THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

ELEVENTH EDITION

COPYRIGHT

in all countries subscribing to the
Bern Convention

by

THE CHANCELLOR, MASTERS AND SCHOLARS

of the

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE

All rights reserved

THE

ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA

A

DICTIONARY

OF

ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL

INFORMATION

ELEVENTH EDITION

VOLUME XII

GICHTEL to HARMONIUM

New York

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

342 Madison Avenue

Copyright, in the United States of America, 1910,
by
The Encyclopædia Britannica Company.

VOLUME XII SLICE I
Gichtel, Johann to Glory

Articles in This Slice

INITIALS USED IN VOLUME XII. TO IDENTIFY INDIVIDUAL
CONTRIBUTORS,[1] WITH THE HEADINGS OF THE
ARTICLES IN THIS VOLUME SO SIGNED.

[1] A complete list, showing all individual contributors, appears in the final volume.

PRINCIPAL UNSIGNED ARTICLES

GICHTEL, JOHANN GEORG (1638-1710), German mystic, was born at Regensburg, where his father was a member of senate, on the 14th of March 1638. Having acquired at school an acquaintance with Greek, Hebrew, Syriac and even Arabic, he proceeded to Strassburg to study theology; but finding the theological prelections of J. S. Schmidt and P. J. Spener distasteful, he entered the faculty of law. He was admitted an advocate, first at Spires, and then at Regensburg; but having become acquainted with the baron Justinianus von Weltz (1621-1668), a Hungarian nobleman who cherished schemes for the reunion of Christendom and the conversion of the world, and having himself become acquainted with another world in dreams and visions, he abandoned all interest in his profession, and became an energetic promoter of the “Christerbauliche Jesusgesellschaft,” or Christian Edification Society of Jesus. The movement in its beginnings provoked at least no active hostility; but when Gichtel began to attack the teaching of the Lutheran clergy and church, especially upon the fundamental doctrine of justification by faith, he exposed himself to a prosecution which resulted in sentence of banishment and confiscation (1665). After many months of wandering and occasionally romantic adventure, he reached Holland in January 1667, and settled at Zwolle, where he co-operated with Friedrich Breckling (1629-1711), who shared his views and aspirations. Having become involved in the troubles of this friend, Gichtel, after a period of imprisonment, was banished for a term of years from Zwolle, but finally in 1668 found a home in Amsterdam, where he made the acquaintance of Antoinette Bourignon (1616-1680), and in a state of poverty (which, however, never became destitution) lived out his strange life of visions and day-dreams, of prophecy and prayer. He became an ardent disciple of Jakob Boehme, whose works he published in 1682 (Amsterdam, 2 vols.); but before the time of his death, on the 21st of January 1710, he had attracted to himself a small band of followers known as Gichtelians or Brethren of the Angels, who propagated certain views at which he had arrived independently of Boehme. Seeking ever to hear the authoritative voice of God within them, and endeavouring to attain to a life altogether free from carnal desires, like that of “the angels in heaven, who neither marry nor are given in marriage,” they claimed to exercise a priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek,” appeasing the wrath of God, and ransoming the souls of the lost by sufferings endured vicariously after the example of Christ. While, however, Boehme “desired to remain a faithful son of the Church,” the Gichtelians became Separatists (cf. J. A. Dorner, History of Protestant Theology, ii. p. 185).

Gichtel’s correspondence was published without his knowledge by Gottfried Arnold, a disciple, in 1701 (2 vols.), and again in 1708 (3 vols.). It has been frequently reprinted under the title Theosophia practica. The seventh volume of the Berlin edition (1768) contains a notice of Gichtel’s life. See also G. C. A. von Harless, Jakob Böhme und die Alchimisten (1870, 2nd ed. 1882); article in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie.

GIDDINGS, JOSHUA REED (1795-1864), American statesman, prominent in the anti-slavery conflict, was born at Tioga Point, now Athens, Bradford county, Pennsylvania, on the 6th of October 1795. In 1806 his parents removed to Ashtabula county, Ohio, then sparsely settled and almost a wilderness. The son worked on his father’s farm, and, though he received no systematic education, devoted much time to study and reading. For several years after 1814 he was a school teacher, but in February 1821 he was admitted to the Ohio bar and soon obtained a large practice, particularly in criminal cases. From 1831 to 1837 he was in partnership with Benjamin F. Wade. He served in the lower house of the state legislature in 1826-1828, and from December 1838 until March 1859 was a member of the national House of Representatives, first as a Whig, then as a Free-soiler, and finally as a Republican. Recognizing that slavery was a state institution, with which the Federal government had no authority to interfere, he contended that slavery could only exist by a specific state enactment, that therefore slavery in the District of Columbia and in the Territories was unlawful and should be abolished, that the coastwise slave-trade in vessels flying the national flag, like the international slave-trade, should be rigidly suppressed, and that Congress had no power to pass any act which in any way could be construed as a recognition of slavery as a national institution. His attitude in the so-called “Creole Case” attracted particular attention. In 1841 some slaves who were being carried in the brig “Creole” from Hampton Roads, Virginia, to New Orleans, revolted, killed the captain, gained possession of the vessel, and soon afterwards entered the British port of Nassau. Thereupon, according to British law, they became free. The minority who had taken an active part in the revolt were arrested on a charge of murder, and the others were liberated. Efforts were made by the United States government to recover the slaves, Daniel Webster, then secretary of state, asserting that on an American ship they were under the jurisdiction of the United States and that they were legally property. On the 21st of March 1842, before the case was settled, Giddings introduced in the House of Representatives a series of resolutions, in which he asserted that “in resuming their natural rights of personal liberty” the slaves “violated no law of the United States.” For offering these resolutions Giddings was attacked with rancour, and was formally censured by the House. Thereupon he resigned, appealed to his constituents, and was immediately re-elected by a large majority. In 1859 he was not renominated, and retired from Congress after a continuous service of more than twenty years. From 1861 until his death, at Montreal, on the 27th of May 1864, he was U.S. consul-general in Canada. Giddings published a series of political essays signed “Pacificus” (1843); Speeches in Congress (1853); The Exiles of Florida (1858); and a History of the Rebellion: Its Authors and Causes (1864).

See The Life of Joshua R. Giddings (Chicago, 1892), by his son-in-law, George Washington Julian (1817-1899), a Free-soil leader and a representative in Congress in 1849-1851, a Republican representative in Congress in 1861-1871, a Liberal Republican in the campaign of 1872, and afterwards a Democrat.

GIDEON (in Hebrew, perhaps “hewer” or “warrior”), liberator, reformer and “judge” of Israel, was the son of Joash, of the Manassite clan of Abiezer, and had his home at Ophrah near Shechem. His name occurs in Heb. xi. 32, in a list of those who became heroes by faith; but, except in Judges vi.-viii., is not to be met with elsewhere in the Old Testament. He lived at a time when the nomad tribes of the south and east made inroads upon Israel, destroying all that they could not carry away. Two accounts of his deeds are preserved (see [Judges]). According to one (Judges vi. 11-24) Yahweh appeared under the holy tree which was in the possession of Joash and summoned Gideon to undertake, in dependence on supernatural direction and help, the work of liberating his country from its long oppression, and, in token that he accepted the mission, he erected in Ophrah an altar which he called “Yahweh-Shalom” (Yahweh is peace). According to another account (vi. 25-32) Gideon was a great reformer who was commanded by Yahweh to destroy the altar of Baal belonging to his father and the ashērah or sacred post by its side. The townsmen discovered the sacrilege and demanded his death. His father, who, as guardian of the sacred place, was priest of Baal, enjoined the men not to take up Baal’s quarrel, for “if Baal be a god, let him contend (rīb) for himself.” Hence Gideon received the name Jerubbaal.[1] From this latter name appearing regularly in the older narrative (cf. ix.), and from the varying usage in vi.-viii., it has been held that stories of two distinct heroes (Gideon and Jerubbaal) have been fused in the complicated account which follows.[2]

The great gathering of the Midianites and their allies on the north side of the plain of Jezreel; the general muster first of Abiezer, then of all Manasseh, and lastly of the neighbouring tribes of Asher, Zebulun and Naphtali; the signs by which the wavering faith of Gideon was steadied; the methods by which an unwieldy mob was reduced to a small but trusty band of energetic and determined men; and the stratagem by which the vast army of Midian was surprised and routed by the handful of Israelites descending from “above Endor,” are indicated fully in the narratives, and need not be detailed here. The difficulties in the account of the subsequent flight of the Midianites appear to have arisen from the composite character of the narratives, and there are signs that in one of them Gideon was accompanied only by his own clansmen (vi. 34). So, when the Midianites are put to flight, according to one representation, the Ephraimites are called out to intercept them, and the two chiefs, Ōrēb (“raven”) and Zeēb (“wolf”), in making for the fords of the Jordan, are slain at “the raven’s rock” and “the wolf’s press” respectively. As the sequel of this we are told that the Ephraimites quarrelled with Gideon because their assistance had not been invoked earlier, and their anger was only appeased by his tactful reply (viii. 1-3; contrast xii. 1-6). The other narrative speaks of the pursuit of the Midianite chiefs Zebah and Zalmunna[3] across the northern end of Jordan, past Succoth and Penuel to the unidentified place Ḳarḳor. Having taken relentless vengeance on the men of Penuel and Succoth, who had shown a timid neutrality when the patriotic struggle was at its crisis, Gideon puts the two chiefs to death to avenge his brothers whom they had killed at Tabor.[4] The overthrow of Midian (cf. Is. ix. 4, x. 26; Ps. lxxxiii. 9-12) induced “Israel” to offer Gideon the kingdom. It was refused—out of religious scruples (viii. 22 seq.; cf. 1 Sam. viii. 7, x. 19, xii. 12, 17, 19), and the ephod idol which he set up at Ophrah in commemoration of the victory was regarded by a later editor (v. 27) as a cause of apostasy to the people and a snare to Gideon and his house; see, however, Ephod. Gideon’s achievements would naturally give him a more than merely local authority, and after his death the attempt was made by one of his sons to set himself up as chief (see [Abimelech]).

See further [Jews], section 1; and the literature to the book of Judges.

(S. A. C.)

[1] “Baal contends” (or Jeru-baal, “Baal founds,” cf. Jeru-el), but artificially explained in the narrative to mean “let Baal contend against him,” or “let Baal contend for himself,” v. 31. In 2 Sam. xi. 21 he is called Jerubbesheth, in accordance with the custom explained in the article [Baal].

[2] See, on this, Cheyne, Ency. Bib. col. 1719 seq.; Ed. Meyer, Die Israeliten, pp. 482 seq.

[3] The names are vocalized to suggest the fanciful interpretations “victim” and “protection withheld.”

[4] As the account of this has been lost and the narrative is concerned not with the plain of Jezreel but rather with Shechem, it has been inferred that the episode implies the existence of a distinct story wherein Gideon’s pursuit is such an act of vengeance.

GIEBEL, CHRISTOPH GOTTFRIED ANDREAS (1820-1881), German zoologist and palaeontologist, was born on the 13th of September 1820 at Quedlinburg in Saxony, and educated at the university of Halle, where he graduated Ph.D. in 1845. In 1858 he became professor of zoology and director of the museum in the university of Halle. He died at Halle on the 14th of November 1881. His chief publications were Paläozoologie (1846); Fauna der Vorwelt (1847-1856); Deutschlands Petrefacten (1852); Odontographie (1855); Lehrbuch der Zoologie (1857); Thesaurus ornithologiae (1872-1877);

GIEN, a town of central France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Loiret, situated on the right bank of the Loire, 39 m. E.S.E. of Orleans by rail. Pop. (1906) 6325. Gien is a picturesque and interesting town and has many curious old houses. The Loire is here crossed by a stone bridge of twelve arches, built by Anne de Beaujeu, daughter of Louis XI., about the end of the 15th century. Near it stands a statue of Vercingetorix. The principal building is the old castle used as a law-court, constructed of brick and stone arranged in geometrical patterns, and built in 1494 by Anne de Beaujeu. The church of St Pierre possesses a square tower dating from the end of the 15th century. Porcelain is manufactured.

GIERS, NICHOLAS KARLOVICH DE (1820-1895), Russian statesman, was born on the 21st of May 1820. Like his predecessor, Prince Gorchakov, he was educated at the lyceum of Tsarskoye Selo, near St Petersburg, but his career was much less rapid, because he had no influential protectors, and was handicapped by being a Protestant of Teutonic origin. At the age of eighteen he entered the service of the Eastern department of the ministry of foreign affairs, and spent more than twenty years in subordinate posts, chiefly in south-eastern Europe, until he was promoted in 1863 to the post of minister plenipotentiary in Persia. Here he remained for six years, and, after serving as a minister in Switzerland and Sweden, he was appointed in 1875 director of the Eastern department and assistant minister for foreign affairs under Prince Gorchakov, whose niece he had married. No sooner had he entered on his new duties than his great capacity for arduous work was put to a severe test. Besides events in central Asia, to which he had to devote much attention, the Herzegovinian insurrection had broken out, and he could perceive from secret official papers that the incident had far-reaching ramifications unknown to the general public. Soon this became apparent to all the world. While the Austrian officials in Dalmatia, with hardly a pretence of concealment, were assisting the insurgents, Russian volunteers were flocking to Servia with the connivance of the Russian and Austrian governments, and General Ignatiev, as ambassador in Constantinople, was urging his government to take advantage of the palpable weakness of Turkey for bringing about a radical solution of the Eastern question. Prince Gorchakov did not want a radical solution involving a great European war, but he was too fond of ephemeral popularity to stem the current of popular excitement. Alexander II., personally averse from war, was not insensible to the patriotic enthusiasm, and halted between two opinions. M. de Giers was one of the few who gauged the situation accurately. As an official and a man of non-Russian extraction he had to be extremely reticent, but to his intimate friends he condemned severely the ignorance and light-hearted recklessness of those around him. The event justified his sombre previsions, but did not cure the recklessness of the so-called patriots. They wished to defy Europe in order to maintain intact the treaty of San Stefano, and again M. de Giers found himself in an unpopular minority. He had to remain in the background, but all the influence he possessed was thrown into the scale of peace. His views, energetically supported by Count Shuvalov, finally prevailed, and the European congress assembled at Berlin. He was not present at the congress, and consequently escaped the popular odium for the concessions which Russia had to make to Great Britain and Austria. From that time he was practically minister of foreign affairs, for Prince Gorchakov was no longer capable of continued intellectual exertion, and lived mostly abroad. On the death of Alexander II. in 1881 it was generally expected that M. de Giers would be dismissed as deficient in Russian nationalist feeling, for Alexander III. was credited with strong anti-German Slavophil tendencies. In reality the young tsar had no intention of embarking on wild political adventures, and was fully determined not to let his hand be forced by men less cautious than himself. What he wanted was a minister of foreign affairs who would be at once vigilant and prudent, active and obedient, and who would relieve him from the trouble and worry of routine work while allowing him to control the main lines, and occasionally the details, of the national policy. M. de Giers was exactly what he wanted, and accordingly the tsar not only appointed him minister of foreign affairs on the retirement of Prince Gorchakov in 1882, but retained him to the end of his reign in 1894. In accordance with the desire of his august master, M. de Giers followed systematically a pacific policy. Accepting as a fait accompli the existence of the triple alliance, created by Bismarck for the purpose of resisting any aggressive action on the part of Russia and France, he sought to establish more friendly relations with the cabinets of Berlin, Vienna and Rome. To the advances of the French government he at first turned a deaf ear, but when the rapprochement between the two countries was effected with little or no co-operation on his part, he utilized it for restraining France and promoting Russian interests. He died on the 26th of January 1895, soon after the accession of Nicholas II.

(D. M. W.)

GIESEBRECHT, WILHELM VON (1814-1889), German historian, was a son of Karl Giesebrecht (d. 1832), and a nephew of the poet Ludwig Giesebrecht (1792-1873). Born in Berlin on the 5th of March 1814, he studied under Leopold von Ranke, and his first important work, Geschichte Ottos II., was contributed to Ranke’s Jahrbücher des deutschen Reichs unter dem sächsischen Hause (Berlin, 1837-1840); In 1841 he published his Jahrbücher des Klosters Altaich, a reconstruction of the lost Annales Altahenses, a medieval source of which fragments only were known to be extant, and these were obscured in other chronicles. The brilliance of this performance was shown in 1867, when a copy of the original chronicle was found, and it was seen that Giesebrecht’s text was substantially correct. In the meantime he had been appointed Oberlehrer in the Joachimsthaler Gymnasium in Berlin; had paid a visit to Italy, and as a result of his researches there had published De litterarum studiis apud Italos primis medii aevi seculis (Berlin, 1845), a study upon the survival of culture in Italian cities during the middle ages, and also several critical essays upon the sources for the early history of the popes. In 1851 appeared his translation of the Historiae of Gregory of Tours, which is the standard German translation. Four years later appeared the first volume of his great work, Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, the fifth volume of which was published in 1888. This work was the first in which the results of the scientific methods of research were thrown open to the world at large. Largeness of style and brilliance of portrayal were joined to an absolute mastery of the sources in a way hitherto unachieved by any German historian. Yet later German historians have severely criticized his glorification of the imperial era with its Italian entanglements, in which the interests of Germany were sacrificed for idle glory. Giesebrecht’s history, however, appeared when the new German empire was in the making, and became popular owing both to its patriotic tone and its intrinsic merits. In 1857 he went to Königsberg as professor ordinarius, and in 1862 succeeded H. von Sybel as professor of history in the university of Munich. The Bavarian government honoured him in various ways, and he died at Munich on the 17th of December 1889. In addition to the works already mentioned, Giesebrecht published a good monograph on Arnold of Brescia (Munich, 1873), a collection of essays under the title Deutsche Reden (Munich, 1871), and was an active member of the group of scholars who took over the direction of the Monumenta Germaniae historica in 1875. In 1895 B. von Simson added a sixth volume to the Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit, thus bringing the work down to the death of the emperor Frederick I. in 1190.

See S. Riezler, Gedächtnisrede auf Wilhelm von Giesebrecht (Munich, 1891); and Lord Acton in the English Historical Review, vol. v. (London, 1890).

GIESELER, JOHANN KARL LUDWIG (1792-1854), German writer on church history, was born on the 3rd of March 1792 at Petershagen, near Minden, where his father, Georg Christof Friedrich, was preacher. In his tenth year he entered the orphanage at Halle, whence he duly passed to the university, his studies being interrupted, however, from October 1813 till the peace of 1815 by a period of military service, during which he was enrolled as a volunteer in a regiment of chasseurs. On the conclusion of peace (1815) he returned to Halle, and, having in 1817 taken his degree in philosophy, he in the same year became assistant head master (Conrector) in the Minden gymnasium, and in 1818 was appointed director of the gymnasium at Cleves. Here he published his earliest work (Historisch-kritischer Versuch über die Entstehung u. die frühesten Schicksale der schriftlichen Evangelien), a treatise which had considerable influence on subsequent investigations as to the origin of the gospels. In 1819 Gieseler was appointed a professor ordinarius in theology in the newly founded university of Bonn, where, besides lecturing on church history, he made important contributions to the literature of that subject in Ernst Rosenmüller’s Repertorium, K. F. Stäudlin and H. G. Tschirner’s Archiv, and in various university “programs.” The first part of the first volume of his well-known Church History appeared in 1824. In 1831 he accepted a call to Göttingen as successor to J. G. Planck. He lectured on church history, the history of dogma, and dogmatic theology. In 1837 he was appointed a Consistorialrath, and shortly afterwards was created a knight of the Guelphic order. He died on the 8th of July 1854. The fourth and fifth volumes of the Kirchengeschichte, embracing the period subsequent to 1814, were published posthumously in 1855 by E. R. Redepenning (1810-1883); and they were followed in 1856 by a Dogmengeschichte, which is sometimes reckoned as the sixth volume of the Church History. Among church historians Gieseler continues to hold a high place. Less vivid and picturesque in style than Karl Hase, conspicuously deficient in Neander’s deep and sympathetic insight into the more spiritual forces by which church life is pervaded, he excels these and all other contemporaries in the fulness and accuracy of his information. His Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte, with its copious references to original authorities, is of great value to the student: “Gieseler wished that each age should speak for itself, since only by this means can the peculiarity of its ideas be fully appreciated” (Otto Pfleiderer, Development of Theology, p. 284). The work, which has passed through several editions in Germany, has partially appeared also in two English translations. That published in New York (Text Book of Ecclesiastical History, 5 vols.) brings the work down to the peace of Westphalia, while that published in “Clark’s Theological Library” (Compendium of Ecclesiastical History, Edinburgh, 5 vols.) closes with the beginning of the Reformation. Gieseler was not only a devoted student but also an energetic man of business. He frequently held the office of pro-rector of the university, and did much useful work as a member of several of its committees.

GIESSEN, a town of Germany, capital of the province of Upper Hesse, in the grand-duchy of Hesse-Darmstadt, is situated in a beautiful and fruitful valley at the confluence of the Wieseck with the Lahn, 41 m. N.N.W. of Frankfort-on-Main on the railway to Cassel; and at the junction of important lines to Cologne and Coblenz. Pop. (1885) 18,836; (1905) 29,149. In the old part of the town the streets are narrow and irregular. Besides the university, the principal buildings are the Stadtkirche, the provincial government offices, comprising a portion of the old castle dating from the 12th century, the arsenal (now barracks) and the town-hall (containing an historical collection). The university, founded in 1607 by Louis V, landgrave of Hesse, has a large and valuable library, a botanic garden, an observatory, medical schools, a museum of natural history, a chemical laboratory which was directed by Justus von Liebig, professor here from 1824 to 1852, and an agricultural college. The industries include the manufacture of woollen and cotton cloth of various kinds, machines, leather, candles, tobacco and beer.

Giessen, the name of which is probably derived from the streams which pour (giessen) their waters here into the Lahn, was formed in the 12th century out of the villages Selters, Aster and Kroppach, for whose protection Count William of Gleiberg built the castle of Giessen. Through marriage the town came, in 1203, into the possession of the count palatine, Rudolph of Tübingen, who sold it in 1265 to the landgrave Henry of Hesse. It was surrounded with fortifications in 1530, which were demolished in 1547, but rebuilt in 1560. In 1805 they were finally pulled down, and their site converted into promenades.

See O. Buchner, Führer für Giessen und das Lahntal (1891); and Aus Glessens Vergangenheit (1885).

GIFFARD, GODFREY (c. 1235-1302); chancellor of England and bishop of Worcester, was a son of Hugh Giffard of Boyton, Wiltshire. Having entered the church he speedily obtained valuable preferments owing to the influence of his brother Walter, who became chancellor of England in 1265. In 1266 Godfrey became chancellor of the exchequer, succeeding Walter as chancellor of England when, in the same year, the latter was made archbishop of York. In 1268 he was chosen bishop of Worcester, resigning the chancellorship shortly afterwards; and both before and after 1279, when he inherited the valuable property of his brother the archbishop, he was employed on public business by Edward I. His main energies, however, were devoted to the affairs of his see. He had one long dispute with the monks of Worcester, another with the abbot of Westminster, and was vigilant in guarding his material interests. The bishop died on the 26th of January 1302, and was buried in his cathedral. Giffard, although inclined to nepotism, was a benefactor to his cathedral, and completed and fortified the episcopal castle at Hartlebury.

See W. Thomas, Survey of Worcester Cathedral; Episcopal Registers; Register of Bishop Godfrey Giffard, edited by J. W. Willis-Bund (Oxford, 1898-1899); and the Annals of Worcester in the Annales monastici, vol. iv., edited by H. R. Luard (London, 1869).

