Chapter 5

(J. T. C)

Bo, Bristles surrounding the mouth.

ds, Dorsal bristles.

hCi, Posterior lateral cilia.

Ke, Cuticular dome.

Mr, Oral cavity.

lT, Lateral sensory hairs.

Pl, Cuticular plates.

Sa, Dorsal bristle of the basal part.

Sch, Plates.

Se, Lateral bristles.

Vb, Point of union of ciliated tract.

vCi, Anterior group of cilia.

vS, Ventral bristles of the basal part.

GASTROTRICHA, a small group of fairly uniform animals which live among Rotifers and Protozoa at the bottom of ponds and marshes, biding amongst the recesses of the algae and sphagnum and other fresh-water plants and eating organic débris and Infusoria. They are of minute size varying from one-sixtieth to one-three-hundredth of an inch, and they move by means of long cilia. Two ventral bands composed of regular transverse rows of cilia are usually found. The head bears some especially large cilia. The cuticle which covers the body is here and there raised into overlapping scales which may be prolonged into bristles. An enlarged, frontal scale may cover the head, and a row of scales separates the ventral ciliated areas from oneanother, whilst two series of alternating rows cover the back and side. The body, otherwise circular in section, is slightly flattened ventrally. The mouth is anterior and slightly ventral; it leads into a protrusible pharynx armed with recurved teeth that can be everted. This leads to a muscular oesophagus with a triradiate lumen, which acts as a sucking pump and ends in a funnel-valve projecting into the stomach. The last named is oval and formed of four rows of large cells; it is separated by a sphincter from the rectum, which opens posteriorly and dorsally. The nitrogenous excretory apparatus consists of a coiled tube on each side of the stomach; internally the tubes end in large flame-cells, and externally by small pores which lie on the edges of the ventral row of scales. A cerebral ganglion rests on the oesophagus and supplies the cephalic cilia and hairs; it is continued some way back as two dorsal nerve trunks. The sense organs are the hairs and bristles and in some species eyes. The muscles are simple and unstriated and for the most part run longitudinally.

The two ovaries lie at the level of the juncture of the stomach and rectum. The eggs become very large, sometimes half the length of the mother; they are laid amongst water weeds. The male reproductive system is but little known, a small gland lying between the ovaries has been thought to be a testis, and if it be, the Gastrotricha are hermaphrodite.

Zelinka classifies the group as follows:—Sub-order 1.—Euichthydinawith a forked tail.(i.) Fam. Ichthydidae, without bristles. Genera:Ichthydium,Lepidoderma.(ii.) Fam. Chaetonotidae, with bristles. Genera:Chaetonotus,Chaetura.Sub-order 2.—Apodina, tail not forked. Genera:Dasydytes,Gossea,Stylochaeta.The genusAspidiophorusrecently described by Voigt seems in some respects intermediate betweenLepidodermaandChaetonotus.ZelinkiaandPhilosyrtisare two slightly aberrant forms described by Giard from certain diatomaceous sands. Altogether there must be some forty to fifty described species.The group is an isolated one and shows no clear affinities with any of the great phyla. Those that are usually dwelt on are treated with the Rotifers and Nematoda and Turbellaria.Literature.—A.C. Stokes,The Microscope(Detroit, 1887-1888); C. Zelinka,Zeitschr. wiss. Zool.xlix., 1890, p. 209; M. Voigt,Forschber. Plön.Th. ix., 1904, p. 1; A. Giard,C. R. Soc. Biol.lvi. pp. 1061 and 1063; E. Daday,Termes. Fuzetek.xxiv. p. 1; F. Zschokke,Denk. Schweiz. Ges.xxxvii. p. 109; S. Hlava,Zool. Anz.xxviii., 1905, p. 331.

Zelinka classifies the group as follows:—

Sub-order 1.—Euichthydinawith a forked tail.

(i.) Fam. Ichthydidae, without bristles. Genera:Ichthydium,Lepidoderma.

(ii.) Fam. Chaetonotidae, with bristles. Genera:Chaetonotus,Chaetura.

Sub-order 2.—Apodina, tail not forked. Genera:Dasydytes,Gossea,Stylochaeta.

The genusAspidiophorusrecently described by Voigt seems in some respects intermediate betweenLepidodermaandChaetonotus.ZelinkiaandPhilosyrtisare two slightly aberrant forms described by Giard from certain diatomaceous sands. Altogether there must be some forty to fifty described species.

The group is an isolated one and shows no clear affinities with any of the great phyla. Those that are usually dwelt on are treated with the Rotifers and Nematoda and Turbellaria.

Literature.—A.C. Stokes,The Microscope(Detroit, 1887-1888); C. Zelinka,Zeitschr. wiss. Zool.xlix., 1890, p. 209; M. Voigt,Forschber. Plön.Th. ix., 1904, p. 1; A. Giard,C. R. Soc. Biol.lvi. pp. 1061 and 1063; E. Daday,Termes. Fuzetek.xxiv. p. 1; F. Zschokke,Denk. Schweiz. Ges.xxxvii. p. 109; S. Hlava,Zool. Anz.xxviii., 1905, p. 331.

