Strange
Parallel between «L’Economie de la Passion du Dieu chez Origene (1994
et 1996)» and «Ist Gott leidenschaftlos? Pathos
und Apatheia bei Origenes (1998)»
---
--- ---
When
you take stuff from one writer, it’s plagiarism; when you take it from
many writers, it’s research.
--- Wilson
Mizner (U.S.author, 1876-1933)
ATTENTION
This
page will be corrected any time.
---
--- ---
Preface
Several
years ago, in a college, one of my fellow-teachers, who is now a professor at
a national university in Japan, said to me, “Your things were stolen. Be
careful. You had better cope with legally…” He strongly suggested that I should
insist on my copyright by taking legal procedure. Since the documents on the
Net were accessible to all people, I was ready my documents to be abused. So,
I couldn’t understand immediately what he said at that time. In those
days, I was too busy with some works to mind his advice seriously. But the
Internet is a double-edged sword. It gave me unfavorable information as well
as useful. When I was better off in time and got possible to look back upon my
half-life, I recalled that guy. To know what he did then, I made entry of
his name in a search box on the Net. Then I found a title:
«Ist Gott leidenschaftlos? Pathos und Apatheia bei Origenes (1998)».
I was frozen rather than went through the roof. He did it! Plagiarism ..., though
there is a hair’s breadth between research and plagiarism. All
sorts of suspicions occurred in my mind. He
surely abused my article: <<L’Economie de la Passion du Dieu chez
Origene(1994)>>.
There are many reasons to suspect it. In the following, I will describe
some circumstantial evidences to support it indirectly.
Then based on the
comparison of both articles, I will give the internal evidence. To say my
conclusion beforehand without hesitating about a gag rule of the friendship,
his article is nothing but a cunning renewal of mine.
The
completion of this article will take time for some reasons. I wish the one
who can't wait for my article to be completed in this very
poor English would read the both first of all and compare them carefully. He will notice that
there are strange parallel relations between them, in particular about
keywords, main sources and a conclusion, in a word in everything except a few
new points. My article is to be available
in this Website (French
or Japanese). His one will be read
entirely a little
later
in
a form of citation.
Circumstantial
evidences
According
to a book review about his certain essay, Christianity for him is "to get
over self, a position, a race, and to live in encounter with other
persons". That’s right. He finally got over Catholicism and
inconvenient things to live in encounter with Protestantism --- to pursue his
studies as will be evident in the following. At this point he’s never got
over himself. And what was more wonderful, he snatched away. As it turned out,
he didn’t get over, but trampled over. If he couldn't have pursued his studies in
Protestantism, he might have got over even it. I don’t kwon exactly what made him do so. Several motives would be
thinkable: a peculiar situation of the department to which he belonged as I
did, excessive
principle of result, insolent ambitions concealed under his humble look, his
astounding talent of imitation, an insinuation to me, or instigation by
someone else ... At any rate he had enough atrocity to dare plagiarism.
But his greatest miscalculation would be that I quit a monastic order and got free from
any religious authorities.
Of course it goes without saying that I feel lucky now to write this
way.
To
say the fact fairly, I’d like to describe myself with a few words. I
also got over a stance in just an opposite way. Thai is, I converted to
Catholicism while being in a grad school of protestant theology, and then
rolled into that department. After that, in search of the environment where I
could pursue my studies, I roamed from monasteries to monasteries under
various pretexts. But in principle it’s not possible to enter any monastery
for a specific study. I gave up an institutional religious life. I couldn't get over
myself too, after all.
A
peculiar situation of the department is as follows: from its foundation
Protestantism was dominant there. I was often told, “This department is
protestant!” Its intention was to make me return to Protestantism. Probably he
would be also pressed for conversion, directly or not. Once he told me in a
low voice that he was going to shift to Protestantism. He yielded to the
(silent) pressure in the end and alienated me to get bread of life. He had a
child and a wife in those days. On the other hand, I remained Catholic
stubbornly. Therefore, there remained only one course that I could take to
pursue my studies without getting over my stance. I quit that department which seemed
to me quite unfair.
