[61] "Not everybody," wrote the late Mr. Underhill, who for some time, as private secretary to Sir Frederic Leighton, had special opportunities of knowing, "is aware of the tax upon a man's time and energy that is involved in the acceptance of the office in question.

The post is a peculiar one, and requires a combination of talents not frequently to be found, inasmuch as it demands an established standing as a painter, together with great urbanity and considerable social position. The inroads which the occupancy of the office makes upon an artist's time are very considerable. There is, on the average, at least one Council meeting for every three weeks throughout the whole year.

There are, from time to time, general a.s.semblies for the election of new members and for other purposes, over which the President is bound, of course, to preside. For ten days or a fortnight in every April he has to be in attendance with the Council daily at Burlington House, for the purpose of selecting the pictures which are to be hung in the Spring Exhibition. He has to preside over the banquet which yearly precedes the opening of the Academy, and he has to act as host at the annual conversazione. Finally, it is his duty every other year to deliver a long, elaborate, and carefully prepared 'Discourse' upon matters connected with art, to the students who are for that purpose a.s.sembled. It is a post of much honour and small profit." "To administer the affairs of the Academy, to fulfil a round of social semi-public and public engagements, and to paint pictures which invariably reach a high level of excellence, would, of course, be impossible--even to Sir Frederic Leighton--were it not for the fact that he makes the very most of the time at his disposal. 'That's the secret,' remarked a distinguished member of the Academy to the present writer some little time before the President's death; 'Sir Frederic knows exactly how long it will take to do a certain thing, and he apportions his time accordingly.'"--"Frederic, Lord Leighton, P.R.A.: His Life and Works." By Ernest Rhys.

[62] While writing this discourse Leighton wrote to his father:--

PERUGIA, _October 5, 1889_.

DEAR DAD,--You will be surprised to hear that your letter (for which best thanks) only came to my hands _yesterday_ on my arrival here; it had apparently, after enjoying a junket through Spain, returned to England before its final despatch here. The envelope, which I enclose, will amuse you; Ulysses himself did not visit more cities of men! I am glad my Spanish tour is at an end; the insufferable heat, the long journeys, the frequent _night_ travelling, have conspired to make it rather trying to me physically. I have never been thoroughly well the whole time.

Here it is absolutely cold, and I shall probably soon begin firing; it rains also, and I fear the weather is altogether unpromising; but the air is magnificent, and I am very fond of the place, and I shall enjoy my stay as much as the necessity of writing my (adjective) Address will allow.

My journey through Spain, though fatiguing, was extremely interesting and very profitable to me for the matter in hand. My stay in Madrid was made more enjoyable by the extreme amiability of my very old friend our amba.s.sador, who brought me into contact with two or three interesting people, from whom I gathered valuable information in regard to things Spanish; to say nothing of getting compartments reserved for me in trains, &c. &c. It is rather fortunate that our diplomatic representatives abroad are mostly personal friends of mine. Post is just going, so good-bye for the present.--Your affectionate son,

FRED.

Leighton mastered the Spanish language completely in the course of the few weeks he spent in Spain in 1866. A friend who was present gives an amusing account of an incident which occurred when Leighton dined with Mrs. Adelaide Sartoris after his return. He was sitting next Senor Garcia (only now just dead at the age of 102); the conversation was being carried on in Spanish. Mrs. Sartoris, in astonishment and admiration at the fluent manner in which Leighton was talking the language of which he did not know a word a few weeks before, exclaimed, "But, Senor Garcia, _do_ say he makes some little mistakes!" "But he _doesn't_," replied Garcia; "he hasn't made one!"

[63] Mr. Norman Shaw wrote the following letter the day after he heard this address in 1891:--

6 ELLERDALE ROAD, HAMPSTEAD, N.W., _December 11, 1891_.

DEAR SIR FREDERIC,--I was so sorry I missed you last night.

After the election I went into the galleries to find my people, and when I came out you had gone--and quite right too, for you must have been very tired.

I thank you very sincerely for your most admirable address. I had heard that it was to be on the subject of French Art, but I had not realised that it was to be entirely about Architecture!

and as an architect I naturally feel very deeply its great and permanent value. It is altogether a new sensation to have a Presidential address devoted to the Mother of the Arts! and I am sure its influence will be wide, deep, and lasting.

Amongst the many regrettable phases of modern art, there is none that I feel more than the isolation that the three great branches of art exist under in this country (for in France I am sure it is quite different), and I cannot help feeling that your address is a tremendous step in the right direction; but, alas!

I don't believe one in twenty of our colleagues understood what you were so clearly explaining, and I fear not one in fifty cared! But it is absurd to suppose that with the advancement of knowledge this state of things can last, so it is intensely satisfactory to have it on record that not merely have we had a President that knew all that is to be known about the art, but who also cared and loved it!

