The Restoration of the Arch of Titus in The

日本建築学会計画系論文集 第82巻 第734号，1109-1114， 2017年4月 【カテゴリーⅠ】 J. Archit. Plann., AIJ, Vol. 82 No. 734, 1109-1114, Apr., 2017 DOI http://doi.org/10.3130/aija.82.1109

THE RESTORATION OF THE ARCH OF TITUS THE RESTORATIONIN THE OF THE NINETEENTH ARCH OF TITUS CENTURY: IN THE NINETEENTH The intention of Giuseppe Valadier regardingCENTURY: distinctions between old and new architectural materials The intervention of Giuseppe Valadier19 世紀のティトゥスの凱旋門の修復 regarding distinctions between old and new architectural materials 工法「新旧の建材の識別」に関するジュゼッペ・ヴァラディエの意図19 ୡ⣖ࡢࢸ࢕ࢺࢗࢫࡢถ᪕㛛ࡢಟ᚟ ᕤἲࠕ᪂ᪧࡢᘓᮦࡢ㆑ูࠖ࡟㛵ࡍࡿࢪࣗࢮࢵ࣭ࣦ࣌࢓ࣛࢹ࢕࢚ࡢពᅗ Go OHBA ＊ 大場 豪 ኱ሙ ㇦* Go OHBA

The Arch of Titus, restored in the first half of nineteenth century, is a restoration model in terms of certain distinctions between old and new architectural materials. To comprehend the intervention method, this study examined sources on the restoration and compared with a case study, the restoration of the eastern outer wall of the Colosseum. As a result, this study pointed that the Roman architect Giuseppe Valadier sought architectural unity that denoted for the harmony of the two different types of materials.

Keywords: The Arch of Titus, restoration, Giuseppe Valadier, The Colosseum ࢸ࢕ࢺࢗࢫࡢถ᪕㛛㸪ಟ᚟㸪ࢪࣗࢮࢵ࣭ࣦ࣌࢓ࣛࢹ࢕࢚, ࢥࣟࢵࢭ࢜ Recognize Introduction proposal was based on the restoration of the Arch of Titus, as he himself This study discusses the restoration of the Arch of Titus from 1818 to mentioned in Mouseion, the journal of conference’s host organization the 1823 in Rome. The intervention made the ancient monument valuable for International Museum Office4). This episode proved that people still the interplay between old and new architectural materials, a concept that is exemplified the intervention one hundred years after its implementation in taken in restoration projects abroad. On the one hand, the restoration was Italy, and the Athens Conference was a key event in global diffusion of a model for safeguarding historic monuments as the Finnish architect theories and ideals in architectural restoration. Jukka Jokilehto pointed out1). He characterized the restoration as an I have previously discussed restoration factors in a paper entitled “The intermediate measure of subsequent two contrast ideas; the sculptor Background of a Restoration of the Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum: Antonio Canova (1757-1822) opposed any attempts at reconstruction in Discussions of a Social Aspect and the Past Destruction” (2014). As parts order to preserve original members, the sculptor Albert Thorwaldsen of a project aimed at fortifying the Palatine Hill in the Middle Ages, the (1770-1844) agreed with reconstructing missing architectural parts2). On aristocratic Frangipane transformed the ancient arch into a gate with the other hand, I indicated that the restoration of the triumphal arch travertine blocks on its vault. Furthermore, during the regime of Napoléon influenced to outline global guidelines on architectural conservation Bonaparte (1769-1821) over the city from 1809 to 1814, the French codified in the first half of the nineteenth century. The minutes of the destroyed the Convent of the Santa Francesca Romana, which had international conference of experts for the protection and the conservation provided lateral support for arch’s thrust. Around the same time, the of artistic and historical monuments (the Athens Conference) revealed that minutes of the Commission for the Embellishment of Rome revealed, that European participants discussed the subject on the use of substitute architects of the Academy of San Luca, Giuseppe Valadier*1) (1762-1839, materials for Athenian Acropolis on October 25, 1931, and the Italian Photo1), Giuseppe Camporese*2) (1763-1822), and Raffaele Stern*3) architect Gustavo Giovannoni proposed differentiating the original (1774-1820), researched the conditions of Rome’s ancient monuments and Pentelic marbles and new stone materials. His proposal is seen in a part of named the Arch of Titus as their first choice for conservation5). Their the general conclusions reached by the conference; the sixth article on proposal to the Commission, reconstruction of the piers of the triumphal conservation techniques stated that, “the new materials used for this arch6), emphasized the need for lateral reinforcement. purpose [anastylosis] should in all cases be recognizable3).” Giovannoni’s Concerning distinctions between old and new materials, researchers are

＊ Technical Technical Staff, GraduateStaff, Graduate School School of Engineering, of Engineering, Yokohama Yokohama National National University,*ᶓ὾ᅜ❧኱Ꮫ Dr. Eng. ⌮ᕤᏛ⣔኱Ꮫ㝔➼ 横浜国立大学理工学系大学院等 技術職員・工博 ᢏ⾡⫋ဨ࣭ᕤ༤ University, Dr. Eng.

