The curious discrepancies between the _Trattato della Famiglia_ as written by Alberti and as ascribed to _Pandolfini_ can only be explained upon the hypothesis of such _rifacimento_.

If the historical inaccuracies in which the 'Chronicle' abounds are adduced as convincing proof of its fabrication, it may be replied that the author of so masterly a romance would naturally have been anxious to preserve a strict accordance with documents of acknowledged validity.

Consequently, these very blunders might not unreasonably be used to combat the hypothesis of deliberate forgery.

It is remarkable, in this connection, that only one meager reference is made to Dante by the Chronicler, who, had he been a literary forger, would scarcely have omitted to enlarge upon this theme.

Without, therefore, venturing to express a decided opinion on a question which still divides the most competent Italian judges, I see no reason to despair of the problem being ultimately solved in a way less unfavorable to Dino Compagni than Scheffer-Boichorst and Fanfani would approve of.