Notes: The Hague School

Notes for the Text

Other galleries: Stolwijk, “An Art Dealer in the Making,” pp. 24-25. “Bazaars”: Stolwijk, “An Art Dealer in the Making,” pp. 24-25: Stolwijk names the most important of these bazaars, the Roninklijke in the Zeestraat, which opened in 1843. Displayed amidst a jumble: Stolwijk, “An Art Dealer in the Making,” pp. 24-25: “The Bazaar was typical of those establishments that combined the sale of works of art and decorative objects, still the custom in the art world around 1850.” Stolwijk contrasts this presentation to the new galleries, like Goupil’s, “where an orderly selection of contemporary art could be viewed at leisure ... By presenting pictures by artists working in a similar manner as an ensemble, art dealers were able to give contemporary art an exclusive character it had nearly lost as a result of the jumbled installation [at the Bazaar].” Museum van Moderne Kunst: Stolwijk, “An Art Dealer in the Making,” p. 24: The museum opened in 1871 in the former home of an art collector at Korte Beestenmarkt 9, an extension of the Lange Beestenmarkt on which Van Gogh lived.

Looked unfinished: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, pp. 55-56. Began buying them: Stolwijk, “An Art Dealer in the Making,” pp. 26-27: Stolwijk says that Tersteeg began buying future Hague School painters “from about 1870” Also see: “from circa 1870 onwards Goupil’s gérant Tersteeg also slowly started to invest in works by the Hague School painters” (Stolwijk, “Un marchand avisé,” p. 20). Tralbaut offers the following details that suggest Tersteeg developed his enthusiasm for the Hague School gradually: in 1869, Tersteeg bought “several pictures of The Hague School”; in 1870, “eleven pictures by The Hague School”; in 1871, “sixteen canvases by The Hague School”; in 1872, “the number of examples of The Hague School increased to 35” (Tralbaut, p. 37).

Began coming into the store: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, pp. 77-78: Mesdag arrived in 1869 and Israëls, Mauve, and Jacob Maris arrived in 1871. De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas admirably detail the serendipitous way in which the leaders of the Hague School, each for his own set of reasons, drifted back to The Hague in the early 1870s to create the critical mass necessary for a coherent aesthetic movement. Purchase supplies: Tersteeg, quoted in Van der Mast and Dumas, eds., p. 10: Tersteeg wrote Van Gogh’s father in 1873 that Van Gogh had contact with “art lovers, buyers and painters.” Inside the store, his primary contact with painters would have been as customers for art supplies. With the possible exception of Mesdag, painters were not buying art in the gallery and, in any event, they would have dealt with Tersteeg, not Van Gogh, on such transaction. Furthermore, apprentices had no free time for socializing on the job.

Almost certainly met: Stolwijk, “An Art Dealer in the Making,” pp. 21-22: Stolwijk suggests the Pulchri Studio as another venue, other than the store, where Van Gogh may have met some of these painters. The Pulchri was a society founded in 1847 (see De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas , p. 46). Its founding members included some of the same artists who had shared the Bakhuyzen parlor with Anna Carbentus, artists such as Willem Roelofs who took lessons from Hendrikus van de Sande Bakhuyzen in 1840. Although he did not live in The Hague until 1887, Roelofs was one of the original founders of the Pulchri (De leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, p. 267). The original Pulchri Studio was located in the Hofje van Nieuwkoop on Princegracht, just south of the Carbentus residence, from 1861 to 1886 (ibid., p. 78). Meanwhile, at the home of Van Gogh’s maternal aunt Sophia Bemmel (Aunt “Fie,” wife of Anna Carbentus’s brother Arie), Van Gogh may have met Anton Mauve. During this same period Mauve was wooing one of Aunt Fie’s daughters, named “Jet” (Ariëtte [Jet] Sophia Jeanette Carbentus). The couple married in 1874. Jan Weissenbruch: BVG 104, 8/3/1877. Context: JLB 125, 8/3/1877: “I was also in [Jan Hendrik] Weissenbruch’s studio once, a couple of days before my first trip to London, and the recollection of what I saw there in the way of studies and paintings is still very clear, as is that of the man himself.” Soon to be dubbed: Stolwijk, “Un marchand avisé,” p. 20: The style was first described as “The Hague School” by the Dutch art critic Jacob van Santen Kolff in 1875.

“The Hague School”: Stolwijk, “An Art Dealer in the Making,” p. 21. Free Dutch art: Stolwijk, “Un marchand avisé,” p. 20. “The gray school”: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, p. 90. “Fragrant, warm gray”: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, quoting Gerard Bilders, a prominent Hague School artist, pp. 18, 19.

Dutch countryside: Stolwijk, “Un marchand avisé,” p. 20. Oosterbeek, west of Arnheim in the province of Gelderland, was known as the “Dutch Barbizon” (De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, pp. 56-60). “The virgin impression”: Théodore Rousseau, quoted in Rewald, p. 112. “New” Dutch painters: BVG 13, 1/1/1874. By mid-1873, Van Gogh had named Jacob Maris and Anton Mauve among the “painters I like very much” (JLB 11, 7/20/1873). Six months later, he also includes Matthijs Maris, Israëls, and Weissenbruch in a long list of artists he “finds beautiful”—although he might have intended to include other Hague School artists under the disclaimer appended to the list: “I’m sure I’ve left out some of the best new ones” (JLB 17, January 1874). Context: BVG 13, 1/1/1874: “But I might go on like that for I don’t know how long. Then there are the old masters, and I am sure I have forgotten some of the best modern ones.” JLB 17, January 1874: “But I could go on like this for I don’t know how long, and then come all the old ones, and I’m sure I’ve left out some of the best new ones.” French cousins: Stolwijk, “Un marchand avisé,” p. 19. As early as 1874, Van Gogh lists Barbizon painters Diaz, Rousseau, Troyon, Dupré, Corot, Huet, Jacque, and Daubigny among artists he admires: “How I’d like to talk to you about art again, but now we can only write to each other about it often; find things beautiful as much as you can, most people find too little beautiful” (JLB 17, January 1874; emphasis in original). Stolwijk makes the point that interest in the Barbizon painters among Dutch collectors really piggy-backed on the popularity of the Hague School painters. Moreover, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, “this combination of collecting good examples from the two different ‘Schools’ occurred in Great-Britain, the United States and Canada” (Stolwijk, “Un marchand avisé,” p. 19).

