1639); a study of his system by P. Rousselot in Mystiques espagnoles (Paris, 1867); Ticknor, History of Spanish Literature (vol. iii.), and Fitzmaurice Kelly, History of Spanish Literature, pp. 200-202 (London, 1898), may also be consulted.

GRANADA, the capital of the department of Granada, Nicaragua; 32 m. by rail S.E. of Managua, the capital of the republic. Pop. (1900) about 25,000. Granada is built on the north-western shore of Lake Nicaragua, of which it is the principal port. Its houses are of the usual central American type, constructed of adobe, rarely more than one storey high, and surrounded by courtyards with ornamental gateways. The suburbs, scattered over a large area, consist chiefly of cane huts occupied by Indians and half-castes. There are several ancient churches and convents, in one of which the interior of the chancel roof is inlaid with mother-of-pearl. An electric tramway connects the railway station and the adjacent wharves with the market, about 1 m. distant. Ice, cigars, hats, boots and shoes are manufactured, but the characteristic local industry is the production of “Panama chains,” ornaments made of thin gold wire. In the neighbourhood there are large cocoa plantations; and the city has a thriving trade in cocoa, coffee, hides, cotton, native tobacco and indigo.

Granada was founded in 1523 by Francisco Fernandez de Córdoba. It became one of the wealthiest of central American cities, although it had always a keen commercial rival in Leon, which now surpasses it in size and importance. In the 17th century it was often raided by buccaneers, notably in 1606, when it was completely sacked. In 1855 it was captured and partly burned by the adventurer William Walker (see Central America: History).

GRANADA, a maritime province of southern Spain, formed in 1833 of districts belonging to Andalusia, and coinciding with the central parts of the ancient kingdom of Granada. Pop. (1900) 492,460; area, 4928 sq. m. Granada is bounded on the N. by Cordova, Jaen and Albacete, E. by Murcia and Almería, S. by the Mediterranean Sea, and W. by Malaga. It includes the western and loftier portion of the Sierra Nevada (q.v.), a vast ridge rising parallel to the sea and attaining its greatest altitudes in the Cerro de Mulhacen (11,421 ft.) and Picacho de la Veleta (11,148), which overlook the city of Granada. Lesser ranges, such as the Sierras of Parapanda, Alhama, Almijara or Harana, adjoin the main ridge. From this central watershed the three principal rivers of the province take their rise, viz.: the Guadiana Menor, which, flowing past Guadix in a northerly direction, falls into the Guadalquivir in the neighbourhood of Ubeda; the Genil which, after traversing the Vega, or Plain of Granada, leaves the province a little to the westward of Loja and joins the Guadalquivir between Cordova and Seville; and the Rio Grande or Guadalféo, which falls into the Mediterranean at Motril. The coast is little indented and none of its three harbours, Almuñécar, Albuñol and Motril, ranks high in commercial importance. The climate in the lower valleys and the narrow fringe along the coast is warm, but on the higher grounds of the interior is somewhat severe; and the vegetation varies accordingly from the subtropical to the alpine. The soil of the plains is very productive, and that of the Vega of Granada is considered the richest in the whole peninsula; from the days of the Moors it has been systematically irrigated, and it continues to yield in great abundance and in good quality wheat, barley, maize, wine, oil, sugar, flax, cotton, silk and almost every variety of fruit. In the mountains immediately surrounding the city of Granada occur many kinds of alabaster, some very fine; there are also quantities of jasper and other precious stones. Mineral waters chiefly chalybeate and sulphurous, are abundant, the most important springs being those of Alhama, which have a temperature of 112° F. There are valuable iron mines, and small quantities of zinc, lead and mercury are obtained. The cane and beet sugar industries, for which there are factories at Loja, at Motril, and in the Vega, developed rapidly after the loss of the Spanish West Indies and the Philippine Islands in 1898, with the consequent decrease in competition. There are also tanneries, foundries and manufactories of woollen, linen, cotton, and rough frieze stuffs, cards, soap, spirits, gunpowder and machinery. Apart from the great highways traversing the province, which are excellent, the roads are few and ill-kept. The railway from Madrid enters the province on the north and bifurcates north-west of Guadix; one branch going eastward to Almería, the other westward to Loja, Malaga and Algeciras. Baza is the terminus of a railway from Lorca. The chief towns include Granada, the capital (pop. 1900, 75,900) with Alhama de Granada (7697), Baza (12,770), Guadix (12,652), Loja (19,143), Montefrío (10,725), and Motril (18,528). These are described in separate articles. Other towns with upwards of 7000 inhabitants are Albuñol (8646), Almuñécar (8022), Cúllar de Baza (8007), Huéscar (7763), Illora (9496) and Puebla de Don Fadrique (7420). The history of the ancient kingdom is inseparable from that of the city of Granada (q.v.).

GRANADA, the capital of the province, and formerly of the kingdom of Granada, in southern Spain; on the Madrid-Granada-Algeciras railway. Pop. (1900) 75,900. Granada is magnificently situated, 2195 ft. above the sea, on the north-western slope of the Sierra Nevada, overlooking the fertile lowlands known as the Vega de Granada on the west and overshadowed by the peaks of Veleta (11,148 ft.) and Mulhacen (11,421 ft.) on the south-east. The southern limit of the city is the river Genil, the Roman Singilis and Moorish Shenil, a swift stream flowing westward from the Sierra Nevada, with a considerable volume of water in summer, when the snows have thawed. Its tributary the Darro, the Roman Salon and Moorish Hadarro, enters Granada on the east, flows for upwards of a mile from east to west, and then turns sharply southward to join the main river, which is spanned by a bridge just above the point of confluence. The waters of the Darro are much reduced by irrigation works along its lower course, and within the city it has been canalized and partly covered with a roof.

Granada comprises three main divisions, the Antequeruela, the Albaicin (or Albaycin), and Granada properly so-called. The first division, founded by refugees from Antequera in 1410, consists of the districts enclosed by the Darro, besides a small area on its right, or western bank. It is bounded on the east by the gardens and hill of the Alhambra (q.v.), the most celebrated of all the monuments left by the Moors. The Albaicin (Moorish Rabad al Bayazin, “Falconers’ Quarter”) lies north-west of the Antequeruela. Its name is sometimes associated with that of Baeza, since, according to one tradition, it was colonized by citizens of Baeza, who fled hither in 1246, after the capture of their town by the Christians. It was long the favourite abode of the Moorish nobles, but is now mainly inhabited by gipsies and artisans. Granada, properly so-called, is north of the Antequeruela, and west of the Albaicin. The origin of its name is obscure; it has been sometimes, though with little probability, derived from granada, a pomegranate, in allusion to the abundance of pomegranate trees in the neighbourhood. A pomegranate appears on the city arms. The Moors, however, called Granada Karnattah or Karnattah-al-Yahud, and possibly the name is composed of the Arabic words kurn, “a hill,” and nattah, “stranger,”—the “city” or “hill of strangers.”

Although the city has been to some extent modernized, the architecture of its more ancient quarters has many Moorish characteristics. The streets are, as a rule, ill-lighted, ill-paved and irregular; but there are several fine squares and avenues, such as the Bibarrambla, where tournaments were held by the Moors; the spacious Plaza del Trionfo, adjoining the bull-ring, on the north; the Alameda, planted with plane trees, and the Paseo del Salon. The business centre of the city is the Puerta Real, a square named after a gate now demolished.

Granada is the see of an archbishop. Its cathedral, which commemorates the reconquest of southern Spain from the Moors, is a somewhat heavy classical building, begun in 1529 by Diego de Siloe, and only finished in 1703. It is profusely ornamented with jasper and coloured marbles, and surmounted by a dome. The interior contains many paintings and sculptures by Alonso Cano (1601-1667), the architect of the fine west façade, and other artists. In one of the numerous chapels, known as the Chapel Royal (Capilla Real), is the monument of Philip I. of Castile (1478-1506), and his queen Joanna; with the tomb of Ferdinand and Isabella, the first rulers of united Spain (1452-1516). The church of Santa Maria (1705-1759), which may be regarded as an annexe of the cathedral, occupies the site of the chief mosque of Granada. This was used as a church until 1661. Santa Ana (1541) also replaced a mosque; Nuestra Señora de las Angustias (1664-1671) is noteworthy for its fine towers, and the rich decoration of its high altar. The convent of San Geronimo (or Jeronimo), founded in 1492 by Ferdinand and Isabella, was converted into barracks in 1810; its church contains the tomb of the famous captain Gonsalvo or Gonzalo de Cordova (1453-1515). The Cartuja, or Carthusian monastery north of the city, was built in 1516 on Gonzalo’s estate, and in his memory. It contains several fine paintings, and an interesting church of the 17th and 18th centuries.

After the Alhambra, and such adjacent buildings as the Generalife and Torres Bermejas, which are more fitly described in connexion with it, the principal Moorish antiquities of Granada are the 13th-century villa known as the Cuarto Real de San Domingo, admirably preserved, and surrounded by beautiful gardens; the Alcázar de Genil, built in the middle of the 14th century as a palace for the Moorish queens; and the Casa del Cabildo, a university of the same period, converted into a warehouse in the 19th century. Few Spanish cities possess a greater number of educational and charitable establishments. The university was founded by Charles V. in 1531, and transferred to its present buildings in 1769. It is attended by about 600 students. In 1900, the primary schools of Granada numbered 22, in addition to an ecclesiastical seminary, a training-school for teachers, schools of art and jurisprudence, and museums of art and archaeology. There were twelve hospitals and orphanages for both sexes, including a leper hospital in one of the convents. Granada has an active trade in the agricultural produce of the Vega, and manufactures liqueurs, soap, paper and coarse linen and woollen fabrics. Silk-weaving was once extensively carried on, and large quantities of silk were exported to Italy, France, Germany and even America, but this industry died during the 19th century.

History.—The identity of Granada with the Iberian city of Iliberris or Iliberri, which afterwards became a flourishing Roman colony, has never been fully established; but Roman tombs, coins, inscriptions, &c., have been discovered in the neighbourhood. With the rest of Andalusia, as a result of the great invasion from the north in the 5th century, Granada fell to the lot of the Vandals. Under the caliphs of Cordova, onwards from the 8th century, it rapidly gained in importance, and ultimately became the seat of a provincial government, which, after the fall of the Omayyad dynasty in 1031, or, according to some authorities, 1038, ranked with Seville, Jaen and others as an independent principality. The family of the Zeri, Ziri or Zeiri maintained itself as the ruling dynasty until 1090; it was then displaced by the Almohades, who were in turn overthrown by the Almoravides, in 1154. The dominion of the Almoravides continued unbroken, save for an interval of one year (1160-1161), until 1229. From 1229 to 1238 Granada formed part of the kingdom of Murcia; but in the last-named year it passed into the hands of Abu Abdullah Mahommed Ibn Al Ahmar, prince of Jaen and founder of the dynasty of the Nasrides. Al Ahmar was deprived of Jaen in 1246, but united Granada, Almería and Malaga under his sceptre, and, as the fervour of the Christian crusade against the Moors had temporarily abated, he made peace with Castile, and even aided the Christians to vanquish the Moslem princes of Seville. At the same time he offered asylum to refugees from Valencia, Murcia and other territories in which the Moors had been overcome. Al Ahmar and his successors ruled over Granada until 1492, in an unbroken line of twenty-five sovereigns who maintained their independence partly by force, and partly by payment of tribute to their stronger neighbours. Their encouragement of commerce—notably the silk trade with Italy—rendered Granada the wealthiest of Spanish cities; their patronage of art, literature and science attracted many learned Moslems, such as the historian Ibn Khaldun and the geographer Ibn Batuta, to their court, and resulted in a brilliant civilization, of which the Alhambra is the supreme monument.

The kingdom of Granada, which outlasted all the other Moorish states in Spain, fell at last through dynastic rivalries and a harem intrigue. The two noble families of the Zegri and the Beni Serraj (better known in history and legend as the Abencerrages) encroached greatly upon the royal prerogatives during the middle years of the 15th century. A crisis arose in 1462, when an endeavour to control the Abencerrages resulted in the dethronement of Abu Nasr Saad, and the accession of his son, Muley Abu’l Hassan, whose name is preserved in that of Mulhacen, the loftiest peak of the Sierra Nevada, and in a score of legends. Muley Hassan weakened his position by resigning Malaga to his brother Ez Zagal, and incurred the enmity of his first wife Aisha by marrying a beautiful Spanish slave, Isabella de Solis, who had adopted the creed of Islam and taken the name of Zorayah, “morning star.” Aisha or Ayesha, who thus saw her sons Abu Abdullah Mahommed (Boabdil) and Yusuf in danger of being supplanted, appealed to the Abencerrages, whose leaders, according to tradition, paid for their sympathy with their lives (see Alhambra). In 1482 Boabdil succeeded in deposing his father, who fled to Malaga, but the gradual advance of the Christians under Ferdinand and Isabella forced him to resign the task of defence into the more warlike hands of Muley Hassan and Ez Zagal (1483-1486). In 1491 after the loss of these leaders, the Moors were decisively beaten; Boabdil, who had already been twice captured and liberated by the Spaniards, was compelled to sign away his kingdom; and on the 2nd of January 1492 the Spanish army entered Granada, and the Moorish power in Spain was ended. The campaign had aroused intense interest throughout Christendom; when the news reached London a special thanksgiving service was held in St Paul’s Cathedral by order of Henry VII.

GRANADILLA, the name applied to Passiflora quadrangularis, Linn., a plant of the natural order Passifloreae, a native of tropical America, having smooth, cordate, ovate or acuminate leaves; petioles bearing from 4 to 6 glands; an emetic and narcotic root; scented flowers; and a large, oblong fruit, containing numerous seeds, imbedded in a subacid edible pulp. The granadilla is sometimes grown in British hothouses. The fruits of several other species of Passiflora are eaten. P. laurifolia is the “water lemon,” and P. maliformis the “sweet calabash” of the West Indies.

GRANARIES. From ancient times grain has been stored in greater or lesser bulk. The ancient Egyptians made a practice of preserving grain in years of plenty against years of scarcity, and probably Joseph only carried out on a large scale an habitual practice. The climate of Egypt being very dry, grain could be stored in pits for a long time without sensible loss of quality. The silo pit, as it has been termed, has been a favourite way of storing grain from time immemorial in all oriental lands. In Turkey and Persia usurers used to buy up wheat or barley when comparatively cheap, and store it in hidden pits against seasons of dearth. Probably that custom is not yet dead. In Malta a relatively large stock of wheat is always preserved in some hundreds of pits (silos) cut in the rock. A single silo will store from 60 to 80 tons of wheat, which, with proper precautions, will keep in good condition for four years or more. The silos are shaped like a cylinder resting on a truncated cone, and surmounted by the same figure. The mouth of the pit is round and small and covered by a stone slab, and the inside is lined with barley straw and kept very dry. Samples are occasionally taken from the wheat as from the hold of a ship, and at any signs of fermentation the granary is cleared and the wheat turned over, but such is the dryness of these silos that little trouble of this kind is experienced.

