Form

27 DAAD -DAAD

2015 “Partnership Program between the University of Tsukuba and DAAD (Tsukuba-DAAD Joint Research Program)” Report

27 6 25

Date (YYYY/MM/DD): 2015 / 6 / 25

Submitted to: President,

University of Tsukuba

( / Representative of Applicant) / Organization / Title / Name Signature

I hereby report as follows.

1.

Title of Research Project

English Continuities and Ruptures of Modernization: Japan’s Transformation from the Early Modern to Modern

2.

Dispatch Period

Organization Name

Name of Each Applicant

for Dispatch

2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 5 /31 2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 5 /31 2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 6 /3 2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 6 /3 2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 6 /3

Dispatch Period and Organization Name

English

/ / / 2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 5 /31 2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 5 /31 2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 6 /3 2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 6 /3 2015/ 5/ 27 2015/ 6 /3

Free University of Berlin

Keiichi Aizawa Yutaka Tsujinaka Kensuke Chikamoto Noriko Hiraishi Marie Yasunaga

3.

H25

H26 3

2 5 5 28 -29

2

6

1 2

3 9

1-2

H28 2

Summary of the Joint Research, and Results

English This research aims to make a contribution to a new development in Japanese Studies by

advancing international joint research through collaboration between Free University of Berlin and University of Tsukuba. Our research will examine Japanese modernization under the framework of “continuation and reconstructing traditions”.

2013-2014 was the preparatory period of this joint research. Each research facility advanced their research within the framework of the new development of Japanese Studies, and had meetings with Prof. Hijiya-Kirshnereit and Prof. Blechinger-Talcott. The 1st workshop was held at the Free University of Berlin in March 2014, with 5 participants from University of Tsukuba (including 2 postdoctoral fellows).

As this research collaboration obtained the Tsukuba-DAAD Joint Research Program grant, a series of workshops planned alternately in Berlin and in Tsukuba in the FY2015. The 2nd workshop and research arrangement took place on May 28-29 2015 at the Institute of Japanese Studies of Free University of Berlin, bringing together senior and junior researchers from both institutions in what turned out to be a highly promising kickoff event. Presentations as well as discussions were held in both languages, Japanese and English, with inspiring audience from fields such as history, art history, Japanese and comparative literature, or social ideas, giving feedback and fresh input after the talks. The participating scholars, including graduate students also practiced their research under the guidance of the advisors of the Free University of Berlin after the workshop.

The 3rd workshop will be held at the University of Tsukuba in September 2015. In this term, we plan a seminar to deepen the research subject. The graduate students of Free University of Berlin will advance their studies through their 1-2 month(s) stay at Tsukuba, learning the trend of Japanese Studies and gathering materials under the advice of the professors of the University of Tsukuba who specialized in the relevant areas of their research. The results of the joint research of the year will be introduced in a publication, to give momentum to the second year of collaboration.

Notice: Attach a separate sheet if needed.

Freie Universität Berlin – University of Tsukuba

Joint Workshop: Continuities and Ruptures of Modernization – Japan’s Transformation from the Early Modern to Modern

Thursday, May 28th

10.00 Welcome and Participants’ Self-Introduction Verena Blechinger-Talcott & Irmela Hijiya-Kirschnereit (FU Berlin)

10.30 Session I: Perspectives on Early Modern and Modern History

On the Asynchronicity of Modernization (in Japanese) 近代化の非同時性について AIZAWA Keiichi (Tsukuba Univ.)

On the Use and Abuse of Modernity Julian Plenefisch (FU Berlin)

Chair and Discussant: Verena Blechinger-Talcott

12.30 Lunch

14.00 Session II: Dialectics of Social Transformation in Modern Japanese History

Continuities, Ruptures, Reconstruction, and Transformation of Japanese Civil Society Organizations TSUJINAKA Yutaka (Tsukuba Univ.)

Between Empire and Nation: Korean Students in Japan, 1905-20 Dolf-Alexander Neuhaus (FU Berlin)

Chair and Discussant: Verena Blechinger-Talcott

16.00 Coffee Break

16.30 Session III: Ruptures and Continuities in Philosophy and Art

The Organism Concept in Watsuji Tetsuro (in Japanese) 和辻哲郎における「有機体」概念 ONO Futaba (Tsukuba Univ.)

