Chapter XVI: Act 1856: , is mainly declaratory of the English common law, as embodied (9)

Of the children of Francis "le Balafre" five survived him: Henry, 3rd
duke of Guise; Charles, duke of Mayenne (1554-1611) (q.v.), who
consolidated the League; Catherine (1552-1596), who married Louis of
Bourbon, duke of Montpensier, and encouraged the fanaticism of the
Parisian leaguers; Louis, second cardinal of Guise, afterwards of
Lorraine (1555-1588), who was assassinated with his brother Henry; and
Francis (1558-1573).

HENRY OF LORRAINE, 3rd duke of Guise (1550-1588), born on the 31st of December 1550, was thirteen years old at the time of his father's death, and grew up under the domination of a passionate desire for revenge. Catherine de' Medici refused to take steps against Coligny, who was formally accused by the duchess of Guise and her brothers-in-law of having incited the murder. In 1566 she insisted on a formal reconciliation at Moulins between the Guises and Coligny, at which, however, none of the sons of the murdered man was present. Henry and his brothers were, however, compelled in 1572 to sign an ambiguous assent to this agreement. Guise's widow married James of Savoy, duke of Nemours, and the young duke at sixteen went to fight against the Turks in Hungary. On the fresh outbreak of civil war in 1567 he returned to France and served under his uncle Aumale. In the autumn of 1568 he received a considerable command, and speedily came into rivalry with Henry of Valois, duke of Anjou. He had not inherited his father's generalship, and his rashness and headstrong valour more than once brought disaster on his troops, but the showy quality of his fighting brought him great popularity in the army. In the defence of Poitiers in 1569 with his brother, the duke of Mayenne, he showed more solid abilities as a soldier. On the conclusion of peace in 1570 he returned to court, where he made no secret of his attachment to Margaret of Valois. His pretensions were violently resented by her brothers, who threatened his life, and he saved himself by a precipitate marriage with Catherine of Cleves (daughter of Francis of Cleves, duke of Nevers, and Margaret of Bourbon), the widow of a Huguenot nobleman, Antoine de Crog, prince of Porcien. Presently he ended his disgrace by an apparent reconciliation with Henry of Valois and an alliance with Catherine de' Medici. He was an accomplice in the first attack on Coligny's life, and when permission for the massacre of Saint Bartholomew had been extorted from Charles IX. he roused Paris against the Huguenots, and satisfied his personal vengeance by superintending the murder of Coligny. He was now the acknowledged chief of the Catholic party, and the power of his family was further increased by the marriage (1575) of Henry III. with Louise of Vaudemont, who belonged to the elder branch of the house of Lorraine. In a fight at Dormans (10th of October 1575), the only Catholic victory in a disastrous campaign, Guise received a face wound which won for him his father's name of Balafre and helped to secure the passionate attachment of the Parisians. He refused to acquiesce in the treaty of Beaulieu (5th of May 1576), and with the support of the Jesuits proceeded to form a "holy league" for the defence of the Roman Catholic Church. The terms of enrolment enjoined offensive action against all who refused to join. This association had been preceded by various provincial leagues among the Catholics, notably one at Peronne. Conde had been imposed on this town as governor by the terms of the peace, and the local nobility banded together to resist him. This, like the Holy League itself, was political as well as religious in its aims, and was partly inspired by revolt against the royal authority. In the direction of the League Guise was hampered by Philip of Spain, who subsidized the movement, while he also had to submit to the dictation of the Parisian democracy. Ulterior ambitions were freely ascribed to him. It was asserted that papers seized from his envoy to Rome, Jean David, revealed a definite design of substituting the Lorraines, who represented themselves as the successors of Charlemagne, for the Valois; but these papers were probably a Huguenot forgery. Henry III. eventually placed himself at the head of the League, and resumed the war against the Huguenots; but on the conclusion of peace (September 1577) he seized the opportunity of disbanding the Catholic associations. The king's jealousy of Guise increased with the duke's popularity, but he did not venture on an open attack, nor did he dare to avenge the murder by Guise's partisans of one of his personal favourites, Saint-Megrin, who had been set on by the court to compromise the reputation of the duchess of Guise.[1]

Meanwhile the duke had entered on an equivocal alliance with Don John of Austria. He was also in constant correspondence with Mary of Lorraine, and meditated a descent on Scotland in support of the Catholic cause. But the great riches of the Guises were being rapidly dissipated, and in 1578 the duke became a pensioner of Philip II. When in 1584 the death of the duke of Anjou made Henry of Navarre the next heir to the throne, the prospect of a Huguenot dynasty roused the Catholics to forget their differences, and led to the formation of a new league of the Catholic nobles. At the end of the same year Guise and his brother, the duke of Mayenne, with the assent of other Catholic nobles, signed a treaty at Joinville with Philip II., fixing the succession to the crown on Charles, cardinal of Bourbon, to the exclusion of the Protestant princes of his house. In March 1585 the chiefs of the League issued the Declaration of Peronne, exposing their grievances against the government and announcing their intention to restore the dignity of religion by force of arms. On the refusal of Henry III. to accept Spanish help against his Huguenot subjects, war broke out. The chief cities of France declared for the League, and Guise, who had recruited his forces in Germany and Switzerland, took up his headquarters at Chalons, while Mayenne occupied Dijon, and his relatives, the dukes of Elbeuf, Aumale and Mercoeur,[2] roused Normandy and Brittany. Henry III. accepted, or feigned to accept, the terms imposed by the Guises at Nemours (7th of July 1585). The edicts in favour of the Huguenots were immediately revoked. Guise added to his reputation as the Catholic champion by defeating the German auxiliaries of the Huguenots at Vimory (October 1587) and Auneau (November 1587). The protestations of loyalty to Henry III. which had marked the earlier manifestoes of the League were modified. Obedience to the king was now stated to depend on his giving proof of Catholic zeal and showing no favour to heresy. In April 1588 Guise arrived in Paris, where he put himself at the head of the Parisian mob, and on the 12th of May, known as the Day of the Barricades, he actually had the crown within his grasp. He refused to treat with Catherine de' Medici, who was prepared to make peace at any cost, but restrained the populace from revolution and permitted Henry to escape from Paris. Henry came to terms with the League in May, and made Guise lieutenant-general of the royal armies. The estates-general, which were assembled at Blois, were devoted to the Guise interest, and alarmed the king by giving voice to the political as well as the religious aspirations of the League. Guise remained at the court of Blois after receiving repeated warnings that Henry meditated treason. On the 25th of December he was summoned to the king's chamber during a sitting of the royal council, and was murdered by assassins carefully posted by Henry III. himself. The cardinal of Lorraine was murdered in prison on the next day. The history of the Guises thenceforward centres in the duke of Mayenne (q.v.).

