Chapter 19

The best edition of the Gromatici is by C. Lachmann and others (1848) with supplementary volume,Die Schriften der römischen Feldmesser(1852); see also B. G. Niebuhr,Roman History, ii., appendix (Eng. trans.), who first revived interest in the subject; M. Cantor,Die römischen Agrimensoren(Leipzig, 1875); P. de Tissot,La Condition des Agrimensores dans l’ancienne Rome(1879); G. Rossi,Groma e squadro(Turin, 1877); articles by F. Hultsch in Ersch and Gruber’sAllgem. Encyklopädie, and by G. Humbert in Daremberg and Saglio’sDictionnaire des antiquités; Teuffel-Schwabe,Hist. of Roman Literature, 58.

GRONINGEN,the most northerly province of Holland, bounded S. by Drente, W. by Friesland and the Lauwers Zee, N. and N.E. by the North Sea and the mouth of the Ems with the Dollart, and on the S.E. by the Prussian province of Hanover. It includes the islands of Boschplaat and Rottumeroog, belonging to the group of Frisian islands (q.v.). Area, 887 sq. m.; pop. (1900) 299,602. Groningen is connected with the Drente plateau by the sandy tongue of the Hondsrug which extends almost up to the capital. West, north and north-east of this the province is flat and consists of sea-clay or sand and clay mixed, except where patches of low and high fen occur on the Frisian borders. Low fen predominates to the east of the capital, between the Zuidlardermeer and the Schildmeer or lakes. The south-eastern portion of the province consists of high fen resting on diluvial sand. A large part of this has been reclaimed and the sandy soil laid bare, but on the Drente and Prussian borders areas of fen still remain. The so-called Boertanger Morass on the Prussian border was long considered as the natural protection of the eastern frontier, and with the view of preserving its impassable condition neither agriculture nor cattle-rearing might be practised here until 1824, and it was only in 1868 that the building of houses was sanctioned and the work of reclamation begun. The gradual extension of the seaward boundaries of the province owing to the process of littoral deposits may be easily traced, a triple line of sea-dikes in places marking the successive stages in this advance. The rivers of Groningen descending from the Drente plateau meet at the capital, whence they are continued by the Reitdiep to the Lauwers Zee (being discharged through a lock), and by the Ems canal (1876) to Delfzyl. The south-eastern corner of the province is traversed by the Westerwolde Aa, which discharges into the Dollart. The railway system belongs to the northern section of the State railways, and affords communication with Germany via Winschoten. Steam-tramways also serve many parts of the province. Agriculture is the main industry. The proportion of landowners is a very large one, and the prosperous condition of the Groningen farmer is attested by the style of his home, his dress and his gig. As a result, however, partly of the usual want of work on the grasslands in certain seasons, there has been a considerable emigration to America. The ancient custom called thebeklem-recht, orlease-right, doubtless accounts for the extended ownership of the land. By this law a tenant-farmer is able to bequeath his farm, that is to say, he holds his lease in perpetuity.

The chief agricultural products are barley, oats, wheat, and in the north-east flax is also grown, and exported to South Holland and Belgium. On the higher clay grounds cattle-rearing and horse-breeding are also practised, together with butter and cheese making. The cultivation of potatoes on the sandgrounds in the south and the fen colonies along the Stads-Canal invite general comparison with the industries of Drente (q.v.). Hoogezand and Sappemeer, Veendam and Wildervank, New and Old Pekela, New and Old Stads-Canal are instances of villages which have extended until they overlap one another and are similar in this respect to the industrial villages of the Zaan Streek in North Holland. The coast fisheries are considerable. Groningen (q.v.) is the chief and only large town of the province. Delfzyl, which was formerly an important fortress for the protection of the ancient sluices on the little river Delf (hence its name), has greatly benefited by the construction of the Ems (Eems) ship-canal connecting it with Groningen, and has a good harbour with a considerable import trade in wood. Appingedam and Winschoten are very old towns, having important cattle and horse markets. The pretty wood at Winschoten was laid out by the Society for Public Welfare (Tot Nut van het Algemeen) in 1826.

GRONINGEN,a town of Holland, capital of the province of the same name, at the confluence of the two canalized rivers the Drentsche Aa and the Hunse (which are continued to the Lauwers Zee as the Reit Diep), 16 m. N. of Assen and 33 m. E. of Leeuwarden by rail. Pop. (1900) 67,563. Groningen is the centre from which several important canals radiate. Besides the Reit Diep, there are the Ems Canal and the Damster Diep, connecting it with Delfzyl and the Dollart, the Kolonel’s Diep with Leeuwarden, the Nord Willem’s Canal with Assen and the south and the Stads-Canal south-east with the Ems. Hence steamers ply in all directions, and there is a regular service to Emden and the island of Borkum via Delfzyl, and via the Lauwers Zee to the island of Schiermonnikoog. Groningen is the most important town in the north of Holland, with its fine shops and houses and wide clean streets, while brick houses of the 16th and 17th centuries help it to retain a certain old-world air. The ancient part of the town is still surrounded by the former moat, and in the centre lies a group of open places, of which the Groote Markt is one of the largest market-squares in Holland. Pleasant gardens and promenades extend on the north side of the town, together with a botanical garden. The chief church is the Martini-kerk, with a high tower (432 ft.) dating from 1477, and an organ constructed by the famous scholar and musician Rudolph Agricolo, who was born near Groningen in 1443. The Aa church dates from 1465, but was founded in 1253. The Roman Catholic Broederkerk (rebuilt at the end of the 19th century) contains some remarkable pictures of the Passion by L. Hendricx (1865). There is also a Jewish synagogue. The large town hall (in classical style), one of the finest public buildings, was built at the beginning of the 19th century and enlarged in 1873. The provincial government offices also occupy a fine building which received a splendid front in 1871. Other noteworthy buildings are the provincial museum of antiquities, containing interesting Germanic antiquities, as well as medieval and modern collections of porcelain, pictures, &c.; the courts of justice (transformed in the middle of the 18th century); the old Ommelanderhuis, formerly devoted to the administration of the surrounding district, built in 1509 and restored in 1899; the weigh-house (1874); the civil and military prison; the arsenal; the military hospital; and the concert hall.