(A. E. S.)

GATAKER, THOMAS(1574-1654), English divine, was born in London in September 1574, and educated at St John’s College, Cambridge. From 1601 to 1611 he held the appointment of preacher to the society of Lincoln’s Inn, which he resigned on accepting the rectory of Rotherhithe. In 1642 he was chosen a member of the assembly of divines at Westminster, and annotated for that assembly the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations. He disapproved of the introduction of the Covenant, and declared himself in favour of episcopacy. He was one of the forty-seven London clergymen who disapproved of the trial of Charles I. He was married four times, and died in July 1654.

His principal works, besides some volumes of sermons are—On the Nature and Use of Lots(1619), a curious treatise which led to his being accused of favouring games of chance;Dissertatio de stylo Novi Testamenti(1648);Cinnus, sive Adversaria miscellanea, in quibus Sacrae Scripturae primo, deinde aliorum scriptorum, locis aliquam multis lux redditur(1651), to which was afterwards subjoinedAdversaria Posthuma; and his edition ofMarcus Antoninus(1652), which, according to Hallam, is the “earliest edition of any classical writer published in England with original annotations,” and, for the period at which it was written, possesses remarkable merit. His collected works were published at Utrecht in 1698.

GATCHINA, a town of Russia, in the government of St Petersburg, 29 m. by rail S. of the city of St Petersburg, in 59° 34′ N. and 30° 6′ E. Pop. (1860) 9184; (1897) 14,735. It is situated in a flat, well-wooded, and partly marshy district, and on the south side of the town are two lakes. Among its more important buildings are the imperial palace, which was founded in 1770 by Prince Orlov, and constructed according to the plans of the Italian architect Rinaldi; a military orphanage, founded in 1803; and a school for horticulture. Among the few industrial establishments is a porcelain factory. At Gatchina an alliance was concluded between Russia and Sweden on the 29th of October 1799.

GATE, an opening into any enclosure for entrance or exit, capable of being closed by a barrier at will. The word is of wide application, embracing not only the defensive entrance ways into a fortified place, with which this article mainly deals, or the imposing architectural features which form the main entrances to palaces, colleges, monastic buildings, &c., but also the common five-barred barrier which closes an opening into a field. The most general distinction that can be made between “door” and “gate” is that of size, the greater entrance into a court containing other buildings being the “gate,” the smaller entrances opening directly into the particular buildings the “doors,” or that of construction, the whole entrance way being a “gate” or gateway, the barrier which closes it a “door.” A further distinction is drawn by applying “door” to the solid barriers or “valves” of wood, metal, &c., made in panels and fitted to a framework, and “gate” to an openwork structure, whether of metal or wood (see furtherDoorandMetal-work). The ultimate origin of the word is obscure; the early forms appear with a palatalized initial letter, still surviving in such dialectical forms as “yate,” or in Scots “yett.” It is probably connected with the root of “get,” in the sense either of “means of access” or of “holding,” “receptacle”; cf. Dutchgat, hole. There may be a connexion, however, with “gate,” now usually spelled “gait,” a manner of walking,1but originally a way, passage; cf. Ger.Gasse, narrow street, lane.

The entrance through the enclosing walls of a city or fortification has been from the earliest times a place of the utmost importance, considered architecturally, socially or from the point of view of the military engineer. In the East the “gate” was and still is in many Mahommedan countries the central place of civic life. Here was the seat of justice and of audience, the most important market-place, the spot where men gathered to receive and exchange news. The references in the Bible to the gates of the city in all these varied aspects are innumerable (cf. Gen. xix. 1; Deut. xxv. 7; Ruth iv. 1; 2 Sam. xix. 8; 2 Kings vii. 1). Later the seat of justice and of government is transferred to the gate of the palace of the king (cf. Dan. ii. 49, and Esther ii. 19), and this use is preserved to-day in the official title of the seat of government of the Turkish empire at Constantinople, the “Sublime Porte,” a translation of the TurkishBab Aliy(bab, gate, andaliy, high). A full account with many modern instances of Eastern customs will be found in Sir Charles Warren’s article “Gate” inHastings’sDict. of Bible. For the “pylon,” the typical gate of Egyptian architecture, seeArchitecture.

