1The first part of the word has been usually treated as an etymological corruption either of this Dutch word or the allied Ger.Krausbeere, or of the earlier forms of the Fr.groseille. TheNew English Dictionarytakes the obvious derivation from “goose” and “berry” as probable; “the grounds on which plants and fruits have received names associating them with animals are so commonly inexplicable, that the want of appropriateness in the meaning affords no sufficient ground for assuming that the word is an etymologizing corruption.” Skeat (Etym. Dict., 1898) connects the French, Dutch and German words, and finds the origin in the M.H.G.krus, curling, crisped, applied here to the hairs on the fruit. The French word was latinized asgrossulariaand confused withgroseus, thick, fat.
1The first part of the word has been usually treated as an etymological corruption either of this Dutch word or the allied Ger.Krausbeere, or of the earlier forms of the Fr.groseille. TheNew English Dictionarytakes the obvious derivation from “goose” and “berry” as probable; “the grounds on which plants and fruits have received names associating them with animals are so commonly inexplicable, that the want of appropriateness in the meaning affords no sufficient ground for assuming that the word is an etymologizing corruption.” Skeat (Etym. Dict., 1898) connects the French, Dutch and German words, and finds the origin in the M.H.G.krus, curling, crisped, applied here to the hairs on the fruit. The French word was latinized asgrossulariaand confused withgroseus, thick, fat.
GOOTY,a town and hill fortress in southern India, in the Anantapur district of Madras, 48 m. E. of Bellary. Pop. (1901) 9682. The town is surrounded by a circle of rocky hills, connected by a wall. On the highest of these stands the citadel, 2100 ft. above sea-level and 1000 ft. above the surrounding country. Here was the stronghold of Morari Rao Ghorpade, a famous Mahratta warrior and ally of the English, who was ultimately starved into surrender by Hayder Ali in 1775.
GOPHER(Testudo polyphemus), the only living representative on the North American continent of the genusTestudoof the familyTestudinidaeor land tortoises; it occurs in the south-eastern parts of the United States, from Florida in the south to the river Savannah in the north. Its carapace, which is oblong and remarkably compressed, measures from 12-18 in. in extreme length, the shields which cover it being grooved, and of a yellow-brown colour. It is characterized by the shape of the front lobe of the plastron, which is bent upwards and extends beyond the carapace. The gopher abounds chiefly in the forests, but occasionally visits the open plains, where it does great damage, especially to the potato crops, on which it feeds. It is a nocturnal animal, remaining concealed by day in its deep burrow, and coming forth at night to feed. The eggs, five in number, almost round and 1½ in. in diameter, are laid in a separate cavity near the entrance. The flesh of the gopher or mungofa, as it is also called, is considered excellent eating.
The name “gopher” is more commonly applied to certain small rodent mammals, particularly the pocket-gopher.
GÖPPINGEN,a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Württemberg, on the right bank of the Fils, 22 m. E.S.E. of Stuttgart on the railway to Friedrichshafen. Pop. (1905) 20,870. It possesses a castle built, partly with stones from the ruined castle of Hohenstaufen, by Duke Christopher of Württemberg in the 16th century and now used as public offices, two Evangelical churches, a Roman Catholic church, a synagogue, a classical school, and a modern school. The manufactures are considerable and include linen and woollen cloth, leather, glue, paper and toys. There are machine shops and tanneries in the town. Three m. N. of the town are the ruins of the castle of Hohenstaufen. Göppingen originally belonged to the house of Hohenstaufen, and in 1270 came into possession of the counts of Württemberg. It was surrounded by walls in 1129, and was almost entirely rebuilt after a fire in 1782.
See Pfeiffer,Beschreibung und Geschichte der Stadt Göppingen(1885).
See Pfeiffer,Beschreibung und Geschichte der Stadt Göppingen(1885).
GORAKHPUR,a city, district and division of the United Provinces of British India. The city is situated on the left bank of the river Rapti. Pop. (1901) 64,148. It is believed to have been founded about 1400A.D.It is the civil headquarters of the district and was formerly a military cantonment. It consists of a number of adjacent village sites, sometimes separated by cultivated land, and most of the inhabitants are agriculturists.
TheDistrict of Gorakhpurhas an area of 4535 sq. m. It lies immediately south of the lower Himalayan slopes, but itself forms a portion of the great alluvial plain. Only a few sandhills break the monotony of its level surface, which is, however, intersected by numerous rivers studded with lakes and marshes. In the north and centre dense forests abound, and the whole country has a verdant appearance. The principal rivers are the Rapti, the Gogra, the Gandak and Little Gandak, the Kuana, the Rohin, the Ami and the Gunghi. Tigers are found in the north, and many other wild animals abound throughout the district. The lakes are well stocked with fish. The district is not subject to very intense heat, from which it is secured by its vicinity to the hills and the moisture of its soil. Dust-storms are rare, and cool breezes from the north, rushing down the gorges of the Himalayas, succeed each short interval of warm weather. The climate is, however, relaxing. The southern and eastern portions are as healthy as most parts of the province, but thetaraiand forest-tracts are still subject to malaria.
Gautama Buddha, the founder of the religion bearing his name, was born, and died near the boundaries of the district. From the beginning of the 6th century the country was the scene of a continuous struggle between the Bhars and their Aryan antagonists, the Rathors. About 900 the Domhatars or military Brahmans appeared, and expelled the Rathors from the town of Gorakhpur, but they also were soon driven back by other invaders. During the 15th and 16th centuries, after the district had been desolated by incessant war, the descendants of the various conquerors held parts of the territory, and each seems to have lived quite isolated, as no bridges or roads attest any intercourse with each other. Towards the end of the 16th century Mussulmans occupied Gorakhpur town, but they interfered very little with the district, and allowed it to be controlled by the native rajas. In the middle of the 18th century a formidable foe, the Banjaras from the west, so weakened the power of the rajas that they could not resist the fiscal exactions of the Oudh officials, who plundered the country to a great extent. The district formed part of the territory ceded by Oudh to the British under the treaty of 1801. During the Mutiny it was lost for a short time, but under the friendly Gurkhas the rebels were driven out. The population in 1901 was 2,957,074, showing a decrease of 3% in the decade. The district is traversed by the main line and several branches of the Bengal & North-Western railway, and the Gandak, the Gogra and the Rapti are navigable.
TheDivisionhas an area of 9534 sq. m. The population in 1901 was 6,333,012, giving an average density of 664 persons per sq. m., being more than one to every acre, and the highest for any large tract in India.
GORAL,the native name of a small Himalayan rough-haired and cylindrical-horned ruminant classed in the same group as the chamois. Scientifically this animal is known asUrotragus(orCemas)goral; and the native name is now employed as the designation of all the other members of the same genus. In addition to certain peculiarities in the form of the skull, gorals are chiefly distinguished from serows (q.v.) by not possessing a gland below the eye, nor a corresponding depression in the skull. Several species are known, ranging from the Himalaya to Burma, Tibet and North China. Of these, the two Himalayan gorals (U. goralandU. bedfordi) are usually found in small parties, but less commonly in pairs. They generally frequent grassy hills, or rocky ground clothed with forest; in fine weather feeding only in the mornings and evenings, but when the sky is cloudy grazing throughout the day.
