VAN GOGH
 
MUSEUM
 
20
Journal 
ol 



VAN GOGH MUSEUM 
JOURNAL 2001 


Van Gogh Museum Journal 
01 
Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 
The Van Gogh Museum Journal 2001 

The Van Gogh Museum Journal is published annually in December. Manuscripts should be submitted no later than l April of the previous year for consideration for the following issue. 
For more information about the Journal, please contact the editors, Van Gogh Museum Journal, P.O. Box 75366, 1070 AJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Subscription and back-issue requests should be addressed to Esther Hoofwijk at the same address. 
The paper and binding of this book meet all guidelines for permanence and durability. 
Abbreviation: VGMJ 
Unless otherwise indicated, all photographs are courtesy of the institution or person owning the work illustrated. 
Nota bene: References to Van Gogh's letters are given in the form of two numbers. The first refers to De brieven van Vincent van Gogh, ed. Han van Crimpen and Monique Berends, 4 vols., The Hague 1990, and the second to Verzamelde brieven van Vincent van Gogh, 4 vols., Amsterdam & Antwerp 1952-54. All quotations have been checked against the original letters by the translators. 
Editors Rachel Esner, Sjraar van Heugten, John Leighton, Chris Stolwijk 
Editor-in-chief Chris Stolwijk 
Managing editor Rachel Esner 
Guest editor (2001) Leo Jansen 
Catalogue authors Nienke Bakker, John Leighton, Marije Vellekoop, Roelie Zwikker 
Translators James Brogden, Mary Charles, Michelle Hendriks 
Research assistance Esther Hoofwijk, Monique Hageman, Fieke Pabst, Patricia Schuil 
Design Studio Roozen, Amsterdam 
Printing Waanders Printers, Zwolle 
Distribution Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam 

Table of contents 

Director's foreword  
9  Review, August 2000 - July 2001  
VAN  GOGH AND GAUGUIN  
17 Louis van Tilborgh and Ella Hendriks  The Tokyo Sunflowers: a genuine repetition by Van Gogh or a Schuffenecker forgery?  
45 Debora Silverman  Framing art and sacred realism: Van Gogh's ways of seeing Aries  
63 Kristin Hoermann Lister  Tracing a transformation: Madame Roulin into La berceuse  
85 Beatrice von Bismarck  'Avant et apr¨¨s' - Paul Gauguin and Vincent van Gogh in Aries: projections of a friendship  
97 Martin Bailey  Memories of Van Gogh and Gauguin: Hartrick's reminiscences  

VAN GOGH STUDIES 
JoanE. Greer 107 A modern Gethsemane: Vincent van Gogh's Olive 
grove 
A.M. Hammacher 
119 Van Gogh and Italy 
THE COLLECTION IN CONTEXT 
Joyce Polistena 125 The agony in the garden by Eugene Delacroix 
DOCUMENTATION 
139 Catalogue of acquisitions: paintings and drawings August 2000 - July 2001 151 The new collection of French graphic works 183 Works on loan to the Van Gogh Museum 2000-2001 185 Exhibitions 2001 187 The Van Gogh Museum staff 


Director's foreword 

The contents of this year's Van Gogh Museum Journal are in large measure related to the exhibition Van Gogh and Gauguin. At the time of writing, this spectacular exhibition had just opened at the Art Institute of Chicago and it moves to our museum in February 2002. The show consists of some 120 works by Van Gogh and Gauguin, all of which have been selected to recreate their complex artistic relationship. It begins with their initial awareness of each other's art in the mid-1880s before moving on to their brief period of frenetic collaboration in Aries, following their in-teraction in sequences of works, some familiar some not. An extended postscript to the show takes the story through to the end of their respective careers. 
One might think that there is little left to tell about the relationship between Van Gogh and Gauguin, a theme which has attracted generations of historians, writers and filmmakers. Surprisingly, the exhibition in Chicago and Amsterdam is the first time this story has been told using the pictures themselves. The result is in no way a dry art-historical exercise but retains a sense of excitement in its unfolding narrative. The accompanying exhibition cata-logue draws a substantial body of information together and provides a platform for further research on both artists. 
Several of the articles in this Journal either develop aspects of the catalogue research or approach similar is-sues from different perspectives. Alongside material on Van Gogh and Gauguin, however, there are also articles on other aspects of the permanent collection and on our re-cent acquisitions. Of particular note this year is the pur-chase of two works by Monet, both of Dutch subjects. There is also a complete list of the recently acquired Nabis print collection, announced in the Journal of 2000.1 am grateful to all the authors both from within and from outside our museum for their contributions. Particular thanks are also due to our managing editor, Rachel Esner, who has guided this volume to completion with her customary skill and pa-tience. I should also like to thank Head of Research Chris Stolwijk, Leo Jansen of the Van Gogh Letters Project and Head of Collections Sjraar van Heugten for their work on the editorial board. 
In an article published in Le Monde on 18 August 2001 the writer John Berger asked whether it was still pos-sible to add anything to all the words that have already been written on Van Gogh. His answer was a resounding 'no.' We beg to differ. The exhibition Van Gogh and Gauguin and the related publications - including this issue of the Van Gogh Museum Journal - demonstrate that Van Gogh's art can indeed stimulate new and worthwhile re-search. And, while the body of literature continues to grow, there are enough reminders that we still have much to learn about the painter and his art. 
John Leighton 
Director 



Review 
August 2000-July 2001 

Introduction 
The year 2000 brought a new record in the num-ber of visits to the Van Gogh Museum. A total of 1,512.204 visitors made their way through our doors last year, an in-crease of almost 50 percent from the previous record year in 1997 (the Museum was closed for renovation during part of 1998 and 1999). While elsewhere in the Netherlands visi-tor numbers to museums have either remained stable or in some cases even decreased, the Van Gogh Museum has witnessed a pattern of steady growth. 
The museum has of course benefited from the gen-eral trends in tourism, and Amsterdam has maintained its popularity with overseas visitors. The seemingly unremit-ting publicity surrounding various aspects of Van Gogh's life and art has also helped attract attention to our activi-ties. But, setting the cloak of modesty to one side for a mo-ment, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the in-creasing popularity of the museum results in large mea-sure from the appeal of our programmes and our success in bringing them to a wider audience. With the new wing, opened in 1999, we have been able to further develop our exhibition programme. Our surveys show that an increas-ing number of visitors are not restricting their visits to the permanent collection but are also coming for the tempo-rary shows. Our educational service has also expanded, with a resulting increase in schools visits, while new acqui-sitions have also helped to generate interest, especially among the local public. 
Needless to say, the increasing number of visitors has brought with it challenging logistical problems and added to the pressure of work for our staff. In recent years our organisation has become steadily more professional in its approach to running a modern, public-friendly facility. In February 2001 the management team was further strengthened with the appointment of Ruth Rervezee as Director of Internal Affairs. Previously one of the directors of the Dutch section of M¨¦decins sans Fronti¨¨res, Ms Rervezee brings her considerable administrative experi-ence in the not-for-profit sector to the Van Gogh Museum. 
Our former Deputy Director, Ton Boxma, has been ap-pointed Director of Van Gogh Museum Enterprises Ltd., a new company established in 2000 to develop the museum's commercial activities. 
The Van Gogh Museum, like so many other muse-ums across the world, has had to respond to the shifting economic, social and political environment. However, as the contents of this issue of the Van Gogh Museum Journal demonstrate, our focus remains firmly on the time-hon-oured activities of a museum: caring for and developing the collection; pursuing scholarship of the highest standards; and using the collection to inform and inspire a broad pub-lic both here in the Netherlands and abroad. The continu-ing popularity of the museum suggests that our public is happy to endorse this approach. 

The collection 
In recent years our acquisitions policy has become more focused on filling specific gaps in the museum's pre-sentation of 19th- and early 20th-century art. Whereas for many years the emphasis was on marking out new areas of collecting - such as symbolism or academic art - our aim now is to build upon what has already been achieved and, wherever possible, to marshal our resources towards ac-quiring major works. In contrast to the high quality of the Van Gogh collection, our representation of 19th-century art remains uneven. Our biggest challenge is now to redress this balance. 
One of the major failings of our displays has always been its lack of a satisfactory overview of impressionism. This year, however, we were fortunate to be able to acquire our first significant impressionist paintings. For some time we had been looking for a good example of Monet's work from the 1870s, preferably depicting a Dutch subject. When by coincidence two such pictures became available we de-cided to make an effort to acquire both. One is an impor-tant canvas from the artist's first trip to Holland in 1871, when he stayed at Zaandam; the other is a view of Amsterdam painted a few years later. Both reproduce sub-


Museum, and Louise Lippincott, Curator of Fine Art at the Carnegie Museum of Art, and published by Thames and Hudson, accompanied the show. A CD-Rom with four inter-active light experiments, produced by VLM Computer Graphics was also available. 
It was only appropriate that Light! should have been followed by Impression: painting quickly in France, i860 -18go. This exhibition aimed to restore something of its original visual shock and excitement to impressionist art. It focused on a type of painting which, curiously enough, has often been overlooked in recent surveys of the movement, but which was at the heart of the impressionist venture: those rapidly painted works, arrogant in their casualness and directness, which Monet, Renoir and others nonethe-less considered worthy of exhibition and sale. 
The main protagonists of the show were Manet, Monet, Morisot, Sisley and Renoir. A few experiments in 'painting quickly' by Degas and Pissarro were also includ-ed. The exhibition highlighted the deliberate rawness, speed and dramatic gestures of these artists' works as they strove to capture a world in a state of flux. There were paintings of sunsets, of trains, of gusts of wind, of freshly cut flowers - all subjects that were short-lived and demanded the artist work in a form of pictorial short-hand, evolving a new painterly language of slashing, smearing and dotting with paint. The exhibition was or-ganised by the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute in collaboration with the Van Gogh Museum and the National Gallery in London. The catalogue was written by guest curator Richard R. Brettell and published by Yale University Press. 
The Van Gogh Museum continued its series of exhi-bitions exploring aspects of 19th-century photography with a show devoted to the American Fred Holland Day (1864-1935). Although hailed as a leading talent during his own lifetime, Day's work has only rarely appeared in exhibi-tions or been featured in publications. The photographs are remarkable enough in terms of technique, with their strik-ing manipulations of light, tone and texture. But it is the subject matter that singles Day out as an extraordinary fig-ure of the fin de si¨¨cle. His pictures include naked youths in an array of introverted, dream-like poses, and a series in which he depicts himself as Jesus Christ. The exhibition was organised with the Royal Photographic Society in Bath and was also shown at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and the Museum Villa Stuck in Munich. The show was accom-panied by a handsomely designed and produced book enti-tled F. Holland Day, compiled by the exhibition's curator at the Van Gogh Museum, Edwin Becker, in collaboration with Pam Roberts, Verna Posever Curtis and Anne E. Havinga. 
The summer exhibition at the Van Gogh Museum was a major retrospective of the work of Paul Signac. Along with Georges Seurat, Signac was a leading figure in the de-velopment of neo-impressionism, one of the most influen-tial movements in avant-garde art in the last decades of the 19th century. Signac played a central role in ensuring that the style took hold not just in France but also in several European countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. 
The exhibition was the first major retrospective of the artist's work in almost 40 years and was organised in collaboration with the Mus¨¦e d'Orsay in Paris and The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The show fol-lowed Signac's development from his first tentative exer-cises in outdoor painting, closely modelled on the impres-sionists, to the amazing colouristic fireworks of his last paintings, which verge on abstraction. An impressive array of neo-impressionist landscapes formed a centrepiece of the show. The artist's later oeuvre was also well represent-ed. A group of works on paper from the impressive collec-tion donated by to the Arkansas Arts Center in Littlerock by James Dyke helped create a superb display of Signac's achievements as a watercolorist. The catalogue is available in two versions, in French published by the Reunion des Mus¨¦es de France, and in English by The Metropolitan Museum of Art; it includes contributions by myself, Anne Distel, Sjraar van Heugten, Susan Stein and Marina Ferretti. 
Future project: Van Gogh 150 
The year 2003 will mark the 150th anniversary of the birth of Vincent van Gogh. Among the activities planned to celebrate this occasion is a special exhibition entitled Vincent's taste. It will explore Van Gogh's preferences in art and literature, using a thematic approach to reveal the de-velopment of his highly individual likes and dislikes. Works that were of special significance for the painter will be shown alongside major pieces by Van Gogh himself, illus-trating how his taste for the art of others came to be reflect-ed in his own oeuvre. An extensive catalogue written by ex-perts at the Van Gogh Museum will accompany the show. 

Research 
Since 1 April 2001 Chris Stolwijk has been Head of Research at the Van Gogh Museum. All scholarly research within the collections department is now carried out under his supervision, with the aim of increasing collaboration and contact between the various research projects now un-derway. One of the major tasks of the Head of Research to foster links with museums, universities and other outside institutions active in our subject area. 
There are two long-term projects that are central to the museum's research programme: the production of a se-ries of catalogues of our Van Gogh collection, and a new edition of the artist's letters. Work began on the eight col-lection catalogues in 1995 and three have since been pub-lished: two volumes on the drawings (until 1885) and one on the early paintings. The second volume of paintings, from Antwerp and Paris periods, will be published in 2003. The third volume of drawings, covering the same time-frame, was published in September of this year, coinciding with an exhibition of the museum's entire holdings in this area. The authors, Marije Vellekoop and Sjraar van Heugten, have produced extensive entries for 120 draw-ings. While there is detailed information on each individ-ual sheet, the authors have also paid special attention to the evolving style and thematic developments in Van Gogh's drawings during his sojourn at the Antwerp acade-my and at the studio of Fernand Cormon in Paris. They have also addressed the problems of dating and attribution 
- a number of works in the collection have now been re-at-tributed to other artists. 
This cataloguing project is supported by Shell Netherlands. Shell has provided invaluable assistance with the technical analysis of paintings and the project has ben-efited enormously from the time and expertise of specialist staff at this company. 
Our second major undertaking is the creation of a new scholarly edition of Van Gogh's complete correspon-dence, with revised texts, new English translations and comprehensive annotations. This project began in 1994 in cooperation with the Constantijn Huygens Institute in The Hague. Originally, it was hoped the venture would be com-pleted within five years, but the work involved has been much more time-consuming than anticipated and the pub-lication date has now been pushed back to 2008. New and fully accurate transcriptions of all the Van Gogh correspon-dence housed at the museum have now been completed and annotations have been prepared for over 300 letters. Over the following years work will continue on the annota-tions and the English translation. The research carried out by the 'letters team' continues to provide a steady stream of new insights into the work of Van Gogh. The deciphered fragment of a letter published in last year's Van Gogh Museum Journal was one of the centrepieces in a small dis-play in the Rietveld building in the summer of 2001. 
Over the years the museum has produced a series of publications entitled Cahier Vincent, devoted to various as-pects of the research into Van Gogh's life and oeuvre. Work has now been completed on the eighth volume in the se-ries, on the so-called 'account book' kept by Theo van Gogh and his wife Johanna van Gogh-Bonger. This ledger offers valuable glimpses into their dealings and includes informa-tion about the sales of certain works. The volume will be published in 2002. 

Education 
Education remains a high priority at the Van Gogh Museum and we now offer a wide range of information and explanatory material to meet the varying demands of our public. In recent years particular emphasis has been placed on developing an imaginative and stimulating programme for schools. The education department has made great progress in evolving material and activities that match the needs of particular levels in the primary and secondary school curricula, working in close consultation with teach-ers and experts in the field. Demand has risen as the word spread about the museum's new services and visits from schools have almost doubled in over the last year. For the first time, the Van Gogh Museum participated in the bien-nial Educational Fair in Utrecht, a national event that helped raise the profile of the education department and to draw attention to its activities. 
The exhibition Light! provided the stimulus for one 
of the museum's most extensive educational projects to 
date. Teacher's packs, a special newspaper and a diversity 
of course material was developed in cooperation with the 
local educational foundation, Runstweb. The interdiscipli-
nary nature of the show - with its emphasis on the links be-
tween art, science and technology - made a superb starting 
point for tours and workshops. The demonstrations of 19th-
century lamps and lights provided by Stichting EnergeticA 
(a museum of energy technology in Amsterdam) proved 
particularly popular. 


VAN GOGH AND GAUGUIN 


The Tokyo Sunflowers: a genuine repetition by Van Gogh or a Schuffenecker forgery? 
Louis van Tilborgh and Ella Hendriks 
In recent years considerable publicity has been given to the idea that Van Gogh's officially accepted oeuvre might in-clude more forgeries or erroneous attributions than had previously been suspected. Doubts were cast on the au-thenticity of several paintings. Among them is the work ac-quired in 1987 at Christie's of London by the Yasuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company of Tokyo for a then record-breaking sum, a still life with sunflowers (colour ill. at left and fig. 5), which traditionally had been dated to the begin-ning of 1889. 
The debate surrounding this work was initiated in 1997 by Benoit Landais, who declared in Le Journal des Arts that he regarded the authorship to be highly dubious. He contended that the work was a later copy, based on one of two other, authentic versions. 'Des incomprehensions manifestes, pr¨¦sentes dans cette toile tr¨¦s faible, t¨¦-moignent d'un travail de copyiste.'1 Landais further sup-ported his contention by noting that the work was not men-tioned in Vincent's correspondence, nor had it come from the Van Gogh family collection. This was a daring stand-point, which provoked an immediate response from experts and journalists alike.2 
It was not, however, without precedent. The Paris art dealer Alain Tarica claimed to have doubted the paint-ing's authenticity immediately after seeing the auction catalogue in 1987, but his view was not published at the time.3 He believed the still life was 'not Van Gogh at all but a fine example of the work of [Emile] Schouffenecker [sic].'4 In 1994 Antonio De Robertis took a similar stance. Although unlike Tarica he did seek publicity, his suspi-cions, which were published in the Corriere delta Sera, provoked less of an immediate response than Landais's article three years later - probably because they involved such a sensationalist scenario (according to him, fakes 
Many people kindly helped us with our research. In partic-ular we would like to thank our colleagues at The Art Institute of Chicago ¡ª Douglas W. Druick, Inge Fielder, Kristin Hoermann Lister, Mary Weaver and Peter Kort Zegers ¡ª as well as Cornelia Peres in Rome, for all their advice, valuable discussions and assistance. Similarly we are grateful to our colleagues in Amsterdam, and especial-ly to Sjraar van Heugten and Chris Stolwijk. For assistance in the examinations of the paintings in situ we extend our warm thanks to Toshi Ishii and Masa Igarashi (Tokyo, Seiji Togo Memorial Yasuda Kasai Museum of Art), Joseph J. Rishel and Mark Tucker (Philadelphia Museum of Art), Christian Lenz and Konrad Laudenbacher (Munich, Neue Pinakothek) and Christopher Riopelle (London, National Gallery). Concerning the botany of the sunflowers we were very grateful to draw upon the generous knowledge and time of Hans CM . de Nijs (Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam, Institute for Biodiversity & Ecosystem 
17 Dynamics IBED, Experimental Plant Systematics). Our col-league Nienke Bakker carried out valuable research for us at the Vollard Archives in Paris (Mus¨¦e d'Orsay). In inves-tigating the jute fabric we consulted Jennifer Barnett (Amsterdam), D.M. Catling (University of Durham, U.K., Department of Biological Sciences), Janneke Escher (Amsterdam), Rob Korving and Erwin van Asbeck (Delft, Technical University Museum), Margriet Winkelmolen (Tilburg, Dutch Textile Museum) and H.F. Zwartz (Oldenzaal). Further we would like to thank Henrik Bjerre Hans Buijs, Anne Distel, Roland Dorn, Walter Feilchenfeldt, Ren¨¦ Gerritsen, Charlotte Hale, IJsbrand Hummelen, Peter Kropmanns, Monique Nonne, Susan Stein, Marja Supinen, Han Veenenbos, Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov and Renate Woudhuysen-Keller for their help and advice. 
In addition to the standard abbreviations for Van Gogh's letters, we also use b and GAC-numbers in the text. The former refers to archive material belonging to the Vincent van Gogh Foundation and kept at the Van Gogh Museum; the latter to the letters of Paul Gauguin, published in Paul Gauguin: 45 Lettres a Vincent, Theo et Jo van Gogh, ed. Douglas Cooper, The Hague & Lausanne 1983. 
1 Benoit Landais, 'Les "Tournesols": un "Chef-d'oeuvre" en peril,' Le Journal des Arts 4 (4 July 1997), p. 8; prior to the article his standpoint was heralded by Jean-Marie Tasset, 'Les "Tournesols," fleurs du mal?,' Le Figaro (1 July 1997) and Martin Bailey, 'Cent Van Gogh remis en question,' Le Journal des Arts (30 May 1997), p. 14. 
2 See for example Matthias Arnold, 'Die Leinwand ist der Schl¨¹ssel zur Falschung,' Frankfurter Ailgemeine Zeitung (17 November 1997) and Hanspeter Born, 'Van Gogh oder Schuffenecker? Die "gr.sste Expertenschlacht des Jahrhunderts,'" Weltkunst 68 (September 1998), pp. 1732-35. 
3 Interview for the Geraldine Norman documentary The fake Van Goghs, broadcast on Channel 4 on 26 October 1997. See also for her viewpoint, Geraldine Norman, 'A 
blooming fake,' The Sunday Times (26 October 1997) and idem, 'Fakes?,' The New York Review of Books (5 
February 1998), pp. 4-7, esp. pp. 5-6. 
4 Thomas Hoving, False impressions: the hunt for big time art fakes, London 1996, p. 249. 


were produced in order to take the place of authentic talked at cross-purposes, and outsiders came to have the works).5 impression that the question of the Tokyo still life's authen-
On 26 October 1997 the parties challenging the au-ticity was a matter of faith rather than of evidence. thenticity of the Tokyo Still life with sunflowers received a This article presents the authors' own research into boost from Thefake Van Goghs, a documentary by the the Tokyo painting's provenance, style and technique, at British journalist Geraldine Norman for Channel 4 in the same time considering the arguments of opponents and England. In the programme the work was described as 'in-supporters alike. To date, the owner has been unwilling to ferior' and its provenance as 'unclear.' Tarica, like Landais, subject the picture to a full physical and scientific test. now pointed to errors of interpretation that he claimed However, permission was granted for an extensive visual were evident when the work was compared with its origi-examination in situ, while an x-ray of the work was also nal, and to what he regarded as the clumsy brushwork that made available for study. Moreover, direct comparison he alleged was inconsistent with Van Gogh's masterly with other versions of the Sunflowers was made possible hand. This view was also supported by Thomas Hoving, for-when the painting was lent to the exhibition Van Gogh and mer director of The Metropolitan Museum and author of Gauguin: the studio of the south in Chicago, where we were False impressions: the hunt for big time artfakes (1996), able to examine the Amsterdam and Tokyo works side by who at the end of the programme laconically summed up side.8 the objections to the work: 'It is a very funny, muddy pic-Prior to this exhibition Van Gogh's Aries 'Sunflower' ture, and Van Gogh was not muddy. [...] It does not have paintings were subjected to individual technical examina-that snap.' tion in a joint campaign of undertaken by The Art Institute 
Although Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov and Roland of Chicago and the Van Gogh Museum, carried out by Dorn both came to the defence of the traditional attribution Kristin Hoermann Lister, Inge Fiedler and Cornelia Peres. 
- in 1998 and 2000 respectively - their contributions failed Some of their findings concerning the Tokyo version were to put an end to the debate.6 Welsh-Ovcharov's arguments, published in the catalogue accompanying the exhibition, which mainly concerned the work's provenance, were im-and our own research builds upon their pioneering work. mediately contested by Landais.7 Dorn produced a more We also drew great profit from our consultation of their ex-comprehensive rejoinder, which considered all the ver-amination reports of the different versions.9 sions of the sunflowers, but like Welsh-Ovcharov he did not deal with the opposition's main arguments concerning per-Correspondence and identification ceived errors of interpretation and the anomalous brush-Scepticism about the authenticity of the Yasuda work. Thus opponents and supporters of the work partly painting was fed, if not created, by the fact that although a 
5 Carlo Bertelli and Flavia Fiorentino, '"Ma questi Japon, de la toile de 14 Tournesols de la National Gallery' Girasoli non sono di Van Gogh/" Corriere della Sera (27 (1998), now in the archives of the Van Gogh Museum. An January 1994). De Robertis later expounded his views on abbreviated version appeared as 'Van Gogh. Mais qui r¨¦-his website; see also idem, 'II falso Van Gogh,' Quadri & soudra Ie probl¨¨me des "Tournesols,"' Connaissance des Sculture 5 (September 1997), no. 27, pp. 52-54 and Arts 1980 (May 1998), no. 550, pp. 44-47. See also De idem, 'I Van Gogh dispersi,' Quadri & Sculture, 6 (May Robertis, 'I Van Gogh dispersi,' cit. (note 5), pp. 56-57. 1998), no. 30, pp. 54-57, esp. 56-57. For a brief summa-ry of his viewpoint, see note 72. 8 All five paintings were also studied by the authors in 
situ, i.e. separately. Although three versions will be dis-
6 Roland Dorn, 'Van Gogh's Sunflowers series: the fifth played together at the Amsterdam exhibition venue in toile de 30,' Van Gogh Museum Journal (1999), pp. 42-2002, this opportunity will come too late for this publica-61 and Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov, 'The ownership of tion. For the exhibition see Douglas W. Druick and Peter Vincent van Gogh's "Sunflowers,"' The Burlington Kort Zegers, exhib. cat. Van Gogh and Gauguin: the stu-Magazine 140 (March 1998), pp. 184-92. dio of the south, Chicago (The Art Institute) & 
Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) 2001-02. 7 Landais responded to this article in an unpublished pam-phlet entitled 'Pour le rejet de la these avec Gauguin d'une 9 Ibid., pp. 240-42, 390 (note 237), and Kristin toile de Tournesols arl¨¦siens de Vincent et pour I'attribution Hoermann Lister, Cornelia Peres and Inge Fiedler, a Claude-Emile Schuffenecker de la copie, aujourd'hui au 'Appendix. Tracing an interaction: supporting 
total of five 'Sunflower' paintings on size 30 (92 x 73 cm) 
canvas are known (figs. 3-7), the artist only mentions four 
in his correspondence. The first size 30 version of this sub-
ject is reported in a letter from the final week of August 1888, when Van Gogh conceived the plan for decorating his 
studio with still lifes of sunflowers.10 Alongside two smaller 
still lifes with a small bouquet of flowers, he had com-
menced work on a painting with 'douze fleurs & boutons 
dans un vase jaune (toile 30)' [670/526]. This painting was 
'clair sur clair' [670/526] and 'sur fond bleu vert' 
[674/W18]. Shortly afterwards he produced 'un nouveau 
bouquet de 14 fleurs,' as well as a 'toile de 30' [673/528]. 
According to Van Gogh's description, this still life also in-
cluded a yellow vase, although the background was not 
blue-green but yellow, a colour he elsewhere described 
(just once) as 'jaune vert' [673/528].1 1 Some three weeks 
later the artist indirectly indicated that these two larger 
works had been completed [680/534].1 2 He had hung them 
in the spare bedroom - not in the studio - where Gauguin 
would have seen them in late October.13 
After Gauguin had broken off his collaboration with Van Gogh, he informed his former companion in a letter sent from Paris in mid January that he would like to receive 'un tableau de tournesols' [740/571], apparently 'les tour-nesols a fond jaune' [743/-].14 Vincent seems to have been unsure whether Gauguin was proposing an exchange or a gift, and he did not really want to part with his paintings of this subject, as he told Theo.15 However, he did feel hon-oured by Gauguin's request. The latter had recognised the significance of the sunflower paintings for his oeuvre, he 
evidence, experimental grounds,' in ibid., pp. 354-63. 15 See letter 740/571. 
wrote in his reply, and he was thus willing to accede to his friend's wish, even to reward him: 'comme j'approuve votre intelligence dans le choix de cette toile je ferai un effort pour en peindre deux exactement pareils' [743/-].16 By this he meant not two new versions of the coveted still life with a yellow background, but rather repetitions of both that work and the still life with a blue background. In late January he informed Theo that he was in the process 'de mettre les derni¨¨res touches aux repetitions absolument ¨¦quivalentes & pareilles' [747/574]. These repetitions ap-pear to have been just completed when Joseph Roulin visit-ed him at the end of January [748/575].1 7 As Van Gogh had now conceived the idea of displaying his still lifes of sun-flowers in a triptych together with La berceuse (see p. 74) his friend saw 'deux exemplaires de la Berceuse entre ces quatre bouquets-la' [748/575]. A later sketch in a letter shows that the triptych comprised a portrait of Madame Roulin flanked by a still life with yellow background to her right and its blue pendant to her left (see p. 59).1 8 
It has traditionally been thought that the still lifes painted in late August 1888 are the works now in London and Munich, a hypothesis supported by a comparative study of style and technique in the five works.19 Compared with the other three paintings, these two display looser, de-scriptive brushwork, a more elaborate modelling of form, and a more specific rendering of detail. The repetitions now in Tokyo, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, however, ex-hibit a logical trend towards increasing schematisation of 
the motif.2 0 
10 For this plan see letter 669/B15; the first works are 16 In a letter to Theo that followed shortly afterwards, mentioned in letter 670/526. however, he talked of a one-off repetition of Gauguin's 
choice, 'celle qu'il d¨¦sire'; 744/573. 11 See further letters 671 /W6, 672/527 and 674/W18. The letters 672/527 and 673/528 greatly resemble each 17 See letter 748/575. other. For this reason Jan Hulsker ('De nooit verzonden brieven van Vincent van Gogh: de paradox van de publi-18 The still life to the left can be identified by the droop-catie,' Jong Holland 14 [1998], no. 4, pp. 49-50) has ing flower (left), flower 14 in the London or Amsterdam contended that letter 672/527 was never sent; but Dorn painting (fig. 9). The still life to the right can be identified (op cit. [note 6], p. 44 [note 8]) disputes this. from the central flower right, flower 7 in the works now 
in Munich and Philadelphia (fig. 8). 12 See letter 680/534. 19 Only Landais thinks that the Amsterdam still life was 13 Ibid, and letter 747/574. the first version; see 'Pour le rejet,' cit. (note 7), p. 42. He 
bases his opinion mainly on Van Gogh's description of the 14 See letter GAC 34 (which has only been partially pre-original's background as 'greenish yellow.' Although this served) and 740/571. seems to match the Amsterdam work better than the one in London, the artist in fact defined the background in his first version both as 'greenish yellow' and as 'yellow' (see main text and note 11) ¡ª which corresponds very well with the London work, whose background is (light) yel-low with a barely perceptible greenish-yellow overlay. 
20 See Druick and Kort Zegers, op. cit. (note 8), p. 271. Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 49-50, contends that the London version must have been the first painting, as one flower was later added over the background, whereas its counterpart was held in reserve in the backgrounds of both the Tokyo and Amsterdam versions. Examination of the Philadelphia painting has shown that not all the flow-ers in this version were planned as an integral part of the composition. Although most of flower 14 has been left in reserve in the Munich original, in the Philadelphia repeti-tion it has been painted entirely over the background colour. (Information from the examination reports by Lister, etal.) 
Oddly, however, Van Gogh's descriptions of the bou-ument ¨¦quivalentes & pareilles' [747/574], all three repeti-quets in his letters do not match the actual number of flow-tions display clear differences of both detail and colour in ers in the London and Munich paintings. According to his relation to their originals, so that this passage is of little correspondence, the still life with a blue background con-help.26 Apparently his choice of phrase referred only to the tained 12 sunflowers; the Munich work, though, has 14 subject, which did indeed remain the same. However, (figs. 5 and 8).2 1 The still life in London features 15 flowers, shortly after completing the two repetitions, Van Gogh in-although Van Gogh speaks of only 14 in connection with corporated these new versions of the sunflower motif into this work (figs. 4 and 9).2 2 To err is human, of course, and the above-mentioned triptych with La berceuse. For this in the case of the Munich picture it seems indeed that Van reason it may be conjectured that the works created in Gogh simply miscounted. The lower areas of the bouquet January are the paintings now in Amsterdam and are rather tightly arranged, and sunflowers 5 and 9 are Philadelphia (figs. 6 and 7), since, unlike the Tokyo can-eclipsed by their more prominent neighbours (even taking vas, they are signed, as is the central work from the trip-into account that this effect may have been exaggerated by tych - with which, moreover, they form a stylistic unity.27 subsequent discolouration and loss of nuance).23 The Like La berceuse - but not the Tokyo still life - both paint-London bouquet, however, is less compact, and it seems ings incorporate a flat, decorative structure as well as a unlikely Van Gogh could have miscounted the flowers in more full-bodied application of paint, although the latter this work.2 4 One possible explanation for the discrepancy is predominates in the Sunflowers.28 that flower 14, which was painted over the second and final From this it may be concluded that the work in Tokyo 
layer of the background, had not yet been added when he is not mentioned in the artist's correspondence. Although described the still life in his letter.25 this absence could be interpreted as 'un certificat de non-
Van Gogh's correspondence does not provide us r¨¦alisation,' as Landais has claimed, there are other, equally with an immediate answer to the question as to which of plausible explanations.29 For example, Van Gogh may have the three remaining still lifes should now be identified produced the painting with the intention of giving it to some-with the two repetitions painted in January 1889. Although one in Aries, thus seeing no reason to mention it to Theo. He Van Gogh described his two versions as 'repetitions absol-may also have regarded it as a less successful version of the 
21 Letters 669/B15, 671 /W6, 674/W18 and 680/534. Two other flowers, 12 and 15, were also later introductions, painted over the first layer of the light yellow background 22 Letters 672/527, 673/528, 674/W18 and 680/534. rather than held in reserve, as were the other 12. The expla-
nation cited above for the discrepancy in numbering is, 23 Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), p. 49, counted 13 flowers, ap-however, contradicted by the fact that Van Gogh continued parently thinking that flower 9 should not be considered to mention the number 14, even after the painting had a real bloom. It is, however, as proven by the yellow been completed (see note 22). It is also possible that he did petals (actually ray flowers, as sunflowers have compos-not consider the number of flowers in the painted bouquet ite blooms made up of tubular flowers in the central disc when describing the still life, but rather in the real bunch and ray flowers around the edge) to the left of flower 9, that he seems to have placed in a vase to simulate the work. 
which do not belong to flower 8, but instead point to the presence of another, separate bloom. Dorn also believes 26 In his promise to Gauguin he spoke of 'deux exacte-that head 14 had been added at a late stage in the cre-ment pareils'; see letter 743/-. ative process, but this has been proven incorrect; see Druick and Kort Zegers, op. cit. (note 8), p. 381 (note 27 The main candidates for the central work in the two 159). triptychs created by Van Gogh in this period are F 505 JH 
1669 and F 506 JH 1670, which bear both a signature 24 Druick and Kort Zegers, op cit. (note 8), p. 240, sug-and the inscription 'Aries 89'. The latter was added to the gest that the overblown flowers are so-called double sun-first of these pictures when it was still incomplete; see flowers, which have a double row of petals, or ray flow-the article by Kristin Hoermann Lister in this volume of ers, but this is difficult to establish as these are past their the Van Gogh Museum Journal, note 30. peak. 
28 Moreover, the lower section of the vase in the 25 Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), p. 49, believes that only this Amsterdam version is not painted yellow, as in the flower was added at a later stage, but this view is incorrect. London picture, but pink; Van Gogh was apparently at-
motif, or as an experimental study that similarly required no Ambroise Vollard sold it as 'soleils d[an]s pot' to Comte description. A further possibility is that he produced the Antoine de la Rochefoucauld on 21 December for 400 work during a period of'little correspondence,' as suggested francs.32 by Dorn, and by Druick and Rort Zegers.30 Finally, one could Opinions differ regarding the provenance of the also imagine that he simply failed to mention the work, for Tokyo version. However, opponents and supporters of the whatever reasons. While everything is possible one thing is work's authenticity all agree that in the spring of 1901 it certain: the letters do not provide any clues as to which of was included in the Van Gogh exhibition at the gallery of these options is the most plausible. the Paris art dealers Bernheim Jeune, under the title 
Tournesols surfond vert tr¨¦s pale.33 The painting came 
Provenance from the collection of artist Claude-Emile Schuffenecker, 
Although the correspondence cannot therefore help whom the exhibition's organiser - art critic, man of letters us to solve the problem of the painting's authenticity, the and Schuffenecker's friend, Julien Leclercq - had already provenance may provide an indication. If it could be described as its owner in a letter dated 16 February 1901.3 4 proven that the work came from Theo's estate, the case for For many years the history of the work before 1901 considering the painting a forgery would, of course, be nul-was a mystery. In 1988, however, Walter Feilchenfeldt lified. What is required is an examination of the prove-pointed to a family document from which it could be in-nance of all five pieces. ferred that Schuffenecker had acquired his still life from 
The works in Munich, London and Amsterdam are Jo van Gogh-Bonger in 1894.3 5 In March of that year she irrefutably from the family collection. Johanna van Gogh-accepted his offer of 300 francs 'pour les fleurs' - a work Bonger sold the first to Hugo von Tschudi in 1905; the sec-she had left at the shop of the recently deceased P¨¨re ond to the Tate Gallery in London in 1924.31 Following this Tanguy.36 We know that this was in fact a painting of sun-second sale, only the Amsterdam canvas remained in the flowers thanks to a letter from Tanguy's widow to Andries family's possession. It is not known if the painting in Bonger, in which she reports that 'Monsieur Chouffe-Philadelphia was among the works Jo administered. It is necker [...] desirerai avoir un tableaux de Mr Vincent c'est first documented in 1896, when the Paris art dealer le soleil.'3 7 
tempting to achieve a unity with its predominantly pur-delphia; see London (Christie's), 30 March 1987, lot 43. 36 See letter from Claude-Emile Schuffenecker to Jo van ple-hued counterpart in the Philadelphia painting. Thanks to Ronald Pickvance, however, this mistake was Gogh-Bonger, c. March 1894 (b 1427), which indicates quickly rectified; see 'Van Gogh's Sunflowers,' in Mark that he bought the still life together with a landscape. He 29 Landais, op. cit. (note 1). Wrey and Susanna Spicer (eds.), Christie's: review of the offered to pay 300 francs for 'les fleurs' and 200 for 'le 
season 1987, Oxford 1988, pp. 70-73. Several pieces of paysage qui est plus petit/ which Dorn (op. cit. [note 6], 30 Dorn op. cit. (note 6), p. 45 and Druick and Kort additional information were subsequently supplied by p. 48) associates with F 777 JH 2105. Schuffenecker's Zegers, op. cit. (note 8), p. 240. They differ, however, in Roland Dorn, Decoration: Vincent van Goghs Werkreihe next letter to Jo (b 1428) suggests that she had accepted their opinion as to when this was. f¨¹r das Gelbe Haus in Aries, Hildesheim, Zurich & New his offer. By this time Tanguy's widow had asked for a 
York 1990, pp. 459-60. The painting, which at one point larger commission, so Schuffenecker ended up paying a 31 For the provenance details see Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), was transferred from Emile's collection to that of his broth-slightly higher total, namely 525 francs. See further the 
p. 60. er Amed¨¦e, was loaned to the Internationale Kunst- und letter from the collector A. Bauchy, who, encouraged by 
grosse Gartenbau-Ausstellung in Mannheim (Stadtische Schuffenecker's acquisitions, now wished to buy work 32 Paris, Mus¨¦e d'Orsay, Vollard Archive, 'MS 421 (4,2). Kunsthalle) in 1907, where a photographer recorded it; see from Jo (b 1206). She subsequently noted in her cash Registre des ventes avec les sommes dues par les diff¨¦rents the Christie's auction catalogue cited above, pp. 21,29. For book that she had received 225 guilders from 
acheteurs ou peintres,' 1894-97. Thanks to the watercolour Schuffenecker's collection see also Jean de Rotonchamp, Schuffenecker for two paintings; see Chris Stolwijk and copy made by the new owner in the same year, the work in Paul Gauguin, 1843-1903, Paris 1925 (1906), p. 77. Han Veenenbos, The account book of Theo van Gogh question is known to have been the repetition after the and Jo van Gogh-Bonger, forthcoming in 2002 (annota-
painting in Munich; see Jill-Elyse Grossvogel, Claude-Emile 34 Letter from Julien Leclercq to Jo van Gogh-Bonger, tion 11/14 and 61/17). Schuffenecker, San Francisco 2000, pp. xlvii-xlviii. 16 February 1901 (b4134). 
37 The undated letter from Tanguy's widow to Andries 33 Exhib. cat., Exposition d'oeuvres de Vincent van Gogh, 35 See Walter Feilchenfeldt, Vincent van Gogh and Paul Bonger (b 1446) was first quoted in Marc Edo Tralbaut, Paris (Galerie Bernheim Jeune) 1901, no. 5. Lacking the an-Cassirer, Berlin: the reception of Van Gogh in Germany 'Andre Bonger: l'ami des fr¨¨res Van Gogh,' Van Goghiana notated catalogue by Julien Leclercq (b 5737), which con-from 1901 to 1914, Zwolle, Amsterdam & Zurich 1988, 1 (1963), p. 41, and connected with Schuffenecker's pur-tains crucial information, in 1987 Dorn erroneously be-p. 96, who based his information on Dorn's (then unpub-chase by Dorn, op. cit. (note 33), p. 460. lieved the work should be identified as the version in Phila-lished) dissertation (see Dorn, op. cit. [note 33]). 
This interpretation of the evidence, however, built as it is upon the knowledge that Schuffenecker owned the still life in 1901, has also become a subject of debate as a result of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Tokyo still life. Landais and others have claimed that the still life purchased by Schuffenecker in 1894 was not the painting now in Tokyo, but the Philadelphia canvas, which they contend the artist sold on to Vollard within two and a half years.3 8 Naturally, this theory is intimately con-nected to their refusal to believe in the Japanese paint-ing's authenticity, for if the Tokyo work is a fake, the piece sold in 1894 must have been another version of the sunflowers. And this could only be the Philadelphia paint-ing, as there is no other version whose earliest history is still unknown. 
However, if we consider only the evidence of the provenance, the latter theory appears far more specula-tive than the former. For while it cannot be demonstrated that Schuffenecker actually owned the Philadelphia still life, we can be certain that this was the case with the Tokyo version. Landais's notion could only gain in plausi-bility if other paintings could be discovered that the artist sold on soon after acquiring them. To date, however, no such examples have been found.39 
Four or five versions? 
In addition to the matter of this individual work's provenance, we should also consider numbers. How many versions are assignable shortly after Vincent's death? Did a fifth version already exist? 
Critics of the Tokyo painting believe not, basing their stance on the catalogue of works in Theo's collec-tion ('Catalogue des oeuvres de Vincent van Gogh'), prob-ably compiled at the end of 1890 by his brother-in-law, Andries Bonger.40 This lists only four large format sun-flower still lifes from Aries, each described as 'Tourne-sol (30)' and given the numbers 94, 119, 194 and 195. Ninety-four is definitely the painting now in Munich, while 194 probably refers to the Amsterdam version, as explained below.41 The other two numbers in the Bonger list do not immediately reveal their identity, meaning that this document cannot be used to prove the proposi-tion that the Tokyo version was not yet documented in this period. 
Unless one agrees with the opinion that a fifth ver-sion did not exist at the time the presence of four rather than five versions of the sunflower motif in the Van Gogh family collection at this time can be explained if one painting had already left, either through exchange or as a gift. Here, the work in Philadelphia is the only possible candidate, owing to its unknown provenance. The recipi-ent may have been Gauguin, for Vincent had promised him repetitions of the sunflower pictures. 
However, nothing in Van Gogh's correspondence suggests that he actually fulfilled this offer. The artist al-ways thought in terms of an exchange, not a gift [744/573].4 2 Gauguin would have to reciprocate with 'deux tableaux de lui pas mediocres mais mieux que m¨¦-diocres,' as he informed Theo in early February 1889 [749/576]. Vincent developed his proposal by almost 
38 Landais, 'Pour le rejet,' cit. (note 7), pp. 8,18-19, only assigns a Bonger number to the paintings in Munich taken up by Grossvogel, op. cit. (note 32), p. xlvii. and Amsterdam, he also gives one to the Philadelphia and 
Tokyo versions. While the numbers assigned to the first 39 Grossvogel, op. cit. (note 32), p. 17, no. 42, points to two are based on fact, those given to the others are de-a letter from Schuffenecker to one Haymann, dated 21 rived from Dorn's own notion regarding the function of October 1886 (Paris, Fondation Custodia), which she be-the Bonger list and an associated theory concerning the lieves might indicate that the former was already operat-absent work, which is, however, incorrect; see above. ing as an art dealer at the time. However, the letter only indicates that he was enquiring about the price of a work 42 Letter 744/573. by Delacroix on behalf of a third party. It is impossible to 
judge whether he was doing this as a dealer or simply 43 In this event Gauguin would have 'de son c.t¨¦ aussi helping a friend, an acquaintance, or his brother. donner du bon'; 749/576. Van Gogh intended to make three triptychs, one for Theo, one for Gauguin and one 40 'Catalogue des oeuvres de Vincent van Gogh' (b 3055). for 'La Hollande' (747/574), but produced no more than the central work for the third of these. 41 See Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 60-61. His catalogue of the various sunflower versions, however, makes insuffi-44 Van Gogh first came up with the idea of giving cient distinction between interpretation and genuine fact Gauguin a version of La berceuse in late February; see 
when citing the relevant Bonger list numbers. Dorn not letter 752/578. 
immediately also offering Gauguin a version of La sions with a yellow background in his studio. In a highly berceuse, indicating that he would rather have been rep-literary piece on Van Gogh, he wrote that his 'chambre resented in his friend's collection with the recently creat-jaune' contained 'des fleurs de soleil, aux yeux pourpres, ed triptych than the two repetitions of the sunflower still [...] sur un fond jaune, [...] dans un pot jaune, sur une lifes from the spare bedroom.4 3 table jaune. Dans un coin du tableau, la signature du 
Although Gauguin's response to this proposed peintre: Vincent.'46 This passage makes it clear, however, three-work exchange is not known, the fact that Van that Gauguin was not describing his studio as it actually Gogh was still considering it in May indicates that nothing was, but rather a form of fiction. The painting in Tokyo is had yet been settled. Vincent then informed Theo that not signed, while the other two works with a yellow back-he should give Gauguin a version of La berceuse, but, he ground - the signed versions in Amsterdam and London -wrote, if his former companion 'veut des tournesols ce were still in the possession of Jo.47 n'est qu'absolument comme de juste qu'il te donne en Nevertheless, in 1998, Welsh-Ovcharov reckoned ¨¦change quelque chose que tu aimes autant' [778/592].4 4 that Gauguin did indeed own a sunflower still life - not a In other words, Van Gogh was ready to compromise by yellow version but the work with the blue-greenish back-giving Gauguin the central work from his triptych, ground in Philadelphia.48 In her opinion, this was the can-although he apparently expected the side panels to vas referred to in an entry in the cash book kept by the follow later through an exchange, since he knew his Paris art dealer Ambroise Vollard, dated 10 April 1896: friend was keen on the sunflower still life with a yellow 'Pay¨¦ a [Georges] Chaudet de la part de Gauguin pour un background. tableau de Van Gogh "tournesols" 225 fr.'4 9 She seems, 
Van Gogh, however, seems to have misjudged the however, to have been mistaken, as Landais has also ex-situation. Having been informed by Theo of the gift, plained.50 In early 1895 Gauguin had commissioned Gauguin mentions only La berceuse in his reply from Vollard to sell his two still lifes with sunflowers from Van Pont-Aven: 'Gardez le tableau a mon disposition' [GAC Gogh's Paris period.51 One of these was sold that same 14]. It was not until 1894, long after the Van Gogh broth-year, while Vollard's 1896 reference appears to relate to ers had died, that he claimed the promised work from the second, rather than to a new, more recently offered, Theo's widow, without making any mention of the still work. The sum paid, 225 francs, seems too low to have lifes with sunflowers.45 been the price for one canvas, but as Gauguin had already 
Although the correspondence in no way intimates received an advance of 400 francs for the two 1887 paint-that Gauguin received one of the still lifes, the artist him-ings from the dealer in 1895, it must have been a residual self suggested in January 1894 that he had one of the ver-payment.52 Moreover, Gauguin wanted at least 600 francs 
45 See Paul Gauguin: 45 lettres a Vincent, Theo et Jo 50 Landais, 'Pour le rejet,' cit. (note 7), pp. 10-15. 52 Paris, Mus¨¦e d'Orsay, Vollard Archives, 'MS 421 van Gogh, ed. Douglas Cooper, The Hague & Lausanne (2,3) Regus sign¨¦s,' dated 9 January 1895. This was 1983, pp.43-44. 51 These were F 375 JH 1329 and F 376 JH 1331. One overlooked by Welsh-Ovcharov, op. cit. (note 6), p. 
of the two works was sold on 15 February to Felix 187, who also mistakenly assumed that letter GAC 24 46 See Paul Gauguin, 'Natures mortes,' Essais d'art libre Roux, who, however, returned it to Vollard on 23 should have been dated to 1889. In this letter, which 4 (January 1894), p. 273. For a description of Gauguin's October for 350 francs. (This latter transaction was Cooper (op. cit. [note 45], p. 181) claims was addressed studio with yellow walls see Druick and Kort Zegers, op. overlooked by Welsh-Ovcharov, op. cit. [note 6], p. to Theo, there is talk of an exchange, which Welsh-cit. (note 8), p. 344. 185.) Strictly speaking it is not known which of the two Ovcharov then associated with the work now in 
pictures this was, but given that F 376 JH 1331 was sold Philadelphia. However, in his Gauguin et Van Gogh 47 Gauguin also claims (ibid., p. 274) that his yellow shortly afterwards (29 October) to Edgar Degas for 400 (Taravao [Tahiti] 1989), Victor Merlh¨¨s dates this mis-room contained a Van Gogh still life with shoes, but this francs, it is generally assumed to have been the same sive earlier, namely to December 1887, and has shown seems to have been equally false, as all the known ver-painting. F 375 JH 1329 was acquired by the Dutch col-the addressee to be Vincent, not Theo (p. 56). The let-sions of this motif were at that time in different hands. lector Cornelis Hoogendijk from Vollard around 1897; ter discusses their exchange of paintings in that year, 
see Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 58-59. For the sale of Van Gogh's contribution being F 375 JH 1329 and F 48 Welsh-Ovcharov, op. cit. (note 6), p. 187. 
the works owned by Gauguin, see Paris, Mus¨¦e 376 JH 1331. See also Roland Dorn's review of 
d'Orsay, Vollard Archives, 'MS 421 (4,2) Registre des Cooper's Paul Gauguin: 45 lettres a Vincent, Theo et Jo 49 Paris, Mus¨¦e d'Orsay, Archives Mus¨¦e d'Orsay, 'MS ventes,' 15 February, 23 and 29 October 1895. van Gogh, published in Oud Holland 99 (1985), no. 4, 421 (4,3). Registre de la caisse, consignant les entrees et pp. 325, 327 (note 7). sorties,' 1894-1900. 
for the two works, and the sum eventually paid, 625, ers was omitted from the list, and Dorn was convinced that comes very close.53 this could only be the London painting, which may have 
But if Van Gogh did not give Gauguin the painting been displayed in the window of P¨¨re Tanguy's shop to ad-now in Philadelphia, to whom did he give it? To no one vertise the nearby exhibition. probably, as it is unlikely that anyone other than his friend Although this is an ingenious theory, there is no would have been the recipient of such a generous gesture. supporting evidence. What is certain, however, is that the Exchanging or giving away this work would have meant Bonger list contains several lacunae, as it is known that that Vincent had abandoned his plan for securing a place from 1892 onwards Jo van Gogh-Bonger began to use sup-for one of his triptychs in Gauguin's collection; this, how-plementary numbering for her own administration.57 ever, seems improbable, given his great interest in the ex-However, this second 'catalogue', which has not been pre-change.54 The only possible candidate is Emile Bernard, served, must have been similarly incomplete, as several who, like Gauguin, also received a version of La berceuse. documents from later periods contain descriptions of works As far as can be determined, however, this artist never had without reference to either list.5 8 a sunflower painting in his collection.55 Surprisingly, one of these documents provides sup-
This reasoning supports the conjecture that the port for the proposed existence of a fifth, unnumbered ver-work now in Philadelphia was still in the family collection sion of the still life with sunflowers. In a list of 19 works at the end of 1890. However, if this was the case, the ques-sent to Leclercq on 8 October 1901, all the paintings have a tion of why Andries Bonger only recorded four versions of Bonger list number except the 'sunflowers' noted under the sunflower motif instead of five becomes even more number seven.5 9 When the paintings were actually dis-compelling. Roland Dorn suggests the answer should be patched Jo rechecked the numbering and made several sought in the function of Andries's list, which he believes corrections; however, the listing for the sunflower picture was not a true inventory but rather a catalogue of the tem-was left unchanged, from which one can only conclude that porary presentation of Vincent's works in Theo's new the work did not actually have a number, as otherwise Jo apartment in September 1890.56 One still life with sunflow-would surely have added it.6 0 
53 On 10 April 1896 Gauguin ¡ª who had not yet been 57 The Bonger list eventually comprised 311 numbers. informed by Vollard of the 1895 sale to Degas ¡ª decided The highest number found so far from the second list is to lower his asking price. At this point he wanted at least 336 ('Cassirer-april 05' [b 2185], no. 8, which can be 300 francs for each still life. See letter from Paul Gauguin identified as F 659 JH 1850). The supplementary list was to Claude-Emile Schuffenecker, 10 April 1896, reprinted probably drawn up in 1892, as the new, higher number-in Paris (Hotel Drouot), 14 December 1958, lot 115 and ing first appears in the annotated exhib. cat. Exhibition quoted by Welsh-Ovcharov, op. cit. (note 6), p. 185. of the paintings Vincent van Gogh in the art-gallery Arts 
and Crafts, The Hague (Arts and Crafts) 1892, no. 4 54 Assuming that one triptych should in any case remain (326), 12 (314), 16 (328), 24 (325), 27 (332), 42 (320); with Theo; see also letter 747/574. see b 3046. However, this list also features works with-
out a number (41, 43). 55 See letter 778/592, in which Van Gogh asked his broth-er to give Bernard a version of La berceuse and the latter's 58 For example 'Tentoonstelling Wiesbaden: schilderijen missive to his mother, undated but probably from June Vincent v Gogh' (b 3257), in which the self-portrait listed 1894, in which he reported that his La berceuse had been under number 15 is unnumbered. According to sold through the dealer it had been placed with for 600 Feilchenfeldt, op. cit. (note 35), p. 90, this was probably 
francs (Paris, Biblioth¨¨que Centrale des Mus¨¦es Nationaux, F356JH 1248. Mus¨¦e du Louvre, Ms 374, 5.1, f. 207). Fred Leeman was kind enough to draw our attention to this letter. 59 'Paintings to Leclercq, sent 8 October 1901' (b 
5738). A '4' initially noted by this work was scored 56 Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), p. 48. Nevertheless, this through. Theoretically speaking this could have been part proposition does not seem tenable; see the arguments of the Bonger numbers 194 (probably F 458 JH 1667), 84 presented by Stolwijk and Veenenbos, op. cit. (note 36), (F 452 JH 1330), or 44 (F 377 JH 1328), but this seems who have suggested that the list was made after the end unlikely. It points rather to the existence of yet another of October 1890. list. F 350 JH 1245 was also designated by Jo with a four 
The painting in question was a still life with a yel-low background, of which there were still two versions in the family collection: the canvases now in Amsterdam and London.6 1 Since the Amsterdam version can be associated with Bonger 194 (as will be shown below), the unnumbered painting sent to Leclercq must have been the London pic-ture, proving Dorn's thesis correct (although his support-ing arguments are different).62 In this interpretation, the four still lifes in Bonger's inventory can be identified as fol-lows: 94, as already stated, is the painting now in Munich; 119 is the version in Philadelphia or Tokyo; 194 is probably the still life now in Amsterdam; and 195 either the painting in Tokyo or the Philadelphia version. 

