Let us look at them in order. In regard to the "Logia," the first question is, "What was their character ?» Were they simply discourses, or discourses plus some introductory narrative material? One of the best discussions of this question is to be found in Lightfoot's Essays on Supernal Religion' (Essay on Papias). There is now general agreement in the judgment that they include an element of narrative. Again, "How are they related to the Gospel of St. Matthew?" The answer is that they form a large part of the Gospel, and for that reason have given to it the name of Matthew, though he did not write the book as we now have it. The original Matthew (Ur-Matthæus as Weiss calls it) contained simply the Logia, with a small number of incidents. The third question is, "In which Gospel do we get the Logia in their original form, in the book of St. Matthew or in that of St. Luke?" The best answer which has yet been given to this difficult question is this: "That the balance of probability is on the side of St. Luke's Gospel," and mainly for the reason that in St. Matthew we have aggregated unities like the Sermon on the Mount, the charge to the Twelve (chap. x.), the Parables by the Sea (chap. xiii.). In regard to the other source-The Narrative of Events -the first question of importance is this: Is our Gospel of St. Mark the original Narrative of Events? The description of Papias is confirmed by Irenæus, Clemens, Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, so that there is sufficient witness to the relation of Mark and Peter, and the answer which criticism has given to the above question is, "that the Petrine source used by the two later synoptists was not an Ur-Markus, but St. Mark's Gospel, almost as we have it now."

Every student of the problem knows that these two "main documents," satisfactory as they are as the principal sources of Matthew and Luke, are only the "main sources." St. Luke has gone elsewhere for parts of his Gospel, and the relation of St. Matthew to St. Luke requires the supposition of more material than the Logia gives. Oral tradition has probably had its place along with written records. The problem yet requires much patient painstaking study.

The Gospel of St. Matthew. (a) Authorship.- Papias is the first to tell us about a form of gospel written by St. Matthew (Eusebius H. E. III: 39) and Irenæus (Adv. Hae III 1, 1), the first to name St. Matthew as the author of the first gospel. Just in what sense these statements are facts we must see later. Meanwhile a word about St. Matthew himself. He was a tax-gatherer before his acceptance of the call of Jesus (Matt. ix. 9). Promptly responding to the invitation of the Master to follow him, he became an eye-witness of much of the Lord's ministry. There is no good reason for denying his identity with the Levi of St. Mark ii. 14, Luke v. 27. Both his position as a tax-gatherer, requiring work with the pen, and his experience as a disciple fitted him to do the work which tradition has assigned to him.

Papias and Irenæus refer to this work as in Hebrew (Aramaic), but our first gospel is in Greek, and it gives no evidence of being a translation from a Hebrew original. The question then arises, what is the relation of our Greek

Matthew to the Hebrew Matthew of tradition? Criticism in seeking to answer this question has reached the following conclusions: (1) That the Gospel according to the Hebrews, in either of its forms, Ebionite or Nazarene, was not identical with the Aramaic original of St. Matthew's Gospel; nor is our Greek Matthew a translation of the Gospel to the Hebrews. (2) That the Aramaic original of which Papias and Irenæus speak, was probably the collection of discourses now known as the Logia, compiled by St. Matthew, having very little narrative material, and reflecting in character the needs and conditions amid which these Logia at first took shape (See Weizäcker, Apostolic Age, Vol. II., chap. ii.) (3) That this Aramaic source has entirely disappeared. (4) That our present Gospel of St. Matthew originated in a desire to "expand the old Apostolic source, whose form no longer met the needs of the time, into a history of the life of Jesus which would correspond to these." (5) That the framework of St. Mark's Gospel was used for the narrative setting, but because of the importance and value of the discourse element, the resultant production was called the Gospel according to St. Matthew. (6) That other narrative material such as Chapters i., ii., xxviii., were taken either from other sources or from oral tradition (Weiss). (7) That this composite Gospel existed only in Greek form and is of unknown authorship. Space forbids entering upon the evidence for each of these statements; it can be found in the literature given at the end of the article.

