VOLUME XII SLICE VI Groups, Theory of to Gwyniad (continued 6)

Prospecting for gold began in 1880, and from 1884 to 1893-1894 the output, chiefly from alluvial workings, increased from 250 oz. to nearly 140,000 oz. annually. The industry then received a serious check by the failure of several mines, and for nearly a decade was almost entirely in the hands of the small tributor, known locally as a pork-knocker. There has been some revival, chiefly due to foreign enterprise. At Omai on the Essequibo river a German syndicate worked a large concession on the hydraulic process of placer mining with considerable success, and more recently took to dredging on its flats. In the Puruni (a tributary of the Mazaruni) American capitalists, working the Peters’ mine, have established their workings to a considerable depth, besides constructing a road, 60 m. in length, from Kartabo point, at the confluence of the Guyuni and Mazaruni, to the Puruni river opposite the mine. An English syndicate started dredging in the Conawarook, a tributary of the Essequibo. The principal gold districts are on the Essequibo and its tributaries—the chief being the Cuyuni, Mazaruni, Potaro and Conawarook—and on the Barima, Barama and Waini rivers in the north-west district. There have been smaller workings, mostly unsuccessful, in the Demerara and Berbice rivers.

Diamonds and other precious stones have been found in small quantities, and since 1900 efforts have been made to extend the output, nearly 11,000 carats weight of diamonds being exported in 1904. But though the small stones found were of good water, the cost of transport to the diamond fields, on the Mazaruni river, was heavy, and after 1904 the industry declined. Laws dealing with gold and precious stones passed in 1880, 1886 and 1887, and regulations in 1899, were codified in 1902 and amended in 1905.

Timber is cut, and balata and rubber collected, from crown lands by licences issued from the department of Lands and Mines. Wood-cutting, save on concessions held by a local company owning an up-country line of railway connecting the Demerara and Essequibo rivers, is limited to those parts of the forest which are close to the lower stretches of the rivers and creeks, the overland haulage of the heavy logs being both difficult and costly, while transport through the upper reaches of the rivers is impossible on account of the many cataracts and rapids. The average annual value of imports is £1,500,000, of which about two-thirds are from Great Britain and British possessions. Of the vessels trading with the colony, most are under the British flag, the remainder being principally American and Norwegian.

The money of account is dollars and cents, but, with the exception of the notes of the two local banks, the currency is British sterling. The unit of land measure is the Rhynland rood, roughly equal to 12 ft. 4 in. A Rhynland acre contains 300 square roods.

Inland Communication, &c.—The public roads extend along the coast from the Corentyn river to some 20 m. N. of the Essequibo mouth on the Aroabisci coast, and for a short distance up each of the principal rivers and creeks entering the sea between these points. A line of railway 60½ m. in length runs from Georgetown to Rosignol on the left bank of the Berbice river opposite New Amsterdam; and another line 15 m. long starts from Vreed-en-hoop, on the left bank of the Demerara river opposite Georgetown, and runs to Greenwich Park on the right bank of the Essequibo river some 3 m. from its mouth. A light railway, metre gauge, 18½ m. in length, connects Wismar (on the left bank of the Demerara river some 70 m. from its mouth) with Rockstone (on the right bank of the Essequibo, and above the first series of cataracts in that river). Steamers run daily to and from Georgetown and Wismar, and launches to and from Rockstone and Tumatumari Fall on the Potaro, and all expeditions for the goldfields of the Essequibo and its tributaries above Rockstone travel by this route. Another steamer goes twice a week to Bartica at the confluence of the Essequibo and Mazaruni, and another weekly to Mt. Everard on the Barima, from which termini expeditions start to the other gold and diamond fields. Steamers also run from Georgetown to New Amsterdam and up the Berbice river for about 100 m. Above the termini of these steamer routes all travelling is done in keelless bateaux, propelled by paddlers and steered when coming through the rapids at both bow and stern by certificated bowmen and steersmen. Owing to the extreme dangers of this inland travelling, stringent regulations have been framed as to the loading of boats, supply of ropes and qualifications of men in charge, and the shooting of certain falls is prohibited. Voyages up-country are of necessity slow, but the return journey is made with comparatively great rapidity, distances laboriously covered on the up-trip in three days being done easily in seven hours when coming back.

From England British Guiana is reached in sixteen days by the steamers of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and in nineteen days by those of the direct line from London and Glasgow. There are also regular services from Canada, the United States, France and Holland.

History.—When taken over in 1803 the prospects of three British colonies were by no means promising, and during the next decade the situation became very critical. Owing to the increased output of sugar by conquered Dutch and French colonies the English market was glutted and the markets of the continent of Europe were not available, Bonaparte having closed the ports. The years 1811 and 1812 were peculiarly disastrous, especially to those engaged in the manufacture of sugar, and at a public meeting held in Georgetown early in the latter year it was stated that the produce of the colony ordinarily worth £1,860,000 had on account of deteriorated value decreased by fully one-third. At this meeting it was resolved to petition the imperial parliament to allow the interchange of produce with the United States; a resolution which was unfortunately rendered abortive by the outbreak of war between England and the States in 1812, the trade of British Guiana being instead actually harried by American privateers. In his address to the Combined Court on the 20th of October 1812 the governor (General Carmichael) stated that a vessel with government stores had been captured by an American privateer, and in February 1813 the imperial government sent H.M.S. “Peacock” to protect the coast. On the 23rd of that month in cruising along the east coast of Demerara the “Peacock” met the American privateer “Hornet,” and though, after a gallant struggle, in which Captain Peake, R.N., was killed, the English ship was sunk with nearly all her crew, the colony did not suffer from any further depredations. In the following years news of the agitation in England in favour of emancipation gradually became known to the slaves and caused considerable unrest among them, culminating in 1823 in a serious outbreak on the estates on the east coast of Demerara. Negroes, demanding their freedom, attacked the houses of several managers, and although at most points these attacks were repulsed with but little loss on either side, the situation was so serious as to necessitate the calling out of the military. The ringleaders were arrested and promptly and vigorously dealt with, while a special court-martial was appointed to try the Rev. John Smith, of the London Missionary Society, who it was alleged had fostered the rising by his teachings to the slave congregation at his chapel in Le Ressouvenir. This trial was stigmatized as unfair by the missionary party in England, but on the whole appears to have been conducted decently by an undoubtedly unbiassed court. It is difficult now to form any very definite conclusion. Mr Smith certainly had great influence over the slaves, and while his teaching prior to the outbreak was at least ill-advised, he made no efforts while the disturbances were going on to use his influence on the side of law and order; indeed all he could say in his own defence was that he was ignorant of what was going on, a statement it is impossible to believe to have been strictly veracious. He was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. It is obvious that it was never intended to carry out this sentence, and on the 29th of November the governor announced that he felt it imperative on him to transmit the findings of the court for His Majesty’s consideration. The question of Smith’s guilt or innocence created a great deal of feeling in England, the anti-slavery and missionary societies making it a basis for increased agitation in favour of the slaves; but the imperial government evidently agreed with the colonial executive in holding that he could not be exonerated of grave responsibility, as the order of the king was that while the sentence of death was remitted Mr Smith was to be dismissed from the colony and to enter into a recognizance in £2000 not to return to British Guiana or to reside in any other West Indian colony. This order reached Georgetown in April 1824, but Mr Smith had died in the city jail on the 6th of February of a pulmonary complaint from which he had been suffering for some time.

Sir Benjamin d’Urban was governor from April 1824 to May 1833, the principal event of his administration being the consolidation in 1831 of the three colonies into one colony divided into three counties, Berbice, Demerara and Essequibo.

Governor d’Urban was succeeded in June 1833 by Sir James Carmichael Smyth, who began his administration by a proclamation to the slaves stating that while the king intended to improve their condition, the details of his plans were not as yet completed, and warning them against impatience or insubordination. When the resolutions foreshadowing emancipation, passed by the House of Commons on the 12th of June 1833, reached the colony, the planters, to whom the governor’s proclamation had been most distasteful, were thunderstruck and even the government was surprised. Naturally the slaves were wildly jubilant. Emancipation brought troublous times through which the governor steered the colony with great tact and firmness, serious troubles being nipped in the bud solely by his great personality, and the subsequent conflicts with the apprentices might have been obviated had he lived longer. He died at Camp House on the 4th of March 1838.

In the years following emancipation the colony was in a serious condition. The report of a commission in 1850 proved that it was virtually ruined, and only by the introduction of immigrants to provide a reliable labour supply were the sugar estates saved from total extinction. By 1853 the colony had begun to make headway, and Sir Henry Barkly, the then governor, was able to state in his speech to the Combined Court in January that its progress was in every way satisfactory. During Governor Barkly’s administration the long series of struggles between the legislature and the executive terminated, and when he left in May 1853 he did so with the respect and good-will of all classes. The strengthening of the labour supply was not effected without troubles. In 1847 the negroes in Berbice attacked the persons and property of the Portuguese immigrants, the riots spreading to Demerara and Essequibo, and not until the military were called out were the disturbances quelled. Similar riots in 1862 were only stopped by the prompt and firm action of the new governor, Mr (afterwards Sir) Francis Hincks, while rows between negroes and Chinese and negroes and East Indians were frequent. Gradually, however, things quieted down, and until 1883 the estates as a whole did well. In 1884 the price of sugar fell so seriously as to make the prospects of the colony very gloomy, and for nearly two decades proprietors had to be content with a price kept artificially low by bounty-fed beet-sugar, many estates being ruined, while those that survived only did so by the application of every economy, and by their owners availing themselves of every new discovery in the sciences of cultivation and manufacture.

The year 1889 was marked by an outbreak on the part of a section of the negro population in Georgetown directed against the Portuguese residents there. A Portuguese had murdered his black paramour and had been convicted and sentenced to death. The governor commuted the sentence to penal servitude for life. Shortly after this a Portuguese stall-holder in the market assaulted a small black boy whom he suspected of pilfering, the latter having to be taken to a hospital, while the former, after being taken to a police station was, through some misunderstanding or informality, at once released. Almost immediately excitable and unreasoning negroes were rushing about loudly proclaiming that the boy was dead, that the Portuguese were allowed to kill black people and to go free, and calling on one another to take their own revenge. Mobs gathered quickly, attacked individual Portuguese and wrecked their shops and houses, and not until the city had been given up for two days to scenes of disgraceful disorder were the efforts of the police and special constables successful in quelling the disturbances. The damage done amounted to several thousands of dollars, the Portuguese owners being eventually compensated from general revenue.

