I will not say these theories are comprised of 'feeble elements', these are 'considerations' which must be entertained together and investigated, corroborated and evaluated, often repeatedly working toward resolution. While I looked through various references which have all carried out investigation and worked angles, this book by these two authors is by far the most thorough in my opinion.Further they have continued responding to rebuttals and often almost radical and vicious responses by parties who are protecting the enigma of Van Gogh.
It is often the case that the enigma, and tragic circumstances in many elaborate historic matters are often guarded as the very element of their mystery, which draws more interest and attention. There is a strong opposition to 'revisionist' history which is often employed in what is known as the 'art' of historical detection, where these kinds of situations are in effect forensically examined.
It is good to have our perspectives interact, as we are evaluating each pole in the case, and bringing our understanding of it closer. As always, as I have said for years here, it is not about who is right or wrong, it is bringing the most reasonable and plausible solution to the fore.
These authors have responded well to critique, and solidly continued research and 'historical detection' in more thorough support , whether for or against their case. It is essential (as I was once told) that a good author also present the positions held in opposition to their own theory, and ideally present their own rebuttal systematically and in further support accordingly.
Van Gogh did not have a gun, and one of the recurring notes in many of the accounts I have seen reflect this. There was much competition and rivalry involved in the art community, and one artist, who created much of the material for later accounts embellished and used in the long held views, negatively of Van Gogh, claimed he was 'crazy' and demeaning postures.
The doctor who attended him was also a personal acquaintance who, along with his young son, had both participated in certain of his works. Apparently after the death, the doctor scurried those paintings away, and in later years as the 'mystique' evolved, the son perpetuated same to bolster the value of the works. That is much of what the development and mystery of all this involved...and personal tragedy elevates art value proportionally of course.
It was shown that Rene Secretan was enthralled with the wild west, much as were many French youngsters of the years ahead (my reason for adding the 'apache' phenomenon which evolved in similar manner). That he took to wearing western 'costume' and acquiring a SMALL caliber revolver lends to the potential for the scenario in which Van Gogh was wounded, seems key.
As he was interiewed years later, he of course denied shooting Van Gogh, but did admit Van Gogh GOT the gun from him.
It really is irrelevant if this was a Liege product, as most were indeed made there. However most of these pocket guns. much like the 'suicide specials' similar pocket pistols used in America, they were typically unmarked.
The very similar 'suicide specials' were also cheap, known for misfires (hence the name suicide specials) and as open wearing of guns was prohibited, and these were what was typically carried for protection in saloons etc.
Turning here to Hollywood, as well as the highly embellished written works that inspired movies, virtually most elements (especially in earlier examples) used fervent license in the drama and popular notions that served well in the theatrical entertainment. In westerns, it was all about the gunfight (they were NEVER called gunfighters in those days) and the supposed 'showdown' with quick draw and fancy twirling of the gun (neither really took place).
Guns were not worn in pairs in holsters in the towns, it was unlawful. That was the very reason for the OK Corral shootout, and Wyatt Earp was NOT wearing a Colt in a holster...it was a Smith & Wesson in his coat pocket.
The point here is that embellishment and drama are what sells, and feed the public fascination. While Rene's pistol was what was available, it was hardly conducive to 'wild west' theatrics...………….how do you 'twirl' a small pocket pistol with no trigger guard?
Point well taken on the character of the letter found, which was far from 'suicidal' . Actually he was prone to what is known as hypergraphia, an incessant propensity to write in volume (perhaps my own dilemma
) and is thought to possibly relate to his medical issues. The volume of his letters etc, is immense, and in none were mention or thoughts of suicide. Artists are known to be moody, often morose, and dramatic, but despite any such elements, he seemed to have abhorred the notion of suicide.
While the self mutilation would suggest such ideas, it is unproven, in the same manner as this shooting, that he actually did this.
In fact, as it occurred close to an altercation with Gaugin, it is possible he was the one responsible, and again Van Gogh protected him.
Perhaps I have misunderstood some of the material from the book, but I think each person studying this event must thoroughly follow their own perceptions. In truth, we may never know, but I would consider this particular gun with the necessary caveats.
Whatever the case, as with many of my own investigations of historic items, it is 'of the period.....and of the type'.