See RED CROSS.
GENEVA TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1871, and 1871-1872.
GENEVOIS, The.
See SAVOY AND PIEDMONT: 11TH-15TH CENTURIES.
GENGHIS KHAN, The conquests of.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227.
GENOA:
Origin and rise of the city.
"Genoa, anciently Genua, was the chief maritime city of
Liguria, and afterwards a Roman municipium. Under the Lombards
the constant invasions of the Saracens united the professions
of trade and war, and its greatest merchants became also its
greatest generals, while its naval captains were also
merchants. The Crusades were of great advantage to Genoa [see
CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111] in enabling it to establish trading
settlements as far as the Black Sea; but the power of Pisa in
the East, as well as its possession of Corsica and Sardinia,
led to wars between it and Genoa, in which the Genoese took
Corsica [see CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY] and drove the Pisans out
of Sardinia. By land the Genoese territory was extended to
Nice on one side and to Spezia on the other."
A. J. C. Hare,
Cities of Northern and Central Italy,
volume 1, page 30.
GENOA: A. D. 1256-1257.
Battles with the Venetians at Acre.
See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.
GENOA: A. D. 1261-1299.
The supplanting of Venice at Constantinople and in the Black
Sea trade.
Colonies in the Crimea.
Wars with Venice.
Victory at Curzola and favorable treaty of peace.
During the Latin dynasty in Constantinople the Genoese never
gained the first place in the commerce of the Black Sea. ...
It was Venice who held the key of all this commerce, at
Constantinople; when, after diverting the whole course of the
fourth Crusade, she induced Christendom to waste its energies
on subduing the Greek empire for her benefit [see BYZANTINE
EMPIRE: A.D. 1203-1204]. With the exiled Greek dynasty,
however, the Genoese were always on the best of terms, at
Trebizond, Nicea, and in Roumania; and recognizing that as
long as the Latins were all-powerful in Constantinople she
would have to relinquish the cream of the Black Sea commerce
to the Queen of the Adriatic, she at length determined to
strike a bold stroke and replace a Greek again on the throne."
This was accomplished in 1261, when Baldwin II. fled from the
Byzantine capital and Michael Paleologus took possession of
his throne and crown (see GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA: A. D.
1204-1261). For the assistance given in that revolution, the
Genoese obtained the treaty of Ninfeo, "which firmly
established their influence in the Black Sea. ... Thus did the
brave mariner-town of Genoa turn the scale of the vast, but
rotten, Eastern Empire; and her reward was manifold. The
grateful emperor gave her streets and quays in Constantinople,
immunity from tribute, and a free passage for her commerce.
... In addition to these excellent terms in the treaty of
Ninfeo, the emperor conceded to various Genoese private
families numerous islands in the Archipelago. ... But the
great nucleus of this power was the streets, churches, and
quays in Constantinople which were allotted to the Genoese,
and formed a vast emporium of strength and commerce, which
must have eventually led to entire possession of
Constantinople, had not the 'podesta,' or ruler of the Genoese
colony there, thought fit, from personal motives, or from large
offers made him by the Venetians, to attempt a restoration of
the Latin line. ... His conspiracy was discovered, and the
Genoese were sent away in a body to Eraclea. However, on
representation from home that it was none of their doing, and
that Guercio had been acting entirely on his own account, the
emperor yielded in perpetuity to the Genoese the town of Pera,
on the sole condition that the governors should do him homage
[see, also, CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1261-1453]. ...
{1420}
Thus were the Genoese established in this commanding position;
here they had a separate government of their own, from here
they ruled the road of commerce from China to Europe; and,
taking advantage of the weakness of the emperors, they were
able to do much as they wished about building fortresses and
palaces, with gardens to the water's edge; and thus from Pera,
with its citadel of Galata behind it, they were enabled to
dictate what terms they pleased to ships passing to and from
the Bosphorus." In the Black Sea, "from time immemorial, the
small tongue of land now known as the Crimea, then as the
Tauric Chersonese, was the mart towards which all the caravan
trade of Asia was directed by this northern road, and upon
this tongue of land sprang up a group of noble cities which,
until finally seized by the Turks, were without exception
Genoese property. Of these, Caffa was the chief. When this
city was built on the ruins of Theodosia, and by whom, is
somewhat shrouded in mystery. Certain it is that Genoa had a
colony here soon after the first Crusade. ... Second only to
Caffa in importance, and better known to us by name, was the
town of Crim, which gave its name eventually to the whole
peninsula, which originally it had got from the Crim Tatars.
... Prior to its cession to the Genoese, it had been the
residence of a Tatar emperor. ... Here, then, in this narrow
tongue of land, which we now call the Crimea, was the kernel
of Genoese prosperity. As long as she flourished here she
flourished at home. And when at length the Turkish scourge
swept over this peninsula and swallowed up her colonies, the
Ligurian Republic, by a process of slow decay, withered like a
sapless tree." The supplanting of the Venetians at
Constantinople by the Genoese, and the great advantages gained
by the latter in the commerce of the Black Sea, led
necessarily to war between the rival republics. "To maintain
her newly acquired influence in the East, Genoa sent forth a
fleet under the joint command of Pierino Grimaldi, a noble,
and Perchelto Mallone, the people's representative. They
encountered the Venetian squadron at Malvasia [1263] which was
greatly inferior to their own. But as the combatants were just
warming to their work, Mallone, actuated by party spirit,
withdrew his ships and sailed away. The Venetians could
scarcely believe what they saw; they anticipated some deep
laid stratagem, and withdrew for a while from the contest.
