Chapter 8

Speak of them, if it please you, with uncovered head--even as in France you would remove your hat as there passes by the hearse--but remember it is from the conventional habit of awe alone, this show of respect, and called forth generally by the casual corpse of the commonest kind.

PARIS, Aug. 21, 1886.

_The Inevitable_

[Sidenote: _Truth_, Sept. 9, 1886.]

When I suggested you as the "Sapeur of modern progress," my dear Henry, I thought to convey delicately my appreciation, wrapped in graceful compliment.

When I am made to say that you are the "Sapem" of civilisation--whatever that may mean--I would seem to insinuate an impertinence clothed in classic error.

I trust that, if you forgive me, you will never pardon the printer.--Always,

"_Noblesse oblige_"

[Sidenote: _The World_, Dec. 31, 1884.]

Atlas, look at this! It has been culled from the _Plumber and Decorator_, of all insidious prints, and forwarded to me by the untiring people who daily supply me with the thinkings of my critics.

Read, Atlas, and let me execute myself:

"The 'Peacock' drawing-room of a well-to-do shipowner, of Liverpool, at Queen's Gate, London, is hand-painted, representing the noble bird with wings expanded, painted by an Associate of the Royal Academy, at a cost of £7000, and fortunate in claiming his daughter as his bride, and is one of the finest specimens of high art in decoration in the kingdom. The mansion is of modern construction."

He is not guilty, this honest Associate! It was _I_, Atlas, who did this thing--"alone I did it"--_I_ "hand-painted" this room in the "mansion of modern construction."

Woe is me! _I_ secreted, in the provincial shipowner's home, the "noble bird with wings expanded"--_I_ perpetrated, in harmless obscurity, "the finest specimen of high-art decoration"--and the Academy is without stain in the art of its member. Also the immaculate character of that Royal body has been falsely impugned by this wicked "_Plumber_"!

Mark these things, Atlas, that justice may be done, the innocent spared, and history cleanly written.

_Bon soir!_

Chelsea.

_Early Laurels_

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _The Observer_, April 11, 1886.]

Sir--In your report of the Graham sale of pictures at Messrs. Christie and Manson's rooms, I read the following:

"The next work, put upon the easel, was a 'Nocturne in blue and silver,' by J. M. Whistler. It was received with hisses."

May I beg, through your widely spread paper, to acknowledge the distinguished, though I fear unconscious, compliment so publicly paid.

It is rare that recognition, so complete, is made during the lifetime of the painter, and I would wish to have recorded my full sense of this flattering exception in my favour.

Chelsea.

_A Further Proposition_

[Sidenote: _Art Journal_, 1887.]

The notion that I paint flesh lower in tone than it is in nature, is entirely based upon the popular superstition as to what flesh really is--when seen on canvas; for the people never look at nature with any sense of its pictorial appearance--for which reason, by the way, they also never look at a picture with any sense of nature, but, unconsciously from habit, with reference to what they have seen in other pictures.

Now, in the usual "pictures of the year" there is but one flesh, that shall do service under all circumstances, whether the person painted be in the soft light of the room or out in the glare of the open. The one aim of the unsuspecting painter is to make his man "stand out" from the frame--never doubting that, on the contrary, he should really, and in truth absolutely does, stand _within_ the frame--and at a depth behind it equal to the distance at which the painter sees his model. The frame is, indeed, the window through which the painter looks at his model, and nothing could be more offensively inartistic than this brutal attempt to thrust the model on the hither-side of this window!

Yet this is the false condition of things to which all have become accustomed, and in the stupendous effort to bring it about, exaggeration has been exhausted--and the traditional means of the incompetent can no further go.

Lights have been heightened until the white of the tube alone remains--shadows have been deepened until black alone is left. Scarcely a feature stays in its place, so fierce is its intention of "firmly" coming forth; and in the midst of this unseemly struggle for prominence, the gentle truth has but a sorry chance, falling flat and flavourless, and without force.

