３【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／ご挨拶

校

第２
８号 ２
０
１
０年２月１
５日
日本ナサニエル・ホーソーン協会事務局
５０
１ 兵庫県西宮市上ケ原一番町１―１
５
５
〒６
６
２―８
関西学院大学文学部 橋本安央研究室内
E-mail：hawthorne@c０
１.itscom.net
公式 HP：http://home.b０
５.itscom.net/nhs-j/
６４６３
郵便振替 ００１
９
０―１―６

NHSJ Newsletter

ご

挨

拶
会

長

丹 羽 隆 昭３０年ほど前の，そろそろ銀杏も色づき始めた秋のある日，東京渋谷の青山学院大学の一室は熱気に包まれていた。
ホーソーン協会立ち上げ集会のことである。むかし勤王の志士たちが，新しい日本を作らんと互いに呼びかけ，旅籠に集結し，熱い議論を戦わせた時代劇の一場面をも想わせるものであった。当時私はまだ駆け出しで，届けられた「回状」に恐縮しながら，早馬ならぬ新幹線で旅籠へと急行してみると，そこでは会場提供の便宜を図られた小山敏三郎氏や横沢四郎氏ら，イエールのピアソン教授の提案を受けた当初の発起人の方々はじめ，趣旨に賛同して全国から集まった同志の先生方が，みな青年のように顔を輝かせ，協会結成への並々ならぬ決意と情熱を語り合っておられた。太平の世に慣れた若輩者にはその光景がまぶしく映ったものである。
翌年５月，福岡の西南学院大学で開催された第一回全国大会が盛会であったのはもちろんだが，大会終了後，大学近くの小さな古い中華料理屋の二階で行われた懇親会こそは，今日のホーソーン協会の原点とも言える熱い，熱い集いであった。鰻の寝床のような，まさに旅籠を思わせる狭い空間に錚錚たる先生方が車座となり，終わったばかりの大会や
前年秋の立ち上げまでの苦労話を，ビールを酌み交わしつつ大声で，本当に嬉しそうに語り合っておられた。その時の模様は，今も私の目に焼き付き，耳にこびりついている。
賑やかに船出したサンザシ丸の航行はその後しばらく順風満帆であったが，昭和の海を出て平成洋へと入った頃から，大学改革風という厄介な風が吹き始め，海は急に荒れ模様となって，航海には大きな困難が伴うようになった。加
えて進行海域には，気まぐれな海神の落とし子，「ゆとり性低気圧」というものまで発生し，波は一層高さを増して，乗員はみな操船に苦慮している。船のあちこちに冷たい海水が浸入し，中には浸水のために持ち場を放棄せざるを得な
いケースまで出てきた。今サンザシ丸は，ある意味満身創痍で，昭和の海の静穏さが嘘のように思える未曾有のシケの平成洋を，あえぎながら航海中である。
サンザシ丸は英訳すれば「メイフラワー号」。 このような名を持つ船ゆえ， 航海に困難が伴うのは当然かもしれない。
かの船が「出エジプト記」さながらの苦難を乗り越えた末に今日のアメリカは築かれた。われわれも現在の困難に対してお互い智恵を絞り，連携を強めて，プリマスを，またその延長線上にマサチューセッツを，建設してゆかねばなるまい。サンザシという草花は荒れ地の冬に耐え，毎年五月頃，地味ながら逞しい白い花を咲かせる。その花言葉は「希望」だという。今後も逆風に押し戻され続けるとしても，
３０年前にこの船を航海へと発たせた先達の熱い思いに応えるべく，われわれは漕ぎ進んで行かねばならない。
さて，このサンザシ丸の航海を支える事務局が，このほど日本大学から関西学院大学に移りました。１
５年もの長きにわたり，シケの海をみごとに乗り切って下さった歴代船長の方々，なかんずく近年における當麻船長，高橋航海士，それに新進の堀切航海士や中村 HP 担当員など日本大学スタッフの先生方や，援軍東京電機大学の川村航海士はじめ東京地区の船員諸氏による固い団結と周到をきわめた航海に対して，今厚く御礼申し上げる次第であります。そして今後航海を担当して頂く関西学院大学の増永，橋本，井上の航海士トリオをはじめ，岡山ノートルダム女子大学の中村通信連
絡員，また援軍として事務局を支えて下さる関西地区の竹井，中西両女性航海士に対しては，矢作，成田両副船長ともども，どうぞよろしくお願いしますと申し上げて，船長就任のごあいさつと致します。

1

５【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Presentation

校

Presentation
Men Who Need A Lot of Care―Representation of Care and Gender in Melville’s Billy Budd
and Hawthorne’s The House of the Seven Gables―
Ai TAKAHASHI（Tokuyama College of Technology）
In modern America, the society experienced political and economic changes as capitalism developed. Along with the socialchanges, people of the middle-class came to accept a gender division based on domestic ideology. In the gender division, thefemale sphere represents emotions. And so it was believed that affectionate care was provided exclusively in the female sphereand that a care-taker was effeminate. Read in the light of care and gender, there is something queer with Herman Melville’s
Billy Budd. Although Billy Budd is generally associated with Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Marble Faun, Hawthorne’s earlier novel,
The House of the Seven Gables, cannot be overlooked. This study analyzes the depiction of nursing care for an adult man in eachnovel and examines the influence of care upon each character’s gender identity.
In Billy Budd, Billy Budd is loved and looked after by other crews of both the Rights-of-Man and the Bellipotent as if hewere their child. They are still located in the male sphere as crews of either a merchant ship or a battleship, but they also
invade the female sphere by providing affectionate care for Billy. They endanger their male identity unwittingly by taking careof Billy affectionately. Billy as a care-taker causes a confusion of gender identity which is based on domestic ideology. Billy is atroublemaker rather than a peacemaker to modern gender norms.
In Hawthorne’s novel, a male care-taker is Clifford Pyncheon. Clifford is provided with double care. First, he has been put
under surveillance as a criminal. In other words, he has been provided with a kind of public care. And then, he is looked afteras an old man by his sister and his young relative. As he has been separated from the public sphere for a long time, he has
become an abject being that is marginalized owing to lack of masculine traits. Clifford as an abject suggests that a long term ofcare might spoil male identity. Considering the problematic and happy ending of the novel, however, he also shows that care
for an adult man could found an expansive family that is not originated in modern gender norms.
Both Billy Budd and The House of the Seven Gables deal with nursing care for an adult man. However, they deal with thetheme differently. It is negated as a menace to the social system in the former, while it is approved in the latter. Neverthelessboth of them suggest that men who need a lot of care could become the cornerstone of an alternative kinship.

