Later
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, The Cuckoo, April 30, 1881. 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.
“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.”
Letter from Mr. Huish to Mr. Haden.
“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.
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.
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!’”
“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.”