PROFESSOR LANGTON DOUGLAS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
SIR,
Professor Douglas’s long and elaborate reply to my note is no doubt interesting; but it seems as if he considers the subject of more vital importance than I do; and I fancy most readers of The Burlington Magazine will agree with me so far. It is scarcely necessary to point out the personal turn to which his arguments veer; but I am unregenerate enough to draw attention to the fact that, in spite of much circumlocution, he brings out none that really prove me wrong in my contentions. I do not deny the talents of either Signor Centofanti or Signor Donati (of the works of the former and the friendship of the latter I have reason to speak most highly); but their names alone scarcely carry conviction to the ordinary English reader. I must repeat that I do not consider that Professor Douglas’s assertions with regard to Sodoma will bear close examination. The explanation of this in detail would take too long here; but I hope some day to have an opportunity of going fully into the subject of that artist’s name and family. That Beccafumi was very frequently designated as ‘Mecharino,’ or ‘Mecarino,’ is beyond dispute, and the statements here brought forward are certainly not sufficient to account for the entire omission of this important fact from Professor Douglas’s work. With regard to Matteo’s Massacre of the Innocents, I can only suggest to anyone interested in the subject to go and look at the picture, signature, and original document, and then form his own opinion.
On both these points the reader cannot do better than compare the statements here set forth with those in the ‘History of Siena.’ I need say no more; but, in conclusion, I cannot resist remarking how great was my astonishment to find that until last April Professor Douglas, in spite of all his studies at Siena, was not aware that the Archivio dei Contratti of that city (Archivio Notarile Provinciale)—referred to continually by Milanesi and others, and containing many important documents (including two wills of Francesco Tolomei, in the second of which Matteo’s picture is not mentioned)—is an absolutely different institution from its younger, and admittedly more imposing and interesting, rival—the Archivio di Stato, is under different control, and is even a cause of jealousy. Surely, when preparing to overthrow the consensus of opinion of a number of competent predecessors, it is scarcely safe to trust implicitly to copies, and a search for this original will would have saved that situation anyhow. Had I not received this information from the writer’s own lips, I could not have believed it possible. For the historian of Siena to admit ignorance of the separate existence and constitution of this important storehouse seems to me to be more damaging to his reputation for accuracy than any points of detail upon which differences of opinion can arise.
ROBERT H. HOBART CUST.