By his wife, Catherine of Cleves, the third duke had fourteen
children: among them Charles, 4th duke of Guise (1571-1640); Claude,
duke of Chevreuse (1578-1657), whose wife, Marie de Rohan, duchess of
Chevreuse, became famous for her intrigues; Louis (1585-1621), 3rd
cardinal of Guise, archbishop of Reims, remembered for his liaison
with Charlotte des Essarts, mistress of Henry IV.

CHARLES, 4th duke of Guise (1571-1640), was imprisoned for three years after his father's death. He married Henriette Catherine de Joyeuse, widow of the duke of Montpensier. His eldest son predeceased him, and he was succeeded by his second son HENRY (1614-1664), who had been archbishop of Reims, but renounced the ecclesiastical estate and became 5th duke. He made an attempt (1647) on the crown of Naples, and was a prisoner in Spain from 1648 to 1652. A second expedition to Naples in 1654 was a fiasco. He was succeeded by his nephew, LOUIS JOSEPH (1650-1671), as 6th duke. With his son, FRANCIS JOSEPH (1670-1675), the line failed; and the title and estates passed to his great-aunt, Marie of Lorraine, duchess of Guise (1615-1688), daughter of the 4th duke, and with her the title became extinct. The title is now vested in the family of the Bourbon-Orleans princes.

GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE HOUSE OF GUISE

Rene II. (who united the two branches of the house of Lorraine), duke
of Lorraine, and Philippa of Gelderland, had (besides two older boys
who died in childhood, and four unmarried daughters)

|
+--------------+--------------+------+-----+------------+-----------+
| | | | | |
Antoine, Claude, John, Ferri, Louis, Francis,
duke of 1st duke of 1st cardinal killed at killed at killed at
Lorraine, Guise, of Lorraine. Marignano. Naples. Pavia.
+1544, +1550,
ancestor of = Antoinette
the dukes of of Bourbon.
Lorraine and the |
house of Mercoeur. |
|
+--------------+------------+-------------+------------+----------+------------+---------+
| | | | | | | |
Francis, Charles, Claude, Louis, Francis, Rene, Marie = And
2nd duke of 2nd cardinal marquis of 1st cardinal grand marquis (1) duke of five
Guise, of Lorraine, Mayenne and of Guise, prior. of Elbeuf, Longueville, others.
+1563. +1574. and duke of +1578 +1566. (2) James V.
= Anne of Aumale, | of Scotland.
Este. +1573. | |
| = Louise de Breze. | Mary Stuart,
| | | queen of
| Charles, Charles, Scots.
| duke of Aumale, duke of Elbeuf,
| +1631. +1605.
|
+----+-------------+-------------+----------------+-------------------+
| | | | |
Henry, Charles, Louis, Catherine = And five others.
3rd duke, duke of 2nd cardinal Louis de Bourbon,
+1588 Mayenne, of Guise, duke of
=Catherine +1611. +1588. Montpensier.
of Cleves |
(and had |
14 children). |
| Henry,
| duke of Mayenne,
| +1621.
|
---+--------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| | | |
Charles, Claude, Louis, And eleven more.
4th duke of Guise, duke of Chevreuse, 3rd cardinal of Guise,
+1640. = Marie de Rohan, +1621.
| widow of the duke of Luynes.
|
+------------------------+-------------------------+------------------+
| | | |
Henry, Marie, Louis, And eight
archbishop of Reims, called Mlle. de Guise, chevalier of Guise and more.
and 5th duke, succeeded to the duchy duke of Joyeuse,
+1664. in 1675 and sold her +1654.
rights to Louis Augustus, |
duke of Maine. Louis-Joseph,
6th duke of Guise,
+1671.
|
Francis-Joseph,
7th and last duke of Guise,
+1675.

AUTHORITIES.--A number of contemporary documents relating to the
Guises are included by L. Cimber and F. Danjou in their _Archives
curieuses de l'histoire de France_ (Paris, 1834, &c.). Vol. iii.
contains a soldier's diary of the siege of Metz, first published in
Italian (Lyons, 1553), accounts of the sieges of Calais (Tours, 1558).
of Thionville (Paris, 1558); vol. iv. an account of the tumult of
Amboise from the _Memoires_ of Conde, and four accounts of the affair
of Vassy; vol. v. four accounts of the battle of Dreux, one dictated
by Guise, and accounts of the murder of Guise; vol. xi. accounts of
the Parisian revolution of 1558; and vol. xii. numerous pamphlets and
pieces dealing with the murder of Henry of Guise and his brother. An
account of the murder of Guise and of the subsequent measures taken by
Mayenne, which was supplied by the Venetian ambassador, G. Mocenigo,
to his government, is printed by H. Brown in the _Eng. Hist. Rev._
(April 1895). For the foreign policy of the Guises, and especially
their relations with Scotland, there is abundant material in the
English _Calendar of State Papers_ of Queen Elizabeth (Foreign Series)
and in the correspondence of Cardinal Granvella. The memoirs of
Francis, duke of Guise, covering the years 1547 to 1563, were
published by Michel and Poujoulat in series 1, vol. iv. of their
_Coll. de memoires_. Among contemporary memoirs see especially those
of the prince of Conde, of Blaise de Monluc and of Gaspard de
Saulx-Tavannes. See also _La Vie de F. de Lorraine, duc de Guise_
(Paris, 1681), by J. B. H. du Trousset de Valincourt; A. de Ruble,
_L'Assassinat de F. de Lorraine, duc de Guise_ (1897), where there is
a list of the MS. sources available for a history of the house; R. de
Bouille, _Hist. des ducs de Guise_ (4 vols., 1849); H. Forneron, _Les
Guise et leur epoque_ (2 vols., 1887).