The gates into a walled town or other fortified place were necessarily in early times the chief points on which the attack concentrated, and the features, common throughout the ages, of flanking or surmounting towers and of galleries over the entrance way, are found in the Assyrian gate at Khorsabad (cf. 2 Chron. xxvi. 9; 2 Sam. xviii. 24). With the coming of peaceful times to a city or the removal of the fear of sudden attack, the gateways would take a form adapted more for ready exit and entrance than for defence, though the possibility of defending them was not forgotten. Such city gates often had separate openings for entrance and exit, and again for foot passengers and for vehicles. The Gallo-Roman gate at Autun has four entrances, two just wide enough to admit carriages, and two narrow alleys for foot passengers. A fine example of a Roman city gate, dating from the time of Constantine, is at Trèves. It is four storeys high, with ornamental windows, and decorated with columns on each storey. The two outer wings project beyond the central part, the two entrance ways are 14 ft. wide, and could be closed by doors and a portcullis. The chambers in the storeys above were used for the purposes of civil administration. In more modern times city gateways have often followed the type of the Roman triumphal arch, with a single wide opening and purely ornamental superstructure. On the other hand, the defensive gate formed by an archway entering as it were through a tower has been constantly followed as a type of entrance to buildings of an entirely peaceful character. A fine example of such a gateway, originally built for defence, is at Battle Abbey; this was built by Abbot Retlynge in 1338, when Edward III. granted a licence to fortify and crenellate the abbey. Such gateways are typical of Tudor palaces, as at St James’s or at Hampton Court, and are the most common form in the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. The Tom Gate at Christ Church, Oxford, with its surmounted domed bell tower, or the cupola resting on columns at Queen’s College, Oxford, are further examples of the gate architecturally considered.

The changes the fortified gateway has undergone in construction and the varying relative importance it has held in the scheme of defence follow the lines of development taken by the history ofFortification and Siegecraft(q.v.). The following is a short sketch of the main stages in its history. A good example of the Roman fortified city gate still remains at Pompeii. Here there is one passage way for vehicles, 14 ft. wide; this is open to the sky. The two footways on either side are arched, with openings in the centre on to the central way. The doors of the gate are on the city side, but a portcullis (cataracta) closed it on the country side. The gateways of the Roman permanent camps (castra stativa) were four in number, theporta praetoriaandDecumanaat either end, withprincipalis dextraandsinistraon the side (see alsoCamp). At Pevensey (Anderida) a small postern on the north side of the Roman walls was laid bare in 1906-1907, in which the passage curves in the thickness of the wall, and from a width admitting two men abreast narrows so that one alone could block it. Flanking towers or bastions guarded the main entrances, while in front were built outworks, of palisades, &c., to protect it; these were known asprocastraorantemuralia, and the entrances to these were placed so that they could be flanked from the main walls.

In the defence of a fortified place the gate had not only to be protected from sudden surprise, but also had to undergo protracted attacks concentrated upon it during a siege. Thus until the coming of gunpowder, the ingenuity of military engineers was exhausted in accumulating the most complicated defences round the gateways, and the strength of a fortified place could be estimated by the fewness of its gates. Viollet-le-Duc (Dict. de l’arch. du moyen âge, s.v.Porte) takes the Narbonne and Aude gates (E. and W.) of Carcassonne as typical instances of this complication. The following brief account of the Narbonne Gate (fig. 1), one of the principal parts of the work on the fortifications begun by Philip the Bold in 1285, will give some idea of the varied means of defence, which may be found individually if not always in such collective abundance in the fortified gateways of the middle ages. Two massive towers flanked the actual entrance and were linked across by an iron chain; over the entrance (E) was a machicolation, further added to in time of war by a hoarding of timber; and an outer portcullis fell in front of the heavy iron-lined doors. On to the passage way between the first and second doors opened a square machicolation (G) from which the defenders in the upper chambers of the gate could attack an enemy that had succeeded in breaking through the first entrance or had been trapped by the falling of the first portcullis. Another machicolation (I) opened from the roof in front of the second portcullis and second door. So much for the gate itself; but before an attack could reach that point, the following defences had to be passed: an immense circular barbican (A) protected the entrance across the moat and through the outerenceinteof the city. This entrance was flanked by a masked return of the wall (C), while palisades (P) still further hampered the assailant in his passage across the “lists” to the foot of the gate towers. Here sappers would find themselves exposed to a fire from the loopholes and from the machicolated hoardings above them, while the projecting horns with which the face of the towers terminated forced them to uncover themselves to a flanking fire from the indents in the main curtain on either side of the towers.

The later history of the gateway is merged in that of modern fortification. The more elaborate the gate defences the greater was the inducement for the besieger to attack the walls, and improvements in methods of siegecraft ultimately compelled the defender to develop theenceintefrom its medieval form of a ring wall with flanking towers to the 17th century form of bastions, curtains, tenailles and ravelins, all intimately connected in one general scheme of defence. By Vauban’s time there is little to distinguish the position and defences of the gateways from the rest of the fortifications surrounding a town. A road from the country usually entered one of the ravelins, sinking into the glacis, crossing the ditch of the ravelin and piercing the parapet almost at right angles to its proper direction (see fig. 2, which also shows a typical arrangement of minor communications such as ramps and staircases). From the interior of the ravelin it passed across the main ditch to a gate in the curtain of the enceinte. The road was in fact artificially made to wind in such a way that it was kept under fire from the defences throughout, while the part of it inside the works was bent so as to place a covering mass between the enemy’s fire and troops using the road for a sortie. Thus the gate itself was merely a barrier against acoup de mainand to keep out unauthorized persons. In conditions precluding the making of a breach in the walls,i.e.in surprises and assaultsde vive force, the gateway and accompanying drawbridge continue to play their part in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, but they seldom or never appear as the objectives of a siegeen règle. In Vauban’s works, and those of most other engineers, there was generally a postern giving access to the floor of the main ditch, in the centre of the curtain escarp. The gates of Vauban’s and later fortresses are strong heavy woodendoors, and the gateways more or less ornamental archways, exactly as in many private mansions of castellar form. In modern fortresses the gate of a detached fort or anenceinte de suretéis intended purely as a defence against an unexpected rush. The usual method is to have two gates, the outer one a lattice or portcullis of iron bars and the inner one a plate of half-inch steel armour, backed by wood and loopholed. The defenders of the gate can by this arrangement fire from the inner loopholes through the outer gate upon the approaches, and also keep the enemy under fire whilst he is trying to force the outer gate itself. The ditches are crossed either by drawbridges or by ramps leading the road down to the floor of the ditch.

