FOOTNOTE:

[1] The precise origin of the term "Old Tom," as applied to

unsweetened gin, appears to be somewhat obscure. In the English case

of _Boord & Son_ v. _Huddart_ (1903), in which the plaintiffs

established their right to the "Cat Brand" trade-mark, it was proved

before Mr Justice Swinfen Eady that this firm had first adopted about

1849 the punning association of the picture of a Tom cat on a barrel

with the name of "Old Tom"; and it was at one time supposed that this

was due to a tradition that a cat had fallen into one of the vats,

the gin from which was highly esteemed. But the term "Old Tom" had

been known before that, and Messrs Boord & Son inform us that

previously "Old Tom" had been a man, namely "old Thomas Chamberlain

of Hodge's distillery"; an old label book in their possession (1909)

shows a label and bill-head with a picture of "Old Tom" the man on

it, and another label shows a picture of a sailor lad on shipboard

described as "Young Tom."

GINDELY, ANTON (1829-1892), German historian, was the son of a German

father and a Slavonic mother, and was born at Prague on the 3rd of

September 1829. He studied at Prague and at Olmutz, and, after

travelling extensively in search of historical material, became

professor of history at the university of Prague and archivist for

Bohemia in 1862. He died at Prague on the 24th of October 1892.

Gindely's chief work is his _Geschichte des dreissigjahrigen Krieges_

(Prague, 1869-1880), which has been translated into English (New York,

1884); and his historical work is mainly concerned with the period of

the Thirty Years' War. Perhaps the most important of his numerous other

works are: _Geschichte der bohmischen Bruder_ (Prague, 1857-1858);

_Rudolf II. und seine Zeit_ (1862-1868), and a criticism of Wallenstein,

_Waldstein wahrend seines ersten Generalats_ (1886). He wrote a history

of Bethlen Gabor in Hungarian, and edited the _Monumenta historiae

Bohemica_. Gindely's posthumous work, _Geschichte der Gegenreformation

in Bohmen_, was edited by T. Tupetz (1894).

See the _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_, Band 49 (Leipzig, 1904).

GINGALL, or JINGAL (Hindostani _janjal_), a gun used by the natives

throughout the East, usually a light piece mounted on a swivel; it

sometimes takes the form of a heavy musket fired from a rest.

GINGER (Fr. _gingembre_, Ger. _Ingwer_), the rhizome or underground stem

of _Zingiber officinale_ (nat. ord. Zingiberaceae), a perennial

reed-like plant growing from 3 to 4 ft. high. The flowers and leaves are

borne on separate stems, those of the former being shorter than those of

the latter, and averaging from 6 to 12 in. The flowers themselves are

borne at the apex of the stems in dense ovate-oblong cone-like spikes

from 2 to 3 in. long, composed of obtuse strongly-imbricated bracts with

membranous margins, each bract enclosing a single small sessile flower.

The leaves are alternate and arranged in two rows, bright green, smooth,

tapering at both ends, with very short stalks and long sheaths which

stand away from the stem and end in two small rounded auricles. The

plant rarely flowers and the fruit is unknown. Though not found in a

wild state, it is considered with very good reason to be a native of the

warmer parts of Asia, over which it has been cultivated from an early

period and the rhizome imported into England. From Asia the plant has

spread into the West Indies, South America, western tropical Africa, and

Australia. It is commonly grown in botanic gardens in Britain.

The use of ginger as a spice has been known from very early times; it

was supposed by the Greeks and Romans to be a product of southern

Arabia, and was received by them by way of the Red Sea; in India it has

also been known from a very remote period, the Greek and Latin names

being derived from the Sanskrit. Fluckiger and Hanbury, in their

_Pharmacographia_, give the following notes on the history of ginger. On

the authority of Vincent's _Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients_, it

is stated that in the list of imports from the Red Sea into Alexandria,

which in the second century of our era were there liable to the Roman

fiscal duty, ginger occurs among other Indian spices. So frequent is the

mention of ginger in similar lists during the middle ages, that it

evidently constituted an important item in the commerce between Europe

and the East. It thus appears in the tariff of duties levied at Acre in

Palestine about 1173, in that of Barcelona in 1221, Marseilles in 1228

and Paris in 1296. Ginger seems to have been well known in England even

before the Norman Conquest, being often referred to in the Anglo-Saxon

leech-books of the 11th century. It was very common in the 13th and 14th

centuries, ranking next in value to pepper, which was then the commonest

of all spices, and costing on an average about 1s. 7d. per lb. Three

kinds of ginger were known among the merchants of Italy about the middle

of the 14th century: (1) _Belledi_ or _Baladi_, an Arabic name, which,

as applied to ginger, would signify country or wild, and denotes common

ginger; (2) _Colombino_, which refers to Columbum, Kolam or Quilon, a

port in Travancore, frequently mentioned in the middle ages; and (3)

_Micchino_, a name which denoted that the spice had been brought from or

by way of Mecca. Marco Polo seems to have seen the ginger plant both in

India and China between 1280 and 1290. John of Montecorvino, a

missionary friar who visited India about 1292, gives a description of

the plant, and refers to the fact of the root being dug up and

transported. Nicolo di Conto, a Venetian merchant in the early part of

the 15th century, also describes the plant and the collection of the

root, as seen by him in India. Though the Venetians received ginger by

way of Egypt, some of the superior kinds were taken from India overland

by the Black Sea. The spice is said to have been introduced into America

by Francisco de Mendoca, who took it from the East Indies to New Spain.

It seems to have been shipped for commercial purposes from San Domingo

as early as 1585, and from Barbados in 1654; so early as 1547

considerable quantities were sent from the West Indies to Spain.

[Illustration: From Bentley & Trimen's _Medicinal Plants_, by permission

of J. & A. Churchill.

Ginger (_Zingiber officinale_), about 1/2 nat. size, with leafy and

flowering stem; the former cut off short.

1. Flower.

2. Flower in vertical section.

3. Fertile stamen, enveloping the style which projects above it.

4. Piece of leafy stem. 1-3 enlarged.

s, Sepals.

p, Petals.l, Labellum, representing two barren stamens.

st, Fertile stamen.

y, Staminode.

x, Tip of style bearing the stigma.

z, Style.

gl, Honey-secreting glands.]

Ginger is known in commerce in two distinct forms, termed respectively

coated and uncoated ginger, as having or wanting the epidermis. For the

first, the pieces, which are called "races" or "hands," from their

irregular palmate form, are washed and simply dried in the sun. In this

form ginger presents a brown, more or less irregularly wrinkled or

striated surface, and when broken shows a dark brownish fracture, hard,

and sometimes horny and resinous. To produce uncoated ginger the

rhizomes are washed, scraped and sun-dried, and are often subjected to a

system of bleaching, either from the fumes of burning sulphur or by

immersion for a short time in a solution of chlorinated lime. The

whitewashed appearance that much of the ginger has, as seen in the

shops, is due to the fact of its being washed in whiting and water, or

even coated with sulphate of lime. This artificial coating is supposed

by some to give the ginger a better appearance; it often, however,

covers an inferior quality, and can readily be detected by the ease with

which it rubs off, or by its leaving a white powdery substance at the

bottom of the jar in which it is contained. Uncoated ginger, as seen in

trade, varies from single joints an inch or less in length to flattish

irregularly branched pieces of several joints, the "races" or "hands,"

and from 3 to 4 in. long; each branch has a depression at its summit

showing the former attachment of a leafy stem. The colour, when not

whitewashed, is a pale buff; it is somewhat rough or fibrous, breaking

with a short mealy fracture, and presenting on the surfaces of the

broken parts numerous short bristly fibres.

The principal constituents of ginger are starch, volatile oil (to

which the characteristic odour of the spice is due) and resin (to

which is attributed its pungency). Its chief use is as a condiment or

spice, but as an aromatic and stomachic medicine it is also used

internally. "The stimulant, aromatic and carminative properties render

it of much value in atonic dyspepsia, especially if accompanied with

much flatulence, and as an adjunct to purgative medicines to correct

griping." Externally applied as a rubefacient, it has been found to

relieve headache and toothache. The rhizomes, collected in a young

green state, washed, scraped and preserved in syrup, form a delicious

preserve, which is largely exported both from the West Indies and from

China. Cut up into pieces like lozenges and preserved in sugar, ginger

also forms a very agreeable sweetmeat.

GINGHAM, a cotton or linen cloth, for the name of which several origins

are suggested. It is said to have been made at Guingamp, a town in

Brittany; the _New English Dictionary_ derives the word from Malay

_ging-gang_, meaning "striped." The cloth is now of a light or medium

weight, and woven of dyed or white yarns either in a single colour or

different colours, and in stripes, checks or plaids. It is made in

Lancashire and in Glasgow, and also to a large extent in the United

States. Imitations of it are obtained by calico-printing. It is used for

dresses, &c.

GINGI, or GINGEE, a rock fortress of southern India, in the South Arcot

district of Madras. It consists of three hills, connected by walls

enclosing an area of 7 sq. m., and practically impregnable to assault.

The origin of the fortress is shrouded in legend. When occupied by the

Mahrattas at the end of the 17th century, it withstood a siege of eight

years against the armies of Aurangzeb. In 1750 it was captured by the

French, who held it with a strong force for eleven years. It surrendered

to the English in 1761, in the words of Orme, "terminated the long

hostilities between the two rival European powers in Coromandel, and

left not a single ensign of the French nation avowed by the authority of

its government in any part of India."

GINGUENE, PIERRE LOUIS (1748-1815), French author, was born on the 27th

of April 1748 at Rennes, in Brittany. He was educated at a Jesuit

college in his native town, and came to Paris in 1772. He wrote

criticisms for the _Mercure de France_, and composed a comic opera,

_Pomponin_ (1777). _The Satire des satires_ (1778) and the _Confession

de Zulme_ (1779) followed. _The Confession_ was claimed by six or seven

different authors, and though the value of the piece is not very great,

it obtained great success. His defence of Piccini against the partisans

of Gluck made him still more widely known. He hailed the first symptoms

of the Revolution, joined Giuseppe Cerutti, the author of the _Memoire

pour le peuple francais_ (1788), and others in producing the _Feuille

villageoise_, a weekly paper addressed to the villages of France. He

also celebrated in an indifferent ode the opening of the states-general.