Camille Corot: BVG 4, 1/28/1873. Context: JLB 4, 1/28/1873: “The album whose title you gave me isn’t the one I meant, which contains only lithographs after Corot. Thanks anyway for taking the trouble.” Charles Jacque: BVG 241, 11/2/1882-11/3/1882. In a letter written a decade later, Van Gogh seems to indicate that he first saw Jacque (and perhaps other Barbizon painters) at his Uncle Cor’s store in Amsterdam, not at Goupil’s in The Hague. This may have been the same encounter Van Gogh was referring to in January 1873: “Last Sunday I was at Uncle Cor’s and had a very pleasant day there and, as you can well imagine, saw many beautiful things. As you know, Uncle has just been to Paris and has brought home splendid paintings and drawings.” (JLB 4, 1/28/1873.) And again in 1874: “You see things there [at Uncle Cor’s] that you never find at the gallery in The Hague” (JLB 21, 3/30/1874). Uncle Cor’s knowledge of the Barbizon painters was not exhaustive, however, and was soon outdistanced by Van Gogh’s. (See JLB 142, 3/3/1878.) Context: JLB 280, 11/5/1882: “While searching for an example, I think of old woodcuts by Jacque that I saw at least ten years ago at C.M.’s.” Musée imaginaire: Van der Mast and Dumas, eds., p. 149. Testing the market for them: Tralbaut, p. 37: Tralbaut lists one painting by Diaz that Goupil bought in 1869, a painting by Corot and one by Diaz bought in 1870, and five paintings by Diaz and one by Daubigny bought in 1871. The preponderance of works by Diaz suggests that some or all of those listed may have been his fête de champagne paintings designed to appeal to collectors by adding plump cherubs, naked women, and/or satyrs to the Barbizon landscape. Another decade: Stolwijk, “Un marchand avisé,” p. 18: According to Stolwijk: “Up to the late 1870’s the work of Barbizon painters like Alexandre-Gabriel Decamps, Narcisse Diaz de la Peña, Charles-François Daubigny and Charles Troyon, were only handled occasionally.” Stolwijk notes, however, that the Hague branch of Goupil had sold its first Barbizon painting “by accident” in 1864, a work by Charles Troyon.

Collectors in England and America: Fles, p. 75: “Mauve’s pictures were known and valued by the English and Americans before his fellow-country men had learned to appreciate them; his drawings and paintings found purchasers in London.” Stolwijk, “Un marchand avisé,” p. 22: “Especially foreign collectors were interested in the new Dutch painting ... Collectors were now willing to dig deep into their pockets for these exclusive art works.” Hague School paintings dominated: Stolwijk, “Un marchand avisé,” p. 22: “Goupil’s turnover now almost entirely depended on this highly successful marketing of the Hague School painting. ... The turnover of these [Hague School] works, handled by Goupil in the Hague, raised enormously. Finally, from the 1880’s onwards paintings and drawings by the Hague School painters almost completely dominated the Dutch art market.” According to Stolwijk, prices rose along with demand: “Due to the enormous popularity of the Hague School painting, the general price level of Dutch art, handled by Goupil, raised from 160 guilders in the 1860’s, via 375 guilders in the 1870’s up to circa 700 guilders in the 1890’s.” (ibid.) Introduction from Theo: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881: Vincent does not say this explicitly, but it is the import of the following passage. After thanking Theo for his “faithful help in this matter [i.e., the trip],” he writes: “De Bock was still very pleased with the drawings by Millet that he bought from you” (JLB 171, 8/26/1881). This clearly indicates prior contact between De Bock and Theo. In the late 1870s, when Theo was still working at Goupil in The Hague, De Bock was living there (Wester, in Van Bruggen, ed., p. 16). De Bock also apparently went to Paris and the Barbizon when Theo was in Paris. Although the date of his trip is unclear, Van Bruggen suggests that it was probably “at the end of 1880 or the beginning of 1881,” citing titles of two paintings exhibited in 1881, as well as the reference in Van Gogh’s letter (JLB 171, 8/26/1881). He suggests that De Bock probably bought the Millets from Theo on this Paris trip.

Whirlwind two days: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. According to JLB, Van Gogh’s trip took place from August 23-25 (JLB: Chronology 1881). Upon his return, he writes only, “I left here last Tuesday, now it’s Friday evening” (JLB 171, 8/26/1881). Astonishingly, because he stopped in Rotterdam on the outgoing trip (JLB 152, 6/19/1879) and because he left The Hague on Thursday morning in order to spend a day and a night in Dordrecht (JLB 149, 12/26/1878), all of the encounters he describes in The Hague must have happened in approximately thirty-six hours. Visited De Bock: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. Context: JLB 171, 8/26/1881: “It was a pleasure to make De Bock’s acquaintance, I was in his studio.” Met Willem Maris: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. Context: JLB 171, 8/26/1881: “I also saw Willem Maris at De Bock’s who has a beautiful sketch by him, a road in the winter with a little figure beneath an umbrella.” Eminence grise: Johannes Bosboom was the oldest of the artists primarily identified with The Hague School. He was seven years older than the other widely-recognized eminence of the school, Jozef Israëls. Bosboom: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. Van Gogh says that he saw Bosboom “by chance,” and that he just happened to have his studies with him and importuned the elderly artist to review them (JLB 171, 8/26/1881). This is the stuff of a very curious, awkward encounter, which may well have taken place at the exhibition Van Gogh reports seeing in Brussels (because of the sequence of thoughts in the following passage): “By chance Bosboom saw my studies and gave me some hints about them. I only wish I had more opportunity to receive such hints. Bosboom is one of those people who has the ability to impart knowledge to others and make things clear to them. There were three or four good drawings of his at the exhibition.” (ibid.) “Tips: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. The translation has been altered. Context: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881: “By chance Bosboom saw my studies and gave me some hints about them.” JLB 171, 8/26/1881: “By chance Bosboom saw my studies, said this and that about them ...” “I only wish”: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. Context: JLB 171, 8/26/1881: “I only wish I had more opportunity for him to help me.”

Critics applauded: Fles, p. 75: “[Mauve’s] drawings and paintings found purchasers in London even before they were finished, and the dealers were constantly demanding more.” “Nimbus of devout”: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, p. 97. “Poet-painter”: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, p. 97. “Genius”: “Enkele Buitenlandsche Kritieken over de Hollandsche Grootmeesters Jacob en Willem Maris, Mauve en Israëls,” n.p. “Magician”: “Enkele Buitenlandsche Kritieken over de Hollandsche Grootmeesters Jacob en Willem Maris, Mauve en Israëls,” n.p.: “Anton Mauve a genius in making the homeliest of scenes magical with light and air.”

In the short time: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. Context: JLB 171, 8/26/1881: “I spent an afternoon and part of an evening at Mauve’s and saw many beautiful things in his studio.” Mauve in Scheveningen: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. Van Gogh does not specify that he went to Mauve’s studio in Scheveningen, but it is established that Mauve spent the summers there and the “summer” season in Scheveningen went from July through September (JLB 171, 8/26/1881). It is unlikely that Mauve would have been moved into his winter studio by this time, even if that process had begun. “Many beautiful things”: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. “[I] saw many beautiful things in his studio. My own drawings interested Mauve more. He gave me a great many suggestions, which I’m glad of, and I’ve sort of arranged to pay him another visit fairly soon when I have some more studies. He showed me a whole batch of his studies and explained them to me—not sketches for drawings or designs for paintings but true study sheets, apparently insignificant.” (JLB 171, 8/26/1881; emphasis in original.) Although Mauve was known for hoarding his studies in case they might prove useful for a later painting, Vincent’s report here should be read in light of his constant effort to defend the importance of his own studies and deflect Theo’s pressure for him to move on from such “preliminary” works and produce finished (i.e., saleable) pictures. Context: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881: “I spent an afternoon and part of an evening with Mauve, and saw many beautiful things in his studio.” JLB 171, 8/26/1881: “I spent an afternoon and part of an evening at Mauve’s and saw many beautiful things in his studio.”