When however they beheld Mallone's galleys fairly under sail,
they wonderingly attacked Grimaldi and his 13 ships and
obtained an easy victory. Grimaldi fell at his post. ... This
fatal day of Malvasia [sometimes called the battle of Sette
Pozzi] might easily have secured Venice her lost place in the
Black Sea had she been able to follow up her victory, but with
inexplicable want of vigour she remained inactive." Genoa,
meantime, recovered from the disaster and sent out another
fleet which captured a rich squadron of Venetian merchant
ships in the Adriatic, taking large booty. "It surprises us
immensely to find how for the next thirty years Genoa was able
to keep up a desultory warfare with Venice, when she was at
the height of her struggle with Pisa; and it surprises us
still more that Venice raised not a hand to assist Pisa,
though she was on most friendly terms with her, and when by so
doing she could have ruined Genoa. ... After the fall of Pisa
at Meloria, in 1296 [1284], Genoa could transfer her attention
with all the greater vigour to her contest against Venice.
Four years after this victory men's minds were again bent on
war. Venice cared not to pay a tax to her rival on all ships
which went to Caffa, Genoa resented the treatment she had
received in Cyprus, and thus the rivals prepared for another
and more determined contest for supremacy." The Venetians sent
a fleet to operate in the Black Sea. "Fire was set to the
houses of Galata, irreparable damage was done to Caffa, and in
the Archipelago everything Genoese was burnt, and then off
they sailed for Cyprus, whilst the Genoese were squabbling
amongst themselves. With much trouble the many rulers of Genoa
succeeded at length in adjusting their difference, and a
goodly array of 76 galleys was entrusted to the care of Lamba
D'Oria to punish the Venetians for their depredations. ...
Much larger was the force Venice produced for the contest, and
when the combatants met off Curzola, amongst the Dalmatian
islands, the Genoese were anxious to come to terms, and sought
them, but the Venetians haughtily refused. ... This battle of
Curzola [September 8, 1298] was a sharp and vehement struggle,
and resulted in terrible loss to the Venetians, four of whose
galleys alone escaped to tell the tale. ... Had Lamba D'Oria
but driven the contest home, Venice was ill-prepared to meet
him; as it was, he determined to sail off to Genoa, taking
with him the Venetian admiral ... Dandolo. Chained to the mast
of his own vessel, and unable to sustain the effects of his
humiliation, there, as he stood, Dandolo dashed his head
against the mast and died. ... The natural result of such a
victory was a most favourable peace for Genoa, signed under
the direction of Matteo Visconti, lord of Milan, in 1299; and
thus the century closed on Genoa as without doubt the most
powerful state in Italy, and unquestionably the mistress of
the Mediterranean. ... The next outbreak of war between the
two Republics had its origin in the occupation of the island
of Chios, in 1349," and Genoa in that struggle encountered not
the Venetians alone, but the Greeks and Catalans in alliance
with them.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D. 1348-1355.
J. T. Bent,
Genoa: How the Republic rose and fell,
chapters 6 and 8.
ALSO IN:
W. C. Hazlitt,
History of the Venetian Republic,
chapter 11 (volume 2).
GENOA: A. D. 1282-1290.
War with Pisa.
The great victory of Meloria.
Capture of the chain of the Pisan harbor.
See PISA: A. D. 1063-1293.
GENOA: A. D. 1313.
Alliance with the Emperor Henry VII. against Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1310-1313.
GENOA: A. D. 1318-1319.
Feuds of the four great families.
Siege of the city by the exiles and the Lombard princes, and
its defense by the King of Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.
GENOA: A. D. 1348-1355.
War with the Greeks, Venetians and Aragonese.
See CONSTANTINOPLE: AD. 1348-1355.
GENOA: A. D. 1353.
Annexed by the Visconti to their Milanese principality.
See MILAN: A. D. 1277-1447.
GENOA: A. D. 1378-1379.
Renewed war with Venice.
The victory at Pola.
See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.
{1421}
GENOA: A. D. 1379-1381.
The disastrous war of Chioggia.
Venice triumphant.
See VENICE: A. D. 1379-1381.
GENOA: A. D. 1381-1422.
A succession of foreign masters.
The King of France, the Marquis of Monferrat
and the Duke of Milan.
The history of Genoa for more than a century after the
disastrous War of Chioggia "is one long and melancholy tissue
of internal and external troubles, coming faster and faster
upon one another as the inherent vitality of the Republic grew
weaker. ... During this period we have a constant and
unhealthy craving for foreign masters, be they Marquises of
Monferrato, Dukes of Milan, or the more formidable subverters
of freedom, the kings of France. ... In 1396 ... Adorno [then
doge of Genoa], finding himself unable to tyrannize as he
wished, decided on handing over the government to Charles VI.
of France. In this he was ably backed up by many members of
the old nobility, as the signatures to the treaty testify. The
king was to be entitled 'Defender of the Commune and People,'
and was to respect in every way the existing order of things.
So on the 27th of November, in that year, the great bell in
the tower of the ducal palace was rung, the French standard
was raised by the side of the red cross of Genoa, and in the
great council hall, where her rulers had sat for centuries,
now sat enthroned the French ambassadors, whilst Antoniotto
Adorno handed over to them the sceptre and keys of the city.