Towards the close of the 19th century warehouses specially intended for holding grain began to multiply in Great Britain, but America is the home of great granaries, known there as elevators. There are climatic difficulties in the way of storing grain in Great Britain on a large scale, but these difficulties have been largely overcome. To preserve grain in good condition it must be kept as much as possible from moisture and heat. New grain when brought into a warehouse has a tendency to sweat, and in this condition will easily heat. If the heating is allowed to continue the quality of the grain suffers. An effectual remedy is to turn out the grain in layers, not too thick, on a floor, and to keep turning it over so as to aerate it thoroughly. Grain can thus be conditioned for storage in silos. There is reason to think that grain in a sound and dry condition can be better stored in bins or dry pits than in the open air; from a series of experiments carried out on behalf of the French government it would seem that grain exposed to the air is decomposed at 3½ times the rate of grain stored in silo or other bins.

In comparing the grain-storage system of Great Britain with that of North America it must be borne in mind that whereas Great Britain raises a comparatively small amount of grain, which is more or less rapidly consumed, grain-growing is one of the greatest industries of the United States and of Canada. The enormous surplus of wheat and maize produced in America can only be profitably dealt with by such a system of storage as has grown up there since the middle of the 19th century. The American farmer can store his wheat or maize at a moderate rate, and can get an advance on his warrant if he is in need of money. A holder of wheat in Chicago can withdraw a similar grade of wheat from a New York elevator.

Modern granaries are all built on much the same plan. The mechanical equipment for receiving and discharging grain is very similar in all modern warehouses. A granary is usually erected on a quay at which large vessels can lie and discharge. On the land side railway sidings connect the warehouse with the chief lines in its district; accessibility to a canal is an advantage. Ships are usually cleared by bucket elevators which are dipped into the cargo, though in some cases pneumatic elevators are substituted (see Conveyors). A travelling band with throw-off carriage will speedily distribute a heavy load of grain. Band conveyors serve equally well for charging or discharging the bins. Bins are invariably provided with hopper bottoms, and any bin can be effectively cleared by the band, which runs underneath, either in a cellar or in a specially constructed tunnel. All granaries should be provided with a sufficient plant of cleaning machinery to take from the grain impurities as would be likely to be detrimental to its storing qualities. Chief among such machines are the warehouse separators which work by sieves and air currents (see Flour and Flour Manufacture).

The typical grain warehouse is furnished with a number of chambers for grain storage which are known as silos, and may be built of wood, brick, iron or ferro-concrete. Wood silos are usually square, made of flat strips of wood nailed one on top of the other, and so overlapping each other at the corners that alternately a longitudinal and a transverse batten extends past the corner. The gaps are filled by short pieces of timber securely nailed, and the whole silo wall is thus solid. This type of bin was formerly in great favour, but it has certain drawbacks, such as the possibility of dry rot, while weevils are apt to harbour in the interstices unless lime washing is practised. Bricks and cement are good materials for constructing silos of hexagonal form, but necessitate deep foundations and substantial walls. Iron silos of circular form are used to some extent in Great Britain, but are more common in North and South America. In their case the walls are much thinner than with any other material, but the condensation against the inner wall in wet weather is a drawback in damp climates. Cylindrical tank silos have also been made of fire-proof tiles. Ferro-concrete silos have been built on both the Monier and the Hennebique systems. In the earlier type the bin was made of an iron or steel framework filled in with concrete, but more recent structures are composed entirely of steel rods embedded in cement. Granaries built of this material have the great advantage, if properly constructed, of being free from any risk of failure even in case of uneven expansion of the material. With brick silos collapses through pressure of the stored material are not unknown.

One of the largest and most complete grain elevators or warehouses in the world belongs to the Canadian Northern Railway Company, and was erected at Port Arthur, Canada, in 1901-1904. It has a total storage capacity of 7,000,000 bushels, or 875,000 qrs. of 480 ℔. The range of buildings and bins forms an oblong, and consists of two storage houses, B and C, placed between two working or receiving houses A and D (fig. 1). The receiving houses are fed by railway sidings. House A, for example, has two sidings, one running through it and the other beside it. Each siding serves five receiving pits, and a receiving elevator of 10,000 ℔ capacity per minute, or 60,000 bushels per hour, can draw grain from either of two pits. Five elevators of 12,000 bushels per hour on the other side of the house serve five warehouse separators, and all the grain received or discharged is weighed, there being ten sets of automatic scales in the upper part of the house, known as the cupola. The hopper of each weigher can take a charge of 1400 bushels (84,000 ℔). Grain can be conveyed either vertically or horizontally to any part of the house, into any of the bins in the annex B, or into any truck or lake steamer. This house is constructed of timber and roofed with corrugated iron. The conveyor belts are 36 in. wide; those at the top of the house are provided with throw-off carriages. The dust from the cleaning machinery is carefully collected and spouted to the furnace under the boiler house, where it is consumed. The cylindrical silo bins in the storage houses consist of hollow tiles of burned clay which, it is claimed, are fire-proof. The tiles are laid on end and are about 12 in. by 12 in. and from 4 in. to 6 in. in thickness according to the size of the bin. Each alternate course consists of grooved blocks of channel tile forming a continuous groove or belt round the bin. This groove receives a steel band acting as a tension member and resisting the lateral pressure of the grain. The steel bands once in position, the groove is completely filled with cement grout by which the steel is encased and protected. Usually the bottoms of the bins are furnished with self-discharging hoppers of weak cinder or gravel concrete finished with cement mortar. For the foundation or supporting floor reinforced concrete is frequently used. The tiles already described are faced with tiles ½ to 1 in. thick, which are laid solid in cement mortar covering the whole exterior of the bin. Any damage to the facing tiles can easily be repaired since they can be removed and replaced without affecting the main bin walls. It is claimed that these facers constitute the best possible protection against fire. A steel framework, covered with tiles, crowns these circular bins and contains the conveyors and spouts which are used to fill the bins. Five tunnels in the concrete bedding that supports the bins carry the belt conveyors which bring back the grain to the working house for cleaning or shipment. There are altogether in each of the storage houses 80 circular bins, each 21 ft. in diameter, and so grouped as to form 63 smaller interspace bins, or 143 bins in all. Each bin will store grain in a column 85 ft. deep, and the whole group has a capacity of 2,500,000 bushels. These bins were all constructed by the Barnett & Record Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.A., in accordance with the Johnson & Record patent system of fire-proof tile grain storage construction. In case one of the working houses is attacked by fire the fire-proof storage houses protect not only their own contents but also the other working house, and in the event of its disablement or destruction the remaining one can be easily connected with both the storage houses and handle their contents.

Circular tank silos have not been extensively adopted in Great Britain, but a typical silo tank installation exists at the Walmsley & Smith flour mills which stand beside the Devonshire dock at Barrow-in-Furness. There four circular bins, built of riveted steel plates, stand in a group on a quadrangle close to the mill warehouse. A covered gantry, through which passes a band conveyor, runs from the mill warehouse to the working silo house which stands in the central space amid the four steel tanks. The tanks are 70 ft. high, with a diameter of 45 ft., and rest on foundations of concrete and steel. Each has a separate conical roof and they are flat-bottomed, the grain resting directly on the steel and concrete foundation bed. As the load of the full tank is very heavy its even distribution on the bed is considered a point of importance. Each tank can hold about 2500 tons of wheat, which gives a total storage capacity for the four bins of over 45,000 qrs. of 480 ℔. Attached to the mill warehouse is a skip elevator with a discharging capacity of 75 tons an hour. The grain is cleared by this elevator from the hold or holds of the vessel to be unloaded, and is delivered to the basement of the warehouse. Thence it is elevated to an upper storey and passed through an automatic weigher capable of taking a charge of 1 ton. From the weighing machine it can be taken, with or without a preliminary cleaning, to any floor of the warehouse, which has a total storing capacity of 8000 tons, or it can be carried by the band conveyor through the gantry to the working house of the silo installation and distributed to any one of the four tank silos. There is also a connexion by a band conveyor running through a covered gantry into the mill, which stands immediately in the rear. It is perfectly easy to turn over the contents of any tank into any other tank. The whole intake and wheat handling plant is moved by two electro-motors of 35 H.P. each, one installed in the warehouse and the other in the silo working house. Steel silo tanks have the advantage of storing a heavy stock of wheat at comparatively small capital outlay. On an average an ordinary silo bin will not hold more than 500 to 1000 qrs., but each of the bins at Barrow will contain 2500 tons or over 1100 qrs. The steel construction also reduces the risk of fire and consequently lessens the fire premium.

The important granaries at the Liverpool docks date from 1868, but have since been brought up to modern requirements. The warehouses on the Waterloo docks have an aggregate storage area of 11¾ acres, while the sister warehouses on the Birkenhead side, which stand on the margin of the great float, have an area of 11 acres. The total capacity of these warehouses is about 200,000 qrs.

The grain warehouse of the Manchester docks at Trafford wharf is locally known as the grain elevator, because it was built to a great extent on the model of an American elevator. Some of the mechanical equipment was supplied by a Chicago firm. The total capacity is 1,500,000 bushels or 40,000 tons of grain, which is stored in 226 separate bins. The granary proper stands about 340 ft. from the side of the dock, but is directly connected with the receiving tower, which rises at the water’s edge, by a band conveyor protected by a gantry. The main building is 448 ft. long by 80 ft. wide; the whole of the superstructure was constructed of wood with an external casing of brickwork and tiles. The receiving tower is fitted with a bucket elevator capable, within fairly wide limits, of adjustment to the level of the hold to be unloaded. The elevator has the large unloading capacity of 350 tons per hour, assuming it to be working in a full hold. It is supplemented by a pneumatic elevator (Duckham system) which can raise 200 tons per hour and is used chiefly in dealing with parcels of grain or in clearing grain out of holds which the ordinary elevator cannot reach. The power required to work the large elevator as well as the various band conveyors is supplied by two sets of horizontal Corliss compound engines of 500 H.P. jointly, which are fed by two Galloway boilers working at 100 ℔ pressure. The pneumatic elevator is driven by two sets of triple expansion vertical engines of 600 H.P. fed by three boilers working at a pressure of 160 ℔. The grain received in the tower is automatically weighed. From the receiving tower the grain is conveyed into the warehouse where it is at once elevated to the top of a central tower, and is thence distributed to any of the bins by band conveyors in the usual way. The mechanical equipment of this warehouse is very complete, and the following several operations can be simultaneously effected: discharging grain from vessels in the dock at the rate of 350 tons per hour; weighing in the tower; conveying grain into the warehouse and distributing it into any of the 226 bins; moving grain from bin to bin either for aerating or delivery, and simultaneously weighing in bulk at the rate of 500 tons per hour; sacking grain, weighing and loading the sacks into 40 railway trucks and 10 carts simultaneously; loading grain from the warehouse into barges or coasting craft at the rate of 150 tons per hour in bulk or of 250 sacks per hour. This warehouse is equipped with a dryer of American construction, which can deal with 50 tons of damp grain at one time, and is connected with the whole bin system so that grain can be readily moved from any bin to the dryer or conversely.

A grain warehouse at the Victoria docks, London, belonging to the London and India Docks Company (fig. 2) has a storing capacity of about 25,000 qrs. or 200,000 bushels. It is over 100 ft. high, and is built on the American plan of interlaced timbers resting on iron columns. The walls are externally cased with steel plates. The grain is stored in 56 silos, most of which are about 10 ft. square by 50 ft. deep. The intake plant has a capacity of 100 tons of wheat an hour, and includes six automatic grain scales, each of which can weigh off one sack at a time. The main delivery floor of the warehouse is at a convenient height above the ground level. Portable automatic weighing machines can be placed under any bin. The whole of the plant is driven by electric motors, one being allotted to each machine.

The transit silos of the London Grain Elevator Company, also at the Victoria docks, consist of four complete and independent installations standing on three tongues of land which project into the water (figs. 2 and 3). Each silo house is furnished with eight bins, each of which, 12 ft. square by 80 ft. deep, has a capacity of 1000 qrs. of grain. A kind of well in the middle of each silo house contains the necessary elevators, staircases, &c. The silo bins in each granary are erected on a massive cast iron tank forming a sort of cellar, which rests on a concrete foundation 6 ft. thick. The base of the tank is 30 ft. below the water level. The silos are formed of wooden battens nailed one on top of the other, the pieces interlacing. Rolled steel girders resting on cast iron columns support the silos. To ensure a clean discharge the hopper bottoms were designed so as to avoid joints and thus to be free from rivets or similar protuberances. The exterior of each silo house is covered with corrugated iron, and the same material is used for the roofing. No conveyors serve the silo bins, as the elevators which rise above the tops of the silos can feed any one of them by gravity. There are three delivery elevators to each granary, one with a capacity of 120 tons and the other two of 100 tons each an hour. Each silo house is served by a large elevator with a capacity of 120 tons per hour, which discharges into the elevator well inside the house. The delivery elevators discharge into a receiving shed in which there is a large hopper feeding six automatic weighing machines. Each charge as it is weighed empties itself automatically into sacks, which are then ready for loading. Each pair of warehouses is provided with a conveyor band 308 ft. long, used either for carrying sacks from the weighing sheds to railway trucks or for carrying grain in bulk to barges or trucks. Each silo house has an identical mechanical equipment apart from the delivery band it shares with its fellow warehouse. All operations in connexion with the silo houses are effected under cover. The silos are normally fed by a fleet of twenty-six of Philip’s patent self-discharging lighters. These craft are hopper-bottomed and fitted with band conveyors of the ordinary type, running between the double keelson of the lighter and delivering into an elevator erected at the stern of the lighter. By this means little trimming is required after the barge, which holds about 200 tons of grain, has been cleared. Ocean steamers of such draft as to preclude their entry into any of the up river docks are cleared at Tilbury by these lighters. It is said that grain loaded at Tilbury into these lighters can be delivered from the transit silos to railway trucks or barges in about six hours. The total storage capacity of the silos amounts to 32,000 qrs. The motive power is furnished by 14 gas engines of a total capacity of 366 H.P.

Two of the largest granaries on the continent of Europe are situated at the mouth of the Danube, at Braila and Galatz, in Rumania, and serve for both the reception and discharge of grain. At the edge of the quay on which these warehouses are built there are rails with a gauge of 11½ ft., upon which run two mechanical loading and unloading appliances. The first consists of a telescopic elevator which raises the grain and delivers it to one of the two band conveyors at the head of the apparatus. Each of these bands feeds automatic weighing machines with an hourly capacity of 75 tons. From these weighers the grain is either discharged through a manhole in the ground to a band conveyor running in a tunnel parallel to the quay wall, or it is raised by a second elevator (part of the same unloading apparatus), set at an inclined angle, which delivers at a sufficient height to load railway trucks on the siding running parallel to the quay. A turning gear is provided so as to reverse, if required, the operation of the whole apparatus, that the portion overhanging the water can be turned to the land side. The unloading capacity is 150 tons of grain per hour. If it be desired to load a ship the telescopic elevator has only to be turned round and dipped into any one of 15 wells, which can be filled up with grain from the land side. The capacity of each granary is 233,333 qrs.

