0
A
A ghost of a portrait
Authenticating Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress
Elsemieke van Rietschoten
First supervisor dr. Arjan de Koomen│Second supervisor em. prof. Arie Wallert │
Department of Art History │ University of Amsterdam │ July 2017
1
A ghost of a portrait
Authenticating Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress
Final thesis
In order to obtain the degree of ‘Master of Arts’
at the Department of Art History of the University of Amsterdam
Written under supervision of dr. Arjan de Koomen and em. prof. Arie Wallert
July 2017
Elsemieke van Rietschoten
10120696
2
Plate 1: James McNeill Whistler (Circle off), Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress, oil on canvas, Singer Laren, inv.56-1-377.
3
I
NDEXACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 5
INTRODUCTION:‘Predicting the Past’ 6
Whistler and his legacy 7
Cataloguing Whistler 8
Technical analysis in relation to the attribution of oil paintings 9
Structure 10
CHAPTER 1: ‘A three–quarter length of a lady in white’, Pedigree: art historical source research 11
1.1 Methodology 12
1.2 ‘A remarkable find’: 1910 13
1.2.1 Joseph and Elizabeth Pennell: The Whistler journal 13 1.2.2 ‘Fifty roles of canvases’: Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell Ltd 14
1.2.3 ‘The Lady’ and á second hand books dealer’ 15
1.3 ‘L’affaire Greaves’: 1911 16
1.4 ‘Arrangement in black and white a bankruptcy petition’: 1879 18 1.4.1 ‘A few intelligent people’: The Pennells and the disappearance of paintings 19 1.4.2 ‘Rags and destroyed canvases’: the destruction of canvases 19 1.4.3 The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler and the Dowdeswell pictures 20 1.5 ‘Symphony in White (The white girl in muslin dress) 21
1.6 Conclusion 23
CHAPTER 2: ‘The headless woman’, James Mc Neill Whistler: Technical examination and stylistic
comparison 24
2.1 Methodology 26
2.2 Substrate 28
2.3 Ground 30
2.3.1 Composition and celestine as a material marker 30
2.4 Paint layers 33
2.4.1 The pink dress and paint handling 35
2.4.2 The curtain and difference in finish 36
2.5 Restorations 38
2.6 Conclusion 39
CHAPTER 3: ‘Miscellaneous Walter Greaves’, Stylistic comparison 40
3.1 Methodology 41
3.2 Walter Greaves in Whistler’s studio 42
3.2.1 The Satellites 43
3.3 Walter Greaves the artist 45
3.3.1 Greaves portraits 45
3.4 Conclusion 48
4
BIBLIOGRAPHY 52
Online Sources 57
Attachment I, LC Whistler Collection 58
Attachment II, YMSM, Paintings involved in the bankruptcy 61
Attachment III, Visual Examination 67
Attachment IV, Digital Microscopy, surface examination 74
Attachment V, Infrared and X-ray image 83
Attachment VI, Macro X-ray Fluorescence Scanning 84
Attachment VII, X-ray fluorescence Spectrometry 92
Attachment VIII, Scanning Electron Microscopy with EDX attachment 93
Attachment IX, Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry 99
Attachment X, Examination of The Blue Girl 101
Attachment XI, Oil Paintings Exhibited in the 1911 Groupil Gallery Exhibition 102 Attachment XII, Witt Reference Library, The Courthold Intitute of Art 111 Attachment XIII, Visual examination, Whistler on the widow’s walk 117
Attachment XIV, Examination Nocturne 118
5
A
CKNOWLEDGEMENTSI would like to express my gratitude to the people who have contributed to this study. At first I would like to thank Arie Wallert, who provided the opportunity to work on this project and guided me through it very patiently. Secondly I would like to thank Jan Rudloph de Lorm and Anne van Lienden from the Singer Laren. They entrusted this project to me and familiarised me with the Singer collection. I
especially would like to thank Margaret MacDonald who shared her life time of Whistler knowledge with me. The Hunterian Art Gallery provided the opportunity to study their Whistlers. Erma Hermes assisted with the technical analysis on site and kindly shared the result of her students with us. Much of the technical research presented in this thesis would not have been possible without the guidance of specialist from the Rijksdienst voor Cultureel Erfgoed (RCE), University of Antwerp (UA) and the Rijksmuseum. Henk van Keulen (RCE) conducted the GS-MS analysis and explained the process to me very thoroughly. Ineke Jansen (RCE) helped me to answer some important questions by conducting GC-MS analysis. Geert van der Snickt and Stijn Legrand UA, conducted MA-XRF analysis which provided important information about the development of the picture. Furthermore I would like to thank all of the restorers and interns working at the Rijksmuseum during my internship for their interest in this project as well as their practical advice; especially Gwen Touber who guided me through the first difficult weeks. Margriet Eikema Hommes and Tatjana van Run very kindly provided me with their cross-section form, which made studying them much easier. Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones, Redivivus took a lot of time discussing the picture with me. Her findings were very helpful in understanding the condition of the picture. Although ultimately I have not been able to further the line of enquiry, I would like to thank Bianca du Mortier for helping me understand some of the fashion aspects of the picture. Jenny Reynaerts gave an introduction into pedigree research for which I am very grateful. I would like to thank Karen de Vries and Eric Keck for attentively reading and correcting some of my drafts. On a more personal note I would like to thank Dorien Rots who proved a safe haven during the process of writing this thesis.
6
I
NTRODUCTION‘Predicting the Past’
In the documentary Jheronimus Bosch – Touched By the Devil (Pieter van Huystee 2016)John Oliver Hand, curator of northern Renaissance paintings at the National Gallery of Art, Washington remarks ‘what we do as art historians is predict the past’. Art history rarely deals in hard facts, but rather interprets fragments of history. The attribution of works of art is no exception and is often the result of intense scholarly debate.
Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress (unsigned) has been part of the Singer Laren collection since
Anna Spencer-Brugh (1878-1962) founded the museum in 1956. The museum’s first catalogue, as well as the 1962 collection catalogue list the painting as ‘by James McNeill Whistler’.1 However when the Singer
museum hosted a Whistler exhibition in 1976 the picture was omitted.2 In the most recent collection
catalogue the ‘Lady in white’ has been classed as ‘Whistler, circle off’.3 Furthermore the Singer picture has
not been included in the catalogue raisonné of Whistler’s oil paintings The paintings of James McNeill Whistler (1980).4
In 1997 prof. Margareth McDonald, prominent Whistler scholar and compiler of the oeuvre catalogue, visited the museum. She expressed doubt about the portrait and consequently it was de-attributed by the Singer museum. When Jan Rudolph de Lorm was appointed director of the museum in 2009 he discovered the painting in the museum’s depot and felt the de-attribution might have robbed the Singer of a Whistler. Together with prof. Arie Wallert, Rijksmuseumchair Atelier Practice, University of Amsterdam, De Lorm instigated new research into the attribution of girl in muslin dress. They asked the challenging question: Can we attribute Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress to James Mc Neill Whistler? The phrasing of this question contains the hypothesis that the painting was indeed made by Whistler.
The picture is exhibited in a reeded cushion frame.5 The gilding is applied directly onto the wood.