Leclercq 
Although the provenance offers no reason to doubt that the Tokyo Sunflowers is genuine, sceptics have pro-duced still further arguments to challenge its authenticity. The crucial factor in their misgivings has been the knowl-edge that the work's owner in 1901, Claude-Emile Schuffenecker, had an opportunity to produce a forgery from another version of the motif. 
In June 1900 Jo van Gogh-Bonger sent eight works to Paris for a presentation at Leclercq's home. One of these was a version of the sunflowers,63 which arrived in a less than perfect condition and required restoration - as indi-cated by Leclercq's correspondence. Initially he spoke of lining the canvas, but in early February (when the restorer had apparently just seen the painting for the first time) Leclercq informed Jo that this would be impossible.64 Consolidating the paint subsequently proved to be suffi-cient and the treatment was completed in late March 1901, allowing the work to be exhibited for two days at the above-mentioned exhibition at Bernheim Jeune.6 5 
The painting sent to Paris was number 194 on the Bonger list.6 6 De Robertis and Landais both thought that this was the London version, but in light of the restorer's judgment that lining would be impossible, it seems more likely it would have been the work now in Amsterdam.67 This painting has a wooden lat at the top, added by the artist, which might not have made lining completely impos-sible, but certainly more complicated.68 
Despite the still life's fragile condition, Leclercq was eager to purchase it.6 9 He could not afford the asking price, however, and once the exhibition was over he pro-posed an exchange, by which he would receive the still life in return for Van Gogh's Daubigny's garden, which he had recently acquired (fig. 10), plus an additional payment. 
('Cassirer - april 05' [b 2185], no. 22), while 'maisons de village' on the 'list Leclercq paintings' (b 1533) was given the number 4bis. 
60 A similarly unnumbered work is the self-portrait ex-hibited in 1903; see note 58. 
61 Following Leclercq's sudden death at the end of October, these works were forwarded to Berlin, where they were included in an exhibition at the premises of the art dealer Cassirer. The critic Hans Rosenhagen described the painting as 'a still life of sunflowers and orange-coloured dahlias in a vase against a yellow background'; see idem, 'Von Ausstellungen,' Die Kunst 5 (1901-02), p. 
240. On Leclercq see Marja Supinen, 'Julien Leclercq -Vincent van Goghin varhainen puolustaja,' 
Taidehistoriallisia Tutkimuksia. Konsthistoriska Studier 
11 (1988), pp. 69-109 and idem, 'Julien Leclercq: a champion of the unknown Vincent van Gogh,' Jong Holland 6 (1990), no. 6, pp. 5-14. 
62 There is another reason to assume that Jo sent the London version to Paris. According to our interpretation of the evidence, the Amsterdam still life had just returned from a long stay in Paris, where ¡ª as noted in the body of the text ¡ª a fragile paint layer had been treated. For this reason it seems unlikely that the painting would have been sent away again so soon. 
63 'List of the paintings in Paris at Leclercq's' (b 5738), no. 12 ('sunflowers'), with Bonger number 194. The con-signment arrived on 15 June 1900; see Julien Leclercq to Jo van Gogh-Bonger, 15 June 1900 (b 5740). For the correspondence see the letters b 4128-42. 
64 For the restoration see the following letters from Julien Leclercq to Jo van Gogh-Bonger: b 4130, b 4131, b 4134 and b 4138. 
65 Letter from Julien Leclercq to Jo van Gogh-Bonger, 29 March 1901 (b4140). 
66 See note 63. 
67 Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), p. 54. Landais, 'Pour le rejet,' cit. (note 7), p. 3, suggested that a photograph of the 
London painting might have been taken at Bernheim Jeune's premises, but this has proven incorrect. See the 
'Errata' to his unpublished pamphlet (October 2001), 
now in the archives of the Van Gogh Museum. 
68 Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), p. 55, also associates the tiny holes present in the paint layers with the use of a syringe needle to inject glue during the 1901 treatment. However, several observations contradict this theory. First, when viewed with a stereomicroscope, the holes are too irregular to have been produced by a syringe needle, which would have been of a fixed shape and size. Moreover, they are concentrated in the thinly painted passages, or in patches of uncovered ground, where it would have been unnecessary to inject glue in order to re-adhere any thickly applied brushstrokes. The holes fol-low the regular pattern of the canvas weave, indicating a causal relationship with the primed canvas. Anthony Reeve, paintings conservator at the National Gallery, London, and Cornelia Peres, who examined the picture in 1992, gave a very plausible explanation for the origin of these holes and related damage, suggesting that they had been caused during a 1961 treatment, when the pic-ture was lined. The report is kept in the conservation archives of the Van Gogh Museum. 
69 Julien Leclercq to Jo van Gogh-Bonger, 5 April 1901 (b 4141). He had already expressed this wish in his letter of 25 November 1900 (b4130). 


Schuffenecker 
The notion that Emile Schuffenecker was a forger was first expressed during the late 1920s, when every av-enue was being explored in the hunt for the maker of a group of forgeries that had recently been unmasked - the so-called 'Wacker forgeries.' Schuffenecker, along with his brother Amed¨¦e, was generally viewed as a possible suspect - although everyone admitted that they did not know the precise ins and outs of the situation. 'It is [...] generally known that Schuffenecker painted pictures like Van Gogh, or copied them, or - if you wish - forged them,' was a typical allegation made at the time.7 3 The origin of these rumours was - and is - unclear, although Julius Meier-Graefe probably played a significant role in their creation. At any rate this influential German critic would declare during the court case concerning the Wacker af-fair that 'the painter Schoeffenecker [sic] has copied many paintings by Van Gogh' and that he was 'also aware' that these had sometimes been sold as real Van Goghs.74 
Landais and De Robertis combined these old sto-ries with information from an unpublished manuscript by Judith G¨¦rard-Moline, stepdaughter of music lover William Moline, whose circle of friends in the late 1880s had included Gauguin.75 This manuscript dates from circa 1950 and was inspired by her anger towards Leclercq and Schuffenecker, whom she represents as untrustworthy. Apparently referring to Jo's consignment of 1900, she wrote that Leclercq had managed to get Van Gogh's works to Paris, but that he had handled them with little respect. The paintings had allegedly been damaged during the journey and for this reason he had called on Schuffenecker for assistance, who was then working at the Lyc¨¦e Michelet in Vanves as a drawing teacher. Subsequently, according to G¨¦rard-Moline, the artist treated Van Gogh's paintings as if they were studies by his students, and with Leclercq's permission he made a num-ber of corrections, adding grey clouds to Houses atAuvers (F 802 JH 2001) and painting out the cat in Daubigny's garden (fig. 10).7 6 
Where, however, lies the truth in this amalgam of accusations? Although a definitive biography of Schuffenecker has yet to be written, the facts as they are presently known suggest the following scenario.7 7 While it seems reasonably certain that his brother Amed¨¦e (who took over the major portion of Emile's collection in 1903 and subsequently made a lasting career in the art trade) at some point became involved in dubious practices, it is difficult to ascertain whether Emile can be accused of the same.78 Although in 1909 the artist issued a certificate of authenticity for a work which was unjustifiably consid-ered to be a Van Gogh (fig. 11), this does not necessarily point to deliberate foul play. During this period Van Gogh's oeuvre had not been catalogued in any definitive way, and erroneous attributions were the order of the day. 
Nor is it possible to confirm or deny that Schuffenecker produced 'many copies' after Van Gogh, as Meier-Graefe contended.79 Only one such copy is known, a repetition in pastel of Vincent's Self-portrait with ban-daged ear (F 529 JH 1658), which he must have bought early on.8 0 The 'small, fragmentary repetition' after Van Gogh's Prisoners at exercise: copy after Gustave Dor¨¦, once in Amed¨¦e's collection, however, is highly suspect. The piece has since vanished and it is therefore impossible to tell whether Emile painted it or not.8 1 In conclusion, 
73 Quoted in Grossvogel, op. cit. (note 32), p. I. (September 1997), pp. 4-5 and idem, op. cit. (note 32). Born, op. cit. (note 2), p. 1735 and Grossvogel, op. cit. 
(note 32), p. 100, also point to Schuffenecker's Public 74 M.J. Schretlen, 'De "Jardin de Daubigny" van 78 G¨¦rard-Moline's claim that Amed¨¦e sold her a copy garden, which they consider a copy after F 479 JH 1601, Vincent van Gogh,' Maandblad van Beeldende Kunsten after Van Gogh's Self-portrait as a bonze (F 530 JH -) as but this is incorrect. At most the work is a pastiche, and 10 (February 1933), p. 48. a genuine work by the master appears at any rate to be possibly not even that. 
true. See Gerard, op. cit. (note 75), pp. 3-4 and Vojt.ch 75 Judith G¨¦rard-Moline, 'Le crime de Julien Leclercq.' Jirat-Wasiutyhski and H. Travers Newton, Vincent van 81 The work in question is F 669 JH 1885. The German During the 1970s this unpublished manuscript was in the Gogh's self-portrait dedicated to Paul Gauguin: a histor-critic possibly had this painting in mind when he later possession of Bengt Danielsson; the Van Gogh Museum ical and technical study, Cambridge 1984, pp. 17-18. contended that Schuffenecker had copied works by Van also owns a copy. For William Moline and Judith G¨¦rard-Gogh (see also below, note 82). In 1904 he thought it Moline see Bengt Danielsson, Gauguin a Tahiti & aux fles 79 See note 74. was a genuine Van Gogh, but it could hardly have been 
Marquises, Papeete (Tahiti) 1975, pp. 150-53, 156-57. that; see Julius Meier-Graefe, Entwickelungsgeschichte 80 Grossvogel, op. cit. (note 32), p. 92, no. 254. The der modernen Kunst, 2 vols., Stuttgart 1904, vol. 1, pp. 76 G¨¦rard-Moline, op. cit. (note 5), p. 2. painter probably produced the copy in 1902 when he 110-20 (note 1). The work is probably identical to a piece 
sold the original, to which he was very attached. See entitled Prisonnier from Amed¨¦e Schuffenecker's collec-77 See Jill-Elyse Grossvogel, 'The embittered Claude-Roseline Bacou, 'Paul Gauguin et Gustave Fayet,' tion, which was included in the 1901 exhibition at Emile Shuffenecker: fake or copyist,' The Art Newspaper Gauguin: actes du colloque Gauguin, Paris 1991, p. 22. Bernheim Jeune as number 43 (see note 33). 

also retouched the edges and even added a wide strip at the top.8 5 5.5 weft threads per centimetre. In the case of the jute strip Moreover, similar additions to the picture area are found in three oth-added to the Sunflowers, the weft count actually comprises er works from the collection of either Emile or Amed¨¦e: in the first paired thin threads in a basket-weave pattern (as opposed version of Van Gogh's Daubigny's garden (F 777 JH 2105), his Portrait to the plain weave of the original jute canvas). o/Camille Roulin, and in Gauguin's Human miseries (figs. 12 and Unfortunately, poor definition of the canvas weave 
15).8 6 Altering the format of 19th-century paintings does not appear to in the x-ray of the addition to Human miseries makes it im-have been common practice, but seems instead to have been a per-possible to be certain whether this is the case here too.8 9 In sonal predilection of the painter-restorer's. The rarity of this phenom-the case of both paintings, the-additions have been simply enon and the common provenance of the above-mentioned paintings, joined edge-to-edge with the main canvas. In Human mis-therefore, strongly suggest that these interventions were indeed the eries the added strip is held in place by the application of a work of Schuffenecker.87 The artist must have been disturbed by Van glue lining. However, judging from the x-ray of the unlined Gogh's non-traditional cropping of the picture area, a style he himself Tokyo painting, in this case the strip was - and still is -never used in his own, more academic work. held by a wooden lat, now nailed to the top of the stretcher. 
To date, there has been no comparative technical investigation The idea for extending the top in this way may have been of all these additions, although two paintings have been subjected to provided by the Amsterdam Sunflowers, which, as noted detailed examination. In the first of these, Van Gogh's Portrait of above, was probably the version displayed in the 1901 Camille Roulin (fig. 12), unfolded tacking margins were used to ex-Bernheim Jeune exhibition. In the case of the Amsterdam tend the right and left sides of the composition by 1.5 cm, and the low-work, Van Gogh enlarged the picture area by painting di-er edge by 2.5 cm.88 The 2 cm-wide extension down the left side of rectly onto the wooden lat affixed to the top side of the Gauguin's Human miseries, on the other hand, was created by attach-stretcher.90 ing an extra strip of canvas (figs. 13, 14). 
Interestingly, the Tokyo Still life with sunflowers has been sim-Forgery? ilarly enlarged, using a combination of the two methods. The work The above observations provide cumulative evi-was extended by about 1.5 cm on four sides by flattening out the tack-dence that Schuffenecker was most likely responsible for ing margins, while a new strip of canvas was attached to create an ad-the extensions to the Tokyo painting. In the light of this, it ditional 4 cm extension at the top (fig. 15). Moreover, an x-ray com-would be illogical to believe he forged the rest of the paint-parison has revealed that this strip looks very close or even identical ing, at the same time taking the trouble to fabricate sepa-to the extension to Gauguin's Human miseries (fig. 15). Both fabrics rate extensions and to paint them in an entirely different share a matching thread count, with an average of 6-6.5 warp and 5-style.91 
York, for supplying this information, cited from the 1979 89 This poor definition is due to the fact that it is ob-rather than a later addition. Current evidence suggests treatment report by Lucy Belloli. scured by a radio-absorbent paint layer applied in streaks that the lat was added during the painting process (once 
on top. Nor does examination of the lined painting itself the main background had been laid in) rather than 87 Other examples of comparatively minor additions to provide further information, since the addition has been planned in advance, although further research will be re-post-impressionist paintings are known, where rough cut off along the left edge and no raw fibres are left ap-quired to confirm this. While a paint cross-section from borders, formed when brushstrokes trailed off before parent. We are very grateful to the following colleagues the main background shows that this was built up in two reaching the edges of the composition, have been made for helping us to try and verify this point. Henrik Bjerre, sessions (one yellow layer applied on top of another one neater through retouching. Although this has similarly al-head conservator at the Statens Museum in Copenhagen, that was already dry), a sample from the additional strip tered our spatial perception of the painted image, there kindly provided an x-ray and information on previous only contains the top paint layer (applied directly onto has been no extension of the picture support. Such addi-treatments of the painting when it was examined with the unprimed wooden lat). However, allowance should tions are less blatant and might easily pass unnoticed at Kristin Hoermann Lister and Cornelia Peres in 1999. At be made for the possibility that the irregularly applied first glance, even to the trained eye. See Renate our request, Henrik Bjerre willingly re-examined the orig-underpaint is simply absent from this particular sample. Woudhuysen-Keller, Karin Schoeller-von Haslingen, inal x-ray, and Kristin Hoermann Lister the unframed SEM-EDS analysis of paint cross-sections prepared by Manfred Schoeller and Paul Woudhuysen, Die painting when on exhibition at the Art Institute of Inge Fiedler, microscopist at The Art Institute of Chicago, Rosenallee: Der Weg zum Spatwerk Monets in Giverny, Chicago in December 2001. was conducted by MVA, Inc., Norcross, GA. The analyti-
Aachen & Mainz 2001, pp. 39-42. 
cal report, dated 23 August 2001, along with the earlier 
90 Both surface examination of the still life and paint documentation by Cornelia Peres, is in the conservation 88 Information drawn from the1991 examination and sample cross-sections reveal that the top paint layer of archives of the Van Gogh Museum. treatment report by David Skipsey, then Mellon Fellow in the main background continues on the added lat, con-
Paintings Conservation at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. firming that this extension was the work of the artist 91 Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), p. 56. 



teristic selvedge comprising different coloured warp Surface examination has identified an underdraw-threads interwoven in various patterns may sometimes be ing on this ground that employs a dry black material re-associated with a particular maker or region. To date, how-sembling charcoal. These contour lines are exposed be-ever, it has not been possible to link the plain type of tween adjacent paint areas where these do not quite meet. selvedge on the Gauguin/Van Gogh roll with a specific Examination of the other versions has revealed a similar place of manufacture.102 Comparison with surviving histor-preliminary outlining of the composition; in the case of the ical samples of jute cloth suggests that the quality was repetitions this may be the result of tracing, as demonstrat-equivalent to the type employed as hessian bagging for sug-ed by Kristin Hoermann Lister elsewhere in this Journal. ar sacks.103 Although it may be presumed that the jute pur-There is also evidence that in the Tokyo Sunflowers, as in chased in Aries was a type that was readily available, ex-the Amsterdam version, Van Gogh returned to the use of amination of Gauguin's later paintings has not yet identi-charcoal to redefine certain contours at a later stage of 
fied any canvas that could provide an exact match.10 4 The painting. Thus, drawn contour lines run over the initial 
jute fabric used by the two artists at Aries is thus a distinc-painted lay-in of the flowers and background in places. tive material, with its own particular characteristics. The Examples in the Tokyo still life are the outlines of the low-
-
kind of cloth provides compelling if not conclusive evi-er petal edges in flower 8, and the outlined centre of flower 
dence of its authenticity. 9. (figs. 1, 5) In the Amsterdam version, the edges of the 
Based on visual examination of the Tokyo still life, yellow petal facing down to the right of the green bract in 
fact that the Tokyo picture is painted on precisely the same er petals of flower 13 against the vase, as well as some out
the exact nature of the ground applied is at present uncer-flower 13 were similarly redrawn with charcoal after the first painted lay-in of the composition (fig. 6).10 6 
tain. In places a translucent pinkish layer is evident, which resembles the idiosyncratic barium sulphate When viewed with the naked eye, the palette used in ground that Van Gogh and Gauguin began to use at the the Tokyo painting appears entirely consistent with other beginning of November, having abandoned their initial works by Van Gogh from the period, in particular the choice of chalk-glue priming.10 5 Elsewhere, however, 'Sunflower' series. The yellow shades employed in the there seems to be a denser white layer, which could be a flowers themselves all appear to have darkened in a similar lead and/or zinc white-in-oil ground, such as subsequent-manner, owing to the use of specific lead chromate paints. ly employed by both artists. This is possibly a transitional In places, tiny areas of damage have exposed a brilliant technique, with the white oil ground applied on top of the yellow colour in the interior of the paint film where this barium sulphate one, but further research would be re-has been shielded from the light. Similar spots of damage quired to confirm this. in the green passages reveal that these have also become 
103 We do not know of any surviving 19th-century refer-Gallery in Washington, and by Charlotte Hale at The eye, have recorded a whitish to pinkish colour of the ence samples of jute bagging. However, 20th-century sam-Metropolitan Museum in New York. Some thread counts ground (conservation archives, Van Gogh Museum). It ples may still reflect former practice, since the same techni-were published in Carol Christensen, The painting materials was questioned whether this varied tint might be due to cal specifications were employed during their weaving. and technique of Paul Gauguin,' Conservation Research: the visual impact of the dark fabric support showing Seventeen samples of woven jute were examined from the Studies in the History of Art 41 (1993), pp. 63-70. To date through a white ground layer, lending a pinkish colour in academic collection at the Technical University in Delft, the closest match to the Aries jute used by Van Gogh and places. However, at the Chicago venue of the exhibition it which was established between 1907 and 1948. One sam-Gauguin has been provided by the coarse picture support of was possible to the examine the painting with the help of a ple of sackcloth displayed a thread count and selvedge that Gauguin's Tahitian women in The Metropolitan Museum, head magnifier, concluding that both a pink layer resem-exactly matched the jute purchased by Van Gogh and which has an average thread count of 5.5 warp threads and bling a barium sulphate ground and a white oil ground Gauguin (inventory number 0522497). It is not known ex-weft threads per centimetre, as measured by Charlotte Hale might be present. The latter examination was carried out actly where and when this sample was woven. For the (private communication). In Paris, Gauguin used jute of a after publication of the catalogue, where the ground was technical specifications for different types of jute fabric wo-slightly looser weave, averaging 4-5 x 5.5-6 threads per assumed to consist of lead white in an oil medium. See ven for different purposes see, for example, A.W.J.M. centimetre, as in his Paris in winter (Amsterdam, Van Gogh Druick and Kort Zegers, op. cit. (note 8), p. 240. Peijnenborg, Enige facetten voorde juteindustrie, Tilburg Museum). See Lister et al., op. cit. (note 9), p. 357 and the 1965, pp. 58-61 and A. J. Handels, De grondstoffen van de conservation files at the Van Gogh Museum. 106 See Lister's contribution to this volume of the Van textielindustrie, Tilburg 1924, pp. 133-34. Gogh Museum Journal. She also made the observations 
105 Concerning the use of barium sulphate grounds see concerning lines reiterated with charcoal on top of paint 104 Thread count surveys of Gauguin's paintings have Lister etai, op. cit. (note 9), p. 360. Previous examina-when comparing the paintings with the aid of a head been conducted by Carol Christensen at the National tions of the Tokyo Sunflowers, carried out with the naked magnifier at the Chicago venue of the exhibition. 


extremely pale yellow, over which a barely perceptible lay-er of greenish-yellow has been applied. The background in the two repetitions, however, consists of a virtually identical greenish-yellow, altough this is often hard to judge from colour reproductions. In the London still life the centres of the faded flowers have been rendered in an arbitrary mix of green and yellow ochre, but in both repetitions they are made up of large segregated planes of colour.109 
Furthermore, when the schematisation and abstrac-tion of the flower forms is considered, the repetitions in Tokyo and Amsterdam are found to bear a greater resem-blance to each other than to their joint ancestor. For exam-ple, the stalks of sunflowers 2, 4 and 7 in the London ver-sion have a rounded form, while in the repetitions these el-ements are 'flattened' and bounded by contours. Also, as stated above, the modelled centres of the faded flowers in the London still life have been replaced by flat discs of colour in both repetitions. 
Thus, while the subject in the Tokyo version has certainly been copied from the London painting, in terms of its main colours and schematisation the still life displays more similarities to the Amsterdam work. This observation nullifies the forgery theory once and for all: Schuffenecker could only have taken one of the two versions as his model. It would have been plainly impossible for him - unless one believes in miracles - to introduce changes in form and colour that precisely match the details of a version he defi-nitely would not have seen. 
Dating 
The similarities between the two repetitions of the London still life raise the question of whether the Tokyo version was painted before or after the one in Amsterdam. The Tokyo work has traditionally been regarded as the last in a series of three and dated to February 1889 (or later). Dorn has contended that it was painted at the beginning or end of February, periods when Van Gogh was prevented by his illness from keeping his brother informed about his re-cent output.11 0 Although his resumption of the use of jute is inconsistent with the rest of his artistic production at the time, this objection may be partially overcome if it is con-sidered that his choice of material may indicate that he made the repetition especially for Gauguin, who favoured this type of support. 
Nevertheless, the 1889 date has proven incorrect. As indicated above, the painting was executed on jute from the 20-metre roll Van Gogh and Gauguin used in November-December 1888. As Lister, Peres and Fiedler have shown in their reconstruction of the artists' output - based on the in-dividual alignment of all their works within the roll - the 20 metres must have been depleted by the end of December, when Gauguin left Aries.11 1 This suggests the Tokyo still life should instead be dated to some time in the last two months of 1888. Moreover, the composition of the priming layer might yet allow allows us to date the work with still more precision. If this layer does indeed prove to consist of both barium sulphate and lead and/or zinc white, it would be reasonable to assume that the still life was painted in late November, when the two artists replaced the first type of primer with the second. Should it turn out that only a white oil ground is present, this would still situate the painting to some time between this date and the end of December.11 2 
Furthermore, the picture seems to have formed part of a specific artistic dialogue between Gauguin and Van Gogh, as suggested, for example, in a later account by the former concerning his activities in Aries. In 1902, when Gauguin felt Andre Fontainas had given too much credit to Van Gogh in a review, the artist sought to correct his claims by informing the critic that in fact the Dutch painter had learned much of what he knew from him, Gauguin: 'Van Gogh, influence par les recherches n¨¦o-impressionnistes proc¨¦dait toujours par grandes oppositions de ton sur une compl¨¦mentaire jaune, sur violet, etc. Tan dis, que plus tard, d'apr¨¨s mes conseils et mon enseignement, il proc¨¦da tout autrement. II fit des soleils jaunes sur fond jaune, etc, apprit l'orchestration d'un ton pur tous les derives de ce ton.'11 3 
109 Sample cross-sections may confirm that the paint an afterthought, by adding a lat during the working has discoloured at the surface, but to date no samples process, he now pre-calculated the change, placing the have yet been taken from this particular area. bouquet lower down in the picture area. However, 
Dorn's latter conclusion failed to take into account that 110 Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), p. 44. He was also of the the top extension to the Japanese version also includes a opinion that the Tokyo painting was the last of the three roughly 1.5 cm wide flattened tacking margin. This versions, as here Van Gogh had anticipated an improve-means that originally, when the tacking margin was still ment by enlarging the space of his composition at the folded over the top side of the stretcher, the petals of the top when compared with the London prototype. top flower would in fact have virtually touched the top Whereas in the Amsterdam version this was achieved as edge of the composition. 
This anecdote has always been dismissed as Gauguin's attempt to discredit his former painting compan-ion, as neither the still life in London nor the later repeti-tions were thought to have been painted during Gauguin's sojourn in Aries. However, if Van Gogh did indeed produce the Tokyo version in this period, it seems reasonable to as-sume that the reference to 'soleils jaunes sur fond jaune' was not an allusion to the painting now in London but rather to the Tokyo version.11 4 
Although it is difficult to determine if Gauguin ac-tually gave Van Gogh advice regarding the Tokyo still life, this would seem plausible. He was certainly occu-pied with 'Porchestration d'un ton pur tous les derives de ce ton' during his time in Aries: it is known that in late November he began 'une grande nature morte de potiron orang¨¦ et des pommes et du linge blanc sur fond et avant plan jaune' [727/5583]. Given that Van Gogh in his subse-quent letter reported a great liking for this, now lost 'still life with yellow fore- and background' [728/560], it is conceivable that he produced the Tokyo Sunflowers in re-sponse. 
This inferred artistic dialogue also finds a parallel in the portraits the two artists made of each other in late November/early December. In his Portrait ofPaul Gauguin Van Gogh represented his companion at work in front of a predominantly yellow painting (fig. 18), which has been identified on the basis of the spherical form to the left on the canvas as the still life with pumpkins.115 Shortly after-wards Gauguin responded with his Portrait of Vincent van Gogh painting sunflowers (fig. 19), whose conception in turn may have been inspired by Vincent's painting of the Tokyo still life. The highly stylised flowers provide grounds to support this theory, as they could not have been painted from life and appear to be based on Van Gogh's schema-tised flowers in the Tokyo work: their green hearts are rep-resented as circles in the same unrealistic fashion.116 On the grounds of all this evidence, it may be conjectured that the Tokyo still life was painted in the last week of November, or during the first days in December 1888, be-
tween Gauguin's pumpkin still life and his Portrait of Vincent van Gogh painting sunflowers. 


The 'Sunflowers' series 
The still life's new place in the 'Sunflowers' series not only reveals a great deal about Van Gogh's motivation and intention as regards this particular piece; it also sheds light on the development of the group as a whole. Although Dorn has contended that the differences between the ver-sions were primarily inspired by the artist's need to system-atically apply a specific colour theory, the painting's new position within the series gives rise to quite a different in-terpretation.117 
Van Gogh's original plan, as indicated by his de-scription in late August, had been to depict the sunflowers against a blue background. At that time he envisaged 'un decoration o¨¹ les chromes crus ou rompus ¨¦clateront sur des fonds divers, bleus depuis le Veronese le plus pale jusqu'au bleu de roi, encadr¨¦s de minces lattes peintes en mine orange' - the intention being to create 'esp¨¨ces d'ef-fets de vitraux d'¨¦glise gothique' [669/B15]. 
In his first study of the motif Van Gogh cautiously explored the possibilities (fig. 1). In keeping with his ini-tial idea, this little still life has a decorative structure based on planes of colour, and also features the use of complementary effects, mainly evident in the opposition between the purplish-brown table and the yellow in the sunflowers. 
In the second, somewhat larger study, however, in which Van Gogh exactly repeated the subject (with the ad-dition of several flowers lying in the foreground), colour contrast began to play an even greater role (fig. 2). The artist replaced the bluish-green of the background with royal blue and made marked use of orange aureoles: 'c.a.d. chaque objet est entour¨¦e d'un trait colore de la compl¨¦-mentaire du fond sur lequel il se detache' [672/527]. The strong contrast thus produced, in combination with the in-troduction of distinct contouring, successfully created the artist's intended stained-glass window effect. 
111 See Lister et a/., op. cit. (note 9), pp. 354-66. pp. 242-43, who give an alternative interpretation. 112 Ibid., pp. 360-63 and note 105 above. 115 Druick and Kort Zegers, op. cit. (note 8), p. 236. 113 Paul Gauguin, Lettres de Gauguin a sa femme eta 116 Gauguin apparently later saw the green hearts as 
ses amis, ed. Maurice Malingue, Paris 1946, p. 306, no. the equivalent of eyes; see Druick and Kort Zegers, op. 
176, letter to Andre Fontainas, September 1902. cit. (note 8), p. 240. 
114 See also Druick and Kort Zegers, op. cit. (note 8), 117 Dorn, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 51-52. 


forced the artist to find new ways of obtaining a varied tex-stead opted to paint a new version - the work in ture in the paint surface - his second challenge.121 While Amsterdam. Although he continued to use the schema-the brushstroke used for the flowers and background is vir-tised flower forms found in the Tokyo still life, the forms tually identical to that employed in the London painting, in the second repetition were mainly based on the London Van Gogh was unable to repeat the thinly painted areas in version, as - for example - comparison of the shapes of the pot and foreground without encountering problems. flowers 5 and 8 in the three versions demonstrates. Van Unlike Gauguin, he was apparently less willing to exploit Gogh also introduced several changes, which seem to in-the texture of the jute itself, which would inevitably domi-dicate that he may have considered the reduction in con-nate in areas where the paint was thinly applied (in other trast between motif and background in the Tokyo version works painted on this support and where the texture of the a little too dramatic. While he retained the greenish-yel-canvas is allowed to play a role, such as in Vincent's chair, it low background, he depicted the flowers with a more con-is only in marginal passages). The artist's only alternative trasting orange in place of yellow, although allowance was to fill in the corrugated surface of the fabric with a should be made for darkening.122 He also introduced sev-thick layer of paint, and for this he chose rich, pronounced eral new colour accents, such as the light blue in flower brushstrokes. He could have applied the paint layer with-12 and the use of red contours for the vase and fore-out leaving a mark - as he had done, for example, in the ground. However, these latter changes can also be ex-shawl around the woman in his Novel reader (F 497 JH plained as part of the artist's effort to achieve a unity with 1652) - but evidently he considered this effect too monoto-the Philadelphia repetition (fig. 7): the new version could nous when applied on a larger scale. For the sake of variety not be too out of step with this work, as both were to be he used long, horizontal strokes for the foreground and displayed in the same triptych. similar turning ones for the vase - which differed from In any event, one may conclude that Van Gogh was those employed in other areas of the work, treated more as less than satisfied with his choice of a thick impasto flat planes. Further, he chose to echo this rich impasto in throughout the Tokyo version: in the brushwork in the the petals, whereas in the London painting he had treated Amsterdam version he returned to the treatment em-these as flat planes. ployed in the London painting, even further developing 
It is not known whether Van Gogh was satisfied the interplay between areas rich in impasto and those of with the final painting, but it seems unlikely. He did not flat brushstrokes. He contrasted the flat foreground with mention the work to Theo and the following January, the impasto on the lower section of the vase, whose upper when Gauguin asked to be given what was probably the section he then painted with the same kind of flat strokes London picture, he did not offer him this repetition but in-he employed to depict the petals. 
121 Lister etal., op. cit. (note 9), table on pp. 362-63, paint surface, where this has been protected from light. assume that Gauguin had also painted his still life with Inspection of tiny areas of damage in the Tokyo paint-pumpkins on jute. ing indicates that more use was made of a bright yellow 
¡ª as opposed to orange ¡ª shade of chrome pigment in 122 While the greenish-yellow background of the these flowers. Visual comparison of the two works Tokyo still life (with local yellow nuances) was painted while they hung side by side during the exhibition in in a single layer, the greenish-yellow background of the Chicago suggested that the bouquet in the Tokyo pic-Amsterdam picture (with orange nuances) shows a sep-ture had darkened to a lesser extent than in the London arate layer of pale yellow underpainting. Examination version, which presumably reflects this difference in the of the different versions of the sunflower paintings has materials used. suggested that various shades of chrome pigment were used in the overblown flower heads, and that these 123 C. J. Holmes, Notes on the post-impressionist shades may have later discoloured in different ways. painters. Grafton Galleries, 1910-11, London 1910, pp. 
Rosenhagen, op. cit. (note 61), p. 240, for example, 27-28. In 1916 Holmes was appointed director of the had described one of the versions, probably the London National Gallery and in this capacity he played an active painting, as a still life of sunflowers and orange-role in the purchase of the first version of Van Gogh's 
coloured dahlias against a yellow background. Tiny ar-Sunflowers for the Tate in 1924. See John House, eas of damage in the overblown flowers of the London Impressionism for England: Samuel Courtauld as patron version do reveal an intense orange colour below the and collector, London 1994, pp. 13-14. 

