Chapter 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(W. M. R.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Livy,Epit.58; Appian,Bell. civ.i. 9-17; Plutarch,Tiberius Gracchus; Vell. Pat. ii. 2, 3.

5.Gaius Sempronius Gracchus(153-121B.C.), younger brother of (4), was a man of greater abilities, bolder and more passionate, although possessed of considerable powers of self-control, and a vigorous and impressive orator. When twenty years of age he was appointed one of the commissioners to carry out the distribution of land under the provisions of his brother’s agrarian law. At the time of Tiberius’s death, Gaius was serving under his brother-in-law Scipio in Spain, but probably returned to Rome in the following year (132). In 131 he supported the bill of C. Papirius Carbo, the object of which was to make it legal for a tribune to offer himself as candidate for the office in two consecutive years, and thus to removeone of the chief obstacles that had hampered Tiberius. The bill was then rejected, but appears to have subsequently passed in a modified form, as Gaius himself was re-elected without any disturbance. Possibly, however, his re-election was illegal, and he had only succeeded where his brother had failed. For the next few years nothing is heard of Gaius. Public opinion pointed him out as the man to avenge his brother’s death and carry out his plans, and the aristocratic party, warned by the example of Tiberius, were anxious to keep him away from Rome. In 126 Gaius accompanied the consul L. Aurelius Orestes as quaestor to Sardinia, then in a state of revolt. Here he made himself so popular that the senate in alarm prolonged the command of Orestes, in order that Gaius might be obliged to remain there in his capacity of quaestor. But he returned to Rome without the permission of the senate, and, when called to account by the censors, defended himself so successfully that he was acquitted of having acted illegally. The disappointed aristocrats then brought him to trial on the charge of being implicated in the revolt of Fregellae, and in other ways unsuccessfully endeavoured to undermine his influence. Gaius then decided to act; against the wishes of his mother he became a candidate for the tribuneship, and, in spite of the determined opposition of the aristocracy, he was elected for the year 123, although only fourth on the list. The legislative proposals1brought forward by him had for their object:—the punishment of his brother’s enemies; the relief of distress and the attachment to himself of the city populace; the diminution of the power of the senate and the increase of that of theequites; the amelioration of the political status of the Italians and provincials.

A law was passed that no Roman citizen should be tried in a matter affecting his life or political status unless the people had previously given its assent. This was specially aimed at Popilius Laenas, who had taken an active part in the prosecution of the adherents of Tiberius. Another law enacted that any magistrate who had been deprived of office by decree of the people should be incapacitated from holding office again. This was directed against M. Octavius, who had been illegally deprived of his tribunate through Tiberius. This unfair and vindictive measure was withdrawn at the earnest request of Cornelia.He revived his brother’s agrarian law, which, although it had not been repealed, had fallen into abeyance. By hisLex Frumentariaevery citizen resident in Rome was entitled to a certain amount of corn at about half the usual price; as the distribution only applied to those living in the capital, the natural result was that the poorer country citizens flocked into Rome and swelled the number of Gaius’s supporters. No citizen was to be obliged to serve in the army before the commencement of his eighteenth year, and his military outfit was to be supplied by the state, instead of being deducted from his pay. Gaius also proposed the establishment of colonies in Italy (at Tarentum and Capua), and sent out to the site of Carthage 6000 colonists to found the new city of Junonia, the inhabitants of which were to possess the rights of Roman citizens; this was the first attempt at over-sea colonization. A new system of roads was constructed which afforded easier access to Rome. Having thus gained over the city proletariat, in order to secure a majority in the comitia by its aid, Gaius did away with the system of voting in the comitia centuriata, whereby the five property classes in each tribe gave their votes one after another, and introduced promiscuous voting in an order fixed by lot.The judices in the standing commissions for the trial of particular offences (the most important of which was that dealing with the trial of provincial magistrates for extortion,de repetundis) were in future to be chosen from the equites (q.v.), not as hitherto from the senate. The taxes of the new province of Asia were to be let out by the censors to Romanpublicani(who belonged to the equestrian order), who paid down a lump sum for the right of collecting them. It is obvious that this afforded the equites extensive opportunities for money-making and extortion, while the alteration in the appointment of the judices gave them the same practical immunity and perpetuated the old abuses, with the difference that it was no longer senators, but equites, who could look forward with confidence to being leniently dealt with by men belonging to their own order; Gaius also expected that this moneyed aristocracy, which had taken the part of the senate against Tiberius, would now support him against it. It was enacted that the provinces to be assigned to the consuls, should be determined before, instead of after their election; and the consuls themselves had to settle, by lot or other arrangement, which province each of them would take.2