This style of frame is usually associated with the works of Whistler. In The Art of the Picture Frame: Artists,
Patrons and the Framing of Portraits in Britain (1997) Jacob Simons defines the Whistler frame as:
‘A reeded frame, named after the painter James McNeill Whistler, current from the1870s onwards, found either as a flat frame with inner and outer reeded bands, or as a reeded cushion frame, usually gilt directly onto oak’6
Sara Lawrence Parkerson’s PhD thesis Variations in gold: the stylistic development of the picture frames used by
James McNeill Whistler (2007) details the function and development of the Whistler frame. The reeded
cushion frame was produced from the 1890’s onward by Whistler’s frame maker Frederick Henry Grau. In 1892 Whistler described the Grau style frame as the 'true pattern' and 'worthy' of his work.7 When
Arrangement in Grey and Black, No.2: Portrait of Thomas Carlyle entered the Glasgow City Museum Collection
in 1891 Whistler stipulated the painting should always be exhibited within this style of frame since he considered it the only frame suitable for ‘a public gallery’.8
1 -, Singer memorial foundation museum catalogues, Laren 1956, cat. 140 fig, p 140. -, Singer memorial foundation museum catalogues, Laren 1962, cat. 538 fig. 20.
2 -, James Abbot McNeill Whistler, Schilderijen, tekeningen, pastels, aquarellen, etsen, litho’s uit de university art collections, Glasgow, Exh. Cat. Singer museum Laren n.h. 15 mei t/m 13 juni 1976.
3 See: Ann Blockland, Jaqueline de Raad, Emke Raassen-Kruimel et. All.., Collectie Singer Schilderijen, Singer museum, Zwolle 2002, cat. 643.
4 Andrew McLaren Young, Margaret MacDonald, Robin Spencer and Hamish Miles, The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler, London & New Haven 1980 [YMSM].
5 See: Attachment III, Visual Examination, fig 1 and 2.
6 Sara Lawrence Parkerson, Variations in Bold: The Stylistic Development of the Pictures Frames used by James McNeill Whistler, Phd Thesis University of Glasgow 2007, p 253.
7 James Whistler to Edward Guthrie Kennedy, [13 June 1892], NYPL E.G. Kennedy 1119; Glasgow University: Whistler [GUW] 09685.
7
The archetypal frame was one of the reasons to reinvestigate the attribution of the picture. The frame itself is altered to fit the painting. The corner blocks at the back of the frame have been shortened.9
The right sided rail of the frame shows dullness caused by dust, while the bottom rail is shinier . Dust usually accumulates on the bottom of the frame causing the guiding to go dull. Since within this frame the bottom rail is shinier than the side rail, it seems the frame is constructed from the parts of a much larger frame.10 Although certainly interesting, this thesis does not include the frame because in its earliest
description the painting is described as part of a group of rolled-up canvases torn from their stretchers. James McNeill Whistler claimed he could distinguish a Velasquez from a fake just by looking at it. When someone showed him an alleged Velasquez he dismissed it after a glance and reportedly stated “I always swoon when I see a Velazquez.”11 However, swooning is not enough in attributing works of art.
Technical analysis was used to study the material aspect of the Singer picture. As part of an internship with prof. Arie Wallert at the Rijksmuseum I have been involved in most of the scientific analysis. In this thesis I focus on the interpretation of these technical data in relation to the attribution of the Singer picture.
Whistler and his legacy
During his career the American born artist James McNeill Whistler travelled between two of the great art centres of nineteenth century Europe: London and Paris. His outspoken personality made him a central figure in a wide-ranging circle of artists, such as the French Realists, Pre-Raphaelites and Impressionists. His art was influenced by Japonism and the Aesthetic Movement as well as the works of Rembrandt, Halls and Velasquez. Whistler worked in different media. He experimented with lithography, pastel and watercolour, however he is most well-known for his etchings and works in oil.12 In 1878 Whistler sued
the revered art critic John Ruskin for libel.13 Ruskin had accused Whistler of ‘flinging a pot of paint in the
public’s face’.14 The court case centred around the relationship between labour and monetary value as well
as the definition of ‘finish’ in painting. The Ruskin trail firmly established Whistlers reputation as a professional trouble maker. One can say he cultivated his talent for controversy. His published account of the Ruskin trail was titled The Gentle Art of Making Enemy’s (1890).15 He dedicated it to ‘the rare few, who
early in life, have rid themselves of the friendship of the many’.16
Controversy and dispute followed the artist during his lifetime as well as after it. Whistler’s ward and executrix Rosalind Birnie Philip (1873–1958) and his biographers Joseph Pennell (1857-1926) and his wife Elizabeth Robins Pennell (1855-1936) disagreed on how to represent the diseased.17 The Pennell’s
wanted to write an extensive biography that discussed Whistler the person, as well as his art. They argued Whistler authorised the biography during his life. However Birnie Philip believed Whistler never intended for his personal life to be discussed so explicitly. She remained adamant his dying wish had been ‘that no life should be written’.18 Both parties claimed precedence and the argument was settled in court. As his
9 Oral communication Huub Baija, Senior Conservator of Frames and Gilding, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. See: Attachment III, Visual Examination, fig 3 and 4.
10 Oral communication, frame restorer Singer Laren.
11 See Donald D Spencer ed., The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the visual art, Oxford 2004, p xv. 12 See: YMSM, Nesta Spink, Harriet Stratis and Martha Tedeschi, The Lithographs of James McNeill Whistler. A Catalogue Raisonné, Art Institute of Chicago, 1998. Margaret MacDonald, James McNeill Whistler: Drawings, Pastels and Watercolours. A Catalogue Raisonné, London & New Haven, 1995 [M]. Margaret MacDonald, Grischka Petri, Meg Hausberg, and Joanna Meacock, James McNeill
Whistler: The Etchings, a catalogue raisonné, University of Glasgow, 2012, on-line edition at <http://etchings.arts.gla.ac.uk> accesses:
03-06-2017 [G].
13 For a critical discussion of the trails proceedings see: Linda Merill, A Pot of Paint, Aesthetics on Trial in Whistler v. Ruskin, Washington and London 1992.
14 Ibid, p 1. “Letter 79: Life Guards of New Life”, Fors Clavigrea 7 (July 1877), in E. T. Cook (ed.) and Alexander Wederburn (ec.),
The Works of John Ruskin, London 1903-12, v 29 p 146-69.
15 James McNeill Whistler, The Gentle Art of Making Enemies, London 1890. 16 Ibid. p XIII unnumbered.
17 See: David Sutherland, Whistler a life for art’s sake, New Haven and London 2014, p 342-347 and Linda Merrill (ed.), With kindest
regards : the correspondence of Charles Lang Freer and James McNeill Whistler, 1890-1903, Washington D.C. and London 1995, p 8.
8
ward Birnie Philip guarded Whistler’s personal correspondence. Therefore the lawsuit addressed two issues: The first being the nature of Whistler’s consent, and the second - the issue of copyright. The judge ruled in favour of the Pennell’s in the first issue however they were not allowed to ‘published Whistler’s correspondence verbatim’.19
The dispute brought about a permanent rift between those who had known Whistler during his life. Birnie Philip gained the support of Charles Lang Freer (1858-1919) a wealthy Detroit business man whom met Whistler in 1890. He would come to build the most extensive collection of works by
Whistler.20 Additionally the Pennell’s were supported by many of Whistler’s surviving family and friends.
