Van Gogh Museum Journal 1997-1998

[p. 58]

fig. 1
Remains of a letter (verso of fig. 2), Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

[p. 59]

The Van Gogh letters project: new findings and old
Leo Jansen

The research for the scholarly edition of the letters written by and to Vincent van Gogh has now been under way for over three years.¹ The entire text of the Dutch correspondence has been studied, and much of the preparatory work has been done for the annotations. This will continue for some time before work starts on the French correspondence, partly because the Van Gogh Museum is soon to be closed for several months and the manuscripts housed elsewhere.

The four-volume Dutch edition published in 1990 is the most complete thus far; compared to the 1953 edition, which was translated into a great many languages, it incorporates numerous changes: new letters were added, dates revised and censored passages reinstated. The ongoing study of Van Gogh's work and letters throughout the world has prompted many suggestions for changes, and our research, too, has yielded fresh information.

But this does not necessarily mean that all the changes in our edition will actually be new. Aside from numerous letters, scores of other documents in Van Gogh's handwriting have been preserved. The most sizeable are the poetry albums and sheets of paper onto which he copied poems and prose passages for others: many of these have now been published.² Some contain sentences resembling fragments of correspondence, such as (on a page containing an extract from St Augustine's Confessions and the text of 1 Cor. 13, the ode to love): ‘I just received Pa's letter. Thank God. God make us brothers.-’³ In addition to these sheets, there are others preserved as drawings which contain text that reveals they were originally part of a letter: for example, the text on the verso side of a pen and ink drawing of a girl's head (f 1507a jh 1466).⁴ Similarly, a pen and ink drawing of a woman's head (fig. 2) was classified until recently as an independent sketch, but the text on the back shows that it was originally an illustration within a letter (fig. 1).⁵

The text reads:

eel pleizier en [wou[?]
id voor had -
ken zoo als ik 't voel -
e van Havermann b.v.
r me in - iets jongs en
[é[?] - niet dat vind wat
grijpt - ik wou
edheid - genie
een vrouwenfiguur -
[orden[?] brengen -
ou de la bonté est l'a
e - geloof ik zoo⁶

1 The project is a collaborative venture of the Van Gogh Museum and the Constantijn Huygens Institute for Text Editions and Intellectual History. I am indebted to Elly Cassee, Hans Luijten and Fieke Pabst for the assistance they gave me while I was preparing this article.

2 Vincent van Gogh's poetry albums, ed. Fieke Pabst, Zwolle 1988.

3 Ibid., p. 89. There is a comparable example on p. 91.

4 The sheet is preserved in the Guggenheim Museum, New York; published in Ronald Pickvance, Van Gogh in Arles, New York 1984, p. 105, and Vivian Endicott Barnett, Guggenheim Museum: Thannhauser Collection, rev. and exp. ed., New York 1990, p. 178.

5 In The new complete Van Gogh: paintings, drawings, sketches, Amsterdam & Philadelphia 1996, p. 140, Jan Hulsker refers to it as ‘Probably a letter-sketch.’ This has now been definitively established. Hulsker is mistaken, however, in stating that the whereabouts of the sheet are unknown; it is in the Van Gogh Museum (d 390 V/1970).

6 The textual versions presented here are based on the diplomatic transcription. Adjustments to the text have been kept to a minimum. The following general rules apply: layout and spacing have been standardised; underlined text is italicised; uncertain readings are enclosed by the signs [ and [?]; missing accents in French have been added; mistakes have only been corrected if they would otherwise cause confusion; a limited number of full-stops and commas have been added. For a complete discussion of our notation methods, see Hans Luijten. ‘“As it came into my pen”: a new edition of the correspondence of Vincent van Gogh,’ Van Gogh Museum Journal (1996), pp. 88-101.

[p. 60]

fig. 2
Vincent van Gogh, Head of a woman (recto), sketch in a lost letter, Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

Strictly speaking, there is no reason to reject the approximate date previously assigned to the sheet, which was January-February 1885, but it is safer to allow for a somewhat wider margin of error. Sjraar van Heugten tentatively dates the sheet 1884-85⁷

We do not know to whom this enigmatic relic was addressed. Aside from Theo, another possible recipient - given the finished state of the drawing - was Van Rappard: Van Gogh's letters to this fellow artist include several references (all derogatory) to the Dutch painter Hendrik Johannes Haverman (1857-1928).⁸

Such fragments, however mutilated, cannot be omitted from an edition of the letters that aims to be complete. Like the greater and lesser findings discussed below, they not only supply new information but also generate new questions.

