VOLUME XI SLICE IV G to Gaskell Elizabeth (continued 2)

See G. Duplessis, Roger de Gaignières (Paris, 1870); L. Delisle, Cabinet des manuscrits, t. i. pp. 335-356; H. Bouchot, Les Portraits aux crayon des XVIe et XVIIe siècles (Paris, 1884); Ch. de Grandmaison, Gaignières, ses correspondants et ses collections de portraits (Niort, 1892).

GAIL, JEAN BAPTISTE (1755-1829), French hellenist, was born in Paris on the 4th of July 1755. In 1791 he was appointed deputy, and in 1792 titular professor at the Collège de France. During the Revolution he quietly performed his professional duties, taking no part in politics, although he possessed the faculty of ingratiating himself with those in authority. In 1815 he was appointed by the king keeper of Greek MSS. in the royal library over the heads of the candidates proposed by the other conservators, an appointment which made him many enemies. Gail imagined that there was an organized conspiracy to belittle his learning and professional success, and there was a standing quarrel between him and his literary opponents, the most distinguished of whom was P.L. Courier. He died on the 5th of February 1829. Without being a great Greek scholar, Gail was a man of unwearied industry, whose whole life was devoted to his favourite studies, and he deserves every credit for having rescued Greek from the neglect into which it had fallen during the troublous times in which he lived. The list of Gail’s published works filled 500 quarto pages of the introduction to his edition of Xenophon. The best of these is his edition of Theocritus (1828). He also wrote a number of elementary educational works, based on the principles of the school of Port Royal. His communications to the Académie des Inscriptions being coldly received and seldom accorded the honour of print, he inserted them in a vast compilation in 24 volumes, which he called Le Philologue, containing a mass of ill-digested notes on Greek grammar, geography, archaeology, and various authors.

See “Notice historique sur la vie et les ouvrages de J. B. G.,” in Mém. de l’Acad. des Inscriptions, ix.; the articles in Biographie universelle (by A. Pillon) and Ersch and Gruber’s Allgemeine Encyclopädie (by C.F. Bähr); a list of his works will be found in J.M. Quérard, La France littéraire (1829), including the contents of the volumes of Le Philologue.

GAILLAC, a town of south-western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Tarn, on the right bank of the Tarn, 15 m. W. of Albi on the railway from that city to Toulouse. Pop. (1906) town, 5388; commune, 7535. The churches of St Michel and St Pierre, both dating from the 13th and 14th centuries, have little architectural importance. There are some interesting houses, one of which, the Maison Yversen, of the Renaissance, is remarkable for the rich carving of its doors. The public institutions include the sub-prefecture, a tribunal of first instance, and a communal college. Its industries include the manufacture of lime and wooden shoes, while dyeing, wood-sawing and flour-milling are also carried on; it has a considerable trade in grain, flour, vegetables, dried plums, anise, coriander, &c., and in wine, the white and red wines of the arrondissement having a high reputation. Gaillac grew up round the Benedictine abbey of St Michel, founded in the 10th century.

GAILLARD, GABRIEL HENRI (1726-1806), French historian, was born at Ostel, Picardy, in 1726. He was educated for the bar, but after finishing his studies adopted a literary career, ultimately devoting his chief attention to history. He was already a member of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-lettres (1760), when, after the publication of the three first volumes of his Histoire de la rivalité de la France et d’Angleterre, he was elected to the French Academy (1771); and when Napoleon created the Institute he was admitted into its third class (Académie française) in 1803. For forty years he was the intimate friend of Malesherbes, whose life (1805) he wrote. He died at St Firmin, near Chantilly, on the 13th of February 1806. Gaillard is painstaking and impartial in his statement of facts, and his style is correct and elegant, but the unity of his narrative is somewhat destroyed by digressions, and by his method of treating war, politics, civil administration, and ecclesiastical affairs under separate heads. His most important work is his Histoire de la rivalité de la France et de l’Angleterre (in 11 vols., 1771-1777); and among his other works may be mentioned Essai de rhétorique française, à l’usage des jeunes demoiselles (1745), often reprinted, and in 1822 with a life of the author; Histoire de Marie de Bourgogne (1757); Histoire de François Ier (7 vols., 1776-1779); Histoire des grandes querelles entre Charles V. et François Ier (2 vols., 1777); Histoire de Charlemagne (2 vols., 1782); Histoire de la rivalité de la France et de l’Espagne (8 vols., 1801); Dictionnaire historique (6 vols., 1789-1804), making part of the Encyclopédie méthodique; and Mélanges littéraires, containing éloges on Charles V., Henry IV., Descartes, Corneille, La Fontaine, Malesherbes and others.

GAINESVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Alachua county, Florida, U.S.A., about 70 m. S.W. of Jacksonville. Pop. (1890) 2790; (1900) 3633, of whom 1803 were negroes; (1905) 5413; (1910) 6183. Gainesville is served by the Atlantic Coast Line, the Seaboard Air Line, and the Tampa & Jacksonville railways, and is an important railway junction. It is the seat of the University of the State of Florida, established at Lake City in 1905 and removed to Gainesville in 1906. The university includes a school of language and literature, a general scientific school, a school of agriculture, a technological school, a school of pedagogy, a normal school, and an agricultural experiment station. In 1908 the university had 15 instructors and 103 students. The Florida Winter Bible Conference and Chautauqua is held here. Gainesville is well known as a winter resort, and its climate is especially beneficial to persons affected by pulmonary troubles. In the neighbourhood are the Alachua Sink, Payne’s Prairie, Newman’s Lake, the Devil’s Mill Hopper and other objects of interest. The surrounding country produces Sea Island cotton, melons, citrus and other fruits, vegetables and naval stores. About 15 m. W. of the city there is a rich phosphate mining district. The city has bottling works, and manufactures fertilizers, lumber, coffins, ice, &c. The municipality owns and operates the water-works; the water-supply comes from a spring 2 m. from the city, and the water closely resembles that of the Poland Springs in Maine. Gainesville is in the midst of the famous Seminole country. The first settlement was made here about 1850; and Gainesville, named in honour of General E.P. Gaines, was incorporated as a town in 1869, and was chartered as a city in 1907.

GAINESVILLE, a city and the county-seat of Cooke county, Texas, U.S.A., about 6 m. S. of the Red river, and about 60 m. N. of Fort Worth. Pop. (1890) 6594; (1900) 7874 (1201 negroes and 269 foreign-born); (1910) 7624. The city is served by the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé, and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas railways, and by an interurban electric railway. Gainesville is a trading centre and market for the surrounding country, in which cotton, grains, garden truck, fruit and alfalfa are grown and live-stock is raised; and a wholesale distributing point for the neighbouring region in Texas and Oklahoma. The city has cotton-compresses and cotton-gins, and among its manufactures are cotton-seed oil, flour, cement blocks, pressed bricks, canned goods, foundry products, waggon-beds and creamery products. Gainesville was settled about 1851, was incorporated in 1873, and was chartered as a city in 1879; it was named in honour of General Edmund Pendleton Gaines (1777-1849), who served with distinction in the War of 1812, becoming a brigadier-general in March 1814 and receiving the brevet of major-general and the thanks of Congress for his defence of Fort Erie in August 1814. Gaines took a prominent part in the operations against the Seminoles in Florida in 1817 (when he was in command of the Southern Military District) and in 1836 and during the Mexican War commanded the department of the South-West, with headquarters at New Orleans.

GAINSBOROUGH, THOMAS (1727-1788), English painter, one of the greatest masters of the English school in portraiture, and only less so in landscape, was born at Sudbury, Suffolk, in the spring of 1727. His father, who carried on the business of a woollen crape-maker in that town, was of a respectable character and family, and was noted for his skill in fencing; his mother excelled in flower-painting, and encouraged her son in the use of the pencil. There were nine children of the marriage, two of the painter’s brothers being of a very ingenious turn.

At ten years old, Gainsborough “had sketched every fine tree and picturesque cottage near Sudbury,” and at fourteen, having filled his task-books with caricatures of his schoolmaster, and sketched the portrait of a man whom he had detected on the watch for robbing his father’s orchard, he was allowed to follow the bent of his genius in London, with some instruction in etching from Gravelot, and under such advantages as Hayman, the historical painter, and the academy in St Martin’s Lane could afford. Three years of study in the metropolis, where he did some modelling and a few landscapes, were succeeded by two years in the country. Here he fell in love with Margaret Burr, a young lady of many charms, including an annuity of £200, married her after painting her portrait, and a short courtship, and, at the age of twenty, became a householder in Ipswich, his rent being £6 a year. The annuity was reported to come from Margaret’s real (not her putative) father, who was one of the exiled Stuart princes or else the duke of Bedford. She was sister of a young man employed by Gainsborough’s father as a traveller. At Ipswich, Gainsborough tells us, he was “chiefly in the face-way”; his sitters were not so numerous as to prevent him from often rambling with his friend Joshua Kirby (president of the Society of Artists) on the banks of the Orwell, from painting many landscapes with an attention to details which his later works never exhibited, or from joining a musical club and entertaining himself and his fellow-townsmen by giving concerts. As he advanced in years he became ambitious of advancing in reputation. Bath was then the general resort of wealth and fashion, and to that city, towards the close of the year 1759, he removed with his wife and two daughters, the only issue of their marriage. His studio in the circus was soon thronged with visitors; he gradually raised his price for a half-length portrait from 5 to 40 guineas, and for a whole-length from 8 to 100 guineas; and he rapidly developed beyond the comparatively plain and humdrum quality of his Ipswich paintings. Among his sitters at this period were the authors Sterne and Richardson, and the actors Quin, Henderson and Garrick. Meanwhile he contributed both portraits and landscapes to the annual exhibitions in London. He indulged his taste for music by learning to play the viol-di-gamba, the harp, the hautboy, the violoncello. His house harboured Italian, German, French and English musicians. He haunted the green-room of Palmer’s theatre, and painted gratuitously the portraits of many of the actors: he constantly gave away his sketches and landscapes. In the summer of 1774, having already attained a position of great prosperity, he took his departure for London, and fixed his residence at Schomberg House, Pall Mall, a noble mansion still standing, for a part of which the artist paid £300 a year.

Gainsborough had not been many months in London ere he received a summons to the palace, and to the end of his career he divided with West the favour of the court, and with Reynolds the favour of the town. Sheridan, Burke, Johnson, Franklin, Canning, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Mrs Siddons, Clive, Blackstone, Hurd, were among the number of those who sat to him. But in London as in Bath his landscapes were exhibited, were commended, and were year after year returned to him, “till they stood,” says Sir William Beechey, “ranged in long lines from his hall to his painting-room.” Gainsborough was a member of the Royal Academy, one of the original 36 elected in 1768; but in 1784, being dissatisfied with the position assigned on the exhibition walls to his portrait of the three princesses, he withdrew that and his other pictures, and he never afterwards exhibited there. Even before this he had taken no part in the business of the Institution. After seceding he got up an exhibition in his own house, not successfully. In February 1788, while witnessing the trial of Warren Hastings, he felt an extraordinary chill at the back of his neck; this was the beginning of a cancer (or, as some say, a malignant wen) which proved fatal on the 2nd of August of the same year. He lies buried at Kew.