GIFFARD, WALTER (d. 1279), chancellor of England and archbishop of York, was a son of Hugh Giffard of Boyton, Wiltshire, and after serving as canon and archdeacon of Wells, was chosen bishop of Bath and Wells in May 1264. In August 1265 Henry III. appointed him chancellor of England, and he was one of the arbitrators who drew up the dictum de Kenilworth in 1266. Later in this year Pope Clement IV. named him archbishop of York, and having resigned the chancellorship he was an able and diligent ruler of his see, although in spite of his great wealth he was frequently in pecuniary difficulties. When Henry III. died in November 1272 the archbishopric of Canterbury was vacant, and consequently the great seal was delivered to the archbishop of York, who was the chief of the three regents who successfully governed the kingdom until the return of Edward I. in August 1274. Having again acted in this capacity during the king’s absence in 1275, Giffard died in April 1279, and was buried in his cathedral.

See Fasti Eboracenses, edited by J. Raine (London, 1863). Giffard’s Register from 1266 to 1279 has been edited for the Surtees Society by W. Brown.

GIFFARD, WILLIAM (d. 1129), bishop of Winchester, was chancellor of William II. and received his see, in succession to Bishop Walkelin, from Henry I. (1100). He was one of the bishops elect whom Anselm refused to consecrate (1101) as having been nominated and invested by the lay power. During the investitures dispute Giffard was on friendly terms with Anselm, and drew upon himself a sentence of banishment through declining to accept consecration from the archbishop of York (1103). He was, however, one of the bishops who pressed Anselm, in 1106, to give way to the king. He was consecrated after the settlement of 1107. He became a close friend of Anselm, aided the first Cistercians to settle in England, and restored Winchester cathedral with great magnificence.

See Eadmer, Historia novorum, edited by M. Rule (London, 1884); and S. H. Cass, Bishops of Winchester (London, 1827).

GIFFEN, SIR ROBERT (1837-1910), British statistician and economist, was born at Strathaven, Lanarkshire. He entered a solicitor’s office in Glasgow, and while in that city attended courses at the university. He drifted into journalism, and after working for the Stirling Journal he went to London in 1862 and joined the staff of the Globe. He also assisted Mr John (afterwards Lord) Morley, when the latter edited the Fortnightly Review. In 1868 he became Walter Bagehot’s assistant-editor on the Economist; and his services were also secured in 1873 as city-editor of the Daily News, and later of The Times. His high reputation as a financial journalist and statistician, gained in these years, led to his appointment in 1876 as head of the statistical department in the Board of Trade, and subsequently he became assistant secretary (1882) and finally controller-general (1892), retiring in 1897. In connexion with his position as chief statistical adviser to the government, he was constantly employed in drawing up reports, giving evidence before commissions of inquiry, and acting as a government auditor, besides publishing a number of important essays on financial subjects. His principal publications were Essays on Finance (1879 and 1884), The Progress of the Working Classes (1884), The Growth of Capital (1890), The Case against Bimetallism (1892), and Economic Inquiries and Studies (1904). He was president of the Statistical Society (1882-1884); and after being made a C.B. in 1891 was created K.C.B. in 1895. In 1892 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society. Sir Robert Giffen continued in later years to take a leading part in all public controversies connected with finance and taxation, and his high authority and practical experience were universally recognized. He died somewhat suddenly in Scotland on the 12th of April 1910.

GIFFORD, ROBERT SWAIN (1840-1905), American marine and landscape painter, was born on Naushon Island, Massachusetts, on the 23rd of December 1840. He studied art with the Dutch marine painter Albert van Beest, who had a studio in New Bedford, and in 1864 he opened a studio for himself in Boston, subsequently settling in New York, where he was elected an associate of the National Academy of Design in 1867 and an academician in 1878. He was also a charter member of the American Water Color Society and the Society of American Artists. From 1878 until 1896 he was teacher of painting and chief master of the Woman’s Art School of Cooper Union, New York, and from 1896 until his death he was director. Gifford painted longshore views, sand dunes and landscapes generally, with charm and poetry. He was an etcher of considerable reputation, a member of the Society of American Etchers, and an honorary member of the Society of Painter-Etchers of London. He died in New York on the 13th of January 1905.

GIFFORD, SANDFORD ROBINSON (1823-1880), American landscape painter, was born at Greenfield, New York, on the 10th of July 1823. He studied (1842-1845) at Brown University, then went to New York, and entered the art schools of the National Academy of Design, of which organization he was elected an associate in 1851, and an academician in 1854. Subsequently he studied in Paris and Rome. He was one of the best known of the Hudson River school group, though it was at Lake George that he found most of his themes. In his day he enjoyed an enormous popularity, and his canvases are in many well-known American collections. He died in New York City on the 29th of August 1880.

GIFFORD, WILLIAM (1756-1826), English publicist and man of letters, was born at Ashburton, Devon, in April 1756. His father was a glazier of indifferent character, and before he was thirteen William had lost both parents. The business was seized by his godfather, on whom William and his brother, a child of two, became entirely dependent. For about three months William was allowed to remain at the free school of the town. He was then put to follow the plough, but after a day’s trial he proved unequal to the task, and was sent to sea with the Brixham fishermen. After a year at sea his godfather, driven by the opinion of the townsfolk, put the boy to school once more. He made rapid progress, especially in mathematics, and began to assist the master. In 1772 he was apprenticed to a shoemaker, and when he wished to pursue his mathematical studies, he was obliged to work his problems with an awl on beaten leather. By the kindness of an Ashburton surgeon, William Cooksley, a subscription was raised to enable him to return to school. Ultimately he proceeded in his twenty-third year to Oxford, where he was appointed a Bible clerk in Exeter College. Leaving the university shortly after graduation in 1782, he found a generous patron in the first Earl Grosvenor, who undertook to provide for him, and sent him on two prolonged continental tours in the capacity of tutor to his son, Lord Belgrave. Settling in London, Gifford published in 1794 his first work, a clever satirical piece, after Persius, entitled the Baviad, aimed at a coterie of second-rate writers at Florence, then popularly known as the Della Cruscans, of which Mrs Piozzi was the leader. A second satire of a similar description, the Maeviad, directed against the corruptions of the drama, appeared in 1795. About this time Gifford became acquainted with Canning, with whose help he in August 1797 originated a weekly newspaper of Conservative politics entitled the Anti-Jacobin, which, however, in the following year ceased to be published. An English version of Juvenal, on which he had been for many years engaged, appeared in 1802; to this an autobiographical notice of the translator, reproduced in Nichol’s Illustrations of Literature, was prefixed. Two years afterwards Gifford published an annotated edition of the plays of Massinger; and in 1809, when the Quarterly Review was projected, he was made editor. The success which attended the Quarterly from the outset was due in no small degree to the ability and tact with which Gifford discharged his editorial duties. He took, however, considerable liberties with the articles he inserted, and Southey, who was one of his regular contributors, said that Gifford looked on authors as Izaak Walton did on worms. His bitter opposition to Radicals and his onslaughts on new writers, conspicuous among which was the article on Keats’s Endymion, called forth Hazlitt’s Letter to W. Gifford in 1819. His connexion with the Review continued until within about two years of his death, which took place in London on the 31st of December 1826. Besides numerous contributions to the Quarterly during the last fifteen years of his life, he wrote a metrical translation of Persius, which appeared in 1821. Gifford also edited the dramas of Ben Jonson in 1816, and his edition of Ford appeared posthumously in 1827. His notes on Shirley were incorporated in Dyce’s edition in 1833. His political services were acknowledged by the appointments of commissioner of the lottery and paymaster of the gentleman pensioners. He left a considerable fortune, the bulk of which went to the son of his first benefactor, William Cooksley.

GIFT (a common Teutonic word, cf. Ger. die Gift, gift, das Gift, poison, formed from the Teut. stem gab-, to give, cf. Dutch geven, Ger. geben; in O. Eng. the word appears with initial y, the guttural of later English is due to Scandinavian influence), a general English term for a present or thing bestowed, i.e. an alienation of property otherwise than for a legal consideration, although in law it is often used to signify alienation with or without consideration. By analogy the terms “gift” and “gifted” are also used to signify the natural endowment of some special ability, or a miraculous power, in a person, as being not acquired in the ordinary way. The legal effect of a gratuitous gift only need be considered here. Formerly in English law property in land could be conveyed by one person to another by a verbal gift of the estate accompanied by delivery of possession. The Statute of Frauds required all such conveyances to be in writing, and a later statute (8 & 9 Vict. c. 106) requires them to be by deed. Personal property may be effectually transferred from one person to another by a simple verbal gift accompanied by delivery. If A delivers a chattel to B, saying or signifying that he does so by way of gift, the property passes, and the chattel belongs to B. But unless the actual thing is bodily handed over to the donee, the mere verbal expression of the donor’s desire or intention has no legal effect whatever. The persons are in the position of parties to an agreement which is void as being without consideration. When the nature of the thing is such that it cannot be bodily handed over, it will be sufficient to put the donee in such a position as to enable him to deal with it as the owner. For example, when goods are in a warehouse, the delivery of the key will make a verbal gift of them effectual; but it seems that part delivery of goods which are capable of actual delivery will not validate a verbal gift of the part undelivered. So when goods are in the possession of a warehouseman, the handing over of a delivery order might, by special custom (but not otherwise, it appears), be sufficient to pass the property in the goods, although delivery of a bill of lading for goods at sea is equivalent to an actual delivery of the goods themselves.

GIFU (Imaīzumi), a city of Japan, capital of the ken (government) of Central Nippon, which comprises the two provinces of Mino and Hida. Pop. about 41,000. It lies E. by N. of Lake Biwa, on the Central railway, on a tributary of the river Kiso, which flows to the Bay of Miya Uro. Manufactures of silk and paper goods are carried on. The ken has an area of about 4000 sq. m. and is thickly peopled, the population exceeding 1,000,000. The whole district is subject to frequent earthquakes.

GIG, apparently an onomatopoeic word for any light whirling object, and so used of a top, as in Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost, v. i. 70 (“Goe whip thy gigge”), or of a revolving lure made of feathers for snaring birds. The word is now chiefly used of a light two-wheeled cart or carriage for one horse, and of a narrow, light, ship’s boat for oars or sails, and also of a clinker-built rowing-boat used for rowing on the Thames. “Gig” is further applied, in mining, to a wooden chamber or box divided in the centre and used to draw miners up and down a pit or shaft, and to a textile machine, the “gig-mill” or “gigging machine,” which raises the nap on cloth by means of teazels. A “gig” or “fish-gig” (properly “fiz-gig,” possibly an adaptation of Span. fisga, harpoon) is an instrument used for spearing fish.

GIGLIO (anc. Igilium), an island of Italy, off the S.W. coast of Italy, in the province of Grosseto, 11 m. to the W. of Monte Argentario, the nearest point on the coast. It measures about 5 m. by 3 and its highest point is 1634 ft. above sea-level. Pop. (1901) 2062. It is partly composed of granite, which was quarried here by the Romans, and is still used; the island is fertile, and produces wine and fruit, the cultivation of which has taken the place of the forests of which Rutilius spoke (Itin. i. 325, “eminus Igilii silvosa cacumina miror”). Julius Caesar mentions its sailors in the fleet of Domitius Ahenobarbus. In Rutilius’s time it served as a place of refuge from the barbarian invaders. Charlemagne gave it to the abbey of Tre Fontane at Rome. In the 14th century it belonged to Pisa, then to Florence, then, after being seized by the Spanish fleet, it was ceded to Antonio Piccolomini, nephew of Pius II. In 1558 it was sold to the wife of Cosimo I. of Florence.

See Archduke Ludwig Salvator, Die Insel Giglio (Prague, 1900).

GIJÓN, a seaport of northern Spain, in the province of Oviedo; on the Bay of Biscay, and at the terminus of railways from Avilés, Oviedo and Langreo. Pop. (1900) 47,544. The older parts of Gijón, which are partly enclosed by ancient walls, occupy the upper slopes of a peninsular headland, Santa Catalina Point; while its more modern suburbs extend along the shore to Cape Torres, on the west, and Cape San Lorenzo, on the east. These suburbs contain the town-hall, theatre, markets, and a bull-ring with seats for 12,000 spectators. Few of the buildings of Gijón are noteworthy for any architectural merit, except perhaps the 15th-century parish church of San Pedro, which has a triple raw of aisles on each side, the palace of the marquesses of Revillajigedo (or Revilla Gigedo), and the Asturian Institute or Jovellanos Institute. The last named has a very fine collection of drawings by Spanish and other artists, a good library and classes for instruction in seamanship, mathematics and languages. It was founded in 1797 by the poet and statesman Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos (1744-1811). Jovellanos, a native of Gijón, is buried in San Pedro.

The Bay of Gijón is the most important roadstead on the Spanish coast between Ferrol and Santander. Its first quay was constructed by means of a grant from Charles V. in 1552-1554; and its arsenal, added in the reign of Philip II. (1556-1598), was used in 1588 as a repairing station for the surviving ships of the Invincible Armada. A new quay was built in 1766-1768, and extended in 1859; the harbour was further improved in 1864, and after 1892, when the Musel harbour of refuge was created at the extremity of the bay. It was, however, the establishment of railway communication in 1884 which brought the town its modern prosperity, by rendering it the chief port of shipment for the products of Langreo and other mining centres in Oviedo. A rapid commercial development followed. Besides large tobacco, glass and porcelain factories, Gijón possesses iron foundries and petroleum refineries; while its minor industries include fisheries, and the manufacture of preserved foods, soap, chocolate, candles and liqueurs. In 1903 the harbour accommodated 2189 vessels of 358,375 tons. In the same year the imports, consisting chiefly of machinery, iron, wood and food-stuffs, were valued at £660,889; while the exports, comprising zinc, copper, iron and other minerals, with fish, nuts and farm produce, were valued at £100,941.

Gijón is usually identified with the Gigia of the Romans, which, however, occupied the site of the adjoining suburb of Cima de Villa. Early in the 8th century Gijón was captured and strengthened by the Moors, who used the stones of the Roman city for their fortifications, but were expelled by King Pelayo (720-737). In 844 Gijón successfully resisted a Norman raid; in 1395 it was burned down; but thenceforward it gradually rose to commercial importance.

GĪLĀN (Ghilan, Guilan), one of the three small but important Caspian provinces of Persia, lying along the south-western shore of the Caspian Sea between 48° 50′ and 50° 30′ E. with a breadth varying from 15 to 50 m. It has an area of about 5000 sq. m. and a population of about 250,000. It is separated from Russia by the little river Astara, which flows into the Caspian, and bounded W. by Azerbāïjān, S. by Kazvin and E. by Mazandaran. The greater portion of the province is a lowland region extending inland from the sea to the base of the mountains of the Elburz range and, though the Sefīd Rūd (White river), which is called Kizil Uzain in its upper course and has its principal sources in the hills of Persian Kurdistan, is the only river of any size, the province is abundantly watered by many streams and an exceptionally great rainfall (in some years 50 in.).

The vegetation is very much like that of southern Europe, but in consequence of the great humidity and the mild climate almost tropically luxuriant, and the forests from the shore of the sea up to an altitude of nearly 5000 ft. on the mountain slopes facing the sea are as dense as an Indian jungle. The prevailing types of trees are the oak, maple, hornbeam, beech, ash and elm. The box tree comes to rare perfection, but in consequence of indiscriminate cutting for export during many years, is now becoming scarce. Of fruit trees the apple, pear, plum, cherry, medlar, pomegranate, fig, quince, as well as two kinds of vine, grow wild; oranges, sweet and bitter, and other Aurantiaceae thrive well in gardens and plantations. The fauna also is well represented, but tigers which once were frequently seen are now very scarce; panther, hyena, jackal, wild boar, deer (Cervus maral) are common; pheasant, woodcock, ducks, teal, geese and various waterfowl abound; the fisheries are very productive and are leased to a Russian firm. The ordinary cattle of the province is the small humped kind, Bos indicus, and forms an article of export to Russia, the humps, smoked, being much in demand as a delicacy. Rice of a kind not much appreciated in Persia, but much esteemed in Gīlān and Russia, is largely cultivated and a quantity valued at about £120,000 was exported to Russia during 1904-1905. Tea plantations, with seeds and plants from Assam, Ceylon and the Himalayas, were started in the early part of 1900 on the slopes of the hills south of Resht at an altitude of about 1000 ft. The results were excellent and very good tea was produced in 1904 and 1905, but the Persian government gave no support and the enterprise was neglected. The olive thrives well at Rúdbár and Manjíl in the Sefíd Rúd valley and the oil extracted from it by a Provençal for some years until 1896, when he was murdered, was of very good quality and found a ready market at Baku. Since then the oil has been, as before, only used for the manufacture of soap. Tobacco from Turkish seed, cultivated since 1875, grows well, and a considerable quantity of it is exported. The most valuable produce of the province is silk. In 1866 it was valued at £743,000 and about two-thirds of it was exported. The silkworm disease appeared in 1864 and the crops decreased in consequence until 1893 when the value of the silk exported was no more than £6500. Since then there has been a steady improvement, and in 1905-1906 the value of the produce was estimated at £300,000 and that of the quantity exported at £200,000. The eggs of the silk-worms, formerly obtained from Japan, are now imported principally from Brusa by Greeks under French protection and from France.

There is only one good road in the province, that from Enzeli to Kazvin by way of Resht; in other parts communication is by narrow and frequently impassable lanes through the thick forest, or by intricate pathways through the dense undergrowth.

The province is divided into the following administrative districts: Resht (with the capital and its immediate neighbourhood), Fumen (with Tulam and Mesula, where are iron mines), Gesker, Talish (with Shandarman, Kerganrud, Asalim, Gil-Dulab, Talish-Dulab), Enzeli (the port of Resht), Sheft, Manjíl (with Rahmetabad and Amarlu), Lahijan (with Langarud, Rúdsar and Ranehkuh), Dilman and Lashtnisha. The revenue derived from taxes and customs is about £80,000. The crown lands have been much neglected and the revenue from them amounts to hardly £3000 per annum. The value of the exports and imports from and into Gīlān, much of them in transit, is close upon £2,000,000.

Gīlān was an independent khanate until 1567 when Khan Ahmed, the last of the Kargia dynasty, which had reigned 205 years, was deposed by Tahmasp I., the second Safawid shah of Persia (1524-1576). It was occupied by a Russian force in the early part of 1723; and Tahmasp III., the tenth Safawid shah (1722-1731); then without a throne and his country occupied by the Afghans, ceded it, together with Mazandaran and Astarabad, to Peter the Great by a treaty of the 12th of September of the same year. Russian troops remained in Gīlān until 1734, when they were compelled to evacuate it.

The derivation of the name Gīlān from the modern Persian word gil meaning mud (hence “land of mud”) is incorrect. It probably means “land of the Gīl,” an ancient tribe which classical writers mention as the Gelae.

(A. H.-S.)

GILBART, JAMES WILLIAM (1794-1863), English writer on banking, was born in London on the 21st of March 1794. From 1813 to 1825 he was clerk in a London bank. After a two years’ residence in Birmingham, he was appointed manager of the Kilkenny branch of the Provincial Bank of Ireland, and in 1829 he was promoted to the Waterford branch. In 1834 he became manager of the London and Westminster Bank; and he did much to develop the system of joint-stock banking. On more than one occasion he rendered valuable services to the joint-stock banks by his evidence before committees of the House of Commons; and, on the renewal of the bank charter in 1844, he procured the insertion of a clause granting to joint-stock banks the power of suing by their public officer, and also the right of accepting bills at less than six months’ date. In 1846 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. He died in London on the 8th of August 1863. The Gilbart lectures on banking at King’s College are called after him.

The following are his principal works on banking, most of which have passed through more than one edition: Practical Treatise on Banking (1827); The History and Principles of Banking (1834); The History of Banking in America (1837); Lectures on the History and Principles of Ancient Commerce (1847); Logic for the Million (1851); and Logic of Banking (1857).

GILBERT, ALFRED (1854-  ), British sculptor and goldsmith, born in London, was the son of Alfred Gilbert, musician. He received his education mainly in Paris (École des Beaux-Arts, under Cavelier), and studied in Rome and Florence where the significance of the Renaissance made a lasting impression upon him and his art. He also worked in the studio of Sir J. Edgar Boehm, R.A. His first work of importance was the charming group of the “Mother and Child,” then “The Kiss of Victory,” followed by “Perseus Arming” (1883), produced directly under the influence of the Florentine masterpieces he had studied. Its success was great, and Lord Leighton forthwith commissioned “Icarus,” which was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1884, along with a remarkable “Study of a Head,” and was received with general applause. Then followed “The Enchanted Chair,” which, along with many other works deemed by the artist incomplete or unworthy of his powers, was ultimately broken by the sculptor’s own hand. The next year Mr Gilbert was occupied with the Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain, in Piccadilly, London, a work of great originality and beauty, yet shorn of some of the intended effect through restrictions put upon the artist. In 1888 was produced the statue of H.M. Queen Victoria, set up at Winchester, in its main design and in the details of its ornamentation the most remarkable work of its kind produced in Great Britain, and perhaps, it may be added, in any other country in modern times. Other statues of great beauty, at once novel in treatment and fine in design, are those set up to Lord Reay in Bombay, and John Howard at Bedford (1898); the highly original pedestal of which did much to direct into a better channel what are apt to be the eccentricities of what is called the “New Art” School. The sculptor rose to the full height of his powers in his “Memorial to the Duke of Clarence,” and his fast developing fancy and imagination, which are the main characteristics of all his work, are seen in his “Memorial Candelabrum to Lord Arthur Russell” and “Memorial Font to the son of the 4th Marquess of Bath.” Gilbert’s sense of decoration is paramount in all he does, and although in addition to the work already cited he produced busts of extraordinary excellence of Cyril Flower, John R. Clayton (since broken up by the artist—the fate of much of his admirable work), G. F. Watts, Sir Henry Tate, Sir George Birdwood, Sir Richard Owen, Sir George Grove and various others, it is on his goldsmithery that the artist would rest his reputation; on his mayoral chain for Preston, the epergne for Queen Victoria, the figurines of “Victory” (a statuette designed for the orb in the hand of the Winchester statue), “St Michael” and “St George,” as well as smaller objects such as seals, keys and the like. Mr Gilbert was chosen associate of the Royal Academy in 1887, full member in 1892 (resigned 1909), and professor of sculpture (afterwards resigned) in 1900. In 1889 he won the Grand Prix at the Paris International Exhibition. He was created a member of the Victorian Order in 1897. (See [Sculpture].)

See The Life and Work of Alfred Gilbert, R.A., M.V.O., D.C.L., by Joseph Hatton (Art Journal Office, 1903).

(M. H. S.)

GILBERT, ANN (1821-1904), American actress, was born at Rochdale, Lancashire, on the 21st of October 1821, her maiden name being Hartley. At fifteen she was a pupil at the ballet school connected with the Haymarket theatre, conducted by Paul Taglioni, and became a dancer on the stage. In 1846 she married George H. Gilbert (d. 1866), a performer in the company of which she was a member. Together they filled many engagements in English theatres, moving to America in 1849. Mrs Gilbert’s first success in a speaking part was in 1857 as Wichavenda in Brougham’s Pocahontas. In 1869 she joined Daly’s company, playing for many years wives to James Lewis’s husbands, and old women’s parts, in which she had no equal. Mrs. Gilbert held a unique position on the American stage, on account of the admiration, esteem and affection which she enjoyed both in front and behind the footlights. She died at Chicago on the 2nd of December 1904.

See Mrs Gilbert’s Stage Reminiscences (1901).

