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页的《梵高的一生》中,普利策的获奖作家们表示:这位画家很有可能是被两个男孩出于意外射杀的;为了保护他们,画家选择抗下责任。
American academic John Rewald had talked of hearing local rumours about such a theory in the 1930s.
在20世纪30年代,美国学者约翰•瓦尔德曾表示听过该理论的当地传闻。
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.
但是奈芬和史密斯这套理论的出版受到了攻击,且在2013年,路易斯•范蒂尔博赫和提奥•梅登多普在《伯灵顿》杂志中发表评论,重申了自杀论调。
Following this, Naifeh and Smith asked Di Maio to compare the two accounts and put forth his opinion.
由此,奈芬和史密斯请求迪马尤比较两者说法并提出自己的见解。
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].”
【他杀! 梵高之死的惊人真相】相关文章:
最新
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15
2020-09-15