VOLUME XII SLICE II Gloss to Gordon, Charles George (continued 10)

The immense amount of golf-playing that this denotes, the large industry in the making of clubs and balls, in the upkeep of links, in the actual work of club-carrying by the caddies, and in the instruction given by the professional class, is obvious. Golf has taken a strong hold on the affections of the people in many parts of Ireland, and the fashion for golf in England has reacted strongly on Scotland itself, the ancient home of the game, where since 1880 golfers have probably increased in the ratio of forty to one. Besides the industry that such a growth of the game denotes in the branches immediately connected with it, as mentioned above, there is to be taken into further account the visiting population that it brings to all lodging-houses and hotels within reach of a tolerable golf links, so that many a fishing village has risen into a moderate watering-place by virtue of no other attractions than those which are offered by its golf course. Therefore to the Briton, golf has developed from something of which he had a vague idea—as of “curling”—to something in the nature of an important business, a business that can make towns and has a considerable effect on the receipts of railway companies.

Moreover, ladies have learned to play golf. Although this is a crude and brief sentence, it does not state the fact too widely nor too forcibly, for though it is true that before 1885 many played on the short links of St Andrews, North Berwick, Westward Ho and elsewhere, still it was virtually unknown that they should play on the longer courses, which till then had been in the undisputed possession of the men. At many places women now have their separate links, at others they play on the same course as the men. But even where links are set apart for women, they are far different from the little courses that used to be assigned to them. They are links only a little less formidable in their bunkers, a little less varied in their features than those of men. The ladies have their annual championship, which they play on the long links of the men, sometimes on one, sometimes on another, but always on courses of the first quality, demanding the finest display of golfing skill.

The claim that England made to a golfing fellowship with Scotland was conceded very strikingly by the admission of three English greens, first those of Hoylake and of Sandwich, and in 1909 Deal, into the exclusive list of the links on which the open championship of the game is decided. Before England had so fully assimilated Scotland’s game this great annual contest was waged at St Andrews, Musselburgh and Prestwick in successive years. Now the ancient green of Musselburgh, somewhat worn out with length of hard and gallant service, and moreover, as a nine-holes course inadequately accommodating the numbers who compete in the championships to-day, has been superseded by the course at Muirfield as a championship arena.

While golf had been making itself a force in the southern kingdom, the professional element—men who had learned the game from childhood, had become past-masters, were capable of giving instruction, and also of making clubs and balls and looking after the greens on which golf was played—had at first been taken from the northern side of the Border. But when golf had been started long enough in England for the little boys who were at first employed as “caddies”—in carrying the players’ clubs—to grow to sufficient strength to drive the ball as far as their masters, it was inevitable that out of the number who thus began to play in their boyhood some few should develop an exceptional talent for the game. This, in fact, actually happened, and English golfers, both of the amateur and the professional classes, have proved themselves so adept at Scotland’s game, that the championships in either the Open or the Amateur competitions have been won more often by English than by Scottish players of late years. Probably in the United Kingdom to-day there are as many English as Scottish professional golf players, and their relative number is increasing.

Golf also “caught on,” to use the American expression, in the United States. To the American of 1890 golf was largely an unknown thing. Since then, however, golf has become perhaps a greater factor in the life of the upper and upper-middle classes in the United States than it ever has been in England or Scotland. Golf to the English and the Scots meant only one among several of the sports and pastimes that take the man and the woman of the upper and upper-middle classes into the country and the fresh air. To the American of like status golf came as the one thing to take him out of his towns and give him a reason for exercise in the country. To-day golf has become an interest all over North America, but it is in the Eastern States that it has made most difference in the life of the classes with whom it has become fashionable. Westerners and Southerners found more excuses before the coming of golf for being in the open country air. It is in the Eastern States more especially that it has had so much influence in making the people live and take exercise out of doors. In a truly democratic spirit the American woman golfer plays on a perfect equality with the American man. She does not compete in the men’s championships; she has championships of her own; but she plays, without question, on the same links. There is no suggestion of relegating her, as a certain cynical writer in the Badminton volume on golf described it, to a waste corner, a kind of “Jews’ Quarter,” of the links. And the Americans have taken up golf in the spirit of a sumptuous and opulent people, spending money on magnificent clubhouses beyond the finest dreams of the Englishman or the Scot. The greatest success achieved by any American golfer fell to the lot of Mr Walter Travis of the Garden City club, who in 1904 won the British amateur championship.

So much enthusiasm and so much golf in America have not failed to make their influence felt in the United Kingdom. Naturally and inevitably they have created a strong demand for professional instruction, both by example and by precept, and for professional advice and assistance in the laying-out and upkeep of the many new links that have been created in all parts of the States, sometimes out of the least promising material. By the offer of great prizes for exhibition matches, and of wages that are to the British rate on the scale of the dollar to the shilling, they have attracted many of the best Scottish and English professionals to pay them longer or shorter visits as the case may be, and thus a new opening has been created for the energies of the professional golfing class.

The Game.—The game of golf may be briefly defined as consisting in hitting the ball over a great extent of country, preferably of that sand-hill nature which is found by the seaside, and finally hitting or “putting” it into a little hole of some 4 in. diameter cut in the turf. The place of the hole is commonly marked by a flag. Eighteen is the recognized number of these holes on a full course, and they are at varying distances apart, from 100 yds. up to anything between a ¼ and ½ m. For the various strokes required to achieve the hitting of the ball over the great hills, and finally putting it into the small hole, a number of different “clubs” has been devised to suit the different positions in which the ball may be found and the different directions in which it is wished to propel it. At the start for each hole the ball may be placed on a favourable position (e.g. “tee’d” on a small mound of sand) for striking it, but after that it may not be touched, except with the club, until it is hit into the next hole. A “full drive,” as the farthest distance that the ball can be hit is called, is about 200 yds. in length, of which some three-fourths will be traversed in the air, and the rest by bounding or running over the ground. It is easily to be understood that when the ball is lying on the turf behind a tall sand-hill, or in a bunker, a differently-shaped club is required for raising it over such an obstacle from that which is needed when it is placed on the tee to start with; and again, that another club is needed to strike the ball out of a cup or out of heavy grass. It is this variety that gives the game its charm. Each player plays with his own ball, with no interference from his opponent, and the object of each is to hit the ball from the starting-point into each successive hole in the fewest strokes. The player who at the end of the round (i.e. of the course of eighteen holes) has won the majority of the holes is the winner of the round; or the decision may be reached before the end of the round by one side gaining more holes than there remain to play. For instance, if one player be four holes to the good, and only three holes remain to be played, it is evident that the former must be the winner, for even if the latter win every remaining hole, he still must be one to the bad at the finish.

The British Amateur Championship is decided by a tournament in matches thus played, each defeated player retiring, and his opponent passing on into the next round. In the case of the Open Championship, and in most medal competitions, the scores are differently reckoned—each man’s total score (irrespective of his relative merit at each hole) being reckoned at the finish against the total score of the other players in the competition. There is also a species of competition called “bogey” play, in which each man plays against a “bogey” score—a score fixed for each hole in the round before starting—and his position in the competition relatively to the other players is determined by the number of holes that he is to the good or to the bad of the “bogey” score at the end of the round. The player who is most holes to the good, or fewest holes to the bad, wins the competition. It may be mentioned incidentally that golf occupies the almost unique position of being the only sport in which even a single player can enjoy his game, his opponent in this event being “Colonel Bogey”—more often than not a redoubtable adversary.

The links which have been thought worthy, by reason of their geographical positions and their merits, of being the scenes on which the golf championships are fought out, are, as we have already said, three in Scotland—St Andrews, Prestwick and Muirfield—and three in England—Hoylake, Sandwich and Deal. This brief list is very far from being complete as regards links of first-class quality in Great Britain. Besides those named, there are in Scotland—Carnoustie, North Berwick, Cruden Bay, Nairn, Aberdeen, Dornoch, Troon, Machrihanish, South Uist, Islay, Gullane, Luffness and many more. In England there are—Westward Ho, Bembridge, Littlestone, Great Yarmouth, Brancaster, Seaton Carew, Formby, Lytham, Harlech, Burnham, among the seaside ones; while of the inland, some of them of very fine quality, we cannot even attempt a selection, so large is their number and so variously estimated their comparative merits. Ireland has Portrush, Newcastle, Portsalon, Dollymount and many more of the first class; and there are excellent courses in the Isle of Man. In America many fine courses have been constructed. There is not a British colony of any standing that is without its golf course—Australia, India, South Africa, all have their golf championships, which are keenly contested. Canada has had courses at Quebec and Montreal for many years, and the Calcutta Golf Club, curiously enough, is the oldest established (next to the Blackheath Club), the next oldest being the club at Pau in the Basses-Pyrénées.

The Open Championship of golf was started in 1860 by the Prestwick Club giving a belt to be played for annually under the condition that it should become the property of any who could win it thrice in succession. The following is the list of the champions:—

1860. W. Park, Musselburgh 174—at Prestwick.

1861. Tom Morris, sen., Prestwick 163—at Prestwick.

1862. Tom Morris, sen., Prestwick 163—at Prestwick.

1863. W. Park, Musselburgh 168—at Prestwick.

1864. Tom Morris, sen., Prestwick 160—at Prestwick.

1865. A. Strath, St Andrews 162—at Prestwick.

1866. W. Park, Musselburgh 169—at Prestwick.

1867. Tom Morris, sen., St Andrews 170—at Prestwick.

1868. Tom Morris, jun., St Andrews 154—at Prestwick.

1869. Tom Morris, jun., St Andrews 157—at Prestwick.

1870. Tom Morris, jun., St Andrews 149—at Prestwick.

Tom Morris, junior, thus won the belt finally, according to the conditions. In 1871 there was no competition; but by 1872 the three clubs of St Andrews, Prestwick and Musselburgh had subscribed for a cup which should be played for over the course of each subscribing club successively, but should never become the property of the winner. In later years the course at Muirfield was substituted for that at Musselburgh, and Hoylake and Sandwich were admitted into the list of championship courses. Up to 1891, inclusive, the play of two rounds, or thirty-six holes, determined the championship, but from 1892 the result has been determined by the play of 72 holes.

