This is a modern-English version of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Groups, Theory of" to "Gwyniad": Volume 12, Slice 6, originally written by Various.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
Transcriber’s note: |
A few typographical errors have been corrected. They
appear in the text like this, and the
explanation will appear when the mouse pointer is moved over the marked
passage. Sections in Greek will yield a transliteration
when the pointer is moved over them, and words using diacritic characters in the
Latin Extended Additional block, which may not display in some fonts or browsers, will
display an unaccented version. Links to other EB articles: Links to articles residing in other EB volumes will be made available when the respective volumes are introduced online. |
THE ENCYCLOPÆDIA BRITANNICA
A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE AND GENERAL INFORMATION
ELEVENTH EDITION
VOLUME XII SLICE VI
Groups, Theory of to Gwyniad
Articles in This Slice
Articles in This Section
GROUPS,1 THEORY OF. The conception of an operation to be carried out on some object or set of objects underlies all mathematical science. Thus in elementary arithmetic there are the fundamental operations of the addition and the multiplication of integers; in algebra a linear transformation is an operation which may be carried out on any set of variables; while in geometry a translation, a rotation, or a projective transformation are operations which may be carried out on any figure.
GROUPS,1 THEORY OF. The idea of performing an operation on a certain object or group of objects is at the core of all mathematical science. In basic arithmetic, for instance, we have the essential operations of adding and multiplying whole numbers; in algebra, a linear transformation is an operation that can be applied to any set of variables; whereas in geometry, operations like translation, rotation, or projective transformation can be performed on any shape.
In speaking of an operation, an object or a set of objects to which it may be applied is postulated; and the operation may, and generally will, have no meaning except in regard to such a set of objects. If two operations, which can be performed on the same set of objects, are such that, when carried out in succession on any possible object, the result, whichever operation is performed first, is to produce no change in the object, then each of the operations is spoken of as a definite operation, and each of them is called the inverse of the other. Thus the operations which consist in replacing x by nx and by x/n respectively, in any rational function of x, are definite inverse operations, if n is any assigned number except zero. On the contrary, the operation of replacing x by an assigned number in any rational function of x is not, in the present sense, although it leads to a unique result, a definite operation; there is in fact no unique inverse operation corresponding to it. It is to be noticed that the question whether an operation is a definite operation or no may depend on the range of the objects on which it operates. For example, the operations of squaring and extracting the square root are definite inverse operations if the objects are restricted to be real positive numbers, but not otherwise.
When discussing an operation, we assume there is an object or a group of objects it can be applied to; this operation typically only makes sense in relation to that specific set of objects. If there are two operations that can be performed on the same set of objects, and executing them one after the other on any object results in no change, regardless of which operation is done first, we call each operation a definite operation, and they are considered inverse of one another. For example, the operations that involve replacing x with nx and x/n in any rational function of x are definite inverse operations, as long as n is any number assigned except zero. Conversely, the operation of replacing x with a specific number in a rational function of x is not considered a definite operation in this sense, even though it leads to a unique result; there isn't a unique inverse operation corresponding to it. It's important to note that whether an operation is considered definite may depend on the set of objects it operates on. For instance, the operations of squaring and extracting the square root are definite inverse operations if we limit the objects to real positive numbers, but not in other cases.
If O, O′, O″, ... is the totality of the objects on which a definite operation S and its inverse S′ may be carried out, and if the result of carrying out S on O is represented by O·S, then O·S·S′, O·S′·S, and O are the same object whatever object of the set O may be. This will be represented by the equations SS′ = S′S = 1. Now O·S·S′ has a meaning only if O·S is an object on which S′ may be performed. Hence whatever object of the set O may be, both O·S and O·S′ belong to the set. Similarly O·S·S, O·S·S·S, ... are objects of the set. These will be represented by O·S2, O·S3, ... Suppose now that T is another definite operation with the same set of objects as S, and that T′ is its inverse operation. Then O·S·T is a definite operation of the set, and therefore the result of carrying out S and then T on the set of objects is some operation U with a unique result. Represent by U′ the result of carrying out T′ and then S′. Then O·UU′ = O·S·T·T′·S′ = O·SS′ = O, and O·U′U = O·T′·S′·S·T = O·T′T = O, whatever object O may be. Hence UU′ = U′U = 1; and U, U′ are definite inverse operations.
If O, O′, O″, ... represents all the objects on which a specific operation S and its inverse S′ can be performed, and if applying S to O is shown as O·S, then O·S·S′, O·S′·S, and O are the same object regardless of which object from the set O is being used. This is summarized by the equations SS′ = S′S = 1. Now, O·S·S′ only makes sense if O·S is an object on which S′ can be performed. Therefore, no matter which object from the set O is selected, both O·S and O·S′ are also in the set. Similarly, O·S·S, O·S·S·S, ... are also objects in the set. These can be represented as O·S2, O·S3, ... Now, let's say T is another specific operation that works with the same set of objects as S, and T′ is its inverse operation. Then O·S·T is a specific operation within the set, and so the result of performing S followed by T on the set of objects is some operation U that has a unique outcome. We denote the result of performing T′ and then S′ as U′. Therefore, O·UU′ = O·S·T·T′·S′ = O·SS′ = O, and O·U′U = O·T′·S′·S·T = O·T′T = O, whatever object O happens to be. Thus, UU′ = U′U = 1; and U, U′ are specific inverse operations.
If S, U, V are definite operations, and if S′ is the inverse of S, then
If S, U, and V are specific operations, and if S′ is the opposite of S, then
SU = SV
SU = SV
implies
suggests
S′SU = S′SV,
S′SU = S′SV,
or
or
U = V.
U = V.
Similarly
Likewise
US = VS
US vs. VS
implies
suggests
U = V.
U = V.
Let S, T, U, ... be a set of definite operations, capable of being Definition of a group. carried out on a common object or set of objects, and let the set contain—
Let S, T, U, ... be a group of specific operations that can be performed on a common object or group of objects, and let the group contain—
(i.) the operation ST, S and T being any two operations of the set;
(i.) the operation ST, where S and T are any two operations from the set;
(ii.) the inverse operation of S, S being any operation of the set; the set of operations is then called a group.
(ii.) the opposite operation of S, with S being any operation from the set; the collection of operations is then referred to as a group.
The number of operations in a group may be either finite or infinite. When it is finite, the number is called the order of the group, 627 and the group is spoken of as a group of finite order. If the number of operations is infinite, there are three possible cases. When the group is represented by a set of geometrical operations, for the specification of an individual operation a number of measurements will be necessary. In more analytical language, each operation will be specified by the values of a set of parameters. If no one of these parameters is capable of continuous variation, the group is called a discontinuous group. If all the parameters are capable of continuous variation, the group is called a continuous group. If some of the parameters are capable of continuous variation and some are not, the group is called a mixed group.
The number of operations in a group can be either finite or infinite. When it's finite, that number is referred to as the order of the group, 627, and we describe the group as a group of finite order. If the number of operations is infinite, there are three possible scenarios. When the group is represented by a set of geometric operations, defining an individual operation will require several measurements. In more analytical terms, each operation will be defined by the values of a set of parameters. If none of these parameters can change continuously, the group is called a discontinuous group. If all the parameters can change continuously, it's called a continuous group. If some parameters can vary continuously and some cannot, the group is termed a mixed group.
If S′ is the inverse operation of S, a group which contains S must contain SS′, which produces no change on any possible object. This is called the identical operation, and will always be represented by I. Since SpSq = Sp+q when p and q are positive integers, and SpS′ = Sp−1 while no meaning at present has been attached to Sq when q is negative, S′ may be consistently represented by S−1. The set of operations ..., S−2, S−1, 1, S, S2, ... obviously constitute a group. Such a group is called a cyclical group.
If S′ is the inverse operation of S, any group that includes S must also include SS′, which doesn’t change anything. This is known as the identical operation and will always be represented by I. Since SpSq = Sp + q when p and q are positive integers, and SpS′ = Sp−1, while there's currently no meaning given to Sq when q is negative, S′ can consistently be represented by S−1. The set of operations ..., S−2, S−1, 1, S, S2, ... clearly forms a group. Such a group is called a cyclical group.
It will be convenient, before giving some illustrations of the general group idea, to add a number of further definitions and explanations which apply to all groups alike. If from among the set of operations S, T, U, ... which constitute a group Subgroups, conjugate operations, isomorphism, &c. G, a smaller set S′, T′, U′, ... can be chosen which themselves constitute a group H, the group H is called a subgroup of G. Thus, in particular, if S is an operation of G, the cyclical group constituted by ..., S−2, S−1, 1, S, S2, ... is a subgroup of G, except in the special case when it coincides with G itself.
It will be helpful, before providing some examples of the general group concept, to include several additional definitions and explanations that apply to all groups. If we take a smaller set S′, T′, U′, ... from the set of operations S, T, U, ... that make up a group G, and this smaller set also forms a group H, then H is referred to as a subgroup of G. Specifically, if S is an operation of G, the cyclic group made up of ..., S−2, S−1, 1, S, S2, ... is a subgroup of G, unless it happens to be the same as G itself.
If S and T are any two operations of G, the two operations S and T-1ST are called conjugate operations, and T−1ST is spoken of as the result of transforming S by T. It is to be noted that since ST = T−1, TS, T, ST and TS are always conjugate operations in any group containing both S and T. If T transforms S into itself, that is, if S = T−1ST or TS = ST, S and T are called permutable operations. A group whose operations are all permutable with each other is called an Abelian group. If S is transformed into itself by every operation of G, or, in other words, if it is permutable with every operation of G, it is called a self-conjugate operation of G.
If S and T are any two operations of G, the two operations S and T-1ST are known as conjugate operations, and T−1ST is described as the result of transforming S by T. It's important to note that since ST = T−1TS, T, ST, and TS are always conjugate operations in any group that includes both S and T. If T transforms S into itself, meaning S = T−1ST or TS = ST, then S and T are referred to as permutable operations. A group where all operations are permutable with each other is called an Abelian group. If S is transformed into itself by every operation of G, or in other words, if it is permutable with every operation of G, it is called a self-conjugate operation of G.
The conception of operations being conjugate to each other is extended to subgroups. If S′, T′, U′, ... are the operations of a subgroup H, and if R is any operation of G, then the operations R−1S′R, R−1T′R, R−1U′R, ... belong to G, and constitute a subgroup of G. For if S′T′ = U′, then R−1S′R·R−1T′R = R−1S′T′R = R−1U′R. This subgroup may be identical with H. In particular, it is necessarily the same as H if R belongs to H. If it is not identical with H, it is said to be conjugate to H; and it is in any case represented by the symbol R−1HR. If H = R−1HR, the operation R is said to be permutable with the subgroup H. (It is to be noticed that this does not imply that R is permutable with each operation of H.)
The idea of operations being related to one another is applied to subgroups. If S′, T′, U′, ... are the operations of a subgroup H, and if R is any operation of G, then the operations R−1S′R, R−1T′R, R−1U′R, ... belong to G and form a subgroup of G. Because if S′T′ = U′, then R−1S′R·R−1T′R = R−1S′T′R = R−1U′R. This subgroup can be the same as H. Specifically, it will definitely be the same as H if R is in H. If it isn't the same as H, it's called conjugate to H; and it's always represented by the symbol R−1HR. If H = R−1HR, then the operation R is said to be permutable with the subgroup H. (Note that this doesn’t mean that R is permutable with every operation of H.)
If H = R−1HR, when for R is taken in turn each of the operations of G, then H is called a self-conjugate subgroup of G.
If H = R−1HR, and each of the operations of G is applied to R in turn, then H is referred to as a self-conjugate subgroup of G.
A group is spoken of as simple when it has no self-conjugate subgroup other than that constituted by the identical operation alone. A group which has a self-conjugate subgroup is called composite.
A group is called simple when it has no self-conjugate subgroup other than the one made up of just the identity operation. A group that has a self-conjugate subgroup is referred to as composite.
Let G be a group constituted of the operations S, T, U, ..., and g a second group constituted of s, t, u, ..., and suppose that to each operation of G there corresponds a single operation of g in such a way that if ST = U, then st = u, where s, t, u are the operations corresponding to S, T, U respectively. The groups are then said to be isomorphic, and the correspondence between their operations is spoken of as an isomorphism between the groups. It is clear that there may be two distinct cases of such isomorphism. To a single operation of g there may correspond either a single operation of G or more than one. In the first case the isomorphism is spoken of as simple, in the second as multiple.
Let G be a group made up of the operations S, T, U, ..., and g a second group made up of s, t, u, ..., and suppose that for each operation in G, there is a corresponding operation in g so that if ST = U, then st = u, where s, t, u are the operations corresponding to S, T, U respectively. The groups are then called isomorphic, and the relationship between their operations is referred to as an isomorphism between the groups. It is clear that there are two distinct cases of such isomorphism. A single operation in g may correspond to either a single operation in G or more than one. In the first case, the isomorphism is called simple, and in the second, it is called multiple.
Two simply isomorphic groups considered abstractly—that is to say, in regard only to the way in which their operations combine among themselves, and apart from any concrete representation of the operations—are clearly indistinguishable.
Two simply isomorphic groups looked at in an abstract way—that is, focusing only on how their operations interact with each other, without considering any specific representation of those operations—are clearly the same.
If G is multiply isomorphic with g, let A, B, C, ... be the operations of G which correspond to the identical operation of g. Then to the operations A−1 and AB of G there corresponds the identical operation of g; so that A, B, C, ... constitute a subgroup H of G. Moreover, if R is any operation of G, the identical operation of g corresponds to every operation of R-1HR, and therefore H is a self-conjugate subgroup of G. Since S corresponds to s, and every operation of H to the identical operation of g, therefore every operation of the set SA, SB, SC, ..., which is represented by SH, corresponds to s. Also these are the only operations that correspond to s. The operations of G may therefore be divided into sets, no two of which contain a common operation, such that the correspondence between the operations of G and g connects each of the sets H, SH, TH, UH, ... with the single operations 1, s, t, u, ... written below them. The sets into which the operations of G are thus divided combine among themselves by exactly the same laws as the operations of g. For if st = u, then SH·TH = UH, in the sense that any operation of the set SH followed by any operation of the set TH gives an operation of the set UH.
If G is multiply isomorphic to g, let A, B, C, ... be the operations of G that correspond to the identical operation of g. Then, the operations A−1 and AB of G correspond to the identical operation of g; thus, A, B, C, ... form a subgroup H of G. Furthermore, if R is any operation of G, the identical operation of g corresponds to every operation of R-1HR, making H a self-conjugate subgroup of G. Since S corresponds to s, and every operation of H corresponds to the identical operation of g, every operation in the set SA, SB, SC, ..., which is represented by SH, corresponds to s. These are also the only operations that correspond to s. The operations of G can therefore be grouped into sets, with no two sets containing a common operation, so that the correspondence between the operations of G and g links each of the sets H, SH, TH, UH, ... to the single operations 1, s, t, u, ... written beneath them. The sets into which the operations of G are divided combine according to the same rules as the operations of g. For if st = u, then SH·TH = UH, meaning that any operation from the set SH followed by any operation from the set TH results in an operation from the set UH.
The group g, abstractly considered, is therefore completely defined by the division of the operations of G into sets in respect of the self-conjugate subgroup H. From this point of view it is spoken of as the factor-group of G in respect of H, and is represented by the symbol G/H. Any composite group in a similar way defines abstractly a factor-group in respect of each of its self-conjugate subgroups.
The group g, when viewed abstractly, is fully defined by dividing the operations of G into sets based on the self-conjugate subgroup H. In this context, it's referred to as the factor-group of G in relation to H, and is represented by the symbol G/H. Similarly, any composite group abstractly defines a factor-group in relation to each of its self-conjugate subgroups.
It follows from the definition of a group that it must always be possible to choose from its operations a set such that every operation of the group can be obtained by combining the operations of the set and their inverses. If the set is such that no one of the operations belonging to it can be represented in terms of the others, it is called a set of independent generating operations. Such a set of generating operations may be either finite or infinite in number. If A, B, ..., E are the generating operations of a group, the group generated by them is represented by the symbol {A, B, ..., E}. An obvious extension of this symbol is used such that {A, H} represents the group generated by combining an operation A with every operation of a group H; {H1, H2} represents the group obtained by combining in all possible ways the operations of the groups H1 and H2; and so on. The independent generating operations of a group may be subject to certain relations connecting them, but these must be such that it is impossible by combining them to obtain a relation expressing one operation in terms of the others. For instance, AB = BA is a relation conditioning the group {A, B}; it does not, however, enable A to be expressed in terms of B, so that A and B are independent generating operations.
It follows from the definition of a group that it's always possible to choose a set of its operations such that every operation in the group can be obtained by combining the operations in that set and their inverses. If the set includes operations that cannot be represented in terms of the others, it's called a set of independent generating operations. This set of generating operations can be either finite or infinite. If A, B, ..., E are the generating operations of a group, the group generated by them is represented by the symbol {A, B, ..., E}. An obvious extension of this symbol is used so that {A, H} represents the group generated by combining an operation A with every operation in a group H; {H1, H2} represents the group obtained by combining the operations of groups H1 and H2 in all possible ways; and so on. The independent generating operations of a group may be subject to certain relations connecting them, but these must be such that it's impossible to express one operation in terms of the others through combination. For example, AB = BA is a relation that conditions the group {A, B}; however, it doesn't allow A to be expressed in terms of B, which means A and B are independent generating operations.
Let O, O′, O″, ... be a set of objects which are interchanged among themselves by the operations of a group G, so that if S is any operation of the group, and O any one of the objects, then O·S is an object occurring in the set. If it is possible to find an Transitivity and primitivity. operation S of the group such that O·S is any assigned one of the set of objects, the group is called transitive in respect of this set of objects. When this is not possible the group is called intransitive in respect of the set. If it is possible to find S so that any arbitrarily chosen n objects of the set, O1, O2, ..., On are changed by S into O′1, O′2, ..., O′n respectively, the latter being also arbitrarily chosen, the group is said to be n-ply transitive.
Let O, O′, O″, ... be a set of objects that can be swapped with one another through the actions of a group G. If S represents any operation from the group and O is one of the objects, then O·S results in another object from the set. If we can find an operation S within the group such that O·S equals any specific object in the set, then the group is called transitive with respect to this set of objects. If this isn’t possible, the group is referred to as intransitive concerning the set. If we can find S so that any randomly selected n objects from the set, O1, O2, ..., On, are transformed by S into O′1, O′2, ..., O′n respectively, where the latter are also randomly chosen, then the group is considered n-ply transitive.
If O, O′, O″, ... is a set of objects in respect of which a group G is transitive, it may be possible to divide the set into a number of subsets, no two of which contain a common object, such that every operation of the group either interchanges the objects of a subset among themselves, or changes them all into the objects of some other subset. When this is the case the group is called imprimitive in respect of the set; otherwise the group is called primitive. A group which is doubly-transitive, in respect of a set of objects, obviously cannot be imprimitive.
If O, O′, O″, ... is a set of objects that a group G acts on transitively, it may be possible to split the set into several subsets, where no two subsets share an object, such that every operation of the group either swaps the objects within a subset or transforms them all into the objects of another subset. When this happens, the group is referred to as imprimitive concerning the set; otherwise, the group is called primitive. A group that is doubly-transitive with respect to a set of objects clearly cannot be imprimitive.
The foregoing general definitions and explanations will now be illustrated by a consideration of certain particular groups. To begin with, as the operations involved are of the most familiar nature, the group of rational arithmetic may be considered. Illustrations of the group idea. The fundamental operations of elementary arithmetic consist in the addition and subtraction of integers, and multiplication and division by integers, division by zero alone omitted. Multiplication by zero is not a definite operation, and it must therefore be omitted in dealing with those operations of elementary arithmetic which form a group. The operation that results from carrying out additions, subtractions, multiplications and divisions, of and by integers a finite number of times, is represented by the relation x′ = ax + b, where a and b are rational numbers of which a is not zero, x is the object of the operation, and x′ is the result. The totality of operations of this form obviously constitutes a group.
The general definitions and explanations mentioned earlier will now be illustrated by looking at specific groups. To start, since the operations involved are quite familiar, we can examine the group of rational arithmetic. Group concept illustrations. The basic operations of elementary arithmetic include adding and subtracting whole numbers, as well as multiplying and dividing by whole numbers, with division by zero excluded. Multiplying by zero is not a definite operation, so we will leave it out when discussing the operations of elementary arithmetic that form a group. The operation resulting from performing additions, subtractions, multiplications, and divisions involving integers a limited number of times is represented by the equation x′ = ax + b, where a and b are rational numbers (with a not equal to zero), x is the object of the operation, and x′ is the outcome. Clearly, the set of operations of this form makes up a group.
If S and T represent respectively the operations x′ = ax + b and x′ = cx + d, then T−1ST represents x′ = ax + d − ad + bc. When a and b are given rational numbers, c and d may be chosen in an infinite number of ways as rational numbers, so that d − ad + bc shall be any assigned rational number. Hence the operations given by x′ = ax + b, where a is an assigned rational number and b is any rational number, are all conjugate; and no two such operations for which the a’s are different can be conjugate. If a is unity and b zero, S is the identical operation which is necessarily self-conjugate. If a is unity and b different from zero, the operation x′ = x + b is an addition. The totality of additions forms, therefore, a single conjugate set of operations. Moreover, the totality of additions with the identical operation, i.e. the totality of operations of the form x′ = x + b, where b may be any rational number or zero, obviously constitutes a group. The operations of this group are interchanged among themselves when transformed by any operation of the original group. It is therefore a self-conjugate subgroup of the original group.
If S and T represent the operations x' = ax + b and x' = cx + d, then T-1ST represents x' = ax + d - ad + bc. When a and b are given as rational numbers, c and d can be chosen in countless ways as rational numbers, so that d - ad + bc can be any assigned rational number. Therefore, the operations defined by x' = ax + b, where a is a specified rational number and b is any rational number, are all conjugate; and no two such operations with different a's can be conjugate. If a is 1 and b is 0, S is the identity operation, which is inherently self-conjugate. If a is 1 and b is not 0, the operation x' = x + b represents an addition. Thus, all additions make up a single conjugate set of operations. Furthermore, the collection of additions along with the identity operation, that is, all operations of the form x' = x + b, where b can be any rational number or zero, clearly forms a group. The operations in this group can be transformed among themselves when acted upon by any operation of the original group. Therefore, it is a self-conjugate subgroup of the original group.
The totality of multiplications, with the identical operation, i.e. all operations of the form x′ = ax, where a is any rational number other than zero, again obviously constitutes a group. This, however, is not a self-conjugate subgroup of the original group. In fact, if the operations x′ = ax are all transformed by x′ = cx + d, they give rise to the set x′ = ax + d(1 − a). When d is a given rational number, the set constitutes a subgroup which is conjugate to the group of multiplications. It is to be noticed that the operations of this latter subgroup may be written in the form x′ − d = a(x − d).
The set of multiplications involving the same operation, i.e. all operations of the form x′ = ax, where a is any rational number except zero, clearly forms a group. However, this is not a self-conjugate subgroup of the original group. In fact, if we apply the transformation x′ = cx + d to all the operations x′ = ax, we get the set x′ = ax + d(1 − a). When d is a specific rational number, this set forms a subgroup that is conjugate to the group of multiplications. It's important to note that the operations in this latter subgroup can be expressed as x′ − d = a(x − d).
The totality of rational numbers, including zero, forms a set of objects which are interchanged among themselves by all operations of the group.
The complete set of rational numbers, including zero, is made up of objects that can be swapped with one another through all operations of the group.
If x1 and x2 are any pair of distinct rational numbers, and y1 and y2 any other pair, there is just one operation of the group which changes x1 and x2 into y1 and y2 respectively. For the equations y1 = ax1 + b, y1 = ax2 + b determine a and b uniquely. The group is therefore doubly transitive in respect of the set of rational numbers. If H is the subgroup that leaves unchanged a given rational number x1, and S an operation changing x1 into x2, then every operation of S−1HS leaves x2 unchanged. The subgroups, each of which leaves a single rational number unchanged, therefore form a single conjugate set. The group of multiplications leaves zero unchanged; and, as has been seen, this is conjugate with the subgroup formed of all operations x′ − d = a(x − d), where d is a given rational number. This subgroup leaves d unchanged.
If x1 and x2 are any two distinct rational numbers, and y1 and y2 are any other pair, there is exactly one operation in the group that transforms x1 and x2 into y1 and y2 respectively. The equations y1 = ax1 + b and y1 = ax2 + b uniquely determine a and b. Therefore, the group is doubly transitive with respect to the set of rational numbers. If H is the subgroup that keeps a given rational number x1 unchanged, and S is an operation that converts x1 into x2, then every operation of S−1HS keeps x2 unchanged. The subgroups, each of which leaves a single rational number unchanged, therefore form one conjugate set. The group of multiplications leaves zero unchanged; and, as has been demonstrated, this is conjugate to the subgroup formed of all operations x′ − d = a(x − d), where d is a specified rational number. This subgroup keeps d unchanged.
The group of multiplications is clearly generated by the operations x′ = px, where for p negative unity and each prime is taken in turn. Every addition is obtained on transforming x′ = x + 1 by the different operations of the group of multiplications. Hence x′ = x + 1, and x′ = px, (p = −1, 3, 5, 7, ...), form a set of independent generating operations of the group. It is a discontinuous group.
The group of multiplications is clearly generated by the operations x′ = px, where p is negative one and each prime is used one at a time. Every addition comes from transforming x′ = x + 1 through the different operations of the group of multiplications. Therefore, x′ = x + 1 and x′ = px (p = −1, 3, 5, 7, ...) make up a set of independent generating operations of the group. It is a discontinuous group.
As a second example the group of motions in three-dimensional space will be considered. The totality of motions, i.e. of space displacements which leave the distance of every pair of points unaltered, obviously constitutes a set of operations which satisfies the group definition. From the elements of kinematics it is known that every motion is either (i.) a translation which leaves no point unaltered, but changes each of a set of parallel lines into itself; or (ii.) a rotation which leaves every point of one line unaltered and changes every other point and line; or (iii.) a twist which leaves no point and only one line (its axis) unaltered, and may be regarded as a translation along, combined with a rotation round, the axis. Let S be any motion consisting of a translation l along and a rotation a round a line AB, and let T be any other motion. There is some line CD into which T changes AB; and therefore T−1ST leaves CD unchanged. Moreover, T-1ST clearly effects the same translation along and rotation round CD that S effects for AB. Two motions, therefore, are conjugate if and only if the amplitudes of their translation and rotation components are respectively equal. In particular, all translations of equal amplitude are conjugate, as also are all rotations of equal amplitude. Any two translations are permutable with each other, and give when combined another translation. The totality of translations constitutes, therefore, a subgroup of the general group of motions; and this subgroup is a self-conjugate subgroup, since a translation is always conjugate to a translation.
As a second example, let's look at the group of movements in three-dimensional space. The complete set of movements, meaning the shifts in space that keep the distance between every pair of points unchanged, clearly forms a group according to its definition. From what we know about kinematics, every movement is either (i.) a translation that affects every point and transforms each line in a set of parallel lines into itself; or (ii.) a rotation that keeps every point on one line unchanged while altering every other point and line; or (iii.) a twist that leaves no point unchanged except for one line (its axis), and can be seen as a combination of a translation along and a rotation around the axis. Let S represent any motion consisting of a translation l along and a rotation a around line AB, and let T be any other motion. There exists a line CD into which T transforms AB; thus, T−1ST keeps CD unchanged. Furthermore, T-1ST clearly performs the same translation along and rotation around CD that S does for AB. Therefore, two motions are considered conjugate if and only if the amounts of their translation and rotation components are equal. Specifically, all translations of the same amount are conjugate, as are all rotations of the same amount. Any two translations can be combined with each other and will result in another translation. Hence, the collection of translations forms a subgroup within the overall group of motions, and this subgroup is a self-conjugate subgroup, as a translation is always conjugate to another translation.
All the points of space constitute a set of objects which are interchanged among themselves by all operations of the group of motions. So also do all the lines of space and all the planes. In respect of each of these sets the group is simply transitive. In fact, there is an infinite number of motions which change a point A to A′, but no motion can change A and B to A′ and B′ respectively unless the distance AB is equal to the distance A′B′.
All points in space form a collection of objects that can be transformed into one another through all the operations of the movement group. The same goes for all lines and all planes in space. For each of these collections, the group is simply transitive. In fact, there are countless movements that can change a point A to A′, but no movement can change A and B to A′ and B′ respectively unless the distance AB is the same as the distance A′B′.
The totality of motions which leave a point A unchanged forms a subgroup. It is clearly constituted of all possible rotations about all possible axes through A, and is known as the group of rotations about a point. Every motion can be represented as a rotation about some axis through A followed by a translation. Hence if G is the group of motions and H the group of translations, G/H is simply isomorphic with the group of rotations about a point.
The total set of movements that keep a point A unchanged creates a subgroup. It clearly consists of all possible rotations around all potential axes through A and is called the group of rotations around a point. Every movement can be represented as a rotation around some axis through A followed by a translation. Therefore, if G is the group of movements and H is the group of translations, G/H is simply isomorphic to the group of rotations around a point.
The totality of the motions which bring a given solid to congruence with itself again constitutes a subgroup of the group of motions. This will in general be the trivial subgroup formed of the identical operation above, but may in the case of a symmetrical body be more extensive. For a sphere or a right circular cylinder the subgroups are those that leave the centre and the axis respectively unaltered. For a solid bounded by plane faces the subgroup is clearly one of finite order. In particular, to each of the regular solids there corresponds such a group. That for the tetrahedron has 12 for its order, for the cube (or octahedron) 24, and for the icosahedron (or dodecahedron) 60.
The complete set of movements that brings a specific solid back to its original state makes up a subgroup of the overall group of movements. Usually, this will be the trivial subgroup formed by the identity operation mentioned earlier, but in the case of a symmetrical shape, it can be more extensive. For a sphere or a right circular cylinder, the subgroups are those that keep the center and the axis unchanged, respectively. For a solid with flat surfaces, the subgroup is clearly of finite order. In particular, each of the regular solids has a corresponding group. The tetrahedron has a group order of 12, the cube (or octahedron) has 24, and the icosahedron (or dodecahedron) has 60.
The determination of a particular operation of the group of motions involves six distinct measurements; namely, four to give the axis of the twist, one for the magnitude of the translation along the axis, and one for the magnitude of the rotation about it. Each of the six quantities involved may have any value whatever, and the group of motions is therefore a continuous group. On the other hand, a subgroup of the group of motions which leaves a line or a plane unaltered is a mixed group.
The determination of a specific operation of the motion group involves six different measurements: four to establish the axis of the twist, one for the amount of translation along the axis, and one for the amount of rotation around it. Each of these six quantities can take any value, making the motion group a continuous group. Conversely, a subgroup of the motion group that leaves a line or a plane unchanged is called a mixed group.
We shall now discuss (i.) continuous groups, (ii.) discontinuous groups whose order is not finite, and (iii.) groups of finite order. For proofs of the statements, and the general theorems, the reader is referred to the bibliography.
We will now discuss (i.) continuous groups, (ii.) discontinuous groups that are not finite in order, and (iii.) groups of finite order. For proofs of the statements and the general theorems, please refer to the bibliography.
Continuous Groups.
Ongoing Groups.
The determination of a particular operation of a given continuous group depends on assigning special values to each one of a set of parameters which are capable of continuous variation. The first distinction regards the number of these parameters. If this number is finite, the group is called a finite continuous group; if infinite, it is called an infinite continuous group. In the latter case arbitrary functions must appear in the equations defining the operations of the group when these are reduced to an analytical form. The theory of infinite continuous groups is not yet so completely developed as that of finite continuous groups. The latter theory will mainly occupy us here.
The determination of a specific operation in a given continuous group relies on assigning particular values to each parameter in a set that can vary continuously. The first distinction concerns the number of these parameters. If the number is finite, the group is referred to as a finite continuous group; if it's infinite, it's called an infinite continuous group. In the case of infinite groups, arbitrary functions must appear in the equations that define the group's operations when they are expressed in analytical form. The theory of infinite continuous groups is not as fully developed as that of finite continuous groups. Our main focus here will be on the latter theory.
Sophus Lie, to whom the foundation and a great part of the development of the theory of continuous groups are due, undoubtedly approached the subject from a geometrical standpoint. His conception of an operation is to regard it as a geometrical transformation, by means of which each point of (n-dimensional) space is changed into some other definite point.
Sophus Lie, who is responsible for establishing and significantly developing the theory of continuous groups, certainly approached the topic from a geometric perspective. He viewed an operation as a geometric transformation that changes each point in n-dimensional space into another specific point.
The representation of such a transformation in analytical form involves a system of equations,
The way to represent this kind of transformation in a mathematical format involves a set of equations,
x′s = ƒs (x1, x2, ..., xn), (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
x′s = fs (x1, x2, ..., xn), (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
expressing x′1, x′2, ..., x′n, the co-ordinates of the transformed point in terms of x1, x2, ..., xn, the co-ordinates of the original point. In these equations the functions ƒs are analytical functions of their arguments. Within a properly limited region they must be one-valued, and the equations must admit a unique solution with respect to x1, x2, ..., xn, since the operation would not otherwise be a definite one.
expressing x′1, x′2, ..., x′n, the coordinates of the transformed point in terms of x1, x2, ..., xn, the coordinates of the original point. In these equations, the functions ƒs are analytical functions of their arguments. Within a properly defined region, they must be single-valued, and the equations must have a unique solution regarding x1, x2, ..., xn, as the operation wouldn’t otherwise be definitive.
From this point of view the operations of a continuous group, which depends on a set of r parameters, will be defined analytically by a system of equations of the form
From this perspective, the actions of a continuous group that relies on a set of r parameters will be defined analytically by a system of equations of the form
x′s = ƒs(x1, x2, ..., xn; a1, a2, ..., ar), (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
x′s = ƒs(x1, x2, ..., xn; a1, a2, ..., ar), (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
where a1, a2, ..., ar represent the parameters. If this operation be represented by A, and that in which b1, b2, ..., br are the parameters by B, then the operation AB is represented by the elimination (assumed to be possible) of x′1, x′2, ..., x′n between the equations (i.) and the equations
where a1, a2, ..., ar represent the parameters. If this operation is represented by A, and the operation with parameters b1, b2, ..., br is represented by B, then the operation AB is represented by the elimination (assumed to be possible) of x′1, x′2, ..., x′n between the equations (i.) and the equations
x″s = ƒs (x′1, x′2, ..., x′n; b1, b2, ..., br), (s = 1, 2, ..., n).
x″s = ƒs (x′1, x′2, ..., x′n; b1, b2, ..., br), (s = 1, 2, ..., n).
Since AB belongs to the group, the result of the elimination must be
Since AB is part of the group, the outcome of the elimination has to be
x″s = ƒs (x1, x2, ..., xn; c1, c2, ..., cr),
x″s = ƒs (x1, x2, ..., xn; cI’m ready., c2, ..., cr),
where c1, c2, ..., cr represent another definite set of values of the parameters. Moreover, since A−1 belongs to the group, the result of solving equations (i.) with respect to x1, x2, ..., xn must be
where c1, c2, ..., cr represent a specific set of values for the parameters. Additionally, since A−1 is part of the group, the outcome of solving equations (i.) for x1, x2, ..., xn must be
xs = ƒs (x′1, x′2, ..., x′n; d1, d2, ..., dr), (s = 1, 2, ..., n).
xs = ƒs (x′1, x′2, ..., x′n; d1, d2, ..., dr), (s = 1, 2, ..., n).
Conversely, if equations (i.) are such that these two conditions are satisfied, they do in fact define a finite continuous group.
Conversely, if equations (i.) meet these two conditions, they actually define a finite continuous group.
It will be assumed that the r parameters which enter in equations (i.) are independent, i.e. that it is impossible to choose r′ (< r) quantities in terms of which a1, a2, ..., ar can Infinitesimal operation of a continuous group. be expressed. Where this is the case the group will be spoken of as a “group of order r.” Lie uses the term “r-gliedrige Gruppe.” It is to be noticed that the word order is used in quite a different sense from that given to it in connexion with groups of finite order.
It will be assumed that the r parameters in equations (i.) are independent, meaning it's not possible to choose r′ (< r) quantities that can express a1, a2, ..., ar. Infinitesimal action of a continuous group. In this situation, the group will be referred to as a “group of order r.” Lie uses the term “r-gliedrige Gruppe.” It's important to note that the term order is used in a different way than it is in relation to groups of finite order.
In regard to equations (i.), which define the general operation of the group, it is to be noticed that, since the group contains the identical operation, these equations must for some definite set of values of the parameters reduce to x′1 = x1, x′2 = x2, ..., x′n = xn. This set of values may, without loss of generality, be assumed to be simultaneous zero values. For if i1, i2, ..., ir be the values of the parameters which give the identical operation, and if we write
In relation to equations (i.), which outline the general function of the group, it's important to note that since the group includes the identity operation, these equations must, for some specific set of values for the parameters, simplify to x′1 = x1, x′2 = x2, ..., x′n = xn. This set of values can, without losing any generality, be taken as simultaneous zero values. For if i1, i2, ..., ir are the parameter values that yield the identity operation, and if we write
as = is + a, (s = 1, 2, ..., r),
as = is + a, (s = 1, 2, ..., r),
then zero values of the new parameters a1, a2, ..., ar give the identical operation.
then zero values of the new parameters a1, a2, ..., ar produce the same operation.
To infinitesimal values of the parameters, thus chosen, will correspond operations which cause an infinitesimal change in each of the variables. These are called infinitesimal operations. The most general infinitesimal operation of the group is that given by the system
To very small values of the chosen parameters, there will be operations that lead to a tiny change in each of the variables. These are referred to as infinitesimal operations. The most general infinitesimal operation of the group is defined by the system
x′s − xs = δxs = | ∂ƒs | δa1 + | ∂ƒs | δa2 + ... + | ∂ƒs | δar, (s = 1, 2, ..., n), |
∂a1 | ∂a2 | ∂ar |
where, in ∂ƒs/∂ai, zero values of the parameters are to be taken. Since a1, a2, ..., ar are independent, the ratios of δa1, δa2, ..., δar are arbitrary. Hence the most general infinitesimal operation of the group may be written in the form
where, in ∂ƒs/∂ai, zero values of the parameters are to be taken. Since a1, a2, ..., ar are independent, the ratios of δa1, δa2, ..., δar are arbitrary. Therefore, the most general infinitesimal operation of the group can be expressed in the form
δxs = Please provide the text you would like me to modernize. e1 | ∂ƒs | + e2 | ∂ƒs | + ... + er | ∂ƒs | Your input seems incomplete. Please provide a text phrase for me to modernize. δt, (s = 1, 2, ..., n), |
∂a1 | ∂a2 | ∂ar |
where e1, e2, ..., er are arbitrary constants, and δt is an infinitesimal.
where e1, e2, ..., er are arbitrary constants, and δt is an infinitely small value.
If F(x1, x2, ..., xn) is any function of the variables, and if an infinitesimal operation of the group be carried out on the variables in F, the resulting increment of F will be
If F(x1, x2, ..., xn) is any function of the variables, and if a tiny operation of the group is performed on the variables in F, the resulting change in F will be
∂F | δx1 + | ∂F | δx2 + ... + | ∂F | δxn. |
∂x1 | ∂x2 | ∂xn |
If the differential operator
If the derivative operator
∂ƒ1 | ∂ | + | ∂ƒ2 | ∂ | + ... + | ∂ƒn | ∂ | |||
∂ai | ∂x1 | ∂ai | ∂x2 | ∂ai | ∂xn |
be represented by Xi, (i = 1, 2, ..., r), then the increment of F is given by
be represented by Xi, (i = 1, 2, ..., r), then the increase of F is given by
(e1X1 + e2X2 + ... + erXr) Fδt.
(e1X1 + e2X2 + ... + erXr) Fδt.
When the equations (i.) defining the general operation of the group are given, the coefficients ∂ƒs/∂ai, which enter in these differential operators are functions of the variables which can be directly calculated.
When the equations (i.) defining how the group operates are provided, the coefficients ∂ƒs/∂ai, which are part of these differential operators, are functions of the variables that can be calculated directly.
The differential operator e1X1 + e2X2 + ... + erXr may then be regarded as defining the most general infinitesimal operation of the group. In fact, if it be for a moment represented by X, then (1 + δtX)F is the result of carrying out the infinitesimal operation on F; and by putting x1, x2, ..., xn in turn for F, the actual infinitesimal operation is reproduced. By a very convenient, though perhaps hardly justifiable, phraseology this differential operator is itself spoken of as the general infinitesimal operation of the group. The sense in which this phraseology is to be understood will be made clear by the foregoing explanations.
The differential operator e1X1 + e2X2 + ... + erXr can be seen as defining the most general infinitesimal operation of the group. In fact, if we represent it temporarily as X, then (1 + δtX)F shows the result of performing the infinitesimal operation on F; and by substituting x1, x2, ..., xn in turn for F, the actual infinitesimal operation is reproduced. Using a very convenient, although perhaps barely justifiable, term, this differential operator is referred to as the general infinitesimal operation of the group. The meaning of this terminology will be clarified by the explanations provided above.
We suppose now that the constants e1, e2, ..., er have assigned values. Then the result of repeating the particular infinitesimal operation e1X1 + e2X2 + ... + erXr or X an infinite number of times is some finite operation of the group. The effect of this finite operation on F may be directly calculated. In fact, if δt is the infinitesimal already introduced, then
We now assume that the constants e1, e2, ..., er have specific values. Then, the outcome of performing the particular infinitesimal operation e1X1 + e2X2 + ... + erXr or X an infinite number of times results in some finite operation of the group. The impact of this finite operation on F can be calculated directly. In fact, if δt is the infinitesimal previously mentioned, then
dF | = X·F, | d2F | = X·X·F, ... |
dt | dt2 |
Hence
Therefore
F′ = F + t | dF | + | t2 | + | d2F | + ... |
dt | 1·2 | dt2 |
= F + tX·F + | t2 | X·X·F + ... |
1·2 |
It must, of course, be understood that in this analytical representation of the effect of the finite operation on F it is implied that t is taken sufficiently small to ensure the convergence of the (in general) infinite series.
It must, of course, be understood that in this analysis of how the finite operation affects F, it is assumed that t is taken small enough to ensure the convergence of the (in general) infinite series.
When x1, x2, ... are written in turn for F, the system of equations
When x1, x2, ... are listed sequentially for F, the system of equations
x′s = (1 + tX + | t2 | X·X + ...)xs, (s = 1, 2, ..., n) |
1·2 |
represent the finite operation completely. If t is here regarded as a parameter, this set of operations must in themselves constitute a group, since they arise by the repetition of a single infinitesimal operation. That this is really the case results immediately from noticing that the result of eliminating F′ between
represent the finite operation completely. If t is considered a parameter here, this set of operations must form a group in itself, as they come from repeatedly applying a single infinitesimal operation. This is evident when we observe that the outcome of eliminating F′ between
F′ = F + tX·F + | t2 | X·X·F + ... |
1·2 |
and
and
F″ = F′ + t′X·F′ + | t′2 | X·X·F′ + ... |
1·2 |
is
is
F″ = F + (t + t′) X·F + | (t + t′)2 | X·X·F + ... |
1·2 |
The group thus generated by the repetition of an infinitesimal operation is called a cyclical group; so that a continuous group contains a cyclical subgroup corresponding to each of its infinitesimal operations.
The group created by repeating a tiny operation is called a cyclical group; therefore, a continuous group has a cyclical subgroup that corresponds to each of its tiny operations.
The system of equations (ii.) represents an operation of the group whatever the constants e1, e2, ..., er may be. Hence if e1t, e2t, ..., ert be replaced by a1, a2, ..., ar the equations (ii.) represent a set of operations, depending on r parameters and belonging to the group. They must therefore be a form of the general equations for any operation of the group, and are equivalent to the equations (i.). The determination of the finite equations of a cyclical group, when the infinitesimal operation which generates it is given, will always depend on the integration of a set of simultaneous ordinary differential equations. As a very simple example we may consider the case in which the infinitesimal operation is given by X = x2∂/∂x, so that there is only a single variable. The relation between x′ and t is given by dx′/dt = x′2, with the condition that x′ = x when t = 0. This gives at once x′ = x/(1 − tx), which might also be obtained by the direct use of (ii.).
The system of equations (ii.) represents an operation of the group regardless of what the constants e1, e2, ..., er are. Therefore, if e1t, e2t, ..., ert are replaced by a1, a2, ..., ar, the equations (ii.) represent a set of operations that depend on r parameters and belong to the group. They must therefore be a form of the general equations for any operation of the group and are equivalent to the equations (i.). Determining the finite equations of a cyclic group, when the infinitesimal operation generating it is given, will always depend on solving a set of simultaneous ordinary differential equations. As a simple example, we can consider the case where the infinitesimal operation is given by X = x2∂/∂x, so that there is only one variable. The relationship between x′ and t is given by dx′/dt = x′2, with the condition that x′ = x when t = 0. This immediately gives x′ = x/(1 − tx), which could also be obtained by directly using (ii.).
When the finite equations (i.) of a continuous group of order r are known, it has now been seen that the differential operator which defines the most general infinitesimal operation of the group can be directly constructed, and that it contains r Relations between the infinitesimal operations of a finite continuous group. arbitrary constants. This is equivalent to saying that the group contains r linearly independent infinitesimal operations; and that the most general infinitesimal operation is obtained by combining these linearly with constant coefficients. Moreover, when any r independent infinitesimal operations of the group are known, it has been seen how the general finite operation of the group may be calculated. This obviously suggests that it must be possible to define the group by means of its infinitesimal operations alone; and it is clear that such a definition would lend itself more readily to some applications (for instance, to the theory of differential equations) than the definition by means of the finite equations.
When the finite equations (i.) of a continuous group of order r are known, it's clear now that the differential operator defining the most general infinitesimal operation of the group can be constructed directly, and that it includes r Relations between the tiny operations of a finite continuous group. arbitrary constants. This means that the group has r linearly independent infinitesimal operations, and the most general infinitesimal operation is formed by combining these linearly with constant coefficients. Furthermore, once any r independent infinitesimal operations of the group are identified, we can determine how to calculate the general finite operation of the group. This strongly suggests that it's possible to define the group solely through its infinitesimal operations, and such a definition would likely be more useful for certain applications (like the theory of differential equations) than the definition based on finite equations.
On the other hand, r arbitrarily given linear differential operators will not, in general, give rise to a finite continuous group of order r; and the question arises as to what conditions such a set of operators must satisfy in order that they may, in fact, be the independent infinitesimal operations of such a group.
On the other hand, linear differential operators given arbitrarily will not generally create a finite continuous group of order r; and the question arises about what conditions such a set of operators must meet for them to actually serve as the independent infinitesimal operations of that group.
If X, Y are two linear differential operators, XY − YX is also a linear differential operator. It is called the “combinant” of X and Y (Lie uses the expression Klammerausdruck) and is denoted by (XY). If X, Y, Z are any three linear differential operators the identity (known as Jacobi’s)
If X and Y are two linear differential operators, then XY − YX is also a linear differential operator. This is called the “combinant” of X and Y (Lie uses the term Klammerausdruck) and is represented as (XY). If X, Y, and Z are any three linear differential operators, the identity (known as Jacobi’s)
(X(YZ)) + (Y(ZX)) + (Z(XY)) = 0
(X(YZ)) + (Y(ZX)) + (Z(XY)) = 0
holds between them. Now it may be shown that any continuous group of which X, Y are infinitesimal operations contains also (XY) among its infinitesimal operations. Hence if r linearly independent operations X1, X2, ..., Xr give rise to a finite continuous group of order r, the combinant of each pair must be expressible linearly in terms of the r operations themselves: that is, there must be a system of relations
holds between them. Now it can be demonstrated that any continuous group in which X and Y are infinitesimal operations also includes (XY) among its infinitesimal operations. Therefore, if r linearly independent operations X1, X2, ..., Xr generate a finite continuous group of order r, the combinant of each pair must be expressible linearly in terms of the r operations themselves: in other words, there must be a system of relations
(XiXj) = Σk=rk=1 cijk Xk,
(XiXj) = Σk=rk=1 cijk Xk,
where the c’s are constants. Moreover, from Jacobi’s identity and the identity (XY) + (YX) = 0 it follows that the c’s are subject to the relations
where the c’s are constants. Moreover, from Jacobi’s identity and the identity (XY) + (YX) = 0, it follows that the c’s are subject to the relations
and
and
cijt + cjit = 0,
Σs (cjks cist + ckis cjst + cijs ckst) = 0
cijt + cjit = 0,
Σs (cjk cist + ckis jst + cijs cks) = 0
for all values of i, j, k and t.
for all values of i, j, k, and t.
The fundamental theorem of the theory of finite continuous groups is now that these conditions, which are necessary in order Determination of the distinct types of continuous groups of a given order. that X1, X2, ..., Xr may generate, as infinitesimal operations, a continuous group of order r, are also sufficient.
The core theorem in the theory of finite continuous groups says that the conditions needed for X1, X2, ..., Xr to generate, as infinitesimal operations, a continuous group of order r are also enough. Identifying the different types of continuous groups of a specific order.
For the proof of this fundamental theorem see Lie’s works (cf. Lie-Engel, i. chap. 9; iii. chap. 25).
For the proof of this fundamental theorem, see Lie’s works (see Lie-Engel, i. chap. 9; iii. chap. 25).
If two continuous groups of order r are such that, for each, a set of linearly independent infinitesimal operations X1, X2, ..., Xr and Y1, Y2, ..., Yr can be chosen, so that in the relations
If two continuous groups of order r exist such that, for each group, a set of linearly independent infinitesimal operations X1, X2, ..., Xr and Y1, Y2, ..., Yr can be selected, so that in the relations
(XiXj) = Σcijs Xs, (YiYj) = Σ dijs Ys,
(XiXj) = Σcijs Xs, (YiYj) = Σ dijs Ys,
the constants cijs and dijs are the same for all values of i, j and s, the two groups are simply isomorphic, Xs and Ys being corresponding infinitesimal operations.
the constants cijs and dijs are the same for all values of i, j, and s, the two groups are just isomorphic, with Xs and Ys being corresponding infinitesimal operations.
Two continuous groups of order r, whose infinitesimal operations obey the same system of equations (iii.), may be of very different form; for instance, the number of variables for the one may be different from that for the other. They are, however, said to be of the same type, in the sense that the laws according to which their operations combine are the same for both.
Two continuous groups of order r, whose infinitesimal operations follow the same system of equations (iii.), can be quite different in form; for example, the number of variables in one may differ from that in the other. However, they are considered to be of the same type, in that the rules governing how their operations combine are the same for both.
The problem of determining all distinct types of groups of order r is then contained in the purely algebraical problem of finding all the systems of r3 quantities cijs which satisfy the relations
The issue of figuring out all the different types of groups of order r is then included in the straightforward algebraic problem of finding all the systems of r3 quantities cijs that meet the relations.
cijt + cijt = 0,
Σs cijs cskt + cjks csit + ckis csjt = 0.
cijt + cijt = 0,
Σs cijs cskT + cjks cSit + cKis cSjt = 0.
for all values of i, j, k and t. To two distinct solutions of the algebraical problem, however, two distinct types of group will not necessarily correspond. In fact, X1, X2, ..., Xr may be replaced by any r independent linear functions of themselves, and the c’s will then be transformed by a linear substitution containing r2 independent parameters. This, however, does not alter the type of group considered.
for all values of i, j, k, and t. However, two different solutions to the algebraic problem won't necessarily correspond to two different types of groups. In fact, X1, X2, ..., Xr can be replaced by any r independent linear functions of themselves, and the c’s will then be transformed by a linear substitution involving r2 independent parameters. This does not change the type of group being considered.
For a single parameter there is, of course, only one type of group, which has been called cyclical.
For a single parameter, there's only one type of group, which is known as cyclical.
For a group of order two there is a single relation
For a group of order two, there is just one relationship.
(X1X2) = αX1 + βX2.
(X1X2) = αX1 + βX2.
If α and β are not both zero, let α be finite. The relation may then be written (αX1 + βX2, α−1X2) = αX1 + βX2. Hence if αX1 + βX2 = X′1, and α−1X2 = X′2, then (X′1X′2) = X′1. There are, therefore, just two types of group of order two, the one given by the relation last written, and the other by (X1X2) = 0.
If α and β are not both zero, let α be finite. The relationship can then be expressed as (αX1 + βX2, α−1X2) = αX1 + βX2. Therefore, if αX1 + βX2 = X′1 and α−1X2 = X′2, then (X′1X′2) = X′1. Thus, there are only two types of groups of order two: the one represented by the last relation and the other by (X1X2) = 0.
Lie has determined all distinct types of continuous groups of orders three or four; and all types of non-integrable groups (a term which will be explained immediately) of orders five and six (cf. Lie-Engel, iii. 713-744).
Lie has identified all the different types of continuous groups of orders three and four, as well as all types of non-integrable groups (a term that will be explained shortly) of orders five and six (cf. Lie-Engel, iii. 713-744).
A problem of fundamental importance in connexion with any given Self-conjugate subgroups. Integrable groups. continuous group is the determination of the self-conjugate subgroups which it contains. If X is an infinitesimal operation of a group, and Y any other, the general form of the infinitesimal operations which are conjugate to X is
A key issue related to any continuous group is identifying the self-conjugate subgroups it contains. If X represents an infinitesimal operation of a group, and Y is any other operation, the general form of the infinitesimal operations that are conjugate to X is
X + t(XY) + | t2 | ((XY)Y) + .... |
1·2 |
Any subgroup which contains all the operations conjugate to X must therefore contain all infinitesimal operations (XY), ((XY)Y), ..., where for Y each infinitesimal operation of the group is taken in turn. Hence if X′1, X′2, ..., X′s are s linearly independent operations of the group which generate a self-conjugate subgroup of order s, then for every infinitesimal operation Y of the group relations of the form
Any subgroup that includes all the operations conjugate to X must also include all infinitesimal operations (XY), ((XY)Y), ... where Y is taken as each infinitesimal operation of the group in turn. Therefore, if X′1, X′2, ..., X′s are s linearly independent operations of the group that generate a self-conjugate subgroup of order s, then for every infinitesimal operation Y of the group,
(X′iY) = Σe=se=1 aie X′e, (i = 1, 2, ..., s)
(X′iY) = Σe=se=1 ai.e. X′e, (i = 1, 2, ..., s)
must be satisfied. Conversely, if such a set of relations is satisfied, X′1, X′2, ..., X′s generate a subgroup of order s, which contains every operation conjugate to each of the infinitesimal generating operations, and is therefore a self-conjugate subgroup.
must be satisfied. On the other hand, if this set of relations holds true, X′1, X′2, ..., X′s form a subgroup of order s, which includes every operation that is conjugate to each of the infinitesimal generating operations, making it a self-conjugate subgroup.
A specially important self-conjugate subgroup is that generated by the combinants of the r infinitesimal generating operations. That these generate a self-conjugate subgroup follows from the relations (iii.). In fact,
A particularly important self-conjugate subgroup is generated by the combinants of the r infinitesimal generating operations. This generates a self-conjugate subgroup, which follows from the relations (iii.). In fact,
((XiXj) Xk) = Σs cijs (XsXk).
((XiXj) Xk) = Σs cijs (XsXk).
Of the ½r(r − 1) combinants not more than r can be linearly independent. When exactly r of them are linearly independent, the self-conjugate group generated by them coincides with the original group. If the number that are linearly independent is less than r, the self-conjugate subgroup generated by them is actually a subgroup; i.e. its order is less than that of the original group. This subgroup is known as the derived group, and Lie has called a group perfect when it coincides with its derived group. A simple group, since it contains no self-conjugate subgroup distinct from itself, is necessarily a perfect group.
Of the ½r(r − 1) combinations, no more than r can be linearly independent. When exactly r of them are linearly independent, the self-conjugate group they generate is the same as the original group. If the number of linearly independent ones is less than r, the self-conjugate subgroup they generate is actually a subgroup; that is, its order is less than that of the original group. This subgroup is known as the derived group, and Lie referred to a group as perfect when it is the same as its derived group. A simple group, since it doesn’t contain any self-conjugate subgroup other than itself, is necessarily a perfect group.
If G is a given continuous group, G1 the derived group of G, G2 that of G1, and so on, the series of groups G, G1, G2, ... will terminate either with the identical operation or with a perfect group; for the order of Gs+1 is less than that of Gs unless Gs is a perfect group. When the series terminates with the identical operation, G is said to be an integrable group; in the contrary case G is called non-integrable.
If G is a continuous group, G1 is the derived group of G, G2 is the derived group of G1, and so on. The series of groups G, G1, G2, ... will end either with the trivial group or with a perfect group; the order of Gs+1 is less than that of Gs unless Gs is a perfect group. When the series ends with the trivial group, G is called an integrable group; otherwise, G is referred to as non-integrable.
If G is an integrable group of order r, the infinitesimal operations X1, X2, ..., Xr which generate the group may be chosen so that X1, X2, ..., Xr1, (r1 < r) generate the first derived group, X1, X2, ..., Xr2, (r2 < r1) the second derived group, and so on. When they are so chosen the constants cijs are clearly such that if rp < i ≤ rp+1, rq < j ≤ rq+1, p ≥ q, then cijs vanishes unless s ≤ rp+1.
If G is a well-defined group of order r, the small operations X1, X2, ..., Xr that generate the group can be selected so that X1, X2, ..., Xr1 (where r1 < r) generate the first derived group, X1, X2, ..., Xr2 (where r2 < r1) generate the second derived group, and so on. When chosen this way, the constants cijs are obviously such that if rp < i ≤ rp+1, rq < j ≤ rq+1, and p ≥ q, then cijs is zero unless s ≤ rp+1.
In particular the generating operations may be chosen so that cijs vanishes unless s is equal to or less than the smaller of the two numbers i, j; and conversely, if the c’s satisfy these relations, the group is integrable.
In particular, the generating operations can be selected so that cijs disappears unless s is equal to or less than the smaller of the two numbers i and j; and conversely, if the c's meet these conditions, the group is integrable.
A simple group, as already defined, is one which has no self-conjugate subgroup. It is a remarkable fact that the determination Simple groups. of all distinct types of simple continuous groups has been made, for in the case of discontinuous groups and groups of finite order this is far from being the case. Lie has demonstrated the existence of four great classes of simple groups:—
A simple group, as defined earlier, is one that has no self-conjugate subgroup. It's quite interesting that all the different types of simple continuous groups have been identified, while for discontinuous groups and groups of finite order, this is not yet true. Lie has shown that there are four major classes of simple groups:—
(i.) The groups simply isomorphic with the general projective group in space of n dimensions. Such a group is defined analytically as the totality of the transformations of the form
(i.) The groups that are simply isomorphic to the general projective group in n-dimensional space. Such a group is defined analytically as the complete set of transformations of the form
x′s = | as, 1x1 + as, 2x2 + ... + as, nxn + as, n + 1 | , (s = 1, 2, ..., n), |
an+1, 1x1 + an+1, 2x2 + ... + an+1, nxn + 1 |
where the a’s are parameters. The order of this group is clearly n(n + 2).
where the a's are parameters. The order of this group is clearly n(n + 2).
(ii.) The groups simply isomorphic with the totality of the projective transformations which transform a non-special linear complex in space of 2n − 1 dimensions with itself. The order of this group is n(2n + 1).
(ii.) The groups that are simply isomorphic with the entire set of projective transformations that map a non-special linear complex in a space of 2n − 1 dimensions back onto itself. The order of this group is n(2n + 1).
(iii.) and (iv.) The groups simply isomorphic with the totality of the projective transformations which change a quadric of non-vanishing discriminant into itself. These fall into two distinct classes of types according as n is even or odd. In either case the order is ½n(n + 1). The case n = 3 forms an exception in which the corresponding group is not simple. It is also to be noticed that a cyclical group is a simple group, since it has no continuous self-conjugate subgroup distinct from itself.
(iii.) and (iv.) The groups are simply isomorphic to all the projective transformations that keep a quadric with a non-zero discriminant unchanged. These divide into two different types depending on whether n is even or odd. In either situation, the order is ½n(n + 1). The case where n = 3 is an exception, as the corresponding group is not simple. It's also important to note that a cyclic group is a simple group because it doesn't have any continuous self-conjugate subgroup other than itself.
W. K. J. Killing and E. J. Cartan have separately proved that outside these four great classes there exist only five distinct types of simple groups, whose orders are 14, 52, 78, 133 and 248; thus completing the enumeration of all possible types.
W. K. J. Killing and E. J. Cartan have each shown that beyond these four major categories, there are only five unique types of simple groups, with orders of 14, 52, 78, 133, and 248; thus completing the list of all possible types.
To prevent any misapprehension as to the bearing of these very general results, it is well to point out explicitly that there are no limitations on the parameters of a continuous group as it has been defined above. They are to be regarded as taking in general complex values. If in the finite equations of a continuous group the imaginary symbol does not explicitly occur, the finite equations will usually define a group (in the general sense of the original definition) when both parameters and variables are limited to real values. Such a group is, in a certain sense, a continuous group; and such groups have been considered shortly by Lie (cf. Lie-Engel, iii. 360-392), who calls them real continuous groups. To these real continuous groups the above statement as to the totality of simple groups does not apply; and indeed, in all probability, the number of types of real simple continuous groups admits of no such complete enumeration. The effect of limitation to real transformations may be illustrated by considering the groups of projective transformations which change
To avoid any misunderstanding about the implications of these very broad results, it's important to clearly state that there are no limitations on the parameters of a continuous group as defined above. They should be considered capable of taking on general complex values. If the imaginary symbol does not appear explicitly in the finite equations of a continuous group, those equations will typically define a group (in the broad sense of the original definition) when both parameters and variables are restricted to real values. In a certain way, this type of group is a continuous group; Lie has briefly discussed such groups (see Lie-Engel, iii. 360-392), referring to them as real continuous groups. The earlier assertion about the completeness of simple groups does not apply to these real continuous groups, and in fact, it’s likely that the various types of real simple continuous groups cannot be completely listed. The impact of limiting to real transformations can be shown by examining the groups of projective transformations that change
x2 + y2 + z2 − 1 = 0 and x2 + y2 − z2 − 1 = 0
x2 + y2 + z2 − 1 = 0 and x2 + y2 − z2 − 1 = 0
respectively into themselves. Since one of these quadrics is changed into the other by the imaginary transformation
respectively into themselves. Since one of these shapes is transformed into the other through the imaginary transformation
x′ = x, y′ = y, z′ = z√ (−1),
x′ = x, y′ = y, z′ = z√ (−1),
the general continuous groups which transform the two quadrics respectively into themselves are simply isomorphic. This is not, however, the case for the real continuous groups. In fact, the second quadric has two real sets of generators; and therefore the real group which transforms it into itself has two self-conjugate subgroups, either of which leaves unchanged each of one set of generators. The first quadric having imaginary generators, no such self-conjugate subgroups can exist for the real group which transforms it into itself; and this real group is in fact simple.
the general continuous groups that transform the two quadrics into themselves are simply isomorphic. However, this is not true for the real continuous groups. In fact, the second quadric has two real sets of generators; therefore, the real group that transforms it into itself has two self-conjugate subgroups, each of which leaves one set of generators unchanged. The first quadric has imaginary generators, so there can't be any self-conjugate subgroups for the real group that transforms it into itself; and this real group is actually simple.
Among the groups isomorphic with a given continuous group there The adjunct group. is one of special importance which is known as the adjunct group. This is a homogeneous linear group in a number of variables equal to the order of the group, whose infinitesimal operations are defined by the relations
Among the groups that are isomorphic with a given continuous group there The support group. is one of special importance known as the adjunct group. This is a homogeneous linear group in a number of variables that matches the order of the group, and its infinitesimal operations are defined by the relations
Xi = Σi, s cijs xi | ∂ | , (j = 1, 2, ..., r), |
∂xs |
where cijs are the often-used constants, which give the combinants of the infinitesimal operations in terms of the infinitesimal operations themselves.
where cijs are the frequently used constants that represent the combinations of the infinitesimal operations in relation to the infinitesimal operations themselves.
That the r infinitesimal operations thus defined actually generate a group isomorphic with the given group is verified by forming their combinants. It is thus found that (XpXq) = Σs cpqsXs. The X’s, however, are not necessarily linearly independent. In fact, the sufficient condition that Σj ajXj should be identically zero is that Σj ajcijs should vanish for all values of i and s. Hence if the equations Σj ajcijs = 0 for all values of i and s have r′ linearly independent solutions, only r − r′ of the X’s are linearly independent, and the isomorphism of the two groups is multiple. If Y1, Y2, ..., Yr are the infinitesimal operations of the given group, the equations
That the r infinitesimal operations defined here actually create a group that is isomorphic to the given group is confirmed by forming their combinations. It turns out that (XpXq) = Σs cpqsXs. However, the X’s are not necessarily linearly independent. In fact, the necessary condition for Σj ajXj to be identically zero is that Σj ajcijs must equal zero for all values of i and s. Thus, if the equations Σj ajcijs = 0 for all values of i and s have r′ linearly independent solutions, then only r − r′ of the X’s are linearly independent, and the isomorphism of the two groups is multiple. If Y1, Y2, ..., Yr are the infinitesimal operations of the given group, the equations
Σj ajcijs = 0, (s, i = 1, 2, ..., r)
Σj ajcijs = 0, (s, i = 1, 2, ..., r)
express the condition that the operations of the cyclical group generated by Σj ajYi should be permutable with every operation of the group; in other words, that they should be self-conjugate operations. In the case supposed, therefore, the given group contains a subgroup of order r′ each of whose operations is self-conjugate. The adjunct group of a given group will therefore be simply isomorphic with the group, unless the latter contains self-conjugate operations; and when this is the case the order of the adjunct will be less than that of the given group by the order of the subgroup formed of the self-conjugate operations.
express the condition that the operations of the cyclical group generated by Σj ajYi should be able to commute with every operation of the group; in other words, that they should be self-conjugate operations. In the assumed case, therefore, the given group contains a subgroup of order r′ where each of its operations is self-conjugate. The adjunct group of a given group will therefore be simply isomorphic to the group, unless the latter includes self-conjugate operations; and when this is the case, the order of the adjunct will be less than that of the given group by the order of the subgroup made up of the self-conjugate operations.
We have been thus far mainly concerned with the abstract theory of continuous groups, in which no distinction is made between Continuous groups of the line of the plane, and of three-dimensional space. two simply isomorphic groups. We proceed to discuss the classification and theory of groups when their form is regarded as essential; and this is a return to a more geometrical point of view.
We have primarily focused on the abstract theory of continuous groups, where there is no difference made between Continuous groups of lines in a plane and in three-dimensional space. two simply isomorphic groups. Now, we will discuss the classification and theory of groups when their structure is considered essential; this represents a shift back to a more geometric perspective.
It is natural to begin with the projective groups, which are the simplest in form and at the same time are of supreme importance in geometry. The general projective group of the straight line is the group of order three given by
It makes sense to start with the projective groups, since they are the simplest in structure and are also extremely important in geometry. The general projective group of the straight line is the group of order three given by
x′ = | ax + b | , |
cx + d′ |
where the parameters are the ratios of a, b, c, d. Since
where the parameters are the ratios of a, b, c, d. Since
x′3 − x′2 | · | x′ − x′1 | = | x3 − x2 | · | x − x1 |
x′3 − x′1 | x′ − x′2 | x3 − x1 | x − x2 |
is an operation of the above form, the group is triply transitive. Every subgroup of order two leaves one point unchanged, and all such subgroups are conjugate. A cyclical subgroup leaves either two distinct points or two coincident points unchanged. A subgroup which either leaves two points unchanged or interchanges them is an example of a “mixed” group.
is an operation of the above form; the group is triply transitive. Every subgroup of order two keeps one point the same, and all of these subgroups are conjugate. A cyclic subgroup keeps either two distinct points or two identical points the same. A subgroup that either keeps two points the same or swaps them is an example of a “mixed” group.
The analysis of the general projective group must obviously increase very rapidly in complexity, as the dimensions of the space to which it applies increase. This analysis has been completely carried out for the projective group of the plane, with the result of showing that there are thirty distinct types of subgroup. Excluding the general group itself, every one of these leaves either a point, a line, or a conic section unaltered. For space of three dimensions Lie has also carried out a similar investigation, but the results are extremely complicated. One general result of great importance at which Lie arrives in this connexion is that every projective group in space of three dimensions, other than the general group, leaves either a point, a curve, a surface or a linear complex unaltered.
The analysis of the general projective group clearly becomes much more complex as the dimensions of the space it applies to increase. This analysis has been thoroughly completed for the projective group of the plane, showing that there are thirty different types of subgroups. Aside from the general group itself, each of these leaves either a point, a line, or a conic section unchanged. For three-dimensional space, Lie also conducted a similar investigation, but the results are extremely complicated. One key finding that Lie arrives at in this connection is that every projective group in three-dimensional space, other than the general group, leaves either a point, a curve, a surface, or a linear complex unchanged.
Returning now to the case of a single variable, it can be shown that any finite continuous group in one variable is either cyclical or of order two or three, and that by a suitable transformation any such group may be changed into a projective group.
Returning now to the case of a single variable, it can be shown that any finite continuous group in one variable is either cyclic or of order two or three, and that through a suitable transformation, any such group can be changed into a projective group.
The genesis of an infinite as distinguished from a finite continuous group may be well illustrated by considering it in the case of a single variable. The infinitesimal operations of the projective group in one variable are d/dx, x(d/dx), x2(d/dx). If these combined with x3(d/dx) be 631 taken as infinitesimal operations from which to generate a continuous group among the infinitesimal operations of the group, there must occur the combinant of x2(d/dx) and x3(d/dx). This is x4(d/dx). The combinant of this and x2(d/dx) is 2x5(d/dx) and so on. Hence xr(d/dx), where r is any positive integer, is an infinitesimal operation of the group. The general infinitesimal operation of the group is therefore ƒ(x)(d/dx), where ƒ(x) is an arbitrary integral function of x.
The creation of an infinite continuous group, as opposed to a finite one, can be clearly explained by looking at it through the lens of a single variable. The infinitesimal operations of the projective group in one variable are d/dx, x(d/dx), and x2(d/dx). If we combine these with x3(d/dx) and consider them as infinitesimal operations from which to form a continuous group among the operations of the group, we need to include the combination of x2(d/dx) and x3(d/dx). This results in x4(d/dx). The combination of this with x2(d/dx) gives us 2x5(d/dx), and this pattern continues. Therefore, xr(d/dx), where r is any positive integer, is an infinitesimal operation of the group. The overall infinitesimal operation of the group is then ƒ(x)(d/dx), where ƒ(x) is any arbitrary integral function of x.
In the classification of the groups, projective or non-projective of two or more variables, the distinction between primitive and imprimitive groups immediately presents itself. For groups of the plane the following question arises. Is there or is there not a singly-infinite family of curves ƒ(x, y) = C, where C is an arbitrary constant such that every operation of the group interchanges the curves of the family among themselves? In accordance with the previously given definition of imprimitivity, the group is called imprimitive or primitive according as such a set exists or not. In space of three dimensions there are two possibilities; namely, there may either be a singly infinite system of surfaces F(x, y, z) = C, which are interchanged among themselves by the operations of the group; or there may be a doubly-infinite system of curves G(x, y, z) = a, H(x, y, z) = b, which are so interchanged.
In classifying groups that are projective or non-projective with two or more variables, the difference between primitive and imprimitive groups quickly becomes clear. For groups in a plane, the following question arises: Is there or isn’t there an infinite set of curves ƒ(x, y) = C, where C is any constant, such that every operation of the group swaps the curves within that set? According to the earlier definition of imprimitivity, the group is labeled as imprimitive or primitive based on whether such a set exists. In three-dimensional space, there are two possibilities: either there is an infinite system of surfaces F(x, y, z) = C that are swapped among themselves by the group’s operations, or there is a double-infinite system of curves G(x, y, z) = a, H(x, y, z) = b, which are likewise swapped.
In regard to primitive groups Lie has shown that any primitive group of the plane can, by a suitably chosen transformation, be transformed into one of three definite types of projective groups; and that any primitive group of space of three dimensions can be transformed into one of eight definite types, which, however, cannot all be represented as projective groups in three dimensions.
In terms of primitive groups, Lie demonstrated that any primitive group in the plane can be transformed into one of three specific types of projective groups through a carefully selected transformation. Additionally, any primitive group in three-dimensional space can be converted into one of eight specific types, although not all of these can be represented as projective groups in three dimensions.
The results which have been arrived at for imprimitive groups in two and three variables do not admit of any such simple statement.
The results obtained for imprimitive groups in two and three variables cannot be summarized so simply.
We shall now explain the conception of contact-transformations and groups of contact-transformations. This conception, Contact transformations. like that of continuous groups, owes its origin to Lie.
We will now explain the idea of contact transformations and groups of contact transformations. This idea, Contact changes. similar to continuous groups, comes from Lie.
From a purely analytical point of view a contact-transformation may be defined as a point-transformation in 2n + 1 variables, z, x1, x2, ..., xn, p1, p2, ..., pn which leaves unaltered the equation dz − p1dx1 − p2dx2 − ... − pndxn = 0. Such a definition as this, however, gives no direct clue to the geometrical properties of the transformation, nor does it explain the name given.
From a purely analytical perspective, a contact transformation can be described as a point transformation in 2n + 1 variables: z, x1, x2, ..., xn, p1, p2, ..., pn, which keeps the equation dz − p1dx1 − p2dx2 − ... − pndxn = 0 unchanged. However, this definition doesn't provide any direct insight into the geometric properties of the transformation, nor does it clarify the reason for its name.
In dealing with contact-transformations we shall restrict ourselves to space of two or of three dimensions; and it will be necessary to begin with some purely geometrical considerations. An infinitesimal surface-element in space of three dimensions is completely specified, apart from its size, by its position and orientation. If x, y, z are the co-ordinates of some one point of the element, and if p, q, −1 give the ratios of the direction-cosines of its normal, x, y, z, p, q are five quantities which completely specify the element. There are, therefore, ∞5 surface elements in three-dimensional space. The surface-elements of a surface form a system of ∞2 elements, for there are ∞2 points on the surface, and at each a definite surface-element. The surface-elements of a curve form, again, a system of ∞2 elements, for there are ∞1 points on the curve, and at each ∞1 surface-elements containing the tangent to the curve at the point. Similarly the surface-elements which contain a given point clearly form a system of ∞2 elements. Now each of these systems of ∞2 surface-elements has the property that if (x, y, z, p, q) and (x + dx, y + dy, z + dz, p + dp, q + dq) are consecutive elements from any one of them, then dz − pdx − qdy = 0. In fact, for a system of the first kind dx, dy, dz are proportional to the direction-cosines of a tangent line at a point of the surface, and p, q, −1 are proportional to the direction-cosines of the normal. For a system of the second kind dx, dy, dz are proportional to the direction-cosines of a tangent to the curve, and p, q, −1 give the direction-cosines of the normal to a plane touching the curve; and for a system of the third kind dx, dy, dz are zero. Now the most general way in which a system of ∞2 surface-elements can be given is by three independent equations between x, y, z, p and q. If these equations do not contain p, q, they determine one or more (a finite number in any case) points in space, and the system of surface-elements consists of the elements containing these points; i.e. it consists of one or more systems of the third kind.
In working with contact transformations, we'll focus on a space of two or three dimensions, and we need to start with some purely geometric concepts. An infinitesimal surface element in three-dimensional space is fully defined, aside from its size, by its position and orientation. If x, y, z are the coordinates of a point on the element, and if p, q, -1 indicate the ratios of the direction cosines of its normal, then x, y, z, p, and q are five quantities that completely define the element. Therefore, there are ∞5 surface elements in three-dimensional space. The surface elements of a surface create a system of ∞2 elements, as there are ∞2 points on the surface, each with a defined surface element. The surface elements of a curve also form a system of ∞2 elements, since there are ∞1 points on the curve, each with ∞1 surface elements that contain the tangent to the curve at that point. Similarly, the surface elements that include a given point clearly form a system of ∞2 elements. Each of these systems of ∞2 surface elements has the characteristic that if (x, y, z, p, q) and (x + dx, y + dy, z + dz, p + dp, q + dq) are consecutive elements from any of them, then dz - pdx - qdy = 0. In fact, for a system of the first kind, dx, dy, dz are proportional to the direction cosines of a tangent line at a point on the surface, while p, q, -1 are proportional to the direction cosines of the normal. For a system of the second kind, dx, dy, dz are proportional to the direction cosines of a tangent to the curve, with p, q, -1 representing the direction cosines of the normal to a plane tangent to the curve; and for a system of the third kind, dx, dy, dz are zero. The most general way to present a system of ∞2 surface elements is through three independent equations relating x, y, z, p, and q. If these equations do not include p or q, they pinpoint one or more (a finite number, in any case) points in space, and the system of surface elements consists of the elements containing these points; i.e. it comprises one or more systems of the third kind.
If the equations are such that two distinct equations independent of p and q can be derived from them, the points of the system of surface-elements lie on a curve. For such a system the equation dz − pdx − qdy = 0 will hold for each two consecutive elements only when the plane of each element touches the curve at its own point.
If the equations can lead to two distinct equations independent of p and q, the points in the system of surface elements will be on a curve. For this system, the equation dz − pdx − qdy = 0 will apply to each pair of consecutive elements only when the plane of each element touches the curve at its own point.
If the equations are such that only one equation independent of p and q can be derived from them, the points of the system of surface-elements lie on a surface. Again, for such a system the equation dz − pdx − qdy = 0 will hold for each two consecutive elements only when each element touches the surface at its own point. Hence, when all possible systems of ∞2 surface-elements in space are considered, the equation dz − pdx − qdy = 0 is characteristic of the three special types in which the elements belong, in the sense explained above, to a point or a curve or a surface.
If the equations are structured in a way that allows for only one equation independent of p and q to be derived from them, then the points in the system of surface elements lie on a surface. Additionally, for such a system, the equation dz − pdx − qdy = 0 applies to any two consecutive elements only when each element is in contact with the surface at its own point. Therefore, when we look at all possible systems of ∞2 surface elements in space, the equation dz − pdx − qdy = 0 is indicative of the three specific types to which the elements are associated, as described earlier, whether that be to a point, a curve, or a surface.
Let us consider now the geometrical bearing of any transformation x′ = ƒ1(x, y, z, p, q), ..., q′ = ƒ5(x, y, z, p, q), of the five variables. It will interchange the surface-elements of space among themselves, and will change any system of ∞2 elements into another system of ∞2 elements. A special system, i.e. a system which belongs to a point, curve or surface, will not, however, in general be changed into another special system. The necessary and sufficient condition that a special system should always be changed into a special system is that the equation dz′ − p′dx′ − q′dy′ = 0 should be a consequence of the equation dz − pdx − qdy = 0; or, in other words, that this latter equation should be invariant for the transformation.
Let’s now consider the geometric implications of any transformation x′ = ƒ1(x, y, z, p, q), ..., q′ = ƒ5(x, y, z, p, q), involving the five variables. It will swap the surface elements of space among each other and change any system of ∞2 elements into another system of ∞2 elements. However, a special system, meaning one that is associated with a point, curve, or surface, generally will not be transformed into another special system. The essential condition for a special system to always be converted into another special system is that the equation dz′ − p′dx′ − q′dy′ = 0 should be a result of the equation dz − pdx − qdy = 0; in other words, the latter equation should remain unchanged under the transformation.
When this condition is satisfied the transformation is such as to change the surface-elements of a surface in general into surface-elements of a surface, though in particular cases they may become the surface-elements of a curve or point; and similar statements may be made with respect to a curve or point. The transformation is therefore a veritable geometrical transformation in space of three dimensions. Moreover, two special systems of surface-elements which have an element in common are transformed into two new special systems with an element in common. Hence two curves or surfaces which touch each other are transformed into two new curves or surfaces which touch each other. It is this property which leads to the transformations in question being called contact-transformations. It will be noticed that an ordinary point-transformation is always a contact-transformation, but that a contact-transformation (in space of n dimensions) is not in general a point-transformation (in space of n dimensions), though it may always be regarded as a point-transformation in space of 2n + 1 dimensions. In the analogous theory for space of two dimensions a line-element, defined by (x, y, p), where 1 : p gives the direction-cosines of the line, takes the place of the surface-element; and a transformation of x, y and p which leaves the equation dy − pdx = 0 unchanged transforms the ∞1 line-elements, which belong to a curve, into ∞1 line-elements which again belong to a curve; while two curves which touch are transformed into two other curves which touch.
When this condition is met, the transformation changes the surface-elements of a surface into surface-elements of another surface. In some specific cases, these may turn into the surface-elements of a curve or a point. The same applies to curves or points. Therefore, this transformation is truly a geometrical transformation in three-dimensional space. Additionally, two distinct systems of surface-elements that share one element are transformed into two new systems that also share an element. As a result, two curves or surfaces that touch each other are transformed into two new curves or surfaces that also touch. This characteristic is why these transformations are referred to as contact-transformations. It's important to note that an ordinary point-transformation is always a contact-transformation, but a contact-transformation (in n-dimensional space) is not generally a point-transformation (in n-dimensional space), although it can be regarded as a point-transformation in a space of 2n + 1 dimensions. In the similar theory for two-dimensional space, a line-element defined by (x, y, p), where 1 : p indicates the direction cosines of the line, replaces the surface-element. A transformation of x, y, and p that keeps the equation dy − pdx = 0 unchanged transforms the ∞1 line-elements belonging to a curve into ∞1 line-elements that still belong to a curve, while two touching curves are transformed into two other curves that also touch.
One of the simplest instances of a contact-transformation that can be given is the transformation by reciprocal polars. By this transformation a point P and a plane p passing through it are changed into a plane p′ and a point P′ upon it; i.e. the surface-element defined by P, p is changed into a definite surface-element defined by P′, p′. The totality of surface-elements which belong to a (non-developable) surface is known from geometrical considerations to be changed into the totality which belongs to another (non-developable) surface. On the other hand, the totality of the surface-elements which belong to a curve is changed into another set which belong to a developable. The analytical formulae for this transformation, when the reciprocation is effected with respect to the paraboloid x2 + y2 − 2z = 0, are x′ = p, y′ = q, z′ = px + qy − z, p′ = x, q′ = y. That this is, in fact, a contact-transformation is verified directly by noticing that
One of the simplest examples of a contact transformation is the transformation by reciprocal polars. This transformation takes a point P and a plane p that passes through it and changes them into a plane p′ and a point P′ located on it; i.e. the surface element defined by P, p is transformed into a specific surface element defined by P′, p′. According to geometric principles, all surface elements that belong to a (non-developable) surface change into those that belong to another (non-developable) surface. Conversely, the total surface elements that belong to a curve are transformed into another set that belongs to a developable surface. The analytical formulas for this transformation, when reciprocity is performed with respect to the paraboloid x2 + y2 − 2z = 0, are x′ = p, y′ = q, z′ = px + qy − z, p′ = x, q′ = y. It can be directly confirmed that this is indeed a contact transformation by noting that
dz′ − p′dx′ − q′dy′ = −d (z − px − qy) − xdp − ydq = −(dz − pdx − qdy).
dz′ − p′dx′ − q′dy′ = −d (z − px − qy) − xdp − ydq = −(dz − pdx − qdy).
A second simple example is that in which every surface-element is displaced, without change of orientation, normal to itself through a constant distance t. The analytical equations in this case are easily found in the form
A second simple example is one where every surface element is moved, without changing its orientation, directly away from itself by a constant distance t. The analytical equations in this case are easily found in the form
x′ = x + | pt | , y′ = y + | qt | , z′ = z − | t | , |
√(1 + p² + q²) | √(1 + p² + q²) | √(1 + p² + q²) |
p′ = q, q′ = q.
p′ = q, q′ = q.
That this is a contact-transformation is seen geometrically by noticing that it changes a surface into a parallel surface. Every point is changed by it into a sphere of radius t, and when t is regarded as a parameter the equations define a cyclical group of contact-transformations.
That this is a contact-transformation can be seen geometrically by noticing that it converts a surface into a parallel surface. Each point is transformed into a sphere of radius t, and when t is considered as a parameter, the equations define a cyclical group of contact-transformations.
The formal theory of continuous groups of contact-transformations is, of course, in no way distinct from the formal theory of continuous groups in general. On what may be called the geometrical side, the theory of groups of contact-transformations has been developed with very considerable detail in the second volume of Lie-Engel.
The formal theory of continuous groups of contact transformations is, of course, not different from the formal theory of continuous groups in general. On what might be considered the geometrical side, the theory of groups of contact transformations has been developed in great detail in the second volume of Lie-Engel.
To the manifold applications of the theory of continuous groups in various branches of pure and applied mathematics Applications of the theory of continuous groups. it is impossible here to refer in any detail. It must suffice to indicate a few of them very briefly. In some of the older theories a new point of view is obtained which presents the results in a fresh light, and suggests the natural generalization. As an example, the theory of the invariants of a binary form may be considered.
To the many uses of the theory of continuous groups in different areas of pure and applied mathematics Applications of the theory of continuous groups. it's not possible to go into detail here. It will be enough to briefly highlight a few of them. In some of the older theories, a new perspective is gained that shows the results in a new light and points toward natural generalizations. For instance, the theory of the invariants of a binary form can be considered.
If in the form ƒ = a0xn + na1xn−1y + ... + anyn, the variables be subjected to a homogeneous substitution
If in the form ƒ = a0xn + na1xn−1y + ... + anyn, the variables are subjected to a homogeneous substitution
x′ = αx + βy, y′ = γx + δy,
x' = αx + βy, y' = γx + δy,
and if the coefficients in the new form be represented by accenting the old coefficients, then
and if the coefficients in the new form are represented by adding accents to the old coefficients, then
a′0 = a0αn + a1nαn−1γ + ... + anγn, a′0 = a0αn + a1nαn−1γ + ... + anγn, a′1 = a0αn−1β + a1 {(n−1) αn−2βγ + αn−1δ} + ... + anγn−1δ, a′1 = a0αn−1β + a1 {(n−1) αn−2βγ + αn−1δ} + ... + anγn−1δ, · · · · · · · · · · a′n = a0βn + a1nβn−1δ + ... + anδn; a′n = a0βn + a1nβn−1δ + ... + anδn; |
and this is a homogeneous linear substitution performed on the coefficients. The totality of the substitutions, (i.), for which αδ − βγ = 1, constitutes a continuous group of order 3, which is generated by the two infinitesimal transformations y(∂/∂x) and x(∂/∂y). Hence with 632 the same limitations on α, β, γ, δ the totality of the substitutions (ii.) forms a simply isomorphic continuous group of order 3, which is generated by the two infinitesimal transformations
and this is a uniform linear substitution applied to the coefficients. The complete set of substitutions, (i.), for which αδ − βγ = 1, makes up a continuous group of order 3, generated by the two infinitesimal transformations y(∂/∂x) and x(∂/∂y). Therefore, with 632 the same restrictions on α, β, γ, δ, the entire set of substitutions (ii.) creates a simply isomorphic continuous group of order 3, generated by the two infinitesimal transformations.
a0 | ∂ | + 2a1 | ∂ | + 3a1 | ∂ | + ... + nan - 1 | ∂ | , |
∂a1 | ∂a2 | ∂a3 | ∂an |
and
and
na1 | ∂ | + (n − 1)a2 | ∂ | + (n − 2)a3 | ∂ | + ... + au | ∂ | . |
∂a0 | ∂a1 | ∂a2 | ∂au−1 |
The invariants of the binary form, i.e. those functions of the coefficients which are unaltered by all homogeneous substitutions on x, y of determinant unity, are therefore identical with the functions of the coefficients which are invariant for the continuous group generated by the two infinitesimal operations last written. In other words, they are given by the common solutions of the differential equations
The invariants of the binary form, i.e. those functions of the coefficients that remain unchanged by any homogeneous substitutions of x and y with a determinant of one, are the same as the functions of the coefficients that are invariant for the continuous group created by the two infinitesimal operations just mentioned. In other words, they are represented by the common solutions of the differential equations.
a0 | ∂ƒ | + 2a1 | ∂ƒ | + 3a2 | ∂ƒ | + ... = 0, |
∂a1 | ∂a1 | ∂a2 |
na1 | ∂ƒ | + (n − 1)a2 | ∂ƒ | + (n − 2)a3 | ∂ƒ | + ... = 0. |
∂a0 | ∂a1 | ∂a2 |
Both this result and the method by which it is arrived at are well known, but the point of view by which we pass from the transformation group of the variables to the isomorphic transformation group of the coefficients, and regard the invariants as invariants rather of the group than of the forms, is a new and a fruitful one.
Both this result and the method used to achieve it are well known, but the perspective we take to move from the transformation group of the variables to the isomorphic transformation group of the coefficients, and to see the invariants as being related to the group rather than just the forms, is a new and valuable approach.
The general theory of curvature of curves and surfaces may in a similar way be regarded as a theory of their invariants for the group of motions. That something more than a mere change of phraseology is here implied will be evident in dealing with minimum curves, i.e. with curves such that at every point of them dx2 + dy2 + dz2 = 0. For such curves the ordinary theory of curvature has no meaning, but they nevertheless have invariant properties in regard to the group of motions.
The general theory of curvature for curves and surfaces can also be seen as a theory of their invariants with respect to the group of motions. It will become clear that this implies more than just a change in wording when we talk about minimum curves, i.e. curves where at every point, dx2 + dy2 + dz2 = 0. For these curves, the regular theory of curvature doesn’t apply, but they still have invariant properties related to the group of motions.
The curvature and torsion of a curve, which are invariant for all transformations by the group of motions, are special instances of what are known as differential invariants. If ξ(∂/∂x) + η(∂/∂y) is the general infinitesimal transformation of a group of point-transformations in the plane, and if y1, y2, ... represent the successive differential coefficients of y, the infinitesimal transformation may be written in the extended form
The curvature and torsion of a curve, which remain unchanged under all transformations by the group of motions, are specific cases of what are known as differential invariants. If ξ(∂/∂x) + η(∂/∂y) represents the general infinitesimal transformation of a group of point transformations in the plane, and if y1, y2, ... denote the successive differential coefficients of y, the infinitesimal transformation can be expressed in its extended form.
ξ | ∂ | + η | ∂ | + η1 | ∂ | + η2 | ∂ | + ... |
∂x | ∂y | ∂y1 | ∂y2 |
where η1δt, η2δt, ... are the increments of y1, y2, .... By including a sufficient number of these variables the group must be intransitive in them, and must therefore have one or more invariants. Such invariants are known as differential invariants of the original group, being necessarily functions of the differential coefficients of the original variables. For groups of the plane it may be shown that not more than two of these differential invariants are independent, all others being formed from these by algebraical processes and differentiation. For groups of point-transformations in more than two variables there will be more than one set of differential invariants. For instance, with three variables, one may be regarded as independent and the other two as functions of it, or two as independent and the remaining one as a function. Corresponding to these two points of view, the differential invariants for a curve or for a surface will arise.
where η1δt, η2δt, ... are the increments of y1, y2, .... By including a sufficient number of these variables, the group must be intransitive in them, which means it must have one or more invariants. These invariants are called differential invariants of the original group, as they are functions of the differential coefficients of the original variables. For groups in the plane, it can be shown that no more than two of these differential invariants are independent; all others are derived from these through algebraic processes and differentiation. For groups of point transformations involving more than two variables, there will be multiple sets of differential invariants. For example, with three variables, one can be considered independent while the other two are functions of it, or two can be independent with the last one as a function. Corresponding to these two perspectives, the differential invariants for a curve or for a surface will emerge.
If a differential invariant of a continuous group of the plane be equated to zero, the resulting differential equation remains unaltered when the variables undergo any transformation of the group. Conversely, if an ordinary, differential equation ƒ(x, y, y1, y2, ...) = 0 admits the transformations of a continuous group, i.e. if the equation is unaltered when x and y undergo any transformation of the group, then ƒ(x, y, y1, y2, ...) or some multiple of it must be a differential invariant of the group. Hence it must be possible to find two independent differential invariants α, β of the group, such that when these are taken as variables the differential equation takes the form F(α, β, dβ/dα, d2β/dα2, ...) = 0. This equation in α, β will be of lower order than the original equation, and in general simpler to deal with. Supposing it solved in the form β = φ(α), where for α, β their values in terms of x, y, y1, y2, ... are written, this new equation, containing arbitrary constants, is necessarily again of lower order than the original equation. The integration of the original equation is thus divided into two steps. This will show how, in the case of an ordinary differential equation, the fact that the equation admits a continuous group of transformations may be taken advantage of for its integration.
If a differential invariant of a continuous group in the plane is set to zero, the resulting differential equation remains unchanged when the variables go through any transformation of the group. On the other hand, if an ordinary differential equation ƒ(x, y, y1, y2, ...) = 0 allows for the transformations of a continuous group, meaning the equation stays the same when x and y experience any transformation of the group, then ƒ(x, y, y1, y2, ...) or some multiple of it must be a differential invariant of the group. Therefore, it's possible to find two independent differential invariants α and β of the group, such that when these are used as variables, the differential equation takes the form F(α, β, dβ/dα, d2β/dα2, ...) = 0. This equation in α and β will be of a lower order than the original equation and generally easier to handle. Assuming it is solved in the form β = φ(α), where α and β are expressed in terms of x, y, y1, y2, ..., this new equation, which includes arbitrary constants, is also necessarily of lower order than the original equation. Thus, solving the original equation is broken down into two steps. This demonstrates how, in the case of an ordinary differential equation, the fact that the equation allows for a continuous group of transformations can be leveraged for its integration.
The most important of the applications of continuous groups are to the theory of systems of differential equations, both ordinary and partial; in fact, Lie states that it was with a view to systematizing and advancing the general theory of differential equations that he was led to the development of the theory of continuous groups. It is quite impossible here to give any account of all that Lie and his followers have done in this direction. An entirely new mode of regarding the problem of the integration of a differential equation has been opened up, and in the classification that arises from it all those apparently isolated types of equations which in the older sense are said to be integrable take their proper place. It may, for instance, be mentioned that the question as to whether Monge’s method will apply to the integration of a partial differential equation of the second order is shown to depend on whether or not a contact-transformation can be found which will reduce the equation to either ∂2z/∂x2 = 0 or ∂2z/∂x∂y = 0. It is in this direction that further advance in the theory of partial differential equations must be looked for. Lastly, it may be remarked that one of the most thorough discussions of the axioms of geometry hitherto undertaken is founded entirely upon the theory of continuous groups.
The most significant applications of continuous groups are related to the theory of systems of differential equations, both ordinary and partial. In fact, Lie states that he developed the theory of continuous groups to systematize and enhance the general theory of differential equations. It’s impossible to cover everything that Lie and his followers have accomplished in this area within this space. A completely new perspective on solving differential equations has been established, and through this classification, all the seemingly isolated types of equations that were previously considered integrable find their rightful place. For example, the applicability of Monge’s method to solve a second-order partial differential equation relies on whether a contact transformation can be found that reduces the equation to either ∂2z/∂x2 = 0 or ∂2z/∂x∂y = 0. This is where future progress in the theory of partial differential equations should be sought. Lastly, it’s worth mentioning that one of the most comprehensive discussions of the axioms of geometry conducted so far is entirely based on the theory of continuous groups.
Discontinuous Groups.
Discontinuous Groups.
We go on now to the consideration of discontinuous groups. Although groups of finite order are necessarily contained under this general head, it is convenient for many reasons to deal with them separately, and it will therefore be assumed in the present section that the number of operations in the group is not finite. Many large classes of discontinuous groups have formed the subject of detailed investigation, but a general formal theory of discontinuous groups can hardly be said to exist as yet. It will thus be obvious that in considering discontinuous groups it is necessary to proceed on different lines from those followed with continuous groups, and in fact to deal with the subject almost entirely by way of example.
We will now consider discontinuous groups. While groups of finite order fall under this general category, it's often more practical to discuss them separately for various reasons. Therefore, in this section, we'll assume that the number of operations within the group is infinite. Many large classes of discontinuous groups have been studied in depth, but a comprehensive formal theory of discontinuous groups hasn’t really been developed yet. So, it should be clear that when we look at discontinuous groups, we need to take a different approach than we do with continuous groups, mainly addressing the topic through examples.
The consideration of a discontinuous group as arising from a set of independent generating operations suggests a purely abstract point of view in which any two simply isomorphic groups are indistinguishable. The number of generating operations Generating operations. may be either finite or infinite, but the former case alone will be here considered. Suppose then that S1, S2, ..., Sn is a set of independent operations from which a group G is generated. The general operation of the group will be represented by the symbol SαaSβb ... Sδd, or Σ, where a, b, ..., d are chosen from 1, 2, ..., n, and α, β, ..., δ are any positive or negative integers. It may be assumed that no two successive suffixes in Σ are the same, for if b = a, then SαaSβb may be replaced by Sα+βa. If there are no relations connecting the generating operations and the identical operation, every distinct symbol Σ represents a distinct operation of the group. For if Σ = Σ1, or SαaSβb ... Sδd = Sα1a1Sβ1b1 ... Sδ1d1, then S−δ1d1 ... S−β1b1S−α1a1SαaSβb ... Sδd = 1; and unless a = a1, b = b1, ..., α = α1, β = β1, ..., this is a relation connecting the generating operations.
Considering a discontinuous group that arises from a set of independent generating operations leads to a completely abstract perspective where any two simply isomorphic groups are indistinguishable. The number of generating operations Generating tasks. can be either finite or infinite, but we will only look at the finite case here. Let’s say that S1, S2, ..., Sn is a set of independent operations used to generate a group G. The general operation of the group will be represented by the symbol SαaSβb ... Sδd, or Σ, where a, b, ..., d are selected from 1, 2, ..., n, and α, β, ..., δ can be any positive or negative integers. We can assume that no two successive suffixes in Σ are the same, because if b = a, then SαaSβb can be simplified to Sα+βa. If there are no relationships connecting the generating operations and the identity operation, every distinct symbol Σ represents a distinct operation of the group. Because if Σ = Σ1, or SαaSβb ... Sδd = Sα1a1Sβ1b1 ... Sδ1d1, then S−δ1d1 ... S−β1b1S−α1a1SαaSβb ... Sδd = 1; and unless a = aBelow, b = b1, ..., α = α1, β = β1, ..., this constitutes a relationship that links the generating operations.
Suppose now that T1, T2, ... are operations of G, and that H is that self-conjugate subgroup of G which is generated by T1, T2, ... and the operations conjugate to them. Then, of the operations that can be formed from S1, S2, ..., Sn, the set ΣH, and no others, reduce to the same operation Σ when the conditions T1 = 1, T2 = 1, ... are satisfied by the generating operations. Hence the group which is generated by the given operations, when subjected to the conditions just written, is simply isomorphic with the factor-group G/H. Moreover, this is obviously true even when the conditions are such that the generating operations are no longer independent. Hence any discontinuous group may be defined abstractly, that is, in regard to the laws of combination of its operations apart from their actual form, by a set of generating operations and a system of relations connecting them. Conversely, when such a set of operations and system of relations are given arbitrarily they define in abstract form a single discontinuous group. It may, of course, happen that the group so defined is a group of finite order, or that it reduces to the identical operation only; but in regard to the general statement these will be particular and exceptional cases.
Suppose now that T1, T2, ... are operations of G, and that H is the self-conjugate subgroup of G generated by T1, T2, ... and the operations that are conjugate to them. Then, from the operations formed from S1, S2, ..., Sn, only the set ΣH reduces to the same operation Σ when the conditions T1 = 1, T2 = 1, ... are met by the generating operations. Therefore, the group generated by the specified operations, when subjected to these conditions, is simply isomorphic to the factor-group G/H. Moreover, this is obviously true even when the conditions imply that the generating operations are no longer independent. Thus, any discontinuous group can be abstractly defined, meaning in terms of the laws governing the combination of its operations regardless of their actual form, by a set of generating operations and a system of relations that connect them. Conversely, when such a set of operations and a system of relations are given arbitrarily, they abstractly define a single discontinuous group. It may happen that the defined group is of finite order, or that it simplifies to the identity operation only; however, regarding the general statement, these will be particular and exceptional cases.
An operation of a discontinuous group must necessarily be specified Properly and improperly discontinuous groups. analytically by a system of equations of the form
An operation of a discontinuous group must necessarily be specified Proper and improper discontinuous groups. analytically by a system of equations of the form
x′s = ƒs (x1, x2, ..., xn; a1, a2, ..., ar), (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
x′s = ƒs (x1, x2, ..., xn; a1, a2, ..., ar), (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
and the different operations of the group will be given by different sets of values of the parameters a1, a2, ..., ar. No one of these parameters is susceptible of continuous variations, but at least one must be capable of taking a number of values which is not finite, if the group is not one of finite order. Among the sets of values of the parameters there must be one which gives the identical transformation. No other transformation makes each of the differences x′1 − x1, x′2 − x2, ..., x′n − xn vanish. Let d be an arbitrary assigned positive quantity. Then if a transformation of the group can be found such that the modulus of each of these differences is less than d when the variables have arbitrary values within an assigned range of variation, however small d may be chosen, the group is said to be improperly discontinuous. In the contrary case the group is called properly discontinuous. The range within which the variables are allowed to vary may clearly affect the question whether a given group is properly or improperly discontinuous. For instance, the group 633 defined by the equation x′ = ax + b, where a and b are any rational numbers, is improperly discontinuous; and the group defined by x′ = x + a, where a is an integer, is properly discontinuous, whatever the range of the variable. On the other hand, the group, to be later considered, defined by the equation x′ = (ax + b) / (cx + d), where a, b, c, d are integers satisfying the relation ad − bc = 1, is properly discontinuous when x may take any complex value, and improperly discontinuous when the range of x is limited to real values.
and the different operations of the group will be represented by different sets of values for the parameters a1, a2, ..., ar. None of these parameters can vary continuously, but at least one must be able to take an infinite number of values if the group isn’t of finite order. Among the sets of parameter values, there must be one that results in the identity transformation. No other transformation can make each of the differences x′1 − x1, x′2 − x2, ..., x′n − xn equal to zero. Let d be any positive quantity assigned. If a transformation from the group can be found such that the absolute value of each difference is less than d when the variables have any values within a specific range, no matter how small d is chosen, the group is considered improperly discontinuous. Otherwise, the group is called properly discontinuous. The range in which the variables can vary can clearly influence whether a given group is properly or improperly discontinuous. For example, the group defined by the equation x′ = ax + b, where a and b are any rational numbers, is improperly discontinuous; and the group defined by x′ = x + a, where a is an integer, is properly discontinuous, regardless of the variable's range. On the other hand, the group to be discussed later, defined by the equation x′ = (ax + b) / (cx + d), where a, b, c, d are integers satisfying the condition ad − bc = 1, is properly discontinuous when x can take any complex value, and improperly discontinuous when the range of x is restricted to real values.
Among the discontinuous groups that occur in analysis, a large number may be regarded as arising by imposing limitations on the range of variation of the parameters of continuous groups. If
Among the discontinuous groups that appear in analysis, a significant number can be seen as resulting from setting limits on the range of variation of the parameters of continuous groups. If
x′s = ƒs (x1, x2, ..., xn; a1, a2, ..., ar), (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
x′s = ƒs (x1, x2, ..., xn; a1, a2, ..., ar), (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
are the finite equations of a continuous group, and if C with parameters c1, c2, ..., cr is the operation which results from carrying out A and B with corresponding parameters in succession, then the c’s are determined uniquely by the a’s and the b’s. If the c’s are rational functions of the a’s and b’s, and if the a’s and b’s are arbitrary rational numbers of a given corpus (see Number), the c’s will be rational numbers of the same corpus. If the c’s are rational integral functions of the a’s and b’s, and the latter are arbitrarily chosen integers of a corpus, then the c’s are integers of the same corpus. Hence in the first case the above equations, when the a’s are limited to be rational numbers of a given corpus, will define a discontinuous group; and in the second case they will define such a group when Linear discontinuous groups. the a’s are further limited to be integers of the corpus. A most important class of discontinuous groups are those that arise in this way from the general linear continuous group in a given set of variables. For n variables the finite equations of this continuous group are
are the finite equations of a continuous group, and if C with parameters c1, c2, ..., cr is the operation that results from performing A and B with the corresponding parameters in succession, then the c’s are uniquely determined by the a’s and the b’s. If the c’s are rational functions of the a’s and b’s, and if the a’s and b’s are arbitrary rational numbers from a given set (see Number), the c’s will be rational numbers from the same set. If the c’s are rational integer functions of the a’s and b’s, and the a’s and b’s are arbitrarily chosen integers from a set, then the c’s are integers from the same set. Therefore, in the first case, when the a’s are restricted to be rational numbers from a given set, the equations above will define a discontinuous group; and in the second case, they will define such a group when the a’s are further restricted to be integers from the set. An important class of discontinuous groups are those that arise in this way from the general linear continuous group in a given set of variables. For n variables, the finite equations of this continuous group are
x′s = as1x1 + as2x2 + ... + asnxn, (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
x′s = as1x1 + as2x2 + ... + asnxn, (s = 1, 2, ..., n),
where the determinant of the a’s must not be zero. In this case the c’s are clearly integral lineo-linear functions of the a’s and b’s. Moreover, the determinant of the c’s is the product of the determinant of the a’s and the determinant of the b’s. Hence equations (ii.), where the parameters are restricted to be integers of a given corpus, define a discontinuous group; and if the determinant of the coefficients is limited to the value unity, they define a discontinuous group which is a (self-conjugate) subgroup of the previous one.
where the determinant of the a's cannot be zero. In this case, the c's are clearly linear functions of the a's and b's. Additionally, the determinant of the c's is the product of the determinants of the a's and b's. Therefore, equations (ii.), where the parameters are limited to be integers from a specific set, define a discontinuous group; and if the determinant of the coefficients is restricted to the value one, they define a discontinuous group that is a (self-conjugate) subgroup of the previous one.
The simplest case which thus presents itself is that in which there are two variables while the coefficients are rational integers. This is the group defined by the equations
The simplest case that comes up is when there are two variables and the coefficients are whole numbers. This is the group defined by the equations
x′ = ax + by,
y′ = cx + dy,
x′ = ax + by,
y′ = cx + dy,
where a, b, c, d are integers such that ad − bc = 1. To every operation of this group there corresponds an operation of the set defined by
where a, b, c, d are whole numbers such that ad − bc = 1. For every operation in this group, there is a corresponding operation in the set defined by
z′ = | az + b | , |
cz + d |
in such a way that to the product of two operations of the group there corresponds the product of the two analogous operations of the set. The operations of the set (iv.), where ad − bc = 1, therefore constitute a group which is isomorphic with the previous group. The isomorphism is multiple, since to a single operation of the second set there correspond the two operations of the first for which a, b, c, d and −a, −b, −c, −d are parameters. These two groups, which are of fundamental importance in the theory of quadratic forms and in the theory of modular functions, have been the object of very many investigations.
in such a way that the product of two operations in the group corresponds to the product of the two similar operations in the set. The operations of the set (iv.), where ad − bc = 1, therefore form a group that is isomorphic to the previous group. The isomorphism is multiple, since a single operation from the second set corresponds to the two operations from the first set for which a, b, c, d and −a, −b, −c, −d are parameters. These two groups, which are critically important in the theory of quadratic forms and in the theory of modular functions, have been the subject of numerous studies.
Another large class of discontinuous groups, which have far-reaching applications in analysis, are those which arise in the first instance from purely geometrical considerations. By the combination and repetition of a finite number of geometrical Discontinuous groups arising from geometrical operations. operations such as displacements, projective transformations, inversions, &c., a discontinuous group of such operations will arise. Such a group, as regards the points of the plane (or of space), will in general be improperly discontinuous; but when the generating operations are suitably chosen, the group may be properly discontinuous. In the latter case the group may be represented in a graphical form by the division of the plane (or space) into regions such that no point of one region can be transformed into another point of the same region by any operation of the group, while any given region can be transformed into any other by a suitable transformation. Thus, let ABC be a triangle bounded by three circular arcs BC, CA, AB; and consider the figure produced from ABC by inversions in the three circles of which BC, CA, AB are part. By inversion at BC, ABC becomes an equiangular triangle A′BC. An inversion in AB changes ABC and A′BC into equiangular triangles ABC′ and A″BC′. Successive inversions at AB and BC then will change ABC into a series of equiangular triangles with B for a common vertex. These will not overlap and will just fill in the space round B if the angle ABC is a submultiple of two right angles. If then the angles of ABC are submultiples of two right angles (or zero), the triangles formed by any number of inversions will never overlap, and to each operation consisting of a definite series of inversions at BC, CA and AB will correspond a distinct triangle into which ABC is changed by the operation. The network of triangles so formed gives a graphical representation of the group that arises from the three inversions in BC, CA, AB. The triangles may be divided into two sets, those, namely, like A″BC′, which are derived from ABC by an even number of inversions, and those like A′BC or ABC′ produced by an odd number. Each set are interchanged among themselves by any even number of inversions. Hence the operations consisting of an even number of inversions form a group by themselves. For this group the quadrilateral formed by ABC and A′BC constitutes a region, which is changed by every operation of the group into a distinct region (formed of two adjacent triangles), and these regions clearly do not overlap. Their distribution presents in a graphical form the group that arises by pairs of inversions at BC, CA, AB; and this group is generated by the operation which consists of successive inversions at AB, BC and that which consists of successive inversions at BC, CA. The group defined thus geometrically may be presented in many analytical forms. If x, y and x′, y′ are the rectangular co-ordinates of two points which are inverse to each other with respect to a given circle, x′ and y′ are rational functions of x and y, and conversely. Thus the group may be presented in a form in which each operation gives a birational transformation of two variables. If x + iy = z, x′ + iy′ = z′, and if x′, y′ is the point to which x, y is transformed by any even number of inversions, then z′ and z are connected by a linear relation z′ = (αz + β) / (γz + δ), where α, β, γ, δ are constants (in general complex) depending on the circles at which the inversions are taken. Hence the group may be presented in the form of a group of linear transformations of a single variable generated by the two linear transformations z′ = (α1z + β1) / (γ1z + δ1), z′ = (α2z + β2) / (γ2z + δ2), which correspond to pairs of inversions at AB, BC and BC, CA respectively. In particular, if the sides of the triangle are taken to be x = 0, x2 + y2 − 1 = 0, x2 + y2 + 2x = 0, the generating operations are found to be z′ = z + 1, z′ = −z−1; and the group is that consisting of all transformations of the form z′ = (az + b) / (cz + d), where ad − bc = 1, a, b, c, d being integers. This is the group already mentioned which underlies the theory of the elliptic modular functions; a modular function being a function of z which is invariant for some subgroup of finite index of the group in question.
Another large category of discontinuous groups, which have significant applications in analysis, come from purely geometric considerations. By combining and repeating a limited number of geometric operations such as displacements, projective transformations, inversions, etc., a discontinuous group of such operations will emerge. In general, as it relates to the points of a plane (or space), this group will be improperly discontinuous; however, when the generating operations are appropriately chosen, the group can be properly discontinuous. In this latter case, the group can be represented graphically by dividing the plane (or space) into regions such that no point in one region can be transformed into another point within the same region by any operation of the group, while any given region can be transformed into any other region through a suitable transformation. For example, let ABC be a triangle bordered by three circular arcs BC, CA, AB; and consider the figure produced from ABC through inversions in the three circles of which BC, CA, AB are part. Inversion at BC transforms ABC into an equiangular triangle A′BC. An inversion in AB changes ABC and A′BC into equiangular triangles ABC′ and A″BC′. Successive inversions at AB and BC will then alter ABC into a series of equiangular triangles with B as a common vertex. These triangles won’t overlap and will perfectly fill the space around B if angle ABC is a submultiple of two right angles. If the angles of ABC are submultiples of two right angles (or zero), the triangles formed by any number of inversions will not overlap, and each operation that consists of a specific series of inversions at BC, CA, and AB will correspond to a distinct triangle into which ABC is transformed. The network of triangles formed provides a graphical representation of the group resulting from the three inversions at BC, CA, and AB. The triangles can be split into two sets: those like A″BC′, which are derived from ABC through an even number of inversions, and those like A′BC or ABC′ produced by an odd number. Each set can be interchanged among themselves by any even number of inversions. Hence, the operations consisting of an even number of inversions create a group on their own. For this group, the quadrilateral formed by ABC and A′BC represents a region that is transformed by every operation in the group into a distinct region (made up of two adjacent triangles), and these regions clearly do not overlap. Their arrangement provides a graphical form of the group that arises from pairs of inversions at BC, CA, and AB; and this group is generated by the operation consisting of successive inversions at AB, BC and those that consist of successive inversions at BC, CA. The group is defined in this geometric manner but can also be represented in many analytical forms. If x, y and x′, y′ are the rectangular coordinates of two points that are inverses of each other with respect to a given circle, x′ and y′ are rational functions of x and y, and vice versa. Thus, the group can be presented in a way where each operation represents a birational transformation of two variables. If x + iy = z, x′ + iy′ = z′, and if x′, y′ is the point to which x, y is transformed by any even number of inversions, then z′ and z are linked by a linear relation z′ = (αz + β) / (γz + δ), where α, β, γ, δ are constants (generally complex) depending on the circles involved in the inversions. Therefore, the group can be presented as a group of linear transformations of a single variable generated by the two linear transformations z′ = (α1z + β1) / (γ1z + δ1), z′ = (α2z + β2) / (γ2z + δ2), which correspond to pairs of inversions at AB, BC and BC, CA respectively. Specifically, if the sides of the triangle are taken to be x = 0, x2 + y2 − 1 = 0, x2 + y2 + 2x = 0, the generating operations are found to be z′ = z + 1, z′ = −z−1; and the group consists of all transformations of the form z′ = (az + b) / (cz + d), where ad − bc = 1, with a, b, c, d being integers. This is the group already mentioned that underpins the theory of elliptic modular functions; a modular function being a function of z that remains unchanged for some subgroup of finite index of the group in question.
The triangle ABC from which the above geometrical construction started may be replaced by a polygon whose sides are circles. If each angle is a submultiple of two right angles or zero, the construction is still effective to give a set of non-overlapping regions, which represent graphically the group which arises from pairs of inversions in the sides of the polygon. In their analytical form, as groups of linear transformations of a single variable, the groups are those on which the theory of automorphic functions depends. A similar construction in space, the polygons bounded by circular arcs being replaced by polyhedra bounded by spherical faces, has been used by F. Klein and Fricke to give a geometrical representation for groups which are improperly discontinuous when represented as groups of the plane.
The triangle ABC that we started with for the geometric construction can be swapped out for a polygon with circular sides. If each angle is a fraction of two right angles or zero, the construction still works to provide a set of non-overlapping areas that graphically represent the group formed from pairs of inversions along the sides of the polygon. In their analytical form, as groups of linear transformations of a single variable, these groups are the foundation of the theory of automorphic functions. A similar construction in three-dimensional space—where the polygons defined by circular arcs are replaced by polyhedra with spherical faces—has been utilized by F. Klein and Fricke to offer a geometric representation for groups that behave improperly discontinuously when shown as groups in the plane.
The special classes of discontinuous groups that have been dealt with Group of a linear differential equation. in the previous paragraphs arise directly from geometrical considerations. As a final example we shall refer briefly to a class of groups whose origin is essentially analytical. Let
The specific types of discontinuous groups discussed in the earlier paragraphs come directly from geometric concepts. As a final example, we'll briefly mention a class of groups that fundamentally originate from analytical considerations. Let
dny | + P1 | dn−1y | + ... + Pn−1 | dy | + Pny = 0 |
dxn | dxn−1 | dx |
be a linear differential equation, the coefficients in which are rational functions of x, and let y1, y2, ..., yn be a linearly independent set of integrals of the equation. In the neighbourhood of a finite value x0 of x, which is not a singularity of any of the coefficients in the equation, these integrals are ordinary power-series in x − x0. If the analytical continuations of y1, y2, ..., yn be formed for any closed path starting from and returning to x0, the final values arrived at when x0 is again reached will be another set of linearly independent integrals. When the closed path contains no singular point of the coefficients of the differential equation, the new set of integrals is identical with the original set. If, however, the closed path encloses one or more singular points, this will not in general be the case. Let y′1, y′2, ..., y′n be the new integrals arrived at. Since in the neighbourhood of x0 every integral can be represented linearly in terms of y1, y2, ..., yn, there must be a system of equations
be a linear differential equation, where the coefficients are rational functions of x, and let y1, y2, ..., yn be a linearly independent set of solutions to the equation. In the vicinity of a finite value x0 of x, which is not a singularity for any of the coefficients in the equation, these solutions are regular power series in x − x0. If we form the analytic continuations of y1, y2, ..., yn for any closed path starting from and returning to x0, the final values when we return to x0 will give us another set of linearly independent solutions. If the closed path doesn't include any singular points of the coefficients of the differential equation, the new set of solutions will be the same as the original set. However, if the closed path surrounds one or more singular points, this won't generally be true. Let y′1, y′2, ..., y′n be the new solutions obtained. Since in the vicinity of x0 every solution can be expressed linearly in terms of y1, y2, ..., yn, there must be a system of equations
y′1 = a11y1 + a12y2 + ... + a1nyn, y′1 = a11y1 + a12y2 + ... + a1nyn, y′2 = a21y1 + a22y2 + ... + a2nyn, y′2 = a21yBelow is a short piece of text (5 words or fewer). Modernize it into contemporary English if there's enough context, but do not add or omit any information. If context is insufficient, return it unchanged. Do not add commentary, and do not modify any placeholders. If you see placeholders of the form __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_x__, you must keep them exactly as-is so they can be replaced with links. 1 + a22y2 + ... + a2nyn, · · · · · · · · y′n = an1y1 + an2y2 + ... + annyn, y′n = an1y1 + an2y2 + ... + annyn, |
where the a’s are constants, expressing the new integrals in terms of the original ones. To each closed path described by x0 there therefore corresponds a definite linear substitution performed on the y’s. Further, if S1 and S2 are the substitutions that correspond to two closed paths L1 and L2, then to any closed path which can be continuously deformed, without crossing a singular point, into L1 followed by L2, there corresponds the substitution S1S2. Let L1, L2, ..., Lr be arbitrarily chosen closed paths starting from and returning to the same point, and each of them enclosing a single one of the 634 (r) finite singular points of the equation. Every closed path in the plane can be formed by combinations of these r paths taken either in the positive or in the negative direction. Also a closed path which does not cut itself, and encloses all the r singular points within it, is equivalent to a path enclosing the point at infinity and no finite singular point. If S1, S2, S3, ..., Sr are the linear substitutions that correspond to these r paths, then the substitution corresponding to every possible path can be obtained by combination and repetition of these r substitutions, and they therefore generate a discontinuous group each of whose operations corresponds to a definite closed path. The group thus arrived at is called the group of the equation. For a given equation it is unique in type. In fact, the only effect of starting from another set of independent integrals is to transform every operation of the group by an arbitrary substitution, while choosing a different set of paths is equivalent to taking a new set of generating operations. The great importance of the group of the equation in connexion with the nature of its integrals cannot here be dealt with, but it may be pointed out that if all the integrals of the equation are algebraic functions, the group must be a group of finite order, since the set of quantities y1, y2 ..., yn can then only take a finite number of distinct values.
where the a’s are constants, expressing the new integrals in terms of the original ones. To each closed path described by x0, there corresponds a specific linear substitution applied to the y’s. Furthermore, if S1 and S2 are the substitutions linked to two closed paths L1 and L2, then to any closed path that can be continuously deformed, without crossing a singular point, into L1 followed by L2, there corresponds the substitution S1S2. Let L1, L2, ..., Lr be any closed paths starting from and returning to the same point, each enclosing one of the 634 (r) finite singular points of the equation. Every closed path in the plane can be formed by combining these r paths either in the positive or negative direction. Additionally, a closed path that does not intersect itself and encloses all r singular points is equivalent to a path enclosing the point at infinity and excluding any finite singular points. If S1, S2, S3, ..., Sr are the linear substitutions corresponding to these r paths, then the substitution corresponding to any possible path can be derived by combining and repeatedly applying these r substitutions, thus generating a discontinuous group where each operation corresponds to a distinct closed path. The group formed this way is known as the group of the equation. For any given equation, it is unique in type. In fact, the only impact of starting with a different set of independent integrals is to transform every group operation through an arbitrary substitution, while selecting a different set of paths is equivalent to establishing a new set of generating operations. The significance of the group of the equation in relation to the nature of its integrals cannot be fully explored here, but it is important to note that if all the integrals of the equation are algebraic functions, the group must be of finite order, since the set of quantities y1, y2, ..., yn can only take a finite number of distinct values.
Groups of Finite Order.
Finite Order Groups.
We shall now pass on to groups of finite order. It is clear that here we must have to do with many properties which have no direct analogues in the theory of continuous groups or in that of discontinuous groups in general; those properties, namely, which depend on the fact that the number of distinct operations in the group is finite.
We will now move on to groups of finite order. It's clear that we will encounter many properties that don’t have direct equivalents in the theory of continuous groups or in that of discrete groups in general; specifically, those properties that rely on the fact that the number of distinct operations in the group is finite.
Let S1, S2, S3, ..., SN denote the operations of a group G of finite order N, S1 being the identical operation. The tableau
Let S1, S2, S3, ..., SN represent the operations of a group G with a finite order N, where S1 is the identity operation. The tableau
S1, | S2, | S3, | ..., | SN, |
S1S2, | S2S2, | S3S3, | ..., | SNS2, |
S1S3, | S2S3, | S3S3, | ..., | SNS3, |
· | · | · | · | · |
S1SN, | S2SN, | S3SN, | ..., | SNSN, |
when in it each compound symbol SpSq is replaced by the single symbol Sr that is equivalent to it, is called the multiplication table of the group. It indicates directly the result of multiplying together in an assigned sequence any number of operations of the group. In each line (and in each column) of the tableau every operation of the group occurs just once. If the letters in the tableau are regarded as mere symbols, the operation of replacing each symbol in the first line by the symbol which stands under it in the pth line is a permutation performed on the set of N symbols. Thus to the N lines of the tableau there corresponds a set of N permutations performed on the N symbols, which includes the identical permutation that leaves each unchanged. Moreover, if SpSq = Sr, then the result of carrying out in succession the permutations which correspond to the pth and qth lines gives the permutation which corresponds to the rth line. Hence the set of permutations constitutes a group which is simply isomorphic with the given group.
when each compound symbol SpSq is replaced with the single symbol Sr that corresponds to it, this is called the multiplication table of the group. It directly shows the result of multiplying together any number of operations in a specific order within the group. In each row (and each column) of the table, every operation of the group appears just once. If we think of the letters in the table as just symbols, replacing each symbol in the first row with the symbol underneath it in the pth row is a permutation performed on the set of N symbols. Therefore, the N rows of the table correspond to a set of N permutations performed on the N symbols, which includes the identity permutation that leaves everything unchanged. Additionally, if SpSq = Sr, then performing the permutations that correspond to the pth and qth rows in succession results in the permutation corresponding to the rth row. Thus, the set of permutations forms a group that is simply isomorphic to the given group.
Every group of finite order N can therefore be represented in concrete form as a transitive group of permutations on N symbols.
Every finite group of order N can be represented concretely as a transitive group of permutations on N symbols.
The order of any subgroup or operation of G is necessarily finite. If T1(= S1), T2, ..., Tn are the operations of a subgroup H of G, and if Σ is any operation of G which is not contained in H, Properties of a group which depend on the order. the set of operations ΣT1, ΣT2, ..., ΣTn, or ΣH, are all distinct from each other and from the operations of H. If the sets H and ΣH do not exhaust the operations of G, and if Σ′ is an operation not belonging to them, then the operations of the set Σ′H are distinct from each other and from those of H and ΣH. This process may be continued till the operations of G are exhausted. The order n of H must therefore be a factor of the order N of G. The ratio N/n is called the index of the subgroup H. By taking for H the cyclical subgroup generated by any operation S of G, it follows that the order of S must be a factor of the order of G.
The size of any subgroup or operation of G is definitely finite. If T1(= S1), T2, ..., Tn are the operations of a subgroup H of G, and if Σ is any operation of G that isn’t part of H, Properties of a group that depend on its order. the set of operations ΣT1, ΣT2, ..., ΣTn, or ΣH, are all different from each other and from the operations of H. If the sets H and ΣH don’t cover all the operations of G, and if Σ′ is an operation that doesn’t belong to them, then the operations of the set Σ′H are different from each other and from those of H and ΣH. This process can continue until all the operations of G are accounted for. The order n of H must be a factor of the order N of G. The ratio N/n is referred to as the index of the subgroup H. By choosing H as the cyclic subgroup generated by any operation S of G, it follows that the order of S must be a factor of the order of G.
Every operation S is permutable with its own powers. Hence there must be some subgroup H of G of greatest possible order, such that every operation of H is permutable with S. Every operation of H transforms S into itself, and every operation of the set HΣ transforms S into the same operation. Hence, when S is transformed by every operation of G, just N/n distinct operations arise if n is the order of H. These operations, and no others, are conjugate to S within G; they are said to form a set of conjugate operations. The number of operations in every conjugate set is therefore a factor of the order of G. In the same way it may be shown that the number of subgroups which are conjugate to a given subgroup is a factor of the order of G. An operation which is permutable with every operation of the group is called a self-conjugate operation. The totality of the self-conjugate operations of a group forms a self-conjugate Abelian subgroup, each of whose operations is permutable with every operation of the group.
Every operation S can be rearranged with its own powers. So, there must be some subgroup H of G with the largest possible order, where every operation of H can be rearranged with S. Every operation in H turns S into itself, and every operation in the set HΣ turns S into the same operation. Therefore, when S is altered by every operation of G, only N/n distinct operations appear if n is the order of H. These operations, and no others, are conjugate to S within G; they form a set of conjugate operations. The number of operations in each conjugate set is thus a factor of the order of G. Similarly, it can be demonstrated that the number of subgroups that are conjugate to a specific subgroup is also a factor of the order of G. An operation that can be rearranged with every operation of the group is called a self-conjugate operation. The complete set of self-conjugate operations of a group forms a self-conjugate Abelian subgroup, where each operation is rearrangeable with every operation of the group.
An Abelian group contains subgroups whose orders are any given factors of the order of the group. In fact, since every subgroup H of an Abelian group G and the corresponding factor groups G/H are Sylow’s theorem. Abelian, this result follows immediately by an induction from the case in which the order contains n prime factors to that in which it contains n + 1. For a group which is not Abelian no general law can be stated as to the existence or non-existence of a subgroup whose order is an arbitrarily assigned factor of the order of the group. In this connexion the most important general result, which is independent of any supposition as to the order of the group, is known as Sylow’s theorem, which states that if pa is the highest power of a prime p which divides the order of a group G, then G contains a single conjugate set of subgroups of order pa, the number in the set being of the form 1 + kp. Sylow’s theorem may be extended to show that if pa′ is a factor of the order of a group, the number of subgroups of order pa′ is of the form 1 + kp. If, however, pa′ is not the highest power of p which divides the order, these groups do not in general form a single conjugate set.
An Abelian group has subgroups whose sizes are any of the factors of the group's order. In fact, since every subgroup H of an Abelian group G and the corresponding factor groups G/H are Sylow's theorem. Abelian, this result follows immediately by induction from the case where the order has n prime factors to the case where it has n + 1. For a group that is not Abelian, there is no general rule regarding the existence or non-existence of a subgroup whose order is an arbitrarily chosen factor of the group's order. In this context, the most significant general result, which doesn't depend on any assumptions about the group's order, is known as Sylow’s theorem. It states that if pa is the highest power of a prime p that divides the order of a group G, then G has a single conjugate set of subgroups of order pa, with the number of subgroups in the set being of the form 1 + kp. Sylow’s theorem can be extended to show that if pa' is a factor of the order of a group, the number of subgroups of order pa' is of the form 1 + kp. However, if pa' is not the highest power of p that divides the order, these groups generally do not make up a single conjugate set.
The importance of Sylow’s theorem in discussing the structure of a group of given order need hardly be insisted on. Thus, as a very simple instance, a group whose order is the product p1p2 of two primes (p1 < p2) must have a self-conjugate subgroup of order p2, since the order of the group contains no factor, other than unity, of the form 1 + kp2. The same again is true for a group of order p12p2, unless p1 = 2, and p2 = 3.
The importance of Sylow’s theorem when discussing the structure of a group with a specific order is undeniable. For instance, a group whose order is the product p1p2 of two primes (with p1 < p2) must have a self-conjugate subgroup of order p2, since the order of the group does not have any factor, apart from one, of the form 1 + kp2. The same is true for a group of order p12p2, unless p1 = 2 and p2 = 3.
There is one other numerical property of a group connected with its order which is quite general. If N is the order of G, and n a factor of N, the number of operations of G, whose orders are equal to or are factors of n, is a multiple of n.
There is one other numerical property of a group related to its order that is quite general. If N is the order of G, and n is a factor of N, then the number of operations of G, whose orders are equal to or factors of n, is a multiple of n.
As already defined, a composite group is a group which contains one or more self-conjugate subgroups, whose orders are greater than unity. If H is a self-conjugate subgroup of G, the factor-group Composition-series of a group. G/H may be either simple or composite. In the former case G can contain no self-conjugate subgroup K, which itself contains H; for if it did K/H would be a self-conjugate subgroup of G/H. When G/H is simple, H is said to be a maximum self-conjugate subgroup of G. Suppose now that G being a given composite group, G, G1, G2, ..., Gn, 1 is a series of subgroups of G, such that each is a maximum self-conjugate subgroup of the preceding; the last term of the series consisting of the identical operation only. Such a series is called a composition-series of G. In general it is not unique, since a group may have two or more maximum self-conjugate subgroups. A composition-series of a group, however it may be chosen, has the property that the number of terms of which it consists is always the same, while the factor-groups G/G1, G1/G2, ..., Gn differ only in the sequence in which they occur. It should be noticed that though a group defines uniquely the set of factor-groups that occur in its composition-series, the set of factor-groups do not conversely in general define a single type of group. When the orders of all the factor-groups are primes the group is said to be soluble.
As defined earlier, a composite group is one that has one or more self-conjugate subgroups, each with an order greater than one. If H is a self-conjugate subgroup of G, the factor group G/H could be either simple or composite. In the simple case, G cannot have any self-conjugate subgroup K that contains H; if it did, K/H would be a self-conjugate subgroup of G/H. When G/H is simple, H is referred to as a maximum self-conjugate subgroup of G. Now, let’s say G is a given composite group, and G, G1, G2, ..., Gn, 1 is a series of subgroups of G where each is a maximum self-conjugate subgroup of the one before it, with the last term being the identity operation alone. This series is called a composition-series of G. Generally, it is not unique since a group may have multiple maximum self-conjugate subgroups. A composition-series of a group, whichever way it is selected, will always have the same number of terms, although the factor groups G/G1., G1/G2, ..., Gn may differ in the order they appear. It’s important to note that while a group uniquely defines the set of factor groups in its composition-series, the set of factor groups does not uniquely define a single type of group in general. When the orders of all the factor groups are prime, the group is said to be soluble.
If the series of subgroups G, H, K, ..., L, 1 is chosen so that each is the greatest self-conjugate subgroup of G contained in the previous one, the series is called a chief composition-series of G. All such series derived from a given group may be shown to consist of the same number of terms, and to give rise to the same set of factor-groups, except as regards sequence. The factor-groups of such a series will not, however, necessarily be simple groups. From any chief composition-series a composition-series may be formed by interpolating between any two terms H and K of the series for which H/K is not a simple group, a number of terms h1, h2, ..., hr; and it may be shown that the factor-groups H/h1, h1/h2, ..., hr/K are all simply isomorphic with each other.
If the series of subgroups G, H, K, ..., L, 1 is selected so that each one is the largest self-conjugate subgroup of G that is contained within the previous one, then the series is called a chief composition series of G. All such series derived from a given group will have the same number of terms and will produce the same set of factor groups, differing only in their order. However, the factor groups of this series will not necessarily be simple groups. From any chief composition series, you can create a composition series by adding terms h1, h2, ..., hr between any two terms H and K of the series where H/K is not a simple group; and it can be shown that the factor groups H/h1, h1/h2, ..., hr/K are all simply isomorphic to each other.
A group may be represented as isomorphic with itself by transforming all its operations by any one of them. In fact, if SpSq = Sr, then S−1SpS·S−1SqS = S−1SrS. An isomorphism of the Isomorphism of a group with itself. group with itself, established in this way, is called an inner isomorphism. It may be regarded as an operation carried out on the symbols of the operations, being indeed a permutation performed on these symbols. The totality of these operations clearly constitutes a group isomorphic with the given group, and this group is called the group of inner isomorphisms. A group is simply or multiply isomorphic with its group of inner isomorphisms according as it does not or does contain self-conjugate operations other than identity. It may be possible to establish a correspondence between the operations of a group other than those given by the inner isomorphisms, such that if S′ is the operation corresponding to S, then S′pS′q = S′r is a consequence of SpSq = Sr. The substitution on the symbols of the operations of a group resulting from such a correspondence is called an outer isomorphism. The totality of the isomorphisms of both kinds constitutes the group of isomorphisms of the given group, and within this the group of inner isomorphisms is a self-conjugate subgroup. Every set of conjugate operations of a group is necessarily transformed into itself by an inner isomorphism, but two or more sets may be interchanged by an outer isomorphism.
A group can be represented as isomorphic to itself by transforming all its operations using any one of them. In fact, if SpSq = Sr, then S−1SpS·S−1SqS = S−1SrS. An isomorphism of the Isomorphism of a group with itself. group with itself, established this way, is called an inner isomorphism. It can be seen as an operation performed on the symbols of the operations, essentially being a permutation of these symbols. The set of these operations clearly forms a group isomorphic to the given group, and this group is referred to as the group of inner isomorphisms. A group is simply or multiply isomorphic to its group of inner isomorphisms depending on whether it does not or does contain self-conjugate operations aside from the identity. It may be possible to create a correspondence between the operations of a group outside those given by the inner isomorphisms, such that if S′ is the operation corresponding to S, then S′pS′q = S′r follows from SpSq = Sr. The substitution on the symbols of the operations of a group resulting from this correspondence is called an outer isomorphism. The set of isomorphisms of both types makes up the group of isomorphisms of the given group, and within this, the group of inner isomorphisms is a self-conjugate subgroup. Every set of conjugate operations of a group is necessarily transformed into itself by an inner isomorphism, but two or more sets can be interchanged by an outer isomorphism.
A subgroup of a group G, which is transformed into itself by every isomorphism of G, is called a characteristic subgroup. A series of groups G, G1, G2, ..., 1, such that each is a maximum characteristic subgroup of G contained in the preceding, may be shown to have the same invariant properties as the subgroups of a composition series. A group which has no characteristic subgroup must be either a simple 635 group or the direct product of a number of simply isomorphic simple groups.
A subgroup of a group G that is unchanged by every isomorphism of G is called a characteristic subgroup. A series of groups G, G1, G2, ..., 1, where each one is a maximum characteristic subgroup of G and contained within the previous one, can be shown to have the same invariant properties as the subgroups of a composition series. A group that has no characteristic subgroup must be either a simple group or the direct product of several isomorphic simple groups. 635
It has been seen that every group of finite order can be represented as a group of permutations performed on a set of symbols whose number is equal to the order of the group. In general such Permutation-groups. a representation is possible with a smaller number of symbols. Let H be a subgroup of G, and let the operations of G be divided, in respect of H, into the sets H, S2H, S3H, ..., SmH. If S is any operation of G, the sets SH, SS2H, SS3H, ..., SSmH differ from the previous sets only in the sequence in which they occur. In fact, if SSp belong to the set SqH, then since H is a group, the set SSpH is identical with the set SqH. Hence, to each operation S of the group will correspond a permutation performed on the symbols of the m sets, and to the product of two operations corresponds the product of the two analogous permutations. The set of permutations, therefore, forms a group isomorphic with the given group. Moreover, the isomorphism is simple unless for one or more operations, other than identity, the sets all remain unaltered. This can only be the case for S, when every operation conjugate to S belongs to H. In this case H would contain a self-conjugate subgroup, and the isomorphism is multiple.
It has been observed that every group of finite order can be represented as a group of permutations acting on a set of symbols, with the number of symbols being equal to the order of the group. Generally, such Permutation groups. a representation can be achieved with fewer symbols. Let H be a subgroup of G, and let the operations of G be categorized, with respect to H, into the sets H, S2H, S3H, ..., SmH. If S is any operation of G, the sets SH, SS2H, SS3H, ..., SSmH only differ from the previous sets in the order of their occurrence. In fact, if SSp is part of the set SqH, then since H is a group, the set SSpH is identical to the set SqH. Therefore, each operation S of the group will correspond to a permutation performed on the symbols of the m sets, and the product of two operations corresponds to the product of the two related permutations. Thus, the set of permutations forms a group that is isomorphic to the given group. Additionally, the isomorphism is straightforward unless for one or more operations, other than the identity, the sets remain unchanged. This situation can only occur for S when every operation conjugate to S belongs to H. In this case, H would contain a self-conjugate subgroup, making the isomorphism multiple.
The fact that every group of finite order can be represented, generally in several ways, as a group of permutations, gives special importance to such groups. The number of symbols involved in such a representation is called the degree of the group. In accordance with the general definitions already given, a permutation-group is called transitive or intransitive according as it does or does not contain permutations changing any one of the symbols into any other. It is called imprimitive or primitive according as the symbols can or cannot be arranged in sets, such that every permutation of the group changes the symbols of any one set either among themselves or into the symbols of another set. When a group is imprimitive the number of symbols in each set must clearly be the same.
The fact that every finite group can be represented, often in multiple ways, as a group of permutations makes these groups particularly significant. The number of symbols involved in such a representation is referred to as the degree of the group. Following the general definitions provided earlier, a permutation group is called transitive or intransitive depending on whether it contains permutations that can change one symbol into any other. It is termed imprimitive or primitive based on whether the symbols can or cannot be organized into sets, so that every permutation of the group changes the symbols of any one set either among themselves or into the symbols of another set. When a group is imprimitive, the number of symbols in each set must clearly be the same.
The total number of permutations that can be performed on n symbols is n!, and these necessarily constitute a group. It is known as the symmetric group of degree n, the only rational functions of the symbols which are unaltered by all possible permutations being the symmetric functions. When any permutation is carried out on the product of the n(n − 1)/2, differences of the n symbols, it must either remain unaltered or its sign must be changed. Those permutations which leave the product unaltered constitute a group of order n!/2, which is called the alternating group of degree n; it is a self-conjugate subgroup of the symmetric group. Except when n = 4 the alternating group is a simple group. A group of degree n, which is not contained in the alternating group, must necessarily have a self-conjugate subgroup of index 2, consisting of those of its permutations which belong to the alternating group.
The total number of ways to arrange n symbols is n!, and these arrangements form a group. This is known as the symmetric group of degree n, with the only rational functions of the symbols that remain unchanged by all possible arrangements being the symmetric functions. When you apply any arrangement to the product of the n(n − 1)/2 differences of the n symbols, it either stays the same or its sign changes. The arrangements that keep the product unchanged make up a group of order n!/2, called the alternating group of degree n; it's a self-conjugate subgroup of the symmetric group. Except when n = 4, the alternating group is a simple group. A group of degree n that isn't part of the alternating group must have a self-conjugate subgroup of index 2, which includes those arrangements that belong to the alternating group.
Among the various concrete forms in which a group of finite order can be presented the most important is that of a group of linear Groups of linear substitutions. substitutions. Such groups have already been referred to in connexion with discontinuous groups. Here the number of distinct substitutions is necessarily finite; and to each operation S of a group G of finite order there will correspond a linear substitution s, viz.
Among the different concrete forms in which a group of finite order can be presented, the most important is that of a group of linear Groups of linear transformations. substitutions. These groups have already been mentioned in relation to discontinuous groups. In this case, the number of distinct substitutions is necessarily finite; and for each operation S of a group G of finite order, there will correspond a linear substitution s, namely:
xi = Σj=mj=1 sij xj (i, j = 1, 2, ..., m),
xi = Σj=mj=1 sij xj (i, j = 1, 2, ..., m),
on a set of m variables, such that if ST = U, then st = u. The linear substitutions s, t, u, ... then constitute a group g with which G is isomorphic; and whether the isomorphism is simple or multiple g is said to give a “representation” of G as a group of linear substitutions. If all the substitutions of g are transformed by the same substitution on the m variables, the (in general) new group of linear substitutions so constituted is said to be “equivalent” with g as a representation of G; and two representations are called “non-equivalent,” or “distinct,” when one is not capable of being transformed into the other.
on a set of m variables, so that if ST = U, then st = u. The linear substitutions s, t, u, ... form a group g that is isomorphic to G; whether the isomorphism is simple or multiple, g is described as providing a “representation” of G as a group of linear substitutions. If all the substitutions of g are altered by the same substitution on the m variables, the (generally) new group of linear substitutions formed is said to be “equivalent” to g as a representation of G; and two representations are termed “non-equivalent” or “distinct” when one cannot be transformed into the other.
A group of linear substitutions on m variables is said to be “reducible” when it is possible to choose m′ (< m) linear functions of the variables which are transformed among themselves by every substitution of the group. When this cannot be done the group is called “irreducible.” It can be shown that a group of linear substitutions, of finite order, is always either irreducible, or such that the variables, when suitably chosen, may be divided into sets, each set being irreducibly transformed among themselves. This being so, it is clear that when the irreducible representations of a group of finite order are known, all representations may be built up.
A group of linear substitutions on m variables is called "reducible" when it's possible to select m′ (< m) linear functions of the variables that are transformed into each other by every substitution in the group. If this isn't possible, the group is referred to as "irreducible." It can be demonstrated that a group of linear substitutions of finite order is always either irreducible or can be arranged so that the variables, when chosen appropriately, can be divided into sets, with each set being irreducibly transformed among themselves. Given this, it's evident that once the irreducible representations of a finite order group are identified, all representations can be constructed.
It has been seen at the beginning of this section that every group of finite order N can be presented as a group of permutations (i.e. linear substitutions in a limited sense) on N symbols. This group is obviously reducible; in fact, the sum of the symbols remain unaltered by every substitution of the group. The fundamental theorem in connexion with the representations, as an irreducible group of linear substitutions, of a group of finite order N is the following.
It has been shown at the start of this section that every group of finite order N can be represented as a group of permutations (i.e., linear substitutions in a limited sense) on N symbols. This group is clearly reducible; in fact, the total of the symbols remains unchanged by every substitution from the group. The key theorem related to the representations, as an irreducible group of linear substitutions, of a group of finite order N is the following.
If r is the number of different sets of conjugate operations in the group, then, when the group of N permutations is completely reduced,
If r is the number of different sets of conjugate operations in the group, then, when the group of N permutations is fully simplified,
(i.) just r distinct irreducible representations occur:
(i.) exactly r distinct irreducible representations appear:
(ii.) each of these occurs a number of times equal to the number of symbols on which it operates:
(ii.) each of these happens as many times as the number of symbols it works on:
(iii.) these irreducible representations exhaust all the distinct irreducible representations of the group.
(iii.) these irreducible representations cover all the unique irreducible representations of the group.
Among these representations what is called the “identical” representation necessarily occurs, i.e. that in which each operation of the group corresponds to leaving a single symbol unchanged. If these representations are denoted by Γ1, Γ2, ..., Γr, then any representation of the group as a group of linear substitutions, or in particular as a group of permutations, may be uniquely represented by a symbol ΣαiΓi, in the sense that the representation when completely reduced will contain the representation Γi just αi times for each suffix i.
Among these representations, what is called the “identical” representation necessarily occurs, i.e. the one in which each operation of the group corresponds to keeping a single symbol unchanged. If these representations are labeled as Γ1, Γ2, ..., Γr, then any representation of the group as a group of linear substitutions, or specifically as a group of permutations, can be uniquely represented by a symbol ΣαiΓi, in the sense that the representation, when fully reduced, will include the representation Γi exactly αi times for each suffix i.
A representation of a group of finite order as an irreducible group Group characteristics. of linear substitutions may be presented in an infinite number of equivalent forms. If
A representation of a group of finite order as an irreducible group Group traits. of linear substitutions can be shown in countless equivalent ways. If
x′i = Σsij xj (i, j = 1, 2, ..., m),
x′i = Σsij xj (i, j = 1, 2, ..., m),
is the linear substitution which, in a given irreducible representation of a group of finite order G, corresponds to the operation S, the determinant
is the linear substitution that, in a specific irreducible representation of a finite group G, corresponds to the operation S, the determinant
s11 − λ | s12 | ... | s1 minute |
s21 | s22 − λ | ... | s2 min |
. | . | ... | . |
. | . | ... | . |
. | . | ... | . |
sm1 | s2 min | ... | smm − λ |
is invariant for all equivalent representations, when written as a polynomial in λ. Moreover, it has the same value for S and S′, if these are two conjugate operations in G. Of the various invariants that thus arise the most important is s11 + s22 + ... + smm, which is called the “characteristic” of S. If S is an operation of order p, its characteristic is the sum of m pth roots of unity; and in particular, if S is the identical operation its characteristic is m. If r is the number of sets of conjugate operations in G, there is, for each representation of G as an irreducible group, a set of r characteristics: X1, X2, ... Xr, one corresponding to each conjugate set; so that for the r irreducible representations just r such sets of characteristics arise. These are distinct, in the sense that if Ψ1, Ψ2, ..., Ψr are the characteristics for a distinct representation from the above, then Xi and Ψi are not equal for all values of the suffix i. It may be the case that the r characteristics for a given representation are all real. If this is so the representation is said to be self-inverse. In the contrary case there is always another representation, called the “inverse” representation, for which each characteristic is the conjugate imaginary of the corresponding one in the original representation. The characteristics are subject to certain remarkable relations. If hp denotes the number of operations in the pth conjugate set, while Xip, and Xjp are the characteristics of the pth conjugate set in Γi and Γj, then
is constant across all equivalent representations, when expressed as a polynomial in λ. Additionally, it holds the same value for S and S′ if these are two conjugate operations in G. Among the various invariants that emerge, the most significant is s11 + s22 + ... + smm, known as the “characteristic” of S. If S is an operation of order p, its characteristic is the sum of m pth roots of unity; specifically, if S is the identity operation, its characteristic is m. If r is the number of sets of conjugate operations in G, each representation of G as an irreducible group brings about a set of r characteristics: X1, X2, ... Xr, corresponding to each conjugate set; thus, for the r irreducible representations, there are r distinct sets of characteristics. These are different in such a way that if Ψ1, Ψ2, ..., Ψr represent the characteristics for a different representation, then Xi and Ψi are not equal for every value of the suffix i. It’s possible that the r characteristics for a given representation are all real. If that’s the case, the representation is termed self-inverse. Conversely, there is always another representation, known as the “inverse” representation, for which each characteristic is the complex conjugate of the corresponding one in the original representation. The characteristics are governed by certain notable relationships. If hp represents the number of operations in the pth conjugate set, while Xip and Xjp are the characteristics of the pth conjugate set in Γi and Γj, then
Σp=rp=1 hp Xip Xjp = 0 or n,
Σp=rp=1 hp Xip Xjp = 0 or n,
according to Γi and Γj are not or are inverse representations, n being the order of G.
according to Γi and Γj are not or are inverse representations, n being the order of G.
Again
Again
Σi=ri=1 Xip Xiq = 0 or n/hp
Σi=ri=1 Xip Xiq = 0 or n/hp
according as the pth and qth conjugate sets are not or are inverse; the qth set being called the inverse of the pth if it consists of the inverses of the operations constituting the pth.
according to whether the pth and qth conjugate sets are not or are inverses; the qth set is called the inverse of the pth if it consists of the inverses of the operations that make up the pth.
Another form in which every group of finite order can be represented Linear homogeneous groups. is that known as a linear homogeneous group. If in the equations
Another way every group of finite order can be represented Linear homogeneous groups. is as a linear homogeneous group. If in the equations
x′r = ar1x1 + ar2x2 + ... + armxm, (r = 1, 2, ..., m),
x′r = ar1x1 + ar2x2 + ... + aremovexm, (r = 1, 2, ..., m),
which define a linear homogeneous substitution, the coefficients are integers, and if the equations are replaced by congruences to a finite modulus n, the system of congruences will give a definite operation, provided that the determinant of the coefficients is relatively prime to n. The product of two such operations is another operation of the same kind; and the total number of distinct operations is finite, since there is only a limited number of choices for the coefficients. The totality of these operations, therefore, constitutes a group of finite order; and such a group is known as a linear homogeneous group. If n is a prime the order of the group is
which define a linear homogeneous substitution, the coefficients are integers, and if the equations are replaced by congruences to a finite modulus n, the system of congruences will produce a specific operation, as long as the determinant of the coefficients is relatively prime to n. The product of two such operations results in another operation of the same type; and the total number of distinct operations is finite, since there are only a limited number of choices for the coefficients. Thus, the totality of these operations forms a group of finite order; and such a group is known as a linear homogeneous group. If n is a prime, the order of the group is
(nm − 1) (nm − n) ... (nm − nm−1).
(nm − 1) (nm − n) ... (nm − nm−1).
The totality of the operations of the linear homogeneous group for which the determinant of the coefficients is congruent to unity forms a subgroup. Other subgroups arise by considering those operations which leave a function of the variables unchanged (mod. n). All such subgroups are known as linear homogeneous groups.
The complete set of operations of the linear homogeneous group, where the determinant of the coefficients equals one, creates a subgroup. Other subgroups are formed by looking at the operations that keep a function of the variables the same (mod. n). All of these subgroups are referred to as linear homogeneous groups.
When the ratios only of the variables are considered, there arises a linear fractional group, with which the corresponding linear homogeneous group is isomorphic. Thus, if p is a prime the totality of the congruences
When only the ratios of the variables are taken into account, a linear fractional group comes into play, which is isomorphic to the related linear homogeneous group. Therefore, if p is a prime, the totality of the congruences
z′ ≡ | az + b | , ad − bc ≠ 0, (mod. p) |
cz + d |
constitutes a group of order p(p2 − 1). This class of groups for various values of p is almost the only one which has been as yet exhaustively analysed. For all values of p except 3 it contains a simple self-conjugate subgroup of index 2.
constitutes a group of order p(p2 − 1). This category of groups for different values of p is nearly the only one that has been thoroughly studied so far. For all values of p except 3, it includes a simple self-conjugate subgroup of index 2.
A great extension of the theory of linear homogeneous groups has been made in recent years by considering systems of congruences of the form
A significant expansion of the theory of linear homogeneous groups has occurred in recent years by examining systems of congruences of the form
x′r ≡ ar1x1 + ar2x2 + ... + armxm, (r = 1, 2, ..., m),
x′r ≡ ar1x1 + ar2x2 + ... + armxm, (r = 1, 2, ..., m),
in which the coefficients ars, are integral functions with real integral coefficients of a root of an irreducible congruence to a prime modulus. Such a system of congruences is obviously limited in numbers and defines a group which contains as a subgroup the group defined by the same congruences with ordinary integral coefficients.
in which the coefficients ars are whole number functions with real whole number coefficients of a root of an irreducible congruence to a prime modulus. Such a system of congruences is clearly limited in quantity and defines a group that includes as a subgroup the group defined by the same congruences with regular whole number coefficients.
The chief application of the theory of groups of finite order is to the theory of algebraic equations. The analogy of equations of the second, third and fourth degrees would give rise to the Applications. expectation that a root of an equation of any finite degree could be expressed in terms of the coefficients by a finite number of the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and the extraction of roots; in other words, that the equation could be solved by radicals. This, however, as proved by Abel and Galois, is not the case: an equation of a higher degree than the fourth in general defines an algebraic irrationality which cannot be expressed by means of radicals, and the cases in which such an equation can be solved by radicals must be regarded as exceptional. The theory of groups gives the means of determining whether an equation comes under this exceptional case, and of solving the equation when it does. When it does not, the theory provides the means of reducing the problem presented by the equation to a normal form. From this point of view the theory of equations of the fifth degree has been exhaustively treated, and the problems presented by certain equations of the sixth and seventh degrees have actually been reduced to normal form.
The main use of the theory of finite groups is in the study of algebraic equations. The similarities between second, third, and fourth degree equations lead to the expectation that a root of any finite degree equation could be expressed in terms of the coefficients using a limited number of operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and extracting roots; in other words, that the equation could be solved using radicals. However, as shown by Abel and Galois, this is not true: an equation of degree greater than four generally defines an algebraic irrationality that cannot be expressed using radicals, and the instances when such an equation can be solved by radicals must be seen as exceptional. The group theory provides the tools to determine whether an equation falls into this exceptional category and to solve it if it does. If it does not, the theory allows for simplifying the problem posed by the equation to a normal form. From this perspective, the theory of fifth degree equations has been thoroughly studied, and some equations of the sixth and seventh degrees have even been simplified to normal form.
Galois (see Equation) showed that, corresponding to every irreducible equation of the nth degree, there exists a transitive substitution-group of degree n, such that every function of the roots, the numerical value of which is unaltered by all the substitutions of the group can be expressed rationally in terms of the coefficients, while conversely every function of the roots which is expressible rationally in terms of the coefficients is unaltered by the substitutions of the group. This group is called the group of the equation. In general, if the equation is given arbitrarily, the group will be the symmetric group. The necessary and sufficient condition that the equation may be soluble by radicals is that its group should be a soluble group. When the coefficients in an equation are rational integers, the determination of its group may be made by a finite number of processes each of which involves only rational arithmetical operations. These processes consist in forming resolvents of the equation corresponding to each distinct type of subgroup of the symmetric group whose degree is that of the equation. Each of the resolvents so formed is then examined to find whether it has rational roots. The group corresponding to any resolvent which has a rational root contains the group of the equation; and the least of the groups so found is the group of the equation. Thus, for an equation of the fifth degree the various transitive subgroups of the symmetric group of degree five have to be considered. These are (i.) the alternating group; (ii.) a soluble group of order 20; (iii.) a group of order 10, self-conjugate in the preceding; (iv.) a cyclical group of order 5, self-conjugate in both the preceding. If x0, x1, x2, x3, x4 are the roots of the equation, the corresponding resolvents may be taken to be those which have for roots (i.) the square root of the discriminant; (ii.) the function (x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0) (x0x2 + x2x4 + x4x1 + x1x3 + x3x0); (iii.) the function x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0; and (iv.) the function x02x1 + x12x2 + x22x3 + x32x4 + x42x0. Since the groups for which (iii.) and (iv.) are invariant are contained in that for which (ii.) is invariant, and since these are the only soluble groups of the set, the equation will be soluble by radicals only when the function (ii.) can be expressed rationally in terms of the coefficients. If
Galois (see Equation) demonstrated that for every irreducible equation of the nth degree, there is a transitive substitution group of degree n. Every function of the roots that remains unchanged by all the substitutions of the group can be expressed in rational terms of the coefficients. Conversely, any function of the roots that can be expressed rationally in terms of the coefficients will not be changed by the group’s substitutions. This group is referred to as the group of the equation. Generally, if the equation is chosen arbitrarily, the group will be the symmetric group. The necessary and sufficient condition for the equation to be solvable by radicals is that its group must be a solvable group. When the coefficients in an equation are rational integers, identifying its group can be done through a finite number of processes, each relying solely on rational arithmetic operations. These processes involve creating resolvents of the equation corresponding to each distinct type of subgroup of the symmetric group whose degree matches that of the equation. Each formed resolvent is then analyzed to see if it has rational roots. The group associated with any resolvent that has a rational root includes the group of the equation, and the smallest of the groups found is the group of the equation. Therefore, for a fifth-degree equation, the various transitive subgroups of the symmetric group of degree five must be examined. These include (i.) the alternating group; (ii.) a solvable group of order 20; (iii.) a group of order 10, which is self-conjugate in the previous group; and (iv.) a cyclical group of order 5, which is self-conjugate in both prior groups. If x0, x1, x2, x3, x4 are the roots of the equation, the corresponding resolvents can be viewed as those which have roots (i.) the square root of the discriminant; (ii.) the function (x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0) (x0x2 + x2x4 + x4x1 + x1x3 + x3x0); (iii.) the function x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0; and (iv.) the function x02x1 + x12x2 + x22x3 + x32x4 + x42x0. Since the groups for which (iii.) and (iv.) are invariant are contained within that for which (ii.) is invariant, and since these are the only soluble groups in the set, the equation will only be solvable by radicals if the function (ii.) can be expressed rationally in terms of the coefficients. If
(x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0) (x0x2 + x2x4 + x4x1 + x1x3 + x3x0)
(x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0) (x0x2 + x2x4 + x4x1 + x1x3 + x3x0)
is known, then clearly x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0 can be determined by the solution of a quadratic equation. Moreover, the sum and product (x0 + εx1 + ε2x2 + ε3x3 + ε4x4)5 and (x0 + ε4x1 + ε3x2 + ε2x3 + εx4)5 can be expressed rationally in terms of x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0, ε, and the symmetric functions; ε being a fifth root of unity. Hence (x0 + εx1 + ε2x2 + ε3x3 + ε4X4)5 can be determined by the solution of a quadratic equation. The roots of the original equation are then finally determined by the extraction of a fifth root. The problem of reducing an equation of the fifth degree, when not soluble by radicals, to a normal form, forms the subject of Klein’s Vorlesungen über das Ikosaeder. Another application of groups of finite order is to the theory of linear differential equations whose integrals are algebraic functions. It has been already seen, in the discussion of discontinuous groups in general, that the groups of such equations must be groups of finite order. To every group of finite order which can be represented as an irreducible group of linear substitutions on n variables will correspond a class of irreducible linear differential equations of the nth order whose integrals are algebraic. The complete determination of the class of linear differential equations of the second order with all their integrals algebraic, whose group has the greatest possible order, viz. 120, has been carried out by Klein.
is known, then clearly x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0 can be determined by solving a quadratic equation. Additionally, the sum and product (x0 + εx1 + ε2x2 + ε3x3 + ε4x4)5 and (x0 + ε4x1 + ε3x2 + ε2x3 + εx4)5 can be expressed in rational terms based on x0x1 + x1x2 + x2x3 + x3x4 + x4x0, ε, and the symmetric functions; ε being a fifth root of unity. Therefore, (x0 + εx1 + ε2x2 + ε3x3 + ε4x4)5 can be determined by solving a quadratic equation. The roots of the original equation are eventually found by extracting a fifth root. The issue of reducing a fifth-degree equation, when not solvable by radicals, to a standard form is the focus of Klein’s Vorlesungen über das Ikosaeder. Another application of finite order groups pertains to the theory of linear differential equations whose integrals are algebraic functions. It has already been noted, in the discussion of discontinuous groups in general, that the groups of such equations must be groups of finite order. Every finite order group that can be represented as an irreducible group of linear substitutions on n variables corresponds to a class of irreducible linear differential equations of the nth order whose integrals are algebraic. Klein has completed the full determination of the class of second-order linear differential equations with all their algebraic integrals, where the group has the maximum possible order, namely 120.
Authorities.—Continuous groups: Lie and Engel, Theorie der Transformationsgruppen (Leipzig, vol. i., 1888; vol. ii., 1890; vol. iii., 1893); Lie and Scheffers, Vorlesungen über gewöhnliche Differentialgleichungen mit bekannten infinitesimalen Transformationen (Leipzig, 1891); Idem, Vorlesungen über continuierliche Gruppen (Leipzig, 1893); Idem, Geometrie der Berührungstransformationen (Leipzig, 1896); Klein and Schilling, Höhere Geometrie, vol. ii. (lithographed) (Göttingen, 1893, for both continuous and discontinuous groups). Campbell, Introductory Treatise on Lie’s Theory of Finite Continuous Transformation Groups (Oxford, 1903). Discontinuous groups: Klein and Fricke, Vorlesungen über die Theorie der elliptischen Modulfunktionen (vol. i., Leipzig, 1890) (for a full discussion of the modular group); Idem, Vorlesungen über die Theorie der automorphen Funktionen (vol. i., Leipzig, 1897; vol. ii. pt. i., 1901) (for the general theory of discontinuous groups); Schoenflies, Krystallsysteme und Krystallstruktur (Leipzig, 1891) (for discontinuous groups of motions); Groups of finite order: Galois, Œuvres mathématiques (Paris, 1897, reprint); Jordan, Traité des substitutions et des équations algébriques (Paris, 1870); Netto, Substitutionentheorie und ihre Anwendung auf die Algebra (Leipzig, 1882; Eng. trans. by Cole, Ann Arbor, U.S.A., 1892); Klein, Vorlesungen über das Ikosaeder (Leipzig, 1884; Eng. trans. by Morrice, London, 1888); H. Vogt, Leçons sur la résolution algébrique des équations (Paris, 1895); Weber, Lehrbuch der Algebra (Braunschweig, vol. i., 1895; vol. ii., 1896; a second edition appeared in 1898); Burnside, Theory of Groups of Finite Order (Cambridge, 1897); Bianchi, Teoria dei gruppi di sostituzioni e delle equazioni algebriche (Pisa, 1899); Dickson, Linear Groups with an Exposition of the Galois Field Theory (Leipzig, 1901); De Séguier, Éléments de la théorie des groupes abstraits (Paris, 1904), A summary with many references will be found in the Encyklopädie der mathematischen Wissenschaften (Leipzig, vol. i., 1898, 1899).
Authorities.—Continuous groups: Lie and Engel, Theory of Transformation Groups (Leipzig, vol. i., 1888; vol. ii., 1890; vol. iii., 1893); Lie and Scheffers, Lectures on Ordinary Differential Equations with Known Infinitesimal Transformations (Leipzig, 1891); Idem, Lectures on Continuous Groups (Leipzig, 1893); Idem, Geometry of Touch Transformations (Leipzig, 1896); Klein and Schilling, Advanced Geometry, vol. ii. (lithographed) (Göttingen, 1893, for both continuous and discontinuous groups). Campbell, Introductory Treatise on Lie’s Theory of Finite Continuous Transformation Groups (Oxford, 1903). Discontinuous groups: Klein and Fricke, Lectures on the Theory of Elliptic Modular Functions (vol. i., Leipzig, 1890) (for a full discussion of the modular group); Idem, Lectures on the Theory of Automorphic Functions (vol. i., Leipzig, 1897; vol. ii. pt. i., 1901) (for the general theory of discontinuous groups); Schoenflies, Crystal Systems and Crystal Structure (Leipzig, 1891) (for discontinuous groups of motions); Groups of finite order: Galois, Mathematical Works (Paris, 1897, reprint); Jordan, Treatise on Substitutions and Algebraic Equations (Paris, 1870); Netto, Substitution Theory and Its Application to Algebra (Leipzig, 1882; Eng. trans. by Cole, Ann Arbor, U.S.A., 1892); Klein, Lectures on the Icosahedron (Leipzig, 1884; Eng. trans. by Morrice, London, 1888); H. Vogt, Lessons on the Algebraic Solution of Equations (Paris, 1895); Weber, Textbook of Algebra (Braunschweig, vol. i., 1895; vol. ii., 1896; a second edition appeared in 1898); Burnside, Theory of Groups of Finite Order (Cambridge, 1897); Bianchi, Theory of Substitution Groups and Algebraic Equations (Pisa, 1899); Dickson, Linear Groups with an Exposition of the Galois Field Theory (Leipzig, 1901); De Séguier, Elements of the Theory of Abstract Groups (Paris, 1904), A summary with many references will be found in the Encyclopedia of Mathematical Sciences (Leipzig, vol. i., 1898, 1899).
1 The word “group,” which appears first in English in the sense of an assemblage of figures in an artistic design, picture, &c., is adapted from the Fr. groupe, which is to be referred to the Teutonic word meaning “knot,” “mass,” “bunch,” represented in English by “crop” (q.v.). The technical mathematical sense is not older than 1870.
1 The term “group,” first used in English to describe a collection of figures in an artistic design or picture, is borrowed from the French groupe, which comes from the Teutonic word meaning “knot,” “mass,” or “bunch,” similar to the English word “crop” (q.v.). The specific mathematical meaning didn’t come about until 1870.
GROUSE, a word of uncertain origin,1 now used generally by ornithologists to include all the “rough-footed” Gallinaceous birds, but in common speech applied almost exclusively, when used alone, to the Tetrao scoticus of Linnaeus, the Lagopus scoticus of modern systematists—more particularly called in English the red grouse, but till the end of the 18th century almost invariably spoken of as the Moor-fowl or Moor-game. The effect which this species is supposed to have had on the British legislature, and therefore on history, is well known, for it was the common belief that parliament always rose when the season for grouse-shooting began (August 12th); while according to the Orkneyinga Saga (ed. Jonaeus, p. 356; ed. Anderson, p. 168) events of some importance in the annals of North Britain followed from its pursuit in Caithness in the year 1157.
Grouse a term of unclear origin, 1 is now commonly used by ornithologists to refer to all the “rough-footed” Gallinaceous birds, but in everyday language, when mentioned alone, it usually refers to the Tetrao scoticus of Linnaeus, known as the Lagopus scoticus in modern classifications—more specifically recognized in English as the red grouse, yet until the late 18th century, it was almost always referred to as the Moor-fowl or Moor-game. The impact this species is believed to have had on the British legislature, and therefore on history, is well-known; it was commonly believed that parliament would adjourn when the grouse-shooting season began (August 12th). Additionally, according to the Orkneyinga Saga (ed. Jonaeus, p. 356; ed. Anderson, p. 168), notable events in the history of North Britain stemmed from its hunting in Caithness in the year 1157.
The red grouse is found on moors from Monmouthshire and Derbyshire northward to the Orkneys, as well as in most of the Hebrides. It inhabits similar situations throughout Wales and Ireland, but it does not naturally occur beyond the limits of the British Islands,2 and is the only species among birds peculiar to them. The word “species” may in this case be used advisedly (since the red grouse invariably “breeds true,” it admits of an easy diagnosis, and it has a definite geographical range); but scarcely any zoologist can doubt of its common origin with the willow-grouse, Lagopus albus (L. subalpinus or L. saliceti of some authors), that inhabits a subarctic zone from Norway across the 637 continents of Europe and Asia, as well as North America from the Aleutian Islands to Newfoundland. The red grouse indeed is rarely or never found away from the heather on which chiefly it subsists; while the willow-grouse in many parts of the Old World seems to prefer the shrubby growth of berry-bearing plants (Vaccinium and others) that, often thickly interspersed with willows and birches, clothes the higher levels or the lower mountain-slopes, and it flourishes in the New World where heather scarcely exists, and a “heath” in its strict sense is unknown. It is true that the willow-grouse always becomes white in winter, which the red grouse never does; but in summer there is a considerable resemblance between the two species, the cock willow-grouse having his head, neck and breast of nearly the same rich chestnut-brown as his British representative, and, though his back be lighter in colour, as is also the whole plumage of his mate, than is found in the red grouse, in other respects the two species are precisely alike. No distinction can be discovered in their voice, their eggs, their build, nor in their anatomical details, so far as these have been investigated and compared.3 Moreover, the red grouse, restricted as is its range, varies in colour not inconsiderably according to locality.
The red grouse can be found on moors from Monmouthshire and Derbyshire all the way north to the Orkneys, and in most of the Hebrides. It lives in similar environments throughout Wales and Ireland, but it doesn’t naturally exist outside the British Islands, and it’s the only species of bird unique to them. The term “species” is appropriate here (since the red grouse always "breeds true," it can be easily identified, and it has a specific geographical range); however, no zoologist can really doubt its common ancestry with the willow-grouse, Lagopus albus (L. subalpinus or L. saliceti according to some authors), which can be found in subarctic regions from Norway across the continents of Europe and Asia, as well as in North America from the Aleutian Islands to Newfoundland. The red grouse is rarely found away from the heather it primarily feeds on; meanwhile, the willow-grouse in many areas of the Old World seems to prefer shrubby growths with berry-bearing plants (Vaccinium and others) that are often thickly mixed with willows and birches, covering higher levels or lower mountain slopes, and it thrives in the New World where heather hardly exists, and a true "heath" is unknown. While it’s true that the willow-grouse turns white in winter, the red grouse never does; however, in summer, there’s a significant resemblance between the two species, with the male willow-grouse having a head, neck, and breast that are nearly the same rich chestnut-brown as his British counterpart, and although his back is lighter in color, as is the entire plumage of his mate compared to the red grouse, in other aspects, the two species are quite similar. No differences can be found in their calls, eggs, body structure, or anatomical details, as far as these have been studied and compared. Furthermore, the red grouse, despite its limited range, shows notable color variations depending on the location.
![]() |
Red Grouse. |
Though the red grouse does not, after the manner of other members of the genus Lagopus, become white in winter, Scotland possesses a species of the genus which does. This is the ptarmigan, L. mutus or L. alpinus, which differs far more in structure, station and habits from the red grouse than that does from the willow-grouse, and in Scotland is far less abundant, haunting only the highest and most barren mountains. It is said to have formerly inhabited both Wales and England, but there is no evidence of its appearance in Ireland. On the continent of Europe it is found most numerously in Norway, but at an elevation far above the growth of trees, and it occurs on the Pyrenees and on the Alps. It also inhabits northern Russia. In North America, Greenland and Iceland it is represented by a very nearly allied form—so much so indeed that it is only at certain seasons that the slight difference between them can be detected. This form is the L. rupestris of authors, and it would appear to be found also in Siberia (Ibis, 1879, p. 148). Spitzbergen is inhabited by a large form which has received recognition as L. hemileucurus, and the northern end of the chain of the Rocky Mountains is tenanted by a very distinct species, the smallest and perhaps the most beautiful of the genus, L. leucurus, which has all the feathers of the tail white.
Though the red grouse doesn’t turn white in winter like other members of the genus Lagopus, Scotland has a species of this genus that does. This is the ptarmigan, L. mutus or L. alpinus, which is structurally, in terms of habitat, and in behavior quite different from the red grouse, and in Scotland, it’s much less common, typically found only on the highest and most barren mountains. It’s believed to have once lived in both Wales and England, but there’s no evidence of it ever being in Ireland. In mainland Europe, it’s most commonly found in Norway, but at elevations far above the tree line, and it can also be found in the Pyrenees and the Alps. It also lives in northern Russia. In North America, Greenland, and Iceland, it exists in a closely related form—so similar that the small differences can only be noticed at certain times of the year. This form is referred to as L. rupestris, and it seems to also be found in Siberia (Ibis, 1879, p. 148). Spitzbergen is home to a larger form recognized as L. hemileucurus, while the northern part of the Rocky Mountain range is inhabited by a very distinct species, the smallest and possibly the most beautiful of the genus, L. leucurus, which has all white tail feathers.
![]() |
Ptarmigan. |
![]() |
Blackcock. |
The bird, however, to which the name of grouse in all strictness belongs is probably the Tetrao tetrix of Linnaeus—the blackcock and greyhen, as the sexes are respectively called. It is distributed over most of the heath-country of England, except in East Anglia, where attempts to introduce it have been only partially successful. It also occurs in North Wales and very 638 generally throughout Scotland, though not in Orkney, Shetland or the Outer Hebrides, nor in Ireland. On the continent of Europe it has a very wide range, and it extends into Siberia. In Georgia its place is taken by a distinct species, on which a Polish naturalist (Proc. Zool. Society, 1875, p. 267) has conferred the name of T. mlokosiewiczi. Both these birds have much in common with their larger congener the capercally and its eastern representative.
The bird that is strictly called grouse is probably the Tetrao tetrix identified by Linnaeus—the blackcock and greyhen, as they are known by their respective sexes. It can be found in most heathlands of England, except in East Anglia, where efforts to introduce it have only had limited success. It also exists in North Wales and is fairly widespread throughout Scotland, although it’s not found in Orkney, Shetland, or the Outer Hebrides, nor in Ireland. In continental Europe, it has a very wide range and extends into Siberia. In Georgia, it is replaced by a distinct species, which a Polish naturalist noted in Proc. Zool. Society, 1875, p. 267, naming it T. mlokosiewiczi. Both of these birds share many similarities with their larger relative, the capercaillie, and its eastern counterpart.
The species of the genus Bonasa, of which the European B. sylvestris is the type, does not inhabit the British Islands. It is perhaps the most delicate game-bird that comes to table. It is the gelinotte of the French, the Haselhuhn of Germans, and Hjerpe of Scandinavians. Like its transatlantic congener B. umbellus, the ruffed grouse or birch-partridge (of which there are two other local forms, B. umbelloides and B. sabinii), it is purely a forest-bird. The same may be said of the species of Canace, of which two forms are found in America, C. canadensis, the spruce-partridge, and C. franklini, and also of the Siberian C. falcipennis. Nearly allied to these birds is the group known as Dendragapus, containing three large and fine forms D. obscurus, D. fuliginosus, and D. richardsoni—all peculiar to North America. Then there are Centrocercus urophasianus, the sage-cock of the plains of Columbia and California, and Pedioecetes, the sharp-tailed grouse, with its two forms, P. phasianellus and P. columbianus, while finally Cupidonia, the prairie-hen, also with two local forms, C. cupido and C. pallidicincta, is a bird that in the United States of America possesses considerable economic value, enormous numbers being consumed there, and also exported to Europe.
The species from the genus Bonasa, with the European B. sylvestris as the main example, is not found in the British Isles. It might be the most delicate game bird served at the table. It's known as gelinotte in French, Haselhuhn in German, and Hjerpe in Scandinavian countries. Like its North American counterpart, the ruffed grouse or birch-partridge (which has two other local forms, B. umbelloides and B. sabinii), it lives exclusively in forests. This also applies to the species of Canace, which includes two forms found in America: C. canadensis, the spruce-partridge, and C. franklini, as well as the Siberian C. falcipennis. Closely related to these birds is the group called Dendragapus, which features three large and impressive forms—D. obscurus, D. fuliginosus, and D. richardsoni—all unique to North America. Additionally, there's Centrocercus urophasianus, the sage-grouse found in the plains of Columbia and California, and Pedioecetes, the sharp-tailed grouse, which includes two forms: P. phasianellus and P. columbianus. Finally, Cupidonia, the prairie-hen, which also has two local forms, C. cupido and C. pallidicincta, is a bird of significant economic value in the United States, with large numbers consumed domestically and even exported to Europe.
The various sorts of grouse are nearly all figured in Elliot’s Monograph of the Tetraoninae, and an excellent account of the American species is given in Baird, Brewer and Ridgway’s North American Birds (iii. 414-465). See also Shooting.
The different types of grouse are mostly illustrated in Elliot’s Monograph of the Tetraoninae, and there’s a great description of the American species in Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway’s North American Birds (iii. 414-465). Also, check out Shooting.
1 It seems first to occur (O. Salusbury Brereton, Archaeologia, iii. 157) as “grows” in an ordinance for the regulation of the royal household dated “apud Eltham, mens. Jan. 22 Hen. VIII.,” i.e. 1531, and considering the locality must refer to black game. It is found in an Act of Parliament 1 Jac. I. cap. 27, § 2, i.e. 1603, and, as reprinted in the Statutes at Large, stands as now commonly spelt, but by many writers or printers the final e was omitted in the 17th and 18th centuries. In 1611 Cotgrave had “Poule griesche. A Moore-henne; the henne of the Grice [in ed. 1673 “Griece”] or Mooregame” (Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues, s.v. Poule). The most likely derivation seems to be from the old French word griesche, greoche or griais (meaning speckled, and cognate with griseus, grisly or grey), which was applied to some kind of partridge, or according to Brunetto Latini (Trés. p. 211) to a quail, “porce que ele fu premiers trovée en Grece.” The Oxford Dictionary repudiates the possibility of “grouse” being a spurious singular of an alleged plural “grice,” and, with regard to the possibility of “grows” being a plural of “grow,” refers to Giraldus Cambrensis (c. 1210), Topogr. Hib. opera (Rolls) v. 47: “gallinae campestres, quas vulgariter grutas vocant.”
1 It first appears (O. Salusbury Brereton, Archaeologia, iii. 157) as “grows” in a regulation for the royal household dated “apud Eltham, mens. Jan. 22 Hen. VIII.,” i.e. 1531, which, considering the location, likely refers to black game. It's found in an Act of Parliament 1 Jac. I. cap. 27, § 2, i.e. 1603, and as reprinted in the Statutes at Large, it appears as commonly spelled today, but many writers or printers omitted the final e in the 17th and 18th centuries. In 1611, Cotgrave listed “Poule griesche. A Moore-henne; the henne of the Grice [in ed. 1673 “Griece”] or Mooregame” (Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues, s.v. Poule). The most likely origin seems to be from the old French word griesche, greoche, or griais (meaning speckled, and related to griseus, grisly or grey), which was used for some kind of partridge, or according to Brunetto Latini (Trés. p. 211) for a quail, “porce que ele fu premiers trovée en Grece.” The Oxford Dictionary rejects the idea of “grouse” being a false singular of a supposed plural “grice,” and regarding the possibility of “grows” being a plural of “grow,” it refers to Giraldus Cambrensis (c. 1210), Topogr. Hib. opera (Rolls) v. 47: “gallinae campestres, quas vulgariter grutas vocant.”
2 It was successfully, though with much trouble, introduced by Mr Oscar Dickson on a tract of land near Gottenburg in Sweden (Svenska Jägarförbundets Nya Tidskrift, 1868, p. 64 et alibi).
2 It was successfully, though with a lot of effort, introduced by Mr. Oscar Dickson on a piece of land near Gothenburg in Sweden (Svenska Jägarförbundets Nya Tidskrift, 1868, p. 64 et alibi).
3 A very interesting subject for discussion would be whether Lagopus scoticus or L. albus has varied most from the common stock of both. Looking to the fact that the former is the only species of the genus which does not assume white clothing in winter, an evolutionist might at first deem the variation greatest in its case; but then it must be borne in mind that the species of Lagopus which turn white differ in that respect from all other groups of the family Tetraonidae. Furthermore every species of Lagopus (even L. leucurus, the whitest of all) has its first set of remiges coloured brown. These are dropped when the bird is about half-grown, and in all the species but L. scoticus white remiges are then produced. If therefore the successive phases assumed by any animal in the course of its progress to maturity indicate the phases through which the species has passed, there may have been a time when all the species of Lagopus wore a brown livery even when adult, and the white dress donned in winter has been imposed upon the wearers by causes that can be easily suggested. The white plumage of the birds of this group protects them from danger during the snows of a protracted winter. But the red grouse, instead of perpetuating directly the more ancient properties of an original Lagopus that underwent no great seasonal change of plumage, may derive its ancestry from the widely-ranging willow-grouse, which in an epoch comparatively recent (in the geological sense) may have stocked Britain, and left descendants that, under conditions in which the assumption of a white garb would be almost fatal to the preservation of the species, have reverted (though doubtless with some modifications) to a comparative immutability essentially the same as that of the primal Lagopus.
3 A really interesting topic for discussion would be whether Lagopus scoticus or L. albus has diverged the most from the common ancestor of both. Considering that the former is the only species in the genus that doesn’t turn white in winter, an evolutionist might initially think that its variation is greater; however, it’s important to remember that the Lagopus species that do turn white differ from all other members of the family Tetraonidae. Additionally, every species of Lagopus (even L. leucurus, the whitest of them all) has its first set of flight feathers colored brown. These are dropped when the bird is about half-grown, and in all species except L. scoticus, white flight feathers are then produced. Therefore, if the successive stages that an animal goes through as it matures reflect the stages its species has experienced, there may have been a time when all Lagopus species had a brown coat even as adults, and the white plumage they adopt in winter could have been a change brought about by easily suggested factors. The white feathers of birds in this group protect them from threats during heavy winter snows. On the other hand, the red grouse, instead of directly preserving the more ancient traits of an original Lagopus that underwent minimal seasonal changes in plumage, might trace its lineage back to the widely-ranging willow grouse, which, in a relatively recent geological period, could have populated Britain, leaving descendants that, in conditions where adopting a white coat would be nearly detrimental to the species’ survival, have reverted (though certainly with some changes) to a state of relative stability similar to that of the original Lagopus.
GROVE, SIR GEORGE (1820-1900), English writer on music, was born at Clapham on the 13th of August 1820. He was articled to a civil engineer, and worked for two years in a factory near Glasgow. In 1841 and 1845 he was employed in the West Indies, erecting lighthouses in Jamaica and Bermuda. In 1849 he became secretary to the Society of Arts, and in 1852 to the Crystal Palace. In this capacity his natural love of music and enthusiasm for the art found a splendid opening, and he threw all the weight of his influence into the task of promoting the best music of all schools in connexion with the weekly and daily concerts at Sydenham, which had a long and honourable career under the direction of Mr (afterwards Sir) August Manns. Without Sir George Grove that eminent conductor would hardly have succeeded in doing what he did to encourage young composers and to educate the British public in music. Grove’s analyses of the Beethoven symphonies, and the other works presented at the concerts, set the pattern of what such things should be; and it was as a result of these, and of the fact that he was editor of Macmillan’s Magazine from 1868 to 1883, that the scheme of his famous Dictionary of Music and Musicians, published from 1878 to 1889 (new edition, edited by J. A. Fuller Maitland, 1904-1907), was conceived and executed. His own articles in that work on Beethoven, Mendelssohn and Schubert are monuments of a special kind of learning, and that the rest of the book is a little thrown out of balance owing to their great length is hardly to be regretted. Long before this he had contributed to the Dictionary of the Bible, and had promoted the foundation of the Palestine Exploration Fund. On a journey to Vienna, undertaken in the company of his lifelong friend, Sir Arthur Sullivan, the important discovery of a large number of compositions by Schubert was made, including the music to Rosamunde. When the Royal College of Music was founded in 1882 he was appointed its first director, receiving the honour of knighthood. He brought the new institution into line with the most useful European conservatoriums. On the completion of the new buildings in 1894 he resigned the directorship, but retained an active interest in the institution to the end of his life. He died at Sydenham on the 28th of May 1900.
Grove, Sir George (1820-1900), English writer on music, was born in Clapham on August 13, 1820. He was apprenticed to a civil engineer and spent two years working in a factory near Glasgow. In 1841 and 1845, he worked in the West Indies, building lighthouses in Jamaica and Bermuda. In 1849, he became the secretary of the Society of Arts, and in 1852, he took on the same role at the Crystal Palace. In this position, his natural passion for music and enthusiasm for the art found an excellent outlet, and he devoted all his energy to promoting the best music from various genres at the weekly and daily concerts in Sydenham, which enjoyed a long and respected run under the direction of Mr. (later Sir) August Manns. Without Sir George Grove, that distinguished conductor might not have achieved the same success in supporting young composers and educating the British public about music. Grove’s analyses of Beethoven’s symphonies and other works featured at the concerts set the standard for such critiques; this, along with his role as editor of Macmillan’s Magazine from 1868 to 1883, laid the groundwork for his renowned Dictionary of Music and Musicians, published from 1878 to 1889 (new edition, edited by J. A. Fuller Maitland, 1904-1907). His own articles in that work on Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Schubert are remarkable examples of specialized knowledge, and while the rest of the book may seem somewhat imbalanced due to their length, this is hardly a disappointment. Long before this, he had contributed to the Dictionary of the Bible and had supported the creation of the Palestine Exploration Fund. While traveling to Vienna with his lifelong friend, Sir Arthur Sullivan, he discovered a significant number of compositions by Schubert, including the music for Rosamunde. When the Royal College of Music was established in 1882, he was appointed its first director and was knighted for his contributions. He aligned the new institution with the most progressive European conservatories. After the new buildings were completed in 1894, he stepped down from directorship but maintained an active interest in the institution until the end of his life. He passed away in Sydenham on May 28, 1900.
His life, a most interesting one, was written by Mr Charles Graves.
His life, which was quite fascinating, was documented by Mr. Charles Graves.
GROVE, SIR WILLIAM ROBERT (1811-1896), English judge and man of science, was born on the 11th of July 1811 at Swansea, South Wales. After being educated by private tutors, he went to Brasenose College, Oxford, where he took an ordinary degree in 1832. Three years later he was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn. His health, however, did not allow him to devote himself strenuously to practice, and he occupied his leisure with scientific studies. About 1839 he constructed the platinum-zinc voltaic cell that bears his name, and with the aid of a number of these exhibited the electric arc light in the London Institution, Finsbury Circus. The result was that in 1840 the managers appointed him to the professorship of experimental philosophy, an office which he held for seven years. His researches dealt very largely with electro-chemistry and with the voltaic cell, of which he invented several varieties. One of these, the Grove gas-battery, which is of special interest both intrinsically and as the forerunner of the secondary batteries now in use for the “storage” of electricity, was based on his observation that a current is produced by a couple of platinum plates standing in acidulated water and immersed, the one in hydrogen, the other in oxygen. At one of his lectures at the Institution he anticipated the electric lighting of to-day by illuminating the theatre with incandescent electric lamps, the filaments being of platinum and the current supplied by a battery of his nitric acid cells. In 1846 he published his famous book on The Correlation of Physical Forces, the leading ideas of which he had already put forward in his lectures: its fundamental conception was that each of the forces of nature—light, heat, electricity, &c.—is definitely and equivalently convertible into any other, and that where experiment does not give the full equivalent, it is because the initial force has been dissipated, not lost, by conversion into other unrecognized forces. In the same year he received a Royal medal from the Royal Society for his Bakerian lecture on “Certain phenomena of voltaic ignition and the decomposition of water into its constituent gases.” In 1866 he presided over the British Association at its Nottingham meeting and delivered an address on the continuity of natural phenomena. But while he was thus engaged in scientific research, his legal work was not neglected, and his practice increased so greatly that in 1853 he became a Q.C. One of the best-known cases in which he appeared as an advocate was that of William Palmer, the Rugeley poisoner, whom he defended. In 1871 he was made a judge of the Common Pleas in succession to Sir Robert Collier, and remained on the bench till 1887. He died in London on the 1st of August 1896.
GROVE, SIR WILLIAM ROBERT (1811-1896), was an English judge and scientist born on July 11, 1811, in Swansea, South Wales. He was educated by private tutors and then attended Brasenose College, Oxford, where he graduated with an ordinary degree in 1832. Three years later, he was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn. However, due to health issues, he couldn't fully commit to practicing law and instead focused on scientific studies during his free time. Around 1839, he created the platinum-zinc voltaic cell that carries his name and used several of these to showcase the electric arc light at the London Institution in Finsbury Circus. As a result, in 1840, the managers appointed him to the professorship of experimental philosophy, a position he held for seven years. His research mainly focused on electrochemistry and the voltaic cell, of which he invented several types. One notable invention was the Grove gas-battery, which is significant both on its own and as a precursor to the rechargeable batteries used today for "storing" electricity. This was based on his discovery that a current is generated by two platinum plates in acidulated water, one in hydrogen and the other in oxygen. During one of his lectures at the Institution, he anticipated modern electric lighting by illuminating the theater with incandescent electric lamps, using platinum filaments powered by batteries of his nitric acid cells. In 1846, he published his well-known book, The Correlation of Physical Forces, where he presented ideas he had already shared in his lectures. The main concept was that all natural forces—like light, heat, and electricity—can be converted into one another, and any discrepancies in experiments arise from the initial force being dissipated, not lost, through conversion into unrecognized forces. That same year, he received a Royal medal from the Royal Society for his Bakerian lecture on “Certain phenomena of voltaic ignition and the decomposition of water into its constituent gases.” In 1866, he chaired the British Association during its Nottingham meeting and delivered a talk on the continuity of natural phenomena. While heavily involved in scientific research, he did not neglect his legal work; his practice expanded so much that in 1853, he became a Q.C. One of his most notable cases as an advocate was defending William Palmer, the Rugeley poisoner. In 1871, he was appointed a judge of the Common Pleas, succeeding Sir Robert Collier, and served on the bench until 1887. He passed away in London on August 1, 1896.
A selection of his scientific papers is given in the sixth edition of The Correlation of Physical Forces, published in 1874.
A selection of his scientific papers is included in the sixth edition of The Correlation of Physical Forces, published in 1874.
GROVE (O.E. graf, cf. O.E. græfa, brushwood, later “greave”; the word does not appear in any other Teutonic language, and the New English Dictionary finds no Indo-European root to which it can be referred; Skeat considers it connected with “grave,” to cut, and finds the original meaning to be a glade cut through a wood), a small group or cluster of trees, growing naturally and forming something smaller than a wood, or planted in particular shapes or for particular purposes, in a park, &c. Groves have been connected with religious worship from the earliest times, and in many parts of India every village has its sacred group of trees. For the connexion of religion with sacred groves see Tree-Worship.
GROVE (O.E. graf, cf. O.E. græfa, brushwood, later “greave”; the word doesn’t show up in any other Germanic language, and the New English Dictionary finds no Indo-European root it can be linked to; Skeat thinks it's related to “grave,” meaning to cut, and believes the original meaning was a clearing made in a forest), a small group or cluster of trees, that grow naturally and create something smaller than a wood, or are arranged in specific shapes or for special purposes, like in a park, etc. Groves have been associated with religious worship since ancient times, and in many areas of India, every village has its own sacred grouping of trees. For the connection between religion and sacred groves, see Tree-Worship.
The word “grove” was used by the authors of the Authorized Version of the Bible to translate two Hebrew words: (1) ’ēshel, as in Gen. xxi. 33, and 1 Sam. xxii. 6; this is rightly given in the Revised Version as “tamarisk”; (2) asherah in many places throughout the Old Testament. Here the translators followed the Septuagint ἄλσος and the Vulgate lucus. The ’ăshéráh was a wooden post erected at the Canaanitish places of worship, and also by the altars of Yahweh. It may have represented a tree.
The word “grove” was used by the authors of the Authorized Version of the Bible to translate two Hebrew words: (1) ’ēshel, as in Gen. xxi. 33, and 1 Sam. xxii. 6; this is correctly translated in the Revised Version as “tamarisk”; (2) asherah in many instances throughout the Old Testament. Here, the translators followed the Septuagint grove and the Vulgate lucus. The ’ăshéráh was a wooden post set up at Canaanite places of worship and also by the altars of Yahweh. It might have symbolized a tree.
GRUB, the larva of an insect, a caterpillar, maggot. The word is formed from the verb “to grub,” to dig, break up the 639 surface of the ground, and clear of stumps, roots, weeds, &c. According to the New English Dictionary, “grub” may be referred to an ablaut variant of the Old Teutonic grab-, to dig, cf. “grave.” Skeat (Etym. Dict. 1898) refers it rather to the root seen in “grope,” “grab,” &c., the original meaning “to search for.” The earliest quotation of the slang use of the word in the sense of food in the New English Dictionary is dated 1659 from Ancient Poems, Ballads, &c., Percy Society Publications. “Grub-street,” as a collective term for needy hack-writers, dates from the 17th century and is due to the name of a street near Moorfields, London, now Milton Street, which was as Johnson says “much inhabited by writers of small histories, dictionaries and temporary poems.”
GRUB, refers to the larva of an insect, like a caterpillar or maggot. The term comes from the verb “to grub,” which means to dig, disturb the surface of the ground, and clear away stumps, roots, weeds, etc. According to the New English Dictionary, “grub” may be an ablaut variant of the Old Teutonic grab-, meaning to dig, similar to “grave.” Skeat (Etym. Dict. 1898) associates it more with the root found in “grope,” “grab,” etc., with the original meaning being “to search for.” The earliest citation of the slang meaning of the word as food in the New English Dictionary is from 1659 in the Ancient Poems, Ballads, & etc., Percy Society Publications. “Grub-street,” a term used for needy hack-writers, originated in the 17th century and is named after a street near Moorfields, London, now known as Milton Street, which, as Johnson noted, “was much inhabited by writers of small histories, dictionaries, and temporary poems.”
GRUBER, JOHANN GOTTFRIED (1774-1851), German critic and literary historian, was born at Naumburg on the Saale, on the 29th of November 1774. He received his education at the town school of Naumburg and the university of Leipzig, after which he resided successively at Göttingen, Leipzig, Jena and Weimar, occupying himself partly in teaching and partly in various literary enterprises, and enjoying in Weimar the friendship of Herder, Wieland and Goethe. In 1811 he was appointed professor at the university of Wittenberg, and after the division of Saxony he was sent by the senate to Berlin to negotiate the union of the university of Wittenberg with that of Halle. After the union was effected he became in 1815 professor of philosophy at Halle. He was associated with Johann Samuel Ersch in the editorship of the great work Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste; and after the death of Ersch he continued the first section from vol. xviii. to vol. liv. He also succeeded Ersch in the editorship of the Allgemeine Literaturzeitung. He died on the 7th of August 1851.
GRUBER, JOHANN GOTTFRIED (1774-1851), German critic and literary historian, was born in Naumburg on the Saale on November 29, 1774. He was educated at the town school in Naumburg and at the University of Leipzig. After that, he lived in Göttingen, Leipzig, Jena, and Weimar, where he both taught and engaged in various literary projects, enjoying friendships with Herder, Wieland, and Goethe in Weimar. In 1811, he was appointed professor at the University of Wittenberg, and after the division of Saxony, he was sent by the senate to Berlin to help unite the University of Wittenberg with that of Halle. Once the union was completed, he became professor of philosophy at Halle in 1815. He worked with Johann Samuel Ersch as editor of the major work Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste; and after Ersch's death, he continued editing the first section from vol. xviii to vol. liv. He also took over as editor of the Allgemeine Literaturzeitung after Ersch. He passed away on August 7, 1851.
Gruber was the author of a large number of works, the principal of which are Charakteristik Herders (Leipzig, 1805), in conjunction with Johann T. L. Danz (1769-1851), afterwards professor of theology at Jena; Geschichte des menschlichen Geschlechts (2 vols., Leipzig, 1806); Wörterbuch der altklassischen Mythologie (3 vols., Weimar, 1810-1815); Wielands Leben (2 parts, Weimar, 1815-1816), and Klopstocks Leben (Weimar, 1832). He also edited Wieland’s Sämtliche Werke (Leipzig, 1818-1828).
Gruber was the author of many works, the main ones being Charakteristik Herders (Leipzig, 1805), co-authored with Johann T. L. Danz (1769-1851), who later became a theology professor at Jena; Geschichte des menschlichen Geschlechts (2 vols., Leipzig, 1806); Wörterbuch der altklassischen Mythologie (3 vols., Weimar, 1810-1815); Wielands Leben (2 parts, Weimar, 1815-1816), and Klopstocks Leben (Weimar, 1832). He also edited Wieland’s Sämtliche Werke (Leipzig, 1818-1828).
GRUMBACH, WILHELM VON (1503-1567), German adventurer, chiefly known through his connexion with the so-called “Grumbach feuds” (Grumbachsche Händel), the last attempt of the German knights to destroy the power of the territorial princes. A member of an old Franconian family, he was born on the 1st of June 1503, and having passed some time at the court of Casimir, prince of Bayreuth (d. 1527), fought against the peasants during the rising in 1524 and 1525. About 1540 Grumbach became associated with Albert Alcibiades, the turbulent prince of Bayreuth, whom he served both in peace and war. After the conclusion of the peace of Passau in 1552, Grumbach assisted Albert in his career of plunder in Franconia and was thus able to take some revenge upon his enemy, Melchior von Zobel, bishop of Würzburg. As a landholder Grumbach was a vassal of the bishops of Würzburg, and had held office at the court of Conrad of Bibra, who was bishop from 1540 to 1544. When, however, Zobel was chosen to succeed Conrad the harmonious relations between lord and vassal were quickly disturbed. Unable to free himself and his associates from the suzerainty of the bishop by appealing to the imperial courts he decided to adopt more violent measures, and his friendship with Albert was very serviceable in this connexion. Albert’s career, however, was checked by his defeat at Sievershausen in July 1553 and his subsequent flight into France, and the bishop took advantage of this state of affairs to seize Grumbach’s lands. The knight obtained an order of restitution from the imperial court of justice (Reichskammergericht), but he was unable to carry this into effect; and in April 1558 some of his partisans seized and killed the bishop. Grumbach declared he was innocent of this crime, but his story was not believed, and he fled to France. Returning to Germany he pleaded his cause in person before the diet at Augsburg in 1559, but without success. Meanwhile he had found a new patron in John Frederick, duke of Saxony, whose father, John Frederick, had been obliged to surrender the electoral dignity to the Albertine branch of his family. Chafing under this deprivation the duke listened readily to Grumbach’s plans for recovering the lost dignity, including a general rising of the German knights and the deposition of Frederick II., king of Denmark. Magical charms were employed against the duke’s enemies, and communications from angels were invented which helped to stir up the zeal of the people. In 1563 Grumbach attacked Würzburg, seized and plundered the city and compelled the chapter and the bishop to restore his lands. He was consequently placed under the imperial ban, but John Frederick refused to obey the order of the emperor Maximilian II. to withdraw his protection from him. Meanwhile Grumbach sought to compass the assassination of the Saxon elector, Augustus; proclamations were issued calling for assistance; and alliances both without and within Germany were concluded. In November 1566 John Frederick was placed under the ban, which had been renewed against Grumbach earlier in the year, and Augustus marched against Gotha. Assistance was not forthcoming, and a mutiny led to the capitulation of the town. Grumbach was delivered to his foes, and, after being tortured, was executed at Gotha on the 18th of April 1567.
GRUMBACH, WILHELM VON (1503-1567), was a German adventurer primarily recognized for his involvement in the so-called “Grumbach feuds” (Grumbachsche Händel), which represented the last effort of the German knights to dismantle the power of the territorial princes. Born on June 1, 1503, into an old Franconian family, he spent some time at the court of Casimir, prince of Bayreuth (d. 1527), and fought against the peasants during the uprising of 1524 and 1525. Around 1540, Grumbach aligned himself with Albert Alcibiades, the volatile prince of Bayreuth, whom he supported in both peacetime and wartime. After the peace of Passau was signed in 1552, Grumbach aided Albert in his plundering activities in Franconia, which allowed him to take revenge on his rival, Melchior von Zobel, the bishop of Würzburg. As a landholder, Grumbach was a vassal of the bishops of Würzburg and had served at the court of Conrad of Bibra, who was bishop from 1540 to 1544. However, when Zobel was chosen as Conrad's successor, the previously amicable relationship between lord and vassal deteriorated quickly. Unable to free himself and his allies from the bishop's control by appealing to the imperial courts, he opted for more aggressive tactics, and his alliance with Albert proved useful in this matter. Albert’s ambitions, however, were stalled after his defeat at Sievershausen in July 1553, leading to his escape to France, while the bishop took this opportunity to seize Grumbach’s lands. Grumbach received a restitution order from the imperial court of justice (Reichskammergericht), but he couldn’t enforce it. In April 1558, some of his supporters captured and killed the bishop. Grumbach claimed he was innocent of the crime, but nobody believed him, and he fled to France. When he returned to Germany, he personally presented his case at the diet in Augsburg in 1559, but to no avail. Meanwhile, he found a new patron in John Frederick, duke of Saxony, whose father had been forced to give up the electoral title to the Albertine branch of their family. Frustrated by this loss, the duke eagerly listened to Grumbach’s schemes to reclaim the lost title, including a general uprising of the German knights and the overthrow of Frederick II, king of Denmark. Magical talismans were used against the duke’s foes, and fabricated messages from angels were created to boost the people's enthusiasm. In 1563, Grumbach attacked Würzburg, seized, and looted the city, forcing the chapter and the bishop to restore his lands. Consequently, he was placed under the imperial ban, but John Frederick defied Emperor Maximilian II’s order to withdraw his protection from Grumbach. Meanwhile, Grumbach plotted to assassinate the Saxon elector, Augustus, issued calls for support, and forged alliances both inside and outside Germany. In November 1566, John Frederick was also placed under the ban, which had previously been renewed against Grumbach, and Augustus marched against Gotha. Support did not arrive, leading to a mutiny and the town's surrender. Grumbach was handed over to his enemies, tortured, and executed in Gotha on April 18, 1567.
See F. Ortloff, Geschichte der Grumbachschen Händel (Jena, 1868-1870), and J. Voigt, Wilhelm von Grumbach und seine Händel (Leipzig, 1846-1847).
See F. Ortloff, Geschichte der Grumbachschen Händel (Jena, 1868-1870), and J. Voigt, Wilhelm von Grumbach und seine Händel (Leipzig, 1846-1847).
GRUMENTUM, an ancient town in the centre of Lucania, 33 m. S. of Potentia by the direct road through Anxia, and 52 m. by the Via Herculia, at the point of divergence of a road eastward to Heraclea. It seems to have been a native Lucanian town, not a Greek settlement. In 215 B.C. the Carthaginian general Hanno was defeated under its walls, and in 207 B.C. Hannibal made it his headquarters. In the Social War it appears as a strong fortress, and seems to have been held by both sides at different times. It became a colony, perhaps in the time of Sulla, at latest under Augustus, and seems to have been of some importance. Its site, identified by Holste from the description of the martyrdom of St Laverius, is a ridge on the right bank of the Aciris (Agri) about 1960 ft. above sea-level, ½ m. below the modern Saponara, which lies much higher (2533 ft.). Its ruins (all of the Roman period) include those of a large amphitheatre (arena 205 by 197 ft.), the only one in Lucania, except that at Paestum. There are also remains of a theatre. Inscriptions record the repair of its town walls and the construction of thermae (of which remains were found) in 57-51 B.C., the construction in 43 B.C., of a portico, remains of which may be seen along an ancient road, at right angles to the main road, which traversed Grumentum from S. to N.
GRUMENTUM, is an ancient town located in the center of Lucania, 33 miles south of Potentia by the direct road through Anxia, and 52 miles by the Via Herculia, at the point where a road branches east toward Heraclea. It appears to have been a native Lucanian town rather than a Greek settlement. In 215 BCE, the Carthaginian general Hanno was defeated at its gates, and in 207 BCE, Hannibal made it his base. During the Social War, it served as a strong fortress and seems to have been occupied by both sides at various times. It became a colony, possibly during Sulla's time, but definitely under Augustus, and seemed to hold some significance. Its location, identified by Holste from the account of the martyrdom of St Laverius, is on a ridge along the right bank of the Aciris (Agri), about 1960 feet above sea level, half a mile below the modern Saponara, which is much higher at 2533 feet. Its ruins, all dating from the Roman period, include a large amphitheater (arena 205 by 197 feet), the only one in Lucania aside from the one at Paestum. There are also remains of a theater. Inscriptions highlight the repair of its town walls and the construction of thermae (of which remnants were found) between 57 and 51 BCE, and the construction in 43 B.C.E. of a portico, remnants of which can be seen along an ancient road that ran through Grumentum from south to north.
See F. P. Caputi in Notizie degli scavi (1877), 129, and G. Patroni, ibid. (1897) 180.
See F. P. Caputi in Notizie degli scavi (1877), 129, and G. Patroni, ibid. (1897) 180.
GRÜN. Hans Baldung (c. 1470-1545), commonly called Grün, a German painter of the age of Dürer, was born at Gmünd in Swabia, and spent the greater part of his life at Strassburg and Freiburg in Breisgau. The earliest pictures assigned to him are altarpieces with the monogram H. B. interlaced, and the date of 1496, in the monastery chapel of Lichtenthal near Baden. Another early work is a portrait of the emperor Maximilian, drawn in 1501 on a leaf of a sketch-book now in the print-room at Carlsruhe. The “Martyrdom of St Sebastian” and the “Epiphany” (Berlin Museum), fruits of his labour in 1507, were painted for the market-church of Halle in Saxony. In 1509 Grün purchased the freedom of the city of Strassburg, and resided there till 1513, when he moved to Freiburg in Breisgau. There he began a series of large compositions, which he finished in 1516, and placed on the high altar of the Freiburg cathedral. He purchased anew the freedom of Strassburg in 1517, resided in that city as his domicile, and died a member of its great town council 1545.
GRÜN. Hans Baldung (c. 1470-1545), commonly known as Grün, was a German painter from the time of Dürer. He was born in Gmünd, Swabia, and spent most of his life in Strassburg and Freiburg in Breisgau. The earliest works attributed to him are altarpieces featuring his interlaced monogram H. B. and dated 1496, located in the monastery chapel of Lichtenthal near Baden. Another early piece is a portrait of Emperor Maximilian, created in 1501 on a sheet of a sketchbook that is now in the print room at Carlsruhe. The “Martyrdom of St Sebastian” and the “Epiphany” (Berlin Museum), both completed in 1507, were painted for the market church in Halle, Saxony. In 1509, Grün obtained citizenship in the city of Strassburg and lived there until 1513, when he moved to Freiburg in Breisgau. There, he started a series of large works, which he completed in 1516 and placed on the high altar of Freiburg Cathedral. He regained citizenship in Strassburg in 1517, made the city his home, and passed away as a member of its prominent town council in 1545.
Though nothing is known of Grün’s youth and education, it may be inferred from his style that he was no stranger to the school of which Dürer was the chief. Gmünd is but 50 m. distant on either side from Augsburg and Nuremberg. Grün prints were often mistaken for those of Dürer; and Dürer himself was well acquainted with Grün’s woodcuts and 640 copper-plates in which he traded during his trip to the Netherlands (1520). But Grün’s prints, though Düreresque, are far below Dürer, and his paintings are below his prints. Without absolute correctness as a draughtsman, his conception of human form is often very unpleasant, whilst a questionable taste is shown in ornament equally profuse and “baroque.” Nothing is more remarkable in his pictures than the pug-like shape of the faces, unless we except the coarseness of the extremities. No trace is apparent of any feeling for atmosphere or light and shade. Though Grün has been commonly called the Correggio of the north, his compositions are a curious medley of glaring and heterogeneous colours, in which pure black is contrasted with pale yellow, dirty grey, impure red and glowing green. Flesh is a mere glaze under which the features are indicated by lines. His works are mainly interesting because of the wild and fantastic strength which some of them display. We may pass lightly over the “Epiphany” of 1507, the “Crucifixion” of 1512, or the “Stoning of Stephen” of 1522, in the Berlin Museum. There is some force in the “Dance of Death” of 1517, in the museum of Basel, or the “Madonna” of 1530, in the Liechtenstein Gallery at Vienna. Grün’s best effort is the altarpiece of Freiburg, where the “Coronation of the Virgin,” and the “Twelve Apostles,” the “Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity and Flight into Egypt,” and the “Crucifixion,” with portraits of donors, are executed with some of that fanciful power which Martin Schön bequeathed to the Swabian school. As a portrait painter he is well known. He drew the likeness of Charles V., as well as that of Maximilian; and his bust of Margrave Philip in the Munich Gallery tells us that he was connected with the reigning family of Baden as early as 1514. At a later period he had sittings from Margrave Christopher of Baden, Ottilia his wife, and all their children, and the picture containing these portraits is still in the grand-ducal gallery at Carlsruhe. Like Dürer and Cranach, Grün became a hearty supporter of the Reformation. He was present at the diet of Augsburg in 1518, and one of his woodcuts represents Luther under the protection of the Holy Ghost, which hovers over him in the shape of a dove.
Though we know little about Grün's youth and education, we can tell from his style that he was familiar with the school led by Dürer. Gmünd is just 50 miles from both Augsburg and Nuremberg. Grün's prints were often confused with those of Dürer, and Dürer himself was well aware of Grün’s woodcuts and copperplates, which he encountered during his trip to the Netherlands in 1520. However, while Grün's prints resemble Dürer's, they fall significantly short, and his paintings are even less impressive. Lacking precision as a draftsman, his interpretation of the human form can be quite unpleasant, and he displays questionable taste in his overly elaborate and "baroque" decorations. His paintings are particularly notable for their pug-like faces, overshadowed only by the roughness of the extremities. There’s no indication of any sensitivity to atmosphere or light and shadow. Though often referred to as the Correggio of the north, Grün's compositions are a strange mix of bright and clashing colors, featuring stark contrasts like pure black against pale yellow, muddy gray, dull red, and vibrant green. The flesh tones are simply a glaze that hints at features through lines. His works are mainly intriguing due to the wild and fantastical strength some of them show. We can briefly mention the "Epiphany" from 1507, the "Crucifixion" from 1512, or the "Stoning of Stephen" from 1522, all housed in the Berlin Museum. The "Dance of Death" from 1517, located in the Basel museum, has some impact, as does the "Madonna" from 1530, showcased in the Liechtenstein Gallery in Vienna. Grün's finest work is the altarpiece in Freiburg, featuring the "Coronation of the Virgin," "Twelve Apostles," "Annunciation, Visitation, Nativity and Flight into Egypt," and "Crucifixion," complete with portraits of donors, all executed with some of the imaginative strength passed down by Martin Schön to the Swabian school. As a portrait artist, he is well recognized. He created likenesses of Charles V. and Maximilian, and his bust of Margrave Philip in the Munich Gallery indicates he was linked to the Baden ruling family as early as 1514. Later, he painted portraits of Margrave Christopher of Baden, his wife Ottilia, and all their children; this family portrait is still held in the grand-ducal gallery at Carlsruhe. Like Dürer and Cranach, Grün was a strong supporter of the Reformation. He attended the diet of Augsburg in 1518, and one of his woodcuts depicts Luther under the protection of the Holy Ghost, which appears as a dove hovering over him.
GRÜNBERG, a town of Germany, in Prussian Silesia, beautifully situated between two hills on an affluent of the Oder, and on the railway from Breslau to Stettin via Küstrin, 36 m. N.N.W. of Glogau. Pop. (1905) 20,987. It has a Roman Catholic and two Evangelical churches, a modern school and a technical (textiles) school. There are manufactures of cloth, paper, machinery, straw hats, leather and tobacco. The prosperity of the town depends chiefly on the vine culture in the neighbourhood, from which, besides the exportation of a large quantity of grapes, about 700,000 gallons of wine are manufactured annually.
GRÜNBERG, is a town in Germany, located in Prussian Silesia, nicely positioned between two hills along a tributary of the Oder River. It’s on the railway line from Breslau to Stettin via Küstrin, 36 miles N.N.W. of Glogau. The population in 1905 was 20,987. The town features a Roman Catholic church and two Evangelical churches, a modern school, and a technical school focused on textiles. It has industries that produce cloth, paper, machinery, straw hats, leather, and tobacco. The town's prosperity mainly comes from grape farming in the area, which leads to a large export of grapes and the production of about 700,000 gallons of wine each year.
GRUNDTVIG, NIKOLAI FREDERIK SEVERIN (1783-1872), Danish poet, statesman and divine, was born at the parsonage of Udby in Zealand on the 8th of September 1783. In 1791 he was sent to live at the house of a priest in Jutland, and studied at the free school of Aarhuus until he went up to the university of Copenhagen in 1800. At the close of his university life he made Icelandic his special study, until in 1805 he took the position of tutor in a house on the island of Langeland. The next three years were spent in the study of Shakespeare, Schiller and Fichte. His cousin, the philosopher Henrik Steffens, had returned to Copenhagen in 1802 full of the teaching of Schelling and his lectures and the early poetry of Öhlenschläger opened the eyes of Grundtvig to the new era in literature. His first work, On the Songs in the Edda, attracted no attention. Returning to Copenhagen in 1808 he achieved greater success with his Northern Mythology, and again in 1809-1811 with a long epic poem, the Decline of the Heroic Life in the North. The boldness of the theological views expressed in his first sermon in 1810 offended the ecclesiastical authorities, and he retired to a country parish as his father’s assistant for a while. From 1812 to 1817 he published five or six works, of which the Rhyme of Roskilde is the most remarkable. From 1816 to 1819 he was editor of a polemical journal entitled Dannevirke, and in 1818 to 1822 appeared his Danish paraphrases (6 vols.) of Saxo Grammaticus and Snorri. During these years he was preaching against rationalism to an enthusiastic congregation in Copenhagen, but he accepted in 1821 the country living of Praestö, only to return to the metropolis the year after. In 1825 he published a pamphlet, The Church’s Reply, against H. N. Clausen, who was professor of theology in the university of Copenhagen. Grundtvig was publicly prosecuted and fined, and for seven years he was forbidden to preach, years which he spent in publishing a collection of his theological works, in paying two visits to England, and in studying Anglo-Saxon. In 1832 he obtained permission to preach again, and in 1839 he became priest of the workhouse church of Vartov hospital, Copenhagen, a post he continued to hold until his death. In 1837-1841 he published Songs for the Danish Church, a rich collection of sacred poetry; in 1838 he brought out a selection of early Scandinavian verse; in 1840 he edited the Anglo-Saxon poem of the Phoenix, with a Danish translation. He visited England a third time in 1843. From 1844 until after the first German war Grundtvig took a very prominent part in politics. In 1861 he received the titular rank of bishop, but without a see. He went on writing occasional poems till 1866, and preached in the Vartov every Sunday until a month before his death. His preaching attracted large congregations, and he soon had a following. His hymn-book effected a great change in Danish church services, substituting the hymns of the national poets for the slow measures of the orthodox Lutherans. The chief characteristic of his theology was the substitution of the authority of the “living word” for the apostolic commentaries, and he desired to see each congregation a practically independent community. His patriotism was almost a part of his religion, and he established popular schools where the national poetry and history should form an essential part of the instruction. His followers are known as Grundtvigians. He was married three times, the last time in his seventy-sixth year. He died on the 2nd of September 1872. Grundtvig holds a unique position in the literature of his country; he has been styled the Danish Carlyle. He was above all things a man of action, not an artist; and the formless vehemence of his writings, which have had a great influence over his own countrymen, is hardly agreeable or intelligible to a foreigner. The best of his poetical works were published in a selection (7 vols., 1880-1889) by his eldest son, Svend Hersleb Grundtvig (1824-1883), who was an authority on Scandinavian antiquities, and made an admirable collection of old Danish poetry (Danmarks gamle Folkeviser, 1853-1883, 5 vols.; completed in 1891 by A. Olrik).
GRUNDTVIG, NIKOLAI FREDERIK SEVERIN (1783-1872), Danish poet, statesman, and theologian, was born at the parsonage of Udby in Zealand on September 8, 1783. In 1791, he moved in with a priest in Jutland and studied at the free school of Aarhus until he entered the University of Copenhagen in 1800. After graduating, he focused on Icelandic studies, and in 1805, he became a tutor on the island of Langeland. He spent the next three years studying Shakespeare, Schiller, and Fichte. His cousin, philosopher Henrik Steffens, returned to Copenhagen in 1802, bringing inspiration from Schelling, and his lectures, along with the early poetry of Öhlenschläger, opened Grundtvig's eyes to a new era in literature. His first work, On the Songs in the Edda, received little attention. Upon returning to Copenhagen in 1808, he found greater success with Northern Mythology, and again from 1809 to 1811 with his long epic poem, Decline of the Heroic Life in the North. The bold theological views expressed in his first sermon in 1810 offended church authorities, leading him to work as his father's assistant in a rural parish for a time. From 1812 to 1817, he published five or six works, with Rhyme of Roskilde being the most notable. Between 1816 and 1819, he edited a polemical journal called Dannevirke, and from 1818 to 1822, he published his Danish paraphrases (6 vols.) of Saxo Grammaticus and Snorri. During this time, he preached against rationalism to an enthusiastic congregation in Copenhagen but accepted a country parish in Praestö in 1821, only to return to the city the following year. In 1825, he published a pamphlet, The Church’s Reply, against H. N. Clausen, a theology professor at the University of Copenhagen. Grundtvig was publicly prosecuted and fined, resulting in a seven-year preaching ban, during which he published a collection of his theological works, made two visits to England, and studied Anglo-Saxon. In 1832, he was allowed to preach again, and in 1839, he became the priest of the workhouse church at Vartov hospital in Copenhagen, a position he held until his death. From 1837 to 1841, he published Songs for the Danish Church, a rich collection of sacred poetry; in 1838, he released a selection of early Scandinavian verse; and in 1840, he edited the Anglo-Saxon poem Phoenix with a Danish translation. He visited England for the third time in 1843. From 1844 until after the first German war, Grundtvig played a prominent role in politics. In 1861, he received the honorary title of bishop without a see. He continued writing occasional poems until 1866 and preached at Vartov every Sunday until a month before his death. His sermons drew large congregations, and he quickly gained a following. His hymn book brought significant changes to Danish church services, replacing traditional Lutheran hymns with those of national poets. A key aspect of his theology was prioritizing the "living word" over apostolic commentaries, advocating for each congregation to be a practically independent community. His patriotism was deeply intertwined with his faith, and he established popular schools that incorporated national poetry and history into their curriculum. His followers are known as Grundtvigians. He was married three times, the last time at the age of seventy-six. He passed away on September 2, 1872. Grundtvig holds a unique place in Danish literature; he has been called the Danish Carlyle. Above all, he was a man of action, not an artist, and the passionate intensity of his writings, which significantly influenced his compatriots, may come off as difficult to appreciate or understand for outsiders. The best of his poetic works were published in a collection (7 vols., 1880-1889) by his eldest son, Svend Hersleb Grundtvig (1824-1883), an authority on Scandinavian antiquities who made an impressive collection of old Danish poetry (Danmarks gamle Folkeviser, 1853-1883, 5 vols.; completed in 1891 by A. Olrik).
