Etchings Institutions search term: fine art society
The Beggars | ||
Number: | 190 | |
Date: | 1879/1880 | |
Medium: | etching and drypoint | |
Size: | 307 x 212 mm | |
Signed: | butterfly at upper left (1-3); replaced with new butterfly (4); redrawn (5-6); removed (8) | |
Inscribed: | no | |
Set/Publication: | 'First Venice Set', 1880 | |
No. of States: | 17 | |
Known impressions: | 57 | |
Catalogues: | K.194; M.191; W.159 | |
Impressions taken from this plate (57) |
TECHNIQUE
18: Pennell 1908 , p. 284.
A second drawing, in wash, Study for 'The Beggars' (K194) [m0864], shows the composition at a later stage, and is dated 'Sep. 18.1881'.
19: Way 1912 .
PRINTING
20: GUW #01137.
21: Whistler to M. B. Huish, 22 February 1882, GUW #01145.
Two more impressions were sent by Whistler on 2 April 1889, at which point, by F.A.S. reckoning, 55 had been delivered, leaving 45 still to be printed. 23
Little more than a month later, Brown begged for a dozen more. 24 Mansfield thought that the final state 'was the result of reworking in 1891' but it is more likely that it was between 1892 and 1894. 25
Eventually, in 1892, in response to repeated pleas, the F.A.S. received a further half a dozen, leaving 39 still to go. 26 Whistler sent several packages of Venetian prints by post, but one of the packages, containing six impressions of The Beggars, was pierced right through by suspicious Customs officials. The F.A.S. was horrified and the artist was furious, but the firm assured Whistler that the prints could be repaired. 27
Several impressions do have minor damage, but this may not be the fault of Customs officials. For instance an impression of the 11th state has a hole in the centre (), but no other impression of this state has similar damage recorded, so it might just be a worm hole. A 15th state has a small tear at upper left () and the following state, a small tear at lower left (). In each case the damage is carefully repaired, and it may be that the damage mentioned by the F.A.S. was indeed minor and the repairs have not been noticed, or it may be that some impressions were simply destroyed. However, after several reminders, Whistler promised to try and complete the editions:
23: 18 Nov. 1886, GUW #01181; R. J. Dewar, receipt, #12996; #01191; F.A.S. to Whistler, 20 Dec. 1888-1889, #01217.
24: 13 May 1889, GUW #01224
25: Mansfield 1909 (cat. no. 191).
26: Whistler to Huish, 22 June 1892, GUW #01246.
27: Huish to Whistler, 1 and 29 July 1892, GUW #01248, #01254; Brown to Whistler, 2 July 1892, #01249.
28: Whistler to Huish, 3 July 1892], GUW #02694.
'All this great over refinement and anxiety for the perfection of quantity is dead loss & vexation -' he said, 'for my own reputation, the complete beauty of one proof is enough - & the production of scores of the same plate is really a madness!' 30
In June 1894 Marcus Bourne Huish (1843-1904) again begged for prints to satisfy orders and Whistler sent off a single proof of The Beggars, for which he received £12.12.0, and then, on 10 August, two 'superb proofs -' on Japanese paper (possibly , , ) . 31 These prints were, Whistler claimed:
32: Whistler to Huish, [14 August 1894], GUW #01277.
The largest print run is of the final, 17th state. Whistler printed several impressions of the final state on Japanese paper, probably in 1894 (, , ). However, one of these impressions has two tabs, one inscribed with a butterfly and 'imp.' and one with the note 'pp. 11.' (); the note suggests this was not printed by Whistler, the butterfly suggests that it was. This is, to say the least, confusing!
33: To E.G. Brown, [3 October 1894], GUW #03616.
36: Pennell 1908 , I, p. 282.