The university of Groningen, founded in 1614, received its present fine buildings in classical style in 1850. Among its auxiliary establishments are a good natural history museum, an observatory, a laboratory, and a library which contains a copy of Erasmus’ New Testament with marginal annotations by Luther. Other educational institutions are the deaf and dumb institution founded by Henri Daniel Guyot (d. 1828) in 1790, a gymnasium, and schools of navigation, art and music. There are learned societies for the study of law (1761) and natural science (1830); an academy of fine arts (1830); an archaeological society; and a central bureau for collecting information concerning the province.

As capital of the province, and on account of the advantages of its natural position, Groningen maintains a very considerable trade, chiefly in oil-seed, grain, wood, turf and cattle, with Great Britain, Germany, Scandinavia and Russia. The chief industries are flax-spinning, rope-making, sugar refining, book printing, wool combing and dyeing, and it also manufactures beer, tobacco and cigars, cotton and woollen stuffs, furniture, organs and pianos; besides which there are saw, oil and grain mills, machine works, and numerous goldsmiths and silversmiths.

History.—The town of Groningen belonged originally to thepagus, orgouw, of Triantha (Drente), the countship of which was bestowed by the emperor Henry II. on the bishop and chapter of Utrecht in 1024. In 1040 Henry III. gave the church of Utrecht the royal domain of Groningen, and in the deed of gift the “villa Cruoninga” is mentioned. Upon this charter the bishops of Utrecht based their claim to the overlordship of the town, a claim which the citizens hotly disputed. At the time of the donation, indeed, the town can hardly be said to have existed, but the royal “villa” rapidly developed into a community which strove to assert the rights of a free imperial city. At first the bishops were too strong for the townsmen; the defences built in 1110 were pulled down by the bishop’s order two years later; and during the 12th and 13th centuries the see of Utrecht, in spite of frequent revolts, succeeded in maintaining its authority. Down to the 15th century an episcopal prefect, or burgrave, had his seat in the city, his authority extending over the neighbouring districts known as the Gorecht. In 1143 Heribert of Bierum, bishop of Utrecht, converted the office into an hereditary fief in favour of his brother Liffert, on the extinction of whose male line it was partitioned between the families of Koevorden (or Coevorden) and van den Hove. Gradually, however, the burghers, aided by the neighbouring Frisians, succeeded in freeing themselves from the episcopal yoke. The city was again walled in 1255; before 1284 it had become a member of the Hanseatic league; and by the end of the 14th century it was practically a powerful independent republic, which exercised an effective control over the Frisian Ommelande between the Ems and the Lauwers Zee. At the close of the 14th century the heirs of the Koevorden and van den Hove families sold their rights, first to the town, and then to the bishop. A struggle followed, in which the city was temporarily worsted; but in 1440 Bishop Dirk II. finally sold to the city the rights of the see of Utrecht over the Gorecht.

The medieval constitution of Groningen, unlike that of Utrecht, was aristocratic. Merchant gild there was none; and the craft gilds were without direct influence on the city government, which held them in subjection. Membership of the governing council, which selected from its own body the fourrationalesor burgomasters, was confined to men of approved “wisdom,” and wisdom was measured in terms of money. ThisRaadof wealthy burghers gradually monopolized all power. The bishop’s bailiff (schout), with his nominated assessors (scabini), continued to exercise jurisdiction, but members of the Raad sat on the bench with him, and an appeal lay from his court to the Raad itself. The council was, in fact, supreme in the city, and not in the city only. In 1439 it decreed that no one might trade in all the district between the Ems and the Lauwers Zee except burghers, and those who had purchased theburwal(right of residence in the city) and the freedom of the gilds. Maximilian I. assigned Groningen to Albert of Saxony, hereditary podestat of Friesland, but the citizens preferred to accept the protection of the bishop of Utrecht; and when Albert’s son George attempted in 1505 to seize the town, they recognized the lordship of Edzart of East Frisia. On George’s renewal of hostilities they transferred their allegiance to Duke Charles of Gelderland, in 1515. In 1536 the city passed into thehands of Charles V., and in the great wars of the 16th century suffered all the miseries of siege and military occupation. From 1581 onwards, Groningen still held by the Spaniards, was constantly at war with the “Ommelanden” which had declared against the king of Spain. This feud continued, in spite of the capture of the city in 1594 by Maurice of Nassau, and of a decree of the States in 1597 which was intended to set them at rest. In 1672 the town was besieged by the bishop of Münster, but it was successfully defended, and in 1698 its fortifications were improved under Coehoorn’s direction. The French Republicans planted their tree of liberty in the Great Market on the 14th of February 1795, and they continued in authority till the 16th of November 1814. The fortifications of the city were doomed to destruction by the law of the 18th of April 1874.

See C. Hegel,Städte und Gilden(Leipzig, 1891); Stokvis,Manuel d’histoire, iii. 496 (Leiden, 1890-1893); also s.v. in Chevalier,Répertoire des sources hist. du moyen âge(Topo-bibliographie).

