Medium: Oil on canvas
Size: 92 x 71 cm/36.2 x 28 in
Jean de Cambolas, 1692-1747[i] (his label on the reverse of both canvases);[ii] Jean de Buisson,[iii] dit Comte de Bournazel (1736-1803) by the year of their exhibition in 1773; private collection, France.
[i] Jean de Cambolas had begun collecting in the 1730s and made a number of acquisitions in the sale of the contents of the splendid hôtel d’Ulmo in 1732 (built originally between 1526 and 1529 by a wealthy magistrate Jean d’Ulmo, who after being dismissed from his offices for corruption and his property confiscated by the crown, was hanged in 1549). It was acquired in 1542 by Pantaléon de Jaulbert who died in 1547. In the eighteenth century it was purchased soon after the 1732 sale by M. de Resseguier, grandfather of the poet Jules Rességuier (1788-1862), who was born there; see note 8 below.
[ii] The Tournier Peasant Woman was most probably sold following the death of Jean de Cambolas in 1747, his son then seven year old son François (1747-1820, a staunch royalist created Marquis de Palarin by Louis XVIII in exile in Verona in 1795), inherited the residue of his father’s collection. This was for the most part a relatively modest group of mainly school paintings and works by lesser artists with just a few important names to which a few contemporary works were added. François de Cambolas lent works from his father’s collection to the Toulouse Salon in 1752 (two works), 1773 (nine, including the two exhibited in 1752 although the St Jerome first shown in 1752 was by this date reattributed from Roman school to Guercino), 1779 (ten works, all of them quite minor, by contemporary Toulouse painters) and 1780 (one contemporary work). The Comte de Bournazel was moderator of the 1769, 1770 and 1775 Toulouse Salons and a commissioner for the 1768, 1772, 1773 and 1774 Salons, so responsible for the selection of the works to be exhibited. In 1751 Bournazel’s painting by Raoux of a young woman reading a letter, now in the Louvre, was first exhibited (as no. 32, owned by Bournazel’s father-in-law M. de Bonrepos), in 1753 (as no. 257, again as owned by M. de Bonrepos) and then in 1767 (as no. 37, by which time it had been inherited by M. de Bournazel). In 1772 Bournazel lent a large group of painting, drawings and miniatures including a pastel by Greuze and two paintings by Santerre under twenty-four numbers; in 1773 along with the two Tourniers of peasant women he lent two paintings by Gazard, of whom little is known; in 1775 he lent six paintings under five numbers including the Judith with the Head of Holoferness by Tournier (incorrectly listed as having been owned by the Président de Sapte, son of the collector Jean-Etienne Bernard) as well as a portrait of his mother-in-law, Mme de Riquet de Bonrepos as Diana, by Rivalz (earlier exhibited as the property of M. de Bonrepos in 1751), two still lifes by Nicolas de Largillière and two gouaches in a separate category.
[iii] Jean de Cambolas and Jean de Buisson were connected through two marital alliances – Jean de Cambolas’s paternal grandmother Anne de Guillemin was the aunt of Marie de Guillemin, married to Gilles-François de Maupeou d’Ableiges, Comte d’Ableiges, whose daughter Marie Catherine Charlotte Maupeou d’Ableiges (1718-1773) married (Jean-Gabriel-Amable) Alexandre de Riquet, Baron de Monrepos. The latter’s eldest daughter Catherine-Petronille-Victoire de Riquet de Bonrepos married as her second husband, 11 August 1760, Jean de Buisson, Comte de Bournazel, after the death of her first husband and cousin, Antoine-Jean de Riquet de Caraman. Alexandre left only daughters and the second, Dorothée, had descendants by her second husband, Emanuel de Cambon so the Riquet estate of Bonrepos was inherited by their son, Jean, Comte de Cambon, who died in 1837 when the estate was split up. There was a further connection as Jean de Cambolas’ aunt, Claire de Cambolas, was the first wife of Jean-Matthias de Riquet de Bonrepos (1638-1714) who, by his third wife, was the father of Alexandre de Riquet de Bonrepos. In 1683 Jean-Mathias de Riquet had been forced to sell a substantial portion of his ownership of the Midi canal to Bernard Reich’s son, Pierre-Louis but, after the death of the latter, Jean-Mathias acquired the splendid hôtel de Pennautier, at 16 Rue Vélane, in Toulouse (the contract was signed on 11 April 1712), build by Bernard Reich’s eldest son Henri (died 1695) with its contents. The hôtel was sold at the death of Alexandre Riquet de Bonrepos in 1773 and was acquired after the Restoration by the Comte de Villèle, mayor of Toulouse 1815-1818 and prime minister of France under Louis XVIII and Charles X. This hôtel certainly included several works by Tournier, including some of those later exhibited at the Toulouse Salon and owned by Jean-Mathias’ son Alexandre. These Tournier paintings would have probably originally been acquired from the artist by Bernard Reich but we cannot be certain whether they included the paintings of Peasant Women with Fruit.