(b) The Purpose of the Gospel. It aims to show that Jesus was the Messiah, not in the way John does, by making evident the glory of His person in word and deed, but through the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. The author seeks at each step of the history to prove by Messianic prophecies (there are Over 70 quotations and references to the Old Testament) the Messiahship of Jesus. This compels him to meet the objections of the Jews and also to lay bare their motives in opposing the teaching and claims of the Master. While, therefore, the Gospel is meant to strengthen and comfort Jewish Christians, it also has, as Godet claims, an apologetic aim.

The Gospel of St. Mark.— (a) Authorship. -There has been no reason discovered for disbelieving the testimony of Papias that Mark — the John Mark of Scripture has given us in substance the "Memoirs of Peter" regarding Jesus. Some difference of opinion exists as to the meaning of the description "interpreter"it being understood by some as the equivalent of "amanuensis"; by others as "translator." The Gospel bears abundant witness to the character of its depictions as being those of an eye-witness. They are circumstantial, pictorial, and vivid. Papias further says that "having become the interpreter of St. Peter, St. Mark wrote down accurately, though not indeed, in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ." This statement about order, whatsoever he remembered of the things events given in the Gospel, which is progressive and helpful in understanding the public career of Jesus, but to the sequences of events in detail. A topical rather than a chronological plan is followed (see Bacon's 'Introduction to the New Testament,' pp. 189-190). So good is

this order of St. Mark that both St. Matthew and St. Luke use it. Evidences of other sources besides the Petrine Memoirs are found, for example, in chapter xiii., for which the supposition of a separate written document seems needful; so too the narrative about Herod in chapter xiv. St. Mark adds some touches of his own.

(b) The Purpose of the Gospel.- The purpose of this vivid presentation of the activities of Jesus in Galilee and during the latter days in Jerusalem was not the mediating of the antagonistic tendencies in the church (Baur), nor the commendation of Paulinism (Pfleiderer), nor to counteract the effect of the delay in Christ's coming by making evident the Messianic character of the mission of Jesus (Weiss), but simply to show how "God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power" and how He "went about doing good and healing all that were oppressed of the devil: for God was with him" (Acts x. 38). These are St. Peter's own words descriptive of the mission of Jesus. His Gospel gives the content of that description. Of course, the narrative was meant to be a support to faith and a means of winning men to faith.

The Gospel of St. Luke.- (a) The Author.The Muratorian Fragment (c. 200 A.D.) is the earliest external witness to the name of St. Luke as the author of the third Gospel, "the third book of the Gospel, that according to Luke, the wellknown physician." Irenæus follows with explicit testimony to the same effect, and all early tradition but seconds these witnesses. St. Luke was born, according to tradition, in Antioch, and was a Gentile. Godet's account of the strict supervision under which physicians were placed by the authorities at Rome argues an amount of culture for St. Luke quite above that of other men. St. Luke's name appears but three times in Scripture, Col. iv. 14, Philemon 24, 2 Timothy iv. II. Of late years we have come to know him more fully as a writer, through the critical study of the Acts; and his character as a careful, philosophic historian has been ably set forth by Prof. Ramsay. (See Ramsay's 'St. Paul the Roman Traveller.') The common authorship of the Acts and the third Gospel is now generally accepted.