GORAMY,orGouramy(Osphromenus olfax), reputed to be one of the best-flavoured freshwater fishes in the East Indian archipelago. Its original home is Java, Sumatra, Borneo and several other East Indian islands, but thence it has been transported to and acclimatized in Penang, Malacca, Mauritius and even Cayenne. Being an almost omnivorous fish and tenacious of life, it seems to recommend itself particularly for acclimatization in other tropical countries; and specimens kept in captivity become as tame as carps. It attains the size of a large turbot. Its shape is flat and short, the body covered with large scales; the dorsal and anal fins are provided with numerous spines, and the ventral fins produced into long filaments. LikeAnabas, the climbing perch, it possesses a suprabranchial accessory respiratory organ.
GÖRBERSDORF,a village and climatic health resort of Germany, in the Prussian province of Silesia, romantically situated in a deep and well-wooded valley of the Waldenburg range, 1900 ft. above the sea, 60 m. S.W. of Breslau by the railway to Friedland and 3 m. from the Austrian frontier. Pop. 700. It has four large sanatoria for consumptives, the earliest of which was founded in 1854 by Hermann Brehmer (1826-1889).
GORBODUC,a mythical king of Britain. He gave his kingdom away during his lifetime to his two sons, Ferrex and Porrex. The two quarrelled and the younger stabbed the elder. Their mother, loving the latter most, avenged his death by murdering her son, and the people, horrified at her act, revolted and murdered both her and King Gorboduc. This legend was the subject of the earliest regular English tragedy which in 1561 was played before Queen Elizabeth in the Inner Temple hall. It was written by Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst and Thomas Norton in collaboration. Under the title ofGorboducit was published first very corruptly in 1565, and in better form asThe Tragedy of Ferrex and Porrexin 1570.
GORCHAKOV,orGortchakoff, a noble Russian family, descended from Michael Vsevolodovich, prince of Chernigov, who, in 1246, was assassinated by the Mongols.Prince Andrey Ivanovich(1768-1855), general in the Russian army, took a conspicuous part in the final campaigns against Napoleon.Alexander Ivanovich(1769-1825) served with distinction under his relative Suvarov in the Turkish Wars, and took part as a general officer in the Italian and Swiss operations of 1799, and in the war against Napoleon in Poland in 1806-1807 (battle of Heilsberg).Petr Dmitrievich(1790-1868) served under Kamenski and Kutusov in the campaign against Turkey, and afterwards against France in 1813-1814. In 1820 he suppressed an insurrection in the Caucasus, for which service he was raised to the rank of major-general. In 1828-1829 he fought under Wittgenstein against the Turks, won an action at Aidos, and signed the treaty of peace at Adrianople. In 1839 he was made governor of Eastern Siberia, and in 1851 retired into private life. When the Crimean War broke out he offered his services to the emperor Nicholas, by whom he was appointed general of the VI. army corps in the Crimea. He commanded the corps in the battles of Alma and Inkerman. He retired in 1855 and died at Moscow, on the 18th of March 1868.
Prince Mikhail Dmitrievich(1795-1861), brother of the last named, entered the Russian army in 1807 and took part in the campaigns against Persia in 1810, and in 1812-1815 against France. During the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829 he was present at the sieges of Silistria and Shumla. After being appointed, in 1830, a general officer, he was present in the campaign in Poland, and was wounded at the battle of Grochow, on the 25th of February 1831. He also distinguished himself at the battle of Ostrolenka and at the taking of Warsaw. For these services he was promoted to the rank of lieutenant-general. In 1846 he was nominated military governor of Warsaw. In 1849 he commanded the Russian artillery in the war against the Hungarians, and in 1852 he visited London as a representative of the Russian army at the funeral of the duke of Wellington. At this time he was chief of the staff of the Russian army and adjutant-general to the tsar. Upon Russia declaring war against Turkey in 1853, he was appointed commander-in-chief of the troops which occupied Moldavia and Wallachia. In 1854 he crossed the Danube and besieged Silistria, but was superseded in April by Prince Paskevich, who, however, resigned on the 8th of June, when Gorchakov resumed the command. In July the siege of Silistria was raised, and the Russian armies recrossed the Danube; in August they withdrew to Russia. In 1855 he was appointed commander-in-chief of the Russian forces in the Crimea in place of Prince Menshikov. Gorchakov’s defence of Sevastopol, and final retreat to the northern part of the town, which he continued to defend till peace was signed in Paris, were conducted with skill and energy. In 1856 he was appointed governor-general of Poland in succession to Prince Paskevich. He died at Warsaw on the 30th of May 1861, and was buried, in accordance with his own wish, at Sevastopol.
Prince Gorchakov, Alexander Mikhailovich(1798-1883). Russian statesman, cousin of Princes Petr and Mikhail Gorchakov, was born on the 16th of July 1798, and was educated at the lyceum of Tsarskoye Selo, where he had the poet Pushkin as a school-fellow. He became a good classical scholar, and learnt to speak and write in French with facility and elegance. Pushkin in one of his poems described young Gorchakov as “Fortune’s favoured son,” and predicted his success. On leaving the lyceum Gorchakov entered the foreign office under Count Nesselrode. His first diplomatic work of importance was the negotiation of a marriage between the grand duchess Olga and the crown prince Charles of Württemberg. He remained at Stuttgart for some years as Russian minister and confidential adviser of the crown princess. He foretold the outbreak of the revolutionary spirit in Germany and Austria, and was credited with counselling the abdication of Ferdinand in favour of Francis Joseph. When the German confederation was re-established in 1850 in place of the parliament of Frankfort, Gorchakov was appointed Russian minister to the diet. It was here that he first met Prince Bismarck, with whom he formed a friendship which was afterwards renewed at St Petersburg. The emperor Nicholas found that his ambassador at Vienna, Baron Meyendorff, was not a sympathetic instrument for carrying out his schemes in the East. He therefore transferred Gorchakov to Vienna, where the latter remained through the critical period of the Crimean War.Gorchakov perceived that Russian designs against Turkey, supported by Great Britain and France, were impracticable, and he counselled Russia to make no more useless sacrifices, but to accept the bases of a pacification. At the same time, although he attended the Paris conference of 1856, he purposely abstained from affixing his signature to the treaty of peace after that of Count Orlov, Russia’s chief representative. For the time, however, he made a virtue of necessity, and Alexander II., recognizing the wisdom and courage which Gorchakov had exhibited, appointed him minister of foreign affairs in place of Count Nesselrode. Not long after his accession to office Gorchakov issued a circular to the foreign powers, in which he announced that Russia proposed, for internal reasons, to keep herself as free as possible from complications abroad, and he added the now historic phrase, “La Russie ne boude pas; elle se recueille.” During the Polish insurrection Gorchakov rebuffed the suggestions of Great Britain, Austria and France for assuaging the severities employed in quelling it, and he was especially acrid in his replies to Earl Russell’s despatches. In July 1863 Gorchakov was appointed chancellor of the Russian empire expressly in reward for his bold diplomatic attitude towards an indignant Europe. The appointment was hailed with enthusiasm in Russia, and at that juncture Prince Chancellor Gorchakov was unquestionably the most powerful minister in Europe.