I thought your remarks on the French apse quite delightful. I have always felt this strongly, and though as an Englishman (Scotchman!) I like our square east ends, still I am bound to admit that there is a logical completeness about a chevet that the square end cannot claim. But I shall only weary you if I go on in this prosy way! so thanking you again most heartily for your grand contribution, believe me to remain,--Yours very sincerely,

R. NORMAN SHAW.

SIR FREDERIC LEIGHTON, BART.

[64] From a boy, without any effort or thought on his part, he exercised an unquestioned domination over others. Speaking of the days when he, as a boy of seventeen, first made friends with Leighton in Rome, Sir E. Poynter said, "He knew he was clever, but he hadn't a particle of conceit. I never saw him cast down, he was always jolly and n.o.ble; none ever thought of refusing him obedience." Again, Sir E.

Poynter refers to these early days in his Dedication to Leighton of "Ten Lectures on Art": "I came to-day from the 'Varnishing Day' at the Royal Academy Exhibition with a pleasant conviction that there is, on all sides, a more decided tendency towards a higher standard in Art, both as regards treatment of subject and execution, than I have before noticed; and I have no hesitation in attributing this sudden improvement, in the main, to the stimulus given us all by the election of our new President, and to the influence of the energy, thoroughness, and n.o.bility of aim which he displays in everything he undertakes. I was probably the first, when we were both young, and in Rome together, to whom he had the opportunity of showing the disinterested kindness which he has invariably extended to beginners; and to him, as the friend and master who first directed my ambition, and whose precepts I never fail to recall when at work (as many another will recall them), I venture to dedicate this book with affection and respect." Signor Giovanni Costa wrote: "I remember once in Siena there was an unemployed half-hour in our programme. Leighton happening to go to the window of the hotel, exclaimed, 'The Cupola of the Duomo is on fire!' and as he said it he rushed downstairs to go there. I, being lame, could not keep pace with him, but followed, and on arriving in the Piazza attempted to enter the Duomo past a line of soldiers who were keeping the ground; but they would not allow me to. Seeing them carrying wooden h.o.a.rdings into the cathedral, I shouted. 'You are taking fuel to the fire! Let me in--I am an artist and a custodian of artistic treasures.' The word 'custodian' moved them, and they let me pa.s.s. When I got inside the Duomo I found Leighton commanding in the midst. He was saying, 'You are bringing fuel to the fire.' There was a major of infantry with his company, who cried out, 'Open the windows!' Leighton exclaimed, 'My dear sir, you are fanning the flames; you must shut the windows.' He had placed himself at the head of everybody, and the windows were shut.

From the cupola into the church fell melting flakes of fire ('cadean di fuoco dilatate falde'--_Dante_) from the burning and liquefied lead, which would certainly have ignited the boards with which they had intended to cover the _graffitte_ by Beccafumi on the marble pavement.

Our half-hour was over. Leighton looked at his watch and said, 'In any case the cupola is burnt; let us be off to the Opera del Duomo; Duccio Buoninsegna is waiting for us!'"

[65] Sir George Grove wrote after the banquet in 1882: "Dear Leighton,--Let me say a word of most hearty congratulations on the brilliant way in which you got through your _Herculean_ task on Sat.u.r.day. You are really a prodigy! Your last speech reads just as fresh and gay and unembarra.s.sed as the first, and every one of the nine is as neat, as pointed, as perfectly _a propos_ as if there were nothing else to be said! Thank you especially for the reference to the music business."

[66] The following is one of many letters of regret expressed when Leighton resigned:--

19 QUEEN STREET, MAYFAIR, W., _June 24_.

DEAR SIR FREDERIC,--I trust you will allow me to express to you the sincere regret I feel at your being compelled to give up your command of the "Artists." To myself volunteering has always been so inseparably connected with your command, that I cannot at present realise the extent of the blank which your resignation will create. I shall ever remember with pride that it was under your auspices that I rose through the ranks and obtained my commission.--Believe me, dear Sir Frederic, very truly yours,

W. PASTEUR.

SIR FREDERIC LEIGHTON, P.R.A.

[67] The following correspondence took place between Leighton and Mr.

Henry Wells, R.A.

To Sir FREDERIC LEIGHTON, P.R.A.

_January 27, (?) 1880._

I will avail myself of this opportunity to remark upon the statement you made in your summing up, viz. that if women were made members under the existing law they would not have the right to sit on Council.

If you can establish this, if you can show us that any one elected a "member" under our law can be debarred on the score of s.e.x from taking a seat on the Council, then I will instantly allow that our laws do provide for the election of women, and that the very ground of our argument is proved to be a quicksand. When you endorsed the statement that came so naturally from Millais, Calderon, and Leslie, I felt the matter was serious, for I saw at once that you could not do justice to our argument in the summing up because its very foundation was misapprehended by you. Although the question is now disposed of, I beg of you to look closely into the matter and a.s.sure yourself of it. I only wish I had known beforehand where your doubts were centered, for I would have done my best to remove them. I know you will find, beyond all doubt and controversy, that any one made a "member" by election can make good a claim to a seat on the Council, just as Mr. Tresham made good his claim; and it is because our laws provide for only one kind of members--a Council-sitting kind--that we felt the necessity of providing for the election of a non-Council-sitting kind.

