In 1862 Whistler offered some paintings to Thomas de Kay Winans (1820-1878) , who replied on 25 August:
'It would be necessary for me to take another look at the pictures you offer me before I could determine whether the possession of one of those or of something else which I know that you can execute would give me the desired pleasure, I therefore will have to postpone the matter until my return to England, … in the mean time if you have an offer do not hesitate on my account as I am in no hurry -
I have taken the liberty of placing £50 to your credit with Baring Bros, toward something that I may obtain from you.' 1
In November and December 1863 Ford Madox Brown (1821-1893) and Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1828-1882) urged the collector James Leathart (1820-1895) to buy Wapping, writing on 9 December: 'The Thames picture is still unsold, and on enquiring of Whistler I find its price is 300 guineas. It is the noblest of all the pictures he has done hitherto, and is the one for your collection.' 2
On 10 February 1864 Whistler's mother wrote: 'He is thinking seriously of selling his Wapping large picture to a gentleman in Scotland for 200 guineas, there is so much work upon it & such expenses attend painting, his price was 300 guineas.' 3 Whistler actually asked £250 for it, but the Scottish artist William Bell Scott (1811-1890) thought that was 'entirely too dear' and in April Leathart decided not to buy it. 4
In 1866 the painting was in America and was lent to the annual exhibition of the New York Artists' Fund Society, the lender being given as George Alfred Lathrop (1819-1877). It was presumably about this time that it was sketched by his son, Francis Augustus Lathrop (1849-1909).
Exactly when Thomas Winans acquired Wapping, and from whom, is not entirely clear. He could have bought it from Lathrop, or directly from Whistler with Lathrop as an intermediary. Shortly after the end of the Civil War in April 1865, Winans had sent Whistler £50.0.0, which could have been for this picture or just a gesture of goodwill. 5 He sent a further £200.0.0 on 6 April 1867, although, he said, 'I am not collecting pictures to any extent, and in the unsettled state in which I am living, would not know what disposition to make of so many pictures if I had them.' 6
According to a newspaper clipping in the Winans-Hutton Family Scrapbook, Winans purchased Wapping in 1867 when it was exhibited at the Exposition Universelle (Universal Exhibition) in Paris in 1867. 7 .It is very likely that it was indeed returned to Thomas Winans in Baltimore in 1867.
It appears on an easel in an undated photograph of a sitting room in 'Alexandroffsky', the Winans villa in Baltimore, at which time presumably Winans was living in a more settled state. 8
It may have briefly been on the art market in the 1870s. It was marked for sale when the collection of Samuel Putnam Avery (1822-1904) was on show in New York in 1873 but remained unsold; indeed, this may have been an error in the catalogue entry. 9
On Thomas Winans's death, his collection of paintings, including Wapping, was bequeathed to his daughter, Celeste Marguerite Winans (Mrs G. M. Hutton). 10 In turn Wapping may have passed to her daughter, Elsie Celeste Hutton. It was definitely for sale in the late 1920s.
According to Rewald, Wapping was one of the first purchases made by John Hay Whitney (1904-1982), who began collecting in the early 1930s. 11
Before Wapping was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1864, Whistler had stated his intention of sending it to the Salon, and wondered if he could write to Comte Alfred Émilien O'Hara van Nieuwerkerke (1811-1892), Directeur des Musées, Paris, asking for permission to submit his work late. 12 However, the picture did not go to the Salon, but was submitted and exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1864. Whistler told Fantin-Latour that 'la Tamise est également accepté et sera bien accroché' ('the Thames has also been accepted and will be hung well'). 13
The Spectator found the painting 'sensuous', the colour 'pleasing' and technique 'marvellous', but considered that it lacked 'meaning' because there was no obvious moral or story. 14 The Times admired 'the force and truth' of the riverscape, painted, according to the art critic, in a style worthy of Diego Rodriguez de Silva y Velázquez (1599-1660), but, on the other hand, considered it 'a pity that this masterly background should be marred by a trio of grim and mean figures.' 15 The Daily Telegraph similarly considered that the figures were 'carelessly painted and unpleasant in character' but admired the freshness of the brushwork and 'truth of relative tone.' 16 Likewise The Athenaeum praised Whistler's treatment of light and colour, 'the chiaroscuro, tone and the fidelity of treatment which the craft of the painter has made poetical.' 17 The viewpoint was considered 'unusual' providing, as one critic wrote, an 'incomparable view of the Lower Pool of London.' 18 Thus the fact that it was an apparently faithful representation of a London scene met with approval. William Michael Rossetti (1829-1919) wrote, 'Everything is literal, matter-of-fact, crowded, dispersed, casual ... We hope to see it painted again and again by the same gifted hand, native to America, yet in such subjects so happily English.' 19
The following year, it was hung in the National Academy of Design, New York, during the Seventh Annual Exhibition of the New York Artists' Fund Society, and it was probably at this time that it was drawn by Francis Augustus Lathrop (1849-1909), as mentioned above, in the Provenance. 20
A year later, in 1867, it was back in Europe briefly for the Exposition Universelle in Paris. Whistler heard that his paintings were exhibited in a corridor – although it was at the entrance to the United States section – and was furious, writing to George Aloysius Lucas (1824-1909):
'For Gods sake what is all this about my pictures in the entry! ... Have the pictures all taken away if you can - I won't have them hung where they are - ... I don't know what to say about the varnishing - Perhaps it were better to make a formal demand from Beckwith on my behalf for the withdrawal of my pictures all together.' 21