─ 1109 ─ Photo1 (left) Giuseppe Valadier (L’Archivio di Storico dell’Accademia Nazionale di San Luca) Photo2 (center) The restored image of the eastern facade of the Arch of Titus by Giuseppe Valadier (L’Archivio di Stato di Roma, Camerlengato Parte I, Titolo IV. Busta 40. Fiscicolo 106) Photo3 (center) The eastern facade of the Arch of Titus by Sebastian Serlio (Serlio, Sebastiano. 1540. Regole Generali di Architettura, di Sebastiano Serlio Bolognese sopra le Cinque Maniere de gli Edifici, cioè Thoscano, Dorico, Ionico, Corinthio, e Composito, con gli Essempi de l’Antiquita, che per la Maggior Parte Concordano con la Dottrina di Vitruuio, p. 105) over divided into two groups. In the first group, many of them7) refer to the decorations12). restoration report written by Valadier, which stated economic reasons led It is still uncertain who had outlined these four activities above. The him to simplify the decorations on new materials8). In the second group, restoration had two directors, Valadier and Stern. The former architect had other scholars present their own hypotheses such as aesthetic9) and taken over the leadership alone after Stern’s death in 1820, but there are historic10) reasons. This study, in contrary, attempts to explain Valadier’s no sources proving the fact. The leading doctrine13) was the proposal of intention based not only on sources housed in the National Archives in Alexandre Jean-Baptiste Guy de Gisors*4) (1762-1835), who stayed in Paris, the Library of the British School at Rome, the Historic Archive of Rome to investigate archeological ruins during the French regime. Based the National Academy of San Luca, the Library of Archaeology and of Art on his survey result, de Gisors proposed several times that the History, the Library of the Museum of Rome, and the State Archive of Commission of Embellishment in Rome should preserve the decaying Rome, but on a comparative study of the restoration of the eastern outer parts of the ancient monuments, and one of these monuments was the wall of the Colosseum, which was also seen distinctions between old and triumphal arch: new architectural materials. For example, the Arch of Titus must firstly be reinforced and all parts Restoration activities should be enclosed in a framework to dismantle and reassemble Valadier wrote about the restoration of the Arch of Titus in Narrazione voussoirs, which might otherwise easily fall, and which require the Artistica dell’Operato Finora nel Ristauro dell’Arco di Tito Letta most careful handling, on other inferior voussoirs replaced in their nell’Accademia Romana di Archeologia il 20 Decembre 1821, Roma original positions, after the restoration either in stone or in brick, of (1822). His report summarized the background and implimention of the which the major parts of the piers which the arch has lost, so that this interventions and included visual sources such as an image of the interesting monument presents its original form and initial triumphal arch after the restoration (Photo2). The State Archive of Rome proportions again14). has two types of his report (one printed, the other two handwritten by Valadier), the contents of which are almost the same. Valadier wrote that The proposal of de Gisors is both similar and different to the practical his