These symbols of government were graciously restored to him,
with the admonition that he should no longer be styled 'doge,'
but 'governor' in the name of France. Thus did Adorno sell his
country for the love of power, preferring to be the head of
many slaves, rather than to live as a subordinate in a free
community. The first two governors sent by France after
Adorno's death were unable to cope with the seething mass of
corruption they found within the city walls, until the Marshal
Boucicault was sent, whose name was far famed for cruelty in
Spain against the Moors, in Bulgaria against the Turks, and in
France against the rebels." The government of Boucicault was
hard and cruel, and "his name is handed down by the Genoese as
the most hateful of her many tyrants." In 1409 they took
advantage of his absence from the city to bring in the Marquis
of Monferrato, who established himself in his place. "It was
but for a brief period that the Genoese submitted to the
Marquis of Monferrato; they preferred to return to their doges
and internal quarrels. ... Throughout the city nothing was
heard but the din of arms. Brother fought against brother,
father against son, and for the whole of an unusually chill
December, in 1414, there was not a by-path in Genoa which was
not paved with lances, battle-axes and dead bodies. ... Out of
this fiery trial Genoa at length emerged with Tommaso
Campofregoso as her doge, one of the few bright lights which
illumined Liguria during the early part of this century. ...
The Genoese arms during this time of quiescence again shone
forth with something of their ancient brilliancy. Corsica was
subdued, and a substantial league was formed with Henry V. of
England, ... 1421, by which perpetual friendship and peace by
land and sea was sworn. Short, however, was the period during
which Genoa could rest contented at home. Campofregoso was
driven from the dogeship, and Filippo Maria, Visconti of
Milan, was appointed protector of the Republic [1422], and
through this allegiance the Genoese were drawn into an
unprofitable war for the succession in Naples, in which the
Duke of Milan and the Pope supported the claims of Queen
Joanna and her adopted son, Louis of Anjou, against Alphonso
of Aragon."
J. T. Bent,
Genoa,
chapter 9.
The Universal History,
chapter 73, sections 3-4 (volume 25).
GENOA: A. D. 1385-1386.
Residence of Pope Urban VI.
See ITALY (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1343-1389.
GENOA: A. D. 1407-1448.
The Bank of St. George.
"The Bank of St. George was founded in Genoa in the year 1407.
It was an immense success and a great support to the
government. It gradually became a republic within the
republic, more peaceful and better regulated than its
mistress." In 1448 the administration of Corsica and of the
Genoese colonies in the Levant was transferred to the Bank,
which thenceforward appointed governors and conducted colonial
affairs.
G. B. Malleson,
Studies from Genoese History,
page 75.
ALSO IN:
J. T. Bent,
Genoa,
chapter 11.
See, also,
CORSICA: EARLY HISTORY.
GENOA: A. D. 1421-1435.
Submission to the Duke of Milan, and recovery of the freedom
of the city.
See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.
GENOA: A. D. 1458-1464.
Renewed struggles of domestic faction and changes of foreign
masters.
Submission to the Dukes of Milan.
"Genoa, wearied with internal convulsions, which followed each
other incessantly, had lost all influence over the rest of
Italy; continually oppressed by faction, it no longer
preserved even the recollection of liberty. In 1458, it had
submitted to the king of France, then Charles VII.; and John
of Anjou, duke of Calabria, had come to exercise the functions
of governor in the king's name. He made it, at the same time,
his fortress, from whence to attack the kingdom of Naples.
See ITALY: A. D. 1447-1480.
But this war had worn out the patience of the Genoese; they
rose against the French; and, on the 17th of July, 1461,
destroyed the army sent to subdue them by René of Anjou. The
Genoese had no sooner thrown off a foreign yoke than they
became divided into two factions,--the Adorni and the Fregosi,
[severally partisans of two families of that name which
contended for the control of the republic]: both had at
different times, and more than once, given them a doge. The
more violent and tyrannical of these factious magistrates was
Paolo Fregoso, also archbishop of Genoa, who had returned to
his country, in 1462, as chief of banditti; and left it again,
two years afterwards, as chief of a band of pirates. The
Genoese, disgusted with their independence, which was
disgraced by so many crimes and disturbances, had, on the 13th
of April, 1464, yielded to Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan;
and afterwards remained subject to his son Galeazzo."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 11.
ALSO IN:
B. Duffy,
The Tuscan Republics,
chapter 23.
GENOA: A. D. 1475.
Loss of possessions in the Crimea.
See TURKS: A. D. 1451-1481.
{1422}
GENOA: A. D. 1500-1507.
Capitulation to Louis XII. of France, conqueror of Milan.
Revolt and subjugation.
By the conquest of Milan (see ITALY: A. D. 1499-1500), Louis
XII. of France acquired the signoria of Genoa, which had been
held by the deposed duke, Ludovico Sforza. "According to the
capitulation, one half of the magistrates of Genoa should be
noble, the other half plebeian. They were to be chosen by the
suffrages of their fellow-citizens; they were to retain the
government of the whole of Liguria, and the administration of
their own finances, with the reservation of a fixed sum
payable yearly to the king of France. But the French could
never comprehend that nobles were on an equality with
villains; that a king was bound by conditions imposed by his
subjects; or that money could be refused to him who had force.
All the capitulations of Genoa were successively violated; while
the Genoese nobles ranged themselves on the side of a king
against their country: they were known to carry insolently
about them a dagger, on which was inscribed, 'Chastise
villains'; so impatient were they to separate themselves from
the people, even by meanness and assassination. That people
could not support the double yoke of a foreign master and of
nobles who betrayed their country. On the 7th of February,
1507, they revolted, drove out the French, proclaimed the
republic, and named a new doge; but time failed them to
organize their defence. On the 3d of April, Louis advanced
from Grenoble with a powerful army. He soon arrived before
Genoa: the newly-raised militia, unable to withstand veteran
troops, were defeated. Louis entered Genoa on the 29th of
April; and immediately sent the doge and the greater number of
the generous citizens, who had signalized themselves in the
defence of their country, to the scaffold."