He revived his brother’s agrarian law, which, although it had not been repealed, had fallen into abeyance. By hisLex Frumentariaevery citizen resident in Rome was entitled to a certain amount of corn at about half the usual price; as the distribution only applied to those living in the capital, the natural result was that the poorer country citizens flocked into Rome and swelled the number of Gaius’s supporters. No citizen was to be obliged to serve in the army before the commencement of his eighteenth year, and his military outfit was to be supplied by the state, instead of being deducted from his pay. Gaius also proposed the establishment of colonies in Italy (at Tarentum and Capua), and sent out to the site of Carthage 6000 colonists to found the new city of Junonia, the inhabitants of which were to possess the rights of Roman citizens; this was the first attempt at over-sea colonization. A new system of roads was constructed which afforded easier access to Rome. Having thus gained over the city proletariat, in order to secure a majority in the comitia by its aid, Gaius did away with the system of voting in the comitia centuriata, whereby the five property classes in each tribe gave their votes one after another, and introduced promiscuous voting in an order fixed by lot.

The judices in the standing commissions for the trial of particular offences (the most important of which was that dealing with the trial of provincial magistrates for extortion,de repetundis) were in future to be chosen from the equites (q.v.), not as hitherto from the senate. The taxes of the new province of Asia were to be let out by the censors to Romanpublicani(who belonged to the equestrian order), who paid down a lump sum for the right of collecting them. It is obvious that this afforded the equites extensive opportunities for money-making and extortion, while the alteration in the appointment of the judices gave them the same practical immunity and perpetuated the old abuses, with the difference that it was no longer senators, but equites, who could look forward with confidence to being leniently dealt with by men belonging to their own order; Gaius also expected that this moneyed aristocracy, which had taken the part of the senate against Tiberius, would now support him against it. It was enacted that the provinces to be assigned to the consuls, should be determined before, instead of after their election; and the consuls themselves had to settle, by lot or other arrangement, which province each of them would take.2

These measures raised Gaius to the height of his popularity, and during the year of his first tribuneship he may be considered the absolute ruler of Rome. He was chosen tribune for the second time for the year 122. To this period is probably to be assigned his proposal that the franchise should be given to all the Latin communities and that the status of the Latins should be conferred upon the Italian allies. In 125 M. Fulvius Flaccus had brought forward a similar measure, but he was got out of the way by the senate, who sent him to fight in Gaul. This proposal, more statesmanlike than any of the others, was naturally opposed by the aristocratic party, and lessened Gaius’s popularity amongst his own supporters, who viewed with disfavour the prospect of an increase in the number of Roman citizens. The senate put up M. Livius Drusus to outbid him, and his absence from Rome while superintending the organization of the newly-founded colony, Junonia-Carthago, was taken advantage of by his enemies to weaken his influence. On his return he found his popularity diminished. He failed to secure the tribuneship for the third time, and his bitter enemy L. Opimius was elected consul. The latter at once decided to propose the abandonment of the new colony, which was to occupy the site cursed by Scipio, while its foundation had been attended by unmistakable manifestations of the wrath of the gods. On the day when the matter was to be put to the vote, a lictor named Antyllius, who had insulted the supporters of Gaius, was stabbed to death. This gave his opponents the desired opportunity. Gaius was declared a public enemy, and the consuls were invested with dictatorial powers. The Gracchans, who had taken up their position in the temple of Diana on the Aventine, offered little resistance to the attack ordered by Opimius. Gaius managed to escape across the Tiber, where his dead body was found on the following day in the grove of Furrina by the side of that of a slave, who had probably slain his master and then himself. The property of the Gracchans was confiscated, and a temple of Concord erected in the Forum from the proceeds. Beneath the inscription recording the occasion on which the temple had been built some one during the night wrote the words: “The work of Discord makes the temple of Concord.”