In 1884 the dispute as to the boundary with Venezuela became acute. It was reported to the colonial government that the government of Venezuela had granted to an American syndicate a concession which covered much of the territory claimed by Great Britain, and although prompt investigation by an agent despatched by the governor did not then disclose any trace of interference with British claims, a further visit in January 1885, made in consequence of reports that servants of the Manoa Company had torn down notices posted by Mr McTurk on his former visit, discovered that the British notices had been covered over by Venezuelan ones and resulted in the government of Great Britain declaring that it would thenceforward exercise jurisdiction up to and within a boundary known as “the modified Schomburgk line.” Outposts were located at points on this line, and for some years Guianese police and Venezuelan soldiers faced one another across the Amacura creek in the Orinoco mouth and at Yuruan up the Cuyuni river. Guianese officers were, however, presumably instructed not actively to oppose acts of aggression by the Venezuelan government, for in January 1895 Venezuelan soldiers arrested Messrs D. D. Barnes and A. H. Baker, inspectors of police in charge at Yuruan station, conveyed them through Venezuela to Caracas, eventually allowing them to take steamer to Trinidad. For this act compensation was demanded and was eventually paid by Venezuela. The diplomatic question as to the boundary—the results of which are stated above—was passed out of the hands of the colony; see the account of the arbitration under Venezuela.

The last two months of 1905 were marked by serious disturbances in Georgetown, and in a lesser degree on the east and west banks of the Demerara river. On the 29th of November the dock labourers employed on the wharves in Georgetown struck for higher wages, and large crowds invaded the principal stores in the city, compelling men willing to work to desist and in some cases assaulting those who opposed them. By the evening of the 30th of November they had got so far out of hand as to necessitate the reading of the Riot Act and a proclamation by the governor (Sir F. M. Hodgson) forbidding all assemblies. On the morning of the 1st of December serious disturbances broke out at Ruimvelt, a sugar estate directly south of Georgetown, where the cane-cutters had suddenly struck for higher pay, and the police were compelled to fire on the mob, killing some and wounding others. All through that day mobs in all parts of the city assaulted any white man they met, houses were invaded and windows smashed, and on two further occasions the police had to fire. At night torrential rains forced the rioters to shelter, and enabled the police to get rest, their places being taken by pickets of militiamen and special constables. On Saturday, the 2nd of December, the police had got the upper hand, and the arrival that night of H.M.S. “Sappho” and on Sunday of H.M.S. “Diamond” gave the government complete control of the situation. Threatened troubles on the sugar estates on the west bank were suppressed by the prompt action of the governor, and the arrest of large numbers of the rioters and their immediate trial by special courts restored thorough order.

Authorities.—See Raleigh’s Voyages for the Discovery of Guiana 1595-1596, (“Hakluyt” series); Laurence Keymis’ Relation of the second Voyage to Guiana (1596), (“Hakluyt” series); Sir R. H. Schomburgk, Description of British Guiana (London, 1840); C. Waterton, Wanderings in South America, 1812-1825 (London, 1828); J. Rodway, History of British Guiana (Georgetown, 1891-1894); H. G. Dalton, History of British Guiana (London, 1855); J. W. Boddam Whetham, Roraima and British Guiana (London, 1879); C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of British Colonies; E. F. im Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana (London, 1883); British Guiana Directory (Georgetown, 1906); G. D. Bayley, Handbook of British Guiana (Georgetown, 1909).

(A. G. B.*)

II. Dutch Guiana, or Surinam, has an area of about 57,900 sq. m. British Guiana bounds it on the west and French on the east (the long unsettled question of the French boundary is dealt with in section III., French Guiana). The various peoples inhabiting Surinam are Dutch Guiana. distributed according to the soil and the products. The Indians (Caribs, Arawaks, Warrous) live on the savannahs, or on the upper Nickerie, Coppename and Maroni, far from the plantations, cultivating their fields of manioc or cassava, and for the rest living by fishing and hunting. They number about 2000. The bush negroes (Marrons) dwell between 3° and 4° N., near the isles and cataracts. They are estimated at 10,000, and are employed in the transport of men and goods to the goldfields, the navigation of the rivers in trade with the Indians, and in the transport of wood to Paramaribo and the plantations. They are the descendants of runaway slaves, and before missionaries had worked among them their paganism retained curious traces of their former connexion with Christianity. Their chief god was Gran Gado (grand-god), his wife Maria, and his son Jesi Kist. Various minor deities were also worshipped, Ampuka the bush-god, Toni the water-god, &c. Their language was based on a bastard English, mingled with many Dutch, Portuguese and native elements. Their chiefs are called gramman or grand man; but the authority of these men, and the peculiarities of language and religion, have in great measure died out owing to modern intercourse with the Dutch and others. The inhabitants of Paramaribo and the plantations comprise a variety of races, represented by Chinese, Javanese, coolies from India and the West Indies, negroes and about 2000 whites. Of non-Christian immigrants there are about 6000 Mahommedans and 12,000 Hindus; and Jews number about 1200. The total population was given in 1907 as 84,103, exclusive of Indians, &c., in the forests. Nearly one-half of this total are in Paramaribo and one-half in the districts. The population has shown a tendency to move from the districts to the town; thus in 1852 there were 6000 persons in the town and 32,000 in the districts.

The principal settlements have been made in the lower valley of the Surinam, or between that river and the Saramacca on the W. and the Commewyne on the E. The Surinam is the chief of a number of large rivers which rise in the Tumuc Humac range or the low hills between it and the sea, which they enter on the Dutch seaboard, between the Corentyn and the Maroni (Dutch Corantijn and Marowijne), which form the boundaries with British and French territories respectively. Between the rivers of Dutch Guiana there are remarkable cross channels available during the floods at least. As the Maroni communicates with the Cottica, which is in turn a tributary of the Commewyne, a boat can pass from the Maroni to Paramaribo; thence by the Sommelsdijk canal it can reach the Saramacca; and from the Saramacca it can proceed up the Coppename, and by means of the Nickerie find its way to the Corentyn. The rivers are not navigable inland to any considerable extent, as their courses are interrupted by rapids. The interior of the country consists for the most part of low hills, though an extreme height of 3800 ft. is known in the Wilhelmina Kette, in the west of the colony, about 3° 50′ to 4° N. The hinterland south of this latitude, and that part of the Tumuc Humac range along which the Dutch frontier runs, are, however, practically unexplored. Like the other territories of Guiana the Dutch colony is divided physically into a low coast-land, savannahs and almost impenetrable forest.

Meteorological observations have been carried on at five stations (Paramaribo, Coronie, Sommelsdijk, Nieuw-Nickerie and Groningen). The mean range of temperature for the day, month and year shows little variation, being respectively 77.54°-88.38° F., 76.1°-78.62° F. and 70.52°-90.14° F. The north-east trade winds prevail throughout the year, but the rainfall varies considerably; for December and January the mean is respectively 8.58 and 9.57 in., for May and June 11.26 and 10.31 in., but for February and March 7.2 and 6.81 in., and for September 2.48 and 2.0 in. The seasons comprise a long and a short dry season, and a period of heavy and of slight rainfall.

Products and Trade.—It has been found exceedingly difficult to exploit the produce of the forests. The most important crops and those supplying the chief exports are cocoa, coffee and sugar, all cultivated on the larger plantations, with rice, maize and bananas on the smaller or coast lands. Most of the larger plantations are situated on the lower courses of the Surinam, Commewyne, Nickerie and Cottica, and on the coast lands, rarely in the upper parts. Goldfields lie in the older rocks (especially the slate) of the upper Surinam, Saramacca and Maroni. The first section of a railway designed to connect the goldfields with Paramaribo was opened in 1906. The annual production of gold amounts in value to about £100,000, but has shown considerable fluctuation. Agriculture is the chief means of subsistence. About 42,000 acres are under cultivation. Of 30,000, persons whose occupation is given in official statistics, close upon 21,000 are engaged in agriculture or on the plantations, 2400 in gold-mining and only 1000 in trade. The exports increased in value from £200,800 in 1875 to £459,800 in 1899, and imports from £260,450 in 1875 to £510,180 in 1899; but the average value of exports over five years subsequently was only £414,000, while that of imports was £531,000.

Administration.—The colony is under a governor, who is president of an executive council, which also includes a vice-president and three members nominated by the crown. The legislative body is the states, the members of which are elected for six years by electors, of whom there is one for every 200 holders of the franchise. The colony is divided into sixteen districts. For the administration of justice there are three cantonal courts, two district courts, and the supreme court at Paramaribo, whose president and permanent members are nominated by the crown. The average local revenue (1901-1906) was about £276,000 and the expenditure about £317,000; both fluctuated considerably, and a varying subvention is necessary from the home government (£16,000 in 1902, £60,400 in 1906; the annual average is about £37,000). There are a civic guard of about 1800 men and a militia of 500, with a small garrison.

History.—The history of the Dutch in Guiana, and the compression of their influence within its present limits, belongs to the general history of Guiana (above). Surinam and the Dutch islands of the West Indies were placed under a common government in 1828, the governor residing at Paramaribo, but in 1845 they were separated. Slavery was abolished in 1863. Labour then became difficult to obtain, and in 1870 a convention was signed between Holland and England for the regulation of the coolie traffic, and a Dutch government agent for Surinam was appointed at Calcutta. The problem was never satisfactorily solved, but the interest of the mother-country in the colony greatly increased during the last twenty years of the 19th century, as shown by the establishment of the Surinam Association, of the Steam Navigation Company’s service to Paramaribo, and by the formation of a botanical garden for experimental culture at that town, as also by geological and other scientific expeditions, and the exhibition at Haarlem in 1898.

