Cozens’ on-the-spot sketch is inscribed and dated ‘Between Florence & Bologna – Septr.28 a Villa’, meaning that he observed the view during the return leg of his second trip to the Continent, in the autumn of 1783 (Bell and Girtin, 1935, no.403). The hitherto unidentified building amongst the trees turns out to be the Villa del Barone at Montemurlo Prato, located twenty-five kilometres north west of Florence². The sketch is found in the sixth of the seven sketchbooks that are associated with a visit that began with a journey to Naples in the company of his patron William Beckford (1760–1844). It is unlikely that the Monro School watercolour was copied directly from the sketch by Cozens, however. It would have been uncharacteristic of Beckford to have lent the sketchbooks to Monro, and the existence of a large number of tracings of their contents by Cozens himself suggests that the patron, rather than the artist, retained the books. An album put together by Sir George Beaumont (1753–1827), now in the collection of the Yale Center for British Art, New Haven, includes more than seventy tracings from on-the-spot drawings in the first three of the sketchbooks, and these provided the basis for at least thirty Monro School works. There are only five tracings from the next three books, but there is no reason to think that others did not exist, and it was presumably from these lost copies by Cozens that as many as thirty-five more watercolours were produced by Girtin and Turner, including this view of a substantial villa surrounded by trees. The fact that the Monro School copies never follow either the shading or the distribution of light seen in the on-the-spot sketches, though they always replicate the basic outlines, further suggests that Girtin and Turner generally worked from a tracing of the sketchbook view, and surely that was the case here as well.

The bulk of the works sold at Monro’s posthumous sale in 1833 were attributed to Turner alone, but, despite the pioneering article published by Andrew Wilton in 1984, which established the joint authorship of many of the Monro School copies, there is still a strong tendency to consider works such as this without reference to Girtin’s contribution (Wilton, 1984a, pp.8–23). This is not surprising in this case because the drawing has been quite heavily worked with a relatively full palette of colours. However, this has not entirely obscured the pencil work and arguably there are sufficient signs of Girtin’s characteristic marks and stylistic traits as a draughtsman to be reasonably confident of his involvement in the production. Turner’s contribution is altogether more problematic, however. The colouring is by his standards relatively crude, formulaic and overworked, and there is little coherent sense of space or distance. Standards certainly vary greatly across the mass of the Turner–Girtin collaborations, but in this case I suspect that the poor quality of the colour washes suggests the involvement of the hand of another, unknown artist, working over Girtin’s pencil outline.