Conclusion 
The above discussion makes clear that Van Gogh's artistic problems with the Tokyo still life arose through the unusual combination of a drastic approach to light-on-light painting and an equally extreme use of impasto brushwork. His decision to restrict the tonal contrast between the bou-quet and the background as much as possible produced a painting in which these elements merge to a far greater ex-tent than in the London version, while his choice of a thick paint layer for the foreground and vase also led the lower flowers to lose individual definition. 
In short, Van Gogh truly wrestled with this picture, and ironically it is the results of this struggle that have giv-en the critics reason to regard the work as a forgery. The lack of lucidity in colour and form gave rise to the opinion that the work was 'muddy.' This, along with the painting's long obscured provenance and the knowledge that it was once in Schuffenecker's possession - a man whose reputa-tion was tainted by allegations of forgery - inspired the crit-ics' mistrust, which was further fuelled by the lack of any mention in the letters and by the peculiar interpretative er-ror in the stem enclosed by a leaf. 
However, recent and ongoing research has provided insight into the exceptional artistic challenge Van Gogh posed for himself with this picture. And although he may not have been entirely satisfied with the painting, it is worth-while quoting the then-director of the National Portrait Gallery, Charles John Holmes, whose enthusiasm for the canvas in 1910 knew no bounds, demonstrating how strongly opinions on the pictorial merits of the Sunflowers now in Tokyo can differ: 'No visitor who has seen this picture only by artificial light can form the slightest conception of its su-perb and haunting quality. As a harmony in various subtle shades of yellow, it tells upon the wall as a magnificent dec-orative panel. But when we come to examine it closely, we discover that these great sunflowers seem to be alive, their petals seem to writhe and flicker like flames, their hearts to be quivering with intense unearthly fire. I know no other painting of such uncanny attractiveness.'123 


Contrary to our mythic view of an immediate and uninhibited enthusiasm for the sun-saturated south, Van Gogh's encounter with Provence was both vexed and scrupulously controlled and he made an extensive and strenuous effort to transform, negate and neutralise the dimensions of Aries culture he found unfamiliar or dis-turbing. Particularly unsettling to Van Gogh, a former the-ology student trained in the new doctrine of Dutch Reformed 'anti-supernaturalism,' were the pervasive and public practices of Arlesian Catholicism, which exalted a tormented Christ and a panoply of martyred saints who were called upon in festive and devotional celebrations to intercede in the structures of rural life and the cycles of rural production. Much of Van Gogh's work in the Aries period can be interpreted as an attempt to come to terms with this dynamic Catholic culture, one that began by his excising it altogether from view and moved, by the end of his stay, towards developing an alternative imagery of modern consolation to replace the cult of miracles, mar-tyrs and saintly protectors so dominant in the visual cul-ture around him. 
This article traces three aspects of Van Gogh's early months in Aries: first, it examines the way he responded to fields, canals and drawbridges with memories of the Netherlands, selecting those Arlesian elements that bore closest affinity to Dutch topography and motifs; second, the way he approached this repertoire of subjects by re-engag-ing with the tools and techniques developed during his Dutch apprenticeship, especially by returning to the regu-lar use of the perspective frame; and third, the way he pur-sued drawing experiments at the important pilgrimage site of Montmajour, experiments that highlight the disparity between his own mental and visual habits and the world of an exultant, form-giving Catholicism and exclusivist re-gionalist politics. The article concludes by identifying the development of what can be called Van Gogh's sacred real-ism, characterising it as a response to the dual challenge posed by avant-garde art and populist French Catholicism in 1888. 
Tourist Arles 1888 
r
Aries was renowned for a number of features that elicited very little, if any, verbal or visual response from Vincent van Gogh. An important Roman capital and port city founded by Julius Caesar, the town preserved major monuments of Gallo-Roman antiquity, such as the massive first-century amphitheatre, the Ar¨¨nes, built to hold 20,000 people, and emerged during the mid-19th century as a tourist site for ancient art and architecture. 
Sacred buildings and relics of early Christian civil-isation overlay Roman Aries to enhance its reputation as part of what was called the 'elite of French national mon-uments.'2 By the 1880s regional scholars had collected numerous documents that chronicled the town's special status as 'the holy city on the Rhone.' An archbishopric until 1801, Aries had outstripped the papal city of Avignon with its profusion of convents and churches. Here each neighbourhood was organised under its own patron saint and saint's chapel - from St Isodore, protec-tor of the field workers, to St Vincent, patron saint of the wine growers.3 
Aries occupies a prominent position in the legends and early histories of Christianisation which were system-atically compiled and republished from the mid-19th cen-tury onwards. According to these traditions, St Martha, sis-ter of Mary Magdalene, had journeyed to Aries with St Trophimus and together they had converted the local peo-ple to Christianity by miraculously causing a sculpture of a pagan goddess to topple to the ground. These same legends placed two Marys - les Saintes Maries - and their servant Sarah in a boat that had carried them from Judea and had landed miraculously, without sail or oar, along the coast of the Camargue; from there they disembarked and set out to evangelise Provence. Every year, on 24 May, pilgrims trav-elled to the Camargue to commemorate the miraculous landing of the women saints and to glorify their continuing thaumaturgical powers. Thousands of worshippers arrived at the church of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer to witness the annual lowering of the relics from the belfry tower shrine 
2 From an 1852 legend to a photograph of the cathe-4 See Mona Caird, Romantic cities of Provene, New dral of St-Trophime in Aries, in the collection of the York [1900], p. 165 and T. A. Cook, Old Provene, 2 Mus¨¦e Arlatan. vols., New York 1905, vol. 2, pp. 78-79. Cook includes 
the version of the legend recreated by Frederic Mistral 3 Fernand BenoTt, 'Aries: ville sainte,' in Maurice P¨¦zet, and incorporated by him into the eleventh canto of his La Cath¨¦drale St-Trophime d'Aries, Paris 1967, pp. 15-renowned Mireille. On the Marys see Joseph Pennell and 17 and idem, 'Aries,' in Villes episcopates de Provence, Elizabeth Pennell, 'The Maries' story,' in Play in 
Paris 1954, pp. 20-21. Provence, New York 1892, pp. 167-93; [M. le Chanoine] 
A. Chapelle, Les Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer, l'¨¦glise et le 
and to parade to the beach carrying elaborately decorated newly consecrated necropolis. The Chapelle de St Honorat statuettes of the saints in their model boat. Surrounded by a also remained intact in the 1880s, marking the Alyscamps flotilla of garlanded fishing vessels, the Marys were with a prominent, illuminated bell tower locally known as launched into the waters of the Mediterranean, symbolical-the lanterne des morts. On 1 November, the eve of the festi-ly re-enacting their miraculous arrival and re-confirming val of Toussaint - All Saints - Arlesians attending midnight their concrete spiritual presence in the lives of the mass expected Christ to return to the Alyscamps, where he faithful.4 would seek out and resurrect all the town's saints and con-
The legend of St Trophimus is inscribed on the vene them, in the presence of the angels, to recite the mass portal of the cathedral bearing his name in the centre of of the dead.6 Aries, which also houses his relics. The cathedral's 12th-century carved doorway, tympanum and cloisters shaped Dutch affinities its reputation as one of the finest Romanesque churches Neither the historical spectacle of Roman and in Provence. Outside the Aries town walls to the south-Christian Aries nor contemporary Arlesian Catholic culture east lies the ancient necropolis known as Les Alyscamps. held any appeal for Vincent van Gogh. To be sure, he took Originally a Roman burial ground positioned along the note of the 'priest in his surplice' and the Arl¨¦siennes in Aurelian way, the early Christians consecrated the their distinctive regional costumes and traditional head-
Alyscamps and from the 4th through the 15th centuries it dresses en route to Saint-Trophime for Communion. Yet was a locus of miracles and the resting place of many im-the artefacts of Roman imperial power and the representa-portant saints. According to the 13th-century chronicles tions of Christian judgment seemed to him somehow recovered in the 19th century, the Alyscamps was so im-bizarre: 'There is a Gothic portico here, [...] the porch of St portant for Christian burial that citizens from as far away Trophime. But it is so cruel, so monstrous, like a Chinese as Avignon would 'place a corpse of some beloved dead nightmare, that even this beautiful example of so grand a into a coffin, fashioned like a barrel, and commit it to the style seems to me to belong to another world, and I am as Rhone.' Floated downstream and containing money to glad not to belong to it as to that other world, [...] of the pay the funeral expenses, these travelling biers were said Roman Nero' [589/470]. to always have arrived safely at their final destination, While Van Gogh was repelled by Aries' medieval 
unaided by human hands and undisturbed by robbers.5 and Roman culture, he was enthralled with the Arlesian By the end of the 13th century the Alyscamps encom-landscape. Exploring the countryside around the town he passed thousands of tombs and sarcophagi piled up on was inundated by a profusion of associations with rural several levels. Nineteen churches and chapels dotted the Holland, the world to which he had belonged 'before Paris grounds, housing saints' remains and relics in their and the impressionists.' During his first months in Aries crypts. Van Gogh constructed what he called an allegiance to a 
Although the Alyscamps languished soon afterward, 'second fatherland' [708/552] out of this projection of affini-two of the original chapels survived and continued to func-ties with his first Netherlandish homeland, developing a vi-tion as pilgrimage sites into the late 19th century. One was sual repertoire of subjects that to him were 'exactly like the Chapelle de la Genouillade, built on the spot where, ac-Holland in character' [612/488]. cording to legend, Christ had left an imprint of his knee There were indeed powerful similarities between when he miraculously appeared to the first bishop of Aries some features of the Aries environment and the Dutch and the assembled Christian congregation to bless the physical world that struck and delighted Van Gogh. Like 
p¨¨lerinage, Marseilles 1926, pp. 11-117; Claire Ti¨¦vant, 1968, pp. 178-82; and Pickvance, op. cit. (note 1), p. 13. Almanach de la m¨¦moire et des coutumes, Provence, 
Paris 1984, n. p., entries of 25 and 26 May; and Michelle 6 See Ti¨¦vant, op. cit. (note 4), entries of 29 December Goby, La Provence: art et histoire, Paris 1980, p. 89. and 4 November; R¨¦mi Venture, Arles, Marguerittes 1990, 
pp. 63-65; BenoTt, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 20-21, see also pp. 5 The quote is from Cook, op. cit (note 4), p. 5; see also 17-18; Mistral, op. cit. (note 5), p. 178; P¨¦zet, op. cit. BenoTt, op. cit (note 3), p. 17; Frederic Mistral, 'Un (note 3), p. 9; P. Marion and H. Vidal, Les Alyscamps et 
cimeti¨¨re nomm¨¦ Champs-Elys¨¦es: les Alyscamps,' in Jean-leurs l¨¦gendes , Aries 1994, pp. 43-46; and B¨¦renger-Paul Cl¨¦bert, Histoires et l¨¦gendes de la Provence, Paris F¨¦raud, L¨¦gendes de Provence, Paris 1888, p. 376. 
the painstakingly crafted Dutch terrain, the environs of Aries were a kind of constructed nature, slowly consolidat-ed by the continuous process of reclaiming land from the sea. In the late igth century the term 'hydrographic r¨¦gime,' most commonly associated with the Netherlands, was also used to characterise the topography of Aries and its forms of cultivation. Named Aries by the Romans in de-rivation from Arelate - 'city of swamps' or 'place of the wa-ters' - the town was originally a waterlogged marshland, secured to a cultivable base only by relentless drainage and irrigation. Beginning in the 15th century the area sur-rounding Aries to the southeast - the marsh of La Crau -was progressively transformed from a soggy swamp into a broad, flat plain suitable for growing wheat and vines, and for grazing. To complete the reclamation, in the late 17th century the Aries town councillors enlisted the services of a Dutch engineer, Van Hens, a representative of that envied 'nation of Penelopes,' described as skilled weavers of dry acreage from a liquid base.7 
While La Crau was thus partially transformed into farm and grazing land, the vast domain to the southwest of Aries, the Camargue, remained throughout the 19th centu-ry a sparsely inhabited marshland filled with bogs and low lying dunes not unlike parts of Drenthe and Zeeland in the Netherlands. Camille Mauclair, travelling through Provence late in the century, compared the 'desolate and captivating' alternation of lagoons and dunes in the Camargue to 'the Dutch polders,' an area 'neither land nor sea,' 'like Moerdyk, the banks of the Zuyderzee and Texel.'8 Nonetheless, 19th-century Provencal engineers, as re-sourceful and persistent as their Dutch counterparts, con-tinued to devise elaborate schemes for draining, pumping and reclaiming land in the Camargue, and between 1850 and 1910 they created 'around 50 square kilometres of arable land.' Taking the 19th century as a whole, at least 364 were recuperated in the Aries, Crau and Camargue ar-eas by what one writer called the 'tenaciousness of those who extracted land [...] from the swamps, mastering the Rhone and fertilising the most obdurate soils of the ter-rain.'9 
These reclamation schemes necessitated the dig-ging of a series of canals, so prominent a feature of Dutch topography, which began to slice through Aries and the surrounding countryside in the 16th century, channelling the waters along drainage corridors and creating a network of linear perspectives and recessional frames within the landscape. The Canal de Craponne, for example, bordered Aries to the southeast, near Les Alyscamps; another archaic canal, the Roubine du Roi, still compelled residents and visitors in the 19th century to cross a recessed waterway in order to reach the Aries town centre, as its embankment ran right up to the main gates of the town at the Porte de la Cavalerie. Like the unremitting challenge to the Dutch Waterstaat, Aries' water management project was additive and new waterways were continually appended to the older network. During the 19th century the most significant of these was a canal stretching from Aries to the town of Bouc on the Mediterranean. Along it were a number of bridges and locks, the first one, the Pont de R¨¦ginelle - known in Van Gogh's time as the Pont de Langlois - lying just outside Aries to the southwest.10 
Along with a landscape carved out and protected from the waters, the town and its environs were, like the Netherlands, still very vulnerable to inundation. In the year preceding Van Gogh's move to Aries, numerous Parisian newspapers, periodicals and illustrations recorded the dev-astating flood on the Rhone in late 1886. Van Gogh was probably aware of the damage to the areas around Aries and Avignon through his reading of the 26 December 1886 special issue of the Courrier Frangais, which reported the disaster of the deluge and solicited support 'for the unfortu-nate flood victims of the Midi.'1 1 
When Van Gogh arrived in Aries in 1888, then, he encountered a surprisingly familiar world that in many re-spects could indeed be said to 'remind one of Holland.' He discovered in Aries and its environs a Dutch-like world of 
7 Pierre Rollet, La vie quotidienne en Provence au pp. 84-85 and 109 and Caird, op. cit. (note 4), p. 160. 
temps de Mistral, Paris 1972, pp. 24, 87. It was Johan Wayne Michael O'Sullivan's Electoral sociology in Aries Huizinga who identified the Dutch nation as 'hydrograph-and Aix, 1870-1914 (diss., State University of New York ic,' characterising Netherlandish nature not as a given but at Buffalo, 1976) contains an excellent discussion of the 
as a feat of human skill and ingenuity, as land mass was tactics of acreage recuperation in our period (pp. 6-33). wrested from the sea and rendered cultivable; see idem, R¨¦mi Venture, Montamajour, metamorphoses, Dutch civilisation in the 17th century and other essays, Marguerittes 1990, p. 6, discusses the Dutch engineer 
London 1968, pp. 14,16, 25-33 and 38-43. On Roman Van Hens. For the description of 'Penelope's web' and the Aries as a swamp, see S. Baring-Gould, In Troubadour-Dutch as weavers of nature see Henry Havard, The heart land: a ramble in Provence and Languedoc, London 1981, of Holland, New York 1880, pp. 23, see also p. 9. 
wooden drawbridges, windmills and dunes; of 'cane fences' and 'thatched roofs' [633/W4]; of canals and marshes; of flat, expansive fields, 'infinite as the sea' [643/509], yield-ing to remote horizons in 'panoramic breadth' [617/492]. On the immediate outskirts of the town he would have passed through the neighbourhood of Les Mouleyr¨¨s, named after its many windmills; each windmill had its own name, the one on the Rue Mireille being called the 'Moulin de la Mousm¨¦e.' As he walked from the train station to the Porte de la Cavalerie, Van Gogh would have crossed the Roubine du Roi, where local women sat on makeshift rafts in the waters doing their washing, laying out the linens and garments to dry along the embankments. This spectacle of the canal and its activities would always appear in clear view from the windows of the Yellow House, which Van Gogh rented in Septemberand that fronted on the Place Lamartine, opposite the Roubine and the city gate. Linen-splayed grounds in canal-lined landscapes evoked the scene depicted in one of Van Gogh's favourite Dutch paint-ings, Ruysdael's View ofHaarlem, and also recalled the view of the bleaching fields behind the Van Gogh family's parish house in Zundert. Further, the laundresses' floating wooden platforms, with their visible interlocking slats and bracing posts sunk into the canal bed, resembled the fleet of Dutch wickerwork rafts known as zinkstukken which were a common feature along the canals of southern Holland and were used as staging platforms for bracing the ever-permeable seawalls.12 
To be sure, although encouraged to 'keep thinking of Holland,' Van Gogh also acknowledged the powerful contrasts between Aries and the Dutch countryside. The 'bright, clear colours' and radiant light of the south offered a very different spectacle than what he called the effects of colours 'veiled in the mist of the north.' The unfolding of expansive, level plains to a distant convergence at a remote horizon, for example, allowed him to see clearly the colour and definition of things 'far, far in the distance,' rather than merely the 'vague,' indefinite 'grey line on the horizon' so typical of Holland. Van Gogh defined this precision and sat-uration of colours created by the strong southern sun as the 'equivalent' of the brilliant sunlit colourism of the Japanese, claiming as he settled in to live in Aries that he was now 'in Japan' [681/W7]: 'Here I am in Japan,' he wrote to Theo; I am beginning to see things with an eye more Japanese,' to 'feel colour differently' [802/605].1 3 
Van Gogh's tool kit: the perspective frame 
Van Gogh's readiness to see Aries through a Japanese eye was tempered, however, by his Dutch ways of seeing and his enduring preoccupation with art, craft and work. Soon after arriving in Aries he resumed regular use of a tool he had first constructed in The Hague in 1882: his perspective frame. This oblong wooden frame, strung with lengths of thread into the pattern of a Union Jack, could be attached to adjustable notches on two wooden poles and staked into the ground for outdoor sightings. Looking through it like a win-dow, the artist trains himself to compare the proportion of objects nearby with those on a more distant plane, while the intersection of the threads presses the eye to its point of con-vergence at the vanishing point (figs. .a-b). Adapted from his study of 19th-century popular art manuals, Van Gogh's frame was a formative resource throughout his Dutch peri-od. It allowed him both to organise blocks of flat, reliefless terrain while also accustoming his eye to shoot down a corri-dor of space into the distance, an effect he compared to a telescope riveting the eye to a single point of focus or to an arrow speeding towards its target. His reliance on the frame yielded particular stylistic consequences, such as the cre-ation of a distinctive format we may call the 'framed land-scape,' where the viewer's eye is led into the distance by em-phatically bounded wooden posts. In the 1882 drawing Florist's garden on the Schenkweg, for example, the frame prompted the artist to structure an accelerated rush of space, juxtaposing near and far along a linear alley (fig. 2). By placing the two flanking trees as a passageway to guide our eye into the distance, Van Gogh replicated the bracketed 
8 Camille Mauclair, La Provence, Grenoble [1912], pp. 11 Tsukasa K.dera discovered this issue of the Courrier Pickvance, op. cit. (note 1), p. 1. Today the canal 106,108. Francais and also identified the special Parisian Midi fes-fronting the Porte de la Cavalerie is covered over. On 
tival staged to raise money for the victims of the flood at zinkstukken see the vivid description provided by Henry 9 Rollet, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 246, see also pp. 23-24. the Palais de I'lndustrie in Paris, suggesting Van Gogh Havard in 1878 (op. cit. [note 7], pp. 23, 27). See also O'Sullivan, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 18-33. may have been aware of it. See idem, op. cit. (note 1), 
pp. 32-33,40 and 110-11. 13 See also letters 612/488; 664/522; 687/539; 10 See Pickvance, op. cit (note 1), p. 14; L.G. P¨¦lissier, 690/542; 590/B2; 633/W4; 623/500; 631/501; and 'Aries,' La Grande encyclop¨¦die, Paris 1895, p. 979; and 12 See the maps in Roland Dorn, Decoration: Vincent 712/555. Rollet, op. cit. (note 7), p. 23. van Goghs Werkreihe f¨¹r das Gelbe Haus in Aries, 
Hildesheim, Zurich & New York 1990, p. xv and 




Montmajour is the site of a ruined medieval abbey, situat-ed at the summit of a rocky hill that overlooks what had once been flooded, muddy marshland and had become, through centuries of reclamation, the partially fertile fields of La Crau. With original buildings dating from the 12th and 14th centuries, Montmajour swarmed with Christian pilgrims during the annual Pardon of St Pierre and St-Croix; the Historical atlas of Provence, for example, highlights these pilgrimages as being of'particular renown' in the region.18 
The Montmajour abbey flourished under the Benedictine order from I659 but was suppressed in 1786 by Louis XVI because of the involvement of its abbot, the Cardinal de Rohan, in the diamond necklace affair; in 1791 the grounds and buildings were declared national property, broken up and sold off. Left to decay for a century and a half, the cloisters, crypt and tower began to be restored by the Aries municipal authority in 1862 and this continued apace through 1889.1 9 
By the time of Van Gogh's visits the site was both an integral part of the tourist itinerary and a key monument for regional identity. Guidebooks published between 1887 and 1905 highlight the historical and architectural interest of a trip there, 'a mere 12 minutes away by train' from the Aries rail station. Tourists were advised, for example, to at-tend to the fact that 'both the monastery church and the huge crypt beneath it are in the form of a Latin cross'; to climb and study the carved parapets of the 14th-century donjon-tower; to notice the 'large gargoyles and corbels' visible on the original lean-to roof; and to admire the intri-cately carved capitals of the cloister, which include a dra-matic rendering of St Martha miraculously rescuing a child from the local monster, the Tarasque.20 
At the same time as it was claimed as a stop along the tourist route, Montmajour was reclaimed by local reli-gious and political interests. Debates over the relocation of relics from its lower church crypt continued to rage into the 19th century, with the relics of St Anthony finally being deposited in the nearby parish church of St Julian. After 
i860 Montmajour also emerged as a sacred site of Provencal regionalism. As part of his massive project to re-cover the autonomy and distinctiveness of Provence's lan-guage, religion and historical culture, Frederic Mistral and his colleagues - known as the F¨¦libres - glorified Montmajour as the royal necropolis of a non-Bourbon lin-eage. Along with ancient Christian relics, the abbey also housed the tombs of some of the counts of Provence, who for Mistral and his allies formed the core of a suppressed pre-modern dynasty of the south that needed to be com-memorated anew. 'At Montmajour,' wrote Mistral, 'our Arlesian kings sleep beneath the cloister slabs.' To solidify the link between the region's pre-history and its contempo-rary renaissance, Mistral planned to hold the 1889 congress of the F¨¦libres movement - the congress of St-Estelle - in the halls of the Montmajour abbey.21 
The particularities of local religious and regional culture eluded Van Gogh in his encounter with Montmajour. Unlike the tourist, he walked the hour's jour-ney from Aries rather than taking the train, and he chose the site as a place of study, surveying and drawing, noting in his letters that he visited the place no less than 'fifty times' during the spring and early summer of 1888 [643/509].2 2 The artist showed no interest in those ele-ments that enticed the tourist, the pilgrim or the regional revivalist. Neither the historical layers of medieval archi-tecture nor the crypts housing the remains of secular and sacred figures drew his attention. Instead, he was riveted by the varying views of the flat landscape below. 
In May and July Van Gogh produced two sets of drawings at Montmajour. He explicitly related these series to Dutch precedents and to the potential Dutch market, in-terspersed with what he considered the tracings of Japan and the modern landscape. The first group of seven draw-ings includes four panoramas looking out from the hill from various vantage points, yielding together a virtual cir-cling of the promontory and the views below. Van Gogh produced a second set of five drawings of the site in July 1888. Two of these (figs. 7 and 8) were panoramic scenes of La Crau, which he considered 'the best things I have done in pen and ink.' Unlike the May series, which were execut-ed rapidly, these July images were 'finished "presentation drawings,'" 'substitute paintings,' 'exhaustively explored and carefully controlled' [643/509].2 3 Laid out on exactly matching large sheets, when placed side by side the two pendant panoramas appear to compose a single, extensive, interlocking vista of the plains below. 
18  Montmajour was surrounded by so much water that  which is also mentioned in Oakley (p. 229).  
it was called the 'Island of Montmajour' throughout the  
medieval period; as late as the 17th century pilgrims  19  On the restorations see Venture, op. cit. (note 7),  
came and went by means of rafts. See Cook, op. cit.  pp. 10-16; for historical developments, see also Oakley,  
(note 4), pp. 26-34; S. Baring-Gould, op. cit. (note 7),  op. cit. (note 18), pp. 223-24; and Cook, op. cit. (note  
pp. 109-110; and Amy Oakley, The heart of Provence,  4), pp. 26-34.  
New York 1936, p. 223. The Atlas entry and map of im- 
portant Provencal pilgrimages is reproduced in Jean-Paul  20  See Evert van Uitert and Michael Hoyle (eds.), The  
Cl¨¦bert, Les f¨ºtes de Provence, Avignon 1982, pp. 161- Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, Amsterdam 1987, p.  
62. Cook (op. cit. [note 4], p. 30) notes a figure of  226; Baring-Gould, op. cit. (note 7), pp. 109-11; and  
54  150,000 devotees attending the 1409 Pardon festival,  Cook, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 26-34.  

La Crau seenfrom Montmajour (fig. 7) unfolds in regular horizontal bands in a grid-like pattern towards a gentle slope at the back, marking the partial presence of the Mont des Cordes. In typical fashion, Van Gogh coaxes the viewer's eye into the picture plane by using a direction-al device in the mid-foreground: three rows of trees arranged as a linear runner. He renders the main area of fertile acreage in the checkerboard blocks of the middle ground. Upright pen strokes define and frame each slice of field, while the inner swaths appear raised and nubby, with a build-up of intermeshed strokes of black and brown ink that yield a 'heightened textural effect.'24 
The companion piece, Landscape of Montmajour with train (fig. 8), relies on a similar variety of graphic de-notations in order to capture the expansive view over the fields and landscape, this time looking northwest towards the Rhone and the Alpilles mountains. This drawing in-cludes clearer signs of human activity and its representa-tives than La Crau. A horse-drawn cart and rider move across to the left; two small but clearly discernable figures walk towards the viewer; a train puffs through the middle ground to the right, while behind it we find a plough and ploughman. Deft and discernable notations identify all these elements. If we look closely, for example, we can see how a witty small stroke and dash of ink are used to define a tiny pipe in the mouth of the walking man on the right; another on the back of the left-hand figure suggests a rec-tangular back-pack. Both are signs of an artist's ¨¦quipe, and the pair may be hiking to their day's work at Montmajour, as Van Gogh himself so often did [506/642]. 
Van Gogh compared the flat huge plains of La Crau to those of 'the old Holland of Ruysdael's time,' a vista 'like a map' and 'as beautiful and infinite as the sea.' His inclu-sive view and splayed, rectangular fields have been likened to similar elements in Ruysdael's View of Haarlem, al-though the former lacks the 'masses of clouds' that domi-nate Ruysdael's depiction of the northern skies.2 5 The La Crau panorama also evokes the model of another 17th-cen-tury painter Van Gogh often recalled in Aries, Philips de Ronink, whose works - such as his 1655 Distant view in Gelderland - are the perfect illustration of what art histori-an Svetlana Alpers has called the peculiarly Dutch practice of the 'mapped landscape,' where a 'vast continuum of land' gives way to a 'seemingly endless' stretch of plains expanding simultaneously both laterally and into depth.26 
Two types of selective vision are thus at work in Van Gogh's Montmajour series. The first group of drawings, cir-cling the hill, reveals his pattern of inattention to the com-plex of sacred buildings that provided the major attraction for other visitors to the site. He produced his series either with his back to the abbey complex or included it only as an incidental geometric shape in the landscape, divested of its signifying Catholic symbols and carvings. The July draw-ings suggest a second type of transformation. An unavoid-able and imposing element of the terrain Van Gogh would have observed from Montmajour was the Alpilles mountain range, which lines Provence between Avignon and Aries with jagged crests reaching some 400 metres. Van Gogh did not screen out the mountains altogether but he tends to di-minish their size, scale and prominence as defining fea-tures of the landscape. In celebrating the two large panora-mas as his 'best in pen and ink,' for example, he selected those vistas that minimise the mountainous topography most sharply. The landscape of Montmajour with train (fig. 
21  Venture, op. cit (note 7), pp. 14, see also p. 11.  23  See also Johannes van der Wolk, Ronald Pickvance  
Ancestor worship, mingling Troubadour culture and  and E.B.F. Pey, Vincent van Gogh: drawings, Milan 1990,  
Christian folk culture, were central to Mistral's project.  p. 227.  
On the counts of Provence and the tombs see B¨¦renger- 
F¨¦raud, op. cit. (note 6), p. 234; Oakley, op. cit. (note  24  Pickvance, op. cit. (note 1), p. 117.  
18), p. 229; Cook, op. cit. (note 4), p. 33; and Goby, op.  
cit (note 4), pp.147-56.  25  Van Uitert and Hoyle, op. cit. (note 20), p. 226.  
22  See also Van Uitert and Hoyle, op. cit. (note 20), p.  26  Svetlana Alpers, The art of describing: Dutch art in  
55  226.  the 17th century, Chicago 1983, chapter 4.  





proposed setting the triptych in a tavern at Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer or Marseilles, where sailors coming and going from rough seas could be inspired and heartened by the work's crude and radiant colours, interlinked forms and fa-miliar and humble subject.35 
In giving a triptych form and consolatory function to his painting Van Gogh was not simply substituting one kind of religious imagery for another. New evidence from local sources suggests that La berceuse represents a dynamic and creative adaptation of particular elements of Catholic pop-ular piety uniquely available to Van Gogh during his time in Provence, elements that helped shape the form, meaning and function of the paintings. 
First, Van Gogh began working on La berceuse dur-ing the Christmas weeks of 1888, a period of particularly vibrant popular Nativity culture in Aries. The local market was lined with stalls selling ceramic figurines called san-tons, which feature a variety of male and female types -from the cheese seller and spinner to the broom seller and knife grinder - to be placed in family cr¨¨ches alongside the Holy Family in the stable manger. These Provencal santons came to life in annual theatrical versions of the Nativity known as pastorales, which combined farcical comedy with anachronistic miraculous witnessing as local charac-ters such as peasants, artisans, municipal officials and gypsies were shown making their way to welcome the ba-by Saviour. Although he did not fully understand the Occitan dialect, Van Gogh went to the Folies Arl¨¦siennes in early January of 1889 to see such a play, the Riboun Pastorale, a Nativity 'comic-opera in 5 acts.'3 6 The combi-nation of music, pantomime, special effects and spectacle made the story generally comprehensible. Van Gogh was deeply affected by the music, writing to Theo of the stir-ring singing of the 'amazing' 'old peasant woman' at the cradle of the newborn Jesus in the last scene of the play 
[747/574].37 
The letter in which Van Gogh describes this pas-torale and his reactions is also the one in which he de-scribes the third version of La berceuse, expressing his idea that the canvas might convey solace for sailors in their iso-lation, elicit a 'sense of being rocked' and recall 'childhood lullabies.' The Aries pastorale offered at this critical mo-ment in the evolution of La berceuse a theatrical version of a modern sacred Nativity, culminating in a scene of collec-tive redemption at the baby's cradle. The musical climax of the play and the wondrous voice of the woman singing to the baby may also have triggered his associations of the musicality of La berceuse as an agent of consolational form. 
Van Gogh's combined allusion of La berceuse to sailors, early Christian saints and holy women and the set-ting of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer or Marseilles also has a distinctive and historically-specific meaning and reso-nance. Both of these coastal towns were centres of dynamic 19th-century matriarchal Christian cults linked to the lives and fates of sailors at sea. The pilgrimage town of Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer - also known as Notre Dames de la Barque or 'Our Ladies of the Boat' - celebrated the miracu-lous landing of the two Marys and St Sarah at the dawn of Christianity. The statuettes and model boat of the female saints were elaborately decorated and launched in the mas-sive annual ceremony completed just five days before Van Gogh arrived to work there at the end of May 1888, having hired a coach service specially run for the duration of the pilgrimage.3 8 The visual culture of the town of Saintes-Maries - including prints, postcards, paintings and figura-tive arts - was dominated by the presence and miraculous agency of the female saints in their celestial ship. The churches at both Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer and Marseilles contained some of the largest collections of ex-voto paint-ings in Provence, a genre of popular religious art that of-fered thanks to a saint or the Virgin for acts of deliverance from earthly misfortune or accidents. A special type of nav-
35 See Emile Bernard, Les hommes d'aujourd'hui 8 37 See also 'Theatre d'Aries,' Le Forum R¨¦publicain, (1891), no. 390, n. p. Journal de /'Arrondissement d'Aries, paraissant tous les 
Dimanches, 13 January 1889 and Silverman, op. cit (note 36 The play, with sketches of the characters and musical 14), pp. 347-59. scores and lyrics, was later published in E. and A. Perret, Riboun Pastoualo, op¨¦ra-coumique en 5 Ate, Aix-en-38 See Pickvance, op. cit. (note 1), p. 83. Provence 1925. It is dedicated to Frederic Mistral and in-scribed by the brothers with place and date: Eygui¨¨res, 39 I trace the votive culture of Saintes-Maries and its 1888.1 am indebted to Elizabeth Covington and Aaron relation to the La berceuse more fully in Silverman, op. Segal for helping me track down the play, which we could cit. (note 14), pp. 359-69. not find in the archives or libraries of Aries; it was finally 
 discovered in the collection of the New York Public Library. 


VAN GOGH AND GAUGUIN 


Tracing a transformation: Madame Roulin into La berceuse 
Kristin Hoermann Lister 
During his ten-year career as an artist, Vincent van Gogh Aries was undertaken, a related studio practice came to regularly used a variety of traditional methods to facilitate light.2 After examining the majority of paintings from this the transfer of motifs and images from one medium to an-period, comparing their x-rays, and superimposing our other or between the same mediums. Initially, he copied own tracings, Cornelia Peres and I were faced with two ex-prints with the help of a grid laid over the original (squar-planations for the correspondence of multiple versions, in-ing). Later, he would use the same means when making his cluding the five 'Berceuses.' Either Van Gogh possessed a painted enlarged copies of Japanese prints,1 and in St-R¨¦my virtually unimaginable ability to transpose compositions he turned to it once again when creating his 'colour transla-freehand from one canvas to another with such accuracy tions' of prints after Rembrandt, Delacroix and Millet. that the contours of the principle forms align almost exact-
Over a number of years the perspective frame also ly, or he used tracings. We support the latter conclusion, played an important role. He first used this tool in early first presented to the public by Roland Dorn in 2000, when 1882 and continued to employ it in Aries, and probably he illustrated the congruity between the contours of even afterwards. What the drawn grid does for a print, the Madame Roulin in the two portraits of her and in La perspective frame achieves for three-dimensional reality: berceuse, placing this transfer process in the context of Van its lines allow the artist to transfer what he sees to a piece Gogh's craftsmanship and working strategies.3 The use of of paper or canvas onto which similar lines have been tracing not only produced the overall close correspon-drawn. dence, but also explains two otherwise unaccountable 
Both procedures had a long-standing tradition. facts: that the Van Gogh Museum's Sunflowers of January When in 1998, during the preparation for the exhibition 1889 (F 458 JH 1667) aligns with the August 1888 version Van Gogh and Gauguin: the studio of the south, a study of (F 454 JH 1562),4 but the contours correspond section by the techniques and methods used in the paintings both section, which could only occur if tracing had been used artists created during their nine-week collaboration in and the paper had shifted once or twice as the artist trans-ferred it; and that The Art Institute's Berceuse, the second in the series, corresponds exactly to the underdrawing rather than the final painted contours of its predecessor in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, which can only be explained by a tracing previously made from the initial sketch. 
The author is indebted to Cornelia Peres with whom the  1  In the two tracings that still exist, Van Gogh traced im- croscope in their conservation studios, provided x-rays  
examinations and initial tracings were undertaken, to  ages of Japanese prints onto translucent paper and  that enabled comparison between works in different col- 
Douglas W. Druick, Peter Kort Zegers, Sjraar van  squared them for enlargement and transfer to larger can- lections, and in most cases provided canvas fibre and  
Heugten and Britt Salvesen for their contributions to this  vases: Japonaiserie: bridge in the rain (after Hiroshige)  ground samples for analysis. See Kristin Hoermann Lister,  
essay, and to Bonnie Rimer for producing the scaled  (F 371 JH 1297) and Japonaiserie: Oiran (after Kesa'f  Cornelia Peres and Inge Fiedler, 'Appendix. Tracing an  
computer overlays.  Yeisen) (F 373 JH 1298).  interaction: supporting evidence, experimental grounds,'  
in Douglas W. Druick and Peter Kort Zegers, exhib. cat.  
2 The curators spearheading the research project were  Van Gogh and Gauguin: the studio of the south, Chicago  
Douglas W. Druick and Peter Kort Zegers at The Art  (The Art Institute) & Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum)  
Institute. The conservators who examined the paintings  2001 -02, pp. 354-69, for further results of this research.  
and collected the data were Cornelia Peres, former head  
of conservation at the Van Gogh Museum and myself.  3 See Roland Dorn, 'The Aries period: symbolic means,  
Mary Weaver provided research assistance and Inge  decorative ends,' in exhib. cat. Van Gogh face to face,  
Fiedler coordinated sample analysis. Colleagues from the  Detroit (The Detroit Institute of Arts) 2000, esp. pp. 140- 
Van Gogh Museum, Ella Hendriks, Louis van Tilborgh,  41.  
Sjraar van Heugten and Leo Jansen provided valuable in- 
put during the project. The research involved unprece- 4 See the article by Louis van Tilborgh and Ella Hendriks  
dented cooperation from institutions around the world,  in this volume of the Van Gogh Museum Journal.  
63  which allowed us to examine the paintings under the mi- 

In the case of the Sunflowers, not only the later January versions but also the work on jute (F 457 JH 1666), determined by our study to have been painted in December 1888, were begun with tracings taken from the original August paintings. In developing the initial composition for La berceuse (F 508 JH 1671, fig 1), also in December, Van Gogh traced part of an earlier painting and later employed tracing to repeat the composition. Both motifs, it should be noted, were also associated with Gauguin. The discovery of Van Gogh's use of tracing in La berceuse is particularly in-teresting because portraiture was central to his practice and mission. A picture constructed using various pre-exist-ing elements rather than painted from life, La berceuse marks a greater departure from basic principles on Van Gogh's part - and a greater responsiveness to Gauguin's ideas - than had previously been imagined. Van Gogh ac-knowledged this later in a letter to Emile Bernard in which he made a statement about La berceuse that is perplexing if we assume he based the work solely on studies from life -as was more typical for his portraits - but makes perfect sense in the context of the procedure outlined in this essay: 'When Gauguin was in Aries, I once or twice allowed my-self to be led astray into abstraction, as you know, for in-stance in the Berceuse. [...] At the time, I considered ab-straction an attractive method. But that was delusion, dear friend, and one soon comes up against a brick wall' 
[824/B21]. 
Tracing 
A tracing is made by placing a thin, translucent pa-per (called papier caique or papier vegetal in French) over a source image and following the contour lines with a pen-cil, crayon, etc.5 The traced image can then be transferred by several methods. The simplest is to apply a friable medi-um such as chalk or charcoal to the reverse of the paper, place this chalked side against the new surface, and retrace the lines with a pointed tool or pencil, thereby transferring lines of chalk from the reverse to the fresh surface.6 Another method is to chalk a thin sheet of paper and slip it between the tracing and the new surface. By this 'carbon copy' method, the back of the original need not be covered with chalk. These methods of transfer would of course transfer the image in the same size (one-to-one).7 
Our technical examinations of Van Gogh's works painted during the period from late 1888 to early 1889 re-vealed that he almost invariably began by making a light charcoal contour sketch on the primed canvas, outlining areas of the composition and (in the case of portraits) the features of a sitter in a most summary manner. Occasionally he would then reinforce the charcoal lines with a painted sketch, sometimes also laying in thin, flat underlayers of colour;8 but more frequently he proceeded directly from the charcoal underdrawing to applying his thick, gestural, interwoven brushstrokes. He generally worked within the areas delineated by the contour sketch, making only slight deviations and adjustments; during the final steps of painting he often covered the join between adjacent areas of colour with a heavy contour line. The charcoal contours transferred from the back of a tracing would have functioned in an identical manner to contours sketched freehand. Snatches of these charcoal underdraw-ings, where they have not been covered by paint layers, can be seen on Van Gogh's paintings with the aid of a micro-scope, but these areas are so small that no distinction can be made between freehand and transferred lines.9 
The evidence for this new discovery regarding Van Gogh's tracing practice is mainly circumstantial. Only two 
5 If the original was drawn in soft chalk or charcoal it is 7 Pierre Louise Bouvier published a comprehensive also possible to lay a paper over it, rub the entire surface, artist's manual in 1827, Manuel des jeunes artistes et and pick up enough of the original material in a counter amateurs en peinture, which describes these two meth-image that can then be transferred (perhaps after rein-ods of transfer in the 18th lesson, 'how one traces a forcing) onto another surface. My thanks to Ren¨¦ Boitelle drawing made on paper that is to be reproduced on a of the Van Gogh Museum for providing this information. canvas.' My thanks to Ren¨¦ Boitelle for providing this in-
formation and translating it from the Dutch edition, 6 For more on tracing in the 19th century see Anne Handboek voor jonge beoefenaars en liefhebbers der Maheux, exhib. cat. Degas pastels, Ottawa (The National Schilderkunst, Breda 1831, pp. 229-32. 'Pouncing' is an-Gallery of Canada) 1988, pp. 44-45 and Richard Kendall, other transfer method, whereby small holes are pricked exhib. cat. Degas: beyond impressionism, London along the lines of the drawing or tracing and loose pig-(National Gallery) 1996, esp. pp. 81-87. ment passed through to the new surface. Gauguin some-
times used this method; see Vojt.ch Jirat-Wasiutyhski 
tracings have been preserved, both from the Paris period, but these are squared for enlargement and were not used for direct transfer. In contrast, for example, to prints with grids, such tracings had no intrinsic value and if the re-verse had been blackened would have been difficult to store as well. Nor does Van Gogh ever mention tracing in his letters - although this does not necessarily mean much, as he is rather reticent about such matters in general. The proof that Van Gogh did indeed use tracings was delivered when the relevant works were scanned and sized to scale with the aid of a computer. Printed out on transparent melinex, the images were then laid on top of one another. The similarities thus revealed were so astonishing that it was immediately obvious - even without primary evidence 
- that the artist had indeed used the tracing method. It seems possible Van Gogh already employed trac-ings in Nuenen. There is, for example, a remarkable corre-spondence between the two versions of a head of an old peasant woman (F8oa JH 682 and F 588r JH 732). Similarly, there is a literal correlation between the contours and fa-cial feature in three studies of a young peasant girl (F 85 JH 693, F 141 JH 783 and F 160 JH 772). In both these cases Van Gogh used the same head for different artistic experi-ments with colour and brushwork. In Paris, too, it seems Van Gogh made use of tracings, for example in copying the Japanese prints found in the background of the large Portrait ofP¨¨re Tanguy (F 363 JH 1351): the painted copies are precisely the same size as the original woodcuts and the intricate design of Toyokuni Ill's Miurayano Takao: a geisha, for example, is reproduced exactly. Up to this point, Van Gogh's use of tracing had been somewhat sporadic, relating either to the production of replicas, to artistic experiments, or feeding into the major pictorial statement of a tableau. He only truly began to use 
the method on a broader scale in Aries, where he came to rely on it more and more in the course of 1888. It can be demonstrated that he used tracing to transpose drawings into paintings in Path through a field with willows (F 407 JH 1402) and Fishing boats on the beach (F 413 JH 1392); and to develop the portrait sketch into a finished work in the Portrait ofPatience Escalier (F 443 JH 1548). This latter effort, the leap from study to fully realised pictorial state-ment, was a long-held goal. 
In the summer of that year, awaiting Gauguin's ar-rival, Van Gogh had been explicit about his hope that the former would facilitate his production of tableaux, and this expectation conditioned his receptiveness (and resis-tance) to his friend's approach and method. Gauguin, ob-serving Van Gogh's preference for painting quickly before the motif, demonstrated his own techniques of working from the imagination and of synthesising a picture by combining elements from different sources. He got a prime opportunity to do so when their neighbour, Madame Ginoux, came to the studio to pose for both artists in early November. After drawing a large portrait of Madame Ginoux (fig. 2a), Gauguin traced and transferred her onto his canvas The night caf¨¦ (fig. 2b), borrowing the setting from Van Gogh's September composition of the same scene (F 463 JH 1575) and inserting caricatures of Van Gogh's friends the Zouave and the postman into the background. It is not known whether Gauguin used trac-ing before coming to Aries. To be sure, he often made full-size preparatory drawings, but evidence suggests that up until this point he usually reproduced these drawings on canvas by squaring rather than by tracing and chalking.1 0 Perhaps Van Gogh suggested that Gauguin try the more direct tracing method and even supplied the tracing paper (he had similarly supplied prepared canvas when Gauguin first arrived).1 1 At the same time, Gauguin en-couraged Van Gogh to borrow his own, more far-reaching methods of pictorial synthesis and to experiment more freely with composing from the imagination. 
and H. Travers Newton Jr Technique and meaning in the identified carbon. My thanks to Inge Fiedler for the 10 It has been suggested that in Aries Gauguin may also 
r
paintings of Paul Gauguin, Cambridge 2000, pp. 70-71, analysis. Because charcoal particles do not adhere well to have used tracing for the figure in Human miseries (W 76, 81, 87-88,121-22, 227 (note 39), and 239 (note the ground layer, they were often picked up by the 304; Paris, Fondation Dina Vierny); see Jirat-Wasiutyhski 14). strokes of paint. These dark particles can also be seen and Newton, op. cit. (note 7), p. 239. A drawing on trac-
mixed into the paint along the contours. Later cleaning ing paper of the principal figure still exists, but it is not 8 For example, the yellow-on-blue Twelve sunflowers in and varnishing can dislodge exposed remnants of the actually the same size. My thanks to Peter Kort Zegers a vase (F 456 JH 1561), painted in August 1888, shows charcoal. Infrared reflectography, commonly used to re-for determining this. evidence of a green painted sketch and of flowers first veal underdrawings and even to determine whether the laid in with flat yellow. lines have been drawn freehand, transferred or pounced, 11 See Druick and Kort Zegers, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 
is of little use in examining these pictures, not only be-165-66 and 355. 9 A sample of the underdrawing material from The Art cause Van Gogh's thick and uneven impasto cannot be Institute's Berceuse (F 506 JH 1670, fig. 6a) was identi-penetrated by this analytical device, but because many fied as charcoal by polarized light microscopy. SEM-EDX lines were presumably dislodged during painting. 










Although the first Berceuse was fully conceptualised and for the most part completed in December, it had devel-oped in an organic, unsystematic way. When Van Gogh re-sumed work on the portrait in January 1889, the skirt, hands, rope and part of the chair and background remained unfin-ished. These are the elements that do not feature in either Van Gogh's or Gauguin's previous studies of Madame Roulin, and that were more slowly resolved. Evidence of extended drying time between layers indicates that before Van Gogh was hospitalised in late December the skirt had received only underlayers of paint (a first underlayer of turquoise, followed by a second, relatively flat green layer) and the hands had probably received only one flat underlayer of greenish yellow paint. On circa 21 January the artist expressed the hope that Madame Roulin might model again: 'If I could finish it, I should be very glad, but I am afraid she will not want to pose with her husband away' [744/573]. He apparently completed the hands that same day without a sitting, possibly referring to the August Portrait ofJoseph Roulin (fig. 5a) as a model, as he had for the underdrawing in December. In a letter a day or two later, Van Gogh described the hands to fellow artist A. H. Koning as though they were finished: 'The complexion is chrome yellow, worked up with some naturally broken tones for the purpose of modelling. The hands holding the rope of the cradle, the same' [745/571 a]. Van Gogh completed the hands quickly, with fluid strokes of many mixed colours: yel-lows, pinks, blues and greens, which recall the medley of colours used for her hand in the earlier portrait holding the child (fig. 4a). The chromatic range renders the hands and face closer in appearance to each other and to the artist's let-ter description than in any of the other versions. 
During the second session Van Gogh probably com-pleted a few unfinished details of the wallpaper, gave form to the skirt with a layer of varied green and yellow strokes, com-pleted the chair and final contour lines, and added the inscrip-tion 'La berceuse.' He also elaborated the rope in paint. The rope was not part of the initial underdrawing, but the artist had already indicated its position in December: he must have planned to add it when the first, turquoise underlayer of the skirt was still wet, for he marked its shape with the brush in the wet paint, leaving a textural indication of where it should go. Since this paint layer had already dried when Van Gogh returned to paint the actual rope in January, the indication for it must have been made during the first campaign.28 
Van Gogh used tracing not only to develop the image from earlier sources, but also to produce three of the four sub-sequent versions. He apparently traced the contours of the first Berceuse as soon as its underdrawing was complete, using this tracing to transfer the contours of the entire figure to the canvas of the second version, executed circa 24-28 January 1889. The alignment between the Boston and Chicago ver-sions is very close, with a slight shift down when the hands and forearms were traced (fig. 7). Certain differences result from the fact that the tracing was taken from the underdraw-ing of the first version rather than from the completed paint-ing: the lower right shoulder and sleeve seam in the Chicago version follow a pentiment visible in the Boston prototype, al-though Van Gogh had made an adjustment in the final paint layer.29 Other deviations appear to be formal in nature: in the Chicago Berceuse the fingers are lengthened in one direction, the rope is swung to the other side, and the cuff is shortened to accommodate the rope. Van Gogh also made some changes to lend the figure a more solemn presence: the eyelids are lowered, the corner of the mouth is drawn downward, and the plaits pinned more tightly to the head. Adding to the solemni-ty, the colour of the wallpaper background is now a deep, mysterious green.30 The encrusted impasto in the face of the first version has become more subdued, a change paralleled in the shift from thick impasto in the December Sunflowers (F 457 JH 1666) to thinner paint application in the January ver-sions (F 458 JH 1667 and F 455 JH 1668) - the latter painted at the same time as this second Berceuse. 
phate in the lead white ground of the Amsterdam version while varnish was recently removed from the Boston and caused it to become duller when saturated by wax and Chicago versions, returning them to a state much closer to varnish from restoration. In the New York version the their original appearance. The surfaces of Van Gogh's modelling is more difficult to analyse, as large fills and re-chrome yellows and oranges tend to discolour and darken touches in the forehead, upper lip and cheek confuse the with age. This effect cannot be safely reversed but should issue. At present the bright highlights on the forehead and be considered when evaluating the appearance of his cheek of the Otterlo version give a false impression of the paintings. Unfortunately the yellow is particularly sensitive modelling and exaggerate the tonal contrast. The high-to solvent abrasion, so that this darkened skin is some-lights were at some point preferentially cleaned of dis-times broken through when cleaned, which results in un-coloured varnish and so are brighter in relation to the rest naturally bright spots and a mottled appearance. See also of the face than they were meant to be. Presently the note 37, below, regarding fading. Otterlo, Amsterdam and New York versions have varnish, 


have regained their animation. Triangulating the head in the manner of the early versions Van Gogh exaggerated this shape by narrowing the neckline, while retaining the double contour at the top edge of the bodice, which had on-ly appeared in the Amsterdam version. In this final version he also changed the proportions of the body by lowering the waist. In a letter of 29 March, in which Van Gogh men-tions that he was painting La berceuse for the fifth time, he stated that 'it has not even the merit of being photographi-cally correct in its proportions or in anything else. But after all, I want to make a picture such as a sailor at sea who could not paint would imagine to himself when he thinks of his wife ashore' [757/582]. This comment may reflect how far Van Gogh now had come from the actual live model by working from his imagination and from his own original studies and tracings.34 
Having determined how tracing was used to com-pose the five versions of La berceuse, it is now possible to separate out certain elements that Van Gogh consciously adjusted to differ from the tracing and also to identify those parts of the compositions that were created without tracing. This comparative analysis gives insight into the artistic problems that concerned Van Gogh at the time and reveals progressive developments in certain direc-tions. 
The hands and rope were the aspects of La berceuse that troubled Van Gogh the most. In the first ver-sion he experimented with active brushwork and colour on the hands, but he abandoned this in subsequent ver-sions, perhaps because it drew attention to them. In the second version, he tried lengthening the fingers of one hand and swinging the rope to the side, making both into more dynamic elements of the composition; in the third, the diagonals are strengthened by extending the fingers of both hands. Besides switching the hands' position in the New York version, he initially planned for only one diago-nal segment of rope - the left portion was not drawn or held in reserve but was instead added later, over the skirt. In the fourth version, the hands are elongated (perhaps by a shift in the tracing, as suggested above) and none of the rope was included in the underdrawing, again being added after the skirt was painted. In the fifth and final version Van Gogh perhaps decided that the best way to deal with the awkward rope and hands was to de-empha-sise them - the hands are thinly painted in neutral tones, the contours around them are less pronounced (although now possibly faded from an originally darker tone), while the viewer's eye is drawn instead to the surrounding area of the skirt, which is energised with more dynamic brush-work, thicker impasto and stronger colours than those used in the other versions.35 These changing configura-tions of the hands and rope indicate Van Gogh's difficulty in portraying these elements convincingly and integrating them into the composition, perhaps ultimately stemming from his dissatisfaction with not having painted the hands from life. 
As Van Gogh varied the berceuse's hands, he also changed the ring on the third finger of her left hand, re-placing her wedding band, in progressive stages, with a large blue jewel. In the first Berceuse, Madame Roulin wears double gold bands, as in the New York mother-and-child portrait painted from life (fig. 4a). In the second ver-sion, Van Gogh initially painted the same double wedding band, but then added a blue jewel on the upper band and painted out the lower one. This was probably at the same time that he was adding orange dots to the wallpaper, for he used the same colour, which does not blend well with the hand. Perhaps the original wedding band was too strong an allusion to the outside world and Madame Roulin's everyday role as wife. In the third version, Van Gogh covered her ring finger by placing her right hand on top. In the fourth, after abandoning the right-over-left 
wrist and rope contours match. The exact alignment of foliage details into the wallpaper in this version, his great the separate parts includes certain odd details like the in-familiarity with flowers would have allowed him to do so dentation along the top contour of the middle finger (be-without a model on hand. fore the shift), and the extreme indentations in the lower contour of the hands (after the shift). Similar shifting of 35 The interwoven pattern of parallel green and yellow the tracing paper occurred in the sunflower series. Van brushstrokes in the Otterlo skirt might almost suggest a Gogh's ready adaptation to such shifting provides a fur-landscape, visually comparable to the pattern of green ther insight into his use of tracings as tools: he did not and yellow grass in Two white butterflies (F 402 JH slavishly depend on the tracings but they facilitated the 1677), probably painted soon thereafter. Perhaps the ar-painting process by carrying over essential forms. rival of spring was an inspiration for this brushwork. The 
more naturalistic flowers in the Otterlo background may 34 Although he did bring more naturalistic flowers and also reflect a re-awakened interest in nature. 


full blossoms.38 This is not immediately obvious because 
in the Postman the flower group has been rotated 180 de-
grees. On at least one occasion Van Gogh had turned a Berceuse upside down on the easel as he painted the wall-paper, and this may also explain the rotated flower group 
in the Postman.39 
In the Otterlo version of La berceuse every element of the wallpaper has become more elaborate and the space overflows with an abundance of flowers and curves. When working from the imagination as here, Van Gogh had no natural endpoint. Thus, as in Memory of the garden atEtten (fig. 8), he continued to elaborate the surface.40 In contrast to the abbreviated, almost staccato brushwork of the face, the wallpaper is fully developed, with multiple layers of textural impasto and varied colours that give dimension to the forms. The entire picture is painted with loose, rhyth-mic brushstrokes, applied with a sure hand and sense of purpose that Van Gogh had acquired by painting the com-position so many times before. Like a musician playing a familiar piece he confidently controlled the rhythm, the clarity of the notes and the variations in dynamics. The artist himself later described the act of copying a composi-tion in similar terms: 'And then my brush goes between my fingers as a bow would on the violin, and absolutely for my own pleasure' [806/607].4 1 In this particular piece, the in-tricate elaboration of the wallpaper design may be the per-former's colourful cadenza. 
The preponderance of expressive repeating curves seen in the wallpaper of the Otterlo Berceuse had hitherto not been a feature of Van Gogh's style. These curves mark a stage in a progression: from the serpentine path in Memory of the garden atEtten, reiterated in the first study of Madame Roulin; through the repeating curves in the wall-paper design of the first Berceuse and the Portrait of Doctor F¨¦lix Rey (F 500 JH 1659); to the elaborately scrolled curves of the Otterlo Berceuse and two versions of the Postman (F 455 JH 1674 and fig. 9a). These curving strokes would final-ly evolve into one of Van Gogh's most signature brush pat-terns and stylistic elements. In St-R¨¦my they moved out of the abstract portrait space and into the landscape and sky, as seen in paintings such as Starry night (F 612 JH 1751, fig. 9b). 
Coda 
Van Gogh's series of portraits of the postman Joseph Roulin could be analysed using the same princi-ples detailed above. These likenesses of Augustine Roulin's husband were done at about the same time as the 1889 'Berceuses,' but there are no letter references to them and the sequence has not yet been carefully studied in light of the information that in-depth technical exami-nations can provide. They, too, are based on the use of tracing, with significant deviations and developments in the different versions. The nuances in the painting meth-ods used, together with the naturalistic and schematic tendencies they exhibit, are surely intertwined with those of La berceuse. 
While many other possible uses of tracing in Van Gogh's oeuvre have yet to be fully explored, there are two portrait series after the 'Berceuses' that can be mentioned in addition to the 'Postmen.' One group is a pair of self-por-traits done in August and September 1889, in St-R¨¦my.4 2 The first, in which Van Gogh holds a palette (F 626 JH 1770), was presumably done from life and was definitely traced to produce the second (F 627 JH 1772), in which he portrays himself against an abstract pattern of serpentine curves that is a continuation of the evocative space developed in 
La berceuse. 
38 Also seen in another version of the Postman (F 435 upwards drips and also the fact that the Otterlo wallpa-
JH 1674), now in The Barnes Foundation, Merion, per resembles that of the Postman when turned upside 

Pennsylvania. As in the two last 'Berceuses,' the wallpa-down. 
per of the New York and Barnes 'Postmen' was not in-
cluded in the underdrawing, but painted on top of the 40 In Memory of the garden the pattern of orange and 
background colour. blue marks over the mother's shawl and servant's dress, 

the additional flowers in the foreground and background 39 That Van Gogh turned the Boston version upside beds, and other surface elaborations were added after down when the wallpaper was partially completed can be the picture had ostensibly been completed (as sketched deduced from the fact that some of the orange dots drip in a letter to his sister, 725/W9). These changes were in an upwards direction. By turning the painting upside made over dry paint. See also note 21. down, these dabs of orange were less likely to drip on the face and body. There is an orange drip on the Boston 41 This passage relates to the paintings Van Gogh made face that was painted out. My thanks to Jim Wright, con-by copying prints after Eugene Delacroix and Jean-servator at the Museum of Fine Arts, for pointing out the Francois Millet. 
Another set of portraits that depended on tracing is the series of five 'Arl¨¦siennes' (F 541 JH 1893, F 540 JH 1892, F 542 JH 1894, F 543 JH 1895 and an additional ver-sion, mentioned as lost in a letter from the asylum director, Dr. Peyron). These were painted one year after the 'Berceuses' and depict the other woman at Aries with whom Van Gogh had an unusually sympathetic rapport, Marie Ginoux. They also allude directly to Aries through their source image: not one of Van Gogh's own portraits of Madame Ginoux, but the drawing of her that Gauguin had made in the first weeks of their collaboration and had left behind (fig. 2a). It would not be surprising to find a devel-opment in these portraits that is informed by the Berceuse series, and it is tempting to speculate that in the final ver-sion of L'Arl¨¦sienne Van Gogh elaborated the background with a pattern of flowers that was both evocative of Madame Ginoux's persona and emblematic of the artist's interaction with Gauguin.4 3 
42 At this same time Van Gogh used tracing to make a replica of The bedroom (F 482 JH 1608 and F 484 JH 1771). Earlier self-portrait series do not appear to involve tracing. Later, in June 1890, Van Gogh again used trac-ing for the head in the second portrait of Doctor Gachet (F 753 JH 2001). 
43 The flower that appears in the wallpaper pattern had been plucked from the background of Gauguin's Self-
portrait ('Les mis¨¦rables') (Amsterdam, Van Gogh 
Museum) and applied to Madame Ginoux's fichu by Van 
Gogh in his first portraits of her in 1888. Van Gogh made 
this particular version of L'Arl¨¦sienne: Madame Ginoux (F 543 JH 1895) for Gauguin; see Druick and Kort Zegers, op. cit. (note 2), p. 63 and Hulsker, op. cit. (note 22), p. 51. 