Robert Mesuret, “L’œuvre peint de Nicolas Tournier : Essai de catalogue,” Gazette de Beaux-Arts, 1957, no. 45, p. 341; Robert Mesuret, Les Expositions de l’Académie Royale de Toulouse de 1751 à 1791, livrets publiés et annotés, Toulouse, Editions Espic, 1972 , pp. 133, 238, Exhibition catalogue, ed. Alex Héremy, Nicolas Tournier 1590 – 1639: Un peintre caravagesque, Musée des Augustins, Musee des Beaux-Arts de Toulouse, Paris, 2001, listed under ‘Works mentioned in other sourses’ on p. 176 as “Deux Paysannes qui portent des fruits ; Preté par le comte de Bournazel en 1773, no 66-67;” Nicolas Tournier et la peinture caravagesque en Italie, en France et en Espagne, published by the University of Toulouse – Le Mirail, on the occasion of the international colloquium Nicolas Tournier et la peinture de la réalité, organised by Toulouse University Department of History of Art and Archaeology, from the 7 to 9 June 2001.
Exposition de l’académie royale de Toulouse,[i] 1773, lent by ‘M. le Comte de Bournazel, Académicien’, no. 66 ‘une Paysanne qui porte des fruits, par Tournier’ and no 67 ‘Autre, par le même.’
[i] Although primarily a loan exhibition there were works offered for sale at the Toulouse Salon; intriguingly among the paintings exhibited in 1770 (under no. 9 of the supplement to the livret) were “Deux tableaux par Tournier, à vendre, il faut s’addresser à Abel Tapissier,” but it is impossible to identify these works with any certainty.
This astonishing painting, apparently a portrait of a simple Roman countrywoman is a unique example of an artist who has not yet embraced the portrayal of scenes of gaming, fortune telling and music making popularised by Caravaggio but has rather experimented with an entirely novel subject. Yet it is hard to imagine that this painting could have been conceived without exposure to Caravaggio, whose secular subjects al naturale must have made an immediate impact on the young artist. There can be no doubt as to the artist’s identity: the handling of the paint and in particular the women’s hands and facial features point immediately to Nicolas Tournier, while these are clearly the two paintings identified as by Tournier and exhibited in the Toulouse Salon in 1773. His choice of subject shows a willingness to engage artistically directly with the contemporary world in a way that marks Tournier out as exceptional among the many artists working in Italy in the first half of the seventeenth century.
Nicolas Tournier was born in Montbéliard, the son of the painter André Tournier, a Huguenot refugee originally from nearby Besançon. Montbéliard was constantly under threat from France, with its people, many of them recent arrivals, divided by religious differences. France claimed sovereign possession of Montbéliard, whose independence was not finally recognised by her powerful neighbour until the end of the seventeenth century and it suffered repeated incursions by royalist forces. There were few wealthy patrons and the opportunities for artists were limited; it must have been clear to the modestly talented André Tournier that Nicolas should broaden his artistic education in Italy and, particularly, in Rome.
Little is known of Nicolas Tournier’s early artistic apprenticeship or training although he must have been technically well prepared by André and his uncle, Pierre Tournier (also a painter, who died in 1627). Records in Rome’s stati d’anime have established that Nicolas was resident there by 1619, although he almost certainly arrived there earlier as there is no further record of him in Montbéliard after 1610 and he was absent at the time of his father’s death in 1617/18 (and when his father’s estate was settled in 1621). As a Lutheran (brought up in a Calvinist family) the delay in recording his presence may have been because Nicolas, not yet formally converted to Catholicism, had not immediately registered with the local parish. The stati d’anime continue to record his presence in Rome until late 1625 but by the following Easter he had returned to Montbéliard, where he remained for some five months, staying with his older brother.