Among them Hellen Euphrosyne Whistler (1817-1888) Whistlers sister in law and confidant and William Heineman (1863-1920) who published ‘The Gentle Art’ as well as ‘The Life’. Freer repeatedly referred to the ‘Freer Syndicated’ against the ‘Pennell-Heinemann Syndicate’.21 When Rosalind Birnie Philip lent
pictures to the Metropolitan museum of Art, she wrote a letter to express her discontent. ‘The Life’ was mentioned in the exhibition catalogue against her explicit wishes.22
Cataloguing Whistler
The first attempt in cataloguing Whistlers paintings in oil was made by Elizabeth Luther Cary in The works
of James McNeill Whistler (1907).23 She published an incomplete list of 528 works in ‘in oil and in water
colour, pastels and drawings’. She explains her choices as follows:
‘In the subjoined list no claim is made either to comprehensiveness or to complete accuracy. In spite of the kindness of many owners of Whistler’s pictures in furnishing data concerning them, the reluctance of unresponsiveness of others has made it impossible to carry the list beyond what may be considered merely the nucleus for a better one’ 24
Bernard Sickert’s monography of the artist Whistler (1908) included an equally incomplete list of 190 oil paintings.25 Sickert explains his choices as follows:
‘It is not to be expected that a catalogue of Whistler’s oil pictures can be as yet drawn up, both complete and correct. I have not attempted to make it couplet, as the inclusion of all the slighter works, the “Notes, Harmonies, Caprices.” etc., would swell the book disproportionately.’26
The Pennells planned to supplement their biography with a catalogue of Whistler’s works. Their initial intention was to ‘publish one volume of biography and one dealing with Whistler’s work which naturally […] could not be complete if it did not include a catalogue’.27 According to Elizabeth their
catalogue would distinguish itself from others because none of Whistler’s works would be included without a proper pedigree.28 However the catalogue never materialised29. Ultimately Elisabeth published
The art of Whistler (1928). It appears to be written to guard Whistler’s position in a world of rapidly
developing isms rather than as a critical discussion of his art.30 The publication does not include a list of
works by Whistler, it discusses his works thematically.
19 Ibid, p 346.
20 On the Freer/Sacler Whistler collection see: Thomas Lawton and Linda Merrill, Freer, A Legacy of Art, Washington D.C. 1993, p 31-59.
21 Kimberly Morse Jones, Elizabeth Robins Pennell, Nineteenth-Century Pioneer of Modern Art Criticism, Dorchester 2015, p. 113. 22 Rosalind Birnie Philip to Edward Robinson, [June 21, 1910], Glasgow University Library (GUL), MS Whistler P540. 23 Elisabeth Luther Cary, The works of James McNeill Whistler, New York and London 1907, p 149-231.
24 Ibid, p 149.
25 Bernhard Sickert, Whistler, London and New York, 1908, p 137-175. 26 Ibid, p 137.
27 YMSM, p XIV.
28 Morse Jones 2015: p 114. 29 Ibid, p 113.
9
In 1945 Joseph Whistler Revillon (1886-1955), Whistler’s great-nephew, started to compile a list of Whistler’s paintings in oil. With the help of Frederic Coburn (d. 1953), the curator of the Whistler House at Lowell, Massachusetts, Revillon listed most of the paintings by, or ascribed to Whistler. Additionally he collected a mass of data and photographs. Due to his untimely death on 1955 the catalogue remained unpublished. The date compiled by Revillon formed the basis of the 1908 catalogue.
The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler includes 595 paintings. The compilers explain their criteria for
including or excluding pictures as follows:
‘It has been our aim to record all the oil paintings Whistler can be shown to have started, including those which are no longer extant and those which Whistler either abandoned or destroyed. We have catalogued all paintings by Whistler exhibited in his lifetime-and in the memorial exhibition of 1904 and 1905 – also all paintings ascribed to him during his lifetime, as recorded by photographs or in manuscripts, press cuttings and other published sources of first-hand information in addition, we have included a number of paintings not recorded, but which on visual evidence, we believe to be his work. We have not, however catalogued paintings first recorded after Whistler’s death, which have since disappeared, and for which there is no corroboration of authenticity.’31
The criteria for inclusion seem to be based on provenance research as well as stylistic connoisseurship.
Technical analysis in relation to the attribution of oil paintings.
When the provenance of a picture is questionable or incomplete the attribution of paintings enters the domain of the connoisseur. Traditional connoisseurship relies on the ability, acquired by experience, to distinguish the hand of a painter. By recognising idiosyncrasies particular to a given artists work the connoisseur establishes a mental image of the signature style characteristic for a given artist. Scientific analyses provided new tools in regard to the attribution of paintings.32 However science is often better at
excluding than including. For example by comparing pigment analyses with pigment chronologies it is possible to distinguish between originals and fakes or forgeries. Deciding if a work is by the master or by one of his students or followers is infinitely more difficult.
In the attribution of works of art, art-historical documentation, (stylistic) connoisseurship and technical or scientific analysis are complementary, all steps are necessary aspects of best practices in authentication and attribution. One should realise that scientific data often relies as much on interpretation and context, as do more traditional methods of art historical research do. Technical analysis will however enable us to understand peculiarities that are specific to a given artist. Daniel Varny Thompson accurately described technique in relation to the art of painting in ‘The Materials and Techniques
of Medieval Painting’:
‘for techniques means materials and tools in action, and the essence of technical study is the recognition of those systematic methods which combine taste and knowledge and competence, born of professional and individual experience.’33
Within this thesis stylistic features are treated as a direct result of materials and technique. This means composition, the use of colour and the balance of light and shade receive less attention.
31 YMSM, p XV.
32 On the use of scientific analysis in relation to the attribution of paintings see: Rustin S. Levenson, ‘Examining the Techniques and Materials of Paintings’ in: Donald D. Spencer (ed.), The Expert Versus the Object: Judging Fakes and False Attributions in the visual
art, Oxford 2004, p 11-125. Sylvana Barrett and Dusan C. Stulik, ‘An Integrated Approach for the Study of Painting Techniques’,
in: Erma Hermens and Arie Wallert (ed.), Historical painting techniques materials and studio practice, Los Angeles 1995, p 6-11. College Art Association, ‘Authentications and Attributions’, online edition
<http://www.collegeart.org/standards-and-guidelines/guidelines/authentications> accessed 03-05-2017.
10
Structure
Chapter 1
discusses the provenance and the history of attribution of Symphony in White.Chapter 2
details the results of technical analysis focusing on the condition of the picture as well as stylistic featuresassociated with Whistler’s painting technique.
Chapter 3
discusses a second possible author of the picture.11
CHAPTER 1
‘A three–quarter length of a lady in white’
Pedigree: art historical source research
The entries of the 1956 and 1962 Singer collection catalogues suggest Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress entered the Singer Laren collection as a Whistler. The museum was founded in 1956 by
Anna Singer-Burgh (1878-1962) in memory of her late husband William Singer (1868-1943) who was an art collector and artist in his own right. Together the Singers amassed a large collection of figurative art. Between 1900 and 1940 they collected 3000 paintings as well as works on paper and sculptures. Anna bequeathed a large part of their private collection to the museum in 1956. Symphony in White was part of that original bequest.
The Singers mainly collected the work of artist friends. They became interested in American impressionism when they visited the artist colony of Old Lyme in 1907. They met leading impressionists such as Childe Hassam (1859-1935).34 Among others they bought works by Willard Leroy Metcalf
(1858-1925) and Lawton Parker (1868-1954).35 Both Hassam and Metcalf were influenced by Whistler.36 When
he died in 1903 Whistler had reached the status of ‘a modern old master’. Lawton Parker briefly was a student of Whistler when he studied at the Académie Carmen where Whistler was a visiting professor.37
William and Anna must have seen the works of Whistler at the Annual Internationals held at the Carnegie institute in Pittsburgh. The first time William Singer himself was elected to exhibit was at the International of 1900. He was represented by Evening Landscape (cat. no. 223) and A Spring Freshet (cat. no. 224) while Whistler exhibited his Trouville Beach (cat. no. 259).38 From 1897 to 1901 Whistler was part of the Paris
foreign advisory committee that helped to select the paintings chosen for exhibition.39 Furthermore the
Singer collection houses four etching’s ascribed to Whistler.40
Within the museum archive very little information about the provenance of the picture is preserved. The museum records yielded no clue into when, where and from whom the picture was acquired. This first chapter will discuss the pedigree of Girl in muslin dress as well as the history of attribution. Who owned the picture and to whom was the picture attributed in the past?
