close
1.
雑誌論文
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of 饗宴局長と後期英国ルネサンス演劇の検閲・認可 — The Master of Revels and the Licensing of Late English Renaissance Drama
太田, 一昭 ; Ota, Kazuaki
出版情報: 言語文化論究. 9, pp. 51-64, 1998-03-01. 九州大学言語文化部
本文を見る:
概要: In his Mastering the Revels (1991), Richard Dutton questions the generally accepted view that George Buc deputized for Edmund Tilney (the Master of the Revels and the censor of the drama, 1579-l610), licensing plays for performance and for publication in Tilney's finai years. He argues that the functions of licensing for the stage and for the press remained divided between Tilney and Buc until 1610, the year of Tiiney's death, and that Tilney issued licenses for performance and Buc for publication. According to Dutton, "lucrative powers" such as those involved in licensing for the stage and for the press were not "casually shared" but "jealously guarded." This paper calls Dutton's theory into question and maintains that Buc served as Tilney's deputy in censoring plays both for the stage and for the press before succeeding Tilney as Master in 1610. It also argues against the assumption (accepted by Dutton and many other critics) that the licensing of plays for the press, like that for the stage, was "lucrative." A letter George Chapman wrote to an unnamed censor ever his refusal to endorse his two-part Byron play (first performed in 1608) for publication indicate that Chapman brought the copy to the same licenser that had censored the play for the stage. Chapman's Byron was eventually allowed by Buc and published, though in a heavily cut version, in 1608. From April 1607 to the end of Tilney's mastership in 1610, almost all plays entered in the London Stationers' Registers were allowed to be printed by Buc or his deputy. It is very likely that Buc or his deputy had licensed these plays for the stage before censoring them for print because, as the above-mentioned Chapman’s letter suggests, about the time of Byron's first performance and publication the same person usually licensed plays for performance and for print, although licenses were issued separately. N. W. Bawcutt's The Control and Censorship of Caroline Drama (l996)contains the dramatic records of Sir Henry Herbert, Master of the Revels to James I, and to the two succeeding kings. Of these records, his office-book is the most important, providing us with a good deal of information as to the licensing of plays by the Master. Close examination of the office-book suggests that licensing plays for publication did not yield much financial gain. It is indisputable that Herbert charged a fee for allowing plays for performance. His rate for licensing plays for performance was either 1 or 2 pounds. He licensed at least eight non-dramatic texts for the press, and in these cases too, the records show that their licenses were charged (10 shillings or 1 pound for each). However, almost no surviving records of the licenses of plays for print mention the fee. This suggests that Herbert may have licensed plays for publication without collecting charges. It should be remembered that Herbert allowed some plays to be acted without a fee because they had already been endorsed by Buc and were free from addition or reformation. Most of the plays submitted to Herbert for press censorship had been allowed for the stage by him or his predecessor. The likeliest inference is that he may have allowed these plays for publication gratis because no serious alterations were made to the play-texts. Buc allowed 18 plays to be printed in 1607, the year when the number of his printing licenses was one of the greatest. If he had charged ten shillings for each license, he would have earned 9 pounds. 9 pounds would have hardly been a handsome income for the Master of the Revels or his deputy. Besides, it is doubtful that all these 18 licenses were charged 10 shillings. At Ieast some, if not all, of them were probably allowed gratis. (There is no evidence that Buc issued printing licenses in a very different way from Herbert and always collected charges for licensing plays for print.) Buc's actual income from licensing plays for the press in 1607 would have been smaller than 9 pounds. All of this makes it rational to conclude that the licensing of plays for publication was not "lucrative." 続きを見る
2.
