創建神社は明治以降の創設になり国家神道思想より祭祀と由緒を創造した神社であったが,基本的な性格は,国家神道体制の教化拠点としての役割,国庫支出による国家的事業としての創建,古式遵奉に則り祭祀に応じた社殿意匠の設定,近世期神仏習合を排除し簡素な神社施設の再構成といった点を共通項として見せた。具体的例として,創建神社の嗜矢である明治5年竣工の別格官幣社湊川神社に見られた本殿の春日造は地域的様式を反映させたものと言え,制限図に則った吉野神宮,独創的な神明造を見せた宮崎神宮,御所施設を移築した橿原神宮の初期創建神社4例を通し,建武中興の時代から神武天皇の再評価へ復古目標を遡行させながら見られた意匠的混乱が,明治中期に効力を発揮した制限図によりいったん回収され本殿流造に統一,明治後半期になると的発想と創造的発想との対立を生み出したことを究明した。

抄録全体を表示

It is remarkable that in the later Islamic history from the 13th century up till the nineteenth century, the Sufi brotherhoods had reorganized the Muslim society. This article stresses less the opposing inter-relationship between the Sufi orders and the orthodox Islamic Church than the complementary relationship between the two. From this point of view, the integration of Islam in later Islam could be realized only through the intermediary social function of Sufi orders. Sociologically viewed, Sufi orders could succeed provided with its adaptation to the corporate structure of society, based especially upon the craft guilds.
In modern history, for the creation of the basis of the modernization of Islamic society, the rationalization of objects, or the concentration of diversified values was necessary condition for the Muslims, hence, firstly the purificationist Wahhabism attacked the Sufism as the inner enemy, and much later the Modernists followed the same attack. So far the two movements have contributed to the effect of further disintegrating the essential social basis of Islam. This underlies the identity crisis of modern Muslims.

抄録全体を表示

The area restriction of shrines, enacted by the proposal of the Ministry of Finance in 1872, was flawed, because the case of reconstruction was not considered. In 1873, the Ministry of Religion ordered those shrines directly controlled by the government to submit drawings of their buildings and surrounding sites The government made the decision to preserve the design of shrines based on these drawings, while the area restriction was to be applyed to only the newly established shrines.

抄録全体を表示

My paper consists of two parts In the first I sketch the trajectory of Aristophanes' adventure on the modern Greek stage during the 20th century, by briefly presenting the emergence of two main trends, the "archaistic" and the "modernistic", in assessing the interpretation of the surviving comedies The former believed that the ancient Greek drama could only be properly interpreted by resorting to the artistic means and conventions of 5th century B C practice, which in actuality means the reconstruction of an ancient performance on a modern stage-a rather utopian aspiration because of a) the serious gaps in our knowledge about the exact situation in theatrical activities of classical Athens, b)the absence of any substantial form of theatrical tradition in Greece, due to a 1500 lacuna of anti-theatrical periods-christian Byzantines and muslim Turks, and c) as a result of the radical changes in social and cultural conditions, the lack of awareness and sensitivity in modern spectators to such a performance The "modernistic" camp of interpretation, on the contrary, maintained that the classical drama could only be appreciated by modern audiences if portrayed by artistic means and in terms of conventions already familiar to them, which actually means the invention of a completely new performance consisting of various, often incompatible, ingredients, as no form of drama even approximately resembling that of classical Greece exists to serve as a model for reference Needless to say, nearly all attempts to interpret the Greek drama naturally use the texts in translation In the case of Aristophanes, however, additional problems are caused by the dependence of his satire on contemporary socio-political reality, on the one hand, and the proverbial bawdiness of his language on the other It is for this reason that the poet became a taboo and, even through the first half of the 20th century, an easy prey at the hands of amateurs or bad touring groups, playing for the mere titillation of male audiences, exceptions were rare The first serious attempts to rehabilitate the maltreated poet only date from the beginning of the 2nd half of the 20th century, under the auspices of National Theatre in Athens, established in 1932, with two productions, representing the two opposite trends The first, with the Clouds, in 1951, undertaken by Sokratis Karadinos, an experienced director, ardent supporter of the "archaistic" approach, drawing his artistic material from various, mainly indirect, ancient sources (vase paintings, testimonies in later texts etc), although attained a remarkable aesthetic result at all levels, failed to appeal to the audience-completely unfamiliar with the grotesque costumes and masks as well as the static movement and conventional acting-but also divided the critics That failure actually ended the attempts of the "archaistic" approach as far as comedy was concerned Aristophanes' real revival was realized by the initiative of two directors, representing the "modernistic" trend, though in slightly different ways as far as the sources wherefrom they drew their raw material and, consequently, the artistic means applied in their interpretation, were concerned Both based their approach on the self-evident receptive capacity of present day audiences, whose referential experiences are drawn from various forms of, not exclusively theatrical, popular entertainment Therefore, with an eclectic method in choosing and utilizing various elements from relative activities and with the mere aspiration of reaching a simply "analogical", as compared with the ancient productions, result, they both created compact, vivid and extremely appealing compositions, which turned the marginalized poet into the most popular theatrical event every summer The main difference between them was that Alexis Solomos, whose production of

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

This paper attempts to trace out the transformation of Chinese architectural theories represent by papers on Chinese "Architectural Journal" during 1954-1978. Based on the previous analyses of statistics and construction, the keywords and the frequency of them are calculated thematically and used for sketching out the transformation and systemization architects' discours. A variety of architects' discours are situated at a verbal map in according to axe of its historical and contextual relationship with social and cultural background. The centralized paradigm and dualistic valuation structure of Chinese socialist architecture provide critical insights into Chinese architecture of that period, as well as today.