34 Helen Schretlen, Loving Art, De William & Anna Singer Collection, Zwolle 2006, p 116.
35 For a summary of the works by Childe Hassam, Willard Leroy Metcalf and Lawson Parker in the Singer collection see Schretlen 2006: p 219, 224 and 226.
36 See: Linda Merrill, Robyn Asleson, Lee Glazer, Lacey Taylor Jordan, (et. al.), After Whistler, The Artist and His Influence on
American Painting, Exh. Cat. High Museum of Art, Atlanta 2003, p 106, 126, 128, 178, 194-197, 218 and 252 n 239. For Whistler’s
influence of Childe Hassam see: Helene Barbara Weinberg and Elizabeth E. Barke, Childe Hassam, American Impressionist, exh. cat. Metropolitan Museum of Art New York 2004, p 31, 59, 122, 129, 144, 179, 205, 212, 262, 273, 279, 302, 327, 347-48 and 355. 37 See: Merrill, Asleson,Glazer and Taylor Jordan 2003: p 84 n 30.
38 Schretlen 2006: p 112. Cat. Fifth Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1900, p 75 and 87.
39 Cat. The Second Annual exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1897, p 6. Cat. The Third Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1898, p 6. Cat. The Fourth Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1899, p 6. Cat. The Fifth Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1900, p 6. The Sixth Annual Exhibition, Carnegie Institute Pittsburgh 1901, p 6.
40 The Sick Person 1858, Etching on paper, 14.4x9.2 cm, SL56-1629. Mealtime 1859, Etching on paper 15,2x22,7 cm, SL 56-1-628.
Woman in an Interior 1858, Etching on paper, 20,6x14,7 cm, SL 630. Sailboats 1878, Etching on paper, 20,6x14,7 cm,
12
1.1 Methodology
As in many cases the back of the painting seemed to hold the best clue into uncovering who previously owned the painting as well as to whom it was ascribed in the past. Four labels are attached to the back of the stretcher (see attachment III). One label originates from the Singer museum collection. The other labels suggest the painting was exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery, the United Art Gallery and an exhibition titled Exhibition of Paintings, Watercolours, Pastels, Etchings and Lithographs, by the late James Mc Niell
Whistler. The latter even mentions the name of a previous owner E. Ellis. However, the label also
misspelled the artists name in print. It reads McNiell instead of McNeill. Harmony in White and Blue, a painting with a similar history as the Girl in muslin dress and currently ascribed to Whistler, reportedly carries the same Grosvenor and United Art Gallery labels as the Singer picture.41 However, the painting
could not be traced in the Grosvenor exhibition catalogues. Additionally, there are no records of the
Exhibition of Paintings, Watercolours, Pastels, Etchings and Lithographs that I know off. The authenticity of these
labels must therefore be called into question.
Art historical source research provided insight into the provenance of the picture. In What is a
Whistler? Margaret McDonald describes the ‘network of association’ that is important in establishing the
artist signature style. Provenance, technique and documentation are considered as important factors in attribution. 42 Although Whistler kept no records his works and life are well documented. McDonald
mentions ‘ten thousand letters, hundreds of books, thousands of articles, exhibition catalogues, and press cuttings, as well as the catalogues raisonné’.’43
Most of the primary material relating to Whistler is housed in the Glasgow University Library. Rosalind Birnie Philip bequeathed Whistler’s estate to the University in 1935 and 1958 respectively. The estate contained works of art as well as Whistler’s personal correspondence and catalogues, press cuttings and photographs.44 Together with the Freer Gallery of Art at the Smithsonian institute, the Hunterian Art
Gallery at the University of Glasgow hold the foremost collections of works of art by James McNeill Whistler.45 These institutions work in partnership to further research and publication on Whistler and his
art. After the outcome of the legal proceedings the Pennell’s decided to start their own collection of Whistler correspondence. It is housed in the Library of Congress together with the material the Pennell’s amassed while studying the artist.46 This material provides the backbone of all Whistler studies.
This thesis uses The Correspondence of James Mc Neill Whistler which is published online. The database contains the surviving correspondence from and to the artist. The database covers the period from 1855 to 1903. Letters from the University of Glasgow as well as the Library of Congress and other institutions world-wide are represented in the database.47 A visit to the University of Glasgow provided
additional information. Other relevant sources are discussed in the text as well as in the footnotes.
41 Harmony in White and Blue, oil on canvas, 209.5 x 87,5 cm, Leeds City Art Gallery, YMSM No 126. According Margaret MacDonald A grey day, Battersea by Walter Greaves, from the Art Gallery, New south Wales (inv. 8060 ) has the same labels on the back. However, after contacting the Museum, they informed me these labels are not on the back of the picture. Email 17-02-2016.
42 Margaret MacDonald, ‘What is a Whistler?’ in: Lee Glazer, Margaret F, MacDonald, Linda Merrill and Nigel Thorp (ed.), James
Mc Neill Whistler in context, essays from the Whistler centenary symposium university of Glasgow, 2003, Freer Gallery of Art occasional
papers, New series vol. 2, Washington D.C. 2008, p 1-19. 43 Ibid, p1.
44 Whistler Archive, University of Glasgow Library Glasgow, Special collections, call number MS Whistler. 45 See: Glazer, MacDonald, Merrill and Thorp (ed.) 2008: I-VI.
46Pennell-Whistler collection 1597-1937, Library of Congress Washington D. C., Manuscript Division, call number 20540. 47 The Correspondence of James McNeill Whistler, The University of Glasgow, 2003-2010, online edition [GUW],
13
1.2 ‘A remarkable find’: 1910
The first tangible evidence into uncovering the past of the picture is a passage within the Whistler journal by Joseph and Elisabeth Pennell. The record of Monday the nineteenth of September 1910 records the Pennell’s visit to a restorer’s studio where they see a ‘three-quarter length of a lady in white’. They recall the dark hair ‘rolled up on top of her head’ and short upper lip of the woman portrayed as well as the
greenish/black curtain in the background.
On a smaller canvas was a three-quarter length of a lady in white, the dress in the fashion of the Sixties. She is standing in the centre of the canvas, turned full face, she is dark, her short upper lip shows her teeth, and her black hair is rolled up on the top of her head […] Her arms hang at her sides and around the wrists are curious deep cuffs or wristbands of some thicker and heavier white muslin. She stands against a greenish black curtain, rather elaborately finished in comparison with the figure which is not carried very far, and the face which is hardly more than rubbed in.48
The Pennell’s description of the three-quarter length of a lady accurately describes the Singer picture.
1.2.1 Joseph and Elizabeth Pennell: The Whistler journal
The Whistler journal was begun in 1900 when Whistler granted the Pennell’s permission to write his
biography. They regularly met with the artist to discuss his life and work until his death in 1903. After Whistler’s death the Pennells appealed to many members of his family, friends and acquaintances to share with them all they remembered about the artist. Elizabeth kept notes of their activities within her journal. The Pennells considered the journal ‘the foundation upon which the biography was built’ and as such they believed it contained much information that had not been relevant to the biography, but might be of interest to the reader.49 The original journal was edited and published as The Whistler journal (1921).