Many large granaries have been built, in which grain is stored on open floors, in bulk or in sacks. A notable instance is the warehouse of the city of Stuttgart. This is a structure of seven floors, including a basement and entresol. An engine house accommodates two gas engines as well as an hydraulic installation for the lifts. The grain is received by an elevator from the railway trucks, and is delivered to a weighing machine from which it is carried by a second elevator to the top storey, where it is fed to a band running the length of the building. A system of pipes runs from floor to floor, and by means of the band conveyor with its movable throw-off carriage grain can be shot to any floor. A second band conveyor is installed in the entresol floor, and serves to convey grain either to the elevator, if it is desired to elevate it to the top floor, or to the loading shed. A second elevator runs through the centre of the building, and is provided with a spout by means of which grain can be delivered into the hopper feeding the cleaning machine, whence the grain passes into a second hopper under which is an automatic weigher; directly under this weigher the grain is sacked.

A good example of a grain warehouse on the combined silo bin and floor storage system is afforded by the granary at Mannheim on the Rhine, which has the storage capacity of 2100 tons. The building is 370 ft. in length, 78 ft. wide and 78 ft. high, and by means of transverse walls it is divided into three sections; of these one contains silos, in another section grain is stored on open floors, while the third, which is situated between the other two, is the grain-cleaning department. This granary stands by the quay side, and a ship elevator of great capacity, which serves the cleaning department, can rapidly clear any ship or barge beneath. The central or screening house section contains machinery specially designed for cleaning barley as well as wheat. The barley plant has a capacity of 5 tons per hour. There are four main elevators in this warehouse, while two more serve the screen house. The usual band conveyors fitted with throw-off carriages are provided, and are supplemented by an elaborate system of pipes which receive grain from the elevators and bands and distribute it at any required point. The plant is operated by electric motors. If desired the floors of the non-silo section can be utilized for storing other goods than grain, and to this end a lift with a capacity of 1 ton runs from the basement to the top storey. The combined capacity of the elevators and conveyors is 100 tons of grain per hour. The mechanical equipment is so complete that four distinct operations are claimed as possible. A ship may be unloaded into silos or into the granary floors, and may simultaneously be loaded either from silos or floors with different kinds of grain. Again, a cargo may be discharged either into silos or upon the floors, and simultaneously the grain may be cleaned. Grain may also be cleared from a vessel, mixed with other grain already received, and then distributed to any desired point. With equal facility grain may be cleaned, blended with other varieties, re-stored in any section of the granary, and transferred from one ship to another.

A granary with special features of interest, erected on the quay at Dortmund, Germany, by a co-operative society, is built of brick on a base of hewn stone, with beams and supports of timber. It is 78 ft. high and consists of seven floors, including basement and attic. Here again there are two sections, the larger being devoted to the storage of grain in low bins, while the smaller section consists of an ordinary silo house. Grain in sacks may be stored in the basement of the larger section which has a capacity of 1675 tons as compared with 825 tons in the silo department. Thus the total storage capacity is 2500 tons. In the silo house the bins, constructed of planks nailed one over the other, are of varying size and are capable of storing grain to a depth of 42 to 47 ft. Some of the bins have been specially adapted for receiving damp grain by being provided internally with transverse wooden arms which form square or lozenge-shaped sections. The object of this arrangement is to break up and aerate the stored grain. The arms are of triangular section and are slightly hollowed at the base so as to bring a current of air into direct contact with the grain. The air can be warmed if necessary. The other and larger section of the granary is provided with 105 bins of moderate height arranged in groups of 21 on the five floors between the basement and attic. On the intermediate floors and the bottom floor each bin lies exactly under the bin above. Grain is not stored in these bins to a greater depth than 5 ft. The bins are fitted with removable side walls, and damp grain is only stored in certain bins aerated for half the area of their side walls through a wire mesh. The arrangements for distributing grain in this warehouse are very complete. The uncleaned grain is taken by the receiving elevator, with a lifting capacity of 20 tons per hour, to a warehouse separator, whence it is passed through an automatic weigher and is then either sacked or spouted to the main elevator (capacity 25 tons per hour) and elevated to the attic. From the head of this main elevator the grain can either be fed to a bin in one or other of the main granary floors, or shot to one of the bins in the silo house. In the attic the grain is carried by a spout and belt conveyor to one or other of the turntables, as the appliances may be termed, which serve to distribute through spouts the grain to any one of the floor or silo bins. Alternatively, the grain may be shot into the basement and there fed back into the main elevator by a band conveyor. In this way the grain may be turned over as often as it is deemed necessary. At the bottom of each bin are four apertures connected by spouts, both with the bin below and with the central vertical pipe which passes down through the centre of each group of bins. To regulate the course of the grain from bin to bin or from bin to central pipe, the connecting spouts are fitted with valves of ingenious yet simple construction which deflect the grain in any desired direction, so that the contents of two or more bins may be blended, or grain may be transferred from a bin on one floor to a bin on a lower floor, missing the bin on the floor between. The valves are controlled by chains from the basement.

With reference to the floor bins used at Dortmund, it may be observed that there are granaries built on a similar principle in the United Kingdom. It is probable that bins of moderate height are more suitable for storing grain containing a considerable amount of moisture than deep silos, whether made of wood, ferro-concrete or other material. For one thing floor bins of the Dortmund pattern can be more effectually aerated than deep silos. German wheat has many characteristics in common with British, and, especially in north Germany, is not infrequently harvested in a more or less damp condition. In the United Kingdom, Messrs Spencer & Co., of Melksham, have erected several granaries on the floor-bin principle, and have adopted an ingenious system of “telescopic” spouting, by means of which grain may be discharged from one bin to another or at any desired point. This spouting can be applied to bins either with level floors or with hoppered bottoms, if they are arranged one above the other on the different floors, and is so constructed that an opening can be effected at certain points by simply sliding upwards a section of the spout.

National Granaries.—Wheat forms the staple food of a large proportion of the population of the British Isles, and of the total amount consumed about four-fifths is sea-borne. The stocks normally held in the country being limited, serious consequences might result from any interruption of the supply, such as might occur were Great Britain involved in war with a power or powers commanding a strong fleet. To meet this contingency it has been suggested that the State should establish granaries containing a national reserve of wheat for use in emergency, or should adopt measures calculated to induce merchants, millers, &c., to hold larger stocks than at present and to stimulate the production of home-grown wheat.

Stocks of wheat (and of flour expressed in its equivalent weight of wheat) are held by merchants, millers and farmers. Merchants’ stocks are kept in granaries at ports of importation and are known as first-hand stocks. Stocks of wheat and flour in the hands of millers and of flour held by bakers are termed second-hand stocks, while farmers’ stocks only consist of native wheat. Periodical returns are generally made of first-hand or port stocks, nor should a wide margin of error be possible in the case of farmers’ stocks, but second-hand stocks are more difficult to gauge. Since the last decade of the 19th century the storage capacity of British mills has considerably increased. As the number of small mills has diminished the capacity of the bigger ones has increased, and proportionately their warehousing accommodation has been enlarged. At the present time first-hand stocks tend to diminish because a larger proportion of millers’ holdings are in mill granaries and silo houses. The immense preponderance of steamers over sailing vessels in the grain trade has also had the effect of greatly diminishing stocks. With his cargo or parcel on a steamer a corn merchant can tell almost to a day when it will be due. In fact foreign wheat owned by British merchants is to a great extent stored in foreign granaries in preference to British warehouses. The merchant’s risk is thereby lessened to a certain extent. When his wheat has been brought into a British port, to send it farther afield means extra expense. But wheat in an American or Argentine elevator may be ordered wherever the best price can be obtained for it. Options or “futures,” too, have helped to restrict the size of wheat stocks in the United Kingdom. A merchant buys a cargo of wheat on passage for arrival at a definite time, and, lest the market value of grain should have depreciated by the time it arrives, he sells an option against it. In this way he hedges his deal, the option serving as insurance against loss. This is why the British corn trade finds it less risky to limit purchases to bare needs, protecting itself by option deals, than to store large quantities which may depreciate and involve their owners in loss.

Varying estimates have been made of the number of weeks’ supply of breadstuffs (wheat and flour) held by millers at various seasons of the year. A table compiled by the secretary of the National Association of British and Irish Millers from returns for 1902 made by 170 milling firms showed 4.7, 4.9, 4.9 and 5 weeks’ supply at the end of March, June, September and December respectively. These 170 mills were said to represent 46% of the milling capacity of the United Kingdom, and claimed to have ground 12,000,000 qrs. out of 25,349,000 qrs. milled in 1902. These were obviously large mills; it is probable that the other mills would not have shown anything like such a proportion of stock of either raw or finished material. A fair estimate of the stocks normally held by millers and bakers throughout the United Kingdom would be about four weeks’ supply. First-hand stocks vary considerably, but the limits are definite, ranging from 1,000,000 to 3,500,000 qrs., the latter being a high figure. The tendency is for first-hand stocks to decline, but two weeks’ supply must be a minimum. Farmers’ stocks necessarily vary with the size of the crop and the period of the year; they will range from 9 or 10 weeks on the 1st of September to a half week on the 1st of August. Taking all the stocks together, it is very exceptional for the stock of breadstuffs to fall below 7 weeks’ supply. Between the cereal years 1893-1894 and 1903-1904, a period of 570 weeks, the stocks of all kinds fell below 7 weeks’ supply in only 9 weeks; of these 9 weeks 7 were between the beginning of June and the end of August 1898. This was immediately after the Leiter collapse. In seven of these eleven years there is no instance of stocks falling below 8 weeks’ supply. In 21 out of these 570 weeks and in 39 weeks during the same period stocks dropped below 7½ and 8 weeks’ supply respectively. Roughly speaking the stock of wheat available for bread-making varies from a two to four months’ supply and is at times well above the latter figure.

The formation of a national reserve of wheat, to be held at the disposal of the state in case of urgent need during war, is beset by many practical difficulties. The father of the scheme was probably The Miller, a well-known trade journal. In March and April 1886 two articles appeared in that paper under the heading “Years of Plenty and State Granaries,” in which it was urged that to meet the risk of hostile cruisers interrupting the supplies it would be desirable to lay up in granaries on British soil and under government control a stock of wheat sufficient for 12 or alternatively 6 months’ consumption. This was to be national property, not to be touched except when the fortune of war sent up the price of wheat to a famine level or caused severe distress. The State holding this large stock—a year’s supply of foreign grain would have meant at least 15,000,000 qrs., and have cost about £25,000,000 exclusive of warehousing—was in peace time to sell no wheat except when it became necessary to part with stock as a precautionary measure. In that case the wheat sold was to be replaced by the same amount of new grain. The idea was to provide the country with a supply of wheat until sufficient wheat-growing soil could be broken up to make it practically self-sufficing in respect of wheat. The original suggestion fell quite flat. Two years later Captain Warren, R.N., read a paper on “Great Britain’s Corn Supplies in War,” before the London Chamber of Commerce, and accepted national granaries as the only practicable safeguard against what appeared to him a great peril. The representatives of the shipping interest opposed the scheme, probably because it appeared to them likely to divert the public from insisting on an all-powerful navy. The corn trade opposed the project on account of its great practical difficulties. But constant contraction of the British wheat acreage kept the question alive, and during the earlier half of the ’nineties it was a favourite theme with agriculturists. Some influential members of parliament pressed the matter on the government, who, acting, no doubt, on the advice of their military and naval experts, refused either a royal commission or a departmental committee. While the then technical advisers of the government were divided on the advisability of establishing national granaries as a defensive measure, the balance of expert opinion was adverse to the scheme. Lord Wolseley, then commander-in-chief, publicly stigmatized the theory that Great Britain might in war be starved into submission as “unmitigated humbug.”

In spite of official discouragement the agitation continued, and early in 1897 the council of the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture, at the suggestion to a great extent of Mr R. A. Yerburgh, M.P., nominated a committee to examine the question of national wheat stores. This committee held thirteen sittings and examined fifty-four witnesses. Its report, which was published (L. G. Newman & Co., 12 Finsbury Square, London, E.C.) with minutes of the evidence taken, practically recommended that a national reserve of wheat on the lines already sketched should be formed and administered by the State, and that the government should be strongly urged to obtain the appointment of a royal commission, comprising representatives of agriculture, the corn trade, shipping, and the army and navy, to conduct an exhaustive inquiry into the whole subject of the national food-supply in case of war. This recommendation was ultimately carried into effect, but not till nearly five years had elapsed. Of two schemes for national granaries put before the Yerburgh committee, one was formulated by Mr Seth Taylor, a London miller and corn merchant, who reckoned that a store of 10,000,000 qrs. of wheat might be accumulated at an average cost of 40s. per qr.—this was in the Leiter year of high prices—and distributed in six specially constructed granaries to be erected at London, Liverpool, Hull, Bristol, Glasgow and Dublin. The cost of the granaries was put at £7,500,000. Mr Taylor’s scheme, all charges included, such as 2½% interest on capital, cost of storage (at 6d. per qr.), and 2s. per qr. for cost of replacing wheat, involved an annual expenditure of £1,250,000. The Yerburgh committee also considered a proposal to stimulate the home supply of wheat by offering a bounty to farmers for every quarter of wheat grown. This proposal has taken different shapes; some have suggested that a bounty should be given on every acre of land covered with wheat, while others would only allow the bounty on wheat raised and kept in good condition up to a certain date, say the beginning of the following harvest. It is obvious that a bounty on the area of land covered by wheat, irrespective of yield, would be a premium on poor farming, and might divert to wheat-growing land unsuitable for that purpose. The suggestion to pay a bounty of say 3s. to 5s. per qr. for all wheat grown and stacked for a certain time stands on a different basis; it is conceivable that a bounty of 5s. might expand the British production of wheat from say 7,000,000 to 9,000,000 qrs., which would mean that a bounty of £2,250,000 per annum, plus costs of administration, had secured an extra home production of 2,000,000 qrs. Whether such a price would be worth paying is another matter; the Yerburgh committee’s conclusion was decidedly in the negative. It has also been suggested that the State might subsidize millers to the extent of 2s. 6d. per sack of 280 ℔. per annum on condition that each maintained a minimum supply of two months’ flour. This may be taken to mean that for keeping a special stock of flour over and above his usual output a miller would be entitled to an annual subsidy of 2s. 6d. per sack. An extra stock of 10,000,000 sacks might be thus kept up at an annual cost of £1,250,000, plus the expenditure of administration, which would probably be heavy. With regard to this suggestion, it is very probable that a few large mills which have plenty of warehouse accommodation and depots all over the country would be ready to keep up a permanent extra stock of 100,000 sacks. Thus a mill of 10,000 sacks’ capacity per week, which habitually maintains a total stock of 50,000 sacks, might bring up its stock to 150,000 sacks. Such a mill, being a good customer to railways, could get from them the storage it required for little or nothing. But the bulk of the mills have no such advantages. They have little or no spare warehousing room, and are not accustomed to keep any stock, sending their flour out almost as fast as it is milled. It is doubtful therefore if a bounty of 2s. 6d. per sack would have the desired effect of keeping up a stock of 10,000,000 sacks, sufficient for two to three months’ bread consumption.