The “gate” as a barrier to be removed and as an entrance to be passed is of constant occurrence in figurative language and in symbolical usage. The gates of the temple of Janus (q.v.) at Rome stood open in war and closed in peace. Thepylonof ancient Egypt had a symbolical meaning in the Book of the Dead, and religious significance attaches to thetorii, one of the outward signs of the Shinto religion in Japan, the Buddhisttoran, and to the Chinesepai-loo, the honorific gateways erected to ancestors. The gates of heaven and hell, the gates of death and darkness, the wide and narrow gates that lead to destruction and life (Matt. vii. 13 and 14), are familiar metaphorical phrases in the Bible. In Greek and Roman legend dreams pass through gates of transparent horn if true, if deceptive and false through opaque gates of ivory (Hom.Od. xix. 560 sq.; Virg.Aen. vi. 893).

(C. We.)

1The spelling “gait” is confined to this meaning—the only literary one surviving. In the form “gate” it appears dialectally in this sense and in such particular meanings as a right to run cattle on common or private ground or as a passage way in mines. The principal survival is in names of streets in the north and midlands of England and in Scotland,e.g.Briggate at Leeds, Wheeler Gate and Castle Gate at Nottingham, Gallow Tree Gate at Leicester, and Canongate and Cowgate at Edinburgh.

GATEHOUSE. In the second half of the 16th century in England the entrance gateway, which formed part of the principal front of the earlier feudal castles, became a detached feature attached to the mansions only by a wall enclosing the entrance court. The gatehouse then constituted a structure of some importance, and included sometimes many rooms as at Stanway Hall, Gloucestershire, where it measures 44 ft. by 22 ft. and has three storeys; at Westwood, Worcestershire, it had a frontage of 54 ft. with two storeys; and at Burton Agnes, Yorkshire, it was still larger and was flanked by great octagonal towers at the angles and had three storeys. At a later period smaller accommodation was provided so that it virtually became a lodge, but being designed to harmonize with the mansion it presented sometimes a monumental structure. On the continent of Europe the gatehouse forms a much more important building, as it formed part of the town fortifications, where it sometimes defended the passage of a bridge across the stream or moat. There are numerous examples in France and Germany.

GATES, HORATIO(1728-1806), American general, was born at Maldon in Essex, England, in 1728. He entered the English army at an early age, and was rapidly promoted. He accompanied General Braddock in his disastrous expedition against Fort Duquesne in 1755, and was severely wounded in the battle of July 9; and he saw other active service in the Seven Years’ War. After the peace of 1763 he purchased an estate in Virginia, where he lived till the outbreak of the War of Independence in 1775, when he was named by Congress adjutant-general. In 1776 he was appointed to command the troops which had lately retreated from Canada, and in August 1777, as a result of a successful intrigue, was appointed to supersede General Philip Schuyler in command of the Northern Department. In the two battles of Saratoga (q.v.) his army defeated General Burgoyne, who, on the 17th of October, was forced to surrender his whole army. This success was, however, largely due to the previous manœuvres of Schuyler and to Gates’s subordinate officers. The intrigues of the Conway Cabal to have Washington superseded by Gates completely failed, but Gates was president for a time of the Board of War, and in 1780 was placed in chief command in the South. He was totally defeated at Camden, S. C., by Cornwallis on the 17th of August 1780, and in December was superseded by Greene, though an investigation into his conduct terminated in acquittal (1782). He then retired to his Virginian estate, whence he removed to New York in 1790, after emancipating his slaves and providing for those who needed assistance. He died in New York on the 10th of April 1806.