To the Pennells Whistler was no mere mortal, he was a god among men, an artist above artist. Their biography does not describe a life, but The Life. In referring to Vasari’s famous Le Vite, the Pennells imply the historiography of contemporary art only needed one biography, that of James McNeill Whistler. Daniel V. Sutherland ends his recent biography Whistler a life for art’s sake (2014) not in 1903 the year of Whistler’s death, but in 1908 the year the Pennells published their biography.50 The Life has been
accused of being a hagiography rather than a biography.51 Katharine A. Lochnan argued it was time to
release Whistler from the grip off the Pennells however she acknowledged The Life and The Whistler Journal contain much good information.52 The extensive nature of The Life makes it the factual basis for many
Whistlerian studies.53
The Whistler journal is arranged by subject in a loosely chronological manner. It is centred around
the journal entries from 1900-1903 but it also contains relevant notes from before and after this period. The entries are supplemented by contemporary reflections of the authors. Although The Whistler Journal was published in 1921, eleven years after seeing the painting, it is based on the original writings by Elisabeth. The description of the ‘three quarter length of a ‘lady in white’ has been included unaltered.54
The portrait of a woman in white was part of a group of about fifty roles of canvas acquired by the
48 Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The Whistler journal, Philadelphia 1921, p 132. Record for Monday, September 19th, 1910.
49 Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1921: p v. 50 Sutherland 2014: p 343-47.
51Katherine A. Lochnan, ‘Understanding Whistler’, Newsletter of the Victorian Studies Association of Western Canada 10, vol
10 no 1 1984, p 3. 52 Ibid.
53 See for instance: Roy McMullin, Victorian Outsider: A Biography of J.A.M. Whistler, New York 1973, p 13. YMSM, I. 54 ‘Entry for 19-09-1910, The Whistler Journal; unpublished catalogue manuscript, Box 353, Pennell-Whistler collection, 1597-1937, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. See Attachment I.
14
London art dealer Walter Dowdeswell (1858-1929).55 Walter had written to Elisabeth that ‘he had
something of extraordinary interest’ that he wished to show the Pennells. He had come into the
possession of ‘some fifty canvases’ he believed to be by Whistler. The journal entry of Thursday September
the 15th 1910 records their first visit to his gallery. They viewed several paintings that day. In the following week they would regularly meet with Dowdeswell to inspect other paintings that at the time were being restored. Among them Symphony in White.
1.2.2 ‘Fifty roles of canvases’: Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell Ltd.
Charles William Dowdeswell (1832- 1915) - Walters father - had operated a frame making and print shop until he opened his own gallery. Walter worked with his father until 1912 when he left to work with the London art dealer Joseph Duveen.56 The Dowdeswells knew Whistler personally.57 The firm had dealt in
his pictures during his life time.58 The gallery hosted two of Whistlers one-man shows 'Notes' - 'Harmonies'
- 'Nocturnes' in 1884, and An Arrangement in Brown and Gold in 1886. Walter Dowdeswell even wrote an
article simply titled Whistler.59 Mortimer Menpes who became Whistler’s pupil in 1880 described the father
and son’s commitment to furthering Whistler’s career: ‘I must mention the splendid way in which the Messrs. Dowdeswell […] fought for Whistler in those early days, when his work was misunderstood and undervalued.’60 The firm left no archival records, but the Pennells recorded their visits to the
Dowdeswells in the Whistler Journal.61
On their first visit to the gallery the Pennells expressed doubt about some of the paintings. Elizabeth sums up her husband’s findings. There was no doubt about the authenticity of some of the paintings but he didn’t believe in others and was ‘doubtful’ and ‘more skeptical’ about some of the others.62 On first seeing the ‘three quarter length of a lady in white’ they describe it as ‘much less interesting’ than the other picture present in the restorer’s studio, but they do not seem to doubt the attribution to Whistler explicitly. In their contemporary reflection the Pennells note these canvases were submitted to several ‘people who know him [Whistler]’. According to the Pennells they were ‘bewildered, certain that some were Whistler’s, uncertain about others, struck […] by the difference in quality, many of the paintings being as commonplace as many were masterly.’ 63
When Dowdeswell bought the pictures they had been in ‘a shocking bad condition and had had to be cleaned and restored’.64 The Pennell’s did not favor the restoration of these paintings complaining
‘Restoration usually means destruction’.65 They note their hesitation in attributing some of these works to
Whistler might be due to the restoration they had undergone.66 It appears the pictures had already been
removed from their stretchers because the journal consistently mentions roles of canvas.67 Furthermore
55 Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1921: p 125
56 About Dowdesewell and Dowdeswell see: Pamela Fletcher and David Israel, London Gallery Project, 2012*2007, [LGP], ‘Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell Ltd.’ <http://learn.bowdoin.edu/fletcher/london-gallery/data/pages/as541.html> accessed 07-04-2016.
57 GUW, Walter Dowdeswell,
<http://www.whistler.arts.gla.ac.uk/correspondence/people/result/?nameid=Dowdeswell_W&year1=1829&year2=1903&sr=0 &firstname=&surname=Dowdeswell> accessed: 07-04-2016.
GUW, Charles William Dowdeswell,
<http://www.whistler.arts.gla.ac.uk/correspondence/people/result/?nameid=Dowdeswell_CW&year1=1829&year2=1903&sr= 0&firstname=&surname=Dowdeswell> accessed: 07-04-2016.
58 See: YMSM no. 183 & 208.
59 Dowdeswell, Walter, 'Whistler', Art Journal, April 1887, p 97-103. 60 Mortimer Menpes, Whistler as I Knew Him, London 1904, p 89. 61 See: LGP, Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 125-33.
62 Robins Pennell and Pennell, 1921: p 127. Underscore by the author. 63 Ibid, p 133.
64 Ibid, p 126. 65 Ibid, p 135.
66 Ibid, p 126, 127, 128, 130. 67 Ibid, p 125, 126, 127, 128, 131, 133.
15
the Pennells reported paintings returning from the liner.68 It appears most of the pictures were lined
during this period.
1.2.3 ‘The Lady’ and ‘a second-hand book dealer’.
The Dowdeswell’s acquired these canvases through Frida Strindberg born Uhl (1872-1943). The lady, as she is first called within the journal, has had a tumultuous life. The former wife of the Swedish playwright August Strindberg (1849-1912) resorted to London after firing a pistol in a Viennese hotel on New Year’s Day 1908. She appears to have supplemented her income by buying and selling art.69 The transaction as
described by Walter Dowdeswell is included in The Whistler Journal.
At last Dowdeswell told the story. A lady who brings them things occasionally, told them of rolls which she had bought for nothing from a second-hand book seller for the sake of one old English picture which she recognized for what it was and sold to somebody in Munich. The Dowdeswell’s looked over the rolls. The paintings were shockingly dirty but they saw passages that were unmistakably Whistler and they bought them and she brought more which they bought too; they have about fifty in all; and, really, it was difficult to know how to pay her for she didn’t know the value and asked nothing, and they knew the value and felt they should pay her more than she asked, and the end was she felt as if they made her fortune for her, thought I gathered that her eyes were enough opened to make them pay more for the second than the first lot.70
Mrs. Strindberg had bought the paintings from ‘a second- hand book seller’ in New Oxford street. This second-hand book seller is later revealed to be Walter Thomas Spencer (1883-1925), an expert on Dickens and self-confessed admirer of Whistler.71 In his autobiography Forty years in my bookshop (1923)
Spencer states he is ‘always willing to purchase anything by or relating to the celebrated painter and etcher’.72 Next to selling rare books he appears to have dealt in art occasionally.73
Spencer reported the sale of some ‘one hundred canvases’ to ‘the lady’ – Strindberg - in his autobiography.74 The painting’s lay there ‘acquiring dust’ in his upper room when his luck turned and ‘the
Lady’ bought the canvases. However, she came to regard them as a bad bargain. She begged Spencer to take the paintings back several times. Spencer reports: ‘My customer made a final vain appeal to me. With tears in her eyes she told me that they took up so much room that she had to sleep on them!’75 Ultimately
Strindberg would sell some of the paintings to Dowdeswell and Dowdeswell and others to William Marchant, the proprietor of the Goupil Gallery. Spencer does not mention the Dowdeswell canvases but he does describe ‘the next event in this strange, not to say mysterious, development’ that would be the exhibition Walter Greaves: Pupil of Whistler hosted by the Goupil Gallery in 1911.76 The exhibition triggered
what Walter Sickert would coin as L’affaire Greaves.77
68 Ibid, p 130.
69 Monica Straus, Cruel Banquet, The Lives and Loves of Frida Strindberg, New York, San Diego and London 2000, p 166-168. 70 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 127.