At the end of 1626 Tournier travelled to the Midi and, after a brief stay in Carcassonne, journeyed to nearby Narbonne in November 1627 to work on a commission for the chapter of the metropolitan cathedral, completed on 20 December of that year. He then returned to Carcassonne by April 1628 moving later that year to Toulouse. This was most likely at the urging of Bernard Reich de Pennautier (died 1650), receiver-general of the French clergy, treasurer of Languedoc in 1607, treasurer-general of France for the généralité of Toulouse (1625) and an immensely influential figure in the first half of seventeenth-century Languedoc. Tournier painted several portraits of the Reich family and Bernard acquired both religious and secular subjects by the artist, including The Concert (Paris, Louvre, circa 1630-35), in which Reich’s wife has been tentatively identified as the seated figure at the virginals performing with other, unidentified, musicians. Reich’s great château of Pennautier was situated outside Carcassonne, more or less equidistant between Narbonne and Toulouse and it is likely that Tournier spent some time as his patron’s guest there. Aside from a further four year sojourn in Narbonne in the 1630s, Tournier remained the rest of his life in Toulouse, where today some of his finest surviving works may be seen in the city’s churches and the Musée des Augustins.
Like almost every painter who travelled to Rome in the first quarter of the seventeenth century – with the notable exception of Poussin – Tournier was immediately engaged by the artistic revolution initiated by Caravaggio. Among the most accessible works for any Roman visitor was a remarkable and much admired early work by Caravaggio in the collection of Cardinal Borghese: Boy with a Basket of Fruit, painted in 1593. If, as seems likely, he had passed through Florence on his journey from Montbéliard to Rome, Tournier would probably also have seen the Bacchus, dating from 1597 and acquired shortly thereafter by Grand Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany, possibly as a gift from Cardinal Del Monte, Caravaggio’s most generous Roman patron. Both works show young men, one wearing a white shirt and the other half covered by a long white linen cloth, each with multitudes of tight folds expertly rendered, the sitter’s tilted heads seeming to avoid direct engagement with the viewer. Both Caravaggios are distinguished by brilliantly painted still lifes of fruit, in one piled high in a basket and in the other laid out on a scalloped dish.
The young Tournier may also have encountered another masterpiece by Caravaggio on his journey south, as the route from Montbéliard would have taken him through the great cathedral city of Milan, the capital of Lombardy then ruled by a Spanish viceroy. Cardinal Federico Borromeo, the city’s Archbishop and a cousin of Cardinal and Saint Charles Borromeo to whose teachings Caravaggio was himself an adherent, had just a few years earlier – in 1607 – endowed the Ambrosiana with his collection. Caravaggio’s Basket of Fruit, which Maurizio Calvesi has explained as a complex example of Christological symbolism, would have stood out among the more conventional religious subjects hanging in the magnificent Ambrosiana palazzo. This extraordinary composition with some of the fruit notably bruised and damaged, finds some echoes in the imperfections in the fruit still life held by the peasant woman in Tournier’s painting.
Protestant Montbéliard, where portrayals of religious subjects could lead to a fine or imprisonment (as had happened to Tournier’s father in 1602) and whose iconoclastic policies had led to the deliberate destruction of religious images and sculptures in the principality’s churches, would not have provided an opportunity for the young artist to become conversant with Catholic counter-reformation imagery. While he may have been familiar with basic Christian iconography he would probably not have understood the deeper meaning of what may have seemed simply a superb portrayal of nature in Caravaggio’s deceptively straightforward paintings. Similarly he may not have considered the more complex interpretation of the Boy with a Basket of Fruit, brilliantly explained by Anna Coliva in her study of this painting. It would seem highly probable, nonetheless, that the young Tournier either formally converted to the Roman Catholic faith or at least informally adopted Catholic practice; if he had not done so he could neither have obtained Church commissions nor lived safely in the heart of Rome. Exposure to the multitude of religious images that decorated Rome’s churches and Tournier’s close association with other artists who would have been familiar with their iconography would have prepared him over time for the church commissions he was to obtain later. Denis Milhau has argued that Tournier’s conversion was more than a simple matter of convenience, however, and that he developed a deeper religious allegiance, notably connected to the teachings of the Frères Precheurs (the Dominicans).
The strong stylistic influence of Bartolomeo Manfredi apparent in Tournier’s documented commissions, the first of which is dated to 1624, suggests that Tournier may have spent some time apprenticed to the slightly older artist, just eight years his senior but already well-established by 1615 as Caravaggio’s acknowledged successor. He may well have entered the studio of Bartolomeo Manfredi before 1619 but in any case his apprenticeship there would have been short-lived as Manfredi died in 1622, aged just forty. As Nicole Hartje has proposed, despite the paucity of contemporary documentary evidence, it is unlikely that Manfredi’s legacy could have been so immediately apparent if Tournier had not worked closely with him for a time. This painting, however, show no evidence at all of Manfredi’s influence and must therefore have been produced soon after he first arrived in Rome, sometime during the second decade of the seventeenth century.
