Why do not the advocates of those early specimens of wood engraving in Italy point out to their readers that these two children were the first who ever affixed the words _pinx. et scalp._ to a woodcut? I challenge any believer in Papillon to point out a wood engraving on which the words _pinxit_ and _scalpsit_, the first after the painter’s name, and the second after the engraver’s, appear previous to 1580. This apparent copying--and by a person ignorant of Latin too--of the formula of a later period, is of itself sufficient to excite a suspicion of forgery; and, coupled with the improbable circumstances above related, it irresistibly compels me to conclude that the whole account is a mere fiction. With respect to the credibility of Papillon, the sole evidence upon which the history of the wonderful twins rests, I shall have occasion to say very few words. That he was credulous, and excessively vain of what he considered his discoveries in the history of wood engraving, is admitted by those who profess to believe him. He appears also from an early age to have been subject to mental hallucination; and in 1759, the year after he found his papers containing the account of the Cunio, he had a fit of decided insanity which rendered it necessary to convey him to a mad-house, where by copious bleeding he soon recovered his senses.[I-41] To those interested in the controversy I leave to decide how far the unsupported testimony of such a person, and in such a case, ought to be relied on. How easily he might be deceived on a subject relating to the early history of his art, it is not difficult to comprehend; and even allowing him to be sincere in the belief of what he related, he was a person very likely to occasionally deceive both himself and others.[I-42] [Footnote I-41: From the age of sixteen, cruel and secret annoyances interrupted his studies; shortly after his marriage, in 1723, his absent manner was a source of uneasiness to his wife; and in 1759 he fairly lost his senses. See Papillon, Traité de la Gravure en Bois, 8vo. 1766, Preface, p. xi.; & p. 335, tom. i. et Supplement, p. 39.] [Footnote I-42: It is worthy of remark that Papillon, when questioned by Heineken, who called on him in Paris after the publication of his work, respecting the account of the Cunio, did not produce his three sheets of original memoranda. He might thus have afforded a proof of his own good faith, by producing the manuscript written by him in 1720 from the dictation of Captain de Greder.]