71 Ibid, p 234. Walter Thomas Spencer, Forty years in my bookshop, London 1923, p 257, 258. 72 Spencer 1923: p 259 .
73 Ibid, p 230. 74 Ibid, p 265-266. 75 Ibid, p 266. 76 Ibid.
77 Walter Sickert, ‘L’affaire Greaves’, The New Age, 15 June 1911. Annotated version in: Anna Gruetzner Robins (ed.), Walter
16
1.3 ‘L’affaire Greaves’: 1911
In his autobiography Spencer claims he bought these canvases from a local furniture dealer (unidentified). Walter Greaves (1846-1930), Whistler’s first pupil, had deposited a large group of paintings with the dealer to try and sell the work.78 Spencer noted the canvases were signed Walter Greaves, some bore the inscription ‘pupil of Whistler’ just below the signature.79 Despite initial hesitation there was something
that appealed to him and Spencer bought the pictures. Stating: ‘Eventually I found myself the possessor of hundreds!’.80 Walter came to the shop to make Spencer’s acquaintance and Greaves continued to
produce work for him.81 Spencer does not mention the Dowdeswell pictures, or the fact that the Pennell’s
attribute some of these paintings to Whistler. However, he remarks ‘After hearing him talk, I came to the conclusion that I might rely absolutely on his authority on all matters Whistlerian’ he continues ‘I know no truer authority upon Whistler’s work than he [Walter Greaves].’82
Unknown to Spencer, Strindberg had sold some of the canvases to William Stephen Marchant, (1868-1925). Marchant had dealt in Whistler’s pictures during his life time.83 Like Spencer, Marchant
discovered the signature ‘Walter Greaves’ on some of the pictures. After inspecting the canvases, Greaves confirmed he was the sole author of these paintings. In the introduction to the exhibition catalogue Greaves stated his Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge (whereabouts unknown) was painted in 1862 ten years before Whistler painted his famous Nocturne: Blue and Gold - Old Battersea Bridge in 1872-5.84 The exhibition
was a success. After the first private viewing The Times review of the exhibition was titled ‘An unknown master’.85 The early date of Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge tempted some art critics into appointing
Greaves as the inventor of Whistler’s most well-known theme the Nocturne. The Daily Mail inquired:
‘How much of the astounding talent shown in these paintings was due to Whistler’s teaching, and –on trembles to utter the blasphemy: how much did Whittler learn from his pupil?’86
According to the introduction of the exhibition catalogue Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge was exhibited in ‘the Great Exhibition of 1862’.87 By consulting the Official Catalogue, Fine Art Department of South
Kensington - now the Victoria and Albert museum - Joseph Pennell conclusively proved the painting could not have been painted in 1862. Greaves only exhibited in 1873 and 1874.88
The Pennells and Marchant embarked upon a war of words combating each other in newspapers. The dispute not only covered the question of who inspired whom, it would become a disagreement about attribution as well. The Pennells were convinced that Passing Under Old Battersea Bridge was started by Whistler and finished by Greaves. Joseph Pennell argued the composition was ‘obviously derived from Whistler’ and ‘the distant sky and water were undoubtedly painted by him [Whistler]’. He continued ‘some of the reflections in the river were also put in by Whistler’.89 In attributing these paintings the Pennells
relied on their trained eye in recognizing the artist handling.90 In turn, Marchant contended that - as
Whistler’s pupil, Walter was well acquainted with Whistler’s manner of painting.91 Stating:
78 Spencer 1923: p 262. 79 Ibid, p 162. 80 Ibid, p 263. 81 Ibid, p 163. 82 Ibid.
83 See for instance: James McNeill Whistler to Rosalind Birnie Philip [February 20, 1900], GUW 04773, accessed 20-07-2016. YMSM 484.
84 YMSM 140.
85 -, ‘An Unknown master, Exhibition at the Goupil Gallery’, The Times 5 May 1911, p 3. Reprinted in: Marchant 1911: p 11-13. 86 P.G.K., ‘Unknown Master’, Daily News, 6 May 1911, p 588. Reprinted in: Morse Jones 2015: p 116.
87 William Marchant & Co., the Goupil Gallery, Catalogue of oil paintings, a water colour and etchings, by Walter Greaves, pupil of Whistler, London 1911.
88 Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1921: p 139. William Marchant, A Reply to an Attack, London 1911, p 15-21. 89-, ‘Art. Whistler and Greaves’, The Nation, 8 June 1911. Reprinted in: William Marchant 1911: p 36-38.
90 Morse Jones 2015: p 114-115. 91 Marchant 1911: p 57-58.
17
This kind of brushwork, which is to be found in several of Whistler’s “Nocturnes” was perfectly well-known to Mr. Greaves who it happens, had previously explained to us how Whistler specially prepared his brushes for the purpose, so as to make them more rigid.92
The Greaves affair would oppose the word of Walter Greaves to the connoisseurship of the Pennells. In an interview for the Sun (28 January 1912), Joseph Pennell refers to what could only be the paintings in Dowdeswell’s possession.
I don’t accuse Greaves of trying to deceive any one, but there are a number of pictures about attributed to Whistler, some signed, others unsigned and as certain of Greave’s pictures which he says he painted entirely bear such a resemblance in certain parts to Whistlers, the greatest confusion is resulting. Narrowed down, the thing is this: a number of Whistlers pictures and drawings disappeared at the time of his bankruptcy. One roll of pictures that had been removed from the stretchers, and that was covered with dirt, was afterwards returned to Whistler. Many were not returned. The pictures now in a London art dealer’s possession, to which I have referred as well as others that have gone to America, came from the same place.93
Pennell seems sure that at least some of the Dowdeswell pictures belong to paintings that disappeared during the time of Whistler’s bankruptcy. In The Whistler Journal, the Pennells report Greaves inspected the Dowdeswell paintings and claimed them as his own.94 On Wednesday February 7, 1917 ‘the Valuable
Stock of Ancient & Modern Pictures and water colours Drawings of Messers Dowedeswell &
Dowdeswell Ltd.’ was auctioned off at Christies due to ‘the death of Mr. C. W. Dowdeswell’. Forty-four of the original fifty paintings were sold as works of Walter Greaves.95 The ‘three quarter length of a Lady
in White’ however was not among the pictures sold that day. In her recent discussion of The Greaves Affair, Kimberly Morse Jones states:
What exactly transpired with regard to the Greaves affair will probably never be known in its entirety, as there is no exact evidence to prove or disprove the Pennells’ theory.96
92 Ibdem. p 58.
93 Anon, ‘Puzzle of Whistler and his pupil’, Sun 28 January 1912, p 2. Reprinted in: Morse Jones 2015, p 139. 94 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 140.