In making this distinction we follow the example of George the Third and the founders of the Academy (who presumably knew something of the understanding upon which the two ladies became connected with the Society), for their decision, when they _administered_ the law in the Tresham case, excluded women from a privilege which could not be denied to a "member" elected under the law. Of course their and our interpretation is open to dispute; but this much is beyond dispute, that if the law is interpreted as providing for women being "members," then it also places them (against the intention, as we see, of the founders) upon the Council; and as the great majority of the present Academicians have made up their minds that women shall not sit on Council, legislation would be necessary on either reading of the law.

The schedule of privileges to be given on the one hypothesis, would on the other give place to a subtraction of privileges, and either schedule would be determined according to the varying shades of opinions of the members.

There would remain only this difference in the result; one schedule would be based upon a law that is open to varying interpretations, whereas according to our method the schedule was based upon a positive resolution providing for the election of women, thus removing the question from all future discussion and doubt.

H.T.W.

From Sir FREDERIC LEIGHTON, P.R.A.

_January 30, 1880._

"In regard to the women question, I perfectly _saw_ your contention and the logical cohesion of your view, and I was familiar with the Tresham episode, only I dissent from your view; I maintain that there were from the first non-Council-sitting members--for 'members' the women certainly were. 'It is the King's pleasure that the following forty persons be the original _members_ of the Society,' and they did not serve on Council, as the roster shows, _though all members_ were supposed to have sat; of course the laws were for the original as well as the elected members, and if the privilege could be refused to an original member whose name stands on the paper that says that all members shall serve in Council, it can and must on the same grounds be refused to elected female members after the custom is consecrated by Royal sanction."

_January 31, 1880._

"DEAR WELLS,--I should much like to hear what you wish to say about the office of Treasurer--there are several points connected directly or indirectly with the office which it will be well to consider before I ask the Queen to appoint, and I have called a Council for _Thursday_ (the funeral is not till Tuesday), at which these matters may be considered. It would seem advisable and convenient that the Treasurer's work be done at the Academy, and not away from it. I think also that the wording of the clause appointing a Surveyor might be made clearer; it ought not to be _possible_ for any one to misunderstand or misinterpret its bearing. Unfortunately I have an appointment to-morrow afternoon at 4.30, and my work in the day is so urgent, having to be handed over on a fixed day, that I cannot leave it--would _Tuesday_ at _five_ do? say at the Athenaeum, or here a little later? we should still be forty-eight hours in advance of the Council. In regard to the women question, I perfectly _saw_ your contention and the logical cohesion of your view, and I was familiar with the Tresham episode, only I dissent from your view; I maintain that there were from the first 'non-Council-sitting' members--for 'members'

the women certainly were: 'It is Her Majesty's pleasure that the following forty persons be the original _members_ of the Society,' and they did not serve on Council as the roster shows, though _all members_ were supposed to have sat. Of course the laws were for the 'original' as well as for the 'elected'

members, and if the privilege could be refused to an original member whose name stands on the paper, that says that all members shall serve on Council, it can and must on the same grounds be refused to 'elected' female members after the custom is consecrated by Royal sanction.--In haste, yours very truly,

FRED LEIGHTON.

"I have said nothing in this letter about poor Barry, but you may imagine whether the tragic event has moved and haunts me."

To Sir FREDERIC LEIGHTON, P.R.A.

_February 1, 1880._

I am very glad indeed to have the statement of your views which you have given me on the women question. Everything is now clear, side matters are disposed of, and only a single point remains on which we have to join issue. On my part I hold that our laws are in a definite and unequivocal form. That their foundation is in the "Instrument" and that every addition to, or modification, or annulment of the provisions in that doc.u.ment has been made in the manner prescribed, viz. by "resolutions"

pa.s.sed by the General a.s.sembly and afterwards sanctioned by the Sovereign. These acts of legislation are all drawn up in a special way (as to size and pattern), to receive the sign manual of the Sovereign; and the tablets arranged in the order of their dates const.i.tute our Statute-Book. I hold that no law can be changed or privilege taken away except by a subsequent act of legislation done in the prescribed manner.

On your part you hold that laws can be changed and privileges taken away by a "custom consecrated by Royal sanction." Thus the issue raised is very clear and distinct indeed.

I will point out that the question as to women sitting on Council was only on one occasion, and then only incidentally, before the Academy. Until the Tresham case arose the ballot had been used in forming the Council, and consequently no question of rights could appear while that process remained unchallenged.

But whether we are discussing a single act of adjudication, or such a succession of acts as may be called a "custom," is really immaterial, because the sole question before us is this--can any act or acts other than those of legislation override and supplant the enactments of our law?

If it could be established that our laws must give way to the cla.s.s of acts you point to, it would then be the first duty of the Academy to have our records minutely searched to ascertain what other laws have been supplanted by administrative actions sanctioned by the Sovereign; and the historical method so much discountenanced at our last a.s.sembly would in truth rise into paramount importance. Many cases would most probably be found.