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This incident supplied Alexandre Dumas _pere_ with the subject of
his _Henri III et sa cour_ (1829).

[2] Philippe-Emmanuel of Lorraine, duke of Mercoeur, a cadet of
Lorraine and brother of Louise de Vaudemont, Henry III.'s queen. His
wife, Mary of Luxemburg, descended from the dukes of Brittany, and he
was made governor of the province in 1582. He aspired to separate
sovereignty, and called his son prince and duke of Brittany.

GUITAR (Fr. _guitarre_, Ger. _Guitarre_, Ital. _chitarra_, Span. _guitarra_), a musical instrument strung with gut strings twanged by the fingers, having a body with a flat back and graceful incurvations in complete contrast to the members of the family of lute (i.e.), whose back is vaulted. The construction of the instrument is of paramount importance in assigning to the guitar its true position in the history of musical instruments, midway between the cithara (i.e.) and the violin. The medieval stringed instruments with neck fall into two classes, characterized mainly by the construction of the body: (1) Those which, like their archetype the cithara, had a body composed of a flat or delicately arched back and soundboard joined by ribs. (2) Those which, like the lyre, had a body consisting of a vaulted back over which was glued a flat soundboard without the intermediary of ribs; this method of construction predominates among Oriental Instruments and is greatly inferior to the first. A striking proof of this inferiority is afforded by the fact that instruments with vaulted backs, such as the rebab or rebec, although extensively represented during the middle ages in all parts of Europe by numerous types, have shown but little or no development during the course of some twelve centuries, and have dropped out one by one from the realm of practical music without leaving a single survivor. The guitar must be referred to the first of these classes.

The back and ribs of the guitar are of maple, ash or cherry-wood, frequently inlaid with rose-wood, mother-of-pearl, tortoise-shell, &c., while the soundboard is of pine and has one large ornamental rose sound hole. The bridge, to which the strings are fastened, is of ebony with an ivory nut which determines the one end of the vibrating strings, while the nut at the end of the fingerboard determines the other. The neck and fingerboard are made of hard wood, such as ebony, beech or pear. The head, bent back from the neck at an obtuse angle contains two parallel barrels or long holes through which the pegs or metal screws pass, three on each side of the head. The correct positions for stopping the intervals are marked on the fingerboard by little metal ridges called frets. The modern guitar has six strings, three of gut and three of silk covered with silver wire, tuned as shown. To the thumb are assigned the three deepest strings, while the first, second and third fingers are used to twang the highest strings. It is generally stated that the sixth or lowest string was added in 1790 by Jacob August Otto of Jena, who was the first in Germany to take up the construction of guitars after their introduction from Italy in 1788 by the duchess Amalie of Weimar. Otto[1] states that it was Capellmeister Naumann of Dresden who requested him to make him a guitar with six strings by adding the low E, a spun wire string. The original guitar brought from Italy by the duchess Amalie had five strings,[2] the lowest A being the only one covered with wire. Otto also covered the D in order to increase the fulness of the tone. In Spain six-stringed guitars and vihuelas were known in the 16th century; they are described by Juan Bermudo[3] and others.[4] The lowest string was tuned to G. Other Spanish guitars of the same period had four, five or seven strings or courses of strings in pairs of unisons. They were always twanged by the fingers.

FIG. 1.--Spanish Guitar with seven Strings. 1555. _Vihuela da Mano_.]

The guitar is derived from the cithara[5] both structurally and
etymologically. It is usually asserted that the guitar was introduced
into Spain by the Arabs, but this statement is open to the gravest
doubts. There is no trace among the instruments of the Arabs known to
us of any similar to the guitar in construction or shape, although a
guitar (fig. 2) with slight incurvations was known to the ancient
Egyptians.[6] There is also extant a fine example of the guitar, with
ribs and incurvations and a long neck provided with numerous frets, on
a Hittite bas-relief on the dromos at Euyuk (_c_. 1000 B.C.) in
Cappadocia.[7] Unless other monuments of much later date should come
to light showing guitars with ribs, we shall be justified in assuming
that the instrument, which required skill in construction, died out in
Egypt and in Asia before the days of classic Greece, and had to be
evolved anew from the cithara by the Greeks of Asia Minor. That the
evolution should take place within the Byzantine Empire or in Syria
would be quite consistent with the traditions of the Greeks and their
veneration for the cithara, which would lead them to adapt the neck
and other improvements to it, rather than adopt the rebab, the tanbur
or the barbiton from the Persians or Arabians. This is, in fact, what
seems to have taken place. It is true that in the 14th century in an
enumeration of musical instruments by the Archipreste de Hita, a
_guitarra morisca_ is mentioned and unfavourably compared with the
_guitarra latina_; moreover, the Arabs of the present day still use an
instrument called _kuitra_ (which in N. Africa would be guithara), but
it has a vaulted back, the body being like half a pear with a long
neck; the strings are twanged by means of a quill. The Arab instrument
therefore belongs to a different class, and to admit the instrument as
the ancestor of the Spanish guitar would be tantamount to deriving the
guitar from the lute.[8]

