誰割了梵谷的耳朵

一大早打開電子郵件信箱，看到的第一封信是元元寄來，將一則剛刊出的新聞快報給我。原來梵谷的耳朵不是自殘，而是被高更割下的。

真無聊！

當然不是說我太太無聊 (怎麼敢嘛)，也不宜妄論割人或被割的人無聊，而是這則新聞真無聊。這年頭早已被各種聳動的新聞內容，或是刻意誇張的行銷手法給麻痺了，反正經常謠言滿天飛，是對是錯也沒帶來什麼不良影響，只是多了一則茶餘飯後的閒談話題罷了 (偏偏這種藝術的話題也無人會聊─亦簡稱無聊)。

不過恰好是自己有興趣的美術史，於是燃起一股想一探究竟的好奇心。在網路上追查了一下來源，我馬上就投降了， 從幾個關鍵字查到的新聞文字幾乎都是直接複製貼上，記者們也實在太懶了，在部落格內也出現了超過百篇有同樣的文字 (畢竟這算是藝術界的大新聞)，遺憾的是，幾乎沒有一篇會打上文字來源。

於是轉移方向至英文的網站，這下可不得了，我Google了這樣的關鍵字『Van Gogh's Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence』，結果不是數十筆，而是數十頁的搜尋結果，大多數的內容，也是 copy-paste 類似的文字。我再向 Amazon 想要查詢有無這本書，沒有。我試著想找這兩位研究學者『Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans』的相關資料，數百筆的網站記錄內也是相同的新聞文字，即使將範圍鎖定在學術領域，仍一無所獲。我無功而返。

一開始就認定這只是某些學者故意語出驚人的『研究』報告，還花了大半天的時間去追查源頭，甚至在網誌上留下這篇愈寫愈偏離主題的文章，我──最後終於知道誰才是最無聊的人了。

以下為新聞內容抄錄，中文內容我用這一篇：http://udn.com/NEWS/READING/REA8/4888367.shtml

德學者翻案：高更揮劍 割下梵谷耳朵

德國藝術史學者提出梵谷割耳奇案的驚人說法：梵谷並非自己割下耳朵，而是和高更為了一名娼妓爭風吃醋時，被高更揮劍割下。學者相信梵谷捏造自己割耳，原因是保護他敬重的高更。

費時十年研究梵谷割耳真相的漢堡大學學者考夫曼在新書《梵谷的耳朵：高更與緘默協定》中表示，一八八八年十二月廿三日，移居法國南部阿爾的荷蘭印象派畫家梵谷，和高更在畫室為了一位花名瑞秋的妓女爭風吃醋，嚴重爭吵，梵谷朝高更扔杯子，高更氣得收拾包袱，提劍走人，梵谷緊追不捨。

兩人走到瑞秋工作的妓院附近時，愈吵愈烈，高更劍光一閃，削下了梵谷的左耳垂。高更將凶器扔進隆河，梵谷則把左耳撿起交給瑞秋後蹣跚回家。

警方隔天訊問高更，得到梵谷「自殘」的答案。臥病在床的梵谷並未提供警方任何訊息，梵谷寫給高更的最後一封信說：「你保持沉默，我也會。」考夫曼認為，割耳真相公開，高更得吃牢飯，梵谷一心想保護他認定的摯友。但高更在案發後一走了之，梵谷大受打擊，兩年後飲彈自盡，時年卅七歲。

考夫曼指出，從梵谷與弟弟西奧及高更往來的信件中可見蛛絲馬跡。梵谷寫給西奧的信提到高更曾要求他寄回練劍用的面罩和手套，但未提到劍。梵谷還寫道，幸好高更不玩槍。

關於梵谷割耳的悲劇，一說是他與高更起爭執，精神狂亂的梵谷不但拿剃刀想殺高更，之後更割耳。另一說是兩人爭吵時，高更撂下要回巴黎的狠話，梵谷受不了刺激而割耳。

阿姆斯特丹的梵谷美術館不同意考夫曼的假設，瑞士巴塞爾梵谷作品展的策展人妮娜‧辛默則半信半疑：「因為缺乏實據，所有假設都有可能。」

【2009/05/06 聯合報】


英文的報導也查無源頭，我覺得這篇具有代表性：http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/arts_and_culture/8033650.stm

Gauguin 'cut off Van Gogh's ear'

Van Gogh famously painted a self-portrait with his ear bandaged
Vincent van Gogh did not cut off his own ear but lost it in a fight with fellow artist Paul Gauguin in a row outside a brothel, it has been claimed.

It has long been accepted that the mentally ill Dutch painter cut off his own ear with a razor after the row in Arles, southern France, in 1888.

But a new book, based on the original police investigation, claims Gauguin swiped Van Gogh's ear with a sword.

The authors argue the official version of events contains inconsistencies.

Witness statements

The book, titled In Van Gogh's Ear: Paul Gauguin and the Pact of Silence, is the product of 10 years of research by German academics Hans Kaufmann and Rita Wildegans.

They looked at witness accounts and letters sent by the two artists, concluding that the row ended with Gauguin - a keen fencer - cutting his friend's ear off.

Van Gogh then apparently wrapped it in cloth and handed it to a prostitute, called Rachel.

Mr Kaufmann said it was not clear whether it was an accident or a deliberate attempt to injure Van Gogh, but afterwards both men agreed to tell the police the self-harm story to protect Gauguin.

He said the traditional version of events is based on contradictory and improbable evidence, and no independent witness statement exists.

"Gauguin was not present at the supposed self-mutilation," he told Le Figaro newspaper in France.

"As for Van Gogh, he didn't confirm anything. Their behaviour afterwards and various suggestions by the protagonists indicate they were hiding the truth."

Gauguin later moved to Tahiti, where he produced some of his most famous works. Van Gogh died in 1890 after shooting himself in the chest.