Van Gogh ... or a gun without DNA tests ...

[Jim McDougall]

Well said. As with so much of 'history', it becomes embellished by the writers, novelists and of course 'fake news' (in todays parlance).
The true story of Van Gogh has been deeply clouded in the book "Lust for Life" (Irving Stone, 1934) which was made into a movie starring Kirk Douglas in 1956. This was apparently where the suicide notion developed and most of the other distorted or embellished perspectives evolved. The movie you mention is yet another version, and while like the others fascinating and entertaining, not necessarily historically accurate.

As with most such cases, there are grains of truth which grow into crops of rich lore, and the industry of related or key antiquities thrives with innovative dealers and their concocted descriptions.

Without irrefutable chain of custody or provenance, such items can only be presumed 'of the type' or illustrative dimensionally in portraying the elements used in historic events.

[Jim McDougall]

More thinking on the perspective of the 'wild west' play scenario:

In the first place, the suicidal notion seems unlikely as Van Gogh in various writings abhorred the idea of such an act. From accounts of his abdominal wound, the point of entry was oblique, not straight forward as would be characteristic of a self inflicted shot. The idea that someone intent on suicide would shoot themselves in the stomach is unfathomable. Such a wound, especially from such a small pistol, would result in lingering and painful sepsis and death, as was the case with Van Gogh, who lasted only two days.

The story of two young boys 'playing' wild west', especially with the diminutive revolver in question seems unlikely. These small pinfire revolvers are nothing at all like the guns of the west, and cannot possibly be construed in such sense. The fancy gun actions popularized in the famed Buffalo Bill wild west shows on 1870s and later used full size guns with trigger guards and large calibers. These pinfire revolvers were the size of the palm of the hand, small caliber and NO trigger guard, easily concealed.

I would suspect these young men had some interaction with Van Gogh, and threatened him, and accidentally shot him during the issues. He apparently knew them, and probably did not expect to die, trying to cover the action by saying he had done the deed himself. He may have been trying to shield them, or could he have feared reparations if he exposed them?

There was an evolution of criminal activity well in place in 'La Belle Epoque' Paris,near the turn of the century,as would be expected in large cities. While such activity in gangs seems a modern phenomenon, it most certainly is not, and extortion and such things may well have crept into outlying regions even in 1890. This criminal gang activity which involved mugging, extortion and all manner of such crimes, in about 1900, the term 'apache' was applied to these brutal gangs. This of course likely lifted from the influences of the forementioned 'wild west shows and romanticized violence of the Indians portrayed'.These gangs were even known for a distinctly unique weapon that they evolved from PINFIRE revolvers, a kind of 'saturday night special, with brass knuckles and stabbing blade.

Perhaps these young men were in some fashion, a kind of proto-apache element who were indeed carrying one of these small pinfire revolvers.
In such case, the gun would certainly not have been dropped or left, so the probability of this gun in discussion being 'the one' of Van Gogh, is not remotely possible,

Pictured is an actual pinfire revolver similar to the one sold, and shown with a pen and quarter to illustrate its diminutive size
Next is a pinfire combination weapon of 'apache' type from early in 20th c.

[fernando]

Applying logic to how a fellow commits suicide, or suffers homicide, meets more coherence within CSI series than within reality. Such episodes can happen in the most bizarre conditions and circumstances. For example, suppose the man, against all odds, decides to kill himself, as in actual life such unpredictable episodes occur, and the young men tried to prevent him from such desperate act, ending up triggering themselves the shot, as a result of such struggling, giving (i) logic to the odd place & angle in which the projectile entered Van Gogh's guts. The caliber of the bullet doesn't necessarily determine how long one resists to death ... only potentially. There are 'good' and 'bad' shots.
On the other hand, we are hypothetically assuming that the gun auctioned was actually the one used, which could have not. To say that, there also large pinfire (Lefaucheux system) revolvers (i had some), with so large, or even slightly larger caliber than cap & ball system .44 Colts (which i also had); and not only small versions, some even rather tinier than the show off but reportedly clumsy 'Apaches'.
On yet another hand, when you play Wild West, you do it with what you have at hand; even wooden guns. It's imagination that counts, not the caliber; to be (or not) ridiculous is not in the plans, i guess. When i was young, like others, so poor as not able to have a toy revolver, i used my forefinger to order 'hands up' to my foe and bring him into custody. But i am digressing .

[Jim McDougall]

Very good detective work, and of course logic is not always applicable in cases where something illogical is being investigated, suicide being far more so than homicide. Of course both can be irrational acts, but all things much be considered from various angles.
You have carried my suggestion of 'interaction' with these boys further, and I had not thought of the possibility they well might have been trying to stop him from suicide. A struggle ensued, and the gun discharged. That would explain the uncharacteristic angle of the wound, and that it was aimed at his stomach.
So, Inspector Poirot, I think you might have solved the case?