The Master from Madrid, himself, beside this monster success of mediocrity, would be looked upon as mild: _beau bien sure, mais pas "dans le mouvement"_!

Whereas, could the people be induced to turn their eyes but for a moment, with the fresh power of comparison, upon their fellow-creatures as they pass in the gallery, they might be made dimly to perceive (though I doubt it, so blind is their belief in the bad), how little they resemble the impudent images on the walls! how "quiet" in colour they are! how "grey!" how "low in tone." And then it might be explained to their riveted intelligence how they had mistaken meretriciousness for mastery, and by what mean methods the imposture had been practised upon them.

_An Opportunity_

Cher Monsieur--M. ---- m'a remis votre petite planche--port d'Amsterdam avec une épreuve. Elle est charmante et je serais fort heureux de la faire paraître dans l'article consacré à vos eaux fortes. Seulement, je crois que vous avez mal interprété ma demande et que par le fait nous ne nous entendons pas bien. Vous me demandez 63 guinées pour cette planche, soit plus de 2000 francs, outre que le prix dépasse celui de la planche la plus chère parue dans la _Gazette_ depuis sa fondation, y compris les chefs-d'oeuvre de Jacquemart et de Gaillard, il n'est pas dans les habitudes de la maison, de payer les planches d'artistes qui accompagnent un compte-rendu de leur oeuvre. C'est ainsi que nous avons agi avec Méryon, Seymour Haden, Edwards, Evershed, Legros, &c.

Du reste, la planche pourrait rester votre propriété. Nous vous la remettrions après avoir fait notre tirage. Il est entendu qu'elle serait acierée.

Si ces conditions vous agréent, cher monsieur, je me ferai un vrai plaisir de faire dans la _Gazette_ un article sur votre beau talent d'aquafortiste. Dans le cas contraire, je me verrais avec mille regrets, dans la necessité de vous renvoyer la planche que je me fusse fait cependant un véritable honneur de publier.

Veuillez agréer, cher monsieur, l'expression de mes meilleurs sentiments.

LE DIRECTEUR de la _Gazette des Beaux-Arts_.

PARIS, le 12 Juin 1878.

_The Opportunity Neglected_

Cher Monsieur--Je regrette infiniment que mes moyens ne me permettent pas de naître dans votre Journal.

L'article que vous me proposez, comme berceau, me coûterait trop cher.

Il me faudrait donc reprendre ma planche et rester inconnu jusqu'à la fin des choses, puisque je n'aurais pas été inventé par la _Gazette des Beaux Arts_.--Recevez, Monsieur,

_Nostalgia_

[Sidenote: Extract from a letter _à propos_ of Mr. Whistler's contemplated visit to his native land.]

... "Quite true--now that it is established as an improbability, it becomes true!

[Sidenote: _The World_, Oct. 13, 1886.]

They tell me that December has been fixed upon, by the Fates, for my arrival in New York--and, if I escape the Atlantic, I am to be wrecked by the reporter on the pier.

I shall be in his hands, even as is the sheep in the hands of his shearer--for I have learned nothing from those who have gone before--and been lost too!

What will you! I know Matthew Arnold, and am told that he whispered Truth exquisite, unheeded in the haste of America.

And these others who have crossed the seas, that they might fasten upon the hurried ones at home and gird at them with wisdom, hysterically acquired, and administered, unblushingly, with a suddenness of purpose that prevented their ever being listened to here,--must I follow in their wake, to be met with suspicion by my compatriots, and resented as the invading instructor?

Heavens!--who knows!--also in the papers, where naturally I read only of myself, I gather a general impression of offensive aggressiveness, that, coupled with Chase's monstrous lampoon, has prepared me for the tomahawk on landing.

How dared he, Chase, to do this wicked thing?--and I who was charming, and made him beautiful on canvas--the Masher of the Avenues.

