The Paintings of James McNeill Whistler

Date

This painting is difficult to date, and different theories have been proposed as to its date and authenticity.

It is just possible that Young woman in a white dress was started in the early 1870s, rubbed down by Whistler at the time of his bankruptcy in 1879, and later restored by an unknown hand, as appears to have been the case with Harmony in White and Blue y126 (and see also Arrangement in Flesh Colour and Grey: The Chinese Screen y051).

Young woman in a white dress, photo, 1940s

Young woman in a white dress, Singer Museum

Alternatively it may have been entirely painted by another artist, before 1910, when it is first documented. It has certainly been restored and retouched by other hands over subsequent years, up to and including 2015.

Images

Subject

Titles

Recorded titles are as follows:

• 'Symphony in White' (n.d., label on verso).
• 'Symphony in White. The Girl in White Muslin Dress' (in or after 1903, label on verso).
• 'Dames-portret' (1956, Singer Museum). ¹
• 'Jonge vrouw in witte japon' (1962, Singer Museum). ²

The preferred title, 'Young woman in a white dress', is a translation of the 1962 Dutch title.

Description

Young woman in a white dress, Singer Museum.

A half-length portrait of a woman in three-quarter view to right. She wears a white dress, and her dark hair is pulled up into a big bun at the top and back of her head.

Sitter

Unknown.

If, as is possible, the painting was repaired by Walter Greaves (1846-1930), then the model could be one of his sisters.

W. Greaves, The Green Dress, Tate Britain, London, NO4599

Greaves' portrait, The Green Dress (ca 1875, Tate Britain) shows a model (probably his sister) who has slightly similar features. In her interesting thesis 'A Ghost of a Portrait', Elsemieke van Rietschoten discusses Greaves's relationship with Whistler in subject matter and technique, admitting that this is difficult due to the lack of a comprehensive catalogue of his work and the almost total lack of technical research, but, she concludes 'The attention to detail in Greaves’ portraits of his sisters does not resemble the free brushwork of the Singer picture.' ³

Whistler's biographers, the Pennells, commented, when they saw it in 1910, 'It might be one of the Greek group of his friends, an Ionides or a Spartali.' ⁴ Presumably basing his comment on this source, the Laren Museum Director Rudolph de Lorm suggested that it was 'waarschijnlijk een portret van een dochter van kunstverzamelaar Ionides' ('probably a portrait of a daughter of art collector Ionides'). ⁵ Whistler's patron Alexander Constantine Ionides (1810-1890) had five children including two daughters, Aglaia Coronio (1834-1906) and Chariclea Anthea Euterpe Dannreuther (1844–1923). There is, however, no record of Whistler painting their portraits.

Comments

The authors of this catalogue raisonné do not think that, despite recent publications and publicity, the research by the Singer Museum, Laren (admittedly incomplete) proves that the painting, in its current state, shows the hand of James McNeill Whistler.

Technique

Composition

Young woman in a white dress, Singer Museum

Young woman in a white dress, photograph, 1940s

Technical examination, including X-rays and old photographs, and the recent surveys using infrared and X-ray imaging and X-ray fluorescence spectrography, show that the figure of a woman in white was painted over at least two earlier compositions. One showed a woman in a white dress with sloping shoulders and a small, pointed collar. Underneath this, there appears to be a woman in a pink and white dress, possibly with epaulettes or puffs at her shoulders, a bow or rose at right, big bows or bustle at the back of her skirt, and a small round object at the front of her skirt. It is possible that the face was a later addition, the original head having been rubbed out.

Technique

The picture is painted on a plain weave canvas and is lined with a courser plain weave canvas. The lower edge appears to have been cut, so that the portrait may originally have been a three-quarter or full-length portrait, which was damaged and repainted.