Then what of the pistol. I have illustrated a pinfire of the same size and presumably caliber of the one auctioned. The 'apache' theory is tenuously applied to suggest only ruffians of the times who indeed carried pinfire revolvers.
In the scenario you suggest, it well might have been dropped, and the boys frightened by the resulting shot, the gun not theirs, might simply have run. Van Gogh, knowing their intent and not wishing to implicate them, would have taken the blame. Not expecting to die, and incapacitated, he never thought more on the gun, so it remained in situ for years until c. 1960, covered by whatever vegetation was there in the field.

[Jim McDougall]

With interest in this curious case, I found more on the gun used, or alleged to have been:
In the book "Van Gogh: The Life" by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, the authors have meticulously researched and brought in forensic research assistance in subsequent rebuttals.

There seems to have been a great deal of competition (other artists acquainted with him) and opportunism with some of the rather inflated and contrived accounts of Van Gogh, his 'ear incident', his drinking and illnesses and of course, his alleged suicide.

Apparently he was often ridiculed by a local bully and his brother and small group of local miscreants. The main character was named Rene Secretan, son of a well to do family and who was intrigued by the 'wild west' after seeing the Buffalo Bill show in Paris the year before.
He bought costumes including chaps and western attire as well as outfitting himself with a SMALL CALIBER pistol, which 'looked menacing, but often misfired'.
This sounds very much like the 7mm Lefaucheaux pinfire revolver I was referring to. These were known for misfires, much as many of these small pocket pistols, which were cheap and profusely manufactured.

The boys taunted Van Gogh (calling him Toto) and he was acquainted with them despite that. Years later, Rene claimed that Van Gogh had gotten his gun, as he insisted he was not involved in the shooting.
There was no investigation records, however it was said that the gendarme who talked to him asked if he had intended suicide, to which Van Gogh said, "I think so".

The doctor who attended him did not note any black powder debris or presence near the wound, and the angle of the wound as well suggested he was not shot point black, but from a distance. Much of that information was obtained from him in 1920s as well as his son.

Apparently not only was the gun never found, but there were no paints or easel which indicated he was going to paint...in fact it was said he was not in the fields at all, but on the road to the Secretan villa.

While he was troubled with some obscure medical maladies, including the use of absinthe, popular with artists, medications used, lead poisoning, and others.....but a letter found in his coat was highly upbeat and inconsistent with suicidal tendencies.

These things suggest it was a small caliber pinfire used, but unlikely that it was dropped in the field by Van Gogh and probably kept by Rene. Rene had noted he was surprised the gun even fired with its unreliability, but not saying more on its whereabouts....still claiming Van Gogh had 'gotten' the gun from him.

The images are the "Auberge Ravoux" in Auvers-sr-Oise where Van Gogh was staying when he died. Here he returned after his 'wounding' which was how it was referred to at the time of the event.
Another image of the pistol of the discussion.

[fernando]

I will dare say that, while my theory was composed with feeble arguments, Naifeh & Smith findings are not less feeble, on what counts for the issue we have at hand; and calling them forensic is, i guess, a kind concession.
If the gun was brought from France, by known stats of cheap (Belgium?) production, reputedly a misfiring species, did not hesitate this time to the right job; Van Gogh to agree with such conclusion.
En passant, the dude that gave so much money for an excavated cheap pistol, on basis that it participated (?) in a famous event can, for a far less amount, have the gun examined to check for marks ... like the Liege poinçon, for one ?
So he was not painting in the fields but going on the road to the Secretan villa ... whether going to the house or only using that road. While this is interesting to fulfill empty spaces in the artist's biography, would not bring any light on the shooting episode or, one can say, makes one more tending to consider a road stalking ending with a homicide, than being seated and painting, with all time to introspect and decide to cease existing. I don't know.
One thing not determining but coherent is Van Goghs confiding that he 'might' have committed suicide, to prevent the boys getting into trouble; besides being a kind gesture from an intellectual, suits his fatality view of life. Wasn't the last words he pronounced to his brother "sadness for ever" ... or the like ?
Do we understand that, if according to the boys, Van Gogh had his own gun, this brings two pistols to the stage ? I don't think he was the type of owning a gun but, no one is the type until he is. Besides, the doctor's assumption that the shot was not point blank, only tightens the tangled knot; in the extreme, if the gun in the scene as one belonging to Van Gogh, the boys (or whoever) could have grabbed it and shoot the artist. On the other hand (quote)"a letter found in his coat was highly upbeat and inconsistent with suicidal tendencies", while not fully counting, as coming from a known inconsistent mind, is not a written text that we can read and judge by ourselves but a interpretation from an (un) suspected party.
The auberge where he had lately lived and died, together with some of his occupants and his interesting stories involving their interaction with the artist, makes part of the movie i mentioned. Whether fictional in part or totally, as all movies, is an interesting piece of history ... and an excellent participation of Dafoe.

[Jim McDougall]

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'.