In his _Lettres sur les confessions de J.-J. Rousseau_ (1791) he

defended the life and principles of his author. He was imprisoned during

the Terror, and only escaped with life by the downfall of Robespierre.

Some time after his release he assisted, as director-general of the

"commission executive de l'instruction publique," in reorganizing the

system of public instruction, and he was an original member of the

Institute of France. In 1797 the directory appointed him minister

plenipotentiary to the king of Sardinia. After fulfilling his duties for

seven months, very little to the satisfaction of his employers, Ginguene

retired for a time to his country house of St Prix, in the valley of

Montmorency. He was appointed a member of the tribunate, but Napoleon,

finding that he was not sufficiently tractable, had him expelled at the

first "purge," and Ginguene returned to his literary pursuits. He was

one of the commission charged to continue the _Histoire litteraire de la

France_, and he contributed to the volumes of this series which appeared

in 1814, 1817 and 1820. Ginguene's most important work is the _Histoire

litteraire d'Italie_ (14 vols., 1811-1835). He was putting the finishing

touches to the eighth and ninth volumes when he died on the 11th of

November 1815. The last five volumes were written by Francesco Salfi and

revised by Pierre Daunou.

In the composition of his history of Italian literature he was guided

for the most part by the great work of Girolamo Tiraboschi, but he

avoids the prejudices and party views of his model.

Ginguene edited the _Decade philosophique, politique et litteraire_

till it was suppressed by Napoleon in 1807. He contributed largely to

the _Biographie universelle_, the _Mercure de France_ and the

_Encyclopedie methodique_; and he edited the works of Chamfort and of

Lebrun. Among his minor productions are an opera, _Pomponin ou le

tuteur mystifie_ (1777); _La Satire des satires_ (1778); _De

l'autorite de Rabelais dans la revolution presente_ (1791); _De M.

Neckar_ (1795); _Fables nouvelles_ (1810); _Fables inedites_ (1814).

See "Eloge de Ginguene" by Dacier, in the _Memoires de l'institut_,

tom. vii.; "Discours" by M. Daunou, prefixed to the 2nd ed. of the

_Hist. litt. d'Italie_; D. J. Garat, _Notice sur la vie et les

ouvrages de P. L. Ginguene_, prefixed to a catalogue of his library

(Paris, 1817).

GINKEL, GODART VAN (1630-1703); 1st earl of Athlone, Dutch general in

the service of England, was born at Utrecht in 1630. He came of a noble

family, and bore the title of Baron van Reede, being the eldest son of

Godart Adrian van Reede, Baron Ginkel. In his youth he entered the Dutch

army, and in 1688 he followed William, prince of Orange, in his

expedition to England. In the following year he distinguished himself by

a memorable exploit--the pursuit, defeat and capture of a Scottish

regiment which had mutinied at Ipswich, and was marching northward

across the fens. It was the alarm excited by this mutiny that

facilitated the passing of the first Mutiny Act. In 1690 Ginkel

accompanied William III. to Ireland, and commanded a body of Dutch

cavalry at the battle of the Boyne. On the king's return to England

General Ginkel was entrusted with the conduct of the war. He took the

field in the spring of 1691, and established his headquarters at

Mullingar. Among those who held a command under him was the marquis of

Ruvigny, the recognized chief of the Huguenot refugees. Early in June

Ginkel took the fortress of Ballymore, capturing the whole garrison of

1000 men. The English lost only 8 men. After reconstructing the

fortifications of Ballymore the army marched to Athlone, then one of the

most important of the fortified towns of Ireland. The Irish defenders of

the place were commanded by a distinguished French general, Saint-Ruth.

The firing began on June 19th, and on the 30th the town was stormed, the

Irish army retreating towards Galway, and taking up their position at

Aughrim. Having strengthened the fortifications of Athlone and left a

garrison there, Ginkel led the English, on July 12th, to Aughrim. An

immediate attack was resolved on, and, after a severe and at one time

doubtful contest, the crisis was precipitated by the fall of Saint-Ruth,

and the disorganized Irish were defeated and fled. A horrible slaughter

of the Irish followed the struggle, and 4000 corpses were left unburied

on the field, besides a multitude of others that lay along the line of

the retreat. Galway next capitulated, its garrison being permitted to

retire to Limerick. There the viceroy Tyrconnel was in command of a

large force, but his sudden death early in August left the command in

the hands of General Sarsfield and the Frenchman D'Usson. The English

came in sight of the town on the day of Tyrconnel's death, and the

bombardment was immediately begun. Ginkel, by a bold device, crossed the

Shannon and captured the camp of the Irish cavalry. A few days later he

stormed the fort on Thomond Bridge, and after difficult negotiations a

capitulation was signed, the terms of which were divided into a civil

and a military treaty. Thus was completed the conquest or pacification

of Ireland, and the services of the Dutch general were amply recognized

and rewarded. He received the formal thanks of the House of Commons, and

was created by the king 1st earl of Athlone and baron of Aughrim. The

immense forfeited estates of the earl of Limerick were given to him, but

the grant was a few years later revoked by the English parliament. The

earl continued to serve in the English army, and accompanied the king to

the continent in 1693. He fought at the sieges of Namur and the battle

of Neerwinden, and assisted in destroying the French magazine at Givet.

In 1702, waiving his own claims to the position of commander-in-chief,

he commanded the Dutch serving under the duke of Marlborough. He died at

Utrecht on the 11th of February 1703, and was succeeded by his son the

2nd earl (1668-1719), a distinguished soldier in the reigns of William

III. and Anne. On the death of the 9th earl without issue in 1844, the

title became extinct.

GINSBURG, CHRISTIAN DAVID (1831- ), Hebrew scholar, was born at Warsaw

on the 25th of December 1831. Coming to England shortly after the

completion of his education in the Rabbinic College at Warsaw, Dr

Ginsburg continued his study of the Hebrew Scriptures, with special

attention to the Megilloth. The first result of these studies was a

translation of the Song of Songs, with a commentary historical and

critical, published in 1857. A similar translation of Ecclesiastes,

followed by treatises on the Karaites, on the Essenes and on the

Kabbala, kept the author prominently before biblical students while he

was preparing the first sections of his _magnum opus_, the critical

study of the Massorah. Beginning in 1867 with the publication of Jacob

ben Chajim's Introduction to the Rabbinic Bible, Hebrew and English,

with notices, and the Massoreth Ha-Massoreth of Elias Levita, in Hebrew,

with translation and commentary, Dr Ginsburg took rank as an eminent

Hebrew scholar. In 1870 he was appointed one of the first members of the

committee for the revision of the English version of the Old Testament.

His life-work culminated in the publication of the Massorah, in three

volumes folio (1880-1886), followed by the Masoretico-critical edition

of the Hebrew Bible (1894), and the elaborate introduction to it (1897).

Dr Ginsburg had one predecessor in the field, the learned Jacob ben

Chajim, who in 1524-1525 published the second Rabbinic Bible, containing

what has ever since been known as the Massorah; but neither were the

materials available nor was criticism sufficiently advanced for a

complete edition. Dr Ginsburg took up the subject almost where it was

left by those early pioneers, and collected portions of the Massorah

from the countless MSS. scattered throughout Europe and the East. More

recently Dr Ginsburg has published _Facsimiles of Manuscripts of the

Hebrew Bible_ (1897 and 1898), and _The Text of the Hebrew Bible in

Abbreviations_ (1903), in addition to a critical treatise "on the

relationship of the so-called Codex Babylonicus of A.D. 916 to the

Eastern Recension of the Hebrew Text" (1899, for private circulation).

In the last-mentioned work he seeks to prove that the St Petersburg

Codex, for so many years accepted as the genuine text of the Babylonian

school, is in reality a Palestinian text carefully altered so as to

render it conformable to the Babylonian recension. He subsequently

undertook the preparation of a new edition of the Hebrew Bible for the

British and Foreign Bible Society. He also contributed many articles to

J. Kitto's _Encyclopaedia_, W. Smith's _Dictionary of Christian

Biography_ and the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_.

GINSENG, the root of a species of _Panax_ (_P. Ginseng_), native of

Manchuria and Korea, belonging to the natural order Araliaceae, used in

China as a medicine. Other roots are substituted for it, notably that of

_Panax quinquefolium_, distinguished as American ginseng, and imported

from the United States. At one time the ginseng obtained from Manchuria

was considered to be the finest quality, and in consequence became so

scarce that an imperial edict was issued prohibiting its collection.

That prepared in Korea is now the most esteemed variety. The root of the

wild plant is preferred to that of cultivated ginseng, and the older the

plant the better is the quality of the root considered to be. Great care

is taken in the preparation of the drug. The account given by Kaempfer

of the preparation of nindsin, the root of _Sium ninsi_, in Korea, will

give a good idea of the preparation of ginseng, ninsi being a similar

drug of supposed weaker virtue, obtained from a different plant, and

often confounded with ginseng. "In the beginning of winter nearly all

the population of Sjansai turn out to collect the root, and make

preparations for sleeping in the fields. The root, when collected, is

macerated for three days in fresh water, or water in which rice has been

boiled twice; it is then suspended in a closed vessel over the fire, and

afterwards dried, until from the base to the middle it assumes a hard,

resinous and translucent appearance, which is considered a proof of its

good quality."