His correspondence with Ingemann was edited by S. Grundtvig (1882); his correspondence with Christian Molbech by L. Schröder (1888); see also F. Winkel Horn, Grundtvigs Liv og Gjerning (1883); and an article by F. Nielsen in Bricka’s Dansk Biografisk Lexikon.
His letters with Ingemann were edited by S. Grundtvig (1882); his letters with Christian Molbech were edited by L. Schröder (1888); also see F. Winkel Horn, Grundtvigs Liv og Gjerning (1883); and an article by F. Nielsen in Bricka’s Dansk Biografisk Lexikon.
GRUNDY, SYDNEY (1848- ), English dramatist, was born at Manchester on the 23rd of March 1848, son of Alderman Charles Sydney Grundy. He was educated at Owens College, Manchester, and was called to the bar in 1869, practising in Manchester until 1876. His farce, A Little Change, was produced at the Haymarket Theatre in 1872. He became well known as an adapter of plays, among his early successes in this direction being The Snowball (Strand Theatre, 1879) from Oscar, ou le mari qui trompe sa femme by MM. Scribe and Duvergne, and In Honour Bound (1880) from Scribe’s Une Chaîne. In 1887 he made a popular success with The Bells of Haslemere, written with Mr H. Pettitt and produced at the Adelphi. In 1889-1890 he produced two ingenious original comedies, A White Lie (Court Theatre) and A Fool’s Paradise (Gaiety Theatre), which had been played two years earlier at Greenwich as The Mouse-Trap. These were followed by Sowing the Wind (Comedy, 1893), An Old Jew (Garrick, 1894), and by an adaptation of Octave Feuillet’s Montjoye as A Bunch of Violets (Haymarket, 1894). In 1894 he produced The New Woman and The Slaves of the Ring; in 1895, The Greatest of These, played by Mr and Mrs Kendal at the Garrick Theatre; The Degenerates (Haymarket, 1899), and A Debt of Honour (St James’s 1900). Among Mr Grundy’s most successful adaptations were the charming Pair of Spectacles (Garrick, 1890) from Les Petits Oiseaux of MM. Labiche and 641 Delacour. Others were A Village Priest (Haymarket, 1890) from Le Secret de la terreuse, a melodrama by MM. Busnach and Cauvin; A Marriage of Convenience (Haymarket, 1897) from Un Mariage de Louis XV, by Alex. Dumas, père, The Silver Key (Her Majesty’s, 1897) from his Mlle de Belle-isle, and The Musqueteers (1899) from the same author’s novel; Frocks and Frills (Haymarket, 1902) from the Doigts de fées of MM. Scribe and Legouvé; The Garden of Lies (St James’s Theatre, 1904) from Mr Justus Miles Forman’s novel; Business is Business (His Majesty’s Theatre, 1905), a rather free adaptation from Octave Mirbeau’s Les Affaires sont les affaires; and The Diplomatists (Royalty Theatre, 1905) from La Poudre aux yeux, by Labiche.
GRUNDY, SYDNEY (1848- ), English playwright, was born in Manchester on March 23, 1848, the son of Alderman Charles Sydney Grundy. He studied at Owens College in Manchester and was called to the bar in 1869, practicing in Manchester until 1876. His farce, A Little Change, premiered at the Haymarket Theatre in 1872. He became well-known as a play adapter, with early successes including The Snowball (Strand Theatre, 1879), adapted from Oscar, ou le mari qui trompe sa femme by MM. Scribe and Duvergne, and In Honour Bound (1880), adapted from Scribe’s Une Chaîne. In 1887, he achieved popular success with The Bells of Haslemere, co-written with Mr. H. Pettitt and produced at the Adelphi. From 1889 to 1890, he staged two clever original comedies, A White Lie (Court Theatre) and A Fool’s Paradise (Gaiety Theatre), which were performed two years earlier at Greenwich as The Mouse-Trap. This was followed by Sowing the Wind (Comedy, 1893), An Old Jew (Garrick, 1894), and an adaptation of Octave Feuillet’s Montjoye as A Bunch of Violets (Haymarket, 1894). In 1894, he produced The New Woman and The Slaves of the Ring; in 1895, The Greatest of These, performed by Mr. and Mrs. Kendal at the Garrick Theatre; The Degenerates (Haymarket, 1899), and A Debt of Honour (St James’s 1900). Among Mr. Grundy’s most successful adaptations were the delightful Pair of Spectacles (Garrick, 1890), adapted from Les Petits Oiseaux by MM. Labiche and Delacour. Others included A Village Priest (Haymarket, 1890) from Le Secret de la terreuse, a melodrama by MM. Busnach and Cauvin; A Marriage of Convenience (Haymarket, 1897) from Un Mariage de Louis XV, by Alexandre Dumas, père; The Silver Key (Her Majesty’s, 1897) from his Mlle de Belle-isle; and The Musqueteers (1899) from the same author's novel; Frocks and Frills (Haymarket, 1902) from the Doigts de fées by MM. Scribe and Legouvé; The Garden of Lies (St James’s Theatre, 1904) from Mr. Justus Miles Forman’s novel; Business is Business (His Majesty’s Theatre, 1905), a rather loose adaptation of Octave Mirbeau’s Les Affaires sont les affaires; and The Diplomatists (Royalty Theatre, 1905) from La Poudre aux yeux, by Labiche.
GRUNDY, MRS, the name of an imaginary English character, who typifies the disciplinary control of the conventional “proprieties” of society over conduct, the tyrannical pressure of the opinion of neighbours on the acts of others. The name appears in a play of Thomas Morton, Speed the Plough (1798), in which one of the characters, Dame Ashfield, continually refers to what her neighbour Mrs Grundy will say as the criterion of respectability. Mrs Grundy is not a character in the play, but is a kind of “Mrs Harris” to Dame Ashfield.
GRUNDY, MRS. is the name of a fictional English character who represents the strict social norms and expectations that pressure individuals to conform to the opinions of their neighbors. The name comes from a play by Thomas Morton, Speed the Plough (1798), where one of the characters, Dame Ashfield, constantly worries about what her neighbor Mrs. Grundy will think as a measure of respectability. Mrs. Grundy isn’t an actual character in the play but serves as a sort of "Mrs. Harris" figure for Dame Ashfield.
GRUNER, GOTTLIEB SIGMUND (1717-1778), the author of the first connected attempt to describe in detail the snowy mountains of Switzerland. His father, Johann Rudolf Gruner (1680-1761), was pastor of Trachselwald, in the Bernese Emmenthal (1705), and later (1725) of Burgdorf, and a great collector of information relating to historical and scientific matters; his great Thesaurus topographico-historicus totius ditionis Bernensis (4 vols. folio, 1729-1730) still remains in MS., but in 1732 he published a small work entitled Deliciae urbis Bernae, while he possessed an extensive cabinet of natural history objects. Naturally such tastes had a great influence on the mind of his son, who was born at Trachselwald, and educated by his father and at the Latin school at Burgdorf, not going to Berne much before 1736, when he published a dissertation on the use of fire by the heathen. In 1739 he qualified as a notary, in 1741 became the archivist of Hesse-Homburg, and in 1743 accompanied Prince Christian of Anhalt-Schaumburg to Silesia and the university of Halle. He returned to his native land before 1749, when he obtained a post at Thorberg, being transferred in 1764 to Landshut and Fraubrunnen. It was in 1760 that he published in 3 vols. at Berne his chief work, Die Eisgebirge des Schweizerlandes (bad French translation by M. de Kéralio, Paris, 1770). The first two volumes are filled by a detailed description of the snowy Swiss mountains, based not so much on personal experience as on older works, and a very large number of communications received by Gruner from numerous friends; the third volume deals with glaciers in general, and their various properties. Though in many respects imperfect, Gruner’s book sums up all that was known on the subject in his day, and forms the starting-point for later writers. The illustrations are very curious and interesting. In 1778 he republished (nominally in London, really at Berne) much of the information contained in his larger work, but thrown into the form of letters, supposed to be written in 1776 from various spots, under the title of Reisen durch die merkwürdigsten Gegenden Helvetiens (2 vols.).
GRUNER, GOTTLIEB SIGMUND (1717-1778) was the first person to attempt a detailed description of the snowy mountains in Switzerland. His father, Johann Rudolf Gruner (1680-1761), was a pastor in Trachselwald in the Bernese Emmenthal starting in 1705, and later in 1725 in Burgdorf. He was also a great collector of historical and scientific information; his major work, Thesaurus topographico-historicus totius ditionis Bernensis (4 vols. folio, 1729-1730), remains in manuscript form, but he published a small work titled Deliciae urbis Bernae in 1732 and owned a large collection of natural history specimens. Naturally, these interests greatly influenced his son, who was born in Trachselwald and educated by his father and at the Latin school in Burgdorf, not visiting Bern much before 1736, when he published a dissertation on how the heathens used fire. In 1739, he became a notary, and in 1741, he became the archivist for Hesse-Homburg. In 1743, he traveled with Prince Christian of Anhalt-Schaumburg to Silesia and the University of Halle. He returned to his homeland before 1749 and took a job at Thorberg, later moving in 1764 to Landshut and Fraubrunnen. In 1760, he published his main work, Die Eisgebirge des Schweizerlandes (poorly translated into French by M. de Kéralio, Paris, 1770), in three volumes. The first two volumes contain a detailed description of the snowy Swiss mountains, relying more on older works and a significant number of communications from friends than on his personal experience. The third volume discusses glaciers in general and their various characteristics. Although it has many imperfections, Gruner’s book compiled everything known about the topic at the time and serves as a starting point for later authors. The illustrations are quite fascinating and engaging. In 1778, he republished much of the information from his larger work, under the guise of letters supposedly written in 1776 from various locations, titled Reisen durch die merkwürdigsten Gegenden Helvetiens (2 vols.).
GRÜNEWALD, MATHIAS. The accounts which are given of this German painter, a native of Aschaffenburg, are curiously contradictory. Between 1518 and 1530, according to statements adopted by Waagen and Passavant, he was commissioned by Albert of Brandenburg, elector and archbishop of Mainz, to produce an altarpiece for the collegiate church of St Maurice and Mary Magdalen at Halle on the Saale; and he acquitted himself of this duty with such cleverness that the prelate in after years caused the picture to be rescued from the Reformers and brought back to Aschaffenburg. From one of the churches of that city it was taken to the Pinakothek of Munich in 1836. It represents St Maurice and Mary Magdalen between four saints, and displays a style so markedly characteristic, and so like that of Lucas Cranach, that Waagen was induced to call Grünewald Cranach’s master. He also traced the same hand and technical execution in the great altarpieces of Annaberg and Heilbronn, and in various panels exhibited in the museums of Mainz, Darmstadt, Aschaffenburg, Vienna and Berlin. A later race of critics, declining to accept the statements of Waagen and Passavant, affirm that there is no documentary evidence to connect Grünewald with the pictures of Halle and Annaberg, and they quote Sandrart and Bernhard Jobin of Strassburg to show that Grünewald is the painter of pictures of a different class. They prove that he finished before 1516 the large altarpiece of Issenheim, at present in the museum of Colmar, and starting from these premises they connect the artist with Altdorfer and Dürer to the exclusion of Cranach. That a native of the Palatinate should have been asked to execute pictures for a church in Saxony can scarcely be accounted strange, since we observe that Hans Baldung (Grün) was entrusted with a commission of this kind. But that a painter of Aschaffenburg should display the style of Cranach is strange and indeed incredible, unless vouched for by first-class evidence. In this case documents are altogether wanting, whilst on the other hand it is beyond the possibility of doubt, even according to Waagen, that the altarpiece of Issenheim is the creation of a man whose teaching was altogether different from that of the painter of the pictures of Halle and Annaberg. The altarpiece of Issenheim is a fine and powerful work, completed as local records show before 1516 by a Swabian, whose distinguishing mark is that he followed the traditions of Martin Schongauer, and came under the influence of Altdorfer and Dürer. As a work of art the altarpiece is important, being a poliptych of eleven panels, a carved central shrine covered with a double set of wings, and two side pieces containing the Temptation of St Anthony, the hermits Anthony and Paul in converse, the Virgin adored by Angels, the Resurrection, the Annunciation, the Crucifixion, St Sebastian, St Anthony, and the Marys wailing over the dead body of Christ. The author of these compositions is also the painter of a series of monochromes described by Sandrart in the Dominican convent, and now in part in the Saalhof at Frankfort, and a Resurrection in the museum of Basel, registered in Amerbach’s inventory as the work of Grünewald.
GRÜNEWALD, MATHIAS. The accounts of this German painter, who was from Aschaffenburg, are strangely contradictory. Between 1518 and 1530, as noted by Waagen and Passavant, he was commissioned by Albert of Brandenburg, the elector and archbishop of Mainz, to create an altarpiece for the collegiate church of St Maurice and Mary Magdalen in Halle on the Saale. He completed this task so skillfully that the prelate later had the painting rescued from the Reformers and returned to Aschaffenburg. In 1836, it was taken from one of the city's churches to the Pinakothek in Munich. The piece depicts St Maurice and Mary Magdalen flanked by four saints and features such a distinctive style, reminiscent of Lucas Cranach, that Waagen was led to call Grünewald Cranach’s master. He also attributed the same hand and technical execution to the great altarpieces of Annaberg and Heilbronn and to various panels displayed in the museums of Mainz, Darmstadt, Aschaffenburg, Vienna, and Berlin. However, a later group of critics, refusing to accept Waagen and Passavant's claims, argue that there's no documentary evidence linking Grünewald to the paintings in Halle and Annaberg. They reference Sandrart and Bernhard Jobin of Strassburg to suggest that Grünewald painted works of a different type. They demonstrate that he completed the large altarpiece of Issenheim before 1516, now in the museum of Colmar, and from this, they connect him to Altdorfer and Dürer, excluding Cranach. It’s not surprising that someone from the Palatinate was commissioned for artwork in Saxony, as evidenced by Hans Baldung (Grün) being entrusted with similar work. However, it seems strange and almost unbelievable for a painter from Aschaffenburg to exhibit Cranach’s style unless there is strong evidence to support it. In this case, there are no documents available, while it is undoubtedly true, even according to Waagen, that the Issenheim altarpiece was created by someone whose style was quite different from that of the artist behind the Halle and Annaberg paintings. The Issenheim altarpiece is a significant and powerful piece, completed, as local records indicate, before 1516 by a Swabian artist, who followed the traditions of Martin Schongauer and was influenced by Altdorfer and Dürer. As an artwork, the altarpiece is notable, consisting of a polyptych made up of eleven panels, a carved central shrine with a double set of wings, and two side panels depicting the Temptation of St Anthony, the hermits Anthony and Paul in conversation, the Virgin adored by angels, the Resurrection, the Annunciation, the Crucifixion, St Sebastian, St Anthony, and the Marys mourning over Christ's dead body. The creator of these compositions is also the artist behind a series of monochromes noted by Sandrart in the Dominican convent, now partially housed in the Saalhof in Frankfurt, and a Resurrection piece in the Basel museum, listed in Amerbach’s inventory as the work of Grünewald.
GRUTER (or Gruytère), JAN (1560-1627), a critic and scholar of Dutch parentage by his father’s side and English by his mother’s, was born at Antwerp on the 3rd of December 1560. To avoid religious persecution his parents while he was still young came to England; and for some years he prosecuted his studies at Cambridge, after which he went to Leiden, where he graduated M. A. In 1586 he was appointed professor of history at Wittenberg, but as he refused to subscribe the formula concordiae he was unable to retain his office. From 1589 to 1592 he taught at Rostock, after which he went to Heidelberg, where in 1602 he was appointed librarian to the university. He died at Heidelberg on the 20th of September 1627.
GRUTER (or Gruyère), JAN (1560-1627), a critic and scholar with Dutch roots from his father's side and English from his mother's, was born in Antwerp on December 3, 1560. To escape religious persecution, his family moved to England when he was still a child; he studied at Cambridge for several years before going to Leiden, where he earned his M.A. In 1586, he became a history professor at Wittenberg, but he lost the position because he refused to sign the formula concordiae. From 1589 to 1592, he taught in Rostock, and then he went to Heidelberg, where he became the university librarian in 1602. He passed away in Heidelberg on September 20, 1627.
Gruter’s chief works were his Inscriptiones antiquae totius orbis Romani (2 vols., Heidelberg, 1603), and Lampas, sive fax artium liberalium (7 vols., Frankfort, 1602-1634).
Gruter’s main works were his Inscriptiones antiquae totius orbis Romani (2 vols., Heidelberg, 1603), and Lampas, sive fax artium liberalium (7 vols., Frankfort, 1602-1634).
GRUYÈRE (Ger. Greyerz), a district in the south-eastern portion of the Swiss canton of Fribourg, famed for its cattle and its cheese, and the original home of the “Ranz des Vaches,” the melody by which the herdsmen call their cows home at milking time. It is composed of the middle reach (from Montbovon to beyond Bulle) of the Sarine or Saane valley, with its tributary glens of the Hongrin (left), the Jogne (right) and the Trême (left), and is a delightful pastoral region (in 1901 it contained 17,364 cattle). It forms an administrative district of the canton of Fribourg, its population in 1900 being 23,111, mainly French-speaking and Romanists. From Montbovon (11 m. by rail from Bulle) there are mountain railways leading S.W. past Les Avants to Montreux (14 m.), and E. up the Sarine valley past Château d’Oex to Saanen or Gessenay (14 m.), and by a tunnel below a low pass to the Simme valley and Spiez on the Lake of Thun. The modern capital of the district is the small town of Bulle [Ger. Boll], with a 13th-century castle and in 1900 3330 inhabitants, French-speaking and Romanists. But 642 the historical capital is the very picturesque little town of Gruyères (which keeps its final “s” in order to distinguish it from the district), perched on a steep hill (S.E. of Bulle) above the left bank of the Sarine, and at a height of 2713 ft. above the sea-level. It is only accessible by a rough carriage road, and boasts of a very fine old castle, at the foot of which is the solitary street of the town, which in 1900 had 1389 inhabitants.
GRUYÈRE (Ger. Greyerz) is a region in the southeastern part of the Swiss canton of Fribourg, known for its cattle and cheese, and the birthplace of the “Ranz des Vaches,” the traditional melody herdsmen use to call their cows home for milking. It includes the central area (from Montbovon to beyond Bulle) of the Sarine or Saane valley, along with its side valleys—the Hongrin (left), the Jogne (right), and the Trême (left)—and is a charming pastoral landscape (in 1901, it had 17,364 cattle). It serves as an administrative district of the canton of Fribourg, with a population of 23,111 in 1900, predominantly French-speaking and Roman Catholic. From Montbovon (11 miles by rail from Bulle), mountain railways travel southwest past Les Avants to Montreux (14 miles), and east up the Sarine valley past Château d’Oex to Saanen or Gessenay (14 miles), with a tunnel under a low pass leading to the Simme valley and Spiez on Lake Thun. The modern capital of the district is the small town of Bulle [Ger. Boll], featuring a 13th-century castle and a population of 3,330 in 1900, mostly French-speaking and Roman Catholic. But 642 the historical capital is the very picturesque little town of Gruyères (which retains its final “s” to differentiate it from the district), situated on a steep hill (southeast of Bulle) above the left bank of the Sarine, at an elevation of 2,713 feet above sea level. It can only be reached by a rough carriage road and features a beautifully preserved old castle, with the town’s one main street running at its base; in 1900, it had 1,389 residents.
The castle was the seat of the counts of the Gruyère, who are first mentioned in 1073. The name is said to come from the word gruyer, meaning the officer of woods and forests, but the counts bore the canting arms of a crane (grue), which are seen all over the castle and the town. That valiant family ended (in the legitimate line) with Count Michel (d. 1575) whose extravagance and consequent indebtedness compelled him in 1555 to sell his domains to Bern and Fribourg. Bern took the upper Sarine valley (it still keeps Saanen at its head, but in 1798 lost the Pays d’En-Haut to the canton du Léman, which in 1803 became the canton of Vaud). Fribourg took the rest of the county, which it added to Bulle and Albeuve (taken in 1537 from the bishop of Lausanne), and to the lordship of Jaun in the Jaun or Jogne valley (bought in 1502-1504 from its lords), in order to form the present administrative district of Gruyère, which is not co-extensive with the historical county of that name.
The castle was the residence of the counts of Gruyère, who were first mentioned in 1073. The name is thought to come from the word gruyer, meaning the officer of woods and forests, but the counts used the canting arms of a crane (grue), which can be seen throughout the castle and the town. That noble family ended (in the legitimate line) with Count Michel (d. 1575), whose extravagance and resulting debts forced him to sell his lands to Bern and Fribourg in 1555. Bern took the upper Sarine valley (it still retains Saanen as its head, but in 1798 lost the Pays d’En-Haut to the canton of Léman, which became the canton of Vaud in 1803). Fribourg acquired the rest of the county, which it combined with Bulle and Albeuve (taken in 1537 from the bishop of Lausanne) and the lordship of Jaun in the Jaun or Jogne valley (purchased in 1502-1504 from its lords), to create the current administrative district of Gruyère, which does not perfectly align with the historical county of the same name.
See the materials collected by J. J. Hisely and published in successive vols. of the Mémoires et documents de la suisse romande ... introa. à l’hist. (1851); Histoire (2 vols., 1855-1857); and Monuments de l’histoire (2 vols., 1867-1869); K. V. von Bonstetten, Briefe über ein schweiz. Hirtenland (1781) (Eng. trans., 1784); J. Reichlen, La Gruyère illustrée (1890), seq.; H. Raemy, La Gruyère (1867); and Les Alpes fribourgeoises, by many authors (Lausanne, 1908).
See the materials collected by J. J. Hisely and published in successive volumes of the Mémoires et documents de la suisse romande ... introa. à l’hist. (1851); History (2 vols., 1855-1857); and Monuments de l’histoire (2 vols., 1867-1869); K. V. von Bonstetten, Letters on a Swiss Pastoral Land (1781) (Eng. trans., 1784); J. Reichlen, La Gruyère Illustrated (1890), seq.; H. Raemy, La Gruyère (1867); and Les Alpes fribourgeoises, by various authors (Lausanne, 1908).
GRYNAEUS (or Gryner), JOHANN JAKOB (1540-1617), Swiss Protestant divine, was born on the 1st of October 1540 at Bern. His father, Thomas (1512-1564), was for a time professor of ancient languages at Basel and Bern, but afterwards became pastor of Röteln in Baden. He was nephew of the more eminent Simon Grynaeus (q.v.). Johann was educated at Basel, and in 1559 received an appointment as curate to his father. In 1563 he proceeded to Tübingen for the purpose of completing his theological studies, and in 1565 he returned to Röteln as successor to his father. Here he felt compelled to abjure the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, and to renounce the formula concordiae. Called in 1575 to the chair of Old Testament exegesis at Basel, he became involved in unpleasant controversy with Simon Sulzer and other champions of Lutheran orthodoxy; and in 1584 he was glad to accept an invitation to assist in the restoration of the university of Heidelberg. Returning to Basel in 1586, after Simon Sulzer’s death, as antistes or superintendent of the church there and as professor of the New Testament, he exerted for upwards of twenty-five years a considerable influence upon both the church and the state affairs of that community, and acquired a wide reputation as a skilful theologian of the school of Ulrich Zwingli. Amongst other labours he helped to reorganize the gymnasium in 1588. Five years before his death he became totally blind, but continued to preach and lecture till his death on the 13th of August 1617.
GRYNAEUS (or Gryner), JOHANN JAKOB (1540-1617), a Swiss Protestant theologian, was born on October 1, 1540, in Bern. His father, Thomas (1512-1564), was for a time a professor of ancient languages at Basel and Bern, but later became the pastor of Röteln in Baden. He was the nephew of the more prominent Simon Grynaeus (q.v.). Johann was educated in Basel, and in 1559 he took a position as curate under his father. In 1563, he moved to Tübingen to complete his theological studies, and in 1565 he returned to Röteln as his father's successor. Here, he felt compelled to reject the Lutheran belief regarding the Lord’s Supper and renounce the formula concordiae. In 1575, he was appointed to the chair of Old Testament exegesis at Basel, where he became embroiled in difficult disputes with Simon Sulzer and other defenders of Lutheran orthodoxy; by 1584, he was pleased to accept an invitation to help restore the university of Heidelberg. After returning to Basel in 1586, following Simon Sulzer’s death, he served as antistes or superintendent of the church and as a professor of the New Testament, exercising significant influence over both church and state matters in that community for over twenty-five years, gaining a wide reputation as a skilled theologian in the tradition of Ulrich Zwingli. Among his various contributions, he helped reorganize the gymnasium in 1588. Five years before his death, he became completely blind, yet he continued to preach and lecture until he passed away on August 13, 1617.
His many works include commentaries on various books of the Old and New Testament, Theologica theoremata el problemata (1588), and a collection of patristic literature entitled Monumenta S. patrum orthodoxographa (2 vols., fol., 1569).
His many works include commentaries on different books of the Old and New Testament, Theologica theoremata el problemata (1588), and a collection of patristic literature called Monumenta S. patrum orthodoxographa (2 vols., fol., 1569).
GRYNAEUS, SIMON (1493-1541), German scholar and theologian of the Reformation, son of Jacob Gryner, a Swabian peasant, was born in 1493 at Vehringen, in Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen. He adopted the name Grynaeus from the epithet of Apollo in Virgil. He was a schoolfellow with Melanchthon at Pforzheim, whence he went to the university of Vienna, distinguishing himself there as a Latinist and Grecian. His appointment as rector of a school at Buda was of no long continuance; his views excited the zeal of the Dominicans and he was thrown into prison. Gaining his freedom at the instance of Hungarian magnates, he visited Melanchthon at Wittenberg, and in 1524 became professor of Greek at the university of Heidelberg, being in addition professor of Latin from 1526. His Zwinglian view of the Eucharist disturbed his relations with his Catholic colleagues. From 1526 he had corresponded with Oecolampadius, who in 1529 invited him to Basel, which Erasmus had just left. The university being disorganized, Grynaeus pursued his studies, and in 1531 visited England for research in libraries. A commendatory letter from Erasmus gained him the good offices of Sir Thomas More. He returned to Basel charged with the task of collecting the opinions of continental reformers on the subject of Henry VIII.’s divorce, and was present at the death of Oecolampadius (Nov. 24, 1531). He now, while holding the chair of Greek, was appointed extraordinary professor of theology, and gave exegetical lectures on the New Testament. In 1534 Duke Ulrich called him to Württemberg in aid of the reformation there, as well as for the reconstitution of the university of Tübingen, which he carried out in concert with Ambrosius Blarer of Constanz. Two years later he had an active hand in the so-called First Helvetic Confession (the work of Swiss divines at Basel in January 1536); also in the conferences which urged the Swiss acceptance of the Wittenberg Concord (1536). At the Worms conference (1540) between Catholics and Protestants he was the sole representative of the Swiss churches, being deputed by the authorities of Basel. He was carried off suddenly in his prime by the plague at Basel on the 1st of August 1541. A brilliant scholar, a mediating theologian, and personally of lovable temperament, his influence was great and wisely exercised. Erasmus and Calvin were among his correspondents. His chief works were Latin versions of Plutarch, Aristotle and Chrysostom.
GRYNAEUS, SIMON (1493-1541), was a German scholar and theologian of the Reformation, born in 1493 in Vehringen, Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, to Jacob Gryner, a peasant from Swabia. He took on the name Grynaeus inspired by an epithet of Apollo in Virgil. He attended school with Melanchthon in Pforzheim, later studying at the University of Vienna, where he excelled in Latin and Greek. His time as rector of a school in Buda was short-lived; his views sparked outrage among the Dominicans, leading to his imprisonment. After being released thanks to Hungarian nobles, he visited Melanchthon in Wittenberg and became a professor of Greek at the University of Heidelberg in 1524, later adding Latin to his duties in 1526. His Zwinglian perspective on the Eucharist strained relationships with his Catholic colleagues. Starting in 1526, he corresponded with Oecolampadius, who invited him to Basel in 1529 after Erasmus had just departed. With the university in turmoil, Grynaeus continued his studies and traveled to England in 1531 to research in libraries. A letter of recommendation from Erasmus helped him connect with Sir Thomas More. Upon returning to Basel, he was tasked with gathering opinions from continental reformers on Henry VIII's divorce, and he witnessed the death of Oecolampadius on November 24, 1531. While serving as a Greek professor, he was also appointed extraordinary professor of theology and delivered lectures on the New Testament. In 1534, Duke Ulrich invited him to Württemberg to assist with the reformation there and to help reorganize the University of Tübingen, which he achieved alongside Ambrosius Blarer from Constanz. Two years later, he played an active role in the First Helvetic Confession, created by Swiss divines in Basel in January 1536, and participated in discussions that encouraged Swiss acceptance of the Wittenberg Concord in 1536. At the Worms conference in 1540, he represented the Swiss churches as the sole delegate from Basel. He tragically succumbed to the plague in Basel on August 1, 1541, in the prime of his life. A brilliant scholar and a mediator in theology with an amiable personality, his influence was significant and well-exercised. He corresponded with notable figures like Erasmus and Calvin. His major works included Latin translations of Plutarch, Aristotle, and Chrysostom.
His son Samuel (1539-1599) was professor of jurisprudence at Basel. His nephew Thomas (1512?-1564) was professor at Basel and minister in Baden, and left four distinguished sons of whom Johann Jakob (1540-1617) was a leader in the religious affairs of Basel. The last of the direct descendants of Simon Grynaeus was his namesake Simon (1725-1799), translator into German of French and English anti-deistical works, and author of a version of the Bible in modern German (1776).
His son Samuel (1539-1599) was a law professor at Basel. His nephew Thomas (1512?-1564) also taught at Basel and was a minister in Baden, leaving behind four notable sons, including Johann Jacob (1540-1617), who played a key role in the religious matters of Basel. The last direct descendant of Simon Grynaeus was his namesake Simon (1725-1799), who translated French and English anti-deistical works into German and authored a modern German version of the Bible (1776).
See Bayle’s Dictionnaire; W. T. Streuber in Hauck’s Realencyklopädie (1899); and for bibliography, Streuber’s S. Grynaei epistolae (1847).
See Bayle’s Dictionnaire; W. T. Streuber in Hauck’s Realencyklopädie (1899); and for bibliography, check out Streuber’s S. Grynaei epistolae (1847).
GRYPHIUS, ANDREAS (1616-1664), German lyric poet and dramatist, was born on the 11th of October 1616, at Grossglogau in Silesia, where his father was a clergyman. The family name was Greif, latinized, according to the prevailing fashion, as Gryphius. Left early an orphan and driven from his native town by the troubles of the Thirty Years’ War, he received his schooling in various places, but notably at Fraustadt, where he enjoyed an excellent classical education. In 1634 he became tutor to the sons of the eminent jurist Georg von Schönborn (1579-1637), a man of wide culture and considerable wealth, who, after filling various administrative posts and writing many erudite volumes on law, had been rewarded by the emperor Ferdinand II. with the title and office of imperial count-palatine (Pfalzgraf). Schönborn, who recognized Gryphius’s genius, crowned him poëta laureatus, gave him the diploma of master of philosophy, and bestowed on him a patent of nobility, though Gryphius never used the title. A month later, on the 23rd of December 1637, Schönborn died; and next year Gryphius went to continue his studies at Leiden, where he remained six years, both hearing and delivering lectures. Here he fell under the influence of the great Dutch dramatists, Pieter Cornelissen Hooft (1581-1647) and Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679), who largely determined the character of his later dramatic works. After travelling in France, Italy and South Germany, Gryphius settled in 1647 at Fraustadt, where he began his dramatic work, and in 1650 was appointed syndic of Glogau, a post he held until his death on the 16th of July 1664. A short time previously he had been admitted under the title of “The Immortal” into the Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft, a literary society, founded in 1617 by Ludwig, prince of Anhalt-Köthen on the model of the Italian academies.
GRYPHIUS, ANDREAS (1616-1664), German lyric poet and playwright, was born on October 11, 1616, in Grossglogau, Silesia, where his father was a clergyman. The family name was Greif, which was Latinized, following the common trend, to Gryphius. Orphaned at a young age and forced to flee his hometown due to the turmoil of the Thirty Years' War, he received his education in various locations, especially at Fraustadt, where he had an excellent classical education. In 1634, he became a tutor for the sons of the prominent jurist Georg von Schönborn (1579-1637), who was well-educated and wealthy. Schönborn had held multiple administrative roles and written many scholarly legal texts, and he was awarded the title and position of imperial count-palatine by Emperor Ferdinand II (Pfalzgraf). Recognizing Gryphius's talent, Schönborn honored him as poëta laureatus, provided him with a master of philosophy diploma, and granted him a patent of nobility, although Gryphius never used the title. A month later, on December 23, 1637, Schönborn passed away, and the following year, Gryphius went to Leiden to further his studies, where he stayed for six years attending and giving lectures. Here, he was influenced by the great Dutch playwrights, Pieter Cornelissen Hooft (1581-1647) and Joost van den Vondel (1587-1679), who greatly shaped his later dramatic works. After traveling through France, Italy, and South Germany, Gryphius settled in Fraustadt in 1647, where he began his dramatic career, and in 1650, he was appointed syndic of Glogau, a position he held until his death on July 16, 1664. Shortly before his death, he was admitted to the Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft, a literary society founded in 1617 by Ludwig, prince of Anhalt-Köthen, modeled after the Italian academies, under the title of “The Immortal.”
Gryphius was a man of morbid disposition, and his melancholy temperament, fostered by the misfortunes of his childhood, is largely reflected in his lyrics, of which the most famous are the 643 Kirchhofsgedanken (1656). His best works are his comedies, one of which, Absurda Comica, oder Herr Peter Squentz (1663), is evidently based on the comic episode of Pyramus and Thisbe in The Midsummer Night’s Dream. Die geliebte Dornrose (1660), which is written in a Silesian dialect, contains many touches of natural simplicity and grace, and ranks high among the comparatively small number of German dramas of the 17th century. Horribilicribrifax (1663), founded on the Miles gloriosus of Plautus, is a rather laboured attack on pedantry. Besides these three comedies, Gryphius wrote five tragedies. In all of them his tendency is to become wild and bombastic, but he had the merit of at least attempting to work out artistically conceived plans, and there are occasional flashes both of passion and of imagination. His models seem to have been Seneca and Vondel. He had the courage, in Carolus Stuardus (1649) to deal with events of his own day; his other tragedies are Leo Armenius (1646); Katharina von Georgien (1657), Cardenio und Celinde (1657) and Papinianus (1663). No German dramatic writer before him had risen to so high a level, nor had he worthy successors until about the middle of the 18th century.
Gryphius was a deeply melancholic person, and his sad temperament, shaped by the hardships of his childhood, is evident in his poetry, with the most well-known being the 643 Kirchhofsgedanken (1656). His best works are his comedies, one of which, Absurda Comica, oder Herr Peter Squentz (1663), clearly draws inspiration from the comic scene of Pyramus and Thisbe in The Midsummer Night’s Dream. Die geliebte Dornrose (1660), written in a Silesian dialect, features many elements of natural simplicity and charm, and stands out among the limited number of German dramas from the 17th century. Horribilicribrifax (1663), based on Plautus's Miles gloriosus, is a rather forced critique of pretentiousness. In addition to these three comedies, Gryphius wrote five tragedies. In all of them, he often tends to be excessive and grandiose, but he deserves recognition for at least trying to develop artistically conceived ideas, with occasional bursts of passion and imagination. It seems his influences were Seneca and Vondel. He boldly addressed contemporary events in Carolus Stuardus (1649); his other tragedies include Leo Armenius (1646), Katharina von Georgien (1657), Cardenio und Celinde (1657), and Papinianus (1663). No German dramatist before him had achieved such a high level, nor did he have worthy successors until around the mid-18th century.
A complete edition of Gryphius’s dramas and lyric poetry has been published by H. Palm in the series of the Stuttgart Literarische Verein (3 vols., 1878, 1882, 1884). Volumes of selected works will be found in W. Muller’s Bibliothek der deutschen Dichter des 17ten Jahrhunderts (1822) and in J. Tittmann’s Deutsche Dichter des 17ten Jahrhunderts (1870). There is also a good selection by H. Palm in Kürschner’s Deutsche Nationalliteratur.
A complete edition of Gryphius's plays and poetry has been published by H. Palm in the Stuttgart Literarische Verein series (3 vols., 1878, 1882, 1884). You can find selected works in W. Muller’s Bibliothek der deutschen Dichter des 17ten Jahrhunderts (1822) and in J. Tittmann’s Deutsche Dichter des 17ten Jahrhunderts (1870). There's also a good selection by H. Palm in Kürschner’s Deutsche Nationalliteratur.
See O. Klopp, Andreas Gryphius als Dramatiker (1851); J. Hermann, Über Andreas Gryphius (1851); T. Wissowa, Beiträge zur Kenntnis von Andreas Gryphius’ Leben und Schriften (1876); J. Wysocki, Andreas Gryphius et la tragédie allemande au XVIIe siècle; and V. Mannheimer, Die Lyrik des Andreas Gryphius (1904).
See O. Klopp, Andreas Gryphius as a Dramatist (1851); J. Hermann, About Andreas Gryphius (1851); T. Wissowa, Contributions to the Knowledge of Andreas Gryphius' Life and Works (1876); J. Wysocki, Andreas Gryphius and German Tragedy in the 17th Century; and V. Mannheimer, The Lyrics of Andreas Gryphius (1904).
GUACHARO (said to be an obsolete Spanish word signifying one that cries, moans or laments loudly), the Spanish-American name of what English writers call the oil-bird, the Steatornis caripensis of ornithologists, a very remarkable bird, first described by Alexander von Humboldt (Voy. aux rég. équinoxiales i. 413, Eng. trans. iii. 119; Obs. Zoologie ii. 141, pl. xliv.) from his own observation and from examples obtained by Aimé J. A. Bonpland, on the visit of those two travellers, in September 1799, to a cave near Caripé (at that time a monastery of Aragonese Capuchins) some forty miles S.E. of Cumaná on the northern coast of South America. A few years later it was discovered, says Latham (Gen. Hist. Birds, 1823, vii. 365), to inhabit Trinidad, where it appears to bear the name of Diablotin;1 but by the receipt of specimens procured at Sarayacu in Peru, Cajamarca in the Peruvian Andes, and Antioquia in Colombia (Proc. Zool. Society, 1878, pp. 139, 140; 1879, p. 532), its range has been shown to be much greater than had been supposed. The singularity of its structure, its curious habits, and its peculiar economical value have naturally attracted no little attention from zoologists. First referring it to the genus Caprimulgus, its original describer soon saw that it was no true goatsucker. It was subsequently separated as forming a subfamily, and has at last been regarded as the type of a distinct family, Steatornithidae—a view which, though not put forth till 1870 (Zool. Record, vi. 67), seems now to be generally deemed correct. Its systematic position, however, can scarcely be considered settled, for though on the whole its predominating alliance may be with the Caprimulgidae, nearly as much affinity may be traced to the Strigidae, while it possesses some characters in which it differs from both (Proc. Zool. Society, 1873, pp. 526-535). About as big as a crow, its plumage exhibits the blended tints of chocolate-colour and grey, barred and pencilled with dark-brown or black, and spotted in places with white, that prevail in the two families just named. The beak is hard, strong and deeply notched, the nostrils are prominent, and the gape is furnished with twelve long hairs on each side. The legs and toes are comparatively feeble, but the wings are large. In habits the guacharo is wholly nocturnal, slumbering by day in deep and dark caverns which it frequents in vast numbers. Towards evening it arouses itself, and, with croaking and clattering which has been likened to that of castanets, it approaches the exit of its retreat, whence at nightfall it issues in search of its food, which, so far as is known, consists entirely of oily nuts or fruits, belonging especially to the genera Achras, Aiphanas, Laurus and Psichotria, some of them sought, it would seem, at a very great distance, for Funck (Bull. Acad. Sc. Bruxelles xi. pt. 2, pp. 371-377) states that in the stomach of one he obtained at Caripé he found the seed of a tree which he believed did not grow nearer than 80 leagues. The hard, indigestible seed swallowed by the guacharo are found in quantities on the floor and the ledges of the caverns it frequents, where many of them for a time vegetate, the plants thus growing being etiolated from want of light, and, according to travellers, forming a singular feature of the gloomy scene which these places present. The guacharo is said to build a bowl-like nest of clay, in which it lays from two to four white eggs, with a smooth but lustreless surface, resembling those of some owls. The young soon after they are hatched become a perfect mass of fat, and while yet in the nest are sought by the Indians, who at Caripé, and perhaps elsewhere, make a special business of taking them and extracting the oil they contain. This is done about midsummer, when by the aid of torches and long poles many thousands of the young birds are slaughtered, while their parents in alarm and rage hover over the destroyers’ heads, uttering harsh and deafening cries. The grease is melted over fires kindled at the cavern’s mouth, run into earthen pots, and preserved for use in cooking as well as for the lighting of lamps. It is said to be pure and limpid, free from any disagreeable taste or smell, and capable of being kept for a year without turning rancid. In Trinidad the young are esteemed s great delicacy for the table by many, though some persons object to their peculiar scent, which resembles that of a cockroach (Blatta), and consequently refuse to eat them. The old birds also, according to E. C. Taylor (Ibis, 1864, p. 90), have a strong crow-like odour. But one species of the genus Steatornis is known.
GUACHARO (thought to be an outdated Spanish term meaning someone who cries, moans, or laments loudly), is the Spanish-American name for what English writers refer to as the oil-bird, the Steatornis caripensis as identified by ornithologists. This remarkable bird was first described by Alexander von Humboldt (Voy. aux rég. équinoxiales i. 413, Eng. trans. iii. 119; Obs. Zoologie ii. 141, pl. xliv.) based on his observations and specimens collected by Aimé J. A. Bonpland during their visit in September 1799 to a cave near Caripé (which was then a monastery of Aragonese Capuchins), about forty miles southeast of Cumaná on the northern coast of South America. A few years later, Latham noted (Gen. Hist. Birds, 1823, vii. 365) that it was also found in Trinidad, where it seems to be called Diablotin;1 but specimens acquired from Sarayacu in Peru, Cajamarca in the Peruvian Andes, and Antioquia in Colombia (Proc. Zool. Society, 1878, pp. 139, 140; 1879, p. 532) have shown that its range is much broader than previously thought. Its unique structure, intriguing behaviors, and special economic value have naturally attracted a lot of attention from zoologists. Initially classified under the genus Caprimulgus, its original describer soon recognized it was not a true goatsucker. It was later classified as a subfamily and has eventually been accepted as the type of a separate family, Steatornithidae—a classification that, although only formalized in 1870 (Zool. Record, vi. 67), is now commonly accepted. However, its systematic classification is still somewhat uncertain; while it shares more characteristics with the Caprimulgidae, it also shows a significant resemblance to the Strigidae, exhibiting some traits that differentiate it from both (Proc. Zool. Society, 1873, pp. 526-535). About the size of a crow, its plumage features a mix of chocolate brown and gray, marked and penciled with dark brown or black, and spotted white in areas—traits seen in the two mentioned families. The beak is hard, strong, and deeply notched, the nostrils are prominent, and the gape is lined with twelve long hairs on each side. Its legs and toes are relatively weak, but its wings are large. The guacharo is entirely nocturnal, resting during the day in the deep, dark caves it inhabits in large groups. As evening approaches, it awakens, making croaking and clattering noises likened to castanets, and moves toward the exit of its shelter, where it emerges at night to forage for food, which, as far as is known, consists entirely of oily nuts or fruits, particularly from the genera Achras, Aiphanas, Laurus, and Psichotria. Some of these are seemingly gathered from considerable distances, as Funck noted (Bull. Acad. Sc. Bruxelles xi. pt. 2, pp. 371-377) that in the stomach of one he found a seed from a tree believed to grow no closer than 80 leagues away. The hard, indigestible seeds swallowed by the guacharo accumulate on the cave floors and ledges, where many sprout for a time, the resulting plants growing without light and creating a unique aspect of the dim environment described by travelers. The guacharo is said to build a bowl-shaped nest from clay, where it lays two to four white eggs with a smooth but dull surface, resembling some owl eggs. The young quickly turn into a mass of fat, and while still in the nest, are sought after by indigenous people, who at Caripé, and possibly elsewhere, make a practice of catching them and extracting their oil. This occurs around midsummer when, using torches and long poles, thousands of young birds are killed, while their distressed parents circle overhead, making loud, harsh cries. The oil is melted over fires at the mouth of the cave, poured into earthen pots, and stored for cooking as well as for lighting lamps. It is reportedly pure and clear, free from any unpleasant taste or odor, and lasts for up to a year without going rancid. In Trinidad, many people consider the young birds a great delicacy, though some dislike their unique smell, which is reminiscent of a cockroach (Blatta), and therefore refuse to eat them. The adult birds also, according to E. C. Taylor (Ibis, 1864, p. 90), have a strong crow-like scent. Only one species from the genus Steatornis is known.
In addition to the works above quoted valuable information about this curious bird may be found under the following references: L’Herminier, Ann. Sc. Nat. (1836), p. 60, and Nouv. Ann. Mus. (1838), p. 321; Hautessier, Rev. Zool. (1838), p. 164; J. Müller, Monatsb. Berl. Acad. (1841), p. 172, and Archiv für Anat. (1862), pp. 1-11; des Murs, Rev. zool. (1843), p. 32, and Ool. Orn. pp. 260-263; Blanchard, Ann. Mus. (1859), xi. pl. 4, fig. 30; König-Warthausen, Journ. für Orn. (1868), pp. 384-387; Goering, Vargasia (1869), pp. 124-128; Murie, Ibis (1873), pp. 81-86.
In addition to the works mentioned above, useful information about this interesting bird can be found in the following references: L’Herminier, Ann. Sc. Nat. (1836), p. 60, and Nouv. Ann. Mus. (1838), p. 321; Hautessier, Rev. Zool. (1838), p. 164; J. Müller, Monatsb. Berl. Acad. (1841), p. 172, and Archiv für Anat. (1862), pp. 1-11; des Murs, Rev. zool. (1843), p. 32, and Ool. Orn. pp. 260-263; Blanchard, Ann. Mus. (1859), xi. pl. 4, fig. 30; König-Warthausen, Journ. für Orn. (1868), pp. 384-387; Goering, Vargasia (1869), pp. 124-128; Murie, Ibis (1873), pp. 81-86.
GUACO, Huaco or Guao, also Vejuco and Bejuco, terms applied to various Central and South American and West Indian plants, in repute for curative virtues. The Indians and negroes of Colombia believe the plants known to them as guaco to have been so named after a species of kite, thus designated in imitation of its cry, which they say attracts to it the snakes that serve it principally for food; they further hold the tradition that their antidotal qualities were discovered through the observation that the bird eats of their leaves, and even spreads the juice of the same on its wings, during contests with its prey. The disputes that have arisen as to what is “the true guaco” are to be attributed mainly to the fact that the names of the American Indians for all natural objects are generic, and their genera not always in coincidence with those of naturalists. Thus any twining plant with a heart-shaped leaf, white and green above and purple beneath, is called by them guaco (R. Spruce, in Howard’s Neueva Quinologia, “Cinchona succirubra,” p. 22, note). What is most commonly recognized in Colombia as guaco, or Vejuco del guaco, would appear to be Mikania Guaco (Humboldt and Bonpland, Pl. équinox, ii. 84, pl. 105, 1809), a climbing Composite plant of the tribe Eupatoriaceae, affecting moist and shady situations, and having a much-branched and deep-growing root, variegated, serrate, opposite leaves and dull-white flowers, in axillary clusters. The whole plant emits a disagreeable odour. It is stated that the Indians of Central America, after having “guaconized” themselves, i.e. taken guaco, catch with impunity the most dangerous snakes, which writhe in their hands as though touched by a hot iron (B. Seemann, Hooker’s Journ. of Bot. v. 76, 1853). The odour alone of guaco 644 has been said to cause in snakes a state of stupor and torpidity; and Humboldt, who observed that the near approach of a rod steeped in guaco-juice was obnoxious to the venomous Coluber corallinus, was of opinion that inoculation with it imparts to the perspiration an odour which makes reptiles unwilling to bite. The drug is not used in modern therapeutics.
GUACO, Huaco or Genius, also known as Vejuco and Bejuco, are terms used for various plants from Central and South America and the West Indies that are considered to have healing properties. The indigenous people and African descendants of Colombia believe that the plants they refer to as guaco got their name from a type of kite, which is named after its cry that supposedly attracts the snakes it primarily feeds on. They also hold a tradition that the healing properties of these plants were discovered when they observed the bird eating their leaves and even spreading their juice on its wings when hunting prey. The debates about what exactly is "the true guaco" mainly stem from the fact that the names used by American Indians for natural objects are often generic, and their classifications don't always match those of modern scientists. Hence, any climbing plant with heart-shaped leaves, white and green on top, and purple underneath, is referred to as guaco by them (R. Spruce, in Howard’s Neueva Quinologia, “Cinchona succirubra,” p. 22, note). What is most commonly identified as guaco in Colombia, or Vejuco del guaco, appears to be Mikania Guaco (Humboldt and Bonpland, Pl. équinox, ii. 84, pl. 105, 1809), a climbing plant from the Eupatoriaceae family, found in moist and shady areas, featuring a highly branched and deeply growing root, variegated, serrated, opposite leaves, and dull-white flowers in clusters. The entire plant has an unpleasant smell. It is said that the indigenous people of Central America, after using guaco to "guaconize" themselves, can handle the most dangerous snakes with ease, as the snakes react as if they’ve been burned (B. Seemann, Hooker’s Journ. of Bot. v. 76, 1853). The scent of guaco alone is said to induce a state of stupor and lethargy in snakes; Humboldt noted that a stick soaked in guaco juice was repelling to the venomous Coluber corallinus and believed that exposure to guaco makes a person’s sweat unappealing to reptiles, discouraging them from biting. The drug is not used in modern medicine.
GUADALAJARA, an inland city of Mexico and capital of the state of Jalisco, 275 m. (direct) W.N.W. of the Federal capital, in lat. 20° 41′ 10″ N., long. 103° 21′ 15″ W. Pop. (1895) 83,934; (1900) 101,208. Guadalajara is served by a short branch of the Mexican Central railway from Irapuato. The city is in the Antemarac valley near the Rio Grande de Santiago, 5092 ft. above sea-level. Its climate is dry, mild and healthy, though subject to sudden changes. The city is well built, with straight and well-paved streets, numerous plazas, public gardens and shady promenades. Its public services include tramways and electric lighting, the Juanacatlán falls of the Rio Grande near the city furnishing the electric power. Guadalajara is an episcopal see, and its cathedral, built between 1571 and 1618, is one of the largest and most elaborately decorated churches in Mexico. The government palace, which like the cathedral faces upon the plaza mayor, is generally considered one of the finest specimens of Spanish architecture in Mexico. Other important edifices and institutions are the university, with its schools of law and medicine, the mint, built in 1811, the modern national college and high schools, a public library of over 28,000 volumes, an episcopal seminary, an academy of fine arts, the Teatro Degollado, and the large modern granite building of the penitentiary. There are many interesting churches and eleven conventual establishments in the city. Charitable institutions of a high character are also prominent, among which are the Hospicio, which includes an asylum for the aged, infirm, blind, deaf and dumb, foundlings and orphans, a primary school for both sexes, and a girls’ training school, and the Hospital de San Miguel de Belen, which is a hospital, an insane asylum, and a school for little children. One of the most popular public resorts of the city is the Paseo, a beautiful drive and promenade extending along both banks of the Rio San Juan de Dios for 1¼ m. and terminating in the alameda, or public garden. The city has a good water-supply, derived from springs and brought in through an aqueduct 8 m. long. Guadalajara is surrounded by a fertile agricultural district and is an important commercial town, but the city is chiefly distinguished as the centre of the iron, steel and glass industries of Mexico. It is also widely known for the artistic pottery manufactured by the Indians of the city and of its suburb, San Pedro. Among other prominent industries are the manufacture of cotton and woollen goods, leather, furniture, hats and sweetmeats. Guadalajara was founded in 1531 by Nuño de Guzman, and became the seat of a bishop in 1549. The Calderon bridge near the city was the scene of a serious defeat of the revolutionists under Hidalgo in January 1811. The severe earthquake of the 31st of May 1818 partially destroyed the two cathedral steeples; and that of the 11th of March 1875 damaged many of the larger buildings. The population includes large Indian and mestizo elements.
GUADALAJARA, is an inland city in Mexico and the capital of the state of Jalisco, located 275 miles (direct) W.N.W. of the Federal capital, at latitude 20° 41′ 10″ N. and longitude 103° 21′ 15″ W. The population was 83,934 in 1895 and 101,208 in 1900. Guadalajara is connected to Irapuato by a short branch of the Mexican Central railway. The city sits in the Antemarac valley near the Rio Grande de Santiago, at an elevation of 5,092 feet above sea level. Its climate is dry, mild, and healthy, though it can change suddenly. The city is well-designed, featuring straight, well-paved streets, numerous plazas, public gardens, and shady walks. Public services include trams and electric lighting, powered by the Juanacatlán falls of the Rio Grande, located near the city. Guadalajara is an episcopal see, and its cathedral, built between 1571 and 1618, is one of the largest and most ornately decorated churches in Mexico. The government palace, which also faces the plaza mayor, is generally regarded as one of the finest examples of Spanish architecture in Mexico. Other notable buildings and institutions include the university with its law and medical schools, the mint constructed in 1811, modern national college and high schools, a public library with over 28,000 volumes, an episcopal seminary, an academy of fine arts, the Teatro Degollado, and the large modern granite penitentiary. The city has many fascinating churches and eleven convents. It is also home to prominent charitable institutions, including the Hospicio, which houses the elderly, infirm, blind, deaf, and dumb, as well as foundlings and orphans, along with a primary school for both genders and a girls' training school, and the Hospital de San Miguel de Belen, which serves as a hospital, insane asylum, and school for young children. One of the city's most popular public places is the Paseo, a beautiful drive and promenade that stretches along both banks of the Rio San Juan de Dios for 1.25 miles, ending at the alameda or public garden. The city has a reliable water supply sourced from springs, brought in through an 8-mile aqueduct. Guadalajara is surrounded by fertile agricultural land and is a significant commercial center, but it is primarily known as the hub of Mexico's iron, steel, and glass industries. It is also famous for the artistic pottery made by the local Indigenous people and those from its suburb, San Pedro. Other key industries include the production of cotton and woolen goods, leather, furniture, hats, and confectionery. Guadalajara was founded in 1531 by Nuño de Guzman and became the seat of a bishop in 1549. The nearby Calderon bridge was the site of a major defeat for the revolutionaries led by Hidalgo in January 1811. The devastating earthquake on May 31, 1818, partially destroyed the two cathedral steeples, and the quake on March 11, 1875, damaged many larger buildings. The population includes a significant number of Indigenous and mestizo people.
GUADALAJARA, a province of central Spain, formed in 1833 of districts taken from New Castile; bounded on the N. by Segovia, Soria and Saragossa, E. by Saragossa and Teruel, S. by Cuenca and W. by Madrid. Pop. (1900) 200,186; area, 4676 sq. m. Along the northern frontier of Guadalajara rise the lofty Guadarrama mountains, culminating in the peaks of La Cebollera (6955 ft.) and Ocejon (6775 ft.); the rest of the province, apart from several lower ranges in the east, belongs to the elevated plateau of New Castile, and has a level or slightly undulating surface, which forms the upper basin of the river Tagus, and is watered by its tributaries the Tajuña, Henares, Jarama and Gallo. The climate of this region, as of Castile generally, is marked by the extreme severity of its winter cold and summer heat; the soil varies very much in quality, but is fertile enough in many districts, notably the cornlands of the Alcarria, towards the south. Few of the cork and oak forests which formerly covered the mountains have escaped destruction; and the higher tracts of land are mainly pasture for the sheep and goats which form the principal wealth of the peasantry. Grain, olive oil, wine, saffron, silk and flax are produced, but agriculture makes little progress, owing to defective communications and unscientific farming. In 1903, the only minerals worked were common salt and silver, and the total output of the mines was valued at £25,000. Deposits of iron, lead and gold also exist and were worked by the Romans; but their exploitation proved unprofitable when renewed in the 19th century. Trade is stagnant and the local industries are those common to almost all Spanish towns and villages, such as the manufacture of coarse cloth and pottery. The Madrid-Saragossa railway traverses the province for 70 m.; the roads are ill-kept and insufficient. Guadalajara (11,144) is the capital, and the only town with more than 5000 inhabitants; Molina de Aragon, a fortified town built at the foot of the Parameras de Molina (2500-3500 ft.), and on the right bank of the Gallo, a tributary of the Tagus, is of some importance as an agricultural centre. Siguënza, on the railway, is an episcopal city, with a fine Romanesque cathedral dating from the 11th century. It is probably the ancient Segontia, founded in 218 B.C. by refugees from Saguntum. The population of the province, which numbers only 42 per sq. m., decreased slightly between 1870 and 1900, and extreme poverty compels many families to emigrate (see also Castile).
GUADALAJARA, a province in central Spain, was established in 1833 from districts taken from New Castile. It is bordered to the north by Segovia, Soria, and Saragossa, to the east by Saragossa and Teruel, to the south by Cuenca, and to the west by Madrid. Population (1900) was 200,186; area is 4,676 sq. miles. The northern border of Guadalajara is marked by the high Guadarrama mountains, which include the peaks of La Cebollera (6,955 ft.) and Ocejon (6,775 ft.); the remainder of the province, aside from several lower ranges in the east, belongs to the elevated plateau of New Castile and has a flat or slightly rolling landscape, which forms the upper basin of the river Tagus, fed by its tributaries the Tajuña, Henares, Jarama, and Gallo. The climate in this area, like much of Castile, is characterized by extremely cold winters and hot summers; soil quality varies greatly, but many areas, especially the farmland in Alcarria to the south, are fairly fertile. Few of the cork and oak forests that once covered the mountains have survived; and the higher lands are mainly used for grazing sheep and goats, which are the primary source of wealth for local farmers. Grain, olive oil, wine, saffron, silk, and flax are produced, but agriculture struggles to advance due to poor communication and outdated farming methods. In 1903, the only minerals being extracted were common salt and silver, with a total output valued at £25,000. There are also deposits of iron, lead, and gold that were mined by the Romans; however, attempts to exploit them again in the 19th century were not profitable. Trade is stagnant, and local industries are typical of many Spanish towns and villages, such as coarse cloth and pottery manufacturing. The Madrid-Saragossa railway runs through the province for 70 miles; the roads are poorly maintained and inadequate. Guadalajara (11,144) is the capital and the only town with more than 5,000 residents; Molina de Aragon, a fortified town located at the foot of the Parameras de Molina (2,500-3,500 ft.) and on the right bank of the Gallo, a tributary of the Tagus, serves as an important agricultural center. Siguënza, situated along the railway, is an episcopal city with a beautiful Romanesque cathedral dating back to the 11th century. It is likely the ancient Segontia, founded in 218 BCE by refugees from Saguntum. The province's population, which averages only 42 per sq. mile, slightly declined between 1870 and 1900, and extreme poverty forces many families to emigrate (see also Castile).
GUADALAJARA, the capital of the Spanish province of Guadalajara, on the left bank of the river Henares, and on the Madrid-Saragossa railway, 35 m. E.N.E. of Madrid. Pop. (1900) 11,144. Guadalajara is a picturesque town, occupying a somewhat sterile plain, 2100 ft. above the sea. A Roman aqueduct and the Roman foundations of the bridge built in 1758 across the Henares bear witness to its antiquity. Under Roman and Visigothic rule it was known as Arriaca or Caraca; its present name, which sometimes appears in medieval chronicles as Godelfare, represents the Wad-al-hajarah, or “Valley of Stones,” of the Moors, who occupied the town from 714 until 1081, when it was captured by Alvar Yañez de Minaya, a comrade of the more famous Cid. The church of Santa Maria contains the image of the “Virgin of Battles,” which accompanied Alphonso VI. of Castile (1072-1109) on his campaigns against the Moors; and there are several other ancient and interesting churches in Guadalajara, besides two palaces, dating from the 15th century, and built with that blend of Christian and Moorish architecture which Spaniards call the Mudéjar style. The more important of these is the palace of the ducal house del Infantado, formerly owned by the Mendoza family, whose panteon, or mausoleum, added between 1696 and 1720 to the 13th-century church of San Francisco, is remarkable for the rich sculpture of its tombs. The town and provincial halls date from 1585, and the college of engineers was originally built by Philip V., early in the 18th century, as a cloth factory. Manufactures of soap, leather, woollen fabrics and bricks have superseded the original cloth-weaving industry for which Guadalajara was long celebrated; there is also a considerable trade in agricultural produce.
GUADALAJARA, is the capital of the Spanish province of Guadalajara, located on the left bank of the Henares River and on the Madrid-Saragossa railway, 35 miles E.N.E. of Madrid. Population (1900) was 11,144. Guadalajara is a charming town situated on a somewhat barren plain, 2100 feet above sea level. A Roman aqueduct and the Roman foundations of the bridge built in 1758 over the Henares exemplify its ancient history. Under Roman and Visigothic rule, it was known as Arriaca or Caraca; its current name, which sometimes appears in medieval chronicles as Godelfare, comes from the Wad-al-hajarah, or “Valley of Stones,” used by the Moors, who occupied the town from 714 until 1081, when it was taken by Alvar Yañez de Minaya, a companion of the more famous Cid. The church of Santa Maria holds the image of the “Virgin of Battles,” which accompanied Alphonso VI. of Castile (1072-1109) during his campaigns against the Moors; there are several other ancient and fascinating churches in Guadalajara, along with two palaces from the 15th century that showcase the blend of Christian and Moorish architecture known as the Mudéjar style. The more significant of these is the palace of the ducal house del Infantado, formerly owned by the Mendoza family, whose panteon, or mausoleum, added between 1696 and 1720 to the 13th-century church of San Francisco, is notable for the intricate sculpture of its tombs. The town and provincial halls were constructed in 1585, and the college of engineers was initially built by Philip V. in the early 18th century as a cloth factory. The production of soap, leather, woolen fabrics, and bricks has replaced the original cloth-weaving industry for which Guadalajara was well-known; there is also a significant trade in agricultural products.
GUADALQUIVIR (ancient Baetis, Moorish Wadi al Kebir, “the Great River”), a river of southern Spain. What is regarded as the main stream rises 4475 ft. above sea-level between the Sierra de Cazorla and Sierra del Pozo, in the province of Jaen. It does not become a large river until it is joined by the Guadiana Menor (Guadianamenor) on the left, and the Guadalimar on the right. Lower down it receives many tributaries, the chief being the Genil or Jenil, from the left. The general direction of the river is west by south, but a few miles above Seville it changes to south by west. Below Coria it traverses the series of broad fens known as Las Marismas, the greatest area of swamp in the Iberian Peninsula. Here it forms two subsidiary channels, the western 31 m., the eastern 12 m. long, which rejoin the main stream on the borders of the province of Cadiz. Below Sanlúcar the river enters the Atlantic after a total course of 360 m. It drains an area of 21,865 sq. m. Though the shortest of the great rivers of the peninsula, it is the only one which flows at all seasons 645 with a full stream, being fed in winter by the rains, in summer by the melted snows of the Sierra Nevada. In the time of the Moors it was navigable up to Cordova, but owing to the accumulation of silt in its lower reaches it is now only navigable up to Seville by vessels of 1200 to 1500 tons.
GUADALQUIVIR (formerly Baetis, Moorish Wadi al Kebir, “the Great River”), a river in southern Spain. The main part of the river rises 4,475 ft. above sea level between the Sierra de Cazorla and Sierra del Pozo, in the province of Jaen. It doesn’t grow into a large river until it’s joined by the Guadiana Menor (Guadianamenor) on the left and the Guadalimar on the right. Further downstream, it collects several tributaries, the most significant being the Genil or Jenil from the left. The river generally flows west by south, but just a few miles above Seville, it shifts to south by west. Below Coria, it passes through a series of wide wetlands known as Las Marismas, the largest swamp area on the Iberian Peninsula. Here, it splits into two smaller channels, the western one 31 m. long and the eastern one 12 m. long, which reconnect with the main river at the border of the province of Cadiz. After Sanlúcar, the river flows into the Atlantic after a total distance of 360 m. It drains an area of 21,865 sq. m. Although it’s the shortest of the major rivers in the peninsula, it is the only one that flows fully year-round, being fed in winter by rain and in summer by the melting snow from the Sierra Nevada. During the Moorish period, it was navigable up to Cordova, but due to silt buildup in its lower sections, it is now navigable only up to Seville by vessels between 1,200 and 1,500 tons.
GUADELOUPE, a French colony in the West Indies, lying between the British islands of Montserrat on the N., and Dominica on the S., between 15° 59′ and 16° 20′ N. and 61° 31′ and 61° 50′ W. It consists of two entirely distinct islands, separated by a narrow arm of the sea, Rivière Salée (Salt river), varying from 100 ft. to 400 ft. in width and navigable for small vessels. The western island, a rugged mass of ridges, peaks and lofty uplands, is called Basse-Terre, while the eastern and smaller island, the real low-land, is known as Grande-Terre. A sinuous ridge runs through Basse-Terre from N. to S. In the north-west rises the peak of Grosse Montagne (2370 ft.), from which sharp spurs radiate in all directions; near the middle of the west coast are the twin heights of Les Mamelles (2536 ft. and 2368 ft.). Farther south the highest elevation is attained in La Soufrière (4900 ft.). In 1797 this volcano was active, and in 1843 its convulsions laid several towns in ruins; but a few thermal springs and solfataras emitting vapour are now its only signs of activity. The range terminates in the extreme south in the jagged peak of Caraibe (2300 ft.). Basse-Terre is supremely beautiful, its cloud-capped mountains being clothed with a mantle of luxuriant vegetation. On Grande-Terre the highest elevation is only 450 ft., and this island is the seat of extensive sugar plantations. It consists of a plain composed mainly of limestone and a conglomerate of sand and broken shells known as maconne de bon dieu, much used for building. The bay between the two sections of Guadeloupe on the north is called Grand Cul-de-Sac Marin, that on the south being Petit Cul-de-Sac Marin. Basse-Terre (364 sq. m.) is 28 m. long by 12 m. to 15 m. wide; Grande-Terre (255 sq. m.) is 22 m. long from N. to S., of irregular shape, with a long peninsula, Chateaux Point, stretching from the south-eastern extremity. Basse-Terre is watered by a considerable number of streams, most of which in the rainy season are liable to sudden floods (locally called galions), but Grande-Terre is practically destitute of springs, and the water-supply is derived almost entirely from ponds and cisterns.
GUADELOUPE, is a French colony in the West Indies, situated between the British islands of Montserrat to the north and Dominica to the south, located between 15° 59′ and 16° 20′ N and 61° 31′ and 61° 50′ W. It comprises two completely distinct islands, separated by a narrow stretch of sea, Rivière Salée (Salt River), which varies from 100 ft. to 400 ft. in width and is navigable for small vessels. The western island, a rugged landscape of ridges, peaks, and highlands, is called Basse-Terre, while the eastern and smaller island, the true lowland, is known as Grande-Terre. A winding ridge runs through Basse-Terre from north to south. In the northwest rises the peak of Grosse Montagne (2370 ft.), from which sharp spurs extend in all directions; near the middle of the west coast are the twin peaks known as Les Mamelles (2536 ft. and 2368 ft.). Further south, the highest point is La Soufrière (4900 ft.). This volcano was active in 1797, and in 1843 its eruptions destroyed several towns; however, today it shows little activity aside from a few thermal springs and fumaroles releasing steam. The range ends in the far south with the jagged peak of Caraibe (2300 ft.). Basse-Terre is incredibly beautiful, with its cloud-covered mountains draped in lush vegetation. In Grande-Terre, the highest point is only 450 ft., and this island hosts extensive sugar plantations. It primarily consists of a plain made up of limestone and a conglomerate of sand and broken shells known as maconne de bon dieu, which is widely used for construction. The bay between the two parts of Guadeloupe to the north is called Grand Cul-de-Sac Marin, while the southern bay is Petit Cul-de-Sac Marin. Basse-Terre (364 sq. m.) measures 28 m. long and 12 m. to 15 m. wide; Grande-Terre (255 sq. m.) is 22 m. long from north to south, having an irregular shape with a long peninsula, Chateaux Point, extending from the southeastern tip. Basse-Terre is dotted with numerous streams, most of which can experience sudden floods during the rainy season (locally called galions), whereas Grande-Terre has very few springs, relying almost entirely on ponds and cisterns for its water supply.
The west half of the island consists of a foundation of old eruptive rocks upon which rest the recent accumulations of the great volcanic cones, together with mechanical deposits derived from the denudation of the older rocks. Grande-Terre on the other hand, consists chiefly of nearly horizontal limestones lying conformably upon a series of fine tuffs and ashes, the whole belonging to the early part of the Tertiary system (probably Eocene and Oligocene). Occasional deposits of marl and limestone of late Pliocene age rest unconformably upon these older beds; and near the coast there are raised coral reefs of modern date.
The western half of the island is made up of old volcanic rocks, which serve as a base for the more recent formations of the large volcanic cones and the sediment deposits from the erosion of these older rocks. In contrast, Grande-Terre mainly consists of nearly flat-lying limestones that sit directly on top of a series of fine tuffs and ashes, all dating back to the early part of the Tertiary period (likely Eocene and Oligocene). There are occasional deposits of marl and limestone from the late Pliocene that rest directly on these older layers; and along the coast, there are raised coral reefs from more recent times.
The mean annual temperature is 78° F., and the minimum 61° F., and the maximum 101° F. From July to November heavy rains fall, the annual average on the coast being 86 in., while in the interior it is much greater. Guadeloupe is subject to terrible storms. In 1825 a hurricane destroyed the town of Basse-Terre, and Grand Bourg in Marie Galante suffered a like fate in 1865. The soil is rich and fruitful, sugar having long been its staple product. The other crops include cereals, cocoa, cotton, manioc, yams and rubber; tobacco, vanilla, coffee and bananas are grown, but in smaller quantities. Over 30% of the total area is under cultivation, and of this more than 50% is under sugar. The centres of this industry are St Anne, Pointe-à-Pitre and Le Moule, where there are well-equipped usines, and there is also a large usine at Basse-Terre. The forests, confined to the island of Basse-Terre, are extensive and rich in valuable woods, but, being difficult of access, are not worked. Salt and sulphur are the only minerals extracted, and in addition to the sugar usines, there are factories for the making of rum, liqueurs, chocolate, besides fruit-canning works and tanneries. France takes most of the exports; and next to France, the United States, Great Britain and India are the countries most interested in the import trade.
The average annual temperature is 78°F, with a minimum of 61°F and a maximum of 101°F. From July to November, heavy rains occur, with the annual average on the coast being 86 inches, while it's much higher in the interior. Guadeloupe experiences severe storms. In 1825, a hurricane devastated the town of Basse-Terre, and Grand Bourg in Marie Galante faced a similar disaster in 1865. The soil is rich and fertile, with sugar being the primary crop for a long time. Other crops include grains, cocoa, cotton, cassava, yams, and rubber; tobacco, vanilla, coffee, and bananas are also grown, but in smaller amounts. Over 30% of the total area is cultivated, and more than 50% of that is dedicated to sugar. The main hubs for this industry are St Anne, Pointe-à-Pitre, and Le Moule, where there are well-equipped factories, and there's also a large factory in Basse-Terre. The forests, which are mostly on the island of Basse-Terre, are extensive and filled with valuable wood, but they are hard to access and not harvested. Salt and sulfur are the only minerals extracted, and in addition to the sugar factories, there are facilities for producing rum, liqueurs, chocolate, along with fruit canning and tanneries. France is the main destination for exports; after France, the United States, Great Britain, and India are the most significant players in the import trade.
The inhabitants of Guadeloupe consist of a few white officials and planters, a few East Indian immigrants from the French possessions in India, and the rest negroes and mulattoes. These mulattoes are famous for their grace and beauty of both form and feature. The women greatly outnumber the men, and there is a very large percentage of illegitimate births. Pop. (1900) 182,112.
The people of Guadeloupe include some white officials and planters, a few East Indian immigrants from the French territories in India, and mostly Black people and mixed-race individuals. These mixed-race people are well-known for their grace and beauty in both appearance and features. There are significantly more women than men, and there is a high rate of births outside of marriage. Pop. (1900) 182,112.
The governor is assisted by a privy council, a director of the interior, a procurator-general and a paymaster, and there is also an elected legislative council of 30 members. The colony forms a department of France and is represented in the French parliament by a senator and two deputies. Political elections are very eagerly contested, the mulatto element always striving to gain the preponderance of power.
The governor is supported by a privy council, a head of internal affairs, a attorney general, and a paymaster, and there's also an elected legislative council with 30 members. The colony is part of France and is represented in the French parliament by a senator and two deputies. Political elections are highly competitive, with the mulatto community constantly trying to gain more power.
The seat of government, of the Apostolic administration and of the court of appeal is at Basse-Terre (7762), which is situated on the south-west coast of the island of that name. It is a picturesque, healthy town standing on an open roadstead. Pointe-à-Pitre (17,242), the largest town, lies in Grande-Terre near the mouth of the Rivière Salée. Its excellent harbour has made it the chief port and commercial capital of the colony. Le Moule (10,378) on the east coast of Grande-Terre does a considerable export trade in sugar, despite its poor harbour. Of the other towns, St Anne (9497), Morne à l’Eau (8442), Petit Canal (6748), St François (5265), Petit Bourg (5110) and Trois Rivières (5016), are the most important.
The government seat, the Apostolic administration, and the court of appeal are located in Basse-Terre (7762), which is on the southwest coast of the island with that name. It's a charming and healthy town that sits on an open harbor. Pointe-à-Pitre (17,242), the largest town, is in Grande-Terre near the mouth of the Rivière Salée. Its excellent harbor has made it the main port and commercial capital of the colony. Le Moule (10,378) on the east coast of Grande-Terre has a significant sugar export trade, even with its poor harbor. Other notable towns include St Anne (9497), Morne à l’Eau (8442), Petit Canal (6748), St François (5265), Petit Bourg (5110), and Trois Rivières (5016).
Round Guadeloupe are grouped its dependencies, namely, La Desirade, 6 m. E., a narrow rugged island 10 sq. m. in area; Marie Galante 16 m. S.E. Les Saintes, a group of seven small islands, 7 m. S., one of the strategic points of the Antilles, with a magnificent and strongly fortified naval harbour; St Martin, 142 m. N.N.W.; and St Bartholomew, 130 m. N.N.W.
Round Guadeloupe are its dependencies, which include: La Desirade, 6 miles to the east, a narrow and rugged island covering 10 square miles; Marie Galante, 16 miles to the southeast; Les Saintes, a group of seven small islands, 7 miles to the south, one of the strategic points in the Antilles, featuring a magnificent and heavily fortified naval harbor; St. Martin, 142 miles to the north-northwest; and St. Bartholomew, 130 miles to the north-northwest.
History.—Guadeloupe was discovered by Columbus in 1493, and received its name in honour of the monastery of S. Maria de Guadalupe at Estremadura in Spain. In 1635 l’Olive and Duplessis took possession of it in the name of the French Company of the Islands of America, and l’Olive exterminated the Caribs with great cruelty. Four chartered companies were ruined in their attempts to colonize the island, and in 1674 it passed into the possession of the French crown and long remained a dependency of Martinique. After unsuccessful attempts in 1666, 1691 and 1703, the British captured the island in 1759, and held it for four years. Guadeloupe was finally separated from Martinique in 1775, but it remained under the governor of the French Windward Islands. In 1782 Rodney defeated the French fleet near the island, and the British again obtained possession in April 1794, but in the following summer they were driven out by Victor Hugues with the assistance of the slaves whom he had liberated for the purpose. In 1802 Bonaparte, then first consul, sent an expedition to the island in order to re-establish slavery, but, after a heroic defence, many of the negroes preferred suicide to submission. During the Hundred Days in 1810, the British once more occupied the island, but, in spite of its cession to Sweden by the treaty of 1813 and a French invasion in 1814, they did not withdraw till 1816. Between 1816 and 1825 the code of laws peculiar to the island was introduced. Municipal institutions were established in 1837; and slavery was finally abolished in 1848.
History.—Guadeloupe was discovered by Columbus in 1493 and got its name in honor of the monastery of S. Maria de Guadalupe in Estremadura, Spain. In 1635, l’Olive and Duplessis claimed it for the French Company of the Islands of America, and l’Olive brutally wiped out the Caribs. Four chartered companies failed in their attempts to colonize the island, and in 1674, it became part of the French crown and remained closely tied to Martinique for a long time. After unsuccessful attempts in 1666, 1691, and 1703, the British captured the island in 1759 and held it for four years. Guadeloupe was officially separated from Martinique in 1775 but still remained under the governor of the French Windward Islands. In 1782, Rodney defeated the French fleet near the island, and the British regained control in April 1794, but the following summer, they were expelled by Victor Hugues with the help of the enslaved people he had freed for that purpose. In 1802, Bonaparte, then first consul, sent an expedition to the island to re-establish slavery, but after a heroic defense, many of the enslaved people chose suicide over submission. During the Hundred Days in 1810, the British occupied the island again, but despite its transfer to Sweden by the treaty of 1813 and a French invasion in 1814, they did not leave until 1816. Between 1816 and 1825, a unique code of laws for the island was introduced. Municipal institutions were established in 1837, and slavery was finally abolished in 1848.
GUADET, MARGUERITE ÉLIE (1758-1794), French Revolutionist, was born at St Émilion near Bordeaux on the 20th of July 1758. When the Revolution broke out he had already gained a reputation as a brilliant advocate at Bordeaux. In 1790 he was made administrator of the Gironde and in 1791 president of the criminal tribunal. In this year he was elected to the Legislative Assembly as one of the brilliant group of deputies known subsequently as Girondins or Girondists. As a supporter of the constitution of 1791 he joined the Jacobin club, and here and in the Assembly became an eloquent advocate of all the measures directed against real or supposed traitors to the constitution. He bitterly attacked the ministers of Louis XVI., and was largely instrumental in forcing the king to accept the Girondist ministry of the 15th of March 1792. He was 646 an ardent advocate of the policy of forcing Louis XVI. into harmony with the Revolution; moved (May 3) for the dismissal of the king’s non-juring confessor, for the banishment of all non-juring priests (May 16), for the disbandment of the royal guard (May 30), and the formation in Paris of a camp of fédérés (June 4). He remained a royalist, however, and with Gensonné and Vergniaud even addressed a letter to the king soliciting a private interview. Whatever negotiations may have resulted, however, were cut short by the insurrection of the 10th of August. Guadet, who presided over the Assembly during part of this fateful day, put himself into vigorous opposition to the insurrectionary Commune of Paris, and it was on his motion that on the 30th of August the Assembly voted its dissolution—a decision reversed on the following day. In September Guadet was returned by a large majority as deputy to the Convention. At the trial of Louis XVI. he voted for an appeal to the people and for the death sentence, but with a respite pending appeal. In March 1793 he had several conferences with Danton, who was anxious to bring about a rapprochement between the Girondists and the Mountain during the war in La Vendée, but he unconditionally refused to join hands with the man whom he held responsible for the massacres of September. Involved in the fall of the Girondists, and his arrest being decreed on the 2nd of June 1793, he fled to Caen, and afterwards hid in his father’s house at St Émilion. He was discovered and taken to Bordeaux, where, after his identity had been established, he was guillotined on the 17th of June 1794.
GUADET, MARGUERITE ÉLIE (1758-1794), French Revolutionist, was born in St Émilion near Bordeaux on July 20, 1758. By the time the Revolution started, he had already established himself as a talented lawyer in Bordeaux. In 1790, he became the administrator of the Gironde, and in 1791, he was appointed president of the criminal tribunal. That same year, he was elected to the Legislative Assembly as part of a notable group of representatives known later as the Girondins or Girondists. As a supporter of the 1791 constitution, he joined the Jacobin club, where he became a passionate advocate for measures aimed at addressing actual or perceived traitors to the constitution. He fiercely criticized the ministers of Louis XVI and played a key role in persuading the king to accept the Girondist ministry on March 15, 1792. He was 646 an enthusiastic proponent of the policy to bring Louis XVI in line with the Revolution; he proposed (May 3) the removal of the king’s non-juror confessor, the banishment of all non-juror priests (May 16), the disbandment of the royal guard (May 30), and the establishment of a camp of fédérés in Paris (June 4). However, he remained a royalist, and along with Gensonné and Vergniaud, even wrote a letter to the king requesting a private meeting. Any negotiations that may have taken place were abruptly interrupted by the insurrection on August 10. Guadet, who presided over the Assembly during part of that crucial day, opposed the insurrectionary Commune of Paris vigorously, and it was on his motion that the Assembly voted to dissolve itself on August 30—a decision that was reversed the next day. In September, Guadet was elected with a significant majority as a deputy to the Convention. During the trial of Louis XVI, he voted for an appeal to the people and for the death penalty, but with a delay pending the appeal. In March 1793, he had several meetings with Danton, who wanted to create a rapprochement between the Girondists and the Mountain amid the conflict in La Vendée, but he completely refused to ally with someone he blamed for the September massacres. Caught up in the fall of the Girondists and facing arrest decreed on June 2, 1793, he fled to Caen and later hid in his father’s house in St Émilion. He was eventually discovered and taken to Bordeaux, where, after confirming his identity, he was guillotined on June 17, 1794.
See J. Guadet, Les Girondins (Paris, 1889); and F. A. Aulard, Les Orateurs de la législative et de la convention (Paris, 2nd ed., 1906).
See J. Guadet, The Girondins (Paris, 1889); and F. A. Aulard, The Orators of the Legislative and the Convention (Paris, 2nd ed., 1906).
GUADIANA (anc. Anas, Moorish Wadi Ana), a river of Spain and Portugal. The Guadiana was long believed to rise in the lowland known as the Campo de Montiel, where a chain of small lakes, the Lagunas de Ruidera (partly in Ciudad Real, partly in Albacete), are linked together by the Guadiana Alto or Upper Guadiana. This stream flows north-westward from the last lake and vanishes underground within 3 m. of the river Zancara or Giguela. About 22 m. S.W. of the point of disappearance, the Guadiana Alto was believed to re-emerge in the form of several large springs, which form numerous lakes near the Zancara and are known as the “eyes of the Guadiana” (los ojos de Guadiana). The stream which connects them with the Zancara is called the Guadiana Bajo or Lower Guadiana. It is now known that the Guadiana Alto has no such course, but flows underground to the Zancara itself, which is the true “Upper Guadiana.” The Zancara rises near the source of the Júcar, in the east of the tableland of La Mancha; thence it flows westward, assuming the name of Guadiana near Ciudad Real, and reaching the Portuguese frontier 6 m. S.W. of Badajoz. In piercing the Sierra Morena it forms a series of foaming rapids, and only begins to be navigable at Mertola, 42 m. from its mouth. From the neighbourhood of Badajoz it forms the boundary between Spain and Portugal as far as a point near Monsaraz, where it receives the small river Priega Muñoz on the left, and passes into Portuguese territory, with a southerly direction. At Pomarão it again becomes a frontier stream and forms a broad estuary 25 m. long. It enters the Gulf of Cadiz between the Portuguese town of Villa Real de Santo Antonio and the Spanish Ayamonte, after a total course of 510 m. Its mouth is divided by sandbanks into many channels. The Guadiana drains an area of 31,940 sq. m. Its principal tributaries are the Zujar, Jabalón, Matachel and Ardila from the left; the Bullaque, Ruecas, Botoa, Degebe and Cobres from the right.
GUADIANA (formerly Anas, Moorish Wadi Ana), a river in Spain and Portugal. The Guadiana was long thought to originate in the lowland area known as the Campo de Montiel, where a series of small lakes, the Lagunas de Ruidera (partly in Ciudad Real, partly in Albacete), are connected by the Guadiana Alto or Upper Guadiana. This stream flows northwestward from the last lake and disappears underground just 3 meters from the Zancara or Giguela river. About 22 meters southwest of where it disappears, the Guadiana Alto was believed to reappear as several large springs, creating multiple lakes near the Zancara known as the “eyes of the Guadiana” (los ojos de Guadiana). The stream connecting them to the Zancara is called the Guadiana Bajo or Lower Guadiana. It is now understood that the Guadiana Alto does not have such a path, flowing underground directly to the Zancara itself, which is the actual “Upper Guadiana.” The Zancara originates near the source of the Júcar, in the eastern part of the La Mancha plateau; from there, it flows westward, taking the name Guadiana near Ciudad Real, and reaches the Portuguese border 6 miles southwest of Badajoz. As it cuts through the Sierra Morena, it creates a series of rushing rapids, and only becomes navigable at Mertola, 42 miles from its mouth. Near Badajoz, it forms the boundary between Spain and Portugal up to a point near Monsaraz, where it receives the small river Priega Muñoz on the left and continues into Portuguese territory, heading south. At Pomarão, it again serves as a border river and creates a wide estuary 25 miles long. It enters the Gulf of Cadiz between the Portuguese town of Villa Real de Santo Antonio and the Spanish Ayamonte, after covering a total distance of 510 miles. Its mouth is divided by sandbanks into several channels. The Guadiana drains an area of 31,940 square miles. Its main tributaries include the Zujar, Jabalón, Matachel, and Ardila from the left; and the Bullaque, Ruecas, Botoa, Degebe, and Cobres from the right.
The Guadiana Menor (or Guadianamenor, i.e. “Lesser Guadiana”) rises in the Sierra Nevada, receives two large tributaries, the Fardes from the right and Barbata from the left, and enters the Guadalquivir near Ubeda, after a course of 95 m.
The Guadiana Menor (or Guadianamenor, i.e. “Lesser Guadiana”) originates in the Sierra Nevada, takes in two major tributaries—Fardes from the right and Barbata from the left—and flows into the Guadalquivir near Ubeda, after a journey of 95 m.
GUADIX, a city of southern Spain, in the province of Granada; on the left bank of the river Guadix, a subtributary of the Guadiana Menor, and on the Madrid-Valdepeñas-Almería railway. Pop. (1900) 12,652. Guadix occupies part of an elevated plateau among the northern foothills of the Sierra Nevada. It is surrounded by ancient walls, and was formerly dominated by a Moorish castle, now in ruins. It is an episcopal see of great antiquity, but its cathedral, built in the 18th century on the site of a mosque, possesses little architectural merit. The city was once famous for its cutlery; but its modern manufactures (chiefly earthenware, hempen goods, and hats) are inconsiderable. It has some trade in wool, cotton, flax, corn and liqueurs. The warm mineral springs of Graena, much frequented during the summer, are 6 m. W. Guadix el Viejo, 5 m. N.W., was the Roman Acci, and, according to tradition, the seat of the first Iberian bishopric, in the 2nd century. After 711 it rose to some importance as a Moorish fortress and trading station, and was renamed Wad Ash, “Water of Life.” It was surrendered without a siege to the Spaniards, under Ferdinand and Isabella, in 1489.
GUADIX, is a city in southern Spain, located in the province of Granada; it sits on the left bank of the Guadix River, a tributary of the Guadiana Menor, and is along the Madrid-Valdepeñas-Almería railway. Population (1900) was 12,652. Guadix is situated on an elevated plateau among the northern foothills of the Sierra Nevada. It is enclosed by ancient walls and was once dominated by a Moorish castle, which is now in ruins. The city is an episcopal see with a long history, but its cathedral, built in the 18th century on the site of a mosque, doesn't have much architectural value. It was once well-known for its cutlery; however, its current industries, mainly earthenware, hemp products, and hats, are quite small. There's some trade in wool, cotton, flax, corn, and liqueurs. The warm mineral springs of Graena, popular in the summer, are 6 miles west of Guadix, while Guadix el Viejo, 5 miles northwest, was the Roman Acci and is traditionally considered the site of the first Iberian bishopric in the 2nd century. After 711, it became significant as a Moorish fortress and trading post, being renamed Wad Ash, meaning “Water of Life.” It was surrendered without a siege to the Spaniards, led by Ferdinand and Isabella, in 1489.
GUADUAS, a town of the department of Cundinamarca, Colombia, 53 m. N.W. of Bogotá on the old road between that city and the Magdalena river port of Honda. Pop. (1900, estimate) 9000, chiefly Indians or of mixed blood. It stands in a narrow and picturesque valley formed by spurs of the Eastern Cordillera, and on a small stream bearing the same name, which is that of the South American bamboo (guaduas), found in great abundance along its banks. Sugar-cane and coffee are cultivated in the vicinity, and fruits of various kinds are produced in great abundance. The elevation of the town is 3353 ft. above the sea, and it has a remarkably uniform temperature throughout the whole year. Guaduas has a pretty church facing upon its plaza, and an old monastery now used for secular purposes. The importance of the town sprang from its position on the old camino real between Bogotá and Honda, an importance that has passed away with the completion of the railway from Girardot to the Bogotá plateau. Guaduas was founded in 1614.
GUADUAS, is a town in the Cundinamarca department of Colombia, located 53 miles northwest of Bogotá on the old road connecting the city to the Magdalena River port of Honda. As of 1900, the estimated population was 9,000, mainly consisting of Indigenous people or those of mixed descent. It lies in a narrow and scenic valley formed by spurs of the Eastern Cordillera, along a small stream that shares its name, which is also that of the South American bamboo (guaduas), found abundantly along its banks. In the surrounding areas, sugar cane and coffee are grown, and a variety of fruits are produced in large quantities. The town is situated at an elevation of 3,353 feet above sea level and enjoys a remarkably steady temperature year-round. Guaduas features a lovely church overlooking its plaza and an old monastery that is now used for secular activities. The town's significance stemmed from its location on the historic camino real between Bogotá and Honda, but this importance diminished with the completion of the railway from Girardot to the Bogotá plateau. Guaduas was founded in 1614.
GUAIACUM, a genus of trees of the natural order Zygophyllaceae. The guaiacum or lignum-vitae tree (Ger. Guajakbaum, Franzosenbaum, Pockenholzbaum; Fr. Gayac, Gaïac), G. officinale, is a native of the West Indies and the north coast of South America, where it attains a height of 20 to 30 ft. Its branches are numerous, flexuous and knotted; the leaves opposite and pinnate, with caducous (falling early) stipules, and entire, glabrous, obovate or oval leaflets, arranged in 2 or, more rarely, 3 pairs; the flowers are in axillary clusters (cymes), and have 5 oval pubescent sepals, 5 distinct pale-blue petals three times the length of the sepals, 10 stamens, and a 2-celled superior ovary. The fruit is about ¾ in. long, with a leathery pericarp, and contains in each of its two cells a single seed (see fig.). G. sanctum grows in the Bahamas and Cuba, and at Key West in Florida. It is distinguished from G. officinale by its smaller and narrow leaflets, which are in 4 to 5 pairs, by its shorter and glabrous sepals, and 5-celled and 5-winged fruit. G. arboreum, the guaiacum tree of Colombia, is found in the valley of the Magdalena up to altitudes 800 metres (2625 ft.) above sea-level, and reaches considerable dimensions. Its wood is of a yellow colour merging into green, and has an almost pulverulent fracture; the flowers are yellow and conspicuous; and the fruit is dry and 4-winged.
GUAIACUM is a genus of trees in the natural order Zygophyllaceae. The guaiacum or lignum-vitae tree (Ger. Guajakbaum, Franzosenbaum, Pockenholzbaum; Fr. Gayac, Gaïac), G. officinale, originates from the West Indies and the northern coast of South America, where it can grow 20 to 30 feet tall. Its branches are numerous, flexible, and twisted; the leaves are opposite and pinnate, featuring early-falling stipules, and have smooth, oval or obovate leaflets arranged in 2 or, more rarely, 3 pairs. The flowers appear in axillary clusters (cymes), with 5 oval fuzzy sepals, 5 separate pale-blue petals that are three times the length of the sepals, 10 stamens, and a 2-celled superior ovary. The fruit measures about ¾ inch long, with a leathery outer layer, and contains one seed in each cell (see fig.). G. sanctum is found in the Bahamas and Cuba, as well as in Key West, Florida. It differs from G. officinale by having smaller, narrower leaflets in 4 to 5 pairs, shorter smooth sepals, and fruit that is 5-celled and 5-winged. G. arboreum, the guaiacum tree of Colombia, is located in the Magdalena valley up to altitudes of 800 meters (2625 ft.) above sea level and can grow quite large. Its wood is yellowish with a green tint and has a nearly powdery texture; the flowers are yellow and prominent, and the fruit is dry and 4-winged.
The lignum vitae of commerce, so named on account of its high repute as a medicinal agent in past times, when also it was known as lignum sanctum and lignum Indicum, lignum guaycanum, or simply guayacan, is procured from G. officinale, and in smaller amount from G. sanctum. It is exported in large logs or blocks, generally divested of bark, and presents in transverse section very slightly marked concentric rings of growth, and scarcely any traces of pith; with the aid of a magnifying glass the medullary rays are seen to be equidistant and very numerous. The outer wood, the sapwood or alburnum, is of a pale yellow hue, and devoid of resin; the inner, the heartwood or duramen, which is by far the larger proportion, is of a dark greenish-brown, contains in its pores 26% of resin, and has a specific gravity of 1.333, and therefore sinks in water on which the alburnum floats. Owing to the diagonal and oblique arrangement of the successive layers of its fibres, the wood cannot be split; and on account of its hardness, density and durability it is much valued for the manufacture of ships’ pulleys, rulers, skittle-balls, mallets and other articles.
The lignum vitae of commerce, named for its high reputation as a medicinal agent in the past, when it was also known as lignum sanctum, lignum Indicum, lignum guaycanum, or simply guayacan, comes from G. officinale, with smaller amounts sourced from G. sanctum. It is exported in large logs or blocks, usually stripped of bark, and shows very faint concentric growth rings in cross-section, with hardly any traces of pith; under a magnifying glass, the medullary rays appear equidistant and quite numerous. The outer wood, or sapwood, is a pale yellow color and contains no resin; the inner wood, or heartwood, which constitutes the majority, is a dark greenish-brown, has 26% resin in its pores, and has a specific gravity of 1.333, allowing it to sink in water while the sapwood floats. Due to the diagonal and oblique arrangement of its fiber layers, the wood cannot be split; its hardness, density, and durability make it highly valued for producing ship pulleys, rulers, skittle balls, mallets, and other items.
![]() |
From Bentley & Trimen’s Medicinal Plants, by permission of J. & A. Churchill. |
Guaiacum or Lignum Vitae, Guaiacum officinale shoot-bearing leaves and flowers. 1, Fruit; 2, Vertical section of fruit, showing the solitary pendulous seed in each chamber. All about ½ natural size. |
Chips or turnings of the heartwood of G. officinale (guaiaci lignum) are employed in the preparation of the liquor sarsae compositus concentratus of British pharmacy. They may be recognized by being either yellow of greenish-brown in colour, and by turning bluish-green when treated with nitric acid, or when heated with corrosive sublimate, and green with solution of chloride of lime. They are occasionally adulterated with boxwood shavings. Lignum vitae is imported chiefly from St Domingo, the Bahamas and Jamaica.
Chips or shavings from the heartwood of G. officinale (guaiaci lignum) are used in making the liquor sarsae compositus concentratus in British pharmacy. They can be identified by their yellow or greenish-brown color and by turning bluish-green when treated with nitric acid, or when heated with corrosive sublimate, and green with a solution of chloride of lime. They are sometimes mixed with boxwood shavings. Lignum vitae is mainly imported from St. Domingo, the Bahamas, and Jamaica.
The bark was formerly used in medicine; it contains much calcium oxalate, and yields on incineration 23% of ash. Guaiacum resin, the guaiaci resina of pharmacopoeias, is obtained from the wood as an exudation from natural fissures or from incisions; by heating billets about 3 ft. in length, bored to permit of the outflow of the resin; or by boiling chips and raspings in water to which salt has been added to raise the temperature of ebullition. It occurs in rounded or oval tears, commonly coated with a greyish-green dust, and supposed to be the produce of G. sanctum, or in large brownish or greenish-brown masses, translucent at the edges; fuses at 85° C.; is brittle, and has a vitreous fracture, and a slightly balsamic odour, increased by pulverization and by heat; and is at first tasteless when chewed, but produces subsequently a sense of heat in the throat. It is readily soluble in alcohol, ether, chloroform, creosote, oil of cloves and solutions of caustic alkalies; and its solution gives a blue colour with gluten, raw potato parings and the roots of horse-radish, carrot and various other plants. The alcoholic tincture becomes green with sodium hypochlorite, and with nitric acid turns in succession green, blue and brown. With glycerin it gives a clear solution, and with nitrous ether a bluish-green gelatinous mass. It is blued by various oxidizing agents, e.g. ozone, and, as Schönbein discovered, by the juice of certain fungi. The chief constituents are three distinct resins, guaiaconic acid, C19H20O5 (70%), guaiac acid, which is closely allied to benzoic acid, and guaiaretic acid. Like all resins, these are insoluble in water, soluble in alkalies, but precipitated on neutralization of the alkaline solution.
The bark was once used in medicine; it has a lot of calcium oxalate and produces 23% ash when burned. Guaiacum resin, known as guaiaci resina in pharmacopoeias, is obtained from the wood either as a natural exudation from cracks or from incisions; by heating pieces about 3 feet long, drilled to allow the resin to flow out; or by boiling chips and shavings in water with added salt to raise the boiling point. It comes in rounded or oval tears, usually covered in a grayish-green dust, and is believed to be produced by G. sanctum, or in large brownish or greenish-brown lumps, translucent at the edges; melts at 85° C; is brittle, has a glassy fracture, and has a slightly balsamic smell, which intensifies when crushed or heated; initially tasteless when chewed, it eventually creates a warm sensation in the throat. It dissolves easily in alcohol, ether, chloroform, creosote, clove oil, and caustic alkali solutions; its solution turns blue with gluten, raw potato peels, and the roots of horseradish, carrot, and several other plants. The alcoholic tincture turns green with sodium hypochlorite and changes through green, blue, and brown with nitric acid. It forms a clear solution with glycerin and a bluish-green gelatinous mass with nitrous ether. It turns blue with various oxidizing agents, like ozone, and as Schönbein found out, with the juice of certain fungi. The main components are three distinct resins: guaiaconic acid, C19H20O5 (70%), guaiac acid, which is closely related to benzoic acid, and guaiaretic acid. Like all resins, these are insoluble in water, soluble in alkalis, but they precipitate when the alkaline solution is neutralized.
Guaiacum wood was first introduced into Europe by the Spaniards in 1508, and Nicolaus Poll, writing in 1517 (see Luisinus, De morbo gallico, p. 210, Ven., 1566), states that some three thousand persons in Spain had already been restored to health by it. The virtues of the resin, however, were not known until a later period, and in Thomas Paynel’s translation (Of the Wood called Guaiacum, &c., p. 9, ed. of 1540) of Ulrich von Hutten’s treatise De morbi gallici curatione per administrationem ligni guaiaci (1519) we read of the wood: “There followeth fro it, whan it bourneth a gomme, which we yet knowe not, for what pourpose it serueth.” Flückiger and Hanbury (Pharmacographia, p. 95) state that the first edition of the London Pharmacopoeia in which they find the resin mentioned is that of 1677. The decoction of the wood was administered in gout, the stone, palsy, leprosy, dropsy, epilepsy, and other diseases, but principally in the “morbus gallicus,” or syphilis, for which it was reckoned a certain specific, insomuch that at first “the physitions wolde not allowe it, perceyuynge that theyr profite wolde decay therby” (Paynel, op. cit. p. 8). Minute instructions are given in old works as to the mode of administering guaiacum. The patient was confined in a closed and heated chamber, was placed on the lowest possible diet, and, after liberal purgation, was made twice a day to drink a milk-warm decoction of the wood. The use of salt was specially to be avoided. A decoction of 1 ℔ of guaiacum was held to be sufficient for the four first days of the treatment. The earlier opinions as to the efficacy of guaiacum came to be much modified in the course of time, and Dr Pearson (Observations on the Effects of Various Articles of the Mat. Med. in the Cure of Lues Venerea, c. i., 2nd ed., 1807) says:—“I never saw one single instance in which the powers of this medicine eradicated the venereal virus.” He found its beneficial effects to be most marked in cases of secondary symptoms. Guaiacum resin is given medicinally in doses of 5-15 grains. Its important preparations in the British Pharmacopoeia are the mistura guiaci (dose ½-1 oz.), the ammoniated tincture of guaiacum (dose ½-1 drachm), in which the resin is dissolved by means of ammonia, and the trochiscus or lozenge, containing 3 grains of the resin. This lozenge is undoubtedly of value when given early in cases of sore throat, especially of rheumatic origin. Powdered guaiacum is also used.
Guaiacum wood was first brought to Europe by the Spaniards in 1508, and Nicolaus Poll, writing in 1517 (see Luisinus, De morbo gallico, p. 210, Ven., 1566), mentions that about three thousand people in Spain had already regained their health from it. However, the benefits of the resin weren’t recognized until later, and in Thomas Paynel’s translation (Of the Wood called Guaiacum, &c., p. 9, ed. of 1540) of Ulrich von Hutten’s treatise De morbi gallici curatione per administrationem ligni guaiaci (1519), it states about the wood: “There follows from it, when it burns, a gum, the purpose of which we do not yet know.” Flückiger and Hanbury (Pharmacographia, p. 95) note that the first edition of the London Pharmacopoeia to mention the resin was from 1677. A decoction of the wood was used for gout, kidney stones, paralysis, leprosy, swelling, epilepsy, and other diseases, but mainly for “morbus gallicus,” or syphilis, for which it was considered a sure cure, to the point where initially “the physicians would not accept it, realizing it would reduce their profits” (Paynel, op. cit. p. 8). Detailed instructions on how to administer guaiacum are found in older texts. The patient was kept in a closed and heated room, placed on a very restricted diet, and after thorough cleansing, was made to drink a warm decoction of the wood twice a day. Salt was to be strictly avoided. A decoction made from 1 pound of guaiacum was deemed enough for the first four days of treatment. Over time, earlier beliefs about guaiacum's effectiveness became significantly adjusted, and Dr. Pearson (Observations on the Effects of Various Articles of the Mat. Med. in the Cure of Lues Venerea, c. i., 2nd ed., 1807) stated: “I never saw a single case where this medicine completely eradicated the venereal virus.” He found that its positive effects were most apparent in cases of secondary symptoms. Guaiacum resin is given in medicinal doses of 5-15 grains. Its key preparations in the British Pharmacopoeia include mistura guiaci (dose ½-1 oz.), the ammoniated tincture of guaiacum (dose ½-1 drachm), where the resin is dissolved in ammonia, and the trochiscus or lozenge, containing 3 grains of the resin. This lozenge is definitely helpful when given early in cases of sore throat, especially if it’s rheumatic. Powdered guaiacum is also utilized.
Guaiacum resin differs pharmacologically from other resins in being less irritant, so that it is absorbed from the bowel and exerts remote stimulant actions, notably upon the skin and kidneys. It affects the bronchi but slightly, since it contains no volatile oil.
Guaiacum resin is different from other resins because it's less irritating, allowing it to be absorbed from the intestine and have stimulating effects on other parts of the body, especially the skin and kidneys. It has a minimal effect on the bronchi since it doesn't contain any volatile oil.
The drug is useful both in acute and chronic sore throat, the mixture, according to Sir Lauder Brunton, being more effective than the tincture. The aperient action, which it exerts less markedly than other members of its class, renders it useful in the treatment of chronic constipation. Sir Alfred Garrod has urged the claims of this drug in the treatment of chronic gout. Both in this disease and in other forms of chronic arthritis guaiacum may be given in combination with iodides, which it often enables the patient to tolerate. Guaiacum is not now used in the treatment of syphilis.
The drug is helpful for both acute and chronic sore throat, with the mixture being more effective than the tincture, according to Sir Lauder Brunton. Its laxative effect, which is less pronounced than that of other drugs in its class, makes it useful for treating chronic constipation. Sir Alfred Garrod has pointed out the benefits of this drug for managing chronic gout. In this condition and other types of chronic arthritis, guaiacum can be used alongside iodides, which it often helps the patient to tolerate. Guaiacum is no longer used to treat syphilis.
The tincture of guaiacum is universally used as a test for the presence of blood, or rather of haemoglobin, the red colouring matter of the blood, in urine or other secretions. This test was first suggested by Dr John Day of Geelong, Australia. A single drop of the tincture should be added to, say, an inch of urine in a test-tube. The resin is at once precipitated, yielding a milky fluid. If “ozonic ether”—an ethereal solution of hydrogen peroxide—be now poured gently into the test-tube, a deep blue coloration is produced along the line of contact if haemoglobin be present. The reaction is due to the oxidation of the resin by the peroxide of hydrogen—such oxidation occurring only if haemoglobin be present to act as an oxygen-carrier.
The tincture of guaiacum is widely used as a test for the presence of blood, specifically hemoglobin, the red pigment in blood, in urine or other secretions. This test was first proposed by Dr. John Day from Geelong, Australia. A single drop of the tincture should be added to about an inch of urine in a test tube. The resin immediately precipitates, creating a milky fluid. If “ozonic ether”—an ethereal solution of hydrogen peroxide—is then gently poured into the test tube, a deep blue color appears along the line of contact if hemoglobin is present. This reaction happens because the resin is oxidized by the hydrogen peroxide, and this oxidation only occurs if hemoglobin is available to act as an oxygen carrier.
GUALDO TADINO (anc. Tadinum, 1 m. to the W.), a town and episcopal see of Umbria, Italy, 1755 ft. above sea-level, in the province of Perugia, 22 m. N. of Foligno by rail. Pop. (1901), town, 4440; commune, 10,756. The suffix Tadino distinguishes it from Gualdo in the province of Macerata, and Gualdo Cattaneo, S.W. of Foligno. The cathedral has a good rose-window and possesses, like several of the other churches, 15th-century paintings by Umbrian artists, especially works by Niccolò Alunno. The town is still surrounded by walls. The ancient Tadinum lay 1 m. to the W. of the modern town. It is mentioned in the Eugubine tablets (see Iguvium) as a hostile city against which imprecations are directed. In its neighbourhood Narses defeated and slew Totila in 552. No ruins are now visible, though they seem to have been extant in the 17th century. The new town seems to have been founded in 1237. It was at first independent, but passed under Perugia in 1292, and later became dependent on the duchy of Spoleto.
Gualdo Tadino (formerly Tadinum, 1 mile to the west), is a town and episcopal see located in Umbria, Italy, at an elevation of 1755 feet above sea level, in the province of Perugia, 22 miles north of Foligno by rail. The population in 1901 was 4,440 for the town and 10,756 for the commune. The suffix Tadino distinguishes it from Gualdo in the province of Macerata and Gualdo Cattaneo, southwest of Foligno. The cathedral features a beautiful rose window and, like several other churches in the area, contains 15th-century paintings by Umbrian artists, particularly works by Niccolò Alunno. The town is still enclosed by walls. The ancient Tadinum was located 1 mile to the west of the present town. It is noted in the Eugubine tablets (see Iguvium) as a city that was hostile and faced curses. Nearby, Narses defeated and killed Totila in 552. No ruins are visible today, although they appear to have existed in the 17th century. The new town seems to have been established in 1237. Initially independent, it came under the control of Perugia in 1292 and later became subject to the duchy of Spoleto.
GUALEGUAY, a flourishing town and river port of the province of Entre Rios, Argentine Republic, on the Gualeguay river, 32 m. above its confluence with the Ibicuy branch of the Paraná, and about 120 m. N.N.W. of Buenos Aires. Pop. (1895) 7810. The Gualeguay is the largest of the Entre Rios rivers, traversing almost the whole length of the province from N. to S., but it is of but slight service in the transportation of produce except the few miles below Gualeguay, whose port, known as Puerto Ruiz, is 7 m. lower down stream. A steam tramway connects the town and port, and a branch line connects with Entre Rios railways at the station of Tala. The principal industry in this region is that of stock-raising, and there is a large exportation of cattle, jerked beef, hides, tallow, mutton, wool and sheep-skins. Wood and charcoal are also exported to Buenos Aires. The town was founded in 1783.
GUALEGUAY, is a growing town and river port in the province of Entre Rios, Argentina, located on the Gualeguay River, 32 meters above where it meets the Ibicuy branch of the Paraná, and about 120 kilometers north-northwest of Buenos Aires. Population (1895) 7,810. The Gualeguay is the largest river in Entre Rios, running nearly the entire length of the province from north to south, but it's not very effective for transporting goods except for a few miles downstream from Gualeguay, where the port known as Puerto Ruiz is located 7 kilometers further along. A steam tramway connects the town and the port, and there's a branch line that links to the Entre Rios railways at the Tala station. The main industry in this area is cattle ranching, with significant exports of cattle, jerked beef, hides, tallow, mutton, wool, and sheep skins. Wood and charcoal are also shipped to Buenos Aires. The town was established in 1783.
GUALEGUAYCHÚ, a prosperous commercial and industrial town and port of the province of Entre Rios, Argentine Republic, on the left bank of the Gualeguaychú river, 11 m. above its confluence with the Uruguay, and 120 m. N. of Buenos Aires. Pop. (1892, est.) 14,000. It is the chief town of a department of the same name, the largest in the province. A bar at the mouth of the river prevents the entrance of larger vessels and 648 compels the transfer of cargoes to and from lighters. The town is surrounded by a rich grazing country, and exports cattle, jerked beef, mutton, hides, pelts, tallow, wool and various by-products. A branch line running N. connects with the Entre Rios railways at Basavilbaso. The town was founded in 1783.
Gualeguaychú, is a thriving commercial and industrial town and port in the province of Entre Rios, Argentina, located on the left bank of the Gualeguaychú River, 11 meters above where it meets the Uruguay River, and 120 kilometers north of Buenos Aires. The estimated population in 1892 was 14,000. It serves as the main town of the department of the same name, which is the largest in the province. A bar at the river's mouth prevents larger vessels from entering, requiring cargoes to be transferred to and from smaller boats. The town is surrounded by fertile grazing land and exports cattle, jerky, mutton, hides, pelts, tallow, wool, and various by-products. A branch line running north connects to the Entre Rios railways at Basavilbaso. The town was established in 1783.
GUALO, CARDINAL (fl. 1216), was sent to England by Pope Innocent III. in 1216. He supported John with all the weight of papal authority. After John’s death he crowned the infant Henry III. and played an active part in organizing resistance to the rebels led by Louis of France, afterwards king Louis VIII. As representing the pope, the suzerain of Henry, he claimed the regency and actually divided the chief power with William Marshal, earl of Pembroke. He proclaimed a crusade against Louis and the French, and, after the peace of Lambeth, he forced Louis to make a public and humiliating profession of penitence (1217). He punished the rebellious clergy severely, and ruled the church with an absolute hand till his departure from England in 1218. Gualo’s character has been severely criticized by English writers; but his chief offence seems to have been that of representing unpopular papal claims.
GUALO, CARDINAL (fl. 1216) was sent to England by Pope Innocent III in 1216. He backed John with the full weight of papal authority. After John’s death, he crowned the young Henry III and played a significant role in organizing resistance against the rebels led by Louis of France, who later became King Louis VIII. As the pope’s representative, the overlord of Henry, he claimed the regency and actually shared the main power with William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke. He announced a crusade against Louis and the French, and after the peace of Lambeth, he compelled Louis to publicly and humbly confess his wrongdoing (1217). He severely punished the rebellious clergy and ruled the church with an iron fist until he left England in 1218. Gualo’s character has faced harsh criticism from English writers, but his main offense seems to have been representing unpopular papal claims.
GUAM (Span. Guajan; Guahan, in the native Chamorro), the largest and most populous of the Ladrone or Mariana Islands, in the North Pacific, in 13° 26′ N. lat. and 144° 39′ E. long., about 1823 m. E. by S. of Hong Kong, and about 1450 m. E. of Manila. Pop. (1908) about 11,360, of whom 363 were foreigners, 140 being members of the U.S. naval force. Guam extends about 30 m. from N.N.E. to S.S.W., has an average width of about 6½ m., and has an area of 207 sq. m. The N. portion is a plateau from 300 to 600 ft. above the sea, lowest in the interior and highest along the E. and W. coast, where it terminates abruptly in bluffs and headlands; Mt Santa Rosa, toward the N. extremity, has an elevation of 840 ft. A range of hills from 700 to nearly 1300 ft. in height traverses the S. portion from N. to S. a little W. of the middle—Mt Jumullong Mangloc, the highest peak, has an elevation of 1274 ft. Between the foot of the steep W. slope of these hills and the sea is a belt of rolling lowlands and to the E. the surface is broken by the valleys of five rivers with a number of tributaries, has a general slope toward the sea, and terminates in a coast-line of bluffs. Apra (formerly San Luis d’Apra) on the middle W. coast is the only good harbour; it is about 3½ m. across, has a depth of 4-27 fathoms, and is divided into an inner and an outer harbour by a peninsula and an island. It serves as a naval station and as a port of transit between America and the Philippines, at which army transports call monthly. Deer, wild hog, duck, curlew, snipe and pigeon are abundant game, and several varieties of fish are caught. Some of the highest points of the island are nearly bare of vegetation, and the more elevated plateau surface is covered with sword grass, but in the valleys and on the lower portions of the plateaus there is valuable timber. The lowlands have a rich soil; in lower parts of the highlands raised coralliferous limestone with a light covering of soil appears, and in the higher parts the soil is entirely of clay and silt. The climate is agreeable and healthy. From December to June the N.E. trade winds prevail and the rainfall is relatively light; during the other six months the monsoon blows and produces the rainy season. Destructive typhoons and earthquakes sometimes visit Guam. The island is thought to possess little if any mineral wealth, with the possible exception of coal. Only a small part of Guam is under cultivation, and most of this lies along the S.W. coast, its chief products being cocoanuts, rice, sugar, coffee and cacao. A United States Agricultural Experiment Station in Guam (at Agaña) was provided for in 1908.
GUAM (Spanish Guajan; Guahan, in the native Chamorro), the largest and most populated of the Ladrone or Mariana Islands, is located in the North Pacific at 13° 26′ N. lat. and 144° 39′ E. long., about 1823 km E by S of Hong Kong and about 1450 km E of Manila. The population in 1908 was around 11,360, including 363 foreigners, with 140 being members of the U.S. naval force. Guam is approximately 30 miles long from N.N.E. to S.S.W., with an average width of about 6½ miles, covering an area of 207 square miles. The northern part is a plateau that rises from 300 to 600 feet above sea level, lowest in the interior and highest along the eastern and western coasts, where it drops sharply into cliffs and headlands; Mt. Santa Rosa, near the northern tip, stands at 840 feet. A range of hills, rising from 700 to nearly 1300 feet, runs through the southern part from north to south, just west of the center—Mt. Jumullong Mangloc, the tallest peak, reaches 1274 feet. Between the steep western slope of these hills and the sea is a stretch of rolling lowlands, while to the east, the landscape is carved by the valleys of five rivers and their tributaries, generally sloping toward the sea, ending in a coastline of cliffs. Apra (formerly San Luis d’Apra) on the central western coast is the only good harbor; it is about 3½ miles wide, has depths ranging from 4 to 27 fathoms, and is separated into inner and outer harbors by a peninsula and an island. It acts as a naval station and a transit port between America and the Philippines, with army transports arriving monthly. Wildlife such as deer, wild hogs, ducks, curlews, snipe, and pigeons are plentiful, and various fish are commonly caught. Some of the highest island areas are nearly bare of vegetation, while the higher plateau surfaces are covered with sword grass; however, the valleys and lower plateau areas contain valuable timber. The lowlands boast rich soil; in the lower highlands, you'll find coral limestone with a thin soil layer, and in the higher areas, the soil consists entirely of clay and silt. The climate is pleasant and healthy. From December to June, the N.E. trade winds dominate, bringing relatively light rainfall; during the other six months, the monsoon occurs, leading to the rainy season. Guam can occasionally experience destructive typhoons and earthquakes. The island is believed to have little, if any, mineral resources, possibly only coal. Only a small portion of Guam is cultivated, mainly along the S.W. coast, with its primary products being coconuts, rice, sugar, coffee, and cacao. A United States Agricultural Experiment Station was established in Guam (at Agaña) in 1908.
The inhabitants are of the Chamorro (Indonesian) stock, strongly intermixed with Philippine Tagals and Spaniards; their speech is a dialect of Malay, corrupted by Tagal and Spanish. There are very few full-blood Chamorros. The aboriginal native was of a very dark mahogany or chocolate colour. A majority of the total number of natives live in Agaña. The natives are nearly all farmers, and most of them are poor, but their condition has been improved under American rule. Public schools have been established; in 1908 the enrolment was 1700. On the island there is a small colony of lepers, segregated only after American occupation. Gangrosa is a disease said to be peculiar to Guam and the neighbouring islands; it is due to a specific bacillus and usually destroys the nasal septum. The victims of this disease also are segregated. There is a good general hospital.
The residents are of Chamorro (Indonesian) descent, closely mixed with Philippine Tagals and Spaniards; their language is a dialect of Malay, influenced by Tagalog and Spanish. There are very few pure Chamorros left. The original natives had very dark mahogany or chocolate skin. Most of the local population lives in Agaña. Nearly all the natives are farmers, and most live in poverty, but their situation has improved under American rule. Public schools were established; in 1908, the enrollment was 1,700. There’s a small leper colony on the island, which was separated only after American occupation. Gangrosa is a disease thought to be unique to Guam and the surrounding islands; it is caused by a specific bacillus and usually leads to the destruction of the nasal septum. The people affected by this disease are also segregated. There is a decent general hospital.
Agaña (or San Ignacio de Agaña) is the capital and principal town; under the Spanish régime it was the capital of the Ladrones. It is about 5 m. N.E. of Piti, the landing-place of Apra harbour and port of entry, with which it is connected by an excellent road. Agaña has paved streets and sewer and water systems. Other villages, all small, are Asan, Piti, Sumay, Umata, Merizo and Inarajan. Guam is governed by a “naval governor,” an officer of the U.S. navy who is commandant of the naval station. The island is divided into four administrative districts, each with an executive head called a gobernadorcillo (commissioner), and there are a court of appeals, a court of first instance and courts of justices of the peace. Peonage was abolished in the island by the United States in February 1900. Telegraphic communication with the Caroline Islands was established in 1905; in 1908 there were four cables ending at the relay station at Sumay on the Shore of Apra harbour.
Agaña (or San Ignacio de Agaña) is the capital and main town; during the Spanish rule, it was the capital of the Ladrones. It is about 5 miles northeast of Piti, the landing spot for Apra harbor and port of entry, which is connected to it by a good road. Agaña has paved streets, along with sewer and water systems. Other small villages include Asan, Piti, Sumay, Umata, Merizo, and Inarajan. Guam is governed by a "naval governor," an officer of the U.S. Navy who is in charge of the naval station. The island is divided into four administrative districts, each headed by an executive called a gobernadorcillo (commissioner), and there is a court of appeals, a court of first instance, and justice of the peace courts. Peonage was abolished on the island by the United States in February 1900. Telegraphic communication with the Caroline Islands began in 1905; by 1908, there were four cables ending at the relay station in Sumay on the shore of Apra harbor.
Guam was discovered by Magellan in 1521, was occupied by Spain in 1688, was captured by the United States cruiser “Charleston” in June 1899, and was ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris on the 10th of December 1898.
Guam was discovered by Magellan in 1521, taken over by Spain in 1688, captured by the U.S. cruiser “Charleston” in June 1899, and was ceded to the United States through the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898.
See A List of Books (with References to Periodicals) on Samoa and Guam (1901; issued by the Library of Congress); L. M. Cox, “The Island of Guam,” in Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, vol. 36 (New York, 1904); Gen. Joseph Wheeler, Report on the Island of Guam, June 1900 (War Department, Document No. 123); F. W. Christian, The Caroline Islands (London, 1899); an account of the flora of Guam by W. E. Safford in the publications of the National Herbarium (Smithsonian Institution); and the reports of the naval governor.
See A List of Books (with References to Periodicals) on Samoa and Guam (1901; issued by the Library of Congress); L. M. Cox, “The Island of Guam,” in Bulletin of the American Geographical Society, vol. 36 (New York, 1904); Gen. Joseph Wheeler, Report on the Island of Guam, June 1900 (War Department, Document No. 123); F. W. Christian, The Caroline Islands (London, 1899); an account of the flora of Guam by W. E. Safford in the publications of the National Herbarium (Smithsonian Institution); and the reports of the naval governor.
GUAN, a word apparently first introduced into the ornithologist’s vocabulary about 1743 by Edwards,1 who said that a bird he figured (Nat. Hist. Uncommon Birds, pl. xiii.) was “so called in the West Indies,” and the name has hence been generally applied to all the members of the subfamily Penelopinae, which are distinguished from the kindred subfamily Cracinae or curassows by the broad postacetabular area of the pelvis as pointed out by Huxley (Proc. Zool. Society, 1868, p. 297) as well as by their maxilla being wider than it is high, with its culmen depressed, the crown feathered, and the nostrils bare—the last two characters separating the Penelopinae from the Oreophasinae, which form the third subfamily of the Cracidae,2 a family belonging to that taxonomer’s division Peristeropodes of the order Gallinae.
GUAN, a term that seems to have been first introduced into birdwatchers' language around 1743 by Edwards,1 who mentioned a bird he illustrated (Nat. Hist. Uncommon Birds, pl. xiii.) was “called that in the West Indies,” and the name has since been generally used for all the members of the subfamily Penelopinae. These birds are distinguished from the related subfamily Cracinae, or curassows, by their broad postacetabular area of the pelvis as noted by Huxley (Proc. Zool. Society, 1868, p. 297), and by their maxilla being wider than it is high, with a depressed culmen, feathered crown, and bare nostrils—the latter two traits setting the Penelopinae apart from the Oreophasinae, which make up the third subfamily of the Cracidae,2 a family classified under that taxonomist’s division Peristeropodes within the order Gallinae.
The Penelopinae have been separated into seven genera, of which Penelope and Ortalis, containing respectively about sixteen and nineteen species, are the largest, the others numbering from one to three only. Into their minute differences it would be useless to enter: nearly all have the throat bare of feathers, and from that of many of them hangs a wattle; but one form, Chamaepetes, has neither of these features, and Stegnolaema, though wattled, has the throat clothed. With few exceptions the guans are confined to the South-American continent; one species of Penelope is however found in Mexico (e.g. at Mazatlan), Pipile cumanensis inhabits Trinidad as well as the mainland, while three species of Ortalis occur in Mexico or Texas, and one, which is also common to Venezuela, in Tobago. Like curassows, guans are in great measure of arboreal habit. They also readily 649 become tame, but all attempts to domesticate them in the full sense of the word have wholly failed, and the cases in which they have even been induced to breed and the young have been reared in confinement are very few. Yet it would seem that guans and curassows will interbreed with poultry (Ibis, 1866, p. 24; Bull. Soc. Imp. d’Acclimatation, 1868, p. 559; 1869, p. 357), and what is more extraordinary is that in Texas the hybrids between the chiacalacca (Ortalis vetula) and the domestic fowl are asserted to be far superior to ordinary game-cocks for fighting purposes.
The Penelopinae are divided into seven genera, with Penelope and Ortalis being the largest, containing about sixteen and nineteen species, respectively, while the others have only one to three species each. It’s not worth delving into their minor differences: almost all have bare throats, and many have a wattle hanging from there; however, one type, Chamaepetes, lacks both features, and Stegnolaema, though it has a wattle, has feathers on its throat. With a few exceptions, guans are found mainly in South America; one species of Penelope can be found in Mexico (e.g., in Mazatlan), Pipile cumanensis lives in Trinidad as well as the mainland, while three species of Ortalis are found in Mexico or Texas, and one, which is also common in Venezuela, is in Tobago. Like curassows, guans mostly prefer to live in trees. They can become quite tame, but all attempts to fully domesticate them have failed, and there are very few instances of them being successfully bred in captivity and raising their young. Surprisingly, it appears that guans and curassows can interbreed with domestic birds (Ibis, 1866, p. 24; Bull. Soc. Imp. d’Acclimatation, 1868, p. 559; 1869, p. 357), and even more remarkably, in Texas, hybrids between the chiacalacca (Ortalis vetula) and domestic chickens are said to be much better than regular gamecocks for fighting.
1 Edwards also gives “quan” as an alternative spelling, and this may be nearer the original form, since we find Dampier in 1676 writing (Voy. ii. pt. 2, p. 66) of what was doubtless an allied if not the same bird as the “quam.” The species represented by Edwards does not seem to have been identified.
1 Edwards also lists “quan” as another spelling, which might be closer to the original form, as Dampier noted in 1676 (Voy. ii. pt. 2, p. 66) what was likely a related, if not the same, bird referred to as the “quam.” The species depicted by Edwards doesn’t appear to have been identified.
2 See the excellent Synopsis by Sclater and Salvin in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society for 1870 (pp. 504-544), while further information on the Cracinae was given by Sclater in the Transactions of the same society (ix. pp. 273-288, pls. xl.-liii.). Some additions have since been made to the knowledge of the family, but none of very great importance.
2 Check out the excellent Synopsis by Sclater and Salvin in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society for 1870 (pp. 504-544). Additional information on the Cracinae was provided by Sclater in the Transactions of the same society (ix. pp. 273-288, pls. xl.-liii.). Since then, some updates have been made to the understanding of the family, but none are very significant.
GUANABACOA (an Indian name meaning “site of the waters”), a town of Cuba, in Havana province, about 6 m. E. of Havana. Pop. (1907) 14,368. Guanabacoa is served by railway to Havana, with which it is connected by the Regla ferry across the bay. It is picturesquely situated amid woods, on high hills which furnish a fine view. There are medicinal springs in the town, and deposits of liquid bitumen in the neighbouring hills. The town is essentially a residence suburb of the capital, and has some rather pretty streets and squares and some old and interesting churches (including Nuestra Señora de la Asuncion, 1714-1721). Just outside the city is the church of Potosi with a famous “wonder-working” shrine and image. An Indian pueblo of the same name existed here before 1555, and a church was established in 1576. Already at the end of the 17th century Guanabacoa was the fashionable summer residence of Havana. It enjoyed its greatest popularity in this respect from the end of the 18th to the middle of the 19th century. It was created a villa with an ayuntamiento (city council) in 1743. In 1762 its fort, the Little Morro, on the N. shore near Cojimar (a bathing beach, where the Key West cable now lands), was taken by the English.
GUANABACOA (an Indigenous name meaning “site of the waters”) is a town in Cuba, located in Havana province, about 6 miles east of Havana. Its population was 14,368 in 1907. Guanabacoa has rail service to Havana and is connected by the Regla ferry across the bay. The town is beautifully set among woods, on high hills that offer great views. There are medicinal springs in the town, and liquid bitumen deposits in the nearby hills. It primarily serves as a residential suburb of the capital, featuring some charming streets and squares, along with several old and interesting churches, including Nuestra Señora de la Asuncion, built between 1714 and 1721. Just outside the city is the church of Potosi, known for its famous “miracle-working” shrine and image. An Indigenous pueblo of the same name existed here before 1555, and a church was established in 1576. By the end of the 17th century, Guanabacoa had become a fashionable summer getaway for Havana’s elite. It reached its peak popularity in this regard from the late 18th century to the mid-19th century. Guanabacoa was designated a villa with an ayuntamiento (city council) in 1743. In 1762, the English captured its fort, the Little Morro, located on the northern shore near Cojimar (a beach where the Key West cable now lands).
![]() |
Head of Guanaco. |
GUANACO, sometimes spelt Huanaca, the larger of the two wild representatives in South America of the camel tribe; the other being the vicugña. The guanaco (Lama huanacus), which stands nearly 4 ft. at the shoulder, is an elegant creature, with gracefully curved neck and long slender legs, the hind-pair of the latter bearing two naked patches or callosities. The head and body are covered with long soft hair of a fawn colour above and almost pure white beneath. Guanaco are found throughout the southern half of South America, from Peru in the north to Cape Horn in the south, but occur in greatest abundance in Patagonia. They live in herds usually of from six to thirty, although these occasionally contain several hundreds, while solitary individuals are sometimes met. They are exceedingly timid, and therefore wary and difficult of approach; like many other ruminants, however, their curiosity sometimes overcomes their timidity, so as to bring them within range of the hunter’s rifle. Their cry is peculiar, being something between the belling of a deer and the neigh of a horse. The chief enemies of the guanaco are the Patagonian Indians and the puma, as it forms the principal food of both. Its flesh is palatable although wanting in fat, while its skin forms the chief clothing material of the Patagonians. Guanaco are readily domesticated, and in this state become very bold and will attack man, striking him from behind with both knees. In the wild state they never defend themselves, and if approached from different points, according to the Indian fashion of hunting, get completely bewildered and fall an easy prey. They take readily to the water, and have been observed swimming from one island to another, while they have been seen drinking salt-water. They have a habit of depositing their droppings during successive days on the same spot—a habit appreciated by the Peruvian Indians, who use those deposits for fuel. Guanaco also have favourite localities in which to die, as appears from the great heaps of their bones found in particular spots.
GUANACO, sometimes spelled Huanaca, is the larger of the two wild animals in South America that belong to the camel family, the other being the vicuña. The guanaco (Lama huanacus), which stands almost 4 feet tall at the shoulder, is a graceful animal, with a nicely curved neck and long slim legs, the back pair of which have two bare patches or callosities. Its head and body are covered with long, soft fur that is a fawn color on top and almost pure white underneath. Guanacos are found all over the southern half of South America, from Peru in the north to Cape Horn in the south, but they are most abundant in Patagonia. They usually live in herds of six to thirty, though sometimes a herd can have several hundred, and solitary individuals can also be encountered. They are extremely shy, making them wary and hard to approach; however, like many other grazing animals, their curiosity can sometimes get the better of their fear, bringing them within the hunter's range. Their call is unique, sounding like a mix between a deer’s bellow and a horse’s neigh. The main predators of the guanaco are the Patagonian Indians and the puma, as these animals primarily feed on them. Their meat is tasty but low in fat, while their skin is the main clothing material for the Patagonians. Guanacos can be easily domesticated, and when tamed, they become quite bold and can attack humans, striking from behind with both knees. In the wild, they do not defend themselves and, if approached from different angles as the Indians often hunt, they become confused and fall prey easily. They are good swimmers and have been seen crossing from one island to another and drinking salt water. They have a habit of leaving their droppings in the same spot over several days—a practice valued by the Peruvian Indians, who use those droppings as fuel. Guanacos also have preferred locations where they tend to die, as indicated by the large piles of their bones found in specific areas.
GUANAJAY, a town of western Cuba, in Pinar del Rio province, about 36 m. (by rail) S.W. of Havana. Pop. (1907) 6400. Guanajay is served by the W. branch of the United railways of Havana, of which it is the W. terminus. The town lies among hills, has an excellent climate, and in colonial times was (like Holguín) an acclimatization station for troops fresh from Spain; it now has considerable repute as a health resort. The surrounding country is a fertile sugar and tobacco region. Guanajay has always been important as a distributing point in the commerce of the western end of the island. It was an ancient pueblo, of considerable size and importance as early as the end of the 18th century.
GUANAJAY, is a town in western Cuba, located in Pinar del Rio province, about 36 miles (by rail) southwest of Havana. Population (1907) was 6,400. Guanajay is served by the western branch of the United railways of Havana, which terminates here. The town is situated among hills, boasts an excellent climate, and in colonial times was (like Holguín) used as an acclimatization station for troops coming from Spain; it now has a good reputation as a health resort. The surrounding area is a fertile region for sugar and tobacco. Guanajay has always been significant as a distribution point for commerce in the western part of the island. It was a major village, considerable in size and importance, as early as the late 18th century.
GUANAJUATO, or Guanaxuato, an inland state of Mexico, bounded N. by Zacatecas and San Luis Potosi, E. by Querétaro, S. by Michoacan and W. by Jalisco. Area, 11,370 sq. m. It is one of the most densely populated states of the republic; pop. (1895) 1,047,817; (1900) 1,061,724. The state lies wholly within the limits of the great central plateau of Mexico, and has an average elevation of about 6000 ft. The surface of its northern half is broken by the Sierra Gorda and Sierra de Guanajuato, but its southern half is covered by fertile plains largely devoted to agriculture. It is drained by the Rio Grande de Lerma and its tributaries, which in places flow through deeply eroded valleys. The climate is semi-tropical and healthy, and the rainfall is sufficient to insure good results in agriculture and stock-raising. In the warm valleys sugar-cane is grown, and at higher elevations Indian corn, beans, barley and wheat. The southern plains are largely devoted to stock-raising. Guanajuato has suffered much from the destruction of its forests, but there remain some small areas on the higher elevations of the north. The principal industry of the state is mining, the mineral wealth of the mountain ranges of the north being enormous. Among its mineral products are silver, gold, tin, lead, mercury, copper and opals. Silver has been extracted since the early days of the Spanish conquest, over $800,000,000 having been taken from the mines during the subsequent three and a half centuries. Some of the more productive of these mines, or groups of mines, are the Veta Madre (mother lode), the San Bernabé lode, and the Rayas mines of Guanajuato, and the La Valenciana mine, the output of which is said to have been $226,000,000 between 1766 and 1826. The manufacturing establishments include flour mills, tanneries and manufactories of leather, cotton and woollen mills, distilleries, foundries and potteries. The Mexican Central and the Mexican National railway lines cross the state from N. to S., and the former operates a short branch from Silao to the state capital and another westward from Irapuato to Guadalajara. The capital is Guanajuato, and other important cities and towns are León, or León de las Aldamas; Celaya (pop. 25,565 in 1900), an important railway junction 22 m. by rail W. from Querétaro, and known for its manufactures of broadcloth, saddlery, soap and sweetmeats; Irapuato (18,593 in 1900), a railway junction and commercial centre, 21 m. S. by W. of Guanajuato; Silao (15,355), a railway junction and manufacturing town (woollens and cottons), 14 m. S.W. of Guanajuato; Salamanca (13,583). on the Mexican Central railway and Lerma river, 25 m. S. by E. of Guanajuato, with manufactures of cottons and porcelain; Allende (10,547), a commercial town 30 m. E. by S. of Guanajuato, with mineral springs; Valle de Santiago (12,660). 50 m. W. by S. of Querétaro; Salvatierra (10,393), 60 m. S.E. of Guanajuato; Cortazar (8633); La Luz (8318), in a rich mining district; Pénjamo (8262); Santa Cruz (7239); San Francisco del Rincón (10,904), 39 m. W. of Guanajuato in a rich mining district; and Acambaro (8345), a prosperous town of the plain, 76 m. S.S.E. of Guanajuato.
GUANAJUATO, or Guanajuato, is an inland state in Mexico, bordered to the north by Zacatecas and San Luis Potosí, to the east by Querétaro, to the south by Michoacán, and to the west by Jalisco. Its area is 11,370 square miles. It is one of the most densely populated states in the country, with a population of (1895) 1,047,817 and (1900) 1,061,724. The state is entirely located within the limits of Mexico's central plateau and has an average elevation of about 6,000 feet. The northern half of the state features the Sierra Gorda and Sierra de Guanajuato mountain ranges, while the southern half consists of fertile plains primarily used for agriculture. The region is drained by the Río Grande de Lerma and its tributaries, which flow through deeply eroded valleys in some areas. The climate is semi-tropical and healthy, and the rainfall is enough to ensure good agricultural and livestock results. In the warmer valleys, sugarcane is cultivated, and at higher elevations, crops like corn, beans, barley, and wheat are grown. The southern plains mainly support livestock farming. Guanajuato has faced significant deforestation, but some small forested areas still exist in the northern highlands. The state's main industry is mining, with immense mineral wealth in its northern mountain ranges. Notable mineral products include silver, gold, tin, lead, mercury, copper, and opals. Silver mining has been ongoing since the early Spanish conquest, with over $800,000,000 extracted from the mines in the ensuing three and a half centuries. Some of the most productive mines or groups of mines include the Veta Madre (mother lode), the San Bernabé lode, the Rayas mines of Guanajuato, and the La Valenciana mine, which reportedly produced $226,000,000 between 1766 and 1826. Manufacturing activities include flour mills, tanneries, leather factories, cotton and wool mills, distilleries, foundries, and pottery. The Mexican Central and the Mexican National railways run through the state from north to south, with a branch connecting Silao to the state capital and another extending west from Irapuato to Guadalajara. The capital is Guanajuato, and other important cities and towns include León (or León de las Aldamas); Celaya (population 25,565 in 1900), a crucial railway junction 22 miles west of Querétaro known for its production of broadcloth, saddlery, soap, and sweets; Irapuato (18,593 in 1900), a railway junction and commercial hub located 21 miles south by west of Guanajuato; Silao (15,355), another railway junction and manufacturing town (producing wool and cotton), 14 miles southwest of Guanajuato; Salamanca (13,583), situated on the Mexican Central railway and along the Lerma river, 25 miles southeast of Guanajuato, known for its cotton and porcelain manufacturing; Allende (10,547), a commercial town 30 miles east by south of Guanajuato featuring mineral springs; Valle de Santiago (12,660), located 50 miles southwest of Querétaro; Salvatierra (10,393), 60 miles southeast of Guanajuato; Cortázar (8,633); La Luz (8,318), in a valuable mining area; Pénjamo (8,262); Santa Cruz (7,239); San Francisco del Rincón (10,904), 39 miles west of Guanajuato in a rich mining area; and Acámbaro (8,345), a thriving town on the plain, 76 miles south-southeast of Guanajuato.
GUANAJUATO, or Santa Fé de Guanajuato, a city of Mexico and capital of the above state, 155 m. (direct) N.W. of the Federal capital, on a small tributary of the Rio Grande de Lerma or Santiago. Pop. (1895) 39,404; (1900) 41,486. The city is built in the Cañada de Marfil at the junction of three ravines about 6500 ft. above the sea, and its narrow, tortuous streets rise steeply as they follow the ravines upward to the mining villages clustered about the opening of the mines in the hillsides. Guanajuato is sometimes described as a collection of mining villages; but in addition there is the central city with its crowded winding streets, its substantial old Spanish buildings, its fifty ore-crushing mills and busy factories and its bustling commercial life. Enclosing the city are the steep, barren mountain sides honeycombed with mines. The climate is semi-tropical and is considered healthy. The noteworthy public buildings and institutions are an interesting old Jesuit church with arches of pink stone and delicate carving, eight monasteries, the government palace, a mint dating from 1812, a national college, the fine Teatro Juárez, and the Pantheon, or public cemetery, with catacombs below. The Alhóndiga de Granaditas, originally a public granary, was used as a fort during the War of Independence, and is celebrated as the scene of the first battle (1810) in that long struggle. Among the manufactures are cottons, prints, soaps, chemicals, pottery and silverware, but mining is the principal interest and occupation of the population. The silver mines of the vicinity were long considered the richest in Mexico, the celebrated Veta Madre (mother lode) even being described as the richest in the world; and Guanajuato has the largest reduction works in Mexico. The railway outlet for the city consists of a short branch of the Mexican Central, which joins the trunk line at Silao. Guanajuato was founded in 1554. It attained the dignity of a city in 1741. It was celebrated for its vigorous resistance to the invaders at the time of the Spanish conquest, and was repeatedly sacked during that war.
GUANAJUATO, or Santa Fe de Guanajuato, is a city in Mexico and the capital of the state of Guanajuato, located 155 miles (direct) northwest of the Federal capital, on a small tributary of the Rio Grande de Lerma or Santiago. Population: (1895) 39,404; (1900) 41,486. The city is situated in the Cañada de Marfil at the meeting point of three ravines, about 6,500 feet above sea level, with narrow, winding streets that steeply ascend as they follow the ravines up to the mining villages surrounding the mine openings in the hills. Guanajuato is often described as a collection of mining villages; however, it also features a central city with bustling, winding streets, sturdy old Spanish buildings, fifty ore-crushing mills, busy factories, and a vibrant commercial scene. The city is surrounded by steep, barren mountains that are filled with mines. The climate is semi-tropical and generally regarded as healthy. Notable public buildings and institutions include an intriguing old Jesuit church with pink stone arches and intricate carvings, eight monasteries, the government palace, a mint established in 1812, a national college, the impressive Teatro Juárez, and the Pantheon, or public cemetery, which has catacombs below. The Alhóndiga de Granaditas, originally a public granary, served as a fortress during the War of Independence and is famous as the site of the first battle (1810) in that prolonged conflict. The city produces cottons, prints, soaps, chemicals, pottery, and silverware, but mining remains the primary focus and occupation of the local population. The nearby silver mines have historically been considered some of the richest in Mexico, with the famous Veta Madre (mother lode) even noted as the richest in the world; Guanajuato houses the largest reduction works in Mexico. The city has a rail connection consisting of a short branch of the Mexican Central, which connects to the main line at Silao. Guanajuato was founded in 1554 and became officially recognized as a city in 1741. It was well-known for its strong resistance against invaders during the Spanish conquest and was frequently looted during that conflict.
GUANCHES, Guanchis or Guanchos (native Guanchinet; Guan = person, Chinet = Teneriffe,—“man of Teneriffe,” corrupted, according to Nuñez de la Peña, by Spaniards into Guanchos), the aboriginal inhabitants of the Canary Islands. Strictly the Guanches were the primitive inhabitants of Teneriffe, where they seem to have preserved racial purity to the time of the Spanish conquest, but the name came to be applied to the indigenous populations of all the islands. The Guanches, now extinct as a distinct people, appear, from the study of skulls and bones discovered, to have resembled the Cro-Magnon race of the Quaternary age, and no real doubt is now entertained that they were an offshoot of the great race of Berbers which from the dawn of history has occupied northern Africa from Egypt to the Atlantic. Pliny the Elder, deriving his knowledge from the accounts of Juba, king of Mauretania, states that when visited by the Carthaginians under Hanno the archipelago was found by them to be uninhabited, but that they saw ruins of great buildings. This would suggest that the Guanches were not the first inhabitants, and from the absence of any trace of Mahommedanism among the peoples found in the archipelago by the Spaniards it would seem that this extreme westerly migration of Berbers took place between the time of which Pliny wrote and the conquest of northern Africa by the Arabs. Many of the Guanches fell in resisting the Spaniards, many were sold as slaves, and many conformed to the Roman Catholic faith and married Spaniards.
GUANCHES, Guanchis or Guachos (native Guanchinet; Guan = person, Chinet = Tenerife, —“man of Tenerife,” which Spaniards corrupted to Guanchos), were the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands. Technically, the Guanches were the early inhabitants of Tenerife, where they seemed to have maintained their racial purity until the Spanish conquest, but the term later came to refer to the native populations of all the islands. The Guanches, now extinct as a distinct group, appear to have resembled the Cro-Magnon people from the Quaternary period, and there's little doubt that they were a branch of the large Berber population that has occupied northern Africa from Egypt to the Atlantic since the beginning of history. Pliny the Elder, relying on the accounts of Juba, king of Mauretania, reported that when visited by the Carthaginians under Hanno, the archipelago was found to be uninhabited, but they observed ruins of large buildings. This suggests that the Guanches were not the first inhabitants, and the lack of any signs of Islam among the peoples found in the archipelago by the Spaniards indicates that this massive westward migration of Berbers occurred between Pliny's time and the Arab conquest of northern Africa. Many of the Guanches died fighting against the Spaniards, many were sold into slavery, and many converted to Roman Catholicism and married Spaniards.
Such remains as there are of their language, a few expressions and the proper names of ancient chieftains still borne by certain families, connect it with the Berber dialects. In many of the islands signs are engraved on rocks. Domingo Vandewalle, a military governor of Las Palmas, was the first, in 1752, to investigate these; and it is due to the perseverance of D. Aquilino Padran, a priest of Las Palmas, that anything about the inscription on the island Hierro has been brought to light. In 1878 Dr R. Verneau discovered in the ravines of Las Balos some genuine Libyan inscriptions. Without exception the rock inscriptions have proved to be Numidic. In two of the islands (Teneriffe and Gomera) the Guanche type has been retained with more purity than in the others. No inscriptions have been found in these two islands, and therefore it would seem that the true Guanches did not know how to write. In the other islands numerous Semitic traces are found, and in all of them are the rock-signs. From these facts it would seem that the Numidians, travelling from the neighbourhood of Carthage and intermixing with the dominant Semitic race, landed in the Canary Islands, and that it is they who have written the inscriptions at Hierro and Grand Canary.
The remnants of their language, a few phrases and the names of ancient chiefs still used by some families, link it to the Berber dialects. In many of the islands, symbols are carved into rocks. Domingo Vandewalle, a military governor of Las Palmas, was the first to investigate these in 1752. Thanks to the persistence of D. Aquilino Padran, a priest from Las Palmas, some information about the inscriptions on the island of Hierro has been uncovered. In 1878, Dr. R. Verneau found some authentic Libyan inscriptions in the ravines of Las Balos. All the rock inscriptions have been identified as Numidic. On two islands (Tenerife and Gomera), the Guanche type has been preserved more authentically than on the others. No inscriptions have been found on these two islands, suggesting that the true Guanches couldn’t write. On the other islands, numerous Semitic traces are found, and all of them have the rock symbols. From these facts, it seems the Numidians, traveling from near Carthage and mixing with the dominant Semitic race, landed in the Canary Islands, and it is they who wrote the inscriptions at Hierro and Gran Canaria.
The political and social institutions of the Guanches varied. In some islands hereditary autocracy prevailed; in others the government was elective. In Teneriffe all the land belonged to the chiefs who leased it to their subjects. In Grand Canary suicide was regarded as honourable, and on a chief inheriting, one of his subjects willingly honoured the occasion by throwing himself over a precipice. In some islands polyandry was practised; in others the natives were monogamous. But everywhere the women appear to have been respected, an insult offered any woman by an armed man being a capital offence. Almost all the Guanches used to wear garments of goat-skins, and others of vegetable fibres, which have been found in the tombs of Grand Canary. They had a taste for ornaments, necklaces of wood, bone and shells, worked in different designs. Beads of baked earth, cylindrical and of all shapes, with smooth or polished surfaces, mostly black and red in colour, were chiefly in use. They painted their bodies; the pintaderas, baked clay objects like seals in shape, have been explained by Dr Verneau as having been used solely for painting the body in various colours. They manufactured rough pottery, mostly without decorations, or ornamented by means of the finger-nail. The Guanches’ weapons were those of the ancient races of south Europe. The polished battle-axe was more used in Grand Canary, while stone and obsidian, roughly cut, were commoner in Teneriffe. They had, besides, the lance, the club, sometimes studded with pebbles, and the javelin, and they seem to have known the shield. They lived in natural or artificial caves in their mountains. In districts where cave-dwellings were impossible, they built small round houses and, according to the Spaniards, they even practised rude fortification. In Palma the old people were at their own wish left to die alone. After bidding their family farewell they were carried to the sepulchral cave, nothing but a bowl of milk being left them. The Guanches embalmed their dead; many mummies have been found in an extreme state of desiccation, each weighing not more than 6 or 7 ℔. Two almost inaccessible caves in a vertical rock by the shore 3 m. from Santa Cruz (Teneriffe) are said still to contain bones. The process of embalming seems to have varied. In Teneriffe and Grand Canary the corpse was simply wrapped up in goat and sheep skins, while in other islands a resinous substance was used to preserve the body, which was then placed in a cave difficult of access, or buried under a tumulus. The work of embalming was reserved for a special class, women for female corpses, men for male. Embalming seems not to have been universal, and bodies were often simply hidden in caves or buried.
The political and social systems of the Guanches were different. In some islands, a hereditary monarchy was in place; in others, the leaders were chosen through elections. In Tenerife, all the land belonged to the chiefs who rented it out to their people. In Gran Canaria, suicide was seen as honorable, and when a chief inherited his position, one of his subjects would willingly jump off a cliff to honor the occasion. In some islands, polyandry was practiced, while others followed monogamy. However, women everywhere seemed to be respected, and insulting a woman by an armed man was considered a serious crime. Most Guanches wore clothing made of goat skin or plant fibers, which have been found in the tombs of Gran Canaria. They had a fondness for jewelry, with necklaces made from wood, bone, and shells crafted into various designs. Beads made of fired clay, in different shapes with smooth or polished surfaces, mainly in black and red, were commonly used. They painted their bodies; the pintaderas, clay objects resembling seals, were explained by Dr. Verneau as being used solely for body painting in different colors. They created basic pottery, usually without decorations or embellished with finger impressions. The Guanches’ weapons were similar to those of ancient southern European cultures. The polished battle-axe was more commonly used in Gran Canaria, while rough-cut stone and obsidian weapons were more prevalent in Tenerife. They also used lances, clubs—sometimes studded with pebbles—and javelins, and it seems they were familiar with shields. They lived in natural or man-made caves in their mountains, and in areas where cave dwellings were not possible, they constructed small round houses and, according to the Spaniards, even built basic fortifications. In Palma, elderly people could choose to die alone. After saying goodbye to their family, they were taken to a burial cave, with just a bowl of milk left for them. The Guanches embalmed their dead; many mummies have been found in a very dry state, each weighing no more than 6 or 7 pounds. Two nearly inaccessible caves in a vertical rock near the shore, 3 meters from Santa Cruz (Tenerife), are said to still contain bones. The embalming process seemed to vary; in Tenerife and Gran Canaria, the body was simply wrapped in goat and sheep skins, while in other islands, a resinous material was used for preservation, and the body was placed in a hard-to-reach cave or buried under a mound. The embalming work was performed by a specific group: women for female bodies and men for male bodies. Embalming doesn’t seem to have been universal, as many bodies were simply hidden in caves or buried.
Little is known of the religion of the Guanches. They appear to have been a distinctly religious race. There was a general belief in a supreme being, called Acoran, in Grand Canary, Achihuran in Teneriffe, Eraoranhan in Hierro, and Abora in Palma. The women of Hierro worshipped a goddess called Moneiba. According to tradition the male and female gods lived in mountains whence they descended to hear the prayers of the people. In other islands the natives venerated the sun, moon, earth and stars. A belief in an evil spirit was general. The demon of Teneriffe was called Guayota and lived in the peak of Teyde, which was the hell called Echeyde. In times of drought the Guanches drove their flocks to consecrated grounds, where the lambs were separated from their mothers in the belief that their plaintive bleatings would melt the heart of the Great Spirit. During the religious feasts all war and even personal quarrels were stayed.
Little is known about the religion of the Guanches. They seemed to be a distinctly religious people. There was a common belief in a supreme being, known as Acoran in Grand Canary, Achihuran in Tenerife, Eraoranhan in Hierro, and Abora in Palma. The women of Hierro worshipped a goddess named Moneiba. According to tradition, the male and female gods lived in mountains and would descend to hear the prayers of the people. In other islands, the natives revered the sun, moon, earth, and stars. A belief in an evil spirit was widespread. The demon of Tenerife was called Guayota and resided at the peak of Teyde, which was known as the hell called Echeyde. In times of drought, the Guanches would take their flocks to sacred grounds, where the lambs were separated from their mothers, believing that their sad bleating would move the heart of the Great Spirit. During religious festivals, all wars and even personal disputes were put on hold.
Bibliography.—S. Berthelot, Antiquités canariennes (Paris, 1839); Baker Webb and S. Berthelot, Histoire naturelle des îles 651 Canaries (Paris, 1839); Paul Broca, Revue d’anthropologie, iv. (1874); General L. L. C. Faidherbe, Quelque mots sur l’ethnologie de l’archipel canarien (Paris, 1875); Chil y Naranjo, Estudios historicos, climatologicos y Patologicos de las Islas Canarias (Las Palmas, 1876-1889); “De la pluralité des races humaines de l’archipel canarien,” Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 1878; “Habitations et sépultures des anciens habitants des îles Canaries,” Revue d’anthrop., 1879; R. Verneau, “Sur les Sémites aux îles Canaries,” and “Sur les anciens habitants de la Isleta, Grande Canarie,” Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 1881; Rapport sur une mission scientifique dans l’archipel canarien (Paris, 1887); Cinq années de séjour aux îles Canaries (Paris, 1891); H. Meyer, Die Insel Tenerife (Leipzig, 1896), “Über die Urbewohner der canarischen Inseln,” in Adolf Bastian Festschrift (Berlin, 1896); F. von Luschan, Anhang über eine Schädelsammlung von den canarischen Inseln; R. Virchow, “Schädel mit Carionecrosis der Sagittalgegend,” Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthrop. Gesellschaft (1896); G. Sergi, The Mediterranean Race (London, 1901); The Guanches of Tenerife ..., by Alonso de Espinosa, translated by Sir Clements Markham, with bibliography (Hakluyt Society, 1907).
References.—S. Berthelot, Antiquités canariennes (Paris, 1839); Baker Webb and S. Berthelot, Histoire naturelle des îles 651 Canaries (Paris, 1839); Paul Broca, Revue d’anthropologie, iv. (1874); General L. L. C. Faidherbe, Quelques mots sur l’ethnologie de l’archipel canarien (Paris, 1875); Chil y Naranjo, Estudios históricos, climatológicos y patológicos de las Islas Canarias (Las Palmas, 1876-1889); “De la pluralité des races humaines de l’archipel canarien,” Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 1878; “Habitations et sépultures des anciens habitants des îles Canaries,” Revue d’anthrop., 1879; R. Verneau, “Sur les Sémites aux îles Canaries,” and “Sur les anciens habitants de la Isleta, Grande Canarie,” Bull. Soc. Anthrop. Paris, 1881; Rapport sur une mission scientifique dans l’archipel canarien (Paris, 1887); Cinq années de séjour aux îles Canaries (Paris, 1891); H. Meyer, Die Insel Tenerife (Leipzig, 1896), “Über die Urbewohner der canarischen Inseln,” in Adolf Bastian Festschrift (Berlin, 1896); F. von Luschan, Anhang über eine Schädelsammlung von den canarischen Inseln; R. Virchow, “Schädel mit Carionecrosis der Sagittalgegend,” Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthrop. Gesellschaft (1896); G. Sergi, The Mediterranean Race (London, 1901); The Guanches of Tenerife ..., by Alonso de Espinosa, translated by Sir Clements Markham, with bibliography (Hakluyt Society, 1907).
GUANIDINE, CN3H5 or HN:C(NH2)2, the amidine of amidocarbonic acid. It occurs in beet juice. It was first prepared in 1861 by A. Strecker, who oxidized guanine with hydrochloric acid and potassium chlorate. It may be obtained synthetically by the action of ammonium iodide on cyanamide, CN·NH2 + NH4I = CN3H5·HI·; by heating ortho-carbonic esters with ammonia to 150° C.; but best by heating ammonium thiocyanate to 180°-190° C., when the thiourea first formed is converted into guanidine thiocyanate, 2CS(NH2)2 = HN:C(NH2)2·HCNS + H2S. It is a colourless crystalline solid, readily soluble in water and alcohol; it deliquesces on exposure to air. It has strong basic properties, absorbs carbon dioxide readily, and forms well-defined crystalline salts. Baryta water hydrolyses it to urea. By direct union with glycocoll acid, it yields glycocyamine, NH2·(HN):C·NH·CH2·CO2H, whilst with methyl glycocoll (sarcosine) it forms creatine, NH2·(NH):C·N(CH3)·CH2·CO2H.
GUANIDINE, CN3H5 or HN:C(NH2)2, is the amidine of amidocarbonic acid. It is found in beet juice. It was first created in 1861 by A. Strecker, who oxidized guanine using hydrochloric acid and potassium chlorate. It can be synthesized by the reaction of ammonium iodide with cyanamide, CN·NH2 + NH4I = CN3H5·HI·; by heating ortho-carbonic esters with ammonia at 150° C.; but the best method involves heating ammonium thiocyanate to 180°-190° C., where the thiourea that forms is eventually converted into guanidine thiocyanate, 2CS(NH2)2 = HN:C(NH2)2·HCNS + H2S. It is a colorless crystalline solid that dissolves easily in water and alcohol; it absorbs moisture from the air. It has strong basic characteristics, absorbs carbon dioxide easily, and forms distinct crystalline salts. Baryta water breaks it down into urea. When it combines directly with glycocoll acid, it produces glycocyamine, NH2·(HN):C·NH·CH2·CO2H, and when it reacts with methyl glycocoll (sarcosine), it yields creatine, NH2·(NH):C·N(CH3)·CH2·CO2H.
Many derivatives of guanidine were obtained by J. Thiele (Ann.,
1892, 270, p. 1; 1893, 273, p. 133; Ber., 1893, 26, pp. 2598, 2645).
By the action of nitric acid on guanidine in the presence of sulphuric
acid, nitroguanidine, HN:C(NH2)·NH·NO2 (a substance
possessing acid properties) is obtained; from which, by reduction
with zinc dust, amidoguanidine, HN:C(NH2)·NH·NH2, is formed.
This amidoguanidine decomposes on hydrolysis with the formation
of semicarbazide, NH2·CO·NH·NH2, which, in its turn, breaks
down into carbon dioxide, ammonia and hydrazine. Amidoguanidine
is a body of hydrazine type, for it reduces gold and silver salts
and yields a benzylidine derivative. On oxidation with potassium
permanganate, it gives azodicarbondiamidine nitrate,
NH2·(HN):C·N:N·C:(NH)·NH2·2HNO3, which, when reduced by sulphuretted
hydrogen, is converted into the corresponding hydrazodicarbondiamidine,
NH2·(HN):C·NH·NH·C:(NH)·NH2. By the action of
nitrous acid on a nitric acid solution of amidoguanidine, diazoguanidine
nitrate, NH2·(HN):C·NH·N2·NO3, is obtained. This diazo
compound is decomposed by caustic alkalis with the formation
of cyanamide and hydrazoic acid,
CH4N5·NO3 = N3H + CN·NH2 + HNO3,
whilst acetates and carbonates convert it into amidotetrazotic
acid,
Amidotetrazotic acid yields addition
compounds with amines, and by the further action of nitrous acid
yields a very explosive derivative, diazotetrazol, CN6. By fusing
guanidine with urea, dicyandiamidine H2N·(HN):C·NH·CO·NH2, is
formed.
Many derivatives of guanidine were produced by J. Thiele (Ann., 1892, 270, p. 1; 1893, 273, p. 133; Ber., 1893, 26, pp. 2598, 2645). When nitric acid reacts with guanidine in the presence of sulfuric acid, nitroguanidine, HN:C(NH2)·NH·NO2 (a substance with acidic properties), is formed. By reducing it with zinc dust, amidoguanidine, HN:C(NH2)·NH·NH2, is obtained. This amidoguanidine breaks down during hydrolysis, producing semicarbazide, NH2·CO·NH·NH2, which further decomposes into carbon dioxide, ammonia, and hydrazine. Amidoguanidine is a hydrazine-like compound since it reduces gold and silver salts and generates a benzylidine derivative. Upon oxidation with potassium permanganate, it yields azodicarbondiamidine nitrate, NH2·(HN):C·N:N·C:(NH)·NH2·2HNO3, which, when reduced with hydrogen sulfide, turns into the corresponding hydrazodicarbondiamidine, NH2·(HN):C·NH·NH·C:(NH)·NH2. When nitrous acid acts on a nitric acid solution of amidoguanidine, diazoguanidine nitrate, NH2·(HN):C·NH·N2·NO3, is produced. This diazo compound reacts with caustic alkalis to yield cyanamide and hydrazoic acid, CH4N5·NO3 = N3H + CN·NH2 + HNO3, while acetates and carbonates convert it into amidotetrazotic acid,
Amidotetrazotic acid forms addition compounds with amines, and when reacting further with nitrous acid, it produces a highly explosive derivative, diazotetrazol, CN6. By fusing guanidine with urea, dicyandiamidine H2N·(HN):C·NH·CO·NH2 is formed.
GUANO (a Spanish word from the Peruvian huanu, dung), the excrement of birds, found as large deposits on certain islands off the coast of Peru, and on others situated in the Southern ocean and off the west coast of Africa. The large proportions of phosphorus in the form of phosphates and of nitrogen as ammonium oxalate and urate renders it a valuable fertilizer. Bat’s guano, composed of the excrement of bats, is found in certain caves in New Zealand and elsewhere; it is similar in composition to Peruvian guano. (See Manures and Manuring.)
GUANO (a Spanish term derived from the Peruvian huanu, meaning dung) is the droppings of birds, found in large deposits on certain islands off the coast of Peru and on others in the Southern Ocean and along the west coast of Africa. The high amounts of phosphorus in the form of phosphates, and nitrogen as ammonium oxalate and urate, make it a valuable fertilizer. Bat guano, which is made up of bat droppings, is found in certain caves in New Zealand and other locations; it has a composition similar to that of Peruvian guano. (See Manures and Manuring.)
GUANTA, a port on the Caribbean coast of the state of Bermúdez, Venezuela, 12 m. N.E. of Barcelona, with which it is connected by rail. It dates from the completion of the railway to the coal mines of Naricual and Capiricual nearly 12 m. beyond Barcelona, and was created for the shipment of coal. The harbour is horseshoe-shaped, with its entrance, 1998 ft. wide, protected by an island less than 1 m. off the shore. The entrance is easy and safe, and the harbour affords secure anchorage for large vessels, with deep water alongside the iron railway wharf. These advantages have made Guanta the best port on this part of the coast, and the trade of Barcelona and that of a large inland district have been transferred to it. A prominent feature in its trade is the shipment of live cattle. Among its exports are sugar, coffee, cacáo, tobacco and fruit.
GUANTA, is a port on the Caribbean coast of the state of Bermúdez, Venezuela, located 12 miles northeast of Barcelona, which it connects to by rail. It was established with the completion of the railway to the coal mines of Naricual and Capiricual, nearly 12 miles beyond Barcelona, and was created for coal shipping. The harbor is shaped like a horseshoe, with a 1998 ft. wide entrance protected by an island less than 1 mile off the shore. The entrance is easy and safe, providing secure anchorage for large vessels, with deep water alongside the iron railway wharf. These features have made Guanta the best port in this region of the coast, shifting the trade from Barcelona and a large inland area to it. A key aspect of its trade is the shipment of live cattle. Its exports include sugar, coffee, cacao, tobacco, and fruit.
GUANTÁNAMO, the easternmost important town of the S. coast of Cuba, in the province of Santiago, about 40 m. E. of Santiago. Pop. (1907) 14,559. It is situated by the Guazo (or Guaso) river, on a little open plain between the mountains. The beautiful, land-locked harbour, 10 m. long from N. to S. and 4 m. wide in places, has an outer and an inner basin. The latter has a very narrow entrance, and 2 to 2.5 fathoms depth of water. From the port of Caimanera to the city of Guantánamo, 13 m. N., there is a railway, and the city has railway connexion with Santiago. Guantánamo is one of the two ports leased by Cuba to the United States for a naval station. It is the shipping-port and centre of a surrounding coffee-, sugar- and lime-growing district. In 1741 an English force under Admiral Edward Vernon and General Thomas Wentworth landed here to attack Santiago. They named the harbour Cumberland bay. After their retreat fortifications were begun. The history of the region practically dates, however, from the end of the 18th century, when it gained prosperity from the settlement of French refugees from Santo Domingo; the town, as such, dates only from 1822. Almost all the old families are of French descent, and French was the language locally most used as late as the last third of the 19th century. In recent years, especially since the Spanish-American War of 1898, the region has greatly changed socially and economically. Guantánamo was once a fashionable summer residence resort for wealthy Cubans.
GUANTÁNAMO, is the easternmost significant town on the south coast of Cuba, in the province of Santiago, about 40 miles east of Santiago. Population (1907) was 14,559. It's located by the Guazo (or Guaso) river, on a small open plain between the mountains. The stunning, land-locked harbor is 10 miles long from north to south and 4 miles wide in some places, featuring both an outer and an inner basin. The inner basin has a very narrow entrance and a water depth of 2 to 2.5 fathoms. There is a railway that connects the port of Caimanera to the city of Guantánamo, which is 13 miles north, and the city is also linked by rail to Santiago. Guantánamo is one of the two ports leased by Cuba to the United States for a naval base. It serves as the shipping port and the center of a region known for its coffee, sugar, and lime production. In 1741, an English force led by Admiral Edward Vernon and General Thomas Wentworth landed here to attack Santiago, naming the harbor Cumberland Bay. After their retreat, fortifications began. However, the area’s history essentially starts from the end of the 18th century when it prospered due to French refugees from Santo Domingo; the town itself was established in 1822. Nearly all the old families are of French descent, and French was the dominant language used locally until the last third of the 19th century. In recent years, especially since the Spanish-American War of 1898, the area has undergone significant social and economic changes. Guantánamo was once a popular summer resort for wealthy Cubans.
GUARANA (so called from the Guaranis, an aboriginal American tribe), the plant Paullinia Cupana (or P. sorbilis) of the natural order Sapindaceae, indigenous to the north and west of Brazil. It has a smooth erect stem; large pinnate alternate leaves, composed of 5 oblong-oval leaflets; narrow panicles of short-stalked flowers; and ovoid or pyriform fruit about as large as a grape, and containing usually one seed only, which is shaped like a minute horse-chestnut. What is commonly known as guarana, guarana bread or Brazilian cocoa, is prepared from the seeds as follows. In October and November, at which time they become ripe, the seeds are removed from their capsules and sun-dried, so as to admit of the ready removal by hand of the white aril; they are next ground in a stone mortar or deep dish of hard sandstone; the powder, moistened by the addition of a small quantity of water, or by exposure to the dews, is then made into a paste with a certain proportion of whole or broken seeds, and worked up sometimes into balls, but usually into rolls not unlike German sausages, 5 to 8 in. in length, and 12 to 16 oz. in weight. After drying by artificial or solar heat, the guarana is packed between broad leaves in sacks or baskets. Thus prepared, it is of extreme hardness, and has a brown hue, a bitter astringent taste, and an odour faintly resembling that of roasted coffee. An inferior kind, softer and of a lighter colour, is manufactured by admixture of cocoa or cassava. Rasped or grated into sugar and water, guarana forms a beverage largely consumed in S. America. Its manufacture, originally confined to the Mauhés Indians, has spread into various parts of Brazil.
GUARANA (named after the Guaranis, an Indigenous American tribe), is the plant Paullinia Cupana (or P. sorbilis) from the natural order Sapindaceae, native to the north and west of Brazil. It has a straight, smooth stem; large, alternate leaves made up of 5 oblong-oval leaflets; narrow clusters of short-stalked flowers; and oval or pear-shaped fruit about the size of a grape, usually containing just one seed, which looks like a tiny horse-chestnut. What we commonly call guarana, guarana bread, or Brazilian cocoa is made from the seeds in the following way. In October and November, when the seeds are ripe, they are taken out of their capsules and sun-dried, making it easier to remove the white aril by hand. They are then ground in a stone mortar or a deep bowl of hard sandstone; the powder is moistened with a small amount of water or by exposure to dew, and mixed into a paste with a certain amount of whole or broken seeds. This mixture is sometimes shaped into balls, but usually formed into rolls similar to German sausages, measuring 5 to 8 inches in length and weighing 12 to 16 ounces. After being dried by artificial heat or sunlight, the guarana is packed between large leaves in sacks or baskets. When prepared this way, it is extremely hard, with a brown color, a bitter astringent taste, and a faint aroma resembling roasted coffee. A lower-quality version, which is softer and lighter in color, is made by mixing in cocoa or cassava. When grated or shaved into sugar and water, guarana creates a beverage that is widely consumed in South America. Its production, originally limited to the Mauhés Indians, has spread to different regions of Brazil.
The properties of guarana as a nervous stimulant and restorative are due to the presence of what was originally described as a new principle and termed guaranine, but is now known to be identical with caffeine or theine. Besides this substance, which is stated to exist in it in the form of tannate, guarana yields on analysis the glucoside saponin, with tannin, starch, gum, three volatile oils, and an acrid green fixed oil (Fournier, Journ. de Pharm. vol. xxxix., 1861, p. 291).
The properties of guarana as a stimulant and restorative for the nervous system come from what was originally identified as a new component called guaranine, which is now recognized as being the same as caffeine or theine. In addition to this substance, which is said to exist in it as a tannate, guarana also contains the glucoside saponin, tannin, starch, gum, three volatile oils, and a bitter green fixed oil (Fournier, Journ. de Pharm. vol. xxxix., 1861, p. 291).
GUARANIS, a tribe and stock of South American Indians, having their home in Paraguay, Uruguay and on the Brazilian coast. The Guaranis had developed some civilization before the arrival of the Spaniards, and being a peaceable people quickly submitted. They form to-day the chief element in the populations of Paraguay and Uruguay. Owing to its patronage by the Jesuit missionaries the Guarani language became a 652 widespread medium of communication, and in a corrupted form is still the common language in Paraguay.
GUARANIS is a tribe and group of South American Indians who live in Paraguay, Uruguay, and along the Brazilian coast. The Guaranis had developed some civilization before the Spaniards arrived, and as a peaceful people, they quickly adapted. Today, they are the main part of the populations in Paraguay and Uruguay. Thanks to support from Jesuit missionaries, the Guarani language became a 652 widely used means of communication, and in a mixed form, it remains the common language in Paraguay.
GUARANTEE (sometimes spelt “guarantie” or “guaranty”; an O. Fr. form of “warrant,” from the Teutonic word which appears in German as wahren, to defend or make safe and binding), a term more comprehensive and of higher import than either “warrant” or “security,” and designating either some international treaty whereby claims, rights or possessions are secured, or more commonly a mere private transaction, by means of which one person, to obtain some trust, confidence or credit for another, engages to be answerable for him.
GUARANTEE (sometimes spelled “guarantie” or “guaranty”; an Old French form of “warrant,” from the Teutonic word that appears in German as wahren, meaning to defend or make safe and binding), is a term that is broader and more significant than either “warrant” or “security.” It designates either some international treaty that secures claims, rights, or possessions, or more commonly a private transaction through which one person, to gain some trust, confidence, or credit for another, agrees to be responsible for them.
In English law, a guarantee is a contract to answer for the payment of some debt, or the performance of some duty, by a third person who is primarily liable to such payment or performance. It is a collateral contract, which does not extinguish the original liability or obligation to which it is accessory, but on the contrary is itself rendered null and void should the latter fail, as without a principal there can be no accessory. The liabilities of a surety are in law dependent upon those of the principal debtor, and when the latter cease the former do so likewise (per Collins, L.J., in Stacey v. Hill, 1901, 1 K.B., at p. 666; see per Willes, J., in Bateson v. Gosling, 1871, L.R. 7 C.P., at p. 14), except in certain cases where the discharge of the principal debtor is by operation of law (see In re Fitzgeorge—ex parte Robson, 1905, 1 K.B. p. 462). If, therefore, persons wrongly suppose that a third person is liable to one of them, and a guarantee is given on that erroneous supposition, it is invalid ab initio, by virtue of the lex contractûs, because its foundation (which was that another was taken to be liable) has failed (per Willes, J., in Mountstephen v. Lakeman, L.R. 7 Q.B. p. 202). According to various existing codes civil, a suretyship, in respect of an obligation “non-valable,” is null and void save where the invalidity is the result of personal incapacity of the principal debtor (Codes Civil, France and Belgium, 2012; Spain, 1824; Portugal, 822; Italy, 1899; Holland, 1858; Lower Canada, 1932). In some countries, however, the mere personal incapacity of a son under age to borrow suffices to vitiate the guarantee of a loan made to him (Spain, 1824; Portugal, 822, s. 2, 1535, 1536). The Egyptian codes sanction guarantees expressly entered into “in view of debtor’s want of legal capacity” to contract a valid principal obligation (Egyptian Codes, Mixed Suits, 605; Native Tribunals, 496). The Portuguese code (art. 822, s. 1) retains the surety’s liability, in respect of an invalid principal obligation, until the latter has been legally rescinded.
In English law, a guarantee is a contract to take responsibility for the payment of a debt or the fulfillment of a duty by a third person who is primarily liable for that payment or duty. It is a collateral contract, which does not eliminate the original liability or obligation that it is related to. Instead, it becomes null and void if the original obligation fails, as there can be no accessory without a principal. The liabilities of a surety depend on those of the principal debtor, and when the latter's obligations cease, so do the former's (per Collins, L.J., in Stacey v. Hill, 1901, 1 K.B., at p. 666; see per Willes, J., in Bateson v. Gosling, 1871, L.R. 7 C.P., at p. 14), except in certain cases where the principal debtor’s discharge occurs by operation of law (see In re Fitzgeorge—ex parte Robson, 1905, 1 K.B. p. 462). Therefore, if people mistakenly believe that a third person is liable to one of them and a guarantee is provided based on that incorrect belief, it is invalid from the start, according to the lex contractûs, because its foundation (the assumption that another was liable) has failed (per Willes, J., in Mountstephen v. Lakeman, L.R. 7 Q.B. p. 202). According to various existing civil codes, a suretyship related to an obligation that is “non-valid” is null and void unless the invalidity arises from the principal debtor's personal incapacity (Codes Civil, France and Belgium, 2012; Spain, 1824; Portugal, 822; Italy, 1899; Holland, 1858; Lower Canada, 1932). In some countries, however, the mere personal incapacity of a minor to borrow is enough to invalidate the guarantee of a loan made to them (Spain, 1824; Portugal, 822, s. 2, 1535, 1536). The Egyptian codes specifically allow guarantees that are entered into “because of the debtor’s lack of legal capacity” to make a valid principal obligation (Egyptian Codes, Mixed Suits, 605; Native Tribunals, 496). The Portuguese code (art. 822, s. 1) maintains the surety’s liability concerning an invalid principal obligation until that obligation has been legally rescinded.
The giver of a guarantee is called “the surety,” or “the guarantor”; the person to whom it is given “the creditor,” or “the guarantee”; while the person whose payment or performance is secured thereby is termed “the principal debtor,” or simply “the principal.” In America, but not apparently elsewhere, there is a recognized distinction between “a surety” and “a guarantor”; the former being usually bound with the principal, at the same time and on the same consideration, while the contract of the latter is his own separate undertaking, in which the principal does not join, and in respect of which he is not to be held liable, until due diligence has been exerted to compel the principal debtor to make good his default. There is no privity of contract between the surety and the principal debtor, for the surety contracts with the creditor, and they do not constitute in law one person, and are not jointly liable to the creditor (per Baron Parke in Bain v. Cooper, 1 Dowl. R. (N.S.) 11, 14).
The person who provides a guarantee is known as “the surety” or “the guarantor”; the individual receiving it is “the creditor” or “the guarantee”; and the person whose payment or performance is secured is referred to as “the principal debtor” or simply “the principal.” In America, there is a clear difference between “a surety” and “a guarantor”; the former is typically bound with the principal at the same time and under the same terms, while the latter's contract is a separate agreement where the principal is not involved and will not be held liable until reasonable efforts have been made to ensure the principal debtor fulfills their obligation. There is no direct contractual relationship between the surety and the principal debtor, as the surety contracts with the creditor, meaning they are not legally considered one entity and are not jointly liable to the creditor (per Baron Parke in Bain v. Cooper, 1 Dowl. R. (N.S.) 11, 14).
No special phraseology is necessary to the formation of a guarantee; and what really distinguishes such a contract from one of insurance is not any essential difference between the two forms of words insurance and guarantee, but the substance of the contract entered into by the parties in each particular case (per Romer, L.J., in Seaton v. Heath—Seaton v. Burnand, 1899, 1 Q.B. 782, 792, C.A.; per Vaughan Williams, L.J., in In re Denton’s Estate Licenses Insurance Corporation and Guarantee Fund Ltd. v. Denton, 1904, 2 Ch., at p. 188; and see Dane v. Mortgage Insurance Corporation, 1894, 1 Q.B. 54 C.A.) In this connexion it may be mentioned that the different kinds of suretyships have been classified as follows: (1) Those in which there is an agreement to constitute, for a particular purpose, the relation of principal and surety, to which agreement the creditor thereby secured is a party; (2) those in which there is a similar agreement between the principal and surety only, to which the creditor is a stranger; and (3) those in which, without any such contract of suretyship, there is a primary and a secondary liability of two persons for one and the same debt, the debt being, as between the two, that of one of those persons only, and not equally of both, so that the other, if he should be compelled to pay it, would be entitled to reimbursement from the person by whom (as between the two) it ought to have been paid (per Earl of Selborne, L.C., in Duncan Fox and Co. v. North and South Wales Bank, 6 App. Cas., at p. 11). According to several codes civil sureties are made divisible into conventional, legal and judicial (Fr. and Bel., 2015, 2040 et seq.; Spain, 1823; Lower Canada, 1930), while the Spanish code further divides them into gratuitous and for valuable consideration (art. 1, 823).
No special wording is required to create a guarantee; and what really sets this contract apart from an insurance contract is not an essential difference between the two terms insurance and guarantee, but the nature of the contract agreed upon by the parties in each specific case (per Romer, L.J., in Seaton v. Heath—Seaton v. Burnand, 1899, 1 Q.B. 782, 792, C.A.; per Vaughan Williams, L.J., in In re Denton’s Estate Licenses Insurance Corporation and Guarantee Fund Ltd. v. Denton, 1904, 2 Ch., at p. 188; and see Dane v. Mortgage Insurance Corporation, 1894, 1 Q.B. 54 C.A.) In this context, it's worth mentioning that the different types of suretyships have been categorized as follows: (1) Those in which there is an agreement to establish, for a specific purpose, the relationship of principal and surety, where the creditor is also a party; (2) those in which there is a similar agreement between the principal and surety only, with the creditor being an outsider; and (3) those in which, without any agreement of suretyship, there exists a primary and secondary liability of two individuals for the same debt, where the debt is, between the two, solely that of one individual, so that if the other is forced to pay it, they would be entitled to reimbursement from the person who was originally responsible for paying it (per Earl of Selborne, L.C., in Duncan Fox and Co. v. North and South Wales Bank, 6 App. Cas., at p. 11). According to various codes, civil sureties are categorized into conventional, legal, and judicial (Fr. and Bel., 2015, 2040 et seq.; Spain, 1823; Lower Canada, 1930), while the Spanish code further divides them into gratuitous and for valuable consideration (art. 1, 823).
In England the common-law requisites of a guarantee in no way differ from those essential to the formation of any other contract. That is to say, they comprise the mutual assent of two or more parties, competency to contract, and, unless the guarantee be under seal, valuable consideration. An offer to guarantee is not binding until it has been accepted, being revocable till then by the party making it. Unless, however, as sometimes happens, the offer contemplates an express acceptance, one may be implied, and it may be a question for a jury whether an offer of guarantee has in fact been accepted. Where the surety’s assent to a guarantee has been procured by fraud of the person to whom it is given, there is no binding contract. Such fraud may consist of suppression or concealment or misrepresentation. There is some conflict of authorities as to what facts must be spontaneously disclosed to the surety by the creditor, but it may be taken that the rule on the subject is less stringent than that governing insurances upon marine, life and other risks (The North British Insurance Co. v. Lloyd, 10 Exch. 523), though formerly this was denied (Owen v. Homan, 3 Mac. & G. 378, 397). Moreover, even where the contract relied upon is in the form of a policy guaranteeing the solvency of a surety for another’s debt, and is therefore governed by the doctrine of uberrima fides, only such facts as are really material to the risk undertaken need be spontaneously disclosed (Seaton v. Burnand—Burnand v. Seaton, 1900, A.C. 135). As regards the competency of the parties to enter into a contract of guarantee, this may be affected by insanity or intoxication of the surety, if known to the creditor, or by disability of any kind. The ordinary disabilities are those of infants and married women—now in England greatly mitigated as regards the latter by the Married Women’s Property Acts, 1870 to 1893, which enable a married woman to contract, as a feme sole, to the extent of her separate property. Every guarantee not under seal must according to English law have a consideration to support it, though the least spark of one suffices (per Wilmot, J., in Pillan v. van Mierop and Hopkins, 3 Burr., at p. 1666; Haigh v. Brooks, 10 A. & E. 309; Barrell v. Trussell, 4 Taunt. 117), which, as in other cases, may consist either of some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other. In some guarantees the consideration is entire—as where, in consideration of a lease being granted, the surety becomes answerable for the performance of the covenants; in other cases it is fragmentary, i.e. supplied from time to time—as where a guarantee is given to secure the balance of a running account at a banker’s, or a balance of a running account for goods supplied (per Lush, L.J., in Lloyd’s v. Harper, 16 Ch. Div., at p. 319). In the former case, the moment the lease is granted there is nothing more for the lessor to do, and such a guarantee as that of necessity runs on throughout the duration of the lease and is irrevocable. In the latter case, however, unless the guarantee stipulates to the contrary, the surety may at any time terminate his liability under the guarantee as to future 653 advances, &c. The consideration for a guarantee must not be past or executed, but on the other hand it need not comprise a direct benefit or advantage to either the surety or the creditor, but may solely consist of anything done, or any promise made, for the benefit of the principal debtor. It is more frequently executory than concurrent, taking the form either of forbearance to sue the principal debtor, or of a future advance of money or supply of goods to him.
In England, the basic legal requirements for a guarantee are no different from those needed to create any other contract. This means they include the mutual agreement of two or more parties, the ability to enter into a contract, and, unless the guarantee is a sealed document, a valuable consideration. An offer to provide a guarantee isn’t binding until it’s accepted and can be revoked by the person making the offer until that acceptance occurs. However, if the offer explicitly states that it requires acceptance, one might be implied, and it could be up to a jury to decide if a guarantee offer was actually accepted. If the surety's agreement to a guarantee was obtained through fraud by the person receiving it, there’s no binding contract. This fraud can involve withholding information, concealing facts, or making false statements. There is some disagreement among legal authorities about what information must be voluntarily disclosed to the surety by the creditor, but the general rule is less strict than what applies to insurance for marine, life, and other risks (The North British Insurance Co. v. Lloyd, 10 Exch. 523), although this was previously disputed (Owen v. Homan, 3 Mac. & G. 378, 397). Furthermore, even when the relied-upon contract is a policy that guarantees the financial stability of a surety for someone else's debt, subject to the doctrine of uberrima fides, only the facts that are truly relevant to the risk involved need to be voluntarily disclosed (Seaton v. Burnand—Burnand v. Seaton, 1900, A.C. 135). Regarding the ability of parties to enter into a guarantee contract, this can be influenced by the insanity or intoxication of the surety, if known to the creditor, or by any other form of disability. The usual disabilities are those of minors and married women—though in England, the Married Women’s Property Acts, 1870 to 1893, have significantly eased restrictions for married women, allowing them to contract as if they were single, using their separate property. Every guarantee not under seal must, under English law, have consideration to support it, and even minimal consideration is sufficient (per Wilmot, J., in Pillan v. van Mierop and Hopkins, 3 Burr., at p. 1666; Haigh v. Brooks, 10 A. & E. 309; Barrell v. Trussell, 4 Taunt. 117), which, like in other cases, can be a right, interest, profit, or benefit gained by one party, or a forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility given, experienced, or taken on by the other. In some guarantees, the consideration is complete—like when a surety agrees to fulfill the covenants in return for a lease being granted; in others, it’s partial—meaning it’s provided over time—as in the case of guarantees made to cover the balance of a running account with a bank or for goods delivered (per Lush, L.J., in Lloyd’s v. Harper, 16 Ch. Div., at p. 319). In the first scenario, once the lease is granted, there’s nothing more the lessor needs to do, and such a guarantee automatically continues throughout the lease’s duration and cannot be revoked. In the second case, though, unless the guarantee states otherwise, the surety can end their liability for future 653 advances, etc. The consideration for a guarantee can’t be past or executed; however, it doesn’t have to directly benefit the surety or the creditor but can consist solely of actions or promises made for the benefit of the principal debtor. It is more often executory than concurrent, typically taking the form of agreeing to delay suing the principal debtor or providing future financial support or goods.
By the Indian Contract Act 1872, sect. 127, it is provided that the consideration for a guarantee may consist of anything done or any promise made for the benefit of the principal debtor by the creditor. Total failure of the consideration stipulated for by the party giving a guarantee will prevent its being enforced, as will also the existence of an illegal consideration. Though in all countries the mutual assent of two or more parties is essential to the formation of any contract (see e.g. Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 1108; Port. 643, 647 et seq.; Spain, 1258, 1261; Italy, 1104; Holl. 1356; Lower Canada, 984), a consideration is not everywhere regarded as a necessary element (see Pothier’s Law of Obligations, Evans’s edition, vol. ii. p. 19). Thus in Scotland a contract may be binding without a consideration to support it (Stair i. 10. 7).
According to the Indian Contract Act of 1872, section 127, the consideration for a guarantee can include anything done or any promise made for the benefit of the principal debtor by the creditor. A complete failure of the consideration agreed upon by the party providing the guarantee will prevent it from being enforced, as will the presence of an illegal consideration. Although in all countries the mutual agreement of two or more parties is essential for forming any contract (see e.g. Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 1108; Port. 643, 647 et seq.; Spain, 1258, 1261; Italy, 1104; Holl. 1356; Lower Canada, 984), consideration is not universally seen as a necessary element (see Pothier’s Law of Obligations, Evans’s edition, vol. ii. p. 19). Therefore, in Scotland, a contract can be binding even without consideration to support it (Stair i. 10. 7).
The statutory requisites of a guarantee are, in England, prescribed by (1) the Statute of Frauds, which, with reference to guarantees, provides that “no action shall be brought whereby to charge the defendant upon any special promise to answer for the debt, default or miscarriages of another person, unless the agreement upon which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorized,” and (2) Lord Tenterden’s Act (9 Geo. IV. c. 14), which by § 6 enacts that “no action shall be brought whereby to charge any person upon or by reason of any representation or assurance made or given concerning or relating to the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade or dealings of any other person, to the intent or purpose that such other person may obtain credit, money or goods upon” (i.e. “upon credit,” see per Parke, B., in Lyde v. Barnard, 1 M. & W., at p. 104), “unless such representation or assurance be made in writing signed by the party to be charged therewith.” This latter enactment, which applies to incorporated companies as well as to individual persons (Hirst v. West Riding Union Banking Co., 1901, 2 K.B. 560 C.A.), was rendered necessary by an evasion of the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds, accomplished by treating the special promise to answer for another’s debt, default or miscarriage, when not in writing, as required by that section, as a false and fraudulent representation concerning another’s credit, solvency or honesty, in respect of which damages, as for a tort, were held to be recoverable (Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T.R. 51). In Scotland, where, it should be stated, a guarantee is called a “cautionary obligation,” similar enactments to those just specified are contained in § 6 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act (Scotland) 1856, while in the Irish Statute of Frauds (7 Will. III. c. 12) there is a provision (§ 2) identical with that found in the English Statute of Frauds. In India a guarantee may be either oral or written (Indian Contract Act, § 126), while in the Australian colonies, Jamaica and Ceylon it must be in writing. The German code civil requires the surety’s promise to be verified by writing where he has not executed the principal obligation (art. 766), and the Portuguese code renders a guarantee provable by all the modes established by law for the proof of the principal contract (art. 826). According to most codes civil now in force a guarantee like any other contract can usually be made verbally in the presence of witnesses and in certain cases (where for instance considerable sums of money are involved) sous signature privée or else by judicial or notarial instrument (see Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 1341; Spain, 1244; Port. 2506, 2513; Italy, 1341 et seq.; Pothier’s Law of Obligations, Evans’s ed. i. 257; Burge on Suretyship, p. 19; van der Linden’s Institutes of Holland, p. 120); the French and Belgian Codes, moreover, provide that suretyship is not to be presumed but must always be expressed (art. 2015).
The legal requirements for a guarantee in England are set by (1) the Statute of Frauds, which states that “no action shall be brought to charge the defendant on any special promise to pay the debt, default, or mistakes of another person unless the agreement that such action is based on, or a note of it, is in writing and signed by the party to be charged or someone lawfully authorized by them,” and (2) Lord Tenterden’s Act (9 Geo. IV. c. 14), which in § 6 specifies that “no action shall be brought to charge any person based on any representation or assurance made concerning the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade, or dealings of any other person, with the intent that such other person may obtain credit, money, or goods” (i.e. “on credit,” see per Parke, B., in Lyde v. Barnard, 1 M. & W., at p. 104), “unless such representation or assurance is in writing and signed by the party to be charged.” This latter law, which applies to incorporated companies as well as individuals (Hirst v. West Riding Union Banking Co., 1901, 2 K.B. 560 C.A.), was necessary to address a loophole in the 4th section of the Statute of Frauds, which allowed a special promise to pay someone else’s debt, default, or mistake, when not in writing as required by that section, to be considered a false and fraudulent representation about another's credit, solvency, or honesty, for which damages were recoverable as a tort (Pasley v. Freeman, 3 T.R. 51). In Scotland, where a guarantee is known as a “cautionary obligation,” similar laws are found in § 6 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act (Scotland) 1856, and the Irish Statute of Frauds (7 Will. III. c. 12) includes a provision (§ 2) identical to that in the English Statute of Frauds. In India, a guarantee can be either oral or written (Indian Contract Act, § 126), while in the Australian colonies, Jamaica, and Ceylon, it must be in writing. The German Civil Code requires the surety’s promise to be in writing if they have not executed the main obligation (art. 766), and the Portuguese code allows a guarantee to be proven by any methods established by law for the proof of the main contract (art. 826). Most civil codes currently in effect allow a guarantee, like any other contract, to be made verbally in the presence of witnesses and, in certain situations (like when large sums of money are involved), sous signature privée or through a judicial or notarial document (see Civil Codes, Fr. and Bel. 1341; Spain, 1244; Port. 2506, 2513; Italy, 1341 et seq.; Pothier’s Law of Obligations, Evans’s ed. i. 257; Burge on Suretyship, p. 19; van der Linden’s Institutes of Holland, p. 120); the French and Belgian Codes also state that suretyship is not presumed but must always be explicitly expressed (art. 2015).
The Statute of Frauds does not invalidate a verbal guarantee, but renders it unenforceable by action. It may therefore be available in support of a defence to an action, and money paid under it cannot be recovered. An indemnity is not a guarantee within the statute, unless it contemplates the primary liability of a third person. It need not, therefore, be in writing when it is a mere promise to become liable for a debt, whenever the person to whom the promise is made should become liable (Wildes v. Dudlow, L.R. 19 Eq. 198; per Vaughan Williams, L.J. in Harburg India-Rubber Co. v. Martin, 1902, 1 K.B. p. 786; Guild v. Conrad, 1894, 2 Q.B. 885 C.A.). Neither does the statute apply to the promise of a del credere agent, which binds him, in consideration of the higher commission he receives, to make no sales on behalf of his principal except to persons who are absolutely solvent, and renders him liable for any loss that may result from the non-fulfilment of his promise. A promise to give a guarantee is, however, within the statute, though not one to procure a guarantee.
The Statute of Frauds doesn't invalidate a verbal guarantee, but it does make it unenforceable in court. Therefore, it might still help support a defense in a case, and any money paid under it can't be recovered. An indemnity isn't considered a guarantee under the statute unless it involves the primary liability of a third party. It doesn't have to be in writing if it's just a promise to take on a debt when the person the promise is made to becomes liable (Wildes v. Dudlow, L.R. 19 Eq. 198; per Vaughan Williams, L.J. in Harburg India-Rubber Co. v. Martin, 1902, 1 K.B. p. 786; Guild v. Conrad, 1894, 2 Q.B. 885 C.A.). The statute also doesn't apply to the promise of a del credere agent, which obligates him, due to the higher commission he earns, to only make sales on behalf of his principal to fully solvent individuals, and holds him responsible for any loss that might occur from not fulfilling his promise. However, a promise to give a guarantee is covered by the statute, though not one to procure a guarantee.
The general principles which determine what are guarantees within the Statute of Frauds, as deduced from a multitude of decided cases, are briefly as follows: (1) the primary liability of a third person must exist or be contemplated as the foundation of the contract (Birkmyr v. Darnell, 1 Sm. L.C. 11th ed. p. 299; Mountstephen v. Lakeman, L.R. 7 Q.B. 196; L.R. 7 H.L. 17); (2) the promise must be made to the creditor; (3) there must be an absence of all liability on the part of the surety independently of his express promise of guarantee; (4) the main object of the transaction between the parties to the guarantee must be the fulfilment of a third party’s obligation (see Harburg India-rubber Comb Co. v. Martin, 1902, 1 K.B. 778, 786); and (5) the contract entered into must not amount to a sale by the creditor to the promiser of a security for a debt or of the debt itself (see de Colyar’s Law of Guarantees and of Principal and Surety, 3rd ed. pp. 65-161, where these principles are discussed in detail by the light of decided cases there cited).
The general principles that outline what constitutes guarantees under the Statute of Frauds, based on numerous established cases, are summarized as follows: (1) there must be a primary liability from a third party that exists or is expected as the basis of the contract (Birkmyr v. Darnell, 1 Sm. L.C. 11th ed. p. 299; Mountstephen v. Lakeman, L.R. 7 Q.B. 196; L.R. 7 H.L. 17); (2) the promise must be directed to the creditor; (3) the surety must not have any independent liability outside of their explicit guarantee promise; (4) the main purpose of the transaction between the guarantee parties must be to fulfill a third party’s obligation (see Harburg India-rubber Comb Co. v. Martin, 1902, 1 K.B. 778, 786); and (5) the agreement made must not equate to a sale of security for a debt or of the debt itself from the creditor to the promisor (see de Colyar’s Law of Guarantees and of Principal and Surety, 3rd ed. pp. 65-161, which discusses these principles in detail with references to the cited case law).
As regards the kind of note or memorandum of the guarantee that will satisfy the Statute of Frauds, it is now provided by § 3 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856, that “no special promise to be made, by any person after the passing of this act, to answer for the debt, default or miscarriage of another person, being in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized, shall be deemed invalid to support an action, suit or other proceeding, to charge the person by whom such promise shall have been made, by reason only that the consideration for such promise does not appear in writing or by necessary inference from a written document.” Prior to this enactment, which is not retrospective in its operation, it was held in many cases that as the Statute of Frauds requires “the agreement” to be in writing, all parts thereof were required so to be, including the consideration moving to, as well as the promise by, the party to be charged (Wain v. Walters, 5 East, 10; Sounders v. Wakefield, 4 B. & Ald. 595). These decisions, however, proved to be burdensome to the mercantile community, especially in Scotland and the north of England, and ultimately led to the alteration of the law, so far as guarantees are concerned, by means of the enactment already specified. Any writing embodying the terms of the agreement between the parties, and signed by the party to be charged, is sufficient; and the idea of agreement need not be present to the mind of the person signing (per Lindley, L.J., in In re Hoyle—Hoyle v. Hoyle, 1893, 1 Ch., at p. 98). It is, however, necessary that the names of the contracting parties should appear somewhere in writing; that the party to be charged, or his agent, should sign the memorandum or note of agreement, or else should sign another paper referring thereto; and that, when the note or memorandum is made, a complete agreement shall exist. Moreover, the memorandum must have been made before action brought, though it need not be contemporaneous with the agreement itself. As regards the stamping of the memorandum or note of agreement, a guarantee cannot, in England, be given in evidence unless properly stamped (Stamp Act 1891). A guarantee for the payment of goods, however, requires no stamp, being 654 within the exception contained in the first schedule of the act. Nor is it necessary to stamp a written representation or assurance as to character within 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, supra. If under seal, a guarantee requires sometimes an ad valorem stamp and sometimes a ten-shilling stamp; in other cases a sixpenny stamp generally suffices; and, on certain prescribed terms, the stamps can be affixed any time after execution (Stamp Act 1891, § 15, amended by § 15 of the Finance Act 1895).
Regarding the type of note or memorandum of the guarantee that will meet the requirements of the Statute of Frauds, § 3 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856 now states that “no special promise made by any person after this act is passed, to take responsibility for the debt, default, or failure of another person, while being in writing and signed by the person being held responsible or someone lawfully authorized by them, shall be considered invalid to support an action, suit, or other proceeding to hold the person accountable for the promise just because the consideration for that promise doesn’t appear in writing or can’t be inferred from a written document.” Before this law change, which isn’t retroactive, many cases concluded that since the Statute of Frauds required “the agreement” to be in writing, everything about it had to be, including the consideration provided to the party being held responsible as well as their promise (Wain v. Walters, 5 East, 10; Sounders v. Wakefield, 4 B. & Ald. 595). However, these rulings turned out to be burdensome to the business community, especially in Scotland and the north of England, leading to changes in the law regarding guarantees through the specified enactment. Any writing that includes the terms of the agreement between the parties and is signed by the party being held responsible is adequate; the concept of agreement doesn’t need to be in the mind of the person signing (per Lindley, L.J., in In re Hoyle—Hoyle v. Hoyle, 1893, 1 Ch., at p. 98). However, the names of the contracting parties must appear somewhere in writing; the party being held responsible, or their agent, must sign the memorandum or note of agreement, or must sign another document that references it; and a complete agreement must exist when the note or memorandum is created. Additionally, the memorandum must be made before any legal action is taken, although it doesn’t have to be made at the same time as the agreement itself. Regarding the stamping of the memorandum or note of agreement, a guarantee cannot be used as evidence in England unless it is properly stamped (Stamp Act 1891). However, a guarantee for payment of goods doesn’t require a stamp, as it falls within the exception specified in the first schedule of the act. It’s also not necessary to stamp a written representation or assurance about character under 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, supra. If it’s under seal, a guarantee sometimes requires an ad valorem stamp and sometimes a ten-shilling stamp; in other cases, a sixpenny stamp generally suffices; and the stamps can be attached anytime after execution under certain conditions (Stamp Act 1891, § 15, amended by § 15 of the Finance Act 1895).
The liability incurred by a surety under his guarantee depends upon its terms, and is not necessarily co-extensive with that of the principal debtor. It is, however, obvious that as Extent of surety’s liability. the surety’s obligation is merely accessory to that of the principal it cannot as such exceed it (de Colyar, Law of Guarantees, 3rd ed. p. 233; Burge, Suretyship, p. 5). By the Roman law, if there were any such excess the surety’s obligation was rendered wholly void and not merely void pro tanto. By many existing codes civil, however, a guarantee which imposes on the surety a greater liability than that of the principal is not thereby invalidated, but the liability is merely reducible to that of the principal (Fr. and Bel. 2013; Port. 823; Spain, 1826; Italy, 1900; Holland, 1859; Lower Canada, 1933). By sec. 128 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 the liability of the surety is, unless otherwise provided by contract, coextensive with that of the principal. Where the liability of the surety is less extensive in amount than that of the principal debtor, difficult questions have arisen in England and America as to whether the surety is liable only for part of the debt equal to the limit of his liability, or, up to such limit, for the whole debt (Ellis v. Emmanuel, 1 Ex. Div. 157; Hobson v. Bass, 6 Ch. App. 792; Brandt, Suretyship, sec. 219). The surety cannot be made liable except for a loss sustained by reason of the default guaranteed against. Moreover, in the case of a joint and several guarantee by several sureties, unless all sign it none are liable thereunder (National Pro. Bk. of England v. Brackenbury, 1906, 22 Times L.R. 797). It was formerly considered in England to be the duty of the party taking a guarantee to see that it was couched in language enabling the party giving it to understand clearly to what extent he was binding himself (Nicholson v. Paget, 1 C. & M. 48, 52). This view, however, can no longer be sustained, it being now recognized that a guarantee, like any other contract, must, in cases of ambiguity, be construed against the party bound thereby and in favour of the party receiving it (Mayer v. Isaac, 6 M. & W. 605, 612; Wood v. Priestner, L.R. 2 Exch. 66, 71). The surety is not to be changed beyond the limits prescribed by his contract, which must be construed so as to give effect to what may fairly be inferred to have been the intention of the parties, from what they themselves have expressed in writing. In cases of doubtful import, recourse to parol evidence is permissible, to explain, but not to contradict, the written evidence of the guarantee. As a general rule, the surety is not liable if the principal debt cannot be enforced, because, as already explained, the obligation of the surety is merely accessory to that of the principal debtor. It has never been actually decided in England whether this rule holds good in cases where the principal debtor is an infant, and on that account is not liable to the creditor. Probably in such a case the surety might be held liable by estoppel (see Kimball v. Newell, 7 Hill (N.Y.) 116). When directors guarantee the performance by their company of a contract which is ultra vires, and therefore not binding on the latter, the directors’ suretyship liability is, nevertheless, enforceable against them (Yorkshire Railway Waggon Co. v. Maclure, 21 Ch. D. 309 C.A.).
The liability of a guarantor under their guarantee depends on its terms and isn’t necessarily the same as that of the principal debtor. However, it’s clear that since the guarantor’s obligation is only secondary to that of the principal, it cannot exceed it (de Colyar, Law of Guarantees, 3rd ed. p. 233; Burge, Suretyship, p. 5). According to Roman law, if there was any excess, the guarantor’s obligation was completely void, not just partially void. However, many current civil codes state that a guarantee that places a greater liability on the guarantor than that of the principal does not invalidate the guarantee, but the liability is reduced to match that of the principal (Fr. and Bel. 2013; Port. 823; Spain, 1826; Italy, 1900; Holland, 1859; Lower Canada, 1933). According to section 128 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, the guarantor's liability is, unless specified otherwise in the contract, equal to that of the principal. When the guarantor's liability is less than that of the principal debtor, complicated questions have arisen in England and America about whether the guarantor is liable only for part of the debt up to their limit of liability, or for the entire debt up to that limit (Ellis v. Emmanuel, 1 Ex. Div. 157; Hobson v. Bass, 6 Ch. App. 792; Brandt, Suretyship, sec. 219). The guarantor can only be held responsible for a loss resulting from the default that was guaranteed. Furthermore, in cases of a joint and several guarantee by multiple guarantors, if not all sign it, none are liable (National Pro. Bk. of England v. Brackenbury, 1906, 22 Times L.R. 797). It used to be considered in England that it was the responsibility of the person obtaining the guarantee to ensure that it was written in such a way that the guarantor clearly understood the extent of their commitment (Nicholson v. Paget, 1 C. & M. 48, 52). However, this view is no longer upheld, and it is now recognized that a guarantee, like any other contract, must be interpreted against the party bound by it in cases of ambiguity and in favor of the party receiving it (Mayer v. Isaac, 6 M. & W. 605, 612; Wood v. Priestner, L.R. 2 Exch. 66, 71). The guarantor's position cannot be altered beyond the limits set by their contract, which should be interpreted to reflect what can reasonably be inferred as the intention of the parties based on what they expressed in writing. In situations of unclear meaning, verbal evidence may be used to explain, but not contradict, the written guarantee evidence. Generally, the guarantor is not liable if the principal debt cannot be enforced, because, as mentioned, the guarantor's obligation is only secondary to that of the principal debtor. It has never been definitively determined in England whether this rule applies when the principal debtor is a minor and therefore not liable to the creditor. Likely in such a scenario, the guarantor could be held liable by estoppel (see Kimball v. Newell, 7 Hill (N.Y.) 116). When directors guarantee their company’s performance of a contract that is beyond its powers and thus not binding on the company, the directors are still enforceably liable under their guarantee (Yorkshire Railway Waggon Co. v. Maclure, 21 Ch. D. 309 C.A.).
It is not always easy to determine for how long a time liability under a guarantee endures. Sometimes a guarantee is limited to a single transaction, and is obviously intended to be security against one specific default only. On the other hand, it as often happens that it is not exhausted by one transaction on the faith of it, but extends to a series of transactions, and remains a standing security until it is revoked, either by the act of the parties or else by the death of the surety. It is then termed a continuing guarantee. No fixed rules of interpretation determine whether a guarantee is a continuing one or not, but each case must be judged on its individual merits; and frequently, in order to achieve a correct construction, it becomes necessary to examine the surrounding circumstances, which often reveal what was the subject-matter which the parties contemplated when the guarantee was given, and likewise what was the scope and object of the transaction between them. Most continuing guarantees are either ordinary mercantile securities, in respect of advances made or goods supplied to the principal debtor or else bonds for the good behaviour of persons in public or private offices or employments. With regard to the latter class of continuing guarantees, the surety’s liability is, generally speaking, revoked by any change in the constitution of the persons to or for whom the guarantee is given. On this subject it is now provided by section 18 of the Partnership Act 1890, which applies to Scotland as well as England, that “a continuing guarantee or cautionary obligation given either to a firm or to a third person in respect of the transactions of a firm, is, in the absence of agreement to the contrary, revoked as to future transactions by any change in the constitution of the firm to which, or of the firm in respect of the transactions of which the guaranty or obligation was given.” This section, like the enactment it replaces, namely, sec. 4 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856, is mainly declaratory of the English common law, as embodied in decided cases, which indicate that the changes in the persons to or for whom a guarantee is given may consist either of an increase in their number, of a diminution thereof caused by death or retirement from business, or of the incorporation or consolidation of the persons to whom the guarantee is given. In this connexion it may be stated that the Government Offices (Security) Act 1875, which has been amended by the Statute Law Revision Act 1883, contains certain provisions with regard to the acceptance by the heads of public departments of guarantees given by companies for the due performance of the duties of an office or employment in the public service, and enables the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury to vary the character of any security, for good behaviour by public servants, given after the passing of the act.
It’s not always easy to determine how long a liability under a guarantee lasts. Sometimes a guarantee is specific to a single transaction, meant to secure against just one default. However, it often happens that a guarantee isn’t fully used up with one transaction but covers a series of transactions and remains in effect until it’s revoked, either by the parties involved or by the death of the guarantor. In such cases, it’s called a continuing guarantee. There aren’t fixed rules for interpreting whether a guarantee is continuing or not, so each case must be evaluated on its own merits; often, to properly understand it, you need to look at the surrounding circumstances, which can reveal what the parties had in mind when the guarantee was created and the scope of their transaction. Most continuing guarantees involve usual business securities related to advances made or goods supplied to the main debtor, or they are bonds ensuring the good behavior of people in public or private roles. As for the latter type of continuing guarantees, generally speaking, the guarantor’s liability ends with any change in the team of people for whom the guarantee is made. On this matter, section 18 of the Partnership Act 1890, which applies to both Scotland and England, states that “a continuing guarantee or cautionary obligation given either to a firm or to a third person regarding the transactions of a firm is, unless there is an agreement to the contrary, revoked for future transactions by any change in the makeup of the firm to which, or for the transactions of which, the guarantee or obligation was given.” This section, like the rule it replaced, which was section 4 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856, largely restates English common law as seen in various court cases, which indicate that changes in the individuals for whom a guarantee is made can include an increase in their number, a decrease due to death or retirement, or the incorporation or consolidation of the people receiving the guarantee. Additionally, the Government Offices (Security) Act 1875, amended by the Statute Law Revision Act 1883, includes provisions regarding the acceptance of guarantees from companies by heads of public departments for the proper performance of their duties and allows the Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury to change any security for good behavior by public servants that’s given after the act was passed.
Before the surety can be rendered liable on his guarantee, the principal debtor must have made default. When, however, this has occurred, the creditor, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, may sue the surety, without even informing him of such default having taken place, or requiring him to pay, and before proceeding against the principal debtor or resorting to securities for the debt received from the latter. In those countries where the municipal law is based on the Roman civil law, sureties usually possess the right (which may, however, be renounced by them) originally conferred by the Roman law, of compelling the creditor to insist on the goods, &c. (if any) of the principal debtor being first “discussed,” i.e. appraised and sold, and appropriated to the liquidation of the debt guaranteed (see Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 2021 et seq.; Spain, 1830, 1831; Port. 830; Germany, 771, 772, 773; Holland, 1868; Italy, 1907; Lower Canada, 1941-1942; Egypt [mixed suits] 612; ibid. [native tribunals] 502), before having recourse to the sureties. This right, according to a great American jurist (Chancellor Kent in Hayes v. Ward, 4 Johns. New York, Ch. Cas. p. 132), “accords with a common sense of justice and the natural equity of mankind.” In England this right has never been fully recognized. Neither does it prevail in America nor, since the passing of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act (Scotland) 1856, s. 8, is it any longer available in Scotland where, prior to the last-named enactment, the benefit of discussion, as it is termed, existed. In England, however, before any demand for payment has been made by the creditor on the surety, the latter can, as soon as the principal debtor has made default, compel the creditor, on giving him an indemnity against costs and expenses, to sue the principal debtor if the latter be solvent and able to pay (per A. L. Smith, L.J., in Rouse v. Bradford Banking Company, 1894, 2 Ch. 75; per Lord Eldon in Wright v. Simpson, 6 Ves., at p. 733), and a similar remedy is also open to the surety in America (see Brandt on Suretyship, par. 205, 655 p. 290) though in neither of these countries nor in Scotland can one of several sureties, when sued for the whole guaranteed debt by the creditor, compel the latter to divide his claim amongst all the solvent sureties, and reduce it to the share and proportion of each surety. However, this beneficium divisionis, as it is called in Roman law, is recognized by many existing codes (Fr. and Bel. 2025-2027; Spain, 1837; Portugal, 835-836; Germany, 426; Holland, 1873-1874; Italy, 1911-1912; Lower Canada, 1946; Egypt [mixed suits], 615, 616).
Before a guarantor can be held responsible for their guarantee, the main debtor must default. However, once that happens, the creditor can sue the guarantor without needing to inform them of the default or ask for payment, and before taking action against the main debtor or using any securities associated with the debt. In countries where local law is based on Roman civil law, guarantors usually have the right (which they can give up) established by Roman law, to require the creditor to first liquidate the goods, etc. (if any) of the main debtor—meaning appraised and sold—to cover the guaranteed debt (see Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 2021 et seq.; Spain, 1830, 1831; Port. 830; Germany, 771, 772, 773; Holland, 1868; Italy, 1907; Lower Canada, 1941-1942; Egypt [mixed suits] 612; ibid. [native tribunals] 502) before going after the guarantors. This right, according to a prominent American legal expert (Chancellor Kent in Hayes v. Ward, 4 Johns. New York, Ch. Cas. p. 132), "aligns with a common sense of justice and the inherent fairness of people." In England, this right has never been completely acknowledged. It is also not applicable in America, and since the Mercantile Law Amendment Act (Scotland) 1856, s. 8, it is no longer available in Scotland, where prior to that, the benefit of discussion existed. However, in England, before any payment demand has been made by the creditor on the guarantor, the guarantor can, as soon as the main debtor defaults, require the creditor, with indemnification against costs and expenses, to sue the main debtor if they are solvent and able to pay (per A. L. Smith, L.J., in Rouse v. Bradford Banking Company, 1894, 2 Ch. 75; per Lord Eldon in Wright v. Simpson, 6 Ves., at p. 733), and a similar option is also available to the guarantor in America (see Brandt on Suretyship, par. 205, 655 p. 290). However, in neither of these countries nor in Scotland can one of several guarantors, when being sued for the entire guaranteed debt by the creditor, require the creditor to divide their claim among all solvent guarantors and adjust it to each guarantor's share. Nevertheless, this beneficium divisionis, as it is known in Roman law, is acknowledged by many existing codes (Fr. and Bel. 2025-2027; Spain, 1837; Portugal, 835-836; Germany, 426; Holland, 1873-1874; Italy, 1911-1912; Lower Canada, 1946; Egypt [mixed suits], 615, 616).
The usual mode in England of enforcing liability under a guarantee is by action in the High Court or in the county court. It is also permissible for the creditor to obtain redress by means of a set-off or counter-claim, in an action brought against him by the surety. On the other hand, the surety may now, in any court in which the action on the guarantee is pending, avail himself of any set-off which may exist between the principal debtor and the creditor. Moreover, if one of several sureties for the same debt is sued by the creditor or his guarantee, he can, by means of a proceeding termed a third-party notice, claim contribution from his co-surety towards the common liability. Independent proof of the surety’s liability under his guarantee must always be given at the trial; as the creditor cannot rely either on admissions made by the principal debtor, or on a judgment or award obtained against him (Ex parte Young In re Kitchin, 17 Ch. Div. 668). Should the surety become bankrupt either before or after default has been made by the principal debtor, the creditor will have to prove against his estate. This right of proof is now in England regulated by the 37th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which is most comprehensive in its terms.
The usual way to enforce liability under a guarantee in England is through a lawsuit in the High Court or in the county court. Creditors can also seek compensation through a set-off or counterclaim in a lawsuit initiated by the surety. Conversely, a surety can now assert any set-off that may exist between the principal debtor and the creditor in any court where the guarantee action is ongoing. Additionally, if one of several sureties for the same debt is sued by the creditor or his guarantor, he can use a procedure called a third-party notice to seek contribution from his co-surety for the shared liability. It's important to provide independent proof of the surety’s liability under his guarantee during the trial, as the creditor cannot depend on statements made by the principal debtor, or on a judgment or award obtained against him (Ex parte Young In re Kitchin, 17 Ch. Div. 668). If the surety goes bankrupt, whether before or after the principal debtor defaults, the creditor will need to file a claim against his estate. This right to file a claim is now governed in England by the 37th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which has very broad provisions.
A person liable as a surety for another under a guarantee possesses various rights against him, against the person to whom the guarantee is given, and also against those Rights of sureties. who may have become co-sureties in respect of the same debt, default or miscarriage. As regards the surety’s rights against the principal debtor, the latter may, where the guarantee was made with his consent but not otherwise (see Hodgson v. Shaw, 3 Myl. & K. at p. 190), after he has made default, be compelled by the surety to exonerate him from liability by payment of the guaranteed debt (per Sir W. Grant, M.R., in Antrobus v. Davidson, 3 Meriv. 569, 579; per Lindley, L.J., in Johnston v. Salvage Association, 19 Q.B.D. 460, 461; and see Wolmershausen v. Gullick, 1893, 2 Ch. 514). The moment, moreover, the surety has himself paid any portion of the guaranteed debt, he is entitled to rank as a creditor for the amount so paid, and to compel repayment thereof. In the event of the principal debtor’s bankruptcy, the surety can in England, if the creditor has not already proved in respect of the guaranteed debt, prove against the bankrupt’s estate, not only in respect of payments made before the bankruptcy of the principal debtor, but also, it seems, in respect of the contingent liability to pay under the guarantee (see Ex parte Delmar re Herepath, 1889, 38 W.R. 752), while if the creditor has already proved, the surety who has paid the guaranteed debt has a right to all dividends received by the creditor from the bankrupt in respect thereof, and to stand in the creditor’s place as to future dividends. This right is, however, often waived by the guarantee stipulating that, until the creditor has received full payment of all sums over and above the guaranteed debt, due to him from the principal debtor, the surety shall not participate in any dividends distributed from the bankrupt’s estate amongst his creditors. As regards the rights of the surety against the creditor, they are in England exercisable even by one who in the first instance was a principal debtor, but has since become a surety, by arrangement with his creditor, duly notified to the creditor, though not even sanctioned by him. This was decided by the House of Lords in the case of Rouse v. The Bradford Banking Co., 1894, A.C. 586, removing a doubt created by the previous case of Swire v. Redman, 1 Q.B.D. 536, which must now be treated as overruled. The surety’s principal right against the creditor entitles him, after payment of the guaranteed debt, to the benefit of all securities, whether known to him (the surety) or not, which the creditor held against the principal debtor; and where, by default or laches of the creditor, such securities have been lost, or rendered otherwise unavailable, the surety is discharged pro tanto. This right, which is not in abeyance till the surety is called on to pay (Dixon v. Steel, 1901, 2 Ch. 602), extends to all securities, whether satisfied or not, given before or after the contract of suretyship was entered into. On this subject the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, § 5, provides that “every person who being surety for the debt or duty of another, or being liable with another for any debt or duty, shall pay such debt or perform such duty, shall be entitled to have assigned to him, or to a trustee for him, every judgment, specialty, or other security, which shall be held by the creditor in respect of such debt or duty, whether such judgment, specialty, or other security shall or shall not be deemed at law to have been satisfied by the payment of the debt or performance of the duty, and such person shall be entitled to stand in the place of the creditor, and to use all the remedies, and, if need be, and upon a proper indemnity, to use the name of the creditor, in any action or other proceeding at law or in equity, in order to obtain from the principal debtor, or any co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor, as the case may be, indemnification for the advances made and loss sustained by the person who shall have so paid such debt or performed such duty; and such payment or performance so made by such surety shall not be pleadable in bar of any such action or other proceeding by him, provided always that no co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor shall be entitled to recover from any other co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor, by the means aforesaid, more than the just proportion to which, as between those parties themselves, such last-mentioned person shall be justly liable.” This enactment is so far retrospective that it applies to a contract made before the act, where the breach thereof, and the payment by the surety, have taken place subsequently. The right of the surety to be subrogated, on payment by him of the guaranteed debt, to all the rights of the creditor against the principal debtor is recognized in America (Tobin v. Kirk, 80 New York S.C.R. 229), and many other countries (Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 2029; Spain, 1839; Port. 839; Germany, 774; Holland, 1877; Italy, 1916; Lower Canada, 2959; Egypt [mixed suits], 617; ibid. [native tribunals], 505).