Anapprochementnow began between the courts of Russia and Prussia; and in 1863 Gorchakov smoothed the way for the occupation of Holstein by the Federal troops. This seemed equally favourable to Austria and Prussia, but it was the latter power which gained all the substantial advantages; and when the conflict arose between Austria and Prussia in 1866, Russia remained neutral and permitted Prussia to reap the fruits and establish her supremacy in Germany. When the Franco-German War of 1870-71 broke out Russia answered for the neutrality of Austria. An attempt was made to form an anti-Prussian coalition, but it failed in consequence of the cordial understanding between the German and Russian chancellors. In return for Russia’s service in preventing the aid of Austria from being given to France, Gorchakov looked to Bismarck for diplomatic support in the Eastern Question, and he received an instalment of the expected support when he successfully denounced the Black Sea clauses of the treaty of Paris. This was justly regarded by him as an important service to his country and one of the triumphs of his career, and he hoped to obtain further successes with the assistance of Germany, but the cordial relations between the cabinets of St Petersburg and Berlin did not subsist much longer. In 1875 Bismarck was suspected of a design of again attacking France, and Gorchakov gave him to understand, in a way which was not meant to be offensive, but which roused the German chancellor’s indignation, that Russia would oppose any such scheme. The tension thus produced between the two statesmen was increased by the political complications of 1875-1878 in south-eastern Europe, which began with the Herzegovinian insurrection and culminated at the Berlin congress. Gorchakov hoped to utilize the complications in such a way as to recover, without war, the portion of Bessarabia ceded by the treaty of Paris, but he soon lost control of events, and the Slavophil agitation produced the Russo-Turkish campaign of 1877-78. By the preliminary peace of San Stefano the Slavophil aspirations seemed to be realized, but the stipulations of that peace were considerably modified by the congress of Berlin (13th June to 13th July 1878), at which the aged chancellor held nominally the post of first plenipotentiary, but left to the second plenipotentiary, Count Shuvalov, not only the task of defending Russian interests, but also the responsibility and odium for the concessions which Russia had to make to Great Britain and Austria. He had the satisfaction of seeing the lost portion of Bessarabia restored to his country by the Berlin treaty, but at the cost of greater sacrifices than he anticipated. After the congress he continued to hold the post of minister for foreign affairs, but lived chiefly abroad, and resigned formally in 1882, when he was succeeded by M. de Giers. He died at Baden-Baden on the 11th of March 1883. Prince Gorchakov devoted himself entirely to foreign affairs, and took no part in the great internal reforms of Alexander II.’s reign. As a diplomatist he displayed many brilliant qualities—adroitness in negotiation, incisiveness in argument and elegance in style. His statesmanship, though marred occasionally by personal vanity and love of popular applause, was far-seeing and prudent. In the latter part of his career his main object was to raise the prestige of Russia by undoing the results of the Crimean War, and it may fairly be said that he in great measure succeeded.
(D. M. W.)
GORDIAN,orGordianus, the name of three Roman emperors. The first, Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus Romanus Africanus (A.D.159-238), an extremely wealthy man, was descended from the Gracchi and Trajan, while his wife was the great-granddaughter of Antoninus Pius. While he gained unbounded popularity by his magnificent games and shows, his prudent and retired life did not excite the suspicion of Caracalla, in whose honour he wrote a long epic calledAntoninias. Alexander Severus called him to the dangerous honours of government in Africa, and during his proconsulship occurred the usurpation of Maximin. The universal discontent roused by the oppressive rule of Maximin culminated in a revolt in Africa in 238, and Gordian reluctantly yielded to the popular clamour and assumed the purple. His son, Marcus Antonius Gordianus (192-238), was associated with him in the dignity. The senate confirmed the choice of the Africans, and most of the provinces gladly sided with the new emperors; but, even while their cause was so successful abroad, they had fallen before the sudden inroad of Cappellianus, legatus of Numidia and a supporter of Maximin. They had reigned only thirty-six days. Both the Gordians had deserved by their amiable character their high reputation; they were men of great accomplishments, fond of literature, and voluminous authors; but they were rather intellectual voluptuaries than able statesmen or powerful rulers. Having embraced the cause of Gordian, the senate was obliged to continue the revolt against Maximin, and appointed Pupienus Maximus and Caelius Balbinus, two of its noblest and most esteemed members, as joint emperors. At their inauguration a sedition arose, and the popular outcry for a Gordian was appeased by the association with them of M. Antonius Gordianus Pius (224-244), grandson of the elder Gordian, then a boy of thirteen. Maximin forthwith invaded Italy, but was murdered by his own troops while besieging Aquileia, and a revolt of the praetorian guards, to which Pupienus and Balbinus fell victims, left Gordian sole emperor. For some time he was under the control of his mother’s eunuchs, till Timesitheus,1his father-in-law and praefect of the praetorian guard, persuaded him to assert his independence. When the Persians under Shapur (Sapor) I. invaded Mesopotamia, the young emperor opened the temple of Janus for the last time recorded in history, and marched in person to the East. The Persians were driven back over the Euphrates and defeated in the battle of Resaena (243), and only the death of Timesitheus (under suspicious circumstances) prevented an advance into the enemy’s territory. Philip the Arabian, who succeeded Timesitheus, stirred up discontent in the army, and Gordian was murdered by the mutinous soldiers in Mesopotamia.
See lives of the Gordians by Capitolinus in theScriptores historiae Augustae; Herodian vii. viii.; Zosimus i. 16, 18; Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii. 5; Eutropius ix. 2; Aurelius Victor,Caesares, 27; articleShapur(I.); Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädie, i. 2619 f. (von Rohden).
See lives of the Gordians by Capitolinus in theScriptores historiae Augustae; Herodian vii. viii.; Zosimus i. 16, 18; Ammianus Marcellinus, xxiii. 5; Eutropius ix. 2; Aurelius Victor,Caesares, 27; articleShapur(I.); Pauly-Wissowa,Realencyclopädie, i. 2619 f. (von Rohden).
1For this name see footnote toShapur.
1For this name see footnote toShapur.
GORDIUM,an ancient city of Phrygia situated on the Persian “Royal road” from Pessinus to Ancyra, and not far from the Sangarius. It lies opposite the village Pebi, a little north of the point where the Constantinople-Angora railway crosses the Sangarius. It is not to be confused with Gordiou-kome, refounded as Juliopolis, a Bithynian town on a small tributary of the Sangarius, about 47 m. in an air-line N.W. of Gordium. According to the legend, Gordium was founded by Gordius, a Phrygian peasant who had been called to the throne by his countrymen in obedience to an oracle of Zeus commanding them to select the first person that rode up to the temple of the god in a wagon. The king afterwards dedicated his car to the god, and anotheroracle declared that whoever succeeded in untying the strangely entwined knot of cornel bark which bound the yoke to the pole should reign over all Asia. Alexander the Great, according to the story, cut the knot by a stroke of his sword. Gordium was captured and destroyed by the Gauls soon after 189B.C.and disappeared from history. In imperial times only a small village existed on the site. Excavations made in 1900 by two German scholars, G. and A. Koerte, revealed practically no remains later than the middle of the 6th centuryB.C.(when Phrygia fell under Persian power).