Admiration for Millet: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, p. 251. “A great many hints”: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. Among these “hints” was this: “He wants me to start painting” (JLB 171, 8/26/1881). A month later, he wrote, “Mauve says, ‘colour is also drawing’” (JLB 175, 10/12/1881-10/15/1881). Almost certainly, Mauve’s reference was to watercolors, not oil paints. Bonger translated the Dutch word “kleur” as “painting” but JLB translate it as “colour.” The most telling confirmation that Van Gogh was using the work “kleur” to refer to watercolors and not oil paints is that he did not immediately begin working in oils. One of Mauve’s arguments on behalf of watercolors was presumably that they were far more saleable than the pen drawings that Van Gogh had brought to show him (JLB 199, 1/8/1882 or 1/9/1882). A few months after his return from The Hague, Vincent wrote Theo: “And you know that I’m now struggling to make watercolours, and if I become adept at it they’ll become saleable” (ibid.). Context: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881: “He gave me a great many hints which I was glad to get, and I have arranged to come back to see him in a relatively short time when I have some new studies.” JLB 171, 8/26/1881: “He gave me a great many suggestions, which I’m glad of, and I’ve sort of arranged to pay him another visit fairly soon when I have some more studies.” Return in a few months: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881. Whether Mauve freely extended this invitation to return or did so under the pressure of Van Gogh’s supplications is an open question. If it had been the latter, Van Gogh probably would have phrased it that way, not in this intentionally obscure way. Context: JLB 171, 8/26/1881: “I’ve sort of arranged to pay him another visit fairly soon when I have some more studies.”

A sensitive, decorous man: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, pp. 94, 95: Mauve’s “health was poor,” his emotional equilibrium was often upset by sudden “attacks of melancholy,” and he was subject to fits of anger. In addition, his refined sensitivities could be easily jarred by loud noises, distracting activity, and other minor disturbances of “modern” life. Mauve had just begun work: Hugenholtz, n.p.: Mauve was well-known for his brilliant starts. “The starts were so impressive and I am always thankful to have had an opportunity to see them so often.” Painting of a fishing boat: BVG 166, 12/29/1881. Context: JLB 194, 12/29/1881: “Mauve himself is very busy with a large painting of a pink against the dunes being hauled by horses.” “Theo, what a great thing”: BVG 164, 12/21/1881. This quote comes from the previous month immediately after Van Gogh returned from his first prolonged (three week) visit to Mauve’s studio. Context: JLB 193, 12/23/1881: “Theo, what a great thing tone and colour are!”

Mauve made time for: BVG 214, 7/7/1882. Context: JLB 245, 7/6/1882-7/7/1882: “It was a Scheveningen woman knitting that I did at Mauve’s studio and in fact the best watercolour I had, largely because Mauve had added some touches and repeatedly came across to draw my attention to one point or another while I was working.” He pointed out Van Gogh’s mistakes: BVG 214, 7/7/1882. Context: JLB 245, 7/6/1882-7/7/1882: “Mauve had added some touches and repeatedly came across to draw my attention to one point or another while I was working.” Offered suggestions: BVG 171, 1/21/1882. Context: JLB 201, 1/21/1882: “With regard to the size of the drawings or the subjects, I’ll gladly listen to what Mr. T. or Mauve has to say about it.” Corrected details: BVG 184, 4/1/1882-4/15/1882: Van Gogh does not attribute this directly to Mauve, but the timing, only a few months after his brief tutorial with Mauve, suggests that he is evoking that experience. Context: JLB 214, 4/2/1882: “If a painter took you by the arm and said: Look, Theo, this is how you should draw that field, this is how the lines of the furrows run, for this reason or that they run like this and not otherwise, and must be brought into perspective like this. And that pollard willow being this big, the other one further on is by contrast that small, and that difference in size can be measured this way or that and—look! if you fling that down on paper then the broad outlines are immediately correct, and you have firm ground beneath your feet on which to continue.” (Emphasis added.)

Directly on Van Gogh’s sheet: BVG 214, 7/7/1882. In addition to the passage quoted in the text, there is additional evidence that Mauve demonstrated solutions to Van Gogh in this way. Referring to a watercolor sketch of a girl in traditional Scheveningen dress, Van Gogh wrote: “[It was] in fact the best watercolour I had, largely because Mauve had added some touches, and repeatedly came across to draw my attention to one point or another while I was working” (JLB 245, 7/6/1882-7/7/1882; emphasis added).

Van Heugten believes that Scheveningen Woman (F 871 JH 85, November-December, 1881, watercolor, 9.2 x 3.7 in., 23.5 x 9.5cm., The Van Gogh Museum, Amsterdam) is not the watercolor mentioned by Van Gogh because “there is no compelling evidence of two hands at work” (Van Heugten, pp. 99-100).

However, the small size of this work (Mauve encouraged him to work on a smaller scale) and the relative facility it demonstrates in the use of watercolor suggest that it may be Young Scheveningen Woman Knitting, (F 870 JH 84, December 1881, watercolor, 20 x 13.75 in., 50.8 x 35 cm., private collection), the sketch on p. 77 of this book, the one mentioned in JLB 245, 7/6/1882 and 7/7/1882. If so, Van Gogh may be considerably understating when he says that Mauve “added some touches.”

Scheveningen Woman Sewing (F 869 JH 83, December, 1881, watercolor, 18.9 x 13.8 in., 48 x 35 cm., P and N. de Boer Foundation: Amsterdam) is another watercolor that looks even further beyond Van Gogh’s capability at the time. Many months later, after his falling out with Mauve, Van Gogh appears to inadvertently admit that his mentor had a greater hand in these works than he originally indicated. Regarding some watercolors that Van Gogh executed at that time without Mauve’s assistance, he writes: “Supposing I had remained on good terms with Mauve, I believe that if I had done a watercolour like the small bench ... he would have given me tips that would have made it saleable and changed its final appearance. With many people’s watercolours or paintings it’s even the case that some painter or other does some work on them, sometimes transforming them completely.” (JLB 265, 9/17/1882 or 9/18/1882; emphasis added.)

He dispensed his advice: BVG 218, 7/21/1882. Van Gogh summarized Mauve’s practical approach to instruction. Context: JLB 249, 7/21/1882: “It isn’t the language of painters one ought to listen to but the language of nature. I can now understand, better than six months ago or more, why Mauve said: don’t talk to me about [Jules] Dupré, talk to me instead about the side of that ditch, or something like that.” “If he says to me”: BVG 164, 12/21/1881. Another example of Mauve’s thoughtful pedagogy: “In addition to a couple of small watercolours, I’ve just started a large one ... Naturally it doesn’t automatically go well and easily straightaway. Mauve himself says that I’ll ruin at least 10 drawings or so before I know how to handle the brush a little.” (JLB 230, 5/23/1882.) Van Gogh responded well to this kind of positive encouragement: “But it will lead to a brighter future, so I work on with as much cold-bloodedness as I can muster, and don’t let myself be deterred by my mistakes” (ibid.). Context: JLB 193, 12/23/1881: “But if he tells me, this or that isn’t good, then it’s because he’s saying at the same time ‘but try it this way or that way.’” Virtues of good materials: BVG 164, 12/21/1881. Context: JLB 193, 12/23/1881: “However, I’ve definitely promised M. that I’ll do my utmost to find a good studio, and now I must also use better paint and better paper.”