A person who guarantees another's debt has various rights against that person, against the one receiving the guarantee, and also against any co-sureties for the same debt, default, or issue. In terms of the surety’s rights against the main debtor, the debtor may, if the guarantee was made with their consent (but not otherwise; see Hodgson v. Shaw, 3 Myl. & K. at p. 190), after defaulting, be required by the surety to release them from liability by paying the guaranteed debt (per Sir W. Grant, M.R., in Antrobus v. Davidson, 3 Meriv. 569, 579; per Lindley, L.J., in Johnston v. Salvage Association, 19 Q.B.D. 460, 461; and see Wolmershausen v. Gullick, 1893, 2 Ch. 514). Furthermore, once the surety has paid any part of the guaranteed debt, they have the right to rank as a creditor for that amount and can demand repayment. If the main debtor goes bankrupt, in England, the surety can, if the creditor hasn't already made a claim regarding the guaranteed debt, file a claim against the bankrupt's estate for payments made before the main debtor's bankruptcy, and apparently for the potential liability to pay under the guarantee (see Ex parte Delmar re Herepath, 1889, 38 W.R. 752). If the creditor has already filed a claim, the surety who has paid the guaranteed debt is entitled to all dividends received by the creditor from the bankrupt regarding that debt, and can stand in the creditor’s place for future dividends. However, this right is often waived when the guarantee states that until the creditor has received full payment of all amounts beyond the guaranteed debt from the main debtor, the surety won’t share in any dividends distributed from the bankrupt’s estate among the creditors. As for the surety's rights against the creditor, they can be exercised in England even by someone who was initially a main debtor but has since become a surety through an arrangement with their creditor that was officially communicated to the creditor, even if not specifically approved by them. This was affirmed by the House of Lords in the case of Rouse v. The Bradford Banking Co., 1894, A.C. 586, resolving doubts raised by the earlier case of Swire v. Redman, 1 Q.B.D. 536, which is now considered overruled. The surety’s main right against the creditor allows them, after paying the guaranteed debt, to benefit from all securities, whether they are known to the surety or not, that the creditor holds against the main debtor; and if those securities were lost or rendered unavailable due to the creditor's negligence or delay, the surety is released pro tanto. This right, which is not on hold until the surety is asked to pay (Dixon v. Steel, 1901, 2 Ch. 602), extends to all securities, whether settled or not, given before or after the suretyship agreement was made. On this topic, the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856, § 5, states that “every person who is a surety for the debt or duty of another, or who is jointly liable with someone else for any debt or duty, who pays that debt or fulfills that duty shall be entitled to have assigned to them, or to a trustee for them, any judgment, specialty, or other security that the creditor holds for that debt or duty, whether or not such judgment, specialty, or other security is regarded as satisfied by the payment or fulfillment. Such a person shall be entitled to stand in the place of the creditor and to use all remedies, and if necessary, and with appropriate indemnity, to use the creditor's name in any legal action or proceeding in order to obtain indemnification from the main debtor, or any co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor, as applicable, for the advances made and losses suffered by the person who paid that debt or performed that duty; and such payment or performance by the surety shall not be used as a defense in any such actions or proceedings, provided that no co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor is entitled to recover from any other co-surety, co-contractor, or co-debtor more than their fair share of liability among those parties.” This provision applies retrospectively to contracts made before the act, provided the breach occurred and the payment by the surety took place afterward. The surety's right to substitute, after paying the guaranteed debt, to all the rights of the creditor against the main debtor is acknowledged in America (Tobin v. Kirk, 80 New York S.C.R. 229), and many other countries (Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 2029; Spain, 1839; Port. 839; Germany, 774; Holland, 1877; Italy, 1916; Lower Canada, 2959; Egypt [mixed suits], 617; ibid. [native tribunals], 505).
As regards the rights of the surety against a co-surety, he is entitled to contribution from him in respect of their common liability. This particular right is not the result of any contract, but is derived from a general equity, on the ground of equality of burden and benefit, and exists whether the sureties be bound jointly, or jointly and severally, and by the same, or different, instruments. There is, however, no right of contribution where each surety is severally bound for a given portion only of the guaranteed debt; nor in the case of a surety for a surety; (see In re Denton’s Estate, 1904, 2 Ch. 178 C.A.); nor where a person becomes a surety jointly with another and at the latter’s request. Contribution may be enforced, either before payment, or as soon as the surety has paid more than his share of the common debt (Wolmershausen v. Gullick, 1803, 2 Ch. 514); and the amount recoverable is now always regulated by the number of solvent sureties, though formerly this rule only prevailed in equity. In the event of the bankruptcy of a surety, proof can be made against his estate by a co-surety for any excess over the latter’s contributive share. The right of contribution is not the only right possessed by co-sureties against each other, but they are also entitled to the benefit of all securities which have been taken by any one of them as an indemnity against the liability incurred for the principal debtor. The Roman law did not recognize the right of contribution amongst sureties. It is, however, sanctioned by many existing codes (Fr. and Bel. 2033; Germany, 426, 474; Italy, 1920; Holland, 1881; Spain, 1844; Port. 845; Lower Canada, 1955; Egypt [mixed suits], 618, ibid. [native tribunals], 506), and also by the Indian Contract Act 1872, ss. 146-147.
Regarding the rights of a guarantor against a co-guarantor, they are entitled to a share of the payment from the other for their shared responsibility. This right isn't based on any contract but comes from a general sense of fairness, due to the idea of equal responsibility and benefit. It applies whether the guarantors are bound together, or individually, and under the same or different agreements. However, there is no right to collect from each other if each guarantor is responsible for only part of the guaranteed amount; nor if one is a guarantor for another guarantor; (see In re Denton’s Estate, 1904, 2 Ch. 178 C.A.); or when someone becomes a guarantor alongside another at their request. A guarantor can ask for their share back either before making a payment or right after they have paid more than their portion of the shared debt (Wolmershausen v. Gullick, 1803, 2 Ch. 514); and the amount they can recover is now always based on the number of solvent guarantors, though this was previously a rule only in equity. If a guarantor goes bankrupt, a co-guarantor can file a claim against their estate for any amount over what their contributory share was. The right to share costs isn't the only entitlement held by co-guarantors; they are also entitled to benefit from any securities taken by one of them as protection against the responsibilities incurred for the main debtor. Roman law did not support the right of contribution among guarantors. However, it is upheld by many current legal systems (Fr. and Bel. 2033; Germany, 426, 474; Italy, 1920; Holland, 1881; Spain, 1844; Port. 845; Lower Canada, 1955; Egypt [mixed suits], 618, ibid. [native tribunals], 506), as well as by the Indian Contract Act 1872, sections 146-147.
The discharge of a surety from liability under his guarantee 656 may be accomplished In various ways, he being regarded, especially in England and America, as a “favoured debtor” (per Turner, L.J., in Wheatley v. Bastow, 7 De G. M. & G. 279, 280; per Earl of Selborne, L.C., in In re Sherry—London and County Banking Co. v. Terry, 25 Ch. D., at p. 703; and see Brandt on Suretyship, secs. 79, 80). Thus, fraud subsequent to the execution of the guarantee (as where, for example, the creditor connives at the principal debtor’s default) will certainly discharge the surety. Again, a material alteration made by the creditor in the instrument of guarantee after its execution may also have this effect. The most prolific ground of discharge, however, is usually traceable to causes originating in the creditor’s laches or conduct, the governing principle being that if the creditor violates any rights which the surety possessed when he entered into the suretyship, even though the damage be nominal only, the guarantee cannot be enforced. On this subject it suffices to state that the surety’s discharge may be accomplished (1) by a variation of the terms of the contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, or of that subsisting between the creditor and the surety (see Rickaby v. Lewis, 22 T.L.R. 130); (2) by the creditor taking a new security from the principal debtor in lieu of the original one; (3) by the creditor discharging the principal debtor from liability; (4) by the creditor binding himself to give time to the principal debtor for payment of the guaranteed debt; or (5) by loss of securities received by the creditor in respect of the guaranteed debt.
The release of a guarantor from liability under their guarantee 656 can happen in various ways, as they are seen, particularly in England and America, as a “favoured debtor” (per Turner, L.J., in Wheatley v. Bastow, 7 De G. M. & G. 279, 280; per Earl of Selborne, L.C., in In re Sherry—London and County Banking Co. v. Terry, 25 Ch. D., at p. 703; and see Brandt on Suretyship, secs. 79, 80). So, any fraud that occurs after the guarantee is signed (like when the creditor helps the principal debtor to default) will definitely release the guarantor. Additionally, any significant changes made by the creditor to the guarantee after it has been executed can also lead to this release. However, the most common reason for discharge often comes from issues related to the creditor’s delays or actions, with the main principle being that if the creditor violates any rights that the guarantor had when they agreed to the guarantee, even if the loss is minimal, the guarantee cannot be enforced. Regarding this matter, it is enough to say that a guarantor can be released (1) through changes in the contract terms between the creditor and the principal debtor, or between the creditor and the guarantor (see Rickaby v. Lewis, 22 T.L.R. 130); (2) if the creditor takes new security from the principal debtor instead of the original; (3) if the creditor releases the principal debtor from liability; (4) if the creditor agrees to give the principal debtor more time to pay the guaranteed debt; or (5) if the creditor loses any securities obtained regarding the guaranteed debt.
In this connexion It may be stated in general terms that whatever extinguishes the principal obligation necessarily determines that of the surety (which is accessory thereto), not only in England but elsewhere also (Codes Civil, Fr. and Bel. 2034, 2038; Spain, 1847; Port. 848; Lower Canada, 1956; 1960; Egypt [mixed suits], 622, ibid. [native tribunals], 509; Indian Contract Act 1872, sec. 134), and that, by most of the codes civil now in force, the surety is discharged by laches or conduct of the creditor inconsistent with the surety’s rights (see Fr. and Bel. 2037; Spain, 1852; Port. 853; Germany, 776; Italy, 1928; Egypt [mixed suits], 623), though it may be mentioned that the rule prevailing in England, Scotland, America and India which releases the surety from liability where the creditor, by binding contract with the principal, extends without the surety’s consent the time for fulfilling the principal obligation, while recognized by two existing codes civil (Spain, 1851; Port. 852), is rejected by the majority of them (Fr. and Bel. 2039; Holland, 1887; Italy, 1930; Lower Canada, 1961; Egypt [mixed suits], 613; ib. [native tribunals], 503); (and see Morice, English and Dutch Law, p. 96; van der Linden, Institutes of Holland, pp. 120-121). A revocation of the contract of suretyship by act of the parties, or in certain cases by the death of the surety, may also operate to discharge the surety. The death of a surety does not per se determine the guarantee, but, save where from its nature the guarantee is irrevocable by the surety himself, it can be revoked by express notice after his death, or, it would appear, by the creditor becoming affected with constructive notice thereof; except where, under the testator’s will, the executor has the option of continuing the guarantee, in which case the executor should, it seems, specifically withdraw the guarantee in order to determine it. Where one of a number of joint and several sureties dies, the future liability of the survivors under the guarantee continues, at all events until it has been determined by express notice. Moreover, when three persons joined in a guarantee to a bank, and their liability thereunder was not expressed to be several, it was held that the death of one surety did not determine the liability of the survivors. In such a case, however, the estate of the deceased surety would be relieved from liability.
In this connection, it can generally be said that anything that cancels the main obligation also cancels the surety's obligation (since it is secondary to the main one), not just in England but also in other places (Civil Codes, Fr. and Bel. 2034, 2038; Spain, 1847; Port. 848; Lower Canada, 1956; 1960; Egypt [mixed suits], 622, ibid. [native tribunals], 509; Indian Contract Act 1872, sec. 134). According to most current civil codes, the surety is released by laches or actions by the creditor that go against the surety’s rights (see Fr. and Bel. 2037; Spain, 1852; Port. 853; Germany, 776; Italy, 1928; Egypt [mixed suits], 623). It’s worth noting that the rule in England, Scotland, America, and India that releases the surety from liability when the creditor, through a binding contract with the principal, extends the time for fulfilling the main obligation without the surety’s consent, while recognized by two existing civil codes (Spain, 1851; Port. 852), is rejected by most (Fr. and Bel. 2039; Holland, 1887; Italy, 1930; Lower Canada, 1961; Egypt [mixed suits], 613; ib. [native tribunals], 503); (and see Morice, English and Dutch Law, p. 96; van der Linden, Institutes of Holland, pp. 120-121). A termination of the suretyship contract by mutual agreement or, in some cases, by the surety's death can also release the surety. The death of a surety does not automatically end the guarantee, but unless the guarantee is naturally irrevocable by the surety themselves, it can be revoked by giving express notice after their death, or, it seems, by the creditor becoming aware of it; except where the testator's will gives the executor the option to continue the guarantee, in which case the executor should specifically withdraw the guarantee to nullify it. If one of several joint and several sureties dies, the remaining sureties still have future liability under the guarantee until it’s explicitly terminated. Furthermore, when three people joined in a guarantee to a bank, and their liability was not stated as several, it was ruled that the death of one surety did not end the liability of the others. However, in such a case, the estate of the deceased surety would be released from liability.
The Statutes of Limitation bar the right of action on guarantees under seal after twenty years, and on other guarantees after six years, from the date when the creditor might have sued the surety.
The Statutes of Limitation prevent the right to take legal action on sealed guarantees after twenty years, and on other guarantees after six years, starting from the date when the creditor could have sued the guarantor.
Authorities.—De Colyar, Law of Guarantees and of Principal and Surety (3rd ed., 1897); American edition, by J. A. Morgan (1875); Throop, Validity of Verbal Agreements; Fell, Guarantees (2nd ed.); Theobald, Law of Principal and Surety; Brandt, Law of Suretyships and Guarantee; article by de Colyar in Journal of Comparative Legislation (1905), on “Suretyship from the Standpoint of Comparative Jurisprudence.”
Authorities.—De Colyar, Law of Guarantees and of Principal and Surety (3rd ed., 1897); American edition, by J. A. Morgan (1875); Throop, Validity of Verbal Agreements; Fell, Guarantees (2nd ed.); Theobald, Law of Principal and Surety; Brandt, Law of Suretyships and Guarantee; article by de Colyar in Journal of Comparative Legislation (1905), on “Suretyship from the Standpoint of Comparative Jurisprudence.”
GUARATINGUETÁ, a city of Brazil In the eastern part of the state of São Paulo, 124 m. N.E. of the city of São Paulo. Pop. (1890) of the municipality, which includes a large rural district and the villages of Apparecida and Roseira, 30,690. The city, which was founded in 1651, stands on a fertile plain 3 m. from the Parahyba river, and is the commercial centre of one of the oldest agricultural districts of the state. The district produces large quantities of coffee, and some sugar, Indian corn and beans. Cattle and pigs are raised. The city dwellings are for the most part constructed of rough wooden frames covered with mud, called taipa by the natives, and roofed with curved tiles. The São Paulo branch of the Brazilian Central railway passes through the city, by which it is connected with Rio de Janeiro on one side and São Paulo and Santos on the other.
GUARATINGUETÁ,, a city in Brazil located in the eastern part of the state of São Paulo, is 124 miles northeast of São Paulo city. The population in 1890 for the municipality, which includes a large rural area and the villages of Aparecida and Roseira, was 30,690. Founded in 1651, the city sits on a fertile plain 3 miles from the Parahyba River and serves as the commercial center of one of the oldest agricultural regions in the state. The district produces large quantities of coffee, along with some sugar, corn, and beans. Cattle and pigs are also raised here. Most of the city’s homes are built with rough wooden frames covered in mud, referred to as taipa by locals, and have roofs made of curved tiles. The São Paulo branch of the Brazilian Central railway runs through the city, connecting it to Rio de Janeiro on one side and São Paulo and Santos on the other.
GUARDA, an episcopal city and the capital of an administrative district bearing the same name, and formerly in the province of Beira, Portugal; on the Guarda-Abrantes and Lisbon-Villar Formoso railways. Pop. (1900) 6124. Guarda is situated 3370 ft. above sea-level, at the north-eastern extremity of the Serra da Estrella, overlooking the fertile valley of the river Côa. It is surrounded by ancient walls, and contains a ruined castle, a fine 16th-century cathedral and a sanatorium for consumptives. Its industries comprise the manufacture of coarse cloth and the sale of grain, wine and live stock. In 1199 Guarda was founded, on the site of the Roman Lencia Oppidana, by Sancho I. of Portugal, who intended it, as its name implies, to be a “guard” against Moorish invasion. The administrative district of Guarda coincides with north-eastern Beira; pop. (1900), 261,630; area, 1065 sq. m.
GUARDA, is an episcopal city and the capital of an administrative district with the same name, formerly part of the province of Beira, Portugal; it's located on the Guarda-Abrantes and Lisbon-Villar Formoso railways. Population (1900) 6,124. Guarda sits 3,370 ft. above sea level, at the north-eastern end of the Serra da Estrella, overlooking the fertile valley of the river Côa. It's surrounded by ancient walls and features a ruined castle, a beautiful 16th-century cathedral, and a sanatorium for tuberculosis patients. Its industries include the production of coarse cloth and the trade of grain, wine, and livestock. Founded in 1199 on the site of the Roman Lencia Oppidana by Sancho I of Portugal, Guarda was intended to serve, as its name suggests, as a “guard” against Moorish invasion. The administrative district of Guarda overlaps with north-eastern Beira; population (1900) 261,630; area, 1,065 sq. m.
GUARDI, FRANCESCO (1712-1793), Venetian painter, was a pupil of Canaletto, and followed his style so closely that his pictures are very frequently attributed to his more celebrated master. Nevertheless, the diversity, when once perceived, is sufficiently marked—Canaletto being more firm, solid, distinct, well-grounded, and on the whole the higher master, while Guardi is noticeable for spirited touch, sparkling colour and picturesquely sketched figures—in these respects being fully equal to Canaletto. Guardi sometimes coloured Canaletto’s designs. He had extraordinary facility, three or four days being enough for producing an entire work. The number of his performances is large in proportion to this facility and to the love of gain which characterized him. Many of his works are to be found in England and seven in the Louvre.
GUARDI, FRANCESCO (1712-1793), was a Venetian painter and a student of Canaletto. He imitated his style so closely that many of his paintings are often mistakenly credited to his more famous teacher. However, once you notice the differences, they are quite distinct—Canaletto’s work is more solid, clear, and structured, making him the superior artist overall, while Guardi is known for his lively brushwork, vibrant colors, and beautifully sketched figures, matching Canaletto in those areas. Guardi sometimes added color to Canaletto’s designs. He had an incredible ability to paint, often completing an entire work in just three or four days. His output is significant given this ability and his desire for profit. Many of his works are found in England, with seven in the Louvre.
GUARDIAN, one who guards or defends another, a protector. The O. Fr. guarden, garden, mod. gardien, from guarder, garder, is of Teutonic origin, from the base war-, to protect, cf. O.H. Ger. warten, and Eng. “ward”; thus “guardian” and “warden” are etymologically identical, as are “guard” and “ward”; cf. the use of the correlatives “guardian” and “ward,” i.e. a minor, or person incapable of managing his affairs, under the protection or in the custody of a guardian. For the position of guardians of the poor see Poor Law, and for the legal relations between a guardian and his ward see Infant, Marriage and Roman Law.
GUARDIAN, someone who protects or defends another, a protector. The Old French guarden, garden, and modern gardien, from guarder, garder, come from a Teutonic root, war-, meaning to protect, related to Old High German warten, and English "ward"; thus “guardian” and “warden” are etymologically the same, just as “guard” and “ward” are; see the correlation between “guardian” and “ward,” that is, a minor or someone unable to manage their own affairs, under the protection or in the custody of a guardian. For details on the guardianship of the poor, see Poor Law, and for the legal relationships between a guardian and their ward, see Infant, Marriage, and Roman Law.
GUARDS, and HOUSEHOLD TROOPS. The word guard is an adaptation of the Fr. guarde, mod. garde, O. Ger. ward; see Guardian. The practice of maintaining bodyguards is of great antiquity, and may indeed be considered the beginning of organized armies. Thus there is often no clear distinction between the inner ring of personal defenders and the select corps of trained combatants who are at the chief’s entire disposal. Famous examples of corps that fell under one or both these headings are the “Immortals” of Xerxes, the Mamelukes, Janissaries, the Huscarles of the Anglo-Saxon kings, and the Russian Strelitz (Stryeltsi). In modern times the distinction of function is better marked, and the fighting men who are more intimately connected with the sovereign than the bulk of the army can be classified as to duties into “Household Troops,” 657 who are in a sense personal retainers, and “Guards,” who are a corps d’élite of combatants. But the dividing line is not so clear as to any given body of troops. Thus the British Household Cavalry is part of the combatant army as well as the sovereign’s escort.
GUARDS, and HOUSEHOLD TROOPS. The term guard comes from the French guarde, modern garde, and Old German ward; see Guardian. The practice of having bodyguards is very old and can be seen as the start of organized armies. Therefore, there's often no clear separation between personal defenders and the select group of trained fighters who are fully at the chief’s service. Notable examples of groups that fit into one or both of these categories include the “Immortals” of Xerxes, the Mamelukes, Janissaries, the Huscarles of the Anglo-Saxon kings, and the Russian Strelitz (Stryeltsi). Nowadays, the distinction of roles is more defined, and the soldiers who have closer ties to the sovereign than the rest of the army can be classified by their duties into “Household Troops,” who act as personal retainers, and “Guards,” who are an elite group of combatants. However, the line isn't always clear for any specific troop. For example, the British Household Cavalry serves as both a part of the combat army and the sovereign’s escort.
The oldest of the household or bodyguard corps in the United Kingdom is the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (q.v.), formed at his accession by Henry VII. The “nearest guard,” the personal escort of the sovereign, is the “King’s Bodyguard of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms,” created by Henry VIII. at his accession in 1509. Formed possibly on the pattern of the “Pensionnaires” of the French kings—retainers of noble birth who were the predecessors of the Maison du Roi (see below)—the new corps was originally called “the Pensioners.” The importance of such guards regiments in the general development of organized armies is illustrated by a declaration of the House of Commons, made in 1674, that the militia, the pensioners and the Yeomen of the Guard were the only lawful armed forces in the realm. But with the rise of the professional soldier and the corresponding disuse of arms by the nobles and gentry, the Gentlemen-at-Arms (a title which came into use in James II.’s time, though it did not become that of the corps until William IV.’s) retaining their noble character, became less and less military. Burke attempted without success in 1782 to restrict membership to officers of the army and navy, but the necessity of giving the corps an effective military character became obvious when, on the occasion of a threatened Chartist riot, it was called upon to do duty as an armed body at St James’s Palace. The corps was reconstituted on a purely military basis in 1862, and from that date only military officers of the regular services who have received a war decoration are eligible for appointment. The office of captain, however, is political, the holder (who is always a peer) vacating it on the resignation of the government of which he is a member. The corps consists at present of captain, lieutenant, standard bearer, clerk of the cheque (adjutant), sub-officer and 39 gentlemen-at-arms. The uniform consists of a scarlet swallow-tailed coat and blue overalls, with gold epaulettes, brass dragoon helmet with drooping white plume and brass box-spurs, these last contrasting rather forcibly with the partizan, an essentially infantry weapon, that they carry.
The oldest bodyguard in the United Kingdom is the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (q.v.), which was established when Henry VII became king. The primary escort for the monarch is the “King’s Bodyguard of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms,” created by Henry VIII when he took the throne in 1509. This group was possibly modeled after the “Pensionnaires” of the French kings—noble retainers who were predecessors to the Maison du Roi (see below)—and was initially called “the Pensioners.” The significance of such guard regiments in the evolution of organized armies is highlighted by a statement from the House of Commons in 1674, declaring that the militia, the pensioners, and the Yeomen of the Guard were the only legitimate armed forces in the country. However, as professional soldiers gained prominence and nobles and gentry began to abandon the use of arms, the Gentlemen-at-Arms (a title that emerged during James II’s reign, though it didn't become official for the corps until William IV’s time) retained their noble status but became less military in nature. Burke tried, unsuccessfully, to limit membership in 1782 to army and navy officers, but it became clear that the corps needed a more effective military role when it was called to duty as an armed group at St James’s Palace during a threatened Chartist riot. The corps was reestablished on a strictly military basis in 1862, and from then on, only military officers from the regular forces who have received a war decoration can be appointed. The position of captain, however, is political, with the holder (who is always a peer) stepping down when their government resigns. Currently, the corps includes a captain, lieutenant, standard bearer, clerk of the cheque (adjutant), sub-officer, and 39 gentlemen-at-arms. Their uniform features a scarlet swallow-tailed coat and blue overalls, along with gold epaulettes, a brass dragoon helmet with a drooping white plume, and brass box-spurs, which stand in stark contrast to the partizan, an infantry weapon they carry.
The Royal Company of Archers.—The king’s bodyguard for Scotland was constituted in its present form in the year 1670, by an act of the privy council of Scotland. An earlier origin has been claimed for the company, some connecting it with a supposed archer guard of the kings of Scotland. In the above-mentioned year, 1676, the minutes of the Royal Company begin by stating, that owing to “the noble and usefull recreation of archery being for many years much neglected, several noblemen and gentlemen did associate themselves in a company for encouragement thereof ... and did apply to the privy council for their approbation ... which was granted.” For about twenty years at the end of the 17th century, perhaps owing to the adhesion of the majority to the Stuart cause, its existence seems to have been suspended. But in 1703 a new captain-general, Sir George Mackenzie, Viscount Tarbat, afterwards earl of Cromarty (1630-1714), was elected, and he procured for the company a new charter from Queen Anne. The rights and privileges renewed or conferred by this charter were to be held of the crown for the reddendo of a pair of barbed arrows. This reddendo was paid to George IV. at Holyrood in 1822, to Queen Victoria in 1842 and to King Edward VII. in 1903. The history of the Royal Company since 1703 has been one of great prosperity. Large parades were frequently held, and many distinguished men marched in the ranks. Several of the leading insurgents in 1745 were members, but the company was not at that time suspended in any way.
The Royal Company of Archers.—The king’s bodyguard for Scotland was formally established in 1670 by an act of the privy council of Scotland. Some trace its origins back to a supposed archer guard for the kings of Scotland. In 1676, the minutes of the Royal Company state that due to “the noble and useful recreation of archery being neglected for many years, several noblemen and gentlemen formed a company to encourage it... and applied to the privy council for their approval... which was granted.” For about twenty years at the end of the 17th century, possibly because most members supported the Stuart cause, its activities seemed to be suspended. However, in 1703, a new captain-general, Sir George Mackenzie, Viscount Tarbat, who later became Earl of Cromarty (1630-1714), was elected, and he obtained a new charter from Queen Anne for the company. The rights and privileges reaffirmed or granted by this charter were to be held from the crown for the reddendo of a pair of barbed arrows. This reddendo was paid to George IV at Holyrood in 1822, to Queen Victoria in 1842, and to King Edward VII in 1903. The history of the Royal Company since 1703 has been one of significant success. Large parades were often held, and many notable figures marched in the ranks. Several of the leading insurgents in 1745 were members, but the company was not suspended in any way at that time.
In 1822 when King George IV. visited Scotland, it was thought appropriate that the Royal Company should act as his majesty’s bodyguard during his stay, especially as there was a tradition of a former archer bodyguard. They therefore performed the duties usually assigned to the gentlemen-at-arms. When Queen Victoria visited the Scottish capital in 1842, the Royal Company again did duty; the last time they were called out in her reign in their capacity of royal bodyguard was in 1860 on the occasion of the great volunteer review in the Queen’s Park, Edinburgh. They acted in the same capacity when King Edward VII. reviewed the Scottish Volunteers there on the 18th of September 1905.
In 1822, when King George IV visited Scotland, it was deemed fitting for the Royal Company to serve as his bodyguard during his stay, especially since there was a tradition of a previous archer bodyguard. They took on the roles usually assigned to the gentlemen-at-arms. When Queen Victoria visited the Scottish capital in 1842, the Royal Company once again provided service; the last time they were called to duty in her reign as royal bodyguard was in 1860 during the large volunteer review at the Queen’s Park, Edinburgh. They served in the same role when King Edward VII reviewed the Scottish Volunteers there on September 18, 1905.
King George IV. authorized the company to take, in addition to their former name, that of “The King’s Body Guard for Scotland,” and presented to the captain-general a gold stick, thus constituting the company part of the royal household. In virtue of this stick the captain-general of the Royal Company takes his place at a coronation or similar pageant immediately behind the gold stick of England. The lieutenants-general of the company have silver sticks; and the council, which is the executive body of the company, possess seven ebony ones. George IV. further appointed a full dress uniform to be worn by members of the company at court, when not on duty as guards, in which latter case the ordinary field dress is used. The court dress is green with green velvet facings, gold epaulettes and lace, crimson silk sash, and cocked hat with green plume. The officers wear a gold sash in place of a crimson one, and an aiguillette on the left shoulder. All ranks wear swords. The field dress at present consists of a dark-green tunic, shoulder-wings and gauntleted cuffs and trousers trimmed with black and crimson; a bow-case worn as a sash, of the same colour as the coat, black waistbelt with sword, and Balmoral bonnet with thistle ornament and eagle’s feather. The officers of the company are the captain-general, 4 captains, 4 lieutenants, 4 ensigns, 12 brigadiers and adjutant.
King George IV authorized the company to take on the additional name of “The King’s Body Guard for Scotland” and presented the captain-general with a gold stick, officially making the company part of the royal household. Because of this stick, the captain-general of the Royal Company stands at a coronation or similar event right behind the gold stick of England. The lieutenants-general of the company have silver sticks, and the council, which is the executive body of the company, has seven ebony ones. George IV also appointed a full dress uniform for company members to wear at court when they are not on duty as guards; in that case, they wear the regular field dress. The court dress is green with green velvet trim, gold epaulettes and lace, a crimson silk sash, and a cocked hat with a green plume. The officers wear a gold sash instead of a crimson one, along with an aiguillette on the left shoulder. All ranks carry swords. The current field dress consists of a dark-green tunic, shoulder-wings, and gauntleted cuffs and trousers trimmed with black and crimson; a bow-case worn as a sash in the same color as the coat, a black waistbelt with a sword, and a Balmoral bonnet with a thistle ornament and eagle's feather. The officers of the company include the captain-general, four captains, four lieutenants, four ensigns, twelve brigadiers, and an adjutant.
Corps of the gentlemen-at-arms or yeoman type do not of course count as combatant troops—if for no other reason at least because they are armed with the weapons of bygone times. Colonel Clifford Walton states in his History of the British Standing Army that neither the Yeomen of the Guard nor the Pensioners were ever subject to martial law. The British guards and household troops that are armed, trained and organized as part of the army are the Household Cavalry and the Foot Guards.
Corps of gentlemen-at-arms or yeoman type obviously don't count as combat troops—if for no other reason, it's because they're equipped with outdated weapons. Colonel Clifford Walton mentions in his History of the British Standing Army that neither the Yeomen of the Guard nor the Pensioners were ever under martial law. The British guards and household troops that are armed, trained, and organized as part of the army are the Household Cavalry and the Foot Guards.
The Household Cavalry consists at the present day of three regiments, and has its origin, as have certain of the Foot guard regiments, in the ashes of the “New Model” army disbanded at the restoration of Charles II. in 1660. In that year the “1st or His Majesty’s Own Troop of Guards” formed during the king’s exile of his cavalier followers, was taken on the strength of the army. The 2nd troop was formerly in the Spanish service as the “Duke of York’s Guards,” and was also a cavalier unit. In 1670, on Monk’s death, the original 3rd troop (Monk’s Life Guards, renamed in 1660 the “Lord General’s Troop of Guards”) became the 2nd (the queen’s) troop, and the duke of York’s troop the 3rd. In 1685 the 1st and 2nd troops were styled Life Guards of Horse, and two years later the blue-uniformed “Royal Regiment of Horse,” a New Model regiment that had been disbanded and at once re-raised in 1660, was made a household cavalry corps. Later under the colonelcy of the earl of Oxford it was popularly called “The Oxford Blues.” There were also from time to time other troops (e.g. Scots troops 1700-1746) that have now disappeared. In 1746 the 2nd troop was disbanded, but it was revived in 1788, when the two senior corps were given their present title of 1st and 2nd Life Guards. From 1750 to 1819 the Blues bore the name of “Royal Horse Guards Blue,” which in 1819 was changed to “Royal Horse Guards (The Blues).” The general distinction between the uniforms of the red Life Guard and the blue Horse Guard still exists. The 1st and the 2nd regiments of Life Guards wear scarlet tunics with blue collars and cuffs, and the Royal Horse Guards blue tunics with scarlet collars and cuffs. All three wear steel cuirasses on state occasions and on guard duty. The head-dress is a steel helmet with drooping horse-hair plume (white for Life Guards, red for Horse Guards). In full dress white buckskin pantaloons and long knee boots are worn. Amongst the peculiarities of these corps d’élite is the survival of the old custom of calling non-commissioned officers “corporal of horse” instead of sergeant, and corporal-major instead of sergeant-major, the wearing by trumpeters and bandsmen in full dress of a black velvet cap, a richly laced coat with a full skirt extending to the wearer’s knees and long white gaiters. There is little distinction between the two Life Guards regiments’ uniforms, the most obvious point being that the cord running through the white leather pouch belt is red for the 1st and blue for the 2nd.
The Household Cavalry today consists of three regiments, and its roots, like some of the Foot Guard regiments, trace back to the remnants of the "New Model" army disbanded when Charles II was restored in 1660. In that year, the "1st or His Majesty’s Own Troop of Guards," which had formed during the king's exile from his cavalier followers, became part of the army. The 2nd troop had previously served in the Spanish army as the "Duke of York’s Guards," also made up of cavaliers. In 1670, following Monk's death, the original 3rd troop (Monk’s Life Guards, renamed in 1660 as the "Lord General’s Troop of Guards") became the 2nd (the queen’s) troop, while the Duke of York’s troop became the 3rd. In 1685, the 1st and 2nd troops were designated as Life Guards of Horse, and two years later, the blue-uniformed "Royal Regiment of Horse," a New Model regiment that had been disbanded and quickly re-raised in 1660, was established as a Household Cavalry corps. Later, under the leadership of the Earl of Oxford, it became popularly known as "The Oxford Blues." Occasionally, there were other troops (e.g., Scots troops from 1700-1746) that no longer exist. In 1746, the 2nd troop was disbanded, but it was revived in 1788, when the two senior corps received their current titles as 1st and 2nd Life Guards. From 1750 to 1819, the Blues were called "Royal Horse Guards Blue," which was changed in 1819 to "Royal Horse Guards (The Blues)." The general distinction between the uniforms of the red Life Guard and the blue Horse Guard still persists. The 1st and 2nd regiments of Life Guards wear scarlet tunics with blue collars and cuffs, while the Royal Horse Guards wear blue tunics with scarlet collars and cuffs. All three regiments wear steel cuirasses during state occasions and guard duty. Their headdress consists of a steel helmet with a drooping horsehair plume (white for Life Guards, red for Horse Guards). In full dress, they wear white buckskin pantaloons and long knee boots. Among the unique traits of these elite corps is the continued tradition of referring to non-commissioned officers as "corporal of horse" instead of sergeant, and "corporal-major" instead of sergeant-major. Additionally, trumpeters and bandsmen in full dress wear a black velvet cap, an elaborately laced coat that reaches the knees, and long white gaiters. There is not much distinction between the uniforms of the two Life Guards regiments, the most noticeable difference being that the cord running through the white leather pouch belt is red for the 1st and blue for the 2nd.
The Foot Guards comprise the Grenadier Guards, the Coldstream Guards, the Scots Guards and the Irish Guards, each (except the last) of three battalions. The Grenadiers, originally the First Foot Guards, represent a royalist infantry regiment which served with the exiled princes in the Spanish army and returned at the Restoration in 1660. The Coldstream Guards 658 are a New Model regiment, and were originally called the Lord General’s (Monk’s) regiment of Foot Guards. Their popular title, which became their official designation in 1670, is derived from the fact that the army with which Monk restored the monarchy crossed the Tweed into England at the village of Coldstream, and that his troops (which were afterwards, except the two units of horse and foot of which Monk himself was colonel, disbanded) were called the Coldstreamers. The two battalions of Scots Foot Guards, which regiment was separately raised and maintained in Scotland after the Restoration, marched to London in 1686 and 1688 and were brought on to the English Establishment in 1707. In George III.’s reign they were known as the Third Guards, and from 1831 to 1877 (when the present title was adopted) as the Scots Fusilier Guards.
The Foot Guards consist of the Grenadier Guards, the Coldstream Guards, the Scots Guards, and the Irish Guards, with each (except the last) having three battalions. The Grenadiers, originally the First Foot Guards, are a royalist infantry regiment that served with the exiled princes in the Spanish army and returned during the Restoration in 1660. The Coldstream Guards 658 are a New Model regiment and were initially called the Lord General’s (Monk’s) regiment of Foot Guards. Their popular name, which became official in 1670, comes from the fact that the army that Monk led to restore the monarchy crossed the Tweed into England at the village of Coldstream, and his troops (who were later disbanded, except for the two units of horse and foot he commanded) were called the Coldstreamers. The two battalions of Scots Foot Guards, which were raised and maintained separately in Scotland after the Restoration, marched to London in 1686 and 1688 and were incorporated into the English Establishment in 1707. During George III’s reign, they were referred to as the Third Guards, and from 1831 to 1877 (when they adopted the current title), they were known as the Scots Fusilier Guards.
The Irish Guards (one battalion) were formed in 1902, after the South African War, as a mark of Queen Victoria’s appreciation of the services rendered by the various Irish regiments of the line.1 The dress of the Foot Guards is generally similar in all four regiments, scarlet tunic with blue collars, cuffs and shoulder-straps, blue trousers and high, rounded bearskin cap. The regimental distinctions most easily noticed are these. The Grenadiers wear a small white plume in the bearskin, the Coldstreams a similar red one, the Scots none, the Irish a blue-green one. The buttons on the tunic are spaced evenly for the Grenadiers, by twos for the Coldstreams, by threes for the Scots and by fours for the Irish. The band of the modern cap is red for the Grenadiers, white for the Coldstreams, “diced” red and white (chequers) for the Scots and green for the Irish. Former privileges of foot guard regiments, such as higher brevet rank in the army for their regimental officers, are now abolished, but Guards are still subject exclusively to the command of their own officers, and the officers of the Foot Guards, like those of the Household Cavalry, have special duties at court. Neither the cavalry nor the infantry guards serve abroad in peace time as a rule, but in 1907 a battalion of the Guards, which it was at that time proposed to disband, was sent to Egypt. “Guards’ Brigades” served in the Napoleonic Wars, in the Crimea, in Egypt at various times from 1887 to 1898 and in South Africa 1899-1902. The last employment of the Household Cavalry as a brigade in war was at Waterloo, but composite regiments made up from officers and men of the Life Guards and Blues were employed in Egypt and in S. Africa.
The Irish Guards (one battalion) were established in 1902, after the South African War, as a sign of Queen Victoria’s gratitude for the services provided by various Irish regiments. 1 The uniforms of the Foot Guards are mostly the same across all four regiments, featuring a scarlet tunic with blue collars, cuffs, and shoulder straps, blue trousers, and a tall, rounded bearskin cap. The easiest way to spot the regimental distinctions is as follows. The Grenadiers have a small white plume in their bearskin, the Coldstreams have a similar red one, the Scots have none, and the Irish have a blue-green one. The buttons on the tunic are evenly spaced for the Grenadiers, in pairs for the Coldstreams, in threes for the Scots, and in fours for the Irish. The modern cap band is red for the Grenadiers, white for the Coldstreams, “diced” red and white (checkered) for the Scots, and green for the Irish. Previous privileges for foot guard regiments, such as higher brevet rank in the army for their officers, have been abolished, but the Guards are still under the command of their own officers. The officers of the Foot Guards, like those of the Household Cavalry, have special responsibilities at court. Generally, neither the cavalry nor the infantry guards are deployed abroad during peacetime, but in 1907 a battalion of the Guards, which was then proposed to be disbanded, was sent to Egypt. “Guards’ Brigades” served in the Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, in Egypt at various times from 1887 to 1898, and in South Africa from 1899 to 1902. The last time the Household Cavalry served as a brigade in war was at Waterloo, but mixed regiments made up of officers and soldiers from the Life Guards and Blues were used in Egypt and South Africa.
The sovereigns of France had guards in their service in Merovingian times, and their household forces appear from time to time in the history of medieval wars. Louis XI. was, however, the first to regularize their somewhat loose organization, and he did so to such good purpose that Francis I. had no less than 8000 guardsmen organized, subdivided and permanently under arms. The senior unit of the Gardes du Corps was the famous company of Scottish archers (Compagnie écossaise de la Garde du Corps du Roi), which was originally formed (1418) from the Scottish contingents that assisted the French in the Hundred Years’ War. Scott’s Quentin Durward gives a picture of life in the corps as it was under Louis XI. In the following century, however, its regimental history becomes somewhat confused. Two French companies were added by Louis XI. and Francis I. and the Gardes du Corps came to consist exclusively of cavalry. About 1634 nearly all the Scots then serving went into the “regiment d’Hébron” and thence later into the British regular army (see Hepburn, Sir John). Thereafter, though the titles, distinctions and privileges of the original Archer Guard were continued, it was recruited from native Frenchmen, preference being (at any rate at first) given to those of Scottish descent. At its disbandment in 1791 along with the rest of the Gardes du Corps, it contained few, if any, native Scots. There was also, for a short time (1643-1660), an infantry regiment of Gardes écossaises.
The kings of France had guards in their service during the Merovingian era, and their household troops appear intermittently in the history of medieval wars. Louis XI was the first to organize them into a more structured system, and he did this so effectively that Francis I ended up with around 8,000 guardsmen who were organized, divided into units, and on active duty. The top unit of the Gardes du Corps was the famous company of Scottish archers (Compagnie écossaise de la Garde du Corps du Roi), originally formed in 1418 from Scottish troops that assisted the French during the Hundred Years' War. Scott’s Quentin Durward portrays life in the corps under Louis XI. In the subsequent century, however, its regimental history becomes a bit unclear. Louis XI and Francis I added two French companies, and the Gardes du Corps became entirely cavalry. Around 1634, nearly all the Scots serving at that time transferred to the “regiment d’Hébron” and then later joined the British regular army (see Hepburn, Sir John). After that, while the titles, distinctions, and privileges of the original Archer Guard continued, recruits were primarily French, with a preference (at least initially) for those of Scottish descent. By the time of its disbandment in 1791, along with the rest of the Gardes du Corps, it had very few, if any, native Scots. Additionally, there was a short-lived infantry regiment of Gardes écossaises from 1643 to 1660.
In 1671 the title of Maison Militaire du Roi was applied to that portion of the household that was distinctively military. It came to consist of 4 companies of the Gardes du Corps, 2 companies of Mousquetaires (cavalry) (formed 1622 and 1660), 1 company of Chevaux légers (1570), 1 of Gendarmes de la Maison Rouge, and 1 of Grenadiers à Cheval (1676), with 1 company of Gardes de la Porte and one called the Cent-Suisses, the last two being semi-military. This large establishment, which did not include all the guard regiments, was considerably reduced by the Count of St Germain’s reforms in 1775, all except the Gardes du Corps and the Cent-Suisses being disbanded. The whole of the Maison du Roi, with the exception of the semi-military bodies referred to, was cavalry.
In 1671, the title of Maison Militaire du Roi was given to that part of the royal household that was specifically military. It included 4 companies of the Gardes du Corps, 2 companies of Mousquetaires (cavalry) (formed in 1622 and 1660), 1 company of Chevaux légers (established in 1570), 1 of Gendarmes de la Maison Rouge, and 1 of Grenadiers à Cheval (created in 1676), along with 1 company of Gardes de la Porte and another called the Cent-Suisses, the last two being semi-military. This large organization, which did not include all the guard regiments, was significantly cut back by the Count of St Germain's reforms in 1775, with everything except the Gardes du Corps and the Cent-Suisses being disbanded. The entire Maison du Roi, aside from the semi-military units mentioned, was cavalry.
The Gardes françaises, formed in 1563, did not form part of the Maison. They were an infantry regiment, as were the famous Gardes suisses, originally a Swiss mercenary regiment in the Wars of Religion, which was, for good conduct at the combat of Arques, incorporated in the permanent establishment by Henry IV. in 1589 and in the guards in 1615. At the Revolution, contrary to expectation, the French Guards sided openly with the Constitutional movement and were disbanded. The Swiss Guards, however, being foreigners, and therefore unaffected by civil troubles, retained their exact discipline and devotion to the court to the day on which they were sacrificed by their master to the bullets of the Marseillais and the pikes of the mob (August 10, 1792). Their tragic fate is commemorated by the well-known monument called the “Lion of Lucerne,” the work of Thorvaldsen, erected near Lucerne in 1821. The “Constitutional,” “Revolutionary” and other guards that were created after the abolition of the Maison and the slaughter of the Swiss are unimportant, but through the “Directory Guards” they form a nominal link between the household troops of the monarchy and the corps which is perhaps the most famous “Guard” in history. The Imperial Guard of Napoleon had its beginnings in an escort squadron called the Corps of Guides, which accompanied him in the Italian campaign of 1796-1797 and in Egypt. On becoming First Consul in 1799 he built up out of this and of the guard of the Directory a small corps of horse and foot, called the Consular Guard, and this, which was more of a fighting unit than a personal bodyguard, took part in the battle of Marengo. The Imperial Guard, into which it was converted on the establishment of the Empire, was at first of about the strength of a division. As such it took part in the Austerlitz and Jena campaigns, but after the conquest of Prussia Napoleon augmented it, and divided it into the “Old Guard” and the “Young Guard.” Subsequently the “Middle Guard” was created, and by successive augmentations the corps of the guard had grown to be 57,000 strong in 1811-1812 and 81,000 in 1813. It preserved its general character as a corps d’élite of veterans to the last, but from about 1813 the “Young Guard” was recruited directly from the best of the annual conscript contingent. The officers held a higher rank in the army than their regimental rank in the Guards. At the first Restoration an attempt was made to revive the Maison du Roi, but in the constitutional régime of the second Restoration this semi-medieval form of bodyguard was given up and replaced by the Garde Royale, a selected fighting corps. This took part in the short war with Spain and a portion of it fought in Algeria, but it was disbanded at the July Revolution. Louis Philippe had no real guard troops, but the memories of the Imperial Guard were revived by Napoleon III., who formed a large guard corps in 1853-1854. This, however, was open to an even greater degree than Napoleon I.’s guard to the objection that it took away the best soldiers from the line. Since the fall of the Empire in 1870 there have been no guard troops in France. The duty of watching over the safety of the president is taken in the ordinary roster of duty by the troops stationed in the capital. The “Republican Guard” is the Paris gendarmerie, recruited from old soldiers and armed and trained as a military body.
The Gardes françaises, established in 1563, were not part of the Maison. They were an infantry regiment, similar to the famous Gardes suisses, which began as a Swiss mercenary regiment during the Wars of Religion and was integrated into the permanent forces by Henry IV for their good conduct at the Battle of Arques in 1589, later becoming part of the guard in 1615. During the Revolution, contrary to expectations, the French Guards openly supported the Constitutional movement and were disbanded. However, the Swiss Guards, being foreigners and unaffected by civil strife, maintained their discipline and loyalty to the court until they were sacrificed by their master to the bullets of the Marseillais and the pikes of the mob on August 10, 1792. Their tragic fate is remembered by the well-known monument called the “Lion of Lucerne,” created by Thorvaldsen and erected near Lucerne in 1821. The “Constitutional,” “Revolutionary,” and other guards formed after the dissolution of the Maison and the slaughter of the Swiss are not significant, but through the “Directory Guards,” they serve as a nominal link between the monarchy’s household troops and what is perhaps the most famous “Guard” in history. The Imperial Guard of Napoleon began as an escort squadron called the Corps of Guides, which accompanied him during the Italian campaign of 1796-1797 and in Egypt. After becoming First Consul in 1799, he expanded this and the Directory guard into a small corps of horse and foot known as the Consular Guard, which was more of a combat unit than just a personal bodyguard and participated in the Battle of Marengo. The Imperial Guard, formed when the Empire was established, initially had the strength of about a division. It took part in the Austerlitz and Jena campaigns, but after conquering Prussia, Napoleon increased its size and split it into the “Old Guard” and the “Young Guard.” Later, a “Middle Guard” was established, and through successive augmentations, the guard corps expanded to 57,000 by 1811-1812 and 81,000 by 1813. It maintained its status as a corps d’élite of veterans until the end, although from around 1813, the “Young Guard” began to recruit from the best of the annual conscription. The officers held a higher rank in the army than their rank in the Guards. During the first Restoration, there was an attempt to revive the Maison du Roi, but under the constitutional regime of the second Restoration, this semi-medieval form of bodyguard was abandoned and replaced by the Garde Royale, a selected fighting corps. This corps participated in the brief war with Spain, and some of its members fought in Algeria, but it was disbanded during the July Revolution. Louis Philippe did not have any real guard troops, but the memories of the Imperial Guard were brought back by Napoleon III, who formed a large guard corps in 1853-1854. However, this corps faced even more criticism than Napoleon I’s guard for taking the best soldiers away from the regular army. Since the fall of the Empire in 1870, there have been no guard troops in France. The responsibility for ensuring the president’s safety is managed by the troops stationed in the capital on a regular duty roster. The “Republican Guard” serves as the Paris gendarmerie, made up of former soldiers, armed and trained as a military force.
In Austria-Hungary there are only small bodies of household troops (Archer Body Guard, Trabant Guard, Hungarian Crown Guards, &c.) analogous to the British Gentlemen at Arms or Yeomen of the Guard. Similar forces, the “Noble Guard” and the “Swiss Guard,” are maintained in the Vatican. The court troops of Spain are called “halberdiers” and armed with the halbert.
In Austria-Hungary, there are only small groups of household troops (Archer Body Guard, Trabant Guard, Hungarian Crown Guards, etc.) similar to the British Gentlemen at Arms or Yeomen of the Guard. Comparable units, the “Noble Guard” and the “Swiss Guard,” are kept at the Vatican. The court troops of Spain are referred to as “halberdiers” and are equipped with halberds.
In Russia the Guard is organized as an army corps. It possesses special privileges, particularly as regards officers’ advancement.
In Russia, the Guard is structured like an army corps. It has special privileges, especially when it comes to the promotion of officers.
In Germany the distinction between armed retainers and “Guards” is well marked. The army is for practical purposes a unit under imperial control, while household troops (“castle-guards” as they are usually called) belong individually to the various sovereigns within the empire. The “Guards,” as a combatant force in the army are those of the king of Prussia and constitute a strong army corps. This has grown gradually from a bodyguard of archers, and, as in Great Britain, the functions of the heavy cavalry regiments of the Guard preserve to some extent the name and character of a body guard (Gardes du Corps). The senior foot guard regiment is also personally connected with the royal family. The conversion of a palace-guard to a combatant force is due chiefly to Frederick William I., to whom drill was a ruling passion, and who substituted effective regiments for the ornamental “Trabant Guards” of his father. A further move was made by Frederick the Great in substituting for Frederick William’s expensive “giant” regiment of guards a larger number of ordinary soldiers, whom he subjected to the same rigorous training and made a corps d’élite. Frederick the Great also formed the Body Guard alluded to above. Nevertheless in 1806 the Guard still consisted only of two cavalry regiments and four infantry regiments, and it was the example of Napoleon’s imperial guard which converted this force into a corps of all arms. In 1813 its strength was that of a weak division, but in 1860 by slight but frequent augmentations it had come to consist of an army corps, complete with all auxiliary services. A few guard 659 regiments belonging to the minor sovereigns are counted in the line of the German army. In war the Guard is employed as a unit, like other army corps. It is recruited by the assignment of selected young men of each annual contingent, and is thus free from the reproach of the French Imperial Guard, which took the best-trained soldiers from the regiments of the line.
In Germany, there's a clear distinction between armed retainers and "Guards." The army is essentially a single unit under imperial control, while household troops (commonly called "castle-guards") belong individually to the different sovereigns within the empire. The "Guards," representing a combat force in the army, belong to the king of Prussia and make up a strong army corps. This evolved gradually from a bodyguard of archers, and, similar to Great Britain, the heavy cavalry regiments of the Guard still somewhat embody the name and role of a bodyguard (Gardes du Corps). The leading foot guard regiment also has a personal connection with the royal family. The transformation of a palace-guard into a combat force is mainly attributed to Frederick William I., who was passionate about drill and replaced the ornamental "Trabant Guards" of his father with effective regiments. Frederick the Great further changed Frederick William's costly "giant" regiment of guards into a larger number of regular soldiers, who he subjected to the same strict training and formed into a corps d’élite. He also established the Body Guard mentioned above. However, in 1806, the Guard still included just two cavalry regiments and four infantry regiments, and it was the example set by Napoleon’s imperial guard that transformed this force into a corps of all arms. By 1813, it had the size of a weak division, but by 1860, through small but frequent increases, it evolved into an army corps with all necessary support services. A few guard 659 regiments from the minor sovereigns are included in the German army line. In wartime, the Guard operates as a unit, just like other army corps. It's recruited from selected young men of each annual group, so it avoids the issue faced by the French Imperial Guard, which took the best-trained soldiers from the regular regiments.
1 The “Irish Guards” of the Stuarts took the side of James II., fought against William III. in Ireland and lost their regimental identity in the French service to which the officers and soldiers transferred themselves on the abandonment of the struggle.
Modernize it into contemporary English if there's enough context, but do not add or omit any information. If context is insufficient, return it unchanged. Do not add commentary, and do not modify any placeholders. If you see placeholders of the form __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_x__, you must keep them exactly as-is so they can be replaced with links. The “Irish Guards” of the Stuarts sided with James II, fought against William III in Ireland, and lost their regimental identity when the officers and soldiers joined the French service after giving up the fight.
GUARD-SHIP, a warship stationed at some port or harbour to act as a guard, and in former times in the British navy to receive the men impressed for service. She usually was the flagship of the admiral commanding on the coast. A guard-boat is a boat which goes the round of a fleet at anchor to see that due watch is kept at night.
GUARD-SHIP, a warship stationed at a port or harbor to serve as a guard, and in the past, in the British navy, to receive men drafted for service. It typically served as the flagship of the admiral in charge along the coast. A guard boat is a vessel that patrols a fleet at anchor to ensure that proper watch is maintained during the night.
GUÁRICO, a large inland state of Venezuela created by the territorial redivision of 1904, bounded by Aragua and Miranda on the N., Bermúdez on the E., Bolívar on the S., and Zamora on the W. Pop. (1905 estimate), 78,117. It extends across the northern llanos to the Orinoco and Apure rivers and is devoted almost wholly to pastoral pursuits, exporting cattle, horses and mules, hides and skins, cheese and some other products. The capital is Calabozo, and the other principal towns are Camaguán (pop. 3648) on the Portugueza river, Guayabal (pop. 3146), on a small tributary of the Guárico river, and Zaraza (pop. 14,546) on the Unare river, nearly 150 m. S.E. of Carácas.
GUÁRICO, is a large inland state in Venezuela, established by the territorial reorganization of 1904. It is bordered by Aragua and Miranda to the north, Bermúdez to the east, Bolívar to the south, and Zamora to the west. The estimated population in 1905 was 78,117. The state stretches across the northern llanos to the Orinoco and Apure rivers and is primarily focused on farming activities, exporting cattle, horses, mules, hides, skins, cheese, and other products. The capital is Calabozo, and other major towns include Camaguán (pop. 3,648) on the Portugueza River, Guayabal (pop. 3,146) on a small tributary of the Guárico River, and Zaraza (pop. 14,546) on the Unare River, nearly 150 miles southeast of Caracas.
GUARIENTO, sometimes incorrectly named Guerriero, the first Paduan painter who distinguished himself. The only date distinctly known in his career is 1365, when, having already acquired high renown in his native city, he was invited by the Venetian authorities to paint a Paradise, and some incidents of the war of Spoleto, in the great council-hall of Venice. These works were greatly admired at the time, but have long ago disappeared under repaintings. His works in Padua have suffered much. In the church of the Eremitani are allegories of the Planets, and, in its choir, some small sacred histories in dead colour, such as an Ecce Homo; also, on the upper walls, the life of St Augustine, with some other subjects. A few fragments of other paintings by Guariento are still extant in Padua. In the gallery of Bassano is a Crucifixion, carefully executed, and somewhat superior to a merely traditional method of handling, although on the whole Guariento must rather be classed in that school of art which preceded Cimabue than as having advanced in his vestiges; likewise two other works in Bassano, ascribed to the same hand. The painter is buried in the church of S. Bernardino, Padua.
GUARIENTO, sometimes mistakenly called Warrior, was the first notable painter from Padua. The only specific date known from his career is 1365, when, having already gained significant fame in his hometown, he was invited by the Venetian authorities to paint a Paradise scene and some events from the war of Spoleto in the grand council hall of Venice. These works were highly praised at the time but have long since been lost to repainting. His works in Padua have also suffered damage. In the church of the Eremitani, you can find allegories of the Planets, and in its choir, some small sacred stories painted in muted colors, including an Ecce Homo; also, on the upper walls, the life of St. Augustine, along with other subjects. A few fragments of other paintings by Guariento still exist in Padua. In the Bassano gallery, there’s a meticulously crafted Crucifixion that’s a bit more advanced than a purely traditional style, although overall Guariento is better categorized within the art school that came before Cimabue rather than as one who built upon his legacy; there are also two other works in Bassano attributed to him. The painter is buried in the church of S. Bernardino, Padua.
GUARINI, CAMILLO-GUARINO (1624-1683), Italian monk, writer and architect, was born at Modena in 1624. He was at once a learned mathematician, professor of literature and philosophy at Messina, and, from the age of seventeen, was architect to Duke Philibert of Savoy. He designed a very large number of public and private buildings at Turin, including the palaces of the duke of Savoy and the prince of Cacignan, and many public buildings at Modena, Verona, Vienna, Prague, Lisbon and Paris. He died at Milan in 1683.
GUARINI, CAMILLO-GUARINO (1624-1683), an Italian monk, writer, and architect, was born in Modena in 1624. He was a knowledgeable mathematician, a professor of literature and philosophy in Messina, and from the age of seventeen, he served as the architect for Duke Philibert of Savoy. He designed a large number of public and private buildings in Turin, including the palaces of the Duke of Savoy and the Prince of Cacignan, as well as many public buildings in Modena, Verona, Vienna, Prague, Lisbon, and Paris. He passed away in Milan in 1683.
GUARINI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1537-1612), Italian poet, author of the Pastor fido, was born at Ferrara on the 10th of December 1537, just seven years before the birth of Tasso. He was descended from Guarino da Verona. The young Battista studied both at Pisa and Padua, whence he was called, when not yet twenty, to profess moral philosophy in the schools of his native city. He inherited considerable wealth, and was able early in life to marry Taddea de’ Bendedei, a lady of good birth. In 1567 he entered the service of Alphonso II., duke of Ferrara, thus beginning the court career which was destined to prove a constant source of disappointment and annoyance to him. Though he cultivated poetry for pastime, Guarini aimed at state employment as the serious business of his life, and managed to be sent on various embassies and missions by his ducal master. There was, however, at the end of the 16th century no opportunity for a man of energy and intellectual ability to distinguish himself in the petty sphere of Italian diplomacy. The time too had passed when the profession of a courtier, painted in such glowing terms by Castiglione, could confer either profit or honour. It is true that the court of Alphonso presented a brilliant spectacle to Europe, with Tasso for titular poet, and an attractive circle of accomplished ladies. But the last duke of Ferrara was an illiberal patron, feeding his servants with promises, and ever ready to treat them with the brutality that condemned the author of the Gerusalemme liberata to a madhouse. Guarini spent his time and money to little purpose, suffered from the spite and ill-will of two successive secretaries,—Pigna and Montecatini,—quarrelled with his old friend Tasso, and at the end of fourteen years of service found himself half-ruined, with a large family and no prospects. When Tasso was condemned to S. Anna, the duke promoted Guarini to the vacant post of court poet. There is an interesting letter extant from the latter to his friend Cornelio Bentivoglio, describing the efforts he made to fill this place appropriately. “I strove to transform myself into another person, and, like a player, reassumed the character, costume and feelings of my youth. Advanced in manhood, I forced myself to look young; I turned my natural melancholy into artificial gaiety, affected loves I did not feel, exchanged wisdom for folly, and, in a word, passed from a philosopher into a poet.” How ill-adapted he felt himself to this masquerade life may be gathered from the following sentence: “I am already in my forty-fourth year, the father of eight children, two of whom are old enough to be my censors, while my daughters are of an age to marry.” Abandoning so uncongenial a strain upon his faculties, Guarini retired in 1582 to his ancestral farm, the Villa Guarina, in the lovely country that lies between the Adige and Po, where he gave himself up to the cares of his family, the nursing of his dilapidated fortunes and the composition of the Pastor fido. He was not happy in his domestic lot; for he had lost his wife young, and quarrelled with his elder sons about the division of his estate. Litigation seems to have been an inveterate vice with Guarini; nor was he ever free from legal troubles. After studying his biography, the conclusion is forced upon our minds that he was originally a man of robust and virile intellect, ambitious of greatness, confident in his own powers, and well qualified for serious affairs, whose energies found no proper scope for their exercise. Literary work offered but a poor sphere for such a character, while the enforced inactivity of court life soured a naturally capricious and choleric temper. Of poetry he spoke with a certain tone of condescension, professing to practise it only in his leisure moments; nor are his miscellaneous verses of a quality to secure for their author a very lasting reputation. It is therefore not a little remarkable that the fruit of his retirement—a disappointed courtier past the prime of early manhood—should have been a dramatic masterpiece worthy to be ranked with the classics of Italian literature. Deferring a further account of the Pastor fido for the present, the remaining incidents of Guarini’s restless life may be briefly told. In 1585 he was at Turin superintending the first public performance of his drama, whence Alphonso recalled him to Ferrara, and gave him the office of secretary of state. This reconciliation between the poet and his patron did not last long. Guarini moved to Florence, then to Rome, and back again to Florence, where he established himself as the courtier of Ferdinand de’ Medici. A dishonourable marriage, pressed upon his son Guarino by the grand-duke, roused the natural resentment of Guarini, always scrupulous upon the point of honour. He abandoned the Medicean court, and took refuge with Francesco Maria of Urbino, the last scion of the Montefeltro-della-Rovere house. Yet he found no satisfaction at Urbino. “The old court is a dead institution,” he writes to a friend; “one may see a shadow of it, but not the substance in Italy of to-day. Ours is an age of appearances, and one goes a-masquerading all the year.” This was true enough. Those dwindling deadly-lively little residence towns of Italian ducal families, whose day of glory was over, and who were waiting to be slowly absorbed by the capacious appetite of Austria, were no fit places for a man of energy and independence. Guarini finally took refuge in his native Ferrara, which, since the death of Alphonso, had now devolved to the papal see. Here, and at the Villa Guarina, his last years were passed in study, law-suits, and polemical disputes with his contemporary critics, until 1612, when he died at Venice in his seventy-fifth year.
GUARINI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA (1537-1612), Italian poet, author of the Pastor fido, was born in Ferrara on December 10, 1537, just seven years before Tasso. He was a descendant of Guarino da Verona. The young Battista studied at both Pisa and Padua and was appointed to teach moral philosophy in his hometown when he was not yet twenty. He inherited a good amount of wealth and was able to marry Taddea de’ Bendedei, a woman of good family, early on. In 1567, he started working for Alphonso II., duke of Ferrara, which kickstarted a court career that was to bring him constant disappointment and frustration. While he enjoyed writing poetry as a pastime, Guarini was serious about pursuing a career in government and managed to go on various diplomatic missions for his duke. However, by the end of the 16th century, there were no real opportunities for someone with energy and intelligence to stand out in the minor realm of Italian diplomacy. The era where being a courtier could bring profit or honor, as described by Castiglione, had also passed. It’s true that Alphonso's court was a dazzling spectacle in Europe, with Tasso as the official poet and a group of charming, accomplished women. But the last duke of Ferrara was a stingy patron, feeding his servants empty promises and quick to treat them harshly, as he did with the author of the Gerusalemme liberata, who ended up in a madhouse. Guarini spent both time and money with little to show for it, faced hostility from two successive secretaries—Pigna and Montecatini—fought with his old friend Tasso, and after fourteen years of service, found himself nearly broke, with a large family and no future. When Tasso was committed to S. Anna, the duke appointed Guarini as the new court poet. An interesting letter survives from him to his friend Cornelio Bentivoglio, describing how he tried to take on this role fittingly. “I tried to become someone else and, like an actor, put on the character, clothes, and feelings of my youth. Older now, I forced myself to look young; I turned my natural sadness into fake joy, pretended to have loves I didn’t feel, traded wisdom for foolishness, and, in short, changed from a philosopher into a poet.” His discomfort with this masquerade is clear from this line: “I am already in my forty-fourth year, the father of eight children, two of whom are old enough to judge me, while my daughters are at marrying age.” Feeling ill-suited to such a role, Guarini left in 1582 for his family's estate, the Villa Guarina, in the beautiful countryside between the Adige and Po Rivers, where he focused on his family, rebuilding his finances, and writing the Pastor fido. He wasn’t happy at home; his wife died young, and he quarreled with his older sons over his estate. Litigation seems to have been a persistent issue for Guarini; he was never free from legal troubles. After examining his life, it becomes clear that he started as a strong and ambitious man, confident in his abilities and well-equipped for serious work, but without the right opportunities. Literary endeavors seemed too narrow for his character, while the forced idleness of court life soured his naturally moody temperament. He viewed poetry somewhat condescendingly, claiming to only write it during his free time, and his miscellaneous poems were not of the quality to earn him a lasting reputation. Thus, it’s quite surprising that his time in retirement—a disappointed courtier well past his youth—resulted in a dramatic masterpiece that deserves to be counted among the classics of Italian literature. For now, we’ll hold off on further discussion of the Pastor fido and briefly recount the rest of Guarini’s unsettled life. In 1585, he was in Turin overseeing the first public performance of his play, after which Alphonso called him back to Ferrara and made him secretary of state. However, this reconciliation with the duke didn’t last long. Guarini moved to Florence, then to Rome, and returned again to Florence, where he became part of the court of Ferdinand de’ Medici. A dishonorable marriage forced upon his son Guarino by the grand-duke angered Guarini, who was very particular about honor. He left the Medici court and sought refuge with Francesco Maria of Urbino, the last descendant of the Montefeltro-della-Rovere family. Yet he found no contentment in Urbino. “The old court is a dead institution,” he wrote to a friend; “you can see a shadow of it, but not the substance in Italy today. We live in an age of appearances, where everyone is just playing dress-up all year round.” This was certainly true. Those dwindling, barely alive little towns of Italian dukes, whose glory days were long gone and who were waiting to be slowly absorbed by Austria, were not suitable places for a man with independence and drive. Guarini eventually returned to his birthplace, Ferrara, which had now fallen under the papacy since Alphonso’s death. There, and at Villa Guarina, he spent his later years engaged in study, legal battles, and debates with contemporary critics, until he died in 1612 in Venice at the age of seventy-five.
The Pastor fido (first published in 1590) is a pastoral drama composed not without reminiscences of Tasso’s Aminta. The scene is laid in Arcadia, where Guarini supposes it to have been the custom to sacrifice a maiden yearly to Diana. But an oracle has declared that when two scions of divine lineage are united in marriage, and a faithful shepherd has atoned for the ancient error of a faithless woman, this inhuman rite shall cease. The plot turns upon the unexpected fulfilment of this prophecy, contrary to all the schemes which had been devised for bringing it to accomplishment, and in despite of apparent improbabilities of divers kinds. It is extremely elaborate, and, regarded as a piece of cunning mechanism, leaves nothing to be desired. Each motive has been carefully prepared, each situation amply developed. Yet, considered as a play, the Pastor fido disappoints a reader trained in the school of Sophocles or Shakespeare. The action itself seems to take place off the stage, and only the results of action, stationary tableaux representing the movement of the drama, are put before us in the scenes. The art is lyrical, not merely in form but in spirit, and in adaptation to the requirements of music which demands stationary expressions of emotion for development. The characters have been well considered, and are exhibited with great truth and vividness; the cold and eager hunter Silvio contrasting with the tender and romantic Mirtillo, and Corisca’s meretricious arts enhancing the pure affection of Amarilli. Dorinda presents another type of love so impulsive that it prevails over a maiden’s sense of shame, while the courtier Carino brings the corruption of towns into comparison with the innocence of the country. In Carino the poet painted his own experience, and here his satire upon the court of Ferrara is none the less biting because it is gravely measured. In Corisca he delineated a woman vitiated by the same town life, and a very hideous portrait has he drawn. Though a satirical element was thus introduced into the Pastor fido in order to relieve its ideal picture of Arcadia, the whole play is but a study of contemporary feeling in Italian society. There is no true rusticity whatever in the drama. This correspondence with the spirit of the age secured its success during Guarini’s lifetime; this made it so dangerously seductive that Cardinal Bellarmine told the poet he had done more harm to Christendom by his blandishments than Luther by his heresy. Without anywhere transgressing the limits of decorum, the Pastor fido is steeped in sensuousness; and the immodesty of its pictures is enhanced by rhetorical concealments more provocative than nudity. Moreover, the love described is effeminate and wanton, felt less as passion than as lust enveloped in a veil of sentiment. We divine the coming age of cicisbei and castrati. Of Guarini’s style it would be difficult to speak in terms of too high praise. The thought and experience of a lifetime have been condensed in these five acts, and have found expression in language brilliant, classical, chiselled to perfection. Here and there the taste of the 17th century makes itself felt in frigid conceits and forced antitheses; nor does Guarini abstain from sententious maxims which reveal the moralist rather than the poet. Yet these are but minor blemishes in a masterpiece of diction, glittering and faultless like a polished bas-relief of hard Corinthian bronze. That a single pastoral should occupy so prominent a place in the history of literature seems astonishing, until we reflect that Italy, upon the close of the 16th century, expressed itself in the Pastor fido, and that the influence of this drama was felt through all the art of Europe till the epoch of the Revolution. It is not a mere play. The sensual refinement proper to an age of social decadence found in it the most exact embodiment, and made it the code of gallantry for the next two centuries.
The Pastor fido (first published in 1590) is a pastoral drama inspired by Tasso’s Aminta. The story is set in Arcadia, where Guarini imagines that it was customary to sacrifice a maiden to Diana every year. However, an oracle has proclaimed that this brutal practice will end when two people of divine lineage are married and a faithful shepherd makes amends for the past mistakes of a disloyal woman. The plot revolves around the unexpected fulfillment of this prophecy, despite all the plans made to achieve it and the various seeming improbabilities. It’s very intricate, and as a clever piece of storytelling, it is flawless. Each motivation is carefully crafted, and every situation is well developed. Still, when viewed as a play, the Pastor fido may disappoint readers used to the works of Sophocles or Shakespeare. The action itself appears to happen offstage, and we only see the outcomes of actions depicted in still scenes that represent the flow of the drama. The artistry is lyrical, not just in structure but also in essence, aligning with the needs of music, which favors stationary displays of emotion. The characters are thoughtfully portrayed with great truthfulness and vividness; the cold and eager hunter Silvio contrasts sharply with the tender and romantic Mirtillo, and Corisca’s seductive tactics amplify Amarilli’s pure love. Dorinda represents another kind of love that is so passionate it overcomes a young woman’s sense of shame, while the courtier Carino highlights the corruption of urban life against the innocence of the countryside. In Carino, the poet reflected his own experiences, and his critique of the court of Ferrara is sharp despite being presented with restraint. Corisca embodies a woman tainted by the same urban life, and he paints a very unflattering image of her. Although a satirical element is woven into the Pastor fido to offset its idealized vision of Arcadia, the whole play is essentially a study of contemporary feelings within Italian society. There’s no genuine rusticity in the drama. This alignment with the spirit of the time ensured its success during Guarini’s life; it was compellingly seductive to the extent that Cardinal Bellarmine told the poet he caused more harm to Christendom with his charms than Luther did with his heresy. Without crossing boundaries of propriety, the Pastor fido is infused with sensuality, and its suggestive imagery is intensified by rhetorical subtleties that are more provocative than nudity. Furthermore, the love depicted is more effeminate and lustful than passionate, shrouded in a veil of sentiment. We sense the impending rise of cicisbei and castrati. It’s challenging to speak too highly of Guarini’s style. The thoughts and experiences of a lifetime are distilled into these five acts, expressed in brilliant, classical language, polished to perfection. Occasionally, the taste of the 17th century shows through in cold conceits and forced contrasts, and Guarini also includes aphorisms that emphasize the moralist rather than the poet. Yet, these are merely minor flaws in a work of exquisite diction, shining and perfect like a finely crafted bas-relief of hard Corinthian bronze. That a single pastoral could hold such a significant place in literary history is surprising until we consider that Italy at the end of the 16th century expressed itself through the Pastor fido, and the influence of this drama resonated throughout European art until the Revolutionary era. It is more than just a play. The sensual sophistication typical of a declining social era found in it the most precise embodiment, making it the guide to gallantry for the next two centuries.
The best edition of the Pastor fido is the 20th, published at Venice (Ciotti) in 1602. The most convenient is that of Barbéra (Florence, 1866). For Guarini’s miscellaneous Rime, the Ferrara edition, in 4 vols., 1737, may be consulted. His polemical writings, Verato primo and secondo, and his prose comedy called Idropica, were published at Venice, Florence and Rome, between 1588 and 1614.
The best edition of the Pastor fido is the 20th, published in Venice (Ciotti) in 1602. The most convenient edition is by Barbéra (Florence, 1866). For Guarini’s collection of miscellaneous Rime, you can check out the Ferrara edition, which is in 4 volumes and was published in 1737. His polemical writings, Verato primo and secondo, along with his prose comedy called Idropica, were published in Venice, Florence, and Rome between 1588 and 1614.
GUARINO, also known as Varinus, and surnamed from his birthplace Favorinus, Phavorinus or Camers (c. 1450-1537), Italian lexicographer and scholar, was born at Favera near Camerino, studied Greek and Latin at Florence under Politian, and afterwards became for a time the pupil of Lascaris. Having entered the Benedictine order, he now gave himself with great zeal to Greek lexicography; and in 1496 published his Thesaurus cornucopiae et horti Adonidis, a collection of thirty-four grammatical tracts in Greek. He for some time acted as tutor to Giovanni dei Medici (afterwards Leo X.), and also held the appointment of keeper of the Medicean library at Florence. In 1514 Leo appointed him bishop of Nocera. In 1517 he published a translation of the Apophthegmata of Joannes Stobaeus, and in 1523 appeared his Etymologicum magnum, sive thesaurus universae linguae Graecae ex multis variisque autoribus collectus, a compilation which has been frequently reprinted, and which has laid subsequent scholars under great though not always acknowledged obligations.
GUARINO, also known as Varinus, and nicknamed after his hometown Favorinus, Phavorinus or Cameras (c. 1450-1537), was an Italian lexicographer and scholar born in Favera near Camerino. He studied Greek and Latin in Florence under Politian and later became a student of Lascaris. After joining the Benedictine order, he dedicated himself passionately to Greek lexicography; in 1496, he published his Thesaurus cornucopiae et horti Adonidis, a collection of thirty-four grammatical essays in Greek. For some time, he served as a tutor to Giovanni dei Medici (who later became Leo X.) and also held the position of keeper of the Medicean library in Florence. In 1514, Leo appointed him bishop of Nocera. In 1517, he published a translation of the Apophthegmata of Joannes Stobaeus, and in 1523, his Etymologicum magnum, sive thesaurus universae linguae Graecae ex multis variisque autoribus collectus was released, a compilation that has been widely reprinted and has significantly influenced later scholars, even if such contributions are not always recognized.
GUARINO [GUARINUS] DA VERONA (1370-1460), one of the Italian restorers of classical learning, was born in 1370 at Verona, and studied Greek at Constantinople, where for five years he was the pupil of Manuel Chrysoloras. When he set out on his return to Italy he was the happy possessor of two cases of precious Greek MSS. which he had been at great pains to collect; it is said that the loss of one of these by shipwreck caused him such distress that his hair turned grey in a single night. He supported himself as a teacher of Greek, first at Verona and afterwards in Venice and Florence; in 1436 he became, through the patronage of Lionel, marquis of Este, professor of Greek at Ferrara; and in 1438 and following years he acted as interpreter for the Greeks at the councils of Ferrara and Florence. He died at Ferrara on the 14th of December 1460.
GUARINO DA VERONA (1370-1460), one of the Italian restorers of classical learning, was born in 1370 in Verona and studied Greek in Constantinople, where he spent five years under the tutelage of Manuel Chrysoloras. When he returned to Italy, he was fortunate to have two cases of valuable Greek manuscripts that he had worked hard to collect; it’s said that the loss of one due to a shipwreck caused him such distress that his hair went gray overnight. He made a living as a Greek teacher, first in Verona and later in Venice and Florence. In 1436, with the support of Lionel, marquis of Este, he became a professor of Greek at Ferrara; from 1438 onward, he served as an interpreter for the Greeks at the councils of Ferrara and Florence. He died in Ferrara on December 14, 1460.
His principal works are translations of Strabo and of some of the Lives of Plutarch, a compendium of the Greek grammar of Chrysoloras, and a series of commentaries on Persius, Juvenal, Martial and on some of the writings of Aristotle and Cicero. See Rosmini, Vita e disciplina di Guarino (1805-1806); Sabbadini, Guarino Veronese (1885); Sandys, Hist. Class. Schol. ii. (1908).
His main works include translations of Strabo and some of Plutarch's Lives, a summary of Chrysoloras' Greek grammar, and a series of commentaries on Persius, Juvenal, Martial, as well as some writings by Aristotle and Cicero. See Rosmini, Vita e disciplina di Guarino (1805-1806); Sabbadini, Guarino Veronese (1885); Sandys, Hist. Class. Schol. ii. (1908).
GUARNIERI, or Guarnerius, a celebrated family of violin-makers of Cremona. The first was Andreas (c. 1626-1698), who worked with Antonio Stradivari in the workshop of Nicolo Amati (son of Geronimo). Violins of a model original to him are dated from the sign of “St Theresa” in Cremona. His son Joseph (1666-c. 1739) made instruments at first like his father’s, but later in a style of his own with a narrow waist; his son, Peter of Venice (b. 1695), was also a fine maker. Another son of Andreas, Peter (Pietro Giovanni), commonly known as “Peter of Cremona” (b. 1655), moved from Cremona and settled at Mantua, where he too worked “sub signo Sanctae Teresae.” Peter’s violins again showed considerable variations from those of the other Guarnieri. Hart, in his work on the violin, says, “There is increased breadth between the sound-holes; the sound-hole is rounder and more perpendicular; the middle bouts are more contracted, and the model is more raised.”
GUARNIERI, or Guarneri, a famous family of violin makers from Cremona. The first was Andreas (c. 1626-1698), who worked with Antonio Stradivari in Nicolo Amati's workshop (Geronimo's son). His violins, which were his original model, are dated from the sign of “St Theresa” in Cremona. His son Joseph (1666-c. 1739) initially made instruments similar to his father’s, but later developed his own style with a narrow waist; his son, Peter of Venice (b. 1695), was also a talented maker. Another son of Andreas, Peter (Pietro Giovanni), commonly known as “Peter of Cremona” (b. 1655), left Cremona and settled in Mantua, where he too worked “sub signo Sanctae Teresae.” Peter’s violins showed significant differences from those of the other Guarnieri. Hart, in his book on the violin, states, “There is increased width between the sound-holes; the sound-hole is rounder and more upright; the middle bouts are more narrowed, and the model is more elevated.”
The greatest of all the Guarnieri, however, was a nephew of Andreas, Joseph del Gesù (1687-1745), whose title originates in the I.H.S. inscribed on his tickets. His master was Gaspar di Salo. His conception follows that of the early Brescian makers in the boldness of outline and the massive construction which aim at the production of tone rather than visual perfection of form. The great variety of his work in size, model, &c., represents his various experiments in the direction of discovering this tone. A stain or sap-mark, parallel with the finger-board on both sides, appears on the bellies of most of his instruments. Since the middle of the 18th century a great many spurious instruments ascribed to this master have poured over Europe. It was not until Paganini played on a “Joseph” that the taste of amateurs turned from the sweetness of the Amati and the Stradivarius violins in favour of the robuster tone of the Joseph Guarnerius. See Violin.
The greatest of all the Guarneri was Joseph del Gesù (1687-1745), who was a nephew of Andreas. His name comes from the I.H.S. logo on his labels. He was taught by Gaspar di Salo. His designs reflect the bold outlines and sturdy construction of the early Brescian makers, focusing more on producing sound than achieving perfect visual form. The wide range in size, model, and other aspects of his work showcases his various experiments aimed at discovering this sound. Most of his instruments have a stain or sap-mark running parallel to the fingerboard on both sides of the body. Since the mid-18th century, many fake instruments attributed to him have surfaced across Europe. It wasn’t until Paganini played on a "Joseph" that musicians started to shift their preference from the sweet tones of Amati and Stradivarius violins to the richer sound of Joseph Guarnerius. See Violin.
GUASTALLA, a town and episcopal see of Emilia, Italy, in the province of Reggio, from which it is 18 m. N. by road, on the S. bank of the Po, 79 ft. above sea-level. It is also connected by rail with Parma and Mantua (via Suzzara). Pop. 661 (1901), 2658 (town); 11,091 (commune). It has 16th-century fortifications. The cathedral, dating from the 10th century, has been frequently restored. Guastalla was founded by the Lombards in the 7th century; in the church of the Pieve Pope Paschal II. held a council in 1106. In 1307 it was seized by Giberto da Correggio of Parma. In 1403 it passed to Guido Torello, cousin of Filippo Maria Visconti of Milan. In 1539 it was sold by the last female descendant of the Torelli to Ferrante Gonzaga. In 1621 it was made the seat of a duchy, but in 1748 it was added to those of Parma and Piacenza, whose history it subsequently followed.
GUASTALLA, is a town and bishopric in Emilia, Italy, located 18 miles north by road from Reggio, on the south bank of the Po River, at an elevation of 79 feet above sea level. It also has a rail connection to Parma and Mantua (via Suzzara). Population: 661 (1901), 2,658 (town); 11,091 (commune). The town features 16th-century fortifications, and its cathedral, which dates back to the 10th century, has undergone numerous restorations. Guastalla was established by the Lombards in the 7th century; it was the site of a council led by Pope Paschal II in the church of the Pieve in 1106. In 1307, it was taken over by Giberto da Correggio of Parma. By 1403, it came under the control of Guido Torello, who was a cousin of Filippo Maria Visconti of Milan. In 1539, it was sold by the last female descendant of the Torelli family to Ferrante Gonzaga. In 1621, it became the seat of a duchy, but in 1748 it was incorporated into the duchies of Parma and Piacenza, subsequently sharing their history.
GUATEMALA (sometimes incorrectly written Guatimala), a name now restricted to the republic of Guatemala and to its chief city, but formerly given to a captaincy-general of Spanish America, which included the fifteen provinces of Chiapas, Suchitepeques, Escuintla, Sonsonate, San Salvador, Vera Paz and Peten, Chiquimula, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Totonicapam, Quezaltenango, Sololá, Chimaltenango and Sacatepeques,—or, in other words, the whole of Central America (except Panama) and part of Mexico. The name is probably of Aztec origin, and is said by some authorities to mean in its native form Quauhtematlan, “Land of the Eagle,” or “Land of Forest”; others, writing it U-ha-tez-ma-la, connect it with the volcano of Agua (i.e. “water”), and interpret it as “mountain vomiting water.”
GUATEMALA (sometimes misspelled as Guatemala), is a name that now refers specifically to the republic of Guatemala and its main city, but it was formerly used for a captaincy-general in Spanish America, which encompassed the fifteen provinces of Chiapas, Suchitepeques, Escuintla, Sonsonate, San Salvador, Vera Paz and Peten, Chiquimula, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Totonicapam, Quezaltenango, Sololá, Chimaltenango, and Sacatepeques—essentially the entirety of Central America (excluding Panama) and part of Mexico. The name likely comes from an Aztec origin, and some scholars say it means in its native form Quauhtematlan, “Land of the Eagle” or “Land of Forest”; others, writing it as U-ha-tez-ma-la, link it to the volcano of Agua (i.e. “water”), interpreting it as “mountain vomiting water.”
The republic of Guatemala is situated between 13° 42′ and 17° 49′ N., and 88° 10′ and 92° 30′ W. (For map, see Central America.) Pop. (1903), 1,842,134; area about 48,250 sq. m. Guatemala is bounded on the W. and N. by Mexico, N.E. by British Honduras, E. by the Gulf of Honduras, and the republic of Honduras, S.E. by Salvador and S. by the Pacific Ocean. The frontier towards Mexico was determined by conventions of the 27th of September 1882, the 17th of October 1883, the 1st of April 1895, and the 8th of May 1899. Starting from the Pacific, it ascends the river Suchiate, then follows an irregular line towards the north-east, till it reaches the parallel of 17° 49′ N., along which it runs to the frontier of British Honduras. This frontier, by the convention of the 9th of July 1893, coincides with the meridian of 89° 20′ W., till it meets the river Sarstoon or Sarstun, which it follows eastwards to the Gulf of Honduras.
The Republic of Guatemala is located between 13° 42′ and 17° 49′ N, and 88° 10′ and 92° 30′ W. (For map, see Central America). Population (1903) is 1,842,134; area is about 48,250 sq. miles. Guatemala is bordered to the west and north by Mexico, to the northeast by British Honduras, to the east by the Gulf of Honduras and the Republic of Honduras, to the southeast by El Salvador, and to the south by the Pacific Ocean. The border with Mexico was established by agreements on September 27, 1882, October 17, 1883, April 1, 1895, and May 8, 1899. Starting from the Pacific, it goes up the Suchiate River, then follows a winding line to the northeast until it reaches the parallel of 17° 49′ N, along which it runs to the border with British Honduras. This border, established by the agreement on July 9, 1893, aligns with the meridian of 89° 20′ W until it meets the Sarstoon River (or Sarstun), which it follows east to the Gulf of Honduras.
Physical Description.—Guatemala is naturally divided into five regions—the lowlands of the Pacific coast, the volcanic mountains of the Sierra Madre, the so-called plateaus immediately north of these, the mountains of the Atlantic versant and the plain of Peten. (1) The coastal plains extend along the entire southern seaboard, with a mean breadth of 50 m., and link together the belts of similar territory in Salvador and the district of Soconusco in Chiapas. Owing to their tropical heat, low elevation above sea-level, and marshy soil, they are thinly peopled, and contain few important towns except the seaports. (2) The precipitous barrier of the Sierra Madre, which closes in the coastal plains on the north, is similarly prolonged into Salvador and Mexico. It is known near Guatemala city as the Sierra de las Nubes, and enters Mexico as the Sierra de Istatan. It forms the main watershed between the Pacific and Atlantic river systems. Its summit is not a well-defined crest, but is often rounded or flattened into a table-land. The direction of the great volcanic cones, which rise in an irregular line above it, is not identical with the main axis of the Sierra itself, except near the Mexican frontier, but has a more southerly trend, especially towards Salvador; here the base of many of the igneous peaks rests among the southern foothills of the range. It is, however, impossible to subdivide the Sierra Madre into a northern and a volcanic chain; for the volcanoes are isolated by stretches of comparatively low country; at least thirteen considerable streams flow down between them, from the main watershed to the sea. Viewed from the coast, the volcanic cones seem to rise directly from the central heights of the Sierra Madre, above which they tower; but in reality their bases are, as a rule, farther south. East of Tacana, which marks the Mexican frontier, and is variously estimated at 13,976 ft. and 13,090 ft., and if the higher estimate be correct is the loftiest peak in Central America, the principal volcanoes are—Tajamulco or Tajumulco (13,517 ft.); Santa Maria (12,467 ft.), which was in eruption during 1902, after centuries of quiescence, in which its slopes had been overgrown by dense forests; Atitlán (11,719), overlooking the lake of that name; Acatenango (13,615). which shares the claim of Tacana to be the highest mountain of Central America; Fuego (i.e. “fire,” variously estimated at 12,795 ft. and 12,582 ft.), which received its name from its activity at the time of the Spanish conquest; Agua (i.e. “water,” 12,139 ft.), so named in 1541 because it destroyed the former capital of Guatemala with a deluge of water from its flooded crater; and Pacaya (8390), a group of igneous peaks which were in eruption in 1870. (3) The so-called plateaus which extend north of the Sierra Madre are in fact high valleys, rather than table-lands, enclosed by mountains. A better idea of this region is conveyed by the native name Altos, or highlands, although that term includes the northern declivity of the Sierra Madre. The mean elevation is greatest in the west (Altos of Quezaltenango) and least in the east (Altos of Guatemala). A few of the streams of the Pacific slope actually rise in the Altos, and force a way through the Sierra Madre at the bottom of deep ravines. One large river, the Chixoy, escapes northwards towards the Atlantic. (4) The relief of the mountainous country which lies north of the Altos and drains into the Atlantic is varied by innumerable terraces, ridges and underfalls; but its general configuration is admirably compared by E. Reclus with the appearance of “a stormy sea breaking into parallel billows” (Universal Geography, ed. E. G. Ravenstein, div. xxxiii., p. 212). The parallel ranges extend east and west with a slight southerly curve towards their centres. A range called the Sierra de Chama, which, however, changes its name frequently from place to place, strikes eastward towards British Honduras, and is connected by low hills with the Cockscomb Mountains; another similar range, the Sierra de Santa Cruz, continues east to Cape Cocoli between the Polochic and the Sarstoon; and a third, the Sierra de las Minas or, in its eastern portion, Sierra del Mico, stretches between the Polochic and the Motagua. Between Honduras and Guatemala the frontier is formed by the Sierra de Merendon. (5) The great plain of Peten, which comprises about one-third of the whole area of Guatemala, belongs geographically to the Yucatan Peninsula, and consists of level or undulating country, covered with grass or forest. Its population numbers less than two per sq. m., although many districts have a wonderfully fertile soil and abundance of water. The greater part of this region is uncultivated, and only utilized as pasture by the Indians, who form the majority of its inhabitants.
Physical Description.—Guatemala is naturally divided into five regions: the lowlands of the Pacific coast, the volcanic mountains of the Sierra Madre, the plateaus just north of these mountains, the mountains on the Atlantic side, and the plain of Peten. (1) The coastal plains stretch along the entire southern coast, averaging about 50 miles wide, and connect with similar areas in El Salvador and the Soconusco region in Chiapas. Due to the tropical heat, low elevation, and marshy soil, they are sparsely populated, with few important towns apart from the seaports. (2) The steep barrier of the Sierra Madre, which borders the coastal plains to the north, extends into El Salvador and Mexico. Near Guatemala City, it’s called the Sierra de las Nubes and enters Mexico as the Sierra de Istatan. This mountain range serves as the main watershed between the Pacific and Atlantic river systems. Its peak does not have a sharply defined crest, but is often rounded or flat, forming a plateau. The alignment of the major volcanic cones that rise irregularly above it is not consistently aligned with the main axis of the Sierra itself, except near the Mexican border; they tend to trend more southward, especially towards El Salvador, where the bases of many volcanic peaks lie among the southern foothills. However, it is not possible to categorize the Sierra Madre into a northern and a volcanic chain; the volcanoes are separated by areas of relatively low land, with at least thirteen significant rivers flowing down between them from the main watershed to the sea. When viewed from the coast, the volcanic cones appear to rise directly from the central heights of the Sierra Madre, towering above it; however, their bases are usually farther south. East of Tacana, which marks the Mexican border and is estimated to be between 13,976 ft. and 13,090 ft., making it the tallest peak in Central America if the higher estimate is accurate, the main volcanoes are: Tajamulco or Tajumulco (13,517 ft.); Santa Maria (12,467 ft.), which erupted in 1902 after centuries of inactivity during which its slopes were covered with dense forests; Atitlán (11,719 ft.), overlooking the lake of the same name; Acatenango (13,615 ft.), which shares the title of the highest mountain in Central America with Tacana; Fuego (i.e. “fire,” estimated at either 12,795 ft. or 12,582 ft.), named for its activity at the time of the Spanish conquest; Agua (i.e. “water,” 12,139 ft.), named in 1541 because it destroyed the former capital of Guatemala with a flood from its crater; and Pacaya (8390 ft.), a group of volcanic peaks that erupted in 1870. (3) The so-called plateaus extending north of the Sierra Madre are actually high valleys, rather than flatlands, surrounded by mountains. A better description of this region comes from the native term Altos, meaning highlands, although it also includes the northern slope of the Sierra Madre. The average elevation is highest in the west (Altos of Quezaltenango) and lowest in the east (Altos of Guatemala). A few rivers on the Pacific slope originate in the Altos and carve their way through the Sierra Madre at the bottoms of deep ravines. One major river, the Chixoy, flows northward towards the Atlantic. (4) The mountainous area to the north of the Altos that drains into the Atlantic is marked by countless terraces, ridges, and streams; its overall shape has been eloquently compared by E. Reclus to “a stormy sea breaking into parallel waves” (Universal Geography, ed. E. G. Ravenstein, div. xxxiii., p. 212). These parallel ranges stretch east and west with a slight curve southward toward their centers. One range, called the Sierra de Chama, frequently changes its name from place to place, and extends east toward British Honduras, linking via low hills to the Cockscomb Mountains. Another similar range, the Sierra de Santa Cruz, continues east to Cape Cocoli between the Polochic and the Sarstoon rivers; while a third, the Sierra de las Minas or, in its eastern portion, Sierra del Mico, stretches between the Polochic and the Motagua rivers. The border between Honduras and Guatemala is formed by the Sierra de Merendon. (5) The large plain of Peten, which makes up about one-third of all of Guatemala, belongs to the Yucatan Peninsula geographically and consists of flat or gently rolling land, covered with grass or forests. Its population is less than two per square mile, even though many areas feature very fertile soil and plenty of water. Most of this region is uncultivated and is primarily used for grazing by the Indigenous people, who make up the majority of its inhabitants.
Guatemala is richly watered. On the western side of the sierras the versant is short, and the streams, while very numerous, are consequently small and rapid; but on the eastern side a number of the rivers attain a very considerable development. The Motagua, whose principal head stream is called the Rio Grande, has a course of about 250 m., and is navigable to within 90 m. of the capital, which is situated on one of its confluents, the Rio de las Vacas. It forms a delta on the south of the Gulf of Honduras. Of similar importance is the Polochic, which is about 180 m. in length, and navigable about 20 m. above the river-port of Telemán. Before reaching the Golfo Amatique it passes through the Golfo Dulce, or Izabal Lake, and the Golfete Dulce. A vast number of streams, among which are the Chixoy, the Guadalupe, and the Rio de la Pasion, unite to form the Usumacinta, whose noble current passes along the Mexican frontier, and flowing on through Chiapas and Tabasco, falls into the Bay of Campeche. The Chiapas follows a similar course.
Guatemala has plenty of water. On the western side of the mountains, the slopes are short, so the numerous streams are small and fast-flowing. However, on the eastern side, several rivers are much larger. The Motagua, whose main upstream section is called the Rio Grande, runs about 250 miles and is navigable up to 90 miles from the capital, which sits on one of its tributaries, the Rio de las Vacas. It creates a delta to the south of the Gulf of Honduras. The Polochic is also significant, stretching about 180 miles and being navigable for about 20 miles above the river port of Telemán. Before it reaches Golfo Amatique, it flows through Golfo Dulce, or Izabal Lake, and Golfete Dulce. Many streams, including the Chixoy, Guadalupe, and Rio de la Pasion, come together to form the Usumacinta, whose strong flow moves along the Mexican border and continues through Chiapas and Tabasco, emptying into the Bay of Campeche. The Chiapas follows a similar path.
There are several extensive lakes in Guatemala. The Lake of Peten or Laguna de Flores, in the centre of the department of Peten, is an irregular basin about 27 m. long, with an extreme breadth of 13 m. In an island in the western portion stands Flores, a town well known to American antiquaries for the number of ancient idols which have been recovered from its soil. On the shore of the lake is the stalactite cave of Jobitsinal, of great local celebrity; and in its depths, according to the popular legend, may still be discerned the stone image of a horse that belonged to Cortes. The Golfo Dulce is, as its name implies, a fresh-water lake, although so near the Atlantic. It is about 36 m. long, and would be of considerable value as a harbour if the bar at the mouth of the Rio Dulce did not prevent the upward passage of seafaring vessels. As a contrast the Lake of Atitlán (q.v.) is a land-locked basin encompassed with lofty mountains. About 9 m. S. of the capital lies the Lake of Amatitlán (q.v.) with the town of the same name. On the borders of Salvador and Guatemala there is the Lake of Guija, about 20 m. long and 12 broad, at a height of 2100 ft. above the sea. It is connected by the river Ostuma with the Lake of Ayarza which lies about 1000 ft. higher at the foot of the Sierra Madre.
There are several large lakes in Guatemala. The Lake of Peten or Laguna de Flores, located in the center of the Peten department, is an irregular basin about 27 meters long and 13 meters wide at its widest point. On an island in the western part, you'll find Flores, a town famous among American historians for the many ancient idols that have been found in its soil. On the lake's shore is the renowned stalactite cave of Jobitsinal, which is well-known locally; and deep inside, according to local legend, you can still see the stone image of a horse that belonged to Cortes. The Golfo Dulce is, as its name suggests, a freshwater lake, even though it's very close to the Atlantic. It measures about 36 meters long and would be quite valuable as a harbor if the bar at the mouth of the Rio Dulce didn’t block the passage of seafaring vessels. In contrast, the Lake of Atitlán (q.v.) is an enclosed basin surrounded by tall mountains. About 9 miles south of the capital is the Lake of Amatitlán (q.v.) with the town of the same name. On the borders of Salvador and Guatemala lies the Lake of Guija, which is about 20 miles long and 12 miles wide, sitting at an elevation of 2100 feet above sea level. It connects to the Lake of Ayarza by the Ostuma River, which is located about 1000 feet higher at the base of the Sierra Madre.
The geology, fauna and flora of Guatemala are discussed under Central America. The bird-life of the country is remarkably rich; one bird of magnificent plumage, the quetzal, quijal or quesal (Trogon resplendens), has been chosen as the national emblem.
The geology, wildlife, and plants of Guatemala are discussed under Central America. The birdlife in the country is incredibly diverse; one bird with stunning feathers, the quetzal, quijal, or quesal (Trogon resplendens), has been selected as the national symbol.
Climate.—The climate is healthy, except on the coasts, where malarial fever is prevalent. The rainy season in the interior lasts from May to October, but on the coast sometimes continues till December. The coldest month is January, and the warmest is May. The average temperatures for these months at places of different altitudes, as given by Dr Karl Sapper, are shown on the following page.
Climate.—The climate is healthy, except on the coasts, where malaria is common. The rainy season in the interior lasts from May to October, but on the coast, it can sometimes go until December. January is the coldest month, while May is the warmest. The average temperatures for these months at various altitudes, as provided by Dr. Karl Sapper, are shown on the following page.
The average rainfall is very heavy, especially on the Atlantic slope, where the prevailing winds are charged with moisture from the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean Sea; at Tual, a high station on the Atlantic slope, it reaches 195 in.; in central Guatemala it is only 27 in. Towards the Atlantic rain often occurs in the dry season, and there is a local saying near the Golfo Dulce that “it rains thirteen months in the year.” Fogs are not rare. In Guatemala, 662 as in other parts of Central America (q.v.), each of the three climatic zones, cold, temperate and hot (tierra fria, tierra templada, tierra caliente) has its special characteristics, and it is not easy to generalize about the climate of the country as a whole.
The average rainfall is quite heavy, especially on the Atlantic slope, where the dominant winds carry moisture from the Gulf of Mexico or the Caribbean Sea; at Tual, a high point on the Atlantic slope, it reaches 195 inches. In central Guatemala, it’s only 27 inches. Toward the Atlantic, rain often falls during the dry season, and there’s a local saying near the Golfo Dulce that “it rains thirteen months of the year.” Fog isn’t uncommon. In Guatemala, 662 like in other areas of Central America (q.v.), each of the three climatic zones—cold, temperate, and hot (tierra fria, tierra templada, tierra caliente)—has its unique characteristics, making it difficult to generalize about the climate of the country as a whole.
Locality. | Altitude (Feet). | Fahrenheit Degrees. | |
January. | May. | ||
Puerto Barrios | 6 | 74 | 81 |
Salamá | 3020 | 68 | 77 |
Campur | 3050 | 64 | 73 |
Chimax | 4280 | 61 | 68 |
Guatemala | 4870 | 60 | 67 |
Quezaltenango | 7710 | 50 | 62 |
Natural Products.—The minerals discovered in Guatemala include gold, silver, lead, tin, copper, mercury, antimony, coal, salt and sulphur; but it is uncertain if many of these exist in quantities sufficient to repay exploitation. Gold is obtained at Las Quebradas near Izabal, silver in the departments of Santa Rosa and Chiquimula, salt in those of Santa Rosa and Alta Vera Paz. During the 17th century gold-washing was carried on by English miners in the Motagua valley, and is said to have yielded rich profits; hence the name of “Gold Coast” was not infrequently given to the Atlantic littoral near the mouth of the Motagua.
Natural Products.—The minerals found in Guatemala include gold, silver, lead, tin, copper, mercury, antimony, coal, salt, and sulfur; however, it's unclear if many of these are present in amounts that justify extraction. Gold is sourced at Las Quebradas near Izabal, silver in the areas of Santa Rosa and Chiquimula, and salt in Santa Rosa and Alta Vera Paz. During the 17th century, English miners were involved in gold-washing in the Motagua valley, which reportedly brought in significant profits; this is why the term “Gold Coast” was often applied to the Atlantic coast near the mouth of the Motagua.
The area of forest has only been seriously diminished in the west, and amounted to 2030 sq. m. in 1904. Besides rubber, it yields many valuable dye-woods and cabinet-woods, such as cedar, mahogany and logwood. Fruits, grain and medicinal plants are obtained in great abundance, especially where the soil is largely of volcanic origin, as in the Altos and Sierra Madre. Parts of the Peten district are equally fertile, maize in this region yielding two hundredfold from unmanured soil. The vegetable products of Guatemala include coffee, cocoa, sugar-cane, bananas, oranges, vanilla, aloes, agave, ipecacuanha, castor-oil, sarsaparilla, cinchona, tobacco, indigo and the wax-plant (Myrica cerifera).
The forest area has only significantly decreased in the west, totaling 2030 sq. m. in 1904. In addition to rubber, it produces many valuable dye-woods and cabinet-woods, like cedar, mahogany, and logwood. Fruits, grains, and medicinal plants are plentiful, especially in areas where the soil is primarily volcanic, such as the Altos and Sierra Madre. Some parts of the Peten district are just as fertile, with maize in this region yielding two hundred times from unmanured soil. The vegetable products of Guatemala include coffee, cocoa, sugarcane, bananas, oranges, vanilla, aloes, agave, ipecac, castor oil, sarsaparilla, cinchona, tobacco, indigo, and the wax-plant (Myrica cerifera).
Inhabitants.—The inhabitants of Guatemala, who tend to increase rapidly owing to the high birth-rate, low mortality, and low rate of emigration, numbered in 1903 1,842,134, or more than one-third of the entire population of Central America. Fully 60% are pure Indians, and the remainder, classed as Ladinos or “Latins” (i.e. Spaniards in speech and mode of life), comprise a large majority of half-castes (mestizos) and civilized Indians and a smaller proportion of whites. It includes a foreign population of about 12,000 Europeans and North Americans, among them being many Jews from the west of the United States. There are important German agricultural settlements, and many colonists from north Italy who are locally called Tiroleses, and despised by the Indians for their industry and thrift. About half the births among the Indians and one-third among the whites are illegitimate.
Inhabitants.—The population of Guatemala has been growing quickly due to a high birth rate, low mortality rate, and minimal emigration, reaching 1,842,134 in 1903, which is over one-third of Central America's total population. Around 60% are pure Indigenous people, while the rest are classified as Ladinos or “Latins” (i.e., Spaniards in language and lifestyle), which includes a large majority of mixed-race individuals (mestizos) and assimilated Indigenous people, along with a smaller percentage of white people. There is also a foreign population of about 12,000 Europeans and North Americans, including many Jewish immigrants from the western United States. Significant German agricultural settlements exist, along with many immigrants from northern Italy, known locally as Tiroleses, who are looked down upon by Indigenous people for their hard work and thriftiness. About half of the births among Indigenous people and one-third among white people are considered illegitimate.
No part of Central America contains a greater diversity of tribes, and in 1883 Otto Stoll estimated the number of spoken languages as eighteen, although east of the meridian of Lake Amatitlán the native speech has almost entirely disappeared and been replaced by Spanish. The Indians belong chiefly to the Maya stock, which predominates throughout Peten, or to the allied Quiché race which is well represented in the Altos and central districts. The Itzas, Mopans, Lacandons, Chols, Pokonchi and the Pokomans who inhabit the large settlement of Mixco near the capital, all belong to the Maya family; but parts of central and eastern Guatemala are peopled by tribes distinct from the Mayas and not found in Mexico. In the 16th century the Mayas and Quichés had attained a high level of civilization (see Central America, Archaeology), and at least two of the Guatemalan languages, Quiché and Cakchiquel, possess the rudiments or the relics of a literature. The Quiché Popol Vuh, or “Book of History,” which was translated into Spanish by the Dominican friar Ximenes, and edited with a French version by Brasseur de Bourbourg, is an important document for students of the local myths. In appearance the various Guatemalan tribes differ very little; in almost all the characteristic type of Indian is short but muscular, with low forehead, prominent cheek-bones and straight black hair. In character the Indians are, as a rule, peaceable, though conscious of their numerical superiority and at times driven to join in the revolutions which so often disturb the course of local politics; they are often intensely religious, but with a few exceptions are thriftless, indolent and inveterate gamblers. Their confradias, or brotherhoods, each with its patron saint and male and female chiefs, exist largely to organize public festivals, and to purchase wooden masks, costumes and decorations for the dances and dramas in which the Indians delight. These dramas, which deal with religious and historical subjects, are of Indian origin, and somewhat resemble the mystery-plays of medieval Europe, a resemblance heightened by the introduction, due to Spanish missionaries, of Christian saints and heroes such as Charlemagne. The Indians are devoted to bull-fighting and cock-fighting. Choral singing is a popular amusement, and is accompanied by the Spanish guitar and native wind-instruments. The Indians have a habit of consuming a yellowish edible earth containing sulphur; on pilgrimages they obtain images moulded of this earth at the shrines they visit, and eat the images as a prophylactic against disease. Maize, beans and bananas, varied occasionally with dried meat and fresh pork, form their staple diet; drunkenness is common on pay-days and festivals, when large quantities of a fiery brandy called chicha are consumed.
No part of Central America has a greater variety of tribes, and in 1883, Otto Stoll estimated that there were about eighteen spoken languages. However, east of the meridian of Lake Amatitlán, the native language has almost completely disappeared and been replaced by Spanish. The Indigenous people mainly belong to the Maya stock, which is dominant in Peten, or to the related Quiché group, which is well represented in the highlands and central regions. The Itzas, Mopans, Lacandons, Chols, Pokonchi, and the Pokomans, who live in the large settlement of Mixco near the capital, all belong to the Maya family; however, parts of central and eastern Guatemala are inhabited by tribes that are distinct from the Mayas and not found in Mexico. In the 16th century, the Mayas and Quichés had reached a high level of civilization (see Central America, Archaeology), and at least two Guatemalan languages, Quiché and Cakchiquel, have the basics or remnants of a literature. The Quiché Popol Vuh, or “Book of History,” which was translated into Spanish by the Dominican friar Ximenes and edited with a French version by Brasseur de Bourbourg, is an important document for those studying local myths. In terms of appearance, the various Guatemalan tribes are quite similar; in nearly all cases, the typical Indian is short but muscular, with a low forehead, prominent cheekbones, and straight black hair. Generally, the Indigenous people are peaceful, although they are aware of their numerical strength and at times feel compelled to participate in the revolutions that frequently disrupt local politics; they are often deeply religious, but with a few exceptions, they tend to be wasteful, lazy, and habitual gamblers. Their confradias, or brotherhoods, each with its patron saint and male and female leaders, primarily exist to organize public festivals and to purchase wooden masks, costumes, and decorations for the dances and dramas that the Indigenous people enjoy. These dramas, which focus on religious and historical themes, are of Indigenous origin and somewhat resemble the mystery plays of medieval Europe, especially due to the incorporation of Christian saints and heroes like Charlemagne by Spanish missionaries. The Indigenous people are passionate about bullfighting and cockfighting. Choral singing is a popular pastime, accompanied by the Spanish guitar and native wind instruments. The Indigenous people have a habit of eating a yellowish edible earth containing sulfur; during pilgrimages, they collect images molded from this earth at the shrines they visit and consume these images as a way to prevent disease. Their main diet consists of maize, beans, and bananas, occasionally supplemented with dried meat and fresh pork; drunkenness is common on paydays and during festivals, when large quantities of a strong brandy called chicha are consumed.
Chief Towns.—The capital of the republic, Guatemala or Guatemala la Nueva (pop. 1905 about 97,000) and the cities of Quezaltenango (31,000), Totonicapam (28,000), Coban (25,000), Sololá (17,000), Escuintla (12,000), Huehuetanango (12,000), Amatitlán (10,000) and Atitlán (9000) are described under separate headings. All the chief towns except the seaports are situated within the mountainous region where the climate is temperate. Retalhuleu, among the southern foothills of the Sierra Madre, is one of the centres of coffee production, and is connected by rail with the Pacific port of Champerico, a very unhealthy place in the wet season. Both Retalhuleu and Champerico were, like Quezaltenango, Sololá, and other towns, temporarily ruined by the earthquake of the 18th of April 1902. Santa Cruz Quiché, 25 m. N.E. of Totonicapam, was formerly the capital of the Quiché kings, but has now a Ladino population. Livingston, a seaport at the mouth of the Polochic (here called the Rio Dulce), was founded in 1806, and subsequently named after the author of a code of Guatemalan laws; few vestiges remain of the Spanish settlement of Sevilla la Nueva, founded in 1844, and of the English colony of Abbotsville, founded in 1825,—both near Livingston. La Libertad, also called by its Indian name of Sacluc, is the principal town of Peten.
Chief Towns.—The capital of the republic, Guatemala or Guatemala la Nueva (pop. 1905 about 97,000), and the cities of Quezaltenango (31,000), Totonicapán (28,000), Cobán (25,000), Sololá (17,000), Escuintla (12,000), Huehuetenango (12,000), Amatitlán (10,000), and Atitlán (9,000) are described under separate headings. All the major towns except for the seaports are located in the mountainous region where the climate is temperate. Retalhuleu, situated among the southern foothills of the Sierra Madre, is a center of coffee production and is connected by rail to the Pacific port of Champerico, which is very unhealthy during the wet season. Both Retalhuleu and Champerico, like Quezaltenango, Sololá, and other towns, were temporarily devastated by the earthquake on April 18, 1902. Santa Cruz Quiché, 25 miles northeast of Totonicapán, was once the capital of the Quiché kings but now has a Ladino population. Livingston, a seaport at the mouth of the Polochic (referred to here as the Rio Dulce), was founded in 1806 and later named after the creator of a Guatemalan law code; few remnants remain of the Spanish settlement of Sevilla la Nueva, founded in 1844, and the English colony of Abbotsville, established in 1825—both near Livingston. La Libertad, also known by its Indigenous name Sacluc, is the main town of Peten.
Shipping and Communications.—The republic is in regular steam communication on the Atlantic side with New Orleans, New York and Hamburg, by vessels which visit the ports of Barrios (Santo Tomas) and Livingston. On the southern side the ports of San José, Champerico and Ocós are visited by the Pacific mail steamers, by the vessels of a Hamburg company and by those of the South American (Chilean) and the Pacific Steam Navigation Companies. Iztapa, formerly the principal harbour on the south coast, has been almost entirely abandoned since 1853. Gualan, on the Motagua, and Panzos, on the Polochic, are small river-ports. The principal towns are connected by wagon roads, towards the construction and maintenance of which each male inhabitant is required to pay two pesos or give four days’ work a year. There are coach routes between the capital and Quezaltenango, but over a great portion of the country transport is still on mule-back. All the railway lines have been built since 1875. The main lines are the Southern, belonging to an American company and running from San José to the capital; the Northern, a government line from the capital to Puerto Barrios, which completes the interoceanic railroad; and the Western, from Champerico to Quezaltenango, belonging to a Guatemalan company, but largely under German management. For local traffic there are several lines; one from Iztapa, near San José, to Naranjo, and another from Ocós to the western coffee plantations. On the Atlantic slope transport is effected mainly by river tow-boats from Livingston along the Golfo Dulce and other lakes, and the Polochic river as far as Panzos. The narrow-gauge railway that serves the German plantations in the Vera Paz region is largely owned by Germans.
Shipping and Communications.—The republic regularly connects by steamship on the Atlantic side with New Orleans, New York, and Hamburg, using vessels that visit the ports of Barrios (Santo Tomas) and Livingston. On the southern side, the ports of San José, Champerico, and Ocós are served by Pacific mail steamers, as well as by ships from a Hamburg company and those from the South American (Chilean) and Pacific Steam Navigation Companies. Iztapa, which used to be the main harbor on the south coast, has been nearly abandoned since 1853. Gualan, on the Motagua River, and Panzos, on the Polochic River, are small river ports. The main towns are linked by wagon roads, for which each male resident is required to pay two pesos or provide four days of labor each year. There are coach routes between the capital and Quezaltenango, but in much of the countryside, transport is still done on mule-back. All railway lines have been constructed since 1875. The major lines include the Southern, owned by an American company, running from San José to the capital; the Northern, a government line connecting the capital to Puerto Barrios, which completes the interoceanic railroad; and the Western, from Champerico to Quezaltenango, owned by a Guatemalan company but primarily managed by Germans. For local traffic, there are several lines; one from Iztapa, near San José, to Naranjo, and another from Ocós to the western coffee plantations. On the Atlantic slope, transport is mainly done by river tow-boats from Livingston along the Golfo Dulce and other lakes, and the Polochic River up to Panzos. The narrow-gauge railway serving the German plantations in the Vera Paz region is mostly owned by Germans.
Guatemala joined the Postal Union in 1881; but its postal and telegraphic services have suffered greatly from financial difficulties. The telephonic systems of Guatemala la Nueva, Quezaltenango and other cities are owned by private companies.
Guatemala became a member of the Postal Union in 1881, but its postal and telegraph services have struggled significantly due to financial issues. The telephone systems in Guatemala La Nueva, Quetzaltenango, and other cities are owned by private companies.
Commerce and Industry.—The natural resources of Guatemala are rich but undeveloped; and the capital necessary for their development is not easily obtained in a country where war, revolution and economic crises recur at frequent intervals, where the premium on gold has varied by no less than 500% in a single year, and where many of the wealthiest cities and agricultural districts have been destroyed by earthquake in one day (18th of April 1902). At the beginning of the 19th century, Guatemala had practically no export trade; but between 1825 and 1850 cochineal was largely exported, the centre of production being the Amatitlán district. This industry was ruined by the competition of chemical dyes, and a substitute was found in the cultivation of coffee. 663 Guatemala is surpassed only by Brazil and the East Indies in the quantity of coffee it exports. The chief plantations are owned and managed by Germans; more than half of the crop is sent to Germany, while three-fifths of the remainder go to the United States and one-fifth to Great Britain. The average yearly product is about 70,000,000 ℔, worth approximately £1,300,000, and subject to an export duty of one gold dollar (4s.) per quintal (101 ℔). Sugar, bananas, tobacco and cocoa are also cultivated; but much of the sugar and bananas, most of the cocoa, and all the tobacco are consumed in the country. During the colonial period, the cocoa of western Guatemala and Soconusco was reserved on account of its fine flavour for the Spanish court. The indigo and cotton plantations yield little profit, owing to foreign competition, and have in most cases been converted to other uses. The cultivation of bananas tends to increase, though more slowly than in other Central American countries. Grain, sweet potatoes and beans are grown for home consumption. Cattle-farming is carried on in the high pasture-lands and the plains of Peten; but the whole number of sheep (77,000 in 1900) and pigs (30,000) in the republic is inferior to the number kept in many single English counties. Much of the wool is sold, like the native cotton, to Indian and Ladino women, who manufacture coarse cloth and linen in their homes.
Commerce and Industry.—Guatemala has rich but undeveloped natural resources, and it's challenging to secure the capital needed for their development in a country where war, revolutions, and economic crises happen frequently. The value of gold has fluctuated by as much as 500% in a single year, and many wealthy cities and agricultural areas were destroyed by an earthquake in just one day (April 18, 1902). At the start of the 19th century, Guatemala had almost no export trade, but between 1825 and 1850, cochineal was widely exported, primarily from the Amatitlán region. This industry collapsed due to competition from synthetic dyes, leading to a shift toward coffee cultivation. 663 Guatemala ranks just behind Brazil and the East Indies in coffee exports. Most of the major plantations are owned and run by Germans, with over half of the crop shipped to Germany, three-fifths of the rest going to the United States, and one-fifth to Great Britain. The average yearly yield is about 70,000,000 pounds, valued at around £1,300,000, and is subject to an export duty of one gold dollar (4s.) per quintal (101 pounds). Other crops, like sugar, bananas, tobacco, and cocoa, are also grown, but much of the sugar and bananas, most of the cocoa, and all the tobacco are consumed domestically. During the colonial period, the cocoa from western Guatemala and Soconusco was reserved for the Spanish court due to its exceptional flavor. Indigo and cotton plantations yield little profit because of foreign competition and have mostly been repurposed. The cultivation of bananas is increasing, though at a slower pace than in other Central American countries. Grains, sweet potatoes, and beans are grown for domestic use. Cattle farming occurs in the high pastures and the plains of Peten, but the total number of sheep (77,000 in 1900) and pigs (30,000) in the country is less than what's found in many single English counties. Much of the wool is sold, just like the local cotton, to Indigenous and Ladino women, who create coarse cloth and linen at home.
By the Land Act of 1894 the state domains, except on the coasts and frontiers, were divided into lots for sale. The largest holding tenable by one person under this act was fixed at 50 caballerias, or 5625 acres; the price varies from £40 to £80 per caballeria of 112½ acres. Free grants of uncultivated land are sometimes made to immigrants (including foreign companies), to persons who undertake to build roads or railways through their allotments, to towns, villages and schools. The condition of the Indians on the plantations is often akin to slavery, owing to the system adopted by some planters of making payments in advance; for the Indians soon spend their earnings, and thus contract debts which can only be repaid by long service.
By the Land Act of 1894, state lands, except for those on the coasts and borders, were divided into lots for sale. The largest amount of land one person could hold under this act was set at 50 caballerias, or 5,625 acres; the price ranges from £40 to £80 per caballeria of 112.5 acres. Free grants of uncultivated land are sometimes given to immigrants (including foreign companies), people who agree to build roads or railways through their lots, towns, villages, and schools. The situation for the Indigenous people on the plantations often resembles slavery, due to the system some planters use of making advance payments; the Indigenous people quickly spend their earnings and end up in debt, which can only be repaid through long-term labor.
In addition to the breweries, rum and brandy distilleries, sugar mills and tobacco factories, which are sometimes worked as adjuncts to the plantations, there are many purely urban industries, such as the manufacture of woollen and cotton goods on a large scale, and manufactures of building material and furniture; but these industries are far less important than agriculture.
In addition to the breweries, rum and brandy distilleries, sugar mills, and tobacco factories, which are sometimes operated as extensions of the plantations, there are many purely urban industries, like large-scale production of wool and cotton goods, as well as building materials and furniture manufacturing; however, these industries are much less significant than agriculture.
During the five years 1900 to 1904 inclusive, the average value of Guatemalan imports, which consisted chiefly of textiles, iron and machinery, sacks, provisions, flour, beer, wine and spirits, amounted to £776,000; about one-half came from the United States, and nearly one-fourth from the United Kingdom. The exports during the same period had an average value of £1,528,000, and ranked as follows in order of value: coffee (£1,300,000), timber, hides, rubber, sugar, bananas, cocoa.
During the five years from 1900 to 1904, the average value of Guatemalan imports, which mainly included textiles, iron, machinery, sacks, food, flour, beer, wine, and spirits, was £776,000. About half of this came from the United States, and nearly a quarter from the United Kingdom. The exports during the same period had an average value of £1,528,000, arranged in order of value as follows: coffee (£1,300,000), timber, hides, rubber, sugar, bananas, cocoa.
Finance.—Within the republic there are six banks of issue, to which the government is deeply indebted. There is practically neither gold nor silver in circulation, and the value of the bank-notes is so fluctuating that trade is seriously hampered. On the 25th of June 1903, the issue of bank-notes without a guarantee was restricted; and thenceforward all banks were compelled to retain gold or silver to the value of 10% of the notes issued in 1904, 20% in 1905 and 30% in 1906. This reform has not, to any appreciable extent, rendered more stable the value of the notes issued. The silver peso, or dollar, of 100 centavas is the monetary unit, weighs 25 grammes .900 fine, and has a nominal value of 4s. Being no longer current it has been replaced by the paper peso. The nickel coins include the real (nominal value 6d.), half-real and quarter-real. The metric system of weights and measures has been adopted, but the old Spanish standards remain in general use.
Finance.—In the republic, there are six issuing banks, and the government owes them a lot of money. There’s almost no gold or silver in circulation, and the value of banknotes is so unstable that trade is seriously affected. On June 25, 1903, the issuance of banknotes without a guarantee was limited; from then on, all banks had to keep gold or silver equal to 10% of the notes they issued in 1904, 20% in 1905, and 30% in 1906. This reform has not significantly stabilized the value of the issued notes. The silver peso, or dollar, worth 100 centavos, is the monetary unit, weighs 25 grams at .900 fine, and has a nominal value of 4 shillings. Since it is no longer in circulation, it has been replaced by the paper peso. The nickel coins include the real (valued at 6 pence), half-real, and quarter-real. The metric system for weights and measures has been adopted, but the old Spanish standards are still commonly used.
Of the revenue, about 64% is derived from customs and excise; 9% from property, road, military, slaughter and salt taxes; 1.7% from the gunpowder monopoly; and the remainder from various taxes, stamps, government lands, and postal and telegraph services. The estimated revenue for 1905-1906 was 23,000,000 pesos (about £328,500); the estimated expenditure was 27,317,659 pesos (£390,200), of which £242,800 were allotted to the public debt, £42,000 to internal development and justice, £29,000 to the army and the remainder largely to education. The gold value of the currency peso (75 = £1 in 1903, 70 = £1 in 1904, 58 = £1 in 1905) fluctuates between limits so wide that conversion into sterling (especially for a series of years), with any pretension to accuracy, is impracticable. In 1899 the rate of exchange moved between 710% and 206% premium on gold. According to the official statement, the gold debt, which runs chiefly at 4% and is held in Germany and England, amounted to £1,987,905 on the 1st of January 1905; the currency debt (note issues, internal loans, &c.) amounted to £704,730; total £2,692,635, a decrease since 1900 of about £300,000.
Of the revenue, around 64% comes from customs and excise; 9% from property, road, military, slaughter, and salt taxes; 1.7% from the gunpowder monopoly; and the rest from various taxes, stamps, government lands, and postal and telegraph services. The estimated revenue for 1905-1906 was 23,000,000 pesos (about £328,500); the estimated expenditure was 27,317,659 pesos (£390,200), with £242,800 allocated to the public debt, £42,000 to internal development and justice, £29,000 to the army, and the remainder mostly for education. The gold value of the currency peso (75 = £1 in 1903, 70 = £1 in 1904, 58 = £1 in 1905) fluctuates widely, making conversion into sterling (especially over a series of years) practically impossible with any reliability. In 1899, the exchange rate varied between a 710% and 206% premium on gold. According to the official statement, the gold debt, primarily at 4% and held in Germany and England, was £1,987,905 as of January 1, 1905; the currency debt (note issues, internal loans, etc.) totaled £704,730; bringing the total to £2,692,635, a decrease of about £300,000 since 1900.
Government.—According to the constitution of December 1879 (modified in 1885, 1887, 1889 and 1903) the legislative power is vested in a national assembly of 69 deputies (1 for every 20,000 inhabitants) chosen for 4 years by direct popular vote, under universal manhood suffrage. The president of the republic is elected in a similar manner, but for 6 years, and he is theoretically not eligible for the following term. He is assisted by 6 ministers, heads of government departments, and by a council of state of 13 members, partly appointed by himself and partly by the national assembly.
Government.—According to the constitution from December 1879 (modified in 1885, 1887, 1889, and 1903), the legislative power is held by a national assembly consisting of 69 deputies (1 for every 20,000 residents) elected for 4 years through direct popular vote, under universal male suffrage. The president of the republic is elected in a similar way, but for a 6-year term, and he is theoretically not allowed to run for the next term. He is supported by 6 ministers who manage government departments, and by a council of state made up of 13 members, partly appointed by him and partly by the national assembly.
Local Government.—Each of the twenty-two departments is administered by an official called a jefe politico, or political chief, appointed by the president, and each is subdivided into municipal districts. These districts are administered by one or more alcaldes or mayors, assisted by municipal councils, both alcaldes and councils being chosen by the people.
Local Government.—Each of the twenty-two departments is managed by an official known as a jefe politico, or political chief, who is appointed by the president. Each department is further divided into municipal districts. These districts are run by one or more alcaldes or mayors, who are supported by municipal councils. Both the alcaldes and the councils are elected by the people.
Justice.—The judicial power is vested in a supreme court, consisting of a chief justice and four associate justices elected by the people; six appeal courts, each with three judges, also elected by the people; and twenty-six courts of first instance, each consisting of one judge appointed by the president and two by the chief justice of the supreme court.
Justice.—The judicial power is held by a supreme court made up of a chief justice and four associate justices elected by the public; six appellate courts, each with three judges, also elected by the public; and twenty-six trial courts, each with one judge appointed by the president and two by the chief justice of the supreme court.
Religion and Instruction.—The prevailing form of religion is the Roman Catholic, but the state recognizes no distinction of creed. The establishment of conventual or monastic institutions is prohibited. Of the population in 1893, 90% could neither read nor write, 2% could only read, and 8% could read and write. Primary instruction is nominally compulsory, and, in government schools, is provided at the cost of the state. In 1903 there were 1064 government primary schools. There are besides about 128 private (occasionally aided) schools of similar character, owners of plantations on which there are more than ten children being obliged to provide school accommodation. Higher instruction is given in two national institutes at the capital, one for men with 500 pupils and one for women with 300. At Quezaltenango there are two similar institutes, and at Chiquimula there are other two. To each of the six there is a school for teachers attached, and within the republic there are four other schools for teachers. For professional instruction (law, medicine, engineering) there are schools supported by private funds, but aided occasionally by the government. Other educational establishments are a school of art, a national conservatory of music, a commercial college, four trades’ schools with more than 600 pupils and a national library. There is a German school, endowed by the German government.
Religion and Education.—The main religion is Roman Catholic, but the state doesn't make distinctions based on beliefs. The establishment of convents or monasteries is not allowed. In 1893, 90% of the population couldn't read or write, 2% could only read, and 8% were able to read and write. Primary education is officially mandatory and is funded by the government in public schools. In 1903, there were 1,064 government primary schools. Additionally, there are about 128 private (sometimes supported) schools of a similar type, and plantation owners with more than ten children are required to provide school facilities. Higher education is offered at two national institutes in the capital, one for men with 500 students and one for women with 300. Quezaltenango has two similar institutes, and there are two more in Chiquimula. Each of the six has a teacher training school attached, and there are four other teacher training schools in the country. For professional education (law, medicine, engineering), there are schools funded by private money, occasionally receiving government support. Other educational institutions include an art school, a national conservatory of music, a commercial college, four trade schools with over 600 students, and a national library. There is also a German school funded by the German government.
Defence.—For the white and mixed population military service is compulsory; from the eighteenth to the thirtieth year of age in the active army, and from the thirtieth to the fiftieth in the reserve. The effective force of the active army is 56,900, of the reserve 29,400. About 7000 officers and men are kept in regular service. Military training is given in all public and most private schools.
Defense.—For the white and mixed population, military service is mandatory; from the ages of 18 to 30 in the active army, and from 30 to 50 in the reserve. The active army has an effective force of 56,900, while the reserve has 29,400. About 7,000 officers and soldiers are maintained in regular service. Military training is provided in all public and most private schools.
History.—Guatemala was conquered by the Spaniards under Pedro de Alvarado between 1522 and 1524. Up to the years 1837-1839 its history differs only in minor details from that of the neighbouring states of Central America (q.v.). The colonial period was marked by the destruction of the ancient Indian civilization, the extermination of many entire tribes, and the enslavement of the survivors, who were exploited to the utmost for the benefit of Spanish officials and adventurers. But although the administration was weak, corrupt and cruel, it succeeded in establishing the Roman Catholic religion, and in introducing the Spanish language among the Indians and Ladinos, who thus obtained a tincture of civilization and ultimately a desire for more liberal institutions. The Central American provinces revolted in 1821, were annexed to the Mexican empire of Iturbide from 1822 to 1823, and united to form a federal republic from 1823 to 1839. In Guatemala the Clerical, Conservative or anti-Federal party was supreme; after a protracted struggle it overthrew the Liberals or Federalists, and declared the country an independent republic, with Rafael Carrera (1814-1865) as president. In 1845 an attempt to restore the federal union failed; in 1851 Carrera defeated the Federalist forces of Honduras and Salvador at La Arada near Chiquimula, and was recognized as the pacificator of the republic. In 1851 a new constitution was promulgated, and Carrera was appointed president till 1856, a dignity which was in 1854 bestowed upon him for life. His 664 rivalry with Gerardo Barrios (d. 1865), president of Salvador, resulted in open war in 1863. At Coatepeque the Guatemalans suffered a severe defeat, which was followed by a truce. Honduras now joined with Salvador, and Nicaragua and Costa Rica with Guatemala. The contest was finally settled in favour of Carrera, who besieged and occupied San Salvador and made himself dominant also in Honduras and Nicaragua. During the rest of his rule, which lasted till his death in April 1865, he continued to act in concert with the Clerical party, and endeavoured to maintain friendly relations with the European governments. Carrera’s successor was General Cerna, who had been recommended by him for election. The Liberal party began to rise in influence about 1870, and in May 1871 Cerna was deposed. The archbishop of Guatemala and the Jesuits were driven into exile as intriguers in the interests of the Clericals. Pres. Rufino Barrios (1835-1885), elected in 1873, governed the country after the manner of a dictator; he expelled the Jesuits, confiscated their property and disestablished and disendowed the church. But though he encouraged education, promoted railway and other enterprises, and succeeded in settling difficulties as to the Mexican boundary, the general result of his policy was baneful. Conspiracies against him were rife, and in 1884 he narrowly escaped assassination. His ambition was to be the restorer of the federal union of the Central American states, and when his efforts towards this end by peaceful means failed he had recourse to the sword. Counting on the support of Honduras and Salvador, he proclaimed himself, in February 1885, the supreme military chief of Central America, and claimed the command of all the forces within the five states. President Zaldívar, of Salvador, had been his friend, but after the issue of the decree of union he entered into a defensive alliance with Costa Rica and Nicaragua. In March Barrios invaded Salvador, and on the 2nd of April a battle was fought, in which the Guatemalan president was killed. He was succeeded by General Manuel Barillas. No further effort was made to force on the union, and on the 16th of April the war was formally ended. Peace, however, only provided opportunity for domestic conspiracy, with assassination and revolution in view. In 1892 General José Maria Reina Barrios was elected president, and in 1897 he was re-elected; but on the 8th of February 1898 he was assassinated. Señor Morales, vice-president, succeeded him; but in the same year Don Manuel Estrada Cabrera (b. 1857) was elected president for the term ending 1905. Cabrera promoted education, commerce and the improvement of communications, but his re-election for the term 1905-1911 caused widespread discontent. He was charged with aiming at a dictatorship, with permitting or even encouraging the imprisonment, torture and execution without trial of political opponents, with maladministration of the finances and with aggression against the neighbouring states. A well-armed force, which included a body of adventurers from San Francisco (U.S.A.) was organized by General Barillas, the ex-president, and invaded Guatemala in March 1906 from Mexico, British Honduras and Salvador. Barillas (1845-1907) proclaimed his intention of establishing a silver currency, and gained, to a great extent, the sympathy of the German and British residents; he had been the sole Guatemalan president who had not sought to prolong his own tenure of office. Ocós was captured by his lieutenant, General Castillo, and the revolution speedily became a war, in which Honduras, Costa Rica and Salvador were openly involved against Guatemala, while Nicaragua was hostile. But Cabrera held his ground, and even gained several indecisive victories. The intervention of President Roosevelt and of President Diaz of Mexico brought about an armistice on the 19th of July, and the so-called “Marblehead Pact” was signed on the following day on board the United States cruiser “Marblehead.” Its terms were embodied in a treaty signed (28th of September) by representatives of the four belligerent states, Nicaragua taking no part in the negotiations. The treaty included regulations for the improvement of commerce and navigation in the area affected by the war, and provided for the settlement of subsequent disputes by the arbitration of the United States and Mexico.
History.—Guatemala was conquered by the Spaniards under Pedro de Alvarado between 1522 and 1524. Until the years 1837-1839, its history is only slightly different from that of the neighboring Central American states (q.v.). The colonial period saw the destruction of ancient Indian civilization, the extermination of entire tribes, and the enslavement of survivors, who were exploited to the fullest for the benefit of Spanish officials and adventurers. Although the administration was weak, corrupt, and brutal, it managed to establish the Roman Catholic religion and introduce the Spanish language among the Indians and Ladinos, allowing them to gain a bit of civilization and eventually a desire for more liberal institutions. The Central American provinces revolted in 1821, were annexed to the Mexican empire under Iturbide from 1822 to 1823, and united to form a federal republic from 1823 to 1839. In Guatemala, the Clerical, Conservative, or anti-Federal party was dominant; after a long struggle, it overthrew the Liberals or Federalists and declared the country an independent republic, with Rafael Carrera (1814-1865) as president. In 1845, an attempt to restore federal union failed; in 1851, Carrera defeated the Federalist forces of Honduras and Salvador at La Arada near Chiquimula and was recognized as the pacifier of the republic. In 1851, a new constitution was enacted, and Carrera was appointed president until 1856, a position he was granted for life in 1854. His rivalry with Gerardo Barrios (d. 1865), president of Salvador, led to open war in 1863. At Coatepeque, the Guatemalans suffered a serious defeat, followed by a truce. Honduras then allied with Salvador, while Nicaragua and Costa Rica allied with Guatemala. The conflict was ultimately resolved in favor of Carrera, who besieged and occupied San Salvador, establishing dominance over Honduras and Nicaragua as well. During his rule, which lasted until his death in April 1865, he continued to work with the Clerical party and sought to maintain friendly relations with European governments. Carrera’s successor was General Cerna, who he had recommended for election. The Liberal party began to gain influence around 1870, and in May 1871, Cerna was removed from power. The archbishop of Guatemala and the Jesuits were exiled as conspirators for the Clericals' interests. President Rufino Barrios (1835-1885), elected in 1873, ruled as a dictator; he expelled the Jesuits, confiscated their property, and disestablished and disinherited the church. Although he promoted education, advancements in railroads and other industries, and resolved issues regarding the Mexican boundary, the overall result of his policies was detrimental. Conspiracies against him were common, and in 1884 he narrowly escaped assassination. His ambition was to restore the federal union of the Central American states, and when peaceful attempts failed, he turned to military force. Expecting support from Honduras and Salvador, he declared himself the supreme military chief of Central America in February 1885 and demanded command over all the forces in the five states. President Zaldívar of Salvador had been his ally, but following the decree of union, he formed a defensive alliance with Costa Rica and Nicaragua. In March, Barrios invaded Salvador, and on April 2nd, a battle occurred where the Guatemalan president was killed. General Manuel Barillas took over after him. No further attempts were made to enforce the union, and on April 16th, the war officially ended. However, peace only allowed for domestic conspiracies, with assassination and revolution on the horizon. In 1892, General José Maria Reina Barrios was elected president and re-elected in 1897; however, on February 8, 1898, he was assassinated. Vice President Señor Morales succeeded him; but that same year, Don Manuel Estrada Cabrera (b. 1857) was elected president for the term ending in 1905. Cabrera advanced education, commerce, and the improvement of transportation, but his re-election for the term 1905-1911 led to widespread discontent. He was accused of aiming for a dictatorship, allowing or even encouraging the imprisonment, torture, and execution of political opponents without trial, mismanaging finances, and aggression against neighboring states. A well-armed force, including adventurers from San Francisco (USA), was organized by General Barillas, the former president, who invaded Guatemala in March 1906 from Mexico, British Honduras, and Salvador. Barillas (1845-1907) announced his intention to establish a silver currency and garnered significant support from German and British residents; he was the only Guatemalan president who had not sought to extend his term in office. Ocós was captured by his lieutenant, General Castillo, and the revolution quickly escalated into a war, with Honduras, Costa Rica, and Salvador directly opposing Guatemala, while Nicaragua remained antagonistic. However, Cabrera maintained his position and even achieved several inconclusive victories. The interventions of Presidents Roosevelt and Díaz of Mexico led to an armistice on July 19th, and the so-called “Marblehead Pact” was signed the following day aboard the United States cruiser “Marblehead.” Its terms were included in a treaty signed on September 28th by representatives of the four warring states, with Nicaragua not participating in the negotiations. The treaty included regulations for enhancing trade and navigation in the war-affected areas and provided for future disputes to be resolved through arbitration by the United States and Mexico.
Bibliography.—Besides the works cited under Central America see the interesting narrative of Thomas Gage, the English missionary, in Juarros, Compendio de la historia de Guatemala (1808-1818, 2 vols.; new ed., 1857), which in Bailly’s English translation (London, 1823) long formed the chief authority. See also C. Juan Anino, La Republica de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1894); T. Brigham, Guatemala, The Land of the Quetzal (London, 1887); J. M. Caceres, Geografia de Centro-America (Paris, 1882); G. Lemale, Guia geografica de los centros de poblacion de la republica de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1882); F. A. de Fuentes y Guzman, Historia de Guatemala o Recordacion Florida (Madrid, 1882); A. C. and A. P. Maudslay, A Glimpse at Guatemala, and some Notes on the Ancient Monuments of Central America (London, 1899); Gustavo Niederlein, The Republic of Guatemala (Philadelphia, 1898); Ramon A. Salazar, Historia del disenvolvimiento intelectual de Guatemala, vol. i. (Guatemala, 1897); Otto Stoll, Reisen und Schilderungen aus den Jahren 1878-1883 (Leipzig, 1886); J. Mendez, Guia del immigrante en la republica de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1895); Karl Sapper, “Grundzüge der physikalischen Geographie von Guatemala,” Ergänzungsheft No. 115, Petermann’s Mitteilungen (Gotha, 1894); Anuario de estadistica de la republica de Guatemala (Guatemala); Memoria de la Secretaria de Instruccion Publica (Guatemala, 1899); Handbook of Guatemala, revised (Bureau of the American Republics, Washington, 1897); United States Consular Reports (Washington); British Foreign Office Diplomatic and Consular Reports (London).
References.—In addition to the works cited under Central America, check out the fascinating account by Thomas Gage, the English missionary, in Juarros, Compendio de la historia de Guatemala (1808-1818, 2 vols.; new ed., 1857), which was long considered the main reference thanks to Bailly’s English translation (London, 1823). Also see C. Juan Anino, La Republica de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1894); T. Brigham, Guatemala, The Land of the Quetzal (London, 1887); J. M. Caceres, Geografia de Centro-America (Paris, 1882); G. Lemale, Guia geografica de los centros de poblacion de la republica de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1882); F. A. de Fuentes y Guzman, Historia de Guatemala o Recordacion Florida (Madrid, 1882); A. C. and A. P. Maudslay, A Glimpse at Guatemala, and some Notes on the Ancient Monuments of Central America (London, 1899); Gustavo Niederlein, The Republic of Guatemala (Philadelphia, 1898); Ramon A. Salazar, Historia del disenvolvimiento intelectual de Guatemala, vol. i. (Guatemala, 1897); Otto Stoll, Reisen und Schilderungen aus den Jahren 1878-1883 (Leipzig, 1886); J. Mendez, Guia del immigrante en la republica de Guatemala (Guatemala, 1895); Karl Sapper, “Grundzüge der physikalischen Geographie von Guatemala,” Ergänzungsheft No. 115, Petermann’s Mitteilungen (Gotha, 1894); Anuario de estadistica de la republica de Guatemala (Guatemala); Memoria de la Secretaria de Instruccion Publica (Guatemala, 1899); Handbook of Guatemala, revised (Bureau of the American Republics, Washington, 1897); United States Consular Reports (Washington); British Foreign Office Diplomatic and Consular Reports (London).
GUATEMALA, or Guatemala la Nueva (i.e. “New Guatemala,” sometimes written Nueva Guatemala, and formerly Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala), the capital of the republic of Guatemala, and until 1821 of the Spanish captaincy-general of Guatemala, which comprised Chiapas in Mexico and all Central America except Panama. Pop. (1905) about 97,000. Guatemala is built more than 5000 ft. above sea-level, in a wide table-land traversed by the Rio de las Vacas, or Cow River, so called from the cattle introduced here by Spanish colonists in the 16th century. Deep ravines mark the edge of the table-land, and beyond it lofty mountains rise on every side, the highest peaks being on the south, where the volcanic summits of the Sierra Madre exceed 12,000 ft. Guatemala has a station on the transcontinental railway from Puerto Barrios on the Atlantic (190 m. N.E.) to San José on the Pacific (75 m. S. by W.). It is thrice the size of any other city in the republic, and has a corresponding commercial superiority. Its archbishop is the primate of Central America (excluding Panama). Like most Spanish-American towns Guatemala is laid out in wide and regular streets, often planted with avenues of trees, and it has extensive suburbs. The houses, though usually of only one storey, are solidly and comfortably constructed; many of them are surrounded by large gardens and courts. Among the open spaces the chief are the Plaza Mayor, which contains the cathedral, erected in 1730, the archiepiscopal palace, the government buildings, the mint and other public offices; and the more modern Reforma Park and Plaza de la Concordia, now the favourite resorts of the inhabitants. There are many large schools for both sexes, besides hospitals and an orphanage. Many of the principal buildings, such as the military academy, were originally convents. The theatre, founded in 1858, is one of the best in Central America. A museum, founded in 1831, is maintained by the Sociedad Economica, which in various ways has done great service to the city and the country. There are two fortresses, the Castello Matamoros, built by Rafael Carrera (see Guatemala [republic] under History), and the Castello de San José. Water is brought from a distance of about 8 m. by two old aqueducts from the towns of Mixco and Pinula; fuel and provisions are largely supplied by the Pokoman Indians of Mixco. The general prosperity, and to some extent the appearance, of Guatemala have procured it the name of the Paris of Central America. It is lighted by electricity and has a good telephone service. Its trade is chiefly in coffee, but it also possesses cigar factories, wool and cotton factories, breweries, tanneries and other industrial establishments. The foreign trade is chiefly controlled by Germans.
GUATEMALA, or Guatemala City (i.e. “New Guatemala,” sometimes written Nueva Guatemala, and formerly Santiago de los Caballeros de Guatemala), is the capital of the Republic of Guatemala, and until 1821 was part of the Spanish captaincy-general of Guatemala, which included Chiapas in Mexico and all of Central America except Panama. Population (1905) about 97,000. Guatemala is situated more than 5,000 feet above sea level, on a wide plateau crossed by the Rio de las Vacas, or Cow River, named for the cattle brought here by Spanish colonists in the 16th century. Deep ravines define the edges of the plateau, and beyond it, tall mountains rise on all sides, with the highest peaks in the south, where the volcanic summits of the Sierra Madre exceed 12,000 feet. Guatemala has a station on the transcontinental railway connecting Puerto Barrios on the Atlantic (190 miles N.E.) to San José on the Pacific (75 miles S.W.). It is three times larger than any other city in the republic and has a corresponding commercial advantage. Its archbishop is the primate of Central America (excluding Panama). Like most Spanish-American towns, Guatemala is laid out with wide, regular streets, often lined with tree avenues, and it has extensive suburbs. The houses, typically just one story high, are solidly and comfortably built; many are surrounded by large gardens and courtyards. Among the open spaces, the most notable are the Plaza Mayor, which contains the cathedral built in 1730, the archiepiscopal palace, government buildings, the mint, and other public offices; and the more modern Reforma Park and Plaza de la Concordia, which are now popular hangouts for locals. There are many large schools for both genders, as well as hospitals and an orphanage. Many significant buildings, such as the military academy, were originally convents. The theater, established in 1858, is one of the best in Central America. A museum founded in 1831 is maintained by the Sociedad Economica, which has provided valuable services to the city and the country in various ways. There are two fortresses, the Castello Matamoros, built by Rafael Carrera (see Guatemala [republic] under History), and the Castello de San José. Water is brought from about 8 miles away by two old aqueducts from the towns of Mixco and Pinula; fuel and food are mainly supplied by the Pokoman Indians of Mixco. The general prosperity and somewhat the appearance of Guatemala have earned it the nickname the Paris of Central America. It is illuminated by electricity and has a reliable telephone service. Its trade mainly revolves around coffee, but it also has factories for cigars, wool, and cotton, as well as breweries, tanneries, and other industrial establishments. The foreign trade is primarily dominated by Germans.
The first city named Guatemala, now called Ciudad Vieja or “Old City,” was founded in 1527 by Pedro de Alvarado, the conqueror of the country, on the banks of the Rio Pensativo, and at the foot of the volcano of Agua (i.e. “Water”). In 1541 it was overwhelmed by a deluge of water from the flooded 665 crater of Agua; and in 1542 Alvarado founded Santiago de los Caballeros la Nueva, now Antigua. This city flourished greatly, and by the middle of the 18th century had become the most populous place in Central America, with 60,000 inhabitants and more than 100 churches and convents. But in 1773 it was ruined by an earthquake. It was rebuilt, and ultimately became capital of the department of Sacatepeques, and a health-resort locally celebrated for its thermal springs. But the Guatemalans determined to found a new capital on the site occupied by the hamlet of Ermita, 27 m. N.E. Here the third and last city of Guatemala was built, and became the seat of government in 1779. The remarkable regularity of the streets is due to the construction of the city on a uniform plan. The wide area covered, and the lowness of the houses, were similarly due to an ordinance which, in order to minimize the danger from earthquakes, forbade the erection of any building more than 20 ft. high. Many of the belfries of convents or churches, added after the ordinance had fallen into abeyance, were overthrown by the earthquake of 1874, which also destroyed a large part of Antigua.
The first city named Guatemala, now known as Ciudad Vieja or “Old City,” was established in 1527 by Pedro de Alvarado, the conquistador of the region, along the banks of the Rio Pensativo and at the base of the Agua volcano (meaning “Water”). In 1541, it was inundated by a massive flood from the crater of Agua, and in 1542, Alvarado founded Santiago de los Caballeros la Nueva, now Antigua. This city thrived significantly, and by the mid-18th century, it had become the most populated area in Central America, with 60,000 residents and over 100 churches and convents. However, it was devastated by an earthquake in 1773. It was rebuilt and eventually became the capital of the department of Sacatepeques, known locally as a health resort famed for its thermal springs. The Guatemalans decided to establish a new capital on the site of the small village of Ermita, located 27 miles northeast. Here, the third and final city of Guatemala was constructed and became the seat of government in 1779. The impressive regularity of the streets is attributed to the city being built on a consistent plan. The large area it occupies and the height of the houses were similarly influenced by a regulation that, to reduce earthquake risks, prohibited the construction of any building taller than 20 feet. Many belfries of convents or churches, built after this regulation had lapsed, were toppled by the earthquake of 1874, which also destroyed a significant portion of Antigua.
GUATUSOS, a tribe of American Indians of Costa Rica. They are an active, hardy people, who have always maintained hostility towards the Spaniards and retain their independence. From their language they appear to be a distinct stock. They were described by old writers as being very fair, with flaxen hair, and these reports led to a belief, since exploded, that they were European hybrids. There are very few surviving.
GUATUSOS, is a tribe of Indigenous people from Costa Rica. They are a vibrant, resilient group who have consistently shown resistance to the Spaniards and have preserved their independence. Their language suggests they are a unique group. Early writers characterized them as very light-skinned with blonde hair, which led to a now-debunked belief that they were of European descent. There are very few left today.
GUAVA (from the Mexican guayaba), the name applied to the fruits of species of Psidium, a genus belonging to the natural order Myrtaceae. The species which produces the bulk of the guava fruits of commerce is Psidium Guajava, a small tree from 15 to 20 ft. high, a native of the tropical parts of America and the West Indies. It bears short-stalked ovate or oblong leaves, with strongly marked veins, and covered with a soft tomentum or down. The flowers are borne on axillary stalks, and the fruits vary much in size, shape and colour, numerous forms and varieties being known and cultivated. The variety of which the fruits are most valued is that which is sometimes called the white guava (P. Guajava, var. pyriferum). The fruits are pear-shaped, about the size of a hen’s egg, covered with a thin bright yellow or whitish skin filled with soft pulp, also of a light yellowish tinge, and having a pleasant sweet-acid and somewhat aromatic flavour. P. Guajava, var. pomiferum, produces a more globular or apple-shaped fruit, sometimes called the red guava. The pulp of this variety is mostly of a darker colour than the former and not of so fine a flavour, therefore the first named is most esteemed for eating in a raw state; both, however, are used in the preparation of two kinds of preserve known as guava jelly and guava cheese, which are made in the West Indies and imported thence to England; the fruits are of much too perishable a nature to allow of their importation in their natural state. Both varieties have been introduced into various parts of India, as well as in other countries of the East, where they have become perfectly naturalized. Though of course much too tender for outdoor planting in England, the guava thrives there in hothouses or stoves.
GUAVA (from the Mexican guayaba), refers to the fruits of species from the genus Psidium, part of the natural order Myrtaceae. The species that produces most of the guavas in the market is Psidium Guajava, a small tree that grows about 15 to 20 ft. high, native to tropical regions of America and the West Indies. It has short-stalked, oval or oblong leaves with prominent veins, covered in soft down. The flowers grow on side stems, and the fruits come in various sizes, shapes, and colors, with many forms and varieties being known and cultivated. The most valued variety is often called the white guava (P. Guajava, var. pyriferum). These fruits are pear-shaped, about the size of a hen’s egg, with a thin, bright yellow or whitish skin filled with soft, light yellow pulp that has a pleasant sweet-acid and somewhat aromatic flavor. P. Guajava, var. pomiferum, produces a rounder or apple-shaped fruit, sometimes referred to as the red guava. The pulp of this variety is generally darker and less flavorful than the first, making the white guava more popular for eating raw; both varieties, however, are used to make two types of preserves known as guava jelly and guava cheese, which are produced in the West Indies and imported to England, since the fruits are too perishable to be sent in their natural state. Both varieties have been introduced to various parts of India and other Eastern countries, where they have become well established. While they’re too tender for outdoor planting in England, guavas thrive there in hothouses or heated environments.
Psidium variabile (also known as P. Cattleyanum), a tree of from 10 to 20 ft. high, a native of Brazil (the Araçá or Araçá de Praya), is known as the purple guava. The fruit, which is very abundantly produced in the axils of the leaves, is large, spherical, of a fine deep claret colour; the rind is pitted, and the pulp is soft, fleshy, purplish, reddish next the skin, but becoming paler towards the middle and in the centre almost or quite white. It has a very agreeable acid-sweet flavour, which has been likened to that of a strawberry.
Psidium variabile (also known as P. Cattleyanum) is a tree that grows between 10 and 20 feet high and is native to Brazil (called Araçá or Araçá de Praya). It's known as the purple guava. The fruit, which grows abundantly in the axils of the leaves, is large and spherical with a rich deep claret color. The skin is pitted, and the flesh is soft, fleshy, and purplish, becoming reddish near the skin but lighter toward the middle, often almost white at the center. It has a very pleasant sweet-tart flavor that’s been compared to that of a strawberry.
GUAYAMA, a small city and the capital of a municipal district and department of the same name, on the southern coast of Porto Rico, 53 m. S. of San Juan. Pop. (1899) of the city, 5334; (1910) 8321; (1899) of the district, 12,749. The district (156 sq. m.) includes Arroyo and Salinas. The city stands about 230 ft. above the sea and has a mild, healthy climate. It is connected with Ponce by railway (1910), and with the port of Arroyo by an excellent road, part of the military road extending to Cayey, and it exports sugar, rum, tobacco, coffee, cattle, fruit and other products of the department, which is very fertile. The city was founded in 1736, but was completely destroyed by fire in 1832. It was rebuilt on a rectangular plan and possesses several buildings of note. Drinking-water is brought in through an aqueduct.
GUAYAMA, is a small city and the capital of a municipal district of the same name, located on the southern coast of Puerto Rico, 53 miles south of San Juan. The population of the city was 5,334 in 1899 and 8,321 in 1910; the district had a population of 12,749 in 1899. The district, covering 156 square miles, includes Arroyo and Salinas. The city is situated about 230 feet above sea level and has a mild, healthy climate. It is connected to Ponce by railway (1910) and to the port of Arroyo by a well-maintained road, which is part of the military road extending to Cayey. The area exports sugar, rum, tobacco, coffee, cattle, fruit, and other products from this very fertile department. The city was founded in 1736 but was completely destroyed by fire in 1832. It was rebuilt on a rectangular layout and has several notable buildings. Drinking water is supplied through an aqueduct.
GUAYAQUIL, or Santiago de Guayaquil, a city and port of Ecuador, capital of the province of Guayas, on the right bank of the Guayas river, 33 m. above its entrance into the Gulf of Guayaquil, in 2° 12′ S., 79° 51′ W. Pop. (1890) 44,772; (1897, estimate) 51,000, mostly half-breeds. The city is built on a comparatively level pajonal or savanna, extending southward from the base of three low hills, called Los Cerros de la Cruz, between the river and the partially filled waters of the Estero Salado. It is about 30 ft. above sea-level, and the lower parts of the town are partially flooded in the rainy season. The old town is the upper or northern part, and is inhabited by the poorer classes, its streets being badly paved, crooked, undrained, dirty and pestilential. The great fire of 1896 destroyed a large part of the old town, and some of its insanitary conditions were improved in rebuilding. The new town, or southern part, is the business and residential quarter of the better classes, but the buildings are chiefly of wood and the streets are provided with surface drainage only. Among the public buildings are the governor’s and bishop’s palaces, town-hall, cathedral and 9 churches, national college, episcopal seminary and schools of law and medicine, theatre, two hospitals, custom-house, and several asylums and charitable institutions. Guayaquil is also the seat of a university corporation with faculties of law and medicine. A peculiarity of Guayaquil is that the upper floors in the business streets project over the walks, forming covered arcades. The year is divided into a wet and dry season, the former from January to June, when the hot days are followed by nights of drenching rain. The mean annual temperature is about 82° to 83° F.; malarial and bilious fevers are common, the latter being known as “Guayaquil fever,” and epidemics of yellow fever are frequent. The dry or summer season is considered pleasant and healthy. The water-supply is now brought in through iron mains from the Cordilleras 53 m. distant. The mains pass under the Guayas river and discharge into a large distributing reservoir on one of the hills N. of the city. The city is provided with tramway and telephone services, the streets are lighted with gas and electricity, and telegraph communication with the outside world is maintained by means of the West Coast cable, which lands at the small port of Santa Elena, on the Pacific coast, about 65 m. W. of Guayaquil. Railway connexion with Quito (290 m.) was established in June 1908. There is also steamboat connexion with the producing districts of the province on the Guayas river and its tributaries, on which boats run regularly as far up as Bodegas (80 m.) in the dry season, and for a distance of 40 m. on the Daule. For smaller boats there are about 200 m. of navigation on this system of rivers. The exports of the province are almost wholly transported on these rivers, and are shipped either at Guayaquil, or at Puna, its deep-water port, 6½ m. outside the Guayas bar, on the E. end of Puna Island. The Guayas river is navigable up to Guayaquil for steamers drawing 22 ft. of water; larger vessels anchor at Puna, 40 m. from Guayaquil, where cargoes and passengers are transferred to lighters and tenders. There is a quay on the river front, but the depth alongside does not exceed 18 ft. The principal exports are cacao, rubber, coffee, tobacco, hides, cotton, Panama hats, cinchona bark and ivory nuts, the value of all exports for the year 1905 being 14,148,877 sucres, in a total of 18,565,668 sucres for the whole republic. In 1908 the exports were: cacao, about 64,000,000 ℔, valued at $6,400,000; hides, valued at $135,000; rubber, valued at $235,000; coffee, valued at $273,000; and vegetable ivory, valued at $102,000. 666 There are some small industries in the city, including a shipyard, saw-mills, foundry, sugar refineries, cotton and woollen mills, brewery, and manufactures of soap, cigars, chocolate, ice, soda-water and liqueurs.
GUAYAQUIL, or Guayaquil, is a city and port in Ecuador, serving as the capital of Guayas province. It's located on the right bank of the Guayas River, 33 meters above its entrance to the Gulf of Guayaquil, at 2° 12′ S., 79° 51′ W. The population in 1890 was 44,772; an estimate in 1897 put it at around 51,000, mostly mixed-race people. The city is built on a fairly flat pajonal or savanna, extending south from the base of three low hills known as Los Cerros de la Cruz, between the river and the partially filled waters of the Estero Salado. It's about 30 feet above sea level, and the lower parts of the town often flood during the rainy season. The old town, located in the upper or northern part, is home to the poorer classes, with poorly paved, crooked, undrained, dirty, and unhealthy streets. A major fire in 1896 destroyed a significant portion of the old town, leading to some improvements in living conditions during the rebuilding process. The new town, or the southern part, is the business and residential area for the upper classes, although most buildings are wooden and streets are only equipped with surface drainage. Public buildings include the governor’s and bishop’s palaces, the town hall, the cathedral, and nine churches, as well as a national college, an episcopal seminary, law and medical schools, a theatre, two hospitals, a customs house, and various asylums and charitable organizations. Guayaquil is also home to a university with faculties of law and medicine. A unique feature of Guayaquil is that the upper floors of buildings on the main streets extend over the sidewalks, creating covered arcades. The year is split into wet and dry seasons, with the wet season running from January to June, bringing hot days followed by nights of heavy rain. The average annual temperature is about 82° to 83° F. Malarial and bilious fevers are common, the latter referred to as “Guayaquil fever,” and yellow fever epidemics occur frequently. The dry or summer season is generally considered pleasant and healthy. The water supply is currently sourced through iron pipes coming from the Cordilleras, 53 miles away. These pipes run under the Guayas River and end in a large distribution reservoir on a hill north of the city. Guayaquil also features tramway and telephone services, with streets illuminated by gas and electricity. Telegraph communication with the outside world is provided via the West Coast cable, which lands at the small port of Santa Elena, approximately 65 miles west of Guayaquil. A railway connection to Quito (290 miles) began in June 1908. There are also steamboat services to various production districts in the province along the Guayas River and its tributaries, with boats running regularly up to Bodegas (80 miles) during the dry season and for 40 miles on the Daule. Smaller boats can navigate about 200 miles on this river system. Most of the province's exports are transported via these rivers, shipping out from either Guayaquil or Puna, its deep-water port located 6½ miles beyond the Guayas bar on the eastern end of Puna Island. The Guayas River is navigable up to Guayaquil for steamers drawing 22 feet of water, while larger vessels anchor at Puna, 40 miles from Guayaquil, where cargo and passengers are transferred to smaller boats. There is a quay along the riverfront, but the depth does not exceed 18 feet. The main exports include cacao, rubber, coffee, tobacco, hides, cotton, Panama hats, cinchona bark, and ivory nuts, with the total value of all exports for the year 1905 reaching 14,148,877 sucres out of a national total of 18,565,668 sucres. In 1908, the exports included approximately 64,000,000 pounds of cacao, valued at $6,400,000; hides valued at $135,000; rubber valued at $235,000; coffee worth $273,000; and vegetable ivory valued at $102,000. 666 The city has some small industries, including a shipyard, sawmills, a foundry, sugar refineries, cotton and wool mills, a brewery, and the production of soap, cigars, chocolate, ice, soda water, and liqueurs.
Santiago de Guayaquil was founded on St James’s day, the 25th of July 1535, by Sebastian de Benalcazar, but was twice abandoned before its permanent settlement in 1537 by Francesco de Orellana. It was captured and sacked several times in the 17th and 18th centuries by pirates and freebooters—by Jacob Clark in 1624, by French pirates in 1686, by English freebooters under Edward David in 1687, by William Dampier in 1707 and by Clapperton in 1709. Defensive works were erected in 1730, and in 1763, when the town was made a governor’s residence, a castle and other fortifications were constructed. Owing to the flimsy construction of its buildings Guayaquil has been repeatedly burned, the greater fires occurring in 1707, 1764, 1865, 1896 and 1899. The city was made the see of a bishopric in 1837.
Santiago de Guayaquil was founded on St. James's Day, July 25, 1535, by Sebastian de Benalcazar, but it was abandoned twice before being permanently settled in 1537 by Francesco de Orellana. The city was captured and looted multiple times in the 17th and 18th centuries by pirates and privateers—by Jacob Clark in 1624, by French pirates in 1686, by English privateers under Edward David in 1687, by William Dampier in 1707, and by Clapperton in 1709. Defensive structures were built in 1730, and in 1763, when the town became a governor’s residence, a castle and other fortifications were constructed. Due to the poor construction of its buildings, Guayaquil has been frequently burned, with the largest fires occurring in 1707, 1764, 1865, 1896, and 1899. The city was designated as the seat of a bishopric in 1837.
GUAYAS, or El Guayas, a coast province of Ecuador, bounded N. by Manabí and Pichincha, E. by Los Rios, Cañar and Azuay, S. by El Oro and the Gulf of Guayaquil, and W. by the same gulf, the Pacific Ocean and the province of Manabí. Pop. (1893, estimate) 98,100; area, 11,504 sq. m. It is very irregular in form and comprises the low alluvial districts surrounding the Gulf of Guayaquil between the Western Cordilleras and the coast. It includes (since 1885) the Galápagos Islands, lying 600 m. off the coast. The province of Guayas is heavily forested and traversed by numerous rivers, for the most part tributaries of the Guayas river, which enters the gulf from the N. This river system has a drainage area of about 14,000 sq. m. and an aggregate of 200 m. of navigable channels in the rainy season. Its principal tributaries are the Daule and Babahoyo or Chimbo (also called Bodegas), and of the latter the Vinces and Yaguachi. The climate is hot, humid and unhealthy, bilious and malarial fevers being prevalent. The rainfall is abundant and the soil is deep and fertile. Agriculture and the collection of forest products are the chief industries. The staple products are cacao, coffee, sugar-cane, cotton, tobacco and rice. The cultivation of cacao is the principal industry, the exports forming about one-third the world’s supply. Stock-raising is also carried on to a limited extent. Among forest products are rubber, cinchona bark, toquilla fibre and ivory nuts. The manufacture of so-called Panama hats from the fibre of the toquilla palm (commonly called jipijapa, after a town in Manabí famous for this industry) is a long-established domestic industry among the natives of this and other coast provinces, the humidity of the climate greatly facilitating the work of plaiting the delicate straws, which would be broken in a dry atmosphere. Guayas is the chief industrial and commercial province of the republic, about nineteen-twentieths of the commerce of Ecuador passing through the port of its capital, Guayaquil. There are no land transport routes in the province except the Quito & Guayaquil railway, which traverses its eastern half. The sluggish river channels which intersect the greater part of its territory afford excellent facilities for transporting produce, and a large number of small boats are regularly engaged in that traffic. There are no large towns in Guayas other than Guayaquil. Durán, on the Guayas river opposite Guayaquil, is the starting point of the Quito railway and contains the shops and offices of that line. The port of Santa Elena on a bay of the same name, about 65 m. W. of Guayaquil, is a landing-point of the West Coast cable, and a port of call for some of the regular steamship lines. Its exports are chiefly Panama hats and salt.
GUAYAS, or El Guayas, is a coastal province of Ecuador, bordered to the north by Manabí and Pichincha, to the east by Los Rios, Cañar, and Azuay, to the south by El Oro and the Gulf of Guayaquil, and to the west by the same gulf, the Pacific Ocean, and the province of Manabí. Population (1893 estimate) is 98,100; the area is 11,504 sq. m. The province has an irregular shape and includes the low alluvial regions surrounding the Gulf of Guayaquil, situated between the Western Cordilleras and the coast. Since 1885, it also encompasses the Galápagos Islands, located 600 m off the coast. Guayas is heavily forested and crossed by numerous rivers, most of which are tributaries of the Guayas River that flows into the gulf from the north. This river system has a drainage area of about 14,000 sq. m. and a total of 200 m. of navigable channels during the rainy season. The main tributaries include the Daule and Babahoyo or Chimbo (also known as Bodegas), with the latter having the Vinces and Yaguachi as sub-tributaries. The climate is hot, humid, and unhealthy, with bilious and malarial fevers being common. There is abundant rainfall, and the soil is deep and fertile. Agriculture and the collection of forest products are the primary industries. The main products include cacao, coffee, sugar cane, cotton, tobacco, and rice. Cacao cultivation is the leading industry, accounting for about one-third of the world’s supply in exports. Livestock raising is also practiced to a limited degree. Forest products include rubber, cinchona bark, toquilla fiber, and ivory nuts. The production of Panama hats made from toquilla palm fiber (commonly referred to as jipijapa, named after a town in Manabí known for this industry) is a well-established local industry among the natives in this and other coastal provinces, with the region's humidity making it easier to weave the delicate straws, which would break in a dry environment. Guayas is the main industrial and commercial province of the republic, with about nineteen-twentieths of Ecuador’s commerce passing through the port of its capital, Guayaquil. There are no land transport routes in the province apart from the Quito & Guayaquil railway, which runs through its eastern half. The slow river channels that cross most of the territory provide excellent transportation options for goods, and many small boats are regularly involved in this trade. Besides Guayaquil, there are no major towns in Guayas. Durán, located on the Guayas River opposite Guayaquil, is the starting point of the Quito railway and contains that line’s shops and offices. The port of Santa Elena, situated on a bay of the same name about 65 m. west of Guayaquil, is a landing point for the West Coast cable and serves as a port of call for some regular steamship lines. Its main exports are Panama hats and salt.
GUAYCURUS, a tribe of South American Indians on the Paraguay. The name has been used generally of all the mounted Indians of Gran Chaco. The Guaycurus are a wild, fierce people, who paint their bodies and go naked. They are fearless horsemen and are occupied chiefly in cattle rearing.
GUAYCURUS, a tribe of South American Indians living near the Paraguay River. The term is broadly applied to all the mounted Indians of Gran Chaco. The Guaycurus are a fierce and untamed people, who paint their bodies and go unclothed. They are fearless horse riders and are mainly involved in cattle ranching.
GUAYMAS, or San José de Guaymas, a seaport of Mexico, in the state of Sonora, on a small bay opening into the Gulf of California a few miles W. of the mouth of the Yaqui river, in lat. 27° 58′ N., long. 110° 58′ W. Pop. (1900) 8648. The harbour is one of the best on the W. coast of Mexico, and the port is a principal outlet for the products of the large state of Sonora. The town stands on a small, arid plain, nearly shut in by mountains, and has a very hot, dry climate. It is connected with the railways of the United States by a branch of the Southern Pacific from Benson, Arizona, and is 230 m. S. by W. of the frontier town of Nogales, where that line enters Mexico. The exports include gold, silver, hides and pearls.
GUAYMAS, or San José de Guaymas, is a seaport in Mexico, located in the state of Sonora, on a small bay that opens into the Gulf of California just a few miles west of the Yaqui River mouth, at latitude 27° 58′ N and longitude 110° 58′ W. As of 1900, its population was 8,648. The harbor is considered one of the best on the west coast of Mexico, and the port serves as a key outlet for the products of the large state of Sonora. The town is situated on a small, dry plain surrounded by mountains and experiences a very hot, dry climate. It is linked to the U.S. rail network by a branch of the Southern Pacific from Benson, Arizona, and is located 230 miles south-southwest of the border town of Nogales, where this line crosses into Mexico. The main exports include gold, silver, hides, and pearls.
GUBBIO (anc. Iguvium, q.v.; med. Eugubium), a town and episcopal see of Umbria, Italy, in the province of Perugia, from which it is 23 m. N.N.E. by road; by rail it is 13 m. N.W. of Fossato di Vico (on the line between Foligno and Ancona) and 70 m. E.S.E. of Arezzo. Pop. (1901) 5783 (town); 26,718 (commune). Gubbio is situated at the foot and on the steep slopes of Monte Calvo, from 1568 to 1735 ft. above sea-level, at the entrance to the gorge which ascends to Scheggia, probably on the site of the ancient Umbrian town. It presents a markedly medieval appearance. The most prominent building is the Palazzo dei Consoli, on the N. side of the Piazza della Signoria; it is a huge Gothic edifice with a tower, erected in 1332-1346, according to tradition, by Matteo di Giovanello of Gubbio, the name of Angelo da Orvieto occurs on the arch of the main door, but his work may be limited to the sculptures of this arch. It has two stories above the ground floor, and, being on the slope of the hill, is, like the whole piazza, raised on arched substructures. On the S. side of the piazza is the Palazzo Pretorio, or della Podestà, begun in 1349 and now the municipal palace. It contains the famous Tabulae Iguvinae, and a collection of paintings of the Umbrian school, of furniture and of majolica. On the E. side is the modern Palazzo Ranghiasci-Brancaleone, which until 1882 contained fine collections, now dispersed. Above the Piazza della Signoria, at the highest point of the town, is the Palazzo Ducale, erected by the dukes of Urbino in 1474-1480; the architect was, in all probability, Lucio da Laurana, to whom is due the palace at Urbino, which this palace resembles, especially in its fine colonnaded court. The Palazzo Beni, lower down, belongs to a somewhat earlier period of the 15th century. Pope Martin V. lodged here for a few days in 1420. The Palazzo Accoramboni, on the other hand, is a Renaissance structure, with a fine entrance arch. Here Vittoria Accoramboni was born in 1557. Opposite the Palazzo Ducale is the cathedral, dedicated to SS. Mariano e Jacopo, a structure of the 12th century, with a façade, adorned with contemporary sculptures, partly restored in 1514-1550. The interior contains some good pictures by Umbrian artists, a fine episcopal throne in carved wood, and a fine Flemish cope given by Pope Marcellus II. (1555) in the sacristy. The exterior of the Gothic church of S. Francesco, in the lower part of the town, built in 1259, preserves its original style, but the interior has been modernized; and the same fate has overtaken the Gothic churches of S. Maria Nuova and S. Pietro. S. Agostino, on the other hand, has its Gothic interior better preserved. The whole town is full of specimens of medieval architecture, the pointed arch of the 13th century being especially prevalent. A remarkable procession takes place in Gubbio on the 15th of May in each year, in honour of S. Ubaldo, when three colossal wooden pedestals, each over 30 ft. high, and crowned by statues of SS. Ubaldo, Antonio and Giorgio, are carried through the town, and then, in a wild race, up to the church of S. Ubaldo on the mountain-side (2690 ft.). See H. M. Bower, The Elevation and Procession of the Ceri at Gubbio (Folk-lore Society, London, 1897).
Gubbio (anc. Iguvium, q.v.; med. Eugubium), is a town and episcopal see in Umbria, Italy, located in the province of Perugia, 23 miles N.N.E. by road; by rail, it is 13 miles N.W. of Fossato di Vico (on the line between Foligno and Ancona) and 70 miles E.S.E. of Arezzo. Population (1901) was 5,783 (town); 26,718 (commune). Gubbio is positioned at the foot and steep slopes of Monte Calvo, ranging from 1,568 to 1,735 feet above sea level, at the entrance to the gorge leading up to Scheggia, likely on the site of the ancient Umbrian town. It has a distinctly medieval look. The most notable building is the Palazzo dei Consoli, on the north side of the Piazza della Signoria; it's a large Gothic structure with a tower, built between 1332 and 1346, traditionally attributed to Matteo di Giovanello of Gubbio. The name Angelo da Orvieto appears on the arch of the main door, although his contribution may be limited to the arch's sculptures. The building has two stories above the ground floor, and, being on the hill slope, it, along with the entire piazza, is raised on arched substructures. On the south side of the piazza is the Palazzo Pretorio, or della Podestà, started in 1349 and now serves as the town hall. It houses the famous Tabulae Iguvinae, a collection of Umbrian school paintings, furniture, and majolica. On the east side is the modern Palazzo Ranghiasci-Brancaleone, which until 1882 housed exquisite collections that are now dispersed. Above the Piazza della Signoria, at the highest part of the town, stands the Palazzo Ducale, built by the dukes of Urbino between 1474 and 1480; the architect was likely Lucio da Laurana, who designed the palace in Urbino, which this palace resembles, especially in its beautiful colonnaded courtyard. The Palazzo Beni, located lower down, dates from an earlier period in the 15th century. Pope Martin V. stayed here for a few days in 1420. The Palazzo Accoramboni, on the other hand, is a Renaissance building, featuring a striking entrance arch. This is where Vittoria Accoramboni was born in 1557. Across from the Palazzo Ducale is the cathedral, dedicated to SS. Mariano e Jacopo, a 12th-century structure with a façade adorned with contemporary sculptures, which was partly restored between 1514 and 1550. Inside, there are good paintings by Umbrian artists, a beautifully carved wooden episcopal throne, and a fine Flemish cope given by Pope Marcellus II. (1555) in the sacristy. The exterior of the Gothic church of S. Francesco, located in the lower part of town and built in 1259, retains its original style, but the interior has been modernized; the same has happened to the Gothic churches of S. Maria Nuova and S. Pietro. S. Agostino, however, has preserved its Gothic interior better. The entire town is rich with examples of medieval architecture, particularly the pointed arches from the 13th century. A notable procession takes place in Gubbio on May 15th each year in honor of S. Ubaldo, during which three colossal wooden platforms, each over 30 feet tall and topped with statues of SS. Ubaldo, Antonio, and Giorgio, are carried through the town and then raced up to the church of S. Ubaldo on the mountainside (2,690 ft.). See H. M. Bower, The Elevation and Procession of the Ceri at Gubbio (Folk-lore Society, London, 1897).
After its reconstruction with the help of Narses (see Iguvium) the town remained subject to the exarchs of Ravenna, and, after the destruction of the Lombard kingdom in 774, formed part of the donation of Charlemagne to the pope. In the 11th century the beginnings of its independence may be traced. In the struggles of that time it was generally on the Ghibelline side. In 1151 it repelled an attack of several neighbouring cities, and formed from this time a republic governed by consuls. In 1155 it was besieged by the emperor Frederick I., but saved by the intervention of its bishop, S. Ubaldo, and was granted privileges 667 by the emperor. In 1203 it had its first podestà, and from this period dates the rise of its importance. In 1387, after various political changes, it surrendered to Antonio da Montefeltro of Urbino, and remained under the dominion of the dukes of Urbino until, in 1624, the whole duchy was ceded to the pope.
After being rebuilt with the help of Narses (see Iguvium), the town remained under the control of the exarchs of Ravenna. After the fall of the Lombard kingdom in 774, it became part of the land that Charlemagne donated to the pope. In the 11th century, we can see the early signs of its independence. During the conflicts of that era, it generally sided with the Ghibellines. In 1151, it successfully defended itself against an attack from several neighboring cities and from then on operated as a republic led by consuls. In 1155, it was besieged by Emperor Frederick I but was saved thanks to its bishop, S. Ubaldo, who helped secure privileges from the emperor. By 1203, it had its first podestà, marking the beginning of its rise in significance. In 1387, after several political shifts, it surrendered to Antonio da Montefeltro of Urbino and remained under the rule of the dukes of Urbino until 1624, when the entire duchy was ceded to the pope.
Gubbio was the birthplace of Oderisio, a famous miniature painter (1240-1299), mentioned by Dante as the honour of his native town (Purg. xi. 80 “l’onor d’Agobbio”), but no authentic works by him exist. In the 14th and 15th centuries a branch of the Umbrian school of painting flourished here, the most famous masters of which were Guido Palmerucci (1280-1345?) and several members of the Nelli family, particularly Ottaviano (d. 1444), whose best work is the “Madonna del Belvedere” in S. Maria Nuova at Gubbio (1404), extremely well preserved, with bright colouring and fine details. Another work by him is the group of frescoes including a large “Last Judgment,” and scenes from the life of St Augustine, in the church of S. Agostino, discovered in 1902 under a coating of whitewash. These painters seem to have been influenced by the contemporary masters of the Sienese school.
Gubbio was the birthplace of Oderisio, a well-known miniature painter (1240-1299), who Dante referred to as the pride of his hometown (Purg. xi. 80 “l’onor d’Agobbio”), but no genuine works by him are known to exist. In the 14th and 15th centuries, a branch of the Umbrian school of painting thrived here, with the most notable artists being Guido Palmerucci (1280-1345?) and several members of the Nelli family, especially Ottaviano (d. 1444), whose finest piece is the “Madonna del Belvedere” in S. Maria Nuova at Gubbio (1404), remarkably well preserved, with vibrant colors and intricate details. Another work by him includes a series of frescoes featuring a large “Last Judgment” and scenes from the life of St. Augustine, located in the church of S. Agostino, which was rediscovered in 1902 beneath a layer of whitewash. These painters appear to have been influenced by the contemporary masters of the Sienese school.
Gubbio occupies a far more important place in the history of majolica. In a decree of 1438 a vasarius vasorum pictorum is mentioned, who probably was not the first of his trade. The art was brought to perfection by Giorgio Andreoli, whose father had emigrated hither from Pavia, and who in 1498 became a citizen of Gubbio. The works by his hand are remarkable for their ruby tint, with a beautiful metallic lustre; but only one small tazza remains in Gubbio itself. His art was carried on by his sons, Cencio and Ubaldo, but was afterwards lost, and only recovered in 1853 by Angelico Fabbri and Luigi Carocci.
Gubbio plays a much more significant role in the history of majolica. A decree from 1438 mentions a vasarius vasorum pictorum, who was likely not the first in his profession. The art reached its peak with Giorgio Andreoli, whose father moved here from Pavia, and who became a citizen of Gubbio in 1498. His works are notable for their ruby tint and beautiful metallic sheen; however, only one small tazza still exists in Gubbio itself. His art was continued by his sons, Cencio and Ubaldo, but was later lost until it was rediscovered in 1853 by Angelico Fabbri and Luigi Carocci.
Two miles outside Porta Metauro to the N.E. is the Bottaccione, a large water reservoir, constructed in the 12th or 14th century; the water is collected in the bed of a stream by a massive dam.
Two miles northeast of Porta Metauro is the Bottaccione, a large water reservoir built in the 12th or 14th century; the water is gathered in the streambed by a massive dam.
See A. Colasanti, Gubbio (Bergamo, 1905); L. McCracken, Gubbio (London, 1905).
See A. Colasanti, Gubbio (Bergamo, 1905); L. McCracken, Gubbio (London, 1905).
GUBEN, a town of Germany, in the kingdom of Prussia, at the confluence of the Lubis with the Neisse, 28 m. S.S.E. of Frankfort-on-Oder, at the junction of railways to Breslau, Halle and Forst. Pop. (1875) 23,704; (1905) 36,666. It possesses three Evangelical churches, a Roman Catholic church, a synagogue, a gymnasium, a modern school, a museum and a theatre. The principal industries are the spinning and weaving of wool, dyeing, tanning, and the manufacture of pottery ware, hats, cloth, paper and machinery. The vine is cultivated in the neighbourhood to some extent, and there is also some trade in fruit and vegetables. Guben is of Wendish origin. It is mentioned in 1207 and received civic rights in 1235. It was surrounded by walls in 1311, about which time it came into the possession of the margrave of Brandenburg, from whom it passed to Bohemia in 1368. It was twice devastated by the Hussites, and in 1631 and 1642 it was occupied by the Swedes. By the peace of Prague in 1635 it came into the possession of the elector of Saxony, and in 1815 it was, with the rest of Lower Lusatia, united to Prussia.
Guben, is a town in Germany, located in the kingdom of Prussia, where the Lubis River meets the Neisse River, 28 miles S.S.E. of Frankfort-on-Oder, at the intersection of railways to Breslau, Halle, and Forst. Population: (1875) 23,704; (1905) 36,666. The town has three Evangelical churches, a Roman Catholic church, a synagogue, a gymnasium, a modern school, a museum, and a theater. The main industries include spinning and weaving of wool, dyeing, tanning, and manufacturing pottery, hats, cloth, paper, and machinery. Vines are grown in the surrounding area, and there is also some trade in fruits and vegetables. Guben has Wendish origins. It was mentioned in 1207 and was granted civic rights in 1235. The town was surrounded by walls in 1311, around the time it came under the control of the margrave of Brandenburg, from whom it was transferred to Bohemia in 1368. It suffered devastation twice by the Hussites and was occupied by the Swedes in 1631 and 1642. Following the peace of Prague in 1635, it became part of the electoral territory of Saxony, and in 1815, it was annexed to Prussia along with the rest of Lower Lusatia.
GUBERNATIS, ANGELO DE, Count (1840- ), Italian man of letters, was born at Turin and educated there and at Berlin, where he studied philology. In 1862 he was appointed professor of Sanskrit at Florence, but having married a cousin of the Socialist Bakunin and become interested in his views he resigned his appointment and spent some years in travel. He was reappointed, however, in 1867; and in 1891 he was transferred to the university of Rome. He became prominent both as an orientalist, a publicist and a poet. He founded the Italia letteraria (1862), the Rivista orientale (1867), the Civitta italiana and Rivista europea (1869), the Bollettino italiano degli studii orientali (1876) and the Revue internationale (1883), and in 1887 became director of the Giornale della società asiatica. In 1878 he started the Dizionario biografico degli scrittori contemporanei. His Oriental and mythological works include the Piccola enciclopedia indiana (1867), the Fonti vediche (1868), a famous work on zoological mythology (1872), and another on plant mythology (1878). He also edited the encyclopaedic Storia universale della letteratura (1882-1885). His work in verse includes the dramas Cato, Romolo, Il re Nala, Don Rodrigo, Savitri, &c.
Gubernatis, Angelo De Count (1840- ), an Italian writer, was born in Turin and studied there and in Berlin, where he focused on philology. In 1862, he was appointed a professor of Sanskrit in Florence, but after marrying a cousin of the socialist Bakunin and becoming interested in his ideas, he resigned and traveled for several years. However, he was reappointed in 1867, and in 1891, he moved to the University of Rome. He became well-known as an orientalist, journalist, and poet. He established the Italia letteraria (1862), the Rivista orientale (1867), the Civitta italiana and Rivista europea (1869), the Bollettino italiano degli studii orientali (1876), and the Revue internationale (1883), and in 1887 became the director of the Giornale della società asiatica. In 1878, he began the Dizionario biografico degli scrittori contemporanei. His works on Oriental studies and mythology include the Piccola enciclopedia indiana (1867), the Fonti vediche (1868), a well-known book on zoological mythology (1872), and another on plant mythology (1878). He also edited the encyclopedic Storia universale della letteratura (1882-1885). His poetry includes the plays Cato, Romolo, Il re Nala, Don Rodrigo, Savitri, etc.
GUDBRANDSDAL, a district in the midlands of southern Norway, comprising the upper course of the river Lougen or Laagen from Lillehammer at the head of Lake Mjösen to its source in Lake Lesjekogen and tributary valleys. Lillehammer, the centre of a rich timber district, is 114 m. N. of Christiania by rail. The railway continues through the well-wooded and cultivated valley to Otta (70 m.). Several tracks run westward into the wild district of the Jotunheim. From Otto good driving routes run across the watershed and descend the western slope, where the scenery is incomparably finer than in Gudbrandsdal itself—(a) past Sörum, with the 13th-century churches of Vaagen and Lom (a fine specimen of the Stavekirke or timber-built church), Aanstad and Polfos, with beautiful falls of the Otta river, to Grotlid, whence roads diverge to Stryn on the Nordfjord, and to Marok on the Geirangerfjord; (b) past Domaas (with branch road north to Stören near Trondhjem, skirting the Dovrefjeld), over the watershed formed by Lesjekogen Lake, which drains in both directions, and down through the magnificent Romsdal.
GUDBRANDSDAL, is a region in the midlands of southern Norway, covering the upper stretch of the river Lougen or Laagen from Lillehammer at the end of Lake Mjösen to its source in Lake Lesjekogen and its tributary valleys. Lillehammer, the hub of a thriving timber area, is 114 km north of Oslo by train. The railway continues through the lush, cultivated valley to Otta (70 km). Several paths lead west into the rugged region of the Jotunheim. From Otta, well-maintained roads cross the watershed and descend the western slope, where the scenery is remarkably more beautiful than in Gudbrandsdal itself—(a) past Sörum, which has the 13th-century churches of Vaagen and Lom (a stunning example of the Stavekirke or wooden church), Aanstad and Polfos, with the lovely waterfalls of the Otta river, to Grotlid, where roads branch off to Stryn on the Nordfjord, and to Marok on the Geirangerfjord; (b) past Domaas (with a side road north to Stören near Trondheim, skirting the Dovrefjell), over the watershed formed by Lesjekogen Lake, which drains in both directions, and down through the breathtaking Romsdal.
GUDE (Gudius), MARQUARD (1635-1689), German archaeologist and classical scholar, was born at Rendsburg in Holstein on the 1st of February 1635. He was originally intended for the law, but from an early age showed a decided preference for classical studies. In 1658 he went to Holland in the hope of finding work as a teacher of classics, and in the following year, through the influence of J. F. Gronovius, he obtained the post of tutor and travelling companion to a wealthy young Dutchman, Samuel Schars. During his travels Gude seized the opportunity of copying inscriptions and MSS. At the earnest request of his pupil, who had become greatly attached to him, Gude refused more than one professional appointment, and it was not until 1671 that he accepted the post of librarian to Duke Christian Albert of Holstein-Gottorp. Schars, who had accompanied Gude, died in 1675, and left him the greater part of his property. In 1678 Gude, having quarrelled with the duke, retired into private life; but in 1682 he entered the service of Christian V. of Denmark as counsellor of the Schleswig-Holstein chancellery, and remained in it almost to the time of his death on the 26th of November 1689. Gude’s great life-work, the collection of Greek and Latin inscriptions, was not published till 1731. Mention may also be made of his editio princeps (1661) of the treatise of Hippolytus the Martyr on Antichrist, and of his notes on Phaedrus (with four new fables discovered by him) published in P. Burmann’s edition (1698).
GUDE (Gudius), MARQUARD (1635-1689), a German archaeologist and classical scholar, was born in Rendsburg, Holstein, on February 1, 1635. He was originally set to study law, but from an early age he showed a strong preference for classical studies. In 1658, he moved to Holland hoping to find work as a classics teacher, and the following year, through the influence of J. F. Gronovius, he secured a position as tutor and traveling companion to a wealthy young Dutchman, Samuel Schars. During their travels, Gude took the chance to copy inscriptions and manuscripts. At the heartfelt request of his pupil, who had grown very fond of him, Gude turned down several professional offers, and it wasn't until 1671 that he accepted the role of librarian to Duke Christian Albert of Holstein-Gottorp. Schars, who had traveled with Gude, passed away in 1675, leaving him most of his fortune. In 1678, after having a disagreement with the duke, Gude withdrew from public life; however, in 1682, he joined Christian V. of Denmark's service as a counselor for the Schleswig-Holstein chancellery, where he remained almost until his death on November 26, 1689. Gude’s major life work, the compilation of Greek and Latin inscriptions, wasn't published until 1731. He is also noted for his editio princeps (1661) of the treatise by Hippolytus the Martyr on Antichrist, and his notes on Phaedrus (which included four new fables he discovered) published in P. Burmann’s edition (1698).
His correspondence (ed. P. Burmann, 1697) is the most important authority for the events of Gude’s life, besides containing valuable information on the learning of the times. See also J. Moller, Cimbria literata, iii., and C. Bursian in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, x.
His letters (ed. P. Burmann, 1697) are the most important source for the events of Gude’s life and also provide valuable information about the knowledge of the time. See also J. Moller, Cimbria literata, iii., and C. Bursian in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, x.
GUDEMAN, ALFRED (1862- ), American classical scholar, was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on the 26th of August 1862. He graduated at Columbia University in 1883 and studied under Hermann Diels at the University of Berlin. From 1890 to 1893 he was reader in classical philology at Johns Hopkins University, from 1893 to 1902 professor in the University of Pennsylvania, and from 1902 to 1904 professor in Cornell University. In 1904 he became a member of the corps of scholars preparing the Wölfflin Thesaurus linguae Latinae—a unique distinction for an American Latinist, as was the publication of his critical edition, with German commentary, of Tacitus’ Agricola in 1902 by the Weidmannsche Buchhandlung of Berlin. He wrote Latin Literature of the Empire (2 vols., Prose and Poetry, 1898-1899), a History of Classical Philology (1902) and Sources of Plutarch’s Life of Cicero (1902); and edited Tacitus’ Dialogus de oratoribus (text with commentary, 1894 and 1898) and Agricola (1899; with Germania, 1900), and Sallust’s Catiline (1903).
GUDEMAN, ALFRED (1862- ), American classical scholar, was born in Atlanta, Georgia, on August 26, 1862. He graduated from Columbia University in 1883 and studied under Hermann Diels at the University of Berlin. From 1890 to 1893, he was a reader in classical philology at Johns Hopkins University, from 1893 to 1902 he was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and from 1902 to 1904 he was a professor at Cornell University. In 1904, he joined the group of scholars working on the Wölfflin Thesaurus linguae Latinae—a unique honor for an American Latinist—along with publishing his critical edition, with German commentary, of Tacitus’ Agricola in 1902 by Weidmannsche Buchhandlung in Berlin. He authored Latin Literature of the Empire (2 vols., Prose and Poetry, 1898-1899), a History of Classical Philology (1902), and Sources of Plutarch’s Life of Cicero (1902); and he edited Tacitus’ Dialogus de oratoribus (text with commentary, 1894 and 1898) and Agricola (1899; with Germania, 1900), as well as Sallust’s Catiline (1903).
GUDGEON (Gobio fluviatilis), a small fish of the Cyprinid family. It is nearly related to the barbel, and has a small barbel or fleshy appendage at each corner of the mouth. It is the 668 gobione of Italy, goujon of France (whence adapted in M. English as gojon), and Grässling or Gründling of Germany. Gudgeons thrive in streams and lakes, keeping to the bottom, and seldom exceeding 8 in. in length. In China and Japan there are varieties differing only slightly from the common European type.
Gudgeon (Gobio fluviatilis) is a small fish from the Cyprinid family. It's closely related to the barbel and has a small barbel or fleshy growth at each corner of its mouth. It’s known as the gobione in Italy, goujon in France (which influenced the M. English term gojon), and Grässling or Gründling in Germany. Gudgeons do well in streams and lakes, staying near the bottom, and usually don’t grow longer than 8 inches. In China and Japan, there are varieties that only differ slightly from the common European type.
GUDRUN (Kudrun), a Middle High German epic, written probably in the early years of the 13th century, not long after the Nibelungenlied, the influence of which may be traced upon it. It is preserved in a single MS. which was prepared at the command of Maximilian I., and was discovered as late as 1820 in the Castle of Ambras in Tirol. The author was an unnamed Austrian poet, but the story itself belongs to the cycle of sagas, which originated on the shores of the North Sea. The epic falls into three easily distinguishable parts—the adventures of King Hagen of Ireland, the romance of Hettel, king of the Hegelingen, who woos and wins Hagen’s daughter Hilde, and lastly, the more or less parallel story of how Herwig, king of Seeland, wins, in opposition to her father’s wishes, Gudrun, the daughter of Hettel and Hilde. Gudrun is carried off by a king of Normandy, and her kinsfolk, who are in pursuit, are defeated in a great battle on the island of Wülpensand off the Dutch coast. The finest parts of the epic are those in which Gudrun, a prisoner in the Norman castle, refuses to become the wife of her captor, and is condemned to do the most menial work of the household. Here, thirteen years later, Herwig and her brother Ortwin find her washing clothes by the sea; on the following day they attack the Norman castle with their army and carry out the long-delayed retribution.
GUDRUN (Kudrun), a Middle High German epic, likely written in the early 13th century, shortly after the Nibelungenlied, which influenced it. It survives in a single manuscript created at the request of Maximilian I., discovered as recently as 1820 in the Castle of Ambras in Tirol. The author remains unnamed, but the story is part of a cycle of sagas that began on the North Sea coast. The epic consists of three distinct parts: the adventures of King Hagen of Ireland, the romance of Hettel, king of the Hegelingen, who courts and marries Hagen’s daughter Hilde, and lastly, the somewhat parallel tale of how Herwig, king of Seeland, wins Gudrun, the daughter of Hettel and Hilde, against her father's wishes. Gudrun is kidnapped by a king of Normandy, and her relatives, who are in pursuit, are defeated in a major battle on the island of Wülpensand off the Dutch coast. The most powerful sections of the epic show Gudrun, a captive in the Norman castle, refusing to marry her captor and being condemned to perform the most menial tasks in the household. Thirteen years later, Herwig and her brother Ortwin find her washing clothes by the sea; the next day they launch an attack on the Norman castle with their army and finally achieve the long-awaited revenge.
The epic of Gudrun is not unworthy to stand beside the greater Nibelungenlied, and it has been aptly compared with it as the Odyssey to the Iliad. Like the Odyssey, Gudrun is an epic of the sea, a story of adventure; it does not turn solely round the conflict of human passions; nor is it built up round one all-absorbing, all-dominating idea like the Nibelungenlied. Scenery and incident are more varied, and the poet has an opportunity for a more lyric interpretation of motive and character. Gudrun is composed in stanzas similar to those of the Nibelungenlied, but with the essential difference that the last line of each stanza is identical with the others, and does not contain the extra accented syllable characteristic of the Nibelungen metre.
The epic of Gudrun deserves a place alongside the greater Nibelungenlied, and it's often compared to it as the Odyssey is to the Iliad. Like the Odyssey, Gudrun tells a tale of the sea, filled with adventure; it doesn’t just focus on the struggles of human emotions, nor is it centered around one all-consuming idea like the Nibelungenlied. The settings and events are more diverse, giving the poet a chance for a more lyrical exploration of motives and characters. Gudrun is written in stanzas that are similar to those in the Nibelungenlied, but the key difference is that the last line of each stanza is the same, lacking the extra accented syllable that characterizes the Nibelungen meter.
Gudrun was first edited by von der Hagen in vol. i. of his Heldenbuch (1820). Subsequent editions by A. Ziemann and A. J. Vollmer followed in 1837 and 1845. The best editions are those by K. Bartsch (4th ed., 1880), who has also edited the poem for Kürschner’s Deutsche Nationalliteratur (vol. 6, 1885), by B. Symons (1883) and by E. Martin (2nd ed., 1901). L. Ettmüller first applied Lachmann’s ballad-theory to the poem (1841), and K. Müllenhoff (Kudrun, die echten Teile des Gedichts, 1845) rejected more than three-quarters of the whole as “not genuine.” There are many translations of the epic into modern German, the best known being that of K. Simrock (15th ed., 1884). A translation into English by M. P. Nichols appeared at Boston, U.S.A., in 1889.
Gudrun was first edited by von der Hagen in volume 1 of his Heldenbuch (1820). A. Ziemann and A. J. Vollmer released subsequent editions in 1837 and 1845. The best editions are by K. Bartsch (4th ed., 1880), who also edited the poem for Kürschner’s Deutsche Nationalliteratur (vol. 6, 1885), as well as those by B. Symons (1883) and E. Martin (2nd ed., 1901). L. Ettmüller was the first to apply Lachmann’s ballad theory to the poem (1841), and K. Mülenhoff (Kudrun, die echten Teile des Gedichts, 1845) dismissed more than three-quarters of it as “not genuine.” There are many translations of the epic into modern German, with the most well-known being by K. Simrock (15th ed., 1884). An English translation by M. P. Nichols was published in Boston, U.S.A., in 1889.
See K. Bartsch, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kritik der Kudrun (1865); H. Keck, Die Gudrunsage (1867); W. Wilmanns, Die Entwickelung der Kudrundichtung (1873); A. Fécamp, Le Poème de Gudrun, ses origines, sa formation et son histoire (1892); F. Panzer, Hilde-Gudrun (1901). For later versions and adaptations of the saga see O. Benedict, Die Gudrunsage in der neueren Literatur (1902.)
See K. Bartsch, Beiträge zur Geschichte und Kritik der Kudrun (1865); H. Keck, Die Gudrunsage (1867); W. Wilmanns, Die Entwicklung der Kudrundichtung (1873); A. Fécamp, Le Poème de Gudrun, ses origines, sa formation et son histoire (1892); F. Panzer, Hilde-Gudrun (1901). For later versions and adaptations of the saga, see O. Benedict, Die Gudrunsage in der neueren Literatur (1902).
GUÉBRIANT, JEAN BAPTISTE BUDES, Comte de (1602-1643), marshal of France, was born at Plessis-Budes, near St Brieuc, of an old Breton family. He served first in Holland, and in the Thirty Years’ War he commanded from 1638 to 1639 the French contingent in the army of his friend Bernard of Saxe-Weimar, distinguishing himself particularly at the siege of Breisach in 1638. Upon the death of Bernard he received the command of his army, and tried, in conjunction with J. Baner (1596-1641), the Swedish general, a bold attack upon Regensburg (1640). His victories of Wolfenbüttel on the 29th of June 1641 and of Kempen in 1642 won for him the marshal’s bâton. Having failed in an attempt to invade Bavaria in concert with Torstensson he seized Rottweil, but was mortally wounded there on the 17th of November 1643.
GUÉBRIANT, JEAN BAPTISTE BUDES, Count of (1602-1643), marshal of France, was born in Plessis-Budes, near St Brieuc, from an old Breton family. He first served in Holland, and during the Thirty Years’ War, he led the French troops from 1638 to 1639 in the army of his friend Bernard of Saxe-Weimar, notably distinguishing himself at the siege of Breisach in 1638. After Bernard's death, he took command of his army and attempted a bold attack on Regensburg in 1640, alongside J. Baner, the Swedish general. His victories at Wolfenbüttel on June 29, 1641, and Kempen in 1642 earned him the marshal’s bâton. After failing to invade Bavaria with Torstensson, he captured Rottweil but was mortally wounded there on November 17, 1643.
A biography was published by Le Laboureur, Histoire du mareschal de Guébriant, in 1656. See A. Brinzinger in Württembergische Vierteljahrschrift für Landesgeschichte (1902).
A biography was published by Le Laboureur, Histoire du mareschal de Guébriant, in 1656. See A. Brinzinger in Württembergische Vierteljahrschrift für Landesgeschichte (1902).
GUELDER ROSE, so called from Guelderland, its supposed source, termed also marsh elder, rose elder, water elder (Ger. Wasserholder, Schneeball; Fr. viorne-obier, l’obier d’Europe), known botanically as Viburnum Opulus, a shrub or small tree of the natural order Caprifoliaceae, a native of Britain, and widely distributed in the temperate and colder parts of Europe, Asia and North America. It is common in Ireland, but rare in Scotland. In height it is from 6 to 12 ft., and it thrives best in moist situations. The leaves are smooth, 2 to 3 in. broad, with 3 to 5 unequal serrate lobes, and glandular stipules adnate to the stalk. In autumn the leaves change their normal bright green for a pink or crimson hue. The flowers, which appear in June and July, are small, white, and arranged in cymes 2 to 4 in. in diameter. The outer blossoms in the wild plant have an enlarged corolla, ¾ in. in diameter, and are devoid of stamens or pistils; in the common cultivated variety all the flowers are sterile and the inflorescence is globular, hence the term “snowball tree” applied to the plant, the appearance of which at the time of flowering has been prettily described by Cowper in his Winter Walk at Noon. The guelder rose bears juicy, red, elliptical berries, 1⁄3 in. long, which ripen in September, and contain each a single compressed seed. In northern Europe these are eaten, and in Siberia, after fermentation with flour, they are distilled for spirit. The plant has, however, emetic, purgative and narcotic properties; and Taylor (Med. Jurisp. i. 448, 2nd ed., 1873) has recorded an instance of the fatal poisoning of a child by the berries. Both they and the bark contain valerianic acid. The woody shoots of the guelder rose are manufactured into various small articles in Sweden and Russia. Another member of the genus, Viburnum, Lantana, wayfaring tree, is found in dry copses and hedges in England, except in the north.
GUELDER ROSE, is named after Guelderland, its supposed origin, and is also known as marsh elder, rose elder, and water elder (Ger. Wasserholder, Schneeball; Fr. viorne-obier, l’obier d’Europe). Its botanical name is Viburnum Opulus, a shrub or small tree from the Caprifoliaceae family, native to Britain and commonly found in temperate and colder regions of Europe, Asia, and North America. It’s prevalent in Ireland but rare in Scotland. It grows between 6 to 12 feet tall and thrives best in moist areas. The leaves are smooth, 2 to 3 inches wide, with 3 to 5 uneven serrate lobes, and have glandular stipules attached to the stalk. In autumn, the leaves shift from their typical bright green to shades of pink or crimson. The flowers bloom in June and July, small and white, clustered in cymes 2 to 4 inches in diameter. The outer flowers of the wild plant have a larger corolla, ¾ inch in diameter, and lack stamens or pistils; in the common cultivated variety, all the flowers are sterile, giving rise to the nickname "snowball tree," which describes the plant's appearance during flowering as beautifully noted by Cowper in his Winter Walk at Noon. The guelder rose produces juicy, red, oval berries, 1⁄3 inches long, ripening in September and each containing a single flattened seed. In northern Europe, these berries are consumed, and in Siberia, they are fermented with flour and distilled for spirits. However, the plant has emetic, purgative, and narcotic effects; Taylor (Med. Jurisp. i. 448, 2nd ed., 1873) noted a case of a child fatally poisoned by the berries. Both the berries and bark contain valerianic acid. In Sweden and Russia, the woody shoots of the guelder rose are made into various small items. Another relative in the genus, Viburnum, Lantana, known as the wayfaring tree, is found in dry thickets and hedges across England, except in the north.
GUELPH, a city of Ontario, Canada, 45 m. W. of Toronto, on the river Speed and the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific railways. Pop. (1901) 11,496. It is the centre of a fine agricultural district, and exports grain, fruit and live-stock in large quantities. It contains, in addition to the county and municipal buildings, the Ontario Agricultural College, which draws students from all parts of North and South America. The river affords abundant water-power for flour-mills, saw-mills, woollen-mills and numerous factories, of which agricultural implements, sewing machines and musical instruments are the chief.
GUELPH, is a city in Ontario, Canada, located 45 miles west of Toronto, along the Speed River and the Grand Trunk and Canadian Pacific railways. Its population was 11,496 in 1901. Guelph serves as the hub of a rich agricultural area, exporting large quantities of grain, fruit, and livestock. In addition to the county and municipal buildings, it houses the Ontario Agricultural College, attracting students from across North and South America. The river provides plenty of water power for flour mills, sawmills, woolen mills, and a variety of factories, with agricultural tools, sewing machines, and musical instruments being the main products.
GUELPHS AND GHIBELLINES. These names are doubtless Italianized forms of the German words Welf and Waiblingen, although one tradition says that they are derived from Guelph and Gibel, two rival brothers of Pistoia. Another theory derives Ghibelline from Gibello, a word used by the Sicilian Arabs to translate Hohenstaufen. However, a more popular story tells how, during a fight around Weinsberg in December 1140 between the German king Conrad III. and Welf, count of Bavaria, a member of the powerful family to which Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria, belonged, the soldiers of the latter raised the cry “Hie Welf!” to which the king’s troops replied with “Hie Waiblingen!” this being the name of one of Conrad’s castles. But the rivalry between Welf and Hohenstaufen, of which family Conrad was a member, was anterior to this event, and had been for some years a prominent fact in the history of Swabia and Bavaria, although its introduction into Italy—in a slightly modified form, however—only dates from the time of the Italian expeditions of the emperor Frederick I. It is about this time that the German chronicler, Otto of Freising, says, “Duae in Romano orbe apud Galliae Germaniaeve fines famosae familiae actenus fuere, una Heinricorum de Gueibelinga, alia Guelforum de Aldorfo, altera imperatores, altera magnos duces producere solita.” Chosen German king in 1152, Frederick was not only the nephew and the heir of Conrad, he was related also to the Welfs; yet, although his election abated to some extent the rivalry between Welf and Hohenstaufen in Germany, it opened it upon a larger and fiercer scale in Italy.
Guelphs and Ghibellines. These names are definitely Italian versions of the German words Welf and Waiblingen, although one story suggests they come from Guelph and Gibel, two rival brothers from Pistoia. Another theory says Ghibelline comes from Gibello, a term the Sicilian Arabs used to translate Hohenstaufen. However, a more popular tale recounts how, during a battle near Weinsberg in December 1140 between the German king Conrad III and Welf, the count of Bavaria—who was part of the powerful family to which Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony and Bavaria, belonged—the soldiers of Welf shouted “Hie Welf!” and the king’s troops responded with “Hie Waiblingen!” which was the name of one of Conrad’s castles. But the rivalry between the Welfs and Hohenstaufen, of which Conrad was part, existed before this event and had already been a significant aspect of the history of Swabia and Bavaria for several years, even though its introduction into Italy—albeit in a slightly altered form—only came with the Italian campaigns of Emperor Frederick I. Around this time, the German chronicler Otto of Freising remarked, “Two famous families have existed in the Roman world at the borders of Gaul and Germany, one being the Hohenstaufen of the Guelphs, the other the Welfs of Aldorf, the former producing emperors, the latter great dukes.” Chosen as German king in 1152, Frederick was not only the nephew and heir of Conrad but also related to the Welfs; yet, while his election somewhat reduced the rivalry between the Welfs and Hohenstaufen in Germany, it intensified it on a larger and fiercer scale in Italy.
During the long and interesting period covered by Frederick’s Italian campaigns, his enemies, prominent among whom were the cities of the Lombard League, became known as Welfs, or Guelphs, while his partisans seized upon the rival term of 669 Waiblingen, or Ghibelline, and the contest between these two parties was carried on with a ferocity unknown even to the inhabitants of southern Germany. The distracted state of northern Italy, the jealousies between various pairs of towns, the savage hatred between family and family, were some of the causes which fed this feud, and it reached its height during the momentous struggle between Frederick II. and the Papacy in the 13th century. The story of the contest between Guelph and Ghibelline, however, is little less than the history of Italy in the middle ages. At the opening of the 13th century it was intensified by the fight for the German and imperial thrones between Philip, duke of Swabia, a son of Frederick I., and the Welf, Otto of Brunswick, afterwards the emperor Otto IV., a fight waged in Italy as well as in Germany. Then, as the heir of Philip of Swabia and the rival of Otto of Brunswick, Frederick II. was forced to throw himself into the arms of the Ghibellines, while his enemies, the popes, ranged themselves definitely among the Guelphs, and soon Guelph and Ghibelline became synonymous with supporter of pope and emperor.
During the lengthy and fascinating time of Frederick’s Italian campaigns, his adversaries, particularly the cities of the Lombard League, came to be known as Welfs or Guelphs, while his supporters adopted the opposing term Waiblingen, or Ghibelline. The rivalry between these two groups was marked by an intensity rarely seen, even among the people of southern Germany. The chaotic state of northern Italy, the rivalries between different towns, and the intense animosity between families were some of the factors that fueled this conflict, which peaked during the significant struggle between Frederick II and the Papacy in the 13th century. The tale of the Guelphs and Ghibellines is essentially the story of Italy during the Middle Ages. At the beginning of the 13th century, it was heightened by the battle for the German and imperial thrones between Philip, Duke of Swabia, a son of Frederick I, and Welf Otto of Brunswick, who later became Emperor Otto IV, a conflict fought both in Italy and Germany. Subsequently, as the heir of Philip of Swabia and the rival of Otto of Brunswick, Frederick II found himself aligning with the Ghibellines, while his opponents, the popes, firmly positioned themselves with the Guelphs, leading to Guelph and Ghibelline becoming synonymous with supporters of the pope and emperor, respectively.
After the death of Frederick II. in 1250 the Ghibellines looked for leadership to his son and successor, the German king, Conrad IV., and then to his natural son, Manfred, while the Guelphs called the French prince, Charles of Anjou, to their aid. But the combatants were nearing exhaustion, and after the execution of Conradin, the last of the Hohenstaufen, in 1268, this great struggle began to lose force and interest. Guelph and Ghibelline were soon found representing local and family rather than papal and imperial interests; the names were taken with little or no regard for their original significance, and in the 15th century they began to die out of current politics. However, when Louis XII. of France conquered Milan at the beginning of the 16th century the old names were revived; the French king’s supporters were called Guelphs and the friends of the emperor Maximilian I. were referred to as Ghibellines.
After Frederick II's death in 1250, the Ghibellines looked to his son and successor, the German king Conrad IV, and then to his illegitimate son, Manfred, for leadership, while the Guelphs sought help from the French prince, Charles of Anjou. However, both sides were getting tired, and after Conradin, the last of the Hohenstaufen, was executed in 1268, this major struggle started to lose momentum and interest. Guelph and Ghibelline soon came to represent local and family interests instead of papal and imperial ones; the names were used with little regard for their original meaning, and by the 15th century, they began to fade from current politics. Nevertheless, when Louis XII of France conquered Milan at the start of the 16th century, the old names were brought back; the supporters of the French king were called Guelphs, while the friends of Emperor Maximilian I were referred to as Ghibellines.
The feud of Guelph and Ghibelline penetrated within the walls of almost every city of northern Italy, and the contest between the parties, which practically makes the history of Florence during the 13th century, is specially noteworthy. First one side and then the other was driven into exile; the Guelph defeat at the battle of Monte Aperto in 1260 was followed by the expulsion of the Ghibellines by Charles of Anjou in 1266, and on a smaller scale a similar story may be told of many other cities (see Florence).
The rivalry between the Guelphs and Ghibellines extended into almost every city in northern Italy, and the conflict between these groups, which essentially defines Florence's history in the 13th century, is particularly significant. One side was often forced into exile, followed by the other; for example, the Guelphs suffered defeat at the Battle of Monte Aperto in 1260, which was then succeeded by the Ghibellines' expulsion by Charles of Anjou in 1266. A similar narrative can be found in many other cities as well (see Florence).
The Guelph cause was buttressed by an idea, yet very nebulous, of Italian patriotism. Dislike of the German and the foreigner rather than any strong affection for the Papacy was the feeling which bound the Guelph to the pope, and so enabled the latter to defy the arms of Frederick II. The Ghibelline cause, on the other hand, was aided by the dislike of the temporal power of the pope and the desire for a strong central authority. This made Dante a Ghibelline, but the hopes of this party, kindled anew by the journey of Henry VII. to Italy in 1310, were extinguished by his departure. J. A. Symonds thus describes the constituents of the two parties: “The Guelph party meant the burghers of the consular Communes, the men of industry and commerce, the upholders of civil liberty, the friends of democratic expansion. The Ghibelline party included the naturalized nobles, the men of arms and idleness, the advocates of feudalism, the politicians who regarded constitutional progress with disfavour. That the banner of the church floated over the one camp, while the standard of the empire rallied to itself the hostile party, was a matter of comparatively superficial moment.” In another passage the same writer thus describes the sharp and universal division between Guelph and Ghibelline: “Ghibellines wore the feathers in their caps upon one side, Guelphs upon the other. Ghibellines cut fruit at table crosswise, Guelphs straight down ... Ghibellines drank out of smooth and Guelphs out of chased goblets. Ghibellines wore white and Guelphs red roses.” It is interesting to note that while Dante was a Ghibelline, Petrarch was a Guelph.
The Guelph cause was supported by a somewhat vague notion of Italian patriotism. It was more about dislike for the Germans and outsiders than a strong loyalty to the Papacy that connected the Guelphs to the pope, allowing him to stand against Frederick II’s forces. On the other hand, the Ghibelline cause was fueled by opposition to the pope's secular power and a desire for a strong central authority. This made Dante a Ghibelline, but the hopes of this faction, reignited by Henry VII’s journey to Italy in 1310, were dashed by his departure. J. A. Symonds describes the two parties like this: “The Guelph party represented the merchants of the consular Communes, the people involved in industry and commerce, the champions of civil liberties, and the supporters of democratic expansion. The Ghibelline party included the noble families, the warriors and leisure class, the advocates of feudalism, and the politicians who were skeptical of constitutional progress. The fact that the church’s banner flew over one side while the empire’s standard rallied the opposing faction was relatively superficial.” In another section, the same writer points out the clear and widespread division between Guelphs and Ghibellines: “Ghibellines wore feathers on one side of their caps, Guelphs on the other. Ghibellines cut fruit at the table diagonally, Guelphs cut it straight down... Ghibellines drank from smooth goblets, Guelphs from ornate ones. Ghibellines wore white roses, Guelphs wore red.” It's noteworthy that while Dante was a Ghibelline, Petrarch was a Guelph.
See J. A. Symonds, The Renaissance in Italy, vol. i. (1875).
See J. A. Symonds, The Renaissance in Italy, vol. i. (1875).
GUENEVERE (Lat. Guanhumara; Welsh, Gwenhwyfar; O. Eng. Gaynore), in Arthurian romance the wife of King Arthur. Geoffrey of Monmouth, who calls her Guanhumara, makes her a Roman lady, but the general tradition is that she was of Cornish birth and daughter to King Leodegrance. Wace, who, while translating Geoffrey, evidently knew, and used, popular tradition, combines these two, asserting that she was of Roman parentage on the mother’s side, but cousin to Cador of Cornwall by whom she was brought up. The tradition relating to Guenevere is decidedly confused and demands further study. The Welsh triads know no fewer than three Gwenhwyfars; Giraldus Cambrensis, relating the discovery of the royal tombs at Glastonbury, speaks of the body found as that of Arthur’s second wife; the prose Merlin gives Guenevere a bastard half-sister of the same name, who strongly resembles her; and the Lancelot relates how this lady, trading on the likeness, persuaded Arthur that she was the true daughter of Leodegrance, and the queen the bastard interloper. This episode of the false Guenevere is very perplexing.
GUENEVERE (Lat. Guanhumara; Welsh, Gwenhwyfar; O. Eng. Gaynore), in Arthurian tales, is the wife of King Arthur. Geoffrey of Monmouth, who calls her Guanhumara, portrays her as a Roman woman, but the general belief is that she was born in Cornwall and was the daughter of King Leodegrance. Wace, while translating Geoffrey and clearly drawing on popular tradition, combines these two ideas, stating that she had Roman heritage from her mother’s side but was raised by her cousin Cador of Cornwall. The story of Guenevere is rather confused and needs more investigation. The Welsh triads mention at least three Gwenhwyfars; Giraldus Cambrensis, discussing the discovery of the royal tombs at Glastonbury, refers to the body found as that of Arthur's second wife; the prose Merlin introduces a half-sister of Guenevere with the same name, who bears a strong resemblance to her; and the Lancelot recounts how this lady, taking advantage of their likeness, convinced Arthur that she was the legitimate daughter of Leodegrance while claiming that the queen was the illegitimate intruder. This story of the false Guenevere is quite puzzling.