Authorities.—Among the older works on Surinam the first rank is held by Jan Jacob Hartsinck’s masterly Beschryving van Guiana, of de Wilde Kust, in Zuid Amerika (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1770). Extracts from this work, selected for their bearing upon British boundary questions, were translated and annotated by J. A. J. de Villiers (London, 1897). A valuable Geschiedenis der Kolonie van Suriname, by a number of “learned Jews,” was published at Amsterdam in 1791 and it was supplemented and so far superseded by Wolbers, Geschiedenis van Suriname (Amsterdam, 1861). See further W. G. Palgrave, Dutch Guiana (London, 1876); A. Kappler, Surinam, sein Land, &c. (Stuttgart, 1887); Prince Roland Bonaparte, Les Habitants de Surinam (Paris, 1884); K. Martin, “Bericht über eine Reise ins Gebiet des Oberen-Surinam,” Bijdragen v. h. Inst. voor Taal Land en Volkenkunde, i. 1. (The Hague); Westerouen van Meeteren, La Guyane néerlandaise (Leiden, 1884); H. Ten Kate, “Een en ander over Suriname,” Gids (1888); G. Verschuur, “Voyages aux trois Guyanes,” Tour du monde (1893). pp. 1, 49, 65; W. L. Loth, Beknopte Aardrijkskundige beschrijving van Suriname (Amsterdam, 1898), and Tijdschrift van het Aardrijkskundig Genootschap (1878), 79, 93; Asch van Wyck, “La Colonie de Surinam,” Les Pays-Bas (1898); L. Thompson, Overzicht der Geschiedenis van Suriname (The Hague, 1901); Catalogus der Nederl. W. I. ten Toonstelling te Haarlem (1899); Guide à travers la section des Indes néerlandaises, p. 323 (Amsterdam, 1899); Surinaamsche Almanak (Paramaribo, annually). For the language of the bush-negroes see Wullschlaegel, Kurzgefasste neger-englische Grammatik (Bautzen, 1854), and Deutsch neger-englisches Wörterbuch (Lobau, 1865).

III. French Guiana (Guyane).—This colony is situated between Dutch Guiana and Brazil. A delimitation of the territory belonging to France and the Netherlands was arrived at in 1891, by decision of the emperor of Russia. This question originated in the arrangement French Guiana. of 1836, that the river Maroni should form the frontier. It turned on the claim of the Awa or the Tapanahoni to be recognized as the main head-stream of the Maroni, and the final decision, in indicating the Awa, favoured the Dutch. In 1905 certain territory lying between the upper Maroni and the Itany, the possession of which had not then been settled, was acquired by France by agreement between the French and Dutch governments. The question of the exploitation of gold in the Maroni was settled by attributing alternate reaches of the river to France and Holland; while France obtained the principal islands in the lower Maroni. The additional territory thus attached to the French colony amounted to 965 sq. m. In December 1900 the Swiss government as arbitrators fixed the boundary between French Guiana and Brazil as the river Oyapock and the watershed on the Tumuc Humac mountains, thus awarding to France about 3000 of the 100,000 sq. m. which she claimed. This dispute was of earlier origin than that with the Dutch; dissensions between the French and the Portuguese relative to territory north of the Amazon occurred in the 17th century. In 1700 the Treaty of Lisbon made the contested area (known as the Terres du Cap du Nord) neutral ground. The treaty of Utrecht in 1713 indicated as the French boundary a river which the French afterwards claimed to be the Araguary, but the Portuguese asserted that the Oyapock was intended. After Brazil had become independent the question dragged on until in 1890-1895 there were collisions in the contested territory between French and Brazilian adventurers. This compelled serious action, and a treaty of arbitration, preliminary to the settlement, was signed at Rio de Janeiro in 1897. French Guiana, according to official estimate, has an area of about 51,000 sq. m. The population is estimated at about 30,000; its movement is not rapid. Of this total 12,350 live at Cayenne, 10,100 were in the communes, 5700 formed the penal population, 1500 were native Indians (Galibi, Emerillon, Oyampi) and 500 near Maroni were negroes. Apart from Cayenne, which was rebuilt after the great fire of 1888, the centres of population are unimportant: Sinnamarie with 1500 inhabitants, Mana with 1750, Roura with 1200 and Approuague with 1150. In 1892 French Guiana was divided into fourteen communes, exclusive of the Maroni district. Belonging to the colony are also the three Safety Islands (Royale, Joseph and Du Diable—the last notable as the island where Captain Dreyfus was imprisoned), the Enfant Perdu Island and the five Remire Islands.

A considerable portion of the low coast land is occupied by marshes, with a dense growth of mangroves or, in the drier parts, with the pinot or wassay palm (Euterpe oleracea). Settlements are confined almost entirely to the littoral and alluvial districts. The forest-clad hills of the hinterland do not generally exceed 1500 ft. in elevation; that part of the Tumuc Humac range which forms the southern frontier may reach an extreme elevation of 2600 ft. But the dense tropical forests attract so much moisture from the ocean winds that the highlands are the birthplace of a large number of rivers which in the rainy season especially pour down vast volumes of water. Not less than 15 are counted between the Maroni and the Oyapock. South-eastward from the Maroni the first of importance is the Mana, which is navigable for large vessels 10 m. from its mouth, and for smaller vessels 27 m. farther. Passing the Sinnamary and the Kourou, the Oyock is next reached, near the mouth of which is Cayenne, the capital of the colony, and thereafter the Approuage. All these rivers take their rise in a somewhat elevated area about the middle of the colony; those streams which rise farther south, in the Tumuc Humac hills, are tributaries of the two frontier rivers, the Maroni on the one hand or the Oyapock on the other.

Climate and Products.—The rainy season begins in November or December, and lasts till the latter part of June; but there are usually three or four weeks of good weather in March. During the rest of the year there is often hardly a drop of rain for months, but the air is always very moist. At Cayenne the average annual rainfall amounts to fully 130 in., and it is naturally heavier in the interior. During the hotter part of the year—August, September, October—the temperature usually rises to about 86° F., but it hardly ever exceeds 88°; in the colder season the mean is 79° and it seldom sinks so low as 70°. Between day and night there is very little thermometric difference. The prevailing winds are the N.N.E. and the S.E.; and the most violent are those of the N.E. During the rainy season the winds keep between N. and E., and during the dry season between S. and E. Hurricanes are unknown. In flora and fauna French Guiana resembles the rest of the Guianese region. Vegetation is excessively rich. Among leguminous trees, which are abundantly represented, the wacapou is the finest of many hardwood trees. Caoutchouc and various palms are also common. The manioc is a principal source of food; rice is an important object of cultivation; and maize, yams, arrowroot, bananas and the bread-fruit are also to be mentioned. Vanilla is one of the common wild plants of the country. The clove tree has been acclimatized, and in the latter years of the empire it formed a good source of wealth; the cinnamon tree was also successfully introduced in 1772, but like that of the pepper-tree and the nutmeg its cultivation is neglected. A very small portion of the territory indeed is devoted to agriculture, although France has paid some attention to the development of this branch of activity. In 1880 a colonial garden was created near Cayenne; since 1894 an experimental garden has been laid out at Baduel. About 8200 acres are cultivated, of which 5400 acres are under cereals and rice, the remaining being under coffee (introduced in 1716), cacao, cane and other cultures. The low lands between Cayenne and Oyapock are capable of bearing colonial produce, and the savannahs might support large herds; cereals, root-crops and vegetables might easily be grown on the high grounds, and timber working in the interior should be profitable.

Gold-mining is the most important industry in the colony. Placers of great wealth have been discovered on the Awa, on the Dutch frontier and at Carsevenne in the territory which formed the subject of the Franco-Brazilian dispute. But wages are high and transport is costly, and the amount of gold declared at Cayenne did not average more than 130,550 oz. annually in 1900-1905. Silver and iron have been found in various districts; kaolin is extracted in the plains of Montsinéry; and phosphates have been discovered at several places. Besides gold-workings, the industrial establishments comprise saw-mills, distilleries, brick-works and sugar-works.

Trade and Communications.—The commerce in 1885 amounted to £336,000 for imports and to £144,000 for exports; in 1897 the values were respectively £373,350 and £286,400, but in 1903, while imports had increased in value only to £418,720, exports had risen to £493,213. The imports consist of wines, flour, clothes, &c.; the chief are gold, phosphates, timber, cocoa and rosewood essence. Cayenne is the only considerable port. One of the drawbacks to the development of the colony is the lack of labour. Native labour is most difficult to obtain, and attempts to utilize convict labour have not proved very successful. Efforts to supply the need by immigration have not done so completely. The land routes are not numerous. The most important are that from Cayenne to Mana by way of Kourou, Sinnamarie and Iracoubo, and that from Cayenne along the coast to Kaw and the mouth of the Approuague. Towards the interior there are only foot-paths, badly made. By water, Cayenne is in regular communication with the Safety Islands (35 m.), and the mouth of the Maroni (80 m.), with Fort de France in the island of Martinique, where travellers meet the mail packet for France, and with Boston (U.S.A.). There is a French cable between Cayenne and Brest.

Administration.—The colony is administered by a commissioner-general assisted by a privy council, including the secretary general and chief of the judicial service, the military, penitentiary and administrative departments. In 1879 an elective general council of sixteen members was constituted. There are a tribunal of first instance and a higher tribunal at Cayenne, besides four justices of peace, one of whom has extensive jurisdiction in other places. Of the £256,000 demanded for the colony in the colonial budget for 1906, £235,000 represented the estimated expenditure on the penal settlement, so that the cost of the colony was only about £21,000. The local budget for 1901 balanced at £99,000 and in 1905 at £116,450. Instruction is given in the college of Cayenne and in six primary schools. At the head of the clergy is an apostolic prefect. The armed force consists of two companies of marine infantry, half a battery of artillery, and a detachment of gendarmerie, and comprises about 380 men. The penal settlement was established by a decree of 1852. From that year until 1867, 18,000 exiles had been sent to Guiana, but for the next twenty years New Caledonia became the chief penal settlement in the French colonies. But in 1885-1887 French Guiana was appointed as a place of banishment for confirmed criminals and for convicts sentenced to more than eight years’ hard labour. A large proportion of these men have been found unfit for employment upon public works.

