A reply to an attack made by one of Whistler's biographers on a pupil of Whistler, Mr. Walter Greaves, and his works

II. Ill

VIII.

IX.

Index To Chapters

Prefatory Statement ...

The Exhibition—The Preface to the Catalogue— The Times Article

Mr. Pennell’s Move — Letters to The Times: Mr. Heinemann, the Writer of The Times Article and W. M. & Co.

Mr. Pennell in the English Press—‘‘ The Greaves Humbug ”—“ The Greaves Bubble ”

Mr. Pennell in the American Press

Mr. Pennell’s Methods of Antagonism

Mr. Pennell and the “ Discovery” of Mr. Greaves

The Painting of “ Moonlights”’...

Whistler and his Discarded Works

Streatham Hall

PAGE

XITI.

XIV.

Discussion of the Works Impugned by Mr. Pennell

The Whistler-Greaves Question

A Significant Rumour

Discussion of Various Interests—Mr. Pennell as Expert

Our Conclusions

“ L’Affaire Greaves,” by Mr. Walter Sickert

PostscripTt.—Comments and Rectifications necessitated by certain Statements, concerning Mr. Walter Greaves and the Exhibition of his Works, which have been introduced into the recently published New and Revised Edition of the ‘“‘Life of James McNeill Whistler” by E. R. and J. Pennell

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

I.—Works by Walter Greaves.

Oi Paintinc “Portrait of the Artist” ... ... Frontispiece

Facing page Oi, Paintinc “Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge” 14 Oi Paintinc “The Balcony” ... ak Be am 38

“ Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge” ... 58

SECTIONS OF O1L PAINTING

Ercuinc ... Smaller Plate of subject similar in background to “ Barges, Lime Wharf, Chelsea ” 60

Etcuinc ... “ Barges, Lime Wharf, Chelsea” ... oe 62

Fig. I.—Original State.

Fig. IIl.—Present State.

Om Paintinc “Old Battersea Bridge—Moonlight”’ ... 76

Il.—Works by J. McNeill Whistler and by Walter Greaves.

‘a “Nocturne—Blue and Gold—Old Battersea Bridge,’ by J. McNeil Whistler vs

Oit PAINTINGS 32 ei Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge,” by Walter Greaves

“Experts and connoisseurs often differ violently in their opinions of particular pictures, and their judgments are often based on diverse principles.”

‘*The Times,” October 5, 19/1.

Prefatory Statement.

Durine the month of May last, we held, in our Galleries, an exhibition of early paintings and etchings by

Mr. WALTER GREAVES, Puri, or WHISTLER, whose works were, previously, unknown to the world of Art.

Mr. Joseph Pennell was apparently persuaded that certain art critics (unnamed), in reviewing the exhibition, had seriously jeopardised Whistler's fame by drawing false and adverse conclusions from an erroneous date contained in the Preface to the Catalogue.

He therefore ostensibly set out on the laudable mission of safeguarding the artistic reputation of the master.

Unfortunately, however, Mr. Pennell’s defence of Whistler soon resolved itself into an attack on Mr. Greaves and his works, in the course of which he made certain statements— especially with reference to some of the exhibits—which, owing to the publicity they received, caused deep offence and prejudice to Mr. Greaves, as also no small amount of annoyance and injury to ourselves.

It would be impossible to allow these statements to remain unchallenged, lest the public be thereby led to construe silence into acquiescence, and to consider Mr. Pennell’s assertions as accepted facts.

We have therefore felt compelled to issue this refutation ; and, in view of the interests seriously involved—Whistler’s no less than Mr. Greaves’s and our own—we have deemed it essential to treat the whole question in as comprehensive and exhaustive a manner as possible.

WILLIAM MARCHANT & CO.

November, ror.

CHAPTER: 1.

THE EXHIBITION—THE PREFACE TO THE CATALOGUE— ‘THE TIMES” ARTICLE.

When we first came into possession of the pictures which formed our recent Greaves Exhibition, we did not know Mr. Walter Greaves personally, nor were we certain that all the works came from his hand.

For various reasons, however, which have subsequently been fully justified, we decided, in principle, upon holding the exhibition. We therefore sought out Mr. Greaves and, without at first disclosing our intentions, asked him if he would come and inspect a certain number of paintings we held, several of which bore hisname. He readily consented, examined them, and told us they were all executed by him, at the same time expressing his pleasure at their satisfactory appearance.

