The true nature of Vincent van Gogh’s death continues to be a topic ripe for mystery – after a leading forensics expert has claimed that the artist was murdered.
在一位法醫(yī)學(xué)專家聲稱畫家文特森?梵高是被謀殺之后，梵高之死的真相繼續(xù)成為了謎團(tuán)解密的熱門話題。

The Sunflowers painter died an agonising 29 hours after taking a bullet to the abdomen in a wheat field near Paris in 1890. On his death bed he apparently revealed he had shot himself.
1890年，這位向日葵畫家在陷入持續(xù)苦悶的29小時(shí)之后，于巴黎近郊的麥田里朝腹部開槍自殺。臨終時(shí)分在床上，他說(shuō)是他朝自己開了槍。

However, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, an expert on gunshot injuries, has said that he be believes the wound was “not self-inflicted”.
然而，槍傷專家文特森?迪馬尤博士認(rèn)為這傷口“不是自己造成的”。

According to Vanity Fair, Di Maio, who was a key witness at the George Zimmerman trial, said that it was highly likely that Van Gogh “did not shoot himself”.
根據(jù)《名利場(chǎng)》雜志的說(shuō)辭， 迪馬尤——這位喬治齊默爾曼試驗(yàn)的關(guān)鍵目擊者聲稱梵高很有可能“沒(méi)有朝自己開槍”。

He made the claim in response to a request by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, whose biography of Van Gogh disputes the long-held suicide theory.
這是他對(duì)于史蒂芬?奈芬和喬治?懷特?史密斯請(qǐng)求的回應(yīng)。奈芬和史密斯的梵高傳記對(duì)于一直以來(lái)梵高自殺理論的主張?zhí)岢隽藸?zhēng)議。

In Van Gogh: The Life, a 960-page book published in 2011, the Pulitzer Prize-winning authors claim that the artist had been shot, possibly accidentally, by a couple of boys and that he had decided to protect them by accepting the blame.
在2011年出版的960頁(yè)的《梵高的一生》中，普利策的獲獎(jiǎng)作家們表示：這位畫家很有可能是被兩個(gè)男孩出于意外射殺的；為了保護(hù)他們，畫家選擇抗下責(zé)任。

American academic John Rewald had talked of hearing local rumours about such a theory in the 1930s.
在20世紀(jì)30年代，美國(guó)學(xué)者約翰?瓦爾德曾表示聽過(guò)該理論的當(dāng)?shù)貍髀劇?/div>

But Naifeh and Smith were attacked for publishing their theory and in 2013 Louis van Tilborgh and Teio Meedendorp published a critical review in the Burlington Magazine, which reiterated the suicide narrative.
但是奈芬和史密斯這套理論的出版受到了攻擊，且在2013年，路易斯?范蒂爾博赫和提奧?梅登多普在《伯靈頓》雜志中發(fā)表評(píng)論，重申了自殺論調(diào)。

Following this, Naifeh and Smith asked Di Maio to compare the two accounts and put forth his opinion.
由此，奈芬和史密斯請(qǐng)求迪馬尤比較兩者說(shuō)法并提出自己的見(jiàn)解。

Van Tilborgh and Meedendorp wrote that the son of the attendant physician at Van Gogh’s death bed, Paul Junior, said Van Gogh’s wound had a “brown and purple halo around [it].”
范蒂爾博赫和梅登多普寫道，?保羅二世——這位梵高臨終床邊醫(yī)師隨從的兒子說(shuō)過(guò)，梵高的傷口周圍有一圈“棕色和紫色的暈”。

According to the authors, this meant “the gun must have been fired at very close range … and was caused by the bullet’s impact.”
根據(jù)作者們所言，這意味著“開槍范圍肯定是近距離的……而且是子彈沖擊的影響。”

But Di Maio said: “In fact, [the purple halo] is subcutaneous bleeding from vessels cut by the bullet and is usually seen in individuals who live awhile.
但是迪馬尤說(shuō)道：“事實(shí)上，（紫色的暈圈）是子彈中傷血管后皮下流血造成的，而且常見(jiàn)于中槍后還留有一口氣的死者?！?/div>

“Its presence or absence means nothing.”
“它存不存在并不能說(shuō)明問(wèn)題?！?/div>

Meanwhile, he said the brown ring is “an abrasion ring and seen around virtually all entrance wounds”.
與此同時(shí)，他說(shuō)道棕色的暈圈是“擦傷暈圈，并且?guī)缀跛袀谌肟诙加小薄?/div>

Di Maio also said that if Van Gogh did shoot himself there would have been “soot, powder tattooing and searing of the skin around the entrance”.
迪馬尤也聲稱：如果梵高是開槍射殺自己，那么傷口入口就該是“被煤煙弄臟，出現(xiàn)粉末的紋身樣，且入口處的皮膚是灼傷的”。

He said: “These would have been grossly evident. None of this is described [in any of the forensic accounts]. This indicates the muzzle was more than a foot or two away (closer to two rather than one).”
他說(shuō)：“這些本該是充分的證據(jù)。但沒(méi)有一條在任何法醫(yī)學(xué)條目中被描述出來(lái)。這說(shuō)明了開槍點(diǎn)距離一英尺或者兩英尺以外（更有可能是兩英尺）。”

In conclusion he said: “It is my opinion that, in all medical probability, the wound incurred by Van Gogh was not self-inflicted. In other words, he did not shoot himself.”
在結(jié)論中他說(shuō)道：“我的見(jiàn)解是這樣的，在所有醫(yī)學(xué)的可能性中，梵高的傷口不是自己造成的，換而言之。他沒(méi)有朝自己開槍?！?/div>

However, it may take more than Di Maio to sway academic opinion.
然而，要去撼動(dòng)學(xué)術(shù)界的觀點(diǎn)，有了迪馬尤的支持還遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠。

A curator at the Van Gogh Museum told Naifeh and Smith in an email. “I think it would be like Vincent to protect the boys and take the ‘a(chǎn)ccident’ as an unexpected way out of his burdened life.
梵高博物館的館長(zhǎng)在一封郵件中告知奈芬和史密斯，“我覺(jué)得很有可能文特森他為了保護(hù)男孩們，把這次意外當(dāng)作自己不堪重負(fù)的一生所意想不到的終結(jié)?！?span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 1.8em;">

“But I think the biggest problem you’ll find after publishing your theory is that the suicide is more or less printed in the brains of past and present generations and has become a sort of self-evident truth. Vincent’s suicide has become the grand finale of the story of the martyr for art, it’s his crown of thorns.”
“但是我認(rèn)為你們會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)一個(gè)大問(wèn)題：你們出版了自己的理論后會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)，自殺論或多或少已在過(guò)去人的腦海中根深蒂固了，并且通過(guò)代代相傳成為了某種意義上不言而喻的事實(shí)。梵高的自殺已成為藝術(shù)殉道之路上偉大的終章，這是他的荊棘之冠?！?/div>
?

滬江英語(yǔ)微信 滬江英語(yǔ)微信