History.—The Sieur La Revardière, sent out in 1604 by Henry IV. to reconnoitre the country, brought back a favourable report; but the death of the king put a stop to the projects of formal colonization. In 1626 a small body of traders from Rouen settled on the Sinnamary, and in 1635 a similar band founded Cayenne. The Compagnie du Cap Nord, founded by the people of Rouen in 1643 and conducted by Poncet de Brétigny, the Compagnie de la France Équinoxiale, established in 1645, and the second Compagnie de la France Équinoxiale, or Compagnie des Douze Seigneurs, established in 1652, were failures, the result of incompetence, mismanagement and misfortune. From 1654 the Dutch held the colony for a few years. The French Compagnie des Indes Occidentales, chartered in 1664 with a monopoly of Guiana commerce for forty years, proved hardly more successful than its predecessors; but in 1674 the colony passed under the direct control of the crown, and the able administration of Colbert began to tell favourably on its progress, although in 1686 an unsuccessful expedition against the Dutch in Surinam set back the advance of the French colony until the close of the century.

The year 1763 was marked by a terrible disaster. Choiseul, the prime minister, having obtained for himself and his cousin Praslin a concession of the country between the Kourou and the Maroni, sent out about 12,000 volunteer colonists, mainly from Alsace and Lorraine. They were landed at the mouth of the Kourou, where no preparation had been made for their reception, and where even water was not to be obtained. Mismanagement was complete; there was (for example) a shop for skates, whereas the necessary tools for tillage were wanting. By 1765 no more than 918 colonists remained alive, and these were a famished fever-stricken band. A long investigation in Paris resulted in the imprisonment of the incompetent leaders of the expedition. Several minor attempts at colonization in Guiana were made in the latter part of the century; but they all seemed to suffer from the same fatal prestige of failure. During the revolution band after band of political prisoners were transported to Guiana. The fate of the royalists, nearly 600 in number, who were exiled on the 18th Fructidor (1797), was especially sad. Landed on the Sinnamary without shelter or food, two-thirds of them perished miserably. In 1800 Victor Hugues was appointed governor, and he managed to put the colony in a better state; but in 1809 his work was brought to a close by the invasion of the Portuguese and British.

Though French Guiana was nominally restored to the French in 1814, it was not really surrendered by the Portuguese till 1817. Numerous efforts were now made to establish the colony firmly, although its past misfortunes had prejudiced the public mind in France against it. In 1822 the first steam sugar mills were introduced; in 1824 an agricultural colony (Nouvelle Angoulême) was attempted in the Mana district, which, after failure at first, became comparatively successful. The emancipation of slaves and the consequent dearth of labour almost ruined the development of agricultural resources about the middle of the century, but in 1853 a large body of African immigrants was introduced. The discovery of gold on the Approuague in 1855 caused feverish excitement, and seriously disturbed the economic condition of the country.

Authorities.—A detailed bibliography of French Guiana will be found in Ternaux-Compans, Notice historique de la Guyane française (Paris, 1843). Among more recent works, see E. Bassières, Notice sur la Guyane, issued on the occasion of the Paris Exhibition (1900); Publications de la société d’études pour la colonisation de la Guyane française (Paris, 1843-1844); H. A. Coudreau, La France équinoxiale (1887), Dialectes indiens de Guyane (1891), Dix ans de Guyane (1892), and Chez nos Indiens (1893), all at Paris; G. Brousseau, Les Richesses de la Guyane française (Paris, 1901); L. F. Viala, Les Trois Guyanes (Montpellier, 1893).

1 The origin of the name is somewhat obscure, and has been variously interpreted. But the late Col. G. E. Church supplies the following note, which has the weight of his great authority: “I cannot confirm the suggestion of Schomburgk that Guayaná ‘received its name from a small river, a tributary of the Orinoco’, supposed to be the Waini or Guainia. In South America, east of the Andes, it was the common custom of any tribe occupying a length of river to call it simply ‘the river’; but the other tribes designated any section of it by the name of the people living on its banks. Many streams, therefore, had more than a dozen names. It is probable that no important river had one name alone throughout its course, prior to the time of the Conquest. The radical wini, waini, wayni, is found as a prefix, and very frequently as a termination, to the names of numerous rivers, not only throughout Guayaná but all over the Orinoco and Amazon valleys. For instance, Paymary Indians called the portion of the Purús river which they occupied the Waini. It simply means water, or a fountain of water, or a river. The alternative suggestion that Guayaná is an Indian word signifying ’wild coast,’ I also think untenable. This term, applied to the north-east frontage of South America between the Orinoco and the Amazon, is found on the old Dutch map of Hartsinck, who calls it ’Guiana Caribania of de Wilde Kust,’ a name which must have well described it when, in 1580, some Zealanders, of the Netherlands, sent a ship to cruise along it, from the mouth of the Amazon to that of the Orinoco, and formed the first settlement near the river Pomeroon. The map of Firnao Vaz Dourado, 1564, calls the northern part of South America, including the present British Guiana, ‘East Peru.’ An anonymous Spanish map, about 1566, gives Guayaná as lying on the east side of the Orinoco just above its mouth. About 1660, Sebastien de Ruesta, cosmographer of the Casa de Contractacion de Seville, shows Guayaná covering the British, French and Dutch Guayanás. According to the map of Nicolas de Fer, 1719, a tribe of Guayazis (Guyanas) occupied the south side of the Amazon river, front of the island of Tupinambará, east of the mouth of the Madeira. Aristides Rojas, an eminent Venezuelan scholar, says that the Mariches Indians, near Caracas, inhabited a site called Guayaná long before the discovery of South America by the Spaniards. Coudreau in his Chez nos Indiens mentions that the Roucouyennes of Guayaná take their name from a large tree in their forests, ‘which appears to be the origin of the name Guayane.’ According to Michelana y Rojas, in their report to the Venezuelan government on their voyages in the basin of the Orinoco, ‘Guyana derives its name from the Indians who live between the Caroni river and the Sierra de Imataca, called Guayanos.’ My own studies of aboriginal South America lead me to support the statement of Michelana y Rojas, but with the following enlargement of it: The Portuguese, in the early part of the 16th century, found that the coast and mountain district of Rio de Janeiro, between Cape São Thome and Angra dos Reis, belonged to the formidable Tamoyos. South of these, for a distance of about 300 m. of the ocean slope of the coast range, were the Guayaná tribes, called by the early writers Guianás, Goyaná, Guayaná, Goaná and, plural, Goaynázés, Goayanázes and Guayanázes. They were constantly at feud with the Tamoyos and with their neighbours on the south, the Carijos, as well as with the vast Tapuya hordes of the Sertão of the interior. Long before the discovery, they had been forced to abandon their beautiful lands, but had recuperated their strength, returned and reconquered their ancient habitat. Meanwhile, however, many of them had migrated northward, some had settled in the Sertão back of Bahia and Pernambuco, others on the middle Amazon and in the valley of the Orinoco, but a large number had crossed the lower Amazon and occupied an extensive area of country to the north of it, about the size of Belgium, along the Tumuchumac range of highlands, and the upper Paron and Maroni rivers, as well as a large district on the northern slope of the above-named range. In their new home they became known as Roucouyennes, because, like the Mundurucus of the middle Amazon, they rubbed and painted themselves with roucou or urucu (Bixa Orellana); but other surrounding tribes called them Ouayanás, that is Guayanás—the Gua, so common to the Guarani-Tupi tongue, having become corrupted into Oua. Porto Seguro says of the so-called Tupis, ‘at other times they gave themselves the name of Guayá or Guayaná, which probably means “brothers,” from which comes Guayazes and Guayanazes.... The latter occupied the country just south of Rio de Janeiro.... The masters of the Capitania of St Vincente called themselves Guianas.’ Guinila, referring to north-eastern South America (1745), speaks of five missions being formed to civilize the ‘Nacion Guayana.’ In view of the above, it may be thought reasonable to assume that the vast territory now known as Guayaná (British, Dutch, French, Brazilian and Venezuelan) derives its name from its aborigines who were found there at the time of the discovery, and whose original home was the region I have indicated.”

2 This is the boundary generally accepted; but it is in dispute.

3 See C. B. Brown and J. G. Sawkins, Reports on the Physical, Descriptive and Economic Geology of British Guiana (London, 1875); C. Velain, “Esquisse géologique de la Guyane française et des bassins du Parou et du Yari (affluents de l’Amazone) d’après les explorations du Dr Crevaux,” Bull. Soc. Géogr. ser. 7, vol. vi. (Paris, 1885), pp. 453-492 (with geological map); E. Martin, Geologische Studien über Niederländisch-West-Indien, auf Grund eigener Untersuchungsreisen (Leiden, 1888); W. Bergt, “Zur Geologie des Coppename- und Nickerietales in Surinam (Hollandisch-Guyana),” Samml. d. Geol. Reichsmus. (Leiden), ser. 2, Bd. ii. Heft 2, pp. 93-163 (with 3 maps); and for British Guiana, the official reports on the geology of various districts, by J. B. Harrison, C. W. Anderson, H. I. Perkins, published at Georgetown.

GUIART (or Guiard), GUILLAUME (d. c. 1316), French chronicler and poet, was probably born at Orleans, and served in the French army in Flanders in 1304. Having been disabled by a wound he began to write, lived at Arras and then in Paris, thus being able to consult the large store of manuscripts in the abbey of St Denis, including the Grandes chroniques de France. Afterwards he appears as a ménestrel de bouche. Guiart’s poem Branche des royaulx lignages, was written and then rewritten between 1304 and 1307, in honour of the French king Philip IV., and in answer to the aspersions of a Flemish poet. Comprising over 21,000 verses it deals with the history of the French kings from the time of Louis VIII.; but it is only really important for the period after 1296 and for the war in Flanders from 1301 to 1304, of which it gives a graphic account, and for which it is a high authority. It was first published by J. A. Buchon (Paris, 1828), and again in tome xxii. of the Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France (Paris, 1865).

See A. Molinier, Les Sources de l’histoire de France, tome iii. (Paris, 1903).