GILBERT, GROVE KARL (1843-  ), American geologist, was born at Rochester, N.Y., on the 6th of May 1843. In 1869 he was attached to the Geological Survey of Ohio and in 1879 he became a member of the United States Geological Survey, being engaged on parts of the Rocky Mountains, in Nevada, Utah, California and Arizona. He is distinguished for his researches on mountain-structure and on the Great Lakes, as well as on glacial phenomena, recent earth movements, and on topographic features generally. His report on the Geology of the Henry Mountains (1877), in which the volcanic structure known as a laccolite was first described; his History of the Niagara River (1890) and Lake Bonneville (1891—the first of the Monographs issued by the United States Geological Survey) are specially important. He was awarded the Wollaston medal by the Geological Society of London in 1900.

GILBERT, SIR HUMPHREY (c. 1539-1583), English soldier, navigator and pioneer colonist in America, was the second son of Otho Gilbert, of Compton, near Dartmouth, Devon, and step-brother of Sir Walter Raleigh. He was educated at Eton and Oxford; intended for the law; introduced at court by Raleigh’s aunt, Catherine Ashley, and appointed (July 1566) captain in the army of Ireland under Sir Henry Sidney. In April 1566 he had already joined with Antony Jenkinson in a petition to Elizabeth for the discovery of the North-East Passage; in November following he presented an independent petition for the “discovering of a passage by the north to go to Cataia.” In October 1569 he became governor of Munster; on the 1st of January 1570 he was knighted; in 1571 he was returned M.P. for Plymouth; in 1572 he campaigned in the Netherlands against Spain without much success; from 1573 to 1578 he lived in retirement at Limehouse, devoting himself especially to the advocacy of a North-West Passage (his famous Discourse on this subject was published in 1576). Gilbert’s arguments, widely circulated even before 1575, were apparently of weight in promoting the Frobisher enterprises of 1576-1578. On the 11th of June 1578, Sir Humphrey obtained his long-coveted charter for North-Western discovery and colonization, authorizing him, his heirs and assigns, to discover, occupy and possess such remote “heathen lands not actually possessed of any Christian prince or people, as should seem good to him or them.” Disposing not only of his patrimony but also of the estates in Kent which he had through his wife, daughter of John Aucher of Ollerden, he fitted out an expedition which left Dartmouth on the 23rd of September 1578, and returned in May 1579, having accomplished nothing. In 1579 Gilbert aided the government in Ireland; and in 1583, after many struggles—illustrated by his appeal to Walsingham on the 11th of July 1582, for the payment of moneys due to him from government, and by his agreement with the Southampton venturers—he succeeded in equipping another fleet for “Western Planting.” On the 11th of June 1583, he sailed from Plymouth with five ships and the queen’s blessing; on the 13th of July the “Ark Raleigh,” built and manned at his brother’s expense, deserted the fleet; on the 30th of July he was off the north coast of Newfoundland; on the 3rd of August he arrived off the present St John’s, and selected this site as the centre of his operations; on the 5th of August he began the plantation of the first English colony in North America. Proceeding southwards with three vessels, exploring and prospecting, he lost the largest near Cape Breton (29th of August); immediately after (31st of August) he started to return to England with the “Golden Hind” and the “Squirrel,” of forty and ten tons respectively. Obstinately refusing to leave the “frigate” and sail in his “great ship,” he shared the former’s fate in a tempest off the Azores. “Monday the 9th of September,” reports Hayes, the captain of the “Hind,” “the frigate was near cast away, ... yet at that time recovered; and, giving forth signs of joy, the general, sitting abaft with a book in his hand, cried out unto us in the ‘Hind,’ ‘We are as near to heaven by sea as by land.’.... The same Monday night, about twelve, the frigate being ahead of us in the ‘Golden Hind,’ suddenly her lights were out, ... in that moment the frigate was devoured and swallowed up of the sea.”

See Hakluyt, Principal Navigations (1599); vol. iii. pp. 135-181; Gilbert’s Discourse of a Discovery for a New Passage to Cataia, published by George Gascoigne in 1576, with additions, probably without Gilbert’s authority; Hooker’s Supplement to Holinshed’s Irish Chronicle; Roger Williams, The Actions of the Low Countries (1618); State Papers, Domestic (1577-1583); Wood’s Athenae Oxonienses; North British Review, No. 45; Fox Bourne’s English Seamen under the Tudors; Carlos Slafter, Sir H. Gylberte and his Enterprise (Boston, 1903), with all important documents. Gilbert’s interesting writings on the need of a university for London, anticipating in many ways not only the modern London University but also the British Museum library and its compulsory sustenance through the provisions of the Copyright Act, have been printed by Furnivall (Queen Elizabeth’s Achademy) in the Early English Text Society Publications, extra series, No. viii.

GILBERT, JOHN (1810-1889); American actor, whose real name was Gibbs, was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on the 27th of February 1810, and made his first appearance there as Jaffier in Venice Preserved. He soon found that his true vein was in comedy, particularly in old-men parts. When in London in 1847 he was well received both by press and public, and played with Macready. He was the leading actor at Wallack’s from 1861-1888. He died on the 17th of June 1889.

See William Winter’s Life of John Gilbert (New York, 1890).

GILBERT, SIR JOHN (1817-1897), English painter and illustrator, one of the eight children of George Felix Gilbert, a member of a Derbyshire family, was born at Blackheath on the 21st of July 1817. He went to school there, and even in childhood displayed an extraordinary fondness for drawing and painting. Nevertheless, his father’s lack of means compelled him to accept employment for the boy in the office of Messrs Dickson & Bell, estate agents, in Charlotte Row, London. Yielding, however, to his natural bent, his parents agreed that he should take up art in his own way, which included but little advice from others, his only teacher being Haydon’s pupil, George Lance, the fruit painter. This artist gave him brief instructions in the use of colour. In 1836 Gilbert appeared in public for the first time. This was at the gallery of the Society of British Artists, where he sent drawings, the subjects of which were characteristic, being “The Arrest of Lord Hastings,” from Shakespeare, and “Abbot Boniface,” from The Monastery of Scott. “Inez de Castro” was in the same gallery in the next year; it was the first of a long series of works in the same medium, representing similar themes, and was accompanied, from 1837, by a still greater number of works in oil which were exhibited at the British Institution. These included “Don Quixote giving advice to Sancho Panza,” 1841; “Brunette and Phillis,” from The Spectator, 1844; “The King’s Artillery at Marston Moor,” 1860; and “Don Quixote comes back for the last time to his Home and Family,” 1867. In that year the Institution was finally closed. Gilbert exhibited at the Royal Academy from 1838, beginning with the “Portrait of a Gentleman,” and continuing, except between 1851 and 1867, till his death to exhibit there many of his best and more ambitious works. These included such capital instances as “Holbein painting the Portrait of Anne Boleyn,” “Don Quixote’s first Interview with the Duke and Duchess,” 1842, “Charlemagne visiting the Schools,” 1846. “Touchstone and the Shepherd,” and “Rembrandt,” a very fine piece, were both there in 1867; and in 1873 “Naseby,” one of his finest and most picturesque designs, was also at the Royal Academy. Gilbert was elected A.R.A. 29th January 1872, and R.A. 29th June 1876. Besides these mostly large and powerful works, the artist’s true arena of display was undoubtedly the gallery of the Old Water Colour Society, to which from 1852, when he was elected an Associate exhibitor, till he died forty-five years later, he contributed not fewer than 270 drawings, most of them admirable because of the largeness of their style, massive coloration, broad chiaroscuro, and the surpassing vigour of their designs. These qualities induced the leading critics to claim for him opportunities for painting mural pictures of great historic themes as decorations of national buildings. “The Trumpeter,” “The Standard-Bearer,” “Richard II. resigning his Crown” (now at Liverpool), “The Drug Bazaar at Constantinople,” “The Merchant of Venice” and “The Turkish Water-Carrier” are but examples of that wealth of art which added to the attractions of the gallery in Pall Mall. There Gilbert was elected a full Member in 1855, and president of the Society in 1871, shortly after which he was knighted. As an illustrator of books, magazines and periodicals of every kind he was most prolific. To the success of the Illustrated London News his designs lent powerful aid, and he was eminently serviceable in illustrating the Shakespeare of Mr Howard Staunton. He died on the 6th of October 1897.

(F. G. S.)

GILBERT, SIR JOSEPH HENRY (1817-1901); English chemist, was born at Hull on the 1st of August 1817. He studied chemistry first at Glasgow under Thomas Thomson; then at University College, London, in the laboratory of A. T. Thomson (1778-1849), the professor of medical jurisprudence, also attending Thomas Graham’s lectures; and finally at Giessen under Liebig. On his return to England from Germany he acted for a year or so as assistant to his old master A. T. Thomson at University College, and in 1843, after spending a short time in the study of calico dyeing and printing near Manchester, accepted the directorship of the chemical laboratory at the famous experimental station established by Sir J. B. Lawes at Rothamsted, near St Albans, for the systematic and scientific study of agriculture. This position he held for fifty-eight years, until his death on the 23rd of December 1901. The work which he carried out during that long period in collaboration with Lawes was of a most comprehensive character, involving the application of many branches of science, such as chemistry, meteorology, botany, animal and vegetable physiology, and geology; and its influence in improving the methods of practical agriculture extended all over the civilized world. Gilbert was chosen a fellow of the Royal Society in 1860, and in 1867 was awarded a royal medal jointly with Lawes. In 1880 he presided over the Chemical Section of the British Association at its meeting at Swansea, and in 1882 he was president of the London Chemical Society, of which he had been a member almost from its foundation in 1841. For six years from 1884 he filled the Sibthorpian chair of rural economy at Oxford, and he was also an honorary professor at the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester. He was knighted in 1893, the year in which the jubilee of the Rothamsted experiments was celebrated.

GILBERT, MARIE DOLORES ELIZA ROSANNA [“Lola Montez”] (1818-1861), dancer and adventuress, the daughter of a British army officer, was born at Limerick, Ireland, in 1818. Her father dying in India when she was seven years old, and her mother marrying again, the child was sent to Europe to be educated, subsequently joining her mother at Bath. In 1837 she made a runaway match with a Captain James of the Indian army, and accompanied him to India. In 1842 she returned to England, and shortly afterwards her husband obtained a decree nisi for divorce. She then studied dancing, making an unsuccessful first appearance at Her Majesty’s theatre, London, in 1843, billed as “Lola Montez, Spanish dancer.” Subsequently she appeared with considerable success in Germany, Poland and Russia. Thence she went to Paris, and in 1847 appeared at Munich, where she became the mistress of the old king of Bavaria, Ludwig I.; she was naturalized, created comtesse de Landsfeld, and given an income of £2000 a year. She soon proved herself the real ruler of Bavaria, adopting a liberal and anti-Jesuit policy. Her political opponents proved, however, too strong for her, and in 1848 she was banished. In 1849 she came to England, and in the same year was married to George Heald, a young officer in the Guards. Her husband’s guardian instituted a prosecution for bigamy against her on the ground that her divorce from Captain James had not been made absolute, and she fled with Heald to Spain. In 1851 she appeared at the Broadway theatre, New York, and in the following year at the Walnut Street theatre, Philadelphia. In 1853 Heald was drowned at Lisbon, and in the same year she married the proprietor of a San Francisco newspaper, but did not live long with him. Subsequently she appeared in Australia, but returned, in 1857, to act in America, and to lecture on gallantry. Her health having broken down, she devoted the rest of her life to visiting the outcasts of her own sex in New York, where, stricken with paralysis, she died on the 17th of January 1861.

See E. B. D’Auvergne, Lola Montez (New York, 1909).

GILBERT, NICOLAS JOSEPH LAURENT (1751-1780), French poet, was born at Fontenay-le-Château in Lorraine in 1751. Having completed his education at the college of Dôle, he devoted himself for a time to a half-scholastic, half-literary life at Nancy, but in 1774 he found his way to the capital. As an opponent of the Encyclopaedists and a panegyrist of Louis XV., he received considerable pensions. He died in Paris on the 12th of November 1780 from the results of a fall from his horse. The satiric force of one or two of his pieces, as Mon Apologie (1778) and Le Dix-huitième Siècle (1775), would alone be sufficient to preserve his reputation, which has been further increased by modern writers, who, like Alfred de Vigny in his Stello (chaps. 7-13), considered him a victim to the spite of his philosophic opponents. His best-known verses are the Ode imitée de plusieurs psaumes, usually entitled Adieux à la vie.

Among his other works may be mentioned Les Familles de Darius et d’Éridame, histoire persane (1770), Le Carnaval des auteurs (1773), Odes nouvelles et patriotiques (1775). Gilbert’s Œuvres complètes were first published in 1788, and they have since been edited by Mastrella (Paris, 1823), by Charles Nodier (1817 or 1825), and by M. de Lescure (1882).

GILBERT (or Gylberde), WILLIAM (1544-1603), the most distinguished man of science in England during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the father of electric and magnetic science, was a member of an ancient Suffolk family, long resident in Clare, and was born on the 24th of May 1544 at Colchester, where his father, Hierome Gilbert, became recorder. Educated at Colchester school, he entered St John’s College, Cambridge, in 1558, and after taking the degrees of B.A. and M.A. in due course, graduated M.D. in 1569, in which year he was elected a senior fellow of his college. Soon afterwards he left Cambridge, and after spending three years in Italy and other parts of Europe, settled in 1573 in London, where he practised as a physician with “great success and applause.” He was admitted to the College of Physicians probably about 1576, and from 1581 to 1590 was one of the censors. In 1587 he became treasurer, holding the office till 1592, and in 1589 he was one of the committee appointed to superintend the preparation of the Pharmacopoeia Londinensis which the college in that year decided to issue, but which did not actually appear till 1618. In 1597 he was again chosen treasurer, becoming at the same time consiliarius, and in 1599 he succeeded to the presidency. Two years later he was appointed physician to Queen Elizabeth, with the usual emolument of £100 a year. After this time he seems to have removed to the court, vacating his residence, Wingfield House, which was on Peter’s Hill, between Upper Thames Street and Little Knightrider Street, and close to the house of the College of Physicians. On the death of the queen in 1603 he was reappointed by her successor; but he did not long enjoy the honour, for he died, probably of the plague, on the 30th of November (10th of December, N.S.) 1603, either in London or in Colchester. He was buried in the latter town, in the chancel of Holy Trinity church, where a monument was erected to his memory. To the College of Physicians he left his books, globes, instruments and minerals, but they were destroyed in the great fire of London.

Gilbert’s principal work is his treatise on magnetism, entitled De magnete, magneticisque corporibus, et de magno magnete tellure (London, 1600; later editions—Stettin, 1628, 1633; Frankfort, 1629, 1638). This work, which embodied the results of many years’ research, was distinguished by its strict adherence to the scientific method of investigation by experiment, and by the originality of its matter, containing, as it does, an account of the author’s experiments on magnets and magnetical bodies and on electrical attractions, and also his great conception that the earth is nothing but a large magnet, and that it is this which explains, not only the direction of the magnetic needle north and south, but also the variation and dipping or inclination of the needle. Gilbert’s is therefore not merely the first, but the most important, systematic contribution to the sciences of electricity and magnetism. A posthumous work of Gilbert’s was edited by his brother, also called William, from two MSS. in the possession of Sir William Boswell; its title is De mundo nostro sublunari philosophia nova (Amsterdam, 1651). He is the reputed inventor besides of two instruments to enable sailors “to find out the latitude without seeing of sun, moon or stars,” an account of which is given in Thomas Blondeville’s Theoriques of the Planets (London, 1602). He was also the first advocate of Copernican views in England, and he concluded that the fixed stars are not all at the same distance from the earth.

It is a matter of great regret for the historian of chemistry that Gilbert left nothing on that branch of science, to which he was deeply devoted, “attaining to great exactness therein.” So at least says Thomas Fuller, who in his Worthies of England prophesied truly how he would be afterwards known: “Mahomet’s tomb at Mecca,” he says, “is said strangely to hang up, attracted by some invisible loadstone; but the memory of this doctor will never fall to the ground, which his incomparable book De magnete will support to eternity.”

An English translation of the De magnete was published by P. F. Mottelay in 1893, and another, with notes by S. P. Thompson, was issued by the Gilbert Club of London in 1900.

GILBERT, SIR WILLIAM SCHWENK (1836-  ), English playwright and humorist, son of William Gilbert (a descendant of Sir Humphrey Gilbert), was born in London on the 18th of November 1836. His father was the author of a number of novels, the best-known of which were Shirley Hall Asylum (1863) and Dr Austin’s Guests (1866). Several of these novels—which were characterized by a singular acuteness and lucidity of style, by a dry, subacid humour, by a fund of humanitarian feeling and by a considerable medical knowledge, especially in regard to the psychology of lunatics and monomaniacs—were illustrated by his son, who developed a talent for whimsical draughtsmanship. W. S. Gilbert was educated at Boulogne, at Ealing and at King’s College, graduating B.A. from the university of London in 1856. The termination of the Crimean War was fatal to his project of competing for a commission in the Royal Artillery, but he obtained a post in the education department of the privy council office (1857-1861). Disliking the routine work, he left the Civil Service, entered the Inner Temple, was called to the bar in November 1864, and joined the northern circuit. His practice was inconsiderable, and his military and legal ambitions were eventually satisfied by a captaincy in the volunteers and appointment as a magistrate for Middlesex (June 1891). In 1861 the comic journal Fun was started by H. J. Byron, and Gilbert became from the first a valued contributor. Failing to obtain an entrée to Punch, he continued sending excellent comic verse to Fun, with humorous illustrations, the work of his own pen, over the signature of “Bab.” A collection of these lyrics, in which deft craftsmanship unites a titillating satire on the deceptiveness of appearances with the irrepressible nonsense of a Lewis Carroll, was issued separately in 1869 under the title of Bab Ballads, and was followed by More Bab Ballads. The two collections and Songs of a Savoyard were united in a volume issued in 1898, with many new illustrations. The best of the old cuts, such as those depicting the “Bishop of Rum-ti-Foo” and the “Discontented Sugar Broker,” were preserved intact.

While remaining a staunch supporter of Fun, Gilbert was soon immersed in other journalistic work, and his position as dramatic critic to the Illustrated Times turned his attention to the stage. He had not to wait long for an opportunity. Early in December 1866 T. W. Robertson was asked by Miss Herbert, lessee of the St James’s theatre, to find some one who could turn out a bright Christmas piece in a fortnight, and suggested Gilbert; the latter promptly produced Dulcamara, a burlesque of L’Elisire d’amore, written in ten days, rehearsed in a week, and duly performed at Christmas. He sold the piece outright for £30, a piece of rashness which he had cause to regret, for it turned out a commercial success. In 1870 he was commissioned by Buckstone to write a blank verse fairy comedy, based upon Le Palais de la vérité, the novel by Madame de Genlis. The result was The Palace of Truth, a fairy drama, poor in structure but clever in workmanship, which served the purpose of Mr and Mrs Kendal in 1870 at the Haymarket. This was followed in 1871 by Pygmalion and Galatea, another three-act “mythological comedy,” a clever and effective but artificial piece. Another fairy comedy, The Wicked World, written for Buckstone and the Kendals, was followed in March 1873 by a burlesque version, in collaboration with Gilbert à Beckett, entitled The Happy Land. Gilbert’s next dramatic ventures inclined more to the conventional pattern, combining sentiment and a cynical humour in a manner strongly reminiscent of his father’s style. Of these pieces, Sweethearts was given at the Prince of Wales’s theatre, 7th November 1874; Tom Cobb at the St James’s, 24th April 1875; Broken Hearts at the Court, 9th December 1875; Dan’l Druce (a drama in darker vein, suggested to some extent by Silas Marner) at the Haymarket, 11th September 1876; and Engaged at the Haymarket, 3rd October 1877. The first and last of these proved decidedly popular. Gretchen, a verse drama in four acts, appeared in 1879. A one-act piece, called Comedy and Tragedy, was produced at the Lyceum, 26th January, 1884. Two dramatic trifles of later date were Foggerty’s Fairy and Rozenkrantz and Guildenstern, a travesty of Hamlet, performed at the Vaudeville in June 1891. Several of these dramas were based upon short stories by Gilbert, a number of which had appeared from time to time in the Christmas numbers of various periodicals. The best of them have been collected in the volume entitled Foggerty’s Fairy, and other Stories. In the autumn of 1871 Gilbert commenced his memorable collaboration (which lasted over twenty years) with Sir Arthur Sullivan. The first two comic operas, Thespis; or The Gods grown Old (26th September 1871) and Trial by Jury (Royalty, 25th March 1875) were merely essays. Like one or two of their successors, they were, as regards plot, little more than extended “Bab Ballads.” Later (especially in the Yeomen of the Guard), much more elaboration was attempted. The next piece was produced at the Opera Comique (17th November 1877) as The Sorcerer. At the same theatre were successfully given H.M.S. Pinafore (25th May 1878), The Pirates of Penzance; or The Slave of Duty (3rd April 1880), and Patience; or Bunthorne’s Bride (23rd April 1881). In October 1881 the successful Patience was removed to a new theatre, the Savoy, specially built for the Gilbert and Sullivan operas by Richard D’Oyly Carte. Patience was followed, on 25th November 1882, by Iolanthe; or The Peer and the Peri; and then came, on 5th January 1884, Princess Ida; or Castle Adamant, a re-cast of a charming and witty fantasia which Gilbert had written some years previously, and had then described as a “respectful perversion of Mr. Tennyson’s exquisite poem.” The impulse reached its fullest development in the operas that followed next in order—The Mikado; or The Town of Titipu (14th March 1885); Ruddigore (22nd January 1887); The Yeomen of the Guard (3rd October 1888); and The Gondoliers (7th December 1889). After the appearance of The Gondoliers a coolness occurred between the composer and librettist, owing to Gilbert’s considering that Sullivan had not supported him in a business disagreement with D’Oyly Carte. But the estrangement was only temporary. Gilbert wrote several more librettos, and of these Utopia Limited (1893) and the exceptionally witty Grand Duke (1896) were written in conjunction with Sullivan. As a master of metre Gilbert had shown himself consummate, as a dealer in quips and paradoxes and ludicrous dilemmas, unrivalled. Even for the music of the operas he deserves some credit, for the rhythms were frequently his own (as in “I have a Song to Sing, O”), and the metres were in many cases invented by himself. One or two of his librettos, such as that of Patience, are virtually flawless. Enthusiasts are divided only as to the comparative merit of the operas. Princess Ida and Patience are in some respects the daintiest. There is a genuine vein of poetry in The Yeomen of the Guard. Some of the drollest songs are in Pinafore and Ruddigore. The Gondoliers shows the most charming lightness of touch, while with the general public The Mikado proved the favourite. The enduring popularity of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas was abundantly proved by later revivals. Among the birthday honours in June 1907 Gilbert was given a knighthood. In 1909 his Fallen Fairies (music by Edward German) was produced at the Savoy.

(T. Se.)