(b) The Sources of the Gospel.— The Introduction of the Gospel gives the author's plan of procedure and his purpose. Just what is involved in its designation of sources is difficult to say. He does not tell us whether they were oral or documentary, whether in Aramaic or Greek. The problem of the sources of St. Luke's Gospel is a complicated one, and entire unanimity has not been reached in its attempted solution. The following conclusions will give, in brief, some conception of the situation. (1) St. Mark's Gospel is one of his chief sources. Almost all of the contents of St. Mark (except vi. 45-viii. 26) are found in the third Gospel. Evidently St. Luke has used the Gospel of St. Mark as his framework, and here again criticism sees no need of postulating an Ur-Markus. It is to be noticed, however, that he omits some things recorded by St. Matthew and St. Mark, and records some things which St. Matthew and St. Mark omit. The explanations of this phenomenon have been different, but they have not invalidated the conclusion given above. (2) While St. Luke knew the Logia document in its original form, he was not familiar with

our present Greek Matthew. The main reason for the latter part of this statement is discoverable in the way St. Matthew and St. Luke use the Gospel of St. Mark. "It is established," says Weiss, "as one of the indisputable results of Gospel-criticism that St. Luke's acquaintance with and use of the Apostolic source of the first Gospel is just as certain as his want of acquaintance with this Gospel itself." Where St. Matthew and St. Luke have material in common which is not found in St. Mark, another document is supposed to be the source, or oral tradition. (3) St. Luke has placed the great mass of the material which he took from the Apostolic source in the two sections which he has inserted into St. Mark's narrative, namely, in vi. 20-viii. 4, ix. 51-xviii. 14. (4) Besides these two main sources, the narrative of St. Mark and the Logia, St. Luke had other written sources, giving him the first two chapters, and the long Perean section. These may, indeed, have been parts of one source, which contained material covering the entire life of Jesus. The effect of St. Luke's hand, and the modifications of oral tradition are evident throughout the book. The uniformity of style and diction in the whole Gospel show that these varied sources were not merely put together, but were edited by St. Luke. The peculiarities of his Greek appear all through the Gospel.

(c) The Purpose of the Gospel.—It was written that Theophilus "might satisfy himself of the accuracy of the story which he had heard from others" (i. 4). Its appeal, through Theophilus, is to the Gentiles. "Luke," says Origen, "composed his Gospel for Gentile converts." In accord with this are its depiction of the humanity of Christ-the ideal man—and its broad spirit of universality.

Date and Integrity of the Synoptic Gospels.(a) Date.- Much division of opinion exists as to the time of the writing of the Synoptic books. The materials out of which they were made originated, of course, much earlier than the gospels themselves. The time just before or just after 70 A.D. is that which now meets with much favor. Between 70-80 A.D. is the latest probable time for dating them.

(b) The Integrity of the Gospels.— Criticism has directed its attack mainly against the following parts of the Gospels: (1) Against the first two chapters of St. Matthew and St. Luke. The chief objections to these are (a) the wide differences in the accounts of the birth and infancy. (b) The character of the accounts themselves, containing angelic appearances, the visit of Magi, and the slaughter of the Innocents. (c) The miraculous conception. It is to be noticed that the difference in the accounts is fully explicable in the supposition that they are from different sources. St. Luke's story is undoubtedly from the Blessed Virgin Mary, and much in St. Matthew's story is traceable to Joseph. St. Luke's account in its delicacy, personages, and fidelity to the Old Testament point of view is inexplicable as a later Jewish-Christian fiction. Perhaps the angelic appearances are simply poetic descriptions of the conveyance of inward truths and facts. The story of the Magi has a rational explanation in an astrologer's interest in a planetary conjunction at a time when the widespread hope of a Messiah among the Jews would give it for these students of the heavens, a vital significance. Herod's

well-known cruelty makes easily possible the massacre at Bethlehem. For the difficulties connected with the enrollment of Quirinius, see Prof. Ramsay's 'Was Christ born in Bethlehem?> After a possible satisfactory explanation of the attendant circumstances of the supernatural birth of Jesus, there yet remains an objection to the supernatural birth itself. This must be met on philosophic grounds, for it is really a philosophic objection. These chapters of Matthew and Luke are textually as well supported as any in the Gospels, and they have early and continued attestation in the Church. The silence of the New Testament regarding the miraculous conception is no argument against it, simply because of the nature of the subject.