Nathaniel Hawthorne and Amos Bronson Alcott
Akiko SAYO（Tokyo International University）
Studies of Amos Bronson Alcott are very few, although he was an influential member of the Transcendental Club, andhence even fewer are the studies of the relationship between Nathaniel Hawthorne and Bronson Alcott. One of the reasons isthat Louisa May Alcott’s fame as the author of Little Women(1868) has surpassed her father’s. During her youth, however,Bronson was well known as a philosopher, teacher and lecturer. Emerson called him “a God-made priest” and “a world builder”
in his letter. The purpose of the present study is to examine some aspects of the relationship and friendship with Hawthorne
and Bronson Alcott in order to reveal some parts of Hawthorne’s and Bronson’s characters. They were next-door neighbors inConcord for four years right after Hawthorne’s return from Europe in 1860. Hawthorne lived in the house which he purchasedfrom Bronson in 1852, his eighth dwelling that turned out to be the last. The house was originally named by Bronson, but
Hawthorne renamed it Wayside because Hawthorne thought it “a better name and morally suggestive,” while Bronson
persistently continued to call it by the old name Hillside. “During all the time he lived near me,” wrote Bronson in Concord
Days(1872), “our estates being separated only by a gate and shaded avenue.”
In May, 1864, when the news of Hawthorne’s death came to Louisa, she wrote in her journal, “We did all we could to heal
the breach between the families but they held off, so we let things rest.” This implies that there was a serious disagreement intheir relationship, but we find no clue to the breach as there is no further mention or detailed description of it in her writing.
Nevertheless, their feelings toward each family were never strained in the beginning of their relations. Particularly, Sophia
maintained a friendship with the Alcotts. When Sophia Peabody visited Bronson’s Temple School in 1836, she was deeply
impressed by his theories and method. She once took the place of Elizabeth Peabody as a scribe of Temple School after
Elizabeth left the school because of disagreement. Surprisingly enough, at that time Sophia took the side of the Alcotts. She

2

５【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Presentation

校

was always ready to give any help whenever the family was in need of a helpful neighbor. When Louisa, suffering from typhoidwhile serving as a nurse, returned to Concord from a hospital in Georgetown during the Civil War, Sophia devotedly helped thefamily. It was owing to her recommendation to her husband’s publisher that Louisa’s poem was published in The Atlantic
Monthly and Louisa was well paid. On the other hand, Nathaniel Hawthorne praised Bronson’s Orphic Sayings(1840) in his tale
“The Hall of Fantasy” (1843), calling him “this great mystic innovator,” and saying that he “communicated with the infinite
abyss of Thought.”
Bronson in Concord Days recollected that on the Hawthornes’ return to Wayside, he seldom caught sight of the neighborand that when he did, “it was but to lose it the moment he suspected he was visible.” He also remembered the neighbor beingin Bronson’s Orchard House only twice and finding excuse for leaving: “the stove was so hot” and “the clock ticked so loud.”He considered Hawthorne’s search for solitude and peevishness as his own nature, thinking he was shy, and sunny and genial
traits were not native to him. However, after a long absence overseas, Hawthorne was aware, to his continual distress, howmuch the village and the country had changed. He kept his distance from politics; the Civil War and abolition, fromtranscendentalism and from the people in Concord. Sophia no longer found his earlier zest and vitality. Bronson did not notice
his change at that time. Moreover, it is said that when Bronson asked him why they could not see more of each other, hereplied that he could not stand Abba, Bronson’s wife. Abba was immortalized in Little Women as the loving Marmee, maternal
guide to four daughters. In fact, however, Abba was abrasive. John Matteson writes in Eden’s Outcasts that she had a violent
temper and was chronically angry, while Bronson wrote in his journal that he could not vanquish the mother fiend. Somecauses of the breach between the two families which Louis mentioned on the day of Hawthorne’s death can be Bronson’s
ignorance of Hawthorn’s change of mind and Abba’s rude character.

Special Presentation
Hawthorne Studies as American Studies
Joel Pfister（Wesleyan University）
I want to suggest that many Hawthorne scholars are engaged in not just the study of Hawthorne but something even more
intellectually encompassing that might be termed Hawthorne studies. “Hawthorne,” for many of his readers, is about more than
Hawthorne. And Hawthorne, doubtless, would want it that way. Below I aim to elaborate on what I mean by Hawthorne studies
and offer samples of what it can teach American studies.
Let me generalize about literature for a moment. Literature is about life and life is not divided into disciplines. Ideally,
American studies―like life and literature―is undisciplinized. American literature, in its efforts to be conscious of its own
conditions of possibility and its role in the world, practiced forms of American studies long before academic American studies
started institutionalizing American studies in the 1930 s. Hawthorne, generations before American studies became a field, wasan American studies master.
What is our object of study when we read Hawthorne ? To be sure, the object of Hawthorne studies does not have to be
one thing or one object. One can re-evaluate Hawthorne’s importance as a writer among other American writers. And one canassess Hawthorne’s influence on other American writers and their influence on him. More specifically, one can study how
Hawthorne’s form―say, his use of allegory―relates to previous and later developments of literary form. In addition, one caninvestigate Hawthorne’s biography and establish its relation to his writings.
Hawthorne’s writings, form, and biography are all situated in history. So scholars have tried to “historicize” Hawthorne’s
subject matter, form, and life. Yet modes and styles of historicizing change over time. The way F. O Matthiessen “historicized”
Hawthorne in the 1940 s is not quite the same as the way Hawthorne scholars “historicize” Hawthorne today. History itself haschanged what subjects we pay attention to in the academy（class, race, gender, sexuality, imperialism）. The social movementsof the 1960 s, 1970 s, and 1980 s ―African American and American Indian liberation movements, women’s liberation movements,
gay and lesbian liberation movements―put pressure on universities to think more expansively and diversely about the
production of new kinds of knowledge. Nowadays we have studies of Hawthorne and class, race, gender, queerness, andimperialism. A self-reflexive “historicizing” project within Hawthorne studies would have to “historicize” how “Hawthorne” is reread―reconstituted, reinvented―in different periods.