SeeJahrbuch des Instituts, Ergänzungsheft v. (1904).
SeeJahrbuch des Instituts, Ergänzungsheft v. (1904).
(J. G. C. A.)
GORDON,the name of a Scottish family, no fewer than 157 main branches of which are traced by the family historians. A laird of Gorden, in Berwickshire, near the English border, is said to have fallen in the battle of the Standard (1138). The families of the two sons ascribed to him by tradition, Richard Gordon of Gordon and Adam Gordon of Huntly, were united by the marriage of their great-grandchildren Alicia and Sir Adam, whose grandson Sir Adam (killed at Halidon Hill, 1333) at first took the English side in the Scottish struggle for independence, and is the first member of the family definitely to emerge into history. He was justiciar of Scotland in 1310, but after Bannockburn he attached himself to Robert Bruce, who granted him in 1318 the lordship of Strathbogie in Aberdeenshire, to which Gordon gave the name of Huntly from a village on the Gordon estate in Berwickshire. He had two sons, Adam and William. The younger son, laird of Stitchel in Roxburghshire, was the ancestor of William de Gordon of Stitchel and Lochinvar, founder of the Galloway branch of the family represented in the Scottish peerage by the dormant viscounty of Kenmure (q.v.), created in 1633; most of the Irish and Virginian Gordons are offshoots of this stock. The elder son, Adam, inherited the Gordon-Huntly estates. He had two grandsons, Sir John (d. 1394) and Sir Adam (slain at Homildon Hill, 1403). Sir John had two illegitimate sons, Jock of Scurdargue, the ancestor of the earls of Aberdeen, and Tam of Ruthven. From these two stocks most of the northern Gordon families are derived. Sir Adam’s daughter and heiress, Elizabeth, married Sir Alexander Seton, and with her husband was confirmed in 1408 in the possession of the barony of Gordon and Huntly in Berwickshire and of the Gordon lands in Aberdeen. The Seton-Gordons are their descendants. Their son Alexander was created earl of Huntly (seeHuntly, Earls and Marquesses of), probably in 1445; and his heirs became dukes of Gordon, George Gordon (c.1650-1716), 4th marquess of Huntly, being created duke of Gordon in 1684. He had been educated in a French Catholic seminary, and served in the French army in the campaigns of 1673 to 1675. Under James II. he was made keeper of Edinburgh Castle on account of his religion, but he refused to support James’s efforts to impose Roman Catholicism on his subjects. He offered little active resistance when the castle was besieged by William III.’s forces. After his submission he was more than once imprisoned on suspicion of Jacobite leanings, and was ordered by George I. to reside on parole in Edinburgh. For some time before his death he was separated from his wife Elizabeth Howard, daughter of the 6th duke of Norfolk. His son Alexander, 2nd duke of Gordon (c.1678-1728). joined the Old Pretender, but gained the royal pardon after the surrender of Gordon Castle in 1716. Of his children by his wife Henrietta Mordaunt, second daughter of Charles Mordaunt, earl of Peterborough, Cosmo George (c.1720-1752) succeeded as 3rd duke; Lord Lewis Gordon (d. 1754) took an active part in the Jacobite rising of 1745; and General Lord Adam Gordon (c.1726-1801) became commander of the forces in Scotland in 1782, and governor of Edinburgh Castle in 1786. Lord George Gordon (q.v.) was a younger son of the 3rd duke.
The title, with the earldom of Norwich and the barony of Gordon Huntly, became extinct on the death of George, 5th duke (1770-1836), a distinguished soldier who raised the corps now known as the 2nd battalion of the Gordon Highlanders. The marquessate of Huntly passed to his cousin and heir-male, George, 5th earl of Aboyne. Lady Charlotte Gordon, sister of and co-heiress with the 5th duke, married Charles Lennox, 4th duke of Richmond, whose son took the name of Gordon-Lennox. The dukedom of Gordon was revived in 1876 in favour of the 6th duke of Richmond, who thenceforward was styled duke of Richmond and Gordon. Adam Gordon of Aboyne (d. 1537) took the courtesy title of earl of Sutherland in right of his wife Elizabeth, countess of Sutherland in her own right, sister of the 9th earl. The lawless and turbulent Gordons of Gight were the maternal ancestors of Lord Byron.
Among the many soldiers of fortune bearing the name of Gordon was Colonel John Gordon, one of the murderers of Wallenstein. Patrick Gordon (1635-1699) was born at Auchleuchries in Aberdeenshire, entered the service of Charles X. of Sweden in 1651 and served against the Poles. He changed sides more than once before he found his way to Moscow in 1661 and took service under the tsar Alexis. He became general in 1687; in 1688 he helped to secure Peter the Great’s ascendancy; and later he crushed the revolt of the Streltzi. His diary was published in German (3 vols., 1849-1853, Moscow and St Petersburg), and selections from the English original by the Spalding Club (Aberdeen, 1859).
The Gordons fill a considerable place in Scottish legend and ballad. “Captain Car,” or “Edom (Adam) of Gordon” describes an incident in the struggle between the Forbeses and Gordons in Aberdeenshire in 1571; “The Duke of Gordon’s Daughter” has apparently no foundation in fact, though “Geordie” of the ballad is sometimes said to have been George, 4th earl of Huntly; “The Fire of Frendraught” goes back to a feud (1630) between James Crichton of Frendraught and William Gordon of Rothiemay; the “Gallant Gordons Gay” figure in “Chevy Chase”; William Gordon of Earlston, the Covenanter, appears in “Bothwell Bridge” &c.
See William Gordon (of old Aberdeen),The History of the Ancient, Noble, and Illustrious House of Gordon(2 vols., Edinburgh, 1726-1727), of whichA Concise History of the ... House of Gordon, by C. A. Gordon (Aberdeen, 1754) is little more than an abridgment;The Records of Aboyne, 1230-1681, edited by Charles, 11th marquess of Huntly, &c. (New Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 1894);The Gordon Book, ed. J. M. Bulloch (1902);The House of Gordon, ed. J. M. Bulloch (Aberdeen, vol. i., 1903); and Mr Bulloch’sThe First Duke of Gordon(1909).
See William Gordon (of old Aberdeen),The History of the Ancient, Noble, and Illustrious House of Gordon(2 vols., Edinburgh, 1726-1727), of whichA Concise History of the ... House of Gordon, by C. A. Gordon (Aberdeen, 1754) is little more than an abridgment;The Records of Aboyne, 1230-1681, edited by Charles, 11th marquess of Huntly, &c. (New Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 1894);The Gordon Book, ed. J. M. Bulloch (1902);The House of Gordon, ed. J. M. Bulloch (Aberdeen, vol. i., 1903); and Mr Bulloch’sThe First Duke of Gordon(1909).