(2) Again criticism has given special attention to the last 12 verses of St. Mark. The generally accepted conclusion is that these verses are a later addition to the Gospel, but that they embody a genuine apostolic tradition.

(3) The accounts of the Resurrection have also been the subject of destructive criticism. Here again we must distinguish between the accounts of the Resurrection, and the Resurrection itself. It has been truthfully said that "when we come to look into the narratives of the Resurrection, we find them unassimilated and unharmonized." Is this not due to the way in which our Gospels have come to us? Where so many witnesses were involved and so many occasions cited, is it not to be expected that there should be considerable variation in the testimony? The accounts have come to us from different sources. Some of them, like the walk to Emmaus, were personal memoirs; others, like those in St. John, were selected because of their value to him personally, for the purpose he has in view. There has been no studied attempt to fit them all to each other, but they all bear clear witness to the spontaneous, unmistakable acceptance of the fact of the Resurrection. Objections which go beyond this and impugn the fact, must be met on other grounds, and it is safe to say that the various theories which have involved the denial of an actual physical resurrection of Jesus, have thus far been quite inadequate to explain the faith of the Church. This leads us to mark as the great central point of attacks upon our Gospels (4) the miraculous element in them. Here is really the battleground to-day. All sane interpreters of these records will be in sympathy with the desire to avoid an exaggeration of the miraculous. This, however, is quite a different aim from that which tries to find for every miracle of Jesus a natural though wonderful method of procedure, for example, cures of the sick through the effect of a strong personality. Both philosophy and science take issue with the statements of the Evangelists in this matter. Meanwhile the study of documents shows that even in the residuum which all critics will acknowledge genuine, the miraculous element is present, and all schools of thought are compelled to acknowledge the character of Jesus itself as a miracle. The question is not now so much one of historical evidence as it is of philosophy.

The Gospel of St. John.- From the time in 1820 when Bretschneider published in Leipsic his Probabilities concerning the Nature and Origin of the Gospel and Epistles of John,' modern criticism has been engaged upon the problems of the Fourth Gospel. Authorship

and historicity have been the two themes about which all this criticism has centred. The best history of the course of it will be found in Watkins' Bampton lectures for 1870. The day has gone by when this Gospel can any longer be called "A Philosophic Romance" or a "Theological Novel," and even since the day when Sanday reviewed the situation in the 'Expositor (1891-2) a distinct advance has been made toward the traditional position. Partition theories are now in order, which means that we have a Johannine nucleus of history and discourse, used by another hand (preferably that of the Presbyter John) in working up the Gospel to its present shape. (See Wendt's 'The Gospel according to St. John.' We have already called attention to the differences between this Gospel and the Synoptics. It is almost entirely in consideration of the internal evidence that "problems" have arisen, for the judgment of Matthew Arnold is valid as regards the external evidence for authorship by St. John the Apostle, that "No one who had not a theory to serve would ever dream of doubting it." In order to appreciate the serious character of these problems, it will be necessary for us to consider the purpose and plan of the Gospel.

The Purpose and Plan of the Gospel.-The purpose is given in xx. 31, "These signs have been recorded that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that through your belief you may have life in the knowledge of him." In the "glory" (i. 14) of Jesus we are to see, his interpretation to us (i. 18) in word and deed of the Father. We are called to look at Him, behind and in His work.

At once it is evident that the author is not aiming to give us a biography, nor a complete history. It certainly is not then a contradiction of history, if he chooses his material in order to make good his purpose. That he does select his materials is beyond question. The public announcement of the Messiahship of Jesus was at the Baptism. The earlier facts of His life, therefore, have no place in this Gospel. The author begins after the Temptation, when Jesus had entered upon the way of His public ministry, and is concerned only with the events of His public life. From this time each scene is to present Him to us in some new light, that at last, in the glory of them all, we shall say with St. Thomas, "My Lord and my God." Can the Gospel with such a definite plan as this be historical? Three things must be considered in making reply: (a) the facts themselves, (b) the discourses, (c) the representations of Christ. How are we to adjudge facts to be facts? Manifestly, by their verisimilitude as estimated from what we know from other sources of the historical situation in which they are placed.

