Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ment of it, and for obtaining the assistance of the court in vindication of it.

"We now come to the consideration of the last point, and the only point on which we have any doubt, viz., whether the court should interfere at all; whether the court, recognising the father's undoubted right as master of his own house, as king and ruler in his own family, can be called on by him to be ancillary to the exercise of his jurisdiction, and whether he ought not to be left to enforce his commands by his own authority within his own domain; and that was throughout the argument, and at the close of it, the very strong inclination of our opinion. We felt, and feel, a difficulty about the court's enforcing an order of a private person which it disclaims the right of examining. But it is not a question between the father and the court, it is a question of the wards; and being of opinion that the father has retained his right to direct the religious education of his children, and the father being minded that they should not be taken to mass, confession, or the like, the causing or permitting them to be so taken in direct disobedience to the father's commands is a wrong to them as well as to him. I perceive that that injunction is in accordance with precedents which have been produced to us. The court has in other matters, and under other circumstances, protected wards by strengthening the hands of guardians, and it is safer not to disclaim or narrow its right or duty in that respect. We think, therefore, the injunction of the Vice-Chancellor ought to be sustained, but that, having regard to the ground on which we base our decision on the main subject, viz., the power and jurisdiction of the father, we think the declaration ought to be omitted—that is, "that the said infants ought to attend the public worship of the Church of England as by law established," so as to throw on the father the whole responsibility of doing now, and during the remaining years of his children's respective minorities, what is right, and proper. He ought to discard all thoughts of personal dignity, personal supremacy, or of triumph in a personal struggle. The law trusts to him that he will, rising above all such petty feelings, have a sole regard to what he conscientiously believes to be for the temporal and spiritual welfare of his children. And we, pronouncing what we deem the law to be, must leave the matter to his sense of parental duty and to his conscience." Appeal dismissed, with costs.

IV.

WHISTLER V. RUSKIN.

IN the Exchequer Chamber, on Nov. 25, before Mr. Baron Huddleston and a common jury, the case of Whistler v. Ruskin came on for trial. The counsel for the plaintiff were Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. Petheram; for the defendant, the Attorney-General and Mr. Bowen. The plaintiff, in his statement of claim, alleged that the defendant had libelled him in a criticism upon one of his pictures exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery, called "A

Nocturne in Black and Gold." The passage complained of appeared in Fors Clavigera, which is contributed to and edited by the defendant, and was as follows:-" For Mr. Whistler's own sake, no less than for the protection of the purchaser, Sir Coutts Lindsay ought not to have admitted works into the gallery in which the ill-educated conceit of the artist so nearly approached the aspect of wilful imposture. I have seen and heard much of cockney impudence before now, but never expected to hear a coxcomb ask two hundred guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face." The defendant said the alleged libel was privileged, as being a fair and bonâ fide criticism upon a painting which the plaintiff had exposed for public view.

Mr. Serjeant Parry having opened the case for the plaintiff, Mr. Whistler was examined by Mr. Petheram. He said: I am of American parentage, and was born in St. Petersburg. I lived there until I was about twelve years of age. My father was an engineer, and constructed the St. Petersburg and Moscow Railway. I then went to America, and was educated at West Point. I came back to England in 1855 or 1856. Afterwards I resided and studied in Paris. I went to the studio of M. Glayre, and remained there two years. Among my fellow-students were Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Poynter, and Mr. Du Maurier. I then came to London. I commenced to work as an artist while in Paris. I finally settled in London. I have continually exhibited at the Royal Academy; the last time three or four years ago, when I exhibited a portrait of my mother. Since then I have sent in pictures to the gallery, and I sold the first picture which I exhibited at the Academy in England, "At the piano," to Mr. Philip, the artist. I also exhibited "La Mère Gérard," "Wapping," "Ships in the Thames," and other pictures. I have also exhibited at the Paris Salon. My pictures were for sale. I exhibited in the Dudley Gallery. During the whole of my career I have been in the habit of etching, and I have exhibited and published my etchings at the Hague and other places. I received a gold medal at the Hague. The authorities of the British Museum have a collection of my etchings. There is also a collection of them at Windsor Castle in Her Majesty's library. In 1877 I exhibited eight pictures at the Grosvenor Gallery, on the invitation of Sir Coutts Lindsay. One was the portrait of Mr. Carlyle. One was called a "A Nocturne in Blue and Gold," another "A Nocturne in Blue and Silver," and others were "A Nocturne in Black and Silver," "An Arrangement in Black," representing Mr. Irving Philip II.," a 'Harmony in Amber and Black," and "An Arrangement in Brown." Mr. Carlyle's picture has been engraved, and the mass of the artist's proofs were subscribed for. Before the nocturnes entered the Grosvenor Gallery they were sold, except one. One was sold to the Hon. Percy Wyndham for 200 guineas. I had a commission for one of 150 guineas, and another I sold for 200 guineas. I cannot say whether the Fors Clavigera has an extensive circulation, but I see it on the tables of most persons I know. Since the publication of this criticism I have not been able to sell my pictures at the old price.