J. C. L. de Sismondi,
History of the Italian Republics,
chapter 14.
ALSO IN:
L. von Ranke,
History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations
from 1494 to 1514,
page 260.
GENOA: A. D. 1527-1528.
French dominion momentarily restored and then overthrown by
Andrew Doria.
The republic revived.
See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.
GENOA: A. D. 1528-1559.
The conspiracy of Fiesco and its failure.
Revolt and recovery of Corsica.
"Sustained by the ability of Doria, and protected by the arms
of Charles V., the Republic, during near nineteen years
subsequent to this auspicious revolution, continued in the
enjoyment of dignified independence and repose. But, the
memorable conspiracy of Louis Fiesco, Count of Lavagna, the
Catiline of Liguria, had nearly subverted Genoa, and reduced
it anew to the obedience of France, or exposed it once more to
all the misfortunes of anarchy. The massacre of Doria and his
family constituted one of the primary objects of the plot;
while the dissimulation, intrepidity, and capacity, which
marked its leader ... have rendered the attempt one of the
most extraordinary related in modern history. It was
accompanied with complete success till the moment of its
termination. Jeannetin Doria, the heir of that house, having
perished by the dagger, and Andrew, his uncle, being with
difficulty saved by his servants, who transported him out of
the city, the Genoese Senate was about to submit
unconditionally to Fiesco, when that nobleman, by a sudden and
accidental death, at once rendered abortive his own hopes and
those of his followers. The government, resuming courage,
expelled the surviving conspirators; and Doria, on his return
to the city, sullied the lustre of his high character, by
proceeding to acts of cruelty against the brothers and
adherents of the Count of Lavagna. Notwithstanding this
culpable and vindictive excess, he continued invariably firm
to the political principles which he had inculcated, for
maintaining the freedom of the Commonwealth. Philip, Prince of
Spain, son of Charles V., having visited Genoa in the
succeeding year, attempted to induce the senate, under
specious pretences of securing their safety, to consent to the
construction of a citadel, garrisoned by Spaniards. But he found
in that assembly, as well as in Doria, an insurmountable
opposition to the measure, which was rejected with unanimous
indignation. The island of Corsica, which had been subjected
for ages to Genoa, and which was oppressed by a tyrannical
administration, took up arms at this period [1558-1559]; and
the French having aided the insurgents, they maintained a long
and successful struggle against their oppressors. But the
peace concluded at Cateau between Philip, King of Spain, and
Henry II., in which the Spanish court dictated terms to
France, obliged that nation to evacuate their Corsican
acquisitions, and to restore the island to the Genoese.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1547-1559.
Soon afterwards [1559], at the very advanced age of ninety,
Andrew Doria expired in his own palace, surrounded by the
people on whom he had conferred freedom and tranquillity;
leaving the Commonwealth in domestic repose and undisturbed by
foreign war."
Sir N. W. Wraxall,
History of France, 1574-1610,
volume 2, pages 43-44.
ALSO IN:
G. B. Malleson,
Studies from Genoese History,
chapter 1-3.
GENOA: A. D. 1625-1626.
Unsuccessful attack by France and Savoy.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1624-1626.
GENOA: A. D. 1745.
The republic sides with Spain and France in the War of the
Austrian Succession.
See ITALY: A. D. 1745.
GENOA: A. D. 1746-1747.
Surrendered to the Austrians.
Popular rising.
Expulsion of the Austrian garrison.
Long siege and deliverance of the city.
See ITALY: A. D. 1746-1747.
GENOA: A. D. 1748.
Territory secured by the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.
See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: A. D. 1748.
GENOA: A. D. 1768.
Cession of Corsica to France.
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
GENOA: A. D. 1796.
Treaty of peace with France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1796 (OCTOBER).
GENOA: A. D. 1797.
Revolution forced by Bonaparte.
Creation of the Ligurian Republic.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (MAY-OCTOBER).
GENOA: A. D. 1800.
Siege by the Austrians.
Masséna's defense.
Surrender of the city.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1800-1801 (MAY-FEBRUARY).
GENOA: A. D. 1805.
Surrender of independence.
Annexation to France.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1804-1805.
GENOA: A. D. 1814.
Reduction of the forts by English troops.
Surrender of the French garrison.
See ITALY: A. D. 1814.
GENOA: A. D. 1814-1815.
Annexation to the kingdom of Sardinia.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (APRIL-JUNE);
and VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
----------GENOA: End----------
GENOLA, Battle of (1799).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1799 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
{1423}
GENS, GENTES, GENTILES.