Take for example the first chapter or the sixth, and estimate either in this way. Personages, situation, motives, and changing temper, are all alike such as only an eye-witness could give. All through the Gospel we have such evidence of an eye-witness. As far as the facts are concerned the relation of this Gospel to the Synoptics has been set forth by no one with more helpfulness than Godet (see Introduction to his Commentary on St. John). Under the two heads of (a) Correlations, and (b) Independence, he shows how the periods containing the facts fit to each other. In some instances

St. John is more truly historical than the Synoptics as, for example, in the placing of the Cleansing of the Temple, and in the dating of the Lord's death. When we come to (b) the Discourses, we enter a region peculiar, indeed, to the Fourth Gospel, and one which has caused much discussion. The solution of the problem which they offer will be facilitated by bearing in mind several considerations: (1) That they are for the most part, thematic that is, they give us only great central teachings. (2) They come to us through the medium of the author's reflection.

Westcott calls our attention to the fact "that the discourses in Jerusalem show an intimate connection with the ideas which the festivals represented, which gained their full significance as men looked back upon them from the time when they had ceased to be." It was at these times that Jesus declared the meaning of His person and office, and the great themes impressed themselves upon a mind in sympathy with such forms of presentation. But the words heard in Jerusalem were larger, richer, fuller words when written down in Ephesus many years later. They record a spiritual mind's mature conception of the Master as that mind has discovered it in memories which from the first were striking and suggestive. Have we then a subjective element in these discourses? Unquestionably. Does that subjective element imperil the truth? Not in the least. It rather gives it to us in full proportions. These discourses are 1ut a stenographic report of the words of Jesus. They are reproductions in the clear light of the Spirit's illumination. They contain the essential, eternal verities of Jesus' teaching. Hence we expect to find them all in the style of St. John, as they are; hence we expect to find interpretation added to them here and there, as we do; hence we find them grouped at times with no clear, definite situation given to them. The solution of the problem of the discourses lies not in the denial of their historicity, but in the admission of their subjectivity. The question then presents itself, "Have we the same Christ in the Fourth Gospel as in the Synoptics? Yes; but seen from a different point of view. The Johannine Christology never rises higher than that given in Matt. xi. 25-28; Luke x. 21-22.

Authorship-Two characteristics appear in the writer of the Fourth Gospel. (a) A memory for details, and (b) a mature, profound conception of Jesus. They point to the work of an old man, who had been an eye-witness of what he relates. It is sufficient for the purposes of this article to say that the supposition of the authorship by John the Apostle meets more of the alleged difficulties of the Johannine problem than any other supposition. Modern criticism, however, has received with much favor the name of John the Presbyter.

Literature on the Synoptic Problem. Gloag, 'Introduction to Synoptic Gospels' (1895); Robinson, The Study of the Gospels' (1902); Rushbrook, 'Synopticon' (1880); Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek' (1896); Hawkins, Horæ Synopticæ (1899); Weiss, Markus-Evangelium) (1872); Matthäus-Evangelium' (1876): Ewald, 'Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage (1890); Wendt, 'Die Lehre Jesu (1890); Holtzmann,

'Die Synoptischen Evangelien' (1863); Einleitung in das Neue Testament' (1886); Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels' (1895); Wright, Composition of the Four Gospels'; Jolley, The Synoptic Problem for English Readers' (1893); Sanday, A Survey of the Synoptic Question' (1891); 'Inspiration,' Lecture VI. (1893); Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of St. Mark.'

Literature of the Johannine Problem.Thoma, 'Die Genesis des Johan. Evan.' (1892); Ewald, 'Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage (1890); Halcombe, What Think Ye of the Gospels? (1893). J. S. RIGGS,

Auburn Theological Seminary.