VAN GOGH AND GAUGUIN 



'Avant et apr¨¨s' - Paul Gauguin and Vincent van Gogh in Aries: projections of a friendship 
Beatrice von Bismarck 
I. 
Such is the extent to which the names Gauguin and 'pair' the one with the other. The culmination of this rela-Van Gogh have been mentioned in the same breath by art tionship, the point at which all the tension built up during historians of the 20th century that in 1947 Lee van Dovski this short period was finally discharged, was Van Gogh's did not shrink from drawing comparisons with the relation-act of self-mutilation. Historically speaking, this act ship between Friedrich Schiller and Johann Wolfgang von brought about not only the physical separation of the two Goethe. This reference to the quintessential embodiments artists but also marked an intellectual break with previous of German culture - and not least when viewed together -notions about their friendship - a break which, as we will exaggerates a connection that has come to be taken for see, gave the pairing of the names Gauguin and Van Gogh granted, proposed and supported by the titles of such im-a special significance in the discourse on the modern artist portant art-historical works as Gauguin und van Gogh by throughout the 20th century. Carl Sternheim or John Rewald's Post-impressionism: from One piece of literature stands out in this context, 
van Gogh to Gauguin.^ 'Van Gogh had the same flaming clearly illustrating the changing concept of the artists' temperament as Schiller,' writes Van Dovski, 'that grand friendship after 1889 and thus reduplicating in itself the pathos: "Let me embrace you, O millions!" Gauguin, on the rhetorical figure of 'before and after.' Significantly entitled other hand, wore the cool, stony mask of Weimar's Privy Avant et apr¨¨s, it is Gauguin's account of his life before and 
Councillor. What drove Schiller to despair - before he final-after his departure for the South Seas, written on the ly got through to Goethe's passionate inner self - was also Marquesas Islands in 1903, shortly before his death in May. what drove Van Gogh to despair. His fiery temperament 
Published in English under the title The intimate journals risked freezing to death on the apparent iciness of the 
of Paul Gauguin (1921) it describes, among other things, calm, unemotional, taciturn Gauguin.'2 
his encounters with Vincent van Gogh, from their first 
For Van Dovski and others the notion that these two meeting in Paris in the winter of 1886 through the time they artists inexorably belonged together stemmed from the fact spent together in Aries.3 No other account has been as fre-that they had at one time lived and worked side by side in quently quoted - sometimes verbatim - in works on Aries. Notwithstanding the conclusions we may draw as to Gauguin and Van Gogh, be they biographical, art-histori-their respective personalities and aesthetic convictions, the cal, novelistic or cinematic. Van Dovski, too, leaves it to events of October-December 1888 certainly prompt us to Gauguin to characterise the period spent in Aries: 'Between 
1 See Carl Sternheim, Gauguin und van Gogh, Berlin hindurch zum gliihenden Inneren Goethes durchstieft, 1924 and John Rewald, Post-impressionism: from Van das brachte auch van Gogh zur Verzweiflung. Sein Gogh to Gauguin, New York 1956. gl¨¹hendes Temperament drohte zu erfrieren an der 
scheinbar eisigen Ruhe, der Unbeweglichkeit des 2 Lee van Dovski (pseudonym for Herbert wortkargen Gauguin.' Lewandowski), Paul Gauguin oder Die Flucht vor der Zivilisation: Fine Maler-Biographie, Wiesbaden 1947, 3 See Paul Gauguin, Intimate journals, trans. Van 
pp. 94-95: 'Van Gogh besaft das lodernde Temperament Wyck Brooks, with a preface by Emil Gauguin, New York Schillers, das grofte Pathos: "Seid umschlungen, 1921, pp. 23-33, 42-45 and 141. The 1903 manuscript Millionen!" Gauguin aber besaft bereits die k¨¹hle stein-of 'Avant et apr¨¨s' was not published until 1918: Avant erne Maske des Weimarer Geheimen Rates. Was Schiller et apr¨¨s, Leipzig 1918 (reprint Copenhagen 1951). zur Verzweiflung brachte, bis er endlich durch die Maske 
two such beings - the one a perfect volcano, the other boil-standpoint of only one of the two persons concerned - but ing, too, but inwardly -a kind of battle was in belated as well, for it was not formulated until several preparation.'4 Underlying Gauguin's description is a logic years after the events described.7 That this source should that proceeds from the premise of insurmountable incom-have had such an overriding power may be ascribed to the patibility and concludes with the inevitability of Van Gogh's fact that the most essential contemporary sources of infor-self-disfigurement. Gauguin also includes further 'details' mation for research on Van Gogh, namely his letters to his in his narrative: how Van Gogh threw an absinthe glass at brother Theo, provide almost no information on those few him; followed and threatened him with an open razor; re-crucial weeks in Aries. Thus, Gauguin's memoirs - irre-turned, on his own, to the Yellow House; mutilated himself spective of the time that had elapsed between the events and then deposited his severed earlobe at the brothel the and his account of them - are our only 'eyewitness report.' two artists generally frequented, whereupon Gauguin left Indeed, they have acquired the status of historical docu-Aries without Van Gogh's ever seeing him again. The se-ments despite the fact that by the time of their appearance quence of events as set out in the Intimate journals has the naturalisation of the painters' friendship - i.e. the been repeated in a great many different works. The early transformation of their history into myth - had already tak-monographs on both Van Gogh and Gauguin - from Curt en place. For whilst the retrospective picture Gauguin cre-Glaser (1921) through Julius Meier-Graefe (1922) to Carl ated of his relationship with Van Gogh derives from ideas Sternheim (1924) - describe the incidents in this order, as the artists had of one another and their communal life in do the biographical novels of Beril Becker (1951), Irving Aries, it nevertheless alters their meaning. Stone (1954), Lee van Dovski (1947), Lawrence and 
At the beginning of their relationship, the prevail-
Elisabeth Hanson (1954) and Erich Landgrebe (1959). 
ing notion was one of an artists' community, which was 
Feature films such as Lustfor life by Vincente Minelli neither limited to Van Gogh and Gauguin nor based on any 
(1956)and Vincent and Theo by Robert Altman (1990), final-kind of fateful attraction between them. Van Gogh's notion 
ly, cemented the episode into the foundations of the myths of a 'studio of the south' instead stemmed from the wish to 
that now surround the two artists.5 Aries, the period of organise like-minded artists for purely economic reasons. 
companionship, has been transformed into 'drama.' 6 Working and living together could, for example, serve to reduce everyday expenses. Above all, however, the aim of 
II. such a community would be to channel the activities of its 
Thus it is that the view of the personal and aesthet-members for the financial benefit of everyone involved: ic differences between Gauguin and Van Gogh presented relatively well-known and less well-known painters could, in the Intimate journals has left its mark on the conception through the sale of their comparatively expensive works, of the two artists both in popular culture and in art history. help provide the upkeep of those who were just starting This view, however, is not just one-sided - based on the out. Theo van Gogh, who was to handle the business side 
4 Van Dovski, op. cit. (note 2), p. 95: 'Zwischen zwei and Tsukasa K.dera and Yvette Rosenberg (eds.), The Wesen, das eine ganz Vulkan, das andere auch kochend, mythology of Vincent van Gogh, Tokyo, Amsterdam & aber nur im Inneren, bereitete sich in gewisser Hinsicht Philadelphia 1993, in particular: Sjraar van Heugten, ein Kampf vor.' For the corresponding passage in the 'Vincent van Gogh as a hero of fiction,' pp. 161 -73 and Intimate journals see Gauguin, op. cit. (note 3), p. 9. Kees Pinxteren, 'Van Gogh in eighty-seven films and 
videos,' pp. 197-206. 5 Curt Glaser, Vincent van Gogh, Leipzig 1921; Julius Meier-Graefe, Vincent, Munich 1922; Sternheim, op. cit. 6 See Alfred Nemeczek's monograph Vincent van (note 1); Beril Becker, Paul Gauguin: the calm madman, Gogh: Das Drama von Aries, Munich & New York 1995. London, Toronto, Melbourne & Sydney 1931; Irving Stone, Lust for life, 1934; Van Dovski, op. cit. (note 2); 7 Isolated parts of the account first appeared in an ar-Lawrence and Elisabeth Hanson, The noble savage: a life ticle published by Gauguin in 1894: 'Natures mortes,' of Paul Gauguin, London 1954; Erich Langrebe, Das Essais d'art libre 4 (January 1894), pp. 273-75. feme Land des Paul Gauguin, G¨¹tersloh 1959. On the re-ception of Van Gogh in literature and cinema see the de-8 On Van Gogh's plans for an artists' colony in the tailed survey in Beate Muller, Vincent van Gogh-south see, for example, 628/498: 'You know, I do be-Rezeption nach 1945 (diss.), Cologne 1991, pp. 188-285 lieve a community of Impressionists could be something 
of things, was to have overall control of the enterprise. Indeed, whenever the correspondence between Van Gogh, his brother, Gauguin and Emile Bernard refers to the planned artists' community in Aries (or in Pont Aven), its gist was always the same, stressing the economic advan-tages of working together.8 
Van Gogh's idea took on concrete form when he asked Theo to support him and Gauguin in Aries, in ex-change for the latter's paintings.9 Although Gauguin was open to the suggestion it was only after considerable hesita-tion that he left for the south, a decision motivated more by his own financial difficulties than by anything else. Whereas in Pont Aven he was unable to pay his rent, his doctor's fees and his travel expenses, the move to Aries would mean free-dom from debt and, at least temporarily, a guaranteed in-come.1 0 Quite apart from that, however, he himself had re-flected on the economic benefits of such joint ventures, al-though his own ideas to this end revolved instead around finding collectors who were interested in investing in an art fund comprising the work of younger artists.11 
Both these pragmatic approaches to artistic collab-oration reflect the situation of the moment and the struc-tural changes that had taken place in the art world during the 19th century. In this context Cynthia and Harrison White have spoken of the evolution of the 'dealer-critic system,' which grew in direct proportion to the loss of power of the aristocracy (as the traditional buyers of art) and the academies (as the guardian both of the procedure of admission to the profession and of the production, pre-sentation and distribution of works of art).1 2 Among the concomitant results of these institutional changes were in-dependent one-man and group exhibitions mounted on private initiative; the transformation of the artist's studio -hitherto considered a private place - into a public salesroom;13 and the association of artists who saw them-selves united by common aesthetic convictions, artists who were not infrequently supported and encouraged by crit-ics, patrons and dealers of similar persuasions. The initia-tive taken by the impressionists exemplifies this new strat-egy for success: these artists came together for the express purpose of mounting a joint exhibition that would attract and organise a public favourable to their aims.14 On the one hand, it was to differentiate them from the prevailing standards of art and its institutional structures; on the oth-er, it directed the attention of potential buyers and viewers to the specific characteristics of their own art. Moreover, in gathering a circle of initiates around charismatic, out-of-the-ordinary personalities, the show created the neces-sary prerequisites for the dissemination of their very im-pact and fame.1 5 The exclusivity of such circles, the sepa-ration of the initiated from the uninitiated, is the main-spring of the mechanism. The conflicts concerning admis-sion to the group exhibitions16 had their roots not just in aesthetic differences but also in the strategic desire to cre-ate a new, unified and easily recognisable direction in art. Frederic Bazille's painting The artist's studio, rue de la Condamine (fig. 1) is the perfect illustration of this chan-nelling of interests towards exclusivity: hanging on the walls of the studio, as if in a public exhibition, are Bazille's own works and those of his colleagues, while other acces-sories, - the piano, for example - denote the private nature of the space. Privacy is also suggested by the small number of people present, these being, without exception, the artist's closefriends.17 In conveying the idea of access 
like the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood in England, and I am 10 On Gauguin's positive reaction to the invitation to 14 See White and White, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 111 -54. 
sure it would be viable. Indeed, I believe that artists Aries see 626/496 and Paul Gauguin: 45 lettres a 
themselves could provide for their own upkeep, mutual-Vincent, Theo etJo van Gogh, ed. Douglas Cooper, The 15 See Max Weber, Wirtschaft und GeselIschaft, 
ly, and independently of the dealers, if all of us were to Hague & Lausanne 1983, pp. 40-45. On Gauguin's debts Tubingen 1972 (1922), p. 140. 
give a considerable number of paintings to the communi-see ibid., pp. 56-59 and 626/496; 650/513; 658/517; 
ty and the profit and loss were shared. I don't believe this 684/535; and 683/536. 16 Concerning the discussions preceding the eight 
community would last for ever, but I do believe that, for Salons des Ind¨¦pendants see, for example, Charles S. 
as long as it existed, we could live and work more bold-11 On Gauguin's plans see 626/496 and Paul Gauguin Moffett (ed.), exhib. cat. The new painting: impression-
ly.' On the structure and tasks of the planned artists' et Vincent van Gogh, cit. (note 9), p. 70. ism 1874-1886, San Francisco (The Fine Arts Museums) 
community see also 580/464; 581/465; 586/468; & Washington, DC (The National Gallery of Art) 1986. 
604/480; 638/507; 668/523; 665/524; 686/538; 12 See Harrison C. White and Cynthia A. White, 
689/544; and 707/550. On the various ways of creating Canvases and careers: institutional change in the French 17 For an interpretation of Bazille's painting with partic-
a public for younger artists see 604/480. painting world, Chicago & London 1993 (1965), espe-ular reference to social inclusion and exclusion Beatrice 

cially pp. 94-102. von Bismarck, 'K¨¹nstlerraume und K¨¹nstlerbilder,' in 
 See 618/493 and Paul Gauguin et Vincent van Gogh Sabine Schulze (ed.), Innenleben: Die Kunst des 1887-1888: lettres retrouv¨¦es, sources ignor¨¦es, ed. 13 See John Milner, The studios of Paris: the capital of art Interieurs. Vermeer bis Kabakov, Ostfildern-Ruit 1998, Victor Merlh¨¨s, Paris 1989, p. 66. in the late nineteenth century, New Haven & London 1988. pp. 314-17. 



Aurier's monographic studies of both Van Gogh and of Gauguin underline their exclusion from contemporary so-ciety, pointing an accusing finger at the bourgeoisie and assuring that things would look very different in the future: '[...] connaitra-t-il un jour - tout est possible - les joies de la rehabilitation, les cajoleries repenties de la vogue?' he asks at the end of his piece on Van Gogh. Similarly Aurier con-cludes his manifesto-like Le symbolisme en peinture, for which Gauguin served as his model, by accusing his con-temporaries of ignorance, ending with the appeal:'[...] des murs! Des murs! Donnez-lui des murs!'3 2 Social alienation and lack of recognition here go hand-in-hand - a motif that was already a part of the myth of the modern artist in the 
19th century and which has since become thoroughly en-grained in the legends surrounding Van Gogh and Gauguin.3 3 
IV. 
The mythologemes just mentioned are not, howev-er, the ones at work in Gauguin's 1903 account of those few weeks in Aries. His description instead evidences a change of perspective, instigating a paradigm that would hence-forth characterise the two artists more in relation to one another other. The decisive passage, at least as far as the discussion of their aesthetics is concerned, is the one in which Gauguin claims responsibility for having persuaded Van Gogh to drop neo-impressionism in favour of a kind of painting more suited his temperament. It was from this moment on, Gauguin alleges, that his friend began to make progress, 'and the result was that whole series of sun-ef-fects over sun-effects in full sunlight.'3 4 While Gauguin in-sists his 'enlightening' advice influenced the younger painter, he simultaneously stresses that it had not led to Van Gogh forfeiting any of his originality.3 5 
In the final analysis, however, this description of the differences in their approaches to art serves primarily to distinguish between their personalities, for Gauguin hints at a relationship of power, which, in one form or another and to a greater or lesser extent, informs his entire ac-count. In this relationship, an equal exchange between the two artists was impossible; rather, Van Gogh could 'repay' Gauguin only by recognising him as his teacher: 'When I arrived at Aries, Vincent was trying to find himself, while I, who was a good deal older, was a mature man. But I owe something to Vincent, and that is, in the consciousness of having been useful to him, the confirmation of my own original ideas about painting.'3 6 
Gauguin played a similar role in regard to Van Gogh's untidiness in what seemed to be every sphere of his life and work: 'In the first place, everywhere and in every-thing I found a disorder that shocked me.'37 The chaos be-gan in Van Gogh's paint box and spread from there to the way he cooked, the way he handled his money, how he painted and the way he thought. Just as he took over the management of their joint finances and began to cook for them both, Gauguin also endeavoured 'to disentangle from this disordered brain a reasoned logic in his critical opin-ions.'38 
Making no mention of the financial motivation be-hind his decision to leave Pont Aven, Gauguin instead stresses how long he resisted Van Gogh's urging him to come to Aries. This steadfastness has its parallel in Gauguin's physical strength, which, he feared, might lead him to strangle Van Gogh the next time the latter attacked him. The physical superiority is underlined in his contrast-ing reference to Van Gogh's 'well-known step, short, quick, irregular.'39 It corresponds not only with the role Gauguin intended for himself as the 'director' of the planned artists' community4 0 but also, and primarily, with the trial of strength that took place during their very last encounter. Gauguin's description of this scene consecrates once and for all the fundamental differences between the 
31  On the reception of the two artists during the 1890s  Gogh,' Mercure de France (January 1890), p. 29; idem,  35  Ibid.  
and the consolidation of their images see Carol M.  'Le symbolisme en peinture: Paul Gauguin,' in Mercure  
Zemel, The formation of a legend: Van Gogh criticism,  de France (March 1891), p. 165.  36  Ibid.  
1890-1920 (diss.), Ann Arbor 1977, pp. 59-79; Bismarck,  
op. cit. (note 29), pp. 149-84; idem, 'Genie, Martyrer  33  For Nathalie Heinich, the Van Gogh legend is the ar- 37  Ibid., p. 24.  
und F¨¹hrerfigur: Der "primitive" Paul Gauguin.  chetype of the myth of the unrecognised genius and has  
Kunstkritik und Mythenbildung urn 1900,' in Uwe  become a paradigm by which the rejection of any artist in  38  Ibid.  
Fleckner and Thomas W. Gaehtgens (eds.), Prenez garde  the present proves his greatness in the future; see  
a la peinturei Kunstkritik in Frankreich 1900-1945,  Nathalie Heinich, The glory of van Gogh: an anthropolo- 39  Ibid., pp. 12-13.  
Berlin 1999, pp. 381-403.  gy of admiration, Princeton 1996, pp. 140-50.  
40  Ibid., p. 23.  
32  See Gustave-Albert Aurier, 'Les isol¨¦s: Vincent van  34  See Gauguin, op. cit. (note 3), p. 28.  



to what in fact has been imagined. The continual repetition of an anecdote, for example in history books, creates the il-lusion of authority - not least thanks to the reference to all the other authors who have quoted it in the past - in spite of the fact that the image it conveys actually precedes the historical events.50 
The decisive image in Gauguin's Intimate journals, in which notions of the modern artist are reproduced in mythologised form, is that of the friendship between himself and Van Gogh. This image adds to the notions 'primitive' and 'mad' (that mirror the status of the two artists as social out-casts) features more specifically bound up with the internal, structural changes taking place in modernism. These are ex-pressed in the tense 'duality of togetherness and irreplace-able uniqueness' which, according to Klaus-Dieter Eichler, distinguishes friendship.51 Gauguin and Van Gogh share their fate as outcasts just as they shared an initial artistic leaning towards impressionism and a subsequent break with it. They differ, on the other hand, both in regard to the per-sonal characteristics that resulted in their social exile and in the way they broke with their former styles. The friendship motif becomes a kind of pillar, a pillar supported equally by what separates and unites them, and which also assumes a supporting function in itself. In this sense the artists' refer-ences to one another, their mutual respect and subsequent separation as depicted by Gauguin exemplify - in a con-densed form - the strategies Griselda Pollock has described as 'avant-garde gambits' or: 'the play of reference, deference and difference.' This is a playful technique of self-position-ing within the art field: first referring to what is currently happening in the avant-garde, then showing deference to the movement's current leading figure, and finally differen-tiating oneself from the latter once and for all.5 2 
Gauguin describes Van Gogh's development along just such lines: it was, he writes, Meissonier, Monticelli and the neo-impressionists - at the time among the most dis-cussed painters - to whom Van Gogh initially related, showing them, and him, Gauguin, the greatest respect.53 The fact that Van Gogh was nevertheless able to break away from them and to discover his own, original style was the decisive point as far as Gauguin was concerned. Even though he claims to have been responsible for some of the steps taken by Van Gogh, he simultaneously stresses the younger painter's continuing originality.5 4 Here Gauguin calls upon Albert Aurier as his witness. Aurier had pub-lished the first detailed monographic articles on Gauguin and Van Gogh in 1890/91, drawing attention to the differ-ences in their respective symbolist approaches and it was to Aurier, Gauguin writes, that Van Gogh had confessed to the latter's influence upon him.5 5 Van Gogh's artistic uniqueness, which in Gauguin's account of their friendship is closely bound up with the notion of their togetherness, was proof that both of them belonged to the avant-garde. In his memoirs as in his art, Gauguin implements strategies of self-assertion that take into account modernism's changing demands on the artist. In his version of his relationship with Van Gogh, these strategies operate on the level of the artist's personality or image, for, in the final analysis, the culmination of their relationship in a battle of the sexes re-flects nothing other than the contradictory image of the modern artist. On the one hand, we have the notion of the self-absorbed - male - artist, full of inexhaustible creativity and productive urges, subjugating material to his will; on the other, a concept of the artist more in keeping with the art field's changed structures of presentation and sale, an artist who - in a role with feminine connotations - exposes himself, offers himself to the public's gaze and invites at-tention. The autonomous, virile artistic approach of the one - which lost none of its attraction during the 20th century -is enfolded in the coquettish posing in the spectator's view. 
In the symbolic usage of the biographical anecdote Gauguin and Van Gogh are made out as representatives of these two aspects respectively. While they are independent and individual artistically, as required by the tenets of the avant-garde, when taken together they embody the contra-dictory personal qualities ascribed to the modern artist in general. Their characteristics stand in for the various ways the artist and society have interacted since the beginnings of modernism. The relationship between the two artists, which Gauguin is so keen to describe in his retrospective account of 1903, reconciles these opposites in a composite picture. Considering their relationship as described in the Intimate journals and its subsequent life in film and fiction, neither Van Gogh nor Gauguin emerges from the Aries conflict as the winner in the struggle for a new kind of art.5 6 Rather we see that both are integral parts of the im-age of the modern artist. It is in their personal relationship that a certain self-assertion strategy becomes manifest af-ter all; not the economic and social one envisaged by Van Gogh and Gauguin prior to 1888, but rather a discursive one, one which, despite - or even because of - their differ-ences has in the course of the 20th century made both of these two men into paradigms of the modern artist. 
50 See Catherine M. Soussloff, The absolute artist: the historiography of a concept, Minneapolis & London 1997, pp. 149-55. 
51 See Eichler, op. cit. (note 45), p. 221. 
52 See Griselda Pollock, Avant-garde gambits 1888-1893: gender and the colour of art history, London 1992, pp. 12-16. 
53 Gauguin, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 24, 27. 
54 Ibid., p. 28. 
55 Ibid. 
56 If we consider Gauguin and Van Gogh separately in-stead of as an inseparable pair, we may conclude that Gauguin ¡ª as the new hero of modernism ¡ª emerged in the end as the winner. It is in this sense, too, that Griselda Pollock interprets the film Lust for life, in which Anthony Quinn (as Gauguin) succeeds in preserving his integrity both as a man and as an artist. And it is for this 
reason, she adds, that he, and not Kirk Douglas (in the 
role of Van Gogh) received the Oscar. See Griselda 
Pollock, 'Crows, blossoms and lust for death: cinema and the myth of van Gogh the modernist artist,' in K.dera 
and Rosenberg, op. cit. (note 5), p. 226. 

VAN GOGH AND GAUGUIN 

Memories of Van Gogh and Gauguin: 
Hartrick's reminiscences 

Martin Bailey-
Archibald Standish Hartrick (1864-1950) is one of the few Legros (1884-85), and then went to Paris, initially attending artists who knew both Van Gogh and Gauguin and who the Acad¨¦mie Julian. During the summer of 1886, probably went on to record his memories of them. In July 1886, at in June, he travelled to Pont-Aven, to work in the small the age of 22, the British painter met Gauguin in Pont-Aven. Breton port. There he stayed at the Pension Gloanec, meet-Hartrick returned to Paris in November and soon after-ing many of the other painters who flocked to this new wards met Van Gogh, with whom he remained friends for artist's haven. In November he returned to Paris and the nearly a year. An important newly rediscovered text written following month entered the Atelier Cormon. He worked in by Hartrick in 1913 records his detailed reminiscences of Paris for a year, encountering many avant-garde artists, the two post-impressionists. More tangible evidence of and at the end of 1887 he returned to Scotland. Hartrick's visit to Pont-Aven has also just emerged: two of Hartrick's Pont-Aven paintings have remained rela-his rare Brittany paintings have been acquired by the tively unknown, but two key works were acquired by the Courtauld Institute Gallery in London. All this makes it an Courtauld in 2000: Gauguin's studio, Pont-Aven and Village opportune moment to re-evaluate Hartrick's links with Van street, Pont-Aven, both dating from 1886.1 They were donat-Gogh and Gauguin. ed by Miss Eva A. Black, a niece of the artist who lived in 
Scotland and who died in 2001, aged 98.2 The two paintings From Bangalore to Brittany are fairly traditional in style, particularly the road scene, 
A.S. Hartrick was born in Bangalore, India, on 7 and owe little to the influence of Gauguin and the nascent August 1864, the son of a British army captain. Two years Pont-Aven School. later his family returned to their native Scotland. Hartrick Gauguin's studio, Pont-Aven (fig. 1) depicts the exte-later studied at the Slade School in London under Alphonse rior of the Manoir de Lezaven, where an atelier extension 
I would like to thank the following, who assisted my re- 1  Few other works done by Hartrick in France survive.  are given as 5 x 9 inches, but this may have been a mis- 
search: Michael and Audrey MacLeod, Ernst Vegelin van  One summer's day, depicting a mother and child, may  take and the work was probably the Courtauld's Village  
Claerbergen, Catherine Puget, Philip Dennis Cate,  have been painted in Pont-Aven. It was once in the col- street), and no. 2: The back of Gauguin's studio, Pont- 
Herbert Schimmel, Jane Lindsey and Sheila Clarke.  lection of Mr and Mrs Herbert D. Schimmel; see Phillip  Aven; exhib. cat. Drawn from Nature, Canterbury (Royal  
Dennis Cate, exhib. cat. The circle of  Toulouse-Lautrec,  Museum), Rye (Art Gallery), Eastbourne (Towner Art  
New Brunswick (Jane Voorhees Zimmerli Art Museum)  Gallery), Hove (Museum of Art) and Bristol (Royal West  
1986, no. 69, pp. 109-10. The work was sold by  of England Academy) 1980-81, no. 52: V/7/age street,  
Sothebys.com on 4 April 2001. The titles of two other  Pont-Aven and no. 54: The back of Gauguin's studio at  
Hartrick paintings of this period are known from early ex- Pont-Aven; and The circle of Toulouse-Lautrec,  cit. (note  
hibitions: Un blanchissage Breton (Paris Salon, 1887, no.  1), no. 68: Gauguin's studio at the Pont-Aven [sic] and  
1182, possibly the Courtauld Gauguin's studio) and  no. 70: Pont-Aven.  
November in Finist¨¨re (London, Royal Society of British  
Artists, Suffolk Street, 1887-88).  
2  Both paintings had passed to Miss Black after  
Hartrick's death in 1950. They have been exhibited as  
follows: exhib. cat. An artist's pilgrimage: fifty years of  
painting, London (Fulham Central Library) 1936, no. 23:  
Pont-Aven (presumably the Courtauld's Village street);  
exhib. cat. A.S. Hartrick: a memorial exhibition,  London  
(Arts Council) 1951, no. 1: Pont-Aven (the dimensions  



decade, initially to Acton Turville and then to Tresham, be-recorded before the First World War, i.e. more than a quar-fore eventually returning to London. From the late 1890s ter of a century before the publication of his autobiography. he worked mainly as an illustrator and printmaker, and in A paper entitled 'Post-impressionism, with some personal 1909 he was a founding member of the London-based recollections of Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin' sur-Senefelder Club, named after the inventor of lithography. vives in three forms. First, it was published in the May 1913 He was also elected an associate of the Royal Watercolour issue of The Imprint, a London journal primarily devoted to Society in 1910 and a full member ten years later. Hartrick typography and printmaking.1 2 This was a very short-lived taught drawing and painting at London's Camberwell venture, and only nine issues appeared before it ceased School of Art (1908-14) and lithography at the Central publication. The article does not appear to have been cited School (1914-29). He illustrated numerous books and wrote in any of the subsequent literature on either Van Gogh or studies on drawing and lithography.8 Hartrick died on 1 Gauguin. February 1950.9 Secondly, the same text was privately reprinted as a 
slim 24-page book, Post-impressionism, with some personal 
Reminiscences recollections of Vincent Van Gogh & Paul Gauguin. At the 
Although Hartrick recorded his memories of Van back of the book is an explanatory colophon: 'Printed at the Gogh and Gauguin in his autobiography,^ painter's pil-L.C.C. [London County Council] Central School of Arts & grimage throughfifty years, they have never been taken Crafts by the Day Technical School of Book Production. particularly seriously, mainly because they were not pub-Teacher J.H. Mason. 1916.' The book is extremely rare and lished until 1959 - 53 years after he had known the artists it is neither in the British Library nor in the UK National in France.10 The author also admitted in the introduction to Art Library.13 The three extant copies can be found in the his book that it was not based on documentary material: 'I archive of the Central St Martin's School of Art. Each is kept no diary; and although I have looked at some papers bound differently, and they were apparently preserved as and letters, I preferred not to burden what I wished to say examples of books typeset and bound by students, rather with details already forgotten.'11 than for their content. Finally, a 29-page typescript of the 
I have, however, tracked down evidence that text of Hartrick's paper also survives in the college Hartrick's reminiscences of Van Gogh and Gauguin were archive.1 4 
8 See A.S. Hartrick, Drawing: from drawing as an educa-53), pp. 5-12; and Michael MacLeod, 'A.S. Hartrick,' The tional force to drawing as an expression of the emotions, Artist (August 1990), pp. 40-42. with a foreword by George Clausen, London 1921,1928 (the second edition has brief references to Gauguin and 10 Examples of critical comments on the work's reliabil-Van Gogh on pp. 8-9), and idem, Lithography as a fine ity include the following: Correspondance, cit. (note 7), art, Oxford 1932, with brief references to Gauguin and p. 438: 'Les souvenirs d'Archibald Standish Hartrick [...] Van Gogh on pp. 33-34. Books Hartrick illustrated in-furent r¨¦dig¨¦s trop tard pour n'avoir pas ¨¦t¨¦ parfais per-clude Rudyard Kipling's Soldier tales, London 1896, and vertis par ses lectures ult¨¦rieures'; Susan Alyson Stein, George Eliot's Felix Holt, London 1907, as well as a 12-Van Gogh: a retrospective, New York 1986, p. 81: 'This volume set of the 'Golden Poets' (Longfellow, Keats, account, written well after his acquaintance with Van Wordsworth, etc), edited by Oliver Smeaton, London c. Gogh in Paris, is a curious amalgam of reminiscence and 1910. secondary elaboration. It cannot be considered entirely 
accurate, particularly for chronology'; and Bogomila 9 The literature on Hartrick is sparse. In addition to his Welsh-Ovcharov in exhib. cat. Van Gogh a Paris, Paris important autobiography (A painter's pilgrimage through (Mus¨¦e d'Orsay) 1988, p. 78 (note 3): 'Hartrick, avec fifty years, Cambridge 1939) and the exhibition cata-son m¨¦lange frustrant de chronologie inexacte et de sou-logues cited in note 2, the main articles are: Jules Roques, venirs descriptifs pr¨¦cis [...].' 'Les artistes anglais: A.S. Hartrick,' Le Courrier Francais (13 January 1895), pp. 8-9; F. Morley Fletcher, 11 Hartrick, op. cit. (note 9), p. xi. Very few of 'Hartrick,' Drawing & Design 3 (January 1923), pp. 303-Hartrick's papers appear to have survived, and none have 
10; Herbert Furst, 'A.S. Hartrick, R.W.S. A note on an been found from the 1880s. 
artist's temperament,' Apollo 24 (August 1936), p. 90-92; Arnold Palmer, 'Archibald Standish Hartrick, O.B.E., 12 A.S. Hartrick, 'Post-Impressionism, with some per-
R.W.S.,' The Old Water-Colour Society's Club 30 (1952-sonal recollections of Vincent Van Gogh and Paul 

In preparing his 1913 paper, Hartrick had probably this aspect in his autobiography. been spurred on by the controversial 'Manet and the Post-Hartrick's 1913 memoirs are particularly important Impressionists' exhibition, held at London's Grafton because they cover periods in the life of the two post-im-Galleries from November 1910 to January 1911. Twenty-pressionists that are relatively less well documented. Van three works by Van Gogh and 21 by Gauguin had been on Gogh was living with his brother Theo in Paris and there-show, giving the British public their first real taste of the fore not in correspondence with him. The only other signif-paintings of these two artists. Visiting the exhibition must icant personal account of Gauguin's first visit to Pont-Aven have reawakened Hartrick's interest in his old colleagues, in 1886 was written by the artist Henri Delavall¨¦e (1862-and friends probably encouraged him to record his memo-1943)? whose brief recollections were published by Charles ries.15 When in 1939 he came to publish his autobiography, Chass¨¦ in 1921.1 8 Despite later critical comments regard-he presumably took his 1913 essay, added further details ing the reliability of Hartrick's autobiography, a detailed and expanded it with secondary material.1 6 examination of his 1913 essay suggests that they are rela-
The fact that Hartrick's reminiscences actually date tively accurate. The text not only provides a revealing in-from 1913 means that scholars should take them far more sight into the personalities of the two artists, but also some-seriously than has previously been the case. Not only were times helps in the dating of works and chronology. they recorded considerably closer to the time when he had known the two painters, but there are other reasons to sug-Memories of Gauguin gest that the author's recollections are, in fact, trustworthy. Hartrick spent the summer of 1886 at Pont-Aven, In 1913 relatively little material had been published on probably arriving in June or possibly early July. He was Gauguin and Van Gogh, so Hartrick's account would have certainly there when Gauguin arrived on 25 July.19 Both been much less coloured by the writings of others.17 The men lodged at the Pension Gloanec, a favourite haunt of two artists were not nearly as famous as they were to be-visiting artists in the central square of the village. Hartrick come, meaning Hartrick would have had less incentive to recalled his initial impression of Gauguin: 'Tall, dark, 
exaggerate his links with them - in contrast to 1939, when rather handsome, with a fine powerful figure, and about his publisher is likely to have encouraged him to stress forty years of age, wearing a blue jersey, and a beret on the 
Gauguin,' The Imprint 1 (May 1913), pp. 305-18. citations of Hartrick's 1913 reminiscences are given from The Imprint article appeared in May, it seems unlikely 
The Imprint (op. cit. [note 12]), since this is the slightly that Hartrick saw it before he wrote his text. There were 13 The Central School book does not appear to have more accessible of the three forms of the text. no monographs on Gauguin in English at this time. been cited in the literature, other than a brief reference in Hartrick would, of course, have seen the catalogue of the Charles Mattoon Brooks, Vincent van Gogh: a bibliogra-15 The 1910-11 exhibition made a deep impression on 1910-11 post-impressionism exhibition, but this has phy, New York 1942, p. 28, no. 337. Welsh-Ovcharov Hartrick; see idem, op. cit. (note 9), pp. 222-24. comparatively little biographical material. The one author mentions that A painter's pilgrimage is 'based upon a pri-whom Hartrick cites is Julius Meier-Graefe, presumably a vate publication of 1916' (Van Gogh in Perspective, 16 Some of Hartrick's reminiscences about Gauguin reference to his Modern art, London 1908 ¡ª which in Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1974, p. 29), but she is presumably were also published in the catalogue of for the 1924 ex-volume two has sections on Gauguin (pp. 59-66) and following Brooks. Hartrick refers to his text in a somewhat hibition at the Leicester Galleries, but this short essay has Van Gogh (pp. 202-12), but again includes very little on obscure reference in his autobiography: 'Alan Seaby, only rarely been cited in the Gauguin literature, most Gauguin's first visit to Pont-Aven or Van Gogh's stay in Professor of Art at Reading University, arranged for me to writers instead using Hartrick's more accessible autobiog-Paris. Hartrick may well have read French, but relatively give a set of lectures to his pupils at Reading on the sub-raphy; see 'Some reminiscences of Gauguin,' exhib. cat. little had been published on these two particular periods. ject of Modern Painting, and the lectures some years later Catalogue of the Paul Gauguin exhibition, London were published in The Imprint, after which J.H. Mason, (Leicester Galleries) 1924, pp. 15-27. 18 See Charles Chass¨¦, Gauguin et le groupe de Pont-the head of the printing department at the L.C.C. Central Aven, Paris 1921, pp. 13-14. School, set them up in a little book with the aid of his 17 On Van Gogh, the only book available to Hartrick in class, and a few copies were printed and bound at the English would have been The letters of a post-impres-19 Gauguin's letter to his wife Mette announcing his ar-school for private circulation'; see Hartrick, op. cit. (note sionist, being the familiar correspondence of Vincent rival is dated c. 25 July. He wrote: 'II y a des peintres hiv-9), p. 224. Because there was no specific reference to ei-van Gogh, translated and introduced by Anthony M. er et ¨¦t¨¦: des Anglais des Am¨¦ricains etc'; ther post-impressionism, Van Gogh or Gauguin here this Ludovici, London 1912, but this early edition of the let-Correspondance, cit. (note 7), p. 133-34. lead never seems to have been followed up. ters has very little on Van Gogh's Paris period. Elizabeth 
Du Quesne van Gogh's Personal recollections of Vincent 14 My thanks to the archival staff. In the present article, van Gogh was published in London in 1913, but since 
side of his head, is how I saw him first.'20 In terms of per-Aven in 1889, returning there again in 1894. The Lezaven sonality, he found him 'self-contained, confident, silent, al-house was owned by Marie-Perrine Lollichon, whose son, most dour.' Louis Berg¨¦, was then the village mayor. It is located on a 
Hartrick recounted an incident which took place hillside, 200 metres from the west bank of the River Aven, during one of their first encounters: 'Gauguin, a few days and Gauguin frequently painted in the nearby Champ after his arrival and more or less a complete stranger, was Derout-Lollichon. passing through the little crowd of painters standing round Another of Hartrick's anecdotes provides an insight the door of the Auberge, waiting for dejeuner. He was car-into Gauguin's attitude towards drawing. Gauguin com-
rying a sketch, on which he had just been working, repre-pared some studies of geese he had made with those of the 
senting some nude boys bathing on a weir, painted in the English illustrator, Randolph Caldecott (1846-1886), who now familiar "impressionist" manner, all spots in touches had visited Pont-Aven in the 1870s. Hartrick recounted: 'I of pure colour.'2 1 Gauguin was immediately ridiculed by a remember one interesting conversation with him Dutch artist also staying at the pension, and a crowd quick-[Gauguin], in which he expressed great admiration for the ly gathered. Hartrick discreetly refers to him only as V, drawings of Randolph Caldecott, whose children's books he 
short for Hubert Vos (1855-1935).22 had. That, he said, was real drawing expressive of charac-
Hartrick then recounts what happened two weeks ter and of life, as distinct from the machines made in the later. A pupil of Vos's, named only as P, switched his alle-studio.'2 5 giance and began to go to Gauguin for instruction. P is pre-In his 1924 essay, Hartrick also recalled a lost work sumably Ferdinand du Puigaudeau (1864-1930), then 22 which Gauguin had made for the Pension Gloanec: 'I re-and nicknamed Piccolo.23 In his 1924 Leicester Galleries member he painted a panel for the dining-room of the catalogue essay on Gauguin, Hartrick added that P 'invited Auberge, an autumn landscape, which appeared to most of his new master to share a studio he had taken at les Avens us who fed there as being very extreme in its crude exag-[Lezaven], and there Gauguin worked in comfort for the geration of purple and gold; though of course it was noth-rest of his time at Pont-Aven.'24 This comment is interest-ing to what we were soon to become accustomed to.'26 ing, since it has usually been assumed that Gauguin only Hartrick noted that although 'I never knew Gauguin began using the Lezaven studio on his third visit to Pont-intimately, I saw him daily at the Auberge Gloanec for 
20 Hartrick, op. cit. (note 12), p. 312. Gauguin was firmed in a contemporary publication: 'Deux artistes, I'un then aged 38. A photograph taken in Pont-Aven in 1888 M. Hubert Voos [sic], m¨¦daille au dernier Salon de Paris, shows him with a beret, but it is unlikely that Hartrick et I'autre son camarade d'atelier, M. du Puigaudeau, would have seen this photograph by 1913; it is repro-voulant, a la veille de leur depart, donner une marque de duced in Correspondance, cit. (note 7), p. 215. sympathie a la population'; see Union Agricole et 
Maritime de Quimperl¨¦ (1 August 1886), quoted in 21 Hartrick, op. cit. (note 12), p. 312. The 'sketch' was Andr¨¦ Cariou, Les peintres de Pont-Aven, Rennes 1999, almost certainly La baignade au moulin du Bois d'Amour p. 49. Du Puigaudeau (at least) stayed several weeks (Hiroshima Museum of Art). It is reproduced in colour in longer, as a letter from Emile Bernard (in which he uses 
exhib. cat. Paul Gauguin, Graz (Landesmuseum du Puigaudeau's nickname, Piccolo), dated 19 August Joanneum) 2000, no. 18, p. 185. There has been some 1887, confirms; cited in exhib. cat. Ferdinand du debate over whether the picture should be dated to 1886 Puigaudeau, Pont-Aven (Mus¨¦e de Pont-Aven) 1998, p. or 1888, since the last digit on the painting is unclear: 62. Gauguin himself boasted that he very quickly devel-
Georges Wildenstein (Paul Gauguin, Paris 1964, vol. 1, 
oped a reputation in Pont-Aven. In late July 1886, just a W 272) gives 1888, although the Graz catalogue sug-
few days after his arrival, he wrote to Mette: 'On me re-gests 1886. Hartrick's comment appears to confirm the 
specte comme le peintre le plus fort de Pont-Aven [...]. earlier year. See also Vojt.ch Jirat-Wasiutyhski and H. 
En tous cas cela me fait une reputation respectable et Travers Newton Jr, Technique and meaning in the paint-
tout Ie monde ici (Am¨¦ricains, Anglais, Su¨¦dois, Frangais) se dispute mes conseils [...]'; Correspondance, cit. (note ings of Paul Gauguin, Cambridge 2000, pp. 63-64. 
7), p. 137. Many years later Du Puigaudeau recalled his 22 Vos is identified in Correspondance, cit. (note 7), p. 
visit to Pont-Aven of 1886, but he included no significant 439 (note 6). 
details; see Le Fureteur Breton (November-December 1919), p. 80. 
23 The presence of Du Puigaudeau and Vos is con-
 ? vicariously gathered^ two I these Puigaudeau, and 'from 
three or four months, and heard him talk.' At the time Hartrick also knew Charles Laval (1862-1894) and Du 
perhaps more about him [Gauguin] than I should probably have arrived at on my own.'2 7 However, Hartrick admitted that he did not get to know Gauguin 'in anything like the way I knew Van Gogh,' since Gauguin was 'a much more reserved and difficult person to become intimate with.'2 8 Gauguin returned to Paris on around 13 October and Hartrick left in late November.29 
Memories of Van Gogh 
It was in Paris that Hartrick was introduced to Van Gogh, through their mutual friend, the Australian artist John Russell (1858-1934). Russell had been in Paris since early 1885 and had joined the Atelier Cormon, where he later got to know Van Gogh. Hartrick first met Vincent at Russell's apartment, at 15 impasse H¨¦l¨¨ne, off avenue de Clichy.30 Shortly afterwards, Russell left for a visit to Sicily, renting his studio to Hartrick and the British artist Henry Ryland (1856-1924). At this point Van Gogh and Gauguin had not yet met, but it is possible that Hartrick told Van Gogh about his contact with Gauguin in Pont-Aven. 
In 1939 Hartrick recalled: 'all through the early part of 1887, Vincent frequently came to see me in the Impasse H¨¦l¨¨ne^ to the horror of poor Ryland.'31 They also sometimes met at Theo's apartment at 54 rue Lepic, where Vincent was staying. 'I have been to his rooms with him (I think they real-ly belonged to his brother). Anyway he seemed to be living quite comfortably and showed me some very good Japanese prints, besides some lithographs and etchings by Matthew Maris, with whom he seemed to be very friendly.'32 
Hartrick also reported Van Gogh's anger at not be-ing able to sell his paintings, despite Theo's important posi-tion with Goupil: 'He did not sell any of his work at that time, and used to rage from time to time that though con-nected with the picture trade no one would buy anything he did.'3 3 Hartrick was particularly struck by Van Gogh's inter-est in complementary colours: 'He used to carry in either pocket a large lump of blue and red chalk: with these he was always ready to illustrate his theories on whatever was handy.'3 4 Hartrick was concerned that Van Gogh might damage Russell's apartment, so 'as soon as he came in, I placed a newspaper or two conspicuously on the table, and on these he illustrated his themes or theories quite cheer-fully, with lines of blue or red chalk at least a quarter of an inch thick.'35 
24 Paul Gauguin, cit. (note 16), p. 22. Further confir-mation that Gauguin used the Lezaven studio is Hartrick's 1886 painting of the building, which he later entitled Gauguin's studio (fig. 1). 
25 Hartrick, op. cit. (note 12), p. 314. Several geese are included in one of the illustrations in Randolph Caldecott, A sketch-book, London 1883 (no. 12), al-though it is unclear if this is the image to which Gauguin referred. Gauguin's drawings of Pont-Aven geese include those in a sketchbook (Ren¨¦ Huyghe, Le carnet de Paul Gauguin, Paris 1952, p. 189) and on a sheet in the Louvre (reproduced in Denise Delouche, Gauguin et la Bretagne, Rennes 1996, p. 23). Geese ap-pear in Gauguin's Four Breton women of 1886 (Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemaldesammlungen). Both Hartrick and Gauguin must also have known Henry Blackburn and Randolph Caldecott's Breton folk: an artistic tour in Brittany, London 1880, which includes a delightful illustration of artists sitting outside the Pension Gloanec (p. 131). 
26 Paul Gauguin, cit. (note 16), p. 20. The painting has not been identified, and may well be lost. It was the cus-tom for artists to present paintings to the innkeeper, Marie-Jeanne Gloanec, for her saint's day on 15 August. In August 1886, for example, Gauguin gave her a still life, The white tablecloth, now in a private collection in Japan. The autumn landscape could well have been a leaving present, on his departure in October. 
27 Ibid., p. 17-18. 
28 Hartrick, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 313-14. 
29 Gauguin planned to leave on 13 October (Correspondance, cit. [note 7], p. 140) and Hartrick left in November (Hartrick, op. cit. [note 9], p. 39). As a post-script, it is interesting that Hartrick, an expert on lithogra-phy, many years later saw what he believed was an un-recorded Gauguin print (although it is possible that it was by one of his followers). He described it as 'a small head of a Breton girl,' which he dated to 1894. Hartrick came across it after the First World War at the Eldar Gallery in London; see Hartrick, Lithography, cit. (note 8), p. 33. 
30 Hartrick, op. cit. (note 9), p. 42. Russell is also men-tioned in the 1913 essay (op. cit. [note 12], p. 308), but Hartrick goes in to more detail on his role in introducing him to Van Gogh in his 1939 memoirs. 
31 Ibid., p. 51. 
32 Hartrick, op. cit. (note 12), p. 311. Van Gogh's links with Matthijs Maris are confirmed in his correspondence, but few of the relevant letters would have been pub-lished in English by 1913; this suggests that Hartrick's memories on this point were not influenced by later pub-lications. 
33 Ibid., p. 311. 
34 Ibid., p. 307. 
35 Ibid. Van Gogh wrote about complementary colours in a letter to Horace Livens (1862-1936) in August/October 1886 [459a/D572], but this was not published until 1929, long after Hartrick's essay. Van Gogh's use of blue and red chalk also recalls his box of wool samples, which interested him for their colour con-trasts; the box is now in the Van Gogh Museum. 