The canvas was prepared with at least two ground layers, one white, and secondly a broadly painted greyish/yellow imprimatura in which the elements barium (Ba) and strontium (Sr) are present. ⁶

It was thinly painted, and there are numerous signs of pentimenti, and indeed there may have been two or three totally different positions of the figure and designs of the dress, though which of these were done by the artist or later restorers is not known. The skirt appears to have been wider, possibly with a bow or bustle. The woman's right arm appears as a solid, bolster-like object. The thinly painted areas of around the neck and bust (possibly a collar, ruffled trimming, a fichu or scarf) are painted much more delicately and freely, but are difficult to interpret because they appear to belong to different stages of the portrait or, indeed, to different portraits.

The painting, as it stands, has been rubbed and scraped down, by an unknown hand or hands, and may have been unfinished.

Conservation History

It was restored in London in 1910, possibly in the USA in the 1940s, and certainly restored and retouched extensively in the Netherlands by the conservator Gwendolyn Boevé-Jones in 2015.

On 15 September 1910 the London art dealer Walter Dowdeswell (1858-1929) took Whistler's biographers, Elizabeth Robins Pennell (1855-1936) and Joseph Pennell (1860-1926), to visit a man 'in a remote part of Camden Town, who is restoring a few [paintings]', and showed them this unsigned portrait. ⁷

Research carried out on behalf of the Laren Museum by Elsemieke van Rietschoten, under the supervision of Dr Arjan de Koomen and Professor Arie Wallert, was presented in her thesis, A ghost of a portrait. Authenticating Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress. This covers the 1910-1911 history of the painting, and gives an account of the technical research undertaken by Professor Wallert, naturally relying on his conclusions. ⁸ She comments that 'During the recent restoration previous overpaintings have been removed. The frill at the front of the dress is perhaps the most notable difference between before and after restoration. Furthermore restoration revealed additional small curls at the forehead of the woman, which significantly changed the woman's hair style. It appears that in the past the picture was altered to look more like a Whistler.' ⁹

Recent conservation includes removing a dark curtain behind the figure, and reveals that the dress may have been partly pink. The face has also been restored recently, the conservator taking care to repaint areas that were bare canvas. The Singer Museum website states:

'Eén van de hoogtepunten bij de opening van Singer Laren in 1956 was het schilderij Symphony in white. The Girl in the muslin Dress van James Abbott McNeill Whistler (1834-1903). Ruim twintig jaar geleden werd de authenticiteit van het schilderij betwijfeld. Sindsdien is het niet meer te zien geweest. Singer Laren heeft het schilderij laten onderzoeken en dit kunsthistorisch en materiaal-technisch onderzoek toont aan dat het doek wel degelijk van de hand van Whistler is. In de tentoonstelling De hand van Whistler, ... 2016, wordt het proces van authenticatie en restauratie in beeld gebracht'. ¹⁰

This translates as ‘One of the high points of the opening of the Singer Laren in 1956 was the painting Symphony in white. The Girl in the muslin Dress by James Abbott McNeill Whistler' (actually it was shown as 'Dames-portret'). The Laren website adds: 'About twenty years ago the authenticity of the painting was regarded as doubtful. Since then it has not been on display. Singer Laren had the painting investigated and this art historical and scientific research showed that the painting was reliably painted by the hand of Whistler. In the exhibition The hand of Whistler [in] 2016, the process of authentication and restoration is depicted.'

The Director of the museum, Rudolph de Lorm, is quoted in a newspaper article as saying:

' “Na uitgebreid modern materiaal- technisch onderzoek zijn wij er van overtuigd dat het damesportret Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress uit circa 1870 een schilderij van Whistler is … Nederland heeft er een tweede Whistler bij." '

(Translation:) ' “After extensive modern material-technical research we are convinced that the portrait of a woman Symphony in White. Girl in a muslin dress from circa 1870 is a painting by Whistler … The Netherlands has acquired a second Whistler" ' (the first being Arrangement in Yellow and Grey: Effie Deans y183, which is in the Rijksmuseum).