7 Sjraar van Heugten, Vincent van Gogh: drawings. Nuenen 1883-85, Naarden 1997, pp. 124, 127, no. 108b.

8 Cf. letters 440/R43 and 513/R52.

An order for paint

Earlier editions paid no attention to the way in which the texts of the letters developed. They do not mention when Van Gogh added words or passages at a later stage, where interesting sections were deleted, or where Van Gogh gave special emphasis to a word or phrase - by underlining it several times or using different lettering. The diplomatic copies we are preparing for all the letters will incorporate details of just this kind. Although the vast majority of them, it has to be said, are trivial corrections or errors, a deletion occasionally conceals something surprising.

Sometime around Saturday, 22 September 1883 - over a week after his arrival in Drenthe from The Hague - Van Gogh wrote his brother a long letter on a variety of subjects [391/326]. The text takes up two large sheets of paper (each one folded, producing a total of eight pages). Its last lines are sandwiched between five lines that have been deleted with thick penstrokes. The deletions prove to have been the beginning of another letter; Van Gogh crossed it out, turned the sheet around and used it for the second part of his letter to Theo. He was apparently unable or unwilling to take a fresh sheet, and he clearly did his best to make it impossible for Theo to read the deleted words (fig. 3). The deleted fragment (fig. 4), which was rather difficult to decipher, reads as follows:

Mijnheer,
Het zou mij aangenaam wezen als post-pakket van U te ontvangen 6 tubes laque de garance (rose/3 brûlée/3)	f. 1.95
En 6 tubes Outremer gewoon	-.60
8 ,, Indigo	1.80^9

As we know relatively little about Van Gogh's use of materials in his early years, it is all the more interesting that the fragment is an order for paint. The artist had left The

9 Textual adjustments: the word ‘garance’ was not only underlined but deliberately written in larger letters; there may be ditto marks (,,) after the word ‘Indigo’ under the word ‘gewoon.’ ‘Sir, I would be grateful to receive from you by post 6 tubes laque de garance (3 rose, 3 bruleé) f 1,95. And 6 tubes outremer normal f 0,60 and 8 tubes indigo f 1,80’

[p. 61]

fig. 3
Letter to Theo van Gogh, c. 22 September 1883 [391/326], Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum (Vincent van Gogh Foundation)

[p. 62]

fig. 4
Letter 391/326 (detail, upside down)

Hague for Drenthe with few materials, which he later regretted. On Saturday, 29 September he wrote to Theo: ‘Van morgen was het wederom beter weer & ben ik uitgegaan om toch te schilderen. Alleen het was niet mogelijk, 4 of 5 kleuren ontbraken me en ik ben toch zoo beroerd weer teruggekomen. - Ik heb spijt zonder voorraad mij zoo ver gewaagd te hebben’ [394/329].¹⁰ He thus needed to have paint and brushes sent by one of his former suppliers in The Hague. Whether the above list refers to watercolour or oil paint has yet to be established. Van Gogh used both in Drenthe; however, considering the number of tubes, oil paint would appear the most likely. It is interesting that the list includes an order for indigo, as this colour was previously only recognised in his palette from June 1884 onwards - about nine months later.¹¹

This list is not, of course, a letter in the strict sense; at best it is an incomplete rough draft. Nor is it certain for which of his usual suppliers the note was intended: H.J. Furnée, a pharmacist and paint dealer on the Korte Poten, whose acquaintance Van Gogh had made through his son (a surveyor to whom he gave advice on painting),¹² or Leurs in the Practizijnshoek (later in the Molenstraat), who supplied many Hague artists with their materials at the time. Van Gogh could obtain batches of old paint from either of these firms at a 33% cash discount. This discount is not mentioned in the note, possibly because he wanted the paint delivered by mail and was hence unable to pay in cash.

It is not possible to ascertain if these deleted passages later led to a letter, but it is an established fact that Van Gogh ordered paint from Furnée while he was in Drenthe: in his letter to Theo of Thursday, 4 October he wrote: ‘ik had verf laten komen v. Furnee’ [395/330].¹³ If there is any connection between this remark and the erased order, this would date the note some time before 4 October 1883. On the other hand, it is not impossible that he was still purchasing from Leurs. It is true that he had cleared a debt with him on 29 September [394/329], but as late as 5 August 1885 he wrote from Nuenen to Furnée that he still had an old debt of f 25 outstanding to Leurs [524/419a].

