Viewing page 6 of 60

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

                                   November 17, 1949

Dear Sir:

     I am in receipt of your kind and interesting letter of November 2nd, for which I hasten to thank you.

     However, before proceeding with this letter, may I say that as I was born in Paris, should you care to, you may correspond at liberty in French. My secretary, on the other hand, not writing in this language, I shall continue my correspondence with you in English. 

     You are perfectly correct in a ssuming that the "Portraut of Henry IV" is the one which was in the possession of Mr. McClure. I have no knowledge, however, as to the date of its original purchase by him, nor whether he had it restored. As I believe I wrote you previously, I acquired it in its present condition, and do not intend having it either cleaned or restored anew while in my hands.

     When Mr. Sterling was in New York a couple of weeks ago, I had the privledge of his visit, and took advantage of it to show him this portrait, presuming of course he would be interested in such a painting which is so (intriguing) as regards the sitter and also its period.
fascinating
    I gathered that he knew the painting, and though he did not make any definite statement, I received the impression that a disturbing element in his mind is the fact that the etching is not in reverse of the painting. I must say at this point, with all due respect to Mr.Sterling's knowledge, this does not seem sufficiently convincing an argument. I should also say that though I know very little about prints, having never dealt in them (my activities being strictly limited to paintings, watercolors, and drawings) I do know that in the 18th. Century, for instance, many of the works by Watteau were engraved facing the same way as the original. In fact no later than a few day ago, perusing the work of K.T. Parker, I found a quotation referring to this very topic (  footnote).

    Furthermore, we have no proof that the etching was not made from a drawing which the artist made for a painting he originally conceived facing in the reverse, or perhaps even that Caron painted a painting facing to the right and also one facing to the left. In other words, I personally cannot consider the engraving as proving anything derogatory.

    As you kindlt advised me in your letter, I had the visit a couple of days ago of Mr. and Mrs. Hans Tietze, who examined the paiting with great care. In fact it was an extraordinarily sunny day, and they had an oppurtunity of seeing it, should I say, under the worst possible conditions a regards viewing paintings, with the sun shining directly on the picture.

                Continued on the following page...
    

Transcription Notes:
"fascinating" is handwritten and underneath intriguing "intriguing" is enclosed by two handwritten brackets Writing written behind the paper bleeds through