Arnauld Brejon has followed some earlier scholars in proposing that Tournier may have been a pupil of Valentin de Boulogne, a name suggested in a relatively early source, but there is no contemporary documentary evidence to support this proposition. Valentin was, in any case, several months junior to Tournier in age and is only recorded in Rome from 1620, although the two artists lived very near each other during Tournier’s last two years in the city. The discovery of Peasant Woman with Fruit places Tournier on an altogether higher plane than he has been accorded hitherto and it is unnecessary to explain his early talent by assuming he must have been tutored by the more famous Valentin. Tournier would also have been well-acquainted with Simon Vouet, who was elected “Prince” of the Academy of Saint Luke in 1624 and thus acknowledged as the leading French painter in Rome. In 1619 Vouet was living in the same street as Tournier but we see little of the older master’s style in Tournier’s surviving work, even though he is considered a major influence on Valentin.
What seems certain is that this painting of a young woman predates any association with Manfredi, of whose influence there is no obvious indication. The simple, single figure, facing the viewer but with her head at a slight angle and her eyes partially averted, the plain but contrasting colours of her costume and the carefully graded transitions of light to shade directly echo similar aspects of Caravaggio’s Boy with a Basket of Fruit and the Bacchus. The viewer may not necessarily partake of the fruit of the vine which, for Catholics, was so redolent of the Eucharist; the white and black grapes, symbols of Christ’s sacrifice in Caravaggio’s painting of a young boy, are not for all. Tournier’s peasant woman on the other hand offers the viewer her fruit without guile or ambiguity; she is restrained in both her expression and the tightly drawn strings of her costume, while the brilliance of her white linen shirt contrasts not with her flesh, as in the Caravaggios, but with the blue of her dress. Tournier’s Roman contemporaries, if they knew this painting, would have immediately understood it as a response to the famous Caravaggio in the Cardinal’s collection.
The still life of fruit, gathered in the folds of her white apron, never recurs in any of Tournier’s later compositions and yet is perhaps the painting’s most remarkable and exceptional feature. The loose shape of the woman’s white linen shirt and the string stays of her simple blue dress were for ease of undress, perhaps after a hard day at the market, while the strings could be easily released or tightened for comfort. Her clothes are simple, her gaze modest but engaging with only the simple and barely visible head band evidence of any personal vanity.
Unlike Caravaggio’s two paintings, Tournier’s Peasant Woman holding Fruit was evidently not intended to convey any deeper allegorical meaning but is rather – and exceptionally – a portrait of a simple peasant woman. As such it appears to be unique in contemporary French and Italian painting – there was evidently no market for such works as we know of none by his contemporaries. Nonetheless, it surely met the requirement to be “truthful” and for the artist “to paint the model before his eyes,” as Giulio Mancini wrote in his commentary on contemporary Italian art. The lack of any under-drawing and the significant pentimento where the sitter’s left arm has been moved is evidence that Tournier worked directly on to the canvas, probably in the presence of his model.
We may speculate that rather than offering this painting for sale Tournier intended it as a show-piece, designed to display his technical skills and for which he had not hesitated to use the finest materials, contributing to the painting’s extraordinary state of preservation today. It was not a mere student exercise, however; the time and materials mark a significant investment by the artist and something of which we may assume Tournier was proud to proclaim as his own. This painting must have remained in his possession at least until he moved to Languedoc (since it is documented in collections there during the eighteenth century), where even if he was unable to find a patron for a new subject genre he could use the work to demonstrate his technical brilliance.
It is unlikely that this subject would have had obvious appeal for the contemporary Languedoc collectors; although Tournier’s paintings of musicians and card players were popular in his day, fashion changed later in the century along with declining interest in Caravaggesque naturalism. When Prince Pamphilij offered Louis XIV his Fortune Teller by Caravaggio in 1665, Chantelou dismissed it as a “poor painting, without spirit, or invention”. Caravaggio was criticised for his lack of originality and his purported incapacity to represent human emotion – Poussin’s figures with their dramatic gestures and complex iconography and Lebrun’s vast canvases were perceived as much closer to the ideal. Tournier’s simple peasant would not have met any of the critical criteria that proponents of the academic approach considered necessary ingredients of high art.
