1. Theo is mistaken; it must be 15 June 1890 (see Date).
2. Van Gogh had placed this order for paint in letter 887.
3. This Dutchman was Anton Hirschig; cf. letter 902, l. 54.
4. This refers to Théophile de Bock.
5. For Lauzet’s publication Adolphe Monticelli, see letter 825, n. 7.
6. The painters of the Barbizon School, among others, had worked in the artists’ village of Fontainebleau.
7. Strictly speaking, Theo could be referring here to either Lauzet or Gauguin, to whom the rest of the paragraph refers. Vincent assumed that Theo was talking about Lauzet (cf. RM23, ll. 57-59). We think it most likely that ‘Il’ refers to Gauguin.
8. If ‘did in Arles’ (l. 27) is to be taken literally, Theo is referring to Marie Ginoux (‘The Arlésienne’) (F 489 / JH 1625 ). However, during this period the correspondence constantly refers to the second series of Arlésiennes that Van Gogh painted in Saint-Rémy. Assuming that Theo meant Gauguin when he wrote ‘Il’ (see n. 7), this must refer to the portrait Gauguin received: Marie Ginoux (‘The Arlésienne’) (F 542 / JH 1894 ). Cf. also letter 884, n. 2.
9. Theo means Madagascar; see n. 11 below.
10. This ‘inventor’ was a certain Charlopin. The ‘payment’ mentioned by Theo, on which Gauguin’s project supposedly depended, was the money that Charlopin was meant to receive for an invention he had sold. Gauguin wanted to sell him 38 paintings and 5 ceramic pieces for 5,000 francs, hoping in this way to fund his voyage to the tropics. This emerges from a lost letter from Gauguin to Theo of 30 or 31 May 1890 (quoted in part in Gauguin lettres 1983, p. 183, n. 3). Gauguin’s plan came to nothing.
11. This was Gauguin’s letter 884, in which he wrote about his impending departure for Brittany and his plans to go to Madagascar.
12. When he returned to Paris at the beginning of February 1890, Gauguin moved in with Emile Schuffenecker, 12 rue Durand-Claye. See exhib. cat. Washington 1988, p. 48.