The alienation was still more intensified when he was chosen as an assistant of that
department by seniority—he is my senior by two years, but is two years
older than I. Considering the situation of that time, this alienation might
well be unavoidable. He had to survive that situation at all costs. On the
other hand I was “too” catholic. To say with the stock phrase of the
religious world, neither had faith. However, He did two rude acts to me at
least, which were unthinkable in terms of common sense. The one was such as
will be mentioned next. The other is the main subject of this article.
It’s
really deplorable that I can hardly forget it. But it’s left in my heart
like a trauma. It was the happening at the end of my senior year of graduate
course, in March 1994. I already finished writing an article then, and
contributed it to an annual report of the Japan Society of Christian Studies, which were going to be published
at the middle of 1994 in Japanese version (ISSN 0285-4848). Needless to say, its title is
<<L’Economie de la Passion de…>>. I presented it at the
meeting of the society in autumn 1993 where he was also present and surely
heard it.
I
forgot a correct date, but one day of 1994, quite abruptly, a double postal
card came to me from him. It was a letter of invitation to my
farewell party! What for? For last several years, I broke with that
department, and my life after that was not fixed yet. What do you think was
written there? It said, “A farewell party is planned for you. Please give me
an answer if inconvenient. Without your reply, I’ll consider that you agreed
to the proposal”.
No
kidding! Before writing such a rude postcard to get my consent, shouldn’t he
have exerted every way to contact me? There was no trace till then that he
tried to contact me by phone or any other ways. It would be evident how I
dealt with it. I
wasn’t so contemptible as to answer such an insulting, provocative, aberrant
card.
I ignored it. The party seemed to have been held on schedule
without a guest. On that day, I had to work in a private school as usual.
Afterwards I heard a rumor from a third person that I became mad! How could
one be mad who could work properly in the presence of many youngsters? Wasn’t he mad rather who planned and
held a party in such a way? Four or two years later, May 1998, he printed a
suspicious article in a German magazine. Just the same year, February
1998, he published a book in Japanese which teats quite other theme, Gregory
of Nyssa. He had studied a thought of Gregory at least for more than seven
years while I went in and out of that university. Before that he had
studied Thomas of Aquin for a couple of years, though.
Compared
with these two thinkers, the study period about Origen was surprisingly
shorter. Generally speaking, the themes he treated about Origen were all
borrowed things. All of them were already taken up and more or less discussed
in lectures or workshops of that department. Above all, they are quite evident
and well-known
themes among genuine researchers of Origen. He only cut into Origen in
the light of the same themes, for laypersons who can’t verify the matter, on
the basis of << a few secondary>> documents --- by alchemy
peculiar to some ideofetistic upstarts of that department. A range of his essays concerning Origen weren’t
so much the results of his original efforts as the products of his
counterfiction in its etymological meaning.
In the following section, I will analyze the article in question minutely in
comparison with mine. It is very regrettable that his article is not readable
in Japanese, and that its copy is only available from the limited libraries.
Nevertheless he would never translate it literally into Japanese as long as
influential persons having read my article are still alive. So far some
reviewers who know the truth criticized his writings severely and sometimes
insinuated his cunning unoriginality. This time, while taking their tacit support, I
--- being trampled over, but having stood up again --- will disclose directly the
hidden fact that his article was totally motivated
by and fabricated on the ground of my article. No matter how well I estimate it, his article is nothing but an illicit revision of mine.
It seems as if I collected stuff for his sake. Now he teaches church history
and ethics without any sign of compunction as a curate at a protestant
university. How good his God is to tolerate his inexcusable transgressions!
*** *** ***
This article was going to be written under the next subtitles.
1.
Internal evidences---Background, Source and defects of my article
2.
Statistical comparison
3.
Comparison of contents
4.
Conclusion
However, my readers, I can’t write this article any more. I’m not so free
as to spend time on the examination of his articles. Above all, that
article is too humiliating to read repeatedly. So, I stop writing here. I want
the readers who have fair spirit to judge whether my claim is right. In the
following I quote the whole text of his article. Please read it and know the
hidden truth i.e. the international deception. I hold myself responsible for
this. But the fault he committed is much more serious.
Simon
Maris, L’Economie de la Passion du Dieu chez Origene
Japanese
(1994) or
French (1996)
His
dirty article, composed on the basis of mine without any mention of it:
Ist Gott
leidenschaftlos? Pathos
und Apatheia bei Origenes (1998)
German
(1998)