Chapter XIII: Act 1856: , is mainly declaratory of the English common law, as embodied (6)

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 romischen Kirche von Gregor VII. bis
Innocenz III._ (Bonn, 1893); Jaffe-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. Kohncke,
_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 Benoit, 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 general 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 Jahns, _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 manoeuvres; 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 _Defense du systeme de guerre moderne_, a reply to his many critics (Neuchatel, 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 _marechal 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 armees de S. M. Prussienne_ (Amsterdam, 1778), _Eloges_ of Marshal Catinat (1775), of Michel de l'Hopital (1778), and of Frederick the Great (1787). Guibert was a member of the Academy from 1786, and he also wrote a tragedy, _Le Connetable de Bourbon_ (1775) and a journal of travels in France and Switzerland.

See Toulongeon, _Eloge veridique de Guibert_ (Paris, 1790); Madame de
Stael, _Eloge de Guibert_; Bardin, _Notice historique du general
Guibert_ (Paris, 1836); Flavian d'Aldeguier, _Discours sur la vie et
les ecrits du comte de Guibert_ (Toulouse, 1855); Count Forestie,
_Biographie du comte de Guibert_ (Montauban, 1855); Count zur Lippe,
"Friedr. der Grosse und Oberst Guibert" (_Militar-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 oi 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'etat
italien an XVI^e siecle_ (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'apres ses oeuvres inedites," 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 _Memoires 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 _Memoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d'antiquites militaires_, dealing mainly with Caesar's campaigns in Spain (Berlin, 1773), was promoted colonel. He died at Potsdam, 1775.

GUICHEN, LUC URBAIN DE BOUEXIC, 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'Orleans and as Philippe Egalite, 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 francais en Amerique_
(1903); and E. Chevalier, _Histoire de la marine francaise pendant la
guerre de l'independence americaine_ (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 _Feldjager_, 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 _re_sonare fibris
_Mi_ra gestorum _fa_muli tuorum,
_Sol_ve polluti _la_bii 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); Kornmuller, "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.

Guido was faithful to the eclectic principle of the Bolognese school of painting. He had appropriated something from Calvart, much more from Lodovico Caracci; he studied with much zest after Albert Durer; he adopted the massive, sombre and partly uncouth manner of Caravaggio. One day Annibale Caracci made the remark that a style might be formed reversing that of Caravaggio in such matters as the ponderous shadows and the gross common forms; this observation germinated in Guido's mind, and he endeavoured after some such style, aiming constantly at suavity. Towards 1602 he went to Rome with Albani, and Rome remained his headquarters for twenty years. Here, in the pontificate of Paul V. (Borghese), he was greatly noted and distinguished. In the garden-house of the Rospigliosi Palace he painted the vast fresco which is justly regarded as his masterpiece--"Phoebus and the Hours preceded by Aurora." This exhibits his second manner, in which he had deviated far indeed from the promptings of Caravaggio. He founded now chiefly upon the antique, more especially the Niobe group and the "Venus de' Medici," modified by suggestions from Raphael, Correggio, Parmigiano and Paul Veronese. Of this last painter, although on the whole he did not get much from him, Guido was a particular admirer; he used to say that he would rather have been Paul Veronese than any other master--Paul was more nature than art. The "Aurora" is beyond doubt a work of pre-eminent beauty and attainment; it is stamped with pleasurable dignity, and, without being effeminate, has a more uniform aim after graceful selectness than can readily be traced in previous painters, greatly superior though some of them had been in impulse and personal fervour of genius. The pontifical chapel of Montecavallo was assigned to Reni to paint; but, being straitened in payments by the ministers, the artist made off to Bologna. He was fetched back by Paul V. with ceremonious eclat, and lodging, living and equipage were supplied to him. At another time he migrated from Rome to Naples, having received a commission to paint the chapel of S. Gennaro. The notorious cabal of three painters resident in Naples--Corenzio, Caracciolo and Ribera--offered, however, as stiff an opposition to Guido as to some other interlopers who preceded and succeeded him. They gave his servant a beating by the hands of two unknown bullies, and sent by him a message to his master to depart or prepare for death; Guido waited for no second warning, and departed. He now returned to Rome; but he finally left that city abruptly, in the pontificate of Urban VIII., in consequence of an offensive reprimand administered to him by Cardinal Spinola. He had received an advance of 400 scudi on account of an altarpiece for St Peter's, but after some lapse of years had made no beginning with the work. A broad reminder from the cardinal put Reni on his mettle; he returned the 400 scudi, quitted Rome within a few days, and steadily resisted all attempts at recall. He now resettled in Bologna. He had taught as well as painted in Rome, and he left pupils behind him; but on the whole he did not stamp any great mark upon the Roman school of painting, apart from his own numerous works in the papal city.