3

４【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Presentation

校

All of these objects of study can contribute productively to American studies. But I want to argue that Hawthorne’s scarlet
American studies, even more ambitiously, challenges us to ask questions about how America “ticked” from the 1820 s to 1860 s,
and also about how America “ticks” today. Hawthorne challenges us―inspires us―to better understand（what he had Hester
Prynne term）“the whole system” in order to change “the system.”Here I offer just a few examples of Hawthorne’s lessons for American studies to contemplate. Hawthorne’s American
studies does not turn away from social contradictions. The Hawthorne who was fired as Surveyor of Customs knew midnineteenth-century New England not so much as the Puritans’ “howling wilderness”―that Young Goodman Brown allegorized
as ruled by devils―but as the howling marketplace. “In this republican country, amid the fluctuating waves of our social life,”
the narrator of The House of Seven Gables（1851）muses, “someone is always at the drowning point.” This bold assertion calls
into question how “free” antebellum Americans actually are in their sink-or-swim “republic.”
More expansively, Hawthorne helps us think about the relationship between social contradiction and social fabrication. In“The New Adam and Eve”（1843）a brand new Adam and Eve walk amazed through a ghost city whose inhabitants have been
removed by God. The new Adam and Eve have been put there to begin God’s humanity experiment again after the first failure.
They read the social remains of this deserted city with critical and cultural distance（like creatures not just from anothercountry but from another planet）. All around them they see social fabrications that no longer disguise or cover up everyday
social contradictions. Adam and Eve bring a different unsullied value system to their evaluation of what constitutes value. They
assess gold as “glittering worthlessness” and money as “heaps of rubbish.” They detect class divisions: “But how will［Adamand Eve］explain the magnificence of one habitation, as compared with the squalid misery of another ?” Adam and Even thenobserve evidence of slavery and wage-slavery: “Through what medium can the idea of servitude enter their minds ?” They see
weapons: ［But］the“idea of war is not native to their souls.” The implication is that American capitalist culture “perverted”“souls.”In The Significance of Theory（1991）Terry Eagleton argued that children are the best theorists precisely because they do
not see the world as familiar. Children have the distance to keep asking: “Why ?” The new Adam and Eve keep asking: “Why ?”The narrator philosophizes: “We who are born into the world’s artificial system, can never adequately know how little in ourpresent state and circumstances is natural, and how much is merely the interpolation of the perverted mind and heart.” Social
constructions come to seem “natural” when they are built everywhere. The new Adam and Eve do not read the taken-forgranted givens of Hawthorne’s culture as givens. Rather, they read these givens as social fabrications, constructions, andsystems of meaning that were neither inevitable nor natural. The “perverted” American culture they read was not merely at thedrowning point, it actually drowned. Hawthorne is usable for American studies because he helps us understand our relationshipto―and the culture’s relationship to―contradictions that need not exist. The new Adam and Eve are Hawthorne’s ideal
American studies readers. Their American studies reading is usable if the American Adams and Eves in the 1840 s and in theearly 21st century can learn―and unlearn―to read and to question this way.
Hester Prynne in The Scarlet Letter（1850）is another brilliant American studies reader who offers us a usable reading―acritical reading―of what and who our culture tells us we are. Again, Hawthorne helps his readers think about social fabricationand social contradiction. In The Blithedale Romance（1852）Hawthorne explicitly identifies gender as a fabrication. He suggests
that, historically, men have played a role in producing―or “feminizing”―women. Zenobia says the following about her more
feminized half-sister Priscilla: “She is the type of womanhood such as man has spent centuries in making it.”But Hawthorne gives Hester Prynne an even more radical understanding of this. Hester’s vision challenges American
studies to think about how Americans and their world could be imagined otherwise. She helps us begin to undefine ourselves inways that differ from the dominant culture’s definitions of us. Hawthorne, within limits, permitted Hester to be a daringly
theoretical surveyor of customs. We are told that if the Puritan fathers had known what Hester was thinking, and that she wascapable of such revolutionary thinking, her scarlet theorizing would have been judged far more serious a crime than her scarlet
adultery.
In her vision Hawthorne’s scarlet American studies theorist speculates about the purposes that the making of genderdifference and hierarchy serve in social reproduction. Hester intimates that gender-making of a certain type is structurally
requisite because it helps insure the reproduction of systemic power in particular ways. “Ancient prejudice”―specifically, the“ancient” subordination of women―is somehow necessary to maintain a complex system built on “ancient principle.” She
predicts grimly that for women to “assume a fair and suitable position,” three vast reconstructions must occur. First, “the whole4

４【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Presentation

校

system of society is to be torn down, and built up anew”; second, men must modify the “hereditary habit”―the conventionalmolds of masculinity―that has come to seem like “their nature” but which is not their nature; and third, women must undergo“a still mightier change” in their role, self-images, expectations, and feelings than men. She grasps that the binary classificationof sex roles is locked into the economic, political, religious, and cultural operation of the whole social system and that any
tinkering with seemingly “opposite” male-female gender roles（any behavior or idea that contradicts the alleged naturalness of
this “opposition”） may disrupt the reproductive powers of the “ancient” system. Hawthorne’s American studies theorist
practices systemic self-understanding. Hester recognizes that she and other women have been taken hostages by a system thatis not wholly clear about the way it works even to its upholders. Her critical concerns, central to cultural analysis, are about thesocial inventions and uses of significance. Culture, Hester recognizes, is both the making of habit（so that we do not see social
constructions as constructions） and the making of significance （why we become invested in not seeing certain social
constructions as constructions）. Why is gender made so significant in this system ? And why does the system need to holdwomen hostage ? Hester knows that she has violated a system that is not fully up front about itself. But what is this system ?
Hester’s provocative American studies vision asks us to ask about the social system―the social system of meaning-making―within which we are being held hostage. Her vision leaves her forlorn rather than hopeful, for her young daughter also will
be held hostage to this system. So the scarlet surveyor of customs asks herself “whether it were for ill or good that the poor
little creature had been born at all . . . . Was existence worth accepting, even to the happiest among them ?”This wide-ranging American studies vision of what holds Hester and other women hostage would be taken up in the 1970 s
and 1980 s by theoretically-minded feminist historians. Nancy Cott’s classic study of domestic ideology, The Bonds of
Womanhood （1977）, for example, led her to take seriously the work of conduct book authors who stressed that properly
feminine and domestic women had to help “absorb, palliate, and even to redeem the strain of social and economictransformation.” Countless advice books on how to be a “true woman” confirmed this therapeutic function. In their capacity as
sentimental shock absorbers for middle-class men who competed in the marketplace, women were held hostage to thereproduction of capitalism. The overwhelming mass-cultural emphasis on gender and gender-making downplayed the attention
paid to “democratic” class formation in what was touted as America’s equality system: “In the attempt to raise a democratic
culture almost all types of classification had to be rejected, except the ‘natural’ ones such as sex（and race）,” Cott observes.
“The division of spheres supplied an acceptable kind of social distinction. Sex, not class, was the basic category.” In this thesis,
the reinforcement of gender inequality―what Hester’s terms “ancient prejudice”―helped prevent class inequality fromcomplicating the claims of “democracy.” Placing Hester Prynne and Cott in dialogue, one might wonder: were American womenin 1850 being held hostage to an American capitalist class-and-gender system ?
Any effort, such as Hester’s, to “question or alter any aspect” of gender is dangerous because―like a domino fallingagainst other dominos―this questioning of gender “threatens the entire system.” Hester’s Scarlet American studies scrutinizes
gender identities not as natural, but as part of a complex system of economic, political, religious, social, and cultural power that
requires the reproduction of certain kinds of gender roles to sustain operations that seem to have nothing to do with gender.
Her relational thinking is especially dangerous because it threatens to blow the whistle on the reproduction of what Hawthorne
calls “the whole system”―the domestic system, political system, class system, racial system, economic system―of Hawthorne’s
America. Cott, who wrote more than a century and a quarter after Hawthorne invented Hester Prynne, tried to envision aspectsof “the whole system.”
Hester’s vision of “the whole system,” like Cott’s, was shaped by history. Hawthorne had available to him already in 1850 a
tradition of iconoclastic thinking about some of these matters in the work of Claude Adrien Helvétius, Mary Woolstonecraft,
Frances Wright, and Sarah Grimké. In 1838 Grimké, who was schooled in the anti-slavery movement, questioned why her
culture made the “distinction between male and female” so significant. She lamented: “Nothing, I believe, has tended more todestroy the true dignity of woman, than the fact that she is approached by man in the character of a female.” Grimké insisted
that “‘there is neither male nor female’” and that “intellect is not sexed.” God, she contended, created woman as a “companion”
of man who is “in all respects his equal” and “who was like himself a free agent.” The 1848 Seneca Falls Convention called thedisenfranchisement of women a glaring contradiction in America’s unequal “equality” system. Paulina Wright Davis, the editorof the women’s rights journal The Una（1850s）, underscored that the women’s movement was “intended from its inception tochange the structure, the central organization of society.”
Hawthorne and Cott, placed in conversation with one another, champion a Scarlet American studies that remains important5

