VOLUME XII SLICE III Gordon, Lord George to Grasses (continued 5)

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

II. Sphere of Government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(G. C. M.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(D. Ll. T.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(R. J. M.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(W. M. R.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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