GILBERT DE LA PORRÉE, frequently known as Gilbertus Porretanus or Pictaviensis (1070-1154); scholastic logician and theologian, was born at Poitiers. He was educated under Bernard of Chartres and Anselm of Laon. After teaching for about twenty years in Chartres, he lectured on dialectics and theology in Paris (from 1137), and in 1141 returned to Poitiers, being elected bishop in the following year. His heterodox opinions regarding the doctrine of the Trinity drew upon his works the condemnation of the church. The synod of Reims in 1148 procured papal sanction for four propositions opposed to certain of Gilbert’s tenets, and his works were condemned until they should be corrected in accordance with the principles of the church. Gilbert seems to have submitted quietly to this judgment; he yielded assent to the four propositions, and remained on friendly terms with his antagonists till his death on the 4th of September 1154. Gilbert is almost the only logician of the 12th century who is quoted by the greater scholastics of the succeeding age. His chief logical work, the treatise De sex principiis, was regarded with a reverence almost equal to that paid to Aristotle, and furnished matter for numerous commentators, amongst them Albertus Magnus. Owing to the fame of this work, he is mentioned by Dante as the Magister sex principiorum. The treatise itself is a discussion of the Aristotelian categories, specially of the six subordinate modes. Gilbert distinguishes in the ten categories two classes, one essential, the other derivative. Essential or inhering (formae inhaerentes) in the objects themselves are only substance, quantity, quality and relation in the stricter sense of that term. The remaining six, when, where, action, passion, position and habit, are relative and subordinate (formae assistentes). This suggestion has some interest, but is of no great value, either in logic or in the theory of knowledge. More important in the history of scholasticism are the theological consequences to which Gilbert’s realism led him. In the commentary on the treatise De Trinitate (erroneously attributed to Boëtius) he proceeds from the metaphysical notion that pure or abstract being is prior in nature to that which is. This pure being is God, and must be distinguished from the triune God as known to us. God is incomprehensible, and the categories cannot be applied to determine his existence. In God there is no distinction or difference, whereas in all substances or things there is duality, arising from the element of matter. Between pure being and substances stand the ideas or forms, which subsist, though they are not substances. These forms, when materialized, are called formae substantiales or formae nativae; they are the essences of things, and in themselves have no relation to the accidents of things. Things are temporal, the ideas perpetual, God eternal. The pure form of existence, that by which God is God, must be distinguished from the three persons who are God by participation in this form. The form or essence is one, the persons or substances three. It was this distinction between Deitas or Divinitas and Deus that led to the condemnation of Gilbert’s doctrine.

De sex principiis and commentary on the De Trinitate in Migne, Patrologia Latina, lxiv. 1255 and clxxxviii. 1257; see also Abbé Berthaud, Gilbert de la Porrée (Poitiers, 1892); B. Hauréau, De la philosophie scolastique, pp. 294-318; R. Schmid’s article “Gilbert Porretanus” in Herzog-Hauck, Realencyk. f. protest. Theol. (vol. 6, 1899); Prantl, Geschichte d. Logik, ii. 215; Bach, Dogmengeschichte, ii. 133; article [Scholasticism].

GILBERT OF SEMPRINGHAM, ST, founder of the Gilbertines, the only religious order of English origin, was born at Sempringham in Lincolnshire, c. 1083-1089. He was educated in France, and ordained in 1123, being presented by his father to the living of Sempringham. About 1135 he established there a convent for nuns; and to perform the heavy work and cultivate the fields he formed a number of labourers into a society of lay brothers attached to the convent. Similar establishments were founded elsewhere, and in 1147 Gilbert tried to get them incorporated in the Cistercian order. Failing in this, he proceeded to form communities of priests and clerics to perform the spiritual ministrations needed by the nuns. The women lived according to the Benedictine rule as interpreted by the Cistercians; the men according to the rule of St Augustine, and were canons regular. The special constitutions of the order were largely taken from those of the Premonstratensian canons and of the Cistercians. Like Fontevrault (q.v.) it was a double order, the communities of men and women living side by side; but, though the property all belonged to the nuns, the superior of the canons was the head of the whole establishment, and the general superior was a canon, called “Master of Sempringham.” The general chapter was a mixed assembly composed of two canons and two nuns from each house; the nuns had to travel to the chapter in closed carts. The office was celebrated together in the church, a high stone screen separating the two choirs of canons and nuns. The order received papal approbation in 1148. By Gilbert’s death (1189) there were nine double monasteries and four of canons only, containing about 700 canons and 1000 nuns in all. At the dissolution there were some 25 monasteries, whereof 4 ranked among the greater monasteries (see list in F. A. Gasquet’s English Monastic Life). The order never spread beyond England. The habit of the Gilbertines was black, with a white cloak.

See Bollandists’ Acta Sanctorum (4th of Feb.); William Dugdale, Monasticon (1846); Helyot, Hist. des ordres religieux (1714); ii. c. 29. The best modern account is St Gilbert of Sempringham, and the Gilbertines, by Rose Graham (1901). The art. in Dictionary of National Biography gives abundant information on St Gilbert, but is unsatisfactory on the order, as it might easily convey the impression that the canons and nuns lived together, whereas they were most carefully separated; and altogether undue prominence is given to a single scandal. Miss Graham declares that the reputation of the order was good until the end.

(E. C. B.)

GILBERT FOLIOT (d. 1187), bishop of Hereford, and of London, is first mentioned as a monk of Cluny, whence he was called in 1136 to plead the cause of the empress Matilda against Stephen at the Roman court. Shortly afterwards he became prior of Cluny; then prior of Abbéville, a house dependent upon Cluny. In 1139 he was elected abbot of Gloucester. The appointment was confirmed by Stephen, and from the ecclesiastical point of view was unexceptionable. But the new abbot proved himself a valuable ally of the empress, and her ablest controversialist. Gilbert’s reputation grew rapidly. He was respected at Rome; and he acted as the representative of the primate, Theobald, in the supervision of the Welsh church. In 1148, on being nominated by the pope to the see of Hereford, Gilbert with characteristic wariness sought confirmation both from Henry of Anjou and from Stephen. But he was an Angevin at heart, and after 1154 was treated by Henry II. with every mark of consideration. He was Becket’s rival for the primacy, and the only bishop who protested against the king’s choice. Becket, with rare forbearance, endeavoured to win his friendship by procuring for him the see of London (1163). But Gilbert evaded the customary profession of obedience to the primate, and apparently aspired to make his see independent of Canterbury. On the questions raised by the Constitutions of Clarendon he sided with the king, whose confessor he had now become. He urged Becket to yield, and, when this advice was rejected, encouraged his fellow-bishops to repudiate the authority of the archbishop. In the years of controversy which followed Becket’s flight the king depended much upon the bishop’s skill as a disputant and diplomatist. Gilbert was twice excommunicated by Becket, but both on these and on other occasions he showed great dexterity in detaching the pope from the cause of the exile. To him it was chiefly due that Henry avoided an open conflict with Rome of the kind which John afterwards provoked. Gilbert was one of the bishops whose excommunication in 1170 provoked the king’s knights to murder Becket; but he cannot be reproached with any share in the crime. His later years were uneventful, though he enjoyed great influence with the king and among his fellow bishops. Scholarly, dignified, ascetic in his private life, devoted to the service of the Church, he was nevertheless more respected than loved. His nature was cold; he made few friends; and the taint of a calculating ambition runs through his whole career. He died in the spring of 1187.

See Gilbert’s Letters, ed. J. A. Giles (Oxford, 1845); Materials for the History of Thomas Becket, ed. J. C. Robertson (Rolls series, 1875-1885); and Miss K. Norgate’s England under the Angevin Kings (1887).

(H. W. C. D.)

GILBERT (Kingsmill) ISLANDS, an extensive archipelago belonging to Great Britain in the mid-western Pacific Ocean, lying N. and S. of the equator, and between 170° and 180° E. There are sixteen islands, all coral reefs or atolls, extending in crescent form over about five degrees of latitude. The principal is Taputenea or Drummond Island. The soil, mostly of coral sand, is productive of little else than the coco-nut palm, and the chief source of food supply is the sea. The population of these islands presents a remarkable phenomenon; in spite of adverse conditions of environment and complete barbarism it is exceedingly dense, in strong contradistinction to that of many other more favoured islands. The land area of the group is only 166 m., yet the population is about 30,000. The Gilbert islanders are a dark and coarse type of the Polynesian race, and show signs of much crossing. They are tall and stout, with an average height of 5 ft. 8 in., and are of a vigorous, energetic temperament. They are nearly always naked, but wear a conical hat of pandanus leaf. In war they have an armour of plaited coco-nut fibres. They are fierce fighters, their chief weapon being a sword armed with sharks’ teeth. Their canoes are well made of coco-nut wood boards sewn neatly together and fastened on frames. British and American missionary work has been prosecuted with some success. The large population led to the introduction of natives from these islands into Hawaii as labourers in 1878-1884, but they were not found satisfactory. The islands were discovered by John Byron in 1765 (one of them bearing his name); Captains Gilbert and Marshall visited them in 1788; and they were annexed by Great Britain in 1892.

GILBEY, SIR WALTER, 1st Bart. (1831-  ), English wine-merchant, was born at Bishop Stortford, Hertfordshire, in 1831. His father, the owner and frequently the driver of the daily coach between Bishop Stortford and London, died when he was eleven years old, and young Gilbey was shortly afterwards placed in the office of an estate agent at Tring, subsequently obtaining a clerkship in a firm of parliamentary agents in London. On the outbreak of the Crimean War, Walter Gilbey and his younger brother, Alfred, volunteered for civilian service at the front, and were employed at a convalescent hospital on the Dardanelles. Returning to London on the declaration of peace, Walter and Alfred Gilbey, on the advice of their eldest brother, Henry Gilbey, a wholesale wine-merchant, started in the retail wine and spirit trade. The heavy duty then levied by the British government on French, Portuguese and Spanish wines was prohibitive of a sale among the English middle classes, and especially lower middle classes, whose usual alcoholic beverage was accordingly beer. Henry Gilbey was of opinion that these classes would gladly drink wine if they could get it at a moderate price, and by his advice Walter and Alfred determined to push the sales of colonial, and particularly of Cape, wines, on which the duty was comparatively light. Backed by capital obtained through Henry Gilbey, they accordingly opened in 1857 a small retail business in a basement in Oxford Street, London. The Cape wines proved popular, and within three years the brothers had 20,000 customers on their books. The creation of the off-licence system by Mr Gladstone, then chancellor of the exchequer, in 1860, followed by the large reduction in the duty on French wines effected by the commercial treaty between England and France in 1861, revolutionized their trade and laid the foundation of their fortunes. Three provincial grocers, who had been granted the new off-licence, applied to be appointed the Gilbeys’ agents in their respective districts, and many similar applications followed. These were granted, and before very long a leading local grocer was acting as the firm’s agents in every district in England. The grocer who dealt in the Gilbeys’ wines and spirits was not allowed to sell those of any other firm, and the Gilbeys in return handed over to him all their existing customers in his district. This arrangement was of mutual advantage, and the Gilbeys’ business increased so rapidly that in 1864 Henry Gilbey abandoned his own undertaking to join his brothers. In 1867 the three brothers secured the old Pantheon theatre and concert hall in Oxford Street for their headquarters. In 1875 the firm purchased a large claret-producing estate in Médôc, on the banks of the Gironde, and became also the proprietors of two large whisky-distilleries in Scotland. In 1893 the business was converted, for family reasons, into a private limited liability company, of which Walter Gilbey, who in the same year was created a baronet, was chairman. Sir Walter Gilbey also became well known as a breeder of shire horses, and he did much to improve the breed of English horses (other than race-horses) generally, and wrote extensively on the subject. He became president of the Shire Horse Society, of the Hackney Horse Society, and of the Hunters’ Improvement Society, and he was the founder and chairman of the London Cart Horse Parade Society. He was also a practical agriculturist, and president of the Royal Agricultural Society.

GILDAS, or Gildus (c. 516-570), the earliest of British historians (see [Celt]: Literature, “Welsh”), surnamed by some Sapiens, and by others Badonicus, seems to have been born in the year 516. Regarding him little certain is known, beyond some isolated particulars that may be gathered from hints dropped in the course of his work. Two short treatises exist, purporting to be lives of Gildas, and ascribed respectively to the 11th and 12th centuries; but the writers of both are believed to have confounded two, if not more, persons that had borne the name. It is from an incidental remark of his own, namely, that the year of the siege of Mount Badon—one of the battles fought between the Saxons and the Britons—was also the year of his own nativity, that the date of his birth has been derived; the place, however, is not mentioned. His assertion that he was moved to undertake his task mainly by “zeal for God’s house and for His holy law,” and the very free use he has made of quotations from the Bible, leave scarcely a doubt that he was an ecclesiastic of some order or other. In addition, we learn that he went abroad, probably to France, in his thirty-fourth year, where, after 10 years of hesitation and preparation, he composed, about 560, the work bearing his name. His materials, he tells us, were collected from foreign rather than native sources, the latter of which had been put beyond his reach by circumstances. The Cambrian Annals give 570 as the year of his death.

The writings of Gildas have come down to us under the title of Gildae Sapientis de excidio Britanniae liber querulus. Though at first written consecutively, the work is now usually divided into three portions,—a preface, the history proper, and an epistle,—the last, which is largely made up of passages and texts of Scripture brought together for the purpose of condemning the vices of his countrymen and their rulers, being the least important, though by far the longest of the three. In the second he passes in brief review the history of Britain from its invasion by the Romans till his own times. Among other matters reference is made to the introduction of Christianity in the reign of Tiberius; the persecution under Diocletian; the spread of the Arian heresy; the election of Maximus as emperor by the legions in Britain, and his subsequent death at Aquileia; the incursions of the Picts and Scots into the southern part of the island; the temporary assistance rendered to the harassed Britons by the Romans; the final abandonment of the island by the latter; the coming of the Saxons and their reception by Guortigern (Vortigern); and, finally, the conflicts between the Britons, led by a noble Roman, Ambrosius Aurelianus, and the new invaders. Unfortunately, on almost every point on which he touches, the statements of Gildas are vague and obscure. With one exception already alluded to, no dates are given, and events are not always taken up in the order of their occurrence. These faults are of less importance during the period when Greek and Roman writers notice the affairs of Britain; but they become more serious when, as is the case from nearly the beginning of the 5th century to the date of his death, Gildas’s brief narrative is our only authority for most of what passes current as the history of our island during those years. Thus it is on his sole, though in this instance perhaps trustworthy, testimony that the famous letter rests, said to have been sent to Rome in 446 by the despairing Britons, commencing:—“To Agitius (Aetius), consul for the third time, the groans of the Britons.”

Gildas’s treatise was first published in 1525 by Polydore Vergil, but with many avowed alterations and omissions. In 1568 John Josseline, secretary to Archbishop Parker, issued a new edition of it more in conformity with manuscript authority; and in 1691 a still more carefully revised edition appeared at Oxford by Thomas Gale. It was frequently reprinted on the Continent during the 16th century, and once or twice since. The next English edition, described by Potthast as editio pessima, was that published by the English Historical Society in 1838, and edited by the Rev. J. Stevenson. The text of Gildas founded on Gale’s edition collated with two other MSS., with elaborate introductions, is included in the Monumenta historica Britannica, edited by Petrie and Sharpe (London, 1848). Another edition is in A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs, Councils and Eccles. Documents relating to Great Britain (Oxford, 1869); the latest edition is that by Theodor Mommsen in Monum. Germ. hist. auct. antiq. xiii. (Chronica min. iii.), 1894.

GILDER, RICHARD WATSON (1844-1909), American editor and poet, was born in Bordentown, New Jersey, on the 8th of February 1844, a brother of William Henry Gilder (1838-1900), the Arctic explorer. He was educated at Bellevue Seminary, an institution conducted by his father, the Rev. William Henry Gilder (1812-1864), in Flushing, Long Island. After three years (1865-1868) on the Newark, New Jersey, Daily Advertiser, he founded, with Newton Crane, the Newark Morning Register. In 1869 he became editor of Hours at Home, and in 1870 assistant editor of Scribner’s Monthly (eleven years later re-named The Century Magazine), of which he became editor in 1881. He was one of the founders of the Free Art League, of the International Copyright League, and of the Authors’ Club; was chairman of the New York Tenement House Commission in 1894; and was a prominent member of the National Institute of Arts and Letters, of the Council of the National Civil Service Reform League, and of the executive committee of the Citizens’ Union of New York City. His poems, which are essentially lyrical, have been collected in various volumes, including Five Books of Song (1894), In Palestine and other Poems (1898), Poems and Inscriptions (1901), and In the Heights (1905). A complete edition of his poems was published in 1908. He also edited ”Sonnets from the Portuguese” and other Poems by Elizabeth Barrett Browning; ”One Word More” and other Poems by Robert Browning (1905). He died in New York on the 18th of November 1909. His wife, Helena de Kay, a grand-daughter of Joseph Rodman Drake, assisted, with Saint Gaudens and others, in founding the Society of American Artists, now merged in the National Academy, and the Art Students’ League of New York. She translated Sensier’s biography of Millet, and painted, before her marriage in 1874, studies in flowers and ideal heads, much admired for their feeling and delicate colouring.

GILDERSLEEVE, BASIL LANNEAU (1831-  ), American classical scholar, was born in Charleston, South Carolina, on the 23rd of October 1831, son of Benjamin Gildersleeve (1791-1875), a Presbyterian evangelist, and editor of the Charleston Christian Observer in 1826-1845, of the Richmond (Va.) Watchman and Observer in 1845-1856, and of The Central Presbyterian in 1856-1860. The son graduated at Princeton in 1849, studied under Franz in Berlin, under Friedrich Ritschl at Bonn and under Schneidewin at Göttingen, where he received his doctor’s degree in 1853. From 1856 to 1876 he was professor of Greek in the University of Virginia, holding the chair of Latin also in 1861-1866; and in 1876 he became professor of Greek in the newly founded Johns Hopkins University. In 1880 The American Journal of Philology, a quarterly published by the Johns Hopkins University, was established under his editorial charge, and his strong personality was expressed in the department of the Journal headed “Brief Report” or “Lanx Satura,” and in the earliest years of its publication every petty detail was in his hands. His style in it, as elsewhere, is in striking contrast to that of the typical classical scholar, and accords with his conviction that the true aim of scholarship is “that which is.” He published a Latin Grammar (1867; revised with the co-operation of Gonzalez B. Lodge, 1894 and 1899) and a Latin Series for use in secondary schools (1875), both marked by lucidity of order and mastery of grammatical theory and methods. His edition of Persius (1875) is of great value. But his bent was rather toward Greek than Latin. His special interest in Christian Greek was partly the cause of his editing in 1877 The Apologies of Justin Martyr, “which” (to use his own words) “I used unblushingly as a repository for my syntactical formulae.” Gildersleeve’s studies under Franz had no doubt quickened his interest in Greek syntax, and his logic, untrammelled by previous categories, and his marvellous sympathy with the language were displayed in this most unlikely of places. His Syntax of Classic Greek (Part I., 1900, with C. W. E. Miller) collects these formulae. Gildersleeve edited in 1885 The Olympian and Pythian Odes of Pindar, with a brilliant and valuable introduction. His views on the function of grammar were summarized in a paper on The Spiritual Rights of Minute Research delivered at Bryn Mawr on the 16th of June 1895. His collected contributions to literary periodicals appeared in 1890 under the title Essays and Studies Educational and Literary.

GILDING, the art of spreading gold, either by mechanical or by chemical means, over the surface of a body for the purpose of ornament. The art of gilding was known to the ancients. According to Herodotus, the Egyptians were accustomed to gild wood and metals; and gilding by means of gold plates is frequently mentioned in the Old Testament. Pliny informs us that the first gilding seen at Rome was after the destruction of Carthage, under the censorship of Lucius Mummius, when the Romans began to gild the ceilings of their temples and palaces, the Capitol being the first place on which this enrichment was bestowed. But he adds that luxury advanced on them so rapidly that in a little time you might see all, even private and poor persons, gild the walls, vaults, and other parts of their dwellings. Owing to the comparative thickness of the gold-leaf used in ancient gilding, the traces of it which yet remain are remarkably brilliant and solid. Gilding has in all times occupied an important place in the ornamental arts of Oriental countries; and the native processes pursued in India at the present day may be taken as typical of the arts as practised from the earliest periods. For the gilding of copper, employed in the decoration of temple domes and other large works, the following is an outline of the processes employed. The metal surface is thoroughly scraped, cleaned and polished, and next heated in a fire sufficiently to remove any traces of grease or other impurity which may remain from the operation of polishing. It is then dipped in an acid solution prepared from dried unripe apricots, and rubbed with pumice or brick powder. Next, the surface is rubbed over with mercury which forms a superficial amalgam with the copper, after which it is left some hours in clean water, again washed with the acid solution, and dried. It is now ready for receiving the gold, which is laid on in leaf, and, on adhering, assumes a grey appearance from combining with the mercury, but on the application of heat the latter metal volatilizes, leaving the gold a dull greyish hue. The colour is brought up by means of rubbing with agate burnishers. The weight of mercury used in this process is double that of the gold laid on, and the thickness of the gilding is regulated by the circumstances or necessities of the case. For the gilding of iron or steel, the surface is first scratched over with chequered lines, then washed in a hot solution of green apricots, dried and heated just short of red-heat. The gold-leaf is then laid on, and rubbed in with agate burnishers, when it adheres by catching into the prepared scratched surface.

Modern gilding is applied to numerous and diverse surfaces and by various distinct processes, so that the art is prosecuted in many ways, and is part of widely different ornamental and useful arts. It forms an important and essential part of frame-making (see [Carving and Gilding]); it is largely employed in connexion with cabinet-work, decorative painting and house ornamentation; and it also bulks largely in bookbinding and ornamental leather work. Further, gilding is much employed for coating baser metals, as in button-making, in the gilt toy trade, in electro-gilt reproductions and in electro-plating; and it is also a characteristic feature in the decoration of pottery, porcelain and glass. The various processes fall under one or other of two heads—mechanical gilding and gilding by chemical agency.

Mechanical Gilding embraces all the operations by which gold-leaf is prepared (see [Goldbeating]), and the several processes by which it is mechanically attached to the surfaces it is intended to cover. It thus embraces the burnish or water-gilding and the oil-gilding of the carver and gilder, and the gilding operations of the house decorator, the sign-painter, the bookbinder, the paper-stainer and several others. Polished iron, steel and other metals are gilt mechanically by applying gold-leaf to the metallic surface at a temperature just under red-heat, pressing the leaf on with a burnisher and reheating, when additional leaf may be laid on. The process is completed by cold burnishing.