４【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Presentation校

to develop today, an American studies that tries to trace aspects of “the whole system.” Hawthorne studies does more than ask
us to place his stories, his life, and his society in “history”: it provokes us to question what constitutes “history.” And
Hawthorne studies as American studies is more than the history of literary forms: it is the history of cultural forms that shape
selfhood. Moreover, Hawthorne studies challenges us to be expansive in our efforts to trace the workings of the “wholesystem”（so important in strategic efforts to change the system）. Hawthorne studies offers lessons in ways of reading that are
usable, lessons that help us fathom what we are involved in. In sum, Hawthorne gets a scarlet A+ for American studies.

Workshop
Retaliation Disguised as Expiation
Takaaki NIWA（Kansai Gaidai University）
The core of “Roger Malvin’s Burial” is definitely the last scene, where, according to the unreliable narrator, Reuben Bourne
makes his “expiation” for his lifelong guilty feelings, after shooting his beloved son Cyrus to death. What he actually does hereis, however, anything but “expiation,” in the ordinary sense of the word. F. C. Crews is right when he says, “How could wetake seriously the religious notion that one can make his peace with the Christian God by shooting his innocent son ?” What isit, then, that Reuben carries out on that “burial” scene, consciously or unconsciously ?
In conclusion, Reuben takes his revenge on Roger Malvin―and on his daughter Dorcas, too―for having continuously put
him under psychological burdens. The awkward dialogue in the desertion scene suggests that Reuben’s desperate situation isjust one of many filial troubles that Malvin, as too great a father-surrogate for Reuben, has given his adopted son. Reuben’s
hardship as fatherless child actually has begun long before the desertion scene in the wilderness. Out of good will, and without
considering the effects of his own deeds and words, affectionate Malvin has led Reuben into numberless ordeals in which ourhero has had to confirm not only his own contrastive baseness, but his fate and misery as fatherless son. To Reuben, Malvin is
the Devil, because he is too good and paternalistic. To Reuben, for that matter, Dorcas is another Devil, whose love of her
father and domestic virtues inevitably remind him of Malvin even after his death. In a word, fatherless Reuben finds himself
totally unable to get out of Malvin’s control for two generations.
To offer Cyrus’s body to the bones of Malvin on the last scene, then, is not an act of expiation, but actually a desperate actof retaliation on the part of Reuben, because Reuben’s self-destructive murder of Cyrus is to deprive dead Malvin and griefstricken Dorcas of their paternalistic hope for family prosperity.

Two Obsessions in “Roger Malvin’s Burial” and the influence of “The Indian Burying Ground”
by Philip Freneau
Shoko TSUJI（Matsuyama University）
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Roger Malvin’s Burial”（1831）has a lot in common with Philip Freneau’s poem “The Indian
Burying Ground”（1787）in terms of settings and themes, although only a few critics have mentioned this before. Freneau’s
poem read by generation after generation of readers in the United States, could possibly give some sort of inspiration to
Hawthorne in the process of writing his work. Therefore, this essay will examine the complicated mentality of Reuben, aprotagonist of “Roger Malvin’s Burial”, with consideration for the influence of Freneau’s “The Indian Burying Ground”.
Reuben is depicted as a frontiersman who is always threatened and troubled by something. Just after the furious struggle
against Indians, he leaves his mortally injured father-in-law, Malvin, in the woods and makes it back alive to his village. Then hetells to Dorcas, his fiancé and Malvin’s beloved daughter, that he remained around Malvin in the woods to his last breath anddug a grave for him to sleep there soundly. Reuben can successfully make Dorcas believe his words and marries her, but hecontinues to suffer from pangs of conscience. He has committed two sins: deserting his dying father-in-law; and telling a lie tohis future wife.
However, he has two more causes of suffering. These causes can be clarified by some hints found in Freneau’s poem.
Freneau takes up the white history of Indian massacre as a theme of his poem and mainly depicts a white man’s obsession for6

４【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Presentation

校

revengeful Indian ghosts: “There oft’ a restless Indian queen. . ./ And many a barb’rous form is seen/ To chide the man that
lingers there.” On the other hand, Hawthorne’s Reuben, with his own experience of shooting many Indians to death in battle,
looks unnerved even when he goes into the peaceful woods accompanied by his son long after the battle. It can be consideredthat Reuben, like the man in Freneau’s poem, is threatened by Indian ghosts. It is obvious that Hawthorne also focuses on thetheme of Indian massacre and makes Reuben suffer from obsession for dead Indians.
Second, Reuben is also obsessed by Malvin’s ghost still waiting for Reuben’s return in a sitting posture. Again, “Indian
Burying Ground” gives us a good clue to understand his mentality. According to this poem, a dead white man lies buried
because this lying posture means “eternal sleep” for the white, while the dead Indian is buried in a sitting posture because heis considered to be “seated with his friends” and to share again “the joyous feast”. This means that Indians and Christians havedifferent views of life and death. For Indians, the border between the living and the dead is vague and can be transgressedeasily, but for Christians the border exists unyieldingly and the living and the dead are strictly distinguished by their posture,
sitting and lying. If so, it is quite understandable that Reuben feels indescribable terror when he imagines dead Malvin still
sitting and waiting for him. Actually in numerous parts of the story, Reuben sticks to sitting posture as that of the living andlying posture as that of the dead.
Like this, some hints of Indian massacre and Christian view of death found in Freneau’s “The Indian Buring Ground”
enables us to deepen our understanding of Hawthorne’s “Roger Malvin’s Burial”, especially of two obsessions Reuben suffers
from.