10 ‘This morning the weather was better again, so I went out to paint. But it was impossible; I was missing four or five colours and I came home so miserable. I am sorry to have gone so far without a sufficient supply.’

11 See letter 453/371, dated early June 1884; cf. Carlo Derkert, ‘Theory and practice in Van Gogh's Dutch painting,’ Konsthistorisk tidskrift 15 (1946), nos. 3-4, p. 99.

12 A letter from Van Gogh to Antoine Philippe Furnée has been preserved: letter 423/351a, from early January 1884. On the relationship between the two, see Martha Op de Coul and Annet Tellegen, ‘Vincent van Gogh en Antoine Furnée,’ Oud Holland 109 (1995), nos. 1-2, pp. 95-100.

13 ‘I had Furnée send colours.’

[p. 63]

An ‘enclosed’ letter

The manuscripts of letter 416/347, written to Theo in mid-December 1883, contain several points of interest, both in terms of content and material. In the 1990 version, the ‘complete’ letter consists of three parts: a sheet bearing the salutation and signature, unmistakably written during the domestic disputes of the early Nuenen period; a second sheet which begins ‘Beste broer’ (‘Dear brother’), but is unsigned; and a sheet with neither salutation nor ending, but whose first sentence begins with the words: ‘Sedert ik inliggenden brief schreef’ (‘Since I wrote the enclosed letter’). This sheet, too, was clearly written in Nuenen, as it refers to Van Gogh's having been given the laundry room in his parents' home to make into a studio.

According to the 1990 edition, the second and third parts were ‘ingesloten’ (‘enclosed’) with the first. For completeness' sake it should be noted that Jo van Gogh-Bonger did not include either of them with the first part in her 1914 edition of the letters. We decided to remove the middle part from the letter on the basis of the following findings:

-	The beginning of the third part refers to an ‘inliggenden brief’ (‘enclosed letter’), i.e. in the singular, which seems to contradict the suggestion made in the 1990 edition that there were two enclosed letters.
-	The paper used for the middle part is squared, and thus different from that used in the other two parts.
-	The content of the middle sheet shows little affinity with the Nuenen letters and all the more to the letters from Drenthe; the fragment does not contain any real indication that it was written in Nuenen.
-	In the middle part Van Gogh explains his position vis-à-vis his father and H.G. Tersteeg. But while the latter seems to have played no role in the conflict in Nuenen, he did in the Drenthe letters, e.g. letter 405/339a, in which he is mentioned in the same breath as Father van Gogh. This letter, it may be added, was written on similar squared paper.
-	The phrase ‘toen onlangs te 's Hage wij een beetje twistten’ (‘when we quarrelled a little some time ago in The Hague’) in the middle part is a reference to Theo's visit to his brother on 17 August that year. Assuming they were written in mid-December, the words ‘some time ago in The Hague’ would have been a curious way of describing a visit that had taken place in a completely different season, with the entire Drenthe period in between.
-	At the end of the middle part there is still mention of the possibility that Theo might become a painter; his decision to continue as an art dealer, made at the end of November, had evidently not been taken by the time of this fragment.
-	The same final passage includes an expression that Van Gogh frequently used while in Drenthe to encourage Theo to change careers: ‘foi de charbonnier.’
-	Van Gogh here refers to a whole series of painters whose attitudes and views he respects, and whom he contrasts with his father: Millet, Corot, Daubigny, Breton, Herkomer, Boughton, Jules Dupré and Israëls. The same opposition, including most of the same names, occurs in letter 405/339a from Drenthe (the same list except for Boughton, and with the addition of the writers Michelet, Hugo, Zola and Balzac).
-	The fragment begins with an apology for his clumsy way of expressing himself. This may also be compared with letter 405/339a, in which he describes himself as writing ‘in horten en stooten, ongeregeld en ruw slechts’ (‘stumblingly, incoherently, roughly’).
-	There was initially writing on the other side of the sheet (reversed), comparable to the paint order discussed above, with a clear salutation that was then deleted: ‘Van daag was het zooals tegenwoordig meestal, een triestigen regendag - maar heerlijk mooi was het buiten juist daarom, en ik voor mij voel mij juist door die trieste stemming getrokken om dan de dingen te gaan bekijken.’^14 Both these weather conditions and the overall mood are more in accordance with Drenthe, where Van Gogh experienced a long rainy spell in late September and early October.