GRONLUND, LAURENCE(1846-1899), American socialist, was born in Copenhagen, Denmark, on the 13th of July 1846. He graduated from the university of Copenhagen in 1865, began the study of law, removed to the United States in 1867, taught German in Milwaukee, was admitted to the bar in 1869, and practised in Chicago. He became a writer and lecturer on socialism and was closely connected with the work of the Socialist Labor party from 1874 to 1884, then devoted himself almost exclusively to lecturing until his appointment to a post in the bureau of labour statistics. He again returned to the lecture field, and was an editorial writer for the New York and ChicagoAmericanfrom 1898 until his death in New York City on the 15th of October 1899. His principal works are:The Coming Revolution(1880);The Co-operative Commonwealth in its Outlines, An Exposition of Modern Socialism(1884);Ça Ira, or Danton in the French Revolution(1888), a rehabilitation of Danton;Our Destiny, The Influence of Socialism on Morals and Religion(1890); andThe New Economy(1898).

GRONOVIUS(the latinized form ofGronov),JOHANN FRIEDRICH(1611-1671), German classical scholar and critic, was born at Hamburg on the 8th of September 1611. Having studied at several universities, he travelled in England, France and Italy. In 1643 he was appointed professor of rhetoric and history at Deventer, and in 1658 to the Greek chair at Leiden, where he died on the 28th of December 1671. (See alsoFabretti, Raphael.) Besides editing, with notes, Statius, Plautus, Livy, Tacitus, Aulus Gellius and Seneca’s tragedies, Gronovius was the author, amongst numerous other works, ofCommentarius de sestertiis(1643) and of an edition of Hugo Grotius’ De jure belli et pacis (1660). HisObservationescontain a number of brilliant emendations. His son,Jakob Gronovius(1645-1716), is chiefly known as the editor of theThesaurus antiquitatum Graecarum(1697-1702, in 13 volumes).

See J. E. Sandys,Hist. of Class. Schol.ii. (1908); F. A. Eckstein in Ersch and Gruber’sAllgemeine Encyklopädie.

GROOM,in modern usage a male servant attached to the stables, whose duties are to attend to the cleaning, feeding, currying and care generally of horses. The earliest meaning of the word appears to be that of a boy, and in 16th and 17th century literature it frequently occurs, in pastorals, for a shepherd lover. Later it is used for any male attendant, and thus survives in the name for several officials in the royal household, such as the grooms-in-waiting, and the grooms of the great chamber. The groom-porter, whose office was abolished by George III., saw to the preparation of the sovereign’s apartment, and, during the 16th and 17th centuries, provided cards and dice for playing, and was the authority to whom were submitted all questions of gaming within the court. The origin of the word is obscure. The O. Fr.gromet, shop boy, is taken by French etymologists to be derived from the English. From the application of this word to a wine-taster in a wine merchant’s shop, is derivedgourmet, an epicure. According to theNew English Dictionary, though there are no instances of groom in other Teutonic languages, the word may be ultimately connected with the root of “to grow.” In “bridegroom,” a newly married man, “grom” in the 16th century took the place of an oldergome, a common old Teutonic word meaning “man,” and connected with the Latinhomo. The Old English word wasbrydguma, laterbridegome. The word survives in the GermanBräutigam.

GROOT, GERHARD(1340-1384), otherwise Gerrit or Geert Groet, in Latin Gerardus Magnus, a preacher and founder of the society of Brothers of Common Life (q.v.), was born in 1340 at Deventer in the diocese of Utrecht, where his father held a good civic position. He went to the university of Paris when only fifteen. Here he studied scholastic philosophy and theology under a pupil of Occam’s, from whom he imbibed the nominalist conception of philosophy; in addition he studied canon law, medicine, astronomy and even magic, and apparently some Hebrew. After a brilliant course he graduated in 1358, and possibly became master in 1363. He pursued his studies still further in Cologne, and perhaps in Prague. In 1366 he visited the papal court at Avignon. About this time he was appointed to a canonry in Utrecht and to another in Aix-la-Chapelle, and the life of the brilliant young scholar was rapidly becoming luxurious, secular and selfish, when a great spiritual change passed over him which resulted in a final renunciation of every worldly enjoyment. This conversion, which took place In 1374, appears to have been due partly to the effects of a dangerous illness and partly to the influence of Henry de Calcar, the learned and pious prior of the Carthusian monastery at Munnikhuizen near Arnhem, who had remonstrated with him on the vanity of his life. About 1376 Gerhard retired to this monastery and there spent three years in meditation, prayer and study, without, however, becoming a Carthusian. In 1379, having received ordination as a deacon, he became missionary preacher throughout the diocese of Utrecht. The success which followed his labours not only in the town of Utrecht, but also in Zwolle, Deventer, Kampen, Amsterdam, Haarlem, Gouda, Leiden, Delft, Zütphen and elsewhere, was immense; according to Thomas à Kempis the people left their business and their meals to hear his sermons, so that the churches could not hold the crowds that flocked together wherever he came. The bishop of Utrecht supported him warmly, and got him to preach against concubinage in the presence of the clergy assembled in synod. The impartiality of his censures, which he directed not only against the prevailing sins of the laity, but also against heresy, simony, avarice, and impurity among the secular and regular clergy, provoked the hostility of the clergy, and accusations of heterodoxy were brought against him. It was in vain that Groot emitted aPublica Protestatio, in which he declared that Jesus Christ was the great subject of his discourses, that in all of them he believed himself to be in harmony with Catholic doctrine, and that he willingly subjected them to the candid judgment of the Roman Church. The bishop was induced to issue an edict which prohibited from preaching all who were not in priest’s orders, and an appeal to Urban VI. was without effect. There is a difficulty as to the date of this prohibition; either it was only a few months before Groot’s death, or else it must have been removed by the bishop, for Groot seems to have preached in public in the last year of his life. At some period (perhaps 1381, perhaps earlier) he paid a visit of some days’ duration to the famous mystic Johann Ruysbroeck, prior of the Augustinian canons at Groenendael near Brussels; at this visit was formed Groot’s attraction for the rule and life of the Augustinian canons which was destined to bear such notable fruit. At the close of his life he was asked by some of the clerics who attached themselves to him to form them into a religious order, and Groot resolved that they should be canons regular of St Augustine. No time was lost in the effort to carry out the project, but Groot died before a foundation could be made. In 1387, however, a site was secured at Windesheim, some 20 m. north of Deventer, and here was established the monastery that became the cradle of the Windesheim congregation of canons regular, embracing in course of time nearly one hundred houses, and leading the way in the series of reforms undertaken during the 15th century by all the religious orders in Germany. The initiation of this movement was the great achievement of Groot’slife; he lived to preside over the birth and first days of his other creation, the society of Brothers of Common Life. He died of the plague at Deventer in 1384, at the age of 44.