In a documentary published in AVROTROS on 11 October 2016, the Director commented: “Ik had het schilderij wel eens zien staan, en de blik van de vrouw liet me niet los,” (“I had once seen the painting on display, and the glance of the woman never let me go"). He consulted the technical art-historian Professor Arie Wallert at the University of Amsterdam, who had conducted research on the Rijksmuseum painting. The results, according to the Director were as follows:

' "En uit röntgen- en infraroodonderzoek bleek dat in de Rijksmuseum-Whistler en in de Singer Museum-Whistler met precies dezelfde stoffen geschilderd zijn. Zo bevatte de grondlaag zeldzaam radioactief strontium. Ook bleek in de verfstreken Whistlers hand herkenbaar. Het doek ... bleek deels overschilderd bij restauraties. Op basis van alle onderzoek schrijft Singer Laren het ongesigneerde doek nu toe aan Whistler. " '

Translation: ' "From X-ray and infrared analyses, it appeared that the Rijksmuseum Whistler and the Singer Museum Whistler were painted with exactly the same materials. For example, the base layer contained rare radioactive strontium. Whistler’s hand also seemed to be recognizable in the strokes of paint. The painting ... appears to have been partly painted over during restoration. Based on all the research Singer Laren attributes the unsigned painting to Whistler." '

Elsemieke van Rietshoten, in her MA thesis, clarifies this point:

'Celestine – a mineral consisting of strontium sulphate (SrSO4) – was identified as a possible material marker. XRF analysis consistently showed the presence of strontium (Sr) within the painting. The use of celestine as a pigment appears to be characteristic for the works of Whistler. Erma Hermens and Arie Wallert conclusively proved the use of celestine in Arrangement in Yellow and Grey: Effy [sic] Deans (Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam). It is the only recorded occurrence of the mineral as a pigment in easel painting. According to Hermens and Wallert the presence of celestine in the Effy Deans might be related to the use of Orr Duresco house paint, a lithophone mixture (ZnS·BaSO4) with added celestine.' ¹¹

However, Elsemieke van Rietschoten concludes:

'Technical analysis could not prove beyond doubt if Whistler did, or did not painted the picture. It revealed characteristics that conform [to] Whistler’s painting technique, as well as aspects that differ. The presence of celestine would have been an important facet in authenticating the picture. However, barium sulfate was used instead. The use of a grey priming conforms with Whistler’s usual practice. However in this case charcoal black is used instead of the ivory black Whistler typically used. … It could not be determined if the curtain was added later. However, the difference in finish between the face, dress and curtain seem to suggest the painting is unfinished and possibly partly overpainted. The picture seemed to be altered considerately during previous restorations. It appears to be reduced in size and at one point the woman wore a pink rose on her dress. A butterfly signature was added – and later removed – to make the picture look more like an authentic Whistler. Human interference appears to have drastically altered the appearance of the picture. It is difficult to distinguish between the original picture and possible later additions.' ¹²

Unfortunately no further research was done at the time on behalf of the Laren Museum to compare the use of barium sulphate in the base layer with other paintings by Whistler or by his contemporaries. Nor was it clear, from the investigation and restoration undertaken in preparation for the exhibition at Laren, which of the numerous variations in technique and composition was identified as what the Director describes as 'Whistlers hand', although Elsemieke van Rietschoten does mention that 'The original dress was painted with a broad brush. The paint is applied in free brushstrokes not unlike the brushwork in the portrait of Cicely Alexander.' ¹³

Questions about the authorship of this work were discussed in the New York Times by Nina Siegal on 15 October 2015. The possibility that it was among paintings destroyed at the time of Whistler's bankruptcy was mentioned:

'Officials at the Singer Laren ... say that its painting “Symphony in White: The Girl in the Muslin Dress” was most likely one of those works, rolled up and damaged and then heavily repainted by a clumsy restorer. Last week, the museum’s director and affiliated experts here reclaimed the painting as an authentic Whistler ... challenging a leading Whistler authority who had discredited the work about two decades ago.

“We have our Whistler back,” the director, Jan Rudolph de Lorm, said at the museum on Monday. “It is clear that if you look at the proof, both the pedigree proof and the underlying images, it’s enough for us to say it was our Whistler.”

The tale of how officials at a small museum in the Netherlands came to claim an authentic Whistler illustrates the way new technologies are allowing museums to tackle attribution issues when works of art are called into question. In the past, the word of top scholars was often enough to authenticate or discredit a work, sometimes robbing an art institution of prestige. But with new scientific methods and independent scholarship, museums are now vying to assert the value of their own treasures.