The sheet therefore appears to belong to roughly the same period as letter 405/339a, which we have provisionally dated - at variance with the 1990 edition - on or around 28 November 1885.¹⁵ However, it also displays significant resemblances to letter 391/326 (c. 22 September), including:

-	A reference to Hugo's ‘le rayon noir’ and ‘le rayon blanc.’
-	A reference to a visit paid by Theo in Nuenen, and the matters discussed on that occasion.

14 ‘Today was, as it usually is these days, a sombre rainy day - but for that very reason it was beautiful outside, and I myself feel drawn precisely by that sad mood to look at things.’

15 Based on the conclusions of Wout Dijk, ‘“Dark and dreary days”: dating Van Gogh's letters from Drenthe,’ Van Gogh Museum Journal (1996), pp. 103-07.

[p. 64]

-	A reference to the lack of support and understanding he had received from his parents after losing his job at Goupil's.
-	A reference to the contrast between his father's ‘onwetenheid’ (‘ignorance’) and the ‘wijsheid’ (‘wisdom’) of a man such as Corot.

So the near-certainty that the composition of letter 416/347 has to be changed creates a fresh problem - that of determining where the middle fragment belongs. It cannot be ruled out (indeed, it is quite likely) that the similarity of subject-matter in both letters 405/339a and 391/326 will, after further research, make additional rearrangement(s) or redating(s) necessary.

Lost letters: dependence on photographs

There is a similar example of ‘detachment’ in a letter from Van Gogh to the painter Anthon van Rappard (1858-1892). The importance of being able to consult the original manuscripts is felt acutely in cases where we have only reproductions at our disposal. This, unfortunately, applies to all Van Gogh's letters to Van Rappard. Photographs were made of the manuscripts for the first edition of this correspondence (an English translation published in 1936), and for the present these are all we have. We have several prints of some of the letters, but the photographs are of poor quality. The original letters are now in the hands of one or more unknown collectors, as are the 21 letters to Emile Bernard, and more than a dozen letters to other people.

There are several curious elements in the letter to Van Rappard written in The Hague around mid-June 1883 [356/R37]: while most of the letter indisputably deals with Hague matters - such as a meeting with the painter Herman Johannes van der Weele, who lived there; a model's cloak of the type worn by women in Scheveningen; drawings of peat-diggers and a sandpit - it also discusses drawings of ‘wintertuintjes’ (‘little winter gardens’) which Van Gogh was working on - a strange subject for June. The gardens were raised again the following spring, when Van Gogh was living and working in Nuenen.¹⁶ Furthermore, two of the people he mentions, De Louw and Renesse, actually lived in Nuenen.

This is an anomalous jumble to come across within a single letter, and has been the subject of debate ever since the first publication regarding the date, which is important as it largely determines the chronology of the drawings and paintings mentioned. On the basis of its content, Roland Dorn has proposed that the letter as published be regarded as a mistaken combination of two parts: one written in Nuenen and the other in The Hague.¹⁷ The passages that seem not to belong to The Hague period are all found on a sheet that has been inserted between two others; at least this much can still be determined from the photographs. On closer inspection it also appears that the black border around the manuscript in the photograph is different from that around the other two sheets. This means that the photographs were taken in different ways, either at different times or under different conditions. Moreover, on one of the two prints of the single sheet we have, we find the word ‘translate’ (in English), obviously written when the English edition was being prepared. It is a stroke of luck that we have this note, as it falls outside the image in the other photograph and this could just as easily have been the case in both. The word ‘translate’ indicates that the sheet once had an independent status; alternatively, it could have been the first page of a letter, as such a comment would have been superfluous on subsequent sheets of the same document. In short, this sheet, which once lay in the pile of Van Rappard letters, was inserted without much thought in the middle of a letter from a different period, sparking a debate among Van Gogh scholars that would last for decades.

Once again, this raises the question of where the sheet actually belongs. There is, however, little chance of answering this question in a satisfactory way. In the forthcoming edition it will probably be classified as an incomplete letter from the Nuenen period and given an uncertain date. Only an ‘autopsy’ of the originals could shed more light on the matter.

Equally significant is the fact that a great many of the above-mentioned letters to Emile Bernard are known only from the 1893 Mercure de France series of articles and the 1911 Vollard edition of the Lettres de Vincent van Gogh à Emile Bernard; we do have a few photographs of some of these letters, but they are complete only in three cases. It would be invaluable for us to be able to consult the originals.

