Quote:
Originally Posted by awdaniec666
As someone who is trained in surgery and a little bit in forensics as far as university goes I´d like to throw my hat into the ring and share my thoughts. The following is just meta-medical smalltalk.
Looking at the collegues Rey drawing of Van Goghs "ear-status" one can observe a concavity towards the head. This can most probably be accomplished by pulling the ear to the side and then cutting. A sword-strike with that navigation through tissue and creating such a concavity would not only be fantastical, the blade would be simply stopped by the skull and get stuck. The authors of the book claim on their website it has been a saber by the way.
I´m indifferent to the outcome of this research project but I think it won´t be possible to back this hypothesis up unless some notebook turns up. The projects website and it´s data is a little off from scientific standarts. In my opinion, it´s about selling the promoted book 
https://vangoghsear.com/index.html |
Thank you for this input, and its good to have expert observations from a professional medical standpoint. It is much appreciated, and while I personally do not have academic credentials, I am familiar with research methods. With that noted, I would not be inclined to critique the standards apparent in this or any of the corpus of books that deal with Van Gogh historically. What is important to me is cited references and supported detail.
Clearly this online 'project' is very much in the form of a book review, which inherently is intended to promote a book, much in accord with the reasons books are written. The idea is to present a theory on a topic and researched detail to support it, which it appears these authors have done.
As with most research on these kinds of historical events, the only evidence that can provide necessary detail as required is corroboration of witnesses and records of course. The thing about the diagram drawn by Dr. Rey is that it was drawn in 1930, nearly 42 years after the event, as he was being interviewed by Irving Stone for his well known book on Van Gogh "Lust for Life".
The actual nature of the injury of Van Goghs ear has been a matter of considerable consternation for over a century, and we can presume this illustration by the very doctor who attended to be most reliable. However, my concern is that the intent was to show the character of the injury, in this case the removal of most of the ear.
My question would be, how can a forensic determination of the exact manner of infliction be determined from recollection from such a long time before?
While it seems that the fact that most of the ear was gone is established, the nature of its severence can only be presumed.
Regarding Gaugin and his fencing, thus the sword he may have used. It seems that often writers describing a sword, and not themselves initiated in sword forms, often use descriptive terms rather casually. The use of saber in describing a slashing cut goes to the character of this type of sword.
Gaugin was an experienced fencer (not amateur as some suggest) and in a letter to Van Gogh, asks for his fencing gear, specifically two masks and two pairs of gloves.........no mention of a sword.
Why?
Clearly it was gone, and according to references toward the event of Dec.23,1888, he threw it into the Rhone river afterwards, probably horrified at what had happened.
In looking epee's, it seems these are of notably different character of course than the foil and saber, and were actually intended as dueling swords.
Guagin, by his very character, was inclined to such things, so by knowing more of his training and fencing activity, as well as that he had interacted in challenges, at least two known, it would seem the epee most likely.
Would an epee (rather more like a foil, but with bolder character) be sharp, or only for thrusting? While epees are known to have rebated points for fencing (or using a button type fixture), various descriptions note they are "very sharp though point was blunted". In some accounts, dueling epee's are noted as quite different from the fencing counterparts.
I am interested in the precision cut observation. I would imagine that in a 'Zorro' imagined action , to deliberately cut ones ear, would be as described, would be pretty impossible. However, in swordplay, which Gaugin knew well, an action to ward off an opponent (or attacker as here) often involves a slashing cut either to or near the head.
If Van Gogh was indeed coming at him (or seeming to) with the razor, Gaugin could instinctively have intended such a cut as a deterrent, but in the dynamics of this action, the blow might have made contact.
If Van Gogh turned to the right reacting, the blow might have been glancing at the left side of his head, severing the ear as the cut went downward.
There was a distinct shock to both men instantly, with that diffusing any anger or for that matter, rational thought (though obviously Van Gogh was far from such, he was surely shocked). The fear of prosecution was of course the key matter at hand, clearly Gaugin did not want to be charged nor did Van Gogh want him to be in trouble, thus the beginning of this great mystery.
In references I have seen, including in medical journals cited, cutting off ones ear is completely inconsistent with any sort of self mutilation. Why would Van Gogh do this, even if distraught or other mental distress?
Why the ear? and if so, as suggested with tinnitus or such conditions, why only one?
The book noted is of course but one reference to this infamous event in the history of this artist, however it is most important in that it directly attends to the possibility of Gaugin being the one who cut off Van Goghs ear.
It seems these and other authors such as Bernadette Murphy, "Van Goghs Ear" 2016, have searched thoroughly every possible venue for the kind of material suggested as perhaps holding new information.
While this mystery might of course never be satisfactorily resolved, its importance here historically, is that a 'sword' (of some kind) may well have been used in this most historic event in art history.