日本ジョンソン協会第43回大会プログラム

日時：　2010年5月31日（月）
会場：　兵庫県民会館（https://hyogo-arts.or.jp/arts/kai.htm）　３階会議室（３０３号室）
神戸市中央区下山手通4-16-3　　電話078-321-2131／ファックス078-321-2138
＊アクセス：地下鉄山手線「県庁前駅」下車すぐ／JR・阪神「元町駅」下車・北へ徒歩7分

◆【大会プログラム】≪受付開始　９：３０≫

シンポジウム概要

「サミュエル・ジョンソンと18世紀英文学の諸相」

今回の日本ジョンソン協会シンポジウム企画は、ミュンスター大学エーレンプライス・センター (Ehrenpreis Centre、詳しくはhttps://www.anglistik.uni-muenster.de/swift/)のヘルマン・Ｊ・レアル所長（ミュンスター大学名誉教授）ほか4名の研究者が来日するのに合わせ、昨年生誕300年を迎えたサミュエル・ジョンソンを軸として、「長い18世紀英文学」全般にわたる問題を広く総合的に、しかし具体的な視点やトピックスに焦点をあてながら考察しようとするものです。周知の通り、エーレンプライス・センターは、碩学として知られる故Irvin Ehrenpreis博士の業績を顕彰すべくミュンスター大学に設置された研究所で、特にスウィフト研究では、世界でも屈指の業績を挙げています。
詳細はプログラムおよびシノプシスにある通りですが、午前中のレアル教授と諏訪部教授によるプレナリー的な講演をはじめ、合計6編の口頭発表が行われ、それぞれについてディスカッサントがコメントや問題提起を述べ、そしてこれを広くフロアの皆さまと有益なディスカッションに展開して行こうという試みです。18世紀英文学研究における多くの個別的な話題を取り上げますので、何らかの結論を導出するという形は必ずしも取りませんが、その代わり、ディスカッションは総じて会員の皆さまに多くの接点を持つものになるはずです。そしてそういう中から、今後の研究動向への展望や視点を見出すことができればと考えております。また、親日派のドイツ人研究者と日本側研究者の交流によって、英文学に対する比較文学的な考察の可能性を探ることもできるかと思います。みなさまのご参加を心よりお待ちしております。
（総合司会：原田範行（東京女子大学））

【プログラム】

【各講演・発表の梗概】（未着のものにつきましては、到着次第ジョンソン協会ウェッブサイトに掲載しますので、ご覧ください。）

“Johnson’s Final Words” (Prof. Hitoshi Suwabe（諏訪部仁）)

It is generally believed that Johnson’s last words were ‘God bless you!’, or ‘God bless you, my dear!’ The former is John Hoole's, and the latter Boswell's versions. Then, how about John Hawkins's ‘Jam Moriturus’? It was Francesco Sastres that heard Johnson's utterance and informed Hawkins of it. He was not just ‘the Italian master,’ as Boswell mentioned him only once in his Life of Johnson, but a poet, translator, member of the Essex Head Club, and diplomat in later life. Sastres was one of Johnson's closest friends during his last years, and on Johnson’s last days he and Hoole attended him ‘rather as nurses than friends’ (Fanny Burney's Diary). The extant seven letters to him from Johnson show that Sastres was ‘much his favourite,’ as Mrs. Piozzi wrote in her Anecdotes. In one of these letters Johnson chided him for writing to him only ‘twice a week,’ and another suggests that they were reading Petrarch together at Johnson's house in Bolt Court. If on some occasion they had talked of gladiators who were wont to salute Roman Emperors before meeting death, Johnson would naturally have ‘stretched forth his hand, and in a tone of lamentation, called out ‘Jam Moriturus’ as seldom-cited Arthur Murphy wrote in his Johnson's Life and Genius. The two Latin words were, to be sure, among Johnson's last words, if not the very last, and they deserve well to be treated as his final words, since Johnson had said during his last months, ‘I will be conquered; I will not capitulate.’