“Use the wrist”: Kerssemakers, p. 54: Van Gogh’s later friend, Anton Kerssemakers recalled: “[Vincent] always spoke about Anton Mauve with much respect, though he had been unable to get along with him for quite some time and had only worked with him briefly. According to his explanation, Mauve once commented that he used his fingers too much in painting, whereupon he [i.e., Vincent] had become angry and had snapped at Mauve, ‘What does it matter, even if I do it with my heels, as long as it is good and it works.’” Offered “lessons”: BVG 172, 1/22/1882. Context: BVG 172, 1/22/1882: “Yesterday I had a lesson from Mauve on drawing hands and faces so as to keep the colour transparent.” JLB 202, 1/22/1882: “Yesterday I had a lesson from Mauve on drawing hands and faces, on keeping the paint layer thin.” Draw hands and faces: BVG 172, 1/22/1882. Context: JLB 202, 1/22/1882: “Yesterday I had a lesson from Mauve on drawing hands and faces, on keeping the paint layer thin.” Kind of practical advice: BVG 164, 12/21/1881. Context: JLB 193, 12/23/1881: “And well, what I experienced with him was that he instructed and encouraged me in all manner of kind and practical ways.”

“Diabolical”: BVG 170, 1/12/1882-1/16/1882. Context: BVG 170, 1/12/1882-1/16/1882: “Puisque l’exécution d’une aquarelle à quelque chose de diabolique.” JLB 200, 1/14/1882: “Because there’s something diabolical about the execution of a watercolour.” A master watercolorist: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, p. 84: “Mauve, too, was a loved and admired watercolourist. His watercolours differ little from his paintings in subject matter, but the execution, even in his early years, is often freer and more daring.” In 1876, Mauve’s love of watercolor led him to establish (with Hendrik Willem Mesdag [1831-1915; Dutch artist] and Jacob Maris [1837-1899; Dutch artist]) the Hollandsche Teeken-Maatschappij (Dutch Drawing Society). (According to De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, the society’s first “committee” consisted of Mesdag, Maris, and Mauve [ibid., pp. 83-84]). According to Sillevis, the “founders” also included David Joseph Bles, Bernardus Blommers, Johannes Bosboom, Jozef Israëls, and Willem Maris (Sillevis, p. 22). Showed him how to draw: Sillevis, p. 18: “The works of Mauve, Israëls, Weissenbruch and Rochussen reveal little or no underdrawing in pencil or chalk. Watercolour was applied on paper with no preliminary study. Their virtuosity in this technique was greatly admired, particularly abroad.” “Mauve has shown me”: BVG 170, 1/12/1882-1/16/1882: There is no doubt Van Gogh is talking about watercolor. Indeed, the preceding sentence, often quoted, may also refer to “drawing” with watercolor. “Drawing is becoming more and more of a passion, and it’s just like a sailor’s passion for the sea” (JLB 200, 1/14/1882). Context: JLB 200, 1/14/1882: “Mauve has now shown me a new way to make something, namely watercolours.”

“I am getting to like”: BVG 171, 1/21/1882. Context: BVG 170, 1/12/1882-1/16/1882: “I have been working all the time now in watercolour, and I am getting to like it more and more. How I wish you were here, I have so many things to ask and tell you. Do you think you will come in the spring? Will you know some time in advance? What I have done now is far from good, but it is different and has more power and freshness, and is without body colour.” JLB 201, 1/21/1882: “I’ve been working all this time with watercolour only, and it’s giving me more pleasure every day. How much I’d like you to be here, I’d have so much to tell and to ask you. Will you come again in the spring? Won’t you know a little in advance? Now, what I’ve made still isn’t good and is far from being so, but it’s again something different and it’s somewhat stronger and livelier in colour, and without body-colour.”

He accused Mauve: BVG 173, 1/26/1882: In fact, Van Gogh did not share these accusations with Theo at the time. Instead, he constructed increasingly complex rationales for why Mauve was ignoring or mistreating him and advertised these to Theo. It is unclear to what extent these were purely for Theo’s consumption and to what extent Van Gogh allowed himself to believe them as well. But the later recollections of his bitter and betrayed feelings probably better suggest what was going on in his head and his heart, and probably some of the things that he was saying directly to Mauve when he got one of his increasingly rare opportunities to speak with him. Context: JLB 203, 1/26/1882: “It’s not exactly easy for me to get along with Mauve all the time, any more than is the reverse, because I think we’re a match for each other as regards nervous energy, and it’s a downright effort for him to give me directions, and no less for me to understand them and to attempt to put them into practice.” “Narrow-minded”: BVG 189, 4/15/1882-4/27/1882. Context: BVG 189, 4/15/1882-4/27/1882: “Mauve’s talk also became narrow-minded, if I may call it so, as it used to be broad-minded.” JLB 219, 4/21/1882: “The way Mauve talked also became just as narrow-minded, if I may put it like that, as previously broad-minded.” “Unfriendly”: BVG 189, 4/15/1882-4/27/1882. Context: BVG 189, 4/15/1882-4/27/1882: “Near the end of January, I think a fortnight after my arrival here, Mauve’s attitude toward me changed suddenly—became as unfriendly as it had been friendly before.” JLB 219, 4/21/1882: “At the end of January—about a fortnight after my arrival here, I think—Mauve’s attitude towards me suddenly changed very much—as unfriendly as he had been friendly.” “Moody and rather unkind”: BVG 189, 4/15/1882-4/27/1882. Context: BVG 189, 4/15/1882-4/27/1882: “Well, then he was very kind to me again—but though I still visited Mauve once in a while, Mauve was moody and rather unkind.” JLB 219, 4/21/1882: “At any rate, he was again very friendly to me—but although I still went to see Mauve, Mauve remained uneasy and rather unfriendly.”

“Exasperating”: BVG 173, 1/26/1882. Context: BVG 173, 1/26/1882: “It’s exasperating, for it’s no small difficulty.” JLB 203, 1/26/1882: “It’s enough to drive one to distraction, for it’s no small difficulty.” “Hopeless”: BVG 173, 1/26/1882. Context: BVG 173, 1/26/1882: “Now I have some hope myself, and I will work hard on them, but it is often hopeless enough, for when I try to work them up, they become too heavy.” JLB 203, 1/26/1882: “Well, I also have hope and I’ll work myself to the bone, but one is sometimes driven to desperation when one wants to work something up a bit more and it turns out thick.” Gave up trying: BVG 192, 5/3/1882-5/12/1882: Van Gogh continued to use watercolor as he had used it before his brief honeymoon with Mauve, for highlights and filling in drawings with color. But he did not resume any serious effort in watercolor until mid-July 1882. At that time, he says of his first efforts: “I did them to test whether now, after doing nothing but drawing for a time (around six months), I found watercolours easier” (JLB 250, 7/23/1882). Context: JLB 224, 5/7/1882: “The reason why I have put aside paintings and watercolors for a time is that Mauve’s desertion gave me a great shock.” “Don’t mention plaster”: BVG 189, 4/15/1882-4/27/1882. Context: JLB 219, 4/21/1882: “I then said to Mauve, old chap, don’t speak to me of plaster casts any more, because I can’t stand it.”