"When Roman history begins, there were within the city, and
subordinate to the common city government, a large number of
smaller bodies, each of which preserved its individuality and
some semblance of governmental machinery. These were clans
[gens], and in prehistoric times each of them is taken to have
had an independent political existence, living apart, worshiping
its own gods, and ruled over by its own chieftain. This clan
organization is not supposed to have been peculiar at all to
Rome, but ancient society in general was composed of an
indefinite number of such bodies, which, at the outset,
treated with each other in a small way as nations might treat
with each other to-day. It needs to be noted, however, that,
at any rate, so far as Rome is concerned, this is a matter of
inference, not of historical proof. The earliest political
divisions in Latium of which we have any trace consisted of
such clans united into communities. If they ever existed,
separately, therefore their union must have been deliberate
and artificial, and the body thus formed was the canton
('civitas' or 'populus'). Each canton had a fixed common
stronghold ('capitolium,' 'height,' or 'arx'--cf. 'arceo'
--'citadel') situated on some central elevation. The clans
dwelt around in hamlets ('vici' or 'pagi') scattered through
the canton. Originally, the central stronghold was not a place
of residence like the 'pagi,' but a place of refuge ... and a
place of meeting. ... In all of this, therefore, the clan
seems to lie at the very foundation. ... Any clan in the
beginning, of course, must have been simply a family. When it
grew so large as to be divided into sections, the sections
were known as families ('familiæ') and their union was the
clan. In this view the family, as we find it existing in the
Roman state, was a subdivision of the clan. In other words,
historically, families did not unite to form clans, but the
clan was the primitive thing, and the families were its
branches. Men thus recognized kinship of a double character.
They were related to all the members of their clan as
'gentiles,' and again more closely to all the members of their
branch of the clan at once as 'gentiles' and also as 'agnati.'
As already stated, men belonged to the same family ('agnati')
when they could trace their descent through males from a
common ancestor who gave its name to the family, or, what is
the same thing, was its eponym. Between the members of a clan
the chief evidence of relationship in historical times was
tradition. ... We have thus outlined what is known as the
patriarchal theory of society, and hinted at its application
to certain facts in Roman history. It should be remembered,
however, that it is only a theory, and that it is open to some
apparent and to some real criticism."
A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 2.
T. Mommsen,
History of Rome, book 1,
chapter 5.
"The patricians were divided into certain private
associations, called Gentes, which we may translate Houses or
Clans. All the members of each Gens were called gentiles; and
they bore the same name, which always ended in -ius; as for
instance, every member of the Julian Gens was a Julius; every
member of the Cornelian Gens was a Cornelius, and so on. Now
in every Gens there were a number of Families which were
distinguished by a name added to the name of the Gens. Thus
the Scipios, Sullas, Cinnas, Cethegi, Lentuli, were all
families of the Cornelian Gens. Lastly, every person of every
Family was denoted by a name prefixed to the name of the Gens.
The name of the person was, in Latin, prænomen; that of the
Gens or House, nomen, that of the Family, cognomen. Thus Caius
Julius Cæsar was a person of the Cæsar Family in the Julian
Gens; Lucius Cornelius Scipio was a person of the Scipio
Family in the Cornelian Gens; and so forth."
H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 3.
"There is no word in the English language which satisfactorily
renders the Latin word 'gens.' The term 'clan' is apt to
mislead; for the Scotch Highland clans were very different
from the Roman 'gentes.' The word 'House' is not quite
correct, for it always implies relationship, which was not
essential in the 'gens'; but for want of a better word we
shall use 'House' to express 'gens,' except where the spirit
of the language rejects the term and requires 'family'
instead. The German language has in the word 'Geschlecht' an
almost equivalent term for the Latin 'gens'."
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 1, chapter 13, foot-note.
ALSO IN:
Fustel de Coulanges,
The Ancient City,
book 2, chapter 10.
On the Greek gens, see PHYLÆ.
GENSERIC AND THE VANDALS.
See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.
GENTILES.
See GENS.
GENUCIAN LAW, The.
A law which prohibited the taking of interest for loans is
said to have been adopted at Rome, B. C. 342, on the proposal
of the tribune Genucius; but modern historians are skeptical
as to the actual enactment of the law.
W. Ihne,
History of Rome,
book 3, chapter 5.
GEOK TEPE, Siege and capture of (1881).
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1869-1881.
GEOMORI, OR GAMORI, The.
"As far as our imperfect information enables us to trace,
these early oligarchies of the Grecian states, against which
the first usurping despots contended, contained in themselves
more repulsive elements of inequality, and more mischievous
barriers between the component parts of the population, than
the oligarchies of later days. ... The oligarchy was not (like
the government so denominated in subsequent times) the
government of a rich few over the less rich and the poor, but
that of a peculiar order, sometimes a Patrician order, over
all the remaining society. ... The country-population, or
villagers who tilled the land, seem in these early times to
have been held to a painful dependence on the great
proprietors who lived in the fortified town, and to have been
distinguished by a dress and habits of their own, which often
drew upon them an unfriendly nickname. ... The governing
proprietors went by the name of the Gamori, or Geomori,
according as the Doric or Ionic dialect might be used in
describing them, since they were found in states belonging to
one race as well as to the other. They appear to have
constituted a close order, transmitting their privileges to
their children, but admitting no new members to a
participation. The principle called by Greek thinkers a
Timocracy (the apportionment of political rights and
privileges according to comparative property) seems to have
been little, if at all, applied in the earlier times. We know
no example of it earlier than Solon."
G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 9.
GEONIM, The.
See JEWS: 7TH CENTURY.
GEORGE I.,
King of England (first of the Hanoverian or Brunswick line),
A. D. 1714-1727.
George II., King of England," 1727-1760.
George III., King of England, 1760-1820.
George IV., King of England, 1820-1830.
George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia, 1458-1471.
George William, Elector of Brandenburg, 1619-1640.
----------GEORGE: End----------
{1424}
GEORGIA: The Aboriginal Inhabitants.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES,
MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY, CHEROKEES.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1539-1542.
Traversed by Hernando de Soto.
See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1629.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1663.
Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk,
Clarendon, and others.
See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.
Oglethorpe's colony.