Ginseng of good quality generally occurs in hard, rather brittle,

translucent pieces, about the size of the little finger, and varying in

length from 2 to 4 in. The taste is mucilaginous, sweetish and slightly

bitter and aromatic. The root is frequently forked, and it is probably

owing to this circumstance that medicinal properties were in the first

place attributed to it, its resemblance to the body of a man being

supposed to indicate that it could restore virile power to the aged and

impotent. In price it varies from 6 or 12 dollars to the enormous sum of

300 or 400 dollars an ounce.

Lockhart gives a graphic description of a visit to a ginseng merchant.

Opening the outer box, the merchant removed several paper parcels

which appeared to fill the box, but under them was a second box, or

perhaps two small boxes, which, when taken out, showed the bottom of

the large box and all the intervening space filled with more paper

parcels. These parcels, he said, "contained quicklime, for the purpose

of absorbing any moisture and keeping the boxes quite dry, the lime

being packed in paper for the sake of cleanliness. The smaller box,

which held the ginseng, was lined with sheet-lead; the ginseng further

enclosed in silk wrappers was kept in little silken-covered boxes.

Taking up a piece, he would request his visitor not to breathe upon

it, nor handle it; he would dilate upon the many merits of the drug

and the cures it had effected. The cover of the root, according to its

quality, was silk, either embroidered or plain, cotton cloth or

paper." In China the ginseng is often sent to friends as a valuable

present; in such cases, "accompanying the medicine is usually given a

small, beautifully-finished double kettle, in which the ginseng is

prepared as follows. The inner kettle is made of silver, and between

this and the outside vessel, which is a copper jacket, is a small

space for holding water. The silver kettle, which fits on a ring near

the top of the outer covering, has a cup-like cover in which rice is

placed with a little water; the ginseng is put in the inner vessel

with water, a cover is placed over the whole, and the apparatus is put

on the fire. When the rice in the cover is sufficiently cooked, the

medicine is ready, and is then eaten by the patient, who drinks the

ginseng tea at the same time." The dose of the root is from 60 to 90

grains. During the use of the drug tea-drinking is forbidden for at

least a month, but no other change is made in the diet. It is taken in

the morning before breakfast, from three to eight days together, and

sometimes it is taken in the evening before going to bed.

The action of the drug appears to be entirely psychic, and comparable

to that of the mandrake of the Hebrews. There is no evidence that it

possesses any pharmacological or therapeutic properties.

See Porter Smith, _Chinese Materia Medica_, p. 103; _Reports on Trade

at the Treaty Ports of China_ (1868), p. 63; Lockhart, _Med.

Missionary in China_ (2nd ed.), p. 107; _Bull. de la Societe Imperiale

de Nat. de Moscou_ (1865), No. 1, pp. 70-76; _Pharmaceutical Journal_

(2), vol. iii. pp. 197, 333, (2), vol. ix. p. 77; Lewis, _Materia

Medica_, p. 324; Geoffroy, _Tract. de matiere medicale_, t. ii. p.

112; Kaempfer, _Amoenitates exoticae_, p. 824.

GIOBERTI, VINCENZO (1801-1852), Italian philosopher, publicist and

politician, was born in Turin on the 5th of April 1801. He was educated

by the fathers of the Oratory with a view to the priesthood and ordained

in 1825. At first he led a very retired life; but gradually took more

and more interest in the affairs of his country and the new political

ideas as well as in the literature of the day. Partly under the

influence of Mazzini, the freedom of Italy became his ruling motive in

life,--its emancipation, not only from foreign masters, but from modes

of thought alien to its genius, and detrimental to its European

authority. This authority was in his mind connected with papal

supremacy, though in a way quite novel--intellectual rather than

political. This must be remembered in considering nearly all his

writings, and also in estimating his position, both in relation to the

ruling clerical party--the Jesuits--and also to the politics of the

court of Piedmont after the accession of Charles Albert in 1831. He was

now noticed by the king and made one of his chaplains. His popularity

and private influence, however, were reasons enough for the court party

to mark him for exile; he was not one of them, and could not be

depended on. Knowing this, he resigned his office in 1833, but was

suddenly arrested on a charge of conspiracy, and, after an imprisonment

of four months, was banished without a trial. Gioberti first went to

Paris, and, a year later, to Brussels, where he remained till 1845,

teaching philosophy, and assisting a friend in the work of a private

school. He nevertheless found time to write many works of philosophical

importance, with special reference to his country and its position. An

amnesty having been declared by Charles Albert in 1846, Gioberti (who

was again in Paris) was at liberty to return to Italy, but refused to do

so till the end of 1847. On his entrance into Turin on the 29th of April

1848 he was received with the greatest enthusiasm. He refused the

dignity of senator offered him by Charles Albert, preferring to

represent his native town in the Chamber of Deputies, of which he was

soon elected president. At the close of the same year, a new ministry

was formed, headed by Gioberti; but with the accession of Victor

Emmanuel in March 1849, his active life came to an end. For a short time

indeed he held a seat in the cabinet, though without a portfolio; but an

irreconcilable disagreement soon followed, and his removal from Turin

was accomplished by his appointment on a mission to Paris, whence he

never returned. There, refusing the pension which had been offered him

and all ecclesiastical preferment, he lived frugally, and spent his days

and nights as at Brussels in literary labour. He died suddenly, of

apoplexy, on the 26th of October 1852.

Gioberti's writings are more important than his political career. In

the general history of European philosophy they stand apart. As the

speculations of Rosmini-Serbati, against which he wrote, have been

called the last link added to medieval thought, so the system of

Gioberti, known as "Ontologism," more especially in his greater and

earlier works, is unrelated to other modern schools of thought. It

shows a harmony with the Roman Catholic faith which caused Cousin to

declare that "Italian philosophy was still in the bonds of theology,"

and that Gioberti was no philosopher. Method is with him a synthetic,

subjective and psychological instrument. He reconstructs, as he

declares, ontology, and begins with the "ideal formula," "the _Ens_

creates _ex nihilo_ the existent." God is the only being (Ens); all

other things are merely existences. God is the origin of all human

knowledge (called _l'idea_, thought), which is one and so to say

identical with God himself. It is directly beheld (intuited) by

reason, but in order to be of use it has to be reflected on, and this

by means of language. A knowledge of being and existences (concrete,

not abstract) and their mutual relations, is necessary as the

beginning of philosophy. Gioberti is in some respects a Platonist. He

identifies religion with civilization, and in his treatise _Del

primato morale e civile degli Italiani_ arrives at the conclusion that

the church is the axis on which the well-being of human life revolves.

In it he affirms the idea of the supremacy of Italy, brought about by

the restoration of the papacy as a moral dominion, founded on religion

and public opinion. In his later works, the _Rinnovamento_ and the

_Protologia_, he is thought by some to have shifted his ground under

the influence of events. His first work, written when he was

thirty-seven, had a personal reason for its existence. A young

fellow-exile and friend, Paolo Pallia, having many doubts and

misgivings as to the reality of revelation and a future life, Gioberti

at once set to work with _La Teorica del sovrannaturale_, which was

his first publication (1838). After this, philosophical treatises

followed in rapid succession. The _Teorica_ was followed by

_Introduzione allo studio della filosofia_ in three volumes

(1839-1840). In this work he states his reasons for requiring a new

method and new terminology. Here he brings out the doctrine that

religion is the direct expression of the _idea_ in this life, and is

one with true civilization in history. Civilization is a conditioned

mediate tendency to perfection, to which religion is the final

completion if carried out; it is the end of the second cycle expressed

by the second formula, the Ens redeems existences. Essays (not

published till 1846) on the lighter and more popular subjects, _Del

bello_ and _Del buono_, followed the _Introduzione_. _Del primato

morale e civile degli Italiani_ and the _Prolegomeni_ to the same, and

soon afterwards his triumphant exposure of the Jesuits, Il Gesuita

moderno, no doubt hastened the transfer of rule from clerical to civil

hands. It was the popularity of these semi-political works, increased

by other occasional political articles, and his _Rinnovamento civile

d'Italia_, that caused Gioberti to be welcomed with such enthusiasm on

his return to his native country. All these works were perfectly

orthodox, and aided in drawing the liberal clergy into the movement

which has resulted since his time in the unification of Italy. The

Jesuits, however, closed round the pope more firmly after his return

to Rome, and in the end Gioberti's writings were placed on the _Index_

(see J. Kleutgen, _Uber die Verurtheilung des Ontologismus durch den

heiligen Stuhl_, 1867). The remainder of his works, especially _La

Filosofia della Rivelazione_ and the _Protologia_, give his mature

views on many points. The entire writings of Gioberti, including

those left in manuscript, have been edited by Giuseppe Massari (Turin,

1856-1861).

See Massari, _Vita de V. Gioberti_ (Florence, 1848); A.

Rosmini-Serbati, _V. Gioberti e il panteismo_ (Milan, 1848); C. B.

Smyth, _Christian Metaphysics_ (1851); B. Spaventa, _La Filosofia di

Gioberti_ (Naples, 1854); A. Mauri, _Della vita e delle opere di V.

Gioberti_ (Genoa, 1853); G. Prisco, _Gioberti e l' ontologismo_

(Naples, 1867); P. Luciani, _Gioberti e la filosofia nuova italiana_

(Naples, 1866-1872); D. Berti, _Di V. Gioberti_ (Florence, 1881); see

also L. Ferri, _L'Histoire de la philosophie en Italie au XIX^e

siecle_ (Paris, 1869); C. Werner, _Die italienische Philosophie des

19. Jahrhunderts_, ii. (1885); appendix to Ueberweg's _Hist. of

Philosophy_ (Eng. tr.); art. in _Brownson's Quarterly Review_ (Boston,

Mass.), xxi.; R. Mariano, _La Philosophie contemporaine en Italie_

(1866); R. Seydel's exhaustive article in Ersch and Gruber's

_Allgemeine Encyclopadie_. The centenary of Gioberti called forth

several monographs in Italy.

