DOI issue:
No. 83 (January, 1904)
DOI article:Boughton, George Henry: A few of the various Whistlers I have known
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.26230#0257
other grinding than with the palette-knife. The mix-
tures were very thin and Howing, and were evidently
spread on rapidly with very large brushes. He had
a most enthusiastic way of showing off the quaiities
of his work that seerned to communicate itself to
his willing audience. I can still see and hear
him. " There ! An't it LOVELY ? ?" Of
course it was. The most dense and dry were
iMuminated and nrade limpid, and even voluble
disciples. A few of his older works were Stand-
ing about. I remember the Japanese-like girls
(bz <3 .ArAwzy, and I admired it even more than
when I first saw it. I asked if he had retouched
it. " No, my dear G-, why tamper with a master-
piece. Eh? I said I thought it
improved in some way, probably toned by time.
" No, my dearest G., it is who are toned up to
it by time, and happy intercourse with me.
And after our mutual laughter, he admitted to me
that the Fa/razzy was
all wrong — in principle.
"Too much elaborated;
not iway/f enough."
That was his period of
" simplicity," and
we did not quite agree,
except amicably, about it.
I give some elaboration
to our conversation here,
to show how he would
say and do things that
scarcely anyone would
stand for a moment from
anyone but "Jimmy,"
who was scarcely ever
on his good behaviour
except to those he did
not care for. To those
he was either picturesquely
rüde or coldly polite,
occasionally threateningly
so. As, for instance (this
is his own Story): A
very imperfect critic on
a very important paper
that had always abused
him in the dull, un-
amusing way peculiar to
it, called on him to see
the Gay/rZr, I think.
"Jimmy" received him
with an aggressive " "
The personage stated his
errand. "Jimmy" looked
him up and down. " I will give you just five
minutes to clear out; if you were a—well—man
—I would throw you over the bannisters !"
The Cay/y/& portrait caught it very hot after
that, I need not say. But there is a new and
very polished pen on that same publication just
now—and it Hows Whistlerian milk and honey.
And I can't help thinking that if the old belli-
gerent "Jimmie" were alive and well, he would
have more solid pleasure in whirling this new
"gusher" into space than he would have feit in
ejecting the " poor old thing" who offended
him less.
Those were Whistler's golden days, when he
revelled in Opposition and dispraise; of course,
clumsy libel offended and sickened him—as in the
Ruskin case—but he took the law for that and not
his lissome cane. Then came a long interval of
time—during which I scarcely ever saw the dear
216
tures were very thin and Howing, and were evidently
spread on rapidly with very large brushes. He had
a most enthusiastic way of showing off the quaiities
of his work that seerned to communicate itself to
his willing audience. I can still see and hear
him. " There ! An't it LOVELY ? ?" Of
course it was. The most dense and dry were
iMuminated and nrade limpid, and even voluble
disciples. A few of his older works were Stand-
ing about. I remember the Japanese-like girls
(bz <3 .ArAwzy, and I admired it even more than
when I first saw it. I asked if he had retouched
it. " No, my dear G-, why tamper with a master-
piece. Eh? I said I thought it
improved in some way, probably toned by time.
" No, my dearest G., it is who are toned up to
it by time, and happy intercourse with me.
And after our mutual laughter, he admitted to me
that the Fa/razzy was
all wrong — in principle.
"Too much elaborated;
not iway/f enough."
That was his period of
" simplicity," and
we did not quite agree,
except amicably, about it.
I give some elaboration
to our conversation here,
to show how he would
say and do things that
scarcely anyone would
stand for a moment from
anyone but "Jimmy,"
who was scarcely ever
on his good behaviour
except to those he did
not care for. To those
he was either picturesquely
rüde or coldly polite,
occasionally threateningly
so. As, for instance (this
is his own Story): A
very imperfect critic on
a very important paper
that had always abused
him in the dull, un-
amusing way peculiar to
it, called on him to see
the Gay/rZr, I think.
"Jimmy" received him
with an aggressive " "
The personage stated his
errand. "Jimmy" looked
him up and down. " I will give you just five
minutes to clear out; if you were a—well—man
—I would throw you over the bannisters !"
The Cay/y/& portrait caught it very hot after
that, I need not say. But there is a new and
very polished pen on that same publication just
now—and it Hows Whistlerian milk and honey.
And I can't help thinking that if the old belli-
gerent "Jimmie" were alive and well, he would
have more solid pleasure in whirling this new
"gusher" into space than he would have feit in
ejecting the " poor old thing" who offended
him less.
Those were Whistler's golden days, when he
revelled in Opposition and dispraise; of course,
clumsy libel offended and sickened him—as in the
Ruskin case—but he took the law for that and not
his lissome cane. Then came a long interval of
time—during which I scarcely ever saw the dear
216