ショクミンチキ チョウセン ニ オケル ジンジャ ノ ショクセイ シンショク ニンヨウ カンレン ノ ホウレイ 1936ネン ノ ジンジャ セイド カイヘン オ チュウシン ニ

1936 was a noteworthy year for the shrine policy of the Japanese Government-General of Korea, because a series of statutes related to shrines were enacted or amended in that year so as to reorganize the shrine system under the Government-General. The author believes that this reorganization, which effectively created a legally-based shrine hierarchy, was intended to increase the number of shrines so as to mobilize Korean people. As part of a study of the relationship between the Government-General and the Department of Shrines, which supervised shrine administration within the Ministry of the Interior, I pay special attention to the Imperial Ordinances among the 1936 shrine-related statutes. We should bear in mind that Imperial Ordinances held force regardless of legal distinctions between the main islands of Japan and its colonies. In this paper I analyze principally the contents of Imperial Ordinances related to shrine office organization and the appointment of shrine officers, while also examining the process by which they were revised

ヴァレンタインのシルヴィア放棄とジューリアの卒倒 : 『ヴェローナの二紳士』の新しい読み方

The problem of how to interpret the final scene of Shakespeare\u27s The Two Gentleman of Verona has long been discussed but has yet to be convincingly solved. In that scene, Valentine catches his friend Proteus trying to seduce his love Silvia and blames him for his betrayal; but because his friend deeply regrets his crime, Valentine not only forgives him but also, to show his friendship to be true, is willing to surrender his love to him. This attitude of his has been made a focus of criticism; critics think it psychologically unnatural, cruel for Silvia, and absurd because Proteus is a worthless friend. Against such criticism, however, some critics have defended Valentine\u27s behaviour on the ground that it reflects the traditional medieval idea that friendship is above love, which is the central theme of Shakespeare\u27s source. In the tenth story of the Decameron by Giovanni Boccacio, Gisippus renounces all his interests in his betrothed Sophronia and gives her to his great friend Titus, who has passionately loved her; in medieval morality, a true friend should not scruple to do anything to show his friendship. Shakespeare seems to have known Boccacio\u27s story through The Governor by Thomas Elyot; and the book is clearly one of his main sources, for Valentine, Proteus, and Silvia in his play correspond respectively to Gisippus, Titus, and Sophronia; and moreover even Valentine\u27s speech to express his renunciation of Silvia is similar to that of Gisippus to renounce Sophronia. The main plot of the play consists of the story of Proteus and his betrothed Julia, who in the disguise of a page, goes to Milan where he is staying, and serves him, watching over his behavior. Shakespeare derived that story from Diana Enamorada by Jorge de Montemayor, a Portuguese poet, and by creating Valentine, Proteus\u27 great friend, introduced into the play the friendship theme based on that of Gisippus and Titus. The problem, however, is that Proteus\u27 character is portrayed much less favourably than Titus\u27. In the case of the two friends of The Governor, they are united by so deep a friendship that Titus becomes ill by trying to suppress his passion of love for his friend\u27s fiancee; in contrast to this, Proteus, to win his friend\u27s betrothed Silvia, reveals to the Duke, her father, Valentine\u27s plan to elope with her, and consequently his friend is banished. Many critics, therefore, think it foolish of Valentine to surrender his love to such a worthless friend, and in this behaviour of his, they perceive Shakespeare\u27s satire against the medieval conception of masculine friendship. For example, Hereward T. Price thinks Valentine\u27s \u27foolish\u27 character to be consistent in the play, and Clifford Leech, the Arden editor of this play, agreeing to such a critical trend, thinks that Julia\u27s swoon when she hears Valentine\u27s famous speech is a conscious action by her to protest against his absurd attitude. However, is her swoon really a conscious performance? On the contrary, did not Shakespeare intend in it a comical effect like that of Rosalind\u27s swoon in IV. iii of As You Like It? When I consider the problems of this play, what seems strange to me is that there should have been no critics who have noticed the ironical effect of Julia\u27s swoon. When she hears that speech of Valentine\u27s it is psychologically natural that she should feel hopeless and fall down in shock. To the present writer, her swoon is felt to be ironical, because she has often in an aside commented satirically using her advantageous position of disguise. What I think to be the conclusive evidence of her swoon\u27s not being a performance is that, before she falls down, she does not make any satirical comment in an aside as she usually does when she feels something to be absurd. It shows that she swoons from true shock and that Valentine\u27s speech is meant not as a satire against the speaker or against the friendship convention, but as an irony against Julia and Silvia. It may be difficult for some critics to feel the irony against Silvia, for she is the symbol of constancy and also partly represents the author\u27s attitude. But soon after her \u27O heaven be judge how I love Valentine,……\u27 in the final scene, when she sees her lover willing to offer her to his friend whom she detests, I cannot imagine that the ironist Shakespeare was not conscious of the irony. \u27False, perjured\u27 Proteus is justly punished by a satire, but both Julia and Silvia have so long and severely mocked him that the author, knowing the magic power of love, may have felt it proper as a balance of irony to give the women some shock by Valentine\u27s speech. According to E. K. Chambers\u27s chronology, this play was written in the same season of the same year as Love\u27s Labour\u27s Lost, where female mocks male in love. Therefore, the story of Gisippus giving his love Sophronia to Titus may have been attractive to shakespeare as an irony against women; and in adapting the story of Felismena in Diana Enamorada, he may from the start have had the plan to use Gisippus\u27 speech of heroic friendship as a device to make Julia in the disguise swoon and reveal her identity. Anyhow, we must note, it is Valentine\u27s speech which effectively works in ending the complication of the play; and this seems to disprove the theory that, in the speech of friendship, the author intends a satire against the speaker and the convention of masculine friendship. Shakespeare appears to be much interested in the ironical effects produced by Julia\u27s disguise. In using such a technique, one of the most comical effects is produced when the character who is in disguise is placed in an embarrassing situation because of that disguise. Is not such an effect aimed at in Julia\u27s swoon? It will have a great influence on the interpretation of Valentine\u27s famous speech and therefore of the whole play, whether Julia\u27s swoon is meant to be a conscious one or not. To examine this, however, it is necessary to study the play more carefully from the viewpoint of comic technique. What I want to stress in this essay is that, unless critics notice the irony of Julia\u27s swoon, it will be difficult to solve the problems of this play