The chief authority for Groot’s life is Thomas à Kempis,Vita Gerardi Magni(translated into English by J. P. Arthur,The Founders of the New Devotion, 1905); also theChronicon Windeshemenseof Johann Busch (ed. K. Grube, 1886). An account, based on these sources, will be found in S. Kettlewell,Thomas à Kempis and the Brothers of Common Life(1882). i. c. 5; and a shorter account in F. R. Cruise,Thomas à Kempis, 1887, pt. ii. An excellent sketch, with an account of Groot’s writings, is given by L. Schulze in Herzog-Hauck,Realencyklopädie(ed. 3); he insists on the fact that Groot’s theological and ecclesiastical ideas were those commonly current in his day, and that the attempts to make him “a reformer before the Reformation” are unhistorical.

(E. C. B.)

GROOVE-TOOTHED SQUIRREL,a large and brilliantly coloured Bornean squirrel,Rhithrosciurus macrotis, representing a genus by itself distinguished from all other members of the familySciuridaeby having numerous longitudinal grooves on the front surface of the incisor teeth; the molars being of a simpler type than in other members of the family. The tail is large and fox-like, and the ears are tufted and the flanks marked by black and white bands.

GROS, ANTOINE JEAN,Baron(1771-1835), French painter, was born at Paris in 1771. His father, who was a miniature painter, began to teach him to draw at the age of six, and showed himself from the first an exacting master. Towards the close of 1785 Gros, by his own choice, entered the studio of David, which he frequented assiduously, continuing at the same time to follow the classes of the Collège Mazarin. The death of his father, whose circumstances had been embarrassed by the Revolution, threw Gros, in 1791, upon his own resources. He now devoted himself wholly to his profession, and competed in 1792 for thegrand prix, but unsuccessfully. About this time, however, on the recommendation of the École des Beaux Arts, he was employed on the execution of portraits of the members of the Convention, and when—disturbed by the development of the Revolution—Gros in 1793 left France for Italy, he supported himself at Genoa by the same means, producing a great quantity of miniatures andfixés. He visited Florence, but returning to Genoa made the acquaintance of Josephine, and followed her to Milan, where he was well received by her husband. On November 15, 1796, Gros was present with the army near Arcola when Bonaparte planted the tricolor on the bridge. Gros seized on this incident, and showed by his treatment of it that he had found his vocation. Bonaparte at once gave him the post of “inspecteur aux revues,” which enabled him to follow the army, and in 1797 nominated him on the commission charged to select the spoils which should enrich the Louvre. In 1799, having escaped from the besieged city of Genoa, Gros made his way to Paris, and in the beginning of 1801 took up his quarters in the Capucins. His “esquisse” (Musée de Nantes) of the “Battle of Nazareth” gained the prize offered in 1802 by the consuls, but was not carried out, owing it is said to the jealousy of Junot felt by Napoleon; but he indemnified Gros by commissioning him to paint his own visit to the pest-house of Jaffa. “Les Pestiférés de Jaffa” (Louvre) was followed by the “Battle of Aboukir” 1806 (Versailles), and the “Battle of Eylau,” 1808 (Louvre). These three subjects—the popular leader facing the pestilence unmoved, challenging the splendid instant of victory, heart-sick with the bitter cost of a hard-won field—gave to Gros his chief title to fame. As long as the military element remained bound up with French national life, Gros received from it a fresh and energetic inspiration which carried him to the very heart of the events which he depicted; but as the army and its general separated from the people, Gros, called on to illustrate episodes representative only of the fulfilment of personal ambition, ceased to find the nourishment necessary to his genius, and the defect of his artistic position became evident. Trained in the sect of the Classicists, he was shackled by their rules, even when—by his naturalistic treatment of types, and appeal to picturesque effect in colour and tone—he seemed to run counter to them. In 1810 his “Madrid” and “Napoleon at the Pyramids” (Versailles) show that his star had deserted him. His “Francis I.” and “Charles V.,” 1812 (Louvre), had considerable success; but the decoration of the dome of St Geneviève (begun in 1811 and completed in 1824) is the only work of Gros’s later years which shows his early force and vigour, as well as his skill. The “Departure of Louis XVIII.” (Versailles), the “Embarkation of Madame d’Angoulême” (Bordeaux), the plafond of the Egyptian room in the Louvre, and finally his “Hercules and Diomedes,” exhibited in 1835, testify only that Gros’s efforts—in accordance with the frequent counsels of his old master David—to stem the rising tide of Romanticism, served but to damage his once brilliant reputation. Exasperated by criticism and the consciousness of failure, Gros sought refuge in the grosser pleasures of life. On the 25th of June 1835 he was found drowned on the shores of the Seine near Sèvres. From a paper which he had placed in his hat it became known that “las de la vie, et trahi par les dernières facultés qui la lui rendaient supportable, il avait résolu de s’en défaire.” The number of Gros’s pupils was very great, and was considerably augmented when, in 1815, David quitted Paris and made over his own classes to him. Gros was decorated and named baron of the empire by Napoleon, after the Salon of 1808, at which he had exhibited the “Battle of Eylau.” Under the Restoration he became a member of the Institute, professor at the École des Beaux Arts, and was named chevalier of the order of St Michel.

