Documents associated with: Daily Chronicle, The (London)
Record 16 of 31
System Number: 11382
Date: 13 July 1896
Author: Thomas Robert Way
Recipient: William Webb
Repository: Library of Congress
Call Number: Manuscript Division, Pennell-Whistler Collection, PWC
Document Type: TLc
11th July, '96.
I have duly received your letter of July 8th enclosing copy of one from Mr. W. I much regret that he should put you to the great trouble of copying his letters and forwarding them in that manner to me instead of sending them direct, and the objection is especially to the point in that his second letter contains a serious misquotation from my previous letter and whether I am to attribute it to him [or] to your copyist I am uncertain. I must beg you to forward my present reply to him intact as no doubt you did the previous one, and first - I will deal with the mistake. Mr. W. says "That Mr. Way sent me a copy of the book on the 29th June is not to the point, the note he says was already printed in it and the distribution to subscribers already begun." Now I consider the matter very much to the point indeed and I am sure any independent person [p. 2] would too. If you will refer to my previous letter you will find that I did not say anything of the kind. I forwarded a copy of the book to Mr. W. on the 27th June and gave away 3 other copies and no subscribers had copies until June 30th when 16 copies were delivered, no more went out until July 3rd when the bulk were delivered. Now all the early copies were easily within recall had Mr. W. written to make objection by July 2nd and as I know that he looked at the page on which the note was printed by or before the 28th June and made no sign, I do not consider that he can hold me responsible for parting with the copies. I consider it extremely unfair that because an irresponsible journalist told a deliberate falsehood to serve his own purpose that Mr. W should at once write such letters as he did, he could not stop to enquire the source of the newspaper par. but took it for granted that I was to blame. Now with regard to his description of what the par. in the Cat: should have been. His wording would have indeed led to a false impression and I still maintain that the par. is absolutely true as it stands. If Mr. W. wishes to go back to an earlier stage, I will start at the beginning. When I first wrote him on the subject of the Cat. he was pleased and said he would design something special for a cover and I should put my name on the title page. On looking into ways and means as my capital consisted solely in my knowledge of the history of the lithographs, and as I was determined that if I did the book at all it should be presented to the buyers of his lithographs for whom alone it was and is intended, in a form worthy of the [p. 3] subject and as I was an entirely unknown person I looked to find some other attractions which should draw attention to the book and help to sell sufficient copies to prevent my losing money over it. I consequently wrote to Mr. W. asking his permission to print the "St Bartholomews Gate" lithograph as a frontispiece, at the same time offering him half the profits should there be any. He never answered my request and lately when I referred to it ridiculed the idea. And yet I calculated that my offer would have probably amounted to £12 or £15, and that I believe was as much as he was then charging Mr Holme and others for drawings of which many thousands were printed in the "Studio" and elsewhere, against the modest 140 for which I asked. Failing this, I being anxious to issue a prospectus, determined to use a drawing of my own, a portrait of Mr. Whistler which he had praised and said he should think I might be able to sell copies of. On his seeing it later on, he objected to the size, when I made another drawing on a smaller scale. This he said was much better but still too big. I would have drawn it smaller still but he said he would lend me a photograph to do, a back view of himself and he brought it to me. It will be unnecessary for me to refer to the arguments I used against the use of a back view and of my wish not to issue it with him turning his back on his subscribers, but when I complained that the photograph was so bad that it was impossible to see any drawing in it and asked for him to give me a sitting for a few minutes to finish it, he declined but said he would work on it [p. 4] I showed it to him in its unfinished state before it was etched when he worked on it and it was proved, as the whole came too black he worked on it again, and as he says truly, scraped away some of its ugliness, a comparison of the impressions of the two states will show at once what in the drawing is due to Mr. Whistler entirely, and I certainly should not have used the portrait in its first state, but had Mr. W. not done so himself, should have worked upon it, or redrawn it. No one has been deceived or will be who reads the note. With regard to future use of both the portrait and the note, as no further edition of the book is intended to be made, the drawing will be erased from the stone at once and that part of the affair can be considered settled according to Mr. W's wishes. In conclusion I must say that the work was begun as a labour of love and as a tribute to Mr. W's great art or one small side of it and not with any belief that it would prove of pecuniary benefit to myself. I have spared neither trouble nor expense in making it as perfect as possible and although its reception by the public has proved a complete success, I wish now that this correspondence has come to the conclusion, that I had never undertaken the work at all. Apologising for the great length of this letter,
I remain, etc.,
T. R. W.,
This is a copy, with minor variations, of #06142. See Spink, Nesta R., The Lithographs of James McNeill Whistler, gen. eds Harriet K. Stratis and Martha Tedeschi, Chicago, 1998, vol. 2, pp. 182-84, App. IV, 10.
Way, Thomas R., Mr. Whistler's Lithographs: the Catalogue, London, 1896.
6. 27th June
Letter not located; copies of the book are in Glasgow University Library.