After the interregnum of 1871, the following were the champions:—

1872. Tom Morris, jun., St Andrews 166—at Prestwick.

1873. Tom Kidd, St Andrews 179—at St Andrews.

1874. Mungo Park, Musselburgh 159—at Musselburgh.

1875. Willie Park, Musselburgh 166—at Prestwick.

1876. Bob Martin, St Andrews 176—at St Andrews.

1877. Jamie Anderson, St Andrews 160—at Musselburgh.

1878. Jamie Anderson, St Andrews 157—at Prestwick.

1879. Jamie Anderson, St Andrews 170—at St Andrews.

1880. Bob Fergusson, Musselburgh 162—at Musselburgh.

1881. Bob Fergusson, Musselburgh 170—at Prestwick.

1882. Bob Fergusson, Musselburgh 171—at St Andrews.

1883. W. Fernie, Dumfries 159—at Musselburgh.

1884. Jack Simpson, Carnoustie 160—at Prestwick.

1885. Bob Martin, St Andrews 171—at St Andrews.

1886. D. Brown, Musselburgh 157—at Musselburgh.

1887. Willie Park, jun., Musselburgh 161—at Prestwick.

1888. Jack Burns, Warwick 171—at St Andrews.

1889. Willie Park, jun., Musselburgh 155—at Musselburgh.

1890. Mr John Ball, jun., Hoylake 164—at Prestwick.

1891. Hugh Kirkaldy, St Andrews 166—at St Andrews.

1892. Mr H. H. Hilton, Hoylake 305—at Muirfield.

1893. W. Auchterlonie, St Andrews 322—at Prestwick.

1894. J. H. Taylor, Winchester 326—at Sandwich.

1895. J. H. Taylor, Winchester 322—at St Andrews.

1896. H. Vardon, Scarborough 316—at Muirfield.

1897. Mr H. H. Hilton, Hoylake 314—at Hoylake.

1898. H. Vardon, Scarborough 307—at Prestwick.

1899. H. Vardon, Scarborough 310—at Sandwich.

1900. J. H. Taylor, Richmond 309—at St Andrews.

1901. J. Braid, Romford 309—at Muirfield.

1902. A. Herd, Huddersfield 307—at Hoylake.

1903. H. Vardon, Ganton 300—at Prestwick.

1904. J. White, Sunningdale 296—at Sandwich.

1905. J. Braid, Walton Heath 318—at St Andrews.

1906. J. Braid, Walton Heath 300—at Muirfield.

1907. Arnaud Massey, La Boulie 312—at Hoylake.

1908. J. Braid, Walton Heath 291—at Prestwick.

1909. J. H. Taylor, Richmond 295—at Deal.

1910. J. Braid, Walton Heath 298—at St Andrews.

The Amateur Championship is of far more recent institution.

1886. Mr Horace Hutchinson at St Andrews.

1887. Mr Horace Hutchinson at Hoylake.

1888. Mr John Ball at Prestwick.

1889. Mr J. E. Laidlay at St Andrews.

1890. Mr John Ball at Hoylake.

1891. Mr J. E. Laidlay at St Andrews.

1892. Mr John Ball at Sandwich.

1893. Mr P. Anderson at Prestwick.

1894. Mr John Ball at Hoylake.

1895. Mr L. Balfour-Melville at St Andrews.

1896. Mr F. G. Tait at Sandwich.

1897. Mr J. T. Allan at Muirfield.

1898. Mr John Ball at Prestwick.

1899. Mr F. G. Tait at Hoylake.

1900. Mr H. H. Hilton at Sandwich.

1901. Mr H. H. Hilton at St Andrews.

1902. Mr C. Hutchings at Hoylake.

1903. Mr R. Maxwell at Muirfield.

1904. Mr W. J. Travis at Sandwich.

1905. Mr A. G. Barry at St Andrews.

1906. Mr J. Robb at Hoylake.

1907. Mr John Ball at St Andrews.

1908. Mr E. A. Lassen at Sandwich.

1909. Mr Robert Maxwell at Muirfield.

1910. Mr John Ball at Hoylake.

The Ladies’ Championship was started in 1893.

1893. Lady M. Scott at St Annes.

1894. Lady M. Scott at Littlestone.

1895. Lady M. Scott at Portrush.

1896. Miss A. B. Pascoe at Hoylake.

1897. Miss E. C. Orr at Gullane.

1898. Miss L. Thompson at Yarmouth.

1899. Miss M. Hezlet at Newcastle.

1900. Miss R. K. Adair at Westward Ho.

1901. Miss M. A. Graham at Aberdovy.

1902. Miss M. Hezlet at Deal.

1903. Miss R. K. Adair at Portrush.

1904. Miss L. Dod at Troon.

1905. Miss B. Thompson at Cromer.

1906. Mrs Kennion at Burnham.

1907. Miss M. Hezlet at Newcastle (Co. Down).

1908. Miss M. Titterton at St Andrews.

1909. Miss D. Campbell at Birkdale.

1910. Miss Grant Suttie at Westward Ho.

There have been some slight changes of detail and arrangement as time has gone on, in the rules of the game (the latest edition of the Rules should be consulted). A new class of golfer has arisen, requiring a code of rules framed rather more exactly than the older code. The Scottish golfer, who was “teethed” on a golf club, as Mr Andrew Lang has described it, imbibed all the traditions of the game with his natural sustenance. Very few rules sufficed for him. But when the Englishman, and still more the American (less in touch with the traditions), began to play golf as a new game, then they began to ask for a code of rules that should be lucid and illuminating on every point—an ideal perhaps impossible to realize. It was found, at least, that the code put forward by the Royal and Ancient Club of St Andrews did not realize it adequately. Nevertheless the new golfers were very loyal indeed to the club that had ever of old held, by tacit consent, the position of fount of golfing legislation. The Royal and Ancient Club was appealed to by English golfers to step into the place, analogous to that of the Marylebone Cricket Club in cricket, that they were both willing and anxious to give it. It was a place that the Club at St Andrews did not in the least wish to occupy, but the honour was thrust so insistently upon it, that there was no declining. The latest effort to meet the demands for some more satisfactory legislation on the thousand and one points that continually must arise for decision in course of playing a game of such variety as golf, consists of the appointment of a standing committee, called the “Rules of Golf Committee.” Its members all belong to the Royal and Ancient Club; but since this club draws its membership from all parts of the United Kingdom, this restriction is quite consistent with a very general representation of the views of north, south, east and west—from Westward Ho and Sandwich to Dornoch, and all the many first-rate links of Ireland—on the committee. Ireland has, indeed, some of the best links in the kingdom, and yields to neither Scotland nor England in enthusiasm for the game. This committee, after a general revision of the rules into the form in which they now stand, consider every month, either by meeting or by correspondence, the questions that are sent up to it by clubs or by individuals; and the committee’s answers to these questions have the force of law until they have come before the next general meeting of the Royal and Ancient Club at St Andrews, which may confirm or may reject them at will. The ladies of Great Britain manage otherwise. They have a Golfing Union which settles questions for them; but since this union itself accepts as binding the answers given by the Rules of Golf Committee, they really arrive at the same conclusions by a slightly different path. Nor does the American Union, governing the play of men and women alike in the States, really act differently. The Americans naturally reserve to themselves freedom to make their own rules, but in practice they conform to the legislation of Scotland, with the exception of a more drastic definition of the status of the amateur player, and certain differences as to the clubs used.

A considerable modification has been effected in the implements of the game. The tendency of the modern wooden clubs is to be short in the head as compared with the clubs of, say, 1880 or 1885. The advantage claimed (probably with justice) for this shape is that it masses the weight behind the point on which the ball is struck. Better material in the wood of the club is a consequence of the increased demand for these articles and the increased competition among their makers. Whereas under the old conditions a few workers at the few greens then in existence were enough to supply the golfing wants, now there is a very large industry in golf club and ball making, which not only employs workers in the local club-makers’ shops all the kingdom over, but is an important branch of the commerce of the stores and of the big athletic outfitters, both in Great Britain and in the United States. By far the largest modification in the game since the change to gutta-percha balls from balls of leather-covering stuffed with feathers, is due to the American invention of the india-rubber cased balls. Practically it is as an American invention that it is still regarded, although the British law courts decided, after a lengthy trial (1905), that there had been “prior users” of the principle of the balls’ manufacture, and therefore that the patent of Mr Haskell, by whose name the first balls of the kind were called, was not good. It is singular to remark that in the first introduction of the gutta-percha balls, superseding the leather and feather compositions, they also were called by the name of their first maker, “Gourlay.” The general mode of manufacture of the rubber-cored ball, which is now everywhere in use, is interiorly, a hard core of gutta-percha or some other such substance; round this is wound, by machinery, india-rubber thread or strips at a high tension, and over all is an outer coat of gutta-percha. Some makers have tried to dispense with the kernel of hard substance, or to substitute for it kernels of some fluid or gelatinous substance, but in general the above is a sufficient, though rough, description of the mode of making all these balls. Their superiority over the solid gutta-percha lies in their superior resiliency. The effect is that they go much more lightly off the club. It is not so much in the tee-shots that this superiority is observed, as in the second shots, when the ball is lying badly; balls of the rubber-cored kind, with their greater liveliness, are more easy to raise in the air from a lie of this kind. They also go remarkably well off the iron clubs, and thus make the game easier by placing the player within an iron shot of the hole at a distance at which he would have to use a wooden club if he were playing with a solid gutta-percha ball. They also tend to make the game more easy by the fact that if they are at all mis-hit they go much better than a gutta-percha ball similarly inaccurately struck. As a slight set-off against these qualities, the ball, because of the greater liveliness, is not quite so good for the short game as the solid ball; but on the whole its advantages distinctly overbalance its disadvantages.

When these balls were first put on the market they were sold at two shillings each and even, when the supply was quite unequal to the demand, at a greater deal higher price, rising to as much as a guinea a ball. But the normal price, until about a year after the decision in the British courts of law affirming that there was no patent in the balls, was always two shillings for the best quality of ball. Subsequently there was a reduction down to one shilling for the balls made by many of the manufacturing companies, though in 1910 the rise in the price of rubber sent up the cost. The rubber-cored ball does not go out of shape so quickly as the gutta-percha solid ball and does not show other marks of ill-usage with the club so obviously. It has had the effect of making the game a good deal easier for the second- and third-class players, favouring especially those who were short drivers with the old gutta-percha ball. To the best players it has made the least difference, nevertheless those who were best with the old ball are also best with the new; its effect has merely been to bring the second, third and fourth best closer to each other and to the best.