However, I may not put off until the age of the amateur has gone by, but am to take with me some of those works which have won for me the execration of Europe, that they may be shown to a country in which I cannot be a prophet, and where I, who have no intention of being other than joyous--improving no one--not even myself--will say again my "Ten o'Clock," which I refused to repeat in London--_J'ai dit!_

This is no time for hesitation--one cannot continually disappoint a Continent!

_An Insinuation_

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _The Daily News_, Nov. 22, 1886.]

My attention has been directed to a paragraph that has gone the round of the papers, to the effect that Mr. John Burr and Mr. Reid have "withdrawn from the Society of British Artists." This tardy statement acquires undue significance at this moment, with a tendency to mislead, implying, as it might, that these resignations were in consequence of, and intended as a marked disapproval of, the determined stand made by the Society in excluding from their coming exhibition the masses of commonplace work hitherto offered to the public in their galleries. No such importance attaches, however, to their resignations, as these two gentlemen left Suffolk Street six months ago.

_An Imputation_

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _The Daily News_, Nov. 24, 1886.]

Sir--Mr. Whistler denies that the recent policy of the Society of British Artists was the cause of the secession of Messrs. Burr and Reid from the ranks of that Society, and mentions in proof of his correction that their resignation took place six months ago. He might have gone further, and added that their secession corresponded in time with his own election as president. It is well known to artists that one, if not both, of these gentlemen left the Society knowing that changes of policy, of which they could not approve, were inevitable under the presidency of Mr. Whistler. It will be for the patrons of the Suffolk Street Gallery to decide whether the more than half-uncovered walls which will be offered to their view next week are more interesting than the work of many artists of more than average merit which will be conspicuous by its absence, owing to the selfish policy inaugurated.

A BRITISH ARTIST.

"_Autre Temps autre Moeurs_"

_TO THE EDITOR:_

[Sidenote: _The Daily News_, Nov. 26, 1886.]

Sir--The anonymous "British Artist" says that "Mr. Whistler denies that the recent policy of the Society of British Artists was the cause of the secession of Messrs. Reid and Burr from the ranks of that Society."

Far from me to propose to penetrate the motives of such withdrawal, but what I did deny was that it could possibly be caused--as its strangely late announcement seemed sweetly to insinuate--by the strong determination to tolerate no longer the mediocre work that had hitherto habitually swarmed the walls of Suffolk Street.

This is a plain question of date, and I pointed out that these two gentlemen left the Society six months ago--long before the supervising committee were called upon to act at all, or make any demonstration whatever. Your correspondent regrets that I do not "go further," and straightway goes further himself, and scarcely fares better, when, with a quaintness of _naïveté_ rare at this moment, he proposes that "it will be for the patrons of the gallery to decide whether the more than half-uncovered walls are more interesting than the works of many artists of more than the average merit."

Now it will be for the patrons to decide absolutely nothing. It is, and will always be, for the gentlemen of the hanging committee alone, duly chosen, to decide whether empty space be preferable to poor pictures--whether, in short, it be their duty to cover walls, merely that walls may be covered--no matter with what quality of work.

Indeed, the period of the patron has utterly passed away, and the painter takes his place--to point out what he knows to be consistent with the demands of his art--without deference to patrons or prejudice to party. Beyond this, whether the "policy of Mr. Whistler and his following" be "selfish or no," matters but little; but if the policy of your correspondent's "following" find itself among the ruthlessly rejected, his letter is more readily explained.

_Talent in a Napkin_

[Sidenote: Lecture before the Church Congress, Oct. 7, 1885.]

If those who talk and write so glibly as to the desirability of artists devoting themselves to the representation of the naked human form, only knew a tithe of the degradation enacted before the model is sufficiently hardened to her shameful calling, they would for ever hold their tongues and pens in supporting the practice. Is not clothedness a distinct type and feature of our Christian faith? All art representations of nakedness are out of harmony with it.

J. C. HORSLEY, R.A.

_The Critic "Catching on"_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gaz._ Dec. 8, 1885.]