a child, expressing pleasure and pain loudly in a child-like 
manner. The direct way in which he showed his likes and 
dislikes was sometimes very disconcerting, but quite with-
out malice or any conscious knowledge that he was giving 
offence.'39 
There has been considerable discussion about when exactly Van Gogh studied at the Atelier Cormon, but Hartrick recalled that he knew him 'about six months after he had left [there].'40 Hartrick then recounted an incident which is said to have involved a row between Cormon and his then-student Emile Bernard: 'The story goes that Van Gogh, in great indignation, went round with a pistol to shoot Cormon, so much had he taken to heart this interfer-ence with the free expression of the individual.'4 1 Bernard was indeed expelled from the studio, but Van Gogh's sup-posed violent reaction is unlikely to have occurred and is not recorded by any of the other students. Hartrick also de-liberately distances himself from this detail, stating that it was merely 'a story,' which had occurred before he had known Van Gogh. This appears to be the only time in his account of the two post-impressionists when Hartrick re-peats a rumour. 
Hartrick ended his reminiscences by concluding: 'I frankly confess that neither myself, nor any of those I re-member about me, imagined at that time that Van Gogh would be talked of as a great genius a few years later. We thought him a little cracked, but harmless, interesting, and certainly amusing at times. Always an artist in tempera-ment, we thought his work too rudimentary and apparent-ly unskilful in handling to appeal to us as students, many of whom could surpass it from that point of view.'42 
Hartrick left Russell's accommodation when the Australian returned from Sicily, following the tragic death of Russell's infant son, Jean. 'I had to move out and go to a hotel for the remainder of my time in Paris, and with this 
36 Ibid., pp. 307-08. One Van Gogh painting which 39 Ibid., p. 310-11. mixes the effects of lamplight and darkness is the Caf¨¦ 
move I lost touch with Vincent.' Hartrick himself left Paris at the end of 1887.4 3 
Decades later, Hartrick drew portraits of both Van Gogh and Gauguin. These date from the 1930s, and were probably done for reproduction in^4 painter's pilgrimage. Hartrick made an ink and watercolour sketch of Van Gogh (fig. 4), which was published as the frontispiece of the au-tobiography. The Van Gogh Museum acquired the original work in 1997. Hartrick also did two portraits of Gauguin, one now lost and the other at the Glasgow Art Gallery.4 4 These works were probably based mainly on secondary sources (the John Russell portrait of Van Gogh and pho-tographs or self-portraits of Gauguin), although they still give a very personal view of the two artists. Despite the fact that they were made half a century after his encoun-ters with them, they may still be considered Hartrick's homage to the two painters he had known as a young man. 
44 The first was published in ibid., opposite p. 32, and the second is reproduced in Isabelle Cahn and Antoine 
terrace at night of 1888, now in the Kr.ller-M¨¹ller  40  Ibid., p. 307. Assuming that Hartrick met Van Gogh  Terrasse, exhib. cat. Gauguin und die Schule von Pont- 
Museum (F 1519 JH 1579).  in December 1886, this suggests Van Gogh left the stu- Aven, Munich (Kunsthalle) 1998, p. 133.  
dio in about July. There has been considerable scholary  
37  Ibid., p. 308. Hartrick here refers to the Russell por- debate over the period when Van Gogh was studying at  
trait of Van Gogh now in the Van Gogh Museum. He fur- Corman's.  
ther described the portrait as 'splendid,' saying it was  
'much more convincing as a likeness than any of Van  41  Hartrick, op. cit. (note 12), p. 309.  
Gogh's self portraits.'  
42  Ibid., p. 312.  
38  Ibid., p. 307.  
43  Hartrick, op. cit. (note 9), pp. 52, 54.  


VAN GOGH STUDIES 

A modern Gethsemane: 
Vincent van Gogh's Olive grove 

JoanE. Greer 
In late November 1889 Vincent van Gogh painted The olive Thomas a Kempis and of Ernest Renan. This christocen-grove (fig. 1), one of a series of five paintings he executed trism continued to be a determining factor in his concep-
that fall.1 He had already depicted olive trees several times tion of his own role in life, and informed his image of him-
in the spring and at least twice the previous year, but it was self as an artist and of the artist in general. 
during the autumn of 1889 that this subject began to occupy However, references to Christ, and especially to Van 
him in earnest.2 Gogh himself as Christ or Christ-like, were seldom explicit. 

Van Gogh was then living in the asylum St-Paul-de-Just as Jesus had chosen the parable as a means of commu-Mausole outside St-R¨¦my, feeling mentally and physically nicating truths, Van Gogh used indirect or metaphoric vulnerable, and conscious of the financial burden he was means when addressing his personal and professional 
on his brother Theo. He was beginning to gain critical identification with Christ. The figure of the sower with his recognition and to see his own nascent image as an artist head enframed by the sun, for example, could function in a 
developing and assuming an heroic, almost Christ-like number of ways. On the literal level, he represented a form. Such mythologising, in which he himself participated worker in the field. However, he could also serve to sym-
- he writes, for example, of 'Father Millet,' 'Puvis the Seer,' bolise the artist and to allude obliquely, through associa-
etc. - upset him considerably when it concerned his own tion with the biblical sowing parable, to the relationship 
person, no doubt in part because he had unwittingly con-between the artist's task and that of Christ. 
tributed to it through his identification with Christ and his Religious questions began once again to absorb Van 
christological understanding of the role of the artist.3 Gogh during the period he spent in St-R¨¦my, and, as will be 
This identification with Christ as a personal guide seen, these questions suffused his theories concerning the and model began early in life and was complex in nature. It production of art. In relation to the Olive grove, there is no was informed over the years by a multitude of sources, the doubt that Van Gogh was enthusiastic about the formal 
most important being the two branches of Protestantism challenges the orchards presented him with, and the way Van Gogh encountered within his own family - the they characterised the countryside surrounding the town. Groningen and Modern Schools of Calvinism. He was also He also felt the motif would do well in the marketplace. profoundly influenced by his readings of the Bible, of The aspect of the subject to which he returned repeatedly 
An earlier version of this research appeared in my disser-1 See letter 825/615. The painting is F 707 JH 1857. For 3 I have discussed Van Gogh's christocentrism in "'Een tation The artist as Christ: the image of the artist in The discussions of the work see Evert van Uitert and Michael man van smerten ende versocht in krankheyt": het chris-Netherlands, 1885-1902, with a focus on the christolog-Hoyle (eds.), The Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, tologische beeld van de kunstenaar in Van Gogh's 
ical imagery of Vincent van Gogh and Johan Thorn Amsterdam 1987, no. 90; Ronald Pickvance, exhib. cat. Stilleven met open bijbel,' Jong Holland 13 (1997), no. Prikker (Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, 2000). My thanks Van Gogh in Saint-R¨¦my and Auvers, New York (The 3, pp. 30-42, 62-63. For a discussion of Bernard, to Carel Blotkamp for his valuable suggestions and criti-Metropolitan Museum of Art) 1986, pp. 166-67; and Gauguin and Van Gogh's identification with Christ in 
cal commentary and to Anita Vriend, Monique Hageman, Richard Bionda and Carel Blotkamp (eds.), exhib. cat. self-portraiture see Julia Louise Bernard, Identification Sjraar van Heugten, Fieke Pabst and Louis van Tilborgh The age of Van Gogh: Dutch painting 1880-1895, with Christ in late 19th-century self-portraiture: a mod-for their ongoing assistance at the Van Gogh Museum. Amsterdam (Van Gogh Museum) 1990, no. 34. ern conception of the artist's societal role' (diss., Unless otherwise noted, the English translations of Van University of Chicago, 1993), especially pp. 100-62. Gogh's letters are from The complete letters of Vincent 2 In 1889 Van Gogh executed about 20 paintings of van Gogh, 3 vols., Boston 1958. olive groves. The most comprehensive discussion of the 
series is Vojt.ch Jirat-Wasiutyhski, 'Vincent van Gogh's 
paintings of olive trees and cypresses from St-R¨¦my,' Art 
107 

Bulletin 75 (December 1993), pp. 646-70. 


Christ in the garden of olives 
In the third week of November Van Gogh received copies - a drawing and a photograph respectively - of Gauguin's and Bernard's paintings of Christ in the garden of olives (figs. 2 and 3). Both works were idiosyncratic, non-naturalistic interpretations of the subject. Gauguin's work, of which he included a sketch for Van Gogh in a let-ter,9 was, in fact, a self-portrait. 
As noted above, Van Gogh himself identified strong-ly with the figure of Christ. He had alluded to this earlier in the Still life with open Bible of 1885,1 0 and much more re-cently in a painting done in September 1889 after Delacroix's Pieta (fig. 4) in which the redheaded Christ could easily be taken for a self-portrait, and often has been.1 1 Furthermore, he had explicitly linked the artist's task in a more general sense to that of Christ in his corre-spondence from the previous year.1 2 In fact, in the summer of 1888, Bernard, Gauguin and Van Gogh had engaged in a mutually influential discussion concerning Christ, which, echoing current symbolist writings, conflated artistic and divine creativity. 
One letter, written to Bernard from Aries at the end of June 1888, elucidates Van Gogh's christological interpre-tation of art and artistic production. In it Van Gogh express-es his approval of the fact that Bernard had turned to the Bible, and identified Rembrandt, Delacroix and Millet as the only artists to have painted the doctrine of Christ as Van Gogh himself had experienced it: 'Christ alone [...] lived serenely, as a greater artist than all other artists, despising marble and clay as well as colour, working in living flesh. [...] [Christ's] spoken words [...] are one of the highest sum-mits - the very highest summit - reached by art, which be-comes a creative force there, a pure creative power' 
[635/B8].1 3 
Van Gogh was corresponding with Gauguin at this time as well, and in August 1888 Bernard joined the latter at Pont-Aven. The three were thus in close touch. This is reflected in Gauguin's religious references in his corre-
9 Letter 819/GAC 37. 
10 Greer, op. cit. (note 3). 
spondence of August and September, which echo closely Van Gogh's construction of Christ as artist quoted above: 'What an artist, this Jesus, who carved [a taill¨¦] in humani-ty itself!'1 4 
Van Gogh attempted to paint Christ in the garden of olives twice during this period but, significantly, destroyed both works. He was not comfortable with painting religious images from imagination, stating that a subject of such im-portance could not be done without a model.15 
Van Gogh's two aborted ventures do not seem to have prepared him for his colleagues' representations of the subject. In November 1889 Gauguin's work (fig. 2), in which he represented the Christ-artist analogy literally, even going so far as to depict himself as Christ, offended Van Gogh deeply. Gauguin included a small scene of Judas's betrayal in the background. As Ziva Amishai-Maisels has demonstrated, this scene likely refers to the artist's feeling of betrayal by the art world, within which even the support of Theo van Gogh seemed to be growing increasingly uncertain.1 6 
Bernard's painting (fig. 3), described by Van Gogh as 'that nightmare of a Christ in the garden of olives' [824/B21], was judged equally repugnant. Theo had seen the picture it-self and described it to Van Gogh as 'a purple Christ with red hair, with a yellow angel' [821/T20]. In comparison to Gauguin's work, Bernard's figures are even less tied to ob-servable reality, with their attenuated forms and the inclu-sion of an angel. The painting was not intended as a self-representation but, curiously, contains a portrait of Gauguin between the soldiers on the right. This depiction of Gauguin as Judas may symbolise Bernard's general feeling of mis-trust towards his friend, and perhaps his resentment that Gauguin was obtaining more critical recognition than he himself. It is also possible, however, that Bernard here con-structs Gauguin as a traitor not in relation to himself but in relation to Van Gogh, following their period together in Aries. In this case the redheaded Christ would function im-plicitly as a Christ-artist reference to Van Gogh. 
period is Van Gogh's Self-portrait as a Japanese Buddhist priest (F476 1581). 
13 The emphasis is Van Gogh's. 
11 See, for example, Ronald de Leeuw, Van Gogh Museum, Zwolle 1997, p. 200. There are two versions of 14 Letter from Paul Gauguin to Emile Schuffenecker; this painting. quoted in Ziva Amishai-Maisels, Gauguin's religious 
themes (diss.), New York 1985, p. 21 (bracketed French 12 A non-Christian variation of the linking of the artist's words are included by Amishai-Maisel). task to that of a spiritual figure also dating from this 

tures and to find relief from the disquiet they had caused in him. It was now imperative for him to distance himself from the approaches of these two men with whom such a short while before he had hoped to work closely. He con-sidered the olive grove an appropriate subject for modern religious painting and turned to it with the story of Christ in mind. As was the case with Jesus in the biblical story of Gethsemane, the olive grove for Van Gogh was a means of coming to terms with his anguish and it held the possibility of consolation. 
As the letters show, at this point in Van Gogh's ca-reer he was taking a much less ambitious approach in his art. This meant not painting things he could not see, and leaving the representation of sublime ideals to those capa-ble of expressing them. This tendency was linked to the no-tion of humility, which was a recurring theme in Van Gogh's writings at this time. He states this clearly in the let-ter to Bernard cited above, in which he notes that although some modern artists have been able to capture biblical truths in their religious pictures, it is better to have less lofty aims. 
Achieving a 'humble' manner is indeed one of the underlying goals of the olive grove series, one that is well represented by the work under discussion here, in which Van Gogh addresses the subject of Christ in the garden as-sociatively - without resorting to non-naturalist means -and with stylistic restraint. The olive trees are at once solidly tied to the earth and connected to the heavens, with the glowing light in the sky combined with the wing-like projection and upward reaching shapes of the foliage sub-tly implying the transcendence and release of the soul from the earthly realm. The emphasis is on understatement and is entirely consistent with Van Gogh's christological con-ception of his position as an artist. He held a non-supernat-uralist view of Christ as the humble servant and consoler of humankind, one who was of and not above the people, and one who suffered and was misunderstood during his life-time. It was after this image that Van Gogh modelled him-self as an artist. Consequently, he was unwilling to em-brace a self-image that exalted him or emphasised his su-periority, or a style that was not based on a sober rendering of that which he saw around him. 
Religious anxiety and the Catholic south 
The letter to Bernard marks a departure from what Van Gogh had written regarding biblical subject matter the preceding year. The circumstances surrounding the paint-ing of the Pieta (fig. 4), done only a few months before Van Gogh received copies of Gauguin's and Bernard's works, are instructive in understanding his renewed and somewhat re-vised preoccupation with religious questions at this time. 
The Pieta was executed early in September 1889 and in his correspondence from this period Van Gogh empha-sises that religious associations were once again causing him anxiety. St-Paul-de-Mausole, originally an Augustinian monastery, remained a Catholic institution administered by nuns.20 In a letter to Theo, Van Gogh wrote that his at-tacks threatened to assume 'an absurd religious turn,' which he related to having lived in a monastery setting for too long - first in the hospital in Aries (which had also orig-inally been a monastery) and then in St-R¨¦my, concluding that a return to the North was desirable, if not necessary 
[802/605]. 
Van Gogh also wrote, however, that despite the dis-tress caused by his surroundings, religious thought could sometimes bring him great comfort. He told Theo of how, during his last illness, his lithograph of Delacroix's Pieta had fallen into his oil and paint, and been damaged. Saddened by this, he had undertaken to make a copy of the work. He did not comment on the physical resemblance be-tween himself and the figure of Christ, but no doubt saw it as an indirect means of expressing his identification with Jesus and his sufferings. The fact that this was a copy -what Van Gogh sometimes referred to as a 'translation' - of another artist's (religious) work and not his own original conception seems to have made both the subject matter and the implied self-representation more acceptable. 
Van Gogh reiterated his uneasiness with his reli-gious surroundings in another letter, writing to Theo that his desire to leave the south was caused by the 'confused 
20 Pickvance, op. cit. (note 1), p. 44. 22 Amishai-Maisels, op. cit. (note 14), pp. 11-71. 
21 Van Gogh's emphasis, my translation: 'Ik ben ver-23 Greer, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 37-42. baasd dat ik met de moderne idee.n die ik heb, ik, die zo'n vurig bewonderaar ben van Zola en De Goncourt 24 See Bogomila Welsh-Ovcharov (ed.), Van Gogh in [...], anvallen heb als een bijgelovige en dat er verarde en perspective, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1974, p. 6. For afschuwelijke godsdienstige gedachten bij me opkomen Gauguin's personal identification with Christ see die ik in het Noorden nooit heb gehad.' Amishai-Maisels, op. cit. (note 14), pp. 72-121. 
and horrible religious thoughts' that arose in him there: 'I am surprised that I, with the modern ideas I have, I, who am such an ardent admirer ofZola andDe Goncourt [...], have attacks such as a superstitious person and that con-fused and horrible religious thoughts arise in me which I never have had in the north' [806/607].2 1 
Van Gogh may very well have related the non-real-ist styles of Gauguin and Bernard - both of whom had been brought up as devout Catholics2 2 - with Catholicism, al-though he would have recognised that their works were in no way typical of traditional religious images. His rejection of'superstition' and reiteration of his admiration for Zola and the Goncourts arise from the same naturalist attitude that led him to express fury with Gauguin's and Bernard's representations of Christ in the garden of olives, which 'contain nothing that has been observed' [825/615]. In both cases, he reaffirms his commitment to the non-supernatu-ralist approach to interpretations of Christ that he had adopted years earlier. This approach had a firm basis in the ideas of the Groningen School of Calvinism within which he had been brought up, and even more strikingly, as I have discussed elsewhere,23 in the Modern School, which had affected him strongly during his period of theological studies in Amsterdam with his uncle, J.S. Strieker. 
Gauguin and early legend-making surrounding Van Gogh 
As suggested at the outset, Van Gogh was unhappy with how his image as an artist was beginning to be de-fined. He was uncomfortable with the fact that his persona was assuming a religious and, more specifically, christo-logical dimension. In Gauguin's and Bernard's paintings, Van Gogh found himself confronted with a literal confla-tion of an artistic and religious figure. Although the refer-ence is not openly about Van Gogh, he likely felt - and as has been seen, not without reason - that he was implicated in this tendency in their art. Viewing these works, Van Gogh may have thought he had been misunderstood, taken too literally in his earlier utterances concerning the Christ-artist analogy. 
Gauguin appears to have been the first to construct Van Gogh in openly christological terms. He identified both himself - as clearly articulated in his self-portraiture - and Van Gogh with the figure of Christ.24 That he constructed Van Gogh christologically and, perhaps more importantly, as someone who himself identified with Christ, is evident in his narrative describing the now-legendary period the two artists spent together in Aries at the end of 1888. Equally apparent is that Gauguin conflated an image of elevated re-ligiosity with one of insanity. 
Stressing Van Gogh's religious fervour and Christ-like dedication, Gauguin relates how, long before their time together in Aries, his friend had ministered selflessly and Christ-like to the poor miners in the Belgian Borinage. Gauguin describes an occasion on which Van Gogh had taken in a victim of a pit-gas fire, declared by the doctor to be a hopeless case: 'But Vincent believed in miracles, in maternity. [...] He spoke the words of a consoling priest (decidedly he was mad). This work of a madman succeeded in reviving a Christian from the dead.'2 5 Once the miracu-lous healing had taken place, Gauguin continues, Van Gogh had seen a vision of the martyred Christ on the min-er's forehead. Gauguin then links this verbal description of the artist to a painting he - Gauguin - had been working on in Aries, Vincent van Gogh painting sunflowers, now in the Van Gogh Museum.26 
Gauguin writes that while the two men were paint-ing together, Van Gogh himself alluded to his mental stabil-ity (or lack thereof) on the one hand, and religious fervour and identification with the Holy Spirit on the other: 'He [Van Gogh] would trace with his brush the purest yellow on the wall, which was suddenly violet: I am sound in spirit /1 am the Holy Spirit.'27 
Gauguin's accounts are not necessarily reliable. What does seem clear, however, is that in addition to the christological constructions of the artist and of artistic pro-duction noted earlier, Van Gogh must also have discussed with Gauguin his personal ideas concerning religious voca-tion and his ongoing dedication to seeing Christ as his own model. 
That the figure of Christ held a special place in his relationship with Gauguin is indicated by the ear-severing incident of December 1888, which, as pointed out, has christological overtones. Furthermore, a small drawing of 
25 Paul Gauguin, 'Natures mortes,' Essais d'art libre 4 26 Ibid. 
(January 1894), p. 275: 'Mais Vincent croyait aux mira-
cles, a la maternit¨¦. [...] Pr¨ºtre Consolateur, (D¨¦cid¨¦ment 27 Ibid., p. 274: 'Lui, tragait de son pinceau le plus 
il ¨¦tait fou.) il paria. L'oeuvre folie fit revivre un mort, un jaune, sur le mur, violet soudain, Je suis sain d'Esprit. Je 
chr¨¦tien.' suis Saint-Esprit.' 


aware of the growing posthumous success on the art market of artists like Millet. He felt society was often to blame for the living artist's difficulties. This bleak outlook was likely com-pounded by the fact that he felt a sense of inevitability when it came to his mental instability and illness. He was well aware of the archetypal image of the melancholic or indeed mad artist, and had written how sad it was that the lives of many painters - 'Troyon, Marchal, M¨¦ryon, Jundt, M. Maris, Monticelli, and numerous others' - had ended in madness [778/592]. Ironically, it was at this point that he began gain-ing recognition, and that he became cognizant of the first sig-nificant critical references to himself and his art. Critical at-tention, however, caused Van Gogh anxiety of a new kind. 
Critical reception 
At the end of October Van Gogh received an article that had been published on 17 August 1889 in De Portefeuille. In it, the Dutch painter and critic J.J. Isaacson referred to him as an artist who provided an answer to all that was wanting in modern art. In a note Isaacson added that he hoped in the fu-ture to say more about 'this remarkable hero,'3 6 an intention that Van Gogh himself saw to was never realised. 
The article accompanied a letter from Theo, written on 22 October, which further underlined the fact that Van Gogh's works were beginning to gain exposure - albeit still largely in the select circles of Theo's friends and acquain-tances. Theo wrote that the Dutch artists Isaac Israels and Jan Veth, the latter also a critic for De Nieuwe Gids, and the Belgian artist and member of Les XX, Theodore van Bijsselberghe, had viewed Van Gogh's pictures [815/T19]. 
The following month, Van Gogh, who in September had al-ready had two of his paintings exhibited in Paris at the Soci¨¦t¨¦ des Artistes Ind¨¦pendants, received an official invita-tion from Octave Maus to exhibit with Les XX in Brussels.37 
The extent of the confusion triggered by Isaacson's at-tention in particular became apparent in mid-November when, having received a letter from the critic, Van Gogh wrote to Theo: 'Isaacson's letter gave me much pleasure; en-closed my reply, which you must read - my thoughts begin to link up a little more calmly, but as you will see from it, I do not know if I must continue to paint or let painting alone' [822/614]. Van Gogh was unable, or unwilling, to accept the prominent leadership position in modern art that Isaacson was suggesting for him. In fact he was uncomfortable with the notion of success in general, even though, as we have seen, he was extremely concerned about his financial posi-tion and ostensibly rejected the life of a martyr. Thus, while he desired success on the one hand he also feared it. He artic-ulated this anxiety to his mother half a year later, writing that success was about the worst thing that could happen in a painter's life [865/6293].38 This attitude no doubt had its basis both in Van Gogh's knowledge of the vicissitudes of the art market and his christological approach to his role as an artist. In neither case did recognition within one's lifetime conform to the ideal model. 
Carol Zemel, whose 1977 study of the first four decades of Van Gogh criticism remains the most comprehen-sive work on the subject, correctly identifies Van Gogh's un-easiness with Isaacson's critical attention. According to Zemel, his response in general was 'a mixture of gratitude, humility, anxiety and argument'; his 'repudiation of Isaacson's praise' was a 'telling summary of his aesthetic ideals and personal fears.'39 Pursuing this further, it may be added that Van Gogh's 'aesthetic ideals and personal fears' were largely founded on his religious ideation, in which the rejection of pride and of lust for material wealth and earthly glory played an important role. 
28 Welsh-Ovcharov, op. cit. (note 24), p. 6.  Stolwijk, 'Theo van Gogh: a life,' in Theo van Gogh  
1857-1891, cit. (note 33), p. 48.  
29 Greer, op. cit. (note 3).  
35 For an overview of those who saw Van Gogh's  
30 See Amishai-Maisels, op. cit. (note 14), pp. 73, 109,  works at this time see A.M . Hammacher, 'Van Gogh  
note 3.  and the words,' in J.B. de la Faille, The works of Vincent  
van Gogh: his paintings and his drawings, revised, aug- 
31 See note 25.  mented and annotated edition, Amsterdam 1970, pp.  
10-11.  
32 Welsh-Ovcharov, op. cit. (note 24), p. 6, note 16.  
36 J.J. Isaacson, 'Parijsche brieven: III. Gevoelens over  
33 See Chris Stolwijk, 'Chronology,' in exhib. cat. Theo  de Nederlandsche kunst op de Parijsche wereld-tentoon- 
van Gogh 1857-1891: art dealer, collector and brother  stelling,' De Portefeuille (17 August 1889), pp. 248-49.  
of Vincent, Amsterdam (Van Gogh Musem) & Paris  
(Mus¨¦e d'Orsay) 1999-2000, p. 187.  37 See letters 820/- (from Octave Maus) and 822/614.  
34 See Brief happiness: the correspondence of Theo van  38 See Evert van Uitert, 'An immortal name,' in The  
Gogh and Jo Bonger, ed. Leo Jansen and Jan Robert,  Rijksmuseum Vincent van Gogh, cit. (note 1), pp. 19-29,  
115  Amsterdam & Zwolle 1999, no. 41. See also Chris  86-87.  

Far from having lost interest in religious questions during this period, Van Gogh was very much concerned with and troubled by these issues. He had earlier turned his back on the institution of religion in general, including his own Calvinist upbringing. This is not to say, however, that he had lost his interest in the fundamental religious questions that had first arisen in an earlier, Protestant context. Nor, con-trary to what might be expected, was the Reformed Church entirely absent in his life while he was living in the south of France. 
Interventions from a Protestant minister 
One aspect of Van Gogh's life in Aries and St-R¨¦my that seems to have gone largely unnoticed is the position held in it by Frederic Salles (fig. 6). Salles (1841-1897) was the minister of the Reformed Church in Aries between 1874 and 1897.4 0 His involvement with Van Gogh and his family was extensive. He visited Van Gogh when he was in the hospital in Aries in February 1889. He saw to it that his needs were be-ing met and he mediated on Van Gogh's behalf in order to prevent a long-term legal confinement.41 Between February and May, Salles kept in touch with Theo, reporting on Vincent's health, and it was to Salles he entrusted legal power to act on the family's account should it be necessary.42 When Van Gogh was able to leave the hospital in Aries, Salles as-sisted him in looking for accommodation and, when the idea of living alone proved too much, he found and accompanied him to the asylum of St-Paul-de-Mausole. Furthermore, when Van Gogh took a two-day excursion from St-R¨¦my to Aries in November 1889 the clergyman was one of the few people he saw. His contact with Salles at this very difficult period in his life, then, was extensive, particularly considering the degree of his social isolation. 
Van Gogh's letters tell us little about his relationship with Salles. This was likely because he did not want to draw attention to the trouble he was causing his brother, Salles and others at this time - a concern both the preacher and Van Gogh address in their correspondence with Theo.4 3 In April 1889, for example, Salles wrote: 'You would hardly believe how much your brother is preoccupied and worried by the thought that he is causing you inconvenience.'44 A few days later Van Gogh expressed the same worry directly to his brother, telling him he was sorry to have caused Salles, Rey (his doctor in Aries) and Theo so much difficulty [763/628]. 
Although Van Gogh's references to Salles were gener-ally brief they were also numerous - appearing in no less than 18 letters written in the 12-month period between February 1889 and February 1890.4 5 Whether the two dis-cussed their mutual interest in religious matters or the figure of Christ in particular remains unknown. Most of the refer-ences pertain to practical matters, but they make it clear that Van Gogh trusted, respected and admired Salles, turning to him as a personal confidante and advisor. 
Van Gogh was grateful and keen to express his grati-tude. In one letter, written in March 1889 [757/582], he told his brother that he had given Salles Germinie Lacerteux, a book whose protagonist he compared to the Mater Dolorosa in Delacroix's Pieta [805/W14]. Several months later he sug-gested to Theo that a print of Rembrandt's Christ atEmmaus would make an appropriate gift to thank Salles for all his ef-forts. Finally, in January 1890, Van Gogh, overcome by the clergyman's thoughtfulness after Salles had paid him a sur-prise visit in St-R¨¦my, sent him a small painting of his own: pink and red geraniums 'on a completely black background' 
[838/622] 4 6 
What emerges from a close reading of the relevant correspondence between the three men, then, is that Salles provided Van Gogh with something like what the painter himself would have referred to as consolation, a concept closely linked in his writings with assistance, comfort and companionship. As noted earlier, Van Gogh's notion of conso-lation was also closely intertwined with the image of Christ. Indeed, Rembrandt's Christ atEmmaus, like Ary Scheffer's Christus Consolator (Amsterdam, Van Gogh Museum), em-bodied his christological understanding of the term.4 7 It would have been an appropriate gift for Salles for this very reason. What also emerges is that Van Gogh felt only grati-tude towards Salles. There is no longer even a hint of the ani-mosity he had earlier expressed toward representatives of the Protestant Reformed Church or, for that matter, towards organised religion in general. This may be seen in the con-








THE COLLECTION IN CONTEXT 


The agony in the garden by Eugene Delacroix 
Joyce Polistena 
The 19th-century novelist and art critic Th¨¦ophile Gautier believed that Jesus was always a tragic character and that such a personage 'could be captured only by great artists like Rembrandt, Goya and Delacroix.'1 In Eugene Delacroix's painting Agony in the garden, currently in the collection of the Van Gogh Museum, Jesus is portrayed as a pathetic char-acter, seemingly aware of the ignominious death that awaits him (fig. 1). This powerful treatment of a scene from the Passion narratives exemplifies a popular typos of romantic religious painting which emphasised the human suffering of the God-man. As such, Delacroix's interpretation is typical of a new thematic content and iconography that flourished at mid-century. 
The following essay proposes several points that con-tradict critical assumptions about 19th-century religious art in general, and about Delacroix's religious paintings in par-ticular. First, the study suggests that a consideration of the theologies that influenced romantic painters and an analysis of their thematic and historical content are mutually neces-sary elements for an adequate interpretation of these artists' works. A review of the (art) history shows that the cultural climate of the mid-19th century was one that embraced reli-gion, and that theological tenets interfaced with political and social concerns. Thus, the religious paintings of this period cannot be fully understood apart from the historical, political and even religious context. For example, throughout the 1830s and 1840s, when humanitarian and progressive Catholic philosophies were most influential, paintings repre-senting these philosophies flourished. What is perhaps more surprising is that artists as diverse as Eugene Delacroix, Ary Scheffer, Theodore Chass¨¦riau, Paul Delaroche and Hippolyte Flandrin entered into a thematic consensus based upon a modern iconographic language rooted in these liberal theologies. Conservative stylists on the other hand - for ex-ample A.-J.-V. Orsel, E. Amaury-Duval, Adolphe Roger et al. -continued to draw inspiration from more traditional Tridentine dogmas of Christian faith.2 
Second, I will show that Delacroix's biblical themes indicate that he approached his subjects under the dual influ-ence of liberal Catholicism and the dynamic concept of the Church first developed by theologians at Tubingen, Germany. 
Third, without denying Delacroix's critical attitude to-ward liberalism and his scepticism towards Catholic doctrine 
- readily apparent in his Journal -1 suggest that the artist's sympathetic and sustained interest in Christianity was totally consistent with the sentiments religieuses of his time. Finally, I will demonstrate that this newly enriched thematic content satisfied the desire for a modern religious art, while the motif of the vulnerable, solitary hero in the Agony in the garden met the aesthetic needs of an elite class. 
Religious revival and iconography 
The revival of interest in religious topics in art was primarily a response to the resurgence of devotional prac-tices and a renewed commitment to the Church among the European intellectual and social elite at the close of the Napoleonic regime. Beginning under the Restoration (1815-30) and continuing during the July Monarchy (1830-48), Salon records reveal that biblical themes outpaced those of antique goddesses and allegorical subjects. In his Salon re-view of 1837, critic Auguste Barbier noted that the number of sacred scenes had even exceeded those of battle pictures.3 Frederic de Mercey, whose 1838 review appeared in the Revue des Deux-Mondes, commented that 'there is hardly an artist this year who has not made a religious picture.'4 During the 1840s pictures of the Passion and death of Christ predom-inated in the annual Salons. Between 1831 and 1848 Salon artists exhibited 39 paintings of Christ in the garden of olives, 30 pictures of Christ on the cross, 33 heads of Christ, 29 im-ages of Christ in the tomb, 24 paintings of The descentfrom the cross, and 15 of Christ dying on the cross. This represented a 73-percent increase over earlier decades.5 
I would like to thank Cordula Grewe, Marsha Morton,  1 Gautier made many references to Delacroix's artistic  
and Patricia Sands for their advice on a version of this es- parity with Rembrandt; see Th¨¦ophile Gautier, Portraits  
say that was presented at the College Art Association in  contemporains, Paris 1874, p. 322.  
New York City in February 2000, and published in  
Religion and the Arts 4 (2000). My research was sup- 2 Tridentine theology derives its name from the Council  
ported in part by a grant from the Pratt Institute Faculty  of Trent, held at Trento, Italy in 1563. It is a system of  
Development Fund, Pratt Institute, Brooklyn.  theology based on the philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas  
and is often referred to as classical theology. Orsel,  
Amaury-Duval and others represented their themes in a  
hieratic style that aimed to revive medieval Christian art  
and the 'seraphic quality' of Raphael's early works in or- 
der to create a kind of 'neo-Christian painting.' See  
Charles de Montalembert and Francois-Alexis Rio, De l'¨¦- 
tat actuel de I'art religieux en France. Paris 1837.  

Another possible reason for the large number of ren-derings of scenes from the Passion was the widespread devo-tion to the Way of the Cross, which the faithful were encour-aged to meditate upon during the mass. The subject was par-ticularly popular in France during times of social and politi-cal upheaval, as it underscored the basic Christian belief in redemptive suffering. Historian F. P. Bowman has observed that 'the image of Christ's despair in the Garden of Gethsemane now became the model for the "crucifixion" of the just [...]. Jesus was seen less and less as the realisation of the prophets and more and more as a revolutionary in the hu-man condition.'6 In this period, the popular cult of the Sacred Heart encouraged believers to contemplate the sacrificial na-ture of Jesus' love and in the iconography we find the heart encircled by a crown of thorns. Subsequently, veneration of the suffering Jesus was linked to contemporary political strife, and we often find devotional literature and devotional art, as well as rituals, illustrating this idea. Images of Jesus's Passion (and of the Virgin Mary) were associated with the po-litical revolutions of 1830 and 1848, where religious phenom-ena and supernatural appearances were coupled with the so-cial unrest and disruptive events.7 
A third impetus for the renewed interest in gospel themes among artists was the increasing support for Utopian and humanist doctrines. Demanding greater economic jus-tice and workers' rights, many secular reformers found a ba-sis for social ethics in religion and in the Jesus of romanti-cism. Images ofLe Christ des barricades andLe Christ lib¨¦ra-teur were widespread, and christology (that part of dogmatic theology that studies the redemptive nature of Christ's per-son and work) seeped into contemporary art and literature.8 Writer and editor of the liberal Catholic journal L'Europ¨¦en Philippe-Joseph-Benjamin Buchez was one voice among many insisting on the value of Christian themes in art in pro-moting concern for the underclass and effecting social regen-eration, advocating the importance of religion for an organic social system. Art historian and avid communist L¨¦on Rosenthal was the first to point to the connection between re-ligious art and the social reform movement in this volatile period. Rosenthal noted that although liberal Catholicism and the tenets of social humanitarianism were at first scoffed at, they gradually gained acceptance after 1840.9 
In seeking to explain the turn towards New Testament subjects in art, we find that the dramatic resur-gence also resulted from a re-engagement with religious thought, a recommitment to Christian beliefs, and from the fervent interest in German idealist philosophies that had de-veloped in the first decades of the century. In France, liberal theologians and ecclesiastics posited a radical christocentric humanitarianism that was buttressed by secular demands for social reform. 
3 Auguste Barbier, 'Salon de 1837,' Revue des Deux-7 Ibid., pp. 97-100. See also Thomas A. Kselman, 
Mondes 10 (April 1837), p. 146; cited in L¨¦on Rosenthal, Miracles and prophecies in 19th-century France, New 
Du romantisme au r¨¦alisme: essai sur devolution de la Brunswick, NJ 1983. 
peinture en France de 1830-1848, Paris 1914 (Reprint 
Paris 1987) p. 87. 8 Bowman, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 69, 343, 356. 

4 Frederic Bourgeois de Mercey, 'Salon de 1838,' Revue 9 Rosenthal, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 83, 375-76. 
des Deux-Mondes 14 (May 1838), p. 389; cited in 
Rosenthal, op. cit. (note 3), p. 87. 10 From the 16th century, Thomism had been the official 

philosophy of the Catholic Church, falling into obscurity un-5 See P¨¨re C.-F. Chev¨¦, Dictionnaire des bienfaits et til re-affirmed in the 19th century. Thomism is based on the beaut¨¦s du christianisme, Paris 1856 (1867). 13th-century philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas; as a sys-
tematic theology it is a vast, intricately designed system to 6 Frank P. Bowman, Le Christ des barricades, Paris 1987, logically support all teaching of the faith based on reason. 
p. 190. 
After 1850, however, we find an abrupt decline in paintings representing the principles of liberal Catholicism and a subsequent retrenchment in traditional iconography. The triumph of conservative thinking after years of ecclesias-tical conflict led to a re-emergence of both the content and the formal and expressive means of traditional Tridentine iconography, crushing all further attempts at pictorial ex-pression derived from radical contemporary sources. 
The importance of M.hler 
What made it possible for Delacroix and other painters to render the figure of Jesus Christ in doubt and suf-fering - without, however, compromising his divine nature -was the inspiration they drew from a theological model that placed greater emphasis on the dynamic relatedness of the infinite (God) and the finite (man). This model elevated the status of man in relation to God, effectively making new themes available for religious art. We can trace the origin of these radical theologies to Germany and such early 19th-cen-tury Protestant philosophers as Freidrich Schleiermacher and Freidrich Schelling, whose teachings admitted more sub-jectivity in the experience of the divine (as an awareness of absolute dependence on God). Stimulated by their ideas, in-fluential Catholic thinkers began calling for reforms and ex-panding theology away from the more rigid medieval scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas,10 re-conceptualising the theology of the person of Christ from an anthropological per-spective. Foremost among them was Johann Adam M.hler, whose ideas were instrumental in determining the revision of Catholic theology. M.hler moved beyond purely romantic theology, with its emphasis on the immediacy of individual feeling, towards a more open and dynamic idea of the Church as a communal embodiment of the Spirit. M.hler's 'incarna-tional theology' defined the Church as the indwelling of the Holy Spirit among a community of believers and provided ec-clesiastical models from which new typologies could be drawn. He was particularly concerned with the organic un-folding of divine and human relatedness as a shared experi-ence of both the infinite and the finite.11 
M.hler's definition of ecclesiology joined with the principles of social Catholicism and helped shift artistic focus towards the depiction of earthly events and the human dimen-sion of Jesus' redemptive action rather than his glorious, heavenly existence. The emphasis for artists became the cre-ated being and not the Creator; they concerned themselves with earthly events rather than the heavenly realm, and con-centrated on daily life and prescriptions for a living sainthood. 
Delacroix's Agony in the garden of 1851, as well as his many versions of St Sebastian helped by the holy women and The good Samaritan (fig. 2), and his renderings of The disci-ples and the holy women piously retrieving the body of St Stephen (figs. 3 and 4)12 cannot be fully understood without some knowledge of M.hler's contemporary theology. With regard to the St Stephen in particular we may say the subject is conceived in M.hlerist terms, as Delacroix takes up the scenario of the first Christian martyr from the point of view of the disciples, thus underscoring the notion of the communal share in incarnate suffering. By the same token, his interpre-tation of Jesus crawling un-heroically on the ground does not violate belief in his sacred person. Theologian G. A. McCool has explained this paradox: 'Neither the perfection of Christ's human nature nor his possession of the Beatific Vision ex-cludes the possibility of ignorance and of progressive growth in his human knowledge. As such, it required human experi-ence of the world, and it was in no way incompatible with doubt or with suffering.'13 
11 See Michael Himes, Ongoing incarnation: Johann also vol. 3 Texts pp. 213-14; p. 215; pp. 218-19; pp. Adam M.hler and the beginnings of modern ecclesiolo-231-32; pp. 243; and pp. 244-45. Versions of The good gy, New York 1997. Although banned during his lifetime, Samaritan: vol. 4, no. 437, pi. 246; no. 446, pi. 247; and M.hler's thoughts were increasingly valued among the-vol. 3, pp. 224-25 and p. 229. Versions of The disciples ologians, and excerpts from his work were written into and the holy women retrieving the body of St Stephen: drafts of the documents from the First Vatican Council in vol. 4, no. 448, pi. 256; no. 449, pi. 257; no. 471, pi. 1870. Nevertheless, the enemies of an open, organic the-258; and no. 472, pi. 259; and vol. 3, p. 230; pp. 230-ology held sway and M.hler's words were finally ex-31; p. 249; and pp. 249-50. 
punged. It was not until the Second Vatican Council in 
1963 that his ideas were officially disseminated. 13 The ordinary human subject needs time and the ex-
perience of life in order to thematise this un-objective 12 See Lee Johnson, The paintings of Eugene Delacroix: knowledge in objective concepts [...]. Christ's knowledge a critical catalogue, 6 vols., Oxford 1981 -89. Versions of in objective concepts was a genuine growth in knowl-St Sebastian helped by the holy women: vol. 4 Plates, edge'; see A Rahner reader, ed. Gerald A. McCool, New no. 422, pi. 230; no. 424, pi. 231; no. 430, pi. 231; no. York 1981, pp. 159-60. 450, pi. 260; no. 465, pi. 261; and no. 467, pi. 261. See 




and shows the poor as mistreated and economically enslaved. In the reviews Scheffer's rendition of the gospel verse sparked contemporary analogies: Tt was Christ who breaks the chains of the Poles [...]; it is a bloody reproach against those who have taken the part of the Tsar against the Polish people.'29 Other critiques concerned the unsuitability of Scheffer's Mennaisian theme and non-Tridentine subject. Scheffer's religious scenes were viewed as 'too philosophical' or 'too German.' Christ the consoler was thought to be 'overly intellectual [...] less like a painting and more like a book.'30 
In 1859 Louis Viardot noted that Scheffer was caught up in the spirit of the times - 'a period more concerned with morality than faith.' Such comments were attempts to diffuse the growing influence of German theologians and the per-ceived dangers of liberal Catholic philosophy; Viardot claimed that 'these metaphysical paintings cast aside art's true role [...]; his [Scheffer's] subjects practically require a written ex-planation.'31 Ludovic Vitet also alluded to the influence of German thinkers on Scheffer's themes and iconography: 'There is more philosophy in this painter than religion.'3 2 
In pairing Delacroix's scenes of the Passion with Scheffer's images of New Testament precepts, I want to de-marcate a group of painters - Pierre Proud'hon, to Hippolyte Flandrin, Hippolyte Lazerges, Emile Signol et al. - all of whom drew on themes and symbols derived from Lamennais's philosophy.33 They rejected the traditional iconography of an awe-inspiring Second Person of the Trinity, emphasising instead the historical person of Jesus, who was heroic in his isolation and vulnerability, a man-God whose earthly mission ended on the cross. Their interests re-flect contemporary theologies that sought a deeper historical understanding of Christ's human consciousness. In reposi-tioning these artists I am not attempting to use the 'excep-tions to prove the rule,' to point up consistencies between in-congruent styles, or to depoliticise religious commissions by revealing that similar (negative) criticism was dispersed across disparate works. Rather, I seek to clarify these artists' intentions to visualise the compassionate and fraternal as-pects of Christianity with a heightened appreciation of the in-carnate and mystical in theology. Both artists expand imagi-natively beyond traditional models under the stimuli of liber-al Catholicism and the dynamic concept of the Church articu-lated by the theologians at Tubingen.. 

