Chapter 20

See theEpistolae Roberti Grosseteste(Rolls Series, 1861) edited with a valuable introduction by H. R. Luard. Grosseteste’s famous memorial to the pope is printed in the appendix to E. Brown’sFasciculus rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum(1690). A tractDe phisicis, lineis, angulis et figuriswas printed at Nuremberg in 1503, A French poem,Le Chastel d’amour, sometimes attributed to him, has been printed by the Caxton Society. Two curious tracts, the “De moribus pueri ad mensam” (printed by Wynkyn de Worde) and the “Statuta familiae Roberti Grosseteste” (printed by J. S. Brewer inMonumenta Franciscana, i. 582), may be from his pen; but the editor of the latter work ascribes it to Adam de Marsh. There is less doubt respecting theReules Seynt Robert, a tract giving advice for the management of the household of the countess of Lincoln. For Grosseteste’s life and work see Roger Bacon’sOpus majus(ed. J. H. Bridges, 1897, 2 vols.) andOpera quaedam inedita(ed. J. S. Brewer, Rolls Series, 1859); M. Paris’sChronica majora(ed. H. R. Luard, Rolls Series, 1872-1883, 5 vols.); and theLivesby S. Pegge (1793) and F. S. Stevenson (1899).

(H. W. C. D.)

GROSSETO,a town and episcopal see of Tuscany, capital of the province of Grosseto, 90 m. S.S.E. of Pisa by rail. Pop. (1901) 5856 (town), 8843 (commune). It is 38 ft. above sea-level, and is almost circular in shape; it is surrounded by fortifications, constructed by Francis I. (1574-1587) and Ferdinand I. (1587-1609), which form a hexagonal enceinte with projecting bastions, with two gates only. The small cathedral, begun in 1294, is built of red and white marble alternating, in the Italian Gothic style; it was restored in 1855. The citadel was built in 1311 by the Sienese. Grosseto is on the main line from Pisa to Rome, and is also the starting-point (Montepescali, 8 m. to the N., is the exact point of divergence) of a branch line to Asciano and Siena.

The town dates from the middle ages. In 1138 the episcopal see was transferred thither from Rusellae. In 1230 it, with the rest of the Maremma, of which it is the capital, came under the dominion of Siena. By the peace of 1559, however, it passed to Cosimo I. of Tuscany. In 1745 the malaria had grown to such an extent, owing to the neglect of the drainage works, that Grosseto had only 648 inhabitants, though in 1224 it had 3000 men who bore arms. Leopold I. renewed drainage operations, and by 1836 the population had risen to 2392. The malaria is not yet entirely conquered, however, and the official headquarters of the province are in summer transferred to Scansano (1837 ft.), 20 m. to the S.E. by road.

GROSSI, GIOVANNI FRANCESCO(?-1699), one of the greatest Italian singers of the age ofbel canto, better known as Siface, was born at Pescia in Tuscany about the middle of the 17th century. He entered the papal chapel in 1675, and later sang at Venice. He derived his nickname of Siface from his impersonation of that character in an opera of Cavalli. It has generally been said that he appeared as Siface in Alessandro Scarlatti’sMitridate, but the confusion is due to his having sung the part of Mitridate in Scarlatti’sPompeoat Naples in 1683. In 1687 he was sent to London by the duke of Modena, to become a member of the chapel of James II. He probably did much for the introduction of Italian music into England, but soon left the country on account of the climate. Among Purcell’s harpsichord music is an air entitled “Sefauchi’s Farewell.” He was murdered in 1699 on the road between Bologna and Ferrara, probably by the agents of a nobleman with whose wife he had aliaison.

See Corrado Ricci’sVita Barocca(Milan, 1904).

GROSSI, TOMMASO(1791-1853), Lombard poet and novelist, was born at Bellano, on the Lake of Como, on the 20th of January 1791. He took his degree in law at Pavia in 1810, and proceeded thence to Milan to exercise his profession; but the Austrian government, suspecting his loyalty, interfered with his prospects, and in consequence Grossi was a simple notary all his life. That the suspicion was well grounded he soon showed by writing in the Milanese dialect the battle poemLa Prineide, in which he described with vivid colours the tragical death of Prina, chief treasurer during the empire, whom the people of Milan, instigated by Austrian agitators, had torn to pieces and dragged through the streets of the town (1814). The poem, being anonymous, was first attributed to the celebrated Porta, but Grossi of his own accord acknowledged himself the author. In 1816 he published other two poems, written likewise in Milanese—The Golden Rain(La Pioggia d’oro) andThe Fugitive(La Fuggitiva). These compositions secured him the friendship of Porta and Manzoni, and the three poets came to form a sort of romantic literary triumvirate. Grossi took advantage of the popularity of his Milanese poems to try Italian verse, into which he sought to introduce the moving realism which had given such satisfaction in his earliest compositions; and in this he was entirely successful with his poemIldegonda(1814). He next wrote an epic poem, entitledThe Lombards in the First Crusade, a work of which Manzoni makes honourable mention inI Promessi Sposi. This composition, which was published by subscription (1826), attained a success unequalled by that of any other Italian poem within the century. The example of Manzoni induced Grossi to write an historical novel entitledMarco Visconti(1834)—a work which contains passages of fine description and deep pathos. A little later Grossi published a tale in verse,Ulrico and Lida, but with this publication his poetical activity ceased.After his marriage in 1838 he continued to employ himself as a notary in Milan till his death on the 10th of December 1853.