Incidentally, the question of the expense of the game has been touched on in this notice of the new balls. There is no doubt that the balls themselves tend to a greater economy, not only because of their own superior durability but also because, as a consequence of their greater resiliency, they are not nearly so hard on the clubs, and the clubs themselves being perhaps made of better material than used to be given to their manufacture, the total effect is that a man’s necessary annual expenditure on them is very small indeed even though he plays pretty constantly. Four or five rounds are not more than the average of golfers will make an india-rubber cored ball last them, so that the outlay on the weapons is very moderate. On the other hand the expenditure of the clubs on their courses has increased and tends to increase. Demands are more insistent than they used to be for a well kept course, for perfectly mown greens, renewed teeing grounds and so on, and probably the modern golfer is a good deal more luxurious in his clubhouse wants than his father used to be. This means a big staff of servants and workers on the green, and to meet this a rather heavy subscription is required. Such a subscription as five guineas added to a ten or fifteen guinea entrance fee is not uncommon, and even this is very moderate compared with the subscriptions to some of the clubs in the United States, where a hundred dollars a year, or twenty pounds of our money, is not unusual. But on the whole golf is a very economical pastime, as compared with almost any other sport or pastime which engages the attention of Britons, and it is a pastime for all the year round, and for all the life of a man or woman.

Glossary of Technical Terms used in the Game.

Addressing the Ball.—Putting oneself in position to strike the ball.

All Square.—Term used to express that the score stands level, neither side being a hole up.

Baff.—To strike the ground with the club when playing, and so loft the ball unduly.

Baffy.—A short wooden club, with laid-back face, for lofting shots.

Bogey.—The number of strokes which a good average player should take to each hole. This imaginary player is usually known as “Colonel Bogey,” and plays a fine game.

Brassy.—A wooden club with a brass sole.

Bulger.—A driver in which the face “bulges” into a convex shape. The head is shorter than in the older-fashioned driver.

Bunker.—A sand-pit.

Bye.—The holes remaining after one side has become more holes up than remain for play.

Caddie.—The person who carries the clubs. Diminutive of “cad”; cf. laddie (from Fr. cadet).

Cleek.—The iron-headed club that is capable of the farthest drive of any of the clubs with iron heads.

Cup.—A depression in the ground causing the ball to lie badly.

Dead.—A ball is said to be “dead” when so near the hole that the putting it in in the next stroke is a “dead” certainty. A ball is said to “fall dead” when it pitches with hardly any run.

Divot.—A piece of turf cut out in the act of playing, which, be it noted, should always be replaced before the player moves on.

Dormy.—One side is said to be “dormy” when it is as many holes to the good as remain to be played—so that it cannot be beaten.

Driver.—The longest driving club, used when the ball lies very well and a long shot is needed.

Foozle.—Any very badly missed or bungled stroke.

“Fore!”—A cry of warning to people in front.

Foursome.—A match in which four persons engage, two on each side playing alternately with the same ball.

Green.—(a) The links as a whole; (b) the “putting-greens” around the holes.

Grip.—(a) The part of the club-shaft which is held in the hands while playing; (b) the grasp itself—e.g. “a firm grip,” “a loose grip,” are common expressions.

Half-Shot.—A shot played with something less than a full swing.

Halved.—A hole is “halved” when both sides have played it in the same number of strokes. A round is “halved” when each side has won and lost the same number of holes.

Handicap.—The strokes which a player receives either in match play or competition.

Hanging.—Said of a ball that lies on a slope inclining downwards in regard to the direction in which it is wished to drive.

Hazard.—A general term for bunker, whin, long grass, roads and all kinds of bad ground.

Heel.—To hit the ball on the “heel” of the club, i.e. the part of the face nearest the shaft, and so send the ball to the right, with the same result as from a slice.

Honour.—The privilege (which its holder is not at liberty to decline) of striking off first from the tee.

Iron.—An iron-headed club intermediate between the cleek and lofting mashie. There are driving irons and lofting irons according to the purposes for which they are intended.

Lie.—(a) The angle of the club-head with the shaft (e.g. a “flat lie,” “an upright lie”); (b) the position of the ball on the ground (e.g. “a good lie,” “a bad lie”).

Like, The.—The stroke which makes the player’s score equal to his opponent’s in course of playing a hole.

Like-as-we-Lie.—Said when both sides have played the same number of strokes.

Line.—The direction in which the hole towards which the player is progressing lies with reference to the present position of his ball.

Mashie.—Ah iron club with a short head. The lofting mashie has the blade much laid back, for playing a short lofting shot. The driving mashie has the blade less laid back, and is used for longer, less lofted shots.

Match-Play.—Play in which the score is reckoned by holes won and lost.

Medal-Play.—Play in which the score is reckoned by the total of strokes taken on the round.

Niblick.—A short stiff club with a short, laid back, iron head, used for getting the ball out of a very bad lie.

Odd, The.—A stroke more than the opponent has played.

Press.—To strive to hit harder than you can hit with accuracy.

Pull.—To hit the ball with a pulling movement of the club, so as to make it curve to the left.

Putt.—To play the short strokes near the hole (pronounced as in “but”).

Putter.—The club used for playing the short strokes near the hole. Some have a wooden head, some an iron head.

Rub-of-the-Green.—Any chance deflection that the ball receives as it goes along.

Run Up.—To send the ball low and close to the ground in approaching the hole—opposite to lofting it up.

Scratch Player.—Player who receives no odds in handicap competitions.

Slice.—To hit the ball with a cut across it, so that it flies curving to the right.

Stance.—(a) The place on which the player has to stand when playing—e.g. “a bad stance,” “a good stance,” are common expressions; (b) the position relative to each other of the player’s feet.

Stymie.—When one ball lies in a straight line between another and the hole the first is said to “stymie,” or “to be a stymie to” the other—from an old Scottish word given by Jamieson to mean “the faintest form of anything.” The idea probably was, the “stymie” only left you the “faintest form” of the hole to aim at.

Tee.—The little mound of sand on which the ball is generally placed for the first drive to each hole.

Teeing-Ground.—The place marked as the limit, outside of which it is not permitted to drive the ball off. This marked-out ground is also sometimes called “the tee.”

Top.—To hit the ball above the centre, so that it does not rise much from the ground.

Up.—A player is said to be “one up,” “two up,” &c., when he is so many holes to the good of his opponent.

Wrist-Shot.—A shot less in length than a half-shot, but longer than a putt.

Bibliography.—The literature of the game has grown to some considerable bulk. For many years it was practically comprised in the fine work by Mr Robert Clark, Golf: A Royal and Ancient Game, together with two handbooks on the game by Mr Chambers and by Mr Forgan respectively, and the Golfiana Miscellanea of Mr Stewart. A small book by Mr Horace Hutchinson, named Hints on Golf, was very shortly followed by a much more important work by Sir Walter Simpson, Bart., called The Art of Golf, a title which sufficiently explains itself. The Badminton Library book on Golf attempted to collect into one volume the most interesting historical facts known about the game, with obiter dicta and advice to learners, and, on similar didactic lines, books have been written by Mr H. C. S. Everard, Mr Garden Smith and W. Park, the professional player. Mr H. J. Whigham, sometime amateur champion golfer of the United States, has given us a book about the game in that country. The Book of Golf and Golfers, compiled, with assistance, by Mr Horace Hutchinson, is in the first place a picture-gallery of famous golfers in their respective attitudes of play. Taylor, Vardon and Braid have each contributed a volume of instruction, and Mr G. W. Beldam has published a book with admirable photographs of players in action, called Great Golfers: their Methods at a Glance. A work intended for the use of green committees is among the volumes of the Country Life Library of Sport. Much interesting lore is contained in the Golfing Annual, in the Golfer’s Year Book and in the pages of Golf, which has now become Golf Illustrated, a weekly paper devoted to the game. Among works that have primarily a local interest, but yet contain much of historical value about the game, may be cited the Golf Book of East Lothian, by the Rev. John Kerr, and the Chronicle of Blackheath Golfers, by Mr W. E. Hughes.

(H. G. H.)

1 From an enactment of James VI. (then James I. of England), bearing date 1618, we find that a considerable importation of golf balls at that time took place from Holland, and as thereby “na small quantitie of gold and silver is transported zierly out of his Hienes’ kingdome of Scoteland” (see letter of His Majesty from Salisbury, the 5th of August 1618), he issues a royal prohibition, at once as a wise economy of the national moneys, and a protection to native industry in the article. From this it might almost seem that the game was at that date still known and practised in Holland.

2 Records of the City of Edinburgh.

3 Inventories of Mary Queen of Scots, preface, p. lxx. (1863).

4 Anonymous author of MS. in the Harleian Library.

5 See History of Leith, by A. Campbell (1827).

6 Local Records of Northumberland, by John Sykes (Newcastle, 1833).

7 Robertson’s Historical Notices of Leith.

GOLIAD, an unincorporated village and the county-seat of Goliad county, Texas, U.S.A., on the N. bank of the San Antonio river, 85 m. S.E. of San Antonio. Pop. (1900) about 1700. It is served by the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio railway (Southern Pacific System). Situated in the midst of a rich farming and stock-raising country, Goliad has flour mills, cotton gins and cotton-seed oil mills. Here are the interesting ruins of the old Spanish mission of La Bahia, which was removed to this point from the Guadaloupe river in 1747. During the struggle between Mexico and Spain the Mexican leader Bernardo Gutierrez (1778-1814) was besieged here. The name Goliad, probably an anagram of the name of the Mexican patriot Hidalgo (1753-1811), was first used about 1829. On the outbreak of the Texan War of Liberation Goliad was garrisoned by a small force of Mexicans, who surrendered to the Texans in October 1835, and on the 20th of December a preliminary “declaration of independence” was published here, antedating by several months the official Declaration issued at Old Washington, Texas, on the 2nd of March 1836. In 1836, when Santa Anna began his advance against the Texan posts, Goliad was occupied by a force of about 350 Americans under Colonel James W. Fannin (c. 1800-1836), who was overtaken on the Coletta Creek while attempting to carry out orders to withdraw from Goliad and to unite with General Houston; he surrendered after a sharp fight (March 19-20) in which he inflicted a heavy loss on the Mexicans, and was marched back with his force to Goliad, where on the morning of the 27th of March they were shot down by Santa Anna’s orders. Goliad was nearly destroyed by a tornado on the 19th of May 1903.

GOLIARD, a name applied to those wandering students (vagantes) and clerks in England, France and Germany, during the 12th and 13th centuries, who were better known for their rioting, gambling and intemperance than for their scholarship. The derivation of the word is uncertain. It may come from the Lat. gula, gluttony (Wright), but was connected by them with a mythical “Bishop Golias,” also called “archipoëta” and “primas”—especially in Germany—in whose name their satirical poems were mostly written. Many scholars have accepted Büdinger’s suggestion (Über einige Reste der Vagantenpoesie in Österreich, Vienna, 1854) that the title of Golias goes back to the letter of St Bernard to Innocent II., in which he referred to Abelard as Goliath, thus connecting the goliards with the keen-witted student adherents of that great medieval critic. Giesebrecht and others, however, support the derivation of goliard from gailliard, a gay fellow, leaving “Golias” as the imaginary “patron” of their fraternity.

