This article examines the human-animal relationship at the end of 19^th century by focusing on Jumbo, the elephant exhibited in P. T. Barnum’s “Greatest Show on Earth” and the Zoological Gardens of London. Jumbo awed visitors of the Zoo with its colossal body, but, at the same time, attracted them with its intelligence and affections. The star elephant was sold to Barnum in 1882 because the Zoo executives feared that such a huge animal might run wild in the mating season. This ambivalence of love and fear was juxtaposed with a gendered and racial desire of white men who were concerned that overcivilization would lead to effeminacy and decadence. They exploited the primitive land and culture to recover their masculinity. While the most prominent example was Theodore Roosevelt, who promoted a strenuous life and conducted big game hunting in Africa, exotic animals introduced to the domestic domain offered an opportunity to experience the American foreign relation in more accessible locations and in more moderate ways. Barnum’s circus, which sought to improve its reputation in the 1880s by emphasizing educational values and appealing to the middle-class morality, showed a changing relation between human and animals in the time of imperialistic growth.

The exhibition of animals had two meanings: to secure human control over non-human animals, and to demonstrate the superiority of civilization over savageness. Animals from the outside of civilization was recognized as an unknown threat that needed to be tamed. Although trainers in circuses and zoos subordinate fierce animals by force, they, including A. D. Bartlett, the superintendent of the Zoo, could not completely ease their concern over the potential danger of the animals. Violence could not prevent animals from going out of control. Even though Jumbo was just a chattel, its owners could not dispose of the elephant as they wished. The sale of Jumbo boosted a nationalistic and sentimental fever for the “poor” elephant. There was an opposition to the expulsion of Jumbo from the “home”. As the public sympathy escalated, the London Zoo switched its stance to argue that the migration was beneficial to Jumbo and Barnum started to utilize the affectionate bond around the pitiful animal for promotion. Barnum acclaimed the close ties between Jumbo and two partners―the so-called “wife” elephant Alice and the trainer Matthew Scott―as an ideal relationship of respectable middle class. Jumbo was characterized by female virtues like tenderness and sensitivity and therefore became a target of sentimentalism that celebrated compassions even for non-human animals. Jumbo died in an railway accident in 1885. Barnum romanticized its death as a tragedy of a noble and heroic animal. After the death, Jumbo continued to tour around the nation as a stuffed and skeletal specimens to evoke nostalgia for the lost innocence. Jumbo was transformed from an uncontrollable threat to a controllable comfort. The wild animals were domesticated through exhibition and remodeled into pets, nonresistant servant of human beings.

抄録全体を表示

アメリカの動物園で生態的展示が発達してきた経緯を明らかにするために, アメリカの動物園史の時代区分を行い, その史的全体像の把握を試みた。 ハーゲンベックのパノラマ様式をとりいれることにより発達した生態的展示は, その後, 動物地理学的配列の制約と近代主義の影響をうけたが, バイオームの概念をとりいれることにより, 生息地別配列にもとづく生態主義の時代をむかえた。 その起源は, アメリカ自然史博物館のジオラマ展示にみることができた。
またアメリカでは, 初期に移動動物園をともなったサーカスが人気を博していたため, 動物園をショーの世界と同一視する動物園観が永く定着していた。