HisLifeby Cantu appeared at Milan in 1854.

GROSSMITH, GEORGE(1847- ), English comedian, was born on the 9th of December 1847, the son of a law reporter and entertainer of the same name. After some years of journalistic work he started about 1870 as a public entertainer, with songs and recitations; but in 1877 he began a long connexion with the Gilbert and Sullivan operas at the Savoy Theatre, London, inThe Sorcerer. For twelve years he had the leading part, his capacity for “patter-songs,” and his humorous acting, dancing and singing marking his creations of the chief characters in the Gilbert and Sullivan operas as the expression of a highly original individuality. In 1889 he left the Savoy, and again set up as an entertainer, visiting all the cities of Great Britain and the United States, but retiring in 1901. Among other books he wroteThe Reminiscences of a Society Clown(1888); and, with his brother Weedon,The Diary of a Nobody(1894). His humorous songs and sketches numbered over six hundred. His younger brother, Weedon Grossmith, who was educated as a painter and exhibited at the Academy, also took to the stage, his first notable success being in thePantomime Rehearsal; in 1894 he went into management on his own account, and had much success as a comedian. George Grossmith’s two sons, Laurence Grossmith and George Grossmith, jun., were both actors, the latter becoming a well-known figure in the musical comedies at the Gaiety Theatre, London.

GROS VENTRES(Fr. for “Great Bellies”), or Atsina, a tribe of North American Indians of Algonquian stock. The name is said to have reference to the greediness of the people, but more probably originated from their prominent tattooing. They are settled at Fort Belknap agency, Montana. The name has also been given to other tribes,e.g.the Hidatsa or Minitari, now at Fort Berthold, North Dakota.

GROTE, GEORGE(1794-1871), English historian of Greece, was born on the 17th of November 1794, at Clay Hill near Beckenham in Kent. His grandfather, Andreas, originally a Bremen merchant, was one of the founders (1st of January 1766) of the banking-house of Grote, Prescott & Company in Threadneedle Street, London (the name of Grote did not disappear from the firm till 1879). His father, also George, married (1793) Selina, daughter of Henry Peckwell (1747-1787), minister of the countess of Huntingdon’s chapel in Westminster (descended from a Huguenot family, the de Blossets, who had left Touraine on the revocation of the Edict of Nantes), and had one daughter and ten sons, of whom the historian was the eldest. Educated at first by his mother, George Grote was sent to the Sevenoaks grammar school (1800-1804) and afterwards to Charterhouse (1804-1810), where he studied under Dr Raine in company with Connop Thirlwall, George and Horace Waddington and Henry Havelock. In spite of Grote’s school successes, his father refused to send him to the university and put him in the bank in 1810. He spent all his spare time in the study of classics, history, metaphysics and political economy, and in learning German, French and Italian. Driven by his mother’s Puritanism and his father’s contempt for academic learning to outside society, he became intimate with Charles Hay Cameron, who strengthened him in his love of philosophy, and George W. Norman, through whom he met his wife, Miss Harriet Lewin (see below). After various difficulties the marriage took place on the 5th of March 1820, and was in all respects a happy union.

In the meanwhile Grote had finally decided his philosophic and political attitude. In 1817 he came under the influence of David Ricardo, and through him of James Mill and Jeremy Bentham. He settled in 1820 in a house attached to the bank in Threadneedle Street, where his only child died a week after its birth. During Mrs Grote’s slow convalescence at Hampstead, he wrote his first published work, theStatement of the Question of Parliamentary Reform(1821), in reply to Sir James Mackintosh’s article in theEdinburgh Review, advocating popular representation, vote by ballot and short parliaments. In 1822 he published in theMorning Chronicle(April) a letter against Canning’s attack on Lord John Russell, and edited, or rather re-wrote, some discursive papers of Bentham, which he published under the titleAnalysis of the Influence of Natural Religion on the Temporal Happiness of Mankind by Philip Beauchamp(1822). The book was published in the name of Richard Carlile, then in gaol at Dorchester. Though not a member of J. S. Mill’s Utilitarian Society (1822-1823). he took a great interest in a society for reading and discussion, which met (from 1823) in a room at the bank before business hours twice a week. From thePosthumous Papers(pp. 22, 24) it is clear that Mrs Grote was wrong in asserting that she first in 1823 (autumn) suggested theHistory of Greece; the book was already in preparation in 1822, though what was then written was subsequently reconstructed. In 1826 Grote published in theWestminster Review(April) a criticism of Mitford’sHistory of Greece, which shows that his ideas were already in order. From 1826 to 1830 he was hard at work with J. S. Mill and Henry Brougham in the organization of the new “university” in Gower Street. He was a member of the council which organized the faculties and the curriculum; but in 1830, owing to a difference with Mill as to an appointment to one of the philosophical chairs, he resigned his position.