雑誌論文
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of 英国宗教改革と演劇統制 : (1)ヘンリー八世時代 — The English Reformation and Theatre : The Control of the Stage in the Reign of Henry VIII
太田, 一昭 ; Ota, Kazuaki
出版情報: 言語文化論究. 言語情報特集号, pp. 15-29, 1999-10-31. 九州大学大学院言語文化研究院
本文を見る:
概要: This paper discuses how Henry VIII's government controlled the stage, as well as appropriating it for propaganda purposes. The Reformation and the break with Rome in the 1530s encouraged first-generation Protestant leaders, such as Thomas Cromwell, to use the stage as a weapon in religious and political controversy. John Bale and his fellows under the patronage of Cromwell produced anti-Catholic plays in the latter half of the 1530s when Henry’s government enforced a series of anti-papal acts and policies. In 1539, Henry gave royal assent to an Act “abolishing diversity of opinions” (the Act of Six articles), marking a return to orthodoxy in religious policies. In the 1540s, Henry repressed radical Protestantism, making it difficult for Protestant sympathizers to use the stage to disseminate their political and religious ideas. After 1540, the number of anti-Catholic plays performed in English decreased sharply. Alfred Harbage’s Annals of English Drama assigns only one protestant play to the period 1541-47, as against twenty to the years 1533-40. Although there is evidence that protestant plays were produced even in the 1540s, there is no denying that anti-Catholic drama to decline soon after the triumph of religious conservatism in 1539-40. The traditional mystery plays were also affected by the Reformation movement in the 1530s. In 1535 in York, the Corpus Christi play was “not played forsomuch as [the] creed play was then played by the order of my lord mayor and his brethren.” In 1536, the city council agreed that the “Corpus Christi play shall be spared for this year and notplayed forsomuch as [the] Pater Noster play ought by course to be played this year.” The Corpus Christi play, however, seems to have been revived in 1537, when the anti-papal play was flourishing. This suggests that although Protestant Reformers were hostile to the religious plays of Catholic times, they did not make a sustained effort to suppress the traditional religious stage. 続きを見る
3.
雑誌論文
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of エリザベス朝演劇統制令と公演認可 : 宮廷・枢密院はいかに大衆演劇を保護したか — The Control and Patronege of the Elizabethan Stage
太田, 一昭 ; Ota, Kazuaki
出版情報: 言語文化論究. 11, pp. 9-28, 2000-03-01. 九州大学言語文化部
本文を見る:
概要: It has been established that the Crown protected the Elizabethan stage against attacks from the corporation of London and other enemies of the theatre. Queen Elizabeth and influential members of the Privy Council, such as the Earl of Leicester and Lord Hunsdon, patronized major companies of players, authorizing them to play throughout England. There were, however, times when the central government appeared to act as if they were actually an enemy of the stage themselves. In 1597, the Privy Council ordered the demolition of all the purpose-built theatres in London. In l598, it issued a decree restricting playing in and around the city of London to only two companies. In l600, it further ordered these two troupes to limit performance to a single playhouse each and not to play more than twice a week. Some critics believe that these decrees issued by the Privy Council against the stage, together with the system of dramatic censorship by the Master of the Revels established in Elizabeth's reign, were intended to curtail the growth of the expanding theatre industry. The present paper questions this notion, arguing that, in spite of these ostensibly antitheatrical measures, the central government had no intention of restraining the stage. It was one thing to issue an order but quite another to see that it was enforced. There is no evidence that the output of the London theatre industry was diminished during the period 1597-1600 when the Privy Council issued the orders against the stage. The Privy Council minutes and other records strongly suggest that it made little or no effort to have any of these antitheatrical decrees vigorously enforced. (The order of 1597 for the destruction of all playhouses did not in fact destroy any of them.) Dramatic censorship by the Master of the Revels did not check the growth of the theatre industry either, but rather promoted it. The Master censored all plays being prepared for the stage according to the royal patent granted to him in l581. This system of censorship, by which the Master licensed the plays to be acted, made it easier for companies of players to operate in London as well as in the countryside, because the Master's licence for playing protected the players against mayors and other local officials who wanted to suppress their performances, lt is true that the central government, with the Master of the Revels as their agent, exerted control over the stage, but they regulated the stage in a way that protected the theatre industry rather than placing limits on it. 続きを見る
4.