To the majority of English readers Guenevere is best known in connexion with her liaison with Lancelot, a story which, in the hands of Malory and Tennyson, has assumed a form widely different from the original conception, and at once more picturesque and more convincing. In the French romances Lancelot is a late addition to the Arthurian cycle, his birth is not recorded till long after the marriage of Arthur and Guenevere, and he is at least twenty years the junior of the queen. The relations between them are of the most conventional and courtly character, and are entirely lacking in the genuine dramatic passion which marks the love story of Tristan and Iseult. The Lancelot-Guenevere romance took form and shape in the artificial atmosphere encouraged by such patronesses of literature as Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie, Comtesse de Champagne (for whom Chrétien de Troyes wrote his Chevalier de la Charrette), and reflects the low social morality of a time when love between husband and wife was declared impossible. But though Guenevere has changed her lover, the tradition of her infidelity is of much earlier date and formed a part of the primitive Arthurian legend. Who the original lover was is doubtful; the Vita Gildae relates how she was carried off by Melwas, king of Aestiva Regis, to Glastonbury, whither Arthur, at the head of an army, pursued the ravisher. A fragment of a Welsh poem seems to confirm this tradition, which certainly lies at the root of her later abduction by Meleagaunt. In the Lanzelet of Ulrich von Zatzikhoven the abductor is Falerîn. The story in these forms represents an other-world abduction. A curious fragment of Welsh dialogues, printed by Professor Rhys in his Studies on the Arthurian Legend, appears to represent Kay as the abductor. In the pseudo-Chronicles and the romances based upon them the abductor is Mordred, and in the chronicles there is no doubt that the lady was no unwilling victim. On the final defeat of Mordred she retires to a nunnery, takes the veil, and is no more heard of. Wace says emphatically—
To most English readers, Guenevere is primarily recognized for her affair with Lancelot, a tale that, thanks to Malory and Tennyson, has taken on a very different form from its original version, making it both more dramatic and more believable. In the French romances, Lancelot is a later addition to the Arthurian saga; his birth isn't mentioned until long after Arthur and Guenevere are married, and he is at least twenty years younger than the queen. Their relationship is very traditional and courtly, lacking the intense, dramatic passion that defines the love story of Tristan and Iseult. The Lancelot-Guenevere romance developed in the crafted environment supported by literary patrons like Eleanor of Aquitaine and her daughter Marie, Countess of Champagne (for whom Chrétien de Troyes wrote Chevalier de la Charrette), and reflects the low social morals of a time when genuine love between husband and wife was deemed impossible. Although Guenevere has changed her lover, the tradition of her infidelity dates back much further and is a part of the original Arthurian legend. It is unclear who her original lover was; the Vita Gildae tells of her being abducted by Melwas, the king of Aestiva Regis, to Glastonbury, where Arthur, leading an army, pursued the kidnapper. A fragment of a Welsh poem seems to support this story, which certainly underpins her later abduction by Meleagaunt. In the Lanzelet by Ulrich von Zatzikhoven, the abductor is Falerîn. This version of the story portrays an other-worldly kidnapping. A curious fragment of Welsh dialogues, published by Professor Rhys in his Studies on the Arthurian Legend, seems to depict Kay as the kidnapper. In the pseudo-Chronicles and the romances derived from them, the abductor is Mordred, and in the chronicles, it is clear that the lady was not a reluctant victim. After Mordred's final defeat, she retreats to a convent, takes the veil, and disappears from the narrative. Wace states emphatically—
Ne fu oie ne véue, Neither was he seen, Ne fu trovée, ne séue Not found, not known Por la vergogne del mesfait For the shame of the wrongdoing Et del pecié qu ele avoit fait (11. 13627-30). And of the piece that he had made (11. 13627-30). |
Layamon, who in his translation of Wace treats his original much as Wace treated Geoffrey, says that there was a tradition that she had drowned herself, and that her memory and that of Mordred were hateful in every land, so that none would offer prayer for their souls. On the other hand certain romances, e.g. the Perceval, give her an excellent character. The truth is probably that the tradition of his wife’s adultery and treachery was a genuine part of the Arthurian story, which, neglected for a time, was brought again into prominence by the social conditions of the courts for which the later romances were composed; and it is in this later and conventionalized form that the tale has become familiar to us (see also Lancelot).
Layamon, who in his translation of Wace treats his original much like Wace treated Geoffrey, mentions that there was a belief that she had drowned herself, and that her memory, along with Mordred's, was hated in every land, so no one would pray for their souls. On the other hand, some romances, like the Perceval, portray her as a virtuous character. The reality is likely that the tradition of his wife’s infidelity and betrayal was a genuine part of the Arthurian story, which, after being overlooked for a while, was brought back into focus by the social conditions of the courts for which the later romances were written; and it's in this later, more conventionalized form that the tale has become well-known to us (see also Lancelot).
See Studies on the Arthurian Legend by Professor Rhys; The Legend of Sir Lancelot, Grimm Library, xii., Jessie L. Weston; Der Karrenritter, ed. Professor Foerster.
See Studies on the Arthurian Legend by Professor Rhys; The Legend of Sir Lancelot, Grimm Library, xii., Jessie L. Weston; Der Karrenritter, ed. Professor Foerster.
GUENON (from the French, = one who grimaces, hence an ape), the name applied by naturalists to the monkeys of the African genus Cercopithecus, the Ethiopian representative of the Asiatic macaques, from which they differ by the absence of a posterior heel to the last molar in the lower jaw.
GUENON (from the French, meaning one who makes faces, hence an ape), is the term used by naturalists for the monkeys in the African genus Cercopithecus, which are the African counterparts of the Asiatic macaques. They can be distinguished from macaques by the lack of a posterior heel on the last molar in the lower jaw.
GUÉRET, a town of central France, capital of the department of Creuse, situated on a mountain declivity 48 m. N.E. of Limoges on the Orleans railway. Pop. (1906), town, 6042; commune (including troops, &c.), 8058. Apart from the Hôtel des Monneyroux (used as prefecture), a picturesque mansion of the 15th and 16th centuries, with mansard roofs and mullioned windows, Guéret has little architectural interest. It is the seat of a prefect and a court of assizes, and has a tribunal of first instance, a chamber of commerce and lycées and training colleges, for both sexes. The industries include brewing, saw-milling, leather-making and the manufacture of basket-work and wooden shoes, and there is trade in agricultural produce and cattle. Guéret grew up round an abbey founded in the 7th century, and in later times became the capital of the district of Marche.
GUÉRET, is a town in central France, the capital of the Creuse department, located on a hillside 48 km northeast of Limoges on the Orleans railway. Population (1906), town: 6,042; commune (including military, etc.): 8,058. Aside from the Hôtel des Monneyroux (which serves as the prefecture), a charming mansion from the 15th and 16th centuries with mansard roofs and multi-paned windows, Guéret has little architectural significance. It is home to a prefect, a court of assizes, a first instance tribunal, a chamber of commerce, lycées, and training colleges for both men and women. Local industries include brewing, saw milling, leather working, and the production of basketry and wooden shoes, along with trade in agricultural products and livestock. Guéret developed around an abbey founded in the 7th century and later became the capital of the Marche district.
GUEREZA, the native name of a long-tailed, black and white Abyssinian monkey, Colobus guereza (or C. abyssinicus), characterized by the white hairs forming a long pendent mantle. Other east African monkeys with a similar type of colouring, which, together with the wholly black west African C. satanas, collectively constitute the subgenus Guereza, may be included under the same title; and the name may be further extended to embrace all the African thumbless monkeys of the genus Colobus. These monkeys are the African representatives of the Indo-Malay langurs (Semnopithecus), with which they agree in their slender build, long limbs and tail, and complex stomachs, although differing by the rudimentary thumb. The members of the subgenus Guereza present a transition from a wholly black animal (C. satanas) to one (C. caudatus) in which the sides of the face are white, and the whole flanks, as well as the tail, clothed with a long fringe of pure white hairs.
GUEREZA, is the native name for a long-tailed, black and white Abyssinian monkey, Colobus guereza (or C. abyssinicus), known for the white hairs that form a long hanging mantle. Other East African monkeys with similar coloring, along with the completely black West African C. satanas, together make up the subgenus Guereza, which may include all African thumbless monkeys of the genus Colobus. These monkeys are the African counterparts of the Indo-Malay langurs (Semnopithecus), sharing traits like a slender build, long limbs, and complex stomachs, though they differ by having a rudimentary thumb. The members of the subgenus Guereza illustrate a transition from a completely black animal (C. satanas) to one (C. caudatus) where the sides of the face are white, and the flanks and tail are adorned with a long fringe of pure white hairs.
GUERICKE, HEINRICH ERNST FERDINAND (1803-1878), German theologian, was born at Wettin in Saxony on the 25th of February 1803 and studied theology at Halle, where he was appointed professor in 1829. He greatly disliked the union between the Lutheran and the Reformed churches, which had been accomplished by the Prussian government in 1817, and in 1833 he definitely threw in his lot with the Old Lutherans. In 1835 he lost his professorship, but he regained it in 1840. Among his works were a Life of August Hermann Francke (1827, Eng. trans. 1837), Church History (1833, Eng. trans. by W. T. Shedd, New York, 1857-1863), Allgemeine christliche Symbolik (1839). In 1840 he helped to found the Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, and he died at Halle on the 4th of February 1878.
GUERICKE, HEINRICH ERNST FERDINAND (1803-1878), German theologian, was born in Wettin, Saxony, on February 25, 1803, and studied theology at Halle, where he became a professor in 1829. He strongly opposed the union between the Lutheran and Reformed churches, which the Prussian government established in 1817, and in 1833, he officially aligned himself with the Old Lutherans. He lost his professorship in 1835 but regained it in 1840. His works include a Life of August Hermann Francke (1827, Eng. trans. 1837), Church History (1833, Eng. trans. by W. T. Shedd, New York, 1857-1863), and Allgemeine christliche Symbolik (1839). In 1840, he helped establish the Zeitschrift für die gesammte lutherische Theologie und Kirche, and he died in Halle on February 4, 1878.
GUERICKE, OTTO VON (1602-1686), German experimental philosopher, was born at Magdeburg, in Prussian Saxony, on the 20th of November 1602. Having studied law at Leipzig, Helmstadt and Jena, and mathematics, especially geometry and mechanics, at Leiden, he visited France and England, and in 1636 became engineer-in-chief at Erfurt. In 1627 he was elected alderman of Magdeburg, and in 1646 mayor of that city and a magistrate of Brandenburg. His leisure was devoted to scientific pursuits, especially in pneumatics. Incited by the discoveries of Galileo, Pascal and Torricelli, he attempted the creation of a vacuum. He began by experimenting with a pump on water placed in a barrel, but found that when the water was drawn off the air permeated the wood. He then took a globe of copper fitted with pump and stopcock, and discovered that he could pump out air as well as water. Thus he became the inventor of the air-pump (1650). He illustrated his discovery before the emperor Ferdinand III. at the imperial diet which assembled at Regensburg in 1654, by the experiment of the “Magdeburg hemispheres.” Taking two hollow hemispheres of copper, the edges of which fitted nicely together, he exhausted the air from between them by means of his pump, and it is recorded that thirty horses, fifteen back to back, were unable to pull them asunder until the air was readmitted. Besides investigating other phenomena connected with a vacuum, he constructed an electrical machine which depended on the excitation of a rotating ball of sulphur; and he made successful researches in astronomy, predicting the periodicity of the return of comets. In 1681 he gave up office, and retired to Hamburg, where he died on the 11th of May 1686.
GUERICKE, OTTO VON (1602-1686), was a German experimental philosopher born in Magdeburg, Prussian Saxony, on November 20, 1602. After studying law at Leipzig, Helmstadt, and Jena, and delving into mathematics, especially geometry and mechanics, at Leiden, he traveled to France and England. In 1636, he became the chief engineer in Erfurt. He was elected an alderman of Magdeburg in 1627, and in 1646, he became the city's mayor and a magistrate of Brandenburg. He dedicated his free time to scientific pursuits, particularly in pneumatics. Inspired by the discoveries of Galileo, Pascal, and Torricelli, he tried to create a vacuum. He started experimenting with a pump on water in a barrel but found that when the water was removed, air seeped through the wood. He then used a copper globe equipped with a pump and stopcock and discovered he could pump out both air and water. Thus, he invented the air pump in 1650. He demonstrated his discovery to Emperor Ferdinand III at the imperial diet in Regensburg in 1654 using the experiment known as the “Magdeburg hemispheres.” He took two hollow copper hemispheres that fit snugly together, removed the air between them with his pump, and it’s recorded that thirty horses, fifteen facing each other, couldn't pull them apart until air was allowed back in. Besides exploring other vacuum-related phenomena, he built an electrical machine that operated by exciting a rotating ball of sulfur, and he conducted successful research in astronomy, predicting the periodic return of comets. In 1681, he stepped down from his position and retired to Hamburg, where he died on May 11, 1686.
His principal observations are given in his work, Experimenta nova, ut vocant, Magdeburgica de vacuo spatio (Amsterdam, 1672). He is also the author of a Geschichte der Belagerung und Eroberung von Magdeburg. See F. W. Hoffmann, Otto von Guericke (Magdeburg, 1874).
His main observations are presented in his work, Experimenta nova, ut vocant, Magdeburgica de vacuo spatio (Amsterdam, 1672). He is also the author of Geschichte der Belagerung und Eroberung von Magdeburg. See F. W. Hoffmann, Otto von Guericke (Magdeburg, 1874).
GUÉRIDON, a small table to hold a lamp or vase, supported by a tall column or a human or mythological figure. This piece of furniture, often very graceful and elegant, originated in France towards the middle of the 17th century. In the beginning the table was supported by a negro or other exotic figure, and there is some reason to believe that it took its name from the generic appellation of the young African groom or “tiger,” who was generally called “Guéridon,” or as we should say in English “Sambo.” The swarthy figure and brilliant costume of the “Moor” when reproduced in wood and picked out in colours produced a very striking effect, and when a small table was supported on the head by the upraised hands the idea of passive service was suggested with completeness. The guéridon is still occasionally seen in something approaching its original form; but it had no sooner been introduced than the artistic instinct of the French designer and artificer converted it into a far worthier object. By the death of Louis XIV. there were several hundreds of them at Versailles, and within a generation or two they had taken an infinity of forms—columns, tripods, termini and mythological figures. Some of the simpler and more artistic forms were of wood carved with familiar decorative motives and gilded. Silver, enamel, and indeed almost any material from which furniture can be made, have been used for their construction. A variety of small “occasional” tables are now called in French guéridons.
GUÉRIDON, a small table designed to hold a lamp or vase, supported by a tall column or a human or mythological figure. This piece of furniture, often very graceful and elegant, originated in France around the mid-17th century. Initially, the table was supported by a black or other exotic figure, and there's some reason to believe it got its name from the generic term for a young African servant or “tiger,” who was commonly referred to as “Guéridon,” or as we would say in English “Sambo.” The dark figure and bright costume of the “Moor,” when reproduced in wood and highlighted with colors, created a striking effect, and when a small table was balanced on the head by raised hands, it fully suggested the idea of passive service. The guéridon is still occasionally seen in a form close to its original design; however, it wasn't long before the artistic instinct of the French designer and craftsman transformed it into a much more refined object. By the death of Louis XIV, there were several hundred of them at Versailles, and within a generation or two, they had taken countless forms—columns, tripods, termini, and mythological figures. Some of the simpler and more artistic versions were made of wood carved with familiar decorative motifs and gilded. Silver, enamel, and indeed almost any material that can be used for furniture has been employed in their construction. A variety of small “occasional” tables are now referred to in French as guéridons.
GUÉRIN, JEAN BAPTISTE PAULIN (1783-1855), French painter, was born at Toulon, on the 25th of March 1783, of poor parents. He learnt, as a lad, his father’s trade of a locksmith, whilst at the same time he followed the classes of the free school of art. Having sold some copies to a local amateur, Guérin started for Paris, where he came under the notice of Vincent, whose counsels were of material service. In 1810 Guérin made his first appearance at the Salon with some portraits, which had a certain success. In 1812 he exhibited “Cain after the murder of Abel” (formerly in Luxembourg), and, on the return of the Bourbons, was much employed in works of restoration and decoration at Versailles. His “Dead Christ” (Cathedral, Baltimore) obtained a medal in 1817, and this success was followed up by a long series of works, of which the following are the more noteworthy: “Christ on the knees of the Virgin” (1819); “Anchises and Venus” (1822) (formerly in Luxembourg); “Ulysses and Minerva” (1824) (Musée de Rennes); “the Holy Family” (1829) (Cathedral, Toulon); and “Saint Catherine” (1838) (St Roch). In his treatment of subject, Guérin attempted to realize rococo graces of conception, the liveliness of which was lost in the strenuous effort to be correct. His chief successes were attained by portraits, and those of Charles Nodier and the Abbé Lamennais became widely popular. He died on the 19th of January 1855.
GUÉRIN, JEAN BAPTISTE PAULIN (1783-1855), French painter, was born in Toulon on March 25, 1783, to poor parents. As a kid, he learned his father's trade as a locksmith while also attending classes at a free art school. After selling a few copies to a local art enthusiast, Guérin moved to Paris, where he caught the attention of Vincent, whose advice was really helpful. In 1810, Guérin debuted at the Salon with some portraits that were fairly successful. In 1812, he exhibited “Cain after the murder of Abel” (formerly in Luxembourg), and when the Bourbons returned, he was heavily involved in restoration and decoration work at Versailles. His painting “Dead Christ” (Cathedral, Baltimore) won a medal in 1817, and this success led to a long series of noteworthy works, including: “Christ on the knees of the Virgin” (1819); “Anchises and Venus” (1822) (formerly in Luxembourg); “Ulysses and Minerva” (1824) (Musée de Rennes); “the Holy Family” (1829) (Cathedral, Toulon); and “Saint Catherine” (1838) (St Roch). In his approach to subjects, Guérin tried to bring out the rococo elegance of his ideas, although the intensity of his efforts for accuracy sometimes diminished their liveliness. He mainly found success in portraiture, with his portraits of Charles Nodier and Abbé Lamennais becoming quite popular. He passed away on January 19, 1855.
GUÉRIN, PIERRE NARCISSE, Baron (1774-1833), French painter, was born at Paris on the 13th of May 1774. Becoming a pupil of Jean Baptiste Regnault, he carried off one of the three “grands prix” offered in 1796, in consequence of the competition not having taken place since 1793. The pension was not indeed re-established, but Guérin fulfilled at Paris the conditions imposed upon a pensionnaire, and produced various works, one of which brought him prominently before the public. This work, “Marcus Sextus” (Louvre), exhibited at the Salon of 1799, excited wild enthusiasm, partly due to the subject,—a victim of Sulla’s proscription returning to Rome to find his wife dead and his house in mourning—in which an allusion was found to the actual 671 situation of the émigrés. Guérin on this occasion was publicly crowned by the president of the Institute, and before his departure for Rome (on the re-establishment of the École under Suvée) a banquet was given to him by the most distinguished artists of Paris. In 1800, unable to remain in Rome on account of his health, he went to Naples, where he painted the “Grave of Amyntas.” In 1802 Guérin produced “Phaedra and Hippolytus” (Louvre); in 1810, after his return to Paris, he again achieved a great success with “Andromache and Pyrrhus” (Louvre); and in the same year also exhibited “Cephalus and Aurora” (Collection Sommariva) and “Bonaparte and the Rebels of Cairo” (Versailles). The Restoration brought to Guérin fresh honours; he had received from the first consul in 1803 the cross of the Legion of Honour, and in 1815 Louis XVIII. named him Academician. The success of Guérin’s “Hippolytus” of “Andromache,” of “Phaedra” and of “Clytaemnestra” (Louvre) had been ensured by the skilful selection of highly melodramatic situations, treated with the strained and pompous dignity proper to the art of the first empire; in “Aeneas relating to Dido the disasters of Troy” (Louvre), which appeared side by side with “Clytaemnestra” at the Salon of 1817, the influence of the Restoration is plainly to be traced. In this work Guérin sought to captivate the public by an appeal to those sensuous charms which he had previously rejected, and by the introduction of picturesque elements of interest. But with this work Guérin’s public successes came to a close. He was, indeed, commissioned to paint for the Madeleine a scene from the history of St Louis, but his health prevented him from accomplishing what he had begun, and in 1822 he accepted the post of director of the École de Rome, which in 1816 he had refused. On returning to Paris in 1828, Guérin, who had previously been made chevalier of the order of St Michel, was ennobled. He now attempted to complete “Pyrrhus and Priam,” a work which he had begun at Rome, but in vain; his health had finally broken down, and in the hope of improvement he returned to Italy with Horace Vernet. Shortly after his arrival at Rome Baron Guérin died, on the 6th of July 1833, and was buried in the church of La Trinità de’ Monti by the side of Claude Lorraine.
GUÉRIN, PIERRE NARCISSE, Baron (1774-1833), French painter, was born in Paris on May 13, 1774. He became a student of Jean Baptiste Regnault and won one of the three “grands prix” offered in 1796, since the competition hadn't occurred since 1793. Although the pension wasn’t officially re-established, Guérin met the requirements of a pensionnaire in Paris and created several works, one of which gained him significant public attention. This artwork, “Marcus Sextus” (Louvre), exhibited at the Salon of 1799, stirred great excitement, partly due to its subject—a victim of Sulla’s purges returning to Rome to find his wife dead and his home in mourning—which had parallels to the real-life situation of the émigrés. On this occasion, Guérin was publicly honored by the president of the Institute, and before he left for Rome (after the École was reinstated under Suvée), a banquet was held for him by the leading artists of Paris. In 1800, he couldn't stay in Rome due to his health, so he went to Naples, where he painted the “Grave of Amyntas.” In 1802, Guérin created “Phaedra and Hippolytus” (Louvre); in 1810, after returning to Paris, he celebrated another big success with “Andromache and Pyrrhus” (Louvre); in the same year, he also showcased “Cephalus and Aurora” (Collection Sommariva) and “Bonaparte and the Rebels of Cairo” (Versailles). The Restoration brought new honors to Guérin; he received the cross of the Legion of Honour from the first consul in 1803, and in 1815, Louis XVIII named him Academician. The success of Guérin’s “Hippolytus,” “Andromache,” “Phaedra,” and “Clytaemnestra” (Louvre) was ensured by his clever choice of dramatic situations, presented with the grand and pompous dignity typical of the first empire’s art. In “Aeneas relating to Dido the disasters of Troy” (Louvre), which appeared along with “Clytaemnestra” at the Salon of 1817, the influence of the Restoration can be clearly seen. In this piece, Guérin aimed to captivate the audience by appealing to sensual charms he had previously avoided, along with the use of visually striking elements. However, this marked the end of his public successes. He was commissioned to paint a scene from the history of St Louis for the Madeleine, but his health issues prevented him from completing it, and in 1822, he accepted the role of director of the École de Rome, which he had previously declined in 1816. Upon returning to Paris in 1828, Guérin, who had earlier been made a chevalier of the order of St Michel, was ennobled. He then tried to finish “Pyrrhus and Priam,” a work he started in Rome, but it was in vain; his health had significantly deteriorated, and in search of improvement, he returned to Italy with Horace Vernet. Shortly after arriving in Rome, Baron Guérin died on July 6, 1833, and was buried in the church of La Trinità de’ Monti beside Claude Lorraine.
A careful analysis and criticism of his principal works will be found in Meyer’s Geschichte der französischen Malerei.
A thorough analysis and critique of his major works can be found in Meyer’s Geschichte der französischen Malerei.
GUÉRIN DU CAYLA, GEORGES MAURICE DE (1810-1839), French poet, descended from a noble but poor family, was born at the chateau of Le Cayla in Languedoc, on the 4th of August 1810. He was educated for the church at a religious seminary at Toulouse, and then at the Collège Stanislas, Paris, after which he entered the society at La Chesnaye in Brittany, founded by Lamennais. It was only after great hesitation, and without being satisfied as to his religious vocation, that under the influence of Lamennais he joined the new religious order in the autumn of 1832; and when, in September of the next year, Lamennais, who had come under the displeasure of Rome, severed connexion with the society, Maurice de Guérin soon followed his example. Early in the following year he went to Paris, where he was for a short time a teacher at the College Stanislas. In November 1838 he married a Creole lady of some fortune; but a few months afterwards he was attacked by consumption and died on the 19th of July 1839. In the Revue des deux mondes for May 15th, 1840, there appeared a notice of Maurice de Guérin by George Sand, to which she added two fragments of his writings—one a composition in prose entitled the Centaur, and the other a short poem. His Reliquiae (2 vols., 1861), including the Centaur, his journal, a number of his letters and several poems, was edited by G. S. Trébutien, and accompanied with a biographical and critical notice by Sainte-Beuve; a new edition, with the title Journal, lettres et poèmes, followed in 1862; and an English translation of it was published at New York in 1867. Though he was essentially a poet, his prose is more striking and original than his poetry. Its peculiar and unique charm arises from his strong and absorbing passion for nature, a passion whose intensity reached almost to adoration and worship, but in which the pagan was more prominent than the moral element. According to Sainte-Beuve, “no French poet or painter has rendered so well the feeling for nature—the feeling not so much for details as for the ensemble and the divine universality, the feeling for the origin of things and the sovereign principle of life.”
GUÉRIN DU CAYLA, GEORGES MAURICE DE (1810-1839), French poet from a noble but impoverished background, was born at the chateau of Le Cayla in Languedoc on August 4, 1810. He trained for the clergy at a religious seminary in Toulouse and then at Collège Stanislas in Paris. After that, he joined the society at La Chesnaye in Brittany, established by Lamennais. It took him considerable time, and he felt uncertain about his religious calling, but influenced by Lamennais, he joined the new religious order in the fall of 1832. When Lamennais, who fell out of favor with Rome, split from the society in September of the following year, Maurice de Guérin quickly followed suit. Early the next year, he moved to Paris, where he briefly worked as a teacher at Collège Stanislas. In November 1838, he married a wealthy Creole woman, but just a few months later, he contracted tuberculosis and died on July 19, 1839. The Revue des deux mondes on May 15, 1840, featured a piece on Maurice de Guérin by George Sand, who included two excerpts of his work—one a prose piece titled Centaur and the other a short poem. His Reliquiae (2 vols., 1861), which included Centaur, his journal, several letters, and poems, was edited by G. S. Trébutien and came with a biographical and critical introduction by Sainte-Beuve. A new edition titled Journal, lettres et poèmes was released in 1862, followed by an English translation published in New York in 1867. Though primarily a poet, his prose stands out as more striking and original than his poetry. Its distinct charm stems from his deep and passionate love for nature, a passion that bordered on adoration and worship, with a stronger emphasis on the pagan aspect than the moral one. According to Sainte-Beuve, “no French poet or painter has captured the feeling for nature more effectively—the feeling not just for details but for the whole and the divine universality, the feeling for the origins of things and the ultimate principle of life.”
The name of Eugénie de Guérin (1805-1848), the sister of Maurice, cannot be omitted from any notice of him. Her Journals (1861, Eng. trans., 1865) and her Lettres (1864, Eng. trans., 1865) indicated the possession of gifts of as rare an order as those of her brother, though of a somewhat different kind. In her case mysticism assumed a form more strictly religious, and she continued to mourn her brother’s loss of his early Catholic faith. Five years older than he, she cherished a love for him which was blended with a somewhat motherly anxiety. After his death she began the collection and publication of the scattered fragments of his writings. She died, however, on the 31st of May 1848, before her task was completed.
The name of Eugénie de Guérin (1805-1848), the sister of Maurice, shouldn't be overlooked in any discussion about him. Her Journals (1861, Eng. trans., 1865) and her Lettres (1864, Eng. trans., 1865) revealed talents that were as exceptional as her brother’s, though of a slightly different nature. In her case, mysticism took on a more strictly religious character, and she continued to grieve for her brother’s loss of his early Catholic faith. Being five years older, she had a deep love for him that was mixed with a bit of motherly concern. After his death, she started gathering and publishing the scattered pieces of his writings. However, she passed away on May 31, 1848, before she could finish her task.
See the notices by George Sand and Sainte-Beuve referred to above; Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi (vol. xii.) and Nouveaux Lundis (vol. iii.); G. Merlet, Causeries sur les femmes et les livres (Paris, 1865); Selden, L’Esprit des femmes de notre temps (Paris, 1864); Marelle, Eugénie et Maurice de Guérin (Berlin, 1869); Harriet Parr, M. and E. de Guérin, a monograph (London, 1870); and Matthew Arnold’s essays on Maurice and Eugénie de Guérin, in his Essays in Criticism.
See the notices by George Sand and Sainte-Beuve mentioned above; Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi (vol. xii.) and Nouveaux Lundis (vol. iii.); G. Merlet, Causeries sur les femmes et les livres (Paris, 1865); Selden, L’Esprit des femmes de notre temps (Paris, 1864); Marelle, Eugénie et Maurice de Guérin (Berlin, 1869); Harriet Parr, M. and E. de Guérin, a monograph (London, 1870); and Matthew Arnold’s essays on Maurice and Eugénie de Guérin, in his Essays in Criticism.
GUERNIERI, or Werner, a celebrated mercenary captain who lived about the middle of the 14th century. He was a member of the family of the dukes of Urslingen, and probably a descendant of the dukes of Spoleto. From 1340 to 1343 he was in the service of the citizens of Pisa, but afterwards he collected a troop of adventurers which he called the Great Company, and with which he plundered Tuscany and Lombardy. He then entered the service of Louis I. the Great, king of Hungary and Poland, whom he assisted to obtain possession of Naples; but when dismissed from this service his ravages became more terrible than ever, culminating in the dreadful sack of Anagni in 1358, shortly after which Guernieri disappeared from history. He is said to have worn a breastplate with the inscription, “The enemy of God, of pity and of mercy.”
GUERNIERI, or Werner, a famous mercenary leader who lived around the middle of the 14th century. He was part of the family of the dukes of Urslingen and likely a descendant of the dukes of Spoleto. From 1340 to 1343, he served the citizens of Pisa, but later he gathered a group of adventurers which he named the Great Company, with which he plundered Tuscany and Lombardy. He then joined the service of Louis I the Great, king of Hungary and Poland, helping him gain control of Naples; however, when he was let go from this service, his destruction became more severe than ever, peaking in the horrific sack of Anagni in 1358, shortly after which Guernieri vanished from history. It is said that he wore a breastplate with the inscription, “The enemy of God, of pity and of mercy.”
GUERNSEY (Fr. Guernesey), one of the Channel Islands, belonging to Britain, the second in size and westernmost of the important members of the group. Its chief town, St Peter Port, on the east coast, is in 2° 33′ W., 49° 27′ N., 74 m. S. of Portland Bill on the English coast, and 30 m. from the nearest French coast to the east. The island, roughly triangular in form, is 9¼ m. long from N.E. to S.W. and has an extreme breadth of 5¼ m. and an area of 15,691 acres or 24.5 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 40,446, the density being thus 162 per sq. m.
GUERNSEY (Fr. Guernesey), one of the Channel Islands, is part of Britain, the second largest and westernmost of the important islands in the group. Its main town, St Peter Port, is located on the east coast, at 2° 33′ W., 49° 27′ N., 74 miles south of Portland Bill on the English coast, and 30 miles from the nearest French coast to the east. The island is roughly triangular, measuring 9¼ miles long from northeast to southwest, with a maximum width of 5¼ miles and an area of 15,691 acres or 24.5 square miles. The population in 1901 was 40,446, resulting in a density of 162 people per square mile.
The surface of the island rises gradually from north to south, and reaches its greatest elevation at Haut Nez (349 ft.) above Point Icart on the south coast. The coast scenery, which forms one of the principal attractions to the numerous summer visitors to the island, is finest on the south. This coast, between Jerbourg and Pleinmont Points, respectively at the south-eastern and south-western corners of the island, is bold, rocky and indented with many exquisite little bays. Of these the most notable are Moulin Huet, Saint’s, and Petit Bot, all in the eastern half of the south coast. The cliffs, however, culminate in the neighbourhood of Pleinmont. Picturesque caves occur at several points, such as the Creux Mahie. On the west coast there is a succession of larger bays—Rocquaine Perelle, Vazon, and Cobo. Off the first lies Lihou Island, the Hanois and other islets, and all three bays are sown with rocks. The coast, however, diminishes in height, until at the north-eastern extremity of the island the land is so low across the Vale or Braye du Val, from shore to shore, that the projection of L’Ancresse is within a few feet of being isolated. The east coast, on which, besides the town and harbour of St Peter Port, is that of St Sampson, presents no physical feature of note. The interior of the island is generally undulating, and gains in beauty from its rich vegetation. Picturesque glens descend upon some of the southern bays (the two converging upon Petit Bot are notable), and the high-banked paths, arched with foliage, which follow the small 672 rills down to Moulin Huet Bay, are much admired under the name of water-lanes.
The island's surface gradually rises from north to south, reaching its highest point at Haut Nez (349 ft.) above Point Icart on the southern coast. The coastal scenery, which is one of the main attractions for the many summer visitors to the island, is best on the south side. This coastline, between Jerbourg and Pleinmont Points, located at the southeastern and southwestern corners of the island, is rugged, rocky, and features many beautiful little bays. The most notable ones are Moulin Huet, Saint’s, and Petit Bot, all found in the eastern half of the southern coast. However, the cliffs are highest near Pleinmont. Picturesque caves can be found at several locations, such as Creux Mahie. The west coast has a series of larger bays—Rocquaine, Perelle, Vazon, and Cobo. Off the first is Lihou Island, along with the Hanois and other islets, and all three bays are dotted with rocks. The coastline decreases in height until, at the northeast tip of the island, the land is so low across the Vale or Braye du Val that L’Ancresse is almost isolated by just a few feet. The east coast, home to the town and harbor of St Peter Port and that of St Sampson, doesn’t have any notable physical features. The interior of the island is generally rolling and gains beauty from its lush vegetation. Picturesque valleys lead down to some of the southern bays (with the two that converge on Petit Bot being particularly notable), and the high-banked paths, covered in foliage, that follow the small rills down to Moulin Huet Bay are highly admired and referred to as water-lanes.
The soil is generally light sandy loam, overlying an angular gravel which rests upon the weathered granite. This soil requires much manure, and a large proportion of the total area (about three-fifths) is under careful cultivation, producing a considerable amount of grain, but more famous for market-gardening. Vegetables and potatoes are exported, with much fruit, including grapes and flowers. Granite is quarried and exported from St Sampson, and the fisheries form an important industry.
The soil is mostly light sandy loam, sitting on top of angular gravel that lies on weathered granite. This soil needs a lot of manure, and a big part of the total area (about three-fifths) is carefully cultivated, yielding a good amount of grain but is better known for market gardening. They export vegetables and potatoes, along with a lot of fruit, including grapes and flowers. Granite is quarried and exported from St. Sampson, and the fishing industry is also significant.
For administrative purposes Guernsey is united with Alderney, Sark, Herm and the adjacent islets to form the bailiwick of Guernsey, separate from Jersey. The peculiar constitution, machinery of administration and justice, finance, &c., are considered under the heading Channel Islands. Guernsey is divided into the ten parishes of St Peter Port, St Sampson, Vale, Câtel, St Saviour, St Andrew, St Martin, Forest, St Peter du Bois and Torteval. The population of St Peter Port in 1901 was 18,264; of the other parishes that of St Sampson was 5614 and that of Vale 5082. The population of the bailiwick of Guernsey nearly doubled between 1821 and 1901, and that of the island increased from 35,243 in 1891 to 40,446 in 1901. The island roads are excellent, Guernsey owing much in this respect to Sir John Doyle (d. 1834), the governor whose monument stands on the promontory of Jerbourg. Like Jersey and the neighbouring part of France, Guernsey retains considerable traces of early habitation in cromlechs and menhirs, of which the most notable is the cromlech in the north at L’Ancresse. As regards ecclesiastical architecture, all the parish churches retain some archaeological interest. There is good Norman work in the church of St Michael, Vale, and the church of St Peter Port is a notable building of various periods from the early 14th century. Small remains of monastic buildings are seen at Vale and on Lihou Island.
For administrative purposes, Guernsey is grouped with Alderney, Sark, Herm, and the nearby islets to form the bailiwick of Guernsey, which is separate from Jersey. The unique constitution, administration and justice systems, finance, etc., are discussed under the heading Channel Islands. Guernsey is divided into ten parishes: St Peter Port, St Sampson, Vale, Câtel, St Saviour, St Andrew, St Martin, Forest, St Peter du Bois, and Torteval. The population of St Peter Port in 1901 was 18,264; St Sampson had 5,614, and Vale had 5,082. The population of the bailiwick of Guernsey nearly doubled between 1821 and 1901, and the island's population increased from 35,243 in 1891 to 40,446 in 1901. The island's roads are excellent, and Guernsey owes much of this to Sir John Doyle (d. 1834), the governor, whose monument is located on the Jerbourg promontory. Similar to Jersey and the nearby part of France, Guernsey has significant remnants of early habitation in the form of cromlechs and menhirs, with the most notable being the cromlech in the north at L’Ancresse. In terms of ecclesiastical architecture, all the parish churches have some archaeological significance. The church of St Michael in Vale features good Norman work, and the church in St Peter Port is a remarkable building showcasing various architectural styles from the early 14th century. Small remains of monastic buildings can be found at Vale and on Lihou Island.
GUERRAZZI, FRANCESCO DOMENICO (1804-1873), Italian publicist, born at Leghorn, was educated for the law at Pisa, and began to practise in his native place. But he soon took to politics and literature, under the influence of Byron, and his novel, the Battagli di Benevento (1827), brought him into notice. Mazzini made his acquaintance, and with Carlo Bini they started a paper, the Indicatore, at Leghorn in 1829, which was quickly suppressed. Guerrazzi himself had to endure several terms of imprisonment for his activity in the cause of Young Italy, and it was in Portoferrato in 1834 that he wrote his most famous novel Assidio di Firenze. He was the most powerful Liberal leader at Leghorn, and in 1848 became a minister, with some idea of exercising a moderating influence in the difficulties with the grand-duke of Tuscany. In 1849, when the latter fled, he was first one of the triumvirate with Mazzini and Montanelli, and then dictator, but on the restoration he was arrested and imprisoned for three years. His Apologia was published in 1852. Released from prison, he was exiled to Corsica, but subsequently was restored and was for some time a deputy at Turin (1862-1870), dying of apoplexy at Leghorn on the 25th of September 1873. He wrote a number of other works besides the novels already mentioned, notably Isabella Orsini (1845) and Beatrice Cenci (1854), and his Opere were collected at Milan (1868).
GUERRAZZI, FRANCESCO DOMENICO (1804-1873), Italian publicist, born in Leghorn, studied law in Pisa, and started practicing in his hometown. However, he quickly turned to politics and literature, inspired by Byron, and his novel, Battagli di Benevento (1827), gained him recognition. Mazzini met him, and along with Carlo Bini, they launched a newspaper, Indicatore, in Leghorn in 1829, which was swiftly shut down. Guerrazzi faced multiple imprisonments for his efforts on behalf of Young Italy, and while in Portoferrato in 1834, he wrote his most renowned novel, Assidio di Firenze. He became the most influential Liberal leader in Leghorn and served as a minister in 1848, hoping to mediate in the conflicts with the grand-duke of Tuscany. In 1849, after the duke fled, he was part of a triumvirate with Mazzini and Montanelli, later becoming dictator, but was arrested and imprisoned for three years after the restoration. His Apologia was published in 1852. After his release, he was exiled to Corsica, but he was later reinstated and served as a deputy in Turin from 1862 to 1870, passing away from apoplexy in Leghorn on September 25, 1873. In addition to the novels mentioned, he wrote several other works, notably Isabella Orsini (1845) and Beatrice Cenci (1854), and his collected works, Opere, were published in Milan in 1868.
See the Life and Works by Bosio (1877), and Carducci’s edition of his letters (1880).
See the Life and Works by Bosio (1877), and Carducci’s edition of his letters (1880).
GUERRERO, a Pacific coast state of Mexico, bounded N.W. by Michoacan, N. by Mexico (state) and Morelos, N.E. and E. by Puebla and Oaxaca, and S. and W. by the Pacific. Area, 24,996 sq. m. Pop., largely composed of Indians and mestizos (1895), 417,886; (1900) 479,205. The state is roughly broken by the Sierra Madre and its spurs, which cover its entire surface with the exception of the low coastal plain (averaging about 20 m. in width) on the Pacific. The valleys are usually narrow, fertile and heavily forested, but difficult of access. The state is divided into two distinct zones—the tierras calientes of the coast and lower river courses where tropical conditions prevail, and the tierras templadas of the mountain region where the conditions are subtropical. The latter is celebrated for its agreeable and healthy climate, and for the variety and character of its products. The principal river of the state is the Rio de las Balsas or Mescala, which, having its source in Tlaxcala, flows entirely across the state from W. to E., and then southward to the Pacific on the frontier of Michoacan. This river is 429 m. long and receives many affluents from the mountainous region through which it passes, but its course is very precipitous and its mouth obstructed by sand bars. The agricultural products include cotton, coffee, tobacco and cereals, and the forests produce rubber, vanilla and various textile fibres. Mining is undeveloped, although the mineral resources of the state include silver, gold, mercury, lead, iron, coal, sulphur and precious stones. The capital, Chilpancingo, or Chilpancingo de los Bravos (pop. 7497 in 1900), is a small town in the Sierra Madre about 110 m. from the coast and 200 m. S. of the Federal capital. It is a healthy well-built town on the old Acapulco road, is lighted by electricity and is temporarily the western terminus of the Interoceanic railway from Vera Cruz. It is celebrated in the history of Mexico as the meeting-place of the revolutionary congress of 1813, which issued a declaration of independence. Chilpancingo was badly damaged by an earthquake in January 1902, and again on the 16th of April 1907. Other important towns of the state are Tixtla, or Tixtla de Guerrero, formerly the capital (pop. 6316 in 1900), 3 m. N.E. of Chilpancingo; Chilapa (8256 in 1895), the most populous town of the state, partially destroyed by a hurricane in 1889, and again by the earthquake of 1907; Iguala (6631 in 1895); and Acapulco. Guerrero was organized as a state in 1849, its territory being taken from the states of Mexico, Michoacan and Puebla.
GUERRERO, is a state on the Pacific coast of Mexico, bordered to the northwest by Michoacán, to the north by the state of Mexico and Morelos, to the northeast and east by Puebla and Oaxaca, and to the south and west by the Pacific Ocean. It covers an area of 24,996 square miles. The population, mostly made up of Indigenous people and mestizos, was 417,886 in 1895 and 479,205 in 1900. The state is mainly divided by the Sierra Madre and its branches, which dominate the landscape, except for a low coastal plain that averages about 20 miles in width along the Pacific. The valleys are typically narrow, fertile, and heavily forested, but hard to access. The state features two distinct zones—the tierras calientes of the coast and lower river valleys, where tropical conditions prevail, and the tierras templadas of the mountainous regions with subtropical conditions. The latter is known for its pleasant and healthy climate, as well as the variety and quality of its agricultural products. The major river in the state is the Rio de las Balsas or Mescala, which starts in Tlaxcala, flows the entire length of the state from west to east, and then heads south to the Pacific at the Michoacán border. This river is 429 miles long and has many tributaries from the mountainous areas it traverses, but it has a steep course and its mouth is blocked by sandbars. The agricultural products include cotton, coffee, tobacco, and grains, while the forests yield rubber, vanilla, and various textile fibers. Mining remains underdeveloped, although the state has mineral resources that include silver, gold, mercury, lead, iron, coal, sulfur, and precious stones. The capital, Chilpancingo, or Chilpancingo de los Bravos, had a population of 7,497 in 1900. It’s a small town located in the Sierra Madre, about 110 miles from the coast and 200 miles south of the Federal capital. It is a healthy, well-planned town along the historic Acapulco road, equipped with electric lighting, and currently serves as the western terminus of the Interoceanic railway from Veracruz. Chilpancingo is notable in Mexican history as the site of the revolutionary congress of 1813, which issued a declaration of independence. The town suffered significant damage from earthquakes in January 1902 and again on April 16, 1907. Other important towns in the state include Tixtla, or Tixtla de Guerrero, the former capital with a population of 6,316 in 1900, located 3 miles northeast of Chilpancingo; Chilapa, the state's most populous town with a population of 8,256 in 1895, which was partly destroyed by a hurricane in 1889 and again by the earthquake in 1907; Iguala, with 6,631 residents in 1895; and Acapulco. Guerrero was established as a state in 1849, with territory taken from the states of Mexico, Michoacán, and Puebla.
GUERRILLA (erroneously written “guerilla,” being the diminutive of the Span. guerra, war), a term currently used to denote war carried on by bands in any irregular and unorganized manner. At the Hague Conference of 1899 the position of irregular combatants was one of the subjects dealt with, and the rules there adopted were reaffirmed at the Conference of 1907. They provide that irregular bands in order to enjoy recognition as belligerent forces shall (a) have at their head a person responsible for his subordinates, (b) wear some fixed distinctive badge recognizable at a distance, (c) carry arms openly, and (d) conform in their operations to the laws and customs of war. The rules, however, also provide that in case of invasion the inhabitants of a territory who on the approach of the invading enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist it, shall be regarded as belligerent troops if they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war, although they may not have had time to become organized in accordance with the above provisions. These rules were borrowed almost word for word from the project drawn up at the Brussels international conference of 1874, which, though never ratified, was practically incorporated in the army regulations issued by the Russian government in connexion with the war of 1877-78.
GUERRILLA (incorrectly spelled “guerilla,” which is the diminutive of the Spanish guerra, meaning war) is a term that refers to warfare conducted by groups in an irregular and unorganized way. At the Hague Conference of 1899, the status of irregular fighters was one of the topics discussed, and the rules established then were confirmed again at the Conference of 1907. These rules state that for irregular groups to be recognized as legitimate combatants, they must: (a) have a leader who is accountable for their followers, (b) wear a recognized distinctive badge from a distance, (c) openly carry weapons, and (d) follow the laws and customs of war in their actions. However, the rules also stipulate that if a territory is invaded, the locals who rise to defend themselves against the invading force will be considered belligerents if they openly carry weapons and adhere to the laws and customs of war, even if they haven't had the chance to organize themselves as outlined above. These rules were almost directly taken from the draft created at the Brussels international conference of 1874, which, although not ratified, was effectively included in the military regulations issued by the Russian government during the war of 1877-78.
GUERRINI, OLINDO (1845- ), Italian poet, was born at Sant’ Alberto, Ravenna, and after studying law took to a life of letters, becoming eventually librarian at Bologna University. In 1877 he published Postuma, a volume of canzoniere, under the name of Lorenzo Stechetti, following this with Polemica (1878), Canti popolari romagnoli (1880) and other poetical works, and becoming known as the leader of the “verist” school among Italian lyrical writers.
GUERRINI, OLINDO (1845- ), an Italian poet, was born in Sant’ Alberto, Ravenna. After studying law, he turned to writing and eventually became the librarian at Bologna University. In 1877, he published Postuma, a collection of canzoniere, under the pen name Lorenzo Stechetti. He followed this with Polemica (1878), Canti popolari romagnoli (1880), and other poetic works, earning recognition as the leader of the “verist” movement among Italian lyrical writers.
GUESDE, JULES BASILE (1845- ), French socialist, was born in Paris on the 11th of November 1845. He had begun his career as a clerk in the French Home Office, but at the outbreak of the Franco-German War he was editing Les Droits de l’homme at Montpellier, and had to take refuge at Geneva in 1871 from a prosecution instituted on account of articles which had appeared in his paper in defence of the Commune. In 1876 he returned to France to become one of the chief French apostles of Marxian collectivism, and was imprisoned for six months in 1878 for taking part in the first Parisian International Congress. He edited at different times 673 Les Droits de l’homme, Le Cri du peuple, Le Socialiste, but his best-known organ was the weekly Égalité. He had been in close association with Paul Lafargue, and through him with Karl Marx, whose daughter he married. It was in conjunction with Marx and Lafargue that he drew up the programme accepted by the national congress of the Labour party at Havre in 1880, which laid stress on the formation of an international labour party working by revolutionary methods. Next year at the Reims congress the orthodox Marxian programme of Guesde was opposed by the “possibilists,” who rejected the intransigeant attitude of Guesde for the opportunist policy of Benoît Malon. At the congress of St-Étienne the difference developed into separation, those who refused all compromise with a capitalist government following Guesde, while the opportunists formed several groups. Guesde took his full share in the consequent discussion between the Guesdists, the Blanquists, the possibilists, &c. In 1893 he was returned to the Chamber of Deputies for Lille (7th circonscription) with a large majority over the Christian Socialist and Radical candidates. He brought forward various proposals in social legislation forming the programme of the Labour party, without reference to the divisions among the Socialists, and on the 20th of November 1894 succeeded in raising a two days’ discussion of the collectivist principle in the Chamber. In 1902 he was not re-elected, but resumed his seat in 1906. In 1903 there was a formal reconciliation at the Reims congress of the sections of the party, which then took the name of the Socialist party of France. Guesde, nevertheless, continued to oppose the opportunist policy of Jaurès, whom he denounced for supporting one bourgeois party against another. His defence of the principle of freedom of association led him, incongruously enough, to support the religious Congregations against Émile Combes. Besides his numerous political and socialist pamphlets he published in 1901 two volumes of his speeches in the Chamber of Deputies entitled Quatre ans de lutte de classe 1893-1898.
GUESDE, JULES BASILE (1845- ), French socialist, was born in Paris on November 11, 1845. He started his career as a clerk in the French Home Office, but when the Franco-German War broke out, he was editing Les Droits de l’homme in Montpellier. He had to seek refuge in Geneva in 1871 due to legal action taken against him for articles published in his paper defending the Commune. In 1876, he came back to France as one of the leading advocates of Marxian collectivism and was imprisoned for six months in 1878 for participating in the first Parisian International Congress. He edited several publications, including Les Droits de l’homme, Le Cri du peuple, Le Socialiste, but his most recognized publication was the weekly Égalité. He had a close partnership with Paul Lafargue, and through him, with Karl Marx, whom he married into the family of by marrying Marx's daughter. Together with Marx and Lafargue, he developed the program adopted by the national congress of the Labour party in Havre in 1880, which emphasized creating an international labor party focused on revolutionary methods. The following year at the Reims congress, Guesde's orthodox Marxian program was challenged by the "possibilists," who opposed his uncompromising stance for the more flexible approach of Benoît Malon. At the congress in St-Étienne, their differences led to a split, with those unwilling to compromise with a capitalist government aligning with Guesde while the opportunists formed several factions. Guesde actively participated in the ensuing debates among the Guesdists, the Blanquists, the possibilists, and others. In 1893, he was elected to the Chamber of Deputies for Lille (7th district) with a significant majority over the Christian Socialist and Radical candidates. He put forward various proposals for social legislation, forming the Labour party's agenda without considering the divisions among the Socialists, and on November 20, 1894, he succeeded in initiating a two-day discussion on the collectivist principle in the Chamber. He was not re-elected in 1902 but returned to his seat in 1906. In 1903, a formal reconciliation took place at the Reims congress, where the party sections adopted the name Socialist party of France. Despite this, Guesde continued to oppose the opportunist policies of Jaurès, criticizing him for supporting one bourgeois party against another. His defense of the principle of freedom of association oddly led him to support religious Congregations against Émile Combes. In addition to his many political and socialist pamphlets, he published two volumes of his speeches in the Chamber of Deputies in 1901, titled Quatre ans de lutte de classe 1893-1898.
GUEST, EDWIN (1800-1880), English antiquary, was born in 1800. He was educated at King Edward’s school, Birmingham, and at Caius College, Cambridge, where he graduated as eleventh wrangler, subsequently becoming a fellow of his college. Called to the bar in 1828, he devoted himself, after some years of legal practice, to antiquarian and literary research. In 1838 he published his exhaustive History of English Rhythms. He also wrote a very large number of papers on Roman-British history, which, together with a mass of fresh material for a history of early Britain, were published posthumously under the editorship of Dr Stubbs under the title Origines Celticae (1883). In 1852 Guest was elected master of Caius College, becoming LL.D. in the following year, and in 1854-1855 he was vice-chancellor of Cambridge University. Guest was a fellow of the Royal Society, and an honorary member of the Society of Antiquaries. He died on the 23rd of November 1880.
GUEST, EDWIN (1800-1880), an English antiquarian, was born in 1800. He was educated at King Edward’s School in Birmingham and at Caius College, Cambridge, where he graduated as the eleventh wrangler and later became a fellow of his college. After being called to the bar in 1828, he dedicated himself to antiquarian and literary research following several years of legal practice. In 1838, he published his comprehensive History of English Rhythms. He also authored a significant number of papers on Roman-British history, which, along with a wealth of new material for a history of early Britain, were published posthumously by Dr. Stubbs under the title Origines Celticae (1883). In 1852, Guest was elected master of Caius College, and he became LL.D. the following year. He served as vice-chancellor of Cambridge University from 1854 to 1855. Guest was a fellow of the Royal Society and an honorary member of the Society of Antiquaries. He passed away on November 23, 1880.
GUEST (a word common to Teutonic languages; cf. Ger. Gast, and Swed. gäst; cognate with Lat. hostis, originally a stranger, hence enemy; cf. “host”), one who receives hospitality in the house of another, his “host”; hence applied to a parasite.
GUEST (a term used in Teutonic languages; see Ger. Gast, and Swed. gäst; related to Lat. hostis, which originally meant a stranger, and thus enemy; see “host”), someone who is welcomed into another person's home, their “host”; therefore, it can also refer to a parasite.
GUETTARD, JEAN ÉTIENNE (1715-1786), French naturalist and mineralogist, was born at Étampes, on the 22nd of September 1715. In boyhood he gained a knowledge of plants from his grandfather, who was an apothecary, and later he qualified as a doctor in medicine. Pursuing the study of botany in various parts of France and other countries, he began to take notice of the relation between the distribution of plants and the soils and subsoils. In this way his attention came to be directed to minerals and rocks. In 1746 he communicated to the Academy of Sciences in Paris a memoir on the distribution of minerals and rocks, and this was accompanied by a map on which he had recorded his observations. He thus, as remarked by W. D. Conybeare, “first carried into execution the idea, proposed by [Martin] Lister years before, of geological maps.” In the course of his journeys he made a large collection of fossils and figured many of them, but he had no clear ideas about the sequence of strata. He made observations also on the degradation of mountains by rain, rivers and sea; and he was the first to ascertain the existence of former volcanoes in the district of Auvergne. He died in Paris on the 7th of January 1786.
GUETTARD, JEAN ÉTIENNE (1715-1786), a French naturalist and mineralogist, was born in Étampes on September 22, 1715. As a child, he learned about plants from his grandfather, who was an apothecary, and later became a qualified doctor. He studied botany across various parts of France and other countries, beginning to notice the connection between the distribution of plants and the types of soils and subsoils. This interest led him to focus on minerals and rocks. In 1746, he presented a paper to the Academy of Sciences in Paris about the distribution of minerals and rocks, which included a map detailing his observations. As noted by W. D. Conybeare, he “first put into practice the idea, proposed by [Martin] Lister years earlier, of geological maps.” During his travels, he collected a significant number of fossils and documented many of them, though he lacked a clear understanding of the sequence of geological layers. He also observed how mountains were eroded by rain, rivers, and the sea, and he was the first to identify the existence of ancient volcanoes in the Auvergne region. He passed away in Paris on January 7, 1786.
His publications include: Observations sur les plantes (2 vols., 1747); Histoire de la découverte faite en France de matières semblables à celles dont la porcelaine de la Chine est composée (1765); Mémoires sur différentes parties des sciences et arts (5 vols., 1768-1783); Mémoire sur la minéralogie du Dauphiné (2 vols., 1779). See The Founders of Geology, by Sir A. Geikie (1897).
His publications include: Observations on Plants (2 vols., 1747); History of the Discovery Made in France of Materials Similar to Those of Which Chinese Porcelain is Made (1765); Memoirs on Different Areas of Science and Arts (5 vols., 1768-1783); Memoir on the Mineralogy of Dauphiné (2 vols., 1779). See The Founders of Geology, by Sir A. Geikie (1897).
GUEUX, LES, or “The Beggars,” a name assumed by the confederacy of nobles and other malcontents, who in 1566 opposed Spanish tyranny in the Netherlands. The leaders of the nobles, who signed a solemn league known as “the Compromise,” by which they bound themselves to assist in defending the rights and liberties of the Netherlands against the civil and religious despotism of Philip II., were Louis, count of Nassau, and Henry, count of Brederode. On the 5th of April 1566 permission was obtained for the confederates to present a petition of grievances, called “the Request,” to the regent, Margaret, duchess of Parma. About 250 nobles marched to the palace accompanied by Louis of Nassau and Brederode. The regent was at first alarmed at the appearance of so large a body, but one of her councillors, Berlaymont by name, was heard to exclaim, “What, madam, is your highness afraid of these beggars (ces gueux)?” The appellation was not forgotten. At a great feast held by some 300 confederates at the Hôtel Culemburg three days later, Brederode in a speech declared that if need be they were all ready to become “beggars” in their country’s cause. The words caught on, and the hall resounded with loud cries of “Vivent les gueux!” The name became henceforward a party appellation. The patriot party adopted the emblems of beggarhood, the wallet and the bowl, as trinkets to be worn on their hats or their girdles, and a medal was struck having on one side the head of Philip II., on the other two clasped hands with the motto “Fidèle au roy, jusques à porter la besace.” The original league of “Beggars” was short-lived, crushed by the iron hand of Alva, but its principles survived and were to be ultimately triumphant.
GUEUX, LES, or “The Homeless,” was the name taken by a group of nobles and other dissatisfied individuals who, in 1566, opposed Spanish oppression in the Netherlands. The leaders of this group, who signed a formal agreement known as “the Compromise,” committed to defending the rights and freedoms of the Netherlands against the civil and religious tyranny of Philip II. The key figures were Louis, Count of Nassau, and Henry, Count of Brederode. On April 5, 1566, they got permission to present a petition of grievances called “the Request” to the regent, Margaret, Duchess of Parma. About 250 nobles marched to the palace with Louis of Nassau and Brederode. At first, the regent was taken aback by the sight of such a large group, but one of her advisors, named Berlaymont, was heard to say, “What, madam, are you afraid of these beggars (ces gueux)?” The term stuck. At a big feast with around 300 confederates at the Hôtel Culemburg three days later, Brederode, in a speech, stated that they were all ready to become “beggars” for the sake of their country. The phrase caught on, and the hall erupted with cheers of “Vivent les gueux!” From that point on, the name became a rallying cry for the movement. The patriot group adopted symbols of beggarhood, the wallet and the bowl, as charms to wear on their hats or belts, and a medal was created featuring Philip II on one side and two clasped hands with the motto “Fidèle au roy, jusques à porter la besace” on the other. The original league of “Beggars” was short-lived, crushed by the heavy hand of Alva, but its ideals endured and would eventually succeed.
In the year 1569 the prince of Orange, who had now openly placed himself at the head of the party of revolt, granted letters of marque to a number of vessels manned by crews of desperadoes drawn from all nationalities. These fierce corsairs under the command of a succession of daring and reckless leaders—the best-known of whom is William de la Marek, lord of Lumey—were called “Gueux de mer,” or “Sea Beggars.” At first they were content with plundering both by sea and land and carrying their booty to the English ports where they were able to refit and replenish their stores. This went on till 1572, when Queen Elizabeth suddenly refused to admit them to her harbours. Having no longer any refuge, the Sea Beggars in desperation made an attack upon Brill, which they seized by surprise in the absence of the Spanish garrison on the 1st of April 1572. Encouraged by their unhoped-for success, they now sailed to Flushing, which was also taken by a coup de main. The capture of these two towns gave the signal for a general revolt of the northern Netherlands, and is regarded as the real beginning oí the War of Dutch Independence.
In 1569, the Prince of Orange, who had now openly taken charge of the rebellion, granted letters of marque to several ships crewed by desperate adventurers from various nationalities. These fierce pirates, led by a series of bold and reckless captains—the most famous of whom is William de la Marek, Lord of Lumey—were called “Gueux de mer,” or “Sea Beggars.” At first, they focused on plundering both land and sea, taking their loot to English ports where they could refit and restock. This continued until 1572, when Queen Elizabeth suddenly barred them from her harbors. With no safe haven left, the Sea Beggars, in desperation, launched an attack on Brill, which they captured by surprise in the absence of the Spanish garrison on April 1, 1572. Boosted by their unexpected success, they then sailed to Flushing, which they also took quickly. The capture of these two towns sparked a general uprising in the northern Netherlands and is seen as the true start of the War of Dutch Independence.
GUEVARA, ANTONIO DE (c. 1490-1544), Spanish chronicler and moralist, was a native of the province of Alava, and passed some of his earlier years at the court of Isabella, queen of Castile. In 1528 he entered the Franciscan order, and afterwards accompanied the emperor Charles V. during his journeys to Italy and other parts of Europe. After having held successively the offices of court preacher, court historiographer, bishop of Guadix and bishop of Mondoñedo, he died in 1544. His earliest work, entitled Reloj de principes, published at Valladolid in 1529, and, according to its author, the fruit of eleven years’ labour, is a didactic novel, designed, after the manner of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia, to delineate, in a somewhat ideal way for the benefit of modern sovereigns, the life and character of an ancient prince, Marcus Aurelius, distinguished for wisdom and virtue. It was often reprinted in Spanish; and before the close of the century had also been translated into Latin, Italian, French and English, 674 an English translation being by J. Bourchier (London, 1546) and another being by T. North. It is difficult now to account for its extraordinary popularity, its thought being neither just nor profound, while its style is stiff and affected. It gave rise to a literary controversy, however, of great bitterness and violence, the author having ventured without warrant to claim for it an historical character, appealing to an imaginary “manuscript in Florence.” Other works of Guevara are the Decada de los Césares (Valladolid, 1539), or “Lives of the Ten Roman Emperors,” in imitation of the manner of Plutarch and Suetonius; and the Epistolas familiares (Valladolid, 1539-1545), sometimes called “The Golden Letters,” often printed in Spain, and translated into all the principal languages of Europe. They are in reality a collection of stiff and formal essays which have long ago fallen into merited oblivion. Guevara, whose influence upon the Spanish prose of the 16th century was considerable, also wrote Libro de los inventores del arte de marear (Valladolid, 1539, and Madrid, 1895).
GUEVARA, ANTONIO DE (c. 1490-1544), Spanish chronicler and moralist, was from the province of Alava and spent some of his early years at the court of Isabella, queen of Castile. In 1528, he joined the Franciscan order and later traveled with Emperor Charles V during his trips to Italy and other parts of Europe. After serving as court preacher, court historiographer, bishop of Guadix, and bishop of Mondoñedo, he died in 1544. His first major work, titled Reloj de principes, was published in Valladolid in 1529 and, according to the author, is the result of eleven years of work. It's a didactic novel meant to ideally illustrate the life and character of an ancient prince, Marcus Aurelius—known for his wisdom and virtue—for the benefit of contemporary rulers, following the style of Xenophon’s Cyropaedia. It was frequently reprinted in Spanish and, before the end of the century, was translated into Latin, Italian, French, and English, with an English version by J. Bourchier (London, 1546) and another by T. North. It's hard to explain its immense popularity today, as its ideas are neither fair nor deep, and its style is formal and affected. However, it sparked a fierce and violent literary controversy, as the author audaciously claimed it had historical authenticity, referencing a fictional “manuscript in Florence.” Other works by Guevara include Decada de los Césares (Valladolid, 1539), or “Lives of the Ten Roman Emperors,” imitating Plutarch and Suetonius; and Epistolas familiares (Valladolid, 1539-1545), often known as “The Golden Letters,” which were printed frequently in Spain and translated into all the major European languages. They are essentially a collection of stiff and formal essays that have long since faded into deserved obscurity. Guevara, who had a significant impact on Spanish prose in the 16th century, also wrote Libro de los inventores del arte de marear (Valladolid, 1539, and Madrid, 1895).
GUEVARA, LUIS VELEZ DE (1579-1644), Spanish dramatist and novelist, was born at Écija on the 1st of August 1579. After graduating as a sizar at the university of Osuna in 1596, he joined the household of Rodrigo de Castro, cardinal-archbishop of Seville, and celebrated the marriage of Philip II. in a poem signed “Velez de Santander,” a name which he continued to use till some years later. He appears to have served as a soldier in Italy and Algiers, returning to Spain in 1602 when he entered the service of the count de Saldaña, and dedicated himself to writing for the stage. He died at Madrid on the 10th of November 1644. He was the author of over four hundred plays, of which the best are Reinar despues de morir, Más pesa el rey que la sangre, La Luna de la Sierra and El Diablo está en Cantillana; but he is most widely known as the author of El Diablo cojuelo (1641), a fantastic novel which suggested to Le Sage the idea of his Diable boiteux.
GUEVARA, LUIS VELEZ DE (1579-1644), a Spanish playwright and novelist, was born in Écija on August 1, 1579. After graduating as a sizar from the University of Osuna in 1596, he joined the household of Rodrigo de Castro, the cardinal-archbishop of Seville, and celebrated the marriage of Philip II in a poem signed “Velez de Santander,” a name he continued to use for several years. He seems to have served as a soldier in Italy and Algiers, returning to Spain in 1602 when he entered the service of the Count de Saldaña and focused on writing for the stage. He passed away in Madrid on November 10, 1644. He wrote over four hundred plays, with the best being Reinar despues de morir, Más pesa el rey que la sangre, La Luna de la Sierra, and El Diablo está en Cantillana; however, he is most famous for the novel El Diablo cojuelo (1641), which inspired Le Sage’s Diable boiteux.
GUGLIELMI, PIETRO (1727-1804), Italian composer, was born at Massa Carrara in May 1727, and died in Rome on the 19th of November 1804. He received his first musical education from his father, and afterwards studied under Durante at the Conservatorio di Santa Maria di Loreto at Naples. His first operatic work, produced at Turin in 1755, established his reputation, and soon his fame spread beyond the limits of his own country, so that in 1762 he was called to Dresden to conduct the opera there. He remained for some years in Germany, where his works met with much success, but the greatest triumphs were reserved for him in England. He went to London, according to Burney, in 1768, but according to Florimo in 1772, returning to Naples in 1777. He still continued to produce operas at an astounding rate, but was unable to compete successfully with the younger masters of the day. In 1793 he became maestro di cappella at St Peter’s, Rome. He was a very prolific composer of Italian comic opera, and there is in most of his scores a vein of humour and natural gaiety not surpassed by Cimarosa himself. In serious opera he was less successful. But here also he shows at least the qualities of a competent musician. Considering the enormous number of his works, his unequal workmanship and the frequent instances of mechanical and slip-shod writing in his music need not surprise us. The following are among the most celebrated of his operas: I Due Gemelli, La Serva inamorata, La Pastorella nobile, La Bella Peccatrice, Rinaldo, Artaserse, Didone and Enea e Lavinia. He also wrote oratorios and miscellaneous pieces of orchestral and chamber music. Of his eight sons two at least acquired fame as musicians—Pietro Carlo (1763-1827), a successful imitator of his father’s operatic style, and Giacomo, an excellent singer.
GUGLIELMI, PIETRO (1727-1804), an Italian composer, was born in Massa Carrara in May 1727 and died in Rome on November 19, 1804. He received his initial musical training from his father and later studied under Durante at the Conservatorio di Santa Maria di Loreto in Naples. His first opera, produced in Turin in 1755, established his reputation, and soon his fame spread beyond Italy, leading to his invitation to conduct the opera in Dresden in 1762. He spent several years in Germany, where his works were quite successful, but his greatest achievements came in England. According to Burney, he arrived in London in 1768, while Florimo states it was in 1772, returning to Naples in 1777. He continued to produce operas at an impressive pace but struggled to compete with the younger composers of the time. In 1793, he became maestro di cappella at St Peter’s in Rome. He was a very prolific composer of Italian comic opera, and his scores often feature a blend of humor and natural joy that rivals even Cimarosa. In serious opera, he was less successful but still demonstrated the qualities of a capable musician. Given the vast number of his works, it’s not surprising that some exhibit uneven craftsmanship and frequently mechanical writing. Among his most famous operas are I Due Gemelli, La Serva inamorata, La Pastorella nobile, La Bella Peccatrice, Rinaldo, Artaserse, Didone, and Enea e Lavinia. He also composed oratorios and various pieces of orchestral and chamber music. Of his eight sons, at least two gained recognition as musicians—Pietro Carlo (1763-1827), a successful follower of his father’s operatic style, and Giacomo, an exceptional singer.
GUIANA (Guyana, Guayana1), the general name given in its widest acceptation to the part of South America lying to the north-east from 8° 40′ N. to 3° 30′ S. and from 50° W. to 68° 30′ W. Its greatest length, from Cabo do Norte to the confluence of the Rio Xie and Rio Negro, is about 1250 m., its greatest breadth, from Barima Point in the mouth of the Orinoco to the confluence of the Rio Negro and Amazon, 800 m. Its area is roughly 690,000 sq. m. Comprised in this vast territory are Venezuelan (formerly Spanish) Guiana, lying on both sides of the Orinoco and extending S. and S.W. to the Rio Negro and Brazilian settlements; British Guiana, extending from Venezuela to the left bank of the Corentyn river; Dutch Guiana 675 (or Surinam), from the Corentyn to the Maroni river; French Guiana (or Cayenne), from the Maroni to the Oyapock river;2 Brazilian (formerly Portuguese) Guiana, extending from the southern boundaries of French, Dutch, British and part of Venezuelan Guiana, to the Amazon and the Negro. Of these divisions the first and last are now included in Venezuela and Brazil respectively; British, Dutch and French Guiana are described in order below, and are alone considered here.
GUIANA (Guyana, Guayana1), is the general term used to describe the northeastern region of South America, located between 8° 40′ N. and 3° 30′ S. and from 50° W. to 68° 30′ W. Its maximum length, from Cabo do Norte to the point where the Rio Xie meets the Rio Negro, is about 1,250 miles, while its maximum width, from Barima Point at the mouth of the Orinoco to where the Rio Negro meets the Amazon, is 800 miles. The total area is approximately 690,000 square miles. This extensive region includes Venezuelan (formerly Spanish) Guiana, which spans both sides of the Orinoco River and extends to the south and southwest to the Rio Negro and Brazilian settlements; British Guiana, which stretches from Venezuela to the left bank of the Corentyn River; Dutch Guiana (or Surinam), which ranges from the Corentyn to the Maroni River; French Guiana (or Cayenne), from the Maroni to the Oyapock River; and Brazilian (formerly Portuguese) Guiana, extending from the southern borders of French, Dutch, British, and parts of Venezuelan Guiana to the Amazon and the Negro rivers. Of these regions, the first and last are now part of Venezuela and Brazil, respectively; British, Dutch, and French Guiana are described in detail below and are the focus of this discussion.

In their physical geography the three Guianas present certain common characteristics. In each the principal features are the rivers and their branch streams. In each colony the northern portion consists of a fluviomarine deposit extending inland and gradually rising to a height of 10 to 15 ft. above the sea. This alluvial plain varies in width from 50 m. to 18 m. and is traversed by ridges of sand and shells, roughly parallel to what is now the coast, indicating the trend of former shore lines. By the draining and diking of these lands the plantations have been formed along the coast and up the rivers. These low lands are attached to a somewhat higher plateau, which towards the coast is traversed by numerous huge sand-dunes and inland by ranges of hills rising in places to as much as 2000 ft. The greater part of this belt of country, in which the auriferous districts principally occur, is covered with a dense growth of jungle and high forest, but savannahs, growing only a long wiry grass and poor shrubs, intrude here and there, being in the S.E. much nearer to the coast than in the N.W. The hinterlands consist of undulating open savannahs rising into hills and mountains, some grass-covered, some in dense forest.
In their physical geography, the three Guianas share some common traits. Each one features rivers and their tributaries as the main elements. In each territory, the northern area consists of a fluviomarine deposit that extends inland and gradually rises to about 10 to 15 feet above sea level. This alluvial plain varies in width from 50 meters to 18 meters and is crossed by ridges of sand and shells that run roughly parallel to the current coastline, showing the direction of former shorelines. By draining and diking these lands, plantations have been established along the coast and up the rivers. These lowlands connect to a somewhat higher plateau, which near the coast is dotted with large sand dunes and inland is marked by ranges of hills rising up to about 2000 feet. Most of this area, where the gold-bearing districts are mainly found, is covered with thick jungle and tall forests, but patches of savannah, which only grow thin grass and scraggly shrubs, appear occasionally, particularly in the southeast where they are much closer to the coast than in the northwest. The hinterlands consist of rolling open savannahs that rise into hills and mountains, some covered in grass and others densely forested.
Geology3.—Guiana is formed almost entirely of gneiss and crystalline schists penetrated by numerous dikes of diorite, diabase, &c. The gold of the placer deposits appears to be derived, not from quartz reefs, but from the schists and intrusive rocks, the selvages of the diabase dikes sometimes containing as much as 5 oz. of gold to the ton. In British Guiana a series of conglomerates, red and white sandstone and red shale, rests upon the gneiss and forms the remarkable table-topped mountains Roraima, Kukenaam, &c. The beds are horizontal, and according to Brown and Sawkins, three layers of greenstone, partly intrusive and partly contemporaneous, are interstratified with the sedimentary deposits. The age of these beds is uncertain, but they evidently correspond with the similar series which occurs in Brazil, partly Palaeozoic and partly Cretaceous. In Dutch Guiana there are a few small patches supposed to belong to the Cretaceous period. Along the coast, and in the lower parts of the river valleys, are deposits which are mainly Quaternary but may also include beds of Tertiary age.
Geology3.—Guiana is mostly made up of gneiss and crystalline schists, with many dikes of diorite, diabase, and so on. The gold found in the placer deposits seems to come not from quartz veins, but from the schists and intrusive rocks, with the edges of the diabase dikes sometimes containing up to 5 ounces of gold per ton. In British Guiana, there is a layer of conglomerates, red and white sandstone, and red shale that sits on top of the gneiss, forming the distinctive table-top mountains like Roraima and Kukenaam. The layers are horizontal, and according to Brown and Sawkins, three layers of greenstone, partly intrusive and partly formed at the same time, are sandwiched between the sedimentary deposits. The age of these layers is uncertain, but they clearly match a similar series found in Brazil, which is partly Paleozoic and partly Cretaceous. In Dutch Guiana, there are a few small areas that are thought to date back to the Cretaceous period. Along the coast and in the lower areas of the river valleys, there are deposits that are mainly Quaternary but may also include layers of Tertiary age.
History.—The coast of Guiana was sighted by Columbus in 1498 when he discovered the island of Trinidad and the peninsula of Paria, and in the following year by Alonzo de Ojeda and Amerigo Vespucci; and in 1500 Vincente Yañez Pinzon ventured south of the equator, and sailing north-west along the coast discovered the Amazon; he is believed to have also entered some of the other rivers of Guiana, one of which, now called Oyapock, is marked on early maps as Rio Pinzon. Little, however, was known of Guiana until the fame of the fabled golden city Manoa or El Dorado tempted adventurers to explore its rivers and forests. From letters of these explorers found in 676 captured ships, Sir Walter Raleigh was induced to ascend the Orinoco in search of El Dorado in 1595, to send Lawrence Keymis on the same quest in the following year, and in 1617 to try once again, with the same intrepid lieutenant, an expedition fraught with disaster for both of them. As early as 1580 the Dutch had established a systematic trade with the Spanish main, but so far as is known their first voyage to Guiana was in 1598. By 1613 they had three or four settlements on the coast of Demerara and Essequibo, and in about 1616 some Zeelanders settled on a small island, called by them Kyk ober al (“see over all”), in the confluence of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni rivers. While the Dutch traders were struggling for a footing in Essequibo and Demerara, English and French traders were endeavouring to form settlements on the Oyapock river, in Cayenne and in Surinam, and by 1652 the English had large interests in the latter and the French in Cayenne. In 1663 Charles II. issued letters patent to Lord Willoughby of Parham and Lawrence Hyde, second son of the earl of Clarendon, granting them the district between the Copenam and Maroni rivers, a province described as extending from E. to W. some 120 m. This colony was, however, formally ceded to the Netherlands in 1667 by the peace of Breda, Great Britain taking possession of New York. Meanwhile the Dutch West India Company, formed in 1621, had taken possession of Essequibo, over which colony it exercised sovereign rights until 1791. In 1624 a Dutch settlement was effected in the Berbice river, and from this grew Berbice, for a long time a separate and independent colony. In 1657 the Zeelanders firmly established themselves in the Pomeroon, Moruca and Demerara rivers, and by 1674 the Dutch were colonizing all the territory now known as British and Dutch Guiana. The New Dutch West Indian Company, founded in that year to replace the older company which had failed, received Guiana by charter from the states-general in 1682. In the following year the company sold one-third of their territory to the city of Amsterdam, and another third to Cornelis van Aerssens, lord of Sommelsdijk. The new owners and the company incorporated themselves as the Chartered Society of Surinam, and Sommelsdijk agreed to fill the post of governor of the colony at his own expense. The lucrative trade in slaves was retained by the West Indian Company, but the society could import them on its own account by paying a fine to the company. Sommelsdijk’s rule was wise and energetic. He repressed and pacified the Indian tribes, erected forts and disciplined the soldiery, constructed the canal which bears his name, established a high court of justice and introduced the valuable cultivation of the cocoa-nut. But on the 17th of June 1688 he was massacred in a mutiny of the soldiers. The “third” which Sommelsdijk possessed was offered by his widow to William III. of England, but it was ultimately purchased by the city of Amsterdam for 700,000 fl. The settlements in Essequibo progressed somewhat slowly, and it was not until immigration was attracted in 1740 by offers to newcomers of free land and immunity for a decade from taxation that anything like a colony could be said to exist there. In 1732 Berbice placed itself under the protection of the states-general of Holland and was granted a constitution, and in 1773 Demerara, till then a dependency of Essequibo, was constituted as a separate colony. In 1781 the three colonies, Demerara, Essequibo and Berbice, were captured by British privateers, and were placed by Rodney under the governor of Barbados, but in 1782 they were taken by France, then an ally of the Netherlands, and retained until the peace of 1783, when they were restored to Holland. In 1784 Essequibo and Demerara were placed under one governor, and Georgetown—then called Stabroek—was fixed on as the seat of government. The next decade saw a series of struggles between the colonies and the Dutch West India company, which ended in the company being wound up and in the three colonies being governed directly by the states-general. In 1796 the British again took possession, and retained the three colonies until the peace of Amiens in 1802, when they were once again restored to Holland, only to be recaptured by Great Britain in 1803, in which year the history proper of British Guiana began.
History.—The coast of Guiana was first spotted by Columbus in 1498 when he discovered Trinidad and the Paria Peninsula, and the following year by Alonzo de Ojeda and Amerigo Vespucci. In 1500, Vincente Yañez Pinzon sailed south of the equator and, traveling northwest along the coast, discovered the Amazon. He is thought to have also explored some other rivers in Guiana, one of which, now called Oyapock, was labeled as Rio Pinzon on early maps. However, not much was known about Guiana until the legend of the mythical golden city Manoa or El Dorado drew adventurers to explore its rivers and forests. From letters written by these explorers found in captured ships, Sir Walter Raleigh was motivated to navigate the Orinoco in search of El Dorado in 1595, sending Lawrence Keymis on the same mission the following year, and trying again in 1617 with the same daring lieutenant, an expedition filled with troubles for both of them. As early as 1580, the Dutch had started a systematic trade with the Spanish mainland, but their first recorded voyage to Guiana was in 1598. By 1613, they had established three or four settlements on the coasts of Demerara and Essequibo, and around 1616, some Zeelanders settled on a small island they called Kyk ober al (“see over all”), at the confluence of the Cuyuni and Mazaruni rivers. While the Dutch traders were trying to establish themselves in Essequibo and Demerara, English and French traders were also looking to create settlements along the Oyapock river, in Cayenne, and in Surinam, and by 1652, the English had significant interests in the latter while the French did in Cayenne. In 1663, Charles II issued letters patent to Lord Willoughby of Parham and Lawrence Hyde, the second son of the Earl of Clarendon, granting them the area between the Copenam and Maroni rivers, described as stretching about 120 miles from east to west. This colony, however, was formally ceded to the Netherlands in 1667 by the Treaty of Breda, while Great Britain took possession of New York. Meanwhile, the Dutch West India Company, established in 1621, had taken control of Essequibo, where it maintained sovereignty until 1791. In 1624, a Dutch settlement was established in the Berbice river, leading to the creation of Berbice, which remained a separate and independent colony for a long time. By 1657, the Zeelanders had firmly established themselves in the Pomeroon, Moruca, and Demerara rivers, and by 1674, the Dutch were colonizing all the land now known as British and Dutch Guiana. The New Dutch West India Company, formed that year to replace the previous company that had failed, received a charter for Guiana from the states-general in 1682. The following year, the company sold one-third of their territory to the city of Amsterdam and another third to Cornelis van Aerssens, Lord of Sommelsdijk. The new owners and the company merged to create the Chartered Society of Surinam, and Sommelsdijk agreed to serve as governor of the colony at his own expense. The profitable slave trade was retained by the West Indian Company, but the society was allowed to import slaves by paying a fine to the company. Sommelsdijk’s leadership was wise and proactive. He suppressed and calmed the Indigenous tribes, built forts, organized the military, constructed the canal named after him, established a high court of justice, and introduced valuable coconut cultivation. However, on June 17, 1688, he was murdered during a soldier mutiny. The “third” of the territory held by Sommelsdijk was offered by his widow to William III of England, but it was ultimately bought by the city of Amsterdam for 700,000 fl. The settlements in Essequibo developed quite slowly, and it wasn’t until 1740, when immigration was encouraged with offers of free land and a ten-year tax exemption, that anything resembling a colony could be formed there. In 1732, Berbice aligned itself with the protection of the states-general of Holland and was granted a constitution, and in 1773, Demerara, which had been a dependency of Essequibo, was established as a separate colony. In 1781, the three colonies—Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice—were captured by British privateers and were placed under the governor of Barbados by Rodney, but in 1782, they were taken by France, which was then allied with the Netherlands, and held until the peace of 1783, when they were returned to Holland. In 1784, Essequibo and Demerara were combined under one governor, and Georgetown—formerly known as Stabroek—was chosen as the seat of government. The next decade was marked by a series of conflicts between the colonies and the Dutch West India Company, which resulted in the company being dissolved and the three colonies being governed directly by the states-general. In 1796, the British seized control again and held the three colonies until the peace of Amiens in 1802, when they were once again returned to Holland, only to be recaptured by Great Britain in 1803, marking the official beginning of British Guiana’s history.
I. British Guiana, the only British possession in S. America, was formally ceded in 1814-1815. The three colonies were in 1831 consolidated into one colony divided into three British Guiana. counties, Berbice extending from the Corentyn river to the Abary creek, Demerara from the Abary to the Boerasirie creek, Essequibo from the Boerasirie to the Venezuelan frontier. This boundary-line between British Guiana and Venezuela was for many years the subject of dispute. The Dutch, while British Guiana was in their possession, claimed the whole watershed of the Essequibo river, while the Venezuelans asserted that the Spanish province of Guayana had extended up to the left bank of the Essequibo. In 1840 Sir Robert Schomburgk had suggested a demarcation, afterwards known as the “Schomburgk line”; and subsequently, though no agreement was arrived at, certain modifications were made in this British claim. In 1886 the government of Great Britain declared that it would thenceforward exercise jurisdiction up to and within a boundary known as “the modified Schomburgk line.” Outposts were located at points on this line, and for some years Guianese police and Venezuelan soldiers faced one another across the Amacura creek in the Orinoco mouth and at Yuruan up the Cuyuni river. In 1897 the dispute formed the subject of a message to congress from the president of the United States, and in consequence of this intervention the matter was submitted to an international commission, whose award was issued at Paris in 1899 (see Venezuela). By this decision neither party gained its extreme claim, the line laid down differing but little from the original Schomburgk line. The demarcation was at once undertaken by a joint commission appointed by Venezuela and British Guiana and was completed in 1904. It was not found practicable, owing to the impassable nature of the country, to lay down on earth that part of the boundary fixed by the Paris award between the head of the Wenamu creek and the summit of Mt. Roraima, and the boundary commissioners suggested a deviation to follow the watersheds of the Caroni, Cuyuni and Mazaruni rivers, a suggestion accepted by the two governments. In 1902 the delimitation of the boundary between British Guiana and Brazil was referred to the arbitration of the king of Italy, and by his reward, issued in June 1904, the substantial area in dispute was conceded to British Guiana. The work of demarcation has since been carried out.
I. Guyana, the only British territory in South America, was officially given over in 1814-1815. In 1831, the three colonies were merged into one colony that was divided into three Guyana. counties: Berbice stretched from the Corentyn River to the Abary Creek, Demerara went from the Abary to the Boerasirie Creek, and Essequibo extended from the Boerasirie to the Venezuelan border. The boundary between British Guiana and Venezuela was a topic of dispute for many years. The Dutch, during their rule over British Guiana, claimed the entire watershed of the Essequibo River, while the Venezuelans insisted that the Spanish province of Guayana extended to the left bank of the Essequibo. In 1840, Sir Robert Schomburgk proposed a boundary line, which later became known as the “Schomburgk line.” While no agreement was reached, some changes were made to this British claim. In 1886, the British government announced that it would henceforth exercise jurisdiction up to a boundary known as the “modified Schomburgk line.” Outposts were established at various points along this line, and for several years, Guianese police and Venezuelan soldiers confronted each other across the Amacura Creek at the mouth of the Orinoco and at Yuruan along the Cuyuni River. In 1897, the dispute was brought up in a message to Congress from the president of the United States, leading to the matter being submitted to an international commission, which issued its decision in Paris in 1899 (see Venezuela). According to this ruling, neither side received its maximum claim, and the agreed-upon line differed only slightly from the original Schomburgk line. The demarcation was promptly undertaken by a joint commission from Venezuela and British Guiana and was completed in 1904. Due to the inaccessible terrain, it was impractical to mark the part of the boundary set by the Paris award between the head of the Wenamu Creek and the peak of Mt. Roraima. The boundary commissioners recommended a deviation to follow the watersheds of the Caroni, Cuyuni, and Mazaruni rivers, and both governments accepted this suggestion. In 1902, the boundary between British Guiana and Brazil was submitted to arbitration by the king of Italy, and in his ruling issued in June 1904, the significant disputed area was awarded to British Guiana. The demarcation work has been carried out since then.
Towns, &c.—The capital of British Guiana is Georgetown, at the mouth of the Demerara river, on its right bank, with a population of about 50,000. New Amsterdam, on the right bank of the Berbice river, has a population of about 7500. Each possesses a mayor and town council, with statutory powers to impose rates. There are nineteen incorporated villages, and ten other locally governed areas known as country districts, the affairs of which are controlled by local authorities, known as village councils and country authorities respectively.
Towns, &c.—The capital of British Guiana is Georgetown, located at the mouth of the Demerara River, on its right bank, with a population of around 50,000. New Amsterdam, situated on the right bank of the Berbice River, has a population of about 7,500. Both have a mayor and a town council, which have the legal authority to impose taxes. There are nineteen incorporated villages and ten other locally governed areas called country districts, managed by local authorities known as village councils and country authorities, respectively.
Population.—The census of 1891 gave the population of British Guiana as 278,328. There was no census taken in 1901. By official estimates the population at the end of 1904 was 301,923. Of these some 120,000 were negroes and 124,000 East Indians; 4300 were Europeans, other than Portuguese, estimated at about 11,600, and some 30,000 of mixed race. The aborigines—Arawaks, Caribs, Wapisianas, Warraws, &c.—who numbered about 10,000 in 1891, are now estimated at about 6500. In 1904 the birth-rate for the whole colony was 30.3 per 1000 and the death-rate 28.8.
Population.—The 1891 census recorded the population of British Guiana as 278,328. There wasn’t a census in 1901. Official estimates put the population at the end of 1904 at 301,923. This included about 120,000 Black individuals and 124,000 East Indians; 4,300 were Europeans, excluding the Portuguese, estimated to be around 11,600, and about 30,000 were of mixed race. The indigenous people—Arawaks, Caribs, Wapisianas, Warraws, etc.—who numbered around 10,000 in 1891, are now estimated to be about 6,500. In 1904, the birth rate for the entire colony was 30.3 per 1,000, and the death rate was 28.8.
Physical Geography.—The surface features of British Guiana may be divided roughly into four regions: first, the alluvial seaboard, flat and below the level of high-water; secondly, the forest belt, swampy along the rivers but rising into undulating lands and hills between them; thirdly, the savannahs in and inland of the forest belt, elevated table-lands, grass-covered and practically treeless; and fourthly, the mountain ranges. The eastern portion of the colony, from the source of its two largest rivers, the Corentyn and Essequibo, is a rough inclined plain, starting at some 900 ft. above sea-level at the source of the Takutu in the west, but only some 400 at that of the Corentyn in the west, and sloping down gradually to the low alluvial flats about 3 ft. below high-water line. The eastern part is generally forested; the western is an almost level savannah, with woodlands along the rivers. The 677 northern portion of British Guiana, the alluvial flats alluded to already, consists of a fluviomarine deposit extending inland from 25 m. to 30 m., gradually rising to about 12 ft. above high-water mark and ending against beds of sandy clay, the residua of igneous rocks decomposed in situ, which form an extensive undulating region rising to 150 ft. above the sea and stretching back to the forest-covered hills. Roughly parallel to the existing coast-line are narrow reefs of sand and sea-shells, which are dunes indicating the trend of former limits of the sea, and still farther back are the higher “sand hills,” hills of granite or diabase with a thick stratum of coarse white sand superimposed. From the coast-line seawards the ocean deepens very gradually, and at low tide extensive flats of sand and of mixed clay and sand (called locally “caddy”) are left bare, these flats being at times covered with a deposit of thin drift mud.
Physical Geography.—The surface features of British Guiana can be roughly divided into four regions: first, the alluvial coastline, which is flat and below the high-water level; second, the forest belt, which is swampy along the rivers but rises into rolling lands and hills between them; third, the savannahs located in and inland of the forest belt, which are elevated tablelands, covered with grass and almost treeless; and fourth, the mountain ranges. The eastern part of the colony, starting from the source of its two largest rivers, the Corentyn and Essequibo, is a rugged inclined plain, beginning at about 900 ft. above sea level at the source of the Takutu in the west, but only around 400 ft. at the source of the Corentyn in the east, gradually sloping down to the low alluvial flats that are about 3 ft. below the high-water line. The eastern section is generally forested, while the western area is an almost level savannah, with woodlands along the rivers. The 677 northern part of British Guiana, the alluvial flats mentioned earlier, consists of a fluviomarine deposit extending inland from 25 m. to 30 m., gradually rising to about 12 ft. above high-water mark and ending against beds of sandy clay, which are the remnants of decomposed igneous rocks in situ, forming a vast undulating region that rises to 150 ft. above sea level and stretches back to the forest-covered hills. Roughly parallel to the current coastline are narrow reefs made of sand and sea-shells, which are dunes that indicate the former limits of the sea, and even farther back are the higher “sand hills,” which are hills of granite or diabase topped with a thick layer of coarse white sand. From the coastline seaward, the ocean gradually deepens, and at low tide, extensive flats of sand and a mix of clay and sand (locally called “caddy”) are exposed, and these flats are sometimes covered with a layer of thin drift mud.
Two great parallel mountain systems cross the colony from W. to E., the greater being that of the Pacaraima and Merumé Mts., and the lesser including the Kanuku Mts. (2000 ft.), while the Acarai Mts., a densely-wooded range rising to 2500 ft., form the southern boundary of British Guiana and the watershed between the Essequibo and the Amazon. These mountains rise generally in a succession of terraces and broad plateaus, with steep or even sheer sandstone escarpments. They are mostly flat-topped, and their average height is about 3500 ft. The Pacaraima Mts., however, reach 8635 ft. at Roraima, and the latter remarkable mountain rises as a perpendicular wall of red rock 1500 ft. in height springing out of the forest-clad slopes below the summit, and was considered inaccessible until in December 1884 Messrs im Thurn and Perkins found a ledge by which the top could be reached. The summit is a table-land some 12 sq. m. in area. Mt. Kukenaam is of similar structure and also rises above 8500 ft. Other conspicuous summits (about 7000 ft.) are Iwalkarima, Eluwarima, Ilutipu and Waiakapiapu. The southern portion of the Pacaraima range comprises rugged hills and rock-strewn valleys, but to the N., where the sandstone assumes the table-shaped form, there are dense forests, and the scenery is of extraordinary grandeur. Waterfalls frequently descend the cliffs from a great height (nearly 2000 ft. sheer at Roraima and Kukenaam). The sandstone formation can be traced from the northern Pacaraima range on the N.W. to the Corentyn in the S.E. It is traversed in places by dikes and sills of diabase or dolerite, while bosses of more or less altered gabbro rise through it. The surface of a large part of the colony is composed of gneiss, and of gneissose granite, which is seen in large water-worn bosses in the river beds. Intrusive granite is of somewhat rare occurrence; where found, it gives rise to long low rolls of hilly country and to cataracts in the rivers. Extensive areas of the country consist of quartz-porphyry, porphyrites and felstone, and of more or less schistose rocks derived from them. These rocks are closely connected with the gneissose granites and gneiss, and there are reasons for believing that the latter are the deep-seated portions of them and are only visible where they have been exposed by denudation. Long ranges of hills, varying in elevation from a few hundreds to from 2000 ft. to 3000 ft., traverse the plains of the gneissose districts. These are caused either by old intrusions of diabase and gabbro which have undergone modifications, or by later ones of dolerite. These ranges are of high importance, as the rocks comprising them are the main source of gold in British Guiana.
Two major mountain ranges run through the colony from west to east. The larger range consists of the Pacaraima and Merumé Mountains, while the smaller includes the Kanuku Mountains (2000 ft.). The Acarai Mountains, a densely forested range rising to 2500 ft., mark the southern boundary of British Guiana and form the watershed between the Essequibo and the Amazon rivers. These mountains generally rise in a series of terraces and broad plateaus, featuring steep or even sheer sandstone cliffs. Most of them have flat tops, with an average height of about 3500 ft. However, the Pacaraima Mountains reach 8635 ft. at Roraima, which is a striking mountain that rises as a vertical wall of red rock 1500 ft. high, emerging from the forested slopes below the summit. It was thought to be inaccessible until December 1884, when Messrs. im Thurn and Perkins discovered a ledge allowing access to the top. The summit is a flat area measuring about 12 sq. miles. Mt. Kukenaam has a similar structure and also exceeds 8500 ft. Other noticeable peaks around 7000 ft. include Iwalkarima, Eluwarima, Ilutipu, and Waiakapiapu. The southern part of the Pacaraima range consists of rugged hills and rocky valleys, while the north, where the sandstone takes on a table-like shape, features dense forests and incredibly majestic scenery. Waterfalls often plunge down the cliffs from great heights (nearly 2000 ft. straight down at Roraima and Kukenaam). The sandstone formation extends from the northern Pacaraima range in the northwest to the Corentyn in the southeast, intersected in places by dikes and sills of diabase or dolerite, while outcrops of more or less altered gabbro rise through it. A large portion of the colony's surface is made up of gneiss and gneissose granite, which can be observed in large, water-worn formations in riverbeds. Intrusive granite is somewhat uncommon; when present, it creates long, low hills and waterfalls in the rivers. Vast areas of the land consist of quartz-porphyry, porphyrites, and felstone, as well as various schistose rocks derived from them. These rocks are closely related to the gneissose granites and gneiss, and there are indications that the latter form the deeper parts that are only visible where they have been revealed by erosion. Long ranges of hills, varying in height from a few hundred feet to between 2000 ft. and 3000 ft., cross the plains of the gneissose districts. These are the result of old intrusions of diabase and gabbro that have undergone changes, or by later dolerite intrusions. These ranges are crucial because the rocks that make them up are the primary source of gold in British Guiana.
Rivers.—The principal physical features of British Guiana are its rivers and their branches, which form one vast network of waterways all over it, and are the principal, indeed practically the only, highways inland from the coast. Chief among them are the Waini, the Essequibo, and its tributaries the Mazaruni and Cuyuni, the Demerara, the Berbice and the Corentyn. The Essequibo rises in the Acarai Mts., in 0° 41′ N. and about 850 ft. above the sea, and flows northwards for about 600 m. until it discharges itself into the ocean by an estuary nearly 15 m. in width. In this estuary are several large and fertile islands, on four of which sugar used to be grown. Now but one, Wakenaam, can boast of a factory. The Essequibo can be entered only by craft drawing less than 20 ft. and is navigable for these vessels for not more than 50 m., its subsequent course upwards being frequently broken by cataracts and rapids. Some 7 m. below the first series of rapids it is joined by the Mazaruni, itself joined by the Cuyuni some 4 m. farther up. It has a remarkable course from its source in the Merume Mountains, about 2400 ft. above the sea. It flows first south, then west, north-west, north, and finally south-east to within 20 m. of its own source, forming many fine falls, and its course thereafter is still very tortuous. In 4° N. and 58° W., the Essequibo is joined by the Rupununi, which, rising in a savannah at the foot of the Karawaimento Mts., has a northerly and easterly course of fully 200 m. In 3° 37′ N. the Awaricura joins the Rupununi, and by this tributary the Pirara, a tributary of the Amazon, may be reached,—an example of the interesting series of itabos connecting nearly all S. American rivers with one another. Another large tributary of the Essequibo is the Potaro, on which, at 1130 ft. above sea-level and in 5° 8′ N. and 59° 19′ W., is the celebrated Kaieteur fall, discovered in 1870 by Mr C. Barrington Brown while engaged on a geological survey. This fall is produced by the river flowing from a tableland of sandstone and conglomerate into a deep valley 822 ft. below. For the first 741 ft. the water falls as a perpendicular column, thence as a sloping cataract to the still reach below. The river 200 yds. above the fall is about 400 ft. wide, while the actual waterway of the fall itself varies from 120 ft. in dry weather to nearly 400 ft. in rainy seasons. The Kaieteur, which it took Mr Brown a fortnight to reach from the coast, can now be reached on the fifth day from Georgetown. Among other considerable tributaries of the Essequibo are the Siparuni, Burro-Burro, Rewa, Kuyuwini and Kassi-Kudji. The Demerara river, the head-waters of which are known only to Indians, rises probably near 5° N., and after a winding northerly course of some 200 m. enters the ocean in 6° 50′ N. and 58° 20′ W. A bar of mud and sand prevents the entrance of vessels drawing more than 19 ft. The river is from its mouth, which is nearly 2 m. wide, navigable for 70 m. to all vessels which can enter. The Berbice river rises in about 3° 40′ N., and in 3° 53′ N. is within 9 m. of the Essequibo. At its mouth it is about 2½ m. wide, and is navigable for vessels drawing not more than 12 ft. for about 105 m. and for vessels drawing not more than 7 ft. for fully 175 m. Thence upwards it is broken by great cataracts. The Canje creek joins the Berbice river close to the sea. The Corentyn river rises in 1° 48′ 30″ N., about 140 m. E. of the Essequibo, and flowing northwards enters the Atlantic by an estuary some 14 m. wide. The divide between its head-waters and those of streams belonging to the Amazon system is only some 400 ft. in elevation. It is navigable for about 150 m., some of the reaches being of great width and beauty. The upper reaches are broken by a series of great cataracts, some of which, until the discovery of Kaieteur, were believed to be the grandest in British Guiana. Among other rivers are the Pomeroon, Moruca and Barima, while several large streams or creeks fall directly into the Atlantic, the largest being the Abary, Mahaicony and Mahaica, between Berbice and Demerara, and the Boerasirie between Demerara and Essequibo. The colour of the water of the rivers and creeks is in general a dark brown, caused by the infusion of vegetable matter, but where the streams run for a long distance through savannahs they are of a milky colour.
Rivers.—The main physical features of British Guiana are its rivers and their branches, which form a huge network of waterways throughout the region, serving as the primary, really the only, routes inland from the coast. The most important rivers include the Waini, the Essequibo, along with its tributaries the Mazaruni and Cuyuni, the Demerara, the Berbice, and the Corentyn. The Essequibo starts in the Acarai Mountains, at 0° 41′ N. and about 850 ft. above sea level, and flows north for around 600 miles until it empties into the ocean through an estuary nearly 15 miles wide. Within this estuary are several large and fertile islands, where sugar used to be cultivated on four of them. Now, only one island, Wakenaam, still has a factory. The Essequibo can only be accessed by boats that draw less than 20 ft. and is navigable for these vessels for no more than 50 miles, as its further course is often interrupted by waterfalls and rapids. About 7 miles below the first set of rapids, it is joined by the Mazaruni, which connects with the Cuyuni about 4 miles upstream. The Mazaruni has a remarkable journey starting from its source in the Merume Mountains, around 2400 ft. above sea level. It flows initially south, then west, northwest, north, and finally southeast, coming quite close to its original source before veering off, creating many beautiful waterfalls and continuing along a very winding path. At 4° N. and 58° W., the Essequibo meets the Rupununi, which rises in a savannah at the base of the Karawaimento Mountains and flows north and east for fully 200 miles. At 3° 37′ N., the Awaricura joins the Rupununi, which can lead to the Pirara, a tributary of the Amazon—this showcases the fascinating network of itabos connecting nearly all South American rivers together. Another significant tributary of the Essequibo is the Potaro, where the famous Kaieteur Falls is located at 1130 ft. above sea level, at 5° 8′ N. and 59° 19′ W. It was discovered in 1870 by Mr. C. Barrington Brown while he was conducting a geological survey. This waterfall occurs where the river cascades from a plateau of sandstone and conglomerate into a deep valley 822 ft. below. For the first 741 ft., the water falls in a straight column, and then it descends as a sloping waterfall into a calm stretch below. The river 200 yards above the falls is about 400 ft. wide, while the actual waterfall width varies from 120 ft. in dry weather to nearly 400 ft. in the rainy season. The Kaieteur, which took Mr. Brown two weeks to reach from the coast, can now be reached in five days from Georgetown. Other notable tributaries of the Essequibo include the Siparuni, Burro-Burro, Rewa, Kuyuwini, and Kassi-Kudji. The Demerara River, whose headwaters are known only to Indigenous people, likely rises near 5° N. and after a winding course of about 200 miles, enters the ocean at 6° 50′ N. and 58° 20′ W. A sand and mud bar prevents vessels drawing more than 19 ft. from entering. The river is navigable for 70 miles from its mouth, which is nearly 2 miles wide, for vessels that can make it in. The Berbice River starts around 3° 40′ N., and at 3° 53′ N. is within 9 miles of the Essequibo. At its mouth, it is about 2½ miles wide and navigable for vessels drawing no more than 12 ft. for about 105 miles, and for those drawing no more than 7 ft. for around 175 miles. Beyond that point, it is interrupted by large waterfalls. The Canje Creek connects to the Berbice River near the sea. The Corentyn River starts at 1° 48′ 30″ N., about 140 miles east of the Essequibo, and flows north to enter the Atlantic through an estuary about 14 miles wide. The divide between its headwaters and those of rivers belonging to the Amazon system is only around 400 ft. in height. It is navigable for about 150 miles, with some sections being very wide and beautiful. The upper reaches are interrupted by a series of massive waterfalls, some of which, until the discovery of Kaieteur, were thought to be the grandest in British Guiana. Other rivers include the Pomeroon, Moruca, and Barima, while several large streams or creeks flow directly into the Atlantic, the largest being the Abary, Mahaicony, and Mahaica, located between Berbice and Demerara, and the Boerasirie between Demerara and Essequibo. The water color of the rivers and creeks is generally a dark brown due to the presence of organic material, but where the streams travel long distances through savannahs, they appear milky.
Climate.—The climate is, as tropical countries go, not unhealthy. Malarial fevers are common but preventible; and phthisis is prevalent, not because the climate is unsuitable to sufferers from pulmonary complaints, but because of the ignorance of the common people of the elementary principles of hygiene, an ignorance which the state is endeavouring to lessen by including the teaching of hygiene in the syllabus of the primary schools. The temperature is uniform on the coast for the ten months from October to July, the regular N.E. trade winds keeping it down to an average of 80° F. In August and September the trades die away and the heat becomes oppressive. In the interior the nights are cold and damp. Hurricanes, indeed even strong gales, are unknown; a tidal wave is an impossibility; and the nature of the soil of the coast lands renders earthquakes practically harmless. Occasionally there are severe droughts, and the rains are sometimes unduly prolonged, but usually the year is clearly divided into two wet and two dry seasons. The long wet season begins in mid-April and lasts until mid-August. The long dry season is from September to the last week in November. December and January constitute the short rainy season, and February and March the short dry season. The rainfall varies greatly in different parts of the colony; on the coast it averages about 80 in. annually.
Climate.—The climate, compared to other tropical countries, is not unhealthy. Malarial fevers are common but preventable; and tuberculosis is widespread, not because the climate is unsuitable for people with lung issues, but due to the ignorance of basic hygiene principles among the local population. The government is working to change this by including hygiene education in primary school curriculums. The temperature is consistent along the coast for ten months, from October to July, with the steady N.E. trade winds keeping it around 80° F. In August and September, the trade winds fade, and the heat becomes unbearable. In the interior, nights can be cold and damp. Hurricanes and even strong winds are rare; tidal waves are impossible; and the nature of the coastal soil makes earthquakes largely harmless. Occasionally, there are severe droughts, and rainfall can sometimes last too long, but typically the year is clearly divided into two wet and two dry seasons. The long wet season starts in mid-April and continues until mid-August. The long dry season runs from September to the last week in November. December and January make up the short rainy season, while February and March are the short dry season. Rainfall varies significantly across different areas of the colony; along the coast, it averages about 80 inches per year.
Flora.—The vegetation is most luxuriant and its growth perpetual. Indigenous trees and plants abound in the utmost variety, while many exotics have readily adapted themselves to local conditions. Along the coast is a belt of courida and mangrove—the bark of the latter being used for tanning—forming a natural barrier to the inroads of the sea, but one which—very unwisely—has been in parts almost ruined to allow of direct drainage. The vast forests afford an almost inexhaustible supply of valuable timbers; greenheart and mora, largely used in shipbuilding and for wharves and dock and lock gates; silverbally, yielding magnificent planks for all kinds of boats; and cabinet woods, such as cedar and crabwood. There may be seen great trees, struggling for life one with the other, covered with orchids—some of great beauty and value—and draped with falling lianas and vines. Giant palms fringe the river-banks and break the monotony of the mass of smaller foliage. Many of the trees yield gums, oils and febrifuges, the bullet tree being bled extensively for balata, a gum used largely in the manufacture of belting. Valuable varieties of rubber have also been found in several districts, and since early in 1905 have attracted the attention of experts from abroad. On the coast plantains, bananas and mangoes grow readily and are largely used for food, while several districts are admirably adapted to the growth of limes. Oranges, pineapples, star-apples, granadillas, guavas are among the fruits; Indian corn, cassava, yams, eddoes, tannias, sweet potatoes and ochroes are among the vegetables, while innumerable varieties of peppers are grown and used in large quantities by all classes. The dainty avocado pear, purple and green, grows readily. In the lagoons and trenches many varieties of water-lilies grow wild, the largest being the famous Victoria regia.
Flora.—The vegetation is incredibly lush and its growth is constant. Indigenous trees and plants come in a wide variety, while many imported species have easily adapted to the local conditions. Along the coast, there’s a stretch of courida and mangrove trees—the bark of which is used for tanning—creating a natural barrier against the sea, although, rather foolishly, some areas have been severely damaged to allow for direct drainage. The vast forests provide an almost endless supply of valuable timber; greenheart and mora are widely used in shipbuilding and for wharves, docks, and lock gates; silverbally produces beautiful planks suitable for various types of boats; and cabinet woods like cedar and crabwood are plentiful. You can see massive trees competing for survival, covered with orchids—some exceptionally beautiful and valuable—and draped with hanging lianas and vines. Towering palms line the riverbanks and break the uniformity of the smaller foliage. Many trees produce gums, oils, and fever-reducing compounds, with the bullet tree being tapped extensively for balata, a gum primarily used in making belting. Valuable rubber varieties have also been discovered in several areas and have been drawing the interest of foreign experts since early 1905. Along the coast, plantains, bananas, and mangoes grow abundantly and are widely consumed, while several regions are particularly suitable for growing limes. Among the fruits are oranges, pineapples, star-apples, granadillas, and guavas, and the vegetables include Indian corn, cassava, yams, eddoes, tannias, sweet potatoes, and okra, with countless varieties of peppers grown and used in large amounts by everyone. The delicate avocado pear, both purple and green, grows easily. In the lagoons and ditches, various types of water lilies grow wild, the largest being the famous Victoria regia.
Fauna.—Guiana is full of wild animals, birds, insects and reptiles. Among the wild animals, one and all nocturnal, are the mipourrie or tapir, manatee, acouri and labba (both excellent eating), sloth, ant-eater, armadillo, several kinds of deer, baboons, monkeys and the puma and jaguar. The last is seen 678 frequently down on the coast, attracted from the forest by the cattle grazing on the front and back pasture lands of the estates. Among the birds may be mentioned the carrion crow (an invaluable scavenger), vicissi and muscovy ducks, snipe, teal, plover, pigeon, the ubiquitous kiskadee or qu’est que dit, a species of shrike—his name derived from his shrill call—the canary and the twa-twa, both charming whistlers. These are all found on the coast. In the forest are maam (partridge), maroudi (wild turkey), the beautiful bell-bird with note like a silver gong, the quadrille bird with its tuneful oft-repeated bar, great flocks of macaws and parrots, and other birds of plumage of almost indescribable richness and variety. On the coast the trenches and canals are full of alligators, but the great cayman is found only in the rivers of the interior. Among the many varieties of snakes are huge constricting camoudies, deadly bushmasters, labarrias and rattlesnakes. Among other reptiles are the two large lizards, the salumpenta (an active enemy of the barn-door fowl), and the iguana, whose flesh when cooked resembles tender chicken. The rivers, streams and trenches abound with fishes, crabs and shrimps, the amount of the latter consumed being enormous, running into tons weekly as the coolies use them in their curries and the blacks in their foo-foo.
Fauna.—Guiana is teeming with wild animals, birds, insects, and reptiles. Among the nocturnal wild animals are the tapir (referred to as mipourrie), manatee, acouri, and labba (both great to eat), sloth, anteater, armadillo, various types of deer, baboons, monkeys, as well as the puma and jaguar. The latter is often spotted along the coast, drawn from the forest by cattle grazing in the fields of the estates. The birds include the carrion crow (an essential scavenger), vicissi and Muscovy ducks, snipe, teal, plover, pigeon, the common kiskadee or qu’est que dit (a type of shrike, named for its sharp call), the canary, and the twa-twa, both lovely whistlers. These all inhabit the coast. In the forest, you'll find maam (partridge), maroudi (wild turkey), the striking bell-bird with a call like a silver gong, the quadrille bird with its melodious, repetitive tune, massive flocks of macaws and parrots, and other birds with colors that are almost beyond description. On the coast, the ditches and canals are filled with alligators, but the large cayman is found only in the rivers inland. There are many types of snakes, including large constricting camoudies, lethal bushmasters, labarrias, and rattlesnakes. Among other reptiles are two large lizards, the salumpenta (a frequent threat to chickens) and the iguana, whose meat, when cooked, tastes like tender chicken. The rivers, streams, and ditches are rich with fish, crabs, and shrimp, with the latter being consumed in huge quantities, totaling tons weekly, as the laborers use them in their curries and the locals in their foo-foo.
Government and Administration.—Executive power is vested in a governor, who is advised in all administrative matters by an executive council, consisting of five official and three unofficial members nominated by the crown. Legislative authority is vested in the Court of Policy, consisting of the governor, who presides and without whose permission no legislation can be initiated, seven other official members and eight elected members. This body has, however, no financial authority, all taxation and expenditure being dealt with by the Combined Court, consisting of the Court of Policy combined with six financial representatives. The elected members of the Court of Policy and the financial representatives are elected by their several constituencies for five years. Qualification for the Court of Policy is the ownership, or possession under lease for a term of twenty-one years, of eighty acres of land, of which at least forty acres are under cultivation, or of house property to the value of $7500. A financial representative must be similarly qualified or be in receipt of a clear income of not less than £300 per annum. Every male is entitled to be registered as a voter who (in addition to the usual formal qualifications) owns (during six months prior to registration) three acres of land in cultivation or a house of the annual rental or value of £20; or is a secured tenant for not less than three years of six acres of land in cultivation or for one year of a house of £40 rental; or has an income of not less than £100 per annum; or has during the previous twelve months paid £4, 3s. 4d. in direct taxation. Residence in the electoral district for six months prior to registration is coupled with the last two alternative qualifications. Plural voting is legal but no plumping is allowed. The combined court is by this constitution, which was granted in 1891, allowed the use of all revenues due to the crown in return for a civil list voted for a term now fixed at three years. English is the official and common language. The Roman-Dutch law, modified by orders-in-council and local statutes, governs actions in the civil courts, but the criminal law is founded on that of England. Magistrates have in civil cases jurisdiction up to £20, while an appeal lies from their decisions in any criminal or civil case. The supreme court consists of a chief justice and two puisne judges, and has various jurisdictions. The full court, consisting of the three judges or any two of them, has jurisdiction over all civil matters, but an appeal lies to His Majesty in privy council in cases involving £500 and upwards. A single judge sits in insolvency, in actions involving not over £520, and in appeals from magistrates’ decisions. The appeal full court, consisting of three judges, sits to hear appeals from decisions of a single judge in the limited civil, appellate and insolvency courts. Criminal courts are held four times a year in each county, a single judge presiding in each court. A court of crown cases reserved is formed by the three judges, of whom two form a quorum provided the chief-justice is one of the two. There are no imperial troops now stationed in British Guiana, but there is a semi-military police force, a small militia and two companies of volunteers. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland are both established, and grants-in-aid are also given to the Roman Catholic and Wesleyan churches and to several other denominations.
Government and Administration.—The executive power is held by a governor, who receives advice on all administrative matters from an executive council made up of five official and three unofficial members appointed by the crown. Legislative power lies with the Court of Policy, which includes the governor, who leads the court and no legislation can begin without their approval, along with seven other official members and eight elected members. However, this body does not have any financial authority; all matters related to taxation and spending are handled by the Combined Court, which is the Court of Policy plus six financial representatives. The elected members of the Court of Policy and the financial representatives are chosen by their respective constituencies for five years. To qualify for the Court of Policy, one must own or lease for at least twenty-one years, eighty acres of land with at least forty acres being cultivated, or own house property valued at $7500. A financial representative must meet similar qualifications or have an income of at least £300 per year. Every male is eligible to register as a voter if they (in addition to the usual formal requirements) own (for the six months before registration) three acres of cultivated land or a house valued at an annual rent of £20; or are a secured tenant for at least three years of six acres of cultivated land or for one year of a house with a £40 rent; or have an income of at least £100 per year; or have paid £4, 3s. 4d. in direct taxation in the past twelve months. Residency in the electoral district for six months before registration is required for the last two options. Plural voting is allowed, but no plumping is permitted. According to this constitution, granted in 1891, the combined court is allowed to use all revenues due to the crown in exchange for a civil list approved for a set term of three years. English is the official common language. The Roman-Dutch law, updated by orders-in-council and local statutes, governs civil court actions, but criminal law is based on English law. Magistrates have jurisdiction in civil cases up to £20, and an appeal can be made from their decisions in any criminal or civil case. The supreme court is made up of a chief justice and two puisne judges, with various areas of jurisdiction. The full court, which consists of the three judges or any two of them, has authority over all civil matters, but appeals can be made to His Majesty in the Privy Council for cases involving £500 or more. A single judge hears insolvency cases and actions involving not more than £520, as well as appeals from magistrates’ decisions. The appeal full court, consisting of three judges, hears appeals from the decisions of a single judge in limited civil, appellate, and insolvency courts. Criminal courts take place four times a year in each county, with a single judge presiding over each court. A court for crown cases reserved is established by the three judges, with two forming a quorum as long as the chief justice is one of them. There are currently no imperial troops stationed in British Guiana, but there is a semi-military police force, a small militia, and two companies of volunteers. The Church of England and the Church of Scotland are both established, and there are also grants-in-aid for the Roman Catholic and Wesleyan churches along with several other denominations.
The revenue and expenditure now each amount annually to an average of a little over £500,000. About one-half of the revenue is produced by import duties, and about £90,000 by excise. The public debt on the 31st of March 1905 stood at £989,620.
The revenue and expenditure now each total around £500,000 a year. Roughly half of the revenue comes from import duties, and about £90,000 comes from excise. The public debt on March 31, 1905, was £989,620.
The system of primary education is denominational and is mainly supported from the general revenue. During 1904-1905, 213 schools received grants-in-aid amounting to £23,500, the average cost per scholar being a little over £1. These grants are calculated on the results of examinations held annually, an allowance varying from 4s. 4½d. to 1s. 0½d. being made for each pass in reading, writing, arithmetic, school-garden work, nature study, singing and drill, English, geography, elementary hygiene and sewing. Secondary education is provided in Georgetown at some private establishments, and for boys at Queen’s College, an undenominational government institution where the course of instruction is the same as at a public school in England, and the boys are prepared for the Cambridge local examinations, on the result of which annually depend the Guiana scholarship—open to boys and girls, and carrying a university or professional training in England—and two scholarships at Queen’s College.
The primary education system is religious-based and is mostly funded by general tax revenue. In the 1904-1905 school year, 213 schools received a total of £23,500 in grants, with the average cost per student being just over £1. These grants are determined by the results of annual examinations, with allowances ranging from 4s. 4½d. to 1s. 0½d. given for passing in subjects like reading, writing, arithmetic, gardening, nature study, singing and physical education, English, geography, basic hygiene, and sewing. Secondary education is available in Georgetown at some private institutions, as well as for boys at Queen’s College, a non-religious government school where the curriculum is similar to that of a public school in England. Boys there are prepared for the Cambridge local exams, which annually determine who receives the Guiana scholarship—available to both boys and girls and providing university or professional training in England—as well as two scholarships at Queen’s College.
Industries and Trade.—At the end of the third decade of the 19th century the principal exports were sugar, rum, molasses, cotton and coffee. In 1830, 9,500,000 ℔ of coffee were sent abroad, but after the emancipation of the slaves it almost ceased as an export, and the little that is now grown is practically entirely consumed in the colony. The cultivation of cotton ceased in 1844, and, but for a short revival during the American civil war, has never prospered since. Efforts have been made to resuscitate its growth, but the experiments of the Board of Agriculture have only shown that Sea Island cotton is not adaptable to local conditions, and that no other known variety can as yet be recommended. To-day the principal exports are sugar, rum, molasses, molascuit—a cattle food made from molasses—gold, timber, balata, shingles and cattle. The annual value of the total exports is just under £2,000,000, of which about two-thirds go to Great Britain and British possessions. The cultivation of rice has made great strides in recent years, and, where difficulties of drainage and irrigation can be economically overcome, promises to increase rapidly. In 1873, 32,000,000 ℔ of rice were imported, whereas in 1904-1905, the quantity imported having fallen to 20,500,000 ℔, there were over 18,000 acres under rice cultivation, and exportation, principally to the British West Indies, had commenced. The cultivation of the sugar-cane, and its manufacture into sugar and its by-products, still remains, in spite of numerous fluctuations, the staple industry. The provision of a trustworthy labour supply for the estates is of great importance, and local scarcity has made it necessary since 1840 to import it under a system of indenture. In that year and until 1867, liberated Africans were brought from Rio de Janeiro, Havana, Sierra Leone and St Helena, and in 1845 systematic immigration from India commenced and has since been carried on annually—save in 1849-1850. In 1853 immigration from China was tried, and was carried on by the government from 1859 to 1866, when it ceased owing to a convention arranged at Peking, stipulating that all immigrants should on the expiry of their term of indenture be entitled to be sent back at the expense of the colony, a liability it could not afford to incur. To reduce the cost of supervision and kindred expenses, and consequently of the cane and its manufacture into sugar, the policy of centralization has been universally adopted, and forty-six estates now produce as much sugar as three times that number did in 1875. During recent years Canada has come forward as a large buyer of Guiana’s sugar, and in 1904-1905 the same amount went there as to the United States, in each case over 44,000 tons, whereas in 1901-1902 the United States took 85,000 tons and Canada under 8000 tons. Practically all the rum and molascuit go to England, and the molasses to Holland and Portuguese possessions. The lands on the coast and on the river banks up to the sand hills are of marked fertility, and can produce almost any tropical vegetable or fruit. Cultivation, however, save on the sugar, coffee and cocoa estates, and by a few exceptional small farmers, is carried on in a haphazard and half-hearted manner, and the problem of agricultural development is one of great difficulty for the government. Much of the privately-owned land is not beneficially occupied, and in many cases it is not possible even to learn to whom it belongs, and though there are vast tracts of uncultivated crown land where a large farm or a small homestead can be easily and cheaply acquired, the difficulties involved in clearing, draining, and in some cases of protecting it by dams, are prohibitive to all but the exceptionally determined.
Industries and Trade.—By the end of the 1830s, the main exports were sugar, rum, molasses, cotton, and coffee. In 1830, 9,500,000 pounds of coffee were exported, but after the emancipation of the slaves, exports almost stopped, and the little coffee that is grown now is almost entirely consumed locally. Cotton cultivation ended in 1844, and aside from a brief revival during the American Civil War, it hasn't thrived since. There have been attempts to revive its growth, but the Agriculture Board's experiments showed that Sea Island cotton doesn't adapt to local conditions, and no other known variety can currently be recommended. Today, the main exports are sugar, rum, molasses, molascuit—a cattle feed made from molasses—gold, timber, balata, shingles, and cattle. The total annual export value is just under £2,000,000, with about two-thirds going to Great Britain and British territories. Rice cultivation has made significant progress recently, and where drainage and irrigation challenges can be economically solved, it is expected to grow quickly. In 1873, 32,000,000 pounds of rice were imported, while in 1904-1905, imports dropped to 20,500,000 pounds, and over 18,000 acres were under rice cultivation, with exports primarily to the British West Indies beginning. Despite various fluctuations, sugar-cane cultivation and its transformation into sugar and by-products remain the staple industry. Ensuring a reliable labor supply for the estates is crucial, and due to local shortages since 1840, labor has been imported under an indenture system. From 1840 until 1867, liberated Africans were brought from Rio de Janeiro, Havana, Sierra Leone, and St. Helena, and in 1845, systematic immigration from India began and has continued yearly, except for 1849-1850. Immigration from China was attempted in 1853 and carried out by the government from 1859 to 1866, when it stopped due to a convention in Peking stating that all immigrants were entitled to return at the colony's expense, a cost the colony couldn't bear. To reduce supervision costs and related expenses, including those associated with cane sugar manufacturing, a policy of centralization has been widely adopted, and currently, forty-six estates produce as much sugar as three times that number did in 1875. In recent years, Canada has become a significant buyer of Guiana’s sugar, with the same amount exported there in 1904-1905 as to the United States, each over 44,000 tons, whereas in 1901-1902, the U.S. imported 85,000 tons, and Canada under 8,000 tons. Almost all rum and molascuit are sent to England, while molasses goes to Holland and Portuguese territories. The coastal lands and riverbanks up to the sand hills are very fertile and can grow nearly any tropical vegetable or fruit. However, except for sugar, coffee, and cocoa estates, as well as a few exceptional small farmers, cultivation is often done haphazardly and without much enthusiasm, making agricultural development a significant challenge for the government. Much privately owned land is not used beneficially, and in many instances, identifying landowners is difficult. Although there are vast areas of uncultivated crown land where large farms or small homesteads can be acquired easily and cheaply, the challenges of clearing, draining, and in some cases, protecting it with dams, are overwhelming for all but the most determined individuals.
Prospecting for gold began in 1880, and from 1884 to 1893-1894 the output, chiefly from alluvial workings, increased from 250 oz. to nearly 140,000 oz. annually. The industry then received a serious check by the failure of several mines, and for nearly a decade was almost entirely in the hands of the small tributor, known locally as a pork-knocker. There has been some revival, chiefly due to foreign enterprise. At Omai on the Essequibo river a German syndicate worked a large concession on the hydraulic process of placer mining with considerable success, and more recently took to dredging on its 679 flats. In the Puruni (a tributary of the Mazaruni) American capitalists, working the Peters’ mine, have established their workings to a considerable depth, besides constructing a road, 60 m. in length, from Kartabo point, at the confluence of the Guyuni and Mazaruni, to the Puruni river opposite the mine. An English syndicate started dredging in the Conawarook, a tributary of the Essequibo. The principal gold districts are on the Essequibo and its tributaries—the chief being the Cuyuni, Mazaruni, Potaro and Conawarook—and on the Barima, Barama and Waini rivers in the north-west district. There have been smaller workings, mostly unsuccessful, in the Demerara and Berbice rivers.
Gold prospecting started in 1880, and from 1884 to around 1893-1894, production mainly from alluvial mining grew from 250 oz. to nearly 140,000 oz. per year. The industry then hit a major setback due to the shutdown of several mines, and for almost a decade, it was largely managed by small-scale miners locally known as pork-knockers. There has been some revival, mostly due to foreign investment. At Omai on the Essequibo River, a German syndicate operated a large concession using hydraulic placer mining methods with significant success, and more recently, they began dredging in its 679 flats. In the Puruni (a tributary of the Mazaruni), American investors working the Peters' mine have expanded their operations to a notable depth and built a 60-mile road from Kartabo Point, at the junction of the Guyuni and Mazaruni, to the Puruni River across from the mine. An English syndicate began dredging in the Conawarook, a tributary of the Essequibo. The main gold districts are located on the Essequibo and its tributaries—the most important being the Cuyuni, Mazaruni, Potaro, and Conawarook—as well as on the Barima, Barama, and Waini rivers in the northwestern region. Smaller mining efforts, mostly unsuccessful, have occurred in the Demerara and Berbice rivers.
Diamonds and other precious stones have been found in small quantities, and since 1900 efforts have been made to extend the output, nearly 11,000 carats weight of diamonds being exported in 1904. But though the small stones found were of good water, the cost of transport to the diamond fields, on the Mazaruni river, was heavy, and after 1904 the industry declined. Laws dealing with gold and precious stones passed in 1880, 1886 and 1887, and regulations in 1899, were codified in 1902 and amended in 1905.
Diamonds and other precious stones have been discovered in small amounts, and since 1900, efforts have been made to increase production, with nearly 11,000 carats of diamonds exported in 1904. Although the small stones found were of high quality, the cost of transporting them to the diamond fields on the Mazaruni River was significant, leading to a decline in the industry after 1904. Laws regarding gold and precious stones were enacted in 1880, 1886, and 1887, and regulations in 1899 were codified in 1902 and amended in 1905.
Timber is cut, and balata and rubber collected, from crown lands by licences issued from the department of Lands and Mines. Wood-cutting, save on concessions held by a local company owning an up-country line of railway connecting the Demerara and Essequibo rivers, is limited to those parts of the forest which are close to the lower stretches of the rivers and creeks, the overland haulage of the heavy logs being both difficult and costly, while transport through the upper reaches of the rivers is impossible on account of the many cataracts and rapids. The average annual value of imports is £1,500,000, of which about two-thirds are from Great Britain and British possessions. Of the vessels trading with the colony, most are under the British flag, the remainder being principally American and Norwegian.
Timber is harvested, and balata and rubber are collected from crown lands through licenses issued by the Department of Lands and Mines. Logging, except on concessions held by a local company with a railway connecting the Demerara and Essequibo rivers, is restricted to areas of the forest near the lower sections of the rivers and creeks. This is due to the difficult and expensive overland transport of heavy logs, while transporting them through the upper sections of the rivers is impossible because of the numerous waterfalls and rapids. The average annual value of imports is £1,500,000, with about two-thirds coming from Great Britain and its territories. Most of the vessels trading with the colony fly the British flag, while the rest are primarily American and Norwegian.
The money of account is dollars and cents, but, with the exception of the notes of the two local banks, the currency is British sterling. The unit of land measure is the Rhynland rood, roughly equal to 12 ft. 4 in. A Rhynland acre contains 300 square roods.
The currency used is dollars and cents, but except for the notes from the two local banks, the currency is British pounds. The unit of land measurement is the Rhynland rood, which is about 12 ft. 4 in. A Rhynland acre consists of 300 square roods.
Inland Communication, &c.—The public roads extend along the coast from the Corentyn river to some 20 m. N. of the Essequibo mouth on the Aroabisci coast, and for a short distance up each of the principal rivers and creeks entering the sea between these points. A line of railway 60½ m. in length runs from Georgetown to Rosignol on the left bank of the Berbice river opposite New Amsterdam; and another line 15 m. long starts from Vreed-en-hoop, on the left bank of the Demerara river opposite Georgetown, and runs to Greenwich Park on the right bank of the Essequibo river some 3 m. from its mouth. A light railway, metre gauge, 18½ m. in length, connects Wismar (on the left bank of the Demerara river some 70 m. from its mouth) with Rockstone (on the right bank of the Essequibo, and above the first series of cataracts in that river). Steamers run daily to and from Georgetown and Wismar, and launches to and from Rockstone and Tumatumari Fall on the Potaro, and all expeditions for the goldfields of the Essequibo and its tributaries above Rockstone travel by this route. Another steamer goes twice a week to Bartica at the confluence of the Essequibo and Mazaruni, and another weekly to Mt. Everard on the Barima, from which termini expeditions start to the other gold and diamond fields. Steamers also run from Georgetown to New Amsterdam and up the Berbice river for about 100 m. Above the termini of these steamer routes all travelling is done in keelless bateaux, propelled by paddlers and steered when coming through the rapids at both bow and stern by certificated bowmen and steersmen. Owing to the extreme dangers of this inland travelling, stringent regulations have been framed as to the loading of boats, supply of ropes and qualifications of men in charge, and the shooting of certain falls is prohibited. Voyages up-country are of necessity slow, but the return journey is made with comparatively great rapidity, distances laboriously covered on the up-trip in three days being done easily in seven hours when coming back.
Inland Communication, &c.—The public roads run along the coast from the Corentyn River to about 20 miles north of the Essequibo mouth, covering the Aroabisci coast, and extending a short distance up each of the main rivers and creeks that flow into the sea between these points. A railway line, 60½ miles long, connects Georgetown to Rosignol on the left bank of the Berbice River, opposite New Amsterdam; another line, 15 miles long, starts from Vreed-en-hoop on the left bank of the Demerara River, opposite Georgetown, and goes to Greenwich Park on the right bank of the Essequibo River, about 3 miles from its mouth. A light railway, with a metre gauge and 18½ miles in length, links Wismar (on the left bank of the Demerara River, about 70 miles from its mouth) with Rockstone (on the right bank of the Essequibo, above the first set of waterfalls in that river). Steamers operate daily to and from Georgetown and Wismar, along with launches servicing Rockstone and Tumatumari Fall on the Potaro, with all trips to the goldfields of the Essequibo and its tributaries above Rockstone using this route. Another steamer travels twice a week to Bartica at the confluence of the Essequibo and Mazaruni rivers, while another goes weekly to Mt. Everard on the Barima, from which trips start to various gold and diamond fields. Steamers also operate from Georgetown to New Amsterdam and up the Berbice River for around 100 miles. Above the endpoints of these steamer routes, all travel is done in keelless bateaux, powered by paddlers and steered through the rapids at both the bow and stern by certified bowmen and steersmen. Due to the significant dangers of this inland travel, strict regulations have been established regarding boat loading, rope supplies, and the qualifications of the crew, with the descent of certain falls being prohibited. Trips upstream are necessarily slow, but the return journey is relatively fast, with distances that take three days to cover upstream being completed in just seven hours on the way back.
From England British Guiana is reached in sixteen days by the steamers of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and in nineteen days by those of the direct line from London and Glasgow. There are also regular services from Canada, the United States, France and Holland.
From England, you can reach British Guiana in sixteen days with the steamers of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company, and in nineteen days with those from the direct line linking London and Glasgow. There are also regular services from Canada, the United States, France, and Holland.
History.—When taken over in 1803 the prospects of three British colonies were by no means promising, and during the next decade the situation became very critical. Owing to the increased output of sugar by conquered Dutch and French colonies the English market was glutted and the markets of the continent of Europe were not available, Bonaparte having closed the ports. The years 1811 and 1812 were peculiarly disastrous, especially to those engaged in the manufacture of sugar, and at a public meeting held in Georgetown early in the latter year it was stated that the produce of the colony ordinarily worth £1,860,000 had on account of deteriorated value decreased by fully one-third. At this meeting it was resolved to petition the imperial parliament to allow the interchange of produce with the United States; a resolution which was unfortunately rendered abortive by the outbreak of war between England and the States in 1812, the trade of British Guiana being instead actually harried by American privateers. In his address to the Combined Court on the 20th of October 1812 the governor (General Carmichael) stated that a vessel with government stores had been captured by an American privateer, and in February 1813 the imperial government sent H.M.S. “Peacock” to protect the coast. On the 23rd of that month in cruising along the east coast of Demerara the “Peacock” met the American privateer “Hornet,” and though, after a gallant struggle, in which Captain Peake, R.N., was killed, the English ship was sunk with nearly all her crew, the colony did not suffer from any further depredations. In the following years news of the agitation in England in favour of emancipation gradually became known to the slaves and caused considerable unrest among them, culminating in 1823 in a serious outbreak on the estates on the east coast of Demerara. Negroes, demanding their freedom, attacked the houses of several managers, and although at most points these attacks were repulsed with but little loss on either side, the situation was so serious as to necessitate the calling out of the military. The ringleaders were arrested and promptly and vigorously dealt with, while a special court-martial was appointed to try the Rev. John Smith, of the London Missionary Society, who it was alleged had fostered the rising by his teachings to the slave congregation at his chapel in Le Ressouvenir. This trial was stigmatized as unfair by the missionary party in England, but on the whole appears to have been conducted decently by an undoubtedly unbiassed court. It is difficult now to form any very definite conclusion. Mr Smith certainly had great influence over the slaves, and while his teaching prior to the outbreak was at least ill-advised, he made no efforts while the disturbances were going on to use his influence on the side of law and order; indeed all he could say in his own defence was that he was ignorant of what was going on, a statement it is impossible to believe to have been strictly veracious. He was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged. It is obvious that it was never intended to carry out this sentence, and on the 29th of November the governor announced that he felt it imperative on him to transmit the findings of the court for His Majesty’s consideration. The question of Smith’s guilt or innocence created a great deal of feeling in England, the anti-slavery and missionary societies making it a basis for increased agitation in favour of the slaves; but the imperial government evidently agreed with the colonial executive in holding that he could not be exonerated of grave responsibility, as the order of the king was that while the sentence of death was remitted Mr Smith was to be dismissed from the colony and to enter into a recognizance in £2000 not to return to British Guiana or to reside in any other West Indian colony. This order reached Georgetown in April 1824, but Mr Smith had died in the city jail on the 6th of February of a pulmonary complaint from which he had been suffering for some time.
History.—When control was taken in 1803, the future of three British colonies looked bleak, and over the next decade, the situation became critical. Because of the increased sugar output from conquered Dutch and French colonies, the English market was flooded, and the markets in continental Europe were closed off, as Bonaparte had shut the ports. The years 1811 and 1812 were particularly disastrous, especially for those involved in sugar production. At a public meeting held in Georgetown early in 1812, it was stated that the colony's produce, usually valued at £1,860,000, had dropped by about a third due to reduced value. It was decided at this meeting to petition the imperial parliament for permission to exchange goods with the United States; however, this resolution was unfortunately rendered ineffective by the outbreak of war between England and the States in 1812, with trade in British Guiana actually suffering from attacks by American privateers. In his address to the Combined Court on October 20, 1812, the governor (General Carmichael) mentioned that an American privateer had captured a vessel with government supplies. In February 1813, the imperial government sent H.M.S. “Peacock” to safeguard the coast. On the 23rd of that month, while patrolling along the east coast of Demerara, the “Peacock” encountered the American privateer “Hornet,” and despite a brave fight, during which Captain Peake, R.N., was killed, the English ship sank with almost all her crew, though the colony faced no further assaults. In the following years, news of the movement for emancipation in England gradually reached the slaves, leading to significant unrest among them, peaking in 1823 with a serious rebellion on estates on the east coast of Demerara. Slaves demanding their freedom attacked the homes of several managers, and although these attacks were mostly pushed back with minimal casualties on either side, the situation was dire enough to require military intervention. The ringleaders were arrested and dealt with swiftly and decisively, and a special court-martial was formed to try Rev. John Smith of the London Missionary Society, who was accused of inciting the uprising through his teachings at his chapel in Le Ressouvenir. This trial was labeled as unfair by the missionary group in England, but overall it seems to have been conducted fairly by an undoubtedly impartial court. It is challenging to draw a clear conclusion now. Mr. Smith undoubtedly had significant influence over the slaves, and while his teachings prior to the uprising were at least unwise, during the disturbances, he made no attempt to use his influence to promote law and order; in fact, all he could claim in his defense was ignorance of the situation, a statement that is hard to believe as completely truthful. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang. It was clear that there was never any intention to carry out this sentence, and on November 29, the governor announced that he felt compelled to send the court's findings to His Majesty for review. The question of Smith’s guilt or innocence stirred considerable emotion in England, with anti-slavery and missionary societies using it as a rallying point for increased efforts on behalf of the slaves; however, the imperial government seemed to agree with the colonial authorities in believing that he held significant responsibility, as the king's order was that while the death sentence was overturned, Mr. Smith would be dismissed from the colony and required to enter into a £2000 bond not to return to British Guiana or to live in any other West Indian colony. This order arrived in Georgetown in April 1824, but Mr. Smith had passed away in the city jail on February 6 from a lung illness he had been suffering from for some time.
Sir Benjamin d’Urban was governor from April 1824 to May 1833, the principal event of his administration being the consolidation in 1831 of the three colonies into one colony divided into three counties, Berbice, Demerara and Essequibo.
Sir Benjamin d’Urban was governor from April 1824 to May 1833. The main event of his administration was in 1831 when the three colonies were merged into one colony, which was divided into three counties: Berbice, Demerara, and Essequibo.
Governor d’Urban was succeeded in June 1833 by Sir James Carmichael Smyth, who began his administration by a proclamation to the slaves stating that while the king intended to improve their condition, the details of his plans were not as yet completed, and warning them against impatience or insubordination. When the resolutions foreshadowing emancipation, passed by the House of Commons on the 12th of June 1833, reached the colony, the planters, to whom the governor’s proclamation had been most distasteful, were thunderstruck and even the government was surprised. Naturally the slaves were wildly jubilant. Emancipation brought troublous times through which the governor steered the colony with great tact and firmness, serious troubles being nipped in the bud solely by his great personality, and the subsequent conflicts with the apprentices 680 might have been obviated had he lived longer. He died at Camp House on the 4th of March 1838.
Governor d’Urban was succeeded in June 1833 by Sir James Carmichael Smyth, who started his administration with a proclamation to the slaves stating that while the king wanted to improve their situation, the details of his plans were not yet finalized, and warning them to avoid impatience or disobedience. When the resolutions indicating emancipation, passed by the House of Commons on June 12, 1833, arrived in the colony, the planters, to whom the governor’s proclamation had been very unwelcome, were shocked, and even the government was taken aback. Naturally, the slaves were overjoyed. Emancipation brought difficult times, which the governor navigated with great skill and strength. Serious issues were averted thanks to his strong character, and the later conflicts with the apprentices might have been avoided if he had lived longer. He died at Camp House on March 4, 1838.
In the years following emancipation the colony was in a serious condition. The report of a commission in 1850 proved that it was virtually ruined, and only by the introduction of immigrants to provide a reliable labour supply were the sugar estates saved from total extinction. By 1853 the colony had begun to make headway, and Sir Henry Barkly, the then governor, was able to state in his speech to the Combined Court in January that its progress was in every way satisfactory. During Governor Barkly’s administration the long series of struggles between the legislature and the executive terminated, and when he left in May 1853 he did so with the respect and good-will of all classes. The strengthening of the labour supply was not effected without troubles. In 1847 the negroes in Berbice attacked the persons and property of the Portuguese immigrants, the riots spreading to Demerara and Essequibo, and not until the military were called out were the disturbances quelled. Similar riots in 1862 were only stopped by the prompt and firm action of the new governor, Mr (afterwards Sir) Francis Hincks, while rows between negroes and Chinese and negroes and East Indians were frequent. Gradually, however, things quieted down, and until 1883 the estates as a whole did well. In 1884 the price of sugar fell so seriously as to make the prospects of the colony very gloomy, and for nearly two decades proprietors had to be content with a price kept artificially low by bounty-fed beet-sugar, many estates being ruined, while those that survived only did so by the application of every economy, and by their owners availing themselves of every new discovery in the sciences of cultivation and manufacture.
In the years after emancipation, the colony was in a serious state. A commission report in 1850 revealed that it was practically destroyed, and only by bringing in immigrants to ensure a steady labor supply were the sugar estates saved from complete collapse. By 1853, the colony had started to make progress, and Sir Henry Barkly, the governor at the time, was able to state in his speech to the Combined Court in January that the progress was satisfactory in every way. During Governor Barkly’s administration, the long series of conflicts between the legislature and the executive ended, and when he left in May 1853, he did so with the respect and goodwill of all classes. Strengthening the labor supply was not without challenges. In 1847, the Black population in Berbice attacked the individuals and property of the Portuguese immigrants, and the riots spread to Demerara and Essequibo, only being quelled after the military was called in. Similar riots in 1862 were only stopped by the swift and decisive action of the new governor, Mr. (later Sir) Francis Hincks, while conflicts between Black people and Chinese immigrants, as well as between Black people and East Indians, were common. Gradually, though, things calmed down, and until 1883, the estates generally prospered. In 1884, the price of sugar dropped so significantly that the colony’s prospects looked very bleak, and for nearly twenty years, owners had to settle for prices kept artificially low by subsidized beet sugar, leading many estates to fail, while those that survived did so by cutting costs and using every new discovery in the fields of cultivation and manufacturing.
The year 1889 was marked by an outbreak on the part of a section of the negro population in Georgetown directed against the Portuguese residents there. A Portuguese had murdered his black paramour and had been convicted and sentenced to death. The governor commuted the sentence to penal servitude for life. Shortly after this a Portuguese stall-holder in the market assaulted a small black boy whom he suspected of pilfering, the latter having to be taken to a hospital, while the former, after being taken to a police station was, through some misunderstanding or informality, at once released. Almost immediately excitable and unreasoning negroes were rushing about loudly proclaiming that the boy was dead, that the Portuguese were allowed to kill black people and to go free, and calling on one another to take their own revenge. Mobs gathered quickly, attacked individual Portuguese and wrecked their shops and houses, and not until the city had been given up for two days to scenes of disgraceful disorder were the efforts of the police and special constables successful in quelling the disturbances. The damage done amounted to several thousands of dollars, the Portuguese owners being eventually compensated from general revenue.
The year 1889 saw an uprising among a portion of the Black community in Georgetown aimed at the Portuguese residents there. A Portuguese man had murdered his Black partner and was convicted and sentenced to death. The governor changed the sentence to life in penal servitude. Shortly after this, a Portuguese vendor in the market attacked a young Black boy whom he suspected of stealing, leading to the boy being taken to the hospital, while the vendor, after being taken to a police station, was promptly released due to some misunderstanding or lack of proper procedure. Almost immediately, agitated and irrational Black individuals began spreading the word that the boy was dead, claiming that Portuguese people could kill Black individuals and face no consequences, urging each other to take revenge. Mobs quickly formed, attacked individual Portuguese people, and destroyed their shops and homes. It wasn’t until the city had endured two days of disgraceful chaos that the police and special constables were able to regain control. The damage amounted to several thousands of dollars, with the Portuguese owners eventually receiving compensation from the general revenue.
In 1884 the dispute as to the boundary with Venezuela became acute. It was reported to the colonial government that the government of Venezuela had granted to an American syndicate a concession which covered much of the territory claimed by Great Britain, and although prompt investigation by an agent despatched by the governor did not then disclose any trace of interference with British claims, a further visit in January 1885, made in consequence of reports that servants of the Manoa Company had torn down notices posted by Mr McTurk on his former visit, discovered that the British notices had been covered over by Venezuelan ones and resulted in the government of Great Britain declaring that it would thenceforward exercise jurisdiction up to and within a boundary known as “the modified Schomburgk line.” Outposts were located at points on this line, and for some years Guianese police and Venezuelan soldiers faced one another across the Amacura creek in the Orinoco mouth and at Yuruan up the Cuyuni river. Guianese officers were, however, presumably instructed not actively to oppose acts of aggression by the Venezuelan government, for in January 1895 Venezuelan soldiers arrested Messrs D. D. Barnes and A. H. Baker, inspectors of police in charge at Yuruan station, conveyed them through Venezuela to Caracas, eventually allowing them to take steamer to Trinidad. For this act compensation was demanded and was eventually paid by Venezuela. The diplomatic question as to the boundary—the results of which are stated above—was passed out of the hands of the colony; see the account of the arbitration under Venezuela.
In 1884, the disagreement over the boundary with Venezuela escalated. It was reported to the colonial government that the Venezuelan government had given an American syndicate a concession that covered much of the land claimed by Great Britain. Although a quick investigation by an agent sent by the governor did not find any evidence of interference with British claims, a follow-up visit in January 1885, prompted by reports that workers from the Manoa Company had torn down notices posted by Mr. McTurk during his earlier visit, revealed that the British notices had been obscured by Venezuelan ones. This led the British government to announce that it would henceforth exercise jurisdiction up to and within a boundary known as “the modified Schomburgk line.” Posts were established along this line, and for several years, Guianese police and Venezuelan soldiers faced each other across the Amacura creek at the mouth of the Orinoco and at Yuruan along the Cuyuni river. However, Guianese officers were likely instructed not to actively oppose aggressive actions by the Venezuelan government, because in January 1895, Venezuelan soldiers arrested Messrs D. D. Barnes and A. H. Baker, police inspectors in charge at Yuruan station, took them through Venezuela to Caracas, and eventually let them take a steamer to Trinidad. Compensation was demanded for this act and was eventually paid by Venezuela. The diplomatic matter regarding the boundary—the outcomes of which are mentioned above—was taken out of the colony’s control; see the account of the arbitration under Venezuela.
The last two months of 1905 were marked by serious disturbances in Georgetown, and in a lesser degree on the east and west banks of the Demerara river. On the 29th of November the dock labourers employed on the wharves in Georgetown struck for higher wages, and large crowds invaded the principal stores in the city, compelling men willing to work to desist and in some cases assaulting those who opposed them. By the evening of the 30th of November they had got so far out of hand as to necessitate the reading of the Riot Act and a proclamation by the governor (Sir F. M. Hodgson) forbidding all assemblies. On the morning of the 1st of December serious disturbances broke out at Ruimvelt, a sugar estate directly south of Georgetown, where the cane-cutters had suddenly struck for higher pay, and the police were compelled to fire on the mob, killing some and wounding others. All through that day mobs in all parts of the city assaulted any white man they met, houses were invaded and windows smashed, and on two further occasions the police had to fire. At night torrential rains forced the rioters to shelter, and enabled the police to get rest, their places being taken by pickets of militiamen and special constables. On Saturday, the 2nd of December, the police had got the upper hand, and the arrival that night of H.M.S. “Sappho” and on Sunday of H.M.S. “Diamond” gave the government complete control of the situation. Threatened troubles on the sugar estates on the west bank were suppressed by the prompt action of the governor, and the arrest of large numbers of the rioters and their immediate trial by special courts restored thorough order.
The last two months of 1905 were marked by significant unrest in Georgetown, and to a lesser extent on the east and west banks of the Demerara River. On November 29th, the dock workers at the wharves in Georgetown went on strike for higher wages, and large crowds flooded into the main stores in the city, forcing willing workers to stop and, in some cases, attacking those who resisted. By the evening of November 30th, the situation had escalated to the point where the Riot Act needed to be read, and the governor (Sir F. M. Hodgson) issued a proclamation banning all gatherings. On the morning of December 1st, violent disturbances erupted at Ruimvelt, a sugar estate directly south of Georgetown, where the cane-cutters suddenly went on strike for better pay, leading the police to fire on the mob, resulting in some deaths and injuries. Throughout that day, mobs throughout the city attacked any white person they encountered, invaded houses, and broke windows, with the police having to fire their weapons on two additional occasions. That night, heavy rains drove the rioters to seek shelter and allowed the police to rest, although they were replaced by groups of militiamen and special constables. By Saturday, December 2nd, the police had gained control, and the arrival that night of H.M.S. “Sappho” and the next day of H.M.S. “Diamond” gave the government complete authority over the situation. Potential unrest on the sugar estates on the west bank was quelled swiftly by the governor's decisive actions, and the arrest of many rioters and their immediate trial by special courts reinstated order.
Authorities.—See Raleigh’s Voyages for the Discovery of Guiana 1595-1596, (“Hakluyt” series); Laurence Keymis’ Relation of the second Voyage to Guiana (1596), (“Hakluyt” series); Sir R. H. Schomburgk, Description of British Guiana (London, 1840); C. Waterton, Wanderings in South America, 1812-1825 (London, 1828); J. Rodway, History of British Guiana (Georgetown, 1891-1894); H. G. Dalton, History of British Guiana (London, 1855); J. W. Boddam Whetham, Roraima and British Guiana (London, 1879); C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of British Colonies; E. F. im Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana (London, 1883); British Guiana Directory (Georgetown, 1906); G. D. Bayley, Handbook of British Guiana (Georgetown, 1909).
Authorities.—See Raleigh’s Voyages for the Discovery of Guiana 1595-1596, (“Hakluyt” series); Laurence Keymis’ Relation of the second Voyage to Guiana (1596), (“Hakluyt” series); Sir R. H. Schomburgk, Description of British Guiana (London, 1840); C. Waterton, Wanderings in South America, 1812-1825 (London, 1828); J. Rodway, History of British Guiana (Georgetown, 1891-1894); H. G. Dalton, History of British Guiana (London, 1855); J. W. Boddam Whetham, Roraima and British Guiana (London, 1879); C. P. Lucas, Historical Geography of British Colonies; E. F. im Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana (London, 1883); British Guiana Directory (Georgetown, 1906); G. D. Bayley, Handbook of British Guiana (Georgetown, 1909).
II. Dutch Guiana, or Surinam, has an area of about 57,900 sq. m. British Guiana bounds it on the west and French on the east (the long unsettled question of the French boundary is dealt with in section III., French Guiana). The various peoples inhabiting Surinam are Dutch Guiana. distributed according to the soil and the products. The Indians (Caribs, Arawaks, Warrous) live on the savannahs, or on the upper Nickerie, Coppename and Maroni, far from the plantations, cultivating their fields of manioc or cassava, and for the rest living by fishing and hunting. They number about 2000. The bush negroes (Marrons) dwell between 3° and 4° N., near the isles and cataracts. They are estimated at 10,000, and are employed in the transport of men and goods to the goldfields, the navigation of the rivers in trade with the Indians, and in the transport of wood to Paramaribo and the plantations. They are the descendants of runaway slaves, and before missionaries had worked among them their paganism retained curious traces of their former connexion with Christianity. Their chief god was Gran Gado (grand-god), his wife Maria, and his son Jesi Kist. Various minor deities were also worshipped, Ampuka the bush-god, Toni the water-god, &c. Their language was based on a bastard English, mingled with many Dutch, Portuguese and native elements. Their chiefs are called gramman or grand man; but the authority of these men, and the peculiarities of language and religion, have in great measure died out owing to modern intercourse with the Dutch and others. The inhabitants of Paramaribo and the plantations comprise a variety 681 of races, represented by Chinese, Javanese, coolies from India and the West Indies, negroes and about 2000 whites. Of non-Christian immigrants there are about 6000 Mahommedans and 12,000 Hindus; and Jews number about 1200. The total population was given in 1907 as 84,103, exclusive of Indians, &c., in the forests. Nearly one-half of this total are in Paramaribo and one-half in the districts. The population has shown a tendency to move from the districts to the town; thus in 1852 there were 6000 persons in the town and 32,000 in the districts.
II. Suriname, or Surinam, covers about 57,900 sq. miles. It is bordered by British Guiana to the west and French Guiana to the east (the long-standing issue regarding the French boundary is addressed in section III., French Guiana). The different groups living in Surinam are spread out based on the land and its resources. The Indigenous people (Caribs, Arawaks, Warrous) reside in the savannahs or along the upper Nickerie, Coppename, and Maroni rivers, away from the plantations, growing their crops of manioc or cassava, and mainly surviving through fishing and hunting. Their population is around 2,000. The bush negroes (Marrons) live between 3° and 4° N, near the islands and waterfalls. They are estimated to number 10,000 and are involved in transporting people and goods to the goldfields, navigating the rivers for trade with the Indigenous people, and transporting wood to Paramaribo and the plantations. They are descendants of runaway slaves, and before the arrival of missionaries, their pagan beliefs included interesting remnants of their past connections to Christianity. Their main god was Gran Gado (grand-god), with his wife Maria and son Jesi Kist. They also worshipped various minor deities like Ampuka the bush-god and Toni the water-god. Their language was a creole, primarily based on English, with many Dutch, Portuguese, and native influences. Their leaders are called gramman or grand man; however, the power of these leaders, along with unique aspects of their language and religion, have largely diminished due to modern interactions with the Dutch and others. The residents of Paramaribo and the plantations consist of a mix of races, including Chinese, Javanese, indentured workers from India and the West Indies, Black people, and about 2,000 white individuals. There are around 6,000 Muslim immigrants and 12,000 Hindus among the non-Christian population, and the Jewish community is about 1,200. The total population was estimated in 1907 to be 84,103, not including Indigenous people, etc., in the forests. Nearly half of this total lives in Paramaribo, while the other half is in the districts. The population has been shifting from the districts to the city; in 1852, there were 6,000 people in the city and 32,000 in the districts.
The principal settlements have been made in the lower valley of the Surinam, or between that river and the Saramacca on the W. and the Commewyne on the E. The Surinam is the chief of a number of large rivers which rise in the Tumuc Humac range or the low hills between it and the sea, which they enter on the Dutch seaboard, between the Corentyn and the Maroni (Dutch Corantijn and Marowijne), which form the boundaries with British and French territories respectively. Between the rivers of Dutch Guiana there are remarkable cross channels available during the floods at least. As the Maroni communicates with the Cottica, which is in turn a tributary of the Commewyne, a boat can pass from the Maroni to Paramaribo; thence by the Sommelsdijk canal it can reach the Saramacca; and from the Saramacca it can proceed up the Coppename, and by means of the Nickerie find its way to the Corentyn. The rivers are not navigable inland to any considerable extent, as their courses are interrupted by rapids. The interior of the country consists for the most part of low hills, though an extreme height of 3800 ft. is known in the Wilhelmina Kette, in the west of the colony, about 3° 50′ to 4° N. The hinterland south of this latitude, and that part of the Tumuc Humac range along which the Dutch frontier runs, are, however, practically unexplored. Like the other territories of Guiana the Dutch colony is divided physically into a low coast-land, savannahs and almost impenetrable forest.
The main settlements are located in the lower valley of the Surinam River, between that river and the Saramacca to the west and the Commewyne to the east. The Surinam is the largest of several major rivers that originate in the Tumuc Humac range or the low hills between it and the sea, which they enter on the Dutch coastline, between the Corentyn and the Maroni (Dutch Corantijn and Marowijne), which mark the borders with British and French territories, respectively. There are notable cross channels between the rivers of Dutch Guiana that are navigable at least during the floods. Since the Maroni connects to the Cottica, which in turn is a tributary of the Commewyne, a boat can travel from the Maroni to Paramaribo; from there, it can use the Sommelsdijk canal to reach the Saramacca; and from the Saramacca, it can head up the Coppename and, via the Nickerie, make its way to the Corentyn. However, the rivers are not navigable inland to any great extent because their paths are interrupted by rapids. The interior of the country is mostly low hills, though there is a peak of 3,800 feet in the Wilhelmina Kette, in the west of the colony, around 3° 50′ to 4° N. The hinterland south of this latitude and that part of the Tumuc Humac range along the Dutch border are, however, largely unexplored. Like other regions of Guiana, the Dutch colony is physically divided into low coastal land, savannahs, and nearly impenetrable forest.
Meteorological observations have been carried on at five stations (Paramaribo, Coronie, Sommelsdijk, Nieuw-Nickerie and Groningen). The mean range of temperature for the day, month and year shows little variation, being respectively 77.54°-88.38° F., 76.1°-78.62° F. and 70.52°-90.14° F. The north-east trade winds prevail throughout the year, but the rainfall varies considerably; for December and January the mean is respectively 8.58 and 9.57 in., for May and June 11.26 and 10.31 in., but for February and March 7.2 and 6.81 in., and for September 2.48 and 2.0 in. The seasons comprise a long and a short dry season, and a period of heavy and of slight rainfall.
Meteorological observations have been conducted at five stations (Paramaribo, Coronie, Sommelsdijk, Nieuw-Nickerie, and Groningen). The average temperature range for the day, month, and year shows little variation, being 77.54°-88.38° F., 76.1°-78.62° F., and 70.52°-90.14° F., respectively. The northeast trade winds prevail year-round, but rainfall varies significantly; for December and January, the average is 8.58 and 9.57 inches, respectively, for May and June it’s 11.26 and 10.31 inches, while for February and March it’s 7.2 and 6.81 inches, and for September, it’s 2.48 and 2.0 inches. The seasons consist of a long dry season, a short dry season, and periods of heavy and light rainfall.
Products and Trade.—It has been found exceedingly difficult to exploit the produce of the forests. The most important crops and those supplying the chief exports are cocoa, coffee and sugar, all cultivated on the larger plantations, with rice, maize and bananas on the smaller or coast lands. Most of the larger plantations are situated on the lower courses of the Surinam, Commewyne, Nickerie and Cottica, and on the coast lands, rarely in the upper parts. Goldfields lie in the older rocks (especially the slate) of the upper Surinam, Saramacca and Maroni. The first section of a railway designed to connect the goldfields with Paramaribo was opened in 1906. The annual production of gold amounts in value to about £100,000, but has shown considerable fluctuation. Agriculture is the chief means of subsistence. About 42,000 acres are under cultivation. Of 30,000, persons whose occupation is given in official statistics, close upon 21,000 are engaged in agriculture or on the plantations, 2400 in gold-mining and only 1000 in trade. The exports increased in value from £200,800 in 1875 to £459,800 in 1899, and imports from £260,450 in 1875 to £510,180 in 1899; but the average value of exports over five years subsequently was only £414,000, while that of imports was £531,000.
Products and Trade.—It has been very challenging to make use of the resources from the forests. The main crops, which are also the primary exports, include cocoa, coffee, and sugar, primarily grown on larger plantations, along with rice, maize, and bananas cultivated on smaller or coastal lands. Most larger plantations are located along the lower stretches of the Surinam, Commewyne, Nickerie, and Cottica rivers, rarely in the upper regions. Gold deposits can be found in the older rocks (especially slate) of the upper Surinam, Saramacca, and Maroni areas. The first section of a railway meant to connect the goldfields to Paramaribo opened in 1906. Gold production is valued at about £100,000 annually but has seen significant fluctuations. Agriculture is the main source of livelihood, with around 42,000 acres under cultivation. Out of 30,000 individuals listed in official statistics, nearly 21,000 work in agriculture or on plantations, 2,400 in gold mining, and only 1,000 in trade. Exports grew in value from £200,800 in 1875 to £459,800 in 1899, while imports rose from £260,450 in 1875 to £510,180 in 1899; however, the average export value over the next five years was only £414,000, compared to £531,000 for imports.
Administration.—The colony is under a governor, who is president of an executive council, which also includes a vice-president and three members nominated by the crown. The legislative body is the states, the members of which are elected for six years by electors, of whom there is one for every 200 holders of the franchise. The colony is divided into sixteen districts. For the administration of justice there are three cantonal courts, two district courts, and the supreme court at Paramaribo, whose president and permanent members are nominated by the crown. The average local revenue (1901-1906) was about £276,000 and the expenditure about £317,000; both fluctuated considerably, and a varying subvention is necessary from the home government (£16,000 in 1902, £60,400 in 1906; the annual average is about £37,000). There are a civic guard of about 1800 men and a militia of 500, with a small garrison.
Administration.—The colony is governed by a governor, who also serves as the head of an executive council that includes a vice-president and three members appointed by the crown. The legislative body is known as the states, with members elected for six years by voters, of whom there is one for every 200 eligible voters. The colony is split into sixteen districts. For the administration of justice, there are three cantonal courts, two district courts, and the supreme court located in Paramaribo, whose president and permanent members are appointed by the crown. The average local revenue from 1901 to 1906 was about £276,000, while expenditures were around £317,000; both figures varied significantly, necessitating fluctuating subsidies from the central government (£16,000 in 1902, £60,400 in 1906; the annual average is roughly £37,000). The colony has a civic guard of about 1,800 men and a militia of 500, along with a small garrison.
History.—The history of the Dutch in Guiana, and the compression of their influence within its present limits, belongs to the general history of Guiana (above). Surinam and the Dutch islands of the West Indies were placed under a common government in 1828, the governor residing at Paramaribo, but in 1845 they were separated. Slavery was abolished in 1863. Labour then became difficult to obtain, and in 1870 a convention was signed between Holland and England for the regulation of the coolie traffic, and a Dutch government agent for Surinam was appointed at Calcutta. The problem was never satisfactorily solved, but the interest of the mother-country in the colony greatly increased during the last twenty years of the 19th century, as shown by the establishment of the Surinam Association, of the Steam Navigation Company’s service to Paramaribo, and by the formation of a botanical garden for experimental culture at that town, as also by geological and other scientific expeditions, and the exhibition at Haarlem in 1898.
History.—The history of the Dutch in Guiana, and the limits of their influence within its current borders, is part of the broader history of Guiana (see above). Suriname and the Dutch Caribbean islands came under a unified government in 1828, with the governor based in Paramaribo, but they were separated in 1845. Slavery was abolished in 1863. After this, it became hard to find labor, so in 1870 a treaty was signed between the Netherlands and England to manage the indentured labor system, and a Dutch government agent for Suriname was appointed in Calcutta. The issue was never fully resolved, but interest from the mother country in the colony significantly grew during the last two decades of the 19th century. This was demonstrated by the establishment of the Suriname Association, the Steam Navigation Company’s service to Paramaribo, the creation of a botanical garden for experimental cultivation in that city, and various geological and other scientific expeditions, along with the exhibition in Haarlem in 1898.
Authorities.—Among the older works on Surinam the first rank is held by Jan Jacob Hartsinck’s masterly Beschryving van Guiana, of de Wilde Kust, in Zuid Amerika (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1770). Extracts from this work, selected for their bearing upon British boundary questions, were translated and annotated by J. A. J. de Villiers (London, 1897). A valuable Geschiedenis der Kolonie van Suriname, by a number of “learned Jews,” was published at Amsterdam in 1791 and it was supplemented and so far superseded by Wolbers, Geschiedenis van Suriname (Amsterdam, 1861). See further W. G. Palgrave, Dutch Guiana (London, 1876); A. Kappler, Surinam, sein Land, &c. (Stuttgart, 1887); Prince Roland Bonaparte, Les Habitants de Surinam (Paris, 1884); K. Martin, “Bericht über eine Reise ins Gebiet des Oberen-Surinam,” Bijdragen v. h. Inst. voor Taal Land en Volkenkunde, i. 1. (The Hague); Westerouen van Meeteren, La Guyane néerlandaise (Leiden, 1884); H. Ten Kate, “Een en ander over Suriname,” Gids (1888); G. Verschuur, “Voyages aux trois Guyanes,” Tour du monde (1893). pp. 1, 49, 65; W. L. Loth, Beknopte Aardrijkskundige beschrijving van Suriname (Amsterdam, 1898), and Tijdschrift van het Aardrijkskundig Genootschap (1878), 79, 93; Asch van Wyck, “La Colonie de Surinam,” Les Pays-Bas (1898); L. Thompson, Overzicht der Geschiedenis van Suriname (The Hague, 1901); Catalogus der Nederl. W. I. ten Toonstelling te Haarlem (1899); Guide à travers la section des Indes néerlandaises, p. 323 (Amsterdam, 1899); Surinaamsche Almanak (Paramaribo, annually). For the language of the bush-negroes see Wullschlaegel, Kurzgefasste neger-englische Grammatik (Bautzen, 1854), and Deutsch neger-englisches Wörterbuch (Lobau, 1865).
Authorities.—Among the older works on Surinam, Jan Jacob Hartsinck’s masterful Beschryving van Guiana, of de Wilde Kust, in Zuid Amerika (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1770) holds the top spot. Extracts from this work, chosen for their relevance to British boundary issues, were translated and commented on by J. A. J. de Villiers (London, 1897). A valuable Geschiedenis der Kolonie van Suriname, written by several “learned Jews,” was published in Amsterdam in 1791, and it was later expanded and largely replaced by Wolbers’ Geschiedenis van Suriname (Amsterdam, 1861). For more, see W. G. Palgrave, Dutch Guiana (London, 1876); A. Kappler, Surinam, sein Land, &c. (Stuttgart, 1887); Prince Roland Bonaparte, Les Habitants de Surinam (Paris, 1884); K. Martin, “Bericht über eine Reise ins Gebiet des Oberen-Surinam,” Bijdragen v. h. Inst. voor Taal Land en Volkenkunde, i. 1. (The Hague); Westerouen van Meeteren, La Guyane néerlandaise (Leiden, 1884); H. Ten Kate, “Een en ander over Suriname,” Gids (1888); G. Verschuur, “Voyages aux trois Guyanes,” Tour du monde (1893), pp. 1, 49, 65; W. L. Loth, Beknopte Aardrijkskundige beschrijving van Suriname (Amsterdam, 1898), and Tijdschrift van het Aardrijkskundig Genootschap (1878), 79, 93; Asch van Wyck, “La Colonie de Surinam,” Les Pays-Bas (1898); L. Thompson, Overzicht der Geschiedenis van Suriname (The Hague, 1901); Catalogus der Nederl. W. I. ten Toonstelling te Haarlem (1899); Guide à travers la section des Indes néerlandaises, p. 323 (Amsterdam, 1899); Surinaamsche Almanak (Paramaribo, annually). For the language of the bush-negroes, see Wullschlaegel, Kurzgefasste neger-englische Grammatik (Bautzen, 1854), and Deutsch neger-englisches Wörterbuch (Lobau, 1865).
III. French Guiana (Guyane).—This colony is situated between Dutch Guiana and Brazil. A delimitation of the territory belonging to France and the Netherlands was arrived at in 1891, by decision of the emperor of Russia. This question originated in the arrangement French Guiana. of 1836, that the river Maroni should form the frontier. It turned on the claim of the Awa or the Tapanahoni to be recognized as the main head-stream of the Maroni, and the final decision, in indicating the Awa, favoured the Dutch. In 1905 certain territory lying between the upper Maroni and the Itany, the possession of which had not then been settled, was acquired by France by agreement between the French and Dutch governments. The question of the exploitation of gold in the Maroni was settled by attributing alternate reaches of the river to France and Holland; while France obtained the principal islands in the lower Maroni. The additional territory thus attached to the French colony amounted to 965 sq. m. In December 1900 the Swiss government as arbitrators fixed the boundary between French Guiana and Brazil as the river Oyapock and the watershed on the Tumuc Humac mountains, thus awarding to France about 3000 of the 100,000 sq. m. which she claimed. This dispute was of earlier origin than that with the Dutch; dissensions between the French and the Portuguese relative to territory north of the Amazon occurred in the 17th century. In 1700 the Treaty of Lisbon made the contested area (known as the Terres du Cap du Nord) neutral ground. The treaty of Utrecht in 1713 indicated as the French boundary a river which the French afterwards claimed to be the Araguary, but the Portuguese asserted that the Oyapock was intended. After 682 Brazil had become independent the question dragged on until in 1890-1895 there were collisions in the contested territory between French and Brazilian adventurers. This compelled serious action, and a treaty of arbitration, preliminary to the settlement, was signed at Rio de Janeiro in 1897. French Guiana, according to official estimate, has an area of about 51,000 sq. m. The population is estimated at about 30,000; its movement is not rapid. Of this total 12,350 live at Cayenne, 10,100 were in the communes, 5700 formed the penal population, 1500 were native Indians (Galibi, Emerillon, Oyampi) and 500 near Maroni were negroes. Apart from Cayenne, which was rebuilt after the great fire of 1888, the centres of population are unimportant: Sinnamarie with 1500 inhabitants, Mana with 1750, Roura with 1200 and Approuague with 1150. In 1892 French Guiana was divided into fourteen communes, exclusive of the Maroni district. Belonging to the colony are also the three Safety Islands (Royale, Joseph and Du Diable—the last notable as the island where Captain Dreyfus was imprisoned), the Enfant Perdu Island and the five Remire Islands.
III. French Guiana (Guyane).—This colony is located between Dutch Guiana and Brazil. The boundary between the territories of France and the Netherlands was established in 1891 by a decision from the emperor of Russia. This issue began with the 1836 agreement that the Maroni River would be the border. The dispute revolved around which river—the Awa or the Tapanahoni—should be recognized as the main source of the Maroni, and the final ruling, which identified the Awa, favored the Dutch. In 1905, France acquired certain land between the upper Maroni and the Itany, an area that had not been settled yet, through an agreement with the Dutch government. The question of gold exploitation in the Maroni was resolved by assigning alternate segments of the river to France and Holland, while France gained control of the major islands in the lower Maroni. The additional territory added to the French colony was about 965 square miles. In December 1900, the Swiss government, acting as arbitrators, designated the boundary between French Guiana and Brazil as the Oyapock River and the watershed on the Tumuc Humac mountains, granting France approximately 3,000 of the 100,000 square miles she claimed. This dispute dates back further than the one with the Dutch; conflicts between French and Portuguese over territory north of the Amazon occurred in the 17th century. The Treaty of Lisbon in 1700 declared the disputed area (known as the Terres du Cap du Nord) neutral ground. The Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 defined a river as the French boundary, which the French later claimed to be the Araguary, although the Portuguese argued it referred to the Oyapock. After Brazil achieved independence, the issue continued until clashes occurred in 1890-1895 between French and Brazilian adventurers in the disputed area, prompting serious action and a treaty of arbitration, which was signed in Rio de Janeiro in 1897 as a precursor to a settlement. According to official estimates, French Guiana covers about 51,000 square miles and has a population of roughly 30,000, with slow growth. Of this total, 12,350 live in Cayenne, 10,100 are in the communes, 5,700 make up the penal population, 1,500 are indigenous Indians (Galibi, Emerillon, Oyampi), and 500 near Maroni are black. Besides Cayenne, which was rebuilt after the major fire of 1888, the other population centers are relatively small: Sinnamarie with 1,500 residents, Mana with 1,750, Roura with 1,200, and Approuague with 1,150. In 1892, French Guiana was divided into fourteen communes, excluding the Maroni district. The colony also includes the three Safety Islands (Royale, Joseph, and Du Diable—the latter known as the place where Captain Dreyfus was imprisoned), Enfant Perdu Island, and the five Remire Islands.
A considerable portion of the low coast land is occupied by marshes, with a dense growth of mangroves or, in the drier parts, with the pinot or wassay palm (Euterpe oleracea). Settlements are confined almost entirely to the littoral and alluvial districts. The forest-clad hills of the hinterland do not generally exceed 1500 ft. in elevation; that part of the Tumuc Humac range which forms the southern frontier may reach an extreme elevation of 2600 ft. But the dense tropical forests attract so much moisture from the ocean winds that the highlands are the birthplace of a large number of rivers which in the rainy season especially pour down vast volumes of water. Not less than 15 are counted between the Maroni and the Oyapock. South-eastward from the Maroni the first of importance is the Mana, which is navigable for large vessels 10 m. from its mouth, and for smaller vessels 27 m. farther. Passing the Sinnamary and the Kourou, the Oyock is next reached, near the mouth of which is Cayenne, the capital of the colony, and thereafter the Approuage. All these rivers take their rise in a somewhat elevated area about the middle of the colony; those streams which rise farther south, in the Tumuc Humac hills, are tributaries of the two frontier rivers, the Maroni on the one hand or the Oyapock on the other.
A large part of the low coastal land is taken up by marshes, filled with thick mangroves, or in drier areas, with the pinot or wassay palm (Euterpe oleracea). Settlements are mostly located along the coast and fertile river valleys. The forest-covered hills further inland usually don’t rise above 1500 ft. in height; however, the southern part of the Tumuc Humac range can reach up to 2600 ft. The lush tropical forests draw in a lot of moisture from ocean winds, making the highlands the source of many rivers that especially flood with water during the rainy season. At least 15 rivers are counted between the Maroni and the Oyapock. Southeast of the Maroni, the first significant river is the Mana, which is navigable for large ships 10 miles from its mouth, and for smaller vessels 27 miles further. After passing the Sinnamary and the Kourou, you reach the Oyapock, near which is Cayenne, the capital of the colony, and then the Approuage. All these rivers originate from a slightly elevated area in the middle of the colony; those streams that begin farther south in the Tumuc Humac hills are tributaries of either the Maroni or the Oyapock.
Climate and Products.—The rainy season begins in November or December, and lasts till the latter part of June; but there are usually three or four weeks of good weather in March. During the rest of the year there is often hardly a drop of rain for months, but the air is always very moist. At Cayenne the average annual rainfall amounts to fully 130 in., and it is naturally heavier in the interior. During the hotter part of the year—August, September, October—the temperature usually rises to about 86° F., but it hardly ever exceeds 88°; in the colder season the mean is 79° and it seldom sinks so low as 70°. Between day and night there is very little thermometric difference. The prevailing winds are the N.N.E. and the S.E.; and the most violent are those of the N.E. During the rainy season the winds keep between N. and E., and during the dry season between S. and E. Hurricanes are unknown. In flora and fauna French Guiana resembles the rest of the Guianese region. Vegetation is excessively rich. Among leguminous trees, which are abundantly represented, the wacapou is the finest of many hardwood trees. Caoutchouc and various palms are also common. The manioc is a principal source of food; rice is an important object of cultivation; and maize, yams, arrowroot, bananas and the bread-fruit are also to be mentioned. Vanilla is one of the common wild plants of the country. The clove tree has been acclimatized, and in the latter years of the empire it formed a good source of wealth; the cinnamon tree was also successfully introduced in 1772, but like that of the pepper-tree and the nutmeg its cultivation is neglected. A very small portion of the territory indeed is devoted to agriculture, although France has paid some attention to the development of this branch of activity. In 1880 a colonial garden was created near Cayenne; since 1894 an experimental garden has been laid out at Baduel. About 8200 acres are cultivated, of which 5400 acres are under cereals and rice, the remaining being under coffee (introduced in 1716), cacao, cane and other cultures. The low lands between Cayenne and Oyapock are capable of bearing colonial produce, and the savannahs might support large herds; cereals, root-crops and vegetables might easily be grown on the high grounds, and timber working in the interior should be profitable.
Climate and Products.—The rainy season starts in November or December and lasts until late June, but there are usually three or four weeks of good weather in March. For the rest of the year, there can be hardly any rain for months, although the air is always really humid. In Cayenne, the average annual rainfall is about 130 inches, and it’s generally heavier in the interior. During the hotter months—August, September, October—the temperature often reaches around 86°F but rarely goes above 88°F; in the cooler season, the average is 79°F, and it rarely drops below 70°F. There’s very little temperature difference between day and night. The prevailing winds come from the N.N.E. and S.E., with the strongest winds coming from the N.E. During the rainy season, the winds blow between N. and E., while in the dry season, they shift between S. and E. Hurricanes are not common. In terms of plant and animal life, French Guiana is similar to the rest of the Guianese region. The vegetation is extremely lush. Among the many leguminous trees, the wacapou stands out as the finest hardwood. Caoutchouc and various types of palms are also prevalent. The manioc is a key food source; rice is another important crop; and maize, yams, arrowroot, bananas, and breadfruit are also notable. Vanilla is one of the commonly found wild plants in the area. The clove tree has adapted well, and in the later years of the empire, it became a significant source of wealth; the cinnamon tree was also successfully introduced in 1772, but like the pepper tree and nutmeg, its cultivation has been neglected. Only a small part of the land is used for agriculture, although France has made some efforts to develop this sector. In 1880, a colonial garden was established near Cayenne; since 1894, an experimental garden has been set up at Baduel. About 8,200 acres are cultivated, with 5,400 acres dedicated to cereals and rice, while the rest is used for coffee (introduced in 1716), cacao, sugarcane, and other crops. The lowlands between Cayenne and Oyapock are suitable for colonial crops, and the savannahs could support large herds; cereals, root crops, and vegetables could easily be grown on the higher grounds, and timber harvesting in the interior should be profitable.
Gold-mining is the most important industry in the colony. Placers of great wealth have been discovered on the Awa, on the Dutch frontier and at Carsevenne in the territory which formed the subject of the Franco-Brazilian dispute. But wages are high and transport is costly, and the amount of gold declared at Cayenne did not average more than 130,550 oz. annually in 1900-1905. Silver and iron have been found in various districts; kaolin is extracted in the plains of Montsinéry; and phosphates have been discovered at several places. Besides gold-workings, the industrial establishments comprise saw-mills, distilleries, brick-works and sugar-works.
Gold mining is the most important industry in the colony. Huge placer deposits have been found on the Awa, at the Dutch border, and at Carsevenne in the area that was part of the Franco-Brazilian dispute. However, wages are high and transportation costs are steep, so the total gold reported at Cayenne averaged only about 130,550 ounces per year from 1900 to 1905. Silver and iron have been discovered in various regions; kaolin is mined in the Montsinéry plains; and phosphates have been found in several locations. In addition to gold mining, the industrial sector includes sawmills, distilleries, brick factories, and sugar mills.
Trade and Communications.—The commerce in 1885 amounted to £336,000 for imports and to £144,000 for exports; in 1897 the values were respectively £373,350 and £286,400, but in 1903, while imports had increased in value only to £418,720, exports had risen to £493,213. The imports consist of wines, flour, clothes, &c.; the chief are gold, phosphates, timber, cocoa and rosewood essence. Cayenne is the only considerable port. One of the drawbacks to the development of the colony is the lack of labour. Native labour is most difficult to obtain, and attempts to utilize convict labour have not proved very successful. Efforts to supply the need by immigration have not done so completely. The land routes are not numerous. The most important are that from Cayenne to Mana by way of Kourou, Sinnamarie and Iracoubo, and that from Cayenne along the coast to Kaw and the mouth of the Approuague. Towards the interior there are only foot-paths, badly made. By water, Cayenne is in regular communication with the Safety Islands (35 m.), and the mouth of the Maroni (80 m.), with Fort de France in the island of Martinique, where travellers meet the mail packet for France, and with Boston (U.S.A.). There is a French cable between Cayenne and Brest.
Trade and Communications.—In 1885, trade amounted to £336,000 in imports and £144,000 in exports; by 1897, those figures had risen to £373,350 and £286,400 respectively. However, in 1903, while imports increased only to £418,720, exports jumped to £493,213. The imports include wines, flour, clothing, etc.; the main exports are gold, phosphates, timber, cocoa, and rosewood essence. Cayenne is the only significant port. A major challenge to the colony's growth is the shortage of labor. It's very hard to find native workers, and attempts to use convict labor haven’t been very successful. Efforts to address this through immigration haven't fully met the needs. There aren’t many land routes. The most important ones are from Cayenne to Mana via Kourou, Sinnamarie, and Iracoubo, as well as from Cayenne along the coast to Kaw and the mouth of the Approuague. Towards the interior, there are only poorly constructed footpaths. By water, Cayenne is regularly connected to the Safety Islands (35 miles away) and the mouth of the Maroni (80 miles away), as well as to Fort de France in Martinique, where travelers catch the mail boat to France, and with Boston (U.S.A.). There is a French cable connecting Cayenne and Brest.
Administration.—The colony is administered by a commissioner-general assisted by a privy council, including the secretary general and chief of the judicial service, the military, penitentiary and administrative departments. In 1879 an elective general council of sixteen members was constituted. There are a tribunal of first instance and a higher tribunal at Cayenne, besides four justices of peace, one of whom has extensive jurisdiction in other places. Of the £256,000 demanded for the colony in the colonial budget for 1906, £235,000 represented the estimated expenditure on the penal settlement, so that the cost of the colony was only about £21,000. The local budget for 1901 balanced at £99,000 and in 1905 at £116,450. Instruction is given in the college of Cayenne and in six primary schools. At the head of the clergy is an apostolic prefect. The armed force consists of two companies of marine infantry, half a battery of artillery, and a detachment of gendarmerie, and comprises about 380 men. The penal settlement was established by a decree of 1852. From that year until 1867, 18,000 exiles had been sent to Guiana, but for the next twenty years New Caledonia became the chief penal settlement in the French colonies. But in 1885-1887 French Guiana was appointed as a place of banishment for confirmed criminals and for convicts sentenced to more than eight years’ hard labour. A large proportion of these men have been found unfit for employment upon public works.
Administration.—The colony is run by a commissioner-general who is supported by a privy council, which includes the secretary general and heads of the judicial, military, penitentiary, and administrative departments. In 1879, an elected general council of sixteen members was created. There is a first-instance tribunal and a higher tribunal in Cayenne, along with four justices of the peace, one of whom has extensive jurisdiction in other areas. Out of the £256,000 requested for the colony in the 1906 colonial budget, £235,000 was estimated to be spent on the penal settlement, leaving only about £21,000 for the colony's other costs. The local budget was balanced at £99,000 in 1901 and at £116,450 in 1905. Education is provided at the college in Cayenne and in six primary schools. The clergy is led by an apostolic prefect. The armed forces consist of two companies of marine infantry, half a battery of artillery, and a gendarmerie detachment, totaling about 380 men. The penal settlement was established by a decree in 1852. From that year until 1867, 18,000 exiles were sent to Guiana, but for the following twenty years, New Caledonia became the main penal settlement in the French colonies. However, from 1885 to 1887, French Guiana was designated as a place of banishment for confirmed criminals and convicts sentenced to more than eight years of hard labor. A significant number of these men have been found unsuitable for work on public projects.
History.—The Sieur La Revardière, sent out in 1604 by Henry IV. to reconnoitre the country, brought back a favourable report; but the death of the king put a stop to the projects of formal colonization. In 1626 a small body of traders from Rouen settled on the Sinnamary, and in 1635 a similar band founded Cayenne. The Compagnie du Cap Nord, founded by the people of Rouen in 1643 and conducted by Poncet de Brétigny, the Compagnie de la France Équinoxiale, established in 1645, and the second Compagnie de la France Équinoxiale, or Compagnie des Douze Seigneurs, established in 1652, were failures, the result of incompetence, mismanagement and misfortune. From 1654 the Dutch held the colony for a few years. The French Compagnie des Indes Occidentales, chartered in 1664 with a monopoly of Guiana commerce for forty years, proved hardly more successful than its predecessors; but in 1674 the colony passed under the direct control of the crown, and the able administration of Colbert began to tell favourably on its progress, although in 1686 an unsuccessful expedition against the Dutch in Surinam set back the advance of the French colony until the close of the century.
History.—In 1604, Sieur La Revardière was sent by Henry IV to explore the area and returned with a positive report; however, the king's death halted plans for formal colonization. In 1626, a small group of traders from Rouen settled along the Sinnamary River, and in 1635, another group established Cayenne. The Compagnie du Cap Nord, created by the people of Rouen in 1643 and led by Poncet de Brétigny, along with the Compagnie de la France Équinoxiale, founded in 1645, and the second Compagnie de la France Équinoxiale, or Compagnie des Douze Seigneurs, established in 1652, all failed due to incompetence, poor management, and bad luck. The Dutch controlled the colony for a few years starting in 1654. The French Compagnie des Indes Occidentales was chartered in 1664 with a monopoly on Guiana trade for forty years, but it was barely more successful than its predecessors; however, in 1674, the colony came under direct royal control, and the effective administration of Colbert began to positively influence its development, although an unsuccessful expedition against the Dutch in Surinam in 1686 temporarily hindered the progress of the French colony until the end of the century.
The year 1763 was marked by a terrible disaster. Choiseul, the prime minister, having obtained for himself and his cousin Praslin a concession of the country between the Kourou and the Maroni, sent out about 12,000 volunteer colonists, mainly from Alsace and Lorraine. They were landed at the mouth of the Kourou, where no preparation had been made for their reception, and where even water was not to be obtained. Mismanagement was complete; there was (for example) a shop for skates, whereas the necessary tools for tillage were wanting. By 1765 no more than 918 colonists remained alive, and these were a famished fever-stricken band. A long investigation in Paris resulted in the imprisonment of the incompetent leaders of the expedition. Several minor attempts at colonization in Guiana were made in the latter part of the century; but they 683 all seemed to suffer from the same fatal prestige of failure. During the revolution band after band of political prisoners were transported to Guiana. The fate of the royalists, nearly 600 in number, who were exiled on the 18th Fructidor (1797), was especially sad. Landed on the Sinnamary without shelter or food, two-thirds of them perished miserably. In 1800 Victor Hugues was appointed governor, and he managed to put the colony in a better state; but in 1809 his work was brought to a close by the invasion of the Portuguese and British.
The year 1763 was marked by a terrible disaster. Choiseul, the prime minister, secured a land deal for himself and his cousin Praslin for the area between the Kourou and the Maroni rivers. He sent around 12,000 volunteer colonists, mostly from Alsace and Lorraine. They landed at the mouth of the Kourou, where there was no preparation to welcome them, and they couldn't even find water. The mismanagement was complete; for instance, there was a shop selling skates, but there were no necessary tools for farming. By 1765, only 918 colonists were still alive, and they were a starving, fever-stricken group. A lengthy investigation in Paris led to the imprisonment of the incompetent leaders of the expedition. Several minor attempts at colonization in Guiana were made in the latter part of the century, but they all seemed to suffer from the same doomed legacy of failure. During the revolution, multiple groups of political prisoners were sent to Guiana. The fate of the royalists, nearly 600 in number, who were exiled on the 18th Fructidor (1797) was particularly tragic. They were landed on the Sinnamary without shelter or food, and two-thirds of them died a miserable death. In 1800, Victor Hugues was appointed governor, and he managed to improve the state of the colony, but in 1809, his work was cut short by the invasion of the Portuguese and British.
Though French Guiana was nominally restored to the French in 1814, it was not really surrendered by the Portuguese till 1817. Numerous efforts were now made to establish the colony firmly, although its past misfortunes had prejudiced the public mind in France against it. In 1822 the first steam sugar mills were introduced; in 1824 an agricultural colony (Nouvelle Angoulême) was attempted in the Mana district, which, after failure at first, became comparatively successful. The emancipation of slaves and the consequent dearth of labour almost ruined the development of agricultural resources about the middle of the century, but in 1853 a large body of African immigrants was introduced. The discovery of gold on the Approuague in 1855 caused feverish excitement, and seriously disturbed the economic condition of the country.
Though French Guiana was officially returned to the French in 1814, the Portuguese didn’t actually give it up until 1817. Many attempts were made to strengthen the colony, even though its troubled history had turned public opinion in France against it. In 1822, the first steam sugar mills were set up; in 1824, an agricultural settlement (Nouvelle Angoulême) was started in the Mana district, which, after an initial struggle, became relatively successful. The emancipation of slaves and the resulting shortage of labor nearly stalled agricultural development around the middle of the century, but in 1853, a large group of African immigrants was brought in. The discovery of gold on the Approuague in 1855 created a frenzy of excitement and seriously disrupted the country's economic situation.
Authorities.—A detailed bibliography of French Guiana will be found in Ternaux-Compans, Notice historique de la Guyane française (Paris, 1843). Among more recent works, see E. Bassières, Notice sur la Guyane, issued on the occasion of the Paris Exhibition (1900); Publications de la société d’études pour la colonisation de la Guyane française (Paris, 1843-1844); H. A. Coudreau, La France équinoxiale (1887), Dialectes indiens de Guyane (1891), Dix ans de Guyane (1892), and Chez nos Indiens (1893), all at Paris; G. Brousseau, Les Richesses de la Guyane française (Paris, 1901); L. F. Viala, Les Trois Guyanes (Montpellier, 1893).
Authorities.—You can find a detailed bibliography of French Guiana in Ternaux-Compans, Notice historique de la Guyane française (Paris, 1843). For more recent works, check out E. Bassières, Notice sur la Guyane, published for the Paris Exhibition (1900); Publications de la société d’études pour la colonisation de la Guyane française (Paris, 1843-1844); H. A. Coudreau, La France équinoxiale (1887), Dialectes indiens de Guyane (1891), Dix ans de Guyane (1892), and Chez nos Indiens (1893), all in Paris; G. Brousseau, Les Richesses de la Guyane française (Paris, 1901); L. F. Viala, Les Trois Guyanes (Montpellier, 1893).
1 The origin of the name is somewhat obscure, and has been variously interpreted. But the late Col. G. E. Church supplies the following note, which has the weight of his great authority: “I cannot confirm the suggestion of Schomburgk that Guayaná ‘received its name from a small river, a tributary of the Orinoco’, supposed to be the Waini or Guainia. In South America, east of the Andes, it was the common custom of any tribe occupying a length of river to call it simply ‘the river’; but the other tribes designated any section of it by the name of the people living on its banks. Many streams, therefore, had more than a dozen names. It is probable that no important river had one name alone throughout its course, prior to the time of the Conquest. The radical wini, waini, wayni, is found as a prefix, and very frequently as a termination, to the names of numerous rivers, not only throughout Guayaná but all over the Orinoco and Amazon valleys. For instance, Paymary Indians called the portion of the Purús river which they occupied the Waini. It simply means water, or a fountain of water, or a river. The alternative suggestion that Guayaná is an Indian word signifying ’wild coast,’ I also think untenable. This term, applied to the north-east frontage of South America between the Orinoco and the Amazon, is found on the old Dutch map of Hartsinck, who calls it ’Guiana Caribania of de Wilde Kust,’ a name which must have well described it when, in 1580, some Zealanders, of the Netherlands, sent a ship to cruise along it, from the mouth of the Amazon to that of the Orinoco, and formed the first settlement near the river Pomeroon. The map of Firnao Vaz Dourado, 1564, calls the northern part of South America, including the present British Guiana, ‘East Peru.’ An anonymous Spanish map, about 1566, gives Guayaná as lying on the east side of the Orinoco just above its mouth. About 1660, Sebastien de Ruesta, cosmographer of the Casa de Contractacion de Seville, shows Guayaná covering the British, French and Dutch Guayanás. According to the map of Nicolas de Fer, 1719, a tribe of Guayazis (Guyanas) occupied the south side of the Amazon river, front of the island of Tupinambará, east of the mouth of the Madeira. Aristides Rojas, an eminent Venezuelan scholar, says that the Mariches Indians, near Caracas, inhabited a site called Guayaná long before the discovery of South America by the Spaniards. Coudreau in his Chez nos Indiens mentions that the Roucouyennes of Guayaná take their name from a large tree in their forests, ‘which appears to be the origin of the name Guayane.’ According to Michelana y Rojas, in their report to the Venezuelan government on their voyages in the basin of the Orinoco, ‘Guyana derives its name from the Indians who live between the Caroni river and the Sierra de Imataca, called Guayanos.’ My own studies of aboriginal South America lead me to support the statement of Michelana y Rojas, but with the following enlargement of it: The Portuguese, in the early part of the 16th century, found that the coast and mountain district of Rio de Janeiro, between Cape São Thome and Angra dos Reis, belonged to the formidable Tamoyos. South of these, for a distance of about 300 m. of the ocean slope of the coast range, were the Guayaná tribes, called by the early writers Guianás, Goyaná, Guayaná, Goaná and, plural, Goaynázés, Goayanázes and Guayanázes. They were constantly at feud with the Tamoyos and with their neighbours on the south, the Carijos, as well as with the vast Tapuya hordes of the Sertão of the interior. Long before the discovery, they had been forced to abandon their beautiful lands, but had recuperated their strength, returned and reconquered their ancient habitat. Meanwhile, however, many of them had migrated northward, some had settled in the Sertão back of Bahia and Pernambuco, others on the middle Amazon and in the valley of the Orinoco, but a large number had crossed the lower Amazon and occupied an extensive area of country to the north of it, about the size of Belgium, along the Tumuchumac range of highlands, and the upper Paron and Maroni rivers, as well as a large district on the northern slope of the above-named range. In their new home they became known as Roucouyennes, because, like the Mundurucus of the middle Amazon, they rubbed and painted themselves with roucou or urucu (Bixa Orellana); but other surrounding tribes called them Ouayanás, that is Guayanás—the Gua, so common to the Guarani-Tupi tongue, having become corrupted into Oua. Porto Seguro says of the so-called Tupis, ‘at other times they gave themselves the name of Guayá or Guayaná, which probably means “brothers,” from which comes Guayazes and Guayanazes.... The latter occupied the country just south of Rio de Janeiro.... The masters of the Capitania of St Vincente called themselves Guianas.’ Guinila, referring to north-eastern South America (1745), speaks of five missions being formed to civilize the ‘Nacion Guayana.’ In view of the above, it may be thought reasonable to assume that the vast territory now known as Guayaná (British, Dutch, French, Brazilian and Venezuelan) derives its name from its aborigines who were found there at the time of the discovery, and whose original home was the region I have indicated.”
1 The origin of the name is somewhat unclear and has been interpreted in various ways. However, the late Col. G. E. Church offers the following note, which carries his significant authority: “I cannot confirm Schomburgk's suggestion that Guayaná ‘got its name from a small river, a tributary of the Orinoco,' believed to be the Waini or Guainia. In South America, east of the Andes, it was common practice for any tribe occupying a stretch of river to simply call it ‘the river’; but other tribes referred to any section of it by the name of the people living along its banks. Many rivers, therefore, had multiple names. It’s likely that no major river had just one name throughout its course before the Conquest. The root wini, waini, wayni appears as a prefix and frequently as a suffix to the names of many rivers, not only in Guayaná but across the Orinoco and Amazon valleys. For example, the Paymary Indians referred to the part of the Purús river they occupied as Waini. It simply means water, or a spring of water, or a river. The alternate idea that Guayaná is an Indigenous word meaning ‘wild coast,’ also seems unlikely to me. This term, applied to the northeastern coast of South America between the Orinoco and the Amazon, appears on the old Dutch map by Hartsinck, who named it ‘Guiana Caribania of de Wilde Kust,’ a name that must have accurately described it when, in 1580, some Zealanders from the Netherlands sent a ship to explore it, from the mouth of the Amazon to the Orinoco, and established the first settlement near the Pomeroon river. The map by Firnao Vaz Dourado from 1564 labels the northern part of South America, including what is now British Guiana, as ‘East Peru.’ An anonymous Spanish map from around 1566 shows Guayaná located on the east side of the Orinoco just above its mouth. Around 1660, Sebastien de Ruesta, cosmographer of the Casa de Contractacion de Seville, depicted Guayaná covering the British, French, and Dutch Guayanás. According to Nicolas de Fer's map from 1719, a tribe called Guayazis (Guyanas) lived on the southern side of the Amazon river, across from the island of Tupinambará, east of the Madeira river mouth. Aristides Rojas, a notable Venezuelan scholar, indicates that the Mariches Indians near Caracas inhabited an area called Guayaná long before the Spaniards discovered South America. Coudreau, in his book Chez nos Indiens, notes that the Roucouyennes of Guayaná are named after a large tree in their forests, ‘which seems to be the source of the name Guayane.’ According to Michelana y Rojas, in their report to the Venezuelan government on their journeys in the Orinoco basin, ‘Guyana gets its name from the Indigenous people living between the Caroni river and the Sierra de Imataca, called Guayanos.’ My own research into Indigenous South America leads me to agree with Michelana y Rojas but with additional context: The Portuguese, in the early 16th century, discovered that the coastal and mountain areas of Rio de Janeiro, between Cape São Thome and Angra dos Reis, were inhabited by the powerful Tamoyos. South of them, stretching about 300 miles along the coastal slope, lived the Guayaná tribes, referred to by early writers as Guianás, Goyaná, Guayaná, Goaná and, in plural, Goaynázés, Goayanázes, and Guayanázes. They were often in conflict with the Tamoyos and their neighbors to the south, the Carijos, as well as the vast Tapuya groups from the Sertão of the interior. Long before the discovery, they had been forced to leave their beautiful lands but had regained their strength, returned, and reconquered their ancestral territory. Meanwhile, many migrated northward—some settled in the Sertão behind Bahia and Pernambuco, others in the middle Amazon and the Orinoco valley, while a large group crossed the lower Amazon and settled in an extensive area north of it, about the size of Belgium, along the Tumuchumac mountain range and the upper Paron and Maroni rivers, as well as a large region on the northern slope of that range. In their new home, they became known as Roucouyennes, because, like the Mundurucus of the middle Amazon, they decorated themselves with roucou or urucu (Bixa Orellana); however, surrounding tribes called them Ouayanás, which is Guayanás—the Gua, common in the Guarani-Tupi language, evolving into Oua. Porto Seguro mentions that the so-called Tupis would sometimes call themselves Guayá or Guayaná, which probably means “brothers,” leading to the terms Guayazes and Guayanazes.... The latter lived just south of Rio de Janeiro.... The rulers of the Capitania of St Vincente identified themselves as Guianas.” Guinila, referring to northeastern South America (1745), notes that five missions were established to civilize the ‘Nacion Guayana.’ Given all this, it seems reasonable to assume that the vast territory now known as Guayaná (British, Dutch, French, Brazilian, and Venezuelan) derives its name from the Indigenous peoples who were present there at the time of the discovery, and whose original home was the region I have described.”
2 This is the boundary generally accepted; but it is in dispute.
2 This is the commonly accepted boundary, but there are disagreements about it.
3 See C. B. Brown and J. G. Sawkins, Reports on the Physical, Descriptive and Economic Geology of British Guiana (London, 1875); C. Velain, “Esquisse géologique de la Guyane française et des bassins du Parou et du Yari (affluents de l’Amazone) d’après les explorations du Dr Crevaux,” Bull. Soc. Géogr. ser. 7, vol. vi. (Paris, 1885), pp. 453-492 (with geological map); E. Martin, Geologische Studien über Niederländisch-West-Indien, auf Grund eigener Untersuchungsreisen (Leiden, 1888); W. Bergt, “Zur Geologie des Coppename- und Nickerietales in Surinam (Hollandisch-Guyana),” Samml. d. Geol. Reichsmus. (Leiden), ser. 2, Bd. ii. Heft 2, pp. 93-163 (with 3 maps); and for British Guiana, the official reports on the geology of various districts, by J. B. Harrison, C. W. Anderson, H. I. Perkins, published at Georgetown.
3 See C. B. Brown and J. G. Sawkins, Reports on the Physical, Descriptive and Economic Geology of British Guiana (London, 1875); C. Velain, “Geological Sketch of French Guiana and the Basins of the Parou and Yari (Tributaries of the Amazon) Based on the Explorations of Dr. Crevaux,” Bull. Soc. Géogr. ser. 7, vol. vi. (Paris, 1885), pp. 453-492 (with geological map); E. Martin, Geological Studies on Dutch West Indies, Based on My Own Research Trips (Leiden, 1888); W. Bergt, “On the Geology of the Coppename and Nickerie Valleys in Suriname (Dutch Guiana),” Samml. d. Geol. Reichsmus. (Leiden), ser. 2, Bd. ii. No. 2, pp. 93-163 (with 3 maps); and for British Guiana, the official reports on the geology of various districts, by J. B. Harrison, C. W. Anderson, H. I. Perkins, published in Georgetown.
GUIART (or Guiard), GUILLAUME (d. c. 1316), French chronicler and poet, was probably born at Orleans, and served in the French army in Flanders in 1304. Having been disabled by a wound he began to write, lived at Arras and then in Paris, thus being able to consult the large store of manuscripts in the abbey of St Denis, including the Grandes chroniques de France. Afterwards he appears as a ménestrel de bouche. Guiart’s poem Branche des royaulx lignages, was written and then rewritten between 1304 and 1307, in honour of the French king Philip IV., and in answer to the aspersions of a Flemish poet. Comprising over 21,000 verses it deals with the history of the French kings from the time of Louis VIII.; but it is only really important for the period after 1296 and for the war in Flanders from 1301 to 1304, of which it gives a graphic account, and for which it is a high authority. It was first published by J. A. Buchon (Paris, 1828), and again in tome xxii. of the Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France (Paris, 1865).
GUIART (or Guiard), GUILLAUME (d. c. 1316), French chronicler and poet, was likely born in Orleans and served in the French army in Flanders in 1304. After being wounded, he began writing, living in Arras and then Paris, allowing him access to a vast collection of manuscripts at the abbey of St Denis, including the Grandes chroniques de France. Later, he appears as a ménestrel de bouche. Guiart’s poem Branche des royaulx lignages was written and then rewritten between 1304 and 1307, in honor of French King Philip IV, in response to slights from a Flemish poet. Spanning over 21,000 verses, it covers the history of the French kings from the time of Louis VIII, but is mainly significant for the period after 1296 and for the war in Flanders from 1301 to 1304, which it vividly details and is considered a reliable source for. It was first published by J. A. Buchon (Paris, 1828), and again in volume xxii of the Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France (Paris, 1865).
See A. Molinier, Les Sources de l’histoire de France, tome iii. (Paris, 1903).
See A. Molinier, The Sources of the History of France, volume iii. (Paris, 1903).
GUIBERT, or Wibert (c. 1030-1100), of Ravenna, antipope under the title of Clement III. from the 25th of June 1080 until September 1100, was born at Parma between 1020 and 1030 of the noble imperialist family, Corregio. He entered the priesthood and was appointed by the empress Agnes, chancellor and, after the death of Pope Victor II. (1057), imperial vicar in Italy. He strove to uphold the imperial authority during Henry IV.’s minority, and presided over the synod at Basel (1061) which annulled the election of Alexander II. and created in the person of Cadalous, bishop of Parma, the antipope Honorius II. Guibert lost the chancellorship in 1062. In 1073, through the influence of Empress Agnes and the support of Cardinal Hildebrand, he obtained the archbishopric of Ravenna and swore fealty to Alexander II. and his successors. He seems to have been at first on friendly terms with Gregory VII., but soon quarrelled with him over the possession of the city of Imola, and henceforth was recognized as the soul of the imperial faction in the investiture contest. He allied himself with Cencius, Cardinal Candidus and other opponents of Gregory at Rome, and, on his refusal to furnish troops or to attend the Lenten synod of 1075, he was ecclesiastically suspended by the pope. He was probably excommunicated at the synod of Worms (1076) with other Lombard bishops who sided with Henry IV., and at the Lenten synod of 1078 he was banned by name. The emperor, having been excommunicated for the second time in March 1080, convened nineteen bishops of his party at Mainz on the 31st of May, who pronounced the deposition of Gregory; and on the 25th of June he caused Guibert to be elected pope by thirty bishops assembled at Brixen. Guibert, whilst retaining possession of his archbishopric, accompanied his imperial master on most of the latter’s military expeditions. Having gained Rome, he was installed in the Lateran and consecrated as Clement III. on the 24th of March 1084. One week later, on Easter Sunday, he crowned Henry IV. and Bertha in St Peter’s. Clement survived not only Gregory VII. but also Victor III. and Urban II., maintaining his title to the end and in great measure his power over Rome and the adjoining regions. Excommunication was pronounced against him by all his rivals. He was driven out of Rome finally by crusaders in 1097, and sought refuge in various fortresses on his own estates. St Angelo, the last Guibertist stronghold in Rome, fell to Urban II. on the 24th of August 1098. Clement, on the accession of Paschal II. in 1099, prepared to renew his struggle but was driven from Albano by Norman troops and died at Civita Castellana in September 1100. His ashes, which were said by his followers to have worked miracles, were thrown into the water by Paschal II.
GUIBERT, or Wibert (c. 1030-1100), from Ravenna, was an antipope under the title of Clement III from June 25, 1080, until September 1100. He was born in Parma between 1020 and 1030 into the noble imperial family, Corregio. He became a priest and was appointed chancellor by Empress Agnes, and after the death of Pope Victor II (1057), he became the imperial vicar in Italy. He worked to uphold imperial authority during Henry IV’s minority and led the synod at Basel (1061) that canceled the election of Alexander II and appointed Cadalous, the bishop of Parma, as the antipope Honorius II. Guibert lost the chancellorship in 1062. In 1073, thanks to Empress Agnes and Cardinal Hildebrand’s support, he became the archbishop of Ravenna and pledged loyalty to Alexander II and his successors. He initially had a good relationship with Gregory VII, but they soon clashed over control of the city of Imola, and from then on, he was recognized as a leader of the imperial faction in the investiture conflict. He allied with Cencius, Cardinal Candidus, and others opposing Gregory in Rome, and after he refused to provide troops or attend the Lenten synod of 1075, the pope suspended him from office. He was likely excommunicated at the synod of Worms (1076) along with other Lombard bishops who supported Henry IV, and he was named in a ban at the Lenten synod of 1078. The emperor, who was excommunicated for the second time in March 1080, gathered nineteen bishops loyal to him in Mainz on May 31, who declared Gregory deposed; and on June 25, he had Guibert elected pope by thirty bishops gathered at Brixen. Guibert, while keeping his archbishopric, joined his imperial master on most of his military campaigns. After taking Rome, he was installed in the Lateran and consecrated as Clement III on March 24, 1084. One week later, on Easter Sunday, he crowned Henry IV and Bertha in St. Peter’s. Clement outlived not only Gregory VII but also Victor III and Urban II, maintaining his title until the end and largely holding onto his power over Rome and the surrounding areas. All of his rivals excommunicated him. He was finally expelled from Rome by crusaders in 1097 and sought refuge in various fortresses on his own lands. St. Angelo, the last Guibertist stronghold in Rome, fell to Urban II on August 24, 1098. Following Paschal II's accession in 1099, Clement prepared to continue the fight but was driven out of Albano by Norman troops and died in Civita Castellana in September 1100. His remains, which his followers claimed had performed miracles, were thrown into the water by Paschal II.
See J. Langen, Geschichte der römischen Kirche von Gregor VII. bis Innocenz III. (Bonn, 1893); Jaffé-Wattenbach, Regesta pontif. Roman. (2nd ed., 1885-1888); K. J. von Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. v. (2nd ed.); F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. iv., trans. by Mrs G. W. Hamilton (London, 1900-1902); and O. Köhncke, Wibert von Ravenna (Leipzig, 1888).
See J. Langen, History of the Roman Church from Gregory VII to Innocent III (Bonn, 1893); Jaffé-Wattenbach, Register of the Popes (2nd ed., 1885-1888); K. J. von Hefele, History of Councils, vol. v. (2nd ed.); F. Gregorovius, Rome in the Middle Ages, vol. iv., translated by Mrs. G. W. Hamilton (London, 1900-1902); and O. Köhncke, Wibert of Ravenna (Leipzig, 1888).
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.
GUIBERT (1053-1124), from Nogent, was a historian and theologian born to noble parents in Clermont-en-Beauvoisis. He was dedicated to the church from a young age. He received his early education at the Benedictine abbey of Flavigny (Flaviacum) or St Germer, where he studied with great enthusiasm, initially focusing on secular poets, which influenced his writing. Later, he shifted to theology, encouraged by Anselm of Bec, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury. In 1104, he was appointed head of the abbey of Notre Dame de Nogent and became actively involved in church affairs. His autobiography (De vita sua, sive monodiarum), written towards the end of his life, offers vivid insights into his era and the customs of his country. His account of the commune of Laon is a primary historical document. The same local flavor adds appeal to his history of the First Crusade (Gesta Dei per Francos), written around 1110. However, this history mainly paraphrases, in elaborate style, the Gesta Francorum of an unknown Norman author (see Crusades); and once he reaches the limits of his sources, his book becomes an unorganized collection of notes and stories. Nevertheless, his noble lineage and church position sometimes enhance the value of his work.
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).
References.—Guibert’s works, edited by d’Achery, were first published in 1651, in 1 volume folio, in Paris (Venerabilis Guiberti abbatis B. Mariae de Novigento opera omnia), and later republished in Migne’s Patrologia Latina, volumes clvi. and clxxxiv. They include, in addition to minor works, a treatise on homiletics (“Liber quo ordine sermo fieri debeat”); ten books of Moralia on Genesis, started in 1084 but not finished until 1116, written based on Gregory the Great’s Moralia in Jobum; five books of Tropologiae on Hosea, Amos, and the Lamentations; a treatise on the Incarnation, aimed against the Jews; four books De pignoribus sanctorum, a notably candid critique of the abuses surrounding the veneration of saints and relics; 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 title, in J. Bongars, Gesta Dei per Francos, i., and Recueil des historiens des croisades, hist. Occid., iv. 115-263. It has been translated into French in Guizot’s Collection, ix. 1-338. See H. von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges (Leipzig, 1881); B. Monod, Le Moine Guibert et son temps (Paris, 1905); and Guibert de Nogent; histoire de sa vie, edited by G. Bourgin (Paris, 1907).
GUIBERT, JACQUES ANTOINE HIPPOLYTE, Comte de (1743-1790), French general and military writer, was born at Montauban, and at the age of thirteen accompanied his father, Charles Bénoit, comte de Guibert (1715-1786), chief of staff to 684 Marshal de Broglie, throughout the war in Germany, and won the cross of St Louis and the rank of colonel in the expedition to Corsica (1767). In 1770 he published his Essai général de tactique in London, and this celebrated work appeared in numerous subsequent editions and in English, German and even Persian translations (extracts also in Liskenne and Sauvan, Bibl. historique et militaire, Paris, 1845). Of this work (for a detailed critique of which see Max Jähns, Gesch. d. Kriegswissenschaften, vol. iii. pp. 2058-2070 and references therein) it may be said that it was the best essay on war produced by a soldier during a period in which tactics were discussed even in the salon and military literature was more abundant than at any time up to 1871. Apart from technical questions, in which Guibert’s enlightened conservatism stands in marked contrast to the doctrinaire progressiveness of Menil Durand, Folard and others, the book is chiefly valued for its broad outlook on the state of Europe, especially of military Europe in the period 1763-1792. One quotation may be given as being a most remarkable prophecy of the impending revolution in the art of war, a revolution which the “advanced” tacticians themselves scarcely foresaw. “The standing armies, while a burden on the people, are inadequate for the achievement of great and decisive results in war, and meanwhile the mass of the people, untrained in arms, degenerates.... The hegemony over Europe will fall to that nation which ... becomes possessed of manly virtues and creates a national army”—a prediction fulfilled almost to the letter within twenty years of Guibert’s death. In 1773 he visited Germany and was present at the Prussian regimental drills and army manœuvres; Frederick the Great, recognizing Guibert’s ability, showed great favour to the young colonel and freely discussed military questions with him. Guibert’s Journal d’un voyage en Allemagne was published, with a memoir, by Toulongeon (Paris, 1803). His Défense du système de guerre moderne, a reply to his many critics (Neuchâtel, 1779) is a reasoned and scientific defence of the Prussian method of tactics, which formed the basis of his work when in 1775 he began to co-operate with the count de St Germain in a series of much-needed and successful reforms in the French army. In 1777, however, St Germain fell into disgrace, and his fall involved that of Guibert who was promoted to the rank of maréchal de camp and relegated to a provincial staff appointment. In his semi-retirement he vigorously defended his old chief St Germain against his detractors. On the eve of the Revolution he was recalled to the War Office, but in his turn he became the object of attack and he died, practically of disappointment, on the 6th of May 1790. Other works of Guibert, besides those mentioned, are: Observations sur la constitution politique et militaire des armées de S. M. Prussienne (Amsterdam, 1778), Éloges of Marshal Catinat (1775), of Michel de l’Hôpital (1778), and of Frederick the Great (1787). Guibert was a member of the Academy from 1786, and he also wrote a tragedy, Le Connétable de Bourbon (1775) and a journal of travels in France and Switzerland.
GUIBERT, JACQUES ANTOINE HIPPOLYTE, Count of (1743-1790), a French general and military writer, was born in Montauban. At thirteen, he joined his father, Charles Bénoit, comte de Guibert (1715-1786), who was the chief of staff to 684 Marshal de Broglie, during the war in Germany. He earned the cross of St Louis and became a colonel during the expedition to Corsica in 1767. In 1770, he published his Essai général de tactique in London, and this renowned work was issued in multiple subsequent editions, along with translations in English, German, and even Persian (extracts were also included in Liskenne and Sauvan, Bibl. historique et militaire, Paris, 1845). Of this work (which is critically reviewed in Max Jähns' Gesch. d. Kriegswissenschaften, vol. iii. pp. 2058-2070 and the references within), it can be said that it was the finest essay on warfare written by a soldier during a time when tactics were even debated in salons, and military literature was more abundant than ever before 1871. Besides technical aspects, where Guibert’s enlightened conservatism contrasts significantly with the doctrinaire progressivism of Menil Durand, Folard, and others, the book is mainly appreciated for its expansive view on the state of Europe, particularly the military landscape between 1763-1792. One notable quote serves as a striking prediction of the coming revolution in warfare, a shift that even the "advanced" tacticians barely anticipated: “Standing armies, while a burden on the people, are inadequate for achieving significant and decisive outcomes in war, and meanwhile, the untrained masses deteriorate... The dominance over Europe will belong to the nation which... possesses manly virtues and creates a national army”—a forecast that almost precisely came to fruition within twenty years of Guibert’s death. In 1773, he visited Germany and attended Prussian regimental drills and army maneuvers; Frederick the Great, recognizing Guibert’s talent, took a liking to the young colonel and freely discussed military matters with him. Guibert’s Journal d’un voyage en Allemagne was published, with a memoir, by Toulongeon (Paris, 1803). His Défense du système de guerre moderne, a response to his many critics (Neuchâtel, 1779), is a reasoned and scientific defense of the Prussian tactical method, which laid the groundwork for his work when he began collaborating with Count de St Germain in 1775 on a series of essential and successful reforms in the French army. However, in 1777, St Germain fell from grace, and this downfall affected Guibert, who was promoted to maréchal de camp but assigned to a provincial staff position. In his semi-retirement, he passionately defended his former superior St Germain against critics. On the brink of the Revolution, he was summoned back to the War Office, but in turn became a target of criticism and died, practically from disappointment, on May 6, 1790. Other works by Guibert, in addition to those mentioned, include: Observations sur la constitution politique et militaire des armées de S. M. Prussienne (Amsterdam, 1778), Éloges of Marshal Catinat (1775), of Michel de l’Hôpital (1778), and of Frederick the Great (1787). Guibert was a member of the Academy from 1786, and he also wrote a tragedy, Le Connétable de Bourbon (1775), along with a travel journal about France and Switzerland.
See Toulongeon, Éloge véridique de Guibert (Paris, 1790); Madame de Stäel, Éloge de Guibert; Bardin, Notice historique du général Guibert (Paris, 1836); Flavian d’Aldeguier, Discours sur la vie et les écrits du comte de Guibert (Toulouse, 1855); Count Forestie, Biographie du comte de Guibert (Montauban, 1855); Count zur Lippe, “Friedr. der Grosse und Oberst Guibert” (Militär-Wochenblatt, 1873, 9 and 10).
See Toulongeon, True Praise of Guibert (Paris, 1790); Madame de Stäel, Praise of Guibert; Bardin, Historical Notice of General Guibert (Paris, 1836); Flavian d’Aldeguier, Speech on the Life and Writings of Count Guibert (Toulouse, 1855); Count Forestie, Biography of Count Guibert (Montauban, 1855); Count zur Lippe, “Frederick the Great and Colonel Guibert” (Military Weekly, 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 685 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, FRANCESCO (1483-1540), the renowned Italian historian and statesman, was born in Florence in 1483, with Marsilio Ficino holding him at the baptismal font. His family was notable and noble; his ancestors had held the highest positions of honor in the state for many generations, as noted in his genealogical Ricordi autobiografici e di famiglia (Op. ined. vol. x.). After receiving the usual education of a boy in grammar and basic classical studies, his father, Piero, sent him to the universities of Ferrara and Padua, where he stayed until 1505. The death of an uncle, who held the see of Cortona with great display, made young Guicciardini aspire to an ecclesiastical career. He envisioned himself clad in the scarlet of a cardinal, and he certainly would have risen to that rank. However, his father discouraged this ambition, declaring that, although he had five sons, he would not allow any of them to enter the church in its current corrupt state. Guicciardini, whose motivations were openly ambitious (see Ricordi, Op. ined. x. 68), shifted his focus to law, and at the age of twenty-three, he was appointed by the Signoria of Florence to read the Institutes publicly. Soon after, he became engaged to Maria, the daughter of Alamanno Salviati, motivated, as he candidly admits, by the political advantages an alliance with that prominent family would provide him (ib. x. 71). He was then practicing law, earning such distinction that in 1512, the Signoria entrusted him with an embassy to the court of Ferdinand the Catholic. This marked the start of his significant career as a diplomat and statesman. His actions during that legation were later harshly criticized, as his political opponents accused him of betraying the true interests of the commonwealth and using his influence to restore the exiled House of Medici to power. His correspondence with the Signoria in Spain (Op. ined. vol. vi.) showcases his remarkable powers of observation and analysis, a hallmark of his intellect, and Ferdinand, who was hypocritical and profoundly deceitful, served as a fitting subject for his studies. To suggest that the young statesman learned his cold political strategy in Spain might oversimplify the complexity of his character and do a disservice to the Italian experts in betrayal. Guicciardini’s autobiographical memoirs clearly show that he was ambitious, shrewd, greedy, and power-hungry from a young age; in Spain, he merely had the opportunity to study on a larger scale the political vices that already dominated the lesser rulers of Italy. Still, the experience was rich with lessons for such a capable student. Guicciardini emerged from this initial test of his skills with a well-earned reputation for diplomatic talent, as it was understood in Italy. To untangle plots and create counterplots; to counter treachery with deception; to respond to force with cunning; to assume that human nature is driven by the worst motives while regarding the most heinous crimes with a cool enthusiasm for their cleverness—this was then considered the pinnacle of political insight. Guicciardini mastered this game. In 1515, Leo X brought him into service and appointed him governor of Reggio and Modena. In 1521, Parma was added to his jurisdiction, and in 1523, Clement VII made him viceregent of Romagna. These prestigious roles effectively made Guicciardini the de facto ruler of the papal states beyond the Apennines during a tumultuous and confusing time. Much of the correspondence concerning his administration was published recently (Op. ined. vols. vii., viii.). In 1526, Clement elevated him further as lieutenant-general of the papal army. While in this position, he had to endure the humiliation of witnessing the sack of
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 686 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.
