paiiiting-rooni.” Gainsborough was a member of the Royal Academy, but in 1784, being dissatisfied with the position assigned on the exhibition-walls to his portrait of the three princesses, he withdrew that and his other pictures, and he never afterwards exhibited there. In February 1788, while witnessing the trial of W-.irreii Hastings, he felt an extra- ordinary chill at the back of his neck ; this was the begin- ning of a cancer (or, as some say, a malignant wen) which
proved fatal on 2d August of the same year.Gainsborough was tall, fair, and handsome, generous, impulsive to the point of capriciousness, eaiily ipitatpd, not of bookish likinos. The property which e le t at us death was not largz. One of his daughters, Mary, had married contrary to his wishes, and was subyect to fits of mental aberration.
Gainsborough and Reynolds rank side by side as the greatest portrait painters of the English school. It is difficult to say which stands the higher of the two, although Reynolds may claim to have worked with a nearer approach to even and demonstrable excellence. _ In grace, spirit, and lightness of insight and of touch, Gainsborough is peculiarly eminent. His haiidlnig was slight for the most part and somewhat arbitrary, but in a high degree masterly ;, and his landscapes and rustic compositions are not less gifted than his portraits. Among his finest works are the likenesses of Lady Ligoiiier, the duchess of Devonsliire, Master Buttall (the Blue Boy), Mrs Sheridan and Mrs Tickell, Orpin the parish-clerk (National Gallery), the Hon. Mrs Graham (Scottish National Gallery), his own portrait (Royal Academy), Mrs Siddons (National Gallery) 3 also the Cottage Door, the Market Cart, the Return from Harvest, the “joodinan and his Dog in a Storni (destroyed by fire), and W aggoii and Horses passing a Brook (National Gallery). He made a vast number of drawings and sketches.
In 1788 Philip Thickiiesse, lieut.-governor of Laiidguard Fort, who had been active in promoting Gainsborougli’s fortunes at starting, but was not. on good terms with him when he left Bath, gave to the world A Skctc/L qf tlm Life and I’rn'nti'7i_r/s of Thomas Gaizisborough; in 1829 Allan Cuiininghain published a memoir of _ him in his Lives Q/‘the Paiiittrs; and in 185§ there appeared A Life 1 qf Thomas Gainsborough, 13..-1., by G. V. l'ulcher.
GAISSIN, Gaicyn, or Haiscin, a town of Russia, at the head of a district in Podolia, 178 miles E. of Kaiiienetz Podolski or Podolian Kamenetz, in 48° 39' N. lat. and 29° 23' E. long., near the river Sop, a tributary of the Bug. I With few exceptions, the houses are built of wood, and the inhabitants are mainly supported by agriculture. Among the public buildings are an orthodox church, a synagogue and four Jewish chapels, and a town hospital. In 1860 the population was 10,106, of whom 1863 were Jews. In the St Petersburg Calemlar for 1878 the total is given as 9417. Gaissin dates from about 1600: in one of the Acts of 1615 it is stated that Ileyszyn or Gaissin was founded with royal - privilege by the ban Swierski about 15 years before. In 1659 1{ingJohnCasiinir of Poland bestowed it on Maximus ' Buliga the Zaporogiaii chief. It obtained Magdeburg rights in 1744 or 1745; and in 1796, after the incorporation of Pololia with Russia, it was made a district town.
GAIUS, a celebrated Roman jurist. Of his personal . history very little is known. It is impossible to discover , even his full name, Gains or Cains being merely a personal name (prwnomen) very common in Rome. From internal evidence in his works it may be gathered that he flourished in the reigns of the emperors Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Commodus. His works were thus composed between the years 130 and 180, at the time l when the Roman empire was most prosperous, and its government the beat. Most probably Gains lived in some provincial town, and hence we find no contemporary notices of his life or works. After his death, however, his writings ' were recognized as of great authority, and the emperor] Valentinian named him, along with Papinian, Ulpian, Modcstin, and Paulns, as one of the five jurists whose opinions were to be followed by judicial officers in deciding cases. The works of these jurists accordingly became most important sources of Roman law.
Besides the Institutes, which are a complete exposition of the elements of Roman law, Gains was the author of a treatise on the Etlicts of the .lIu_r/z'.-trrztes, of (,'o7imzentm'z'¢'s on the Twelve Tables, and on the important Lea: I’upi'a I’oppa'a, and several other works. His interest in the anti- quities of Roman law is apparent, and for this reason his work is most valuable to the historian of early iiistitntions. In the disputes between the two schools of Roman jurists he generally attached himself to that of the Sabinians, who were said to be followers of Ateius Capito, of whose life we have some account in the Annals of Tacitus, and to advo- cate a strict adherence as far as possible to ancient rules, and to resist innovation. Many quotations from the works of Gains occur in the I)z'_r/est of Justinian, and so acquired a permanent place in the system of Roman law; while a comparison of the Institutes of Justinian with those of Gains shows that the whole method and arrangement of the later work were copied from that of the earlier, and very numerous passages are word for word the same. Probably, for the greater part of the period of three centuries which elapsed between Gains and Justinian, the Im-titutes of the former had been the familiar text-book of all students of Roman law.
Unfortunately the work was lost to modern scholars, until, in 1816, a manuscript was discovered by Nieliiilir at Verona, in which certain of the works of St Jerome were written over some earlier writings, which proved to be the lost work of Gains. The greater part of the palimpsest has, however, been decipliered by various German scholars, and the text is now fairly complete.
This discovery has thrown a flood of light on portions of the history of Roman law which had previously been most obscure. Much of the historical information given by Gains is wanting in the coinpilations of Justinian, and, in particular, the account of the ancient forms of procedure in actions. In these forms can be traced “ survivals ” from the most primitive times, which provide the science of conipara- tive law with valuable illustrations, which may explain the strange forms of legal procedure found in other early systems. Another circumstance which renders the work of Gains more interesting to the historical student than that of J nstinian, is that Gains lived at a time when actions were tried by the system of forinnhc, or formal directions given by the przetor before whom the case first came, to the judox to whom he referred it. Without a knowledge of the terms of these formulae it is impossible to solve the most llliC‘l'L‘>t- ing question in the history of Roman law, and show how the rigid rnles peculiar to the ancient law of Rome were modified by what has been cal_led the equitable jurisdiction of the prretors, and made applicable to new conditions, and brought into harmony with the notions and the needs of a more developed society. It is clear from evidence of ( hiius that this result was obtained, not by an independent set of courts administering, as in England until recently, a systcin different from that of the ordinary courts, but by the inani- pulatioii of the forniuhe. In the time of Justinian the work was complete, and the forinnlary system had disappeared.
The Institutes of Gains are divided into four bool;s——the first treating of persons and the differences of the status they may occupy in the eye of the law; the second of things, and the modes in which rights over them may he acquired, iiiclnding the law relating to wills ; the third of intestate succession and of obligations; the fonrtli of actions and their forms.