colleague Stern initially planned to replace the fallen masses of stone restoration directed by Valadier. In both the proposal and the intervention, with screws11), but his first idea was not enough to stabilize the remaining the masses of stone were dismantled, each piece was replaced using structure. Instead of screws, the following activities were executed: appropriate supports, and the whole mass of the Arch of Titus was dismantlement of masses of stone, reassembly of each piece with reconstructed. The major difference is that Valadier paid particular opportune supports, reconstruction of the whole mass of the Arch, and c attention to ornamentations. The ancient Romans had erected triumphal cover the architectural blocks in travertine with decorations in the ancient arches to commemorate the glory of the Empire through decorations, so

─ 1110 ─ Photo4 (left) The eastern facade of the Arch of Titus by Luigi Rossini in 1832 (La Biblioteca di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, Roma XI. 10. II. 5) Photo5 (center)The monochrome photo of the eastern facade of the Arch of Titus by Lorenzo Suscipi circa 1860 (La Biblioteca del Museo di Roma, AF 1220) Photo6 (right) The entablature and composite capitals of the eastern facade of the Arch of Titus (Photo: Go Ohba) that ornamentation played fundamental role in such monuments. the difference in material through mezzotint and plain areas in his image According to his report, Valadier intended to restore the Arch of Titus of the eastern facade of the Roman arch after the intervention. He used prior to destruct by ancient barbarians15); thus, he aimed to recover both both drawing methods to differentiate the two parts; for example, the left missing structure and missing ornamentation. pier in Photo2 illustrates two columns, the left column is new but the Valadier referred to several sources to determine the original ancient right one is original. The difference between old and new materials is appearance of the Arch of Titus. As to the position of the columns, he may easily seen in the depiction by Luigi Rossini (1790-1857), who drew the have used the picture of the Roman arch drawn by Sebastian Serlio16) eastern facade of the triumphal arch in 1832, about a decade after the (1475-1554), which showed the eastern facade plain without specific restoration. His picture highlighted the original parts in mezzotint decorations (Photo3); the drawing has influenced Valadier’s image of the (Photo4). Moreover, Photo5, which was taken around 1860 by Lorenzo eastern facade of the triumphal arch after the restoration (Photo2). The Suscipi (?-?), also shows which part is original or not. Even 40 years after same image also shows distinctions between the original and new the intervention, both old and new parts are distinguishable because this architectural parts, and Valadier explained it in his report: photo demonstrates that the old is darker than the new. As these differences correspond to the age of the materials as indicated in In this figure [Photo2], the ancient parts are distinguished by strong Valadier’s drawing (Photo2), Rossini and Suscipi prove that the old and mezzotints, revealing that the new parts are mostly clear, consisting new parts would once be distinguished due to their different stone of