Guicciardini was a product of a cynical and selfish era, and his life showcased its grim influences. With a cold and worldly demeanor, lacking passion, he was blameless as a family man, loyal as a servant to his papal patrons, strict in managing the provinces under his care, and undeniably competent in handling affairs. However, despite these qualities, he was a man whose moral character evokes a strong sense of disgust. It's not just that he was ambitious, cruel, vengeful, and greedy; these vices have been found in individuals far less unlikable than Guicciardini. Beyond those faults that made him detestable to his fellow citizens, there was a meanness in him that our century is less willing to tolerate. His unemotional and relentless self-interest, his willingness to sacrifice truth and honor for personal gain, his acceptance of the world’s worst conditions as long as he could benefit from them, combined with the stark contradiction between his beliefs and actions, create a persona that would be contemptible in our eyes if it weren't so sinister. The social and political decay of Italy, where patriotism was absent and only selfishness remained as a motivation for action, found its representative in Guicciardini. Shifting from the man to the author, the decline of the age and the mindset that could foster such a bleak political philosophy, rooted in a cynical disbelief in goodness in human nature, becomes strikingly evident. Guicciardini seems to take pride in his disillusionment, using his extensive intellectual prowess to analyze the corruption he helped make irreversible. If we were to pick one treatise from that century to reflect the spirit of the Italian people during the last phase of the Renaissance, the historian might hesitate between Machiavelli's Principe and Guicciardini's Ricordi politici. The latter may even be more comprehensive. Moreover, it better fits the actual situation since the Principe still holds a flicker of patriotism amidst its cold, scientific approach, and an idealistic enthusiasm that lingers in its moral flaws; whereas a notable Italian critic from this decade fittingly described the Ricordi as “Italian corruption codified and elevated to a rule of life.” Guicciardini, however, is more famously known for the Storia d' Italia, a massive and detailed account of his country's struggles from 1494 to 1532. Evaluating him by this masterpiece of scientific history, he earns less praise as a writer than as a thinker and analyst. His style is tedious and wordy, achieving precision at the cost of clarity, presenting minute details with the same clarity as the narrative's main points. The whole tangled mess of Italian politics during that complex and turbulent time is unwound with a level of patience and insight that is remarkable. A major strength of the author is that he remains an impartial observer—a detached and curious critic. We might liken him to an anatomist, using knife and scalpel to dissect the lifeless body of Italy, pointing out the signs of her various illnesses with the indifferent analysis of someone with no moral sensitivity. This lack of feeling, while making Guicciardini a model for the scientific scholar, has diminished the appeal of his history. Even though he experienced the suffering of the Italian people, he appears unaware that he is writing a grand historical tragedy. He invests as much effort in revealing the trivial causes of a minor war with Pisa as he does in examining the deep-rooted issues of the papacy. He also fails to depict the events in which he participated as a complete drama. Whatever he addresses is already lifeless on the dissecting table, and his talent is that of an analytical pathologist. As a result, he does not grasp the fundamental significance of the task or appreciate the vital energy of the forces struggling for control in Europe. This is particularly evident in his writings about the Reformation. Despite these flaws, which are to be expected from a writer of Guicciardini’s nature, the Storia d' Italia was undoubtedly the greatest historical work published since the beginning of the modern era. It stands as a robust testament to Italian reasoning in the 16th century, the ultimate achievement of that Florentine school of philosophical historians that included Machiavelli, Segni, Pitti, Nardi, Varchi, Francesco Vettori, and Donato Giannotti. Until 1857, Guicciardini's reputation as a writer and his standing as a man relied almost entirely on the History of Italy and a few poorly edited extracts from his aphorisms. At that time, his descendants, Counts Piero and Luigi Guicciardini, opened their family archives and commissioned Signor Giuseppe Canestrini to publish his previously unpublished manuscripts in ten significant volumes. The vast array of documents and completed literary work thus introduced to the public has shed much light on Guicciardini, whether we view him as an author or a citizen. It has elevated his status as a political philosopher to the highest rank, where he now contests for intellectual dominance alongside his friend Machiavelli; however, it has also darkened our moral assessment of his character and actions. From the treasure trove of valuable materials within those ten volumes, it is sufficient to mention (1) the Ricordi politici, consisting of about 400 aphorisms on political and social issues; (2) the observations on Machiavelli’s Discorsi, which highlight the differing viewpoints of Italy’s two influential theorists on statecraft in the 16th century, showing that Guicciardini viewed Machiavelli somewhat as a well-meaning idealist or political enthusiast; (3) the Storia Fiorentina, an early work by the author noted for its lively style, vivid character portrayals, and open-minded judgment; and (4) the Dialogo del reggimento di Firenze, probably another early work, discussing various forms of government suitable for an Italian commonwealth with great subtlety, contrasting them and illustrating them through the historical twists of Florence up to 1494. Additionally, several short essays titled Discorsi politici, written during Guicciardini’s time in Spain, can be included. Only after thoroughly reading these minor works can a history student claim to fully understand Guicciardini and feel equipped to approach the Storia d' Italia with the necessary background of the author's personal thoughts and carefully protected opinions. In fact, it's safe to say that anyone wanting to gain insight into the true principles and sentiments of the figures who shaped and recorded history in the 16th century will find far more here than in the works intended for publication by the writer. Combined with Machiavelli’s writings, the Opere inedite provide a comprehensive view of Italian political philosophy before the time of Fra Paolo Sarpi.
See Rosini’s edition oí the Storia d’ Italia (10 vols., Pisa, 1819), and the Opere inedite, in 10 vols., published at Florence, 1857. A complete and initial edition of Guicciardini’s works is now in preparation in the hands of Alessandro Gherardi of the Florence archives. Among the many studies on Guicciardini we may mention Agostino Rossi’s Francesco Guicciardini e il governo Fiorentino (2 vols., Bologna, 1896), based on many new documents; F. de Sanctis’s essay “L’Uomo del Guicciardini,” in his Nuovi Saggi critici (Naples, 1879), and many passages in Professor P. Villari’s Machiavelli (Eng. trans., 1892); E. Benoist’s Guichardin, historien et homme d’état italien an XVIe siècle (Paris, 1862), and C. Gioda’s Francesco Guicciardini e le sue opere inedite (Bologna, 1880) are not without value, but the authors had not had access to many important documents since published. See also Geoffrey’s article “Une Autobiographie de Guichardin d’après ses œuvres inédites,” in the Revue des deux mondes (1st of February 1874).
See Rosini's edition of the Storia d’Italia (10 vols., Pisa, 1819), and the Opere inedite, in 10 vols., published in Florence, 1857. A complete and initial edition of Guicciardini's works is currently being prepared by Alessandro Gherardi of the Florence archives. Among the many studies on Guicciardini, we can mention Agostino Rossi's Francesco Guicciardini e il governo Fiorentino (2 vols., Bologna, 1896), which is based on many new documents; F. de Sanctis's essay “L’Uomo del Guicciardini,” in his Nuovi Saggi critici (Naples, 1879), and numerous sections in Professor P. Villari's Machiavelli (Eng. trans., 1892); E. Benoist's Guichardin, historien et homme d’état italien an XVIe siècle (Paris, 1862), and C. Gioda's Francesco Guicciardini e le sue opere inedite (Bologna, 1880) are also valuable, although the authors did not have access to many significant documents that have since been published. See also Geoffrey's article “Une Autobiographie de Guichardin d’après ses œuvres inédites,” in the Revue des deux mondes (1st of February 1874).
GUICHARD, KARL GOTTLIEB (1724-1775), soldier and military writer, known as Quintus Icilius, was born at Magdeburg in 1724, of a family of French refugees. He was educated for the Church, and at Leiden actually preached a sermon as a candidate for the pastorate. But he abandoned theology for more secular studies, especially that of ancient history, in which his learning attracted the notice of the prince of Orange, who promised him a vacant professorship at Utrecht. On his arrival, however, he found that another scholar had been elected by the local authorities, and he thereupon sought and obtained a commission in the Dutch army. He made the campaigns of 1747-48 in the Low Countries. In the peace which followed, his combined military and classical training turned his thoughts in the direction of ancient military history. His notes on this subject grew into a treatise, and in 1754 he went over to England in order to consult various libraries. In 1757 his Mémoires militaires sur les Grecs et les Romains appeared at the Hague, and when Carlyle wrote his Frederick the Great it had reached its fifth edition. Coming back, with English introductions, to the Continent, he sought service with Ferdinand of Brunswick, who sent him on to Frederick the Great, whom he joined in January 1758 at Breslau. The king was very favourably impressed with Guichard and his works, and he remained for nearly 18 months in the royal suite. His Prussian official name of Quintus Icilius was the outcome of a friendly dispute with the king (see Nikolai, Anekdoten, vi. 129-145; Carlyle, Frederick the Great, viii. 113-114). Frederick in discussing the battle of Pharsalia spoke of a centurion Quintus Caecilius as Q. Icilius. Guichard ventured to correct him, whereupon the king said, “You shall be Quintus Icilius,” and as Major Quintus Icilius he was forthwith gazetted to the command of a free battalion. This corps he commanded throughout the later stages of the Seven Years’ War, his battalion, as time went on, becoming a regiment of three battalions, and Quintus himself recruited seven more battalions of the same kind of troops. His command was almost always with the king’s own army in these campaigns, but for a short time it fought in the western theatre under Prince Henry. When not on the march he was always at the royal headquarters, and it was he who brought about the famous interview between the king and Gellert (see Carlyle, Frederick the Great, ix. 109; Gellert, Briefwechsel mit Demoiselle Lucius, ed. Ebert, Leipzig, 1823, pp. 629-631) on the subject of national German literature. On 22nd January 1761 Quintus was ordered to sack the castle of Hubertusburg (a task which Major-General Saldern had point-blank refused to undertake, from motives of conscience), and carried out his task, it is said, to his own very considerable profit. The place cannot have been seriously injured, as it was soon afterwards the meeting-place of the diplomatists whose work ended in the peace of Hubertusburg, but the king never ceased to banter Quintus on his supposed depredations. The very day of Frederick’s triumphant return from the war saw the disbanding of most of the free battalions, including that of Quintus, but the major to the end of his life remained with the king. He was made lieutenant-colonel in 1765, and in 1773, in recognition of his work Mémoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d’antiquités militaires, dealing mainly with Caesar’s campaigns in Spain (Berlin, 1773), was promoted colonel. He died at Potsdam, 1775.
GUICHARD, KARL GOTTLIEB (1724-1775), soldier and military writer, known as Quintus Icilius, was born in Magdeburg in 1724 to a family of French refugees. He was initially educated for the Church and even preached a sermon as a candidate for a pastor position in Leiden. However, he left theology for more secular studies, particularly ancient history, which caught the attention of the Prince of Orange, who promised him a vacant professorship at Utrecht. Upon arrival, he discovered that another scholar had already been elected by the local authorities, leading him to seek and obtain a commission in the Dutch army. He participated in campaigns in the Low Countries during 1747-48. After the peace that followed, his military and classical education directed him towards ancient military history. His notes on this topic expanded into a treatise, and in 1754 he traveled to England to consult various libraries. In 1757, his Mémoires militaires sur les Grecs et les Romains was published in The Hague, reaching its fifth edition by the time Carlyle wrote Frederick the Great. Returning to the Continent with English introductions, he sought service under Ferdinand of Brunswick, who referred him to Frederick the Great. Guichard joined Frederick’s camp in January 1758 in Breslau. The king was favorably impressed with Guichard and his works, and he remained in the royal suite for nearly 18 months. His Prussian official name of Quintus Icilius arose from a friendly debate with the king (see Nikolai, Anekdoten, vi. 129-145; Carlyle, Frederick the Great, viii. 113-114). During discussions about the battle of Pharsalia, Frederick referred to a centurion, Quintus Caecilius, as Q. Icilius. Guichard attempted to correct him, after which the king stated, “You shall be Quintus Icilius,” and he was promptly appointed Major Quintus Icilius, commanding a free battalion. He led this unit throughout the later stages of the Seven Years' War and, as time progressed, it transformed into a regiment of three battalions, with Quintus recruiting seven additional battalions of similar troops. His command mostly operated with the king's army during these campaigns, though for a brief period, it fought in the western theater under Prince Henry. When not on the move, he was always at the royal headquarters and facilitated the famous meeting between the king and Gellert (see Carlyle, Frederick the Great, ix. 109; Gellert, Briefwechsel mit Demoiselle Lucius, ed. Ebert, Leipzig, 1823, pp. 629-631) regarding national German literature. On January 22, 1761, Quintus was ordered to sack the castle of Hubertusburg (a task that Major-General Saldern had outright refused for ethical reasons), which he reportedly completed to his significant personal benefit. The castle could not have been heavily damaged, as it soon became the meeting place for diplomats whose negotiations led to the peace of Hubertusburg, but the king continued to tease Quintus about his alleged looting. The very day of Frederick’s triumphant return from war saw the disbanding of most free battalions, including Quintus's, but the major remained close to the king for the rest of his life. He was promoted to lieutenant-colonel in 1765, and in 1773, in recognition of his work Mémoires critiques et historiques sur plusieurs points d’antiquités militaires, primarily concerning Caesar’s campaigns in Spain (Berlin, 1773), he was elevated to colonel. He passed away in Potsdam in 1775.
GUICHEN, LUC URBAIN DE BOUËXIC, Comte de (1712-1790), French admiral, entered the navy in 1730 as “garde de la Marine,” the first rank in the corps of royal officers. His promotion was not rapid. It was not till 1748 that he became “lieutenant de vaisseau,” which was, however, a somewhat higher rank than the lieutenant in the British navy, since it carried with it the right to command a frigate. He was “capitaine de vaisseau,” or post captain, in 1756. But his reputation must have been good, for he was made chevalier de Saint Louis in 1748. In 1775 he was appointed to the frigate “Terpsichore,” attached to the training squadron, in which the duc de Chartres, afterwards notorious as the duc d’Orléans and as Philippe Égalité, was entered as volunteer. In the next year he was promoted chef d’escadre, or rear-admiral. When France had become the ally of the Americans in the War of Independence, he hoisted his flag in the Channel fleet, and was present at the battle of Ushant on the 27th of July 1779. In March of the following year he was sent to the West Indies with a strong squadron and was there opposed to Sir George Rodney. In the first meeting between them on the 17th of April to leeward of Martinique, Guichen escaped disaster only through the clumsy manner in which Sir George’s orders were executed by his captains. Seeing that he had to deal with a formidable opponent, Guichen acted with extreme caution, and by keeping the weather gauge afforded the British admiral no chance of bringing him to close action. When the hurricane months approached (July to September) he left the West Indies, and his squadron, being in a bad state from want of repairs, returned home, reaching Brest in September. Throughout all this campaign Guichen had shown himself very skilful in handling a fleet, and if he had not gained any marked success, he had prevented the British admiral from doing any harm to the French islands in the Antilles. In December 1781 the comte de Guichen was chosen to command the force which was entrusted with the duty of carrying stores and reinforcements to the West Indies. On the 12th Admiral Kempenfelt, who had been sent out by the British Government with an unduly weak force to intercept him, sighted the French admiral in the Bay of Biscay through a temporary clearance in a fog, at a moment when Guichen’s warships were to leeward of the convoy, and attacked the transports at once. The French admiral could not prevent his enemy from capturing twenty of the transports, and driving the others into a panic-stricken flight. They returned to port, and the mission entrusted to Guichen was entirely defeated. He therefore returned to port also. He had no opportunity to gain any counterbalancing success during the short remainder of the war, but he was present at the final relief of Gibraltar by Lord Howe. His death occurred on the 13th of January 1790. The comte de Guichen was, by the testimony of his contemporaries, a most accomplished and high-minded gentleman. It is probable that he had more scientific knowledge than any of his English contemporaries and opponents. But as a commander in war he was notable chiefly for his skill in directing the orderly movements of a fleet, and seems to have been satisfied with formal operations, which were possibly elegant but could lead to no substantial result. He had none of the combative instincts of his countryman Suffren, or of the average British admiral.
GUICHEN, LUC URBAIN DE BOUËXIC, Count of (1712-1790), French admiral, joined the navy in 1730 as “garde de la Marine,” the entry-level rank for royal officers. His rise through the ranks was slow. It wasn't until 1748 that he became “lieutenant de vaisseau,” which was a somewhat higher rank than a lieutenant in the British navy, as it allowed him to command a frigate. He achieved the rank of “capitaine de vaisseau,” or post captain, in 1756. His reputation must have been solid, as he was made chevalier de Saint Louis in 1748. In 1775, he was assigned to the frigate “Terpsichore,” part of the training squadron, where the duc de Chartres, later known as the duc d’Orléans and Philippe Égalité, served as a volunteer. The following year, he was promoted to chef d’escadre, or rear-admiral. When France allied with the Americans in the War of Independence, he raised his flag in the Channel fleet and participated in the battle of Ushant on July 27, 1779. In March of the next year, he was sent to the West Indies with a strong squadron and faced Sir George Rodney there. During their first encounter on April 17, near Martinique, Guichen narrowly avoided disaster due to the poor execution of Sir George’s orders by his captains. Realizing he was up against a tough opponent, Guichen proceeded with extreme caution, managing to keep the weather advantage and preventing the British admiral from engaging him in close combat. As the hurricane season approached (July to September), he left the West Indies, his squadron in bad condition from lack of repairs, and returned home, arriving in Brest in September. Throughout this campaign, Guichen demonstrated great skill in fleet maneuvering, and while he didn’t achieve any significant victories, he successfully kept the British admiral from harming the French islands in the Caribbean. In December 1781, Comte de Guichen was appointed to lead the force responsible for delivering supplies and reinforcements to the West Indies. On the 12th, Admiral Kempenfelt, sent by the British Government with an inadequately small force to intercept him, spotted the French admiral in the Bay of Biscay through a momentary break in the fog. At that time, Guichen’s warships were downwind of the convoy, which allowed Kempenfelt to immediately attack the transports. The French admiral couldn't stop his enemy from capturing twenty of the transports and sending the others into a panic. They returned to port, and Guichen's mission failed completely. He then returned to port as well. He had no chance to achieve any compensating success during the short remainder of the war, but he was present at the final relief of Gibraltar by Lord Howe. He passed away on January 13, 1790. Comte de Guichen was, according to his contemporaries, a highly skilled and honorable gentleman. It's likely he had more scientific knowledge than any of his English contemporaries and rivals. However, as a military commander, he was notable primarily for his skill in managing the orderly maneuvers of a fleet and seemed content with formal operations that, while possibly elegant, resulted in little substantial impact. He lacked the combative instincts of his fellow countryman Suffren or the average British admiral.
See vicomte de Noailles, Marins et soldats français en Amérique (1903); and E. Chevalier, Histoire de la marine française pendant la guerre de l’indépendence américaine (1877).
See Vicomte de Noailles, Marins et soldats français en Amérique (1903); and E. Chevalier, Histoire de la marine française pendant la guerre de l’indépendence américaine (1877).
GUIDE (in Mid. Eng. gyde, from the Fr. guide; the earlier French form was guie, English “guy,” the d was due to the Italian form guida; the ultimate origin is probably Teutonic, the word being connected with the base seen in O. Eng. witan, to know), an agency for directing or showing the way, specifically a person who leads or directs a stranger over unknown or unmapped country, or conducts travellers and tourists through a town, or over buildings of interest. In European wars up to the time of the French Revolution, the absence of large scale detailed maps made local guides almost essential to the direction of military operations, and in the 18th century the general tendency to the stricter organization of military resources led in various countries to the special training of guide officers (called Feldjäger, and considered as general staff officers in the Prussian army), whose chief duty it was to find, and if necessary establish, routes across country for those parts of the army that had to move parallel to the main road and as nearly as possible at deploying interval from each other, for in those days armies were rarely spread out so far as to have the use of two or more made roads. But the necessity for such precautions died away when adequate surveys (in which guide officers were, at any rate in Prussia, freely employed) were carried out, and, as a definite term of military organization to-day, “guide” possesses no more essential peculiarity than fusilier, grenadier or rifleman. The genesis of the modern “Guide” regiments is perhaps to be found in a short-lived Corps of Guides formed by Napoleon in Italy in 1796, which appears to have been a personal escort or body guard composed of men who knew the country. In the Belgian army of to-day the Guide regiments correspond almost to the Guard cavalry of other nations; in the Swiss army the squadrons of “Guides” act as divisional cavalry, and in this role doubtless are called upon on occasion to lead columns. The “Queen’s own Corps of Guides” of the Indian army consists of infantry companies and cavalry squadrons. In drill, a “guide” is an officer or non-commissioned officer told off to regulate the direction and pace of movements, the remainder of the unit maintaining their alignment and distances by him.
GUIDE (in Middle English gyde, from the French guide; the earlier French form was guie, English “guy,” the d was influenced by the Italian form guida; the ultimate origin is probably Teutonic, the word connected with the base seen in Old English witan, meaning to know), refers to an agency for directing or showing the way, specifically a person who leads or directs a stranger through unfamiliar or unmapped areas, or guides travelers and tourists through a town, or over sites of interest. In European wars leading up to the French Revolution, the lack of large-scale detailed maps made local guides almost essential for military operations. In the 18th century, the trend toward more organized military resources led various countries to specifically train guide officers (called Feldjäger, considered general staff officers in the Prussian army), whose main responsibility was to find and, if needed, establish routes for those parts of the army that had to move alongside the main road while keeping a safe distance from each other, as armies at that time were rarely spread out far enough to use two or more established roads. However, the need for such measures diminished once adequate surveys (in which guide officers were, at least in Prussia, commonly employed) were conducted. Today, "guide" as a specific term in military organization has no more distinct characteristics than fusilier, grenadier, or rifleman. The origins of modern “Guide” regiments may be traced back to a short-lived Corps of Guides formed by Napoleon in Italy in 1796, which seems to have been a personal escort or bodyguard made up of men who knew the area. In today's Belgian army, the Guide regiments are similar to the Guard cavalry of other nations; in the Swiss army, the “Guides” squadrons serve as divisional cavalry and are likely called upon to lead columns at times. The “Queen’s Own Corps of Guides” in the Indian army consists of infantry companies and cavalry squadrons. In drills, a “guide” is an officer or non-commissioned officer assigned to control the direction and pace of movements, with the rest of the unit maintaining their alignment and distance based on 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.
A specific group of guides specializes in mountaineering; they don’t just lead the way but act as professional climbers with expert knowledge of rock climbing and snow skills, which they teach to amateurs while ensuring the safety of the climbing team during risky trips. This professional category of guides emerged in the mid-19th century when Alpine climbing began to be recognized as a sport (see Mountaineering). It’s therefore not surprising that Alpine guides are sought after for mountaineering expeditions around the world. In Switzerland, the central committee of the Swiss Alpine Club establishes a guide fee schedule that sets the rates for guides and porters; there are three sections covering the Valais and Vaudois Alps, the Bernese Oberland, and central and eastern Switzerland. Many renowned guides have become well-known figures in history. In Chamonix, a statue was erected in honor of Jacques Balmat, who was the first person to climb Mont Blanc in 1786. Notable guides since the start of Alpine climbing include Auguste Balmat, Michel Cros, Maquignay, J. A. Carrel (who accompanied E. Whymper to the Andes), the Lauener brothers, 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.
“Guide” also refers to a book that serves as an introductory primer on a topic, or one that provides thorough information for travelers in a country, area, or city. In technical terms, “guide” is broadly used to describe anything that stabilizes or directs the movement of an object, such as the “leading” screw of a screw-cutting lathe, a loose pulley that helps stabilize a driving belt, or the bars or rods in a steam engine that keep the sliding blocks moving in a straight path. The related term “guy” is used for a rope that supports a sail when it is being raised or lowered, or a rope, chain, or stay that supports a funnel, mast, derrick, etc.
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.
GUIDI, CARLO ALESSANDRO (1650-1712), Italian lyric poet, was born in Pavia in 1650. As the main founder of the famous Roman academy known as “L’Arcadia,” he played a significant role in reforming Italian poetry, which at the time was marred by the extravagance and poor taste of poets like Marini and Achillini and their followers. Poet Guidi and critic and lawyer Gravina helped combat this issue through their influence and example. Guidi’s talent was uniquely lyrical; his songs are powerfully written and captivate readers despite some elements of grandiosity. His most famous song is titled Alla Fortuna (To Fortune), which is indisputably one of the finest pieces of poetry from the 17th century. Guidi was cross-eyed, hunchbacked, and frail, but he had undeniable literary talent. His poems were published in Parma in 1671 and in Rome in 1704. In 1681, he released his lyric tragedy Amalasunta in Italy and two pastoral dramas, Daphne and Endymion. The latter was praised as a model by critic Gravina in his treatise on poetry. However, Guidi's poetic adaptation of the six homilies of Pope Clement XI was less fortunate, first facing harsh criticism from satirist Settano and then indirectly leading to his death. A fine edition of this adaptation was published in 1712, and with the pope residing in San Gandolfo, Guidi went there to present him with a copy. On the way, he discovered a serious typographical error that upset him so much it caused him to have an apoplectic fit in Frascati, and he died on the spot. Guidi was under the special protection of Ranuccio II, duke of Parma, and 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).
GUIDICCIONI, GIOVANNI (1480-1541), an Italian poet, was born in Lucca in 1480 and died in Macerata in 1541. He held a prominent position as bishop of Fossombrone and president of Romagna. The latter role almost cost him his life; a murderer tried to kill him and had already touched his chest with his dagger when, moved by the calm determination of the bishop, he dropped the weapon and fell at his feet, asking for forgiveness. The Rime and Letters of Guidiccioni are examples of elegant and natural Italian writing. The best editions are from 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 688 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.
GUIDO OF AREZZO (likely to be the same person as Guido de St Maur des Fosses), a musician from the 11th century. Many consider him the father of modern music, and a portrait of him in the refectory of the monastery of Avellana has the inscription Beatus Guido, inventor musicae. There isn't much known about his life, and what little information exists mainly comes from the letters that introduce two of his treatises, directed to Bishop Theodald (not Theobald, as Burney mistakenly writes) of Arezzo, and Michael, a monk from Pomposa who was both a student and friend of Guido. Nonetheless, there are fairly frequent mentions of the celebrated musician in the works of his contemporaries, which allow us to nearly confirm that Guido was born in the last decade of the 10th century. His exact birthplace is unclear, although some evidence points to Arezzo; on the title page of all his works, he is referred to as Guido Aretinus, or simply Aretinus. When he first appears in history, Guido is a monk in the Benedictine monastery of Pomposa, where he taught singing and developed his educational method, which, according to him, allowed a student to learn in five months what would have previously taken ten years. Unfortunately, envy and jealousy were the only rewards he received, forcing him to leave his monastery—"inde est, quod me vides prolixis finibus exulatum," as he himself states in the second of the letters mentioned earlier. One account claims he traveled as far as Bremen, called there by Archbishop Hermann to reform the music service. However, this has been questioned. What is certain is that shortly after leaving Pomposa, Guido was living in Arezzo, where around 1030 he received an invitation to Rome from Pope John XIV. He accepted the invitation, and the pope himself became his first and seemingly one of his most skilled pupils. Yet despite his success, Guido couldn't be convinced to stay in Rome, as the unhealthy air seemed to harm his health. In Rome, he encountered his former superior, the abbot of Pomposa, who appeared to have regretted his previous actions and persuaded Guido to return to Pomposa. After this point, all credible records of Guido's life end. We only know that he died on May 17, 1050, as prior of Avellana, a monastery of the Camaldulians; this is at least the claim made by chroniclers of that order. It should also be noted that the Camaldulians completely assert the celebrated musician as their own and deny any connection to 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.
The documents found by Dom Germain Morin, the Belgian Benedictine, around 1888 suggest that Guido was a Frenchman who spent his youth at the Benedictine monastery of St Maur des Fosses, where he developed his new notation system and taught the brothers how to sing using it. In codex 763 of the British Museum, the composer of the “Micrologus” and other works by Guido of Arezzo is consistently referred to 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:—
There’s no doubt that Guido’s method marks significant progress in the development of modern notation. He was the first to systematically use the lines of the staff and the spaces between them. It’s also clear that the names of the first six notes of the scale, ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la, which are still used in Romance languages, were introduced by Guido, even though he seemed to use them in a relative way rather than an absolute one. It’s well known that these words are the first syllables of six lines from a hymn dedicated to St. John the Baptist, which can be found here:—
Ut queant laxis | resonare fibris |
Mira gestorum | famuli tuorum, |
Solve polluti | labii reatum, |
Sancte Joannes. |
In addition to this Guido is generally credited with the introduction of the F clef. But more important than all this, perhaps, is the thoroughly practical tone which Guido assumes in his theoretical writings, and which differs greatly from the clumsy scholasticism of his contemporaries and predecessors.
In addition to this, Guido is usually recognized for introducing the F clef. However, what might be more significant is the practical approach that Guido takes in his theoretical writings, which stands in stark contrast to the awkward scholasticism of those who came before and alongside him.
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.
The most significant of Guido’s works, which are widely recognized as genuine, are Micrologus Guidonis de disciplina artis musicae, dedicated to Bishop Theodald of Arezzo, and consisting of a complete music theory across 20 chapters; Musicae Guidonis regulae rhythmicae in antiphonarii sui prologum prolatae, written in trochaic decasyllabics that deviate from classical form; Aliae Guidonis regulae de ignoto cantu, identidem in antiphonarii sui prologum prolatae; and the Epistola Guidonis Michaeli monacho de ignoto cantu, which has already been mentioned. These texts are included in the second volume of Gerbert’s Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra. A significant manuscript that Gerbert was unaware of (the Codex bibliothecae Uticensis, located in the Paris library) contains, in addition to minor treatises, an antiphonary and gradual that certainly belong to Guido.
See also L. Angeloni, G. d’Arezzo (1811); Kiesewetter, Guido von Arezzo (1840); Kornmüller, “Leben und Werken Guidos von Arezzo,” in Habert’s Jahrb. (1876); Antonio Brandi, G. Aretino (1882); G. B. Ristori, Biografia di Guido monaco d’Arezzo (1868).
See also L. Angeloni, G. d’Arezzo (1811); Kiesewetter, Guido von Arezzo (1840); Kornmüller, “Leben und Werken Guidos von Arezzo,” in Habert’s Jahrb. (1876); Antonio Brandi, G. Aretino (1882); G. B. Ristori, Biografia di Guido monaco d’Arezzo (1868).
GUIDO OF SIENA. The name of this Italian painter is of considerable interest in the history of art, on the ground that, if certain assumptions regarding him could be accepted as true, he would be entitled to share with Cimabue, or rather indeed to supersede him in, the honour of having given the first onward impulse to the art of painting. The case stands thus. In the church of S. Domenico in Siena is a large painting of the “Virgin and Child Enthroned,” with six angels above, and in the Benedictine convent of the same city is a triangular pinnacle, once a portion of the same composition, representing the Saviour in benediction, with two angels; the entire work was originally a triptych, but is not so now. The principal section of this picture has a rhymed Latin inscription, giving the painter’s name as Gu ... o de Senis, with the date 1221: the genuineness of the inscription is not, however, free from doubt, and especially it is maintained that the date really reads as 1281. In the general treatment of the picture there is nothing to distinguish it particularly from other work of the same early period; but the heads of the Virgin and Child are indisputably very superior, in natural character and graceful dignity, to anything to be found anterior to Cimabue. The question therefore arises, Are these heads really the work of a man who painted in 1221? Crowe and Cavalcaselle pronounce in the negative, concluding that the heads are repainted, and are, as they now stand, due to some artist of the 14th century, perhaps Ugolino da Siena; thus the claims of Cimabue would remain undisturbed and in their pristine vigour. Beyond this, little is known of Guido da Siena. There is in the Academy of Siena a picture assigned to him, a half-figure of the “Virgin and Child,” with two angels, dating probably between 1250 and 1300; also in the church of S. Bernardino in the same city a Madonna dated 1262. Milanesi thinks that the work in S. Domenico is due to Guido Graziani, of whom no other record remains earlier than 1278, when he is mentioned as the painter of a banner. Guido da Siena appears always to have painted on panel, not in fresco on the wall. He has been termed, very dubiously, a pupil of Pietrolino, and the master of “Diotisalvi,” Mino da Turrita and Berlinghieri da Lucca.
GUIDO OF SIENA. The name of this Italian painter is quite significant in the history of art because, if certain assumptions about him are accepted, he could be credited alongside Cimabue, or even take precedence over him, for being the first to significantly advance the art of painting. Here’s the situation: In the church of S. Domenico in Siena, there is a large painting of the “Virgin and Child Enthroned,” with six angels above it. In the Benedictine convent of the same city, there’s a triangular piece that was once part of the same composition, depicting the Savior in blessing, flanked by two angels. The entire work was originally a triptych, but it isn't anymore. The main section of this painting features a rhymed Latin inscription that names the painter as Gu ... o de Senis, dated 1221; however, the authenticity of this inscription is somewhat questionable, with claims that the actual date might be 1281. Generally, the way the painting is handled doesn’t particularly set it apart from other works of the same early period, but the faces of the Virgin and Child are undeniably more natural and graceful than anything created before Cimabue. This raises the question: Are these faces really from someone who painted in 1221? Crowe and Cavalcaselle argue against this, concluding that the faces have been repainted and currently result from the work of a 14th-century artist, possibly Ugolino da Siena; thus, Cimabue’s claims would remain intact and vigorous. Beyond this, not much else is known about Guido da Siena. There’s a painting attributed to him in the Academy of Siena, showing a half-figure of the “Virgin and Child,” with two angels, likely created between 1250 and 1300; there’s also a Madonna dated 1262 in the church of S. Bernardino in the same city. Milanesi believes that the work in S. Domenico is actually by Guido Graziani, who is first mentioned in 1278 as a banner painter. Guido da Siena seems to have always painted on panel rather than fresco on walls. He has been somewhat dubiously called a pupil of Pietrolino and the mentor 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 RENI (1575-1642), a leading master in the Bolognese school of painting and one of the most celebrated artists of the early decline in Italy, was born in Calvenzano near Bologna on November 4, 1575. His father was a well-known musician who played the flageolet and wanted his son to learn the harpsichord. However, from a very young age, Guido showed a strong inclination towards art, doodling drawings wherever he could. By the time he was nine, Denis Calvart noticed him, got permission from his father to take him into his design academy, and quickly advanced his skills so that by thirteen, Guido had already made significant progress. Albani and Domenichino soon became students at the same academy. Guido was very close to Albani until early adulthood, but later they became rivals as painters and heads of studios, with Albani often being quite harsh. Domenichino was also pitted against Reni due to Annibale Caracci's influence. While still at Calvart's academy, Guido began attending the rival school run by Lodovico Caracci, whose style was far ahead of the Flemish painter, and he experimented with it. This irritated Calvart. Guido, not yet twenty, happily left Calvart and joined the Caracci academy, where he quickly gained recognition for his skill and ambition. He had not been with the Caracci for a year when one of his works amazed Agostino and made Annibale jealous. Lodovico admired him and often painted him as an angel, as the young Reni was very handsome. However, after some time, Lodovico also felt frustrated and supported the competing talent of Giovanni Barbiere. Once, Guido made a copy of Annibale’s “Descent from the Cross”; when Annibale was asked to touch it up and found nothing to do, he petulantly exclaimed, “He knows more than enough” (“Costui ne sa troppo”). On another occasion, Lodovico, asked to mediate, lowered the price that Reni was asking for an early painting. This slight motivated the young man to stop being a pupil. He left the Caracci and set out on his own as a competitor for patronage and fame. Before he left, he had completed a renowned work, the story of “Callisto and Diana.”
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 Dürer; 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. 689 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 éclat, 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.
Guido was devoted to the diverse style of the Bolognese school of painting. He took influence from Calvart, borrowed a lot from Lodovico Caracci, studied enthusiastically after Albert Dürer, and embraced the heavy, dark, and somewhat rough style of Caravaggio. One day, Annibale Caracci mentioned that a style could be developed by reversing Caravaggio’s approach, especially with regard to the heavy shadows and crude everyday forms. This idea stuck with Guido, and he aimed to create such a style, consistently pursuing smoothness. Around 1602, he moved to Rome with Albani, where he would stay for twenty years. 689 During the papacy of Paul V. (Borghese), he gained significant recognition. In the garden-house of the Rospigliosi Palace, he painted the large fresco that is considered his masterpiece—“Phoebus and the Hours preceded by Aurora.” This work showcases his second style, which had diverged significantly from Caravaggio's influence. He primarily drew inspiration from classical art, particularly the Niobe group and the “Venus de’ Medici,” while also incorporating elements from Raphael, Correggio, Parmigiano, and Paul Veronese. Though he didn’t take much from Veronese overall, Guido admired him greatly; he often stated he would prefer to be Paul Veronese over any other master—Veronese embodied nature more than art. The “Aurora” is undeniably a work of extraordinary beauty; it radiates dignified pleasure and, without being soft, strives for graceful refinement more consistently than can be found in earlier painters, many of whom surpassed him in emotional drive and genius. Reni was tasked with painting the papal chapel of Montecavallo, but due to delays in payment from the ministers, the artist returned to Bologna. Paul V. brought him back with grand formality, providing him with housing, sustenance, and equipment. At another point, he moved from Rome to Naples after getting a commission to paint the chapel of St. Gennaro. However, he faced stiff opposition from three local painters—Corenzio, Caracciolo, and Ribera—who had previously resisted other newcomers like him. They sent his servant a message, warning Guido to leave or face death, and his servant was beaten by two unknown thugs. Guido didn’t wait for a second warning and left immediately. He returned to Rome but abruptly left the city again during the papacy of Urban VIII., following a harsh reprimand from Cardinal Spinola. He had received a 400 scudi advance for an altarpiece for St. Peter’s, but after several years of inaction, a strong reminder from the cardinal prompted Reni to return the money, leave Rome within a few days, and firmly resist any efforts to bring him back. He then settled down in Bologna. While he had both taught and painted in Rome, he didn’t leave a significant impact on the Roman painting school, aside from his many works in the city.
In Bologna Guido lived in great splendour, and established a celebrated school, numbering more than two hundred scholars. He himself drew in it, even down to his latest years. On first returning to this city, he charged about £21 for a full-length figure (mere portraits are not here in question), half this sum for a half-length, and £5 for a head. These prices must be regarded as handsome, when we consider that Domenichino about the same time received only £10, 10s. for his very large and celebrated picture, the “Last Communion of St Jerome.” But Guido’s reputation was still on the increase, and in process of time he quintupled his prices. He now left Bologna hardly at all; in one instance, however, he went off to Ravenna, and, along with three pupils, he painted the chapel in the cathedral with his admired picture of the “Israelites gathering Manna.” His shining prosperity was not to last till the end. Guido was dissipated, generously but indiscriminately profuse, and an inveterate gambler. The gambling propensity had been his from youth, but until he became elderly it did not noticeably damage his fortunes. It grew upon him, and in a couple of evenings he lost the enormous sum of 14,400 scudi. The vice told still more ruinously on his art than on his character. In his decline he sold his time at so much per hour to certain picture dealers; one of them, the Shylock of his craft, would stand by, watch in hand, and see him work. Half-heartedness, half-performance, blighted his product: self-repetition and mere mannerism, with affectation for sentiment and vapidity for beauty, became the art of Guido. Some of these trade-works, heads or half-figures, were turned out in three hours or even less. It is said that, tardily wise, Reni left off gambling for nearly two years; at last he relapsed, and his relapse was followed not long afterwards by his death, caused by malignant fever. This event took place in Bologna on the 18th of August 1642; he died in debt, but was buried with great pomp in the church of S. Domenico.
In Bologna, Guido lived in great luxury and established a famous school with over two hundred students. He continued painting there until his later years. When he first returned to the city, he charged around £21 for a full-length painting (not just portraits), half that for a half-length, and £5 for a head. These prices were significant, especially considering that Domenichino was only getting £10, 10s. for his large and well-known painting, the “Last Communion of St Jerome.” However, Guido’s reputation continued to grow, and over time he increased his prices fivefold. He rarely left Bologna; on one occasion, he traveled to Ravenna and, along with three students, painted the chapel in the cathedral with his admired work, “The Israelites Gathering Manna.” His shining success didn’t last forever, though. Guido was extravagant, generous but indiscriminately so, and a chronic gambler. This gambling tendency had been with him since childhood, but it didn't severely impact his finances until he got older. It escalated, and within a couple of nights, he lost the staggering amount of 14,400 scudi. The addiction hurt his art even more than it did his character. In his later years, he sold his time to art dealers at an hourly rate; one of them, the Shylock of his trade, would stand by with a watch and monitor his work. His lack of commitment and half-hearted efforts ruined his output: self-repetition and mere style, along with pretentious sentiment and bland beauty, became Guido’s art. Some of these commissioned works, heads or half-figures, were completed in three hours or even less. It’s said that, finally realizing the error of his ways, Reni stopped gambling for nearly two years; eventually, he relapsed, and shortly after, he died from a severe fever. This happened in Bologna on August 18, 1642; he died in debt but was buried with great ceremony in the church of S. Domenico.
Guido was personally modest, although he valued himself on his position in the art, and would tolerate no slight in that relation; he was extremely upright, temperate in diet, nice in his person and his dress. He was fond of stately houses, but could feel also the charm of solitude. In his temper there was a large amount of suspiciousness; and the jealousy which his abilities and his successes excited, now from the Caracci, now from Albani, now from the monopolizing league of Neapolitan painters, may naturally have kept this feeling in active exercise. Of his numerous scholars, Simone Cantarini, named II Pesarese, counts as the most distinguished; he painted an admirable head of Reni, now in the Bolognese Gallery. The portrait in the Uffizi Gallery of Florence is from Reni’s own hand. Two other good scholars were Giacomo Semenza and Francesco Gessi.
Guido was personally humble, although he took pride in his position in the art world and wouldn’t tolerate any disrespect in that regard. He was very principled, had a balanced diet, and kept himself and his appearance neat. He enjoyed grand houses but also appreciated the appeal of solitude. He had a lot of suspicion in his temperament, and the jealousy stemming from his talents and achievements—first from the Caracci, then from Albani, and finally from the dominating group of Neapolitan painters—likely kept this feeling active. Among his many students, Simone Cantarini, known as II Pesarese, was the most talented; he created an excellent portrait of Reni, which is now in the Bolognese Gallery. The portrait in the Uffizi Gallery of Florence was done by Reni himself. Two other noteworthy students were Giacomo Semenza and Francesco Gessi.
The character of Guido’s art is so well known as hardly to call for detailed analysis, beyond what we have already intimated. His most characteristic style exhibits a prepense ideal, of form rather than character, with a slight mode of handling, and silvery, somewhat cold, colour. In working from the nude he aimed at perfection of form, especially marked in the hands and feet. But he was far from always going to choice nature for his model; he transmuted ad libitum, and painted, it is averred, a Magdalene of demonstrative charms from a vulgar-looking colour-grinder. His best works have beauty, great amenity, artistic feeling and high accomplishment of manner, all alloyed by a certain core of commonplace; in the worst pictures the commonplace swamps everything, and Guido has flooded European galleries with trashy and empty pretentiousness, all the more noxious in that its apparent grace of sentiment and form misleads the unwary into approval, and the dilettante dabbler into cheap raptures. Both in Rome and wherever else he worked he introduced increased softness of style, which was then designated as the modern method. His pictures are mostly Scriptural or mythologic in subject, and between two and three hundred of them are to be found in various European collections—more than a hundred of these containing life-sized figures. The portraits which he executed are few—those of Sixtus V., Cardinal Spada and the so-called Beatrice Cenci being among the most noticeable. The identity of the last-named portrait is very dubious; it certainly cannot have been painted direct from Beatrice, who had been executed in Rome before Guido ever resided there. Many etchings are attributed to him—some from his own works, and some after other masters; they are spirited, but rather negligent.
The character of Guido’s art is so well known that it hardly requires detailed analysis beyond what we've already mentioned. His most characteristic style presents a deliberate ideal, focusing on form rather than character, with a subtle technique and silvery, somewhat cool colors. When working from the nude, he aimed for perfection in form, especially visible in the hands and feet. However, he didn’t always choose the best models from nature; he transformed them as he wished, and it’s said he painted a Magdalene with striking features based on a common-looking color-grinder. His best works display beauty, great charm, artistic sensitivity, and high skill, all mixed with a core of the ordinary; in his worst pictures, the ordinary overwhelms everything, and Guido flooded European galleries with superficial and empty pretentiousness, which is particularly harmful because its seemingly graceful sentiment and form can mislead the unsuspecting into approval and entice amateur enthusiasts into shallow admiration. Both in Rome and wherever else he worked, he introduced increased softness of style, which was then referred to as the modern method. His paintings are mostly biblical or mythological in theme, with two to three hundred of them found in various European collections—more than a hundred featuring life-sized figures. The portraits he created are few, with those of Sixtus V., Cardinal Spada, and the so-called Beatrice Cenci being among the most notable. The authenticity of the last portrait is highly questionable; it certainly cannot have been painted directly from Beatrice, who had been executed in Rome before Guido ever lived there. Many etchings are attributed to him—some based on his own works and some after other masters; they are lively but somewhat careless.
Of other works not already noticed, the following should be named:—in Rome (the Vatican), the “Crucifixion of St Peter,” an example of the painter’s earlier manner; in S. Lorenzo in Lucina, “Christ Crucified”; in Forlì, the “Conception”; in Bologna, the “Alms of St Roch” (early), the “Massacre of the Innocents,” and the “Pietà, or Lament over the Body of Christ” (in the church of the Mendicanti), which is by many regarded as Guido’s prime executive work; in the Dresden Gallery, an “Ecce Homo”; in Milan (Brera Gallery), “Saints Peter and Paul”; in Genoa (church of S. Ambrogio), the “Assumption of the Virgin”; in Berlin, “St Paul the Hermit and St Anthony in the Wilderness.” The celebrated picture of “Fortune” (in the Capitol) is one of Reni’s finest treatments of female form; as a specimen of male form, the “Samson Drinking from the Jawbone of an Ass” might be named beside it. One of his latest works of mark is the “Ariadne,” which used to be in the Gallery of the Capitol. The Louvre contains twenty of his pictures, the National Gallery of London seven, and others were once there, now removed to other public collections. The most interesting of the seven is the small “Coronation of the Virgin,” painted on copper, an elegantly finished work, more pretty than beautiful. It was probably painted before the master quitted Bologna for Rome.
Of other works not previously mentioned, the following should be noted: in Rome (the Vatican), the “Crucifixion of St Peter,” which reflects the painter’s earlier style; in S. Lorenzo in Lucina, “Christ Crucified”; in Forlì, the “Conception”; in Bologna, the early works “Alms of St Roch,” “Massacre of the Innocents,” and the “Pietà, or Lament over the Body of Christ” (located in the church of the Mendicanti), which many consider to be Guido’s best work; in the Dresden Gallery, an “Ecce Homo”; in Milan (Brera Gallery), “Saints Peter and Paul”; in Genoa (church of S. Ambrogio), the “Assumption of the Virgin”; in Berlin, “St Paul the Hermit and St Anthony in the Wilderness.” The famous painting “Fortune” (in the Capitol) is one of Reni’s finest depictions of the female form; as a counterpart for male form, the “Samson Drinking from the Jawbone of an Ass” could be mentioned alongside it. One of his later notable works is the “Ariadne,” which used to be in the Gallery of the Capitol. The Louvre houses twenty of his paintings, the National Gallery of London has seven, and others that were once there have now been moved to different public collections. The most intriguing of the seven is the small “Coronation of the Virgin,” painted on copper, a delicately finished piece that is more charming than stunning. It was likely painted before the master left Bologna for Rome.
For the life and works of Guido Reni, see Bolognini, Vita di Guido Reni (1839); Passeri, Vite de’ pittori; and Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice; also Lanzi, Storia pitiorica.
For the life and works of Guido Reni, see Bolognini, Vita di Guido Reni (1839); Passeri, Vite de’ pittori; and Malvasia, Felsina Pittrice; also Lanzi, Storia pitiorica.
GUIENNE, an old French province which corresponded roughly to the Aquitania Secunda of the Romans and the archbishopric of Bordeaux. In the 12th century it formed with Gascony the duchy of Aquitaine, which passed under the dominion of the kings of England by the marriage of Eleanor of Aquitaine to Henry II.; but in the 13th, through the conquests of Philip Augustus, Louis VIII. and Louis IX., it was confined within the narrower limits fixed by the treaty of Paris (1259). It is at this point that Guienne becomes distinct from Aquitaine. It then comprised the Bordelais (the old countship of Bordeaux), the Bazadais, part of Périgord, Limousin, Quercy and Rouergue, the Agenais ceded by Philip III. (the Bold) to Edward I. (1279), and (still united with Gascony) formed a 690 duchy extending from the Charente to the Pyrenees. This duchy was held on the terms of homage to the French kings, an onerous obligation; and both in 1296 and 1324 it was confiscated by the kings of France on the ground that there had been a failure in the feudal duties. At the treaty of Brétigny (1360) Edward III. acquired the full sovereignty of the duchy of Guienne, together with Aunis, Saintonge, Angoumois and Poitou. The victories of du Guesclin and Gaston Phœbus, count of Foix, restored the duchy soon after to its 13th-century limits. In 1451 it was conquered and finally united to the French crown by Charles VII. In 1469 Louis XI. gave it in exchange for Champagne and Brie to his brother Charles, duke of Berry, after whose death in 1472 it was again united to the royal dominion. Guienne then formed a government which from the 17th century onwards was united with Gascony. The government of Guienne and Gascony, with its capital at Bordeaux, lasted till the end of the ancien régime. Under the Revolution the departments formed from Guienne proper were those of Gironde, Lot-et-Garonne, Dordogne, Lot, Aveyron and the chief part of Tarn-et-Garonne.
GUIENNE, was an old French province that roughly matched the Aquitania Secunda of the Romans and the archbishopric of Bordeaux. In the 12th century, it became part of the duchy of Aquitaine alongside Gascony, which came under the control of the English kings when Eleanor of Aquitaine married Henry II. However, in the 13th century, through the conquests of Philip Augustus, Louis VIII, and Louis IX, it was reduced to the smaller boundaries established by the treaty of Paris (1259). This marks the point where Guienne became separate from Aquitaine. It then included the Bordelais (the old countship of Bordeaux), the Bazadais, parts of Périgord, Limousin, Quercy, and Rouergue, along with the Agenais, which Philip III (the Bold) ceded to Edward I (1279), and (still associated with Gascony) formed a 690 duchy stretching from the Charente to the Pyrenees. This duchy was held with the obligation of homage to the French kings, which was a heavy burden; and it was confiscated by the French kings in both 1296 and 1324 on the grounds of failing in feudal duties. In the treaty of Brétigny (1360), Edward III gained full sovereignty of the duchy of Guienne, along with Aunis, Saintonge, Angoumois, and Poitou. The victories of du Guesclin and Gaston Phœbus, count of Foix, soon restored the duchy to its 13th-century boundaries. In 1451, it was conquered and permanently annexed to the French crown by Charles VII. In 1469, Louis XI traded it for Champagne and Brie to his brother Charles, duke of Berry, but after Charles's death in 1472, it returned to royal control. Guienne then became a government that, from the 17th century onward, was combined with Gascony. The government of Guienne and Gascony, with its capital at Bordeaux, existed until the end of the ancien régime. During the Revolution, the departments formed from Guienne proper included Gironde, Lot-et-Garonne, Dordogne, Lot, Aveyron, and the main part of Tarn-et-Garonne.
GUIGNES, JOSEPH DE (1721-1800), French orientalist, was born at Pontoise on the 19th of October 1721. He succeeded Fourmont at the Royal Library as secretary interpreter of the Eastern languages. A Mémoire historique sur l’origine des Huns et des Turcs, published by de Guignes in 1748, obtained his admission to the Royal Society of London in 1752, and he became an associate of the French Academy of Inscriptions in 1754. Two years later he began to publish his learned and laborious Histoire générale des Huns, des Mongoles, des Turcs et des autres Tartares occidentaux (1756-1758); and in 1757 he was appointed to the chair of Syriac at the Collège de France. He maintained that the Chinese nation had originated in Egyptian colonization, an opinion to which, in spite of every argument, he obstinately clung. He died in Paris in 1800. The Histoire had been translated into German by Dähnert (1768-1771). De Guignes left a son, Christian Louis Joseph (1759-1845), who, after learning Chinese from his father, went as consul to Canton, where he spent seventeen years. On his return to France he was charged by the government with the work of preparing a Chinese-French-Latin dictionary (1813). He was also the author of a work of travels (Voyages à Pékin, Manille, et l’île de France, 1808).
GUIGNES, JOSEPH DE (1721-1800), a French orientalist, was born in Pontoise on October 19, 1721. He took over from Fourmont at the Royal Library as the secretary interpreter of Eastern languages. A Mémoire historique sur l’origine des Huns et des Turcs, published by de Guignes in 1748, led to his admission to the Royal Society of London in 1752, and he became an associate of the French Academy of Inscriptions in 1754. Two years later, he began publishing his detailed and extensive Histoire générale des Huns, des Mongoles, des Turcs et des autres Tartares occidentaux (1756-1758); and in 1757, he was appointed to the chair of Syriac at the Collège de France. He argued that the Chinese nation originated from Egyptian colonization, a belief he stubbornly held onto despite all counterarguments. He died in Paris in 1800. The Histoire was translated into German by Dähnert (1768-1771). De Guignes had a son, Christian Louis Joseph (1759-1845), who learned Chinese from his father and later became consul in Canton, where he spent seventeen years. Upon returning to France, he was tasked by the government with creating a Chinese-French-Latin dictionary (1813). He also authored a travelogue (Voyages à Pékin, Manille, et l’île de France, 1808).
See Quérard, La France littéraire, where a list of the memoirs contributed by de Guignes to the Journal des savants is given.
See Quérard, La France littéraire, where you'll find a list of the memoirs contributed by de Guignes to the Journal des savants.
GUILBERT, YVETTE (1869- ), French diseuse, was born in Paris. She served for two years until 1885 in the Magasin du Printemps, when, on the advice of the journalist, Edmond Stoullig, she trained for the stage under Landrol. She made her début at the Bouffes du Nord, then played at the Variétés, and in 1890 she received a regular engagement at the Eldorado to sing a couple of songs at the beginning of the performance. She also sang at the Ambassadeurs. She soon won an immense vogue by her rendering of songs drawn from Parisian lower-class life, or from the humours of the Latin Quarter, “Quatre z’étudiants” and the “Hôtel du numéro trois” being among her early triumphs. Her adoption of an habitual yellow dress and long black gloves, her studied simplicity of diction, and her ingenuous delivery of songs charged with risqué meaning, made her famous. She owed something to M. Xanrof, who for a long time composed songs especially for her, and perhaps still more to Aristide Bruant, who wrote many of her argot songs. She made successful tours in England, Germany and America, and was in great request as an entertainer in private houses. In 1895 she married Dr M. Schiller. In later years she discarded something of her earlier manner, and sang songs of the “pompadour” and the “crinoline” period in costume. She published the novels La Vedette and Les Demi-vieilles, both in 1902.
GUILBERT, YVETTE (1869- ), French diseuse, was born in Paris. She worked for two years until 1885 at the Magasin du Printemps, when, on the advice of journalist Edmond Stoullig, she trained for the stage under Landrol. She made her debut at the Bouffes du Nord, then performed at the Variétés, and in 1890 she got a steady gig at the Eldorado to sing a couple of songs at the beginning of the show. She also performed at the Ambassadeurs. She quickly gained immense popularity with her interpretations of songs reflecting Parisian working-class life or the humor of the Latin Quarter, with “Quatre z’étudiants” and “Hôtel du numéro trois” being among her early hits. Her signature yellow dress and long black gloves, along with her deliberate simplicity of diction and innocent delivery of songs with risqué meanings, made her a household name. She owed some of her success to M. Xanrof, who composed songs specifically for her for a long time, and perhaps even more to Aristide Bruant, who wrote many of her argot songs. She had successful tours in England, Germany, and America and was highly sought after as an entertainer in private homes. In 1895, she married Dr. M. Schiller. In later years, she moved away from some of her earlier style and sang songs from the “pompadour” and “crinoline” periods in costume. She published the novels La Vedette and Les Demi-vieilles, both in 1902.
GUILDFORD, a market town and municipal borough, and the county town of Surrey, England, in the Guildford parliamentary division, 29 m. S.W. of London by the London and South Western railway; served also by the London, Brighton, and South Coast and the South Eastern and Chatham railways. Pop. (1901) 15,938. It is beautifully situated on an acclivity of the northern chalk Downs and on the river Wey. Its older streets contain a number of picturesque gabled houses, with quaint lattices and curious doorways. The ruins of a Norman castle stand finely above the town and are well preserved; while the ground about them is laid out as a public garden. Beneath the Angel Inn and a house in the vicinity are extensive vaults, apparently of Early English date, and traditionally connected with the castle. The church of St Mary is Norman and Early English, with later additions and considerably restored; its aisles retain their eastward apses and it contains many interesting details. The church of St Nicholas is a modern building on an ancient site, and that of Holy Trinity is a brick structure of 1763, with later additions, also on the site of an earlier church, from which some of the monuments are preserved, including that of Archbishop Abbot (1640). The town hall dates from 1683 and contains a number of interesting pictures. Other public buildings are the county hall, corn-market and institute with museum and library. Abbot’s Hospital, founded by Archbishop Abbot in 1619, is a beautiful Tudor brick building. The county hospital (1866) was erected as a memorial to Albert, Prince Consort. The Royal Free Grammar School, founded in 1509, and incorporated by Edward VI., is an important school for boys. At Cranleigh, 6 m. S.E., is a large middle-class county school. The town has flour mills, iron foundries and breweries, and a large trade in grain; while fairs are held for live stock. There is a manufacture of gunpowder in the neighbouring village of Chilworth. Guildford is a suffragan bishopric in the diocese of Winchester. The borough is under a mayor, 4 aldermen and 12 councillors. Area, 2601 acres.
GUILDFORD, is a market town and municipal borough, and the county town of Surrey, England, located in the Guildford parliamentary division, 29 miles southwest of London by the London and South Western railway. It’s also served by the London, Brighton, and South Coast and the South Eastern and Chatham railways. The population in 1901 was 15,938. It is beautifully set on a slope of the northern chalk Downs and by the river Wey. Its older streets feature a collection of charming gabled houses, with quirky lattice windows and interesting doorways. The well-preserved ruins of a Norman castle rise above the town and the surrounding area is landscaped as a public garden. Underneath the Angel Inn and a nearby house are extensive vaults, likely dating back to the Early English period, and traditionally linked to the castle. St Mary's Church is Norman and Early English, with later additions and substantial restoration; its aisles maintain their eastward apses and it has many fascinating features. St Nicholas Church is a modern building on an ancient site, while Holy Trinity Church is a brick structure from 1763, with later additions, also on the site of an earlier church, from which some monuments have been preserved, including that of Archbishop Abbot (1640). The town hall was built in 1683 and displays several interesting paintings. Other public buildings include the county hall, corn market, and an institute with a museum and library. Abbot’s Hospital, founded by Archbishop Abbot in 1619, is a beautiful Tudor-style brick building. The county hospital, established in 1866, serves as a memorial to Albert, Prince Consort. The Royal Free Grammar School, founded in 1509 and incorporated by Edward VI, is an important school for boys. At Cranleigh, 6 miles southeast, there is a large middle-class county school. The town has flour mills, iron foundries, breweries, and a significant grain trade, while livestock fairs are held regularly. There is also gunpowder production in the nearby village of Chilworth. Guildford is a suffragan bishopric in the diocese of Winchester. The borough is governed by a mayor, 4 aldermen, and 12 councillors. The area covers 2,601 acres.
Guildford (Gyldeford, Geldeford), occurs among the possessions of King Alfred, and was a royal borough throughout the middle ages. It probably owed its rise to its position at the junction of trade routes. It is first mentioned as a borough in 1131. Henry III. granted a charter to the men of Guildford in 1256, by which they obtained freedom from toll throughout the kingdom, and the privilege of having the county court held always in their town. Edward III. granted charters to Guildford in 1340, 1346 and 1367; Henry VI. in 1423; Henry VII. in 1488. Elizabeth in 1580 confirmed earlier charters, and other charters were granted in 1603, 1626 and 1686. The borough was incorporated in 1486 under the title of the mayor and good men of Guildford. During the middle ages the government of the town rested with a powerful merchant gild. Two members for Guildford sat in the parliament of 1295, and the borough continued to return two representatives until 1867 when the number was reduced to one. By the Redistribution Act of 1885 Guildford became merged in the county for electoral purposes. Edward II. granted to the town the right of having two fairs, at the feast of St Matthew (21st of September) and at Trinity respectively. Henry VII. granted fairs on the feast of St Martin (11th of November) and St George (23rd of April). Fairs in May for the sale of sheep and in November for the sale of cattle are still held. The market rights date at least from 1276, and three weekly markets are still held for the sale of corn, cattle and vegetables respectively. The cloth trade which formed the staple industry at Guildford in the middle ages is now extinct.
Guildford (Gyldeford, Geldeford) was part of King Alfred's possessions and served as a royal borough throughout the Middle Ages. Its growth was likely due to its location at the crossroads of trade routes. It was first mentioned as a borough in 1131. In 1256, Henry III granted a charter to the people of Guildford, giving them freedom from tolls throughout the kingdom and allowing the county court to always be held in their town. Edward III issued charters to Guildford in 1340, 1346, and 1367; Henry VI did so in 1423; and Henry VII in 1488. Elizabeth confirmed earlier charters in 1580, with additional charters granted in 1603, 1626, and 1686. The borough was incorporated in 1486 under the title of the mayor and good men of Guildford. During the Middle Ages, the town's government was controlled by a powerful merchant guild. Two members from Guildford represented the area in the parliament of 1295, and the borough continued to send two representatives until 1867, when that number was reduced to one. The Redistribution Act of 1885 merged Guildford into the county for electoral purposes. Edward II granted the town the right to hold two fairs, one on the feast of St. Matthew (September 21) and the other on Trinity. Henry VII granted fairs on the feast of St. Martin (November 11) and St. George (April 23). Fairs for sheep in May and for cattle in November are still held. Market rights date back to at least 1276, and three weekly markets continue for the sale of corn, cattle, and vegetables. The cloth trade, which was the main industry in Guildford during the Middle Ages, has since disappeared.
GUILDHALL, the hall of the corporation of the city of London, England. It faces a courtyard opening out of Gresham Street. The date of its original foundation is not known. An ancient crypt remains, but the hall has otherwise undergone much alteration. It was rebuilt in 1411, beautified by the munificence of successive officials, damaged in the Great Fire of 1666, and restored in 1789 by George Dance; while the hall was again restored, with a new roof, in 1870. This fine chamber, 152 ft. in length, is the scene of the state banquets and entertainments of the corporation, and of the municipal meetings “in common hall.” The building also contains a council chamber and various court rooms, with a splendid library, open to the public, a museum and art gallery adjoining. The hall contains several monuments and two giant figures of wood, 691 known as Gog and Magog. These were set up in 1708, but the appearance of giants in city pageants is of much earlier date.
GUILDHALL, the hall of the corporation of the city of London, England. It faces a courtyard that opens out to Gresham Street. The exact date of its original foundation is unknown. An ancient crypt remains, but the hall has undergone many changes. It was rebuilt in 1411, enhanced by the generosity of successive officials, damaged in the Great Fire of 1666, and restored in 1789 by George Dance; the hall was again restored, with a new roof, in 1870. This impressive chamber, 152 ft. long, is where the state banquets and events of the corporation take place, as well as municipal meetings "in common hall." The building also includes a council chamber and various courtrooms, along with a magnificent library that is open to the public, a museum, and an art gallery nearby. The hall features several monuments and two large wooden figures, 691 known as Gog and Magog. These were installed in 1708, but the tradition of featuring giants in city parades dates back much earlier.
GUILFORD, BARONS AND EARLS OF. Francis North, 1st Baron Guilford (1637-1685), was the third son of the 4th Baron North (see North, Barons), and was created Baron Guilford in 1683, after becoming lord keeper in succession to Lord Nottingham. He had been an eminent lawyer, solicitor-general (1671), attorney-general (1673), and chief-justice of the common pleas (1675), and in 1679 was made a member of the council of thirty and on its dissolution of the cabinet. He was a man of wide culture and a stanch royalist. In 1672 he married Lady Frances Pope, daughter and co-heiress of the earl of Downe, who inherited the Wroxton estate; and he was succeeded as 2nd baron by his son Francis (1673-1729), whose eldest son Francis (1704-1790), after inheriting first his father’s title as 3rd baron, and then (in 1734) the barony of North from his kinsman the 6th Baron North, was in 1752 created 1st earl of Guilford. His first wife was a daughter of the earl of Halifax, and his son and successor Frederick was the English prime minister, commonly known as Lord North, his courtesy title while the 1st earl was alive.
Guilford, Barons and Earls of. Francis North, 1st Baron Guilford (1637-1685), was the third son of the 4th Baron North (see North, Barons). He was made Baron Guilford in 1683, after he succeeded Lord Nottingham as lord keeper. He was a distinguished lawyer, serving as solicitor-general (1671), attorney-general (1673), and chief justice of the common pleas (1675). In 1679, he became a member of the council of thirty and later joined the cabinet when it was formed. He was a well-educated man and a strong royalist. In 1672, he married Lady Frances Pope, the daughter and co-heiress of the Earl of Downe, who inherited the Wroxton estate. He was succeeded as 2nd Baron by his son Francis (1673-1729), whose eldest son Francis (1704-1790) inherited his father’s title as 3rd Baron and then (in 1734) the barony of North from his relative the 6th Baron North. In 1752, he was created the 1st Earl of Guilford. His first wife was a daughter of the Earl of Halifax, and his son and successor Frederick became the English prime minister, commonly known as Lord North, which was his courtesy title while the 1st Earl was still alive.
Frederick North, 2nd earl of Guilford, but better known by his courtesy title of Lord North (1732-1792), prime minister of England during the important years of the American War, was born on the 13th of April 1732, and after being educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, was sent to make the grand tour of the continent. On his return he was, though only twenty-two years of age, at once elected M.P. for Banbury, of which town his father was high steward; and he sat for the same town in parliament for nearly forty years. In 1759 he was chosen by the duke of Newcastle to be a lord of the treasury, and continued in the same office under Lord Bute and George Grenville till 1765. He had shown himself such a ready debater that on the fall of the first Rockingham ministry in 1766 he was sworn of the privy council, and made paymaster-general by the duke of Grafton. His reputation for ability grew so high that in December 1767, on the death of the brilliant Charles Townshend, he was made chancellor of the exchequer. His popularity with both the House of Commons and the people continued to increase, for his temper was never ruffled, and his quiet humour perpetually displayed; and, when the retirement of the duke of Grafton was necessitated by the hatred he inspired and the attacks of Junius, no better successor could be found for the premiership than the chancellor of the exchequer. Lord North succeeded the duke in March 1770, and continued in office for twelve of the most eventful years in English history. George III. had at last overthrown the ascendancy of the great Whig families, under which he had so long groaned, and determined to govern as well as rule. He knew that he could only govern by obtaining a majority in parliament to carry out his wishes, and this he had at last obtained by a great expenditure of money in buying seats and by a careful exercise of his patronage. But in addition to a majority he must have a minister who would consent to act as his lieutenant, and such a minister he found in Lord North. How a man of undoubted ability such as Lord North was could allow himself to be thus used as a mere instrument cannot be explained; but the confidential tone of the king’s letters seems to show that there was an unusual intimacy between them, which may account for North’s compliance. The path of the minister in parliament was a hard one; he had to defend measures which he had not designed, and of which he had not approved, and this too in a House of Commons in which all the oratorical ability of Burke and Fox was against him, and when he had only the purchased help of Thurlow and Wedderburne to aid him. The most important events of his ministry were those of the American War of Independence. He cannot be accused of causing it, but one of his first acts was the retention of the tea-duty, and he it was also who introduced the Boston Port Bill in 1774. When the war had broken out he earnestly counselled peace, and it was only the earnest solicitations of the king not to leave his sovereign again at the mercy of the Whigs that induced him to defend a war which from 1779 he knew to be both hopeless and impolitic. At last, in March 1782, he insisted on resigning after the news of Cornwallis’s surrender at Yorktown, and no man left office more blithely. He had been well rewarded for his assistance to the king: his children had good sinecures; his half-brother, Brownlow North (1741-1820), was bishop of Winchester; he himself was chancellor of the university of Oxford, lord-lieutenant of the county of Somerset, and had finally been made a knight of the Garter, an honour which has only been conferred on three other members of the House of Commons, Sir R. Walpole, Lord Castlereagh and Lord Palmerston. Lord North did not remain long out of office, but in April 1783 formed his famous coalition with his old subordinate, C. J. Fox (q.v.), and became secretary of state with him under the nominal premiership of the duke of Portland. He was probably urged to this coalition with his old opponent by a desire to show that he could act independently of the king, and was not a mere royal mouthpiece. The coalition ministry went out of office on Fox’s India Bill in December 1783, and Lord North, who was losing his sight, then finally gave up political ambition. He played, when quite blind, a somewhat important part in the debates on the Regency Bill in 1789, and in the next year succeeded his father as earl of Guilford. He did not long survive his elevation, and died peacefully on the 5th of August 1792. It is impossible to consider Lord North a great statesman, but he was a most good-tempered and humorous member of the House of Commons. In a time of unexampled party feeling he won the esteem and almost the love of his most bitter opponents. Burke finely sums up his character in his Letter to a Noble Lord: “He was a man of admirable parts, of general knowledge, of a versatile understanding, fitted for every sort of business; of infinite wit and pleasantry, of a delightful temper, and with a mind most disinterested. But it would be only to degrade myself,” he continues, “by a weak adulation, and not to honour the memory of a great man, to deny that he wanted something of the vigilance and spirit of command which the times required.”
Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford, more commonly known as Lord North (1732-1792), was the Prime Minister of England during the crucial period of the American War. He was born on April 13, 1732, and after his education at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford, he traveled across Europe. Upon returning, at just twenty-two years old, he was elected as Member of Parliament for Banbury, the town where his father was high steward, and he would represent that town in Parliament for nearly forty years. In 1759, he was appointed as a lord of the treasury by the Duke of Newcastle and continued in that role under Lord Bute and George Grenville until 1765. He proved to be a skilled debater, and after the first Rockingham ministry collapsed in 1766, he was sworn into the Privy Council and made paymaster-general by the Duke of Grafton. His reputation for competence rose so much that in December 1767, following the death of the talented Charles Townshend, he was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer. His popularity with both the House of Commons and the public kept growing due to his calm demeanor and constant display of dry humor. When the Duke of Grafton had to step down due to public backlash and criticism from Junius, Lord North was seen as the most suitable successor for the premiership. He took over from the Duke in March 1770 and remained in office for twelve of the most significant years in English history. George III had finally broken the power of the prominent Whig families that had long held sway and sought to govern directly. He understood that he could only execute his plans by securing a majority in Parliament, which he achieved through significant financial expenditures and careful use of his patronage. However, he needed a minister to act as his representative, which he found in Lord North. The reasoning behind how a capable man like North could become just a tool for the king is unclear, but the informal nature of the king’s letters suggests a closer relationship that may explain North's willingness to comply. The minister faced a difficult challenge in Parliament, needing to defend policies he hadn’t created or endorsed, and doing so against the eloquence of Burke and Fox, relying only on the bought support of Thurlow and Wedderburne. The key events of his time in office were tied to the American War of Independence. While he cannot be blamed for starting the conflict, one of his first actions was maintaining the tea tax, and he was the one who introduced the Boston Port Bill in 1774. Once the war began, he strongly advocated for peace, and it was only due to the king's insistence that he decided to support a war he recognized as both futile and unwise since 1779. Finally, in March 1782, after hearing about Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown, he chose to resign, leaving office in good spirits. He was well compensated for his loyalty to the king: his children held lucrative positions, his half-brother, Brownlow North (1741-1820), became the Bishop of Winchester, and North himself became Chancellor of the University of Oxford, Lord Lieutenant of Somerset, and was ultimately appointed a Knight of the Garter, an honor bestowed upon only three other members of the House of Commons: Sir R. Walpole, Lord Castlereagh, and Lord Palmerston. Lord North did not stay out of politics for long; in April 1783, he formed a notable coalition with his former subordinate, C. J. Fox (q.v.), and served as Secretary of State under the nominal premiership of the Duke of Portland. He was likely motivated to join this coalition to prove he could act independently from the king and wasn't just a royal spokesperson. The coalition government dissolved over Fox’s India Bill in December 1783, and Lord North, who was losing his vision, ultimately left political life behind. Even after going completely blind, he played a somewhat significant role in the debates on the Regency Bill in 1789, and the following year he succeeded his father as Earl of Guilford. He did not live long after his elevation, passing away peacefully on August 5, 1792. It's hard to regard Lord North as a great statesman, but he was a consistently good-natured and humorous member of the House of Commons. In an era of intense partisan conflict, he earned the respect and even affection of some of his fiercest opponents. Burke eloquently captures his character in his Letter to a Noble Lord: “He was a man of remarkable talent, broad knowledge, and versatile understanding, suited for all kinds of tasks; full of wit and humor, possessing a lovely temperament, and a truly selfless mind. But to deny that he lacked the alertness and commanding spirit that the times required would be to lower myself,” he goes on, “and not to honor the memory of a great man.”
By his wife Anne (d. 1797), daughter of George Speke of White Lackington, Somerset, Guilford had four sons, the eldest of whom, George Augustus (1757-1802), became 3rd earl on his father’s death. This earl was a member of parliament from 1778 to 1792 and was a member of his father’s ministry and also of the royal household; he left no sons when he died on the 20th of April 1802 and was succeeded in the earldom by his brother Francis (1761-1817), who also left no sons. The youngest brother, Frederick (1766-1827), who now became 5th earl of Guilford, was remarkable for his great knowledge and love of Greece and of the Greek language. He had a good deal to do with the foundation of the Ionian university at Corfu, of which he was the first chancellor and to which he was very liberal. Guilford, who was governor of Ceylon from 1798 to 1805, died unmarried on the 14th of October 1827. His cousin, Francis (1772-1861), a son of Brownlow North, bishop of Winchester from 1781 to 1820, was the 6th earl, and the latter’s descendant, Frederick George (b. 1876), became 8th earl in 1886.
By his wife Anne (d. 1797), daughter of George Speke of White Lackington, Somerset, Guilford had four sons. The eldest, George Augustus (1757-1802), became the 3rd earl after his father passed away. This earl served as a member of parliament from 1778 to 1792 and was part of his father's ministry as well as the royal household. He left no sons when he died on April 20, 1802, and his brother Francis (1761-1817), who also had no sons, succeeded him as earl. The youngest brother, Frederick (1766-1827), became the 5th earl of Guilford and was known for his extensive knowledge and passion for Greece and the Greek language. He played a significant role in founding the Ionian University at Corfu, where he was the first chancellor and was quite generous. Guilford, who served as governor of Ceylon from 1798 to 1805, died unmarried on October 14, 1827. His cousin, Francis (1772-1861), the son of Brownlow North, bishop of Winchester from 1781 to 1820, became the 6th earl, and his descendant, Frederick George (b. 1876), became the 8th earl in 1886.
On the death of the 3rd earl of Guilford in 1802 the barony of North fell into abeyance between his three daughters, the survivor of whom, Susan (1797-1884). wife of John Sidney Doyle, who took the name of North, was declared by the House of Lords in 1841 to be Baroness North, and the title passed to her son, William Henry John North, the 11th baron (b. 1836) (see North, Barons).
On the death of the 3rd Earl of Guilford in 1802, the barony of North became uncertain among his three daughters. The surviving daughter, Susan (1797-1884), who married John Sidney Doyle and took on the name North, was officially recognized by the House of Lords in 1841 as Baroness North. The title then passed to her son, William Henry John North, the 11th Baron (b. 1836) (see North, Barons).
For the Lord Keeper Guilford see the Lives by the Hon. R. North, edited by A. Jessopp (1890); and E. Foss, The Judges of England, vol. vii. (1848-1864). For the prime minister, Lord North, see Correspondence of George III. with Lord North, edited by W. B. Donne (1867); Horace Walpole, Journal of the Reign of George III. (1859), and Memoirs of the Reign of George III., edited by G. F. R. Barker (1894); Lord Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen, vol. i. (1839); Earl Stanhope, History of England (1858); Sir T. E. May, Constitutional History of England (1863-1865); and W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th century (1878-1890).
For Lord Keeper Guilford, see the Lives by Hon. R. North, edited by A. Jessopp (1890); and E. Foss, The Judges of England, vol. vii. (1848-1864). For Prime Minister Lord North, see Correspondence of George III. with Lord North, edited by W. B. Donne (1867); Horace Walpole, Journal of the Reign of George III. (1859), and Memoirs of the Reign of George III., edited by G. F. R. Barker (1894); Lord Brougham, Historical Sketches of Statesmen, vol. i. (1839); Earl Stanhope, History of England (1858); Sir T. E. May, Constitutional History of England (1863-1865); and W. E. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th century (1878-1890).
GUILFORD, a township, including a borough of the same name, in New Haven county, Connecticut, U.S.A., on Long Island Sound and at the mouth of the Menunkatuck or West 692 river, about 16 m. E. by S. of New Haven. Pop. of the township, including the borough (1900), 2785, of whom 387 were foreign-born; (1910) 3001; pop. of the borough (1910), 1608. The borough is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railroad. On a plain is the borough green of nearly 12 acres, which is shaded by some fine old elms and other trees, and in which there is a soldiers’ monument. About the green are several churches and some of the better residences. On an eminence commanding a fine view of the Sound is an old stone house, erected in 1639 for a parsonage, meeting-house and fortification; it was made a state museum in 1898, when extensive alterations were made to restore the interior to its original appearance. The Point of Rocks, in the harbour, is an attractive resort during the summer season. There are about 12 ft. of water on the harbour bar at high tide. The principal industries of Guilford are coastwise trade, the manufacture of iron castings, brass castings, wagon wheels and school furniture, and the canning of vegetables. Near the coast are quarries of fine granite; the stone for the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty on Bedloe’s Island, in New York Harbour, was taken from them.
GUILFORD, is a township, which includes a borough of the same name, located in New Haven County, Connecticut, U.S.A. It sits on Long Island Sound at the mouth of the Menunkatuck or West 692 River, about 16 miles east-southeast of New Haven. The township's population, including the borough, was 2,785 in 1900, with 387 foreign-born residents; it grew to 3,001 by 1910, and the borough had a population of 1,608 in 1910. The borough is served by the New York, New Haven & Hartford railroad. There is a nearly 12-acre borough green that is shaded by some beautiful old elms and other trees, featuring a soldiers’ monument. Surrounding the green are several churches and some of the nicer homes. On a hill that offers a great view of the Sound stands an old stone house built in 1639 that served as a parsonage, meeting-house, and fortification; it became a state museum in 1898 after extensive renovations to restore its interior to its original look. The Point of Rocks in the harbor is a popular summer destination. The harbor bar has about 12 feet of water at high tide. The main industries in Guilford include coastwise trade, manufacturing iron and brass castings, producing wagon wheels and school furniture, and canning vegetables. Along the coast, there are quarries with fine granite; the stone used for the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbour was sourced from these quarries.
Guilford was founded In 1639 as an independent colony by a company of twenty-five or more families from Kent, Surrey and Sussex, England, under the leadership of Rev. Henry Whitfield (1597-1657). While still on shipboard twenty-five members of the company signed a plantation covenant whereby they agreed not to desert the plantation which they were about to establish. Arriving at New Haven early in July 1639, they soon began negotiations with the Indians for the purchase of land, and on the 29th of September a deed was signed by which the Indians conveyed to them the territory between East River and Stony Creek for “12 coates, 12 Fathoms of Wampam, 12 glasses (mirrors), 12 payer of shooes, 12 Hatchetts, 12 paire of Stockings, 12 Hooes, 4 kettles, 12 knives, 12 Hatts, 12 Porringers, 12 spoones, and 2 English coates.” Other purchases of land from the Indians were made later. Before the close of the year the company removed from New Haven and established the new colony; it was known by the Indian name Menuncatuck for about four years and the name Guilford (from Guildford, England) was then substituted. As a provisional arrangement, civil power for the administration of justice and the preservation of the peace was vested in four persons until such time as a church should be organized. This was postponed until 1643 when considerations of safety demanded that the colony should become a member of the New Haven Jurisdiction, and then only to meet the requirements for admission to this union were the church and church state modelled after those of New Haven. Even then, though suffrage was restricted to church members, Guilford planters who were not church members were required to attend town meetings and were allowed to offer objections to any proposed order or law. From 1661 until the absorption of the members of the New Haven Jurisdiction by Connecticut, in 1664, William Leete (1611-1683), one of the founders of Guilford, was governor of the Jurisdiction, and under his leadership Guilford took a prominent part in furthering the submission to Connecticut, which did away with the church state and the restriction of suffrage to freemen. Guilford was the birthplace of Fitz-Greene Halleck (1790-1867), the poet; of Samuel Johnson (1696-1771), the first president of King’s College (now Columbia University); of Abraham Baldwin (1754-1807), prominent as a statesman and the founder of the University of Georgia; and of Thomas Chittenden, the first governor of Vermont. The borough was incorporated in 1815.
Guilford was founded in 1639 as an independent colony by a group of twenty-five or more families from Kent, Surrey, and Sussex, England, led by Rev. Henry Whitfield (1597-1657). While still on the ship, twenty-five members of the group signed a plantation agreement committing not to abandon the plantation they were about to establish. After arriving in New Haven in early July 1639, they quickly began negotiating with the Native Americans to buy land. On September 29, a deed was signed in which the Native Americans transferred the territory between East River and Stony Creek for “12 coats, 12 fathoms of wampum, 12 mirrors, 12 pairs of shoes, 12 hatchets, 12 pairs of stockings, 12 hoes, 4 kettles, 12 knives, 12 hats, 12 porringers, 12 spoons, and 2 English coats.” Additional land purchases from the Native Americans occurred later. By the end of the year, the group moved from New Haven and established the new colony, initially called Menuncatuck based on the Native American name for about four years before it was changed to Guilford (after Guildford, England). As a temporary measure, the authority for administering justice and maintaining peace was given to four people until a church could be organized. This was delayed until 1643, when safety concerns required the colony to join the New Haven Jurisdiction. To meet the admission criteria for this union, the church and state were modeled after those in New Haven. Although voting rights were limited to church members, Guilford residents who were not church members had to attend town meetings and could voice objections to proposed orders or laws. From 1661 until the New Haven Jurisdiction was absorbed by Connecticut in 1664, William Leete (1611-1683), one of Guilford's founders, served as governor of the Jurisdiction. Under his leadership, Guilford played a key role in agreeing to become part of Connecticut, which eliminated the church-state system and the limitation of voting rights to freemen. Guilford was the birthplace of Fitz-Greene Halleck (1790-1867), the poet; Samuel Johnson (1696-1771), the first president of King’s College (now Columbia University); Abraham Baldwin (1754-1807), known as a statesman and the founder of the University of Georgia; and Thomas Chittenden, the first governor of Vermont. The borough was incorporated in 1815.
See B. C. Steiner, A History of the Plantation of Menunca-Tuck and of the Original Town of Guilford, Connecticut (Baltimore, 1897), and Proceedings at the Celebration of the 250th Anniversary of the Settlement of Guilford, Connecticut (New Haven, 1889).
See B. C. Steiner, A History of the Plantation of Menunca-Tuck and of the Original Town of Guilford, Connecticut (Baltimore, 1897), and Proceedings at the Celebration of the 250th Anniversary of the Settlement of Guilford, Connecticut (New Haven, 1889).
GUILLAUME, JEAN BAPTISTE CLAUDE EUGÈNE (1822-1905), French sculptor, was born at Montbard on the 4th of July 1822, and studied under Cavelier, Millet, and Barrias, at the École des Beaux-Arts, which he entered in 1841, and where he gained the prix de Rome in 1845 with “Theseus finding on a rock his Father’s Sword.” He became director of the École des Beaux-Arts in 1864, and director-general of Fine Arts from 1878 to 1879, when the office was suppressed. Many of his works have been bought for public galleries, and his monuments are to be found in the public squares of the chief cities of France. At Rheims there is his bronze statue of “Colbert,” at Dijon his “Rameau” monument. The Luxembourg Museum has his “Anacreon” (1852), “Les Gracques” (1853), “Faucheur” (1855), and the marble bust of “Mgr Darboy”; the Versailles Museum the portrait of “Thiers”; the Sorbonne Library the marble bust of “Victor le Clerc, doyen de la faculté des lettres.” Other works of his are at Trinity Church, St Germain l’Auxerrois, and the church of St Clotilde, Paris. Guillaume was a prolific writer, principally on sculpture and architecture of the Classic period and of the Italian Renaissance. He was elected member of the Académie Française in 1862, and in 1891 was sent to Rome as director of the Académie de France in that city. He was also elected an honorary member of the Royal Academy, London, 1869, on the institution of that class.
GUILLAUME, JEAN BAPTISTE CLAUDE EUGÈNE (1822-1905), French sculptor, was born in Montbard on July 4, 1822. He studied under Cavelier, Millet, and Barrias at the École des Beaux-Arts, which he entered in 1841, and where he won the prix de Rome in 1845 for “Theseus finding on a rock his Father’s Sword.” He became the director of the École des Beaux-Arts in 1864 and served as the general director of Fine Arts from 1878 to 1879, until the position was eliminated. Many of his works have been acquired for public galleries, and his monuments can be found in the public squares of major cities in France. In Rheims, there's his bronze statue of “Colbert,” and in Dijon, his monument to “Rameau.” The Luxembourg Museum holds his works, including “Anacreon” (1852), “Les Gracques” (1853), “Faucheur” (1855), and the marble bust of “Mgr Darboy”; the Versailles Museum features the portrait of “Thiers”; the Sorbonne Library has the marble bust of “Victor le Clerc, dean of the Faculty of Arts.” Other pieces of his can be found at Trinity Church, St Germain l’Auxerrois, and the church of St Clotilde in Paris. Guillaume was also a prolific writer, mainly focusing on the sculpture and architecture of the Classical period and the Italian Renaissance. He was elected as a member of the Académie Française in 1862, and in 1891, he was sent to Rome as the director of the Académie de France there. Additionally, he was elected an honorary member of the Royal Academy in London in 1869 when that class was established.
GUILLAUME DE LORRIS (fl. 1230), the author of the earlier section of the Roman de la rose, derives his surname from a small town about equidistant from Montargis and Gien, in the present department of Loiret. This and the fact of his authorship may be said to be the only things positively known about him. The rubric of the poem, where his own part finishes, attributes Jean de Meun’s continuation to a period forty years later than William’s death and the consequent interruption of the romance. Arguing backwards, this death used to be put at about 1260; but Jean de Meun’s own work has recently been dated earlier, and so the composition of the first part has been thrown back to a period before 1240. The author represents himself as having dreamed the dream which furnished the substance of the poem in his twentieth year, and as having set to work to “rhyme it” five years later. The later and longer part of the Roman shows signs of greater intellectual vigour and wider knowledge than the earlier and shorter, but Guillaume de Lorris is to all appearance more original. The great features of his four or five thousand lines are, in the first place, the extraordinary vividness and beauty of his word-pictures, in which for colour, freshness and individuality he has not many rivals except in the greatest masters, and, secondly, the fashion of allegorical presentation, which, hackneyed and wearisome as it afterwards became, was evidently in his time new and striking. There are of course traces of it before, as in some romances, such as those of Raoul de Houdenc, in the troubadours, and in other writers; but it was unquestionably Guillaume de Lorris who fixed the style.
GUILLAUME DE LORRIS (fl. 1230), the author of the earlier section of the Roman de la rose, gets his last name from a small town located roughly halfway between Montargis and Gien, in what is now the Loiret department. This, along with the fact that he is the author, is pretty much all we know for sure about him. The heading of the poem, where his part ends, attributes the continuation by Jean de Meun to a time about forty years after Guillaume’s death, which interrupted the romance. Looking backwards, his death was previously estimated to be around 1260; however, Jean de Meun’s own work has been dated earlier, pushing the composition of the first part back to before 1240. The author claims that he dreamed the dream that inspired the poem in his twentieth year and started to “rhyme it” five years later. The later and longer part of the Roman shows greater intellectual depth and broader knowledge compared to the earlier and shorter section, but Guillaume de Lorris appears to be more original. The main features of his four or five thousand lines include, first, the incredible vividness and beauty of his imagery, where he has few rivals for color, freshness, and individuality except for the greatest masters, and second, the use of allegorical presentation, which, while it became cliché and tiresome later on, was clearly new and striking in his time. There were, of course, hints of it before, as seen in some romances, such as those of Raoul de Houdenc, in the troubadours, and in other writers; but it was undoubtedly Guillaume de Lorris who established the style.
For an attempt to identify Guillaume de Lorris see L. Jarry, Guillaume de Lorris et le testament d’Alphonse de Poitiers (1881). Also Paulin Paris in the Hist. litt. de la France, vol. xxiii.
For an attempt to identify Guillaume de Lorris, see L. Jarry, Guillaume de Lorris et le testament d’Alphonse de Poitiers (1881). Also, Paulin Paris in the Hist. litt. de la France, vol. xxiii.
GUILLAUME DE PALERME (William of Palerne), hero of romance. The French verse romance was written at the desire of a Countess Yolande, generally identified with Yolande, daughter of Baldwin IV., count of Flanders. The English poem in alliterative verse was written about 1350 by a poet called William, at the desire of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford, (d. 1361). Guillaume, a foundling supposed to be of low degree, is brought up at the court of the emperor of Rome, and loves his daughter Melior who is destined for a Greek prince. The lovers flee into the woods disguised in bear-skins. Alfonso, who is Guillaume’s cousin and a Spanish prince, has been changed into a wolf by his step-mother’s enchantments. He provides food and protection for the fugitives, and Guillaume eventually triumphs over Alfonso’s father, and wins back from him his kingdom. The benevolent werwolf is disenchanted, and marries Guillaume’s sister.
GUILLAUME DE PALERME (William of Palerne), the hero of a romance. The French verse romance was created at the request of Countess Yolande, generally recognized as Yolande, daughter of Baldwin IV, count of Flanders. The English poem in alliterative verse was composed around 1350 by a poet named William, at the urging of Humphrey Bohun, earl of Hereford (d. 1361). Guillaume, a foundling believed to be of low birth, grows up at the court of the Roman emperor and falls in love with his daughter Melior, who is intended for a Greek prince. The lovers escape into the woods disguised in bear-skins. Alfonso, Guillaume’s cousin and a Spanish prince, has been transformed into a wolf by the enchantments of his step-mother. He provides food and protection for the runaway couple, and Guillaume ultimately defeats Alfonso’s father and regains his kingdom. The benevolent werewolf is freed from the enchantment and marries Guillaume’s sister.
See Guillaume de Palerne, ed. H. Michelant (Soc. d. anc. textes fr., 1876); Hist. litt. de la France, xxii. 829; William of Palerme, ed. Sir F. Madden (Roxburghe Club, 1832), and W. W. Skeat (E. E. Text Soc., extra series No. 1, 1867); M. Kaluza, in Eng. Studien (Heilbronn, iv. 196). The prose version of the French romance, printed by N. Bonfons, passed through several editions.
See Guillaume de Palerne, edited by H. Michelant (Soc. d. anc. textes fr., 1876); Hist. litt. de la France, xxii. 829; William of Palerme, edited by Sir F. Madden (Roxburghe Club, 1832), and W. W. Skeat (E. E. Text Soc., extra series No. 1, 1867); M. Kaluza, in Eng. Studien (Heilbronn, iv. 196). The prose version of the French romance, printed by N. Bonfons, went through several editions.
GUILLAUME D’ORANGE (d. 812), also known as Guillaume Fierabrace, St Guillaume de Gellone, and the Marquis au court 693 nez, was the central figure of the southern cycle of French romance, called by the trouvères the geste of Garin de Monglane. The cycle of Guillaume has more unity than the other great cycles of Charlemagne or of Doon de Mayence, the various poems which compose it forming branches of the main story rather than independent epic poems. There exist numerous cyclic MSS. in which there is an attempt at presenting a continuous histoire poétique of Guillaume and his family. MS. Royal 20 D xi. in the British Museum contains eighteen chansons of the cycle. Guillaume, son of Thierry or Theodoric and of Alde, daughter of Charles Martel, was born in the north of France about the middle of the 8th century. He became one of the best soldiers and trusted counsellors of Charlemagne, and In 790 was made count of Toulouse, when Charles’s son Louis the Pious was put under his charge. He subdued the Gascons, and defended Narbonne against the infidels. In 793 Hescham, the successor of Abd-al-Rahman II., proclaimed a holy war against the Christians, and collected an army of 100,000 men, half of which was directed against the kingdom of the Asturias, while the second invaded France, penetrating as far as Narbonne. Guillaume met the invaders near the river Orbieux, at Villedaigne, where he was defeated, but only after an obstinate resistance which so far exhausted the Saracens that they were compelled to retreat to Spain. He took Barcelona from the Saracens in 803, and in the next year founded the monastery of Gellone (now Saint Guilhem-le Désert), of which he became a member in 806. He died there in the odour of sanctity on the 28th of May 812.
GUILLAUME D'ORANGE (d. 812), also known as Guillaume Fierabrace, St. Guillaume de Gellone, and the Marquis with the Short Nose, was the main figure in the southern cycle of French romance, referred to by the trouvères as the geste of Garin de Monglane. The Guillaume cycle is more cohesive than other major cycles like those of Charlemagne or Doon de Mayence, with the different poems forming branches of the main story rather than standalone epic tales. There are many cyclic manuscripts attempting to present a continuous histoire poétique of Guillaume and his family. MS. Royal 20 D xi. in the British Museum contains eighteen chansons from the cycle. Guillaume, son of Thierry or Theodoric and Alde, daughter of Charles Martel, was born in northern France around the mid-8th century. He became one of Charlemagne's top soldiers and trusted advisors, and in 790 he was made count of Toulouse when Charles’s son Louis the Pious was placed under his care. He conquered the Gascons and defended Narbonne against the infidels. In 793, Hescham, successor to Abd-al-Rahman II, declared a holy war against Christians and assembled an army of 100,000 men, half of which was aimed at the kingdom of Asturias, while the other half invaded France, reaching as far as Narbonne. Guillaume confronted the invaders near the river Orbieux at Villedaigne, where he was defeated, but only after fierce resistance that exhausted the Saracens enough for them to retreat to Spain. He captured Barcelona from the Saracens in 803, and the following year he founded the monastery of Gellone (now Saint Guilhem-le-Désert), becoming a member in 806. He passed away there in a state of holiness on May 28, 812.
No less than thirteen historical personages bearing the name of William (Guillaume) have been thought by various critics to have their share in the formation of the legend. William, count of Provence, son of Boso II., again delivered southern France from a Saracen invasion by his victory at Fraxinet in 973, and ended his life in a cloister. William Tow-head (Tête d’étoupe), duke of Aquitaine (d. 983), showed a fidelity to Louis IV. paralleled by Guillaume d’Orange’s service to Louis the Pious. The cycle of twenty or more chansons which form the geste of Guillaume reposes on the traditions of the Arab invasions of the south of France, from the battle of Poitiers (732) under Charles Martel onwards, and on the French conquest of Catalonia from the Saracens. In the Norse version of the Carolingian epic Guillaume appears in his proper historical environment, as a chief under Charlemagne; but he plays a leading part in the Couronnement Looys, describing the formal associations of Louis the Pious in the empire at Aix (813, the year after Guillaume’s death), and after the battle of Aliscans it is from the emperor Louis that he seeks reinforcements. This anachronism arises from the fusion of the epic Guillaume with the champion of Louis IV., and from the fact that he was the military and civil chief of Louis the Pious, who was titular king of Aquitaine under his father from the time when he was three years old. The inconsistencies between the real and the epic Guillaume are often left standing in the poems. The personages associated with Guillaume in his Spanish wars belong to Provence, and have names common in the south. The most famous of these are Beuves de Comarchis, Ernaud de Girone, Garin d’Anséun, Aïmer le chétif, so called from his long captivity with the Saracens. The separate existence of Aïmer, who refused to sleep under a roof, and spent his whole life in warring against the infidel, is proved. He was Hadhemar, count of Narbonne, who in 809 and 810 was one of the leaders sent by Louis against Tortosa. No doubt the others had historical prototypes. In the hands of the trouvères they became all brothers of Guillaume, and sons of Aymeri de Narbonne,1 the grandson of Garin de Monglane, and his wife Ermenjart. Nevertheless when Guillaume seeks help from Louis the emperor he finds all his relations in Laon, in accordance with his historic Frankish origin.
No less than thirteen historical figures named William (Guillaume) have been thought by various critics to contribute to the formation of the legend. William, count of Provence, son of Boso II, once again saved southern France from a Saracen invasion with his victory at Fraxinet in 973 and ended his life in a monastery. William Tow-head (Tête d’étoupe), duke of Aquitaine (d. 983), showed loyalty to Louis IV that matched Guillaume d’Orange’s service to Louis the Pious. The cycle of over twenty chansons that make up the geste of Guillaume is based on the traditions of the Arab invasions of southern France, starting from the battle of Poitiers (732) under Charles Martel, and on the French conquest of Catalonia from the Saracens. In the Norse version of the Carolingian epic, Guillaume appears in his proper historical context as a leader under Charlemagne; however, he plays a central role in the Couronnement Looys, which describes Louis the Pious's formal associations in the empire at Aix in 813 (the year after Guillaume’s death), and after the battle of Aliscans, he seeks reinforcements from Emperor Louis. This anachronism stems from the merging of the epic Guillaume with the champion of Louis IV, and from the fact that he was the military and civil leader of Louis the Pious, who was the nominal king of Aquitaine under his father since he was three years old. The discrepancies between the real and the epic Guillaume are often left unaddressed in the poems. The characters associated with Guillaume in his Spanish wars are from Provence, bearing names typical of the south. The most notable among them are Beuves de Comarchis, Ernaud de Girone, Garin d’Anséun, and Aïmer le chétif, named for his lengthy captivity with the Saracens. The separate existence of Aïmer, who refused to sleep under a roof and spent his entire life fighting against the infidels, is established. He was Hadhemar, count of Narbonne, who in 809 and 810 was one of the leaders sent by Louis against Tortosa. It’s likely the others had historical counterparts as well. In the narratives of the trouvères, they were all portrayed as brothers of Guillaume and sons of Aymeri de Narbonne, the grandson of Garin de Monglane, and his wife Ermenjart. Nevertheless, when Guillaume seeks help from Emperor Louis, he finds all his relatives in Laon, in line with his historical Frankish background.
The central fact of the geste of Guillaume is the battle of the Archamp or Aliscans, in which perished Guillaume’s heroic nephew, Vezian or Vivien, a second Roland. At the eleventh hour he summoned Guillaume to his help against the overwhelming forces of the Saracens. Guillaume arrived too late to help Vivien, was himself defeated, and returned alone to his wife Guibourc, leaving his knights all dead or prisoners. This event is related in a Norman-French transcript of an old French chanson de geste, the Chançun de Willame—which only was brought to light in 1901 at the sale of the books of Sir Henry Hope Edwardes—in the Covenant Vivien, a recension of an older French chanson and in Aliscans. Aliscans continues the story, telling how Guillaume obtained reinforcements from Laon, and how, with the help of the comic hero, the scullion Rainouart or Rennewart, he avenged the defeat of Aliscans and his nephew’s death. Rainouart turns out to be the brother of Guillaume’s wife Guibourc, who was before her marriage the Saracen princess and enchantress Orable. Two other poems are consecrated to his later exploits, La Bataille Loquifer, the work of a French Sicilian poet, Jendeu de Brie (fl. 1170), and Le Moniage Rainouart. The staring-point of Herbert le duc of Dammartin (fl. 1170) in Foucon de Candie (Candie = Gandia in Spain?) is the return of Guillaume from the battle; and the Italian compilation I Nerbonesi, based on these and other chansons, seems in some cases to represent an earlier tradition than the later of the French chansons, although its author Andrea di Barberino wrote towards the end of the 14th century. The minnesinger Wolfram von Eschenbach based his Willehalm on a French original which must have differed from the versions we have. The variations in the story of the defeat of Aliscans or the Archant, and the numerous inconsistencies of the narratives even when considered separately have occupied many critics. Aliscans (Aleschans, Alyscamps, Elysii Campi) was, however, generally taken to represent the battle of Villedaigne, and to take its name from the famous cemetery outside Arles. Wolfram von Eschenbach even mentions the tombs which studded the field of battle. Indications that this tradition was not unassailable were not lacking before the discovery of the Chançun de Willame, which, although preserved in a very corrupt form, represents the earliest recension we have of the story, dating at least from the beginning of the 12th century. It seems probable that the Archant was situated in Spain near Vivien’s headquarters at Tortosa, and that Guillaume started from Barcelona, not from Orange, to his nephew’s help. The account of the disaster was modified by successive trouvères, and the uncertainty of their methods may be judged by the fact that in the Chançun de Willame two consecutive accounts (11. 450-1326 and 11. 1326-2420) of the fight appear to be set side by side as if they were separate episodes. Le Couronnement Looys, already mentioned, Le Charroi de Nîmes (12th century) in which Guillaume, who had been forgotten in the distribution of fiefs, enumerates his services to the terrified Louis, and Aliscans (12th century), with the earlier Chançun, are among the finest of the French epic poems. The figure of Vivien is among the most heroic elaborated by the trouvères, and the giant Rainouart has more than a touch of Rabelaisian humour.
The main event in the story of Guillaume is the battle of Archamp or Aliscans, where Guillaume's brave nephew, Vezian or Vivien, a second Roland, died. At the last moment, he called for Guillaume's help against the overwhelming forces of the Saracens. Guillaume got there too late to save Vivien, was defeated himself, and returned alone to his wife Guibourc, leaving all his knights either dead or captured. This story is told in a Norman-French manuscript of an older French chanson de geste, the Chançun de Willame—which was only discovered in 1901 at the book sale of Sir Henry Hope Edwardes—in the Covenant Vivien, an update of an older French chanson, and in Aliscans. Aliscans continues the tale, explaining how Guillaume got reinforcements from Laon and, with the help of the comic hero, the kitchen worker Rainouart or Rennewart, avenged the defeat at Aliscans and his nephew’s death. Rainouart turns out to be the brother of Guillaume’s wife Guibourc, who was previously the Saracen princess and enchantress Orable. Two other poems are dedicated to his later adventures, La Bataille Loquifer, by the French Sicilian poet, Jendeu de Brie (fl. 1170), and Le Moniage Rainouart. The starting point of Herbert le duc of Dammartin (fl. 1170) in Foucon de Candie (Candie = Gandia in Spain?) is Guillaume's return from the battle. The Italian collection I Nerbonesi, which is based on these and other chansons, seems in some cases to represent an earlier tradition than the later French chansons, although its author Andrea di Barberino was writing towards the end of the 14th century. The minnesinger Wolfram von Eschenbach based his Willehalm on a French original that must have differed from the versions we have today. The different accounts of the defeat at Aliscans or the Archant, as well as the many inconsistencies in the stories, even when considered individually, have puzzled many critics. Aliscans (Aleschans, Alyscamps, Elysii Campi) is generally believed to represent the battle of Villedaigne, taking its name from the well-known cemetery outside Arles. Wolfram von Eschenbach even mentions the tombs that dotted the battlefield. Before the discovery of the Chançun de Willame, there were already signs that this tradition was not unshakeable; although preserved in a very inaccurate form, it represents the earliest version we have of the story, dating back at least to the early 12th century. It seems likely that the Archant was located in Spain near Vivien’s base at Tortosa, and that Guillaume set out from Barcelona, not from Orange, to help his nephew. The account of the disaster was altered by successive trouvères, and the uncertainty of their methods is evident in the Chançun de Willame, where two consecutive accounts (ll. 450-1326 and ll. 1326-2420) of the battle are presented side by side as if they were separate events. Le Couronnement Looys, previously mentioned, Le Charroi de Nîmes (12th century), where Guillaume, forgotten in the distribution of fiefs, lists his services to the shaken Louis, and Aliscans (12th century), along with the earlier Chançun, are among the greatest of the French epic poems. The character of Vivien is one of the most heroic created by the trouvères, while the giant Rainouart has a bit of Rabelaisian humor about him.
The chansons de geste of the cycle of Guillaume are: Enfances Garin de Monglane (15th century) and Garin de Monglane (13th century), on which is founded the prose romance of Guérin de Monglane, printed in the 15th century by Jehan Trepperel and often later; Girars de Viane (13th century, by Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube), ed. P. Tarbé (Reims, 1850); Hernaut de Beaulande (fragment 14th century); Renier de Gennes, which only survives in its prose form; Aymeri de Narbonne (c. 1210) by Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, ed. L. Demaison (Soc. des anc. textes fr., Paris, 2 vols., 1887); Les Enfances Guillaume (13th century); Les Narbonnais, ed. H. Suchier (Soc. des anc. textes fr., 2 vols., 1898), with a Latin fragment dating from the 11th century, preserved at the Hague; Le Couronnement Looys (ed. E. Langlois, 1888), Le Charroi de Nîmes, La Prise d’Orange, Le Covenant Vivien, Aliscans, which were edited by W. J. A. Jonckbloet in vol. i. of his Guillaume d’Orange (The Hague, 1854); a critical text of Aliscans (Halle, 1903, vol. i.) is edited by E. Wienbeck, W. Hartnacke and P. Rasch; Loquifer and Le Moniage Rainouart (12th century); Bovon de Commarchis (13th century), recension of the earlier Siège de Barbastre, by Adenès li 694 Rois, ed. A. Scheler (Brussels, 1874); Guibert d’Andrenas (13th century); La Prise de Cordres (13th century); La Mort Aimeri de Narbonne, ed. J. Couraye de Parc (Soc. des Anciens Textes français, Paris, 1884); Foulque de Candie (ed. P. Tarbé, Reims, 1860); Le Moniage Guillaume (12th century); Les Enfances Vivien (ed. C. Wahlund and H. v. Feilitzen, Upsala and Paris, 1895); Chançun de Willame (Chiswick Press, 1903), described by P. Meyer in Romania (xxxiii. 597-618). The ninth branch of the Karlamagnus Saga (ed. C. R. Unger, Christiania, 1860) deals with the geste of Guillaume. I Nerbonesi is edited by J. G. Isola (Bologna, 1877, &c.).
The chansons de geste in the cycle of Guillaume include: Enfances Garin de Monglane (15th century) and Garin de Monglane (13th century), which serves as the basis for the prose romance of Guérin de Monglane, printed in the 15th century by Jehan Trepperel and reprinted often thereafter; Girars de Viane (13th century, by Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube), edited by P. Tarbé (Reims, 1850); Hernaut de Beaulande (14th century fragment); Renier de Gennes survives only in prose; Aymeri de Narbonne (circa 1210) by Bertrand de Bar-sur-Aube, edited by L. Demaison (Soc. des anc. textes fr., Paris, 2 vols., 1887); Les Enfances Guillaume (13th century); Les Narbonnais, edited by H. Suchier (Soc. des anc. textes fr., 2 vols., 1898), which includes a Latin fragment from the 11th century, preserved in The Hague; Le Couronnement Looys (edited by E. Langlois, 1888), Le Charroi de Nîmes, La Prise d’Orange, Le Covenant Vivien, and Aliscans, which were edited by W. J. A. Jonckbloet in vol. i. of his Guillaume d’Orange (The Hague, 1854); a critical text of Aliscans (Halle, 1903, vol. i.) was edited by E. Wienbeck, W. Hartnacke, and P. Rasch; Loquifer and Le Moniage Rainouart (12th century); Bovon de Commarchis (13th century), a revision of the earlier Siège de Barbastre, by Adenès li Rois, edited by A. Scheler (Brussels, 1874); Guibert d’Andrenas (13th century); La Prise de Cordres (13th century); La Mort Aimeri de Narbonne, edited by J. Couraye de Parc (Soc. des Anciens Textes français, Paris, 1884); Foulque de Candie (edited by P. Tarbé, Reims, 1860); Le Moniage Guillaume (12th century); Les Enfances Vivien (edited by C. Wahlund and H. v. Feilitzen, Upsala and Paris, 1895); Chançun de Willame (Chiswick Press, 1903), described by P. Meyer in Romania (xxxiii. 597-618). The ninth branch of the Karlamagnus Saga (edited by C. R. Unger, Christiania, 1860) covers the geste of Guillaume. I Nerbonesi is edited by J. G. Isola (Bologna, 1877, &c.).
See C. Révillout, Étude hist. et litt. sur la vita sancti Willelmi (Montpellier, 1876); W. J. A. Jonckbloet, Guillaume d’Orange (2 vols., 1854, The Hague); L. Clarus (ps. for W. Volk), Herzog Wilhelm von Aquitanien (Münster, 1865); P. Paris, in Hist. litt. de la France (vol. xxii., 1852); L. Gautier, Épopées françaises (vol. iv., 2nd ed., 1882); R. Weeks, The newly discovered Chançun de Willame (Chicago, 1904); A. Thomas, Études romanes (Paris, 1891), on Vivien; L. Saltet, “S. Vidian de Martres-Tolosanes” in Bull. de litt. ecclés. (Toulouse, 1902); P. Becker, Die altfrz. Wilhelmsage u. ihre Beziehung zu Wilhelm dem Heiligen (Halle, 1896), and Der südfranzösische Sagenkreis und seine Probleme (Halle, 1898); A. Jeanroy, “Études sur le cycle de Guillaume au court nez” (in Romania, vols. 25 and 26, 1896-1897); H. Suchier, “Recherches sur ... Guillaume d’Orange” (in Romania, vol. 32, 1903). The conclusions arrived at by earlier writers are combated by Joseph Bédier in the first volume, “Le Cycle de Guillaume d’Orange” (1908), of his Légendes épiques, in which he constructs a theory that the cycle of Guillaume d’Orange grew up round the various shrines on the pilgrim route to Saint Gilles of Provence and Saint James of Compostella—that the chansons de geste were, in fact, the product of 11th and 12th century trouvères, exploiting local ecclesiastical traditions, and were not developed from earlier poems dating back perhaps to the lifetime of Guillaume of Toulouse, the saint of Gellone.
See C. Révillout, Étude hist. et litt. sur la vita sancti Willelmi (Montpellier, 1876); W. J. A. Jonckbloet, Guillaume d’Orange (2 vols., 1854, The Hague); L. Clarus (pseudonym for W. Volk), Herzog Wilhelm von Aquitanien (Münster, 1865); P. Paris, in Hist. litt. de la France (vol. xxii., 1852); L. Gautier, Épopées françaises (vol. iv., 2nd ed., 1882); R. Weeks, The newly discovered Chançun de Willame (Chicago, 1904); A. Thomas, Études romanes (Paris, 1891), on Vivien; L. Saltet, “S. Vidian de Martres-Tolosanes” in Bull. de litt. ecclés. (Toulouse, 1902); P. Becker, Die altfrz. Wilhelmsage u. ihre Beziehung zu Wilhelm dem Heiligen (Halle, 1896), and Der südfranzösische Sagenkreis und seine Probleme (Halle, 1898); A. Jeanroy, “Études sur le cycle de Guillaume au court nez” (in Romania, vols. 25 and 26, 1896-1897); H. Suchier, “Recherches sur ... Guillaume d’Orange” (in Romania, vol. 32, 1903). The conclusions reached by earlier writers are challenged by Joseph Bédier in the first volume, “Le Cycle de Guillaume d’Orange” (1908), of his Légendes épiques, where he develops a theory that the cycle of Guillaume d’Orange originated around various shrines on the pilgrimage routes to Saint Gilles of Provence and Saint James of Compostella—that the chansons de geste were actually created by 11th and 12th-century trouvères, drawing on local ecclesiastical traditions, and were not based on earlier poems possibly from the time of Guillaume of Toulouse, the saint of Gellone.
1 The poem of Aymeri de Narbonne contains the account of the young Aymeri’s brilliant capture of Narbonne, which he then receives as a fief from Charlemagne, of his marriage with Ermenjart, sister of Boniface, king of the Lombards, and of their children. The fifth daughter, Blanchefleur, is represented as the wife of Louis the Pious. The opening of this poem furnished, though indirectly, the matter of the Aymerillot of Victor Hugo’s Légende des siècles.
1 The poem of Aymeri de Narbonne tells the story of young Aymeri’s impressive conquest of Narbonne, which he then receives as a fief from Charlemagne, his marriage to Ermenjart, sister of Boniface, king of the Lombards, and their children. The fifth daughter, Blanchefleur, is portrayed as the wife of Louis the Pious. The beginning of this poem indirectly inspired the content of the Aymerillot in Victor Hugo’s Légende des siècles.
GUILLEMOT (Fr. guillemot1), the name accepted by nearly all modern authors for a sea-bird, the Colymbus troile of Linnaeus and the Uria troile of Latham, which nowadays it seems seldom if ever to bear among those who, from their vocation, are most conversant with it, though, according to Willughby and Ray his translator, it was in their time so called “by those of Northumberland and Durham.” Around the coasts of Britain it is variously known as the frowl, kiddaw or skiddaw, langy (cf. Ice. Langvia), lavy, marrock, murre, scout (cf. Coot), scuttock, strany, tinker or tinkershire and willock. In former days the guillemot yearly frequented the cliffs on many parts of the British coasts in countless multitudes, and this is still the case in the northern parts of the United Kingdom; but more to the southward nearly all its smaller settlements have been rendered utterly desolate by the wanton and cruel destruction of their tenants during the breeding season, and even the inhabitants of those which were more crowded had become so thinned that, but for the intervention of the Sea Birds Preservation Act (32 & 33 Vict. cap. 17), which provided under penalty for the safety of this and certain other species at the time of year when they were most exposed to danger, they would unquestionably by this time have been exterminated so far as England is concerned.
Guillemot (Fr. guillemot1), the name accepted by nearly all contemporary authors for a sea bird, the Colymbus troile of Linnaeus and the Uria troile of Latham, which today seems to be rarely referred to by that name among those who are most familiar with it through their work, although, according to Willughby and his translator Ray, it was called that in their time “by those of Northumberland and Durham.” Along the coasts of Britain, it is known by various names such as frowl, kiddaw or skiddaw, langy (cf. Ice. Langvia), lavy, marrock, murre, scout (cf. Coots), scuttock, strany, tinker or tinkershire, and willock. In earlier times, the guillemot would gather at the cliffs along many parts of the British shores in massive numbers, and this is still true for the northern parts of the UK; however, further south, most of its smaller colonies have been completely devastated due to the reckless and brutal killing of their inhabitants during the breeding season, and even the populations of those areas that were once more populated have become so diminished that, without the intervention of the Sea Birds Preservation Act (32 & 33 Vict. cap. 17), which imposed penalties to protect this species and others during the time of year when they are most vulnerable, they would almost certainly have been exterminated in England by now.
Part of the guillemot’s history is still little understood. We know that it arrives at its wonted breeding stations on its accustomed day in spring, that it remains there till, towards the end of the summer, its young are hatched and able, as they soon are, to encounter the perils of a seafaring life, when away go all, parents and progeny. After that time it commonly happens that a few examples are occasionally met with in bays and shallow waters. Tempestuous weather will drive ashore a large number in a state of utter destitution—many of them indeed are not unfrequently washed up dead—but what becomes of the bulk of the birds, not merely the comparatively few thousands that are natives of Britain, but the tens and hundreds of thousands, not to say millions, that are in summer denizens of more northern latitudes, no one can say. This mystery is not peculiar to the guillemot, but is shared by all the Alcidae that inhabit the Atlantic Ocean. Examples stray every season across the Bay of Biscay, are found off the coasts of Spain and Portugal, enter the Mediterranean and reach Italian waters, or, keeping farther south, may even touch the Madeiras, Canaries or Azores; but these bear no proportion whatever to the mighty hosts of whom they are literally the “scouts,” and whose position and movements they no more reveal than do the vedettes of a well-appointed army. The common guillemot of both sides of the Atlantic is replaced farther northward by a species with a stouter bill, the U. arra or U. bruennichi of ornithologists, and on the west coast of North America by the U. californica. The habits of all these are essentially the same, and the structural resemblance between all of them and the Auks is so great that several systematists have relegated them to the genus Alca, confining the genus Uria to the guillemots of another group, of which the type is the U. grylla, the black guillemot of British authors, the dovekey or Greenland dove of sailors, the tysty of Shetlanders. This bird assumes in summer an entirely black plumage with the exception of a white patch on each wing, while in winter it is beautifully marbled with white and black. Allied to it as species or geographical races are the U. mandti, U. columba and U. carbo. All these differ from the larger guillemots by laying two or three eggs, which are generally placed in some secure niche, while the members of the other group lay but a single egg, which is invariably exposed on a bare ledge.
Part of the guillemot’s history is still not fully understood. We know that it arrives at its usual breeding spots on its expected day in spring, and it stays there until, toward the end of summer, its young are hatched and ready, as they quickly are, to face the challenges of life at sea, at which point all of them, parents and chicks, leave. After that, it often happens that a few individuals are occasionally seen in bays and shallow waters. Stormy weather will drive many ashore in a state of complete destitution—many are indeed frequently found dead—but what happens to the majority of the birds, not just the relatively few thousands that are native to Britain, but the tens and hundreds of thousands, not to mention millions, that spend the summer in more northern regions, remains a mystery. This enigma is not unique to the guillemot; it is shared by all the Alcidae living in the Atlantic Ocean. Every season, a few stray across the Bay of Biscay, are spotted off the coasts of Spain and Portugal, enter the Mediterranean, and reach Italian waters, or, staying further south, may even come to the Madeiras, Canaries, or Azores; but these numbers are minuscule compared to the vast populations they represent as “scouts,” revealing neither their location nor movements, much like the vedettes of a well-equipped army. The common guillemot found on both sides of the Atlantic is replaced further north by a species with a sturdier bill, identified by ornithologists as U. arra or U. bruennichi, and along the west coast of North America by U. californica. The behaviors of all these birds are essentially the same, and their structural similarities to Auks are so pronounced that several systematists have classified them under the genus Alca, limiting the genus Uria to guillemots of another group, of which the type is U. grylla, the black guillemot referred to by British authors, the dovekey or Greenland dove recognized by sailors, and the tysty of Shetlanders. This bird takes on a completely black plumage in summer, except for a white patch on each wing, while in winter, it is beautifully speckled with white and black. Related species or geographic races include U. mandti, U. columba, and U. carbo. All these differ from larger guillemots by laying two or three eggs, which are typically placed in a secure spot, while members of the other group lay only a single egg that is always exposed on a bare ledge.
1 The word, however, seems to be cognate with or derived from the Welsh and Manx Guillem, or Gwilym as Pennant spells it. The association may have no real meaning, but one cannot help comparing the resemblance between the French guillemot and Guillaume with that between the English willock (another name for the bird) and William.
1 The word, however, seems to be related to or derived from the Welsh and Manx Guillem, or Gwilym as Pennant writes it. The connection may not have any real significance, but one can't help but notice the similarity between the French guillemot and Guillaume, just like the English willock (another name for the bird) and William.
GUILLOCHE, a French word for an ornament, either painted or carved, which was one of the principal decorative bands employed by the Greeks in their temples or on their vases. Guilloches are single, double or triple; they consist of a series of circles equidistant one from the other and enclosed in a band which winds round them and interlaces. This guilloche is of Asiatic origin and was largely employed in the decoration of the Assyrian palaces, where it was probably copied from Chaldaean work, as there is an early example at Erech which dates from the time of Gudea (2294 B.C.). The ornament as painted by the Greeks has almost entirely disappeared, but traces are found in the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnus; and on the terra-cotta slabs by which the timber roofs of Greek temples were protected, it is painted in colours which are almost as brilliant as when first produced, those of the Treasury of Gela at Olympia being of great beauty. These examples are double guilloches, with two rows of circles, each with an independent interlacing band and united by a small arc with palmette inside; in both the single and double guilloches of Greek work there is a flower in the centre of the circles. In the triple guilloche, the centre row of circles comes half-way between the others, and the enclosing band crosses diagonally both ways, interlacing alternately. The best example of the triple guilloche is that which is carved on the torus moulding of the base and on the small convex moulding above the echinus of the capitals of the columns of the Erechtheum at Athens. It was largely employed in Roman work, and the single guilloche is found almost universally as a border in mosaic pavements, not only in Italy but throughout Europe. In the Renaissance in Italy it was also a favourite enrichment for borders and occasionally in France and England.
GUILLOCHE, is a French term for an ornament, either painted or carved, that was one of the main decorative bands used by the Greeks in their temples or on their vases. Guilloches can be single, double, or triple; they consist of a series of circles that are equally spaced and surrounded by a band that winds around and weaves between them. This guilloche has Asian origins and was widely used in decorating Assyrian palaces, likely influenced by Chaldaean designs, with an early example found at Erech dating back to the time of Gudea (2294 BCE). The Greek version of the ornament has mostly vanished, but remnants can be seen in the temple of Nemesis at Rhamnus; on the terra-cotta slabs that protected the wooden roofs of Greek temples, it is painted in colors that are nearly as vibrant as when they were first created, with the Treasury of Gela at Olympia showcasing remarkable beauty. These examples feature double guilloches, consisting of two rows of circles, each with its own independent interlacing band and connected by a small arc containing a palmette inside; in both the single and double guilloches in Greek art, there is a flower at the center of the circles. In the triple guilloche, the middle row of circles is positioned halfway between the others, and the surrounding band crosses diagonally in both directions, weaving alternately. The finest example of the triple guilloche is found carved on the torus molding of the base and on the small convex molding above the echinus of the capitals of the columns of the Erechtheum at Athens. It was extensively used in Roman works, and the single guilloche is commonly seen as a border in mosaic pavements, not just in Italy but throughout Europe. During the Italian Renaissance, it was also a popular decorative element for borders and occasionally found in France and England.
GUILLON, MARIE NICOLAS SYLVESTRE (1760-1847), French ecclesiastic, was born in Paris on the 1st of January 1760. He was librarian and almoner in the household of the princess de Lamballe, and when in 1792 she was executed, he fled to the provinces, where under the name of Pastel he practised medicine. A man of facile conscience, he afterwards served in turn under Napoleon, the Bourbons and the Orleanists, and became canon of St Denis, bishop of Morocco and dean of the Sorbonne.
GUILLON, MARIE NICOLAS SYLVESTRE (1760-1847), a French cleric, was born in Paris on January 1, 1760. He worked as a librarian and chaplain for Princess de Lamballe, and when she was executed in 1792, he escaped to the provinces, where he practiced medicine under the name Pastel. A man with a flexible sense of right and wrong, he later served under Napoleon, the Bourbons, and the Orleanists, eventually becoming a canon of St Denis, bishop of Morocco, and dean of the Sorbonne.
Among his many literary works are a Collection des brefs du pape Pie VI (1798), Bibliothèque choisie des pères grecs et latins (1822, 26 vols.) and a French translation of Cyprian with notes (1837, 2 vols.).
Among his many literary works are a Collection of Briefs from Pope Pius VI (1798), Selected Library of Greek and Latin Fathers (1822, 26 vols.) and a French translation of Cyprian with notes (1837, 2 vols.).
GUILLOTINE, the instrument for inflicting capital punishment by decapitation, introduced into France at the period of the Revolution. It consists of two upright posts surmounted by a cross beam, and grooved so as to guide an oblique-edged knife, the back of which is heavily weighted to make it fall swiftly and with force when the cord by which it is held aloft is let go. Some 695 ascribe the invention of the machine to the Persians; and previous to the period when it obtained notoriety under its present name it had been in use in Scotland, England and various parts of the continent. There is still preserved In the antiquarian museum of Edinburgh the rude guillotine called the “maiden” by which the regent Morton was decapitated in 1581. The last persons decapitated by the Scottish “maiden” were the marquis of Argyll in 1661 and his son the earl of Argyll in 1685. It would appear that no similar machine was ever in general use in England; but until 1650 there existed in the forest of Hardwick, which was coextensive with the parish of Halifax, West Riding, Yorkshire, a mode of trial and execution called the gibbet law, by which a felon convicted of theft within the liberty was sentenced to be decapitated by a machine called the Halifax gibbet. A print of it is contained in a small book called Halifax and its Gibbet Law (1708), and in Gibson’s edition of Camden’s Britannia (1722). In Germany the machine was in general use during the middle ages, under the name of the Diele, the Hobel or the Dolabra. Two old German engravings, the one by George Penez, who died in 1550, and the other by Heinrich Aldegrever, with the date 1553, represent the death of a son of Titus Manlius by a similar instrument, and its employment for the execution of a Spartan is the subject of the engraving of the eighteenth symbol in the volume entitled Symbolicae quaestiones de universo genere, by Achilles Bocchi (1555). From the 13th century it was used in Italy under the name of Mannaia for the execution of criminals of noble birth. The Chronique de Jean d’Anton, first published in 1835, gives minute details of an execution in which it was employed at Genoa in 1507; and it is elaborately described by Père Jean Baptiste Labat in his Voyage en Espagne et en Italie en 1730. It is mentioned by Jacques, viscomte de Puységur, in his Mémoires as in use in the south of France, and he describes the execution by it of Marshal Montmorency at Toulouse in 1632. For about a century it had, however, fallen into general disuse on the continent; and Dr Guillotine, who first suggested its use in modern times, is said to have obtained his information regarding it from the description of an execution that took place at Milan in 1702, contained in an anonymous work entitled Voyage historique et politique de Suisse, d’Italie, et d’Allemagne.
GUILLOTINE, the device used for carrying out capital punishment through decapitation, was introduced in France during the Revolution. It consists of two vertical posts topped with a cross beam, designed with grooves to guide an angled knife, the back of which is heavily weighted to ensure it drops quickly and with force when the cord holding it is released. Some 695 attribute the invention of the machine to the Persians; and before it gained notoriety with its current name, it had been used in Scotland, England, and various parts of the continent. There is still a preserved example in the antiquarian museum of Edinburgh, the crude guillotine known as the “maiden,” which was used to decapitate Regent Morton in 1581. The last individuals executed by the Scottish “maiden” were the Marquis of Argyll in 1661 and his son, the Earl of Argyll, in 1685. It appears that no similar machine was widely used in England; but until 1650, there was a method of trial and execution known as the gibbet law in the Hardwick forest, which covered the parish of Halifax, West Riding, Yorkshire. Under this law, a felon convicted of theft was sentenced to be decapitated by a device called the Halifax gibbet. An illustration of it is found in a small book titled Halifax and its Gibbet Law (1708), and in Gibson’s edition of Camden’s Britannia (1722). In Germany, the machine was commonly used during the Middle Ages, referred to as the Diele, the Hobel, or the Dolabra. Two old German engravings, one by George Penez, who died in 1550, and the other by Heinrich Aldegrever, dated 1553, depict the death of a son of Titus Manlius by a similar device, and its use for executing a Spartan is illustrated in the engraving for the eighteenth symbol in the volume titled Symbolicae quaestiones de universo genere by Achilles Bocchi (1555). From the 13th century, it was used in Italy under the name of Mannaia for executing nobles. The Chronique de Jean d’Anton, first published in 1835, provides detailed information about an execution using it in Genoa in 1507; and it is thoroughly described by Père Jean Baptiste Labat in his Voyage en Espagne et en Italie en 1730. It is mentioned by Jacques, Viscount de Puységur, in his Mémoires as being in use in southern France, where he describes the execution of Marshal Montmorency in Toulouse in 1632. However, for about a century, it had largely fallen out of use on the continent; and Dr. Guillotine, who first proposed its use in modern times, is said to have obtained his information from a description of an execution that took place in Milan in 1702, found in an anonymous work titled Voyage historique et politique de Suisse, d’Italie, et d’Allemagne.
Guillotine, who was born at Saintes, May 28, 1738, and elected to the Constituent Assembly in 1789, brought forward on the 1st December of that year two propositions regarding capital punishment, the second of which was that, “in all cases of capital punishment it shall be of the same kind—that is, decapitation—and it shall be executed by means of a machine.” The reasons urged in support of this proposition were that in cases of capital punishment the privilege of execution by decapitation should no longer be confined to the nobles, and that it was desirable to render the process of execution as swift and painless as possible. The debate was brought to a sudden termination in peals of laughter caused by an indiscreet reference of Dr Guillotine to his machine, but his ideas seem gradually to have leavened the minds of the Assembly, and after various debates decapitation was adopted as the method of execution in the penal code which became law on the 6th October 1791. At first it was intended that decapitation should be by the sword, but on account of a memorandum by M. Sanson, the executioner, pointing out the expense and certain other inconveniences attending that method, the Assembly referred the question to a committee, at whose request Dr Antoine Louis, secretary to the Academy of Surgeons, prepared a memorandum on the subject. Without mentioning the name of Guillotine, it recommended the adoption of an instrument similar to that which was formerly suggested by him. The Assembly decided in favour of the report, and the contract was offered to the person who usually provided the instruments of justice; but, as his terms were considered exorbitant, an agreement was ultimately come to with a German of the name of Schmidt, who, under the direction of M. Louis, furnished a machine for each of the French departments. After satisfactory experiments had been made with the machine on several dead bodies in the hospital of Bicêtre, it was erected on the Place de Grève for the execution of the highwayman Pelletier on the 25th April 1792. While the experiments regarding the machine were being carried on, it received the name Louisette or La Petite Louison, but the mind of the nation seems soon to have reverted to Guillotine, who first suggested its use; and in the Journal des révolutions de Paris for 28th April 1792 it is mentioned as la guillotine, a name which it thenceforth bore both popularly and officially. In 1795 the question was much debated as to whether or not death by the guillotine was instantaneous, and in support of the negative side the case of Charlotte Corday was adduced whose countenance, it is said, blushed as if with indignation when the executioner, holding up the head to the public gaze, struck it with his fist. The connexion of the instrument with the horrors of the Revolution has hindered its introduction into other countries, but in 1853 it was adopted under the name of Fallschwert or Fallbeil by the kingdom of Saxony; and it is used for the execution of sentences of death in France, Belgium and some parts of Germany. It has often been stated that Dr Guillotine perished by the instrument which bears his name, but it is beyond question that he survived the Revolution and died a natural death in 1814.
Guillotine, born in Saintes on May 28, 1738, was elected to the Constituent Assembly in 1789. On December 1 of that year, he proposed two ideas about capital punishment, one of which was that, “in all cases of capital punishment, it should be one type—namely, decapitation—and it should be carried out using a machine.” He argued that the right to execution by decapitation shouldn’t be limited to nobles, and that the process should be quick and painless. The debate ended abruptly in laughter due to an indiscreet comment from Dr. Guillotine about his machine, but his ideas gradually influenced the Assembly's thinking. After various discussions, decapitation was established as the method of execution in the penal code that became law on October 6, 1791. Initially, decapitation was to be done with a sword, but due to a memo from M. Sanson, the executioner, noting the costs and other issues with that method, the Assembly sent the matter to a committee. Dr. Antoine Louis, the secretary of the Academy of Surgeons, prepared a memo suggesting an instrument similar to what Guillotine had proposed, without mentioning his name. The Assembly agreed to the report, and they offered the contract to the usual supplier of execution instruments; however, since his terms were too high, they ultimately struck a deal with a German named Schmidt, who, under M. Louis's direction, provided a machine for each of the French departments. After successful tests on several corpses at the Bicêtre hospital, it was set up on the Place de Grève for the execution of the highwayman Pelletier on April 25, 1792. While the testing was ongoing, the machine was called Louisette or La Petite Louison, but the public soon returned to calling it after Guillotine, the person who first suggested it. In the Journal des révolutions de Paris on April 28, 1792, it appeared as la guillotine, a name it would carry both informally and officially from then on. In 1795, there was much debate about whether death by the guillotine was instantaneous, and the case of Charlotte Corday was brought up as evidence for the negative side, as her face supposedly flushed with indignation when the executioner held up her head for the crowd and struck it. The association of the device with the horrors of the Revolution has prevented its adoption in other countries, but in 1853, it was introduced under the name Fallschwert or Fallbeil in the kingdom of Saxony; and it is used for executing death sentences in France, Belgium, and parts of Germany. It has often been said that Dr. Guillotine met his end by the device that carries his name, but he actually survived the Revolution and died a natural death in 1814.
See Sédillot, Réflexions historiques et physiologiques sur le supplice de la guillotine (1795); Sue, Opinion sur le supplice de la guillotine, (1796); Réveillé-Parise, Étude biographique sur Guillotine (Paris, 1851); Notice historique et physiologique sur le supplice de la guillotine (Paris, 1830); Louis Dubois, Recherches historiques et physiologiques sur la guillotine et détails sur Sanson (Paris, 1843); and a paper by J. W. Croker in the Quarterly Review for December 1843, reprinted separately in 1850 under the title The Guillotine, a historical Essay.
See Sédillot, Historical and Physiological Reflections on the Execution by Guillotine (1795); Sue, Opinion on the Execution by Guillotine, (1796); Réveillé-Parise, Biographical Study on Guillotine (Paris, 1851); Historical and Physiological Notice on the Execution by Guillotine (Paris, 1830); Louis Dubois, Historical and Physiological Researches on the Guillotine and Details on Sanson (Paris, 1843); and a paper by J. W. Croker in the Quarterly Review for December 1843, reprinted separately in 1850 under the title The Guillotine, a Historical Essay.
GUILT, a lapse from duty, a crime, now usually the fact of wilful wrong-doing, the condition of being guilty of a crime, hence conduct deserving of punishment. The O. Eng. form of the word is gylt. The New English Dictionary rejects for phonetic reasons the usually accepted connexion with the Teutonic root gald-, to pay, seen in Ger. gelten, to be of value, Geld, money, payment, English “yield.”
Guilt, a failure to fulfill a responsibility, a wrongdoing, now typically refers to the act of deliberate misconduct, the state of being responsible for a crime, which leads to actions deserving of punishment. The Old English form of the word is gylt. The New English Dictionary dismisses the commonly accepted link to the Teutonic root gald-, meaning to pay, as seen in German gelten, to hold value, Geld, money, payment, and English “yield.”
GUIMARÃES (sometimes written Guimaraens), a town of northern Portugal, in the district of Braga, formerly included in the province of Entre-Minho-e-Douro; 36 m. N.E. of Oporto by the Trofa-Guimarães branch of the Oporto-Corunna railway. Pop. (1900) 9104. Guimarães is a very ancient town with Moorish fortifications; and even the quarters which are locally described as “new” date partly from the 15th century. It occupies a low hill, skirted on the north-west by a small tributary of the river Ave. The citadel, founded in the 11th century by Count Henry of Burgundy, was in 1094 the birthplace of his son Alphonso, the first king of Portugal. The font in which Alphonso was baptized is preserved, among other interesting relics, in the collegiate church of Santa Maria da Oliveira, “St Mary of the Olive,” a Romanesque building of the 14th century, which occupies the site of an older foundation. This church owes its name to the legend that the Visigothic king Wamba (672-680) here declined the crown of Spain, until his olive wood spear-shaft blossomed as a sign that he should consent. The convent of São Domingos, now a museum of antiquities, has a fine 12th-13th century cloister; the town hall is built in the blend of Moorish and Gothic architecture known as Manoelline. Guimarães has a flourishing trade in wine and farm produce; it also manufactures cutlery, linen, leather and preserved fruits. Near the town are Citania, the ruins of a prehistoric Iberian city, and the hot sulphurous springs of Taipas, frequented since the 4th century, when Guimarães itself was founded.
GUIMARÃES (sometimes spelled Guimaraens) is a town in northern Portugal, located in the district of Braga, which was formerly part of the province of Entre-Minho-e-Douro. It’s situated 36 miles northeast of Oporto by the Trofa-Guimarães branch of the Oporto-Corunna railway. As of 1900, its population was 9,104. Guimarães is a very old town with Moorish fortifications, and even the areas considered “new” are partly from the 15th century. The town sits on a low hill and is bordered to the northwest by a small tributary of the river Ave. The citadel, established in the 11th century by Count Henry of Burgundy, was the birthplace of his son Alphonso, the first king of Portugal, in 1094. The font where Alphonso was baptized is on display, along with other interesting relics, in the collegiate church of Santa Maria da Oliveira, known as “St Mary of the Olive.” This Romanesque building from the 14th century stands on the site of an earlier structure. The church got its name from the legend that the Visigothic king Wamba (672-680) turned down the crown of Spain here until the olive wood shaft of his spear bloomed as a sign that he should accept. The convent of São Domingos, which is now an antiquities museum, features a beautiful cloister from the 12th-13th century, and the town hall showcases a mix of Moorish and Gothic architecture called Manueline style. Guimarães has a thriving trade in wine and agricultural products and also produces cutlery, linen, leather, and preserved fruits. Nearby attractions include Citania, the ruins of a prehistoric Iberian city, and the hot sulphurous springs of Taipas, which have been popular since the 4th century, around the time Guimarães was founded.
GUIMARD, MARIE MADELEINE (1743-1816), French dancer, was born in Paris on the 10th of October 1743. For twenty-five years she was the star of the Paris Opéra. She made herself even more famous by her love affairs, especially by her long liaison with the prince de Soubise. She bought a magnificent house at Pantin, and built a private theatre connected with it, where Collé’s Partie de chasse de Henri IV which was prohibited in public, and most of the Proverbes of Carmontelle (Louis Carrogis, 1717-1806), and similar licentious performances were given to the delight of high society. In 1772, in defiance of the 696 archbishop of Paris, she opened a gorgeous house with a theatre seating five hundred spectators in the Chaussée d’Antin. In this Temple of Terpsichore, as she named it, the wildest orgies took place. In 1786 she was compelled to get rid of the property, and it was disposed of by lottery for her benefit for the sum of 300,000 francs. Soon after her retirement in 1789 she married Jean Etienne Despréaux (1748-1820), dancer, song-writer and playwright.
GUIMARD, MARIE MADELEINE (1743-1816), French dancer, was born in Paris on October 10, 1743. For twenty-five years, she was the star of the Paris Opéra. She gained even more fame through her love affairs, particularly her long relationship with Prince de Soubise. She purchased a magnificent house in Pantin and built a private theater connected to it, where Collé’s Partie de chasse de Henri IV, which was banned from public performance, along with many of Carmontelle’s Proverbes (Louis Carrogis, 1717-1806) and other risqué shows, were presented to the enjoyment of high society. In 1772, defying the archbishop of Paris, she opened an elegant venue with a theater that seated five hundred in the Chaussée d’Antin. In this Temple of Terpsichore, as she called it, the most extravagant parties took place. In 1786, she was forced to sell the property, and it was raffled off for her benefit for the amount of 300,000 francs. Shortly after her retirement in 1789, she married Jean Etienne Despréaux (1748-1820), a dancer, songwriter, and playwright.
GUIMET, JEAN BAPTISTE (1795-1871), French industrial chemist, was born at Voiron on the 20th of July 1795. He studied at the École Polytechnique in Paris, and in 1817 entered the Administration des Poudres et Salpêtres. In 1828 he was awarded the prize offered by the Société d’Encouragement pour l’Industrie Nationale for a process of making artificial ultramarine with all the properties of the substance prepared from lapis lazuli; and six years later he resigned his official position in order to devote himself to the commercial production of that material, a factory for which he established at Fleurieux sur Saône. He died on the 8th of April 1871.
GUIMET, JEAN BAPTISTE (1795-1871), a French industrial chemist, was born in Voiron on July 20, 1795. He studied at the École Polytechnique in Paris, and in 1817 joined the Administration des Poudres et Salpêtres. In 1828, he won a prize from the Société d’Encouragement pour l’Industrie Nationale for a method to make artificial ultramarine that had all the properties of the substance made from lapis lazuli. Six years later, he left his official position to focus on the commercial production of this material, establishing a factory in Fleurieux sur Saône. He passed away on April 8, 1871.
His son Émile Étienne Guimet, born at Lyons on the 26th of June 1836, succeeded him in the direction of the factory, and founded the Musée Guimet, which was first located at Lyons in 1879 and was handed over to the state and transferred to Paris in 1885. Devoted to travel, he was in 1876 commissioned by the minister of public instruction to study the religions of the Far East, and the museum contains many of the fruits of this expedition, including a fine collection of Japanese and Chinese porcelain and many objects relating not merely to the religions of the East but also to those of Ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome. He wrote Lettres sur l’Algérie (1877) and Promenades japonaises (1880), and also some musical compositions, including a grand opera, Taï-Tsoung (1894).
His son Émile Étienne Guimet, born in Lyon on June 26, 1836, took over the management of the factory and established the Musée Guimet, which started in Lyon in 1879 and was given to the state and moved to Paris in 1885. A passionate traveler, in 1876 he was tasked by the minister of public instruction to explore the religions of the Far East, and the museum showcases many results of this journey, including a notable collection of Japanese and Chinese porcelain, along with various objects related not just to Eastern religions but also to those of Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. He authored Lettres sur l’Algérie (1877) and Promenades japonaises (1880), in addition to some musical works, including a grand opera, Taï-Tsoung (1894).
GUINEA, the general name applied by Europeans to part of the western coast region of equatorial Africa, and also to the gulf formed by the great bend of the coast line eastward and then southward. Like many other geographical designations the use of which is controlled neither by natural nor political boundaries, the name has been very differently employed by different writers and at different periods. In the widest acceptation of the term, the Guinea coast may be said to extend from 13° N. to 16° S., from the neighbourhood of the Gambia to Cape Negro. Southern or Lower Guinea comprises the coasts of Gabun and Loango (known also as French Congo) and the Portuguese possessions on the south-west coast, and Northern or Upper Guinea stretches from the river Casamance to and inclusive of the Niger delta, Cameroon occupying a middle position. In a narrower use of the name, Guinea is the coast only from Cape Palmas to the Gabun estuary. Originally, on the other hand, Guinea was supposed to begin as far north as Cape Nun, opposite the Canary Islands, and Gomes Azurara, a Portuguese historian of the 15th century, is said to be the first authority who brings the boundary south to the Senegal. The derivation of the name is uncertain, but is probably taken from Ghinea, Ginnie, Genni or Jenné, a town and kingdom in the basin of the Niger, famed for the enterprise of its merchants and dating from the 8th century A.D. The name Guinea is found on maps of the middle of the 14th century, but it did not come into general use in Europe till towards the close of the 15th century.1
GUINEA, is the general term used by Europeans for a portion of the western coast of equatorial Africa, as well as the gulf formed by the significant bend of the coastline that goes eastward and then southward. Like many geographical names that aren't defined by natural or political boundaries, the usage of this name has varied among different writers and throughout different periods. In the broadest sense, the Guinea coast can be described as stretching from 13° N. to 16° S., from near the Gambia to Cape Negro. Southern or Lower Guinea includes the coasts of Gabun and Loango (also known as French Congo) and the Portuguese territories along the southwest coast. Northern or Upper Guinea extends from the Casamance River to the Niger Delta, with Cameroon positioned in between. In a more specific sense, Guinea refers only to the coastline from Cape Palmas to the Gabun estuary. Originally, Guinea was believed to start as far north as Cape Nun, across from the Canary Islands, and Gomes Azurara, a Portuguese historian from the 15th century, is considered the first to move the boundary south to the Senegal. The origin of the name is uncertain, but it likely comes from Ghinea, Ginnie, Genni, or Jenné, a town and kingdom in the Niger basin known for its merchants and dating back to the 8th century A.D. The term Guinea appears on maps from the mid-14th century, but it didn’t become widely used in Europe until the late 15th century.1
Although the term Gulf of Guinea is applied generally to that part of the coast south of Cape Palmas and north of the mouth of the Congo, particular indentations have their peculiar designations. The bay formed by the configuration of the land between Cape St Paul and the Nun mouth of the Niger is known as the Bight of Benin, the name being that of the once powerful native state whose territory formerly extended over the whole district. The Bight of Biafra, or Mafra (named after the town of Mafra in southern Portugal), between Capes Formosa and Lopez, is the most eastern part of the Gulf of Guinea; it contains the islands Fernando Po, Prince’s and St Thomas’s. The name Biafra—as indicating the country—fell into disuse in the later part of the 19th century.
Although the term Gulf of Guinea generally refers to the area of the coast south of Cape Palmas and north of the mouth of the Congo, specific indentations have their own unique names. The bay formed by the land between Cape St. Paul and the Nun mouth of the Niger is called the Bight of Benin, named after the once powerful native state that used to cover the entire region. The Bight of Biafra, or Mafra (named after the town of Mafra in southern Portugal), lies between Capes Formosa and Lopez and represents the easternmost part of the Gulf of Guinea; it includes the islands of Fernando Po, Prince’s, and St. Thomas’s. The name Biafra, referring to the country, fell out of use in the late 19th century.
The coast is generally so low as to be visible to navigators only within a very short distance, the mangrove trees being their only sailing marks. In the Bight of Biafra the coast forms an exception, being high and bold, with the Cameroon Mountains for background. At Sierra Leone also there is high land. The coast in many places maintains a dead level for 30 to 50 m. inland. Vegetation is exceedingly luxuriant and varied. The palm-oil tree is indigenous and abundant from the river Gambia to the Congo. The fauna comprises nearly all the more remarkable of African animals. The inhabitants are the true Negro stock.
The coast is usually so low that it's only visible to navigators from a very short distance, with the mangrove trees serving as their only navigation markers. In the Bight of Biafra, the coast is different; it's high and striking, with the Cameroon Mountains in the background. Sierra Leone also has elevated land. Along many parts of the coast, the land remains flat for 30 to 50 meters inland. The vegetation is incredibly lush and diverse. The palm oil tree is native and plentiful from the Gambia River to the Congo. The wildlife includes nearly all of the notable African animals. The local people are of true Negro descent.
By the early traders the coast of Upper Guinea was given names founded on the productions characteristic of the different parts. The Grain coast, that part of the Guinea coast extending for 500 m. from Sierra Leone eastward to Cape Palmas received its name from the export of the seeds of several plants of a peppery character, called variously grains of paradise, Guinea pepper and melegueta. The name Grain coast was first applied to this region in 1455. It was occasionally styled the Windy or Windward coast, from the frequency of short but furious tornadoes throughout the year. Towards the end of the 18th century, Guinea pepper was supplanted in Europe by peppers from the East Indies. The name now is seldom used, the Grain coast being divided between the British colony of Sierra Leone and the republic of Liberia. The Ivory coast extends from Cape Palmas to 3° W., and obtained its name from the quantity of ivory exported therefrom. It is now a French possession. Eastwards of the Ivory coast are the Gold and Slave coasts. The Niger delta was for long known as the Oil rivers. To two regions only of the coast is the name Guinea officially applied, the French and Portuguese colonies north of Sierra Leone being so styled.
By the early traders, the coast of Upper Guinea was named based on the products unique to different areas. The Grain Coast, which stretches for 500 miles from Sierra Leone east to Cape Palmas, got its name from the export of seeds from several spicy plants known as grains of paradise, Guinea pepper, and melegueta. The term "Grain Coast" was first used for this region in 1455. It was sometimes called the Windy or Windward Coast due to the frequent, intense tornadoes that occur throughout the year. By the late 18th century, Guinea pepper was replaced in Europe by peppers from the East Indies. The name is rarely used now, as the Grain Coast is divided between the British colony of Sierra Leone and the Republic of Liberia. The Ivory Coast runs from Cape Palmas to 3° W and received its name because of the large amounts of ivory exported from there. It is currently a French territory. East of the Ivory Coast are the Gold and Slave Coasts. The Niger Delta was long referred to as the Oil Rivers. The name Guinea is officially applied only to two regions on the coast, the French and Portuguese colonies north of Sierra Leone.
Of the various names by which the divisions of Lower Guinea were known, Loango was applied to the country south of the Gabun and north of the Congo river. It is now chiefly included in French Congo. Congo was used to designate the country immediately south of the river of the same name, usually spoken of until the last half of the 19th century as the Zaire. Congo is now one of the subdivisions of Portuguese West Africa (see Angola). It must not be confounded with the Belgian Congo.
Of the different names used for the regions of Lower Guinea, Loango referred to the area south of the Gabun and north of the Congo River. Today, it mainly falls within French Congo. Congo was the name for the land right south of the river of the same name, which was typically referred to as the Zaire until the last part of the 19th century. Congo is now a part of Portuguese West Africa (see Angola). It should not be confused with the Belgian Congo.
Few questions in historical geography have been more keenly discussed than that of the first discovery of Guinea by the navigators of modern Europe. Lancelot Malocello, a Genoese, in 1270 reached at least as far as the Canaries. The first direct attempt to find a sea route to India was, it is said, also made by Genoese, Ugolino and Guido de Vivaldo, Tedisio Doria and others who equipped two galleys and sailed south along the African coast in 1291. Beyond the fact that they passed Cape Nun there is no trustworthy record of their voyage. In 1346 a Catalan expedition started for “the river of gold” on the Guinea coast; its fate is unknown. The French claim that between 1364 and 1410 the people of Dieppe sent out several expeditions to Guinea; and Jean de Béthencourt, who settled in the Canaries about 1402, made explorations towards the south. At length the consecutive efforts of the navigators employed by Prince Henry of Portugal—Gil Eannes, Diniz Diaz, Nuno Tristam, Alvaro Fernandez, Cadamosto, Usodimare and Diego Gomez—made known the coast as far as the Gambia, and by the end 697 of the 15th century the whole region was familiar to Europeans.
Few questions in historical geography have been debated as much as the first discovery of Guinea by the navigators of modern Europe. Lancelot Malocello, a Genoese, reached at least as far as the Canary Islands in 1270. It is also said that the first direct attempt to find a sea route to India was made by Genoese sailors Ugolino and Guido de Vivaldo, Tedisio Doria, and others, who equipped two galleys and sailed south along the African coast in 1291. Aside from them passing Cape Nun, there is no reliable record of their voyage. In 1346, a Catalan expedition set out for “the river of gold” on the Guinea coast; its fate remains unknown. The French claim that between 1364 and 1410 the people of Dieppe sent out several expeditions to Guinea; and Jean de Béthencourt, who settled in the Canary Islands around 1402, conducted explorations to the south. Eventually, the successive efforts of the navigators employed by Prince Henry of Portugal—Gil Eannes, Diniz Diaz, Nuno Tristam, Alvaro Fernandez, Cadamosto, Usodimare, and Diego Gomez—revealed the coast up to the Gambia, and by the end of the 15th century, the entire region was well known to Europeans.
For further information see Senegal, Gold Coast, Ivory Coast, French Guinea, Portuguese Guinea, Liberia, &c. For the history of European discoveries, consult G. E. de Azurara, Chronica de descobrimento e conquista de Guiné, published, with an introduction, by Barros de Santarem (Paris, 1841), English translation, The Discovery and Conquest of Guinea, by C. R. Beazley and E. Prestage (Hakluyt Society publications, 2 vols., London, 1896-1899, vol. ii. has an introduction on the early history of African exploration, &c. with full bibliographical notes). L. Estancelin, Recherches sur les voyages et découvertes des navigateurs normands en Afrique (Paris, 1832); Villault de Bellefond, Relation des costes d’Afrique appellées Guinée (Paris, 1669); Père Labat, Nouvelle Relation de l’Afrique occidentale (Paris, 1728); Desmarquets, Mém. chron. pour servir à l’hist. de Dieppe (1875); Santarem, Priorité de la découverte des pays situés sur la côte occidentale d’Afrique (Paris, 1842); R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry the Navigator (London, 1868); and the elaborate review of Major’s work by M. Codine in the Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog. (1873); A. E. Nordenskiöld, Periplus (Stockholm, 1897); The Story of Africa, vol. i. (London, 1892), edited by Dr Robert Brown.
For more information, see Senegal, Gold Coast, Ivory Coast, French Guinea, Portuguese Guinea, Liberia, etc. For the history of European discoveries, check out G. E. de Azurara, Chronica de descobrimento e conquista de Guiné, published with an introduction by Barros de Santarem (Paris, 1841), English translation, The Discovery and Conquest of Guinea, by C. R. Beazley and E. Prestage (Hakluyt Society publications, 2 vols., London, 1896-1899; vol. ii has an introduction on the early history of African exploration, etc., with full bibliographical notes). L. Estancelin, Recherches sur les voyages et découvertes des navigateurs normands en Afrique (Paris, 1832); Villault de Bellefond, Relation des costes d’Afrique appellées Guinée (Paris, 1669); Père Labat, Nouvelle Relation de l’Afrique occidentale (Paris, 1728); Desmarquets, Mém. chron. pour servir à l’hist. de Dieppe (1875); Santarem, Priorité de la découverte des pays situés sur la côte occidentale d’Afrique (Paris, 1842); R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry the Navigator (London, 1868); and the detailed review of Major’s work by M. Codine in the Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog. (1873); A. E. Nordenskiöld, Periplus (Stockholm, 1897); The Story of Africa, vol. i. (London, 1892), edited by Dr. Robert Brown.
1 Guinea may, however, be derived from Ghana (or Ghanata) the name of the oldest known state in the western Sudan. Ghana dates, according to some authorities, from the 3rd century A.D. From the 7th to the 12th century it was a powerful empire, its dominions extending, apparently, from the Atlantic to the Niger bend. At one time Jenné was included within its borders. Ghana was finally conquered by the Mandingo kings of Melle in the 13th century. Its capital, also called Ghana, was west of the Niger, and is generally placed some 200 m. west of Jenné. In this district L. Desplagnes discovered in 1907 numerous remains of a once extensive city, which he identified as those of Ghana. The ruins lie 25 m. W. of the Niger, on both banks of a marigot, and are about 40 m. N. by E. of Kulikoro (see La Géographie, xvi. 329). By some writers Ghana city is, however, identified with Walata, which town is mentioned by Arab historians as the capital of Ghanata. The identification of Ghana city with Jenné is not justified, though Idrisi seems to be describing Jenné when writing of “Ghana the Great.”
1 Guinea might actually come from Ghana (or Ghanata), the name of the oldest known state in western Sudan. Ghana is believed to date back to the 3rd century CE From the 7th to the 12th century, it was a powerful empire, its territory stretching from the Atlantic to the Niger bend. At one point, Jenné was part of its borders. Ghana was ultimately conquered by the Mandingo kings of Melle in the 13th century. Its capital, also named Ghana, was located west of the Niger and is generally placed about 200 miles west of Jenné. In this area, L. Desplagnes discovered in 1907 many remains of a once-large city, which he identified as Ghana. The ruins are situated 25 miles west of the Niger, on both banks of a stream, and are about 40 miles northeast of Kulikoro (see La Géographie, xvi. 329). However, some authors identify Ghana city with Walata, which is mentioned by Arab historians as the capital of Ghanata. The identification of Ghana city with Jenné is not supported, though Idrisi seems to describe Jenné when referring to “Ghana the Great.”
GUINEA, a gold coin at one time current in the United Kingdom. It was first coined in 1663, in the reign of Charles II., from gold imported from the Guinea coast of West Africa by a company of merchants trading under charter from the British crown—hence the name. Many of the first guineas bore an elephant on one side, this being the stamp of the company; in 1675 a castle was added. Issued at the same time as the guinea were five-guinea, two-guinea and half-guinea pieces. The current value of the guinea on its first issue was twenty shillings. It was subsidiary to the silver coinage, but this latter was in such an unsatisfactory state that the guinea in course of time became over-valued in relation to silver, so much so that in 1694 it had risen in value to thirty shillings. The rehabilitation of the silver coinage in William III.’s reign brought down the value of the guinea to 21s. 6d. in 1698, at which it stood until 1717, when its value was fixed at twenty-one shillings. This value the guinea retained until its disappearance from the coinage. It was last coined in 1813, and was superseded in 1817 by the present principal gold coin, the sovereign. In 1718 the quarter-guinea was first coined. The third-guinea was first struck in George III.’s reign (1787). To George III.’s reign also belongs the “spade-guinea,” a guinea having the shield on the reverse pointed at the base or spade-shaped. It is still customary to pay subscriptions, professional fees and honoraria of all kinds, in terms of “guineas,” a guinea being twenty-one shillings.
GUINEA, was a gold coin once used in the United Kingdom. It was first minted in 1663, during the reign of Charles II, from gold brought in from the Guinea coast of West Africa by a group of merchants licensed by the British crown—hence the name. Many of the early guineas had an elephant on one side, representing the company's mark; a castle was added in 1675. Along with the guinea, five-guinea, two-guinea, and half-guinea coins were also issued. When it was first released, the guinea was worth twenty shillings. While it was a supplement to the silver coins, the silver coins were in such poor condition that the guinea eventually became overvalued compared to them, reaching a value of thirty shillings by 1694. The restoration of the silver coinage during William III’s reign reduced the guinea's value to 21s. 6d. in 1698, where it remained until 1717 when its value was officially set at twenty-one shillings. This value stayed until the guinea was no longer minted. The last guinea was minted in 1813, and it was replaced in 1817 by the current main gold coin, the sovereign. The quarter-guinea was first minted in 1718, and the third-guinea was introduced during George III’s reign in 1787. Also from George III’s reign is the “spade-guinea,” a guinea with a shield shaped like a spade on the reverse. It is still common to pay subscriptions, professional fees, and various honoraria in “guineas,” where one guinea equals twenty-one shillings.
GUINEA FOWL, a well-known domestic gallinaceous bird, so called from the country whence in modern times it was brought to Europe, the Meleagris and Avis or Gallina Numidica of ancient authors.1 Little is positively known of the wild stock to which we owe our tame birds, nor can the period of its reintroduction (for there is apparently no evidence of its domestication being continuous from the time of the Romans) be assigned more than roughly to that of the African discoveries of the Portuguese. It does not seem to have been commonly known till the middle of the 16th century, when John Caius sent a description and figure, with the name Gallus Mauritanus, to Gesner, who published both in his Paralipomena in 1555, and in the same year Belon also gave a notice and woodcut under the name of Poulle de la Guinée; but while the former authors properly referred their bird to the ancient Meleagris, the latter confounded the Meleagris and the turkey.
GUINEA FOWL, a well-known domestic bird related to chickens, gets its name from the region it was brought from to Europe in modern times, known as Meleagris and Avis or Gallina Numidica by ancient writers.1 We don’t know much about the wild ancestors of our domesticated birds, and we can't pinpoint the exact time it was reintroduced (as there’s no clear evidence that it was continuously domesticated since Roman times), other than it likely aligns with the African discoveries by the Portuguese. It seems that the bird wasn't commonly recognized until the mid-16th century, when John Caius provided a description and an illustration, naming it Gallus Mauritanus, which Gesner published in his Paralipomena in 1555. That same year, Belon also released a notice and a woodcut under the name Poulle de la Guinée; however, while the former correctly associated their bird with the ancient Meleagris, the latter confused the Meleagris with the turkey.
The ordinary guinea fowl of the poultry-yard (see also Poultry and Poultry-Farming) is the Numida meleagris of ornithologists. The chief or only changes which domestication seems to have induced in its appearance are a tendency to albinism generally shown in the plumage of its lower parts, and frequently, though not always, the conversion of the colour of its legs and feet from dark greyish-brown to bright orange. That the home of this species is West Africa from the Gambia2 to the Gaboon is certain, but its range in the interior is quite unknown. It appears to have been imported early into the Cape Verd Islands, where, as also in some of the Greater Antilles and in Ascension, it has run wild. Representing the species in South Africa we have the N. coronata, which is very numerous from the Cape Colony to Ovampoland, and the N. cornuta of Drs Finsch and Hartlaub, which replaces it in the west as far as the Zambesi. Madagascar also has its peculiar species, distinguishable by its red crown, the N. mitrata of Pallas, a name which has often been misapplied to the last. This bird has been introduced to Rodriguez, where it is now found wild. Abyssinia is inhabited by another species, the N. ptilorhyncha,3 which differs from all the foregoing by the absence of any red colouring about the head. Very different from all of them, and the finest species known, is the N. vulturina of Zanzibar, conspicuous by the bright blue in its plumage, the hackles that adorn the lower part of its neck, and its long tail. By some writers it is thought to form a separate genus, Acryllium. All these guinea fowls except the last are characterized by having the crown bare of feathers and elevated into a bony “helmet,” but there is another group (to which the name Guttera has been given) in which a thick tuft of feathers ornaments the top of the head. This contains four or five species, all inhabiting some part or other of Africa, the best known being the N. cristata from Sierra Leone and other places on the western coast. This bird, apparently mentioned by Marcgrave more than 200 years ago, but first described by Pallas, is remarkable for the structure—unique, if not possessed by its representative forms—of its furcula, where the head, instead of being the thin plate found in all other Gallinae, is a hollow cup opening upwards, into which the trachea dips, and then emerges on its way to the lungs. Allied to the genus Numida, but readily distinguished form among other characters by the possession of spurs and the absence of a helmet, are two very rare forms, Agelastes and Phasidus, both from western Africa. Of their habits nothing is known. All these birds are beautifully figured in Elliot’s Monograph of the Phasianidae, from drawings by Wolf.
The common guinea fowl found in backyards (see also Poultry and Poultry-Farming) is the Numida meleagris according to ornithologists. The main, or perhaps only, changes that domestication seems to have caused in its appearance are a tendency toward albinism, typically displayed in the feathers of its lower body, and often, but not always, a shift in the color of its legs and feet from dark grayish-brown to bright orange. It’s well-known that this species is native to West Africa, ranging from the Gambia 2 to the Gaboon, although its range inland remains largely unknown. It seems to have been brought to the Cape Verde Islands early on, where it has also established wild populations, along with some areas in the Greater Antilles and Ascension. In South Africa, we find the N. coronata, which is plentiful from the Cape Colony to Ovampoland, and the N. cornuta discovered by Drs. Finsch and Hartlaub, which takes its place in the west up to the Zambezi. Madagascar has its own unique species, identifiable by its red crown, the N. mitrata of Pallas, a name that has often been incorrectly attributed to the previous species. This bird has been introduced to Rodriguez, where it is now wild. Abyssinia is home to another species, the N. ptilorhyncha 3, which is different from all the others by lacking any red coloring on its head. Very distinct from all of them, and known as the most beautiful species, is the N. vulturina of Zanzibar, recognizable by the bright blue in its feathers, the hackles that decorate the lower part of its neck, and its long tail. Some authors believe it may belong to a separate genus, Acryllium. All these guinea fowls, except for the last one, are characterized by having a featherless crown that rises into a bony “helmet,” but there’s another group (referred to as Guttera) with a thick tuft of feathers adorning the top of the head. This group contains four or five species, all found in various parts of Africa, with the most well-known being the N. cristata from Sierra Leone and other areas on the western coast. This bird, which Marcgrave mentioned over 200 years ago but was first described by Pallas, is notable for its unique structure—distinct from its relatives—with a furcula that has its head formed as a hollow cup opening upward, into which the trachea dips before emerging towards the lungs. Related to the genus Numida, but easily distinguishable by having spurs and lacking the helmet, are two rare forms, Agelastes and Phasidus, both from western Africa. Little is known about their habits. All these birds are beautifully illustrated in Elliot’s Monograph of the Phasianidae, based on drawings by Wolf.
1 Columella (De re rustica, viii. cap. 2) distinguishes the Meleagris from the Gallina Africana or Numidica, the latter having, he says, a red wattle (palea, a reading obviously preferable to galea), while it was blue in the former. This would look as if the Meleagris had sprung from what is now called Numida ptilorhyncha, while the Gallina Africana originated in the N. meleagris, species which have a different range, and if so the fact would point to two distinct introductions—one by Greeks, the other by Latins.
1 Columella (De re rustica, viii. cap. 2) differentiates the Meleagris from the Gallina Africana or Numidica, noting that the latter has a red wattle (palea, which is clearly a better reading than galea), while the former has a blue one. This suggests that the Meleagris likely came from what we now refer to as Numida ptilorhyncha, whereas the Gallina Africana originated from N. meleagris, species that have different habitats, indicating that there were probably two separate introductions—one by the Greeks and the other by the Latins.
2 Specimens from the Gambia are said to be smaller, and have been described as distinct under the name of N. rendalli.
2 Samples from The Gambia are said to be smaller and have been identified as a separate species under the name N. rendalli.
3 Darwin (Anim. and Pl. under Domestication, i. 294), gives this as the original stock of the modern domestic birds, but obviously by an accidental error. As before observed, it may possibly have been the true μελεαγρίς of the Greeks.
3 Darwin (Anim. and Pl. under Domestication, i. 294) presents this as the original source of today’s domesticated birds, but it seems to be a mistake. As mentioned earlier, it might have actually been the true μελεαγρίς referred to by the Greeks.
GUINEA-WORM (Dracontiasis), a disease due to the Filaria medinensis, or Dracunculus, or Guinea-worm, a filarious nematode like a horse-hair, whose most frequent habitat is the subcutaneous and intramuscular tissues of the legs and feet. It is common on the Guinea coast, and in many other tropical and subtropical regions and has been familiarly known since ancient times. The condition of dracontiasis due to it is a very common one, and sometimes amounts to an epidemic. The black races are most liable, but Europeans of almost any social rank and of either sex are not altogether exempt. The worm lives in water, and, like the Filaria sanguinis hominis, appears to have an intermediate host for its larval stage. It is doubtful whether the worm penetrates the skin of the legs directly; it is not impossible that the intermediate host (a cyclops) which contains the larvae may be swallowed with the water, and that the larvae of the Dracunculus may be set free in the course of digestion.
GUINEA-WORM (Dracontiasis) is a disease caused by the Filaria medinensis, or Dracunculus, known as the Guinea-worm, which is a thin, hair-like nematode that primarily lives in the subcutaneous and intramuscular tissues of the legs and feet. It's commonly found along the Guinea coast and in many other tropical and subtropical areas, and it has been recognized since ancient times. Dracontiasis is a widespread condition and can sometimes escalate to an epidemic. While black races are particularly at risk, Europeans of various social standings and both genders are not completely safe from it. The worm thrives in water and, similar to Filaria sanguinis hominis, appears to rely on an intermediate host during its larval stage. It's unclear whether the worm directly penetrates the skin of the legs; it's possible that the intermediate host (a cyclops) that carries the larvae is ingested with the water, allowing the larvae of the Dracunculus to be released during digestion.
GÜINES, a town in the interior of Havana province, Cuba, about 30 m. S.E. of Havana. Pop. (1907) 8053. It is situated on a plain, in the midst of a rich plantation district, chiefly devoted to the cultivation of tobacco. The first railway in Cuba was built from Havana to Güines between 1835 and 1838. One of the very few good highways of the island also connects Güines with the capital. The pueblo of Güines, which was built on a great private estate of the same name, dates back to about 1735. The church dates from 1850. Güines became a “villa” in 1814, and was destroyed by fire in 1817.
GÜINES, is a town in the interior of Havana province, Cuba, about 30 miles southeast of Havana. Population (1907) 8,053. It’s located on a plain in a fertile plantation area, mainly focused on tobacco farming. The first railway in Cuba was constructed from Havana to Güines between 1835 and 1838. One of the island's few good highways also connects Güines to the capital. The town of Güines was established around 1735 on a large private estate of the same name. The church was built in 1850. Güines was designated a “villa” in 1814 and was destroyed by fire in 1817.
GUINGAMP, a town of north-western France, capital of an arrondissement in the department of Côtes-du-Nord, on the 698 right bank of the Trieux, 20 m. W.N.W. of St Brieuc on the railway to Brest. Pop. (1906), town 6937, commune 9212. Its chief church, Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, dates from the 14th to the 16th centuries; two towers rise on each side of the richly sculptured western portal and a third surmounts the crossing. A famous statue of the Virgin, the object of one of the most important “pardons” or religious pilgrimages in Brittany, stands in one of the two northern porches. The central square is decorated by a graceful fountain in the Renaissance style, restored in 1743. Remains of the ramparts and of the château of the dukes of Penthièvre, which belong to the 15th century, still survive. Guingamp is the seat of a sub-prefect and of a tribunal of first instance. It is an important market for dairy-cattle, and its industries include flour-milling, tanning and leather-dressing. Guingamp was the chief town of the countship (subsequently the duchy) of Penthièvre. The Gothic chapel of Grâces, near Guingamp, contains fine sculptures.
GUINGAMP, is a town in north-western France, serving as the capital of an arrondissement in the Côtes-du-Nord department, located on the 698 right bank of the Trieux River, 20 miles W.N.W. of St Brieuc on the way to Brest. The population in 1906 was 6,937 for the town and 9,212 for the commune. Its main church, Notre-Dame de Bon-Secours, was built between the 14th and 16th centuries; two towers rise on either side of the elaborately carved western entrance, and a third tower crowns the crossing. A well-known statue of the Virgin, a major focal point for one of Brittany’s most significant religious pilgrimages called “pardons,” can be found in one of the two northern porches. The central square features an elegant fountain in Renaissance style, which was restored in 1743. Remnants of the ramparts and the château of the dukes of Penthièvre, dating back to the 15th century, are still present. Guingamp is the location of a sub-prefect’s office and a first-instance court. It is a key market for dairy cattle, and its industries include flour milling, tanning, and leather processing. Guingamp was the principal town of the countship (later duchy) of Penthièvre. The Gothic chapel of Grâces, located near Guingamp, houses impressive sculptures.
GUINNESS, the name of a family of Irish brewers. The firm was founded by Arthur Guinness, who about the middle of the 18th century owned a modest brewing-plant at Leixlip, a village on the upper reaches of the river Liffey. In or about 1759 Arthur Guinness, seeking to extend his trade, purchased a small porter brewery belonging to a Mr Rainsford at St James’s Gate, Dublin. By careful attention to the purity of his product, coupled with a shrewd perception of the public taste, he built up a considerable business. But his third son, Benjamin Lee Guinness (1798-1868), may be regarded as the real maker of the firm, into which he was taken at an early age, and of which about 1825 he was given sole control. Prior to that date the trade in Guinness’s porter and stout had been confined to Ireland, but Benjamin Lee Guinness at once established agencies in the United Kingdom, on the continent, in the British colonies and in America. The export trade soon assumed huge proportions; the brewery was continually enlarged, and when in 1855 his father died, Benjamin Lee Guinness, who in 1851 was elected first lord mayor of Dublin, found himself sole proprietor of the business and the richest man in Ireland. Between 1860 and 1865 he devoted a portion of this wealth to the restoration of St Patrick’s cathedral, Dublin. The work, the progress of which he regularly superintended himself, cost £160,000. Benjamin Lee Guinness represented the city of Dublin in parliament as a Conservative from 1865 till his death, and in 1867 was created a baronet. He died in 1868, and was succeeded in the control of the business by Sir Arthur Edward Guinness (b. 1840), his eldest, and Edward Cecil Guinness (b. 1847), his third, son. Sir Arthur Edward Guinness, who for some time represented Dublin in parliament, was in 1880 raised to the peerage as Baron Ardilaun, and about the same time disposed of his share in the brewery to his brother Edward Cecil Guinness. In 1886 Edward Cecil Guinness disposed of the brewery, the products of which were then being sent all over the world, to a limited company, in which he remained the largest shareholder. Edward Cecil Guinness was created a baronet in 1885, and in 1891 was raised to the peerage as Baron Iveagh.
GUINNESS, is the name of a family of Irish brewers. The firm was founded by Arthur Guinness, who in the mid-18th century owned a small brewing plant in Leixlip, a village along the upper part of the river Liffey. Around 1759, Arthur Guinness, looking to grow his business, bought a small porter brewery from a Mr. Rainsford at St James’s Gate, Dublin. By paying close attention to the quality of his product and having a keen sense of public taste, he built up a significant business. However, his third son, Benjamin Lee Guinness (1798-1868), is often seen as the true architect of the firm, having joined it at a young age and taking full control around 1825. Before this point, the trade in Guinness’s porter and stout was limited to Ireland, but Benjamin Lee Guinness quickly established agencies in the UK, across Europe, in British colonies, and in America. The export business grew rapidly; the brewery expanded continually, and when his father died in 1855, Benjamin Lee Guinness, who was elected the first lord mayor of Dublin in 1851, became the sole owner and the wealthiest man in Ireland. Between 1860 and 1865, he invested part of his wealth in restoring St Patrick’s Cathedral in Dublin. He personally supervised the work, which cost £160,000. Benjamin Lee Guinness served as a Conservative member of parliament for Dublin from 1865 until his death and was made a baronet in 1867. He passed away in 1868, and control of the business passed to his eldest son, Sir Arthur Edward Guinness (b. 1840), and his third son, Edward Cecil Guinness (b. 1847). Arthur Guinness, who represented Dublin in parliament for some time, was elevated to the peerage as Baron Ardilaun in 1880 and around the same time sold his share in the brewery to his brother Edward Cecil Guinness. In 1886, Edward Cecil Guinness sold the brewery, the products of which were being shipped all over the world, to a limited company, of which he remained the largest shareholder. Edward Cecil Guinness was made a baronet in 1885 and was raised to the peerage as Baron Iveagh in 1891.
The Guinness family have been distinguished for their philanthropy and public munificence. Lord Ardilaun gave a recreation ground to Dublin, and the famous Muckross estate at Killarney to the nation. Lord Iveagh set aside £250,000 for the creation of the Guinness trust (1889) for the erection and maintenance of buildings for the labouring poor in London and Dublin, and was a liberal benefactor to the funds of Dublin university.
The Guinness family is known for their generosity and public spirit. Lord Ardilaun donated a recreational area to Dublin and the renowned Muckross estate in Killarney to the nation. Lord Iveagh allocated £250,000 to establish the Guinness trust (1889) for constructing and maintaining facilities for the working poor in London and Dublin, and he was also a generous supporter of Dublin University’s funds.
GUIPÚZCOA, a maritime province of northern Spain, included among the Basque provinces, and bounded on the N. by the Bay of Biscay; W. by the province of Biscay (Vizcaya); S. and S.E. by. Álava and Navarre: and N.E. by the river Bidassoa,1 which separates it from France. Pop. (1900), 195,850; area, 728 sq. m. Situated on the northern slope of the great Cantabrian chain at its junction with the Pyrenees, the province has a great variety of surface in mountain, hill and valley; and its scenery is highly picturesque. The coast is much indented, and has numerous harbours, but none of very great importance; the chief are those of San Sebastian, Pasajes, Guetaria, Deva and Fuenterrabia. The rivers (Deva, Urola, Oria, Urumea, Bidassoa) are all short, rapid and unnavigable. The mountains are for the most part covered with forests of oak, chestnut or pine; holly and arbutus are also common, with furze and heath in the poorer parts. The soil in the lower valleys is generally of hard clay and unfertile; it is cultivated with great care, but the grain raised falls considerably short of what is required for home consumption. The climate, though moist, is mild, pleasant and healthy; fruit is produced in considerable quantities, especially apples for manufacture into zaragua or cider. The chief mineral products are iron, lignite, lead, copper, zinc and cement. Ferruginous and sulphurous springs are very common, and are much frequented every summer by visitors from all parts of the kingdom. There are excellent fisheries, which supply the neighbouring provinces with cod, tunny, sardines and oysters; and the average yearly value of the coasting trade exceeds £400,000. By Irun, Pasajes and the frontier roads £4,000,000 of imports and £3,000,000 of exports pass to and from France, partly in transit for the rest of Europe. Apart from the four Catalan provinces, no province has witnessed such a development of local industries as Guipúzcoa. The principal industrial centres are Irun, Renteria, Villabona, Vergara and Azpéitia for cotton and linen stuffs; Zumarraga for osiers; Eibar, Plasencia and Elgoibar for arms and cannon and gold incrustations; Irun for soap and carriages; San Sebastian, Irun and Onate for paper, glass, chemicals and saw-mills; Tolosa for paper, timber, cloths and furniture; and the banks of the bay of Pasajes for the manufacture of liqueurs of every kind, and the preparation of wines for export and for consumption in the interior of Spain. This last industry occupies several thousand French and Spanish workmen. An arsenal was established at Azpéitia during the Carlist rising of 1870-1874; but the manufacture of ordnance and gunpowder was subsequently discontinued. The main line of the northern railway from Madrid to France runs through the province, giving access, by a loop line, to the chief industrial centres. The custom-house through which it passes on the frontier is one of the most important in Spain. Despite the steep gradients, where traffic is hardly possible except by ox-carts, there are over 350 m. of admirably engineered roads, maintained solely by the local tax-payers. After San Sebastian, the capital (pop. 1900, 37,812), the chief towns are Fuenterrabia (4345) and Irun (9912). Other towns with more than 6000 inhabitants are Azpéitia (6066), Eibar (6583), Tolosa (8111) and Vergara (6196). Guipúzcoa is the smallest and one of the most densely peopled provinces of Spain; for its constant losses by emigration are counterbalanced by a high birth-rate and the influx of settlers from other districts who are attracted by its industrial prosperity.
GUIPÚZCOA, a coastal province in northern Spain, part of the Basque region, is bordered to the north by the Bay of Biscay; to the west by the province of Biscay (Vizcaya); to the south and southeast by Álava and Navarre; and to the northeast by the Bidassoa river, which separates it from France. Population (1900) was 195,850; area, 728 sq. m. Located on the northern slope of the great Cantabrian mountain range where it meets the Pyrenees, the province features diverse landscapes of mountains, hills, and valleys, creating highly picturesque scenery. The coastline is deeply indented with many harbors, though none are very significant; the main ones are San Sebastian, Pasajes, Guetaria, Deva, and Fuenterrabia. The rivers (Deva, Urola, Oria, Urumea, Bidassoa) are all short, fast-flowing, and not navigable. Most mountains are covered with oak, chestnut, or pine forests; holly and arbutus are also common, along with gorse and heath in the less fertile areas. The soil in the lower valleys is typically hard clay and not very fertile; although it's cultivated carefully, the grain production falls well short of local needs. The climate, while moist, is mild, pleasant, and healthy; considerable quantities of fruit are grown, especially apples for making zaragua or cider. Key mineral resources include iron, lignite, lead, copper, zinc, and cement. Ferruginous and sulfurous springs are quite common and attract many visitors every summer from across the kingdom. There are excellent fishing grounds that provide neighboring provinces with cod, tuna, sardines, and oysters; the yearly value of the coastal trade exceeds £400,000. Through Irun, Pasajes, and the border roads, £4,000,000 in imports and £3,000,000 in exports flow to and from France, some of which are in transit to other parts of Europe. Except for the four Catalan provinces, no province has seen as much growth in local industries as Guipúzcoa. The major industrial centers include Irun, Renteria, Villabona, Vergara, and Azpéitia for cotton and linen products; Zumarraga for willows; Eibar, Plasencia, and Elgoibar for weapons, artillery, and gold inlays; Irun for soap and carriages; San Sebastian, Irun, and Onate for paper, glass, chemicals, and sawmills; Tolosa for paper, timber, textiles, and furniture; and around the bay of Pasajes for producing liqueurs of all kinds, and preparing wines for export and local consumption. This last industry employs several thousand French and Spanish workers. An arsenal was established in Azpéitia during the Carlist wars of 1870-1874; however, production of weapons and gunpowder was later stopped. The main northern railway line from Madrid to France passes through the province, providing access by a loop line to the key industrial centers. The customs house at the border is one of the most important in Spain. Despite the steep inclines, where movement is almost possible only by ox-carts, there are over 350 miles of well-engineered roads, maintained solely by local taxpayers. After San Sebastian, the capital (population 1900, 37,812), the main towns are Fuenterrabia (4,345) and Irun (9,912). Other towns with over 6,000 residents include Azpéitia (6,066), Eibar (6,583), Tolosa (8,111), and Vergara (6,196). Guipúzcoa is the smallest and one of the most densely populated provinces in Spain; its ongoing losses due to emigration are offset by a high birth rate and the influx of settlers from other areas drawn by its economic prosperity.
For an account of its inhabitants and their customs, language and history, see Basques and Basque Provinces.
For information about its people, their traditions, language, and history, check out Basques and Basque Provinces.
1 A small island in the Bidassoa, called La Isla de los Faisanes, or l’Isle de la Conférence, is celebrated as the place where the marriage of the duke of Guienne was arranged between Louis XI. and Henry IV. in 1463, where Francis I., the prisoner of Charles V., was exchanged for his two sons in 1526, and where in 1659 “the Peace of the Pyrenees” was concluded between D. Luis de Haro and Cardinal Mazarin.
1 A small island in the Bidassoa, known as La Isla de los Faisanes, or l’Isle de la Conférence, is famous as the site where the marriage between Louis XI and Henry IV was arranged in 1463, where Francis I, held captive by Charles V, was exchanged for his two sons in 1526, and where in 1659 "the Peace of the Pyrenees" was established between D. Luis de Haro and Cardinal Mazarin.
GUIRAUD, ERNEST (1837-1892), French composer, was born at New Orleans on the 26th of June 1837. He studied at the Paris Conservatoire, where he won the grand prix de Rome. His father had gained the same distinction many years previously, this being the only instance of both father and son obtaining this prize. Ernest Guiraud composed the following operas: Sylvie (1864); Le Kobold (1870), Madame Turlupin (1872), Piccolino (1876), Galante Aventure (1882), and also the ballet Gretna Green, given at the Opéra in 1873. His opera Frédégonde was left in an unfinished condition and was completed by Camille Saint-Saëns. Guiraud, who was a fellow-student and intimate 699 friend of Georges Bizet, was for some years professor of composition at the Conservatoire. He was the author of an excellent treatise on instrumentation. He died in Paris on the 6th of May 1892.
GUIRAUD, ERNEST (1837-1892), a French composer, was born in New Orleans on June 26, 1837. He studied at the Paris Conservatoire, where he won the grand prix de Rome. His father had won the same award many years earlier, making this the only instance of both a father and son receiving this prize. Ernest Guiraud composed several operas: Sylvie (1864); Le Kobold (1870), Madame Turlupin (1872), Piccolino (1876), Galante Aventure (1882), and also the ballet Gretna Green, performed at the Opéra in 1873. His opera Frédégonde was left unfinished and was completed by Camille Saint-Saëns. Guiraud, who was a fellow student and close friend of Georges Bizet, served for several years as a composition professor at the Conservatoire. He also wrote an excellent treatise on instrumentation. He died in Paris on May 6, 1892.
GUISBOROUGH, or Guisbrough, a market town in the Cleveland parliamentary division of the North Riding of Yorkshire, England, 10 m. E.S.E. of Middlesbrough by a branch of the North-Eastern railway. Pop. of urban district (1901), 5645. It is well situated in a narrow, fertile valley at the N. foot of the Cleveland Hills. The church of St Nicholas is Perpendicular, greatly restored. Other buildings are the town hall, and the modern buildings of the grammar school founded in 1561. Ruins of an Augustinian priory, founded in 1129, are beautifully situated near the eastern extremity of the town. The church contains some fine Decorated work, and the chapter house and parts of the conventual buildings may be traced. Considerable fragments of Norman and transitional work remain. Among the historic personages who were buried within its walls was Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale, the competitor for the throne of Scotland with John Baliol, and the grandfather of King Robert the Bruce. About 1 m. S.E. of the town there is a sulphurous spring discovered in 1822. The district neighbouring to Guisborough is rich in iron-stone. Its working forms the chief industry of the town, and there are also tanneries and breweries.
GUISBOROUGH, or Guisborough, is a market town in the Cleveland parliamentary division of North Yorkshire, England, located 10 miles east-southeast of Middlesbrough by a branch of the North-Eastern railway. The population of the urban district in 1901 was 5,645. It’s well-positioned in a narrow, fertile valley at the northern foot of the Cleveland Hills. The church of St Nicholas is Perpendicular and has been largely restored. Other notable buildings include the town hall and the modern structures of the grammar school founded in 1561. The ruins of an Augustinian priory, established in 1129, can be found beautifully situated near the eastern edge of the town. The church features some impressive Decorated architecture, and you can still see the chapter house and parts of the conventual buildings. Significant remnants of Norman and transitional work are also present. Among the historical figures buried within its walls is Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale, who competed for the Scottish throne against John Baliol and was the grandfather of King Robert the Bruce. About 1 mile southeast of the town, there’s a sulphurous spring that was discovered in 1822. The area surrounding Guisborough is rich in ironstone, which is the main industry of the town, along with tanneries and breweries.
GUISE, a town of northern France, in the department of Aisne, on the Oise, 31 m. N. of Laon by rail. Pop. (1906), 7562. The town was formerly the capital of the district of Thiérache and afterwards of a countship (see below). There is a château dating in part from the middle of the 16th century. Camille Desmoulins was in 1762 born in the town, which has erected a statue to him. The chief industry is the manufacture of iron stoves and heating apparatus, carried on on the co-operative system in works founded by J. B. A. Godin, who built for his workpeople the huge buildings known as the familistère, in front of which stands his statue. A board of trade-arbitration is among the public institutions.
GUISE, a town in northern France, in the Aisne department, on the Oise River, 31 miles north of Laon by train. Population (1906) was 7,562. The town was once the capital of the Thiérache district and later of a county (see below). There's a château that dates back partly to the mid-16th century. Camille Desmoulins was born here in 1762, and a statue has been erected in his honor. The main industry is the production of iron stoves and heating equipment, which is done on a cooperative basis in factories established by J. B. A. Godin, who also built the large buildings known as the familistère, in front of which his statue stands. A trade arbitration board is among the public institutions.
GUISE, HOUSE OF, a cadet branch of the house of Lorraine (q.v.). René II., duke of Lorraine (d. 1508), united the two branches of the house of Lorraine. From his paternal grandmother, Marie d’Harcourt, René inherited the countships of Aumale, Mayenne, Elbeuf, Lillebonne, Brionne and other French fiefs, in addition to the honours of the elder branch, which included the countship of Guise, the dowry of Marie of Blois on her marriage in 1333 with Rudolph or Raoul of Lorraine. René’s eldest surviving son by his marriage with Philippa, daughter of Adolphus of Egmont, duke of Gelderland, was Anthony, who succeeded his father as duke of Lorraine (d. 1544), while the second, Claude, count and afterwards duke of Guise, received the French fiefs. The Guises, though naturalized in France, continued to interest themselves in the fortunes of Lorraine, and their enemies were always ready to designate them as foreigners. The partition between the brothers Anthony and Claude was ratified by a further agreement in 1530, reserving the lapsed honours of the kingdoms of Jerusalem, Sicily, Aragon, the duchy of Anjou and the countships of Provence and Maine to the duke of Lorraine. Of the other sons of René II., John (1498-1550) became the first cardinal of Lorraine, while Ferri, Louis and Francis fell fighting in the French armies at Marignano (1515), Naples (1528) and Pavia (1525) respectively.
GUISE, HOUSE OF, a branch of the house of Lorraine (q.v.). René II, duke of Lorraine (d. 1508), brought together the two branches of the house of Lorraine. From his paternal grandmother, Marie d’Harcourt, René inherited the titles of Aumale, Mayenne, Elbeuf, Lillebonne, Brionne, and other French lands, as well as honors from the elder branch, which included the title of Guise, the dowry of Marie of Blois when she married Rudolph or Raoul of Lorraine in 1333. René’s eldest surviving son from his marriage to Philippa, daughter of Adolphus of Egmont, duke of Gelderland, was Anthony, who became duke of Lorraine after his father (d. 1544), while the second son, Claude, count and later duke of Guise, took the French lands. The Guises, though naturalized in France, remained interested in the affairs of Lorraine, and their enemies often labeled them as outsiders. The division between the brothers Anthony and Claude was confirmed by another agreement in 1530, setting aside the lapsed honors of the kingdoms of Jerusalem, Sicily, Aragon, the duchy of Anjou, and the countships of Provence and Maine for the duke of Lorraine. Of René II's other sons, John (1498-1550) became the first cardinal of Lorraine, while Ferri, Louis, and Francis died fighting in the French armies at Marignano (1515), Naples (1528), and Pavia (1525), respectively.
Claude of Lorraine, count and afterwards 1st duke of Guise (1496-1550), was born on the 20th of October 1496. He was educated at the French court, and at seventeen allied himself to the royal house of France by a marriage with Antoinette de Bourbon (1493-1583) daughter of François, Count of Vendôme. Guise distinguished himself at Marignano (1515), and was long in recovering from the twenty-two wounds he received in the battle; in 1521 he fought at Fuenterrabia, when Louise of Savoy ascribed the capture of the place to his efforts; in 1522 he defended northern France, and forced the English to raise the siege of Hesdin; and in 1523 he obtained the government of Champagne and Burgundy, defeating at Neufchâteau the imperial troops who had invaded his province. In 1525 he destroyed the Anabaptist peasant army, which was overrunning Lorraine, at Lupstein, near Saverne (Zabern). On the return of Francis I. from captivity, Guise was erected into a duchy in the peerage of France, though up to this time only princes of the royal house had held the title of duke and peer of France. The Guises, as cadets of the sovereign house of Lorraine and descendants of the house of Anjou, claimed precedence of the Bourbon princes. Their pretensions and ambitions inspired distrust in Francis I., although he rewarded Guise’s services by substantial gifts in land and money. The duke distinguished himself in the Luxemburg campaign in 1542, but for some years before his death he effaced himself before the growing fortunes of his sons. He died on the 12th of April 1550.
Claude of Lorraine, count and later the 1st duke of Guise (1496-1550), was born on October 20, 1496. He was educated at the French court, and at seventeen strengthened his ties to the royal family of France by marrying Antoinette de Bourbon (1493-1583), daughter of François, Count of Vendôme. Guise made a name for himself at Marignano (1515), where he took twenty-two wounds in battle and spent a long time recovering. In 1521, he fought at Fuenterrabia, where Louise of Savoy credited him with capturing the location; in 1522, he defended northern France and forced the English to lift the siege of Hesdin; and in 1523, he took control of Champagne and Burgundy, defeating the imperial troops at Neufchâteau who had invaded his territory. In 1525, he defeated the Anabaptist peasant army that was sweeping through Lorraine at Lupstein, near Saverne (Zabern). When Francis I returned from captivity, Guise was granted a duchy and became a duke in the French peerage, even though until then only members of the royal family held that title. The Guises, being cadets of the sovereign house of Lorraine and descendants of the house of Anjou, claimed to outrank the Bourbon princes. Their ambitions made Francis I uneasy, even though he rewarded Guise’s services with significant land and financial gifts. The duke excelled in the Luxembourg campaign in 1542, but in the years leading up to his death, he stepped back in favor of his sons' rising fortunes. He died on April 12, 1550.
He had been supported in all his undertakings and intrigues by his brother John, cardinal of Lorraine (1498-1550), who had been made coadjutor of Metz at the age of three. The cardinal was archbishop of Reims, Lyons and Narbonne, bishop of Metz, Toul, Verdun, Thérouanne, Luçon, Albi, Valence, Nantes and Agen, and before he died had squandered most of the wealth which he had derived from these and other benefices. Part of his ecclesiastical preferments he gave up in favour of his nephews. He became a member of the royal council in 1530, and in 1536 was entrusted with an embassy to Charles V. Although a complaisant helper in Francis I.’s pleasures, he was disgraced in 1542, and retired to Rome. He died at Nogent-sur-Yonne on the 18th of May 1550. He was extremely dissolute, but as an open-handed patron of art and learning, as the protector and friend of Erasmus, Marot and Rabelais he did something to counter-balance the general unpopularity of his calculating and avaricious brother.
He had the support of his brother John, cardinal of Lorraine (1498-1550), in all his ventures and schemes. John became coadjutor of Metz at just three years old. He held titles as archbishop of Reims, Lyons, and Narbonne, and was bishop of Metz, Toul, Verdun, Thérouanne, Luçon, Albi, Valence, Nantes, and Agen, and before his death, he had wasted most of the wealth he gained from these and other positions. He relinquished some of his church positions in favor of his nephews. He joined the royal council in 1530 and was sent on a mission to Charles V in 1536. Although he helped Francis I. indulge in his pleasures, he fell out of favor in 1542 and withdrew to Rome. He passed away in Nogent-sur-Yonne on May 18, 1550. Despite his excessive lifestyle, as a generous supporter of art and education and a friend of Erasmus, Marot, and Rabelais, he did manage to somewhat balance out the general dislike for his scheming and greedy brother.
Claude of Guise had twelve children, among them Francis, 2nd duke of Guise; Charles, 2nd cardinal of Lorraine (1524-1574), who became archbishop of Reims in 1538 and cardinal in 1547; Claude, marquis of Mayenne, duke of Aumale (1526-1573), governor of Burgundy, who married Louise de Brézé, daughter of Diane de Poitiers, thus securing a powerful ally for the family; Louis (1527-1578), bishop of Troyes, archbishop of Sens and cardinal of Guise; René, marquis of Elbeuf (1536-1566), from whom descended the families of Harcourt, Armagnac, Marsan and Lillebonne; Mary of Lorraine (q.v.), generally known as Mary of Guise, who after the death of her second husband, James V. of Scotland, acted as regent of Scotland for her daughter Mary, queen of Scots; and Francis (1534-1563), grand prior of the order of the Knights of Malta. The solidarity of this family, all the members of which through three generations cheerfully submitted to the authority of the head of the house, made it a formidable factor in French politics.
Claude of Guise had twelve children, including Francis, the 2nd duke of Guise; Charles, the 2nd cardinal of Lorraine (1524-1574), who became the archbishop of Reims in 1538 and a cardinal in 1547; Claude, the marquis of Mayenne and duke of Aumale (1526-1573), who was the governor of Burgundy and married Louise de Brézé, daughter of Diane de Poitiers, securing a powerful ally for the family; Louis (1527-1578), bishop of Troyes, archbishop of Sens, and cardinal of Guise; René, marquis of Elbeuf (1536-1566), from whom the families of Harcourt, Armagnac, Marsan, and Lillebonne descended; Mary of Lorraine (q.v.), commonly known as Mary of Guise, who acted as regent of Scotland for her daughter Mary, queen of Scots, after the death of her second husband, James V of Scotland; and Francis (1534-1563), grand prior of the order of the Knights of Malta. The unity of this family, whose members through three generations willingly accepted the authority of the head of the house, made it a powerful player in French politics.
Francis of Lorraine, 2nd duke of Guise (1519-1563), “le grand Guise,” was born at Bar on the 17th of February 1519. As count of Aumale he served in the French army, and was nearly killed at the siege of Boulogne in 1545 by a wound which brought him the name of “Balafré.” Aumale was made (1547) a peerage-duchy in his favour, and on the accession of Henry II. the young duke, who had paid assiduous court to Diane de Poitiers, shared the chief honours of the kingdom with the constable Anne de Montmorency. Both cherished ambitions for their families, but the Guises were more unscrupulous in subordinating the interests of France to their own. Montmorency’s brutal manners, however, made enemies where Guise’s grace and courtesy won him friends. Guise was a suitor for the hand of Jeanne d’Albret, princess of Navarre, who refused, however, to become a sister-in-law of a daughter of Diane de Poitiers and remained one of the most dangerous and persistent enemies of the Guises. He married in December 1548 Anne of Este, daughter of Ercole II., duke of Ferrara, and through her mother Renée, a granddaughter of Louis XII. of France. In the same year he had put down a peasant rising in Saintonge with a humanity that compared very favourably with the cruelty shown by Montmorency to the town of Bordeaux. He made preparations in Lorraine for the king’s German campaign of 1551-52. He was already governor of Dauphiné, and now became grand chamberlain, prince of Joinville, and hereditary seneschal of Champagne, with large additions to his already considerable revenues. He was charged with the defence of Metz, which Henry II. had entered in 1551. He reached the 700 city in August 1552, and rapidly gave proof of his great powers as a soldier and organizer by the skill with which the place, badly fortified and unprovided with artillery, was put in a state of defence. Metz was invested by the duke of Alva in October with an army of 60,000 men, and the emperor joined his forces in November. An army of brigands commanded by Albert of Brandenburg had also to be reckoned with. Charles was obliged to raise the siege on the 2nd of January 1553, having lost, it is said, 30,000 men before the walls. Guise used his victory with rare moderation and humanity, providing medical care for the sick and wounded left behind in the besiegers’ camp. The subsequent operations were paralysed by the king’s suspicion and carelessness, and the constable’s inactivity, and a year later Guise was removed from the command. He followed the constable’s army as a volunteer, and routed the army of Charles V. at the siege of Renty on the 12th of August 1554. Montmorency’s inaction rendered the victory fruitless, and a bitter controversy followed between Guise and the constable’s nephew Coligny, admiral of France, which widened a breach already existing.
Francis of Lorraine 2nd duke of Guise (1519-1563), “the great Guise,” was born in Bar on February 17, 1519. As the count of Aumale, he served in the French army and nearly died at the siege of Boulogne in 1545 from a wound that earned him the nickname “Balafré.” Aumale was elevated to a peerage-duchy in his favor in 1547, and when Henry II came to power, the young duke, who had been earnestly courting Diane de Poitiers, shared the main honors of the kingdom with the constable Anne de Montmorency. Both had ambitions for their families, but the Guises were more ruthless in putting their own interests above those of France. Montmorency’s brutal demeanor created enemies, while Guise’s charm and courtesy earned him allies. Guise sought the hand of Jeanne d’Albret, the princess of Navarre, but she refused to be the sister-in-law of Diane de Poitiers’ daughter and remained a persistent and dangerous enemy of the Guises. He married Anne of Este in December 1548, the daughter of Ercole II, duke of Ferrara, and through her mother Renée, a granddaughter of Louis XII of France. That same year, he quelled a peasant uprising in Saintonge with a compassion that stood in stark contrast to Montmorency’s cruelty towards the town of Bordeaux. He prepared in Lorraine for the king’s German campaign of 1551-52. He was already governor of Dauphiné and then became grand chamberlain, prince of Joinville, and hereditary seneschal of Champagne, significantly increasing his already substantial income. He was responsible for the defense of Metz, which Henry II had entered in 1551. He arrived in the city in August 1552 and quickly demonstrated his exceptional skills as a soldier and organizer by effectively fortifying the poorly defended and inadequately armed location. Metz was besieged by the duke of Alva in October with an army of 60,000 men, and the emperor joined his forces in November. An army of bandits led by Albert of Brandenburg also posed a threat. Charles had to lift the siege on January 2, 1553, reportedly losing 30,000 men at the walls. Guise handled his victory with remarkable restraint and kindness, providing medical assistance for the sick and wounded left behind in the besiegers' camp. The following operations were hampered by the king’s suspicion and carelessness, combined with the constable’s inaction, leading to Guise being removed from command a year later. He joined the constable’s army as a volunteer and defeated Charles V’s forces at the siege of Renty on August 12, 1554. However, Montmorency’s inaction rendered the victory ineffective, resulting in a bitter dispute between Guise and the constable’s nephew Coligny, admiral of France, which widened an already existing rift.
The conclusion of a six years’ truce at Vaucelles (1556) disappointed Guise’s ambitions, and he was the main mover in the breach of the treaty in 1558, when he was sent at the head of a French army to Italy to the assistance of Pope Paul IV. against Spain. Guise, who perhaps had in view the restoration to his family of the Angevin dominion of Naples and Sicily, crossed the Alps early in 1557 and after a month’s delay in Rome, where he failed to receive the promised support, marched on the kingdom of Naples, then occupied by the Spanish troops under Alva. He seized and sacked Campli (April 17th), but was compelled to raise the siege of Civitella. Meanwhile the pope had veered round to a Spanish alliance, and Guise, seeing that no honour was to be gained in the campaign, wisely spared his troops, so that his army was almost intact when, in August, he was hastily summoned home to repel the Spanish army which had invaded France from the north, and had taken St Quentin. On reaching Paris in October Guise was made lieutenant-general of the kingdom, and proceeded to prepare for the siege of Calais. The town was taken, after six days’ fighting, on the 6th of January 1558, and this success was followed up by the capture of Guînes, Thionville and Arlon, when the war was ended by the treaty of Câteau Cambrésis (1559). Although his brother, the cardinal of Lorraine, was one of the negotiators, this peace was concluded against the wishes of Guise, and was regarded as a triumph of the constable’s party. The Guises were provided with a weapon against Montmorency by the bishop of Arras (afterwards Cardinal Granvella), who gave to the cardinal of Lorraine at an interview at Péronne in 1558 an intercepted letter proving the Huguenot leanings of the constable’s nephews.
The conclusion of a six-year truce at Vaucelles (1556) dashed Guise’s ambitions, and he was the key player in breaking the treaty in 1558 when he led a French army to Italy to support Pope Paul IV against Spain. Guise, who may have aimed to restore his family's control over Naples and Sicily, crossed the Alps in early 1557. After a month’s delay in Rome, where he didn’t receive the promised support, he marched on the kingdom of Naples, which was occupied by Spanish troops under Alva. He captured and looted Campli (April 17th) but had to lift the siege of Civitella. Meanwhile, the pope had switched to a Spanish alliance, and Guise, realizing there was no honor to be gained in the campaign, wisely preserved his troops. His army was nearly intact when, in August, he was urgently called back home to deal with the Spanish army that had invaded France from the north and taken St Quentin. Upon reaching Paris in October, Guise was made lieutenant-general of the kingdom and began preparing for the siege of Calais. The town was captured after six days of fighting on January 6, 1558, and this victory was followed by the capture of Guînes, Thionville, and Arlon, leading to the end of the war with the treaty of Câteau Cambrésis (1559). Although his brother, the cardinal of Lorraine, was one of the negotiators, this peace was concluded against Guise's wishes and was seen as a victory for the constable’s faction. The Guises gained leverage against Montmorency thanks to the bishop of Arras (later Cardinal Granvella), who provided the cardinal of Lorraine with an intercepted letter during a meeting in Péronne in 1558, revealing the Huguenot sympathies of the constable’s nephews.
On the accession in 1559 of Francis II., their nephew by marriage with Mary Stuart, the royal authority was practically delegated to Guise and the cardinal, who found themselves beyond rivalry for the time being. They had, however, to cope with a new and dangerous force in Catherine de’ Medici, who was now for the first time free to use her political ability. The incapacity, suspicion and cruelty of the cardinal, who controlled the internal administration, roused the smaller nobility against the Lorraine princes. A conspiracy to overturn their government was formed at Nantes, with a needy Périgord nobleman named La Renaudie as its nominal head, though the agitation had in the first instance been fostered by the agents of Louis I., prince of Condé. The Guises were warned of the conspiracy while the court was at Blois, and for greater security removed the king to Amboise. La Renaudie, nothing daunted, merely postponed his plans; and the conspirators assembled in small parties in the woods round Amboise. They had, however, been again betrayed and many of them were surrounded and taken before the coup could be delivered; one party, which had seized the château of Noizay, surrendered on a promise of amnesty given “on his faith as a prince” by James of Savoy, duke of Nemours, a promise which, in spite of the duke’s protest, was disregarded. On the 19th of March 1560, La Renaudie and the rest of the conspirators openly attacked the château of Amboise. They were repelled; their leader was killed; and a large number were taken prisoners. The merciless vengeance of the Guises was the measure of their previous fears. For a whole week the torturings, quarterings and hangings went on, the bodies being cast into the Loire, the young king and queen witnessing the bloody spectacle day by day from a balcony of the château.
On the accession in 1559 of Francis II., their nephew by marriage to Mary Stuart, the royal authority was practically handed over to Guise and the cardinal, who found themselves without rivals for the time being. However, they had to deal with a new and dangerous force in Catherine de’ Medici, who was now free to use her political skills for the first time. The incompetence, suspicion, and cruelty of the cardinal, who controlled the internal administration, stirred up the smaller nobility against the Lorraine princes. A conspiracy to overthrow their rule was formed in Nantes, with a struggling Périgord nobleman named La Renaudie as its nominal leader, although the agitation had initially been encouraged by the agents of Louis I., prince of Condé. The Guises were warned of the conspiracy while the court was in Blois, and for greater security, they moved the king to Amboise. La Renaudie, undeterred, simply postponed his plans; the conspirators gathered in small groups in the woods around Amboise. However, they had been betrayed again, and many were surrounded and captured before the coup could be carried out; one group, which had taken the château of Noizay, surrendered after receiving a promise of amnesty given “on his faith as a prince” by James of Savoy, duke of Nemours, a promise which, despite the duke’s protest, was ignored. On March 19, 1560, La Renaudie and the other conspirators openly attacked the château of Amboise. They were repelled; their leader was killed, and many were taken prisoner. The ruthless vengeance of the Guises reflected their earlier fears. For a whole week, torturings, quarterings, and hangings continued, with the bodies thrown into the Loire, while the young king and queen watched the bloody spectacle day after day from a balcony of the château.
The cruel repression of this “conspiracy of Amboise” inspired bitter hatred of the Guises, since they were avenging a rising rather against their own than the royal authority. They now entrenched themselves with the king at Orleans, and the Bourbon princes, Anthony, king of Navarre, and his brother Condé, were summoned to court. The Guises convened a special commission to try Condé, who was condemned to death; but the affair was postponed by the chancellor, and the death of Francis II. in December saved Condé. Guise then made common cause with his old rival Montmorency and with the Marshal de Saint André against Catherine, the Bourbons and Coligny. This alliance, constituted on the 6th of April 1561, and known as the triumvirate, aimed at the annulment of the concessions made by Catherine to the Huguenots. The cardinal of Lorraine fomented the discord which appeared between the clergy of the two religions when they met at the colloquy of Poissy in 1561, but in spite of the extreme Catholic views he there professed, he was at the time in communication with the Lutheran princes of Germany, and in February 1562 met the duke of Württemberg at Zabern to discuss the possibility of a religious compromise.
The harsh crackdown on this “conspiracy of Amboise” fueled deep resentment towards the Guises, as they were retaliating against a rebellion that targeted them more than the royal authority. They now secured their position with the king in Orleans, and summoned the Bourbon princes, Anthony, King of Navarre, and his brother Condé, to court. The Guises set up a special commission to put Condé on trial, where he was sentenced to death; however, the chancellor delayed the execution, and the death of Francis II. in December ultimately saved Condé. Guise then allied himself with his former rival Montmorency and Marshal de Saint André against Catherine, the Bourbons, and Coligny. This alliance, formed on April 6, 1561, known as the triumvirate, aimed to cancel the concessions Catherine had made to the Huguenots. The Cardinal of Lorraine stirred up the conflict that arose between the clergy of the two religions during their meeting at the colloquy of Poissy in 1561, but despite the very Catholic stance he took there, he was secretly in touch with the Lutheran princes of Germany and met with the Duke of Württemberg at Zabern in February 1562 to discuss a potential religious compromise.
The signal for civil war was given by an attack of Guise’s escort on a Huguenot congregation at Vassy (1st of March 1562). Although Guise did not initiate the massacre, and although, when he learned what was going on, he even tried to restrain his soldiers, he did not disavow their action. When Catherine de’ Medici forbade his entry into Paris, he accepted the challenge, and on the 16th of March he entered the city, where he was a popular hero, at the head of 2000 armed nobles. The provost of the merchants offered to put 20,000 men and two million livres at his disposal. In September he joined Montmorency in besieging Rouen, which was sacked as if it had been a foreign city, in spite of Guise’s efforts to save it from the worst horrors. At the battle of Dreux (19th of December 1562) he commanded a reserve army, with which he saved Montmorency’s forces from destruction and inflicted a crushing defeat on the Huguenots. The prince of Condé was his prisoner, while the capture of Montmorency by the Huguenots and the assassination of the Marshal de Saint-André after the battle left Guise the undisputed head of the Catholic party. He was appointed lieutenant-general of the kingdom, and on the 5th of February 1563 he appeared with his army before Orleans. On the 19th, however, he was shot by the Huguenot Jean Poltrot de Méré as he was returning to his quarters, and died on the 24th of the effects of the wound. Guise’s splendid presence, his generosity and humanity and his almost unvarying success on the battlefield made him the idol of his soldiers. He attended personally to the minutest details, and Monluc complains that he even wrote out his own orders. The mistakes and cruelties associated with his name were partly due to the evil counsels of his brother Charles, the cardinal, whose cowardice and insincerity were the scorn of his contemporaries. The negotiations of the Guises with Spain dated from the interview with Granvella at Péronne, in 1558, and after the death of his brother the cardinal of Lorraine was constantly in communication with the Spanish court, offering, in the event of the failure of direct heirs to the Valois kings, to deliver up the frontier fortresses and to acknowledge Philip II. as king of France. His death in 1574 temporarily weakened the extreme Catholic party.
The civil war was sparked by an attack from Guise’s escort on a Huguenot group at Vassy (March 1, 1562). Although Guise didn’t start the massacre and even tried to stop his soldiers once he found out what was happening, he didn’t disavow their actions. When Catherine de’ Medici barred him from entering Paris, he accepted the challenge and, on March 16, he entered the city as a popular hero, leading 2,000 armed nobles. The provost of the merchants offered to provide him with 20,000 men and two million livres. In September, he teamed up with Montmorency to besiege Rouen, which was looted as if it were a foreign city, despite Guise’s attempts to spare it from the worst violence. At the Battle of Dreux (December 19, 1562), he commanded a reserve army, saving Montmorency’s forces from being wiped out and inflicting a heavy defeat on the Huguenots. The Prince of Condé was captured, and the Huguenot’s seizure of Montmorency and the assassination of Marshal de Saint-André after the battle left Guise as the clear leader of the Catholic side. He was made lieutenant-general of the kingdom, and on February 5, 1563, he showed up with his army at Orleans. However, on the 19th, he was shot by the Huguenot Jean Poltrot de Méré while heading back to his quarters, and he died from his wounds on the 24th. Guise’s impressive presence, generosity, and humanity, along with his consistent success in battle, made him a favorite among his soldiers. He took care of even the smallest details, and Monluc noted that he even wrote his own orders. The mistakes and brutalities linked to his name were partly due to the bad advice from his brother Charles, the cardinal, whose cowardice and dishonesty were ridiculed by his contemporaries. The Guises' negotiations with Spain began with a meeting with Granvella in Péronne in 1558, and after his brother's death, the Cardinal of Lorraine was in constant communication with the Spanish court, offering to hand over the border fortresses and recognize Philip II as king of France if the Valois kings left no direct heirs. His death in 1574 temporarily weakened the extreme Catholic faction.
Of the children of Francis “le Balafré” 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).
Of Francis "the Scarred," five of his children survived him: Henry, the 3rd Duke of Guise; Charles, Duke of Mayenne (1554-1611) (q.v.), who strengthened the League; Catherine (1552-1596), who married Louis of Bourbon, Duke of Montpensier, and fueled the fanaticism of the Parisian leaguers; Louis, the second Cardinal of Guise, later of Lorraine (1555-1588), who was killed along 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 Vaudémont, 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 Balafré 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 Péronne. Condé 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-Mégrin, who had been set on by the court to compromise the reputation of the duchess of Guise.1
Henry of Lorraine, 3rd duke of Guise (1550-1588), born on December 31, 1550, was thirteen when his father died, and he grew up consumed by a deep desire for revenge. Catherine de’ Medici refused to take action against Coligny, who was formally accused by the duchess of Guise and her brothers-in-law of inciting the murder. In 1566, she pushed for a formal reconciliation in Moulins between the Guises and Coligny, though none of the murdered man's sons were present. However, Henry and his brothers were forced in 1572 to sign a vague agreement in support of this reconciliation. Guise's widow then married James of Savoy, duke of Nemours, and at sixteen, the young duke went off to fight against the Turks in Hungary. When civil war broke out again in 1567, he returned to France and served under his uncle Aumale. In the fall of 1568, he received a significant command and soon found himself competing with Henry of Valois, duke of Anjou. He didn’t inherit his father’s military skill, and his reckless bravery often led to disasters for his troops, but his flashy fighting style earned him popularity among the army. In defending Poitiers in 1569 with his brother, the duke of Mayenne, he displayed more solid capabilities as a soldier. After peace was restored in 1570, he returned to court, where he openly expressed his affection for Margaret of Valois. Her brothers reacted violently to his advances and threatened his life, so he saved himself by hastily marrying 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. He eventually ended his disgrace by appearing to reconcile with Henry of Valois and forming an alliance with Catherine de’ Medici. He was involved in the first attempt on Coligny's life, and when permission for the Saint Bartholomew’s Day massacre was forced from Charles IX, he stirred up Paris against the Huguenots and satisfied his thirst for revenge by overseeing Coligny’s murder. Now the recognized leader of the Catholic faction, his family’s influence grew further with Henry III’s marriage in 1575 to Louise of Vaudémont, from the older branch of the house of Lorraine. In a battle at Dormans (October 10, 1575), the only Catholic victory in a difficult campaign, Guise received a facial injury, earning him his father's nickname of Balafré and securing the passionate loyalty of the Parisians. He refused to accept the treaty of Beaulieu (May 5, 1576) and, with Jesuit support, began forming a “holy league” to defend the Roman Catholic Church. The membership required offensive actions against anyone who refused to join. This was preceded by various local leagues among Catholics, including one in Péronne. Condé was imposed on the town as governor by peace terms, and the local nobility united to resist him. Like the Holy League, this had both political and religious goals and was partly motivated by rebellion against royal authority. Guise's leadership of the League was complicated by Philip of Spain, who funded the movement, while he also had to bow to the demands of the Parisian populace. Ambitions were often attributed to him, with claims that papers seized from his envoy to Rome, Jean David, revealed a clear plan to replace the Valois with the Lorraines, who claimed lineage from Charlemagne; however, these papers were likely a Huguenot forgery. Eventually, Henry III took charge of the League and resumed the conflict against the Huguenots; but when peace was achieved (September 1577), he seized the chance to dissolve the Catholic associations. The king's jealousy towards Guise grew with the duke's rising popularity, but he did not take any direct action against him, nor did he dare to retaliate for the murder of one of his favorites, Saint-Mégrin, by Guise’s supporters, who had been sent 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 Péronne, 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 Châlons, while Mayenne occupied Dijon, and his relatives, the dukes of Elbeuf, Aumale and Mercœur,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.).
Meanwhile, the duke formed a suspicious alliance with Don John of Austria. He was also in regular contact with Mary of Lorraine and was planning an invasion of Scotland to support the Catholic cause. However, the Guises' vast wealth was quickly depleting, and in 1578, the duke became a pensioner of Philip II. In 1584, after the death of the duke of Anjou made Henry of Navarre the next heir to the throne, the possibility of a Huguenot dynasty prompted Catholics to set aside their differences and led to the creation of a new league of Catholic nobles. By the end of that same year, Guise and his brother, the duke of Mayenne, with the approval of other Catholic nobles, signed a treaty at Joinville with Philip II, establishing Charles, cardinal of Bourbon, as the heir to the crown, excluding the Protestant princes of his house. In March 1585, the leaders of the League issued the Declaration of Péronne, outlining their grievances against the government and declaring their intention to restore the honor of religion through armed force. After Henry III. refused to accept Spanish assistance against his Huguenot subjects, war erupted. The major cities of France sided with the League, and Guise, having recruited troops in Germany and Switzerland, took up his headquarters in Châlons, while Mayenne occupied Dijon, and their relatives, the dukes of Elbeuf, Aumale, and Mercœur, rallied Normandy and Brittany. Henry III. agreed to, or pretended to agree to, the terms imposed by the Guises at Nemours (July 7, 1585). The edicts favoring the Huguenots were immediately revoked. Guise enhanced his reputation as the Catholic leader by defeating the German auxiliaries of the Huguenots at Vimory (October 1587) and Auneau (November 1587). The earlier declarations of loyalty to Henry III. from the League were softened. Obedience to the king was now said to depend on his demonstrating Catholic commitment and showing no favoritism towards heresy. In April 1588, Guise arrived in Paris, where he led the Parisian mob, and on May 12, known as the Day of the Barricades, he actually had the crown within his reach. He refused to negotiate with Catherine de’ Medici, who was willing to make peace at any cost, but he held back the populace from revolution and allowed Henry to flee from Paris. Henry reached an agreement with the League in May and appointed Guise as lieutenant-general of the royal armies. The estates-general, gathered at Blois, supported the Guises’ interests and alarmed the king by voicing both the political and religious ambitions of the League. Guise stayed at the court of Blois despite receiving multiple warnings that Henry was plotting against him. On December 25, he was summoned to the king’s chamber during a meeting of the royal council and was killed by assassins positioned there by Henry III. himself. The cardinal of Lorraine was murdered in prison the following day. The history of the Guises from then on focuses on 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.