M. Delécluze gives a brief notice of his life inLouis David et son temps, and Julius Meyer’sGeschichte der modernen französischen Malereicontains an excellent criticism on his works.

GROSART, ALEXANDER BALLOCH(1827-1899), Scottish divine and literary editor, the son of a building contractor, was born at Stirling on the 18th of June 1827. He was educated at Edinburgh University, and in 1856 became a Presbyterian minister at Kinross. In 1865 he went to Liverpool, and three years later to Blackburn. He resigned from the ministry in 1892, and died at Dublin on the 16th of March 1899. Dr Grosart is chiefly remembered for his exertions in reprinting much rare Elizabethan literature, a work which he undertook in the first instance from his strong interest in Puritan theology. Among the first writers whose works he edited were the Puritan divines, Richard Sibbes, Thomas Brooks and Herbert Palmer. Editions of Michael Bruce’sPoems(1865) and Richard Gilpin’sDemonologia sacra(1867) followed. In 1868 he brought out a bibliography of the writings of Richard Baxter, and from that year until 1876 he was occupied in reproducing for private subscribers the “Fuller Worthies Library,” a series of thirty-nine volumes which included the works of Thomas Fuller, Sir John Davies, Fulke Greville, Henry Vaughan, Andrew Marvell, George Herbert, Richard Crashaw, John Donne and Sir Philip Sidney. The last four volumes of the series were devoted to the works of many little known and otherwise inaccessible authors. HisOccasional Issues of Unique and Very Rare Books(1875-1881) is of the utmost interest to the book-lover. It included among other things theAnnalia Dubrensiaof Robert Dover. In 1876 still another series, known as the “Chertsey Worthies Library,” was begun. It included editions of the works of Nicholas Breton, Francis Quarles, Dr Joseph Beaumont, Abraham Cowley, Henry More and John Davies of Hereford. Grosart was untiring in his enthusiasm and energy for this kind of work. The two last-named series were being produced simultaneously until 1881, and no sooner had they been completed than Grosart began the “Huth Library,” so called from the bibliophile Henry Huth, who possessed the originals of many of the reprints. It included the works of Robert Greene, Thomas Nash, Gabriel Harvey, and the prose tracts of Thomas Dekker. He also edited the complete works of Edmund Spenser and Samuel Daniel. From the Townley Hall collection he reprinted several MSS. and edited Sir John Eliot’s works, Sir Richard Boyle’sLismore Papers, and various publications for the Chetham Society, the Camden Society and the Roxburghe Club. Dr Grosart’s faults of style and occasional inaccuracy do not seriously detract from the immense value of his work. He was unwearied in searching for rare books, and he brought to light much interesting literature, formerly almost inaccessible.

GROSBEAK(Fr.Grosbec), a name very indefinitely applied to many birds belonging to the familiesFringillidaeandPloceidaeof modern ornithologists, and perhaps to some members of theEmberizidaeandTanagridae, but always to birds distinguished by the great size of their bill. Taken alone it is commonly a synonym of hawfinch (q.v.), but a prefix is usually added to indicate the species, as pine-grosbeak, cardinal-grosbeak and the like. By early writers the word was generally given as an equivalent of the LinnaeanLoxia, but that genus has been found to include many forms not now placed in the same family.

The Pine-grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator) inhabits the conifer-zone of both the Old and the New Worlds, seeking, in Europe and probably elsewhere, a lower latitude as winter approaches—often journeying in large flocks; stragglers have occasionally reached the British Islands (Yarrell,Br. Birds, ed. 4, ii. 177-179). In structure and some of its habits much resembling a bullfinch, but much exceeding that bird in size, it has the plumage of a crossbill and appears to undergo the same changes as do the members of the restricted genusLoxia—the young being of a dull greenish-grey streaked with brownish-black, the adult hens tinged with golden-green, and the cocks glowing with crimson-red on nearly all the body-feathers, this last colour being replaced after moulting in confinement by bright yellow. Nests of this species were found in 1821 by Johana Wilhelm Zetterstedt near Juckasjärwi in Swedish Lapland, but little was known concerning its nidification until 1855, when John Wolley, after two years’ ineffectual search, succeeded in obtaining near the Finnish village Muonioniska, on the Swedish frontier, well-authenticated specimens with the eggs, both of which are like exaggerated bullfinches’. The food of this species seems to consist of the seeds and buds of many sorts of trees, though the staple may very possibly be those of some kind of pine.

Allied to the pine-grosbeak are a number of species of smaller size, but its equals in beauty of plumage.1They have been referred to several genera, such asCarpodacus,Propasser,Bycanetes,Uragusand others; but possiblyCarpodacusis sufficient to contain all. Most of them are natives of the Old World, and chiefly of its eastern division, but several inhabit the western portion of North America, and one,C. githagineus(of which there seem to be at least two local races), is an especial native of the deserts, or their borders, of Arabia and North Africa, extending even to some of the Canary Islands—a singular modification in thehabitatof a form which one would be apt to associate exclusively with forest trees, and especially conifers.