Bibliography.—See Livy,Epit.60; Appian,Bell. Civ.i. 21; Plutarch,Gaius Gracchus; Orosius v. 12; Aulus Gellius x. 3, xi. 10. For an account of the two tribunes see Mommsen,Hist. of Rome(Eng. trans.), bk. iv., chs. 2 and 3; C. Neumann,Geschichte Roms während des Verfalles der Republik(1881); A. H. J. Greenidge,History of Rome(1904); E. Meyer,Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Gracchen(1894); G. E. Underhill, Plutarch’sLives of the Gracchi(1892); W. Warde Fowler inEnglish Historical Review(1905), pp. 209 and 417; Long,Decline of the Roman Republic, chs. 10-13, 17-19, containing a careful examination of the ancient authorities; G. F. Hertzberg in Ersch and Gruber’sAllgemeine Encyclopädie; C. W. Oman,Seven Roman Statesmen of the later Republic(1902); T. Lau,Die Gracchen und ihre Zeit(1854). The exhaustive monograph by C. W. Nitzsch,Die Gracchen und ihre nächsten Vorgänger(1847), also contains an account of the other members of the family, with full references to ancient authorities in the notes.

(J. H. F.)

1These measures cannot be arranged in any definite chronological order, nor can it be decided which belong to his first, which to his second tribuneship. See W. Warde Fowler inEng. Hist. Review, 1905. pp. 209 sqq., 417 sqq.2It is suggested by W. Warde Fowler that Gracchus proposed to add a certain number ofequitesto the senate, thereby increasing it to 900, but the plan was never carried out.

2It is suggested by W. Warde Fowler that Gracchus proposed to add a certain number ofequitesto the senate, thereby increasing it to 900, but the plan was never carried out.

GRACE, WILLIAM GILBERT(1848- ), English cricketer, was born at Downend, Gloucestershire, on the 18th of July 1848. He found himself in an atmosphere charged with cricket, his father (Henry Mills Grace) and his uncle (Alfred Pocock) being as enthusiastic over the game as his elder brothers, Henry, Alfred and Edward Mills; indeed, in E. M. Grace the family name first became famous. A younger brother, George Frederick, also added to the cricket reputation of the family. “W. G.” witnessed his first great match when he was hardly six years old, the occasion being a game between W. Clarke’s All-England Eleven and twenty-two of West Gloucestershire. He was endowed by nature with a splendid physique as well as with powers of self-restraint and determination. At the acme of his career he stood full 6 ft. 2 in., being powerfully proportioned, loose yet strong of limb. A non-smoker, and very moderatein all matters, he kept himself in condition all the year round, shooting, hunting or running with the beagles as soon as the cricket season was over. He was also a fine runner, 440 yds. over 20 hurdles being his best distance; and it may be quoted as proof of his stamina that on the 30th of July 1866 he scored 224 not out for Englandv.Surrey, and two days later won a race in the National and Olympian Association meeting at the Crystal Palace. The title of “champion” was well earned by one who for thirty-six years (1865-1900 inclusive) was actively engaged in first-class cricket. In each of these years he was invited to represent the Gentlemen in their matches against the Players, and, when an Australian eleven visited England, to play for the mother country. As late as 1899 he played in the first of the five international contests; in 1900 he played against the players at the Oval, scoring 58 and 3. At fifty-three he scored nearly 1300 runs in first-class cricket, made 100 runs and over on three different occasions and could claim an average of 42 runs. Moreover, his greatest triumphs were achieved when only the very best cricket grounds received serious attention; when, as some consider, bowling was maintained at a higher standard and when all hits had to be run out. He, with his two brothers, E. M. and G. F., assisted by some fine amateurs, made Gloucestershire in one season a first-class county; and it was he who first enabled the amateurs of England to meet the paid players on equal terms and to beat them. There was hardly a “record” connected with the game which did not stand to his credit. Grace was one of the finest fieldsmen in England, in his earlier days generally taking long-leg and cover-point, in later times generally standing point. He was, at his best, a fine thrower, fast runner and safe “catch.” As a bowler he was long in the first flight, originally bowling fast, but in later times adopting a slower and more tricky style, frequently very effective. By profession he was a medical man. In later years he became secretary and manager of the London County Cricket Club. He was married in 1873 to Miss Agnes Day, and one of his sons played for two years in the Cambridge eleven. He was the recipient of two national testimonials: the first, amounting to £1500, being presented to him in the form of a clock and a cheque at Lord’s ground by Lord Charles Russell on the 22nd of July 1879; the second, collected by the M.C.C., the county of Gloucestershire, theDaily Telegraphand theSportsman, amounted to about £10,000, and was presented to him in 1896. He visited Australia in 1873-1874 (captain), and in 1891-1892 with Lord Sheffield’s Eleven (captain); the United States and Canada in 1872, with R. A. Fitzgerald’s team.