The controversy reached a climax in the royal commission appointed in 1903, to which was also referred the importation of raw material in war time. Its report appeared in 1905. To the question whether the unquestioned dependence of the United Kingdom on an uninterrupted supply of sea-borne breadstuffs renders it advisable or not to maintain at all times a six months’ stock of wheat and flour, it returned no decided answer, or perhaps it would be more correct to say that the commission was hopelessly divided. The main report was distinctly optimistic so far as the liability of the country to harass and distress at the hands of a hostile naval power or combination of powers was concerned. But there were several dissentients, and there was hardly any portion of the report in chief which did not provoke some reservation or another. That a maritime war would cause freights and insurance to rise in a high degree was freely admitted, and it was also admitted that the price of bread must also rise very appreciably. But, provided the navy did not break down, the risk of starvation was dismissed. Therefore all the proposals for providing national granaries or inducing merchants and millers to carry bigger stocks were put aside as unpractical and unnecessary. The commission was, however, inclined to consider more favourably a suggestion for providing free storage for wheat at the expense of the State. The idea was that if the State would subsidize any large granary company to the extent of 6d. or 5d. per qr., grain now warehoused in foreign lands would be attracted to the British Isles. But on the whole the commission held that the main effect of the scheme would be to saddle the government with the rent of all grain stored in public warehouses in the United Kingdom without materially increasing stocks. The proposal to offer bounties to farmers to hold stocks for a longer period and to grow more wheat met with equally little favour.

To sum up the advantages of national granaries, assuming any sort of disaster to the navy, the possession of a reserve of even six months’ wheat-supply in addition to ordinary stocks would prevent panic prices. On the other hand, the difficulties in the way of forming and administering such a reserve are very great. The world grows no great surplus of wheat, and to form a six months’, much more a twelve months’, stock would be the work of years. The government in buying up the wheat would have to go carefully if they would avoid sending up prices with a rush. They would have to buy dearly, and when they let go a certain amount of stock they would be bound to sell cheaply. A stock once formed might be held by the State with little or no disturbance of the corn market, although the existence of such an emergency stock would hardly encourage British farmers to grow more wheat. The cost of erecting, equipping and keeping in good order the necessary warehouses would be, probably, much heavier than the most liberal estimate hitherto made by advocates of national granaries.

(G. F. Z.)

GRANBY, JOHN MANNERS, Marquess of (1721-1770), British soldier, was the eldest son of the third duke of Rutland. He was born in 1721 and educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge, and was returned as member of parliament for Grantham in 1741. Four years later he received a commission as colonel of a regiment raised by the Rutland interest in and about Leicester to assist in quelling the Highland revolt of 1745. This corps never got beyond Newcastle, but young Granby went to the front as a volunteer on the duke of Cumberland’s staff, and saw active service in the last stages of the insurrection. Very soon his regiment was disbanded. He continued in parliament, combining with it military duties, making the campaign of Flanders (1747). Promoted major-general in 1755, three years later he was appointed colonel of the Royal Horse Guards (Blues). Meanwhile he had married the daughter of the duke of Somerset, and in 1754 had begun his parliamentary connexion with Cambridgeshire, for which county he sat until his death. The same year that saw Granby made colonel of the Blues, saw also the despatch of a considerable British contingent to Germany. Minden was Granby’s first great battle. At the head of the Blues he was one of the cavalry leaders halted at the critical moment by Sackville, and when in consequence that officer was sent home in disgrace, Lieut.-General Lord Granby succeeded to the command of the British contingent in Ferdinand’s army, having 32,000 men under his orders at the beginning of 1760. In the remaining campaigns of the Seven Years’ War the English contingent was more conspicuous by its conduct than the Prussians themselves. On the 31st of July 1760 Granby brilliantly stormed Warburg at the head of the British cavalry, capturing 1500 men and ten pieces of artillery. A year later (15th of July 1761) the British defended the heights of Vellinghausen with what Ferdinand himself styled “indescribable bravery.” In the last campaign, at Gravenstein und Wilhelmsthal, Homburg and Cassel, Granby’s men bore the brunt of the fighting and earned the greatest share of the glory.

Returning to England in 1763 the marquess found himself the popular hero of the war. It is said that couriers awaited his arrival at all the home ports to offer him the choice of the Ordnance or the Horse Guards. His appointment to the Ordnance bore the date of the 1st of July 1763, and three years later he became commander-in-chief. In this position he was attacked by “Junius,” and a heated discussion arose, as the writer had taken the greatest pains in assailing the most popular member of the Grafton ministry. In 1770 Granby, worn out by political and financial trouble, resigned all his offices, except the colonelcy of the Blues. He died at Scarborough on the 18th of October 1770. He had been made a privy councillor in 1760, lord lieutenant of Derbyshire in 1762, and LL.D. of Cambridge in 1769.

Two portraits of Granby were painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds, one of which is now in the National Gallery. His contemporary popularity is indicated by the number of inns and public-houses which took his name and had his portrait as sign-board.

GRAN CHACO, an extensive region in the heart of South America belonging to the La Plata basin, stretching from 20° to 29° S. lat., and divided between the republics of Argentine, Bolivia and Paraguay, with a small district of south-western Matto Grosso (Brazil). Its area is estimated at from 250,000 to 425,000 sq. m., but the true Chaco region probably does not exceed 300,000 sq. m. The greater part is covered with marshes, lagoons and dense tropical jungle and forest, and is still unexplored. On its southern and western borders there are extensive tracts of open woodland, intermingled with grassy plains, while on the northern side in Bolivia are large areas of open country subject to inundations in the rainy season. In general terms the Gran Chaco may be described as a great plain sloping gently to the S.E., traversed in the same direction by two great rivers, the Pilcomayo and Bermejo, whose sluggish courses are not navigable because of sand-banks, barriers of overturned trees and floating vegetation, and confusing channels. This excludes that part of eastern Bolivia belonging to the Amazon basin, which is sometimes described as part of the Chaco. The greater part of its territory is occupied by nomadic tribes of Indians, some of whom are still unsubdued, while others, like the Matacos, are sometimes to be found on neighbouring sugar estates and estancias as labourers during the busy season. The forest wealth of the Chaco region is incalculable and apparently inexhaustible, consisting of a great variety of palms and valuable cabinet woods, building timber, &c. Its extensive tracts of “quebracho Colorado” (Loxopterygium Lorentzii) are of very great value because of its use in tanning leather. Both the wood and its extract are largely exported. Civilization is slowly gaining footholds in this region along the southern and eastern borders.

GRAND ALLIANCE, WAR OF THE (alternatively called the War of the League of Augsburg), the third of the great aggressive wars waged by Louis XIV. of France against Spain, the Empire, Great Britain, Holland and other states. The two earlier wars, which are redeemed from oblivion by the fact that in them three great captains, Turenne, Condé and Montecucculi, played leading parts, are described in the article Dutch Wars. In the third war the leading figures are: Henri de Montmorency-Boutteville, duke of Luxemburg, the former aide-de-camp of Condé and heir to his daring method of warfare; William of Orange, who had fought against both Condé and Luxemburg in the earlier wars, and was now king of England; Vauban, the founder of the sciences of fortification and siegecraft, and Catinat, the follower of Turenne’s cautious and systematic strategy, who was the first commoner to receive high command in the army of Louis XIV. But as soldiers, these men—except Vauban—are overshadowed by the great figures of the preceding generation, and except for a half-dozen outstanding episodes, the war of 1689-97 was an affair of positions and manœuvres.

It was within these years that the art and practice of war began to crystallize into the form called “linear” in its strategic and tactical aspect, and “cabinet-war” in its political and moral aspect. In the Dutch wars, and in the minor wars that preceded the formation of the League of Augsburg, there were still survivals of the loose organization, violence and wasteful barbarity typical of the Thirty Years’ War; and even in the War of the Grand Alliance (in its earlier years) occasional brutalities and devastations showed that the old spirit died hard. But outrages that would have been borne in dumb misery in the old days now provoked loud indignation, and when the fierce Louvois disappeared from the scene it became generally understood that barbarity was impolitic, not only as alienating popular sympathies, but also as rendering operations a physical impossibility for want of supplies.

Thus in 1700, so far from terrorizing the country people into submission, armies systematically conciliated them by paying cash and bringing trade into the country. Formerly, wars had been fought to compel a people to abjure their faith or to change sides in some personal or dynastic quarrel. But since 1648 this had no longer been the case. The Peace of Westphalia established the general relationship of kings, priests and peoples on a basis that was not really shaken until the French Revolution, and in the intervening hundred and forty years the peoples at large, except at the highest and gravest moments (as in Germany in 1689, France In 1709 and Prussia in 1757) held aloof from active participation in politics and war. This was the beginning of the theory that war was an affair of the regular forces only, and that intervention in it by the civil population was a punishable offence. Thus wars became the business of the professional soldiers in the king’s own service, and the scarcity and costliness of these soldiers combined with the purely political character of the quarrels that arose to reduce a campaign from an “intense and passionate drama” to a humdrum affair, to which only rarely a few men of genius imparted some degree of vigour, and which in the main was an attempt to gain small ends by a small expenditure of force and with the minimum of risk. As between a prince and his subjects there were still quarrels that stirred the average man—the Dragonnades, for instance, or the English Revolution—but foreign wars were “a stronger form of diplomatic notes,” as Clausewitz called them, and were waged with the object of adding a codicil to the treaty of peace that had closed the last incident.

Other causes contributed to stifle the former ardour of war. Campaigns were no longer conducted by armies of ten to thirty thousand men. Large regular armies had come into fashion, and, as Guibert points out, instead of small armies charged with grand operations we find grand armies charged with small operations. The average general, under the prevailing conditions of supply and armament, was not equal to the task of commanding such armies. Any real concentration of the great forces that Louis XIV. had created was therefore out of the question, and the field armies split into six or eight independent fractions, each charged with operations on a particular theatre of war. From such a policy nothing remotely resembling the crushing of a great power could be expected to be gained. The one tangible asset, in view of future peace negotiations, was therefore a fortress, and it was on the preservation or capture of fortresses that operations in all these wars chiefly turned. The idea of the decisive battle for its own sake, as a settlement of the quarrel, was far distant; for, strictly speaking, there was no quarrel, and to use up highly trained and exceedingly expensive soldiers in gaining by brute force an advantage that might equally well be obtained by chicanery was regarded as foolish.

The fortress was, moreover, of immediate as well as contingent value to a state at war. A century of constant warfare had impoverished middle Europe, and armies had to spread over a large area if they desired to “live on the country.” This was dangerous in the face of the enemy (cf. the Peninsular War), and it was also uneconomical. The only way to prevent the country people from sending their produce into the fortresses for safety was to announce beforehand that cash would be paid, at a high rate, for whatever the army needed. But even promises rarely brought this about, and to live at all, whether on supplies brought up from the home country and stored in magazines (which had to be guarded) or on local resources, an army had as a rule to maintain or to capture a large fortress. Sieges, therefore, and manœuvres are the features of this form of war, wherein armies progressed not with the giant strides of modern war, but in a succession of short hops from one foothold to the next. This was the procedure of the average commander, and even when a more intense spirit of conflict was evoked by the Luxemburgs and Marlboroughs it was but momentary and spasmodic.

The general character of the war being borne in mind, nine-tenths of its marches and manœuvres can be almost “taken as read”; the remaining tenth, the exceptional and abnormal part of it, alone possesses an interest for modern readers.

In pursuance of a new aggressive policy in Germany Louis XIV. sent his troops, as a diplomatic menace rather than for conquest, into that country in the autumn of 1688. Some of their raiding parties plundered the country as far south as Augsburg, for the political intent of their advance suggested terrorism rather than conciliation as the best method. The league of Augsburg at once took up the challenge, and the addition of new members (Treaty of Vienna, May 1689) converted it into the “Grand Alliance” of Spain, Holland, Sweden, Savoy and certain Italian states, Great Britain, the emperor, the elector of Brandenburg, &c.

“Those who condemned the king for raising up so many enemies, admired him for having so fully prepared to defend himself and even to forestall them,” says Voltaire. Louvois had in fact completed the work of organizing the French army on a regular and permanent basis, and had made it not merely the best, but also by far the most numerous in Europe, for Louis disposed in 1688 of no fewer than 375,000 soldiers and 60,000 sailors. The infantry was uniformed and drilled, and the socket bayonet and the flint-lock musket had been introduced. The only relic of the old armament was the pike, which was retained for one-quarter of the foot, though it had been discarded by the Imperialists in the course of the Turkish wars described below. The first artillery regiment was created in 1684, to replace the former semi-civilian organization by a body of artillerymen susceptible of uniform training and amenable to discipline and orders.

In 1689 Louis had six armies on foot. That in Germany, which had executed the raid of the previous autumn, was not in a position to resist the principal army of the coalition so far from support. Louvois therefore ordered it to lay waste the Palatinate, and the devastation of the country around Heidelberg, Mannheim, Spires, Oppenheim and Worms was pitilessly and methodically carried into effect in January and February. There had been devastations in previous wars, even the high-minded Turenne had used the argument of fire and sword to terrify a population or a prince, while the whole story of the last ten years of the great war had been one of incendiary armies leaving traces of their passage that it took a century to remove. But here the devastation was a purely military measure, executed systematically over a given strategic front for no other purpose than to delay the advance of the enemy’s army. It differed from the method of Turenne or Cromwell in that the sufferers were not those people whom it was the purpose of the war to reduce to submission, but others who had no interest in the quarrel. It differed from Wellington’s laying waste of Portugal in 1810 in that it was not done for the defence of the Palatinate against a national enemy, but because the Palatinate was where it was. The feudal theory that every subject of a prince at war was an armed vassal, and therefore an enemy of the prince’s enemy, had in practice been obsolete for two centuries past; by 1690 the organization of war, its causes, its methods and its instruments had passed out of touch with the people at large, and it had become thoroughly understood that the army alone was concerned with the army’s business. Thus it was that this devastation excited universal reprobation; and that, in the words of a modern French writer, the “idea of Germany came to birth in the flames of the Palatinate.”

As a military measure this crime was, moreover, quite unprofitable; for it became impossible for Marshal Duras, the French commander, to hold out on the east side of the middle Rhine, and he could think of nothing better to do than to go farther south and to ravage Baden and the Breisgau, which was not even a military necessity. The grand army of the Allies, coming farther north, was practically unopposed. Charles of Lorraine and the elector of Bavaria—lately comrades in the Turkish war (see below)—invested Mainz, the elector of Brandenburg Bonn. The latter, following the evil precedent of his enemies, shelled the town uselessly instead of making a breach in its walls and overpowering its French garrison, an incident not calculated to advance the nascent idea of German unity. Mainz, valiantly defended by Nicolas du Blé, marquis d’Uxelles, had to surrender on the 8th of September. The governor of Bonn, baron d’Asfeld, not in the least intimidated by the bombardment, held out till the army that had taken Mainz reinforced the elector of Brandenburg, and then, rejecting the hard terms of surrender offered him by the latter, he fell in resisting a last assault on the 12th of October. Only 850 men out of his 6000 were left to surrender on the 16th, and the duke of Lorraine, less truculent than the elector, escorted them safely to Thionville. Boufflers, with another of Louis’s armies, operated from Luxemburg (captured by the French in 1684 and since held) and Trarbach towards the Rhine, but in spite of a minor victory at Kochheim on the 21st of August, he was unable to relieve either Mainz or Bonn.

In the Low Countries the French marshal d’Humières, being in superior force, had obtained special permission to offer battle to the Allies. Leaving the garrison of Lille and Tournay to amuse the Spaniards, he hurried from Maubeuge to oppose the Dutch, who from Namur had advanced slowly on Philippeville. Coming upon their army (which was commanded by the prince of Waldeck) in position behind the river Heure, with an advanced post in the little walled town of Walcourt, he flung his advanced guard against the bridge and fortifications of this place to clear the way for his deployment beyond the river Heure (27th August). After wasting a thousand brave men in this attempt, he drew back. For a few days the two armies remained face to face, cannonading one another at intervals, but no further fighting occurred. Humières returned to the region of the Scheldt fortresses, and Waldeck to Brussels. For the others of Louis’ six armies the year’s campaign passed off quite uneventfully.

