_Ingrat.i.tude_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, Dec. 10, 1885.]

No, kind sir--_trop de zele_ on the part of your representative--for I surely never explain, and Art certainly requires no "indignant protest" against the unseemliness of senility. "Horsley _soit qui mal y pense_" is meanwhile a sweet sentiment--why more--and why "morality"?

[Ill.u.s.tration]

_The Complacent One_

[Sidenote: _Magazine of Art_, Dec. 1887.]

Mr. Whistler has issued a brown-paper portfolio of half a dozen "Notes," reproduced in marvellous facsimile. These "Notes" are delightful sketches in Indian ink and crayon, masterly so far as they go--but, then, they go such a little way ... the "Notes" can only be regarded as painter's raw material, interesting as correct sketches, but unworthy the glories of facsimile reproduction, and imposing margin.... The chief honours of the portfolio belong to the publishers....

_The Critic-flaneur_

[Sidenote: _Sunday Times_, Jan. 15, 1888.]

Sir,--You, who are, I perceive, in your present brilliant incarnation, an undaunted and undulled pursuer of pleasing truths, listen, I pray you, while again I indicate, with sweet argument, the alternative of the bewildered one.

Notably, it is not necessary that the "Art Critic" should distinguish between the real and the "reproduction," or otherwise understand anything of the matter of which he writes--for much shall be forgiven him--yet surely, as I have before now pointed out, he might inquire.

Had the expounder of exhibitions, travelling for the _Magazine of Art_, asked the Secretary in the galleries of the Royal Society of British Artists, he would have been told that the "Notes" on the staircase, and in the vestibule, are not "delightful sketches in Indian ink and crayon ... _reproduced in marvellous facsimile_ by Boussod, Valadon & Co.... unworthy the glories of facsimile reproduction, and imposing margin" ... while "the chief honours of the portfolio, however, belong to the publishers"--but are, disconcerting as I acknowledge it to be, _themselves the lithographs from nature_, drawn on the stone upon the spot.

Thus easily provided with paragraph, he would also have been spared the mortification of rebuke from his well-meaning and embarra.s.sed employers.

Let the gentleman be warned--let him learn that the foolish critic only,--_looks_--and brings disaster, upon his paper--the safe and well-conducted one "informs himself."

Yours, Sir, gently,

[Ill.u.s.tration]

_A Played-out Policy_

_TO THE EDITOR OF THE "PALL MALL GAZETTE":_

[Sidenote: _Pall Mall Gazette_, Dec. 9, 1886.]

Sir--In your courageous crusade against the Demon Dulness and his preposterous surroundings, I think it well that there should be delivered into your hands certain doc.u.ments for immediate publication, that your readers may be roused quickly, and hear again how well fenced in are the foolish in strong places--and how greatly to be desired is their exposure, discomfiture, and death--that Truth may prevail.

It happened in this way. The criticism in the _Times_ called for instant expostulation, and my answer was consequently sent in to the Editor, who forthwith returned it, regretting "that its tone prevented its appearance in the paper." ... I thereupon withdrew to write the following note to the Editor in person:--

"Dear Sir--Permit me to call your courteous attention to the fact that the enclosed letter to the Editor of the _Times_ is in reply to an article that appeared in your paper--and that, as I sign my name in full, I alone am responsible for its tone or form; indeed, that such is its tone and form, is because it is my letter.

"In common fairness the answer to, or comment upon, any statements made in your paper should be published in your paper, as proper etiquette prevents its insertion in any other journal.

"Also, you surely would not propose to dictate certain forms or styles in which alone the columns of the _Times_ are to be approached--as who should say all other savour of sacrilege!--or acquiescence alone would do, and you would have to write all your letters yourselves.

"My letter concerns the effect produced by criticism of a commonplace and inferior kind, wholly unworthy the first paper in England--and I am startled to learn, and still unwilling to believe, that the _Times_ would shun all ventilation and refuse to publish any letter as its sole means of screening its staff or protecting its writers.

"I submit that the tone of my letter sins against no laws that are accepted in antagonism--that it offends in no way the etiquette of attack known to gentlemen.

"I beg, therefore, again, that if there be still time for its insertion, you will have it printed in your issue of to-morrow, or will say that it shall appear in the _Times_ of Thursday morning.

"I am, dear Sir, "Very faithfully, "J. MCNEILL WHISTLER."

I was now told, "with the Editor's compliments," "that my letter should be considered." Taking this in complete good faith, I left the office, to discover the next day in print a remnant of the letter in question; that, by itself, entirely did away with sufficient reason for its being there at all. The two ensuing notes explain themselves:

To J. MCN. WHISTLER, Esq.:

"The Editor of the _Times_ has inserted in to-day's paper the only portion of Mr. Whistler's letter of November 30 which appears to have any claim to publication.

"PRINTING HOUSE SQUARE, Dec. 1, 1886."

"To the Editor of the _Times_:

"Dear Sir--I beg to acknowledge the consummate sense of opportunity displayed by the Editor of the _Times_, in his cunning production of a part of my letter.

"Amazing! _Mes compliments!_"

[Ill.u.s.tration]

Without further comment I hand you a copy of the rejected letter.

"To the Editor of the _Times_.--Sir--In his article upon the Society of British Artists, your Art gentleman ventures the opinion of the 'plain man.'

"That such opinion is out of place and stultifying in a question of Art never occurs to him, and it is therefore frankly cited as, in a way, conclusive.

"The _naf_ train of thought that justified the importance attached to this poor 'plain' opinion at all would seem to be the same that pervades the writing throughout; until it becomes difficult to discover where the easy effrontery and self-sufficiency of the 'plain one,' nothing doubting, cease, and the wit and wisdom of the experienced expert begin--so that one unconsciously confounds the incautious critic with the plausible plain person, who finally becomes the same authority.

"Blind plainness certainly is the characteristic of the solemn censure upon the fine work of Mr. Stott, of Oldham--plain blindness the omission of all mention of Mr. Ludovici's dainty dancing-girl.

"Bewilderment among paintings is naturally the fate of the 'plain man,' but, when put forth in the _Times_, his utterances, however empty, acquire a semblance of sense; so that while he gravely descants with bald a.s.surance upon the engineering of the light in the galleries, and the decoration of the walls, the reader stands a chance of being misled, and may not discover at once that the 'plain' writer is qualified by ignorance alone to continue.