Restoration in 1660 he returned to Clare College as master, and was appointed Lady Margaret professor of divinity. He also received the livings of Cottesmore, Rutlandshire, and Stoke Bruerne, Northamptonshire. In 1661 he became head of St John’s College, Cambridge, and was elected Regius professor of divinity. He was consecrated bishop of Chichester in 1669, and was translated to the see of Ely in 1674–1675. Holding moderate religious views, he deprecated alike the extremes represented by Puritanism and Roman Catholicism.
His works are chiefly reports of his disputations, such as that which appears in the Scisme Unmask’t (Paris, 1658), in which the definition of a schism is discussed with two Romanist opponents.
GUNNY, a sort of cloth, the name of which is supposed to be
derived from ganga or gania of Rumphius, or from gonia, a
vernacular name of the Crotolaria juncea—a plant common in
Madras. One of the first notices of the term itself is to be found
in Knox’s Ceylon, in which he says: “The filaments at the bottom
of the stem (coir from the coco-nut husk, Cocos nucifera) may
be made into a coarse cloth called gunny, which is used for bags
and similar purposes.”
Warden, in The Linen Trade, says:
“A very large proportion of the jute grown in Bengal is made into cloth in the districts where it is cultivated, and this industry forms the grand domestic manufacture of all the populous eastern districts of Bengal. It pervades all classes, and penetrates into every household, almost every one, man, woman and child, being in some way engaged in it. Boatmen, husbandmen, palankeen carriers, domestic servants, everyone, in fact, being Hindu—for Mussulmans spin cotton only—pass their leisure moments, distaff in hand, spinning gunny twist. It is spun by the takur and dhara, the former being a kind of spindle, which is turned upon the thigh or the sole of the foot, and the latter a reel, on which the thread, when sufficiently twisted, is wound up. Another kind of spinning machine, called a ghurghurea, is occasionally used. A bunch of the raw material is hung up in every farmer’s house, or on the protruding stick of a thatched roof, and every one who has leisure forms with these spindles some coarse pack-thread, of which ropes are twisted for the use of the farm. The lower Hindu castes, from this pack-thread, spin a finer thread for being made into cloth, and, there being a loom in nearly every house, very much of it is woven by the women of the lower class of people. It is especially the employment of the Hindu widow, as it enables her to earn her bread without being a burden on her family. The cloth thus made is of various qualities, such as clothing for the family (especially the women, a great proportion of whom on all the eastern frontier wear almost nothing else), coarse fabrics, bedding, rice and sugar bags, sacking, pack-sheet, &c. Much of it is woven into short lengths and very narrow widths, two or three of which are sometimes sewed into one piece before they are sold. That intended for rice and sugar bags is made about 6 feet long, and from 24 to 27 inches wide, and doubled. A considerable quantity of jute yarn is dyed and woven into cloth for various local purposes, and some of it is also sent out of the district. The principal places where chotee, or jute cloth for gunny bags, is made are within a radius of perhaps 150 to 200 miles around Dacca, and there both labour and land are remarkably cheap. The short, staple, common jute is generally consumed in the local manufacture, the finer and long stapled being reserved for the export trade. These causes enable gunny cloth and bags to be sold almost as cheaply as the raw material, which creates an immense demand for them in nearly every market of the world.”
Such appeared to be the definition of gunny cloth at the time the above was written—between 1850 and 1860. Most of the Indian cloth for gunny bags is now made by power, and within about 20 m. of Calcutta. In many respects the term gunny cloth is still applied to all and sundry, but there is no doubt that the original name was intended for cloth which was similar to what is now known as “cotton bagging.” This particular type of cloth is still largely made in the hand loom, even in Dundee, this method of manufacture being considered, for certain reasons, more satisfactory than the power loom method (see Jute and Bagging).
GUNPOWDER, an explosive composed of saltpetre, charcoal
and sulphur. Very few substances have had a greater effect
on civilization than gunpowder. Its employment altered the
whole art of war, and its influence gradually and indirectly
permeated and affected the whole fabric of society. Its direct
effect on the arts of peace was but slight, and had but a limited
range, which could not be compared to the modern extended
employment of high explosives for blasting in mining and
engineering work.