The Whistler attribution here is based on new scientific and art-historical research conducted by the museum over the past two years, in collaboration with art historians and specialists in painting analysis from the Rijksmuseum, the University of Amsterdam and the University of Antwerp. Using tools like infrared and X-ray imaging and X-ray fluorescence spectrography, they were able to more precisely date the work and explain how and where it was subsequently repainted.

If it is indeed a genuine Whistler – which is still in dispute – that would bring to two the number of Whistler paintings in the Netherlands’ collections. The other is the Rijksmuseum’s full-length portrait “Arrangement in Yellow and Gray,” known informally as “Effie Deans,” ...

Both paintings are on display in a one-room Whistler exhibition at the Singer Laren, ... In addition … the museum is displaying several prints of X-ray scans of the “Muslin Dress” painting and a documentary about the findings, “to make the research transparent” Mr. de Lorm said. ...

... [O]n the market to 1910, when it was seen, with other Whistler works, at the shop of the London art dealer Dowdeswell ... [by E. R. & J. Pennell] ... They noted ... that the curtains were “rather elaborately finished” while the figure was “not carried very far”—a suggestion that someone else may have tried to complete an unfinished painting. ... [In] 1949 there are records of Dowdeswell offering it to the Springfield Museum of Fine Arts in Massachusetts, which did its own X-ray of the painting. They questioned its authenticity, and turned it down. ...

[In] 1997 ... according to Mr. de Lorm, a leading Whistler authority, the University of Glasgow professor Margaret MacDonald, author [actually co-author] of the 1980 catalogue raisonné of the artist, visited the museum and cast doubt on its authenticity. ...“When Margaret MacDonald was hesitant, the Singer made a stupid move,” said Arie Wallert, a professor of technical art history at the University of Amsterdam, one of the leaders of the research project. “They dis-attributed the painting and put it in storage, and almost forgot about it.”

It wasn’t until 2009, when Mr. de Lorm, former head of exhibitions at the Rijksmuseum, was hired as the new director of the Singer Laren, that someone took notice. After seeing the painting in the depot, he looked up its inventory card, which showed that the insurance value of the painting was 300,000 guilders in the 1990s and after Ms. MacDonald’s visit, it was decreased to 3,000 guilders.

“I was angry,” he said. “I couldn’t really understand why they would be so fast in diminishing one of the crown jewels of their collection.” Ms. MacDonald, who is currently working on the Whistler catalogue raisonné, which hasn’t been updated since 1980, said she wasn’t the only scholar who was uncertain about the work.

“I’m one of several people who have cast doubt on the image,” she said in a phone interview, citing the co-authors of the catalogue raisonné, the late Whistler authority Andrew McLaren Young and Robin Spencer. “We’ve got records at the University of Glasgow going back to the 1940s and they do cast doubt on the evidence at the time.”

Mr. de Lorm initiated the new research with the help of Mr. Wallert, who had been a colleague at the Rijksmuseum. They tested paint samples to compare the work with the Rijksmuseum’s painting, did modern X-ray fluorescence scans and revealed interesting new information. After removing the darkened varnish, for example, the restorers found that the curtains behind the figure were painted at a later date, probably by a restorer. Also, it was found to be cut down, and was likely originally a full-length portrait, Mr. Wallert said.

“It’s a very over-painted Whistler and a very damaged Whistler,” he concluded. “But I don’t have any doubts that what we have here is a decent Whistler.”

Erma Hermens, a technical art history professor at the University of Glasgow, on the other hand, doesn’t see it as such a straightforward case. “To be totally conclusive is very, very difficult,” she said in a phone interview. “There’s a gap in the history, where this painting traveled to or where it was kept.”

Ms. MacDonald also said she isn’t convinced. “I saw it a couple of weeks ago and I felt I still needed to do more research,” she said. For example, she still wants to date the hairstyle and the dress, and compare the painting to a work of the same period, “Harmony in White and Blue,” at the Leeds Art Gallery in Britain.