GATESHEAD, a municipal, county and parliamentary borough of Durham, England; on the S. bank of the Tyne opposite Newcastle, and on the North Eastern railway. Pop. (1891) 85,692; (1901) 109,888. Though one of the largest towns in the county, neither its streets nor its public buildings, except perhaps its ecclesiastical buildings, have much claim to architectural beauty. The parish church of St Mary is an ancient cruciform edifice surmounted by a lofty tower; but extensive restoration was necessitated by a fire in 1854 which destroyed a considerable part of the town. The town-hall, public library and mechanic’s institute are noteworthy buildings. Education is provided by a grammar school, a large day school for girls, and technical and art schools. There is a service of steam trams in the principal streets, and three fine bridges connect the town with Newcastle-upon-Tyne. There are large iron works (including foundries and factories for engines, boilers, chains and cables), shipbuilding yards, glass manufactories, chemical, soap and candle works, brick and tile works, breweries and tanneries. The town also contains a depot of the North Eastern railway, with large stores and locomotive works. Extensive coal mines exist in the vicinity; and at Gateshead Fell are large quarries for grindstones, which are much esteemed and are exported to all parts of the world. Large gas-works of the Newcastle and Gateshead Gas Company are also situated in the borough. The parliamentary borough returns one member. The corporation consists of a mayor, 9 aldermen, and 27 councillors. Area, 3132 acres.

Gateshead (Gateshewed) probably grew up during late Saxon times, the mention of the church there in which Bishop Walcher was murdered in 1080 being the first evidence of settlement. The borough probably obtained its charter during the following century, for Hugh de Puiset, bishop of Durham (1153-1195), confirmed to his burgesses similar rights to those of the burgesses of Newcastle, freedom of toll within the palatinate and other privileges. The bishop had a park here in 1348, and in 1438 Bishop Nevill appointed a keeper of the “tower.” The position of the town led to a struggle with Newcastle over both fishing and trading rights. An inquisition of 1322 declared that the water of the Tyne was divided into three parts: the northern, belonging to Northumberland; the southern to Durham; and the central, common to all. At another inquisition held in 1336 the men of Gateshead claimed liberty of trading and fishing along the coast of Durham, and freedom to sell their fish where they would. In 1552, on the temporary extinction of the diocese of Durham, Gateshead was attached to Newcastle, but in 1554 was regranted to Bishop Tunstall. As compensation the bishop granted to Newcastle, at a nominal rent, the Gateshead salt-meadows, with rights of way to the High Street, thus abolishing the toll previously paid to the bishop. During the next century Bishop Tunstall’s successors incorporated nearly all the various trades of Gateshead, and Cromwell continued this policy. The town government during this period was bythe bishop’s bailiff, and the holders of the burgages composed the juries of the bishop’s courts leet and baron. No charter of incorporation is extant, but in 1563 contests were carried on under the name of the bailiffs, burgesses and commonalty, and a list of borough accounts exists for 1696. The bishop appointed the last borough bailiff in 1681, and though the inhabitants in 1772 petitioned for a bailiff the town remained under a steward and grassmen until the 19th century. As part of the palatinate of Durham, Gateshead was not represented in parliament until 1832. At the inquisition of 1336 the burgesses claimed an annual fair on St Peter’s Day, and depositions in 1577 mention a borough market held on Tuesday and Friday, but these were apparently extinct in Camden’s day, and no grant of them is extant. The medieval trade seems to have centred round the fisheries and the neighbouring coal mines which are mentioned in 1364 and also by Leland.

GATH, one of the five chief cities of the Philistines. It is frequently mentioned in the historical books of the Old Testament, and from Amos vi. 2 we conclude that, like Ashdod, it fell to Sargon in 711. Its site appears to have been known in the 4th century, but the name is now lost. Eusebius (in theOnomasticon) places it near the road from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrïn) to Diospolis (Ludd) about five Roman miles from the former. The Roman road between these two towns is still traceable, and its milestones remain in places. East of the road at the required distance rises a white cliff, almost isolated, 300 ft. high and full of caves. On the top is the little mud village of Tell eṣ-Ṣāfi (“the shining mound”), and beside the village is the mound which marks the site of the Crusaders’ castle of Blanchegarde (Alba Custodia), built in 1144. Tell eṣ-Ṣāfi was known by its present name as far back as the 12th century; but it appears not improbable that the strong site here existing represents the ancient Gath. The cliff stands on the south side of the mouth of the Valley of Elah, and Gath appears to have been near this valley (1 Sam. xvii. 2, 52). This identification is not certain, but it is at least much more probable than the theory which makes Gath, Eleutheropolis, and Beit Jibrïn one and the same place. The site was partially excavated by the Palestine Exploration Fund in 1899, and remains extending in date back to the early Canaanite period were discovered.

