本論文では，パターン・ランゲージの理論的・哲学的背景を探るために，クリストファー・アレグザンダーの博士論文時代の研究史を中心に，世界各地のアーカイブ史料の調査・収集して，それらの史料の分析を行った。その結果，以下の新事実が明らかになった。（１）アレグザンダーは1959年８月には，コンピュータを利用したデザインを開始していた。（２）『コミュニティとプライバシイ』のコンピュータを利用したデザイン・プロセスを執筆したのはアレグザンダーである。（３）アレグザンダーは1960年末に博士論文を一度提出している。その後，審査委員をジェローム・ブルーナーに変更して，1962年11月に最終的に提出している。（４）アレグザンダーが使用したMITのコンピュータは，1960年９月にはIBM704からIBM709に，1962年１月にはIBM7090に変更された。（５）アレグザンダーはベイエリア高速鉄道の駅を「セミラティス構造」でデザインを行う予定だった。このプロジェクト自体は未完であったが，UCバークレーの学生達が，同様の手法でデザインを行っていた。これらのことから，アレグザンダーが提案したコンピュータを利用したデザイン手法・理論を，Type1(オーバラップ構造)，Type2(ツリー構造)，Type3(セミラティス構造)の３つに分類した。

 The essay aims to reveal architectural communion between Manfredo Tafuri (1935-1994) and Aldo Rossi (1931-1997). Former studies such as Leach (2005) and Assennato (2019) put forward the historical comprehension of Tafuri, but few treated Rossi’s manuscripts titled I quaderni azzurri (below as QA), where Rossi referred to Tafuri. Considering Tafuri’s comments to Rossi in La sfera e il labirinto (The Sphere and the Labyrinth), the study approached their internal relationship to describes the personality of Tafuri in terms of excavating the origin of the movement La Tendenza.

 First, touching former studies, 1960’s, it discusses some architectures as Studio AUA (Architetti Urbanisti Assocciati), co-founded by Tafuri with Vieri Quilici and Giorgio Piccinato. According to Frajndlich (2016), the projects of Studio AUA shows Tafuri’s succession to Modern architect-urbanists as for Le Corbusier, L.I.Kahn and K.Tange. In Project for Centro direzionale di Torino, Studio AUA and Tafuri almost devoted themselves into large- scaled project of Modernist sense. In addition, Aureli (2007) discusses that the group of Polesello-Rossi-Meda had more critical position on the competition for Torino in 1962.

 In some sense, Tafuri nearly fell into the belief of “class architecture” for Modernist architects. In 1964, Tafuri recalled that he had been shocked by the exhibition “Michelangelo Architetto”, led and ruled by Bruno Zevi, and then that he decided to choose history.

 Then, focusing QA from 1970 to 1971, the study uncovered the friendship with Tafuri during 1970-1971 in the fifth and tenth volume of QA (below as QA05 and QA10). In QA05, Rossi objected to Tafuri and reflected whether “class architecture is impossible” on 15 May 1970. On the other hand, in QA10, Rossi copied Tafuri’s letter with poetic approval to his architecture on 21 November 1971. In their opinion, architecture is only realized by dominant class but the project would make some possibility of ‘opposition’ to refuse the existing world.

 After that, the study moved to trace their relationships in 1980 through La sfera e il labirinto, published in 1980 from Einaudi. In the annotations of the Chapter L’Archiecture dans le boudoir, Tafuri not only defended the reproach from J. Rykwert toward Rossi but also alarmed “Rossi School”. Tafuri protected Rossi from the label of “fascist architecture” in Anglo-Saxon context, while he discouraged Rossi to apply his own poesy to architectural education.

 From March to April 1980 Rossi wrote a draft for A Scinetific Autobiography (Autografica scientifica) in QA27, citing the phrases of La sfera e il labirinto. Judging from the citations, Rossi was interested in Tafuri’s view on Adolf Loos. Tafuri show analogical connection between Piranesi and Sade for the entire of analytic images, alluded to connect them to Loos, which impacted Rossi in QA28.

 Before the death, Tafuri testified that his distressed formation in childhood caused him to reproach his parents in the interview in 1992. That is why he had to choose his own education, neither Catholic nor Jewish, while Rossi almost came back in 1980s to Catholic education.

 Indeed, in 1991, Rossi confessed his disappointment in architecture in QA45. Both Rossi and Tafuri had common in architectural dilemma encouraged them to live their lives. In other words, Tafuri had communion with Rossi in the dilemma between ideology and religious policy, against the world, against his life for himself.