as

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General: I have sent pictures to the Royal Academy which were not exhibited. I believe that is the experience of all artists. The last picture of mine rejected was An Arrangement in Grey and Black-Portrait of the Painter's Mother." That was afterwards exhibited at the Grosvenor. The "Arrangement in Black and Gold" is a

night view of Cremorne with the fireworks. That is the reason why I called it a "Nocturne." It was for sale. I marked it at 200 guineas. It was a good price; very likely a stiffish price. I have never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ruskin. I have read some of his works. I have not read his "Stones of Venice." I know his other work "Modern Painters." It is probably the view of Mr. Ruskin that an artist should not let a picture leave his hands which by labour of his own he could improve; and that an artist should give value for the price he receives for a picture. I have often been told that my pictures exhibit eccentricities. When I send pictures to exhibitions I expect they will be criticised. The "Nocturne in Blue and Gold" I knocked off in a couple of days. I painted the picture in one day, and finished it off the next day. I do not ask 200 guineas for a couple of days' work; the picture is the result of the studies of a lifetime.

The Attorney-General proposed to submit to the jury the "Nocturne in Blue and Silver," but Mr. Serjeant Parry said it would be unfair to show them only one of the plaintiff's productions; all the pictures he exhibited at the Grosvenor Gallery should be seen by the jury. Besides the light in the court was not fit for pictures. After considerable discussion the "Nocturne in Blue and Silver" was exhibited to the jury from the bench. The plaintiff said the picture represented Battersea Bridge by moonlight, and that he had introduced colour on the frame to balance it with the picture. Another picture in blue and silver was produced, being a view of the river at Chelsea, and the plaintiff said that after having arranged the idea in his mind he did the mass of the work in a day. He had several pictures at the Westminster Palace Hotel, which could be seen by the jury. His system of harmony and arrangement, to whatever criticism it might be open, was the object of a life study. He conscientiously formed an idea in his mind, and worked it out to the best of his ability, and he carried on his profession of an artist for a livelihood.

It was agreed that the jury should visit the pictures at the Westminster Palace Hotel. After the inspection of the pictures the plaintiff was crossexamined by the Attorney-General as to the particular beauties of the black and gold picture of Cremorne, for which he asked 200 guineas. In re-examination the plaintiff said he resided on the Embankment, and that led him to paint scenes on the Thames. The black and gold picture was a composition intended to represent a particular effect, not to give a view of Cremorne. Mr. William Michael Rossetti said he had made art his special study for many years. He had known the plaintiff since 1863. He also knew Mr. Ruskin. He appreciated the meaning of Mr. Whistler's pictures. He criticised the pictures in the Grosvenor Gallery in 1877. The blue and silver picture he considered was a very artistic and beautiful representation of a pale bright moonlight. He gave a similar opinion of another picture in the same colours. The black and gold picture represented the darkness of night, mingled and broken by the brightness of fireworks. The plaintiff's portrait of Carlyle was a very fine portrait, treated with a certain degree of peculiarity. It was a very excellent likeness. He admired very sincerely the works exhibited by Mr. Whistler in the Grosvenor Gallery in 1877, but not every one of them. He considered they were the works which a conscientious artist might put forth. The black and gold painting was not a gem nor an exquisite work of art, nor was it very beautiful; but it was a

work of art. It is unlike the paintings of most other painters. Two hundred guineas was the full value of the picture, but it is worth it.

Mr. Albert Moore, an artist, who had studied in Rome and in London, said he had exhibited at the Academy and the Grosvenor Gallery. In his opinion all Mr. Whistler's works were marked by a large aim. In the qualities he had cultivated he had succeeded, and no living artist had succeeded in the same way. The pictures were works of art. Mr. Whistler had succeeded in painting the atmosphere, and in a remarkable manner. He did not think 200 guineas was an unreasonable price for one of the pictures. Mr. William Wills, a dramatic author and artist, said he was a great admirer of Mr. Whistler's pictures. The two blue-and-gold pictures he had seen. Mr. Whistler looked at nature in a poetical light. There was an apparent facility about the pictures which betrayed a great knowledge of art. Mr. Whistler had a native feeling for colour. The pictures were like the works of a conscientious artist and a man of genius. He called them original.