Mauve immediately banished: BVG 193, 5/14/1882. Van Gogh admits elsewhere that he was refused entrance to the studio in what must have been embarrassing scenes: “And a couple of times I was told he wasn’t at home, and anyway there was every sign of a decided coolness”(JLB 219, 4/21/1882). For obvious reasons, Van Gogh was never clear on the chronology of his banishment from Mauve’s life. The latter of the two passages suggests that there was a period of increasing estrangement before the episode with the plaster casts that resulted in the total banishment sometime around February 13.

In the contemporaneous letters, Vincent tried repeatedly to make excuses to Theo (and perhaps to himself) for Mauve’s alienation. At first, he talked about how busy Mauve was, then he insinuated that the cause was Mauve’s “ill health” (JLB 219, 4/21/1882). “I have a bit of bad news to tell you, namely that Mauve is in fact very ill again—the usual, of course. But there’s also a bit of good news: I can rest assured that it’s due to his illness that he’s been so unfriendly to me recently, and not because my work was going in the wrong direction.” (JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882.) Of course, this was misleading in several ways: Van Gogh knew that Mauve’s “unfriendliness” was a result of their escalating fight over drawing from plaster casts; and he did, in fact, think that Mauve believed his work was “going in the wrong direction,” as he later admits (JLB 219, 4/21/1882). The insinuation of Mauve’s illness (“the usual”) is probably a reference to the artist’s well-known problems with depression (see Keefe, p. 78).

This explanation for the breakup with Mauve has been taken up by various writers. While it may have been a compounding factor, Van Gogh’s defensiveness may well have been the key factor. Someone less sensitive would have simply withdrawn at the first signs of his teacher’s impatience or aggravation and waited for the storm of depression (if that’s what it was) to pass. Van Gogh could not do that. Other commentators, starting with Bonger, attribute Mauve’s hostility to Van Gogh to his affair with Sien. (See, for example: “The truth had finally been admitted. It was his relation with his model that had estranged Tersteeg and Mauve from him.” [Hulsker, Vincent and Theo, p. 121.]) They are probably conflating the early estrangement (as early as January) with the later discovery of the relationship with Sien, which, no doubt, further alienated Mauve and others. Sien probably did not become a regular feature of Van Gogh’s life until February (by Van Gogh’s telling, they met in late January [JLB 228, 5/16/1882]), although the model in Van Gogh’s studio when Mauve visited in January may have been her mother. But even if Sien was present in the studio this early in January, it was too early for imputations of a relationship to produce a complete break only two weeks later. Context: JLB 219, 4/21/1882: “… he wrote to me ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with you for two months.’ Since I broke the plaster casts.”

“Not to have anything”: BVG 193, 5/14/1882: According to Van Gogh, it was Mauve who wrote that he did not want to see or work with Van Gogh for two months. However, this distinction is offered about three months after the fact, soon after Van Gogh has made an attempt at rapprochement with Mauve, an attempt that Mauve rebuffed. Van Gogh may well have built the expiration into Mauve’s rejection in order to justify his subsequent effort to reestablish contact. The fact that Mauve rejected it suggests either that he never intended to reestablish contact (and the time limit was Van Gogh’s invention), or that additional grievances arose since the letter in February referred to here. Context: BVG 193, 5/14/1882: “But since I threw the plaster casts into the coalbin, he wrote me, ‘I won’t have anything to do with you for two months.’” JLB 228, 5/16/1882: “...but since he wrote to me, ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with you for two months.’ Since I broke the plaster casts.” (Emphasis added.)

Lasted barely a month: Van Gogh arrived in The Hague at Christmas 1881. By February 13, he has stopped describing any interaction with Mauve and he is back to drawing pen drawings (JLB 204, 2/13/1882). He tells Theo that he is no longer allowed to see Mauve at all (JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882). Not until several months later does he share some of the details of their estrangement (JLB 219, 4/21/1882), which really began in late January (JLB 203, 1/26/1882). Vincent himself puts the length of time before Mauve became “unfriendly” at about “a fortnight” (two weeks) after he arrived (JLB 219, 4/21/1882).

He did not need friends: BVG 218, 7/21/1882. Context: JLB 249, 7/21/1882: “I’ve had very little conversation with painters lately. I felt none the worse for that.” Artists as tedious: BVG 241, 11/2/1882-11/3/1882. Context: JLB 280, 11/5/1882: “Equally, I was struck by the fact that when one talks to painters, in most cases, by far, the conversation is not interesting.” (Emphasis in original.) Lazy: BVG R16, 10/31/1882: Laziness is the thrust of this accusation. The final phrase is a slur on Hague artists who disdain illustrators like Gavarni. Context: JLB 276, 10/29/1882: “When one reads in the book on Gavarni, about his drawings, that ‘he knocked off up to six a day,’ and thinks of the enormous productivity of most of the men who make those footling illustrations ... Having something of that fire in oneself and continuing to stoke it is better in my view than the pedantry of those artists who consider it beneath them to look at them.” “Inveterate liars”: BVG 251, 12/3/1882-12/5/1882. Context: BVG 251, 12/3/1882-12/5/1882: “I do not mean to say that there are none, but you feel what I mean, and know as well as I how many painters are inveterate liars.” JLB 291, 12/4/1882-12/9/1882: “I’m not saying that there are none, but you yourself feel what I mean, and know as well as I how a host of people who paint are enormous liars.”