It may be important to state that, when Mr. Greaves parted with his canvases, some time before they came into our hands, they were minus their stretchers and, generally speaking, in so dirty and neglected a state as to bear full evidence of having been stowed away, in cellar or lumber-room, for twenty or thirty years, if not more. So little care had been taken of them, that several had to be relined before they could be stretched, and many of them _ required the restorer’s attention, the work being done under our personal supervision.

We subsequently told Mr. Greaves that we were going to hold an exhibition of these works, and, although he had no longer any claim on them, we promised that, should the exhibition prove successful, we would make a return to him from the proceeds,

Io

Whilst passing his pictures in review, Mr. Greaves gave us many items of interesting information, some of which were, at our request and with his consent, embodied in the form of a letter from himself to us, and published as a preface to the catalogue. As will be seen, we subsequently withdrew this preface, but for the purposes of this brochure it is necessary to reproduce it at length :—

The earliest picture in your possession, as you will probably have surmised, is the Hammersmith Bridge on Boat Race day, which I painted when I was about sixteen, namely, before I knew Whistler, whose acquaintance I made in the late fifties. We lived at No. 10 Lindsey Row, and Whistler at No. 7, and afterwards at No. 3*, and he used to say to my sisters, ‘ You are the pride of one end of the Row, and I am the pride of the other.’ Our families became very intimate, and my brother Henry and I worked under and for Whistler for close on twenty years. It was at Lindsey Row that he painted such important works as the portraits of his Mother, Carlyle, the Leylands, Miss Alexander (my sisters made the carpet of black and white tape which Whistler used when painting this portrait), the Little White Girl, the Japanese series, the Thames and Cremorne nocturnes, and, in addition, produced his Thames and other etchings of that period. We used to get ready his colours and canvases, prepare the grey distemper ground which he so liked working upon, and painted the mackerel-back pattern on the frames—in fact, we attended to all the routine work of the studio. I was working with him on the Leyland Room and painted part of the ceiling, finding for him at Freeman’s, in Battersea, the verdigris blue used for the screen. Whistler was thoroughly enchanted with it, though I told him that, in my opinion, it would not stand.

My father being a boat builder at Chelsea, we boys were constantly rowing Whistler about, sometimes spending the whole night on the water. In summer most of our evenings were spent at Cremorne Gardens where we made our sketches on brown paper, to use them during the day for our pictures and etchings.

Before we knew Whistler, my brother and I were painting pictures of the Thames and Cremorne Gardens, both day and night effects, but we had been so accustomed to fill our pictures with numerous details that, when we came under Whistler’s influence and teaching, his ideas naturally appeared to us strange at first, and difficult to carry out. It was Whistler who taught me to etch, and he would often take the needle from me and correct or touch up my work.

The picture of barges passing under the bridge (No. 47) was exhibited during the Great Exhibition of 1862, in Allen Cole’s

*This should have been No. 2. Whistler’s mother headed some of her correspondence “2 Lindsey Houses.”

1:

room, in the Cromwell Road building—the room containing Whistler’s pictures. It was afterwards that Whistler painted his picture of the bridge, which now belongs to the Nation, treating the subject in a less conventional and more artistic manner. Both the upright moonlight pictures (Nos. 41 and 71) were done from Whistler’s window in Lindsey Row. f

Carlyle was a friend of our family, but it was only after Whistler had finished his portrait of him that I painted the one you have, so that I had to be content with sittings for the head only. Whistler, however, interested himself in the work and helped me very much with advice. When the portrait was completed he expressed himself quite satisfied with the result.

The large portrait of my sister ‘Tinnie’ in the black and white fancy dress, was exhibited at the Royal Aquarium in 1876 —an Exhibition opened by the Duke of Edinburgh. Whistler tried to get it in at the Grosvenor Gallery, but it was hot hung for want of space. Some of the other pictures may have been exhibited in different places, but I have no actual records of this. I may mention that Whistler would never allow us to exhibit anything without his permission, and always insisted on our mentioning that we were ‘pupils of Whistler.’

WALTER GREAVES.

°° Notes on the Greaves Brothers can be found in Mr. and Mrs. Pennell’s book, “The Life of James McNeill Whistler.”

The Private View of the Exhibition was held on Thursday, May 4th, but very few people, including at most three or four art critics, responded to our invitations to inspect the works of Walter Greaves, pupil of Whistler.

