Chapter 4

"Did you ask to see the early states of Mr. Whistler's etchings?"

"Did you say to Mr. Brown, 'Now, is not Mr. Whistler under an engagement with the Fine Art Society to publish no Venice etchings for a year?' or words to that effect? and upon Mr. Brown's assurance that such was the case, did you request him to go with you to the Hanover Gallery?"

"Did you there produce for his inspection three large Venice etchings, and among them the 'Riva' subject?"

"Did you then incite Mr. Brown to detect, in these works, the hand of Mr. Whistler?"

"Did you point out details of execution which, in your opinion, betrayed Mr. Whistler's manner?"

"Did you say, 'You see these etchings are signed "Frank Duveneck," and I have written to that name and address for their purchase, but I don't believe in the existence of such a person,' or words to that effect?"

"If this be not so,

"Why did you take Mr. Brown over to the Hanover Gallery?"

"Why did you show him Mr. Duveneck's Venice etchings?"

"Why did you question him about my engagement with the Fine Art Society?"

"Is it officially, as the Painter-Etchers' President, that you pry about the town?"

"Does the Committee sanction your suggestions? and have you permitted yourself these 'proceedings' with the full knowledge and approval of the 'dozen or more distinguished men seated in serious council,' as described by yourself in the _Pall Mall Gazette_?"

"Of what nature, pray, is the 'necessary duty' that has led two medical men and a Slade Professor to fail as connoisseurs, and blunder as detectives?"

"'Vat shall de honest man do in my closet? Dere is no honest man dat shall come in my closet!'"

"Copies of this correspondence will be sent to members of your Committee."

To this last letter, Mr. Seymour Haden has not as yet sent any answer, and here the matter rests. As requested, we have sent Mr. Piker the copies he requires for distribution.

THE EDITOR OF THE "CUCKOO."

_La Suite_

"ARTS CLUB," May 10, 1881.

To the Committee of the Painter-Etchers' Society:

[Sidenote: Letter to the Committee of "Painter-Etchers' Society."]

Gentlemen,--I have hitherto, in vain, written to Sir William Drake, as secretary of the Painter-Etchers' Society, and feeling convinced that his elaborate silence cannot possibly be the expression of any intended discourtesy on the part of the Committee, as a body, but that it would rather indicate that they had not been consulted in the matter at all, I now address myself to you, and beg that you will kindly inform me whether the Committee, as represented by their officers, endorse the late acts of their President, or whether they intend taking any steps towards refusing to share the shame and ridicule that have accrued from certain "proceedings" described by Mr. Haden as a "necessary duty," in the exercise of which he was officially engaged in conjunction with Dr. Hamilton and M. Legros.

That you may clearly see how current the matter has become, I have the honour, Gentlemen, to send you herewith, for your serious consideration, extracts from the daily press, and thus, as you will read, carry out myself the first intention of a certain speculative Piker, newsvendor, Shepherd's Market, who had purposed circulating among you "twenty copies" of the enclosed literary venture--curtailed, it is true, to the original "Piker paragraph," and unaccompanied by the Piker twenty-penny prospect; the printing of which may--who knows?--have caused a wavering on the part of Piker, and have left you deprived of his labour after all.

Piker offers matter with authority--and here I would point out the _close proximity of Shepherd's Market to Hertford Street, Mayfair_!--most suggestive is such contiguity. The newsvendor's stall and the doctor's office within hail of each other!

Surely I may, without indiscretion, congratulate the President upon Piker's English and also upon the Pecksniffian whine about the "brother-in-law"--rather telling in its way--but shallow! shallow!--for after all, Gentlemen, a brother-in-law is _not_ a connection calling for sentiment--in the abstract, rather an intruder than "a near relation"--indeed, "near relation" is mere swagger!

Meanwhile, the insinuation of jealousy of the "brother-etcher" is, as Piker puts it, "_suspecte_"--very!--and modest!--and transparent!