GUIBERT, or Wibert (c. 1030-1100), of Ravenna, antipope under the title of Clement III. from the 25th of June 1080 until September 1100, was born at Parma between 1020 and 1030 of the noble imperialist family, Corregio. He entered the priesthood and was appointed by the empress Agnes, chancellor and, after the death of Pope Victor II. (1057), imperial vicar in Italy. He strove to uphold the imperial authority during Henry IV.’s minority, and presided over the synod at Basel (1061) which annulled the election of Alexander II. and created in the person of Cadalous, bishop of Parma, the antipope Honorius II. Guibert lost the chancellorship in 1062. In 1073, through the influence of Empress Agnes and the support of Cardinal Hildebrand, he obtained the archbishopric of Ravenna and swore fealty to Alexander II. and his successors. He seems to have been at first on friendly terms with Gregory VII., but soon quarrelled with him over the possession of the city of Imola, and henceforth was recognized as the soul of the imperial faction in the investiture contest. He allied himself with Cencius, Cardinal Candidus and other opponents of Gregory at Rome, and, on his refusal to furnish troops or to attend the Lenten synod of 1075, he was ecclesiastically suspended by the pope. He was probably excommunicated at the synod of Worms (1076) with other Lombard bishops who sided with Henry IV., and at the Lenten synod of 1078 he was banned by name. The emperor, having been excommunicated for the second time in March 1080, convened nineteen bishops of his party at Mainz on the 31st of May, who pronounced the deposition of Gregory; and on the 25th of June he caused Guibert to be elected pope by thirty bishops assembled at Brixen. Guibert, whilst retaining possession of his archbishopric, accompanied his imperial master on most of the latter’s military expeditions. Having gained Rome, he was installed in the Lateran and consecrated as Clement III. on the 24th of March 1084. One week later, on Easter Sunday, he crowned Henry IV. and Bertha in St Peter’s. Clement survived not only Gregory VII. but also Victor III. and Urban II., maintaining his title to the end and in great measure his power over Rome and the adjoining regions. Excommunication was pronounced against him by all his rivals. He was driven out of Rome finally by crusaders in 1097, and sought refuge in various fortresses on his own estates. St Angelo, the last Guibertist stronghold in Rome, fell to Urban II. on the 24th of August 1098. Clement, on the accession of Paschal II. in 1099, prepared to renew his struggle but was driven from Albano by Norman troops and died at Civita Castellana in September 1100. His ashes, which were said by his followers to have worked miracles, were thrown into the water by Paschal II.

See J. Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche von Gregor VII. bis Innocenz III. (Bonn, 1893); Jaffé-Wattenbach, Regesta pontif. Roman. (2nd ed., 1885-1888); K. J. von Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. v. (2nd ed.); F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. iv., trans. by Mrs G. W. Hamilton (London, 1900-1902); and O. Köhncke, Wibert von Ravenna (Leipzig, 1888).

(C. H. Ha.)

GUIBERT (1053-1124), of Nogent, historian and theologian, was born of noble parents at Clermont-en-Beauvoisis, and dedicated from infancy to the church. He received his early education at the Benedictine abbey of Flavigny (Flaviacum) or St Germer, where he studied with great zeal, devoting himself at first to the secular poets, an experience which left its imprint on his works; later changing to theology, through the influence of Anselm of Bec, afterwards of Canterbury. In 1104, he was chosen to be head of the abbey of Notre Dame de Nogent and henceforth took a prominent part in ecclesiastical affairs. His autobiography (De vita sua, sive monodiarum), written towards the close of his life, gives many picturesque glimpses of his time and the customs of his country. The description of the commune of Laon is an historical document of the first order. The same local colour lends charm to his history of the first crusade (Gesta Dei per Francos) written about 1110. But the history is largely a paraphrase, in ornate style, of the Gesta Francorum of an anonymous Norman author (see Crusades); and when he comes to the end of his authority, he allows his book to degenerate into an undigested heap of notes and anecdotes. At the same time his high birth and his position in the church give his work an occasional value.

Bibliography.—Guibert’s works, edited by d’Achery, were first published in 1651, in 1 vol. folio, at Paris (Venerabilis Guiberti abbatis B. Mariae de Novigento opera omnia), and republished in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, vols. clvi. and clxxxiv. They include, besides minor works, a treatise on homiletics (“Liber quo ordine sermo fieri debeat”); ten books of Moralia on Genesis, begun in 1084, but not completed until 1116, composed on the model of Gregory the Great’s Moralia in Jobum; five books of Tropologiae on Hosea, Amos and the Lamentations; a treatise on the Incarnation, against the Jews; four books De pignoribus sanctorum, a remarkably free criticism on the abuses of saint and relic worship; three books of autobiography, De vita sua, sive monodiarum; and eight books of the Historia quae dicitur Gesta Dei per Francos, sive historia Hierosolymitana (the ninth book is by another author). Separate editions exist of the last named, in J. Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, i., and Recueil des historiens des croisades, hist. Occid., iv. 115-263. It has been translated into French in Guizot’s Collection, ix. 1-338. See H. von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (Leipzig, 1881); B. Monod, Le Moine Guibert et son temps (Paris, 1905); and Guibert de Nogent; histoire de sa vie, edited by G. Bourgin (Paris, 1907).

GUIBERT, JACQUES ANTOINE HIPPOLYTE, Comte de (1743-1790), French general and military writer, was born at Montauban, and at the age of thirteen accompanied his father, Charles Bénoit, comte de Guibert (1715-1786), chief of staff to Marshal de Broglie, throughout the war in Germany, and won the cross of St Louis and the rank of colonel in the expedition to Corsica (1767). In 1770 he published his Essai général de tactique in London, and this celebrated work appeared in numerous subsequent editions and in English, German and even Persian translations (extracts also in Liskenne and Sauvan, Bibl. historique et militaire, Paris, 1845). Of this work (for a detailed critique of which see Max Jähns, Gesch. d. Kriegswissenschaften, vol. iii. pp. 2058-2070 and references therein) it may be said that it was the best essay on war produced by a soldier during a period in which tactics were discussed even in the salon and military literature was more abundant than at any time up to 1871. Apart from technical questions, in which Guibert’s enlightened conservatism stands in marked contrast to the doctrinaire progressiveness of Menil Durand, Folard and others, the book is chiefly valued for its broad outlook on the state of Europe, especially of military Europe in the period 1763-1792. One quotation may be given as being a most remarkable prophecy of the impending revolution in the art of war, a revolution which the “advanced” tacticians themselves scarcely foresaw. “The standing armies, while a burden on the people, are inadequate for the achievement of great and decisive results in war, and meanwhile the mass of the people, untrained in arms, degenerates.... The hegemony over Europe will fall to that nation which ... becomes possessed of manly virtues and creates a national army”—a prediction fulfilled almost to the letter within twenty years of Guibert’s death. In 1773 he visited Germany and was present at the Prussian regimental drills and army manœuvres; Frederick the Great, recognizing Guibert’s ability, showed great favour to the young colonel and freely discussed military questions with him. Guibert’s Journal d’un voyage en Allemagne was published, with a memoir, by Toulongeon (Paris, 1803). His Défense du système de guerre moderne, a reply to his many critics (Neuchâtel, 1779) is a reasoned and scientific defence of the Prussian method of tactics, which formed the basis of his work when in 1775 he began to co-operate with the count de St Germain in a series of much-needed and successful reforms in the French army. In 1777, however, St Germain fell into disgrace, and his fall involved that of Guibert who was promoted to the rank of maréchal de camp and relegated to a provincial staff appointment. In his semi-retirement he vigorously defended his old chief St Germain against his detractors. On the eve of the Revolution he was recalled to the War Office, but in his turn he became the object of attack and he died, practically of disappointment, on the 6th of May 1790. Other works of Guibert, besides those mentioned, are: Observations sur la constitution politique et militaire des armées de S. M. Prussienne (Amsterdam, 1778), Éloges of Marshal Catinat (1775), of Michel de l’Hôpital (1778), and of Frederick the Great (1787). Guibert was a member of the Academy from 1786, and he also wrote a tragedy, Le Connétable de Bourbon (1775) and a journal of travels in France and Switzerland.

See Toulongeon, Éloge véridique de Guibert (Paris, 1790); Madame de Stäel, Éloge de Guibert; Bardin, Notice historique du général Guibert (Paris, 1836); Flavian d’Aldeguier, Discours sur la vie et les écrits du comte de Guibert (Toulouse, 1855); Count Forestie, Biographie du comte de Guibert (Montauban, 1855); Count zur Lippe, “Friedr. der Grosse und Oberst Guibert” (Militär-Wochenblatt, 1873, 9 and 10).