In 1830 he went abroad, and, attracted by the political crisis, spent some months in Paris in the society of the Liberal leaders. Recalled by his father’s death (6th of July), he not only became manager of the bank, but took a leading position among the city Radicals. In 1831 he published his importantEssentials of Parliamentary Reform(an elaboration of his previousStatement), and, after refusing to stand as parliamentary candidate for the city in 1831, changed his mind and was elected head of the poll, with three other Liberals, in December 1832. After serving in three parliaments, he resigned in 1841, by which time his party (“the philosophic Radicals”) had dwindled away. During these years of active public life, his interest in Greek history and philosophy had increased, and after a trip to Italy in 1842, he severed his connexion with the bank and devoted himself to literature. In 1846 the first two volumes of theHistoryappeared, and the remaining ten between 1847 and the spring of 1856. In 1845 with Molesworth and Raikes Currie he gave monetary assistance to Auguste Comte (q.v.), then in financial difficulties. The formation of the Sonderbund (20th of July 1847) led him to visit Switzerland and study for himself a condition of things in some sense analogous to that of the ancient Greek states. This visit resulted in the publication in theSpectatorof seven weekly letters, collected in book form at the end of 1847 (see a letter to de Tocqueville in Mrs Grote’s reprint of theSeven Letters, 1876).

In 1856 Grote began to prepare his works on Plato and Aristotle.Plato and the Other Companions of Sokrates(3 vols.) appeared in 1865, but the work on Aristotle he was not destined to complete. He had finished theOrganonand was about to deal with the metaphysical and physical treatises when he died on the 18th of June 1871, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. He was a man of strong character and self-control, unfailing courtesy and unswerving devotion to what he considered the best interests of the nation. To colleagues and subordinates alike, he was considerate and tolerant; he was unassuming, trustworthy in the smallest detail, accurate and comprehensive in thought, energetic and conscientious in action. Yet, hidden under his calm exterior there was a burning enthusiasm and a depth of passion of which only his intimate friends were aware.

His work may best be considered under the following heads:

1.Grote’s Services to Education.—He took, as already stated, an important part in the foundation and organization of the original university of London, which began its public work in Gower Street on the 28th of October 1828, and in 1836, on the incorporation of the university of London proper, became known as University College. In 1849 he was re-elected to the council, in 1860 he became treasurer, and on the death of Brougham (1868) president. He took a keen interest in all the work of the college, presented to it theMarmor Homericum, and finally bequeathed the reversion of £6000 for the endowment of a chairof philosophy of mind and logic. The emoluments of this sum were, however, to be held over and added to the principal if at any time the holder of the chair should be “a minister of the Church of England or of any other religious persuasion.” In 1850 the senate of the university was reconstituted, and Grote was one of seven eminent men who were added to it. Eventually he became the strongest advocate for open examinations, for the claims not only of philosophy and classics but also of natural science, and, as vice-chancellor in 1862, for the admission of women to examinations. This latter reform was carried in 1868. He succeeded his friend Henry Hallam as a trustee of the British Museum in 1859, and took part in the reorganization of the departments of antiquities and natural science.

The honours which he received in recognition of these services were as follows: D.C.L. of Oxford (1853); LL.D. Cambridge (1861); F.R.S. (1857); honorary professor of ancient history in the Royal Academy (1859). By the French Academy of Moral and Political Sciences he was made correspondent (1857) and foreign associate (the first Englishman since Macaulay) (1864). In 1869 he refused Gladstone’s offer of a peerage.

2.Political Career.—In politics Grote belonged to the “philosophic Radicals” of the school of J. S. Mill and Bentham, whose chief principles were representative government, vote by ballot, the abolition of a state church, frequent elections. He adhered to these principles throughout, and refused to countenance any reforms which were incompatible with them. By this uncompromising attitude, he gradually lost all his supporters save a few men of like rigidity. As a speaker, he was clear, logical and impressive, and on select committees his common sense was most valuable. For his speeches see A. Bain in theMinor Works; see alsoBallot.

3.The History of Greece.—It is on this work that Grote’s reputation mainly rests. Though half a century has passed since its production, it is still in some sense the text-book. It consists of two parts, the “Legendary” and the “Historical” Greece. The former, owing to the development of comparative mythology, is now of little authority, and portions of part ii. are obsolete owing partly to the immense accumulations of epigraphic and archaeological research, partly to the subsequent discovery of the AristotelianConstitution of Athens, and partly also to the more careful weighing of evidence which Grote himself misinterpreted. The interest of the work is twofold. In the first place it contains a wonderful mass of information carefully collected from all sources, arranged on a simple plan, and expressed in direct forcible language. It is in this respect one of the few great comprehensive histories in our possession, great in scope, conception and accomplishment. But more than this it is interesting as among the first works in which Greek history became a separate study, based on real evidence and governed by the criteria of modern historical science. Further Grote, a practical man, a rationalist and an enthusiast for democracy, was the first to consider Greek political development with a sympathetic interest (seeGreece:History, Ancient, section “Authorities”), in opposition to the Tory attitude of John Gillies and Mitford, who had written under the influence of horror at the French Revolution. On the whole his work was done with impartiality, and more recent study has only confirmed his general conclusions. Much has been made of his defective accounts of the tyrants and the Macedonian empire, and his opinion that Greek history ceased to be interesting or instructive after Chaeronea. It is true that he confined his interest to the fortunes of the city state and neglected the wider diffusion of the Greek culture, but this is after all merely a criticism of the title of the book. The value of theHistoryconsists to-day primarily in its examination of the Athenian democracy, its growth and decline, an examination which is still the most inspiring, and in general the most instructive, in any language. In the description of battles and military operations generally Grote was handicapped by the lack of personal knowledge of the country. In this respect he is inferior to men like Ernst Curtius and G. B. Grundy.