Gainsborough was tall, fair and handsome, generous, impulsive to the point of capriciousness, easily irritated, not of bookish likings, a lively talker, good at repartee. He was a most thorough embodiment of the artistic temperament; delighting in nature and “the look of things,” insatiable in working, fond of music and the theatre hardly less than of painting—a warm, rich personality, to whom severe principle was perhaps as foreign as deliberate wrong-doing. The property which he left at his death was not large. One of his daughters, Mary, had married the musician Fischer contrary to his wishes, and was subject to fits of mental aberration. The other daughter, Margaret, died unmarried. Mrs Gainsborough, an extremely sweet-tempered woman, survived her husband ten years. There is a pretty anecdote that Gainsborough, if he ever had a tiff with her, would write a pacifying note, confiding it to his dog Fox, who delivered it to the lady’s pet spaniel Tristram. The note was worded as in the person of Fox to Tristram, and Mrs Gainsborough replied in the best of humours, as from Tristram to Fox.

Gainsborough and Reynolds rank side by side as the greatest portrait-painters of the English school. They were at variance; but Gainsborough on his death-bed sought and obtained a reconciliation. It is difficult to say which stands the higher of the two, although Reynolds may claim to have worked with a nearer approach to even and demonstrable excellence. In grace, spirit, and lightness of insight and of touch, Gainsborough is peculiarly eminent. His handling was slight for the most part, and somewhat arbitrary, but in a high degree masterly; and his landscapes and rustic compositions are not less gifted than his portraits. Among his finest works are portraits of “Lady Ligonier,” “Georgiana, duchess of Devonshire,” “Master Buttall (the Blue Boy),” now in Grosvenor House, “Mrs Sheridan and Mrs Tickell,” “Orpin, the parish clerk” (National Gallery), “the Hon. Mrs Graham” (Scottish National Gallery), his own portrait (Royal Academy), “Mrs Siddons” (National Gallery); also “the Cottage Door,” “the Market Cart,” “the Return from Harvest,” “the Woodman and his Dog in a Storm” (destroyed by fire), and “Waggon and Horses passing a Brook” (National Gallery—this was a favourite with its painter). He made a vast number of drawings and sketches.

A few observations may be added: (1) as to individual works by Gainsborough, and (2) as to his general characteristics as a painter.

Two of his first portraits, executed when he was settled at Ipswich, were separate likenesses of Mr and Mrs Hingeston. His first great hit was made at Bath with a portrait of Lord Nugent. With a likeness of Mr Poyntz, 1762, we find a decided advance in artistic type, and his style became fixed towards 1768. The date of the “Blue Boy” is somewhat uncertain: most accounts name 1779, but perhaps 1770 is nearer the mark. This point is not without interest for dilettanti; because it is said that Gainsborough painted the picture with a view to confuting a dictum of Reynolds, to the effect that blue was a colour unsuitable for the main light of a work. But, if the picture was produced before 1778, the date of Reynolds’s dictum, this long-cherished and often-repeated tradition must be given up. A full-length of the duke of Norfolk was perhaps the latest work to which Gainsborough set his hand. His portrait of Elizabeth, duchess of Devonshire, famous for its long disappearance, has aroused much controversy; whether this painting, produced not long after Gainsborough had settled in London, and termed “the Duchess of Devonshire,” does really represent that lady, is by no means certain. It was mysteriously stolen in 1876 in London immediately after it had been purchased by Messrs Agnew at the Wynn Ellis sale at a huge price, and a long time elapsed before it was retraced. The picture was taken to New York, and eventually to Chicago; and in April 1901, through the agency of a man named Pat Sheedy, it was given up to the American detectives working for Messrs Agnew; it was then sold to Mr Pierpont Morgan.

Gainsborough’s total output of paintings exceeded 300, including 220 portraits: he also etched at least 18 plates, and 3 in aquatint. At the date of his death 56 paintings remained on hand: these, along with 148 drawings, were then exhibited. In his earlier days he made a practice of copying works by Vandyck (the object of his more special admiration), Titian, Rubens, Teniers, Hobbema, Claude and some others, but not in a spirit of servile reproduction.

Gainsborough was pre-eminent in that very essential element of portraiture—truthful likeness. In process of time he advanced in the rendering of immediate expression, while he somewhat receded in general character. He always made his sitters look pleasant, and, after a while, distinguished. Unity of impression is one of the most marked qualities in his work; he seems to have seen his subject as an integer, and he wrought at the various parts of it together, every touch (and very wilful some of his touches look) tending towards the foreseen result. He painted with arrowy speed, more especially in his later years. For portraits he used at times brushes upon sticks 6 ft. long; there was but little light in his painting-room, and he often worked in the evenings. He kept his landscape work distinct from his portraiture, not ever adding to the latter a fully realized landscape background; his views he never signed or dated—his likenesses only once or twice. His skies are constantly cloudy, the country represented is rough and broken; the scenes are of a pastoral kind, with an effect generally of coming rain, or else of calm sun-setting. The prevalent feeling of his landscapes is somewhat sad, and to children, whether in subject-groups or in portraits, he mostly lent an expression rather plaintive than mirthful. It should be acknowledged that, whether in portraiture or in landscape, the painter’s mannerisms of execution increased in process of time—patchings of the brush, tufty foliage, &c.; some of his portraits are hurried and flimsy, with a minimum of solid content, though not other than artistic in feeling. Here are a few of his axioms:—“What makes the difference between man and man is real performance, and not genius or conception.” “I don’t think it would be more ridiculous for a person to put his nose close to the canvas and say the colours smelt offensive than to say how rough the paint lies, for one is just as material as the other with regard to hurting the effect and drawing of a picture.” “The eye is the only perspective-master needed by a landscape-painter.”

Authorities.—In 1788 Philip Thicknesse, Lieutenant-Governor of Landguard Fort, Ipswich, who had been active in promoting the artist’s fortunes at starting, published A Sketch of the Life and Paintings of Thomas Gainsborough. He had quarrelled with the painter at Bath, partly because the latter had undertaken to do a portrait of him as a gift, and then neglected the work, and finally, in a huff, bundled it off only half done. The crucial question here is whether or not Gainsborough was reasonably pledged to perform any such gratuitous work, and this point has been contested. Thicknesse’s book is in part adverse to Gainsborough, and more particularly so to his wife. Reynolds’s “Lecture” on Gainsborough, replete with critical insight, should never be lost sight of as a leading document. In 1856 a heedfully compiled Life of Thomas Gainsborough was brought out by T.W. Fulcher. This was the first substantial work about him subsequent to Allan Cunningham’s lively account (1829) in his Lives of the Painters. Of late years a great deal has been written, mainly but not by any means exclusively from the critical or technical point of view:—Sir Walter Armstrong (two works, 1896 and 1898); Mrs Arthur Bell (1902); Sir W.M. Conway, Artistic Development of Reynolds and Gainsborough (1886); Lord Ronald Sutherland Gower (1903); G.M. Brock-Arnold (1881). G. Pauli has brought out an illustrated work in Germany (1904) under the title Gainsborough.

(W. M. R.)

GAINSBOROUGH, a market town in the W. Lindsey or Gainsborough parliamentary division of Lincolnshire, England; on the right (E.) bank of the Trent. Pop. of urban district (1901) 17,660. It is served by the Lincoln-Doncaster joint line of the Great Northern and Great Eastern railways, by which it is 16 m. N.W. of Lincoln, and by the Great Central railway. The parish church of All Saints is classic of the 18th century, excepting the Perpendicular tower. The two other parish churches are modern. The Old Hall, of the 15th century, enlarged in the 16th, is a picturesque building, forming three sides of a quadrangle, partially timber-framed, but having a beautiful oriel window and other parts of stone. There is also a Tudor tower of brick. A literary and scientific institute occupy part of the building. Gainsborough possesses a grammar school (founded in 1589 by a charter of Queen Elizabeth) and other schools, town-hall, county court-house, Albert Hall and Church of England Institute. There is a large carrying trade by water on the Trent and neighbouring canals. Shipbuilding and iron-founding are carried on, and there are manufactures of linseed cake, and agricultural and other machinery.

Gainsborough (Gegnesburh) was probably inhabited by the Saxons on account of the fishing in the Trent. The Saxon Chronicle states that in 1013 the Danish king Sweyn landed here and subjugated the inhabitants. Gainsborough, though not a chartered borough, was probably one by prescription, for mention is made of burghal tenure in 1280. The privilege of the return of writs was conferred on the lord of the manor, Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, in 1323, and confirmed to Ralph de Percy in 1383. Mention is made in 1204 of a Wednesday market, but there is no extant grant before 1258, when Henry III. granted a Tuesday market to William de Valence, earl of Pembroke, who also obtained from Edward I. in 1291 licence for an annual fair on All Saints’ Day, and the seven preceding and eight following days. In 1243 Henry III. granted to John Talbot licence for a yearly fair on the eve, day and morrow of St James the Apostle. Queen Elizabeth in 1592 granted to Thomas Lord Burgh two fairs, to begin on Easter Monday and on the 9th of October, each lasting three days. Charles I. in 1635-1636 extended the duration of each to nine days. The Tuesday market is still held, and the fair days are Tuesday and Wednesday in Easter-week, and the Tuesday and Wednesday after the 20th of October.

See Adam Stark, History and Antiquities of Gainsburgh (London, 1843).

GAIRDNER, JAMES (1828- ), English historian, son of John Gairdner, M.D., was born in Edinburgh on the 22nd of March 1828. Educated in his native city, he entered the Public Record Office in London in 1846, becoming assistant keeper of the public records (1859-1893). Gairdner’s valuable and painstaking contributions to English history relate chiefly to the reigns of Richard III., Henry VII. and Henry VIII. For the “Rolls Series” he edited Letters and Papers illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III. and Henry VII. (London, 1861-1863), and Memorials of Henry VII. (London, 1858); and he succeeded J.S. Brewer in editing the Letters and Papers, foreign and domestic, of the reign of Henry VIII. (London, 1862-1905). He brought out the best edition of the Paston Letters (London, 1872-1875, and again 1896), for which he wrote a valuable introduction; and for the Camden Society he edited the Historical collections of a Citizen of London (London, 1876), and Three 15th-century Chronicles (London, 1880). His other works include excellent monographs on Richard III. (London, 1878, new and enlarged edition, Cambridge, 1898), and on Henry VII. (London, 1889, and subsequently); The Houses of Lancaster and York (London, 1874, and other editions); The English Church in the 16th century (London, 1902); Lollardy and the Reformation in England (1908); and contributions to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Dictionary of National Biography, the Cambridge Modern History, and the English Historical Review. Gairdner received the honorary degree of LL.D. from the university of Edinburgh in 1897, and was made a C.B. in 1900.