To the last paper I have added the cutting from the former _Cuckoo_ (Piker's earlier effort) so that you have the occasion of perceiving how the progressive Piker party have gained in courage--until, in direct contradiction to their first anxiety and hesitation, we reach the final _overwhelming certainty_ of the three representative gentlemen, whose visit to the Fine Art Society's rooms, it would _now_ appear, was absolutely to prove to the "blundering assistant" that some etchings he had never seen, and, consequently never had questioned;--of the very existence of which, in short, he was utterly unconscious,--were by a Mr. Duveneck, of whom he had never heard, and _not_ by Mr. Whistler!--a fact that in his whole life he had never been in a position to dispute--and of which _the three Painter-Etchers themselves were the only people_ who had ever had any doubt!

Really, they either doubted Duveneck, or they didn't doubt Duveneck!--Now, if the Piker party didn't doubt Duveneck, who the devil did the Piker party doubt? And why, may I ask, does Mr. Haden, _two days after_ the disastrous blunder in Bond Street, _volunteer_ the following note of explanation to Mr. Brown, the assistant?--

(COPY.)

"38 HERTFORD STREET, MAYFAIR, W. March 19, 1881.

"To Ernest Brown, Esq.--Dear Sir,--We know all about Mr. Frank Duveneck, and are delighted to have his etchings.--Yours faithfully,"

"F. SEYMOUR HADEN."

It will be remembered that the little expedition to the Fine Art Society's Gallery took place on _Thursday evening, the 17th_ of March. On Friday, the 18th, Mr. Huish wrote to Mr. Haden demanding an explanation; and on _Saturday, the 19th_, this over-diplomatic and criminating note was sent to Mr. Brown,--altogether unasked for, and curiously difficult to excuse!--"Methinks, he doth protest too much!"

Further comment I believe to be unnecessary.

I refer you, Gentlemen, to my letter of March 29th, which Mr. Haden has never been able to answer--and merely point out that, the "blundering assistant" was the only one who did not blunder at all--since he alone, refrained from folly, and, notwithstanding all exhortation, steadily refused, in the presence of cunning connoisseurs, to mistake the work of one man for that of another.

I have, Gentlemen, the honour to be, Your obedient servant, J. MCNEILL WHISTLER.

May 18, 1881.

TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE PAINTER-ETCHERS' SOCIETY.

May I, without impertinence, ask what really does constitute the "Painter-Etcher" "all round," as Piker has it?--for, of these three gentlemen who have so markedly distinguished themselves in that character, two certainly are not painters--and one doesn't etch!

_A Correction_

[Sidenote: _The World_, Nov. 14, 1883.]

A supposititious conversation in _Punch_ brought about the following interchange of telegrams:--

From Oscar Wilde, Exeter, to J. McNeill Whistler, Tite Street.--_Punch_ too ridiculous--when you and I are together we never talk about anything except ourselves.

From Whistler, Tite Street, to Oscar Wilde, Exeter.--No, no, Oscar, you forget--when you and I are together, we never talk about anything except me.

_A Warning_

[Sidenote: _The World_, June 1, 1881.]

[Sidenote: _REFLECTION:_

"A foolish man's foot is soon in his neighbour's house; but a man of experience is ashamed of him."

My dear James,--I see from a weekly paper that your late residence, the White House, in Tite Street, is now occupied by Mr. Harry Quilter, "the excellent art critic and writer on art," or words to that effect. This is the great man who has succeeded Mr. Tom Taylor on the _Times_, and whose vagaries in art criticism you and I, my dear James, have previously noticed....

ATLAS.

_Naïf Enfant_

[Sidenote: _The Times_, May 2, 1881.]

Close to this is another portrait of extreme interest, and, though of another kind, it is not inappropriately near Mr. Hunt's work. This is Mr. John Ruskin, painted by Mr. Herkomer. It is difficult to dissociate this picture, as regards the merit of its painting, from the interest which attaches to it as being the first oil portrait we have ever seen of our great art critic.... The picture remains a singularly fine one, and is, in our opinion, Mr. Herkomer's best portrait.

_A Straight Tip_

[Sidenote: _The World_, May 18, 1881.]

"Ne pas confondre intelligence avec gendarmes"--but surely, dear Atlas, when the art critic of the _Times_, suffering possibly from chronic catarrh, is wafted in at the Grosvenor without guide or compass, and cannot by mere sense of smell distinguish between oil and water colour, he ought, like Mark Twain, "to inquire."