16 E.g. in the Van Rappard letters 438/R44 and 439/R42.

17 Roland Dorn, et al., exhib. cat. Van Gogh und die Haager Schule, Vienna (Kunstforum) 1996, p. 162, note 3.

Two previously unknown letters to Vincent Van Gogh

In the period preceding the opening of the Van Gogh Museum in 1973, the collection was in the care of Theo's

[p. 65]

son, the engineer V.W. van Gogh. He was sometimes alerted of the existence of letters in private collections and occasionally, although certainly not always, he was asked if he wanted to acquire them. In the archives of the Vincent van Gogh Foundation, two copies of letters to Vincent made by V.W van Gogh have been found.¹⁸ In the absence of the originals, these copies must serve as source material for our edition. We have no idea when or where they were made, nor who the owner was or is. Furthermore, we are dependent on the accuracy of the copyist. An example of a letter passed down in this indirect fashion is letter 331/-, which was first published in 1990. Since then it has become clear that the letter was first copied by hand and then typed out, causing it to be dated completely inaccurately and giving rise to the suggestion that another letter by Van Gogh must have been lost.¹⁹

The first new note we now know thanks to V.W. van Gogh was from Joseph Ginoux, the proprietor of the Café de la Gare in Arles and a friend of Van Gogh's. It reached the painter at the psychiatric institution St Paul-de-Mausole in Saint-Rémy, where he had committed himself on 8 May 1889 following another breakdown:

‘Café de la gare
Joseph Ginoux
Arles s/Rhone.
Arles, le 31 Mai 1889.
Cher Monsieur Vincent,
Nous avons été très heureux d'apprendre que vous vous portiez bien et que l'air de St. Rémy vous était favorable. Nous comprenons que vous vous trouviez bien et que les environs de votre nouvelle résidence qui n'ait que provisoire, vous trouveriez des distrac tions et des sujets pour votre art. J'ai fait faire un joli cadre comme nous en étions convenu, en noyer et irréprochable. Je l'ai remis à M. L'économe.
J'ai donné de vos nouvelles à tous ceux qui vous connaissent et tout le monde a été enchanté, d'ap prendre que votre santé était bonne et nous es pérons que sous peu nous aurons le plaisir de nous voir et en attendant je vous prie d'agréer bien, cher Monsieur, de moi et de Madame Ginoux, l'assur ance de nos meilleurs sentiments.
Jh. Ginoux.’²⁰

This kind-hearted letter is not only characteristic of Ginoux's willingness to help, but also reveals that Van Gogh had instructed him to frame a certain painting in walnut. This was probably the piece about which he wrote to Theo in letter 770/589 (2 May 1889): ‘j'ai en train une allée de maronniers à fleurs roses avec un petit cérisier en fleur et une plante de glycine et le sentier du parc, tâcheté de soleil et d'ombre. Cela fera pendant au jardin qui est dans le cadre en noyer.’²¹ Van Gogh scholars are still divided about the identity of the ‘garden which is in the walnut frame,’²² but the new question raised by Ginoux's note (which painting did he have framed for Van Gogh?) appears to be answered by the above description, although Ginoux says nothing about the scene depicted. It is Red chestnuts in the public garden at Arles (fig. 5).²³

18 I am indebted to Han Veenenbos of the Vincent van Gogh Foundation for her discovery of these copies.

19 See Luijten, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 88-101; the subject is discussed on p. 96.

20 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh Foundation. Textual adjustments: ‘convenu’ was ‘couvenu’ in the copy; ‘remis’ was ‘renvis’; ‘sous peu’ was ‘vous peu.’ ‘Arles, 31 May 1889. Dear M. Vincent, We were extremely pleased to learn that you are doing well and that the air of Saint-Rémy has done you good. We understand that you are making good progress and that the surroundings of your new residence, which is only temporary, will distract you and provide subjects for your work. I have had a fine frame made as we had agreed, in walnut and quite impeccable. I delivered it to your landlord. I have told your news to everyone who knows you, and everyone was glad to hear that you are in good health, and we hope soon to have the pleasure of seeing you, and in anticipation thereof I would ask you, dear Monsieur, to accept the assurances of our warmest feelings from Madame Ginoux and myself.’

