is unworthy his writing. To him and his example do we owe the outrage
of proffered assistance from the unscientific--the meddling of the
immodest--the intrusion of the garrulous. Art, that for ages has hewn
its own history in marble, and written its own comments on canvas,
shall it suddenly stand still, and stammer, and wait for wisdom from
the passer-by?--for guidance from the hand that holds neither brush
nor chisel? Out upon the shallow conceit! What greater sarcasm can Mr.
Ruskin pass upon himself than that he preaches to young men what he
cannot perform! Why, unsatisfied with his own conscious power, should
he choose to become the type of incompetence by talking for forty
years of what he has never done!
Let him resign his present professorship, to fill the chair of Ethics
at the university. As master of English literature, he has a right to
his laurels, while, as the populariser of pictures he remains the
Peter Parley of painting.
[Illustration]
_The Art Critic of the "Times"_
[Sidenote: Mr. Tom Taylor's acknowledgment of
presentation copy of Mr. Whistler's "Art and Art
Critics," with "Sans rancune" inscribed upon fly-leaf by
the author.]
"Sans rancune," by all means, my dear Whistler; but you should not
have quoted from my article, of June 6th, 1874, on Velasquez, in such
a way as to give exactly the opposite impression to that which the
article, taken as a whole, conveys.
[Sidenote: _The World_, Jan. 15, 1879.]
I appreciate and admire Velasquez as entirely, and allow me to say, as
intelligently, as yourself. I have probably seen and studied more of
his work than you have. And I maintain that the article you have
garbled in your quotation gives a fair and adequate account of the
picture it deals with--"_Las Meninas_"--and one which any artist who
knows the picture would, in essentials, subscribe to.
God help the artists if ever the criticism of pictures falls into the
hands of painters! It would be a case of vivisection all round.
Your pamphlet is a very natural result of your late disagreeable
legal experiences, though not a very wise one.
If the critics are not better qualified to deal with the painters than
the painter in your pamphlet shows himself qualified to deal with the
critics, it will be a bad day for art when the hands that have been
trained to the brush lay it aside for the pen.[19]
[Note 19:!?]
If you had read my article on Velasquez, I cannot but say that you
have made an unfair use of it, in quoting a detached sentence, which,
read with the context, bears exactly the opposite sense from that you
have quoted it as bearing.
This is a bad "throw-off" in the critical line; whether it affect "_le
premier littérateur venu_" or yours always,
TOM TAYLOR.
P.S.--_As your attack on my article is public, I reserve to myself the
right of giving equal publicity to this letter._
LAVENDER SWEEP,
Jan, 6, 1879.
_The Position_
Dead for a ducat, dead! my dear Tom: and the rattle has reached me by
post.
[Sidenote: _The World_, Jan. 15, 1879.]
"_Sans rancune_," say you? Bah! you scream unkind threats and die
badly.
Why squabble over your little article? You _did_ print what I quote,
you know, Tom; and it is surely unimportant what more you may have
written of the Master. That you should have written anything at all is
your crime.
No; shrive your naughty soul, and give up Velasquez, and pass your
last days properly in the Home Office.
Set your house in order with the Government for arrears of time and
paper, and leave vengeance to the Lord, who will forgive my "garbling"
Tom Taylor's writing.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Jan. 8, 1879.
[Illustration]
_Serious Sarcasm_
Pardon me, my dear Whistler, for having taken you _au sérieux_ even
for a moment.
I ought to have remembered that your penning, like your painting,
belongs to the region of "chaff." I will not forget it again; and
meantime remain yours always,
TOM TAYLOR.
LAVENDER SWEEP,
Jan. 9, 1879.
_Final_
Why, my dear old Tom, I never _was_ serious with you, even when you
were among us. Indeed, I killed you quite, as who should say, without
seriousness, "A rat! A rat!" you know, rather cursorily.
[Sidenote: _The World_, Jan. 15, 1879]
Chaff, Tom, as in your present state you are beginning to perceive,
was your fate here, and doubtless will be throughout the eternity
before you. With ages at your disposal, this truth will dimly dawn
upon you; and as you look back upon this life, perchance many
situations that you took _au sérieux_ (art-critic, who knows?
expounder of Velasquez, and what not) will explain themselves
sadly--chaff! Go back!
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Jan. 10, 1879.
[Illustration]
_"Balaam's Ass"_
[Sidenote: _Vanity Fair_, Jan 11, 1879.]
Mr. Whistler has written a discord in black and white. It is a strong
saying, excellent in diction, broadly and boldly set down in slashing
words....