Women in secular subjects by Caravaggio and in the works of his followers such as Manfredi and Valentin were invariably clad in highly stylised “gypsy” costumes that would have been in reality a rarity on the streets of Rome. Georges de la Tour, who is never recorded as having gone to Rome but for whom a case may be made that he must have done so, likewise dressed his female sitters in non-religious subjects in fanciful costumes that bear little resemblance to what women actually wore. Only in La Tour’s elderly peasant man and woman now in the San Francisco Museum of Fine Arts do we see simple figures in contemporary everyday dress, albeit not Italian. Caravaggio’s women were the accomplices of card cheats and thieves, trading as fortune tellers or as ladies of easy virtue displaying their seductive charms to naive young men. Peasant women, like the one portrayed in our painting, while ever present on the streets of Rome, were seemingly invisible to artists who, even though inspired by Caravaggio’s naturalist instincts, were uninterested in the more mundane aspects of everyday life. In the Peasant Woman with Fruit, Tournier presents the viewer with an image that is in a sense complementary to the Caravaggios of a Boy and of Bacchus; but in its simplicity and modernity offers us an entirely new challenge in understanding the art world in early seventeenth century Italy.
 One must exercise some caution, however, in assuming that all the paintings exhibited at the Toulouse Salon and attributed to Tournier were by the artist. Robert Mesuret, op. cit. p. 344 proposed that the three Hercules subjects exhibited in 1751 and 1784 as the property of M. de Bonrepos and the one exhibited in 1759 as the property of M. de Resseguier, owner of the hôtel d’Ulmo, were actually by Francisco de Zurbaran and are the missing four from the series of ten Hercules subjects of which the remaining six are in the Prado. We know there were ten subjects originally because there is a surviving receipt signed by Zurbaran for ten works and in 1703 these were inventoried in the palace of the Buen Retiro; these four may have been sold or given to someone from Toulouse and then subsequently acquired by the Toulouse collectors. M. de Bonrepos owned also at least three other works by Tournier, The Concert, almost certainly acquired by his father from the estate of Henri Reich de Pennautier along with the Toulouse hôtel particulier in which it hung, and now in the Louvre, and a Joueurs and a Men Eating at Table which may be identified with extant works by the artist.
 André had certainly been resident in nearby Besançon until 1570 when, in the face of increased intolerance of the Protestant minority, he moved his family to the principality of Montbéliard, then ruled by Duke Frederick of Württemberg who initially offered protection to both Lutheran and Calvinist refugees. In 1586 the Prince instituted a colloquium to try and find common ground between the two Protestant faiths but they were unable to agree and in 1587 Frederick decided to impose a strict form of Lutheranism as the official faith. André was received as a Master-Painter in Montbéliard in 1573 but while he remained there for most of the remainder of his life – briefly attempting to return to Besançon in 1575 – commissions such as paintings of fifty-four coats of arms for local nobles suggests that he enjoyed only occasional success as a serious artist. André and his family did not conform to the stricter Calvinist teachings that has nonetheless restricted artistic expression in the principality and Nicolas was baptised according to the Lutheran rite. André was evidently not a doctrinaire Protestant since in 1602 he was fined 100 sols and sentenced to one month in prison for painting a crucifixion in the parish church of Lure.
 In the parish of San Lorenzo in Lucina, 1619, in the “vicolo primo cominciando dalla strada di Condotti din all strada della Croce mano dextra, where he shared rooms with the Liègois painter Gérard Douffet and the Lorrinese sculptor David de la Riche (who, in 1624, was lodging with Valentin in the Via Margutta); then in the parish of Sant Andrea delle Fratte in 1620 and back in San Lorenzo di Lucina 1621-22; then in the Via Vittoria, and finally in the parish of Santa Maria del Popolo 1625-26, in the Via Ripetta.
 We know, for example, that Vouet returned to Rome from Venice in 1615 but his name does not appear in the stati d’anime until two years later, suggesting that these records may neither have been complete nor up to date.
 While late 1617 or early 1618 are usually given as the dates of André’s death, Claude Fleury in his study of the Principality of Montbéliard 1495-1796, pages for 1558-1608 and 1617-1631, gives Andrés death date as 1621. This was certainly the year his estate was settled. See http://pages.videotron.com/sochaux/index.htm
 Sometimes given as Penautier.