Hawthorne’s “Roger Malvin’s Burial” As Historical Negative Art
Masahiko NARITA（Senshu University）
With “Lovell’s Fight” as its historical background, Hawthorne’s “Roger Malvin’s Burial” has long been read as a profoundstory of psychological redemption for its protagonist Reuben Bourne, who left Roger Malvin, his father-in-law-to-be, dying in thewoods in the aftermath of the Indian war, never being able to keep his promise that he would come back to save the old man’slife or at least to accord his soul every courtesy by properly burying his body. In the critical history of this tale, Rueben’s guiltridden consciousness and its influence on his later life have been mainly focused on and with good reason, whereas its
historical background seems to have been relatively neglected as if it were no more than a literary device giving historical tints
and shadows to the story. However, without taking its unmistakable significance into consideration, we would fail to seize thedeeper and central message of this tale because more than anything else, this is Hawthorne’s attempt to shed light on thehidden and repressed layer in the American national psyche.
In my presentation, I focused on Hawthorne’s description of the central woods scene with the gigantic granite stone where
Rueben left Malvin and eighteen years later, accidentally killed his beloved son Cyrus. Though this stone has been refered to
as Malvin’s natural gravestone, I argued that this is rather the gravestone for the massacred Indians who are buried beneath“the gentle swells” of this grave-like place and that though no living Indian appears, this story is filled with Biblical and natural
images insinuating the merciless destruction of the native tribes.
Further, paying attention to the unequivocal theme of patricide incarnated in Reuben’s unconscious wish to get rid of fatherlike Malvin and his failure to properly bury him, I also argued that this theme is crucial not only for elucidating the Rueben
family’s problem but America’s national destiny. Because of his destructive sense of guilt, Rueben did not only fail to become anhonorable father himself but destroyed even the possibility that his son Cyrus, his nation’s young future leader, would grow up
to be a powerful and virtuous father figure, who might be able to establish a peaceful relationship with the cultural others likethe native Americans, just as his famous namesake Persian king, Cyrus the Great, did with peoples of the lands he had
conquered. Thus, the Reuben family’s tragedy strongly insinuates America’s own future.
Written around 1829, four years after the centennial anniversary of “Lovell’s Fight,” this tale is Hawthorne’s ironic
dramatization in the form of the family romance of the American cultural unconscious which is agonized by its repressed
memories of having mercilessly massacred the native Americans and having justified its guilty action without expiating it,
casting a tragic shadow on its future development.

7

４【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Special Lecture

校Special Lecture
Hawthorne and Natsume Soseki
Fumio ANO（Professor Emeritus of Tohoku University）
Natsume Soseki was a specialist in English literature as well as a leading novelist of the Meiji era, and his works haveoften been discussed in terms of English literature and Western culture. And, as a Hawthorne scholar, I am going to talk about
how Soseki was involved in Hawthorne.
The 3,068 books owned by Soseki are now kept as the “Soseki Collection” in the Tohoku University Library. A little morethan half of the collection are Western books mostly related to English literature, but interestingly enough, we find twelve
American authors in them: Ralph Waldo Emerson, Bret Hart, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Washington Irving,
Henry James, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, James Russell Lowell, Edgar Allan Poe, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Mark Twain, andWalt Whitman.
Judging from his remarks found in his articles, Soseki apparently took a considerable interest in Whitman, whom he first
introduced to Japan, and Poe, thinking highly of their works, but we have to notice that he also refers to Hawthorne five times
in his writings:（1）And Then,（2）“On the Poetry of Walt Whitman, Representative of Egalitarianism in the Literary World,”（3）“Life,” a miscellaneous article,（4）a note written about 1907, and（5）a note written in the front page of Oscar Wilde’s The
Picture of Dorian Gray. No doubt Soseki was quite well acquainted with Hawthorne, and, as a matter of fact, we can find in thecollection Hawthorne’s The House of the Seven Gables（London: George Bell & Sons, 1888）, a book in Bohn’s Cheap Series ofStandard Works. According to his handwritten note in the title page of the book, he obtained it at Nakanishiya Bookstore,
Kanda, Tokyo, on 31 March 1889, about one year and a half before he entered Tokyo University.
Soseki read this book attentively, leaving notes in the margins; these are English explanations for words such as“propinquity” （=“nearness in relation, time”）, “Daguerreotype” （=“Photographic picture upon a silvered copper plate”）,“anathema”（=“ecclesiastical curse”）, and “innocuous”（=“harmless”）. We also find nine sentences he underlined and two parts
alongside which he drew a line. He must have underlined them or drawn a line alongside, not thinking that he would make useof them as materials for his works, but just thinking that the English expressions or the scenes in question were interesting.
（At this point he was not thinking that he would be a novelist.）For example, he underlined “Next to the lightest heart, theheaviest is apt to be most playful,” probably taking an interest in its maxim-like expression. One of the parts alongside which hedrew a line is found in Chapter 12 “The Daguerreotypist” in which Holgrave talks about a Dead Man’s unrelenting influence on
the living. It may be quite natural that Soseki should take an interest in this scene, for he, too, often describes the situation inwhich the living cannot escape from the influence of the dead: in Kokoro, for example, Sensei cannot escape from the “darkshadow” of K who committed suicide, and he himself commits suicide in the end.
We cannot find any distinct relationship of cause and effect between Soseki’s novels and these parts in which he took aninterest, but the influence of The House of the Seven Gables might be found conspicuously in the last part of And Then: just as,
in Chapter 17 of The House of the Seven Gables, Clifford wanders aimlessly by train together with Hepzibah, Daisuke decides toride the electric train till his head burns to nothing. Incidentally, it is interesting to find that Hawthorne and Soseki criticize thetrain as a symbol of modern civilization, while Whitman, on the contrary, praises the locomotive as “type of modern ! emblem of
motion and power !” in “To a Locomotive in Winter.”
It is possible to think that, besides The House of the Seven Gables, Soseki read other works of Hawthorne, including The
Scarlet Letter. As soon as we open the first page of And Then, we find Daisuke’s peculiar gesture: he puts his right hand on his
bosom here, and displays this gesture in other places again and again, just as Dimmesdale puts his hand on his heart in The
Scarlet Letter. This gesture of Daisuke’s seems to me very artificial and unnatural, and there is no doubt that Soseki borrowed itfrom The Scarlet Letter. Incidentally, “it can be documented that by 1880 Maruya（=Maruzen）was a substantial customer ofGeorge Bell & Sons of London, the publishers of both Bohn’s Standard Library volumes and Bohn’s Cheap Series of Standard
Works. Large quantities of books from these series were being imported into Japan, including the novels of Hawthorne.”（Frederic A. Sharf, “The Origins of the Distribution of Western Books in Meiji Japan,” Nathaniel Hawthorne: The Introduction ofan American Author’s Work into Japan［Salem, Massachusetts: The Peabody Essex Museum, 1993］, 10―11.）Soseki, therefore,
must surely have read The Scarlet Letter imported from George Bell & Sons.