Visit to Weissenbruch: BVG 175, 2/13/1882. According to Van Gogh, his visit to Weissenbruch’s attic studio, responded to a visit from the older artist to Van Gogh’s studio in early February (JLB 204, 2/13/1882). Curiously, Van Gogh reports this visit without providing a single detail. Only later, when he visits Weissenbruch, does he offer an explanation for it. “He [Weissenbruch] then told me that the cause of his visit to me had actually been Mauve, who was doubtful about me and had sent him to see me to have Weissenbruch’s opinion about my work.” This, of course, sets up Van Gogh’s elaborate recounting of Weissenbruch’s compliments (JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882). Did Weissenbruch not express enthusiasm when he visited Van Gogh’s studio? If so, why did Vincent not relay his support to Theo at the time? It is possible that Weissenbruch came to Van Gogh’s apartment bearing formal word of Mauve’s banishment, which would explain why Van Gogh provides no further elaboration at the time of the visit (Weissenbruch might not have looked at Van Gogh’s work at all). It would have been natural then for Weissenbruch, having no personal reason to be unsympathetic, to invite Van Gogh to his studio if he had questions, which Van Gogh did almost immediately thereafter, and Van Gogh merely moved this invitation to their next encounter. The rationale for Mauve’s withdrawal which Van Gogh puts in Weissenbruch’s mouth (“Mauve is ill or too busy with his large painting”) is likely a fiction conceived by Vincent to help hide from Theo the truth about his falling-out with Mauve (JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882). This scenario is, of course, conjectural, but it fits the facts more comfortably than Van Gogh’s version. Context: JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882: “I already wrote to you in a previous letter that I’d had a visit from Weissenbruch.” Whom Van Gogh had met: BVG 104, 8/3/1877: In 1877, Vincent wrote Theo about a visit he had made to Weissenbruch’s studio sometime around May 1873. Context: JLB 125, 8/3/1877: “I was also in Weissenbruch’s studio once, a couple of days before my first trip to London, and the recollection of what I saw there in the way of studies and paintings is still very clear, as is that of the man himself.”

Affable: BVG 195, 5/1/1882: Van Gogh cites a telling example of Weissenbruch’s easy-going manner. After complaining that other artists in The Hague criticize the technique of his pen drawings, Van Gogh writes: “Weissenbruch alone said, when I told him that I see the things as pen drawings—then you must draw with the pen” (JLB 222, 5/1/1882; emphasis in original). This suggests one reason Van Gogh seems to have liked Weissenbruch more than the others: He did not put up a fight. Context: JLB 222, 5/1/1882: “Weissenbruch alone said, when I told him that I see the things as pen drawings—then you must draw with the pen.” (Emphasis in original.) 240. Elderly eccentric: Van der Mast and Dumas, eds., p. 161: Weissenbruch was fifty-seven at the time Van Gogh visited his studio. The authors refer to Weissenbruch’s “unconventional” behavior: both his agoraphobia, which meant he seldom ventured out, and his senior-privilege iconoclasm: “Weissenbruch was an unconventional figure, who said what came into his mind, and who did not take the slightest notice of the self-importance of the Pulchri board” (ibid., p. 99). This unusual frankness is evident in the passages in which Van Gogh quotes Weissenbruch.

Encouragement to mitigate the pain: BVG 175, 2/13/1882: In addition to supportive comments about his art, Van Gogh reports Weissenbruch’s reassurances about Mauve’s continuing support for him. The reliability of Van Gogh’s account of his conversation with Weissenbruch is thrown into doubt by the details about Van Gogh’s split with his teacher that emerge later. Van Gogh himself later characterizes the alienation between him and Mauve that began in February as a “forsaking” (JLB 224, 5/7/1882). It is possible, but unlikely, that Weissenbruch was not made aware of the bitter antagonism that had already developed between Mauve and Van Gogh by the time he visited Van Gogh’s apartment in early February. Context: JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882: “I now have permission, so long as Mauve is ill or too busy with his large painting, to go to Weissenbruch if I need to know something, and W. told me that in no way should I be worried about the change in M.’s mood.”

“Confoundedly well”: BVG 175, 2/13/1882. Van Gogh reports another compliment Weissenbruch paid him: “when Mauve said there was a painter in you, Tersteeg said no, and Mauve took your side against Tersteeg, and I was there, and if it happens again, I too will take your side, now that I’ve seen your work” (JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882). Van Gogh has almost certainly inflated all of this in the reporting. Even if accepted as accurate, these “compliments” are less than they seem. Without context, “damned well” is not really a fathomable qualitative judgment and it may be significant that Van Gogh uses the same expression, in his own voice, nine months later to describe a character in Pot-Bouille (Pot Luck) that Zola has “portrayed with devilish skill” (JLB 286, 11/24/1882). Similarly, Weissenbruch’s reported statement to Mauve that “I’d be able to work from [Vincent’s] studies,” begs the question of their quality, especially coming from an artist not known for his figure drawing. In a transparent bid to defend his favored pen drawings from Tersteeg’s attacks, Van Gogh adds: “I also asked W. what he thought of my pen drawings. Those are your best, he said.” (JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882.) Here again, the comment, even if reported accurately, avoids comparing Van Gogh’s work to any normative standards of facility. Context: BVG 175, 2/13/1882: “And Weissenbruch then told Mauve, He draws confoundedly well, I could work from his studies myself.” JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882: “And Weissenbruch then said to Mauve, ‘he draws damned well, I’d be able to work from his studies.’”

“I think it a great”: BVG 175, 2/13/1882. Context: BVG 175, 2/13/1882: “I think it a great privilege to visit such clever people as Weissenbruch occasionally, especially when they take the trouble, as Weissenbruch did this morning, for instance, to show me a drawing they are working on but which is not yet completed, and explain how they are going to finish it.” JLB 209, 3/6/1882-3/9/1882: “I consider it a great privilege to visit such clever people as W. once in a while, especially when they take the trouble—as W. did this morning, for instance—to take a drawing they’re working on but haven’t finished yet and to explain how they set about doing it. Never reported another trip: BVG 195, 5/1/1882. There is only slender, indirect evidence of any further contact between Van Gogh and Weissenbruch. At the beginning of May, Van Gogh reports that Weissenbruch “saw the large rather than the small Sorrow, and he said things about it that pleased me” (JLB 222, 5/1/1882). Since “Sorrow” is dated sometime in April, this suggests at least one additional contact since February. That inference is supported by Van Gogh’s report in the same letter which describes Weissenbruch’s use of materials: “One can do wonderful things with charcoal that has been soaked in oil, I’ve seen this from Weissenbruch” (ibid.). The next mention of Weissenbruch comes a month later when Van Gogh is defending the “harsh” of his drawings: “Weissenbruch, for example, wouldn’t find these two drawings disagreeable or dull” (JLB 235, 6/3/1882). This does not necessarily imply any additional contact, however. After June, Weissenbruch is not mentioned, even in fond memory, until more than a year later: “Weissenbruch said something similar to me last year—you carry on quietly, and when you’re old you’ll look back calmly on your earliest studies”(JLB 379, 8/23/1883-8/29/1883). Context: JLB 222, 5/1/1882: “He, namely Weiss., saw the large rather than the small Sorrow, and he said things about it that pleased me.”

Joint late-night forays: BVG 178, 3/3/1882: Van Gogh twice mentions late night trips to the Geest, an area of brothels and bars that was familiar to him from his previous stay in The Hague. Van Gogh offers various cover stories for these nocturnal sorties. Later, he refers to a “little drawing that I’d sketched once with Breitner, parading around at midnight” (JLB 211, 3/11/1882). But the areas where Van Gogh was “parading” were not well lit and sketching in the street would have been virtually impossible, even for Van Gogh. It may be that these stories were offered with a wink, for Theo certainly knew of the character of the Geest and of Vincent’s fondness for brothels. More than a year later, looking back on his brief friendship with Breitner, Van Gogh describes these expeditions somewhat less circumspectly as going out “in the city itself, to look for figures and nice scenes” (JLB 361, 7/11/1883). Context: JLB 207, 3/3/1882: “Yesterday evening I went out with him to look for figure types in the street in order to study them later in the studio with a model.”