Simultaneously with these operations, the Jacobite cause was being fought to an issue in Ireland. War began early in 1689 with desultory engagements between the Orangemen of the north and the Irish regular army, most of which the earl of Tyrconnel had induced to declare for King James. The northern struggle after a time condensed itself into the defence of Derry and Enniskillen. The siege of the former place, begun by James himself and carried on by the French general Rosen, lasted 105 days. In marked contrast to the sieges of the continent, this was resisted by the townsmen themselves, under the leadership of the clergyman George Walker. But the relieving force (consisting of two frigates, a supply ship and a force under Major-general Percy Kirke) was dilatory, and it was not until the defenders were in the last extremity that Kirke actually broke through the blockade (July 31st). Enniskillen was less closely invested, and its inhabitants, organized by Colonel Wolseley and other officers sent by Kirke, actually kept the open field and defeated the Jacobites at Newtown Butler (July 31st). A few days later the Jacobite army withdrew from the north. But it was long before an adequate army could be sent over from England to deal with it. Marshal Schomberg (q.v.), one of the most distinguished soldiers of the time, who had been expelled from the French service as a Huguenot, was indeed sent over in August, but the army he brought, some 10,000 strong, was composed of raw recruits, and when it was assembled in camp at Dundalk to be trained for its work, it was quickly ruined by an epidemic of fever. But James failed to take advantage of his opportunity to renew the war in the north, and the relics of Schomberg’s army wintered in security, covered by the Enniskillen troops. In the spring of 1690, however, more troops, this time experienced regiments from Holland, Denmark and Brandenburg, were sent, and in June, Schomberg in Ireland and Major-general Scravemore in Chester having thoroughly organized and equipped the field army, King William assumed the command himself. Five days after his arrival he began his advance from Loughbrickland near Newry, and on the 1st of July he engaged James’s main army on the river Boyne, close to Drogheda. Schomberg was killed and William himself wounded, but the Irish army was routed.

No stand was made by the defeated party either in the Dublin or in the Waterford district. Lauzun, the commander of the French auxiliary corps in James’s army, and Tyrconnel both discountenanced any attempt to defend Limerick, where the Jacobite forces had reassembled; but Patrick Sarsfield (earl of Lucan), as the spokesman of the younger and more ardent of the Irish officers, pleaded for its retention. He was left, therefore, to hold Limerick, while Tyrconnel and Lauzun moved northward into Galway. Here, as in the north, the quarrel enlisted the active sympathies of the people against the invader, and Sarsfield not only surprised and destroyed the artillery train of William’s army, but repulsed every assault made on the walls that Lauzun had said “could be battered down by rotten apples.” William gave up the siege on the 30th of August. The failure was, however, compensated in a measure by the arrival in Ireland of an expedition under Lord Marlborough, which captured Cork and Kinsale, and next year (1691) the Jacobite cause was finally crushed by William’s general Ginckell (afterwards earl of Athlone) in the battle of Aughrim in Galway (July 12th), in which St Ruth, the French commander, was killed and the Jacobite army dissipated. Ginckell, following up his victory, besieged Limerick afresh. Tyrconnel died of apoplexy while organizing the defence, and this time the town was invested by sea as well as by land. After six weeks’ resistance the defenders offered to capitulate, and with the signing of the treaty of Limerick on the 1st of October the Irish war came to an end. Sarsfield and the most energetic of King James’s supporters retired to France and were there formed into the famous “Irish brigade.” Sarsfield was killed at the battle of Neerwinden two years later.

The campaign of 1690 on the continent of Europe is marked by two battles, one of which, Luxemburg’s victory of Fleurus, belongs to the category of the world’s great battles. It is described under Fleurus, and the present article only deals summarily with the conditions in which it was fought. These, though they in fact led to an encounter that could, in itself, fairly be called decisive, were in closer accord with the general spirit of the war than was the decision that arose out of them.

Luxemburg had a powerful enemy in Louvois, and he had consequently been allotted only an insignificant part in the first campaign. But after the disasters of 1689 Louis re-arranged the commands on the north-east frontier so as to allow Humières, Luxemburg and Boufflers to combine for united action. “I will take care that Louvois plays fair,” Louis said to the duke when he gave him his letters of service. Though apparently Luxemburg was not authorized to order such a combination himself, as senior officer he would automatically take command if it came about. The whole force available was probably close on 100,000, but not half of these were present at the decisive battle, though Luxemburg certainly practised the utmost “economy of force” as this was understood in those days (see also Neerwinden). On the remaining theatres of war, the dauphin, assisted by the duc de Lorge, held the middle Rhine, and Catinat the Alps, while other forces were in Roussillon, &c., as before. Catinat’s operations are briefly described below. Those of the others need no description, for though the Allies formed a plan for a grand concentric advance on Paris, the preliminaries to this advance were so numerous and so closely interdependent that on the most favourable estimate the winter would necessarily find the Allied armies many leagues short of Paris. In fact, the Rhine offensive collapsed when Charles of Lorraine died (17th April), and the reconquest of his lost duchy ceased to be a direct object of the war.

Luxemburg began operations by drawing in from the Sambre country, where he had hitherto been stationed, to the Scheldt and “eating up” the country between Oudenarde and Ghent in the face of a Spanish army concentrated at the latter place (15th May-12th June). He then left Humières with a containing force in the Scheldt region and hurried back to the Sambre to interpose between the Allied army under Waldeck and the fortress of Dinant which Waldeck was credited with the intention of besieging. His march from Tournay to Gerpinnes was counted a model of skill—the locus classicus for the maxim that ruled till the advent of Napoleon—“march always in the order in which you encamp, or purpose to encamp, or fight.” For four days the army marched across country in close order, covered in all directions by reconnoitring cavalry and advanced, flank and rear guards. Under these conditions eleven miles a day was practically forced marching, and on arriving at Jeumont-sur-Sambre the army was given three days’ rest. Then followed a few leisurely marches in the direction of Charleroi, during which a detachment of Boufflers’s army came in, and the cavalry explored the country to the north. On news of the enemy’s army being at Trazegnies, Luxemburg hurried across a ford of the Sambre above Charleroi, but this proved to be a detachment only, and soon information came in that Waldeck was encamped near Fleurus. Thereupon Luxemburg, without consulting his subordinate generals, took his army to Velaine. He knew that the enemy was marking time till the troops of Liége and the Brandenburgers from the Rhine were near enough to co-operate in the Dinant enterprise, and he was determined to fight a battle at once. From Velaine, therefore, on the morning of the 1st of July, the army moved forward to Fleurus and there won one of the most brilliant victories in the history of the Royal army. But Luxemburg was not allowed to pursue his advantage. He was ordered to hold his army in readiness to besiege either Namur, Mons, Charleroi or Ath, according as later orders dictated; and to send back the borrowed regiments to Boufflers, who was being pressed back by the Brandenburg and Liége troops. Thus Waldeck reformed his army in peace at Brussels, where William III. of England soon afterwards assumed command of the Allied forces in the Netherlands, and Luxemburg and the other marshals stood fast for the rest of the campaign, being forbidden to advance until Catinat—in Italy—should have won a battle.

In this quarter the armed neutrality of the duke of Savoy had long disquieted the French court. His personal connexions with the imperial family and his resentment against Louvois, who had on some occasion treated him with his usual patronizing arrogance, inclined him to join the Allies, while on the other hand he could hope for extensions of his scanty territory only by siding with Louis. In view of this doubtful condition of affairs the French army under Catinat had for some time been maintained on the Alpine frontier, and in the summer of 1690 Louis XIV. sent an ultimatum to Victor Amadeus to compel him to take one side or the other actively and openly. The result was that Victor Emmanuel threw in his lot with the Allies and obtained help from the Spaniards and Austrians in the Milanese. Catinat thereupon advanced into Piedmont, and won, principally by virtue of his own watchfulness and the high efficiency of his troops, the important victory of Staffarda (August 18th, 1690). This did not, however, enable him to overrun Piedmont, and as the duke was soon reinforced, he had to be content with the methodical conquest of a few frontier districts. On the side of Spain, a small French army under the duc de Noailles passed into Catalonia and there lived at the enemy’s expense for the duration of the campaign.

In these theatres of war, and on the Rhine, where the disunion of the German princes prevented vigorous action, the following year, 1691, was uneventful. But in the Netherlands there were a siege, a war of manœuvres and a cavalry combat, each in its way somewhat remarkable. The siege was that of Mons, which was, like many sieges in the former wars, conducted with much pomp by Louis XIV. himself, with Boufflers and Vauban under him. On the surrender of the place, which was hastened by red-hot shot (April 8th), Louis returned to Versailles and divided his army between Boufflers and Luxemburg, the former of whom departed to the Meuse. There he attempted by bombardment to enforce the surrender of Liége, but had to desist when the elector of Brandenburg threatened Dinant. The principal armies on either side faced one another under the command respectively of William III. and of Luxemburg. The Allies were first concentrated to the south of Namur, and Luxemburg hurried thither, but neither party found any tempting opportunity for battle, and when the cavalry had consumed all the forage available in the district, the two armies edged away gradually towards Flanders. The war of manœuvre continued, with a slight balance of advantage on Luxemburg’s side, until September, when William returned to England, leaving Waldeck in command of the Allied army, with orders to distribute it in winter quarters amongst the garrison towns. This gave the momentary opportunity for which Luxemburg had been watching, and at Leuze (20th Sept.) he fell upon the cavalry of Waldeck’s rearguard and drove it back in disorder with heavy losses until the pursuit was checked by the Allied infantry.

In 1692 the Rhine campaign was no more decisive than before, although Lorge made a successful raid into Württemberg in September and foraged his cavalry in German territory till the approach of winter. The Spanish campaign was unimportant, but on the Alpine side the Allies under the duke of Savoy drove back Catinat into Dauphiné, which they ravaged with fire and sword. But the French peasantry were quicker to take arms than the Germans, and, inspired by the local gentry—amongst whom figured the heroine, Philis de la Tour du Pin (1645-1708), daughter of the marquis de la Charce—they beset every road with such success that the small regular army of the invaders was powerless. Brought practically to a standstill, the Allies soon consumed the provisions that could be gathered in, and then, fearing lest the snow should close the passes behind them, they retreated.

In the Low Countries the campaign as before began with a great siege. Louis and Vauban invested Namur on the 26th of May. The place was defended by the prince de Barbançon (who had been governor of Luxemburg when that place was besieged in 1684) and Coehoorn (q.v.), Vauban’s rival in the science of fortification. Luxemburg, with a small army, manœuvred to cover the siege against William III.’s army at Louvain. The place fell on the 5th of June, after a very few days of Vauban’s “regular” attack, but the citadel held out until the 23rd. Then, as before, Louis returned to Versailles, giving injunctions to Luxemburg to “preserve the strong places and the country, while opposing the enemy’s enterprises and subsisting the army at his expense.” This negative policy, contrary to expectation, led to a hard-fought battle. William, employing a common device, announced his intention of retaking Namur, but set his army in motion for Flanders and the sea-coast fortresses held by the French. Luxemburg, warned in time, hurried towards the Scheldt, and the two armies were soon face to face again, Luxemburg about Steenkirk, William in front of Hal. William then formed the plan of surprising Luxemburg’s right wing before it could be supported by the rest of his army, relying chiefly on false information that a detected spy at his headquarters was forced to send, to mislead the duke. But Luxemburg had the material protection of a widespread net of outposts as well as a secret service, and although ill in bed when William’s advance was reported, he shook off his apathy, mounted his horse and, enabled by his outpost reports to divine his opponent’s plan, he met it (3rd August) by a swift concentration of his army, against which the Allies, whose advance and deployment had been mismanaged, were powerless (see Steenkirk). In this almost accidental battle both sides suffered enormous losses, and neither attempted to bring about, or even to risk, a second resultless trial of strength. Boufflers’s army returned to the Sambre and Luxemburg and William established themselves for the rest of the season at Lessines and Ninove respectively, 13 m. apart. After both armies had broken up into their winter quarters, Louis ordered Boufflers to attempt the capture of Charleroi. But a bombardment failed to intimidate the garrison, and when the Allies began to re-assemble, the attempt was given up (19th-21st Oct.). This failure was, however, compensated by the siege and capture of Furnes (28th Dec. 1692-7th Jan. 1693).

In 1693, the culminating point of the war was reached. It began, as mentioned above, with a winter enterprise that at least indicated the aggressive spirit of the French generals. The king promoted his admiral, Tourville, and Catinat, the roturier, to the marshalship, and founded the military order of St Louis on the 10th of April. The grand army in the Netherlands this year numbered 120,000, to oppose whom William III. had only some 40,000 at hand. But at the very beginning of operations Louis, after reviewing this large force at Gembloux, broke it up, in order to send 30,000 under the dauphin to Germany, where Lorge had captured Heidelberg and seemed able, if reinforced, to overrun south Germany. But the imperial general Prince Louis of Baden took up a position near Heilbronn so strong that the dauphin and Lorge did not venture to attack him. Thus King Louis sacrificed a reality to a dream, and for the third time lost the opportunity, for which he always longed, of commanding in chief in a great battle. He himself, to judge by his letter to Monsieur on the 8th of June, regarded his action as a sacrifice of personal dreams to tangible realities. And, before the event falsified predictions, there was much to be said for the course he took, which accorded better with the prevailing system of war than a Fleurus or a Neerwinden. In this system of war the rival armies, as armies, were almost in a state of equilibrium, and more was to be expected from an army dealing with something dissimilar to itself—a fortress or a patch of land or a convoy—than from its collision with another army of equal force.

Thus Luxemburg obtained his last and greatest opportunity. He was still superior in numbers, but William at Louvain had the advantage of position. The former, authorized by his master this year “non seulement d’empêcher les ennemis de rien entreprendre, mais d’emporter quelques avantages sur eux,” threatened Liége, drew William over to its defence and then advanced to attack him. The Allies, however, retired to another position, between the Great and Little Geete rivers, and there, in a strongly entrenched position around Neerwinden, they were attacked by Luxemburg on the 29th of July. The long and doubtful battle, one of the greatest victories ever won by the French army, is briefly described under Neerwinden. It ended in a brilliant victory for the assailant, but Luxemburg’s exhausted army did not pursue; William was as unshaken and determined as ever; and the campaign closed, not with a treaty of peace, but with a few manœuvres which, by inducing William to believe in an attack on Ath, enabled Luxemburg to besiege and capture Charleroi (October).

Neerwinden was not the only French victory of the year. Catinat, advancing from Fenestrelle and Susa to the relief of Pinerolo (Pignerol), which the duke of Savoy was besieging, took up a position in formal order of battle north of the village of Marsaglia. Here on the 4th of October the duke of Savoy attacked him with his whole army, front to front. But the greatly superior regimental efficiency of the French, and Catinat’s minute attention to details in arraying them, gave the new marshal a victory that was a not unworthy pendant to Neerwinden. The Piedmontese and their allies lost, it is said, 10,000 killed, wounded and prisoners, as against Catinat’s 1800. But here, too, the results were trifling, and this year of victory is remembered chiefly as the year in which “people perished of want to the accompaniment of Te Deums.”