GIOIOSA-IONICA, a town of Calabria, Italy, in the province of Reggio

Calabria, from which it is 65 m. N.E. by rail, and 38 m. direct, 492 ft.

above sea-level. Pop. (1901) town, 9072; commune, 11,200. Near the

station, which is on the E. coast of Calabria 3 m. below the town to the

S.E., the remains of a theatre belonging to the Roman period were

discovered in 1883; the orchestra was 46 ft. in diameter (_Notizie degli

scavi_, 1883, p. 423). The ruins of an ancient building called the

Naviglio, the nature of which does not seem clear, are described (ib.

1884, p. 252).

GIOJA, MELCHIORRE (1767-1829), Italian writer on philosophy and

political economy, was born at Piacenza, on the 20th of September 1767.

Originally intended for the church, he took orders, but renounced them

in 1796 and went to Milan, where he devoted himself to the study of

political economy. Having obtained the prize for an essay on "the kind

of free government best adapted to Italy" he decided upon the career of

a publicist. The arrival of Napoleon in Italy drew him into public life.

He advocated a republic under the dominion of the French in a pamphlet

_I Tedeschi, i Francesi, ed i Russi in Lombardia_, and under the

Cisalpine Republic he was named historiographer and director of

statistics. He was several times imprisoned, once for eight months in

1820 on a charge of being implicated in a conspiracy with the Carbonari.

After the fall of Napoleon he retired into private life, and does not

appear to have held office again. He died on the 2nd of January 1829.

Gioja's fundamental idea is the value of statistics or the collection of

facts. Philosophy itself is with him classification and consideration of

ideas. Logic he regarded as a practical art, and his _Esercizioni

logici_ has the further title, _Art of deriving benefit from

ill-constructed books_. In ethics Gioja follows Bentham generally, and

his large treatise _Del merito e delle recompense_ (1818) is a clear and

systematic view of social ethics from the utilitarian principle. In

political economy this avidity for facts produced better fruits. The

_Nuovo Prospetto delle scienze economiche_ (1815-1817), although long to

excess, and overburdened with classifications and tables, contains much

valuable material. The author prefers large properties and large

commercial undertakings to small ones, and strongly favours association

as a means of production. He defends a restrictive policy and insists on

the necessity of the action of the state as a regulating power in the

industrial world. He was an opponent of ecclesiastical domination. He

must be credited with the finest and most original treatment of division

of labour since the _Wealth of Nations_. Much of what Babbage taught

later on the subject of combined work is anticipated by Gioja. His

theory of production is also deserving of attention from the fact that

it takes into account and gives due prominence to immaterial goods.

Throughout the work there is continuous opposition to Adam Smith.

Gioja's latest work _Filosofia della statistica_ (2 vols., 1826; 4

vols., 1829-1830) contains in brief compass the essence of his ideas on

human life, and affords the clearest insight into his aim and method in

philosophy both theoretical and practical.

See monographs by G. D. Romagnosi (1829), F. Falco (1866); G. Pecchio,

_Storia dell' economia pubblica in Italia_ (1829), and article in

Ersch and Gruber's _Allgemeine Encyclopadie_; for Gioja's philosophy,

L. Ferri, _Essai sur l'histoire de la philosophie en Italie au XIX^e

siecle_ (1869); Ueberweg's _Hist. of Philosophy_ (Eng. tr., appendix

ii.); A. Rosmini-Serbati, _Opuscoli filosofici_, iii. (1844)

(containing an attack on Gioja's "sensualism"); for his political

economy, list of works in J. Conrad's _Handworterbuch der

Staatswissenschaften_ (1892); L. Cossa, _Introd. to Pol. Econ._ (Eng.

trans., p. 488). Gioja's complete works were published at Lugano

(1832-1849). He was one of the founders of the _Annali universali di

statistica_.

GIOLITTI, GIOVANNI (1842- ), Italian statesman, was born at Mondovi on

the 27th of October 1842. After a rapid career in the financial

administration he was, in 1882, appointed councillor of state and

elected to parliament. As deputy he chiefly acquired prominence by

attacks on Magliani, treasury minister in the Depretis cabinet, and on

the 9th of March 1889 was himself selected as treasury minister by

Crispi. On the fall of the Rudini cabinet in May 1892, Giolitti, with

the help of a court clique, succeeded to the premiership. His term of

office was marked by misfortune and misgovernment. The building crisis

and the commercial rupture with France had impaired the situation of the

state banks, of which one, the Banca Romana, had been further undermined

by maladministration. A bank law, passed by Giolitti failed to effect an

improvement. Moreover, he irritated public opinion by raising to

senatorial rank the director-general of the Banca Romana, Signor

Tanlongo, whose irregular practices had become a byword. The senate

declined to admit Tanlongo, whom Giolitti, in consequence of an

interpellation in parliament upon the condition of the Banca Romana, was

obliged to arrest and prosecute. During the prosecution Giolitti abused

his position as premier to abstract documents bearing on the case.

Simultaneously a parliamentary commission of inquiry investigated the

condition of the state banks. Its report, though acquitting Giolitti of

personal dishonesty, proved disastrous to his political position, and

obliged him to resign. His fall left the finances of the state

disorganized, the pensions fund depleted, diplomatic relations with

France strained in consequence of the massacre of Italian workmen at

Aigues-Mortes, and Sicily and the Lunigiana in a state of revolt, which

he had proved impotent to suppress. After his resignation he was

impeached for abuse of power as minister, but the supreme court quashed

the impeachment by denying the competence of the ordinary tribunals to

judge ministerial acts. For several years he was compelled to play a

passive part, having lost all credit. But by keeping in the background

and giving public opinion time to forget his past, as well as by

parliamentary intrigue, he gradually regained much of his former

influence. He made capital of the Socialist agitation and of the

repression to which other statesmen resorted, and gave the agitators to

understand that were he premier they would be allowed a free hand. Thus

he gained their favour, and on the fall of the Pelloux cabinet he became

minister of the Interior in Zanardelli's administration, of which he was

the real head. His policy of never interfering in strikes and leaving

even violent demonstrations undisturbed at first proved successful, but

indiscipline and disorder grew to such a pitch that Zanardelli, already

in bad health, resigned, and Giolitti succeeded him as prime minister

(November 1903). But during his tenure of office he, too, had to resort

to strong measures in repressing some serious disorders in various parts

of Italy, and thus he lost the favour of the Socialists. In March 1905,

feeling himself no longer secure, he resigned, indicating Fortis as his

successor. When Sonnino became premier in February 1906, Giolitti did

not openly oppose him, but his followers did, and Sonnino was defeated

in May, Giolitti becoming prime minister once more.

GIORDANO, LUCA (1632-1705), Italian painter, was born in Naples, son of

a very indifferent painter, Antonio, who imparted to him the first

rudiments of drawing. Nature predestined him for the art, and at the age

of eight he painted a cherub into one of his father's pictures, a feat

which was at once noised abroad, and induced the viceroy of Naples to

recommend the child to Ribera. His father afterwards took him to Rome,

to study under Pietro da Cortona. He acquired the nickname of Luca

Fa-presto (Luke Work-fast). One might suppose this nickname to be

derived merely from the almost miraculous celerity with which from an

early age and throughout his life he handled the brush; but it is said

to have had a more express origin. The father, we are told,

poverty-stricken and greedy of gain, was perpetually urging his boy to

exertion with the phrase, "Luca, fa presto." The youth obeyed his parent

to the letter, and would actually not so much as pause to snatch a hasty

meal, but received into his mouth, while he still worked on, the food

which his father's hand supplied. He copied nearly twenty times the

"Battle of Constantine" by Julio Romano, and with proportionate

frequency several of the great works of Raphael and Michelangelo. His

rapidity, which belonged as much to invention as to mere handiwork, and

his versatility, which enabled him to imitate other painters

deceptively, earned for him two other epithets, "The Thunderbolt"

(Fulmine), and "The Proteus," of Painting. He shortly visited all the

main seats of the Italian school of art, and formed for himself a style

combining in a certain measure the ornamental pomp of Paul Veronese and

the contrasting compositions and large schemes of chiaroscuro of Pietro

da Cortona. He was noted also for lively and showy colour. Returning to

Naples, and accepting every sort of commission by which money was to be

made, he practised his art with so much applause that Charles II. of

Spain towards 1687 invited him over to Madrid, where he remained

thirteen years. Giordano was very popular at the Spanish court, being a

sprightly talker along with his other marvellously facile gifts, and the

king created him a cavaliere. One anecdote of his rapidity of work is

that the queen of Spain having one day made some inquiry about his wife,

he at once showed Her Majesty what the lady was like by painting her

portrait into the picture on which he was engaged. Soon after the death

of Charles in 1700 Giordano, gorged with wealth, returned to Naples. He

spent large sums in acts of munificence, and was particularly liberal to

his poorer brethren of the art. He again visited various parts of Italy,

and died in Naples on the 12th of January 1705, his last words being "O

Napoli, sospiro mio" (O Naples, my heart's love!). One of his maxims was

that the good painter is the one whom the public like, and that the

public are attracted more by colour than by design.

Giordano had an astonishing readiness and facility, in spite of the

general commonness and superficiality of his performances. He left many

works in Rome, and far more in Naples. Of the latter one of the most

renowned is "Christ expelling the Traders from the Temple," in the

church of the Padri Girolamini, a colossal work, full of expressive

lazzaroni; also the frescoes of S. Martino, and those in the Tesoro

della Certosa, including the subject of "Moses and the Brazen Serpent";

and the cupola-paintings in the Church of S. Brigida, which contains the

artist's own tomb. In Spain he executed a surprising number of

works,--continuing in the Escorial the series commenced by Cambiasi, and

painting frescoes of the "Triumphs of the Church," the "Genealogy and

Life of the Madonna," the stories of Moses, Gideon, David and Solomon,

and the "Celebrated Women of Scripture," all works of large dimensions.