Spiegel has ingeniously disentangled something of a biography of an archipoëta who flourished mainly in Burgundy and at Salzburg from 1160 to beyond the middle of the 13th century; but the proof of the reality of this individual is not convincing. It is doubtful, too, if the jocular references to the rules of the “gild” of goliards should be taken too seriously, though their aping of the “orders” of the church, especially their contrasting them with the mendicants, was too bold for church synods. Their satires were almost uniformly directed against the church, attacking even the pope. In 1227 the council of Trèves forbade priests to permit the goliards to take part in chanting the service. In 1229 they played a conspicuous part in the disturbances at the university of Paris, in connexion with the intrigues of the papal legate. During the century which followed they formed a subject for the deliberations of several church councils, notably in 1289 when it was ordered that “no clerks shall be jongleurs, goliards or buffoons,” and in 1300 (at Cologne) when they were forbidden to preach or engage in the indulgence traffic. This legislation was only effective when the “privileges of clergy” were withdrawn from the goliards. Those historians who regard the middle ages as completely dominated by ascetic ideals, regard the goliard movement as a protest against the spirit of the time. But it is rather indicative of the wide diversity in temperament among those who crowded to the universities in the 13th century, and who found in the privileges of the clerk some advantage and attraction in the student life. The goliard poems are as truly “medieval” as the monastic life which they despised; they merely voice another section of humanity. Yet their criticism was most keenly pointed, and marks a distinct step in the criticism of abuses in the church.

Along with these satires went many poems in praise of wine and riotous living. A remarkable collection of them, now at Munich, from the monastery at Benedictbeuren in Bavaria, was published by Schmeller (3rd ed., 1895) under the title Carmina Burana. Many of these, which form the main part of song-books of German students to-day, have been delicately translated by John Addington Symonds in a small volume, Wine, Women and Song (1884). As Symonds has said, they form a prelude to the Renaissance. The poems of “Bishop Golias” were later attributed to Walter Mapes, and have been published by Thomas Wright in The Latin Poems commonly attributed to Walter Mapes (London, 1841).

The word “goliard” itself outlived these turbulent bands which had given it birth, and passed over into French and English literature of the 14th century in the general meaning of jongleur or minstrel, quite apart from any clerical association. It is thus used in Piers Plowman, where, however, the goliard still rhymes in Latin, and in Chaucer.

See, besides the works quoted above, M. Haezner, Goliardendichtung und die Satire im 13ten Jahrhundert in England (Leipzig, 1905); Spiegel, Die Vaganten und ihr “Orden” (Spires, 1892); Hubatsch, Die lateinischen Vagantenlieder des Mittelalters (Görlitz, 1870); and the article in La grande Encyclopédie. All of these have bibliographical apparatus.

(J. T. S.*)

GOLIATH, the name of the giant by slaying whom David achieved renown (1 Sam. xvii.). The Philistines had come up to make war against Saul and, as the rival camps lay opposite each other, this warrior came forth day by day to challenge to single combat. Only David ventured to respond, and armed with a sling and pebbles he overcame Goliath. The Philistines, seeing their champion killed, lost heart and were easily put to flight. The giant’s arms were placed in the sanctuary, and it was his famous sword which David took with him in his flight from Saul (1 Sam. xxi. 1-9). From another passage we learn that Goliath of Gath, “the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam,” was slain by a certain Elhanan of Bethlehem in one of David’s conflicts with the Philistines (2 Sam. xxi. 18-22)—the parallel 1 Chron. xx. 5, avoids the contradiction by reading the “brother of Goliath.” But this old popular story has probably preserved the more original tradition, and if Elhanan is the son of Dodo in the list of David’s mighty men (2 Sam. xxiii. 9, 24), the resemblance between the two names may have led to the transference. The narratives of David’s early life point to some exploit by means of which he gained the favour of Saul, Jonathan and Israel, but the absence of all reference to his achievement in the subsequent chapters (1 Sam. xxi. 11, xxix. 5) is evidence of the relatively late origin of a tradition which in course of time became one of the best-known incidents in David’s life (Ps. cxliv., LXX. title, the apocryphal Ps. cli., Ecclus. xlvii. 4).

See David; Samuel (Books) and especially Cheyne, Aids and Devout Study of Criticism, pp. 80 sqq., 125 sqq. In the old Egyptian romance of Sinuhit (ascribed to about 2000 B.C.), the story of the slaying of the Bedouin hero has several points of resemblance with that of David and Goliath. See L. B. Paton, Hist. of Syr. and Pal., p. 60; A. Jeremias, Das A. T. im Lichte d. alten Orients, 2nd ed. pp. 299, 491; A. R. S. Kennedy, Century Bible: Samuel, p. 122, argues that David’s Philistine adversary was originally nameless, in 1 Sam. xvii. he is named only in v. 4.

GOLITSUIN, BORIS ALEKSYEEVICH (1654-1714), Russian statesman, came of a princely family, claiming descent from Prince Gedimin of Lithuania. Earlier members of the family were Mikhail (d. c. 1552), a famous soldier, and his great-grandson Vasily Vasilevich (d. 1619), who was sent as ambassador to Poland to offer the Russian crown to Prince Ladislaus. Boris became court chamberlain in 1676. He was the young tsar Peter’s chief supporter when, in 1689, Peter resisted the usurpations of his elder sister Sophia, and the head of the loyal council which assembled at the Troitsa monastery during the crisis of the struggle. Golitsuin it was who suggested taking refuge in that strong fortress and won over the boyars of the opposite party. In 1690 he was created a boyar and shared with Lev Naruishkin, Peter’s uncle, the conduct of home affairs. After the death of the tsaritsa Natalia, Peter’s mother, in 1694, his influence increased still further. He accompanied Peter to the White Sea (1694-1695); took part in the Azov campaign (1695); and was one of the triumvirate who ruled Russia during Peter’s first foreign tour (1697-1698). The Astrakhan rebellion (1706), which affected all the districts under his government, shook Peter’s confidence in him, and seriously impaired his position. In 1707 he was superseded in the Volgan provinces by Andrei Matvyeev. A year before his death he entered a monastery. Golitsuin was a typical representative of Russian society of the end of the 17th century in its transition from barbarism to civilization. In many respects he was far in advance of his age. He was highly educated, spoke Latin with graceful fluency, frequented the society of scholars and had his children carefully educated according to the best European models. Yet this eminent, this superior personage was an habitual drunkard, an uncouth savage who intruded upon the hospitality of wealthy foreigners, and was not ashamed to seize upon any dish he took a fancy to, and send it home to his wife. It was his reckless drunkenness which ultimately ruined him in the estimation of Peter the Great, despite his previous inestimable services.

See S. Solovev, History of Russia (Rus.), vol. xiv. (Moscow, 1858); R. N. Bain, The First Romanovs (London, 1905).

(R. N. B.)

GOLITSUIN, DMITRY MIKHAILOVICH (1665-1737), Russian statesman, was sent in 1697 to Italy to learn “military affairs”; in 1704 he was appointed to the command of an auxiliary corps in Poland against Charles XII.; from 1711 to 1718 he was governor of Byelogorod. In 1718 he was appointed president of the newly erected Kammer Kollegium and a senator. In May 1723 he was implicated in the disgrace of the vice-chancellor Shafirov and was deprived of all his offices and dignities, which he only recovered through the mediation of the empress Catherine I. After the death of Peter the Great, Golitsuin became the recognized head of the old Conservative party which had never forgiven Peter for putting away Eudoxia and marrying the plebeian Martha Skavronskaya. But the reformers, as represented by Alexander Menshikov and Peter Tolstoi, prevailed; and Golitsuin remained in the background till the fall of Menshikov, 1727. During the last years of Peter II. (1728-1730), Golitsuin was the most prominent statesman in Russia and his high aristocratic theories had full play. On the death of Peter II. he conceived the idea of limiting the autocracy by subordinating it to the authority of the supreme privy council, of which he was president. He drew up a form of constitution which Anne of Courland, the newly elected Russian empress, was forced to sign at Mittau before being permitted to proceed to St Petersburg. Anne lost no time in repudiating this constitution, and never forgave its authors. Golitsuin was left in peace, however, and lived for the most part in retirement, till 1736, when he was arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the conspiracy of his son-in-law Prince Constantine Cantimir. This, however, was a mere pretext, it was for his anti-monarchical sentiments that he was really prosecuted. A court, largely composed of his antagonists, condemned him to death, but the empress reduced the sentence to lifelong imprisonment in Schlüsselburg and confiscation of all his estates. He died in his prison on the 14th of April 1737, after three months of confinement.

See R. N. Bain, The Pupils of Peter the Great (London, 1897).

(R. N. B.)

GOLITSUIN, VASILY VASILEVICH (1643-1714), Russian statesman, spent his early days at the court of Tsar Alexius where he gradually rose to the rank of boyar. In 1676 he was sent to the Ukraine to keep in order the Crimean Tatars and took part in the Chigirin campaign. Personal experience of the inconveniences and dangers of the prevailing system of preferment, the so-called myestnichestvo, or rank priority, which had paralysed the Russian armies for centuries, induced him to propose its abolition, which was accomplished by Tsar Theodore III. (1678). The May revolution of 1682 placed Golitsuin at the head of the Posolsky Prikaz, or ministry of foreign affairs, and during the regency of Sophia, sister of Peter the Great, whose lover he became, he was the principal minister of state (1682-1689) and “keeper of the great seal,” a title bestowed upon only two Russians before him, Athonasy Orduin-Nashchokin and Artamon Matvyeev. In home affairs his influence was insignificant, but his foreign policy was distinguished by the peace with Poland in 1683, whereby Russia at last recovered Kiev. By the terms of the same treaty, he acceded to the grand league against the Porte, but his two expeditions against the Crimea (1687 and 1689), “the First Crimean War,” were unsuccessful and made him extremely unpopular. Only with the utmost difficulty could Sophia get the young tsar Peter to decorate the defeated commander-in-chief as if he had returned a victor. In the civil war between Sophia and Peter (August-September 1689), Golitsuin half-heartedly supported his mistress and shared her ruin. His life was spared owing to the supplications of his cousin Boris, but he was deprived of his boyardom, his estates were confiscated and he was banished successively to Kargopol, Mezen and Kologora, where he died on the 21st of April 1714. Golitsuin was unusually well educated. He understood German and Greek as well as his mother-tongue, and could express himself fluently in Latin. He was a great friend of foreigners, who generally alluded to him as “the great Golitsuin.”