GORDON, ADAM LINDSAY(1833-1870), Australian poet, was born at Fayal, in the Azores, in 1833, the son of a retired Indian officer who taught Hindustani at Cheltenham College. Young Gordon was educated there and at Merton College, Oxford, but a youthful indiscretion led to his being sent in 1853 to South Australia, where he joined the mounted police. He then became a horsebreaker, but on his father’s death he inherited a fortune and obtained a seat in the House of Assembly. At this time he had the reputation of being the best non-professional steeplechase rider in the colony. In 1867 he moved to Victoria and set up a livery stable at Ballarat. Two volumes of poems,Sea Spray and Smoke DriftandAshtaroth, were published in this year, and two years later he gave up his business and settled at New Brighton, near Melbourne. Athirdvolume of poetry,Bush Ballads and Galloping Rhymes, appeared in 1870. It brought him more praise than emolument, and, thoroughly discouraged by his failure to make good his claim to some property in Scotland to which he believed himself entitled, he committed suicide on the 24th of June 1870. His reputation rose after his death, and he became the best known and most widely popular of Australian poets. Much of Gordon’s poetry might have been written in England; when, however, it is really local, it is vividly so; his genuine feeling frequently kindles into passion; his versification is always elastic and sonorous, but sometimes too reminiscent of Swinburne. His compositions are almost entirely lyrical, and their merit is usually in proportion to the degree in which they partake of the character of the ballad.
Gordon’s poems were collected and published in 1880 with a biographical introduction by Marcus Clarke.
Gordon’s poems were collected and published in 1880 with a biographical introduction by Marcus Clarke.
GORDON, ALEXANDER(c.1692-c.1754), Scottish antiquary, is believed to have been born in Aberdeen in 1692. He is the “Sandy Gordon” of Scott’sAntiquary. Of his parentage and early history nothing is known. He appears to havedistinguished himself in classics at Aberdeen University, and to have made a living at first by teaching languages and music. When still young he travelled abroad, probably in the capacity of tutor. He returned to Scotland previous to 1726, and devoted himself to antiquarian work. In 1726 appeared theItinerarium Septentrionale, his greatest and best-known work. He was already the friend of Sir John Clerk, of Penicuik, better known as Baron Clerk (a baron of the exchequer); and the baron and Roger Gale (vice-president of the Society of Antiquaries) are the “two gentlemen, the honour of their age and country,” whose letters were published, without their consent it appears, as an appendix to theItinerarium. Subsequently Gordon was appointed secretary to the Society for the Encouragement of Learning, with an annual salary of £50. Resigning this post, or, as there seems reason for believing, being dismissed for carelessness in his accounts, he succeeded Dr Stukeley as secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, and also acted for a short time as secretary to the Egyptian Club, an association composed of gentlemen who had visited Egypt. In 1741 he accompanied James Glen (afterwards governor), to South Carolina. Through his influence Gordon, besides receiving a grant of land in South Carolina, became registrar of the province and justice of the peace, and filled several other offices. From his will, dated the 22nd of August 1754, it appears he had a son Alexander and a daughter Frances, to whom he bequeathed most of his property, among which were portraits of himself and of friends painted by his own hand.
See Sir Daniel Wilson,Alexander Gordon, the Antiquary; and his Papers in theProceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, with Additional Notes and an Appendix of Original Letters by Dr David Laing (Proc. Soc. of Antiq. of Scot.x. 363-382).
See Sir Daniel Wilson,Alexander Gordon, the Antiquary; and his Papers in theProceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, with Additional Notes and an Appendix of Original Letters by Dr David Laing (Proc. Soc. of Antiq. of Scot.x. 363-382).
GORDON, CHARLES GEORGE(1833-1885), British soldier and administrator, fourth son of General H. W. Gordon, Royal Artillery, was born at Woolwich on the 28th of January 1833. He received his early education at Taunton school, and was given a cadetship in the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, in 1848. He was commissioned as second lieutenant in the corps of Royal Engineers on the 23rd of June 1852. After passing through a course of instruction at the Royal Engineers’ establishment, Chatham, he was promoted lieutenant in 1854, and was sent to Pembroke dock to assist in the construction of the fortifications then being erected for the defence of Milford Haven. The Crimean War broke out shortly afterwards, and Gordon was ordered on active service, and landed at Balaklava on the 1st of January 1855. The siege of Sevastopol was in progress, and he had his full share of the arduous work in the trenches. He was attached to one of the British columns which assaulted the Redan on the 18th of June, and was also present at the capture of that work on the 8th of September. He took part in the expedition to Kinburn, and then returned to Sevastopol to superintend a portion of the demolition of the Russian dockyard. After peace with Russia had been concluded, Gordon was attached to an international commission appointed to delimit the new boundary, as fixed by treaty, between Russia and Turkey in Bessarabia; and on the conclusion of this work he was ordered to Asia Minor on similar duty, with reference to the eastern boundary between the two countries. While so employed Gordon took the opportunity to make himself well acquainted with the geography and people of Armenia, and the knowledge of dealing with eastern nations then gained was of great use to him in after life.