4.In PhilosophyGrote was a follower of the Mills and Bentham. J. S. Mill paid a tribute to him in the preface to the third edition of hisExamination of Sir Wm. Hamilton’s Philosophy, and there is no doubt that the empirical school owed a great deal to his sound, accurate thinking, untrammelled by any reverence for authority, technique and convention. In dealing with Plato he was handicapped by this very common sense, which prevented him from appreciating the theory of ideas in its widest relations. HisPlatois important in that it emphasizes the generally neglected passages of Plato in which he seems to indulge in mere Socratic dialectic rather than to seek knowledge; it is, therefore, to be read as a corrective to the ordinary criticism of Plato. The more congenial study of Aristotle, though incomplete, is more valuable in the positive sense, and has not received the attention it deserves. Perhaps Grote’s most distinctive contribution to the study of Greek philosophy is his chapter in theHistory of Greeceon the Sophists, of whom he took a view somewhat more favourable than has been accepted before or since.

His wife,Harriet Lewin(1792-1878), was the daughter of Thomas Lewin, a retired Indian civilian, settled in Southampton. After her marriage with Grote in 1820 she devoted herself to the subjects in which he was interested and was a prominent figure in the literary, political and philosophical circle in which he lived. She carefully read the proofs of his work and relieved him of anxiety in connexion with his property. Among her writings are:Memoir of Ary Scheffer(1860);Collected Papers(1862); and her biography of her husband (1873). Another publication,The Philosophical Radicals of 1832(privately circulated in 1866), is interesting for the light it throws on the Reform movement of 1832 to 1842, especially on Molesworth.

Bibliography.—The History of Greecepassed through five editions the fifth (10 vols., 1888) being final. An edition covering the period from Solon to 403, with new notes and excursuses, was published by J. M. Mitchell and M. O. B. Caspari in 1907. ThePlatowas finally edited by Alexander Bain in 4 vols. See Mrs Grote’sPersonal Life of George Grote, and article inDict. Nat. Biog.by G. Croom Robertson.

(J. M. M.)

GROTEFEND, GEORG FRIEDRICH(1775-1853), German epigraphist, was born at Münden in Hanover on the 9th of June 1775. He was educated partly in his native town, partly at Ilfeld, where he remained till 1795, when he entered the university of Göttingen, and there became the friend of Heyne, Tychsen and Heeren. Heyne’s recommendation procured for him an assistant mastership in the Göttingen gymnasium in 1797. While there he published his workDe pasigraphia sive scriptura universali(1799), which led to his appointment in 1803 as prorector of the gymnasium of Frankfort-on-Main, and shortly afterwards as conrector. Grotefend was best known during his lifetime as a Latin and Italian philologist, though the attention he paid to his own language is shown by hisAnfangsgründe der deutschen Poesie, published in 1815, and his foundation of a society for investigating the German tongue in 1817. In 1821 he became director of the gymnasium at Hanover, a post which he retained till his retirement in 1849. In 1823-1824 appeared his revised edition of Wenck’s Latin grammar, in two volumes, followed by a smaller grammar for the use of schools in 1826; in 1835-1838 a systematic attempt to explain the fragmentary remains of the Umbrian dialect, entitledRudimenta linguae Umbricae ex inscriptionibus antiquis enodata(in eight parts); and in 1839 a work of similar character upon Oscan (Rudimenta linguae Oscae). In the same year he published an important memoir on the coins of Bactria, under the name ofDie Münzen der griechischen, parthischen, und indoskythischen Könige von Bactrien und den Ländern am Indus. He soon, however, returned to his favourite subject, and brought out a work in five parts,Zur Geographie und Geschichte von Altitalien(1840-1842). Previously, in 1836, he had written a preface to Wagenfeld’s translation of the spuriousSanchoniathonof Philo Byblius, which was alleged to have been discovered in the preceding year in the Portuguese convent of Santa Maria de Merinhao. But it was in the East rather than in the West that Grotefend did his greatest work. The cuneiform inscriptions of Persia had for some time been attracting attention in Europe; exact copies of them had been published by the elder Niebuhr, who lost his eyesight over the work; and Grotefend’s friend, Tychsen of Rostock, believedthat he had ascertained the characters in the column, now known to be Persian, to be alphabetic. At this point Grotefend took the matter up. His first discovery was communicated to the Royal Society of Göttingen in 1800, and reviewed by Tychsen two years afterwards. In 1815 he gave an account of it in Heeren’s great work on ancient history, and in 1837 published hisNeue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der persepolitanischen Keilschrift. Three years later appeared hisNeue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der babylonischen Keilschrift. His discovery may be summed up as follows: (1) that the Persian inscriptions contain three different forms of cuneiform writing, so that the decipherment of the one would give the key to the decipherment of the others; (2) that the characters of the Persian column are alphabetic and not syllabic; (3) that they must be read from left to right; (4) that the alphabet consists of forty letters, including signs for long and short vowels; and (5) that the Persepolitan inscriptions are written in Zend (which, however, is not the case), and must be ascribed to the age of the Achaemenian princes. The process whereby Grotefend arrived at these conclusions is a prominent illustration of persevering genius (seeCuneiform). A solid basis had thus been laid for the interpretation of the Persian inscriptions, and all that remained was to work out the results of Grotefend’s brilliant discovery, a task ably performed by Burnouf, Lassen and Rawlinson. Grotefend died on the 15th of December 1853.