simple travertine imitating the ancient design in form and in parts, materials. with a purpose of giving proper supports to the arch. The original The second type, sculptural decorations, is classified into two groups: the quality of the marble and the carvings have intentionally not been presence or absence of decorations, and the order in their level of detail imitated for economic reasons but also to preserve the modesty and (Photo6). The first group is easily noticeable in that the ancient part of the respect of the monument with its two solid and inconvenient piers, arch, i.e., the left and central part, features a frieze with broken figures of which might otherwise have been lost though misguided reverence17). a horse and men, but the new material on the right-hand side has no figures. This contrast clearly shows the boundary between ancient and Valadier clarified that both his budget and his own understandings of new parts. Although the new frieze does not have any figures, it contains what was best had led him to leave visible differences between the horizontal lines in its upper and lower sections, which are similar to those original and new architectural materials. Regarding his thought, the bordering the ancient frieze. The second group, the distinction in the level eastern facade of the Arch of Titus and its visual sources are characterized of sculptural detail, is visible in the two composite capitals, the ancient by two types of distinctions. one on the left-hand side has several leaves with detailed decorations, the new one on the right-hand side is plainer. Two types of distinctions The first type concerns the use of different stone materials on the surface Factors affecting visible distinctions of the Arch of Titus. Pentelic marble had originally been applied18): Why did Valadier leave visible distinction between the old and new travertine made up the new sections. As Valadier indicated, he depicted architectural materials? This section discusses the factors that may have

─ 1111 ─ affected his decision with a comparative case study, the restoration of the between old and new architectural materials were further minimized by eastern outer wall of the Colosseum which also leaves various distinctions adding simpler sculptures to the new travertine. between ancient and new parts. Valadier, however, comment on the intervention that the restoration of the Flavian amphitheater was Conclusion “unpleasant to the eyes19).” This study addresses the issue of architectural unity through distinctions To comprehend his comment, it is essential to provide an overview of the between old and new architectural materials in the restoration of the restoration of the Colosseum. This intervention was started after ancient structures. The eastern outer wall of the Colosseum must be earthquakes at the beginning of the nineteenth century that threatened the influential in the intervention of the Arch of Titus in terms of state of new eastern outer wall of the amphitheater20). Pope Pius VII*5) (1742-1823, architectural materials. Valadier attempted to differentiate between papacy: 1800-1823) ordered architects at the Academy of San Luca, original and new materials by the use of different stone materials and Camporese, Stern, and Giuseppe Palazzi*6) (?