The next morning, however, 7he Times contained the following appreciative article, which, with the Editor’s courteous sanction, we reprint in its entirety :—

An Unknown Master.

EXHIBITION AT THE GOUPIL GALLERY.

Mr. Walter Greaves, in the catalogue of his pictures now to be seen at the Goupil Gallery, 5, Regent-street, describes himself asa pupil of Whistler. He tells us, in the short and simple account of himself at the beginning of that catalogue, that Whistler always insisted upon his describing himself so, and would not allow him to exhibit anything without his permission. Yet the fact remained that Mr. Greaves, though some of his pictures have a remarkable likeness to Whistler’s, and were evidently influenced by him, is a perfectly original artist. We understand that he is an old man, and has lived and painted in London for most of his life. That being so, his obscurity is inexplicable. For he is not an artist who has produced one or two fine works, as it were, by chance. There are 50 paintings of his in the exhibition, and scarcely one of them is not remarkable.

At first sight one is struck by their likeness to Whistler’s work, and at the same time puzzled by their underlying originality. But soon this originality asserts itself, and the Whistler influence seems to be a mere accident. Mr. Greaves tells us that his “Boat Race Day, Hammersmith Bridge” (No. 68), was painted when he was 16; and, surely, no artist at that age has ever painted a more original picture. If it were exhibited without any history attached to it, it would be called Post-Impressionist. The figures crowded on the Bridge are painted with a primitive maiveté, yet they are all subordinated to the main design, while at the same time they preserve their character and propriety of pose and gesture. This maiveté persists in nearly all his work, and distinguishes it sharply from Whistler’s cosmopolitan cleverness. Mr. Greaves tells us that his father was a boat-builder at Chelsea. He has, therefore, been familiar with the riverside from childhood, and his pictures of it seem to be rich with childish associations. He paints it as if he loved it for its own sake, not as if it were a new and interesting material for picture-making. No one has ever surpassed him in the drawing of boats, and he draws them as if they were human to him. Every house in his riverside pictures has its own character; and yet in most of his works the detail is almost as skilfully subordinated as in the best works of de Hoogh; and, as de Hoogh is intensely Dutch, so Mr. Greaves is intensely English. Whistler, no doubt, helped to make him an artist, but he did not make him a cosmopolitan like so many of his followers, and he has kept almost entirely free of the Japanese element in Whistler’s art.

He is at his best, perhaps, in works like the wonderful little night-piece, “The Black Lion, Church Street, Chelsea”’ (No. 38), where there is nothing of Whistler. Here the houses all keep their character and sharpness of definition in the darkness. The execution and the composition alike are almost childish in their simplicity. The picture looks as if anyone could have painted it, and yet no one has painted anything at all like it. There are three pictures of Old Battersea Bridge; and the longer you look at them the less you remember Whistler. Indeed, they have the same relation to Whistler’s works that the Giorgionesque Titian has to Giorgione. Whistler defines only for the sake of his design. Mr. Greaves defines because he loves every timber in the bridge; and yet his design is almost as fine as Whistler’s and almost as predominant. He is not a painter of moods, like Whistler, but a painter of things in which he is profoundly interested, like de Hoogh. Whistler has taught him some part of the science of picture-making, and thatisall. In his portrait of Carlyle the influence of Whistler is evident; but notice the subtlety of expression and the manner in which he has invested the trousers with character—perhaps the most difficult feat an artist can accomplish. Again, in the portrait of Miss Alice Greaves the head is a master-piece, and there is extraordinary boldness in the whole design, though the quilted dress is a little tiresome in its repetitions. Mr. Greaves tells us that it was rejected at the Grosvenor Gallery in 1876 for want of space. There are very fewcontemporary exhibitions in which it would not surpass every other portrait. If the Academy have not yet made all their purchases this year for the Chantrey Bequest, they have an opportunity here of making some reparation for the long public neglect, or rather ignorance, of a master, on whose discovery Mr. Marchant is to be congratulated.

The success of the exhibition was immediately assured. By mid-day the galleries were thronged, and these very pictures by Mr. Greaves, which hitherto had been unknown to the art world, were now eagerly sought after, even by some of the most discriminating connoisseurs.