95 -, Messers. Christe, Manson and Wood, Catalogue of The Valuable Stock of Ancient & Modern Pictures and water colour Drawings of ,Messers
Dowedeswell & Dowdeswell Ltd, auction cat. 7 February 1717, cat. no. 291- 334. Elisabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell 1921:
p 145.
18
1.4 ‘Arrangement in black and white a bankruptcy petition’: 1879
97The disappearance of paintings during the time of the bankruptcy is only discussed in length by the Pennells. Most biographies quote The Life and mention the disposal of paintings fleetingly.98 However, the
paintings involved in the bankruptcy are detailed in the catalogue raisonné (see appendix ….). The Pennells secured legal documents relating to Whistler’s bankruptcy from James Anderson Rose (1819-1880), Whistler’s lawyer who would become a major creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings.99
Unfortunately, no inventory list detailing the paintings in Whistler’s possession at the time is preserved. The Freer archive houses a copy of legal papers relating to Whistler’s bankruptcy, presumably made for one of the creditors.100 All are accessible through the online edition of The Correspondence of James McNeill
Whistler. The following paragraphs provides a preliminary discussion of what happened to the paintings in
Whistlers bankrupt estate.
Whistler filed for bankruptcy on May 8 1879.101 Several creditors had issued for execution of his
affects. The next day the London Bankruptcy court made an injunction: ‘restraining the Creditors […] from taking any further action until after June 9th’.102 James Waddell (b. 1838) of Messrs. Waddell and Co
was named receiver tasked with protecting the estate. He took immediate possession. On a meeting of June, the 4th, the creditors decided that Whistler’s affairs should be liquidated by arrangement rather than
in bankruptcy.103 James Waddell was made trustee tasked with managing the sale of the estate. A
committee of inspection consisting of three creditors was appointed. The committee consisted of Charles August Howell (1840-1890) entrepreneur, dealer and collector listed as creditor for ‘money lent’, Thomas Way who was not listed as a creditor in Whistler’s bankruptcy papers, but recorded as member of the committee, and finally Frederick Richard Leyland (1831-1891), Whistler’s former patron, listed as creditor for ‘money payed’.104 The committee was tasked with advising and superintending the trustee.
Only two identifiable paintings are registered within the bankruptcy papers. On the 7th of May
Whistler named Harmony in Yellow and Gold: The Gold Girl - Connie Gilchrist ‘A picture Painted by me called The Gold Girl’ and Arrangement in Grey and Black: Portrait of the Painter's Mother ‘A portrait of my
mother painted by me’ as his assets.105 Both had an estimated value of £500,-. Harmony in Yellow was sold
in a sale at Sotheby’s, London on the 12th of February 1880 (cat no 87).106 The sale consisted of Whistler’s
china and prints, but also include at least one other oil painting The Gold Scrab (cat no 88).107 ‘The mother’
was left with Graves and co. a London print dealer, as security for an advance. 108 Whistler also listed two
unfinished paintings at the house of his brother William McNeill Whistler (1836-1900).109 The trustees
cash account records J. E. Hine (unidentified) paid £5.0.0 ‘for purchase of canvases & unfinished
97 Dante Gabriel Rossetti referred to Whistlers bankruptcy petition as ‘an arrangement in black and white’. See: McMullen 1973: p 194.
98 In The World of James Mc Neill Whistler Horace George includes the story about the Bailiffs drinking beer in Whistler’s garden that the Pennells record in The Life. Horace George, The World of James McNeill Whistler, London 1961 p 145-146. In Victorian
outsider Roy Mc Mullen only records: ‘Leyland, Howell and Way were chosen to act as examining and inventorying committee,
and their activity was delayed, intentionally or not, long enough to allow the destruction or secret disposal of a number of pictures in the White House.’ McMullen 1973: p 194.
99 London Bankruptcy court to James Anderson Rose? [May 7, 1879- October 5, 1880], GUW 11711, p 917a, 920a, accessed 20-07-2016. James Anderson Rose to unknown [May/June 1879] GUW 11926, accessed 20-20-07-2016. George Henry Lewis (1833-1911) a well-known society lawyer took over as counsel when Anderson Rose became one of Whistler’s creditors. See: Sutherland 2014: p 163-165.
100 London Bankruptcy court to James Anderson Rose? [May 7, 1879- October 5, 1880], GUW 11711, accessed 20-07-2016. 101 The London Bankruptcy Court to James Anderson Rose?, [May 7, 1879-October 5, 1880], GUW 11711, accessed 20-07-2016, p 916a.
102 Ibid. p 917a. 103 Ibid. p 918a. 104 Ibid. p 9210a.
105 Ibid. p 921a. YMSM: 190 and 101.
106 Robins Pennell and Pennell, The life of James McNeill Whistler, London p 259. 107 YMSM 190 and 208. See also: YMSM 95.
108 YMSM 181 and 183 were also deposited with Graves and Co. during the time of the bankruptcy. 109 Possibly YMSM 88 or 89, 122 or 207.
19
paintings’.110 The official records provide little information about the paintings still in Whistler’s
possession during the time of the bankruptcy.
1.4.1 ‘A few intelligent people’: The Pennells and the disappearance of paintings.
In the Whistler Journal, the Pennells note that ‘[Whistler’s] bankruptcy was the opportunity for the greatest carelessness and, apparently, the greatest advantage was taken of it’111. In The Life the Pennell’s recorded
stories about the disappearance of paintings that range from the plausible to the farfetched. Mrs. Edwin Edwards – Elizabeth Ruth Edwards (1833-1907), Fatin Latour’s British agent - had written to them: ‘[…]
that when three men were in possession he [Whistler] treated them while his friends carted away his pictures out of the back door’.112Others claimed Whistler had dosed the beer of no less than seven
bailiffs.113 The bailiffs had been invited into the garden, but when they tasted their drinks ‘down went
their heads on the table round which they sat’. The story continues: ‘All evening it rained and it snowed, and it thundered, and it lightened, and it hailed. All night they slept’. The following day they woke up and asked for more as if nothing had happened. Although David Sutherland criticized the Pennells for manipulating their source, the story about Whistler’s friends smuggling pictures out of the house has been included in his recent biography of the artist.114
On September 18, 1897, the White house was sold and a public sale of Whistler’s property followed. In the first edition of The Life (1908) the Pennells describe ‘Bundles of rubbish’ that were ‘carried off for only a few shillings’.115 According to the Pennells these bundles of rubbish contained
paintings such as The Blue Girl: Portrait of Miss Elinor Leyland and sketches for the Six project.116 The
Pennells seemed sure that at least some of the Dowdeswell pictures were among those ‘carried off’. In the fifth revised edition of The Life published in 1911, one year after seeing the Dowdeswell paintings they note: ‘For a few intelligent people were present at the sale’ and the ‘bundles of rubbish’ are replaced by ‘roles of painting’.117 They add: ‘ […] pictures went astray or disappeared temporarily […] But they are
turning up now!’118
1.4.2 ‘Rags and destroyed canvases’: the destruction of canvases.
According to the Pennells, Waddel - ‘the receiver’ - gave Whistler permission to destroy unfinished works still in his possession at the time of the bankruptcy ‘so they might not be displayed to the public’. They add:
Copper plates were scratched over, and pictures painted out with gum, stripped off their stretchers, and rolled up.119
110 London Bankruptcy court to James Anderson Rose? [May 7, 1879- October 5, 1880], GUW 11711, accessed 20-07-201, p 924a.
