disastrous War of Chioggia "is one long and melancholy tissue
of internal and external troubles, coming faster and faster
upon one another as the inherent vitality of the Republic grew
weaker. ... During this period we have a constant and
unhealthy craving for foreign masters, be they Marquises of
Monferrato, Dukes of Milan, or the more formidable subverters
of freedom, the kings of France. ... In 1396 ... Adorno [then
doge of Genoa], finding himself unable to tyrannize as he
wished, decided on handing over the government to Charles VI.
of France. In this he was ably backed up by many members of
the old nobility, as the signatures to the treaty testify. The
king was to be entitled 'Defender of the Commune and People,'
and was to respect in every way the existing order of things.
So on the 27th of November, in that year, the great bell in
the tower of the ducal palace was rung, the French standard
was raised by the side of the red cross of Genoa, and in the
great council hall, where her rulers had sat for centuries,
now sat enthroned the French ambassadors, whilst Antoniotto
Adorno handed over to them the sceptre and keys of the city.
These symbols of government were graciously restored to him,
with the admonition that he should no longer be styled 'doge,'
but 'governor' in the name of France. Thus did Adorno sell his
country for the love of power, preferring to be the head of
many slaves, rather than to live as a subordinate in a free
community. The first two governors sent by France after
Adorno's death were unable to cope with the seething mass of
corruption they found within the city walls, until the Marshal
Boucicault was sent, whose name was far famed for cruelty in
Spain against the Moors, in Bulgaria against the Turks, and in
France against the rebels." The government of Boucicault was
hard and cruel, and "his name is handed down by the Genoese as
the most hateful of her many tyrants." In 1409 they took
advantage of his absence from the city to bring in the Marquis
of Monferrato, who established himself in his place. "It was
but for a brief period that the Genoese submitted to the
Marquis of Monferrato; they preferred to return to their doges
and internal quarrels. ... Throughout the city nothing was
heard but the din of arms. Brother fought against brother,
father against son, and for the whole of an unusually chill
December, in 1414, there was not a by-path in Genoa which was
not paved with lances, battle-axes and dead bodies. ... Out of
this fiery trial Genoa at length emerged with Tommaso
Campofregoso as her doge, one of the few bright lights which
illumined Liguria during the early part of this century. ...
The Genoese arms during this time of quiescence again shone
forth with something of their ancient brilliancy. Corsica was
subdued, and a substantial league was formed with Henry V. of
England, ... 1421, by which perpetual friendship and peace by
land and sea was sworn. Short, however, was the period during
which Genoa could rest contented at home. Campofregoso was
driven from the dogeship, and Filippo Maria, Visconti of
Milan, was appointed protector of the Republic [1422], and
through this allegiance the Genoese were drawn into an
unprofitable war for the succession in Naples, in which the
Duke of Milan and the Pope supported the claims of Queen
Joanna and her adopted son, Louis of Anjou, against Alphonso
of Aragon."
_J. T. Bent,
Genoa,
chapter 9._
_The Universal History,
chapter 73, sections 3-4 (volume 25)._
GENOA: A. D. 1385-1386.
Residence of Pope Urban VI.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.
GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.
The Bank of St. George.
"The Bank of St. George was founded in Genoa in the year 1407.
It was an immense success and a great support to the
government. It gradually became a republic within the
republic, more peaceful and better regulated than its
mistress." In 1448 the administration of Corsica and of the
Genoese colonies in the Levant was transferred to the Bank,
which thenceforward appointed governors and conducted colonial
affairs.
_G. B. Malleson,
Studies from Genoese History,
page 75._
ALSO IN:
_J. T. Bent,
Genoa,
chapter 11._
See, also,
CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY.
GENOA: A. D. 1421-1435.
Submission to the Duke of Milan, and recovery of the freedom
of the city.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.
Renewed struggles of domestic faction and changes of foreign
masters.
Submission to the Dukes of Milan.