8

４【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Special Lecture

校

We may find more substantial analogies between Hawthorne and Soseki. One of these is that both of them wrote unique“adultery novels,” dealing with adultery almost in the same way; Soseki wrote And Then and The Gate, while Hawthorne, The
Scarlet Letter. Adultery was regarded as a grave crime in Meiji Japan, and punishment for it was formally enacted in 1882.
Although the rules were slightly relaxed in 1908, one year before And Then was published, the regulations were still rigorous,
especially for women. Just as Hawthorne criticized the inhuman coldness of Puritanism by showing Hester and Dimmesdale
forced to live in the fetters of seventeenth-century Puritan society, it is possible to think, as Masami Takahashi said, that Soseki
criticized the basically unchanged regulations for the crime of adultery by presenting Daisuke and Michiyo as having to live inthe still feudalistic, Confucian atmosphere of an only superficially modernized society of Japan.
In The Gate, Sosuke and Oyone live in a hermitage-like house under the cliff, always scared by “some unseen tubercularterror” which is nothing but Hawthorne’s guilty consciousness. The sense of guilt is one of the conspicuous features found in
Hawthorne’s work and Soseki’s.
Speaking of the sense of guilt, we cannot help referring to Soseki’s Kokoro. Naoko Itagaki once wrote in The Background of
Soseki’s Works（1956）that Soseki created the character of Sensei inspired by the weakness of Dimmesdale’s personality andthat he composed Kokoro, depending upon the plot of The Scarlet Letter. Regrettably she did not prove her hypothesis at all, but
it is unmistakably evident that The Scarlet Letter and And Then are analogous to each other in that the sense of guilt and theexpiation of the sin are conspicuously presented in them. Reading “Sensei and His Suicide Note,” the last section of Kokoro, forexample, we might almost think that it must have been written by a novelist who has some Puritan blood in his veins.
Besides, just as Hawthorne, Soseki depicted characters, such as Daisuke in And Then, Sosuke in The Gate, and Sensei in
Kokoro, who suffer from isolation as the result of the sense of guilt or the contradictions of society and the period. In the
feudalistic Japan, such a matter as how an individual and society should be related to each other did not matter, for anindividual was, as a matter of course, supposed to belong to his lord and to the group or community which the lord ruled over,but Soseki dealt with this matter before other writers of the period when vestiges of feudalism still strongly remained in Japan.
As an “intellectual of the Meiji era” and a specialist in English literature who had an experience of studying abroad, did Soseki
confront the realities of what Kenzaburo O’e termed the “ambivalent Japan,” or the realities of the bipolarized Japan.
What is more, we have to notice in Soseki’s work the problem of the confrontation of intellect and emotion, or thediscrepancy between the head and the heart. This is a great analogy to be found between Hawthorne and Soseki. It is rather aWestern way of thinking to take the heart and the head as an antithesis, or binary oppositions, but Soseki, as an “intellectual of
the Meiji era,” depicted characters who suffer from the discrepancy between the head and the heart.
Lastly, I would like to say in addition that Soseki kept a certain constant distance from Christianity, or was rather critical of
Christianity. The theme of Soseki and Christianity, an unignorable topic, to which Valdo Humbert Viglielmo first paid attention,
has been discussed by many critics, including Fumio Takagi, Jun’ichiro Sako, and Shohei O’oka, and discussions on how
Christianity exerted an influence on Soseki’s work have, to a great extent, been argued. To my regret, I have not enough time
to talk on this topic detailedly now, but I would just like to say that it is simultaneously important to recognize anew Soseki’s
fundamental stand itself on Christianity. We may say that, fundamentally Soseki kept a certain constant distance fromChristianity; therefore he could not help confronting the Western culture all the more squarely and straightforwardly, forWestern culture is based on Christianity.
In any case, Soseki, as an “intellectual in the Meiji era,” confronted Western culture and cast doubt upon the superficial
modernization or Westernization of Japan. And, in the realities of the bipolarized Japan, he, as Hawthorne did, dealt with the
problem of an individual and society, and the confrontation of the head and the heart, and the problem of sin and its expiation.
After all, I can conclude that Soseki shared many more analogies with Hawthorne than with Poe and Whitman whom
Soseki seemed to estimate highly.

9４【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Symposium

校

Symposium
Hawthorne and Melville: The Fatal Tie
In the symposium, the four discussants tried to cast new light on the relationship between Hawthorne and Melville.

Mock-Christ, Mater Tenebrarum, and Hawthorne:
Melville’s Domestic Metafiction, Pierre; or, The Ambiguities
Eitetsu SASAKI（Momoyama Gakuin University）
In Moby-Dick （1851）, Herman Melville arranged to have Ishmael rescued by the whaler named Rachel, the biblicalmaternal figure weeping for her children. Thus, Ishmael lives on, to narrate what he witnesses on the whaler Pequod. In his
next fiction, Pierre（1852）, the author has Pierre, the implied narrator, take over Ishmael’s role and more deeply explore thedomestic［mother-centered］sphere. The form of Pierre as a self-referential metafiction allows me to hypothesize that the gripof the mothers―the author’s mother Maria Gansevoort Melville and Pierre’s mother Mary Glendinning―induces both men to
write and behave self-righteously. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s abandonment of Melville while Melville wrote Pierre, more
specifically, the traumatizing effects this abandonment had on Melville, allows me to further hypothesize that the maternal
influence was maximized just at the moment when Melville’s putative lover Hawthorne left him. While examining thesehypotheses, I have attempted to elucidate that the driving forces of the two（implied）writers［the author Melville and the
disguised narrator Pierre］are the imagoes of the mothers［Maria and Mary］, and to prove that both imagoes, the mothers’ andHawthorne’s, are interchangeable in the author’s psyche.
For the verification of these hypotheses, I have exposed the fact that far from the traditional masculine hero, Pierre isanything but the Emersonian Self-Reliant Man. In the highbrow American middle-class society, the Emersonian ideal came to
be rather falsely accepted. This gave birth to dozens of questionable socialistic communities, including the failed Brook Farmand the polygamous Oneida community. These communities were criticized by Hawthorne in The Blithedale Romance（1852）,
and also, most probably, by Melville in his depiction of the suspicious residents of the Church of Apostles in Pierre. These facts
could undermine Pierre’s insistence of both independent thinking and autonomy from his mother-presiding family.
Some modernist-minded critics, however, have been misled into praising Pierre for his qualification as a buster of domestic
Demiurges, and into uncritically accepting the implied narrator’s admiration of Pierre as “the heaven-begotten Christ.” Here,comparison between Melville’s Pierre and its cinematized version, Karax’s Pola X（1999）, may help corroborate that Pierre isnot chastising the Demiurge but rather unknowingly baptized with a Nazi-like mentality: exclusionism and ethnocentric antidemocracy.
The agent that maneuvers Pierre into misbelieving in the successful achievement of independence and Christ-like status is
his own widowed mother. As a Mater Tenebrarum［Dark Mother］or mock-Virgin Mary, the widowed Mary Glendinning puts
Rev. Falsgrave under her control, misuses her financial power, and thus abuses Christianity. In a word, Mary resorts toMarianism, an expression of faith not necessarily inadmissible to the domestic ideology and sentimental culture forged by theAmerican middle-class Puritans of the day. In complacent and unconscious collaboration with his widowed mother Mary, Pierre
formulates the American family romance, the romance made up of the foundling’s father and unwedded mother.
Thus, we are convinced that Pierre falls under the sway of the phallic mother. By extension, we are justified in assumingthat Melville was not merely manipulated by his mother, but also caged by the image of the gender-wise ambiguous
Hawthorne, a figure who, in the eyes of Melville, must have symbolically resembled the substitute parent［maternal as well as
paternal］. Consequently, we can safely argue that just as Pierre is too deeply trammeled in Marianism to gain independence, so
was Melville trammeled by the image of Hawthorne; and that Melville stuck fast to the parental or Hawthornian imago.