GAIRLOCH (Gaelic geàrr, short), a sea loch, village and parish in the west of the county of Ross and Cromarty, Scotland. Pop. of parish (1901) 3797. The parish covers a large district on the coast, and stretches inland beyond the farther banks of Loch Maree, the whole of which lies within its bounds. It also includes the islands of Dry and Horisdale in the loch, and Ewe in Loch Ewe, and occupies a total area of 200,646 acres. The place and loch must not be confounded with Gareloch in Dumbartonshire. Formerly an appanage of the earldom of Ross, Gairloch has belonged to the Mackenzies since the end of the 15th century. Flowerdale, an 18th-century house in the pretty little glen of the same name, lying close to the village, is the chief seat of the Gairloch branch of the clan Mackenzie. William Ross (1762-1790), the Gaelic poet, who was schoolmaster of Gairloch, of which his mother was a native, was buried in the old kirkyard, where a monument commemorates him.

GAISERIC, or Genseric (c. 390-477), king of the Vandals, was a son of King Godegisel (d. 406), and was born about 390. Though lame and only of moderate stature, he won renown as a warrior, and became king on the death of his brother Gonderic in 428. In 428 or 429 he led a great host of Vandals from Spain into Roman Africa, and took possession of Mauretania. This step is said to have been taken at the instigation of Boniface, the Roman general in Africa; if true, Boniface soon repented of his action, and was found resisting the Vandals and defending Hippo Regius against them. At the end of fourteen months Gaiseric raised the siege of Hippo; but Boniface was forced to fly to Italy, and the city afterwards fell into the hands of the Vandals. Having pillaged and conquered almost the whole of Roman Africa, the Vandal king concluded a treaty with the emperor Valentinian III. in 435, by which he was allowed to retain his conquests; this peace, however, did not last long, and in October 439 he captured Carthage, which he made the capital of his kingdom. According to some authorities Gaiseric at this time first actually assumed the title of king. In religious matters he was an Arian, and persecuted the members of the orthodox church in Africa, although his religious policy varied with his relations to the Roman empire. Turning his attention in another direction he built a fleet, and the ravages of the Vandals soon made them known and feared along the shores of the Mediterranean. “Let us make,” said Gaiseric, “for the dwellings of the men with whom God is angry,” and he left the conduct of his marauding ships to wind and wave. In 455, however, he led an expedition to Rome, stormed the city, which for fourteen days his troops were permitted to plunder, and then returned to Africa laden with spoil. He also carried with him many captives, including the empress Eudoxia, who is said to have invited the Vandals into Italy. The Romans made two attempts to avenge themselves, one by the Western emperor, Majorianus, in 460, and the other by the Eastern emperor, Leo I., eight years later; but both enterprises failed, owing principally to the genius of Gaiseric. Continuing his course on the sea the king brought Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearic Islands under his rule, and even extended his conquests into Thrace, Egypt and Asia Minor. Having made peace with the eastern emperor Zeno in 476, he died on the 25th of January 477. Gaiseric was a cruel and cunning man, possessing great military talents and superior mental gifts. Though the effect of his victories was afterwards neutralized by the successes of Belisarius, his name long remained the glory of the Vandals. The name Gaiseric is said to be derived from gais, a javelin, and reiks, a king.

See Vandals; also T. Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, vol. ii. (London, 1892); E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (ed. J.B. Bury, 1896-1900); L. Schmidt, Geschichte der Vandalen (Leipzig, 1901); and F. Martroye, Genseric; La Conquête vandale en Afrique (Paris, 1907).

GAISFORD, THOMAS (1779-1855), English classical scholar, was born at Iford, Wiltshire, on the 22nd of December 1779. Proceeding to Oxford in 1797, he became successively student and tutor of Christ Church, and was in 1811 appointed regius professor of Greek in the university. Taking orders, he held (1815-1847) the college living of Westwell, in Oxfordshire, and other ecclesiastical preferments simultaneously with his professorship. From 1831 until his death on the 2nd of June 1855, he was dean of Christ Church. As curator of the Bodleian and principal delegate of the University Press he was instrumental in securing the co-operation of distinguished European scholars as collators, notably Bekker and Dindorf. Among his numerous contributions to Greek literature may be mentioned, Hephaestion’s Encheiridion (1810); Poëtae Graeci minores (1814-1820); Stobaeus’ Florilegium (1822); Herodotus, with variorum notes (1824); Suidas’ Lexicon (1834); Etymologicon magnum (1848); Eusebius’s Praeparatio (1843) and Demonstratio evangelica (1852). In 1856 the Gaisford prizes, for Greek composition, were founded at Oxford to perpetuate his memory.

GAIUS, a celebrated Roman jurist. Of his personal history very little is known. It is impossible to discover even his full name, Gaius or Caius being merely the personal name (praenomen) so common in Rome. From internal evidence in his works it may be gathered that he flourished in the reigns of the emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius and Commodus. His works were thus composed between the years 130 and 180, at the time when the Roman empire was most prosperous, and its government the best. Most probably Gaius lived in some provincial town, and hence we find no contemporary notices of his life or works. After his death, however, his writings were recognized as of great authority, and the emperor Valentinian named him, along with Papinian, Ulpian, Modestinus and Paulus, as one of the five jurists whose opinions were to be followed by judicial officers in deciding cases. The works of these jurists accordingly became most important sources of Roman law.

Besides the Institutes, which are a complete exposition of the elements of Roman law, Gaius was the author of a treatise on the Edicts of the Magistrates, of Commentaries on the Twelve Tables, and on the important Lex Papia Poppaea, and several other works. His interest in the antiquities of Roman law is apparent, and for this reason his work is most valuable to the historian of early institutions. In the disputes between the two schools of Roman jurists he generally attached himself to that of the Sabinians, who were said to be followers of Ateius Capito, of whose life we have some account in the Annals of Tacitus, and to advocate a strict adherence as far as possible to ancient rules, and to resist innovation. Many quotations from the works of Gaius occur in the Digest of Justinian, and so acquired a permanent place in the system of Roman law; while a comparison of the Institutes of Justinian with those of Gaius shows that the whole method and arrangement of the later work were copied from that of the earlier, and very numerous passages are word for word the same. Probably, for the greater part of the period of three centuries which elapsed between Gaius and Justinian, the Institutes of the former had been the familiar textbook of all students of Roman law.

Unfortunately the work was lost to modern scholars, until, in 1816, a manuscript was discovered by B.G. Niebuhr in the chapter library of Verona, in which certain of the works of St Jerome were written over some earlier writings, which proved to be the lost work of Gaius. The greater part of the palimpsest has, however, been deciphered and the text is now fairly complete. This discovery has thrown a flood of light on portions of the history of Roman law which had previously been most obscure. Much of the historical information given by Gaius is wanting in the compilations of Justinian, and, in particular, the account of the ancient forms of procedure in actions. In these forms can be traced “survivals” from the most primitive times, which provide the science of comparative law with valuable illustrations, which may explain the strange forms of legal procedure found in other early systems. Another circumstance which renders the work of Gaius more interesting to the historical student than that of Justinian, is that Gaius lived at a time when actions were tried by the system of formulae, or formal directions given by the praetor before whom the case first came, to the judex to whom he referred it. Without a knowledge of the terms of these formulae it is impossible to solve the most interesting question in the history of Roman law, and show how the rigid rules peculiar to the ancient law of Rome were modified by what has been called the equitable jurisdiction of the praetors, and made applicable to new conditions, and brought into harmony with the notions and the needs of a more developed society. It is clear from evidence of Gaius that this result was obtained, not by an independent set of courts administering, as in England previous to the Judicature Acts, a system different from that of the ordinary courts, but by the manipulation of the formulae. In the time of Justinian the work was complete, and the formulary system had disappeared.

The Institutes of Gaius are divided into four books—the first treating of persons and the differences of the status they may occupy in the eye of the law; the second of things, and the modes in which rights over them may be acquired, including the law relating to wills; the third of intestate succession and of obligations; the fourth of actions and their forms.

There are several carefully prepared editions of the Institutes, starting from that of Göschen (1820), down to that of Studemund and Krüger (1900). The most complete English edition is that of E. Poste, which includes beside the text an English translation and copious commentary (1885). A comparison of the early forms of actions mentioned by Gaius with those used by other primitive societies will be found in Sir H. Maine’s Early Institutions, cap. 9. For further information see M. Glasson, Étude sur Gaius et sur le jus respondendi; also Roman Law.

GAIUS CAESAR (A.D. 12-41), surnamed Caligula, Roman emperor from 37-41, youngest son of Germanicus and Agrippina the elder, was born on the 31st of August A.D. 12. He was brought up in his father’s camp on the Rhine among the soldiers, and received the name Caligula from the caligae, or foot-soldiers’ boots, which he used to wear. He also accompanied his father to Syria, and after his death returned to Rome. In 32 he was summoned by Tiberius to Capreae, and by skilful flattery managed to escape the fate of his relatives. After the murder of Tiberius by Naevius Sertorius Macro, the prefect of the praetorian guards, which was probably due to his instigation, Caligula ascended the throne amidst the rejoicings of the people. The senate conferred the imperial power upon him alone, although Tiberius Gemellus, the grandson of the preceding emperor, had been designated as his co-heir. He entered on his first consulship in July 37. For the first eight months of his reign he did not disappoint the popular expectation; but after his recovery from a severe illness his true character showed itself. His extravagance, cruelty and profligacy can hardly be explained except on the assumption that he was out of his mind. According to Pelham, much of his conduct was due to the atmosphere in which he was brought up, and the ideas of sovereignty instilled into him, which led him to pose as a monarch of the Graeco-oriental type. To fill his exhausted treasury he put to death his wealthy subjects and confiscated their property; even the poor fell victims to his thirst for blood. He bestowed the priesthood and a consulship upon his horse Incitatus, and demanded that sacrifice should be offered to himself. He openly declared that he wished the whole Roman people had only one head, that he might cut it off at a single stroke. In 39 he set out with an army to Gaul, nominally to punish the Germans for having invaded Roman territory, but in reality to get money by plunder and confiscation. Before leaving, he led his troops to the coast opposite Britain, and ordered them to pick up shells on the seashore, to be dedicated to the gods at Rome as the spoils of ocean. On his return he entered Rome with an ovation (a minor form of triumph), temples were built, statues erected in his honour, and a special priesthood instituted to attend to his worship. The people were ground down by new forms of taxation and every kind of extortion, but on the whole Rome was free from internal disturbances during his reign; some insignificant conspiracies were discovered and rendered abortive. A personal insult to Cassius Chaerea, tribune of a praetorian cohort, led to Caligula’s assassination on the 24th of January 41.