His pupils, Aniello Rossi and Matteo Pacelli, assisted him in Spain. In

Madrid he worked more in oil-colour, a Nativity there being one of his

best productions. Other superior examples are the "Judgment of Paris" in

the Berlin Museum, and "Christ with the Doctors in the Temple," in the

Corsini Gallery of Rome. In Florence, in his closing days, he painted

the Cappella Corsini, the Galleria Riccardi and other works. In youth he

etched with considerable skill some of his own paintings, such as the

"Slaughter of the Priests of Baal." He also painted much on the crystal

borderings of looking-glasses, cabinets, &c., seen in many Italian

palaces, and was, in this form of art, the master of Pietro Garofolo.

His best pupil, in painting of the ordinary kind, was Paolo de Matteis.

Bellori, in his _Vite de' pittori moderni_, is a leading authority

regarding Luca Giordano. P. Benvenuto (1882) has written a work on the

Riccardi paintings.

GIORGIONE (1477-1510), Italian painter, was born at Castelfranco in

1477. In contemporary documents he is always called (according to the

Venetian manner of pronunciation and spelling) Zorzi, Zorzo or Zorzon of

Castelfranco. A tradition, having its origin in the 17th century,

represented him as the natural son of some member of the great local

family of the Barbarelli, by a peasant girl of the neighbouring village

of Vedelago; consequently he is commonly referred to in histories and

catalogues under the name of Giorgio Barbarelli or Barbarella. This

tradition has, however, on close examination been proved baseless. On

the other hand mention has been found in a contemporary document of an

earlier Zorzon, a native of Vedelago, living in Castelfranco in 1460.

Vasari, who wrote before the Barbarella legend had sprung up, says that

Giorgione was of very humble origin. It seems probable that he was

simply the son or grandson of the afore-mentioned Zorzon the elder; that

the after-claim of the Barbarelli to kindred with him was a mere piece

of family vanity, very likely suggested by the analogous case of

Leonardo da Vinci; and that, this claim once put abroad, the

peasant-mother of Vedelago was invented on the ground of some dim

knowledge that his real progenitors came from that village.

Of the facts of his life we are almost as meagrely informed as of the

circumstances of his birth. The little city, or large fortified village,

for it is scarcely more, of Castelfranco in the Trevisan stands in the

midst of a rich and broken plain at some distance from the last spurs of

the Venetian Alps. From the natural surroundings of Giorgione's

childhood was no doubt derived his ideal of pastoral scenery, the

country of pleasant copses, glades, brooks and hills amid which his

personages love to wander or recline with lute and pipe. How early in

boyhood he went to Venice we do not know, but internal evidence supports

the statement of Ridolfi that he served his apprenticeship there under

Giovanni Bellini; and there he made his fame and had his home. That his

gifts were early recognized we know from the facts, recorded in

contemporary documents, that in 1500, when he was only twenty-three

(that is if Vasari gives rightly the age at which he died), he was

chosen to paint portraits of the Doge Agostino Barberigo and the

condottiere Consalvo Ferrante; that in 1504 he was commissioned to paint

an altarpiece in memory of Matteo Costanzo in the cathedral of his

native town, Castelfranco; that in 1507 he received at the order of the

Council of Ten part payment for a picture (subject not mentioned) on

which he was engaged for the Hall of the Audience in the ducal palace;

and that in 1507-1508 he was employed, with other artists of his own

generation, to decorate with frescoes the exterior of the newly rebuilt

Fondaco dei Tedeschi or German merchants' hall at Venice, having already

done similar work on the exterior of the Casa Soranzo, the Casa Grimani

alii Servi and other Venetian palaces. Vasari gives also as an important

event in Giorgione's life, and one which had influence on his work, his

meeting with Leonardo da Vinci on the occasion of the Tuscan master's

visit to Venice in 1500. In September or October 1510 he died of the

plague then raging in the city, and within a few days of his death we

find the great art-patroness and amateur, Isabella d'Este, writing from

Mantua and trying in vain to secure for her collection a night-piece by

his hand of which the fame had reached her.

All accounts agree in representing Giorgione as a personage of

distinguished and romantic charm, a great lover, a great musician, made

to enjoy in life and to express in art to the uttermost the delight, the

splendour, the sensuous and imaginative grace and fulness, not untinged

with poetic melancholy, of the Venetian existence of his time. They

represent him further as having made in Venetian painting an advance

analogous to that made in Tuscan painting by Leonardo more than twenty

years before; that is as having released the art from the last shackles

of archaic rigidity and placed it in possession of full freedom and the

full mastery of its means. He also introduced a new range of subjects.

Besides altarpieces and portraits he painted pictures that told no

story, whether biblical or classical, or if they professed to tell such,

neglected the action and simply embodied in form and colour moods of

lyrical or romantic feeling, much as a musician might embody them in

sounds. Innovating with the courage and felicity of genius, he had for a

time an overwhelming influence on his contemporaries and immediate

successors in the Venetian school, including Titian, Sebastian del

Piombo, the elder Palma, Cariani and the two Campagnolas, and not a

little even on seniors of long-standing fame such as Giovanni Bellini.

His name and work have exercised, and continue to exercise, no less a

spell on posterity. But to identify and define, among the relics of his

age and school, precisely what that work is, and to distinguish it from

the kindred work of other men whom his influence inspired, is a very

difficult matter. There are inclusive critics who still claim for

Giorgione nearly every painting of the time that at all resembles his

manner, and there are exclusive critics who pare down to some ten or a

dozen the list of extant pictures which they will admit to be actually

his.

To name first those which are either certain or command the most general

acceptance, placing them in something like an approximate and probable

order of date. In the Uffizi at Florence are two companion pieces of the

"Trial of Moses" and the "Judgment of Solomon," the latter the finer and

better preserved of the two, which pass, no doubt justly, as typical

works of Giorgione's youth, and exhibit, though not yet ripely, his

special qualities of colour-richness and landscape romance, the peculiar

facial types of his predilection, with the pure form of forehead, fine

oval of cheek, and somewhat close-set eyes and eyebrows, and the

intensity of that still and brooding sentiment with which, rather than

with dramatic life and movement, he instinctively invests his figures.

Probably the earliest of the portraits by common consent called his is

the beautiful one of a young man at Berlin. His earliest devotional

picture would seem to be the highly finished "Christ bearing his Cross"

(the head and shoulders only, with a peculiarly serene and high-bred

cast of features) formerly at Vicenza and now in the collection of Mrs

Gardner at Boston. Other versions of this picture exist, and it has been

claimed that one in private possession at Vienna is the true original:

erroneously in the judgment of the present writer. Another "Christ

bearing the Cross," with a Jew dragging at the rope round his neck, in

the church of San Rocco at Venice, is a ruined but genuine work, quoted

by Vasari and Ridolfi, and copied with the name of Giorgione appended,

by Van Dyck in that master's Chatsworth sketch-book. (Vasari gives it to

Giorgione in his first and to Titian in his second edition.) The

composition of a lost early picture of the birth of Paris is preserved

in an engraving of the "Teniers Gallery" series, and an old copy of part

of the same picture is at Budapest. In the Giovanelli Palace at Venice

is that fascinating and enigmatical mythology or allegory, known to the

Anonimo Morelliano, who saw it in 1530 in the house of Gabriel

Vendramin, simply as "the small landscape with the storm, the gipsy

woman and the soldier"; the picture is conjecturally interpreted by

modern authorities as illustrating a passage in Statius which describes

the meeting of Adrastus with Hypsipyle when she was serving as nurse

with the king of Nemea. Still belonging to the earlier part of the

painter's brief career is a beautiful, virginally pensive Judith at St

Petersburg, which passed under various alien names, as Raphael, Moretto,

&c., until its kindred with the unquestioned work of Giorgione was in

late years firmly established. The great Castelfranco altarpiece, still,

in spite of many restorations, one of the most classically pure and

radiantly impressive works of Renaissance painting, may be taken as

closing the earlier phase of the young master's work (1504). It shows

the Virgin loftily enthroned on a plain, sparely draped stone structure

with St Francis and a warrior saint (St Liberale) standing in attitudes

of great simplicity on either side of the foot of the throne, a high

parapet behind them, and a beautiful landscape of the master's usual

type seen above it. Nearly akin to this masterpiece, not in shape or

composition but by the type of the Virgin and the very Bellinesque St

Francis, is the altarpiece of the Madonna with St Francis and St Roch at

Madrid. Of the master's fully ripened time is the fine and again

enigmatical picture formerly in the house of Taddeo Contarini at Venice,

described by contemporary witnesses as the "Three Philosophers," and

now, on slender enough grounds, supposed to represent Evander showing

Aeneas the site of Troy as narrated in the eighth Aeneid. The portrait

of a knight of Malta in the Uffizi at Florence has more power and

authority, if less sentiment, than the earlier example at Berlin, and

may be taken to be of the master's middle time. Most entirely central

and typical of all Giorgione's extant works is the Sleeping Venus at

Dresden, first recognized by Morelli, and now universally accepted, as

being the same as the picture seen by the Anonimo and later by Ridolfi

in the Casa Marcello at Venice. An exquisitely pure and severe rhythm of

line and contour chastens the sensuous richness of the presentment: the

sweep of white drapery on which the goddess lies, and of glowing

landscape that fills the space behind her, most harmoniously frame her

divinity. It is recorded that the master left this piece unfinished and

that the landscape, with a Cupid which subsequent restoration has

removed, were completed after his death by Titian. The picture is the

prototype of Titian's own Venus at the Uffizi and of many more by other

painters of the school; but none of them attained the quality of the

first exemplar. Of such small scenes of mixed classical mythology and

landscape as early writers attribute in considerable number to

Giorgione, there have survived at least two which bear strong evidences

of his handiwork, though the action is in both of unwonted liveliness,

namely the Apollo and Daphne of the Seminario at Venice and the Orpheus

and Eurydice of Bergamo. The portrait of Antonio Grocardo at Budapest

represents his fullest and most penetrating power in that branch of art.