Into the Geest: BVG R8, 5/28/1882. In a letter to Van Rappard (with whom brothels and prostitutes were subjects of unflagging interest), Van Gogh describes the Geest as “the Whitechapel of The Hague” (JLB 232, 5/28/1882). Whitechapel was one of London’s most impoverished, crowded, and crime-ridden neighborhoods, where prostitutes “lined the streets” (Inwood, p. 602). Jack the Ripper found his victims there (Ackroyd, p. 270). Upstanding citizens came to such districts at night for one reason only. Van Gogh refers to the similarity of the Geest’s “alleys and courts” to Whitechapel’s, and Pollock emphasizes this architectural relationship (“a warren of narrow streets, alleys and courtyards. ... characteristic small houses whose ground floors served as shops and workshops”), but Van Gogh and Breitner did not come to the Geest at night to admire the picturesque architecture (Pollock, p. 332). Context: JLB 232, 5/28/1882: “However, if you don’t know ‘Geest,’ ‘Slijkeinde’ &c., namely the Whitechapel of The Hague with all its alleys and courtyards.”

Expelled from art school: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, pp. 105, 106. Breitner was dismissed in 1880 from the Hague Academy for what Leeuw calls “misbehavior.” A Hague School iconoclast: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, p. 106: Later the same year (1882), Breitner was refused admission to the Hague Drawing Society. According to De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, Willem Maris told Breitner that his application for admission to the Haagse Teeken-Maatschappij had been “vetoed by Mauve and Israëls.” Van der Mast and Dumas report this opposition as fact and speculates that their hostility “maybe also because Breitner was a student of Charles Rochussen, who belonged to the conservative camp, and who was an opponent of the Hague School” (Van der Mast and Dumas, eds., p. 158). Willem Maris: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, pp. 105, 106: Breitner worked in Maris’s studio for a year after his dismissal from the Hague Academy in 1880. The powerful Mesdag: De Leeuw, Sillevis, and Dumas, pp. 105, 106: “Mesdag in particular recognized Breitner’s qualities and lost no time in securing his assistance on his Panorama. ... At around this time Mesdag also purchased Reconnoitering in the Dunes, a picture of a mounted hussar.”

Within the first week or two: BVG 174, 2/13/1882: Van Gogh first reports the relationship with Breitner on February 13. It must have begun sometime after his previous letter on January 26 (JLB 203, 1/26/1882), or surely Van Gogh would have mentioned it, given that JLB 203, 1/26/1882 was a long letter and that Van Gogh used it to convince Theo that his career was on a firm footing, an argument that the relationship with Breitner would have bolstered. The two certainly could have met previously, although Breitner is not mentioned in any earlier letter. Context: JLB 204, 2/13/1882: “At the moment I quite often go to draw with Breitner, a young painter who’s acquainted with Rochussen as I am with Mauve.” Multiple sketching trips: BVG 174, 2/13/1882. Van Gogh doesn’t say how many sketching trips he and Breitner made in the first weeks of their relationship, but he says, “we often draw types together in the soup kitchen or the waiting room &c.” (JLB 204, 2/13/1882; emphasis added). Context: JLB 204, 2/13/1882: “He draws very skillfully and very differently from me, and we often draw types together in the soup kitchen or the waiting room &c.”

Exchanged several studio visits: BVG 174, 2/13/1882: Van Gogh makes it sound like there had been multiple studio visits each way in the first week or two. This is probably wishful exaggeration, as Vincent was always eager to prove to Theo that he was engaging his fellow artists. Breitner had a studio at Siebenhaar’s on the Juffrouw Idastraat, a street in the area of the Geest in the Jewish Quarter (Van der Mast and Dumas, eds., p. 156). (See also: Pollock and Chong, p. 332, plate 29.) Van Gogh says that Breitner had “the studio that Apol used to have.” The reference is to Lodewijk Franciscus Hendrik Apol. Context: JLB 204, 2/13/1882: “He sometimes comes to my studio to look at woodcuts, and I go to see the ones he has as well.”

Vincent eagerly followed: BVG 174, 2/13/1882. Both the eagerness and the following are implied in Van Gogh’s report: “I quite often go to draw with Breitner, ... We often draw types together in the soup kitchen or the waiting room &c.” (JLB 204, 2/13/1882.) Pollock and Chong agree with the inference as to who was doing the leading and who was following: “It was the latter [Breitner] who took van Gogh on Zolaesque sketching trips at night around the slum districts of The Hague” (Pollock and Chong, pp. 42-43). It is true that Van Gogh reports “I quite often go to sketch in the soup kitchen or the 3rd-class waiting room or such places” in mid-January (JLB 200, 1/14/1882), but, as noted in the text, these trips seem to have been intended only to recruit models (probably their original purpose) and to look for “subjects” for his figures studies—i.e., interesting “characters” of which he would do quick sketches and then, back in the studio, pose models in the same positions and draw them with the intense, prolonged attention that he required (JLB 207, 3/3/1882). The idea of going to these places to sketch the places themselves, as urban “scenes” comparable to Millet’s agrarian scenes, seems to have originated with Breitner. Context: JLB 204, 2/13/1882: “At the moment I quite often go to draw with Breitner, a young painter who’s acquainted with Rochussen as I am with Mauve.”

Soup kitchens: BVG 174, 2/13/1882. Context: JLB 204, 2/13/1882: “He draws very skillfully and very differently from me, and we often draw types together in the soup kitchen or the waiting room &c.” Train stations waiting rooms: BVG 174, 2/13/1882. Context: JLB 204, 2/13/1882: “He draws very skillfully and very differently from me, and we often draw types together in the soup kitchen or the waiting room &c.” Peat markets: BVG 181, 3/11/1882. Context: JLB 211, 3/11/1882: “At first he said nothing—until we came to a little drawing that I’d sketched once with Breitner, parading around at midnight—namely Paddemoes (that Jewish quarter near the Nieuwe Kerk), seen from Turfmarkt.”

A way to find new subjects: BVG 178, 3/3/1882. Van Gogh had already been to some of these places for this purpose, as well as to recruit models (JLB 200, 1/14/1882). He may have introduced Breitner to some of them. More than a year later, Van Gogh describes these expeditions in a way that suggests he always saw them as primarily research trips for his first love, figure drawing, rather than sketching trips in search of urban subjects: “When I was first here—he [Breitner] was very pleasant to go walking with. I mean to go out together not in the country but in the city itself, to look for figures and nice scenes.” (JLB 361, 7/11/1883.) Context: JLB 207, 3/3/1882: “Yesterday evening I went out with him to look for figure types in the street in order to study them later in the studio with a model.” Soon he joined Breitner: Van der Mast and Dumas, eds., p. 156: In addition to a few of Van Gogh’s surviving works from this period, evidence of Van Gogh following Breitner’s lead on these images is Breitner’s later recollection that Van Gogh sketched next to him in some of the places they visited together—causing an unwelcome stir. “According to later stories of Breitner’s, even there Van Gogh managed to incur the people’s wrath. Breitner discreetly made small sketches in a modest little sketchbook, but Van Gogh showed up with large sheets, and sat there vehemently scratching with a carpenter’s pencil, through which he caused such a stir that he was chased away.” (ibid.)