GUICCIARDINI, FRANCESCO (1483-1540), the celebrated Italian historian and statesman, was born at Florence in the year 1483, when Marsilio Ficino held him at the font of baptism. His family was illustrious and noble; and his ancestors for many generations had held the highest posts of honour in the state, as may be seen in his own genealogical Ricordi autobiografici e di famiglia (Op. ined. vol. x.). After the usual education of a boy in grammar and elementary classical studies, his father, Piero, sent him to the universities of Ferrara and Padua, where he stayed until the year 1505. The death of an uncle, who had occupied the see of Cortona with great pomp, induced the young Guicciardini to hanker after an ecclesiastical career. He already saw the scarlet of a cardinal awaiting him, and to this eminence he would assuredly have risen. His father, however, checked this ambition, declaring that, though he had five sons, he would not suffer one of them to enter the church in its then state of corruption and debasement. Guicciardini, whose motives were confessedly ambitious (see Ricordi, Op. ined. x. 68), turned his attention to law, and at the age of twenty-three was appointed by the Signoria of Florence to read the Institutes in public. Shortly afterwards he engaged himself in marriage to Maria, daughter of Alamanno Salviati, prompted, as he frankly tells us, by the political support which an alliance with that great family would bring him (ib. x. 71). He was then practising at the bar, where he won so much distinction that the Signoria, in 1512, entrusted him with an embassy to the court of Ferdinand the Catholic. Thus he entered on the real work of his life as a diplomatist and statesman. His conduct upon that legation was afterwards severely criticized; for his political antagonists accused him of betraying the true interests of the commonwealth, and using his influence for the restoration of the exiled house of Medici to power. His Spanish correspondence with the Signoria (Op. ined. vol. vi.) reveals the extraordinary power of observation and analysis which was a chief quality of his mind; and in Ferdinand, hypocritical and profoundly dissimulative, he found a proper object for his scientific study. To suppose that the young statesman learned his frigid statecraft in Spain would be perhaps too simple a solution of the problem offered by his character, and scarcely fair to the Italian proficients in perfidy. It is clear from Guicciardini’s autobiographical memoirs that he was ambitious, calculating, avaricious and power-loving from his earliest years; and in Spain he had no more than an opportunity of studying on a large scale those political vices which already ruled the minor potentates of Italy. Still the school was pregnant with instructions for so apt a pupil. Guicciardini issued from this first trial of his skill with an assured reputation for diplomatic ability, as that was understood in Italy. To unravel plots and weave counterplots; to meet treachery with fraud; to parry force with sleights of hand; to credit human nature with the basest motives, while the blackest crimes were contemplated with cold enthusiasm for their cleverness, was reckoned then the height of political sagacity. Guicciardini could play the game to perfection. In 1515 Leo X. took him into service, and made him governor of Reggio and Modena. In 1521 Parma was added to his rule, and in 1523 he was appointed viceregent of Romagna by Clement VII. These high offices rendered Guicciardini the virtual master of the papal states beyond the Apennines, during a period of great bewilderment and difficulty. The copious correspondence relating to his administration has recently been published (Op. ined. vols. vii., viii.). In 1526 Clement gave him still higher rank as lieutenant-general of the papal army. While holding this commission, he had the humiliation of witnessing from a distance the sack of Rome and the imprisonment of Clement, without being able to rouse the perfidious duke of Urbino into activity. The blame of Clement’s downfall did not rest with him; for it was merely his duty to attend the camp, and keep his master informed of the proceedings of the generals (see the Correspondence, Op. ined. vols. iv., v.). Yet Guicciardini’s conscience accused him, for he had previously counselled the pope to declare war, as he notes in a curious letter to himself written in 1527 (Op. ined., x. 104). Clement did not, however, withdraw his confidence, and in 1531 Guicciardini was advanced to the governorship of Bologna, the most important of all the papallord-lieutenancies (Correspondence, Op. ined. vol. ix.). This post he resigned in 1534 on the election of Paul III., preferring to follow the fortunes of the Medicean princes. It may here be noticed that though Guicciardini served three popes through a period of twenty years, or perhaps because of this, he hated the papacy with a deep and frozen bitterness, attributing the woes of Italy to the ambition of the church, and declaring he had seen enough of sacerdotal abominations to make him a Lutheran (see Op. ined. i. 27, 104, 96, and Ist. d’ It., ed. Ros., ii. 218). The same discord between his private opinions and his public actions may be traced in his conduct subsequent to 1534. As a political theorist, Guicciardini believed that the best form of government was a commonwealth administered upon the type of the Venetian constitution (Op. ined. i. 6; ii. 130 sq.); and we have ample evidence to prove that he had judged the tyranny of the Medici at its true worth (Op. ined. i. 171, on the tyrant; the whole Storia Fiorentina and Reggimento di Firenze, ib. i. and iii., on the Medici). Yet he did not hesitate to place his powers at the disposal of the most vicious members of that house for the enslavement of Florence. In 1527 he had been declared a rebel by the Signoria on account of his well-known Medicean prejudices; and in 1530, deputed by Clement to punish the citizens after their revolt, he revenged himself with a cruelty and an avarice that were long and bitterly remembered. When, therefore, he returned to inhabit Florence in 1534, he did so as the creature of the dissolute Alessandro de’ Medici. Guicciardini pushed his servility so far as to defend this infamous despot at Naples in 1535, before the bar of Charles V., from the accusations brought against him by the Florentine exiles (Op. ined. vol. ix.). He won his cause; but in the eyes of all posterity he justified the reproaches of his contemporaries, who describe him as a cruel, venal, grasping seeker after power, eager to support a despotism for the sake of honours, offices and emoluments secured for himself by a bargain with the oppressors of his country. Varchi, Nardi, Jacopo Pitti and Bernardo Segni are unanimous upon this point; but it is only the recent publication of Guicciardini’s private MSS. that has made us understand the force of their invectives. To plead loyalty or honest political conviction in defence of his Medicean partianship is now impossible, face to face with the opinions expressed in the Ricordi politici and the Storia Fiorentina. Like Machiavelli, but on a lower level, Guicciardini was willing to “roll stones,” or to do any dirty work for masters whom, in the depth of his soul, he detested and despised. After the murder of Duke Alessandro in 1537, Guicciardini espoused the cause of Cosimo de’ Medici, a boy addicted to field sports, and unused to the game of statecraft. The wily old diplomatist hoped to rule Florence as grand vizier under this inexperienced princeling. He was mistaken, however, in his schemes, for Cosimo displayed the genius of his family for politics, and coldly dismissed his would-be lord-protector. Guicciardini retired in disgrace to his villa, where he spent his last years in the composition of the Storia d’ Italia. He died in 1540 without male heirs.

Guicciardini was the product of a cynical and selfish age, and his life illustrated its sordid influences. Of a cold and worldly temperament, devoid of passion, blameless in his conduct as the father of a family, faithful as the servant of his papal patrons, severe in the administration of the provinces committed to his charge, and indisputably able in his conduct of affairs, he was at the same time, and in spite of these qualities, a man whose moral nature inspires a sentiment of liveliest repugnance. It is not merely that he was ambitious, cruel, revengeful and avaricious, for these vices have existed in men far less antipathetic than Guicciardini. Over and above those faults, which made him odious to his fellow-citizens, we trace in him a meanness that our century is less willing to condone. His phlegmatic and persistent egotism, his sacrifice of truth and honour to self-interest, his acquiescence in the worst conditions of the world, if only he could use them for his own advantage, combined with the glaring discord between his opinions and his practice, form a character which would be contemptible in our eyes were it not so sinister. The social and political decrepitude of Italy, where patriotism was unknown, and only selfishness survived of all the motives that rouse men to action, found its representative and exponent in Guicciardini. When we turn from the man to the author, the decadence of the age and race that could develop a political philosophy so arid in its cynical despair of any good in human nature forces itself vividly upon our notice. Guicciardini seems to glory in his disillusionment, and uses his vast intellectual ability for the analysis of the corruption he had helped to make incurable. If one single treatise of that century should be chosen to represent the spirit of the Italian people in the last phase of the Renaissance, the historian might hesitate between the Principe of Machiavelli and the Ricordi politici of Guicciardini. The latter is perhaps preferable to the former on the score of comprehensiveness. It is, moreover, more exactly adequate to the actual situation, for the Principe has a divine spark of patriotism yet lingering in the cinders of its frigid science, an idealistic enthusiasm surviving in its moral aberrations; whereas a great Italian critic of this decade has justly described the Ricordi as “Italian corruption codified and elevated to a rule of life.” Guicciardini is, however, better known as the author of the Storia d’ Italia, that vast and detailed picture of his country’s sufferings between the years 1494 and 1532. Judging him by this masterpiece of scientific history, he deserves less commendation as a writer than as a thinker and an analyst. The style is wearisome and prolix, attaining to precision at the expense of circumlocution, and setting forth the smallest particulars with the same distinctness as the main features of the narrative. The whole tangled skein of Italian politics, in that involved and stormy period, is unravelled with a patience and an insight that are above praise. It is the crowning merit of the author that he never ceases to be an impartial spectator—a cold and curious critic. We might compare him to an anatomist, with knife and scalpel dissecting the dead body of Italy, and pointing out the symptoms of her manifold diseases with the indifferent analysis of one who has no moral sensibility. This want of feeling, while it renders Guicciardini a model for the scientific student, has impaired the interest of his history. Though he lived through that agony of the Italian people, he does not seem to be aware that he is writing a great historical tragedy. He takes as much pains in laying bare the trifling causes of a petty war with Pisa as in probing the deep-seated ulcer of the papacy. Nor is he capable of painting the events in which he took a part, in their totality as a drama. Whatever he touches, lies already dead on the dissecting table, and his skill is that of the analytical pathologist. Consequently, he fails to understand the essential magnitude of the task, or to appreciate the vital vigour of the forces contending in Europe for mastery. This is very noticeable in what he writes about the Reformation. Notwithstanding these defects, inevitable in a writer of Guicciardini’s temperament, the Storia d’ Italia was undoubtedly the greatest historical work that had appeared since the beginning of the modern era. It remains the most solid monument of the Italian reason in the 16th century, the final triumph of that Florentine school of philosophical historians which included Machiavelli, Segni, Pitti, Nardi, Varchi, Francesco Vettori and Donato Giannotti. Up to the year 1857 the fame of Guicciardini as a writer, and the estimation of him as a man, depended almost entirely upon the History of Italy, and on a few ill-edited extracts from his aphorisms. At that date his representatives, the counts Piero and Luigi Guicciardini, opened their family archives, and committed to Signor Giuseppe Canestrini the publication of his hitherto inedited MSS. in ten important volumes. The vast mass of documents and finished literary work thus given to the world has thrown a flood of light upon Guicciardini, whether we consider him as author or as citizen. It has raised his reputation as a political philosopher into the first rank, where he now disputes the place of intellectual supremacy with his friend Machiavelli; but it has coloured our moral judgment of his character and conduct with darker dyes. From the stores of valuable materials contained in those ten volumes, it will be enough here to cite (1) the Ricordi politici, already noticed, consisting of about 400 aphorisms on political and social topics; (2) the observations on Machiavelli’s Discorsi, which bring into remarkable relief the views of Italy’s two great theorists on statecraft in the 16th century, and show that Guicciardini regarded Machiavelli somewhat as an amiable visionary or political enthusiast; (3) the Storia Fiorentina, an early work of the author, distinguished by its animation of style, brilliancy of portraiture, and liberality of judgment; and (4) the Dialogo del reggimento di Firenze, also in all probability an early work, in which the various forms of government suited to an Italian commonwealth are discussed with infinite subtlety, contrasted, and illustrated from the vicissitudes of Florence up to the year 1494. To these may be added a series of short essays, entitled Discorsi politici, composed during Guicciardini’s Spanish legation. It is only after a careful perusal of these minor works that the student of history may claim to have comprehended Guicciardini, and may feel that he brings with him to the consideration of the Storia d’ Italia the requisite knowledge of the author’s private thoughts and jealously guarded opinions. Indeed, it may be confidently affirmed that those who desire to gain an insight into the true principles and feelings of the men who made and wrote history in the 16th century will find it here far more than in the work designed for publication by the writer. Taken in combination with Machiavelli’s treatises, the Opere inedite furnish a comprehensive body of Italian political philosophy anterior to the date of Fra Paolo Sarpi.

(J. A. S.)