"Among the members of Parliament during the rule of Sir Robert
Walpole was one almost unknown to us now, but deserving of
honour beyond most men of his time. His name was James
Oglethorpe. He was a soldier, and had fought against the Turks
and in the great Marlborough wars against Louis XIV. In
advanced life he became the friend of Samuel Johnson. Dr.
Johnson urged him to write some account of his adventures. 'I
know no one,' he said, 'whose life would be more interesting:
if I were furnished with materials I should be very glad to
write it.' Edmund Burke considered him 'a more extraordinary
person than any he had ever read of.' John Wesley 'blessed God
that ever he was born.' Oglethorpe attained the great age of
ninety-six, and died in the year 1785. ... In Oglethorpe's
time it was in the power of a creditor to imprison, according
to his pleasure, the man who owed him money and was not able
to pay it. It was a common circumstance that a man should be
imprisoned during a long series of years for a trifling debt.
Oglethorpe had a friend upon whom this hard fate had fallen.
His attention was thus painfully called to the cruelties which
were inflicted upon the unfortunate and helpless. He appealed
to Parliament, and after inquiry a partial remedy was
obtained. The benevolent exertions of Oglethorpe procured
liberty for multitudes who but for him might have ended their
lives in captivity. This, however, did not content him.
Liberty was an incomplete gift to men who had lost, or perhaps
had scarcely ever possessed, the faculty of earning their own
maintenance. Oglethorpe devised how lie might carry these
unfortunates to a new world, where, under happier auspices,
they might open a fresh career. He obtained [A. D. 1732] from
King George II. a charter by which the country between the
Savannah and the Alatamaha, and stretching westward to the
Pacific, was erected into the province of Georgia. It was to
be a refuge for the deserving poor, and next to them for
Protestants suffering persecution. Parliament voted £10,000 in
aid of the humane enterprise, and many benevolent persons were
liberal with their gifts. In November the first exodus of the
insolvent took place. Oglethorpe sailed with 120 emigrants,
mainly selected from the prisons--penniless, but of good
repute. He surveyed the coasts of Georgia, and chose a site
for the capital of his new State. He pitched his tent where
Savannah now stands, and at once proceeded to mark out the
line of streets and squares. Next year the colony was joined
by about a hundred German Protestants, who were then under
persecution for their beliefs. ... The fame of Oglethorpe's
enterprise spread over Europe. All struggling men, against
whom the battle of life went hard, looked to Georgia as a land
of promise. They were the men who most urgently required to
emigrate; but they were not always the men best fitted to
conquer the difficulties of the immigrant's life. The progress
of the colony was slow. The poor persons of whom it was
originally composed were honest but ineffective, and could not
in Georgia more than in England find out the way to become
self-supporting. Encouragements were given which drew from
Germany, from Switzerland, and from the Highlands of Scotland
men of firmer texture of mind--better fitted to subdue the
wilderness and bring forth its treasures. With Oglethorpe
there went out, on his second expedition to Georgia [1736],
the two brothers John and Charles Wesley. Charles went as
secretary to the Governor. John was even then, although a very
young man, a preacher of unusual promise. ... He spent two
years in Georgia, and these were unsuccessful years. His
character was unformed; his zeal out of proportion to his
discretion. The people felt that he preached 'personal
satires' at them. He involved himself in quarrels, and at last
had to leave the colony secretly, fearing arrest at the
instance of some whom he had offended. He returned to begin
his great career in England, with the feeling that his
residence in Georgia had been of much value to himself, but of
very little to the people whom he sought to benefit. Just as
Wesley reached England, his fellow-labourer George Whitefield
sailed for Georgia. ... He founded an Orphan-House at
Savannah, and supported it by contributions--obtained easily
from men under the power of his unequalled eloquence. He
visited Georgia very frequently, and his love for that colony
remained with him to the last. Slavery was, at the outset,
forbidden in Georgia. It was opposed to the gospel, Oglethorpe
said, and therefore not to be allowed. He foresaw, besides, what
has been so bitterly experienced since, that slavery must
degrade the poor white labourer. But soon a desire sprung up
among the less scrupulous of the settlers to have the use of
slaves. Within seven years from the first landing, slave-ships
were discharging their cargo at Savannah."
R. Mackenzie,
America: A History,
book 1, chapter 10.
ALSO IN:
T. M. Harris,
Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe,
chapters 1-10.
R. Wright,
Memoir of General James Oglethorpe,
chapters 1-9.
For text of charter, etc., see in
G. White,
Historical Collections of Georgia,
pages. 1-20.
GEORGIA: A. D. 1734.
The settlement of the Salzburgers.
"As early as October the 12th, 1732, the 'Society for the
Propagation of Christian Knowledge' expressed to the Trustees
a desire 'that the persecuted Salzburgers should have an
asylum provided for them in Georgia.' ... These Germans
belonged to the Archbishopric of Salzburg, then the most
eastern district of Bavaria; but now forming a detached
district in upper Austria, and called Salzburg from the broad
valley of the Salzer, which is made by the approximating of
the Norric and Rhetian Alps. Their ancestors, the Vallenges of
Piedmont, had been compelled by the barbarities of the Dukes
of Savoy, to find a shelter from the storms of persecution in
the Alpine passes and vales of Salzburg and the Tyrol, before
the Reformation; and frequently since had they been hunted out
by the hirelings and soldiery of the Church of Rome. ...