But Mr. de Lorm is confident: “We believe in what we’re presenting now, and now the ball can go to the next player, and we will follow it and participate.”

He said the museum’s work on this painting would help Whistler scholars learn more about the painter’s bankruptcy period. “I hope our research is a start to look again at this whole group of paintings from Whistler’s oeuvre.” ' ¹⁴

Unfortunately, the results of the technical research carried out for Laren Museum were not conclusive; they were in fact incomplete. They were not, for instance, compared with other, possibly comparable, paintings by Whistler and his contemporaries (Walter Greaves, for instance). Furthermore, it is not known if the results of the technical survey reflect the work of an artist or a tradesman preparing a canvas for painting or selling. They did not give reasons for the date of 1870 for the painting, except to imply that it dated from before Whistler's bankruptcy.

Elsemieke concludes:

'The condition of the painting makes it difficult to understand it. The picture appears to be altered extensively by human interference. It is not always possible to distinguish between intentional alterations and later overpainting. Reconstructing the original picture asks for some imagination. The difference between authentication and authenticity linguistically is but minor, however in attribution it can make a big difference.' ¹⁵

It remains uncertain whether Whistler could have had any part in this painting, and if he did, whether any of it is visible.

Frame

Young woman in a white dress,frame

Grau-style frame, ca 1910.

History

Provenance

• By 1908: Walter Thomas Spencer (1864-1936), a second-hand bookseller at 27 New Oxford Street, had 100 rolls of damaged canvases in an attic ;
• 1908: Frida Uhl Strindberg (1872-1943) bought some canvases and then changed her mind and wanted to return them, returning twice to London for this purpose;
• 1910: this painting was one of 'about fifty' canvases sold by W. T. Spencer to the London art dealer Dowdeswell in September 1910 and on 15 September Dowdeswell took Elizabeth Robins Pennell (1855-1936) and Joseph Pennell (1860-1926) to a man in Camden Town, who was restoring some of the canvases;
• 1911: William Stephen Marchant (1868-1925) held an exhibition of oils by Walter Greaves that had been owned by Spencer.
• Date unknown (1919?): said to have been owned by E. Ellis (fl. 1900/1910) Esq.
• Date unknown, after 1921: said to have been in the J. Vaughan Collection at some time.
• Date unknown: said to have been owned by 'Edmund David', possibly meaning Edmund Davis (1861-1939) and confusing the painting with one lent by Davis to the 'Fair Ladies' exhibition.
• ca 1945: sold by 'the heirs of a very great devotee of Whistler's who died several years ago in London. It was one of about ten paintings all attributed to the artist and all bought by de Beer'; ¹⁶
• 1945: Max de Beer (1898-1974), art dealer, 54/55 Piccadilly, London. ¹⁷
• 1948: considered but rejected for purchase by Frederick R. Robinson, Director, Springfield Museum of Fine Arts.
• After 1957?: Silberman Galleries, New York City.
• Date unknown: acquired by Anna Spencer Brugh Singer (1868-1962);
• Before 1956: given to the Singer Museum, Laren.

Spencer said he bought paintings by Walter Greaves (1846-1930) from a second hand furniture dealer, and that Greaves also made paintings to order for Spencer for US clients; ¹⁸

It was considered possible that it was among the canvases partly destroyed by Whistler at the time of his bankruptcy. The Pennell's journal goes into this question at some length; E. R. Pennell recorded visits to Messrs Dowdeswell in 1910. Her account, with additional material by her husband, 'J' - Joseph Pennell - was published in the Whistler Journal in 1921:

'Thursday, September 15th, 1910. Walter Dowdeswell wrote to me on Tuesday that he had something of extraordinary interest to put before us, and would we be in town in two weeks' time. ... Yesterday he telegraphed asking us to come to-day at noon; we said yes, but when noon came to-day, J. was so busy I went alone. Walter Dowdeswell took me upstairs into the front room on the first floor told me he had something by way of a sensation for me – that in our Life of Whistler we referred to rolls of paintings carried off at the time of the bankruptcy; well, some of those had been brought to him, they had been in a cellar for years; a most romantic story altogether but he couldn't tell it yet. ... Old Dowdeswell and the other brother, Charles, joined us, in a great state of excitement. The old man they say aged eighty had come up to town on purpose. They felt that we ought to have the first chance to see these things, our book was so wonderful, ...