“‘Physician, cure thyself’: Shaftesbury's Advice to an Author and the Function of Soliloquy, or Self-Discourse, in his Concept of Criticism” (Prof. Barbara Schmidt-Haberkamp)

Anthony Ashley Cooper, third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713), attacked the intellectual pride and folly of his age in order to check the extravagancies of science, philosophy, art, and religion. His targets included philosophical system-building, modern hackery, religious fanaticism, and scientific mechanism. The overall and declared aim of his main work, Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times (1711) was to turn his readers into critics, i.e. independent and skeptical thinkers; in his own words, he aimed "to raise the masterly spirit of just Criticism in my Readers, and exalt them ever so little above the lazy, timorous, over-modest, or resign'd State, in which the generality of them remain".
In Soliloquy: or, Advice to an Author Shaftesbury advertises soliloquy, or self-discourse, as a first and necessary step towards developing independence of judgement and, thus, towards man's self-definition. As self-criticism, self-discourse forms a central part of his concept of criticism. Relevant concepts to be discussed are self-knowledge and "taste", the methodology of giving advice, Shaftesbury's idea of self-discourse as "Regimen or Discipline of the Fancys" and as the natural form of human thought, and, finally, his model of the Socratic-Platonic dialogues.

“Where 'Prentic’d Kings Alarm the Gaping Street": The Ridicule of Eighteenth-Century Spouting Clubs” (Dr. Sabine Baltes-Ellermann)

Eighteenth-century Britain abounded with an intense interest in all things theatrical. The growing affluence of society ensured that an increasingly diversified audience flocked to the playhouses to watch star actors like David Garrick and Sarah Siddons perform in popular comedies and tragedies. The press offered fulsome reviews of the performances for the benefit of a greedy readership. Playtexts, too, became a profitable commodity for booksellers in an increasingly literate society and an affordable luxury for smaller purses. So it is not surprising that an inclination for amateur acting began to pervade all strata of English society. Even among lower middle-class clerks and apprentices, there emerged a new pastime of voluble theatrical declamation, which found vent in clubs meeting in public houses and taverns. It grew to such proportions that it elicited the pejorative catchword "spouting" and provided playwrights and satirists with ample material for ridicule in various farces, satirical narratives and poems.

"Samuel Johnson’s Version of the Irene Story Revisited" (Dr. Dirk F. Passmann)

Johnson's first and only play has received relatively little critical attention. This is partly owing to Johnson's dissatisfaction with his own work and his disappointment with its reception by the public. 'Irene' 'failed' for various reasons ? Johnson's treatment of the plot, his making the drama and its protagonists subservient to his moralistic message, or the lack of poetic elegance and dramatic technique have been offered by Johnsonian scholars. This paper looks at the 'historical' Irene, its treatment in drama, poetry and prose, and at the figure of Mahomet, whose role in 'Irene' is, viewed in context with all other presentations of the sujet, is largely responsible for the ill reception of the play.

“All the Orders of Architecture in a Citadel”: Architectural Analogies in Samuel Johnson’s Preface to His Edition of Shakespear’s Plays” (Prof. Bernfried Nugel )

In the “modern system of the arts” (P.O. Kristeller), prevalent from the Renaissance, inter-art analogies were particularly frequent between poetry and painting, whereas music or architecture were mostly referred to only in specific respects. A closer glance, however, at neoclassical literary theory from the 16th to 18th centuries reveals a solid tradition of architectural analogies at work especially when critics touched either upon the overall design of a literary work or more concretely upon its plot. In this field of planning and ordering a work of art, architecture had a decisive advantage over the other arts because its drawings and plans were expected to conform to mathematical principles and exact measuring.
Johnson’s Preface to Shakespeare can serve as a prominent example of how in the second half of the eighteenth century architectural analogies could be used not only to underscore the rigid stability of the system of neoclassical rules but also to undermine the strict meaning of critical terms, such as design, plot and plan. Johnson even employs an explicit analogy with the five orders of architecture in order to defend Shakespeare’s non-adherence to the dramatic rules, particularly the three unities of action, place and time. Thus he paves the way for a more comprehensive use of the terms design and plan, or generally, for a greater latitude of critical terminology.

他学会等の開催情報に戻る
トップページに戻る