Chemical Gilding embraces those processes in which the gold used is at some stage in a state of chemical combination. Of these the following are the principal:—

Cold Gilding.—In this process the gold is obtained in a state of extremely fine division, and applied by mechanical means. Cold gilding on silver is performed by a solution of gold in aqua-regia, applied by dipping a linen rag into the solution, burning it, and rubbing the black and heavy ashes on the silver with the finger or a piece of leather or cork. Wet gilding is effected by means of a dilute solution of chloride of gold with twice its quantity of ether. The liquids are agitated and allowed to rest, when the ether separates and floats on the surface of the acid. The whole mixture is then poured into a funnel with a small aperture, and allowed to rest for some time, when the acid is run off and the ether separated. The ether will be found to have taken up all the gold from the acid, and may be used for gilding iron or steel, for which purpose the metal is polished with the finest emery and spirits of wine. The ether is then applied with a small brush, and as it evaporates it deposits the gold, which can now be heated and polished. For small delicate figures a pen or a fine brush may be used for laying on the ether solution. Fire-gilding or Wash-gilding is a process by which an amalgam of gold is applied to metallic surfaces, the mercury being subsequently volatilized, leaving a film of gold or an amalgam containing from 13 to 16% of mercury. In the preparation of the amalgam the gold must first be reduced to thin plates or grains, which are heated red hot, and thrown into mercury previously heated, till it begins to smoke. Upon stirring the mercury with an iron rod, the gold totally disappears. The proportion of mercury to gold is generally as six or eight to one. When the amalgam is cold it is squeezed through chamois leather for the purpose of separating the superfluous mercury; the gold, with about twice its weight of mercury, remains behind, forming a yellowish silvery mass of the consistence of butter. When the metal to be gilt is wrought or chased, it ought to be covered with mercury before the amalgam is applied, that this may be more easily spread; but when the surface of the metal is plain, the amalgam may be applied to it direct. When no such preparation is applied, the surface to be gilded is simply bitten and cleaned with nitric acid. A deposit of mercury is obtained on a metallic surface by means of “quicksilver water,” a solution of nitrate of mercury,—the nitric acid attacking the metal to which it is applied, and thus leaving a film of free metallic mercury. The amalgam being equally spread over the prepared surface of the metal, the mercury is then sublimed by a heat just sufficient for that purpose; for, if it is too great, part of the gold may be driven off, or it may run together and leave some of the surface of the metal bare. When the mercury has evaporated, which is known by the surface having entirely become of a dull yellow colour, the metal must undergo other operations, by which the fine gold colour is given to it. First, the gilded surface is rubbed with a scratch brush of brass wire, until its surface be smooth; then it is covered over with a composition called “gilding wax,” and again exposed to the fire until the wax is burnt off. This wax is composed of beeswax mixed with some of the following substances, viz. red ochre, verdigris, copper scales, alum, vitriol, borax. By this operation the colour of the gilding is heightened; and the effect seems to be produced by a perfect dissipation of some mercury remaining after the former operation. The dissipation is well effected by this equable application of heat. The gilt surface is then covered over with nitre, alum or other salts, ground together, and mixed up into a paste with water or weak ammonia. The piece of metal thus covered is exposed to a certain degree of heat, and then quenched in water. By this method its colour is further improved and brought nearer to that of gold, probably by removing any particles of copper that may have been on the gilt surface. This process, when skilfully carried out, produces gilding of great solidity and beauty; but owing to the exposure of the workmen to mercurial fumes, it is very unhealthy, and further there is much loss of mercury. Numerous contrivances have been introduced to obviate these serious evils. Gilt brass buttons used for uniforms are gilt by this process, and there is an act of parliament (1796) yet unrepealed which prescribes 5 grains of gold as the smallest quantity that may be used for the gilding of 12 dozen of buttons 1 in. in diameter.

Gilding of Pottery and Porcelain.—The quantity of gold consumed for these purposes is very large. The gold used is dissolved in aqua-regia, and the acid is driven off by heat, or the gold may be precipitated by means of sulphate of iron. In this pulverulent state the gold is mixed with 1⁄12th of its weight of oxide of bismuth, together with a small quantity of borax and gum water. The mixture is applied to the articles with a camel’s hair pencil, and after passing through the fire the gold is of a dingy colour, but the lustre is brought out by burnishing with agate and bloodstone, and afterwards cleaning with vinegar or white-lead.

GILDS, or Guilds. Medieval gilds were voluntary associations formed for the mutual aid and protection of their members. Among the gildsmen there was a strong spirit of fraternal co-operation or Christian brotherhood, with a mixture of worldly and religious ideals—the support of the body and the salvation of the soul. Early meanings of the root gild or geld were expiation, penalty, sacrifice or worship, feast or banquet, and contribution or payment; it is difficult to determine which is the earliest meaning, and we are not certain whether the gildsmen were originally those who contributed to a common fund or those who worshipped or feasted together. Their fraternities or societies may be divided into three classes: religious or benevolent, merchant and craft gilds. The last two categories, which do not become prominent anywhere in Europe until the 12th century, had, like all gilds, a religious tinge, but their aims were primarily worldly, and their functions were mainly of an economic character.

1. Origin.—Various theories have been advanced concerning the origin of gilds. Some writers regard them as a continuation of the Roman collegia and sodalitates, but there is little evidence to prove the unbroken continuity of existence of the Roman and Germanic fraternities. A more widely accepted theory derives gilds wholly or in part from the early Germanic or Scandinavian sacrificial banquets. Much influence is ascribed to this heathen element by Lujo Brentano, Karl Hegel, W. E. Wilda and other writers. This view does not seem to be tenable, for the old sacrificial carousals lack two of the essential elements of the gilds, namely corporative solidarity or permanent association and the spirit of Christian brotherhood. Dr Max Pappenheim has ascribed the origin of Germanic gilds to the northern “foster-brotherhood” or “sworn-brotherhood,” which was an artificial bond of union between two or more persons. After intermingling their blood in the earth and performing other peculiar ceremonies, the two contracting parties with grasped hands swore to avenge any injury done to either of them. The objections to this theory are fully stated by Hegel (Städte und Gilden, i. 250-253). The foster-brotherhood seems to have been unknown to the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons, the nations in which medieval gilds first appear; and hence Dr Pappenheim’s conclusions, if tenable at all, apply only to Denmark or Scandinavia.

No theory on this subject can be satisfactory which wholly ignores the influence of the Christian church. Imbued with the idea of the brotherhood of man, the church naturally fostered the early growth of gilds and tried to make them displace the old heathen banquets. The work of the church was, however, directive rather than creative. Gilds were a natural manifestation of the associative spirit which is inherent in mankind. The same needs produce in different ages associations which have striking resemblances, but those of each age have peculiarities which indicate a spontaneous growth. It is not necessary to seek the germ of gilds in any antecedent age or institution. When the old kin-bond or maegth was beginning to weaken or dissolve, and the state did not yet afford adequate protection to its citizens, individuals naturally united for mutual help.

Gilds are first mentioned in the Carolingian capitularies of 779 and 789, and in the enactments made by the synod of Nantes early in the 9th century, the text of which has been preserved in the ecclesiastical ordinances of Hincmar of Rheims (A.D. 852). The capitularies of 805 and 821 also contain vague references to sworn unions of some sort, and a capitulary of 884 prohibits villeins from forming associations “vulgarly called gilds” against those who have despoiled them. The Carolingians evidently regarded such “conjurations” as “conspirations” dangerous to the state. The gilds of Norway, Denmark and Sweden are first mentioned in the 11th, 12th and 14th centuries respectively; those of France and the Netherlands in the 11th.

Many writers believe that the earliest references to gilds come from England. The laws of Ine speak of gegildan who help each other pay the wergeld, but it is not entirely certain that they were members of gild fraternities in the later sense. These are more clearly referred to in England in the second half of the 9th century, though we have little information concerning them before the 11th century. To the first half of that century belong the statutes of the fraternities of Cambridge, Abbotsbury and Exeter. They are important because they form the oldest body of gild ordinances extant in Europe. The thanes’ gild at Cambridge afforded help in blood-feuds, and provided for the payment of the wergeld in case a member killed any one. The religious element was more prominent in Orcy’s gild at Abbotsbury and in the fraternity at Exeter; their ordinances exhibit much solicitude for the salvation of the brethren’s souls. The Exeter gild also gave assistance when property was destroyed by fire. Prayers for the dead, attendance at funerals of gildsmen, periodical banquets, the solemn entrance oath, fines for neglect of duty and for improper conduct, contributions to a common purse, mutual assistance in distress, periodical meetings in the gildhall,—in short, all the characteristic features of the later gilds already appear in the statutes of these Anglo-Saxon fraternities. Some continental writers, in dealing with the origin of municipal government throughout western Europe, have, however, ascribed too much importance to the Anglo-Saxon gilds, exaggerating their prevalence and contending that they form the germ of medieval municipal government. This view rests almost entirely on conjecture; there is no good evidence to show that there was any organic connexion between gilds and municipal government in England before the coming of the Normans. It should also be noted that there is no trace of the existence of either craft or merchant gilds in England before the Norman Conquest. Commerce and industry were not yet sufficiently developed to call for the creation of such associations.

2. Religious Gilds after the Norman Conquest.—Though we have not much information concerning the religious gilds in the 12th century, they doubtless flourished under the Anglo-Norman kings, and we know that they were numerous, especially in the boroughs, from the 13th century onward. In 1388 parliament ordered that every sheriff in England should call upon the masters and wardens of all gilds and brotherhoods to send to the king’s council in Chancery, before the 2nd of February 1389, full returns regarding their foundation, ordinances and property. Many of these returns were edited by J. Toulmin Smith (1816-1869), and they throw much light on the functions of the gilds. Their ordinances are similar to those of the above-mentioned Anglo-Saxon fraternities. Each member took an oath of admission, paid an entrance-fee, and made a small annual contribution to the common fund. The brethren were aided in old age, sickness and poverty, often also in cases of loss by robbery, shipwreck and conflagration; for example, any member of the gild of St Catherine, Aldersgate, was to be assisted if he “fall into poverty or be injured through age, or through fire or water, thieves or sickness.” Alms were often given even to non-gildsmen; lights were supported at certain altars; feasts and processions were held periodically; the funerals of brethren were attended; and masses for the dead were provided from the common purse or from special contributions made by the gildsmen. Some of the religious gilds supported schools, or helped to maintain roads, bridges and town-walls, or even came, in course of time, to be closely connected with the government of the borough; but, as a rule, they were simply private societies with a limited sphere of activity. They are important because they played a prominent rôle in the social life of England, especially as eleemosynary institutions, down to the time of their suppression in 1547. Religious gilds, closely resembling those of England, also flourished on the continent during the middle ages.

3. The Gild Merchant.—The merchant and craft fraternities are particularly interesting to students of economic and municipal history. The gild merchant came into existence in England soon after the Norman Conquest, as a result of the increasing importance of trade, and it may have been transplanted from Normandy. Until clearer evidence of foreign influence is found, it may, however, be safer to regard it simply as a new application of the old gild principle, though this new application may have been stimulated by continental example. The evidence seems to indicate the pre-existence of the gild merchant in Normandy, but it is not mentioned anywhere on the continent before the 11th century. It spread rapidly in England, and from the reign of John onward we have evidence of its existence in many English boroughs. But in some prominent towns, notably London, Colchester, Norwich and the Cinque Ports, it seems never to have been adopted. In fact it played a more conspicuous rôle in the small boroughs than in the large ones. It was regarded by the townsmen as one of their most important privileges. Its chief function was to regulate the trade monopoly conveyed to the borough by the royal grant of gilda mercatoria. A grant of this sort implied that the gildsmen had the right to trade freely in the town, and to impose payments and restrictions upon others who desired to exercise that privilege. The ordinances of a gild merchant thus aim to protect the brethren from the commercial competition of strangers or non-gildsmen. More freedom of trade was allowed at all times in the selling of wares by wholesale, and also in retail dealings during the time of markets and fairs. The ordinances were enforced by an alderman with the assistance of two or more deputies, or by one or two masters, wardens or keepers. The Morwenspeches were periodical meetings at which the brethren feasted, revised their ordinances, admitted new members, elected officers and transacted other business.

It has often been asserted that the gild merchant and the borough were identical, and that the former was the basis of the whole municipal constitution. But recent research has discredited this theory both in England and on the continent. Much evidence has been produced to show that gild and borough, gildsmen and burgesses, were originally distinct conceptions, and that they continued to be discriminated in most towns throughout the middle ages. Admission to the gild was not restricted to burgesses; nor did the brethren form an aristocratic body having control over the whole municipal polity. No good evidence has, moreover, been advanced to prove that this or any other kind of gild was the germ of the municipal constitution. On the other hand, the gild merchant was certainly an official organ or department of the borough administration, and it exerted considerable influence upon the economic and corporative growth of the English municipalities.

Historians have expressed divergent views regarding the early relations of the craftsmen and their fraternities to the gild merchant. One of the main questions in dispute is whether artisans were excluded from the gild merchant. Many of them seem to have been admitted to membership. They were regarded as merchants, for they bought raw material and sold the manufactured commodity; no sharp line of demarcation was drawn between the two classes in the 12th and 13th centuries. Separate societies of craftsmen were formed in England soon after the gild merchant came into existence; but at first they were few in number. The gild merchant did not give birth to craft fraternities or have anything to do with their origin; nor did it delegate its authority to them. In fact, there seems to have been little or no organic connexion between the two classes of gilds. As has already been intimated, however, many artisans probably belonged both to their own craft fraternity and to the gild merchant, and the latter, owing to its great power in the town, may have exercised some sort of supervision over the craftsmen and their societies. When the king bestowed upon the tanners or weavers or any other body of artisans the right to have a gild, they secured the monopoly of working and trading in their branch of industry. Thus with every creation of a craft fraternity the gild merchant was weakened and its sphere of activity was diminished, though the new bodies were subsidiary to the older and larger fraternity. The greater the commercial and industrial prosperity of a town, the more rapid was the multiplication of craft gilds, which was a natural result of the ever-increasing division of labour. The old gild merchant remained longest intact and powerful in the smaller boroughs, in which, owing to the predominance of agriculture, few or no craft gilds were formed. In some of the larger towns the crafts were prominent already in the 13th century, but they became much more prominent in the first half of the 14th century. Their increase in number and power was particularly rapid in the time of Edward III., whose reign marks an era of industrial progress. Many master craftsmen now became wealthy employers of labour, dealing extensively in the wares which they produced. The class of dealers or merchants, as distinguished from trading artisans, also greatly increased and established separate fraternities. When these various unions of dealers and of craftsmen embraced all the trades and branches of production in the town, little or no vitality remained in the old gild merchant; it ceased to have an independent sphere of activity. The tendency was for the single organization, with a general monopoly of trade, to be replaced by a number of separate organizations representing the various trades and handicrafts. In short, the function of guarding and supervising the trade monopoly split up into various fragments, the aggregate of the crafts superseding the old general gild merchant. This transference of the authority of the latter to a number of distinct bodies and the consequent disintegration of the old organization was a gradual spontaneous movement,—a process of slow displacement, or natural growth and decay, due to the play of economic forces,—which, generally speaking, may be assigned to the 14th and 15th centuries, the very period in which the craft gilds attained the zenith of their power. While in most towns the name and the old organization of the gild merchant thus disappeared and the institution was displaced by the aggregate of the crafts towards the close of the middle ages, in some places it survived long after the 15th century either as a religious fraternity, shorn of its old functions, or as a periodical feast, or as a vague term applied to the whole municipal corporation.

On the continent of Europe the medieval gild merchant played a less important rôle than in England. In Germany, France and the Netherlands it occupies a less prominent place in the town charters and in the municipal polity, and often corresponds to the later fraternities of English dealers established either to carry on foreign commerce or to regulate a particular part of the local trade monopoly.

4. Craft Gilds.—A craft gild usually comprised all the artisans in a single branch of industry in a particular town. Such a fraternity was commonly called a “mistery” or “company” in the 15th and 16th centuries, though the old term “gild” was not yet obsolete. “Gild” was also a common designation in north Germany, while the corresponding term in south Germany was Zunft, and in France métier. These societies are not clearly visible in England or on the continent before the early part of the 12th century. With the expansion of trade and industry the number of artisans increased, and they banded together for mutual protection. Some German writers have maintained that these craft organizations emanated from manorial groups of workmen, but strong arguments have been advanced against the validity of this theory (notably by F. Keutgen). It is unnecessary to elaborate any profound theory regarding the origin of the craft gilds. The union of men of the same occupation was a natural tendency of the age. In the 13th century the trade of England continued to expand and the number of craft gilds increased. In the 14th century they were fully developed and in a flourishing condition; by that time each branch of industry in every large town had its gild. The development of these societies was even more rapid on the continent than in England.

Their organization and aims were in general the same throughout western Europe. Officers, commonly called wardens in England, were elected by the members, and their chief function was to supervise the quality of the wares produced, so as to secure good and honest workmanship. Therefore, ordinances were made regulating the hours of labour and the terms of admission to the gild, including apprenticeship. Other ordinances required members to make periodical payments to a common fund, and to participate in certain common religious observances, festivities and pageants. But the regulation of industry was always paramount to social and religious aims; the chief object of the craft gild was to supervise the processes of manufacture and to control the monopoly of working and dealing in a particular branch of industry.

We have already called attention to the gradual displacement of the gild merchant by the craft organizations. The relations of the former to the latter must now be considered more in detail. There was at no time a general struggle in England between the gild merchant and the craft gilds, though in a few towns there seems to have been some friction between merchants and artisans. There is no exact parallel in England to the conflict between these two classes in Scotland in the 16th century, or to the great continental revolution of the 13th and 14th centuries, by which the crafts threw off the yoke of patrician government and secured more independence in the management of their own affairs and more participation in the civic administration. The main causes of these conflicts on the continent were the monopoly of power by the patricians, acts of violence committed by them, their bad management of the finances and their partisan administration of justice. In some towns the victory of the artisans in the 14th century was so complete that the whole civic constitution was remodelled with the craft fraternities as a basis. A widespread movement of this sort would scarcely be found in England, where trade and industry were less developed than on the continent, and where the motives of a class conflict between merchants and craftsmen were less potent. Moreover, borough government in England seems to have been mainly democratic until the 14th or 15th century; there was no oligarchy to be depressed or suppressed. Even if there had been motives for uprisings of artisans such as took place in Germany and the Netherlands, the English kings would probably have intervened. True, there were popular uprisings in England, but they were usually conflicts between the poor and the rich; the crafts as such seldom took part in these tumults. While many continental municipalities were becoming more democratic in the 14th century, those of England were drifting towards oligarchy, towards government by a close “select body.” As a rule the craft gilds secured no dominant influence in the boroughs of England, but remained subordinate to the town government. Whatever power they did secure, whether as potent subsidiary organs of the municipal polity for the regulation of trade, or as the chief or sole medium for the acquisition of citizenship, or as integral parts of the common council, was, generally speaking, the logical sequence of a gradual economic development, and not the outgrowth of a revolutionary movement by which oppressed craftsmen endeavoured to throw off the yoke of an arrogant patrician gild merchant.

Two new kinds of craft fraternities appear in the 14th century and become more prominent In the 15th, namely, the merchants’ and the journeymen’s companies. The misteries or companies of merchants traded in one or more kinds of wares. They were pre-eminently dealers, who sold what others produced. Hence they should not be confused with the old gild merchant, which originally comprised both merchants and artisans, and had the whole monopoly of the trade of the town. In most cases, the company of merchants was merely one of the craft organizations which superseded the gild merchant.

In the 14th century the journeymen or yeomen began to set up fraternities in defence of their rights. The formation of these societies marks a cleft within the ranks of some particular class of artisans—a conflict between employers, or master artisans, and workmen. The journeymen combined to protect their special interests, notably as regards hours of work and rates of wages, and they fought with the masters over the labour question in all its aspects. The resulting struggle of organized bodies of masters and journeymen was widespread throughout western Europe, but it was more prominent in Germany than in France or England. This conflict was indeed one of the main features of German industrial life in the 15th century. In England the fraternities of journeymen, after struggling a while for complete independence, seem to have fallen under the supervision and control of the masters’ gilds; in other words, they became subsidiary or affiliated organs of the older craft fraternities.

An interesting phenomenon in connexion with the organization of crafts is their tendency to amalgamate, which is occasionally visible in England in the 15th century, and more frequently in the 16th and 17th. A similar tendency is visible in the Netherlands and in some other parts of the continent already in the 14th century. Several fraternities—old gilds or new companies, with their respective cognate or heterogeneous branches of industry and trade—were fused into one body. In some towns all the crafts were thus consolidated into a single fraternity; in this case a body was reproduced which regulated the whole trade monopoly of the borough, and hence bore some resemblance to the old gild merchant.

In dealing briefly with the modern history of craft gilds, we may confine our attention to England. In the Tudor period the policy of the crown was to bring them under public or national control. Laws were passed, for example in 1503, requiring that new ordinances of “fellowships of crafts or misteries” should be approved by the royal justices or by other crown officers; and the authority of the companies to fix the price of wares was thus restricted. The statute of 5 Elizabeth, c. 4, also curtailed their jurisdiction over journeymen and apprentices (see [Apprenticeship]).

The craft fraternities were not suppressed by the statute of 1547 (1 Edward VI.). They were indeed expressly exempted from its general operation. Such portions of their revenues as were devoted to definite religious observances were, however, appropriated by the crown. The revenues confiscated were those used for “the finding, maintaining or sustentation of any priest or of any anniversary, or obit, lamp, light or other such things.” This has been aptly called “the disendowment of the religion of the misteries.” Edward VI.’s statute marks no break of continuity in the life of the craft organizations. Even before the Reformation, however, signs of decay had already begun to appear, and these multiplied in the 16th and 17th centuries. The old gild system was breaking down under the action of new economic forces. Its dissolution was due especially to the introduction of new industries, organized on a more modern basis, and to the extension of the domestic system of manufacture. Thus the companies gradually lost control over the regulation of industry, though they still retained their old monopoly in the 17th century, and in many cases even in the 18th. In fact, many craft fraternities still survived in the second half of the 18th century, but their usefulness had disappeared. The medieval form of association was incompatible with the new ideas of individual liberty and free competition, with the greater separation of capital and industry, employers and workmen, and with the introduction of the factory system. Intent only on promoting their own interests and disregarding the welfare of the community, the old companies had become an unmitigated evil. Attempts have been made to find in them the progenitors of the trades unions, but there seems to be no immediate connexion between the latter and the craft gilds. The privileges of the old fraternities were not formally abolished until 1835; and the substantial remains or spectral forms of some are still visible in other towns besides London.

Bibliography.—W. E. Wilda, Das Gildenwesen im Mittelalter (Halle, 1831); E. Levasseur; Histoire des classes ouvrières en France (2 vols., Paris, 1859, new ed. 1900); Gustav von Schönberg, “Zur wirtschaftlichen Bedeutung des deutschen Zunftwesens im Mittelalter,” in Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik, ed. B. Hildebrand, vol. ix. pp. 1-72, 97-169 (Jena, 1867); Joshua Toulmin Smith, English Gilds, with Lujo Brentano’s introductory essay on the History and Development of Gilds (London, 1870); Max Pappenheim, Die altdänischen Schutzgilden (Breslau, 1885); W. J. Ashley, Introduction to English Economic History (2 vols., London, 1888-1893; 3rd ed. of vol. i., 1894); C. Gross, The Gild Merchant (2 vols., Oxford, 1890); Karl Hegel, Städte und Gilden der germanischen Völker (2 vols., Leipzig, 1891); J. Malet Lambert, Two Thousand Years of Gild Life (Hull, 1891); Alfred Doren, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Kaufmannsgilden (Leipzig, 1893); H. Vander Linden, Les Gildes marchandes dans les Pays-Bas au moyen âge (Ghent, 1896); E. Martin Saint-Léon, Histoire des corporations de métiers (Paris, 1897); C. Nyrop, Danmarks Gilde- og Lavsskraaer fra middelalderen (2 vols., Copenhagen, 1899-1904); F. Keutgen, Ämter und Zünfte (Jena, 1903); George Unwin, Industrial Organization in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Oxford, 1904). For bibliographies of gilds, see H. Blanc, Bibliographie des corporations ouvrières (Paris, 1885); G. Gonetta, Bibliografia delle corporazioni d’ arti e mestieri (Rome, 1891); C. Gross, Bibliography of British Municipal History, including Gilds (New York, 1897); W. Stieda, in Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, ed. J. Conrad (2nd ed., Jena, 1901, under “Zunftwesen”).

(C. Gr.)