-?), to conserve the ornamentations. While these differences help to show which part is old or amphitheater21). On November 19, 1806, Camporese wrote in a letter that not, new parts became a part of triumphal arch. This result detailed the the goal of the work was to assure the total integrity of the eastern outer aesthetic reason that some scholars pointed out, and architectural unity wall22). For this reason, he suggested constructing a buttress in brick for may be the criterion to check further studies on Valadier’s architectural avoiding further collapse caused by lateral pressure23) (Photo7). In restorations. addition, windows, located on the upper level of the monument (see the black circle in Photo7), and six arches were filled with travertine to Notes *1) Valadier started his career as the architect of sacred palace in the protect the ancient structure. Vatican in 1781. One of his notable works in the eighteenth century was the intervention of the cathedral in Urbino in 1789. In the following century, Valadier became a member of the Academy of San Luca. Under the new Pope, Valadier undertook projects such as the restoration of the Milvian Bridge and the symbolization of Flaminia Street. During the French occupation of Rome from 1809 to 1814, he was in charge of a wide range of projects, e.g., master plan of the Square of the People (La Piazza del Popolo) and interventions of ancient monuments in the Roman Forum. These works were continued in the second regime of Pius VII from 1814: Valadier was involved in the construction of Santa Cristina, the restoration of St. Paul Outside the Walls, and others. Marder, Tod A.: Giuseppe Valadier (1762-1839), Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects, Free Press, Vol. 4, pp. 249-253, 1982 *2) One of early works of Camporese was the cupola in the church of St. Andrew in Subiaco, executed with his father and his brother. The construction of the Museum Pio-Clementino in 1786 in the Vatican was the most famous work in his career. Camporese was recognized as one of the leading architects among his generation in Rome, so that he became a member of the Academy of San Luca. During the French occupation of Rome from 1809 to 1814, he had the project of the Villa Napoleon, so-called the Garden of Cesare. After the reinstatement of the pontifical administration in 1814, he handled, for instance, the Villa Conti in Photo7 The eastern outer wall of the Colosseum (Photo: Go Ohba) Frascati. Fischer, Manfred F.: Camporese, Giuseppe (1763-1822), Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Vol. 17 Calvart-Canefri, pp. 587-589, 1974 This intervention contributed to reinforce the eastern outer wall, whereas *3) Raffaele Stern, influenced by his father Giovanni Stern and Johann later additions resulted in changing the ancient state of the Colosseum. Joachim Winckelmann, was involved with constructions and restorations in Rome in a classical matter. His work includes the New Valadier’s comment, “unpleasant to the eyes”, indicates that these Wing (Il Braccio Nuovo), a part of the Vatican Museums in 1817. alterations were not harmonious with the surviving original sections; Niroumand-Rad, Farhad: Stern, Raffaele (1774-1820), Macmillan covering arches and windows stopped the continuity of these elements Encyclopedia