.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The painting was the subject of a short note in The Portfolio for 1893. The piece is anonymous but was probably by the editor, P.G. Hamerton, who had already written on Leighton for the magazine in 1879. The writer observes that he has called the picture Vittoria because that was 'the name of the model, a Roman woman, who sat also to Hébert for the principal figure in a well-known picture of a girl standing at a fountain... Sir Frederic Leighton's study and Hébert's picture were both painted in a little garden studio which the French artist occupied on the walks of the French Academy in Rome.'
Leighton had known Ernest Hébert (1817-1908), his senior by thirteen years, since 1855, when he had settled temporarily in Paris, taking a studio at 21 rue Pigalle which Hébert helped him to furnish. The older artist had lived for many years in Italy and had made his name with La Mal'aria (Musée d'Orsay, Paris), a rather melancholy picture of a Roman family fleeing the plague which he had shown at the Salon in 1850. He was to return to Rome in 1867 as director of the French Academy in the Villa Medici, holding the post until 1873. Leighton spent the winter of 1872-3 in Rome with his old friend Adelaide Sartoris, and it was almost certainly at this time that he painted our sketch in Hébert's 'garden studio' in the Villa's grounds.
Leighton painted two pictures entitled Vittoria, and they have been much confused. Both appeared in the studio sale at Christie's in July 1896, lot 94 selling on the first day for 90 guineas and lot 180 fetching 61 guineas on day two. Both were bought by Agnew's. Lot 180 is said in the catalogue to be the picture of this title that Leighton exhibited at the Royal Society of British Artists in 1873. This would seem to point to the present picture, assuming that it had been painted the previous winter. Moreover, the theory is strengthened by the fact that Leighton's second exhibit at the RSA in 1873 was a study called A Roman, which could well have been another product of his recent stay in Rome.
On the other hand, there are grounds for thinking that lot 94 may have been the exhibited picture and the present work. It seems to have been the more substantial of the two Vittorias in the studio sale; certainly it was the more expensive. And its measurements (8½ x 6½ in.) are near enough to those of our picture to make identification possible. Unfortunately the dimensions of lot 180 are not given.
All in all, we cannot discount the possiblity that the catalogues of the studio sale confused the two pictures, nor do references in the older literature help to resolve the problem. Ernest Rhys and Mrs Barrington both list a single picture which they date to 1873 and identify with the one shown at the RSBA. Only Edgcumbe Staley seems to imply that there were two works, but in doing so introduces a puzzling new element. One, of uncertain date, he assigns to the RSBA. The other, of 1873, is said to have been exibited at the Newlyn Art Gallery, a name we encounter nowhere else in this context.
Whatever the identity of the two pictures (and it seems unlikely that it will ever be firmly established), our painting is a good example of the oil sketches that Leighton made in such numbers during his foreign travels. Whether of figures or landscapes, they were essentially for his own pleasure, and have a freedom of touch that did not always filter through into his more finished works. At the same time, they were often made as aides-mémoires for the large-scale subject pictures that he would later compose in the studio. Indeed, photographs of Leighton's studio in his lifetime show many of them hanging on the walls for daily reference.
Leighton had known Ernest Hébert (1817-1908), his senior by thirteen years, since 1855, when he had settled temporarily in Paris, taking a studio at 21 rue Pigalle which Hébert helped him to furnish. The older artist had lived for many years in Italy and had made his name with La Mal'aria (Musée d'Orsay, Paris), a rather melancholy picture of a Roman family fleeing the plague which he had shown at the Salon in 1850. He was to return to Rome in 1867 as director of the French Academy in the Villa Medici, holding the post until 1873. Leighton spent the winter of 1872-3 in Rome with his old friend Adelaide Sartoris, and it was almost certainly at this time that he painted our sketch in Hébert's 'garden studio' in the Villa's grounds.
Leighton painted two pictures entitled Vittoria, and they have been much confused. Both appeared in the studio sale at Christie's in July 1896, lot 94 selling on the first day for 90 guineas and lot 180 fetching 61 guineas on day two. Both were bought by Agnew's. Lot 180 is said in the catalogue to be the picture of this title that Leighton exhibited at the Royal Society of British Artists in 1873. This would seem to point to the present picture, assuming that it had been painted the previous winter. Moreover, the theory is strengthened by the fact that Leighton's second exhibit at the RSA in 1873 was a study called A Roman, which could well have been another product of his recent stay in Rome.
On the other hand, there are grounds for thinking that lot 94 may have been the exhibited picture and the present work. It seems to have been the more substantial of the two Vittorias in the studio sale; certainly it was the more expensive. And its measurements (8½ x 6½ in.) are near enough to those of our picture to make identification possible. Unfortunately the dimensions of lot 180 are not given.
All in all, we cannot discount the possiblity that the catalogues of the studio sale confused the two pictures, nor do references in the older literature help to resolve the problem. Ernest Rhys and Mrs Barrington both list a single picture which they date to 1873 and identify with the one shown at the RSBA. Only Edgcumbe Staley seems to imply that there were two works, but in doing so introduces a puzzling new element. One, of uncertain date, he assigns to the RSBA. The other, of 1873, is said to have been exibited at the Newlyn Art Gallery, a name we encounter nowhere else in this context.
Whatever the identity of the two pictures (and it seems unlikely that it will ever be firmly established), our painting is a good example of the oil sketches that Leighton made in such numbers during his foreign travels. Whether of figures or landscapes, they were essentially for his own pleasure, and have a freedom of touch that did not always filter through into his more finished works. At the same time, they were often made as aides-mémoires for the large-scale subject pictures that he would later compose in the studio. Indeed, photographs of Leighton's studio in his lifetime show many of them hanging on the walls for daily reference.