Part 12

As a politician, Gneist's career cannot perhaps be said to have been entirely successful. In a country where parliamentary institutions are the living exponents of the popular will he might have risen to a foremost position in the state; as it was, the party to which he allied himself could never hope to become more than what it remained, a parliamentary faction, and the influence it for a time wielded in the counsels of the state waned as soon as the Social-Democratic party grew to be a force to be reckoned with. It is as a writer and a teacher that Gneist is best known to fame. He was a jurist of a special type. To him law was not mere theory, but living force; and this conception of its power animates all his schemes of practical reform. As a teacher he exercised a magnetic influence, not only by reason of the clearness and cogency of his exposition, but also because of the success with which he developed the talents and guided the aspirations of his pupils. He was a man of noble bearing, religious, and imbued with a stern sense of duty. He was proud of being a "Preussischer Junker" (a member of the Prussian squirearchy), and throughout his writings, despite their liberal tendencies, may be perceived the loyalty and affection with which he clung to monarchical institutions. A great admirer and a true friend of England, to which country he was attached by many personal ties, he surpassed all other Germans in his efforts to make her free institutions, in which he found his ideal, the common heritage of the two great nations of the Teutonic race.

Gneist was a prolific writer, especially on the subject he had made peculiarly his own, that of constitutional law and history, and among his works, other than those above named, may be mentioned the following: _Budget und Gesetz nach dem constitutionellen Staatsrecht Englands_ (Berlin, 1867); _Freie Advocatur_ (ib., 1867); _Der Rechtsstaat_ (ib., 1872, and 2nd edition, 1879); _Zur Verwaltungsreform in Preussen_ (Leipzig, 1880); _Das englische Parlament_ (Berlin, 1886); in English translation, _The English Parliament_ (London, 1886; 3rd edition, 1889); _Die Militär-Vorlage von 1892 und der preussische Verfassungsconflikt von 1862 bis 1866_ (Berlin, 1893); _Die nationale Rechtsidee von den Ständen und das preussische Dreiklassenwahlsystem_ (ib., 1895); _Die verfassungsmässige Stellung des preussischen Gesamtministeriums_ (ib., 1895). See O. Gierke, _Rudolph von Gneist, Gedächtnisrede_ (Berlin, 1895), an In Memoriam address delivered in Berlin. (P. A. A.)

GNESEN (Polish, _Gniezno_), a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Posen, in an undulating and fertile country, on the Wrzesnia, 30 m. E.N.E. of Posen by the railway to Thorn. Pop. (1905) 23,727. Besides the cathedral, a handsome Gothic edifice with twin towers, which contains the remains of St Adalbert, there are eight Roman Catholic churches, a Protestant church, a synagogue, a clerical seminary and a convent of the Franciscan nuns. Among the industries are cloth and linen weaving, brewing and distilling. A great horse and cattle market is held here annually. Gnesen is one of the oldest towns in the former kingdom of Poland. Its name, _Gniezno_, signifies "nest," and points to early Polish traditions. The cathedral is believed to have been founded towards the close of the 9th century, and, having received the bones of St Adalbert, it was visited in 1000 by the emperor Otto III., who made it the seat of an archbishop. Here, until 1320, the kings of Poland were crowned; and the archbishop, since 1416 primate of Poland, acted as protector pending the appointment of a new king. In 1821 the see of Posen was founded and the archbishop removed his residence thither, though its cathedral chapter still remains at Gnesen. After a long period of decay the town revived after 1815, when it came under the rule of Prussia.

See S. Karwowski, _Gniezno_ (Posen, 1892).