Mr. Whistler is again, in a sense, the mainstay of the Society (British Artists), partly through his own individuality and partly through the innovations he has introduced.... He has several oil and pastel pictures, very slight in themselves, of the female nude, dignified and graceful in line and charmingly chaste, entitled "Harmony," "Caprice," and "Note." Beneath the latter Mr. Whistler has written, "Horsley _soit qui mal y pense_."

[Sidenote: _REFLECTION:_

Meant "friendly."]

"This is not," said the artist, "what people are sure to call it, 'Whistler's little joke.' On the contrary, it is an indignant protest against the idea that there is any immorality in the nude."

_Ingratitude_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, Dec. 10, 1885.]

No, kind sir--_trop de zèle_ on the part of your representative--for I surely never explain, and Art certainly requires no "indignant protest" against the unseemliness of senility. "Horsley _soit qui mal y pense_" is meanwhile a sweet sentiment--why more--and why "morality"?

_The Complacent One_

[Sidenote: _Magazine of Art_, Dec. 1887.]

Mr. Whistler has issued a brown-paper portfolio of half a dozen "Notes," reproduced in marvellous facsimile. These "Notes" are delightful sketches in Indian ink and crayon, masterly so far as they go--but, then, they go such a little way ... the "Notes" can only be regarded as painter's raw material, interesting as correct sketches, but unworthy the glories of facsimile reproduction, and imposing margin.... The chief honours of the portfolio belong to the publishers....

_The Critic-flâneur_

[Sidenote: _Sunday Times_, Jan. 15, 1888.]

Sir,--You, who are, I perceive, in your present brilliant incarnation, an undaunted and undulled pursuer of pleasing truths, listen, I pray you, while again I indicate, with sweet argument, the alternative of the bewildered one.

Notably, it is not necessary that the "Art Critic" should distinguish between the real and the "reproduction," or otherwise understand anything of the matter of which he writes--for much shall be forgiven him--yet surely, as I have before now pointed out, he might inquire.

Had the expounder of exhibitions, travelling for the _Magazine of Art_, asked the Secretary in the galleries of the Royal Society of British Artists, he would have been told that the "Notes" on the staircase, and in the vestibule, are not "delightful sketches in Indian ink and crayon ... _reproduced in marvellous facsimile_ by Boussod, Valadon & Co.... unworthy the glories of facsimile reproduction, and imposing margin" ... while "the chief honours of the portfolio, however, belong to the publishers"--but are, disconcerting as I acknowledge it to be, _themselves the lithographs from nature_, drawn on the stone upon the spot.

Thus easily provided with paragraph, he would also have been spared the mortification of rebuke from his well-meaning and embarrassed employers.

Let the gentleman be warned--let him learn that the foolish critic only,--_looks_--and brings disaster, upon his paper--the safe and well-conducted one "informs himself."

Yours, Sir, gently,

_A Played-out Policy_

_TO THE EDITOR OF THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE":_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, Dec. 9, 1886.]

Sir--In your courageous crusade against the Demon Dulness and his preposterous surroundings, I think it well that there should be delivered into your hands certain documents for immediate publication, that your readers may be roused quickly, and hear again how well fenced in are the foolish in strong places--and how greatly to be desired is their exposure, discomfiture, and death--that Truth may prevail.

It happened in this way. The criticism in the _Times_ called for instant expostulation, and my answer was consequently sent in to the Editor, who forthwith returned it, regretting "that its tone prevented its appearance in the paper." ... I thereupon withdrew to write the following note to the Editor in person:--

"Dear Sir--Permit me to call your courteous attention to the fact that the enclosed letter to the Editor of the _Times_ is in reply to an article that appeared in your paper--and that, as I sign my name in full, I alone am responsible for its tone or form; indeed, that such is its tone and form, is because it is my letter.

"In common fairness the answer to, or comment upon, any statements made in your paper should be published in your paper, as proper etiquette prevents its insertion in any other journal.

"Also, you surely would not propose to dictate certain forms or styles in which alone the columns of the _Times_ are to be approached--as who should say all other savour of sacrilege!--or acquiescence alone would do, and you would have to write all your letters yourselves.