See Suetonius, Caligula; Tacitus, Annals, vi. 20 ff.; Dio Cassius lix.; see also S. Baring Gould, The Tragedy of the Caesars (3rd ed., 1892); H.F. Pelham in Quarterly Review (April, 1905); H. Willrich, Beiträge zur alten Geschichte (1903); H. Schiller, Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, i. pt. 1; J.B. Bury, Student’s Hist. of the Roman Empire (1893); Merivale, History of the Romans under the Empire, ch. 48; H. Furneaux’s Annals of Tacitus, ii. (introduction). Mention may also be made of the famous pamphlet by L. Quidde, Caligula. Eine Studie über römischen Cäsarenwahnsinn and an anonymous supplement, 1st Caligula mit unserer Zeit vergleichbar? (both 1894); and a reply, Fin-de-Siècle-Geschichtsschreibung, by G. Sommerfeldt (1895).

GALAGO, the Senegal name of the long-tailed African representatives of the lemur-like Primates, which has been adopted as their technical designation. Till recently the galagos have been included in the family Lemuridae; but this is restricted to the lemurs of Madagascar, and they are now classed with the lorises and pottos in the family Nycticebidae, of which they form the section Galaginae, characterized by the great elongation of the upper portion of the feet (tarsus) and the power of folding the large ears. Throughout the greater part of Africa south of the Sahara galagos are widely distributed in the wooded districts, from Senegambia in the west to Abyssinia in the east, and as far south as Natal. They pass the day in sleep, but are very active at night, feeding on fruits, insects and small birds. When they descend to the ground they sit upright, and move about by jumping with their hind-legs like jerboas. They are pretty little animals, varying from the size of a small cat to less than that of a rat, with large eyes and ears, soft woolly fur and long tails. There are several species, of which G. crassicaudatus from Mozambique is the largest; together with G. garnetti of Natal, G. agisymbanus of Zanzibar, and G. monteiroi of Angola, this represents the subgenus Otolemur. The typical group includes G. senegalensis (or galago) of Senegal, G. alleni of West and Central Africa, and G. moholi of South Africa; while G. demidoffi of West and Central Africa and G. anomurus of French Congoland represent the subgenus Hemigalago.

(R. L.*)

GALANGAL, formerly written “galingale,” and sometimes “garingal,” rhizoma galangae (Arab. Kholínjan;1 Ger. Galgantwurzel; Fr. Racine de Galanga), a drug, now obsolete, with an aromatic taste like that of mingled ginger and pepper. Lesser galangal root, radix galangae minoris, the ordinary galangal of commerce, is the dried rhizome of Alpinia officinarum, a plant of the natural order Zingiberaceae, growing in the Chinese island of Hainan, where it is cultivated, and probably also in the woods of the southern provinces of China. The plant is closely allied to Alpinia calcarata, the rhizome of which is sold in the bazaars of some parts of India as a sort of galangal. Its stems attain a length of about 4 ft., and its leaves are slender, lanceolate and light-green, and have a hot taste; the flowers are white with red veins, and in simple racemes; the roots form dense masses, sometimes more than a foot in diameter; and the rhizomes grow horizontally, and are ¾ in. or less in thickness. Galangal seems to have been unknown to the ancient Greeks and Romans, and to have been first introduced into Europe by Arabian physicians. It is mentioned in the writings of Ibn Khurdádbah, an Arabian geographer who flourished in the latter half of the 9th century, and “gallengar” (gallingale or galangal) is one of the ingredients in an Anglo-Saxon receipt for a “wen salve” (see O. Cockayne, Saxon Leechdoms, vol. iii. p. 13). In the middle ages, as at present in Livonia, Esthonia and central Russia, galangal was in esteem in Europe both as a medicine and a spice, and in China it is still employed as a therapeutic agent. Its chief consumption is in Russia, where it is used as a cattle-medicine, and as a flavouring for liqueurs.

1 Apparently derived from the Chinese Kau-liang-Kiang, i.e. Kau-liang ginger, the term applied by the Chinese to galangal, after the prefecture Kau-chau fu in Canton province, formerly called Kau-liang (see F. Porter Smith, Contrib. to the Materia Medica ... of China, p. 9, 1871).

GALAPAGOS ISLANDS, an archipelago of five larger and ten smaller islands in the Pacific Ocean, exactly under the equator. The nearest island to the South American coast lies 580 m. W. of Ecuador, to which country they belong. The name is derived from galápago, a tortoise, on account of the giant species, the characteristic feature of the fauna. The islands were discovered early in the 16th century by Spaniards, who gave them their present name. They were then uninhabited. The English names of the individual islands were probably given by buccaneers, for whom the group formed a convenient retreat.

The larger members of the group, several of which attain an elevation of 2000 to 2500 ft., are Albemarle or Isabela (100 m. long, 28 m. in extreme breadth, with an area of 1650 sq. m. and an extreme elevation of 5000 ft.), Narborough or Fernandina, Indefatigable or Santa Cruz, Chatham or San Cristobal, James or San Salvador, and Charles or Santa Maria. The total land area is estimated at about 2870 sq. m. (about that of the West Riding of Yorkshire). The extraordinary number of craters, a few of which are reported still to be active, gives evidence that the archipelago is the result of volcanic action. The number of main craters may be about twenty-five, but there are very many small eruptive cones on the flanks of the old volcanoes. There is a convict settlement on Chatham with some 300 inhabitants living in low thatched or iron-roofed huts, under the supervision of a police commissioner and other officials of Ecuador, by which country the group was annexed in 1832, when General Villamil founded Floreana on Charles Island, naming it in honour of Juan José Flores, president of Ecuador. A governor has been appointed since 1885, some importance being foreseen for the islands in connexion with the cutting of the Panama canal, as the group lies on the route to Australia opened up by that scheme. Charles Island, the most valuable of the group, is cultivated by a small colony. On many of the islets numerous tropical fruits are found growing wild, but they are no doubt escapes from cultivation, just as the large herds of wild cattle, horses, donkeys, pigs, goats and dogs—the last large and fierce—which occur abundantly on most of the islands have escaped from domestication.

The shores of the larger islands are fringed in some parts with a dense barrier of mangroves, backed by an often impenetrable thicket of tropical undergrowth, which, as the ridges are ascended, give place to taller trees and deep green bushes which are covered with orchids and trailing moss (orchilla), and from which creepers hang down interlacing the vegetation. But generally the low grounds are parched and rocky, presenting only a few thickets of Peruvian cactus and stunted shrubs, and a most uninviting shore. The contrast between this low zone and the upper zone of rich vegetation (above about 800 ft.) is curiously marked. From July to November the clouds hang low on the mountains, and give moisture to the upper zone, while the climate of the lower is dry. Rain in the lower zone is scanty, and from May to January does not occur. The porous soil absorbs the moisture, and fresh water is scarce. Though the islands are under the equator, the climate is not intensely hot, as it is tempered by cold currents from the Antarctic sea, which, having followed the coast of Peru as far as Cape Blanco, bear off to the N.W. towards and through the Galapagos. The mean temperature of the lower zone is about 71° F., that of the upper from 66° to 62°.

The Galapagos Islands are of some commercial importance to Ecuador, on account of the guano and the orchilla moss found on them and exported to Europe. Except on Charles Island, where settlement has existed longest, little or no influence of the presence of man is evident in the group; still, the running wild of dogs and cats, and, as regards the vegetation, especially goats, must in a comparatively short period greatly modify the biological conditions of the islands.

The origin and development of these conditions, in islands so distinctly oceanic as the Galapagos, have given its chief importance to this archipelago since it was visited by Darwin in the “Beagle.” The Galapagos archipelago possesses a rare advantage from its isolated situation, and from the fact that its history has never been interfered with by any aborigines of the human race. Of the seven species of giant tortoises known to science (although at the discovery of the islands there were probably fifteen) all are indigenous, and each is confined to its own islet. There also occurs a peculiar genus of lizards with two species, the one marine, the other terrestrial. The majority of the birds are of endemic species peculiar to different islets, while more than half belong to peculiar genera. More than half of the flora is unknown elsewhere.

Since 1860 several visits have been paid to the group by scientific investigators—by Dr Habel in 1868; Messrs Baur and Adams, and the naturalists of the “Albatross,” between 1888 and 1891; and in 1897-1898 by Mr Charles Harris, whose journey was specially undertaken at the instance of the Hon. Walter Rothschild. Very complete collections have therefore, as a result of these expeditions, been brought together; but their examination does not materially change the facts upon which the conclusions arrived at by Darwin, from the evidence of the birds and plants, were based; though he “no doubt would have paid more attention to [the evidence afforded by Land-tortoises], if he had been in possession of facts with which we are acquainted now” (Günther). His conclusions were that the group “has never been nearer the mainland than it is now, nor have its members been at any time closer together”; and that the character of the flora and fauna is the result of species straggling over from America, at long intervals of time, to the different islets, where in their isolation they have gradually varied in different degrees and ways from their ancestors. Equally indecisive is the further exploration as to evidence for the opinion held by other naturalists that the endemic species of the different islands have resulted from subsidences, through volcanic action, which have reduced one large island mass into a number of islets, wherein the separated species became differentiated during their isolation. The presence of these giant reptiles on the group is the chief fact on which a former land connexion with the continent of America may be sustained. “Nearly all authorities agree that it is not probable that they have crossed the wide sea between the Galapagos Islands and the American continent, although, while they are helpless, and quite unable to swim, they can float on the water. If their ancestors had been carried out to sea once or twice by a flood and safely drifted as far as the Galapagos Islands” (Wallace), “they must have been numerous on the continent” (Rothschild and Hartert). No remains, and of course no living species, of these tortoises are known to exist or have existed on the mainland. Rothschild and Hartert think “it is more natural to assume the disappearance of a great stock of animals, the remains of which have survived, ... than to assume the disappearance in comparatively recent times (i.e. in the Eocene period or later) of enormous land masses.” Past elevations of land, however (and doubtless equally great subsidences) have taken place in South America since the Eocene, and the conclusion that extensive areas of land have subsided in the Indian Ocean has long been based on a somewhat similar distribution of giant tortoises in the Mascarene region.