10

３【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Symposium

校

Ishmael’s and Zenobia’s “hand”: Utopian representations in Moby-Dick and The Blithedale
RomanceToshiaki TAKAHASHI（Nihon University）
When we consider the relationship between Hawthorne and Melville, we need to examine the latter’s poem, “Monody” thatit might be assumed could have been dedicated to Hawthorne. In this poem Melville himself reconfirms that the deeper
Hawthorne comes to recognize his solitude, the more he must deepen the recognition of love. The boundless solitude both
authors share is seeking for possibilities of human communication, reinforcing the complementary relation in boundless love.
And paradoxically both authors represent in their various works an ideal human relationship and an ideal community, that is, a
Utopia. Considering this main subject the present writer focuses on the “hand” in their works as representing both authors’
Utopia.
First of all, I start with the chapter 94（“A Squeeze of the Hand”）
in Melville’s Moby-Dick. This episode might be interpreted
as relating only to homosexual relations, but Melville succeeds in suggesting a possibility for human solidarity as an image
beyond sexual differentiation. Namely, Ishmael feels a bliss in the sense of unity between human beings represented by the“hand” and Nature by spermaceti.
Contrary to Ishmael’s “hand,” the tragic heroine, Zenobia’s “hand” after drowning herself brings about Coverdale’s radical
anxiety. Her dead body seems to resist “Providence” with “never-ending hostility,” with both her hands clenched as if theymight suggest “immitigable defiance” rather than in prayer.
Here, I propose a hypothesis that the metaphor of the “hand” representing human solidarity is derived from Nature’s（orGod’s）“invisible hand” in Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations（1776）. And this sympathetic “invisible hand” appears in MobyDick’s chapter 4（“The Counterpane”）. Ishmael’s strange sensations find in Queequeg something congenial to “a supernatural
hand” pertaining to his strange experience in his childhood. Thus, it would be significant for Melville to render pagan
Queequeg the embodiment of the “hand,” for Melville seems to seek for transcendental “Nature” that could relativize Christian“God.”
Next, by contemplating Gabriel on the Jeroboam who becomes a fanatic, seeking to make himself the Christian God
incarnate, we come to notice Gabriel’s congeniality to the fanatic philanthropist Hollingsworth in The Blithedale Romance（1852）. Consequently the sin of “a self-deception” in violation of the conscience arises from Hollingsworth’s ideology ofphilanthropy and Gabriel’s Shakerism. Religious and other ideological fanaticism go hand in hand toward destruction.
According to D.H. Lawrence we are required to dive into “the deepest self” in order not to slip into “a self-deception,” for“the true liberty” exists there. However, a man has to endure the most solitary self when he reaches there. And Hawthorne’s
solitude seen in “Monody” resonates with that of Melville in the deepest sense. When both authors inquire into loneness, loveand solidarity in their lifetime and grope for their respective Utopias, they put their faith in the “hand” representing Utopia.
Ishmael entrusts himself to God’s “invisible hand” which Smith mentions with Utopia on the sea in his bosom, but finally heexperiences the ruin of Utopia. And Zenobia who resists the “invisible hand” puts an end to Utopia on the land for which she
longs.

11

４【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Symposium

校

Three Different Approaches to Herman Melville at the End of the 20 th Century
Maki UESHIBA（Tokyo Seiei College）
In this paper I introduce the theses of three scholars from Melville’s Evermoving Dawn: Centennial Essays（1997）.
In “Melville; or, Aggression,” Richard H. Brodhead discusses mainly the aggression of Captain Ahab from a historicalperspective on mid-nineteenth-century America. Brodhead suggests that Melville’s writing itself is significantly allied withaggressive impulses. The text, he maintains, is also linked with issues of gender; specifically, with the problem of being a man.
The “woman’s sphere” in mid-nineteenth-century American culture has been a subject of study. With the rise of the social orderof the middle class, a separation formed between work outside the home and domestic life. Brodhead adopts Ellen
Montgomery, the heroine of Susan Warner’s novel, The Wide, Wide World（1850）to compare the hero, Ahab, in Melville’s Moby
-Dick（1851）. Ellen is obliged to convert her rebellious antipathy toward her circumstances to an inwardly authoritative moral
imperative. She becomes aggressively well-behaved. The ideological reconstruction of the term “man” was based on acomplementary masculine ideal that would produce the entrepreneurial, economically competitive, achievement-oriented “man.”
Brodhead also suggests that Melville’s interest in man’s aggression reveals the pressure on gender roles that attended a newsocial formation in the antebellum decades.
“Herman Melville and the Custom Service” is the second essay which I introduced. Stanton Garner carefully searched the
New York Times, the U. S. Treasury, Register, etc. to find documents useful for clearing up the biographical mysteries of theauthor. Herman Melville worked as a District Inspector for the United States Customs Service in New York from 1866 to 1885.
The New York Custom House was one of the largest federal offices in the land, and it was here that the government collected
two-thirds of its revenue. Because of the enormous amount of patronage at his disposal, the collector was also the political bossof the administration party in New York City. There were separate solicitations for the municipal, state, and nationalorganizations to fill the coffers of the government party, and each public servant was expected to contribute perhaps 2 percent
of his salary. In Melville’s case, this amounted to around seventy-two dollars per year. The spoils system rewarded politicalloyalty rather than efficiency. Melville managed to survive for nineteen years, at the end of which he left voluntarily. Garnerpoints out Billy Budd, Sailor reflects the actual circumstances of his customs service. The Bellipotent is commanded bypowerful bureaucrats who have ascended to their positions by connections. Under their arbitrary control, the common sailor,
Billy Budd, seems to hold a ranking equal to that of a common inspector. Each of them is endangered by his superiors. Garnerconcludes that Melville took his revenge by writing Billy Budd.
“Manuscript, Edition, Revision: Reading Typee with Trifocals,” the laudatory essay by John Bryant deals with a brand-new
theme for Japanese scholars. The Typee manuscript was found only recently in 1983, in upstate New York, after remaining
hidden from Japanese scholars for many years. Bryant describes the text of Typee as “an organic whole.” By comparing thedraft to its published form in the first British and American edition, with its expurgations, Bryant declares that we can trace thefull scope of Melville’s artistic development at the anxious moment of his professional debut. Melville’s so-called “L-word,”
whether intended to denote “literally interpreted” or “liberally interpreted,” gives us significant information on Melville’s writing
style. According to Bryant’s analysis, the indistinct word occurs at a crucial moment in Tommo’s narrative in the manuscript.
Melville’s dilemma is whether he shall transcribe, transform, or translate the language of the native characters in the
Marquesas Islands. In Tommo’s English translation, for example, the Polynesian “gibberish” of the main character Kory-Kory isreworded from “ah ! nuee, nuee, nuee !” to “Heaps, heaps, heaps etc.” This is a literal translation into English. Yet in the revised
American edition, the L-word is changed to “liberally interpreted.” In fact, the Authorized Version, the Northwestern University
and the Newberry Library, has adopted “liberally,” though Bryant seems to object to this on account of the manuscript found in
1983. He also discusses whether translation must not necessarily involve a careful transformation of words or not.