Resonance of the Traditional within Modernization of Buddhist Sculpture Appreciation: A comparative study on museum installation and style analysis through the eyes of Karl With Marie Yasunaga (Tsukuba Univ.)

Chair and Discussant: Irmela Hijiya-Kirschnereit

18.30 Dinner: “Fabecks”, Altensteinstr. 42

Friday, May 29th

10.00 Session IV: Japan and the Politics of Art in the Face of Global Modernity

Painting Buddhism for a united Asia? The Japanese Participation in the Preservation of Sarnath Dinah Zank (FU Berlin)

Transport, Tradition and Transmission: Politics and Patronage in Japanese nanban byoubu Nora Usanov-Geißler (FU Berlin)

Chair and Discussant: Irmela Hijiya-Kirschnereit

12.00 Planning Session: Research Cooperation between FU Berlin and the University of Tsukuba

13.00 Lunch: “Luise”, Königin-Luise-Str. 40-42

Workshop Location: FU Berlin, Institute of Japanese Studies, Meeting Room 1.35 (2nd Floor), Hittorfstr. 18, 14195 Berlin

"Non-simultaneity" of modernization. AIZAWA Keiichi

We often wrongly presume that the modernization level of each society could be measured with a

yardstick. Germany under National Socialism for example, was one of the most advanced countries at the

time, in which the simultaneous coexistence of progress and barbarism, modernity and tradition prevailed.

The history of Germany and Japan in the 30s and 40s shows not only the specific problems of the two

countries, but also we can see here without any revisionist intentions, a common phenomenon of each

modern society: the non-simultaneity of modernization.

This means that the individual characteristics of every modern society can be described by answering the

following question: how are the pre-modern components such as tradition incorporated as indispensable

part of the modern society? The key concept here is the word "nationalism".

Nationalism is a genuinely modern appearance. It appeals to our sense of national identity, which didn’t

even exist until the 18th century. The non-simultaneous juxtaposition of modern and pre-modern

components is usually justified by the vague slogan of "Healthy Nationalism". The “unfinished Project”

called die Moderne cannot exist yet without mobilizing the pre-modern identity-forming components such

as (authentic or invented) traditions. Pre-modern thoughts are more or less tolerated (or even welcomed)

in every modern country. It’s interesting to see how traditions are newly invented and then sold as

something old. In the modern society, traditions enjoy their hibernation as something harmless, until the

society falls into crisis, by which point the pre-modern components are often already out of control.

For this question of non-simultaneous juxtaposition, Japan is a particularly suitable example. It is one of

the most modern countries in the Far East, where the modernization is often confused with westernization.

In times of crisis, Japan was always in desperate need of self-praise and anti-westernization arguments.

In 1942 for instance, the intellectuals have proposed the idea of "overcoming of modernity (近代の超克)".

Japan tried to overcome the crisis of society with the overuse of nationalism. The disaster of the

Japanese society was at the time already inevitable.

Today, Japan is obviously facing a new structural crisis. The much-vaunted Japanese models such as the

principle of lifelong employment and shares of cross-holdings, which facilitated the economic success in

the second half of the 20th century no longer work. It is becoming increasingly obvious, that Japan can no

longer claim the position of power in Asia, which it held for decades. This is not only due to globalization,

aging population and growing public debt, but also due to the increasing economic and military hegemony

of China.

The more the crisis in Japan turns for the worse, the more Japan’s conservative government under Prime

Minister Abe Shinzo try to crowd out the problems with the revival of pre-modern tradition. It might be

difficult for the international community to understand the current inflation of self-congratulation and

enthusiasm for “beautiful traditions” in Japan. Even more questionable is the repetition of the strategy of

the government to try to overcome the crisis through the overuse of nationalism.

Julian Plenefisch Freie Universität Berlin Institute of Japanese Studies Hittorfstr. 18, 14195 Berlin

Abstract

Joint Workshop: Continuities and Ruptures of Modernization – Japan’s Transformation from the Early Modern to Modern

On the Use and Abuse of Modernity

The term Modernity is used by scholars to describe, categorize and explain issues of great importance. Modernity may be a condition, e.g. a set of certain social, economic and political properties that can be obtained if special requirements are fulfilled. Modernity can also be a representation, i.e. a way of talking about the world, societies and people in which one uses a language of change and transformation (tradition vs. modernity). Furthermore, Modernity is used as an era, a state of social development that has a spatial and a temporal dimension. Thus Modernity is currently used to make so many different points that its continued usage might lead to more confusion than to clarity.

