GAINSBOROUGH, THOMAS. 



GAJ, LJUDEVIT. 



nineteen years old, he wrote a treatise on rhetoric for the use of young 

 ladies. In 1757 he published the ' History of Mary of Burgundy," 

 daughter of Charles the Bold and wife of the emperor Maximilian I., 

 a work which had great success. In 1766 was published his ' History 

 of Francis I. of France.' The subject is well treated, though Gaillard 

 presented it in a rather uninviting form for the generality of readers, 

 having divided the history of that celebrated reign into separate parts, 

 such as civil, political, military, ecclesiastical, and literary history, the 

 private life of the king, &c. He adopted the same plan in his ' History 

 of Charlemagne,' 1782, in 4 vole. 4to. Besides the objection to his 

 mode of dividing the subject-matter, it was further objected to the 

 ' History of Charlemagne' that Gaillard had sunk the biography of 

 his hero between two long dissertations on the first and second races 

 of the French kings. The best work of Gaillard is his ' History of the 

 Rivalry between France and England,' of which the first three volumes 

 appeared in 1771, the four following in 1774, and the four concluding 

 volumes in 1777. This work embraces not only the political and 

 military relations between the two countries, but also the internal 

 history of both, so arranged as to present a constant parallelism. 

 His ' History of the Rivalry between France and Spain,' 8 vols. 1 2mo, 

 a work highly appreciated in France, is written on the same plan. 

 Gaillard was the author of the ' Historical Dictionary' in the 'Ency- 

 clope'die Mt'thodiijue,' 6 vol.". 4to, and many other minor works, the 

 mo=t valuable of which are a 'Life of Malesherbes,' his personal 

 friend, 1805, 1 voL 8vo ; and 'Observations on the History of France,' 

 by Velly, Villaret, and Garnier, 4 vola. 12mo, 1806. Gaillard died in 

 1806, in consequence of his severe application. His moral character 

 stoo'l very high. 



GAINSBOROUGH, THOMAS, born in 1727, at Sudbury in Suffolk, 

 was one of the most eminent English landscape-painters of the last 

 century. His father being a person in narrow circumstances, the 

 education which his son received was very scanty ; and it is probable 

 enough that in his boyish days he passed much leas time at school 

 than in the woods of Suffolk, where he acquired that relish for the 

 beauties of quiet nature and that intimate acquaintance with them for 

 which his early pictures are so peculiarly distinguished. Having 

 almost from bis childhood amused himself with sketching any object 

 that struck his fancy, an old tree, a group of cattle, a shepherd and 

 his dog, &c., he ventured on colouring, and bad painted several land- 

 scapes before he was fourteen years of age, when he was sent to London. 

 There he was for some time with Mr. Gravelot, the engraver, and 

 Hayman, the painter, with whom he did not remain long, but, setting 

 up as a portrait-painter, supported himself, till at the age of nineteen 

 he married a young laHy who had a fortune of 200t per annum. On 

 his marriage he went to Ipswich, where he resided till 1760, when he 

 removed to Bath. Having practised portrait-painting with increasing 

 success, he removed in 1774 to London ; and having painted portraits 

 of some of the royal family, which were much admired, he soon 

 acquired extensive practice and proportionate emolument. But though 

 his portraits were much valued at the time as striking likenesses, this 

 was too frequently their chief merit : they were often painted in a 

 rough careless manner, in a style of hatching and scumbling entirely hU 

 own, producing indeed an effect at a distance, but undetermined and 

 indistinct when viewed near. At times he would take more pains, and 

 show what he could do. But Gainsborough in fact considered this 

 loose manner as so peculiarly characteristic, if not excellent, that he 

 was desirous that his pictures in the exhibition might be so hung as 

 to be within reach of close inspection. Gainsborough was one of the 

 thirty-six members chosen at the foundation of the Royal Academy, 

 and at the first exhibition of the academy in the following year he 

 contributed two portraits, a boy's head and a Urge landscape. 



The fame of Gainsborough now rests on his landscapes, to the 

 painting of which he more and more devoted himself from the time 

 of his removal to London ; and what might be called fancy-pieces, 

 such as the celebrated ' Cottage-Door,' now in the collection of the 

 Marquis of Westminster. But in speaking of his landscapes, there 

 must be remarked a striking difference between his early and his later 

 performances. In the former every feature is copied from nature in 

 great detail, and yet without stiffness ; so that they, in a measure, look 

 like nature itself reflected in a convex mirror. In his latter works 

 striking effect, great breadth and judicious distribution of light and 

 shade, and depth, glow, and richness of colour, produce a grand and 

 even a solemn impression. Both styles have their admirers ; but in 

 the present fashionable tendency to minute imitation, Gainsborough's 

 most highly-detailed early landscape would be probably regarded as 

 coarse and unfinished. Gainsborout-h may not deserve to be ranked, 

 as some woull have him, with Vandyck, Rubens, and Claude, in 

 portrait and in landscape, yet all will assent to the opinion of Sir 

 Joshua Reynolds " That if ever this nation should produce genius 

 sufficient to aequire to us the honourable distinction of an English 

 school, the name of Gainsborough will be transmitted to posterity as 

 one of the very first of that rising name." He was in fact the first 

 really original English landscape-painter. Every work of his pencil 

 bear* upon it a marked impress. A landscape by Gainsborough even 

 though one of his earlier works is never a mere view of a particular 

 spot, but a poetic rendering of the scene as coloured by the imagination 

 of the artist, and a realisation, as far as may be, of the idea it has 

 assumed in his mind. 



Gainsborough died of a cancer in the neck, August 2nd, 1788, in the 

 sixty-first year of his age. 



(Cunningham, Lives of British Painters; Fulcher, Life of Gains- 

 ] borough, 1856.) 