However, W. M. Rossetti claimed that the paintings were exhibited satisfactorily, 'He says that he never from first to last received any invitation to contribute to the British section of the Paris Exhibition. This might seem invidious, but the result is that he gets in the American section much more space than could have been allotted him in the British.' 22 Whistler remained unconvinced, and complained, 'I shall have had all the expense of sending my pictures to a corridor where they have been more or less damned by every body and now will have to pay for getting them back again!' 23
It is not clear exactly when Wapping was sent to Thomas Winans in Baltimore, but he lent it in 1876 to a local Charity Art exhibition. Samuel Putnam Avery (1822-1904) sent Whistler a review of the show:
'It is painted with a vigorous breadth of handling that cannot fail to arrest one's attention, and with an extraordinary effect of perspective. Its color is truthful, harmonious in every part and singularly strong. Together with the various details of cordage, masts, spars and sails, the character of the hulls and their drawing, and the whole spirit and motive of the composition, it produces the precise impression of what the painter saw and desired to convey on the canvas. We regard it as a wholly unconventional and remarkable powerful picture.' 24
The reception of Whistler's pictures in Baltimore was very mixed, as another reviewer described at some length:
'Probably no part of the exhibition has attracted so much attention as the panel where hang the works of Mr Whistler. His paintings call forth such extreme expressions of liking and disliking, as to show, if nothing else did, that they are not mediocre performances. The presence of these bizarre works of art, in the midst of far better and far worse pictures, has a very happy educating influence. They force themselves on the attention ... Some find in them a strange and weird fascination; others are violently repelled. Some consider them master works of technical skill; others look on them as mere daubs. But this at least is taught by these pictures, that the aim of art is not mere prettiness. Mr Whistler had a perfectly definite aim, and an original path to reach that aim.' 25
After this there was a long gap in its exhibition history. Whistler listed it among pictures he wanted to borrow for his major retrospective exhibition, at the Goupil Gallery in 1892. It was listed as ' "The Pool" Mrs. S. W. Hutton/ 938 Hollins St. /Baltimore, U.S.A', which is confusing because as far as is known it was then owned by Celeste Marguerite Winans (Mrs G. M. Hutton). 26 Whistler told David Croal Thomson (1855-1930), 'I have done what I could - even to writing over to America for the picture of "Wapping" - but the people are so long in answering and so difficult about lending.' 27 In the end it could not be obtained for the Goupil show.
A few years later Whistler was suggesting that the American art dealer, Edward Guthrie Kennedy (1849-1932), should borrow 'The Pool Rotherhithe' for an unspecified exhibition, and Kennedy replied that ' "The Pool Rotherhithe" is the property of Gamet Hutton, the wild North of Ireland man who married Miss Winans'; unsurprisingly, no further exhibition materialised at this time. 28
4: W. B. Scott to J. Leathart, 25 February  and 25 April 1864, University of British Columbia.
7: The press cutting adds that Whistler 'wanted it for exhibition at Goupil's, in 1892, but could not get it and it has not been seen in Europe since 1867': MS. 916, box 18, Maryland Historical Society Manuscripts Division.
8: For further information on the Winans and Hutton families, see Bertram Lippincott III, 'The Hutton Family of 'Shamrock Cliff',' Newport History. Bulletin of the Newport Historical Society, vol. 64, no. 221, Fall 1991, pp. 164-66, and Alexandra Lee Levin, 'Inventive, Imaginative, and Incorrigible: The Winans Family and the Building of the First Russian Railroad,' Maryland Historical Magazine, vol. 84, Spring 1989, pp. 50-55, cited in National Gallery of Art website at https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.61254.html#provenance.
10: 'Will of Thomas Winans', New York Herald, New York, 15 June 1878.
11: Rewald, John, 'French Paintings in the collection of Mr and Mrs John Hay Whitney,' The Connoisseur, 134 (April 1956), p. 140, (cat. no. 552) repr.
14: The Spectator, London, 18 June 1864 (press cutting kept by Whistler, GUL Whistler PC1/11).
15: 'Exhibition of the Royal Academy [Second Article]', The Times, London, 5 May 1864, p. 8.
16: Anon., 'Royal Academy Exhibition', Daily Telegraph, London, 16 May 1864 (press cutting in GUL Whistler PC1/11).
17: 'Fine Arts / The Royal Academy',The Athenaeum, London, 14 May 1864, pp. 682–84 at p. 683 (press cutting in GUL Whistler PC1/13, 15).
18: Quoted from an unidentified press cutting, , GUL Whistler PC1/15. See also The Realm, London, 4 May 1864; and see Goebel, Catherine C., Arrangement in Black and white: The Making of a Whistler Legend, PhD, Northwestern University, 1988, Appendix 5.
19: 'The Royal Academy Exhibition', Fraser's Magazine, 31 June 1865, pp. 736–53 (excerpt kept by Whistler, GUL Whistler PC1/33); an edited version in Rossetti 1867: [more] , pp. 274-76, omitted the reference to nationality. See MacDonald, Margaret F., 'Whistler and the Thames', in MacDonald, Margaret, and Patricia de Montfort, An American in London: Whistler and the Thames, Dulwich Picture Gallery, Addison Gallery of American Art, Freer Gallery of Art, 2013-2014, p. 19.
20: Press cutting in GUL Whistler PC1, p. 5. See 'Pre-1877 Art Exhibition Catalogue Index', Smithsonian American Art Museum, Smithsonian Institutions Research Information (SIRIS) at https://siris-artexhibition.si.edu.
24: 'Art Notes', Baltimore American and Commercial Advertiser, Baltimore, 18 March 1876, GUL Whistler PC 1/73.
25: 'Art Culture', unidentified press cutting, GUL Whistler PC 1/77.
Last updated: 18th October 2021 by Margaret