By piecing together various indications given by Spanish writers, we
obtain a clue to the identity of the medieval instruments, which, in
the absence of absolute proof, is entitled to serious consideration.
From Bermudo's work, quoted above, we learn that the guitar and the
_vihuela da mano_ were practically identical, differing only in
accordance and occasionally in the number of strings.[9] Three kinds
of vihuelas were known in Spain during the middle ages, distinguished
by the qualifying phrases _da arco_ (with bow), _da mano_ (by hand),
_da penola_ (with quill). Spanish scholars[10] who have inquired into
this question of identity state that the _guitarra latina_ was
afterwards known as the _vihuela da mano_, a statement fully supported
by other evidence. As the Arab _kuitra_ was known to be played by
means of a quill, we shall not be far wrong in identifying it with the
_vihuela da penola_. The word _vihuela_ or _vigola_ is connected with
the Latin _fidicula_ or _fides_, a stringed instrument mentioned by
Cicero[11] as being made from the wood of the plane-tree and having
many strings. The remaining link in the chain of identification is
afforded by St Isidore, bishop of Seville in the 7th century, who
states that fidicula was another name for cithara, "Veteres aut
citharas fidicula vel fidice nominaverunt."[12] The fidicula therefore
was the cithara, either in its original classical form or in one of
the transitions which transformed it into the guitar. The existence of
a superior _guitarra latina_ side by side with the _guitarra morisca_
is thus explained. It was derived directly from the classical cithara
introduced by the Romans into Spain, the archetype of the structural
beauty which formed the basis of the perfect proportions and delicate
structure of the violin. In an inventory[13] made by Philip van Wilder
of the musical instruments which had belonged to Henry VIII. is the
following item bearing on the question: "foure gitterons with iiii.
cases _they are called Spanishe Vialles_." _Vial_ or _viol_ was the
English equivalent of _vihuela_. The transitions whereby the cithara
acquired a neck and became a guitar are shown in the miniatures (fig.
3) of a single MS., the celebrated Utrecht Psalter, which gave rise to
so many discussions. The Utrecht Psalter was executed in the diocese
of Reims in the 9th century, and the miniatures, drawn by an
Anglo-Saxon artist attached to the Reims school, are unique, and
illustrate the Psalter, psalm by psalm. It is evident that the
Anglo-Saxon artist, while endowed with extraordinary talent and vivid
imagination, drew his inspiration from an older Greek illustrated
Psalter from the Christian East,[14] where the evolution of the guitar
took place.

FIG. 2.--Ancient Egyptian Guitar. 1700 to 1200 B.C.]

FIG. 4.--Representation of a European Guitar. A.D. 1180.]

One of the earliest representations (fig. 4) of a guitar in Western
Europe occurs in a Passionale from Zwifalten A.D. 1180, now in the
Royal Library at Stuttgart.[15] St Pelagia seated on an ass holds a
rotta, or cithara in transition, while one of the men-servants leading
her ass holds her guitar. Both instruments have three strings and the
characteristic guitar outline with incurvations, the rotta differing
in having no neck. Mersenne[16] writing early in the 17th century
describes and figures two Spanish guitars, one with four, the other
with five strings; the former had a cittern head, the latter the
straight head bent back at an obtuse angle from the neck, as in the
modern instrument; he gives the Italian, French and Spanish tablatures
which would seem to show that the guitar already enjoyed a certain
vogue in France and Italy as well as in Spain. Mersenne states that
the proportions of the guitar demand that the length of the neck from
shoulder to nut shall be equal to the length of the body from the
centre of the rose to the tail end. From this time until the middle of
the 19th century the guitar enjoyed great popularity on the continent,
and became the fashionable instrument in England after the Peninsular
War, mainly through the virtuosity of Ferdinand Sor, who also wrote
compositions for it. This popularity of the guitar was due less to its
merits as a solo instrument than to the ease with which it could be
mastered sufficiently to accompany the voice. The advent of the
Spanish guitar in England led to the wane in the popularity of the
cittern, also known at that time in contradistinction as the English
or wire-strung guitar, although the two instruments differed in many
particulars. As further evidence of the great popularity of the guitar
all over Europe may be instanced the extraordinary number of books
extant on the instrument, giving instructions how to play the guitar
and read the tablature.[17] (K. S.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] _Uber den Bau der Bogeninstrumente_ (Jena, 1828), pp. 94 and 95.

[2] See Pietro Millioni, _Vero e facil modo d' imparare a sonare et
accordare da se medesimo la chitarra spagnola_, with illustration
(Rome, 1637).

[3] _Declaracion de instrumentos musicales_ (Ossuna, 1555), fol.
xciii. _b_ and fol. xci. _a_. See also illustration of _vihuela da
mano_.

[4] See also G. G. Kapsperger, _Libro primo di Villanelle con l'
infavolutura del chitarone et alfabeto per la chitarra spagnola_
(three books, Rome, 1610-1623).

[5] See Kathleen Schlesinger, _The Instruments of the Orchestra_,
part ii. "Precursors of the Violin Family," pp. 230-248.

[6] See Denon's _Voyage in Egypt_ (London, 1807, pl. 55).

[7] Illustrated from a drawing in Perrot and Chipiez, "Judee
Sardaigne, Syrie, Cappadoce." Vol. iv. of _Hist. de l'art dans
l'antiquite_, Paris, 1887, p. 670. Also see plate from a photograph
by Prof. John Garstang, in Kathleen Schlesinger, _op. cit._

[8] See Biernath, _Die Guitarre_ (1908).

[9] See also Luys Milan, _Libro de musica de vihuela da mano,
Intitulado Il Maestro_, where the accordance is D, G, C, E, A, D from
bass to treble.

[10] Mariano Soriano, _Fuertes Historia de la musica espanola_
(Madrid, 1855), i. 105, and iv. 208, &c.

[11] _De natura deorum_, ii. 8, 22.

[12] See _Etymologiarium_, lib. iii., cap. 21.

[13] See British Museum, Harleian MS. 1419, fol. 200.