{1425}
The quietness which they had enjoyed for nearly half a century
was now rudely broken in upon by Leopold, Count of Firmian and
Archbishop of Salzburg, who determined to reduce them to the
Papal faith and power. He began in the year 1729, and, ere he
ended in 1732, not far from 30,000 had been driven from their
homes, to seek among the Protestant States of Europe that
charity and peace which were denied them in the glens and
fastnesses of their native Alps. More than two-thirds settled
in the Prussian States; the rest spread themselves over
England, Holland, and other Protestant countries. Thrilling is
the story of their exile. The march of these Salzburgers
constitutes an epoch in the history of Germany. ... The
sympathies of Reformed Christendom were awakened on their
behalf, and the most hospitable entertainment and assistance
were everywhere given them." Forty-two families, numbering 78
persons, accepted an invitation to settle in Georgia,
receiving allotments of land and provisions until they could
gather a harvest. They arrived at Savannah in March, 1734, and
were settled at a spot which they selected for themselves,
about thirty miles in the interior. "Oglethorpe marked out for
them a town; ordered workmen to assist in building houses; and
soon the whole body of Germans went up to their new home at
Ebenezer."
W. B. Stevens,
History of Georgia,
book 2, chapter 2 (volume 1).
ALSO IN:
F. Shoberl,
Persecutions of Popery,
chapter 9 (volume 2).
E. B. Speirs,
The Salzburgers
(English History Review, October, 1890).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.
The Slavery question.
Original exclusion and subsequent admission of negro slaves.
Among the fundamental regulations of the Trustees was one
prohibiting negro slavery in the colony. "It was policy and
not philanthropy which prohibited slavery; for, though one of
the Trustees, in a sermon to recommend charity, declared, 'Let
avarice defend it as it will, there is an honest reluctance in
humanity against buying and selling, and regarding those of
our own species as our wealth and possessions'; and though
Oglethorpe himself, speaking of slavery as against 'the gospel
as well as the fundamental law of England', asserted, 'we
refused, as Trustees, to make a law permitting such a horrid
crime'; yet in the official publications of that body its
inhibition is based only on political and prudential, and not
on humane and liberal grounds; and even Oglethorpe owned a
plantation and negroes near Parachucla in South Carolina,
about forty miles above Savannah. ... Their [the Trustees']
design was to provide for poor but honest persons, to erect a
barrier between South Carolina and the Spanish settlements,
and to establish a wine and silk-growing colony. It was
thought by the Trustees that neither of these designs could be
secured if slavery was introduced. ... But while the Trustees
disallowed negroes, they instituted a system of white slavery
which was fraught with evil to the servants and to the colony.
These were white servants, consisting of Welch, English, or
German, males and females--families and individuals--who were
indented to individuals or the Trustees, for a period of from
four to fourteen years. ... On arriving in Georgia, their
service was sold for the term of indenture, or apportioned to
the inhabitants by the magistrates, as their necessities
required. ... Two years had not elapsed since the landing of
Oglethorpe before many complaints originated from this cause;
and in the summer of 1735 a petition, signed by seventeen
freeholders, setting forth the unprofitableness of white
servants, and the necessity for negroes, was carried by Mr.
Hugh Sterling to the Trustees, who, however, resented the
appeal as an insult to their honour. ... The plan for
substituting white for black labour failed through the
sparseness of the supply and the refractoriness of the
servants. As a consequence of the inability of the settlers to
procure adequate help, the lands granted them remained
uncleared, and even those which the temporary industry of the
first occupants prepared remained uncultivated. ... There
accumulated on the Trustees' hands a body of idle, clamourous,
mischief-making men, who employed their time in declaiming
against the very government whose charity both fed and clothed
them. ... For nearly fifteen years from 1735, the date of the
first petition for negroes, and the date of their express law
against their importation, the Trustees refused to listen to
any similar representations, except to condemn them," and they
were supported by the Salzburgers and the Highlanders, both of
whom opposed the introduction of negro slaves. But finally, in
1749, the firmness of the Trustees gave way and they yielded
to the clamor of the discontented colony. The importation of
black slaves was permitted, under certain regulations intended
to diminish the evils of the institution. "The change in the
tenure of grants, and the permission to hold slaves, had an
immediate effect on the prosperity of the colony."
W. B. Stevens,
History of Georgia,
book 2, chapter 9 (volume 1).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.
War with the Spaniards of Florida.
Discontents in the colony.
"The assiento enjoyed under the treaty of Utrecht by the
English South Sea Company, the privilege, that is, of
transporting to the Spanish colonies a certain number of
slaves annually, ... was made a cover for an extensive
smuggling trade on the part of the English, into which private
merchants also entered. ... To guard against these systematic
infractions of their laws, the Spaniards maintained a numerous
fleet of vessels in the preventive service, known as 'guarda
costas,' by which some severities were occasionally exercised
on suspected or detected smugglers. These severities, grossly
exaggerated, and resounded throughout the British dominions,
served to revive in England and the colonies a hatred of the
Spaniards, which, since the time of Philip II., had never
wholly died out. Such was the temper and position of the two
nations when the colonization of Georgia was begun, of which
one avowed object was to erect a barrier against the
Spaniards, among whom the runaway slaves of South Carolina
were accustomed to find shelter, receiving in Florida an
assignment of lands, and being armed and organized into
companies, as a means of strengthening that feeble colony. A
message sent to St. Augustine to demand the surrender of the
South Carolina runaways met with a point blank refusal, and
the feeling against the Spaniards ran very high in
consequence. ... Oglethorpe ... returned from his second visit
to England [Sept. 1738], with a newly-enlisted regiment of
soldiers, and the appointment, also, of military commander for
Georgia and the Carolinas, with orders 'to give no offense,
but to repel force by force.' Both in Spain and England the
administrators of the government were anxious for peace. ...
