3. Theo had had
Joseph Roulin (
F 433 / JH 1524 ) in his possession since August 1888;
see letter 660. The provenance of
Joseph Roulin (
F 436 / JH 1675 ) can also be traced to Theo; see
Account book 2002, p. 173. The earliest provenance information on the other four portraits of
Roulin (
F 432 / JH 1522 ,
F 434 / JH 1647 ,
F 435 / JH 1674 and
F 439 / JH 1673) is lacking, so it cannot be ascertained whether more of them ended up with Theo. From
letter 775 it emerges that Joseph Roulin had at least one portrait in his possession, though which of the above-mentioned it was cannot be said with certainty either. It could not have been the large
Joseph Roulin (
F 432 / JH 1522 ) that Van Gogh had withheld from the August consignment (
see letter 660) because he used that to make three more portraits of Roulin. See cat. Otterlo 2003, p. 267. Roulin may have received this painting later. It came into the possession of Cornelis Hoogendijk, who probably acquired it from Vollard. In 1900 Vollard bought eight Van Goghs from Roulin (Paris, Musée d'Orsay, Documentation, Archives Vollard). The other three portraits might also have been acquired from Vollard, and could therefore have come from Roulin. The first known owner of F 434 and F 435 was Maurice Fabre, and of F 439 Emile Schuffenecker, both customers of Vollard. Feilchenfeldt assumes that F 432 stayed in Arles and was sold by
Joseph Ginoux to Vollard. See Feilchenfeldt 2005, pp. 290, 300. Cat. Otterlo 2003, p. 268, thinks it quite possible that Van Gogh gave Roulin F 435, the only signed portrait, and intended F 439 for his wife, Augustine.