[14] The literature of the Utrecht Psalter embraces a large number of
books and pamphlets in many languages of which the principal are here
given: Professor J. O. Westwood, _Facsimiles of the Miniatures and
Ornaments of Anglo-Saxon and Irish MSS._ (London, 1868); Sir Thos.
Duffus-Hardy, _Report on the Athanasian Creed in connection with the
Utrecht Psalter_ (London, 1872); _Report on the Utrecht Psalter_,
addressed to the Trustees of the British Museum (London, 1874); Sir
Thomas Duffus-Hardy, _Further Report on the Utrecht Psalter_ (London,
1874); Walter de Gray Birch, _The History, Art and Palaeography of
the MS. styled the Utrecht Psalter_ (London, 1876); Anton Springer,
"Die Psalterillustrationen im fruhen Mittelalter mit besonderer
Rucksicht auf den Utrecht Psalter," _Abhandlungen der kgl. sachs.
Ges. d. Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse_, Bd. viii. pp. 187-296,
with 10 facsimile plates in autotype from the MS.; Adolf Goldschmidt,
"Der Utrecht Psalter," in _Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft_, Bd.
xv. (Stuttgart, 1892), pp. 156-166; Franz Friedrich Leitschuh,
_Geschichte der karolingischen Malerei, ihr Bilderkreis und seine
Quellen_ (Berlin, 1894), pp. 321-330; Adolf Goldschmidt, _Der Albani
Psalter in Hildesheim_, &c. (Berlin, 1895); Paul Durrieu, _L'Origine
du MS. celebre dit le Psaultier d'Utrecht_ (Paris, 1895); Hans
Graeven, "Die Vorlage des Utrecht Psalters," paper read before the
XI. International Oriental Congress, Paris, 1897. See also
_Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft_ (Stuttgart, 1898), Bd. xxi. pp.
28-35; J. J. Tikkanen, _Abendlandische Psalter-Illustration im
Mittelalter_, part iii. "Der Utrecht Psalter" (Helsingfors, 1900),
320 pp. and 77 ills. (Professor Tikkanen now accepts the Greek or
Syrian origin of the Utrecht Psalter); Georg Swarzenski, "Die
karolingische Malerei und Plastik in Reims." in _Jahrbuch d. kgl.
preussischen Kunstsammlungen_, Bd. xxiii. (Berlin, 1902), pp. 81-100;
Ormonde M. Dalton, "The Crystal of Lothair," in _Archaologie_, vol.
lix. (1904); Kathleen Schlesinger, _The Instruments of the
Orchestra_, part ii. "The Precursors of the Violin Family," chap.
viii. "The Question of the Origin of the Utrecht Psalter," pp.
352-382 (with illustrations), where all the foregoing are summarized.

[15] Reproduced in Hubert Janitschek's _Geschichte der deutschen
Malerei_, Bd. iii. of _Gesch. der deutschen Kunst_ (Berlin, 1890), p.
118.

[16] _Harmonie universelle_ (Paris, 1636), livre ii. prop. xiv.

[17] See C. F. Becker, _Darstellung der musik. Literatur_ (Leipzig,
1836); and Wilhelm Tappert, "Zur Geschichte der Guitarre," in
_Monatshefte fur Musikgeschichte_ (Berlin, 1882), No. 5. pp. 77-85.

GUITAR FIDDLE (_Troubadour Fiddle_), a modern name bestowed retrospectively upon certain precursors of the violin possessing characteristics of both guitar and fiddle. The name "guitar fiddle" is intended to emphasize the fact that the instrument in the shape of the guitar, which during the middle ages represented the most perfect principle of construction for stringed instruments with necks, adopted at a certain period the use of the bow from instruments of a less perfect type, the rebab and its hybrids. The use of the bow with the guitar entailed certain constructive changes in the instrument: the large central rose sound-hole was replaced by lateral holes of various shapes; the flat bridge, suitable for instruments whose strings were plucked, gave place to the arched bridge required in order to enable the bow to vibrate each string separately; the arched bridge, by raising the strings higher above the soundboard, made the stopping of strings on the neck extremely difficult if not impossible; this matter was adjusted by the addition of a finger-board of suitable shape and dimensions (fig. 1). At this stage the guitar fiddle possesses the essential features of the violin, and may justly claim to be its immediate predecessor[1] not so much through the viols which were the outcome of the Minnesinger fiddle with sloping shoulders, as through the intermediary of the Italian _lyra_, a guitar-shaped bowed instrument with from 7 to 12 strings.

FIG. 1.--Typical Alto Guitar Fiddle, 15th century (Pinakothek, Munich).]

From such evidence as we now possess, it would seem that the evolution
of the early guitar with a neck from the Greek cithara took place
under Greek influence in the Christian East. The various stages of
this transition have been definitely established by the remarkable
miniatures of the Utrecht Psalter.[2] Two kinds of citharas are shown:
the antique rectangular,[3] and the later design with rounded body
having at the point where the arms are added indications of the waist
or incurvations characteristic of the outline of the Spanish
guitar.[4] The first stage in the transition is shown by a cithara or
rotta[5] in which arms and transverse bar are replaced by a kind of
frame repeating the outline of the body and thus completing the second
lobe of the Spanish guitar. The next stages in the transition are
concerned with the addition of a neck[6] and of frets.[7] All these
instruments are twanged by the fingers. One may conclude that the use
of the bow was either unknown at this time (c. 6th century A.D.), or
that it was still confined to instruments of the rebab type. The
earliest known representation of a guitar fiddle complete with bow[8]
(fig. 2) occurs in a Greek Psalter written and illuminated in Caesarea
by the archpriest Theodorus in 1066 (British Museum, Add. MS. 19352).
Instances of perfect guitar fiddles abound in the 13th century MSS.
and monuments, as for instance in a picture by Cimabue (1240-1302). in
the Pitti Gallery in Florence.[9]

FIG. 2.--Earliest example of the Guitar Fiddle. A.D. 1066.]

