UNIVERSITY of GLASGOW

The Corresponence of James McNeil Whistler
Home > On-line Edition > Browse Subjects > Document Display

return to search results

Documents associated with: press-review
Record 14 of 71

System Number: 07407
Date: [20 October 1885][1]
Author: JW
Place: London
Recipient: Walter Theodore Watts-Dunton[2]
Place: [London]
Repository: Glasgow University Library
Call Number: MS Whistler W1395
Document Type: ALS


'TWD[3]
Whistler
Probably Oct 1884?'

BEEFSTEAK CLUB,
KING WILLIAM STREET,
STRAND, W. C.

Theodore

I cannot come down to you on Friday - Will Thursday do? or let us say Saturday - and at 7.30. is it? Shall I bring down my "Ten o'clock[4]" to read to the Bard[5]? -

[butterfly signature]

The Vale -

[p. 2] 'A parcel of proofs[6] have come from Clay & Son

W.

Oct 20th

Let us know what day you fix for Jimmy'


This document is protected by copyright.


Notes:

1.  [20 October 1885]
This is the date given in a note on the verso of this letter-card. Even if this is incorrect, the date is still likely to be after 20 February 1885, the date that JW delivered his aesthetic manifesto, the 'Ten O'Clock Lecture', for the first time. It is unlikely to be after May 1888, the approximate moment at which JW left his address at The Vale.

2.  Walter Theodore Watts-Dunton
Walter Theodore Watts (later Watts-Dunton) (1832-1914), solicitor, novelist and poet [more].

3.  TWD ... 1884?
Note written in pencil, in another hand, in upper left corner of sheet.

4.  Ten o'clock
The hand which added pencilled notes at the top of the letter has also underlined these words in pencil.

5.  the Bard
Algernon Charles Swinburne (1837-1909), poet and critic [more]. Swinburne published a derogatory review of JW's published version of the Ten O'Clock Lecture in the Fortnightly Review in June 1888. For JW's edited version of the review, see Whistler, James McNeill, The Gentle Art of Making Enemies, 2nd ed., London and New York, 1892, pp. 250-58.

6.  A parcel of proofs ... Jimmy
Note written on verso in another hand, apparently that of Watts-Dunton. It is unclear whether it relates to the rest of the letter. The 'proofs' are unidentified.