111 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 134.
112 Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The life of James McNeill Whistler, London 1908,p 253. 113 Ibid.
114 Sutherland 2014 (see noter …), p 165. For Sutherlands critique on the Pennells see: Daniel E. Sutherland, ‘Getting Right with Whistler: An Artist and His Biographers’ in Lee Glazer, Margaret F, MacDonald, Linda Merill and Nigel Thorp (ed.), James Mc
Neill Whistler in context, essays from the Whistler centenary symposium university of Glasgow, 2003, Freer Gallery of Art occasional papers,
New series vol. 2, Washington D.C. 2008, p 169-183. 115 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1908: p 257.
116 See YMSM 111 and 82-87. Both the sketches for the Six project and The blue Girl: Portrait of Miss Elinor Leyland were probably bought by Thomas Way.
117 Elizabeth Robins Pennell and Joseph Pennell, The life of James McNeill Whistler, fifth and revised edition, Londen 1911, p 186. 118 Ibid, p 186.
20
Whistler’s correspondence provides additional information about the destruction and disappearance of paintings during the time of the bankruptcy. In a letter to his sister in law of March the 22th 1880, Whistler states ‘surely Waddell said that all the scratched and destroyed stretchers &c &c &c were to be left out [of the bankruptcy’s settlement]’.120 In another letter to the same recipient, Whistler mentions
‘rags and destroyed canvases’ that were left at the studio and finally brought to the residence of Whistler’s brother.121 Further on in the letter Whistler apologizes for the canvases left about the place and proposes
they would be taken off their stretchers so they might be put ‘quite out of the way in a corner’. The
paintings of James Mc Neill Whistler lists five paintings as destroyed or lost during the bankruptcy.122 Their
existence is only recognized through photographs and contemporary descriptions.
Thomas Way bought about thirty of those canvases ‘more or less destroyed’.123 In a letter to
Whistler, Thomas Way reports ‘My offer for the canvases &c [is] accepted’.124 His son Thomas Robbert
Way later records the sale of these paintings.125 Way jr. states: ‘they were bought by a picture dealer for
my father’.126 According to Thomas Robert Way, Whistler destroyed his canvases before he handed them
over to his creditors as assets. Consequently, they were deemed unsalable by the auctioneers. The pictures appeared to have been severely damaged. One of these pictures is described as a painting with ‘three or four pictures painted on it […] in considerable impasto’. It had been rolled up and was ‘badly crushed, so that there were holes through to the canvas, right on the figure itself’.127 The pictures are regularly
described as unfinished.128 Furthermore Way remarks that ‘a number of these canvases seemed to be just
primed for painting upon’.129 To the Pennells the condition of the Dowdeswell paintings was significant
since it matched the description of paintings that had been ‘more or less destroyed’ during the time of Whistler’s bankruptcy. They report:
The condition of the canvases before the restorer had touched them naturally interested us, as it did the Dowdeswell’s for they were exactly as T. R. Way had already, and now again described the canvases bought by his father when he served with Howell and Leyland on the Committee of Examiners to settle Whistler’s affairs at the bankruptcy.130
1.4.3 The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler and the Dowdeswell pictures.
It remains unclear what precisely happened to all of the (unfinished) paintings still in Whistler’spossession. Paintings certainly appear to be destroyed and lost. From Venice Whistler wrote to his sister-in -law to express his concerns about the whereabouts of certasister-in pictures.131 The paintings of James McNeill
Whistler list thirteen paintings of which it remains unclear what happened to them at the time of the
bankruptcy.132 They are painted before 1879 but most of them reappear in Whistler’s possession after the
120 James Mc Neill Whistler to Hellen Euphrosyne Whistler, [March 22, 1880], GUW 06688, accessed 20-07-2016. 121 James Mc Neill Whistler to Hellen Euphrosyne Whistler, [March, 1880], GUW 06689, accessed 20-07-2016. 122 YMSM: 59, 94, 88, 186, 192.
123 T.R. Way specifically named see: YMSMS 164, 93, 109-11, 96, 131, 209-10. Some paintings have been left to T.R Way after the death of his father see: YMSM 74, 81, 93, 132, 164, 184. Some may have been retrieved by Whistler in 1883 when he was looking for canvas to paint YMSM 228-30 see: YMSM 82-86. A number of paintings painted before 1879 and sold by Whistler after 1892 might have been retrieved from Way see: YMSM 120, 144, 152, 156. In 1896 Way and Whistler quarrelled and as the settlement of their final account Way agreed to return ten canvases to Whistler. It remains unclear which canvases he returned exactly. According to Pennell Way returned: 107, 109, 110, 127, 180. Some painting’s that remained in Whistler’s estate have been painted before 1879 they may have been returned by Way see: YMSM 57, 79-80, 121, 139, 172, 191. YMSM 179 was reworked after 1896.
124 Thomas Way to James McNeill Whistler [15 April 1880], GUW 06081, accessed 20-07-2016.
125 Thomas R. (Robert) Way, Memories of James McNeill Whistler the artist, London/New York 1912, p 135-136. 126 Could this be J. E. Hine listed in the bankruptcy papers?
127 Way 1912: p 135-136.
128 Idem. p 130, 135, 139. See also: Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 133, 134, 135. 129 Way 1912: p 137.
130 Robins Pennell and Pennell 1921: p 133.
131 James Mc Neill Whistler to Hellen Euphrosyne Whistler, [February/March 20, 1880], GUW 06690, accessed 20-07-2016. 132 YMSM (* paintings that reappear in the possession of Whistler possibly acquired by Way): 44, 56*, 80*, 90, 112, 120*, 121*, 144*, 152*, 156*, 163*, 172*, 191*, 195, 197*. See note 84.
21
bankruptcy. Only one painting is officially returned to Whistler after the settlement of his affairs. Due to its unfinished nature The Blue Girl: Portrait of Connie Gilchrist, was reserved as worthless and returned to the artist.133 Three paintings left by the London banker W. A. Alexander were only recovered just after
Whistler’s passing in 1903 by Rosalind Birnie Philip.134 The Dowdeswells were personally aware of the
lack of clarity regarding the liquidation of Whistler’s estate. Father and son thought Blue and Silver: Screen,
with Old Battersea Bridge was given as commission on a sale before the bankruptcy, however Whistler asked
to have it back in 1890.135
Four of the paintings bought by Dowdeswell in 1910 are included in the Catalogue raisonné as ‘doubtful’.136 Within the introduction the compilers explain:
Several paintings are catalogued which appear to have been started by Whistler but continued or partly reworked by others such as his pupil Walter Greaves. A number of paintings which Joseph Pennell believed Whistler to have had a hand in were sold as the work of Greaves by Messers Dowdeswell at Christies in 1917. In most cases there is not sufficient evidence of Whistler’s hand to catalogue them as even partly autograph works.137
The compilers must not have seen enough of the hand of Whistler in the painting to include the Singer picture in the catalogue. Except for the paintings themselves there is no evidence linking Walter Greaves to the disappearance of paintings during the time of the bankruptcy. Stylistic arguments became the main criteria to attribute or de-attribute paintings in the Dowdeswell group.
133 YMSM: 207. 134 YMSM: 55, 58, 75.
135 YMSM: 139. See also YMSM: 90. Charles William Dowdeswell to James McNeill Whistler [December 6, 1890], GUW 00918, accessed 20-07-2016. Walter Dowdeswell to James McNeill Whistler [December 7, 1890], GUW 00919, accessed 20-07-2016. 136 YMSM: 51, 126, 133-4.