GAIUS, or CAIUS, one of the Roman classical jurists whose works 



i entitle him to a place among the great writers on law, such as Papinian, 



: Paulus, and Ulpiao. Nothing is kuown of the personal history of 



j Gains beyond the probable fact that he wrote under Autouinus Pius 



and Aurdius. His works were largely used in the compilation of the 



' Digest,' or ' Pandect,' which contains extracts from the writings of 



Gaius under the following titles: 'Res Cottidianse eive Aureorum,' 



(Dig. xl. 9, 10, &c.); 'De Casibus,' (xii 6, 63, &c.); 'Ad Edictum 



yEdiliutn Curuliutn," (xxi. 1, 18, &c.); 'Liber ad Edictum Prsetoris 



Urban!,' (xl. 12, 6, &c.) ; ' Ad Edictum Provinciale,' (xiv. 4, 9, &c.), 



which consisted of thirty books at least ; ' Fidei Commissorum,' 



(xxxii. 1, 14, &c.) ; ' Formula Hypothecaria,' (xx. 1, 4, &c.) ; ' Institu- 



tiones,' (i. 6, 1, &c.); 'De Verborum Obligationibus,' (xlvi. 1, 70). 



There are also extracts from several other works of Gaius in the 



' Pandect.' 



The ' Institutions ' of Gaius were probably the earliest attempt to 

 present a sketch of the Roman law in the form of an elementary text- 

 book. This work continued in general use till the compilation of the 

 ' Institutions ' which bear the name of Justinian, and which were not 

 only mainly based on the ' Institutions ' of Gaius, but, like this earlier 

 work, were divided into four books, with the same general distribution 

 of the subject-matter as that adopted by Gaius. 



The ' Institutions ' of Gains appear to have been neglected after the 

 promulgation of Justinian's compilation, and were finally lost. The 

 detached pieces collected in the 'Digest,' and what could be gathered 

 from the ' Breviarium Alaricianum,' as the code of the Visigoths is 

 sometimes called, were all that remained. But in 1816, Niebuhr dis- 

 covered a manuscript in the library of the chapter of Verona, which 

 he ascertained to be a treatise on Roman law, and which Savigny, 

 founding his opinion on the specimen published by Niebuhr, con- 

 jectured to be the ' Institutions' of Gaius. 



This conjecture of Savigny was soon fully confirmed, though the 

 manuscript has no author's name on it. Goeschen, Bekker, and 

 Hollweg undertook to examine and copy this manuscript, an edition 

 of which appeared at Berlin in 1820, edited by Goeschen. To form 

 some idea of the labour necessary to decipher this manuscript, and of 

 the patient perseverance of the scholars who undertook this formidable 

 task, the reader must refer to the report of Goeschen to the Academy 

 of Berlin, November 6, 1817. The manuscript consists of one hun- 

 dred and twenty-seven sheets of parchment, thej original writing on 

 which was the four books of the ' Institutions ' of Gaius. This 

 original writing had on some pages been washed out, so far as was 

 practicable, and on others scratched out; and the whole, with the 

 exception of two sheets, had been re-written with the epistles of St. 

 Jerome. The lines of the original and of the substituted writing run 

 in the same direction, and often cover one another ; a circumstance 

 which considerably increased the difficulty of deciphering the text of 

 Gaius. In addition to this, sixty-three pages had been written on 

 three times : the first writing was the text of Gaius, which had been 

 erased ; and the second, which was a theological work, had shared the 

 same fate, to make room for the epistles of St. Jerome. 



A second examination of this manuscript was made by Bluhmo 

 (' Prsefatio Novae Editionis '), and a new edition of the ' Institutions ' 

 was published by Goeschcn, at Berlin, in 1824, which presents us 

 with an exact copy of the manuscript with all its deficiencies, and 

 contains a most copious list of the abbreviations used by the copyist 

 of Gaius. 



The discovery of a work, the loss of which had so long been 

 regretted, produced a most lively sensation among continental jurists, 

 and called forth a great number of essays. In England it attracted 

 comparatively little attention, though it is undoubtedly one of the 

 most valuable additions that have been made in modern times to our 

 knowledge of Roman Law. The fourth book of the ' Institutions ' is 

 particularly useful for the information which it contains on actions 

 and the forms of procedure. The style of Gaius, like that of all the 

 classical Roman jurists, is perspicuous and yet concise. 



Among the most useful editions of Gaius is that by Klenze and 

 Bocking (Berlin, 1829), which contains the 'Institutions' of Gaius 

 and Justinian, so arranged as to present a parallelism, and to furnish 

 a proof, if any were yet wanting, that the manuscript of Verona is the 

 genuine work of Gaius; and Bocking' s subsequent edition, 12mo, 

 Bonn, 1841. 



In addition to the references already made, the reader may consult 

 an ingenious essay by Goeschen on the ' Res Quotidiante,' of Gaius, 

 Zttiichrift far Qeschicktliche Rechtswiticnschaft, Berlin, 1815 ; Hugo, 

 Lehrbuch der Ouchichte da Romitchen Rechts ; Dupont, Disquiiit. in 

 CommentaHum iv. Inttit. Qaii, <fcc., Lugd. Bat. 1822; Huschke, Zar 

 Jirilik und Interp. von Gaius Instit., in his Studien des Rom. Rechti, 

 8vo, Bres. 1830. The Institutes of Gaius have been translated into 

 French by Boulet, 1826 ; Domenget, 1843 ; and Pellat, 1844, &c. ; 

 and the first book into German by Von Brockdorff, 1824. 



*GAJ, LJUDEVIT, the founder of modern Illyrian literature, was 

 born about 1810, at Kropina in Croatia, where his father was an 

 apothecary. Gaj studied law at Peath, and there came under the 



