This study aims to clarify Sergei Prokofiev’s compositional characteristics and techniques used in his late piano sonatas through both aesthetic and theoretical analyses based on the manifestation of his so-called “five lines.” This research also focuses on the historical background and conceptual origin of his five lines to highlight his usage of these lines in his works. In his autobiography, Prokofiev specifically mentioned that his five lines permeated all his compositions. These lines have distinct musical characteristics: classical, which takes a neo-classical form in pieces such as sonatas or concertos and is indispensable for exploring the form and structure of his piano sonatas; modern, which is mainly found in his harmonic language, including melody, orchestration and dramatic features; toccata or motor, traceable to the Toccata Op. 7, which is one of Robert Schumann’s solo piano works, and its driving energy from its repetitive rhythmic pattern reflecting the industrialization of the early 20^th century; lyrical, which reflects a thoughtful and meditative mood and links long melodic lines, showing Prokofiev’s romanticism; and grotesque, a term used by his contemporaries that Prokofiev himself described as “scherzo-ish.” In addition, Prokofiev’s five lines manifest his standing in music among his contemporaries, and compositions based on them echo several aesthetic ideas such as neo-classicism, primitivism and constructivism. Prokofiev’s musical career in piano sonatas is generally divided into the following three periods. The first period constitutes his formative years in Russia, namely 1891–1918 (Piano Sonatas Nos. 1–4); the second period includes his years in the USA and Europe, namely 1918–1936 (Piano Sonata No. 5), and the third period includes his final years in the U.S.S.R., namely 1936–1953 (Piano Sonatas Nos. 7–9). Prokofiev wrote many works during this latter period, which include ballet music for “Romeo and Juliet” Op. 64 and “Cinderella” Op. 87 and film music for “The Queen of Spades” Op. 70, the opera “War and Peace” Op. 91, and Symphony No. 5 Op. 100. Above all, his late Piano Sonatas (i.e., No. 6 Op. 82, No. 7 Op. 83, and No. 8 Op. 84), commonly referred to as “The War Sonatas” since they were composed during the Second World War, are most representative of his piano writing. However, previous analytical studies on his late piano sonatas allow plenty of scope to reconsider these works for an aesthetic and historical investigation against the political background at the time (such as against the existing socialist realism). This study explores Prokofiev’s five lines principle and its compositional practice against the social background in his later works to illustrate the composer’s approach during the political repression of the time. The results of this investigation show that, despite the intense political pressure in the U.S.S.R. during the 1930s and 1940s, Prokofiev managed to maintain his own musical identity and expressive style through his manifestation of the five lines concept.

抄録全体を表示

This paper examines Mikhail Bulgakov’s letter to the Soviet government, sent on March 28, 1930, and explores how Bulgakov expressed his purpose, or, rather, his creative creed as a playwright. Bulgakov’s self-orientation, as discerned from the letter, is also discussed. The three major audience members Bulgakov had in mind for this letter were Stalin, Kalinin, Maxim Gorky, which we can deduce from the fact that he had sent a nearly identical letter as a petition to these three in June 1929.

The 1930 letter has two aspects: petitionary and artistic. First, Bulgakov protested the banning of his plays “The Days of the Turbins”, “Flight” and “The Crimson Island”, as well as the repeated refusal of his requests for a short trip abroad with his wife to escape a series of critical campaigns against his personality and his work. He asked the Soviet government to immediately grant his request of leaving with his wife, Lubov, or, failing that, to give him a job in the Moscow Art Theatre, to work under the guidance of Stanislavsky and Nemirovich-Danchenko either as an assistant director or an extra or even as a member of the stage crew.

Additionally, Bulgakov flatly denied that he was trying to curry favor with the Soviet government by writing a letter full of falsehoods about his plays and thoughts. He declared that he would never create a communist drama or even try to do so, simply because he fully understood that such a drama from his pen would never be a success. He confessed that “The Crimson Island” was a satire of the Glavrepertkom, a Soviet censorship agency, and he called for freedom of the press and the playwright’s imagination in the Soviet Union. Bulgakov severely criticized the censorship system in effect in Soviet Union as a writer in the satiric tradition of Nikolai Gogol and Mikhail Saltykov-Shchedrin, he defended the Russian intelligentsia and claimed that he had tried to portray the intelligentsia as the finest class of society in “The Days of the Turbins” and “Flight” following the tradition of Lev Tolstoy’s “War and Peace”.

This letter shows Bulgakov, sometimes directly and sometimes with indirect intent, putting on radical anti-communist plays under his own direction for an audience of the Soviet government, or rather Stalin alone, which obviously increased the risk to his life. This was, however, a bet that partially paid off: on April 18, 1930, Stalin personally telephoned Bulgakov and informed him that the Moscow Art Theatre would accept him onto their staff.

抄録全体を表示

アドルノはその著『三つのヘーゲル研究』のなかで、「たしかに、偉大な哲学が数あるなかで、ひとりヘーゲルだけは、そもそも何のことをいっているのか、しばしばまったく判らず、的確に決めることもできない哲学者である。」といって、ヘーゲルを「どう読むか」の一モデルを提示しているが、世にはまれにもその著作の「読み方」じたいが問題と化す著作家が現れるもののようである。今世紀においてはアドルノがそのうちのひとりなのではないだろうか。そこでわれわれは、ここで「アドルノをどう読むか」の試みを提出してみたい。まず、アドルノの哲学をシェーンベルク楽派の無調の音楽に匹敵する「無調の哲学」と呼ぶことによってある種のイメージを喚起させたい。ベートーヴェンの音楽がヘーゲルの哲学に平行するとしたら、シェーンベルクがベートーヴェンじしんの晩年に見られる自己解体の過程を徹底化して無調音楽へ至ったように、アドルノはヘーゲルの哲学を諸力のせめぎあう場として読み、そこに見られる諸々の断絶や亀裂そして傷跡をおしひろげることをとおして、それを否定弁証法すなわち無調哲学へと転位させたのである。アドルノの「批判」とは、あらゆる理論 (システム理論等々) が暗黙のうちに定位している「同一性」へとはけっして溶解され得ない「非同一的なもの」としての単独性にあくまで固執し、ユートピアを救出しようとする、つねに一回的でつねに最後的な、くりかえし得ないものの「反復」の試みなのである。

抄録全体を表示