抄録全体を表示

Herman Melville's Moby-Dick was published in 1851, but, the manuscript had been almost completed by the summer of 1850. Evert Duyckinck, the editor of The Literary World, who looked over the text, wrote to his brother that it was "a romantic, fanciful and literal and most enjoyable presentment of the Whale Fishery." However, as Melville got more and more literary inspiration from Nathaniel Hawthorne through the months from late 1850 to 1851, he could not resist the impulse to revise the work. After all, when the published text appeared, it was much different from the 1850 manuscript. Unfortunately, there is no decisive evidence for verifying this rewriting process because all the manuscripts were lost. Thus, what the 1850 original story was like has been a riddle to Melville scholars. Howard Vincent, George R. Stewart, and James Barbour, relying on external evidences such as letters, quotations, and books Melville used, tried to identify two or three different stages where he worked on different parts of the text. Unlike those critics, Harrison Hayford analyzed the text itself in detail, and hypothesized that Melville changed some of the characters' names in the original manuscript without editing their descriptions. For example, in the 1850 manuscript, Ishmael's partner must have been Bulkington instead of Queequeg, and, in his process of revision, Melville must have changed "Bulkington" both into "Queequeg" in some parts and into "Ahab" in other parts. He swapped the roles of the characters only by editing their names. Above all, this essay focuses on the hypothesis that Peleg was originally spelled as Pegleg in the 1850 manuscript ("peg leg" means an artificial leg made of wood), and that he must have been the one-legged captain of the Pequod. Namely, Pegleg's role as the captain was taken over by Ahab as Melville proceeded with the revision of the manuscript. Hayford calls it a hypothesis, but if we analyze one scene in the present text where Ishmael talks with Peleg, we can assert that his hypothesis is right. This analysis is done by examining Melville's use of the idiom, "clap eye on." Moreover, if Pegleg were the one-legged captain of the ship, his characteristics would represent the national hero of the age, Andrew Jackson. Pegleg initiates Ishmael into the world of whaling by threatening him with his peg leg, the limb devoured by a whale, which symbolizes the dangerous jobs he will have to undertake. In a similar way, Jackson received scars on his head in the Revolutionary War, and he menaced his political enemy with a hickory cane, at the same time, he succeeded in initiating the Republic into a new democratic era. Then, we can assume that Melville composed some parts of the 1850 manuscript, responding to the imperatives of the Jacksonian ideology. This can also be explained by the political backgrounds behind his compositional works, and we can regard his process of revision including Pegleg's transformation into Peleg with his lost leg recovered as his effort to alienate himself from this ideology. Thus, this essay makes clear the textual dynamics deployed in the 1850 and 1851 Moby-Dicks which are transparently visible through each other, and demonstrates the ideological conflicts in which Melville struggled for artistic integration.

抄録全体を表示

Nathaniel Hawthorne’s short story, “The Virtuoso’s Collection” (1842), although unpopular among modern critics and readers, was favored by his contemporary readers and the author himself. James T. Fields recollected in his book that Hawthorne had teased sea-sickened James with his advice to take some curiosities from the story’s stocks as remedies. Contemporary publishers also supported this work, as it was selected for the ” Favorite Authors” series published by Ticknor and Fields in 1860. That the compiler bestowed the first place in the volume to the story, and that the book had been reprinted for 25 consecutive years by another publisher show the regard of Hawthorne’s contemporaries.

Part of the reason for our indifference these days lies in a discrepancy in the image of museums. The middle of the nineteenth century saw many museums established in east coast cities of the United States. These museums totally differed from modernized ones in that their collections were “miscellaneous”; a lot of the objects were “brought together with no purpose” (Stephen Conn) and they rather resembled “cabinets of wonder.” Hawthorne intends this story to be about a museum, but we cannot understand why Hawthorne scraps together these curious items “whose importance to Hawthorne, if it was ever importance,” according to Mark Van Doren, “can no longer be comprehended.” They are important and meaningful, however, if we perceive the significance of the contemporary museums and how Hawthorne tried to trace them.

This essay explores “The Virtuoso’s Collection” in the context of an emerging museum culture, and considers Hawthorne’s attempt to remap nineteenth-century American culture in relation to European cultural heritage. Museums flourished as pedagogical entertainment for the working and middle classes and as showcases to display curiosities from international trades and expeditions of those making territorial claims in Oregon. They were also academic institutes to lead the domestic study of natural history and to become independent from the cultural hegemony of Britain. In short, the museum in those days was a site where the interests of U. S. affairs were involved in a complicated manner, and was linked to a move to reconstruct the modern world system. My reading shows how similar the arrangement of space within Hawthorne’s museum is to that of real museum in those days. This indicates Hawthorne’s intention to participate in the move to reconstruct the modern world system we see in the museums. In his case, to reconstruct the cultural hegemony of European classics is the answer. There is no authoritative order in Hawthorne’s museum where miscellaneous collections of curiosities from American monuments and European history are displayed all together. The wandering Jew in the story also plays a role to remap American culture. The legend of the wandering Jew originates in the Middle Ages of Europe, but from the 1830s to the 1860s, there appeared Americanized wandering Jew legends in articles in American newspapers and magazines. Hawthorne’s museum lets us grasp a view of the then current urge to reframe the bourgeoning world system.

抄録全体を表示