The ferocious clamors of the merchants and the mob ...
absolutely forced Walpole into a war.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741.--THE WAR OF JENKINS' EAR.
{1426}
Travelling 300 miles through the forests, Oglethorpe held at
Coweta, on the Chattahoochee, just below the present site of
Columbus, a new treaty with the Creeks, by which they
confirmed their former cessions, acknowledged themselves
subject to the King of Great Britain, and promised to exclude
from their territories all but English settlers. After
finishing the treaty, Oglethorpe returned through the woods by
way of Augusta to Savannah, where he found orders from England
to make an attack on Florida. He called at once on South
Carolina and the Creeks for aid, and in the mean time made an
expedition, in which he captured the Fort of Picolata, over
against St. Augustine, thus securing the navigation of the St.
John's, and cutting off the Spaniards from their forts at St.
Mark's and Pensacola. South Carolina entered very eagerly into
the enterprise. Money was voted; a regiment, 500 strong, was
enlisted, partly in North Carolina and Virginia. This addition
raised Oglethorpe's force to 1,200 men. The Indians that
joined him were as many more. Having marched into Florida, he
took a small fort or two, and, assisted by several ships of
war, laid siege to St. Augustine. But the garrison was 1,000
strong, besides militia. The fortifications proved more
formidable than had been expected. A considerable loss was
experienced by a sortie from the town, falling heavily on the
Highland Rangers. Presently the Indians deserted, followed by
part of the Carolina regiment, and Oglethorpe was obliged to
give over the enterprise. ... From the time of this repulse,
the good feeling of the Carolinians toward Oglethorpe came to
an end. Many of the disappointed Georgia emigrants had removed
to Charleston, and many calumnies against Oglethorpe were
propagated, and embodied in a pamphlet published there. The
Moravians also left Georgia, unwilling to violate their
consciences by bearing arms. Most unfortunately for the new
colony, the Spanish war withdrew the Highlanders and others of
the best settlers from their farms to convert them into
soldiers."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 25 (volume 2).
"After the late incursion into Florida, the General kept
possession of a southern region which the Spaniards had
claimed as their own; and, as they had taken encouragement
from the successful defence of St. Augustine, and the
well-known dissensions on the English side, it was to be
expected that they would embrace the earliest opportunity of
taking their revenge. ... The storm, which had been so long
anticipated, burst upon the colony in the year 1742. The
Spaniards had ... fitted out, at Havana, a fleet said to
consist of 56 sail and 7,000 or 8,000 men. The force was
probably not quite so great; if it was, it did not all reach
its destination," being dispersed by a storm, "so that only a
part of the whole number succeeded in reaching St. Augustine.
The force was there placed under the command of Don Manuel de
Monteano, the Governor of that place. ... The fleet made its
appearance on the coast of Georgia on the 21st of June"; but
all its attempts, first to take possession of the Island of
Amelia, and afterwards to reduce the forts at Frederica, were
defeated by the vigor and skill of General Oglethorpe. After
losing heavily in a fight called the Battle of the Bloody
Marsh, the Spaniards retreated about the middle of July. The
following year they prepared another attempt; but Oglethorpe
anticipated it by a second demonstration on his own part
against St. Augustine, which had no other result than to
disconcert the plans of the enemy.
W. B. O. Peabody,
Life of Oglethorpe
(Library of American Biographies, 2d series, volume 2),
chapters 11-12.
"While Oglethorpe was engaged in repelling the Spaniards, the
trustees of Georgia had been fiercely assailed by their
discontented colonists. They sent Thomas Stevens to England
with a petition containing many charges of mismanagement,
extravagance, and peculation, to which the trustees put in an
answer. After a thorough examination of documents and
witnesses in committee of the whole, and hearing counsel, the
House of Commons resolved that 'the petition of Thomas Stevens
contains false, scandalous, and malicious charges'; in
consequence of which Stevens, the next day, was brought to the
bar, and reprimanded on his knees. ... Oglethorpe himself had
been a special mark of the malice and obloquy of the
discontented settlers. ... Presently his lieutenant colonel, a
man who owed everything to Oglethorpe's favor, re-echoing the
slanders of the colonists, lodged formal charges against him.
Oglethorpe proceeded to England to vindicate his character,
and the accuser, convicted by a court of inquiry of falsehood,
was disgraced and deprived of his commission. Appointed a
major general, ordered to join the army assembled to oppose
the landing of the Pretender, marrying also about this time,
Oglethorpe did not again return to Georgia. The former scheme
of administration having given rise to innumerable complaints,
the government of that colony was intrusted to a president and
four counselors."
R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter. 25 (volume 2).
ALSO IN:
C. C. Jones,
History of Georgia,
chapters 17-22 (volume 1).
GEORGIA: A. D. 1743-1764.
Surrender to the Crown.
Government as a royal province.
"On Oglethorpe's departure [1743], William Stephens, the
secretary, was made President, and continued in office until
1751, when he was succeeded by Henry Parker. The colony, when
Stephens came into office, comprised about 1,500 persons. It
was almost at a stand-still. The brilliant prospects of the
early days were dissipated, and immigration had ceased, thanks
to the narrow policy and feeble government of the Trustees. An
Indian rising, in 1749, headed by Mary Musgrove, Oglethorpe's
Indian interpreter, and her husband, one Bosomworth, who laid
claim to the whole country, came near causing the destruction
of the colony, and was only repressed by much negotiation and
lavish bribes. The colony, thus feeble and threatened,
struggled on, until it was relieved from danger from the