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 affair 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.
Charles, 4th duke of Guise (1571-1640), was imprisoned for three years after his father's death. He married Henriette Catherine de Joyeuse, the widow of the duke of Montpensier. His eldest son died before him, and he was succeeded by his second son Henry (1614-1664), who had been the archbishop of Reims but gave up the church position to become the 5th duke. He attempted to claim the crown of Naples in 1647 and was a prisoner in Spain from 1648 to 1652. His second attempt to take Naples in 1654 ended in disaster. He was succeeded by his nephew, Louis Joseph (1650-1671), as the 6th duke. With his son, Francis Joseph (1670-1675), the line died out; and the title and estates passed to his great-aunt, Marie of Lorraine, duchess of Guise (1615-1688), the daughter of the 4th duke, and with her, the title went extinct. The title is now held by the Bourbon-Orleans family.
GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE HOUSE OF GUISE
GENEALOGICAL TABLE OF THE HOUSE OF GUISE

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 Mémoires of Condé, 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 mémoires. Among contemporary memoirs see especially those of the prince of Condé, 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 Bouillé, Hist. des ducs de Guise (4 vols., 1849); H. Forneron, Les Guise et leur époque (2 vols., 1887).
Authorities.—A number of contemporary documents related to the Guises are included by L. Cimber and F. Danjou in their Archives curieuses de l’histoire de France (Paris, 1834, etc.). Volume iii contains a soldier’s diary from the siege of Metz, first published in Italian (Lyons, 1553), and accounts of the sieges of Calais (Tours, 1558) and Thionville (Paris, 1558); volume iv features an account of the Amboise tumult from the Mémoires of Condé and four accounts of the Vassy incident; volume v includes four accounts of the battle of Dreux, one dictated by Guise, along with accounts of Guise's murder; volume xi contains accounts of the Parisian revolution of 1558; and volume xii has numerous pamphlets and documents related to the murder of Henry of Guise and his brother. An account of Guise's murder and the subsequent actions taken by Mayenne, provided by the Venetian ambassador, G. Mocenigo, to his government, is published by H. Brown in the Eng. Hist. Rev. (April 1895). For the foreign policy of the Guises, especially their relations with Scotland, there is a wealth of 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, volume iv of their Coll. de mémoires. Among contemporary memoirs, particularly noteworthy are those of the Prince of Condé, Blaise de Monluc, and Gaspard de Saulx-Tavannes. Also see 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), which includes a list of available manuscript sources for the history of the house; R. de Bouillé, Hist. des ducs de Guise (4 volumes, 1849); and H. Forneron, Les Guise et leur époque (2 volumes, 1887).
1 This incident supplied Alexandre Dumas père with the subject of his Henri III et sa cour (1829).
1 This event inspired Alexandre Dumas père to write his Henri III et sa cour (1829).
2 Philippe-Emmanuel of Lorraine, duke of Mercœur, a cadet of Lorraine and brother of Louise de Vaudémont, 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.
2 Philippe-Emmanuel of Lorraine, Duke of Mercœur, was a younger son of Lorraine and the brother of Louise de Vaudémont, Queen of Henry III. His wife, Mary of Luxemburg, was from the line of the Dukes of Brittany, and in 1582, he was appointed governor of the province. He aimed for independent rule and referred to his son as 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.
Guitar (Fr. guitarre, Ger. Guitarre, Ital. chitarra, Span. guitarra), is a musical instrument with gut strings that are plucked by the fingers. It features a body with a flat back and elegant curves, which is a stark contrast to the lute family (i.e.), whose backs are rounded. The way the instrument is built is crucial for understanding its rightful place in the history of musical instruments, sitting between the cithara (i.e.) and the violin. Medieval stringed instruments with necks fall into two main categories, primarily defined by their body construction: (1) Those that, like their model the cithara, have a body made with a flat or gently arched back and a soundboard connected by ribs. (2) Those that, like the lyre, have a body with a rounded back and a flat soundboard glued on top without ribs; this construction method is common in Oriental instruments and is significantly less advanced than the first category. A clear example of this inferiority is seen in instruments with rounded backs, like the rebab or rebec, which, despite being widely found across Europe during the Middle Ages in various forms, have seen little to no development over the last twelve centuries and have gradually disappeared from practical music, leaving no descendants. The guitar belongs to the first category.
![]() |
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. Otto1 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 Bermudo3 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.
The back and ribs of the guitar are made of maple, ash, or cherry wood, often embellished with rosewood, mother-of-pearl, tortoiseshell, etc., while the soundboard is made of pine and features one large decorative rose sound hole. The bridge, where the strings are attached, is made of ebony with an ivory nut that fixes one end of the vibrating strings, while the nut at the end of the fingerboard fixes the other. The neck and fingerboard are constructed from hardwood like ebony, beech, or pear. The head, angled back from the neck, has two parallel barrels or long holes through which the pegs or metal screws pass, three on each side of the head. The proper positions for stopping the intervals are indicated on the fingerboard by small metal ridges called frets. The modern guitar has six strings, three made of gut and three covered with silk and silver wire, tuned as shown. The thumb is assigned to the three lowest strings, while the index, middle, and ring fingers are used to pluck the highest strings. It is generally said that the sixth or lowest string was added in 1790 by Jacob August Otto of Jena, who was the first in Germany to start making guitars after they were introduced from Italy in 1788 by Duchess Amalie of Weimar. Otto states that it was Capellmeister Naumann of Dresden who asked him to create a guitar with six strings by adding the low E, a wound wire string. The original guitar brought from Italy by Duchess Amalie had five strings, with the lowest A being the only one covered with wire. Otto also covered the D string to enhance the richness of the tone. In Spain, six-stringed guitars and vihuelas were known in the 16th century; they are described by Juan Bermudo and others. The lowest string was tuned to G. Other Spanish guitars from the same time had four, five, or seven strings, or pairs of unison strings. They were always plucked by hand.
![]() |
From Juan Bermudo. |
Fig. 1.—Spanish Guitar with seven Strings. 1555. Vihuela da Mano. |
The guitar is derived from the cithara5 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
The guitar comes from the cithara5 both in terms of its structure and its name. It's commonly believed that the Arabs brought the guitar to Spain, but this claim is highly questionable. There's no evidence among the instruments of the Arabs that resembles the guitar in its design or shape, even though a guitar (fig. 2) with slight curves was known to the ancient Egyptians.6 There is also a great example of a guitar with ribs, curves, and a long neck with many frets depicted in a Hittite bas-relief at the dromos in Euyuk (c. 1000 BCE) in Cappadocia.7 Unless other, much later monuments are discovered showing guitars with ribs, we can reasonably assume that the instrument, which required skilled craftsmanship, disappeared in Egypt and Asia before the time of classical Greece and had to be reinvented from the cithara by the Greeks in Asia Minor. It would make sense for this evolution to happen within the Byzantine Empire or in Syria, given the Greek traditions and their respect for the cithara, which would encourage them to adapt the neck and make other improvements instead of adopting the rebab, the tanbur, or the barbiton from the Persians or Arabians. This is likely what actually happened. In the 14th century, the Archipreste de Hita mentioned a guitarra morisca in a list of musical instruments, and it was unfavorably compared to the guitarra latina; additionally, today's Arabs still use an instrument called kuitra (which would be guithara in North Africa), but it has a vaulted back and a body resembling half a pear with a long neck; the strings are plucked with a quill. Therefore, the Arab instrument belongs to a different category, and accepting it as the ancestor of the Spanish guitar would be like claiming the guitar comes from the lute.8
![]() |
From Denon’s Voyage in Egypt. |
Fig. 2.—Ancient Egyptian Guitar. 1700 to 1200 BCE |
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 scholars10 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 704 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 Cicero11 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 inventory13 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.
By putting together various clues from Spanish writers, we get a hint about the medieval instruments, which, even without absolute proof, deserves serious consideration. From Bermudo’s work mentioned earlier, we find out that the guitar and the vihuela da mano were nearly the same, differing only in tuning and sometimes in the number of strings.9 Three types of vihuelas were recognized in Spain during the Middle Ages, distinguished by the phrases da arco (with bow), da mano (by hand), and da penola (with quill). Spanish scholars10 who have looked into this identity issue say that the guitarra latina later became known as the vihuela da mano, a claim that is thoroughly supported by704 other evidence. Since the Arab kuitra was played with a quill, it’s reasonable to identify it as the vihuela da penola. The term vihuela or vigola is linked to the Latin fidicula or fides, a stringed instrument noted by Cicero11 for being made from plane-tree wood and having many strings. The last piece of this identification puzzle comes from St. Isidore, the bishop of Seville in the 7th century, who claimed that fidicula was another name for cithara, “Veteres aut citharas fidicula vel fidice nominaverunt.”12 Therefore, the fidicula was essentially the cithara, either in its original classical form or in one of its transitions into the guitar. This explains the existence of a superior guitarra latina alongside the guitarra morisca. It directly descended from the classical cithara brought to Spain by the Romans, serving as the model for the structural elegance that laid the foundation for the perfect proportions and delicate design of the violin. In an inventory13 made by Philip van Wilder of the musical instruments owned by Henry VIII, there is an item relevant to this topic: “foure gitterons with iiii. cases they are called Spanishe Vialles.” Vial or viol was the English equivalent of vihuela. The changes that allowed the cithara to develop a neck and become a guitar are illustrated in the miniatures (fig. 3) of a single manuscript, the famous Utrecht Psalter, which sparked much discussion. The Utrecht Psalter was created in the diocese of Reims in the 9th century, and the miniatures, drawn by an Anglo-Saxon artist affiliated with the Reims school, are unique and illustrate the Psalter, psalm by psalm. It's clear that this Anglo-Saxon artist, while blessed with remarkable talent and a vivid imagination, drew inspiration from an earlier Greek illustrated Psalter from the Christian East,14 where the guitar's evolution took place.
![]() |
Fig. 3.—Instrumentalists from the Utrecht Psalter, 9th century: (a) The bass rotta, first transition of cithara in (C); (b, c, d), Transitions showing the addition of neck to the body of the cithara. |
![]() |
From Dr H. Janitschek’s Geschichte der deutschen Malerei. |
Fig. 4.—Representation of a European Guitar. CE 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. Mersenne16 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
One of the earliest depictions (fig. 4) of a guitar in Western Europe appears in a Passionale from Zwifalten CE 1180, now housed in the Royal Library at Stuttgart. St. Pelagia sits on a donkey holding a rotta, or cithara in transition, while one of the attendants leading her donkey holds her guitar. Both instruments have three strings and the signature guitar shape with curves, with the rotta being different in that it lacks a neck. Mersenne 16 writing in the early 17th century describes and illustrates two Spanish guitars, one with four strings and the other with five; the former had a cittern head while the latter featured a straight head bent back at an obtuse angle from the neck, similar to modern instruments. He provides the Italian, French, and Spanish tablatures, indicating that the guitar was already quite popular in France and Italy as well as in Spain. Mersenne notes that the proportions of the guitar require that the length of the neck from shoulder to nut should equal the length of the body from the center of the rose to the tail end. From this time until the mid-19th century, the guitar enjoyed immense popularity across the continent and became the trendiest instrument in England after the Peninsular War, primarily due to the skill of Ferdinand Sor, who also composed works for it. This popularity of the guitar was more about how easy it was to learn enough to accompany singing rather than its qualities as a solo instrument. The arrival of the Spanish guitar in England contributed to the decline of the cittern, also referred to at the time as the English or wire-strung guitar, even though the two instruments were quite different in several ways. Evidence of the guitar's widespread popularity across Europe can be seen in the remarkable number of books available on the instrument, providing instructions on how to play the guitar and read tablature. 17
1 Über den Bau der Bogeninstrumente (Jena, 1828), pp. 94 and 95.
1 About the Construction of Bow Instruments (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).
2 See Pietro Millioni, A True and Easy Way to Learn to Play and Tune the Spanish Guitar by Yourself, 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.
3 Declaration of Musical Instruments (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).
4 See also G. G. Kapsperger, First Book of Villanelles with the Instructions for the Chitarra and Tuning for the Spanish Guitar (three books, Rome, 1610-1623).
5 See Kathleen Schlesinger, The Instruments of the Orchestra, part ii. “Precursors of the Violin Family,” pp. 230-248.
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).
6 See Denon’s Voyage in Egypt (London, 1807, pl. 55).
7 Illustrated from a drawing in Perrot and Chipiez, “Judée Sardaigne, Syrie, Cappadoce.” Vol. iv. of Hist. de l’art dans l’antiquité, Paris, 1887, p. 670. Also see plate from a photograph by Prof. John Garstang, in Kathleen Schlesinger, op. cit.
7 Illustrated from a drawing in Perrot and Chipiez, “Judea Sardinia, Syria, Cappadocia.” Vol. iv. of History of Art in Antiquity, 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).
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See Biernath, The Guitar (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.
9 See also Luys Milan, Libro de musica de vihuela da mano, Intitulado Il Maestro, where the tuning is D, G, C, E, A, D from bass to treble.
10 Mariano Soriano, Fuertes Historia de la musica española (Madrid, 1855), i. 105, and iv. 208, &c.
10 Mariano Soriano, Fuertes History of Spanish Music (Madrid, 1855), i. 105, and iv. 208, &c.
12 See Etymologiarium, lib. iii., cap. 21.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See *Etymologiarium*, book 3, chapter 21.
13 See British Museum, Harleian MS. 1419, fol. 200.
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 frühen Mittelalter mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Utrecht Psalter,” Abhandlungen der kgl. sächs. 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 für 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. célèbre 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 für Kunstwissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1898), Bd. xxi. pp. 28-35; J. J. Tikkanen, Abendländische 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 Archäologie, 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.
14 The literature of the Utrecht Psalter includes a wide range of books and pamphlets in various languages, with the main ones listed here: 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 frühen Mittelalter mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den Utrecht Psalter,” Abhandlungen der kgl. sächs. 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 für 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. célèbre 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 für Kunstwissenschaft (Stuttgart, 1898), Bd. xxi. pp. 28-35; J. J. Tikkanen, Abendländische Psalter-Illustration im Mittelalter, part iii. “Der Utrecht Psalter” (Helsingfors, 1900), 320 pp. and 77 ills. (Professor Tikkanen now acknowledges 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 Archäologie, 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 above are summarized.
15 Reproduced in Hubert Janitschek’s Geschichte der deutschen Malerei, Bd. iii. of Gesch. der deutschen Kunst (Berlin, 1890), p. 118.
15 Reproduced in Hubert Janitschek’s History of German Painting, Vol. iii. of History of German Art (Berlin, 1890), p. 118.
16 Harmonie universelle (Paris, 1636), livre ii. prop. xiv.
16 Harmonie universelle (Paris, 1636), book ii. proposition xiv.
17 See C. F. Becker, Darstellung der musik. Literatur (Leipzig, 1836); and Wilhelm Tappert, “Zur Geschichte der Guitarre,” in Monatshefte für Musikgeschichte (Berlin, 1882), No. 5. pp. 77-85.
17 See C. F. Becker, Representation of Music Literature (Leipzig, 1836); and Wilhelm Tappert, “On the History of the Guitar,” in Monthly Issues of Music History (Berlin, 1882), No. 5, pp. 77-85.
![]() |
From Ruhlmann’s Geschichte der Bogeninstrumente. |
Fig. 1.—Typical Alto Guitar Fiddle, 15th century (Pinakothek, Munich). |
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 705 the violin, and may justly claim to be its immediate predecessor1 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.
Guitar Violin (Troubadour Fiddle), a modern term applied retroactively to certain early versions of the violin that exhibit traits of both guitar and fiddle. The term “guitar fiddle” highlights the reality that this instrument, shaped like a guitar, which during the Middle Ages was considered the ideal design for stringed instruments with necks, adopted the use of a bow from less refined instruments, such as the rebab and its variations. The incorporation of the bow into the guitar led to specific design changes: the prominent central rose sound-hole was replaced by side holes of various designs; the flat bridge, which was suitable for plucked-string instruments, was replaced by the arched bridge necessary for bowing each string individually; the arched bridge elevated the strings higher above the soundboard, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to stop the strings on the neck. This issue was resolved by adding a fingerboard with the appropriate shape and dimensions (fig. 1). At this point, the guitar fiddle displays the essential features of the violin and rightfully claims to be its direct predecessor—not so much through the viols that evolved from the Minnesinger fiddle with sloping shoulders, but rather through the intermediary of the Italian lyra, a guitar-shaped bowed instrument with 7 to 12 strings.
![]() |
From a Byzantine MS. in the British Museum. |
Fig. 2.—Earliest example of the Guitar Fiddle. CE 1066. |
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 rotta5 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 neck6 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 bow8 (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
From the evidence we have today, it seems that the early guitar evolved from the Greek cithara under Greek influence in the Christian East. The different stages of this transition are clearly illustrated by the remarkable miniatures in the Utrecht Psalter.2 Two types of citharas are depicted: the ancient rectangular one,3 and the later design with a rounded body that shows hints of the waist or curves typical of the Spanish guitar where the arms are attached.4 The first stage in this evolution is represented by a cithara or rotta5 in which the arms and transverse bar are replaced by a frame mimicking the outline of the body, thus completing the second lobe of the Spanish guitar. The subsequent stages involve adding a neck6 and frets.7 All these instruments are played by plucking the strings with fingers. It can be concluded that the bow was either unknown at that time (around the 6th century A.D.) or still limited to instruments like the rebab. The earliest known depiction of a guitar fiddle with a bow8 (fig. 2) appears in a Greek Psalter created and illustrated in Caesarea by the archpriest Theodorus in 1066 (British Museum, Add. MS. 19352). Perfect examples of guitar fiddles can be found in 13th-century manuscripts and monuments, such as in a painting by Cimabue (1240-1302) in the Pitti Gallery in Florence.9
An evolution on parallel lines appears also to have taken place from the antique rectangular cithara10 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 rotta12 of the 6th century preserved in the Völker 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 Durham13 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 Psalter15 (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 Book16 (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.
An evolution along similar lines seems to have occurred from the ancient rectangular cithara10 of the citharoedes, which was popular in Romano-Christian art.11 In this case, examples that illustrate the transitions are found in great variety across Europe. The old German rotta12 from the 6th century, preserved in the Völker Museum, Berlin, along with the instruments played by King David in two early Anglo-Saxon illuminated manuscripts—one being a Psalter (Cotton MS. Vesp. A. i. British Museum) completed in CE 700, and the other “A Commentary on the Psalms by Cassiodorus manu Bedae” from the 8th century, kept in the Cathedral Library at Durham13—provide examples of the first stage of transition. From such types, the rectangular crwth or crowd was developed by adding a fingerboard and reducing the number of strings, which naturally follows as an extended range can be achieved by stopping the strings. By adding a neck, we find the origin of rectangular citterns with rounded corners and certain bow-played instruments whose bodies or sound-chests have a shape based on the rectangle with various modifications. We shouldn’t consider this type of guitar fiddle as entirely a result of western or southern European innovation; its origin, much like the type resembling the violin, is clearly Byzantine. It appears among the frescoes that adorn the walls and barrel vaults in the palace of Kosseir ‘Amra,14 believed to be associated with Caliph Walid II. (CE 744) of the Omayyad dynasty, or Prince Ahmad, the Abbasid (862-866). The instrument, a cittern with four strings, is depicted as being played by a bear. Other examples can be found in the Stuttgart Carolingian Psalter15 (10th century); in MS. 1260 (Bibl. Imp. Paris) Tristan and Yseult; as a guitar fiddle in the Liber Regalis preserved in Westminster Abbey (14th century); in the Sforza Book16 (1444-1476), the Book of Hours created for Bona of Savoy, wife of Galeazzo Maria Sforza; and on one of the carvings from the 13th century in the Cathedral of Amiens. It has also been depicted by Italian artists in the 15th and 16th centuries.
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.
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.
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.
4 Idem, see pl. iii. centre and figs. 118 and 119.
4 Same, see pl. iii. center and figs. 118 and 119.
5 Idem, see fig. 117, p. 341, and figs. 172 and 116.
5 Same, 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).
6 Same, 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.
7 Same source, see fig. 126, p. 350, and pl. iii. right center.
10 See Museo Pio Clementino, by Visconti (Milan, 1818).
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.).
11 See for instance 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. Württemb. Altertums-Vereins, iii. (Stuttgart, 1846), tab. viii. also Kathleen Schlesinger, op. cit. part ii. fig. 168 (drawing from the facsimile).
12 This rotta was discovered in an Alamannic tomb dating from the 4th to the 7th centuries at Oberflacht in the Black Forest. A facsimile is kept in the collection of the Kgl. Hochschule, Berlin, illustrated in “Grabfunde am Berge Lupfen bei Oberflacht, 1846,” Jahresberichte d. Württemb. Altertums-Vereins, iii. (Stuttgart, 1846), tab. viii. Also see 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).
13 Copies of both miniatures can 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.).
14 An illustration appears in the prestigious journal 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 Gerätschaften vom frühen Mittelalter (Frankfort-on-Main, 1879-1890),
15 See reproductions of some of the miniatures in Jacob and H. von Hefner-Alteneck, Costumes of the Christian Middle Ages (Darmstadt, 1840-1854, 3 vols.), and in Costumes, Artworks, and Equipment from the Early Middle Ages (Frankfort-on-Main, 1879-1890),
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 Variétés in 1901, and then became a member of the Comédie Française, but he resigned very soon in order to become director of the Renaissance, where he was principally associated with the actress Marthe Brandès, who had also left the Comédie. Here he established his reputation, in a number of plays, as the greatest contemporary French actor in the drama of modern reality.
GUITRY, LUCIEN GERMAIN (1860- ), a French actor, was born in Paris. He became well-known on the French stage at the Porte Saint-Martin theatre in 1900 and at the Variétés in 1901. He then joined the Comédie Française but quickly resigned to become the director of the Renaissance, where he primarily worked with actress Marthe Brandès, who also left the Comédie. Here, he built his reputation as the greatest contemporary French actor in modern realistic drama.
GUIZOT, FRANÇOIS PIERRE GUILLAUME (1787-1874), historian, orator and statesman, was born at Nîmes 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 Nîmes 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 Nîmes 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 Émile 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 706 interrupted by her illness, but immediately resumed and continued by an unknown hand. It was discovered that François 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.
GUIZOT, FRANÇOIS PIERRE GUILLAUME (1787-1874), historian, speaker, and politician, was born in Nîmes on October 4, 1787, to a respectable Protestant family that was part of the city’s middle class. It illustrates the harsh restrictions still faced by Protestants in France before the Revolution that his parents, when they married, could not be publicly or legally wed by their own pastors, and their ceremony had to be kept secret. Despite their liberal views, his family was not spared from the bloody intolerance of the Reign of Terror; on April 8, 1794, his father was executed in Nîmes. From that point on, his mother took full responsibility for his education. She was a woman of slight build and simple ways, but she possessed a strong character and clear judgment. Madame Guizot exemplified the Huguenots of the 16th century, firm in her beliefs and unwavering in her convictions and sense of duty. She shaped her famous son's character and shared all the ups and downs of his life. During his rise to power, her modest figure, always dressed in deep mourning for her executed husband, was part of his impressive group of political allies. During his exile in 1848, she accompanied him to London, and there, at an advanced age, she passed away and was buried in Kensal Green. After being forced to leave Nîmes due to the Revolution, Madame Guizot and her son moved to Geneva, where he was educated. Despite her strong Calvinist beliefs, the popular theories of Rousseau influenced her. She was a committed Liberal and embraced the idea from Émile that every person should learn a trade. Young Guizot was taught carpentry, and he was skilled enough to make a table with his own hands, which is still kept today. Little is known about his more serious studies, as he excluded personal details from his earlier life in his work titled Memoirs of my own Times. However, his literary skills must have been advanced, as when he arrived in Paris in 1805 to study law, he became a tutor at eighteen in the household of M. Stapfer, a former Swiss minister in France, and soon began writing for a journal edited by M. Suard, the Publiciste. This connection introduced him to the literary circles of Paris. In October 1809, at the age of twenty-two, he wrote a review of M. de Chateaubriand’s Martyrs, which earned him the appreciation and warm thanks of that distinguished author, and he continued to contribute significantly to periodicals. At Suard’s, he met Pauline Meulan, an accomplished woman from a good family, who was about fourteen years older than him. She had been compelled by the trials of the Revolution to support herself through writing and was also engaged to contribute a series of articles to Suard’s journal. Her contributions were disrupted by her illness but were quickly resumed and continued by an unknown author. It was later discovered that François Guizot had discreetly filled in for her. Their initial acquaintance blossomed into friendship and love, and in 1812, Mademoiselle de Meulan agreed to marry her younger companion. She passed away in 1827 and was the author of several respected works on women’s education. Their only son, born in 1819, died of tuberculosis in 1837. In 1828, Guizot married Elisa Dillon, the niece of his first wife, who was also a writer. She died in 1833, leaving behind a son, Maurice Guillaume (1833-1892), who gained some recognition as a scholar and author.
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 abbé 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.”
During the empire, Guizot, fully dedicated to literary activities, published a collection of French synonyms in 1809, an essay on the fine arts in 1811, and a translation of Gibbon with additional notes in 1812. These publications caught the attention of M. de Fontanes, who was then the grand-master of the university of France, and he chose Guizot for the modern history chair at the Sorbonne in 1812. His first lecture, which is reprinted in his Memoirs, was delivered on December 11 of that year. He chose not to include the customary praise for the powerful emperor, despite hints from his patron, but the course that followed marked the start of a significant revival of historical research in France during the 19th century. He had gained a solid reputation in Parisian society and the friendship of Royer-Collard and prominent members of the liberal party, including the young duc de Broglie. While away from Paris when Napoleon fell in 1814, he was recommended by Royer-Collard to serve Louis XVIII's government as secretary-general of the ministry of the interior, under the abbé de Montesquiou. After Napoleon's return from Elba, he quickly resigned on March 25, 1815 (the claim that he stayed in office under General Carnot is incorrect) and went back to his literary work. After the Hundred Days, he traveled to Ghent, where he met with Louis XVIII and, representing the liberal party, advised the king that only a genuine adoption of a liberal policy could ensure the longevity of the restored monarchy—counsel that was poorly received by M. de Blacas and the king’s close advisers. This trip to Ghent, during a time when France faced a second invasion, became a target of harsh criticism against Guizot from his political opponents, branding him unpatriotic. “The Man of Ghent” was among the insults often thrown at him during his influential years. However, this criticism seems completely unfounded. France's true interests lay not in defending the crumbling empire, but in establishing a liberal policy on a monarchical foundation and in countering the reactionary tendencies of ultra-royalists. It's noteworthy that a twenty-seven-year-old professor, lacking any advantages of birth or political experience, was chosen to deliver such a crucial message to the king of France, proving that, as Guizot noted, the Revolution had indeed “done its work.”
On the second restoration, Guizot was appointed secretary-general of the ministry of justice under M. de Barbé-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.
On the second restoration, Guizot was named secretary-general of the Ministry of Justice under M. de Barbé-Marbois, but he resigned along with his boss in 1816. In 1819, he was appointed general director of communes and departments in the Ministry of the Interior, but he lost his position with the fall of Decazes in February 1820. During these years, Guizot was one of the leaders of the Doctrinaires, a small party that was strongly committed to the charter and the crown, advocating a policy that has become associated (especially by Faguet) with the name of Guizot—the juste milieu, or a via media between absolutism and popular government. Their opinions were more rigid like a sect than flexible like a political party. While they adhered to the core principles of liberty and tolerance, they were firmly against the chaotic traditions of the Revolution. They recognized that the elements of anarchy were still brewing in the country; they hoped to control these not through reactionary measures, but by firmly applying the power of a limited constitution grounded in the votes of the middle class and supported by the top literary talent of the time. Their motives were honorable. Their views were philosophical. However, they stood against the democratic spirit of the age, the military traditions of the empire, and the bigotry and absolutism of the court. The fate of such a party was predictable. They thrived on a policy of resistance; they were ultimately brought down by another revolution (1830). They are remembered more for their constant opposition to popular demands than for the undeniable contributions they made to the cause of moderate 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 représentatif, 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 révolution d’Angleterre depuis Charles Ier à 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.
In 1820, when the backlash was at its peak after the murder of the Duc de Berri and the fall of the Duc Decazes's ministry, Guizot lost his positions, and by 1822 even his lectures were banned. In the following years, he played a significant role among the leaders of the liberal opposition to Charles X's government, even though he hadn’t yet entered parliament. This period also marked his most prolific literary phase. In 1822, he published his lectures on representative government (Histoire des origines du gouvernement représentatif, 1821-1822, 2 vols.; Eng. trans. 1852); he also wrote a book on capital punishment for political offenses and several important political pamphlets. From 1822 to 1830, he published two critical collections of historical sources, the memoirs of English history in 26 volumes, and the memoirs of French history in 31 volumes, along with a revised translation of Shakespeare and a volume of essays on French history. His most notable work was the first part of his Histoire de la révolution d’Angleterre depuis Charles Ier à Charles II. (2 vols., 1826-1827; Eng. trans., 2 vols., Oxford, 1838), a highly regarded and impartial book, which he continued and completed during his exile in England after 1848. The Martignac administration reinstated Guizot in 1828 to his professorship and to the council of state. It was then that he delivered the famous series of lectures that elevated his reputation as a historian to extraordinary heights and placed him among the finest writers in France and Europe. These lectures formed the foundation of his general Histoire de la civilisation en Europe (1828; Eng. trans. by W. Hazlitt, 3 vols., 1846) and his Histoire de la civilisation en France (4 vols., 1830), works that will always be considered 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 Nîmes on the 27th of July, the fall of Charles X. was already imminent. Guizot was called upon by his friends Casimir-Périer, 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.”
Until now, Guizot’s reputation was based on his work as a writer on public affairs and as a lecturer on modern history. He was forty-three when he finally showcased his oratorical skills. In January 1830, he was elected for the first time by the town of Lisieux to the chamber of deputies, and he held that position throughout his political career. Guizot quickly took on a significant role in the representative assembly, and his first speech defended the famous address of the 221 in response to a threatening speech from the throne, which led to the dissolution of the chamber and foreshadowed another revolution. When he returned to Paris from Nîmes on July 27th, the fall of Charles X was already on the horizon. His friends Casimir-Périer, Laffitte, Villemain, and Dupin asked him to draft the protest of the liberal deputies against the royal ordinances of July while they worked together to manage the revolutionary nature of the recent conflict. Personally, Guizot believed it was a significant misfortune for parliamentary government in France that the foolishness and incompetence of Charles X and Prince Polignac made a change in the royal line of succession unavoidable. However, even though he thought it was inevitable, he became one of the strongest supporters of Louis-Philippe. In August 1830, Guizot was appointed minister of the interior but resigned in November. He had now moved to the conservative side and for the next eighteen years was the most staunch opponent of democracy, fiercely advocating for “a monarchy limited by a limited number of bourgeois.”
In 1831 Casimir-Périer formed a more vigorous and compact administration, which was terminated in May 1832 by his death; 707 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 “Académie 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, Siéyès, 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 “Société 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).
In 1831, Casimir-Périer established a stronger and more unified administration, which ended in May 1832 due to his death; 707 that summer saw a major republican uprising in Paris, and it wasn't until October 11, 1832, that a stable government was formed, with Marshal Soult as the prime minister, the duc de Broglie in charge of foreign affairs, Thiers managing the interior, and Guizot overseeing public education. This government, which lasted nearly four years, was by far the most capable to serve Louis Philippe. However, Guizot was already marked by the stigma of unpopularity among the more progressive liberals. He remained unpopular throughout his life, claiming, “not that I seek unpopularity, but that I don’t care about it." Yet his significant abilities proved invaluable to his country while he held this secondary but crucial role in public instruction. The responsibilities of this position perfectly aligned with his literary interests, and he was well-versed in the relevant subjects. Initially, he focused on implementing the law passed on June 28, 1833, and then spent the next three years executing it. By establishing and organizing primary education in France, this law marked a significant turning point in French history. Within fifteen years, under its influence, the number of primary schools increased from ten to twenty-three thousand; normal schools for teachers were set up, along with a general inspection system, and boards of education, combining both lay and clerical authority, were established. Guizot also provided enlightened support and care for secondary schools and the university of France, giving a tremendous boost to philosophical studies and historical research. The branch of the Institute of France known as the “Académie des Sciences Morales et Politiques,” which had been dissolved by Napoleon, was restored by Guizot. Some of the former members of this learned body—Talleyrand, Siéyès, Roederer, and Lakanal—returned to their posts, and numerous recent figures were added through elections to discuss important issues in political and social science. The “Société de l’Histoire de France” was created to publish historical works; a large-scale publication of medieval chronicles and diplomatic documents was launched at the state's expense (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.
The goal of the cabinet in October 1832 was to organize a conservative party and to pursue a policy of resistance against the republican faction that threatened the monarchy's existence. They took pride in the fact that their actions never went beyond the law, and they suppressed an insurrection that amounted to civil war in Lyons and a bloody revolt in Paris solely through legal means. The real strength of the ministry didn't come from its leaders, but from the fact that in this government alone, Guizot and Thiers worked together in harmony. The two major rivals in French parliamentary debate followed the same path for a time; however, neither could accept the other’s superiority, and circumstances frequently pushed Thiers into opposition while Guizot handled the more serious responsibilities of power.
Once again indeed, in 1839, they were united, but it was in opposition to M. Molé, 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 Molé, 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.
Once again, in 1839, they came together, but it was in opposition to M. Molé, who had created a temporary government. This alliance between Guizot and the leaders of the left center and the left, Thiers and Odilon Barrot, driven by his ambition and jealousy of Molé, is rightly seen as one of the major contradictions of his life. Victory was achieved at the cost of principle, and Guizot’s attack on the government led to a crisis and a republican uprising. However, none of the three leaders of that alliance took on ministerial positions, and Guizot was not unhappy to accept the role of ambassador in London, which took him out of parliamentary battles for a while. This was in the spring of 1840, and shortly after, Thiers took over the ministry of foreign affairs.
Guizot was received with marked distinction by the queen and by the society of London. His literary works were highly esteemed, his character was respected, and France was never more worthily represented abroad than by one of her greatest orators. He was known to be well versed in the history and the literature of England, and sincerely attached to the alliance of the two nations and the cause of peace. But, as he himself remarked, he was a stranger to England and a novice in diplomacy; and unhappily the embroiled state of the Syrian question, on which the French government had separated itself from the joint policy of Europe, and possibly the absence of entire confidence between the ambassador and the minister of foreign affairs, placed him in an embarrassing and even false position. The warnings he transmitted to Thiers were not believed. The warlike policy of Thiers was opposed to his own convictions. The treaty of the 15th of July was signed without his knowledge and executed in the teeth of his remonstrances. For some weeks Europe seemed to be on the brink of war, until the king put an end to the crisis by refusing his assent to the military preparations of Thiers, and by summoning Guizot from London to form a ministry and to aid his Majesty in what he termed “ma lutte tenace contre l’anarchie.” Thus began, under dark and adverse circumstances, on the 29th of October 1840, the important administration in which Guizot remained the master-spirit for nearly eight years. He himself took the office of minister for foreign affairs, to which he added some years later, on the retirement of Marshal Soult, the ostensible rank of prime minister. His first care was the maintenance of peace and the restoration of amicable relations with the other powers of Europe. If he succeeded, as he did succeed, in calming the troubled elements and healing the wounded pride of France, the result was due mainly to the indomitable courage and splendid eloquence with which he faced a raging opposition, gave unity and strength to the conservative party, who now felt that they had a great leader at their head, and appealed to the thrift and prudence of the nation rather than to their vanity and their ambition. In his pacific task he was fortunately seconded by the formation of Sir Robert Peel’s administration in England, in the autumn of 1841. Between Lord Palmerston and Guizot there existed an incompatibility of character exceedingly dangerous in the foreign ministers of two great and in some respects rival countries. With Lord Palmerston in office, Guizot felt that he had a bitter and active antagonist in every British agent throughout the world; the combative element was strong in his own disposition; and the result was a system of perpetual conflict and counter-intrigues. Lord Palmerston held (as it appears from his own letters) that war between England and France was, sooner or later, inevitable. Guizot held that such a war would be the greatest of all calamities, and certainly never contemplated it. In Lord Aberdeen, the foreign secretary of Sir Robert Peel, Guizot found a friend and an ally perfectly congenial to himself. Their acquaintance in London had been slight, but it soon ripened into mutual regard and confidence. They were both men of high principles and honour; the Scotch Presbyterianism which had moulded the faith of Lord Aberdeen was reflected in the Huguenot minister of France; both were men of extreme simplicity of taste, joined to the refinement of scholarship and culture; both had an intense aversion to war and felt themselves ill-qualified to carry on those adventurous operations which inflamed the imagination of their respective opponents. In the eyes of Lord Palmerston and Thiers their policy was mean and pitiful; but it was a policy which secured peace to the world, and united the two great and free nations of the West in what was termed the entente cordiale. Neither of them would have stooped to snatch an advantage at the expense of the other; they held the common interest of peace and friendship to be paramount; and when differences arose, as they did arise, in remote parts of the world,—in Tahiti, in Morocco, on the Gold Coast,—they were reduced by this principle to their proper insignificance. The opposition in France denounced Guizot’s foreign policy as basely subservient to England. He replied in terms of unmeasured contempt,—“You may raise the pile of calumny as high as you will; vous n’arriverez jamais à la hauteur de mon dédain!” The opposition in England attacked Lord Aberdeen with the same reproaches, but in vain. King Louis Philippe visited Windsor. The queen of England (in 1843) stayed at the Château d’Eu. In 1845 British and 708 French troops fought side by side for the first time in an expedition to the River Plate.
Guizot was welcomed with great respect by the queen and the society in London. His literary works were highly valued, his character was respected, and France was never better represented abroad than by one of her greatest speakers. He was known to be well-informed about English history and literature, and he genuinely valued the alliance between the two nations and the cause of peace. However, as he himself pointed out, he was a stranger to England and inexperienced in diplomacy; unfortunately, the complex situation regarding Syria, where the French government had distanced itself from the shared European policy, and possibly the lack of complete trust between the ambassador and the foreign minister, put him in a difficult and even awkward position. The warnings he sent to Thiers went unheeded. Thiers' aggressive policies conflicted with his own beliefs. The treaty signed on July 15 was done without his knowledge and was pushed through despite his protests. For several weeks, it seemed like Europe was on the brink of war until the king stepped in and refused to approve Thiers' military preparations, calling Guizot back from London to form a government and assist his Majesty in what he called “ma lutte tenace contre l’anarchie.” Thus, under challenging circumstances, on October 29, 1840, began the significant administration where Guizot remained a key player for nearly eight years. He took on the role of foreign minister and later, after Marshal Soult retired, assumed the title of prime minister. His primary concern was maintaining peace and restoring friendly relations with other European powers. If he succeeded, as he did in calming tensions and mending France's wounded pride, it was mainly due to his unwavering courage and impressive eloquence that rallied the conservative party, who felt they had a significant leader, and appealed to the nation's practicality rather than their pride and ambitions. He was fortunate to receive support for his peace-building efforts from Sir Robert Peel’s administration in England, which formed in the fall of 1841. There was a serious clash of personalities between Lord Palmerston and Guizot, which created issues for the foreign ministers of two powerful and often rival nations. With Lord Palmerston in charge, Guizot felt he faced a fierce and active opponent among British diplomats worldwide; he had a naturally combative spirit, resulting in constant conflict and counter-efforts. Lord Palmerston believed, as indicated in his letters, that war between England and France was inevitable sooner or later. Guizot believed that such a war would be a disaster and never considered it. In Lord Aberdeen, the foreign secretary under Sir Robert Peel, Guizot found a friend and ally who was very much in tune with him. Their acquaintance in London had been brief, but it quickly developed into mutual respect and trust. Both were men of strong principles and integrity; the Scottish Presbyterian background of Lord Aberdeen mirrored the Huguenot roots of the French minister; both men had simple tastes combined with scholarly refinement and culture; both strongly opposed war and felt they were unfit for the aggressive actions that excited their rivals’ imaginations. Lord Palmerston and Thiers viewed their policy as petty and pathetic; however, it was a policy that ensured peace and brought together the two great free nations of the West in what was called the entente cordiale. Neither would have lowered themselves to take advantage of the other; they prioritized the common interest of peace and friendship; and when disagreements arose in far-off places—such as Tahiti, Morocco, and the Gold Coast—they were minimized by this principle. The opposition in France criticized Guizot’s foreign policy as shamefully submissive to England. He responded with absolute disdain: “You can raise your slander as high as you want; vous n’arriverez jamais à la hauteur de mon dédain!” The opposition in England targeted Lord Aberdeen with the same accusations, but to no avail. King Louis Philippe visited Windsor, and the queen of England (in 1843) stayed at the Château d’Eu. In 1845, British and French troops fought alongside each other for the first time in an expedition to the River Plate.
The fall of Sir Robert Peel’s government in 1846 changed these intimate relations; and the return of Lord Palmerston to the foreign office led Guizot to believe that he was again exposed to the passionate rivalry of the British cabinet. A friendly understanding had been established at Eu between the two courts with reference to the future marriage of the young queen of Spain. The language of Lord Palmerston and the conduct of Sir Henry Bulwer (afterwards Lord Dalling) at Madrid led Guizot to believe that this understanding was broken, and that it was intended to place a Coburg on the throne of Spain. Determined to resist any such intrigue, Guizot and the king plunged headlong into a counter-intrigue, wholly inconsistent with their previous engagements to England, and fatal to the happiness of the queen of Spain. By their influence she was urged into a marriage with a despicable offset of the house of Bourbon, and her sister was at the same time married to the youngest son of the French king, in direct violation of Louis Philippe’s promises. This transaction, although it was hailed at the time as a triumph of the policy of France, was in truth as fatal to the monarch as it was discreditable to the minister. It was accomplished by a mixture of secrecy and violence. It was defended by subterfuges. By the dispassionate judgment of history it has been universally condemned. Its immediate effect was to destroy the Anglo-French alliance, and to throw Guizot into closer relations with the reactionary policy of Metternich and the Northern courts.
The downfall of Sir Robert Peel’s government in 1846 changed these close ties, and Lord Palmerston’s return to the foreign office made Guizot think he was once again facing the intense competition of the British cabinet. A friendly agreement had been made at Eu between the two courts regarding the future marriage of Spain’s young queen. However, the words of Lord Palmerston and the actions of Sir Henry Bulwer (later Lord Dalling) in Madrid led Guizot to think that this agreement was falling apart and that there were plans to place a Coburg on the Spanish throne. Determined to counteract this potential move, Guizot and the king dove into a counter-scheme that completely contradicted their earlier commitments to England and jeopardized the queen of Spain’s happiness. Through their influence, she was pushed into marrying a contemptible branch of the Bourbon family, while her sister simultaneously married the youngest son of the French king, directly breaking Louis Philippe’s promises. Although this maneuver was celebrated at the time as a victory for French policy, it ultimately proved disastrous for the monarchy and disreputable for the minister. It was carried out through a mix of secrecy and coercion, justified by deceit. History has universally condemned it with a fair and objective lens. Its immediate impact was to ruin the Anglo-French alliance and to push Guizot closer to the reactionary policies of Metternich and the Northern courts.
The history of Guizot’s administration, the longest and the last which existed under the constitutional monarchy of France, bears the stamp of the great qualities and the great defects of his political character, for he was throughout the master-spirit of that government. His first object was to unite and discipline the conservative party, which had been broken up by previous dissensions and ministerial changes. In this he entirely succeeded by his courage and eloquence as a parliamentary leader, and by the use of all those means of influence which France too liberally supplies to a dominant minister. No one ever doubted the purity and disinterestedness of Guizot’s own conduct. He despised money; he lived and died poor; and though he encouraged the fever of money-getting in the French nation, his own habits retained their primitive simplicity. But he did not disdain to use in others the baser passions from which he was himself free. Some of his instruments were mean; he employed them to deal with meanness after its kind. Gross abuses and breaches of trust came to light even in the ranks of the government, and under an incorruptible minister the administration was denounced as corrupt. Licet uti alieno vitio is a proposition as false in politics as it is in divinity.
The story of Guizot’s administration, the longest and last one under France's constitutional monarchy, reflects both the great strengths and weaknesses of his political character, as he was the driving force behind that government. His main goal was to unify and strengthen the conservative party, which had been fragmented by earlier conflicts and changes in leadership. He completely achieved this through his bravery and eloquence as a parliamentary leader, along with utilizing all the means of influence that France readily provides to a dominant minister. No one ever questioned the integrity and selflessness of Guizot’s actions. He had no interest in money; he lived and died poor, and while he promoted the obsession with wealth in the French nation, his own lifestyle remained quite simple. However, he was not opposed to exploiting the lower instincts that he himself was free from in others. Some of his methods were questionable; he used them to handle questionable behavior in others. Major abuses and violations of trust emerged even within the government, and under an incorruptible minister, the administration was labeled as corrupt. Licet uti alieno vitio is a claim that is just as untrue in politics as it is in theology.
Of his parliamentary eloquence it is impossible to speak too highly. It was terse, austere, demonstrative and commanding,—not persuasive, not humorous, seldom adorned, but condensed with the force of a supreme authority in the fewest words. He was essentially a ministerial speaker, far more powerful in defence than in opposition. Like Pitt he was the type of authority and resistance, unmoved by the brilliant charges, the wit, the gaiety, the irony and the discursive power of his great rival. Nor was he less a master of parliamentary tactics and of those sudden changes and movements in debate which, as in a battle, sometimes change the fortune of the day. His confidence in himself, and in the majority of the chamber which he had moulded to his will, was unbounded; and long success and the habit of authority led him to forget that in a country like France there was a people outside the chamber elected by a small constituency, to which the minister and the king himself were held responsible.
It's impossible to praise his parliamentary speeches too highly. They were concise, serious, expressive, and commanding—neither persuasive nor humorous, rarely decorated, but packed with the impact of supreme authority in just a few words. He was primarily a government speaker, far more effective in defense than in opposition. Like Pitt, he embodied authority and resistance, undeterred by the clever attacks, wit, humor, irony, and expansive arguments of his great rival. He was also a master of parliamentary strategy and the sudden shifts and movements in debate that, much like in battle, can change the outcome of the day. His confidence in himself and in the majority of the chamber he had shaped was unmatched; long-term success and a reliance on authority led him to overlook that in a country like France, there was a public outside the chamber elected by a small constituency, to whom both the minister and the king were accountable.
A government based on the principle of resistance and repression and marked by dread and distrust of popular power, a system of diplomacy which sought to revive the traditions of the old French monarchy, a sovereign who largely exceeded the bounds of constitutional power and whose obstinacy augmented with years, a minister who, though far removed from the servility of the courtier, was too obsequious to the personal influence of the king, were all singularly at variance with the promises of the Revolution of July, and they narrowed the policy of the administration. Guizot’s view of politics was essentially historical and philosophical. His tastes and his acquirements gave him little insight into the practical business of administrative government. Of finance he knew nothing; trade and commerce were strange to him; military and naval affairs were unfamiliar to him; all these subjects he dealt with by second hand through his friends, P. S. Dumon (1797-1870), Charles Marie Tanneguy, Comte Duchâtel (1803-1867), or Marshal Bugeaud. The consequence was that few measures of practical improvement were carried by his administration. Still less did the government lend an ear to the cry for parliamentary reform. On this subject the king’s prejudices were insurmountable, and his ministers had the weakness to give way to them. It was impossible to defend a system which confined the suffrage to 200,000 citizens, and returned a chamber of whom half were placemen. Nothing would have been easier than to strengthen the conservative party by attaching the suffrage to the possession of land in France, but blank resistance was the sole answer of the government to the just and moderate demands of the opposition. Warning after warning was addressed to them in vain by friends and by foes alike; and they remained profoundly unconscious of their danger till the moment when it overwhelmed them. Strange to say, Guizot never acknowledged either at the time or to his dying day the nature of this error; and he speaks of himself in his memoirs as the much-enduring champion of liberal government and constitutional law. He utterly fails to perceive that a more enlarged view of the liberal destinies of France and a less intense confidence in his own specific theory might have preserved the constitutional monarchy and averted a vast series of calamities, which were in the end fatal to every principle he most cherished. But with the stubborn conviction of absolute truth he dauntlessly adhered to his own doctrines to the end.
A government built on resistance and repression, characterized by fear and distrust of popular power, a diplomatic approach that aimed to revive the traditions of the old French monarchy, a ruler who greatly exceeded constitutional limits and whose stubbornness grew with age, a minister who, while not excessively servile, was overly submissive to the king's personal influence—these elements were all in stark contrast to the promises of the July Revolution and limited the administration's policies. Guizot's political perspective was fundamentally historical and philosophical. His interests and knowledge provided him little understanding of practical administrative governance. He knew nothing about finance; trade and commerce were foreign to him; military and naval matters were unfamiliar as well; he relied on friends like P. S. Dumon (1797-1870), Charles Marie Tanneguy, Comte Duchâtel (1803-1867), or Marshal Bugeaud for insights. As a result, his administration implemented few effective improvements. The government was even less receptive to calls for parliamentary reform. The king's biases on this issue were unchangeable, and his ministers weakly acquiesced to them. It was impossible to justify a system that limited voting rights to 200,000 citizens, half of whom were in appointed positions. It would have been easy to strengthen the conservative party by linking voting rights to land ownership in France, but the government responded with outright refusal to the reasonable and moderate demands of the opposition. Repeated warnings from both allies and adversaries were ignored, and they remained completely unaware of the looming danger until it finally struck. Strangely, Guizot never acknowledged this mistake, either at the time or until his death; he viewed himself in his memoirs as the patient defender of liberal governance and constitutional law. He completely failed to recognize that a broader perspective on the liberal future of France and less intense faith in his own particular theory could have sustained the constitutional monarchy and prevented a series of disasters that ultimately undermined the very principles he valued most. Yet, with an unwavering belief in his own absolute truth, he stubbornly clung to his doctrines until the end.
The last scene of his political life was singularly characteristic of his inflexible adherence to a lost cause. In the afternoon oí the 23rd of February 1848 the king summoned his minister from the chamber, which was then sitting, and informed him that the aspect of Paris and the country during the banquet agitation for reform, and the alarm and division of opinion in the royal family, led him to doubt whether he could retain his ministry. That doubt, replied Guizot, is decisive of the question, and instantly resigned, returning to the chamber only to announce that the administration was at an end and that Molé had been sent for by the king. Molé failed in the attempt to form a government, and between midnight and one in the morning Guizot, who had according to his custom retired early to rest, was again sent for to the Tuileries. The king asked his advice. “We are no longer the ministers of your Majesty,” replied Guizot; “it rests with others to decide on the course to be pursued. But one thing appears to be evident: this street riot must be put down; these barricades must be taken; and for this purpose my opinion is that Marshal Bugeaud should be invested with full power, and ordered to take the necessary military measures, and as your Majesty has at this moment no minister, I am ready to draw up and countersign such an order.” The marshal, who was present, undertook the task, saying, “I have never been beaten yet, and I shall not begin to-morrow. The barricades shall be carried before dawn.” After this display of energy the king hesitated, and soon added: “I ought to tell you that M. Thiers and his friends are in the next room forming a government!” Upon this Guizot rejoined, “Then it rests with them to do what they think fit,” and left the palace. Thiers and Barrot decided to withdraw the troops. The king and Guizot next met at Claremont. This was the most perilous conjuncture of Guizot’s life, but fortunately he found a safe refuge in Paris for some days in the lodging of a humble miniature painter whom he had befriended, and shortly afterwards effected his escape across the Belgian frontier and thence to London, where he arrived on the 3rd of March. His mother and daughters 709 had preceded him, and he was speedily installed in a modest habitation in Pelham Crescent, Brompton.
The final act of his political career was distinctly representative of his unwavering commitment to a doomed cause. In the afternoon of February 23, 1848, the king called his minister from the assembly, which was in session at the time, and expressed that the atmosphere in Paris, along with the nationwide agitation for reform and the concerns and disagreements within the royal family, made him uncertain about whether he could keep his minister. "That uncertainty," Guizot replied, "is the decisive factor," and he immediately resigned, returning to the assembly only to announce that the administration was finished and that Molé had been summoned by the king. Molé's efforts to form a government were unsuccessful, and between midnight and 1 in the morning, Guizot, who had gone to bed early as usual, was summoned again to the Tuileries. The king asked for his advice. "We are no longer your Majesty's ministers," Guizot responded, "it is up to others to decide what to do. But one thing is clear: this street riot must be suppressed; these barricades must be taken down; and for this, I believe Marshal Bugeaud should be given full authority to take the necessary military action. And since your Majesty currently has no minister, I am ready to draft and sign that order." The marshal, who was present, took on the task, saying, "I have never been beaten, and I won’t start tomorrow. The barricades will come down before dawn." After this display of determination, the king hesitated and then added, "I should inform you that M. Thiers and his associates are in the next room forming a government!" To this, Guizot replied, "Then it is up to them to decide what they wish," and he left the palace. Thiers and Barrot decided to pull back the troops. The king and Guizot later met at Claremont. This was the most dangerous moment of Guizot's life, but he fortunately found a secure place to stay in Paris for a few days at the home of a humble miniature painter he had helped, and shortly after, he escaped across the Belgian border to London, where he arrived on March 3. His mother and daughters had arrived before him, and he quickly settled into a modest home in Pelham Crescent, Brompton. 709
The society of England, though many persons disapproved of much of his recent policy, received the fallen statesman with as much distinction and respect as they had shown eight years before to the king’s ambassador. Sums of money were placed at his disposal, which he declined. A professorship at Oxford was spoken of, which he was unable to accept. He stayed in England about a year, devoting himself again to history. He published two more volumes on the English revolution, and in 1854 his Histoire de la république d’Angleterre et de Cromwell (2 vols., 1854), then his Histoire du protectorat de Cromwell et du rétablissement des Stuarts (2 vols., 1856). He also published an essay on Peel, and amid many essays on religion, during the ten years 1858-1868, appeared the extensive Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de mon temps, in nine volumes. His speeches were included in 1863 in his Histoire parlementaire de la France (5 vols. of parliamentary speeches, 1863).
The society of England, while many people disagreed with a lot of his recent policies, welcomed the fallen statesman with as much honor and respect as they had given eight years earlier to the king’s ambassador. Large sums of money were offered to him, which he turned down. A professorship at Oxford was mentioned, but he couldn’t accept it. He spent about a year in England, focusing once again on history. He published two more volumes on the English revolution, and in 1854 his Histoire de la république d’Angleterre et de Cromwell (2 vols., 1854), followed by his Histoire du protectorat de Cromwell et du rétablissement des Stuarts (2 vols., 1856). He also released an essay on Peel, and among many essays on religion, from 1858 to 1868, he published the extensive Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de mon temps, in nine volumes. His speeches were included in 1863 in his Histoire parlementaire de la France (5 vols. of parliamentary speeches, 1863).
Guizot survived the fall of the monarchy and the government he had served twenty-six years. He passed abruptly from the condition of one of the most powerful and active statesmen in Europe to the condition of a philosophical and patriotic spectator of human affairs. He was aware that the link between himself and public life was broken for ever; and he never made the slightest attempt to renew it. He was of no party, a member of no political body; no murmur of disappointed ambition, no language of asperity, ever passed his lips; it seemed as if the fever of oratorical debate and ministerial power had passed from him and left him a greater man than he had been before, in the pursuit of letters, in the conversation of his friends, and as head of the patriarchal circle of those he loved. The greater part of the year he spent at his residence at Val Richer, an Augustine monastery near Lisieux in Normandy, which had been sold at the time of the first Revolution. His two daughters, who married two descendants of the illustrious Dutch family of De Witt, so congenial in faith and manners to the Huguenots of France, kept his house. One of his sons-in-law farmed the estate. And here Guizot devoted his later years with undiminished energy to literary labour, which was in fact his chief means of subsistence. Proud, independent, simple and contented he remained to the last; and these years of retirement were perhaps the happiest and most serene portion of his life.
Guizot lived through the fall of the monarchy and the government he had served for twenty-six years. He suddenly went from being one of the most powerful and active statesmen in Europe to a thoughtful and patriotic observer of human events. He knew that the connection between him and public life was broken forever, and he never tried to restore it. He belonged to no party, was part of no political group; not a hint of disappointed ambitions or harsh words ever left his lips; it was as if the passion for public debate and ministerial power had faded away, leaving him a greater man than before, immersed in literature, enjoying discussions with friends, and leading a close-knit circle of loved ones. Most of the year, he lived at his home in Val Richer, an Augustine monastery near Lisieux in Normandy, which had been sold during the first Revolution. His two daughters, who married descendants of the notable Dutch family of De Witt—who shared faith and values with the Huguenots of France—managed his household. One of his sons-in-law worked the land. In these later years, Guizot dedicated himself with unwavering energy to literary work, which was his primary source of income. Proud, independent, simple, and satisfied, he remained so until the end; and these retirement years were probably the happiest and most peaceful of his life.
Two institutions may be said even under the second empire to have retained their freedom—the Institute of France and the Protestant Consistory. In both of these Guizot continued to the last to take an active part. He was a member of three of the five academies into which the Institute of France is divided. The Academy of Moral and Political Science owed its restoration to him, and he became in 1832 one of its first associates. The Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres elected him in 1833 as the successor to M. Dacier; and in 1836 he was chosen a member of the French Academy, the highest literary distinction of the country. In these learned bodies Guizot continued for nearly forty years to take a lively interest and to exercise a powerful influence. He was the jealous champion of their independence. His voice had the greatest weight in the choice of new candidates; the younger generation of French writers never looked in vain to him for encouragement; and his constant aim was to maintain the dignity and purity of the profession of letters.
Two institutions can be said to have maintained their freedom even during the Second Empire—the Institute of France and the Protestant Consistory. Guizot remained actively involved in both until the end. He was a member of three of the five academies that make up the Institute of France. The Academy of Moral and Political Science owes its revival to him, and he became one of its first associates in 1832. In 1833, the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres elected him as the successor to M. Dacier; and in 1836, he was chosen as a member of the French Academy, the highest literary honor in the country. Guizot continued to take a keen interest in these scholarly bodies for nearly forty years and had a significant influence over them. He was a passionate advocate for their independence. His opinions carried substantial weight in selecting new candidates; younger French writers always turned to him for support; and his ongoing goal was to uphold the dignity and integrity of the literary profession.
In the consistory of the Protestant church in Paris Guizot exercised a similar influence. His early education and his experience of life conspired to strengthen the convictions of a religious temperament. He remained through life a firm believer in the truths of revelation, and a volume of Meditations on the Christian Religion was one of his latest works. But though he adhered inflexibly to the church of his fathers and combated the rationalist tendencies of the age, which seemed to threaten it with destruction, he retained not a tinge of the intolerance or asperity of the Calvinistic creed. He respected in the Church of Rome the faith of the majority of his countrymen; and the writings of the great Catholic prelates, Bossuet and Bourdaloue, were as familiar and as dear to him as those of his own persuasion, and were commonly used by him in the daily exercises of family worship.
In the leadership of the Protestant church in Paris, Guizot had a similar influence. His early education and life experiences helped to strengthen his religious beliefs. He remained a firm believer in the truths of revelation throughout his life, and a book called Meditations on the Christian Religion was one of his last works. However, while he consistently supported the church of his upbringing and fought against the rationalist trends of his time, which he saw as a threat to it, he didn't show any of the intolerance or harshness typical of Calvinism. He respected the Roman Catholic Church and the faith of the majority of his fellow citizens; the writings of great Catholic leaders like Bossuet and Bourdaloue were as familiar and cherished to him as those from his own faith, and he often included them in his family worship.
In these literary pursuits and in the retirement of Val Richer years passed smoothly and rapidly away; and as his grandchildren grew up around him, he began to direct their attention to the history of their country. From these lessons sprang his last and not his least work, the Histoire de France racontée à mes petits enfants, for although this publication assumed a popular form, it is not less complete and profound than it is simple and attractive. The history came down to 1789, and was continued to 1870 by his daughter Madame Guizot de Witt from her father’s notes.
In these literary activities and during his retirement at Val Richer, years went by smoothly and quickly. As his grandchildren grew up around him, he started to guide their interest toward the history of their country. From these lessons came his last, and perhaps most significant, work, the Histoire de France racontée à mes petits enfants. Although this publication took on a popular format, it is just as thorough and insightful as it is simple and engaging. The history covered events up to 1789 and was later extended to 1870 by his daughter Madame Guizot de Witt, based on her father's notes.
Down to the summer of 1874 Guizot’s mental vigour and activity were unimpaired. His frame, temperate in all things, was blessed with a singular immunity from infirmity and disease; but the vital power ebbed away, and he passed gently away on the 12th of September 1874, reciting now and then a verse of Corneille or a text of Scripture.
Down to the summer of 1874, Guizot's mental strength and energy were still strong. His body, moderate in all aspects, enjoyed a remarkable resilience against illness and disease; however, his vitality gradually diminished, and he peacefully passed away on September 12, 1874, occasionally reciting a line from Corneille or a verse from the Bible.
Bibliography.—See his own Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de mon temps (8 vols., 1858-1861); Lettres de M. Guizot à sa famille et à ses amis (1884); C. A. Sainte-Beuve, Causeries du lundi (vol. i., 1857) and Nouveaux Lundis (vols. i. and ix., 1863-1872); E. Scherer, Études critiques sur la littérature contemporaine (vol. iv., 1873); Mme de Witt, Guizot dans sa famille (1880); Jules Simon, Thiers, Guizot et Rémusat (1885); E. Faguet, Politiques et moralistes au XIXe siècle (1891); G. Bardoux, Guizot (1894) in the series of “Les Grands Écrivains français”; Maurice Guizot, Les Années de retraite de M. Guizot (1901); and for a long list of books and articles on Guizot in periodicals see H. P. Thieme, Guide bibliographique de la littérature française de 1800 à 1906 (s.v. Guizot, Paris, 1907). For a notice of his first wife see C. A. Sainte-Beuve, Portraits de femmes (1884), and Ch. de Rémusat, Critiques et études littéraires (vol. ii., 1847).
References.—See his own Memoirs to Serve the History of My Time (8 vols., 1858-1861); Letters from Mr. Guizot to His Family and Friends (1884); C. A. Sainte-Beuve, Monday Conversations (vol. i., 1857) and New Mondays (vols. i. and ix., 1863-1872); E. Scherer, Critical Studies on Contemporary Literature (vol. iv., 1873); Mme de Witt, Guizot in His Family (1880); Jules Simon, Thiers, Guizot, and Rémusat (1885); E. Faguet, Politicians and Moralists of the 19th Century (1891); G. Bardoux, Guizot (1894) in the series “The Great French Writers”; Maurice Guizot, The Years of Retreat of Mr. Guizot (1901); and for a long list of books and articles on Guizot in periodicals see H. P. Thieme, Bibliographic Guide to French Literature from 1800 to 1906 (s.v. Guizot, Paris, 1907). For a notice of his first wife see C. A. Sainte-Beuve, Portraits of Women (1884), and Ch. de Rémusat, Critiques and Literary Studies (vol. ii., 1847).
GUJARAT or Guzerat, a region of India, in the Bombay Presidency. In the widest sense of the name it includes the whole of the country where the Gujarati language is spoken, i.e. the northern districts and states of the Presidency from Palanpur to Damaun, with Kathiawar and Cutch. But it is more properly confined to the country north of the Nerbudda and east of the Rann of Cutch and Kathiawar. In this sense it has an area of 29,071 sq. m., with a population in 1901 of 4,798,504. It includes the states distributed among the agencies of Palanpur, Mahi Kantha, Rewa Kantha and Cambay, with most of Baroda and the British districts of Ahmedabad, Kaira, Panch Mahals and Broach. Less than one-fourth is British territory. The region takes its name from the Gujars, a tribe who passed into India from the north-west, established a kingdom in Rajputana, and spread south in A.D. 400-600. The ancient Hindu capital was Anhilvada; the Mahommedan dynasty, which ruled from 1396 to 1572, founded Ahmedabad, which is still the largest city; but Gujarat owed much of its historical importance to the seaports of Broach, Cambay and Surat. Its fertile plain, with a regular rainfall and numerous rivers, has caused it to be styled the “garden of India.” It suffered, however, severely from the famine of 1899-1901. For an account of the history, geography, &c., of Gujarat see the articles on the various states and districts. Gujarat gives its name to the vernacular of northern Bombay, viz. Gujarati, one of the three great languages of that Presidency, spoken by more than 9 millions. It has an ancient literature and a peculiar character. As the language of the Parsis it is prominent in the Bombay press; and it is also the commercial language of Bombay city, which lies outside the territorial area of Gujarat.
GUJARAT or Gujarat, a region of India in the Bombay Presidency. Broadly defined, it encompasses the entire area where the Gujarati language is spoken, including the northern districts and states of the Presidency from Palanpur to Damaun, along with Kathiawar and Cutch. However, it's more accurately limited to the land north of the Nerbudda River and east of the Rann of Cutch and Kathiawar. In this context, it covers an area of 29,071 square miles, with a population in 1901 of 4,798,504. This region includes various states associated with the agencies of Palanpur, Mahi Kantha, Rewa Kantha, and Cambay, along with most of Baroda and the British districts of Ahmedabad, Kaira, Panch Mahals, and Broach. Less than one-fourth of the area is under British control. The name of the region comes from the Gujars, a tribe that entered India from the northwest, established a kingdom in Rajputana, and migrated south between AD 400-600. The ancient Hindu capital was Anhilvada; the Mahommedan dynasty that ruled from 1396 to 1572 founded Ahmedabad, which remains the largest city; but Gujarat's historical significance is heavily tied to the seaports of Broach, Cambay, and Surat. Its fertile plain, with consistent rainfall and many rivers, has led to it being called the “garden of India.” However, it suffered greatly during the famine of 1899-1901. For more details on the history, geography, and other aspects of Gujarat, see the articles about the various states and districts. Gujarat is the name given to the vernacular of northern Bombay, specifically Gujarati, which is one of the three major languages of that Presidency, spoken by over 9 million people. It has a rich literary tradition and unique characteristics. As the language of the Parsis, it is prominent in the Bombay press and is also the commercial language of Bombay city, which is located outside the territorial boundaries of Gujarat.
See J. Campbell, History of Gujarat (Bombay, 1896); Sir E. C. Bayley, The Muhammedan Kingdom of Gujarat (1886); A. K. Forbes, Ras Mala (1856).
See J. Campbell, History of Gujarat (Mumbai, 1896); Sir E. C. Bayley, The Muhammedan Kingdom of Gujarat (1886); A. K. Forbes, Ras Mala (1856).
GUJARATI and RAJASTHANI, the names of two members of the western sub-group of the Intermediate Group of Indo-Aryan languages (q.v.). The remaining member of this sub-group is Panjabi or Punjabi (see Hindostani). In 1901 the speakers of those now dealt with numbered: Gujarati, 9,439,925, and Rajasthani, 10,917,712. The two languages are closely connected and might almost be termed co-dialects of the same form of speech. Together they occupy an almost square block of country, 710 some 400 m. broad, reaching from near Agra and Delhi on the river Jumna to the Arabian Sea. Gujarati (properly Gujarātī) is spoken in Gujarat, the northern maritime province of the Bombay Presidency, and also in Baroda and the native states adjoining. Rajasthani (properly Rājasthānī, from “Rājasthān,” the native name for Rajputana) is spoken in Rajputana and the adjoining parts of Central India.
GUJARATI and RAJASTHANI are the names of two languages in the western sub-group of the Intermediate Group of Indo-Aryan languages (q.v.). The other language in this sub-group is Panjabi or Punjabi (see Hindostani). In 1901, the number of speakers for these languages was: Gujarati, 9,439,925, and Rajasthani, 10,917,712. The two languages are closely related and could almost be considered co-dialects of the same speech form. Together, they cover an almost square area of land, 710 about 400 miles wide, stretching from near Agra and Delhi by the river Jumna to the Arabian Sea. Gujarati (properly Gujarātī) is spoken in Gujarat, the northern coastal province of the Bombay Presidency, and also in Baroda and nearby native states. Rajasthani (properly Rājasthānī, from “Rājasthān,” the local name for Rajputana) is spoken in Rajputana and the neighboring areas of Central India.
In the articles Indo-Aryan Languages and Prakrit the history of the earlier stages of the Indo-Aryan vernaculars is given at some length. It is there shown that, from the most ancient times, there were two main groups of these forms of speech—one, the language of the Midland, spoken in the country near the Gangetic Doab, and the other, the so-called “Outer Band,” containing the Midland on three sides, west, north and south. The country to the west and south-west of the Midland, in which this outer group of languages was spoken, included the modern Punjab, Rajputana and Gujarat. In process of time the population of the Midland expanded and carried its language to its new homes. It occupied the eastern and central Punjab, and the mixed (or “intermediate”) language which there grew up became the modern Panjabi. To the west it spread into Rajputana, till its progress was stopped by the Indian desert, and in Rajputana another intermediate language took rise and became Rajasthani. As elsewhere explained, the language-wave of the Midland exercised less and less influence as it travelled farther from its home, so that, while in eastern Rajputana the local dialect is now almost a pure midland speech, in the west there are many evident traces of the old outer language still surviving. To the south-west of Rajputana there was no desert to stop the wave of Midland expansion, which therefore rolled on unobstructed into Gujarat, where it reached the sea. Here the survivals of the old outer language are stronger still. The old outer Prakrit of north Gujarat was known as “Saurāṣṭrī,” while the Prakrit of the Midland invaders was called “Śaurasēnī,” and we may therefore describe Gujarati as being an intermediate language derived (as explained in the articles Prakrit) from a mixture of the Apabhramśa forms of Saurāṣṭrī and Śaurasēnī, in which the latter predominated.
In the articles Indo-Aryan Languages and Prakrit, the history of the early stages of the Indo-Aryan vernaculars is discussed in detail. It shows that, since ancient times, there have been two main groups of these dialects—one being the Midland language, spoken in the region around the Gangetic Doab, and the other known as the “Outer Band,” which surrounds the Midland on the west, north, and south sides. The areas to the west and southwest of the Midland, where this outer group of languages was spoken, included what we now call Punjab, Rajputana, and Gujarat. Over time, the population of the Midland grew and spread its language to new regions. It settled in eastern and central Punjab, where a mixed (or “intermediate”) dialect developed and became modern Panjabi. To the west, it extended into Rajputana, where its progress was halted by the Indian desert, leading to the emergence of another intermediate language known as Rajasthani. As previously mentioned, the influence of the Midland language decreased the farther it moved from its origin, so that in eastern Rajputana, the local dialect is now almost entirely Midland speech, while in the west, many remnants of the old outer language are still present. To the southwest of Rajputana, there was no desert to block the Midland expansion, allowing it to continue into Gujarat, where it reached the coast. Here, traces of the old outer language are even stronger. The ancient outer Prakrit of northern Gujarat was known as “Saurāṣṭrī,” while the Prakrit spoken by the Midland invaders was called “Śaurasēnī,” and we can therefore describe Gujarati as an intermediate language derived (as explained in the articles Prakrit) from a combination of the Apabhramśa forms of Saurāṣṭrī and Śaurasēnī, with the latter being more dominant.
It will be observed that, at the present day, Gujarati breaks the continuity of the outer band of Indo-Aryan languages. To its north it has Sindhi and to its south Marathi, both outer languages with which it has only a slight connexion. On the other hand, on the east and north-east it has Rajasthani, into which it merges so gradually and imperceptibly that at the conventional border-line, in the state of Palanpur, the inhabitants of Rajputana say that the local dialect is a form of Gujarati, while the inhabitants of Gujarat say that it is Rajasthani.
It can be seen that, today, Gujarati disrupts the flow of the outer band of Indo-Aryan languages. To the north, it borders Sindhi, and to the south, it connects with Marathi—both of which are outer languages with only a minor connection to Gujarati. Meanwhile, to the east and northeast, it meets Rajasthani in such a smooth and subtle way that at the commonly recognized border in the state of Palanpur, the people of Rajputana claim that the local dialect is a version of Gujarati, while the people of Gujarat insist that it is Rajasthani.
Gujarati has no important local dialects, but there is considerable variation in the speeches of different classes of the community. Parsees and Mussulmans (when the latter use the language—as a rule the Gujarat Mussulmans speak Hindostani) have some striking peculiarities of pronunciation, Language. the most noticeable of which is the disregard by the latter of the distinction between cerebral and dental letters. The uneducated Hindus do not pronounce the language in the same way as their betters, and this difference is accentuated in northern Gujarat, where the lower classes substitute ē for ī, c for k, ch for kh, s for c and ch, h for s, and drop h as readily as any cockney. There is also (as in the case of the Mussulmans) a tendency to confuse cerebral and dental consonants, to substitute r for ḍ and l, to double medial consonants, and to pronounce the letter ā as å, something like the a in “all.” The Bhils of the hills east of Gujarat also speak a rude Gujarati, with special dialectic peculiarities of their own, probably due to the fact that the tribes are of Dravidian origin. These Bhil peculiarities are further mixed with corruptions of Marathi idioms in Nimar and Khandesh, where we have almost a new language.
Gujarati doesn’t have any major local dialects, but there is a lot of variation in how different social classes speak the language. Parsees and Muslims (who usually speak Hindostani) have some notable pronunciation quirks. One of the most obvious is that Muslims often don’t distinguish between cerebral and dental sounds. Uneducated Hindus also pronounce the language differently from those in higher social classes, and this difference is more pronounced in northern Gujarat, where lower-class speakers substitute ē for ī, c for k, ch for kh, s for c and ch, h for s, and drop h just as easily as any Cockney. Similar to Muslims, there’s a tendency to confuse cerebral and dental consonants, to swap r for ḍ and l, to double middle consonants, and to pronounce the letter ā as å, like the a in “all.” The Bhils in the hills east of Gujarat also speak a rough form of Gujarati, with their own unique dialectal features, likely because the tribes are of Dravidian descent. These Bhil characteristics are additionally mixed with distortions of Marathi phrases in Nimar and Khandesh, creating what’s almost a new language.
Rajasthani has numerous dialects, each state claiming one or more of its own. Thus, in the state of Jaipur there have been catalogued no less than ten dialects among about 1,688,000 people. All Rajasthani dialects can, however, be easily classed in four well-defined groups, a north-eastern, a southern, a western and an east-central. The north-eastern (Mēwātī) is that form of Rajasthani which is merging into the Western Hindi of the Midland. It is a mixed form of speech, and need not detain us further. Similarly, the southern (Mālvī) is much mixed with the neighbouring Bundēlī form of Western Hindi. The western (Mārwāṛī) spoken in Marwar and its neighbourhood, and the east-central (Jaipurī) spoken in Jaipur and its neighbourhood, may be taken as the typical Rajasthani dialects. In the following paragraphs we shall therefore confine ourselves to Gujarati, Marwari and Jaipuri.
Rajasthani has many dialects, with each region claiming one or more of its own. In Jaipur, there are at least ten dialects spoken among about 1,688,000 people. However, all Rajasthani dialects can easily be grouped into four main categories: north-eastern, southern, western, and east-central. The north-eastern (Mēwātī) is merging into the Western Hindi of the Midland and is a mixed form of speech, so we won't go into it further. Similarly, the southern (Mālvī) is heavily influenced by the neighboring Bundēlī form of Western Hindi. The western dialect (Mārwāṛī), spoken in Marwar and the surrounding areas, and the east-central dialect (Jaipurī), spoken in Jaipur and its nearby areas, can be considered the typical Rajasthani dialects. In the following paragraphs, we will focus on Gujarati, Marwari, and Jaipuri.
We know more about the ancient history of Gujarati than we do about that of any other Indo-Aryan language. The one native grammar of Apabhraṁśa Prakrit which we possess in a printed edition, was written by Hēmacandra (12th century A.D.), who lived in what is now north Gujarat, and who naturally described most fully the particular vernacular with which he was personally familiar. It was known as the Nāgara Apabhraṁśa, closely connected (as above explained) with Śaurasēnī, and was so named after the Nāgara Brahmans of the locality. These men carried on the tradition of learning inherited from Hēmacandra, and we see Gujarati almost in the act of taking birth in a work called the Mugdhāvabōdhamauktika, written by one of them only two hundred years after his death. Formal Gujarati literature is said to commence with the poet Narsingh Mētā in the 15th century. Rajasthani literature has received but small attention from European or native scholars, and we are as yet unable to say how far back the language goes.
We know more about the ancient history of Gujarati than about any other Indo-Aryan language. The only native grammar of Apabhraṁśa Prakrit that we have in a printed edition was written by Hēmacandra (12th century A.D.), who lived in what is now northern Gujarat and described the specific vernacular he was most familiar with in detail. This was known as the Nāgara Apabhraṁśa, which is closely linked to Śaurasēnī, and it was named after the Nāgara Brahmans of the area. These scholars continued the tradition of learning passed down from Hēmacandra, showing us Gujarati almost coming to life in a work called the Mugdhāvabōdhamauktika, written by one of them just two hundred years after his death. Formal Gujarati literature is believed to begin with the poet Narsingh Mētā in the 15th century. Rajasthani literature hasn’t received much attention from European or local scholars, and we still cannot determine how far back the language dates.
Both Gujarati and Rajasthani are usually written in current scripts related to the well-known Nāgarī alphabet (see Sanskrit). The form employed in Rajputana is known all over northern India as the “Mahājanī” alphabet, being used by bankers or Mahājans, most of whom are Marwaris. It is noteworthy as possessing two distinct characters for ḍ and ṛ. The Gujarati character closely resembles the Kaithī character of northern India (see Bihari). The Nāgarī character is also freely used in Rajputana, and to a less extent in Gujarat, where it is employed by the Nāgara Brahmans, who claim that their tribe has given the alphabet its name.
Both Gujarati and Rajasthani are typically written in the modern scripts that come from the well-known Nāgarī alphabet (see Sanskrit). The version used in Rajputana is recognized throughout northern India as the “Mahājanī” alphabet, which is used by bankers or Mahājans, most of whom are Marwaris. It’s notable for having two distinct characters for ḍ and ṛ. The Gujarati character is very similar to the Kaithī character found in northern India (see Bihari). The Nāgarī character is also commonly used in Rajputana and, to a lesser extent, in Gujarat, where it's utilized by the Nāgara Brahmans, who assert that their community has given the alphabet its name.
In the following description of the main features of our two languages, the reader is presumed to be familiar with the leading facts stated in the articles Indo-Aryan Languages and Prakrit. The article Hindostani may also be perused with advantage.
In the following description of the main features of our two languages, we assume that the reader is familiar with the key facts presented in the articles Indo-Aryan Languages and Prakrit. The article Hindostani can also be read for additional insights.
(Abbreviations. Skr. = Sanskrit. Pr. = Prakrit. Ap. = Apabhraṁśa. G. = Gujarātī. R. = Rājasthānī. H. = Hindōstāanī.)
(Abbreviations. Skr. = Sanskrit. Pr. = Prakrit. Ap. = Apabhraṁśa. G. = Gujarati. R. = Rajasthani. H. = Hindustani.)
Vocabulary.—The vocabulary of both Gujarat and Rajasthani is very free from tatsama words. The great mass of both vocabularies is tadbhava (see Indo-Aryan Languages). Rajputana was from an early period brought into close contact with the Mogul court at Agra and Delhi, and even in the 13th century A.D. official documents of the Rajput princes contained many borrowed Persian and Arabic words. Gujarati, under the influence of the learned Nāgara Brahmans, has perhaps more tatsama words than Rajasthani, but their employment is not excessive. On the other hand, Parsees and Mussulmans employ Persian and Arabic words with great freedom; while, owing to its maritime connexions, the language has also borrowed occasional words from other parts of Asia and from Europe. This is specially marked in the strange dialect of the Kathiawar boatmen who travel all over the world as lascars on the great steamships. Their language is a mixture of Hindostani and Gujarati with a heterogeneous vocabulary.
Vocabulary.—The vocabulary of both Gujarati and Rajasthani is largely free from tatsama words. The majority of both vocabularies consists of tadbhava (see Indo-Aryan Languages). Rajputana has been closely connected with the Mogul court in Agra and Delhi since an early period, and even in the 13th century CE, official documents of the Rajput princes included many borrowed Persian and Arabic words. Gujarati, influenced by the educated Nāgara Brahmans, likely has more tatsama words than Rajasthani, but their usage isn’t excessive. On the other hand, Parsees and Muslims freely use Persian and Arabic words; additionally, due to its maritime connections, the language has also borrowed occasional words from other parts of Asia and Europe. This is particularly evident in the unique dialect of the Kathiawar boatmen who travel worldwide as lascars on large steamships. Their language is a blend of Hindostani and Gujarati with a diverse vocabulary.
Phonetics.—With a few exceptions to be mentioned below, the sound-system of the two languages is the same as that of Sanskrit, and is represented in the same manner in the Roman character (see Sanskrit). The simplest method for considering the subject in regard to Gujarati is to compare it with the phonetical system of Hindostani (q.v.). As a rule, Rajasthani closely follows Gujarati and need not be referred to except in special cases. G. invariably simplifies a medial Pr. double consonant, lengthening the preceding vowel in compensation. Thus Skr. mrakṣaṇam, Ap. makkhaṇu, H. makkhan, but G. mākhaṇ, butter. In H. this rule is generally observed, but in G. it is universal, while, on the other hand, in Panjabi the double consonant is never simplified, but is retained as in Ap. In G. (and sometimes in R.) when a is followed by h it is changed to e, as in H. shahr, G. śeher, a city. As in other outer languages H. ai and au are usually represented by a short e and by å (sounded like the a in “all”) respectively. Thus H. baiṭhā. G. beṭhō, seated; H. cauthā, G. cåthō (written cōthō), fourth. In R. this e is often further weakened to the sound of a in “man,” a change 711 which is also common in Bengali. Many words which have i in H. have a in G. and R., thus, H. likhē, G. lakhē, he writes; H. din, G. and R. dan, a day. Similarly we have a for u, as in H. tum, G., R. tamē, you. In colloquial G. ā often becomes ả, and ī becomes ē; thus, pảṇī for pāṇī, water; mārēs for mārīs, I shall strike. As in most Indo-Aryan vernaculars an a after an accented syllable is very lightly pronounced, and is here represented by a small a above the line.
Phonetics.—With a few exceptions noted below, the sound system of the two languages is the same as that of Sanskrit and is represented in the same way using the Roman alphabet (see Sanskrit). The easiest way to discuss this topic in relation to Gujarati is to compare it with the phonetic system of Hindostani (q.v.). Generally, Rajasthani closely follows Gujarati and doesn’t need to be mentioned unless in specific cases. Gujarati always simplifies a medial double consonant from Prakrit, extending the preceding vowel as compensation. For example, Skr. mrakṣaṇam, Ap. makkhaṇu, H. makkhan, but G. mākhaṇ, butter. In Hindostani, this rule is commonly observed, but in Gujarati, it is universal, whereas in Panjabi, the double consonant is never simplified and is kept as in Ap. In Gujarati (and sometimes in R.), when a is followed by h, it changes to e, as in H. shahr, G. śeher, meaning a city. As with other regional languages, H. ai and au are usually represented by a short e and å (sounded like the a in “all”), respectively. So H. baiṭhā becomes G. beṭhō, meaning seated; H. cauthā becomes G. cåthō (written cōthō), meaning fourth. In R., this e is often further weakened to the sound of a in “man,” a change that is also common in Bengali. Many words that have i in H. have a in G. and R., for example, H. likhē, G. lakhē, meaning he writes; H. din, G. and R. dan, meaning a day. Similarly, we find a for u, as in H. tum, G., R. tamē, meaning you. In casual Gujarati, ā often changes to ả, and ī changes to ē; for example, pảṇī for pāṇī, meaning water; mārēs for mārīs, meaning I shall strike. As is typical in most Indo-Aryan vernaculars, an a after an accented syllable is pronounced very lightly and is represented here by a small a above the line.
The Vedic cerebral l and the cerebral ṇ are very common as medial letters in both G. and R. (both being unknown to literary H.). The rule is, as elsewhere in western and southern intermediate and outer languages, that when n and l represent a double ṇṇ (or nn) or a double ll in Pr. they are dental, but when they represent single medial letters they are cerebralized. Thus Ap. soṇṇaũ, G. sōnũ, gold; Ap. ghaṇaũ, G. ghaṇũ, dense; Ap. callai, G. cālē, he goes; Ap. calai, G. caḷē, he moves. In northern G. and in some caste dialects dental and cerebral letters are absolutely interchangeable, as in ḍāhadō or dahāḍō, a day; tũ or ṭũ, thou; dīdhō or dīḍhō, given. In G. and R. medial ḍ is pronounced as a rough cerebral ṛ, and is then so transcribed. We have seen that in the Marwari alphabet there are actually distinct letters for these two sounds. In colloquial G. c and ch are pronounced s, especially in the north, as in pẵs for pẵc, five; pusyō for puchyō, he asked. Similarly, in the north, j and jh become z, as in zāḍ for jhāḍ, a tree. In some localities (as in Marathi) we have ts and dz for these sounds, as in Tsarōtar (name of a tract of country) for Carōtar. On the other hand, k, kh and g, especially when preceded or followed by i, e or y, become in the north c, ch and j respectively; thus, dicarō for dikarō, a son; chētar for khētar, a field; lājyō for lāgyō, begun. A similar change is found in dialectic Marathi, and is, of course, one of the commonplaces of the philology of the Romance languages. The sibilants s and ś are colloquially pronounced h (as in several outer languages), especially in the north. Thus dēh for dēś, a country; hũ for śũ, what; hamajāvyō for samajāvyō, he explained. An original aspirate is, however, often dropped, as in ’ũ for hũ, I; ’ātē for hāthē, on the hand. Standard G. is at the same time fond of pronouncing an h where it is not written, as in amē, we, pronounced ahmē. In other respects both G. and R. closely agree in their phonetical systems with the Apabhraṁśa form of Śaurasēnī Prakrit from which the Midland language is derived.
The Vedic sounds l and ṇ are very common as middle letters in both G. and R. (both being unknown to literary H.). The rule is that, as in other western and southern intermediate and outer languages, when n and l represent a double ṇṇ (or nn) or a double ll in Pr., they are dental, but when they represent single middle letters, they are cerebralized. So, we have Ap. soṇṇaũ, G. sōnũ, meaning gold; Ap. ghaṇaũ, G. ghaṇũ, meaning dense; Ap. callai, G. cālē, meaning he goes; Ap. calai, G. caḷē, meaning he moves. In northern G. and in some caste dialects, dental and cerebral letters are completely interchangeable, like in ḍāhadō or dahāḍō, meaning a day; tũ or ṭũ, meaning thou; dīdhō or dīḍhō, meaning given. In G. and R., medial ḍ is pronounced like a rough cerebral ṛ, and is then transcribed as such. We’ve seen that in the Marwari alphabet there are actually distinct letters for these two sounds. In colloquial G., c and ch are pronounced s, especially in the north, as in pẵs for pẵc, meaning five; pusyō for puchyō, meaning he asked. Similarly, in the north, j and jh become z, as in zāḍ for jhāḍ, meaning a tree. In some areas (like in Marathi), we have ts and dz for these sounds, such as Tsarōtar (the name of a region) for Carōtar. On the other hand, k, kh, and g, especially when followed or preceded by i, e, or y, turn into c, ch, and j respectively in the north; like dicarō for dikarō, meaning a son; chētar for khētar, meaning a field; lājyō for lāgyō, meaning begun. A similar change is seen in dialectal Marathi, which is of course a common feature of the philology of the Romance languages. The sibilants s and ś are often pronounced as h (as in several outer languages), especially in the north. So we have dēh for dēś, meaning a country; hũ for śũ, meaning what; hamajāvyō for samajāvyō, meaning he explained. An original aspirate is often dropped, as in ’ũ for hũ, meaning I; ’ātē for hāthē, meaning on the hand. Standard G. tends to add an h where it’s not actually written, as in amē, we, pronounced as ahmē. In other respects, both G. and R. closely align in their phonetic systems with the Apabhraṁśa form of Śaurasēnī Prakrit from which the Midland language is derived.
Declension.—Gujarati agrees with Marathi (an outer language) as against Hindostani in retaining the neuter gender of Sanskrit and Prakrit. Moreover, the neuter gender is often employed to indicate living beings of which the sex is uncertain, as in the case of dikarũ, a child, compared with dikarō, a son, and dikarī, a daughter. In R. there are only sporadic instances of the neuter, which grow more and more rare as we approach the Midland. Nouns in both G. and R. may be weak or strong as is fully explained in the article Hindostani. We have there seen that the strong form of masculine nouns in Western Hindi generally ends in au, the ā of words like the Hindostani ghōṛā, a horse, being an accident due to the fact that the Hindostani dialect of Western Hindi borrows this termination from Panjabi. G. and R. follow Western Hindi, for their masculine strong forms end in ō. Feminine strong forms end in ī as elsewhere. Neuter strong forms in G. end in ũ, derived as follows: Skr, svarṇakam, Ap. soṇṇaũ, G. sōnũ, gold. As an example of the three genders of the same word we may take G. chōkarō (masc.), a boy; chōkarī (fem.), a girl; chōkarũ (neut.), a child. Long forms corresponding to the Eastern Hindi ghoṛawā, a horse, are not much used, but we not infrequently meet another long form made by suffixing the pleonastic termination ḍō or ṛō (fem. ḍī or ṛī; G. neut. ḍũ or ṛũ) which is directly descended from the Ap. pleonastic termination ḍaü, ḍaī, ḍaũ. We come across this most often in R., where it is used contemptuously, as in Turuk-ṛō, a Turk.
Declension.—Gujarati aligns with Marathi (an outer language) rather than Hindostani in keeping the neuter gender from Sanskrit and Prakrit. Additionally, the neuter gender is frequently used to refer to living beings when the sex is uncertain, as seen with dikarũ, a child, compared to dikarō, a son, and dikarī, a daughter. In R., there are only occasional examples of the neuter, which become increasingly rare as we get closer to the Midland. Nouns in both G. and R. can be weak or strong, as fully explained in the article Hindostani. We have noted there that the strong form of masculine nouns in Western Hindi generally ends in au, with the ā of words like the Hindostani ghōṛā, meaning horse, being an exception due to the influence of the Panjabi termination. G. and R. follow Western Hindi, as their masculine strong forms end in ō. Feminine strong forms end in ī, as is typical elsewhere. Neuter strong forms in G. end in ũ, derived as follows: Skr, svarṇakam, Ap. soṇṇaũ, G. sōnũ, meaning gold. To illustrate the three genders of the same word, we can take G. chōkarō (masc.), meaning a boy; chōkarī (fem.), meaning a girl; chōkarũ (neut.), meaning a child. Long forms corresponding to the Eastern Hindi ghoṛawā, meaning a horse, are not commonly used, but we often encounter another long form that adds the pleonastic ending ḍō or ṛō (fem. ḍī or ṛī; G. neut. ḍũ or ṛũ), which comes from the Ap. pleonastic endings ḍaü, ḍaī, ḍaũ. We find this most frequently in R., where it is used dismissively, as in Turuk-ṛō, meaning a Turk.
In the article Hindostani it is shown that all the oblique cases of each number in Sanskrit and Prakrit became melted down in the modern languages into one general oblique case, which, in the Midland, is derived in the singular from the Ap. termination -hi or -hĩ, and that even this has survived only in the case of strong masculine nouns; thus, ghōṛā, obl. ghōṛē. In G. and R. this same termination has also survived, but for all nouns as the case sign of the agent and locative cases. The general oblique case is the same as the nominative, except in the case of strong masculine and neuter nouns in ō and ũ respectively, where it ends in ā, not ē. This ā-termination is characteristic of the outer band of languages, and is one of the survivals already referred to. It is derived from the Apabhraṁśa genitive form in -aha, corresponding to the Māgadhī Pr. (an outer Prakrit) termination -āha. Thus, G. chōkarō, a son; chōkarũ, a child; obl. sing. chōkarā.
In the article Hindostani, it's shown that all the oblique cases of each number in Sanskrit and Prakrit have merged into one general oblique case in modern languages. In Midland, this is derived in the singular from the Ap. termination -hi or -hĩ, and even this has only survived for strong masculine nouns; for example, ghōṛā, obl. ghōṛē. In G. and R., this same termination is still present, but applies to all nouns as the case sign for the agent and locative cases. The general oblique case is the same as the nominative, except for strong masculine and neuter nouns ending in ō and ũ respectively, where it ends in ā, not ē. This ā-termination is typical of the outer band of languages and is one of the survivals already mentioned. It comes from the Apabhraṁśa genitive form in -aha, which corresponds to the Māgadhī Pr. (an outer Prakrit) termination -āha. Thus, G. chōkarō, meaning a son; chōkarũ, meaning a child; obl. sing. chōkarā.
In G. the nominative and oblique plural for all nouns are formed by adding ō to the oblique form singular, but in the neuter strong forms the oblique singular is nasalized. The real plural is the same in form as the oblique singular in the case of masculines, and as a nasalized oblique singular in the case of neuter strong forms, as in other modern Indo-Aryan vernaculars, and the added ō is a further plural termination (making a double plural, exactly as it does in the Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit puttā-ō, sons) which is often dropped. The nasalization of the strong neuter plurals is inherited from Ap., in which the neuter nom. plural of such nouns ended in -aāĩ In R. the nominative plural of masculine nouns is the same in form as the oblique case singular, and the oblique plural ends in ẫ. The feminine has ẫ both in the nominative and in the oblique plural. These are all explained in the article Hindostani. We thus get the following paradigms of the declension of nouns.
In G., the nominative and oblique plural for all nouns are made by adding ō to the oblique singular form, but in the neuter strong forms, the oblique singular is nasalized. The actual plural looks the same as the oblique singular in the case of masculine nouns and as a nasalized oblique singular in the case of neuter strong forms, just like in other modern Indo-Aryan languages, and the added ō serves as an additional plural ending (creating a double plural, similar to the Ardhamāgadhī Prakrit puttā-ō, meaning sons) which is often omitted. The nasalization of the strong neuter plurals comes from Ap., where the neuter nominative plural of these nouns ended in -aāĩ. In R., the nominative plural of masculine nouns is identical to the oblique singular form, while the oblique plural ends in ẫ. The feminine form uses ẫ for both the nominative and oblique plural. These are all detailed in the article Hindostani. Thus, we arrive at the following paradigms for the declension of nouns.
Apabhraṁśa. | Gujarati. | Rajasthani. | |
Strong Noun Masc.— | |||
”A horse.” Sing. Nom. | ghōḍaũ | ghōḍō | ghōḍō |
Obl. | ghōḍaaha | ghōḍā | ghōḍā |
Ag.-Loc. | ghōḍaahi | ghōḍē, ghōḍāē | ghōḍai |
Plur. Nom. | ghōḍaā | ghōḍā-ō | ghōḍā |
Obl. | ghōḍaāhā | ghōḍā-ō | ghōḍẫ |
Ag.-Loc. | ghōḍaahĩ | ghōḍā-ō-ē | ghōḍẫ |
Strong Noun Neut.— | |||
”Gold.” Sing. Nom. | soṇṇaũ | sōnũ | .. |
Obl. | soṇṇaaha | sōnā | .. |
Ag.-Loc. | soṇṇaahi | sōnē, sōnāē | .. |
Plur. Nom. | soṇṇaāĩ | sōnē | .. |
Obl. | soṇṇaāhā | sōnẫ-ō | .. |
Ag.-Loc. | soṇṇaahĩ | sōnẫ-ō-ē | .. |
Strong Noun Fem.— | |||
”A mare.” Sing. Nom. | ghōḍiā | ghōḍī | ghōḍī |
Obl. | ghōḍiahi | ghōḍī | ghōḍī |
Ag.-Loc. | ghōḍiae | ghōḍīē | ghōḍī |
Plur. Nom. | ghōḍiā-ō | ghōḍī-ō | ghōḍyẫ |
Obl. | ghōḍiahu | ghōḍī-ō | ghōḍyẫ |
Ag.-Loc. | ghōḍiahĩ | ghōḍī-ō-ē | ghōḍyẫ |
Weak Noun Masc. or Neut.— | |||
”A house.” Sing. Nom. | gharu (neut.) | ghar | ghar |
Obl. | gharaha | ghar | ghar |
Ag.-Loc. | gharahi | gharē | gharai |
Plur. Nom. | gharāĩ | ghar-ō | ghar |
Obl. | gharāhā | ghar-ō | gharẫ |
Ag.-Loc. | gharahĩ | ghar-ō-ē | gharẫ |
Weak Noun Fem.— | |||
”A word.” Sing. Nom. | vattā | wāt | bāt |
Obl. | vattahi | wāt | bāt |
Ag.-Loc. | vattae | wātē | bāt |
Plur. Nom. | vattā-ō | wāt-ō | bātẫ |
Obl. | vattahu | wāt-ō | bātẫ |
Ag.-Loc. | vattahĩ | wāt-ō-ē | bātẫ |
The general oblique case can be employed for any case except the nominative, but, in order to define the meaning, it is customary to add postpositions as in Hindostani. These are:
The general oblique case can be used for any case except the nominative, but to clarify the meaning, it's common to add postpositions like in Hindostani. These are:
Genitive. | Dative. | Ablative. | Locative. | |
Gujarati | nō | nē | thī | mẫ |
Rajasthani | rō, kō | nai, rai, kai | sũ | maī |
The suffix nō of the genitive is believed to be a contraction of taṇō, which is found in old Gujarati poetry, and which, under the form tanas in Sanskrit and taṇaü in Apabhraṁśa, mean “belonging to.” It is an adjective, and agrees in gender, number and case with the thing possessed. Thus, rājā-nō dikarō, the king’s son; rājā-nī dikarī, the king’s daughter; rājā-nũ ghar, the king’s house; rājā-nā dikarā-nē, to the king’s son (nā is in the oblique case masculine to agree with dikarā); rājā-nē gharē, in the king’s house. The rō and kō of R. are similarly treated, but, of course, have no neuter. The dative postpositions are simply locatives of the genitive ones, as in all modern Indo-Aryan languages (see Hindostani). Thī, the postposition of the G. ablative, is connected with thawũ, to be, one of the verbs substantive in that language. The ablative suffix is made in this way in many modern Indo-Aryan languages (e.g. Bengali, q.v.). It means literally “having been” and is to be ultimately referred to the Sanskrit root, sthā, stand. The derivation of the other postpositions is discussed in the article Hindostani.
The suffix nō in the genitive is thought to be a shortened form of taṇō, which appears in old Gujarati poetry. This, with the form tanas in Sanskrit and taṇaü in Apabhraṁśa, means “belonging to.” It functions as an adjective and agrees in gender, number, and case with what it describes. For example, rājā-nō dikarō means the king’s son; rājā-nī dikarī means the king’s daughter; rājā-nũ ghar means the king’s house; rājā-nā dikarā-nē means to the king’s son (nā is in the masculine oblique case to match dikarā); rājā-nē gharē means in the king’s house. The rō and kō of R. are treated in a similar way, but they don't have a neuter form. The dative postpositions are just locative forms of the genitive ones, as is the case in all modern Indo-Aryan languages (see Hindostani). Thī, the postposition of the G. ablative, is related to thawũ, which means to be, one of the substantive verbs in that language. The ablative suffix is formed this way in many modern Indo-Aryan languages (e.g. Bengali, q.v.). It literally means “having been” and can be traced back to the Sanskrit root sthā, meaning to stand. The derivation of the other postpositions is discussed in the article Hindostani.
Strong adjectives agree with the nouns they qualify in gender, number and case, as in the examples of the genitive above. Weak adjectives are immutable.
Strong adjectives agree with the nouns they describe in gender, number, and case, like in the examples of the genitive above. Weak adjectives do not change.
Pronouns closely agree with those found in Hindostani. In the table on following page we give the first two personal pronouns, and the demonstrative pronoun “this.”
Pronouns closely match those found in Hindostani. In the table on the following page, we provide the first two personal pronouns and the demonstrative pronoun “this.”
Similarly are formed the remaining pronouns, viz. G. ā, R. ũ, he, that; G. tē, R. sō (obl. sing. tĩ), that; G. jē, R. jō, who; G. kảṇ (obl. kảṇ, kō, or kē), R. kuṇ (obl. kuṇ), who?; G. śũ, R. kẵĩ, what?; G., R. kōī, anyone, someone, kāĩ anything, something. G. has two other demonstratives, pēlō and ōlyō, both meaning “that.” The derivation of these and of śũ has been discussed without any decisive result. The rest are explained in the article Hindostani. The 712 reflexive pronoun is G. āpaṇē, R. āpẫ. It is generally employed as a plural of the first personal pronoun including the person addressed; thus G. āpaṇē, we (including you), but amē, we (excluding you). In G. pōtē, obl. pōtā, is used to mean “self.”
Similarly, the other pronouns are formed as follows: G. ā, R. ũ, he, that; G. tē, R. sō (obl. sing. tĩ), that; G. jē, R. jō, who; G. kảṇ (obl. kảṇ, kō, or kē), R. kuṇ (obl. kuṇ), who?; G. śũ, R. kẵĩ, what?; G., R. kōī, anyone, someone, kāĩ anything, something. G. also has two other demonstratives, pēlō and ōlyō, both meaning “that.” The origin of these and of śũ has been talked about without any conclusive results. The rest are explained in the article Hindostani. The 712 reflexive pronoun is G. āpaṇē, R. āpẫ. It's usually used as a plural form of the first-person pronoun that includes the person being addressed; for example, G. āpaṇē, we (including you), but amē, we (excluding you). In G. pōtē, obl. pōtā, is used to mean “self.”
Apabhraṁśa. | Gujarati. | Rajasthani. | ||
i | Nom. | haũ | hũ | hũ, mhũ, maī |
Obl. | maĩ, mahu, majjhu | ma, maj | ma, mha, mũ | |
my | mahāraü | mārō | mārō, mhārō | |
us | Nom. | amhē | amē | mhē |
Obl. | amhahã | am-ō | mhẫ | |
ours | amhāraü | amārō | mhẫ-rō, mhẫ-kō | |
you | Nom. | tuhũ | tũ | tũ |
Obl. | taĩ, tuha, tujjhu | ta, tuj | ta, tha, tũ | |
your | tuhāraü | tārō | thārō | |
you | Nom. | tumhē | tamē | thē, tamē |
Obl. | tumhahã | tam-ō | thẫ, tamẫ | |
your | tumhāraü | tamārō | thẫ-rō, thẫ-kō | |
this, he | Nom. | ēho | ē | yō |
Obl. | (?) ēhaha, imaha | ē | ĩ | |
these, they | Nom. | ēi | ē-ō | ē, yē |
Obl. | ēammi, ēhāṇa | em | iṇẫ, yẫ. |
Conjugation.—The old present has survived as in Hindostani and other Indian languages. Taking the base call or caḷ, go, as our model, we have:
Conjugation.—The traditional present tense has remained in use, similar to Hindostani and other Indian languages. Using the base call or caḷ, meaning go, as our example, we have:
Apabhraṁśa. | Gujarati. | Rajasthani. | ||
Sing. | 1 | callaũ | cālũ | caḷũ |
2 | callahi | cālē | caḷai | |
3 | callai | cālē | caḷai | |
Plur. | 1 | callahũ | cālīē | caḷẫ |
2 | callahu | cālō | caḷō | |
3 | callahĩ | cālē | caḷai |
The derivation of the G. 1 plural is unknown. That of the other G. and R. forms is manifest. The imperative closely follows this, but as usual has no termination in the second person singular.
The origin of the G. 1 plural is unknown. The origin of the other G. and R. forms is clear. The imperative follows this closely, but as usual, it has no ending in the second person singular.
In R. the future may be formed by adding gō (cf. Hindostani gā), lō, or lā to the old present. Thus, caḷũ-gō, caḷũ-lo or calũ-lā I shall go. The gō and lō agree in gender and number with the subject, but lā is immutable. The termination with l is also found in Bhojpuri (see Bihari), in Marathi and in Nepali. For gō see Hindostani. Another form of the future has s or h for its characteristic letter, and is the only one employed in G. Thus, Ap. callisaũ or callihaũ, G. cālīś, R. (Jaipuri) caḷasyũ, (Marwari) caḷahũ. The other personal terminations differ considerably from those of the old present, and closely follow Ap. Thus, Ap. 3 sing. callisai or callihi, G. cālaśē, Marwari caḷahī.
In R., the future can be created by adding gō (see Hindostani gā), lō, or lā to the old present. So, caḷũ-gō, caḷũ-lo, or calũ-lā means I will go. The gō and lō agree in gender and number with the subject, but lā does not change. The ending with l is also seen in Bhojpuri (see Bihari), in Marathi, and in Nepali. For gō, see Hindostani. Another version of the future uses s or h as its distinctive letter and is the only one used in G. For example, Ap. callisaũ or callihaũ, G. cālīś, R. (Jaipuri) caḷasyũ, (Marwari) caḷahũ. The other personal endings are quite different from those of the old present and closely follow Ap. Thus, Ap. 3rd sing. callisai or callihi, G. cālaśē, Marwari caḷahī.
The participles and infinitive are as follows:
The participles and infinitive are as follows:
Apabhraṁśa. | Gujarati. | Rajasthani. | |
Pres. Part. Active | callantau | cālatō | caḷatō |
Past. Part. Passive | calliau | cālyō | caḷyō |
Future Part. Passive | calliavvau | cālavō | caḷabō |
Infinitive | .. | cālavũ | caḷabō |
In G. the infinitive is simply the neuter of the future passive participle. The participles are employed to form finite tenses; thus G. hũ cālatō, I used to go; hũ cālyō, I went. If the verb is transitive (see Hindostani) the passive meaning of the past participle comes into force. The subject is put into the case of the agent, and the participle inflects to agree with the object, or, if there is no object, is employed impersonally in the neuter (in G.) or in the masculine (in R.). In Hindostani, if the object is expressed in the dative, the participle is also employed impersonally, in the masculine; thus rājā-nē shērnī-kō mārā (masc.), not mārī, (fem.), by-the-king, with reference-to-the-tigress, it-(impersonal)-was-killed, i.e. the king killed the tigress. But in G. and R., even if the object is in the dative, the past participle agrees with it; thus, G. rājāē wāghaṇ-nē mārī, by-the-king, with-reference-to-the-tigress, she-was-killed. Other examples from G. of this passive construction are mẽ kahyũ, by me it was said, I said; tēṇē ciṭṭhī lakhī, by him a letter was written, he wrote a letter; ē bāīē vagaḍā-mẫ, dahāḍā kāḍyā, by this lady, in the wilderness, days were passed, i.e. she passed her days in the wilderness; rājāē vicāryũ, the king considered. The idiom of R. is exactly the same in these cases, except that the masculine must be used where G. has the neuter; thus, rājāai vicāryo. The future passive participle is construed in much the same way, but (as in Latin) the subject may be put into the dative. Thus, mārē ā cåpaḍī vẫcavī, mihi ille liber (est) legendus, I must read that book, but also tēṇē (agent case) ē kām karavũ, by him this business is to be done.
In G., the infinitive is just the neuter form of the future passive participle. The participles are used to create finite tenses; so, G. hũ cālatō, I used to go; hũ cālyō, I went. If the verb is transitive (see Hindostani), the passive meaning of the past participle applies. The subject is put in the agent case, and the participle changes to agree with the object, or if there is no object, is used impersonally in the neuter (in G.) or in the masculine (in R.). In Hindostani, if the object is stated in the dative, the participle is also used impersonally in the masculine; for example, rājā-nē shērnī-kō mārā (masc.), not mārī (fem.), translates to "by the king, referencing the tigress, it (impersonal) was killed," meaning the king killed the tigress. However, in G. and R., even if the object is in the dative, the past participle agrees with it; for example, G. rājāē wāghaṇ-nē mārī, translates to "by the king, referencing the tigress, she was killed." Other examples from G. of this passive construction are mẽ kahyũ, meaning "by me it was said," which translates to "I said"; tēṇē ciṭṭhī lakhī, meaning "by him a letter was written," translates to "he wrote a letter"; ē bāīē vagaḍā-mẫ, dahāḍā kāḍyā, meaning "by this lady, in the wilderness, days were passed," translates to "she passed her days in the wilderness"; rājāē vicāryũ, which means "the king considered." The idiom in R. is exactly the same in these cases, except that the masculine must be used where G. has the neuter; thus, rājāai vicāryo. The future passive participle is used similarly, but (like in Latin) the subject can be placed in the dative. For example, mārē ā cåpaḍī vẫcavī, mihi ille liber (est) legendus, means "I must read that book," but also tēṇē (agent case) ē kām karavũ, translates to "by him, this business is to be done."
G. also forms a past participle in ēlō (cālēlō), which is one of the many survivals of the outer language. This -l- participle is typical of most of the languages of the outer band, including Marathi, Oriya, Bengali, Bihari and Assamese. It is formed by the addition of the Prakrit pleonastic suffix -illa-, which was not used by the Prakrit of the Midland, but was common elsewhere. Compare, for instance, the Ardhamāgadhī past participle passive āṇ-illia-, brought.
G. also creates a past participle in ēlō (cālēlō), which is one of the many remnants of the outer language. This -l- participle is typical of most languages in the outer region, including Marathi, Oriya, Bengali, Bihari, and Assamese. It is formed by adding the Prakrit pleonastic suffix -illa-, which was not used in the Prakrit of the Midland but was common in other areas. For example, compare the Ardhamāgadhī past participle passive āṇ-illia-, meaning brought.
The usual verbs substantive are as follows: G. chũ, R. hũ or chũ, I am, which are conjugated regularly as old presents, and G. hatō, R. hō or chō, was, which is a past participle, like the Hindostani (q.v.) thā. Hũ, hatō and hō are explained in the article on that language. Chũ is for Skr. ṙcchāmi, Ap. acchaũ. The use of this base is one of the outer band survivals. Even in Prakrit, it is not found (so far as the present writer is aware) in the Śaurasēnī of the Midland. Using these as auxiliaries the finite verb makes a whole series of periphrastic tenses. A present definite is formed by conjugating the old present tense (not the present participle) with the present tense of the verb substantive. Thus, G. cālũ chũ, I am going. A similar idiom is found in some Western Hindi dialects, but Hindostani employs the present participle; thus, caltā hũ. In G. and R., however, the imperfect is formed with the present participle as in H. Thus, G. hũ cālatō hatō, I was going. So, as in H., we have a perfect hũ cālyō (or cālēlō) chũ, I have gone, and a pluperfect hũ cālyō (or cālēlō) hatō, I had gone. The R. periphrastic tenses are made on the same principles. With the genitive of the G. future passive participle, cālavā-nō, we have a kind of gerundive, as in hũ cālavānō chũ, I am to be gone, i.e. I am about to go; hũ cālavānō hatō, I was about to go.
The usual substantive verbs are as follows: G. chũ, R. hũ or chũ, I am, which are conjugated regularly as old presents, and G. hatō, R. hō or chō, was, which is a past participle, like the Hindostani (q.v.) thā. Hũ, hatō and hō are explained in the article on that language. Chũ is for Skr. ṙcchāmi, Ap. acchaũ. The use of this base is one of the outer band survivals. Even in Prakrit, it is not found (so far as the present writer is aware) in the Śaurasēnī of the Midland. Using these as auxiliaries, the finite verb creates a whole series of periphrastic tenses. A present definite is formed by conjugating the old present tense (not the present participle) with the present tense of the verb substantive. Thus, G. cālũ chũ, I am going. A similar idiom is found in some Western Hindi dialects, but Hindostani uses the present participle; thus, caltā hũ. In G. and R., however, the imperfect is formed with the present participle as in H. Thus, G. hũ cālatō hatō, I was going. So, as in H., we have a perfect hũ cālyō (or cālēlō) chũ, I have gone, and a pluperfect hũ cālyō (or cālēlō) hatō, I had gone. The R. periphrastic tenses are made on the same principles. With the genitive of the G. future passive participle, cālavā-nō, we have a kind of gerundive, as in hũ cālavānō chũ, I am to be gone, i.e. I am about to go; hũ cālavānō hatō, I was about to go.
The same series of derivative verbs occurs in G. and R. as in H. Thus, we have a potential passive (a simple passive in G.) formed by adding ā to the base, as in G. lakhavũ, to write, lakhāvũ, to be written; and a causal by adding āv or āḍ, as in lakhāvavũ, to cause to write; besavũ, to sit, besāḍavũ, to seat. A new passive may be formed in G. from the causal, as in tapavũ, to be hot; tapāvavũ, to cause to be hot; to heat; tapāvāvũ, to be heated.
The same series of derivative verbs appears in G. and R. as in H. So, we have a potential passive (a simple passive in G.) created by adding ā to the base, as in G. lakhavũ, to write, lakhāvũ, to be written; and a causal by adding āv or āḍ, as in lakhāvavũ, to cause to write; besavũ, to sit, besāḍavũ, to seat. A new passive can be formed in G. from the causal, as in tapavũ, to be hot; tapāvavũ, to cause to be hot; to heat; tapāvāvũ, to be heated.
Several verbs have irregular past participles. These must be learnt from the grammars. So also the numerous compound verbs, such as (G.) cālī śakavũ, to be able to go; cālī cukavũ, to have completed going; cālyā karavũ, to be in the habit of going, and so on.
Several verbs have irregular past participles. These need to be learned from the grammar books. The same goes for the many compound verbs, such as (G.) cālī śakavũ, to be able to go; cālī cukavũ, to have completed going; cālyā karavũ, to be in the habit of going, and so on.
Very little is known about the literature of Rajputana, except that it is of large extent. It includes a number of bardic chronicles of which only one has been partially edited, but the contents of which have been described by Tod in his admired Rajasthan. It also includes a considerable religious Literature. literature, but the whole mass of this is still in MS. From those specimens which the present writer has examined, it would appear that most of the authors wrote in Braj Bhasha, the Hindu literary dialect of Hindostani (q.v.) In Marwar it is an acknowledged fact that the literature falls into two branches, one called Pingal and couched in Braj Bhasha, and the other called Ḍingal and couched in Rajasthani. The most admired work in Ḍingal is the Raghunāth Rũpak written by Mansā Rām in the beginning of the 19th century. It is nominally a treatise on prosody, but, like many other works of the same kind, it contrives to pay a double debt, for the examples of the metres are so arranged as to form a complete epic poem celebrating the deeds of the hero Rāma.
Very little is known about the literature of Rajputana, except that it is extensive. It includes a number of bardic chronicles, of which only one has been partially edited, but the contents have been described by Tod in his well-regarded Rajasthan. It also encompasses a significant amount of religious lit. However, most of this remains in manuscript form. From the samples the current writer has examined, it seems that most authors wrote in Braj Bhasha, the Hindu literary dialect of Hindostani (q.v.). In Marwar, it is generally accepted that the literature divides into two branches: one called Pingal, written in Braj Bhasha, and the other called Ḍingal, composed in Rajasthani. The most revered work in Ḍingal is the Raghunāth Rũpak, written by Mansā Rām in the early 19th century. It is officially a treatise on prosody, but like many other works of its kind, it manages to fulfill two purposes, as the examples of the meters are arranged to create a complete epic poem celebrating the deeds of the hero Rāma.
The earliest writer of importance in Gujarati, and its most admired poet, was Narsingh Mētā, who lived in the 15th century A.D. Before him there were writers on Sanskrit grammar, rhetoric and the like, who employed an old form of Gujarati for their explanations. Narsingh does not appear to have written any considerable work, his reputation depending on his short songs, many of which exhibit much felicity of diction. He had several successors, all admittedly his inferiors. Perhaps the most noteworthy of these was Rēwā Śankar, the translator of the Mahābhārata (see Sanskrit: Literature). A more important side of Gujarati literature is its bardic chronicles, the contents of which have been utilized by Forbes in his Rās Mālā. Modern Gujarati literature mostly consists of translations or imitations of English works.
The first important writer in Gujarati, and its most celebrated poet, was Narsingh Mētā, who lived in the 15th century CE Before him, there were writers on Sanskrit grammar, rhetoric, and similar topics who used an older form of Gujarati for their explanations. Narsingh doesn't seem to have written any major works; his reputation is based on his short songs, many of which show a great command of language. He had several successors, all of whom were clearly not as talented as he was. Perhaps the most notable of these was Rēwā Śankar, the translator of the Mahābhārata (see Sanskrit: Literature). A more significant aspect of Gujarati literature is its bardic chronicles, the material of which has been used by Forbes in his Rās Mālā. Modern Gujarati literature mainly consists of translations or imitations of English works.
Authorities.—Volume ix. of the Linguistic Survey of India contains a full and complete account of Gujarati and Rajasthani, including their various dialectic forms.
Authorities.—Volume ix. of the Linguistic Survey of India has a detailed and comprehensive overview of Gujarati and Rajasthani, along with their different dialects.
For Rajasthani, see S. H. Kellogg, Grammar of the Hindi Language (2nd ed., London, 1893). In this are described several dialects of Rajasthani. See also Rām Karṇ Śarmā, Mārwāṛi Vyākaraṇa (Jodhpur, 1901) (a Marwari grammar written in that language), and G. Macalister, Specimens of the Dialects spoken in the State of Jaipur (contains specimens, vocabularies and grammars) (Allahabad, 1898).
For Rajasthani, see S. H. Kellogg, Grammar of the Hindi Language (2nd ed., London, 1893). This book describes several Rajasthani dialects. Also check out Rām Karṇ Śarmā's Mārwāṛi Vyākaraṇa (Jodhpur, 1901) (a Marwari grammar written in that language), and G. Macalister's Specimens of the Dialects spoken in the State of Jaipur (which includes specimens, vocabularies, and grammars) (Allahabad, 1898).
For Gujarati, there are numerous grammars, amongst which we may note W. St C. Tisdall, Simplified Grammar of the Gujarati Language (London, 1892) and (the most complete) G. P. Taylor, The Student’s Gujarati Grammar (2nd ed., Bombay, 1908). As for dictionaries, the most authoritative is the Narma-kōś of Narmadā 713 Śankar (Bhaunagar and Surat, 1873), in Gujarati throughout. For English readers we may mention Shahpurji Edalji’s (2nd ed., Bombay, 1868), the introduction to which contains an account of Gujarati literature by J. Glasgow, Belsare’s (Ahmedabad, 1895), and Karbhari’s (Ahmedabad, 1899).
For Gujarati, there are many grammars, including W. St C. Tisdall's Simplified Grammar of the Gujarati Language (London, 1892) and the most comprehensive G. P. Taylor's The Student’s Gujarati Grammar (2nd ed., Bombay, 1908). When it comes to dictionaries, the most authoritative is the Narma-kōś by Narmadā Śankar (Bhaunagar and Surat, 1873), which is entirely in Gujarati. For English readers, we can mention Shahpurji Edalji's (2nd ed., Bombay, 1868), which includes an introduction outlining Gujarati literature by J. Glasgow, Belsare's (Ahmedabad, 1895), and Karbhari's (Ahmedabad, 1899).
GUJRANWALA, a town and district of British India, in the Lahore division of the Punjab. The town is situated 40 m. N. of Lahore by rail. It is of modern growth, and owes its importance to the father and grandfather of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, whose capital it formed during the early period of the Sikh power. Pop. (1901) 29,224. There are manufactures of brass-ware, jewellery, and silk and cotton scarves.
GUJRANWALA, is a town and district in British India, located in the Lahore division of Punjab. The town is 40 miles north of Lahore by rail. It has grown recently and owes its significance to the father and grandfather of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, as it was the capital during the early days of Sikh power. Population (1901) was 29,224. It has industries producing brassware, jewelry, and silk and cotton scarves.
The District comprises an area of 3198 sq. m. In 1901 the population was 756,797, showing an increase of 29% in the decade. The district is divided between a low alluvial tract along the rivers Chenab and Degh and the upland between them, which forms the central portion of the Rechna Doab, intermediate between the fertile submontane plains of Sialkot and the desert expanses of Jhang. Part of the upland tract has been brought under cultivation by the Chenab canal. The country is very bare of trees, and the scenery throughout is tame and in the central plateau becomes monotonous. It seems likely that the district once contained the capital of the Punjab, at an epoch when Lahore had not begun to exist. We learn from the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, Hsuan Tsang, that about the year 630 he visited a town known as Tse-kia (or Taki), the metropolis of the whole country of the five rivers. A mound near the modern village of Asarur has been identified as the site of the ancient capital. Until the Mahommedan invasions little is known of Gujranwala, except that Taki had fallen into oblivion and Lahore had become the chief city. Under Mahommedan rule the district flourished for a time; but a mysterious depopulation fell upon the tract, and the whole region seems to have been almost entirely abandoned. On the rise of Sikh power, the waste plains of Gujranwala were seized by various military adventurers. Charat Singh took-possession of the village of Gujranwala, and here his grandson the great Maharaja Ranjit Singh was born. The Sikh rule, which was elsewhere so disastrous, appears to have been an unmitigated benefit to this district. Ranjit Singh settled large colonies in the various villages, and encouraged cultivation throughout the depopulated plain. In 1847 the district came under British influence in connexion with the regency at Lahore; and in 1849 it was included in the territory annexed after the second Sikh war. A large export trade is carried on in cotton, wheat and other grains. The district is served by the main line and branches of the North-Western railway.
The District covers an area of 3,198 square miles. In 1901, the population was 756,797, showing a 29% increase over the past decade. The district includes a low alluvial region along the Chenab and Degh rivers and the upland area between them, which forms the central part of the Rechna Doab, situated between the fertile foothills of Sialkot and the desert plains of Jhang. Part of the upland area has been used for farming thanks to the Chenab canal. The landscape has very few trees, and the scenery is generally flat and becomes rather dull in the central plateau. It’s likely that the district once had the capital of Punjab when Lahore didn’t yet exist. According to the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, Hsuan Tsang, he visited a town called Tse-kia (or Taki) around the year 630, which was the capital of the land of the five rivers. A mound near the present-day village of Asarur is believed to be the site of this ancient capital. Little is known about Gujranwala until the Muslim invasions, except that Taki had faded from memory and Lahore became the main city. Under Muslim rule, the district thrived for a time, but then a mysterious depopulation occurred, and the entire area seemed almost completely deserted. When the Sikh power emerged, the abandoned lands of Gujranwala were taken over by various military leaders. Charat Singh occupied the village of Gujranwala, and it was here that his grandson, the great Maharaja Ranjit Singh, was born. Although Sikh rule was often disastrous elsewhere, it greatly benefited this district. Ranjit Singh encouraged the establishment of large colonies in various villages and promoted farming throughout the deserted plains. In 1847, the district came under British influence in connection with the regency at Lahore, and in 1849 it was included in the territory annexed after the second Sikh war. There is a significant trade in cotton, wheat, and other grains. The district is served by the main line and branches of the North-Western railway.
GUJRAT, a town and district of British India, in the Rawalpindi division of the Punjab, lying on the south-western border of Kashmir. The town stands about 5 m. from the right bank of the river Chenab, 70 m. N. of Lahore by rail. Pop. (1901) 19,410. It is built upon an ancient site, formerly occupied, according to tradition, by two successive cities, the second of which is supposed to have been destroyed in 1303, the year of a Mongol invasion. More than 200 years later either Sher Shah or Akbar founded the existing town. Though standing in the midst of a Jat neighbourhood, the fort was first garrisoned by Gujars, and took the name of Gujrat. Akbar’s fort, largely improved by Gujar Singh, stands in the centre of the town. The neighbouring shrine of the saint Shah Daula serves as a kind of native asylum for lunatics. The town has manufactures of furniture, inlaid work in gold and iron, brass-ware, boots, cotton goods and shawls.
GUJRAT, is a town and district in British India, located in the Rawalpindi division of Punjab, on the southwestern border of Kashmir. The town is about 5 miles from the right bank of the Chenab River and 70 miles north of Lahore by rail. The population in 1901 was 19,410. It is built on an ancient site that was reportedly occupied by two successive cities, with the second city believed to have been destroyed in 1303 during a Mongol invasion. More than 200 years later, either Sher Shah or Akbar established the current town. Despite being surrounded by a Jat community, the fort was initially garrisoned by Gujars, which is how it got its name, Gujrat. Akbar’s fort, which was largely enhanced by Gujar Singh, is located in the center of the town. The nearby shrine of the saint Shah Daula functions as a sort of local asylum for those with mental illnesses. The town has industries producing furniture, inlaid gold and iron work, brassware, boots, cotton goods, and shawls.
The District of Gujrat comprises a narrow wedge of sub-Himalayan plain country, possessing few natural advantages. From the basin of the Chenab on the south the general level rises rapidly towards the interior, which, owing to the great distance of the water beneath the surface, assumes a dreary and desert aspect. A range of low hills, known as the Pabbi, traverses the northern angle of Gujrat. They are composed of a friable Tertiary sandstone and conglomerate, destitute of vegetation, and presenting a mere barren chaos of naked rock, deeply scored with precipitous ravines. Immediately below the Pabbi stretches a high plateau, terminating abruptly in a precipitous bluff some 200 ft. in height. At the foot of this plateau is a plain, which forms the actual valley of the Chenab and participates in the irrigation from the river bed.
The Gujrat District consists of a narrow strip of sub-Himalayan plain land that has few natural benefits. From the Chenab basin to the south, the general elevation rises quickly toward the interior, which, due to the great depth of water beneath the surface, appears dull and desert-like. A range of low hills, called the Pabbi, runs through the northern part of Gujrat. These hills are made up of loose Tertiary sandstone and conglomerate, lacking vegetation, and look like a barren mess of bare rock, deeply cut with steep ravines. Right below the Pabbi is a high plateau that ends abruptly in a steep bluff about 200 feet tall. At the base of this plateau is a plain that forms the actual valley of the Chenab and benefits from irrigation from the riverbed.
Numerous relics of antiquity stud the surface of the district. Mounds of ancient construction yield early coins, and bricks are found whose size and type prove them to belong to the prehistoric period. A mound now occupied by the village of Moga or Mong has been identified as the site of Nicaea, the city built by Alexander the Great on the field of his victory over Porus. The Delhi empire established its authority in this district under Bahlol Lodi (1451-1489). A century later it was visited by Akbar, who founded Gujrat as the seat of government. During the decay of the Mogul power, the Ghakkars of Rawalpindi overran this portion of the Punjab and established themselves in Gujrat about 1741. Meanwhile the Sikh power had been asserting itself in the eastern Punjab, and in 1765 the Ghakkar chief was defeated by Sirdar Gujar Singh, chief of the Bhangi confederacy. On his death, his son succeeded him, but after a few months’ warfare, in 1798, he submitted himself as vassal to the Maharaja Ranjit Singh. In 1846 Gujrat first came under the supervision of British officials. Two years later the district became the theatre for the important engagements which decided the event of the second Sikh war. After several bloody battles in which the British were unsuccessful, the Sikh power was irretrievably broken at the engagement which took place at Gujrat on the 22nd of February 1849. The Punjab then passed by annexation under British rule.
Numerous relics from the past are scattered across the area. Mounds of ancient structures reveal early coins, and bricks have been found that are clearly from prehistoric times. One mound, currently the site of the village of Moga or Mong, has been identified as Nicaea, the city built by Alexander the Great after his victory over Porus. The Delhi empire took control of this area under Bahlol Lodi (1451-1489). A century later, it was visited by Akbar, who established Gujrat as the center of government. As the Mughal power declined, the Ghakkars from Rawalpindi took over this part of Punjab and settled in Gujrat around 1741. Meanwhile, the Sikh power was gaining strength in eastern Punjab, and in 1765, the Ghakkar chief was defeated by Sirdar Gujar Singh, leader of the Bhangi confederacy. After his death, his son took over, but after a few months of conflict, in 1798, he submitted to Maharaja Ranjit Singh as a vassal. In 1846, Gujrat came under British officials' oversight for the first time. Two years later, the district became the stage for significant battles that determined the outcome of the Second Sikh War. After several violent confrontations in which the British faced setbacks, the Sikh power was decisively broken during the battle at Gujrat on February 22, 1849. The Punjab then came under British rule through annexation.
The district comprises an area of 2051 sq. m. In 1901 the population was 750,548, showing a decrease of 1%, compared with an increase of 10% in the previous decade. The district has a large export trade in wheat and other grains, oil, wool, cotton and hides. The main line and the Sind-Sagar branch of the North-Western railway traverse it.
The district covers an area of 2051 sq. m. In 1901, the population was 750,548, reflecting a 1% decrease, compared to a 10% increase in the previous decade. The district has a significant export trade in wheat and other grains, oil, wool, cotton, and hides. The main line and the Sind-Sagar branch of the North-Western railway run through it.
GULA, a Babylonian goddess, the consort of Ninib. She is identical with another goddess, known as Bau, though it would seem that the two were originally independent. The name Bau is more common in the oldest period and gives way in the post-Khammurabic age to Gula. Since it is probable that Ninib (q.v.) has absorbed the cults of minor sun-deities, the two names may represent consorts of different gods. However this may be, the qualities of both are alike, and the two occur as synonymous designations of Ninib’s female consort. Other names borne by this goddess are Nin-Karrak, Ga-tum-dug and Nin-din-dug, the latter signifying “the lady who restores to life.” The designation well emphasizes the chief trait of Bau-Gula which is that of healer. She is often spoken of as “the great physician,” and accordingly plays a specially prominent rôle in incantations and incantation rituals intended to relieve those suffering from disease. She is, however, also invoked to curse those who trample upon the rights of rulers or those who do wrong with poisonous potions. As in the case of Ninib, the cult of Bau-Gula is prominent in Shirgulla and in Nippur. While generally in close association with her consort, she is also invoked by herself, and thus retains a larger measure of independence than most of the goddesses of Babylonia and Assyria. She appears in a prominent position on the designs accompanying the Kudurrus boundary-stone monuments of Babylonia, being represented by a statue, when other gods and goddesses are merely pictured by their shrines, by sacred animals or by weapons. In neo-Babylonian days her cult continues to occupy a prominent position, and Nebuchadrezzar II. speaks of no less than three chapels or shrines within the sacred precincts of E-Zida in the city of Borsippa, besides a temple in her honour at Babylon.
GULA, is a Babylonian goddess, the partner of Ninib. She is the same as another goddess called Bau, although it seems that the two were initially separate. The name Bau is more common in the earliest periods but is replaced by Gula in the post-Khammurabic era. Since it’s likely that Ninib (q.v.) has taken over the worship of minor sun deities, the two names might represent partners of different gods. Regardless, both share similar qualities, and the two names are used interchangeably for Ninib’s female partner. Other names for this goddess include Nin-Karrak, Ga-tum-dug, and Nin-din-dug, the latter meaning “the lady who restores to life.” This title highlights the main trait of Bau-Gula as a healer. She is often referred to as “the great physician” and plays a significant role in incantations and rituals meant to help those suffering from illness. However, she is also called upon to curse those who violate the rights of rulers or commit wrongdoing with poisonous potions. Like Ninib, the worship of Bau-Gula thrives in Shirgulla and Nippur. While she is generally associated with her partner, she can also be invoked on her own, giving her more independence than most other goddesses of Babylonia and Assyria. She prominently appears on the designs that accompany the Kudurrus boundary-stone monuments of Babylonia, represented by a statue, while other deities are illustrated only by their shrines, sacred animals, or weapons. In neo-Babylonian times, her worship continues to hold a significant place, and Nebuchadrezzar II mentions at least three chapels or shrines within the sacred precincts of E-Zida in the city of Borsippa, in addition to a temple dedicated to her in Babylon.
GULBARGA, an ancient city of India, situated in the Nizam’s dominions, 70 m. S.E. of Sholapur. Pop. (1901) 29,228. Originally a Hindu city, it was made the capital of the Bahmani kings when that dynasty established their independence in the Deccan in 1347, and it remained such until 1422. The palaces, mosques and tombs of these kings still stand half-ruined. The most notable building is a mosque modelled after that of Cordova 714 in Spain, covering an area of 38,000 sq. ft., which is almost unique in India as being entirely covered in. Since the opening of a station on the Great India Peninsula railway, Gulbarga has become a centre of trade, with cotton-spinning and weaving mills. It is also the headquarters of a district and division of the same name. The district, as recently reconstituted, has an area of 6004 sq. m.; pop. (1901), 1,041,067.
Gulbarga, is an ancient city in India, located in the Nizam’s territory, 70 miles southeast of Sholapur. Population (1901) was 29,228. Originally a Hindu city, it became the capital of the Bahmani kings when that dynasty gained independence in the Deccan in 1347, remaining the capital until 1422. The palaces, mosques, and tombs of these kings still stand, albeit in ruins. The most notable building is a mosque modeled after the one in Cordova 714 in Spain, covering an area of 38,000 square feet, which is quite unique in India for being completely enclosed. Since the opening of a station on the Great India Peninsula railway, Gulbarga has developed into a trade hub with cotton-spinning and weaving mills. It is also the administrative center for a district and division of the same name. The district, recently restructured, has an area of 6,004 square miles; population (1901) was 1,041,067.
GULF STREAM,1 the name properly applied to the stream current which issues from the Gulf of Mexico and flows north-eastward, following the eastern coast of North America, and separated from it by a narrow strip of cold water (the Cold Wall), to a point east of the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. The Gulf Stream is a narrow, deep current, and its velocity is estimated at about 80 m. a day. It is joined by, and often indistinguishable from, a large body of water which comes from outside the West Indies and follows the same course. The term was formerly applied to the drift current which carries the mixed waters of the Gulf Stream and the Labrador current eastwards across the Atlantic. This is now usually known as the “Gulf Stream drift,” although the name is not altogether appropriate. See Atlantic.
Gulf Stream,1 the name used for the ocean current that comes from the Gulf of Mexico and flows northeast, hugging the eastern coast of North America, separated from it by a narrow band of cold water (the Cold Wall), reaching a point east of the Grand Banks off Newfoundland. The Gulf Stream is a narrow, deep current, with a speed estimated at about 80 miles a day. It merges with, and often can’t be distinguished from, a large body of water that comes from outside the West Indies and follows the same path. The term was previously used for the drift current that carries the mixed waters of the Gulf Stream and the Labrador current eastward across the Atlantic. This is now generally referred to as the “Gulf Stream drift,” though that name isn’t completely accurate. See Atlantic.
1 The word “gulf,” a portion of the sea partially enclosed by the coast-line, and usually taken as referring to a tract of water larger than a bay and smaller than a sea, is derived through the Fr. golfe, from Late Gr. κόλφος, class. Gr. κόλπος, bosom, hence bay, cf. Lat. sinus. In University slang, the term is used of the position of those who fail to obtain a place in the honours list at a public examination, but are allowed a “pass.”
1 The word “gulf” refers to a part of the sea that is mostly surrounded by land, and it typically describes a body of water that is larger than a bay but smaller than a sea. It comes from the French golfe, which is derived from the Late Greek κόλπος and the Classical Greek bay, meaning bosom, and thus bay, similar to the Latin sinus. In university slang, the term is used to describe the situation of students who do not make it onto the honors list after a public exam but still receive a "pass."
GULFWEED, in botany, a popular name for the seaweed Sargassum bacciferum, one of the brown seaweeds (Phaeophyceae), large quantities of which are found floating in the Gulf of Mexico, whence it is carried northwards by the Gulf Stream, small portions sometimes being borne as far as the coasts of the British Isles. It was observed by Columbus, and is remarkable among seaweeds for its form, which resembles branches bearing leaves and berries; the latter, to which the species-name bacciferum refers, are hollow floats answering the same purpose as the bladders in another brown seaweed, Fucus vesiculosus, which is common round the British Isles between high and low water.
Gulfweed, in botany, is a common name for the seaweed Sargassum bacciferum, one of the brown seaweeds (Phaeophyceae), that is found in large quantities floating in the Gulf of Mexico, where it's carried northward by the Gulf Stream, with small amounts sometimes reaching the coasts of the British Isles. Columbus noted its presence, and it stands out among seaweeds because of its shape, which resembles branches with leaves and berries; the latter, which the species name bacciferum refers to, are hollow floats that serve the same function as the bladders in another brown seaweed, Fucus vesiculosus, which is common around the British Isles between high and low water.
GULL, SIR WILLIAM WITHEY, 1st Bart. (1816-1890), English physician, was the youngest son of John Gull, a barge-owner and wharfinger of Thorpe-le-Soken, Essex, and was born on the 31st of December 1816 at Colchester. He began life as a schoolmaster, but in 1837 Benjamin Harrison, the treasurer of Guy’s Hospital, who had noticed his ability, brought him up to London from the school at Lewes where he was usher, and gave him employment at the hospital, where he also gained permission to attend the lectures. In 1843 he was made a lecturer in the medical school of the hospital, in 1851 he was chosen an assistant physician, and in 1856 he became full physician. In 1847 he was elected Fullerian professor of physiology in the Royal Institution, retaining the post for the usual three years, and in 1848 he delivered the Gulstonian Lectures at the College of Physicians, where he filled every office of honour but that of president. He died in London on the 29th of January 1890 after a series of paralytic strokes, the first of which had occurred nearly three years previously. He was created a baronet in 1872, in recognition of the skill and care he had shown in attending the prince of Wales during his attack of typhoid in 1871. Sir William Gull’s fame rested mainly on his success as a clinical practitioner; as he said himself, he was “a clinical physician or nothing.” This success must be largely ascribed to his remarkable powers of observation, and to the great opportunities he enjoyed for gaining experience of disease. He was sometimes accused of being a disbeliever in drugs. That was not the case, for he prescribed drugs like other physicians when he considered them likely to be beneficial. He felt, however, that their administration was only a part of the physician’s duties, and his mental honesty and outspokenness prevented him from deluding either himself or his patients with unwarranted notions of what they can do. But though he regarded medicine as primarily an art for the relief of physical suffering, he was far from disregarding the scientific side of his profession, and he made some real contributions to medical science. His papers were printed chiefly in Guy’s Hospital Reports and in the proceedings of learned societies: among the subjects he wrote about were cholera, rheumatic fever, taenia, paraplegia and abscess of the brain, while he distinguished for the first time (1873) the disease now known as myxoedema, describing it as a “cretinoid state in adults.”
GULL, SIR WILLIAM WITHEY, 1st Bart. (1816-1890), English physician, was the youngest son of John Gull, a barge owner and wharfinger from Thorpe-le-Soken, Essex, and was born on December 31, 1816, in Colchester. He started his career as a schoolmaster, but in 1837, Benjamin Harrison, the treasurer of Guy’s Hospital, recognized his talent and brought him to London from the school in Lewes where he was a teaching assistant, offering him a job at the hospital, where he also received permission to attend lectures. In 1843, he was appointed a lecturer in the medical school of the hospital, in 1851 he became an assistant physician, and in 1856 he was promoted to full physician. In 1847, he was elected Fullerian professor of physiology at the Royal Institution, holding the position for the typical three years, and in 1848 he presented the Gulstonian Lectures at the College of Physicians, where he held every honorary office except for that of president. He passed away in London on January 29, 1890, after suffering a series of strokes, the first of which occurred nearly three years earlier. He was made a baronet in 1872 in acknowledgment of the skill and care he showed while treating the Prince of Wales during his typhoid fever in 1871. Sir William Gull's reputation primarily stemmed from his success as a clinical practitioner; as he stated, he was “a clinical physician or nothing.” This success can largely be attributed to his exceptional observational skills and the extensive opportunities he had to gain experience with various diseases. He was occasionally labeled as a disbeliever in medication. However, that was not true, as he prescribed drugs like other doctors when he believed they could be effective. He did feel, though, that prescribing medication was just one aspect of a physician's responsibilities, and his intellectual honesty and directness prevented him from misleading himself or his patients with unfounded beliefs about what medications could achieve. Although he viewed medicine primarily as an art to alleviate physical suffering, he did not overlook the scientific aspect of his profession and made genuine contributions to medical science. His papers were mainly published in Guy’s Hospital Reports and in the proceedings of scholarly societies. He wrote on topics including cholera, rheumatic fever, taenia, paraplegia, and brain abscess, and he was the first to identify (in 1873) the condition now known as myxedema, describing it as a “cretinoid state in adults.”
GULL (Welsh gwylan, Breton, goelann, whence Fr. goêland), the name commonly adopted, to the almost entire exclusion of the O. Eng. Mew (Icel. máfur, Dan. maage, Swedish måse, Ger. Meve, Dutch meeuw, Fr. mouette), for a group of sea-birds widely and commonly known, all belonging to the genus Larus of Linnaeus, which subsequent systematists have broken up in a very arbitrary and often absurd fashion. The family Laridae is composed of two chief groups, Larinae and Sterninae—the gulls and the terns, though two other subfamilies are frequently counted, the skuas (Stercorariinae), and that formed by the single genus Rhynchops, the skimmers; but there seems no strong reason why the former should not be referred to the Larinae and the latter to the Sterninae.
GULL (Welsh gwylan, Breton goelann, which led to Fr. goêland), is the name that has mostly replaced the Old English Mew (Icelandic máfur, Danish maage, Swedish måse, German Meve, Dutch meeuw, French mouette) for a group of sea birds that are widely recognized, all of which belong to the genus Larus as classified by Linnaeus. Subsequent taxonomists have divided this group in a way that often feels random and illogical. The family Laridae contains two main subfamilies, Larinae (the gulls) and Sterninae (the terns), although two additional subfamilies are sometimes included: the skuas (Stercorariinae) and the single-genus group of skimmers (Rhynchops); however, there doesn’t seem to be any strong reason why the skuas shouldn’t be classified under Larinae and the skimmers under Sterninae.
Taking the gulls in their restricted sense, Howard Saunders, who has subjected the group to a rigorous revision (Proc. Zool. Society, 1878, pp. 155-211), admits forty-nine species of them, which he places in five genera instead of the many which some prior investigators had sought to establish. Of the genera recognized by him, Pagophila and Rhodostethia have but one species each, Rissa and Xema two, while the rest belong to Larus. The Pagophila is the so-called ivory-gull, P. eburnea, names which hardly do justice to the extreme whiteness of its plumage, to which its jet-black legs offer a strong contrast. The young, however, are spotted with black. An inhabitant of the most northern seas, examples, most commonly young birds of the year, find their way in winter to more temperate shores. Its breeding-place has seldom been discovered, and the first of its eggs ever seen by ornithologists was brought home by Sir L. M’Clintock in 1853 from Cape Krabbe (Journ. R. Dubl. Society, i. 60, pl. 1); others were subsequently obtained by Dr Malmgren in Spitsbergen. Of the species of Rissa, one is the abundant and well-known kittiwake, R. tridactyla, of circumpolar range, breeding, however, also in comparatively low latitudes, as on the coasts of Britain, and in winter frequenting southern waters. The other is R. brevirostris, limited to the North Pacific, between Alaska and Kamchatka. The singular fact requires to be noticed that in both these species the hind toe is generally deficient, but that examples of each are occasionally found in which this functionless member has not wholly disappeared. We have then the genus Larus, which ornithologists have attempted most unsuccessfully to subdivide. It contains the largest as well as the smallest of gulls. In some species the adults assume a dark-coloured head every breeding-season, in others any trace of dark colour is the mark of immaturity. The larger species prey fiercely on other kinds of birds, while the smaller content themselves with a diet of small animals, often insects and worms. But however diverse be the appearance, structure or habits of the extremities of the series of species, they are so closely connected by intermediate forms that it is hard to find a gap between them that would justify a generic division. Forty-three species of this genus are recognized by Saunders. About fifteen belong to Europe and fourteen to North America, of which (excluding stragglers) some five only are common to both countries. Our knowledge of the geographical distribution of several of them is still incomplete. Some have a very wide range, others very much the reverse, as witness L. fuliginosus, believed to be confined to the Galapagos, and L. scopulinus and L. bulleri to New Zealand,—the last indeed perhaps only to the South Island. The largest species of the group are the glaucous gull and greater black-backed gull, L. glaucus and L. marinus, of which the former is circumpolar, and the latter nearly so—not being hitherto found between Labrador and Japan. The smallest species is the European L. minutus, though the North American L. Philadelphia does not much exceed it in size. Many of the gulls congregate in vast numbers to breed, whether on rocky cliffs of the sea-coast 715 or on healthy islands in inland waters. Some of the settlements of the black-headed or “peewit” gull, L. ridibundus, are a source of no small profit to their proprietors,—the eggs, which are rightly accounted a great delicacy, being taken on an orderly system up to a certain day, and the birds carefully protected. Ross’s or the roseate gull, Rhodostethia rosea, forms a well-marked genus, distinguished not so much by the pink tint of its plumage (for that is found in other species) but by its small dove-like bill and wedge-shaped tail. It is an exceedingly scarce bird, and beyond its having an Arctic habitat, little has yet been ascertained about it. More rare still is one of the species of Xema, X. furcatum, of which only two specimens, both believed to have come from the Galapagos, have been seen. Its smaller congener Sabine’s gull, X. sabinii, is more common, and has been found breeding both in Arctic America and in Siberia, and several examples, chiefly immature birds, have been obtained in the British islands. Both species of Xema are readily distinguished from all other gulls by their forked tails.
Taking gulls in their more limited sense, Howard Saunders, who has conducted an extensive revision of the group (Proc. Zool. Society, 1878, pp. 155-211), recognizes forty-nine species, which he classifies into five genera rather than the numerous ones proposed by earlier researchers. Among the genera he identifies, Pagophila and Rhodostethia have only one species each, Rissa and Xema have two, while the rest fall under Larus. The Pagophila refers to the so-called ivory gull, P. eburnea, a name that doesn't quite capture the striking whiteness of its feathers, which contrast sharply with its jet-black legs. The young, however, are spotted with black. A resident of the most northern seas, most examples, typically young birds, migrate to more temperate shores during winter. Its nesting sites are rarely found, with the first eggs seen by ornithologists being brought back by Sir L. M’Clintock in 1853 from Cape Krabbe (Journ. R. Dubl. Society, i. 60, pl. 1); more were later collected by Dr. Malmgren in Spitsbergen. Among the Rissa species, one is the common and well-recognized kittiwake, R. tridactyla, which has a circumpolar distribution but also breeds at lower latitudes, such as along the British coasts, and winters in southern waters. The other species is R. brevirostris, found only in the North Pacific, between Alaska and Kamchatka. It's noteworthy that in both species, the hind toe is usually absent, although individuals occasionally appear with this non-functional toe partially present. Next is the genus Larus, which ornithologists have tried unsuccessfully to split into subgroups. This genus includes both the largest and smallest gulls. In some species, adults develop a dark head during the breeding season, while in others, any dark coloring indicates immaturity. Larger species are aggressive predators of other birds, while smaller ones primarily feed on small animals, including insects and worms. Despite the varied appearances, structures, or behaviors of the species, they are so closely linked by intermediate forms that it's challenging to identify a clear gap justifying a separation into different genera. Saunders identifies forty-three species in this genus. About fifteen species are found in Europe and fourteen in North America, with only about five being
GULLY, JOHN (1783-1863), English sportsman and politician, was born at Wick, near Bath, on the 21st of August 1783, the son of an innkeeper. He came into prominence as a boxer, and in 1805 he was matched against Henry Pearce, the “Game Chicken,” before the duke of Clarence (afterwards William IV.) and numerous other spectators, and after fighting sixty-four rounds, which occupied an hour and seventeen minutes, was beaten. In 1807 he twice fought Bob Gregson, the Lancashire giant, for two hundred guineas a side, winning on both occasions. As the landlord of the “Plough” tavern in Carey Street, London, be retired from the ring in 1808, and took to horse-racing. In 1827 he lost £40,000 by backing his horse “Mameluke” (for which he had paid four thousand guineas) for the St Leger. In partnership with Robert Ridskale, in 1832, he made £85,000 by winning the Derby and St Leger with “St Giles” and “Margrave.” In partnership with John Day he won the Two Thousand Guineas with “Ugly Buck” in 1844, and two years later he took the Derby and the Oaks with “Pyrrhus the First” and “Mendicant,” in 1854 the Two Thousand Guineas with “Hermit,” and in the same year, in partnership with Henry Padwick, the Derby with “Andover.” Having bought Ackworth Park near Pontefract he was M.P. from December 1832 to July 1837. In 1862 he purchased the Wingate Grange estate and collieries. Gully was twice married and had twelve children by each wife. He died at Durham on the 9th of March 1863. He appears to have been no relation of the subsequent Speaker, Lord Selby.
GULLY, JOHN (1783-1863), an English sportsman and politician, was born at Wick, near Bath, on August 21, 1783, the son of an innkeeper. He became well-known as a boxer, and in 1805, he fought Henry Pearce, the “Game Chicken,” in front of the Duke of Clarence (later William IV) and many other spectators. After battling for sixty-four rounds, which lasted an hour and seventeen minutes, he lost. In 1807, he fought Bob Gregson, the giant from Lancashire, twice for two hundred guineas a side, winning both times. As the landlord of the “Plough” tavern in Carey Street, London, he retired from boxing in 1808 and switched to horse racing. In 1827, he lost £40,000 by betting on his horse “Mameluke” (which he had bought for four thousand guineas) in the St Leger. In partnership with Robert Ridskale in 1832, he made £85,000 by winning the Derby and St Leger with “St Giles” and “Margrave.” With John Day, he won the Two Thousand Guineas with “Ugly Buck” in 1844, and two years later, took the Derby and the Oaks with “Pyrrhus the First” and “Mendicant.” In 1854, he won the Two Thousand Guineas with “Hermit,” and that same year, partnered with Henry Padwick to win the Derby with “Andover.” After buying Ackworth Park near Pontefract, he served as M.P. from December 1832 to July 1837. In 1862, he purchased the Wingate Grange estate and coal mines. Gully was married twice and had twelve children with each wife. He died in Durham on March 9, 1863. He does not seem to be related to the later Speaker, Lord Selby.
GULPÁÏGÁN (Jerbádegán of the Arab geographers), a district and city in Central Persia, situated N.W. of Isfahán and S.E. of Irák. Together with Khunsár it forms a small province, paying a yearly revenue of about £6000. The city of Gulpáïgán is situated 87 m. N.W. of Isfahán, at an elevation of 5875 ft. in 33° 24′ N. and 50° 20′ E., and has a population of about 5000. The district is fertile and produces much grain and some opium. Sometimes it is under the governor-general of the Isfahán province, at others it forms part of the province of Irák, and at times, as in 1906, is under a governor appointed from Teheran.
GULPÁÏGÁN (Jerbádegán of the Arab geographers), is a district and city in Central Persia, located northwest of Isfahán and southeast of Irák. Along with Khunsár, it makes up a small province that generates an annual revenue of about £6000. The city of Gulpáïgán is 87 miles northwest of Isfahán, at an elevation of 5875 feet, positioned at 33° 24′ N and 50° 20′ E, with a population of around 5000. The area is fertile, producing a lot of grain and some opium. At times, it falls under the governor-general of the Isfahán province, at other times it is part of the Irák province, and occasionally, like in 1906, it is governed by an appointee from Teheran.
GUM (Fr. gomme, Lat. gommi, Gr. κόμμι, possibly a Coptic word; distinguish “gum,” the fleshy covering of the base of a tooth, in O. Eng. góma, palate, cf. Ger. Gaumen, roof of the mouth; the ultimate origin is probably the root gha, to open wide, seen in Gr. χαίνειν, to gape, cf. “yawn”), the generic name given to a group of amorphous carbo-hydrates of the general formula (C6H10O5)n, which exist in the juices of almost all plants, and also occur as exudations from stems, branches and fruits of plants. They are entirely soluble or soften in water, and form with it a thick glutinous liquid or mucilage. They yield mucic and oxalic acids when treated with nitric acid. In structure the gums are quite amorphous, being neither organized like starch nor crystallized like sugar. They are odourless and tasteless, and some yield clear aqueous solutions—the real gums—while others swell up and will not percolate filter paper—the vegetable mucilages. The acacias and the Rosaceae yield their gums most abundantly when sickly and in an abnormal state, caused by a fulness of sap in the young tissues, whereby the new cells are softened and finally disorganized; the cavities thus formed fill with liquid, which exudes, dries and constitutes the gum.
Gum (Fr. gomme, Lat. gommi, Gr. gum, possibly a Coptic word; distinguish “gum,” the fleshy covering of the base of a tooth, in O. Eng. góma, palate, cf. Ger. Gaumen, roof of the mouth; the ultimate origin is probably the root gha, to open wide, seen in Gr. χαίνειν, to gape, cf. “yawn”), the generic name for a group of amorphous carbohydrates with the general formula (C6H10O5)n, found in the juices of nearly all plants, and also occurring as exudates from the stems, branches, and fruits of plants. They are completely soluble or soften in water, forming a thick, gluey liquid or mucilage. When treated with nitric acid, they yield mucic and oxalic acids. Structurally, gums are quite amorphous, neither organized like starch nor crystallized like sugar. They are odorless and tasteless; some produce clear aqueous solutions—the true gums—while others swell up and won't pass through filter paper—the vegetable mucilages. The acacias and the Rosaceae produce their gums most abundantly when they are unhealthy and in an abnormal state due to an excess of sap in the young tissues, which causes the new cells to soften and eventually break down; the cavities formed fill with liquid that exudes, dries, and turns into gum.
Gum arabic may be taken as the type of the gums entirely soluble in water. Another variety, obtained from the Prosopis dulcis, a leguminous plant, is called gum mesquite or mezquite; it comes from western Texas and Mexico, and is yellowish in colour, very brittle and quite soluble in water.
Gum arabic is a prime example of gums that completely dissolve in water. Another type, sourced from the Prosopis dulcis, a legume, is known as gum mesquite or mezquite; it originates from western Texas and Mexico and is yellowish, very brittle, and quite soluble in water.
Gum arabic occurs in pieces of varying size, and some kinds are full of minute cracks. The specific gravity of Turkey picked gum (the purest variety) is 1.487, or, when dried at 100° C., 1.525. It is soluble in water to an indefinite extent; boiled with dilute sulphuric acid it is converted into the sugar galactose. Moderately strong nitric acid changes it into mucic, saccharic, tartaric and oxalic acids. Under the influence of yeast it does not enter into the alcoholic fermentation, but M. P. E. Berthelot, by digesting with chalk and cheese, obtained from it 12% of its weight of alcohol, along with calcium lactate, but no appreciable quantity of sugar. Gum arabic may be regarded as a potassium and calcium salt of gummic or arabic acid. T. Graham (Chemical and Physical Researches) recommended dialysis as the best mode of preparing gummic acid, and stated that the power of gum to penetrate the parchment septum is 400 times less than that of sodium chloride, and, further, that by mixing the gum with substances of the crystalloid class the diffusibility is lowered, and may be even reduced to nothing. The mucilage must be acidulated with hydrochloric acid before dialysing, to set free the gummic acid. By adding alcohol to the solution, the acid is precipitated as a white amorphous mass, which becomes glassy at 100°. Its formula is (C6H10O5)2H2O, and it forms compounds with nearly all bases which are easily soluble in water. Gummic acid reddens litmus, its reaction being about equal to carbonic acid. When solutions of gum arabic and gelatin are mixed, oily drops of a compound of the two are precipitated, which on standing form a nearly colourless jelly, melting at 25° C., or by the heat of the hand. This substance can be washed without decomposition. Gummic acid is soluble in water; when well dried at 100° C., it becomes transformed into metagummic acid, which is insoluble, but swells up in water like gum tragacanth.
Gum arabic comes in pieces of different sizes, and some varieties are full of tiny cracks. The specific gravity of Turkey picked gum (the purest type) is 1.487, or, when dried at 100° C, 1.525. It dissolves in water without limit; when boiled with dilute sulfuric acid, it turns into the sugar galactose. Moderately strong nitric acid converts it into mucic, saccharic, tartaric, and oxalic acids. Under the action of yeast, it doesn’t undergo alcoholic fermentation, but M. P. E. Berthelot managed to obtain 12% of its weight in alcohol by digesting it with chalk and cheese, along with calcium lactate, but no significant amount of sugar. Gum arabic can be seen as a potassium and calcium salt of gummic or arabic acid. T. Graham (Chemical and Physical Researches) suggested dialysis as the best method to extract gummic acid, mentioning that the gum's ability to pass through a parchment septum is 400 times less than that of sodium chloride. Furthermore, mixing the gum with crystalloid substances reduces its diffusibility, possibly to zero. The mucilage should be acidified with hydrochloric acid before dialysis to release gummic acid. Adding alcohol to the solution precipitates the acid as a white amorphous mass, which becomes glassy at 100°. Its formula is (C6H10O5)2H2O, and it forms compounds with nearly all bases that are easily soluble in water. Gummic acid turns litmus red, with a reaction similar to carbonic acid. When solutions of gum arabic and gelatin are combined, oily droplets of a compound form and, upon standing, turn into a nearly colorless jelly that melts at 25° C or can be melted by the warmth of the hand. This substance can be washed without breaking down. Gummic acid is soluble in water; when dried well at 100° C, it transforms into metagummic acid, which is insoluble but swells in water like gum tragacanth.
Gum arabic, when heated to 150° C. with two parts of acetic anhydride, swells up to a mass which, when washed with boiling water, and then with alcohol, gives a white amorphous insoluble powder called acetyl arabin C6H8(C2H3O)2O5. It is saponified by alkalies, with reproduction of soluble gum. Gum arabic is not precipitated from solution by alum, stannous chloride, sulphate or nitrate of copper, or neutral lead acetate; with basic lead acetate it forms a white jelly, with ferric chloride it yields a stiff clear gelatinoid mass, and its solutions are also precipitated by borax.
Gum arabic, when heated to 150° C. with two parts of acetic anhydride, expands to a mass that, when washed with boiling water and then with alcohol, produces a white amorphous insoluble powder called acetyl arabin C6H8(C2H3O)2O5. It can be saponified by alkalies, resulting in the production of soluble gum. Gum arabic does not get precipitated from solution by alum, stannous chloride, sulfate, or nitrate of copper, or neutral lead acetate; it forms a white jelly with basic lead acetate, yields a stiff clear gel-like mass with ferric chloride, and its solutions are also precipitated by borax.
The finer varieties are used as an emollient and demulcent in medicine, and in the manufacture of confectionery; the commoner qualities are used as an adhesive paste, for giving lustre to crape, silk, &c., in cloth finishing to stiffen the fibres, and in calico-printing. For labels, &c., it is usual to mix sugar or glycerin with it to prevent it from cracking.
The better types are used as a moisturizer and soothing agent in medicine, and in making candy; the more common varieties are used as a glue, to add shine to crape, silk, etc., in fabric finishing to stiffen the fibers, and in calico printing. For labels and similar applications, it's common to mix sugar or glycerin with it to stop it from cracking.
Gum senegal, a variety of gum arabic produced by Acacia Verek, occurs in pieces generally rounded, of the size of a pigeon’s egg, and of a reddish or yellow colour, and specific gravity 1.436. It gives with water a somewhat stronger mucilage than gum arabic, from which it is distinguished by its clear interior, fewer cracks and greater toughness. It is imported from the river Gambia, and from Senegal and Bathurst.
Gum senegal, a type of gum arabic made from Acacia Verek, appears in rounded pieces about the size of a pigeon’s egg, and is reddish or yellow in color with a specific gravity of 1.436. When mixed with water, it creates a thicker mucilage than gum arabic. It's different because it has a clearer interior, fewer cracks, and is tougher. It's brought in from the river Gambia, as well as Senegal and Bathurst.
Chagual gum, a variety brought from Santiago, Chile, resembles gum senegal. About 75% is soluble in water. Its solution is not thickened by borax, and is precipitated by neutral lead acetate; and dilute sulphuric acid converts it into d-glucose.
Chagual gum, a type that comes from Santiago, Chile, is similar to gum senegal. About 75% of it dissolves in water. Its solution doesn't thicken with borax and is precipitated by neutral lead acetate; also, dilute sulfuric acid turns it into d-glucose.
Gum tragacanth, familiarly called gum dragon, exudes from the stem, the lower part especially, of the various species of Astragalus, especially A. gummifer, and is collected in Asia Minor, the chief port of shipment being Smyrna. Formerly only what exuded spontaneously was gathered; this was often of a brownish colour; but now the flow of the gum is aided by incisions cut near the root, and the product is the fine, white, flaky variety so much valued in commerce. The chief flow of gum takes place during the night, and hot and dry weather is the most favourable for its production.
Gum tragacanth, commonly known as gum dragon, comes from the stem, especially the lower part, of various species of Astragalus, particularly A. gummifer, and is harvested in Asia Minor, with Smyrna being the main shipping port. In the past, only what naturally oozed out was collected; this was often a brownish color. Nowadays, the gum is enhanced by making cuts near the root, resulting in the fine, white, flaky variety that is highly valued in trade. The main flow of gum happens at night, and hot, dry weather is the best condition for its production.
In colour gum tragacanth is of a dull white; it occurs in horny, flexible and tough, thin, twisted flakes, translucent, and with peculiar wavy lines on the surface. When dried at temperatures under 100° C. it loses about 14% of water, and is then easily powdered. Its specific gravity is 1.384. With water it swells by absorption, and 716 with even fifty times its weight of that liquid forms a thick mucilage. Part of it only is soluble in water, and that resembles gummic acid in being precipitated by alcohol and ammonium oxalate, but differs from it in giving a precipitate with neutral lead acetate and none with borax. The insoluble part of the gum is a calcium salt of bassorin (C12H20O10), which is devoid of taste and smell, forms a gelatinoid mass with water, but by continued boiling is rendered soluble.
In color, gum tragacanth is a dull white. It appears in hard, flexible, and tough, thin, twisted flakes that are translucent and have unique wavy lines on the surface. When dried at temperatures below 100° C, it loses about 14% of its water content and can then be easily powdered. Its specific gravity is 1.384. When mixed with water, it swells by absorption and can even form a thick mucilage with up to fifty times its weight of the liquid. Only part of it dissolves in water, resembling gummic acid as it is precipitated by alcohol and ammonium oxalate, but it differs by forming a precipitate with neutral lead acetate and not with borax. The insoluble part of the gum is a calcium salt of bassorin (C12H20O10), which is tasteless and odorless, forms a gel-like mass with water, but becomes soluble with continued boiling.
Gum tragacanth is used in calico-printing as a thickener of colours and mordants; in medicine as a demulcent and vehicle for insoluble powders, and as an excipient in pills; and for setting and mending beetles and other insect specimens. It is medicinally superior to gum acacia, as it does not undergo acetous fermentation. The best pharmacopeial preparation is the Mucilago Tragacanthae. The compound powder is a useless preparation, as the starch it contains is very liable to ferment.
Gum tragacanth is used in calico-printing as a thickener for colors and mordants; in medicine as a soothing agent and carrier for insoluble powders, as well as an ingredient in pills; and for preserving and repairing beetles and other insect specimens. It is better than gum acacia for medicinal use because it doesn’t undergo vinegar fermentation. The best pharmaceutical preparation is the Mucilago Tragacanthae. The compound powder is not useful because the starch it contains is very prone to fermentation.
Gum kuteera resembles in appearance gum tragacanth, for which the attempt has occasionally been made to substitute it. It is said to be the product of Sterculia urens, a plant of the natural order Sterculiaceae.
Gum kuteera looks similar to gum tragacanth, which has sometimes been tried as a substitute. It's said to come from Sterculia urens, a plant in the Sterculiaceae family.
Cherry tree gum is an exudation from trees of the genera Prunus and Cerasus. It occurs in shiny reddish lumps, resembling the commoner kinds of gum arabic. With water, in which it is only partially soluble, it forms a thick mucilage. Sulphuric acid converts it into l-arabinose; and nitric acid oxidizes it to oxalic acid (without the intermediate formation of mucic acid as in the case of gum arabic).
Cherry tree gum is a substance that comes from trees in the genera Prunus and Cerasus. It appears as shiny reddish lumps, similar to the more common types of gum arabic. When mixed with water, which it only partially dissolves in, it creates a thick mucilage. Sulfuric acid changes it into l-arabinose, while nitric acid oxidizes it into oxalic acid (without forming mucic acid first, unlike what happens with gum arabic).
Gum of Bassora, from Bassora or Bussorah in Asia, is sometimes imported into the London market under the name of the hog tragacanth. It is insipid, crackles between the teeth, occurs in variable-sized pieces, is tough, of a yellowish-white colour, and opaque, and has properties similar to gum tragacanth. Its specific gravity is 1.36. It contains only 1% of soluble gum or arabin. Under the name of Caramania gum it is mixed with inferior kinds of gum tragacanth before exportation.
Gum of Bassora, from Bassora or Bussorah in Asia, is sometimes imported into the London market as hog tragacanth. It has no taste, crackles when you chew it, comes in pieces of various sizes, is tough, yellowish-white, and opaque, and shares properties similar to gum tragacanth. Its specific gravity is 1.36. It contains only 1% soluble gum or arabin. Under the name Caramania gum, it is mixed with lower-quality types of gum tragacanth before being exported.
Mucilage.—Very many seeds, roots, &c., when infused in boiling water, yield mucilages which, for the most part, consist of bassorin. Linseed, quince seed and marshmallow root yield it in large quantity. In their reactions the different kinds of mucilage present differences; e.g. quince seed yields only oxalic acid when treated with nitric acid, and with a solution of iodine in zinc iodide it gives, after some time, a beautiful red tint. Linseed does not give the latter reaction; by treatment with boiling nitric acid it yields mucic and oxalic acids.
Mucilage.—Many seeds, roots, etc., when steeped in boiling water, produce mucilages that mostly consist of bassorin. Linseed, quince seed, and marshmallow root produce it in large amounts. The various types of mucilage show different reactions; e.g. quince seed only yields oxalic acid when treated with nitric acid, and with a solution of iodine in zinc iodide, it eventually produces a beautiful red color. Linseed does not produce this reaction; when treated with boiling nitric acid, it yields mucic and oxalic acids.
Gum Resins.—This term is applied to the inspissated milky juices of certain plants, which consist of gum soluble in water, resin and essential oil soluble in alcohol, other vegetable matter and a small amount of mineral matter. They are generally opaque and solid, and often brittle. When finely powdered and rubbed down with water they form emulsions, the undissolved resin being suspended in the gum solution. Their chief uses are in medicine. Examples are ammoniacum, asafetida, bdellium, euphorbium, gamboge, myrrh, sagapanum and scammony.
Gum Resins.—This term refers to the thick, milky juices from certain plants, which contain gum that dissolves in water, resin and essential oil that dissolve in alcohol, along with some other plant material and a small amount of mineral content. They are usually opaque, solid, and often brittle. When finely ground and mixed with water, they create emulsions, with the undissolved resin suspended in the gum solution. Their main applications are in medicine. Examples include ammoniacum, asafetida, bdellium, euphorbium, gamboge, myrrh, sagapanum, and scammony.
GÜMBEL, KARL WILHELM VON, Baron (1823-1898), German geologist, was born at Dannenfels, in the Palatinate of the Rhine, on the 11th of February 1823, and is known chiefly by his researches on the geology of Bavaria. He received a practical and scientific education in mining at Munich and Heidelberg, taking the degree of Ph.D. at Munich in 1862; and he was engaged for a time at the colliery of St Ingbert and as a surveyor in that district. In 1851, when the Geological Survey of Bavaria was instituted, Gümbel was appointed chief geologist; in 1863 he was made honorary professor of geognosy and surveying at the university of Munich, and in 1879, Oberberg director of the Bavarian mining department with which the Geological Survey was incorporated. His geological map of Bavaria appeared in 1858, and the official memoir descriptive of the detailed work, entitled Geognostische Beschreibung des Königreichs Bayern was issued in three parts (1861, 1868 and 1879). He subsequently published his Geologie von Bayern in 2 vols. (1884-1894), an elaborate treatise on geology, with special reference to the geology of Bavaria. In the course of his long and active career he engaged in much palaeontological work: he studied the fauna of the Trias, and in 1861 introduced the term Rhaetic for the uppermost division of that system; he supported at first the view of the organic nature of Eozoon (1866 and 1876), he devoted special attention to Foraminifera, and described those of the Eocene strata of the northern Alps (1868); he dealt also with Receptaculites (1875) which he regarded as a genus belonging to the Foraminifera. He died on the 18th of June 1898.
GÜMBEL, KARL WILHELM VON, Lord (1823-1898), German geologist, was born in Dannenfels, in the Rhineland, on February 11, 1823. He is mainly recognized for his research on the geology of Bavaria. He received practical and scientific training in mining at Munich and Heidelberg, earning his Ph.D. at Munich in 1862. He worked for a while at the St. Ingbert coal mine and as a surveyor in that area. In 1851, when the Geological Survey of Bavaria was established, Gümbel was appointed chief geologist. By 1863, he became an honorary professor of geognosy and surveying at the University of Munich, and in 1879, he was named Oberberg director of the Bavarian mining department, which incorporated the Geological Survey. His geological map of Bavaria was published in 1858, and the official memoir detailing the work, titled Geognostische Beschreibung des Königreichs Bayern, was released in three parts (1861, 1868, and 1879). He later published his Geologie von Bayern in two volumes (1884-1894), an extensive treatise on geology, with a focus on the geology of Bavaria. Throughout his long and active career, he engaged in significant paleontological work: he studied the fauna of the Trias, and in 1861, he introduced the term Rhaetic for the uppermost division of that system; he initially supported the idea of the organic nature of Eozoon (1866 and 1876), devoted special attention to Foraminifera, and described those from the Eocene strata of the northern Alps (1868); he also studied Receptaculites (1875), which he considered a genus of Foraminifera. He passed away on June 18, 1898.
GUMBINNEN, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of East Prussia, on the Pissa, an affluent of the Pregel, 22 m. by rail S.W. of Eydtkuhnen on the line to Königsberg. Pop. (1905), 14,194. The surrounding country is pleasant and fruitful, and the town has spacious and regular streets shaded by linden trees. It has a Roman Catholic and three Evangelical churches, a synagogue, a gymnasium, two public schools, a public library, a hospital and an infirmary. In the market square there is a statue of the king of Prussia Frederick William I., who in 1724 raised Gumbinnen to the rank of a town, and in 1732 brought to it a number of persons who had been driven from Salzburg by religious persecution. On the bridge over the Pissa a monument has been erected to the soldiers from the neighbourhood who fell in the Franco-German war of 1870-71. Iron founding and the manufacture of machinery, wool, cotton, and linen weaving, stocking-making, tanning, brewing and distilling are the principal industries. There are horse and cattle markets, and some trade in corn and linseed.
GUMBINNEN, is a town in Germany, located in the Prussian province of East Prussia, along the Pissa River, a tributary of the Pregel, 22 miles by rail southwest of Eydtkuhnen on the route to Königsberg. As of 1905, the population was 14,194. The surrounding area is lovely and fertile, and the town features wide, well-organized streets lined with linden trees. It has a Roman Catholic church and three Evangelical churches, a synagogue, a gymnasium, two public schools, a public library, a hospital, and an infirmary. In the market square, there is a statue of Frederick William I, the King of Prussia, who elevated Gumbinnen to town status in 1724 and brought several people here in 1732 who had been forced out of Salzburg due to religious persecution. A monument honoring local soldiers who died in the Franco-German War of 1870-71 has been placed on the bridge over the Pissa. The main industries include iron founding, machinery manufacturing, wool, cotton, and linen weaving, stocking-making, tanning, brewing, and distilling. There are markets for horses and cattle, along with some trade in grain and linseed.
See J. Schneider, Aus Gumbinnens Vergangenheit (Gumbinnen, 1904).
See J. Schneider, Aus Gumbinnens Vergangenheit (Gumbinnen, 1904).
GUMBO, or Okra, termed also Okro, Ochro, Ketmia, Gubbo and Syrian mallow (Sans. Tindisa, Bengali Dheras, Pers. Bámiyah—the Bammia of Prosper Alpinus; Fr. Gombaut, or better Gombo, and Ketmie comestible), Hibiscus esculentus, a herbaceous hairy annual plant of the natural order Malvaceae, probably of African origin, and now naturalized or cultivated in all tropical countries. The leaves are cordate, and 3 to 5-lobed, and the flowers yellow, with a crimson centre; the fruit or pod, the Bendi-Kai of the Europeans of southern India, is a tapering, 10-angled capsule, 4 to 10 in. in length, except in the dwarf varieties of the plant, and contains numerous oval dark-coloured seeds, hairy at the base. Three distinct varieties of the gumbo (Quiabo and Quimgombo) in Brazil have been described by Pacheco. The unripe fruit is eaten either pickled or prepared like asparagus. It is also an ingredient in various dishes, e.g. the gumbo of the Southern United States and the calalou of Jamaica; and on account of the large amount of mucilage it contains, it is extensively consumed, both fresh and in the form of the prepared powder, for the thickening of broths and soups. For winter use it is salted or sliced and dried. The fruit is grown on a very large scale in the vicinity of Constantinople. It was one of the esculents of Egypt in the time of Abul-Abbas el-Nebāti, who journeyed to Alexandria in 1216 (Wüstenfeld, Gesch. d. arab. Ärzte, p. 118, Gött., 1840), and is still cultivated by the Egyptians, who called it Bammgé.
Gumbo, or Okra, also known as Okro, Ochro, Ketmia, Gubbo, and Syrian mallow (Sans. Tindisa, Bengali Dheras, Pers. Bámiyah—the Bammia of Prosper Alpinus; Fr. Gombaut, or better Gombo, and Ketmie comestible), Hibiscus esculentus is a hairy, herbaceous annual plant from the natural order Malvaceae, probably originating from Africa, and now grown or naturalized in all tropical regions. The leaves are heart-shaped, with 3 to 5 lobes, and the flowers are yellow with a red center; the fruit or pod, known as Bendi-Kai among Europeans in southern India, is a slender, 10-angled capsule, measuring 4 to 10 inches in length, depending on the plant's variety, which includes some dwarf types, and contains many oval dark seeds with hairy bases. Three distinct varieties of gumbo (Quiabo and Quimgombo) have been reported in Brazil by Pacheco. The unripe fruit can be eaten pickled or cooked like asparagus. It’s also used in various dishes, such as the gumbo from the Southern United States and the calalou from Jamaica; due to its high mucilage content, it's widely consumed both fresh and as a powder for thickening broths and soups. For winter use, it’s salted or cut and dried. The fruit is extensively cultivated near Constantinople. It was one of the vegetables in Egypt during the time of Abul-Abbas el-Nebāti, who traveled to Alexandria in 1216 (Wüstenfeld, Gesch. d. arab. Ärzte, p. 118, Gött., 1840), and is still grown by Egyptians, who refer to it as Bammgé.
The seeds of the gumbo are used as a substitute for coffee. From their demulcent and emollient properties, the leaves and immature fruit have long been in repute in the East for the preparation of poultices and fomentations. Alpinus (1592) mentions the employment of their decoction in Egypt in ophthalmia and in uterine and other complaints.
The seeds of the gumbo are used as a coffee substitute. Because of their soothing and moisturizing properties, the leaves and unripe fruit have been well-known in the East for making poultices and compresses. Alpinus (1592) notes the use of their brew in Egypt for treating eye infections and various uterine issues.
The musk okra (Sans., Latákasturiká, cf. the Gr. κάστωρ; Bengali, Latákasturi; Ger. Bisamkörnerstrauch; Fr. Ketmie musquée), Hibiscus Abelmoschus (Abelmoschus moschatus), indigenous to India, and cultivated in most warm regions of the globe, is a suffruticose plant, bearing a conical 5-ridged pod about 3 in. in length, within which are numerous brown reniform seeds, smaller than those of H. esculentus. The seeds possess a musky odour, due to an oleo-resin present in the integument, and are known to perfumers under the name of ambrette as a substitute for musk. They are said to be used by the Arabs for scenting coffee. The seeds (in the Fantee language, Incromahom) are used in Africa as beads; and powdered and steeped in rum they are valued in the West Indies as a remedy for snakebites. The plant yields an excellent fibre, and, being rich in mucilage, is employed in Upper India for the clarifying of sugar. The best-perfumed seeds are reported to come from Martinique.
The musk okra (Sanskrit, Latákasturiká, cf. Greek castor; Bengali, Latákasturi; German Bisamkörnerstrauch; French Ketmie musquée), Hibiscus Abelmoschus (Abelmoschus moschatus), is native to India and grown in many warm areas around the world. It's a shrubby plant that produces a conical, 5-ridged pod about 3 inches long, inside which are numerous small, brown, kidney-shaped seeds that are smaller than those of H. esculentus. These seeds have a musky scent caused by an oleo-resin in their outer coating and are known to perfumers as ambrette, used as a musk substitute. It's said that Arabs use them to scent coffee. In Africa, the seeds (called Incromahom in Fantee) are used as beads, and when ground and steeped in rum, they are valued in the West Indies as a remedy for snakebites. The plant also produces excellent fiber and is high in mucilage, making it useful in Upper India for clarifying sugar. The most fragrant seeds reportedly come from Martinique.
See P. Alpinus, De plantis Aegypti, cap. xxvii. p. 38 (Venice, 1592); J. Sontheimer’s Abd Allah ibn Ahmad, &c., i. 118 (Stuttgart, 717 1840-1842); P. P. Pacheco, “La Ketmie potagère ou comestible,” La Belgique horticole, iv. 63 (1853); Della Sudda, “De l’emploi à Constantinople de la racine de l’Hibiscus esculentus,” Répert. de pharm., January 1860, p. 229; E. J. Waring, Pharm. of India, p. 35 (1868); O. Popp, “Über die Aschenbestandteile der Samen von Acacia nilotica und Hibiscus esculentus in Ägypten,” Arch. der Pharm. cxcv. p. 140 (1871); Drury, The Useful Plants of India, pp. 1, 2 (2nd ed., 1873); U. C. Dutt, The Mat. Med. of the Hindus, pp. 123, 321 (1877); Lanessan, Hist. des drogues, i. 181-184 (1878); G. Watt, Dictionary of the Economic Products of India (1890).
See P. Alpinus, De plantis Aegypti, cap. xxvii. p. 38 (Venice, 1592); J. Sontheimer’s Abd Allah ibn Ahmad, &c., i. 118 (Stuttgart, 717 1840-1842); P. P. Pacheco, “La Ketmie potagère ou comestible,” La Belgique horticole, iv. 63 (1853); Della Sudda, “De l’emploi à Constantinople de la racine de l’Hibiscus esculentus,” Répert. de pharm., January 1860, p. 229; E. J. Waring, Pharm. of India, p. 35 (1868); O. Popp, “Über die Aschenbestandteile der Samen von Acacia nilotica und Hibiscus esculentus in Ägypten,” Arch. der Pharm. cxcv. p. 140 (1871); Drury, The Useful Plants of India, pp. 1, 2 (2nd ed., 1873); U. C. Dutt, The Mat. Med. of the Hindus, pp. 123, 321 (1877); Lanessan, Hist. des drogues, i. 181-184 (1878); G. Watt, Dictionary of the Economic Products of India (1890).
GUMTI, a river of northern India. It rises in a depression in the Pilibhit district of the United Provinces, and after a sinuous but generally south-easterly course of 500 m. past Lucknow and Jaunpur joins the Ganges in Ghazipar district. At Jaunpur it is a fine stream, spanned by a 16th-century bridge of sixteen arches, and is navigable by vessels of 17 tons burden. There is also a small river of the same name in the Tippera district of eastern Bengal and Assam.
GUMTI,, a river in northern India. It starts in a low area in the Pilibhit district of the United Provinces and flows in a winding, mostly southeast direction for 500 meters past Lucknow and Jaunpur before joining the Ganges in the Ghazipar district. At Jaunpur, it’s a beautiful stream, crossed by a 16th-century bridge with sixteen arches, and can be navigated by ships weighing up to 17 tons. There’s also a smaller river with the same name in the Tippera district of eastern Bengal and Assam.
GUMULJINA, or Gumurdjina, a town of European Turkey, in the vilayet of Adrianople. Pop. (1905), about 8000, of whom three-fourths are Turks and the remainder Greeks, Jews or Armenians. Gumuljina is situated on the river Karaja-Su, south of the eastern extremity of the Rhodope range of mountains and 13 m. inland from the Aegean Sea. It has a station on the railway between Salonica and Dédéagatch. The district produces wheat, maize, barley and tobacco; sericulture and viticulture are both practised on a limited scale. A cattle fair is held annually on Greek Palm Sunday. Copper and antimony are found in the neighbourhood.
GUMULJINA, or Gumurdjina, a town in European Turkey, located in the province of Adrianople. Population (1905) was around 8,000, with three-quarters being Turks and the rest Greeks, Jews, or Armenians. Gumuljina is positioned on the Karaja-Su River, south of the eastern end of the Rhodope mountain range and 13 miles inland from the Aegean Sea. It has a train station on the railway line between Salonica and Dédéagatch. The area produces wheat, corn, barley, and tobacco; silk farming and grape growing are also done on a small scale. An annual cattle fair takes place on Greek Palm Sunday. Copper and antimony are found nearby.
GUMUS, or Gumz, Negroes of the Shangalla group of tribes, dwelling in the mountainous district of Fazogli on the Sudan-Abyssinian frontier. They live in independent groups, some being mountaineers while others are settled on the banks of the Blue Nile. Gumz in the native tongue signifies “people,” and the sub-tribes have distinctive names. The Gumus are nature-worshippers, God and the sun being synonymous. On ceremonial occasions they carry parasols of honour (see Shangalla).
GUMUS, or Gums, are people from the Shangalla group of tribes, living in the hilly area of Fazogli along the Sudan-Abyssinian border. They exist in independent groups; some are mountain dwellers, while others are settled along the banks of the Blue Nile. "Gumz" means "people" in their native language, and each sub-tribe has its own unique name. The Gumus practice nature worship, seeing God and the sun as one and the same. During special ceremonies, they carry honored parasols (see Shangalla).
GÜMÜSH-KHANEH, the chief town of a sanjak of the same name in the Trebizond vilayet of Asiatic Turkey, situated on high ground (4400 ft.) in the valley of the Kharshut Su, about ½ m. to south of the Trebizond-Erzerum chaussée. The silver mines from which the place takes its name were noted in ancient times and are mentioned by Marco Polo. Pop. about 3000, chiefly Greeks, who are in the habit of emigrating to great distances to work in mines. They practically supply the whole lead and silver-mining labour in Asiatic Turkey, and in consequence the Greek bishop of Gümüsh-Khaneh has under his jurisdiction all the communities engaged in this particular class of mines.
Gümüşhane, is the main town of a sanjak with the same name in the Trebizond province of Asia Minor, located on high ground (4400 ft.) in the valley of the Kharshut River, about half a mile south of the Trebizond-Erzerum road. The silver mines that give the town its name have been known since ancient times and are mentioned by Marco Polo. The population is around 3000, mostly Greeks, who often migrate far away to work in mines. They effectively provide all the labor for lead and silver mining in Asia Minor, and as a result, the Greek bishop of Gümüsh-Khaneh oversees all the communities involved in this specific type of mining.
GUN, a general term for a weapon, tubular in form, from which a projectile is discharged by means of an explosive. When applied to artillery the word is confined to those pieces of ordnance which have a direct as opposed to a high-angle fire, in which case the terms “howitzer” and “mortar” are used (see Ordnance and Machine-Gun). “Gun” as applied to firearms which are carried in the hand and fired from the shoulder, the old “hand gun,” is now chiefly used of the sporting shot-gun, with which this article mainly deals; in military usage this type of weapon, whether rifle, carbine, &c., is known collectively as “small arms” (see Rifle and Pistol). The origin of the word, which in Mid. Eng. is gonne or gunne, is obscure, but it has been suggested by Professor W. W. Skeat that it conceals a female name, Gunnilde or Gunhilda. The names, e.g. Mons Meg at Edinburgh Castle and faule Grete (heavy Peg), known to readers of Carlyle’s Frederick the Great, will be familiar parallelisms. “Gunne” would be a shortened “pet name” of Gunnhilde. The New English Dictionary finds support for the suggestion in the fact that in Old Norwegian gunne and hilde both mean “war,” and quotes an inventory of war material at Windsor Castle in 1330-1331, where is mentioned “una magna balista de cornu quae vocatur Domina Gunilda.” Another suggestion for the origin of the word is that the word represents a shortened form, gonne, of a supposed French mangonne, a mangonel, but the French word is mangonneau.
GUN, a general term for a weapon that is tubular in shape, from which a projectile is fired using an explosive. When it comes to artillery, the word is specifically used for those types of ordnance that have direct fire rather than high-angle fire, in which case the terms “howitzer” and “mortar” are used (see Ordnance and Machine-Gun). “Gun,” when referring to firearms that are handheld and fired from the shoulder, originally termed “hand gun,” is now mostly associated with sporting shotguns, which is the focus of this article; in military terms, this type of weapon, including rifles and carbines, is collectively known as “small arms” (see Rifle and Pistol). The origin of the word, which in Middle English appears as gonne or gunne, is unclear, but Professor W. W. Skeat has proposed that it may derive from a feminine name, Gunnilde or Gunhilda. Names like e.g. Mons Meg at Edinburgh Castle and faule Grete (heavy Peg), familiar to readers of Carlyle’s Frederick the Great, serve as comparable examples. “Gunne” might be a shortened “nickname” for Gunnhilde. The New English Dictionary supports this suggestion by noting that in Old Norwegian, gunne and hilde both mean “war,” and cites an inventory of weaponry at Windsor Castle from 1330-1331, which mentions “una magna balista de cornu quae vocatur Domina Gunilda.” Another theory regarding the origin of the word posits that it comes from a shortened form, gonne, of a supposed French word mangonne, referring to a mangonel, but the actual French term is mangonneau.
![]() |
![]() |
Fig. 1.—Hand Gun. | Fig. 2.—Mounted Man with Hand Gun. |
Firearms are said to have been first used in European warfare in the 14th century. The hand gun (see fig. 1) came into practical use in 1446 and was of very rude construction. It consisted of a simple iron or brass tube with a touch-hole at the top fixed in a straight stock of wood, the end of which passed under the right armpit when the “gonne” was about to be fired. A similar weapon (see fig. 2) was also used by the horse-soldier, with a ring at the end of the stock, by which it was suspended by a cord round the neck; a forked rest, fitted by a ring to the saddlebow, served to steady the gun. This rest, when not in use, hung down in front of the right leg. A match was made of cotton or hemp spun slack, and boiled in a strong solution of saltpetre or in the lees of wine. The touch-hole was first placed on the top of the barrel, but afterwards at the side, with a small pan underneath to hold the priming, and guarded by a cover moving on a pivot.
Firearms are believed to have first been used in European warfare in the 14th century. The handgun (see fig. 1) became practically useful in 1446 and was very crudely made. It consisted of a simple iron or brass tube with a touch-hole at the top, fixed into a straight wooden stock, the end of which rested under the right armpit when the “gonne” was about to be fired. A similar weapon (see fig. 2) was also used by horse soldiers, featuring a ring at the end of the stock to suspend it with a cord around the neck; a forked rest, attached by a ring to the saddlebow, helped to stabilize the gun. This rest, when not in use, dangled in front of the right leg. A match was made from cotton or hemp spun loosely and boiled in a strong solution of saltpetre or in wine lees. The touch-hole was initially located on the top of the barrel but later moved to the side, with a small pan underneath to hold the priming, which was covered by a guard that pivoted open.
![]() |
From General Hardÿ de Périnï’s Turenne et Condé 1626-1675. |
Fig. 3.—Musketeer, 1626. |
An improvement in firearms took place in the first year of the reign of Henry VII., or at the close of Edward IV., by fixing a cock (Fr. serpentine) on the hand gun to hold the match, which was brought down to the priming by a trigger, whence the term matchlock. This weapon is still in use among the Chinese, Tatars, Sikhs, Persians and Turks. An improvement in the stock was also made during this period by forming it with a wide butt end to be placed against the right breast. Subsequently the stock was bent, a German invention, and the arm was called a hackbutt or hagbut, and the smaller variety a demihague. The arquebus and hackbutt were about a yard in length, including barrel and stock, and the demihague was about half the size and weight, the forerunner of the pistol. The arquebus was the standard infantry firearm in Europe from the battle of Pavia to the introduction of the heavier and more powerful musket. It did not as a rule require a rest, as did the musket. The wheel-lock, an improvement on the matchlock, was invented in Nuremberg in 1517; was first used at the siege of Parma in 1521; was brought to England in 1530, and continued in partial use there until the time of Charles II. This wheel-lock consisted of a fluted or grooved steel wheel which protruded into the priming pan, and was connected with a strong spring. The cock, also regulated by a spring, was fitted with a piece of iron pyrites. In order to discharge the gun the 718 lock was wound up by a key, the cock was let down on the priming pan, the pyrites resting on the wheel; on the trigger being pressed the wheel was released and rapidly revolved, emitting sparks, which ignited the powder in the pan. The complicated and expensive nature of this lock, with its liability to injury, no doubt prevented its general adoption.
An improvement in firearms occurred in the first year of Henry VII's reign, or at the end of Edward IV's, by adding a cock (Fr. serpentine) to the handgun to hold the match, which was lowered to the priming with a trigger, hence the term matchlock. This weapon is still used by the Chinese, Tatars, Sikhs, Persians, and Turks. An enhancement in the stock was also made during this time by designing it with a wide butt end to rest against the right breast. Later, the stock was bent, a German innovation, and the weapon was called a hackbutt or hagbut, with a smaller version known as a demihague. The arquebus and hackbutt were about a yard long, including barrel and stock, while the demihague was about half the size and weight, paving the way for the pistol. The arquebus was the standard infantry firearm in Europe from the battle of Pavia until the heavier and more powerful musket was introduced. It typically didn't require a rest like the musket did. The wheel-lock, an advancement over the matchlock, was invented in Nuremberg in 1517, first used at the siege of Parma in 1521, brought to England in 1530, and remained in limited use there until the time of Charles II. This wheel-lock consisted of a fluted or grooved steel wheel that extended into the priming pan and was connected to a strong spring. The cock, also controlled by a spring, had a piece of iron pyrites attached. To fire the gun, the lock was wound up with a key, the cock was released onto the priming pan with the pyrites resting on the wheel; when the trigger was pressed, the wheel was released and rapidly spun, creating sparks that ignited the powder in the pan. The complicated and costly nature of this lock, along with its susceptibility to damage, likely hindered its widespread use.
![]() |
From General Hardÿ de Périnï’s Turenne et Condé, 1626-1675. |
Figs. 4 and 5.—Musketeers, 1675. |
![]() |
Fig. 6. (left)—Moorish Flint-lock. |
Fig. 7. (right)—Indian Matchlock. |
About 1540 the Spaniards constructed a larger and heavier firearm (matchlock), carrying a ball of 10 to the pound, called a musket. This weapon was introduced into England before the middle of the 16th century, and soon came into general use throughout Europe. The snaphance was invented about this period in Germany, and from its comparative cheapness was much used in England, France and Holland. It held a flint instead of the pyrites of the wheel or firelock, which ignited the powder in the pan by striking on a piece of furrowed steel, when released by the trigger, and emitting sparks.
Around 1540, the Spaniards created a larger and heavier firearm (matchlock) that fired a ball weighing 10 to the pound, called a musket. This weapon was introduced to England before the middle of the 16th century and quickly became widely used across Europe. The snaphance was invented around this time in Germany, and due to its relatively low cost, it was widely used in England, France, and Holland. It used a flint instead of the pyrites found in the wheel or firelock, igniting the powder in the pan by striking a piece of grooved steel when the trigger was pulled, producing sparks.
As a sporting weapon the gun may be said to date from the invention of the wheel-lock in the beginning of the 16th century, though firearms were used for sporting purposes in Italy, Spain, Germany, and to some extent in France, in the 15th century. Before that period the longbow in England and the crossbow on the Continent were the usual weapons of the chase. In Great Britain little use appears to have been made of firearms for game shooting until the latter half of the 17th century, and the arms then used for the purpose were entirely of foreign make.
As a sporting weapon, the gun can be traced back to the invention of the wheel-lock in the early 16th century, although firearms were already being used for sport in Italy, Spain, Germany, and to some extent in France during the 15th century. Before that, the longbow in England and the crossbow on the Continent were the common hunting weapons. In Great Britain, firearms weren’t widely used for game shooting until the second half of the 17th century, and the guns used at that time were completely of foreign origin.
The French gunmakers of St-Étienne claim for their town that it is the oldest centre of the firearms industry. They do not appear to have made more than the barrels of the finest sporting arms, and these even were sometimes made in Paris. The production of firearms by the artists of Paris reached its zenith about the middle of the 17th century. The Italian, German, Spanish and Russian gunsmiths also showed great skill in the elegance and design of their firearms, the Spaniards in particular being makers of fine barrels. The pistol (q.v.) is understood to have been made for the first time about 1540 at Pistoia in Italy. About 1635 the modern firelock or flint-lock was invented, which only differed from the snaphance by the cover of the pan forming part of the furrowed steel struck by the flint. Originally the priming was put into the pan from a flask containing a fine-grained powder called serpentine powder. Later the top of the cartridge was bitten off and the pan filled therefrom before loading. The mechanism of the flint-lock musket rendered all this unnecessary, as, in loading, a portion of the charge passed through the vent into the pan, where it was held by the cover or hammer. The matchlock, as a military weapon, gradually gave way to the firelock, which came into general use in the last half of the 17th century, and was the weapon of Marlborough’s and Wellington’s armies. This was the famous “Brown Bess” of the British army. The highest development of the flint-lock is found in the fowling-pieces of the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, particularly those made by Joseph Manton, the celebrated English gunsmith and inventor. The Napoleonic wars afforded English gunmakers an opportunity, which they fully utilized, of gaining the supremacy over their foreign competitors in the gunmaking trade. English gunmakers reduced the weight, improved the shooting powers, and perfected the lock mechanism of the sporting gun, and increased the range and efficiency of the rifle. This transference of the gunmaking craft from the Continent to England was also assisted by the tyranny of the foreign gunmaking gilds. In 1637 the London gunmakers obtained their charter of incorporation. The important gunmaking industry of Birmingham dates from 1603, and soon rivalled that of London. Double shot-guns do not appear to have been generally used until the 19th century. The first successful double guns were built with the barrels over and under, and not side by side, and were invented about 1616 by one Guilliano Bossi of Rome. In 1784 double shot guns were described as a novelty. Joseph Manton patented the elevated rib which rested on the barrels. The general success of the double gun was eventually due to the light weight which the better material and workmanship of the best gunmakers made possible, and to the quickness and certainty of ignition of the modern cartridge.
The French gunmakers of St-Étienne claim that their town is the oldest center of the firearms industry. They don't seem to have produced more than the barrels for the finest sporting arms, and even those were sometimes made in Paris. The production of firearms by Parisian artists peaked around the mid-17th century. Italian, German, Spanish, and Russian gunsmiths also demonstrated great skill in the elegance and design of their firearms, with the Spaniards being particularly known for making fine barrels. The pistol (q.v.) is believed to have been made for the first time around 1540 in Pistoia, Italy. The modern firelock or flint-lock was invented around 1635, differing from the snaphance by the pan cover being part of the steel that was struck by the flint. Originally, priming was placed in the pan from a flask containing a fine-grained powder called serpentine powder. Later, the top of the cartridge was bitten off and the pan filled from that before loading. The flint-lock musket's mechanism rendered this unnecessary, as during loading, some of the charge would pass through the vent into the pan, where it was held by the cover or hammer. The matchlock gradually lost its use as a military weapon to the firelock, which became widely used in the last half of the 17th century and was the weapon of Marlborough’s and Wellington’s armies. This was the famous “Brown Bess” of the British army. The highest development of the flint-lock is found in the fowling-pieces from the late 18th to early 19th centuries, particularly those made by Joseph Manton, the renowned English gunsmith and inventor. The Napoleonic wars gave English gunmakers the chance to gain supremacy over foreign competitors in the gunmaking industry. They reduced weight, improved shooting power, perfected the lock mechanism of sporting guns, and enhanced the range and efficiency of rifles. This shift of gunmaking from the Continent to England was also aided by the oppression of foreign gunmaking guilds. In 1637, the London gunmakers received their charter of incorporation. Birmingham's significant gunmaking industry began in 1603 and soon rivaled London. Double shotguns don’t seem to have been widely used until the 19th century. The first successful double guns were built with the barrels stacked over and under, not side by side, and were invented around 1616 by one Guilliano Bossi of Rome. In 1784, double shotguns were considered a novelty. Joseph Manton patented the elevated rib that rested on the barrels. The overall success of the double gun was ultimately due to the lightweight materials and skilled craftsmanship of the best gunmakers, as well as the quick and reliable ignition of modern cartridges.
The objections to the flint-lock were that it did not entirely preserve the priming from wet, and that the flint sparks sometimes failed to ignite the charge. In 1807 the Rev. Alexander John Forsyth obtained a patent for priming with a fulminating powder made of chlorate of potash, sulphur and charcoal, which exploded by concussion. This important improvement in firearms was not recognized and adopted by the military authorities until more than thirty years later. In the meantime it was gradually developed, and the copper percussion cap invented, by various gunmakers and private individuals. Thomas Shaw of Philadelphia first used fulminate in a steel cap in 1814, which he changed to a copper cap in 1816. It was not until the introduction of the copper cap that the percussion gun could be considered in every way superior to the flint. In 1834, in the reign of William IV., Forsyth’s invention was tested at Woolwich by firing 6000 rounds from six flint-lock muskets, and a similar number from six percussion muskets, in all weathers. 719 This trial established the percussion principle. The shooting was found to be more accurate, the recoil less, the charge of powder having been reduced from 6 to 4½ drs., the rapidity of firing greater and the number of miss-fires much reduced, being as 1 to 26 nearly in favour of the percussion system. In consequence of this successful trial the military flint-lock in 1839 was altered to suit the percussion principle. This was easily accomplished by replacing the hammer and pan by a nipple with a hole through its centre to the vent or touch-hole, and by replacing the cock which held the flint by a smaller cock or hammer with a hollow to fit on the nipple when released by the trigger. On the nipple was placed the copper cap containing the detonating composition, now made of three parts of chlorate of potash, two of fulminate of mercury and one of powdered glass.
The objections to the flintlock were that it didn't fully protect the priming from getting wet, and that the flint sparks sometimes didn’t ignite the charge. In 1807, Rev. Alexander John Forsyth received a patent for priming using a detonating powder made of potassium chlorate, sulfur, and charcoal, which exploded on impact. This significant improvement in firearms wasn’t recognized and adopted by military officials until more than thirty years later. In the meantime, various gunmakers and private individuals gradually developed it, inventing the copper percussion cap. Thomas Shaw from Philadelphia first used fulminate in a steel cap in 1814, switching to a copper cap in 1816. It wasn’t until the copper cap was introduced that the percussion gun could be considered fully superior to the flintlock. In 1834, during the reign of William IV, Forsyth’s invention was tested at Woolwich by firing 6,000 rounds from six flintlock muskets and the same amount from six percussion muskets in all types of weather. 719 This trial proved the percussion principle. The shooting was found to be more accurate, the recoil was less, the powder charge was reduced from 6 to 4½ drams, firing was faster, and misfires were significantly lower, at nearly a ratio of 1 to 26 in favor of the percussion system. As a result of this successful trial, the military flintlock was modified in 1839 to accommodate the percussion principle. This was easily done by replacing the hammer and pan with a nipple that had a hole through its center leading to the vent or touch-hole, and by substituting the cock that held the flint with a smaller cock or hammer that fit over the nipple when released by the trigger. On the nipple, the copper cap was placed containing the detonating mixture, now made of three parts potassium chlorate, two parts mercury fulminate, and one part powdered glass.


In 1840 the Austrian army was supplied with the percussion musket, and in 1842 a new model percussion musket with a block or back-sight for 150 yds. was issued to the British army, 11 ℔ 6 oz. in weight, 4 ft. 6¾ in. in length without bayonet, 6 ft. with bayonet and with a barrel 3 ft. 3 in. in length, firing a bullet of 14½ to the ℔ with 4½ drs. of powder. This musket was larger in bore than that of France, Belgium, Russia and Austria, and thus had the advantage of being able to fire their balls, while the English balls could not be fired from their barrels. But the greater weight and momentum of the English ball was counteracted by the excess of windage. This percussion musket of 1842, the latest development of the renowned Brown Bess, continued in use in the British army until partially superseded in 1851 by the Minié rifle, and altogether by the Enfield rifle 720 in 1855. For further information as to the history and development of military, target and sporting rifles see Rifle.
In 1840, the Austrian army started using the percussion musket. By 1842, the British army issued a new model percussion musket featuring a block or rear sight for 150 yards. It weighed 11 pounds 6 ounces and measured 4 feet 6¾ inches in length without the bayonet, and 6 feet with it. The barrel was 3 feet 3 inches long, firing a bullet weighing 14½ to the pound with 4½ drams of powder. This musket had a larger bore compared to those of France, Belgium, Russia, and Austria, which meant it could fire their bullets, while British bullets couldn't be used in their barrels. However, the heavier weight and momentum of the British bullet were offset by the extra windage. The 1842 percussion musket, the latest version of the famous Brown Bess, remained in service in the British army until it was partially replaced by the Minié rifle in 1851 and completely by the Enfield rifle in 1855. For more details on the history and development of military, target, and sporting rifles, see Rifle.
Illustrations are given herewith of a German carbine of the 16th century, with double wheel-lock (fig. 8); a snaphance (fig. 9); several forms of the Brown Bess or flint-lock military musket (English, William III., fig. 10; George II., fig. 11; George III., fig. 12; French, Napoleon, fig. 13); and of the percussion musket adopted in the British service in 1839 (fig. 14). Examples of non-European firearms are shown in figs. 6 and 7, representing a Moorish flint-lock and an Indian matchlock respectively. Figs. 15-18 represent various carbines, musketoons and blunderbusses, fig. 15 showing a small blunderbuss or musketoon of the early 18th century, fig. 16 a large blunderbuss of 1750, fig. 17 a flint-lock cavalry carbine of about 1825 and fig. 18 a percussion carbine of 1830. All these are drawn from arms in the museum of the Royal United Service Institution, London.
Illustrations are provided here of a 16th-century German carbine with a double wheel-lock (fig. 8); a snaphance (fig. 9); several types of the Brown Bess or flint-lock military musket (English, William III, fig. 10; George II, fig. 11; George III, fig. 12; French, Napoleon, fig. 13); and the percussion musket adopted by the British military in 1839 (fig. 14). Examples of non-European firearms are shown in figs. 6 and 7, depicting a Moorish flint-lock and an Indian matchlock, respectively. Figs. 15-18 show various carbines, musketoons, and blunderbusses, with fig. 15 presenting a small blunderbuss or musketoon from the early 18th century, fig. 16 a large blunderbuss from 1750, fig. 17 a flint-lock cavalry carbine from around 1825, and fig. 18 a percussion carbine from 1830. All these illustrations are based on arms from the museum of the Royal United Service Institution, London.
Modern Shot Guns.—The modern sporting breech-loaders may be said to have originated with the invention of the cartridge-case containing its own means of ignition. The breech-loading mechanism antedated the cartridge by many years, the earliest breech-loading hand guns dating back to 1537. Another distinct type of breech-loader was invented in France about the middle of the 17th century. During the 17th and 18th centuries breech-loading arms were very numerous and of considerable variety. The original cartridge, a charge of powder and bullet in a paper envelope, dates from 1586. These were used with muzzle-loaders, the base of the cartridge being ripped or bitten off by the soldier before placing in the barrel. It was only when the detonating cap came into use that the paper cartridge answered well in breech-loaders. The modern breech-loader has resulted from a gradual series of improvements, and not from any one great invention. Its essential feature is the prevention of all escape of gas at the breech when the gun is fired by means of an expansive cartridge-case containing its own means of ignition. The earlier breech-loaders were not gas-tight, because the cartridge-cases were either consumable or the load was placed in a strong non-expansive breech-plug. The earliest efficient modern cartridge-case was the pin-fire, patented by Houiller, a Paris gunsmith, in 1847, with a thin weak shell which expanded by the force of the explosion, fitted perfectly in the barrel, and thus formed an efficient gas check. Probably no invention connected with firearms has wrought such changes in the principle of gun-construction as those effected by the expansive cartridge-case. This invention has completely revolutionized the art of gunmaking, has been successfully applied to all descriptions of firearms, and has produced a new and important industry—that of cartridge manufacture.
Modern Shot Guns.—Modern sporting breech-loaders originated with the invention of the cartridge case that includes its own ignition method. The breech-loading mechanism existed long before the cartridge, with the first breech-loading handguns dating back to 1537. Another type of breech-loader was invented in France around the mid-17th century. Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, there were many types of breech-loading firearms available. The original cartridge, which consisted of a charge of powder and a bullet encased in paper, dates back to 1586. These were used with muzzle-loaders, and the soldier would rip or bite off the base of the cartridge before loading it into the barrel. It was only with the introduction of the detonating cap that the paper cartridge worked well in breech-loaders. The modern breech-loader has evolved through a series of gradual improvements rather than a single major invention. Its key feature is the prevention of gas escape at the breech when the gun is fired, thanks to an expansive cartridge case that contains its own ignition source. Earlier breech-loaders weren’t gas-tight because the cartridge cases were either disposable or the load was placed in a strong, non-expansive breech plug. The first effective modern cartridge case was the pin-fire, patented by Houiller, a gunsmith in Paris, in 1847. This cartridge had a thin, weak shell that expanded due to the explosion, fitting perfectly in the barrel and creating an effective gas seal. Probably no other invention related to firearms has brought about such significant changes in gun construction as the expansive cartridge case. This invention has completely transformed gunmaking, has been successfully applied to all types of firearms, and has created a new and important industry: cartridge manufacturing.
About 1836, C. Lefaucheux, a Paris gunsmith, improved the old Pauly system of breech-loading, but its breech action was a crude mechanism, with single grip worked by a bottom lever. The double grip for the barrels was the subsequent invention of a Birmingham gunmaker. The central-fire cartridge, practically as now in use, was introduced into England in 1861 by Daw. It is said to have been the invention of Pottet, of Paris, improved upon by Schneider, and gave rise to considerable litigation in respect of its patent rights. Daw, who controlled the English patents, was the only exhibitor of central-fire guns and cartridges at the International Exhibition of 1862. In his system the barrels work on a hinge joint, the bottom lever withdraws the holding-down bolt; the cartridge is of the modern type, the cap being detonated by a striker passing through the standing breech to the inner face. The cartridge-case is withdrawn by a sliding extractor fitted to the breech ends of the barrels. Daw was subsequently defeated in his control of the patents by Eley Bros., owing to the patent not having been kept in force in France. The modern breech-loading gun has been gradually and steadily improved since 1860. Westley Richards adopted and improved Matthews’ top-lever mechanism. About 1866 the rebounding lock was introduced, and improved in 1869. The treble wedge-fast mechanism for holding down the barrels was originated by W. W. Greener in 1865, and perfected in 1873. A very important improvement was the introduction of the hammerless gun, in which the mechanism for firing is placed entirely within the gun. This was made possible by the introduction of the central-fire cartridge. In 1862 Daw, and in 1866 Green, introduced hammerless guns in which the cocking was effected by the under lever. These guns did not attain popularity. In 1871 T. Murcott patented a hammerless gun, the first to obtain distinct success. This also was a lever-cocking gun. About the same time Needham introduced the principle of utilizing the weight of the barrels to assist in cocking. In 1875 Anson and Deeley utilized the fore-end attached to the barrels to cock the locks. From this date hammerless guns became really popular. Subsequently minor improvements were made by many other gun-makers, including alternative movements introduced by Purdey and Rogers. Improvements were also introduced by Westley Richards, Purdey and others, including cocking by means of the mainspring. In 1874 J. Needham introduced the ejector mechanism, by which each empty cartridge-case is separately and automatically thrown out of the gun when the breech is opened, the necessary force being provided by the mainspring of the lock. W. W. Greener and some other gunmakers have since introduced minor modifications and improvements of this mechanism. Next in turn came Perks and other inventors, who separated the ejector mechanism from the lock work. This very decided improvement is universal to-day. A later innovation in the modern breech-loader is the single trigger mechanism introduced by some of the leading English gun-makers, by which both barrels can be fired in succession by a single trigger. This improvement enables both barrels to be rapidly fired without altering the grip of the right hand, but deprives the shooter of the power of selecting his barrel.
About 1836, C. Lefaucheux, a gunsmith from Paris, enhanced the old Pauly system of breech-loading, though its breech action was a basic mechanism with a single grip operated by a bottom lever. The double grip for the barrels was later invented by a gunmaker in Birmingham. The central-fire cartridge, similar to what we use today, was brought to England in 1861 by Daw. It’s believed to have been invented by Pottet from Paris, and improved by Schneider, leading to significant legal disputes over its patent rights. Daw, who held the English patents, was the only one showcasing central-fire guns and cartridges at the International Exhibition of 1862. In his design, the barrels hinge on a joint, and the bottom lever releases the holding-down bolt; the cartridge is of the modern type, with the cap being detonated by a striker that moves through the standing breech to the inner face. The cartridge case is extracted by a sliding extractor attached to the breech ends of the barrels. Daw eventually lost control of the patents to Eley Bros. since the patent wasn't maintained in France. The modern breech-loading gun has been consistently improved since 1860. Westley Richards adopted and refined Matthews’ top-lever mechanism. Around 1866, the rebounding lock was introduced and enhanced in 1869. The triple wedge-fast mechanism for securing the barrels was created by W. W. Greener in 1865 and perfected in 1873. A significant advancement was the introduction of the hammerless gun, which features the firing mechanism entirely within the gun itself. This was made feasible by the advent of the central-fire cartridge. In 1862, Daw, and in 1866, Green introduced hammerless guns that used an under lever for cocking, but these guns didn’t become very popular. In 1871, T. Murcott patented a hammerless gun that was the first to achieve real success. This was also a lever-cocking gun. Around the same time, Needham introduced a method to use the weight of the barrels to aid in cocking. In 1875, Anson and Deeley used a fore-end attached to the barrels to cock the locks. After this point, hammerless guns gained genuine popularity. Following this, various minor improvements were made by numerous gun makers, including new mechanisms introduced by Purdey and Rogers. Westley Richards and others also made enhancements, including cocking via the mainspring. In 1874, J. Needham introduced the ejector mechanism, which automatically and separately ejects each empty cartridge case when the breech is opened, using force from the mainspring of the lock. W. W. Greener and several other gun makers have since made minor tweaks and improvements to this mechanism. Next came Perks and other inventors, who separated the ejector mechanism from the lock work, a significant improvement that is now standard. A later innovation in the modern breech-loader is the single trigger mechanism developed by some top English gun makers, allowing both barrels to be fired in succession with one trigger. This enhancement lets both barrels be fired quickly without changing the grip of the right hand, but it eliminates the shooter’s ability to choose which barrel to fire.
Repeating or magazine shot-guns on the principle of the repeating rifle, with a magazine below the single firing barrel, are also made by some American and continental gun-makers, but as yet have not come into general use, being comparatively cumbersome and not well balanced. The difficulty of a shifting balance as each cartridge is fired has also yet to be overcome. Several varieties of a combination rifle and shot-gun are also made, for a description of which see Rifle.
Repeating shotguns, which operate on the same principle as repeating rifles and have a magazine under a single firing barrel, are produced by some American and continental gun manufacturers. However, they have not yet become widely used because they tend to be bulky and not well balanced. The challenge of maintaining a stable balance as each cartridge is fired has yet to be addressed. There are also several types of combination rifles and shotguns available; for a description, see Rifle.
The chief purposes for which modern shot-guns are required are game-shooting, trap-shooting at pigeons and wild-fowling. The game gun may be any bore from 32 to 10 gauge. The usual standard bore is 12 gauge unless it be for a boy, when it is 20 gauge. The usual weight of the 12-bore double-barrelled game gun is from 6 to 7 ℔ with barrels 30 in. long, there, however, being a present tendency to barrels of a shorter length. These barrels are made of steel, as being a stronger and more homogeneous material than the barrels formerly produced, which were mostly of Damascus pattern, a mixture of iron and steel. Steel barrels, drilled from the solid block, were originally produced by Whitworth. To-day the makers of steel for this purpose are many. The standard charge for the 12-bore is 42 grains of smokeless powder and 1 oz. to 11⁄8th oz. of shot. Powder of a lighter gravimetric density is occasionally employed, when the weight of the charge is reduced to 33 grains. This charge of powder corresponds to the 3 drams of black powder formerly used. The ordinary game gun should have a killing circle of 30 in. at 30 yds. with the first barrel and at 40 yds. with the second. Improved materials and methods of manufacture, and what is known as “choke” boring of the barrels, have enabled modern gun-makers to regulate the shooting of guns to a nicety. Choke-boring is the constriction of the diameter of the barrel near the muzzle, and was known in America in the early part of the 19th century. In 1875 Pape of Newcastle was awarded a prize for the invention of choke-boring, there being no other claimant. The methods of choke-boring have since been varied and improved by the leading English gun-makers. The pigeon gun is usually heavier than the game gun and more choked. It generally weighs from 7 to 8 ℔. Its weight, by club rules, is frequently restricted to 7½ ℔ and its bore to 12 gauge. The standard wild-fowling gun is a double 8-bore with 30-in. barrels weighing 15 ℔ and firing a charge of 7 drams of powder and 2¾ to 3 oz. of shot. These guns are also made in both smaller and larger varieties, including a single barrel 4-bore, which is the largest gun that can be used from the shoulder, and single 721 barrel punt guns of 1½-in. bore, weighing 100 ℔. While no conspicuous advance in improved gun-mechanism and invention has been made during the last few years, the materials and methods of manufacture, and the quality and exactitude of the gun-maker’s work, have continued gradually and steadily to improve. English, and particularly London-made, guns stand pre-eminent all over the world.
The main uses for modern shotguns are game shooting, trap shooting at pigeons, and wildfowling. A game gun can be any bore from 32 to 10 gauge, with the standard being 12 gauge, or 20 gauge for a youth. A typical 12-bore double-barreled game gun weighs between 6 to 7 pounds and has barrels that are 30 inches long, though there's a current trend towards shorter barrels. These barrels are made of steel, which is stronger and more uniform than the older Damascus-pattern barrels, which were a mix of iron and steel. Steel barrels, drilled from a solid block, were first made by Whitworth, and now many manufacturers produce them. The standard load for a 12-bore is 42 grains of smokeless powder and 1 ounce to 1⅛ ounces of shot. Sometimes, a lighter powder is used, reducing the load to 33 grains, which is equivalent to the 3 drams of black powder that were used before. A standard game gun should have a killing circle of 30 inches at 30 yards with the first barrel and at 40 yards with the second. Better materials and manufacturing methods, along with what's called "choke" boring of the barrels, have allowed modern gun makers to fine-tune shooting accuracy. Choke boring narrows the barrel's diameter near the muzzle and was known in America in the early 19th century. In 1875, Pape of Newcastle won an award for inventing choke boring, with no other claimants. Leading English gun makers have since varied and improved the choke boring techniques. Pigeon guns are generally heavier and more choked than game guns, weighing from 7 to 8 pounds, often limited to 7½ pounds and 12 gauge by club rules. The standard wildfowling gun is a double 8-bore with 30-inch barrels, weighing 15 pounds, firing 7 drams of powder and 2¾ to 3 ounces of shot. These guns come in both smaller and larger sizes, including a single barrel 4-bore, which is the largest gun that can be shouldered, and single barrel punt guns with a 1½-inch bore, weighing 100 pounds. While there hasn’t been any major advancement in gun mechanisms and inventions recently, the materials and processes for manufacturing, as well as the quality and precision of gun making, have steadily improved. English guns, especially those made in London, are highly regarded worldwide.