In 1694 (late in the season owing to the prevailing distress and famine) Louis opened a fresh campaign in the Netherlands. The armies were larger and more ineffective than ever, and William offered no further opportunities to his formidable opponent. In September, after inducing William to desist from his intention of besieging Dunkirk by appearing on his flank with a mass of cavalry, which had ridden from the Meuse, 100 m., in 4 days, Luxemburg gave up his command. He died on the 4th of January following, and with him the tradition of the Condé school of warfare disappeared from Europe. In Catalonia the marshal de Noailles won a victory (27th May) over the Spaniards at the ford of the Ter (Torroella, 5 m. above the mouth of the river), and in consequence captured a number of walled towns.

In 1695 William found Marshal Villeroi a far less formidable opponent than Luxemburg had been, and easily succeeded in keeping him in Flanders while a corps of the Allies invested Namur. Coehoorn directed the siege-works, and Boufflers the defence. Gradually, as in 1692, the defenders were dislodged from the town, the citadel outworks and the citadel itself, the last being assaulted with success by the “British grenadiers,” as the song commemorates, on the 30th of August. Boufflers was rewarded for his sixty-seven days’ defence by the grade of marshal.

By 1696 necessity had compelled Louis to renounce his vague and indefinite offensive policy, and he now frankly restricted his efforts to the maintenance of what he had won in the preceding campaigns. In this new policy he met with much success. Boufflers, Lorge, Noailles and even the incompetent Villeroi held the field in their various spheres of operations without allowing the Allies to inflict any material injury, and also (by having recourse again to the policy of living by plunder) preserving French soil from the burden of their own maintenance. In this, as before, they were powerfully assisted by the disunion and divided counsels of their heterogeneous enemies. In Piedmont, Catinat crowned his work by making peace and alliance with the duke of Savoy, and the two late enemies having joined forces captured one of the fortresses of the Milanese. The last campaign was in 1697. Catinat and Vauban besieged Ath. This siege was perhaps the most regular and methodical of the great engineer’s career. It lasted 23 days and cost the assailants only 50 men. King William did not stir from his entrenched position at Brussels, nor did Villeroi dare to attack him there. Lastly, in August 1697 Vendôme, Noailles’ successor, captured Barcelona. The peace of Ryswijk, signed on the 30th of October, closed this war by practically restoring the status quo ante; but neither the ambitions of Louis nor the Grand Alliance that opposed them ceased to have force, and three years later the struggle began anew (see Spanish Succession, War of the).

Concurrently with these campaigns, the emperor had been engaged in a much more serious war on his eastern marches against the old enemy, the Turks. This war arose in 1682 out of internal disturbances in Hungary. The campaign of the following year is memorable for all time as the last great wave of Turkish invasion. Mahommed IV. advanced from Belgrade in May, with 200,000 men, drove back the small imperial army of Prince Charles of Lorraine, and early in July invested Vienna itself. The two months’ defence of Vienna by Count Rüdiger Starhemberg (1635-1701) and the brilliant victory of the relieving army led by John Sobieski, king of Poland, and Prince Charles on the 12th of September 1683, were events which, besides their intrinsic importance, possess the romantic interest of an old knightly crusade against the heathen.

But the course of the war, after the tide of invasion had ebbed, differed little from the wars of contemporary western Europe. Turkey figured rather as a factor in the balance of power than as the “infidel,” and although the battles and sieges in Hungary were characterized by the bitter personal hostility of Christian to Turk which had no counterpart in the West, the war as a whole was as methodical and tedious as any Rhine or Low Countries campaign. In 1684 Charles of Lorraine gained a victory at Waitzen on the 27th of June and another at Eperies on the 18th of September, and unsuccessfully besieged Budapest.

In 1685 the Germans were uniformly successful, though a victory at Gran (August 16th) and the storming of Neuhaüsel (August 19th) were the only outstanding incidents. In 1686 Charles, assisted by the elector Max Emanuel of Bavaria, besieged and stormed Budapest (Sept. 2nd). In 1687 they followed up their success by a great victory at Mohacz (Aug. 12th). In 1688 the Austrians advanced still further, took Belgrade, threatened Widin and entered Bosnia. The margrave Louis of Baden, who afterward became one of the most celebrated of the methodical generals of the day, won a victory at Derbent on the 5th of September 1688, and next year, in spite of the outbreak of a general European war, he managed to win another battle at Nisch (Sept. 24th), to capture Widin (Oct. 14th) and to advance to the Balkans, but in 1690, more troops having to be withdrawn for the European war, the imperialist generals lost Nisch, Widin and Belgrade one after the other. There was, however, no repetition of the scenes of 1683, for in 1691 Louis won the battle of Szlankamen (Aug. 19th). After two more desultory if successful campaigns he was called to serve in western Europe, and for three years more the war dragged on without result, until in 1697 the young Prince Eugene was appointed to command the imperialists and won a great and decisive victory at Zenta on the Theiss (Sept. 11th). This induced a last general advance of the Germans eastward, which was definitively successful and brought about the peace of Carlowitz (January 1699).

(C. F. A.)

Naval Operations

The naval side of the war waged by the powers of western Europe from 1689 to 1697, to reduce the predominance of King Louis XIV., was not marked by any very conspicuous exhibition of energy or capacity, but it was singularly decisive in its results. At the beginning of the struggle the French fleet kept the sea in face of the united fleets of Great Britain and Holland. It displayed even in 1690 a marked superiority over them. Before the struggle ended it had been fairly driven into port, and though its failure was to a great extent due to the exhaustion of the French finances, yet the inability of the French admirals to make a proper use of their fleets, and the incapacity of the king’s ministers to direct the efforts of his naval officers to the most effective aims, were largely responsible for the result.

When the war began in 1689, the British Admiralty was still suffering from the disorders of the reign of King Charles II., which had been only in part corrected during the short reign of James II. The first squadrons were sent out late and in insufficient strength. The Dutch, crushed by the obligation to maintain a great army, found an increasing difficulty in preparing their fleet for action early. Louis XIV., a despotic monarch, with as yet unexhausted resources, had it within his power to strike first. The opportunity offered him was a very tempting one. Ireland was still loyal to King James II., and would therefore have afforded an admirable basis of operations to a French fleet. No serious attempt was made to profit by the advantage thus presented. In March 1689 King James was landed and reinforcements were prepared for him at Brest. A British squadron under the command of Arthur Herbert (afterwards Lord Torrington), sent to intercept them, reached the French port too late, and on returning to the coast of Ireland sighted the convoy off the Old Head of Kinsale on the 10th of May. The French admiral Chateaurenault held on to Bantry Bay, and an indecisive encounter took place on the 11th of May. The troops and stores for King James were successfully landed. Then both admirals, the British and the French, returned home, and neither in that nor in the following year was any serious effort made by the French to gain command of the sea between Ireland and England. On the contrary, a great French fleet entered the Channel, and gained a success over the combined British and Dutch fleets on the 10th of July 1690 (see Beachy Head, Battle of), which was not followed up by vigorous action. In the meantime King William III. passed over to Ireland and won the battle of the Boyne. During the following year, while the cause of King James was being finally ruined in Ireland, the main French fleet was cruising in the Bay of Biscay, principally for the purpose of avoiding battle. During the whole of 1689, 1690 and 1691, British squadrons were active on the Irish coast. One raised the siege of Londonderry in July 1689, and another convoyed the first British forces sent over under the duke of Schomberg. Immediately after Beachy Head in 1690, a part of the Channel fleet carried out an expedition under the earl (afterwards duke) of Marlborough, which took Cork and reduced a large part of the south of the island. In 1691 the French did little more than help to carry away the wreckage of their allies and their own detachments. In 1692 a vigorous but tardy attempt was made to employ their fleet to cover an invasion of England (see La Hogue, Battle of). It ended in defeat, and the allies remained masters of the Channel. The defeat of La Hogue did not do so much harm to the naval power of King Louis as has sometimes been supposed. In the next year, 1693, he was able to strike a severe blow at the Allies. The important Mediterranean trade of Great Britain and Holland, called for convenience the Smyrna convoy, having been delayed during the previous year, anxious measures were taken to see it safe on its road in 1693. But the arrangements of the allied governments and admirals were not good. They made no effort to blockade Brest, nor did they take effective steps to discover whether or not the French fleet had left the port. The convoy was seen beyond the Scilly Isles by the main fleet. But as the French admiral Tourville had left Brest for the Straits of Gibraltar with a powerful force and had been joined by a squadron from Toulon, the whole convoy was scattered or taken by him, in the latter days of June, near Lagos. But though this success was a very fair equivalent for the defeat at La Hogue, it was the last serious effort made by the navy of Louis XIV. in this war. Want of money compelled him to lay his fleet up. The allies were now free to make full use of their own, to harass the French coast, to intercept French commerce, and to co-operate with the armies acting against France. Some of the operations undertaken by them were more remarkable for the violence of the effort than for the magnitude of the results. The numerous bombardments of French Channel ports, and the attempts to destroy St Malo, the great nursery of the active French privateers, by infernal machines, did little harm. A British attack on Brest in June 1694 was beaten off with heavy loss. The scheme had been betrayed by Jacobite correspondents. Yet the inability of the French king to avert these enterprises showed the weakness of his navy and the limitations of his power. The protection of British and Dutch commerce was never complete, for the French privateers were active to the end. But French commerce was wholly ruined.

It was the misfortune of the allies that their co-operation with armies was largely with the forces of a power so languid and so bankrupt as Spain. Yet the series of operations directed by Russel in the Mediterranean throughout 1694 and 1695 demonstrated the superiority of the allied fleet, and checked the advance of the French in Catalonia. Contemporary with the campaigns in Europe was a long series of cruises against the French in the West Indies, undertaken by the British navy, with more or less help from the Dutch and a little feeble assistance from the Spaniards. They began with the cruise of Captain Lawrence Wright in 1690-1691, and ended with that of Admiral Nevil in 1696-1697. It cannot be said that they attained to any very honourable achievement, or even did much to weaken the French hold on their possessions in the West Indies and North America. Some, and notably the attack made on Quebec by Sir William Phips in 1690, with a force raised in the British colonies, ended in defeat. None of them was so triumphant as the plunder of Cartagena in South America by the Frenchman Pointis, in 1697, at the head of a semi-piratical force. Too often there was absolute misconduct. In the buccaneering and piratical atmosphere of the West Indies, the naval officers of the day, who were still infected with the corruption of the reign of Charles II., and who calculated on distance from home to secure them immunity, sank nearly to the level of pirates and buccaneers. The indifference of the age to the laws of health, and its ignorance of them, caused the ravages of disease to be frightful. In the case of Admiral Nevil’s squadron, the admiral himself and all his captains except one, died during the cruise, and the ships were unmanned. Yet it was their own vices which caused these expeditions to fail, and not the strength of the French defence. When the war ended, the navy of King Louis XIV. had disappeared from the sea.

See Burchett, Memoirs of Transactions at Sea during the War with France, 1688-1697 (London, 1703); Lediard, Naval History (London, 1735), particularly valuable for the quotations in his notes. For the West Indian voyages, Tronde, Batailles navales de la France (Paris, 1867); De Yonghe, Geschiedenis van het Nederlandsche Zeewezen (Haarlem, 1860).

(D. H.)

The name “Grand Alliance” is applied to the coalition against Louis XIV. begun by the League of Augsburg. This coalition not only waged the war dealt with in the present article, but (with only slight modifications and with practically unbroken continuity) the war of the Spanish Succession (q.v.) that followed.

Louvois died in July 1691.

A few days before this the great naval reverse of La Hogue put an end to the projects of invading England hitherto entertained at Versailles.

Marsaglia is, if not the first, at any rate, one of the first, instances of a bayonet charge by a long deployed line of infantry.

Hussars figured here for the first time in western Europe. A regiment of them had been raised in 1692 from deserters from the Austrian service.

GRAND CANARY (Gran Canaria), an island in the Atlantic Ocean, forming part of the Spanish archipelago of the Canary Islands (q.v.). Pop. (1900) 127,471; area 523 sq. m. Grand Canary, the most fertile island of the group, is nearly circular in shape, with a diameter of 24 m. and a circumference of 75 m. The interior is a mass of mountain with ravines radiating to the shore. Its highest peak, Los Pexos, is 6400 ft. Large tracts are covered with native pine (P. canariensis). There are several mineral springs on the island. Las Palmas (pop. 44,517), the capital, is described in a separate article. Telde (8978), the second place in the island, stands on a plain, surrounded by palm trees. At Atalaya, a short distance from Las Palmas, the making of earthenware vessels employs some hundreds of people, who inhabit holes made in the tufa.

GRAND CANYON, a profound gorge in the north-west corner of Arizona, in the south-western part of the United States of America, carved in the plateau region by the Colorado river. Of it Captain Dutton says: “Those who have long and carefully studied the Grand Canyon of the Colorado do not hesitate for a moment to pronounce it by far the most sublime of all earthly spectacles”; and this is also the verdict of many who have only viewed it in one or two of its parts.

The Colorado river is made by the junction of two large streams, the Green and Grand, fed by the rains and snows of the Rocky Mountains. It has a length of about 2000 m. and a drainage area of 255,000 sq. m., emptying into the head of the Gulf of California. In its course the Colorado passes through a mountain section; then a plateau section; and finally a desert lowland section which extends to its mouth. It is in the plateau section that the Grand Canyon is situated. Here the surface of the country lies from 5000 to 9000 ft. above sea-level, being a tableland region of buttes and mesas diversified by lava intrusions, flows and cinder cones. The region consists in the main of stratified rocks bodily uplifted in a nearly horizontal position, though profoundly faulted here and there, and with some moderate folding. For a thousand miles the river has cut a series of canyons, bearing different names, which reach their culmination in the Marble Canyon, 66 m. long, and the contiguous Grand Canyon which extends for a distance of 217 m. farther down stream, making a total length of continuous canyon from 2000 to 6000 ft. in depth, for a distance of 283 m., the longest and deepest canyon in the world. This huge gash in the earth is the work of the Colorado river, with accompanying weathering, through long ages; and the river is still engaged in deepening it as it rushes along the canyon bottom.

The higher parts of the enclosing plateau have sufficient rainfall for forests, whose growth is also made possible in part by the cool climate and consequently retarded evaporation; but the less elevated portions have an arid climate, while the climate in the canyon bottom is that of the true desert. Thus the canyon is really in a desert region, as is shown by the fact that only two living streams enter the river for a distance of 500 m. from the Green river to the lower end of the Grand Canyon; and only one, the Kanab Creek, enters the Grand Canyon itself. This, moreover, is dry during most of the year. In spite of this lack of tributaries, a large volume of water flows through the canyon at all seasons of the year, some coming from the scattered tributaries, some from springs, but most from the rains and snows of the distant mountains about the headwaters. Owing to enclosure between steeply rising canyon walls, evaporation is retarded, thus increasing the possibility of the long journey of the water from the mountains to the sea across a vast stretch of arid land.