Bakery storefront: Bakery, F 914 JH 112, early March, 1882, pen, pencil, 8 x 13.1 in., 20.5 x 33.5 cm., The Hague, Gemeentemuseum. Chaotic road excavation: Torn-Up Street with Diggers, F 930a JH 131, April, 1882, pen, pencil, 16.9 x 24.8 in., 43 x 63 cm., Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett. Hulsker believes this drawing or the rough related sketch (Diggers in Torn-Up Street, F None JH 132) included in JLB 220, 4/23/1882, date from the second half of April (Hulsker, The New Complete Van Gogh, p. 44). But from the complete dissociation of the figures and the egregious lapses of proportion, this drawing would seem to date from earlier in Van Gogh’s oeuvre. The woman in a shawl in the background of Torn-Up Street with Diggers (F930a JH131) appears in drawings that are dated as early as late February (JLB 207, 3/3/1882). Van Gogh probably included a page from his sketchbook that he had drawn some time earlier than the date of the letter. Van Gogh himself provides the motivation for doing so: “I’m sending it to show you that my sketchbook proves that I try to capture things first-hand” (JLB 220, 4/23/1882). Hulsker suggests that Van Gogh made this remark in response to criticism from Tersteeg (Hulsker, The New Complete Van Gogh, p. 44).

Lonely sidewalk: Old Street (The Paddemoes), F 918 JH 111, early March, 1882, pen, pencil, 9.8 x 12.2 in., 25 x 31 cm., Otterlo, Kröller-Müller Museum. According to Hulsker, this is an image of an old street in the Paddemoes, which Van Gogh describes as “that Jewish quarter near the New Church” (Hulsker, The New Complete Van Gogh, p. 35). It is not clear if this is the exact image that Van Gogh describes in his letter (“a little drawing that I’d sketched once with Breitner”), about which he says “Jules Bakhuyzen had also looked at the thing and recognized the spot immediately” (JLB 211, 3/11/1882). The latter is the same image that caught his Uncle Cor’s attention when he visited Van Gogh’s apartment in early March (JLB 210, 3/11/1882).

Breitner fell ill: BVG 184, 4/1/1882-4/15/1882. Context: JLB 214, 4/2/1882: “Breitner’s in hospital, I visit him quite often to bring him books or drawing materials.” No obligation to return the favor: BVG 239, 10/29/1882. Context: JLB 277, 10/29/1882: “I haven’t seen anything at all of the latter [Breitner] since I visited him in hospital when he was ill.” Did not speak again for a year: BVG 299, 7/11/1883: Breitner walked back into Van Gogh’s life unexpectedly in July 1883. Context: JLB 361, 7/11/1883: “Breitner, whom I didn’t in the least expect because he had apparently broken off contact completely some time ago, turned up yesterday.”

“Start with a deep color”: BVG 371, 6/1/1884-6/15/1884: Assuming he did not invent it, the circumstances under which Van Gogh heard this advice of Israëls’s is not clear. He introduces it by saying only: “at the end of my time in The Hague, I indirectly heard things that Israëls had said” (JLB 450, June 1884). Van Gogh would not have had direct access to the Hague School éminence gris, who turned sixty in 1884, but most likely heard it from his friend Herman van der Weele, whom he advertised to Van Rappard as an acquaintance of Israëls (JLB 332, 3/21/1883). Because he says he heard it on his “end of my time” visit to The Hague, which was in December 1883, it is possible that he heard it from Van Rappard, although it is surprising he would not attribute it to Van Rappard in that case. Context: BVG 371, 6/1/1884-6/15/1884: “And that book frequently deals with the same questions which have greatly preoccupied me of late, and which, in fact, I am continually thinking of, especially because when I was last in The Hague I heard things Israëls had said about starting with a deep colour scheme, thus making even relatively dark colours seem light.” JLB 450, June 1884: “And in different places in that book I again found the same questions dealt with that have preoccupied me very much recently, and about which I actually think continually, specifically since, at the end of my time in The Hague, I indirectly heard things that Israëls had said about starting in a low register and making colours that are still relatively dark appear light.”

“The city looked like a painting”: BVG 96, 5/21/1877-5/22/1877; JLB 115, 5/21/1877, 5/22/1877. “It’s rainy today, and a long walk along Buitenkant to the Noorderkerk. There, by the Schreijerstoren, where one has a view of the IJ, the city looked like a painting by J. Maris” (JLB 115, 5/21/1877, 5/22/1877). “Splendid things”: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881; JLB 171, 8/26/1881. “J. Maris had splendid things in the exhibition, including two girls in white by a piano, and a mill in the snow” (JLB 171, 8/26/1881). “A picture by”: BVG 130, 6/1/1879. Van Gogh makes this comment in the context of a discussion of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, so he is not using “nature” in the sense of landscape, but in a more embracing sense. Immediately following the line quoted in the text, he writes: “… in Uncle Tom’s cabin in particular, things have been put in a new light by the artist, ... It’s so subtly felt, it’s so well worked out, it’s so masterly. It was written with so much love, so much seriousness and so faithful to the truth and with knowledge of the subject. It’s so humble and simple but at the same time so truly sublime, so noble and so distinguished.” (JLB 152, 6/19/1879.) Context: JLB 152, 6/19/1879: “A painting by Mauve or Maris or Israëls speaks more and more clearly than nature itself.”

Notes for the Plates

It was a Scheveningen woman: BVG 214, 7/7/1882 | JLB 245, 7/6/1882-7/7/1882. When I was last in The Hague: BVG 371, 6/1/1884-6/15/1884 | JLB 450, mid-June 1884. Those nags: BVG 181, 3/11/1882 | JLB 211, 3/11/1882. When I went to see M.: BVG 164, 12/21/1881 | JLB 193, 12/23/1881. Mauve has now shown me: BVG 170, 1/12/1882-1/16/1882 | JLB 200, 1/14/1882. What a splendid thing: BVG 163, 12/18/1881 | JLB 192, 12/1/1881. I spent an afternoon: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881 | JLB 171, 8/26/1881. Weissenbruch: BVG 592, 5/22/1889 | JLB 776, 5/23/1889. I’ve seen quite a few paintings: BVG 57, 3/25/1876 | JLB 72, 3/23/1876. J. Maris had splendid things: BVG 149, 8/1/1881-9/30/1881 | JLB 171, 8/26/1881. At the moment: BVG 174, 2/13/1882 | JLB 204, 2/13/1882. If people hadn’t made Thijs Maris too wretched: BVG 410, 6/1/1885 | JLB 506, 6/2/1885. It’s rainy today: BVG 96, 5/21/1877-5/22/1877 | JLB 115, 5/21/1877, 5/22/1877. Some time ago I saw a painting: BVG 24, 4/6/1875 | JLB 31, 4/6/1875.