GATLING, RICHARD JORDAN(1818-1903), American inventor, was born in Hertford county, North Carolina, on the 12th of September 1818. He was the son of a well-to-do planter and slave-owner, from whom he inherited a genius for mechanical invention and whom he assisted in the construction and perfecting of machines for sowing cotton seeds, and for thinning the plants. He was well educated and was successively a school teacher and a merchant, spending all his spare time in developing new inventions. In 1839 he perfected a practical screw propeller for steamboats, only to find that a patent had been granted to John Ericsson for a similar invention a few months earlier. He established himself in St Louis, Missouri, and taking the cotton-sowing machine as a basis he adapted it for sowing rice, wheat and other grains, and established factories for its manufacture. The introduction of these machines did much to revolutionize the agricultural system in the country. Becoming interested in the study of medicine through an attack of smallpox, he completed a course at the Ohio Medical College, taking his M.D. degree in 1850. In the same year he invented a hemp-breaking machine, and in 1857 a steam plough. At the outbreak of the Civil War he was living in Indianapolis, and devoted himself at once to the perfecting of fire-arms. In 1861 he conceived the idea of the rapid fire machine-gun which is associated with his name. By 1862 he had succeeded in perfecting a gun that would discharge 350 shots per minute; but the war was practically over before the Federal authorities consented to its official adoption. From that time, however, the success of the invention was assured, and within ten years it had been adopted by almost every civilized nation. Gatling died in New York City on the 26th of February 1903.

GATTY, MARGARET(1809-1873), English writer, daughter of the Rev. Alexander Scott (1768-1840), chaplain to Lord Nelson, was born at Burnham, Essex, in 1809. She early began to draw and to etch on copper, being a regular visitor to the print-room of the British Museum from the age of ten. She also illuminated on vellum, copying the old strawberry borders and designing initials. In 1839 Margaret Scott married the Rev. Alfred Gatty, D.D., vicar of Ecclesfield near Sheffield, subdean of York cathedral, and the author of various works both secular and religious. In 1842 she published in association with her husband a life of her father; but her first independent work wasThe Fairy Godmother and other Tales, which appeared in 1851. This was followed in 1855 by the first of five volumes ofParables from Nature, the last being published in 1871. It was under thenom de plumeof Aunt Judy, as a pleasant and instructive writer for children, that Mrs Gatty was most widely known. Before startingAunt Judy’s Magazinein May 1866, she had brought outAunt Judy’s Tales(1858) andAunt Judy’s Letters(1862), and among the other children’s books which she subsequently published wereAunt Judy’s Song Book for ChildrenandThe Mother’s Book of Poetry. “Aunt Judy” was the nickname given by her daughter Juliana Horatia Ewing (q.v.). The editor of the magazine was on the friendliest terms with her young correspondents and subscribers, and her success was largely due to the sympathy which enabled her to look at things from the child’s point of view. Besides other excellences her children’s books are specially characterized by wholesomeness of sentiment and cheerful humour. Her miscellaneous writings include, in addition to several volumes of tales,The Old Folks from Home, an account of a holiday ramble in Ireland;The Travels and Adventures of Dr Wolff the Missionary(1861), an autobiography edited by her;British Sea Weeds(1862);Waifs and Strays of Natural History(1871);A Book of EmblemsandThe Book of Sun-Dials(1872). She died at Ecclesfield vicarage on the 4th of October 1873.

GAU, JOHN(c.1495-? 1553), Scottish translator, was born at Perth towards the close of the 15th century. He was educated in St Salvator’s College at St Andrews. He appears to have been in residence at Malmö in 1533, perhaps as chaplain to the Scots community there. In that year John Hochstraten, the exiled Antwerp printer, issued a book by Gau entitled:The Richt vay to the Kingdome of Heuine, of which the chief interest is that it is the first Scottish book written on the side of the Reformers. It is a translation of Christiern Pedersen’sDen rette vey till Hiemmerigis Rige(Antwerp, 1531), for the most part direct, but showing intimate knowledge in places of the German edition of Urbanus Rhegius. Only one copy of Gau’s text is extant, in the library of Britwell Court, Bucks. It has been assumed that all the copies were shipped from Malmö to Scotland, and that the cargo was intercepted by the Scottish officers on the look out for the heretical works which were printed abroad in large numbers. This may explain the silence of all the historians of the Reformed Church—Knox, Calderwood and Spottiswood. Gau married in 1536 a Malmö citizen’s daughter, bearing the Christian name Birgitta. She died in 1551, and he in or about 1553.

The first reference to theRicht Vayappeared in Chalmers’sCaledonia, ii. 616. Chalmers, who was the owner of the unique volume before it passed into the Britwell Court collection, considered it to be an original work. David Laing printed extracts for the Bannatyne Club (Miscellany, iii., 1855). The evidence that the book is a translation was first given by Sonnenstein Wendt in a paper “Om Reformatorerna i Malmö,” in Rördam’sNy Kirkehistoriske Samlinger, ii. (Copenhagen, 1860). A complete edition was edited by A.F. Mitchell for the Scottish Text Society (1888). See also Lorimer’sPatrick Hamilton.