In his last years the purity and relative slenderness of form which mark

his earlier female nudes, including the Dresden Venus, gave way to

ideals of ampler mould, more nearly approaching those of Titian and his

successors in Venetian art; as is proved by those last remaining

fragments of the frescoes on the Grand Canal front of the Fondaco dei

Tedeschi which were seen and engraved by Zanetti in 1760, but have now

totally disappeared. Such change of ideal is apparent enough in the

famous "Concert" or "Pastoral Symphony" of the Louvre, probably the

latest, and certainly one of the most characteristic and harmoniously

splendid, of Giorgione's creations that has come down to us, and has

caused some critics too hastily to doubt its authenticity.

We pass now to pictures for which some affirm and others deny the right

to bear Giorgione's name. As youthful in style as the two early pictures

in the Uffizi, and closely allied to them in feeling, though less so in

colour, is an unexplained subject in the National Gallery, sometimes

called for want of a better title the "Golden Age"; this is officially

and by many critics given only to the "school of" Giorgione, but may not

unreasonably be claimed for his own work (No. 1173). There is also in

England a group of three paintings which are certainly by one hand, and

that a hand very closely related to Giorgione if not actually his own,

namely the small oblong "Adoration of the Magi" in the National Gallery

(No. 1160), the "Adoration of the Shepherds" belonging to Lord Allendale

(with its somewhat inferior but still attractive replica at Vienna), and

the small "Holy Family" in the collection of Mr R. H. Benson. The type

of the Madonna in all these three pieces is different from that

customary with the master, but there seems no reason why he should not

at some particular moment have changed his model. The sentiment and

gestures of the figures, the cast of draperies, the technical handling,

and especially, in Lord Allendale's picture, the romantic richness of

the landscape, all incline us to accept the group as original,

notwithstanding the deviation of type already mentioned and certain

weaknesses of drawing and proportion which we should have hardly looked

for. Better known to European students in general are the two fine

pictures commonly given to the master at the Pitti gallery in Florence,

namely the "Three Ages" and the "Concert." Both are very Giorgionesque,

the "Three Ages" leaning rather towards the early manner of Lorenzo

Lotto, to whom by some critics it is actually given. The "Concert" is

held on technical grounds by some of the best judges rather to bear the

character of Titian at the moment when the inspiration of Giorgione was

strongest on him, at least so far as concerns the extremely beautiful

and expressive central figure of the monk playing on the clavichord with

reverted head, a very incarnation of musical rapture and yearning--the

other figures are too much injured to judge.

There are at least two famous single portraits as to which critics will

probably never agree whether they are among the later works of Giorgione

or among the earliest of Titian under his influence: these are the

jovial and splendid half-length of Catherine Cornaro (or a stout lady

much resembling her) with a bas-relief, in the collection of Signor

Crespi at Milan, and the so-called "Ariosto" from Lord Darnley's

collection acquired for the National Gallery in 1904. Ancient and

half-effaced inscriptions, of which there is no cause to doubt the

genuineness, ascribe them both to Titian; both, to the mind of the

present writer at least, are more nearly akin to such undoubted early

Titians as the "Man with the Book" at Hampton Court and the "Man with

the Glove" at the Louvre than to any authenticated work of Giorgione. At

the same time it should be remembered that Giorgione is known to have

actually enjoyed the patronage of Catherine Cornaro and to have painted

her portrait. The Giorgionesque influence and feeling, to a degree

almost of sentimental exaggeration, encounter us again in another

beautiful Venetian portrait at the National Gallery which has sometimes

been claimed for him, that of a man in crimson velvet with white pleated

shirt and a background of bays, long attributed to the elder Palma (No.

636). The same qualities are present with more virility in a very

striking portrait of a young man at Temple Newsam, which stands indeed

nearer than any other extant example to the Brocardo portrait at

Budapest. The full-face portrait of a woman in the Borghese gallery at

Rome has the marks of the master's design and inspiration, but in its

present sadly damaged condition can hardly be claimed for his handiwork.

The head of a boy with a pipe at Hampton Court, a little over life size,

has been enthusiastically claimed as Giorgione's workmanship, but is

surely too slack and soft in handling to be anything more than an early

copy of a lost work, analogous to, though better than, the similar copy

at Vienna of a young man with an arrow, a subject he is known to have

painted. The early records prove indeed that not a few such copies of

Giorgione's more admired works were produced in his own time or shortly

afterwards. One of the most interesting and unmistakable such copies

still extant is the picture formerly in the Manfrin collection at

Venice, afterwards in that of Mr Barker in London, and now at Dresden,

which is commonly called "The Horoscope," and represents a woman seated

near a classic ruin with a young child at her feet, an armed youth

standing looking down at them, and a turbaned sage seated near with

compasses, disk and book. Of important subject pictures belonging to the

debatable borderland between Giorgione and his imitators are the large

and interesting unfinished "Judgment of Solomon" at Kingston Lacy, which

must certainly be the same that Ridolfi saw and attributed to him in the

Casa Grimani at Venice, but has weaknesses of design and drawing

sufficiently baffling to criticism; and the "Woman taken in Adultery" in

the public gallery at Glasgow, a picture truly Giorgionesque in richness

of colour, but betraying in its awkward composition, the relative

coarseness of its types and the insincere, mechanical animation of its

movements, the hand of some lesser master of the school, almost

certainly (by comparison with his existing engravings and woodcuts) that

of Domenico Campagnola. It seems unnecessary to refer, in the present

notice, to any of the numerous other and inferior works which have been

claimed for Giorgione by a criticism unable to distinguish between a

living voice and its echoes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Morelli, _Notizie_, &c. (ed. Frizzoni, 1884): Vasari

(ed. Milanesi), vol. iv.; Ridolfi, _Le Maraviglie dell' arte_, vol.

i.; Zanetti, _Varie Pitture_ (1760); Crowe-Cavalcaselle, _History of

Painting in North Italy_; Morelli, _Kunstkritische Studien_; Gronau,

_Zorzon da Castelfranco, la sua origine_, &c. (1894); Herbert Cook,

_Giorgione_ (in "Great Masters" series, 1900); Ugo Monneret de

Villard, _Giorgione da Castelfranco_ (1905). The two last-named works

are critically far too inclusive, but useful as going over the whole

ground of discussion, with full references to earlier authorities, &c.

(S. C.)

GIOTTINO (1324-1357), an early Florentine painter. Vasari is the

principal authority in regard to this artist; but it is not by any means

easy to bring the details of his narrative into harmony with such facts

as can now be verified. It would appear that there was a painter of the

name of Tommaso (or Maso) di Stefano termed Giottino; and the Giottino

of Vasari is said to have been born in 1324, and to have died early, of

consumption, in 1357,--dates which must be regarded as open to

considerable doubt. Stefano, the father of Tommaso, was himself a

celebrated painter in the early revival of art; his naturalism was

indeed so highly appreciated by contemporaries as to earn him the

appellation of "Scimia della Natura" (ape of nature). He, it seems,

instructed his son, who, however, applied himself with greater

predilection to studying the works of the great Giotto, formed his style

on these, and hence was called Giottino. It is even said that Giottino

was really the son (others say the great-grandson) of Giotto. To this

statement little or no importance can be attached. To Maso di Stefano,

or Giottino, Vasari and Ghiberti attribute the frescoes in the chapel of

S. Silvestro (or of the Bardi family) in the Florentine church of S.

Croce; these represent the miracles of Pope S. Silvestro as narrated in

the "Golden Legend," one conspicuous subject being the sealing of the

lips of a malignant dragon. These works are animated and firm in

drawing, with naturalism carried further than by Giotto. From the

evidence of style, some modern connoisseurs assign to the same hand the

paintings in the funeral vault of the Strozzi family, below the Cappella

degli Spagnuoli in the church of S. Maria Novella, representing the

crucifixion and other subjects. Vasari ascribes also to his Giottino the

frescoes of the life of St Nicholas in the lower church of Assisi. This

series, however, is not really in that part of the church which Vasari

designates, but is in the chapel of the Sacrament; and the works in that

chapel are understood to be by Giotto di Stefano, who worked in the

second half of the 14th century--very excellent productions of their

period. They are much damaged, and the style is hardly similar to that

of the Sylvester frescoes. It might hence be inferred that two different

men produced the works which are unitedly fathered upon the

half-legendary "Giottino," the consumptive youth, solitary and

melancholic, but passionately devoted to his art. A large number of

other works have been attributed to the same hand; we need only mention

an "Apparition of the Virgin to St Bernard," in the Florentine Academy;

a lost painting, very popular in its day, commemorating the expulsion,

which took place in 1343, of the duke of Athens from Florence; and a

marble statue erected on the Florentine campanile. Vasari particularly

praises Giottino for well-blended chiaroscuro.