The river in the canyon varies from a few feet to an unknown depth, and at times of flood has a greatly increased volume. The river varies in width from 50 ft. in some of the narrow Granite Gorges, where it bathes both rock walls, to 500 or 600 ft. in more open places. In the 283 m. of the Marble and Grand Canyons, the river falls 2330 ft., and at one point has a fall of 210 ft. in 10 m. The current velocity varies from 3 to 20 or more miles per hour, being increased in places by low falls and rapids; but there are no high falls below the junction of the Green and Grand.

Besides the canyons of the main river, there are a multitude of lateral canyons occupied by streams at intervals of heavy rain. As Powell says, the region “is a composite of thousands, and tens of thousands of gorges.” There are “thousands of gorges like that below Niagara Falls, and there are a thousand Yosemites.” The largest of all, the Grand Canyon, has an average depth of 4000 ft. and a width of 4½ to 12 m. For a long distance, where crossing the Kaibab plateau, the depth is 6000 ft. For much of the distance there is an inner narrower gorge sunk in the bottom of a broad outer canyon. The narrow gorge is in some places no more than 3500 ft. wide at the top. To illustrate the depth of the Grand Canyon, Powell writes: “Pluck up Mount Washington (6293 ft. high) by the roots to the level of the sea, and drop it head first into the Grand Canyon, and the dam will not force its waters over the wall.”

While there are notable differences in the Grand Canyon from point to point, the main elements are much alike throughout its length and are due to the succession of rock strata revealed in the canyon walls. At the base, for some 800 ft., there is a complex of crystalline rocks of early geological age, consisting of gneiss, schist, slate and other rocks, greatly plicated and traversed by dikes and granite intrusions. This is an ancient mountain mass, which has been greatly denuded. On it rest a series of durable quartzite beds inclined to the horizontal, forming about 800 ft. more of the lower canyon wall. On this come first 500 ft. of greenish sandstones and then 700 ft. of bedded sandstone and limestone strata, some massive and some thin, which on weathering form a series of alcoves. These beds, like those above, are in nearly horizontal position. Above this comes 1600 ft. of limestone—often a beautiful marble, as in the Marble Canyon, but in the Grand Canyon stained a brilliant red by iron oxide washed from overlying beds. Above this “red wall” are 800 ft. of grey and bright red sandstone beds looking “like vast ribbons of landscape.” At the top of the canyon is 1000 ft. of limestone with gypsum and chert, noted for the pinnacles and towers which denudation has developed. It is these different rock beds, with their various colours, and the differences in the effect of weathering upon them, that give the great variety and grandeur to the canyon scenery. There are towers and turrets, pinnacles and alcoves, cliffs, ledges, crags and moderate talus slopes, each with its characteristic colour and form according to the set of strata in which it lies. The main river has cleft the plateau in a huge gash; innumerable side gorges have cut it to right and left; and weathering has etched out the cliffs and crags and helped to paint it in the gaudy colour bands that stretch before the eye. There is grandeur here and weirdness in abundance, but beauty is lacking. Powell puts the case graphically when he writes: “A wall of homogeneous granite like that in the Yosemite is but a naked wall, whether it be 1000 or 5000 ft. high. Hundreds and thousands of feet mean nothing to the eye when they stand in a meaningless front. A mountain covered by pure snow 10,000 ft. high has but little more effect on the imagination than a mountain of snow 1000 ft. high—it is but more of the same thing; but a façade of seven systems of rock has its sublimity multiplied sevenfold.”

To the ordinary person most of the Grand Canyon is at present inaccessible, for, as Powell states, “a year scarcely suffices to see it all”; and “it is a region more difficult to traverse than the Alps or the Himalayas.” But a part of the canyon is now easily accessible to tourists. A trail leads from the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé railway at Flagstaff, Arizona; and a branch line of the railway extends from Williams, Arizona, to a hotel on the very brink of the canyon. The plateau, which in places bears an open forest, mainly of pine, varies in elevation, but is for the most part a series of fairly level terrace tops with steep faces, with mesas and buttes here and there, and, especially near the huge extinct volcano of San Francisco mountain, with much evidence of former volcanic activity, including numerous cinder cones. The traveller comes abruptly to the edge of the canyon, at whose bottom, over a mile below, is seen the silvery thread of water where the muddy torrent rushes along on its never-ceasing task of sawing its way into the depths of the earth. Opposite rise the highly coloured and terraced slopes of the other canyon wall, whose crest is fully 12 m. distant.

Down by the river are the folded rocks of an ancient mountain system, formed before vertebrate life appeared on the earth, then worn to an almost level condition through untold ages of slow denudation. Slowly, then, the mountains sank beneath the level of the sea, and in the Carboniferous Period—about the time of the formation of the coal-beds—sediments began to bury the ancient mountains. This lasted through other untold ages until the Tertiary Period—through much of the Palaeozoic and all of the Mesozoic time—and a total of from 12,000 to 16,000 ft. of sediments were deposited. Since then erosion has been dominant, and the river has eaten its way down to, and into, the deeply buried mountains, opening the strata for us to read, like the pages of a book. In some parts of the plateau region as much as 30,000 ft. of rock have been stripped away, and over an area of 200,000 sq. m. an average of over 6000 ft. has been removed.

The Grand Canyon was probably discovered by G. L. de Cardenas in 1540, but for 329 years the inaccessibility of the region prevented its exploration. Various people visited parts of it or made reports regarding it; and the Ives Expedition of 1858 contains a report upon the canyon written by Prof. J. S. Newberry. But it was not until 1869 that the first real exploration of the Grand Canyon was made. In that year Major J. W. Powell, with five associates (three left the party in the Grand Canyon), made the complete journey by boat from the junction of the Green and Grand rivers to the lower end of the Grand Canyon. This hazardous journey ranks as one of the most daring and remarkable explorations ever undertaken in North America; and Powell’s descriptions of the expedition are among the most fascinating accounts of travel relating to the continent. Powell made another expedition in 1871, but did not go the whole length of the canyon. The government survey conducted by Lieut. George M. Wheeler also explored parts of the canyon, and C. E. Dutton carried on extensive studies of the canyon and the contiguous plateau region. In 1890 Robert B. Stanton, with six associates, went through the canyon in boats, making a survey to determine the feasibility of building a railway along its base. Two other parties, one in 1896 (Nat. Galloway and William Richmond) the other in 1897 (George F. Flavell and companion), have made the journey through the canyon. So far as there is record these are the only four parties that have ever made the complete journey through the Grand Canyon. It has sometimes been said that James White made the passage of the canyon before Powell did; but this story rests upon no real basis.

For accounts of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado see J. W. Powell, Explorations of the Colorado River of the West and its Tributaries (Washington, 1875); J. W. Powell, Canyons of the Colorado (Meadville, Pa., 1895); F. S. Dellenbaugh, The Romance of the Colorado River (New York, 1902); Capt. C. E. Dutton, Tertiary History of the Grand Canyon District, with Atlas (Washington, 1882), being Monograph No. 2, U.S. Geological Survey. See also the excellent topographic map of the Grand Canyon prepared by F. E. Matthes and published by the U.S. Geological Survey.

(R. S. T.)

GRAND-DUKE (Fr. grand-duc, Ital. granduca, Ger. Grossherzog), a title borne by princes ranking between king and duke. The dignity was first bestowed in 1567 by Pope Pius V. on Duke Cosimo I. of Florence, his son Francis obtaining the emperor’s confirmation in 1576; and the predicate “Royal Highness” was added in 1699. In 1806 Napoleon created his brother-in-law Joachim Murat, grand-duke of Berg, and in the same year the title was assumed by the landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt, the elector of Baden, and the new ruler of the secularized bishopric of Würzburg (formerly Ferdinand III., grand-duke of Tuscany) on joining the Confederation of the Rhine. At the present time, according to the decision of the Congress of Vienna, the title is borne by the sovereigns of Luxemburg, Saxe-Weimar (grand-duke of Saxony), Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, and Oldenburg (since 1829), as well as by those of Hesse-Darmstadt and Baden. The emperor of Austria includes among his titles those of grand-duke of Cracow and Tuscany, and the king of Prussia those of grand-duke of the Lower Rhine and Posen. The title is also retained by the dispossessed Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty of Tuscany.

Grand-duke is also the conventional English equivalent of the Russian velíkiy knyaz, more properly “grand-prince” (Ger. Grossfürst), at one time the title of the rulers of Russia, who, as the eldest born of the house of Rurik, exercised overlordship over the udyelniye knyazi or local princes. On the partition of the inheritance of Rurik, the eldest of each branch assumed the title of grand-prince. Under the domination of the Golden Horde the right to bestow the title velíkiy knyaz was reserved by the Tatar Khan, who gave it to the prince of Moskow. In Lithuania this title also symbolized a similar overlordship, and it passed to the kings of Poland on the union of Lithuania with the Polish republic. The style of the emperor of Russia now includes the titles of grand-duke (velíkiy knyaz) of Smolensk, Lithuania, Volhynia, Podolia and Finland. Until 1886 this title grand-duke or grand-duchess, with the style “Imperial Highness,” was borne by all descendants of the imperial house. It is now confined to the sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and male grandchildren of the emperor. The other members of the imperial house bear the title of prince (knyaz) and princess (knyaginya, if married, knyazhna, if unmarried) with the style of “Highness.” The emperor of Austria, as king of Hungary, also bears this title as “grand-duke” of Transylvania, which was erected into a “grand-princedom” (Grossfürstentum) in 1765 by Maria Theresa.

GRANDEE (Span. Grande), a title of honour borne by the highest class of the Spanish nobility. It would appear to have been originally assumed by the most important nobles to distinguish them from the mass of the ricos hombres, or great barons of the realm. It was thus, as Selden points out, not a general term denoting a class, but “an additional dignity not only to all dukes, but to some marquesses and condes also” (Titles of Honor, ed. 1672, p. 478). It formerly implied certain privileges; notably that of sitting covered in the royal presence. Until the time of Ferdinand and Isabella, when the power of the territorial nobles was broken, the grandees had also certain more important rights, e.g. freedom from taxation, immunity from arrest save at the king’s express command, and even—in certain cases—the right to renounce their allegiance and make war on the king. Their number and privileges were further restricted by Charles I. (the emperor Charles V.), who reserved to the crown the right to bestow the title. The grandees of Spain were further divided into three classes: (1) those who spoke to the king and received his reply with their heads covered; (2) those who addressed him uncovered, but put on their hats to hear his answer; (3) those who awaited the permission of the king before covering themselves. All grandees were addressed by the king as “my cousin” (mi primo), whereas ordinary nobles were only qualified as “my kinsman” (mi pariente). The title of “grandee,” abolished under King Joseph Bonaparte, was revived in 1834, when by the Estatudo real grandees were given precedence in the Chamber of Peers. The designation is now, however, purely titular, and implies neither privilege nor power.

GRAND FORKS, a city in the Boundary district of British Columbia; situated at the junction of the north and south forks of the Kettle river, 2 m. N. of the international boundary. Pop. (1908) about 2500. It is in a good agricultural district, but owes its importance largely to the erection here of the extensive smelting plant of the Granby Consolidated Company, which smelts the ores obtained from the various parts of the Boundary country, but chiefly those from the Knob Hill and Old Ironsides mines. The Canadian Pacific railway, as well as the Great Northern railway, runs to Grand Forks, which thus has excellent railway communication with the south and east.

GRAND FORKS, a city and the county-seat of Grand Forks county, North Dakota, U.S.A., at the junction of the Red river (of the North) and Red Lake river (whence its name), about 80 m. N. of Fargo. Pop. (1900) 7652, of whom 2781 were foreign-born; (1905) 10,127; (1910) 27,888. It is served by the Northern Pacific and the Great Northern railways, and has a considerable river traffic, the Red river (when dredged) having a channel 60 ft. wide and 4 ft. deep at low water below Grand Forks. At University, a small suburb, is the University of North Dakota (co-educational; opened 1884). Affiliated with it is Wesley College (Methodist Episcopal), now at Grand Forks (with a campus adjoining that of the University), but formerly the Red River Valley University at Wahpeton, North Dakota. In 1907-1908 the University had 57 instructors and 861 students; its library had 25,000 bound volumes and 5000 pamphlets. At Grand Forks, also, are St Bernard’s Ursuline Academy (Roman Catholic) and Grand Forks College (Lutheran). Among the city’s principal buildings are the public library, the Federal building and a Y.M.C.A. building. As the centre of the great wheat valley of the Red river, it has a busy trade in wheat, flour and agricultural machinery and implements, as well as large jobbing interests. There are railway car-shops here, and among the manufactures are crackers, brooms, bricks and tiles and cement. The municipality owns its water-works and an electric lighting plant for street lighting. In 1801 John Cameron (d. 1804) erected a temporary trading post for the North-West Fur Company on the site of the present city; it afterwards became a trading post of the Hudson’s Bay Company. The first permanent settlement was made in 1871, and Grand Forks was reached by the Northern Pacific and chartered as a city in 1881.

GRAND HAVEN, a city, port of entry, and the county-seat of Ottawa county, Michigan, U.S.A., on Lake Michigan, at the mouth of Grand river, 30 m. W. by N. of Grand Rapids and 78 m. E. of Milwaukee. Pop. (1900) 4743, of whom 1277 were foreign-born; (1904) 5239; (1910) 5856. It is served by the Grand Trunk and the Père Marquette railways, and by steamboat lines to Chicago, Milwaukee and other lake ports, and is connected with Grand Rapids and Muskegon by an electric line. The city manufactures pianos, refrigerators, printing presses and leather; is a centre for the shipment of fruit and celery; and has valuable fisheries near—fresh, salt and smoked fish, especially whitefish, are shipped in considerable quantities. Grand Haven is the port of entry for the Customs District of Michigan, and has a small export and import trade. The municipality owns and operates its water-works and electric-lighting plant. A trading post was established here about 1821 by an agent of the American Fur Company, but the permanent settlement of the city did not begin until 1834. Grand Haven was laid out as a town in 1836, and was chartered as a city in 1867.

GRANDIER, URBAN (1590-1634), priest of the church of Sainte Croix at Loudun in the department of Vienne, France, was accused of witchcraft in 1632 by some hysterical novices of the Carmelite Convent, where the trial, protracted for two years, was held. Grandier was found guilty and burnt alive at Loudun on the 18th of August 1634.

GRAND ISLAND, a city and the county-seat of Hall county, Nebraska, U.S.A., on the Platte river, about 154 m. W. by S. of Omaha. Pop. (1900) 7554 (1339 foreign-born); (1910) 10,326. It is served by the Union Pacific, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, and the St Joseph & Grand Island railways, being the western terminus of the last-named line and a southern terminus of a branch of the Union Pacific. The city is situated on a slope skirting the broad, level bottom-lands of the Platte river, in the midst of a fertile farming region. Grand Island College (Baptist; co-educational) was established in 1892 and the Grand Island Business and Normal College in 1890; and the city is the seat of a state Sailors’ and Soldiers’ Home, established in 1888. Grand Island has a large wholesale trade in groceries, fruits, &c.; is an important horse-market, and has large stock-yards. There are shops of the Union Pacific in the city, and among its manufactures are beet-sugar—Grand Island is in one of the principal beet-sugar-growing districts of the state—brooms, wire fences, confectionery and canned corn. The most important industry of the county is the raising and feeding of sheep and meat cattle. A “Grand Island” was founded in 1857, and was named from a large island (nearly 50 m. long) in the Platte opposite its site; but the present city was laid out by the Union Pacific in 1866. It was chartered as a city in 1873.