GNOME, AND GNOMIC POETRY. Sententious maxims, put into verse for the better aid of the memory, were known by the Greeks as gnomes, [Greek: gnômai], from [Greek: gnôme], an opinion. A gnome is defined by the Elizabethan critic Henry Peacham (1576?-1643?) as "a saying pertaining to the manners and common practices of men, which declareth, with an apt brevity, what in this our life ought to be done, or not done." The Gnomic Poets of Greece, who flourished in the 6th century B.C., were those who arranged series of sententious maxims in verse. These were collected in the 4th century, by Lobon of Argos, an orator, but his collection has disappeared. The chief gnomic poets were Theognis, Solon, Phocylides, Simonides of Amorgos, Demodocus, Xenophanes and Euenus. With the exception of Theognis, whose gnomes were fortunately preserved by some schoolmaster about 300 B.C., only fragments of the Gnomic Poets have come down to us. The moral poem attributed to Phocylides, long supposed to be a masterpiece of the school, is now known to have been written by a Jew in Alexandria. Of the gnomic movement typified by the moral works of the poets named above, Prof. Gilbert Murray has remarked that it receives its special expression in the conception of the Seven Wise Men, to whom such proverbs as "Know thyself" and "Nothing too much" were popularly attributed, and whose names differed in different lists. These gnomes or maxims were extended and put into literary shape by the poets. Fragments of Solon, Euenus and Mimnermus have been preserved, in a very confused state, from having been written, for purposes of comparison, on the margins of the MSS. of Theognis, whence they have often slipped into the text of that poet. Theognis enshrines his moral precepts in his elegies, and this was probably the custom of the rest; it is improbable that there ever existed a species of poetry made up entirely of successive gnomes. But the title "gnomic" came to be given to all poetry which dealt in a sententious way with questions of ethics. It was, unquestionably, the source from which moral philosophy was directly developed, and theorists upon life and infinity, such as Pythagoras and Xenophanes, seem to have begun their career as gnomic poets. By the very nature of things, gnomes, in their literary sense, belong exclusively to the dawn of literature; their naïveté and their simplicity in moralizing betray it. But it has been observed that many of the ethical reflections of the great dramatists, and in particular of Sophocles and Euripides, are gnomic distiches expanded. It would be an error to suppose that the ancient Greek gnomes are all of a solemn character; some are voluptuous and some chivalrous; those of Demodocus of Leros had the reputation of being droll. In modern times, the gnomic spirit has occasionally been displayed by poets of a homely philosophy, such as Francis Quarles (1592-1644) in England and Gui de Pibrac (1529-1584) in France. The once-celebrated _Quatrains_ of the latter, published in 1574, enjoyed an immense success throughout Europe; they were composed in deliberate imitation of the Greek gnomic writers of the 6th century B.C. These modern effusions are rarely literature and perhaps never poetry. With the gnomic writings of Pibrac it was long customary to bind up those of Antoine Favre (or Faber) (1557-1624) and of Pierre Mathieu (1563-1621). Gnomes are frequently to be found in the ancient literatures of Arabia, Persia and India, and in the Icelandic staves. The _priamel_, a brief, sententious kind of poem, which was in favour in Germany from the 12th to the 16th century, belonged to the true gnomic class, and was cultivated with particular success by Hans Rosenblut, the lyrical goldsmith of Nuremberg, in the 15th century. (E. G.)

GNOMES (Fr. _gnomes_, Ger. _Gnomen_), in folk-lore, the name now commonly given to the earth and mountain spirits who are supposed to watch over veins of precious metals and other hidden treasures. They are usually pictured as bearded dwarfs clad in brown close-fitting garments with hoods. The word "gnome" as applied to these is of comparatively modern and somewhat uncertain origin. By some it is said to have been coined by Paracelsus (so Hatzfeld and Darmesteter, _Dictionnaire_), who uses _Gnomi_ as a synonym of _Pygmaei_, from the Greek [Greek: gnômê], intelligence. The _New English Dictionary_, however, suggests a derivation from _genomus_, i.e. a Greek type [Greek: gênomos], "earth-dweller," on the analogy of [Greek: thalassonomos], "dwelling in the sea," adding, however, that though there is no evidence that the term was not used before Paracelsus, it is possibly "a mere arbitrary invention, like so many others found in Paracelsus" (_N.E.D._ s.v.).