An evolution on parallel lines appears also to have taken place from
the antique rectangular cithara[10] of the _citharoedes_, which was a
favourite in Romano-Christian art.[11] In this case examples
illustrative of the transitions are found represented in great variety
in Europe. The old German rotta[12] of the 6th century preserved in
the Volker Museum, Berlin, and the instruments played by King David in
two early Anglo-Saxon illuminated MSS., one a Psalter (Cotton MS.
Vesp. A. i. British Museum) finished in A.D. 700, the other "A
Commentary on the Psalms by Cassiodorus _manu Bedae_" of the 8th
century preserved in the Cathedral Library at Durham[13] form examples
of the first stage of transition. From such types as these the
rectangular _crwth_ or crowd was evolved by the addition of a
finger-board and the reduction in the number of strings, which follows
as a natural consequence as soon as an extended compass can be
obtained by stopping the strings. By the addition of a neck we obtain
the clue to the origin of rectangular citterns with rounded corners
and of certain instruments played with the bow whose bodies or
sound-chests have an outline based upon the rectangle with various
modifications. We may not look upon this type of guitar fiddle as due
entirely to western or southern European initiative; its origin like
that of the type approximating to the violin is evidently Byzantine.
It is found among the frescoes which cover walls and barrel vaults in
the palace of Kosseir 'Amra,[14] believed to be that of Caliph Walid
II. (A.D. 744) of the Omayyad dynasty, or of Prince Ahmad, the
Abbasid (862-866). The instrument, a cittern with four strings, is
being played by a bear. Other examples occur in the Stuttgart
Carolingian Psalter[15] (10th century); in MS. 1260 (Bibl. Imp. Paris)
_Tristan and Yseult_; as guitar fiddle in the Liber Regalis preserved
in Westminster Abbey (14th century); in the Sforza Book[16]
(1444-1476), the Book of Hours executed for Bona of Savoy, wife of
Galeazzo Maria Sforza; on one of the carvings of the 13th century in
the Cathedral of Amiens. It has also been painted by Italian artists
of the 15th and 16th centuries. (K. S.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See "The Precursors of the Violin Family," by Kathleen
Schlesinger, part ii. of _An Illustrated Handbook on the Instruments
of the Orchestra_ (London, 1908), chs. ii. and x.

[2] See Kathleen Schlesinger, _op. cit._ part ii., the "Utrecht
Psalter," pp. 127-135, and the "Question of the Origin of the Utrecht
Psalter," pp. 136-166, where the subject is discussed and
illustrated.

[3] _Idem_, see pl. vi. (2) to the right centre.

[4] _Idem_, see pl. iii. centre and figs. 118 and 119.

[5] _Idem_, see fig. 117, p. 341, and figs. 172 and 116.

[6] _Idem_, see fig. 121, p. 246, figs. 122, 123, 125 and 126 pl.
iii. vi. (1) and (2).

[7] _Idem_, see fig. 126, p. 350, and pl. iii. right centre.

[8] _Idem_, see fig. 173, p. 448.

[9] _Idem_, see fig. 205, p. 480.

[10] See _Museo Pio Clementino_, by Visconti (Milan, 1818).

[11] See for example _Georgics_, iv. 471-475 in the Vatican Virgil
(Cod. 3225), in facsimile (Rome, 1899) (British Museum press-mark 8,
tab. f. vol. ii.).

[12] This rotta was found in an Alamannic tomb of the 4th to the 7th
centuries at Oberflacht in the Black Forest. A facsimile is preserved
in the collection of the Kgl. Hochschule, Berlin, illustrations in
"Grabfunde am Berge Lupfen bei Oberflacht, 1846," _Jahresberichte d.
Wurttemb. Altertums-Vereins_, iii. (Stuttgart, 1846), tab. viii. also
Kathleen Schlesinger, _op. cit._ part ii. fig. 168 (drawing from the
facsimile).

[13] Reproductions of both miniatures are to be found in Professor J.
O. Westwood's _Facsimiles of the Miniatures and Ornaments of
Anglo-Saxon and Irish MSS._ (London, 1868).

[14] An illustration occurs in the fine publication of the Austrian
Academy of Sciences, _Kusejr 'Amra_ (Vienna, 1907, pl. xxxiv.).

[15] See reproduction of some of the miniatures in Jacob and H. von
Hefner-Alteneck, _Trachten des christlichen Mittelalters_ (Darmstadt.
1840-1854, 3 vols.), and in _Trachten, Kunstwerke und Geratschaften
vom fruhen Mittelalter_ (Frankfort-on-Main, 1879-1890),

[16] Add. MS. 34294, British Museum, vol. ii. fol. 83, 161, vol. iii.
fol. 402, vol. iv. fols. 534 and 667.

GUITRY, LUCIEN GERMAIN (1860- ), French actor, was born in Paris. He became prominent on the French stage at the Porte Saint-Martin theatre in 1900, and the Varietes in 1901, and then became a member of the Comedie Francaise, but he resigned very soon in order to become director of the Renaissance, where he was principally associated with the actress Marthe Brandes, who had also left the Comedie. Here he established his reputation, in a number of plays, as the greatest contemporary French actor in the drama of modern reality.