GRANDMONTINES, a religious order founded by St Stephen of Thiers in Auvergne towards the end of the 11th century. St Stephen was so impressed by the lives of the hermits whom he saw in Calabria that he desired to introduce the same manner of life into his native country. He was ordained, and in 1073 obtained the pope’s permission to establish an order. He betook himself to Auvergne, and in the desert of Muret, near Limoges, he made himself a hut of branches of trees and lived there for some time in complete solitude. A few disciples gathered round him, and a community was formed. The rule was not reduced to writing until after Stephen’s death, 1124. The life was eremitical and very severe in regard to silence, diet and bodily austerities; it was modelled after the rule of the Camaldolese, but various regulations were adopted from the Augustinian canons. The superior was called the “Corrector.” About 1150 the hermits, being compelled to leave Muret, settled in the neighbouring desert of Grandmont, whence the order derived its name. Louis VII. founded a house at Vincennes near Paris, and the order had a great vogue in France, as many as sixty houses being established by 1170, but it seems never to have found favour out of France; it had, however, a couple of cells in England up to the middle of the 15th century. The system of lay brothers was introduced on a large scale, and the management of the temporals was in great measure left in their hands; the arrangement did not work well, and the quarrels between the lay brothers and the choir monks were a constant source of weakness. Later centuries witnessed mitigations and reforms in the life, and at last the order came to an end just before the French Revolution. There were two or three convents of Grandmontine nuns. The order played no great part in history.

See Helyot, Hist. des ordres religieux (1714), vii. cc. 54, 55; Max Heimbucher, Orden und Kongregationen (1896). i. § 31; and the art. in Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlexicon (ed. 2), and in Herzog, Realencyklopädie (ed. 3).

(E. C. B.)

GRAND RAPIDS, a city and the county-seat of Kent county, Michigan, U.S.A., at the head of navigation on the Grand river, about 30 m. from Lake Michigan and 145 m. W.N.W. of Detroit. Pop. (1890) 60,278; (1900) 87,565, of whom 23,896 were foreign-born and 604 were negroes; (1910 census) 112,571. Of the foreign-born population in 1900, 11,137 were Hollanders; 3318 English-Canadians; 3253 Germans; 1137 Irish; 1060 from German Poland; and 1026 from England. Grand Rapids is served by the Michigan Central, the Lake Shore & Michigan Southern, the Grand Trunk, the Père Marquette and the Grand Rapids & Indiana railways, and by electric interurban railways. The valley here is about 2 m. wide, with a range of hills on either side, and about midway between these hills the river flows over a limestone bed, falling about 18 ft. in 1 m. Factories and mills line both banks, but the business blocks are nearly all along the foot of the E. range of hills; the finest residences command picturesque views from the hills farther back, the residences on the W. side being less pretentious and standing on bottom-lands. The principal business thoroughfares are Canal, Monroe and Division streets. Among the important buildings are the United States Government building (Grand Rapids is the seat of the southern division of the Federal judicial district of western Michigan), the County Court house, the city hall, the public library (presented by Martin A. Ryerson of Chicago), the Manufacturer’s building, the Evening Press building, the Michigan Trust building and several handsome churches. The principal charitable institutions are the municipal Tuberculosis Sanatorium; the city hospital; the Union Benevolent Association, which maintains a home and hospital for the indigent, together with a training school for nurses; Saint John’s orphan asylum (under the superintendence of the Dominican Sisters); Saint Mary’s hospital (in charge of the Sisters of Mercy); Butterworth hospital (with a training school for nurses); the Woman’s Home and Hospital, maintained largely by the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union; the Aldrich Memorial Deaconess’ Home; the D. A. Blodgett Memorial Children’s Home, and the Michigan Masonic Home. About 1 m. N. of the city, overlooking the river, is the Michigan Soldiers’ Home, with accommodation for 500. On the E. limits of the city is Reed’s Lake, a popular resort during the summer season. The city is the see of Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal bishops. In 1907-1908, through the efforts of a committee of the Board of Trade, interest was aroused in the improvement of the city, appropriations were made for a “city plan,” and flood walls were completed for the protection of the lower parts of the city from inundation. The large quantities of fruit, cereals and vegetables from the surrounding country, and ample facilities for transportation by rail and by the river, which is navigable from below the rapids to its mouth, make the commerce and trade of Grand Rapids very important. The manufacturing interests are greatly promoted by the fine water-power, and as a furniture centre the city has a world-wide reputation—the value of the furniture manufactured within its limits in 1904 amounted to $9,409,097, about 5.5% of the value of all furniture manufactured in the United States. Grand Rapids manufactures carpet sweepers—a large proportion of the whole world’s product,—flour and grist mill products, foundry and machine-shop products, planing-mill products, school seats, wood-working tools, fly paper, calcined plaster, barrels, kegs, carriages, wagons, agricultural implements and bricks and tile. The total factory product in 1904 was valued at $31,032,589, an increase of 39.6% in four years.

On the site of Grand Rapids there was for a long time a large Ottawa Indian village, and for the conversion of the Indians a Baptist mission was established in 1824. Two years later a trading post joined the mission, in 1833 a saw mill was built, and for the next few years the growth was rapid. The settlement was organized as a town in 1834, was incorporated as a village in 1838, and was chartered as a city in 1850, the city charter being revised in 1857, 1871, 1877 and 1905.

GRAND RAPIDS, a city and the county-seat of Wood county, Wisconsin, U.S.A., on both sides of the Wisconsin river, about 137 m. N.W. of Milwaukee. Pop. (1900) 4493, of whom 1073 were foreign-born; (1905) 6157; (1910) 6521. It is served by the Minneapolis, St Paul & Sault Ste Marie, the Green Bay & Western, the Chicago & North-Western, and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St Paul railways. It is a railway and distributing centre, and has manufactories of lumber, sash, doors and blinds, hubs and spokes, woodenware, paper, wood-pulp, furniture and flour. The public buildings include a post office, court house, city hall, city hospital and the T. B. Scott Free Public Library (1892). The city owns and operates its water-works; the electric-lighting and telephone companies are co-operative. Grand Rapids was first chartered as a city in 1869. That part of Grand Rapids on the west bank of the Wisconsin river was formerly the city of Centralia (pop. in 1890, 1435); it was annexed in 1900.

GRANDSON (Ger. Grandsee), a town in the Swiss canton of Vaud, near the south-western end of the Lake of Neuchâtel, and by rail 20 m. S.W. of Neuchâtel and 3 m. N. of Yverdon. Its population in 1900 was 1771, mainly French-speaking and Protestant. Its ancient castle was long the home of a noted race of barons, while in the very old church (once belonging to a Benedictine monastery) there are a number of Roman columns, &c., from Avenches and Yverdon. It has now a tobacco factory. Its lords were vassals of the house of Savoy, till in 1475 the castle was taken by the Swiss at the beginning of their war with Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, whose ally was the duchess of Savoy. It was retaken by Charles in February 1476, and the garrison put to death. The Swiss hastened to revenge this deed, and in a famous battle (2nd March 1476) defeated Charles with great loss, capturing much booty. The scene of the battle was between Concise and Corcelles, north-east of the town, and is marked by several columns, perhaps ancient menhirs. Grandson was thenceforward till 1798 ruled in common by Berne and Fribourg, and then was given to the canton du Léman, which in 1803 became that of Vaud.

See F. Chabloz, La Bataille de Grandson (Lausanne, 1897).

GRANET, FRANÇOIS MARIUS (1777-1849), French painter, was born at Aix in Provence, on the 17th of December 1777; his father was a small builder. The boy’s strong desires led his parents to place him—after some preliminary teaching from a passing Italian artist—in a free school of art directed by M. Constantin, a landscape painter of some reputation. In 1793 Granet followed the volunteers of Aix to the siege of Toulon, at the close of which he obtained employment as a decorator in the arsenal. Whilst a lad he had, at Aix, made the acquaintance of the young comte de Forbin, and upon his invitation Granet, in the year 1797, went to Paris. De Forbin was one of the pupils of David, and Granet entered the same studio. Later he got possession of a cell in the convent of Capuchins, which, having served for a manufactory of assignats during the Revolution, was afterwards inhabited almost exclusively by artists. In the changing lights and shadows of the corridors of the Capuchins, Granet found the materials for that one picture to the painting of which, with varying success, he devoted his life. In 1802 he left Paris for Rome, where he remained until 1819, when he returned to Paris, bringing with him besides various other works one of fourteen repetitions of his celebrated Chœur des Capucins, executed in 1811. The figures of the monks celebrating mass are taken in this subject as a substantive part of the architectural effect, and this is the case with all Granet’s works, even with those in which the figure subject would seem to assert its importance, and its historical or romantic interest. “Stella painting a Madonna on his Prison Wall,” 1810 (Leuchtenberg collection); “Sodoma à l’hôpital,” 1815 (Louvre); “Basilique basse de St François d’Assise,” 1823 (Louvre); “Rachat de prisonniers,” 1831 (Louvre); “Mort de Poussin,” 1834 (Villa Demidoff, Florence), are among his principal works; all are marked by the same peculiarities, everything is sacrificed to tone. In 1819 Louis Philippe decorated Granet, and afterwards named him Chevalier de l’Ordre St Michel, and Conservateur des tableaux de Versailles (1826). He became member of the institute in 1830; but in spite of these honours, and the ties which bound him to M. de Forbin, then director of the Louvre, Granet constantly returned to Rome. After 1848 he retired to Aix, immediately lost his wife, and died himself on the 21st of November 1849. He bequeathed to his native town the greater part of his fortune and all his collections, now exhibited in the Musée, together with a very fine portrait of the donor painted by Ingres in 1811.

GRANGE (through the A.-Fr. graunge, from the Med. Lat. granea, a place for storing grain, granum), properly a granary or barn. In the middle ages a “grange” was a detached portion of a manor with farm-houses and barns belonging to a lord or to a religious house; in it the crops could be conveniently stored for the purpose of collecting rent or tithe. Thus, such barns are often known as “tithe-barns.” In many cases a chapel was included among the buildings or stood apart as a separate edifice. The word is still used as a name for a superior kind of farm-house, or for a country-house which has farm-buildings and agricultural land attached to it.

Architecturally considered, the “grange” was usually a long building with high wooden roof, sometimes divided by posts or columns into a sort of nave and aisles, and with walls strongly buttressed. Sometimes these granges were of very great extent; one at St Leonards, Hampshire, was originally 225 ft. long by 75 ft. wide, and a still larger one (303 ft. long) existed at Chertsey. Ancient granges, or tithe-barns, still exist at Glastonbury, Bradford-on-Avon, St Mary’s Abbey, York, and at Coxwold. A fine example at Peterborough was pulled down at the end of the 19th century. In France there are many examples in stone of the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries; some divided into a central and two side aisles by arcades in stone. Externally granges are noticeable on account of their great roofs and the slight elevation of the eaves, from 8 to 10 ft. only in height. In the 15th century they were sometimes protected by moats and towers. At Ardennes in Normandy, where the grange was 154 ft. long; Vauclerc near Laon, Picardy, 246 ft. long and in two storeys; at Perrières, St Vigor, near Bayeux, and Ouilly near Falaise, all in Normandy; and at St Martin-au-Bois (Oise) are a series of fine examples. Attached to the abbey of Longchamps, near Paris, is one of the best-preserved granges in France, with walls in stone and internally divided into three aisles in oak timber of extremely fine construction.

In the social economic movement in the United States of America, which began in 1867 and was known as the “Farmers’ Movement,” “grange” was adopted as the name for a local chapter of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry, and the movement is thus often known as the “Grangers’ Movement” (see Farmers’ Movement). There are a National Grange at Washington, supervising the local divisions, and state granges in most states.

GRANGEMOUTH, a police burgh and seaport of Stirlingshire, Scotland. Pop. (1901) 8386. It is situated on the south shore of the estuary of the Forth, at the mouth of the Carron and also of Grange Burn, a right-hand tributary of the Carron, 3 m. N.E. of Falkirk by the North British and Caledonian railways. It is the terminus of the Forth and Clyde Canal, from the opening of which (1789) its history may be dated. The principal buildings are the town hall (in the Greek style), public hall, public institute and free library, and there is a public park presented by the marquess of Zetland. Since 1810, when it became a head port, it has gradually attained the position of the chief port of the Forth west of Leith. The first dock (opened in 1846), the second (1859) and the third (1882) cover an area of 28 acres, with timber ponds of 44 acres and a total quayage of 2500 yards. New docks, 93 acres in extent, with an entrance from the firth, were opened in 1905 at a cost of more than £1,000,000. The works rendered it necessary to divert the influx of the Grange from the Carron to the Forth. Timber, pig-iron and iron ore are the leading imports, and coal, produce and iron the chief exports. The industries include shipbuilding, rope and sail making and iron founding. There is regular steamer communication with London, Christiania, Hamburg, Rotterdam and Amsterdam. Experiments in steam navigation were carried out in 1802 with the “Charlotte Dundas” on the Forth and Clyde Canal at Grangemouth. Kersa House adjoining the town on the S.W. is a seat of the marquess of Zetland.

GRANGER, JAMES (1723-1776), English clergyman and print-collector, was born in Dorset in 1723. He went to Oxford, and then entered holy orders, becoming vicar of Shiplake; but apart from his hobby of portrait-collecting, which resulted in the principal work associated with his name, and the publication of some sermons, his life was uneventful. Yet a new word was added to the language—“to grangerize”—on account of him. In 1769 he published in two quarto volumes a Biographical History of England “consisting of characters dispersed in different classes, and adapted to a methodical catalogue of engraved British heads”; this was “intended as an essay towards reducing our biography to a system, and a help to the knowledge of portraits.” The work was supplemented in later editions by Granger, and still further editions were brought out by the Rev. Mark Noble, with additions from Granger’s materials. Blank leaves were left for the filling in of engraved portraits for extra illustration of the text, and it became a favourite pursuit to discover such illustrations and insert them in a Granger, so that “grangerizing” became a term for such an extra-illustration of any work, especially with cuts taken from other books. The immediate result of the appearance of Granger’s own work was the rise in value of books containing portraits, which were cut out and inserted in collector’s copies.

GRANITE (adapted from the Ital. granito, grained; Lat. granum, grain), the group designation for a family of igneous rocks whose essential characteristics are that they are of acid composition (containing high percentages of silica), consist principally of quartz and felspar, with some mica, hornblende or augite, and are of holocrystalline or “granitoid” structure. In popular usage the term is given to almost any crystalline rock which resembles granite in appearance or properties. Thus syenites, diorites, gabbros, diabases, porphyries, gneiss, and even limestones and dolomites, are bought and sold daily as “granites.” True granites are common rocks, especially among the older strata of the earth’s crust. They have great variety in colour and general appearance, some being white or grey, while others are pink, greenish or yellow: this depends mainly on the state of preservation of their felspars, which are their most abundant minerals, and partly also on the relative proportion in which they contain biotite and other dark coloured silicates. Many granites have large rounded or angular crystals of felspar (Shap granite, many Cornish granites), well seen on polished faces. Others show an elementary foliation or banding (e.g. Aberdeen granite). Rounded or oval dark patches frequently appear in the granitic matrix of many Cornish rocks of this group.