This fiuished the case for the plaintiff, and the Attorney-General, in addressing the jury for the defence, said that in consequence of the plaintiff's pictures having been described as works of art and as beautiful and exquisite productions, he should have to call witnesses who were competent to give evidence as to their merit, if they had any. The question, however, was whether Mr. Ruskin had criticised the plaintiff's pictures fairly and honestly. When pictures were publicly exhibited they were liable to criticism, and a critic was perfectly at liberty to use strong language, and even to resort to ridicule, and if he acted bona fide and did not overstep the bounds of moderation he would not be held responsible in an action like this. He regretted he was not able to call Mr. Ruskin, as he was far too ill to come. In the present mania for art it had become a kind of fashion among some people to admire the incomprehensible, to look upon the fantastic conceits of an artist like Mr. Whistler, his "nocturnes," "symphonies," "arrangements," and "harmonies" with delight and admiration; but the fact was that such productions were not worthy the name of great works of art. This was not a mania that should be encouraged; and if that was the view of Mr. Ruskin, he had a right, as an art critic, to fearlessly express it to the public. It was said that Mr. Ruskin had ridiculed Mr. Whistler's pictures ; but if he disliked criticism, he should not have rendered himself open to it. Quoting from Fors Clavigera, the Attorney-General showed that Mr. Ruskin was neither a partial nor a stern and hard critic, and that while he aimed his trenchant criticisms right and left, he ungrudgingly gave high praise where it was due. The whole article complained of was a sweeping condemnation of the modern school, and, as regarded Mr. Whistler, pointed out that his conceits and extravagances did not redound to his credit, and that he was careless of his name and fame when he offered such things for sale. It was objected that Mr. Ruskin had said he was "ill-educated; " but if that was Mr. Ruskin's opinion, judging from his productions, was it libellous to say so? It was also complained he had written, "I never expected to hear a coxcomb ask 200 guineas for flinging a pot of paint in the public's face," but the term "coxcomb" was applied to him as an artist, and not as a man. What was a "coxcomb" He had looked out for the word, and found that it came from the old idea of the licensed jester, who wore a cap and bells with a cock's comb in it, and went about making jests for

the amusement of his master and family. If that were the true definition, Mr. Whistler should not complain, because his pictures were capital jests, which had afforded much amusement to the public. Mr. Ruskin had lived a long life without being attacked. No one could say that he had purchased his praise, and no one had attempted to restrain his pen through the medium of a jury. Mr. Ruskin did not retract one syllable of his criticism upon Mr. Whistler's pictures. He believed he was right. For nearly all his life he had devoted himself to criticism for the sake of the art he loved, and he asked the jury not now to paralyse his hand.

Mr. Edward Burne Jones said he had been a painter for twenty years, and during the last two or three years his works had become known to the public. Complete finish ought to be the standard of painting, and artists ought not to fall short of what has for ages been acknowledged as essential to a perfect work. The "nocturne" in blue and silver representing Battersea Reach was a work of art, but very incomplete. It was an admirable beginning-simply a sketch. In no sense whatever did it show the finish of a complete work of art. It was masterly in colour, but deficient in form, which was as essential as colour. Its merit lay only in colour. Neither in composition, nor in detail, nor in form had it any quality whatever. The "nocturne" in black and gold, representing the fireworks at Cremorne, had not the merit of the other. It was not a work of art; it was one of thousands of failures to represent night. It was not worth 200 guineas.

Mr. Frith, R. A., said he did not consider the pictures of Mr. Whistler which had been produced in court were serious works of art. There was beautiful colour, but it was no more than could be had on a wall-paper or a piece of silk. To him they did not represent either moonlight or water. The one in black and gold was not worth 200 guineas. In cross-examination he said one of Turner's pictures-"The Snowstorm "-had been properly described by Mr. Ruskin as a 66 mass of soap-suds and whitewash." Turner was an idol of Mr. Ruskin's, and should be of all painters; but that applied to his early works. His latest pictures were as insane as the people who admired them.

Mr. Tom Taylor, as an art-critic, also expressed an unfavourable view of the pictures exhibited by Mr. Whistler at the Grosvenor Gallery in 1877. In cross-examination he admitted Mr. Whistler had high merit as an artist, but all his work was unfinished.

The learned counsel on each side having addressed the jury, Baron Huddleston, in summing up, said that if a man committed to paper language disparaging to another and holding him up to hatred, contumely, and contempt, he was guilty of a libel. The law presumed malice, but that might be rebutted by the author of the language proving that it was a fair and bona fide criticism. Therefore, the question in the present case for the jury was whether Mr. Ruskin's pamphlet was a fair and bonâ fide criticism upon the plaintiff's works; and it was for the defendant to make that out. It was of the last importance that a critic should have full latitude to express the judgments he honestly formed, and for that purpose there was no reason why he should not use ridicule as a weapon; but a critic must confine himself to criticism, and not make it the veil for personal censure, nor allow himself to run into reckless and unfair attacks merely for the love of exercising his power of denunciation.

« AnteriorContinuar »