His brother Mikhail (1674-1730) was a celebrated soldier, who is best known for his governorship of Finland (1714-1721), where his admirable qualities earned the remembrance of the people whom he had conquered. And Mikhail’s son Alexander (1718-1783) was a diplomat and soldier, who rose to be field-marshal and governor of St Petersburg.

See R. N. Bain, The First Romanovs (London, 1905); A. Brückner, Fürst Golizin (Leipzig, 1887); S. Solovev, History of Russia (Rus.), vols. xiii.-xiv. (Moscow, 1858, &c.).

(R. N. B.)

GOLIUS or (Gohl), JACOBUS (1596-1667), Dutch Orientalist, was born at the Hague in 1596, and studied at the university of Leiden, where in Arabic and other Eastern languages he was the most distinguished pupil of Erpenius. In 1622 he accompanied the Dutch embassy to Morocco, and on his return he was chosen to succeed Erpenius (1624). In the following year he set out on a Syrian and Arabian tour from which he did not return until 1629. The remainder of his life was spent at Leiden where he held the chair of mathematics as well as that of Arabic. He died on the 28th of September 1667.

His most important work is the Lexicon Arabico-Latinum, fol., Leiden, 1653, which, based on the Sihah of Al-Jauhari, was only superseded by the corresponding work of Freytag. Among his earlier publications may be mentioned editions of various Arabic texts (Proverbia quaedam Alis, imperatoris Muslemici, et Carmen Tograipoëtae doctissimi, necnon dissertatio quaedam Aben Synae, 1629; and Ahmedis Arabsiadae vitae et rerum gestarum Timuri, qui vulgo Tamer, lanes dicitur, historia, 1636). In 1656 he published a new edition, with considerable additions, of the Grammatica Arabica of Erpenius. After his death, there was found among his papers a Dictionarium Persico-Latinum which was published, with additions, by Edmund Castell in his Lexicon heptaglotton (1669). Golius also edited, translated and annotated the astronomical treatise of Alfragan (Muhammedis, filii Ketiri Ferganensis, qui vulgo Alfraganus dicitur, elementa astronomica Arabice et Latine, 1669).

GOLLNOW, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Pomerania, on the right bank of the Ihna, 14 m. N.N.E. of Stettin, with which it has communication by rail and steamer. Pop. (1905) 8539. It possesses two Evangelical churches, a synagogue and some small manufactures. Gollnow was founded in 1190, and was raised to the rank of a town in 1268. It was for a time a Hanse town, and came into the possession of Prussia in 1720, having belonged to Sweden since 1648.

GOLOSH, or Galosh (from the Fr. galoche, Low Lat. calopedes, a wooden shoe or clog; an adaptation of the Gr. καλοπόδιον, a diminutive formed of κᾶλον, wood, and ποῦς, foot), originally a wooden shoe or patten, or merely a wooden sole fastened to the foot by a strap or cord. In the middle ages “galosh” was a general term for a boot or shoe, particularly one with a wooden sole. In modern usage, it is an outer shoe worn in bad weather to protect the inner one, and keep the feet dry. Goloshes are now almost universally made of rubber, and in the United States they are known as “rubbers” simply, the word golosh being rarely if ever used. In the bootmakers’ trade, a “golosh” is the piece of leather, of a make stronger than, or different from that of the “uppers,” which runs around the bottom part of a boot or shoe, just above the sole.

GOLOVIN, FEDOR ALEKSYEEVICH, Count (d. 1706), Russian statesman, learnt, like so many of his countrymen in later times, the business of a ruler in the Far East. During the regency of Sophia, sister of Peter the Great, he was sent to the Amur to defend the new Muscovite fortress of Albazin against the Chinese. In 1689 he concluded with the Celestial empire the treaty of Nerchinsk, by which the line of the Amur, as far as its tributary the Gorbitsa, was retroceded to China because of the impossibility of seriously defending it. In Peter’s grand embassy to the West in 1697 Golovin occupied the second place immediately after Lefort. It was his chief duty to hire foreign sailors and obtain everything necessary for the construction and complete equipment of a fleet. On Lefort’s death, in March 1699, he succeeded him as admiral-general. The same year he was created the first Russian count, and was also the first to be decorated with the newly-instituted Russian order of St Andrew. The conduct of foreign affairs was at the same time entrusted to him, and from 1699 to his death he was “the premier minister of the tsar.” Golovin’s first achievement as foreign minister was to supplement the treaty of Carlowitz, by which peace with Turkey had only been secured for three years, by concluding with the Porte a new treaty at Constantinople (June 13, 1700), by which the term of the peace was extended to thirty years and, besides other concessions, the Azov district and a strip of territory extending thence to Kuban were ceded to Russia. He also controlled, with consummate ability, the operations of the brand-new Russian diplomatists at the various foreign courts. His superiority over all his Muscovite contemporaries was due to the fact that he was already a statesman, in the modern sense, while they were still learning the elements of statesmanship. His death was an irreparable loss to the tsar, who wrote upon the despatch announcing it, the words “Peter filled with grief.”

See R. N. Bain, The First Romanovs (London, 1905).

(R. N. B.)

GOLOVKIN, GAVRIIL IVANOVICH, Count (1660-1734), Russian statesman, was attached (1677), while still a lad, to the court of the tsarevitch Peter, afterwards Peter the Great, with whose mother Natalia he was connected, and vigilantly guarded him during the disquieting period of the regency of Sophia, sister of Peter the Great (1682-1689). He accompanied the young tsar abroad on his first foreign tour, and worked by his side in the dockyards of Saardam. In 1706 he succeeded Golovin in the direction of foreign affairs, and was created the first Russian grand-chancellor on the field of Poltava (1709). Golovkin held this office for twenty-five years. In the reign of Catherine I. he became a member of the supreme privy council which had the chief conduct of affairs during this and the succeeding reigns. The empress also entrusted him with her last will whereby she appointed the young Peter II. her successor and Golovkin one of his guardians. On the death of Peter II. in 1730 he declared openly in favour of Anne, duchess of Courland, in opposition to the aristocratic Dolgorukis and Golitsuins, and his determined attitude on behalf of autocracy was the chief cause of the failure of the proposed constitution, which would have converted Russia into a limited monarchy. Under Anne he was a member of the first cabinet formed in Russia, but had less influence in affairs than Ostermann and Münnich. In 1707 he was created a count of the Holy Roman empire, and in 1710 a count of the Russian empire. He was one of the wealthiest, and at the same time one of the stingiest, magnates of his day. His ignorance of any language but his own made his intercourse with foreign ministers very inconvenient.

See R. N. Bain, The Pupils of Peter the Great (London, 1897).

(R. N. B.)

GOLOVNIN, VASILY MIKHAILOVICH (1776-1831), Russian vice-admiral, was born on the 20th of April 1776 in the village of Gulynki in the province of Ryazan, and received his education at the Cronstadt naval school. From 1801 to 1806 he served as a volunteer in the English navy. In 1807 he was commissioned by the Russian government to survey the coasts of Kamchatka and of Russian America, including also the Kurile Islands. Golovnin sailed round the Cape of Good Hope, and on the 5th of October 1809, arrived in Kamchatka. In 1810, whilst attempting to survey the coast of the island of Kunashiri, he was seized by the Japanese, and was retained by them as a prisoner, until the 13th of October 1813, when he was liberated, and in the following year he returned to St Petersburg. Soon after this the government planned another expedition, which had for its object the circumnavigation of the globe by a Russian ship, and Golovnin was appointed to the command. He started from St Petersburg on the 7th of September 1817, sailed round Cape Horn, and arrived in Kamchatka in the following May. He returned to Europe by way of the Cape of Good Hope, and landed at St Petersburg on the 17th of September 1819. He died on the 12th of July 1831.

Golovnin published several works, of which the following are the most important:—Journey to Kamchatka (2 vols., 1819); Journey Round the World (2 vols., 1822); and Narrative of my Captivity in Japan, 1811-1813 (2 vols., 1816). The last has been translated into French, German and English, the English edition being in three volumes (1824). A complete edition of his works was published at St Petersburg in five volumes in 1864, with maps and charts, and a biography of the author by N. Grech.

GOLTZ, BOGUMIL (1801-1870), German humorist and satirist, was born at Warsaw on the 20th of March 1801. After attending the classical schools of Marienwerder and Königsberg, he learnt farming on an estate near Thorn, and in 1821 entered the university of Breslau as a student of philosophy. But he soon abandoned an academical career, and, after returning for a while to country life, retired to the small town of Gollub, where he devoted himself to literary studies. In 1847 he settled at Thorn, “the home of Copernicus,” where he died on the 12th of November 1870. Goltz is best known to literary fame by his Buch der Kindheit (Frankfort, 1847; 4th ed., Berlin, 1877), in which, after the style of Jean Paul, and Adalbert Stifter, but with a more modern realism, he gives a charming and idyllic description of the impressions of his own childhood. Among his other works must be noted Ein Jugendleben (1852); Der Mensch und die Leute (1858); Zur Charakteristik und Naturgeschichte der Frauen (1859); Zur Geschichte und Charakteristik des deutschen Genius (1864), and Die Weltklugheit und die Lebensweisheit (1869).

Goltz’s works have not been collected, but a selection will be found in Reclam’s Universalbibliothek (ed. by P. Stein, 1901 and 1906). See O. Roquette, Siebzig Jahre, i. (1894).

GOLTZ, COLMAR, Freiherr Von Der (1843- ), Prussian soldier and military writer, was born at Bielkenfeld, East Prussia, on the 12th of August 1843, and entered the Prussian infantry in 1861. In 1864 he entered the Berlin Military Academy, but was temporarily withdrawn in 1866 to serve in the Austrian war, in which he was wounded at Trautenau. In 1867 he joined the topographical section of the general staff, and at the beginning of the Franco-German War of 1870-71 was attached to the staff of Prince Frederick Charles. He took part in the battles of Vionville and Gravelotte and in the siege of Metz. After its fall he served under the Red Prince in the campaign of the Loire, including the battles of Orleans and Le Mans. He was appointed in 1871 professor at the military school at Potsdam, and the same year was promoted captain and placed in the historical section of the general staff. It was then he wrote Die Operationen der II. Armee bis zur Capitulation von Metz and Die Sieben Tage von Le Mans, both published in 1873. In 1874 he was appointed to the staff of the 6th division, and while so employed wrote Die Operationen der II. Armee an der Loire and Léon Gambetta und seine Armeen, published in 1875 and 1877 respectively. The latter was translated into French the same year, and both are impartially written. The views expressed in the latter work led to his being sent back to regimental duty for a time, but it was not long before he returned to the military history section. In 1878 von der Goltz was appointed lecturer in military history at the military academy at Berlin, where he remained for five years and attained the rank of major. He published, in 1883, Rossbach und Jena (new and revised edition, Von Rossbach bis Jena und Auerstädt, 1906), Das Volk in Waffen (English translation The Nation in Arms), both of which quickly became military classics, and during his residence in Berlin contributed many articles to the military journals. In June 1883 his services were lent to Turkey to reorganize the military establishments of the country. He spent twelve years in this work, the result of which appeared in the Greco-Turkish War of 1897, and he was made a pasha and in 1895 a mushir or field-marshal. On his return to Germany in 1896 he became a lieutenant-general and commander of the 5th division, and in 1898, head of the Engineer and Pioneer Corps and inspector-general of fortifications. In 1900 he was made general of infantry and in 1902 commander of the I. army corps. In 1907 he was made inspector-general of the newly created sixth army inspection established at Berlin, and in 1908 was given the rank of colonel-general (Generaloberst).