As the day went on, the excitement increased, reporters from the principal papers vying with each other to obtain interviews with, and photographs of, the artist; whilst crowds of visitors continued to stream through the galleries, expressing, together with their appreciation of the pictures, their great surprise that the author of such works could have remained hitherto unknown tothe public. And so, throughout, the interest in the exhibition was maintained to the very last day; whilst had we needed any justification, from the artistic side, for exhibiting Mr. Greaves’s works, it was amply afforded in the high commendation and eulogistic opinions passed on them by some of the most distinguished artists of the present day. We may quote, as an example, the following from The Daily News of May 6th :—

AN ARTIST’S APPRECIATION.

A remarkable feature of the discovery is the whole-hearted admiration expressed by the younger men of the art world, who, feeling that the veteran artist will not produce many more pictures, are working to secure a record attendance at the Goupil Gallery, and have hopes that at least one of the canvases may be secured for a public collection.

One eminent pupil of Whistler, Mr. William Rothenstein, speaking to a “Daily News” representative last night, said it seemed incredible that a man of Mr. Greaves’s talents should have remained unappreciated so long.

“An entirely new note runs through all his pictures. He was known to some of us as a kind of legend, the subject of many Whistler stories, but we had perhaps rather regarded him merely as a follower of the master.

«Everything he has painted is the result of a rare passion and reverence, and there underlies everything he does a spirit of rare intensity, which is curiously suggestive of the early works of the Pre-Raphaelites. I think nothing quite like the portrait of his sister has been painted in England, and I hope that one or more of his fine pictures will find a home in the Tate Gallery.”

Mr. Rothenstein’s generous appreciation of the new master’s work is shared by the critics. Mr. Greaves has found fame late in life, but he has received an enthusiastic welcome from the world of art.

As it would be impossible, by means of excerpts, to give an adequate idea of Mr. Walter Sickert’s sincere and admirable tribute to Mr. Greaves’s work, published, under the title of L’ Affaire Greaves, in the New Age of June 15th, we have, with the Editor's kind approval, reprinted the article in its entirety, as a most fitting conclusion to these pages.

ee

“PASSING UNDER OLD BATTERSEA BRIDGE By Walter Greaves

Catalogue No. 47

; i ep * i we F al xi

= a Pet ot aly on aE Fi ~~] salle ;

ey ate

Chapter II

MR. PENNELL’S MOVE — LETTERS TO “THE TIMES”: MR. HEINEMANN, THE WRITER OF ‘‘\THE TIMES” ARTICLE, AND W.M. & CO.

On May 13th, Mr. Joseph Pennell informed us that he had thoroughly searched through the Official Catalogue of the 1862 International Exhibition, but had failed to find any trace, either of Mr. Greaves’s picture, or even of his name; that, further, Whistler was catalogued as having exhibited four etchings, but no pictures. He said it was a most serious affair, and that Mr. Greaves would have to substantiate his statement concerning No. 47 “ Passing under Old Battersea Bridge.” We replied that we ourselves would investigate the matter, and that, if any mistake had been made, it should forthwith be rectified; but that unfortunately our principal was obliged to go abroad the next day for about a week.

Now Mr. Pennell, from the outset, had appeared very excited, if not angry, discussing matters, both in the exhibition and out of it, with critics, artists, and even dealers ; his activity being sufficiently surprising to becomethe subject of very general talk and speculation. His attitude on this occasion seemed so ominous, not to say antagonistic, that it occurred to us to ask him what he intended to do. He replied that he would “do nothing” until our principal returned to London; but three days afterwards—owing, so he informed us later, to the ‘‘ most scandalous attacks” which meanwhile had been made upon Whistler—he could not refrain from sending to The Times the letter which is reprinted on page 23, although The Times itself refrained from publishing it.

As the picture “ Passing under Old Battersea Bridge” was not even referred to in The Times article, one may easily imagine the Editor’s possible amazement at being called upon by Mr. Pennell to ask Mr. Greaves,

“to produce some more positive proof, and reliable data, as to the date at which this work was shown.”

The letter was returned, according to Mr. Pennell (and apparently to his surprise), ‘‘ without comment or explanation.” On May 24th, we obtained our own evidence that it was not in the International Exhibition of 1862, but in that of 1873, the next of the series, that Mr. Greaves’s picture was shown. His memory had evidently been at fault, and the error, made absolutely in good faith (which even Mr. Pennell has allowed), was quite pardonable, as we think anyone will admit. Still, like all errors, it was a regrettable one, and, the next day, in consequence of it, we withdrew the preface from our catalogue. Mr. Pennell, however, had seemingly determined to act independently of us, for The Times of May 26th contained this letter from Mr. William Heinemann, which was based mainly on information which Mr. Pennell—in his published letters— declared was either supplied to, or obtained by, himself.

