[Sidenote: "A Storm in an aesthetic 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 a.s.sistants there to show them some of Mr. Whistler's Venetian plates. From this a.s.sistant 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 a.s.sistant with whom they conferred.

Be that as it may, this a.s.sistant thought fit to repeat to Mr.

Whistler what had pa.s.sed, and also his own impressions as to the motive of the comparison and the inquiries which the Painter-Etchers had inst.i.tuted. 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 "aesthetic 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 a.s.sumed name, and that they are now trying to get out of the sc.r.a.pe as best they may. This is, however, simply an opinion formed on perusal of the following doc.u.ments, 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 a.s.sistant, 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 a.s.surance 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?"