"Genoa, wearied with internal convulsions, which followed each
other incessantly, had lost all influence over the rest of
Italy; continually oppressed by faction, it no longer
preserved even the recollection of liberty. In 1458, it had
submitted to the king of France, then Charles VII.; and John
of Anjou, duke of Calabria, had come to exercise the functions
of governor in the king's name. He made it, at the same time,
his fortress, from whence to attack the kingdom of Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
But this war had worn out the patience of the Genoese; they
rose against the French; and, on the 17th of July, 1461,
destroyed the army sent to subdue them by René of Anjou. The
Genoese had no sooner thrown off a foreign yoke than they
became divided into two factions,--the Adorni and the Fregosi,
[severally partisans of two families of that name which
contended for the control of the republic]: both had at
different times, and more than once, given them a doge. The
more violent and tyrannical of these factious magistrates was
Paolo Fregoso, also archbishop of Genoa, who had returned to
his country, in 1462, as chief of banditti; and left it again,
two years afterwards, as chief of a band of pirates. The
Genoese, disgusted with their independence, which was
disgraced by so many crimes and disturbances, had, on the 13th
of April, 1464, yielded to Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan;
and afterwards remained subject to his son Galeazzo."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 11._
ALSO IN:
_B. Duffy,
The Tuscan Republics,
chapter 23._
GENOA: A. D. 1475.
Loss of possessions in the Crimea.
See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.
{1422}
GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.
Capitulation to Louis XII. of France, conqueror of Milan.
Revolt and subjugation.
By the conquest of Milan (see ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500), Louis
XII. of France acquired the signoria of Genoa, which had been
held by the deposed duke, Ludovico Sforza. "According to the
capitulation, one half of the magistrates of Genoa should be
noble, the other half plebeian. They were to be chosen by the
suffrages of their fellow-citizens; they were to retain the
government of the whole of Liguria, and the administration of
their own finances, with the reservation of a fixed sum
payable yearly to the king of France. But the French could
never comprehend that nobles were on an equality with
villains; that a king was bound by conditions imposed by his
subjects; or that money could be refused to him who had force.
All the capitulations of Genoa were successively violated; while
the Genoese nobles ranged themselves on the side of a king
against their country: they were known to carry insolently
about them a dagger, on which was inscribed, 'Chastise
villains'; so impatient were they to separate themselves from
the people, even by meanness and assassination. That people
could not support the double yoke of a foreign master and of
nobles who betrayed their country. On the 7th of February,
1507, they revolted, drove out the French, proclaimed the
republic, and named a new doge; but time failed them to
organize their defence. On the 3d of April, Louis advanced
from Grenoble with a powerful army. He soon arrived before
Genoa: the newly-raised militia, unable to withstand veteran
troops, were defeated. Louis entered Genoa on the 29th of
April; and immediately sent the doge and the greater number of
the generous citizens, who had signalized themselves in the
defence of their country, to the scaffold."
_J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 14._
ALSO IN:
_L. von Ranke,
History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
from 1494 to 1514,
page 260._
GENOA: A. D. 1527-1528.
French dominion momentarily restored and then overthrown by
Andrew Doria.
The republic revived.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.
The conspiracy of Fiesco and its failure.
Revolt and recovery of Corsica.
"Sustained by the ability of Doria, and protected by the arms
of Charles V., the Republic, during near nineteen years
subsequent to this auspicious revolution, continued in the
enjoyment of dignified independence and repose. But, the
memorable conspiracy of Louis Fiesco, Count of Lavagna, the
Catiline of Liguria, had nearly subverted Genoa, and reduced
it anew to the obedience of France, or exposed it once more to
all the misfortunes of anarchy. The massacre of Doria and his
family constituted one of the primary objects of the plot;
while the dissimulation, intrepidity, and capacity, which
marked its leader ... have rendered the attempt one of the
most extraordinary related in modern history. It was
accompanied with complete success till the moment of its
termination. Jeannetin Doria, the heir of that house, having
perished by the dagger, and Andrew, his uncle, being with
difficulty saved by his servants, who transported him out of
the city, the Genoese Senate was about to submit
unconditionally to Fiesco, when that nobleman, by a sudden and
accidental death, at once rendered abortive his own hopes and
those of his followers. The government, resuming courage,
expelled the surviving conspirators; and Doria, on his return
to the city, sullied the lustre of his high character, by
proceeding to acts of cruelty against the brothers and
adherents of the Count of Lavagna. Notwithstanding this
culpable and vindictive excess, he continued invariably firm
to the political principles which he had inculcated, for
maintaining the freedom of the Commonwealth. Philip, Prince of
Spain, son of Charles V., having visited Genoa in the
succeeding year, attempted to induce the senate, under
specious pretences of securing their safety, to consent to the
construction of a citadel, garrisoned by Spaniards. But he found
in that assembly, as well as in Doria, an insurmountable
opposition to the measure, which was rejected with unanimous
indignation. The island of Corsica, which had been subjected
for ages to Genoa, and which was oppressed by a tyrannical
administration, took up arms at this period [1558-1559]; and
the French having aided the insurgents, they maintained a long
and successful struggle against their oppressors. But the
peace concluded at Cateau between Philip, King of Spain, and
Henry II., in which the Spanish court dictated terms to
France, obliged that nation to evacuate their Corsican
acquisitions, and to restore the island to the Genoese.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
Soon afterwards [1559], at the very advanced age of ninety,
Andrew Doria expired in his own palace, surrounded by the
people on whom he had conferred freedom and tranquillity;
leaving the Commonwealth in domestic repose and undisturbed by
foreign war."