Had he asked the guardian or the fireman in the gallery, either might have told him not to say that one of the chief interests of Mr. Herkomer's large water-colour drawing of Mr. Ruskin "attaches to it as being _the first oil portrait_ we have ever seen of our great art critic"! Adieu.

_An Eager Authority_

[Sidenote: _The World_, Feb. 9, 1881.]

Mr. Whistler knows how to defend himself so perkily that it is a pleasure to attack him. I hasten, therefore, with joy, to submit to you, dear Atlas, who are growing so very clever at your languages, the following crotchets and quavers--shall I call them? for Mr. Whistler is just now full of "notes"--in American-Italian; they are from his delightful brown-paper catalogue. To begin with, "Santa Margharita" is wrong; it must be either Margarita or Margherita; the other is impossible Italian. Then who or what is "San Giovanni _Apostolo et Evangelistæ_"? Does the sprightly and shrill McNeill mean this for Latin? And is the "Café Orientale" intended to be French or Italian? It has an _e_ too many for French, and an _f_ too few for Italian. "Piazetta," furthermore, does duty for "Piazzetta." Finally I give up "Campo Sta. Martin." I don't know what that can be. The Italian Calendar has a San Martino and a Santa Martina, but Sta. Martin is very curious. The catalogue is exceedingly short, but a few of the names are right.

_An Admission_

[Sidenote: _The World_, Feb. 16, 1881]

Touché!--and my compliments to your "Correspondent," Atlas, _chéri_--far from me to justify spelling of my own! But who could possibly have supposed an orthographer loose! Evidently too "ung vieulx qui a moult roulé en Palestine et aultres lieux!"

What it is to be prepared, though! Atlas, _mon pauvre ami_, you know the story of the witness who, when asked how far he stood from the spot where the deed was done, answered unhesitatingly--"Sixty-three feet seven inches!" "How, sir," cried the prosecuting lawyer--"how can you possibly pretend to such accuracy?" "Well," returned the man in the box, "you see I thought some d----d fool would be sure to ask me, and so I measured."

_'Arry in the Grosvenor_

Atlas--In spite of the Kyrle Society, I don't appeal to the middle classes; for I read in the _Times_ that 'Arry won't have me. I am ranked with the _caviare_ of his betters, and add not to the relish of his winkles and tea.

Also, why troubles he about many things?

[Sidenote: _The World_, May 17, 1882.]

But, alas! as is aptly remarked in one of the weekly papers, "'Arry has taken to going to the Grosvenor;" and "ce n'est pas tout que d'être honnête," he says, lightly paraphrasing Alfred de Musset, "il faut être joli garçon!"

And so he blooms into an æsthete of his own order. To have seen him, O my wise Atlas, was my privilege and my misery; for he stood under one of my own "harmonies"--already with difficulty gasping its gentle breath--himself an amazing "arrangement" in strong mustard-and-cress, with bird's-eye belcher of Reckitt's blue; and then and there destroyed absolutely, unintentionally, and once for all, my year's work!

Atlas, shall these things be?

_Encouragement_

_TO OSCAR ON HIS "TOUR."_

[Sidenote: _The World_, Feb. 15, 1882.]

Oscar--We, of Tite Street and Beaufort Gardens, joy in your triumphs and delight in your success; but we are of opinion that, with the exception of your epigrams, you talk like "S---- C---- in the provinces"; and that, with the exception of your knee-breeches, you dress like 'Arry Quilter.

Chelsea.

_A Remonstrance_

Atlas, how could you!

[Sidenote: _The World_, Feb. 22, 1882.]

I know you carry the _World_ on your back, and am not surprised that my note to Oscar, on its way, should have fallen from your shoulders into your dainty fingers; but why present it in the state of puzzle?

Besides, your caution is one-sided and unfair; for if you print S---- C----, why not A---- Q----? Why not X Y Z at once?

And how unlike me! Instead of the frank recklessness which has unfortunately become a characteristic, I am, for the first time, disguised in careful timidity, and discharge my insinuating initials from the ambush of innuendo.

