The Fate of an Anecdote
TO THE EDITOR:
[Sidenote: New York Tribune, Sept. 12, 1880]
Sir—In Scribner's Magazine for this month there appears an article on Mr. Seymour Haden, the eminent
surgeon etcher, by a Mr. Hamerton, and in this article I have stumbled upon a curious statement concerning,
strangely enough, my own affairs, offered pleasantly in the disguise of an anecdote habitually “narrated” by
the Doctor himself, and printed effectively in inverted commas, as here shown:
... “A parallel anecdote is narrated by Mr. Haden: 'The most exquisite series of plates which Whistler ever
did—his sixteen Thames subjects—were originally printed by a steel−plate printer, and so badly that the
owner thought the plates were worn out, and sold them for a small sum in comparison to their real worth. The
purchaser took them to Goulding, the best printer of etchings in England, and it was found that they were not
only perfect, but that they produced impressions which had never before been approached even by Delatre.'”
Putting gently aside the question of these plates being superior to all previous or subsequent work, and
dealing merely with facts, I have to say that they were not “originally printed by a steel−plate printer”; that the
impressions were not so bad that the owner thought the plates worn out; and, flattering as is the supposition
that they were sold for a small sum in comparison to their real worth, I am obliged to reject even this palatable
assertion, as I received for the plates the price that I asked, knowing full well their exact condition.
Instead of the “steel−plate printer,” Delatre, then at his prime, had himself printed these etchings—a fact
which, amusingly enough, Mr. Haden admits further on, in direct contradiction to his first broad statement.
Moreover, I had myself pulled proofs of them all; indeed, one in the set of sixteen plates, a drypoint, called
“The Forge” (for by the way they were not all of the Thames), I alone printed. When the plates left my hands
they were not “taken to Goulding,” who at that moment had, I fancy, barely begun his career as “the best
printer of etchings in England” (and a capital printer he certainly is); and it was not “found that they produced
impressions never before approached even by Delatre”—here we have the contradiction alluded to—no! this
theatrical denouement I must also put aside with sorrow.
The plates were brought out by Messrs. Ellis, who had them printed by some one in London, whose work
was certainly not to be compared to that of Delatre, whom I should undoubtedly have recommended; so that it
was only long after the sale had been completed and the plates had ceased to be in my possession, that
inferior impressions were produced.
The understanding on my part with those publishers was that the plates were to be destroyed after one
hundred impressions had been taken, but very recently they reappeared, and were sold to their present
possessors, who did take them to Mr. Goulding. And here I am obliged to explain away the last element of
astonishment, for Mr. Goulding naturally found the etchings in their original perfect condition simply because
I had had them steeled in their full bloom when I had satisfied myself by my own proofs.
Goulding's impressions of these plates are very excellent, but to say they were quite unapproached by
Delatre is not only needless exaggeration, but an unkindness to Mr. Goulding.
Surely there must be some misunderstanding between Mr. Haden and his biographer—a misdeal of
data—an accident with the anecdotes—because no one was more keenly alive to all relating to these plates
and their various states than Mr. Haden himself, whose strong sense of the importance of printing was
acquired while watching the progress of these same plates, and the previous French set, as they were proved
by me and printed by Delatre, to whom I introduced him.
Far from me to spoil a good story; but for the life of me I cannot see what any sympathizing raconteur
will regret in the destruction of this MERE JUMBLE OF STATISTICS