At last Walter Dowdeswell told the story. A lady who brings them things occasionally, told them of rolls which she had bought for nothing from a second-hand book-seller for the sake of one old English picture which she recognized for what it was and sold to somebody in Munich. The Dowdeswells looked over the rolls. The paintings were shockingly dirty but they saw passages that were unmistakably Whistler and they bought them and she brought more which they bought too; they have about fifty in all; and really, it was difficult to know how to pay her for she didn't know the value and asked nothing, and they knew the value and felt they should pay her more than she asked, and the end was she felt as if they had made her fortune for her, though I gathered that her eyes were enough opened to make them pay more for the second than the first lot. When he had finished J. said he knew that second-hand dealer, his place was in Holborn. No, Dowdeswell said. Then New Oxford Street, he was not quite sure which. Yes, said Dowdeswell. Spencer, said J. Yes, said Dowdeswell. So it is the shop where Elmer Adler last summer found the Whistler charcoal drawings and spoke of rolls of things being there. It looks as if the whole business might come from Greaves. In the end Walter Dowdeswell took us to a man, in a remote part of Camden Town, who is restoring a few. There were so many they have been given to different restorers ...

Altogether it was an interesting afternoon. There is no question that things did disappear at the time of the bankruptcy and auction, that there is comparatively little to represent some ten years or so of Whistler's work, and it is just possible that these rolls of paintings may be the explanation. They may have come from Greaves, from whom Spencer had letters and those charcoal drawings. ...

Monday, September 19th. To the restorer's with Dowdeswell. … On a smaller canvas was a three-quarter length of a lady in white, the dress in the fashion of the Sixties. She is standing in the centre of the canvas, turned full face, she is dark, her short upper lip shows her teeth, and her black hair is rolled up on the top of her head somewhat in the fashion of the little figure in grey before the screen, the study for La Princesse, which Dowdeswell showed us the first day. Her arms hang at her sides and around the wrists are curious deep cuffs or wristbands of some thicker and heavier white muslin. She stands against a greenish-black curtain, rather elaborately finished in comparison with the figure which is not carried very far, and the face which is hardly more than rubbed in. This is much less interesting. It might be one of the Greek group of his friends, an Ionides or a Spartali.' ¹⁹

The later provenance is incomplete and not entirely substantiated.

Exhibitions

No early exhibition history is known.

Gallery records suggested that it had been exhibited in the Ninth Exhibition of Fair Women in February 1909 (cat. no. 160). However, this was incorrect: the actual painting exhibited was Symphony in White, No. 3 y061, which was then owned by Edmund Davis (1861-1939). ²⁰

The early records associated with Young woman in a white dress are confusing and misleading, to say the least. One label on the verso reads 'GROSVENOR GALLERY / PICTURE EXHIBITION.', with the 'Title of Picture' written as 'Symphony in White', 'The Girl in White Muslin Dress', but it was never exhibited there: it cannot be found in any of the exhibition catalogues of the Grosvenor Gallery.

Another label is for the 'London International Exhibition Society ... UNITED ART GALLERY'. The United Arts Gallery (not United Art Gallery) was founded in a new building at 116 New Bond Street by the London International Exhibition Society in 1881 to encourage young artists 'by affording them facilities for study in the great Continental academies, supplying them with grants of money.' ²¹ It was a short-lived venue, with exhibitions of mainly European works in 1881 and 1882, after which, due to the illness of the manager, the lease was transferred to Messrs Goupil in 1882, and the remaining stock sold at auction by Messrs Foster on 18 April 1883. ²² It is possible that a number of these labels were arbitrarily added to paintings in the stock of an art dealer.