He returned to England towards the end of 1858, and was then selected for the appointment of adjutant and field-works instructor at the Royal Engineers’ establishment, and took up his new duties at Chatham after promotionIn China.to the rank of captain in April 1859. But his stay in England was brief, for in 1860 war was declared against China, and Gordon was ordered out there, arriving at Tientsin in September. He was too late for the attack on the Taku forts, but was present at the occupation of Peking and destruction of the Summer Palace. He remained with the British force of occupation in northern China until April 1862, when the British troops, under the command of General Staveley, proceeded to Shanghai, in order to protect the European settlement at that place from the Taiping rebels. The Taiping revolt, which had some remarkable points of similarity with the Mahdist rebellion in the Sudan, had commenced in 1850 in the province of Kwangsi. The leader, Hung Sin Tsuan, a semi-political, semi-religious enthusiast, assumed the title of Tien Wang, or Heavenly King, and by playing on the feelings of the lower class of people gradually collected a considerable force. The Chinese authorities endeavoured to arrest him, but the imperialist troops were defeated. The area of revolt extended northwards through the provinces of Hunan and Hupeh, and down the valley of the Yangtsze-kiang as far as the great city of Nanking, which was captured by the rebels in 1853. Here the Tien Wang established his court, and while spending his own time in heavenly contemplation and earthly pleasures, sent the assistant Wangs on warlike expeditions through the adjacent provinces. For some years a constant struggle was maintained between the Chinese imperialist troops and the Taipings, with varying success on both sides. The latter gradually advanced eastwards, and approaching the important city of Shanghai, alarmed the European inhabitants, who subscribed to raise a mixed force of Europeans and Manila men for the defence of the town. This force, which was placed under the command of an American, Frederick Townsend Ward (1831-1862), took up a position in the country west of Shanghai to check the advance of the rebels. Fighting continued round Shanghai for about two years, but Ward’s force was not altogether successful, and when General Staveley arrived from Tientsin affairs were in a somewhat critical condition. He decided to clear the district of rebels within a radius of 30 m. from Shanghai, and Gordon was attached to his staff as engineer officer. A French force, under the command of Admiral Prôtet, co-operated with Staveley and Ward, with his little army, also assisted. Kahding, Singpo and other towns were occupied, and the country was fairly cleared of rebels by the end of 1862. Ward was, unfortunately, killed in the assault of Tseki, and his successor, Burgevine, having had a quarrel with the Chinese authorities, Li Hung Chang, the governor of the Kiang-su province, requested General Staveley to appoint a British officer to command the contingent. Staveley selected Gordon, who had been made a brevet-major in December 1862 for his previous services, and the nomination was approved by the British government. The choice was judicious as further events proved. In March 1863 Gordon proceeded to Sungkiang to take command of the force, which had received the name of “The Ever-Victorious Army,” an encouraging though somewhat exaggerated title, considering its previous history. Without waiting to reorganize his troops he marched at once to the relief of Chansu, a town 40 m. north-west of Shanghai, which was invested by the rebels. The relief was successfully accomplished, and the operation established Gordon in the confidence of his troops. He then reorganized his force, a matter of no small difficulty, and advanced against Quinsan, which was captured, though with considerable loss. Gordon then marched through the country, seizing town after town from the rebels until at length the great city of Suchow was invested by his army and a body of Chinese imperialist troops. The city was taken on the 29th of November, and after its capture Gordon had a serious dispute with Li Hung Chang, as the latter had beheaded certain of the rebel leaders whose lives the former had promised to spare if they surrendered. This action, though not opposed to Chinese ethics, was so opposed to Gordon’s ideas of honour that he withdrew his force from Suchow and remained inactive at Quinsan until February 1864. He then came to the conclusion that the subjugation of the rebels was more important than his dispute with Li, and visited the latter in order to arrange for further operations. By mutual consent no allusion was made to the death of the Wangs. This was a good example of one of Gordon’s marked characteristics, that, though a man of strong personal feelings, he was always prepared to subdue them for the public benefit. He declined, however, to take any decoration or reward from the emperor for his services at the capture of Suchow. Afterthe meeting with Li Hung Chang the “Ever-Victorious Army” again advanced and took a number of towns from the rebels, ending with Chanchufu, the principal military position of the Taipings. This fell in May, when Gordon returned to Quinsan and disbanded his force. In June the Tien Wang, seeing his cause was hopeless, committed suicide, and the capture of Nanking by the imperialist troops shortly afterwards brought the Taiping revolt to a conclusion. The suppression of this serious movement was undoubtedly due in great part to the skill and energy of Gordon, who had shown remarkable qualities as a leader of men. The emperor promoted him to the rank of Titu, the highest grade in the Chinese army, and also gave him the Yellow Jacket, the most important decoration in China. He wished to give him a large sum of money, but this Gordon refused. He was promoted lieutenant-colonel for his Chinese services, and made a Companion of the Bath. Henceforth he was often familiarly spoken of as “Chinese” Gordon.
Gordon was appointed on his return to England Commanding Royal Engineer at Gravesend, where he was employed in superintending the erection of forts for the defence of the Thames. He devoted himself with energy to his official duties, and his leisure hours to practical philanthropy. All the acts of kindness which he did for the poor during the six years he was stationed at Gravesend will never be fully known. In October 1871 he was appointed British representative on the international commission which had been constituted after the Crimean War to maintain the navigation of the mouth of the river Danube, with headquarters at Galatz. During 1872 Gordon was sent to inspect the British military cemeteries in the Crimea, and when passing through Constantinople on his return to Galatz he made the acquaintance of Nubar Pasha, prime minister of Egypt, who sounded him as to whether he would take service under the khedive. Nothing further was settled at the time, but the following year he received a definite offer from the khedive, which he accepted with the consent of the British government, and proceeded to Egypt early in 1874. He was then a colonel in the army, though still only a captain in the corps of Royal Engineers.
To understand the object of the appointment which Gordon accepted in Egypt, it is necessary to give a few facts with reference to the Sudan. In 1820-22 Nubia, Sennar and Kordofan had been conquered by Egypt, and the authority of the Egyptians was subsequently extended southward, eastward to the Red Sea and westward over Darfur (conquered by Zobeir Pasha in 1874). One result of the Egyptian occupation of the country was that the slave trade was largely developed, especially in the White Nile and Bahr-el-Ghazal districts. Captains Speke and Grant, who had travelled through Uganda and came down the White Nile in 1863, and Sir Samuel Baker, who went up the same river as far as Albert Nyanza, brought back harrowing tales of the misery caused by the slave-hunters. Public opinion was considerably moved, and in 1869 the khedive Ismail decided to send an expedition up the White Nile, with the double object of limiting the evils of the slave trade and opening up the district to commerce. The command of the expedition was given to Sir Samuel Baker, who reached Khartum in February 1870, but, owing to the obstruction of the river by the sudd or grass barrier, did not reach Gondokoro, the centre of his province, for fourteen months. He met with great difficulties, and when his four years’ service came to an end little had been effected beyond establishing a few posts along the Nile and placing some steamers on the river. It was to succeed Baker as governor of the equatorial regions that the khedive asked for Gordon’s services, having come to the conclusion that the latter was the most likely person to bring the affair to a satisfactory conclusion. After a short stay in Cairo, Gordon proceeded to Khartum by way of Suakin and Berber, a route which he ever afterwards regarded as the best mode of access to the Sudan. From Khartum he proceeded up the White Nile to Gondokoro, where he arrived in twenty-four days, the sudd, which had proved such an obstacle to Baker, having been removed since the departure of the latter by the Egyptian governor-general. Gordon remained in the equatorial provinces until October 1876, and then returned to Cairo. The two years and a half thus spent in Central Africa was a time of incessant toil. A line of stations was established from the Sobat confluence on the White Nile to the frontier of Uganda—to which country he proposed to open a route from Mombasa—and considerable progress was made in the suppression of the slave trade. The river and Lake Albert were mapped by Gordon and his staff, and he devoted himself with wonted energy to improving the condition of the people. Greater results might have been obtained but for the fact that Khartum and the whole of the Sudan north of the Sobat were in the hands of an Egyptian governor, independent of Gordon, and not too well disposed towards his proposals for diminishing the slave trade. On arriving in Cairo Gordon informed the khedive of his reasons for not wishing to return to the Sudan, but did not definitely resign the appointment of governor of the equatorial provinces. But on reaching London he telegraphed to the British consul-general in Cairo, asking him to let the khedive know that he would not go back to Egypt. Ismail Pasha, feeling, no doubt, that Gordon’s resignation would injure his prestige, wrote to him saying that he had promised to return, and that he expected him to keep his word. Upon this Gordon, to whom the keeping of a promise was a sacred duty, decided to return to Cairo, but gave an assurance to some friends that he would not go back to the Sudan unless he was appointed governor-general of the entire country. After some discussion the khedive agreed, and made him governor-general of the Sudan, inclusive of Darfur and the equatorial provinces.