of Architects, Free Press, Vol. 4 Schmidt-Zwirner, p. 129, 1982 that outer wall of the Flavian amphitheater originally contained, and the *4) When Lucien Bonaparte (1775-1840) reformed the administration, de buttress does not play an aesthetical role to be a part of the outer wall. Gisors became the architectural inspector of the Palais Bourbon and The restoration of the Colosseum, on the contrary, would later influence was in charge of the construction of the Palace of St. Cloud. In subsequent years, inspectors of the Corps Legislative questioned the Valadier’s thought on architectural unity in his restoration projects, as he excessive expense for the work; thus, de Gisors lost his post. The did not follow this type of reinforcement in the intervention in the Arch of Council of Civil Buildings, however, took care of him, giving him some Titus. Unlike the restored eastern outer wall of the Colosseum, the works at the Bureau of Weights and Measures and some educational institutions such as the School of Mines (École des mines). When a restored arch did not include any structural additions that changed the military and administrative center was set up in Napoléonville, original form; Valadier rather intended to reconstruct the appearance of presently Pontivy, all the building officers were gathered to construct the arch prior to its destruction by ancient barbarians. Distinctions private houses, and de Gisors took a leadership role in the work. In 1811,

─ 1112 ─ he became the Inspector General of the Council, and his later works rétabli soit en pierre, soit en brique, les masses des parties de piedroits were the gardens plan in Rome and the establishment of the thermal dont l’arc est maintenant privé, en sorte que cet intéressant monument springs in Le Mont-Dore. Hubert, E.: Gisors présentàt de nouveau sa forme et ses proportions premières. Il en (Alexandre-Jean-Baptiste-Guy de) (1762-1835), Dictionnaire de résulterait que, sans dépenser beaucoup plus que pour des Biographie Française, Letouzey et Ané, Vol. 16 Gilbert-Guéroult, p. 324, constructions auxiliaires informes, on consoliderait le reste du 1985 monument par le rétablissement général de ses principales parties qui, *5) When Gregorio Luigi Barnaba Chiaramonti was aged 40, he was pour n’être qu’en masse, ne donneraient pas moins une idée exacte des nominated as Bishop of Tivoli, and became Bishop of Imora in 1785. As dimensions et proportions d’un arc justement admiré.” de Gisors, a result of the conclave in Venice, he was elected the new Pope on March Alexandre Jean-Baptiste Guy. A letter on June 9, 1813 (Les Archives 14, 1800 with the name of Pius VII. When Napoleon Bonaparte Nationales de France: F/13/1646/A), pp. 227-228, 1813 dominated the Papal State, the Pope was arrested in the Quirinal in 15) Valadier, op. cit., p. 4 Rome, and sent to Grenoble, Savona, and Fontainebleau. After the 16) Valadier, op. cit., p. 4 downfall of the French Emperor, Pius VII finally returned to Rome on 17) “In questa Figura si è distinto con mezzatinta forte le parti antiche, March 14, 1814. Until his death in 1823, he constructed a political lasciando chiaro tutto quello, che con semplice travertino si è imitato relationship with France (1817), Baviera (1817), and Naples (1818). nella forma e nelle parti, per