The cardinal grosbeak, or Virginian nightingale,Cardinalis virginianus, claims notice here, though doubts may be entertained as to the family to which it really belongs. It is no less remarkable for its bright carmine attire, and an elongated crest of the same colour, than for its fine song. Its ready adaptation to confinement has made it a popular cage-bird on both sides of the Atlantic. The hen is not so good a songster as the cock bird. Her plumage, with exception of the wings and tail, which are of a dull red, is light-olive above and brownish-yellow beneath. This species inhabits the eastern parts of the United States southward of 40° N. lat., and also occurs in the Bermudas. It is represented in the south-west of North America by other forms that by some writers are deemed species, and in the northern parts of South America by theC. phoeniceus, which would really seem entitled to distinction. Another kindred bird placed from its short and broad bill in a different genus, and known asPyrrhuloxia sinuataor the Texan cardinal, is found on the southern borders of the United States and in Mexico; while among North American “grosbeaks” must also be named the birds belonging to the generaGuiracaandHedymeles—the former especially exemplified by the beautiful blueG. caerulea, and the latter by the brilliant rose-breastedH. ludovicianus, which last extends its range into Canada.

The species of the Old World which, though commonly called “grosbeaks,” certainly belong to the familyPloceidae, are treated underWeaver-bird.

(A. N.)

1Many of them are described and illustrated in theMonographie des loxiensof Prince C. L. Bonaparte and Professor Schlegel (1850), though it excludes many birds which an English writer would call “grosbeaks.”

GROSE, FRANCIS(c.1730-1791), English antiquary, was born at Greenford in Middlesex, about the year 1730. His father was a wealthy Swiss jeweller, settled at Richmond, Surrey. Grose early showed an interest in heraldry and antiquities, and his father procured him a position in the Heralds’ College. In 1763, being then Richmond Herald, he sold his tabard, and shortly afterwards became adjutant and paymaster of the Hampshire militia, where, as he himself humorously observed, the only account-books he kept were his right and left pockets, into the one of which he received, and from the other of which he paid. This carelessness exposed him to serious financial difficulties; and after a vain attempt to repair them by accepting a captaincy in the Surrey militia, the fortune left him by his father being squandered, he began to turn to account his excellent education and his powers as a draughtsman. In 1757 he had been elected fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. In 1773 he began to publish hisAntiquities of England and Wales, a work which brought him money as well as fame. This, with its supplementary parts relating to the Channel Islands, was not completed till 1787. In 1789 he set out on an antiquarian tour through Scotland, and in the course of this journey met Burns, who composed in his honour the famous song beginning “Ken ye aught o’ Captain Grose,” and in that other poem, still more famous, “Hear, land o’ cakes, and brither Scots,” warned all Scotsmen of this “chield amang them taking notes.” In 1790 he began to publish the results of what Burns called “his peregrinations through Scotland;” but he had not finished the work when he bethought himself of going over to Ireland and doing for that country what he had already done for Great Britain. About a month after his arrival, while in Dublin, he died in an apoplectic fit at the dinner-table of a friend, on the 12th of June 1791.

Grose was a sort of antiquarian Falstaff—at least he possessed in a striking degree the knight’s physical peculiarities; but he was a man of true honour and charity, a valuable friend, “overlooking little faults and seeking out greater virtues,” and an inimitable boon companion. His humour, his varied knowledge and his good nature were all eminently calculated to make him a favourite in society. As Burns says of him—

“But wad ye see him in his glee,For meikle glee and fun has he,Then set him down, and twa or threeGude fellows wi’ him;Andport, O port!shine thou a wee,Andthenye’ll see him!”

“But wad ye see him in his glee,

For meikle glee and fun has he,

Then set him down, and twa or three

Gude fellows wi’ him;

Andport, O port!shine thou a wee,

Andthenye’ll see him!”

Grose’s works includeThe Antiquities of England and Wales(6 vols., 1773-1787);Advice to the Officers of the British Army(1782), a satire in the manner of Swift’sDirections to Servants; A Guide to Health, Beauty, Riches and Honour(1783), a collection of advertisements of the period, with characteristic satiric preface;A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue(1785);A Treatise on Ancient Armour and Weapons(1785-1789); Darrell’sHistory of Dover(1786);Military Antiquities(2 vols., 1786-1788);A Provincial Glossary(1787);Rules for Drawing Caricatures(1788);The Antiquities of Scotland(2 vols., 1789-1791);Antiquities of Ireland(2 vols., 1791), edited and partly written by Ledwich.The Grumbler, sixteen humerous essays, appeared in 1791 after his death; and in 1793The Olio, a collection of essays, jests and small pieces of poetry, highly characteristic of Grose, though certainly not all by him, was put together from his papers by his publisher, who was also his executor.A capital full-length portrait of Grose by N. Dance is in the first volume of theAntiquities of England and Wales, and another is among Kay’sPortraits. A versified sketch of him appeared in theGentleman’s Magazine, lxi. 660. SeeGentleman’s Magazine, lxi. 498, 582; Noble’sHist. of the College of Arms, p. 434;Notes and Queries, 1st ser., ix. 350; 3rd ser., i. 64, x. 280-281; 5th ser., xii. 148; 6th ser., ii. 47, 257, 291; Hone,Every-day Book, i. 655.