It is probably quite incorrect to speak of the discovery of gunpowder. From modern researches it seems more likely and more just to think of it as a thing that has developed, passing through many stages—mainly of improvement, but some undoubtedly retrograde. There really is not sufficient solid evidence on which to pin down its invention to one man. As Lieutenant-Colonel H. W. L. Hime (Gunpowder and Ammunition, 1904) says, the invention of gunpowder was impossible until the properties of nearly pure saltpetre had become known. The honour, however, has been associated with two names in particular, Berthold Schwartz, a German monk, and Friar Roger Bacon. Of the former Oscar Guttmann writes (Monumenta pulveris pyrii, 1904, p. 6): “Berthold Schwartz was generally considered to be the inventor of gunpowder, and only in England has Roger Bacon’s claim been upheld, though there are English writers who have pleaded in favour of Schwartz. Most writers are agreed that Schwartz invented the first firearms, and as nothing was known of an inventor of gunpowder, it was perhaps considered justifiable to give Schwartz the credit thereof. There is some ambiguity as to when Schwartz lived. The year 1354 is sometimes mentioned as the date of his invention of powder, and this is also to be inferred from an inscription on the monument to him in Freiburg. But considering there can be no doubt as to the manufacture in England of gunpowder and cannon in 1344, that we have authentic information of guns in France in 1338 and in Florence in 1326, and that the Oxford MS. De officiis regum of 1325 gives an illustration of a gun, Berthold Schwartz must have lived long before 1354 to have been the inventor of gunpowder or guns.” In Germany also there were powder-works at Augsburg in 1340, in Spandau in 1344, and Liegnitz in 1348.
Roger Bacon, in his De mirabili potestate artis et naturae (1242), makes the most important communication on the history of gunpowder. Reference is made to an explosive mixture as known before his time and employed for “diversion, producing a noise like thunder and flashes like lightning.” In one passage Bacon speaks of saltpetre as a violent explosive, but there is no doubt that he knew it was not a self-explosive substance, but only so when mixed with other substances, as appears from the statement in De secretis operibus artis et naturae, printed at Hamburg in 1618, that “from saltpetre and other ingredients we are able to make a fire that shall burn at any distance we please.” A great part of his three chapters, 9, 10, 11, long appeared without meaning until the anagrammatic nature of the sentences was realized. The words of this anagram are (chap. 11): “Item ponderis totum 30 sed tamen salis petrae luru vopo vir can utri[1] et sulphuris; et sic facies tonitruum et coruscationem, si scias artificium. Videas tamen utrum loquar aenigmate aut secundum veritatem.” Hime, in his chapter on the origin of gunpowder, discusses these chapters at length, and gives, omitting the anagram, the translation: “Let the total weight of the ingredients be 30, however, of saltpetre . . . of sulphur; and with such a mixture you will produce a bright flash and a thundering noise, if you know the trick. You may find (by actual experiment) whether I am writing riddles to you or the plain truth.” The anagram reads, according to Hime, “salis petrae r(ecipe) vii part(es), v nov(ellae) corul(i), v et sulphuris” (take seven parts of saltpetre, five of young hazel-wood, and five of sulphur). Hime then goes on to show that Bacon was in possession of an explosive which was a considerable advance on mere incendiary compositions. Bacon does not appear to have been aware of the projecting power of gunpowder. He knew that it exploded and that perhaps people might be blown up or frightened by it; more cannot be said. The behaviour of small quantities of any explosive is hardly ever indicative of its behaviour in large quantities and especially when under confinement. Hime is of opinion that Bacon blundered upon gunpowder whilst playing with some incendiary composition, such as those mentioned by Marcus Graecus and others, in which
- ↑ These words were emended by some authors to read luru mope can ubre, the letters of which can be arranged to give pulvere carbonum.