GIOTTO [GIOTTO DI BONDONE[1]] (1267?-1337), Italian painter, was born at

Vespignano in the Mugello, a few miles north of Florence, according to

one account in 1276, and according to another, which from the few known

circumstances of his life seems more likely to be correct, in 1266 or

1267. His father was a landowner at Colle in the commune of Vespignano,

described in a contemporary document as _vir praeclarus_, but by

biographers both early and late as a poor peasant; probably therefore a

peasant proprietor of no large possessions but of reputable stock and

descent. It is impossible to tell whether there is any truth in the

legend of Giotto's boyhood which relates how he first showed his

disposition for art, and attracted the attention of Cimabue, by being

found drawing one of his father's sheep with a sharp stone on the face

of a smooth stone or slate. With his father's consent, the story goes

on, Cimabue carried off the boy to be his apprentice, and it was under

Cimabue's tuition that Giotto took his first steps in the art of which

he was afterwards to be the great emancipator and renovator. The place

where these early steps can still, according to tradition, be traced, is

in the first and second, reckoning downwards, of the three courses of

frescoes which adorn the walls of the nave in the Upper Church of St

Francis at Assisi. These frescoes represent subjects of the Old and New

Testament, and great labour, too probably futile, has been spent in

trying to pick out those in which the youthful handiwork of Giotto can

be discerned, as it is imagined, among that of Cimabue and his other

pupils. But the truth is that the figure of Cimabue himself, in spite of

Dante's testimony to his having been the foremost painter of Italy until

Giotto arose, has under the search-light of modern criticism melted into

almost mythical vagueness. His accepted position as Giotto's instructor

and the pioneer of reform in his art has been attacked from several

sides as a mere invention of Florentine writers for the glorification of

their own city. One group of critics maintain that the real advance in

Tuscan painting before Giotto was the work of the Sienese school and not

of the Florentine. Another group contend that the best painting done in

Italy down to the last decade of the 13th century was not done by Tuscan

hands at all, but by Roman craftsmen trained in the inherited principles

of Italo-Byzantine decoration in mosaic and fresco, and that from such

Roman craftsmen alone could Giotto have learnt anything worth his

learning. The debate thus opened is far from closed, and considering how

scanty, ambiguous and often defaced are the materials existing for

discussion, it is perhaps never likely to be closed. But there is no

debate as to the general nature of the reform effected by the genius of

Giotto himself. He was the great humanizer of painting; it is his glory

to have been the first among his countrymen to breathe life into

wall-pictures and altar-pieces, and to quicken the dead conventionalism

of inherited practice with the fire of natural action and natural

feeling. Upon yet another point there is no question; and that is that

the reform thus effected by Giotto in painting had been anticipated in

the sister art of sculpture by nearly a whole generation. About the

middle of the 13th century Nicola Pisano had renewed that art, first by

strict imitation of classical models, and later by infusing into his

work a fresh spirit of nature and humanity, perhaps partly caught from

the Gothic schools of France. His son Giovanni had carried the same

re-vitalising of sculpture a great deal further; and hence to some

critics it would seem that the real inspirer and precursor of Giotto was

Giovanni Pisano the sculptor, and not any painter or wall-decorator,

whether of Florence, Siena or Rome.

In this division of opinion it is safer to regard the revival of

painting in Giotto's hands simply as part of the general awakening of

the time, and to remember that, as of all Italian communities Florence

was the keenest in every form of activity both intellectual and

practical, so it was natural that a son of Florence should be the chief

agent in such an awakening. And in considering his career the question

of his possible participation in the primitive frescoes of the upper

courses at Assisi is best left out of account, the more so because of

the deplorable condition in which they now exist. But with reference to

the lowest course of paintings on the same walls, those illustrating the

life of St Francis according to the narrative of St Bonaventura, no one

has any doubt, at least in regard to nineteen or twenty of the

twenty-eight subjects which compose the series, that Giotto himself was

their designer and chief executant. In these, sadly as they too have

suffered from time and wholesale repair, there can nevertheless be

discerned the unmistakable spirit of the young Florentine master as we

know him in his other works--his shrewd realistic and dramatic vigour,

the deep sincerity and humanity of feeling which he knows how to express

in every gesture of his figures without breaking up the harmony of their

grouping or the grandeur of their linear design, qualities inherited

from the earlier schools of impressive but lifeless hieratic decoration.

The "Renunciation of the Saint by his Father," the "Pope's Dream of the

Saint upholding the tottering Church," the "Saint before the Sultan,"

the "Miracle of the Spring of Water," the "Death of the Nobleman of

Celano," the "Saint preaching before Pope Honorius"--these are some of

the most noted and best preserved examples of the painter's power in

this series. Where doubt begins again is as to the relations of date and

sequence which the series bears to other works by the master executed at

Assisi and at Rome in the same early period of his career, that is,

probably between 1295 and 1300. Giotto's remaining undisputed works at

Assisi are the four celebrated allegorical compositions in honour of St

Francis in the vaulting of the Lower Church,--the "Marriage of St

Francis to Poverty," the "Allegory of Chastity," the "Allegory of

Obedience" and the "Vision of St Francis in Glory." These works are

scarcely at all retouched, and relatively little dimmed by time; they

are of a singular beauty, at once severe and tender, both in colour and

design; the compositions, especially the first three, fitted with

admirable art into the cramped spaces of the vaulting, the subjects, no

doubt in the main dictated to the artist by his Franciscan employers,

treated in no cold or mechanical spirit but with a full measure of vital

humanity and original feeling. Had the career and influence of St

Francis had no other of their vast and far-reaching effects in the world

than that of inspiring these noble works of art, they would still have

been entitled to no small gratitude from mankind. Other works at Assisi

which most modern critics, but not all, attribute to Giotto himself are

three miracles of St Francis and portions of a group of frescoes

illustrating the history of Mary Magdalene, both in the Lower Church;

and again, in one of the transepts of the same Lower Church, a series of

ten frescoes of the Life of the Virgin and Christ, concluding with the

Crucifixion. It is to be remarked as to this transept series that

several of the frescoes present not only the same subjects, but with a

certain degree of variation the same compositions, as are found in the

master's great series executed in the Arena chapel at Padua in the

fullness of his powers about 1306; and that the versions in the Assisi

transept show a relatively greater degree of technical accomplishment

than the Paduan versions, with a more attractive charm and more

abundance of accessory ornament, but a proportionately less degree of

that simple grandeur in composition and direct strength of human motive

which are the special notes of Giotto's style. Therefore a minority of

critics refuse to accept the modern attribution of this transept series

to Giotto himself, and see in it later work by an accomplished pupil

softening and refining upon his master's original creations at Padua.

Others, insisting that these unquestionably beautiful works must be by

the hand of Giotto and none but Giotto, maintain that in comparison with

the Paduan examples they illustrate a gradual progress, which can be

traced in other of his extant works, from the relatively ornate and soft

to the austerely grand and simple. This argument is enforced by

comparison with early work of the master's at Rome as to the date of

which we have positive evidence. In 1298 Giotto completed for Cardinal

Stefaneschi for the price of 2200 gold ducats a mosaic of Christ saving

St Peter from the waves (the celebrated "Navicella"); this is still to

be seen, but in a completely restored and transformed state, in the

vestibule of St Peter's. For the same patron he executed, probably just

before the "Navicella," an elaborate ciborium or altar-piece for the

high altar of St Peter's, for which he received 800 ducats. It

represents on the principal face a colossal Christ enthroned with

adoring angels beside him and a kneeling donor at his feet, and the

martyrdoms of St Peter and St Paul on separate panels to right and left;

on the reverse is St Peter attended by St George and other saints,

receiving from the donor a model of his gift, with stately full-length

figures of two apostles to right and two to left, besides various

accessory scenes and figures in the predellas and the margins. The

separated parts of this altar-piece are still to be seen, in a quite

genuine though somewhat tarnished condition, in the sacristy of St

Peter's. A third work by the master at Rome is a repainted fragment at

the Lateran of a fresco of Pope Boniface VIII. proclaiming the jubilee

of 1300. The "Navicella" and the Lateran fragment are too much ruined to

argue from; but the ciborium panels, it is contended, combine with the

aspects of majesty and strength a quality of ornate charm and suavity

such as is remarked in the transept frescoes of Assisi. The sequence

proposed for these several works is accordingly, first the St Peter's

ciborium, next the allegories in the vaulting of the Lower Church, next

the three frescoes of St Francis' miracles in the north transept, next

the St Francis series in the Upper Church; and last, perhaps after an

interval and with the help of pupils, the scenes from the life of Mary

Magdalene in her chapel in the Lower Church. This involves a complete

reversal of the prevailing view, which regards the unequal and sometimes

clumsy compositions of this St Francis series as the earliest

independent work of the master. It must be admitted that there is

something paradoxical in the idea of a progress from the manner of the

Lower Church transept series of the life of Christ to the much ruder

manner of the Upper Church series of St Francis.

A kindred obscurity and little less conflict of opinion await the

inquirer at almost all stages of Giotto's career. In 1841 there were

partially recovered from the whitewash that had overlain them a series

of frescoes executed in the chapel of the Magdalene, in the Bargello or

Palace of the Podesta at Florence, to celebrate (as was supposed) a

pacification between the Black and White parties in the state effected

by the Cardinal d'Acquasparta as delegate of the pope in 1302. In them

are depicted a series of Bible scenes, besides great compositions of

Hell and Paradise, and in the Paradise are introduced portraits of

Dante, Brunetto Latini and Corso Donato. These recovered fragments,

freely "restored" as soon as they were disclosed, were acclaimed as the

work of Giotto and long held in especial regard for the sake of the

portrait of Dante. Latterly it has been shown that if Giotto ever

executed them at all, which is doubtful, it must have been at a later

date than the supposed pacification, and that they must have suffered

grievous injury in the fire which destroyed a great part of the building

in 1332, and been afterwards repainted by some well-trained follower of

the school. To about 1302 or 1303 would belong, if there is truth in it,

the familiar story of Giotto's O. Pope Benedict XI., the successor of

Boniface VIII., sent, as the tale runs, a messenger to bring him proofs

of the painter's powers. Giotto would give no other sample of his talent

than an O drawn with a free sweep of the brush from the elbow; but the

pope was satisfied and engaged him at a great salary to go and adorn

with frescoes the papal residence at Avignon. Benedict, however, dying

at this time (1305), nothing came of this commission; and the remains of

Italian 14th-century frescoes still to be seen at Avignon are now

recognized as the work, not, as was long supposed, of Giotto, but of the

Sienese Simone Martini and his school.

