Testimony
TO THE EDITOR:
Sir—My apologies, I pray you, to the much disturbed gentleman, “Your Reviewer,” who complains that I have allowed “just three weeks” to go Pall Mall Gazette, April 7, 1888. by without noticing his writing.
Let me hasten, lest he be further offended, to acknowledge his answer, in Saturday’s paper.
After much matter, he comes unexpectedly upon a clear understanding of my letter—“It will be observed,” he says naïvely, “that Mr. Whistler is merely seeking to create an impression that your Reviewer never saw the work he criticized,”—herein he is completely right, this is absolutely the impression I did seek to create—“which,” he continues, “is surely not a creditable position to take up”—again I agree with him, and admit the sad spectacle a “Reviewer” presents in such position.
He further “declares,” and calls upon you, Sir, to “corroborate” him, “that a printed copy of Mr. Whistler’s misleading lecture was placed in my hands for review”—and moreover, that “the notice did not appear until the pamphlet was duly advertised by Messrs. Chatto and Windus as ready.”
Pausing to note that if the lecture had not seemed misleading to him, it would surely not have been worth uttering at all, I come to the copy in question—this could only have been a printed proof, quaintly acquired—as will be seen by the following letter from Messrs. Chatto and Windus, which I must beg you Sir, to publish, with this note—as it deals also with the remaining point, the advertisement of the pamphlet,
And, I am, Sir, Butterfly
The following is the letter from Mr. Whistler’s publishers:—
Dear Sir—In reply to your question we have to say that we certainly have not sent out any copy of the “Ten o’Clock” to the press, or to anybody else excepting yourself. The work is still in the printers’ hands, and we have for a long time past been advertising it only as “shortly” to be published; indeed, only a few proofs have so far been taken from the type.
Yours faithfully,
CHATTO And WINDUS.