The objective of this study is to clarify the spacial formation of the traditional dwellings of the DAI RYAM in Yunnan, China. The results are following. 1) The spacial division exists along with the span by which their act of living is parted. 2) The concept of the spacial seating protocol of Upper - Lower and Innermost - Nearest to the Doorway have a large influence on the living in their dwellings and the spacial composition. 3) The abovementioned concept of Upper - Lower is regulated by the sunken. 4) The concept of the area of Indoor - Outdoor exists in the space and the areal composition has grading according to 5 ranks.

抄録全体を表示

In the latter half of the fourth century B.C., Rome gained a victory in the so-called Latin War (340〜338 B.C.) and established her hegemony in Latium and Campania. It is well known that in doing so Rome enlarged the citizen body without having substantially changed her constitution as a city state, and it is said that this was made possible by changing the incorporated states into municipia. The terms "municipium" (pl. municipia) and "municipes" (the members of a municipium) were in common use to be used until the Empire, but the institution changed in the course of time and the Romans under the Empire seemed no longer to be able to understand the original meaning of these terms. Municipium and municeps (pl. municipes) caught the attention of the antiquarians and lawyers of the late Republic and the Empire, and a couple of definitions worked out by these students have come down to us, although there are very serious contradictions and confusions among them. The terms were also adopted by Roman historians, who wrote the history of early Rome, but we are unsure if they used them in their original meaning or in the meaning the terms had when the historians were writing history. Accordingly, the interpretation of these historical sources often depends on the subjective judgement of each scholar. The main historical sources for municeps and municipium of the fourth century B.C. are "De verborum significatu" of Pompeius Festus and its epitome by Paulus Diaconus. In this paper, I have tried to reexamine these sources and various attempts to interpret them by modern scholars in order to arrive at a better understanding of this important institution. In doing so however I was constrained to concentrate the argumentation on philological interpretations of the texts of Festus and Paulus, and on the problem of how much the understanding of the antiquarians and lawyers, from whom Festus got his information, had depended on old traditons. The results of these investigations are as follows : 1. Aelius Gallus, whom Festus used in the item of Municeps, informs us of the opinion of the lawyers who lived in the late Republic and under the Empire. Among them there was a common opinion that the state of a municeps originated from taking over munus and that this was the oldest meaning of the term. 2. Servius, whom Festus cites in the same item, seeks the origin of municipes in the people who became Romans by the grant of the civitas s. s. before the Social War (91-87 B.C.). 3. Of the three definitions which Paulus gives in the item of Municipium (which he derived from the lost item of Festus), the second and third concern the peoples who were incorporated in the Roman State by the grant of the full citizenship, the former before, and the latter after the Social War. It is, however, of no concern whether the former peoples were granted with civitas o. i. or civitas s. s. at the time of incorporation into the Roman State. 4. We should not assume any relationship between the first and the two other definitions in the item of Municipium. The first definition is rather related to the definition which lawyers such as Aelius Gallus and Ulpianus give as the original meaning of a municeps, and can be attributed to an understanding held in common by lawyers and antiquarians under the Empire. 5. We can assume that this understanding was won out of the etymological interpretation of the term municeps (munus capiens = one who undertakes munus) and probably also some hisorical information about the legal state of the Volsci and the Campanians who stayed in Rome after their communities had concluded treaties with Rome in the fourth century until they were incorporated in the Roman State after the Latin War. This legal state probably imitated the legal state which the old Latins staying in Rome enjoyed according to their old customary institution. It might also be possible that

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

It is well known, that for a period of the fourth and third centuries B.C. Rome annexed some cities in central Italy by giving not civitas optimo iure, but civitas sine suffragio, and in the annalistic tradition we find in fact a couple of cases of such annexations after the Latin War (340 to 338 B.C.). However as to the origin of civitas sine suffragio scholars of Roman history are notoriously divided. Some critics for example suppose that the Etruscan city Caere was the first community which Rome annexed in such a way, while others will deny it. It is also disputed that civitas sine suffragio was from the beginning a form of annexation and it is often argued that this concept changed during its history. There is even a hypothesis that the civitas sine suffragio was originally a sort of honorary citizenship and could be given individually. This essay clarifies and examines the dispersed historical material and the results of former studies concernig the origin of civitas sine suffragio and its history, and concludes that Caere was not the first city to have been annexed by civitas sine suffragio, and that the idea of depriving the citizenship of suffrage developed from the necessity to annex Capua and some other cities in Northern Campania. After the Latin War Rome took an increasingly deeper interest in this area because of its fertility and the threat from the neighboring Samnites. Therefore immediately after the settlement of a colonia at Cales, the Romans decided to annex Capua and some other Campanian cities, though they tolerated a large scale of self-government amongst the inhabitants of the annexed area. In addition to a relatively great distance from Rome, linguistic and customary differences may have urged the Romans to work out a new form of annexation. That is to say, civitas sine suffragio was created by the Romans in order to annex some Oscan cities in Northern Campania and its bestowal was from the beginning a form of annexation by Rome.

抄録全体を表示

In this article, the author describes the changing character of urban society under the early Roman Empire by focussing upon tria collegia (i.e., fabri, centonarii and dendrophori) and their public activities and social composition. In the conventional research, tria collegia are assumed to have been originally formed as voluntary associations of builders (fabri), ragmakers (centonarii), and timber dealers (dendrophori), but were subsequently embedded in the Roman state structure as official corporate bodies. In addition, it has been supposed that dendrophori performed the same public role as fabri and centonarii did, because of their appearance as such in the epigraphic evidence, whereas dendrophori also played a certain role in rituals for Cybele and Attis. Recently O.M. van Nijf's comparative study of tria collegia has shown that the social composition of tria collegia was urban middling sorts in general, not confined to any particular group in terms of trade. Although his argument contains a variety of interesting points, two aspects remain to be clarified: the substance of the public activities of dendrophori, and the plausibility of identifying tria collegia with any specific trade organizations. The author concludes that the public service conducted by fabri and centonarii should be firefighting and that of dendrophori rituals for Cybele and Attis and that the tria collegia should be understood from the function of the public bodies performing those roles. Consequently, their members were urban middling type citizens who could perform those voluntary activities.

抄録全体を表示

近代以降、古典を扱うのは、主としてペダントリーとも称される文人・作家・批評家たちとなった。それは、T・S・エリオットの詩に夥しい東西の古典が引用されるような事である。いわば。特権としての古典引用、これが近代インテリの証にもなっていたのである。しかし、日本では明治以降、古典を滅ぼすことばかりやっていた。だから、エリオット風の文人は少なかったが、反面、古典の意味合いを問う声も小さかったようだ。そこで、私としては、古典を再度強制的に国民に教育を通して注入し、古典を無視した日本近代=国民国家を超え出た<日本>を再構築していくことを提案したい。これがペダントリーとも無視とも異なる、最も反動的かつまともな古典との出会い方ではないのか。

抄録全体を表示