雑誌論文
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of 英国ルネサンス演劇と宮廷祝典局長 : 祝典局長と検閲 — The Master of the Revels and Dramatic Censorship in Renaissance England
太田, 一昭 ; Ota, Kazuaki
出版情報: 言語文化論究. 20, pp. 25-39, 2005-01-31. 九州大学大学院言語文化研究院
本文を見る:
概要: In Renaissance England there was no such thing as the freedom of speech enjoyed in modern democratic countries. No open criticism of the monarch or the Anglican establishment, for example, could be voiced with impunity, and any dramatic as well as literary work taken by the authorities to undermine the existing social and political order was suppressed. This is not, however, to say that writers and playwrights had no freedom ever the content of their works. They actually had a considerable degree of liberty in their choice of subject matters and manner of representation. Playwrights, in particular, were able to deal with a range of social and political topics that is surprising given the absolutist political milieu of the day. A variety of explanations for this can be offered, but one important factor which gave the playwrights (and the actors who performed the plays) the `freedom' of expression was the licensing system for the stage. Under the system, all plays to be performed in England had to be submitted for approval to the Master of the Revels, the censor of the drama. Although no plays without his approval could be staged, the players usually obtained the Master’s authorization without much difficulty and enjoyed the ‘freedom’ to give any play that had been licensed. This licence also protected the players from enemies of the stage such as the City of London and other corporations. Theatre historians have tended to assume that the Master's censorship was severe and harsh, but actually it was much less repressive than has thitherto been claimed. Indeed, the Master occasionally objected to submitted playbooks and ordered the playing companies to revise the texts, but it is important to note that almost all the play presented for his perusal, including those he had initially objected to, were allowed to be staged. The Master even licensed plays full of political and even religious implications that could cause controversy. This is not surprising at all, because he was always ready to approve the playbooks the actors submitted, regardless of the content, as long as they did not break important taboos such as attacking the Anglican establishment or influential personages. As Richard Dutton points out, the Master of the Revels and the players were in a `symbiotic relationship'. They `needed each other to maintain their respective standing and income'. Just as the playing companies could hardly survive without the Master's ,licence for performance, so he depended heavily on the licence fees paid by the actors for his income. This symbiotic relationship led the Master to conduct censorship in a manner conducive to promoting rather than restraining the players’ operations. 続きを見る
5.
雑誌論文
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of 発達障害児のための集団心理療法 — Individually Supported Group Psychotherapy for children with developmental difficulties : a basic theory
遠矢, 浩一; 針塚, 進; Toya, Koichi ... [ほか]
出版情報: 九州大学総合臨床心理研究. 2特別, pp. 3-10, 2011-03-15. 九州大学大学院人間環境学府附属総合臨床心理センター
本文を見る:
概要: 本論文は,発達障害を有する児童のための個別支援形式集団心理療法のあり方について概説したものである。他者の情動状態の理解へのアプローチ,他者との相互性体験,居場所機能,友人関係体験の場,発達的に適切なプログラム受容と共感,集団の均質性,親の会といった視点から,必要な考え方について整理した。発達障害児の心理療法は,単なる対人関係スキルの指導の場ではなく,こどもたちが大人の臨床的支援の下で用意される自然な遊びの文脈の中で様々な対人行動パターンを体験することが重要である。 続きを見る
6.
雑誌論文
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of 「個人的規則に基づく無意味行動」の心理学的意義について — Psychological significance of
武藤, 悠未 ; Muto, Yumi
出版情報: 九州大学総合臨床心理研究. 5, pp. 13-23, 2014-03-27. 九州大学大学院人間環境学府附属総合臨床心理センター
本文を見る:
概要: 我々はある決まった場面や状況において自分だけの特別なルールに従った行動を行うことがある。本稿ではこうした行動を「個人的規則に基づく無意味行動」と名付け,この行動の持つ心理学的意義について探索的な研究を行った。半構造化面接による調査の結果,「個人的規則に基づく無意味行動Jは「儀式的行動J,「遊戯的行動J,「習慣的な儀式的行動」,「習慣的な遊戯的行動」の4タイプに分類でき,行動のタイプによって個人にもたらす効果が異なっているということが示唆された。「個人的規則に基づく無意味行動」は,合理的に考えると無意味な行動であるが我々はこの行動が無意味であるからこそ意義を感じるのではないかということ,また,これらの行動は儀式や遊び、の性質を持っていることから,日常の中で行われるものでありながら非日常的な行動としての役割を果たしているのではないかということが考察できた。 続きを見る
7.
雑誌論文
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of 久留米俘虜収容所における演劇活動 (1) — Theater des Kriegsgefangenenlagers Kurume (1)
津村, 正樹 ; Tsumura, Masaki
出版情報: 言語文化論究. 12, pp. 35-48, 2000-08-31. 九州大学大学院言語文化研究院
本文を見る:
8.
助成・補助金
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of 子どもたちの「居場所」と対人的世界の現在 — The Children's Residence Place and the Reality of the World of the Children's Network.