抄録全体を表示

In Washington Irving’s Bracebridge Hall, or The Humorists, A Medley (1822), Frank Bracebridge, a fictional squire, tries to protect his and his family’s old-fashioned lifestyle from the overwhelming wave of the industrial revolution. With the voice of Geoffrey Crayon, Irving ironizes their bigoted adherence to the disappearing customs of England’s “good old times.” William Hazlitt criticized this work as literary anachronism, blaming Irving for not seeing what the British were really like and building up his idealized image of them based on the old books he had read in America. Behind this anachronism, however, exists Irving’s critical vision on the parental-filial relationship between the United Kingdom and America, and the inheritance of the (trans) national past. “Dolph Heyliger,” a success story of a young American, placed near the end of Bracebridge Hall, evinces that Dolph’s relationship with his ancestral past is quite the opposite of what the English squire does for restoring the good old times in his fief. Dolph is neither a seeker for nor a guardian of what was gone. His ancestral ghost guides him to an itinerary in which he discovers his ancestral treasure in the end. Not only is this story a huge irony to Bracebridge’s unsuccessful restorationism, but also it works as Irving’s metaphorical vision on how America, a grown-up child that severed itself from the United Kingdom, can reinstall a new parental-filial relationship with this country. This transatlantic vision includes the American author’s aspiration for the role of America as the potential inheritor of British’s literary and cultural tradition. Bracebridge Hall opens a space to situate such a vision, without which Irving would not end his literary pilgrimage in the United Kingdom that he began with The Sketch Book.

抄録全体を表示

 Theodor W. Adorno behandelte Heinrich Heine zweimal. Der bekanntere Vortrag ist Die Wunde Heine, der 1956 an dessen hundertsten Todestag vom Kölner Rundfunk ausgestrahlt wurde. Der zweite ist Toward a reappraisal of Heine, den Adorno 1948 an der Universität von Los Angeles auf Englisch vortrug. Hierbei anzumerken ist eine entscheidende Wendung im Leben Adornos, nämlich die Heimkehr nach Deutschland aus dem Exil in den USA, das aufgrund der antisemitischen Verfolgung und des Arbeitsverbots im nationalsozialistischen Deutschland erfolgte. Zu dieser Heimkehr entschloss er sich 1949. Die gesellschaftliche Lage, die Adorno in der BRD vorfand und die grundlegenden Einfluss auf seine Kulturtheorie ausübte, sowie die dama­lige deutsche Heine-Rezeption änderten seine Haltung zu diesem Thema. In der bisherigen Forschung zur Heine-Interpretation Adornos wird diese verän­derte Einstellung kaum berücksichtigt. Das Hauptziel der vorliegenden Arbeit liegt im Herausarbeiten der Intention Adornos, mittels der Heine-Lektüre die zeitgenössische Lage zu kritisieren, zu welchem Zweck beide Vorträge unter den genannten Aspekten verglichen werden.
　Bislang herrschte die Vorstellung vor, dass er sich von der amerikanischen Kultur distanzierte. Allerdings wird in neuerer Zeit seine Konzeption des Versuches, konkrete Kritik an der Kulturindustrie zu üben, hervorgehoben. Schon während seines Exils setzte er sich mit der Unmöglichkeit einer rein geistigen, von den gesellschaftlichen Verhält­nissen unabhängigen Kultur und der Rolle der Kultur im Kapitalismus auseinander. Diese Problematik spiegelt sich im Heine-Vortrag wider, den Adorno in Amerika hielt. Sein Schwerpunkt liegt in der Neubewertung der Gedichte Heines. Dabei fällt auf, dass er die Interpretation Heines aus der jüdischen Perspektive ablehnte. Adorno zufol­ge soll der Gegensatz zwischen Lyrik und Kommerzialismus themati­siert werden. Heine habe aufgedeckt, dass echte Lyrik unter den Bedingungen der Industriegesellschaft unmöglich sei, während er zugleich die Tradition der Lyrik gegen die Zeitläufe zu bewahren versuchte. Bedenkt man, dass der Vortragsort in den USA lag, wo sich der Kapitalismus am schnellsten ent­wickelte, so ist wohl nicht von der Hand zu weisen, dass Adornos Intention eine Kritik an der gesellschaftlichen Lage in den USA war.
　In der BRD dagegen war Adorno mit einem restaurativen geistigen Klima konfrontiert. Seit der Adenauer-Ära dominierten die Kulturkonservativen, die schon vor dem Krieg den intellektuellen Bereich beherrscht hatten, erneut das kulturelle Leben des Landes. Ihre elitäre Berufung auf Kultur und Geist sowie Identifizierung dieser mit der Nation, knüpften an den Antisemitismus der Nazi-Ideologie an. Nach seiner Rückkehr warnte Adorno vor den restau­rativen Tendenzen in der Kultur und versuchte einen anderen, besseren Um­gang mit der Kultur zu konzipieren. Seiner Meinung nach sei die Existenz­möglichkeit der Kultur nur durch Kritik am Aufkommen von Halbbildung gesichert.
(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示