_Sir N. W. Wraxall,
History of France, 1574-1610,
volume 2, pages 43-44._
ALSO IN:
_G. B. Malleson,
Studies from Genoese History,
chapter 1-3._
GENOA: A. D. 1625-1626.
Unsuccessful attack by France and Savoy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
GENOA: A. D. 1745.
The republic sides with Spain and France in the War of the
Austrian Succession.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745.
GENOA: A. D. 1746-1747.
Surrendered to the Austrians.
Popular rising.
Expulsion of the Austrian garrison.
Long siege and deliverance of the city.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
GENOA: A. D. 1748.
Territory secured by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.
GENOA: A. D. 1768.
Cession of Corsica to France.
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
GENOA: A. D. 1796.
Treaty of peace with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
GENOA: A. D. 1797.
Revolution forced by Bonaparte.
Creation of the Ligurian Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
GENOA: A. D. 1800.
Siege by the Austrians.
Masséna's defense.
Surrender of the city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
GENOA: A. D. 1805.
Surrender of independence.
Annexation to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
GENOA: A. D. 1814.
Reduction of the forts by English troops.
Surrender of the French garrison.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814.
GENOA: A. D. 1814-1815.
Annexation to the kingdom of Sardinia.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
----------GENOA: End----------
GENOLA, Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
{1423}
GENS, GENTES, GENTILES.
"When Roman history begins, there were within the city, and
subordinate to the common city government, a large number of
smaller bodies, each of which preserved its individuality and
some semblance of governmental machinery. These were clans
[gens], and in prehistoric times each of them is taken to have
had an independent political existence, living apart, worshiping
its own gods, and ruled over by its own chieftain. This clan
organization is not supposed to have been peculiar at all to
Rome, but ancient society in general was composed of an
indefinite number of such bodies, which, at the outset,
treated with each other in a small way as nations might treat
with each other to-day. It needs to be noted, however, that,
at any rate, so far as Rome is concerned, this is a matter of
inference, not of historical proof. The earliest political
divisions in Latium of which we have any trace consisted of
such clans united into communities. If they ever existed,
separately, therefore their union must have been deliberate
and artificial, and the body thus formed was the canton
('civitas' or 'populus'). Each canton had a fixed common
stronghold ('capitolium,' 'height,' or 'arx'--cf. 'arceo'
--'citadel') situated on some central elevation. The clans
dwelt around in hamlets ('vici' or 'pagi') scattered through
the canton. Originally, the central stronghold was not a place
of residence like the 'pagi,' but a place of refuge ... and a
place of meeting. ... In all of this, therefore, the clan
seems to lie at the very foundation. ... Any clan in the
beginning, of course, must have been simply a family. When it
grew so large as to be divided into sections, the sections
were known as families ('familiæ') and their union was the
clan. In this view the family, as we find it existing in the
Roman state, was a subdivision of the clan. In other words,
historically, families did not unite to form clans, but the
clan was the primitive thing, and the families were its
branches. Men thus recognized kinship of a double character.
They were related to all the members of their clan as
'gentiles,' and again more closely to all the members of their
branch of the clan at once as 'gentiles' and also as 'agnati.'