A capital full-length portrait of Grose by N. Dance is in the first volume of theAntiquities of England and Wales, and another is among Kay’sPortraits. A versified sketch of him appeared in theGentleman’s Magazine, lxi. 660. SeeGentleman’s Magazine, lxi. 498, 582; Noble’sHist. of the College of Arms, p. 434;Notes and Queries, 1st ser., ix. 350; 3rd ser., i. 64, x. 280-281; 5th ser., xii. 148; 6th ser., ii. 47, 257, 291; Hone,Every-day Book, i. 655.

GROSS,properly thick, bulky, the meaning of the Late Lat.grossus. The Latin word has usually been taken as cognate withcrassus, thick, but this is now doubted. It also appears not to be connected with the Ger.gross, a Teutonic word represented in English by “great.” Apart from its direct meaning,and such figurative senses as coarse, vulgar or flagrant, the chief uses are whole, entire, without deduction, as opposed to “net,” or as applied to that which is sold in bulk as opposed to “retail” (cf. “grocer” and “engrossing”). As a unit of tale, “gross” equals 12 dozen, 144, sometimes known as “small gross,” in contrast with “great gross,”i.e.12 gross, 144 dozen. As a technical expression in English common law, “in gross” is applied to an incorporeal hereditament attached to the person of an owner, in contradistinction to one which is appendant or appurtenant, that is, attached to the ownership of land (seeCommons).

GROSSE, JULIUS WALDEMAR(1828-1902), German poet, the son of a military chaplain, was born at Erfurt on the 25th of April 1828. He received his early education at the gymnasium in Magdeburg, and on leaving school and showing disinclination for the ministry, entered an architect’s office. But his mind was bent upon literature, and in 1849 he entered the university of Halle, where, although inscribed as a student of law, he devoted himself almost exclusively to letters. His first poetical essay was with the tragedyCola di Rienzi(1851), followed in the same year by a comedy,Eine Nachtpartie Shakespeares, which was at once produced on the stage. The success of these first two pieces encouraged him to follow literature as a profession, and proceeding in 1852 to Munich, he joined the circle of young poets of whom Paul Heyse (q.v.) and Hermann Lingg (1820-1905) were the chief. For six years (1855-1861) he was dramatic critic of theNeue Münchener Zeitung, and was then for a while on the staff of theLeipziger Illustrierte Zeitung, but in 1862 he returned to Munich as editor of theBayrische Zeitung, a post he retained until the paper ceased to exist in 1867. In 1869 Grosse was appointed secretary of theSchiller-Stiftung, and lived for the next few years alternately in Weimar, Dresden and Munich, until, in 1890, he took up his permanent residence in Weimar. He was made grand-ducalHofratand had the title of “professor.” He died at Torbole on the Lago di Garda on the 9th of May 1902.

Grosse was a most prolific writer of novels, dramas and poems. As a lyric poet, especially inGedichte(1857) andAus bewegten Tagen, a volume of poems (1869), he showed himself more to advantage than in his novels, of which latter, however,Untreu aus Mitleid(2 vols., 1868);Vox populi, vox dei(1869);Maria Mancini(1871);Neue Erzählungen(1875);Sophie Monnier(1876), andEin Frauenlos(1888) are remarkable for a certain elegance of style. His tragedies,Die Ynglinger(1858);Tiberius(1876);Johann von Schwaben; and the comedyDie steinerne Braut, had considerable success on the stage.

Grosse’sGesammelte dramatische Werkeappeared in 7 vols. in Leipzig (1870), while hisErzählende Dichtungenwere published at Berlin (6 vols., 1871-1873). An edition of his selected works by A. Bartels is in preparation. See also his autobiography,Literarische Ursachen und Wirkungen(1896); R. Prutz,Die Literatur der Gegenwart(1859); J. Ethé,J. Grosse als epischer Dichter(1872).

GROSSENHAIN,a town In the kingdom of Saxony, 20 m. N. from Dresden, on the main line of railway (via Elsterwerda) to Berlin and at the junction of lines to Priestewitz and Frankfort-on-Oder. Pop. (1905) 12,015. It has an Evangelical church, a modern and a commercial school, a library and an extensive public park. The industries are very important, and embrace manufactures of woollen and cotton stuffs, buckskin, leather, glass and machinery. Grossenhain was originally a Sorb settlement. It was for a time occupied by the Bohemians, by whom it was strongly fortified. It afterwards came into the possession of the margraves of Meissen, from whom it was taken in 1312 by the margraves of Brandenburg. It suffered considerably in all the great German wars, and in 1744 was nearly destroyed by fire. On the 16th of May 1813, a battle took place here between the French and the Russians.

See G. W. Schuberth,Chronik der Stadt Grossenhain(Grossenhain, 1887-1892).