WHISTLER AND MR. GREAVES.

To the Editor of The Times.

S1r,—The sensation created by the exhibition of Mr. Walter Greaves’s pictures is due to the impression given, and reproduced by the Press, that he was not merely, as he describes himself, a “pupil of Whistler,” but that he actually influenced and, in some directions, led Whistler. This impression has arisen out of the letter which Messrs. Goupil have printed as a preface to the catalogue. I gather that Mr. Greaves is an old gentleman, and I fear that his memory has played him false with regard to the dates he mentions in this letter. As these dates have led to quite an erroneous impression, I think it is important that they should be corrected.

(1) Mr. Greaves states that he and his brother painted, before they knew Whistler, “pictures of the Thames and Cremorne Gardens, both day and night effects.” The following extract from a letter written by Whistler to Mr. Greaves disposes of that impression :—

«« Suppose you were to see any other fellow doing my moonlights, how vexed you would be. You see I invented them. Never in the history of art have they been done. Well, nothing more natural than that you two should do them, and quite right that the traditions of the studio should go on through the pupils*...

«J. A. M’N. WuIsTLEr.”

*In the same letter, Whistler referred to Mr. Greaves as his own pet pupil.

17 +

(2) Mr. Greaves says that “the picture of barges passing under the bridge (No. 47) was exhibited during the Great Exhibition of 1862, in Allen (sic) Cole’s room.” That impression is disposed of by the fact that in 1862 Mr. Alan Cole was only fourteen years of age, and also by the following statement :—

‘In the 1862 Exhibition, the buildings of which lay along the Cromwell-road, Greaves had no picture.

“In 1873 Jimmy asked that a painting by Greaves should be shown in one of my rooms. Jimmy sent ‘ Nocturne in Grey and Gold,’ which I believe was ‘ Battersea Bridge,’ now in the Tate Gallery, and Mr. Greaves sent a ‘ Harmony in Blue and Grey.’* Both are in the Catalogue for that year.

‘‘In 1874 Jimmy sent nothing and asked me to take in a Greaves painting. This was a ‘Harmony in White and Grey,’ by H. Greaves. “ALAN S. CoLe.”

(3) Mr. Greaves says that Whistler’s Thames etchings were produced when he lived at Lindsey Row; but most of them are dated 1859—two or three years before he went there.

It is clear, therefore, that his memory has played Mr. Greaves false, and critics will be able to correct their impression of the relative position of Mr. Whistler and Mr. Greaves, which is abundantly shown by the two extracts given above. I feel certain that Mr. Greaves has no desire to mislead, or to claim for himself greater distinction than the fact that he was a pupil of Whistler’s.

In the first edition of the catalogue the dates are given for three of the Thames-Cremorne pictures. As these dates are omitted from the third edition, I assume that Mr. Greaves has already become aware of his mistakes. He should, I think, in these circumstances, now modify as well the inisleading statements in his introductory letter.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant, Wo. HEINEMANN. 21 Bedford Street, W.C., May 24th.

Then followed this correspondence :—

‘‘The Times,’’ May 27th, 19/1. (From the Writer of ‘‘ The Times'’ Article.)

WHISTLER AND MR. GREAVES.

To the Editor of The Times.

S1r,—Mr. Heinemann in his letter to you on this subject says that ‘the sensation created by the exhibition of Mr. Walter Greaves’s pictures is due to the impression given and reproduced by the Press . . . that he actually influenced and in some directions led Whistler.” I can scarcely believe that the public were so foolish as to admire and to buy pictures because of their

* The exact title in the official catalogue is “ Harmony in Blue Grey.”

supposed influence upon other pictures; at any rate I should like to point out that Mr. Greaves was praised in The Times, not because of the likeness of his works to Whistler’s, but because of their unlikeness. They seemed to me most interesting when they were most original; and I said so. As Whistler obviously painted Whistlerian pictures better than Mr. Greaves, his originality is not likely to be questioned by any man of sense. No doubt Whistler did “invent his moonlights” as he put it; but even if he had not invented them, their excellence makes them his. A masterpiece is the work of the man who made it, no matter what he may have learnt from others. But while the dates of Mr. Greaves’s pictures have nothing to do with the merits of Whistler, they have also nothing to do with the merits of Mr. Greaves; for, as I have said, his best pictures are not Whistlerian, and Mr. Heinemann does him an injustice in suggesting that his success is altogether based upon a misconception. I, for one, should have thought more highly of his art if his most Whistlerian pictures had not been exhibited.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

THe WRITER OF THE NOTICE OF Mr. GREAVES’S Pictures IN The Times.

