La Suite
“Arts Club,”
May 10, 1881.
To the Committee of the Painter-Etchers’ Society:
Gentlemen,—I have hitherto, in vain, written to Sir William Drake, as secretary of the Painter-Etchers’ Society, Letter to the Committee of “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!