me
without affection, and that he evinces even joy when he says with a
view to my entire discomfiture:--"While we rejected only ten of his
etchings, the English department rejected eighteen of them, and of the
nine accepted, only hung two on the line."

Now, he is wrong!--the General is wrong.

The etchings now hanging in the English section--and perfect is
their hanging, notwithstanding General Hawkins's flattering
anxiety--are the only ones I sent there.

In the haste and enthusiasm of your interviewer, I have, on this
point, been misunderstood.

There was moreover here no question of submitting them to a "competent
and impartial jury of his peers"--one of whom, by the way, I am
informed upon undoubted authority, had never before come upon an
"etching" in his hitherto happy and unchequered Western career.

We all knew that the space allotted to the English department was
exceedingly limited, and each one refrained from abusing it. Here I
would point out again, hoping this time to be clearly understood,
that, had the methods employed in the American camp been more civil,
if less military, all further difficulties might have been avoided.
Had I been properly advised that the room was less than the demand for
place, I would, of course, have instantly begged the gentlemen of the
jury to choose, from among the number, what etchings they pleased. So
the matter would have ended, and you, Sir, would have been without
this charming communication!

The pretty embarrassment of General Hawkins on the occasion of my
visit, I myself liked, thinking it seemly, and part of the good
form of a West Point man, who is taught that a drum-head court
martial--and what else in the experience of this finished officer
should so fit him for sitting in judgment upon pictures?--should be
presided at with grave and softened demeanour.

If I mistook the General's manner, it is another illusion the less.

And I have, Sir,
the honour to be,
Your obedient servant,

[Illustration]

Amsterdam, Oct. 6.

_The Art-Critic's Friend_

[Sidenote: _The Scots Observer_, April 5, 1890.]

Mr. Whistler has many things to answer for, and not the least of them
is the education of the British Art-Critic. That, at any rate, is the
impression left by a little book made up--apparently against the
writer's will--of certain of the master's letters and _mots_.... It is
useful and pleasant reading; fo