Goss, Isham J. M., American eclectic physician and author: b. Oglethorpe County, Ga., 16 Aug. 1819; d. Marietta, Ga., 25 Feb. 1896. He graduated at Emory College, Ga., and in 1844 in medicine from the medical department of the University of Georgia. For fourteen years he followed the practice of the regular or allopathic profession, when he was converted to American Eclecticism and became a leader of that school in the South. Several Eclectic colleges conferred upon him the honorary degree of doctor of medicine. In 1868 he filled the chair of practice in the Philadelphia Medical University and in 1877 the chair of Materia Medica and Therapeutics in the Georgia Eclectic Medical College, reorganized that year. He wrote 'Materia Medica (1877); and Theory and Practice of Medicine) (1882).

Goss, Charles Frederic, American Presbyterian clergyman: b. Meridian, N. Y., 14 June 1852. He was graduated from Hamilton College in 1873, from the Auburn Theological Seminary in 1876, and was at first a home missionary. In 1894 he became pastor of the Avondale Presbyterian Church of Cincinnati. He was also appointed to the chair of Biblical literature in Cincinnati University, and published several volumes, including The Optimist.' The Philopolist,' and 'The Redemption of David Corson.'

Goss, Warren Lee, American writer: b. Brewster, Mass., 19 Aug. 1838. He studied at the Harvard Law School, served in the Civil War, first in the United States engineers and later in the 2d Massachusetts volunteers; was historian of the National Union of Ex-Prisoners of War. He has been active as editor, magazine-writer, and author of such volumes as 'The Soldier's Story of Captivity at Andersonville' (1866); and 'In the Navy) (1898).

Gosse, gos, Edmund William, English literary critic and poet: b. London 21 Sept. 1849. He is a son of P. H. Gosse (q.v.). Since 1875 he has been translator to the Board of Trade. In 1884-5 he was engaged on a lecturing tour in the United States. He has made a special study of Scandinavian literature, and has published Studies in the Literature of Northern Europe' (1879). Other works of his are: Life of Gray) (1882); (Seventeenth Century Studies: a Contribution to the History of English Poetry) (1883); From Shakespeare to Pope: an Inquiry into the Causes of the Rise of Classical Poetry in England' (1885); (Life of Congreve) (1888); History of Eighteenth Century Literature' (1890): Life of Philip Henry Gosse, Naturalist' (1890); Gossip in a Library) (1891); Questions at Issue (1893);

"The Jacobean Poets' (1894); Critical KitKats (1896); History of Modern English Literature (1897); Life and Letters of Dr. Donne (1899); Coventry Patmore' (1904). He has written a romance, The Secret of Narcisse (1892); and several volumes of poems: Madrigals, Songs and Sonnets' (1870); On Viol and Flute (1873); King Erik, a tragedy (1876); The Unknown Lover, a drama (1878); New Poems (1879) Firdausi in Exile and Other Poems (1886); 'In Russet and Silver (1894); Collected Poems' (1896). Gossyp'ium. See COTTON.

Gossypium Phospho, a valuable fertilizer composed of a mixture of cotton-seed meal and pulverized phosphate rock. The making of this fertilizer is an important industry in the South, where one factory has an output of 15,000 tons annually. The phosphate rock, which comes from South Carolina, passes through huge mills of great power, and is ground into a fine powder, after which it is carried through draft pipes to the top of a six-story tower, and there undergoes a process of refinement. The rich yellow meal which comes from the cotton-seed oil-mills is mixed with the ground phosphate, and adds materially to its strength as a fertilizer. The mixture thus obtained is collected into immense bins, and treated with sulphuric acid, assuming a semi-liquid state. It is then called gossypium phospho.