"My letter concerns the effect produced by criticism of a commonplace and inferior kind, wholly unworthy the first paper in England--and I am startled to learn, and still unwilling to believe, that the _Times_ would shun all ventilation and refuse to publish any letter as its sole means of screening its staff or protecting its writers.

"I submit that the tone of my letter sins against no laws that are accepted in antagonism--that it offends in no way the etiquette of attack known to gentlemen.

"I beg, therefore, again, that if there be still time for its insertion, you will have it printed in your issue of to-morrow, or will say that it shall appear in the _Times_ of Thursday morning.

"I am, dear Sir, "Very faithfully, "J. MCNEILL WHISTLER."

I was now told, "with the Editor's compliments," "that my letter should be considered." Taking this in complete good faith, I left the office, to discover the next day in print a remnant of the letter in question; that, by itself, entirely did away with sufficient reason for its being there at all. The two ensuing notes explain themselves:

To J. MCN. WHISTLER, Esq.:

"The Editor of the _Times_ has inserted in to-day's paper the only portion of Mr. Whistler's letter of November 30 which appears to have any claim to publication.

"PRINTING HOUSE SQUARE, Dec. 1, 1886."

"To the Editor of the _Times_:

"Dear Sir--I beg to acknowledge the consummate sense of opportunity displayed by the Editor of the _Times_, in his cunning production of a part of my letter.

"Amazing! _Mes compliments!_"

Without further comment I hand you a copy of the rejected letter.

"To the Editor of the _Times_.--Sir--In his article upon the Society of British Artists, your Art gentleman ventures the opinion of the 'plain man.'

"That such opinion is out of place and stultifying in a question of Art never occurs to him, and it is therefore frankly cited as, in a way, conclusive.

"The _naïf_ train of thought that justified the importance attached to this poor 'plain' opinion at all would seem to be the same that pervades the writing throughout; until it becomes difficult to discover where the easy effrontery and self-sufficiency of the 'plain one,' nothing doubting, cease, and the wit and wisdom of the experienced expert begin--so that one unconsciously confounds the incautious critic with the plausible plain person, who finally becomes the same authority.

"Blind plainness certainly is the characteristic of the solemn censure upon the fine work of Mr. Stott, of Oldham--plain blindness the omission of all mention of Mr. Ludovici's dainty dancing-girl.

"Bewilderment among paintings is naturally the fate of the 'plain man,' but, when put forth in the _Times_, his utterances, however empty, acquire a semblance of sense; so that while he gravely descants with bald assurance upon the engineering of the light in the galleries, and the decoration of the walls, the reader stands a chance of being misled, and may not discover at once that the 'plain' writer is qualified by ignorance alone to continue.

"Permit me, therefore, to rectify inconsequent impressions, and tell your readers that there is nothing 'tentative' in the 'arrangement' of colour, walls, or drapery--that the battens should _not_ 'be removed'--that they are meant to remain, not only for their use, but as bringing parallel lines into play that subdivide charmingly the lower portion of the walls and add to their light appearance--that the whole 'combination' is complete--and that the 'plain man' is, as usual, 'out of it.'--I am, Sir, etc.,

"J. MCNEILL WHISTLER."

The question of fair dealing and good manners in this matter I could not leave in better hands than your own, and I will only add that hitherto I have always met with the utmost readiness on the part of the press to receive into their columns any reply, however opposed to assertions of their own.

Surely it is but poor policy this peremptory attempt to maintain in authority the weak and blundering one, that he may destroy himself and bring sorrow upon his people.

Rather let him be thrust from his post, that he may be "brayed in a mortar among wheat with a pestle"--that the Just be assuaged and foolishness depart from among us.

_An Interview with an ex-President_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, June 11, 1888.]

The adverse vote by which the Royal Society of British Artists transferred its oath of allegiance from Mr. Whistler is for the time the chief topic of conversation in artistic circles.... We instructed our representative to visit Mr. Whistler to obtain his explanation of the affair.