The point Mr. Whistler raises and enforces is that criticism of
painting other than by painters is monstrous, and not to be
tolerated.... Mr. Ruskin's "high sounding empty things" would, he
says, "give Titian the same shock of surprise that was Balaam's when
the first great critic proffered his opinion." ... The inference ...
is that all the world, competent and incompetent together, must
receive the painter's work in silence, under pain of being classed
with Balaam's ass....
If, finding himself ill received or ill understood, he has to say,
"You cannot understand me," he must also say, "I did not understand
myself and you, to whom I speak, sufficiently well to make you
understand me."
There could be no better illustration of all this than that
Mr. Whistler has suggested of Balaam's ass. _For the Ass was right_,
although, nay, because he was an ass. "What have I done unto thee,"
said he, "that thou hast smitten me these three times?" "Because thou
hast mocked me," replies Balaam--Whistler; whereupon the Angel of the
Lord rebukes him and says, "_The ass saw me_," so that Balaam is
constrained to bow his head and fall flat on his face. And thus indeed
it is. The ass sees the Angel of the Lord there where the wise prophet
sees nothing, and, by her seeing, saves the life of the very master
who, for reward, smites her grievously and wishes he had a sword that
he might kill her.
Let Balaam not forget that after all he rides upon the ass, that she
has served him well ever since she was his until this day, and that
even now he is on his way with her to be promoted unto very great
honour by the Princes of Balak. And let him remember that whatever can
speak may at any moment have a word to say to him which it were best
he should hear.
RASPER.
_The Point acknowledged_
[Sidenote: _Vanity Fair_, Jan. 18, 1879.]
Well hit! my dear _Vanity_, and I find, on searching again, that
historically you are right.
The fact, doubtless, explains the conviction of the race in their
mission, but I fancy you will admit that this is the _only Ass on
record_ who ever _did_ "see the Angel of the Lord!" and that we are
past the age of miracles.
Yours always,
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Jan. 11, 1879.
[Illustration]
_Critic's Analysis_
[Sidenote: _The Saturday Review_, June 1, 1867. P. G.
Hamerton.]
In the "Symphony in White No. III." by Mr. Whistler there are many
dainty varieties of tint, but it is not precisely a symphony in white.
One lady has a yellowish dress and brown hair and a bit of blue
ribbon, the other has a red fan, and there are flowers and green
leaves. There is a girl in white on a white sofa, but even this girl
has reddish hair; and of course there is the flesh colour of the
complexions.
_The Critic's Mind Considered_
How pleasing that such profound prattle should inevitably find its
place in print! "Not precisely a symphony in white ... for there is a
yellowish dress ... brown hair, etc.... another with reddish hair ...
and of course there is the flesh colour of the complexions."
_Bon Dieu!_ did this wise person expect white hair and chalked faces?
And does he then, in his astounding consequence, believe that a
symphony in F contains no other note, but shall be a continued
repetition of F, F, F.?... Fool!
Chelsea,
June 1867.
[Illustration]
_A Troubled One_
[Sidenote: _The World_, July 3, 1878.]
The "Season Number" of _Vanity Fair_ contains ... Mr. Whistler's
etching of "St. James's Street" is sadly disappointing.
_Full Absolution_
[Sidenote: _The World_, July 10, 1878.]
Dear _World_--Atlas, overburdened with the world and its sins, may
well be relieved from the weight of one wee error--a sort of last
straw that bothers his back. The impression in _Vanity Fair_ that
disappoints him is not an etching at all, but a reproduction for that
paper by some transfer process.
Atlas has the wisdom of ages, and need not grieve himself with mere
matters of art. "Il n'est pas nécessaire que vous sachiez ces
choses-là, mon révérend père!"
Chelsea.
[Illustration]
_"Confidences" with an Editor_
_TO THE EDITOR OF THE "HOUR."_
Sir,--I have read the intelligent remarks of your critic upon my
pictures, and am happy to be able to remove, I think, the "melancholy"
impression left upon his mind by the supposition that "the best works
are not of recent date." Permit me to reassure him, for the paintings
he speaks of in glowing terms--notably "the full-length portrait of a
young girl," which he overwhelms me by comparing to Velasquez, as well
as the two life-size portraits in black, "in which there is an almost
entire negation of colour" (though I, who am, he says, a colourist,
did not know it)--are my latest works, and but just completed.
May I still farther correct a misconception? The etchings and
dry-points in the gallery do not form a complete set. There are only
fifty exhibited, making about half the number I have executed.
Again, it was from no feeling that "my works were not seen to
advantage when placed in juxtaposition with those of an essentially
different kind," that I "determined to have an exhibition of my own,
where no discordant elements should distract the spectator's
attention." It is true that occasionally it has been borne in upon my
mind that those whose "works are of an essentially different kind,"
are unwilling to place mine in juxtaposition with their own.