GAUDEN, JOHN(1605-1662), English bishop and writer, reputed author of theEikon Basilike, was born in 1605 at Mayland, Essex, where his father was vicar of the parish. Educated at Bury St Edmunds school and at St John’s College, Cambridge, he took his M.A. degree in 1625/6. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir William Russell of Chippenham, Cambridgeshire, and was tutor at Oxford to two of his wife’s brothers. He seems to have remained at Oxford until 1630, when he became vicar of Chippenham. His sympathies were at first with the parliamentary party. He was chaplain to Robert Rich, second earl of Warwick, and preached before the House of Commons in 1640.In 1641 he was appointed to the rural deanery of Bocking. Apparently his views changed as the revolutionary tendency of the Presbyterian party became more pronounced, for in 1648/9 he addressed to Lord FairfaxA Religious and Loyal Protestation... against the proceedings of the parliament. Under the Commonwealth he faced both ways, keeping his ecclesiastical preferment, but publishing from time to time pamphlets on behalf of the Church of England. At the Restoration he was made bishop of Exeter. He immediately began to complain to Hyde, earl of Clarendon, of the poverty of the see, and based claims for a better benefice on a certain secret service, which he explained on the 20th of January 1661 to be the sole invention of theEikon Basilike, The Pourtraicture of his sacred Majestie in his Solitudes and Sufferingsput forth within a few hours after the execution of Charles I. as written by the king himself. To which Clarendon replied that he had been before acquainted with the secret and had often wished he had remained ignorant of it. Gauden was advanced in 1662, not as he had wished to the see of Winchester, but to Worcester. He died on the 23rd of May of the same year.

The evidence in favour of Gauden’s authorship rests chiefly on his own assertions and those of his wife (who after his death sent to her son John a narrative of the claim), and on the fact that it was admitted by Clarendon, whoshouldhave had means of being acquainted with the truth. Gauden’s letters on the subject are printed in the appendix to vol. iii. of theClarendon Papers. The argument is that Gauden had prepared the book to inspire sympathy with the king by a representation of his pious and forgiving disposition, and so to rouse public opinion against his execution. In 1693 further correspondence between Gauden, Clarendon, the duke of York, and Sir Edward Nicholas was published by Mr Arthur North, who had found them among the papers of his sister-in-law, a daughter-in-law of Bishop Gauden; but doubt has been thrown on the authenticity of these papers. Gauden stated that he had begun the book in 1647 and was entirely responsible for it. But it is contended that the work was in existence at Naseby,1and testimony to Charles’s authorship is brought forward from various witnesses who had seen Charles himself occupied with it at various times during his imprisonment. It is stated that the MS. was delivered by one of the king’s agents to Edward Symmons, rector of Raine, near Bocking, and that it was in the handwriting of Oudart, Sir Edward Nicholas’s secretary. The internal evidence has, as is usual in such cases, been brought forward as a conclusive argument in favour of both contentions. Doubt was thrown on Charles’s authorship in Milton’sEikonoklastes(1649), which was followed almost immediately by a royalist answer,The Princely Pelican. Royall Resolves—Extracted from his Majesty’s Divine Meditations, with satisfactory reasons ... that his Sacred Person was the only Author of them(1649). The history of the whole controversy, which has been several times renewed, was dealt with in Christopher Wordsworth’s tracts in a most exhaustive way. He eloquently advocated Charles’s authorship. Since he wrote in 1829, some further evidence has been forthcoming in favour of the Naseby copy. A correspondence relating to the French translation of the work has also come to light among the papers of Sir Edward Nicholas. None of the letters show any doubt that King Charles was the author. S.R. Gardiner (Hist. of the Great Civil War, iv. 325) regards Mr Doble’s articles in theAcademy(May and June 1883) as finally disposing of Charles’s claim to the authorship, but this is by no means the attitude of other recent writers. If Gauden was the author, he may have incorporated papers, &c., by Charles, who may have corrected the work and thus been joint-author. This theory would reconcile the conflicting evidence, that of those who saw Charles writing parts and read the MS. before publication, and the deliberate statements of Gauden.

See also the article by Richard Hooper in theDict. Nat. Biog.; Christopher Wordsworth,Who wrote Eikon Basilike?two letters addressed to the archbishop of Canterbury (1824), andKing Charles the First, the Author of Icon Basilikè(1828); H.J. Todd,A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury concerning Eikon Basilike(1825);Bishop Gauden, The Author of the Icôn Basilikè(1829); W.G. Broughton,A Letter to a Friend(1826),Additional Reasons ...(1829), supporting the contention in favour of Dr Gauden; Mr E.J.L. Scott’s introduction to his reprint (1880) of the original edition; articles in theAcademy, May and June 1883, by Mr C.E. Doble; another reprint edited by Mr Edward Almack for the King’s Classics (1904); and Edward Almack,Bibliography of the King’s Book(1896). This last book contains a summary of the arguments on either side, a full bibliography of works on the subject, and facsimiles of the title pages, with full descriptions of the various extant copies.

1See a note in Archbishop Tenison’s handwriting in his copy of theEikon Basilikepreserved at Lambeth Palace, and quoted in Almack’sBibliography, p. 15.