To the Editor of The Times. (From W. M. & Co.)

S1r,—-We have read Mr. Heinemann’s letter in The Times of to-day. May we, as being on the spot, give it as our impression that the sensation created by the exhibition of Mr.Walter Greaves’s pictures is primarily due to the attention called to it by The Times article of the 5th inst., which certainly contains no suggestion that Mr. Greaves “actually influenced and, in some directions, led Whistler ” ?

During the preparation of the exhibition, Mr. Greaves gave us several items of interesting information, some of which, with his consent, were taken down, signed by him, and incorporated in our catalogue in the form of a letter to the firm. Mr. Greaves spoke to us very simply, and sincerely, and the necessity to corroborate his statements by documentary evidence, before printing them, did not occur to us.

Yesterday, however, we withdrew the preface in its entirety from the catalogue, having received evidence that Mr. Greaves was at fault as to the date of exhibition of the picture, ‘‘ Passing under Old Battersea Bridge.” The official catalogue of the Great Exhibition of 1862, Fine Art Department, contained no mention of any work by Mr. Walter Greaves, but the popular edition of the catalogue of the London International Exhibition of 1873 contains, on page 63, the following :—

“1556, Whistler, J. A. McNeill.

“«¢ Nocturne in Grey and Gold.’

“©7558. Greaves, W.

“« Harmony in Blue Grey.’ ”

Whilst, therefore, Mr. Greaves’s statements with regard to the picture are materially correct, there is an important variation as to the date of its exhibition, and if any erroneous superstructure has been built by anyone on this mistake, it must of course fall to the ground.

Mr. Heinemann quotes an extract from one of Whistler’s letters, in which Whistler states that he invented his “ Moonlights,” bringing this forward in order to contradict Mr. Greaves’s statement that his brother and he ‘“‘ were painting pictures of the Thames and Cremorne Gardens, both day and night effects,” before they knew Whistler. Mr. Greaves authorizes us to repudiate, on his behalf, that he in any way wished to convey the idea that he and his brother invented Whistler’s manner of painting moonlights; and it is difficult to see how his words could be made to convey that meaning, any more than Whistler’s assertion that he was the inventor of his own moonlights definitely indicated that no one before him had ever painted a moonlight picture.

But what led up in the letter to those remarks?

Mr. Alan S. Cole says that the picture which Whistler sent to the 1873 exhibition, under the title ‘““ Nocturne in Grey and Gold,” was, in his belief, “‘ Battersea Bridge,” now in the Tate Gallery. Mr. Greaves had previously given us not only the exact title under which, at Whistler’s desire, his picture was exhibited, but also described, as a moonlight on Southampton Water, the picture by Whistler simultaneously exhibited. Those who can remember an oblong picture by Whistler, representing a golden moon rising in a greyish sky from an expanse of grey water, will perhaps consider it as more entitled to be called “ Nocturne in Grey and Gold” than the upright Tate Gallery picture which figured in the Goupil Gallery exhibition of 1892, under the title, given by the artist himself, “ Nocturne—Blue and Gold—Old Battersea Bridge.”

Whatever fault may be found with Mr. Greaves on the subject of his forgetfulness of dates relating to matters of 40 or 50 years ago, Mr. Heinemann is perfectly right in feeling “certain that Mr. Greaves has no desire to mislead, or to claim for himself greater distinction than the fact that he was a pupil of Whistler’s.”

As showing, however, that “to err is human,” we may point out that Mr. Heinemann himself, in a matter of the present day, has, in referring to our catalogue as that of ‘‘ Messrs. Goupil,” evidently trusted to his memory alone, and not sought the necessary documentary evidence. This mistake is, unfortunately, a very serious one, from our point of view, and we are bound to see that it is rectified without delay, lest through Mr. Heinem.nn’s faute de mémoive the impression might be “ given and reproduced by the Press” that we are making an illegal use of the name Goupil, which might easily cause us another heavy and intricate law suit. We, therefore, emphatically state that nothing in our