In addition to the works already named and frequent contributions to military periodical literature, he wrote Kriegführung (1895, later edition Krieg- und Heerführung, 1901; Eng. trans. The Conduct of War); Der thessalische Krieg (Berlin, 1898); Ein Ausflug nach Macedonien (1894); Anatolische Ausflüge (1896); a map and description of the environs of Constantinople; Von Jena bis Pr. Eylau (1907), a most important historical work, carrying on the story of Rossbach und Jena to the peace of Tilsit, &c.

GOLTZIUS, HENDRIK (1558-1617), Dutch painter and engraver, was born in 1558 at Mülebrecht, in the duchy of Jülich. After studying painting on glass for some years under his father, he was taught the use of the burin by Dirk Volkertsz Coornhert, a Dutch engraver of mediocre attainment, whom he soon surpassed, but who retained his services for his own advantage. He was also employed by Philip Galle to engrave a set of prints of the history of Lucretia. At the age of twenty-one he married a widow somewhat advanced in years, whose money enabled him to establish at Haarlem an independent business; but his unpleasant relations with her so affected his health that he found it advisable in 1590 to make a tour through Germany to Italy, where he acquired an intense admiration for the works of Michelangelo, which led him to surpass that master in the grotesqueness and extravagance of his designs. He returned to Haarlem considerably improved in health, and laboured there at his art till his death, on the 1st of January 1617. Goltzius ought not to be judged chiefly by the works he valued most, his eccentric imitations of Michelangelo. His portraits, though mostly miniatures, are master-pieces of their kind, both on account of their exquisite finish, and as fine studies of individual character. Of his larger heads, the life-size portrait of himself is probably the most striking example. His “master-pieces,” so called from their being attempts to imitate the style of the old masters, have perhaps been overpraised. In his command of the burin Goltzius is not surpassed even by Dürer; but his technical skill is often unequally aided by higher artistic qualities. Even, however, his eccentricities and extravagances are greatly counterbalanced by the beauty and freedom of his execution. He began painting at the age of forty-two, but none of his works in this branch of art—some of which are in the imperial collection at Vienna—display any special excellences. He also executed a few pieces in chiaroscuro.

His prints amount to more than 300 plates, and are fully described in Bartsch’s Peintre-graveur, and Weigel’s supplement to the same work.

GOLUCHOWSKI, AGENOR, Count (1849- ), Austrian statesman, was born on the 25th of March 1849. His father, descended from an old and noble Polish family, was governor of Galicia. Entering the diplomatic service, the son was in 1872 appointed attaché to the Austrian embassy at Berlin, where he became secretary of legation, and thence he was transferred to Paris. After rising to the rank of counsellor of legation, he was in 1887 made minister at Bucharest, where he remained till 1893. In these positions he acquired a great reputation as a firm and skilful diplomatist, and on the retirement of Count Kalnoky in May 1895 was chosen to succeed him as Austro-Hungarian minister for foreign affairs. The appointment of a Pole caused some surprise in view of the importance of Austrian relations with Russia (then rather strained) and Germany, but the choice was justified by events. In his speech of that year to the delegations he declared the maintenance of the Triple Alliance, and in particular the closest intimacy with Germany, to be the keystone of Austrian policy; at the same time he dwelt on the traditional friendship between Austria and Great Britain, and expressed his desire for a good understanding with all the powers. In pursuance of this policy he effected an understanding with Russia, by which neither power was to exert any separate influence in the Balkan peninsula, and thus removed a long-standing cause of friction. This understanding was formally ratified during a visit to St Petersburg on which he accompanied the emperor in April 1897. He took the lead in establishing the European concert during the Armenian troubles of 1896, and again resisted isolated action on the part of any of the great powers during the Cretan troubles and the Greco-Turkish War. In November 1897, when the Austro-Hungarian flag was insulted at Mersina, he threatened to bombard the town if instant reparation were not made, and by his firm attitude greatly enhanced Austrian prestige in the East. In his speech to the delegations in 1898 he dwelt on the necessity of expanding Austria’s mercantile marine, and of raising the fleet to a strength which, while not vying with the fleets of the great naval powers, would ensure respect for the Austrian flag wherever her interests needed protection. He also hinted at the necessity for European combination to resist American competition. The understanding with Russia in the matter of the Balkan States temporarily endangered friendly relations with Italy, who thought her interests threatened, until Goluchowski guaranteed in 1898 the existing order. He further encouraged a good understanding with Italy by personal conferences with the Italian foreign minister, Tittoni, in 1904 and 1905. Count Lamsdorff visited Vienna in December 1902, when arrangements were made for concerted action in imposing on the sultan reforms in the government of Macedonia. Further steps were taken after Goluchowski’s interview with the tsar at Mürzsteg in 1903, and two civil agents representing the countries were appointed for two years to ensure the execution of the promised reforms. This period was extended in 1905, when Goluchowski was the chief mover in forcing the Porte, by an international naval demonstration at Mitylene, to accept financial control by the powers in Macedonia. At the conference assembled at Algeciras to settle the Morocco Question, Austria supported the German position, and after the close of the conferences the emperor William II. telegraphed to Goluchowski: “You have proved yourself a brilliant second on the duelling ground and you may feel certain of like services from me in similar circumstances.” This pledge was redeemed in 1908, when Germany’s support of Austria in the Balkan crisis proved conclusive. By the Hungarians, however, Goluchowski was hated; he was suspected of having inspired the emperor’s opposition to the use of Magyar in the Hungarian army, and was made responsible for the slight offered to the Magyar deputation by Francis Joseph in September 1905. So long as he remained in office there was no hope of arriving at a settlement of a matter which threatened the disruption of the Dual monarchy, and on the 11th of October 1906 he was forced to resign.

GOMAL, or Gumal, the name of a river of Afghanistan, and of a mountain pass on the Dera Ismail Khan border of the North-West Frontier Province of British India. The Gomal river, one of the most important rivers in Afghanistan, rises in the unexplored regions to the south-east of Ghazni. Its chief tributary is the Zhob. Within the limits of British territory the Gomal forms the boundary between the North-West Frontier Province and Baluchistan, and more or less between the Pathan and Baluch races. The Gomal pass is the most important pass on the Indian frontier between the Khyber and the Bolan. It connects Dera Ismail Khan with the Gomal valley in Afghanistan, and has formed for centuries the outlet for the povindah trade. Until the year 1889 this pass was almost unknown to the Anglo-Indian official; but in that year the government of India decided that, in order to maintain the safety of the railway as well as to perfect communication between Quetta and the Punjab, the Zhob valley should, like the Bori valley, be brought under British protection and control, and the Gomal pass should be opened. After the Waziristan expedition of 1894 Wana was occupied by British troops in order to dominate the Gomal and Waziristan; but on the formation of the North-West Frontier Province in 1901 it was decided to replace these troops by the South Waziristan militia, who now secure the safety of the pass.

GOMARUS, FRANZ (1563-1641), Dutch theologian, was born at Bruges on the 30th of January 1563. His parents, having embraced the principles of the Reformation, emigrated to the Palatinate in 1578, in order to enjoy freedom to profess their new faith, and they sent their son to be educated at Strassburg under Johann Sturm (1507-1589). He remained there three years, and then went in 1580 to Neustadt, whither the professors of Heidelberg had been driven by the elector-palatine because they were not Lutherans. Here his teachers in theology were Zacharius Ursinus (1534-1583), Hieronymus Zanchius (1560-1590), and Daniel Tossanus (1541-1602). Crossing to England towards the end of 1582, he attended the lectures of John Rainolds (1549-1607) at Oxford, and those of William Whitaker (1548-1595) at Cambridge. He graduated at Cambridge in 1584, and then went to Heidelberg, where the faculty had been by this time re-established. He was pastor of a Reformed Dutch church in Frankfort from 1587 till 1593, when the congregation was dispersed by persecution. In 1594 he was appointed professor of theology at Leiden, and before going thither received from the university of Heidelberg the degree of doctor. He taught quietly at Leiden till 1603, when Jakobus Arminius came to be one of his colleagues in the theological faculty, and began to teach Pelagian doctrines and to create a new party in the university. Gomarus immediately set himself earnestly to oppose these views in his classes at college, and was supported by Johann B. Bogermann (1570-1637), who afterwards became professor of theology at Franeker. Arminius “sought to make election dependent upon faith, whilst they sought to enforce absolute predestination as the rule of faith, according to which the whole Scriptures are to be interpreted” (J. A. Dorner, History of Protestant Theology, i. p. 417). Gomarus then became the leader of the opponents of Arminius, who from that circumstance came to be known as Gomarists. He engaged twice in personal disputation with Arminius in the assembly of the estates of Holland in 1608, and was one of five Gomarists who met five Arminians or Remonstrants in the same assembly of 1609. On the death of Arminius shortly after this time, Konrad Vorstius (1569-1622), who sympathized with his views, was appointed to succeed him, in spite of the keen opposition of Gomarus and his friends; and Gomarus took his defeat so ill that he resigned his post, and went to Middleburg in 1611, where he became preacher at the Reformed church, and taught theology and Hebrew in the newly founded Illustre Schule. From this place he was called in 1614 to a chair of theology at Saumur, where he remained four years, and then accepted a call as professor of theology and Hebrew to Groningen, where he stayed till his death on the 11th of January 1641. He took a leading part in the synod of Dort, assembled in 1618 to judge of the doctrines of Arminius. He was a man of ability, enthusiasm and learning, a considerable Oriental scholar, and also a keen controversialist. He took part in revising the Dutch translation of the Old Testament in 1633, and after his death a book by him, called the Lyra Davidis, was published, which sought to explain the principles of Hebrew metre, and which created some controversy at the time, having been opposed by Louis Cappel. His works were collected and published in one volume folio, in Amsterdam in 1645. He was succeeded at Groningen in 1643 by his pupil Samuel Maresius (1599-1673).