dare l’opportuno sostegno all’Arco. Non si è Maturi, Walter: “Pio VII papa (1742-1823)”, Enciclopedia Italiana di voluto imitare nella qualità del marmo, e negli intaglj[sic] perchè si è Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, Vol. 27 dovuto praticare la possibile economia, senza togliere la decenza e Peth-Porth, pp. 318-319, 1935 rispetto dovuto al monumento, che per una malintesa venerazione si *6) Palazzi was a pontifical architect. Palazzi, Giuseppe: A letter on voleva da qualcuno assicurato con due solidi ma inconvenienti speroni.” November 19, 1806 (L’Archivio di Stato di Roma: Camerale Parte II, Ibid., p. 13 Antichità e Belle Arti 7, Fascicolo 207), p. 6, 1806 18) Concerning the remaining parts, the scholars Gorgoni, Lazzarini, and Pallente have examined the provenance of the surface stone by References micro-petrographic and carbon as well as oxygen isotopic analyses of 1) Jokilehto, Jukka: A History of Architectural Conservation, some samples taken from several spots in the Arch of Titus. They found Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 85, 1999 that all the pieces were the same components of Pentelic marbles in 2) Jokilehto, Jukka: A History of Architectural Conservation, Greece. Cf. Gorgoni. et al.: “Identification of Ancient White Marbles in Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 87, 1999 Rome. I, The Arch of Titus”. Science and Technology for Cultural 3) L’Office International des Musées: La Conservation des Monuments Heritage, Vol. 1, pp. 79-86, 1992 d’Art et d’Hisoire, L’Office International des Musées, p. 20, No Date 19) “disgradevole all’occhio” Valadier, Giuseppe: Opere di Architettura e di 4) “Dans l’Arc de Titus restauré par l’architecte romain Valadier, c’est la Ornamento, Unknown Publisher, p. 15, 1833 pensée de l’unité architecturale qui a prévalu sur toute autre 20) Jokilehto, op. Cit., p. 77 considération, mais les adjonctions pour la recomposition ont été faites 21) Camporese, Giuseppe: A letter on November 19, 1806, (L’Archivio di avec des matériaux différents des matériaux primitifs, avec des Stato di Roma: Camerale Parte II, Antichità e Belle Arti 7, Fascicolo moulures d’enveloppement, des ornements non sculptés, de façon à 207), p. 1, 1806 déterminer avec certitude la distinction entre l’ancien et le nouveau.” 22) Camporese, Giuseppe: A letter on November 19, 1806, (L’Archivio di Giovannoni, Gustavo: Restauration des monuments en Italie: Principes Stato di Roma: Camerale Parte II, Antichità e Belle Arti 7, Fascicolo généraux, Mouseion, Vol. 17-18, p.43, 1932 207), p. 1, 1806 5) Unknown Author: Commissione per gli Abbellimenti di Roma. Registro 23) Camporese, Giuseppe: A letter on November 19, 1806, (L’Archivio di (L’Archivio di Stato di Roma), No. 1, p. 142, No Date Stato di Roma: Camerale Parte II, Antichità e Belle Arti 7, Fascicolo 6) Unknown Author: Commissione per gli Abbellimenti di Roma. Registro 207), p. 1, 1806 (L’Archivio di Stato di Roma), No. 1, p. 142, No Date 7) Cf. Carbonara, Giovanni: Avvincinamento al Restauro: Teoria, Storia, Monumenti, Liguori Editore, 1997; Casiello, Stella: Aspetti della Tutela dei Beni Culturali nell’Ottocento e il Restauro di Valadier per l’Arco di Tito, Restauro, Quaderni di Restauro dei Monumenti e di Urbanistica dei Centri Antichi, Vol. 