Religious aspirations 
The approximately 120 religious paintings and over 220 drawings and pastels by Delacroix have led me to read-dress the widely-held view that these works were merely commissions and, as such, remote from the artist's personal taste or experience. In fact, Delacroix considered biblical subjects a fecund source of inspiration for an artist, an im-portant impetus in calling forth 'the aspirations of the soul.'34 In a revealing entry in his Journal, the painter declared: 'I thought of all religion has to offer to the imagination, and at the same time of its appeal to man's deepest feelings. "Blessed are the meek, blessed are the peacemakers": what other religion has ever made gentleness, resignation and simple goodness the sole aim of man's existence. "Beati pau-peres spiritu": Christ promised heaven to the poor in spirit, that is, to the simple-hearted; this is not so much intended to humble our pride in the human mind as to show us that a simple heart is better than a brilliant intellect.'35 Delacroix's eloquent expression of pious feeling, his interest in biblical subjects and his sympathy toward Catholicism were not atyp-
29 Piel, 'Salon de 1837,' L'Europ¨¦en 2 (July-August Foucart, Le renoveau de la peinture religieuse en France 1837), p. 27. (1800-1860), Paris 1987. 
30 Louis Viardot, 'Ary Scheffer,' Gazette des Beaux-Arts 34 Eugene Delacroix, Ecrits sur I'art, ed. Franoois-Marie 1 (February 1859), pp. 137-38. Deyrolle and Christophe Denissel, Paris 1988, p. 44. The reli-gious works make up approximately one-tenth of his oeuvre. 31 Ibid. 
35 Journal, cit. (note 20), 2 November 1854, pp. 265-66. 32 Ludovic Vitet, 'Ary Scheffer,' Revue des Deux-Mondes 2 (October 1858), p. 124. 36 See D. G. Charlton, 'Religious and political thought,' in 
D. G. Charlton (ed.), The French romantics, 2 vols., 33 Bruno Foucart was the first to discuss religious pic-Cambridge 1984, vol. 1, pp. 33-75. tures by diverse artists, uniting them by genre; however, he avoided the issue of how religious ideas had affected 37 Paul Mantz, 'Salon de 1859,' Gazette des Beaux-Arts iconography and formal means. Foucart's study ends in 2 (1859), p. 138. 1860, a date he admits saw an obvious and abrupt break in the choice of subjet of religious painting. See Bruno 38 L. Clement de Ris, 'Artistes contemporains: Eugene 
ical, as many romantics valued religion for both personal and paintings date from the 1830s; 18 from the 1840s; and 32 from social reasons.36 the 1850s. The artist showed religious pictures in nearly every 
As an esteemed artist who gained major church com-Salon from 1845 through 1859.4 2 His heightened interest in missions, Delacroix had to endure criticism for the supposed the thematic content of these scenes is apparent in his critical lack of religious feeling in these works; at the same time, evaluation of other artists. For example, a Journal entry of 6 however, supporters lauded his 'enormous talent for sacred June 1854 shows us his decidedly religious impatience with scenes.'37 L. Cl¨¦ment de Ris reported that each time Poussin's renderings of the figures of Christ and the Virgin Delacroix touched upon the themes of Christ's Passion, he Mary: 'Poussin was never able to paint the head of Christ, or captured a singular combination of 'mysterious terror and di-the body either - that body which should express so much ten-vine majesty [...] the viewer is thrilled to things divine.'3 8 derness, and the head that must be eloquent with divine grace Critic and scholar Ernest Chesneau commented on this apti-and pity for the sufferings of mankind [...]. [As for] the Virgin, tude, particularly in those biblical or religious pictures creat-he seems to have no conception of the holiness and mystery ed for the artist's own pleasure: 'When one considers the de-surrounding her personality.'43 On the other hand, Delacroix votional themes that Delacroix has treated in the course of believed that he himself was quite capable of almost effort-his life of painting, one arrives at an enormous total; and lessly giving a spiritual component to his own devotional pic-when one reflects that these were most often subjects he had tures: 'Walked home, and went into St Roch to hear the mid-chosen of his own inclination, without having to be amenable night mass, I do not know whether it was because of the to the exigencies of commissions, one must conclude that, crowd or the lights or the solemnity of it all, but the pictures without being either a mystic or a devout believer, Delacroix seemed to be colder and more insipid than ever, How rare tal-had not only poetry but a religious soul.'39 ent is! [...] and yet what finer opportunity could any man have 
Without denying Delacroix's scepticism, my claim that than religious subjects such as these! I only wanted one touch, 
the artist possessed a religious consciousness is scarcely with-just one single spark of feeling and deep emotion from all out foundation in fact.40 Near the end of his life, in a rather these pictures [...] a touch which I feel I could have given al-
profound entry in his Journal, we find the following: 'God is most unconsciously.'44 within us. He is the inner presence that causes us to admire Delacroix's sacred works are rendered with a spiritu-the beautiful, that must glad when we do right, and consoles al feeling that strongly suggests his dramatic storytelling and us for having no share in the happiness of the wicked. It is he, brilliant brushwork are inseparable from his sympathies to-no doubt, who breathes inspiration into men of genius, and ward religion itself. Moreover, his choice of Mennaisian and warms their hearts at the sight of their own productions. M.hlerist themes as subject matter demonstrates that his Some men are virtuous, others are geniuses and both are in-characteristic modernity extends well beyond a romantic spired and favoured by God.'4 1 Moreover, we find that sacred style of painting. subjects became increasingly important to Delacroix: eight 
Delacroix' Revue Francais 8 (1857), p. 419. Archbishop of Orleans and felt grateful for the opportu-3, 12 October 1862, p. 329. 
nity that religious subjects afforded a painter. He wrote 39 'Quand on r¨¦capitule par la pensee les sujets religieux that he often liked 'to sit quiet and alone in churches to 42 Lucien Rudrauf, Maurice S¨¦rullaz and Susan Strauber que Delacroix a trait¨¦s dans Ie cours de sa vie de peintre, have a good long meditation.' See Journal, cit. (note 20), have traced the growing importance of religious paint-
on arrive a un total ¨¦norme; et quand on songe que ses 26 June 1853, p. 192; 24 December 1853, pp. 215-16; ings in Delacroix's oeuvre from the 1820s through to his sujets, il les a choisis le plus souvent de son propre mou-21 May 1854, p. 230; 12 September 1854, p. 254; and death in 1863; they concur that 'his interest in these sub-
vement, sans y ¨ºtre amen¨¦ par les exigences des com-29 August 1857, p. 368. jects seemed to ignite' in the 1840s, evinced by the sharp mandes, on en doit conclure que sans ¨ºtre un mystique ni increase in devotional pictures that continued until his 
un d¨¦vot, Delacroix avait, ne f¨¹t-ce qu'en po¨¨te, Tame 41 'Dieu est en nous: c'est cette presence int¨¦rieure qui last days. See Lucien Rudrauf, Delacroix et Ie probl¨¨me religieuse'; see Alfred Robaut (ed.), L'oeuvre complete nous fait admirer le beau, qui nous r¨¦jouit quand nous du romantisme artistique, Paris 1942; Maurice Serullaz, 
de Eugene Delacroix: peintures, dessins, gravures, litho-avons bien fait et nous console de ne pas partager le Delacroix: peintures et dessins d'inspiration religieuse, graphies, catalogue et reproduit par Alfred Robaut avec bonheur du m¨¦chant. C'est lui sans doute qui fait ('inspi-Nice 1986; and Susan Strauber, The religious paintings commentaire par Ernest Chesneau, Paris 1885, p. 450._ ration dans les hommes de g¨¦nie et qui les ¨¦chauffe au of Eugene Delacroix (diss., Brown University, 1983). 
spectacle de leurs propres productions. II y a des hommes 
40 In his invaluable Journal, we find, for example, that de vertu comme des hommes de g¨¦nie; les uns et les 43 Journal, cit. (note 20), 6 June 1854, p. 142. he often attended Mass, found himself 'enchanted' by autres sont inspires et favoris¨¦s de Dieu'; see Journal de 
various other Catholic services, dined with the Eug¨¨ne Delacroix, ed. A. Joubin, 3 vols., Paris 1932, vol. 44 Ibid., 24 December 1853, pp. 215-16. 





DOCUMENTATION 
Catalogue of acquisitions: paintings and drawings 
August 2000-July 2001 

This catalogue contains the paintings and drawings acquired by the Van Gogh Museum from August 2000 to July 2001. Each work has an inventory num-ber made up as follows: the first letter stands for the technique (s = painting, d = drawing); this is fol-lowed by a reference number and then by a capital letter (B = loan, N = State of the Netherlands, S = Van Gogh Museum [after 1 July 1994], V = Vincent van Gogh Foundation) and the year of acquisition. 
Paintings 

Amiet, Cuno 
Swiss, 1868-1961 
TWO children (Copy after Van Gogh) 1907 Oil on canvas, 51.3 x 46 cm Monogrammed and dated on reverse: CA 1907, an-notation: COPIE/NACH/VAN GOGH s 506 S/2001 (colour plate p. 138) 
After completing his academic training in Munich and Paris the Swiss artist Cuno Amiet moved to Pont-Aven in 1892. He stayed a year in this small Breton port, where he became acquainted with French painting and came into contact with the work of Vincent van Gogh and Paul Gauguin. From this mo-ment onwards their art would exert a major influ-ence on Amiet's style. In 1906 he joined Die Briicke, the artists' group founded in Dresden, which played a leading role in German expressionism. 
Amiet's painting in the Van Gogh Museum is an exact copy of Van Gogh's Two children (F 784 JH 2052, private collection), a work produced by the artist in June 1890 in Auvers-sur-Oise. In 1907 the original painting was included in an exhibition in the R¨¹nstlerhaus in Zurich, the first painting by Van Gogh to be exhibited in Switzerland. Amiet vis-ited this exhibition, probably in the company of his friend, the Zurich-based collector, Richard Risling. Later that year Risling would acquire Van Gogh's Two children on Amiet's recommendation. According to Risling himself, he bought the canvas for 2000 francs from Van Gogh's brother Theo. However, Theo had died in January 1891 and Risling presumably confused him with Van Gogh's uncle, the art dealer C M van Gogh, who was then active on the Swiss art circuit. After purchasing the painting Risling loaned it for a year to Amiet, who thoroughly analysed the work and produced two copies (the other is now in a private collection). For Amiet this was a unique opportunity to study the methods of an artist he greatly admired. 
The special attraction of our copy is that it shows how Van Gogh's work would most likely have looked in 1907, for the original's appearance has been altered by subsequent discolouration. Areas that were initially pink and violet, for exam-ple, are now light blue and white. This was con-firmed during restoration in 1967, when two nar-row strips to the extreme left and right of the paint-ing were found to have retained their original colour: their position beneath the frame had pre-vented them from suffering the effects of light. When Amiet produced his version of the Two chil-dren these pink and violet areas had only faded slightly. He probably also used a less unstable paint sort, which did not discolour as rapidly. 
Provenance Oscar Miller Collection, Biberist; Galerie Kornfeld, Berne; acquired by the Van Gogh Museum (2001). 
Literature Paolo Cadorin, 'Colour fading in Van Gogh and Gauguin,' A closer look: technical and art-historical studies on works by Van Gogh and Gauguin, Zwolle 1991, pp. 12-19; Paul Muller, 'Oscar Miller, Sammler und Wegbereiter der Moderne,' ex-hib. cat. Ausstellung Sammlung Oscar Miller, Solothurn (Kunstmuseum) 1998, no. 40; Silvia Volkart, 'Cuno Amiet und Richard Kisting: Maler und Sammler ¡ª Kunsterzieher und Kunstvermittler,' exhib. cat. Cuno Amiet: Von Pont-Aven zur Br¨¹cke, Berne (Kunstmuseum) 1999, pp. 47-65. 

Dupr¨¦, Jules 
French, 1811-1889 
The sunken path c. 1835-40 
Oil on canvas, 101 x 83 cm 
Signed at lower left: Jules Dupr¨¦ 
s 505 S/2001 (colour plate p. 135) 
Jules Dupr¨¦ began his artistic career as a porcelain painter. He also received lessons from the land-scape painter Michel Diebolt and studied the work of 17th-century Dutch landscapists, Ruisdael and Hobbema in particular. Dupr¨¦ made his debut at 
139 











DOCUMENTATION 
The new collection of French graphic works 
In the spring of 2000 the Vincent van Gogh Foundation, owner of the major portion of the works in the Van Gogh Museum, purchased an extensive and important collection of prints dating from the last two decades of the 19th century. These were acquired from a pri-vate collector who had accumulated them over a 50-year period. Thanks to this new acquisition, which comprises more than 800 works by artists such as Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, Pierre Bonnard, Edouard Vuillard, Maurice Denis and Felix Valloton, the museum can now boast a collection that includes most of the major prints produced in Paris between 1890 and 1905. A new focal point for the museum has been instantly created, providing a fine impres-sion of art in the 15 years following Van Gogh's death that comple-ments the existing range of works by the artist himself, his prede-cessors and contemporaries. 
During the last 1880s and 1890s the graphic arts underwent a significant evolution. Prints, particularly lithographs, had previ-ously been regarded as mainly reproductive or used for political purposes, but by the end of the 80s the emphasis increasingly lay on their artistic quality and they became an independent art form. The majority of prints made in this period, largely coloured lithographs, were produced in limited editions (circa 100), and intended for afi-cionados and collectors. 
An important role in these developments was played by a group of artists known as the Nabis, or Prophets, who were active in Paris between 1890 and 1905. Although the association had no for-mal structure and its various members worked in widely differing styles, there were nonetheless similarities: compositions were often constructed of planes of colour, contours emphasised and some ele-ments reduced to silhouettes. All these features can be largely at-tributed to the influence of Japanese prints. 
The art dealer and publisher Ambroise Vollard was a great champion of the Nabis' production. By publishing albums and groups of prints by these artists he became responsible for some of the most impressive series of prints in the history of the graphic arts. He also brought out special collectors' editions of books illus-trated by Nabis artists, such as Verlaine's Parall¨¨lement, with plates by Bonnard. This and some 20 other illustrated publications have now been added to the museum's collection as well. 
Among the most striking works are the Nabis' contributions to the avant-garde journal La Revue Blanche and the albums of L'Estampe Originate. This latter publication, which appeared nine times between 1893 and 1895 and on which 75 artists collaborated, constituted a veritable breakthrough in the acceptance of graphic art as an autonomous artistic medium. The recent acquisition means that the Van Gogh Museum now owns a virtually complete set of L'Estampe Originate, which is most uncommon. 
The new collection of prints also includes an impressive group of applied graphic works. Artists such as Ibels, Toulouse-Lautrec and Bonnard, who were closely involved in avant-garde theatre, regularly produced magnificent designs for posters, theatre programmes and song sheets. 
Before acquiring this splendid collection the Van Gogh Museum already possessed several hundred 19th-century French prints. However, these works were largely unconnected with each other, making it difficult to devise a focused collecting policy. Purchase of the Nabis collection has resolved this situation, as these works now provide a foundation on which to base future acquisi-tions. 
The following is a list providing basic information on all the works (prints and books) in the collection. A detailed catalogue de-voted to the new collection will be published at a later date. 
Marije Vellekoop 
Prints 

Abel-Truchet 
French, 1857-1919 
La fum¨¦e, puls la flamme 1895 Colour lithograph, 30.9 x 24 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left 
p1642 V/2000 

Aman-Jean, Edmond 
French, 1858-1936 
Sous les fleurs 1897 Colour lithograph, 35 x 27 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower right 
p 1370 V/2000 

Andr¨¦ Albert 
r
French, 1869-1954 
L'anneau de ¡êakuntala 1895 Lithograph, 32.9 x 50.6 cm 
p 1229 V/2000 

Anquetin Louis 
r
French, 1861-1932 
Manage d'argent Lithograph, 31.7 x 24.7 cm 
p 1625 V/2000 
Le cavalier et le mendiant 1893 Lithograph, 36.7 x 50.4 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in red crayon at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 1 p 1017 V/2000 
Don Quichotte et Sancho Panza 1893 Lithograph, 26.7 x 37.2 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left 
p 1107 V/2000 
La fille d'Artaban; La n¨¦buleuse; Dialogue inconnu 1896 Lithograph, 29.3 x 21 cm 
Aitken 34 p 1626 V/2000 
152 
Le talion; La cage; Ceux qui restent; Fortune 1898 Lithograph, 27.2 x 21.4 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left 
Aitken 38 
p1340 V/2000 

Auriol George 
r
French, 1863-1938 
M¨¦nages d'artistes; Le ma.tre 1890 Colour lithograph, 21.5 x 31 cm Signed with monogram stamp on stone at upper left and on stone at lower left Aitken 4; Fields 33 p 1627 V/2000 
Bois frissonnants 1893 Colour lithograph, 49.5 x 32.4 cm 
Signed with monogram on stone at lower right 
Stein and Karshan 2 
p 1018 V/2000 
Chansons d'Ecosse et de Bretagne 1895 Colour lithograph, 26 x 24 cm 
Signed with monogram on stone at upper left 
Fields 10 
p 1371 V/2000 
Irises 1895 Lithograph, 32.5 x 48.9 cm 
Signed with monogram on stone at upper left Not in Fields p 1372 V/2000 

Bac Ferdinand 
r
French, 1859-1952 
Le canard sauvage 1891 Photogravure, 18.3 x 11 cm Signed in plate at lower right 
Aitken 10 
p 1628 V/2000 

Bataille, Henri 
French, 1872-1922 
Annabellai894 Lithograph, 23.5 x 29.5 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower left Aitken 66 
p 1341 V/2000 
Ton sang 1897 Lithograph, 35 x 27.6 cm 
Signed on stone at lower right 
Aitken 91 p 1342 V/2000 

Behrens Peter 
r
German, 1868-1940 
Waterlilies 1899 Colour lithograph, 50 x 63.5 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower centre and 
in pencil at lower right p 994 V/2000 

Bernard, Emile 
French, 1868-1914 
Washerwomen 1888 Woodcut, 10.9 x 39.3 cm 
Signed with stamp initials at lower right margin 
p 1373 V/2000 
Crucifixion 1891 Woodcut, 35.6x15.2 cm 
Stein and Karshan 4 
p 1019 V/2000 
Les Cantilenes (title page) 1892 Zincograph, 33 x 20.5 cm 
p 1140 V/2000 
Voix qui revenez 1892 Zincograph, 32.8 x 19.8 cm p 1141 V/2000 
La comtesse se peigne (Esm¨¦r¨¦e) 1892 Zincograph, 33.2 x 20.2 cm 
p 1142 V/2000 
J'¨¦coute les jets d'eau 1892 Zincograph, 32.7 x 20 cm 
p 1143 V/2000 
II la prend par la belle et longue chevelure (La femme perfide) 1892 Zincograph, 33.1 x 20 cm p1144 V/2000 Va tuer mon marl (La femme perfide) 
Zincograph, 33 x 20 cm 
p 1145 V/2000 
lis vinrent amenant le Saint Sacrement (La vieille femme de Berkeley) 1892 Zincograph, 33 x 20 cm p 1146 V/2000 
Maryo file la laine 1892 Zincograph, 20 x 33.3 cm 
With maple leaf and '92' in reverse at lower right 
p1147 V/2000 
Nocturne: Le bon m¨¦nuisier, from 'Les Cantilenes' 1892 Zincograph, 33 x 20 cm p 1148 V/2000 

Besnard, Paul Albert 
French, 1849-1934 
La fin de tout 1883 Etching, 24 x 21 cm 
Signed in pencil at lower right margin; inscibed Tir¨¦ a 100' at lower centre margin and 'La Fin de Tout (5e et dernier ¨¦tat)' at lower right margin Delteil 14 p 1645 V/2000 
Madame Besnard 1884 Etching, 26.7 x 20.8 cm 
Signed with initials in plate at lower left and in pencil 
at lower right 
Delteil 16 p 1646 V/2000 
La femme 1886 Etching, 32 x 25 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Delteil 47 p 1233 V/2000 
La morte 1888 Etching, 24 x 20 cm 
Delteil 74 
p1647 V/2000 La femme a la pelerine 1889 Etching, 23.7 x 16 cm Signed in plate at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Delteil 86 p 1374 V/2000 
Intimit¨¦ 1889 Etching, 18 x 24 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Delteil 89 p 1648 V/2000 
La mere malade 1889 Etching, 20x30 cm Delteil 90 p1649 V/2000 
L'intruse 1893 Lithograph, 35.9 x 46 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in brown ink at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 5; Delteil 200 p 1020 V/2000 
La baignade a Talloires 1894 Etching and aquatint, 16 x 23.8 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 6; Delteil 80, 2nd state of 2 p 1021 V/2000 
La liseuse devant la fen¨ºtre 1895 Etching, 13.7 x 19.7 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 7; Delteil 82 p 1022 V/2000 
Nuit de No.l a Fontarabie 1904 Etching, 34 x 26 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Delteil 160 p 1234 V/2000 
Pompilia 1919 Etching, 13.8 x 10.8 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Delteil 188 p1650 V/2000 
Le mod¨¨le nu les bras lev¨¦s 1925 Etching, 26.7 x 20 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Delteil 198 p 1651 V/2000 

Blache, Charles-Phillipe 
French, 1860-1907 
Cr¨¦puscule 1894 Colour lithograph, 36.7 x 25.4 cm Signed in blue chalk, vertical, at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 8 p 1023 V/2000 
Bonnard, Pierre 
French, 1867-1947 
La lettre c. 1925 Lithograph, 23 x 30.5 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 85 p 1155 V/2000 
Dans la ruec. 1900 Colour lithograph, 26 x 13 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Roger-Marx 46 p 1410 V/2000 
Portrait de Renoir c. 1914 Etching, 27 x 29 cm Bouvet 84 p 1417 V/2000 
France-Champagne 1889 Colour lithograph, 78 x 50 cm Signed with initials on stone at upper right Roger-Marx 1 p 995 V/2000 
Sc¨¨ne de familie 1892 Colour lithograph, 21 x 26 cm Signed on stone at upper left Roger-Marx 2 p 1276 V/2000 
Sc¨¨ne de familie 1893 Colour lithograph, 31 x 18 cm Signed on stone at upper left Roger-Marx 4; Stein and Karshan 9 p 1024 V/2000 
Les chiens 1893 Lithograph, 28 x 27 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower left and in pen-cil at lower centre Roger-Marx 25 p 1277 V/2000 
153 Garde municipal 1893 Lithograph, 26 x 17 cm Signed with initials on stone at left centre and in pencil at lower left margin Roger-Marx 26 p 1278 V/2000 
Femme en chemise 1893 Lithograph, 29 x 17 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower left margin Roger-Marx 27 p 1279 V/2000 
Portrait 1893 Lithograph, 30 x 26 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower left and in pen-cil at lower left margin Roger-Marx 28 p 1280 V/2000 
Affiche de 'La Revue Blanche' 1894 Colour lithograph, 80 x 62 cm Signed on stone at centre left Roger-Marx 32 p 996 V/2000 
Couverture de l'album 'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris' 1895 Colour lithograph, 41 x 33 cm Johnson 10; Roger-Marx 56 p 1166 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Avenue du bois 1899 Colour lithograph, 31.5 x 46 cm Johnson 10.1; Roger-Marx 57 p 1167 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Avenue du bois 1899 Colour lithograph (watercoloured proof), 31 x 46 cm p 1179 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Coin de rue 1899 Colour lithograph, 57.5 x 35 cm Johnson 10.2; Roger-Marx 58 p 1168 V/2000 
154 'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Maison dans la cour 1899 Colour lithograph, 34.5 x 25.7 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Johnson 10.3; Roger-Marx 59 p 1169 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Rue vue d'en haut 1899 Colour lithograph, 37 x 22.5 cm Johnson 10.4; Roger-Marx 60 p1170 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Boulevard c. 1896 Colour lithograph, 17.4 x 43.4 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Johnson 10.5; Roger-Marx 61 p 1171 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Place le soir 1899 Colour lithograph, 28 x 39 cm Johnson 10.6; Roger-Marx 62 p1172 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Marchand des quatre-saisons 1899 Colour lithograph, 29 x 24 cm Johnson 10.7; Roger-Marx 63 p 1173 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Le Pont des Arts 1899 Colour lithograph, 27 x 41 cm Johnson 10.8; Roger-Marx 64 p1174 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Au theatre 1899 Colour lithograph, 20 x 40 cm Johnson 10.9; Roger-Marx 65 p 1175 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Rue la soir, sous la pluie 1899 Colour lithograph, 25 x 35.5 cm Johnson 10.10; Roger-Marx 66 p 1176 V/2000 'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Arc de Triomphe 1899 Colour lithograph, 32 x 47 cm Johnson 10.11; Roger-Marx 67 p1177 V/2000 
'Quelques aspects de la vie de Paris': Coin de rue vue d'en haut 1899 Colour lithograph, 36.5 x 21.2 cm Johnson 10.12; Roger-Marx 68 p 1178 V/2000 
NIB carnavalesque 1895 Lithograph, 32.5 x 25 cm Roger-Marx 36 p 1230 V/2000 
La partie de cartes sous la lampe 1895 Lithograph, 13 x 24 cm Signed in plate at lower right Roger-Marx 29 p1407 V/2000 
La grand'm¨¨re 1895 Lithograph 19 x 22 cm Signed in plate at lower left Roger-Marx 30 p 1408 V/2000 
Couverture de l'album de 'La Revue Blanche' 1895 Lithograph, 40 x 60 cm Roger-Marx 33 p 1694 V/2000 
Parisiennes 1895 Lithograph, 22 x 13 cm Roger-Marx 34 p 1695 V/2000 
Femme au parapluie 1895 Colour lithograph, 25 x 15.5 cm Signed with monogram on stone at upper left Roger-Marx 35 p 1696 V/2000 
Affiche pour l'exposition Les Peintres Graveurs 1896 Colour lithograph, 64 x 47 cm Signed on stone at lower left Roger-Marx 40; Johnson 12 p 1002 V/2000 Affiche pour Le Salon des Cent 1896 Colour lithograph, 63 x 45 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower right Roger-Marx 45 p 1003 V/2000 
La petite blanchisseuse 1896 Colour lithograph, 30 x 19 cm Signed on stone at upper centre Roger-Marx 42; Johnson 11 p 1108 V/2000 
La derni¨¨re croisade 1896 Lithograph, 30 x 49 cm Signed with initials on stone at centre Roger-Marx 39; Aitken 82 p 1216 V/2000 
Couverture de I'album d'estampes origi-nates de la Galerie Vollard 1897 Colour lithograph, 57 x 87 cm Roger-Marx 41; Johnson 14 p 989 V/2000 
Affiche pour 'L'Estampe et L'Affiche' 1897 Colour lithograph, 80 x 60 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left Roger-Marx 38 p 997 V/2000 
Le canotage 1897 Colour lithograph, 26 x 47 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin p 1110 V/2000 
L'omnibus de Corinthe 1897 Lithograph, 32 x 25 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left Roger-Marx 37 p 1409 V/2000 
L'enfant a la lampe 1898 Colour lithograph, 33 x 45.4 cm Roger-Marx 43 ; Johnson 15 p 1109 V/2000 
Frontispice pour JLa lithographie en couleurs' 1898 Colour lithograph, 21 x 19 cm Roger-Marx 73 p 1281 V/2000 
155 La complainte de M. Benoit 1898 Lithograph, 31 x 23.5 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Aitken 111; Roger-Marx 49 p 1316 V/2000 
La berceuse obscene 1898 Lithograph, 31 x 25 cm Aitken 112; Roger-Marx 50 p 1317 V/2000 
Paysage de neige 1898 Lithograph, 32.5 x 26 cm Aitken 113; Roger-Marx 51 p 1318 V/2000 
Du pays tourangeau 1898 Lithograph, 31 x 25 cm Aitken 114; Roger-Marx 52 p 1319 V/2000 
La malheureuse Ad¨¨le 1898 Lithograph, 31 x 23 cm Aitken 115; Roger-Marx 53 p 1320 V/2000 
Velas, ou L'officier de fortune 1898 Lithograph, 31 x 24 cm Aitken 116; Roger-Marx 54 p 1321 V/2000 
Billet de naissance 1898 Lithograph, 16 x 12 cm Roger-Marx 69 p 1411 V/2000 
Couverture de JLa lithographie en couleurs' 1898 Colour lithograph, 21.5 x 15 cm Roger-Marx 72 p 1412 V/2000 
Le verger 1899 Colour lithograph, 33 x 35 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 47 p 1111 V/2000 
Les boulevards 1900 Colour lithograph, 26 x 33 cm Roger-Marx 74 p 1282 V/2000 Affiche pour 'Le Figaro' 1903 Colour lithograph, 56 x 38 cm 
Roger-Marx 70 
p 1112 V/2000 
Nu a la toilette 1912 Colour lithograph, 14 x 9 cm Signed on stone at lower centre Bouvet 80 p 1416 V/2000 
Le baigneur de Cezanne 1914 Lithograph, 14 x 8 cm 
Roger-Marx 91 
p 1413 V/2000 
Affiche pour 'Le Bulletin de la Vie Artistique' 1919 Lithograph, 71 x 52 cm Signed on stone at lower left Roger-Marx 76 p 998 V/2000 
Place Clichy 1922 Colour lithograph, 47 x 63.5 cm 
Signed on stone at upper left 
Roger-Marx 77 
p1004 V/2000 
Portrait d'Ambroise Vollard 1924 Etching, 35.3 x 23.7 cm Bouvet107 p 1284 V/2000 
Le bain 1925 Lithograph, 33 x 22.5 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 79 p 1149 V/2000 
La coupe et le compotier 1925 Lithograph, 18 x 26 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right Roger-Marx 80 p 1150 V/2000 
Femme debout dans sa baignoire 1925 Lithograph, 30 x 19.5 cm 
Signed with monogram on stone at upper right and in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 81 p 1151 V/2000 Landscape in southern France 1925 Lithograph, 22 x 29 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 82 p 1152 V/2000 
La toilette assise 1925 Lithograph, 32 x 22 cm Signed with monogram on the stone and in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 83 p 1153 V/2000 
¨¦tude de nu 1925 Lithograph, 29 x 16.5 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 84 p 1154 V/2000 
Le menu 1925 Lithograph, 30 x 26 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 86 p 1156 V/2000 
La rue Molitor 1925 Lithograph, 43 x 22 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 87 p 1157 V/2000 
Les bas 1925 Lithograph, 21.5 x 30.5 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right Roger-Marx 88 p 1158 V/2000 
La nuit tombe 1925 Lithograph, 21 x 30 cm Roger-Marx 89 p 1159 V/2000 
Dernier reflet 1925 Lithograph, 20 x 30 cm Roger-Marx 90 p 1160 V/2000 La rue 1927 Lithograph, 24 x 18 cm Signed on stone at lower left Roger-Marx 92 p 1414 V/2000 
Toilette 1927 Etching, 22 x 16 cm p 1418 V/2000 
Trottins 1927 Etching, 18 x 12 cm Bouvet108 p 1419 V/2000 
Deux nus (Les baigneuses) 1927 Etching, 16.6 x 23.3 cm Signed with monogram in plate at lower right Bouvet109 p1420 V/2000 
Femme assise dans sa baignoire 1942 Colour lithograph, 25 x 29 cm Signed on stone at lower right Roger-Marx 78 p 1283 V/2000 
Deux enfants sur un banc 1945 Lithograph, 18 x 16 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right Roger-Marx 93 p 1415 V/2000 

Boutet, Henri 
French, 1851-1919 
La Parisienne 1893 Etching, aquatint, 53.7 x 30.5 cm Signed in plate at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 10 p 1025 V/2000 

Bracquemond, Felix 
French, 1833-1914 
Vive le Tzar! 1893 Etching, 32.9 x 22.9 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 11 p 1026 V/2000 

Bresdin, Rodolphe 
French, 1822-1885 
Le bon Samaritain 1861 Lithograph, 56.4 x 44.4 cm Signed on stone at lower left and with monogram on the camel Van Gelder 100 p1005 V/2000 
Bataille dans une plaine rocheuse 1865 Etching, 9.4x21.9 Signed in plate at lower right Van Gelder 114 p 1610 V/2000 
Frontispice pour Tables et contes' 1868 Lithograph, 24.5 x 19.9 cm Signed on stone at lower left Van Gelder 122 p 1611 V/2000 
Les villes derri¨¨re le mar¨¦cage 1868 Lithograph, 19 x 15.5 cm Van Gelder 124a p 1612 V/2000 
Le repos en Egypte 1871 Etching, 22.9 x 19.7 cm Van Gelder 138 p 1375 V/2000 

Buhot, Felix 
French, 1847-1898 
Une matinee d'hiver au Quai de I'Hotel-Dieu 1876 Lithograph, 23 x 34.8 cm Bourcard-Goodfriend 123 p 1236 V/2000 
Enfant dessinant 1892 Lithograph, 32 x 25 cm Bourcard-Goodfriend 182 p 1376 V/2000 
L'hiver a Paris 1897 Etching, 23.7 x 35 cm Bourcard-Goodfriend 128 p 1235 V/2000 
156 

Burne-Jones, Edward 
English, 1833-1898 
La belle au bois dormant 1894 Etching, 22 x 12 cm Aitken 64 p 1343 V/2000 

Bussy Simon Albert 
r
French, 1870-1954 
A.rtl898 
Lithograph, 24.8 x 38 cm Aitken 98 p 1344 V/2000 

Carri¨¨re, Eugene 
French, 1849-1906 
Alphonse Daudet 1893 Lithograph, 39.8 x 31 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Delteil 16 p1006 V/2000 
T¨ºte 1893 Lithograph, 39.1 x 34.1 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Delteil 15; Stein and Karshan 12 p 1027 V/2000 
Meditation 1893 Etching, 24 x 15.2 cm Delteil 14 p 1652 V/2000 
T¨ºte de femme: Nelly Carri¨¨re 1895 Lithograph, 46.5 x 35.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Delteil 18; Stein and Karshan 13 p 1028 V/2000 
Henri Rochfort 1896 Lithograph, 56.6 x 40.2 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Delteil 27 p1007 V/2000 
157 Marguerite Carri¨¨re 1901 Lithograph, 43.2 x 34.9 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower left margin; inscribed '¨¦preuve unique 1/1' at lower left margin Delteil 43 p1008 V/2000 

Charpentier, Alexandre-Louis-Marie 
French, 1856-1909 
L'¨¦cole des veufs; Au temps de la ballade 1889 Lithograph, embossed, 22 x 18.4 cm Aitken 11 p 1346 V/2000 
Nell Horn 1891 Colour lithograph, embossed, 22 x 18.4 cm Aitken 11 p 1345 V/2000 
Girl playing the violin 1894 Colour lithograph, embossed, 26 x 29.5 cm Signed in blue ink at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 14 p 1029 V/2000 

Chass¨¦riau, Theodore 
French, 1819-1856 
Venus Anadyomene 1839 Lithograph, 27 x 32 cm p 1377 V/2000 

Ch¨¦ret, Jules 
French, 1836-1932 
La fille ¨¦lisa; Cont¨¦ de No.l 1890 Lithograph, 35 x 22 cm Signed on stone at lower right centre Aitken 8 p 1347 V/2000 
La danse 1893 Colour lithograph, 37 x 23 cm Signed on stone at centre left and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 16 p 1030 V/2000 

Christiansen, Hans 
German, 1866-1945 
L'heure de berg¨¨re 1897 Lithograph, 35 x 22 cm p 1269 V/2000 
L'heure de berg¨¨re 1897 Colour lithograph, 35 x 22 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1397 V/2000 

Cottet, Charles 
French, 1863-1924 
Bretonnes sur le port Lithograph, 15.1 x 20.4 cm p 1697 V/2000 

Crane, Walter 
English, 1845-1915 
Danseuse aux cymbales 1895 Lithograph, 43.3 x 30.8 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left and in black ink at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 17 p 1031 V/2000 

Cross, Henri Edmond 
French, 1856-1910 
La promenade 1897 Colour lithograph, 28.5 x 41 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Johnson 27 p 1113 V/2000 
Les Champs Elys¨¦es 1898 Colour lithograph, 20.5 x 26 cm p 1378 V/2000 

Delambert, Maurice 
French, 1873-? 
El.n 1895 Photo-relief, 34 x 25.8 cm Signed in plate at lower left Aitken 27 p 1348 V/2000 

Delatre, Eugene 
French, 1864-1938 
Portrait de Huysmans 1894 Etching and aquatint, 32.4 x 24.1 cm Signed in plate at lower right and in blue pencil at 
lower right margin Stein and Karshan 18 
p 1032 V/2000 

Denis Maurice 
r
French, 1870-1943 
Pour sagesse 1889 Woodcut, 4 x 9.9 cm Cailler 13 p 1421 V/2000 
Pour sagesse 1889 Woodcut, 10.2 x 5 cm 
Cailler 21 
p 1422 V/2000 
Pour sagesse 1889 Woodcut, 6.1 x 7.3 cm 
Cailler 22 p 1423 V/2000 
Affiche pour 'La D¨¦p¨ºche de Toulouse' 
Colour lithograph, 141.2 x 95.8 cm Cailler 33 
p 1001 V/2000 
Frontispice pour 'La damoiselle ¨¦lue' 1892 Colour lithograph, 11.3 x 29.5 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Cailler 30 p 1114 V/2000 
Programme de 'La dame de la mer' 1892 Lithograph, 17.5 x 24.9 cm 
Signed with initials on stone at lower left 
Aitken 54; Cailler 32 
p 1349 V/2000 
Frontispice pour 'Lettre a l'¨¦lue,' de Dante-Gabriel Rossetti 1892 Lithograph, 15.3 x 10.4 cm Signed with monogram on stone at upper left Cailler 29 p 1424 V/2000 Madeleine (deux t¨ºtes); Tendresse 1893 Colour lithograph, 29.8 x 25 cm Signed with monogram on stone at upper right, ver-tical, and in purple ink at lower right margin Cailler 70; Stein and Karshan 19 p 1033 V/2000 
Titre de I'exposition Maurice Denis chez le Bare de Boutteville 1893 Lithograph, 24.5 x 14.7 cm Cailler 75 p 1669 V/2000 
Les pleureuses 1893 Lithograph, 27.3 x 22.5 cm Cailler 69 p 1698 V/2000 
Apparition 1894 Colour lithograph, 19 x 28.7 cm Cailler 77 p 1425 V/2000 
La visitation 1894 Colour lithograph, 16.2 x 12.8 cm Cailler 79 p 1699 V/2000 
Jeune fille a sa toilette 1895 Colour lithograph, 32.5 x 52.7 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Cailler 87 p 1009 V/2000 
Les p¨¨lerins d'Emma¨¹s 1895 Colour lithograph, 45.5 x 30.6 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower left and in pen-cil at lower left margin Cailler 84 p 1115 V/2000 
Marthe pr¨¦sentant les burettes 1895 Lithograph, 21.8 x 32 cm Signed with initials on stone at upper left and in pen-cil at lower left margin Cailler 83 p 1285 V/2000 
Baigneuse au bord d'un Iaci895 
Lithograph, 28.2 x 38 cm 
Signed with initials on stone at lower right 
Cailler 93 
p 1286 V/2000 

La sc¨¨ne; La v¨¦rit¨¦ dans Ie vin; Pieds nickel¨¦s; Int¨¦rieurs 1895 Lithograph, 23 x 35 cm Signed with initials on stone at centre right Aitken 70; Cailler 85 p 1350 V/2000 
La visitation a la Villa Montrouge 1896 Colour lithograph, 31.3 x 36.7 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower right, and in pencil at lower left margin Cailler 94; Johnson 30 p 1116 V/2000 
Le reflet dans la fontaine 1897 Colour lithograph, 25 x 39 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Cailler 100; Johnson 31 p 1117 V/2000 
Au-dela des forces humaines; La motte de terre 1897 Lithograph, 32.2 x 24.8 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower right Aitken 88; Cailler 95 p 1351 V/2000 
De m¨¦pris des honneurs du temps 1897 Lithograph, 11.7 x 11.3 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower right Cailler 99 p 1426 V/2000 
Couverture de l'album 'Amour' 1898 Colour lithograph, 52.6 x 41.3 cm Signed on stone at upper left Cailler 107 p 1118 V/2000 
'Amour': Allegorie 1898 Colour lithograph, 26.7 x 41.2 cm Cailler 108 p 1180 V/2000 
'Amour': Les attitudes sont faciles et chastes 1898 Colour lithograph, 39.5 x 27.5 cm Cailler 109 p 1181 V/2000 'Amour': Le bouquet matinal, les larmes 1898 Colour lithograph, 39.8 x 28.5 cm Cailler 110 p 1182 V/2000 
'Amour': Ce fut un religieux myst¨¨re 1898 Colour lithograph, 42 x 29 cm Cailler 111 p 1183 V/2000 
'Amour': Le chevalier n'est pas mort a la croisade 1898 Colour lithograph, 40 x 27.7 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Cailler 112 p 1184 V/2000 
'Amour': Les cr¨¦pules ont une douceur d'ancienne peinture 1898 Colour lithograph, 41.5 x 30 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Cailler 113 p 1185 V/2000 
'Amour': Elle ¨¦tait plus belle que les r¨ºves 1898 Colour lithograph, 41.5 x 29.3 cm Cailler 114 p 1186 V/2000 
'Amour': Et c'est la caresse de ses mains 1898 Colour lithograph, 40 x 28.5 cm Cailler 115 p 1187 V/2000 
'Amour': Nos ames en des gestes lents 1898 Colour lithograph, 29.3 x 40.3 cm Cailler 116 p 1188 V/2000 
'Amour': Sur Ie canap¨¦ d'argent pale 1898 Colour lithograph, 42.5 x 28.5 cm Cailler 117 p 1189 V/2000 
'Amour': La vie devient pr¨¦cieuse, dis-crete 1898 Colour lithograph, 28.5 x 40.7 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Cailler 118 p 1190 V/2000 
159 'Amour': Mais c'est le coeur qui bat trop vite 1898 Colour lithograph, 46.3 x 29.5 cm Cailler 119 p 1191 V/2000 
Programme pour l'audition des ¨¦l¨¨ves de Mme Parrot-Lecomte 1898 Lithograph, 14.5 x 20.5 cm Signed with initials on stone at upper right Cailler 102 p 1427 V/2000 
Maternit¨¦ au cypres 1898 Lithograph, 17.3 x 24.5 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower right Cailler 103 p 1428 V/2000 
Maternit¨¦ devant la mer 1900 Colour lithograph, 34.7 x 25 cm Signed with initials on stone, vertical, at lower right Cailler 120 p 1287 V/2000 
Nymphe couronn¨¦e de paquerettes 1901 Colour lithograph, 55.7 x 44 cm Signed in pencil at lower right Cailler 121 p 1010 V/2000 
Nativit¨¦ 1907 Colour lithograph, 13.9 x 17.7 cm Cailler 132 p 1429 V/2000 
D'apr¨¨s une nature morte de Cezanne 1914 Lithograph, 16 x 18.5 cm Cailler 135 p 1430 V/2000 
Frontispiece for 'Po¨¨mes (Marie et J¨¦sUS)' 1936 Colour lithograph, 37.3 x 27.5 cm p 1431 V/2000 
Illustration for 'Po¨¨mes' 1939 Colour lithograph, 45 x 32.3 cm p 1288 V/2000 
Illustration for 'Po¨¨mes' 1939 Colour lithograph, 44.7 x 32.2 cm p 1289 V/2000 Illustration for 'Po¨¨mes' 1939 Colour lithograph, 43 x 32.3 cm p 1290 V/2000 
Illustration for 'Po¨¨mes' 1939 Colour lithograph, 45.1 x 32.3 cm p 1291 V/2000 
Illustration for 'Po¨¨mes' 1939 Colour lithograph, 43 x 32 cm p 1292 V/2000 
Illustration for 'Po¨¨mes' 1939 Colour lithograph, 44.6 x 32 cm p 1293 V/2000 
Illustration for 'Po¨¨mes' 1939 Colour lithograph, 44.1 x 32.5 cm p 1294 V/2000 
The annunciation 1943 Colour lithograph, 46.1 x 59 cm p 1119 V/2000 

Dethomas, Maxime 
French, 1867-1929 
Fire 1895 Colour lithograph, 35.2 x 44.4 cm Aitken 74 p 1217 V/2000 
Une mere; Broc¨¦liande; Les flaireurs; Des mots! Des mots! 1896 Lithograph, 30.6 x 24.7 cm Aitken 79 p 1218 V/2000 
La victoire 1898 Lithograph, 37.6 x 27.8 cm Aitken 100 p 1352 V/2000 
Dillon, Henri Patrice 
French, 1851-1909 
Mandoliniste 1893 Lithograph, 18.4 x 30.6 cm Signed in purple ink at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 20 p 1034 V/2000 

Duez, Ernest-Ange 
French, 1843-1896 
Fleurs 1893 Etching, 40.8 x 19.1 cm Signed with monogram in plate at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 21 p 1035 V/2000 

Dulac, Charles-Marie 
French, 1865-1898 
Paysage 1893 Colour lithograph, 31.9 x 48.4 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 22 p 1036 V/2000 
Bouquet d'arbres 1894 Colour lithograph, 47 x 35.7 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 23 p 1037 V/2000 