GOMBERVILLE, MARIN LE ROY, Sieur du Parc et de (1600-1674), French novelist and miscellaneous writer, was born at Paris in 1600. At fourteen years of age he wrote a volume of verse, at twenty a Discours sur l’histoire and at twenty-two a pastoral, La Carithée, which is really a novel. The persons in it, though still disguised as shepherds and shepherdesses, represent real persons for whose identification the author himself provides a key. This was followed by a more ambitious attempt, Polexandre (5 vols. 1632-1637). The hero wanders through the world in search of the island home of the princess Alcidiane. It contains much history and geography; the travels of Polexandre extending to such unexpected places as Benin, the Canary Islands, Mexico and the Antilles, and incidentally we learn all that was then known of Mexican history. Cythérée (4 vols.) appeared in 1630-1642, and in 1651 the Jeune Alcidiane, intended to undo any harm the earlier novels may have done, for Gomberville became a Jansenist and spent the last twenty-five years of his life in pious retirement. He was one of the earliest and most energetic members of the Academy. He died in Paris on the 14th of June 1674.

GOMER, the biblical name of a race appearing in the table of nations (Gen. x. 2), as the “eldest son” of Japheth and the “father” of Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah; and in Ezek. xxxviii. 6 as a companion of “the house of Togarmah in the uttermost parts of the north,” and an ally of Gog; both Gomer and Togarmah being credited with “hordes,”1 E.V., i.e. “bands” or “armies.” The “sons” of Gomer are probably tribes of north-east Asia Minor and Armenia, and Gomer is identified with the Cimmerians. These are referred to in cuneiform inscriptions under the Assyrian name gimmirā (gimirrai) as raiding Asia Minor from the north and north-east of the Black Sea, and overrunning Lydia in the 7th century B.C. (see Cimmerii, Scythia, Lydia). They do not seem to have made any permanent settlements, unless some such are indicated by the fact that the Armenians called Cappadocia Gamir. It is, however, suggested that this name is borrowed from the Old Testament.2

The name Gomer (Gomer bath Diblaim) was also borne by the unfaithful wife of Hosea, whom he pardoned and took back (Hosea i. 3). Hosea uses these incidents as symbolic of the sin, punishment and redemption of Israel, but there is no need to regard Gomer as a purely imaginary person.

(W. H. Be.)

1 אגף Ăgaph, a word peculiar to Ezekiel, Clarendon Press Heb. Lex.

2 A. Jeremias, Das A.T. im Lichte des alten Orients, pp. 145 f.

GOMERA, an island in the Atlantic Ocean, forming part of the Spanish archipelago of the Canary Islands (q.v.). Pop. (1900) 15,358; area 144 sq. m. Gomera lies 20 m. W.S.W. of Teneriffe. Its greatest length is about 23 m. The coast is precipitous and the interior mountainous, but Gomera has the most wood and is the best watered of the group. The inhabitants are very poor. Dromedaries are bred on Gomera in large numbers. San Sebastian (3187) is the chief town and a port. It was visited by Columbus on his first voyage of discovery in 1492.

GOMEZ, DIOGO (Diego) (fl. 1440-1482), Portuguese seaman, explorer and writer. We first trace him as a cavalleiro of the royal household; in 1440 he was appointed receiver of the royal customs—in 1466 judge—at Cintra (juiz das causas e feitorias contadas de Cintra); on the 5th of March 1482 he was confirmed in the last-named office. He wrote, especially for the benefit of Martin Behaim, a Latin chronicle of great value, dealing with the life and discoveries of Prince Henry the Navigator, and divided into three parts: (1) De prima inventione Guineae; (2) De insulis primo inventis in mare (sic) Occidentis; (3) De inventione insularum de Açores. This chronicle contains the only contemporary account of the rediscovery of the Azores by the Portuguese in Prince Henry’s service, and is also noteworthy for its clear ascription to the prince of deliberate scientific and commercial purpose in exploration. For, on the one hand, the infante sent out his caravels to search for new lands (ad quaerendas terras) from his wish to know the more distant parts of the western ocean, and in the hope of finding islands or terra firma beyond the limits laid down by Ptolemy (ultra descriptionem Tolomei); on the other hand, his information as to the native trade from Tunis to Timbuktu and the Gambia helped to inspire his persistent exploration of the West African coast—“to seek those lands by way of the sea.” Chart and quadrant were used on the prince’s vessels, as by Gomez himself on reaching the Cape Verde Islands; Henry, at the time of Diogo’s first voyage, was in correspondence with an Oran merchant who kept him informed upon events even in the Gambia hinterland; and, before the discovery of the Senegal and Cape Verde in 1445, Gomez’ royal patron had already gained reliable information of some route to Timbuktu. In the first part of his chronicle Gomez tells how, no long time after the disastrous expedition of the Danish nobleman “Vallarte” (Adalbert) in 1448, he was sent out in command of three vessels along the West African coast, accompanied by one Jacob, an Indian interpreter, to be employed in the event of reaching India. After passing the Rio Grande, beyond Cape Verde, strong currents checked his course; his officers and men feared that they were approaching the extremity of the ocean, and he put back to the Gambia. He ascended this river a considerable distance, to the negro town of “Cantor,” whither natives came from “Kukia” and Timbuktu for trade; he gives elaborate descriptions of the negro world he had now penetrated, refers to the Sierra Leone (“Serra Lyoa”) Mountains, sketches the course of this range, and says much of Kukia (in the upper Niger basin?), the centre of the West African gold trade, and the resort of merchants and caravans from Tunis, Fez, Cairo and “all the land of the Saracens.” Mahommedanism was already dominant at the Cambria estuary, but Gomez seems to have won over at least one important chief, with his court, to Christianity and Portuguese allegiance. Another African voyage, apparently made in 1462, two years after Henry the Navigator’s death (though assigned by some to 1460), resulted in a fresh discovery of the Cape Verde Islands, already found by Cadamosto (q.v.). To the island of Santiago Gomez, like his Venetian forerunner, claims to have given its present name. His narrative is a leading authority on the last illness and death of Prince Henry, as well as on the life, achievements and purposes of the latter; here alone is recorded what appears to have been the earliest of the navigator’s exploring ventures, that which under João de Trasto reached Grand Canary in 1415.

Of Gomez’ chronicle there is only one MS., viz. Cod. Hisp. 27, in the Hof- und Staats-Bibliothek, Munich; the original Latin text was printed by Schmeller “Über Valentim Fernandez Alemão” in the Abhandlungen der philosoph.-philolog. Kl. der bayerisch. Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. iv., part iii. (Munich, 1847); see also Sophus Ruge, “Die Entdeckung der Azoren,” pp. 149-180 (esp. 178-179) in the 27th Jahresbericht des Vereins für Erdkunde (Dresden, 1901); Jules Mees, Histoire de la découverte des îles Açores, pp. 44-45, 125-127 (Ghent, 1901); R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry the Navigator, pp. xviii., xix., 64-65, 287-299, 303-305 (London, 1868); C. R. Beazley, Prince Henry the Navigator, 289-298, 304-305; and Introduction to Azurara’s Discovery and Conquest of Guinea, ii., iv., xiv., xxv.-xxvii., xcii.-xcvi. (London, 1899).

(C. R. B.)

GOMEZ DE AVELLANEDA, GERTRUDIS (1814-1873), Spanish dramatist and poet, was born at Puerto Príncipe (Cuba) on the 23rd of March 1814, and removed to Spain in 1836. Her Poesías líricas (1841), issued with a laudatory preface by Gallego, made a most favourable impression and were republished with additional poems in 1850. In 1846 she married a diplomatist named Pedro Sabater, became a widow within a year, and in 1853 married Colonel Domingo Verdugo. Meanwhile she had published Sab (1839), Guatimozín (1846), and other novels of no great importance. She obtained, however, a series of successes on the stage with Alfonso Munio (1844), a tragedy in the new romantic manner; with Saúl (1849), a biblical drama indirectly suggested by Alfieri; and with Baltasar (1858), a piece which bears some resemblance to Byron’s Sardanapalus. Her commerce with the world had not diminished her natural piety, and, on the death of her second husband, she found so much consolation in religion that she had thoughts of entering a convent. She died at Madrid on the 2nd of February 1873, full of mournful forebodings as to the future of her adopted country. It is impossible to agree with Villemain that “le génie de don Luis de Léon et de sainte Thérèse a reparu sous le voile funèbre de Gomez de Avellaneda,” for she has neither the monk’s mastery of poetic form nor the nun’s sublime simplicity of soul. She has a grandiose tragical vision of life, a vigorous eloquence rooted in pietistic pessimism, a dramatic gift effective in isolated acts or scenes; but she is deficient in constructive power and in intellectual force, and her lyrics, though instinct with melancholy beauty, or the tenderness of resigned devotion, too often lack human passion and sympathy. The edition of her Obras literarias (5 vols., 1869-1871), still incomplete, shows a scrupulous care for minute revision uncommon in Spanish writers; but her emendations are seldom happy. But she is interesting as a link between the classic and romantic schools of poetry, and, whatever her artistic shortcomings, she has no rivals of her own sex in Spain during the 19th century.

GOMM, SIR WILLIAM MAYNARD (1784-1875), British soldier, was gazetted to the 9th Foot at the age of ten, in recognition of the services of his father, Lieut.-Colonel William Gomm, who was killed in the attack on Guadaloupe (1794). He joined his regiment as a lieutenant in 1799, and fought in Holland under the duke of York, and subsequently was with Pulteney’s Ferrol expedition. In 1803 he became Captain, and shortly afterwards qualified as a staff officer at the High Wycombe military college. On the general staff he was with Cathcart at Copenhagen, with Wellington in the Peninsula, and on Moore’s staff at Corunna. He was also on Chatham’s staff in the disastrous Walcheren expedition of 1809. In 1810 he rejoined the Peninsular army as Leith’s staff officer, and took part in all the battles of 1810, 1811 and 1812, winning his majority after Fuentes d’Onor and his lieutenant-colonelcy at Salamanca. His careful reconnaissances and skilful leading were invaluable to Wellington in the Vittoria campaign, and to the end of the war he was one of the most trusted men of his staff. His reward was a transfer to the Coldstream Guards and the K.C.B. In the Waterloo campaign he served on the staff of the 5th British Division. From the peace until 1839 he was employed on home service, becoming colonel in 1829 and major-general in 1837. From 1839 to 1842 he commanded the troops in Jamaica. He became lieutenant-general in 1846, and was sent out to be commander-in-chief in India, arriving only to find that his appointment had been cancelled in favour of Sir Charles Napier, whom, however, he eventually succeeded (1850-1855). In 1854 he became general and in 1868 field marshal. In 1872 he was appointed constable of the Tower, and he died in 1875. He was twice married, but had no children. His Letters and Journals were published by F. C. Carr-Gomm in 1881. Five “Field Marshal Gomm” scholarships were afterwards founded in his memory at Keble College, Oxford.

