请选择 进入手机版 | 继续访问电脑版

中国拿破仑论坛

 找回密码
 入伍
新兵指南:让新兵更快熟悉论坛转载文章请注明作者/译者及出处@napolun.com邮箱自助申请
近卫军名将 - 赤胆忠心的“圣贤”德鲁奥 电影《滑铁卢》DVD-5一张钱老神作 THE CAMPAIGNS OF NAPOLEON
拿破仑所著小说《克利松与欧仁妮》波兰军团的创始者——东布罗夫斯基 路易斯-皮雷•蒙布伦和他的骑兵生涯
查看: 2526|回复: 22

[原创] 德怀尔的调色盘——学术不端著作上榜录

  [复制链接]
发表于 2017-4-23 14:38:56 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 Gustavus 于 2017-4-24 11:09 编辑

菲利普·德怀尔(Philip Dwyer)算是拿破仑时代研究者中较为著名的澳大利亚学者,他的拿破仑传记(Path to Power,Citizen Emperor)颇有争议,在series等地搞得“狼烟遍起”,本贴主要是提一下此前出版的《塔列朗》一书
《塔列朗》出版后,查尔斯顿学院的William Olejniczak在法国历史评论发了一篇长书评,
http://www.h-france.net/vol5revi ... ews/olejniczak.html
前文略过,其重点部分是:
然而,在德怀尔书中,到处存在着一个特征,若干段落与伯纳德(Bernard)书中高度雷同。特征是一再重复伯纳德的前作中的短语和段落,只是略加修改和删减,但在多数场合并未给出参考文献。

在网文界挂抄袭时调色盘是常用工具,这里不妨一试:
J. Bernard, p. 114:
The mission had come at an auspicious moment so far as Talleyrand himself was concerned. "I had been anxious to leave France for some time, for I was tired and disgusted." He had, only a short time before, on the advice of Gouverneur Morris, suggested himself to Narbonne for the post of minister to Vienna and had been disappointed when De Lessart, the Foreign Minister, had refused him the appointment--very possibly at the insistence of Marie-Antoinette, who undoubtedly would have preferred a friend and confidant to represent France in her native land. It is also likely that the Feuillant ministry was not insensitive to the effect that the presence of a renegade and excommunicated bishop might produce at the court of his Apostolic Majesty of Austria. The mission to London, coming as it did upon the heels of this rejection, had been warmly received by Talleyrand. It presented the opportunity not only to undertake a task of considerable importance for France, but also to renew acquaintances among the émigrés with which England, especially London, was filled.

Philip Dwyer, p. 47:
Knowing that the mission would probably be a failure, Talleyrand nevertheless accepted. As far as he was concerned, it could not have come at a better time. Tired and disgusted with the turn the Revolution had taken, he simply wanted to get out of France and especially Paris where the atmosphere was becoming increasingly dangerous. He had been looking for a position as ambassador for some months: it was a means of maintaining contact with power without the risk of compromising oneself in factional politics. He had stepped forward for the position of ambassador to Vienna, but had been rejected by Delessart, possibly as the insistence of Marie-Antoinette who undoubtedly would have preferred a friend and confident to represent France in her father's court. His position as a former member of the Assembly, which precluded him from being nominated ambassador for a period of two years, was also a stumbling block. Nevertheless, the opportunity to leave for London in a semi-official capacity came soon after this initial rejection, and it was warmly welcomed by Talleyrand. It not only presented the opportunity to undertake a task of considerable importance for the government, but also perhaps to renew some acquaintances with the émigré population in London, and to carry out some personal financial dealings.

J. Bernard, p. 487:
Yet his initial determination to bring down Richelieu's government at any cost showed itself not only in his vitriolic attacks on Richelieu himself and on Decazes, but by the astonishing political alliances that he formed in order to bring this about. The first such occasion was in 1817, when the government sponsored a bill in the chamber extending the franchise to anyone in France who paid at least 300 francs in annual taxes. The bill was heatedly opposed by the ultras, led by the Count d'Artois and his sons--Talleyrand's old enemies. Talleyrand, who had always favored liberalization of the voting law, on the one hand, and who had, on the other, always opposed most vehemently Artois' party of reactionaries, now did a complete turnabout. Fully aware that defeat of the bill could only weaken the government, undermine the prestige of the throne and spread discontent among the people, he placed himself at the head of the opposition to it and succeeded in defeating it by arguing that the proposed law was contrary to the best interests of legitimacy.
Philip Dwyer, p. 175:
Talleyrand's stance got him involved in some astonishing political alliances. In 1817, for example, when the government sponsored a bill in the Chamber extending the franchise to anyone in France who paid at least 300 francs in annual taxes, the bill was heatedly opposed by the ultras, led by the count d'Artois and his sons. Talleyrand, on the other hand, who had always favored liberalisation of the voting law, and who had always opposed Artois's party of reactionaries, now did a complete flip. Fully aware that the defeat of the bill would only weaken the government, undermine the prestige of the throne and spread discontent among the people, he placed himself at the head of the opposition to the bill, and succeeded in defeating it by arguing that the proposed law was contrary to the best interests of legitimacy.