My wish has been, though, to prove that the place in which works of
art are shown may be made as free from "discordant elements which
distract the spectators' attention" as the works themselves.
Marvelling greatly that the "principle" that has led me (in his eyes
at least) to paint so that he speaks of me in the same breath with
Velasquez, should be "founded on fallacy,"--I remain, sir, your
obedient servant,
June 10, 1874.
[Illustration]
_Critics "Copy"_
[Sidenote: _The World_, Dec. 8, 1880.]
At the Gallery of the Fine Art Society in New Bond Street, an
exhibition has been opened of the etchings of Venice, executed by Mr.
Whistler. Exhibitions are sometimes of slender constitution nowadays.
Mr. Whistler's etchings are twelve in number, of unimportant
dimensions, and of the slightest workmanship. They convey a certain
sense of distance and atmosphere, otherwise it cannot be said that
they are of particular value or originality. They rather resemble
vague first intentions, or memoranda for future use, than designs
completely carried out. Probably every artist coming from Venice
brings with him some such outlines as these in his sketch-books.
Apparently, so far as his twelve etchings are to be considered as
evidence in the matter, Venice has not deeply stirred either Mr.
Whistler or his art.
_A Proposal_
[Sidenote: _The World_, Dec. 29, 1880.]
Atlas, _mon bon, méfiez-vous de vos gens!_ Your art gentleman says
that Mr. Whistler exhibits twelve etchings, "slight in execution and
unimportant in size." Now the private assassin you keep, for us, need
not be hampered by mere connoisseurship in the perpetration of his
duty--therefore, _passe_, for the execution--but he should not
compromise his master's reputation for brilliancy, and print things
that he who runs may scoff at.
Seriously, then, my Atlas, an etching does not depend, for its
importance, upon its size. "I am not arguing with you--I am telling
you." As well speak of one of your own charming _mots_ as unimportant
in length!
Look to it, Atlas. Be severe with your man. Tell him his "job" should
be "neatly done." I could cut my own throat better; and if need be, in
case of his dismissal, I offer my services.
Meanwhile, yours joyously,
[Illustration]
_The Painter-Etcher Papers_
[Sidenote: "A Storm in an Æsthetic Teapot."
_The Cuckoo_, April 11, 1881.]
The exhibition of etchings at the Hanover Gallery has been the
occasion of one of those squabbles which amuse everybody--perhaps,
even including the quarrellers themselves. Some etchings, exceedingly
like Mr. Whistler's in manner, but signed "Frank Duveneck," were sent
to the Painter-Etchers' Exhibition from Venice. The Painter-Etchers
appear to have suspected for a moment that the works were really Mr.
Whistler's; and, not desiring to be the victims of an easy hoax on the
part of that gentleman, three of their members--Dr. Seymour Haden, Dr.
Hamilton, and Mr. Legros--went to the Fine Art Society's Gallery, in
New Bond Street, and asked one of the assistants there to show them
some of Mr. Whistler's Venetian plates. From this assistant they
learned that Mr. Whistler was under an arrangement to exhibit and sell
his Venetian etchings only at the Fine Art Society's Gallery; but, even
if these Painter-Etchers really believed that "Frank Duveneck"
was only another name for James Whistler, this information about the
Fine Art Society's arrangement with him need not have shaken that
belief, for the _nom de plume_ might easily have been adopted with the
concurrence of the society's leading spirits. Nor is it altogether
certain that the Painter-Etchers did anything more than compare, for
their own satisfaction as connoisseurs, the works of Mr. Whistler and
"Frank Duveneck." The motive of their doing so may have been
misunderstood by the Fine Art Society's assistant with whom they
conferred.
Be that as it may, this assistant thought fit to repeat to Mr.
Whistler what had passed, and also his own impressions as to the
motive of the comparison and the inquiries which the Painter-Etchers
had instituted. Whereupon Mr. Whistler has addressed a letter to Mr.
Seymour Haden (who is, by the way, _his brother-in-law_), of which all
that need be here said, is that it is extremely characteristic of Mr.
Whistler.
_Later_
[Sidenote: _The Cuckoo_, April 30, 1881.]
Some time ago I referred to a storm in an "æsthetic tea-pot" that was
brewed and had burst in the Fine Art Society's Gallery, in Bond
Street, in _re_ Mr. Whistler's Venice Etchings. It seems to me that
Mr. Seymour Haden, Mr. Legros, and Mr. Hamilton stumbled on an
artistic mare's nest, that they rashly suggested that Mr. Whistler had
been guilty of gross misfeasance in publishing etchings in an assumed
name, and that they are now trying to get out of the scrape as best
they may. This is, however, simply an opinion formed on perusal of the
following documents, which I here present to my readers to judge of:
The following paragraph was some time ago sent to me with this
letter:--
"If the Editor of the '_Cuckoo_' should see his way to the
publication of the accompanying paragraph as it stands, twenty
copies may be sent, for circulation among the Council of the
Society of Painter-Etchers, to Mr. Piker, newsvendor, Shepherd's
Market."
