pope himself became his first and apparently one of his most proficient pupils. But in spite of his success Guido could not be induced to remain in Rome, the insalubrious air of which seems to have affected his health. In Rome he met again his former superior, the abbot of Pomposa, who seems to have repented of his conduct, and to have induced Guido to return to Pomposa; and here all authentic records of Guido’s life cease. We only know that he died, on the 17th of May 1050, as prior of Avellana, a monastery of the Camaldulians; such at least is the statement of the chroniclers of that order. It ought, however, to be added that the Camaldulians claim the celebrated musician as wholly their own, and altogether deny his connexion with the Benedictines.
The documents discovered by Dom Germain Morin, the Belgian Benedictine, about 1888, point to the conclusion that Guido was a Frenchman and lived from his youth upwards in the Benedictine monastery of St Maur des Fosses where he invented his novel system of notation and taught the brothers to sing by it. In codex 763 of the British Museum the composer of the “Micrologus” and other works by Guido of Arezzo is always described as Guido de Sancto Mauro.
There is no doubt that Guido’s method shows considerable progress in the evolution of modern notation. It was he who for the first time systematically used the lines of the staff, and the intervals or spatia between them. There is also little doubt that the names of the first six notes of the scale, ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la, still in use among Romance nations, were introduced by Guido, although he seems to have used them in a relative rather than in an absolute sense. It is well known that these words are the first syllables of six lines of a hymn addressed to St John the Baptist, which may be given here:—
| Ut queant laxis | resonare fibris |
| Mira gestorum | famuli tuorum, |
| Solve polluti | labii reatum, |
| Sancte Joannes. | |
In addition to this Guido is generally credited with the introduction of the F clef. But more important than all this, perhaps, is the thoroughly practical tone which Guido assumes in his theoretical writings, and which differs greatly from the clumsy scholasticism of his contemporaries and predecessors.
The most important of Guido’s treatises, and those which are generally acknowledged to be authentic, are Micrologus Guidonis de disciplina artis musicae, dedicated to Bishop Theodald of Arezzo, and comprising a complete theory of music, in 20 chapters; Musicae Guidonis regulae rhythmicae in antiphonarii sui prologum prolatae, written in trochaic decasyllabics of anything but classical structure; Aliae Guidonis regulae de ignoto cantu, identidem in antiphonarii sui prologum prolatae; and the Epistola Guidonis Michaeli monacho de ignoto cantu, already referred to. These are published in the second volume of Gerbert’s Scriptores ecclesiastici de musica sacra. A very important manuscript unknown to Gerbert (the Codex bibliothecae Uticensis, in the Paris library) contains, besides minor treatises, an antiphonarium and gradual undoubtedly belonging to Guido.
See also L. Angeloni, G. d’Arezzo (1811); Kiesewetter, Guido von Arezzo (1840); Kornmüller, “Leben und Werken Guidos von Arezzo,” in Habert’s Jahrb. (1876); Antonio Brandi, G. Aretino (1882); G. B. Ristori, Biografia di Guido monaco d’Arezzo (1868).
GUIDO OF SIENA. The name of this Italian painter is of
considerable interest in the history of art, on the ground that,
if certain assumptions regarding him could be accepted as true,
he would be entitled to share with Cimabue, or rather indeed
to supersede him in, the honour of having given the first onward
impulse to the art of painting. The case stands thus. In the
church of S. Domenico in Siena is a large painting of the “Virgin
and Child Enthroned,” with six angels above, and in the Benedictine
convent of the same city is a triangular pinnacle, once
a portion of the same composition, representing the Saviour in
benediction, with two angels; the entire work was originally
a triptych, but is not so now. The principal section of this
picture has a rhymed Latin inscription, giving the painter’s
name as Gu . . . o de Senis, with the date 1221: the genuineness
of the inscription is not, however, free from doubt, and
especially it is maintained that the date really reads as 1281.
In the general treatment of the picture there is nothing to
distinguish it particularly from other work of the same early
period; but the heads of the Virgin and Child are indisputably
very superior, in natural character and graceful dignity, to
anything to be found anterior to Cimabue. The question therefore
arises, Are these heads really the work of a man who painted
in 1221? Crowe and Cavalcaselle pronounce in the negative,
concluding that the heads are repainted, and are, as they now
stand, due to some artist of the 14th century, perhaps Ugolino
da Siena; thus the claims of Cimabue would remain undisturbed
and in their pristine vigour. Beyond this, little is known of
Guido da Siena. There is in the Academy of Siena a picture
assigned to him, a half-figure of the “Virgin and Child,” with
two angels, dating probably between 1250 and 1300; also in
the church of S. Bernardino in the same city a Madonna dated
1262. Milanesi thinks that the work in S. Domenico is due to
Guido Graziani, of whom no other record remains earlier than
1278, when he is mentioned as the painter of a banner. Guido
da Siena appears always to have painted on panel, not in fresco
on the wall. He has been termed, very dubiously, a pupil of
Pietrolino, and the master of “Diotisalvi,” Mino da Turrita and
Berlinghieri da Lucca.
GUIDO RENI (1575–1642), a prime master in the Bolognese
school of painting, and one of the most admired artists of the
period of incipient decadence in Italy, was born at Calvenzano
near Bologna on the 4th of November 1575. His father was a
musician of repute, a player on the flageolet; he wished to bring
the lad up to perform on the harpsichord. At a very childish
age, however, Guido displayed a determined bent towards the
art of form, scribbling some attempt at a drawing here, there
and everywhere. He was only nine years of age when Denis
Calvart took notice of him, received him into his academy of
design by the father’s permission, and rapidly brought him
forward, so that by the age of thirteen Guido had already attained
marked proficiency. Albani and Domenichino became
soon afterwards pupils in the same academy. With Albani
Guido was very intimate up to the earlier period of manhood,
but they afterwards became rivals, both as painters and as
heads of ateliers, with a good deal of asperity on Albani’s part;
Domenichino was also pitted against Reni by the policy of
Annibale Caracci. Guido was still in the academy of Calvart
when he began frequenting the opposition school kept by
Lodovico Caracci, whose style, far in advance of that of the
Flemish painter, he dallied with. This exasperated Calvart.
Him Guido, not yet twenty years of age, cheerfully quitted,
transferring himself openly to the Caracci academy, in which he
soon became prominent, being equally skilful and ambitious.
He had not been a year with the Caracci when a work of his
excited the wonder of Agostino and the jealousy of Annibale.
Lodovico cherished him, and frequently painted him as an angel,
for the youthful Reni was extremely handsome. After a while,
however, Lodovico also felt himself nettled, and he patronized
the competing talents of Giovanni Barbiere. On one occasion
Guido had made a copy of Annibale’s “Descent from the
Cross”; Annibale was asked to retouch it, and, finding nothing
to do, exclaimed pettishly, “He knows more than enough”
(“Costui ne sa troppo”). On another occasion Lodovico, consulted
as umpire, lowered a price which Reni asked for an early
picture. This slight determined the young man to be a pupil
no more. He left the Caracci, and started on his own account
as a competitor in the race for patronage and fame. A renowned
work, the story of “Callisto and Diana,” had been completed
before he left.
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.