GNOMON, the Greek word for the style of a sundial, or any object, commonly a vertical column, the shadow of which was observed in former times in order to learn the altitude of the sun, especially when on the meridian. The art of constructing a sundial is sometimes termed _gnomonics_. In geometry, a gnomon is a plane figure formed by removing a parallelogram from a corner of a larger parallelogram; in the figure ABCDEFA is a gnomon. Gnomonic projection is a projection of a sphere in which the centre of sight is the centre of the sphere.

A B ------------------- / / / / F /------- E / / / / / / / ------------------- D C

GNOSTICISM (Gr. [Greek: gnôsis], knowledge), the name generally applied to that spiritual movement existing side by side with genuine Christianity, as it gradually crystallized into the old Catholic Church, which may roughly be defined as a distinct religious syncretism bearing the strong impress of Christian influences.

I. The term "Gnosis" first appears in a technical sense in 1 Tim. vi. 20 ([Greek: hê pseudônymos gnôsis]). It seems to have at first been applied exclusively, or at any rate principally, to a particular tendency within the movement as a whole, i.e. to those sections of (the Syrian) Gnostics otherwise generally known as Ophites or Naasseni (see Hippolytus, _Philosophumena_, v. 2: [Greek: Naassênoi ... hoi heautous Gnôstikous apokalountes]; Irenaeus i. 11. 1; Epiphanius, _Haeres._ xxvi. Cf. also the self-assumed name of the Carpocratiani, Iren. i. 25. 6). But in Irenaeus the term has already come to designate the whole movement. This first came into prominence in the opening decades of the 2nd century A.D., but is certainly older; it reached its height in the second third of the same century, and began to wane about the 3rd century, and from the second half of the 3rd century onwards was replaced by the closely-related and more powerful Manichaean movement. Offshoots of it, however, continued on into the 4th and 5th centuries. Epiphanius still had the opportunity of making personal acquaintance with Gnostic sects.

II. Of the actual writings of the Gnostics, which were extraordinarily numerous,[1] very little has survived; they were sacrificed to the destructive zeal of their ecclesiastical opponents. Numerous fragments and extracts from Gnostic writings are to be found in the works of the Fathers who attacked Gnosticism. Most valuable of all are the long extracts in the 5th and 6th books of the _Philosophumena_ of Hippolytus. The most accessible and best critical edition of the fragments which have been preserved word for word is to be found in Hilgenfeld's _Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums_. One of the most important of these fragments is the letter of Ptolemaeus to Flora, preserved in Epiphanius, _Haeres_. xxxiii. 3-7 (see on this point Harnack in the _Sitzungsberichte der Berliner Akademie_, 1902, pp. 507-545). Gnostic fragments are certainly also preserved for us in the _Acts of Thomas_. Here we should especially mention the beautiful and much-discussed _Song of the Pearl_, or _Song of the Soul_, which is generally, though without absolute clear proof, attributed to the Gnostic Bardesanes (till lately it was known only in the Syrian text; edited and translated by Bevan, _Texts and Studies_,[2] v. 3, 1897; Hofmann, _Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft_, iv.; for the newly-found Greek text see _Acta apostolorum_, ed. Bonnet, ii. 2, c. 108, p. 219). Generally also much Gnostic matter is contained in the apocryphal histories of the Apostles. To the school of Bardesanes belongs the "Book of the Laws of the Lands," which does not, however, contribute much to our knowledge of Gnosticism. Finally, we should mention in this connexion the text on which are based the pseudo-Clementine _Homilies_ and _Recognitiones_ (beginning of the 3rd century). It is, of course, already permeated with the Catholic spirit, but has drawn so largely upon sources of a Judaeo-Christian Gnostic character that it comes to a great extent within the category of sources for Gnosticism. Complete original Gnostic works have unfortunately survived to us only from the period of the decadence of Gnosticism. Of these we should mention the comprehensive work called the _Pistis-Sophia_, probably belonging to the second half of the 3rd century.[3] Further, the Coptic-Gnostic texts of the _Codex Brucianus_; both the books of Ieu, and an anonymous third work (edited and translated by C. Schmidt, _Texte und Untersuchungen_, vol. viii., 1892; and a new translation by the same in _Koptische-gnostische Schriften_, i.) which, contrary to the opinion of their editor and translator, the present writer believes to represent, in their existing form, a still later period and a still more advanced stage in the decadence of Gnosticism. For other and older Coptic-Gnostic texts, in one of which is contained the source of Irenaeus's treatises on the Barbelognostics, but which have unfortunately not yet been made completely accessible, see C. Schmidt in _Sitzungsberichte der Berl. Akad._ (1896), p. 839 seq., and "Philotesia," dedicated to Paul Kleinert (1907); p. 315 seq.