One of the most important questions which Gordon had to take up on his appointment was the state of the political relations between Egypt and Abyssinia, which had been in an unsatisfactory condition for some years. The disputeGovernor-Generalcentred round the district of Bogos, lying not far inland from Massawa, which both the khedive and King John of Abyssinia claimed as belonging to their respective dominions. War broke out in 1875, when an Egyptian expedition was despatched to Abyssinia, and was completely defeated by King John near Gundet. A second and larger expedition, under Prince Hassan, the son of the khedive, was sent the following year from Massawa. The force was routed by the Abyssinians at Gura, but Prince Hassan and his staff got back to Massawa. Matters then remained quiet until March 1877, when Gordon proceeded to Massawa to endeavour to make peace with King John. He went up to Bogos, and had an interview with Walad Michael, an Abyssinian chief and the hereditary ruler of Bogos, who had joined the Egyptians with a view to raiding on his own account. Gordon, with his usual powers of diplomacy, persuaded Michael to remain quiet, and wrote to the king proposing terms of peace. But he received no reply at that time, as John, feeling pretty secure on the Egyptian frontier after his two successful actions against the khedive’s troops, had gone southwards to fight with Menelek, king of Shoa. Gordon, seeing that the Abyssinian difficulty could wait for a few months, proceeded to Khartum. Here he took up the slavery question, and proposed to issue regulations making the registration of slaves compulsory, but his proposals were not approved by the Cairo government. In the meantime an insurrection had broken out in Darfur, and Gordon proceeded to that province to relieve the Egyptian garrisons, which were considerably stronger than the force he had available, the insurgents also being far more numerous than his little army. On coming up with the main body of rebels he saw that diplomacy gave a better chance of success than fighting, and, accompanied only by an interpreter, rode into the enemy’s camp to discuss the situation. This bold move, which probably no one but Gordon would have attempted, proved quite successful, as part of the insurgents joined him, and the remainder retreated to the south. The relief of the Egyptian garrisons was successfully accomplished, and Gordon visited the provinces of Berber and Dongola, whence he had again to return to the Abyssinian frontier to treat with King John. But no satisfactory settlement was arrived at, and Gordon came back to Khartum in January 1878. There he had scarcely a week’s rest when thekhedive summoned him to Cairo to assist in settling the financial affairs of Egypt. He reached Cairo in March, and was at once appointed by Ismail as president of a commission of inquiry into the finances, on the understanding that the European commissioners of the debt, who were the representatives of the bondholders, and whom Ismail regarded as interested parties, should not be members of the commission. Gordon accepted the post on these terms, but the consuls-general of the different powers refused to agree to the constitution of the commission, and it fell to the ground, as the khedive was not strong enough to carry his point. The attempt of the latter to utilize Gordon as a counterpoise to the European financiers having failed, Ismail fell into the hands of his creditors, and was deposed by the sultan in the following year in favour of his son Tewfik. After the conclusion of the financial episode, Gordon proceeded to the province of Harrar, south of Abyssinia, and, finding the administration in a bad condition, dismissed Raouf Pasha, the governor. He then returned to Khartum, and in 1879 went again into Darfur to pursue the slave traders, while his subordinate, Gessi Pasha, fought them with great success in the Bahr-el-Ghazal district and killed Suleiman, their leader and a son of Zobeir. This put an end to the revolt, and Gordon went back to Khartum. Shortly afterwards he went down to Cairo, and when there was requested by the new khedive to pay a visit to King John and make a definite treaty of peace with Abyssinia. Gordon had an interesting interview with the king, but was not able to do much, as the king wanted great concessions from Egypt, and the khedive’s instructions were that nothing material was to be conceded. The matter ended by Gordon being made a prisoner and sent back to Massawa. Thence he returned to Cairo and resigned his Sudan appointment. He was considerably exhausted by the three years’ incessant work, during which he had ridden no fewer than 8500 m. on camels and mules, and was constantly engaged in the task of trying to reform a vicious system of administration.
In March 1880 Gordon visited the king of the Belgians at Brussels, and King Leopold suggested that he should at some future date take charge of the Congo Free State. In April the government of the Cape Colony telegraphed1880-1884.to him offering the position of commandant of the Cape local forces, but he declined the appointment. In May the marquess of Ripon, who had been given the post of governor-general of India, asked Gordon to go with him as private secretary. This he agreed to do, but a few days later, feeling that he was not suitable for the position, asked Lord Ripon to release him. The latter refused to do so, and Gordon accompanied him to India, but definitely resigned his post on Lord Ripon’s staff shortly afterwards. Hardly had he resigned when he received a telegram from Sir Robert Hart, inspector-general of customs in China, inviting him to go to Peking. He started at once and arrived at Tientsin in July, where he met Li Hung Chang, and learnt that affairs were in a critical condition, and that there was risk of war with Russia. Gordon proceeded to Peking and used all his influence in favour of peace. His arguments, which were given with much plainness of speech, appear to have convinced the Chinese government, and war was avoided. Gordon returned to England, and in April 1881 exchanged with a brother officer, who had been ordered to Mauritius as Commanding Royal Engineer, but who for family reasons was unable to accept the appointment. He remained in Mauritius until the March following, when, on promotion to the rank of major-general, he had to vacate the position of Commanding Royal Engineer. Just at the same time the Cape ministry telegraphed to him to ask if he would go to the Cape to consult with the government as regards settling affairs in Basutoland. The telegram stated that the position of matters was grave, and that it was of the utmost importance that the colony should secure the services of someone of proved ability, firmness and energy. Gordon sailed at once for the Cape, and saw the governor, Sir Hercules Robinson, Mr Thos. Scanlen, the premier, and Mr. J. X. Merriman, a member of the ministry, who, for political reasons, asked him not to go to Basutoland, but to take the appointment of commandant of the colonial forces at King William’s Town. After a few months, which were spent in reorganizing the colonial forces, Gordon was requested to go up to Basutoland to try to arrange a settlement with the chief Masupha, one of the most powerful of the Basuto leaders. Greatly to his surprise, at the very time he was with Masupha, Mr. J. W. Sauer, a member of the Cape government, was taking steps to induce Lerethodi, another chief, to advance against Masupha. This not only placed Gordon in a position of danger, but was regarded by him as an act of treachery. He advised Masupha not to deal with the Cape government until the hostile force was withdrawn, and resigned his appointment. He considered that the Basuto difficulty was due to the bad system of administration by the Cape government. That Gordon’s views were correct is proved by the fact that a few years later Basutoland was separated from Cape Colony and placed directly under the imperial government. After his return to England from the Cape, being unemployed, Gordon decided to go to Palestine, a country he had long desired to visit. Here he remained for a year, and devoted his time to the study of Biblical history and of the antiquities of Jerusalem. The king of the Belgians then asked him to take charge of the Congo Free State, and he accepted the mission and returned to London to make the necessary preparations. But a few days after his arrival he was requested by the British government to proceed immediately to the Sudan. To understand the reasons for this, it is necessary briefly to recapitulate the course of events in that country since Gordon had left it in 1879.