Dumont, Maurice 
French, 1869-1899 
Carmosine 1895 Gyptograph, 11.9 x 15.5 cm Aitken 73 p 1629 V/2000 

Evenepoel, Henri-Jacques 
Belgian, 1872-1899 
Au square 1897 Colour lithograph, 32.5 x 23.3 cm Signed on stone at upper left p 1398 V/2000 
Fantin-Latour, Henri 
French, 1836-1904 
La tentation de St Antoine 1893 Lithograph, 32.5 x 40.3 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 24 p 1038 V/2000 
160 Duo des Troyens (Nuit d'extase) 1894 Lithograph, 29.4 x 22.3 cm Signed on stone at lower right. H¨¦diard 117 p 1379 V/2000 
Inspiration 1895 Lithograph, 26.7 x 22 cm Signed on stone at lower right H¨¦diard 121 p 1380 V/2000 
Les brodeuses 1895 Lithograph, 20.1 x 32.1 cm H¨¦diard 123 p 1381 V/2000 

Feure, Georges de 
French, 1868-1943 
Au bord du canal Lithograph, 40 x 28.3 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin p 1270 V/2000 
Les soeurs Etching, aquatint, 39.5 x 28 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin p1271 V/2000 
La source du mal 1894 Colour lithograph, 34.9 x 25.4 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 25 p 1039 V/2000 

Forain, Jean-Louis 
French, 1852-1931 
Apr¨¨s I'apparition Etching, 25.8 x 29.7 cm 
n
Signed in pencil at lower right margin; inscribed '3 ¨¦tat' at lower left margin Faxon 36; Gu¨¦rin 82 p 1238 V/2000 
Le cabinet particulier Lithograph, 32.6 x 51 cm p 1242 V/2000 
Rue Laffitte 1892 Lithograph, 26.3 x 21.5 cm Signed on stone at lower right Gu¨¦rin 6 p 1653 V/2000 
Une journ¨¦e parlementaire 1894 Photolithograph, 25.5 x 20.3 cm Signed on stone at lower right Aitken 25 p 1630 V/2000 
En Gr¨¨ce 1897 Lithograph, 20.2 x 41.4 cm Signed with initial f in black ink at lower right Faxon 185; Gu¨¦rin 60; Johnson 47 p 1237 V/2000 
Pi¨¦ta 1910 Etching, 23.7 x 31.6 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin; inscribed '2eme ¨¦tat' at lower right Faxon 126; Gu¨¦rin 117 p 1239 V/2000 
Le repas a Emma¨¹s 1910 Etching, 24 x 29.8 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin; inscribed 'ep. 
e
d'essai du 2 em  ¨¦tat' at lower left margin Faxon 102; Gu¨¦rin 97 p1240 V/2000 
La renconte sous la voute 1910 Etching, 30.8 x 42.2 cm Signed in black chalk at lower right Faxon 105; Gu¨¦rin 100 p 1241 V/2000 

Gandara, Antonio de la 
French, 1862-1917 
Femme assise 1894 Lithograph, 25.6 x 11.6 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 26 p1040 V/2000 
Portrait de femme 1895 Lithograph, 20.6 x 27.9 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 27 p 1041 V/2000 

Gauguin, Paul 
French, 1848-1903 
Manao Tupapau 1894 Lithograph, 18.1 x 27.3 cm Signed on stone at upper left Stein and Karshan 28 p 1042 V/2000 

Gerbault, Henri 
French, 1863-1930 
Inquietude 1893 Colour lithograph, 32 x 24.2 cm Signed on stone at lower right Aitken 23 p 1353 V/2000 

Goeneutte, Norbert 
French, 1854-1894 
Portrait 1894 Lithograph, 53.3 x 25.4 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in blue pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 29 p 1043 V/2000 

Grasset, Eugene 
French, 1841-1917 
Vitrioleuse 1893 Photo-relief, 27.6 x 21.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 30 p 1044 V/2000 
Salon des Cent 1894 Colour lithograph, 59 x 38 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left p 1011 V/2000 
A. Falgui¨¨re 1898 Lithograph, 52.5 x 37 cm Signed with monogram on stone at upper right and in pencil at lower right margin p 1012 V/2000 

Groux, Henri de 
Belgian, 1867-1930 
Porte-¨¦tendard 1893 Lithograph, 27.6 x 21.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 31 p 1045 V/2000 
Morituri 1898 Lithograph, 38.1 x 26 cm Signed on stone at lower centre Aitken 99 p 1354 V/2000 

Gu¨¦rard, Henri Charles 
French, 1846-1897 
Les lapins 1893 Woodcut, 32.9 x 23 cm Signed with monogram in block at upper left Stein and Karshan 32 p1046 V/2000 
Bateaux dans le brouillard 1894 Mezzotint, 14.9 x 20.5 cm Signed with monogram in plate at lower right Stein and Karshan 33 p 1047 V/2000 

Guilloux, Charles 
French, 1866-1946 
L'inondation 1893 Colour lithograph, 20.8 x 28.7 cm Stein and Karshan 34 p 1048 V/2000 

Helleu, Paul Cesar 
French, 1859-1927 
Meditation 1894 Etching, 27.9 x 19.8 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 35 p 1049 V/2000 

Hermann Paul, Ren¨¦-Georges 
French, 1864-1940 
Modistes 1894 Colour lithograph, 24.8 x 35.4 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower 
left margin Stein and Karshan 49 p 1063 V/2000 
La brebis; Le tandem 1896 Lithograph, 48.6 x 28.9 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left Aitken 84 p 1219 V/2000 
Les petites machines a ¨¦crire 1896 Colour lithograph, 30.4 x 22.4 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Johnson 64 p1243 V/2000 
La cr¨¦mi¨¨re 1898 Colour lithograph, 36.5 x 23 cm Signed with monogram in pencil at lower left margin 
p 1244 V/2000 

Houdard, Charles-Louis 
French, ?- ? 
Grenouilles 1893 Aquatint, 26.2 x 39.5 cm Signed with monogram in plate at upper right and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 36 p 1050 V/2000 

Ibels, Henri Gabriel 
French, 1867-1936 
Cover of 'Les progammes du Theatre Libre': Silhoutte d'Antoine dans Les Tisserands' Colour lithograph, 47 x 34.8 cm Signed on stone at lower left p1245 V/2000 
Antoine Lithograph, 25 x 18 cm 
Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1511 V/2000 
161 Clown with guitar Lithograph, 26.5 x 17.5 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1512 V/2000 
Mother and child in a meadow Lithograph, 26.8 x 17.5 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1513 V/2000 
Conferencier Lithograph, 25 x 16 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1514 V/2000 
Yvette Guilbert Lithograph, 26.9 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in brown chalk at lower right margin p 1515 V/2000 
Femme a bord de I'eau Lithograph, 27.5 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin p 1516 V/2000 
Les amoureux dans le champ Lithograph, 27.5 x 17.5 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1517 V/2000 
Deux clowns Lithograph, 18.5 x 12.4 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1518 V/2000 
Amoureux pr¨¦s d'un fleuve Lithograph, 27.5 x 17.8 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1519 V/2000 
Le cirque Lithograph, 21.5 x 30 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1520 V/2000 
Hamlet Lithograph, 33.5 x 24 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1521 V/2000 
162 L'oubli¨¦e Lithograph, 27 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in blue chalk at lower left margin p 1522 V/2000 
Le pendu Lithograph, 27.5 x 17.5 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1523 V/2000 
L'amour s'amuse Lithograph, 28.1 x 19.1 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1524 V/2000 
Femme a sa toilette Lithograph, 23.6 x 15.7 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1525 V/2000 
Couple avec enfants Lithograph, 32 x 25 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin p 1526 V/2000 
Couple dans la rue Lithograph, 33.8 x 23.8 cm Signed in green chalk at lower right margin p 1527 V/2000 
Ouvrier avec faux Lithograph, 17.5 x 28 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower right margin p 1528 V/2000 
M¨¦tier a tisser Colour lithograph, 43.3 x 30.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1529 V/2000 
Pierrot et danseuse Colour lithograph, 40.5 x 29.1 cm Signed on stone at left centre p 1530 V/2000 
Vieux dormant Lithograph, 35.4 x 27.4 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1531 V/2000 Devant la porte Lithograph, 31 x 23 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1532 V/2000 
Avant la sortie Lithograph, 37.9 x 27.6 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1533 V/2000 
Lui! Lithograph, 27 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1534 V/2000 
A bas Ie progr¨¨s Colour lithograph, 32.6 x 24.8 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1535 V/2000 
Invitation to an exhibition of works by Ibels Lithograph, 12 x 14.8 cm 
p 1536 V/2000 
Peasant girls on the coast Etching, 44.2 x 30.4 cm p 1537 V/2000 
Le bon temps Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 18.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1538 V/2000 
Le bon temps Lithograph, 35.9 x 27.3 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower left margin p 1539 V/2000 
Les malchanceux Colour lithograph, 35.1 x 27.3 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1540 V/2000 
Le malchanceux Lithograph, 35.1 x 27.3 cm 
Signed on stone at lower right 
p 1541 V/2000 
La chanson du Rouet Lithograph, 27.5 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1542 V/2000 La chanson du Rouet Lithograph, 32.6 x 23 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin p 1543 V/2000 
Les culs-terreux Colour lithograph, 26.7 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1544 V/2000 
Les culs-terreux Lithograph, 34.4 x 27.7 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower right margin p 1545 V/2000 
Vieille fille Colour lithograph, 27.2 x 17.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1546 V/2000 
Vieille fille Lithograph, 34.9 x 27.5 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower right margin p 1547 V/2000 
Les squares Colour lithograph, 27.5 x 17.4 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1548 V/2000 
Les squares Colour lithograph, 36.1 x 27.3 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower left margin p 1549 V/2000 
Comment on s'aime Colour lithograph, 27.7 x 17.5 cm p 1550 V/2000 
Comment on s'aime (proof) Lithograph, 34.9 x 27.2 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in blue pencil at lower right margin p 1551 V/2000 
Amoureux! Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1552 V/2000 
163 
Amoureux! Lithograph, 35.3 x 27 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower left margin p 1553 V/2000 
Aubade a la lune Colour lithograph, 26.8 x 17.3 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1554 V/2000 
Aubade a la lune Lithograph, 28.3 x 18.5 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower right margin p 1555 V/2000 
Mensonges Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1556 V/2000 
Mensonges Lithograph, 34.9 x 18.2 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin p 1557 V/2000 
La Rose et Pierrot Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1558 V/2000 
La Rose et Pierrot Lithograph, 38 x 27.7 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1559 V/2000 
Amoureuse! Colour lithograph, 26.8 x 17.7 cm Signed on stone at upper left p 1560 V/2000 
Amoureuse! Lithograph, 35 x 27.3 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower right margin p 1561 V/2000 
Mere moderne Colour lithograph, 27.6 x 18.4 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1562 V/2000 
Mere moderne Lithograph, 34.2 x 27.3 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower right margin p 1563 V/2000 Les '27' Colour lithograph, 27.7 x 17.3 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1564 V/2000 
Les '27' Lithograph, 34.7 x 27.2 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1565 V/2000 
Femme honn¨ºte Colour lithograph, 27.7 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1566 V/2000 
Femme honn¨ºte Lithograph, 34.9 x 27.4 cm Signed in blue pencil at lower right margin p 1567 V/2000 
L'argent Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p1568 V/2000 
Les camarades Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.8 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1569 V/2000 
La mort du propre a rien Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1570 V/2000 
Les veuves du Luxembourg Colour lithograph, 26.8 x 17.4 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1571 V/2000 
La chanson du Macchab¨¦e Colour lithograph, 27.1 x 17.3 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1572 V/2000 
La morgue Colour lithograph, 27.7 x 17.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1573 V/2000 
Mimi Colour lithograph, 27.1 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p1574 V/2000 Lettre d'un mari tromp¨¦ Colour lithograph, 27.1 x 17.2 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1575 V/2000 
Jean Pierre Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.4 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1576 V/2000 
Elle Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1577 V/2000 
La petite correspondance du Gil-Bias Colour lithograph, 27.1 x 17.5 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left p 1578 V/2000 
Le condamn¨¦ Lithograph, 27 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1579 V/2000 
La danse des ventres Colour lithograph, 27.2 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1580 V/2000 
Sketch for 'La danse des ventres' Potlood en pen in inkt, 29 x 19.9 cm Signed in ink at upper left d 1113 V/2000 
Mes moutons Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 17.7 cm p 1582 V/2000 
Les mal tourn¨¦s Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1583 V/2000 
La fin d'une bord¨¦e Colour lithograph, 27.4 x 17.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1584 V/2000 
La mort des guex Lithograph, 27.5 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1585 V/2000 
164 Un d¨¦but dans Ie monde Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 17.6 cm Signed with monogram on stone in spiegelbeeld at lower centre p 1586 V/2000 
Les petites m¨¨res Colour lithograph, 27.3 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1587 V/2000 
Ceux d' la cote Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 17.6 cm p 1588 V/2000 
Ya d'la gloire Colour lithograph, 27.1 x 17.4 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right p 1589 V/2000 
Un tour a Satan Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 17.7 cm Signed on stone at left centre p 1590 V/2000 
Coeur meurtri Colour lithograph, 27.3 x 17.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1591 V/2000 
Le pitre Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1592 V/2000 
Les pousse-cailloux Colour lithograph, 27.5 x 17.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1593 V/2000 
Les bibis Colour lithograph, 27.4 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p1594 V/2000 
Retour au nid Colour lithograph, 27.2 x 17.6 cm p 1595 V/2000 
Restons chez nous Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at right centre p 1596 V/2000 Pierrot m¨¦dicin Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1597 V/2000 
Amour est un r¨ºve Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1598 V/2000 
Si vous le vouliez, o mademoiselle Colour lithograph, 27.7 x 17.4 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1599 V/2000 
Serment trahi Colour lithograph, 26.8 x 17.5 cm p 1600 V/2000 
La valse des bas noirs Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.4 cm p1601 V/2000 
Pauvres hommes, si Ton voulait! Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1602 V/2000 
Envolons-nous Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 17.4 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1603 V/2000 
Le blue des bleuets Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1604 V/2000 
Ma mie arrive ce matin! Colour lithograph, 26.9 x 17.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1605 V/2000 
L'aveu de la faute Colour lithograph, 26.8 x 18.1 cm Signed on stone at lower left p1606 V/2000 
Lettre d'amour Colour lithograph, 27.1 x 17.5 cm p 1607 V/2000 Femme au panier Colour lithograph, 24.8 x 16 cm p 1700 V/2000 
Le grappin; L'affranchie 1892 Colour lithograph, 29.1 x 40.5 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left 
Aitken 14 
p 1246 V/2000 
Les fossiles 1892 Colour lithograph, 22.9 x 28 cm Signed on stone at lower left Aitken 15 p 1247 V/2000 
Le grappin; L'affranchie 1892 Colour lithograph, 22.5 x 30.8 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left 
Aitken 14 
p 1322 V/2000 
Les fossiles 1892 Colour lithograph, 22.9 x 28 cm Signed on stone at lower left Aitken 15 p 1323 V/2000 
Au cirque 1893 Colour lithograph, 49.2 x 26.2 cm 
Signed on stone at lower right 
Stein and Karshan 37 
p 1051 V/2000 
A bas Ie progr¨¨s; Mademoiselle Julie; Le m¨¦nage Br¨¦sile 1893 Colour lithograph, 23 x 31.6 cm Signed on stone at lower right Aitken 16 p 1248 V/2000 
Le devoir 1893 Colour lithograph, 22.6 x 30.6 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left centre 
Aitken 17 
p 1249 V/2000 
Mirages 1893 Colour lithograph, 22.6 x 30 cm Signed on stone at left centre Aitken 18 p 1250 V/2000 
165 Boubouroche; Valet de coeur 1893 Colour lithograph, 23.8 x 31 cm Signed on stone at lower left Aitken 19 p 1251 V/2000 
Les tisserands 1893 Colour lithograph, 22.3 x 24.8 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left 
Aitken 20 
p 1252 V/2000 
La belle au bois r¨ºvant 1893 Colour lithograph, 21.4 x 16.8 cm Signed on stone at lower centre Aitken 21 p 1253 V/2000 
A bas Ie progr¨¨s; Mademoiselle Julie; Le m¨¦nage Br¨¦sile 1893 Colour lithograph, 23 x 31.6 cm Signed on stone at lower right Aitken 16 p 1324 V/2000 
Le devoir 1893 Colour lithograph, 22.6 x 30.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left centre Aitken 17 p 1325 V/2000 
Mirages 1893 Colour lithograph, 22.6 x 30 cm 
Signed on stone at left centre 
Aitken 18 
p 1326 V/2000 
Bouberouche; Valet de coeur 1893 Colour lithograph, 23 x 31.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left Aitken 19 p 1327 V/2000 
Les tisserands 1893 Colour lithograph, 21.4 x 16.8 cm Signed on stone at lower left Aitken 20 p 1328 V/2000 
La belle au bois r¨ºvant 1893 Colour lithograph, 21.4 x 16.8 cm Signed on stone at lower left centre Aitken 21 p 1329 V/2000 Affiches-estampes de I'Escarmouche 1893 Lithograph, 24.7 x 15.6 cm p 1670 V/2000 
Les caboulets de l'amour et de la mort 1894 Colour lithograph, 76 x 56.5 cm Signed on stone at upper left p 999 V/2000 
Les paveurs 1894 Etching, 30.5 x 20 cm Signed on stone at lower right Stein and Karshan 38 p 1052 V/2000 
Les paveurs 1894 Zwart, blauw en oranje krijt, en witte gouache, 36.5 x 24.5 cm d1111 V/2000 
Salon des Cent 1894 Colour lithograph, 59 x 39.5 cm Signed on stone at left centre p 1120 V/2000 
Exposition H.G. Ibels 18941894 Colour lithograph, 54.5 x 57.5 cm Signed on stone at right centre p 1121 V/2000 
Grand-papa; Si c'¨¦tait 1895 Lithograph, 22.7 x 30.2 cm Signed on stone at lower left Aitken 29 p 1355 V/2000 

Jarry, Alfred 
French, 1873-1907 
Ubu Roi 1896 Lithograph, 23.7 x 31 cm Aitken 87c p 1356 V/2000 
Ouverture d'Ubu Roi 1898 Lithograph, 30.4 x 22.3 cm Aitken 117 p 1357 V/2000 
La chanson du d¨¦cervelage 1898 
Lithograph, 30 x 25 cm 
p 1358 V/2000 

Marche des Polonais 1898 Lithograph, 28.5 x 22.7 cm Aitken 118 p 1359 V/2000 

Jeunesse, Ernest la 
French, 1874-1917 
La com¨¦die de I'amour 1897 Lithograph, 22.2 x 31.5 cm Aitken 93 p 1360 V/2000 

Jongkind, Johan Barthold 
Dutch, 1819-1891 
Le canal 1862 Etching, 20.9 x 16 cm Signed in plate at lower right Delteil 2 p 1382 V/2000 

Jossot, Henri-Gustave 
French, 1866-1951 
La vague 1894 Lithograph, 52.5 x 35.1 cm Signed on stone at lower right Stein and Karshan 39 p 1054 V/2000 

Khnopff, Fernand 
Belgian, 1858-1921 
Portrait 1900 Lithograph, 17 x 12.2 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1664 V/2000 

Laboureur, Jean-¨¦mile 
French, 1877-1943 
Le bal Bullier 1898 Woodcut, 22.2 x 29.9 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in pencil at lower left margin Laboureur 579 p 1254 V/2000 
L'arrosoir 1902 Etching, 13.2 x 17.7 cm Signed and dated in plate at lower left Laboureur31 p 1654 V/2000 
166 
Toilettes: L'eau fraiche 1907 
Woodcut, 25 x 15 cm 
Signed with initials in block at lower left 
Laboureur 633 
p 1655 V/2000 
Toilettes: Un couri907 
Woodcut, 25 x 15 cm 
Signed with initials in block at upper right 
Laboureur 632 
p 1656 V/2000 
La lecture interrompue 1912 
Woodcut, 25 x 17.5 cm 
Signed with initials in block at lower right 
Laboureur 674 
p 1383 V/2000 
Modiste au chapeau noir 1912 Woodcut, 25 x 17.5 cm Signed with initials in block at lower left and in pen-cil at lower left margin Laboureur 668 p 1384 V/2000 
L'Tle deserte 1914 Etching, 29.6x34.8 cm Signed in plate at lower centre and in pencil at lower left margin Laboureur135 p 1255 V/2000 
Marie Laurencin 1914 Woodcut, 25 x 22 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in pencil at lower left margin; inscribed '¨¦preuve du 1er Etat' Laboureur 707 p 1385 V/2000 

Lacoste, Charles 
French, 1870-1959 
Portland-place 1894 Lithograph, 24.6 x 32.4 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 40 p 1055 V/2000 

Lebasque, Henri 
French, 1865-1937 
Les fils de I'abbesse; Le fardeau de la libert¨¦ 1897 Lithograph, 30.7 x 23.5 cm 
Aitken 92 
p 1361 V/2000 

Lemmen, Georges 
Belgian, 1865-1916 
La libre esth¨¦tique 1895 Colour lithograph, 51 x 36.3 cm 
p 1272 V/2000 

Lepere, Auguste Louis 
French, 1849-1918 
Blanchisseuses 1893 Etching and aquatint, 39.4 x 22.9 cm Signed in plate at lower right and in blue crayon at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 41 
p 1056 V/2000 

Luce, Maximilien 
French, 1858-1941 
La meule; Jeune premier! 1891 Lithograph, 16 x 19.5 cm Aitken 9 p 1631 V/2000 
Femme se coiffant 1894 Lithograph, 43.2 x 31.1 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 42 p1057 V/2000 
Chemin a la Roche Gayon 1900 Lithograph, 26 x 25 cm 
Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin p 1256 V/2000 

Lunois, Alexandre 
French, 1863-1916 
L'illumination 1893 Colour lithograph, 33 x 27.1 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 43 p 1058 V/2000 

Maillol, Aristide 
French, 1861-1944 
L¨¦da Lithograph, 16 x 23,5 cm Signed with monogram in pencil at lower right mar-gin p 1257 V/2000 
L'art d'aimer Lithograph, 38 x 28 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right and in chalk at lower centre margin p 1258 V/2000 
Profil de jeune fille c. 1893 Zincograph, 35.9 x 27.8 cm Signed with monogram in plate at lower right Gu¨¦rin 257 p 1386 V/2000 
Femme nue de dos Lithograph, 30.5 x 12 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right p 1391 V/2000 
La laveuse 1895 Zincograph, 19 x 30 cm Signed in plate at lower left and with monogram in pencil at lower right margin Gu¨¦rin 259 p 1387 V/2000 
Concert champ¨ºtre 1895 Zincograph, 16 x 20.5 cm Signed in plate at lower left Gu¨¦rin 261 p 1388 V/2000 
Adam et Eve 1895 Zincograph, 24.5 x 31 cm Signed in plate at lower left Gu¨¦rin 262 p 1389 V/2000 
Deux baigneuses nues 1895 Zincograph, 25 x 30.5 cm Signed in plate at lower right Gu¨¦rin 263 p 1390 V/2000 
167 

Martin, Camille 
French, 1861-1898 
Couverture decorative pour la deuxi¨¨me ann¨¦e de 'L'Estampe Originale' 1894 Colour lithograph, 56 x 84.6 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in blue pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 44 p 990 V/2000 
Esquisse pour la couverture decorative pour la deuxi¨¨me ann¨¦e de 'L'Estampe Originale' 1894 Pencil, black and grey ink, 65 x 97.7 cm Roger-Marx 43; Johnson 13 d 1110 V/2000 

Martin, Henri 
French, 1860-1943 
Indecision Lithograph, 44.4 x 31.7 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left and in ink at lower right margin p 1392 V/2000 

Maufra, Maxime 
French, 1861-1918 
La route de Gaud 1893 Colour lithograph, 20 x 29.2 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 45 p 1059 V/2000 
L'anse de Bilfort 1893 Etching and aquatint, 29.8 x 35.6 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Morane 2 p 1122 V/2000 
Le bateau de p¨ºche 1894 Etching, 29.7x35.6 cm Signed in blue chalk at lower right margin Morane 11 p 1123 V/2000 
Tonqu¨¦dec 1894 Etching, 29.7 x 35.3 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Morane 17 p 1124 V/2000 Notre Dame de Clart¨¦ 1894 Colour lithograph, 37,5 x 48,6 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Morane 19 p 1125 V/2000 
Le Cimeti¨¨re-Plougasnou 1894 Colour lithograph, 39.8 x 31.1 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin p 1126 V/2000 

Maurin, Charles 
French, 1856-1914 
Portrait of Toulouse-Lautrec 1893 Aquatint, 22.5 x 13.7 cm Signed in plate at lower right and in blue pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 46 p 1060 V/2000 

Meunier, Constantin 
Belgian, 1831-1905 
Mineur 1895 Lithograph, 34.6 x 53.7 cm Signed in brown ink at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 47 p 1061 V/2000 

Mouclier, Marc 
French, 1866-1948 
La cloche 1893 Lithograph, 24.7 x 15.7 cm p1671 V/2000 

Muller, Alfredo 
Italian, 1869-1940 
L'echelle; Le balcon 1898 Lithograph, 34 x 25.6 cm Aitken 97 p 1362 V/2000 

Munch, Edvard 
Norwegian, 1863-1944 
Peer Gynt 1896 Lithograph, 27.8 x 31.3 cm Signed on stone at lower left Aitken 86; Schiefler 74 p 1363 V/2000 Jean-Gabriel Borkman 1897 Lithograph, 25.5 x 35.4 cm Aitken 94 p 1364 V/2000 

Nicholson, William 
English, 1872-1949 
Sous l'arche du pont 1894 Colour lithograph, 24 x 28.6 cm Signed in pencil at lower left Stein and Karshan 48 p 1062 V/2000 

Pennell, Joseph 
American, 1860-1926 
La Tamise 1894 Etching, aquatint, 21 x 26.2 cm Signed in pencil at lower centre margin Stein and Karshan 50 p 1064 V/2000 

Pissarro, Camille 
French, 1830-1903 
Paysage a Osny 1887 Etching, 11.7 x 15.6 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 51 p 1065 V/2000 
Gardeuse d'oies 1888 Etching 19,9 x 14 cm Delteil 76 p 1657 V/2000 
Haymakers 1890 Etching, 19.9 x 13.2 cm Delteil 94 p 1658 V/2000 
Women bathing 1895 Lithograph, 15.6 x 21.6 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Delteil 142; Stein and Karshan 52 p 1066 V/2000 

Pissarro, Georges 
French, 1871-1961 
Le dindon de la farce 1894 Woodcut, 21.6 x 20.8 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 53 p 1067 V/2000 

Pissarro, Lucien 
French, 1863-1944 
Ronde d'enfants 1893 Woodcut, 20.6 x 16 cm Signed in block at lower left Stein and Karshan 54 p 1068 V/2000 

Pitcairn-Knowles, James 
Scottish, 1864-? 
Le bain 1894 Woodcut, 55.5 x 43 cm Signed with device of a flower in pencil at centre left margin Johnson 97 p 1013 V/2000 

Prouv¨¦, Victor 
French, 1858-1943 
Oiseaux de proie 1893 Etching, 24 x 42.2 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 55 p 1069 V/2000 
L'opium 1894 Colour lithograph, embossed, 62.5 x 40 cm Signed on stone at centre left and in blue pencil at lower centre margin Stein and Karshan 56 p 1070 V/2000 

Puvis de Chavannes, Pierre 
French, 1824-1898 
Fille avec chapeau Lithograph, 47.2 x 34.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1259 V/2000 
La Normandie 1893 
Lithograph, 45.9 x 38.9 cm 
Signed in pencil at lower right margin 
Stein and Karshan 57 p 1071 V/2000 
Etude de femme 1895 
Lithograph, 30.8 x 15.2 cm 
Signed in pencil at lower right 
Stein and Karshan 58 p 1072 V/2000 
Le pauvre p¨ºcheun897 
Lithograph, 41 x 52.5 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left 
Johnson 98 p 1127 V/2000 

Rachou, Henri 
French, 1856-1944 
Panneau decoratif 1893 Colour lithograph, 48.4 x 29.7 cm 
Signed on stone at upper right and in pencil at lower 
left margin 
Stein and Karshan 59 p 1073 V/2000 

Raffa.lli, Jean-Frangois 
French, 1850-1924 
Raffa.lli, son portrait par lui-m¨ºme 1893 Etching, 18.9 x 15.7 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 60 p 1074 V/2000 

Ranft, Richard 
Swiss, 1862-1931 
Trottins 1894 Etching, aquatint, 39.8 x 25.7 cm Signed in plate at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 61 p 1075 V/2000 

Ranson, Paul 
French, 1861-1909 
Woman with a fan 1891 Colour lithograph, 46 x 55 cm p 1702 V/2000 
168 Tigre dans la jungle 1893 Colour lithograph, 36.8 x 28.3 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 62 p 1076 V/2000 
Pastel/¨¦tude/pastel 1893 Lithograph, 24.5 x 15.2 cm p 1672 V/2000 
La fille ¨¦tendu 1894 Lithograph, 24.3 x 32.2 cm p 1701 V/2000 
Paphnutlus 1895 Lithograph, 32.7 x 26.5 cm Aitken 109 p 1366 V/2000 
Tristesse (Jalousie) 1896 Colour lithograph, 23.6 x 18.5 cm p 1613 V/2000 
La cloche engloutie 1897 Lithograph, 30.4 x 23.3 cm Aitken 90 p 1365 V/2000 
Au chevet de la malade 1897 Lithograph, 25 x 15.3 cm p 1614 V/2000 

Redon, Odilon 
French, 1840-1916 
Le gu¨¦ 1865 Etching, 18 x 13.5 cm Signed in plate at lower left; inscribed in plate at lower left under the image 'el¨¨ve de Bresdin' Mellerio 2 p 1615 V/2000 
Cain et Abel 1886 Etching, 18.5 x 12 cm Signed in plate at lower right Mellerio 18 p 1616 V/2000 
La cellule auriculaire 1894 Lithograph, 26.8 x 24.9 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Mellerio 126; Stein and Karshan 63 p 1077 V/2000 
169 Cheval ail¨¦ 1894 Lithograph, 15.8 x 11.8 cm 
Mellerio 127 
p 1703 V/2000 
Le Buddha 1895 Lithograph, 31.3 x 24.9 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 64 p 1078 V/2000 
L'intelligence fut a moi, je devins le Buddha 1896 Lithograph, 32 x 22 cm 
Mellerio 145 
p 1617 V/2000 
Le sommeil 1898 Lithograph, 13 x 12.5 cm Mellerio 172 p 1618 V/2000 
Planche d'essai III 1900 Lithograph, 26 x 24 cm Mellerio 188 p 1619 V/2000 
Edouard Vuillard 1900 Lithograph, 20 x 15.2 cm Mellerio 190 p 1620 V/2000 
Pierre Bonnard 1902 Lithograph, 14.5 x 12.3 cm 
Mellerio 191 
p 1621 V/2000 
Paul S¨¦rusier 1903 Lithograph, 16 x 13.5 cm Mellerio 192 p 1622 V/2000 
Maurice Denis 1903 Lithograph, 15.3 x 13.5 cm Mellerio 193 p 1623 V/2000 
Roger Marx 1904 Lithograph, 25 x 14.5 cm 
Mellerio 194 
p 1624 V/2000 

Renoir, Auguste 
French, 1841-1919 
Femme nue assise Lithograph, 33 x 25.2 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1660 V/2000 
T¨ºte d'enfant 1893 Lithograph, 28.4 x 23.3 cm Signed in red pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 65 p 1079 V/2000 
Claude Renoir tourn¨¦ a gauche 1904 Lithograph, 37.5 x 27 cm p 1659 V/2000 

Renouard, Charles Paul 
French, 1845-1924 
Danseuse et sa mere 1894 Lithograph, 47.3 x 34.4 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 67 p 1080 V/2000 

Ricketts, Charles 
English, 1866-1931 
Inondation 1894 Woodcut, 8.9 x 9.4 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 68 p 1081 V/2000 

Rijsselberghe, Theo van 
Belgian, 1862-1926 
Portrait d'Henri de Regnier Lithograph, 47.6 x 31.9 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left p1402 V/2000 
Flotille de p¨ºche 1894 Etching and aquatint, 22.4 x 28.1 cm Signed in red ink stamp at lower left Stein and Karshan 77 p 1090 V/2000 
Sur la jet¨¦e 1899 Colour lithograph, 24.2 x 42 cm p 1014 V/2000 
Fishing boats returning to Volendam 1900 Etching, 26 x 43.5 cm p 1260 V/2000 
Le clo.tre 1900 Colour lithograph, 17 x 20 cm Aitken 106 p 1634 V/2000 

Rippl-R¨®nai J¨®zsef 
r
Hongarian, 1861-1927 
La f¨ºte au village 1896 Colour lithograph, 39.5 x 52.5 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right Johnson 119 p 1128 V/2000 
Familie d'artisans le dimanche 1896 Colour lithograph, 39.5 x 53.5 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower right and in blue chalk at lower centre margin p 1129 V/2000 
Familie d'artisans le dimanche 1896 Lithograph, 39.5 x 53,5 cm. Signed with initials on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin p 1130 V/2000 
Woman reading under a lamp 1894 Colour lithograph, 20.5 x 16 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower centre p 1704 V/2000 

Riviere, Henri 
French, 1864-1951 
Les revenants; La p¨ºche 1890 Colour lithograph, 20 x 29.7 cm Signed on stone at lower right Aitken 5 p 1632 V/2000 
La vague 1893 Colour lithograph, 29.2 x 46 cm Signed in green pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 67 p 1082 V/2000 
170 

Roche, Pierre 
French, 1855-1927 
La salamandre Colour lithograph, 24.4 x 18.6 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 71 p 1084 V/2000 
Algues marines 1893 Gypsograph, 17.1 x 10.8 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 70 p 1083 V/2000 

Rodin, Auguste 
French, 1840-1917 
Portrait d'Henry Becque 1893 Etching, 15.9 x 20 cm Signed in plate at centre right and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 72 p 1085 V/2000 

Roland Hoist, Richard Nicola¨¹s 
Dutch, 1868-1938 
Anangk¨¦ (Fate) 1892 Lithograph, 35.5 x 32.5 cm p 1273 V/2000 

Rops, F¨¦licien 
Belgian, 1833-1898 
Le vice supreme Etching, 47.1 x 30.6 cm Signed in plate at lower right p 1401 V/2000 
La planche de Tzigane Etching, 16.1 x 12 cm Signed with initials in red crayon at lower centre margin Mellerio 631 p1665 V/2000 
Chez les Traptistes Etching, 22.5 x 16.8 cm Exteens 531 p 1666 V/2000 Laveuses Etching, 22 x 15.3 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin p 1667 V/2000 
La dame au carcel 1876 Etching, 24 x 17.6 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin; inscribed at lower right margin 'Dame au carcel, 1er ¨¦tat, ¨¦preuve retouch¨¦e' Mellerio 529 p 1399 V/2000 
Celle qui fait 1879 Etching, 26.8 x 16.5 cm p 1400 V/2000 
Mater Dolorosa 1893 Etching, 13.3 x 10.2 cm Signed in red crayon at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 73 p 1086 V/2000 
La ramaseuse de fagots 1895 Etching, 28.6 x 18.9 cm Signed in plate at lower centre and in red crayon at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 74 p 1087 V/2000 
L'¨¦cole de l'id¨¦al; Le petit Eyolf 1895 Photogravure, 37.5 x 14.1 cm Aitken 71 p 1633 V/2000 

Rothenstein, William 
English, 1872-1945 
Portrait 1894 Lithograph, 21.9 x 20.3 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower centre margin Stein and Karshan 75 p1088 V/2000 

Roussel, Ker-Xavier 
French, 1867-1944 
Deux nymphes au bord d'un ¨¦tang Lithograph, 22 x 33.5 cm Salomon 82 p 1133 V/2000 Nymphe s' enfuyant Etching, 18 x 22 cm Salomon 112 p 1134 V/2000 
Femme dansant Etching, 18 x 22 cm Salomon 115 p 1135 V/2000 
Faun et nymphe Etching, 17.5 x 24 cm p 1136 V/2000 
Les centaures dans la caverne Lithograph, 20 x 15 cm Salomon 32 p1446 V/2000 
Les aigles Lithograph, 20 x 15 cm Salomon 33 p 1447 V/2000 
Petit centaure au sommet Lithograph, 11 x 16 cm Salomon 34 p 1448 V/2000 
Centaure dans une clairi¨¨re Lithograph, 20 x 15 cm Salomon 35 p 1449 V/2000 
Deux petits centaures Lithograph, 14.5 x 21.5 cm Salomon 36 p 1450 V/2000 
Centaure nageant Lithograph, 18 x 14 cm Salomon 41 p 1451 V/2000 
Petit ¨¦tang dans Ie f.ret Lithograph, 6.6 x 16 cm Salomon 46 p 1452 V/2000 
Centaure sous I'orage Lithograph, 18.3 x 14.3 cm Salomon 49 p 1453 V/2000 
171 Le vieux Chrion Lithograph, 20.2 x 16 cm Salomon 50 p 1454 V/2000 
Bacchante debout au bord d'un ¨¦tang Lithograph, 18 x 14 cm Salomon 55 p 1455 V/2000 
Deux femmes asisses Lithograph, 15 x 19 cm Salomon 59 p 1456 V/2000 
Satyre courant Lithograph, 11.5 x 19 cm Salomon 61 p 1457 V/2000 
Pan Lithograph, 13 x 11.5 cm Salomon 62 p 1458 V/2000 
Satyre s'enlevant Lithograph, 15.5 x 20.5 cm Salomon 64 p 1459 V/2000 
Faune enclacant une nymphe Lithograph, 11 x 18 cm Salomon 64 p 1460 V/2000 
Le petit antre Lithograph, 10 x 15 cm Salomon 65 p 1461 V/2000 
Dieu marin sur une rive Lithograph, 20 x 15 cm Salomon 67 p 1462 V/2000 
Dieu marin Lithograph, 18.3 x 14.4 cm Salomon 68 p 1463 V/2000 
Dieu marin 
Lithograph, 18.3 x 14.4 cm 
Salomon 70 
p 1464 V/2000 

Une des filles de Leucippe Lithograph, 12 x 17 cm Salomon 73 p 1465 V/2000 
Jeune femme assise Lithograph, 14.5 x 21.5 cm Salomon 74 p 1466 V/2000 
Euridice piqu¨¦e par un serpent Lithograph, 24.9 x 32.4 cm Salomon 77 p 1467 V/2000 
Euridice piqu¨¦e par un serpent Lithograph, 24.4 x 32.6 cm Salomon 77 p1468 V/2000 
Euridice piqu¨¦e par un serpent Lithograph, 22.3 x 32.4 cm Salomon 77 p1469 V/2000 
Nymphes Lithograph, 11.2 x 19 cm Salomon 78 p 1470 V/2000 
Petit couple dansant Lithograph, 10.5 x 18 cm Salomon 79 p 1471 V/2000 
Couple se reposant Lithograph, 11.5 x 8.5 cm Salomon 80 p 1472 V/2000 
Satyre debout et nymphe Etching, 14.5 x 19 cm Salomon 118 p 1474 V/2000 
Deux femmes conversant 
Lithograph, 21.7 x 11.8 cm 
Salomon 8 
p 1705 V/2000 

Noli me tangere 
Lithograph, 22.5 x 14.1 cm 
Salomon 9 
p1706 V/2000 

Dans la neige 1893 Colour lithograph, 32.9 x 19.5 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 76 p1089 V/2000 
Femmes causent 1893 Lithograph, 24.3 x 15.6 cm Salomon 7 p 1673 V/2000 
Le volant 1895 Lithograph, 30.1 x 18.2 cm Aitken 72 p 1367 V/2000 
Paysage avec maison 1897 Colour lithograph, 29 x 41.5 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Johnson 133; Salomon 13 p 1213 V/2000 
Deux baigneuses 1899 Lithograph, 14 x 19 cm Salomon 12 p 1442 V/2000 
L'album de paysage: Personnages au bord de la mer 1900 Colour lithograph, 23.5 x 41 cm Johnson 134.1; Salomon 14 p 1206 V/2000 
L'album de paysage: Femme en rouge dans un paysage 1900 Colour lithograph, 23.3 x 35.3 cm Johnson 134.2; Salomon 15 p 1207 V/2000 
L'album de paysage: Femme en robe a rayures 1900 Colour lithograph, 21.4 x 32.5 cm Johnson 134.3; Salomon 16 p 1208 V/2000 
L'album de paysage: Les baigneuses 1900 Colour lithograph, 25.3 x 41.8 cm Johnson 134.4; Salomon 17 p 1209 V/2000 L'album de paysage: Amours jouant aupr¨¨s d'une nymphe 1900 Colour lithograph, 21 x 23.7 cm Johnson 134.5; Salomon 18 p 1210 V/2000 
L'album de paysage: Femmes dans la campagne 1900 Colour lithograph, 23.5 x 32.5 cm Johnson 134.6; Salomon 19 p 1211 V/2000 
L'album de paysage: Femmes dans la campagne 1900 Colour lithograph (pastel proof), 23.5 x 32.5 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Salomon 19 p 1212 V/2000 
L'album de paysage: La source 1900 Colour lithograph, 31.5 x 41.2 cm Johnson 134.7; Salomon 20 p 1214 V/2000 
Nymphe assis sous un arbre 1900 Colour lithograph, 26 x 36 cm Signed in pencil at lower right margin Salomon 21 p 1215 V/2000 
Copie d'un tableau de Cezanne 1913 Lithograph, 15 x 21.8 cm Salomon 27 p 1443 V/2000 
Pastorale 1926 Lithograph, 16.3 x 22 cm Signed on stone at lower right under the image Salomon 29 p 1444 V/2000 
Personages au bord de la mer 1927 Etching, 15 x 22.2 cm Salomon 117 p 1473 V/2000 
Le monstre dans la caverne 1930 Lithograph 19.5 x 25.5 cm Salomon 31b p 1132 V/2000 Le monstre dans la caverne 1930 Lithograph 19.5 x 25.5 cm Salomon 31a p 1445 V/2000 
L¨¦da et le cygne 1931 Lithograph 19.5 x 25.5 cm Salomon 30d p 1131 V/2000 

Roux-Champion V.-J. 
r
French, 1871-1953 
Portrait de Denis Etching, 17.7x23.5 cm Signed in plate at lower right p 1661 V/2000 
Portrait de Roussel Etching 19 x 16 cm p 1662 V/2000 

Sattler, Joseph 
German, 1867-1931 
Fire 1895 Lithograph, 28.5 x 29 cm Aitken 75 p 1368 V/2000 
Theatre de L'Oeuvre 1895 Lithograph, 25.5 x 23.7 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1635 V/2000 

Schwabe, Carlos 
Swiss, 1886-1926 
L'honneur 1890 Photo-relief, 17 x 12.8 cm Aitken 6 p 1636 V/2000 
L'Annonciation 1893 Lithograph, 25.4 x 34.9 cm Signed on stone at lower right, reversed, and in pen-cil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 78 p 1091 V/2000 
172 

Seguin, Armand 
French, 1869-1903 
Paysage 1894 Etching, 23 x 22.7 cm Signed in pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 79 p 1092 V/2000 
La primaverai894 Zincograph, 21.4 x 31.5 cm Fields 84 p 1393 V/2000 

S¨¦rusier, Paul 
French, 1863-1927 
La marchande de marrons Colour lithograph, 22.4 x 12.7 cm p 1707 V/2000 
Paysage 1893 Colour lithograph, 41.5 x 57.2 cm Signed on stone at lower left Stein and Karshan p 1093 V/2000 
La marchande de chiffons 1893 
Lithograph, 24.6 x 15.7 cm p 1674 V/2000 
L'Assomption de Hannele Mattern; En I'attendant 1894 Colour lithograph, 29.6 x 22 cm Aitken 24 p 1637 V/2000 
Souvenir de Bretagne 1895 
Lithograph, 37.7 x 27.8 cm 
p 1394 V/2000 
Souvenir de Bretagne 1895 
Lithograph, 25 x 14 cm 
p 1395 V/2000 
H¨¦rakl¨¦ai896 
Lithograph, 30 x 48.2 cm 
Aitken 81 
p 1220 V/2000 
173 


Shannon, Charles Hazelwood 
English, 1863-1937 
La femme aux chats 1894 Lithograph, 21.3 x 25.1 cm Signed on stone at right centre and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 81 p1094 V/2000 

Signac, Paul 
French, 1863-1935 
Charles Henry's chromatic circle (1888), used to illustrate theatre programmes for 'Les R¨¦sign¨¦s' and 'L'Ech¨¦ance' 1889 Colour lithograph, 15.4 x 17.9 cm Signed in black ink at lower right Aitken 2 p 1638 V/2000 
Saint Tropez 1894 Colour lithograph, 27.5 x 36.4 cm. Stein and Karshan 82 p1095 V/2000 
Les d¨¦molisseurs 1896 Lithograph, 47 x 30.5 cm Kornfeld 15 p 1137 V/2000 
Le soir 1898 Colour lithograph, 20.2 x 26.1 cm Kornfeld 20 p 1396 V/2000 

Somm, Henry 
French, 1844-1907 
T¨ºte de Parisienne 1894 Etching, 25.6 x 17.8 cm Signed in plate at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 83 p1096 V/2000 

Steinlen, Th¨¦ophile-Alexandre 
Swiss, 1859-1923 
La femme triste Lithograph, 43 x 28 cm Signed with initials on stone at lower right and in purple chalk at lower right margin p 1261 V/2000 La soupe Lithograph, 32 x 27.5 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1262 V/2000 
Faufreluche Lithograph, 19.4 x 15 cm p 1263 V/2000 
Enfins seuls Lithograph, 32 x 26 cm p 1264 V/2000 
Mon tra deri tra Colour lithograph, 27 x 17.5 cm Signed in plate at left centre p 1663 V/2000 
L'ennemi du peuple 1899 Lithograph, 31.2 x 30 cm Aitken 104 p 1221 V/2000 
Nu de dos 1914 Etching, 30x30 cm Signed in pencil at lower right p 1265 V/2000 

Synave, Tancr¨¨de 
French, 1860-? 
L'ame invisible; Mademoiselle Fifi 1896 Colour lithograph, 32.1 x 48.8 cm Aitken 32 p 1369 V/2000 

Toorop, Jan 
Dutch, 1858-1928 
Venise sauv¨¦e 1895 Lithograph, 44.5 x 27.7 cm Aitken 77 p 1222 V/2000 
Anarchy 1895 Etching, 33.5 x 24 cm p 1274 V/2000 
The treasury 1895 Lithograph, 37 x 27.5 cm Signed on stone at lower right p 1275 V/2000 The youth and old age of woman 1895 Etching, 19.7 x 24.7 cm Signed in plate at upper left p 1403 V/2000 
The sower 1895 Lithograph, 21.8 x 33.1 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in ink at lower right margin p 1404 V/2000 
Interior with girl knitting (Marken) 1896 Etching, 19.5 x 15.8 cm Signed in plate at lower left, and signed and dedicat-ed in ink at lower right margin p 1405 V/2000 
Dolce 1896 Lithograph, 26.6 x 21.4 cm Signed on stone at lower left p 1406 V/2000 