住田 正樹 ; SUMIDA Masaki
研究期間: 1998-2000
本文を見る:
概要: 最近子どもの問題を語る際に居場所という言葉が使われるようになってきた。居場所というのは本来は人の居所という一定の物理的空間を意味するが、しかし最近の使い方は、これに安心とか安らぎとか寛ぎ、また他者からの受容とか承認という意味合いが付与され、そこにいるとホッと安心していられるところ、心が落ち着けるというほどの意味に用いられるようになってきた。本研究では、この居場所を主観的条件と客観的条件という2つの側面から捉えようとした。主観的条件とは主体が安心、安らぎ、寛ぎ、また受容とか承認を感じ取ることができるか否かという意味付与の問題であり、客観的条件とはそこにおける人間関係の問題-関係性-と物理的場所の問題-空間性-である。 本研究においては、子どもに焦点を合わせ、現在の子どもたちがどのような所を居場所としているか、その居場所はどのような人間関係、つまりネットワークで構成されているか、そしてどのような行動をしているか等について明らかにするために社会学、教育学、心理学、地理学、精神分析学、建築学といった多様な側面からアプローチしたのである。また居場所とそこのネットワークは年齢・性別によってどのような差異を示すのか、家庭場面や学校場面といった生活場面によってどのような差異を示すのか、さらには家庭外や学校外ではどのようなところを居場所としているのか、そしてまた居場所は子どもの発達に如何なる意味を有しているのかを明らかにするために全国規模の統計的調査を実施するとともに一方では個々の子どもたちをケースに事例的調査を実施してデータを蒐集したのである。調査の結果、子どもたちの居場所は、発達段階によって、また性別によって大きく変容していることが明らかになった。 続きを見る
9.
雑誌論文
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of 自尊感情の変容に関する実践的研究 — A Practical Study on the Change of Self-Esteem
吉田, 達也 ; Yoshida, Tatsuya
出版情報: 生活体験学習研究. 4, pp. 55-61, 2004-01-30. 日本生活体験学習学会
本文を見る:
概要: 現在学校では、いじめ、不登校、学級崩壊等さまざまな問題を抱えている。その原因は多岐にわたると思われるが、大きな原因の一つに児童生徒が自分自身に対して自信が持てない、自己のありのままを受け入れられないといった自尊感情の低さもあるのではないかと考えた。そこで、教師の意図的な介入によって自尊感情を高めることを目的として、調査・実践を行った。研究では、E小学校4年生と5年生に焦点を当て、遊びの活性化、コミュニケーション能力の育成、支持的な学級づくりを行うことにより自尊感情が変容するかを検討した。その結果、実験校のE小5・6年生はローゼンバーグ、井上信子の自尊感情得点とも上昇した。E小と統制群の得点ののびに有意差があるかt検定による分析の結果、井上の得点ののびは5、6年生とも有意差がみられ、ローゼンバーグの自尊感情得点の伸びの差では、6年生において有意差がみられた。これらの結果から、①遊びの活性化②コミュニケーション能力の育成③支持的な学級づくりの介入が有効であり、教師の意図的介入で自尊感情は変容するという結果が得られた。 続きを見る
10.
雑誌論文
Kyushu Univ. Production 九州大学成果文献
Cover image of 中国・南京市の小学生の遊びの実態 — A Study on Children's Free Time
李, 仲滨; Li, Zhongbin; 楊, 晓紅 ... [ほか]
出版情報: 生活体験学習研究. 5, pp. 43-53, 2005-01-28. 日本生活体験学習学会
本文を見る:
概要: 本研究の目的は、中国・南京市の小学生の遊びの実態を明らかにすることである。対象は小学校の4、5年生473名。調査は質問紙によって行った。調査の内容は、①遊ぶ友達の人数、②友達との関係、③遊び場、④情報機器による遊び、⑤外遊びの時間、の5つの事項である。主な結果として、①学校で遊ぶ友達の人数は3人以上が男女とも80%以上おり、友達の全くいない子はほとんどいない。これに対して、地域での友達の人数は学校より少ないこと、②多くの子は友達との関係に関して、積極的で、望ましい状態にある。しかし、なかには自分から仲間に入れない子や異年齢の子と関わりをもっていない子が少なからずいること、③遊び場としては「自分の家」が圧倒的に多い。但し、「友達の家」は日本の子ども達ほど多くはないこと、④テレビゲームをしたり、テレビを見て過ごしている子は、日本の子ども達に比べてはるかに少ないこと、⑥外で遊んでいる時間は、1時間以内が男子で47.5%、女子で38.8%である。外遊びを「全然していない」子も男子で17.8%、女子で28.4%いること、などが明らかとなった。 続きを見る