GROTESQUE,strictly a form of decorative art, in painting or sculpture, consisting of fantastic shapes of human beings, animals and the like, joined together by wreaths of flowers, garlands or arabesques. The word is also applied to any whimsical design or decorative style, if characterized by unnatural distortion, and, generally, to anything ludicrous or extravagantly fanciful. “Grotesque” comes through the French from the Ital.grottesco, an adjective formed fromgrotta, which has been corrupted in English to “grotto.” The commonly accepted explanation of the special use of the term “grotesque” is that this particular form of decorative art was most frequently found in the excavated ancient Roman and Greek dwellings found in Italy, to which was applied the namegrotte. The derivation ofgrottais through popular Lat.cruptaorgrupta(cf. “crypt”), from Gr.κρύπτη, a vault,κρύπτειν, to hide. Such a term would be applicable both to the buried dwellings of ancient Italy, and to a cavern, artificial or natural, the ordinary sense of the word. An interesting parallel with this origin of the word is found in that of “antic,” now meaning a freak, a jest, absurd fancy, &c. This word is the same as “antique,” and was, like “grotesque,” first applied to the fanciful decorations of ancient art.

GROTH, KLAUS(1819-1899), Low German poet, was born at Heide in Schleswig-Holstein, on the 24th of April 1819. After studying at the seminary in Tondern (1838-1841), he became a teacher at the girls’ school in his native village, but in 1847 went to Kiel to qualify for a higher educational post. Ill-health interrupted his studies and it was not until 1853 that he was able to resume them at Kiel. In 1856 he took the degree of doctor of philosophy at Bonn, and in 1858 settled asprivatdocentin German literature and languages at Kiel, where, in 1866, he was made professor, and where he lived until his death on the 1st of June 1899. In his Low German (Plattdeutsch) lyric and epic poems, which reflect the influence of Johann Peter Hebel (q.v.), Groth gives poetic expression to the country life of his northern home; and though his descriptions may not always reflect the peculiar characteristics of the peasantry of Holstein as faithfully as those of F. Reuter (q.v.), yet Groth is a lyric poet of genuine inspiration. His chief works areQuickborn, Volksleben in plattdeutschen Gedichten Ditmarscher Mundart(1852; 25th ed. 1900; and in High German translations, notably by M. J. Berchem, Krefeld, 1896); and two volumes of stories,Vertelln(1855-1859, 3rd ed. 1881); alsoVoer de Goern(1858) andUt min Jungsparadies(1875).

Groth’sGesammelte Werkeappeared in 4 vols. (1893). HisLebenserinnerungenwere edited by E. Wolff in 1891; see also K. Eggers,K. Groth und die plattdeutsche Dichtung(1885); and biographies by A. Bartels (1899) and H. Siercks (1899.)

GROTH, PAUL HEINRICH VON(1843- ), German mineralogist, was born at Magdeburg on the 23rd of June 1843. He was educated at Freiberg, Dresden and Berlin, and took the degree of Ph.D. in 1868. After holding from 1872 the chair of mineralogy at Strasburg, he was in 1883 appointed professor of mineralogy and curator of minerals in the state museum at Munich. He carried on extensive researches on crystals and minerals, and also on rocks; and publishedTabellarische Übersicht der einfachen Mineralien(1874-1898), andPhysikalische Krystallographie(1876-1895, ed. 4, 1905). He edited for some years theZeitschrift für Krystallographie und Mineralogie.

GROTIUS, HUGO(1583-1645), in his native country Huig van Groot, but known to the rest of Europe by the latinized form of the name, Dutch publicist and statesman, was born at Delft on Easter day, the 10th of April 1583. The Groots were a branch of a family of distinction, which had been noble in France, but had removed to the Low Countries more than a century before. Their French name was de Cornets, and this cadet branch had taken the name of Groot on the marriage of Hugo’s great-grandfather with a Dutch heiress. The father of Hugo was a lawyer in considerable practice, who had four times served the office of burgomaster of Leiden, and was one of the three curators of the university of that place.

In the annals of precocious genius there is no greater prodigy on record than Hugo Grotius, who was able to make good Latin verses at nine, was ripe for the university at twelve, and at fifteen edited the encyclopaedic work of Martianus Capella. At Leiden he was much noticed by J. J. Scaliger, whose habit it was to engage his young friends in the editing of some classical text. At fifteen Grotius accompanied Count Justin of Nassau, and the grand pensionary J. van Olden Barneveldt on their special embassy to the court of France. After a year spent in acquiring the language and making acquaintance with the leading men of France, Grotius returned home. He took the degree of doctor of law at Leiden, and entered on practice as an advocate.