21 ‘I am doing an avenue of pink flowering chestnuts and a little cherry tree in flower and a wisteria plant and a path in the park splashed with light and shade. This will make a pendant to the garden which is in the walnut frame.’

22 According to Louis van Tilborgh (exhib. cat. In perfect harmony: picture and frame 1850-1920, Amsterdam [Van Gogh Museum] & Vienna [Kunstforum] 1995, p. 261, note 30), Van Gogh is referring here to The entrance of the public garden (F 566 JH 1585); a contrasting view is given by Jan Hulsker in Van Gogh en zijn weg: De brieven als commentaar op zijn werk, Amsterdam 1973, p. 178, who believes that the reference is to The public park (F 472 JH 1598). In Vincent van Gogh: a guide to his work and letters (Amsterdam 1993) he changed it to F465/JH 1578.

23 There is general agreement on this: see Roland Dorn, Décoration: Vincent van Goghs Werkreihe für das Gelbe Haus in Arles (diss.), Hildesheim 1990, p. 438; Van Tilborgh, op. cit. (note 22), p. 261, note 30; and Hulsker, op. cit. (note 5), p. 388.

[p. 66]

fig. 5
Vincent van Gogh, Red chestnuts in the public garden at Arles (F 517 JH 1689), private collection

[p. 67]

Yet another note to Van Gogh reached us initially only through a transcription made by V.W. van Gogh, although now the original has also been found: a postcard from the book dealer Lamblot in Arles, addressed to ‘M. Vincent, chez Mr. le Docteur Peyron, St. Rémy, B[ouche] d[u] R[hône].’

‘Arles, le 16 juillet 1889
Monsieur,
J'ai demandé à Paris le livre que vous m'avez com mandé et on m'a répondu qu'ils étaient épuisés. Si vous voulez un autre valance, veuillez m'en donner le titre; et je vous l'expédierai aussitôt; si non je vous rembourserai votre argent à votre prochaine visite chez moi.
Recevez, Monsieur, nos salutations,
H. Lamblot
successeur A. Jauffret’²⁴

This text is that of the original; that of the typed copy by V.W. van Gogh, however, was rather different. It was signed ‘H. Gemtlat successeur A. Jauffré.’ There was no record in the Arles municipal archives of anyone by these names. It appears, though, that there was a bookshop called ‘Lamblot, Jauffret,’ located at 12, Rue de la Poissonnerie, Arles, in the period concerned.²⁵ The surname Jauffret belonged to a ‘demoiselle,’ and a M. Lamblot was registered at the same address. One year later, the lady's name was also Lamblot, so that it seems that she married the man who took over the shop (or perhaps it would be more correct, historically speaking, to say that Lamblot took over the shop by marrying the owner). On the basis of this information, we concluded that the readings ‘Gemtlat’ and ‘Jauffré’ must have been mistaken, and the extremely recent, accidental discovery of the original (during the writing of this article!) confirmed our hypothesis. This is a fresh reminder of the necessity to proceed with caution whenever originals are not available.

V.W. van Gogh's copy of the short text printed above contained yet another mistake: it includes the words ‘les livres que vous m'avez commandé,’ but in fact Van Gogh had only ordered one book. The order referred to must have been made on Sunday, 7 July 1889, when Van Gogh visited Arles under the supervision of a staff member from the clinic in Saint-Rémy.²⁶ We are unlikely ever to discover what book it was that he ordered.

The purpose of the new edition is to enable Van Gogh scholars to make the best possible use of the letters. With a view to this primary objective, we will aim to answer the countless questions raised by the letters as adequately as possible, without glossing over any areas of uncertainty. The above account demonstrates that this is not always satisfactory. Solutions cause problems: ‘He that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.’ But that is nothing new.

24 Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum, Vincent van Gogh Foundation, b 3154 V/1966: ‘Arles, 16 July 1889. Sir, I made enquiries in Paris after the book you ordered from me and was informed that it was out of print. Should you have an alternative wish, be so good as to give me the title, and I shall send it to you forthwith. If not, I shall return your money when next you visit me. Please accept, Sir, our cordial greetings, H. Lamblot successor to A. Jauffret.’

25 I would like to thank Arlette Playoust, Directeur des Archives départementales des Bouches-du-Rhône, for supplying me with this information.

26 See letters 790/599 and 792/600; see also Ronald Pickvance, Van Gogh in Saint-Rémy and Auvers, New York 1986, p. 37.