GOMPERS, SAMUEL (1850- ), American labour leader, was born in London on the 27th of January 1850. He was put to work in a shoe-factory when ten years old, but soon became apprenticed to a cigar-maker, removed to New York in 1863, became a prominent member of the International Cigar-makers’ Union, was its delegate at the convention of the Federation of Organized Trade and Labor Unions of the United States and Canada, later known as the American Federation of Labor, of which he became first president in 1882. He was successively re-elected up to 1895, when the opposition of the Socialist Labor Party, then attempting to incorporate the Federation into itself, secured his defeat; he was re-elected in the following year. In 1894 he became editor of the Federation’s organ, The American Federationist.

GOMPERZ, THEODOR (1832- ), German philosopher and classical scholar, was born at Brünn on the 29th of March 1832. He studied at Brünn and at Vienna under Herman Bonitz. Graduating at Vienna in 1867 he became Privatdozent, and subsequently professor of classical philology (1873). In 1882 he was elected a member of the Academy of Science. He received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy honoris causa from the university of Königsberg, and Doctor of Literature from the universities of Dublin and Cambridge, and became correspondent for several learned societies. His principal works are: Demosthenes der Staatsmann (1864), Philodemi de ira liber (1864). Traumdeutung und Zauberei (1866), Herkulanische Studien (1865-1866), Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung griech. Schriftsteller (7 vols., 1875-1900), Neue Bruchstücke Epikurs (1876), Die Bruchstücke der griech. Tragiker und Cobets neueste kritische Manier (1878), Herodoteische Studien (1883), Ein bisher unbekanntes griech. Schriftsystem (1884), Zu Philodems Büchern von der Musik (1885), Über den Abschluss des herodoteischen Geschichtswerkes (1886), Platonische Aufsätze (3 vols., 1887-1905), Zu Heraklits Lehre und den Überresten seines Werkes (1887), Zu Aristoteles’ Poëtik (2 parts, 1888-1896), Über die Charaktere Theophrasts (1888), Nachlese zu den Bruchstücken der griech. Tragiker (1888), Die Apologie der Heilkunst (1890), Philodem und die ästhetischen Schriften der herculanischen Bibliothek (1891), Die Schrift vom Staatswesen der Athener (1891), Die jüngst entdeckten Überreste einer den Platonischen Phädon enthaltenden Papyrusrolle (1892), Aus der Hekale des Kallimachos (1893), Essays und Erinnerungen (1905). He supervised a translation of J. S. Mill’s complete works (12 vols., Leipzig, 1869-1880), and wrote a life (Vienna, 1889) of Mill. His Griechische Denker: Geschichte der antiken Philosophie (vols. i. and ii., Leipzig, 1893 and 1902) was translated into English by L. Magnus (vol. i., 1901).

GONAGUAS (“borderers”), descendants of a very old cross between the Hottentots and the Kaffirs, on the “ethnical divide” between the two races, apparently before the arrival of the whites in South Africa. They have been always a despised race and regarded as outcasts by the Bantu peoples. They were threatened with extermination during the Kaffir wars, but were protected by the British. At present they live in settled communities under civil magistrates without any tribal organization, and in some districts could be scarcely distinguished from the other natives but for their broken Hottentot-Dutch-English speech.

GONÇALVES DIAS, ANTONIO (1823-1864), Brazilian lyric poet, was born near the town of Caxias, in Maranhão. From the university of Coimbra, in Portugal, he returned in 1845 to his native province, well-equipped with legal lore, but the literary tendency which was strong within him led him to try his fortune as an author at Rio de Janeiro. Here he wrote for the newspaper press, ventured to appear as a dramatist, and in 1846 established his reputation by a volume of poems—Primeiros Cantos—which appealed to the national feelings of his Brazilian readers, were remarkable for their autobiographic impress, and by their beauty of expression and rhythm placed their author at the head of the lyric poets of his country. In 1848 he followed up his success by Segundos Cantos e sextilhas de Frei Antão, in which, as the title indicates, he puts a number of the pieces in the mouth of a simple old Dominican friar; and in the following year, in fulfilment of the duties of his new post as professor of Brazilian history in the Imperial College of Pedro II. at Rio de Janeiro, he published an edition of Berredo’s Annaes historicos do Maranhão and added a sketch of the migrations of the Indian tribes. A third volume of poems, which appeared with the title of Ultimos Cantos in 1851, was practically the poet’s farewell to the service of the muse, for he spent the next eight years engaged under government patronage in studying the state of public instruction in the north and the educational institutions of Europe. On his return to Brazil in 1860 he was appointed a member of an expedition for the exploration of the province of Ceará, was forced in 1862 by the state of his health to try the effects of another visit to Europe, and died in September 1864, the vessel that was carrying him being wrecked off his native shores. While in Germany he published at Leipzig a complete collection of his lyrical poems, which went through several editions, the four first cantos of an epic poem called Os Tymbiras (1857) and a Diccionario da lingua Tupy (1858).

A complete edition of the works of Dias has made its appearance at Rio de Janeiro. See Wolf, Brésil littéraire (Berlin, 1863); Innocencio de Silva, Diccionario bibliographico portuguez, viii. 157; Sotero dos Reis, Curso de litteratura portugueza e brazileira, iv. (Maranhão, 1868); José Verissimo, Estudos de literatura brazileira, segunda serie (Rio, 1901).

GONCHAROV, IVAN ALEXANDROVICH (1812-1891), Russian novelist, was born 6/18 July 1812, being the son of a rich merchant in the town of Simbirsk. At the age of ten he was placed in one of the gymnasiums at Moscow, from which he passed, though not without some difficulty on account of his ignorance of Greek, into the Moscow University. He read many French works of fiction, and published a translation of one of the novels of Eugène Sue. During his university career he devoted himself to study, taking no interest in the political and Socialistic agitation among his fellow-students. He was first employed as secretary to the governor of Simbirsk, and afterwards in the ministry of finance at St Petersburg. Being absorbed in bureaucratic work, Goncharov paid no attention to the social questions then ardently discussed by such men as Herzen, Aksakov and Bielinski. He began his literary career by publishing translations from Schiller, Goethe and English novelists. His first original work was Obuiknovennaya Istoria, “A Common Story” (1847). In 1856 he sailed to Japan as secretary to Admiral Putiatin for the purpose of negotiating a commercial treaty, and on his return to Russia he published a description of the voyage under the title of “The Frigate Pallada.” His best work is Oblomov (1857), which exposed the laziness and apathy of the smaller landed gentry in Russia anterior to the reforms of Alexander II. Russian critics have pronounced this work to be a faithful characterization of Russia and the Russians. Dobrolubov said of it, “Oblomofka [the country-seat of the Oblomovs] is our fatherland: something of Oblomov is to be found in every one of us.” Peesarev, another celebrated critic, declared that “Oblomovism,” as Goncharov called the sum total of qualities with which he invested the hero of his story, “is an illness fostered by the nature of the Slavonic character and the life of Russian society.” In 1858 Goncharov was appointed a censor, and in 1868 he published another novel called Obreev. He was not a voluminous writer, and during the latter part of his life produced nothing of any importance. His death occurred on 15/27 September 1891.

GONCOURT, DE, a name famous in French literary history. Edmond Louis Antoine Huot de Goncourt was born at Nancy on the 26th of May 1822, and died at Champrosay on the 16th of July 1896. Jules Alfred Huot de Goncourt, his brother, was born in Paris on the 17th of December 1830, and died in Paris on the 20th of June 1870.

Writing always in collaboration, until the death of the younger, it was their ambition to be not merely novelists, inventing a new kind of novel, but historians; not merely historians, but the historians of a particular century, and of what was intimate and what is unknown in it; to be also discriminating, indeed innovating, critics of art, but of a certain section of art, the 18th century, in France and Japan; and also to collect pictures and bibelots, always of the French and Japanese 18th century. Their histories (Portraits intimes du XVIIIe siècle (1857), La Femme au XVIIIe siècle (1862), La du Barry (1878), &c.) are made entirely out of documents, autograph letters, scraps of costume, engravings, songs, the unconscious self-revelations of the time; their three volumes on L’Art du XVIIIe siècle (1859-1875) deal with Watteau and his followers in the same scrupulous, minutely enlightening way, with all the detail of unpublished documents; and when they came to write novels, it was with a similar attempt to give the inner, undiscovered, minute truths of contemporary existence, the inédit of life. The same morbidly sensitive noting of the inédit, of whatever came to them from their own sensations of things and people around them, gives its curious quality to the nine volumes of the Journal, 1887-1896, which will remain, perhaps, the truest and most poignant chapter of human history that they have written. Their novels, Sœur Philomène (1861), Renée Mauperin (1864), Germinie Lacerteux (1865), Manette Salomon (1865), Madame Gervaisais (1869), and, by Edmond alone, La Fille Elisa (1878), Les Frères Zemganno (1879), La Faustin (1882), Chérie (1884), are, however, the work by which they will live as artists. Learning something from Flaubert, and teaching almost everything to Zola, they invented a new kind of novel, and their novels are the result of a new vision of the world, in which the very element of sight is decomposed, as in a picture of Monet. Seen through the nerves, in this conscious abandonment to the tricks of the eyesight, the world becomes a thing of broken patterns and conflicting colours, and uneasy movement. A novel of the Goncourts is made up of an infinite number of details, set side by side, every detail equally prominent. While a novel of Flaubert, for all its detail, gives above all things an impression of unity, a novel of the Goncourts deliberately dispenses with unity in order to give the sense of the passing of life, the heat and form of its moments as they pass. It is written in little chapters, sometimes no longer than a page, and each chapter is a separate notation of some significant event, some emotion or sensation which seems to throw sudden light on the picture of a soul. To the Goncourts humanity is as pictorial a thing as the world it moves in; they do not search further than “the physical basis of life,” and they find everything that can be known of that unknown force written visibly upon the sudden faces of little incidents, little expressive moments. The soul, to them, is a series of moods, which succeed one another, certainly without any of the too arbitrary logic of the novelist who has conceived of character as a solid or consistent thing. Their novels are hardly stories at all, but picture-galleries, hung with pictures of the momentary aspects of the world. French critics have complained that the language of the Goncourts is no longer French, no longer the French of the past; and this is true. It is their distinction—the finest of their inventions—that, in order to render new sensations, a new vision of things, they invented a new language.