However Modernity is still a central research object and analytic category, and as such demands attention. The normal response faced with the conceptual confusion is to dive more deeply into the debates on the best definition. I argue instead that we need to analyze how and why the term Modernity is used. By this we are able to identify its use and abuse in academic debates and to reevaluate its merit for our own research.

To this end, my presentation discusses the usage of Modernity in academic literature. There are four main perspectives on Modernity: First, as powerful teleology of world history, a desirable condition of progress, already obtained in the “West” and a goal to which the rest of the world strives. Second, as a set of social, ideological and political institutions and norms whose origin lies in the “West” and which are colonizing and synchronizing all alternative modes of livelihood. Third, as a unique “Western” accomplishment which has to be defended against non- or anti-modern communities whose (cultural) nature prevents the achievement of Modernity. Fourth, as “multiple modernities” or “alternative modernities”, which focuses on Non-Western communities that developed cultural forms that are not mere variants of a “Western modernity” but their own path to progress or that are self-consciously distinct from “Western modernity”.

The first three perspectives share a focus on the “West” and the fourth decentralizes the spatial origin of Modernity and stresses the eligibility of alternative variants. However the discussion of the academic literature shows that all main perspectives construct a bundle or set of static social and cultural attributes representing Modernity. In doing so, the term runs the risk of lacking a sensitivity of historical situations, conjunctions and causation of social change. These bundles of Modernity may also miss an understanding of the different ways people perceived and framed the past, present and future. Thus I do not argue to cast aside the issues related to Modernity, but to question each specific usage of its potential to obscure or to contribute to our understanding of history.

日本の市民社会の連続、断絶、再構築、変容

辻中豊（筑波大学）

大震災に直面して、日本の社会は２つの顔を見せました。地震と津波という自然災害は、

多くの損害、多くの人命が失われましたが、その時、その後の日本社会の在り方は、国際

的にも高い評価を受けました。日本の市民社会は、災害をある程度食い止め、残された人々

をなんとか守ることができる、人々のつながりをもった社会であると、評価されました。

他方で原発問題は、その前も、その時も、その後も、多くの問題を孕んでいますし、まだ

これからも続く大きな問題です。評価は難しいのですが、日本社会の対照的な２つの面が

ここに表れています。この対照は、どうしてでしょうか。

この問題と日本の市民社会の形成は関係しています。現代日本を理解するうえでの市民

社会の継続、断絶、再構築、変容問題は、大きないくつかの問にこたえる可能性がありま

す。例えば、関連する日本社会の謎をあげてみましょう。

１）「小政府」―たいへん不思議なことには、日本の政府の規模、公務員数や政府予算が

先進国では、最低のレベルだということです。米英仏独の半分です。なぜ半分で日本はい

いのでしょうか。２）「大赤字・発展志向型国家」―日本政府の歳入（税など）も先進国で

は最低レベルです。他方で、歳出は、先進国では中程度で、簡単に言えば、歳入に対して

使いすぎています。３）「一党優位政党制の頑強さ・社民型福祉国家型対抗政党の弱さ」―

また西欧と比較すれば、日本の自由民主主義政治体制がこれまで本格的な社民政権、そし

て福祉国家型政策を持ってこなかったことも不思議なことです。

こうした日本社会の大きな謎を、政権や政策の問題としてだけ解明することは困難です。

私はこうした大きな日本政治の謎と市民社会の継続、断絶、再構築、変容問題を関連づけ

てみたいと思います。日本の市民社会は、欧米的な視野からは４つの小 S 問題があるとも

言われています。つまり少ない会員、専門職員、予算、狭い活動範囲。しかしこれは市民

社会の狭い見方から発しています。日本の草の根には広く豊か市民社会が広がり、自治し、

また市町村と協調して活動しています。 こうした広義の市民社会を歴史的にみて、現代へのクリティカルな Juncture としての １）明治革命期 ２）戦後改革期、加えて ３）その他：中間に転換期：大正昭和民主化期 ４）戦後では：1950s、1970s、1990s、2010s（20 年おきは世代？社会変容？世界変容？）