 Reich’s second son, Pierre-Louise Reich de Penautier, succeeded his father as receiver-general of the clergy and became a close associate of the finance minister, Colbert. He is more renowned, however, for his role in the affair of the Poisons, when Marie Madeleine Dreux d’Aubray, marquise de Brinvilliers, who was at the centre of the scandal was accused of having poisoned her father and brothers (one of whom she claimed had raped her when she was just seven years old) to inherit their fortunes. Reich was implicated because of a correspondence with Brinvilliers that implied his involvement and that he had loaned her money. The scandal ended with some thirty-six being executed (in the brutal manner of the time), including the marquise, while other very prominent individuals were forced into exile. One of the latter was the Comtesse de Soissons, whose son Prince Eugène of Savoy was so angered by her treatment that he resigned his commission in the French army and joined that of the Emperor, in whose service he inflicted humiliating defeats on the French armies in the war of the Spanish succession. Pierre-Louis served just thirteen months in prison and, following his release after the intervention of Colbert and several French bishops, seems to have managed to escape further censure with his protestations of innocence being accepted.
 His will is dated 30 December 1638 and he was dead within a month. He consigned responsibility for organising his funeral to his patron Bernard Reich, whose influence was sufficient to prevent a claim on his estate under the droit d’Aubaine (which prevented non-French subjects from inheriting French property). It is interesting to observe that at the time of his death Tournier was evidently unaware of the death of his younger brother and sister although the former had died several years earlier; had his change of religious allegiance perhaps created a rift with his family? Whatever the state of relations he ordered that after certain specific bequests and the payment of his funeral expenses, the residue should be divided between his (actually deceased) brother and sister and their children.
 Caravaggio, exhibition catalogue, Rome, Scudiere del Quirinale, edited by Claudio Strinati, 20 February – 15 June 2010, pp. 82-89.
 Idem., pp. 68-74.
 “Reflexions sur un peintre d’origine luthérienne et monbéliardaise au service de l’Église de la Contre-Reformé” in Nicolas Tournier et la peinture caravagesque en Italie, en France et en Espagne, Toulouse, 2001, op. cit.
 Nicole Hartje in “L’influence de Bartolomeo Manfredi (1582-1622) sur la caravagesques français et sur Nicolas Tournier en particulier”, in exhibition catalogue, ed. Alex Héremy, Nicolas Tournier 1590 – 1639: Un peintre caravagesque, Musée des Augustins, Musee des Beaux-Arts de Toulouse, Paris, 2001.
 By the Toulouse writer Dupuy-De Grez, writing in 1699.
 Valentin’s date of birth has now been firmly established as January 1591 with the discovery of his baptismal records, however the date on his funeral monument which gives his age at his death of 38 suggests he was born in 1594 and this date has been repeated in some sources.
 Vouet, Tournier and Valentin, like many others among the French and Flemish artists then living in Rome, rented rooms in the small district around the via Margutta, via Sistina and via del Babuino, which benefited from a privileged exemption from certain city taxes that made the area particularly attractive to the artistic community. French artists, like those of other nationalities, tended to prefer the company of their compatriots and there would have been frequent contact between them and, no doubt, exchanges of ideas and impressions which contributed to the dynamism of the Roman art world.
 The strings across the front of this garment could be easily tightened or loosened depending on the season and whether the wearer was fasting. Our thanks to Barbara De Dominici and Angelica Poggi for this information.
 G. Mancini, Considerazioni sulla pittura (1617-1621), edited by A. Marrucchi and L. Salerno, Rome, 1956-57, vol. I, pp. 108-109, [referenced by Annick Lemoine in “La pittura al natiurale dans la Rome des années 1610-1620, entre tradition et invention, ” in Nicolas Tournier et la peinture caravagesque en Italie, en France et en Espagne, Toulouse, 2001.]
 Other surviving works by Tournier also demonstrate an absence of any preparatory drawing or underlying sketch; the artist did not make significant changes even to his more complex multi-figure compositions once he had begun laying out the figures on the canvas.
 The blue is an exceptional lapis lazuli. There is madder lake glaze over vermillion on the deep red fruit. The red in the skin tones is madder, not vermillion. The background is black, (probably lamp), raw umber, yellow ochre and azurite and exceptionally lapis lazuli presumably to give it a lighter grey colour. My thanks to David Chesterman for this information.
 P. Fréart de Chantelou, Journal de voyage du Cavalier Bernin en France par M. de Chantelou, ed.M. Stanic, Paris, 2001, p. 212 and 332, note 4 [referenced by Annick Lemoine, op. cit. supra).