GILEAD (i.e. “hard” or “rugged,” a name sometimes used, both in earlier and in later writers, to denote the whole of the territory occupied by the Israelites eastward of Jordan, extending from the Arnon to the southern base of Hermon (Deut. xxxiv. 1; Judg. xx. 1; Jos. Ant. xii. 8. 3, 4). More precisely, however, it was the usual name of that picturesque hill country which is bounded on the N. by the Hieromax (Yarmuk), on the W. by the Jordan, on the S. by the Arnon, and on the E. by a line which may be said to follow the meridian of Ammān (Philadelphia or Rabbath-Ammon). It thus lies wholly within 31° 25′ and 32° 42′ N. lat. and 35° 34′ and 36° E. long., and is cut in two by the Jabbok. Excluding the narrow strip of low-lying plain along the Jordan, it has an average elevation of 2500 ft. above the Mediterranean; but, as seen from the west, the relative height is very much increased by the depression of the Jordan valley. The range from the same point of view presents a singularly uniform outline, having the appearance of an unbroken wall; in reality, however, it is traversed by a number of deep ravines (wadis), of which the most important are the Yābis, the Ajlūn, the Rājib, the Zerka (Jabbok), the Hesban, and the Zerka Ma’īn. The great mass of the Gilead range is formed of Jura limestone, the base slopes being sandstone partly covered by white marls. The eastern slopes are comparatively bare of trees; but the western are well supplied with oak, terebinth and pine. The pastures are everywhere luxuriant, and the wooded heights and winding glens, in which the tangled shrubbery is here and there broken up by open glades and flat meadows of green turf, exhibit a beauty of vegetation such as is hardly to be seen in any other district of Palestine.

The first biblical mention of “Mount Gilead” occurs in connexion with the reconcilement of Jacob and Laban (Genesis xxxi.). The composite nature of the story makes an identification of the exact site difficult, but one of the narrators (E) seems to have in mind the ridge of what is now known as Jebel Ajlūn, probably not far from Maḥneh (Mahanaim), near the head of the wadi Yābis. Some investigators incline to Sūf, or to the Jebel Kafkafa. At the period of the Israelite conquest the portion of Gilead northward of the Jabbok (Zerka) belonged to the dominions of Og, king of Bashan, while the southern half was ruled by Sihon, king of the Amorites, having been at an earlier date wrested from Moab (Numb. xxi. 24; Deut. iii. 12-16). These two sections were allotted respectively to Manasseh and to Reuben and Gad, both districts being peculiarly suited to the pastoral and nomadic character of these tribes. A somewhat wild Bedouin disposition, fostered by their surroundings, was retained by the Israelite inhabitants of Gilead to a late period of their history, and seems to be to some extent discernible in what we read alike of Jephthah, of David’s Gadites, and of the prophet Elijah. As the eastern frontier of Palestine, Gilead bore the first brunt of Syrian and Assyrian attacks.

After the close of the Old Testament history the word Gilead seldom occurs. It seems to have soon passed out of use as a precise geographical designation; for though occasionally mentioned by Apocryphal writers, by Josephus, and by Eusebius, the allusions are all vague, and show that those who made them had no definite knowledge of Gilead proper. In Josephus and the New Testament the name Peraea or πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου is most frequently used; and the country is sometimes spoken of by Josephus as divided into small provinces called after the capitals in which Greek colonists had established themselves during the reign of the Seleucidae. At present Gilead south of the Jabbok alone is known by the name of Jebel Jilad (Mount Gilead), the northern portion between the Jabbok and the Yarmuk being called Jebel Ajlūn. Jebel Jilad includes Jebel Osha, and has for its capital the town of Es-Salt. The cities of Gilead expressly mentioned in the Old Testament are Ramoth, Jabesh and Jazer. The first of these has been variously identified with Es-Salt, with Reimun, with Jerash or Gerasa, with er-Remtha, and with Ṣalḥad. Opinions are also divided on the question of its identity with Mizpeh-Gilead (see Encyc. Biblica, art. “Ramoth-Gilead”). Jabesh is perhaps to be found at Meriamin, less probably at ed-Deir; Jazer, at Yajuz near Jogbehah, rather than at Sar. The city named Gilead (Judg. x. 17, xii. 7; Hos. vi. 8, xii. 11) has hardly been satisfactorily explained; perhaps the text has suffered.

The “balm” (Heb. ṣori) for which Gilead was so noted (Gen. xlvii. 11; Jer. viii. 22, xlvi. 11; Ezek. xxvii. 17), is probably to be identified with mastic (Gen. xxxvii. 25, R.V. marg.) i.e. the resin yielded by the Pistachia Lentiscus. The modern “balm of Gilead” or “Mecca balsam,” an aromatic gum produced by the Balsamodendron opobalsamum, is more likely the Hebrew mōr, which the English Bible wrongly renders “myrrh.”

See G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. xxiv. foll.

(R. A. S. M.)

GILES (Gil, Gilles), ST, the name given to an abbot whose festival is celebrated on the 1st of September. According to the legend, he was an Athenian (Λἰγίδιος, Aegidius) of royal descent. After the death of his parents he distributed his possessions among the poor, took ship, and landed at Marseilles. Thence he went to Arles, where he remained for two years with St Caesarius. He then retired into a neighbouring desert, where he lived upon herbs and upon the milk of a hind which came to him at stated hours. He was discovered there one day by Flavius, the king of the Goths, who built a monastery on the place, of which he was the first abbot. Scholars are very much divided as to the date of his life, some holding that he lived in the 6th century, others in the 7th or 8th. It may be regarded as certain that St Giles was buried in the hermitage which he had founded in a spot which was afterwards the town of St-Gilles (diocese of Nîmes, department of Gard). His reputation for sanctity attracted many pilgrims. Important gifts were made to the church which contained his body, and a monastery grew up hard by. It is probable that the Visigothic princes who were in possession of the country protected and enriched this monastery, and that it was destroyed by the Saracens at the time of their invasion in 721. But there are no authentic data before the 9th century concerning his history. In 808 Charlemagne took the abbey of St-Gilles under his protection, and it is mentioned among the monasteries from which only prayers for the prince and the state were due. In the 12th century the pilgrimages to St-Gilles are cited as among the most celebrated of the time. The cult of the saint, who came to be regarded as the special patron of lepers, beggars and cripples, spread very extensively over Europe, especially in England, Scotland, France, Belgium and Germany. The church of St Giles, Cripplegate, London, was built about 1090, while the hospital for lepers at St Giles-in-the-Fields (near New Oxford Street) was founded by Queen Matilda in 1117. In England alone there are about 150 churches dedicated to this saint. In Edinburgh the church of St Giles could boast the possession of an arm-bone of its patron. Representations of St Giles are very frequently met with in early French and German art, but are much less common in Italy and Spain.

See Acta Sanctorum (September), i. 284-299; Devic and Vaissete, Histoire générale de Languedoc, pp. 514-522 (Toulouse, 1876); E. Rembry, Saint Gilles, sa vie, ses reliques, son culte en Belgique et dans le nord de la France (Bruges, 1881); F. Arnold-Forster, Studies in Church Dedications, or England’s Patron Saints, ii. 46-51, iii. 15, 363-365 (1899); A. Jameson, Sacred and Legendary Art, 768-770 (1896); A. Bell, Lives and Legends of the English Bishops and Kings, Medieval Monks, and other later Saints, pp. 61, 70, 74-78, 84, 197 (1904).

(H. De.)

GILFILLAN, GEORGE (1813-1878), Scottish author, was born on the 30th of January 1813, at Comrie, Perthshire, where his father, the Rev. Samuel Gilfillan, the author of some theological works, was for many years minister of a Secession congregation. After an education at Glasgow University, in March 1836 he was ordained pastor of a Secession congregation in Dundee. He published a volume of his discourses in 1839, and shortly afterwards another sermon on “Hades,” which brought him under the scrutiny of his co-presbyters, and was ultimately withdrawn from circulation. Gilfillan next contributed a series of sketches of celebrated contemporary authors to the Dumfries Herald, then edited by Thomas Aird; and these, with several new ones, formed his first Gallery of Literary Portraits, which appeared in 1846, and had a wide circulation. It was quickly followed by a Second and a Third Gallery. In 1851 his most successful work, the Bards of the Bible, appeared. His aim was that it should be “a poem on the Bible”; and it was far more rhapsodical than critical. His Martyrs and Heroes of the Scottish Covenant appeared in 1832, and in 1856 he produced a partly autobiographical, partly fabulous, History of a Man. For thirty years he was engaged upon a long poem, on Night, which was published in 1867, but its theme was too vast, vague and unmanageable, and the result was a failure. He also edited an edition of the British Poets. As a lecturer and as a preacher he drew large crowds, but his literary reputation has not proved permanent. He died on the 13th of August 1878. He had just finished a new life of Burns designed to accompany a new edition of the works of that poet.

GILGAL (Heb. for “circle” of sacred stones), the name of several places in Palestine, mentioned in the Old Testament. The name is not found east of the Jordan.

1. The first and most important was situated “in the east border of Jericho” (Josh. iv. 19), on the border between Judah and Benjamin (Josh. xv. 7). Josephus (Ant. v. 1. 4) places it 50 stadia from Jordan and 10 from Jericho (the New Testament site). Jerome (Onomasticon, s.v. “Galgal”) places Gilgal 2 Roman miles from Jericho, and speaks of it as a deserted place held in wonderful veneration (“miro cultu”) by the natives. This site, which in the middle ages appears to have been lost—Gilgal being shown farther north—was in 1865 recovered by a German traveller (Hermann Zschokke), and fixed by the English survey party, though not beyond dispute. It is about 2 m. east of the site of Byzantine Jericho, and 1 m. from modern er-Riha. A fine tamarisk, traces of a church (which is mentioned in the 8th century), and a large reservoir, now filled up with mud, remain. The place is called Jiljūlieh, and its position north of the valley of Achor (Wadì Kelt) and east of Jericho agrees well with the biblical indications above mentioned. A tradition connected with the fall of Jericho is attached to the site (see C. R. Conder, Tent Work, 203 ff.). This sanctuary and camp of Israel held a high place in the national regard, and is often mentioned in Judges and Samuel. But whether this is the Gilgal spoken of by Amos and Hosea in connexion with Bethel is by no means certain [see (3) below].

2. Gilgal, mentioned in Josh. xii. 23 in connexion with Dor, appears to have been situated in the maritime plain. Jerome (Onomasticon, s.v. “Gelgel”) speaks of a town of the name 6 Roman miles north of Antipatris (Ras el ‘Ain). This is apparently the modern Kalkilia, but about 4 m. north of Antipatris is a large village called Jiljūlieh, which is more probably the biblical town.

3. The third Gilgal (2 Kings iv. 38) was in the mountains (compare 1 Sam. vii. 16, 2 Kings ii. 1-3) near Bethel. Jerome mentions this place also (Onomasticon, s.v. “Galgala”). It appears to be the present village of Jiljilia, about 7 English miles north of Beitin (Bethel). It may have absorbed the old shrine of Shiloh and been the sanctuary famous in the days of Amos and Hosea.

4. Deut. xi. 30 seems to imply a Gilgal near Gerizim, and there is still a place called Juleijil on the plain of Makhna, 2½ m. S.E. of Shechem. This may have been Amos’s Gilgal and was almost certainly that of 1 Macc. ix. 2.

5. The Gilgal described in Josh. xv. 7 is the same as the Beth-Gilgal of Neh. xii. 29; its site is not known.

(R. A. S. M.)

GILGAMESH, EPIC OF, the title given to one of the most important literary products of Babylonia, from the name of the chief personage in the series of tales of which it is composed.

Though the Gilgamesh Epic is known to us chiefly from the fragments found in the royal collection of tablets made by Assur-bani-pal, the king of Assyria (668-626 B.C.) for his palace at Nineveh, internal evidence points to the high antiquity of at least some portions of it, and the discovery of a fragment of the epic in the older form of the Babylonian script, which can be dated as 2000 B.C., confirms this view. Equally certain is a second observation of a general character that the epic originating as the greater portion of the literature in Assur-bani-pal’s collection in Babylonia is a composite product, that is to say, it consists of a number of independent stories or myths originating at different times, and united to form a continuous narrative with Gilgamesh as the central figure. This view naturally raises the question whether the independent stories were all told of Gilgamesh or, as almost always happens in the case of ancient tales, were transferred to Gilgamesh as a favourite popular hero. Internal evidence again comes to our aid to lend its weight to the latter theory.

While the existence of such a personage as Gilgamesh may be admitted, he belongs to an age that could only have preserved a dim recollection of his achievements and adventures through oral traditions. The name[1] is not Babylonian, and what evidence as to his origin there is points to his having come from Elam, to the east of Babylonia. He may have belonged to the people known as the Kassites who at the beginning of the 18th century B.C. entered Babylonia from Elam, and obtained control of the Euphrates valley. Why and how he came to be a popular hero in Babylonia cannot with our present material be determined, but the epic indicates that he came as a conqueror and established himself at Erech. In so far we have embodied in the first part of the epic dim recollections of actual events, but we soon leave the solid ground of fact and find ourselves soaring to the heights of genuine myth. Gilgamesh becomes a god, and in certain portions of the epic clearly plays the part of the sun-god of the spring-time, taking the place apparently of Tammuz or Adonis, the youthful sun-god, though the story shows traits that differentiate it from the ordinary Tammuz myths. A separate stratum in the Gilgamesh epic is formed by the story of Eabani—introduced as the friend of Gilgamesh, who joins him in his adventures. There can be no doubt that Eabani, who symbolizes primeval man, was a figure originally entirely independent of Gilgamesh, but his story was incorporated into the epic by that natural process to be observed in the national epics of other peoples, which tends to connect the favourite hero with all kinds of tales that for one reason or the other become embedded in the popular mind. Another stratum is represented by the story of a favourite of the gods known as Ut-Napishtim, who is saved from a destructive storm and flood that destroys his fellow-citizens of Shurippak. Gilgamesh is artificially brought into contact with Ut-Napishtim, to whom he pays a visit for the purpose of learning the secret of immortal life and perpetual youth which he enjoys. During the visit Ut-Napishtim tells Gilgamesh the story of the flood and of his miraculous escape. Nature myths have been entwined with other episodes in the epic and finally the theologians took up the combined stories and made them the medium for illustrating the truth and force of certain doctrines of the Babylonian religion. In its final form, the outcome of an extended and complicated literary process, the Gilgamesh Epic covered twelve tablets, each tablet devoted to one adventure in which the hero plays a direct or indirect part, and the whole covering according to the most plausible estimate about 3000 lines. Of all twelve tablets portions have been found among the remains of Assur-bani-pal’s library, but some of the tablets are so incomplete as to leave even their general contents in some doubt. The fragments do not all belong to one copy. Of some tablets portions of two, and of some tablets portions of as many as four, copies have turned up, pointing therefore to the great popularity of the production. The best preserved are Tablets VI. and XI., and of the total about 1500 lines are now known, wholly or in part, while of those partially preserved quite a number can be restored. A brief summary of the contents of the twelve may be indicated as follows:

In the 1st tablet, after a general survey of the adventures of Gilgamesh, his rule at Erech is described, where he enlists the services of all the young able-bodied men in the building of the great wall of the city. The people sigh under the burden imposed, and call upon the goddess Aruru to create a being who might act as a rival to Gilgamesh, curb his strength, and dispute his tyrannous control. The goddess consents, and creates Eabani, who is described as a wild man, living with the gazelles and the beasts of the field. Eabani, whose name, signifying “Ea creates,” points to the tradition which made Ea (q.v.) the creator of humanity, symbolizes primeval man. Through a hunter, Eabani and Gilgamesh are brought together, but instead of becoming rivals, they are joined in friendship. Eabani is induced by the snares of a maiden to abandon his life with the animals and to proceed to Erech, where Gilgamesh, who has been told in several dreams of the coming of Eabani, awaits him. Together they proceed upon several adventures, which are related in the following four tablets. At first, indeed, Eabani curses the fate which led him away from his former life, and Gilgamesh is represented as bewailing Eabani’s dissatisfaction. The sun-god Shamash calls upon Eabani to remain with Gilgamesh, who pays him all honours in his palace at Erech. With the decision of the two friends to proceed to the forest of cedars in which the goddess Irnina—a form of Ishtar—dwells, and which is guarded by Khumbaba, the 2nd tablet ends. In the 3rd tablet, very imperfectly preserved, Gilgamesh appeals through a Shamash priestess Rimat-Belit to the sun-god Shamash for his aid in the proposed undertaking. The 4th tablet contains a description of the formidable Khumbaba, the guardian of the cedar forest. In the 5th tablet Gilgamesh and Eabani reach the forest. Encouraged by dreams, they proceed against Khumbaba, and despatch him near a specially high cedar over which he held guard. This adventure against Khumbaba belongs to the Eabani stratum of the epic, into which Gilgamesh is artificially introduced. The basis of the 6th tablet is the familiar nature-myth of the change of seasons, in which Gilgamesh plays the part of the youthful solar god of the springtime, who is wooed by the goddess of fertility, Ishtar. Gilgamesh, recalling to the goddess the sad fate of those who fall a victim to her charms, rejects the offer. In the course of his recital snatches of other myths are referred to, including he famous Tammuz-Adonis tale, in which Tammuz, the youthful bridegroom, is slain by his consort Ishtar. The goddess, enraged at the insult, asks her father Anu to avenge her. A divine bull is sent to wage a contest against Gilgamesh, who is assisted by his friend Eabani. This scene of the fight with the bull is often depicted on seal cylinders. The two friends by their united force succeed in killing the bull, and then after performing certain votive and purification rites return to Erech, where they are hailed with joy. In this adventure it is clearly Eabani who is artificially introduced in order to maintain the association with Gilgamesh. The 7th tablet continues the Eabani stratum. The hero is smitten with sore disease, but the fragmentary condition of this and the succeeding tablet is such as to envelop in doubt the accompanying circumstances, including the cause and nature of his disease. The 8th tablet records the death of Eabani. The 9th and 10th tablets, exclusively devoted to Gilgamesh, describe his wanderings in quest of Ut-Napishtim, from whom he hopes to learn how he may escape the fate that has overtaken his friend Eabani. He goes through mountain passes and encounters lions. At the entrance to the mountain Mashu, scorpion-men stand guard, from one of whom he receives advice as to how to pass through the Mashu district. He succeeds in doing so, and finds himself in a wonderful park, which lies along the sea coast. In the 10th tablet the goddess Sabitu, who, as guardian of the sea, first bolts her gate against Gilgamesh, after learning of his quest, helps him to pass in a ship across the sea to the “waters of death.” The ferry-man of Ut-Napishtim brings him safely through these waters, despite the difficulties and dangers of the voyage, and at last the hero finds himself face to face with Ut-Napishtim. In the 11th tablet, Ut-Napishtim tells the famous story of the Babylonian flood, which is so patently attached to Gilgamesh in a most artificial manner. Ut-Napishtim and his wife are anxious to help Gilgamesh to new life. He is sent to a place where he washes himself clean from impurity. He is told of a weed which restores youth to the one grown old. Scarcely has he obtained the weed when it is snatched away from him, and the tablet closes somewhat obscurely with the prediction of the destruction of Erech. In the 12th tablet Gilgamesh succeeds in obtaining a view of Eabani’s shade, and learns through him of the sad fate endured by the dead. With this description, in which care of the dead is inculcated as the only means of making their existence in Aralu, where the dead are gathered, bearable, the epic, so far as we have it, closes.

The reason why the flood episode and the interview with the dead Eabani are introduced is quite clear. Both are intended as illustrations of doctrines taught in the schools of Babylonia; the former to explain that only the favourites of the gods can hope under exceptional circumstances to enjoy life everlasting; the latter to emphasize the impossibility for ordinary mortals to escape from the inactive shadowy existence led by the dead, and to inculcate the duty of proper care for the dead. That the astro-theological system is also introduced into the epic is clear from the division into twelve tablets, which correspond to the yearly course of the sun, while throughout there are indications that all the adventures of Gilgamesh and Eabani, including those which have an historical background, have been submitted to the influence of this system and projected on to the heavens. This interpretation of the popular tales, according to which the career of the hero can be followed in its entirety and in detail in the movements in the heavens, in time, with the growing predominance of the astral-mythological system, overshadowed the other factors involved, and it is in this form, as an astral myth, that it passes through the ancient world and leaves its traces in the folk-tales and myths of Hebrews, Phoenicians, Syrians, Greeks and Romans throughout Asia Minor and even in India.

Bibliography.—The complete edition of the Gilgamesh Epic by Paul Haupt under the title Das babylonische Nimrodepos (Leipzig, 1884-1891), with the 12th tablet in the Beiträge zur Assyriologie, i. 48-79; German translation by Peter Jensen in vol. vi. of Schrader’s Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek (Berlin, 1900), pp. 116-273. See also the same author’s comprehensive work, Das Gilgamesch-Epos in der Weltliteratur (vol. i. 1906, vol. ii. to follow). An English translation of the chief portions in Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), ch. xxiii.

(M. Ja.)

[1] The name of the hero, written always ideographically, was for a long time provisionally read Izdubar; but a tablet discovered by T. G. Pinches gave the equivalent Gilgamesh (see Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 468).

GILGIT, an outlying province in the extreme north-west of India, over which Kashmir has reasserted her sovereignty. Only a part of the basin of the river Gilgit is included within its political boundaries. There is an intervening width of mountainous country, represented chiefly by glaciers and ice-fields, and intersected by narrow sterile valleys, measuring some 100 to 150 m. in width, to the north and north-east, which separates the province of Gilgit from the Chinese frontier beyond the Muztagh and Karakoram. This part of the Kashmir borderland includes Kanjut (or Hunza) and Ladakh. To the north-west, beyond the sources of the Yasin and Ghazar in the Shandur range (the two most westerly tributaries of the Gilgit river) is the deep valley of the Yarkhun or Chitral. Since the formation of the North-West Frontier Province in 1901, the political charge of Chitral, Dir and Swat, which was formerly included within the Gilgit agency, has been transferred to the chief commissioner of the new province, with his capital at Peshawar. Gilgit proper now forms a wazarat of the Kashmir state, administered by a wazir. Gilgit is also the headquarters of a British political agent, who exercises some supervision over the wazir, and is directly responsible to the government of India for the administration of the outlying districts or petty states of Hunza, Nagar, Ashkuman, Yasin and Ghizar, the little republic of Chilas, &c. These states acknowledge the suzerainty of Kashmir, paying an annual tribute in gold or grain, but they form no part of its territory.

Within the wider limits of the former Gilgit agency are many mixed races, speaking different languages, which have all been usually classed together under the name Dard. The Dard, however, is unknown beyond the limits of the Kohistan district of the Indus valley to the south of the Hindu Koh, the rest of the inhabitants of the Indus valley belonging to Shin republics, or Chilas. The great mass of the Chitral population are Kho (speaking Khowar), and they may be accepted as representing the aboriginal population of the Chitral valley. (See [Hindu Kush].) Between Chitral and the Indus the “Dards” of Dardistan are chiefly Yeshkuns and Shins, and it would appear from the proportions in which these people occupy the country that they must have primarily moved up from the valley of the Indus in successive waves of conquest, first the Yeshkuns, and then the Shins. No one can put a date to these invasions, but Biddulph is inclined to class the Yeshkuns with the Yuechi who conquered the Bactrian kingdom about 120 B.C. The Shins are obviously a Hindu race (as is testified by their veneration for the cow), who spread themselves northwards and eastwards as far as Baltistan, where they collided with the aboriginal Tatar of the Asiatic highlands. But the ethnography of “Dardistan,” or the Gilgit agency (for the two are, roughly speaking, synonymous), requires further investigation, and it would be premature to attempt to frame anything like an ethnographical history of these regions until the neighbouring provinces of Tangir and Darel have been more fully examined. The wazarat of Gilgit contains a population (1901) of 60,885, all Mahommedans, mostly of the Shiah sect, but not fanatical. The dominant race is that of the Shins, whose language is universally spoken. This is one of the so-called Pisacha languages, an archaic Aryan group intermediate between the Iranian and the Sanskritic.