Toulouse-Lautrec, Henri de 
French, 1864-1901 
Adieu Lithograph, 24 x 20.3 cm Wittrock 124 p1641 V/2000 
'La lithographie,' couverture pour la pre-mi¨¨re ann¨¦e de 'L'Estampe Originale' 
Colour lithograph, 56 x 63.8 cm Stein and Karshan 84; Wittrock 3 p 992 V/2000 
Carnot malade 1893 Colour lithograph, 24.4 x 18.6 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left Wittrock 12 p 1639 V/2000 
Aux Ambassadeurs 1894 Colour lithograph, 30.3 x 24.8 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left and in pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 85; Wittrock 58 p 1097 V/2000 
174 
NIB, ou le photographe-amateur 1894 Colour lithograph, 25.9 x 24 cm 
Signed with monogram on stone at lower right 
Aitken 76; Wittrock 143 
p 1231 V/2000 
La loge au mascaron dor¨¦ (programme pour 'Le missionnaire') 1894 Colour lithograph, 31 x 23 cm Aitken 26; Wittrock 16 p 1330 V/2000 
Carnaval 1894 Colour lithograph, 25 x 16 cm 
Wittrock 61 
p1708 V/2000 
Au rideau (couverture de 'L'Estampe Originale,' album de cloture) 1895 Colour lithograph, 58.7 x 82.4 cm Signed with monogram on stone at upper centre and 
in pencil at lower centre Stein and Karshan 86; Wittrock 96 p 993 V/2000 
Un monsieur et une dame (programme pour 'L'Argent') 1895 Colour lithograph, 31.8 x 23.7 cm 
Aitken 28; Wittrock 97 
p 1331 V/2000 
Prospectus-programme de 'L'Oeuvre' 1895 Lithograph, 21.1 x 34.4 cm p 1332 V/2000 
Raphael; Salome 1896 Lithograph, 30 x 48.7 cm Aitken 80 ; Wittrock 146 p 1223 V/2000 
Le bien d'autrui; Hors de lois 1897 Lithograph, 22 x 21 cm Aitken 35; Wittrock 231 p1640 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies (title page): May Belfort 1913 Lithograph, 29.5 x 24.2 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right p 1581 V/2000 Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Sarah Bernhardt 1913 Lithograph, 29.5 x 24.2 cm Wittrock 249 p 1734 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Jeanne Granien9i3 Lithograph, 29.3 x 24 cm Wittrock 250 p 1735 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Anna Held 1913 Lithograph, 29.2 x 24.3 cm Wittrock 251 p 1736 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: May Belfort 1913 Lithograph, 29.5 x 24.2 cm Wittrock 252 p 1737 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Emilienne d'Angelon 1913 Lithograph, 29.5 x 24.2 cm Wittrock 253 p 1738 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Coquelin ATn¨¦ 1913 Lithograph, 29 x 24.2 cm Wittrock 254 p 1739 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Jane Hading 1913 Lithograph, 28.6 x 24.2 cm Wittrock 255 p 1740 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Louise Balthy 1913 Lithograph, 29.8 x 24.5 cm Wittrock 256 p1741 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Sybil Sanderson 1913 Lithograph, 27.8 x 24.4 cm Wittrock 257 p 1742 V/2000 Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices-treize lithographies: Cl¨¦o de M¨¦rode 1913 Lithograph, 29.3 x 24 cm Wittrock 258 p 1743 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Lucien Guitry 1913 Lithograph, 29.6 x 24.4 cm 
Wittrock 259 
p 1744 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Marie-Louise Marsy 1913 Lithograph, 28.9 x 24.5 cm Wittrock 260 p 1745 V/2000 
Portraits d'acteurs & d'actrices - treize lithographies: Polin 1913 Lithograph, 29.2 x 23.7 cm 
Wittrock 261 
p 1746 V/2000 

Vallotton, Felix 
French, 1865-1925 
La sortie du bain: Les petites baigneuses IV 1893 Woodcut, 5.2 x 6.5 cm 
Signed with monogram in block at lower right 
Vallotton and Goerg 120c 
p 1760 V/2000 
L'enterrement 1891 Woodcut, 25.7 x 35.2 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 84a p 1297 V/2000 
T¨ºte de vieille femme 1891 Woodcut, 13.1 x 10.8 cm 
Signed with monogram in block at lower left and 
with monogram at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 79c 
p 1475 V/2000 
Le beau soir 1892 Woodcut, 23 x 31.3 cm 
Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 98a p 1162 V/2000 
175 Le Breithorn 1892 Woodcut, 14.7 x 25.6 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 85a p 1476 V/2000 
Le Mont-Blanc 1892 Woodcut, 25.5 x 14.3 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 87a p 1477 V/2000 
Glacier du Rhone 1892 Woodcut, 14.5 x 25.5 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 89a p 1478 V/2000 
Le mur 1892 Woodcut, 10.2 x 19.1 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 99a p 1479 V/2000 
Les cygnes 1892 Woodcut, 13.5x17.7 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 100a p 1480 V/2000 
La rixe ou la sc¨¨ne au caf¨¦ 1892 
r
Woodcut, 17 x 25 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 101a p 1481 V/2000 
Le Mont-Rose 1892 Woodcut, 14 x 25.5 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and with monogram stamp at lower left margin Vallotton and Goerg 105b p 1482 V/2000 Les n¨¦crophores 1892 Woodcut, 14.2 x 25.4 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 106a p 1483 V/2000 
Les amateurs d'estampes 1892 Woodcut, 18.5 x 25.3 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left Vallotton and Goerg 107c p 1484 V/2000 
Caesar, Socrate, J¨¦sus, Neron 1892 Woodcut, 15.4 x 30.8 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 109a p 1485 V/2000 
La manifestation 1893 Woodcut, 22.9 x 31.9 cm Signed in block at lower right Stein and Karshan 87 p 1098 V/2000 
Les raseurs 1893 Lithograph, 18.5 x 14.3 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 42 p 1295 V/2000 
Derni¨¨re nouveaut¨¦ 1893 Lithograph, 21.5 x 21.7 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left 
Vallotton and Goerg 44 p 1296 V/2000 
L'assassinat 1893 Woodcut, 14.7 x 24.5 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 113b p 1486 V/2000 
Le bon march¨¦ 1893 Woodcut, 20.2 x 26.1 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 116a p 1487 V/2000 Le couplet patriotique 1893 Woodcut, 17.6 x 27.3 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 127a p 1488 V/2000 
Les petites filles 1893 Woodcut, 14.2 x 20.2 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 129a p 1489 V/2000 
Le mauvais pas 1893 Woodcut, 22.5x18.1 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 130a p 1490 V/2000 
A Schumann 1893 Woodcut, 15.3 x 12.4 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right Vallotton and Goerg 131c p 1491 V/2000 
La poursuite 1893 Lithograph, 4.5 x 12.4 cm Vallotton and Goerg 43 p1675 V/2000 
Baigneuses ¨¦tendues sur l'herbe: Les pe-tites baigneuses III 1893 Woodcut, 4 x 6.5 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left Vallotton and Goerg 119c p 1759 V/2000 
Fillette enlevant sa chemise: Les petites baigneuses V11893 Woodcut, 4.5 x 5.8 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right Vallotton and Goerg 122c p 1761 V/2000 
Jeux au soleil: Les petites baigneuses VII 1893 Woodcut, 4.4 x 5.8 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right Vallotton and Goerg 123c p 1762 V/2000 
176 La baigneuse a Penfant: Les petites baigneuses IX1893 Woodcut, 4.4 x 5.8 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left Vallotton and Goerg 125c p 1763 V/2000 
La baigneuse aux cygnes: Les petites baigneuses X1893 Woodcut, 4.6 x 6 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right Vallotton and Goerg 126c p1764 V/2000 
The bath 1894 Woodcut, 18.1 x 22.5 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in blue pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 88 p 1099 V/2000 
Theatre programme for Stindberg's 'Father' 1894 Colour lithograph, 21.5 x 31.8 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 53b p 1138 V/2000 
Petits anges 1894 Woodcut, 14.9 x 24.5 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 139a p 1492 V/2000 
L'ex¨¦cution 1894 Woodcut, 14.9x25 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 142a p 1493 V/2000 
Les trois baigneuses 1894 Woodcut, 18.3 x 11.2 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left Vallotton and Goerg 133 p1709 V/2000 
NIB 1895 Colour lithograph, 35.2 x 24.9 cm p 1232 V/2000 Le confiant 1895 Woodcut, 17.7x22.4 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 161a p 1494 V/2000 
La sortie 1895 Woodcut, 18 x 22.5 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and with monogram stamp at lower left margin Vallotton and Goerg 162c p 1495 V/2000 
La nuit 1895 Woodcut, 17.8x22.2 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and with monogram stamp at lower left margin Vallotton and Goerg 164c p1496 V/2000 
L'alerte 1895 Woodcut, 17.9 x 22.4 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 166a p 1497 V/2000 
Le chapeau vert 1896 Colour lithograph, 40 x 27 cm Signed with monogram at lower left and in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 54b 
p 1161 V/2000 
Le poker 1896 Woodcut, 17.9 x 22.4 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and with monogram stamp at lower left margin Vallotton and Goerg 170c p 1498 V/2000 
Le violoncelle: Instruments de musique I 1896 Woodcut, 22.3x17.8 cm Signed in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 171a p 1499 V/2000 
La flute: Instruments de musique I11896 Woodcut, 22.4 x 18 cm Signed in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 172a p 1500 V/2000 Le violin: Instruments de musique III 1896 Woodcut, 22.4 x 18 cm Signed in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 173a p 1501 V/2000 
Le piano: Instruments de musique IV1896 Woodcut, 22.4 x 18 cm Signed in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 174a p 1502 V/2000 
La guitare: Instruments de musique V 1897 Woodcut, 22.5 x 18 cm Signed in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 175a p 1503 V/2000 
Le piston: Instruments de musique VI 1897 Woodcut, 22.5x17.7 cm Signed in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 176a p 1504 V/2000 
La belle ¨¦pingle 1897 Woodcut, 25.3 x 31 cm Vallotton and Goerg 187d p 1505 V/2000 
La sant¨¦ de I'autre: Intimites IX1898 Woodcut, 17.7x22.3 cm Vallotton and Goerg 196c p 1506 V/2000 
L'¨¦dat 1898 Woodcut, 18 x 22.5 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in blue crayon at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 199a p 1507 V/2000 
Puvis de Chavannes 1898 Woodcut, 15.7 x 12.5 cm Signed with monogram, reversed, in block at lower right Vallotton and Goerg 200b p 1508 V/2000 
177 Le trottoir roulant: Exposition Universelle I 1901 Woodcut, 12.2x15.8 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 203a p 1509 V/2000 
Le trottoir roulant: Exposition Universelle I 1901 Woodcut, 12.2 x 15.8 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 203c p 1765 V/2000 
L'ond¨¦e: Exposition Universelle I11901 Woodcut, 21.1 x 16.5 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 204c p 1766 V/2000 
La vitrine de Lalique: Exposition Universelle III 1901 Woodcut, 12.2x16.3 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower left and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 205c p 1767 V/2000 
Cinq heures: Exposition Universelle IV 1901 Woodcut, 16.5x12.2 cm Vallotton and Goerg 206c p 1768 V/2000 
Rue du Caire: Exposition Universelle V 1901 Woodcut, 16.5 x 12 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 207a p 1510 V/2000 
Rue du Caire: Exposition Universelle V 1901 Woodcut, 16.5 x 12.2 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 207c p 1769 V/2000 Fue d'artifice: Exposition Universelle VI 1901 Woodcut, 16.4 x 12.2 cm Signed with monogram in block at lower right and pencil at lower right margin Vallotton and Goerg 208c p 1770 V/2000 
Trench 1915 Woodcut, 25 x 33.2 cm Signed in block at lower right p 1771 V/2000 
An orgy 1915 Woodcut, 25 x 33.4 cm Signed in block at lower right p 1772 V/2000 
Les fils de fer 1916 Woodcut, 25 x 33.4 cm Signed in block at lower right 
p 1773 V/2000 
Darkness 1916 Woodcut, 18 x 22,8 cm 
Signed in block at lower right 
p1774 V/2000 
Le guetteur 1916 Woodcut, 25 x 33.4 cm 
Signed in block at lower right 
p 1775 V/2000 
The citizens 1916 Woodcut, 25 x 33.4 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left and pencil at lower right margin p 1776 V/2000 

Valtat, Louis 
French, 1869-1952 
Jeune femme assise au manchon 
Woodcut, 40.7 x 31 cm 
Signed in pencil at lower right margin 
p 1266 V/2000 
La maison rouge 
Woodcut, 26 x 28.5 cm 
p 1267 V/2000 Jeune fille assise avec un chat Woodcut, 30x24.5 cm Signed with red monogram stamp at lower right margin p 1268 V/2000 

Velde, Henry van de 
Belgian, 1863-1957 
Tropon Colour lithograph, 35.4 x 26.6 cm p 1668 V/2000 

Vibert, Pierre Eugene 
Swiss, 1875-1937 
Le cuivre 1895 Lithograph, 32.1 x 24.5 cm p 1643 V/2000 

Vignon, Victor 
French, 1847-1909 
La vache 1893 Etching, 25.1 x 26.7 cm Signed in plate at lower left, reversed, and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 89 p 1100 V/2000 

Vuillard, ¨¦douard 
French, 1868-1940 
La siesta (La reconvalescence) Lithograph, 58.8 x 41.5 cm Signed on stone at lower left Roger-Marx 2 p 1101 V/2000 
Frontispice de 'Cuisine' Lithograph, 31 x 23 cm Roger-Marx 54 p 1308 V/2000 
Le menu Lithograph, 25 x 22 cm Roger-Marx 55 p 1309 V/2000 
Le maTtre d'hotel Lithograph, 28.5 x 21 cm Roger-Marx 56 p 1310 V/2000 
178 La cuisini¨¨re Lithograph, 31 x 23 cm Roger-Marx 57 p 1311 V/2000 
La flamb¨¦e Lithograph, 31 x 23 cm 
Roger-Marx 58 
p 1312 V/2000 
Le repas Lithograph, 31 x 24.5 cm Roger-Marx 59 p 1313 V/2000 
Couverture de 'Bulletin du Salon d'Automne' Lithograph, 28.3 x 39.4 cm 
Signed on stone at lower centre 
p 1315 V/2000 
Monsieur Bute; L'amant de sa femme; La belle operation Photo-relief with watercolor stenciling, 21.5 x 19.7 cm 
p 1333 V/2000 
Int¨¦rieur au canap¨¦ (Soir) Etching, 10 x 15 cm 
Roger-Marx 62 
p 1438 V/2000 
Le pliage du linge 1893 Lithograph, 24 x 32 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right and in pencil at lower right margin Roger-Marx 6 p 1163 V/2000 
Ames solitaires 1893 Lithograph, 32 x 23 cm 
Aitken 60 ; Roger-Marx 19 
p 1224 V/2000 
L'int¨¦rieur aux cinq poses 1893 Lithograph, 24 x 29.5 cm Roger-Marx 7 p 1298 V/2000 
L'int¨¦rieur au paravent 1893 Lithograph, 25 x 31 cm Roger-Marx 8 p 1299 V/2000 Intimit¨¦ 1893 Lithograph, 26 x 19 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower right Roger-Marx 10 p 1300 V/2000 
Rosmerholm 1893 Lithograph, 22.5 x 30.3 cm Aitken 58; Roger-Marx 16 p 1334 V/2000 
Un ennemi du peuple 1893 Lithograph, 22 x 30 cm Aitken 59; Roger-Marx 17 p 1335 V/2000 
Frontispice pour 'Les Nouvelles Passionn¨¦es' 1893 Lithograph, 18.5 x 7 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left Roger-Marx 3 p 1432 V/2000 
L'Enfant couch¨¦ / Les coutouri¨¨res 1893 Lithograph, 24.4 x 15.5 cm Roger-Marx 5 p 1676 V/2000 
Int¨¦rieur 1893 Lithograph, 19 x 12 cm Signed with monogram on stone at lower left Roger-Marx 4 p 1710 V/2000 
B¨¦cane 1894 Colour lithograph, 80 x 60.5 cm Roger-Marx 49 p 1000 V/2000 
Au-dessus des forces humaines 1894 Lithograph, 30.7 x 23.5 cm Aitken 61; Roger-Marx 18 p 1225 V/2000 
Une nuit d'avril (L'image) 1894 Lithograph, 31.2 x 46.5 cm Aitken 62; Roger-Marx 22 p 1226 V/2000 
Fr¨¨res; La gardienne; Cr¨¦anciers 1894 Lithograph, 22.6 x 31.7 cm Aitken 65; Roger-Marx 23 p 1227 V/2000 La vie muettei894 Lithograph, 31 x 23.2 cm Aitken 67; Roger-Marx 20 p 1336 V/2000 
Solness Ie constructeur 1894 Lithograph, 32 x 24 cm Aitken 63; Roger-Marx 21 p 1337 V/2000 
L'atelier 1895 
Lithograph, 24.5 x 30 cm 
Roger-Marx 11 
p 1301 V/2000 
L'atelier aux deux fen¨ºtres 1895 Lithograph, 23 x 29 cm Roger-Marx 14 p 1302 V/2000 
Le d¨¦jeuner 1895 
Colour lithograph, 25 x 16 cm 
Roger-Marx 15 
p 1303 V/2000 
Les Tuileries 1895 
Lithograph, 24 x 27.5 cm 
Roger-Marx 27 
p 1304 V/2000 
La table au grand abat-jour 1895 Colour lithograph, 14 x 21 cm Roger-Marx 12 p 1433 V/2000 
La couturi¨¨re 1895 
Colour lithograph, 32.5 x 24.9 cm 
Roger-Marx 13 
p 1711 V/2000 
Le Jardin des Tuileries 1896 
Colour lithograph, 28 x 43 cm 
Johnson 153 ; Roger-Marx 28 
p 1164 V/2000 
Les soutiens de la soci¨¦t¨¦ 1896 
Lithograph, 32.5 x 49 cm 
Aitken 85; Roger-Marx 24 
p 1228 V/2000 
Maternit¨¦ 1896 
Colour lithograph, 19 x 22.5 cm 
Roger-Marx 30 
p 1305 V/2000 
179 Jeux d'enfants 1897 Colour lithograph, 28 x 43 cm Johnson 154 ; Roger-Marx 29 p 1165 V/2000 
Au-dela des forces 1897 Lithograph, 23 x 29.5 cm Aitken 89; Roger-Marx 25 p 1338 V/2000 
Van Rysselberghe 1898 Etching, 10 x 14 cm Roger-Marx 61 p 1437 V/2000 
Projet de couverture 1899 Colour lithograph, 59 x 45 cm Johnson 156; Roger-Marx 47 p 1016 V/2000 
La naissance d'Annette 1899 Colour lithograph, 34 x 40 cm Johnson 157; Roger-Marx 44 p 1139 V/2000 
Couverture de l'album 'Paysages et in-t¨¦rieurs' 1899 Colour lithograph, 51 x 40 cm Johnson 155; Roger-Marx 31 p 1192 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': La partie de 
dames 1899 
Colour lithograph, 34 x 26.5 cm 
Johnson 155 I; Roger-Marx 32 
p 1193 V/2000 

'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': L'avenue 1899 Colour lithograph, 31 x 41 cm Signed in pencil at lower left Johnson 155 II; Roger-Marx 33 p 1194 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': A travers 
champs 1899 
Colour lithograph, 26 x 35 cm 
Johnson 155 III; Roger-Marx 34 
p 1195 V/2000 

'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': Int¨¦rieur a la suspension 1899 Colour lithograph, 35 x 28 cm Johnson 155 IV; Roger-Marx 35 p 1196 V/2000 'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': Int¨¦rieur aux tentures roses 11899 Colour lithograph, 34 x 27 cm Johnson 155 V; Roger-Marx 36 p 1197 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': Int¨¦rieur aux tentures roses I11899 Colour lithograph, 34 x 27 cm Johnson 155 VI; Roger-Marx 37 p 1198 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': Int¨¦rieur aux tentures roses III 1899 Colour lithograph, 34 x 27 cm Johnson 155 VII; Roger-Marx 38 p 1199 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': L'atre 1899 Colour lithograph, 34 x 27.5 cm Johnson 155 VIII; Roger-Marx 39 p 1200 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': Sur le Pont de I'Europe 1899 Colour lithograph, 31 x 35 cm Johnson 155 IX; Roger-Marx 40 p 1201 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': La patisserie 1899 Colour lithograph, 35.5 x 27 cm Johnson 155 X; Roger-Marx 41 p 1202 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': La cuisini¨¨re 1899 Colour lithograph, 35 x 28 cm Johnson 155 XI; Roger-Marx 42 p 1203 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': Les deux belles-soeurs 1899 Colour lithograph, 35.5 x 28 cm Johnson 155 XII; Roger-Marx 43 p 1204 V/2000 
'Paysages et int¨¦rieurs': Sur le Pont de 
I'Europe (variante) 1899 
Colour lithograph, 31 x 35 cm 
Roger-Marx 40 
p 1205 V/2000 

Une galerie au Gymnase 1900 Colour lithograph, 25 x 19 cm Roger-Marx 48 p 1306 V/2000 
Le jardin devant I'atelier 1901 Colour lithograph, 63 x 48 cm Signed in pencil at lower left Roger-Marx 45 p 1015 V/2000 
Une repetition a 'L'Oeuvre' 1902 Lithograph, 29 x 20 cm Aitken 107; Roger-Marx 50 p 1339 V/2000 
Portrait de Cezanne 1914 Lithograph, 23 x 24 cm Roger-Marx 51 p 1307 V/2000 
Lucien Fabre 1924 Lithograph, 13 x 8 cm Roger-Marx 52 p 1434 V/2000 
Tristan Bernard 1924 Lithograph, 12 x 9 cm Roger-Marx 53 p 1435 V/2000 
La femme au bouquet 1924 Etching, 14 x 22 cm Roger-Marx 67 p 1441 V/2000 
Paul L¨¦autaud 1934 Lithograph, 21 x 15 cm Roger-Marx 60 p 1436 V/2000 
Le Square Vintimille 1937 Etching, 33.5 x 25.5 cm Roger-Marx 66 p 1314 V/2000 
Le Square Vintimille 1937 Etching, 21.5 x 16 cm Roger-Marx 64 p 1439 V/2000 
180 
Petites ¨¦tudes dans le square 1937 
Etching, 14.5 x 10 cm 
Roger-Marx 65 
p 1440 V/2000 

Wagner, T.P. 
?-? 
R¨ºve 1894 Lithograph, 31.3 x 23.8 cm Signed on stone at upper left, reversed, and in pencil at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 91 p 1102 V/2000 
Whistler, James Abbott MacNeill 
American, 1834-1903 
Danseuse 1893 Lithograph, 18.3 x 15.9 cm Signed on stone at right centre and in pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 92 p1103 V/2000 

Willette, Adolphe 
French, 1857-1926 
Chevalerie rustique; L'amant de Christ; 
Marie; Les bouchers 1888 
Lithograph, 24 x 16 cm 
Signed on stone at right centre 
p 1644 V/2000 
La fortune 1893 Lithograph, 27 x 25.1 cm Signed on stone at lower right and in blue crayon at lower left margin Stein and Karshan 93 p1104 V/2000 
Pierrot pendu 1895 Lithograph, 27.6 x 18.6 cm Signed on stone at lower left and in blue pencil at lower right margin Stein and Karshan 94 p 1105 V/2000 
Revanche 1895 
Lithograph, 40.2 x 37.1 cm 
Signed on stone at lower left and in blue pencil at 
lower right margin 
Stein and Karshan 95 
p 1106 V/2000 
Books 
Claude Anet, Notes sur l'amour, avec dessins originaux 
de Pierre Bonnard, graves sur bois par Yvonne Mailliez. 
Paris, Cr¨¨s 1925 
p 1780 V/2000 

Pierre Bonnard, Correspondances. Paris, Editions de la 
Revue Verve 1944 
Reproductions of 28 pen drawings by Pierre Bonnard 
p 1782 V/2000 

Le Caf¨¦ Concert, lithographies de H.-G. Ibels et de H. de 
Toulouse-Lautrec; texte de Georges Montorgueil. Paris, 
I'Estampe originale 18 
Wittrock 18-28 (Toulouse-Lautrec only) 
p 1712 - p 1722 H.-G. Ibels; p 1723- p 1733 V/2000 H. 
de Toulouse-Lautrec 

Etienne Decrept, L'Amour s'amuse: sayn¨¨te en vers, 
jou¨¦e a La Scala par M¨¦visto & Camille St¨¦fani, couver-
ture et lithographies hors textes de H.-G. Ibels. Paris, 
Ondet1892 
p 1792 V/2000 

Exposition de la 'D¨¦p¨ºche' de Toulouse. Catalogue i Ilus-
tre de17 lithographies originates. Toulouse, Salons de la 
D¨¦p¨ºche de Toulouse, 15 May 1894 
17 lithographs in black and white illustrating the cata-
logue of the exhibition by Anquetin, Bonnard, Denis, 
Grasset, Ibels, Laug¨¦, Maufra, Maurin, Hermann-Paul, 
Rachou, Ranft, Ranson, Roussel, S¨¦rusier, Toulouse-
Lautrec, Vallotton, Vuillard 
p 1677-p 1693 V/2000 

Andr¨¦ Gide, Der schlechtgefesselte Prometheus, translat-
ed by Franz Blei; drawings by Pierre Bonnard. Berlin, 
Hyperion 1919 (2nd ed.) 
p 1779 V/2000 

Andr¨¦ Gide, Maurice Denis, Le voyage d'Urien, Paris, 
Librairie de l'Art Ind¨¦pendant 1893 
30 lithographs by Maurice Denis 
Original vellum wrappers 
p 1789 V/2000 

L'imitation de J¨¦sus-Christ, traduction anonyme du 
XVIIe si¨¨cle; bois dessin¨¦s par Maurice Denis. Paris, 
Vollard 1903 
216 wood-engravings by Tony Beltrand after Maurice 
Denis 
Original wrappers 
p1790 V/2000 

Longus Sophista, Les pastorales de Longus, ou Daphnis et Chlo¨¦, traduction de Messire J. Amyot; lithographies originates de P. Bonnard. Paris, Vollard 1902 152 lithographes in black and white Original wrappers p 1783 V/2000 
Pierre Louys, Le cr¨¦puscule des nymphes, lithographies de Pierre Bonnard. Paris, Tisn¨¦ 1946 24 transfer lithographs p 1786 V/2000 
Octave Mirbeau, Dingo. Paris, Vollard 1924 41 illustrations in black and 14 etchings (hors texte) by Pierre Bonnard Original wrappers p 1784 V/2000 
Henry de Montherlant, La redemption par les betes, 
dessins de Pierre Bonnard. Paris, [s.n.] 1959 21 lithographs by Fernand Mourlot after Pierre Bonnard p 1781 V/2000 
Peter Nansen, Marie, roman traduit du danois par Gaudard de Vinci; dessins de Pierre Bonnard. Paris, Edi-tions de la Revue Blanche 1898 18 line block illustrations from brush drawings by Pierre Bonnard. Original wrappers p 1778 V/2000 
William Nicholson, Twelve portraits. London, Heinemann 1899 12 colour woodcuts, signed and dated p 1747-p 1758 V/2000 
George Rodenbach, Les tombeaux. S.I., s.n [Paris, Bing] 
4 woodcuts by James Pitcairn-Knowles Issued together with 'Les vierges,' with lithographs by Jozsef Rippl-Ronai Original wrappers with an outer wrapper illustrated with a woodcut design of a hand holding a flower, designed by James Pitcairn-Knowles p 1793 V/2000 
George Rodenbach, Les vierges. S.I., s.n. [Paris, Bing] 1895 4 colour lithographs by Joseph Rippl-Ronai Issued together with 'Les tombeaux,' with woodcuts by James Pitcairn-Knowles Original wrappers with an outer wrapper illustrated with a woodcut design of a hand holding a flower, designed by James Pitcairn-Knowles p 1794 V/2000 Claude Terrasse, Petit solf¨¨ge illustr¨¦, illustr¨¦ de Pierre Bonnard. Paris, Librairies-lmprimeries Re¨¹nies [1893] Photo-relief illustration in colour by Pierre Bonnard. Original decorated boards p 1777 V/2000 
Claude Terrasse, Petites sc¨¨nes famili¨¨res pour piano, il-lust¨¦ de Pierre Bonnard. Paris, Fromont [1893] 19 lithographs in black and white Roger-Marx 5-24 p 1787 V/2000 
Francis Thompson, Po¨¨mes, traduit par Elisabeth M. Denis-Graterolle; lithographies originales de Maurice Denis. Paris, Vollard 1936 13 colour lithographs (hors texte) and 56 lithographs in colour and black and white p 1791 V/2000 
Felix Vallotton, Crimes et chatiments. In: L'Assiette au Beurre 48 (1 March 1902), num¨¦ro spe-cial 23 colour lithographs p 1608 V/2000 
Paul Verlaine, Parall¨¨lement, lithographies originales de Pierre Bonnard. Paris, Vollard 1900 108 lithographs in rose-sanguine by Pierre Bonnard and 9 wood-engravings in black by Tony Beltrand Original wrappers p 1788 V/2000 
Virgile, Les bucoliques, traduction de Xavier de Magallon; lithographies originales de K.-X. Roussel. Paris, Les Bibliophiles Franco-Suisses 1943 p 1795 V/2000 
Ambroise Vollard, Sainte Monique, illustr¨¦ de Pierre Bonnard. Paris, Vollard 1930 29 transfer lithographs, 17 original etchings and 178 wood-engravings Original wrappers p 1785 V/2000 
Literature Genevieve Aitken, Artistes et theatres d'avant-garde: programmes de theatre illustr¨¦s, Paris 1890-1900, n.p. 1991 
Gustave Bourcard (with additions and revisions by James Goodfriend), Felix Buhot: catalogue descriptifde son oeuvre grave, New York 1979 
Francis Bouvet, Bonnard: the complete graphic work, Paris 1981 Pierre Cailler, Catalogue raisonn¨¦ de I'oeuvre grave et lithographi¨¦ de Maurice Denis, San Francisco 2000 Loys Delteil, Le peintre-graveur illustr¨¦ (XIXe et XXe si¨¨cle). Vol. 
1: J.F. Millet, Th. Rousseau, Jules Dupr¨¦, J.B. Jongkind, 
Amsterdam & New York 1968 (1906) Idem, Le peintre-graveur illustr¨¦ (XIXe et XXe si¨¨cle). Vol. 8: Eug¨¨ne Carri¨¨re, Paris 1913 Maurice Exteens, L'oeuvre grave et lithographi¨¦ de F¨¦licien Rops, Paris 1928 Alicia Graig Faxon, Jean-Louis Forain: a catalogue raisonn¨¦ of the 
prints, New York 1982 Armond Fields, George Auriol, Layton 1985 Dirk van Gelder, Rodolphe Bresdin. Vol. II: catalogue raisonn¨¦ de 
I'oeuvre grave, The Hague 1976 Louis Godefroy, Le peintre-graveur illustr¨¦ (XIXe et XXe si¨¨cle). Vol. 30: Albert Besnard, New York 1969 (1926) 
Marcel Gu¨¦rin, J.-F. Forain, lithographe: catalogue raisonn¨¦ de 
I'oeuvre lithographi¨¦ de I'artiste, San Francisco 1980 
Idem, J.-L. Forain, aquafortiste: catalogue raisonn¨¦ de I'oeuvre 

grave de /'artiste, San Francisco 1980 Idem, Catalogue raisonn¨¦ de I'oeuvre grave et lithographi¨¦ de Aristide Maillol, 2 vols., Geneva 1965,1967 Germain H¨¦diard, Fantin-Latour: catalogue de I'oeuvre litho-graphique du maitre, Paris 1906 Una E. Johnson, Ambroise Vollard, editeur: prints, books, bronzes, New York 1977 
E.W.	 Kornfeld, Catalogue raisonn¨¦ et lithographi¨¦ de Paul Signac, Berne 1974 Sylvain Laboureur, Jean-Emile Laboureur: catalogue complet de I'oeuvre, San Francisco 1989 Andre Mellerio, Odilon Redon: peintre, dessinateur et graveur, Paris 1923 Daniel Morane, Maxime Maufra (1861-1918): catalogue de I'oeu-
vre grave, Pont-Aven 1986 Claude Roger-Marx, Bonnard lithographe, Monte Carlo 1952 Idem, L'oeuvre grave de Vuillard, Monte Carlo 1947 Jacques Salomon, Introduction a I'oeuvre grave de K.X. Roussel, 
Paris 1968 Gustav Schiefler, Verzeichnis des graphischen Werks Edvard Munchs bis 1906, Oslo 1974 Donna M. Stein and Donald H. Karshan, L'Estampe Originale: a catalogue raisonn¨¦, New York 1970 Maxime Vallotton and Charles Goerg, Felix Vallotton: catalogue raisonn¨¦ de I'oeuvre grave et lithographi¨¦, Geneva 1972 

DOCUMENTATION 


Works on loan to the Van Gogh Museum 

The following is a list of paintings and drawings lent to the Van Gogh Museum between 2000 and 2001. Each works has an inventory number made up as follows: the first letter stands for the technique (s = painting, d = drawing); this is followed by a reference number and then by a capital letter (B = loan) and the year of the loan. Also included here is a list of works that have been returned to their owners since the last loan list was pub-lished (see Van Gogh Museum Journal 1999, pp. 144-46) 
2000-2001 

Paintings 
Cezanne, Paul 
French, 1839-1906 
La montagne Sainte-Victoire 1885 Oil on canvas, 54 x 65 cm s 237 B/2001 Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam 

Gogh, Vincent van 
Dutch, 1853-1890 
Wheatfield with poppies (F 761 JH 2120) 1890 Oil on canvas, 50 x 65 cm s 244 B/2001 Loan from a private collection 

S¨¦rusier, Paul 
French, 1863-1927 
Picking apples (Pont-Aven triptych) 1892 Oil on canvas, 73 x 133 cm s 243 B/2001 Loan from a private collection 

Sisley, Alfred 
British, 1839-1899 
Snow effect at Argenteuil 1874 Oil on canvas, 54 x 65 cm Signed at lower left: Sisley 74 s236 B/2001 Loan from a private collection 

Sluijters, Jan 
Dutch, 1881-1957 
Woman with a liqueur glass 1912 Oil on canvas, 77 x 69.5 cm Signed at upper right: Jan Sluijters s 239 B/2001 Loan from a private collection Woman fishmonger 1912 Oil on canvas, 76 x 70 cm Signed at upper left: Jan Sluijters s 240 B/2001 Loan from a private collection 
Drawings 

Bock, Th¨¦ophile de 
Dutch, 1851-1904 
Landscape with a figure Watercolour, 22 x 34 cm Signed at lower left: Th. de Bock fecit d 228 B/2000 Loan from a private collection 
Loans returned 2000 
Paintings 
Andriesse, Erik Amaryllis Loan from the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage 
Sunflowers Loan from the Erik Andriesse Foundation 
Gogh, Vincent van View of the Singel Loan from the Foundation P. and N. de Boer 
Trees in a field on a sunny day Loan from the Foundation P. and N. de Boer 
Wheatfield Loan from the Foundation P. and N. de Boer 
183 Lepoittevin, Eugene A young herdsman Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 
Malevitch, Kasimir Portrait of a young woman Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam 
Michaud, Hippolyte The little art lovers Loan from the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 
Sluijters, Jan The prophet Elisa and the son of the Sunamitic woman Loan from the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage 
Toorop, Jan Old oaks at Surrey Loan from the Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam 
Drawings 
Andriesse, Erik Untitled 
Loan from the Netherlands Institute for Cultural Heritage 
Gogh, Vincent van Digger Loan from the Foundation P. and N. de Boer 
Worn out Loan from the Foundation P. and N. de Boer 
Young Scheveningen woman Loan from the Foundation P. and N. de Boer 
Sower Loan from the Foundation P. and N. de Boer 
Windmill on AAontmartre Loan from the Foundation P. and N. de Boer 
Park in Aries Loan from a private collection 
Loans returned 2001 
Paintings 
Israels, Isaac Portrait of Willem Steenhoff Loan from the Gemeentemuseum, The Hague 
Tholen, Willem Bastiaan Wharf in Enkhuizen Loan from a private collection 
Compiled by Monique Hageman 
184 
DOCUMENTATION 


Exhibitions 2001 

Van Gogh Museum 
Camille Pissarro: Still life with peonies and mock orange (new acquisition) 
3 October 2000 - 20 February 2001 
Light! The Industrial Age, 1750-1900: art & science, tech-nology & society 20 October 2000 - 11 February 2001 
(Organised in conjunction with the Carnegie Museum of Art, Pittsburgh) 
Exhib. cat. Andreas Bl¨¹hm and Louise Lippincott, Light! The Industrial Age, 
1750-1900: art & science, technology & society, London 2000 
(ISBN 0 500 510 296) 

Artists portraits: prints and drawings from the Van Gogh Museum's collection 
22 November 2000 - 11 March 2001 
Impression: painting quickly in France, 1860-1890 
2 March - 20 May (Organised by the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute in Williamstown, MA, in conjunction with the National Gallery in London and the Van Gogh Museum) Exhib. cat. Richard R. Brettell, Impression: painting quickly in France 1860-1890, New Haven & London 2000 (ISBN 0 300 08446 3) 
The nineteenth-century Salon: prints and illustrations from the Van Gogh Museum's collection 
16 March - 28 October 
F. Holland Day: symbolist photographer 
20 April - 24 June (Organised in conjunction with Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Museum Villa Stuck, Munich and the Royal Photographic Society, Bath) Exhib. cat. Pam Roberts, Anne Havinga, Verna Posever Curtis and Edwin Becker, F. Holland Day, Amsterdam 2001 (ISBN 90 400 9525 6) 
Paul Signac: master of pointillism 
15 June - 9 September (Organised in conjunction with the Mus¨¦e d'Orsay, Paris and The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) Exhib. cat. Marina Ferretti-Bocquillon, Anne Distel, John Leighton and Susan Alyson Stein, Signac 1863-1935, New York 2001 (ISBN 0 87099 999 0) 
Vincent van Gogh, drawings: Antwerp & Paris, 1885-1888 
28 September 2001 - 6 January 2002 Exhib. cat. Marije Vellekoop and Sjraar van Heugten (in colloboration with Monique Hageman and Roelie Zwikker), Vincent van Gogh, drawings: Antwerp & Paris, 1885-1888, Amsterdam & Blaricum 2001 (ISBN 90 6611 581 5) 
The photograph and the American Dream, 1840-1940. The Stephen White Collection II 
28 September 2001 - 6 January 2002 Exhib. cat. Stephen White and Andreas Bl¨¹hm, with a foreword by William Jefferson Clinton, The photograph and the American Dream, 1840-1940, Amsterdam 2001 (ISBN 90 400 9640 6) 
Van Gogh's Parisian circle: prints and drawings from the Van Gogh Museum's collection 
7 November 2001 - 13 January 2002 

Museum Mesdag 
A summer's day in Museum Mesdag 
17 August - 28 October 
Interior with lady: genre paintings by Albert Roelofs, Antonio Mancini, Jan Toorop and Alfred Stevens 
23 November 2001 - 3 March 2002 
Compiled byAdrie Kok 

SUPERVISORY BOARD 
VAN GOGH MUSEUM FOUNDATION 

Chairman 
Pieter Winsemius 
Vice-chairman 
Truze Lodder 
Members Katharine Lee-Reid Max Roker Willem van Schendel 
Hon. Secretary 
Fien Willems 
BOARD OF THE VINCENT VAN GOGH FOUNDATION 
Chairman 
Vincent-Willem van Gogh 
Members 
Mathilde Cramer-van Gogh 
Jantine van Gogh 
R.J.M. van Hengstum 
(on behalf of the Minister of Education, Culture and Science) 
Secretary/Research Curator 
Han Veenenbos 


The Van Gogh Museum staff from January 2001 
THE VAN GOGH MUSEUM STAFF 
Director 
John Leighton 
Deputy Director 
Ruth Rervezee, from 1 February 2001 
Secretary to the Director 
Fien Willems 
Secretary to the Deputy Director 
Martine Blok, from 1 April 2001 
Collections 
Head of Collections 
Sjraar van Heugten 
Secretary 
Esther Hoofwijk 
Curators 
Louis van Tilborgh 
(Paintings) 
Marije Vellekoop 
(Prints and drawings) 
Chris Stolwijk, until 31 March 2001 
(Research) 
Curatorial Assistant 
Roelie Zwikker, until 30 November 2001 Nienke Bakker, from 1 December 2001 
Head ofResearch Leo Jansen, until 31 March 2001 Chris Stolwijk, from 1 April 2001 
Editors Van Gogh Letters Project 
Leo Jansen 
Hans Luijten 
Special Project Researcher 
Nienke Bakker, until 30 September 2001 Roelie Zwikker, from 1 December 2001 
Head of Conservation 
Ella Hendriks 
Conservators 
Ren¨¦ Boitelle Natascha Duff, until 31 July 2001 
Conservation Assistants 
Alex Nikken 
Frans Stive 
Research and Documentation 
Monique Hageman 
Fieke Pabst 
Librarian 
Anita Vriend 
Assistant Librarian 
Patricia Schuil 
187 

Exhibitions and Display 
Head of Exhibitions and Display 
Andreas Bl¨¹hm 
Assistant 
Roos Waterland, until 30 April 2001 Adrie Rok, from 1 June 2001 
Exhibitions Curator 
Edwin Becker 
Senior Registrar 
Aly Noordermeer 
Registrars 
Martine Rilburn 
Sara Verboven 

Head of Education and Internet 
Caroline Breunesse 
Education and Internet 
Maud Chavannes, until 11 May 2001 Marie Baarspul, from 1 September 2001 Melanie Verhoeven 
Education and School Programmes 
Berber Vinckemoller 
Head of Publicity, PR and Fundraising 
Rianne Norbart 
Publicity, PR and Fundraising 
Arda van Dam 
Press Officer 
Heidi Vandamme 
Assistant Publicity, PR and Fundraising 
Saskia Beukers 
Information Desk 
Ineke di Gazar 
Judith Goes 

188 
Yvonne Hovius 
Yvonne Ruhfus 
Yvonne Ruijper 
Truus Matti 
Sija Speelman 


Finance 
Head of Finance 
Wilma Vermeulen, until 31 January 2001 Anita van der Rroft, from 1 July 2001 
First Bookkeeper 
Amien Salarbux 
Bookkeeper 
Irma van der Plas 
Administrative Assistants 
Yvonne de Jong-Rnol Malika Ouled Radi Stefan Wladimiroff, until 30 June 
2001 
Cashiers 
Loes Advokaat-van Amstel Anita da Costa Fernandes Bart de Graaf Mar ja Guina-Vos Barbra Jacobsen, from 1 July 2001 Andrea Rammerstetter Truus Rouet-Borgers Marja Sandbergen-Tervoort Paula Timmer-de Jong Ana Rodrigues Pereira da Suva 

Internal Affairs 
Controller 
Marion de Vries 
Personnel Officer 
Henk Ammerlaan, until 31 August 2001 
Personnel Advisor 
Margriet Boerma 
Pay-roll Administrator 
Ellen Spijkers 
Assistant Personnel and Organisation Marijke Blankman, from 1 September 2001 

Facilities 
Head of Facilities 
Jan Samuelsz 
Assistant 
Heleen van Es 
Reception 
Dzjamilja Maigua-Bijl 
Brigitte van der Meulen 
Project Manager Technical Affairs 
Rees Posthuma 
Canteen 
Bep Pirovano-Mes 
Ankie Veltkamp 
Gemma Visser 

Cloakroom 
William Amzand, from 11 July 2001 Martijn Baart, from 1 September 2001 Samira Boughlid, from 1 September 
2001 Domenico Casillo Steven de Jager Remon Olij, until 31 March 2001 Jaime Nayem Carrasco Ibrahim Tokalak 
Head of Technical Affairs 
Gerard van der Ramp, until 30 April 2001 
Technical Staff 
Joost van Aalderen 
Hans Beets 
Ren¨¦ Cairo 
Antonio Pesare 
Serge Taal 
Johan Worell 
Fehti Zammouri 


Security 
Head of Security-Ton Hoofwijk 
Assistant 
Arnold Veen, from 1 September 2001 
Security Coordinators 
Wim Jaket 
Fred den Ouden 
Security Staff 
Raymond Adhin 
Mike Aramak¨¦ 
Rina Baak 
Abdel Ben Salah 
Emke van Berkel 
Kenneth Blinker 
Cornells Blonk 
Natascha de Boer 
Edwin Boeren 
Mohammed Bouanan 
Henk Buma 
Gerard Chin-A-Joe 
Eli Choukroun 
Kees van Dalen 
Rob Dingen 
Yvonne D.belman 
Theo Doesburg 

Abdel Ebrahim, from 1 September 
2001 Jan de Jong Ria Keek, from 1 September 2001 Marjon Kneepkens Frank Labeij Frans Lemaire, from 1 February 2001 
189 
Jannette Lont, froml September 2001 Wills van der Made Marjan Mohr-Robbers Saeed Osman Mischa van Poppel Anneke de Ridder Dan Rosculet Henk de Ruijter, from 1 September 
2001 Marga Thijm Sylvia Tielman Arnold Veen, until 31 August 2001 Ko Vierbergen, until 30 June 2001 Frank Vos Theo Wallenburg Peter Zaal Peter Zeldenrust Ans van Zoeren Ron van der Zwaan 

Museum Mesdag 
Head of Collections 
Sjraar van Heugten 
Curator 
Maartje de Haan, from 1 May 2001 
Manager 
Martin Heijligers 
Assistant 
Greet Grundeler-Kuijper 
Head of Security 
Ton Hoofwijk 
Security Staff 
Tonke Dragt 
Bert Lammers 
Henk Zuidam 


Works Council 
Chairman 
Antonio Pesare 
Vice Chairman 
Greet van Geem, until 30 June 2001 
Marije Vellekoop, from 1 July 2001 

Secretary 
Heide Vandamme 
Members Tonke Dragt (Auditor), until 31 July 2001 Wills van der Made, until 31 July 2001 Marjan Mohr-Robbers (Auditor), from 1 July 2001 Chris Stolwijk, from 1 March 2001 Marije Vellekoop 
Museum Tours (Acoustiguide) 
Coordinator 
Marja Damman 

Van Gogh Museum Enterprises b.v. 
Director 
Ton Boxma 
Deputy Director 
Cor Krelekamp 
Secretary 
Greet van Geem 
Bookkeeper 
Bart Zeeman 
Sales 
Judith de Groot 
Maud Chavannes, from 12 May 2001 
Buyer 
Melchert Zwetsman 
Rights and Reproductions 
Josette van Gemert 
Logistics Rarim Verkuijl, until 14 April 2001 Stefan Wladimiroff, from 1 July 2001 
Warehouse 
Frans Dickhoff, from 1 July 2001 Maarten V¨®¨®rhaar Ruud V¨®¨®rhaar 

Museum Shop Museumplein 
Manager 
Christa Bakker 
Shop Manager 
Marijke Blankman, until 15 
September 2001 
Mari.lle Gerritsen 
Rarin van der Linde 
Natascha Mansvelt 

Staff 
Debbie Bijtjes 
Nita Chan 
Jasper Hillegers 
Marten de Jong 
Marijke van der Mars 
Ratinka Neyen 
Lieke Noorman 
Erik Vroons 

Museum Shop (Jt Lanthuys BV) 
Director 
Vincent-Willem van Gogh 
Manager 
Frans de Haas 
Adjunct Manager 
Ellen van der Schoot 
Buyers 
Ceciel de Bie 
Susan van der Schoot 
190 
Assistant 
Rosmarijn Weddepohl 
Manager Webshop 
Laurine van der Wiel 
Office Manager 
Ruud Hogerwerf 
Supervisors Shop 
Marianna Bener 
Hester Cordes 
Janine ter Linde 
Goedele Wellens 

Staff 
Linda van den Berg 
Alexandra Feith 
Erris van Ginkel 
Loes de Groot 
Gerbrand Rorevaar 
Eva Rroon 
Marcel Oosterwijk 
Rarin Parham 
Renske Pronk 
Marcus de Ridder 
Roos Stalpers 
Onno Terpstra 
Bas Velthuis 
Marijnke Vincent 
Evert-Jan Wever 

Museum Restaurant (Verhaaf Groep) 
Director 
Hans Verhaaf 

ISBN 90-6987-050-4 NUGI 921/911 
. Copyright 2001 Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be re-produced or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec-tronic or mechanical, including photography, recording or any other information storage and retrieval system, with-out prior permission in writing from the publisher.