On the whole, then, for an exposition of Gnosticism we are thrown back upon the polemical writings of the Fathers in their controversy with heresy. The most ancient of these is Justin, who according to his _Apol._ i. 26 wrote a _Syntagma_ against all heresies (c. A.D. 150), and also, probably, a special polemic against Marcion (fragment in Irenaeus iv. 6. 2). Both these writings are lost. He was followed by Irenaeus, who, especially in the first book of his treatise _Adversus haereses_ ([Greek: elegchou kai anatropês tês pseudônymou gnôseôs biblia pente], c. A.D. 180), gives a detailed account of the Gnostic heresies. He founds his work upon that of his master Justin, but adds from his own knowledge among many other things, notably the detailed account of Valentinianism at the beginning of the book. On Irenaeus, and probably also on Justin, Hippolytus drew for his _Syntagma_ (beginning of the 3rd century), a work which is also lost, but can, with great certainty, be reconstructed from three recensions of it: in the _Panarion_ of Epiphanius (after 374), in Philaster of Brescia, _Adversus haereses_, and the Pseudo-Tertullian, _Liber adversus omnes haereses_. A second work of Hippolytus [Greek: Katà pasôn haipeseôv elegchos] is preserved in the so-called _Philosophumena_ which survives under the name of Origen. Here Hippolytus gave a second exposition supplemented by fresh Gnostic original sources with which he had become acquainted in the meanwhile. These sources quoted in Hippolytus have lately met with very unfavourable criticisms. The opinion has been advanced that Hippolytus has here fallen a victim to the mystification of a forger. The truth of the matter must be that Hippolytus probably made use of a collection of Gnostic texts, put together by a Gnostic, in which were already represented various secondary developments of the genuine Gnostic schools. It is also possible that the compiler has himself attempted here and there to harmonize to a certain extent the various Gnostic doctrines, yet in no case is this collection of sources given by Hippolytus to be passed over; it should rather be considered as important evidence for the beginnings of the decay of Gnosticism. Very noteworthy references to Gnosticism are also to be found scattered up and down the _Stromateis_ of Clement of Alexandria. Especially important are the _Excerpta ex Theodoto_, the author of which is certainly Clement, which are verbally extracted from Gnostic writings, and have almost the value of original sources. The writings of Origen also contain a wealth of material. In the first place should be mentioned the treatise _Contra Celsum_, in which the expositions of Gnosticism by both Origen and Celsus are of interest (see especially v. 61 seq. and vi. 25 seq.). Of Tertullian's works should be mentioned: _De praescriptione haereticorum_, especially _Adversus Marcionem_, _Adversus Hermogenem_, and finally _Adversus Valentinianos_ (entirely founded on Irenaeus). Here must also be mentioned the dialogue of Adamantius with the Gnostics, _De recta in deum fide_ (beginning of 4th century). Among the followers of Hippolytus, Epiphanius in his _Panarion_ gives much independent and valuable information from his own knowledge of contemporary Gnosticism. But Theodoret of Cyrus (d. 455) is already entirely dependent on previous works and has nothing new to add. With the 4th century both Gnosticism and the polemical literature directed against it die out.[4]