As already stated, men belonged to the same family ('agnati')
when they could trace their descent through males from a
common ancestor who gave its name to the family, or, what is
the same thing, was its eponym. Between the members of a clan
the chief evidence of relationship in historical times was
tradition. ... We have thus outlined what is known as the
patriarchal theory of society, and hinted at its application
to certain facts in Roman history. It should be remembered,
however, that it is only a theory, and that it is open to some
apparent and to some real criticism."
_A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 2._
_T. Mommsen,
History of Rome, book 1,
chapter 5._
"The patricians were divided into certain private
associations, called Gentes, which we may translate Houses or
Clans. All the members of each Gens were called gentiles; and
they bore the same name, which always ended in -ius; as for
instance, every member of the Julian Gens was a Julius; every
member of the Cornelian Gens was a Cornelius, and so on. Now
in every Gens there were a number of Families which were
distinguished by a name added to the name of the Gens. Thus
the Scipios, Sullas, Cinnas, Cethegi, Lentuli, were all
families of the Cornelian Gens. Lastly, every person of every
Family was denoted by a name prefixed to the name of the Gens.
The name of the person was, in Latin, prænomen; that of the
Gens or House, nomen, that of the Family, cognomen. Thus Caius
Julius Cæsar was a person of the Cæsar Family in the Julian
Gens; Lucius Cornelius Scipio was a person of the Scipio
Family in the Cornelian Gens; and so forth."
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 3._
"There is no word in the English language which satisfactorily
renders the Latin word 'gens.' The term 'clan' is apt to
mislead; for the Scotch Highland clans were very different
from the Roman 'gentes.' The word 'House' is not quite
correct, for it always implies relationship, which was not
essential in the 'gens'; but for want of a better word we
shall use 'House' to express 'gens,' except where the spirit
of the language rejects the term and requires 'family'
instead. The German language has in the word 'Geschlecht' an
almost equivalent term for the Latin 'gens'."
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 13, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_Fustel de Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 2, chapter 10._
On the Greek gens, see PHYLÆ.
GENSERIC AND THE VANDALS.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
GENTILES.
See GENS.
GENUCIAN LAW, The.
A law which prohibited the taking of interest for loans is
said to have been adopted at Rome, B. C. 342, on the proposal
of the tribune Genucius; but modern historians are skeptical
as to the actual enactment of the law.
_W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 5._
GEOK TEPE, Siege and capture of (1881).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.
GEOMORI, OR GAMORI, The.
"As far as our imperfect information enables us to trace,
these early oligarchies of the Grecian states, against which
the first usurping despots contended, contained in themselves
more repulsive elements of inequality, and more mischievous
barriers between the component parts of the population, than
the oligarchies of later days. ... The oligarchy was not (like
the government so denominated in subsequent times) the
government of a rich few over the less rich and the poor, but
that of a peculiar order, sometimes a Patrician order, over
all the remaining society. ... The country-population, or
villagers who tilled the land, seem in these early times to
have been held to a painful dependence on the great
proprietors who lived in the fortified town, and to have been
distinguished by a dress and habits of their own, which often
drew upon them an unfriendly nickname. ... The governing
proprietors went by the name of the Gamori, or Geomori,
according as the Doric or Ionic dialect might be used in
describing them, since they were found in states belonging to
one race as well as to the other. They appear to have
constituted a close order, transmitting their privileges to
their children, but admitting no new members to a
participation. The principle called by Greek thinkers a
Timocracy (the apportionment of political rights and
privileges according to comparative property) seems to have
been little, if at all, applied in the earlier times. We know
no example of it earlier than Solon."
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 9._
GEONIM, The.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
GEORGE I.,
King of England (first of the Hanoverian or Brunswick line),
A. D. 1714-1727.
George II., King of England," 1727-1760.
George III., King of England, 1760-1820.
George IV., King of England, 1820-1830.
George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia, 1458-1471.
George William, Elector of Brandenburg, 1619-1640.
----------GEORGE: End----------
{1424}
GEORGIA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES,
MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1539-1542.
Traversed by Hernando de Soto.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
Clarendon, and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
Oglethorpe's colony.
"Among the members of Parliament during the rule of Sir Robert
Walpole was one almost unknown to us now, but deserving of
honour beyond most men of his time. His name was James
Oglethorpe. He was a soldier, and had fought against the Turks
and in the great Marlborough wars against Louis XIV. In
advanced life he became the friend of Samuel Johnson. Dr.