See Rosini’s edition oí the Storia d’ Italia (10 vols., Pisa, 1819), and the Opere inedite, in 10 vols., published at Florence, 1857. A complete and initial edition of Guicciardini’s works is now in preparation in the hands of Alessandro Gherardi of the Florence archives. Among the many studies on Guicciardini we may mention Agostino Rossi’s Francesco Guicciardini e il governo Fiorentino (2 vols., Bologna, 1896), based on many new documents; F. de Sanctis’s essay “L’Uomo del Guicciardini,” in his Nuovi Saggi critici (Naples, 1879), and many passages in Professor P. Villari’s Machiavelli (Eng. trans., 1892); E. Benoist’s Guichardin, historien et homme d’état italien an XVIe siècle (Paris, 1862), and C. Gioda’s Francesco Guicciardini e le sue opere inedite (Bologna, 1880) are not without value, but the authors had not had access to many important documents since published. See also Geoffrey’s article “Une Autobiographie de Guichardin d’après ses œuvres inédites,” in the Revue des deux mondes (1st of February 1874).

GUICHARD, KARL GOTTLIEB (1724-1775), soldier and military writer, known as Quintus Icilius, was born at Magdeburg in 1724, of a family of French refugees. He was educated for the Church, and at Leiden actually preached a sermon as a candidate for the pastorate. But he abandoned theology for more secular studies, especially that of ancient history, in which his learning attracted the notice of the prince of Orange, who promised him a vacant professorship at Utrecht. On his arrival, however, he found that another scholar had been elected by the local authorities, and he thereupon sought and obtained a commission in the Dutch army. He made the campaigns of 1747-48 in the Low Countries. In the peace which followed, his combined military and classical training turned his thoughts in the direction of ancient military history. His notes on this subject grew into a treatise, and in 1754 he went over to England in order to consult various libraries. In 1757 his Mémoires militaires sur les Grecs et les Romains appeared at the Hague, and when Carlyle wrote his Frederick the Great it had reached its fifth edition. Coming back, with English introductions, to the Continent, he sought service with Ferdinand of Brunswick, who sent him on to Frederick the Great, whom he joined in January 1758 at Breslau. The king was very favourably impressed with Guichard and his works, and he remained for nearly 18 months in the royal suite. His Prussian official name of Quintus Icilius was the outcome of a friendly dispute with the king (see Nikolai, Anekdoten, vi. 129-145; Carlyle, Frederick the Great, viii. 113-114). Frederick in discussing the battle of Pharsalia spoke of a centurion Quintus Caecilius as Q. Icilius. Guichard ventured to correct him, whereupon the king said, “You shall be Quintus Icilius,” and as Major Quintus Icilius he was forthwith gazetted to the command of a free battalion. This corps he commanded throughout the later stages of the Seven Years’ War, his battalion, as time went on, becoming a regiment of three battalions, and Quintus himself recruited seven more battalions of the same kind of troops. His command was almost always with the king’s own army in these campaigns, but for a short time it fought in the western theatre under Prince Henry. When not on the march he was always at the royal headquarters, and it was he who brought about the famous interview between the king and Gellert (see Carlyle, Frederick the Great, ix. 109; Gellert, Briefwechsel mit Demoiselle Lucius, ed. Ebert, Leipzig, 1823, pp. 629-631) on the subject of national German literature. On 22nd January 1761 Quintus was ordered to sack the castle of Hubertusburg (a task which Major-General Saldern had point-blank refused to undertake, from motives of conscience), and carried out his task, it is said, to his own very considerable profit. The place cannot have been seriously injured, as it was soon afterwards the meeting-place of the diplomatists whose work ended in the peace of Hubertusburg, but the king never ceased to banter Quintus on his supposed depredations. The very day of Frederick’s triumphant return from the war saw the disbanding of most of the free battalions, including that of Quintus, but the major to the end of his life remained with the king. He was made lieutenant-colonel in 1765, and in 1773, in recognition of his work Mémoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d’antiquités militaires, dealing mainly with Caesar’s campaigns in Spain (Berlin, 1773), was promoted colonel. He died at Potsdam, 1775.

GUICHEN, LUC URBAIN DE BOUËXIC, Comte de (1712-1790), French admiral, entered the navy in 1730 as “garde de la Marine,” the first rank in the corps of royal officers. His promotion was not rapid. It was not till 1748 that he became “lieutenant de vaisseau,” which was, however, a somewhat higher rank than the lieutenant in the British navy, since it carried with it the right to command a frigate. He was “capitaine de vaisseau,” or post captain, in 1756. But his reputation must have been good, for he was made chevalier de Saint Louis in 1748. In 1775 he was appointed to the frigate “Terpsichore,” attached to the training squadron, in which the duc de Chartres, afterwards notorious as the duc d’Orléans and as Philippe Égalité, was entered as volunteer. In the next year he was promoted chef d’escadre, or rear-admiral. When France had become the ally of the Americans in the War of Independence, he hoisted his flag in the Channel fleet, and was present at the battle of Ushant on the 27th of July 1779. In March of the following year he was sent to the West Indies with a strong squadron and was there opposed to Sir George Rodney. In the first meeting between them on the 17th of April to leeward of Martinique, Guichen escaped disaster only through the clumsy manner in which Sir George’s orders were executed by his captains. Seeing that he had to deal with a formidable opponent, Guichen acted with extreme caution, and by keeping the weather gauge afforded the British admiral no chance of bringing him to close action. When the hurricane months approached (July to September) he left the West Indies, and his squadron, being in a bad state from want of repairs, returned home, reaching Brest in September. Throughout all this campaign Guichen had shown himself very skilful in handling a fleet, and if he had not gained any marked success, he had prevented the British admiral from doing any harm to the French islands in the Antilles. In December 1781 the comte de Guichen was chosen to command the force which was entrusted with the duty of carrying stores and reinforcements to the West Indies. On the 12th Admiral Kempenfelt, who had been sent out by the British Government with an unduly weak force to intercept him, sighted the French admiral in the Bay of Biscay through a temporary clearance in a fog, at a moment when Guichen’s warships were to leeward of the convoy, and attacked the transports at once. The French admiral could not prevent his enemy from capturing twenty of the transports, and driving the others into a panic-stricken flight. They returned to port, and the mission entrusted to Guichen was entirely defeated. He therefore returned to port also. He had no opportunity to gain any counterbalancing success during the short remainder of the war, but he was present at the final relief of Gibraltar by Lord Howe. His death occurred on the 13th of January 1790. The comte de Guichen was, by the testimony of his contemporaries, a most accomplished and high-minded gentleman. It is probable that he had more scientific knowledge than any of his English contemporaries and opponents. But as a commander in war he was notable chiefly for his skill in directing the orderly movements of a fleet, and seems to have been satisfied with formal operations, which were possibly elegant but could lead to no substantial result. He had none of the combative instincts of his countryman Suffren, or of the average British admiral.

See vicomte de Noailles, Marins et soldats français en Amérique (1903); and E. Chevalier, Histoire de la marine française pendant la guerre de l’indépendence américaine (1877).

(D. H.)

GUIDE (in Mid. Eng. gyde, from the Fr. guide; the earlier French form was guie, English “guy,” the d was due to the Italian form guida; the ultimate origin is probably Teutonic, the word being connected with the base seen in O. Eng. witan, to know), an agency for directing or showing the way, specifically a person who leads or directs a stranger over unknown or unmapped country, or conducts travellers and tourists through a town, or over buildings of interest. In European wars up to the time of the French Revolution, the absence of large scale detailed maps made local guides almost essential to the direction of military operations, and in the 18th century the general tendency to the stricter organization of military resources led in various countries to the special training of guide officers (called Feldjäger, and considered as general staff officers in the Prussian army), whose chief duty it was to find, and if necessary establish, routes across country for those parts of the army that had to move parallel to the main road and as nearly as possible at deploying interval from each other, for in those days armies were rarely spread out so far as to have the use of two or more made roads. But the necessity for such precautions died away when adequate surveys (in which guide officers were, at any rate in Prussia, freely employed) were carried out, and, as a definite term of military organization to-day, “guide” possesses no more essential peculiarity than fusilier, grenadier or rifleman. The genesis of the modern “Guide” regiments is perhaps to be found in a short-lived Corps of Guides formed by Napoleon in Italy in 1796, which appears to have been a personal escort or body guard composed of men who knew the country. In the Belgian army of to-day the Guide regiments correspond almost to the Guard cavalry of other nations; in the Swiss army the squadrons of “Guides” act as divisional cavalry, and in this role doubtless are called upon on occasion to lead columns. The “Queen’s own Corps of Guides” of the Indian army consists of infantry companies and cavalry squadrons. In drill, a “guide” is an officer or non-commissioned officer told off to regulate the direction and pace of movements, the remainder of the unit maintaining their alignment and distances by him.

A particular class of guides are those employed in mountaineering; these are not merely to show the way but stand in the position of professional climbers with an expert knowledge of rock and snowcraft, which they impart to the amateur, at the same time assuring the safety of the climbing party in dangerous expeditions. This professional class of guides arose in the middle of the 19th century when Alpine climbing became recognized as a sport (see Mountaineering). It is thus natural to find that the Alpine guides have been requisitioned for mountaineering expeditions all over the world. In climbing in Switzerland, the central committee of the Swiss Alpine Club issues a guides’ tariff which fixes the charges for guides and porters; there are three sections, for the Valais and Vaudois Alps, for the Bernese Oberland, and for central and eastern Switzerland. The names of many of the great guides have become historical. In Chamonix a statue has been raised to Jacques Balmat, who was the first to climb Mont Blanc in 1786. Of the more famous guides since the beginning of Alpine climbing may be mentioned Auguste Balmat, Michel Cros, Maquignay, J. A. Carrel, who went with E. Whymper to the Andes, the brothers Lauener, Christian Almer and Jakob and Melchior Anderegg.

“Guide” is also applied to a book, in the sense of an elementary primer on some subject, or of one giving full information for travellers of a country, district or town. In mechanical usage, the term “guide” is of wide application, being used of anything which steadies or directs the motion of an object, as of the “leading” screw of a screw-cutting lathe, of a loose pulley used to steady a driving-belt, or of the bars or rods in a steam-engine which keep the sliding blocks moving in a straight line. The doublet “guy” is thus used of a rope which steadies a sail when it is being raised or lowered, or of a rope, chain or stay supporting a funnel, mast, derrick, &c.