Notwithstanding his successes in his profession, his inclination was to literature. In 1600 he edited the remains of Aratus, with the versions of Cicero, Germanicus and Avienus. Of theGermanicusScaliger says—“A better text than that which Grotius has given, it is impossible to give”; but it is probable that Scaliger had himself been the reviser. Grotius vied with the Latinists of his day in the composition of Latin verses. Some lines on the siege of Ostend spread his fame beyond the circle of the learned. He wrote three dramas in Latin:—Christus patiens; Sophomphaneas, on the story of Joseph and his brethren; andAdamus exul, a production still remembered as having given hints to Milton. TheSophomphaneaswas translated into Dutch by Vondel, and into English by Francis Goldsmith (1652); theChristus patiensinto English by George Sandys (1640).

In 1603 the United Provinces, desiring to transmit to posterity some account of their struggle with Spain, determined to appoint a historiographer. The choice of the states fell upon Grotius, though he was but twenty years of age, and had not offered himself for the post. There was some talk at this time in Paris of calling Grotius to be librarian of the royal library. But it was a ruse of the Jesuit party, who wished to persuade the public that the opposition to the appointment of Isaac Casaubon did not proceed from theological motives, since they were ready to appoint a Protestant in the person of Grotius.

His next preferment was that of advocate-general of the fisc for the provinces of Holland and Zeeland. This was followed by his marriage, in 1608, to Marie Reigersberg, a lady of family in Zeeland, a woman of great capacity and noble disposition.

Grotius had already passed from occupation with the classics to studies more immediately connected with his profession. In the winter of 1604 he composed (but did not publish) a treatise entitledDe jure praedae. The MS. remained unknown till 1868, when it was brought to light, and printed at the Hague under the auspices of Professor Fruin. It shows that the principles and the plan of the celebratedDe jure belli, which was not composedtill 1625, more than twenty years after, had already been conceived by a youth of twenty-one. It has always been a question what it was that determined Grotius, when an exile in Paris in 1625, to that particular subject, and various explanations have been offered; among others a casual suggestion of Peiresc in a letter of early date. The discovery of the MS. of theDe jure praedaediscloses the whole history of Grotius’s ideas, and shows that from youth upwards he had steadily read and meditated in one direction, that, namely, of which the famousDe jure belliwas the mature product. In theDe jure praedaeof 1604 there is much more than the germ of the later treatiseDe jure belli. Its main principles, and the whole system of thought implied in the later, are anticipated in the earlier work. The arrangement even is the same. The chief difference between the two treatises is one which twenty years’ experience in affairs could not but bring—the substitution of more cautious and guarded language, less dogmatic affirmation, more allowance for exceptions and deviations. TheJus paciswas an addition introduced first in the later work, an insertion which is the cause of not a little of the confused arrangement which has been found fault with in theDe jure belli.

TheDe jure praedaefurther demonstrates that Grotius was originally determined to this subject, not by any speculative intellectual interest, but by a special occasion presented by his professional engagements. He was retained by the Dutch East India Company as their advocate. One of their captains, Heemskirk, had captured a rich Portuguese galleon in the Straits of Malacca. The right of a private company to make prizes was hotly contested in Holland, and denied by the stricter religionists, especially the Mennonites, who considered all war unlawful. Grotius undertook to prove that Heemskirk’s prize had been lawfully captured. In doing this he was led to investigate the grounds of the lawfulness of war in general. Such was the casual origin of a book which long enjoyed such celebrity that it used to be said, with some exaggeration indeed, that it had founded a new science.

A short treatise which was printed in 1609, Grotius says without his permission, under the title ofMare liberum, is nothing more than a chapter—the 12th—of theDe jure praedae. It was necessary to Grotius’s defence of Heemskirk that he should show that the Portuguese pretence that Eastern waters were their private property was untenable. Grotius maintains that the ocean is free to all nations. The occasional character of this piece explains the fact that at the time of its appearance it made no sensation. It was not till many years afterwards that the jealousies between England and Holland gave importance to the novel doctrine broached in the tract by Grotius, a doctrine which Selden set himself to refute in hisMare clausum(1632).

Equally due to the circumstances of the time was his small contribution to constitutional history entitledDe antiquitate reipublicae Batavae(1610). In this he vindicates, on grounds of right, prescriptive and natural, the revolt of the United Provinces against the sovereignty of Spain.

Grotius, when he was only thirty, was made pensionary of the city of Rotterdam. In 1613 he formed one of a deputation to England, in an attempt to adjust those differences which gave rise afterwards to a naval struggle disastrous to Holland. He was received by James with every mark of distinction. He also cultivated the acquaintance of the Anglican ecclesiastics John Overall and L. Andrewes, and was much in the society of the celebrated scholar Isaac Casaubon, with whom he had been in correspondence by letter for many years. Though the mediating views in the great religious conflict between Catholic and Protestant, by which Grotius was afterwards known, had been arrived at by him by independent reflection, yet it could not but be that he would be confirmed in them by finding in England a developed school of thought of the same character already in existence. How highly Casaubon esteemed Grotius appears from a letter of his to Daniel Heinsius, dated London, 13th of April 1613. “I cannot say how happy I esteem myself in having seen so much of one so truly great as Grotius. A wonderful man! This I knew him to be before I had seen him; but the rare excellence of that divine genius no one can sufficiently feel who does not see his face, and hear him speak. Probity is stamped on his features; his conversation savours of true piety and profound learning. It is not only upon me that he has made this impression; all the pious and learned to whom he has been here introduced have felt the same towards him; the king especially so!”