A third label on the painting suggests that this painting was in an exhibition shortly after Whistler's death in 1903, but no record of this exhibition has been found, and Whistler's name is misspelt; the label is probably a forgery. The label reads as follows:

'EXHIBITION / OF / PAINTINGS, WATERCOLOURS, PASTELS, ETCHINGS / and LITHOGRAPHS, / BY THE LATE JAMES McNIELL [sic] WHISTLER / First President of the International Society of Sculptors, Painters and Gravers.'

The catalogue number is given as 80, and the lender as 'E. Ellis Esq'. Similar labels are seen on a large group of paintings formerly attributed to Whistler, including Harmony in White and Blue y126, and several paintings known to be by Walter Greaves (1846-1930). ²³

In 1974 a journalist, 'Atticus' published an article, 'Greaves takes the credit', in The Sunday Times, heralding an exhibition of the work of Walter Greaves (1846-1930) at the Michael Parkin gallery in Motcomb Street, Belgravia. Atticus wrote that according to 'Alfred Haynes ... a Chelsea newspaper boy, known to Greaves', a 'huge load of canvasses' were removed from Whistler's studio by 'Mary Woods, not only Whistler's model but his mistress ... at the time of his bankruptcy in 1892'. ²⁴ This account contains obvious mistakes: Maud Franklin (1857-1939), not Mary Woods, was Whistler's model at the time of his bankruptcy, which was in 1879, not in 1892. However, Atticus also mentioned the misspelt label quoted above, and added,

'A mysterious figure called Ellis was probably responsible for the labelling. He sold the pictures to the last owners, who kept them stowed away in an attic until Parkin tracked them down. It was probably Ellis who priced them too. One of them has the fancy price of £2,400 on it. Well, it was fancy for those days, in 1919.' ²⁵

Andrew McLaren Young (1913-1975) told Atticus that he had 'long suspected that several Whistlers in public collections were possibly by Greaves.' ²⁶

Some of the pictures that have the misleading labels attached may have been based on paintings destroyed by Whistler, and reworked by another hand. It is possible that Walter Greaves (1846-1930) was involved in the 'repair', 'restoration' or repainting of these canvases. Some of them may have been by Greaves himself. Some appear to have nothing at all to do with Greaves or Whistler.

Bibliography

Catalogues Raisonnés

• None.

Authored by Whistler

• None.

Catalogues 1855-1905

• None.

Journals 1855-1905

• None.

Monographs

• None.

Books on Whistler

• Pennell, Elizabeth Robins, and Joseph Pennell, The Whistler Journal, Philadelphia, 1921, pp. 125-36.
• Way, Thomas Robert, Memories of James McNeill Whistler, the Artist, London and New York, 1912, p. 136.

Books, General

• None.

Catalogues 1906-Present

COLLECTION:

• Singer Memorial foundation museum catalogue, 1962 (cat. no. 538) as 'Jonge vrouw in witte japon'.

EXHIBITION:

• Exhibition, Singer Memorial foundation museum, Laren, 1956 (cat. no. 140) as 'Dames-portret'.
• De hand van Whistler, Singer Museum, Laren, 2016.

Journals 1906-Present

• None.

Newspapers 1906-Present

• Siegal, Nina, 'Victory in a Battle Over a "Whistler"?', The New York Times, 15 October 2015, website at http://www.nytimes.com.
• Steenhuis, Paul, 'Singer Museum ontdekt Whistler in hoekje van depot', nrc.nl, 8 October 2015, website at https://www.nrc.nl. (acc. 2015).
• Neuendorf, Henri, 'Long-Forgotten James Whistler Painting Rediscovered in Regional Dutch Museum', artnet news, 13 October 2015, website at https://news.artnet.com.

Websites

• Singer Museum website at http://www.singerlaren.nl/whistler (acc. 2019).

Unpublished

• Revillon, Joseph Whistler, Draft Catalogue Raisonné of the Paintings of J. McN. Whistler, [ca 1945-1955], Glasgow University Library (cat. no. 501).

Other

• van Rietschoten, Elsemieke, A ghost of a portrait. Authenticating Symphony in White. Girl in muslin dress, MA thesis, University of Amsterdam, July 2017, at https://scripties.uba.uva.nl/scriptie/636852.
• Documentary published by AVROTROS, 11 October 2016.