GUNA, a town and military station in Central India, in the state of Gwalior. Pop. (1901) 11,452. After the Mutiny, it became the headquarters of the Central India Horse, whose commanding officer acts as ex-officio assistant to the resident of Gwalior; and its trade has developed rapidly since the opening of a station on a branch of the Great Indian Peninsula railway in 1899.
GUNA, is a town and military station in Central India, located in the state of Gwalior. Population (1901) was 11,452. After the Mutiny, it became the headquarters of the Central India Horse, whose commanding officer also serves as the ex-officio assistant to the resident of Gwalior; and its trade has grown quickly since the opening of a station on a branch of the Great Indian Peninsula railway in 1899.
GUNCOTTON, an explosive substance produced by the action of strong nitric acid on cellulose at the ordinary temperature; chemically it is a nitrate of cellulose, or a mixture of nitrates, according to some authorities. The first step in the history of guncotton was made by T. J. Pelouze in 1838, who observed that when paper or cotton was immersed in cold concentrated nitric acid the materials, though not altered in physical appearance, became heavier, and after washing and drying were possessed of self-explosive properties. At the time these products were thought to be related to the nitrated starch obtained a little previously by Henri Braconnot and called xyloidin; they are only related in so far as they are nitrates. C. F. Schönbein of Basel published his discovery of guncotton in 1846 (Phil. Mag. [3], 31, p. 7), and this was shortly after followed by investigations by R. R. Böttger of Frankfort and Otto and Knop, all of whom added to our knowledge of the subject, the last-named introducing the use of sulphuric along with nitric acid in the nitration process. The chemical composition and constitution of guncotton has been studied by a considerable number of chemists and many divergent views have been put forward on the subject. W. Crum was probably the first to recognize that some hydrogen atoms of the cellulose had been replaced by an oxide of nitrogen, and this view was supported more or less by other workers, especially Hadow, who appears to have distinctly recognized that at least three compounds were present, the most violently explosive of which constituted the main bulk of the product commonly obtained and known as guncotton. This particular product was insoluble in a mixture of ether and alcohol, and its composition could be expressed by the term tri-nitrocellulose. Other products were soluble in the ether-alcohol mixture: they were less highly nitrated, and constituted the so-called collodion guncotton.
Guncotton, is an explosive substance created when strong nitric acid acts on cellulose at normal temperature. Chemically, it’s a nitrate of cellulose, or a mixture of nitrates, according to some experts. The story of guncotton began with T. J. Pelouze in 1838, who noticed that when paper or cotton was soaked in cold concentrated nitric acid, the materials, although unchanged in physical appearance, became heavier and, after washing and drying, exhibited self-explosive properties. At that time, these substances were thought to be related to the nitrated starch discovered a little earlier by Henri Braconnot and called xyloidin; they are only related in that they are both nitrates. C. F. Schönbein of Basel published his findings on guncotton in 1846 (Phil. Mag. [3], 31, p. 7), which was quickly followed by research from R. R. Böttger of Frankfort and Otto and Knop, all of whom expanded our knowledge on the topic, with the latter introducing the use of sulfuric acid alongside nitric acid in the nitration process. The chemical makeup and structure of guncotton have been examined by many chemists, resulting in a variety of opinions on the subject. W. Crum was likely the first to recognize that some hydrogen atoms in the cellulose had been replaced by an oxide of nitrogen, a view that was largely supported by others, particularly Hadow, who seems to have identified that at least three compounds were present, with the most explosively reactive being the primary component of what we commonly call guncotton. This specific product was insoluble in a mixture of ether and alcohol, and its composition can be described as tri-nitrocellulose. Other products were soluble in the ether-alcohol mixture; these were less highly nitrated and made up what is known as collodion guncotton.
The smallest empirical formula for cellulose (q.v.) may certainly be written C6H10O5. How much of the hydrogen and oxygen are in the hydroxylic (OH) form cannot be absolutely stated, but from the study of the acetates at least three hydroxyl groups may be assumed. The oldest and perhaps most reasonable idea represents guncotton as cellulose trinitrate, but this has been much disputed, and various formulae, some based on cellulose as C12H20O10, others on a still more complex molecule, have been proposed. The constitution of guncotton is a difficult matter to investigate, primarily on account of the very insoluble nature of cellulose itself, and also from the fact that comparatively slight variations in the concentration and temperature of the acids used produce considerable differences in the products. The nitrates are also very insoluble substances, all the so-called solvents merely converting them into jelly. No method has yet been devised by which the molecular weight can be ascertained.1 The products of the action of nitric acid on cellulose are not nitro compounds in the sense that picric acid is, but are nitrates or nitric esters.
The simplest empirical formula for cellulose (q.v.) can definitely be written as C6H10O5. It's not possible to say exactly how much of the hydrogen and oxygen are in the hydroxylic (OH) form, but based on the study of acetates, we can assume there are at least three hydroxyl groups. The oldest and perhaps most reasonable theory describes guncotton as cellulose trinitrate, but this has been heavily debated, and various formulas have been suggested, some based on cellulose as C12H20O10, and others on even more complex molecules. Investigating the structure of guncotton is challenging, mainly due to the highly insoluble nature of cellulose itself, as well as the fact that even small changes in the concentration and temperature of the acids used can lead to significant differences in the results. The nitrates are also very insoluble compounds, with all the so-called solvents just turning them into a jelly-like substance. No method has been developed yet that can determine the molecular weight. 1 The products formed when nitric acid reacts with cellulose are not nitro compounds like picric acid, but are nitrates or nitric esters.
Guncotton is made by immersing cleaned and dried cotton waste in a mixture of strong nitric and sulphuric acids. The relative amounts of the acids in the mixture and the time of duration of treatment of the cotton varies somewhat in different works, but the underlying idea is the same, viz. employing such an excess of sulphuric over nitric that the latter will be rendered anhydrous or concentrated and maintained as such in solution in the sulphuric acid, and that the sulphuric acid shall still be sufficiently strong to absorb and combine with the water produced during the actual formation of the guncotton. In the recent methods the cotton remains in contact with the acids for two to four hours at the ordinary air temperature (15° C.), in which time it is almost fully nitrated, the main portion, say 90%, having a composition represented by the formula2 C6H7O2(NO3)3, the remainder consisting of lower nitrated products, some oxidation products and traces of unchanged cellulose and cellulose sulphates. The acid is then slowly run out by an opening in the bottom of the pan in which the operation is conducted, and water distributed carefully over its surface displaces it in the interstices of the cotton, which is finally subjected to a course of boiling and washing with water. This washing is a most important part of the process. On its thoroughness depends the removal of small quantities of products other than the nitrates, for instance, some sulphates and products from impurities contained in the original cellulose. Cellulose sulphates are one, and possibly the main, cause of instability in guncotton, and it is highly desirable that they should be completely hydrolysed and removed in the washing process. The nitrated product retains the outward form of the original cellulose. In the course of the washing, according to a method introduced by Sir F. Abel, the cotton is ground into a pulp, a process which greatly facilitates the complete removal of acids, &c. This pulp is finally drained, and is then either compressed, while still moist, into slabs or blocks when required for blasting purposes, or it is dried when required for the manufacture of propellants. Sometimes a small quantity of an alkali (e.g. sodium carbonate) is added to the final washing water, so that quantities of this alkaline substance ranging from 0.5% to a little over 1% are retained by the guncotton. The idea is that any traces of acid not washed away by the washing process or produced later by a slow decomposition of the substance will be thereby neutralized and rendered harmless. Guncotton in an air-dry state, whether in the original form or after grinding to pulp and compressing, burns with very great rapidity but does not detonate unless confined.
Guncotton is created by soaking cleaned and dried cotton waste in a mix of strong nitric and sulfuric acids. The exact proportions of the acids and the duration of the cotton’s treatment can vary in different sources, but the core concept remains the same: using a larger amount of sulfuric acid than nitric so that the nitric acid becomes anhydrous or concentrated and stays that way in the sulfuric acid solution. The sulfuric acid also needs to be strong enough to absorb and react with the water produced during the making of guncotton. In recent methods, the cotton is kept in contact with the acids for two to four hours at normal room temperature (15° C.), during which it becomes almost fully nitrated, with about 90% of it having a composition represented by the formula2 C6H7O2(NO3)3. The rest consists of lower nitrated products, some oxidation products, and traces of unchanged cellulose and cellulose sulfates. The acid is then slowly drained out through an opening at the bottom of the pan where the process takes place, and water is carefully poured over the cotton to push it out of the cotton fibers, which is then boiled and washed with water. This washing is a crucial part of the process; its thoroughness ensures the removal of small quantities of byproducts other than the nitrates, such as some sulfates and contaminants from the original cellulose. Cellulose sulfates are one of the main causes of instability in guncotton, so it’s essential to hydrolyze and remove them completely during washing. The nitrated product retains the shape of the original cellulose. During the washing process, as introduced by Sir F. Abel, the cotton is ground into a pulp, which significantly aids in the complete removal of acids, etc. This pulp is then drained and either compressed while still wet into slabs or blocks for blasting purposes, or dried for making propellants. Sometimes a small amount of an alkali (e.g., sodium carbonate) is added to the final washing water, resulting in the guncotton retaining between 0.5% and just over 1% of this alkaline substance. This is intended to neutralize any remaining acid that may not have been washed away or could form later through slow decomposition of the substance, making it harmless. Guncotton in a nearly dry state, whether in its original form or after being pulped and compressed, burns very quickly but does not detonate unless contained.
Immediately after the discovery of guncotton Schönbein proposed its employment as a substitute for gunpowder, and General von Lenk carried out a lengthy and laborious series of experiments intending to adapt it especially for artillery use. All these and many subsequent attempts to utilize it, either loose or mechanically compressed in any way, signally failed. However much compressed by mechanical means it is still a porous mass, and when it is confined as in a gun the flame and hot gases from the portion first ignited permeate the remainder, generally causing it actually to detonate, or to burn so rapidly that its action approaches detonation. The more closely it is confined the greater is the pressure set up by a small part of the charge burning, and the more completely will the explosion of the remainder assume the detonating form. The employment of guncotton as a propellant was possible only after the discovery that it could be gelatinized or made into a colloid by the action of so-called solvents, e.g. ethylacetate and other esters, acetone and a number of like substances (see Cordite).
Immediately after the discovery of guncotton, Schönbein suggested using it as a substitute for gunpowder, and General von Lenk conducted a long and labor-intensive series of experiments to adapt it specifically for artillery use. All these and many later attempts to utilize it, whether loose or mechanically compressed, completely failed. No matter how much it was compressed, it remained a porous substance, and when confined in a gun, the flame and hot gases from the first ignited portion spread through the rest, often causing it to detonate or burn so quickly that its behavior was similar to detonation. The more tightly it was confined, the greater the pressure created by a small part of the charge burning, and the more completely the explosion of the remaining portion would take on a detonating form. The use of guncotton as a propellant became possible only after it was discovered that it could be gelatinized or turned into a colloid by the action of so-called solvents, e.g. ethylacetate and other esters, acetone, and several similar substances (see Cordite).
When quite dry guncotton is easily detonated by a blow on an anvil or hard surface. If dry and warm it is much more sensitive to percussion or friction, and also becomes electrified by friction under those conditions. The amount of contained moisture exerts a considerable effect on its sensitiveness. With about 2% of moisture it can still be detonated on an anvil, but the action is generally confined to the piece struck. As the quantity of contained water increases it becomes difficult or even impossible to detonate by an ordinary blow. Compressed dry guncotton is easily detonated by an initiative detonator such as mercuric fulminate. Guncotton containing more than 15% of water is uninflammable, may be compressed or worked without danger and is much more difficult to detonate by a fulminate 722 detonator than when dry.3 A small charge of dry guncotton will, however, detonate the wet material, and this peculiarity is made use of in the employment of guncotton for blasting purposes. A charge of compressed wet guncotton may be exploded, even under water, by the detonation of a small primer of the dry and waterproofed material, which in turn can be started by a small fulminate detonator. The explosive wave from the dry guncotton primer is in fact better responded to by the wet compressed material than the dry, and its detonation is somewhat sharper than that of the dry. It is not necessary for the blocks of wet guncotton to be actually in contact if they be under water, and the peculiar explosive wave can also be conveyed a little distance by a piece of metal such as a railway rail. The more nearly the composition of guncotton approaches that represented by C6H7O2(NO3)3, the more stable is it as regards storing at ordinary temperatures, and the higher the igniting temperature. Carefully prepared guncotton after washing with alcohol-ether until nothing more dissolves may require to be heated to 180-185° C. before inflaming. Ordinary commercial guncottons, containing from 10 to 15% of lower nitrated products, will ignite as a rule some 20-25° lower.
When completely dry, guncotton can be easily detonated by a blow on an anvil or hard surface. If it's dry and warm, it becomes even more sensitive to percussion or friction, and can also become electrically charged due to friction under those conditions. The amount of moisture present significantly affects its sensitivity. With about 2% moisture, it can still be detonated on an anvil, but the effect is usually limited to the piece that was struck. As the moisture content increases, it becomes harder or even impossible to detonate with a regular blow. Compressed dry guncotton can be easily detonated by an initial detonator like mercuric fulminate. Guncotton with over 15% water is not flammable, can be compressed or worked with safely, and is much trickier to detonate with a fulminate detonator compared to when it’s dry. A small charge of dry guncotton can, however, detonate the wet material, which is utilized in blasting operations. A charge of compressed wet guncotton can be exploded, even underwater, by the detonation of a small primer made from dry and waterproof material, which can be triggered by a small fulminate detonator. The explosive wave generated by the dry guncotton primer is actually better received by the wet compressed material compared to the dry, and its detonation is somewhat more intense than that of the dry. It is not necessary for the blocks of wet guncotton to be in direct contact if they are underwater, and the specific explosive wave can also be transmitted over a short distance by a piece of metal like a railway rail. The closer the composition of guncotton is to C6H7O2(NO3)3, the more stable it is for storage at normal temperatures, and the higher the ignition temperature. Carefully prepared guncotton, after being washed with alcohol-ether until nothing else dissolves, may need to be heated to 180-185° C before igniting. Regular commercial guncottons, which contain 10 to 15% lower nitrated products, usually ignite around 20-25° lower.
Assuming the above formula to represent guncotton, there is sufficient oxygen for internal combustion without any carbon being left. The gaseous mixture obtained by burning guncotton in a vacuum vessel contains steam, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, nitric oxide, and methane. When slowly heated in a vacuum vessel until ignition takes place, some nitrogen dioxide, NO2, is also produced. When kept for some weeks at a temperature of 100° in steam, a considerable number of fatty acids, some bases, and glucose-like substances result. Under different pressures the relative amounts of the combustion products vary considerably. Under very great pressures carbon monoxide, steam and nitrogen are the main products, but nitric oxide never quite disappears.
Assuming the formula above represents guncotton, there’s enough oxygen for internal combustion without any carbon left over. The gas mixture produced by burning guncotton in a vacuum container includes steam, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, nitric oxide, and methane. When it’s slowly heated in a vacuum vessel until it ignites, some nitrogen dioxide, NO2, is also created. If kept for several weeks at a temperature of 100° in steam, it results in a significant number of fatty acids, some bases, and glucose-like substances. The amounts of combustion products vary significantly under different pressures. At very high pressures, carbon monoxide, steam, and nitrogen are the main products, but nitric oxide never completely disappears.
Dilute mineral acids have little or no action on guncotton. Strong sulphuric acid in contact with it liberates first nitric acid and later oxides of nitrogen, leaving a charred residue or a brown solution according to the quantity of acid. It sometimes fires on contact with strong sulphuric acid, especially when slightly warmed. The alkali hydroxides (e.g. sodium hydroxide) will in a solid state fire it on contact. Strong or weak solutions of these substances also decompose it, producing some alkali nitrate and nitrite, the cellulose molecule being only partially restored, some quantity undergoing oxidation. Ammonia is also active, but not quite in the same manner as the alkali hydroxides. Dry guncotton heated in ammonia gas detonates at about 70°, and ammonium hydroxide solutions of all strengths slowly decompose it, yielding somewhat complex products. Alkali sulphohydrates reduce guncotton, or other nitrated celluloses, completely to cellulose. The production of the so-called “artificial silk” depends on this action.
Dilute mineral acids have little to no effect on guncotton. When strong sulfuric acid comes into contact with it, it first releases nitric acid and then nitrogen oxides, resulting in a charred residue or a brown solution, depending on the amount of acid used. It can sometimes ignite when it touches strong sulfuric acid, especially if it’s slightly warmed. Solid alkali hydroxides (like sodium hydroxide) can ignite it upon contact. Both strong and weak solutions of these substances also break it down, creating some alkali nitrate and nitrite, with only partial restoration of the cellulose molecule, as some of it gets oxidized. Ammonia also reacts, but not quite the same way as the alkali hydroxides. Dry guncotton heated in ammonia gas detonates at about 70°C, and ammonium hydroxide solutions of any strength slowly break it down, producing somewhat complex byproducts. Alkali sulfohydrates reduce guncotton and other nitrated celluloses completely back to cellulose. This process is what leads to the creation of the so-called “artificial silk.”
A characteristic difference between guncotton and collodion cotton is the insolubility of the former in ether or alcohol or a mixture of these liquids. The so-called collodion cottons are nitrated celluloses, but of a lower degree of nitration (as a rule) than guncotton. They are sometimes spoken of as “lower” or “soluble” cottons or nitrates. The solubility in ether-alcohol may be owing to a lower degree of nitration, or to the temperature conditions under which the process of manufacture has been carried on. If guncotton be correctly represented by the formula C6H7O2(NO3)3, it should contain a little more than 14% of nitrogen. Guncottons are examined for degree of nitration by the nitrometer, in which apparatus they are decomposed by sulphuric acid in contact with mercury, and all the nitrogen is evolved as nitric oxide, NO, which is measured and the weight of its contained nitrogen calculated. Ordinary guncottons seldom contain more than 13% of nitrogen, and in most cases the amount does not exceed 12.5%. Generally speaking, the lower the nitrogen content of a guncotton, as found by the nitrometer, the higher the percentage of matters soluble in a mixture of ether-alcohol. These soluble matters are usually considered as “lower” nitrates.
A key difference between guncotton and collodion cotton is that guncotton doesn't dissolve in ether or alcohol, or in a mix of these liquids. The so-called collodion cottons are nitrated celluloses, but they usually have a lower degree of nitration than guncotton. They're sometimes referred to as “lower” or “soluble” cottons or nitrates. The solubility in ether-alcohol may be due to this lower degree of nitration or the temperature conditions during the manufacturing process. If guncotton is accurately represented by the formula C6H7O2(NO3)3, it should have just over 14% nitrogen content. Guncottons are tested for their degree of nitration using a nitrometer, where they are broken down by sulfuric acid in contact with mercury, and all the nitrogen is released as nitric oxide, NO, which is measured and the weight of the nitrogen calculated. Regular guncottons typically contain no more than 13% nitrogen, and in most cases, the amount doesn't go over 12.5%. Generally, the lower the nitrogen content measured by the nitrometer, the higher the percentage of substances that dissolve in a mixture of ether-alcohol. These soluble substances are usually classified as “lower” nitrates.
Guncottons are usually tested by the Abel heat test for stability (see Cordite). Another heat test, that of Will, consists in heating a weighed quantity of the guncotton in a stream of carbon dioxide to 130° C., passing the evolved gases over some red-hot copper, and finally collecting them over a solution of potassium hydroxide which retains the carbon dioxide and allows the nitrogen, arising from the guncotton decomposition, to be measured. This is done at definite time intervals so that the rate of decomposition can be followed. The relative stability is then judged by the amount of nitrogen gas collected in a certain time. Several modifications of this and of the Abel heat test are also in use. (See Explosives.)
Guncottons are typically tested for stability using the Abel heat test (see Cordite). Another heat test, known as the Will test, involves heating a measured amount of guncotton in a stream of carbon dioxide at 130° C., directing the gases produced over heated copper, and collecting them in a solution of potassium hydroxide, which absorbs the carbon dioxide and lets the nitrogen—produced from the guncotton breaking down—be measured. This process happens at specific time intervals to track the rate of decomposition. The relative stability is then assessed based on the amount of nitrogen gas collected during a set period. There are also several variations of this and the Abel heat test in use. (See Explosives.)
1 The composition of the cellulose nitrates was reviewed by G. Lunge (Jour. Amer. Chem. Soc., 1901, 23, p. 527), who, assuming the formula C24H40O20 for cellulose, showed how the nitrocelluloses described by different chemists may be expressed by the formula C24H{46-x}O20(NO2)x, where x has the values 4, 5, 6, ... 12.
1 G. Lunge reviewed the composition of cellulose nitrates in the Journal of the American Chemical Society (1901, 23, p. 527). Assuming the formula C24H40O20 for cellulose, he demonstrated how the nitrocelluloses described by various chemists can be expressed with the formula C24H{46-x}O20(NO2)x, where x can be 4, 5, 6, ... 12.
GUNDULICH, IVAN (1588-1638), known also as Giovanni Gondola, Servian poet, was born at Ragusa on the 8th of January 1588. His father, Franco Gundulich, once the Ragusan envoy to Constantinople and councillor of the republic, gave him an excellent education. He studied the “humanities” with the Jesuit, Father Muzzi, and philosophy with Father Ricasoli. After that he studied Roman law and jurisprudence in general. He was member of the Lower Council and once served as the chief magistrate of the republic. He died on the 8th of December 1638. A born poet, he admired much the Italian poets of his time, from whom he made many translations into Servian. It is believed that he so translated Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata. He is known to have written eighteen works, of which eleven were dramas, but of these only three have been fully preserved, others having perished during the great earthquake and fire in 1667. Most of those dramas were translations from the Italian, and were played, seemingly with great success, by the amateurs furnished by the noble families of Ragusa. But his greatest and justly celebrated work is an epic, entitled Osman, in twenty cantos. It is the first political epic on the Eastern Question, glorifying the victory of the Poles over Turks and Tatars in the campaign of 1621, and encouraging a league of the Christian nations, under the guidance of Vladislaus, the king of Poland, for the purpose of driving away the Turks from Europe. The fourteenth and fifteenth cantos are lost. It is generally believed that the Ragusan government suppressed them from consideration for the Sultan, the protector of the republic, those two cantos having been violently anti-Turkish.
GUNDULICH, IVAN (1588-1638), also known as Giovanni Gondola, was a Servian poet born in Ragusa on January 8, 1588. His father, Franco Gundulich, who was once the Ragusan envoy to Constantinople and a councilor of the republic, provided him with an excellent education. He studied the humanities with the Jesuit Father Muzzi and philosophy with Father Ricasoli. After that, he delved into Roman law and general jurisprudence. He was a member of the Lower Council and once served as the chief magistrate of the republic. He passed away on December 8, 1638. A natural poet, he greatly admired the Italian poets of his time, translating many of their works into Servian. It is believed that he translated Tasso’s Gerusalemme liberata. He is known to have written eighteen works, including eleven dramas, though only three have been fully preserved; the others were lost during the great earthquake and fire in 1667. Most of these dramas were translations from Italian and were performed, seemingly with great success, by amateur actors from the noble families of Ragusa. However, his greatest and most celebrated work is the epic titled Osman, consisting of twenty cantos. It is the first political epic addressing the Eastern Question, celebrating the victory of the Poles over the Turks and Tatars in the 1621 campaign, and advocating for a coalition of Christian nations, under the leadership of Vladislaus, the king of Poland, to drive the Turks out of Europe. The fourteenth and fifteenth cantos are lost, and it is widely believed that the Ragusan government suppressed them out of consideration for the Sultan, the protector of the republic, as those particular cantos were strongly anti-Turkish.
Osman was printed for the first time in Ragusa in 1826, the two missing cantos being replaced by songs written by Pietro Sorgo (or Sorkochevich). From this edition the learned Italian, Francesco Appendini, made an Italian translation published in 1827. Since that time several other editions have been made. The best are considered to be the edition of the South Slavonic Academy in Agram (1877) and the edition published in Semlin (1889) by Professor Yovan Boshkovich. In the edition of 1844 (Agram) the last cantos, fourteen and fifteen, were replaced by very fine compositions of the Serbo-Croatian poet, Mazhuranich (Mažuranić). The complete works of Gundulich have been published in Agram, 1847, by V. Babukich and by the South Slavonic Academy of Agram in 1889.
Osman was first published in Ragusa in 1826, with the two missing cantos substituted by songs written by Pietro Sorgo (or Sorkochevich). From this edition, the knowledgeable Italian, Francesco Appendini, created an Italian translation released in 1827. Since then, several other editions have been produced. The best are considered to be the edition from the South Slavonic Academy in Agram (1877) and the edition published in Semlin (1889) by Professor Yovan Boshkovich. In the 1844 edition (Agram), the last cantos, fourteen and fifteen, were replaced by excellent works from the Serbo-Croatian poet, Mazhuranich (Mažuranić). The complete works of Gundulich were published in Agram, 1847, by V. Babukich and by the South Slavonic Academy of Agram in 1889.
GUNG’L, JOSEF (1810-1889), Hungarian composer and conductor, was born on the 1st of December 1810, at Zsámbék, in Hungary. After starting life as a school-teacher, and learning the elements of music from Ofen, the school-choirmaster, he became first oboist at Graz, and, at twenty-five, bandmaster of the 4th regiment of Austrian artillery. His first composition, a Hungarian march, written in 1836, attracted some notice, and in 1843 he was able to establish an orchestra in Berlin. With this band he travelled far, even (in 1849) to America. It is worth recording that Mendelssohn’s complete Midsummer Night’s Dream music is said to have been first played by Gung’l’s band. In 1853 he became bandmaster to the 23rd Infantry Regiment at Brünn, but in 1864 he lived at Munich, and in 1876 at Frankfort, after (in 1873) having conducted with great success a series of promenade concerts at Covent Garden, London. From Frankfort Gung’l went to Weimar to live with his daughter, a well-known German opera singer and local prima donna. There he died, on the 31st of January 1889. Gung’l’s dances number over 300, perhaps the most popular being the “Amoretten,” “Hydropaten,” “Casino,” “Dreams on the Ocean” waltzes; “In Stiller Mitternacht” polka, and “Blue Violets” mazurka. His Hungarian march was transcribed by Liszt. His music is characterized by the same easy flowing melodies and well-marked rhythm that distinguish the dances of Strauss, to whom alone he can be ranked second in this kind of composition.
GUNG’L, JOSEF (1810-1889), Hungarian composer and conductor, was born on December 1, 1810, in Zsámbék, Hungary. After starting his career as a school teacher and learning music basics from Ofen, the school choirmaster, he became the first oboist in Graz and, at the age of twenty-five, the bandmaster of the 4th regiment of Austrian artillery. His first composition, a Hungarian march written in 1836, gained some attention, and by 1843 he was able to establish an orchestra in Berlin. With this band, he traveled extensively, even to America in 1849. Notably, Mendelssohn’s complete Midsummer Night’s Dream music is said to have been first performed by Gung’l’s band. In 1853, he became the bandmaster for the 23rd Infantry Regiment in Brünn, but by 1864 he was living in Munich, and in 1876 he was in Frankfort, after conducting a highly successful series of promenade concerts at Covent Garden in London in 1873. From Frankfort, Gung’l moved to Weimar to live with his daughter, a renowned German opera singer and local prima donna. He passed away there on January 31, 1889. Gung’l composed over 300 dances, with some of the most popular being the “Amoretten,” “Hydropaten,” “Casino,” “Dreams on the Ocean” waltzes, “In Stiller Mitternacht” polka, and “Blue Violets” mazurka. His Hungarian march was arranged by Liszt. His music is known for its smooth, flowing melodies and strong rhythms, similar to the dances of Strauss, to whom he can be considered a close second in this style of composition.
GUNNER, or Master Gunner, in the navy, the warrant officer who has charge of the ordnance and ammunition, and of the training of the men at gun drill. His functions in this respect are of less relative importance than they were in former times, when specially trained corps of seamen gunners had not been formed.
GUNNING, PETER (1614-1684), English divine, was born at Hoo, in Kent, and educated at the King’s School, Canterbury, and Clare College, Cambridge, where he became a fellow in 1633. Having taken orders, he advocated the royalist cause from the pulpit with much eloquence. In 1644 he retired to Oxford, and held a chaplaincy at New College until the city surrendered to the parliamentary forces in 1646. Subsequently he was chaplain, first to the royalist Sir Robert Shirley of Eatington (1629-1656), and then at the Exeter House chapel. After the 723 Restoration in 1660 he returned to Clare College as master, and was appointed Lady Margaret professor of divinity. He also received the livings of Cottesmore, Rutlandshire, and Stoke Bruerne, Northamptonshire. In 1661 he became head of St John’s College, Cambridge, and was elected Regius professor of divinity. He was consecrated bishop of Chichester in 1669, and was translated to the see of Ely in 1674-1675. Holding moderate religious views, he deprecated alike the extremes represented by Puritanism and Roman Catholicism.
Gunning, Peter (1614-1684), an English clergyman, was born in Hoo, Kent, and educated at the King’s School in Canterbury and Clare College, Cambridge, where he became a fellow in 1633. After being ordained, he passionately supported the royalist cause from the pulpit. In 1644, he moved to Oxford and served as a chaplain at New College until the city fell to the parliamentary forces in 1646. Later, he was chaplain, first to the royalist Sir Robert Shirley of Eatington (1629-1656), and then at the chapel of Exeter House. After the 723 Restoration in 1660, he returned to Clare College as master and was appointed Lady Margaret professor of divinity. He also received the parishes of Cottesmore in Rutlandshire and Stoke Bruerne in Northamptonshire. In 1661, he became head of St John’s College, Cambridge, and was elected Regius professor of divinity. He was consecrated bishop of Chichester in 1669 and was later translated to the see of Ely in 1674-1675. Holding moderate religious views, he criticized both the extremes represented by Puritanism and Roman Catholicism.
His works are chiefly reports of his disputations, such as that which appears in the Scisme Unmask’t (Paris, 1658), in which the definition of a schism is discussed with two Romanist opponents.
His works mainly consist of reports from his debates, like the one found in the Scisme Unmask’t (Paris, 1658), where he discusses the definition of a schism with two Roman Catholic opponents.
GUNNY, a sort of cloth, the name of which is supposed to be derived from ganga or gania of Rumphius, or from gonia, a vernacular name of the Crotolaria juncea—a plant common in Madras. One of the first notices of the term itself is to be found in Knox’s Ceylon, in which he says: “The filaments at the bottom of the stem (coir from the coco-nut husk, Cocos nucifera) may be made into a coarse cloth called gunny, which is used for bags and similar purposes.”
GUNNY, is a type of cloth, with its name thought to come from ganga or gania mentioned by Rumphius, or from gonia, a local name for the Crotolaria juncea—a plant that is common in Madras. One of the earliest mentions of the term is in Knox’s Ceylon, where he states: “The fibers at the bottom of the stem (coir from the coconut husk, Cocos nucifera) can be made into a rough cloth called gunny, which is used for bags and similar items.”
Warden, in The Linen Trade, says:
Warden, in The Linen Trade, states:
“A very large proportion of the jute grown in Bengal is made into cloth in the districts where it is cultivated, and this industry forms the grand domestic manufacture of all the populous eastern districts of Bengal. It pervades all classes, and penetrates into every household, almost every one, man, woman and child, being in some way engaged in it. Boatmen, husbandmen, palankeen carriers, domestic servants, everyone, in fact, being Hindu—for Mussulmans spin cotton only—pass their leisure moments, distaff in hand, spinning gunny twist. It is spun by the takur and dhara, the former being a kind of spindle, which is turned upon the thigh or the sole of the foot, and the latter a reel, on which the thread, when sufficiently twisted, is wound up. Another kind of spinning machine, called a ghurghurea, is occasionally used. A bunch of the raw material is hung up in every farmer’s house, or on the protruding stick of a thatched roof, and every one who has leisure forms with these spindles some coarse pack-thread, of which ropes are twisted for the use of the farm. The lower Hindu castes, from this pack-thread, spin a finer thread for being made into cloth, and, there being a loom in nearly every house, very much of it is woven by the women of the lower class of people. It is especially the employment of the Hindu widow, as it enables her to earn her bread without being a burden on her family. The cloth thus made is of various qualities, such as clothing for the family (especially the women, a great proportion of whom on all the eastern frontier wear almost nothing else), coarse fabrics, bedding, rice and sugar bags, sacking, pack-sheet, &c. Much of it is woven into short lengths and very narrow widths, two or three of which are sometimes sewed into one piece before they are sold. That intended for rice and sugar bags is made about 6 feet long, and from 24 to 27 inches wide, and doubled. A considerable quantity of jute yarn is dyed and woven into cloth for various local purposes, and some of it is also sent out of the district. The principal places where chotee, or jute cloth for gunny bags, is made are within a radius of perhaps 150 to 200 miles around Dacca, and there both labour and land are remarkably cheap. The short, staple, common jute is generally consumed in the local manufacture, the finer and long stapled being reserved for the export trade. These causes enable gunny cloth and bags to be sold almost as cheaply as the raw material, which creates an immense demand for them in nearly every market of the world.”
“A very large percentage of the jute grown in Bengal is turned into cloth in the areas where it's cultivated, and this industry is the main domestic production for all the densely populated eastern districts of Bengal. It reaches all social classes and extends into every household, with nearly everyone—men, women, and children—participating in some way. Boatmen, farmers, palanquin bearers, and domestic workers, all of whom are Hindu—since Muslims only spin cotton—spend their free time spinning gunny twist with a distaff. The spinning is done using a takur and dhara, the former being a type of spindle that's turned against the thigh or the sole of the foot, and the latter a reel for winding the thread when it’s twisted enough. Another spinning device called a ghurghurea is sometimes used. A bundle of the raw jute is hung in every farmer’s house or on the extended stick of a thatched roof, and anyone with free time uses these spindles to make coarse pack-thread for farm ropes. The lower Hindu castes take this pack-thread and spin a finer thread for cloth, and with a loom in nearly every home, a lot of it is woven by lower-class women. This work is especially common among Hindu widows, as it allows them to support themselves without being a burden on their families. The cloth made has various qualities, such as clothing for families (especially women, many of whom along the eastern frontier wear little else), coarse fabrics, bedding, rice and sugar bags, sacking, pack-sheet, etc. Much of it is woven into short lengths and narrow widths, and sometimes two or three pieces are sewn together before selling. The fabric meant for rice and sugar bags is about 6 feet long and 24 to 27 inches wide, and it's doubled. A significant amount of jute yarn is dyed and woven into cloth for different local uses, and some of it is shipped out of the district. The main areas producing chotee, or jute cloth for gunny bags, are within approximately 150 to 200 miles of Dacca, where both labor and land are notably cheap. The short, common jute is usually processed locally, while the finer, longer-stapled jute is saved for export. These conditions allow gunny cloth and bags to be sold at prices nearly equal to the raw material, generating immense demand for them in nearly every market worldwide.”
Such appeared to be the definition of gunny cloth at the time the above was written—between 1850 and 1860. Most of the Indian cloth for gunny bags is now made by power, and within about 20 m. of Calcutta. In many respects the term gunny cloth is still applied to all and sundry, but there is no doubt that the original name was intended for cloth which was similar to what is now known as “cotton bagging.” This particular type of cloth is still largely made in the hand loom, even in Dundee, this method of manufacture being considered, for certain reasons, more satisfactory than the power loom method (see Jute and Bagging).
This was the definition of gunny cloth when the above was written—between 1850 and 1860. Most of the Indian cloth for gunny bags is now produced using power looms, and within about 20 miles of Calcutta. In many ways, the term gunny cloth is still used to refer to various materials, but it's clear that the original name referred to cloth similar to what we now call “cotton bagging.” This specific type of cloth is still mostly made on hand looms, even in Dundee, as this manufacturing method is considered, for some reasons, more favorable than the power loom method (see Jute and Bagging).
GUNPOWDER, an explosive composed of saltpetre, charcoal and sulphur. Very few substances have had a greater effect on civilization than gunpowder. Its employment altered the whole art of war, and its influence gradually and indirectly permeated and affected the whole fabric of society. Its direct effect on the arts of peace was but slight, and had but a limited range, which could not be compared to the modern extended employment of high explosives for blasting in mining and engineering work.
GUNPOWDER, is an explosive made of saltpeter, charcoal, and sulfur. Very few substances have impacted civilization as much as gunpowder. Its use changed the entire art of war, and its influence increasingly and indirectly spread through and affected all aspects of society. Its direct impact on peaceful activities was minimal and had a limited scope, which cannot be compared to the widespread use of high explosives in modern mining and engineering.
It is probably quite incorrect to speak of the discovery of gunpowder. From modern researches it seems more likely and more just to think of it as a thing that has developed, passing through many stages—mainly of improvement, but some undoubtedly retrograde. There really is not sufficient solid evidence on which to pin down its invention to one man. As Lieutenant-Colonel H. W. L. Hime (Gunpowder and Ammunition, 1904) says, the invention of gunpowder was impossible until the properties of nearly pure saltpetre had become known. The honour, however, has been associated with two names in particular, Berthold Schwartz, a German monk, and Friar Roger Bacon. Of the former Oscar Guttmann writes (Monumenta pulveris pyrii, 1904, p. 6): “Berthold Schwartz was generally considered to be the inventor of gunpowder, and only in England has Roger Bacon’s claim been upheld, though there are English writers who have pleaded in favour of Schwartz. Most writers are agreed that Schwartz invented the first firearms, and as nothing was known of an inventor of gunpowder, it was perhaps considered justifiable to give Schwartz the credit thereof. There is some ambiguity as to when Schwartz lived. The year 1354 is sometimes mentioned as the date of his invention of powder, and this is also to be inferred from an inscription on the monument to him in Freiburg. But considering there can be no doubt as to the manufacture in England of gunpowder and cannon in 1344, that we have authentic information of guns in France in 1338 and in Florence in 1326, and that the Oxford MS. De officiis regum of 1325 gives an illustration of a gun, Berthold Schwartz must have lived long before 1354 to have been the inventor of gunpowder or guns.” In Germany also there were powder-works at Augsburg in 1340, in Spandau in 1344, and Liegnitz in 1348.
It’s probably quite inaccurate to refer to the discovery of gunpowder. Modern research suggests it’s more accurate to view it as something that evolved, going through many stages—mostly improvements, but some definitely setbacks. There isn’t enough solid evidence to attribute its invention to a single person. As Lieutenant-Colonel H. W. L. Hime (Gunpowder and Ammunition, 1904) states, the invention of gunpowder couldn’t have happened until the properties of nearly pure saltpetre were understood. The credit, however, is often linked to two names in particular: Berthold Schwartz, a German monk, and Friar Roger Bacon. Oscar Guttmann writes about the former (Monumenta pulveris pyrii, 1904, p. 6): “Berthold Schwartz was generally regarded as the inventor of gunpowder, and only in England has Roger Bacon’s claim gained support, although some English writers have advocated for Schwartz. Most agree that Schwartz created the first firearms, and since there was no known inventor of gunpowder, it might have seemed reasonable to credit Schwartz with it. There is some uncertainty about when Schwartz lived. The year 1354 is sometimes cited as the date he invented powder, which is also implied by an inscription on his monument in Freiburg. However, given that there’s no doubt about the production of gunpowder and cannons in England in 1344, along with verified reports of guns in France in 1338 and in Florence in 1326, and that the Oxford MS. De officiis regum of 1325 depicts a gun, Berthold Schwartz must have lived well before 1354 to have been the inventor of gunpowder or guns.” In Germany, there were also powder factories in Augsburg in 1340, Spandau in 1344, and Liegnitz in 1348.
Roger Bacon, in his De mirabili potestate artis et naturae (1242), makes the most important communication on the history of gunpowder. Reference is made to an explosive mixture as known before his time and employed for “diversion, producing a noise like thunder and flashes like lightning.” In one passage Bacon speaks of saltpetre as a violent explosive, but there is no doubt that he knew it was not a self-explosive substance, but only so when mixed with other substances, as appears from the statement in De secretis operibus artis et naturae, printed at Hamburg in 1618, that “from saltpetre and other ingredients we are able to make a fire that shall burn at any distance we please.” A great part of his three chapters, 9, 10, 11, long appeared without meaning until the anagrammatic nature of the sentences was realized. The words of this anagram are (chap. 11): “Item ponderis totum 30 sed tamen salis petrae luru vopo vir can utri1 et sulphuris; et sic facies tonitruum et coruscationem, si scias artificium. Videas tamen utrum loquar aenigmate aut secundum veritatem.” Hime, in his chapter on the origin of gunpowder, discusses these chapters at length, and gives, omitting the anagram, the translation: “Let the total weight of the ingredients be 30, however, of saltpetre ... of sulphur; and with such a mixture you will produce a bright flash and a thundering noise, if you know the trick. You may find (by actual experiment) whether I am writing riddles to you or the plain truth.” The anagram reads, according to Hime, “salis petrae r(ecipe) vii part(es), v nov(ellae) corul(i), v et sulphuris” (take seven parts of saltpetre, five of young hazel-wood, and five of sulphur). Hime then goes on to show that Bacon was in possession of an explosive which was a considerable advance on mere incendiary compositions. Bacon does not appear to have been aware of the projecting power of gunpowder. He knew that it exploded and that perhaps people might be blown up or frightened by it; more cannot be said. The behaviour of small quantities of any explosive is hardly ever indicative of its behaviour in large quantities and especially when under confinement. Hime is of opinion that Bacon blundered upon gunpowder whilst playing with some incendiary composition, such as those mentioned by Marcus Graecus and others, in which 724 he employed his comparatively pure saltpetre instead of crude nitrum. It has been suggested that Bacon derived his knowledge of these fiery mixtures from the MS. Liber ignium, ascribed to Marcus Graecus, in the National Library in Paris (Dutens, Enquiry into Origin of Discoveries attributed to Moderns). Certainly this Marcus Graecus appears to have known of some incendiary composition containing the gunpowder ingredients, but it was not gunpowder. Hime seems to doubt the existence of any such person as Marcus Graecus, as he says: “The Liber ignium was written from first to last in the period of literary forgeries and pseudographs ... and we may reasonably conclude that Marcus Graecus is as unreal as the imaginary Greek original of the tract which bears his name.” Albertus Magnus in the De mirabilibus mundi repeats some of the receipts given in Marcus Graecus, and several other writers give receipts for Greek fire, rockets, &c. Dutens gives many passages in his work, above-named, from old authors in support of his view that a composition of the nature of gunpowder was not unknown to the ancients. Hime’s elaborate arguments go to show that these compositions could only have been of the incendiary type and not real explosives. His arguments seem to hold good as regards not only the Greeks but also the Arabs, Hindus and Chinese (see also Fireworks).
Roger Bacon, in his De mirabili potestate artis et naturae (1242), offers the most significant commentary on the history of gunpowder. He refers to an explosive mixture that was known before his time and used for “diversion, producing a noise like thunder and flashes like lightning.” In one section, Bacon mentions saltpetre as a powerful explosive, but it’s clear he understood it wasn’t explosive on its own; it only became so when mixed with other materials. This is evident from his statement in De secretis operibus artis et naturae, published in Hamburg in 1618, that “with saltpetre and other ingredients, we can create a fire that will burn at any distance we want.” Much of his discussions in chapters 9, 10, and 11 were puzzling until the anagram-like nature of the sentences was recognized. The anagram states (chap. 11): “Item ponderis totum 30 sed tamen salis petrae luru vopo vir can utri1 et sulphuris; et sic facies tonitruum et coruscationem, si scias artificium. Videas tamen utrum loquar aenigmate aut secundum veritatem.” Hime, in his chapter about the origin of gunpowder, discusses these chapters in detail and provides, without the anagram, the translation: “Let the total weight of the ingredients be 30, however, of saltpetre ... of sulphur; and with such a mixture, you will create a bright flash and a roaring noise if you know the trick. You may find (through actual testing) whether I am writing riddles for you or telling the plain truth.” According to Hime, the anagram translates to “salis petrae r(ecipe) vii part(es), v nov(ellae) corul(i), v et sulphuris” (take seven parts of saltpetre, five of young hazel-wood, and five of sulphur). Hime then explains that Bacon had access to an explosive that was a significant improvement over simple incendiary mixtures. However, Bacon didn’t seem to recognize the propelling power of gunpowder. He knew it exploded and that people might get harmed or scared by it; beyond that, not much can be said. The behavior of small amounts of any explosive is seldom indicative of how it acts in larger quantities, especially when contained. Hime believes Bacon stumbled upon gunpowder while experimenting with some incendiary mixture, like those mentioned by Marcus Graecus and others, using his relatively pure saltpetre instead of crude nitrum. It has been suggested that Bacon gained his knowledge of these fiery mixtures from the MS. Liber ignium, attributed to Marcus Graecus, found in the National Library in Paris (Dutens, Enquiry into Origin of Discoveries attributed to Moderns). Certainly, this Marcus Graecus seems to have been aware of some incendiary composition containing gunpowder ingredients, but it wasn’t gunpowder itself. Hime appears to doubt the existence of any individual named Marcus Graecus, stating: “The Liber ignium was written entirely during a time of literary forgeries and pseudographs ... and we can reasonably conclude that Marcus Graecus is as fictional as the imaginary Greek original of the document bearing his name.” Albertus Magnus in the De mirabilibus mundi repeats some of the recipes found in Marcus Graecus, and several other writers offer recipes for Greek fire, rockets, etc. Dutens includes numerous excerpts in his aforementioned work from ancient authors to support his view that a compound resembling gunpowder wasn’t entirely unknown to the ancients. Hime’s detailed arguments indicate that these mixtures could only have been of the incendiary kind, not true explosives. His reasoning seems to apply not just to the Greeks but also to the Arabs, Hindus, and Chinese (see also Fireworks).
There seems no doubt that incendiary compositions, some perhaps containing nitre, mostly, however, simply combustible substances as sulphur, naphtha, resins, &c., were employed and projected both for defence and offence, but they were projected or blown by engines and not by themselves. It is quite inconceivable that a real propelling explosive should have been known in the time of Alexander or much later, and not have immediately taken its proper place. In a chapter discussing this question of explosives amongst the Hindus, Hime says: “It is needless to enlarge the list of quotations: incendiaries pursued much the same course in Upper India as in Greece and Arabia.” No trustworthy evidence of an explosive in India is to be found until the 21st of April 1526, the date of the decisive battle of Panipat, in which Ibrahim, sultan of Delhi, was killed and his army routed by Baber the Mogul, who possessed both great and small firearms.
There’s no doubt that incendiary materials, some possibly containing saltpeter and mostly just flammable substances like sulfur, naphtha, resins, etc., were used and launched for both defense and attack, but they were fired by devices and not on their own. It’s hard to believe that a true propelling explosive was known during the time of Alexander or even later and didn’t immediately take its rightful place. In a chapter discussing the topic of explosives among the Hindus, Hime states: “It’s unnecessary to expand the list of quotes: incendiaries followed a similar path in Upper India as they did in Greece and Arabia.” There’s no reliable evidence of an explosive in India until April 21, 1526, the date of the decisive Battle of Panipat, where Ibrahim, the Sultan of Delhi, was killed and his army defeated by Baber the Mughal, who had both large and small firearms.
As regards also the crusader period (1097-1291), so strange and deadly an agent of destruction as gunpowder could not possibly have been employed in the field without the full knowledge of both parties, yet no historian, Christian or Moslem, alludes to an explosive of any kind, while all of them carefully record the use of incendiaries. The employment of rockets and “wildfire” incendiary composition seems undoubtedly of very old date in India, but the names given to pieces of artillery under the Mogul conqueror of Hindustan point to a European, or at least to a Turkish origin, and it is quite certain that Europeans were retained in the service of Akbar and Aurangzeb. The composition of present day Chinese gunpowder is almost identical with that employed in Europe, so that in all probability the knowledge of it was obtained from Western sources.
Regarding the crusader period (1097-1291), such a strange and deadly force of destruction as gunpowder couldn't have been used in the field without the full awareness of both sides, yet no historian, Christian or Muslim, mentions any type of explosive, while all of them meticulously document the use of incendiaries. The use of rockets and "wildfire" incendiary mixtures seems to date back very far in India, but the names given to artillery pieces under the Mughal conquerors of Hindustan suggest a European, or at least Turkish, influence, and it's clear that Europeans were employed by Akbar and Aurangzeb. The composition of modern Chinese gunpowder is almost identical to that used in Europe, indicating that the knowledge of it likely came from Western sources.
In the writings of Bacon there is no mention of guns or the use of powder as a propellant, but merely as an explosive and destructive power. Owing perhaps to this obscurity hanging over the early history of gunpowder, its employment as a propelling agent has been ascribed to the Moors or Saracens. J. A. Conde (Historia de la dominacion de los Arabes en España) states that Ismail Ben Firaz, king of Granada, who in 1325 besieged Boza, had among his machines “some that cast globes of fire,” but there is not the least evidence that these were guns. The first trustworthy document relative to the use of gunpowder in Europe, a document still in existence, and bearing date February 11, 1326, gives authority to the council of twelve of Florence and others to appoint persons to superintend the manufacture of cannons of brass and iron balls, for the defence of the territory, &c., of the republic. John Barbour, archdeacon of Aberdeen, writing in 1375, states that cannons (crakys of war) were employed in Edward III.’s invasion of Scotland in 1327. An indenture first published by Sir N. H. Nicolas in his History of the Royal Navy (London, 1846), and again by Lieutenant-Colonel H. Brackenbury (Proc. R.A. Inst., 1865), stated to be 1338, contains references to small cannon as among the stores of the Tower, and also mentions “un petit barrell de gonpoudre le quart’ plein.” If authentic, this is possibly the first mention of gunpowder as such in England, but some doubts have been thrown upon the date of this MS. From a contemporary document in the National Library in Paris it seems that in the same year (1338) there existed in the marine arsenal at Rouen an iron weapon called pot de feu, for propelling bolts, together with some saltpetre and sulphur to make powder for the same. Preserved in the Record Office in London are trustworthy accounts from the year 1345 of the purchase of ingredients for making powder, and of the shipping of cannon to France. In 1346 Edward III. appears to have ordered all available saltpetre and sulphur to be bought up for him. In the first year of Richard II. (1377) Thomas Norbury was ordered to buy, amongst other munitions, sulphur, saltpetre and charcoal, to be sent to the castle of Brest. In 1414 Henry V. ordered that no gunpowder should be taken out of the kingdom without special licence, and in the same year ordered twenty pipes of willow charcoal and other articles for the use of the guns.
In Bacon's writings, there's no mention of guns or using gunpowder as a propellant; rather, it's referenced solely as an explosive and destructive force. This lack of clarity about the early history of gunpowder has led some to attribute its use as a propellant to the Moors or Saracens. J. A. Conde (Historia de la dominacion de los Arabes en España) notes that Ismail Ben Firaz, the king of Granada, who besieged Boza in 1325, had machines “that cast globes of fire,” but there's no evidence that these were guns. The first reliable document related to gunpowder use in Europe, which still exists, is dated February 11, 1326. It gives authority to the council of twelve of Florence and others to appoint people to oversee the manufacture of brass and iron cannons for the defense of the territory of the republic. John Barbour, archdeacon of Aberdeen, writing in 1375, states that cannons (crakys of war) were used during Edward III’s invasion of Scotland in 1327. An indenture first published by Sir N. H. Nicolas in his History of the Royal Navy (London, 1846), and again by Lieutenant-Colonel H. Brackenbury (Proc. R.A. Inst., 1865), noted to be from 1338, talks about small cannons in the Tower's inventory and also mentions “un petit barrell de gonpoudre le quart’ plein.” If this is authentic, it might be the first mention of gunpowder in England, though there are doubts about the date of this manuscript. A contemporary document in the National Library in Paris suggests that in 1338, there was an iron weapon called pot de feu at the marine arsenal in Rouen, used for firing bolts, along with saltpetre and sulphur to make powder for it. Reliable records from the Record Office in London from 1345 detail purchases of materials for making powder and the shipping of cannons to France. In 1346, Edward III seems to have ordered the acquisition of all available saltpetre and sulphur. In the first year of Richard II (1377), Thomas Norbury was instructed to buy sulphur, saltpetre, and charcoal among other munitions to be sent to the castle of Brest. In 1414, Henry V decreed that no gunpowder should be exported from the kingdom without special permission and also ordered twenty pipes of willow charcoal and other supplies for the guns that same year.
The manufacture of gunpowder seems to have been carried on as a crown monopoly about the time of Elizabeth, and regulations respecting gunpowder and nitre were made about 1623 (James I.). Powder-mills were probably in existence at Waltham Abbey about the middle or towards the end of the 16th century.
The production of gunpowder appears to have been a crown monopoly around the time of Elizabeth, and regulations regarding gunpowder and saltpeter were established around 1623 (James I.). Powder mills were likely operational at Waltham Abbey by the middle or towards the end of the 16th century.
Ingredients and their Action.—Roger Bacon in his anagram gives the first real recipe for gunpowder, viz. (according to Hime, ch. xii.) saltpetre 41.2, charcoal 29.4, sulphur 29.4. Dr John Arderne of Newark, who began to practise about 1350 and was later surgeon to Henry IV., gives a recipe (Sloane MSS. 335, 795), saltpetre 66.6, charcoal 22.2, sulphur 11.1, “which are to be thoroughly mixed on a marble and then sifted through a cloth.” This powder is nominally of the same composition as one given in a MS. of Marcus Graecus, but the saltpetre of this formula by Marcus Graecus was undoubtedly answerable for the difference in behaviour of the two compositions. Roger Bacon had not only refined and obtained pure nitre, but had appreciated the importance of thoroughly mixing the components of the powder. Most if not all the early powder was a “loose” mixture of the three ingredients, and the most important step in connexion with the development of gunpowder was undoubtedly the introduction of wet mixing or “incorporating.” Whenever this was done, the improvement in the product must have been immediately evident. In the damp or wetted state pressure could be applied with comparative safety during the mixing. The loose powder mixture came to be called “serpentine”; after wet mixing it was more or less granulated or corned and was known as “corned” powder. Corned powder seems to have been gradually introduced. It is mentioned in the Fire Book of Conrad von Schöngau (in 1429), and was used for hand-guns in England long before 1560. It would seem that corned powder was used for hand-guns or small arms in the 15th century, but cannon were not made strong enough to withstand its explosion for quite another century (Hime). According to the same writer, in the period 1250-1450, when serpentine only was used, one powder could differ from another in the proportions of the ingredients; in the modern period—say 1700-1886—the powders in use (in each state) differed only as a general rule in the size of the grain, whilst during the transition period—1450-1700—they generally differed both in composition and size of grain.
Ingredients and their Action.—Roger Bacon in his anagram provides the first real recipe for gunpowder: (according to Hime, ch. xii.) 41.2% saltpeter, 29.4% charcoal, 29.4% sulfur. Dr. John Arderne of Newark, who started practicing around 1350 and later became the surgeon to Henry IV., gives a recipe (Sloane MSS. 335, 795) of 66.6% saltpeter, 22.2% charcoal, and 11.1% sulfur, “which are to be thoroughly mixed on a marble slab and then sifted through a cloth.” This powder is supposedly the same as one presented in a manuscript by Marcus Graecus, but the saltpeter in Marcus Graecus’s formula was definitely responsible for the difference in behavior of the two mixtures. Roger Bacon not only refined and obtained pure nitre, but also recognized the importance of mixing the powder components thoroughly. Most, if not all, of the early powder was a “loose” mixture of the three ingredients, and the key advancement in the development of gunpowder was definitely the introduction of wet mixing or “incorporating.” Whenever this was done, the improvements in the product were immediately noticeable. In a damp or wet state, pressure could be applied more safely during the mixing process. The loose powder mixture became known as “serpentine”; after wet mixing, it was more or less granulated or corned and was referred to as “corned” powder. Corned powder seems to have been introduced gradually. It’s mentioned in the Fire Book of Conrad von Schöngau (in 1429) and was used for handguns in England long before 1560. It seems that corned powder was used for handguns or small arms in the 15th century, but cannons weren’t made strong enough to handle its explosion for quite another century (Hime). According to the same writer, during the period from 1250 to 1450, when only serpentine was used, one powder could differ from another based on the proportions of the ingredients; in the modern period—roughly 1700-1886—the powders in use (in each state) generally differed only in grain size, while during the transition period—1450-1700—they typically varied both in composition and grain size.
Corned or grained powder was adopted in France in 1525, and in 1540 the French utilized an observation that large-grained powder was the best for cannon, and restricted the manufacture to three sizes of grain or corn, possibly of the same composition. Early in the 18th century two or three sizes of grain and powder of one composition appear to have become common. The composition of English powder seems to have settled down to 75 nitre, 15 charcoal, and 10 sulphur, somewhere about the middle of the 18th century.
Corned or grained powder was adopted in France in 1525, and by 1540, the French realized that large-grained powder was the best for cannons, so they limited production to three sizes of grain or corn, possibly with the same composition. Early in the 18th century, it seems that two or three sizes of grain and powder of one composition became standard. By the middle of the 18th century, the composition of English powder had settled at 75% nitre, 15% charcoal, and 10% sulfur.
The composition of gunpowders used in different countries at different times is illustrated in the following tables:—
The makeup of gunpowders used in various countries at different times is shown in the following tables:—
English Powders (Hime).
English Powders (Hime).
1250. | 1350. | 1560. | 1647. | 1670. | 1742. | 1781. | |
Saltpetre | 41.2 | 66.6 | 50.0 | 66.6 | 71.4 | 75.0 | 75.0 |
Charcoal | 29.4 | 22.2 | 33.3 | 16.6 | 14.3 | 12.5 | 15.0 |
Sulphur | 29.4 | 11.1 | 16.6 | 16.6 | 14.3 | 12.5 | 10.02 |
Foreign Powders (Hime).
Foreign Powders (Hime).
France. | Sweden. | Germany. | Denmark. | France. | Sweden. | Germany. | |
1338. | 1560. | 1595. | 1608. | 1650. | 1697. | 1882. | |
Saltpetre | 50 | 66.6 | 52.2 | 68.3 | 75.6 | 73 | 78 |
Charcoal | ? | 16.6 | 26.1 | 23.2 | 13.6 | 17 | 19 |
Sulphur | 25 | 16.6 | 21.7 | 8.5 | 10.8 | 10 | 33 |
When reasonably pure, none of the ingredients of gunpowder absorbs any material quantity of moisture from the atmosphere, and the nitre only is a soluble substance. It seems extremely probable that for a long period the three substances were simply mixed dry, indeed sometimes kept separate and mixed just before being required; the consequence must have been that, with every care as to weighing out, the proportions of any given quantity would alter on carriage. Saltpetre is considerably heavier than sulphur or charcoal, and would tend to separate out towards the bottom of the containing vessel if subjected to jolting or vibration. When pure there can only be one kind of saltpetre or sulphur, because they are chemical individuals, but charcoal is not. Its composition, rate of burning, &c., depend not only on the nature of the woody material from which it is made, but quite as much on the temperature and time of heating employed in the making. The woods from which it is made contain carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, and the two latter are never thoroughly expelled in charcoal-making. If they were, the resulting substance would be of no use for gunpowder. 1-3% of hydrogen and 8-15% of oxygen generally remain in charcoals suitable for gunpowder. A good deal of the fieriness and violence of explosion of a gunpowder depends on the mode of burning of the charcoal as well as on the wood from which it is made.
When reasonably pure, none of the components of gunpowder absorb a significant amount of moisture from the air, and only nitre is a soluble substance. It seems very likely that for a long time, the three ingredients were simply mixed dry, and sometimes kept separate and mixed right before use; this would result in changes to the proportions during transport, even with careful weighing. Saltpetre is much heavier than sulfur or charcoal, so it would tend to settle toward the bottom of the container if it experienced jolting or vibrations. When pure, there can only be one type of saltpetre or sulfur, because they are distinct chemical substances, but charcoal is not. Its composition, burning rate, etc., depend not only on the type of wood used to make it but also significantly on the temperature and duration of the heating process. The woods used contain carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and the latter two elements are never completely removed during charcoal production. If they were, the resulting material would be useless for gunpowder. Generally, 1-3% of hydrogen and 8-15% of oxygen remain in charcoals suitable for gunpowder. A lot of the explosiveness and intensity of a gunpowder explosion depends on how the charcoal burns as well as the type of wood it's made from.
Properties of Ingredients.—Charcoal is the chief combustible in powder. It must burn freely, leaving as little ash or residue as possible; it must be friable, and grind into a non-gritty powder. The sources from which powder charcoal is made are dogwood (Rhamnus frangula), willow (Salix alba), and alder (Betula alnus). Dogwood is mainly used for small-arm powders. Powders made from dogwood charcoal burn more rapidly than those from willow, &c. The wood after cutting is stripped of bark and allowed to season for two or three years. It is then picked to uniform size and charred in cylindrical iron cases or slips, which can be introduced into slightly larger cylinders set in a furnace. The slips are provided with openings for the escape of gases. The rate of heating as well as the absolute temperature attained have an effect on the product, a slow rate of heating yielding more charcoal, and a high temperature reducing the hydrogen and oxygen in the final product. When heated for seven hours to about 800° C. to 900° C. the remaining hydrogen and oxygen amount to about 2% and 12% respectively. The time of charring is as a rule from 5 to 7 hours. The slips are then removed from the furnace and placed in a larger iron vessel, where they are kept comparatively air-tight until quite cold. The charcoal is then sorted, and stored for some time before grinding. The charcoal is ground, and the powder sifted on a rotating reel or cylinder of fine mesh copper-wire gauze. The sifted powder is again stored for some time before use in closed iron vessels.
Properties of Ingredients.—Charcoal is the main fuel in powder. It should burn easily, leaving as little ash or residue as possible; it must be crumbly and grind into a smooth, non-gritty powder. The sources of powdered charcoal include dogwood (Rhamnus frangula), willow (Salix alba), and alder (Betula alnus). Dogwood is primarily used for small-arms powders. Powders made from dogwood charcoal burn faster than those made from willow, etc. After cutting, the wood is stripped of its bark and allowed to dry for two to three years. It is then cut to a uniform size and charred in cylindrical iron cases or slips, which can be placed into slightly larger cylinders set in a furnace. The slips have openings for gas to escape. The rate of heating and the maximum temperature reached both impact the product; a slow heating rate produces more charcoal, while a higher temperature reduces the hydrogen and oxygen in the final product. When heated for seven hours at about 800° C. to 900° C., the remaining hydrogen and oxygen amount to about 2% and 12% respectively. Charring typically takes between 5 to 7 hours. The slips are then taken out of the furnace and put into a larger iron container, where they are kept fairly airtight until completely cool. The charcoal is then sorted and stored for a while before grinding. The charcoal is ground, and the powder is sifted on a rotating reel or cylinder with fine mesh copper-wire gauze. The sifted powder is stored again for some time in closed iron containers before use.
Sicilian sulphur is most generally employed for gunpowder, and for complete purification is first distilled and then melted and cast into moulds. It is afterwards ground into a fine powder and sifted as in the case of the charcoal.
Sicilian sulfur is mainly used for gunpowder, and for thorough purification, it is first distilled, then melted and poured into molds. It is later ground into a fine powder and sifted, just like the charcoal.
Potassium nitrate is eminently suitable as an oxygen-provider, not being deliquescent. Nitrates are continually being produced in surface soils, &c., by the oxidation of nitrogenous substances. Nitric and nitrous acids are also produced by electric discharges through the atmosphere, and these are found eventually as nitrates in soils, &c. Nitre is soluble in water, and much more so in hot than in cold. Crude nitre, obtained from soils or other sources, is purified by recrystallization. The crude material is dissolved almost to saturation in boiling water: on filtering and then cooling this liquor to about 30° C. almost pure nitre crystallizes out, most of the usual impurities still remaining in solution. By rapidly cooling and agitating the nitre solution crystals are obtained of sufficient fineness for the manufacture of powder without special grinding. Nitre contains nearly 48% of oxygen by weight, five-sixths of which is available for combustion purposes. Nearly all the gases of the powder explosion are derived from the nitre. The specific gravity of nitre is 2.2 : 200 grams will therefore occupy about 100 cubic centimetres volume. This quantity on its decomposition by heat alone yields 28 grams or 22,400 c.c. of nitrogen, and 80 grams or 56,000 c.c. of oxygen as gases, and 94 grams of potassium oxide, a fusible solid which vaporizes at a very high temperature.
Potassium nitrate is highly effective as an oxygen provider and doesn't absorb moisture from the air. Nitrates are continuously formed in surface soils and similar areas through the oxidation of nitrogen compounds. Electric discharges in the atmosphere also create nitric and nitrous acids, which eventually appear as nitrates in soils and other places. Nitre is soluble in water, especially more so in hot water than in cold. Crude nitre, gathered from soils or other sources, is purified by recrystallization. The crude material is dissolved almost to saturation in boiling water; after filtering and cooling this solution to about 30° C, almost pure nitre crystallizes, leaving most of the common impurities dissolved. By quickly cooling and stirring the nitre solution, crystals fine enough for powder manufacture can be obtained without extra grinding. Nitre contains almost 48% oxygen by weight, with five-sixths of that being usable for combustion. Nearly all the gases produced from a powder explosion come from the nitre. The specific gravity of nitre is 2.2, so 200 grams will occupy about 100 cubic centimeters in volume. This amount, when decomposed solely by heat, yields 28 grams or 22,400 c.c. of nitrogen gas, 80 grams or 56,000 c.c. of oxygen gas, and 94 grams of potassium oxide, which is a solid that melts and vaporizes at a very high temperature.
Incorporation.—The materials are weighed out separately, mixed by passing through a sieve, and then uniformly moistened with a certain quantity of water, whilst on the bed of the incorporating mill. This consists of two heavy iron wheels mounted so as to run in a circular bed. The incorporation requires about four hours. The mechanical action of rollers on the powder paste is a double one: not only crushing but mixing by pushing forwards and twisting sideways. The pasty mass is deflected so that it repeatedly comes under first one roller and then the next by scrapers, set at an angle to the bed, which follow each wheel.
Incorporation.—The materials are weighed out separately, mixed by passing them through a sieve, and then evenly moistened with a specific amount of water while on the bed of the incorporation mill. This mill consists of two heavy iron wheels that run in a circular bed. The incorporation takes about four hours. The mechanical action of the rollers on the powder paste serves two purposes: it crushes and mixes by pushing forward and twisting sideways. The paste is redirected so that it repeatedly comes under one roller and then the next, thanks to scrapers set at an angle to the bed, which follow each wheel.
Although the charge is wet it is possible for it to be fired either by the heat developed by the roller friction, by sparks from foreign matters, as bits of stone, &c., or possibly by heat generated by oxidation of the materials. The mills are provided with a drenching apparatus so arranged that in case of one mill firing it and its neighbours will be drowned by water from a cistern or tank immediately above the mill. The product from the incorporation is termed “mill-cake.”
Although the charge is wet, it can still ignite due to the heat created by roller friction, sparks from foreign materials like bits of stone, or possibly from heat generated by the oxidation of the materials. The mills are equipped with a drenching system designed so that if one mill catches fire, it and the nearby mills will be flooded with water from a cistern or tank located directly above. The output from the mixing process is called “mill-cake.”
After this incorporation in the damp state the ingredients never completely separate on drying, however much shaken, because each particle of nitre is surrounded by a thin layer of water containing nitre in solution in which the particles of charcoal and sulphur are entangled and retained. After due incorporation, powders are pressed to a certain extent whilst still moist. The density to which a powder is pressed is an important matter in regard to the rate of burning. The effect of high density is to slow down the initial rate of burning. Less dense powders burn more rapidly from the first and tend to put a great strain on the gun. Fouling is usually less with denser powders; and, as would be expected, such powders bear transport better and give less dust than light powders. Up to a certain pressure, hardness, density, and size of grain of a powder have an effect on the rate of burning and therefore on pressure. Glazing or polishing powder grains, also exerts a slight retarding action on burning and enables the powders to resist atmospheric moisture better. Excess of moisture in gunpowder has a marked effect in reducing the explosiveness. All powders are liable to absorb moisture, the quality and kind of charcoal being the main determinant in this respect; hard burnt black charcoal is least absorbent. The material employed in brown powders absorbs moisture somewhat readily. Powder kept in a very damp atmosphere, and especially in a changeable one, spoils rapidly, the saltpetre coming to the surface in solution and then crystallizing out. The pieces also break up owing to the formation of large crystals of nitre in the mass. After the pressing of the incorporated powder into a “press-cake,” it is broken up or granulated by suitable machines, and the resulting grains separated and sorted by sifting through sieves of determined sizes of mesh. Some dust is formed in this operation, which is sifted away and again worked up under the rollers (for sizes of grains see fig. 1). These grains, cubes, &c., are then either polished by rotating in drums alone or with graphite, which adheres to and coats the surfaces of the grains. This process is generally followed with powders intended for small-arms or moderately small ordnance.
After this mixing while wet, the ingredients never fully separate when they dry, no matter how much they're shaken, because each particle of saltpeter is surrounded by a thin layer of water that contains saltpeter in solution, trapping the particles of charcoal and sulfur. After proper mixing, powders are pressed a bit while still moist. The density a powder is pressed to is crucial for the burning rate. Higher density slows down the initial burning rate. Less dense powders ignite more quickly from the start and can put a lot of stress on the gun. Fouling is usually less with denser powders; as expected, these powders handle transport better and produce less dust than lighter powders. Up to a certain pressure, the hardness, density, and grain size of a powder affect the burning rate and, consequently, the pressure. Glazing or polishing the powder grains also slightly slows burning and helps the powders resist moisture from the air. Too much moisture in gunpowder significantly reduces its explosiveness. All powders can absorb moisture, with the quality and type of charcoal being the main factors; hard-burnt black charcoal is the least absorbent. The materials used in brown powders tend to absorb moisture relatively easily. Powder stored in a very humid environment, especially one that changes frequently, spoils quickly, with the saltpeter rising to the surface in solution and then crystallizing. The pieces also break apart due to the formation of large saltpeter crystals in the mixture. After the incorporated powder is pressed into a "press-cake," it is broken up or granulated using suitable machines, and the resulting grains are separated and sorted by sifting through screens of specific mesh sizes. Some dust is produced during this process, which is sifted away and then reprocessed under rollers (for sizes of grains see fig. 1). These grains, cubes, etc., are then either polished by rotating in drums alone or with graphite, which sticks to and coats the surfaces of the grains. This process is typically used for powders meant for small arms or moderately sized ordnance.
Shaped Powders.—Prisms or prismatic powder are made by breaking up the press-cake into a moderately fine state, whilst still moist, and pressing a certain quantity in a mould. The moulds generally employed consist of a thick plate of bronze in which are a number of hexagonal perforations. Accurately fitting plungers are so applied to these that one can enter at the top and the other at the bottom. The lower plunger being withdrawn to the bottom of the plate the hexagonal hole is charged with the powder and the two plungers set in motion, thus compressing the powder between them. After the desired pressure has been applied the top plunger is withdrawn, and the lower one pushed upward to eject the prism of powder. The axial perforations in prism powders are made by small bronze rods which pass through the lower plunger and fit into corresponding holes in the upper one. If these prisms are made by a steadily applied pressure a density throughout of about 1.78 may be obtained. Further to regulate the rate of burning so that it shall be slow at first and more rapid as the powder is consumed, another form of machine was devised, the cam press, in which the pressure is applied very rapidly to the powder. It receives in fact one blow, which compresses the powder to the same dimensions, but the density of the outer layers of substance of the prism is much greater than in the interior.
Shaped Powders.—Prisms or prismatic powder are created by breaking up the press cake into a moderately fine consistency while it's still wet and pressing a specific amount into a mold. The molds typically used are made of thick bronze plates with several hexagonal holes. Precisely fitting plungers are used; one goes in from the top and the other from the bottom. When the lower plunger is pulled down to the bottom of the plate, the hexagonal hole is filled with powder, and the two plungers are set in motion to compress the powder between them. Once the desired pressure is reached, the top plunger is removed, and the lower one is pushed up to eject the prism of powder. The axial holes in prism powders are created by small bronze rods that pass through the lower plunger and fit into matching holes in the upper one. If these prisms are formed with a consistent application of pressure, a density of about 1.78 can be achieved throughout. To further control the burning rate so that it starts off slow and becomes faster as the powder burns, another machine was developed, known as the cam press, where the pressure is applied very quickly to the powder. It essentially delivers a single blow, compressing the powder to the same size, but the density of the outer layers of the prism is significantly greater than that of the interior.
The leading idea in connexion with all shaped powder grains, and with the very large sizes, was to regulate the rate of burning so as to avoid extreme pressure when first ignited and to keep up the pressure in the gun as more space was provided in the chamber or tube by the movement of the shot towards the muzzle. In the perforated prismatic powder the ignition is intended to proceed through the perforations; since in a charge the faces of the prisms fit pretty closely together, it was thought that this arrangement would prevent unburnt cores or pieces of powder from being blown out. These larger grain powders necessitated a lengthened bore to take advantage of the slower production of gases and complete combustion of the powder. General T. J. Rodman first suggested and employed the perforated cake cartridge in 1860, the cake having nearly the diameter of the bore and a thickness of 1 to 2 in. 726 with perforations running parallel with the gun axis. The burning would then start from the comparatively small surfaces of the perforations, which would become larger as the powder burnt away. Experiments bore out this theory perfectly. It was found that small prisms were more convenient to make than large disks, and as the prisms practically fit together into a disk the same result was obtained. This effect of mechanical density on rate of burning is good only up to a certain pressure, above which the gases are driven through the densest form of granular material. After granulating or pressing into shapes, all powders must be dried. This is done by heating in specially ventilated rooms heated by steam pipes. As a rule this drying is followed by the finishing or polishing process. Powders are finally blended, i.e. products from different batches or “makes” are mixed so that identical proof results are obtained.
The main idea behind all shaped powder grains, especially the larger sizes, was to control the burn rate to prevent excessive pressure when first ignited and maintain steady pressure in the gun as more space opened up in the chamber or tube due to the movement of the shot towards the muzzle. In the perforated prismatic powder, the ignition is designed to start through the perforations. Since the surfaces of the prisms fit closely together in a charge, it was believed this setup would prevent any unburnt cores or pieces of powder from being blown out. These larger grain powders required a longer bore to take advantage of the slower gas production and ensure complete combustion of the powder. General T. J. Rodman first proposed and used the perforated cake cartridge in 1860, with the cake being nearly the diameter of the bore and 1 to 2 inches thick, featuring perforations running parallel to the gun axis. Burning would then begin from the relatively small surfaces of the perforations, which would expand as the powder burned away. Experiments confirmed this theory perfectly. It was observed that small prisms were easier to produce than large disks, and since the prisms could fit together to form a disk, the same outcome was achieved. The effect of mechanical density on the burn rate is effective only up to a certain pressure; beyond that, the gases push through the densest form of granular material. After being granulated or shaped, all powders need to be dried. This is done by heating in specially ventilated rooms warmed by steam pipes. Typically, this drying process is followed by finishing or polishing. Powders are then blended, meaning that products from different batches or “makes” are mixed to ensure consistent test results.
Sizes and Shapes of Powders.—In fig. 1, a to k show the relative sizes and shapes of grain as formerly employed for military purposes, except that the three largest powders, e-f-g and h are figured half-size to save space, whereas the remainder indicate the actual dimensions of the grains. a is for small-arms, all the others are for cannon of various sizes.
Sizes and Shapes of Powders.—In fig. 1, a to k illustrate the relative sizes and shapes of grains previously used for military purposes, except that the three largest powders, e-f-g and h, are shown at half size to save space, while the others represent the actual dimensions of the grains. a is for small arms, and all the others are for cannons of different sizes.
![]() |
Fig. 1. |
Proof of Powder.—In addition to chemical examination powder is passed through certain mechanical tests:—
Proof of Powder.—Along with chemical testing, the powder also goes through specific mechanical tests:—
1. For colour, glaze, texture and freedom from dust.
1. For color, glaze, texture, and being dust-free.
2. For proper incorporation.
2. For proper integration.
3. For shape, size and proportion of the grains.—The first is judged by eye, and grains of the size required are obtained by the use of sieves of different sizes.
3. For shape, size, and proportion of the grains.—The first is assessed visually, and grains of the required size are collected using sieves of various sizes.
4. Density.—The density is generally obtained in some form of mercury densimeter, the powder being weighed in air and then under mercury. In some forms of the instrument the air can be pumped out so that the weighing takes place in vacuo.
4. Density.—Density is usually measured using a mercury densimeter, with the powder being weighed first in air and then in mercury. In some versions of the instrument, the air can be removed so that the weighing occurs in vacuo.
5. Moisture and absorption of moisture.—The moisture and hygroscopic test consists in weighing a sample, drying at 100° C. for a certain time, weighing again, &c., until constant. The dried weighed sample can then be exposed to an artificial atmosphere of known moisture and temperature, and the gain in weight per hour similarly ascertained by periodic weighings.
5. Moisture and absorption of moisture.—The moisture and hygroscopic test involves weighing a sample, drying it at 100° C. for a specific amount of time, then weighing it again, and repeating this process until the weight stays the same. The dried sample can then be placed in an artificial environment with a known level of moisture and temperature, and the increase in weight per hour can be determined through regular weighings.
6. Firing proof.—The nature of this depends upon the purpose for which the powder is intended. For sporting powders it consists in the “pattern” given by the shot upon a target at a given distance, or, if fired with a bullet, upon the “figure of merit,” or mean radial deviation of a certain number of rounds; also upon the penetrative power. For military purposes the “muzzle” velocity produced by a powder is ascertained by a chronograph which measures the exact time the bullet or other projectile takes to traverse a known distance between two wire screens. By means of “crusher gauges” the exact pressure per square inch upon certain points in the interior of the bore can be found.
6. Firing proof.—The type of proof depends on the intended use of the powder. For sporting powders, it involves the “pattern” left by the shot on a target at a specified distance, or, when fired with a bullet, the “figure of merit,” which is the average radial deviation of a certain number of rounds; it also takes into account the penetrating power. For military purposes, the “muzzle” velocity created by a powder is measured using a chronograph that records the exact time it takes for the bullet or other projectile to travel between two wire screens over a known distance. Additionally, “crusher gauges” can determine the exact pressure per square inch at specific points inside the bore.
In the chemical examination of gunpowder the points to be ascertained are, in addition to moisture, freedom from chlorides or sulphates, and correct proportion of nitre and sulphur to charcoal.
In the chemical analysis of gunpowder, the factors to be determined include, besides moisture, the absence of chlorides or sulfates, and the proper ratio of nitrates and sulfur to charcoal.
Products of Fired Powder and Changes taking place on Explosion.—With a mixture of the complexity of gunpowder it is quite impossible to say beforehand what will be the relative amounts of products. The desired products are nitrogen and carbon dioxide as gases, and potassium sulphate and carbonate as solids. But the ingredients of the mixture are not in any simple chemical proportion. Burning in contact with air under one atmosphere pressure, and burning in a closed or partially closed vessel under a considerable number of atmospheres pressure, may produce quite different results. The temperature of a reaction always rises with increased pressure. Although the main function of the nitre is to give up oxygen and nitrogen, of the charcoal to produce carbon dioxide and most of the heat, and of the sulphur by vaporizing to accelerate the rate of burning, it is quite impossible to represent the actions taking place on explosion by any simple or single chemical equation. Roughly speaking, the gases from black powder burnt in a closed vessel have a volume at 0° C. and 760 mm. pressure of about 280 times that of the original powder. The temperature produced under one atmosphere is above 2000° C., and under greater pressures considerably higher.
Products of Fired Powder and Changes Taking Place on Explosion.—With the complex mixture of gunpowder, it’s quite impossible to predict in advance what the relative amounts of products will be. The desired products are nitrogen and carbon dioxide as gases, and potassium sulfate and carbonate as solids. However, the components of the mixture aren’t in any straightforward chemical ratio. Burning in contact with air at one atmospheric pressure and burning in a closed or partially closed vessel at much higher pressures can yield significantly different results. The temperature of a reaction always rises with increased pressure. Although the main role of the nitre is to release oxygen and nitrogen, charcoal mainly produces carbon dioxide and most of the heat, while sulfur vaporizes to speed up the burning, it’s impossible to express the actions taking place during an explosion with any simple or single chemical equation. Generally speaking, the gases from black powder burned in a closed vessel have a volume at 0° C. and 760 mm pressure of about 280 times that of the original powder. The temperature reached under one atmosphere is above 2000° C., and at higher pressures, it's significantly more.
Experiments have been made by Benjamin Robins (1743), Charles Hutton (1778), Count Rumford (1797), Gay-Lussac (1823), R. Bunsen and L. Schiskoff (1857), T. J. Rodman (1861), C. Karolyi (1863), and later many researches by Sir Andrew Noble and Sir F. A. Abel, and by H. Debus and others, all with the idea of getting at the precise mechanism of the explosion. Debus (Ann., 1882, vols. 212, 213; 1891, vol. 265) discussed at great length the results of researches by Bunsen, Karolyi, Noble and Abel, and others on the combustion of powder in closed vessels in such manner that all the products could be collected and examined and the pressures registered. A Waltham Abbey powder, according to an experiment by Noble and Abel, gave when fired in a closed vessel the following quantities of products calculated from one gram of powder:—
Experiments have been conducted by Benjamin Robins (1743), Charles Hutton (1778), Count Rumford (1797), Gay-Lussac (1823), R. Bunsen and L. Schiskoff (1857), T. J. Rodman (1861), C. Karolyi (1863), and later many studies by Sir Andrew Noble and Sir F. A. Abel, H. Debus, and others, all aiming to uncover the exact mechanism of explosions. Debus (Ann., 1882, vols. 212, 213; 1891, vol. 265) extensively discussed the findings from the research by Bunsen, Karolyi, Noble, Abel, and others on the combustion of powder in sealed containers, ensuring that all byproducts could be collected, examined, and the pressures recorded. A Waltham Abbey powder, as per an experiment by Noble and Abel, produced the following quantities of byproducts when fired in a sealed vessel from one gram of powder:—
Fractions of a gram. | Fractions of a molecule or atom. | |
Potassium carbonate | .2615 | .00189 molecule |
Potassium sulphate | .1268 | .00072 ” |
Potassium thiosulphate | .1666 | .00087 ” |
Potassium sulphide | .0252 | .00017 ” |
Sulphur | .0012 | .00004 atom |
Carbon dioxide | .2678 | .00608 molecule |
Carbon monoxide | .0339 | .00121 ” |
Nitrogen | .1071 | .00765 atom |
Hydrogen | .0008 | .0008 ” |
Hydrogen sulphide | .0080 | .00023 molecule |
Potassium thiocyanate | .0004 | |
Nitre | .0005 | |
Ammonium carbonate | .0002 |
From this, and other results, Debus concluded that Waltham Abbey powder could be represented by the formula 16KNO3 + 21.18C + 6.63S and that on combustion in a closed vessel the end results could be fairly expressed (rounding off fractions) by 16KNO3 + 21C + 5S = 5K2CO3 + K2SO4 + 2K2S2 + 13CO2 + 3CO + 8N2. Some of the sulphur is lost, part combining with the metal of the apparatus and part with hydrogen in the charcoal. The military powders of most nations can be represented by the formula 16KNO3 + 21.2C + 6.6S, proportions which are reasonably near to a theoretical mixture, that is one giving most complete combustion, greatest gas volume and temperature. The combustion of powder consists of two processes: (i.) oxidation, during which potassium carbonate and sulphate, carbon dioxide and nitrogen are mainly formed, and (ii.) a reduction process in which free carbon acts on the potassium sulphate and free sulphur on the potassium carbonate, producing potassium sulphide and carbon monoxide respectively. Most powders contain more carbon and sulphur than necessary, hence the second stage. In this second stage heat is lost. The potassium sulphide is also the most objectionable constituent as regards fouling.
From this and other findings, Debus concluded that Waltham Abbey powder could be represented by the formula 16KNO3 + 21.18C + 6.63S and that during combustion in a closed vessel, the final results could be roughly expressed (rounding off fractions) as 16KNO3 + 21C + 5S = 5K2CO3 + K2SO4 + 2K2S2 + 13CO2 + 3CO + 8N2. Some of the sulfur is lost, with part combining with the metal of the apparatus and part with hydrogen in the charcoal. The military powders of most nations can be represented by the formula 16KNO3 + 21.2C + 6.6S, proportions that are reasonably close to a theoretical mixture, which is one that achieves the most complete combustion, greatest gas volume, and highest temperature. The combustion of powder involves two processes: (i.) oxidation, during which potassium carbonate and sulfate, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen are mainly formed, and (ii.) a reduction process where free carbon interacts with the potassium sulfate and free sulfur with the potassium carbonate, producing potassium sulfide and carbon monoxide, respectively. Most powders have more carbon and sulfur than needed, leading to the second stage. In this stage, heat is lost. Potassium sulfide is also the most problematic component concerning fouling.
The energy of a powder is given, according to Berthelot, by multiplying the gas volume by the heat (in calories) produced during burning; Debus shows that a powder composed of 16KNO3 to 8C and 8S would have the least, and one of composition 16KNO3 + 24C + 16S the greatest, when completely burnt. The greatest capability with the lowest proportion of carbon and sulphur to nitre would be obtained from the mixture ÷ 16KNO3 + 22C + 8S.
The energy of a powder is determined, according to Berthelot, by multiplying the gas volume by the heat (in calories) produced during combustion; Debus shows that a powder made of 16KNO3 and 8C plus 8S would have the least energy, while one with the composition of 16KNO3 + 24C + 16S would have the most when fully burned. The highest capability with the lowest ratio of carbon and sulfur to nitre would come from the mixture of 16KNO3 + 22C + 8S.
Smokeless and even noiseless powders seem to have been sought for during the whole gunpowder period. In 1756 one was experimented with in France, but was abandoned owing to difficulties in manufacture. Modern smokeless powders are certainly less noisy than the black powders, mainly because of the absence of metallic salts which although they may be gaseous whilst in the gun are 727 certainly ejected as solids or become solids at the moment of contact with air.
Smokeless and even noiseless powders have been sought after throughout the entire gunpowder era. In 1756, an experiment with one took place in France, but it was dropped due to manufacturing challenges. Today's smokeless powders are definitely quieter than traditional black powders, mainly because they lack metallic salts, which, while they may be gaseous inside the gun, are 727 eventually expelled as solids or turn solid when they come into contact with air.
Brown Powders.—About the middle of the 19th century guns and projectiles were made much larger and heavier than previously, and it was soon found that the ordinary black powders of the most dense form burnt much too rapidly, straining or bursting the pieces. Powders were introduced containing about 3% sulphur and 17-19% of a special form of charcoal made from slightly charred straw, or similar material. This “brown charcoal” contains a considerable amount of the hydrogen and oxygen of the original plant substance. The mechanical processes of manufacture of these brown powders is the same as for black. They, however, differ from black by burning very slowly, even under considerable pressure. This comparative slowness is caused by (1) the presence of a small amount of water even when air-dry; (2) the fact that the brown charcoal is practically very slightly altered cellulosic material, which before it can burn completely must undergo a little further resolution or charring at the expense of some heat from the portion of charge first ignited; and (3) the lower content of sulphur. An increase of a few per cent in the sulphur of black powder accelerates its rate of burning, and it may become almost a blasting powder. A decrease in sulphur has the reverse effect. It is really the sulphur vapour that in the early period of combustion spreads the flame through the charge.
Brown Powders.—Around the middle of the 19th century, firearms and projectiles became significantly larger and heavier than before, and it quickly became clear that regular black powders, even in their densest form, burned too quickly, causing strain or even explosions. New powders were developed that contained about 3% sulfur and 17-19% of a specific type of charcoal made from slightly charred straw or similar materials. This “brown charcoal” retains a significant amount of the hydrogen and oxygen from the original plant material. The manufacturing process for these brown powders is similar to that of black powders. However, they differ in that they burn much more slowly, even under high pressure. This slower burn is due to (1) a small amount of water being present, even in air-dry conditions; (2) the brown charcoal being almost unchanged cellulosic material, which needs to undergo a bit more charring before it can burn completely, taking some heat from the initially ignited part of the charge; and (3) the lower sulfur content. Increasing the sulfur content in black powder by a few percent speeds up its burn rate, making it nearly a blasting powder, while lowering sulfur has the opposite effect. It’s actually the sulfur vapor that helps spread the flame throughout the charge in the early combustion phase.
Many other powders have been made or proposed in which nitrates or chlorates of the alkalis or of barium, &c., are the oxygen providers and substances as sugar, starch, and many other organic compounds as the combustible elements. Some of these compositions have found employment for blasting or even as sporting powders, but in most cases their objectionable properties of fouling, smoke and mode of exploding have prevented their use for military purposes. The adoption by the French government of the comparatively smokeless nitrocellulose explosive of Paul Vieille in 1887 practically put an end to the old forms of gunpowders. The first smokeless powder was made in 1865 by Colonel E. Schultze (Ding. Pol. Jour. 174, p. 323; 175, p. 453) by nitrating wood meal and adding potassium and barium nitrates. It is somewhat similar in composition to the E. C. sporting powder. F. Uchatius, in Austria, proposed a smokeless powder made from nitrated starch, but it was not adopted owing to its hygroscopic nature and also its tendency to detonate.
Many other powders have been created or suggested that use nitrates or chlorates from alkalis or barium, etc., as oxygen sources and materials like sugar, starch, and various organic compounds as fuel. Some of these mixtures have been used for blasting or even as gunpowder for sports, but their undesirable characteristics—like residue buildup, smoke, and the way they explode—have limited their use in military applications. The adoption of the relatively smokeless nitrocellulose explosive by the French government in 1887, developed by Paul Vieille, essentially marked the end of traditional gunpowders. The first smokeless powder was produced in 1865 by Colonel E. Schultze (Ding. Pol. Jour. 174, p. 323; 175, p. 453) by nitrating wood meal and adding potassium and barium nitrates. It’s somewhat similar in composition to E. C. sporting powder. F. Uchatius in Austria proposed a smokeless powder made from nitrated starch, but it wasn’t adopted due to its ability to absorb moisture and its tendency to detonate.
Bibliography.—Vanucchio Biringuccio, De la pirotechnia (Venice, 1540); Tartaglia, Quesiti e invenzioni diversi (lib. iii.) (Venice, 1546); Peter Whitehorne, How to make Saltpetre, Gunpowder, &c. (London, 1573); Nic. Macchiavelli, The Arte of Warre, trans. by Whitehorne (London, 1588); Hanzelet, Recueil de plusiers machines militaires (Paris, 1620); Boillet Langrois, Modelles artifices de feu (1620); Kruger, Chemical Meditations on the Explosion of Gunpowder (in Latin) (1636); Collado, On the Invention of Gunpowder (Spanish) (1641); The True Way to make all Sorts of Gunpowder and Matches (1647); Hawksbee, On Gunpowder (1686); Winter, On Gunpowder (in Latin); Robins, New Principles of Gunnery (London, 1742) (new ed. by Hutton, 1805); D’Antoni, Essame della polvere (Turin, 1765) (trans. by Captain Thomson, R. A., London, 1787); Count Rumford, “Experiments on Fired Gunpowder,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (1797); Charles Hutton, Mathematical Tracts, vol. iii. (1812); Sir W. Congreve, A Short Account of Improvements in Gunpowder made by (London, 1818); Bunsen and Schiskoff, “On the Chemical Theory of Gunpowder,” Pogg. Ann., 1857, vol. cii.; General Rodman, Experiments on Metal for Cannon, and Qualities of Cannon Powder (Boston, 1861); Napoleon III., Études sur le passé et l’avenir de l’artillerie, vol. iii. (Paris, 1862); Von Karolyi, “On the Products of the Combustion of Gun Cotton and Gunpowder,” Phil. Mag. (October 1863); Captain F. M. Smith, Handbook of the Manufacture and Proof of Gunpowder at Waltham Abbey (London, 1870); Noble and Abel, Fired Gunpowder (London, 1875, 1880); Noble, Artillery and Explosives (1906); H. W. L. Hime, Gunpowder and Ammunition, their Origin and Progress (1904); O. Guttmann, The Manufacture of Explosives (1895), Monumenta pulveris pyrii (1906); Notes on Gunpowder and Gun Cotton, published by order of the secretary of state for war (London, 1907). (See also Explosives.)
References.—Vanucchio Biringuccio, On Pyrotechnics (Venice, 1540); Tartaglia, Various Questions and Inventions (lib. iii.) (Venice, 1546); Peter Whitehorne, How to Make Saltpeter, Gunpowder, etc. (London, 1573); Nic. Machiavelli, The Art of War, trans. by Whitehorne (London, 1588); Hanzelet, Collection of Various Military Machines (Paris, 1620); Boillet Langrois, Artifice Models of Fire (1620); Kruger, Chemical Meditations on Gunpowder Explosion (in Latin) (1636); Collado, On the Invention of Gunpowder (Spanish) (1641); The True Way to Make All Kinds of Gunpowder and Matches (1647); Hawksbee, On Gunpowder (1686); Winter, On Gunpowder (in Latin); Robins, New Principles of Gunnery (London, 1742) (new ed. by Hutton, 1805); D’Antoni, Examination of Gunpowder (Turin, 1765) (trans. by Captain Thomson, R. A., London, 1787); Count Rumford, “Experiments on Fired Gunpowder,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. (1797); Charles Hutton, Mathematical Tracts, vol. iii. (1812); Sir W. Congreve, A Short Account of Improvements in Gunpowder made by (London, 1818); Bunsen and Schiskoff, “On the Chemical Theory of Gunpowder,” Pogg. Ann., 1857, vol. cii.; General Rodman, Experiments on Metal for Cannon, and Qualities of Cannon Powder (Boston, 1861); Napoleon III., Studies on the Past and Future of Artillery, vol. iii. (Paris, 1862); Von Karolyi, “On the Products of the Combustion of Gun Cotton and Gunpowder,” Phil. Mag. (October 1863); Captain F. M. Smith, Handbook of the Manufacture and Testing of Gunpowder at Waltham Abbey (London, 1870); Noble and Abel, Fired Gunpowder (London, 1875, 1880); Noble, Artillery and Explosives (1906); H. W. L. Hime, Gunpowder and Ammunition, Their Origin and Development (1904); O. Guttmann, The Production of Explosives (1895), Monumenta of Gunpowder (1906); Notes on Gunpowder and Gun Cotton, published by order of the Secretary of State for War (London, 1907). (See also Explosives.)
1 These words were emended by some authors to read luru mope can ubre, the letters of which can be arranged to give pulvere carbonum.
1 Some authors changed these words to luru mope can ubre, which can be rearranged to spell pulvere carbonum.
2 This represents the composition of English powder at present, and no doubt it has remained the same for a longer time than the above date indicates.
2 This reflects the makeup of English powder today, and it’s likely that it has stayed consistent for a longer time than the date mentioned suggests.
3 Brown or coco-powder for large charges in guns. The charcoal is not burnt black but roasted until brown, and is made from some variety of straw, not wood.
3 Brown or cocoa powder for large charges in guns. The charcoal isn't burned black but roasted until brown, and it's made from a type of straw, not wood.
To understand clearly the nature and origin of the famous conspiracy, it is necessary to recall the political situation and the attitude of the Roman Catholics towards the government at the accession of James I. The Elizabethan administration had successfully defended its own existence and the Protestant faith against able and powerful antagonists, but this had not been accomplished without enforcing severe measures of repression and punishment upon those of the opposite faith. The beginning of a happier era, however, was expected with the opening of the new reign. The right of James to the crown could be more readily acknowledged by the Romanists than that of Elizabeth: Pope Clement VIII. appeared willing to meet the king half-way. James himself was by nature favourable to the Roman Catholics and had treated the Roman Catholic lords in Scotland with great leniency, in spite of their constant plots and rebellions. Writing to Cecil before his accession he maintained, “I am so far from any intention of persecution as I protest to God I reverence their church as our mother church, although clogged with many infirmities and corruptions, besides that I did ever hold persecution as one of the infallible notes of a false church.” He declared to Northumberland, the kinsman and master of Thomas Percy, the conspirator, “as for the Catholics, I will neither persecute any that will be quiet and give but an outward obedience to the law, neither will I spare to advance any of them that will be of good service and worthily deserved.” It is probable that these small but practical concessions would have satisfied the lay Roman Catholics and the secular priests, but they were very far from contenting the Jesuits, by whom the results of such leniency were especially feared: “What rigour of laws would not compass in so many years,” wrote Henry Tichborne, the Jesuit, in 1598, “this liberty and lenity will effectuate in 20 days, to wit the disfurnishing of the seminaries, the disanimating of men to come and others to return, the expulsion of the society and confusion as in Germany, extinction of zeal and favour, disanimation of princes from the hot pursuit of the enterprise.... We shall be left as a prey to the wolves that will besides drive our greatest patron [the king of Spain] to stoop to a peace which will be the utter ruin of our edifice, this many years in building.” Unfortunately, about this time the Jesuits, who thus thrived on political intrigue, and who were deeply implicated in treasonable correspondence with Spain, had obtained a complete ascendancy over the secular priests, who were for obeying the civil government as far as possible and keeping free from politics. The time, therefore, as far as the Roman Catholics themselves were concerned, was not a propitious one for introducing the moderate concessions which alone James had promised: James, too, on his side, found that religious toleration, though clearly sound in principle, was difficult in practice. During the first few months of the reign all went well. In July 1603 the fines for recusancy were remitted. In January 1604 peaceable Roman Catholics could live unmolested and “serve God according to their consciences without any danger.” But James’s expectations that the pope would prevent dangerous and seditious persons from entering the country were unfulfilled and the numbers of the Jesuits and the Roman Catholics greatly increased. Rumours of plots came to hand. Cecil, though like his master naturally in favour of toleration, with his experience gained in the reign of Elizabeth, was alarmed at the policy pursued and its results, and great anxiety was aroused in the government and nation, which was in the end shared by the king. It was determined finally to return to the earlier policy of repression. On the 22nd of February 1604 a proclamation was issued banishing priests; on the 28th of November 1604, recusancy fines were demanded from 13 wealthy persons, and on the 10th of February 1605 the penal laws were ordered to be executed. The plot, however, could not have been occasioned by these measures, for it had been already conceived in the mind of Robert Catesby. It was aimed at the repeal of the whole Elizabethan legislation against the Roman Catholics and perhaps derived some impulse at first from the leniency lately shown by the administration, afterwards gaining support from the opposite cause, the return of the government to the policy of repression.
To clearly understand the nature and origin of the famous conspiracy, it's important to remember the political situation and the attitudes of Roman Catholics towards the government when James I came to power. The Elizabethan administration had effectively defended itself and the Protestant faith against strong opponents, but this was not achieved without harsh repressive measures against those of differing beliefs. A more optimistic era was anticipated with the start of the new reign. Roman Catholics could accept James’s right to the crown more easily than they could accept Elizabeth’s: Pope Clement VIII seemed open to working with the king. James himself was naturally inclined to be supportive of Roman Catholics and had treated the Roman Catholic lords in Scotland with a lot of leniency, despite their ongoing plots and rebellions. Before he took the throne, he wrote to Cecil, stating, “I have no intention of persecution; I swear to God I regard their church as our mother church, despite its many flaws and corruptions. I have always viewed persecution as a definitive sign of a false church.” He told Northumberland, the relative and master of Thomas Percy, the conspirator, “As for the Catholics, I won't persecute anyone who remains quiet and only shows outward obedience to the law, nor will I hesitate to promote anyone who is of good service and has earned it.” These minor but practical concessions likely would have satisfied lay Roman Catholics and secular priests, but they did not appease the Jesuits, who especially feared the consequences of such leniency: “What strict laws wouldn’t achieve in many years,” Henry Tichborne, the Jesuit, wrote in 1598, “this freedom and leniency will accomplish in 20 days, namely the disbanding of the seminaries, discouraging people from coming back, the expulsion of the society, and chaos as seen in Germany, loss of zeal and favor, the discouragement of rulers from eagerly pursuing this issue.... We will be left vulnerable to the wolves, who will also push our greatest supporter [the king of Spain] to accept a peace that will completely ruin our efforts, long built over the years.” Unfortunately, around this time, the Jesuits, who thrived on political intrigue and were heavily involved in treasonous connections with Spain, gained complete control over the secular priests, who were inclined to obey civil laws and stay away from politics. Thus, it was not an opportune time for introducing the moderate concessions that James had promised: James himself also found that while religious tolerance made sense in theory, it was challenging in practice. The first few months of the reign were smooth. In July 1603, fines for recusancy were lifted. By January 1604, peaceful Roman Catholics could live without harassment and “worship God according to their beliefs without danger.” However, James's hopes that the pope would stop dangerous and seditious individuals from entering the country were unmet, and the number of Jesuits and Roman Catholics rose significantly. Rumors of plots began circulating. Cecil, although naturally supportive of tolerance, was alarmed by the policy and its outcomes, given his experience during Elizabeth's reign, causing significant concern in both the government and the nation, which was eventually felt by the king too. It was decided to revert to the previous policy of repression. On February 22, 1604, a proclamation was issued to banish priests; on November 28, 1604, recusancy fines were imposed on 13 wealthy individuals, and on February 10, 1605, the enforcement of penal laws was ordered. However, the plot could not have been triggered by these actions since it had already formed in Robert Catesby’s mind. It aimed to repeal the entire Elizabethan legislation against Roman Catholics, possibly first inspired by the recent leniency of the administration, and later gaining momentum from the government’s return to a policy of repression.
It was in May 1603 that Catesby told Percy, in reply to the latter’s declaration of his intention to kill the king, that he was “thinking of a most sure way.” Subsequently, about the 1st of November 1603, Catesby sent a message to his cousin Robert Winter at Huddington, near Worcester, to come to London, which the latter refused. On the arrival of a second urgent summons shortly afterwards he obeyed, and was then at a house at Lambeth, probably in January 1604, initiated by Catesby together with John Wright into the plot to blow up the parliament house. Before putting this plan into execution, however, 728 it was decided to try a “quiet way”; and Winter was sent over to Flanders to obtain the good offices of Juan de Velasco, duke of Frias and constable of Castile, who had arrived there to conduct the negotiations for a peace between England and Spain, in order to obtain the repeal of the penal laws. Winter, having secured nothing but vain promises from the constable, returned to England about the end of April, bringing with him Guy Fawkes, a man devoted to the Roman Catholic cause and recommended for undertaking perilous adventures. Subsequently the three and Thomas Percy, who joined the conspiracy in May, met in a house behind St Clement’s and, having taken an oath of secrecy together, heard Mass and received the Sacrament in an adjoining apartment from a priest stated by Fawkes to have been Father Gerard. Later several other persons were included in the plot, viz. Winter’s brother Thomas, John Grant, Ambrose Rokewood, Robert Keyes, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham, a cousin of Catesby and Thomas Bates Catesby’s servant, all, with the exception of the last, being men of good family and all Roman Catholics. Father Greenway and Father Garnet, the Jesuits, were both cognisant of the plot (see Garnet, Henry). On the 24th of May 1604 a house was hired in Percy’s name adjoining the House of Lords, from the cellar of which they proposed to work a mine. They began on the 11th of December 1604, and by about March had got half-way through the wall. They then discovered that a vault immediately under the House of Lords was available. This was at once hired by Percy, and 36 barrels of gunpowder, amounting to about 1 ton and 12 cwt., were brought in and concealed under coal and faggots. The preparations being completed in May the conspirators separated. Fawkes was despatched to Flanders, where he imparted the plot to Hugh Owen, a zealous Romanist intriguer. Sir Edmund Baynham was sent on a mission to Rome to be at hand when the news came to gain over the pope to the cause of the successful conspirators. An understanding was arrived at with several officers levied for the service of the archduke, that they should return at once to England when occasion arose of defending the Roman Catholic cause. A great hunting match was organized at Danchurch in Warwickshire by Digby, to which large numbers of the Roman Catholic gentry were invited, who were to join the plot after the successful accomplishment of the explosion of the 5th of November, the day fixed for the opening of parliament, and get possession of the princess Elizabeth, then residing in the neighbourhood; while Percy was to seize the infant prince Charles and bring him on horseback to their meeting-place. Guy Fawkes himself was to take ship immediately for Flanders, spread the news on the continent and get supporters. The conspirators imagined that a terrorized and helpless government would readily agree to all their demands. Hitherto the secret had been well kept and the preparations had been completed with extraordinary success and without a single drawback; but a very serious difficulty now confronted the conspirators as the time for action arrived, and disturbed their consciences. The feelings of ordinary humanity shrunk from the destruction of so many persons guiltless of any offence. But in addition, among the peers to be assassinated were included many Roman Catholics and some lords nearly connected in kinship or friendship with the plotters themselves. Several appeals, however, made to Catesby to allow warning to be given to certain individuals were firmly rejected.
In May 1603, Catesby told Percy that he was “thinking of a really sure way” in response to Percy’s plan to kill the king. Then, around November 1, 1603, Catesby sent a message to his cousin Robert Winter at Huddington, near Worcester, asking him to come to London, which Winter initially refused. When a second urgent request arrived shortly after, he agreed and, probably in January 1604, was brought by Catesby and John Wright to a house in Lambeth where they got involved in the plot to blow up the Parliament. However, before carrying out this plan, they decided to try a “quiet way.” Winter was sent to Flanders to seek help from Juan de Velasco, duke of Frias and constable of Castile, who was there to negotiate peace between England and Spain, in hopes of getting the repeal of penal laws. Winter returned to England by the end of April with nothing but empty promises from the constable and brought Guy Fawkes, a man dedicated to the Roman Catholic cause and suitable for dangerous missions. Later, the three of them, along with Thomas Percy who joined in May, gathered at a house behind St Clement’s, took a secrecy oath, heard Mass, and received the Sacrament in a nearby room from a priest identified by Fawkes as Father Gerard. Several others were soon brought into the plot: Winter's brother Thomas, John Grant, Ambrose Rokewood, Robert Keyes, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham, a cousin of Catesby, and Thomas Bates, Catesby’s servant, all Roman Catholics and most from respectable families. Father Greenway and Father Garnet, the Jesuits, were aware of the plot (see Garnet, Henry). On May 24, 1604, they rented a house in Percy’s name next to the House of Lords, planning to dig a mine from the cellar. They started work on December 11, 1604, and by March had tunneled about halfway through the wall. They then discovered a vault directly underneath the House of Lords, which Percy immediately rented, and they smuggled in 36 barrels of gunpowder—around one ton and 12 cwt.—hiding it under coal and firewood. With preparations done in May, the conspirators split up. Fawkes was sent to Flanders to share the plan with Hugh Owen, a committed Roman Catholic conspirator. Sir Edmund Baynham went to Rome to persuade the pope to support the successful conspirators once the news broke. They also arranged with various officers recruited for the archduke’s service to return to England when the Roman Catholic cause needed defending. Digby organized a big hunting event at Danchurch in Warwickshire, inviting many Roman Catholic gentry who would join the plot after the successful explosion on November 5, the day Parliament was to open, and take the princess Elizabeth, who was nearby, while Percy would capture infant prince Charles and bring him to their meeting place on horseback. Guy Fawkes was to immediately sail to Flanders, spread the news, and gather supporters. The conspirators believed that a frightened and powerless government would easily meet their demands. Until then, their secret was well kept, and preparations had gone remarkably well without issues; however, they faced a major problem as the time for action neared, troubling their consciences. They struggled with the thought of killing so many innocent people. Additionally, many of the peers they planned to assassinate were Roman Catholics and some were closely related or connected to the plotters. Despite several requests to Catesby to warn certain individuals, he firmly denied them.
On the 26th of October Lord Monteagle, a brother-in-law of Francis Tresham, who had formerly been closely connected with some of the other conspirators and had engaged in Romanist plots against the government, but who had given his support to the new king, unexpectedly ordered supper to be prepared at his house at Haxton, from which he had been absent for more than a year. While at supper about 6 o’clock an anonymous letter was brought by an unknown messenger which, having glanced at, he handed to Ward, a gentleman of his service and an intimate friend of Winter, the conspirator, to be read aloud. The celebrated letter ran as follows:—
On October 26th, Lord Monteagle, who was Francis Tresham's brother-in-law and had previously been involved with some of the other conspirators in Roman Catholic plots against the government, but who had supported the new king, unexpectedly asked for supper to be made at his home in Haxton, where he hadn’t been for over a year. While they were having supper around 6 o’clock, an anonymous letter was delivered by an unknown messenger. After glancing at it, he handed it to Ward, a gentleman in his service and a close friend of Winter, one of the conspirators, to read aloud. The famous letter said:—
“My lord, out of the love I bear to some of your friends, I have a care for your preservation. Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some excuse to shift of your attendance of this Parliament, for God and man hath concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not slightly of this advertisement, but retire yourself into your country, where you may expect the event in safety, for though there be no appearance of any stir, yet I say they shall receive a terrible blow the Parliament, and yet they shall not see who hurts them. This counsel is not to be contemned, because it may do you good and can do you no harm, for the danger is past as soon as you have burnt the letter: and I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, to whose holy protection I commend you.”
"My lord, because I care for some of your friends, I’m concerned for your safety. So I suggest, if you value your life, that you come up with an excuse to miss this Parliament. Both God and society have come together to punish the wrongdoing of this time. Don’t take this advice lightly; instead, retreat to your country where you can wait for things to unfold safely. Even though there’s no sign of trouble, I believe the Parliament will face a severe blow, yet they won’t know who struck them. This advice shouldn’t be dismissed, as it could benefit you and won't harm you. The danger will pass as soon as you destroy this letter, and I hope God grants you the wisdom to use it well, to whose holy protection I commend you."
The authorship of the letter has never been disclosed or proved, but all evidence seems to point to Tresham, and to the probability that he had some days before warned Monteagle and agreed with him as to the best means of making known the plot and preventing its execution, and at the same time of giving the conspirators time to escape (see Tresham, Francis).
The author of the letter has never been revealed or verified, but all the evidence suggests it was Tresham, and it's likely that he warned Monteagle a few days prior and decided together on the best ways to expose the plot and stop it from happening, while also allowing the conspirators time to get away (see Tresham, Francis).
Monteagle at once started for Whitehall, found Salisbury and other ministers about to sit down to supper, and showed the letter, whereupon it was decided to search the cellar under the House of Lords before the meeting of parliament, but not too soon, so that the plot might be ripe and be fully disclosed. Meanwhile Ward, on the 27th of October, as had evidently been intended, informed Winter that the plot was known, and on the 28th Winter informed Catesby and begged him to give up the whole project. Catesby, however, after some hesitation, finding from Fawkes that nothing had been touched in the cellar, and prevailed upon by Percy, determined to stand firm, hoping that the government had put no credence in Monteagle’s letter, and Fawkes returned to the cellar to keep guard as before. On the 4th the king, having been shown the letter, ordered the earl of Suffolk, as lord chamberlain, to examine the buildings. He was accompanied by Monteagle. On arriving at the cellar, the door was opened to him by Fawkes. Seeing the enormous piles of faggots he asked the name of their owner, to which Fawkes replied that they belonged to Percy. His name immediately aroused suspicions, and accordingly it was ordered that a further search should be made by Thomas Knyvett, a Westminster magistrate who, coming with his men at night, discovered the gunpowder and arrested Fawkes on the threshold.
Monteagle quickly headed to Whitehall, where he found Salisbury and other ministers about to have supper. He showed them the letter, and they decided to search the cellar under the House of Lords before Parliament met, but not too soon, so the plot could develop fully. Meanwhile, on October 27th, Ward informed Winter that the plot was known, as had evidently been planned, and on the 28th, Winter told Catesby, urging him to abandon the whole scheme. However, after some hesitation and learning from Fawkes that the cellar had not been disturbed, and with Percy encouraging him, Catesby decided to stay the course, hoping the government didn’t believe Monteagle’s letter. Fawkes returned to the cellar to keep watch as before. On the 4th, after being shown the letter, the king ordered the Earl of Suffolk, as lord chamberlain, to inspect the buildings, accompanied by Monteagle. When they arrived at the cellar, Fawkes opened the door for them. Upon seeing the large stacks of faggots, the Earl asked who owned them, and Fawkes replied they belonged to Percy. This raised immediate suspicions, leading to the order for a further search by Thomas Knyvett, a Westminster magistrate. Coming with his men at night, he discovered the gunpowder and arrested Fawkes at the entrance.
The opinion that the whole plot was the work of Salisbury, that he acted as an agent provocateur and lured on his victims to destruction, repeated by some contemporary and later writers and recently formulated and urged with great ability, has no solid foundation. Nor is it even probable that he was aware of its existence till he received Monteagle’s letter. Even after its reception complete belief was not placed in the warning. A search was made only to make sure that nothing was wrong and guided only by Monteagle’s letter, while no attempt was made to seize the conspirators. The steps taken by Salisbury after the discovery of the gunpowder do not show the possession of any information of the plot or of the persons who were its chief agents outside Fawkes’s first statement, and his knowledge is seen to develop according to the successive disclosures and confessions of the latter. Thus on the 7th of November he had no knowledge of the mine, and it is only after Fawkes’s examination by torture on the 9th, when the names of the conspirators were drawn from him, that the government was able to classify them according to their guilt and extent of their participation. The inquiry was not conducted by Salisbury alone, but by several commissioners, some of whom were Roman Catholics, and many rivals and secret enemies. To conceal his intrigue from all these would have been impossible, and that he should have put himself in their power to such an extent is highly improbable. Again, the plan agreed upon for disclosing the plot was especially designed to allow the conspirators to escape, and therefore scarcely a method which would have been arranged with Salisbury. Not one of the conspirators, even when all hope of saving life was gone, made any accusation against Salisbury or the government and all died expressing contrition for their crime. Lastly Salisbury had no conceivable motive in concocting a plot of this description. His political power and position in the new reign had been already secured and by very different methods. He was now at the height of his influence, having been created Viscount Cranborne 729 in August 1604 and earl of Salisbury in May 1605; and James had already, more than 16 months before the discovery of the plot, consented to return to the repressive measures against the Romanists. The success with which the conspirators concealed their plot from Salisbury’s spies is indeed astonishing, but is probably explained by its very audacity and by the absence of incriminating correspondence, the medium through which the minister chiefly obtained his knowledge of the plans of his enemies.
The idea that Salisbury was behind the entire plot, acting as an agent provocateur who led his victims to their doom, has been repeated by some contemporary and later writers, and more recently put forward with great skill, but it lacks any solid evidence. It's unlikely he even knew about it until he received Monteagle’s letter. Even after he got the letter, there was no complete belief in the warning. A search was conducted just to confirm that nothing was wrong, based only on Monteagle’s letter, and no effort was made to apprehend the conspirators. After the discovery of the gunpowder, Salisbury's actions didn’t indicate he had any information about the plot or the main conspirators, aside from Fawkes's initial statement, and his understanding of the situation seemed to grow with each subsequent revelation and confession from Fawkes. By November 7th, he had no knowledge of the mine, and it was only after Fawkes was tortured on the 9th and revealed the names of the conspirators that the government could categorize them based on their guilt and level of involvement. The investigation wasn’t carried out by Salisbury alone but by several commissioners, some of whom were Roman Catholics, and many were rivals and secret enemies. It would have been impossible for him to hide his plot from all of them, and it's very unlikely he would have placed himself in such a vulnerable position. Moreover, the plan arranged to expose the plot was especially intended to allow the conspirators to escape, which is not a course of action that would have been made in agreement with Salisbury. Not one of the conspirators, even when all hope of saving their lives was lost, accused Salisbury or the government and all died expressing regret for their crime. Lastly, Salisbury had no logical reason to fabricate a plot like this. His political power and standing in the new reign had already been established through entirely different means. He was at the peak of his influence, having been made Viscount Cranborne in August 1604 and Earl of Salisbury in May 1605; James had already, more than 16 months before the plot was discovered, agreed to resume harsh measures against Roman Catholics. The effectiveness with which the conspirators concealed their plot from Salisbury’s spies is indeed remarkable, but it can probably be explained by its sheer boldness and the lack of incriminating correspondence, which was the main way the minister gathered intelligence about his enemies' plans.
On the arrest of Fawkes the other conspirators, except Tresham, fled in parties by different ways, rejoining each other in Warwickshire, as had been agreed in case the plot had been successful. Catesby, who with some others had covered the distance of 80 m. between London and his mother’s house at Ashby St Legers in eight hours, informed his friends in Warwickshire, who had been awaiting the issue of the plot, of its failure, but succeeded in persuading Sir Everard Digby, by an unscrupulous falsehood, to further implicate himself in his hopeless cause by assuring him that both James and Salisbury were dead; and, according to Father Garnet, this was not the first time that Catesby had been guilty of lies in order to draw men into the plot. He pushed on the same day with his companions in the direction of Wales, where, it was hoped, they would be joined by bands of insurgents. They arrived at Huddington at 2 in the afternoon. On the morning of the 7th the band, numbering about 36 persons, confessed and heard Mass, and then rode away to Holbeche, 2 m. from Stourbridge, in Staffordshire, the house of Stephen Littleton, who had been present at the hunting at Danchurch (see Digby, Everard), where they arrived at 10 o’clock at night, having on their way broken into Lord Windsor’s house at Hewell Grange and taken all the armour they found there. Their case was now desperate. None had joined them: “Not one came to take our part,” said Sir Everard Digby, “though we had expected so many.” They were being followed by the sheriff and all the forces of the county. All spurned them from their doors when they applied for succour. One by one their followers fled from the house in which the last scene was to be played out. They now began to feel themselves abandoned not only by man but by God; for an explosion of some of their gunpowder, on the morning of the 8th, by which Catesby and some others were scorched, struck terror into their hearts as a judgment from heaven. The assurance of innocence and of a just cause which till now had alone supported them was taken away. The greatness of their crime, its true nature, now struck home to them, and the few moments which remained to them of life were spent in prayer and in repentance. The supreme hour had now arrived. About 11 o’clock the sheriff and his men came up and immediately began firing into the house. Catesby, Percy and the two Wrights were killed, Winter and Rokewood wounded and taken prisoners with the men who still adhered to them. In all eight of the conspirators, including the two Winters, Digby, Fawkes, Rokewood, Keyes and Bates, were executed, while Tresham died in the Tower. Of the priests involved, Garnet was tried and executed, while Greenway and Gerard succeeded in escaping.
On the arrest of Fawkes, the other conspirators, except Tresham, scattered in groups and regrouped in Warwickshire, as they had agreed would happen if the plot succeeded. Catesby, along with some others, covered the 80 miles from London to his mother’s house in Ashby St. Legers in eight hours. He informed his friends in Warwickshire, who had been waiting to hear the outcome of the plot, about its failure but managed to deceive Sir Everard Digby with a shameless lie, claiming that both James and Salisbury were dead. According to Father Garnet, this wasn’t the first time Catesby had lied to pull people into the scheme. That same day, he and his companions headed towards Wales, hoping to be joined by groups of insurgents. They reached Huddington at 2 PM. On the morning of the 7th, the group, now about 36 people, confessed and attended Mass, then rode to Holbeche, 2 miles from Stourbridge in Staffordshire, where Stephen Littleton lived. They arrived at 10 PM, having broken into Lord Windsor’s house at Hewell Grange on the way and taken all the armor they found there. Their situation was now hopeless. No one had joined them: “Not one came to take our part,” Sir Everard Digby said, “even though we had expected so many.” They were being pursued by the sheriff and all the county forces. Everyone turned them away when they asked for help. One by one, their supporters fled from the house where the final act would take place. They began to feel abandoned not only by people but also by God; an explosion of some of their gunpowder on the morning of the 8th, which scorched Catesby and a few others, filled them with dread as if it were a divine punishment. The confidence in their innocence and just cause that had supported them until then was gone. They now truly grasped the magnitude of their crime, and the last moments of their lives were spent in prayer and repentance. The final hour had arrived. Around 11 o’clock, the sheriff and his men arrived and immediately began firing into the house. Catesby, Percy, and the two Wrights were killed; Winter and Rokewood were wounded and captured along with the men who still remained loyal to them. In total, eight conspirators, including the two Winters, Digby, Fawkes, Rokewood, Keyes, and Bates, were executed, while Tresham died in the Tower. Among the priests involved, Garnet was tried and executed, while Greenway and Gerard managed to escape.
So ended the strange and famous Gunpowder Plot. However atrocious its conception and its aims, it is impossible not to feel, together with horror for the deed, some pity and admiration for the guilty persons who took part in it. “Theirs was a crime which it would never have entered into the heart of any man to commit who was not raised above the lowness of the ordinary criminal.” They sinned not against the light but in the dark. They erred from ignorance, from a perverted moral sense rather than from any mean or selfish motive, and exhibited extraordinary courage and self-sacrifice in the pursuit of what seemed to them the cause of God and of their country. Their punishment was terrible. Not only had they risked and lost all in the attempt and drawn upon themselves the frightful vengeance of the state, but they saw themselves the means of injuring irretrievably the cause for which they felt such devotion. Nothing could have been more disastrous to the cause of the Roman Catholics than their crime. The laws against them were immediately increased in severity, and the gradual advance towards religious toleration was put back for centuries. In addition a new, increased and long-enduring hostility was aroused in the country against the adherents of the old faith, not unnatural in the circumstances, but unjust and undiscriminating, because while some of the Jesuits were no doubt implicated, the secular priests and Roman Catholic laity as a whole had taken no part in the conspiracy.
So ended the strange and infamous Gunpowder Plot. No matter how terrible its planning and goals were, it’s hard not to feel, along with horror for what happened, some pity and admiration for those involved. “Theirs was a crime that would never have crossed the mind of any person who wasn’t above the ordinary criminal.” They didn’t sin against the light but in darkness. They were misguided by ignorance and a twisted moral compass rather than by any selfish intention, and they showed remarkable bravery and selflessness in pursuing what they believed was a cause for God and their country. Their punishment was severe. They not only risked and lost everything in their attempt and drew the horrifying wrath of the government upon themselves, but they also caused irreparable harm to the cause they so passionately supported. Nothing could have been more damaging to the Roman Catholic cause than their crime. The laws against them were instantly made harsher, and the slow progress toward religious tolerance was pushed back for centuries. Moreover, a new and lasting hostility against the followers of the old faith was stirred up in the country, which was understandable given the circumstances, but unfair and indiscriminate, since while some Jesuits were undoubtedly involved, the secular priests and Roman Catholic laypeople as a whole had nothing to do with the conspiracy.
Bibliography.—The recent controversy concerning the nature and origin of the plot can be followed in What was the Gunpowder Plot? by John Gerard, S.J. (1897); What Gunpowder Plot was, by S. R. Gardiner (a rejoinder) (1897); The Gunpowder Plot ... in reply to Professor Gardiner, by John Gerard, S.J. (1897); Thomas Winter’s Confession and the Gunpowder Plot, by John Gerard, S.J. (with facsimiles of his writing) (1898); Eng. Hist. Rev. iii. 510 and xii. 791; Edinburgh Review, clxxxv. 183; Athenaeum 1897, ii. 149, 785, 855; 1898, i. 23, ii. 352, 420; Academy, vol. 52 p. 84; The Nation, vol. 65 p. 400. A considerable portion of the controversy centres round the question of the authenticity of Thomas Winter’s confession, the MS. of which is at Hatfield, supported by Professor Gardiner, but denied by Father Gerard principally on account of the document having been signed “Winter” instead of “Wintour,” the latter apparently being the conspirator’s usual style of signature. The document was deposited by the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury for inspection at the Record Office, and was pronounced by two experts, one from the British Museum and another from the Record Office, to be undoubtedly genuine. The cause of the variation in the signature still remains unexplained, but ceases to have therefore any great historical importance. The bibliography of the contemporary controversy is given in the article on Henry Garnet in the Dictionary of National Biography and in The Gunpowder Plot by David Jardine (1857), the latter work still remaining the principal authority on the subject; add to these Gardiner’s Hist. of England, i., where an excellent account is given; History of the Jesuits in England, by Father Ethelred Taunton (1901); Father Gerard’s Narrative in Condition of the Catholics under James I. (1872), and Father Greenway’s Narrative in Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, 1st series (1872), interesting as contemporary accounts, but not to be taken as complete or infallible authorities, of the same nature being Historia Provinciae Anglicanae Societatis Jesu, by Henry More, S.J. (1660), pp. 309 et seq.; also History of Great Britain, by John Speed (1611), pp. 839 et seq.; Archaeologia, xii. 200, xxviii. 422, xxix. 80; Harleian Miscellany (1809), iii. 119-135, or Somers Tracts (1809), ii. 97-117; M. A. Tierney’s ed. of Dodd’s Church History, vol. iv. (1841); Treason and Plot, by Martin Hume (1901); Notes and Queries, 7 ser. vi., 8 ser. iv. 408, 497, v. 55, xii. 505, 9 ser. xi. 115; Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. 6178; State Trials, ii.; Calendar of State Pap. Dom. (1603-1610), and the official account, A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings against the late most Barbarous Traitors (1606), a neither true nor complete narrative however, now superseded as an authority, reprinted as The Gunpowder Treason ... with additions in 1679 by Thomas Barlow, bishop of Lincoln. A large number of letters and papers in the State Paper Office relating to the plot were collected in one volume in 1819, called the Gunpowder Plot Book; these are noted in their proper place in the printed calendars of State Papers, Domestic Series; see also articles on Fawkes, Guy; Tresham, Francis; Monteagle, William Parker, 4th Baron; Percy, Thomas; Catesby, Robert; Garnet, Henry; Digby, Sir Everard.
References.—The recent debate about the nature and origin of the plot can be found in What was the Gunpowder Plot? by John Gerard, S.J. (1897); What Gunpowder Plot Was, by S. R. Gardiner (a response) (1897); The Gunpowder Plot ... in reply to Professor Gardiner, by John Gerard, S.J. (1897); Thomas Winter’s Confession and the Gunpowder Plot, by John Gerard, S.J. (with facsimiles of his writing) (1898); Eng. Hist. Rev. iii. 510 and xii. 791; Edinburgh Review, clxxxv. 183; Athenaeum 1897, ii. 149, 785, 855; 1898, i. 23, ii. 352, 420; Academy, vol. 52 p. 84; The Nation, vol. 65 p. 400. A significant part of the controversy revolves around the authenticity of Thomas Winter’s confession, the manuscript of which is at Hatfield, supported by Professor Gardiner, but rejected by Father Gerard mainly because the document was signed “Winter” instead of “Wintour,” which appears to be the conspirator’s usual signature. The document was submitted by the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury for examination at the Record Office, and was deemed undoubtedly genuine by two experts—one from the British Museum and another from the Record Office. The reason for the variation in the signature remains unclear, but it does not hold much historical importance. The bibliography regarding the contemporary controversy is provided in the article on Henry Garnet in the Dictionary of National Biography and in The Gunpowder Plot by David Jardine (1857), which still stands as the primary authority on the topic; additionally, there’s Gardiner’s Hist. of England, i., where a great account is offered; History of the Jesuits in England, by Father Ethelred Taunton (1901); Father Gerard’s Narrative in Condition of the Catholics under James I. (1872), and Father Greenway’s Narrative in Troubles of our Catholic Forefathers, 1st series (1872), which are interesting contemporary accounts, but should not be considered fully accurate or infallible. Additional works include Historia Provinciae Anglicanae Societatis Jesu, by Henry More, S.J. (1660), pp. 309 et seq.; also History of Great Britain, by John Speed (1611), pp. 839 et seq.; Archaeologia, xii. 200, xxviii. 422, xxix. 80; Harleian Miscellany (1809), iii. 119-135, or Somers Tracts (1809), ii. 97-117; M. A. Tierney’s ed. of Dodd’s Church History, vol. iv. (1841); Treason and Plot, by Martin Hume (1901); Notes and Queries, 7 ser. vi., 8 ser. iv. 408, 497, v. 55, xii. 505, 9 ser. xi. 115; Add. MSS. Brit. Mus. 6178; State Trials, ii.; Calendar of State Pap. Dom. (1603-1610), and the official account, A True and Perfect Relation of the Whole Proceedings against the late most Barbarous Traitors (1606), which is neither entirely true nor complete, and has now been superseded as a source, reprinted as The Gunpowder Treason ... with additions in 1679 by Thomas Barlow, bishop of Lincoln. A large collection of letters and documents in the State Paper Office related to the plot was gathered in one volume in 1819, titled the Gunpowder Plot Book; these are referenced in their respective places in the printed calendars of State Papers, Domestic Series; see also articles on Fawkes, Guy; Tresham, Francis; Monteagle, William Parker, 4th Baron; Percy, Thomas; Catesby, Robert; Garnet, Henry; Digby, Sir Everard.
GUNTER, EDMUND (1581-1626), English mathematician, of Welsh extraction, was born in Hertfordshire in 1581. He was educated at Westminster school, and in 1599 was elected a student of Christ Church, Oxford. He took orders, became a preacher in 1614, and in 1615 proceeded to the degree of bachelor in divinity. Mathematics, however, which had been his favourite study in youth, continued to engross his attention, and on the 6th of March 1619 he was appointed professor of astronomy in Gresham College, London. This post he held till his death on the 10th of December 1626. With Gunter’s name are associated several useful inventions, descriptions of which are given in his treatises on the Sector, Cross-staff, Bow, Quadrant and other Instruments. He contrived his sector about the year 1606, and wrote a description of it in Latin, but it was more than sixteen years afterwards before he allowed the book to appear in English. In 1620 he published his Canon triangulorum (see Logarithms). There is reason to believe that Gunter was the first to discover (in 1622 or 1625) that the magnetic needle does not retain the same declination in the same place at all times. By desire of 730 James I. he published in 1624 The Description and Use of His Majestie’s Dials in Whitehall Garden, the only one of his works which has not been reprinted. He introduced the words cosine and cotangent, and he suggested to Henry Briggs, his friend and colleague, the use of the arithmetical complement (see Brigg’s Arithmetica Logarithmica, cap. xv.). His practical inventions are briefly noticed below:
GUNTER, EDMUND (1581-1626), an English mathematician of Welsh descent, was born in Hertfordshire in 1581. He studied at Westminster School and was elected as a student at Christ Church, Oxford, in 1599. He became a preacher in 1614 after taking holy orders and received a bachelor’s degree in divinity in 1615. Despite his involvement with theology, mathematics, which he loved in his youth, continued to capture his interest. On March 6, 1619, he was appointed as a professor of astronomy at Gresham College, London, a position he held until his death on December 10, 1626. Gunter is known for several useful inventions, details of which can be found in his treatises on the Sector, Cross-staff, Bow, Quadrant and other Instruments. He designed his sector around 1606 and wrote a description of it in Latin, but he waited over sixteen years before allowing the book to be published in English. In 1620, he released his Canon triangulorum (see Logarithms). It’s believed that Gunter was the first to realize (in 1622 or 1625) that the magnetic needle does not point in the same direction at all times in the same location. At the request of 730 James I, he published in 1624 The Description and Use of His Majestie’s Dials in Whitehall Garden, which is the only one of his works that hasn’t been reprinted. He introduced the terms cosine and cotangent, and he suggested the use of the arithmetical complement to his friend and colleague Henry Briggs (see Briggs' Arithmetica Logarithmica, cap. xv.). His practical inventions are briefly summarized below:
Gunter’s Chain, the chain in common use for surveying, is 22 yds. long and is divided into 100 links. Its usefulness arises from its decimal or centesimal division, and the fact that 10 square chains make an acre.
Gunter’s Chain, the chain commonly used for surveying, is 22 yards long and is divided into 100 links. Its usefulness comes from its decimal or centesimal division, and the fact that 10 square chains equal an acre.
Gunter’s Line, a logarithmic line, usually laid down upon scales, sectors, &c. It is also called the line of lines and the line of numbers, being only the logarithms graduated upon a ruler, which therefore serves to solve problems instrumentally in the same manner as logarithms do arithmetically.
Gunter’s Line, a logarithmic line, typically marked on scales, sectors, etc. It’s also known as the line of lines and the line of numbers, as it represents logarithms graduated on a ruler. This allows it to solve problems using instruments in the same way that logarithms do mathematically.
Gunter’s Quadrant, an instrument made of wood, brass or other substance, containing a kind of stereographic projection of the sphere on the plane of the equinoctial, the eye being supposed to be placed in one of the poles, so that the tropic, ecliptic, and horizon form the arcs of circles, but the hour circles are other curves, drawn by means of several altitudes of the sun for some particular latitude every year. This instrument is used to find the hour of the day, the sun’s azimuth, &c., and other common problems of the sphere or globe, and also to take the altitude of an object in degrees.
Gunter’s Quadrant is a tool made of wood, brass, or other materials that shows a kind of stereographic projection of the sphere on the plane of the equator. The viewer is imagined to be at one of the poles, causing the tropic, ecliptic, and horizon to create arc-like circles, while the hour circles appear as different curves, calculated using various altitudes of the sun for a specific latitude each year. This instrument is used to determine the time of day, the sun’s azimuth, and other common problems related to the sphere or globe, as well as to measure the altitude of an object in degrees.
Gunter’s Scale (generally called by seamen the Gunter) is a large plane scale, usually 2 ft. long by about 1½ in. broad, and engraved with various lines of numbers. On one side are placed the natural lines (as the line of chords, the line of sines, tangents, rhumbs, &c.), and on the other side the corresponding artificial or logarithmic ones. By means of this instrument questions in navigation, trigonometry, &c., are solved with the aid of a pair of compasses.
Gunter’s Scale (commonly known by sailors as the Gunter) is a large flat scale, typically 2 feet long and about 1½ inches wide, engraved with various numbered lines. One side features the natural lines (like the line of chords, the line of sines, tangents, rhumbs, etc.), while the other side shows the corresponding artificial or logarithmic lines. This instrument is used to solve problems in navigation, trigonometry, etc., with the help of a pair of compasses.
GÜNTHER, JOHANN CHRISTIAN (1695-1723), German poet, was born at Striegau in Lower Silesia on the 8th of April 1695. After attending the gymnasium at Schweidnitz, he was sent in 1715 by his father, a country doctor, to study medicine at Wittenberg; but he was idle and dissipated, had no taste for the profession chosen for him, and came to a complete rupture with his family. In 1717 he went to Leipzig, where he was befriended by J. B. Mencke (1674-1732), who recognized his genius; and there he published a poem on the peace of Passarowitz (concluded between the German emperor and the Porte in 1718) which acquired him reputation. A recommendation from Mencke to Frederick Augustus II. of Saxony, king of Poland, proved worse than useless, as Günther appeared at the audience drunk. From that time he led an unsettled and dissipated life, sinking ever deeper into the slough of misery, until he died at Jena on the 15th of March 1723, when only in his 28th year. Goethe pronounces Günther to have been a poet in the fullest sense of the term. His lyric poems as a whole give evidence of deep and lively sensibility, fine imagination, clever wit, and a true ear for melody and rhythm; but an air of cynicism is more or less present in most of them, and dull or vulgar witticisms are not infrequently found side by side with the purest inspirations of his genius.
Günther, Johann Christian (1695-1723), a German poet, was born in Striegau, Lower Silesia, on April 8, 1695. After going to the gymnasium in Schweidnitz, his father, a country doctor, sent him to study medicine at Wittenberg in 1715. However, he was lazy and extravagant, had no interest in the career his family chose for him, and ended up having a complete fallout with them. In 1717, he moved to Leipzig, where J. B. Mencke (1674-1732) befriended him and recognized his talent. There, he published a poem about the peace of Passarowitz (which was established between the German emperor and the Porte in 1718) that gained him some recognition. Unfortunately, a recommendation from Mencke to Frederick Augustus II of Saxony, king of Poland, backfired when Günther showed up for the meeting drunk. After that, he lived a troubled and dissipated life, sinking deeper into despair until he died in Jena on March 15, 1723, at just 28 years old. Goethe stated that Günther was a poet in the truest sense of the word. His lyrical poems as a whole demonstrate deep and vivid sensitivity, great imagination, sharp wit, and a true sense of melody and rhythm; however, a cynical tone can often be found in most of them, and dull or vulgar jokes sometimes appear alongside the purest inspirations of his talent.
Günther’s collected poems were published in four volumes (Breslau, 1723-1735). They are also included in vol. vi. of Tittmann’s Deutsche Dichter des 17ten Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1874), and vol. xxxviii. of Kürschner’s Deutsche Nationalliteratur (1883). A pretended autobiography of Günther appeared at Schweidnitz in 1732, and a life of him by Siebrand at Leipzig in 1738. See Hoffmann von Fallersleben, J. Ch. Günther (Breslau, 1833); O. Roquette, Leben und Dichten J. Ch. Günthers (Stuttgart, 1860); M. Kalbeck, Neue Beiträge zur Biographie des Dichters C. Günther (Breslau, 1879).
Günther’s collected poems were published in four volumes (Breslau, 1723-1735). They're also included in vol. vi. of Tittmann’s Deutsche Dichter des 17ten Jahrh. (Leipzig, 1874) and vol. xxxviii. of Kürschner’s Deutsche Nationalliteratur (1883). A fake autobiography of Günther was released in Schweidnitz in 1732, and a biography by Siebrand was published in Leipzig in 1738. See Hoffmann von Fallersleben, J. Ch. Günther (Breslau, 1833); O. Roquette, Leben und Dichten J. Ch. Günthers (Stuttgart, 1860); M. Kalbeck, Neue Beiträge zur Biographie des Dichters C. Günther (Breslau, 1879).
GÜNTHER OF SCHWARZBURG (1304-1349), German king, was a descendant of the counts of Schwarzburg and the younger son of Henry VII., count of Blankenburg. He distinguished himself as a soldier, and rendered good service to the emperor Louis IV., on whose death in 1347 he was offered the German throne, after it had been refused by Edward III., king of England. He was elected German king at Frankfort on the 30th of January 1349 by four of the electors, who were partisans of the house of Wittelsbach and opponents of Charles of Luxemburg, afterwards the emperor Charles IV. Charles, however, won over many of Günther’s adherents, defeated him at Eltville, and Günther, who was now seriously ill, renounced his claims for the sum of 20,000 marks of silver. He died three weeks afterwards at Frankfort, and was buried in the cathedral of that city, where a statue was erected to his memory in 1352.
Günther of Schwarzburg (1304-1349), German king, was a descendant of the counts of Schwarzburg and the younger son of Henry VII, count of Blankenburg. He made a name for himself as a soldier and provided valuable service to Emperor Louis IV. After Louis's death in 1347, Günther was offered the German throne, which had been declined by Edward III, king of England. He was elected German king in Frankfurt on January 30, 1349, by four electors who supported the house of Wittelsbach and opposed Charles of Luxemburg, who later became Emperor Charles IV. However, Charles managed to win over many of Günther’s supporters, defeated him at Eltville, and Günther, now in serious health, gave up his claims in exchange for 20,000 marks of silver. He died three weeks later in Frankfurt and was buried in the city's cathedral, where a statue was erected in his honor in 1352.
See Graf L. Ütterodt zu Scharffenberg, Günther, Graf von Schwarzburg, erwählter deutscher König (Leipzig, 1862); and K. Janson, Das Königtum Günthers von Schwarzburg (Leipzig, 1880).
See Graf L. Ütterodt zu Scharffenberg, Günther, Graf von Schwarzburg, erwählter deutscher König (Leipzig, 1862); and K. Janson, Das Königtum Günthers von Schwarzburg (Leipzig, 1880).
GUNTRAM, or Gontran (561-592), king of Burgundy, was one of the sons of Clotaire I. On the death of his father (561) he and his three brothers divided the Frankish realm between them, Guntram receiving as his share the valleys of the Saône and Rhone, together with Berry and the town of Orleans, which he made his capital. On the death of Charibert (567), he further obtained the civitates of Saintes, Angoulême and Périgueux. During the civil war which broke out between the kings of Neustria and Austrasia, his policy was to try to maintain a state of equilibrium. After the assassination of Sigebert (575), he took the youthful Childebert II. under his protection, and, thanks to his assistance against the intrigues of the great lords, the latter was able to maintain his position in Austrasia. After the death of Chilperic (584) he protected the young Clotaire II. in the same way, and prevented Childebert from seizing his dominions. His course was rendered easier by the fact that his own sons had died; consequently, having an inheritance at his disposal, he was able to offer it to whichever of his nephews he wished. The danger to the Frankish realm caused by the expedition of Gundobald (585), and the anxiety which was caused him by the revolts of the great lords in Austrasia finally decided him in favour of Childebert. He adopted him as his son, and recognized him as his heir at the treaty of Andelot (587); he also helped him to crush the great lords, especially Ursion and Berthefried, who were conquered in la Woëvre. From this time on he ceased to play a prominent part in the affairs of Austrasia. He died in 592, and Childebert received his inheritance without opposition. Gregory of Tours is very indulgent to Guntram, who showed himself on occasions generous towards the church; he almost always calls him “good king Guntram,” and in his writings are to be found such phrases as “good king Guntram took as his servant a concubine Veneranda” (iv. 25); but Guntram was really no better than the other kings of his age; he was cruel and licentious, putting his cubicularius Condo to death, for instance, because he was suspected of having killed a buffalo in the Vosges. He was moreover a coward, and went in such constant terror of assassination that he always surrounded himself with a regular bodyguard.
GUNTRAM, or Gontran (561-592), king of Burgundy, was one of the sons of Clotaire I. After his father's death (561), he and his three brothers split the Frankish kingdom among themselves, with Guntram getting the Saône and Rhone valleys, along with Berry and the city of Orleans, which he made his capital. Following Charibert’s death (567), he also took control of the cities of Saintes, Angoulême, and Périgueux. During the civil war between the kings of Neustria and Austrasia, he tried to maintain a balance of power. After Sigebert was assassinated (575), he took the young Childebert II. under his wing, and with his help against the scheming of powerful lords, Childebert was able to secure his position in Austrasia. After Chilperic's death (584), he similarly protected young Clotaire II. and prevented Childebert from taking his territory. His situation was made easier by the fact that his own sons had died; thus, having an inheritance to distribute, he could offer it to whichever nephew he chose. The threat posed by Gundobald's expedition (585) and the troubles caused by the uprisings of powerful lords in Austrasia ultimately led him to support Childebert. He adopted him as his son and recognized him as his heir at the treaty of Andelot (587); he also helped him defeat the powerful lords, particularly Ursion and Berthefried, who were defeated in la Woëvre. From that point, he no longer played a major role in Austrasia’s affairs. He died in 592, and Childebert inherited without opposition. Gregory of Tours is quite lenient towards Guntram, who sometimes acted generously towards the church; he frequently refers to him as “good king Guntram,” and includes phrases like “good king Guntram took a concubine named Veneranda as his servant” (iv. 25). However, Guntram was really no better than other kings of his time; he was cruel and indulgent, even executing his chamberlain Condo because he was suspected of having killed a buffalo in the Vosges. Additionally, he was cowardly, living in constant fear of assassination and always keeping a bodyguard around him.
See Krusch, “Zur Chronologie der merowingischen Könige,” in the Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte, xxii. 451-490; Ulysse Chevalier, Bio-bibliographie (2nd ed.), s.v. “Guntram.”
See Krusch, “On the Chronology of the Merovingian Kings,” in the Research on German History, xxii. 451-490; Ulysse Chevalier, Bio-bibliography (2nd ed.), s.v. “Guntram.”
GUNTUR, a town and district of British India, in the Madras presidency. The town (pop. in 1901, 30,833) has a station on the Bellary-Bezwada branch of the Southern Mahratta railway. It is situated east of the Kondavid hills, and is very healthy. It appears to have been founded in the 18th century by the French. At the time of the cession of the Circars to the English in 1765, Guntur was specially exempted during the life of Basalat Jang, whose personal jagir it was. In 1788 it came into British possession, the cession being finally confirmed in 1823. It has an important trade in cotton, with presses and ginning factories. There is a second-grade college supported by the American Lutheran Mission. Until 1859, Guntur was the headquarters of a district of the same name, and in 1904 a new District of Guntur was constituted, covering territory which till then had been divided between Kistna and Nellore. Area, 5733 sq. m. The population on this area in 1901 was 1,490,635. The district is bounded on the E. and N. by the river Kistna; in the W. a considerable part of the boundary is formed by the Gundlakamma river. The greater part consists of a fertile plain irrigated by canals from the Kistna, and producing cotton, rice and other crops.
Guntur, is a town and district in British India, located in the Madras presidency. The town (population in 1901, 30,833) has a station on the Bellary-Bezwada branch of the Southern Mahratta railway. It's situated east of the Kondavid hills and has a very healthy climate. It seems to have been established in the 18th century by the French. When the Circars were ceded to the British in 1765, Guntur was specifically exempted during the lifetime of Basalat Jang, who held it as a personal jagir. In 1788, it came under British control, and the cession was officially confirmed in 1823. Guntur has a significant trade in cotton, with pressing and ginning factories. There is a second-grade college supported by the American Lutheran Mission. Until 1859, Guntur was the headquarters of a district with the same name; in 1904, a new Guntur District was established, encompassing areas that had previously been divided between Kistna and Nellore. The area is 5,733 square miles. The population of this area in 1901 was 1,490,635. The district is bordered on the east and north by the Kistna river; to the west, a significant portion of the boundary is formed by the Gundlakamma river. The majority of the district consists of a fertile plain irrigated by canals from the Kistna, producing cotton, rice, and other crops.
GUPTA, an empire and dynasty of northern India, which lasted from about A.D. 320 to 480. The dynasty was founded by Chandragupta I., who must not be confounded with his famous predecessor Chandragupta Maurya. He gave his name to the Gupta era, which continued in use for several centuries, dating 731 from the 26th of February, A.D. 320. Chandragupta was succeeded by Samudragupta (c. A.D. 326-375), one of the greatest of Indian kings, who conquered nearly the whole of India, and whose alliances extended from the Oxus to Ceylon; but his name was at one time entirely lost to history, and has only been recovered of recent years from coins and inscriptions. His empire rivalled that of Asoka, extending from the Hugli on the east to the Jumna and Chambal on the west, and from the foot of the Himalayas on the north to the Nerbudda on the south. His son Chandragupta II. (c. A.D. 375-413) was also known as Vikra-Maditya (q.v.), and seems to have been the original of the mythical Hindu king of that name. About 388 he conquered the Saka satrap of Surashtra (Kathiawar) and penetrated to the Arabian Sea. His administration is described in the work of Fa-hien, the earliest Chinese pilgrim, who visited India in A.D. 405-411. Pataliputra was the capital of the dynasty, but Ajodhya seems to have been sometimes used by both Samudragupta and Chandragupta II. as the headquarters of government. The Gupta dynasty appears to have fostered a revival of Brahmanism at the expense of Buddhism, and to have given an impulse to art and literature. The golden age of the empire lasted from A.D. 330 to 455, beginning to decline after the latter date. When Skandagupta came to the throne in 455, India was threatened with an irruption of the White Huns, on whom he inflicted a severe defeat, thus saving his kingdom for a time; but about 470 the White Huns (see Ephthalites) returned to the attack, and the empire was gradually destroyed by their repeated inroads. When Skandagupta died about 480, the Gupta empire came to an end, but the dynasty continued to rule in the eastern provinces for several generations. The last known prince of the imperial line of Guptas was Kamaragupta II. (c. 535), after whom it passed “by an obscure transition” into a dynasty of eleven Gupta princes, known as “the later Guptas of Magadha,” who seem for the most part to have been merely local rulers of Magadha. One of them, however, Adityasena, after the death of the paramount sovereign in 648, asserted his independence. The last known Gupta king was Jivitagupta II., who reigned early in the 8th century. About the middle of the century Magadha passed under the sway of the Pal kings of Bengal.
GUPTA, an empire and dynasty in northern India, lasted from around CE 320 to 480. The dynasty was founded by Chandragupta I, who should not be confused with his famous predecessor Chandragupta Maurya. He established the Gupta era, which was used for several centuries, starting from February 26, CE 320. Chandragupta was succeeded by Samudragupta (c. AD 326-375), one of the greatest Indian kings, who conquered nearly all of India, forming alliances that extended from the Oxus to Ceylon; however, his name was lost to history for a time and was only recently rediscovered through coins and inscriptions. His empire rivaled that of Asoka, stretching from the Hugli in the east to the Jumna and Chambal in the west, and from the foothills of the Himalayas in the north to the Nerbudda in the south. His son Chandragupta II (c. CE 375-413) was also known as Vikra-Maditya (q.v.), and he seems to have inspired the legendary Hindu king of that name. Around 388, he conquered the Saka satrap of Surashtra (Kathiawar) and reached the Arabian Sea. His administration is detailed in the writings of Fa-hien, the earliest Chinese pilgrim to visit India from CE 405-411. Pataliputra was the capital of the dynasty, but both Samudragupta and Chandragupta II also used Ajodhya at times as their government headquarters. The Gupta dynasty appears to have promoted a revival of Brahmanism at the expense of Buddhism and spurred advancements in art and literature. The golden age of the empire lasted from CE 330 to 455, beginning to decline after that period. When Skandagupta ascended the throne in 455, India faced threats from the White Huns, whom he defeated decisively, temporarily saving his kingdom; however, around 470, the White Huns (see Ephthalites) attacked again, and the empire was slowly dismantled by their repeated invasions. When Skandagupta died around 480, the Gupta empire came to an end, but the dynasty continued to rule in the eastern provinces for several generations. The last known prince of the imperial Gupta line was Kamaragupta II (c. 535), after which it transitioned “by an obscure transition” into a dynasty of eleven Gupta princes, referred to as “the later Guptas of Magadha,” who mainly acted as local rulers of Magadha. One of them, Adityasena, declared his independence after the death of the dominant sovereign in 648. The last known Gupta king was Jivitagupta II, who ruled in the early 8th century. By the middle of the century, Magadha came under the control of the Pal kings of Bengal.
See J. F. Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions (1888); and Vincent A. Smith, The Early History of India (2nd ed., Oxford, 1908), pp. 264-295.
See J. F. Fleet, Gupta Inscriptions (1888); and Vincent A. Smith, The Early History of India (2nd ed., Oxford, 1908), pp. 264-295.
GURA, EUGEN (1842-1906), German singer, was born near Saatz in Bohemia, and educated at first for the career of a painter at Vienna and Munich; but later, developing a fine baritone voice, he took up singing and studied it at the Munich Conservatorium. In 1865 he made his début at the Munich opera, and in the following years he gained the highest reputation in Germany, being engaged principally at Leipzig till 1876 and then at Hamburg till 1883. He sang in 1876 in the Ring at Bayreuth, and was famous for his Wagnerian rôles; and his Hans Sachs in Meistersinger, as performed in London in 1882, was magnificent. In later years he showed the perfection of art in his singing of German Lieder. He died in Bavaria on the 26th of August 1906.
GURA, EUGEN (1842-1906), a German singer, was born near Saatz in Bohemia and initially trained as a painter in Vienna and Munich. However, after developing his impressive baritone voice, he decided to pursue a singing career and studied at the Munich Conservatory. He made his debut at the Munich opera in 1865 and quickly earned a stellar reputation in Germany, primarily performing in Leipzig until 1876 and then in Hamburg until 1883. In 1876, he performed in the Ring at Bayreuth and became well-known for his roles in Wagner's operas; his portrayal of Hans Sachs in Meistersinger during its London performance in 1882 was outstanding. In his later years, he demonstrated exceptional artistry in his rendition of German Lieder. He passed away in Bavaria on August 26, 1906.
GURDASPUR, a town and district of British India, in the Lahore division of the Punjab. The town had a population in 1901 of 5764. It has a fort (now containing a Brahman monastery) which was famous for the siege it sustained in 1712 from the Moguls. The Sikh leader, Banda, was only reduced by starvation, when he and his men were tortured to death after capitulating.
Gurdaspur, is a town and district in British India, located in the Lahore division of Punjab. The town had a population of 5,764 in 1901. It has a fort (now housing a Brahman monastery) that is known for withstanding a siege in 1712 by the Moguls. The Sikh leader, Banda, was defeated only by starvation, and he and his men were tortured to death after surrendering.
The District comprises an area of 1889 sq. m. It is bounded on the N. by the native states of Kashmir and Chamba, on the E. by Kangra district and the river Beas, on the S.W. by Amritsar district, and on the W. by Sialkot, and occupies the submontane portion of the Bari Doab, or tract between the Beas and the Ravi. An intrusive spur of the British dominions runs northward into the lower Himalayan ranges, to include the mountain sanatorium of Dalhousie, 7687 ft. above sea-level. This station, which has a large fluctuating population during the warmer months, crowns the most westerly shoulder of a magnificent snowy range, the Dhaoladhar, between which and the plain two minor ranges intervene. Below the hills stretches a picturesque and undulating plateau covered with abundant timber, made green by a copious rainfall, and watered by the streams of the Bari Doab, which, diverted by dams and embankments, now empty their waters into the Beas directly, in order that their channels may not interfere with the Bari Doab canal. The district contains several large jhils or swampy lakes, and is famous for its snipe-shooting. It is historically important in connexion with the rise of the Sikh confederacy. The whole of the Punjab was then distributed among the Sikh chiefs who triumphed over the imperial governors. In the course of a few years, however, the maharaja Ranjit Singh acquired all the territory which those chiefs had held. Pathankot and the neighbouring villages in the plain, together with the whole hill portion of the district, formed part of the area ceded by the Sikhs to the British after the first Sikh war in 1846. In 1862, after receiving one or two additions, the district was brought into its present shape. In 1901 the population was 940,334, showing a slight decrease, compared with an increase of 15% in the previous decade. A branch of the North-Western railway runs through the district. The largest town and chief commercial centre is Batala. There are important woollen mills at Dhariwal, and besides their products the district exports cotton, sugar, grain and oil-seeds.
The District covers an area of 1889 sq. m. It is bordered to the north by the native states of Kashmir and Chamba, to the east by Kangra district and the Beas River, to the southwest by Amritsar district, and to the west by Sialkot. It occupies the submontane part of the Bari Doab, the tract situated between the Beas and Ravi rivers. An extension of British territory pushes northward into the lower Himalayan ranges to include the mountain resort of Dalhousie, which is 7687 ft. above sea level. This area has a large, fluctuating population during the warmer months and sits on the most westerly slope of the stunning snowy Dhaoladhar range, with two minor ranges lying between it and the plain below. The hills give way to a beautiful, rolling plateau lush with timber, nourished by generous rainfall and fed by the streams of the Bari Doab. These streams have been redirected by dams and embankments to flow directly into the Beas, ensuring that their channels don't interfere with the Bari Doab canal. The district features several large jhils or swampy lakes and is renowned for its snipe shooting. It holds historical significance regarding the rise of the Sikh confederacy. At that time, all of Punjab was divided among the Sikh chiefs who overcome the imperial governors. However, in a few years, Maharaja Ranjit Singh took control of all the territory once held by those chiefs. Pathankot and the surrounding villages in the plain, along with the entire hill section of the district, were part of the land ceded by the Sikhs to the British after the first Sikh war in 1846. In 1862, after receiving one or two additions, the district was restructured into its current shape. The population in 1901 was 940,334, reflecting a slight decrease compared to a 15% increase in the previous decade. A branch of the North-Western railway runs through the district. The largest town and main commercial hub is Batala. The district has significant woolen mills at Dhariwal, and in addition to their products, it exports cotton, sugar, grain, and oilseeds.
GURGAON, a town and district of British India, in the Delhi division of the Punjab. The town (pop. in 1901, 4765) is the headquarters of the district, but is otherwise unimportant. The district has an area of 1984 sq. m. It is bounded on the N. by Rohtak, on the W. and S.W. by portions of the Alwar, Nabha and Jind native states, on the S. by the Muttra district of the United Provinces, on the E. by the river Jumna and on the N.E. by Delhi. It comprises the southernmost corner of the Punjab province, stretching away from the level plain towards the hills of Rajputana. Two low rocky ranges enter its borders from the south and run northward in a bare and unshaded mass toward the plain country. East of the western ridge the valley is wide and open, extending to the banks of the Jumna. To the west lies the subdivision of Rewari, consisting of a sandy plain dotted with isolated hills. Numerous torrents carry off the drainage from the upland ranges, and the most important among them empty themselves at last into the Najafgarh jhil. This swampy lake lies to the east of the civil station of Gurgaon, and stretches long arms into the neighbouring districts of Delhi and Rohtak. Salt is manufactured in wells at several villages. The mineral products are iron ore, copper ore, plumbago and ochre.
Gurgaon, is a town and district in British India, located in the Delhi division of Punjab. The town, with a population of 4,765 in 1901, serves as the district headquarters but is otherwise not very significant. The district covers an area of 1,984 square miles. It is bordered to the north by Rohtak, to the west and southwest by parts of the Alwar, Nabha, and Jind native states, to the south by the Muttra district of the United Provinces, to the east by the Jumna River, and to the northeast by Delhi. This district makes up the southernmost corner of Punjab, stretching from the flat plains towards the hills of Rajputana. Two low rocky ranges enter from the south and extend northward in a bare, unshaded mass leading to the plain area. East of the western ridge, the valley is broad and open, reaching the banks of the Jumna. To the west is the Rewari subdivision, comprising a sandy plain with scattered hills. Many small streams drain the upland ranges, with the most significant ones eventually flowing into the Najafgarh jhil. This marshy lake is situated east of Gurgaon’s civil station and extends into the neighboring districts of Delhi and Rohtak. Salt is produced in wells at several villages, and the district has mineral resources including iron ore, copper ore, plumbago, and ochre.
In 1803 Gurgaon district passed into the hands of the British after Lord Lake’s conquests. On the outbreak of the Mutiny in May 1857, the nawab of Farukhnagar, the principal feudatory of the district, rose in rebellion. The Meos and many Rajput families followed his example. A faithful native officer preserved the public buildings and records at Rewari from destruction; but with this exception, British authority became extinguished for a time throughout Gurgaon. After the fall of the rebel capital, a force marched into the district and either captured or dispersed the leaders of rebellion. The territory of the nawab was confiscated on account of his participation in the Mutiny. Civil administration was resumed under orders from the Punjab government, to which province the district was formally annexed on the final pacification of the country. The population in 1901 was 746,208, showing an increase of 11% in the decade. The largest town and chief trade centre is Rewari. The district is now traversed by several lines of railway, and irrigation is provided by the Agra canal. The chief trade is in cereals, but hardware is also exported.
In 1803, the British took control of the Gurgaon district after Lord Lake's conquests. When the Mutiny started in May 1857, the nawab of Farukhnagar, the main local ruler in the district, rebelled. The Meos and many Rajput families joined him. A loyal local officer managed to save the public buildings and records in Rewari from being destroyed; however, except for this, British authority was temporarily lost throughout Gurgaon. After the rebel capital fell, a military force entered the district and either captured or scattered the rebellion leaders. The nawab's territory was confiscated due to his involvement in the Mutiny. Civil administration resumed under orders from the Punjab government, which officially annexed the district after peace was restored. In 1901, the population was 746,208, reflecting an 11% increase over the decade. The largest town and main trade center is Rewari. The district now has several railway lines, and irrigation comes from the Agra canal. The primary trade is in cereals, but hardware is also exported.
GURKHA (pronounced góorka; from Sans. gāu, a cow, and raks, to protect), the ruling Hindu race in Nepal (q.v.). The Gurkhas, or Gurkhalis, claim descent from the rajas of Chitor in Rajputana. When driven out of their own country by the Mahommedan invasion, they took refuge in the hilly districts about Kumaon, whence they gradually invaded the country to the eastward as far as Gurkha, Noakote and ultimately to the valley of Nepal and even Sikkim. They were stopped by the English in an attempt to push south, and the treaty of Segauli, 732 which ended the Gurkha War of 1814, definitely limited their territorial growth. The Gurkhas of the present day remain Hindus by religion, but show in their appearance a strong admixture of Mongolian blood. They make splendid infantry soldiers, and by agreement with their government about 20,000 have been recruited for the Gurkha regiments of the Indian army. As a rule they are bold, enduring, faithful, frank, independent and self-reliant. They despise other Orientals, but admire and fraternize with Europeans, whose tastes in sport and war they share. They strongly resemble the Japanese, but are of a sturdier build. Their national weapon is the kukri, a heavy curved knife, which they use for every possible purpose.
GURKHA (pronounced góorka; from Sans. gāu, meaning cow, and raks, to protect), is the ruling Hindu ethnic group in Nepal (q.v.). The Gurkhas, or Gurkhalis, claim to be descendants of the kings of Chitor in Rajputana. When they were forced out of their homeland by the Muslim invasion, they found refuge in the hilly areas around Kumaon, from which they gradually moved eastward to Gurkha, Noakote, and eventually into the valley of Nepal and even Sikkim. Their southward expansion was halted by the British, and the Treaty of Segauli, 732, which concluded the Gurkha War of 1814, firmly restricted their territorial expansion. Today's Gurkhas are still Hindus, but their appearance shows a strong mix of Mongolian ancestry. They make excellent infantry soldiers, and through agreements with their government, around 20,000 have been recruited into the Gurkha regiments of the Indian army. In general, they are bold, resilient, loyal, straightforward, independent, and self-sufficient. They look down on other East Asians but respect and bond with Europeans, sharing their interests in sports and warfare. They bear a strong resemblance to the Japanese but are built more robustly. Their national weapon is the kukri, a heavy curved knife that they use for a variety of purposes.
See Capt. Eden Vansittart, Notes on the Gurkhas (1898); and P. D. Bonarjee, The Fighting Races of India (1899).
See Capt. Eden Vansittart, Notes on the Gurkhas (1898); and P. D. Bonarjee, The Fighting Races of India (1899).
GURNALL, WILLIAM (1617-1679), English author, was born in 1617 at King’s Lynn, Norfolk. He was educated at the free grammar school of his native town, and in 1631 was nominated to the Lynn scholarship in Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he graduated B.A. in 1635 and M.A. in 1639. He was made rector of Lavenham in Suffolk in 1644; and before he received that appointment he seems to have officiated, perhaps as curate, at Sudbury. At the Restoration he signed the declaration required by the Act of Uniformity, and on this account he was the subject of a libellous attack, published in 1665, entitled Covenant-Renouncers Desperate Apostates. He died on the 12th of October 1679. Gurnall is known by his Christian in Complete Armour, published in three volumes, dated 1655, 1658 and 1662. It consists of a series of sermons on the latter portion of the 6th chapter of Ephesians, and is described as a “magazine from whence the Christian is furnished with spiritual arms for the battle, helped on with his armour, and taught the use of his weapon; together with the happy issue of the whole war.” The work is more practical than theological; and its quaint fancy, graphic and pointed style, and its fervent religious tone render it still popular with some readers.
GURNALL, WILLIAM (1617-1679), was an English author born in 1617 in King’s Lynn, Norfolk. He studied at the local free grammar school and in 1631 received a scholarship to Emmanuel College, Cambridge, where he earned his B.A. in 1635 and M.A. in 1639. He became the rector of Lavenham in Suffolk in 1644; before that, he appears to have worked there as a curate in Sudbury. When the monarchy was restored, he signed the declaration required by the Act of Uniformity and, as a result, faced a defamatory attack published in 1665 titled Covenant-Renouncers Desperate Apostates. He died on October 12, 1679. Gurnall is best known for his work Christian in Complete Armour, released in three volumes in 1655, 1658, and 1662. It’s a series of sermons based on the latter part of the 6th chapter of Ephesians and is described as a “source from which Christians are equipped with spiritual weapons for the battle, assisted with their armor, and taught how to use their weapons; along with the positive outcome of the entire struggle.” The work is more focused on practical advice than on theology, and its unique style, vivid imagery, and passionate religious tone make it still appealing to some readers.
See also An Inquiry into the Life of the Rev. W. Gurnall, by H. M’Keon (1830), and a biographical introduction by Bishop Ryle to the Christian in Complete Armour (1865).
See also An Inquiry into the Life of the Rev. W. Gurnall, by H. M’Keon (1830), and a biographical introduction by Bishop Ryle to the Christian in Complete Armour (1865).
GURNARD (Trigla), a genus of fishes forming a group of the family of “mailed cheeks” (Triglidae), and easily recognized by three detached finger-like appendages in front of the pectoral fins, and by their large, angular, bony head, the sides of which are protected by strong, hard and rough bones. The pectoral appendages are provided with strong nerves, and serve not only as organs of locomotion when the fish moves on the bottom, but also as organs of touch, by which it detects small animals on which it feeds. Gurnards are coast-fishes, generally distributed over the tropical and temperate areas; of the forty species known six occur on the coast of Great Britain, viz. the red gurnard (T. pini), the streaked gurnard (T. lineata), the sapphirine gurnard (T. hirundo), the grey gurnard (T. gurnardus), the piper (T. lyra) and the long-finned gurnard (T. obscura or T. lucerna). Although never found very far from the coast, gurnards descend to depths of several hundred fathoms; and as they are bottom-fish they are caught chiefly by means of the trawl. Not rarely, however, they may be seen floating on the surface of the water, with their broad, finely coloured pectoral fins spread out like fans. In very young fishes, which abound in certain localities on the coast in the months of August and September, the pectorals are comparatively much longer than in the adult, extending to the end of the body; they are beautifully coloured and kept expanded, the little fishes looking like butterflies. When caught and taken out of the water, gurnards emit a grunting noise, which is produced by the vibrations of a diaphragm situated transversely across the cavity of the bladder and perforated in the centre. This grunting noise gave rise to the name “gurnard,” which is probably an adaptation or variation of the Fr. grognard, grumbler, cf. the Fr. grondin, gurnard, from gronder, and Ger. Knurrfisch. Their flesh is very white, firm and wholesome.
GURNARD (Trigla), a type of fish that belongs to the family of "mailed cheeks" (Triglidae), is easily recognized by three separate, finger-like extensions in front of its pectoral fins and its large, angular, bony head, which is protected by tough, rough bones on the sides. The pectoral appendages have strong nerves and function not only for swimming along the bottom but also as touch organs that help detect small prey. Gurnards are coastal fish found in both tropical and temperate regions; out of the forty known species, six can be found off the coast of Great Britain, including the red gurnard (T. pini), the streaked gurnard (T. lineata), the sapphirine gurnard (T. hirundo), the grey gurnard (T. gurnardus), the piper (T. lyra), and the long-finned gurnard (T. obscura or T. lucerna). While they are usually found close to shore, gurnards can dive to depths of several hundred fathoms. As bottom-dwelling fish, they are mainly caught using trawls. However, it's not uncommon to see them floating on the water's surface with their large, brightly colored pectoral fins spread out like fans. Young gurnards, which are plentiful along certain coasts in August and September, have pectorals that are relatively much longer than those of adults, extending to the end of their bodies; they are vibrantly colored and keep their fins expanded, resembling butterflies. When caught and removed from the water, gurnards make a grunting sound, created by vibrations from a diaphragm that sits across the bladder cavity and has a hole in the center. This grunting is what led to the name "gurnard," likely derived from the French grognard, meaning grumbler, related to the French grondin, gurnard, from gronder, and the German Knurrfisch. Their flesh is very white, firm, and tasty.
![]() |
Trigla pleuracanthica. |
GURNEY, the name of a philanthropic English family of bankers and merchants, direct descendants of Hugh de Gournay, lord of Gournay, one of the Norman noblemen who accompanied William the Conqueror to England. Large grants of land were made to Hugh de Gournay in Norfolk and Suffolk, and Norwich has since that time been the headquarters of the family, the majority of whom were Quakers. Here in 1770 the brothers John and Henry Gurney founded a banking-house, the business passing in 1779 to Henry’s son, Bartlett Gurney. On the death of Bartlett Gurney in 1802 the bank became the property of his three cousins, of whom John Gurney (1750-1809) was the most remarkable. One of his daughters was Elizabeth Fry; another married Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton. Of his sons one was Joseph John Gurney (1788-1847), a well-known philanthropist of the day; another, Samuel Gurney (1786-1856) assumed on his father’s death the control of the Norwich bank. Samuel Gurney also took over about the same time the control of the London bill-broking business of Richardson, Overend & Company, in which he was already a partner. This business had been founded in 1800 by Thomas Richardson, clerk to a London bill-discounter, and John Overend, chief clerk in the bank of Smith, Payne & Company at Nottingham, the Gurneys supplying the capital. At that time bill-discounting was carried on in a spasmodic fashion by the ordinary merchant in addition to his regular business, but Richardson considered that there was room for a London house which should devote itself entirely to the trade in bills. This, at that time, novel idea proved an instant success. The title of the firm was subsequently changed to Overend, Gurney & Company, and for forty years it was the greatest discounting-house in the world. During the financial crisis of 1825 Overend, Gurney & Company were able to make short loans to many other bankers. The house indeed became known as “the bankers’ banker,” and secured many of the previous clients of the Bank of England. Samuel Gurney died in 1856. He was a man of very charitable disposition, and during the latter years of his life charitable and philanthropic undertakings almost monopolized his attention. In 1865 the business of Overend, Gurney & Company, which had come under less competent control, was converted into a joint stock company, but in 1866 the firm suspended payment with liabilities amounting to eleven millions sterling.
GURNEY, is the name of a philanthropic English family of bankers and merchants, direct descendants of Hugh de Gournay, lord of Gournay, one of the Norman nobles who accompanied William the Conqueror to England. Large land grants were made to Hugh de Gournay in Norfolk and Suffolk, and Norwich has since become the family's headquarters, with most members being Quakers. In 1770, brothers John and Henry Gurney established a bank, which passed to Henry’s son, Bartlett Gurney, in 1779. After Bartlett Gurney died in 1802, the bank went to his three cousins, with John Gurney (1750-1809) being the most notable. One of his daughters was Elizabeth Fry; another married Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton. Among his sons was Joseph John Gurney (1788-1847), a well-known philanthropist of the time; another, Samuel Gurney (1786-1856), took over control of the Norwich bank after his father’s death. Around the same time, Samuel Gurney also took charge of the London bill-broking business of Richardson, Overend & Company, where he was already a partner. This business was founded in 1800 by Thomas Richardson, a clerk to a London bill-discounter, and John Overend, the chief clerk at Smith, Payne & Company’s bank in Nottingham, with the Gurneys providing the capital. At that time, bill-discounting was done inconsistently by regular merchants along with their usual work, but Richardson believed there was a chance for a London firm that would focus solely on bill trading. This novel idea quickly became a success. The firm's name was eventually changed to Overend, Gurney & Company, and for forty years it was the largest discounting house in the world. During the 1825 financial crisis, Overend, Gurney & Company was able to make short-term loans to many other bankers. The firm gained a reputation as “the bankers’ banker” and attracted many former clients of the Bank of England. Samuel Gurney passed away in 1856. He was very charitable, and in his later years, charitable and philanthropic efforts largely consumed his attention. In 1865, the business of Overend, Gurney & Company, which had come under less capable management, was converted into a joint stock company, but in 1866, the firm suspended payments, with liabilities totaling eleven million pounds sterling.
GURNEY, EDMUND (1847-1888), English psychologist, was born at Hersham, near Walton-on-Thames, on the 23rd of March 1847. He was educated at Blackheath and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he took a high place in the classical tripos and obtained a fellowship. His work for the schools was done, says his friend F. W. H. Myers, “in the intervals of his practice on the piano.” Dissatisfied with his own executive skill as a musician, he wrote The Power of Sound (1880), an essay on the philosophy of music. He then studied medicine with no intention of practising, devoting himself to physics, chemistry and physiology. In 1880 he passed the second M.B. Cambridge examination in the science of the healing profession. These studies, and his great logical powers and patience in the investigation of evidence, he devoted to that outlying field of psychology which is called “Psychical Research.” He asked whether, as universal tradition declares, there is an unexplored region of human faculty transcending the normal limitations of sensible knowledge. That there is such a region it was part of the system of Hegel to declare, and the subject had been metaphysically treated by Hartmann, Schopenhauer, Du Prel, Hamilton and others, as the philosophy 733 of the Unconscious or Subconscious. But Gurney’s purpose was to approach the subject by observation and experiment, especially in the hypnotic field, whereas vague and ill-attested anecdotes had hitherto been the staple of the evidence of metaphysicians. The tendency of his mind was to investigate whatever facts may give a colour of truth to the ancient belief in the persistence of the conscious human personality after the death of the body. Like Joseph Glanvill’s, the natural bent of Gurney’s mind was sceptical. Both thought the current and traditional reports of supernormal occurrences suggestive and worth investigating by the ordinary methods of scientific observation, and inquisition into evidence at first hand. But the method of Gurney was, of course, much more strict than that of the author of Sadducismus Triumphatus, and it included hypnotic and other experiments unknown to Glanvill. Gurney began at what he later saw was the wrong end by studying, with Myers, the “séances” of professed spiritualistic “mediums” (1874-1878). Little but detection of imposture came of this, but an impression was left that the subject ought not to be abandoned. In 1882 the Society for Psychical Research was founded. (See Psychical Research.) Paid mediums were discarded, at least for the time, and experiments were made in “thought-transference” and hypnotism. Personal evidence as to uninduced hallucinations was also collected. The first results are embodied in the volumes of Phantasms of the Living, a vast collection (Podmore, Myers and Gurney), and in Gurney’s remarkable essay, Hallucinations. The chief consequence was to furnish evidence for the process called “telepathy,” involving the provisional hypothesis that one human mind can affect another through no recognized channel of sense. The fact was supposed to be established by the experiments chronicled in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, and it was argued that similar experiences occurred spontaneously, as, for example, in the many recorded instances of “deathbed wraiths” among civilized and savage races. (Tylor, Primitive Culture, i. chapter xi., especially pp. 449-450, 1873. Lang, Making of Religion, pp. 120-124, 1898.) The dying man is supposed to convey the hallucination of his presence as one living person experimentally conveys his thought to another, by “thought-transference.” Gurney’s hypnotic experiments, marked by great exactness, patience and ingenuity, were undertaken in 1885-1888. Their tendency was, in Myers’s words, “to prove—so far as any one operator’s experience in this protean subject can be held to prove anything—that there is sometimes, in the induction of hypnotic phenomena, some agency at work which is neither ordinary nervous stimulation (monotonous or sudden) nor suggestion conveyed by any ordinary channel to the subject’s mind.” These results, if accepted, of course corroborate the idea of telepathy. (See Gurney, “Hypnotism and Telepathy,” Proceedings S. P. R. vol. iv.) Experiments by MM. Gibert, Janet, Richet, Héricourt and others are cited as tending in the same direction. Other experiments dealt with “the relation of the memory in the hypnotic state to the memory in another hypnotic state, and of both to the normal or waking memory.” The result of Gurney’s labours, cut short by his early death, was to raise and strengthen the presumption that there exists an unexplored region of human faculty which ought not to be neglected by science as if the belief in it were a mere survival of savage superstition. Rather, it appears to have furnished the experiences which, misinterpreted, are expressed in traditional beliefs. That Gurney was credulous and easily imposed upon those who knew him, and knew his penetrating humour, cannot admit; nor is the theory likely to be maintained by those whom bias does not prevent from studying with care his writings. In controversy “he delighted in replying with easy courtesy to attacks envenomed with that odium plus quam theologicum which the very allusion to a ghost or the human soul seems in some philosophers to inspire.” In discussion of themes unpopular and obscure Gurney displayed the highest tact, patience, good temper, humour and acuteness. There never was a more disinterested student. In addition to his work on music and his psychological writings, he was the author of Tertium Quid (1887), a collection of essays, on the whole a protest against one-sided ideas and methods of discussion. He died at Brighton on 23rd June 1888, from the effects of an overdose of narcotic medicine.
GURNEY, EDMUND (1847-1888), an English psychologist, was born in Hersham, near Walton-on-Thames, on March 23, 1847. He was educated at Blackheath and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he achieved a high ranking in the classical tripos and earned a fellowship. According to his friend F. W. H. Myers, he completed his work for the schools “in the intervals of his practice on the piano.” Unsatisfied with his own skills as a musician, he wrote The Power of Sound (1880), an essay on the philosophy of music. He then pursued medical studies without intending to practice, focusing on physics, chemistry, and physiology. In 1880, he passed the second M.B. Cambridge examination in medical science. He dedicated his studies, along with his strong logical abilities and thoroughness in examining evidence, to the field of psychology known as “Psychical Research.” He questioned whether, as universal tradition suggests, there is an unexplored area of human capacity that goes beyond the normal limits of sensory knowledge. Hegel’s system affirmed such a region, and thinkers like Hartmann, Schopenhauer, Du Prel, Hamilton, and others approached the subject metaphysically, exploring the philosophy of the Unconscious or Subconscious. However, Gurney aimed to investigate the topic through observation and experimentation, particularly in hypnosis, unlike the vague and poorly substantiated anecdotes that had previously characterized metaphysical evidence. His inclination was to explore any facts that might lend credibility to the long-standing belief in the continued existence of the conscious human personality after the body’s death. Similar to Joseph Glanvill, Gurney's natural disposition was skeptical. Both believed that the current and traditional accounts of extraordinary occurrences were intriguing and worthy of investigation using conventional scientific methods and direct inquiry into evidence. However, Gurney's approach was significantly more rigorous than that of the author of Sadducismus Triumphatus, incorporating hypnotic and other experiments unknown to Glanvill. Gurney started at what he later recognized was the wrong end by studying, with Myers, the “séances” of self-proclaimed spiritualistic “mediums” (1874-1878). This primarily resulted in exposing fraud, but it left a sense that the subject should not be abandoned. In 1882, the Society for Psychical Research was established. (See Psychical Research.) Paid mediums were set aside, at least for the time being, and experiments were conducted in “thought-transference” and hypnotism. Personal accounts of uninduced hallucinations were also gathered. The initial findings are compiled in the volumes of Phantasms of the Living, a significant collection (Podmore, Myers, and Gurney), and in Gurney’s notable essay, Hallucinations. The main outcome was to provide evidence for a phenomenon known as “telepathy,” based on the provisional hypothesis that one human mind can influence another without any recognized sensory channel. This fact was thought to be established by the experiments documented in the Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, and it was argued that similar experiences occurred spontaneously, as seen in numerous recorded cases of “deathbed wraiths” across various cultures. (Tylor, Primitive Culture, i. chapter xi., especially pp. 449-450, 1873. Lang, Making of Religion, pp. 120-124, 1898.) It is believed that the dying person imparts the illusion of their presence in the same way that one living person experimentally shares their thoughts with another through “thought-transference.” Gurney’s hypnotic experiments, marked by great precision, patience, and creativity, were conducted between 1885 and 1888. Their intention was, in Myers’s words, “to prove—so far as any one operator’s experience in this complex subject can be considered conclusive—that there is sometimes, in the induction of hypnotic phenomena, an influence at work that is neither typical nervous stimulation (whether steady or abrupt) nor suggestion conveyed by any standard means to the subject’s mind.” If accepted, these results would support the concept of telepathy. (See Gurney, “Hypnotism and Telepathy,” Proceedings S. P. R. vol. iv.) Experiments by MM. Gibert, Janet, Richet, Héricourt, and others are referenced as supportive of this direction. Other experiments examined “the relationship between memory in the hypnotic state and memory in another hypnotic state, and both to regular waking memory.” The outcome of Gurney’s efforts, cut short by his untimely death, was to raise and strengthen the assumption that there exists an unexplored area of human capability that deserves scientific attention rather than being dismissed as mere remnants of primitive superstition. Instead, it seems to have provided the experiences that, when misinterpreted, manifest in traditional beliefs. It is undeniable that Gurney was gullible and easily deceived, as acknowledged by those who knew him and appreciated his keen humor; nor can one argue against this perception based on those who, free from bias, critically study his work. In debates, he enjoyed responding with courteous ease to attacks laced with that odium plus quam theologicum that a mere reference to a ghost or the soul seems to provoke in some philosophers. In discussing unpopular and obscure topics, Gurney exhibited the utmost tact, patience, good humor, insight, and sharpness. He was an exceptionally selfless scholar. In addition to his contributions to music and his psychological writings, he authored Tertium Quid (1887), a collection of essays that serves as a general critique against one-dimensional ideas and argumentative methods. He passed away in Brighton on June 23, 1888, due to an overdose of narcotic medication.
GURWOOD, JOHN (1790-1845), British soldier, began his career in a merchant’s office, but soon obtained an ensigncy in the 52nd (1808). With his regiment he served in the “Light Division” of Wellington’s army throughout the earlier Peninsular campaigns, and at Ciudad Rodrigo (19th Jan. 1812) he led one of the forlorn hopes and was severely wounded. For his gallant conduct on this occasion Wellington presented Gurwood with the sword of the French governor of Ciudad Rodrigo. A little later, transferring to the 9th Light Dragoons, he was made brigade-major to the Guards’ cavalry which had just arrived in the Peninsula. In the latter part of the war he served as brigade-major to Lambert’s brigade of the sixth infantry division, and was present at the various actions in which that division played a conspicuous part—the Nivelle, the Nive, Orthes and Toulouse. At Waterloo Captain Gurwood was for the third time severely wounded. In the first twelve years of the peace he was promoted up to the grade of lieut.-colonel, and in 1841 became brevet-colonel. He was for many years the duke of Wellington’s private secretary, and was entrusted by him with the collection and editing of the Wellington Despatches, which occupied Gurwood from 1837 to the end of his life. This work is a monument of industrious skill, and earned its author a Civil List Pension of £200. But overwork and the effects of his wounds had broken his health, and he committed suicide on Christmas day 1845. He was a C.B. and deputy-lieutenant of the Tower.
GURWOOD, JOHN (1790-1845), British soldier, started his career in a merchant's office but quickly became an ensign in the 52nd (1808). He served in the "Light Division" of Wellington's army during the early Peninsular campaigns, and at Ciudad Rodrigo (January 19, 1812), he led one of the desperate attacks and was seriously wounded. For his brave actions that day, Wellington awarded Gurwood the sword of the French governor of Ciudad Rodrigo. Shortly after, he transferred to the 9th Light Dragoons, becoming brigade-major for the Guards' cavalry, which had just arrived in the Peninsula. Later in the war, he served as brigade-major for Lambert's brigade of the sixth infantry division and participated in significant battles, including Nivelle, Nive, Orthes, and Toulouse. At Waterloo, Captain Gurwood was seriously injured for the third time. During the first twelve years of peace, he was promoted to lieutenant-colonel and became brevet-colonel in 1841. For many years, he was the Duke of Wellington's private secretary and was tasked with collecting and editing the Wellington Despatches, a project that occupied Gurwood from 1837 until his death. This work stands as a testament to his diligent skill and earned him a Civil List Pension of £200. However, excessive work and the lingering effects of his injuries took a toll on his health, leading him to take his own life on Christmas Day, 1845. He held the honor of C.B. and served as deputy-lieutenant of the Tower.
GUSLA, or Gusli, an ancient stringed instrument still in use among the Slavonic races. The modern Servian gusla is a kind of tanbur (see Pandura), consisting of a round, concave body covered with a parchment soundboard; there is but one horse-hair string, and the peg for tuning it is inserted in oriental fashion in the back of the head. The gusla is played with a primitive bow called goudalo. The gouslars or blind bards of Servia and Croatia use it to accompany their chants. C. G. Anton1 mentions an instrument of that name in the shape of a half-moon strung with eighteen strings in use among the Tatars. Prosper Merimée2 has taken the gusla as the title for a book of Servian poems, which are supposed to have been collected by him among the peasants, but which are thought to have been inspired by the Viaggio in Dalmazia of Albarto Fortis.
GUSLA, or Gusli, is an ancient stringed instrument still used among the Slavic people. The modern Serbian gusla resembles a tanbur (see Pandura) and features a round, concave body covered with a parchment soundboard; it has only one horse-hair string, and the tuning peg is inserted in an oriental style at the back of the head. The gusla is played with a simple bow called goudalo. The gouslars or blind bards of Serbia and Croatia use it to accompany their songs. C. G. Anton1 mentions an instrument of that name shaped like a half-moon strung with eighteen strings used by the Tatars. Prosper Mérimée2 titled a book of Serbian poems gusla, which are believed to have been collected by him from the peasants, though they are thought to have been inspired by Albarto Fortis's Viaggio in Dalmazia.
Among the Russians, the gusli is an instrument of a different type, a kind of psaltery having five or more strings stretched across a flat, shallow sound-chest in the shape of a wing. In the gusli the strings, of graduated length, are attached to little nails or pins at one end, and at the other they are wound over a rod having screw attachments for increasing and slackening the tension. There is no bridge to determine the vibrating length of the strings. The body of the instrument is shaped roughly like the tail of the grand piano, following the line of the strings; the longest being at the left of the instrument. Matthew Guthrie gives an illustration of the gusli.3
Among the Russians, the gusli is a unique instrument, a type of psaltery that has five or more strings stretched across a flat, shallow soundbox shaped like a wing. In the gusli, the strings are of varying lengths, attached to small nails or pins at one end, while the other end is wrapped around a rod with screws that can tighten or loosen the tension. There isn't a bridge to define the vibrating length of the strings. The body of the instrument is roughly shaped like the tail of a grand piano, following the line of the strings, with the longest string positioned on the left side. Matthew Guthrie provides an illustration of the gusli.3
1 Erste Linien eines Versuchs über den Ursprung der alten Slaven (Leipzig, 1783-1789), p. 145.
1 First Lines of an Essay on the Origin of the Ancient Slavs (Leipzig, 1783-1789), p. 145.
GUSTAVUS I. ERIKSSON (1496-1560), king of Sweden, was born at his mother’s estate at Lindholm on Ascension Day 1496. He came of a family which had shone conspicuously in 15th-century politics, though it generally took the anti-national side. His father, Erik Johansson of Rydboholm, “a merry and jocose gentleman,” but, like all the Swedish Vasas, liable to sudden fierce gusts of temper, was one of the senators who voted for the deposition of Archbishop Trolle, at the riksdag of 1517 (see Sweden, History), for which act of patriotism he lost his head. Gustavus’s mother, Cecilia Månsdåtter, was closely connected by marriage with the great Sture family. Gustavus’s youthful experiences impressed him with a life-long distrust of everything Danish. In his eighteenth year he was sent to the court of his cousin Sten Sture. At the battle of Brännkyrka, when Sture 734 defeated Christian II. of Denmark, the young Gustavus bore the governor’s standard, and in the same year (1518) he was delivered with five other noble youths as a hostage to King Christian, who treacherously carried him prisoner to Denmark. He was detained for twelve months in the island fortress of Kalö, on the east coast of Jutland, but contrived to escape to Lübeck in September 1519. There he found an asylum till the 20th of May 1520, when he chartered a ship to Kalmar, one of the few Swedish fortresses which held out against Christian II.
Gustavus I Eriksson (1496-1560), king of Sweden, was born at his mother’s estate in Lindholm on Ascension Day 1496. He came from a family that had played a significant role in 15th-century politics, although they generally sided against the nation. His father, Erik Johansson of Rydboholm, “a cheerful and humorous gentleman,” but like all the Swedish Vasas, subject to sudden outbursts of anger, was one of the senators who voted to remove Archbishop Trolle during the riksdag of 1517 (see Sweden, History
It was while hunting near Lake Mälar that the news of the Stockholm massacre was brought to him by a peasant fresh from the capital, who told him, at the same time, that a price had been set upon his head. In his extremity, Gustavus saw only one way of deliverance, an appeal for help to the sturdy yeomen of the dales. How the dalesmen set Gustavus on the throne and how he and they finally drove the Danes out of Sweden (1521-1523) is elsewhere recorded (see Sweden: History). But his worst troubles only began after his coronation on the 6th of June 1523. The financial position of the crown was the most important of all the problems demanding solution, for upon that everything else depended. By releasing his country from the tyranny of Denmark, Gustavus had made the free independent development of Sweden a possibility. It was for him to realize that possibility. First of all, order had to be evolved from the chaos in which Sweden had been plunged by the disruption of the Union; and the shortest, perhaps the only, way thereto was to restore the royal authority, which had been in abeyance during ninety years. But an effective reforming monarchy must stand upon a sound financial basis; and the usual revenues of the crown, always inadequate, were so diminished that they did not cover half the daily expenses of government. New taxes could only be imposed with extreme caution, while the country was still bleeding from the wounds of a long war. And men were wanted even more than money. The lack of capable, trustworthy administrators in Sweden was grievous. The whole burden of government weighed exclusively on the shoulders of the new king, a young man of seven and twenty. Half his time was taken up in travelling from one end of the kingdom to the other, and doing purely clerical work for want of competent assistance. We can form some idea of his difficulties when we learn that, in 1533, he could not send an ambassador to Lübeck because not a single man in his council, except himself, knew German. It was this lack of native talent which compelled Gustavus frequently to employ the services of foreign adventurers like Berent von Mehlen, John von Hoja, Konrad von Pyhy and others.
It was while hunting near Lake Mälar that the news of the Stockholm massacre was brought to him by a peasant fresh from the capital, who also told him that a price had been put on his head. In his desperation, Gustavus saw only one way out—an appeal for help to the sturdy farmers of the countryside. How the country people helped Gustavus take the throne and how he and they eventually drove the Danes out of Sweden (1521-1523) is documented elsewhere (see Sweden: History). But his biggest troubles only started after his coronation on June 6, 1523. The financial state of the crown was the most critical issue that needed attention, as everything else depended on it. By freeing his country from Denmark’s tyranny, Gustavus had opened up the possibility for Sweden's independent development. It was up to him to make that possibility a reality. First, order had to be restored from the chaos in which Sweden had been thrown by the breakup of the Union; the quickest, and perhaps the only, way to achieve that was to restore the royal authority, which had been dormant for ninety years. However, an effective reforming monarchy needed a solid financial foundation; and the crown's usual income, always insufficient, had shrunk to the point where it didn’t even cover half the daily government expenses. New taxes could only be introduced with great caution, while the country was still recovering from the wounds of a long war. And skilled people were needed even more than money. The shortage of capable, trustworthy officials in Sweden was a serious issue. The entire burden of governance rested solely on the shoulders of the new king, a young man of twenty-seven. Half his time was consumed just traveling from one end of the kingdom to the other and doing clerical work due to a lack of competent help. We can get an idea of his challenges when we learn that in 1533, he was unable to send an ambassador to Lübeck because not a single person in his council, except him, spoke German. This shortage of native talent forced Gustavus to frequently rely on the help of foreign adventurers like Berent von Mehlen, John von Hoja, Konrad von Pyhy, and others.
It was not the least of Gustavus’s many anxieties that he had constantly to be on the watch lest a formidable democratic rival should encroach on his prerogative. That rival was the Swedish peasantry. He succeeded indeed in putting down the four formidable rebellions which convulsed the realm from 1525 to 1542, but the consequent strain upon his resources was very damaging, and more than once he was on the point of abdicating and emigrating, out of sheer weariness. Moreover he was in constant fear of the Danes. Necessity compelled him indeed (1534-1536) to take part in Grevens fejde (Counts’ War) (see Denmark, History), as the ally of Christian III., but his exaggerated distrust of the Danes was invincible. “We advise and exhort you,” he wrote to the governor of Kalmar, “to put no hope or trust in the Danes, or in their sweet scribbling, inasmuch as they mean nothing at all by it except how best they may deceive and betray us Swedes.” Such instructions were not calculated to promote confidence between Swedish and Danish negotiators. A fresh cause of dispute was generated in 1548, when Christian III.’s daughter was wedded to Duke Augustus of Saxony. On that occasion, apparently by way of protest against the decree of the diet of Vesterås (15th of January 1544), declaring the Swedish crown hereditary in Gustavus’s family, the Danish king caused to be quartered on his daughter’s shield not only the three Danish lions and the Norwegian lion with the axe of St Olaf, but also “the three crowns” of Sweden. Gustavus, naturally suspicious, was much perturbed by the innovation, and warned all his border officials to be watchful and prepare for the worst. In 1557 he even wrote to the Danish king protesting against the placing of “the three crowns” in the royal Danish seal beneath the arms of Denmark. Christian III. replied that “the three crowns” signified not Sweden in especial, but the three Scandinavian kingdoms, and that their insertion in the Danish shield was only a reminiscence of the union of Kalmar. But Gustavus was not satisfied, and this was the beginning of “the three crowns” dispute which did so much damage to both kingdoms.
It was one of Gustavus’s many worries that he always had to be on guard against a strong democratic rival encroaching on his authority. That rival was the Swedish peasantry. He did manage to suppress the four major rebellions that shook the realm from 1525 to 1542, but the resulting strain on his resources was quite damaging, and more than once he nearly abdicated and left out of sheer exhaustion. Additionally, he constantly feared the Danes. Necessity forced him (1534-1536) to participate in Grevens fejde (Counts’ War) (see Denmark, History), as an ally of Christian III., but his deep mistrust of the Danes was unshakeable. “We advise and urge you,” he wrote to the governor of Kalmar, “not to put any hope or trust in the Danes, or in their sweet words, as they mean nothing by it except how to best deceive and betray us Swedes.” Such instructions weren’t likely to build trust between Swedish and Danish negotiators. A new cause for conflict arose in 1548 when Christian III.’s daughter married Duke Augustus of Saxony. On that occasion, apparently as a protest against the decree of the diet of Vesterås (January 15, 1544), which declared that the Swedish crown was hereditary in Gustavus’s family, the Danish king had not only the three Danish lions and the Norwegian lion with the axe of St. Olaf quartered on his daughter’s shield but also “the three crowns” of Sweden. Gustavus, naturally suspicious, was very troubled by this change and warned all his border officials to be vigilant and prepare for the worst. In 1557, he even wrote to the Danish king protesting against the inclusion of “the three crowns” in the Danish royal seal below the arms of Denmark. Christian III. responded that “the three crowns” didn’t specifically signify Sweden, but represented the three Scandinavian kingdoms, and that their addition to the Danish coat of arms was just a reminder of the union of Kalmar. But Gustavus was not satisfied, and this marked the beginning of the “three crowns” dispute, which caused significant damage to both kingdoms.
The events which led to the rupture of Gustavus with the Holy See are set forth in the proper place (see Sweden: History). Here it need only be added that it was a purely political act, as Gustavus, personally, had no strong dogmatic leanings either way. He not unnaturally expressed his amazement when that very juvenile reformer Olavus Petri confidently informed him that the pope was antichrist. He consulted the older and graver Laurentius Andreae, who told him how “Doctor Martinus had clipped the wings of the pope, the cardinals and the big bishops,” which could not fail to be pleasing intelligence to a monarch who was never an admirer of episcopacy, while the rich revenues of the church, accumulated in the course of centuries, were a tempting object to the impecunious ruler of an impoverished people. Subsequently, when the Protestant hierarchy was forcibly established in Sweden, matters were much complicated by the absolutist tendencies of Gustavus. The incessant labour, the constant anxiety, which were the daily portion of Gustavus Vasa during the seven and thirty years of his reign, told at last even upon his magnificent constitution. In the spring of 1560, conscious of an ominous decline of his powers, Gustavus summoned his last diet, to give an account of his stewardship. On the 16th of June 1560 the assembly met at Stockholm. Ten days later, supported by his sons, Gustavus greeted the estates in the great hall of the palace, when he took a retrospect of his reign, reminding them of the misery of the kingdom during the union and its deliverance from “that unkind tyrant, King Christian.” Four days later the diet passed a resolution confirming the hereditary right of Gustavus’s son, Prince Eric, to the throne. The old king’s last anxieties were now over and he could die in peace. He expired on the 29th of September 1560.
The events that led to Gustavus breaking away from the Holy See are outlined in the appropriate section (see Sweden: History). Here, it's important to note that this was a purely political move, as Gustavus didn't have strong beliefs in either direction. He was understandably surprised when the young reformer Olavus Petri confidently told him that the pope was the antichrist. He consulted the older, more serious Laurentius Andreae, who explained how “Doctor Martinus had clipped the wings of the pope, the cardinals, and the big bishops,” which was welcomed news for a monarch who had never been fond of episcopacy and who was tempted by the church's wealth, accumulated over centuries, given that he ruled over a struggling population. Later, when the Protestant hierarchy was forcefully established in Sweden, Gustavus's absolutist tendencies complicated matters significantly. The constant work and anxiety that defined Gustavus Vasa’s thirty-seven years of reign eventually took a toll on his once-strong health. In the spring of 1560, aware of a troubling decline in his health, Gustavus called his final diet to report on his governance. On June 16, 1560, the assembly convened in Stockholm. Ten days later, supported by his sons, Gustavus addressed the estates in the grand hall of the palace, reflecting on his reign and reminding them of the kingdom's suffering during the union and its liberation from “that unkind tyrant, King Christian.” Four days later, the diet passed a resolution confirming the hereditary right of Gustavus’s son, Prince Eric, to the throne. The old king's last worries were now over, and he could pass away in peace. He died on September 29, 1560.
Gustavus was thrice married. His first wife, Catherine, daughter of Magnus I., duke of Saxe-Lauenburg, bore him in 1533 his eldest son Eric. This union was neither long nor happy, but the blame for its infelicity is generally attributed to the lady, whose abnormal character was reflected and accentuated in her unhappy son. Much more fortunate was Gustavus’s second marriage, a year after the death of his first consort, with his own countrywoman, Margaret Lejonhufvud, who bore him five sons and five daughters, of whom three sons, John, Magnus and Charles, and one daughter, Cecilia, survived their childhood. Queen Margaret died in 1551; and a twelvemonth later Gustavus wedded her niece, Catharine Stenbock, a handsome girl of sixteen, who survived him more than sixty years.
Gustavus was married three times. His first wife, Catherine, the daughter of Magnus I, duke of Saxe-Lauenburg, gave birth to his eldest son Eric in 1533. This marriage was neither long nor happy, and the blame for its unhappiness is usually placed on the lady, whose unusual character was reflected and magnified in her troubled son. Gustavus's second marriage was much luckier; just a year after the death of his first wife, he married his fellow countrywoman, Margaret Lejonhufvud, who had five sons and five daughters with him. Of these, three sons—John, Magnus, and Charles—and one daughter, Cecilia, survived childhood. Queen Margaret passed away in 1551, and a year later, Gustavus married her niece, Catharine Stenbock, a beautiful girl of sixteen, who outlived him by more than sixty years.
Gustavus’s outward appearance in the prime of life is thus described by a contemporary: “He was of the middle height, with a round head, light yellow hair, a fine long beard, sharp eyes, a ruddy countenance ... and a body as fitly and well proportioned as any painter could have painted it. He was of a sanguine-choleric temperament, and when untroubled and unvexed, a bright and cheerful gentleman, easy to get on with, and however many people happened to be in the same room with him, he was never at a loss for an answer to every one of them.” Learned he was not, but he had naturally bright and clear understanding, an unusually good memory, and a marvellous capacity for taking pains. He was also very devout, and his morals were irreproachable. On the other hand, Gustavus had his full share of the family failings of irritability and suspiciousness, the latter quality becoming almost morbid under the pressure of adverse circumstances. His energy too not infrequently degenerated into violence, and when crossed he was apt to be tyrannical.
Gustavus's appearance in the prime of his life is described by a contemporary: “He was of average height, with a round head, light yellow hair, a long, fine beard, sharp eyes, a rosy complexion ... and a body as fit and well-proportioned as any painter could have depicted. He had a sanguine-choleric temperament, and when he was calm and untroubled, he was a bright and cheerful gentleman, easy to get along with. No matter how many people were in the same room, he was always able to respond to each one.” He wasn't highly educated, but he had a naturally bright and clear understanding, an exceptionally good memory, and a remarkable ability to work hard. He was also very devout, and his morals were impeccable. On the downside, Gustavus shared common family traits like irritability and suspicion, with the latter becoming almost pathological under stress. His energy also sometimes turned into violence, and when challenged, he could be quite tyrannical.
See A. Alberg, Gustavus Vasa and his Times (London, 1882); R. N. Bain, Scandinavia, chaps. iii. and v. (Cambridge, 1905); P. B. Watson, The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa (London, 1889); O. Sjögren, Gustaf Vasa (Stockholm, 1896); C. M. Butler, 735 The Reformation in Sweden (New York, 1883); Sveriges Historia (Stockholm, 1877-1881); J. Weidling, Schwedische Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation (Gotha, 1882).
See A. Alberg, Gustavus Vasa and his Times (London, 1882); R. N. Bain, Scandinavia, chaps. iii. and v. (Cambridge, 1905); P. B. Watson, The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa (London, 1889); O. Sjögren, Gustaf Vasa (Stockholm, 1896); C. M. Butler, 735 The Reformation in Sweden (New York, 1883); Sveriges Historia (Stockholm, 1877-1881); J. Weidling, Schwedische Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation (Gotha, 1882).
GUSTAVUS II. ADOLPHUS (1594-1632), king of Sweden, the eldest son of Charles IX. and of Christina, daughter of Adolphus, duke of Holstein-Gottorp, was born at Stockholm castle on the 9th of December 1594. From the first he was carefully nurtured to be the future prop of Protestantism by his austere parents. Gustavus was well grounded in the classics, and his linguistic accomplishments were extraordinary. He may be said to have grown up with two mother-tongues, Swedish and German; at twelve he had mastered Latin, Italian and Dutch; and he learnt subsequently to express himself in Spanish, Russian and Polish. But his practical father took care that he should grow up a prince, not a pedant. So early as his ninth year he was introduced to public life; at thirteen he received petitions and conversed officially with the foreign ministers; at fifteen he administered his duchy of Vestmanland and opened the Örebro diet with a speech from the throne; indeed from 1610 he may be regarded as his father’s co-regent. In all martial and chivalrous accomplishments he was already an adept; and when, a year later, he succeeded to supreme power, his superior ability was as uncontested as it was incontestable.
Gustavus II Adolphus (1594-1632), king of Sweden, the oldest son of Charles IX and Christina, daughter of Adolphus, duke of Holstein-Gottorp, was born at Stockholm castle on December 9, 1594. From the start, his strict parents made sure he was raised to be a key supporter of Protestantism. Gustavus was well-versed in the classics, and he had exceptional language skills. He basically grew up with two native languages, Swedish and German; by twelve, he had mastered Latin, Italian, and Dutch; and he later learned to communicate in Spanish, Russian, and Polish. However, his practical father ensured that he grew up to be a prince, not a bookworm. Even at nine, he was introduced to public life; at thirteen, he handled petitions and officially conversed with foreign ministers; at fifteen, he ran his duchy of Vestmanland and opened the Örebro diet with a speech from the throne; in fact, from 1610, he can be seen as his father’s co-regent. In all martial and chivalrous skills, he was already skilled, and when he took on supreme power a year later, his outstanding abilities were as unquestionable as they were undeniable.
The first act of the young king was to terminate the fratricidal struggle with Denmark by the peace of Knäred (28th of January 1613). Simultaneously, another war, also an heritage from Charles IX., had been proceeding in the far distant regions round lakes Ilmen, Peipus and Ladoga, with Great Novgorod as its centre. It was not, however, like the Danish War, a national danger, but a political speculation meant to be remunerative and compensatory, and was concluded very advantageously for Sweden by the peace of Stolbova on the 27th of February 1617 (see Sweden: History). By this peace Gustavus succeeded in excluding Muscovy from the Baltic. “I hope to God,” he declared to the Stockholm diet in 1617, when he announced the conclusion of peace, “that the Russians will feel it a bit difficult to skip over that little brook.” The war with Poland which Gustavus resumed in 1621 was a much more difficult affair. It began with an attack upon Riga as the first step towards conquering Livonia. Riga was invested on the 13th of August and surrendered on the 15th of September; on the 3rd of October Mitau was occupied; but so great were the ravages of sickness during the campaign that the Swedish army had to be reinforced by no fewer than 10,000 men. A truce was thereupon concluded and hostilities were suspended till the summer of 1625, in the course of which Gustavus took Kokenhusen and invaded Lithuania. In January 1626 he attacked the Poles at Walhof and scattered the whole of their army after slaying a fifth part of it. This victory, remarkable besides as Gustavus’s first pitched battle, completed the conquest of Livonia. As, however, it became every year more difficult to support an army in the Dvina district, Gustavus now resolved to transfer the war to the Prussian provinces of Poland with a view to securing the control of the Vistula, as he had already secured the control of the Dvina. At the end of 1626, the Swedish fleet, with 14,000 men on board, anchored in front of the chain of sand-dunes which separates the Frische-Haff from the Baltic. Pillau, the only Baltic port then accessible to ships of war, was at once occupied, and Königsberg shortly afterwards was scared into an unconditional neutrality. July was passed in conquering the bishopric of Ermeland. The surrender of Elbing and Marienburg placed Gustavus in possession of the fertile and easily defensible delta of the Vistula, which he treated as a permanent conquest, making Axel Oxenstjerna its first governor-general. Communications between Danzig and the sea were cut off by the erection of the first of Gustavus’s famous entrenched camps at Dirschau. From the end of August 1626 the city was blockaded, and in the meantime Polish irregulars, under the capable Stanislaus Koniecpolski, began to harass the Swedes. But the object of the campaign, a convenient basis of operations, was won; and in October the king departed to Sweden to get reinforcements. He returned in May 1627 with 7000 men, which raised his forces to 14,000, against which Koniecpolski could only oppose 9000. But his superior strategy frustrated all the efforts of the Swedish king, who in the course of the year was twice dangerously wounded and so disabled that he could never wear armour again. Gustavus had made extensive preparations for the ensuing campaign and took the field with 32,000 men. But once again, though far outnumbered, and unsupported by his own government, the Polish grand-hetman proved more than a match for Gustavus, who, on the 10th of September, broke up his camp and returned to Prussia; the whole autumn campaign had proved a failure and cost him 5000 men. During the ensuing campaign of 1629 Gustavus had to contend against the combined forces of Koniecpolski and 10,000 of Wallenstein’s mercenaries. The Polish commander now showed the Swedes what he could do with adequate forces. At Stuhm, on the 29th of June, he defeated Gustavus, who lost most of his artillery and narrowly escaped capture. The result of the campaign was the conclusion of the six years’ truce of Altmark, which was very advantageous to Sweden.
The young king’s first action was to end the destructive conflict with Denmark through the peace of Knäred on January 28, 1613. At the same time, another war—a legacy from Charles IX—was ongoing in the distant areas around lakes Ilmen, Peipus, and Ladoga, with Great Novgorod at its center. Unlike the Danish War, this was not a national threat but a political maneuver aimed at profit and compensation, and it ended very favorably for Sweden with the peace of Stolbova on February 27, 1617 (see Sweden: History). Through this peace, Gustavus successfully excluded Muscovy from the Baltic. “I hope to God,” he told the Stockholm diet in 1617 when announcing the peace agreement, “that the Russians will find it a bit difficult to cross that little brook.” The war with Poland that Gustavus resumed in 1621 was much tougher. It started with an attack on Riga as the first step toward conquering Livonia. Riga was besieged on August 13 and surrendered on September 15; Mitau was occupied on October 3; however, the campaign faced severe sickness, necessitating the reinforcement of the Swedish army by 10,000 men. A truce was then established, halting hostilities until summer 1625, during which Gustavus captured Kokenhusen and invaded Lithuania. In January 1626, he attacked the Poles at Walhof and completely routed their army, killing a fifth of it. This victory, notable as Gustavus’s first major battle, completed the conquest of Livonia. However, as supporting an army in the Dvina area became increasingly difficult, Gustavus decided to shift the war to the Prussian provinces of Poland to secure control over the Vistula, just as he had over the Dvina. By late 1626, the Swedish fleet, carrying 14,000 men, anchored in front of the sand dunes separating the Frische-Haff from the Baltic. Pillau, the only Baltic port accessible to warships, was quickly occupied, and Königsberg was soon intimidated into neutrality. July was spent taking the bishopric of Ermeland. The surrender of Elbing and Marienburg gave Gustavus control over the fertile and easily defendable Vistula delta, which he regarded as a permanent conquest, appointing Axel Oxenstjerna as its first governor-general. Communications between Danzig and the sea were cut off by the establishment of the first of Gustavus’s famous entrenched camps at Dirschau. From late August 1626, the city was blockaded, while Polish irregulars, led by the capable Stanislaus Koniecpolski, began to trouble the Swedes. Nevertheless, the campaign’s objective, a strategic base of operations, was secured; in October, the king returned to Sweden for reinforcements. He came back in May 1627 with 7,000 men, increasing his forces to 14,000, against Koniecpolski’s 9,000. However, Koniecpolski’s superior strategy thwarted all of Gustavus’s efforts, and during the year, the king was wounded twice and became unable to wear armor again. Gustavus had made extensive preparations for the next campaign and took the field with 32,000 men. But once again, despite being greatly outnumbered and unsupported by his own government, the Polish grand-hetman was more than a match for Gustavus, who on September 10 broke camp and returned to Prussia; the entire autumn campaign was a failure and cost him 5,000 men. During the subsequent campaign of 1629, Gustavus faced the combined forces of Koniecpolski and 10,000 of Wallenstein’s mercenaries. The Polish commander demonstrated his effectiveness with sufficient troops. At Stuhm, on June 29, he defeated Gustavus, who lost most of his artillery and narrowly avoided capture. The campaign's outcome was the signing of the six-year truce of Altmark, which greatly favored Sweden.
And now Gustavus turned his attention to Germany. The motives which induced the Swedish king to intervene directly in the Thirty Years’ War are told us by himself in his correspondence with Oxenstjerna. Here he says plainly that it was the fear lest the emperor should acquire the Baltic ports and proceed to build up a sea-power dangerous to Scandinavia. For the same reason, the king rejected the chancellor’s alternative of waging a simply defensive war against the emperor by means of the fleet, with Stralsund as his base. He was convinced by the experience of Christian IV. of Denmark that the enemies’ harbours could be wrested from them only by a successful offensive war on land; and, while quite alive to the risks of such an enterprise in the face of two large armies, Tilly’s and Wallenstein’s, each of them larger than his own, he argued that the vast extent of territory and the numerous garrisons which the enemy was obliged to maintain, more than neutralized his numerical superiority. Merely to blockade all the German ports with the Swedish fleet was equally impossible. The Swedish fleet was too weak for that; it would be safer to take and fortify the pick of them. In Germany itself, if he once got the upper hand, he would not find himself without resources. It is no enthusiastic crusader, but an anxious and farseeing if somewhat speculative statesman who thus opens his mind to us. No doubt religious considerations largely influenced Gustavus. He had the deepest sympathy for his fellow-Protestants in Germany; he regarded them as God’s peculiar people, himself as their divinely appointed deliverer. But his first duty was to Sweden; and, naturally and rightly, he viewed the whole business from a predominantly Swedish point of view. Lutherans and Calvinists were to be delivered from a “soul-crushing tyranny”; but they were to be delivered by a foreign if friendly power; and that power claimed as her reward the hegemony of Protestant Europe and all the political privileges belonging to that exalted position.
And now Gustavus focused on Germany. The reasons that led the Swedish king to directly get involved in the Thirty Years’ War are explained in his letters to Oxenstjerna. He clearly states that he feared the emperor might take control of the Baltic ports and start building a sea power that would threaten Scandinavia. For this reason, the king dismissed the chancellor’s suggestion of conducting a purely defensive war against the emperor using the fleet, with Stralsund as his base. He was convinced by the experience of Christian IV of Denmark that the enemy's harbors could only be taken through a successful offensive land campaign; and, while he recognized the dangers of such an endeavor against two large armies, Tilly’s and Wallenstein’s, which were both larger than his own, he argued that the vast size of the territory and the many garrisons the enemy had to maintain more than balanced out his numerical disadvantage. Simply blockading all the German ports with the Swedish fleet was impossible. The Swedish fleet was too weak for that; it was better to seize and fortify the best of them. In Germany itself, if he managed to gain the upper hand, he wouldn’t be short on resources. It’s not an enthusiastic crusader speaking here, but a worried and far-sighted, albeit somewhat speculative, statesman who shares his thoughts with us. Undoubtedly, religious motivations played a significant role for Gustavus. He had deep sympathy for his fellow Protestants in Germany, seeing them as God’s chosen people, with himself as their divinely appointed savior. However, his primary responsibility was to Sweden; and, naturally and rightly, he viewed the entire situation from a predominantly Swedish perspective. Lutherans and Calvinists were to be freed from a “soul-crushing tyranny”; but they would be rescued by a foreign, though friendly, power, which sought, as its reward, the leadership of Protestant Europe and all the political benefits that came with that elevated status.
On the 19th of May 1630 Gustavus solemnly took leave of the estates of the realm assembled at Stockholm. He appeared before them holding in his arms his only child and heiress, the little princess Christina, then in her fourth year, and tenderly committed her to the care of his loyal and devoted people. Then he solemnly took the estates to witness, as he stood there “in the sight of the Almighty,” that he had begun hostilities “out of no lust for war, as many will certainly devise and imagine,” but in self-defence and to deliver his fellow-Christians from oppression. On the 7th of June 1630 the Swedish fleet set sail, and two days after midsummer day, the whole army, 16,000 strong, was disembarked at Peenemünde. Gustavus’s plan was to take possession of the mouths of the Oder Haff, and, resting upon Stralsund in the west and Prussia in the east, penetrate into Germany. In those days rivers were what railways now are, the great military routes; and Gustavus’s German war was a war waged along river lines. The opening campaign was to be fought along the line of the Oder. Stettin, the capital of Pomerania, and the key of the Oder line, was occupied and converted into a first-class fortress. He then proceeded to clear Pomerania of the piebald imperial host composed of every nationality under 736 heaven, and officered by Italians, Irishmen, Czechs, Croats, Danes, Spaniards and Walloons. Gustavus’s army has often been described by German historians as an army of foreign invaders; in reality it was far more truly Teutonic than the official defenders of Germany at that period. Gustavus’s political difficulties (see Sweden: History) chained him to his camp for the remainder of the year. But the dismissal of Wallenstein and the declaration in Gustavus’s favour of Magdeburg, the greatest city in the Lower Saxon Circle, and strategically the strongest fortress of North Germany, encouraged him to advance boldly. But first, honour as well as expediency moved him to attempt to relieve Magdeburg, now closely invested by the imperialists, especially as his hands had now been considerably strengthened by a definite alliance with France (treaty of Bärwalde, 13th of January 1631). Magdeburg, therefore, became the focus of the whole campaign of 1631; but the obstructive timidity of the electors of Brandenburg and Saxony threw insuperable obstacles in his way, and, on the very day when John George I. of Saxony closed his gates against Gustavus the most populous and prosperous city in North Germany became a heap of smoking ruins (20th of May). Gustavus, still too weak to meet the foe, entrenched himself at Werben, at the confluence of the Havel and Elbe. Only on the 12th of September did the elector of Saxony, alarmed for the safety of his own states, now invaded by the emperor, place himself absolutely at the disposal of Gustavus; and, five days later, at the head of the combined Swedish-Saxon army, though the Swedes did all the fighting, Gustavus routed Tilly at the famous battle of Breitenfeld, north of Leipzig.
On May 19, 1630, Gustavus officially said goodbye to the estates of the realm gathered in Stockholm. He appeared before them holding his only child and heir, the little princess Christina, who was just four years old, and gently entrusted her to the care of his loyal and devoted people. He then solemnly called upon the estates as witnesses, standing there “in the sight of the Almighty,” stating that he had begun hostilities “not out of any desire for war, as many will certainly think,” but in self-defense and to free his fellow Christians from oppression. On June 7, 1630, the Swedish fleet set sail, and two days after midsummer, the entire army, 16,000 strong, disembarked at Peenemünde. Gustavus’s plan was to take control of the mouths of the Oder Haff and, relying on Stralsund in the west and Prussia in the east, push into Germany. In those days, rivers were the equivalent of today’s railways, serving as major military routes, and Gustavus’s German campaign was fought along these river lines. The initial campaign was to take place along the Oder River. Stettin, the capital of Pomerania and the key to the Oder route, was seized and turned into a first-class fortress. He then worked to clear Pomerania of the mixed imperial force made up of every nationality under the sun, led by Italians, Irishmen, Czechs, Croats, Danes, Spaniards, and Walloons. German historians have often described Gustavus’s army as a group of foreign invaders; in reality, it was more Teutonic than the official defenders of Germany at that time. Gustavus’s political challenges (see Sweden: History) kept him tied to his camp for the rest of the year. However, the dismissal of Wallenstein and the declaration in favor of Gustavus by Magdeburg, the largest city in the Lower Saxon Circle and the strongest fortress in North Germany, encouraged him to advance boldly. But first, both honor and practicality encouraged him to try to relieve Magdeburg, which was now surrounded by imperial forces, especially since he had recently strengthened his position with a formal alliance with France (treaty of Bärwalde, January 13, 1631). Therefore, Magdeburg became the focal point of the entire 1631 campaign; however, the hesitant timidity of the electors of Brandenburg and Saxony created serious obstacles for him, and on the very day that John George I of Saxony shut his gates against Gustavus, the most populous and prosperous city in North Germany was reduced to a pile of smoking ruins (May 20). Still too weak to confront the enemy directly, Gustavus fortified himself at Werben, at the meeting point of the Havel and Elbe rivers. It was not until September 12 that the elector of Saxony, fearing for the safety of his own lands, which were now under threat from the emperor, placed himself entirely at Gustavus's disposal; and five days later, leading the combined Swedish-Saxon army—though the Swedes did most of the fighting—Gustavus defeated Tilly at the famous battle of Breitenfeld, north of Leipzig.