After Grotius’s return from England the exasperation of theological parties in Holland rose to such a pitch that it became clear that an appeal to force would be made. Grotius sought to find some mean term in which the two hostile parties of Remonstrants and Anti-remonstrants, or as they were subsequently called Arminians and Gomarists (see Remonstrants), might agree. A form of edict drawn by Grotius was published by the states, recommending mutual toleration, and forbidding ministers in the pulpit from handling the disputed dogmas. To the orthodox Calvinists the word toleration was insupportable. They had the populace on their side. This fact determined the stadtholder, Maurice of Nassau, to support the orthodox party—a party to which he inclined the more readily that Olden Barneveldt, the grand pensionary, the man whose uprightness and abilities he most dreaded, sided with the Remonstrants.

In 1618 Prince Maurice set out on a sort of pacific campaign, disbanding the civic guards in the various cities of Guelders, Holland and Zeeland, and occupying the places with troops on whom he could rely. The states of Holland sent a commission, of which Grotius was chairman, to Utrecht, with the view of strengthening the hands of their friends, the Remonstrant party, in that city. Feeble plans were formed, but not carried into effect, for shutting the gates upon the stadtholder, who entered the city with troops on the night of the 26th of July 1618. There were conferences in which Grotius met Prince Maurice, and taught him that Olden Barneveldt was not the only man of capacity in the ranks of the Remonstrants whom he had to fear. On the early morning of the 31st of July the prince’scoup d’étatagainst the liberties of Utrecht and of Holland was carried out; the civic guard was disarmed—Grotius and his colleagues saving themselves by a precipitate flight. But it was only a reprieve. The grand pensionary, Olden Barneveldt, the leader of the Remonstrant party, Grotius and Hoogerbeets were arrested, brought to trial, and condemned—Olden Barneveldt to death, and Grotius to imprisonment for life and confiscation of his property. In June 1619 he was immured in the fortress of Louvestein near Gorcum. His confinement was rigorous, but after a time his wife obtained permission to share his captivity, on the condition that if she came out, she should not be suffered to return.

Grotius had now before him, at thirty-six, no prospect but that of a life-long captivity. He did not abandon himself to despair, but sought refuge in returning to the classical pursuits of his youth. Several of his translations (into Latin) from the Greek tragedians and other writers, made at this time, have been printed. “The Muses,” he writes to Voss, “were now his consolation, and appeared more amiable than ever.”

The ingenuity of Madame Grotius at length devised a mode of escape. It had grown into a custom to send the books which he had done with in a chest along with his linen to be washed at Gorcum. After a time the warders began to let the chest pass without opening it. Madame Grotius, perceiving this, prevailed on her husband to allow himself to be shut up in it at the usual time. The two soldiers who carried the chest out complained that it was so heavy “there must be an Arminian in it.” “There are indeed,” said Madame Grotius, “Arminian books in it.” The chest was carried to the house of a friend, where Grotius was released. He was then dressed like a mason with hod and trowel, and so conveyed over the frontier. His first place of refuge was Antwerp, from which he proceeded to Paris, where he arrived in April 1621. In October he was joined by his wife. There he was presented to the king, Louis XIII., and a pension of 3000 livres conferred upon him. French pensions were easily granted, all the more so as they were never paid. Grotius was nowreduced to great straits. He looked about for any opening through which he might earn a living. There was talk of something in Denmark; or he would settle in Spires, and practise in the court there. Some little relief he got through the intervention of Étienne d’Aligre, the chancellor, who procured a royal mandate which enabled Grotius to draw, not all, but a large part of his pension. In 1623 the president Henri de Même lent him his château of Balagni near Senlis (dep. Oise), and there Grotius passed the spring and summer of that year. De Thou gave him facilities to borrow books from the superb library formed by his father.

In these circumstances theDe jure belli et paciswas composed. That a work of such immense reading, consisting in great part of quotation, should have been written in little more than a year was a source of astonishment to his biographers. The achievement would have been impossible, but for the fact that Grotius had with him the first draft of the work made in 1604. He had also got his brother William, when reading his classics, to mark down all the passages which touched upon law, public or private. In March 1625 the printing of theDe jure belli, which had taken four months, was completed, and the edition despatched to the fair at Frankfort. His own honorarium as author consisted of 200 copies, of which, however, he had to give away many to friends, to the king, the principal courtiers, the papal nuncio, &c. What remained he sold for his own profit at the price of a crown each, but the sale did not recoup him his outlay. But though his book brought him no profit it brought him reputation, so widely spread, and of such long endurance, as no other legal treatise has ever enjoyed.