After his resignation of the post of governor-general, Raouf Pasha, an official of the ordinary type, who, as already mentioned, had been dismissed by Gordon for misgovernment in 1878, was appointed to succeed him. As Raouf was instructed to increase the receipts and diminish the expenditure, the system of government naturally reverted to the old methods, which Gordon had endeavoured to improve. The fact that justice and firmness were succeeded by injustice and weakness tended naturally to the outbreak of revolt, and unfortunately there was a leader ready to head a rebellion—one Mahommed Ahmed, already known for some years as a holy man, who was insulted by an Egyptian official, and retiring with some followers to the island of Abba on the White Nile, proclaimed himself as the mahdi, a successor of the prophet. Raouf endeavoured to take him prisoner but without success, and the revolt spread rapidly. Raouf was recalled, and succeeded by Abdel Kader Pasha, a much stronger governor, who had some success, but whose forces were quite insufficient to cope with the rebels. The Egyptian government was too busily engaged in suppressing Arabi’s revolt to be able to send any help to Abdel Kader, and in September 1882, when the British troops entered Cairo, the position in the Sudan was very perilous. Had the British government listened to the representations then made to them, that, having conquered Egypt, it was imperative at once to suppress the revolt in the Sudan, the rebellion could have been crushed, but unfortunately Great Britain would do nothing herself, while the steps she allowed Egypt to take ended in the disaster to Hicks Pasha’s expedition. Then, in December 1883, the British government saw that something must be done, and ordered Egypt to abandon the Sudan. But abandonment was a policy most difficult to carry out, as it involved the withdrawal of thousands of Egyptian soldiers, civilian employés and their families. Abdel Kader Pasha was asked to undertake the work, and he agreed on the understanding that he would be supported, and that the policy of abandonment was not to be announced. But the latter condition was refused, and he declined the task. The British government then asked General Gordon to proceed to Khartum to report on the best method of carrying out the evacuation. The mission was highly popular in England. Sir Evelyn Baring (Lord Cromer) was, however, at first opposed to Gordon’s appointment. His objections were overcome, and Gordon received his instructions in London on the 18th of January 1884, and started at once for Cairo, accompanied by Lieut.-Colonel J. D. H. Stewart.
At Cairo he received further instructions from Sir Evelyn Baring, and was appointed by the khedive as governor-general, with executive powers. Travelling by Korosko and Berber, he arrived at Khartum on the 18th of February,At Khartum.and was well received by the inhabitants, who believed that he had come to save the country from the rebels. Gordon at once commenced the task of sending the women and children and the sick and wounded to Egypt, and about two thousand five hundred had been removed before the mahdi’s forces closed upon Khartum. At the same time he was impressed with the necessity of making some arrangement for the future government of the country, and asked for the help of Zobeir (q.v.), who had great influence in the Sudan, and had been detained in Cairo for some years. This request was made on the very day Gordon reached Khartum, and was in accordance with a similar proposal he had made when at Cairo. But, after delays which involved the loss of much precious time, the British government refused (13th of March) to sanction the appointment, because Zobeir had been a notorious slave-hunter. With this refusal vanished all hope of a peaceful retreat of the Egyptian garrisons. Wavering tribes went over to the mahdi. The advance of the rebels against Khartum was combined with a revolt in the eastern Sudan, and the Egyptian troops in the vicinity of Suakin met with constant defeat. At length a British force was sent to Suakin under the command of General Sir Gerald Graham, and routed the rebels in several hard-fought actions. Gordon telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Baring urging that the road from Suakin to Berber should be opened by a small force. But this request, though strongly supported by Baring and the British military authorities in Cairo, was refused by the government in London. In April General Graham and his forces were withdrawn from Suakin, and Gordon and the Sudan were seemingly abandoned to their fate. The garrison of Berber, seeing that there was no chance of relief, surrendered a month later and Khartum was completely isolated. Had it not been for the presence of Gordon the city would also soon have fallen, but with an energy and skill that were almost miraculous, he so organized the defence that Khartum held out until January 1885. When it is remembered that Gordon was of a different nationality and religion to the garrison and population, that he had only one British officer to assist him, and that the town was badly fortified and insufficiently provided with food, it is just to say that the defence of Khartum is one of the most remarkable episodes in military history. The siege commenced on the 18th of March, but it was not until August that the British government under the pressure of public opinion decided to take steps to relieve Gordon. General Stephenson, who was in command of the British troops in Egypt, wished to send a brigade at once to Dongola, but he was overruled, and it was not until the beginning of November that the British relief force was ready to start from Wadi Haifa under the command of Lord Wolseley. The force reached Korti towards the end of December, and from that place a column was despatched across the Bayuda desert to Metemma on the Nile. After some severe fighting in which the leader of the column, Sir Herbert Stewart, was mortally wounded, the force reached the river on the 20th of January, and the following day four steamers, which had been sent down by Gordon to meet the British advance, and which had been waiting for them for four months, reported to Sir Charles Wilson, who had taken command after Sir Herbert Stewart was wounded.Death.On the 24th Wilson started with two of the steamers for Khartum, but on arriving there on the 28th he found that the place had been captured by the rebels and Gordon killed two days before. A belief has been entertained that Wilson might have started earlier and saved the town, but this is quite groundless. In the first place, Wilson could not have started sooner than he did; and in the second, even if he had been able to do so, it would have made no difference, as the rebels could have taken Khartum any time they pleased after the 5th of January, when the provisions were exhausted. Another popular notion, that the capture of the place was due to treachery on the part of the garrison, is equally without foundation. The attack was made at a point in the fortifications where the rampart and ditch had been destroyed by the rising of the Nile, and when the mahdi’s troops entered the soldiers were too weak to make any effectual resistance. Gordon himself expected the town to fall before the end of December, and it is really difficult to understand how he succeeded in holding out until the 26th of January. Writing on the 14th of December he said, “Now, mark this, if the expeditionary force—and I ask for no more than two hundred men—does not come in ten days, the town may fall, and I have done my best for the honour of my country.” He had indeed done his best, and far more than could have been regarded as possible. To understand what he went through during the latter months of the siege, it is only necessary to read his own journal, a portion of which, dating from 10th September to 14th December 1884, was fortunately preserved and published.
Gordon was not an author, but he wrote many short memoranda on subjects that interested him, and a considerable number of these have been utilized, especially in the work by his brother, Sir Henry Gordon, entitledEvents in the Life of Charles George Gordon, from its Beginning to its End. He was a voluminous letter-writer, and much of his correspondence has been published. His character was remarkable, and the influence he had over those with whom he came in contact was very striking. His power to command men of non-European races was probably unique. He had no fear of death, and cared but little for the opinion of others, adhering tenaciously to the course he believed to be right in the face of all opposition. Though not holding to outward forms of religion, he was a truly religious man in the highest sense of the word, and was a constant student of the Bible. To serve God and to do his duty were the great objects of his life, and he died as he had lived, carrying out the work that lay before him to the best of his ability. The last words of his last letter to his sister, written when he knew that death was very near, sum up his character: “I am quite happy, thank God, and, like Lawrence, I havetriedto do my duty.”1