Authorities.—Darwin, Voyage of the “Beagle”; O. Salvin, “On the Avifauna of the Galapagos Archipelago,” Trans. Zool. Soc. part ix. (1876); Sclater and Salvin, “Characters of New Species collected by Dr Habel in the Galapagos Islands,” Proc. Zool. Soc. London, 1870, pp. 322-327; A.R. Wallace, Geographical Distribution of Animals (New York, 1876); Theodor Wolf, Ein Besuch der Galapagos Inseln (Heidelberg, 1879); and paper in Geographical Journal, vi. 560 (1895); W.L. and P.L. Sclater, The Geography of Mammals (London, 1899); Ridgway, “Birds of the Galapagos Archipelago,” Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. xix. pp. 459-670 (1897); Baur, “New Observations on the Origin of the Galapagos Islands,” Amer. Nat. (1897), pp. 661-680, 864-896; A. Agassiz, “The Galapagos Islands,” Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. vol. xxiii. pp. 56-75; A. Günther, Proc. Linn. Soc. (London (President’s Address), October 1898), pp. 14-29 (with bibliography from 1875 to 1898 on gigantic land-tortoises); Rothschild and Hartert, “Review of the Ornithology of the Galapagos Islands,” Novitates zoologicae, vi. pp. 85-205; B.L. Robinson, “Flora of the Galapagos Islands,” Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences, xxxviii. (1902).

GALASHIELS, a municipal and police burgh of Selkirkshire, Scotland. Pop. (1891) 17,367; (1901) 13,615. It is situated on Gala Water, within a short distance of its junction with the Tweed, 33½ m. S.S.E. of Edinburgh by the North British railway. The town stretches for more than 2 m. along both banks of the river, the mills and factories occupying the valley by the stream, the villas and better-class houses the high-lying ground on either side. The principal structures include the municipal buildings, corn exchange, library, public hall, and the market cross. The town is under the control of a provost, bailies and council, and, along with Hawick and Selkirk, forms the Hawick (or Border) group of parliamentary burghs. The woollen manufactures, dating from the close of the 16th century, are the most important in Scotland, though now mainly confined to the weaving of tweeds. Other leading industries are hosiery, tanning (with the largest yards in Scotland), dyeing, iron and brass founding, engineering and boot-making. Originally a village built for the accommodation of pilgrims to Melrose Abbey (4 m. E. by S.), it became, early in the 15th century, an occasional residence of the Douglases, who were then keepers of Ettrick Forest, and whose peel-tower was not demolished till 1814. Galashiels was created into a burgh of barony in 1599. The Catrail or Picts’ Work begins near the town and passes immediately to the west. Clovenfords, 3½ m. W., is noted for the Tweed vineries, which are heated by 5 m. of water-pipes, and supply the London market throughout the winter. Two miles farther W. by S. is Ashestiel, where Sir Walter Scott resided from 1804 to 1812, where he wrote his most famous poems and began Waverley, and which he left for Abbotsford.

GALATIA. I. In the strict sense (Galatia Proper, Roman Gallograecia) this is the name applied by Greek-speaking peoples to a large inland district of Asia Minor since its occupation by Gaulish tribes in the 3rd century B.C. Bounded on the N. by Bithynia and Paphlagonia, W. by Phrygia, S. by Lycaonia and Cappadocia, E. by Pontus, it included the greater part of the modern vilayet of Angora, stretching from Pessinus eastwards to Tavium and from the Paphlagonian hills N. of Ancyra southwards to the N. end of the salt lake Tatta (but probably including the plains W. of the lake during the greater part of its history),—a rough oblong about 200 m. long and 100 (to 130) broad.

Galatia is part of the great central plateau of Asia Minor, here ranging from 2000 to 3000 ft. above sea-level, and falls geographically into two parts separated by the Halys (Kizil Irmak),—a small eastern district lying chiefly in the basin of the Delije Irmak, the principal affluent of the Halys, and a large western region drained almost entirely by the Sangarius (Sakaria) and its tributaries. On the N. side Galatia consists of a series of plains with fairly fertile soil, lying between bare hills. But the greater part is a dreary stretch of barren, undulating uplands, intersected by tiny streams and passing gradually into the vast level waste of treeless (anc. Axylon) plain that runs S. to Lycaonia; these uplands are little cultivated and only afford extensive pasturage for large flocks of sheep and goats. Cities are few and far apart, and the climate is one of extremes of heat and cold. The general condition and aspect of the country was much the same in ancient as in modern times.

The Gaulish invaders appeared in Asia Minor in 278-277 B.C. They numbered 20,000, of which only one-half were fighting men, the rest being doubtless women and children; and not long after their arrival we find them divided into three tribes, Trocmi, Tolistobogii and Tectosages, each of which claimed a separate sphere of operations. They had split off from the army which invaded Greece under Brennus in 279 B.C., and, marching into Thrace under Leonnorius and Lutarius, crossed over to Asia at the invitation of Nicomedes I. of Bithynia, who required help in his struggle against his brother. For about 46 years they were the scourge of the western half of Asia Minor, ravaging the country, as allies of one or other of the warring princes, without any serious check, until Attalus I., king of Pergamum (241-197), inflicted several severe defeats upon them, and about 232 B.C. forced them to settle permanently in the region to which they gave their name. Probably they already occupied parts of Galatia, but definite limits were now fixed and their right to the district was formally recognized. The tribes were settled where they afterwards remained, the Tectosages round Ancyra, the Tolistobogii round Pessinus, and the Trocmi round Tavium. The constitution of the Galatian state is described by Strabo: conformably to Gaulish custom, each tribe was divided into four cantons (Gr. τετραρχίαι), each governed by a chief (“tetrarch”) of its own with a judge under him, whose powers were unlimited except in cases of murder, which were tried before a council of 300 drawn from the twelve cantons and meeting at a holy place called Drynemeton. But the power of the Gauls was not yet broken. They proved a formidable foe to the Romans in their wars with Antiochus, and after Attalus’ death their raids into W. Asia Minor forced Rome in 189 B.C. to send an expedition against them under Cn. Manlius Vulso, who taught them a severe lesson. Henceforward their military power declined and they fell at times under Pontic ascendancy, from which they were finally freed by the Mithradatic wars, in which they heartily supported Rome. In the settlement of 64 B.C. Galatia became a client-state of the empire, the old constitution disappeared, and three chiefs (wrongly styled “tetrarchs”) were appointed, one for each tribe. But this arrangement soon gave way before the ambition of one of these tetrarchs, Deiotarus, the contemporary of Cicero and Caesar, who made himself master of the other two tetrarchies and was finally recognized by the Romans as king of Galatia. On the death of the third king Amyntas in 25 B.C., Galatia was incorporated by Augustus in the Roman empire, and few of the provinces were more enthusiastically loyal.

The population of Galatia was not entirely Gallic. Before the arrival of the Gauls, western Galatia up to the Halys was inhabited by Phrygians, and eastern Galatia by Cappadocians and other native races. This native population remained, and constituted the majority of the inhabitants of the rural parts and almost the sole inhabitants of the towns. They were left in possession of two-thirds of the land (cf. Caesar, B.G. i. 31) on condition of paying part of the produce to their new lords, who took the other third, and agriculture and commerce with all the arts and crafts of peaceful life remained entirely in their hands. They were henceforth ranked as “Galatians” by the outside world equally with their overlords, and it was from their numbers that the “Galatian” slaves who figure in the markets of the ancient world were drawn. The conquerors, who were few in number, formed a small military aristocracy, living not in the towns, but in fortified villages, where the chiefs in their castles kept up a barbaric state, surrounded by their tribesmen. With the decline of their warlike vigour they began gradually to mix with the natives and to adopt at least their religion: the amalgamation was accelerated under Roman influence and ultimately became as complete as that of the Normans with the Saxons in England, but they gave to the mixed race a distinctive tone and spirit, and long retained their national characteristics and social customs, as well as their language (which continued in use, side by side with Greek, in the 4th century after Christ). In the 1st century, when St Paul made his missionary journeys, even the towns Ancyra, Pessinus and Tavium (where Gauls were few) were not Hellenized, though Greek, the language of government and trade, was spoken there; while the rural population was unaffected by Greek civilization. Hellenic ways and modes of thought begin to appear in the towns only in the later 2nd century. In the rustic parts a knowledge of Greek begins to spread in the 3rd century; but only in the 4th and 5th centuries, after the transference of the centre of government first to Nicomedia and then to Constantinople placed Galatia on the highway of imperial communication, was Hellenism in its Christian form gradually diffused over the country. (See also Ancyra; Pessinus; Gordium.)

II. The Roman province of Galatia, constituted 25 B.C., included the greater part of the country ruled by Amyntas, viz. Galatia Proper, part of Phrygia towards Pisidia (Apollonia, Antioch and Iconium), Pisidia, part of Lycaonia (including Lystra and Derbe) and Isauria. For nearly 100 years it was the frontier province, and the changes in its boundaries are an epitome of the stages of Roman advance to the Euphrates, one client-state after another being annexed: Paphlagonia in 6-5 B.C.; Sebastopolis, 3-2 B.C.; Amasia, A.D. 1-2; Comana, A.D. 34-35,—together forming Pontus Galaticus,—the Pontic kingdom of Polemon, A.D. 64, under the name Pontus Polemoniacus. In A.D. 70 Cappadocia (a procuratorial province since A.D. 17) with Armenia Minor became the centre of the forward movement and Galatia lost its importance, being merged with Cappadocia in a vast double governorship until A.D. 114 (probably), when Trajan separated the two parts, making Galatia an inferior province of diminished size, while Cappadocia with Armenia Minor and Pontus became a great consular military province, charged with the defence of the frontier. Under Diocletian’s reorganization Galatia was divided, about 295, into two parts and the name retained for the northern (now nearly identical with the Galatia of Deiotarus); and about 390 this province, amplified by the addition of a few towns in the west, was divided into Galatia Prima and Secunda or Salutaris, the division indicating the renewed importance of Galatia in the Byzantine empire. After suffering from Persian and Arabic raids, Galatia was conquered by the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century and passed to the Ottoman Turks in the middle of the 14th.

The question whether the “Churches of Galatia,” to which St Paul addressed his Epistle, were situated in the northern or southern part of the province has been much discussed, and in England Prof. Sir W.M. Ramsay has been the principal advocate of the adoption of the South-Galatian theory, which maintains that they were the churches planted in Derbe, Lystra, Iconium and Antioch (see Galatians). In the present writer’s opinion this is supported by the study of the historical and geographical facts.1

Authorities.—Van Gelder, De Gallis in Graecia et Asia (1888); Staehelin, Gesch. d. kleinasiat. Galater (1897); Perrot, De Galatia prov. Rom. (1867); Sir W.M. Ramsay, Histor. Geogr. (1890), St Paul (1898), and Introd. to Histor. Commentary on Galatians (1899). For antiquities generally, Perrot, Explor. archéol. de la Galatie (1862); K. Humann and O. Puchstein, Reisen in Kleinasien (1890); Koerte, Athen. Mitteilungen (1897); Anderson and Crowfoot, Journ. of Hellenic Studies (1899); and Anderson, Map of Asia Minor (London, Murray, 1903).