の時期が注目できます。 この研究では、社会団体、近隣住民団体、NPO を含めた包括的な市民社会組織への実態

調査をもとに、市民社会の継続、断絶、再構築、変容問題がいかに上記の謎と関連するか

について考察いたします。

ノイハウス・ドルフ＝アレクサンダー

発表の概略

「韓国人留学生と日本人プロテスタント」

この発表では、明治時代から大正時代までの韓国人の日本留学を中心として、留

学生と絡み合った日本人プロテスタント教徒の中に産出された「アジア認識」を研

究する。その為、グローバル史の視野の最近の知見に基づき、韓国人留学生とプロ

テスタント教徒の日本人のネットワークに着目し当時の教会の組織とその出版され

た雑誌を調査する。その中でも特に近接遭遇の場としての本郷教会、キリスト教青

年会と内村鑑三の無教会を背景として分析する。

まず、今までの日本帝国主義に対する研究の中で、教会における日本の帝国主義

が無視されたことがあり、その上に被植民地者の歴史上の役割も大分看過されたの

である。それが故、日本からだけ見られてきた国史、そして帝国主義へのトップダ

ウンというアプローチを超える研究の目的としている。後、もう一つの面で明治時

代の日本キリスト教分布がただの西洋風のモダン化の副産物だけではなく、欧米中

心主義を超えるのに目指している。

この目的を達成する為に、韓国人留学生が出版した『学之光』の上に、『新人』、

『開拓者』そして『上毛教会月報』等の雑誌を分析している。

The Organism Concept in Watsuji Tetsuro ONO Futaba (Ph.D. Candidate, University of Tsukuba)

It is often said that Watsuji Tetsuro opposed to the individualism of modern Europe his idea of “aidagara” (betweenness) which describes the uniqueness of Japanese society. But my presentation will point out that in Europe at that time a similar thought like Watsuji’s can be found. It is about the development of the organic concept of society in Germany. The organic concept in an elementary form compares the society with an organism which functions based on its own theory, and the individuals with the single cells. Watsuji mentions this concept in his volume Rinrigaku several times, but he criticizes that the society and the individual are considered two separated factors and moreover the personal subjectivity (independence) is denied and the individual degenerates into a cog in the society. Watsuji recognizes the importance of individual freedom which is often identified with the idea of modernization. However he argues that the individual should not use his freedom for his own egoistic purpose but for the whole. In other words the voluntary devotion to the whole is the ethical duty for the individual. “Only the free individual can truly consciously serve the whole and only in relation to the whole the liberation of the individual acquires its meaning” (Rinrigaku ge p.63). Watsuji‘s idea of „aidagara“ means a dialectic relation between the individual and the whole. It requires the individual’s subjectivity, which is regarded as the embodiment of modern Europe, but implies a higher authority at the same time. According to this idea of Watsuji, the “organism” and “aidagara” seem to be completely different concepts. However, it makes sense to consider Watsuji’s thought and the organic concept together. This is because the organism concept developed itself after World War I in Germany in a special way, which Watsuji had hardly expected. The antipathy to the democracy, which was introduced by the lost war, caused the conservatives to argue that not the individual but the whole should have sovereignty. They often compared their ideal state with an organism, but the individual was not described as a will-less cell anymore. Oswald Spengler, whom Watsuji mentioned in Fudo, admired Prussia in his Prussianism And Socialism. He called a monarchic state “gigantic organism” (p.56), in which “[T]he individual does not matter; he must offer himself to the totality. All exist for all, and all partake of that glorious inner freedom, the libertas oboe dientiae which has always distinguished the best exemplars of Prussian breeding” (p.26). This reminds us of Watsuji’s assertion that “Each person should have a higher

membership as he is aware that he is included in the whole system.” or “Self-denying is demanded that each member ends up into the ultimate human totality.” (Rinrigaku jou p.607) Watsuji presented the ethic of „aidagara” as he rejected the pre-modern organism concept as well as the modern individualism which might tend to egoism. The organic concept developed itself in Germany as a reaction against the modernization, but it had not only a retrospective but also a radical side. Both thoughts have something in common; a dialectic, but in the end totalitarian idea about the individual-totality relation. This coincidence seems to be more suggestive in considering that Japan and Germany fought together against the Allies in World War II.