In general appearance and dress all the mountain-bred peoples extending through these northern districts are very similar. Thick felt coats reaching below the knee, loose “pyjamas” with cloth “putties” and boots (often of English make) are almost universal, the distinguishing feature in their costume being the felt cap worn close to the head and rolled up round the edges. They are on the whole a light-hearted, cheerful race of people, but it has been observed that their temperament varies much with their habitat—those who live on the shadowed sides of mountains being distinctly more morose and more serious in disposition than the dwellers in valleys which catch the winter sunlight. They are, at the same time, bloodthirsty and treacherous to a degree which would appear incredible to a casual observer of their happy and genial manners, exhibiting a strange combination (as has been observed by a careful student of their ways) of “the monkey and the tiger.” Addicted to sport of every kind, they pursue no manufacturing industries whatsoever, but they are excellent agriculturists, and show great ingenuity in their local irrigation works and in their efforts to bring every available acre of cultivable soil within the irrigated area. Gold washing is more or less carried on in most of the valleys north of the river Gilgit, and gold dust (contained in small packets formed with the petals of a cup-shaped flower) is an invariable item in their official presents and offerings. Gold dust still constitutes part of the annual tribute which, strangely enough, is paid by Hunza to China, as well as to Kashmir.

Routes in the Gilgit Agency.—One of the oldest recorded routes through this country is that which connects Mastuj in the Chitral valley with Gilgit, passing across the Shandur range (12,250). It now forms the high-road between Gilgit and Chitral, and has been engineered into a passable route. From the north three great glacier-bred affluents make their way to the river of Gilgit, joining it at almost equal intervals, and each of them affords opportunity for a rough passage northwards. (1) The Yasin river, which follows a fairly straight course from north to south for about 40 m. from the foot of the Darkôt pass across the Shandur range (15,000) to its junction with the river Gilgit, close to the little fort of Gupis, on the Gilgit-Mastuj road. Much of this valley is cultivated and extremely picturesque. At the head of it is a grand group of glaciers, one of which leads up to the well-known pass of Darkôt. (2) 25 m. (by map measurement) below Gupis the Gilgit receives the Ashkuman affluent from the north. The little Lake of Karumbar is held to be its source, as it lies at the head of the river. The same lake is sometimes called the source of the river Yarkhun or Chitral; and it seems possible that a part of its waters may be deflected in each direction. The Karumbar, or Ashkuman, is nearly twice the length of the Yasin, and the upper half of the valley is encompassed by glaciers, rendering the route along it uncertain and difficult. (3) 40 m. or so below the Ashkuman junction, and nearly opposite the little station of Gilgit, the river receives certain further contributions from the north which are collected in the Hunza and Nagar basins. These basins include a system of glaciers of such gigantic proportions that they are probably unrivalled in any part of the world. The glacial head of the Hunza is not far from that of the Karumbar, and, like the Karumbar, the river commences with a wide sweep eastwards, following a course roughly parallel to the crest of the Hindu Kush (under whose southern slopes it lies close) for about 40 m. Then striking south for another 40 m., it twists amidst the barren feet of gigantic rock-bound spurs which reach upwards to the Muztagh peaks on the east and to a mass of glaciers and snow-fields on the west, hidden amidst the upper folds of mountains towering to an average of 25,000 ft. The next great bend is again to the west for 30 m., before a final change of direction to the south at the historical position of Chalt and a comparatively straight run of 25 m. to a junction with the Gilgit. The valley of Hunza lies some 10 m. from the point of this westerly bend, and 20 (as the crow flies) from Chalt. Much has been written of the magnificence of Hunza valley scenery, surrounded as it is by a stupendous ring of snow-capped peaks and brightened with all the radiant beauty that cultivation adds to these mountain valleys; but such scenery must be regarded as exceptional in these northern regions.

Glaciers and Mountains.—Conway and Godwin Austen have described the glaciers of Nagar which, enclosed between the Muztagh spurs on the north-east and the frontier peaks of Kashmir (terminating with Rakapushi) on the south-west, and massing themselves in an almost uninterrupted series from the Hunza valley to the base of those gigantic peaks which stand about Mount Godwin Austen, seem to be set like an ice-sea to define the farthest bounds of the Himalaya. From its uttermost head to the foot of the Hispar, overhanging the valley above Nagar, the length of the glacial ice-bed known under the name of Biafo is said to measure about 90 m. Throughout the mountain region of Kanjut (or Hunza) and Nagar the valleys are deeply sunk between mountain ranges, which are nowhere less than 15,000 ft. in altitude, and which must average above 20,000 ft. As a rule, these valleys are bare of vegetation. Where the summits of the loftier ranges are not buried beneath snow and ice they are bare, bleak and splintered, and the nakedness of the rock scenery extends down their rugged spurs to the very base of them. On the lower slopes of tumbled débris the sun in summer beats with an intensity which is unmitigated by the cloud drifts which form in the moister atmosphere of the monsoon-swept summits of the Himalaya. Sun-baked in summer and frost-riven in winter, the mountain sides are but immense ramps of loose rock débris, only awaiting the yearly melting of the upper snow-fields, or the advent of a casual rainstorm, to be swept downwards in an avalanche of mud and stones into the gorges below. Here it becomes piled and massed together, till the pressure of accumulation forces it out into the main valleys, where it spreads in alluvial fans and silts up the plains. This formation is especially marked throughout the high level valleys of the Gilgit basin.

Passes.—Each of these northern affluents of the main stream is headed by a pass, or a group of passes, leading either to the Pamir region direct, or into the upper Yarkhun valley from which a Pamir route diverges. The Yasin valley is headed by the Darkôt pass (15,000 ft.), which drops into the Yarkhun not far from the foot of the Baroghil group over the main Hindu Kush watershed. The Ashkuman is headed by the Gazar and Kora Bohrt passes, leading to the valley of the Ab-i-Punja; and the Hunza by the Kilik and Mintaka, the connecting links between the Taghdumbash Pamir and the Gilgit basin. They are all about the same height—15,000 ft. All are passable at certain times of the year to small parties, and all are uncertain. In no case do they present insuperable difficulties in themselves, glaciers and snow-fields and mountain staircases being common to all; but the gorges and precipices which distinguish the approaches to them from the south, the slippery sides of shelving spurs whose feet are washed by raging torrents, the perpetual weary monotony of ascent and descent over successive ridges multiplying the gradient indefinitely—these form the real obstacles blocking the way to these northern passes.

Gilgit Station.—The pretty little station of Gilgit (4890 ft. above sea) spreads itself in terraces above the right bank of the river nearly opposite the opening leading to Hunza, almost nestling under the cliffs of the Hindu Koh, which separates it on the south from the savage mountain wilderness of Darel and Kohistan. It includes a residency for the British political officer, with about half a dozen homes for the accommodation of officials, barracks suitable for a battalion of Kashmir troops, and a hospital. Evidences of Buddhist occupation are not wanting in Gilgit, though they are few and unimportant. Such as they are, they appear to prove that Gilgit was once a Buddhist centre, and that the old Buddhist route between Gilgit and the Peshawar plain passed through the gorges and clefts of the unexplored Darel valley to Thakot under the northern spurs of the Black Mountain.

Connexion with India.—The Gilgit river joins the Indus a few miles above the little post of Bunji, where an excellent suspension bridge spans the river. The valley is low and hot, and the scenery between Gilgit and Bunji is monotonous; but the road is now maintained in excellent condition. A little below Bunji the Astor river joins the Indus from the south-east, and this deep pine-clad valley indicates the continuation of the highroad from Gilgit to Kashmir via the Tragbal and Burzil passes. Another well-known route connecting Gilgit with the Abbottabad frontier of the Punjab lies across the Babusar pass (13,000 ft.), linking the lovely Hazara valley of Kaghan to Chilas; Chilas (4150 ft.) being on the Indus, some 50 m. below Bunji. This is a more direct connexion between Gilgit and the plains of the Punjab than that afforded by the Kashmir route via Gurais and Astor, which latter route involves two considerable passes—the Tragbal (11,400) and the Burzil (13,500); but the intervening strip of absolutely independent territory (independent alike of Kashmir and the Punjab), which includes the hills bordering the road from the Babusar pass to Chilas, renders it a risky route for travellers unprotected by a military escort. Like the Kashmir route, it is now defined by a good military road.

History.—The Dards are located by Ptolemy with surprising accuracy (Daradae) on the west of the Upper Indus, beyond the head-waters of the Swat river (Soastus), and north of the Gandarae, i.e. the Gandharis, who occupied Peshawar and the country north of it. The Dardas and Chinas also appear in many of the old Pauranic lists of peoples, the latter probably representing the Shin branch of the Dards. This region was traversed by two of the Chinese pilgrims of the early centuries of our era, who have left records of their journeys, viz. Fahien, coming from the north, c. 400, and Hsüan Tsang, ascending from Swat, c. 631. The latter says: “Perilous were the roads, and dark the gorges. Sometimes the pilgrim had to pass by loose cords, sometimes by light stretched iron chains. Here there were ledges hanging in mid-air; there flying bridges across abysses; elsewhere paths cut with the chisel, or footings to climb by.” Yet even in these inaccessible regions were found great convents, and miraculous images of Buddha. How old the name of Gilgit is we do not know, but it occurs in the writings of the great Mahommedan savant al-Biruni, in his notices of Indian geography. Speaking of Kashmir, he says: “Leaving the ravine by which you enter Kashmir and entering the plateau, then you have for a march of two more days on your left the mountains of Bolor and Shamilan, Turkish tribes who are called Bhattavaryan. Their king has the title Bhatta-Shah. Their towns are Gilgit, Aswira and Shiltash, and their language is the Turkish. Kashmir suffers much from their inroads” (Trs. Sachau, i. 207). There are difficult matters for discussion here. It is impossible to say what ground the writer had for calling the people Turks. But it is curious that the Shins say they are all of the same race as the Moguls of India, whatever they may mean by that. Gilgit, as far back as tradition goes, was ruled by rajas of a family called Trakane. When this family became extinct the valley was desolated by successive invasions of neighbouring rajas, and in the 20 or 30 years ending with 1842 there had been five dynastic revolutions. The most prominent character in the history was a certain Gaur Rahman or Gauhar Aman, chief of Yasin, a cruel savage and man-seller, of whom many evil deeds are told. Being remonstrated with for selling a mullah, he said, “Why not? The Koran, the word of God, is sold; why not sell the expounder thereof?” The Sikhs entered Gilgit about 1842, and kept a garrison there. When Kashmir was made over to Maharaja Gulab Singh of Jammu in 1846, by Lord Hardinge, the Gilgit claims were transferred with it. And when a commission was sent to lay down boundaries of the tracts made over, Mr Vans Agnew (afterwards murdered at Multan) and Lieut. Ralph Young of the Engineers visited Gilgit, the first Englishmen who did so. The Dogras (Gulab Singh’s race) had much ado to hold their ground, and in 1852 a catastrophe occurred, parallel on a smaller scale to that of the English troops at Kabul. Nearly 2000 men of theirs were exterminated by Gaur Rahman and a combination of the Dards; only one person, a soldier’s wife, escaped, and the Dogras were driven away for eight years. Gulab Singh would not again cross the Indus, but after his death (in 1857) Maharaja Ranbir Singh longed to recover lost prestige. In 1860 he sent a force into Gilgit. Gaur Rahman just then died, and there was little resistance. The Dogras after that took Yasin twice, but did not hold it. They also, in 1866, invaded Darel, one of the most secluded Dard states, to the south of the Gilgit basin, but withdrew again. In 1889, in order to guard against the advance of Russia, the British government, acting as the suzerain power of Kashmir, established the Gilgit agency; in 1901, on the formation of the North-West Frontier province, the rearrangement was made as stated above.

Authorities.—Biddulph, The Tribes of the Hindu Kush (Calcutta, 1880); W. Lawrence, The Kashmir Valley (London, 1895); Tanner, “Our Present Knowledge of the Himalaya,” Proc. R.G.S. vol. xiii., 1891; Durand, Making a Frontier (London, 1899); Report of Lockhart’s Mission (Calcutta, 1886); E. F. Knight, Where Three Empires Meet (London, 1892); F. Younghusband, “Journeys in the Pamirs and Adjacent Countries,” Proc. R.G.S. vol. xiv., 1892; Curzon, “Pamirs,” Jour. R.G.S. vol. viii., 1896; Leitnér, Dardistan (1877).

(T. H. H.*)

GILL, JOHN (1697-1771), English Nonconformist divine, was born at Kettering, Northamptonshire. His parents were poor and he owed his education chiefly to his own perseverance. In November 1716 he was baptized and began to preach at Higham Ferrers and Kettering, until the beginning of 1719, when he became pastor of the Baptist congregation at Horsleydown in Southwark. There he continued till 1757, when he removed to a chapel near London Bridge. From 1729 to 1756 he was Wednesday evening lecturer in Great Eastcheap. In 1748 he received the degree of D.D. from the university of Aberdeen. He died at Camberwell on the 14th of October 1771. Gill was a great Hebrew scholar, and in his theology a sturdy Calvinist.

His principal works are Exposition of the Song of Solomon (1728); The Prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the Messiah (1728); The Doctrine of the Trinity (1731); The Cause of God and Truth (4 vols., 1731); Exposition of the Bible, in 10 vols. (1746-1766), in preparing which he formed a large collection of Hebrew and Rabbinical books and MSS.; The Antiquity of the Hebrew Language—Letters, Vowel Points, and Accents (1767); A Body of Doctrinal Divinity (1767); A Body of Practical Divinity (1770); and Sermons and Tracts, with a memoir of his life (1773). An edition of his Exposition of the Bible appeared in 1816 with a memoir by John Rippon, which has also appeared separately.

GILL. (1) One of the branchiae which form the breathing apparatus of fishes and other animals that live in the water. The word is also applied to the branchiae of some kinds of worm and arachnids, and by transference to objects resembling the branchiae of fishes, such as the wattles of a fowl, or the radiating films on the under side of fungi. The word is of obscure origin. Danish has giaelle, and Swedish gäl with the same meaning. The root which appears in “yawn,” “chasm,” has been suggested. If this be correct, the word will be in origin the same as “gill,” often spelled “ghyll,” meaning a glen or ravine, common in northern English dialects and also in Kent and Surrey. The g in both these words is hard. (2) A liquid measure usually holding one-fourth of a pint. The word comes through the O. Fr. gelle, from Low Lat. gello or gillo, a measure for wine. It is thus connected with “gallon.” The g is soft. (3) An abbreviation of the feminine name Gillian, also often spelled Jill, as it is pronounced. Like Jack for a boy, with which it is often coupled, as in the nursery rhyme, it is used as a homely generic name for a girl.

GILLES DE ROYE, or Egidius de Roya (d. 1478), Flemish chronicler, was born probably at Montdidier, and became a Cistercian monk. He was afterwards professor of theology in Paris and abbot of the monastery of Royaumont at Asnières-sur-Oise, retiring about 1458 to the convent of Notre Dame des Dunes, near Furnes, and devoting his time to study. Gilles wrote the Chronicon Dunense or Annales Belgici, a résumé and continuation of the work of another monk, Jean Brandon (d. 1428), which deals with the history of Flanders, and also with events in Germany, Italy and England from 792 to 1478.

The Chronicle was published by F. R. Sweert in the Rerum Belgicarum annales (Frankfort, 1620); and the earlier part of it by C. B. Kervyn de Lettenhove in the Chroniques relatives à l’histoire de la Belgique (Brussels, 1870).

GILLES LI MUISIS, or Le Muiset (c. 1272-1352), French chronicler, was born probably at Tournai, and in 1289 entered the Benedictine abbey of St Martin in his native city, becoming prior of this house in 1327, and abbot four years later. He only secured the latter position after a contest with a competitor, but he appears to have been a wise ruler of the abbey. Gilles wrote two Latin chronicles, Chronicon majus and Chronicon minus, dealing with the history of the world from the creation until 1349. This work, which was continued by another writer to 1352, is valuable for the history of northern France, and Flanders during the first half of the 14th century. It is published by J. J. de Senet in the Corpus chronicorum Flandriae, tome ii. (Brussels, 1841); Gilles also wrote some French poems, and these Poésies de Gilles li Muisis have been published by Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove (Louvain, 1882).

See A. Molinier, Les Sources de l’histoire de France, tome iii. (Paris, 1903).

GILLESPIE, GEORGE (1613-1648), Scottish divine, was born at Kirkcaldy, where his father, John Gillespie, was parish minister, on the 21st of January 1613, and entered the university of St Andrews as a “presbytery bursar” in 1629. On the completion of a brilliant student career, he became domestic chaplain to John Gordon, 1st Viscount Kenmure (d. 1634), and afterwards to John Kennedy, earl of Cassillis, his conscience not permitting him to accept the episcopal ordination which was at that time in Scotland an indispensable condition of induction to a parish. While with the earl of Cassillis he wrote his first work, A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scotland, which, opportunely published shortly after the “Jenny Geddes” incident (but without the author’s name) in the summer of 1637, attracted considerable attention, and within a few months had been found by the privy council to be so damaging that by their orders all available copies were called in and burnt. In April 1638, soon after the authority of the bishops had been set aside by the nation, Gillespie was ordained minister of Wemyss (Fife) by the presbytery of Kirkcaldy, and in the same year was a member of the famous Glasgow Assembly, before which he preached (November 21st) a sermon against royal interference in matters ecclesiastical so pronounced, as to call for some remonstrance on the part of Argyll, the lord high commissioner. In 1642 Gillespie was translated to Edinburgh; but the brief remainder of his life was chiefly spent in the conduct of public business in London. Already, in 1640, he had accompanied the commissioners of the peace to England as one of their chaplains; and in 1643 he was appointed by the Scottish Church one of the four commissioners to the Westminster Assembly. Here, though the youngest member of the Assembly, he took a prominent part in almost all the protracted discussions on church government, discipline and worship, supporting Presbyterianism by numerous controversial writings, as well as by an unusual fluency and readiness in debate. Tradition long preserved and probably enhanced the record of his victories in debate, and especially of his encounter, with John Selden on Matt. xviii. 15-17. In 1645 he returned to Scotland, and is said to have drawn the act of assembly sanctioning the directory of public worship. On his return to London he had a hand in drafting the Westminster confession of faith, especially chap. i. Gillespie was elected moderator of the Assembly in 1648, but the laborious duties of that office (the court continued to sit from the 12th of July to the 12th of August) told fatally on an overtaxed constitution; he fell into consumption, and, after many weeks of great weakness, he died at Kirkcaldy on the 17th of December 1648. In acknowledgment of his great public services, a sum of £1000 Scots was voted, though destined never to be paid, to his widow and children by the committee of estates. A simple tombstone, which had been erected to his memory in Kirkcaldy parish church, was in 1661 publicly broken at the cross by the hand of the common hangman, but was restored in 1746.

His principal publications were controversial and chiefly against Erastianism: Three sermons against Thomas Coleman; A Sermon before the House of Lords (August 27th), on Matt. iii. 2, Nihil Respondem and Male Audis; Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, or the Divine Ordinance of Church-government vindicated (1646), which is deservedly regarded as a really able statement of the case for an exclusive spiritual jurisdiction in the church; One Hundred and Eleven Propositions concerning the Ministry and Government of the Church (Edinburgh, 1647). The following were posthumously published by his brother: A Treatise of Miscellany Questions (1649); The Ark of the New Testament (2 vols., 1661-1667); Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, from February 1644 to January 1645. See Works, with memoir, published by Hetherington (Edinburgh, 1843-1846).

GILLESPIE, THOMAS (1708-1774), Scottish divine, was born at Clearburn, in the parish of Duddingston, Midlothian, in 1708. He was educated at the university of Edinburgh, and studied divinity first at a small theological seminary at Perth, and afterwards for a brief period under Philip Doddridge at Northampton, where he received ordination in January 1741. In September of the same year he was admitted minister of the parish of Carnock, Fife, the presbytery of Dunfermline agreeing not only to sustain as valid the ordination he had received in England, but also to allow a qualification of his subscription to the church’s doctrinal symbol, so far as it had reference to the sphere of the civil magistrate in matters of religion. Having on conscientious grounds persistently absented himself from the meetings of presbytery held for the purpose of ordaining one Andrew Richardson, an unacceptable presentee, as minister of Inverkeithing, he was, after an unobtrusive but useful ministry of ten years, deposed by the Assembly of 1752 for maintaining that the refusal of the local presbytery to act in this case was justified. He continued, however, to preach, first at Carnock, and afterwards in Dunfermline, where a large congregation gathered round him. His conduct under the sentence of deposition produced a reaction in his favour, and an effort was made to have him reinstated; this he declined unless the policy of the church were reversed. In 1761, in conjunction with Thomas Boston of Jedburgh and Collier of Colinsburgh, he formed a distinct communion under the name of “The Presbytery of Relief,”—relief, that is to say, “from the yoke of patronage and the tyranny of the church courts.” The Relief Church eventually became one of the communions combining to form the United Presbyterian Church. He died on the 19th of January 1774. His only literary efforts were an Essay on the Continuation of Immediate Revelations in the Church, and a Practical Treatise on Temptation. Both works appeared posthumously (1774). In the former he argues that immediate revelations are no longer vouchsafed to the church, in the latter he traces temptation to the work of a personal devil.

See Lindsay’s Life and Times of the Rev. Thomas Gillespie; Smithers’s History of the Relief Church; for the Relief Church see [United Presbyterian Church].

GILLIE (from the Gael. gille, Irish gille or giolla, a servant or boy), an attendant on a Gaelic chieftain; in this sense its use, save historically, is rare. The name is now applied in the Highlands of Scotland to the man-servant who attends a sportsman in shooting or fishing. A gillie-wetfoot, a term now obsolete (a translation of gillie-casfliuch, from the Gaelic cas, foot, and fliuch, wet), was the gillie whose duty it was to carry his master over streams. It became a term of contempt among the Lowlanders for the “tail” (as his attendants were called) of a Highland chief.

GILLIES, JOHN (1747-1836), Scottish historian and classical scholar, was born at Brechin, in Forfarshire, on the 18th of January 1747. He was educated at Glasgow University, where, at the age of twenty, he acted for a short time as substitute for the professor of Greek. In 1784 he completed his History of Ancient Greece, its Colonies and Conquests (published 1786). This work, valuable at a time when the study of Greek history was in its infancy, and translated into French and German, was written from a strong Whig bias, and is now entirely superseded (see [Greece:] Ancient History, “Authorities”). On the death of William Robertson (1721-1793), Gillies was appointed historiographer-royal for Scotland. In his old age he retired to Clapham, where he died on the 15th of February 1836.

Of his other works, none of which are much read, the principal are: View of the Reign of Frederic II. of Prussia, with a Parallel between that Prince and Philip II. of Macedon (1789), rather a panegyric than a critical history; translations of Aristotle’s Rhetoric (1823) and Ethics and Politics (1786-1797); of the Orations of Lysias and Isocrates (1778); and History of the World from Alexander to Augustus (1807), which, although deficient in style, was commended for its learning and research.

GILLINGHAM, a market town in the northern parliamentary division of Dorsetshire, England, 105 m. W.S.W. from London by the London & South-Western railway. Pop. (1901) 3380. The church of St Mary the Virgin has a Decorated chancel. There is a large agricultural trade, and manufactures of bricks and tiles, cord, sacking and silk, brewing and bacon-curing are carried on. The rich undulating district in which Gillingham is situated was a forest preserved by King John and his successors, and the site of their lodge is traceable near the town.