GUIDI, CARLO ALESSANDRO (1650-1712), Italian lyric poet, was born at Pavia in 1650. As chief founder of the well-known Roman academy called “L’Arcadia,” he had a considerable share in the reform of Italian poetry, corrupted at that time by the extravagance and bad taste of the poets Marini and Achillini and their school. The poet Guidi and the critic and jurisconsult Gravina checked this evil by their influence and example. The genius of Guidi was lyric in the highest degree; his songs are written with singular force, and charm the reader, in spite of touches of bombast. His most celebrated song is that entitled Alla Fortuna (To Fortune), which certainly is one of the most beautiful pieces of poetry of the 17th century. Guidi was squint-eyed, humpbacked, and of a delicate constitution, but possessed undoubted literary ability. His poems were printed at Parma in 1671, and at Rome in 1704. In 1681 he published at Parma his lyric tragedy Amalasunta in Italy, and two pastoral dramas Daphne and Endymion. The last had the honour of being mentioned as a model by the critic Gravina, in his treatise on poetry. Less fortunate was Guidi’s poetical version of the six homilies of Pope Clement XI., first as having been severely criticized by the satirist Settano, and next as having proved to be the indirect cause of the author’s death. A splendid edition of this version had been printed in 1712, and, the pope being then in San Gandolfo, Guidi went there to present him with a copy. On the way he found out a serious typographical error, which he took so much to heart that he was seized with an apoplectic fit at Frascati and died on the spot. Guidi was honoured with the special protection of Ranuccio II., duke of Parma, and of Queen Christina of Sweden.

GUIDICCIONI, GIOVANNI (1480-1541), Italian poet, was born at Lucca in 1480, and died at Macerata in 1541. He occupied a high position, being bishop of Fossombrone and president of Romagna. The latter office nearly cost him his life; a murderer attempted to kill him, and had already touched his breast with his dagger when, conquered by the resolute calmness of the prelate, he threw away the weapon and fell at his feet, asking forgiveness. The Rime and Letters of Guidiccioni are models of elegant and natural Italian style. The best editions are those of Genoa (1749), Bergamo (1753) and Florence (1878).

GUIDO OF AREZZO (possibly to be identified with Guido de St Maur des Fosses), a musician who lived in the 11th century. He has by many been called the father of modern music, and a portrait of him in the refectory of the monastery of Avellana bears the inscription Beatus Guido, inventor musicae. Of his life little is known, and that little is chiefly derived from the dedicatory letters prefixed to two of his treatises and addressed respectively to Bishop Theodald (not Theobald, as Burney writes the name) of Arezzo, and Michael, a monk of Pomposa and Guido’s pupil and friend. Occasional references to the celebrated musician in the works of his contemporaries are, however, by no means rare, and from these it may be conjectured with all but absolute certainty that Guido was born in the last decade of the 10th century. The place of his birth is uncertain in spite of some evidence pointing to Arezzo; on the title-page of all his works he is styled Guido Aretinus, or simply Aretinus. At his first appearance in history Guido was a monk in the Benedictine monastery of Pomposa, and it was there that he taught singing and invented his educational method, by means of which, according to his own statement, a pupil might learn within five months what formerly it would have taken him ten years to acquire. Envy and jealousy, however, were his only reward, and by these he was compelled to leave his monastery—“inde est, quod me vides prolixis finibus exulatum,” as he says himself in the second of the letters above referred to. According to one account, he travelled as far as Bremen, called there by Archbishop Hermann in order to reform the musical service. But this statement has been doubted. Certain it is that not long after his flight from Pomposa Guido was living at Arezzo, and it was here that, about 1030, he received an invitation to Rome from Pope John XIV. He obeyed the summons, and the pope himself became his first and apparently one of his most proficient pupils. But in spite of his success Guido could not be induced to remain in Rome, the insalubrious air of which seems to have affected his health. In Rome he met again his former superior, the abbot of Pomposa, who seems to have repented of his conduct, and to have induced Guido to return to Pomposa; and here all authentic records of Guido’s life cease. We only know that he died, on the 17th of May 1050, as prior of Avellana, a monastery of the Camaldulians; such at least is the statement of the chroniclers of that order. It ought, however, to be added that the Camaldulians claim the celebrated musician as wholly their own, and altogether deny his connexion with the Benedictines.

The documents discovered by Dom Germain Morin, the Belgian Benedictine, about 1888, point to the conclusion that Guido was a Frenchman and lived from his youth upwards in the Benedictine monastery of St Maur des Fosses where he invented his novel system of notation and taught the brothers to sing by it. In codex 763 of the British Museum the composer of the “Micrologus” and other works by Guido of Arezzo is always described as Guido de Sancto Mauro.

There is no doubt that Guido’s method shows considerable progress in the evolution of modern notation. It was he who for the first time systematically used the lines of the staff, and the intervals or spatia between them. There is also little doubt that the names of the first six notes of the scale, ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la, still in use among Romance nations, were introduced by Guido, although he seems to have used them in a relative rather than in an absolute sense. It is well known that these words are the first syllables of six lines of a hymn addressed to St John the Baptist, which may be given here:—

Ut queant laxis resonare fibris

Mira gestorum famuli tuorum,

Solve polluti labii reatum,

Sancte Joannes.

In addition to this Guido is generally credited with the introduction of the F clef. But more important than all this, perhaps, is the thoroughly practical tone which Guido assumes in his theoretical writings, and which differs greatly from the clumsy scholasticism of his contemporaries and predecessors.

The most important of Guido’s treatises, and those which are generally acknowledged to be authentic, are Micrologus Guidonis de disciplina artis musicae, dedicated to Bishop Theodald of Arezzo, and comprising a complete theory of music, in 20 chapters; Musicae Guidonis regulae rhythmicae in antiphonarii sui prologum prolatae, written in trochaic decasyllabics of anything but classical structure; Aliae Guidonis regulae de ignoto cantu, identidem in antiphonarii sui prologum prolatae; and the Epistola Guidonis Michaeli monacho de ignoto cantu, already referred to. These are published in the second volume of Gerbert’s Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra. A very important manuscript unknown to Gerbert (the Codex bibliothecae Uticensis, in the Paris library) contains, besides minor treatises, an antiphonarium and gradual undoubtedly belonging to Guido.

See also L. Angeloni, G. d’Arezzo (1811); Kiesewetter, Guido von Arezzo (1840); Kornmüller, “Leben und Werken Guidos von Arezzo,” in Habert’s Jahrb. (1876); Antonio Brandi, G. Aretino (1882); G. B. Ristori, Biografia di Guido monaco d’Arezzo (1868).

GUIDO OF SIENA. The name of this Italian painter is of considerable interest in the history of art, on the ground that, if certain assumptions regarding him could be accepted as true, he would be entitled to share with Cimabue, or rather indeed to supersede him in, the honour of having given the first onward impulse to the art of painting. The case stands thus. In the church of S. Domenico in Siena is a large painting of the “Virgin and Child Enthroned,” with six angels above, and in the Benedictine convent of the same city is a triangular pinnacle, once a portion of the same composition, representing the Saviour in benediction, with two angels; the entire work was originally a triptych, but is not so now. The principal section of this picture has a rhymed Latin inscription, giving the painter’s name as Gu ... o de Senis, with the date 1221: the genuineness of the inscription is not, however, free from doubt, and especially it is maintained that the date really reads as 1281. In the general treatment of the picture there is nothing to distinguish it particularly from other work of the same early period; but the heads of the Virgin and Child are indisputably very superior, in natural character and graceful dignity, to anything to be found anterior to Cimabue. The question therefore arises, Are these heads really the work of a man who painted in 1221? Crowe and Cavalcaselle pronounce in the negative, concluding that the heads are repainted, and are, as they now stand, due to some artist of the 14th century, perhaps Ugolino da Siena; thus the claims of Cimabue would remain undisturbed and in their pristine vigour. Beyond this, little is known of Guido da Siena. There is in the Academy of Siena a picture assigned to him, a half-figure of the “Virgin and Child,” with two angels, dating probably between 1250 and 1300; also in the church of S. Bernardino in the same city a Madonna dated 1262. Milanesi thinks that the work in S. Domenico is due to Guido Graziani, of whom no other record remains earlier than 1278, when he is mentioned as the painter of a banner. Guido da Siena appears always to have painted on panel, not in fresco on the wall. He has been termed, very dubiously, a pupil of Pietrolino, and the master of “Diotisalvi,” Mino da Turrita and Berlinghieri da Lucca.

GUIDO RENI (1575-1642), a prime master in the Bolognese school of painting, and one of the most admired artists of the period of incipient decadence in Italy, was born at Calvenzano near Bologna on the 4th of November 1575. His father was a musician of repute, a player on the flageolet; he wished to bring the lad up to perform on the harpsichord. At a very childish age, however, Guido displayed a determined bent towards the art of form, scribbling some attempt at a drawing here, there and everywhere. He was only nine years of age when Denis Calvart took notice of him, received him into his academy of design by the father’s permission, and rapidly brought him forward, so that by the age of thirteen Guido had already attained marked proficiency. Albani and Domenichino became soon afterwards pupils in the same academy. With Albani Guido was very intimate up to the earlier period of manhood, but they afterwards became rivals, both as painters and as heads of ateliers, with a good deal of asperity on Albani’s part; Domenichino was also pitted against Reni by the policy of Annibale Caracci. Guido was still in the academy of Calvart when he began frequenting the opposition school kept by Lodovico Caracci, whose style, far in advance of that of the Flemish painter, he dallied with. This exasperated Calvart. Him Guido, not yet twenty years of age, cheerfully quitted, transferring himself openly to the Caracci academy, in which he soon became prominent, being equally skilful and ambitious. He had not been a year with the Caracci when a work of his excited the wonder of Agostino and the jealousy of Annibale. Lodovico cherished him, and frequently painted him as an angel, for the youthful Reni was extremely handsome. After a while, however, Lodovico also felt himself nettled, and he patronized the competing talents of Giovanni Barbiere. On one occasion Guido had made a copy of Annibale’s “Descent from the Cross”; Annibale was asked to retouch it, and, finding nothing to do, exclaimed pettishly, “He knows more than enough” (“Costui ne sa troppo”). On another occasion Lodovico, consulted as umpire, lowered a price which Reni asked for an early picture. This slight determined the young man to be a pupil no more. He left the Caracci, and started on his own account as a competitor in the race for patronage and fame. A renowned work, the story of “Callisto and Diana,” had been completed before he left.