仏像鑑賞作法の近代化における伝統の継承と再構築 美術館展示と美術様式論をめぐる東西比較交渉研究、美術史家カール・ヴィートを題材に

安永麻里絵（日本学術振興会 PD／筑波大学）

本発表は、２0 世紀初頭から第一次世界大戦後のヨーロッパにおける、東洋美術とくに仏

教美術に関する美術史的な言説形成と、その視覚的表象としての美術館展示の分析を目的

とし、具体的な事例としてドイツ人美術史家カール・ヴィート（1891-1980）が 1920 年代は

じめにオランダのアムステルダムの私設美術館（ペトルッチ美術館、後年イ・ユェン美術

館に改称）にて行った仏教彫刻展示を考察の対象として取り上げる。

近年、美術史学の領域では、コレクター研究やキュレーター研究がさかんに行われるよ

うになってきているが、その中でとくに非西欧文化圏の造形物を収集・展示したコレクタ

ーやキュレーターの歴史的評価については、ポストコロニアリズムの視点からの批判や文

化財保護の観点からの擁護論などがせめぎ合い、なお多くの議論が交わされている段階と

いえよう。そうしたなかでしばしば提唱されるのが、“それまで西欧文化圏において芸術的

価値を認められていなかった事物に対してそれを公的に認めた”、という点において彼らの

仕事を文化的功績として評価する立場である（ここではもちろんその「芸術的価値」とは

何か、という問題がつねに付きまとう）。このような現代のコレクター／キュレーター評価

のひとつの学問的潮流を踏まえた上で興味深い人物として浮かび上がるのが、カール・ヴ

ィートである。

ヴィートは、他の多くの同時代の西洋人コレクターと異なり、仏教彫刻が本質的に西欧

的な意味で「展示」することは不可能な造形物である、という認識から出発している。ヴ

ィートのこのような立場は、彼が文化的造形物を宗教や習俗から把握しようとする民族学

や考古学の発想を美術史学にも取り込んでいるからでもあり、より直接的には彼自身の滞

日経験に由来している。この認識から出発しながらも、ヴィートは上述の私設美術館では

仏教彫刻の展示デザインを担当した。これは本意を覆したというよりもむしろ、西欧のオ

ーディエンスに向けた積極的な自身の解釈の表明だった。ヴィート造形の様式分析という

手法を採用することによって、それまでの西欧における東洋考古学研究の見解に対し、彼

独自の仏教彫刻解釈を提示している。

発表では、まず、オランダにおける東洋美術館の最初期の実例であるこの美術館の設立

経緯を明らかにするとともに、同館におけるヴィートの仏教彫刻展示を彼の美術様式論に

着眼しつつ分析し、さらに美術様式論が東西双方における仏教彫刻（史）の記述において

果たした役割に関する一考察を提示したい。

Painting Buddhism for a united Asia? The Japanese Participation in the Preservation of Sarnath

Dinah Zank

Commissioned by the Mahabodhi Society of India in 1932, the Japanese painter Nousu Kôsetsu (野生

司香雪, 1885-1973) painted scenes from the life of Buddha Gautama to the walls of the rebuilt

Mulagandhakuti Vihara in Sarnath. These frescoes reveal a great influence by the fifth century Indian

Buddhist murals of the Ajanta cave temples, which he studied on sight in 1918. Further, his selection

and composition of scenes reveal a modern Japanese imagery, traversed by innuendos of Nousu’s

devotion to the teachings of Okakura Kakuzô (岡倉覚三, 1862-1913) and his lifelong vivid exchange

with the Government School of Art in Kolkata.

Taking this as a case study, I will explore the Japanese participation in Buddhist heritage conservation

projects in early 20th

century India. Further, I want to take a closer look on networks and patronage

to raise the controversial question, if the visualization of pan-Buddhist thought by Japanese painters

in India catered towards the vision of a united Asia.