(J. G. C. A.)

1 In the unsettled state of this controversy, weight naturally attaches to the opinion of experts on either side; and the above statement, while opposed to the view taken in the following article on the epistle, must be taken on its merits.—Ed. E.B.

GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE, one of the books of the New Testament. This early Christian scripture is one of the books militant in the world’s literature. Its usefulness to Luther in his propaganda was no accident in its history; it originated in a controversy, and the varying views of the momentous struggle depicted in Gal. ii. and Acts xv. have naturally determined, from time to time, the conception of the epistle’s aim and date. Details of the long critical discussion of this problem cannot be given here. (See Paul.) It must suffice to say that to the present writer the identification of Gal. ii. 1-10 with Acts xi. 28 f. and not with Acts xv. appears quite untenable, while a fair exegesis of Acts xvi. 1-6 implies a distinction between such towns as Lystra, Derbe and Iconium on the one hand and the Galatian χώρα with Phrygia upon the other.1 A further visit to the latter country is mentioned, upon this view, in Acts xviii. 23. The Christians to whom the epistle was addressed were thus inhabitants, for the most part (iv. 8) of pagan birth, belonging to the northern section of the province, perhaps mainly in its south-western district adjoining Bithynia and the province of Asia. The scanty allusions to this mission in Acts cannot be taken as any objection to the theory. Nor is there any valid geographical difficulty. The country was quite accessible from Antioch. Least of all does the historical evidence at our disposal justify the inference that the civilization of north Galatia, during the 1st century A.D., was Romano-Gallic rather than Hellenic; for, as the coins and inscriptions indicate, the Anatolian culture which predominated throughout the province did not exclude the infusion either of Greek religious conceptions or of the Greek language. The degree of elementary Greek culture needful for the understanding of Galatians cannot be shown to have been foreign to the inhabitants of north Galatia. So far as any trustworthy evidence is available, such Hellenic notions as are presupposed in this epistle might well have been intelligible to the Galatians of the northern provinces. Still less does the acquaintance with Roman jurisprudence in iii. 15-iv. 2 imply, as Halmel contends (Über röm. Recht im Galaterbrief, 1895), not merely that Paul must have acquired such knowledge in Italy but that he wrote the epistle there. A popular acquaintance with the outstanding features of Roman law was widely diffused by this time in Asia Minor.

The epistle can hardly have been written therefore until after the period described in Acts xviii. 22, but the terminus ad quem is more difficult to fix.2 The composition may be placed (cf. the present writer’s Historical New Testament, pp. 124 f. for details) either during the earlier part of Paul’s residence at Ephesus (Acts xix. 1, 10, so most editors and scholars), or on his way from Ephesus to Corinth, or at Corinth itself (so Lightfoot, Bleek, Salmon).

The epistle was not written until Paul had visited Thessalonica, but the Galatian churches owed their origin to a mission of Paul undertaken some time before he crossed from Asia to Europe. When he composed this letter, he had visited the churches twice. On the former of these visits (iv. 13 τὸ πρότερον), though broken down by illness (2 Cor. xii. 7-9?) he had been enthusiastically welcomed, and the immediate result of his mission was an outburst of religious fervour (iii. 1-5, iv. 14 f.). The local Christians made a most promising start (v. 7). But they failed to maintain their ardour. On his second visit (iv. 13, i. 7, v. 21) the apostle found in many of them a disheartening slackness, due to discord and incipient legalism. His plain-speaking gave offence in some quarters (iv. 16), though it was not wholly ineffective. Otherwise, this second visit is left in the shadow.3 So far as it was accompanied by warnings, these were evidently general rather than elicited by any definite and imminent peril to the churches. Not long afterwards, however, some judaizing opponents of the apostle (note the contemptuous anonymity of the τινες in i. 7, as in Col. ii. 4 f.), headed by one prominent and influential individual (v. 10), made their appearance among the Galatians, promulgating a “gospel” which meant fidelity to, not freedom from, the Law (i. 6-10). Arguing from the Old Testament, they represented Paul’s gospel as an imperfect creed which required to be supplemented by legal exactitude,4 including ritual observance (iv. 10) and even circumcision,5 while at the same time they sought to undermine his authority6 by pointing out that it was derived from the apostles at Jerusalem and therefore that his teaching must be open to the checks and tests of that orthodox primitive standard which they themselves claimed to embody. The sole valid charter to Messianic privileges was observance of the Mosaic law, which remained obligatory upon pagan converts (iii. 6-9, 16).

When the news of this relapse reached Paul, matters had evidently not yet gone too far. Only a few had been circumcised. It was not too late to arrest the Galatians on their downward plane, and the apostle, unable or unwilling to re-visit them, despatched this epistle. How or when the information came to him, we do not know. But the gravity of the situation renders it unlikely that he would delay for any length of time in writing to counteract the intrigues of his opponents; to judge from allusions like those in i. 6 (ταχέως and μετατίθεσθε—the lapse still in progress), we may conclude that the interval between the reception of the news and the composition of the letter must have been comparatively brief.

After a short introduction7 (i. 1-5), instead of giving his usual word of commendation, he plunges into a personal and historical vindication8 of his apostolic independence, which, developed negatively and positively, forms the first of the three main sections in the epistle (i. 6-ii. 21). In the closing passage he drifts over from an account of this interview with Peter into a sort of monologue upon the incompatibility of the Mosaic law with the Christian gospel (ii. 15-21),9 and this starts him afresh upon a trenchant expostulation and appeal (iii. 1-v. 12) regarding the alternatives of law and spirit. Faith dominates this section; faith in its historical career and as the vantage-ground of Christianity. The much-vaunted law is shown to be merely a provisional episode10 culminating in the gospel (iii. 7-28) as a message of filial confidence and freedom (iii. 29-iv. 11). The genuine “sons of Abraham” are not legalistic Jewish Christians but those who simply possess faith in Jesus Christ. A passionate outburst then follows (iv. 12 f.), and, harping still on Abraham, the apostle essays, with fresh rabbinic dialectic, to establish Christianity over legalism as the free and final religion for men, applying this to the moral situation of the Galatians themselves (v. 1-12). This conception of freedom then leads him to define the moral responsibilities of the faith (v. 13-vi. 10), in order to prevent misconception and to enforce the claims of the gospel upon the individual and social life of the Galatians. The epilogue (vi. 11-21) reiterates, in a handful of abrupt, emphatic sentences, the main points of the epistle.

The allusion in vi. 11 (ἴδετε πηλίκοις ὑμῖν γράμμασιν ἔγραψα τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί) is to the large bold size11 of the letters in Paul’s handwriting, but the object and scope of the reference are matters of dispute. It is “a sensational heading” (Findlay), but it may either refer12 to the whole epistle (so Augustine, Chrysostom, &c., followed by Zahn) or, as most hold (with Jerome) to the postscript (vi. 11-18). Paul commonly dictated his letters. His use of the autograph here may have been to prevent any suspicion of a forgery or to mark the personal emphasis of his message. In any case it is assumed that the Galatians knew his handwriting. It is unlikely that he inserted this postscript from a feeling of ironical playfulness, to make the Galatians realize that, after the sternness of the early chapters, he was now treating them like children, “playfully hinting that surely the large letters will touch their hearts” (so Deissmann, Bible-Studies (1901), 346 f.).

The earliest allusion to the epistle13 is the notice of its inclusion in Marcion’s canon, but almost verbal echoes of iii. 10-13 are to be heard in Justin Martyr’s Dial. xciv.-xcv.; it was certainly known to Polycarp, and as the 2nd century advances the evidence of its popularity multiplies on all sides, from Ptolemaeus and the Ophites to Irenaeus and the Muratorian canon (cf. Gregory’s Canon and Text of N.T., 1907, pp. 201-203). It is no longer necessary for serious criticism to refute the objections to its authenticity raised during the 19th century in certain quarters;14 as Macaulay said of the authenticity of Caesar’s commentaries, “to doubt on that subject is the mere rage of scepticism.” Even the problems of its integrity are quite secondary. Marcion (cf. Tert. Adv. Marc. 2-4) removed what he judged to be some interpolations, but van Manen’s attempt to prove that Marcion’s text is more original than the canonical (Theolog. Tijdschrift, 1887, 400 f. 451 f.) has won no support (cf. C. Clemen’s refutation in Die Einheitlichkeit der paulin. Briefe, 1894, pp. 100 f. and Zahn’s Geschichte d. N. T. lichen Kanons, ii. 409 f.), and little or no weight attaches to the attempts made (e.g. by J.A. Cramer) to disentangle a Pauline nucleus from later accretions. Even D. Völter, who applies this method to the other Pauline epistles, admits that Galatians, whether authentic or not, is substantially a literary unity (Paulus und seine Briefe, 1905, pp. 229-285). The frequent roughnesses of the traditional text suggest, however, that here and there marginal glosses may have crept in. Thus iv. 25a (τὸ γὰρ Σινᾶ ὄρος ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Ἀραβίᾳ) probably represents the explanatory and prosaic gloss of a later editor, as many scholars have seen from Bentley (Opuscula philologica, 1781, pp. 533 f.) to H.A. Schott, J.A. Cramer, J.M.S. Baljon and C. Holsten. The general style of the epistle is vigorous and unpremeditated, “one continuous rush, a veritable torrent of genuine and inimitable Paulinism, like a mountain stream in full flood, such as may often have been seen by his Galatians” (J. Macgregor). But there is a certain rhythmical balance, especially in the first chapter (cf. J. Weiss, Beiträge zur paulin. Rhetorik, 1897, 8 f.); here as elsewhere the rush and flow of feeling carry with them some care for rhetorical form, in the shape of antitheses, such as a pupil of the schools might more or less unconsciously retain.15 All through, the letter shows the breaks and pauses of a mind in direct contact with some personal crisis. Hurried, unconnected sentences, rather than sustained argument, are its most characteristic features.16 The trenchant remonstrances and fiery outbursts make it indeed “read like a dithyramb from beginning to end.”