My dear Atlas, if I may not always call a spade a spade, may I not call a Slade Professor, Sidney Colvin?

_Propositions_

[Sidenote: With compliments to the Committee of the "Hoboken" Etching Club upon the occasion of receiving an invitation to compete in an etching tourney whose first condition was that the plate should be at least two feet by three.

I. That in Art, it is criminal to go beyond the means used in its exercise.

II. That the space to be covered should always be in proper relation to the means used for covering it.

III. That in etching, the means used, or instrument employed, being the finest possible point, the space to be covered should be small in proportion.

IV. That all attempts to overstep the limits insisted upon by such proportion, are inartistic thoroughly, and tend to reveal the paucity of the means used, instead of concealing the same, as required by Art in its refinement.

V. That the huge plate, therefore, is an offence--its undertaking an unbecoming display of determination and ignorance--its accomplishment a triumph of unthinking earnestness and uncontrolled energy--endowments of the "duffer."

VI. That the custom of "Remarque" emanates from the amateur, and reflects his foolish facility beyond the border of his picture, thus testifying to his unscientific sense of its dignity.

VII. That it is odious.

VIII. That, indeed, there should be no margin on the proof to receive such "Remarque."

IX. That the habit of margin, again, dates from the outsider, and continues with the collector in his unreasoning connoisseurship--taking curious pleasure in the quantity of paper.

X. That the picture ending where the frame begins, and, in the case of the etching, the white mount, being inevitably, because of its colour, the frame, the picture thus extends itself irrelevantly through the margin to the mount.

XI. That wit of this kind would leave six inches of raw canvas between the painting and its gold frame, to delight the purchaser with the quality of the cloth.

_An Unanswered Letter_

PRÉ CHARMOY, AUTUN, SAÔNE ET LOIRE, FRANCE, Sept. 13, 1867.

Sir--I am at present engaged upon a book on etching and should be glad to give a full account of what you have done, but find a difficulty, which is that, although I have seen many of your etchings, I have not fully and fairly studied them. I wonder whether you would object to lend me a set of proofs for a few weeks. As the book is already advanced, I should be glad of an early reply. My opinion of your work is, _on the whole, so favourable that your reputation could only gain_ by your affording me the opportunity of speaking of your work at length.

I remain, Sir, Your obedient servant, P. G. HAMERTON.

JAMES WHISTLER, Esq.

_Inconsequences_

[Sidenote: The "book on etching."]

James Whistler is of American extraction, and studied painting in France. As a student he was capricious and irregular, and did not leave the impression amongst his fellow-pupils that his future would be in any way distinguished ... his artistic education seems to have been mainly acquired by private and independent study....

Mr. Whistler seems to be aware that etchings are usually sought as much for their rarity as their excellence, and to have determined that his own plates shall be rare already.

I have been told that, if application is made by letter to Mr. Whistler for a set of his etchings, he may, perhaps, if he chooses to answer the letter, do the applicant the favour to let him have a copy for about the price of a good horse....

Whistler's etchings are not generally remarkable for poetical feeling....

P. G. HAMERTON,[20] _Etching and Etchers_.

[Note 20: "If beauty were the only province of art, neither painters nor etchers would find anything to occupy them in the foul stream that washes the London wharfs"--P. G. HAMERTON, _Etching and Etchers_.]

_Uncovered Opinions_

Mr. Whistler's famous "Woman in White" is amongst the rejected pictures.... The hangers must have thought her particularly ugly, for they have given her a sort of place of honour, before an opening through which all pass, so that nobody misses her.

I watched several parties, to see the impression the "Woman in White" made on them. They all stopped instantly, struck with amazement. This for two or three seconds; then they always looked at each other and laughed.

Here, for once, I have the happiness to be quite of the popular way of thinking.

[21]P. G. HAMERTON, _Fine Arts Quarterly_.

[Note 21: "Corot is one of the most celebrated landscape painters in France. The first impression of an Englishman, on looking at his works, is that they are the sketches of an amateur; it is difficult at first sight to consider them the serious performances of an artist.... I _understand Corot now_, and think his reputation, if not well deserved, at least easily accounted for.... Corot must be an early riser."--P. G. HAMERTON, _Fine Arts Quarterly_.]