1932 年から始まって、野生司 E

の う す

AA香雪 E

こうせつ

A (1885-1973) と言う日本画家はインドのマハーボディ・ソ

サエティの委嘱によって、新しく再建されたサールナートのムルガンダ・クティ寺院の壁で

釈迦の生涯を描いた事があった。その壁画は、野生司が 1918 年に探検したアジャンター石

窟寺院群の壁画の強い影響をよく表すのである。その上、シーンのセレクションとコンポジ

ッションが近代日本画の特殊性を反映する。野生司によって描かれた仏画は 岡倉おかくら

覚三かくぞう

（1862-1913) の理想とコルカタ国立芸術大学との異文化交流の結果として論じられるのであ

る。

それを事例にして、日本がなぜ 20 世紀初頭にインドの仏教遺産保護プロジェクトを協賛し

たかと質す。それ以上、ネットワークと後援も盛り込んで、日本画家のパン・ブッディスト

思想を反映された絵画がアジア主義を指したかと言う議論のある問題を論じる。

Nora Usanov-Geissler, M.A. nora.usanov-geissler@fu-berlin.de Research Fellow, Institute of Art History DFG Research Group 1703: “Transcultural Negotiations in the Ambits of Art” www.fu-berlin.de/for1703

Abstract for the workshop: Continuities and Ruptures of Modernization – Japan’s Transformation from the Early Modern to Modern, Freie Universität Berlin, May 28th -29th 2015

Tradition, Transport and Transmission:

Depictions of Politics and Foreign Trade in Early Modern nanban byōbu

My presentation addresses nanban byōbu ( 南蛮屏風 ) as transportable visualizations

of Japan’s long-distance maritime trade relations in the Momoyama Period. The earliest

of these screens were painted in the 1590s– yet after approximately 60 years of vast

popularity, the production of this kind of genre painting (fūzoku-ga 風俗画), nearly

stopped at once. The Japanese term nanban byōbu relates to two prominent features of

these artworks: firstly, the representation of foreign merchants (nanban-jin 南蛮人) landing

goods at the Japanese coast and secondly the usage of a folding screen (byōbu 屏風)

as image carrier. The limitation to this art medium raises the question why the

visualizations of trade were obviously understood to be best represented in the vast

format of folding screens, which are mostly displayed in pairs and consequently offer a

pictorial range of approximately 150 cm height and 700 cm width.

My paper pursues three aspects of the interplay between motive and medium: At first,

I introduce pictorial quotations and allusions which were used to establish the

iconographical pattern of the arrival scene on nanban byōbu. Secondly, I explore the

paintings in their relation to various actors and factions in the realm of commerce and

politics. Each of them had vested interests in foreign trade and pursued different but

respectively very serious agendas. The ambitions of these patrons are mirrored in the

depictions and were to be mediated to the viewers of the screens. My third point focuses

on the broad distribution of these depictions facilitated by the physical characteristics of

Japanese byōbu. The medium`s transportability enables a temporal display on certain

occasions in varying locations where they not only determinate the spatial frame of an

event but also affect its atmosphere. Accordingly, the transportability of the nanban

screens was an important means to distribute effectively specific visual statements on

the patron’s engagement with foreign trade.

Nora Usanov-Geissler, M.A. nora.usanov-geissler@fu-berlin.de Research Fellow, Institute of Art History DFG Research Group 1703: “Transcultural Negotiations in the Ambits of Art” www.fu-berlin.de/for1703

伝統、交通、伝播: 政治と国際貿易が描いた近世の南蛮屏風

桃山時代に描かれた南蛮屏風は日本の可視化された海洋外交図として見る事ができ

ます。このテーマは 1590年ごろから狩野派の絵師によって描かれて以来、約 60年

間隆盛しましたが、突然制作が終了してしまいました。風俗画の一種である南蛮屏

風には突出した次の２つの特徴があります。：１．日本に停泊している外国商船、

南蛮人と貿易品が主な主題である事。２．媒体は屏風と決まっていた事。日本の屏

風はよく対で飾られるので全平面が高さ約 150ｃｍと幅約 700ｃｍと雄偉な媒体です。

今回の発表では南蛮屛風においての画題と媒体の相互作用における三つの視点につ

いて推考します。初めに南蛮船の上陸シーンの図像的パターンの様々な伝統的引用

元を紹介します。次に、南蛮屏風の発注者であった武士や商人と、絵画が表してい

る物の商業的、政治的分野においての関係について考察します。最後に、絵画の内

容の伝播についてお話します。屏風は可動式の媒体で、特別な機会にのみ飾られま

した。飾られた場は常に屏風絵の琳派的雰囲気に彩られました。つまり、屏風の可

動性のために屏風の発注者は、南蛮屛風による視覚的なメッセージを外交上意図的

に伝播する事ができました。