Bibliography.—Of more modern editions in English, the most competent are those of C.J. Ellicott (4th ed., 1867, strong in linguistic and grammatical material), Prof. Eadie (Edinburgh, 1869), J.B. Lightfoot (11th ed., 1892), Dean Alford (3rd ed., 1862) and F. Rendall (Expositor’s Greek Testament, 1903) on the Greek text; Dr Sanday (in Ellicott’s Commentary, 1879), Dr Jas. Macgregor (Edinburgh, 1879), B. Jowett (3rd ed., 1894), Huxtable (Pulpit Comment., 1885), Dr Agar Beet (London, 1885, &c.), Dr W.F. Adeney (Century Bible), Dr E.H. Perowne (Cambridge Bible, 1890) and Dr James Drummond (Internat. Handbooks to N.T., 1899) also comment on the English text. The editions of Lightfoot and Jowett are especially valuable for their subsidiary essays, and Sir W.M. Ramsay’s Historical Commentary on Galatians (1899) contains archaeological and historical material which is often illuminating. The French editions are few and minor, those by A. Sardinoux (Valence, 1837) and E. Reuss (1878) being adequate, however. In Germany the two most up-to-date editions are by F. Sieffert (in Meyer’s Comment., 1899) and Th. Zahn (2nd ed., 1907); these supersede most of the earlier works, but H.A. Schott (1834), A. Wieseler (Göttingen, 1859), G.B. Winer (4th ed., 1859), J.C.K. von Hofmann (2nd ed., 1872), Philippi (1884), R.A. Lipsius (2nd ed., Hand.-Commentar, 1892), and Zöckler (2nd ed., 1894) may still be consulted with advantage, while Hilgenfeld’s commentary (1852) discusses acutely the historical problems of the epistle from the standpoint of Baur’s criticism. The works of A. Schlatter (2nd ed., 1894) and W. Bousset (in Die Schriften des N.T., 2nd ed., 1907) are more popular in character. F. Windischmann (Mayence, 1843), F.X. Reithmayr (1865), A. Schäfer (Münster, 1890) and F. Cornely (1892, also in Cursus scripturae sacrae, 1907) are the most satisfactory modern editors, from the Roman Catholic church, but it should not be forgotten that the 16th century produced the Literalis expositio of Cajetan (Rome, 1529) and the similar work of Pierre Barahona (Salamanca, 1590), no less than the epoch-making edition of Luther (Latin, 1519, &c.; German, 1525 f.; English, 1575 f.). After Calvin and Grotius, H.E.G. Paulus (Des Apostel P. Lehrbriefe an die Gal. u. Römer Christen, 1831) was perhaps the most independent interpreter. For the patristic editions, see the introductory sections in Zahn and Lightfoot. The religious thought of the epistle is admirably expounded from different standpoints by C. Holsten (Das Evangelium Paulus, Teil I., i., 1880), A.B. Bruce (St Paul’s Conception of Christianity, 1894, pp. 49-70) and Prof. G.G. Findlay (Expositor’s Bible). On the historical aspects, Zimmer (Galat. und Apostelgeschichte, 1882) and M. Thomas (Mélanges d’histoire et de litt. religieuse, Paris, 1899, pp. 1-195) are excellent; E.H. Askwith’s essay (Epistle to the Galatians, its Destination and Date, 1899) advocates ingeniously the south Galatian theory, and W.S. Wood (Studies in St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, 1887) criticizes Lightfoot. General studies of the epistle will be found in all biographies of Paul and histories of the apostolic age, as well as in works like Sabatier’s The Apostle Paul (pp. 187 f.), B.W. Bacon’s Story of St Paul (pp. 116 f.), Dr R.D. Shaw’s The Pauline Epistles (2nd ed., pp. 60 f.), R. Mariano, Il Cristianesimo nei primi secoli (1902), i. pp. 111 f., and Volkmar’s Paulus vom Damaskus bis zum Galaterbrief (1887), to which may be added a series of papers by Haupt in Deutsche Evang.-Blätter (1904), 1-16, 89-108, 161-183, 238-259, and an earlier set by Hilgenfeld in the Zeitschrift für wiss. Theologie (“Zur Vorgeschichte des Gal.” 1860, pp. 206 f., 1866, pp. 301 f., 1884, pp. 303 f.). Other monographs and essays have been noted in the course of this article. See further under Paul.

(J. Mt.)

1 The historical and geographical facts concerning Galatia, which lead other writers to support the south Galatian theory, are stated in the preceding article on Galatia; and the question is still a matter of controversy, the division of opinion being to some extent dependent on whether it is approached from the point of view of the archaeologist or the Biblical critic. The ablest re-statements of the north Galatian theory, in the light of recent pleas for south Galatia as the destination of this epistle, may be found by the English reader in P.W. Schmiedel’s exhaustive article in Encycl. Biblica (1592-1616) and Prof. G.H. Gilbert’s Student’s Life of Paul (1902), pp. 260-272. Schmiedel’s arguments are mainly directed against Sir W.M. Ramsay, but a recent Roman Catholic scholar, Dr A. Steinmann, takes a wider survey in a pamphlet on the north Galatian side of the controversy (Die Abfassungszeit des Galaterbriefes, Münster, i. W., 1906), carrying forward the points already urged by Sieffert and Zöckler amongst others, and especially refuting his fellow-churchman, Prof. Valentine Weber.

2 The tendency among adherents of the south Galatian theory is to put the epistle as early as possible, making it contemporaneous with, if not prior to, 1 Thessalonians. So Douglass Round in The Date of St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (1906).

3 It is not quite clear whether traces of the Judaistic agitation were already found by Paul on this visit (so especially Holsten, Lipsius, Sieffert, Pfleiderer, Weiss and Weizsäcker) or whether they are to be dated subsequent to his departure (so Philippi, Renan and Hofmann, among others). The tone of surprise which marks the opening of the epistle tells in favour of the latter theory. Paul seems to have been taken aback by the news of the Galatians’ defection.

4 Apparently they were clever enough to keep the Galatians in ignorance that the entire law would require to be obeyed (v. 3).

5 The critical dubiety about οὐδέ in ii. 5 (cf. Zahn’s excursus and Prof. Lake in Expositor, March 1906, p. 236 f.) throws a slight doubt on the interpretation of ii. 3, but it is clear that the agitators had quoted Paul’s practice as an authoritative sanction of the rite.

6 This depreciation is voiced in their catch-word οἱ δοκοῦντες (“those of repute,” ii. 6), while other echoes of their talk can be overheard in such phrases as “we are Abraham’s seed” (iii. 16), “sinners of Gentiles” (ii. 15) and “Jerusalem which is our mother” (iv. 26), as well as in their charges against Paul of “seeking to please men” (i. 10) and “preaching circumcision” (v. 11).

7 Not only is the address “to the churches of Galatia” unusually bare, but Paul associates no one with himself, either because he was on a journey or because, as the attacked party, he desired to concentrate attention upon his personal commission. Yet the ἡμεῖς of i. 8 indicates colleagues like Silas and Timothy.

8 Cf. Hausrath’s History of the N.T. Times (iii. pp. 181-199), with the fine remarks, on vi. 17, that “Paul stands before us like an ancient general who bares his breast before his mutinous legions, and shows them the scars of the wounds that proclaim him not unworthy to be called Imperator.”

9 Cf. T.H. Green’s Works, iii. 186 f. Verses 15-17 are the indirect abstract of the speech’s argument, but in verses 18-21 the apostle, carried away by the thought and barrier of the moment as he dictates to his amanuensis, forgets the original situation.

10 Thus Paul reverses the ordinary rabbinic doctrine which taught (cf. Kiddushim, 30, b) that the law was given as the divine remedy for the evil yezer of man. So far from being a remedy, he argues, it is an aggravation.

11 According to Plutarch, Cato the elder wrote histories for the use of his son, ἰδίᾳ χειρὶ καὶ μεγάλοις γράμμασιν (cf. Field’s Notes on Translation of the New Testament, p. 191). If the point of Gal. vi. 11 lies in the size of the letters, Paul cannot have contemplated copies of the epistle being made. He must have assumed that the autograph would reach all the local churches (cf. 2 Thess. iii. 17, with E.A. Abbott, Johannine Grammar, pp. 530-532).

12 For ἔγραψα, the epistolary aorist, at the close of a letter, cf. Xen. Anab. i. 9. 25, Thuc. i. 129. 3, Ezra iv. 14 (LXX) and Lucian, Dial. Meretr. x.

13 Hermann Schulze’s attempt to bring out the filiation of the later N.T. literature to Galatians (Die Ursprünglichkeit des Galaterbriefes, Leipzig, 1903) involves repeated exaggerations of the literary evidence.

14 Cf. especially J. Gloe’s Die jüngste Kritik des Galaterbriefes (Leipzig, 1890) and Baljon’s reply to Steck and Loman (Exeg.-kritische verhandeling over den Brief van P. aan de Gal., 1889). The English reader may consult Schmiedel’s article (already referred to) and Dr R.J. Knowling’s The Testimony of St Paul to Christ (1905), 28 f.

15 Compare the minute analysis of the whole epistle in F. Blass, Die Rhythmen der asianischen und römischen Kunstprosa (1905), pp. 43-53, 204-216, where, however, this feature is exaggerated into unreality. The comic trimeter in Philipp. iii. 1 (ἐμοὶ μὲν ουκ ὀκνηρόν, ὑμῖν δ᾽ ἀσφαλές) may well be, like that in 1 Cor. xv. 33, a reminiscence of Menander.

16 This affects even the vocabulary which has also “einen gewissen vulgären Zug” (Nägeli, Der Wortschatz des Apostels Paulus, 1905, pp. 78-79).

GALATINA, a town of Apulia, Italy, in the province of Lecce, from which it is 14 m. S. by rail, 233 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) 12,917 (town); 14,086 (commune). It is chiefly remarkable for the fine Gothic church of St Caterina, built in 1390 by Raimondello del Balzo Orsini, count of Soleto, with a fine portal and rose-window. The interior contains frescoes by Francesco d’ Arezzo (1435). The apse contains the fine mausoleum of the son of the founder (d. 1454), a canopy supported by four columns, with his statue beneath it.