5, pp. 77-111, 1973; de Martino, Gianluigi: L’Arco di Tito a Roma: Restauro di R. Sterm, 1818-1821, e G. Valadier, 1822-1824, Il Restauro e i Monumenti, Materiali per la Storia del Restauro, pp. 1-15, 2003; Marconi, Paolo. Il Restauro e l’Architetto: Teoria e Pratica in Due Secoli di Dibattito, Marsilio, 1993 8) Valadier, Giuseppe: Narrazione Artistica dell’Operato Finora nel Ristauro dell’Arco di Tito Letta nell’Accademia Romana di Archeologia il 20. Decembre 1821, Roma, La Stamperia de Romanis, p. 13, 1822 9) Gazzola, Piero: Restoring Monuments: Historical Background, Preserving and Restoring Monuments and Historic Buildings, pp. 15-30, 1972 10) Linstrum, Derek: Coup d’°il Rétrospectif: Giuseppe Valadier et l’Arc de Titus, Monumentum, Vol. 25, pp. 43-71, 1982 11) Valadier, op. cit., p. 8 12) Valadier, op. cit., p. 8 13) cf. Jokilehto, op. cit., p. 84 14) “Par exemple l’arc de Titus devrait d’abord être étayé et cintré de toute part en charpente, pour pouvoir démonter et remonter, sans coup férir, les parties de voussoirs gravitantes qu’on rétablirait, le plus soigneusement possible, sur les autres voussoirs inférieurs qu’on replacerait eux-mêmes avant dans leur position naturelle, après avoir

─ 1113 ─ ࿴ヂせ⣙ ࿴࡜࠸࠺ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣヲ㏙ࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓⅬࢆゝཬࡋࡓࠋ ᗎㄽ ᮏ◊✲ࡣᢞ✏ㄽᩥࠕࣇ࢛࣭࣐࣮ࣟࣟࣀ࡟࠾ࡅࡿࢸ࢕ࢺࢗࢫࡢถ᪕ 㛛ࡢಟ᚟⫼ᬒ ♫఍㠃࡜㐣ཤࡢ◚ቯࡢ⪃ᐹࠖࡢ⥆⦅࡛࠶ࡾࠊ1818 ᖺ ࠿ࡽ 1823 ᖺࡲ࡛ᐇ᪋ࡉࢀࡓྠ㛛ࡢಟ᚟஦ᴗࢆᑐ㇟࡜ࡍࡿࠋ ᮏᩥ ࡇࡢ஦ᴗࡢ୰࡛≉➹ࡍ࡭ࡁⅬࡀࠊᘓ≀ࡢᙜึᮦ࡜ಟ᚟᫬࡟౑⏝ࡉ ࢀࡓ᪂ࡋ࠸ᘓᮦ࡜ࢆ㆑ูࡍࡿಟ᚟ᕤἲ㸦௨ୗࠕ᪂ᪧࡢᘓᮦࡢ㆑ูࠖ ࡜グࡍ㸧࡛࠶ࡾࠊḟࡢ 2 ࡘࡢ≉ᚩࡀぢࡽࢀࡿࠋࡲࡎࠊࢠࣜࢩࣕࡢ࣌ ࣥࢸࣜࢥࣥᒣཎ⏘ࡢ኱⌮▼㸦ᙜึᮦ㸧࡜ࠊ࣮࣐ࣟ㑹እ࡛᥇▼ࡉࢀࡓ ࢺࣛࣂ࣮ࢳࣥ㸦᪂ᮦ㸧࡜࠸࠺␗࡞ࡿ▼ᮦࡢ౑⏝࡛࠶ࡿࠋಟ᚟ᚋ࠿ࡽ 190 ᖺ௨ୖ⤒ࡘ⌧௦࡟࠾࠸࡚୧▼ᮦࡢⰍࡢุูࡣ㞴ࡋ࠸ࡀࠊಟ᚟ࡢ ⣙ 10 ᖺᚋ࡟ᥥ࠿ࢀࡓ⤮⏬㸦Photo4㸧ࡸࠊ1860 ᖺ㡭࡟᧜ᙳࡉࢀࡓⓑ 㯮෗┿㸦Photo5㸧ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ 2 ࡘࡢ▼ᮦࡢ␗࡞ࡿⰍྜ࠸ࡀ☜ㄆฟ᮶ࡿࠋ 2 ࡘ┠ࡢ≉ᚩ࡛࠶ࡿ⿦㣭ᛶࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿୖ࡛ Photo6 ࡟ὀ┠ࡍࡿ࡜ࠊ ᙜึᮦ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚⣽࠿࡞⿦㣭ࡀ᪋ࡉࢀࡓ୍᪉࡛ࠊ᪂ᮦࡢ⿦㣭ࡣ⡆␎໬ ࡉࢀࡓࡔࡅ࡛࡞ࡃࠊࣇ࣮ࣜࢬࡢࡼ࠺࡟ே㛫ࡸ㤿ࡢ᙮้ࡀᏑᅾࡋ࡞࠸ ሙྜࡶ࠶ࡿࠋ ࢸ࢕ࢺࢗࢫࡢถ᪕㛛ࡢಟ᚟᫬࡟࠾ࡅࡿ᪂ᪧࡢᘓᮦࡢ㆑ูࡣࠊḢᕞ ࡢಟ᚟ྐࢆ୺㢟࡜ࡍࡿ◊✲᭩ࡸㄽᩥ➼࡟࠾࠸࡚Ṕྐⓗᘓ㐀≀ࡢṔ ྐᛶࢆᑛ㔜ࡋࡓฎ⨨࡜ࡋ࡚Ⓩሙࡍࡿࠋࡇࡢಟ᚟ᕤἲ࡟ᑐࡍࡿඛ⾜◊ ✲ࢆㄞࡴ࡜ࠊᘓ⠏ᐙࢪࣗࢮࢵ࣭ࣦ࣌࢓ࣛࢹ࢕࢚ࡀⴭࡋࡓಟ᚟ࡢሗ࿌ ᭩࡟グ㍕ࡉࢀ࡚࠸ࡿ⤒῭ⓗไ⣙࡟౫ᣐࡍࡿ௚ࠊ⨾ⓗࡶࡋࡃࡣṔྐⓗ ពᅗ࡟ᇶ࡙ࡃ࡜࠸࠺◊✲⪅⊂⮬ࡢぢゎ࡟␃ࡲࡗ࡚࠸ࡿࠋᮏ◊✲࡛ࡣ ࢸ࢕ࢺࢗࢫࡢถ᪕㛛࡟㛵ࡍࡿᩥ⊩ࡸᅗ㠃ࠊ᭦࡟ࢥࣟࢵࢭ࢜ࡢᮾഃࡢ እቨࡢಟ᚟஦౛࡜ࡢẚ㍑ࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࣦ࢓ࣛࢹ࢕࢚ࡢಟ᚟⌮ㄽࢆ᥈ồ ࡋࡓ⤖ᯝࠊ௨ୗࡢ஦᯶ࡀᑟࡁฟࡏࡓࠋ ᘓ≀඲యࡢㄪ࿴ࢆㄝ᫂ࡍࡿ㐣⛬࡛ࠊࣦ࢓ࣛࢹ࢕࢚࡜ྠࡌࡃ࣮࣐ࣟ ࡢ࢔࢝ࢹ࣑࢔࣭ࢹ࢕࣭ࢧ࣭ࣥࣝ࢝࡟ᡤᒓࡋ࡚࠸ࡓᘓ⠏ᐙࣛࣇ࢓࢚࣭ࣞ ࢫࢸࣝࣥ㐩ࡀࠊ19 ୡ⣖ึ㢌࡟ᐇ᪋ࡋࡓࢥࣟࢵࢭ࢜ࡢᮾഃࡢእቨࡢ⿵ ᙉ஦ᴗࢆྲྀࡾୖࡆࡿࠋᆅ㟈➼ࡢᙳ㡪࡛ಽቯࡢ༴ᶵ࡟┤㠃ࡋ࡚࠸ࡓእ ቨ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࠊࢫࢸࣝࣥ㐩ࡣ↢⎰ࡶ⏝࠸࡚ࣂࢵࢺࣞࢫࢆᘓ࡚ࠊᔂࢀ࠿ ࡅࡓ࢔࣮ࢳ➼ࢆそࡗ࡚࠸ࡿ㸦Photo7㸧ࠋࡇࡢ⿵ᙉ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚ࣦ࢓ࣛࢹ ࢕࢚ࡣࠊࠕ┠㞀ࡾࠖ࡜࠸࠺ぢゎࢆ⮬㌟ࡢⴭ᭩ࡢ୰࡛⾲᫂ࡋ࡚࠸ࡿࠋ ࡑࡢ⌮⏤࡟ࡣᘓ≀඲యࡢㄪ࿴ࢆ㔜ࢇࡌࡿᙼࡢಟ᚟⌮ㄽࡀ⪃࠼ࡽࢀ ࡿࠋࡇࡢ஦ᴗࡢ≉ᚩ࡜ࡋ࡚ࠊಽቯࢆ㜵ࡄࠊ࠶ࡿ࠸ࡣྂ௦ࡢጼࢆ␃ࡵ ࡿ࡜࠸࠺┠ⓗࢆ㐩ᡂࡍࡿ୍᪉࡛ࠊࣂࢵࢺࣞࢫࢆࡣࡌࡵ࡜ࡍࡿᚋ⿵ᮦ ࡟ࡼࡗ࡚ྂ௦࠿ࡽ⥆ࡃእቨࡢጼࡀኚࢃࡗ࡚ࡋࡲࡗࡓⅬࡀྰࡵ࡞࠸ࠋ ࣦ࢓ࣛࢹ࢕࢚ࡣࢥࣟࢵࢭ࢜እቨ࡛ࡢ஦౛ࢆ㋃くࡏࡎࠊࡴࡋࢁࢸ࢕ࢺ ࢗࢫࡢถ᪕㛛ࡢಟ᚟࡟࠾࠸࡚ᘓ≀඲య࡟ᑐࡍࡿ᪂ᮦࡢ⤫ྜᛶࢆヨ ࡳ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡑࡢ⿬௜ࡅ࡜ࡋ࡚ Photo6 ࡀ♧ࡍࡼ࠺࡟ࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ࣇ࣮ࣜ ࢬ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᙮้ࢆ᪋ࡉ࡞࠸ࡀᙜึᮦྠᵝ࡟ᶓ⥺ࢆຍ࠼࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡲࡓࠊ ᪂ࡋ࠸ᰕ㢌࡟⡆␎໬ࡉࢀࡓࢥࣜࣥࢺࢫࡢⴥࢆ࠶ࡋࡽ࠺࡞࡝ᙜึᮦ ࡢᰕ㢌࡟ఝࡏ࡚࠸ࡿࠋࡇࡢࡼ࠺࡟᪂ᪧࡢᘓᮦ㛫࡟㐪࿴ឤࡀ࡞࠸ࡼ࠺ ࡞᭱ప㝈ࡢຍᕤࡀ᪂ᮦ࡟ᑐࡋ࡚᪋ࡉࢀࡓࠋ ⤖ㄽ ᮏ◊✲࡟࠾࠸࡚᪂ᪧࡢᘓᮦࡢ㆑ูࢆ㏻ࡋ࡚ࣦ࢓ࣛࢹ࢕࢚ࡢពᅗ ࡢ᪂ࡋ࠸୍㠃ࠊ᪂ࡋ࠸ᘓᮦࡀถ᪕㛛඲య࡜ㄪ࿴ࡍࡿࡼ࠺࡟᭱ప㝈ࡢ ⿦㣭ࢆ᪋ࡋࡓⅬࢆ᫂ࡽ࠿࡟ࡋࡓࠋࡇࡢ⤖ㄽ࡟࠾࠸࡚ࠊᘓ≀඲యࡢㄪ

࿴࡜࠸࠺ඛ⾜◊✲࡛ࡣヲ㏙ࡉࢀ࡞࠿ࡗࡓⅬࢆゝཬࡋࡓࠋ （2016 年 2 月 2 日原稿受理，2017 年 1 月 12 日採用決定）

─ 1114 ─