GUIZOT, FRANCOIS PIERRE GUILLAUME (1787-1874), historian, orator and statesman, was born at Nimes on the 4th of October 1787, of an honourable Protestant family belonging to the _bourgeoisie_ of that city. It is characteristic of the cruel disabilities which still weighed upon the Protestants of France before the Revolution, that his parents, at the time of their union, could not be publicly or legally married by their own pastors, and that the ceremony was clandestine. The liberal opinions of his family did not, however, save it from the sanguinary intolerance of the Reign of Terror, and on the 8th April 1794 his father perished at Nimes upon the scaffold. Thenceforth the education of the future minister devolved entirely upon his mother, a woman of slight appearance and of homely manners, but endowed with great strength of character and clearness of judgment. Madame Guizot was a living type of the Huguenots of the 16th century, stern in her principles and her faith, immovable in her convictions and her sense of duty. She formed the character of her illustrious son and shared every vicissitude of his life. In the days of his power her simple figure, always clad in deep mourning for her martyred husband, was not absent from the splendid circle of his political friends. In the days of his exile in 1848 she followed him to London, and there at a very advanced age closed her life and was buried at Kensal Green. Driven from Nimes by the Revolution, Madame Guizot and her son repaired to Geneva, where he received his education. In spite of her decided Calvinistic opinions, the theories of Rousseau, then much in fashion, were not without their influence on Madame Guizot. She was a strong Liberal, and she even adopted the notion inculcated in the _Emile_ that every man ought to learn a manual trade or craft. Young Guizot was taught to be a carpenter, and he so far succeeded in his work that he made a table with his own hands, which is still preserved. Of the progress of his graver studies little is known, for in the work which he entitled _Memoirs of my own Times_ Guizot omitted all personal details of his earlier life. But his literary attainments must have been precocious and considerable, for when he arrived in Paris in 1805 to pursue his studies in the faculty of laws, he entered at eighteen as tutor into the family of M. Stapfer, formerly Swiss minister in France, and he soon began to write in a journal edited by M. Suard, the _Publiciste_. This connexion introduced him to the literary society of Paris. In October 1809, being then twenty-two, he wrote a review of M. de Chateaubriand's _Martyrs_, which procured for him the approbation and cordial thanks of that eminent person, and he continued to contribute largely to the periodical press. At Suard's he had made the acquaintance of Pauline Meulan, an accomplished lady of good family, some fourteen years older than himself, who had been forced by the hardships of the Revolution to earn her living by literature, and who also was engaged to contribute a series of articles to Suard's journal. These contributions were interrupted by her illness, but immediately resumed and continued by an unknown hand. It was discovered that Francois Guizot had quietly supplied the deficiency on her behalf. The acquaintance thus begun ripened into friendship and love, and in 1812 Mademoiselle de Meulan consented to marry her youthful ally. She died in 1827; she was the author of many esteemed works on female education. An only son, born in 1819, died in 1837 of consumption. In 1828 Guizot married Elisa Dillon, niece of his first wife, and also an author. She died in 1833, leaving a son, Maurice Guillaume (1833-1892), who attained some reputation as a scholar and writer.

During the empire, Guizot, entirely devoted to literary pursuits, published a collection of French synonyms (1809), an essay on the fine arts (1811), and a translation of Gibbon with additional notes in 1812. These works recommended him to the notice of M. de Fontanes, then grand-master of the university of France, who selected Guizot for the chair of modern history at the Sorbonne in 1812. His first lecture (which is reprinted in his _Memoirs_) was delivered on the 11th of December of that year. The customary compliment to the all-powerful emperor he declined to insert in it, in spite of the hints given him by his patron, but the course which followed marks the beginning of the great revival of historical research in France in the 19th century. He had now acquired a considerable position in the society of Paris, and the friendship of Royer-Collard and the leading members of the liberal party, including the young duc de Broglie. Absent from Paris at the moment of the fall of Napoleon in 1814, he was at once selected, on the recommendation of Royer-Collard, to serve the government of Louis XVIII. in the capacity of secretary-general of the ministry of the interior, under the abbe de Montesquiou. Upon the return of Napoleon from Elba he immediately resigned, on the 25th of March 1815 (the statement that he retained office under General Carnot is incorrect), and returned to his literary pursuits. After the Hundred Days, he repaired to Ghent, where he saw Louis XVIII., and in the name of the liberal party pointed out to his majesty that a frank adoption of a liberal policy could alone secure the duration of the restored monarchy--advice which was ill-received by M. de Blacas and the king's confidential advisers. This visit to Ghent, at the time when France was a prey to a second invasion, was made a subject of bitter reproach to Guizot in after life by his political opponents, as an unpatriotic action. "The Man of Ghent" was one of the terms of insult frequently hurled against him in the days of his power. But the reproach appears to be wholly unfounded. The true interests of France were not in the defence of the falling empire, but in establishing a liberal policy on a monarchical basis and in combating the reactionary tendencies of the ultra-royalists. It is at any rate a remarkable circumstance that a young professor of twenty-seven, with none of the advantages of birth or political experience, should have been selected to convey so important a message to the ears of the king of France, and a proof, if any were wanting, that the Revolution had, as Guizot said, "done its work."

On the second restoration, Guizot was appointed secretary-general of the ministry of justice under M. de Barbe-Marbois, but resigned with his chief in 1816. Again in 1819 he was appointed general director of communes and departments in the ministry of the interior, but lost his office with the fall of Decazes in February 1820. During these years Guizot was one of the leaders of the _Doctrinaires_, a small party strongly attached to the charter and the crown, and advocating a policy which has become associated (especially by Faguet) with the name of Guizot, that of the _juste milieu_, a _via media_ between absolutism and popular government. Their opinions had more of the rigour of a sect than the elasticity of a political party. Adhering to the great principles of liberty and toleration, they were sternly opposed to the anarchical traditions of the Revolution. They knew that the elements of anarchy were still fermenting in the country; these they hoped to subdue, not by reactionary measures, but by the firm application of the power of a limited constitution, based on the suffrages of the middle class and defended by the highest literary talent of the times. Their motives were honourable. Their views were philosophical. But they were opposed alike to the democratical spirit of the age, to the military traditions of the empire, and to the bigotry and absolutism of the court. The fate of such a party might be foreseen. They lived by a policy of resistance; they perished by another revolution (1830). They are remembered more for their constant opposition to popular demands than by the services they undoubtedly rendered to the cause of temperate freedom.