Dr Grace played his first great match in 1863, when, being only fifteen years of age, he scored 32 against the All-England Eleven and the bowling of Jackson, Tarrant and Tinley; but the scores which first made his name prominent were made in 1864, viz. 170 and 56 not out for the South Wales Club against the Gentlemen of Sussex. It was in 1865 that he first took an active part in first-class cricket, being then 6 ft. in height, and 11 stone in weight, and playing twice for the Gentlemenv.the Players, but his selection was mainly due to his bowling powers, the best exposition of which was his aggregate of 13 wickets for 84 runs for the Gentlemen of the Southv.the Players of the South. His highest score was 400 not out, made in July 1876 against twenty-two of Grimsby; but on three occasions he was twice dismissed without scoring in matches against odds, a fate that never befell him in important cricket. In first-class matches his highest score was 344, made for the M.C.C. v. Kent at Canterbury, in August 1876; two days later he made 177 for Gloucestershirev.Notts, and two days after this 318 not out for Gloucestershirev.Yorkshire, the two last-named opposing counties being possessed of exceptionally strong bowling; thus in three consecutive innings Grace scored 839 runs, and was only got out twice. His 344 was the third highest individual score made in a big match in England up to the end of 1901. He also scored 301 for Gloucestershirev.Sussex at Bristol, in August 1896. He made over 200 runs on ten occasions, the most notable perhaps being in 1871, when he performed the feat twice, each time in benefit matches, and each time in the second innings, having been each time got out in the first over of the first innings. He scored over 100 runs on 121 occasions, the hundredth score being 288, made at Bristol for Gloucestershirev.Somersetshire in 1895. He made every figure from 0 to 100, on one occasion “closing” the innings when he had made 93, the only total he had never made between these limits. In 1871 he made ten “centuries,” ranging from 268 to 116. In the matches between the Gentlemen and Players he scored “three figures” fifteen times, and at every place where these matches have been played. He made over 100 in each of his “first appearances” at Oxford and Cambridge. Three times he made over 100 in each innings of the same match, viz. at Canterbury, in 1868, for South v. North of the Thames, 130 and 102 not out; at Clifton, in 1887, for Gloucestershirev.Kent, 101 and 103 not out; and at Clifton, in 1888, for Gloucestershirev.Yorkshire, 148 and 153. In 1869, playing at the Oval for the Gentlemen of the Southv.the Players of the South, Grace and B. B. Cooper put on 283 runs for the first wicket, Grace scoring 180 and Cooper 101. In 1886 Grace and Scotton put on 170 runs for the first wicket of Englandv.Australia; this occurred at the Oval in August, and Grace’s total score was 170. In consecutive innings against the Players from 1871 to 1873 he scored 217, 77 and 112, 117, 163, 158 and 70. He only twice scored over 100 in a big match in Australia, nor did he ever make 200 at Lord’s, his highest being 196 for the M.C.C.v.Cambridge University in 1894. His highest aggregates were 2739 (1871), 2622 (1876), 2346 (1895), 2139 (1873), 2135 (1896) and 2062 (1887). He scored three successive centuries in first-class cricket in 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874 and 1876. Playing against Kent at Gravesend in 1895, he was batting, bowling or fielding during the whole time the game was in progress, his scores being 257 and 73 not out. He scored over 1000 runs and took over 100 wickets in seven different seasons, viz. in 1874, 1665 runs and 129 wickets; in 1875, 1498 runs, 192 wickets; in 1876, 2622 runs, 124 wickets; in 1877, 1474 runs, 179 wickets; in 1878, 1151 runs, 153 wickets; in 1885, 1688 runs, 118 wickets; in 1886, 1846 runs, 122 wickets. He never captured 200 wickets in a season, his highest record being 192 in 1875. Playing against Oxford University in 1886, he took all the wickets in the first innings, at a cost of 49 runs. In 1895 he not only made his hundredth century, but actually scored 1000 runs in the month of May alone, his chief scores in that month being 103, 288, 256, 73 and 169, he being then forty-seven years old. He also made during that year scores of 125, 119, 118, 104 and 103 not out, his aggregate for the year being 2346 and his average 51; his innings of 118 was made against the Players (at Lord’s), the chief bowlers being Richardson, Mold, Peel and Attewell; he scored level with his partner, A. E. Stoddart (his junior by fifteen years), the pair making 151 before a wicket fell, Grace making in all 118 out of 241. This may fairly be considered one of his most wonderful years. In 1898 the match between Gentlemenv.Players was, as a special compliment, arranged by the M.C.C. committee to take place on his birthday, and he celebrated the event by scoring 43 and 31 not out, though handicapped by lameness and an injured hand. In twenty-six different seasons he scored over 1000 runs, in three of these years being the only man to do so and five times being one out of two.During the thirty-six years up to and including 1900 he scored nearly 51,000 runs, with an average of 43; and in bowling he took more than 2800 wickets, at an average cost of about 20 runs per wicket. He made his highest aggregate (2739 runs) and had his highest average (78) in 1871; his average for the decade 1868-1877 was 57 runs. His style as a batsman was more commanding than graceful, but as to its soundness and efficacy there were never two opinions; the severest criticism ever passed upon his powers was to the effect that he did not play slow bowling quite as well as fast.

