Collection de Lettres de Nicolas Poussin from 1824, including those between 1640 and 1642.http://books.google.fr/books?id=pIpCAAA ... in&f=false
You do realise you're book will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on those that have
to believe Poussin painted the pontils tomb.
I can only speak for myself, but I certainly don't have
to believe that Poussin painted a tomb at Pontils; I'm merely perpared to have an open mind about it, and not dismiss out of hand something so self-evidently, and enduringly, curious and intriguing.
With regard to the posts further down that address the shape of the 1903 tomb, this is all good and interesting stuff, but isn't it a somewhat moot point, in the sense that I don't believe anyone, even the most ardent and uncritical adherent of the Poussin-Pontils idea, is suggesting that the tomb that was destroyed in the late 1980s is the one that appeared in the painting. It is reasonably well accepted, I believe, that this tomb was constructed in the early 20th century, and merely occupies the site - possibly
- of an earlier tomb. Following this scenario through - just for the sake of argument - one might therefore envisage that the builders of the modern tomb were entirely unaware of the connection between the site and Poussin's painting, and as a consequence, saw no need to copy the exact detail of the earlier tomb, of which they would likely have had no idea in any case, if the earlier tomb had been moved or destroyed many years previously. Within such a scenario, therefore, the composition and detailing of the modern tomb is irrelevant, and the pertinent question is whether or not there was indeed an earlier tomb on that rocky knoll, and what significance this may have had. I don't have the answer to that, of course, but I see no harm in continuing to ask the question, and speculating about what it might all mean.