Gotha, Almanach de. See ALMANAC. Go'tham, a parish of Nottinghamshire, England. The people obtained a reputation for stupidity and simplicity, and the satirical appellation of "the wise men of Gotham," owing to the tradition that King John journeyed through the town for the purpose of selecting a site for a palace, and the inhabitants not wishing to be burdened with the expenses of a royal residence, devised the plan of appearing stupid and foolish during the visit of his majesty. King John left in disgust; whereupon the Gothamites said: "More fools pass through than live in Gotham." The name Gotham is applied also to the city of New York. Thus used it appeared first in Salmagundi,' by Washington Irving and James K. Paulding. The authors may have had in mind the worldly wisdom of the city's inhab

itants.

a

Gothenburg (got'en-boorg) System, system of regulating the sale of spirituous liquors which had its origin in 1865, in Gothenburg, Sweden. A company is granted a monopoly of the sale of liquors in the town; managers at fixed salaries are placed in the public-houses, and after paying the expenses, and dividends not exceeding 6 per cent to shareholders (in Norway 5 per cent), the remainder of the profits are placed in the town treasury for the use of the general government and the agricultural society of the province. In Norway the profits, above the 5 per cent to shareholders, go to educational and charitable institutions. The system has been introduced into several towns in Sweden, Norway, and Finland. In the places where the system has been tried the number of drinking places has been lessened, the laws regarding the sale of liquors to minors and confirmed drunkards have been more rigidly observed; but the temptation to

increase the revenue has in some places not promoted temperance.

Go'thia, the empire of the Visigoths, or Western Goths, which extended over Spain, and included Septimania, the territory which Theodoric held in Provence; Gaul, and the cities of Carcasonne, Narbonne, and Nimes. These he left to his son Amalarich, who, however, permitted Spain to be under the charge of the Gothic general Theudes, by whom he was eventually murdered. In the reign of Leovogild the kingdom of the Visigoths reached its climax of prosperity. He established his capital at Toledo (569-685) and encouraged art and literature. His sons Reccared and Ermengild were associated with him as co-regents. Ermengild, on becoming a convert to the Nicene faith as professed by Rome, was degraded from all dignity and imprisoned; he was promised his restoration on condition that he renounce the Catholic creed; refusing, he was put to death and was formally canonized in the 16th century by Pope Sixtus V. On the death of Leovogild, Reccared made profession of the Nicene creed, renounced Arianism, and he and his people became more closely amalgamated with the Gallic and Iberian peoples among whom they lived. In the course of the 7th century the Roman Catholic Church reached great power in the Visigothic state and ecclesiastical officials had the preponderating vote in the election of kings. Three sovereigns, Swinthila (620-631), Kindaswinth (641-649), and Wamba (672-680) tried to assert their independence, but each paid for his rashness by the loss of his throne. Witica (701-710) tried to remedy civil and ecclesiastical abuses, but the clergy opposed him, and the Gothic kingdom was already in a condition of deep decadence when the Moors arrived and defeated Roderick, his successor, on the banks of the Guadalete, August 711.

Gothic Architecture. The term Gothic implies barbarous, rude, uncivilized. It was applied by the writers of the 15th and 16th centuries, who, wishing to restore the GrecoRoman art to complete supremacy in Europe, thought to depreciate the style which it would replace. It is a most extraordinary instance of the ready adoption by the admirers of a style of a term first used contemptuously, for the term is in use in most languages in Europe. This is the style which followed the Romanesque architecture of Europe, rising out of it and being, in fact, Romanesque architecture with the addition of vaulting by means of ribs. This constructional change, introduced about 1165 in the royal domain of France, is explained under ARCHITECTURE. The improvement brought with it immense facility in vaulting internal spaces of irregular form; but inasmuch as in this way the whole thrust outward and horizontally was concentrated on a few definitely marked points, it became necessary to develop the buttress system (see BUTTRESS) and to make those masses of masonry very large and wide in the direction of the thrust. So it was that buttresses became what we see them in the choirs and apses of Gothic cathedrals-pieces of carefully built stone wall radiating from a common centre or, at least, forming a right angle with the general exterior wall of the church, their greatest dimension in the direction of the thrust coming from within,