Johnson urged him to write some account of his adventures. 'I
know no one,' he said, 'whose life would be more interesting:
if I were furnished with materials I should be very glad to
write it.' Edmund Burke considered him 'a more extraordinary
person than any he had ever read of.' John Wesley 'blessed God
that ever he was born.' Oglethorpe attained the great age of
ninety-six, and died in the year 1785. ... In Oglethorpe's
time it was in the power of a creditor to imprison, according
to his pleasure, the man who owed him money and was not able
to pay it. It was a common circumstance that a man should be
imprisoned during a long series of years for a trifling debt.
Oglethorpe had a friend upon whom this hard fate had fallen.
His attention was thus painfully called to the cruelties which
were inflicted upon the unfortunate and helpless. He appealed
to Parliament, and after inquiry a partial remedy was
obtained. The benevolent exertions of Oglethorpe procured
liberty for multitudes who but for him might have ended their
lives in captivity. This, however, did not content him.
Liberty was an incomplete gift to men who had lost, or perhaps
had scarcely ever possessed, the faculty of earning their own
maintenance. Oglethorpe devised how lie might carry these
unfortunates to a new world, where, under happier auspices,
they might open a fresh career. He obtained [A. D. 1732] from
King George II. a charter by which the country between the
Savannah and the Alatamaha, and stretching westward to the
Pacific, was erected into the province of Georgia. It was to
be a refuge for the deserving poor, and next to them for
Protestants suffering persecution. Parliament voted £10,000 in
aid of the humane enterprise, and many benevolent persons were
liberal with their gifts. In November the first exodus of the
insolvent took place. Oglethorpe sailed with 120 emigrants,
mainly selected from the prisons--penniless, but of good
repute. He surveyed the coasts of Georgia, and chose a site
for the capital of his new State. He pitched his tent where
Savannah now stands, and at once proceeded to mark out the
line of streets and squares. Next year the colony was joined
by about a hundred German Protestants, who were then under
persecution for their beliefs. ... The fame of Oglethorpe's
enterprise spread over Europe. All struggling men, against
whom the battle of life went hard, looked to Georgia as a land
of promise. They were the men who most urgently required to
emigrate; but they were not always the men best fitted to
conquer the difficulties of the immigrant's life. The progress
of the colony was slow. The poor persons of whom it was
originally composed were honest but ineffective, and could not
in Georgia more than in England find out the way to become
self-supporting. Encouragements were given which drew from
Germany, from Switzerland, and from the Highlands of Scotland
men of firmer texture of mind--better fitted to subdue the
wilderness and bring forth its treasures. With Oglethorpe
there went out, on his second expedition to Georgia [1736],
the two brothers John and Charles Wesley. Charles went as
secretary to the Governor. John was even then, although a very
young man, a preacher of unusual promise. ... He spent two
years in Georgia, and these were unsuccessful years. His
character was unformed; his zeal out of proportion to his
discretion. The people felt that he preached 'personal
satires' at them. He involved himself in quarrels, and at last
had to leave the colony secretly, fearing arrest at the
instance of some whom he had offended. He returned to begin
his great career in England, with the feeling that his
residence in Georgia had been of much value to himself, but of
very little to the people whom he sought to benefit. Just as
Wesley reached England, his fellow-labourer George Whitefield
sailed for Georgia. ... He founded an Orphan-House at
Savannah, and supported it by contributions--obtained easily
from men under the power of his unequalled eloquence. He
visited Georgia very frequently, and his love for that colony
remained with him to the last. Slavery was, at the outset,
forbidden in Georgia. It was opposed to the gospel, Oglethorpe
said, and therefore not to be allowed. He foresaw, besides, what
has been so bitterly experienced since, that slavery must
degrade the poor white labourer. But soon a desire sprung up
among the less scrupulous of the settlers to have the use of
slaves. Within seven years from the first landing, slave-ships
were discharging their cargo at Savannah."
_R. Mackenzie,
America: A History,
book 1, chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_T. M. Harris,
Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe,
chapters 1-10._
_R. Wright,
Memoir of General James Oglethorpe,
chapters 1-9._
For text of charter, etc., see in
_G. White,
Historical Collections of Georgia,
pages. 1-20._
GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.
The settlement of the Salzburgers.