At this point in Giotto's life we come to the greatest by far of his

undestroyed and undisputed enterprises, and one which can with some

certainty be dated. This is the series of frescoes with which he

decorated the entire internal walls of the chapel built at Padua in

honour of the Virgin of the Annunciation by a rich citizen of the town,

Enrico Scrovegni, perhaps in order to atone for the sins of his father,

a notorious usurer whom Dante places in the seventh circle of hell. The

building is on the site of an ancient amphitheatre, and is therefore

generally called the chapel of the Arena. Since it is recorded that

Dante was Giotto's guest at Padua, and since we know that it was in 1306

that the poet came from Bologna to that city, we may conclude that to

the same year, 1306, belongs the beginning of Giotto's great undertaking

in the Arena chapel. The scheme includes a Saviour in Glory over the

altar, a Last Judgment, full of various and impressive incident,

occupying the whole of the entrance wall, with a series of subjects from

the Old and New Testament and the apocryphal Life of Christ painted in

three tiers on either side wall, and lowest of all a fourth tier with

emblematic Virtues and Vices in monochrome; the Virtues being on the

side of the chapel next the incidents of redemption in the entrance

fresco of the Last Judgment, the Vices on the side next the incidents of

perdition. A not improbable tradition asserts that Giotto was helped by

Dante in the choice and disposition of the subjects. The frescoes,

though not free from injury and retouching, are upon the whole in good

condition, and nowhere else can the highest powers of the Italian mind

and hand at the beginning of the 14th century be so well studied as

here. At the close of the middle ages we find Giotto laying the

foundation upon which all the progress of the Renaissance was afterwards

securely based. In his day the knowledge possessed by painters of the

human frame and its structure rested only upon general observation and

not upon detailed or scientific study; while to facts other than those

of humanity their observation had never been closely directed. Of linear

perspective they possessed but elementary and empirical ideas, and their

endeavours to express aerial perspective and deal with the problems of

light and shade were rare and partial. As far as painting could possibly

be carried under these conditions, it was carried by Giotto. In its

choice of subjects, his art is entirely subservient to the religious

spirit of his age. Even in its mode of conceiving and arranging those

subjects it is in part still trammelled by the rules and consecrated

traditions of the past. Many of those truths of nature to which the

painters of succeeding generations learned to give accurate and complete

expression, Giotto was only able to express by way oL imperfect symbol

and suggestion. But among the elements of art over which he has control

he maintains so just a balance that his work produces in the spectator

less sense of imperfection than that of many later and more accomplished

masters. In some particulars his mature painting, as we see it in the

Arena chapel, has never been surpassed--in mastery of concise and

expressive generalized line and of inventive and harmonious decorative

tint; in the judicious division of the field and massing and scattering

of groups; in the combination of high gravity with complete frankness in

conception, and the union of noble dignity in the types with direct and

vital truth in the gestures of the personages.

The frescoes of the Arena chapel must have been a labour of years, and

of the date of their termination we have no proof. Of many other works

said to have been executed by Giotto at Padua, all that remains consists

of some scarce recognizable traces in the chapter-house of the great

Franciscan church of St Antonio. For twenty years or more we lose all

authentic data as to Giotto's doings and movements. Vasari, indeed,

sends him on a giddy but in the main evidently fabulous round of

travels, including a sojourn in France, which it is certain he never

made. Besides Padua, he is said to have resided and left great works at

Ferrara, Ravenna, Urbino, Rimini, Faenza, Lucca and other cities; in

some of them paintings of his school are still shown, but nothing which

can fairly be claimed to be by his hand. It is recorded also that he was

much employed in his native city of Florence; but the vandalism of later

generations has effaced nearly all that he did there. Among works

whitewashed over by posterity were the frescoes with which he covered no

less than five chapels in the church of Santa Croce. Two of these, the

chapels of the Bardi and the Peruzzi families, were scraped in the early

part of the 19th century, and very important remains were uncovered and

immediately subjected to a process of restoration which has robbed them

of half their authenticity. But through the ruins of time we can trace

in some of these Santa Croce frescoes all the qualities of Giotto's work

at an even higher and more mature development than in the best examples

at Assisi or Padua. The frescoes of the Bardi chapel tell again the

story of St Francis, to which so much of his best power had already been

devoted; those of the Peruzzi chapel deal with the lives of St John the

Baptist and St John the Evangelist. Such scenes as the Funeral of St

Francis, the Dance of Herodias's Daughter, and the Resurrection of St

John the Evangelist, which have to some extent escaped the

disfigurements of the restorer, are among acknowledged classics of the

world's art. The only clues to the dates of any of these works are to be

found in the facts that among the figures in the Bardi chapel occurs

that of St Louis of Toulouse, who was not canonized till 1317, therefore

the painting must be subsequent to that year, and that the "Dance of

Salome" must have been painted before 1331, when it was copied by the

Lorenzetti at Siena. The only other extant works of Giotto at Florence

are a fine "Crucifix," not undisputed, at San Marco, and the majestic

but somewhat heavy altar-piece of the Madonna, probably an early work,

which is placed in the Academy beside a more primitive Madonna supposed

to be the work of Cimabue.

Towards the end of Giotto's life we escape again from confused legend,

and from the tantalizing record of works which have not survived for us

to verify, into the region of authentic document and fact. It appears

that Giotto had come under the notice of Duke Charles of Calabria, son

of King Robert of Naples, during the visits of the duke to Florence

which took place between 1326 and 1328, in which year he died. Soon

afterwards Giotto must have gone to King Robert's court at Naples, where

he was enrolled as an honoured guest and member of the household by a

royal decree dated the 20th of January 1330. Another document shows him

to have been still at Naples two years later. Tradition says much about

the friendship of the king for the painter and the freedom of speech and

jest allowed him; much also of the works he carried out at Naples in the

Castel Nuovo, the Castel dell' Uovo, and the church and convent of Sta

Chiara. Not a trace of these works remains; and others which later

criticism have claimed for him in a hall which formerly belonged to the

convent of Sta Chiara have been proved not to be his.

Meantime Giotto had been advancing, not only in years and worldly fame,

but in prosperity. He was married young, and had, so far as is recorded,

three sons, Francesco, Niccola and Donato, and three daughters, Bice,

Caterina and Lucia. He had added by successive purchases to the plot of

land inherited from his father at Vespignano. His fellow-citizens of all

occupations and degrees delighted to honour him. And now, in his

sixty-eighth year (if we accept the birth-date 1266/7), on his return

from Naples by way of Gaeta, he received the final and official

testimony to the esteem in which he was held at Florence. By a solemn

decree of the _Priori_ on the 12th of April 1334, he was appointed

master of the works of the cathedral of Sta Reparata (later and better

known as Sta Maria del Fiore) and official architect of the city walls

and the towns within her territory. What training as a practical

architect his earlier career had afforded him we do not know, but his

interest in the art from the beginning is made clear by the carefully

studied architectural backgrounds of many of his frescoes. Dying on the

8th of January 1336 (old style 1337), Giotto only enjoyed his new

dignities for two years. But in the course of them he had found time not

only to make an excursion to Milan, on the invitation of Azzo Visconti

and with the sanction of his own government, but to plan two great

architectural works at Florence and superintend the beginning of their

execution, namely the west front of the cathedral and its detached

campanile or bell-tower. The unfinished enrichments of the cathedral

front were stripped away in a later age. The foundation-stone of the

Campanile was laid with solemn ceremony in the presence of a great

concourse of magistrates and people on the 18th of July 1334. Its lower

courses seem to have been completed from Giotto's design, and the first

course of its sculptured ornaments (the famous series of primitive Arts

and Industries) actually by his own hand, before his death. It is not

clear what modifications of his design were made by Andrea Pisano, who

was appointed to succeed him, or again by Francesco Talenti, to whom the

work was next entrusted; but the incomparable structure as we now see it

stands justly in the world's esteem as the most fitting monument to the

genius who first conceived and directed it.

The art of painting, as re-created by Giotto, was carried on throughout

Italy by his pupils and successors with little change or development for

nearly a hundred years, until a new impulse was given to art by the

combined influences of naturalism and classicism in the hands of men

like Donatello and Masaccio. Most of the anecdotes related of the master

are probably inaccurate in detail, but the general character both as

artist and man which tradition has agreed in giving him can never be

assailed. He was from the first a kind of popular hero. He is celebrated

by the poet Petrarch and by the historian Villani. He is made the

subject of tales and anecdotes by Boccaccio and by Franco Sacchetti.

From these notices, as well as from Vasari, we gain a distinct picture

of the man, as one whose nature was in keeping with his country origin;

whose sturdy frame and plain features corresponded to a character rather

distinguished for shrewd and genial strength than for sublimer or more

ascetic qualities; a master craftsman, to whose strong combining and

inventing powers nothing came amiss; conscious of his own deserts, never

at a loss either in the things of art or in the things of life, and

equally ready and efficient whether he has to design the scheme of some

great spiritual allegory in colour or imperishable monument in stone, or

whether he has to show his wit in the encounter of practical jest and

repartee. From his own hand we have a contribution to literature which

helps to substantiate this conception of his character. A large part of

Giotto's fame as painter was won in the service of the Franciscans, and

in the pictorial celebration of the life and ordinances of their

founder. As is well known, it was a part of the ordinances of Francis

that his disciples should follow his own example in worshipping and

being wedded to poverty,--poverty idealized and personified as a

spiritual bride and mistress. Giotto, having on the commission of the

order given the noblest pictorial embodiment to this and other aspects

of the Franciscan doctrine, presently wrote an ode in which his own

views on poverty are expressed; and in this he shows that, if on the one

hand his genius was at the service of the ideals of his time, and his

imagination open to their significance, on the other hand his judgment

was shrewdly and humorously awake to their practical dangers and

exaggerations.

AUTHORITIES.--Ghiberti, _Commentari_; Vasari, _Le Vite_, vol. i.;

Crowe-Cavalcaselle, _History of Painting in Italy_, ed. Langton

Douglas (1903); H. Thode, _Giotto_ (1899); M. G. Zimmermann, _Giotto

und die Kunst Italiens im Mittelalter_ (1899); B. Berenson,

_Florentine Painters of the Renaissance_; F. Mason Perkin, _Giotto_

(in "Great Masters" series) (1902); Basil de Selincourt, _Giotto_

(1905). (S. C.)