During the thirty-six years up to and including 1900 he scored nearly 51,000 runs, with an average of 43; and in bowling he took more than 2800 wickets, at an average cost of about 20 runs per wicket. He made his highest aggregate (2739 runs) and had his highest average (78) in 1871; his average for the decade 1868-1877 was 57 runs. His style as a batsman was more commanding than graceful, but as to its soundness and efficacy there were never two opinions; the severest criticism ever passed upon his powers was to the effect that he did not play slow bowling quite as well as fast.

(W. J. F.)

GRACE(Fr.grâce, Lat.gratia, fromgratus, beloved, pleasing; formed from the rootcra-, Gr.χασ- cf.χαίρω, χάρμα, χάρις), a word of many shades of meaning, but always connoting the idea of favour, whether that in which one stands to others or that which one shows to others. TheNew English Dictionarygroups the meanings of the word under three main heads: (1) Pleasing quality, gracefulness, (2) favour, goodwill, (3) gratitude, thanks.

It is in the second general sense of “favour bestowed” that the word has its most important connotations. In this sense it means something given by superior authority as a concession made of favour and goodwill, not as an obligation or of right. Thus, a concession may be made by a sovereign or other public authority “by way of grace.” Previous to the Revolution of 1688 such concessions on the part of the crown were known in constitutional law as “Graces.” “Letters of Grace” (gratiae, gratiosa rescripta) is the name given to papal rescripts granting special privileges, indulgences, exemptions and the like. In the language of the universities the word still survives in a shadow of this sense. The word “grace” was originally a dispensation granted by the congregation of the university, or by one of the faculties, from some statutable conditions required for a degree. In the English universities these conditions ceased to be enforced, and the “grace” thus became an essential preliminary to any degree; so that the word has acquired the meaning of (a) the licence granted by congregation to take adegree, (b) other decrees of the governing body (originally dispensations from statutes), all such degrees being called “graces” at Cambridge, (c) the permission which a candidate for a degree must obtain from his college or hall.

To this general sense of exceptional favour belong the uses of the word in such phrases as “do me this grace,” “to be in some one’s good graces” and certain meanings of “the grace of God.” The style “by the grace of God,” borne by the king of Great Britain and Ireland among other sovereigns, though, as implying the principle of “legitimacy,” it has been since the Revolution sometimes qualified on the continent by the addition of “and the will of the people,” means in effect no more than the “by Divine Providence,” which is the style borne by archbishops. To the same general sense of exceptional favour belong the phrases implying the concession of a right to delay in fulfilling certain obligations,e.g.“a fortnight’s grace.” In law the “days of grace” are the period allowed for the payment of a bill of exchange, after the term for which it has been drawn (in England three days), or for the payment of an insurance premium, &c. In religious language the “Day of Grace” is the period still open to the sinner in which to repent. In the sense of clemency or mercy, too, “grace” is still, though rarely used: “an Act of Grace” is a formal pardon or a free and general pardon granted by act of parliament. Since to grant favours is the prerogative of the great, “Your Grace,” “His Grace,” &c., became dutiful paraphrases for the simple “you” and “he.” Formerly used in the royal address (“the King’s Grace,” &c.), the style is in England now confined to dukes and archbishops, though the style of “his most gracious majesty” is still used. In Germany the equivalent,Euer Gnaden, is the style of princes who are notDurchlaucht(i.e.Serene Highness), and is often used as a polite address to any superior.