III. If we wish to grasp the peculiar character of the great Gnostic movement, we must take care not to be led astray by the catchword "Gnosis." It is a mistake to regard the Gnostics as pre-eminently the representatives of intellect among Christians, and Gnosticism as an intellectual tendency chiefly concerned with philosophical speculation, the reconciliation of religion with philosophy and theology. It is true that when Gnosticism was at its height it numbered amongst its followers both theologians and men of science, but that is not its main characteristic. Among the majority of the followers of the movement "Gnosis" was understood not as meaning "knowledge" or "understanding," in our sense of the word, but "revelation." These little Gnostic sects and groups all lived in the conviction that they possessed a secret and mysterious knowledge, in no way accessible to those outside, which was not to be proved or propagated, but believed in by the initiated, and anxiously guarded as a secret. This knowledge of theirs was not based on reflection, on scientific inquiry and proof, but on revelation. It was derived directly from the times of primitive Christianity; from the Saviour himself and his disciples and friends, with whom they claimed to be connected by a secret tradition, or else from later prophets, of whom many sects boasted. It was laid down in wonderful mystic writings, which were in the possession of the various circles (Liechtenhahn, _Die Offenbarung im Gnosticismus_, 1901).

In short, Gnosticism, in all its various sections, its form and its character, falls under the great category of mystic religions, which were so characteristic of the religious life of decadent antiquity. In Gnosticism as in the other mystic religions we find the same contrast of the initiated and the uninitiated, the same loose organization, the same kind of petty sectarianism and mystery-mongering. All alike boast a mystic revelation and a deeply-veiled wisdom. As in many mystical religions, so in Gnosticism, the ultimate object is individual salvation, the assurance of a fortunate destiny for the soul after death. As in the others, so in this the central object of worship is a redeemer-deity who has already trodden the difficult way which the faithful have to follow. And finally, as in all mystical religions, so here too, holy rites and formulas, acts of initiation and consecration, all those things which we call sacraments, play a very prominent part. The Gnostic religion is full of such sacraments. In the accounts of the Fathers we find less about them; yet here Irenaeus' account of the Marcosians is of the highest significance (i. 21 seq.). Much more material is to be found in the original Gnostic writings, especially in the _Pistis-Sophia_ and the two books of Ieu, and again in the _Excerpta ex Theodoto_, the _Acts of Thomas_, and here and there also in the pseudo-Clementine writings. Above all we can see from the original sources of the Mandaean religion, which also represents a branch of Gnosticism, how great a part the sacraments played in the Gnostic sects (Brandt, _Mandäische Religion_, p. 96 seq.). Everywhere we are met with the most varied forms of holy rites--the various baptisms, by water, by fire, by the spirit, the baptism for protection against demons, anointing with oil, sealing and stigmatizing, piercing the ears, leading into the bridal chamber, partaking of holy food and drink. Finally, sacred formulas, names and symbols are of the highest importance among the Gnostic sects. We constantly meet with the idea that the soul, on leaving the body, finds its path to the highest heaven opposed by the deities and demons of the lower realms of heaven, and only when it is in possession of the names of these demons, and can repeat the proper holy formula, or is prepared with the right symbol, or has been anointed with the holy oil, finds its way unhindered to the heavenly home. Hence the Gnostic must above all things learn the names of the demons, and equip himself with the sacred formulas and symbols, in order to be certain of a good destiny after death. The exposition of the system of the Ophites given by Celsus (in Origen vi. 25 seq.), and, in connexion with Celsus, by Origen, is particularly instructive on this point. The two "Coptic Ieu" books unfold an immense system of names and symbols. This system again was simplified, and as the supreme secret was taught in a single name or a single formula, by means of which the happy possessor was able to penetrate through all the spaces of heaven (cf. the name "Caulacau" among the Basilidians; Irenaeus, _Adv. haer._ i. 24. 5, and among other sects). It was taught that even the redeemer-god, when he once descended on to this earth, to rise from it again, availed himself of these names and formulas on his descent and ascent through the world of demons. Traces of ideas of this kind are to be met with almost everywhere. They have been most carefully collected by Anz (_Ursprung des Gnosticismus, Texte und Untersuchungen_ xv. 4 _passim_) who would see in them the central doctrine of Gnosticism.