[Note 21: "Doré (Gustave Paul).... He is a great and marvellous genius--a poet such as a nation produces once in a thousand years. He is the most imaginative, the profoundest, the most productive poet that has ever sprung from the French race."--P. G. HAMERTON, _Fine Arts Quarterly_.]

[Note 21: "Daubigny (Charles François).--If landscape can be satisfactorily painted without either drawing or colour--Daubigny is the man to do it."--P. G. HAMERTON, _Fine Arts Quarterly_.]

[Note 21: "M. Courbet is looked upon as the representative of Realism in France. The truth is that Edouard Frère, the Bonheurs, and many others are to the full as realistic as Courbet but they produce beautiful pictures.... It is difficult to speak of Courbet, without losing patience. Everything he touches becomes unpleasant."--P. G. HAMERTON, _Fine Arts Quarterly_.]

_The Fate of an Anecdote_

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _New York Tribune_, Sept. 12, 1880]

Sir--In _Scribner's Magazine_ for this month there appears an article on Mr. Seymour Haden, the eminent surgeon etcher, by a Mr. Hamerton, and in this article I have stumbled upon a curious statement concerning, strangely enough, my own affairs, offered pleasantly in the disguise of an anecdote habitually "narrated" by the Doctor himself, and printed effectively in inverted commas, as here shown:

... "A parallel anecdote is narrated by Mr. Haden: 'The most exquisite series of plates which Whistler ever did--his sixteen Thames subjects--were originally printed by a steel-plate printer, and so badly that the owner thought the plates were worn out, and sold them for a small sum in comparison to their real worth. The purchaser took them to Goulding, the best printer of etchings in England, and it was found that they were not only perfect, but that they produced impressions which had never before been approached even by Delatre.'"

Putting gently aside the question of these plates being superior to all previous or subsequent work, and dealing merely with facts, I have to say that they were _not_ "originally printed by a steel-plate printer"; that the impressions were _not_ so bad that the owner thought the plates worn out; and, flattering as is the supposition that they were sold for a small sum in comparison to their real worth, I am obliged to reject even this palatable assertion, as I received for the plates the price that I asked, knowing full well their exact condition.

Instead of the "steel-plate printer," Delatre, then at his prime, had himself printed these etchings--a fact which, amusingly enough, Mr. Haden admits further on, in direct contradiction to his first broad statement. Moreover, I had myself pulled proofs of them all; indeed, one in the set of sixteen plates, a drypoint, called "The Forge" (for by the way they were not all of the Thames), I alone printed. When the plates left my hands they were _not_ "taken to Goulding," who at that moment had, I fancy, barely begun his career as "the best printer of etchings in England" (and a capital printer he certainly is); and it was _not_ "found that they produced impressions never before approached even by Delatre"--here we have the contradiction alluded to--no! this theatrical denouement I must also put aside with sorrow.

The plates were brought out by Messrs. Ellis, who had them printed by some one in London, whose work was certainly not to be compared to that of Delatre, whom I should undoubtedly have recommended; so that _it was only long after the sale had been completed and the plates had ceased to be in my possession_, that inferior impressions were produced.

The understanding on my part with those publishers was that the plates were to be destroyed after one hundred impressions had been taken, but very recently they reappeared, and were sold to their present possessors, who _did_ take them to Mr. Goulding. And here I am obliged to explain away the last element of astonishment, for Mr. Goulding naturally found the etchings in their original perfect condition simply because I had had them steeled in their full bloom when I had satisfied myself by my own proofs.

Goulding's impressions of these plates are very excellent, but to say they were quite unapproached by Delatre is not only needless exaggeration, but an unkindness to Mr. Goulding.

Surely there must be some misunderstanding between Mr. Haden and his biographer--a misdeal of data--an accident with the anecdotes--because no one was more keenly alive to all relating to these plates and their various states than Mr. Haden himself, whose strong sense of the importance of printing was acquired while watching the progress of these same plates, and the previous French set, as they were proved by me and printed by Delatre, to whom I introduced him.