其余不端部分还有许多,这里不再赘述,读者可自行前往原链接欣赏
回复

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2017-4-23 14:46:17 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Gustavus 于 2017-4-23 14:47 编辑

德怀尔的回复也很有意思,不得不在此贴出,翻译就先免了,实在是有许多“精妙”之处

The reviewer is quite correct in stating that there are a number of passages too close to a biography written in the early 1970s by J. F. Bernard. The similarities came as a shock to me--I am my harshest critic--all the more so since I gave the manuscript to a number of colleagues to read beforehand, some of whom are perfectly familiar with the literature. At the time, I was writing an undergraduate textbook with a limited amount of space (80,000 words); paraphrasing secondary sources was a legitimate part of the preparatory process although at some point in the note-taking that took place over a number of years I obviously failed to clearly distinguish between what I had paraphrased and what were my own thoughts. Having said that, I have not used arguments or ideas from other sources unacknowledged. The passages cited, moreover, are descriptive, and in one instance contain footnotes that are not to be found in Bernard. I would reiterate that there are significant differences in interpretation between Bernard, a standard, popular biography without a compelling thesis, and my own work, whose arguments I have outlined above. It is a pity that the reviewer did not point this out.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2017-4-23 17:50:01 | 显示全部楼层
这种张冠李戴算啥

Frazer, letter

Franklin, Waterloo

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?入伍

x
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2017-4-23 20:02:36 | 显示全部楼层
拉摩的侄儿 发表于 2017-4-23 17:50
这种张冠李戴算啥

Frazer, letter

若张冠李戴为真,也就是失误
跟不端还是差很多的
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2017-4-24 11:30:45 | 显示全部楼层
另一个很神奇的学术造假事件

鲍登(Bowden)在他的Napoleon and Austerlitz一书中提到一本名为Die Schlacht bei Austerlitz am 2. Dezember 1805的书(525页),他说此书在维也纳于1912年出版,作者叫Derselbe

可实际上,此书作者是奥匈中校Eberhard Mayerhoffer von Vedrepolje,Derselbe系德文“同上”之意,作者不通德文,径直抄来作为“参考”
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2017-6-11 04:12:41 | 显示全部楼层
装甲掷弹熊 发表于 2017-4-24 11:30
另一个很神奇的学术造假事件

鲍登(Bowden)在他的Napoleon and Austerlitz一书中提到一本名为Die Schla ...

这个算是大乌龙。这本书观点倾向性明显,比较“亲法”,但也不是一无是处。对法方的资料整理和使用还是不错的。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2017-6-12 00:33:15 | 显示全部楼层
朔风 发表于 2017-6-11 04:12
这个算是大乌龙。这本书观点倾向性明显,比较“亲法”,但也不是一无是处。对法方的资料整理和使用还是 ...

法军材料除了有些地方开脑洞(比如哈斯拉赫-永京根脑洞了依靠教堂防御)之外,总体上的确不错
不过联军真的是一个字都不能信(引用安东连科和Duffy的部分除外),不然奥斯特利茨就成了亡灵军团大战法军了
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2017-6-13 07:44:44 | 显示全部楼层
装甲掷弹熊 发表于 2017-6-12 00:33
法军材料除了有些地方开脑洞(比如哈斯拉赫-容金根脑洞了依靠教堂防御)之外,总体上的确不错
不过联军 ...

这本书我最近也在翻阅,主要看法军,剩下的当作战争小说来看还是很精彩的
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

 楼主| 发表于 2017-7-26 08:45:09 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 Gustavus 于 2017-7-26 08:57 编辑

德怀尔又中一枪

氏著Path to Power序章煞有介事提到奥军可能误认为法军有个军官前来谈判,所以下手不够狠,正在阿科拉/阿科莱(Arcola/Arcole)桥头的波拿巴可能由此躲过一劫
A number of other officers were killed or wounded in the attempt to take the bridge. It is remarkable that Bonaparte was not among them, and this may very well have been because the Austrians ceased fire believing that an officer was approaching them for talks.3
3. Jean-Gabriel Peltier, Examen de la campagne de Buonaparte en Italie par un témoin oculaire Paris, 1814), pp. 73–4.

这事情甚至搞得Gueniffey在其大作波拿巴里都引用此描述

可实情如何?Examen de la campagne de Buonaparte en Italie par un témoin oculaire这本书恰好gallica有存货,http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k44265w?rk=64378;0翻到第74页:


博利厄(Beaulieu)?!原来这地方写的是洛迪桥头……
拿洛迪来讲阿科拉/阿科莱,真是…………

当然,毕竟按照Hans Karl Weiss的说法
I regard Dwyer as usless source for gaining knowledge about military history
http://www.napoleon-series.org/cgi-bin/forum/archive2015_config.pl?md=read;id=171134

至少在桥头之战上,这个评价是不冤枉的,因为德怀尔此处的眼力确实糟糕,就算不提拿洛迪鱼目混珠,此书作者Jean-Gabriel Peltier是个真真正正的小报作者,靠着脑补和拼贴过活的家伙……

本帖子中包含更多资源

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?入伍

x
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

发表于 2017-7-27 09:11:25 | 显示全部楼层
Gustavus 发表于 2017-7-26 08:45
德怀尔又中一枪

氏著Path to Power序章煞有介事提到奥军可能误认为法军有个军官前来谈判,所以下手不够 ...

Jean-Gabriel Peltier此人貌似是个靠贩奴致富的半吊子王党写手,跑路到英国后继续和他的王党小伙伴们一起发表反革命的反动言论
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 入伍

本版积分规则

小黑屋|手机版|Archiver|中国拿破仑 ( 京ICP备05046168号 )

GMT+8, 2018-11-17 22:45 , Processed in 0.171154 second(s), 16 queries .

Powered by Discuz! X3.2

© 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表