GALATZ (Galaţii), a city of Rumania, capital of the department of Covurlui; on the left bank of the river Danube, 90 m. W. by N. of its mouth at Sulina. Pop. (1900) 62,678, including 12,000 Jews. The Danube is joined by the Sereth 3 m. S.W. of Galatz, and by the Pruth 10 m. E. Galatz is built on a slight eminence among the marshes which line the intervening shore and form, beside the western bank of the Pruth, the shallow mere called Lake Bratych (Brateşul), more than 50 sq. m. in extent. With the disappearance, towards the close of the 19th century, of most of its older quarters in which the crooked, ill-paved streets and insanitary houses were liable to be flooded every year, the city improved rapidly. Embankments and fine quays were constructed along the Danube; electric tramways were opened in the main streets, which were lighted by gas or electricity, and pure water was supplied. The higher, or north-western part of the city, which is the more open and comfortable, contains many of the chief buildings. These include the prefecture, consulate, prison, barracks, civil and military hospitals and the offices of the international commission for the control of the Danube (q.v.). The bishop of the lower Danube resides at Galatz. There are many Orthodox Greek, Roman Catholic and other churches; the most interesting being the cathedral, and St Mary’s church, in which is the tomb of the famous Cossack chief, Mazeppa (1644-1709), said to have been rifled of its contents by the Russians. Galatz is a naval station, and the headquarters of the III. army corps, protected by a line of fortifications which extends for 45 m. E. to Focshani and is known as the Sereth line. But the main importance of the city is commercial. Galatz is the chief Moldavian port of entry, approached by three waterways, the Danube, Sereth and Pruth, down which there is a continual volume of traffic, except in mid-winter; and by the railways which intersect all the richest portions of the country. Textiles, machinery, and coal make up the bulk of imports. Besides a large trade in petroleum and salt, Galatz ranks first among Rumanian cities in its export of timber, and second to Braila in its export of grain. It possesses many saw-mills, paste-mills, flour-mills, roperies, chemical works and petroleum refineries; manufacturing also metal ware, wire, nails, soap and candles. Vessels of 2500 tons can discharge at the quays, but cargoes consigned to Galatz are often transhipped into lighters at Sulina. The shipping trade is largely in foreign hands, the principal owners being British.

GALAXY, properly the Milky Way, from the Greek name ὁ γαλαξίας, sc. κύκλος, from γάλα, milk, cf. the Lat. via lactea (see Star). The word is more generally employed in its figurative or transferred sense, to describe a gathering of brilliant or distinguished persons or objects.

GALBA, SERVIUS SULPICIUS, Roman general and orator. He served under Lucius Aemilius Paulus in the third Macedonian War. As praetor in 151 B.C. in farther Spain he made himself infamous by the treacherous murder of a number of Lusitanians, with their wives and children, after inducing them to surrender by the promise of grants of land. For this in 149 he was brought to trial, but secured an acquittal by bribery and by holding up his little children before the people to gain their sympathy. He was consul in 144, and must have been alive in 138. He was an eloquent speaker, noted for his violent gesticulations, and, in Cicero’s opinion, was the first of the Roman orators. His speeches, however, were almost forgotten in Cicero’s time.

Livy xlv. 35; Appian, Hisp. 58-60; Cicero, De orat. i. 53, iii. 7; Brutus 21.

GALBA, SERVIUS SULPICIUS, Roman emperor (June A.D. 68 to January 69), born near Terracina, on the 24th of December 5 B.C. He came of a noble family and was a man of great wealth, but unconnected either by birth or by adoption with the first six Caesars. In his early years he was regarded as a youth of remarkable abilities, and it is said that both Augustus and Tiberius prophesied his future eminence (Tacitus, Annals, vi. 20; Suetonius, Galba, 4). Praetor in 20, and consul in 33, he acquired a well-merited reputation in the provinces of Gaul, Germany, Africa and Spain by his military capability, strictness and impartiality. On the death of Caligula, he refused the invitation of his friends to make a bid for empire, and loyally served Claudius. For the first half of Nero’s reign he lived in retirement, till, in 61, the emperor bestowed on him the province of Hispania Tarraconensis. In the spring of 68 Galba was informed of Nero’s intention to put him to death, and of the insurrection of Julius Vindex in Gaul. He was at first inclined to follow the example of Vindex, but the defeat and suicide of the latter renewed his hesitation. The news that Nymphidius Sabinus, the praefect of the praetorians, had declared in his favour revived Galba’s spirits. Hitherto, he had only dared to call himself the legate of the senate and Roman people; after the murder of Nero, he assumed the title of Caesar, and marched straight for Rome. At first he was welcomed by the senate and the party of order, but he was never popular with the soldiers or the people. He incurred the hatred of the praetorians by scornfully refusing to pay them the reward promised in his name, and disgusted the mob by his meanness and dislike of pomp and display. His advanced age had destroyed his energy, and he was entirely in the hands of favourites. An outbreak amongst the legions of Germany, who demanded that the senate should choose another emperor, first made him aware of his own unpopularity and the general discontent. In order to check the rising storm, he adopted as his coadjutor and successor L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, a man in every way worthy of the honour. His choice was wise and patriotic; but the populace regarded it as a sign of fear, and the praetorians were indignant, because the usual donative was not forthcoming. M. Salvius Otho, formerly governor of Lusitania, and one of Galba’s earliest supporters, disappointed at not being chosen instead of Piso, entered into communication with the discontented praetorians, and was adopted by them as their emperor. Galba, who at once set out to meet the rebels—he was so feeble that he had to be carried in a litter—was met by a troop of cavalry and butchered near the Lacus Curtius. During the later period of his provincial administration he was indolent and apathetic, but this was due either to a desire not to attract the notice of Nero or to the growing infirmities of age. Tacitus rightly says that all would have pronounced him worthy of empire if he had never been emperor (“omnium consensu capax imperii nisi imperasset”).

See his life by Plutarch and Suetonius; Tacitus, Histories, i. 7-49; Dio Cassius lxiii. 23-lxiv. 6; B.W. Henderson, Civil War and Rebellion in the Roman Empire, A.D. 69-70 (1908); W.A. Spooner, On the Characters of Galba, Otho and Vitellius in Introd. to his edition (1891) of the Histories of Tacitus.

GALBANUM (Heb. Helbenāh; Gr. χαλβάνη), a gum-resin, the product of Ferula galbaniflua, indigenous to Persia, and perhaps also of other umbelliferous plants. It occurs usually in hard or soft, irregular, more or less translucent and shining lumps, or occasionally in separate tears, of a light-brown, yellowish or greenish-yellow colour, and has a disagreeable, bitter taste, a peculiar, somewhat musky odour, and a specific gravity of 1.212. It contains about 8% of terpene; about 65% of a resin which contains sulphur; about 20% of gum; and a very small quantity of the colourless crystalline substance umbelliferone, C9H6O3. Galbanum is one of the oldest of drugs. In Exodus xxx. 34 it is mentioned as a sweet spice, to be used in the making of a perfume for the tabernacle. Hippocrates employed it in medicine, and Pliny (Nat. Hist. xxiv. 13) ascribes to it extraordinary curative powers, concluding his account of it with the assertion that “the very touch of it mixed with oil of spondylium is sufficient to kill a serpent.” The drug is occasionally given in modern medicine, in doses of from five to fifteen grains. It has the actions common to substances containing a resin and a volatile oil. Its use in medicine is, however, obsolescent.

GALCHAS, the name given to the highland tribes of Ferghana, Kohistan and Wakhan. These Aryans of the Pamir and Hindu Kush, kinsmen of the Tajiks, are identified with the Calcienses populi of the lay Jesuit Benedict Goes, who crossed the Pamir in 1603 and described them as “of light hair and beard like the Belgians.” The word “Galcha,” which has been explained as meaning “the hungry raven who has withdrawn to the mountains,” in allusion to the retreat of this branch of the Tajik family to the mountains to escape the Tatar hordes, is probably simply the Persian galcha, “clown” or “rustic,” in reference to their uncouth manners. The Galchas conform physically to what has been called the “Alpine or Celtic European race,” so much so that French anthropologists have termed them “those belated Savoyards of Kohistan.” D’Ujfalvy describes them as tall, brown or bronzed and even white, with ruddy cheeks, black, chestnut, sometimes red hair, brown, blue or grey eyes, never oblique, well-shaped, slightly curved nose, thin lips, oval face and round head. Thus it seems reasonable to hold that the Galchas represent the most eastern extension of the Alpine race through Armenia and the Bakhtiari uplands into central Asia. The Galchas for the most part profess Sunnite Mahommedanism.

See Robert Shaw, “On the Galtchah Languages,” in Journ. As. Soc. Bengal, xlv. (1876), and xlvi. (1877); Major J. Biddulph, Tribes of the Hindoo-Koosh (Calcutta, 1880); Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstone, An Account of the Kingdom of Caubul (1815); Bull. de la société d’anthropologie de Paris (1887); Charles Eugene D’Ujfalvy de Mezoe-Koevesd, Les Aryens (1896), and in Revue d’anthropologie (1879), and Bull. de la soc. de géogr. (June 1878); W.Z. Ripley, Races of Europe (New York, 1899).

GALE, THEOPHILUS (1628-1678), English nonconformist divine, was born in 1628 at Kingsteignton, in Devonshire, where his father was vicar. In 1647 he was entered at Magdalen College, Oxford, where he took his B.A. degree in 1649, and M.A. in 1652. In 1650 he was made fellow and tutor of his college. He remained some years at Oxford, discharging actively the duties of tutor, and was in 1657 appointed as preacher in Winchester cathedral. In 1662 he refused to submit to the Act of Uniformity, and was ejected. He became tutor to the sons of Lord Wharton, whom he accompanied to the Protestant college of Caen, in Normandy, returning to England in 1665. The latter portion of his life he passed in London as assistant to John Rowe, an Independent minister who had charge of an important church in Holborn; Gale succeeded Rowe in 1677, and died in the following year. His principal work, The Court of the Gentiles, which appeared in parts in 1669, 1671 and 1676, is a strange storehouse of miscellaneous philosophical learning. It resembles the Intellectual System of Ralph Cudworth, though much inferior to that work both in general construction and in fundamental idea. Gale’s endeavour (based on a hint of Grotius in De veritate, i. 16) is to prove that the whole philosophy of the Gentiles is a distorted or mangled reproduction of Biblical truths. Just as Cudworth referred the Democritean doctrine of atoms to Moses as the original author, so Gale tries to show that the various systems of Greek thought may be traced back to Biblical sources. Like so many of the learned works of the 17th century, the Court of the Gentiles is chaotic and unsystematic, while its erudition is rendered almost valueless by the complete absence of any critical discrimination.

His other writings are: A True Idea of Jansenism (1669); Theophil, or a Discourse of the Saint’s Amitie with God in Christ (1671); Anatomie of Infidelitie (1672); Idea theologiae (1673); Philosophia generalis (1676).

GALE, THOMAS (?1636-1702), English classical scholar and antiquarian, was born at Scruton, Yorkshire. He was educated at Westminster school and Trinity College, Cambridge, of which he became a fellow. In 1666 he was appointed regius professor of Greek at Cambridge, in 1672 high master of St Paul’s school, in 1676 prebendary of St Paul’s, in 1677 a fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1697 dean of York. He died at York on the 7th (or 8th) of April 1702. He published a collection, Opuscula mythologica, ethica, et physica, and editions of several Greek and Latin authors, but his fame rests chiefly on his collection of old works bearing on Early English history, entitled Historiae Anglicanae scriptores and Historiae Britannicae, Saxonicae, Anglo-Danicae scriptores XV. He was the author of the inscription on the London Monument in which the Roman Catholics were accused of having originated the great fire.