GILLINGHAM, a municipal borough of Kent, England, in the parliamentary borough of Chatham and the mid-division of the county, on the Medway immediately east of Chatham, on the South-Eastern & Chatham railway. Pop. (1891) 27,809; (1901) 42,530. Its population is largely industrial, employed in the Chatham dockyards, and in cement and brick works in the neighbourhood. The church of St Mary Magdalene ranges in date from Early English to Perpendicular, retaining also traces of Norman work and some early brasses. A great battle between Edmund Ironside and Canute, c. 1016, is placed here; and there was formerly a palace of the archbishops of Canterbury. Gillingham was incorporated in 1903, and is governed by a mayor, 6 aldermen and 18 councillors. The borough includes the populous districts of Brompton and New Brompton. Area, 4355 acres.

GILLOT, CLAUDE (1673-1722), French painter, best known as the master of Watteau and Lancret, was born at Langres. His sportive mythological landscape pieces, with such titles as “Feast of Pan” and “Feast of Bacchus,” opened the Academy of Painting at Paris to him in 1715; and he then adapted his art to the fashionable tastes of the day, and introduced the decorative fêtes champêtres, in which he was afterwards surpassed by his pupils. He was also closely connected with the opera and theatre as a designer of scenery and costumes.

GILLOTT, JOSEPH (1799-1873); English pen-maker, was born at Sheffield on the 11th of October 1799. For some time he was a working cutler there, but in 1821 removed to Birmingham, where he found employment in the “steel toy” trade, the technical name for the manufacture of steel buckles, chains and light ornamental steel-work generally. About 1830 he turned his attention to the manufacture of steel pens by machinery, and in 1831 patented a process for placing elongated points on the nibs of pens. Subsequently he invented other improvements, getting rid of the hardness and lack of flexibility, which had been a serious defect in nibs, by cutting, in addition to the centre slit, side slits, and cross grinding the points. By 1859 he had built up a very large business. Gillott was a liberal art-patron, and one of the first to recognize the merits of J. M. W. Turner. He died at Birmingham on the 5th of January 1873. His collection of pictures, sold after his death, realized £170,000.

GILLOW, ROBERT (d. 1773), the founder at Lancaster of a distinguished firm of English cabinet-makers and furniture designers whose books begin in 1731. He was succeeded by his eldest son Richard (1734-1811), who after being educated at the Roman Catholic seminary at Douai was taken into partnership about 1757, when the firm became Gillow & Barton, and his younger sons Robert and Thomas, and the business was continued by his grandson Richard (1778-1866). In its early days the firm of Gillow were architects as well as cabinet-makers, and the first Richard Gillow designed the classical Custom House at Lancaster. In the middle of the 18th century the business was extended to London, and about 1761 premises were opened in Oxford Street on a site which was continuously occupied until 1906. For a long period the Gillows were the best-known makers of English furniture—Sheraton and Heppelwhite both designed for them, and replicas are still made of pieces from the drawings of Robert Adam. Between 1760 and 1770 they invented the original form of the billiard-table; they were the patentees (about 1800) of the telescopic dining-table which has long been universal in English houses; for a Captain Davenport they made, if they did not invent, the first writing-table of that name. Their vogue is indicated by references to them in the works of Jane Austen, Thackeray and the first Lord Lytton, and more recently in one of Gilbert and Sullivan’s comic operas.

GILLRAY, JAMES (1757-1815), English caricaturist, was born at Chelsea in 1757. His father, a native of Lanark, had served as a soldier, losing an arm at Fontenoy, and was admitted first as an inmate, and afterwards as an outdoor pensioner, at Chelsea hospital. Gillray commenced life by learning letter-engraving, in which he soon became an adept. This employment, however, proving irksome, he wandered about for a time with a company of strolling players. After a very checkered experience he returned to London, and was admitted a student in the Royal Academy, supporting himself by engraving, and probably issuing a considerable number of caricatures under fictitious names. Hogarth’s works were the delight and study of his early years. “Paddy on Horseback,” which appeared in 1779, is the first caricature which is certainly his. Two caricatures on Rodney’s naval victory, issued in 1782, were among the first of the memorable series of his political sketches. The name of Gillray’s publisher and printseller, Miss Humphrey—whose shop was first at 227 Strand, then in New Bond Street, then in Old Bond Street, and finally in St James’s Street—is inextricably associated with that of the caricaturist. Gillray lived with Miss (often called Mrs) Humphrey during all the period of his fame. It is believed that he several times thought of marrying her, and that on one occasion the pair were on their way to the church, when Gillray said: “This is a foolish affair, methinks, Miss Humphrey. We live very comfortably together; we had better let well alone.” There is no evidence, however, to support the stories which scandalmongers invented about their relations. Gillray’s plates were exposed in Humphrey’s shop window, where eager crowds examined them. A number of his most trenchant satires are directed against George III., who, after examining some of Gillray’s sketches, said, with characteristic ignorance and blindness to merit, “I don’t understand these caricatures.” Gillray revenged himself for this utterance by his splendid caricature entitled, “A Connoisseur Examining a Cooper,” which he is doing by means of a candle on a “save-all”; so that the sketch satirizes at once the king’s pretensions to knowledge of art and his miserly habits.

The excesses of the French Revolution made Gillray conservative; and he issued caricature after caricature, ridiculing the French and Napoleon, and glorifying John Bull. He is not, however, to be thought of as a keen political adherent of either the Whig or the Tory party; he dealt his blows pretty freely all round. His last work, from a design by Bunbury, is entitled “Interior of a Barber’s Shop in Assize Time,” and is dated 1811. While he was engaged on it he became mad, although he had occasional intervals of sanity, which he employed on his last work. The approach of madness must have been hastened by his intemperate habits. Gillray died on the 1st of June 1815, and was buried in St James’s churchyard, Piccadilly.

The times in which Gillray lived were peculiarly favourable to the growth of a great school of caricature. Party warfare was carried on with great vigour and not a little bitterness; and personalities were freely indulged in on both sides. Gillray’s incomparable wit and humour, knowledge of life, fertility of resource, keen sense of the ludicrous, and beauty of execution, at once gave him the first place among caricaturists. He is honourably distinguished in the history of caricature by the fact that his sketches are real works of art. The ideas embodied in some of them are sublime and poetically magnificent in their intensity of meaning; while the coarseness by which others are disfigured is to be explained by the general freedom of treatment common in all intellectual departments in the 18th century. The historical value of Gillray’s work has been recognized by accurate students of history. As has been well remarked: “Lord Stanhope has turned Gillray to account as a veracious reporter of speeches, as well as a suggestive illustrator of events.” His contemporary political influence is borne witness to in a letter from Lord Bateman, dated November 3, 1798. “The Opposition,” he writes to Gillray, “are as low as we can wish them. You have been of infinite service in lowering them, and making them ridiculous.” Gillray’s extraordinary industry may be inferred from the fact that nearly 1000 caricatures have been attributed to him; while some consider him the author of 1600 or 1700. He is invaluable to the student of English manners as well as to the political student. He attacks the social follies of the time with scathing satire; and nothing escapes his notice, not even a trifling change of fashion in dress. The great tact Gillray displays in hitting on the ludicrous side of any subject is only equalled by the exquisite finish of his sketches—the finest of which reach an epic grandeur and Miltonic sublimity of conception.

Gillray’s caricatures are divided into two classes, the political series and the social. The political caricatures form really the best history extant of the latter part of the reign of George III. They were circulated not only over Britain but throughout Europe, and exerted a powerful influence. In this series, George III., the queen, the prince of Wales, Fox, Pitt, Burke and Napoleon are the most prominent figures. In 1788 appeared two fine caricatures by Gillray. “Blood on Thunder fording the Red Sea” represents Lord Thurlow carrying Warren Hastings through a sea of gore: Hastings looks very comfortable, and is carrying two large bags of money. “Market-Day” pictures the ministerialists of the time as horned cattle for sale. Among Gillray’s best satires on the king are: “Farmer George and his Wife,” two companion plates, in one of which the king is toasting muffins for breakfast, and in the other the queen is frying sprats; “The Anti-Saccharites,” where the royal pair propose to dispense with sugar, to the great horror of the family; “A Connoisseur Examining a Cooper”; “Temperance enjoying a Frugal Meal”; “Royal Affability”; “A Lesson in Apple Dumplings”; and “The Pigs Possessed.” Among his other political caricatures may be mentioned: “Britannia between Scylla and Charybdis,” a picture in which Pitt, so often Gillray’s butt, figures in a favourable light; “The Bridal Night”; “The Apotheosis of Hoche,” which concentrates the excesses of the French Revolution in one view; “The Nursery with Britannia reposing in Peace”; “The First Kiss these Ten Years” (1803), another satire on the peace, which is said to have greatly amused Napoleon; “The Handwriting upon the Wall”; “The Confederated Coalition,” a fling at the coalition which superseded the Addington ministry; “Uncorking Old Sherry”; “The Plum-Pudding in Danger”; “Making Decent,” i.e. “Broad-bottomites getting into the Grand Costume”; “Comforts of a Bed of Roses”; “View of the Hustings in Covent Garden”; “Phaëthon Alarmed”; and “Pandora opening her Box.” The miscellaneous series of caricatures, although they have scarcely the historical importance of the political series, are more readily intelligible, and are even more amusing. Among the finest are: “Shakespeare Sacrificed”; “Flemish Characters” (two plates); “Twopenny Whist”; “Oh! that this too solid flesh would melt”; “Sandwich Carrots”; “The Gout”; “Comfort to the Corns”; “Begone Dull Care”; “The Cow-Pock,” which gives humorous expression to the popular dread of vaccination; “Dilletanti Theatricals”; and “Harmony before Matrimony” and “Matrimonial Harmonics”—two exceedingly good sketches in violent contrast to each other.

A selection of Gillray’s works appeared in parts in 1818; but the first good edition was Thomas M‘Lean’s, which was published, with a key, in 1830. A somewhat bitter attack, not only on Gillray’s character, but even on his genius, appeared in the Athenaeum for October 1, 1831, which was successfully refuted by J. Landseer in the Athenaeum a fortnight later. In 1851 Henry G. Bohn put out an edition, from the original plates, in a handsome folio, the coarser sketches being published in a separate volume. For this edition Thomas Wright and R. H. Evans wrote a valuable commentary, which is a good history of the times embraced by the caricatures. The next edition, entitled The Works of James Gillray, the Caricaturist: with the Story of his Life and Times (Chatto & Windus, 1874), was the work of Thomas Wright, and, by its popular exposition and narrative, introduced Gillray to a very large circle formerly ignorant of him. This edition, which is complete in one volume, contains two portraits of Gillray, and upwards of 400 illustrations. Mr J. J. Cartwright, in a letter to the Academy (Feb. 28, 1874), drew attention to the existence of a MS. volume, in the British Museum, containing letters to and from Gillray, and other illustrative documents. The extracts he gave were used in a valuable article in the Quarterly Review for April 1874. See also the Academy for Feb. 21 and May 16, 1874.

There is a good account of Gillray in Wright’s History of Caricature and Grotesque in Literature and Art (1865); See also the article [Caricature].

GILLYFLOWER, a popular name applied to various flowers, but principally to the clove, Dianthus Caryophyllus, of which the carnation is a cultivated variety, and to the stock, Matthiola incana, a well-known garden favourite. The word is sometimes written gilliflower or gilloflower, and is reputedly a corruption of July-flower, “so called from the month they blow in.” Henry Phillips (1775-1838); in his Flora historica, remarks that Turner (1568) “calls it gelouer, to which he adds the word stock, as we would say gelouers that grow on a stem or stock, to distinguish them from the clove-gelouers and the wall-gelouers. Gerard, who succeeded Turner, and after him Parkinson, calls it gilloflower, and thus it travelled from its original orthography until it was called July-flower by those who knew not whence it was derived.” Dr Prior, in his useful volume on the Popular Names of British Plants, very distinctly shows the origin of the name. He remarks that it was “formerly spelt gyllofer and gilofre with the o long, from the French giroflée, Italian garofalo (M. Lat. gariofilum), corrupted from the Latin Caryophyllum, and referring to the spicy odour of the flower, which seems to have been used in flavouring wine and other liquors to replace the more costly clove of India. The name was originally given in Italy to plants of the pink tribe, especially the carnation, but has in England been transferred of late years to several cruciferous plants.” The gillyflower of Chaucer and Spenser and Shakespeare was, as in Italy, Dianthus Caryophyllus; that of later writers and of gardeners, Matthiola. Much of the confusion in the names of plants has doubtless arisen from the vague use of the French terms giroflée, œillet and violette, which were all applied to flowers of the pink tribe, but in England were subsequently extended and finally restricted to very different plants. The use made of the flowers to impart a spicy flavour to ale and wine is alluded to by Chaucer, who writes:

also by Spenser, who refers to them by the name of sops in wine, which was applied in consequence of their being steeped in the liquor. In both these cases, however, it is the clove-gillyflower which is intended, as it is also in the passage from Gerard, in which he states that the conserve made of the flowers with sugar “is exceeding cordiall, and wonderfully above measure doth comfort the heart, being eaten now and then.” The principal other plants which bear the name are the wallflower, Cheiranthus Cheiri, called wall-gillyflower in old books; the dame’s violet, Hesperis matronalis, called variously the queen’s, the rogue’s and the winter gillyflower; the ragged-robin, Lychnis Flos-cuculi, called marsh-gillyflower and cuckoo-gillyflower; the water-violet, Hottonia palustris, called water-gillyflower; and the thrift, Armeria vulgaris, called sea-gillyflower. As a separate designation it is nowadays usually applied to the wallflower.

GILMAN, DANIEL COIT (1831-1908), American educationist, was born in Norwich, Connecticut, on the 6th of July 1831. He graduated at Yale in 1852, studied in Berlin, was assistant librarian of Yale in 1856-1858 and librarian in 1858-1865, and was professor of physical and political geography in the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University and a member of the Governing Board of this School in 1863-1872. From 1856 to 1860 he was a member of the school board of New Haven, and from August 1865 to January 1867 secretary of the Connecticut Board of Education. In 1872 he became president of the University of California at Berkeley. On the 30th of December 1874 he was elected first president of Johns Hopkins University (q.v.) at Baltimore. He entered upon his duties on the 1st of May 1875, and was formally inaugurated on the 22nd of February 1876. This post he filled until 1901. From 1901 to 1904 he was the first president of the Carnegie Institution at Washington, D.C. He died at Norwich, Conn., on the 13th of October 1908. He received the honorary degree of LL.D. from Harvard, St John’s, Columbia, Yale, North Carolina, Princeton, Toronto, Wisconsin and Clark Universities, and William and Mary College. His influence upon higher education in America was great, especially at Johns Hopkins, where many wise details of administration, the plan of bringing to the university as lecturers for a part of the year scholars from other colleges, the choice of a singularly brilliant and able faculty, and the marked willingness to recognize workers in new branches of science were all largely due to him. To the organization of the Johns Hopkins hospital, of which he was made director in 1889, he contributed greatly. He was a singularly good judge of men and an able administrator, and under him Johns Hopkins had an immense influence, especially in the promotion of original and productive research. He was always deeply interested in the researches of the professors at Johns Hopkins, and it has been said of him that his attention as president was turned inside and not outside the university. He was instrumental in determining the policy of the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale University while he was a member of its governing board; on the 28th of October 1897 he delivered at New Haven a semi-centennial discourse on the school, which appears in his University Problems. He was a prominent member of the American Archaeological Society and of the American Oriental Society; was one of the original trustees of the John F. Slater Fund (for a time he was secretary, and from 1893 until his death was president of the board); from 1891 until his death was a trustee of the Peabody Educational Fund (being the vice-president of the board); and was an original member of the General Education Board (1902) and a trustee of the Russell Sage Foundation for Social Betterment (1907). In 1896-1897 he served on the Venezuela Boundary Commission appointed by President Cleveland. In 1901 he succeeded Carl Schurz as president of the National Civil Service Reform League and served until 1907. Some of his papers and addresses are collected in a volume entitled University Problems in the United States (1888). He wrote, besides, James Monroe (1883), in the American Statesmen Series; a Life of James D. Dana, the geologist (1899); Science and Letters at Yale (1901), and The Launching of a University (1906), an account of the early years of Johns Hopkins.

GILMORE, PATRICK SARSFIELD (1829-1892), American bandmaster, was born in Ireland, and settled in America about 1850. He had been in the band of an Irish regiment, and he had great success as leader of a military band at Salem, Massachusetts, and subsequently (1859) in Boston. He increased his reputation during the Civil War, particularly by organizing a monster orchestra of massed bands for a festival at New Orleans in 1864; and at Boston in 1869 and 1872 he gave similar performances. He was enormously popular as a bandmaster, and composed or arranged a large variety of pieces for orchestra. He died at St Louis on the 24th of September 1892.

GILPIN, BERNARD (1517-1583), the “Apostle of the North,” was descended from a Westmorland family, and was born at Kentmere in 1517. He was educated at Queen’s College, Oxford, graduating B.A. in 1540, M.A. in 1542 and B.D. in 1549. He was elected fellow of Queen’s and ordained in 1542; subsequently he was elected student of Christ Church. At Oxford he first adhered to the conservative side, and defended the doctrines of the church against Hooper; but his confidence was somewhat shaken by another public disputation which he had with Peter Martyr. In 1552 he preached before King Edward VI. a sermon on sacrilege, which was duly published, and displays the high ideal which even then he had formed of the clerical office; and about the same time he was presented to the vicarage of Norton, in the diocese of Durham, and obtained a licence, through William Cecil, as a general preacher throughout the kingdom as long as the king lived. On Mary’s accession he went abroad to pursue his theological investigations at Louvain, Antwerp and Paris; and from a letter of his own, dated Louvain, 1554, we get a glimpse of the quiet student rejoicing in an “excellent library belonging to a monastery of Minorites.” Returning to England towards the close of Queen Mary’s reign, he was invested by his mother’s uncle, Tunstall, bishop of Durham, with the archdeaconry of Durham, to which the rectory of Easington was annexed. The freedom of his attacks on the vices, and especially the clerical vices, of his times excited hostility against him, and he was formally brought before the bishop on a charge consisting of thirteen articles. Tunstall, however, not only dismissed the case, but presented the offender with the rich living of Houghton-le-Spring; and when the accusation was again brought forward, he again protected him. Enraged at this defeat, Gilpin’s enemies laid their complaint before Bonner, bishop of London, who secured a royal warrant for his apprehension. Upon this Gilpin prepared for martyrdom; and, having ordered his house-steward to provide him with a long garment, that he might “goe the more comely to the stake,” he set out for London. Fortunately, however, for him, he broke his leg on the journey, and his arrival was thus delayed till the news of Queen Mary’s death freed him from further danger. He at once returned to Houghton, and there he continued to labour till his death on the 4th of March 1583. When the Roman Catholic bishops were deprived he was offered the see of Carlisle; but he declined this honour and also the provostship of Queen’s, which was offered him in 1560. At Houghton his course of life was a ceaseless round of benevolent activity. In June 1560 he entertained Cecil and Dr Nicholas Wotton on their way to Edinburgh. His hospitable manner of living was the admiration of all. His living was a comparatively rich one, his house was better than many bishops’ palaces, and his position was that of a clerical magnate. In his household he spent “every fortnight 40 bushels of corn, 20 bushels of malt and an ox, besides a proportional quantity of other kinds of provisions.” Strangers and travellers found a ready reception; and even their horses were treated with so much care that it was humorously said that, if one were turned loose in any part of the country, it would immediately make its way to the rector of Houghton. Every Sunday from Michaelmas till Easter was a public day with Gilpin. For the reception of his parishioners he had three tables well covered—one for gentlemen, the second for husbandmen, the third for day-labourers; and this piece of hospitality he never omitted, even when losses or scarcity made its continuance difficult. He built and endowed a grammar-school at a cost of upwards of £500, educated and maintained a large number of poor children at his own charge, and provided the more promising pupils with means of studying at the universities. So many young people, indeed, flocked to his school that there was not accommodation for them in Houghton, and he had to fit up part of his house as a boarding establishment. Grieved at the ignorance and superstition which the remissness of the clergy permitted to flourish in the neighbouring parishes, he used every year to visit the most neglected parts of Northumberland, Yorkshire, Cheshire, Westmorland and Cumberland; and that his own flock might not suffer, he was at the expense of a constant assistant. Among his parishioners he was looked up to as a judge, and did great service in preventing law-suits amongst them. If an industrious man suffered a loss, he delighted to make it good; if the harvest was bad, he was liberal in the remission of tithes. The boldness which he could display at need is well illustrated by his action in regard to duelling. Finding one day a challenge-glove stuck up on the door of a church where he was to preach, he took it down with his own hand, and proceeded to the pulpit to inveigh against the unchristian custom. His theological position was not in accord with any of the religious parties of his age, and Gladstone thought that the catholicity of the Anglican Church was better exemplified in his career than in those of more prominent ecclesiastics (pref. to A. W. Hutton’s edition of S. R. Maitland’s Essays on the Reformation). He was not satisfied with the Elizabethan settlement, had great respect for the Fathers, and was with difficulty induced to subscribe. Archbishop Sandys’ views on the Eucharist horrified him; but on the other hand he maintained friendly relations with Bishop Pilkington and Thomas Lever, and the Puritans had some hope of his support.

A life of Bernard Gilpin, written by George Carleton, bishop of Chichester, who had been a pupil of Gilpin’s at Houghton, will be found in Bates’s Vitae selectorum aliquot virorum, &c. (London, 1681). A translation of this sketch by William Freake, minister, was published at London, 1629; and in 1852 it was reprinted in Glasgow, with an introductory essay by Edward Irving. It forms one of the lives in Christopher Wordsworth’s Ecclesiastical Biography (vol. iii., 4th ed.), having been compared with Carleton’s Latin text. Another biography of Gilpin, which, however, adds little to Bishop Carleton’s, was written by William Gilpin, M.A., prebendary of Ailsbury (London, 1753 and 1854). See also Dict. Nat. Biog.

GILSONITE (so named after S. H. Gilson of Salt Lake City), or Uintahite, or Uintaite, a description of asphalt occurring in masses several inches in diameter in the Uinta (or Uintah) valley, near Fort Duchesne, Utah. It is of black colour; its fracture is conchoidal, and it has a lustrous surface. When warmed it becomes plastic, and on further beating fuses perfectly. It has a specific gravity of 1.065 to 1.070. It dissolves freely in hot oil of turpentine. The output amounted to 10,916 short tons for the year 1905, and the value was $4.51 per ton.

GILYAKS, a hybrid people, originally widespread throughout the Lower Amur district, but now confined to the Amur delta and the north of Sakhalin. They have been affiliated by some authorities to the Ainu of Sakhalin and Yezo; but they are more probably a mongrel people, and Dr A. Anuchin states that there are two types, a Mongoloid with sparse beard, high cheek-bones and flat face, and a Caucasic with bushy beard and more regular features. The Chinese call them Yupitatse, “Fish-skin-clad people,” from their wearing a peculiar dress made from salmon skin.

See E. G. Ravenstein, The Russians on the Amur (1861); Dr A. Anuchin, Mem. Imp. Soc. Nat. Sc. xx., Supplement (Moscow, 1877); H. von Siebold, Über die Aino (Berlin, 1881); J. Deniker in Revue d’ethnographie (Paris, 1884); L. Schrenck, Die Völker des Amurlandes (St Petersburg, 1891).

GIMBAL, a mechanical device for hanging some object so that it should keep a horizontal and constant position, while the body from which it is suspended is in free motion, so that the motion of the supporting body is not communicated to it. It is thus used particularly for the suspension of compasses or chronometers and lamps at sea, and usually consists of a ring freely moving on an axis, within which the object swings on an axis at right angles to the ring.