The question now was: In what way should Gustavus utilize his advantage? Should he invade the Austrian crown lands, and dictate peace to Ferdinand II. at the gates of Vienna? Or should he pursue Tilly westwards and crush the league at its own hearth and home? Oxenstjerna was the first alternative, but Gustavus decided in favour of the second. His decision has been greatly blamed. More than one modern historian has argued that if Gustavus had done in 1631 what Napoleon did in 1805 and 1809, there would have been a fifteen instead of a thirty years’ war. But it should be borne in mind that, in the days of Gustavus, Vienna was by no means so essential to the existence of the Habsburg monarchy as it was in the days of Napoleon; and even Gustavus could not allow so dangerous an opponent as Tilly time to recover himself. Accordingly, he set out for the Rhine, taking Marienberg and Frankfort on his way, and on the 20th of December entered Mainz, where he remained throughout the winter of 1631-1632. At the beginning of 1632, in order to bring about the general peace he so earnestly desired, he proposed to take the field with an overwhelming numerical majority. The signal for Gustavus to break up from the Rhine was the sudden advance of Tilly from behind the Danube. Gustavus pursued Tilly into Bavaria, forced the passage of the Danube at Donauwörth and the passage of the Lech, in the face of Tilly’s strongly entrenched camp at Rain, and pursued the flying foe to the fortress of Ingolstadt where Tilly died of his wounds a fortnight later. Gustavus then liberated and garrisoned the long-oppressed Protestant cities of Augsburg and Ulm, and in May occupied Munich. The same week Wallenstein chased John George from Prague and manœuvred the Saxons out of Bohemia. Then, armed as he was with plenipotentiary power, he offered the elector of Saxony peace on his own terms. Gustavus suddenly saw himself exposed to extreme peril. If Tilly had made John George such an offer as Wallenstein was now empowered to make, the elector would never have become Gustavus’s ally; would he remain Gustavus’s ally now? Hastily quitting his quarters in Upper Swabia, Gustavus hastened towards Nuremberg on his way to Saxony, but finding that Wallenstein and Maximilian of Bavaria had united their forces, he abandoned the attempt to reach Saxony, and both armies confronted each other at Nuremberg which furnished Gustavus with a point of support of the first order. He quickly converted the town into an entrenched and fortified camp. Wallenstein followed the king’s example, and entrenched himself on the western bank of the Regnitz in a camp twelve English miles in circumference. His object was to pin Gustavus fast to Nuremberg and cut off his retreat northwards. Throughout July and August the two armies faced each other immovably. On the 24th of August, after an unsuccessful attempt to storm Alte Veste, the key of Wallenstein’s position, the Swedish host retired southwards.
The question now was: How should Gustavus use his advantage? Should he invade the Austrian lands and force peace on Ferdinand II. at the gates of Vienna? Or should he chase Tilly westward and defeat the league at its own home base? Oxenstjerna supported the first option, but Gustavus chose the second. This decision has faced a lot of criticism. More than one modern historian has argued that if Gustavus had done in 1631 what Napoleon did in 1805 and 1809, there would have been a fifteen-year war instead of thirty. However, it's important to note that, in Gustavus’s time, Vienna was not as crucial to the existence of the Habsburg monarchy as it was in Napoleon’s time; and even Gustavus couldn't afford to give a dangerous opponent like Tilly the chance to regroup. So, he set out for the Rhine, capturing Marienberg and Frankfurt along the way, and on December 20th, he entered Mainz, where he stayed throughout the winter of 1631-1632. At the start of 1632, to achieve the general peace he desperately wanted, he decided to take the field with a significant numerical advantage. The signal for Gustavus to leave the Rhine was Tilly's sudden advance from behind the Danube. Gustavus pursued Tilly into Bavaria, crossed the Danube at Donauwörth, and crossed the Lech, despite Tilly’s well-fortified camp at Rain, chasing the fleeing enemy to the fortress of Ingolstadt, where Tilly died from his wounds two weeks later. Gustavus then freed and garrisoned the long-oppressed Protestant cities of Augsburg and Ulm, and in May, he occupied Munich. That same week, Wallenstein forced John George out of Prague and maneuvered the Saxons out of Bohemia. Then, armed with full authority, he offered the elector of Saxony peace on his own terms. Gustavus suddenly found himself in serious danger. If Tilly had offered John George what Wallenstein was now able to offer, the elector would never have allied with Gustavus; would he remain his ally now? Quickly leaving his post in Upper Swabia, Gustavus rushed towards Nuremberg on his way to Saxony, but upon realizing that Wallenstein and Maximilian of Bavaria had combined their forces, he dropped his attempt to reach Saxony, and both armies faced each other at Nuremberg, which provided Gustavus with a strong base of support. He swiftly turned the town into a fortified camp. Wallenstein followed suit and fortified himself on the western bank of the Regnitz in a camp twelve English miles around. His goal was to pin Gustavus down in Nuremberg and cut off his retreat northward. Throughout July and August, the two armies faced each other without moving. On August 24th, after a failed attempt to storm Alte Veste, the key to Wallenstein’s position, the Swedish army withdrew to the south.
Towards the end of October, Wallenstein, after devastating Saxony, was preparing to go into winter quarters at Lützen, when the king surprised him as he was crossing the Rippach (1st of November) and a rearguard action favourable to the Swedes ensued. Indeed, but for nightfall, Wallenstein’s scattered forces might have been routed. During the night, however, Wallenstein re-collected his host for a decisive action, and at daybreak on the 6th of November, while an autumn mist still lay over the field, the battle began. It was obviously Gustavus’s plan to drive Wallenstein away from the Leipzig road, north of which he had posted himself, and thus, in case of success, to isolate, and subsequently, with the aid of the Saxons in the Elbe fortresses, annihilate him. The king, on the Swedish right wing, succeeded in driving the enemy from the trenches and capturing his cannon. What happened after that is mere conjecture, for a thick mist now obscured the autumn sun, and the battle became a colossal mêlée the details of which are indistinguishable. It was in the midst of that awful obscurity that Gustavus met his death—how or where is not absolutely certain; but it would seem that he lost his way in the darkness while leading the Småland horse to the assistance of his infantry, and was despatched as he lay severely wounded on the ground by a hostile horseman.
Towards the end of October, Wallenstein, having devastated Saxony, was getting ready to settle in for the winter at Lützen when the king caught him off guard while he was crossing the Rippach (1st of November), leading to a rear guard skirmish that favored the Swedes. In fact, if it hadn't been for nightfall, Wallenstein's scattered troops could have been completely defeated. However, during the night, Wallenstein managed to regroup his forces for a decisive battle, and at dawn on the 6th of November, while an autumn mist still hung over the battlefield, the fight began. It was clear that Gustavus intended to push Wallenstein away from the Leipzig road, where he had positioned himself to isolate him and, with the help of the Saxons in the Elbe fortresses, ultimately destroy him. The king, on the Swedish right flank, succeeded in driving the enemy out of their trenches and seizing their cannons. What occurred next is largely speculation, as a thick fog obscured the autumn sun, turning the battle into a chaotic melee where the details are hard to distinguish. It was amidst this terrible darkness that Gustavus met his end—how or where isn't entirely clear; it seems that he got lost in the mist while leading the Småland cavalry to support his infantry, and a hostile horseman killed him while he was severely wounded on the ground.
By his wife, Marie Eleonora, a sister of the elector of Brandenburg, whom he married in 1620, Gustavus Adolphus had one daughter, Christina, who succeeded him on the throne of Sweden.
By his wife, Marie Eleonora, a sister of the elector of Brandenburg, whom he married in 1620, Gustavus Adolphus had one daughter, Christina, who succeeded him as the queen of Sweden.
See Sveriges Historia (Stockholm, 1877, 81), vol. iv.; A. Oxenstjerna, Skrifter och Brefvexling (Stockholm, 1900, &c.); G. Björlen, Gustaf Adolf (Stockholm, 1890); R. N. Bain, Scandinavia (Cambridge, 1905); C. R. L. Fletcher, Gustavus Adolphus (London, 1892); J. L. Stevens, History of Gustavus Adolphus (London, 1885); J. Mankell, Om Gustaf II. Adolfs politik (Stockholm, 1881); E. Bluemel, Gustav Adolf, König von Schweden (Eisleben, 1894); A. Rydfors, De diplomatiska förbindelserna mellan Sverige och England 1624-1630 (Upsala, 1890).
See Sveriges Historia (Stockholm, 1877, 81), vol. iv.; A. Oxenstjerna, Skrifter och Brefvexling (Stockholm, 1900, etc.); G. Björlen, Gustaf Adolf (Stockholm, 1890); R. N. Bain, Scandinavia (Cambridge, 1905); C. R. L. Fletcher, Gustavus Adolphus (London, 1892); J. L. Stevens, History of Gustavus Adolphus (London, 1885); J. Mankell, Om Gustaf II. Adolfs politik (Stockholm, 1881); E. Bluemel, Gustav Adolf, König von Schweden (Eisleben, 1894); A. Rydfors, De diplomatiska förbindelserna mellan Sverige och England 1624-1630 (Upsala, 1890).
GUSTAVUS III. (1746-1792), king of Sweden, was the eldest son of Adolphus Frederick, king of Sweden, and Louisa Ulrica of Prussia, sister of Frederick the Great, and was born on the 24th of January 1746. Gustavus was educated under the care of two governors who were amongst the most eminent Swedish statesmen of the day, Carl Gustaf Tessin and Carl Scheffer; but he owed most perhaps to the poet and historian Olof von Dalin. The interference of the state with his education, when he was quite a child, was, however, doubly harmful, as his parents taught him to despise the preceptors imposed upon him by the diet, and the atmosphere of intrigue and duplicity in which he grew up made him precociously experienced in the art of dissimulation. But even his most hostile teachers were amazed by the brilliance of his natural gifts, and, while still a boy, he possessed that charm of manner which was to make him so fascinating and so dangerous in later life, coupled with the strong dramatic instinct which won for him his honourable place in Swedish literature. On the whole, Gustavus cannot be said to have been well educated, but he read very widely; there was scarce a French author of his day with whose works he was not intimately acquainted; while his enthusiasm for the new French ideas of enlightenment was as sincere as, if more critical than, his mother’s. On the 4th of November 1766, Gustavus married Sophia Magdalena, daughter of Frederick V. of Denmark. The match was an unhappy one, owing partly to incompatibility of temper, but still more to the mischievous interference of the jealous queen-mother.
Gustavus III. (1746-1792), king of Sweden, was the eldest son of Adolphus Frederick, king of Sweden, and Louisa Ulrica of Prussia, sister of Frederick the Great. He was born on January 24, 1746. Gustavus was educated by two of the most prominent Swedish statesmen of the time, Carl Gustaf Tessin and Carl Scheffer, but he was most influenced by the poet and historian Olof von Dalin. However, state interference in his education as a child was doubly detrimental, as his parents encouraged him to dismiss the tutors assigned to him by the diet, and the environment of intrigue and deceit he grew up in made him unusually skilled in the art of deception. Even his most critical teachers were struck by his remarkable natural talents, and while still a boy, he had a charm that would later make him both captivating and dangerous, along with a strong dramatic sense that earned him a respected place in Swedish literature. Overall, Gustavus can't be said to have had a solid education, but he read extensively; he was intimately familiar with almost all the French authors of his day, and his enthusiasm for the new French ideas of enlightenment was genuine, though more critical than his mother’s. On November 4, 1766, Gustavus married Sophia Magdalena, daughter of Frederick V of Denmark. The marriage was not a happy one, partly due to their mismatched personalities but even more because of the meddling of the jealous queen mother.
Gustavus first intervened actively in politics in 1768, at the time of his father’s interregnum, when he compelled the dominant Cap faction to summon an extraordinary diet from which he hoped for the reform of the constitution in a monarchical direction. But the victorious Hats refused to redeem the pledges which they had given before the elections. “That we should have lost the 737 constitutional battle does not distress us so much,” wrote Gustavus, in the bitterness of his heart; “but what does dismay me is to see my poor nation so sunk in corruption as to place its own felicity in absolute anarchy.” From the 4th of February to the 25th of March 1771, Gustavus was at Paris, where he carried both the court and the city by storm. The poets and the philosophers paid him enthusiastic homage, and all the distinguished women of the day testified to his superlative merits. With many of them he maintained a lifelong correspondence. But his visit to the French capital was no mere pleasure trip; it was also a political mission. Confidential agents from the Swedish court had already prepared the way for him, and the duc de Choiseul, weary of Swedish anarchy, had resolved to discuss with him the best method of bringing about a revolution in Sweden. Before he departed, the French government undertook to pay the outstanding subsidies to Sweden unconditionally, at the rate of one and a half million livres annually; and the comte de Vergennes, one of the great names of French diplomacy, was transferred from Constantinople to Stockholm. On his way home Gustavus paid a short visit to his uncle, Frederick the Great, at Potsdam. Frederick bluntly informed his nephew that, in concert with Russia and Denmark, he had guaranteed the integrity of the existing Swedish constitution, and significantly advised the young monarch to play the part of mediator and abstain from violence.
Gustavus first got actively involved in politics in 1768, during his father's interregnum, when he forced the dominant Cap faction to call an extraordinary diet, hoping it would lead to constitutional reforms in a more monarchical direction. However, the victorious Hats refused to fulfill the promises they had made before the elections. “What bothers us about losing the constitutional battle isn't as much the loss itself,” Gustavus wrote bitterly, “but it disheartens me to see my poor nation so mired in corruption that it finds its happiness in total anarchy.” From February 4 to March 25, 1771, Gustavus was in Paris, where he captivated both the court and the city. Poets and philosophers praised him enthusiastically, and all the prominent women of the time acknowledged his exceptional qualities. He maintained lifelong correspondence with many of them. However, his trip to the French capital was more than just for pleasure; it was also a political mission. Confidential agents from the Swedish court had already laid the groundwork for his visit, and the duc de Choiseul, tired of the chaos in Sweden, had decided to discuss with him the best way to initiate a revolution in Sweden. Before he left, the French government agreed to pay Sweden's outstanding subsidies unconditionally, at a rate of one and a half million livres per year; and the comte de Vergennes, a notable figure in French diplomacy, was moved from Constantinople to Stockholm. On his way back, Gustavus made a brief stop to visit his uncle, Frederick the Great, in Potsdam. Frederick bluntly told his nephew that, alongside Russia and Denmark, he had guaranteed the integrity of the current Swedish constitution and pointedly advised the young monarch to act as a mediator and avoid violence.
On his return to Sweden Gustavus made a sincere and earnest attempt to mediate between the Hats and Caps who were ruining the country between them (see Sweden: History). On the 21st of June 1771 he opened his first parliament in a speech which awakened strange and deep emotions in all who heard it. It was the first time for more than a century that a Swedish king had addressed a Swedish diet from the throne in its native tongue. The orator laid especial stress on the necessity of the sacrifice of all party animosities to the common weal, and volunteered, as “the first citizen of a free people,” to be the mediator between the contending factions. A composition committee was actually formed, but it proved illusory from the first, the patriotism of neither of the factions being equal to the puniest act of self-denial. The subsequent attempts of the dominant Caps still further to limit the prerogative, and reduce Gustavus to the condition of a roi fainéant, induced him at last to consider the possibility of a revolution. Of its necessity there could be no doubt. Under the sway of the Cap faction, Sweden, already the vassal, could not fail to become the prey of Russia. She was on the point of being absorbed in that northern system, the invention of the Russian vice-chancellor, Count Nikita Panin, which that patient statesman had made it the ambition of his life to realize. Only a swift and sudden coup d’état could save the independence of a country isolated from the rest of Europe by a hostile league. At this juncture Gustavus was approached by Jakob Magnus Sprengtporten, a Finnish nobleman of determined character, who had incurred the enmity of the Caps, with the project of a revolution. He undertook to seize the fortress of Sveaborg by a coup de main, and, Finland once secured, Sprengtporten proposed to embark for Sweden, meet the king and his friends near Stockholm, and surprise the capital by a night attack, when the estates were to be forced, at the point of the bayonet, to accept a new constitution from the untrammelled king. The plotters were at this juncture reinforced by an ex-ranger from Scania (Skåne), Johan Kristoffer Toll, also a victim of Cap oppression. Toll proposed that a second revolt should break out in the province of Scania, to confuse the government still more, and undertook personally to secure the southern fortress of Kristianstad. After some debate, it was finally arranged that, a few days after the Finnish revolt had begun, Kristianstad should openly declare against the government. Prince Charles, the eldest of the king’s brothers, was thereupon hastily to mobilize the garrisons of all the southern fortresses, for the ostensible purpose of crushing the revolt at Kristianstad; but on arriving before the fortress he was to make common cause with the rebels, and march upon the capital from the south, while Sprengtporten attacked it simultaneously from the east. On the 6th of August 1772 Toll succeeded, by sheer bluff, in winning the fortress of Kristianstad. On the 16th Sprengtporten succeeded in surprising Sveaborg. But contrary winds prevented him from crossing to Stockholm, and in the meanwhile events had occurred which made his presence there unnecessary.
On his return to Sweden, Gustavus earnestly tried to mediate between the Hats and Caps, who were destroying the country (see Sweden: History). On June 21, 1771, he opened his first parliament with a speech that stirred deep emotions in everyone who heard it. For the first time in over a century, a Swedish king addressed the Swedish diet from the throne in their native language. The speaker emphasized the need to set aside party conflicts for the common good and volunteered, as “the first citizen of a free people,” to mediate between the opposing groups. A committee for compromise was actually formed, but it quickly proved to be ineffective, as neither faction had the patriotism to perform even the smallest act of self-denial. The Caps' subsequent attempts to further limit the king's powers and reduce Gustavus to a roi fainéant led him to consider the possibility of a revolution. There was no doubt about its necessity. Under the Cap faction's control, Sweden, already a vassal, was bound to fall prey to Russia. The country was on the verge of being absorbed into the northern system devised by the Russian vice-chancellor, Count Nikita Panin, which this patient statesman had dedicated his life to realizing. Only a swift and sudden coup d’état could save the independence of a country cut off from the rest of Europe by a hostile alliance. At this point, Gustavus was approached by Jakob Magnus Sprengtporten, a Finnish nobleman of strong character who had fallen out of favor with the Caps, with a plan for a revolution. He pledged to take the fortress of Sveaborg by surprise and, once Finland was secured, proposed to sail to Sweden, meet the king and his allies near Stockholm, and launch a night attack to catch the capital off guard, forcing the estates at gunpoint to accept a new constitution from the unhindered king. The conspirators were then joined by Johan Kristoffer Toll, an ex-ranger from Scania (Skåne), who was also a victim of Cap oppression. Toll suggested that a second uprising should erupt in Scania to further confuse the government and took it upon himself to secure the southern fortress of Kristianstad. After some discussion, they agreed that a few days after the Finnish revolt began, Kristianstad would openly oppose the government. Prince Charles, the heir to the throne, would quickly rally the garrisons of all the southern fortresses under the pretense of quelling the uprising in Kristianstad; but upon reaching the fortress, he would ally with the rebels and march on the capital from the south, while Sprengtporten would attack from the east. On August 6, 1772, Toll succeeded, through sheer audacity, in taking the fortress of Kristianstad. On the 16th, Sprengtporten managed to surprise Sveaborg. However, strong winds prevented him from crossing over to Stockholm, and in the meantime, events unfolded that made his arrival unnecessary.
On the 16th of August the Cap leader, Ture Rudbeck, arrived at Stockholm with the news of the insurrection in the south, and Gustavus found himself isolated in the midst of enemies. Sprengtporten lay weather-bound in Finland, Toll was five hundred miles away, the Hat leaders were in hiding. Gustavus thereupon resolved to strike the decisive blow without waiting for the arrival of Sprengtporten. He acted with military promptitude. On the evening of the 18th all the officers whom he thought he could trust received secret instructions to assemble in the great square facing the arsenal on the following morning. At ten o’clock on the 19th Gustavus mounted his horse and rode straight to the arsenal. On the way his adherents joined him in little groups, as if by accident, so that by the time he reached his destination he had about two hundred officers in his suite. After parade he reconducted them to the guard-room of the palace and unfolded his plans to them. He then dictated a new oath of allegiance, and every one signed it without hesitation. It absolved them from their allegiance to the estates, and bound them solely to obey their lawful king, Gustavus III. Meanwhile the senate and the governor-general, Rudbeck, had been arrested and the fleet secured. Then Gustavus made a tour of the city and was everywhere received by enthusiastic crowds, who hailed him as a deliverer. On the evening of the 20th heralds perambulated the streets proclaiming that the estates were to meet in the Rikssaal on the following day; every deputy absenting himself would be regarded as the enemy of his country and his king. On the 21st, a few moments after the estates had assembled, the king in full regalia appeared, and taking his seat on the throne, delivered that famous philippic, one of the masterpieces of Swedish oratory, in which he reproached the estates for their unpatriotic venality and licence in the past. A new constitution was recited by the estates and accepted by them unanimously. The diet was then dissolved.
On August 16, the Cap leader, Ture Rudbeck, arrived in Stockholm with news of the uprising in the south, and Gustavus found himself surrounded by enemies. Sprengtporten was stuck by the weather in Finland, Toll was five hundred miles away, and the Hat leaders were hiding. Gustavus decided to take decisive action without waiting for Sprengtporten. He acted quickly. On the evening of the 18th, all the officers he trusted received secret instructions to gather in the main square facing the arsenal the next morning. At ten o’clock on the 19th, Gustavus got on his horse and rode straight to the arsenal. Along the way, his supporters joined him in small groups, as if by chance, so by the time he arrived, he had about two hundred officers with him. After a parade, he took them back to the palace guard room and shared his plans. He then dictated a new oath of loyalty, and everyone signed it without hesitation. It freed them from their loyalty to the estates and required them to follow their rightful king, Gustavus III. Meanwhile, the senate and the governor-general, Rudbeck, were arrested, and the fleet was secured. Gustavus then toured the city and was met by enthusiastic crowds who welcomed him as a savior. On the evening of the 20th, heralds walked through the streets announcing that the estates were to meet in the Rikssaal the next day; any deputy who was absent would be seen as an enemy of his country and his king. On the 21st, just moments after the estates had gathered, the king appeared in full regalia, took his seat on the throne, and delivered that famous speech, one of the great masterpieces of Swedish oratory, in which he criticized the estates for their unpatriotic greed and misconduct in the past. A new constitution was read by the estates and unanimously accepted. The diet was then dissolved.
Gustavus was inspired by a burning enthusiasm for the greatness and welfare of Sweden, and worked in the same reformatory direction as the other contemporary sovereigns of the “age of enlightenment.” He took an active part in every department of business, but relied far more on extra-official counsellors of his own choosing than upon the senate. The effort to remedy the frightful corruption which had been fostered by the Hats and Caps engaged a considerable share of his time and he even found it necessary to put the whole of a supreme court of justice (Göta Hofrätt) on its trial. Measures were also taken to reform the administration and the whole course of judicial procedure, and torture as an instrument of legal investigation was abolished. In 1774 an ordinance providing for the liberty of the press was even issued. The national defences were at the same time developed on a “Great Power” scale, and the navy was so enlarged as to become one of the most formidable in Europe. The dilapidated finances were set in good order by the “currency realization ordinance” of 1777. Gustavus also introduced new national economic principles. In 1775 free trade in corn was promoted and a number of oppressive export-tolls were abolished. The poor law was also amended, absolute religious liberty was proclaimed, and he even succeeded in inventing and popularizing a national costume which was in general use from 1778 till his death. His one great economic blunder was the attempt to make the sale of spirits a government monopoly, which was an obvious infringement upon the privileges of the estates. His foreign policy, on the other hand, was at first both wise and wary. Thus, when the king summoned the estates to assemble at Stockholm on the 3rd of September 1778, he could give a brilliant account of his six years’ stewardship. Never was a parliament more obsequious or a king more gracious. “There was no room for a single No during the whole session.” Yet, short as the session was, it was quite long enough to open the eyes of the deputies to the fact that their political supremacy had 738 departed. They had changed places with the king. He was now indeed their sovereign lord; and, for all his gentleness, the jealousy with which he guarded, the vigour with which he enforced the prerogative, plainly showed that he meant to remain so. Even the few who were patriotic enough to acquiesce in the change by no means liked it. The diet of 1778 had been obsequious; the diet of 1786 was mutinous. The consequence was that nearly all the royal propositions were either rejected outright or so modified that Gustavus himself withdrew them.
Gustavus was driven by a passionate commitment to the greatness and well-being of Sweden and worked towards reform, following the lead of other rulers during the "Age of Enlightenment." He actively engaged in various government areas but relied much more on unofficial advisors of his choosing rather than the senate. His efforts to address the severe corruption fostered by the Hats and Caps took up a significant amount of his time, and he even felt it necessary to put the entire supreme court of justice (Göta Hofrätt) on trial. Steps were also taken to improve the administration and the entire judicial process, and torture as a means of legal investigation was abolished. In 1774, an ordinance was issued to guarantee freedom of the press. At the same time, the national defense was expanded on a “Great Power” scale, with the navy being enhanced to become one of the strongest in Europe. The damaged finances were stabilized by the “currency realization ordinance” of 1777. Gustavus also introduced new national economic principles. In 1775, free trade in grain was encouraged, and several oppressive export duties were removed. The poor law was revised, absolute religious freedom was declared, and he even managed to create and popularize a national costume that was widely worn from 1778 until his death. His major economic mistake was trying to make the sale of alcohol a government monopoly, which clearly infringed on the rights of the estates. His foreign policy, on the other hand, was initially both smart and cautious. So, when the king called the estates to meet in Stockholm on September 3, 1778, he was able to give an impressive overview of his six years in power. Never had a parliament been more submissive or a king more gracious. “There was no room for a single No during the whole session.” Yet, despite the brief session, it was long enough for the deputies to realize that their political power had slipped away. They had switched places with the king. He was now truly their sovereign ruler; and, despite his gentleness, his intense protection of his authority and the determination with which he exercised his prerogative clearly indicated that he intended to stay in that position. Even the few who were patriotic enough to accept the change didn’t really like it. The 1778 assembly had been compliant; the 1786 assembly was rebellious. The result was that almost all the royal proposals were either outright rejected or modified so much that Gustavus himself withdrew them.
The diet of 1786 marks a turning-point in Gustavus’s history. Henceforth we observe a determination on his part to rule without a parliament; a passage, cautious and gradual, yet unflinching, from semi-constitutionalism to semi-absolutism. His opportunity came in 1788, when the political complications arising out of his war with Catherine II. of Russia enabled him by the Act of Unity and Security (on the 17th of February 1789) to override the opposition of the rebellious and grossly unpatriotic gentry, and, with the approbation of the three lower estates, establish a new and revolutionary constitution, in which, though the estates still held the power of the purse, the royal authority largely predominated. Throughout 1789 and 1790 Gustavus, in the national interests, gallantly conducted the unequal struggle with Russia, finally winning in the Svensksund (9th-10th July) the most glorious naval victory ever gained by the Swedish arms, the Russians losing one-third of their fleet and 7000 men. A month later, on the 14th of August 1790, peace was signed between Russia and Sweden at Värälä. Only eight months before, Catherine had haughtily declared that “the odious and revolting aggression” of the king of Sweden would be “forgiven” only if he “testified his repentance” by agreeing to a peace granting a general and unlimited amnesty to all his rebels, and consenting to a guarantee by the Swedish diet (“as it would be imprudent to confide in his good faith alone”) for the observance of peace in the future. The peace of Värälä saved Sweden from any such humiliating concession, and in October 1791 Gustavus took the bold but by no means imprudent step of concluding an eight years’ defensive alliance with the empress, who thereby bound herself to pay her new ally annual subsidies amounting to 300,000 roubles.
The diet of 1786 marks a significant turning point in Gustavus's history. From this point on, he showed a clear intention to rule without a parliament, making a cautious yet steady shift from semi-constitutionalism to semi-absolutism. His chance came in 1788, when the political issues stemming from his war with Catherine II of Russia allowed him, through the Act of Unity and Security (on February 17, 1789), to bypass the resistance of the rebellious and deeply unpatriotic gentry. With the support of the three lower estates, he established a new and revolutionary constitution where, despite the estates still holding the power over finances, royal authority was greatly emphasized. Throughout 1789 and 1790, Gustavus valiantly engaged in an uneven struggle against Russia for the nation’s interests, ultimately achieving the most glorious naval victory in Swedish history at Svensksund (July 9-10), where the Russians lost a third of their fleet and 7,000 men. A month later, on August 14, 1790, peace was signed between Russia and Sweden at Värälä. Just eight months earlier, Catherine had arrogantly stated that the "odious and revolting aggression" of the king of Sweden would only be "forgiven" if he "demonstrated his repentance" by agreeing to a peace that offered a general and unlimited amnesty to all his rebels and approving a guarantee from the Swedish diet ("as it would be imprudent to rely on his good faith alone") for future peace compliance. The peace of Värälä spared Sweden from such a humiliating concession, and in October 1791, Gustavus boldly, but not imprudently, entered into an eight-year defensive alliance with the empress, who then committed to providing her new ally annual subsidies of 300,000 roubles.
Gustavus now aimed at forming a league of princes against the Jacobins, and every other consideration was subordinated thereto. His profound knowledge of popular assemblies enabled him, alone among contemporary sovereigns, accurately to gauge from the first the scope and bearing of the French Revolution. But he was hampered by poverty and the jealousy of the other European Powers, and, after showing once more his unrivalled mastery over masses of men at the brief Gefle diet (22nd of January-24th of February 1792), he fell a victim to a widespread aristocratic conspiracy. Shot in the back by Anckarström at a midnight masquerade at the Stockholm opera-house, on the 16th of March 1792, he expired on the 29th.
Gustavus aimed to form a coalition of princes against the Jacobins, putting all other concerns aside. His deep understanding of popular assemblies allowed him, unlike other contemporary monarchs, to accurately assess the significance and impact of the French Revolution from the start. However, he was restricted by financial issues and the envy of other European Powers. After demonstrating his exceptional ability to lead large groups of people at the short Gefle diet (January 22nd - February 24th, 1792), he became the target of a widespread aristocratic conspiracy. He was shot in the back by Anckarström during a midnight masquerade at the Stockholm opera house on March 16th, 1792, and he passed away on the 29th.
Although he may be charged with many foibles and extravagances, Gustavus III. was indisputably one of the greatest sovereigns of the 18th century. Unfortunately his genius never had full scope, and his opportunity came too late. Gustavus was, moreover, a most distinguished author. He may be said to have created the Swedish theatre, and some of the best acting dramas in the literature are by his hand. His historical essays, notably the famous anonymous eulogy on Torstenson crowned by the Academy, are full of feeling and exquisite in style,—his letters to his friends are delightful. Every branch of literature and art interested him, every poet and artist of his day found in him a most liberal and sympathetic protector.
Although he may have been criticized for many quirks and excesses, Gustavus III was undeniably one of the greatest rulers of the 18th century. Sadly, his genius never had the chance to fully blossom, and his opportunities came too late. Additionally, Gustavus was a remarkable author. He is credited with creating Swedish theater, and some of the best dramatic works in literature are his. His historical essays, especially the famous anonymous tribute to Torstenson, which was honored by the Academy, are full of emotion and beautifully written—his letters to friends are a joy to read. He was interested in every area of literature and art, and every poet and artist of his time found in him a generous and understanding supporter.
See R. N. Bain, Gustavus III. and his Contemporaries (London, 1904); E. G. Geijer, Konung Gustaf III.’s efterlemnade papper (Upsala, 1843-1845); C. T. Odhner, Sveriges politiska historia under Konung Gustaf III.’s regering (Stockholm, 1885-1896); B. von Beskow, Om Gustaf III. såsom Konung och människa (Stockholm, 1860-1861); O. Levertin, Gustaf III. som dramatisk författare (Stockholm, 1894); Gustaf III.’s bref till G. M. Armfelt (Fr.) (Stockholm, 1883); Y. K. Grot, Catharine II. and Gustavus III. (Russ.) (St Petersburg, 1884).
See R. N. Bain, Gustavus III and His Contemporaries (London, 1904); E. G. Geijer, The Papers Left Behind by King Gustaf III (Uppsala, 1843-1845); C. T. Odhner, Sweden's Political History During King Gustaf III's Reign (Stockholm, 1885-1896); B. von Beskow, About Gustaf III as King and Man (Stockholm, 1860-1861); O. Levertin, Gustaf III as a Playwright (Stockholm, 1894); Gustaf III's Letters to G. M. Armfelt (Fr.) (Stockholm, 1883); Y. K. Grot, Catherine II and Gustavus III (Russ.) (St Petersburg, 1884).
GUSTAVUS IV. (1778-1837), king of Sweden, the son of Gustavus III. and Queen Sophia Magdalena, was born at Stockholm on the 1st of November 1778. Carefully educated under the direction of Nils von Rosenstein, he grew up serious and conscientious. In August 1796 his uncle the regent Charles, duke of Sudermania, visited St Petersburg for the purpose of arranging a marriage between the young king and Catherine II.’s granddaughter, the grand-duchess Alexandra. The betrothal was actually fixed for the 22nd of September, when the whole arrangement foundered on the obstinate refusal of Gustavus to allow his destined bride liberty of worship according to the rites of the Greek Orthodox Church—a rebuff which undoubtedly accelerated the death of the Russian empress. Nobody seems to have even suspected at the time that serious mental derangement lay at the root of Gustavus’s abnormal piety. On the contrary, there were many who prematurely congratulated themselves on the fact that Sweden had now no disturbing genius, but an economical, God-fearing, commonplace monarch to deal with. Gustavus’s prompt dismissal of the generally detested Gustaf Reuterholm added still further to his popularity. On the 31st of October 1797 Gustavus married Frederica Dorothea, daughter of Charles Frederick, grand-duke of Baden, a marriage which might have led to a war with Russia but for the fanatical hatred of the French republic shared by the emperor Paul and Gustavus IV., which served as a bond of union between them. Indeed the king’s horror of Jacobinism was morbid in its intensity, and drove him to adopt all sorts of reactionary measures and to postpone his coronation for some years, so as to avoid calling together a diet; but the disorder of the finances, caused partly by the continental war and partly by the almost total failure of the crops in 1798 and 1799, compelled him to summon the estates to Norrköping in March 1800, and on the 3rd of April Gustavus was crowned. The notable change which now took place in Sweden’s foreign policy and its fatal consequences to the country are elsewhere set forth (see Sweden, History). By the end of 1808 it was obvious to every thinking Swede that the king was insane. His violence had alienated his most faithful supporters, while his obstinate incompetence paralysed the national efforts. To remove a madman by force was the one remaining expedient; and this was successfully accomplished by a conspiracy of officers of the western army, headed by Adlersparre, the Anckarsvärds, and Adlercreutz, who marched rapidly from Skåne to Stockholm. On the 13th of March 1809 seven of the conspirators broke into the royal apartments in the palace unannounced, seized the king, and conducted him to the château of Gripsholm; Duke Charles was easily persuaded to accept the leadership of a provisional government, which was proclaimed the same day; and a diet, hastily summoned, solemnly approved of the revolution. On the 29th of March Gustavus, in order to save the crown for his son, voluntarily abdicated; but on the 10th of May the estates, dominated by the army, declared that not merely Gustavus but his whole family had forfeited the throne. On the 5th of June the duke regent was proclaimed king under the title of Charles XIII., after accepting the new liberal constitution, which was ratified by the diet the same day. In December Gustavus and his family were transported to Germany. Gustavus now assumed the title of count of Gottorp, but subsequently called himself Colonel Gustafsson, under which pseudonym he wrote most of his works. He led, separated from his family, an erratic life for some years; was divorced from his consort in 1812; and finally settled at St Gall in Switzerland in great loneliness and indigence. He died on the 7th of February 1837, and, at the suggestion of King Oscar II. his body was brought to Sweden and interred in the Riddarholmskyrka. From him descend both the Baden and the Oldenburg princely houses on the female side.
Gustavus IV. (1778-1837), king of Sweden, the son of Gustavus III and Queen Sophia Magdalena, was born in Stockholm on November 1, 1778. He was carefully educated under Nils von Rosenstein's guidance and grew up to be serious and conscientious. In August 1796, his uncle, the regent Charles, duke of Sudermania, visited St. Petersburg to arrange a marriage between the young king and Catherine II’s granddaughter, Grand Duchess Alexandra. The engagement was set for September 22, but the plan fell apart because Gustavus stubbornly refused to let his intended bride practice her Greek Orthodox faith—a rejection that likely contributed to the death of the Russian empress. At the time, no one seemed to suspect that Gustavus's excessive piety was linked to serious mental illness. Instead, many people prematurely congratulated themselves for having a king who was ordinary, economical, and God-fearing instead of a disruptive genius. Gustavus’s swift dismissal of the widely disliked Gustaf Reuterholm further boosted his popularity. On October 31, 1797, Gustavus married Frederica Dorothea, daughter of Charles Frederick, grand-duke of Baden. This marriage could have led to war with Russia, had it not been for the shared intense hatred of the French Republic between Emperor Paul and Gustavus IV, which united them. The king's fear of Jacobinism was extreme, prompting him to adopt various reactionary measures and postpone his coronation for several years to avoid summoning a diet; however, financial disarray—partly caused by the continental war and the near-total crop failures in 1798 and 1799—forced him to call the estates to Norrköping in March 1800, and on April 3, Gustavus was crowned. The significant shift in Sweden's foreign policy and its disastrous impact on the country are detailed elsewhere (see Sweden, History). By late 1808, it was clear to every thoughtful Swede that the king was insane. His aggression had alienated his most loyal supporters, while his stubborn incompetence hampered national efforts. The only option left was to remove a madman by force, which was successfully carried out by a conspiracy of western army officers led by Adlersparre, the Anckarsvärds, and Adlercreutz, who quickly marched from Skåne to Stockholm. On March 13, 1809, seven conspirators broke into the royal apartments in the palace unannounced, captured the king, and took him to Gripsholm Château; Duke Charles was easily persuaded to lead a provisional government, which was declared the same day, and a hastily summoned diet formally approved the revolution. On March 29, Gustavus voluntarily abdicated to protect the crown for his son; however, on May 10, the estates, influenced by the military, declared that not only Gustavus but his entire family had lost the throne. On June 5, the duke regent was proclaimed king under the name Charles XIII, after accepting the new liberal constitution ratified by the diet the same day. In December, Gustavus and his family were taken to Germany. Gustavus took the title Count of Gottorp but later referred to himself as Colonel Gustafsson, under which name he wrote most of his works. He lived a wandering life apart from his family for several years, was divorced from his wife in 1812, and eventually settled in St. Gall, Switzerland, living in great loneliness and poverty. He died on February 7, 1837, and at the suggestion of King Oscar II, his body was returned to Sweden and buried in Riddarholmskyrka. Through him, both the Baden and Oldenburg princely houses are descended on the female side.
See H. G. Trolle-Wachtmeister, Anteckningar och minnen (Stockholm, 1889); B. von Beskow, Lefnadsminnen (Stockholm, 1870); K. V. Key-Åberg, De diplomatiska förbindelserna mellan Sverige och Storbrittannien under Gustaf IV.’s Krig emot Napoléon (Upsala, 1890); Colonel Gustafsson, La Journée du treize mars, &c. (St Gall, 1835); Memorial des Obersten Gustafsson (Leipzig, 1829).
See H. G. Trolle-Wachtmeister, Notes and Memories (Stockholm, 1889); B. von Beskow, Life Memories (Stockholm, 1870); K. V. Key-Åberg, The Diplomatic Relations between Sweden and Great Britain during Gustav IV's War against Napoleon (Upsala, 1890); Colonel Gustafsson, The Day of March Thirteenth, & c. (St Gall, 1835); Memorial of Colonel Gustafsson (Leipzig, 1829).
GUSTAVUS V. (1858- ), king of Sweden, son of Oscar II., king of Sweden and Norway, and Queen Sophia Wilhelmina, was 739 born at Drottningholm on the 16th of June 1858. He entered the army, and was, like his father, a great traveller. As crown prince he held the title of duke of Wärmland. He married in 1881 Victoria (b. 1862), daughter of Frederick William Louis, grand duke of Baden, and of Louise, princess of Prussia. The duchess of Baden was the granddaughter of Sophia, princess of Sweden, and the marriage of the crown prince thus effected a union between the Bernadotte dynasty and the ancient Swedish royal house of Vasa. During the absence or illness of his father Gustavus repeatedly acted as regent, and was therefore already thoroughly versed in public affairs when he succeeded to the Swedish throne on the 8th of December 1907, the crown of Norway having been separated from that of Sweden in 1905. He took as his motto “With the people for the Fatherland.”
GUSTAVUS V. (1858- ), king of Sweden, son of Oscar II., king of Sweden and Norway, and Queen Sophia Wilhelmina, was born at Drottningholm on June 16, 1858. He joined the army and, like his father, was a keen traveler. As crown prince, he held the title of duke of Wärmland. He married Victoria (b. 1862), daughter of Frederick William Louis, grand duke of Baden, and Louise, princess of Prussia, in 1881. The duchess of Baden was the granddaughter of Sophia, princess of Sweden, making the crown prince's marriage a union between the Bernadotte dynasty and the ancient Swedish royal house of Vasa. During his father's absences or illnesses, Gustavus frequently acted as regent, so he was well-acquainted with public affairs when he ascended the Swedish throne on December 8, 1907, after the crown of Norway was separated from Sweden in 1905. His motto was "With the people for the Fatherland."
The crown prince, Oscar Frederick William Gustavus Adolphus, duke of Scania (b. 1882), married in 1905 Princess Margaret of Connaught (b. 1882), niece of King Edward VII. A son was born to them at Stockholm on the 22nd of April 1906, and another son in the following year. The king’s two younger sons were William, duke of Sudermania (b. 1884), and Eric, duke of Westmanland (b. 1889).
The crown prince, Oscar Frederick William Gustavus Adolphus, duke of Scania (b. 1882), married Princess Margaret of Connaught (b. 1882) in 1905, who was the niece of King Edward VII. They welcomed their first son in Stockholm on April 22, 1906, and another son the following year. The king’s two younger sons were William, duke of Sudermania (b. 1884), and Eric, duke of Westmanland (b. 1889).
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS UNION (Gustav-Adolf-Stiftung, Gustav-Adolf-Verein, Evangelischer Verein der Gustav-Adolf-Stiftung), a society formed of members of the Evangelical Protestant churches of Germany, which has for its object the aid of feeble sister churches, especially in Roman Catholic countries. The project of forming such a society was first broached in connexion with the bicentennial celebration of the battle of Lützen on the 6th of November 1832; a proposal to collect funds for a monument to Gustavus Adolphus having been agreed to, it was suggested by Superintendent Grossmann that the best memorial to the great champion of Protestantism would be the formation of a union for propagating his ideas. For some years the society was limited in its area and its operations, being practically confined to Leipzig and Dresden, but at the Reformation festival in 1841 it received a new impulse through the energy and eloquence of Karl Zimmermann (1803-1877), court preacher at Darmstadt, and in 1843 a general meeting was held at Frankfort-on-the-Main, where no fewer than twenty-nine branch associations belonging to all parts of Germany except Bavaria and Austria were represented. The want of a positive creed tended to make many of the stricter Protestant churchmen doubtful of the usefulness of the union, and the stricter Lutherans have always held aloof from it. On the other hand, its negative attitude in relation to Roman Catholicism secured for it the sympathy of the masses. At a general convention held in Berlin in September 1846 a keen dispute arose about the admission of the Königsberg delegate, Julius Rupp (1809-1884), who in 1845 had been deprived for publicly repudiating the Athanasian Creed and became one of the founders of the “Free Congregations”; and at one time it seemed likely that the society would be completely broken up. Amid the political revolutions of the year 1848 the whole movement fell into stagnation; but in 1849 another general convention (the seventh), held at Breslau, showed that, although the society had lost both in membership and income, it was still possessed of considerable vitality. From that date the Gustav-Adolf-Verein has been more definitely “evangelical” in its tone than formerly; and under the direction of Karl Zimmermann it greatly increased both in numbers and in wealth. It has built over 2000 churches and assisted with some two million pounds over 5000 different communities. Apart from its influence in maintaining Protestantism in hostile areas, there can be no doubt that the union has had a great effect in helping the various Protestant churches of Germany to realize the number and importance of their common interests.
Gustavus Adolphus Union (Gustav Adolf Foundation, Gustav Adolf Association, Gustav Adolf Foundation Protestant Association), is a society made up of members from the Evangelical Protestant churches in Germany, aimed at supporting struggling sister churches, particularly in Roman Catholic countries. The idea to create such a society was first proposed during the bicentennial celebration of the battle of Lützen on November 6, 1832; after agreeing to raise funds for a monument to Gustavus Adolphus, Superintendent Grossmann suggested that the best way to honor the great champion of Protestantism would be to form a union to promote his ideas. For several years, the society's activities were limited to Leipzig and Dresden, but at the Reformation festival in 1841, it gained new momentum thanks to the energy and eloquence of Karl Zimmermann (1803-1877), a court preacher in Darmstadt. In 1843, a general meeting was held in Frankfurt-on-the-Main, with representatives from twenty-nine branch associations across Germany, excluding Bavaria and Austria. The lack of a specific creed caused many stricter Protestant church members to question the value of the union, and stricter Lutherans have generally stayed away from it. However, its negative stance toward Roman Catholicism garnered sympathy from the general public. During a general convention in Berlin in September 1846, a heated debate arose over admitting the Königsberg delegate, Julius Rupp (1809-1884), who had been stripped of his position in 1845 for publicly rejecting the Athanasian Creed and became a founder of the "Free Congregations"; at one point, it seemed possible that the society could collapse. Amid the political upheavals of 1848, the whole movement stagnated; however, in 1849, another general convention (the seventh) was held in Breslau, showing that, despite losing members and income, the society still had significant vitality. Since then, the Gustav-Adolf-Verein has become more definitively "evangelical" in its approach, and under Karl Zimmermann's leadership, it has significantly increased its membership and resources. It has built over 2,000 churches and provided around two million pounds to more than 5,000 different communities. Besides its impact on maintaining Protestantism in challenging areas, it is clear that the union has played a major role in helping various Protestant churches in Germany recognize their shared interests and significance.
See K. Zimmermann, Geschichte des Gustav-Adolf-Vereins (Darmstadt, 1877).
See K. Zimmermann, History of the Gustav Adolf Society (Darmstadt, 1877).
GÜSTROW, a town of Germany, in the grand duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, on the Nebel and the railway from Lübeck to Stettin, 20 m. S. of Rostock. Pop. (1875), 10,923; (1905) 17,163. The principal buildings are the castle, erected in the middle of the 16th century and now used as a workhouse; the cathedral, dating from the 13th century and restored in 1868, containing many fine monuments and possessing a square tower 100 ft. high; the Pfarrkirche, with fine altar-paintings; the town hall (Rathaus), dating from the 16th century; the music hall, and the theatre. Among the educational establishments are the ducal gymnasium, which possesses a library of 15,000 volumes, a modern and a commercial school. The town is one of the most prosperous in the duchy, and has machine works, foundries, tanneries, sawmills, breweries, distilleries, and manufactories of tobacco, glue, candles and soap. There is also a considerable trade in wool, corn, wood, butter and cattle, and an annual cattle show and horse races are held.
Güstrow, is a town in Germany, located in the grand duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, along the Nebel river and the railway connecting Lübeck to Stettin, 20 miles south of Rostock. Population: (1875) 10,923; (1905) 17,163. The main buildings include the castle, built in the mid-16th century and currently functioning as a workhouse; the cathedral, from the 13th century and restored in 1868, which houses many impressive monuments and features a square tower that is 100 feet tall; the Pfarrkirche, known for its beautiful altar paintings; the town hall (Rathaus), from the 16th century; the music hall; and the theater. Among the educational institutions are the ducal gymnasium, which has a library of 15,000 volumes, as well as a modern school and a commercial school. The town is one of the wealthiest in the duchy, with machine shops, foundries, tanneries, sawmills, breweries, distilleries, and factories producing tobacco, glue, candles, and soap. There is also a significant trade in wool, grain, timber, butter, and livestock, and an annual cattle fair and horse races are held.
Güstrow, capital of the Mecklenburg duchy of that name, or of the Wend district, was a place of some importance as early as the 12th century, and in 1219 it became the residence of Henry Borwin II., prince of Mecklenburg, from whom it received Schwerin privileges. From 1316 to 1436 the town was the residence of the princes of the Wends, and from 1556 to 1695 of the dukes of Mecklenburg-Güstrow. In 1628 it was occupied by the imperial troops, and Wallenstein resided in it during part of the years 1628 and 1629.
Güstrow, the capital of the Mecklenburg duchy of the same name, or the Wend district, was significant as early as the 12th century. In 1219, it became the home of Henry Borwin II, the prince of Mecklenburg, who granted it Schwerin privileges. From 1316 to 1436, the town was the residence of the princes of the Wends, and from 1556 to 1695, it served as the home for the dukes of Mecklenburg-Güstrow. In 1628, it was taken over by imperial troops, and Wallenstein lived there during part of 1628 and 1629.
GUTENBERG, JOHANN (c. 1398-1468), German printer, is supposed to have been born c. 1398-1399 at Mainz of well-to-do parents, his father being Friele zum Gensfleisch and his mother Elsgen Wyrich (or, from her birthplace, zu Gutenberg, the name he adopted). He is assumed to be mentioned under the name of “Henchen” in a copy of a document of 1420, and again in a document of c. 1427-1428, but it is not stated where he then resided. On January 16, 1430, his mother arranged with the city of Mainz about an annuity belonging to him; but when, in the same year, some families who had been expelled a few years before were permitted to return to Mainz, Gutenberg appears not to have availed himself of the privilege, as he is described in the act of reconciliation (dated March 28) as “not being in Mainz.” It is therefore assumed that the family had taken refuge in Strassburg, where Gutenberg was residing later. There he is said to have been in 1434, and to have seized and imprisoned the town clerk of Mainz for a debt due to him by the corporation of that city, releasing him, however, at the representations of the mayor and councillors of Strassburg, and relinquishing at the same time all claims to the money (310 Rhenish guilders = about 2400 mark).1 Between 1436 and 1439 certain documents 740 represent him as having been engaged there in some experiments requiring money, with Andreas Dritzehn, a fellow-citizen, who became not only security for him but his partner to carry out Gutenberg’s plan for polishing stones and the manufacture of looking-glasses, for which a lucrative sale was expected at the approaching pilgrimage of 1440 (subsequently postponed, according to the documents, although there is no evidence for this postponement) to Aix-la-Chapelle. Money was lent for this purpose by two other friends. In 1438 another partnership was arranged between Gutenberg, Andreas Dritzehn, and Andreas and Anton Heilmann, and that this had in view the art of printing has been inferred from the word “drucken” used by one of the witnesses in the law proceedings which soon after followed. An action was brought, after the death of Dritzehn, by his two brothers to force Gutenberg to accept them as partners in their brother’s place, but the decision was in favour of the latter. In 1441 Gutenberg became surety to the St Thomas Chapter at Strassburg for Johann Karle, who borrowed 100 guilders (about £16) from the chapter, and on November 17, 1442, he himself borrowed 80 livres through Martin Brechter (or Brehter) from the same chapter. Of his whereabouts from the 12th of March 1444 (when he paid a tax at Strassburg) to the 17th of October 1448 nothing certain is known. But on the latter date we find him at Mainz, borrowing 150 gold guilders of his kinsman, Arnold Gelthus, against an annual interest of 7½ gold guilders. We do not know whether the interest on this debt has ever been paid, but the debt itself appears never to have been paid off, as the contract of this loan was renewed (vidimused) on August 23, 1503, for other parties. It is supposed that soon afterwards Gutenberg must have been able to show some convincing results of his work, for it appears that about 1450 Johann Fust (q.v.) advanced him 800 guilders to promote it, on no security except that of “tools” still to be made. Fust seems also to have undertaken to advance him 300 guilders a year for expenses, wages, house-rent, parchment, paper, ink, &c., but he does not appear to have ever done so. If at any time they disagreed, Gutenberg was to return the 800 guilders, and the “tools” were to cease to be security. It is not known to what purpose Gutenberg devoted the money advanced to him. In the minutes of the law-suit of 1455 he himself says that he had to make his “tools” with it. But he is presumed to have begun a large folio Latin Bible, and to have printed during its progress some smaller books2 and likewise the Letter of Indulgence (granted on the 12th of April 1451 by Pope Nicholas V. in aid of John II., king of Cyprus, against the Turks), of 31 lines, having the earliest printed date 1454, of which several copies are preserved in various European libraries. A copy of the 1455 issue of the same Indulgence is in the Rylands Library at Manchester (from the Althorp Library).
GUTENBERG, JOHANN (c. 1398-1468), German printer, is believed to have been born around 1398-1399 in Mainz to well-off parents, his father being Friele zum Gensfleisch and his mother Elsgen Wyrich (or, from her birthplace, zu Gutenberg, the name he later adopted). He is thought to be mentioned under the name “Henchen” in a document from 1420, and again in a document around 1427-1428, but it doesn’t specify where he lived at that time. On January 16, 1430, his mother arranged with the city of Mainz regarding an annuity for him; however, when the city allowed some families who had been expelled years earlier to return, Gutenberg didn’t take advantage of this opportunity, as he is noted in the act of reconciliation (dated March 28) as “not being in Mainz.” It’s assumed that the family took refuge in Strassburg, where Gutenberg was later living. He is said to have been there in 1434, where he took the town clerk of Mainz captive over a debt owed to him by the city, releasing him after intervention from the mayor and town council of Strassburg, and giving up all claims to the debt (310 Rhenish guilders, roughly 2400 mark).1 Between 1436 and 1439, certain documents show he was working on some projects needing funding, alongside Andreas Dritzehn, a fellow citizen, who not only secured loans for him but also partnered with him to execute Gutenberg's plan to polish stones and manufacture mirrors, which were expected to sell well at the upcoming pilgrimage of 1440 (which was later postponed, according to documents, though no evidence confirms this postponement) to Aix-la-Chapelle. Money was lent for this purpose by two other friends. In 1438, another partnership was formed between Gutenberg, Andreas Dritzehn, and brothers Andreas and Anton Heilmann, which was inferred to be related to the art of printing based on the term “drucken” used by one of the witnesses in the legal proceedings that followed shortly after. After Dritzehn’s death, his brothers filed a lawsuit to compel Gutenberg to accept them as partners in place of their brother, but the ruling favored Gutenberg. In 1441, Gutenberg became a guarantor for Johann Karle, who borrowed 100 guilders (about £16) from the St Thomas Chapter in Strassburg, and on November 17, 1442, he borrowed 80 livres through Martin Brechter (or Brehter) from the same chapter. There’s no clear record of where he was from March 12, 1444 (when he paid a tax in Strassburg) to October 17, 1448. However, on the latter date, he is found in Mainz, borrowing 150 gold guilders from his relative, Arnold Gelthus, against an annual interest of 7½ gold guilders. It’s unclear if the interest on this debt was ever paid, but the principal appears to remain unpaid, as the loan contract was renewed (vidimused) on August 23, 1503, for other parties. It is believed that shortly after, Gutenberg was likely able to demonstrate some convincing results from his work, as around 1450, Johann Fust (q.v.) provided him with 800 guilders to support it, backed only by the “tools” that still needed to be made. Fust is also said to have committed to advancing him 300 guilders annually for expenses such as wages, rent, parchment, paper, ink, etc., though it seems he never actually did. If any disagreement arose, Gutenberg was to return the 800 guilders, and the “tools” would no longer be used as collateral. It’s unknown what Gutenberg used the advanced funds for. In the records of the 1455 lawsuit, he stated that he needed the money to create his “tools.” Yet, he is presumed to have started on a large folio Latin Bible and printed some smaller books during its production2 as well as the Letter of Indulgence (granted on April 12, 1451 by Pope Nicholas V in aid of John II, king of Cyprus, against the Turks), which had 31 lines, with the earliest printed date being 1454, and several copies preserved in various European libraries. A copy of the 1455 version of the same Indulgence is held at the Rylands Library in Manchester (from the Althorp Library).
It is not known whether any books were printed while this partnership between Gutenberg and Fust lasted. Trithemius (Ann. Hirsaug. ii. 421) says they first printed, from wooden blocks, a vocabulary called Catholicon, which cannot have been the Catholicon of Johannes de Janua, a folio of 748 pages in two columns of 66 lines each, printed in 1460, but was perhaps a small glossary now lost.3 The Latin Bible of 42 lines, a folio of 1282 printed pages, in two columns with spaces left for illuminated initials (so called because each column contains 42 lines, and also known as the Mazarin Bible, because the first copy described was found in the library of Cardinal Mazarin), was finished before the 15th of August 1456;4 German bibliographers now claim this Bible for Gutenberg, but, according to bibliographical rules, it must be ascribed to Peter Schöffer, perhaps in partnership with Fust. It is in smaller type than the Bible of 36 lines, which latter is called either (a) the Bamberg Bible, because nearly all the known copies were found in the neighbourhood of Bamberg, or (b) Schelhorn’s Bible, because J. G. Schelhorn was the first who described it in 1760, or (c) Pfister’s Bible, because its printing is ascribed to Albrecht Pfister of Bamberg, who used the same type for several small German books, the chief of which is Boner’s Edelstein (1461, 4to), 88 leaves, with 85 woodcuts, a book of fables in German rhyme. Some bibliographers believe this 36-line Bible to have been begun, if not entirely printed, by Gutenberg during his partnership with Fust, as its type occurs in the 31-line Letters of Indulgence of 1454, was used for the 27-line Donatus (of 1451?), and, finally, when found in Pfister’s possession in 1461, appears to be old and worn, except the additional letters k, w, z required for German, which are clear and sharp like the types used in the Bible. Again, others profess to prove (Dziatzko, Gutenberg’s früheste Druckerpraxis) that B36 was a reprint of B42.
It’s unclear if any books were printed during the partnership between Gutenberg and Fust. Trithemius (Ann. Hirsaug. ii. 421) mentions they first printed a vocabulary called Catholicon from wooden blocks, which cannot be the Catholicon by Johannes de Janua, a folio of 748 pages with two columns of 66 lines each, printed in 1460, but may have been a small, now-lost glossary. 3 The Latin Bible of 42 lines, a folio with 1282 printed pages in two columns that have spaces for illuminated initials (known as the Mazarin Bible because the first described copy was found in Cardinal Mazarin's library), was completed before August 15, 1456; 4 German bibliographers now attribute this Bible to Gutenberg, but according to bibliographical rules, it should be credited to Peter Schöffer, possibly in collaboration with Fust. It uses a smaller type than the Bible of 36 lines, which is referred to either (a) as the Bamberg Bible since most known copies were found near Bamberg, (b) as Schelhorn’s Bible because J. G. Schelhorn first described it in 1760, or (c) as Pfister’s Bible as its printing is attributed to Albrecht Pfister of Bamberg, who used the same type for various small German books, the most notable being Boner’s Edelstein (1461, 4to), consisting of 88 leaves with 85 woodcuts, a collection of fables in German rhyme. Some bibliographers think this 36-line Bible was started, if not completely printed, by Gutenberg during his time with Fust, as its type appears in the 31-line Letters of Indulgence from 1454, was used for the 27-line Donatus (from 1451?), and when it was found in Pfister's possession in 1461, it seemed old and worn, except for the extra letters k, w, z needed for German, which were clear and sharp, like the type used in the Bible. Others argue (Dziatzko, Gutenberg’s früheste Druckerpraxis) that B36 was a reprint of B42.
Gutenberg’s work, whatever it may have been, was not a commercial success, and in 1452 Fust had to come forward with another 800 guilders to prevent a collapse. But some time before November 1455 the latter demanded repayment of his advances (see the Helmasperger Notarial Document of November 6, 1455, in Dziatzko’s Beiträge zur Gutenbergfrage, Berlin, 1889), and took legal proceedings against Gutenberg. We do not know the end of these proceedings, but if Gutenberg had prepared any printing materials it would seem that he was compelled to yield up the whole of them to Fust; that the latter removed them to his own house at Mainz, and there, with the assistance of Peter Schöffer, issued various books until the sack of the city in 1462 by Adolphus II. caused a suspension of printing for three years, to be resumed again in 1465.
Gutenberg’s work, whatever it was, didn’t do well commercially, and in 1452, Fust had to step in with another 800 guilders to stop a collapse. But sometime before November 1455, he demanded repayment of his advances (see the Helmasperger Notarial Document of November 6, 1455, in Dziatzko’s Beiträge zur Gutenbergfrage, Berlin, 1889) and took legal action against Gutenberg. We don’t know how these proceedings ended, but if Gutenberg had prepared any printing materials, it seems he was forced to hand everything over to Fust, who took them to his own house in Mainz, where, with the help of Peter Schöffer, he published several books until the sack of the city in 1462 by Adolphus II, which caused a three-year pause in printing, resuming in 1465.
We have no Information as to Gutenberg’s activity, and very little of his whereabouts, after his separation from Fust. In a document dated June 21, 1457, he appears as witness on behalf of one of his relatives, which shows that he was then still at Mainz. Entries in the registers of the St Thomas Church at Strassburg make it clear that the annual interest on the money which Gutenberg on the 17th of November 1442 (see above) had borrowed from the chapter of that church was regularly paid till the 11th of November 1457, either by himself or by his 741 surety, Martin Brechter. But the payment due on the latter date appears to have been delayed, as an entry in the register of that year shows that the chapter had incurred expenses in taking steps to have both Gutenberg and Brechter arrested. This time the difficulties seem to have been removed, but on and after the 11th of November 1458 Gutenberg and Brechter remained in default. The chapter made various efforts, all recorded in their registers, to get their money, but in vain. Every year they recorded the arrears with the expenses to which they were put in their efforts to arrest the defaulters, till at last in 1474 (six years after Gutenberg’s death) their names are no longer mentioned.
We have no information about Gutenberg’s activities or whereabouts after he separated from Fust. In a document dated June 21, 1457, he serves as a witness for one of his relatives, indicating that he was still in Mainz at that time. Records from St. Thomas Church in Strasbourg clarify that the annual interest on the money Gutenberg borrowed from the church chapter on November 17, 1442 (see above) was consistently paid until November 11, 1457, either by him or by his guarantor, Martin Brechter. However, the payment due on that date seems to have been delayed, as an entry in the register for that year shows that the chapter had incurred expenses in trying to have both Gutenberg and Brechter arrested. Although this time the issues appear to have been resolved, starting on November 11, 1458, both Gutenberg and Brechter were in default. The chapter made various attempts, all documented in their records, to collect their money, but to no avail. Each year, they noted the overdue payments along with the costs they incurred while trying to arrest the defaulters, until eventually, in 1474 (six years after Gutenberg’s death), their names were no longer mentioned.
Meantime Gutenberg appears to have been printing, as we learn from a document dated February 26, 1468, that a syndic of Mainz, Dr Conrad Homery (who had formerly been in the service of the elector Count Diether of Ysenburg), had at one time supplied him, not with money, but with some formes, types, tools, implements and other things belonging to printing, which Gutenberg had left after his death, and which had, and still, belonged to him (Homery); this material had come into the hands of Adolf, the archbishop of Mainz, who handed or sent it back to Homery, the latter undertaking to use it in no other town but Mainz, nor to sell it to any person except a citizen of Mainz, even if a stranger should offer him a higher price for the things. This material has never yet been identified, so that we do not know what types Gutenberg may have had at his disposal; they could hardly have included the types of the Catholicon of 1460, as is suggested, this work being probably executed by Heinrich Bechtermünze (d. 1467), who afterwards removed to Eltville, or perhaps by Peter Schöffer, who, about 1470, advertises the book as his property (see K. Burger, Buchhändler-Anzeigen). It is uncertain whether Gutenberg remained in Mainz or removed to the neighbouring town of Eltville, where he may have been engaged for a while with the brothers Bechtermünze, who printed there for some time with the types of the 1460 Catholicon. On the 17th of January 1465 he accepted the post of salaried courtier from the archbishop Adolf, and in this capacity received annually a suit of livery together with a fixed allowance of corn and wine. Gutenberg seems to have died at Mainz at the beginning of 1468, and was, according to tradition, buried in the Franciscan church in that city. His relative Arnold Gelthus erected a monument to his memory near his supposed grave, and forty years afterwards Ivo Wittig set up a memorial tablet at the legal college at Mainz. No books bearing the name of Gutenberg as printer are known, nor is any genuine portrait of him known, those appearing upon medals, statues or engraved plates being all fictitious.
Meantime, it seems Gutenberg was printing, as indicated by a document dated February 26, 1468. A syndic of Mainz, Dr. Conrad Homery (who had previously worked for the elector Count Diether of Ysenburg), had once supplied him, not with money, but with some printing forms, types, tools, and other equipment that Gutenberg left behind after his death, which still belonged to Homery. This material eventually came into the hands of Adolf, the Archbishop of Mainz, who returned it to Homery, who promised to use it only in Mainz and not sell it to anyone except a Mainz citizen, even if a stranger offered a higher price. This material has never been identified, so we don't know what types Gutenberg had at his disposal; they likely did not include the types from the Catholicon of 1460, as that work was probably done by Heinrich Bechtermünze (d. 1467), who later moved to Eltville, or possibly by Peter Schöffer, who advertised the book as his property around 1470 (see K. Burger, Buchhändler-Anzeigen). It's unclear whether Gutenberg stayed in Mainz or moved to Eltville, where he may have worked for a while with the Bechtermünze brothers, who printed there using the types from the 1460 Catholicon. On January 17, 1465, he accepted a paid position from Archbishop Adolf, receiving an annual suit of livery along with a set allowance of grain and wine. Gutenberg seems to have died in Mainz at the beginning of 1468 and, according to tradition, was buried in the Franciscan church there. His relative Arnold Gelthus erected a monument in his memory near his supposed grave, and forty years later, Ivo Wittig put up a memorial tablet at the legal college in Mainz. No books featuring Gutenberg's name as printer are known, nor is there any authentic portrait of him; those shown on medals, statues, or engravings are all fabricated.
In 1898 the firm of L. Rosenthal, at Munich, acquired a Missale speciale on paper, which Otto Hupp, in two treatises published in 1898 and 1902, asserts to have been printed by Gutenberg about 1450, seven years before the 1457 Psalter. Various German bibliographers, however, think that it could not have been printed before 1480, and, judging from the facsimiles published by Hupp, this date seems to be approximately correct.
In 1898, the company L. Rosenthal in Munich acquired a Missale speciale on paper, which Otto Hupp claims in two papers published in 1898 and 1902 was printed by Gutenberg around 1450, seven years before the 1457 Psalter. However, various German bibliographers believe that it could not have been printed before 1480, and judging by the facsimiles published by Hupp, this date appears to be fairly accurate.
On the 24th of June 1900 the five-hundredth anniversary of Gutenberg’s birth was celebrated in several German cities, notably in Mainz and Leipzig, and most of the recent literature on the invention of printing dates from that time.
On June 24, 1900, the five-hundredth anniversary of Gutenberg’s birth was celebrated in several German cities, especially in Mainz and Leipzig, and most of the recent literature about the invention of printing originates from that period.
So we may note that in 1902 a vellum fragment of an Astronomical Kalendar was discovered by the librarian of Wiesbaden, Dr G. Zedler (Die älteste Gutenbergtype, Mainz, 1902), apparently printed in the 36-line Bible type, and as the position of the sun, moon and other planets described in this document suits the years 1429, 1448 and 1467, he ascribes the printing of this Kalendar to the year 1447. A paper fragment of a poem in German, entitled Weltgericht, said to be printed in the 36-line Bible type, appears to have come into the possession of Herr Eduard Beck at Mainz in 1892, and was presented by him in 1903 to the Gutenberg Museum in that city. Zedler published a facsimile of it in 1904 (for the Gutenberg Gesellschaft), with a description, in which he places it before the 1447 Kalendar, c. 1444-1447. Moreover, fragments of two editions of Donatus different from that of 1451 (?) have recently been found; see Schwenke in Centralbl. für Bibliothekwesen (1908).
In 1902, a vellum fragment of an Astronomical Calendar was found by the librarian of Wiesbaden, Dr. G. Zedler (Die älteste Gutenbergtype, Mainz, 1902). It appears to be printed in the 36-line Bible type, and because the positions of the sun, moon, and other planets in this document match the years 1429, 1448, and 1467, he dates the printing of this Calendar to 1447. A paper fragment of a German poem titled Weltgericht, also said to be printed in the 36-line Bible type, was acquired by Herr Eduard Beck in Mainz in 1892 and was donated to the Gutenberg Museum in 1903. Zedler published a facsimile of it in 1904 (for the Gutenberg Gesellschaft), including a description that places it before the 1447 Kalendar, around 1444-1447. Additionally, fragments from two editions of Donatus that differ from the one from 1451 (?) have recently been discovered; see Schwenke in Centralbl. für Bibliothekwesen (1908).
The recent literature upon Gutenberg’s life and work and early printing in general includes the following: A. von der Linde, Geschichte und Erdichtung (Stuttgart, 1878); id. Geschichte der Buchdruckerkunst (Berlin, 1886); J. H. Hessels, Gutenberg, Was he the Inventor of Printing? (London, 1882); id. Haarlem, the Birthplace of Printing, not Mentz (London, 1886); O. Hartwig, Festschrift zum fünfhundertjährigen Geburtstag von Johann Gutenberg (Leipzig, 1900), which includes various treatises by Schenk zu Schweinsberg, K. Schorbach, &c.; P. Schwenke, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des ersten Buchdrucks (Berlin, 1900); A. Börckel, Gutenberg, sein Leben, &c. (Giessen, 1897); id. Gutenberg und seine berühmten Nachfolger im ersten Jahrhundert der Typographie (Frankfort, 1900); F. Schneider, Mainz und seine Drucker (1900); G. Zedler, Gutenberg-Forschungen (Leipzig, 1901); J. H. Hessels, The so-called Gutenberg Documents (London, 1910). For other works on the subject see Typography.
The recent literature on Gutenberg's life and work, as well as early printing in general, includes the following: A. von der Linde, History and Fiction (Stuttgart, 1878); id. History of the Printing Art (Berlin, 1886); J. H. Hessels, Gutenberg, Was He the Inventor of Printing? (London, 1882); id. Haarlem, the Birthplace of Printing, Not Mentz (London, 1886); O. Hartwig, Festschrift on the 500th Birthday of Johann Gutenberg (Leipzig, 1900), which includes various essays by Schenk zu Schweinsberg, K. Schorbach, etc.; P. Schwenke, Investigations into the History of Early Printing (Berlin, 1900); A. Börckel, Gutenberg, His Life, etc. (Giessen, 1897); id. Gutenberg and His Famous Successors in the First Century of Typography (Frankfort, 1900); F. Schneider, Mainz and Its Printers (1900); G. Zedler, Gutenberg Research (Leipzig, 1901); J. H. Hessels, The So-Called Gutenberg Documents (London, 1910). For other works on the subject, see Typography.
1 It is difficult to know which of the Gutenberg documents can be trusted and which not. Schorbach, in his recent biography of Gutenberg, accepts and describes 27 of them (Festschrift, 1900, p. 163 sqq.), 17 of which are known only from (not always accurate) copies or transcripts. Under ordinary circumstances history might be based on them. But it is certain that some so-called Gutenberg documents, not included in the above 27, are forgeries. Fr. J. Bodmann (1754-1820), for many years professor and librarian at Mainz, forged at least two; one (dated July 20, 1459) he even provided with four forged seals; the other (dated Strassburg, March 24, 1424) purported to be an autograph letter of Gutenberg to a fictitious sister of his named Bertha. Of these two documents French and German texts were published about 1800-1802; the forger lived for twenty years afterwards but never undeceived the public. He enriched the Gutenberg literature with other fabrications. In fact Bodmann had trained himself for counterfeiting MSS. and documents; he openly boasted of his abilities in this respect, and used them, sometimes to amuse his friends who were searching for Gutenberg documents, sometimes for himself to fill up gaps in Gutenberg’s life. (For two or three more specimens of his capacities see A. Wyss in Zeitschr. für Altert. u. Gesch. Schlesiens, xv. 9 sqq.) To one of his friends (Professor Gotthelf Fischer, who preceded him as librarian of Mainz) one or two other fabrications may be ascribed. There are, moreover, serious misgivings as to documents said to have been discovered about 1740 (when the citizens of Strassburg claimed the honour of the invention for their city) by Jacob Wencker (the then archivist of Strassburg) and J. D. Schoepflin (professor and canon of St Thomas’s at Strassburg). For instance, of the above document of 1434 no original has ever come to light; while the draft of the transaction, alleged to have been written at the time in a register of contracts, and to have been found about 1740 by Wencker, has also disappeared with the register itself. The document (now only known from a copy said to have been taken by Wencker from the draft) is upheld as genuine by Schorbach, who favours an invention of printing at Strassburg, but Bockenheimer, though supporting Gutenberg and Mainz, declares it to be a fiction (Gutenberg-Feier, Mainz, 1900, pp. 24-33). Again, suspicions are justified with respect to the documents recording Gutenberg’s lawsuit of 1439 at Strassburg. Bockenheimer explains at great length (l.c. pp. 41-72) that they are forgeries. He even explains (ibid. pp. 97-107) that the so-called Helmasperger document of November 6, 1455, may be a fabrication of the Faust von Aschaffenburg family, who endeavoured to claim Johann Fust as their ancestor. There are also (1) a fragment of a fictitious “press,” said to have been constructed by Gutenberg in 1441, and to have been discovered (!) at Mainz in 1856; (2) a forged imprint with the date 1458 in a copy of Pope Gregory’s Dialogues, really printed at Strassburg about 1470; (3) a forged rubric in a copy of the Tractatus de celebratione missarum, from which it would appear that Johann Gutenberg and Johann Nummeister had presented it on June 19, 1463, to the Carthusian monastery near Mainz: (4) four forged copies of the Indulgence of 1455, in the Culemann Collection in the Kästner Museum at Hanover, &c. (see further, Hessels, “The so-called Gutenberg Documents,” in The Library, 1909).
1 It’s tough to determine which Gutenberg documents can be trusted and which can’t. Schorbach, in his recent biography of Gutenberg, accepts and describes 27 of them (Festschrift, 1900, p. 163 sqq.), 17 of which are known only from copies or transcripts that aren't always accurate. Normally, history might rely on them. However, it’s clear that some of the so-called Gutenberg documents not included in the 27 are fakes. Fr. J. Bodmann (1754-1820), who was a professor and librarian in Mainz for many years, created at least two forgeries; one (dated July 20, 1459) he even affixed with four forged seals, while the other (dated Strassburg, March 24, 1424) claimed to be an autograph letter from Gutenberg to a fictional sister named Bertha. French and German versions of these two documents were published around 1800-1802; the forger lived for another twenty years but never revealed the truth to the public. He added more fabrications to the Gutenberg literature. In fact, Bodmann learned how to counterfeit manuscripts and documents; he openly bragged about his skills and used them, occasionally to entertain friends looking for Gutenberg documents, and sometimes for his own purposes to fill in gaps in Gutenberg's life. (For two or three more examples of his skills, see A. Wyss in Zeitschr. für Altert. u. Gesch. Schlesiens, xv. 9 sqq.) One or two other fabrications might be attributed to his friend (Professor Gotthelf Fischer, who succeeded him as librarian of Mainz). Moreover, there are genuine concerns about documents that were claimed to have been discovered around 1740 (when the citizens of Strassburg sought to credit their city with the invention) by Jacob Wencker (the then archivist of Strassburg) and J. D. Schoepflin (professor and canon of St. Thomas’s in Strassburg). For example, of the aforementioned document from 1434, no original has ever been found; the draft of the transaction, which was said to have been written at the time in a contracts register, has also vanished along with the register itself. The document (now known only from a copy thought to have been taken by Wencker from the draft) is considered genuine by Schorbach, who supports the idea of printing being invented in Strassburg, but Bockenheimer, while backing Gutenberg and Mainz, claims it’s a hoax (Gutenberg-Feier, Mainz, 1900, pp. 24-33). Again, doubts are valid concerning the documents recording Gutenberg’s lawsuit of 1439 in Strassburg. Bockenheimer goes into great detail (l.c. pp. 41-72) explaining that they are forgeries. He also clarifies (ibid. pp. 97-107) that the so-called Helmasperger document from November 6, 1455, might be a fabrication by the Faust von Aschaffenburg family, who tried to claim Johann Fust as their ancestor. Additionally, there are: (1) a fragment of a fictional “press” said to have been built by Gutenberg in 1441 and allegedly discovered (!) at Mainz in 1856; (2) a forged imprint dated 1458 in a copy of Pope Gregory’s Dialogues, which was actually printed in Strassburg around 1470; (3) a forged rubric in a copy of the Tractatus de celebratione missarum, suggesting that Johann Gutenberg and Johann Nummeister presented it on June 19, 1463, to the Carthusian monastery near Mainz; (4) four forged copies of the Indulgence of 1455 found in the Culemann Collection at the Kästner Museum in Hanover, etc. (for more information, see Hessels, “The so-called Gutenberg Documents,” in The Library, 1909).
2 Among these were perhaps (1) one or two editions of the work of Donatus, De octo partibus orationis, 27 lines to a page, of one of which two leaves, now in the Paris National Library, were discovered at Mainz in the original binding of an account book, one of them having, but in a later hand, the year 1451 (?); (2) the Turk-Kalendar for 1455 (preserved in the Hof-Bibliothek at Munich); (3) the Cisianus (preserved in the Cambridge Univ. Libr.), and perhaps others now lost.
2 Among these were perhaps (1) one or two editions of the work of Donatus, De octo partibus orationis, with 27 lines per page, one of which has two leaves now located in the Paris National Library, discovered in Mainz within the original binding of an account book, one of them marked, albeit in a later handwriting, with the year 1451 (?); (2) the Turk-Kalendar for 1455 (kept in the Hof-Bibliothek in Munich); (3) the Cisianus (held in the Cambridge University Library), and possibly others that are now lost.
3 Ulric Zell states, in the Cologne Chronicle of 1499, that Gutenberg and Fust printed a Bible in large type like that used in missals. It has been said that this description applies to the 42-line Bible, as its type is as large as that of most missals printed before 1500, and that the size now called missal type (double pica) was not used in missals until late in the 16th century. This is no doubt true of the smaller missals printed before 1500, some of which are in even smaller type than the 42-line Bible. But many of the large folio missals, as that printed at Mainz by Peter Schöffer in 1483, the Carthusian missal printed at Spires by Peter Drach about 1490, and the Dominican missal printed by Andrea de Torresanis at Venice in 1496, are in as large type as the 36-line Bible. Peter Schöffer (1425-1502) of Gernsheim, between Mainz and Mannheim, who was a copyist in Paris in 1449, and whom Fust called his servant (famulus), is said by Trithemius to have discovered an easier way of founding characters, whence Lambinet and others concluded that Schöffer invented the punch. Schöffer himself, in the colophon of the Psalter of 1457, a work which some suppose to have been planned and partly printed by Gutenberg, claims only the mode of printing rubrics and coloured capitals.
3 Ulric Zell mentions in the Cologne Chronicle of 1499 that Gutenberg and Fust printed a Bible in large type similar to that used in missals. It's been said that this description refers to the 42-line Bible, as its type size is comparable to most missals printed before 1500, and that the type size now known as missal type (double pica) wasn't used in missals until the late 16th century. This is certainly true for the smaller missals printed before 1500, some of which have even smaller type than the 42-line Bible. However, many of the large folio missals, such as the one printed in Mainz by Peter Schöffer in 1483, the Carthusian missal printed at Spires by Peter Drach around 1490, and the Dominican missal printed by Andrea de Torresanis in Venice in 1496, are in type as large as the 36-line Bible. Peter Schöffer (1425-1502) from Gernsheim, located between Mainz and Mannheim, who worked as a copyist in Paris in 1449 and was referred to as Fust's servant (famulus), is noted by Trithemius to have discovered an easier method for founding characters, leading Lambinet and others to conclude that Schöffer invented the punch. In the colophon of the Psalter of 1457, a work that some believe was planned and partially printed by Gutenberg, Schöffer mentions only the method of printing rubrics and colored capitals.
4 The Leipzig copy of this Bible (which formerly belonged to Herr Klemm of Dresden) has at the end the MS. year 1453 in old Arabic numerals. But certain circumstances connected with this date make it look very suspicious.
4 The Leipzig copy of this Bible (which used to belong to Mr. Klemm of Dresden) has the handwritten year 1453 at the end in old Arabic numerals. However, some circumstances related to this date make it seem quite questionable.
GÜTERSLOH, a town of Germany, in the Prussian province of Westphalia, 11 m. S.W. from Bielefeld by the railway to Dortmund. Pop. (1905), 7375. It is a seat of silk and cotton industries, and has a large trade in Westphalian hams and sausages. Printing, brewing and distilling are also carried on, and the town is famous for its rye-bread (Pumpernickel). Gütersloh has two Evangelical churches, a Roman Catholic church, a synagogue, a school and other educational establishments.
Gütersloh, is a town in Germany, located in the Prussian province of Westphalia, 11 miles southwest of Bielefeld along the railway to Dortmund. Population (1905), 7,375. It has a strong silk and cotton industry and a significant trade in Westphalian hams and sausages. The town is also involved in printing, brewing, and distilling, and is well-known for its rye bread (Pumpernickel). Gütersloh features two Evangelical churches, a Roman Catholic church, a synagogue, a school, and other educational institutions.
See Eickhoff, Geschichte der Stadt und Gemeinde Gütersloh (Gütersloh, 1904).
See Eickhoff, History of the City and Community of Gütersloh (Gütersloh, 1904).
GUTHRIE, SIR JAMES (1859- ), Scottish painter, and one of the leaders of the so-called Glasgow school of painters, was born at Greenock. Though in his youth he was influenced by John Pettie in London, and subsequently studied in Paris, his style, which is remarkable for grasp of character, breadth and spontaneity, is due to the lessons taught him by observation of nature, and to the example of Crawhall, by which he benefited in Lincolnshire in the early ’eighties of the last century. In his early works, such as “The Gipsy Fires are Burning, for Daylight is Past and Gone” (1882), and the “Funeral Service in the Highlands,” he favoured a thick impasto, but with growing experience he used his colour with greater economy and reticence. Subsequently he devoted himself almost exclusively to portraiture. Sir James Guthrie, like so many of the Glasgow artists, achieved his first successes on the Continent, but soon found recognition in his native country. He was elected associate of the Royal Scottish Academy in 1888, and full member in 1892, succeeded Sir George Reid as president of the Royal Scottish Academy in 1902, and was knighted in 1903. His painting “Schoolmates” is at the Ghent Gallery. Among his most successful portraits are those of his mother, Mr R. Garroway, Major Hotchkiss, Mrs Fergus, Professor Jack, and Mrs Watson.
GUTHRIE, SIR JAMES (1859- ), Scottish painter and one of the leading figures of the Glasgow school of painters, was born in Greenock. Although he was influenced by John Pettie during his youth in London and later studied in Paris, his style—known for its strong character portrayal, breadth, and spontaneity—comes from observing nature and learning from the example of Crawhall, which he experienced in Lincolnshire in the early 1880s. In his early works, such as “The Gipsy Fires are Burning, for Daylight is Past and Gone” (1882) and “Funeral Service in the Highlands,” he preferred a thick impasto technique, but as he gained experience, he began using color more thoughtfully and with restraint. Eventually, he focused almost entirely on portraiture. Sir James Guthrie, like many Glasgow artists, initially found success in Europe but soon earned recognition in his home country. He was elected an associate of the Royal Scottish Academy in 1888 and became a full member in 1892. He succeeded Sir George Reid as president of the Royal Scottish Academy in 1902 and was knighted in 1903. His painting “Schoolmates” is displayed at the Ghent Gallery. Some of his most notable portraits include those of his mother, Mr. R. Garroway, Major Hotchkiss, Mrs. Fergus, Professor Jack, and Mrs. Watson.
GUTHRIE, THOMAS (1803-1873), Scottish divine, was born at Brechin, Forfarshire, on the 12th of July 1803. He entered the university of Edinburgh at the early age of twelve, and continued to attend classes there for more than ten years. On the 2nd of February 1825 the presbytery of Brechin licensed him as a preacher in connexion with the Church of Scotland, and in 1826 he was in Paris studying natural philosophy, chemistry, and comparative anatomy. For two years he acted as manager of his father’s bank, and in 1830 was inducted to his first charge, Arbirlot, in Forfarshire, where he adopted a vivid dramatic style of preaching adapted to his congregation of peasants, farmers and weavers. In 1837 he became the colleague of John Sym in the pastorate of Old Greyfriars, Edinburgh, and at once attracted notice as a great pulpit orator. Towards the close of 1840 he became minister of St John’s church, Victoria Street, Edinburgh. He declined invitations both from London and from India. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the movement which led to the Disruption of 1843; and his name is thenceforth associated with the Free Church, for which he collected £116,000 from July 1845 to June 1846 to provide manses for the seceding ministers. In 1844 he became a teetotaller. In 1847 he began the greatest work of his life by the publication of his first “Plea for Ragged Schools.” This 742 pamphlet elicited a beautiful and sympathetic letter from Lord Jeffrey. A Ragged School was opened on the Castle Hill, which has been the parent of many similar institutions elsewhere, though Guthrie’s relation to the movement is best described as that of an apostle rather than a founder. He insisted on bringing up all the children in his school as Protestants; and he thus made his schools proselytizing as well as educational institutions. This interference with religious liberty led to some controversy; and ultimately those who differed from Guthrie founded the United Industrial School, giving combined secular and separate religious instruction. In April 1847 the degree of D.D. was conferred on Guthrie by the university of Edinburgh; and in 1850 William Hanna (1808-1882), the biographer and son-in-law of Thomas Chalmers, was inducted as his colleague in Free St John’s Church.
Guthrie, Thomas (1803-1873), Scottish minister, was born in Brechin, Forfarshire, on July 12, 1803. He started attending the University of Edinburgh at the young age of twelve and continued there for over ten years. On February 2, 1825, the presbytery of Brechin licensed him as a preacher in connection with the Church of Scotland, and in 1826 he went to Paris to study natural philosophy, chemistry, and comparative anatomy. He managed his father's bank for two years, and in 1830, he was appointed to his first church in Arbirlot, Forfarshire, where he developed a lively, dramatic preaching style tailored to his audience of peasants, farmers, and weavers. In 1837, he became the colleague of John Sym at Old Greyfriars in Edinburgh and quickly gained recognition as a powerful speaker. By the end of 1840, he had become minister of St John’s Church on Victoria Street, Edinburgh, and turned down offers from both London and India. He passionately supported the movement that led to the Disruption of 1843, and his name became closely linked with the Free Church, for which he raised £116,000 from July 1845 to June 1846 to provide homes for the ministers who left. In 1844, he became a teetotaler. In 1847, he began the most significant work of his life with the publication of his first “Plea for Ragged Schools.” This 742 pamphlet received a heartfelt letter from Lord Jeffrey. A Ragged School was opened on Castle Hill, which inspired many similar institutions elsewhere, although Guthrie’s involvement in the movement is better described as that of an advocate rather than a founder. He insisted on raising all the children in his school as Protestants, making his schools both educational and proselytizing. This approach caused some controversy regarding religious freedom; ultimately, those who disagreed with Guthrie established the United Industrial School, which offered combined secular and separate religious instruction. In April 1847, he received an honorary Doctor of Divinity degree from the University of Edinburgh; in 1850, William Hanna (1808-1882), biographer and son-in-law of Thomas Chalmers, joined him as a colleague at Free St John’s Church.
In 1850 Guthrie published A Plea on behalf of Drunkards and against Drunkenness, which was followed by The Gospel in Ezekiel (1855); The City: its Sins and Sorrows (1857); Christ and the Inheritance of the Saints (1858); Seedtime and Harvest of Ragged Schools (1860), consisting of his three Pleas for Ragged Schools. These works had an enormous sale, and portions of them were translated into French and Dutch. His advocacy of temperance had much to do with securing the passing of the Forbes Mackenzie Act, which secured Sunday closing and shortened hours of sale for Scotland. Mr Gladstone specially quoted him in support of the Light Wines Bill (1860). In 1862 he was moderator of the Free Church General Assembly; but he seldom took a prominent part in the business of the church courts. His remarkable oratorical talents, rich humour, genuine pathos and inimitable power of story-telling, enabled him to do good service to the total abstinence movement. He was one of the vice-presidents of the Evangelical Alliance. In 1864, his health being seriously impaired, he resigned public work as pastor of Free St John’s (May 17), although his nominal connexion with the congregation ceased only with his death. Guthrie had occasionally contributed papers to Good Words, and, about the time of his retirement from the ministry, he became first editor of the Sunday Magazine, himself contributing several series of papers which were afterwards published separately. In 1865 he was presented with £5000 as a mark of appreciation from the public. His closing years were spent mostly in retirement; and after an illness of several months’ duration he died at St Leonards-on-Sea on the 24th of February 1873.
In 1850, Guthrie published A Plea on behalf of Drunkards and against Drunkenness, which was followed by The Gospel in Ezekiel (1855); The City: its Sins and Sorrows (1857); Christ and the Inheritance of the Saints (1858); Seedtime and Harvest of Ragged Schools (1860), which included his three Pleas for Ragged Schools. These works sold incredibly well, and parts of them were translated into French and Dutch. His support for temperance played a significant role in the passing of the Forbes Mackenzie Act, which ensured Sunday closing and reduced sale hours in Scotland. Mr. Gladstone specifically quoted him in support of the Light Wines Bill (1860). In 1862, he served as moderator of the Free Church General Assembly; however, he rarely took a leading role in the church courts. His impressive speaking abilities, rich humor, genuine emotion, and unique talent for storytelling enabled him to greatly contribute to the total abstinence movement. He was one of the vice-presidents of the Evangelical Alliance. In 1864, due to serious health issues, he stepped down from his position as pastor of Free St John’s (May 17), although his official connection with the congregation continued until his death. Guthrie occasionally contributed articles to Good Words, and around the time of his retirement from the ministry, he became the first editor of the Sunday Magazine, contributing several series of articles that were later published separately. In 1865, he was awarded £5000 as a token of appreciation from the public. He spent his final years mostly in retirement, and after several months of illness, he passed away at St Leonards-on-Sea on February 24, 1873.
In addition to the books mentioned above he published a number of books which had a remarkable circulation in England and America, such as Speaking to the Heart (1862); The Way to Life (1862); Man and the Gospel (1865); The Angel’s Song (1865); The Parables (1866); Our Father’s Business (1867); Out of Harness (1867); Early Piety (1868); Studies of Character from the Old Testament (1868-1870); Sundays Abroad (1871).
In addition to the books mentioned above, he published several titles that were widely circulated in England and America, such as Speaking to the Heart (1862); The Way to Life (1862); Man and the Gospel (1865); The Angel’s Song (1865); The Parables (1866); Our Father’s Business (1867); Out of Harness (1867); Early Piety (1868); Studies of Character from the Old Testament (1868-1870); Sundays Abroad (1871).
See Autobiography of Thomas Guthrie, D.D., and Memoir, by his sons (2 vols., London, 1874-1875).
See Autobiography of Thomas Guthrie, D.D., and Memoir, by his sons (2 vols., London, 1874-1875).
GUTHRIE, THOMAS ANSTEY (1856- ), known by the pseudonym of F. Anstey, English novelist, was born in Kensington, London, on the 8th of August 1856. He was educated at King’s College, London, and at Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and was called to the bar in 1880. But the popular success of his story Vice-Versa (1882) with its topsy-turvy substitution of a father for his schoolboy son, at once made his reputation as a humorist of an original type. He published in 1883 a serious novel, The Giant’s Robe; but, in spite of its excellence, he discovered (and again in 1889 with The Pariah) that it was not as a serious novelist but as a humorist that the public insisted on regarding him. As such his reputation was further confirmed by The Black Poodle (1884), The Tinted Venus (1885), A Fallen Idol (1886), and other works. He became an important member of the staff of Punch, in which his “Voces populi” and his humorous parodies of a reciter’s stock-piece (“Burglar Bill,” &c.) represent his best work. In 1901 his successful farce The Man from Blankley’s, based on a story which originally appeared in Punch, was first produced at the Prince of Wales’s Theatre, in London.
GUTHRIE, THOMAS ANSTEY (1856- ), known by the pseudonym F. Anstey, was an English novelist born in Kensington, London, on August 8, 1856. He studied at King’s College, London, and Trinity Hall, Cambridge, and was called to the bar in 1880. However, the success of his story Vice-Versa (1882), with its quirky twist of a father swapping places with his schoolboy son, quickly established his reputation as a unique humorist. He released a serious novel, The Giant’s Robe, in 1883, but despite its quality, he found (and again in 1889 with The Pariah) that the public saw him primarily as a humorist. His reputation in that genre was solidified with works like The Black Poodle (1884), The Tinted Venus (1885), A Fallen Idol (1886), and others. He became a key member of the staff at Punch, where his “Voces populi” and humorous parodies of common reciter pieces (“Burglar Bill,” etc.) showcased his best work. In 1901, his hit farce The Man from Blankley’s, based on a story that first appeared in Punch, debuted at the Prince of Wales’s Theatre in London.
GUTHRIE, the capital of Oklahoma, U.S.A., and the county-seat of Logan county, extending on both sides of Cottonwood creek, and lying one mile south of the Cimarron river. Pop. (1890) 5333, (1900) 10,006, (1907) 11,652 (2871 negroes); (1910) 11,654. It is served by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, the Fort Smith & Western, and the St Louis, El Reno & Western railways. The city is situated about 940 ft. above the sea, in a prairie region devoted largely to stock-raising and the cultivation of Indian corn, wheat, cotton and various fruits, particularly peaches. Guthrie is one of the headquarters of the Federal courts in the state, the other being Muskogee. The principal public buildings at Guthrie are the state Capitol, the Federal building, the City hall, the Carnegie library, the Methodist hospital and a large Masonic temple. Among the schools are St Joseph’s Academy and a state school for the deaf and dumb. Guthrie has a considerable trade with the surrounding country and has cotton gins, a cotton compress, and foundries and machine shops; among its manufactures are cotton-seed oil, cotton goods, flour, cereals, lumber, cigars, brooms and furniture. The total value of the factory product in 1905 was $1,200,662. The municipality owns and operates the waterworks. The city was founded in 1889, when Oklahoma was opened for settlement; in 1890 it was made the capital of the Territory, and in 1907 when Oklahoma was made a state, it became the state capital.
GUTHRIE, is the capital of Oklahoma, U.S.A., and the county seat of Logan County, located on both sides of Cottonwood Creek, just one mile south of the Cimarron River. Population: (1890) 5,333, (1900) 10,006, (1907) 11,652 (2,871 African Americans); (1910) 11,654. It’s served by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé, the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, the Missouri, Kansas & Texas, the Fort Smith & Western, and the St. Louis, El Reno & Western railways. The city sits about 940 feet above sea level in a prairie area mostly used for livestock farming and growing Indian corn, wheat, cotton, and various fruits, especially peaches. Guthrie hosts one of the headquarters for the Federal courts in the state, the other being Muskogee. Key public buildings in Guthrie include the state Capitol, the Federal building, City Hall, the Carnegie Library, the Methodist Hospital, and a large Masonic temple. Among its schools are St. Joseph's Academy and a state school for the deaf and hard of hearing. Guthrie has a significant trade relationship with the surrounding area, with cotton gins, a cotton compress, and foundries and machine shops; its manufactured products include cotton-seed oil, cotton goods, flour, cereals, lumber, cigars, brooms, and furniture. The total value of factory production in 1905 was $1,200,662. The city owns and operates the waterworks. Guthrie was founded in 1889 when Oklahoma was opened for settlement; it became the capital of the Territory in 1890 and the state capital in 1907 when Oklahoma was established as a state.
GUTHRUM (Godrum) (d. 890), king of East Anglia, first appears in the English Annals in the year 875, when he is mentioned as one of three Danish kings who went with the host to Cambridge. He was probably engaged in the campaigns of the next three years, and after Alfred’s victory at Edington in 878, Guthrum met the king at Aller in Somersetshire and was baptized there under the name of Æthelstan. He stayed there for twelve days and was greatly honoured by his godfather Alfred. In 890 Guthrum-Æthelstan died: he is then spoken of as “se nor∂erna cyning” (probably) “the Norwegian king,” referring to the ultimate origin of his family, and we are told that he was the first (Scandinavian) to settle East Anglia. Guthrum is perhaps to be identified with Gormr (= Guthrum) hinn heimski or hinn riki of the Scandinavian sagas, the foster-father of Hör∂aknutr, the father of Gorm the old. There is a treaty known as the peace of Alfred and Guthrum.
GUTHRUM (Godrum) (d. 890), king of East Anglia, first shows up in the English Annals in 875, when he's mentioned as one of three Danish kings who went with the army to Cambridge. He was likely involved in the campaigns over the next three years, and after Alfred’s victory at Edington in 878, Guthrum met the king at Aller in Somersetshire and was baptized there with the name Æthelstan. He stayed for twelve days and received great honor from his godfather Alfred. In 890, Guthrum-Æthelstan died: he is then referred to as “se nor∂erna cyning” (probably) “the Norwegian king,” indicating his family's ultimate origin, and it's noted that he was the first (Scandinavian) to settle in East Anglia. Guthrum may be identified with Gormr (= Guthrum) hinn heimski or hinn riki from the Scandinavian sagas, the foster-father of Hör∂aknutr, the father of Gorm the Old. There is a treaty known as the peace of Alfred and Guthrum.
GUTSCHMID, ALFRED, Baron von (1835-1887), German historian and Orientalist, was born on the 1st of July at Loschwitz (Dresden). After holding chairs at Kiel (1866), Königsberg (1873), and Jena (1876), he was finally appointed professor of history at Tübingen, where he died on the 2nd of March 1887. He devoted himself to the study of Eastern language and history in its pre-Greek and Hellenistic periods and contributed largely to the literature of the subject.
GUTSCHMID, ALFRED, Baron von (1835-1887), German historian and Orientalist, was born on July 1st in Loschwitz (Dresden). After teaching at Kiel (1866), Königsberg (1873), and Jena (1876), he was finally appointed professor of history at Tübingen, where he passed away on March 2nd, 1887. He dedicated himself to studying Eastern languages and history during its pre-Greek and Hellenistic periods and made significant contributions to the literature on the subject.
Works.—Über die Fragmente des Pompeius Trogus (supplementary vol. of Jahrbücher für klass. Phil., 1857); Die makedonische Anagraphe (1864); Beiträge zur Gesch. des alten Orients (Leipzig, 1858); Neue Beiträge zur Gesch. des alt. Or., vol. i., Die Assyriologie in Deutschland (Leipzig, 1876); Die Glaubwürdigkeit der armenischen Gesch. des Moses von Khoren (1877); Untersuchungen über die syrische Epitome des eusebischen Canones (1886); Untersuch. über die Gesch. des Königreichs Osraëne (1887); Gesch. Irans (Alexander the Great to the fall of the Arsacidae) (Tübingen, 1887). He wrote on Persia and Phoenicia in the 9th edition of the Ency. Brit. A collection of minor works entitled Kleine Schriften was published by F. Rühl at Leipzig (1889-1894, 5 vols.), with complete list of his writings. See article by Rühl in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, xlix. (1904).
Tasks.—On the Fragments of Pompeius Trogus (supplementary vol. of Yearbooks for Classical Philology, 1857); The Macedonian Anagraphe (1864); Contributions to the History of the Ancient Orient (Leipzig, 1858); New Contributions to the History of the Ancient Orient, vol. i., The Assyriology in Germany (Leipzig, 1876); The Credibility of the Armenian History of Moses of Khoren (1877); Studies on the Syrian Epitome of Eusebius' Canons (1886); Studies on the History of the Kingdom of Osraene (1887); History of Iran (from Alexander the Great to the fall of the Arsacidae) (Tübingen, 1887). He wrote on Persia and Phoenicia in the 9th edition of the Ency. Brit. A collection of minor works titled Minor Writings was published by F. Rühl in Leipzig (1889-1894, 5 vols.), which includes a complete list of his writings. See article by Rühl in General German Biography, xlix. (1904).
GUTS-MUTHS, JOHANN CHRISTOPH FRIEDRICH (1759-1839), German teacher and the principal founder of the German school system of gymnastics, was born at Quedlinburg on the 9th of August 1759. He was educated at the gymnasium of his native town and at Halle University; and in 1785 he went to Schnepfenthal, where he taught geography and gymnastics. His method of teaching gymnastics was expounded by him in various handbooks; and it was chiefly through them that gymnastics very soon came to occupy such an important position in the school system of Germany. He also did much to introduce a better method of instruction in geography. He died on the 21st of May 1839.
Guts Muths, Johann Christoph Friedrich (1759-1839), German teacher and the main founder of the German school system of gymnastics, was born in Quedlinburg on August 9, 1759. He was educated at the gymnasium in his hometown and at Halle University. In 1785, he moved to Schnepfenthal, where he taught geography and gymnastics. He outlined his gymnastics teaching method in various handbooks, which were key in making gymnastics a significant part of Germany's school system. He also made substantial contributions to improving geography instruction. He passed away on May 21, 1839.
His principal works are Gymnastik für die Jugend (1793); Spiele zur Übung und Erholung des Körpers und Geistes für die Jugend (1796); Turnbuch (1817); Handbuch der Geographie (1810); and a number of books constituting a Bibliothek für Pädagogik, Schulwesen, und die gesammte pädagogische Literatur Deutschlands. He also contributed to the Vollständiges Handbuch der neuesten Erdbeschreibung, and along with Jacobi published Deutsches Land und deutsches Volk, the first part, Deutsches Land, being written by him.
His main works are Gymnastics for Youth (1793); Games for Physical and Mental Training for Youth (1796); Turnbook (1817); Handbook of Geography (1810); and several books that make up a Library for Pedagogy, School Affairs, and the Entire Educational Literature of Germany. He also contributed to the Complete Handbook of the Latest Geography, and along with Jacobi published German Land and German People, with the first part, German Land, being written by him.
GUTTA (Latin for “drop”), an architectural term given to the small frusta of conical or cylindrical form carved below the triglyph and under the regula of the entablature of the Doric Order. They are sometimes known as “trunnels,” a corruption of “tree-nail,” and resemble the wooden pins which in framed timber work or in joinery are employed to fasten together the pieces of wood; these are supposed to be derived from the original timber construction of the Doric temple, in which the pins, driven through the regula, secured the latter to the taenia, and, according to C. Chipiez and F. A. Choisy, passed through the taenia to hold the triglyphs in place. In the earliest examples of the Doric Order at Corinth and Selinus, the guttae are completely isolated from the architrave, and in Temple C. at Selinus the guttae are 3 or 4 in. in front of it, as if to enable the pin to be driven in more easily. In later examples they are partly attached to the architrave. Similar guttae are carved under the mutules of the Doric cornice, representing the pins driven through the mutules to secure the rafters. In the temples at Bassae, Paestum and Selinus, instances have been found where the guttae had been carved separately and sunk into holes cut in the soffit of the mutules and the regula. Their constant employment in the Doric temples suggests that, although originally of constructive origin, they were subsequently employed as decorative features.
GUTTA (Latin for “drop”) is an architectural term for the small, conical or
GUTTA PERCHA, the name applied to the evaporated milky fluid or latex furnished by several trees chiefly found in the islands of the Malay Archipelago. The name is derived from two Malay words, getah meaning gum, and pertja being the name of the tree—probably a Bassia—from which the gum was (erroneously) supposed to be obtained.
Gutta Percha, is the name given to the evaporated milky fluid or latex produced by several trees primarily found in the islands of the Malay Archipelago. The name comes from two Malay words: getah, which means gum, and pertja, the name of the tree—probably a Bassia—from which the gum was mistakenly thought to be obtained.
Botanical Origin and Distribution.—The actual tree is known to the Malays as taban, and the product as getah taban. The best gutta percha of Malaya is chiefly derived from two trees, and is known as getah taban merah (red) or getah taban sutra (silky). The trees in question, which belong to the natural order Sapotaceae, have now been definitely identified, the first as Dichopsis gutta (Bentham and Hooker), otherwise Isonandra gutta (Hooker) or Palaquium gutta (Burck), and the second as Dichopsis oblongifolia (Burck). Allied trees of the same genus and of the same natural order yield similar but usually inferior products. Among them may be mentioned species of Payena (getah soondie).
Botanical Origin and Distribution.—The actual tree is known to the Malays as taban, and the product as getah taban. The best gutta percha from Malaya mainly comes from two trees, referred to as getah taban merah (red) or getah taban sutra (silky). These trees, belonging to the natural order Sapotaceae, have now been clearly identified: the first as Dichopsis gutta (Bentham and Hooker), alternatively Isonandra gutta (Hooker) or Palaquium gutta (Burck), and the second as Dichopsis oblongifolia (Burck). Related trees of the same genus and natural order produce similar but typically lower-quality products. Among them are species of Payena (getah soondie).
Gutta percha trees often attain a height of 70 to 100 ft. and the trunk has a diameter of from 2 to 3 ft. They are stated to be mature when about thirty years old. The leaves of Dichopsis, which are obovate-lanceolate, with a distinct pointed apex, occur in clusters at the end of the branches, and are bright green and smooth on the upper surface but on the lower surface are yellowish-brown and covered with silky hairs. The leaves are usually about 6 in. long and about 2 in. wide at the centre. The flowers are white, and the seeds are contained in an ovoid berry about 1 in. long.
Gutta percha trees typically grow to a height of 70 to 100 feet, with trunks measuring 2 to 3 feet in diameter. They are considered mature at around thirty years old. The leaves of Dichopsis are obovate-lanceolate with a noticeable pointed tip, and they appear in clusters at the tips of the branches. The upper surface of the leaves is bright green and smooth, while the underside is yellowish-brown and covered in silky hairs. The leaves are generally about 6 inches long and 2 inches wide at the center. The flowers are white, and the seeds are found inside an ovoid berry that is about 1 inch long.
The geographical distribution of the gutta percha tree is almost entirely confined to the Malay Peninsula and its immediate neighbourhood. It includes a region within 6 degrees north and south of the equator and 93°-119° longitude, where the temperature ranges from 66° to 90° F. and the atmosphere is exceedingly moist. The trees may be grown from seeds or from cuttings. Some planting has taken place in Malaya, but little has so far been done to acclimatize the plant in other regions. Recent information seems to point to the possibility of growing the tree in Ceylon and on the west coast of Africa.
The gutta percha tree mainly grows in the Malay Peninsula and nearby areas. Its range is within 6 degrees north and south of the equator, between 93° and 119° longitude, with temperatures varying from 66° to 90° F in a very humid environment. The trees can be propagated from seeds or cuttings. Although some planting has occurred in Malaya, there hasn’t been much effort to adapt the plant to other regions yet. Recent reports suggest that it might be possible to cultivate the tree in Ceylon and along the west coast of Africa.
Preparation of Gutta Percha.—The gutta is furnished by the greyish milky fluid known as the latex, which is chiefly secreted in cylindrical vessels or cells situated in the cortex, that is, between the bark and the wood (or cambium). Latex also occurs in the leaves of the tree to the extent of about 9% of the dried leaves, and this may be removed from the powdered leaves by the use of appropriate solvents, but the process is not practicable commercially. The latex flows slowly where an incision is made through the bark, but not nearly so freely, even in the rainy season, as the india-rubber latex. On this account the Malays usually fell the tree in order to collect the latex, which is done by chopping off the branches and removing circles of the bark, forming cylindrical channels about an inch wide at various points about a foot apart down the trunk. The latex exudes and fills these channels, from which it is removed and converted into gutta by boiling in open vessels over wood fires. The work is usually carried on in the wet season when the latex is more fluid and more abundant. Sometimes when the latex is thick water is added to it before boiling.
Preparation of Gutta Percha.—The gutta comes from a greyish milky fluid called latex, which is mainly secreted in cylindrical vessels or cells found in the cortex, that is, between the bark and the wood (or cambium). Latex is also present in the tree's leaves, making up about 9% of the dried leaves, and this can be extracted from the powdered leaves using suitable solvents, though this method isn't practical for commercial use. The latex flows slowly from an incision made in the bark, but not nearly as freely, even during the rainy season, as rubber latex does. Because of this, Malays typically cut down the tree to gather the latex, which is done by chopping off branches and removing strips of bark, creating cylindrical channels about an inch wide spaced roughly a foot apart down the trunk. The latex seeps out and fills these channels, from which it is collected and turned into gutta by boiling in open vessels over wood fires. This process usually takes place during the wet season when the latex is more fluid and abundant. Sometimes, when the latex is thick, water is added to it before boiling.
The best results are said to be obtained from mature trees about thirty years old, which furnish about 2 to 3 ℔ of gutta. Older trees do not appear to yield larger amounts of gutta, whilst younger trees are said to furnish less and of inferior quality. The trees have been so extensively felled for the gutta that there has been a great diminution in the total number during recent years, which has not been compensated for by the new plantations which have been established.
The best results come from mature trees that are around thirty years old, providing about 2 to 3 pounds of gutta. Older trees don’t seem to produce larger amounts of gutta, while younger trees yield less and of lower quality. The trees have been heavily cut down for the gutta, resulting in a significant decrease in their numbers in recent years, and the new plantations established haven’t made up for this loss.
Uses of Gutta Percha.—The Chinese and Malays appear to have been acquainted with the characteristic property of gutta percha of softening in warm water and of regaining its hardness when cold, but this plastic property seems to have been only utilized for ornamental purposes, the construction of walking-sticks and of knife handles and whips, &c.
Uses of Gutta Percha.—The Chinese and Malays seem to have known about gutta percha's unique ability to soften in warm water and then harden again when it cools down, but this plastic quality seems to have only been used for decorative purposes, like making walking sticks, knife handles, whips, etc.
The brothers Tradescant brought samples of the curious material to Europe about the middle of the 17th century. It was then regarded as a form of wood, to which the name of “mazer” wood was given on account of its employment in making mazers or goblets. A description of it is given in a book published by John Tradescant in 1656 entitled Musaeum Tradescantianum or a Collection of Rarities preserved at South Lambeth near London. Many of the curiosities collected from all parts of the world by the Tradescants subsequently formed the nucleus of the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford which was opened in 1683, but the specimen of “mazer wood” no longer exists.
The Tradescant brothers brought samples of the interesting material to Europe around the mid-17th century. At the time, it was considered a type of wood, which was called “mazer” wood because it was used to make mazers or goblets. A description of it can be found in a book published by John Tradescant in 1656 titled Musaeum Tradescantianum or a Collection of Rarities preserved at South Lambeth near London. Many of the curiosities collected from around the world by the Tradescants later became the foundation of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, which opened in 1683, but the specimen of “mazer wood” no longer exists.
In 1843 samples of the material were sent to London by Dr William Montgomerie of Singapore, and were exhibited at the Society of Arts, and in the same year Dr José d’Almeida sent samples to the Royal Asiatic Society. Gutta percha was also exhibited at the Great Exhibition of 1851.
In 1843, Dr. William Montgomerie from Singapore sent samples of the material to London, where they were displayed at the Society of Arts. That same year, Dr. José d’Almeida also sent samples to the Royal Asiatic Society. Gutta percha was also showcased at the Great Exhibition of 1851.
Dr Montgomerie’s communication to the Society of Arts led to many experiments being made with the material. Casts of medals were successfully produced, and Sir William Siemens, in conjunction with Werner von Siemens, then made the first experiments with the material as an insulating covering for cable and telegraph wires, which led to the discovery of its important applications in this connexion and to a considerable commercial demand for the substance.
Dr. Montgomerie's communication to the Society of Arts resulted in numerous experiments with the material. Casts of medals were produced successfully, and Sir William Siemens, along with Werner von Siemens, conducted the first experiments using the material as an insulating cover for cables and telegraph wires. This led to the discovery of its significant applications in this area and a substantial commercial demand for the substance.
The value of gutta percha depends chiefly on its quality, that is its richness in true gutta and freedom from resin and other impurities which interfere with its physical characters, and especially its insulating power or inability to conduct electricity.
The value of gutta-percha mainly relies on its quality, which means how rich it is in genuine gutta and its lack of resin and other impurities that affect its physical properties, especially its ability to insulate or resist the flow of electricity.
The chief use of gutta percha is now for electrical purposes. Other minor uses are in dentistry and as a means of taking impressions of medals, &c. It has also found application in the preparation of belting for machinery, as well as for the construction of the handles of knives and surgical instruments, whilst the inferior qualities are used for waterproofing.
The main use of gutta percha today is for electrical applications. Other minor uses include dentistry and making impressions of medals, etc. It's also used in making belts for machinery and in the construction of handles for knives and surgical instruments, while lower-quality gutta percha is used for waterproofing.
Commercial Production.—The amount of gutta percha exported through Singapore from British and Dutch possessions in the East is subject to considerable fluctuation, depending chiefly on the demand for cable and telegraph construction. In 1886 the total export from Singapore was 40,411 cwt., of which Great Britain took 31,666 cwt.; in 1896 the export was 51,982 cwt. of which 29,722 cwt. came to Great Britain; while in 1905, 42,088 cwt. were exported (19,517 cwt. to Great Britain). It has to be remembered that the official returns include not only 744 gutta percha of various grades of quality but also other inferior products sold under the name of gutta percha, some of which are referred to below under the head of substitutes. The value of gutta percha cannot therefore be correctly gauged from the value of the imports. In the ten years 1896-1906 the best qualities of gutta percha fetched from 4s. to about 7s. per ℔. Gutta percha, however, is used for few and special purposes, and there is no free market, the price being chiefly a matter of arrangement between the chief producers and consumers.
Commercial Production.—The amount of gutta percha exported through Singapore from British and Dutch territories in the East varies significantly, mainly influenced by the demand for cable and telegraph construction. In 1886, the total export from Singapore was 40,411 cwt., with Great Britain importing 31,666 cwt.; in 1896, exports rose to 51,982 cwt., of which 29,722 cwt. went to Great Britain; and in 1905, 42,088 cwt. were exported (19,517 cwt. to Great Britain). It's important to note that the official figures include not only gutta percha of various quality levels but also other inferior products marketed as gutta percha, some of which are mentioned below under substitutes. Therefore, the value of gutta percha cannot be accurately assessed based on import values alone. During the ten years from 1896 to 1906, the highest quality gutta percha sold for between 4s. to about 7s. per ℔. However, gutta percha is used for only a few specific purposes, and there is no open market; pricing is mainly determined through agreements between the main producers and consumers.
Characters and Properties.—Gutta percha appears in commerce in the form of blocks or cakes of a dirty greyish appearance, often exhibiting a reddish tinge, and just soft enough to be indented by the nail. It is subject to considerable adulteration, various materials, such as coco-nut oil, being added by the Malays to improve its appearance. The solid, which is fibrous in texture, hard and inelastic but not brittle at ordinary temperature, becomes plastic when immersed in hot water or if otherwise raised to a temperature of about 65°-66° C. in the case of gutta of the first quality, the temperature of softening being dependent on the quality of the gutta employed. In this condition it can be drawn out into threads, but is still inelastic. On cooling again the gutta resumes its hardness without becoming brittle. In this respect gutta percha differs from india-rubber or caoutchouc, which does not become plastic and unlike gutta percha is elastic. This property of softening on heating and solidifying when cooled again, without change in its original properties, enables gutta percha to be worked into various forms, rolled into sheets or drawn into ropes. The specific gravity of the best gutta percha lies between 0.96 and 1. Gutta percha is not dissolved by most liquids, although some remove resinous constituents; the best solvents are oil of turpentine, coal-tar oil, carbon bisulphide and chloroform, and light petroleum when hot. Gutta percha is not affected by alkaline solutions or by dilute acids. Strong sulphuric acid chars it when warm, and nitric acid effects complete oxidation.
Characters and Properties.—Gutta percha is found in the market as blocks or cakes with a dirty grayish color, often showing a reddish tint, and is soft enough to be marked by a fingernail. It's often mixed with other materials, like coconut oil, by Malays to enhance its appearance. The material is fibrous, hard, and inelastic at normal temperatures but becomes pliable when heated in hot water or raised to about 65°-66° C. for first-quality gutta, with the softening temperature depending on the gutta's quality. In this state, it can be stretched into threads but remains inelastic. When it cools down, gutta regains its hardness without becoming brittle. In this way, gutta percha is different from India rubber or caoutchouc, which doesn't become pliable and is elastic. This ability to soften when heated and solidify upon cooling, maintaining its original properties, allows gutta percha to be shaped into various forms, rolled into sheets, or made into ropes. The specific gravity of the best gutta percha ranges from 0.96 to 1. It is not dissolved by most liquids, although some can remove resin-like components; the best solvents include turpentine oil, coal-tar oil, carbon disulfide, chloroform, and light petroleum when heated. Gutta percha is not affected by alkaline solutions or dilute acids. However, warm concentrated sulfuric acid will char it, and nitric acid will cause complete oxidation.
When exposed to air and light, gutta percha rapidly deteriorates, oxygen being absorbed, producing a brittle resinous material.
When it's exposed to air and light, gutta percha quickly breaks down, absorbing oxygen and turning into a brittle resin-like substance.
Chemical Composition.—Chemically, gutta percha is not a single substance but a mixture of several constituents. As the proportions of these constituents in the crude material are not constant, the properties of gutta percha are subject to variation. For electrical purposes it should have a high insulating power and dielectric strength and a low inductive capacity; the possession of these properties is influenced by the resinous constituents present.
Chemical Composition.—Gutta percha isn't just one substance; it's a mix of several components. Since the proportions of these components in the raw material aren't constant, the properties of gutta percha can vary. For electrical applications, it needs to have strong insulating properties, high dielectric strength, and low inductive capacity; these attributes depend on the resin-like components it contains.
The principal constituent of the crude material is the pure gutta, a hydrocarbon of the empirical formula C10H16. It is therefore isomeric with the hydrocarbon of caoutchouc and with that of oil of turpentine. Accompanying this are at least two oxygenated resinous constituents—albane C10H16O and fluavil C20H32O—which can be separated from the pure gutta by the use of solvents. Pure gutta is not dissolved by ether and light petroleum in the cold, whereas the resinous constituents are removed by these liquids. The true gutta exhibits in an enhanced degree the valuable properties of gutta percha, and the commercial value of the raw material is frequently determined by ascertaining the proportion of true gutta present, the higher the proportion of this the more valuable is the gutta percha. The following are the results of analyses of gutta percha from trees of the genus Dichopsis or Palaquium:—
The main component of the raw material is pure gutta, a hydrocarbon with the formula C10H16. It is isomeric with the hydrocarbon found in rubber and that in turpentine oil. Alongside this, there are at least two oxygenated resinous compounds—albane C10H16O and fluavil C20H32O—which can be separated from pure gutta using solvents. Pure gutta does not dissolve in ether or light petroleum at cold temperatures, while the resinous compounds are extracted by these liquids. True gutta shows the beneficial properties of gutta percha even more strongly, and the commercial value of the raw material is often determined by measuring the amount of true gutta it contains; the higher the proportion, the more valuable the gutta percha. Here are the results of analyses of gutta percha from trees of the genus Dichopsis or Palaquium:—
Gutta per cent. | Resin per cent. | ||
Dichopsis (or Palaquium) | oblongifolia | 88.8 | 11.2 |
” ” ” | gutta | 82.0 | 18.0 |
” ” ” | polyantha | 49.3 | 50.7 |
” ” ” | pustulata | 47.8 | 52.2 |
” ” ” | Maingayi | 24.4 | 75.6 |
The hydrocarbon of gutta percha, gutta, is closely related in chemical constitution to caoutchouc. When distilled at a high temperature both are resolved into a mixture of two simpler hydrocarbons, isoprene (C5H8) and caoutchoucine or dipentene (C10H16), and the latter by further heating can be resolved into isoprene, a hydrocarbon of known constitution which has been produced synthetically and spontaneously reverts to caoutchouc. The precise relationship of isoprene to gutta has not been ascertained, but recently Harries has further elucidated the connexion between gutta and caoutchouc by showing that under the action of ozone both break up into laevulinic aldehyde and hydrogen peroxide, but differ in the proportions of these products they furnish. The two materials must therefore be regarded as very closely related in chemical constitution. Like caoutchouc, gutta percha is able to combine with sulphur, and this vulcanized product has found some commercial applications.
The hydrocarbon known as gutta percha, or gutta, is chemically similar to rubber. When distilled at high temperatures, both break down into a mix of two simpler hydrocarbons: isoprene (C5H8) and caoutchoucine or dipentene (C10H16). The latter, when heated further, can break down into isoprene, a hydrocarbon with a known structure that can be created synthetically and naturally converts back to rubber. The exact relationship between isoprene and gutta hasn't been fully determined, but recently Harries has shed more light on the connection between gutta and rubber by demonstrating that both break down into laevulinic aldehyde and hydrogen peroxide when exposed to ozone, though they produce these substances in different amounts. Therefore, these two materials should be viewed as very closely related chemically. Like rubber, gutta percha can combine with sulfur, and this vulcanized product has some commercial uses.
Manufacture of Gutta Percha.—Among the earliest patents taken out for the manufacture of gutta percha were those of Charles Hancock, the first of which is dated 1843.
Manufacture of Gutta Percha.—Some of the first patents for making gutta percha were filed by Charles Hancock, with the first one dating back to 1843.
Before being used for technical purposes the raw gutta percha is cleaned by machinery whilst in the plastic state. The chopped or sliced material is washed by mechanical means in hot water and forced through a sieve or strainer of fine wire gauze to remove dirt. It is then kneaded or “masticated” by machinery to remove the enclosed water, and is finally transferred whilst still hot and plastic to the rolling-machine, from which it emerges in sheets of different thickness. Sometimes chemical treatment of the crude gutta percha is resorted to for the purpose of removing the resinous constituents by the action of alkaline solutions or of light petroleum.
Before being used for technical purposes, raw gutta percha is cleaned by machinery while it's still flexible. The chopped or sliced material is washed mechanically in hot water and forced through a fine wire sieve to get rid of dirt. It's then kneaded or "masticated" by machines to remove any trapped water, and is finally transferred, still hot and flexible, to the rolling machine, where it comes out in sheets of various thicknesses. Sometimes, chemical treatment is used on the crude gutta percha to remove the resinous components through alkaline solutions or light petroleum.
Substitutes for Gutta Percha.—For some purposes natural and artificial substitutes for gutta percha have been employed. The similar products furnished by other plants than those which yield gutta percha are among the more important of the natural substitutes, of which the material known as “balata” or “Surinam gutta percha,” is the most valuable. This is derived from a tree, Mimusops balata (bullet tree), belonging to the same natural order as gutta percha trees, viz. Sapotaceae. It is a large tree, growing to a height of 80 to 100 ft. or more, which occurs in the West Indies, in South America, and is especially abundant in Dutch and British Guiana. The latex which furnishes balata is secreted in the cortex between the bark and wood of the tree. As the latex flows freely the trees are tapped by making incisions in the same fashion as in india-rubber trees, and the balata is obtained by evaporating the milky fluid. Crude balata varies in composition. It usually contains nearly equal proportions of resin and true gutta. The latter appears to be identical with the chief constituent of gutta percha. The properties of balata correspond with its composition, and it may therefore be classed as an inferior gutta percha. Balata fetches from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 8d. per ℔.
Substitutes for Gutta Percha.—For some uses, both natural and synthetic substitutes for gutta percha have been utilized. Among the significant natural substitutes are similar products from different plants, with the material known as “balata” or “Surinam gutta percha” being the most valuable. This comes from a tree, Mimusops balata (bullet tree), which belongs to the same natural order as gutta percha trees, known as Sapotaceae. It is a large tree that grows to about 80 to 100 feet tall or more and can be found in the West Indies and South America, particularly abundant in Dutch and British Guiana. The latex that produces balata is secreted in the bark between the tree's bark and wood. The trees are tapped by making incisions, similar to how rubber trees are tapped, and balata is obtained by evaporating the milky fluid. Crude balata varies in composition, usually containing nearly equal amounts of resin and true gutta. The true gutta seems to be identical to the main component of gutta percha. The properties of balata reflect its composition, so it can be considered an inferior version of gutta percha. Balata sells for between 1s. 6d. to 2s. 8d. per ℔.
Among the inferior substitutes for gutta percha may be mentioned the evaporated latices derived from Butyrospermum Parkii (shea-butter tree of West Africa or karite of the Sudan), Calotropis gigantea (Madar tree of India), and Dyera costulata of Malaya and Borneo, which furnishes the material known as “Pontianac.” All these contain a small amount of gutta-like material associated with large quantities of resinous and other constituents. They fetch only a few pence per ℔, and are utilized for waterproofing purposes.
Among the lesser substitutes for gutta percha are the evaporated latices derived from Butyrospermum Parkii (the shea-butter tree from West Africa or karite from the Sudan), Calotropis gigantea (the Madar tree of India), and Dyera costulata from Malaya and Borneo, which provides a material known as “Pontianac.” All of these contain a small amount of gutta-like substance alongside large quantities of resin and other components. They sell for just a few pence per pound and are used for waterproofing.
Various artificial substitutes for gutta percha have been invented chiefly for use as insulating materials. These often consist of mixtures of bitumen with linseed and other oils, resins, &c., in some cases incorporated with inferior grades of gutta percha.
Various synthetic alternatives to gutta percha have been created mainly for use as insulating materials. These typically include combinations of bitumen with linseed and other oils, resins, etc., and in some cases, are mixed with lower-quality gutta percha.
For further information respecting gutta percha, and for figures of the trees, the following works may be consulted: Jumelle, Les Plantes à caoutchouc et à gutta (Paris, Challamel, 1903); Obach, “Cantor Lectures on Gutta Percha,” Journal of the Society of Arts, 1898.
For more information about gutta percha and images of the trees, you can check out these resources: Jumelle, Les Plantes à caoutchouc et à gutta (Paris, Challamel, 1903); Obach, “Cantor Lectures on Gutta Percha,” Journal of the Society of Arts, 1898.
GUTTER (O. Fr. goutiere, mod. gouttière, from Lat. gutta, drop), in architecture, a horizontal channel or trough contrived to carry away the water from a flat or sloping roof to its discharge down a vertical pipe or through a spout or gargoyle; more specifically, but loosely, the similar channel at the side of a street, below the pavement. In Greek and Roman temples the cymatium of the cornice was the gutter, and the water was discharged through the mouths of lions, whose heads were carved on the same. Sometimes the cymatium was not carried along the flanks of a temple, in which case the rain fell off the lower edge of the roof tiles. In medieval work the gutter rested partly on the top of the wall and partly on corbel tables, and the water was discharged through gargoyles. Sometimes, however, a parapet or pierced balustrade was carried on the corbel table enclosing the gutter. In buildings of a more ordinary class the parapet is only a continuation of the wall below, and the gutter is set back and carried in a trough resting on the lower end of the roof timbers. The safest course is to have an eaves gutter which projects more or less in front of the wall and is secured to and carried by the rafters of the roof. In Renaissance architecture generally the pierced balustrade of the Gothic and transition work was replaced by a balustrade with vertical balusters. In France a compromise was effected, whereby instead of the horizontal coping of the ordinary balustrade a richly carved cresting was employed, of which the earliest example is in the first court of the Louvre by Pierre Lescot. This exists throughout the French Renaissance, and it is one of its chief characteristic features.
Gutter (Old French goutiere, modern gouttière, from Latin gutta, drop) is a horizontal channel or trough in architecture designed to carry away water from a flat or sloping roof down a vertical pipe or through a spout or gargoyle. More generally, it refers to a similar channel at the side of a street, below the pavement. In Greek and Roman temples, the cymatium of the cornice was the gutter, and water was discharged through the mouths of lion heads carved into it. Sometimes the cymatium didn’t extend along the sides of a temple, so rain would just fall off the lower edge of the roof tiles. In medieval buildings, the gutter rested partly on top of the wall and partly on corbel tables, with water being discharged through gargoyles. Occasionally, a parapet or pierced balustrade was built on the corbel table surrounding the gutter. In more ordinary buildings, the parapet continues from the wall below, while the gutter is set back in a trough that rests on the lower ends of the roof timbers. The best approach is to have an eaves gutter that extends slightly in front of the wall and is supported by the roof rafters. In Renaissance architecture, the pierced balustrade common in Gothic and transitional work was replaced by a balustrade with vertical balusters. In France, a compromise was reached where a richly carved cresting replaced the flat coping of a standard balustrade, with the earliest example located in the first court of the Louvre by Pierre Lescot. This feature persisted throughout the French Renaissance and is one of its key characteristics.
GUTZKOW, KARL FERDINAND (1811-1878), German novelist and dramatist, was born on the 17th of March 1811 at Berlin, where his father held a clerkship in the war office. After leaving school he studied theology and philosophy at the university of his native town, and while still a student, began his literary career by the publication in 1831 of a periodical entitled Forum der Journalliteratur. This brought him to the notice of Wolfgang 745 Menzel, who invited him to Stuttgart to assist in the editorship of the Literaturblatt. At the same time he continued his university studies at Jena, Heidelberg and Munich. In 1832 he published anonymously at Hamburg Briefe eines Narren an eine Närrin, and in 1833 appeared at Stuttgart Maha-Guru, Geschichte eines Gottes, a fantastic and satirical romance. In 1835 he went to Frankfort, where he founded the Deutsche Revue. In the same year appeared Wally, die Zweiflerin, from the publication of which may be said to date the school of writers who, from their opposition to the literary, social and religious traditions of romanticism, received the name of “Young Germany.” The work was directed specially against the institution of marriage and the belief in revelation; and whatever interest it might have attracted from its own merits was enhanced by the action of the German federal diet, which condemned Gutzkow to three months’ imprisonment, decreed the suppression of all he had written or might yet write, and prohibited him from exercising the functions of editor within the German confederation. During his term of imprisonment at Mannheim, Gutzkow employed himself in the composition of his treatise Zur Philosophie der Geschichte (1836). On obtaining his freedom he returned to Frankfort, whence he went in 1837 to Hamburg. Here he inaugurated a new epoch of his literary activity by bringing out his tragedy Richard Savage (1839), which immediately made the round of all the German theatres. Of his numerous other plays the majority are now neglected; but a few have obtained an established place in the repertory of the German theatre—especially the comedies Zopf und Schwert (1844), Das Urbild des Tartüffe (1847), Der Königsleutnant (1849) and the blank verse tragedy, Uriel Acosta (1847). In 1847 Gutzkow went to Dresden, where he succeeded Tieck as literary adviser to the court theatre. Meanwhile he had not neglected the novel. Seraphine (1838) was followed by Blasedow und seine Söhne, a satire on the educational theories of the time. Between 1850 and 1852 appeared Die Ritter vom Geiste, which may be regarded as the starting-point for the modern German social novel. Der Zauberer von Rom is a powerful study of Roman Catholic life in southern Germany. The success of Die Ritter vom Geiste suggested to Gutzkow the establishment of a journal on the model of Dickens’ Household Words, entitled Unterhaltungen am häuslichen Herd, which first appeared in 1852 and was continued till 1862. In 1864 he had an epileptic fit, and his productions show henceforth decided traces of failing powers. To this period belong the historical novels Hohenschwangau (1868) and Fritz Ellrodt (1872), Lebensbilder (1870-1872), consisting of autobiographic sketches, and Die Söhne Pestalozzis (1870), the plot of which is founded on the story of Kaspar Hauser. On account of a return of his nervous malady, Gutzkow in 1873 made a journey to Italy, and on his return took up his residence in the country near Heidelberg, whence he removed to Frankfort-on-Main, dying there on the 16th of December 1878. With the exception of one or two of his comedies, Gutzkow’s writings have fallen into neglect. But he exerted a powerful influence on the opinions of modern Germany; and his works will always be of interest as the mirror in which the intellectual and social struggles of his time are best reflected.
Gutzkow, Karl Ferdinand (1811-1878), German novelist and playwright, was born on March 17, 1811, in Berlin, where his father worked as a clerk in the war office. After finishing school, he studied theology and philosophy at the university in his hometown, and while still a student, he began his literary career by publishing a periodical called Forum der Journalliteratur in 1831. This caught the attention of Wolfgang 745 Menzel, who invited him to Stuttgart to help edit the Literaturblatt. At the same time, he continued his university studies in Jena, Heidelberg, and Munich. In 1832, he published anonymously in Hamburg Briefe eines Narren an eine Närrin, and in 1833 he released Maha-Guru, Geschichte eines Gottes in Stuttgart, a fantastic and satirical romance. In 1835, he moved to Frankfurt, where he founded the Deutsche Revue. That same year, he published Wally, die Zweiflerin, which is often considered the starting point of a group of writers known as “Young Germany,” who opposed the literary, social, and religious traditions of romanticism. The work criticized the institution of marriage and the belief in revelation; its impact was amplified by the German federal diet, which sentenced Gutzkow to three months in prison, banned all his writings, and prohibited him from being an editor within the German confederation. During his imprisonment in Mannheim, Gutzkow worked on his treatise Zur Philosophie der Geschichte (1836). After gaining his freedom, he returned to Frankfurt and then moved to Hamburg in 1837, where he marked a new chapter in his literary career with the release of his tragedy Richard Savage (1839), which quickly gained popularity across German theaters. Most of his other numerous plays are now overlooked, but a few remain established in the German theater repertoire—especially the comedies Zopf und Schwert (1844), Das Urbild des Tartüffe (1847), Der Königsleutnant (1849), and the blank verse tragedy Uriel Acosta (1847). In 1847, Gutzkow moved to Dresden, where he succeeded Tieck as the literary advisor to the court theater. At the same time, he continued writing novels. Seraphine (1838) was followed by Blasedow und seine Söhne, a satire on the educational theories of the era. Between 1850 and 1852, he published Die Ritter vom Geiste, which can be considered the starting point for the modern German social novel. Der Zauberer von Rom is a powerful study of Roman Catholic life in southern Germany. The success of Die Ritter vom Geiste led Gutzkow to start a journal modeled after Dickens' Household Words, titled Unterhaltungen am häuslichen Herd, which first appeared in 1852 and continued until 1862. In 1864, he experienced an epileptic seizure, and from then on, his works showed clear signs of declining abilities. This period includes the historical novels Hohenschwangau (1868) and Fritz Ellrodt (1872), along with Lebensbilder (1870-1872), which consists of autobiographical sketches, and Die Söhne Pestalozzis (1870), based on the story of Kaspar Hauser. Due to a return of his nervous illness, Gutzkow traveled to Italy in 1873, and upon his return, he settled in the countryside near Heidelberg before moving to Frankfurt-on-Main, where he died on December 16, 1878. Aside from a few of his comedies, Gutzkow’s writings have fallen out of favor. However, he had a significant influence on modern German thought, and his works will always be interesting as a reflection of the intellectual and social struggles of his time.
An edition of Gutzkow’s collected works appeared at Jena (1873-1876, new ed., 1879). E. Wolff has published critical editions of Gutzkow’s Meisterdramen (1892) and Wally die Zweiflerin (1905). His more important novels have been frequently reprinted. For Gutzkow’s life see his various autobiographical writings such as Aus der Knabenzeit (1852), Rückblicke auf mein Leben (1876), &c. For an estimate of his life and work see J. Proelss, Das junge Deutschland (1892); also H. H. Houben, Studien über die Dramen Gutzkows (1898) and Gutzkow-Funde (1901).
An edition of Gutzkow’s collected works was released in Jena (1873-1876, new ed., 1879). E. Wolff has published critical editions of Gutzkow’s Meisterdramen (1892) and Wally die Zweiflerin (1905). His more significant novels have been reprinted multiple times. To learn about Gutzkow’s life, check out his various autobiographical writings such as Aus der Knabenzeit (1852), Rückblicke auf mein Leben (1876), etc. For an evaluation of his life and work, see J. Proelss, Das junge Deutschland (1892); also H. H. Houben, Studien über die Dramen Gutzkows (1898) and Gutzkow-Funde (1901).
GÜTZLAFF, KARL FRIEDRICH AUGUST (1803-1851), German missionary to China, was born at Pyritz in Pomerania on the 8th of July 1803. When still apprenticed to a saddler in Stettin, he made known his missionary inclinations to the king of Prussia, through whom he went to the Pädagogium at Halle, and afterwards to the mission institute of Jänike in Berlin. In 1826, under the auspices of the Netherlands Missionary Society, he went to Java, where he was able to learn Chinese. Leaving the society in 1828, he went to Singapore, and in August of the same year removed to Bangkok, where he translated the Bible into Siamese. In 1829 he married an English lady, who aided him in the preparation of a dictionary of Cochin Chinese, but she died in August 1831 before its completion. Shortly after her death he sailed to Macao in China, where, and subsequently at Hong Kong, he worked at a translation of the Bible into Chinese, published a Chinese monthly magazine, and wrote in Chinese various books on subjects of useful knowledge. In 1834 he published at London a Journal of Three Voyages along the Coast of China in 1831, 1832 and 1833. He was appointed in 1835 joint Chinese secretary to the English commission, and during the opium war of 1840-42 and the negotiations connected with the peace that followed he rendered valuable service by his knowledge of the country and people. The Chinese authorities refusing to permit foreigners to penetrate into the interior, Gützlaff in 1844 founded an institute for training native missionaries, which was so successful that during the first four years as many as forty-eight Chinese were sent out from it to work among their fellow-countrymen. He died at Hong Kong on the 9th of August 1851.
GÜTZLAFF, KARL FRIEDRICH AUGUST (1803-1851), a German missionary in China, was born in Pyritz, Pomerania, on July 8, 1803. While he was still an apprentice saddler in Stettin, he expressed his desire to become a missionary to the king of Prussia, which led him to attend the Pädagogium in Halle and later the mission institute of Jänike in Berlin. In 1826, under the support of the Netherlands Missionary Society, he went to Java, where he learned Chinese. He left the society in 1828 and moved to Singapore, and in August of the same year, he relocated to Bangkok, where he translated the Bible into Siamese. In 1829, he married an English woman who helped him compile a dictionary of Cochin Chinese, but she passed away in August 1831 before it was finished. Shortly after her death, he traveled to Macao in China, and later to Hong Kong, where he worked on translating the Bible into Chinese, published a Chinese monthly magazine, and wrote various books in Chinese on useful topics. In 1834, he published a Journal of Three Voyages along the Coast of China in 1831, 1832 and 1833 in London. He was appointed in 1835 as the joint Chinese secretary to the English commission, and during the opium war of 1840-42 and the peace negotiations that followed, he provided valuable assistance due to his knowledge of the country and its people. Since the Chinese authorities did not allow foreigners to enter the interior, Gützlaff founded an institute in 1844 to train local missionaries, which was so successful that in the first four years, forty-eight Chinese were sent out to work among their compatriots. He died in Hong Kong on August 9, 1851.
Gützlaff also wrote A Sketch of Chinese History, Ancient and Modern (London, 1834), and a similar work published in German at Stuttgart in 1847; China Opened (1838); and the Life of Taow-Kwang (1851; German edition published at Leipzig in 1852). A complete collection of his Chinese writings is contained in the library at Munich.
Gützlaff also wrote A Sketch of Chinese History, Ancient and Modern (London, 1834), and a similar work published in German in Stuttgart in 1847; China Opened (1838); and the Life of Taow-Kwang (1851; German edition published in Leipzig in 1852). A complete collection of his Chinese writings is stored in the library in Munich.
GUY OF WARWICK, English hero of romance. Guy, son of Siward or Seguard of Wallingford, by his prowess in foreign wars wins in marriage Félice (the Phyllis of the well-known ballad), daughter and heiress of Roalt, earl of Warwick. Soon after his marriage he is seized with remorse for the violence of his past life, and, by way of penance, leaves his wife and fortune to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. After years of absence he returns in time to deliver Winchester for King Æthelstan from the invading northern kings, Anelaph (Anlaf or Olaf) and Gonelaph, by slaying in single fight their champion the giant Colbrand. Local tradition fixes the duel at Hyde Mead near Winchester. Making his way to Warwick he becomes one of his wife’s bedesmen, and presently retires to a hermitage in Arden, only revealing his identity at the approach of death. The versions of the Middle English romance of Guy which we possess are adaptations from the French, and are cast in the form of a roman d’aventures, opening with a long recital of Guy’s wars in Lombardy, Germany and Constantinople, and embellished with fights with dragons and surprising feats of arms. The kernel of the tradition evidently lies in the fight with Colbrand, which represents, or at least is symbolic1 of an historical fact. The religious side of the legend finds parallels in the stories of St Eustachius and St Alexius,2 and makes it probable that the Guy-legend, as we have it, has passed through monastic hands. Tradition seems to be at fault in putting Guy’s adventures under Æthelstan. The Anlaf of the story is probably Olaf Tryggvason, who, with Sweyn of Denmark, harried the southern counties of England in 993 and pitched his winter quarters in Southampton. Winchester was saved, however, not by the valour of an English champion, but by the payment of money. This Olaf was not unnaturally confused with Anlaf Cuaran or Havelok (i.e.).
GUY OF WARWICK, an English romance hero. Guy, the son of Siward or Seguard of Wallingford, earns the hand of Félice (Phyllis from the famous ballad), the daughter and heiress of Roalt, earl of Warwick, through his bravery in foreign wars. Shortly after getting married, he feels guilt over his violent past and, as a form of penance, leaves his wife and wealth to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. After years away, he returns just in time to save Winchester for King Æthelstan from the invading northern kings, Anelaph (Anlaf or Olaf) and Gonelaph, by defeating their champion, the giant Colbrand, in single combat. Local tradition claims the duel took place at Hyde Mead near Winchester. On his way to Warwick, he becomes one of his wife’s faithful servants, and eventually retreats to a hermitage in Arden, only revealing his true identity as he nears death. The Middle English versions of the Guy romance that we have are adaptations from the French and tell the story in the style of a roman d’aventures, starting with a lengthy description of Guy’s battles in Lombardy, Germany, and Constantinople, filled with dragon fights and impressive feats of arms. The core of the tale clearly revolves around the battle with Colbrand, which symbolizes, or at least represents, a historical event. The religious aspects of the legend have parallels in the stories of St. Eustachius and St. Alexius, suggesting that the Guy legend has likely been shaped by monastic influences. Tradition likely errs in placing Guy’s adventures under Æthelstan. The Anlaf in the story is probably Olaf Tryggvason, who, along with Sweyn of Denmark, raided the southern counties of England in 993 and settled in Southampton for the winter. Winchester was saved not by the bravery of an English hero, but by a financial payment. This Olaf was often confused with Anlaf Cuaran or Havelok (i.e.).
The name Guy (perhaps a Norman form of A. S. wig = war) may be fairly connected with the family of Wigod, lord of Wallingford under Edward the Confessor, and a Filicia, who belongs to the 12th century and was perhaps the Norman poet’s patroness, occurs in the pedigree of the Ardens, descended from Thurkill of Warwick and his son Siward. Guy’s Cliffe, near Warwick, where in the 14th century Richard de Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, erected a chantry, with a statue of the hero, does not correspond with the site of the hermitage as described in the 746 romance. The bulk of the legend is obviously fiction, even though it may be vaguely connected with the family history of the Ardens and the Wallingford family, but it was accepted as authentic fact in the chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft (Peter of Langtoft) written at the end of the 13th century. The adventures of Reynbrun, son of Guy, and his tutor Heraud of Arden, who had also educated Guy, have much in common with his father’s history, and form an interpolation sometimes treated as a separate romance. There is a certain connexion between Guy and Count Guido of Tours (fl. 800), and Alcuin’s advice to the count is transferred to the English hero in the Speculum Gy of Warewyke (c. 1327), edited for the Early English Text Society by G. L. Morrill, 1898.
The name Guy (possibly a Norman version of A. S. wig = war) is likely linked to the family of Wigod, lord of Wallingford under Edward the Confessor. A Filicia, who lived in the 12th century and may have been the patroness of the Norman poet, appears in the genealogy of the Ardens, who are descended from Thurkill of Warwick and his son Siward. Guy’s Cliffe, near Warwick, where Richard de Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, built a chantry and a statue of the hero in the 14th century, does not match the location of the hermitage as described in the 746 romance. Most of the legend is clearly fictional, although it may have a loose connection to the family history of the Ardens and the Wallingford family; it was accepted as fact in the chronicle of Pierre de Langtoft (Peter of Langtoft) written at the end of the 13th century. The adventures of Reynbrun, son of Guy, and his teacher Heraud of Arden, who also educated Guy, share many similarities with his father’s story and are sometimes treated as a separate romance. There is a link between Guy and Count Guido of Tours (fl. 800), and Alcuin’s advice to the count is mirrored in the English hero in the Speculum Gy of Warewyke (c. 1327), edited for the Early English Text Society by G. L. Morrill in 1898.
The French romance (Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 3775) has not been printed, but is described by Émile Littré in Hist. litt. de la France (xxii., 841-851, 1852). A French prose version was printed in Paris, 1525, and subsequently (see G. Brunet, Manuel du libraire, s.v. “Guy de Warvich”); the English metrical romance exists in four versions, dating from the early 14th century; the text was edited by J. Zupitza (1875-1876) for the E.E.T.S. from Cambridge University Lib. Paper MS. Ff. 2, 38, and again (3 pts. 1883-1891, extra series, Nos. 42, 49, 59), from the Auchinleck and Caius College MSS. The popularity of the legend is shown by the numerous versions in English: Guy of Warwick, translated from the Latin of Girardus Cornubiensis (fl. 1350) into English verse by John Lydgate between 1442 and 1468; Guy of Warwick, a poem (written in 1617 and licensed, but not printed) by John Lane, the MS. of which (Brit. Mus.) contains a sonnet by John Milton, father of the poet; The Famous Historie of Guy, Earl of Warwick (c. 1607), by Samuel Rowlands; The Booke of the Moste Victoryous Prince Guy of Warwicke (William Copland, no date); other editions by J. Cawood and C. Bates; chapbooks and ballads of the 17th and 18th centuries: The Tragical History, Admirable Achievements and Curious Events of Guy, Earl of Warwick, a tragedy (1661) which may possibly be identical with a play on the subject Written by John Day and Thomas Dekker, and entered at Stationers’ Hall on the 15th of January 1618/19; three verse fragments are printed by Hales and Furnivall in their edition of the Percy Folio MS. vol. ii.; an early French MS. is described by J. A. Herbert (An Early MS. of Gui de Warwick, London, 1905).
The French romance (Brit. Mus. Harl. MS. 3775) hasn't been printed, but Émile Littré describes it in Hist. litt. de la France (xxii., 841-851, 1852). A French prose version was published in Paris in 1525, and later versions can be found (see G. Brunet, Manuel du libraire, s.v. “Guy de Warvich”); the English metrical romance has four versions from the early 14th century. The text was edited by J. Zupitza (1875-1876) for the E.E.T.S. from Cambridge University Lib. Paper MS. Ff. 2, 38, and again (3 pts. 1883-1891, extra series, Nos. 42, 49, 59) from the Auchinleck and Caius College MSS. The legend's popularity is evident from the many English versions: Guy of Warwick, translated from the Latin of Girardus Cornubiensis (fl. 1350) into English verse by John Lydgate between 1442 and 1468; Guy of Warwick, a poem (written in 1617 and licensed but not printed) by John Lane, whose MS. (Brit. Mus.) contains a sonnet by John Milton, the poet's father; The Famous Historie of Guy, Earl of Warwick (c. 1607) by Samuel Rowlands; The Booke of the Moste Victoryous Prince Guy of Warwicke (William Copland, no date); other editions by J. Cawood and C. Bates; chapbooks and ballads from the 17th and 18th centuries: The Tragical History, Admirable Accomplishments and Curious Events of Guy, Earl of Warwick, a tragedy (1661) which might be the same as a play on the subject written by John Day and Thomas Dekker, entered at Stationers’ Hall on January 15, 1618/19; three verse fragments are printed by Hales and Furnivall in their edition of the Percy Folio MS. vol. ii.; an early French MS. is described by J. A. Herbert (An Early MS. of Gui de Warwick, London, 1905).
See also M. Weyrauch Die mittelengl. Fassungen der Sage von Guy (2 pts., Breslau, 1899 and 1901); J. Zupitza in Silzungsber. d. phil.-hist. Kl. d. kgl. Akad. d. Wiss. (vol. lxxiv., Vienna, 1874), and Zur Literaturgeschichte des Guy von Warwick (Vienna, 1873); a learned discussion of the whole subject by H. L. Ward, Catalogue of Romances (i. 471-501, 1883); and an article by S. L. Lee in the Dictionary of National Biography.
See also M. Weyrauch The Middle English Versions of the Legend of Guy (2 vols., Breslau, 1899 and 1901); J. Zupitza in Proceedings of the Philosophical-Historical Class of the Royal Academy of Sciences (vol. lxxiv., Vienna, 1874), and On the Literary History of Guy of Warwick (Vienna, 1873); a scholarly discussion of the entire topic by H. L. Ward, Catalogue of Romances (i. 471-501, 1883); and an article by S. L. Lee in the Dictionary of National Biography.
GUY, THOMAS (1644-1724), founder of Guy’s Hospital, London, was the son of a lighterman and coal-dealer at Southwark. After serving an apprenticeship of eight years with a bookseller, he in 1668 began business on his own account. He dealt largely in Bibles, which had for many years been poorly and incorrectly printed in England. These he at first imported from Holland, but subsequently obtained from the university of Oxford the privilege of printing. Thus, and by an extremely thrifty mode of life, and more particularly by investment in government securities, the subscription of these into the South Sea Company, and the subsequent sale of his stock in 1720, he became master of an immense fortune. He died unmarried on the 17th of December 1724. In 1707 he built three wards of St Thomas’s Hospital, which institution he otherwise subsequently benefited; and at a cost of £18,793, 16s. he erected Guy’s Hospital, leaving for its endowment £219,499; he also endowed Christ’s Hospital with £400 a year, and in 1678 endowed almshouses at Tamworth, his mother’s birthplace, which was represented by him in parliament from 1695 to 1707. The residue of his estate, which went to distant relatives, amounted to about £80,000.
GUY, THOMAS (1644-1724), founder of Guy’s Hospital in London, was the son of a barge operator and coal dealer in Southwark. After completing an eight-year apprenticeship with a bookseller, he started his own business in 1668. He primarily sold Bibles, which had been poorly printed in England for many years. Initially, he imported them from Holland, but later received permission from the University of Oxford to print them himself. Through a frugal lifestyle and strategic investments in government bonds, particularly in the South Sea Company, he amassed a great fortune after selling his stock in 1720. He passed away unmarried on December 17, 1724. In 1707, he constructed three wards at St Thomas’s Hospital, which he later supported in other ways, and he built Guy’s Hospital at a cost of £18,793, 16s., leaving behind an endowment of £219,499. He also endowed Christ’s Hospital with £400 annually and, in 1678, established almshouses in Tamworth, his mother’s birthplace, where he served as a Member of Parliament from 1695 to 1707. The remainder of his estate, which went to distant relatives, was valued at about £80,000.
See A True Copy of the Last Will and Testament of Thomas Guy, Esq. (London, 1725); J. Noorthouck, A New Hist. of London, bk. iii. ch. i. p. 684 (1773); Nichols, Literary Anecdotes, iii. 599 (1812); Charles Knight, Shadows of the Old Booksellers, pp. 3-23 (1865); and A Biographical History of Guy’s Hospital, by S. Wilkes and G. T. Bettany (1892).
See A True Copy of the Last Will and Testament of Thomas Guy, Esq. (London, 1725); J. Noorthouck, A New Hist. of London, bk. iii. ch. i. p. 684 (1773); Nichols, Literary Anecdotes, iii. 599 (1812); Charles Knight, Shadows of the Old Booksellers, pp. 3-23 (1865); and A Biographical History of Guy’s Hospital, by S. Wilkes and G. T. Bettany (1892).
GUYON, JEANNE MARIE BOUVIER DE LA MOTHE (1648-1717), French quietist writer, was born at Montargis, where her family were persons of consequence, on the 13th of April 1648. If her somewhat hysterical autobiography may be trusted she was much neglected in her youth; most of her time was spent as a boarder in various convent schools. Here she went through all the religious experiences common to neurotic young women; these were turned in a definitely mystical direction by the duchesse de Béthune, daughter of the disgraced minister, Fouquet, who spent some years at Montargis after her father’s fall. In 1664 Jeanne Marie was married to a rich invalid of the name of Guyon, many years her senior. Twelve years later he died, leaving his widow with three small children and a considerable fortune. All through her unhappy married life the mystical attraction had grown steadily in violence; it now attached itself to a certain Father Lacombe, a Barnabite monk of weak character and unstable intellect. In 1681 she left her family and joined him; for five years the two rambled about together in Savoy and the south-east of France, spreading their mystical ideas. At last they excited the suspicion of the authorities; in 1686 Lacombe was recalled to Paris, put under surveillance, and finally sent to the Bastille in the autumn of 1687. He was presently transferred to the castle of Lourdes, where he developed softening of the brain and died in 1715. Meanwhile Madame Guyon had been arrested in January 1688, and been shut up in a convent as a suspected heretic. Thence she was delivered in the following year by her old friend, the duchesse de Béthune, who had returned from exile to become a power in the devout court-circle presided over by Madame de Maintenon. Before long Madame Guyon herself was introduced into this pious assemblage. Its members were far from critical; they were intensely interested in religion; and even Madame Guyon’s bitterest critics bear witness to her charm of manner, her imposing appearance, and the force and eloquence with which she explained her mystical ideas. So much was Madame de Maintenon impressed, that she often invited Madame Guyon to give lectures at her girls’ school of St Cyr. But by far the greatest of her conquests was Fénelon, now a rising young director of consciences, much in favour with aristocratic ladies. Dissatisfied with the formalism of average Catholic piety, he was already thinking out a mystical theory of his own; and between 1689 and 1693 they corresponded regularly. But as soon as ugly reports about Lacombe began to spread, he broke off all connexion with her. Meanwhile the reports had reached the prudent ears of Madame de Maintenon. In May 1693 she asked Madame Guyon to go no more to St Cyr. In the hope of clearing her orthodoxy, Madame Guyon appealed to Bossuet, who decided that her books contained “much that was intolerable, alike in form and matter.” To this judgment Madame Guyon submitted, promised to “dogmatize no more,” and disappeared into the country (1693). In the next year she again petitioned for an inquiry, and was eventually sent, half as a prisoner, half as a penitent, to Bossuet’s cathedral town of Meaux. Here she spent the first half of 1695; but in the summer she escaped without his leave, bearing with her a certificate of orthodoxy signed by him. Bossuet regarded this flight as a gross act of disobedience; in the winter Madame Guyon was arrested and shut up in the Bastille. There she remained till 1703. In that year she was liberated, on condition she went to live on her son’s estate near Blois, under the eye of a stern bishop. Here the rest of her life was spent in charitable and pious exercises; she died on the 9th of June 1717. During these latter years her retreat at Blois became a regular place of pilgrimage for admirers, foreign quite as often as French. Indeed, she is one of the many prophetesses whose fame has stood highest out of their own country. French critics of all schools of thought have generally reckoned her an hysterical degenerate; in England and Germany she has as often roused enthusiastic admiration.
GUYON, JEANNE MARIE BOUVIER DE LA MOTHE (1648-1717), a French quietist writer, was born in Montargis on April 13, 1648, into a prominent family. If her somewhat dramatic autobiography is to be believed, she faced significant neglect during her childhood; she spent most of her time boarding at various convent schools. There, she experienced all the typical religious sentiments of neurotic young women, which took a distinct mystical turn thanks to the duchesse de Béthune, the daughter of the disgraced minister, Fouquet, who resided in Montargis after her father's fall from grace. In 1664, Jeanne Marie married a wealthy invalid named Guyon, who was many years older than her. Twelve years later, he died, leaving her with three young children and a substantial fortune. Throughout her troubled marriage, her attraction to mysticism grew stronger, eventually focusing on Father Lacombe, a Barnabite monk known for his weak character and unstable intellect. In 1681, she left her family to join him; they traveled together for five years in Savoy and southeastern France, promoting their mystical beliefs. Eventually, they drew the attention of the authorities; in 1686, Lacombe was recalled to Paris, placed under surveillance, and ultimately imprisoned in the Bastille in the autumn of 1687. He was later moved to the castle of Lourdes, where he developed progressive brain damage and died in 1715. Meanwhile, Madame Guyon was arrested in January 1688 and confined in a convent as a suspected heretic. The following year, she was released by her old friend, the duchesse de Béthune, who had returned from exile to become an influential figure in the devout court-circle led by Madame de Maintenon. Soon after, Madame Guyon was introduced to this pious group. Its members were far from critical; they were deeply engaged in religion, and even Madame Guyon’s harshest critics acknowledged her charm, commanding presence, and the persuasive way she articulated her mystical ideas. Madame de Maintenon was so impressed that she frequently invited Madame Guyon to give lectures at her girls' school, St Cyr. However, her most significant influence was on Fénelon, a rising young director of consciences who was well-regarded by aristocratic women. Discontented with the formalism of typical Catholic worship, he was already contemplating his own mystical ideas, and between 1689 and 1693, they corresponded regularly. But when negative rumors about Lacombe began circulating, he severed all ties with her. Meanwhile, these reports reached Madame de Maintenon's cautious ears. In May 1693, she asked Madame Guyon not to return to St Cyr. Hoping to clear her name, Madame Guyon appealed to Bossuet, who determined that her writings contained "much that was intolerable, both in form and content." Madame Guyon accepted this judgment, promised to "not speak dogmatically anymore," and retreated to the countryside (1693). The following year, she petitioned for an inquiry and was eventually sent, partly as a prisoner and partly as a penitent, to Bossuet’s cathedral town of Meaux. She spent the first half of 1695 there, but in the summer, she escaped without permission, taking with her a certificate of orthodoxy signed by Bossuet. He viewed her escape as a serious act of disobedience; that winter, Madame Guyon was arrested again and confined in the Bastille, where she remained until 1703. That year, she was released on the condition that she live on her son’s estate near Blois, under the watchful eye of a stern bishop. She spent the rest of her life engaged in charitable and pious activities, passing away on June 9, 1717. During her later years, her retreat in Blois became a popular destination for admirers, both French and foreign. In fact, she is among the many prophetesses whose fame has transcended their own country. French critics from all perspectives typically viewed her as an hysterical degenerate, while she often inspired enthusiastic admiration in England and Germany.
Authorities.—Vie de Madame Guyon, écrite par elle-même (really a compilation made from various fragments) (3 vols., Paris, 1791). There is a life in English by T. C. Upham (New York, 1854); and an elaborate study by L. Guerrier (Paris, 1881). For a remarkable review of this latter work see Brunetière, Nouvelles Études critiques, vol. ii. The complete edition of Madame Guyon’s works, including the autobiography and five volumes of letters, runs to forty volumes (1767-1791); the most important works are published separately, Opuscules spirituels (2 vols., Paris, 1790). They have 747 been several times translated into English. See also the literature of the article on Quietism; and H. Delacroix, Études sur le mysticisme (Paris, 1908).
Authorities.—The Life of Madame Guyon, Written by Herself (actually a compilation from various fragments) (3 vols., Paris, 1791). There's an English version by T. C. Upham (New York, 1854) and a detailed study by L. Guerrier (Paris, 1881). For a notable review of this latter work, see Brunetière, New Critical Studies, vol. ii. The complete set of Madame Guyon's works, which includes her autobiography and five volumes of letters, totals forty volumes (1767-1791); the most significant works are published separately, Spiritual Writings (2 vols., Paris, 1790). They have been translated into English multiple times. Also, refer to the literature on Quietism; and H. Delacroix, Studies on Mysticism (Paris, 1908).
GUYON, RICHARD DEBAUFRE (1803-1856), British soldier, general in the Hungarian revolutionary army and Turkish pasha, was born at Walcot, near Bath, in 1803. After receiving a military education in England and in Austria he entered the Hungarian hussars in 1823, in which he served until after his marriage with a daughter of Baron Spleny, a general officer in the imperial service. At the outbreak of the Hungarian War in 1848, he re-entered active service as an officer of the Hungarian Honvéds, and he won great distinction in the action of Sukoro (September 29, 1848) and the battle of Schwechat (October 30). He added to his reputation as a leader in various actions in the winter of 1848-1849, and after the battle of Kapolna was made a general officer. He served in important and sometimes independent commands to the end of the war, after which he escaped to Turkey. In 1852 he entered the service of the sultan. He was made a pasha and lieutenant-general without being required to change his faith, and rendered distinguished service in the campaign against the Russians in Asia Minor (1854-55). General Guyon died of cholera at Scutari on the 12th of October 1856.
GUYON, RICHARD DEBAUFRE (1803-1856), British soldier, general in the Hungarian revolutionary army, and Turkish pasha, was born in Walcot, near Bath, in 1803. After receiving military training in England and Austria, he joined the Hungarian hussars in 1823, serving there until after he married the daughter of Baron Spleny, a general officer in the imperial service. When the Hungarian War broke out in 1848, he returned to active duty as an officer of the Hungarian Honvéds, distinguishing himself in the battle of Sukoro (September 29, 1848) and the battle of Schwechat (October 30). He further established his reputation as a leader in several engagements during the winter of 1848-1849, and after the battle of Kapolna, he was promoted to general. He held significant and often independent commands until the war's end, after which he escaped to Turkey. In 1852, he joined the service of the sultan. He was appointed a pasha and lieutenant-general without having to convert his religion and provided notable service in the campaign against the Russians in Asia Minor (1854-55). General Guyon died of cholera in Scutari on October 12, 1856.
See A. W. Kinglake, The Patriot and the Hero General Guyon (1856).
See A. W. Kinglake, The Patriot and the Hero General Guyon (1856).
GUYOT, ARNOLD HENRY (1807-1884), Swiss-American geologist and geographer, was born at Boudevilliers, near Neuchâtel, Switzerland, on the 28th of September 1807. He studied at the college of Neuchâtel and in Germany, where he began a lifelong friendship with Louis Agassiz. He was professor of history and physical geography at the short-lived Neuchâtel “Academy” from 1839 to 1848, when he removed, at Agassiz’s instance, to the United States, settling in Cambridge, Massachusetts. For several years he was a lecturer for the Massachusetts State Board of Education, and he was professor of geology and physical geography at Princeton from 1854 until his death there on the 8th of February 1884. He ranked high as a geologist and meteorologist. As early as 1838, he undertook, at Agassiz’s suggestion, the study of glaciers, and was the first to announce, in a paper submitted to the Geological Society of France, certain important observations relating to glacial motion and structure. Among other things he noted the more rapid flow of the centre than of the sides, and the more rapid flow of the top than of the bottom of glaciers; described the laminated or “ribboned” structure of the glacial ice, and ascribed the movement of glaciers to a gradual molecular displacement rather than to a sliding of the ice mass as held by de Saussure. He subsequently collected important data concerning erratic boulders. His extensive meteorological observations in America led to the establishment of the United States Weather Bureau, and his Meteorological and Physical Tables (1852, revised ed. 1884) were long standard. His graded series of text-books and wall-maps were important aids in the extension and popularization of geological study in America. In addition to text-books, his principal publications were: Earth and Man, Lectures on Comparative Physical Geography in its Relation to the History of Mankind (translated by Professor C. C. Felton, 1849); A Memoir of Louis Agassiz (1883); and Creation, or the Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science (1884).
GUYOT, ARNOLD HENRY (1807-1884), Swiss-American geologist and geographer, was born in Boudevilliers, near Neuchâtel, Switzerland, on September 28, 1807. He studied at the college of Neuchâtel and in Germany, where he began a lifelong friendship with Louis Agassiz. He served as a professor of history and physical geography at the brief Neuchâtel “Academy” from 1839 to 1848, when he moved, at Agassiz’s suggestion, to the United States, settling in Cambridge, Massachusetts. For several years, he lectured for the Massachusetts State Board of Education, and he was a professor of geology and physical geography at Princeton from 1854 until his death there on February 8, 1884. He was highly regarded as a geologist and meteorologist. As early as 1838, at Agassiz’s urging, he began studying glaciers and was the first to report, in a paper submitted to the Geological Society of France, important observations on glacial motion and structure. He noted, among other things, that the center of a glacier moves faster than the sides, and the top flows faster than the bottom; he described the laminated or “ribboned” structure of glacial ice, and attributed glacier movement to gradual molecular displacement rather than sliding of the ice mass as suggested by de Saussure. He later collected significant data on erratic boulders. His extensive meteorological observations in America contributed to the establishment of the United States Weather Bureau, and his Meteorological and Physical Tables (1852, revised ed. 1884) remained standard for a long time. His series of graded textbooks and wall maps were key in promoting geological study in America. Besides textbooks, his main publications include: Earth and Man, Lectures on Comparative Physical Geography in its Relation to the History of Mankind (translated by Professor C. C. Felton, 1849); A Memoir of Louis Agassiz (1883); and Creation, or the Biblical Cosmogony in the Light of Modern Science (1884).
See James D. Dana’s “Memoir” in the Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Science, vol. ii. (Washington, 1886).
See James D. Dana’s “Memoir” in the Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Science, vol. ii. (Washington, 1886).
GUYOT, YVES (1843- ), French politician and economist, was born at Dinan on the 6th of September 1843. Educated at Rennes, he took up the profession of journalism, coming to Paris in 1867. He was for a short period editor-in-chief of L’Indépendant du midi of Nîmes, but joined the staff of La Rappel on its foundation, and worked subsequently on other journals. He took an active part in municipal life, and waged a keen campaign against the prefecture of police, for which he suffered six months’ imprisonment. He entered the chamber of deputies in 1885 as representative of the first arrondissement of Paris and was rapporteur général of the budget of 1888. He became minister of public works under the premiership of P. E. Tirard in 1889, retaining his portfolio in the cabinet of C. L. de Freycinet until 1892. Although of strong liberal views, he lost his seat in the election of 1893 owing to his militant attitude against socialism. An uncompromising free-trader, he published La Comédie protectionniste (1905; Eng. trans. The Comedy of Protection); La Science économique (1st ed. 1881; 3rd ed. 1907); La Prostitution (1882); La Tyrannie socialiste (1893), all three translated into English; Les Conflits du travail et leur solution (1903); La Démocratie individualiste (1907).
GUYOT, YVES (1843- ), French politician and economist, was born in Dinan on September 6, 1843. He studied in Rennes and began his career in journalism, moving to Paris in 1867. For a brief time, he served as the editor-in-chief of L’Indépendant du midi in Nîmes, but he joined the team at La Rappel when it was launched and later worked for other publications. He was actively involved in local government and led a strong campaign against the police prefecture, which resulted in a six-month prison sentence. He was elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1885 as the representative for the first arrondissement of Paris and served as the rapporteur général for the 1888 budget. He became Minister of Public Works under Premier P. E. Tirard in 1889 and kept his position in C. L. de Freycinet's cabinet until 1892. Despite his strong liberal beliefs, he lost his seat in the 1893 elections due to his aggressive stance against socialism. A staunch free-trader, he published La Comédie protectionniste (1905; Eng. trans. The Comedy of Protection); La Science économique (1st ed. 1881; 3rd ed. 1907); La Prostitution (1882); La Tyrannie socialiste (1893), all three translated into English; Les Conflits du travail et leur solution (1903); La Démocratie individualiste (1907).
GUYTON DE MORVEAU, LOUIS BERNARD, Baron (1737-1816), French chemist, was born on the 4th of January 1737, at Dijon, where his father was professor of civil law at the university. As a boy he showed remarkable aptitude for practical mechanics, but on leaving school he studied law in the university of Dijon, and in his twenty-fourth year became advocate-general in the parlement of Dijon. This office he held till 1782. Devoting his leisure to the study of chemistry, he published in 1772 his Digressions académiques, in which he set forth his views on phlogiston, crystallization, &c., and two years later he established in his native town courses of lectures on materia medica, mineralogy and chemistry. An essay on chemical nomenclature, which he published in the Journal de physique for May 1782, was ultimately developed with the aid of A. L. Lavoisier, C. L. Berthollet and A. F. Fourcroy, into the Méthode d’une nomenclature chimique, published in 1787, the principles of which were speedily adopted by chemists throughout Europe. Constantly in communication with the leaders of the Lavoisierian school, he soon became a convert to the anti-phlogistic doctrine; and he published his reasons in the first volume of the section “Chymie, Pharmacie et Metallurgie” of the Encyclopédie méthodique (1786), the chemical articles in which were written by him, as well as some of those in the second volume (1792). In 1794 he was appointed to superintend the construction of balloons for military purposes, being known as the author of some aeronautical experiments carried out at Dijon some ten years previously. In 1791 he became a member of the Legislative Assembly, and in the following year of the National Convention, to which he was re-elected in 1795, but he retired from political life in 1797. In 1798 he acted as provisional director of the Polytechnic School, in the foundation of which he took an active part, and from 1800 to 1814 he held the appointment of master of the mint. In 1811 he was made a baron of the French Empire. He died in Paris on the 2nd of January 1816.
GUYTON DE MORVEAU, LOUIS BERNARD, Noble title (1737-1816), French chemist, was born on January 4, 1737, in Dijon, where his father was a professor of civil law at the university. As a child, he showed a great talent for practical mechanics, but after finishing school, he studied law at the University of Dijon and became advocate-general in the parliament of Dijon at the age of twenty-four. He held this position until 1782. He dedicated his free time to studying chemistry and published his work, Digressions académiques, in 1772, where he shared his views on phlogiston, crystallization, and other topics. Two years later, he started offering lectures on materia medica, mineralogy, and chemistry in his hometown. An essay on chemical nomenclature, published in the Journal de physique in May 1782, was later developed with the help of A. L. Lavoisier, C. L. Berthollet, and A. F. Fourcroy into the Méthode d’une nomenclature chimique, published in 1787, which was quickly embraced by chemists across Europe. He regularly communicated with leaders of the Lavoisierian school and quickly adopted the anti-phlogistic theory; he published his reasons in the first volume of the "Chymie, Pharmacie et Metallurgie" section of the Encyclopédie méthodique (1786), writing many of the chemical articles there, as well as some in the second volume (1792). In 1794, he was tasked with overseeing the construction of balloons for military purposes, known for conducting some aeronautical experiments in Dijon about ten years earlier. In 1791, he became a member of the Legislative Assembly and the following year joined the National Convention, which re-elected him in 1795, although he stepped back from politics in 1797. In 1798, he served as provisional director of the Polytechnic School, playing an active role in its founding, and from 1800 to 1814, he was the master of the mint. In 1811, he was made a baron of the French Empire. He passed away in Paris on January 2, 1816.
Besides being a diligent contributor to the scientific periodicals of the day, Guyton wrote Mémoire sur l’éducation publique (1762); a satirical poem entitled Le Rat iconoclaste, ou le Jésuite croqué (1763); Discours publics et éloges (1775-1782); Plaidoyers sur plusieurs questions de droit (1785); and Traité des moyens de désinfecter l’air (1801), describing the disinfecting powers of chlorine, and of hydrochloric acid gas which he had successfully used at Dijon in 1773. With Hugues Maret (1726-1785) and Jean François Durande (d. 1794) he also published the Élémens de chymie théorique et pratique (1776-1777).
Besides being a hardworking contributor to the scientific journals of his time, Guyton wrote Mémoire sur l’éducation publique (1762); a satirical poem titled Le Rat iconoclaste, ou le Jésuite croqué (1763); Discours publics et éloges (1775-1782); Plaidoyers sur plusieurs questions de droit (1785); and Traité des moyens de désinfecter l’air (1801), which detailed the disinfecting effects of chlorine and hydrochloric acid gas that he had successfully used in Dijon in 1773. With Hugues Maret (1726-1785) and Jean François Durande (d. 1794), he also published the Élémens de chymie théorique et pratique (1776-1777).
GUZMICS, IZIDÓR (1786-1839). Hungarian theologian, was born on the 7th of April 1786 at Vámos-Család, in the county of Sopron. At Sopron (Oedenburg) he was instructed in the art of poetry by Paul Horváth. In October 1805 he entered the Benedictine order, but left it in August of the following year, only again to assume the monastic garb on the 10th of November 1806. At the monastery of Pannonhegy he applied himself to the study of Greek under Farkas Tóth and in 1812 he was sent to Pesth to study theology. Here he read the best German and Hungarian authors, and took part in the editorship of the Nemzeti (National) Plutarkus, and in the translation of Johann Hübner’s Lexicon. On obtaining the degree of doctor of divinity in 1816, he returned to Pannonhegy, where he devoted himself to dogmatic theology and literature, and contributed largely to Hungarian periodicals. The most important of his theological works are: A kath. anyaszentegyháznak hitbeli tanitása (The Doctrinal Teaching of the Holy Catholic Church), and A keresztényeknek vallásbeli egyesülésökröl (On Religious Unity among Christians), both published at Pesth in 1822; also a Latin treatise entitled Theologia Christiana fundamentalis et theologia dogmatica (4 vols., Györ, 1828-1829). His translation of 748 Theocritus in hexameters was published in 1824. His versions of the Oedipus of Sophocles and of the Iphigenia of Euripides were rewarded by the Hungarian Academy, of which in 1838 he was elected honorary member. In 1832 he was appointed abbot of the wealthy Benedictine house at Bakonybél, a village in the county of Veszprém. There he built an asylum for 150 children, and founded a school of harmony and singing. He died on the 1st of September 1839.
GUZMICS, IZIDÓR (1786-1839). Hungarian theologian, was born on April 7, 1786, in Vámos-Család, in Sopron county. He was taught the art of poetry by Paul Horváth in Sopron (Oedenburg). In October 1805, he joined the Benedictine order but left in August of the following year, only to take on the monastic habit again on November 10, 1806. At the Pannonhegy monastery, he focused on studying Greek under Farkas Tóth and in 1812 was sent to Pesth to study theology. There, he read the best German and Hungarian authors and participated in editing the Nemzeti (National) Plutarkus, and translating Johann Hübner’s Lexicon. After earning his doctor of divinity degree in 1816, he returned to Pannonhegy, where he dedicated himself to dogmatic theology and literature, contributing significantly to Hungarian periodicals. His most important theological works include: A kath. anyaszentegyháznak hitbeli tanitása (The Doctrinal Teaching of the Holy Catholic Church) and A keresztényeknek vallásbeli egyesülésökröl (On Religious Unity among Christians), both published in Pesth in 1822; as well as a Latin treatise titled Theologia Christiana fundamentalis et theologia dogmatica (4 vols., Györ, 1828-1829). His hexameter translation of Theocritus was published in 1824. His adaptations of Sophocles' Oedipus and Euripides' Iphigenia received awards from the Hungarian Academy, which elected him an honorary member in 1838. In 1832, he was appointed abbot of the wealthy Benedictine community in Bakonybél, a village in Veszprém county. There, he built a home for 150 children and founded a school of harmony and singing. He died on September 1, 1839.
GWADAR, a port on the Makran coast of Baluchistan, about 290 m. W. of Karachi. Pop. (1903), 4350. In the last half of the 18th century it was handed over by the khan of Kalat to the sultan of Muscat, who still exercises sovereignty over the port, together with about 300 sq. m. of the adjoining country. It is a place of call for the steamers of the British India Navigation Company.
GWADAR, is a port on the Makran coast of Baluchistan, about 290 miles west of Karachi. Population (1903) was 4,350. In the late 18th century, it was handed over by the Khan of Kalat to the Sultan of Muscat, who still holds sovereignty over the port and about 300 square miles of the surrounding area. It is a stop for the steamers of the British India Navigation Company.
GWALIOR, a native state of India, in the Central India agency, by far the largest of the numerous principalities comprised in that area. It is the dominion of the Sindhia family. The state consists of two well-defined parts which may roughly be called the northern and the southern. The former is a compact mass of territory, bounded N. and N.W. by the Chambal river, which separates it from the British districts of Agra and Etawah, and the native states of Dholpur, Karauli and Jaipur of Rajputana; E. by the British districts of Jalaun, Jhansi, Lalitpur and Saugor; S. by the states of Bhopal, Tonk, Khilchipur and Rajgarh; and W. by those of Jhalawar, Tonk and Kotah of Rajputana. The southern, or Malwa, portion is made up of detached or semi-detached districts, between which are interposed parts of other states, which again are mixed up with each other in bewildering intricacy. The two portions together have a total area of 25,041 sq. m. Pop. (1901), 2,933,001, showing a decrease of 13% in the decade.
GWALIOR, is a native state of India located in the Central India agency, and it is by far the largest among the many principalities in that area. It is ruled by the Sindhia family. The state consists of two clearly defined parts, which can roughly be described as the northern and southern sections. The northern part is a solid block of territory, bordered to the north and northwest by the Chambal river, which separates it from the British districts of Agra and Etawah, as well as the native states of Dholpur, Karauli, and Jaipur in Rajputana. To the east, it is bordered by the British districts of Jalaun, Jhansi, Lalitpur, and Saugor; to the south, it abuts the states of Bhopal, Tonk, Khilchipur, and Rajgarh; and to the west, it is next to Jhalawar, Tonk, and Kotah in Rajputana. The southern part, known as Malwa, is made up of scattered or partially connected districts, which are interspersed with parts of other states, creating a complex and confusing mix. The two sections together cover a total area of 25,041 square miles. The population in 1901 was 2,933,001, which reflects a 13% decrease over the previous decade.
The state may be naturally divided into plain, plateau and hilly country. The plain country extends from the Chambal river in the extreme southwards for about 80 m., with a maximum width from east to west of about 120 m. This plain, though broken in its southern portion by low hills, has generally an elevation of only a few hundred feet above sea-level. In the summer season the climate is very hot, the shade temperature rising frequently to 112° F., but in the winter months (from November to February inclusive) it is usually temperate and for short periods extremely cold. The average rainfall is 30 in., but the period 1891-1901 was a decade of low rainfall, and distress was caused by famine. South of this tract there is a gradual ascent to the Central India plateau, and at Sipri the general level is 1500 ft. above the sea. On this plateau lies the remainder of the state, with the exception of the small district of Amjhera in the extreme south. The elevation of this region gives it a moderate climate during the summer as compared with the plain country, while the winter is warmer and more equable. The average rainfall is 28 in. The remaining portion of the state, classed as hilly, comprises only the small district of Amjhera. This is known as the Bhil country, and lies among the Vindhya mountains with a mean elevation of about 1800 ft. The rainfall averages 23 in. In the two years 1899 and 1900 the monsoon was very weak, the result being a severe famine which caused great mortality among the Bhil population. Of these three natural divisions the plateau possesses the most fertile soil, generally of the kind known as “black cotton,” but the low-lying plain has the densest population. The state is watered by numerous rivers. The Nerbudda, flowing west, forms the southern boundary. The greater part of the drainage is discharged into the Chambal, which forms the north-western and northern and eastern boundary. The Sind, with its tributaries the Kuwari, Asar and Sankh, flows through the northern division. The chief products are wheat, millets, pulses of various kinds, maize, rice, linseed and other oil-seeds; poppy, yielding the Malwa opium; sugar-cane, cotton, tobacco, indigo, garlic, turmeric and ginger. About 60% of the population are employed in agricultural and only 15% in industrial occupations, the great majority of the latter being home workers. There is a leather-factory at Morar; cotton-presses at Morena, Baghana and Ujjain; ginning factories at Agar, Nalkhera, Shajapur and Sonkach; and a cotton-mill at Ujjain. The cotton industry alone shows possibilities of considerable development, there being 55,000 persons engaged in it at the time of the census of 1901.
The state can be naturally divided into plains, plateaus, and hilly areas. The plains extend from the Chambal River in the far south for about 80 miles, with a maximum width of about 120 miles from east to west. Although the southern part of this plain is interrupted by low hills, it generally sits at only a few hundred feet above sea level. During the summer, the climate is very hot, with temperatures often reaching 112°F in the shade, but from November to February, it is usually mild and can be extremely cold at times. The average rainfall is 30 inches, but between 1891 and 1901, there was a decade of low rainfall that led to a famine. South of this area, there is a gradual rise to the Central India plateau, where the general elevation at Sipri is 1500 feet above sea level. The remainder of the state is situated on this plateau, except for the small district of Amjhera in the far south. The elevation of this region provides a moderate climate in the summer, compared to the plains, while the winter is warmer and more stable. The average rainfall here is 28 inches. The hilly part of the state consists only of the small district of Amjhera, known as the Bhil country, which is located among the Vindhya mountains with an average elevation of about 1800 feet. The average rainfall is 23 inches. In 1899 and 1900, the monsoon was very weak, resulting in a severe famine that caused high mortality among the Bhil population. Among these three natural divisions, the plateau has the most fertile soil, typically of the “black cotton” type, but the low-lying plains support the highest population density. The state is crisscrossed by numerous rivers. The Nerbudda, flowing west, forms the southern boundary. Most of the drainage flows into the Chambal, which serves as the northwestern, northern, and eastern boundary. The Sind River, along with its tributaries the Kuwari, Asar, and Sankh, flows through the northern division. The main products are wheat, millets, various pulses, maize, rice, linseed, and other oilseeds, as well as poppy (producing Malwa opium), sugar cane, cotton, tobacco, indigo, garlic, turmeric, and ginger. About 60% of the population works in agriculture, while only 15% are involved in industrial jobs, the majority of whom work from home. There is a leather factory in Morar; cotton presses in Morena, Baghana, and Ujjain; ginning factories in Agar, Nalkhera, Shajapur, and Sonkach; and a cotton mill in Ujjain. The cotton industry alone shows significant potential for development, with 55,000 people engaged in it at the time of the 1901 census.
The population is composed of many elements, among which Brahmans and Rajputs are specially numerous. The prevailing religion is Hinduism, 84% of the people being Hindus and only 6% Mahommedans. The revenue of the state is about one million sterling; and large reserves have been accumulated, from which two millions were lent to the government of India in 1887, and later on another million for the construction of the Gwalior-Agra and Indore-Neemuch railways. The railways undertaken by the state are: (1) from Bina on the Indian Midland to Goona; (2) an extension of this line to Baran, opened in 1899; (3) from Bhopal to Ujjain; (4) two light railways, from Gwalior to Sipri and Gwalior to Bhind, which were opened by the viceroy in November 1899. On the same occasion the viceroy opened the Victoria College, founded to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee; and the Memorial Hospital, built in memory of the maharaja’s father. British currency has been introduced instead of Chandori rupees, which were much depreciated. The state maintains three regiments of Imperial Service cavalry, two battalions of infantry and a transport corps.
The population consists of many groups, with Brahmans and Rajputs being particularly numerous. The dominant religion is Hinduism, with 84% of the population being Hindus and only 6% being Muslims. The state's revenue is about one million pounds sterling, and large reserves have been built up, from which two million were lent to the government of India in 1887, and later another million for the construction of the Gwalior-Agra and Indore-Neemuch railways. The railways started by the state include: (1) from Bina on the Indian Midland to Goona; (2) an extension of this line to Baran, opened in 1899; (3) from Bhopal to Ujjain; (4) two light railways, from Gwalior to Sipri and Gwalior to Bhind, which were opened by the viceroy in November 1899. On the same occasion, the viceroy inaugurated the Victoria College, established to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee, and the Memorial Hospital, built in honor of the maharaja’s father. British currency has replaced the Chandori rupees, which were significantly devalued. The state maintains three regiments of Imperial Service cavalry, two battalions of infantry, and a transport corps.
History.—The Sindhia family, the rulers of the Gwalior state, belong to the Mahratta nation and originally came from the neighbourhood of Poona. Their first appearance in Central India was early in the 18th century in the person of Ranoji (d. 1745), a scion of an impoverished branch of the family, who began his career as the peshwa’s slipper-carrier and rose by his military abilities to be commander of his bodyguard. In 1726, together with Malhar Rao Holkar, the founder of the house of Indore, he was authorized by the peshwa to collect tribute (chauth) in the Malwa districts. He established his headquarters at Ujjain, which thus became the first capital of Sindhia’s dominions.
History.—The Sindhia family, rulers of the Gwalior state, are part of the Mahratta nation and originally came from the area around Pune. They first appeared in Central India in the early 18th century with Ranoji (d. 1745), a member of a financially struggling branch of the family, who started his career as the peshwa’s slipper-carrier and rose through his military skills to become the commander of his bodyguard. In 1726, along with Malhar Rao Holkar, the founder of the house of Indore, he was given permission by the peshwa to collect tribute (chauth) in the Malwa districts. He set up his headquarters at Ujjain, making it the first capital of Sindhia’s territories.
Ranoji’s son and successor, Jayapa Sindhia, was killed at Nagaur in 1759, and was in his turn succeeded by his son Jankoji Sindhia. But the real founder of the state of Gwalior was Mahadji Sindhia, a natural son of Ranoji, who, after narrowly escaping with his life from the terrible slaughter of Panipat in 1761 (when Jankoji was killed), obtained with some difficulty from the peshwa a re-grant of his father’s possessions in Central India (1769). During the struggle which followed the death of Madhu Rao Peshwa in 1772 Mahadji seized every occasion for extending his power and possessions. In 1775, however, when Raghuba Peshwa threw himself on the protection of the British, the reverses which Mahadji encountered at their hands—Gwalior being taken by Major Popham in 1780—opened his eyes to their power. By the treaty of Salbai (1782) it was agreed that Mahadji should withdraw to Ujjain, and the British retire north of the Jumna. Mahadji, who undertook to open negotiations with the other belligerents, was recognized as an independent ruler, and a British resident was established at his court. Mahadji, aided by the British policy of neutrality, now set to work to establish his supremacy over Hindustan proper. Realizing the superiority of European methods of warfare, he availed himself of the services of a Savoyard soldier of fortune, Benoît de Boigne, whose genius for military organization and command in the field was mainly instrumental in establishing the Mahratta power. Mahadji’s disciplined troops made him invincible. In 1785 he re-established Shah Alam on the imperial throne at Delhi, and as his reward obtained for the peshwa the title of vakil-ul-mutlak or vicegerent of the empire, contenting himself with that of his deputy. In 1788 he took advantage of the cruelties practised by Ghulam Kadir on Shah Alam, to occupy Delhi, where he established himself as the protector of the aged emperor. Though nominally a deputy of the peshwa he was now ruler of a vast territory, including the greater part of Central India and Hindustan proper, while his lieutenants exacted tribute from the chiefs of Rajputana. There can be no doubt that he looked with apprehension on the growing power of 749 the British; but he wisely avoided any serious collision with them.
Ranoji’s son and successor, Jayapa Sindhia, was killed at Nagaur in 1759, and his son Jankoji Sindhia took over after him. However, the true founder of the Gwalior state was Mahadji Sindhia, Ranoji's illegitimate son, who narrowly escaped death in the brutal battle of Panipat in 1761 (when Jankoji was killed). He eventually managed to get his father's lands in Central India back from the peshwa in 1769. After Madhu Rao Peshwa died in 1772, Mahadji seized every opportunity to expand his influence and territory. In 1775, when Raghuba Peshwa sought British protection, Mahadji faced setbacks against them—Gwalior was captured by Major Popham in 1780—which made him realize their strength. The treaty of Salbai in 1782 stipulated that Mahadji would retreat to Ujjain while the British would move north of the Jumna. Mahadji, who agreed to negotiate with the other fighting parties, was recognized as an independent ruler, and a British resident was assigned to his court. Benefiting from British neutrality, Mahadji began establishing his dominance over Hindustan. Recognizing the advantages of European warfare tactics, he hired a Savoyard mercenary, Benoît de Boigne, whose military talent significantly helped strengthen the Mahratta power. Mahadji’s disciplined army made him unbeatable. In 1785, he restored Shah Alam to the imperial throne in Delhi, receiving the title of vakil-ul-mutlak or vicegerent of the empire for the peshwa, while he contented himself with being his deputy. In 1788, taking advantage of the brutality that Ghulam Kadir inflicted on Shah Alam, he occupied Delhi, positioning himself as the protector of the elderly emperor. Although he was officially a deputy of the peshwa, he now controlled a large area, including much of Central India and Hindustan, while his officers collected tribute from the rulers of Rajputana. It is clear that he viewed the rising power of the British with concern, but he wisely avoided any serious conflict with them.
Mahadji died in 1794, and was succeeded by his adopted son, Daulat Rao Sindhia, a grandson of his brother Tukoji. When, during the period of unrest that followed the deaths of the peshwa, Madhu Rao II., in 1795 and of Tukoji Holkar in 1797, the Mahratta leaders fought over the question of supremacy, the peshwa, Baji Rao II., the titular head of the Mahratta confederation, fled from his capital and placed himself under British protection by the treaty of Bassein (December 31, 1802). This interposition of the British government was resented by the confederacy, and it brought on the Mahratta War of 1803. In the campaign that followed a combined Mahratta army, in which Daulat Rao’s troops furnished the largest contingent, was defeated by General Arthur Wellesley at Assaye and Argaum in Central India; and Lord Lake routed Daulat Rao’s European-trained battalions in Northern India at Agra, Aligarh and Laswari. Daulat Rao was then compelled to sign the treaty of Sarji Anjangaon (December 30, 1803), which stripped him of his territories between the Jumna and Ganges, the district of Broach in Gujarat and other lands in the south. By the same treaty he was deprived of the forts of Gwalior and Gohad; but these were restored by Lord Cornwallis in 1805, when the Chambal river was made the northern boundary of the state. By a treaty signed at Burhanpur in 1803 Daulat Rao further agreed to maintain a subsidiary force, to be paid out of the revenues of the territories ceded under the treaty of Sarji Anjangaon. When, however, in 1816 he was called upon to assist in the suppression of the Pindaris, though by the treaty of Gwalior (1817) he promised his co-operation, his conduct was so equivocal that in 1818 he was forced to sign a fresh treaty by which he ceded Ajmere and other lands.
Mahadji died in 1794 and was succeeded by his adopted son, Daulat Rao Sindhia, who was the grandson of his brother Tukoji. During the turmoil that followed the deaths of Peshwa Madhu Rao II in 1795 and Tukoji Holkar in 1797, the Mahratta leaders fought over who would be in charge. Baji Rao II, the nominal leader of the Mahratta confederation, fled from his capital and sought British protection through the Treaty of Bassein on December 31, 1802. This interference by the British government angered the confederacy and led to the Mahratta War of 1803. In the subsequent campaign, a combined Mahratta army, with Daulat Rao's troops making up the largest part, was defeated by General Arthur Wellesley at Assaye and Argaum in Central India. Meanwhile, Lord Lake defeated Daulat Rao's European-trained battalions in Northern India at Agra, Aligarh, and Laswari. Daulat Rao was then forced to sign the Treaty of Sarji Anjangaon on December 30, 1803, which took away his territories between the Jumna and Ganges rivers, the district of Broach in Gujarat, and other lands in the south. The same treaty also stripped him of the forts of Gwalior and Gohad, though these were returned by Lord Cornwallis in 1805 when the Chambal River was established as the northern boundary of the state. By a treaty signed in Burhanpur in 1803, Daulat Rao also agreed to maintain a subsidiary force funded by the revenues from the territories ceded under the Treaty of Sarji Anjangaon. However, when he was requested to help suppress the Pindaris in 1816, although he promised cooperation through the Treaty of Gwalior in 1817, his actions were ambiguous, leading him to sign a new treaty in 1818 that ceded Ajmere and other lands.
Daulat Rao died without issue in 1827, and his widow, Baiza Bai (d. 1862), adopted Mukut Rao, a boy of eleven belonging to a distant branch of the family, who succeeded as Jankoji Rao Sindhia. His rule was weak; the state was distracted by interminable palace intrigues and military mutinies, and affairs went from bad to worse when, in 1843, Jankoji Rao, who left no heir, was succeeded by another boy, adopted by his widow, Tara Bai, under the name of Jayaji Rao Sindhia. The growth of turbulence and misrule now induced Lord Ellenborough to interpose, and a British force under Sir Hugh Gough advanced upon Gwalior (December 1843). The Mahratta troops were defeated simultaneously at Maharajpur and Punniar (December 29), with the result that the Gwalior government signed a treaty ceding territory with revenue sufficient for the maintenance of a contingent force to be stationed at the capital, and limiting the future strength of the Gwalior army, while a council of regency was appointed during the minority to act under the resident’s advice. In 1857 the Gwalior contingent joined the mutineers; but the maharaja himself remained loyal to the British, and fled from his capital until the place was retaken and his authority restored by Sir Hugh Rose (Lord Strathnairn) on the 19th of June 1858. He was rewarded with the districts of Neemuch and Amjhera, but Gwalior fort was occupied by British troops and was only restored to his son in 1886 by Lord Dufferin. Jayaji Rao, who died in 1886, did much for the development of his state. He was created a G.C.S.I in 1861, and subsequently became a counsellor of the empress, a G.C.B. and C.I.E.
Daulat Rao passed away without any children in 1827, and his widow, Baiza Bai (d. 1862), adopted Mukut Rao, an eleven-year-old boy from a distant branch of the family, who became known as Jankoji Rao Sindhia. His reign was unstable; the state was troubled by constant palace intrigues and military revolts, and things worsened in 1843 when Jankoji Rao, who also had no heir, was succeeded by another boy adopted by his widow, Tara Bai, who named him Jayaji Rao Sindhia. The rising chaos and mismanagement prompted Lord Ellenborough to intervene, leading a British force under Sir Hugh Gough to advance towards Gwalior in December 1843. The Mahratta troops were defeated at Maharajpur and Punniar on December 29, resulting in the Gwalior government signing a treaty that ceded territory with enough revenue to maintain a contingent force stationed in the capital, while also restricting the size of the Gwalior army. A council of regency was set up to operate under the advice of the resident during the minority period. In 1857, the Gwalior contingent sided with the mutineers; however, the maharaja stayed loyal to the British and fled from his capital until Sir Hugh Rose (Lord Strathnairn) regained the area and restored his authority on June 19, 1858. He was rewarded with the districts of Neemuch and Amjhera, but Gwalior fort was occupied by British troops and only returned to his son in 1886 by Lord Dufferin. Jayaji Rao, who died in 1886, contributed significantly to the development of his state. He was made a G.C.S.I in 1861 and later became a counselor to the empress, earning titles G.C.B. and C.I.E.
His son, the maharaja, Madhava Rao Sindhia, G.C.S.I., was born in 1877. During his minority the state was administered for eight years by a council of regency. He was entrusted with ruling powers in 1894, and in all respects continued the reforming policy of the council, while paying personal attention to every department, being a keen soldier, an energetic administrator, and fully alive to the responsibilities attaching to his position. He was created an honorary aide-de-camp to the king-emperor and an honorary colonel in the British army. He went to China as orderly officer to General Gaselee in 1901, and provided the expedition with a hospital ship at his own expense, while his Imperial Service Transport Corps proved a useful auxiliary to the British army in the Chitral and Tirah expeditions.
His son, the maharaja, Madhava Rao Sindhia, G.C.S.I., was born in 1877. While he was a minor, the state was run by a council of regency for eight years. He was given ruling powers in 1894 and continued the reform policies of the council, while personally overseeing every department. He was a skilled soldier, an active administrator, and very aware of the responsibilities of his position. He was made an honorary aide-de-camp to the king-emperor and an honorary colonel in the British army. In 1901, he served as an orderly officer to General Gaselee in China and provided the expedition with a hospital ship at his own cost, while his Imperial Service Transport Corps served as a valuable support to the British army in the Chitral and Tirah expeditions.
The City of Gwalior is 76 m. by rail S. of Agra, and had a population in 1901 of 119,433. This total includes the new town of Lashkar or “the Camp” which is the modern capital of the state and old Gwalior. The old town has a threefold interest: first as a very ancient seat of Jain worship; secondly for its example of palace architecture of the best Hindu period (1486-1516); and thirdly as an historic fortress. There are several remarkable Hindu temples within the fort. One, known as the Sas Bahu, is beautifully adorned with bas-reliefs. It was finished in A.D. 1093, and, though much dilapidated, still forms a most picturesque fragment. An older Jain temple has been used as a mosque. Another temple in the fortress of Gwalior is called the Teli-Mandir, or “Oilman’s Temple.” This building was originally dedicated to Vishnu, but afterwards converted to the worship of Siva. The most striking part of the Jain remains at Gwalior is a series of caves or rock-cut sculptures, excavated in the rock on all sides, and numbering nearly a hundred, great and small. Most of them are mere niches to contain statues, though some are cells that may have been originally intended for residences. One curious fact regarding them is that, according to inscriptions, they were all excavated within the short period of about thirty-three years, between 1441 and 1474. Some of the figures are of colossal size; one, for instance, is 57 ft. high, which is taller than any other in northern India.
The Gwalior City is 76 miles by rail south of Agra and had a population of 119,433 in 1901. This count includes the new town of Lashkar, or “the Camp,” which is the modern capital of the state, along with old Gwalior. The old town is interesting for three main reasons: first, it’s a very ancient center of Jain worship; second, it showcases some of the best palace architecture from the peak Hindu period (1486-1516); and third, it serves as a historic fortress. Inside the fort, there are several impressive Hindu temples. One, known as the Sas Bahu, is beautifully adorned with bas-reliefs. It was completed in CE 1093, and although it's quite dilapidated, it still stands as a picturesque remnant of its time. An older Jain temple has been repurposed as a mosque. Another temple in the Gwalior fortress is called the Teli-Mandir, or “Oilman’s Temple.” This building was originally dedicated to Vishnu but was later converted to worship Siva. The most striking feature of the Jain ruins at Gwalior is a series of caves or rock-cut sculptures that are excavated into the rock on all sides, numbering nearly a hundred, both large and small. Most of them are just niches for statues, but some might have originally been cells for living quarters. One intriguing fact about them is that, according to inscriptions, they were all carved out within a short span of about thirty-three years, from 1441 to 1474. Some of the figures are enormous; for example, one stands 57 feet tall, making it the tallest in northern India.
The palace built by Man Singh (1486-1516) forms the most interesting example of early Hindu work of its class in India. Another palace of even greater extent was added to this in 1516; both Jehangír and Shah Jahan added palaces to these two—the whole making a group of edifices unequalled for picturesqueness and interest by anything of their class in Central India. Among the apartments in the palace was the celebrated chamber, named the Baradari, supported on 12 columns, and 45 ft. square, with a stone roof, forming one of the most beautiful palace-halls in the world. It was, besides, singularly interesting from the expedients to which the Hindu architect was forced to resort to imitate the vaults of the Moslems. Of the buildings, however, which so excited the admiration of the emperor Baber, probably little now remains. The fort of Gwalior, within which the above buildings are situated, stands on an isolated rock. The face is perpendicular and where the rock is naturally less precipitous it has been scarped. Its greatest length from north-east to south-west is a mile and a half, and the greatest breadth 900 yds. The rock attains its maximum height of 342 ft. at the northern end. A rampart, accessible by a steep road, and farther up by huge steps cut out of the rock, surrounds the fort. The citadel stands at the north-eastern corner of the enclosure, and presents a very picturesque appearance. The old town of Gwalior, which is of considerable size, but irregularly built, and extremely dirty, lies at the eastern base of the rock. It contains the tomb of Mahommed Ghaus, erected during the early part of Akbar’s reign. The fort of Gwalior was traditionally built by one Surya Sen, the raja of the neighbouring country. In 1196 Gwalior was captured by Mahommed Ghori; it then passed into the hands of several chiefs until in 1559 Akbar gained possession of it, and made it a state prison for captives of rank. On the dismemberment of the Delhi empire, Gwalior was seized by the Jat rana of Gohad. Subsequently it was garrisoned by Sindhia, from whom it was wrested in 1780 by the forces of the East India Company, and to whom it was finally restored by the British in 1886. The modern town contains the palace of the chief, a college, a high school, a girls’ school, a service school to train officials, a law school, hospitals for men and for women, a museum, paper-mills, and a printing-press issuing a state gazette.
The palace built by Man Singh (1486-1516) is one of the most fascinating examples of early Hindu architecture in India. In 1516, an even larger palace was added to this one; both Jehangír and Shah Jahan contributed additional palaces, creating a group of buildings unmatched in beauty and intrigue in Central India. Among the palace's rooms is the famous chamber known as the Baradari, which is 45 ft. square and supported by 12 columns, featuring a stone roof and considered one of the most beautiful palace halls in the world. It was also particularly interesting because of the creative techniques used by the Hindu architect to replicate the vaulted ceilings common in Muslim architecture. However, of the buildings that so impressed Emperor Baber, there’s likely little left today. The fort of Gwalior, where these buildings are located, stands on a solitary rock. Its face is nearly vertical, and in less steep areas, it has been cut back. The fort stretches a mile and a half from northeast to southwest and measures 900 yards at its widest point. The rock reaches its highest point of 342 ft. at the northern end. A rampart, accessible via a steep road and further up by large steps carved into the rock, encloses the fort. The citadel is located at the northeastern corner of the enclosure and has a very picturesque look. The old town of Gwalior, which is sizeable yet irregularly constructed and quite dirty, sits at the rock's eastern base. It contains the tomb of Mahommed Ghaus, built during the early years of Akbar’s reign. The fort of Gwalior was traditionally constructed by Surya Sen, the raja of the surrounding area. In 1196, Gwalior was captured by Mahommed Ghori and later came under the control of various chiefs until Akbar took it in 1559, turning it into a prison for high-ranking captives. Following the fragmentation of the Delhi empire, Gwalior was taken by the Jat rana of Gohad. It was later garrisoned by Sindhia, who lost it in 1780 to the forces of the East India Company; it was eventually returned to the British in 1886. The modern town includes the chief's palace, a college, a high school, a girls' school, a training school for officials, a law school, hospitals for men and women, a museum, paper mills, and a printing press that publishes a state gazette.
Gwalior Residency, an administrative unit in the Central India agency, comprises Gwalior state and eleven smaller states and estates. Its total area is 17,825 sq. m., and its population in 1901 was 2,187,612. Of the area, 17,020 sq. m. belong to Gwalior State, and the agency also includes the small states of Raghugarh, Khaniadhana, Paron, Garha, Umri and Bhadaura, with the Chhabra pargana of Tonk.
Gwalior Residence is an administrative area in Central India that includes Gwalior state and eleven smaller states and estates. It covers a total area of 17,825 square miles, and its population was 2,187,612 in 1901. Of this area, 17,020 square miles belong to Gwalior State, and the agency also includes the small states of Raghugarh, Khaniadhana, Paron, Garha, Umri, and Bhadaura, along with the Chhabra pargana of Tonk.
GWEEDORE, a hamlet and tourist resort of Co. Donegal, Ireland, on the Londonderry & Lough Swilly & Letterkenny 750 railway. The river Clady, running past the village from the Nacung Loughs, affords salmon and trout fishing. The fine surrounding scenery culminates to the east in the wild mountain Errigal (2466 ft.) at the upper end of the loughs. The place owes its popularity as a resort to Lord George Hill (d. 1879), who also laboured for the amelioration of the conditions of the peasantry on his estate, and combated the Rundale system of minute repartition of property. In 1889, during the troubles which arose out of evictions, Gweedore was the headquarters of the Irish constabulary, when District Inspector Martin was openly murdered on attempting to arrest a priest on his way to Mass.
Gweedore, is a small village and tourist destination in Co. Donegal, Ireland, located on the Londonderry & Lough Swilly & Letterkenny 750 railway. The Clady River flows past the village from the Nacung Loughs, offering great salmon and trout fishing. The stunning scenery surrounding the area peaks to the east with the rugged Errigal mountain (2466 ft.) at the upper end of the loughs. Its popularity as a resort can be attributed to Lord George Hill (d. 1879), who worked to improve the living conditions of the local peasantry and opposed the Rundale system of land division. In 1889, amid the unrest caused by evictions, Gweedore became the headquarters of the Irish constabulary, where District Inspector Martin was killed while trying to arrest a priest on his way to Mass.
GWILT, JOSEPH (1784-1863), English architect and writer, was the younger son of George Gwilt, architect surveyor to the county of Surrey, and was born at Southwark on the 11th of January 1784. He was educated at St Paul’s school, and after a short course of instruction in his father’s office was in 1801 admitted a student of the Royal Academy, where in the same year he gained the silver medal for his drawing of the tower and steeple of St Dunstan-in-the-East. In 1811 he published a Treatise on the Equilibrium of Arches, and in 1815 he was elected F.S.A. After a visit to Italy in 1816, he published in 1818 Notitia architectonica italiana, or Concise Notices of the Buildings and Architects of Italy. In 1825 he published an edition of Sir William Chambers’s Treatise on Civil Architecture; and among his other principal contributions to the literature of his profession are a translation of the Architecture of Vitruvius (1826), a Treatise on the Rudiments of Architecture, Practical and Theoretical (1826), and his valuable Encyclopaedia of Architecture (1842), which was published with additions by Wyatt Papworth in 1867. In recognition of Gwilt’s advocacy of the importance to architects of a knowledge of mathematics, he was in 1833 elected a member of the Royal Astronomical Society. He took a special interest in philology and music, and was the author of Rudiments of the Anglo-Saxon Tongue (1829), and of the article “Music” in the Encyclopaedia metropolitana. His principal works as a practical architect were Markree Castle near Sligo in Ireland, and St Thomas’s church at Charlton in Kent. He died on the 14th of September 1863.
GWILT, JOSEPH (1784-1863), was an English architect and writer. He was the younger son of George Gwilt, an architectural surveyor for Surrey, and he was born in Southwark on January 11, 1784. He attended St Paul’s School and, after a brief period of training in his father’s office, became a student at the Royal Academy in 1801, where he won a silver medal that same year for his drawing of the tower and steeple of St Dunstan-in-the-East. In 1811, he published a Treatise on the Equilibrium of Arches, and in 1815 he was elected a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries (F.S.A.). After a trip to Italy in 1816, he published Notitia architectonica italiana, or Concise Notices of the Buildings and Architects of Italy in 1818. In 1825, he released an edition of Sir William Chambers’s Treatise on Civil Architecture; among his other significant contributions to architectural literature are a translation of the Architecture of Vitruvius (1826), a Treatise on the Rudiments of Architecture, Practical and Theoretical (1826), and his valuable Encyclopaedia of Architecture (1842), which was later updated by Wyatt Papworth in 1867. In recognition of Gwilt’s emphasis on the importance of mathematics for architects, he was elected a member of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1833. He had a particular interest in philology and music, and he authored Rudiments of the Anglo-Saxon Tongue (1829) and the article “Music” in the Encyclopaedia metropolitana. His main works as a practicing architect included Markree Castle near Sligo in Ireland and St Thomas’s Church in Charlton, Kent. He passed away on September 14, 1863.
GWYN, NELL [Eleanor] (1650-1687), English actress, and mistress of Charles II., was born on the 2nd of February 1650/1, probably in an alley off Drury Lane, London, although Hereford also claims to have been her birthplace. Her father, Thomas Gwyn, appears to have been a broken-down soldier of a family of Welsh origin. Of her mother little is known save that she lived for some time with her daughter, and that in 1679 she was drowned, apparently when intoxicated, in a pond at Chelsea. Nell Gwyn, who sold oranges in the precincts of Drury Lane Theatre, passed, at the age of fifteen, to the boards, through the influence of the actor Charles Hart and of Robert Duncan or Dungan, an officer of the guards who had interest with the management. Her first recorded appearance on the stage was in 1665 as Cydaria, Montezuma’s daughter, in Dryden’s Indian Emperor, a serious part ill-suited to her. In the following year she was Lady Wealthy in the Hon. James Howard’s comedy The English Monsieur. Pepys was delighted with the playing of “pretty, witty Nell,” but when he saw her as Florimel in Dryden’s Secret Love, or the Maiden Queen, he wrote “so great a performance of a comical part was never, I believe, in the world before” and, “so done by Nell her merry part as cannot be better done in nature” (Diary, March 25, 1667). Her success brought her other leading rôles—Bellario, in Beaumont and Fletcher’s Philaster; Flora, in Rhodes’s Flora’s Vagaries; Samira, in Sir Robert Howard’s Surprisal; and she remained a member of the Drury Lane company until 1669, playing continuously save for a brief absence in the summer of 1667 when she lived at Epsom as the mistress of Lord Buckhurst, afterwards 6th earl of Dorset (q.v.). Her last appearance was as Almahide to the Almanzor of Hart, in Dryden’s The Conquest of Granada (1670), the production of which had been postponed some months for her return to the stage after the birth of her first son by the king.
GWYN, NELL [Eleanor] (1650-1687), English actress and mistress of Charles II, was born on February 2, 1650/1, likely in an alley off Drury Lane, London, although Hereford also claims to be her birthplace. Her father, Thomas Gwyn, seems to have been a down-and-out soldier from a Welsh family. Little is known about her mother, except that she lived with her daughter for a time and drowned, apparently while drunk, in a pond at Chelsea in 1679. Nell Gwyn, who sold oranges near Drury Lane Theatre, started acting at the age of fifteen, thanks to actor Charles Hart and Robert Duncan, a guards officer with connections to the management. Her first known stage appearance was in 1665 as Cydaria, Montezuma’s daughter, in Dryden’s Indian Emperor, a serious role that didn't suit her well. The following year, she played Lady Wealthy in the Hon. James Howard’s comedy The English Monsieur. Pepys was thrilled by “pretty, witty Nell,” but when he saw her as Florimel in Dryden’s Secret Love, or the Maiden Queen, he wrote that “so great a performance of a comical part was never, I believe, in the world before,” and, “so done by Nell her merry part as cannot be better done in nature” (Diary, March 25, 1667). Her success led to other leading roles—Bellario in Beaumont and Fletcher’s Philaster; Flora in Rhodes’s Flora’s Vagaries; Samira in Sir Robert Howard’s Surprisal; and she was part of the Drury Lane company until 1669, performing continuously except for a brief absence in the summer of 1667 when she stayed in Epsom as the mistress of Lord Buckhurst, later the 6th Earl of Dorset (q.v.). Her last appearance was as Almahide opposite Hart’s Almanzor in Dryden’s The Conquest of Granada (1670), the production of which had been delayed for several months for her return to the stage after the birth of her first son by the king.
As an actress Nell Gwyn was largely indebted to Dryden, who seems to have made a special study of her airy, irresponsible personality, and who kept her supplied with parts which suited her. She excelled in the delivery of the risky prologues and epilogues which were the fashion, and the poet wrote for her some specially daring examples. It was, however, as the mistress of Charles II. that she endeared herself to the public. Partly, no doubt, her popularity was due to the disgust inspired by her rival, Louise de Kéroualle, duchess of Portsmouth, and to the fact that, while the Frenchwoman was a Catholic, she was a Protestant. But very largely it was the result of exactly those personal qualities that appealed to the monarch himself. She was piquante rather than pretty, short of stature, and her chief beauty was her reddish-brown hair. She was illiterate, and with difficulty scrawled an awkward E. G. at the bottom of her letters, written for her by others. But her frank recklessness, her generosity, her invariable good temper, her ready wit, her infectious high spirits and amazing indiscretions appealed irresistibly to a generation which welcomed in her the living antithesis of Puritanism. “A true child of the London streets,” she never pretended to be superior to what she was, nor to interfere in matters outside the special sphere assigned her; she made no ministers, she appointed to no bishoprics, and for the high issues of international politics she had no concern. She never forgot her old friends, and, as far as is known, remained faithful to her royal lover from the beginning of their intimacy to his death, and, after his death, to his memory.
As an actress, Nell Gwyn owed a lot to Dryden, who seemed to have studied her light-hearted and carefree personality closely and provided her with roles that suited her well. She was great at delivering the bold prologues and epilogues that were in vogue, and the poet crafted some particularly daring pieces just for her. However, it was as the mistress of Charles II that she truly won the public's affection. Partly, her popularity stemmed from the distaste people felt for her rival, Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, and the fact that while the French woman was Catholic, she was Protestant. But mostly, it was those very personal traits that appealed to the king himself. She was more charming than pretty, short in stature, and her main feature was her reddish-brown hair. She couldn't read or write well, struggling to awkwardly scrawl an "E. G." at the bottom of letters written for her by others. Still, her boldness, generosity, constant good humor, quick wit, infectious energy, and outrageous behavior irresistibly attracted a generation that saw in her a lively contrast to Puritanism. “A true child of the London streets,” she never pretended to be above her true self or meddled in matters outside her designated role; she didn't make ministers, appoint bishops, nor concern herself with high-stakes international politics. She always remembered her old friends and, as far as anyone knows, remained loyal to her royal lover from the start of their relationship until his death, and even after his death, she honored his memory.
Of her two sons by the king, the elder was created Baron Hedington and earl of Burford and subsequently duke of St Albans; the younger, James, Lord Beauclerk, died in 1680, while still a boy. The king’s death-bed request to his brother, “Let not poor Nelly starve,” was faithfully carried out by James II., who paid her debts from the Secret Service fund, provided her with other moneys, and settled on her an estate with reversion to the duke of St Albans. But she did not long survive her lover’s death. She died in November 1687, and was buried on the 17th, according to her own request, in the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields, her funeral sermon being preached by the vicar, Thomas Tenison, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury, who said “much to her praise.” Tradition credits the foundation of Chelsea Hospital to her influence over the king.
Of her two sons with the king, the older was made Baron Hedington and Earl of Burford, and later became Duke of St Albans; the younger, James, Lord Beauclerk, died in 1680 while still a child. The king's dying wish to his brother, “Don’t let poor Nelly starve,” was faithfully fulfilled by James II., who paid off her debts from the Secret Service fund, gave her additional money, and secured an estate for her with a reversion to the Duke of St Albans. However, she did not live long after her lover’s death. She passed away in November 1687 and was buried on the 17th, as she had requested, in the church of St Martin-in-the-Fields. Her funeral sermon was delivered by the vicar, Thomas Tenison, who later became the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he spoke highly of her. Tradition suggests that her influence over the king led to the foundation of Chelsea Hospital.
See Peter Cunningham, The Story of Nell Gwyn, edited by Gordon Goodwin (1903); Waldron’s edition of John Downes’s Roscius Anglicanus (1789); Osmund Airy, Charles II. (1904); Pepys, Diary; Evelyn, Diary and Correspondence; Origin and Early History of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, edited by Major-General G. Hutt (1872); Memoirs of the Life of Eleanor Gwinn (1752); Burnet, History of My Own Time, part i., edited by Osmund Airy (Oxford, 1897); Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, by H. Forneron, translated by Mrs Crawford (1887).
See Peter Cunningham, The Story of Nell Gwyn, edited by Gordon Goodwin (1903); Waldron’s edition of John Downes’s Roscius Anglicanus (1789); Osmund Airy, Charles II. (1904); Pepys, Diary; Evelyn, Diary and Correspondence; Origin and Early History of the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, edited by Major-General G. Hutt (1872); Memoirs of the Life of Eleanor Gwinn (1752); Burnet, History of My Own Time, part i., edited by Osmund Airy (Oxford, 1897); Louise de Kéroualle, Duchess of Portsmouth, by H. Forneron, translated by Mrs Crawford (1887).
GWYNIAD, the name given to a fish of the genus Coregonus or White fish (C. clupeoides), inhabiting the large lakes of North Wales and the north of England. At Ullswater it is known by the name of “schelly,” at Loch Lomond by that of “powen.” It is tolerably abundant in Lake Bala, keeping to the deepest portion of the lake for the greater part of the year, but appearing in shoals near the shores at certain seasons. It is well flavoured, like all the species of Coregonus, but scarcely attains to the weight of a pound. The name gwyniad is a Welsh word, and signifies “shining”; and it is singular that a similar fish in British Columbia, also belonging to the family of Salmonoids, is called by the natives “quinnat,” from the silvery lustre of its scales, the word having in their language the same meaning as the Welsh “gwyniad.”
GWYNIAD, is the name for a fish in the genus Coregonus or Whitefish (C. clupeoides), found in the large lakes of North Wales and northern England. In Ullswater, it’s referred to as “schelly,” while in Loch Lomond it’s called “powen.” It can be found in decent numbers in Lake Bala, where it tends to stay in the deepest parts of the lake for most of the year, but appears in schools near the shores during certain seasons. Like all Coregonus species, it has a good flavor, but it typically doesn’t weigh more than a pound. The name gwyniad comes from Welsh and means “shining”; interestingly, a similar fish in British Columbia, also part of the Salmonoid family, is called “quinnat” by the locals, deriving its name from the shiny appearance of its scales, which shares the same meaning as the Welsh “gwyniad.”
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!