"Mythology" was a bad word choice, I suppose. I am sorry if it gave a connotation that I thought there was no truth behind the story. I have no idea one way or the other, or else I would have proffered some comment on the accuracy of the story of the ransomed monks. Would "Oft-Repeated Details About The Soult Collection" have been more clearly less value-laden ? If so, I apologize for my my haste in writing.

"Where would the 'monks tale' be found before this sale - perhaps in a Spanish source."
Why yes, I should think so. Or perhaps a French memoire.

"It appears that you, my friend, are predisposed to disallow any 'evidence' without clear provenance. "
Oh dear no, never in life. I have never disallowed anything in an historical research .... from mere conjecture to videotape of the event.

In the instant case, I was asking about where the idea of Soult as a looter arose. We have "Soult the looter" oft-repeted in many works. I wondered when he first could be seen as having this reputation. The earliest accusation that I found was that of the conde de Toreno ca.1830.

In general, I would just like to know the provenance. The provenance can add or subtract from credibility.

As in the particular example, I think it would add to the credibility of the "monk's tale" if someone present at the time said that this had happened, and subtract from its credibility if it appears in a rather sensationalist way and without further attribution half a century after the event. The addition would not create for me a certainty nor the subtraction an impossibility.

Is that not good methodology ?