In 1820, when the reaction was at its height after the murder of the duc de Berri, and the fall of the ministry of the duc Decazes, Guizot was deprived of his offices, and in 1822 even his course of lectures were interdicted. During the succeeding years he played an important part among the leaders of the liberal opposition to the government of Charles X., although he had not yet entered parliament, and this was also the time of his greatest literary activity. In 1822 he had published his lectures on representative government (_Histoire des origines du gouvernement representatif_, 1821-1822, 2 vols.; Eng. trans. 1852); also a work on capital punishment for political offences and several important political pamphlets. From 1822 to 1830 he published two important collections of historical sources, the memoirs of the history of England in 26 volumes, and the memoirs of the history of France in 31 volumes, and a revised translation of Shakespeare, and a volume of essays on the history of France. The most remarkable work from his own pen was the first part of his _Histoire de la revolution d'Angleterre depuis Charles I^er a Charles II._ (2 vols., 1826-1827; Eng. trans., 2 vols., Oxford, 1838), a book of great merit and impartiality, which he resumed and completed during his exile in England after 1848. The Martignac administration restored Guizot in 1828 to his professor's chair and to the council of state. Then it was that he delivered the celebrated courses of lectures which raised his reputation as an historian to the highest point of fame, and placed him amongst the best writers of France and of Europe. These lectures formed the basis of his general _Histoire de la civilisation en Europe_ (1828; Eng. trans, by W. Hazlitt, 3 vols., 1846), and of his _Histoire de la civilisation en France_ (4 vols., 1830), works which must ever be regarded as classics of modern historical research.

Hitherto Guizot's fame rested on his merits as a writer on public affairs and as a lecturer on modern history. He had attained the age of forty-three before he entered upon the full display of his oratorical strength. In January 1830 he was elected for the first time by the town of Lisieux to the chamber of deputies, and he retained that seat during the whole of his political life. Guizot immediately assumed an important position in the representative assembly, and the first speech he delivered was in defence of the celebrated address of the 221, in answer to the menacing speech from the throne, which was followed by the dissolution of the chamber, and was the precursor of another revolution. On his returning to Paris from Nimes on the 27th of July, the fall of Charles X. was already imminent. Guizot was called upon by his friends Casimir-Perier, Laffitte, Villemain and Dupin to draw up the protest of the liberal deputies against the royal ordinances of July, whilst he applied himself with them to control the revolutionary character of the late contest. Personally, Guizot was always of opinion that it was a great misfortune for the cause of parliamentary government in France that the infatuation and ineptitude of Charles X. and Prince Polignac rendered a change in the hereditary line of succession inevitable. But, though convinced that it was inevitable, he became one of the most ardent supporters of Louis-Philippe. In August 1830 Guizot was made minister of the interior, but resigned in November. He had now passed into the ranks of the conservatives, and for the next eighteen years was the most determined foe of democracy, the unyielding champion of "a monarchy limited by a limited number of bourgeois."

In 1831 Casimir-Perier formed a more vigorous and compact administration, which was terminated in May 1832 by his death; the summer of that year was marked by a formidable republican rising in Paris, and it was not till the 11th of October 1832 that a stable government was formed, in which Marshal Soult was first minister, the duc de Broglie took the foreign office, Thiers the home department, and Guizot the department of public instruction. This ministry, which lasted for nearly four years, was by far the ablest that ever served Louis Philippe. Guizot, however, was already marked with the stigma of unpopularity by the more advanced liberal party. He remained unpopular all his life, "not," said he, "that I court unpopularity, but that I think nothing about it." Yet never were his great abilities more useful to his country than whilst he filled this office of secondary rank but of primary importance in the department of public instruction. The duties it imposed on him were entirely congenial to his literary tastes, and he was master of the subjects they concerned. He applied himself in the first instance to carry the law of the 28th of June 1833, and then for the next three years to put it into execution. In establishing and organizing primary education in France, this law marked a distinct epoch in French history. In fifteen years, under its influence, the number of primary schools rose from ten to twenty-three thousand; normal schools for teachers, and a general system of inspection, were introduced; and boards of education, under mixed lay and clerical authority, were created. The secondary class of schools and the university of France were equally the subject of his enlightened protection and care, and a prodigious impulse was given to philosophical study and historical research. The branch of the Institute of France known as the "Academie des Sciences Morales et Politiques," which had been suppressed by Napoleon, was revived by Guizot. Some of the old members of this learned body--Talleyrand, Sieyes, Roederer and Lakanal--again took their seats there, and a host of more recent celebrities were added by election for the free discussion of the great problems of political and social science. The "Societe de l'Histoire de France" was founded for the publication of historical works; and a vast publication of medieval chronicles and diplomatic papers was undertaken at the expense of the state (see HISTORY; and FRANCE, _History_, section _Sources_).

The object of the cabinet of October 1832 was to organize a conservative party, and to carry on a policy of resistance to the republican faction which threatened the existence of the monarchy. It was their pride and their boast that their measures never exceeded the limits of the law, and by the exercise of legal power alone they put down an insurrection amounting to civil war in Lyons and a sanguinary revolt in Paris. The real strength of the ministry lay not in its nominal heads, but in the fact that in this government and this alone Guizot and Thiers acted in cordial co-operation. The two great rivals in French parliamentary eloquence followed for a time the same path; but neither of them could submit to the supremacy of the other, and circumstances threw Thiers almost continuously on a course of opposition, whilst Guizot bore the graver responsibilities of power.

Once again indeed, in 1839, they were united, but it was in opposition to M. Mole, who had formed an intermediate government, and this coalition between Guizot and the leaders of the left centre and the left, Thiers and Odilon Barrot, due to his ambition and jealousy of Mole, is justly regarded as one of the chief inconsistencies of his life. Victory was secured at the expense of principle, and Guizot's attack upon the government gave rise to a crisis and a republican insurrection. None of the three chiefs of that alliance took ministerial office, however, and Guizot was not sorry to accept the post of ambassador in London, which withdrew him for a time from parliamentary contests. This was in the spring of 1840, and Thiers succeeded shortly afterwards to the ministry of foreign affairs.