"MR. WHISTLER AND THE PAINTER-ETCHERS.--Our explanation of this
'Storm in a Tea-pot' turns out to have been in the main correct.
It appears that not only were the three gentlemen who went to the
Fine Art Society's Gallery to look at Mr. Whistler's etchings
guiltless of offence, but that the object of their going there
was actually less to show that Mr. Whistler _was_ than that he
was _not_ the author of the etchings which for a moment had
puzzled them.
"For this, indeed, they seem to have given each other--in the
presence of the blundering assistant, of course--three very
distinct reasons.
"Firstly, that, as already stated, Mr. Seymour Haden had quite
seriously written to Mr. Duveneck to buy the etchings.
"Secondly, that they at once accepted as satisfactory and
sufficient the explanation given them of Mr. Whistler's
obligations to the Fine Art Society; and, thirdly, though this
count appears to have somehow slipped altogether out of the
indictment--they were one and all of opinion that, taken all
round, the Duveneck etchings were the _best of the two (sic)_!!!
"It is a pity a clever man like Mr. Whistler is yet not clever
enough to see that while habitual public attacks on a _near
relative_ cannot fail to be, to the majority of people,
unpalatable, they are likely to be, when directed against a
brother etcher, even _suspecte_."
I did not at the time "see my way" to publishing the paragraph "as it
stands," but, having subsequently received the following
correspondence, I think it only right to give Mr. Piker's paragraph
publicity, along with the letters subjoined:--
"THE FINE ART SOCIETY,"
148 NEW BOND STREET.
March 18, 1881.
[Sidenote: Letter from Mr. Huish to Mr. Haden.]
"To Seymour Haden, Esq.--My dear Sir,--Mr. Whistler has called upon me
respecting your visit here yesterday with Mr. Legros and Dr. Hamilton,
the purport of which had been communicated to him by Mr. Brown."
"He is naturally indignant that, knowing, as you apparently did, that
he was under an engagement not to publish for a certain time any
etchings of Venice except those issued by us, you should suggest that
they were his work, and had been sent in by him under a _nom de
plume_."
"He considers that it is damaging to his reputation in connection with
us, and he requests me to write and ask you whether you adhere to your
opinion or retract it."
"Believe me to remain, yours faithfully,
"MARCUS B. HUISH."
"38 HERTFORD STREET, MAYFAIR, W.
March 21, 1881.
[Sidenote: Letter from Mr. Haden to Mr. Huish.]
"To M. Huish, Esq.--Dear Sir,--I am in receipt of a letter from you,
dated the 18th inst., in which you first impute to me an opinion which
I have never held, and then call me to account for that opinion.
To a peremptory letter so framed, I shall not be misunderstood if I
simply decline to plead."
"Meanwhile, that I was _not_ of opinion that the etchings in our hands
were by Mr. Whistler is conclusively proved by the fact that on the
day after their reception I had written to Mr. Duveneck to arrange for
their purchase!"
"Be this, however, as it may, I can have no hesitation on the part
both of myself and of the gentlemen engaged with me in a necessary
duty, in expressing our sincere regret if, by a mistaken
representation of our proceedings, Mr. Whistler has been led to
believe that we had said or implied anything which could give him pain
or reflect in any way on his reputation either with you or your
directors."
"Faithfully yours,
"F. SEYMOUR HADEN."
"ARTS CLUB,"
HANOVER SQUARE.
[Sidenote: Letter from J. M'N. Whistler to Mr. Haden.
March 29, 1881.]
"To Seymour Haden, Esq.--Sir--Mr. Huish handed me your letter of the
21st inst., since when I have waited in vain for the true version
that, I doubted not, would follow the 'mistaken representation' you
regret I should have received."
"Now I must ask that you will, if possible, without further delay,
give me a thorough explanation of your visit to the Fine Art Society's
Gallery on Friday evening, the 17th inst.,--involving, as it did, a
discussion of my private affairs."
"Did you, accompanied by M. Legros and Dr. Hamilton, call at the Fine
Art Society's rooms on that date, and ask to see Mr. Whistler's
etchings?"
"Did you there proceed to make a careful and minute examination of
these, and then ask Mr. Brown if Mr. Whistler had done other etchings
of Venice?"
"Upon his answer in the affirmative, did you ask Mr. Brown if any of
the other plates were large ones, and, notably, whether Mr. Whistler
had done any other plate of the subject called 'The Riva'?"
"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!'"
[Illustration]
"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!