Grotius hoped that his fame would soften the hostility of his foes, and that his country would recall him to her service. Theological rancour, however, prevailed over all other sentiments, and, after fruitless attempts to re-establish himself in Holland, Grotius accepted service under Sweden, in the capacity of ambassador to France. He was not very successful in negotiating the treaty on behalf of the Protestant interest in Germany, Richelieu having a special dislike to him. He never enjoyed the confidence of the court to which he was accredited, and frittered away his influence in disputes about precedence. In 1645 he demanded and obtained his recall. He was honourably received at Stockholm, but neither the climate nor the tone of the court suited him, and he asked permission to leave. He was driven by a storm on the coast near Dantzig. He got as far as Rostock, where he found himself very ill. Stockman, a Scottish physician who was sent for, thought it was only weakness, and that rest would restore the patient. But Grotius sank rapidly, and died on the 29th of August 1645.

Grotius combined a wide circle of general knowledge with a profound study of one branch of law. History, theology, jurisprudence, politics, classics, poetry,—all these fields he cultivated. His commentaries on the Scriptures were the first application on an extensive scale of the principle affirmed by Scaliger, that, namely, of interpretation by the rules of grammar without dogmatic assumptions. Grotius’s philological skill, however, was not sufficient to enable him to work up to this ideal.

As in many other points Grotius inevitably recalls Erasmus, so he does in his attitude towards the great schism. Grotius was, however, animated by an ardent desire for peace and concord. He thought that a basis for reconciliation of Protestant and Catholic might be found in a common piety, combined with reticence upon discrepancies of doctrinal statement. HisDe veritate religionis Christianae(1627), a presentment of the evidences, is so written as to form a code of common Christianity, irrespective of sect. The little treatise became widely popular, gaining rather than losing popularity in the 18th century. It became the classical manual of apologetics in Protestant colleges, and was translated for missionary purposes into Arabic (by Pococke, 1660), Persian, Chinese, &c. HisVia et votum ad pacem ecclesiasticam(1642) was a detailed proposal of a scheme of accommodation. Like all men of moderate and mediating views, he was charged by both sides with vacillation. An Amsterdam minister, James Laurent, published hisGrotius papizans(1642), and it was continually being announced from Paris that Grotius had “gone over.” Hallam, who has collected all the passages from Grotius’s letters in which the prejudices and narrow tenets of the Reformed clergy are condemned, thought he had a “bias towards popery” (Lit. of Europe, ii. 312). The true interpretation of Grotius’s mind appears to be an indifference to dogmatic propositions, produced by a profound sentiment of piety. He approached parties as a statesman approaches them, as facts which have to be dealt with, and governed, not suppressed in the interests of some one of their number.

His editions and translations of the classics were either juvenile exercises prescribed by Scaliger, or “lusus poetici,” the amusement of vacant hours. Grotius read the classics as a humanist, for the sake of their contents, not as a professional scholar.

HisAnnals of the Low Countrieswas begun as an official duty while he held the appointment of historiographer, and was being continued and retouched by him to the last. It was not published till 1657, by his sons Peter and Cornelius.

Grotius was a great jurist, and hisDe jure belli et pacis(Paris, 1625), though not the first attempt in modern times to ascertain the principles of jurisprudence, went far more fundamentally into the discussion than any one had done before him. The title of the work was so far misleading that thejus belliwas a very small part of his comprehensive scheme. In his treatment of this narrower question he had the works of Alberico Gentili and Ayala before him, and has acknowledged his obligations to them. But it is in the larger questions to which he opened the way that the merit of Grotius consists. His was the first attempt to obtain a principle of right, and a basis for society and government, outside the church or the Bible. The distinction between religion on the one hand and law and morality on the other is not indeed clearly conceived by Grotius, but he wrestles with it in such a way as to make it easy for those who followed him to seize it. The law of nature is unalterable; God Himself cannot alter it any more than He can alter a mathematical axiom. This law has its source in the nature of man as a social being; it would be valid even were there no God, or if God did not interfere in the government of the world. These positions, though Grotius’s religious temper did not allow him to rely unreservedly upon them, yet, even in the partial application they find in his book, entitle him to the honour of being held the founder of the modern science of the law of nature and nations. TheDe jureexerted little influence on the practice of belligerents, yet its publication was an epoch in the science. De Quincey has said that the book is equally divided between “empty truisms and time-serving Dutch falsehoods.” For a saner judgment and a brief abstract of the contents of theDe jure, consult J. K. Bluntschli,Geschichte des allgemeinen Staatsrechts(Munich, 1864). A fuller analysis, and some notice of the predecessors of Grotius, will be found in Hély,Étude sur le droit de la guerre de Grotius(Paris, 1875). The writer, however, had never heard of theDe jure praedae, published in 1868. Hallam,Lit. of Europe, ii. p. 543, has an abstract done with his usual conscientious pains. Dugald Stewart (Collected Works, i. 370) has dwelt upon the confusion and defects of Grotius’s theory. Sir James Mackintosh (Miscell. Works, p. 166) has defended Grotius, affirming that his work “is perhaps the most complete that the world has yet owed, at so early a stage in the progress of any science, to the genius and learning of one man.”

Back to Index Next