GAUDICHAUD-BEAUPRÉ, CHARLES(1789-1854), French botanist, was born at Angoulême on the 4th of September 1789. He studied pharmacy first in the shop of a brother-in-law at Cognac, and then under P.J. Robiquet at Paris, where from R.L. Desfontaines and L.C. Richard he acquired a knowledge of botany. In April 1810 he was appointed dispenser in the military marine, and from July 1811 to the end of 1814 he served at Antwerp. In 1817 he joined the corvette “Uranie” as pharmaceutical botanist to the circumpolar expedition commanded by D. de Freycinet. The wreck of the vessel on the Falkland Isles, at the close of 1819, deprived him of more than half the botanical collections he had made in various parts of the world. In 1830-1833 he visited Chile, Peru and Brazil, and in 1836-1837 he acted as botanist to “La Bonite” during its circumnavigation of the globe. His theory accounting for the growth of plants by the supposed coalescence of elementary “phytons” involved him, during the latter years of his life, in much controversy with his fellow-botanists, more especially C.F.B. de Mirbel. He died in Paris on the 16th of January 1854.

Besides accounts of his voyages round the world, Gaudichaud-Beaupré wrote “Lettres sur l’organographie et la physiologie,”Arch. de botanique, ii., 1883; “Recherches générales sur l’organographie,” &c. (prize essay, 1835),Mém. de l’Académie des Sciences, t. viii. and kindred treatises, with memoirs on the potato-blight, the multiplication of bulbous plants, the increase in diameter of dicotyledonous plants, and other subjects; andRéfutation de toutes les objections contre les nouveaux principes physiologiques(1852).

GAUDRY, JEAN ALBERT(1827-1908), French geologist and palaeontologist, was born at St Germain-en-Laye on the 16th of September 1827, and was educated at the college, Stanislas. At the age of twenty-five he made explorations in Cyprus and Greece, residing in the latter country from 1855 to 1860. He then investigated the rich deposit of fossil vertebrata at Pikermi and brought to light a remarkable mammalian fauna, Miocene in age, and intermediate in its forms between European, Asiatic and African types. He also published an account of the geology of the island of Cyprus (Mém. Soc. Géol. de France, 1862). In 1853, while still in Cyprus, he was appointed assistant to A. d’Orbigny, who was the first to hold the chair of palaeontology in the museum of natural history at Paris. In 1872 he succeeded to this important post; in 1882 he was elected member of the Academy of Sciences; and in 1900 he presided over the meetings of the eighth International Congress of Geology then held in Paris. He died on the 27th of November 1908. He is distinguished for his researches on fossil mammalia, and for the support which his studies have rendered to the theory of evolution.

Publications.—Animaux fossiles et géologie de l’Attique(2 vols., 1862-1867);Cours de paléontologie(1873);Animaux fossiles du Mont Lebéron(1873);Les Enchaînements du monde animal dans les temps géologiques(Mammifères Tertiaires, 1878;Fossiles primaires, 1883;Fossiles secondaires, 1890);Essai de paléontologie philosophique(1896). Brief memoir with portrait inGeol. Mag.(1903), p. 49.

(H. B. W.)

GAUDY, an adjective meaning showy, very bright, gay, especially with a sense of tasteless or vulgar extravagance, of colour or ornament. The accurate origin of the various senses which this word and the substantive “gaud” have taken are somewhat difficult to trace. They are all ultimately to be referred to the Lat.gaudere, to rejoice,gaudium, joy, some of them directly, others to the French derivativegaudir, to rejoice, and O. Fr.gaudie. As a noun, in the sense of rejoicing or feast, “gaudy” is still used of a commemoration dinner at a college at the university of Oxford. “Gaud,” meaning generally a toy, a gay adornment, a piece of showy jewelry, is more specifically applied to larger and more decorative beads in a rosary.

GAUERMANN, FRIEDRICH(1807-1862), Austrian painter, son of the landscape painter Jacob Gauermann (1773-1843), was born at Wiesenbach near Gutenstein in Lower Austria on the 20th of September 1807. It was the intention of his father that he should devote himself to agriculture, but the example of an elder brother, who, however, died early, fostered his inclination towards art. Under his father’s direction he began studies in landscape, and he also diligently copied the works of the chief masters in animal painting which were contained in the academy and court library of Vienna. In the summer he made art tours in the districts of Styria, Tirol and Salzburg. Two animal pieces which he exhibited at the Vienna Exhibition of 1824 were regarded as remarkable productions for his years, and led to his receiving commissions in 1825 and 1826 from Prince Metternich and Caraman, the French ambassador. His reputation was greatly increased by his picture “The Storm,” exhibited in 1829, and from that time his works were much sought after and obtained correspondingly high prices. His “Field Labourer” was regarded by many as the most noteworthy picture in the Vienna exhibition of 1834, and his numerous animal pieces have entitled him to a place in the first rank of painters of that class of subjects. The peculiarity of his pictures is the representation of human and animal figures in connexion with appropriate landscapes and in characteristic situations so as to manifest nature as a living whole, and he particularly excels in depicting the free life of animals in wild mountain scenery. Along with great mastery of the technicalities of his art, his works exhibit patient and keen observation, free and correct handling of details, and bold and clear colouring. He died at Vienna on the 7th of July 1862.

Back to Index Next