GROSSETESTE, ROBERT(c.1175-1253), English statesman, theologian and bishop of Lincoln, was born of humble parents at Stradbrook in Suffolk. He received his education at Oxford where he became proficient in law, medicine and the natural sciences. Giraldus Cambrensis, whose acquaintance he had made, introduced him, before 1199, to William de Vere, bishop of Hereford. Grosseteste aspired to a post in the bishop’s household, but being deprived by death of this patron betook himself to the study of theology. It is possible that he visited Paris for this purpose, but he finally settled in Oxford as a teacher. His first preferment of importance was the chancellorship of the university. He gained considerable distinction as a lecturer, and was the first rector of the school which the Franciscans established in Oxford about 1224. Grosseteste’s learning is highly praised by Roger Bacon, who was a severe critic. According to Bacon, Grosseteste knew little Greek or Hebrew and paid slight attention to the works of Aristotle, but was pre-eminent among his contemporaries for his knowledge of the natural sciences. Between 1214 and 1231 Grosseteste held in succession the archdeaconries of Chester, Northampton and Leicester. In 1232, after a severe illness, he resigned all his benefices and preferments except one prebend which he held at Lincoln. His intention was to spend the rest of his life in contemplative piety. But he retained the office of chancellor, and in 1235 accepted the bishopric of Lincoln. He undertook without delay the reformation of morals and clerical discipline throughout his vast diocese. This scheme brought him into conflict with more than one privileged corporation, but in particular with his own chapter, who vigorously disputed his claim to exercise the right of visitation over their community. The dispute raged hotly from 1239 to 1245. It was conducted on both sides with unseemly violence, and those who most approved of Grosseteste’s main purpose thought it needful to warn him against the mistake of over-zeal. But in 1245, by a personal visit to the papal court at Lyons, he secured a favourable verdict. In ecclesiastical politics the bishop belonged to the school of Becket. His zeal for reform led him to advance, on behalf of the courts-Christian, pretensions which it was impossible that the secular power should admit. He twice incurred a well-merited rebuke from Henry III. upon this subject; although it was left for Edward I. to settle the question of principle in favour of the state. The devotion of Grosseteste to the hierarchical theories of his age is attested by his correspondence with his chapter and the king. Against the former he upheld the prerogative of the bishops; against the latter he asserted that it was impossible for a bishop to disregard the commands of the Holy See. Where the liberties of the national church came into conflict with the pretensions of Rome he stood by his own countrymen. Thus in 1238 he demanded that the king should release certain Oxford scholars who had assaulted the legate Otho. But at least up to the year 1247 he submitted patiently to papal encroachments, contenting himself with the protection (by a special papal privilege) of his own diocese from alien clerks. Of royal exactions he was more impatient; and after the retirement of Archbishop Saint Edmund (q.v.) constituted himself the spokesman of the clerical estate in the Great Council. In 1244 he sat on a committee which was empanelled to consider a demand for a subsidy. The committee rejected the demand, and Grosseteste foiled an attempt on the king’s part to separate the clergy from the baronage. “It is written,” the bishop said, “that united we stand and divided we fall.”

It was, however, soon made clear that the king and pope were in alliance to crush the independence of the English clergy; and from 1250 onwards Grosseteste openly criticized the new financial expedients to which Innocent IV. had been driven by his desperate conflict with the Empire. In the course of a visit which he made to Innocent in this year, the bishop laid before the pope and cardinals a written memorial in which he ascribed all the evils of the Church to the malignant influence of the Curia. It produced no effect, although the cardinals felt that Grosseteste was too influential to be punished for his audacity. Much discouraged by his failure the bishop thought of resigning. In the end, however, he decided to continue the unequal struggle. In 1251 he protested against a papal mandate enjoining the English clergy to pay Henry III. one-tenth of their revenues for a crusade; and called attention to the fact that, under the system of provisions, a sum of 70,000 marks was annually drawnfrom England by the alien nominees of Rome. In 1253, upon being commanded to provide in his own diocese for a papal nephew, he wrote a letter of expostulation and refusal, not to the pope himself but to the commissioner, Master Innocent, through whom he received the mandate. The text of the remonstrance, as given in theBurton Annalsand in Matthew Paris, has possibly been altered by a forger who had less respect than Grosseteste for the papacy. The language is more violent than that which the bishop elsewhere employs. But the general argument, that the papacy may command obedience only so far as its commands are consonant with the teaching of Christ and the apostles, is only what should be expected from an ecclesiastical reformer of Grosseteste’s time. There is much more reason for suspecting the letter addressed “to the nobles of England, the citizens of London, and the community of the whole realm,” in which Grosseteste is represented as denouncing in unmeasured terms papal finance in all its branches. But even in this case allowance must be made for the difference between modern and medieval standards of decorum.

Grosseteste numbered among his most intimate friends the Franciscan teacher, Adam Marsh (q.v.). Through Adam he came into close relations with Simon de Montfort. From the Franciscan’s letters it appears that the earl had studied a political tract by Grosseteste on the difference between a monarchy and a tyranny; and that he embraced with enthusiasm the bishop’s projects of ecclesiastical reform. Their alliance began as early as 1239, when Grosseteste exerted himself to bring about a reconciliation between the king and the earl. But there is no reason to suppose that the political ideas of Montfort had matured before the death of Grosseteste; nor did Grosseteste busy himself overmuch with secular politics, except in so far as they touched the interest of the Church. Grosseteste realized that the misrule of Henry III. and his unprincipled compact with the papacy largely accounted for the degeneracy of the English hierarchy and the laxity of ecclesiastical discipline. But he can hardly be termed a constitutionalist.

Grosseteste died on the 9th of October 1253. He must then have been between seventy and eighty years of age. He was already an elderly man, with a firmly established reputation, when he became a bishop. As an ecclesiastical statesman he showed the same fiery zeal and versatility of which he had given proof in his academical career; but the general tendency of modern writers has been to exaggerate his political and ecclesiastical services, and to neglect his performances as a scientist and scholar. The opinion of his own age, as expressed by Matthew Paris and Roger Bacon, was very different. His contemporaries, while admitting the excellence of his intentions as a statesman, lay stress upon his defects of temper and discretion. But they see in him the pioneer of a literary and scientific movement; not merely a great ecclesiastic who patronized learning in his leisure hours, but the first mathematician and physicist of his age. It is certainly true that he anticipated, in these fields of thought, some of the most striking ideas to which Roger Bacon subsequently gave a wider currency.

Back to Index Next