In the language of theology, though in the English Bible the word is used in several of the above senses, “grace” (Gr.χάρις) has special meanings. Above all, it signifies the spontaneous, unmerited activity of the Divine Love in the salvation of sinners, and the Divine influence operating in man for his regeneration and sanctification. Those thus regenerated and sanctified are said to be in a “state of grace.” In the New Testament grace is the forgiving mercy of God, as opposed to any human merit (Rom. xi. 6; Eph. ii. 5; Col. i. 6, &c.); it is applied also to certain gifts of God freely bestowed,e.g.miracles, tongues, &c. (Rom. xv. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 10; Eph. iii. 8, &c.), to the Christian virtues, gifts of God also,e.g.charity, holiness, &c. (2 Cor. viii. 7; 2 Pet. iii. 18). It is also used of the Gospel generally, as opposed to the Law (John i. 17; Rom. vi. 14; 1 Pet. v. 12, &c.); connected with this is the use of the term “year of grace” for a year of the Christian era.

The word “grace” is the central subject of three great theological controversies: (1) that of the nature of human depravity and regeneration (seePelagius), (2) that of the relation between grace and free-will (seeCalvin, John, andArminius, Jacobus), (3) that of the “means of grace” between Catholics and Protestants,i.e.whether the efficacy of the sacraments as channels of the Divine grace isex opere operatoor dependent on the faith of the recipient.

In the third general sense, of thanks for favours bestowed, “grace” survives as the name for the thanksgiving before or after meals. The word was originally used in the plural, and “to do, give, render, yield graces” was said, in the general sense of the Frenchrendre grâcesor Latingratias agere, of any giving thanks. The close, and finally exclusive, association of the phrase “to say grace” with thanksgiving at meals was possibly due to the formula “Gratias Deo agamus” (“let us give thanks to God”) with which the ceremony began in monastic refectories. The custom of saying grace, which obtained in pre-Christian times among the Jews, Greeks and Romans, and was adopted universally by Christian peoples, is probably less widespread in private houses than it used to be. It is, however, still maintained at public dinners and also in schools, colleges and institutions generally. Such graces are generally in Latin and of great antiquity: they are sometimes short,e.g.“Laus Deo,” “Benedictus benedicat,” and sometimes, as at the Oxford and Cambridge colleges, of considerable length. In some countries grace has sunk to a polite formula; in Germany,e.g.it is usual before and after meals to bow to one’s neighbours and say “Gesegnete Malzeit!” (May your meal be blessed), a phrase often reduced in practice to “Malzeit” simply.

GRACES, THE,(Gr.Χάριτες, Lat.Gratiae), in Greek mythology, the personification of grace and charm, both in nature and in moral action. The transition from a single goddess, Charis, to a number or group of Charites, is marked in Homer. In theIliadone Charis is the wife of Hephaestus, another the promised wife of Sleep, while the plural Charites often occurs. The Charites are usually described as three in number—Aglaia (brightness), Euphrosyne (joyfulness), Thalia (bloom)—daughters of Zeus and Hera (or Eurynome, daughter of Oceanus), or of Helios and Aegle; in Sparta, however, only two were known, Cleta (noise) and Phaënna (light), as at Athens Auxo (increase) and Hegemone (queen). They are the friends of the Muses, with whom they live on Mount Olympus, and the companions of Aphrodite, of Peitho, the goddess of persuasion, and of Hermes, the god of eloquence, to each of whom charm is an indispensable adjunct. The need of their assistance to the artist is indicated by the union of Hephaestus and Charis. The most ancient seat of their cult was Orchomenus in Boeotia, where their oldest images, in the form of stones fallen from heaven, were set up in their temple. Their worship was said to have been instituted by Eteocles, whose three daughters fell into a well while dancing in their honour. At Orchomenus nightly dances took place, and the festival Charitesia, accompanied by musical contests, was celebrated; in Paros their worship was celebrated without music or garlands, since it was there that Minos, while sacrificing to the Charites, received the news of the death of his son Androgeus; at Messene they were revered together with the Eumenides; at Athens, their rites, kept secret from the profane, were held at the entrance to the Acropolis. It was by Auxo, Hegemone and Agraulos, the daughter of Cecrops, that young Athenians, on first receiving their spear and shield, took the oath to defend their country. In works of art the Charites were represented in early times as beautiful maidens of slender form, hand in hand or embracing one another and wearing drapery; later, the conception predominated of three naked figures gracefully intertwined. Their attributes were the myrtle, the rose and musical instruments. In Rome the Graces were never the objects of special religious reverence, but were described and represented by poets and artists in accordance with Greek models.

Back to Index Next