12

４【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Symposium

校

Hawthorne and Melville: The Pilgrimages in The Marble Faun and Clarel
Naoko UCHIBORI（Tokyo University of Science）
Summary
The emergence of queer theory triggered a debate on the enigmatic relationship between Nathaniel Hawthorne andHerman Melville. Although the recent work Hawthorne and Melville: Writing a Relationship reflects a fruitful development ofresearch in this field, there are still moot points, especially on their apparent gradual estrangement since the mid-1850 s. This
article examines their mysterious relationship, focusing on the theme of pilgrimages. Not only did Melville meet his beloved
friend Hawthorne at Liverpool both before and after the pilgrimage from 1856 to 1857, they also shared common experiences
and similar motifs in their later works, Clarel and The Marble Faun.
As Mark Twain wrote in The Innocents Abroad, pilgrimages or journeys to sacred places formed one of major social
phenomena in the late nineteenth-century America. This trend of pilgrimages exposes not only the advancement of
infrastructure and the flourishing modern market capitalism, but also betrays a wariness of faith and particular nostalgia for theromanticized past, the “innocents abroad.” In fact, Melville confessed that he undertook the pilgrimage as a result of an agonyof faith. According to anthropologist V. Turner, pilgrimages serve the function of “communitas,” in which people can release
themselves from a given social order and maximize human liberty. In other words, a pilgrimage presents a destination where
people experience liminality and meet with otherness.
What, then, is represented through the description of pilgrimages in their works ? On the ways, the protagonists of bothnovels encounter with their religious others. In The Marble Faun, Kenyon, who is a puritan, meets with many heretics on his
journey with his Italian friend Donatello, who also resembles a pagan god, the Faun of Praxiteles. In Clarel, the protagonist
Clarel, an ex-puritan theological student, is affected by pantheism on the way to the Jerusalem.
The protagonists also meet their sexual others women who are also undertaking the pilgrimages, although the two works
end very differently. In The Marble Faun, Kenyon forms a “deep union” with Donatello and Miriam, while Hawthorne struggles
to repress a romance between Kenyon and Donatello. Kenyon and Donatello finally complete the pilgrimage and Kenyon
marries Hilda, who seems to converted from Puritanism to Catholicism. On the other hand, in Clarel, Melville continues to
explore the homoerotic relationship ultimately killing Ruth, who is a daughter of Zionist. He deprives Clarel of a heterosexual
happy ending, implying a melancholic and lonely fate instead. The contrasting culminations of the two pilgrimages could
provide some insight into the obscure relationship between Hawthorne and Melville.

13

３【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Book News

校

Book News
Vicissitudes of Publication, Multiplicity of Studies
Kazuko Takemura（Ochanomizu University）
As with life, publication activities seem to have their own vicissitudes : Some years explode with Hawthorne studies, whileothers crouch in anticipation of the next year’s leap. 2009 could be included into the latter category―in terms of quantity, atleast. To the best of my knowledge, only four books on Nathaniel Hawthorne, excluding reprinted editions, came out during
this year. Among them, two are reproductions of past works : Critical Insights : Nathaniel Hawthorne, edited by Jack Lynch, isan anthology collecting “the representative high points of Hawthorne criticism, ranging... from the 1940s to the present”（3）,and The Business of Reflection : Hawthorne in His Notebooks is a selection of entries from the three authoritative “Notebooks” by
Nathaniel Hawthorne―The American, The English, and The French and Italian Notebooks ―with, nevertheless, an illuminating
introduction and notes by the editors, Robert Milder and Randall Fuller1.（Incidentally, this selection is published in two ways―
as a book form and a digitalized format. The latter could be convenient, enabling easy reference）. As for journal articles, I could
find no more than eight pieces, excluding book reviews. The publication of the fall issue of Nathaniel Hawthorne Review（which
henceforth will be referred to as NHR）continues to be delayed.
But, as we know, quantity does not equal quality, and individual researchers provide their own hints for future studies.
Hence, for 2009, let me focus on journal essays and survey them according to my own interests. The articles treated here
include those carried in the 2008 combined spring/fall issue of NHR, which could not be contained in my 2008 “Book News,”
since it had not yet reached me while I was writing last year.
What is noticeable in the articles gathered here is the gender politics they discuss : six of the thirteen pieces（excluding
book reviews）touch upon gender issues from their own specific points of view. The ramifications of gender-related mattershave been widespread enough to be regarded as characteristic of today’s Hawthorne criticism. What is the most interesting tome is Leland S. Person’s “A Man for the Whole Country : Marketing Masculinity in the Pierce Biography.” Since the 1990s,
when queer theory emerged, Hawthorne’s ambivalent sympathy for homoeroticism has come to be discussed both in textual
and biographical terms. To this accumulation of scholarship on the writer’s sexuality, Person has added new terrain. This is
Hawthorne’s creation of “marketable manhood” for a political figure, which was produced in his 1852 campaign biography, The
Life of Franklin Pierce.
The author’s friendship with the 14th U. S. president has recently been explored in multiple works. Among these, Richard J.
Williamson’s The Impact of Franklin Pierce on Nathaniel Hawthorne（2006）is a comprehensive study of the two men’s life-longrelationship, examining their college friendship through the politician’s influence on Hawthorne’s writings, including his firstnovel, Fanshawe, the Pierce Biography, and even an unfinished novel begun in his last days. The originality of Person’s 2009
article, however, lies in his insight into the interconnection between the antebellum socio-political situation, the gender politics
of that kind, and the author’s literary and personal references to male companionship. Person’s analysis focuses on Hawthorne’s
maneuver in fabricating a public image for his friend through use of the then-climate of democratico-fraternity among the allmale electorate and by relating this to rumors about Pierce’s weak and effeminate personality. The composition of the electorate
was changed in 1920, when women’s suffrage was granted. But the image-building for presidential candidates has become
increasingly important and related to the gender politics of each era―as shown in the cases of Franklin Roosevelt, John F.
Kennedy, and Bill Clinton, to name just a few. In this sense Hawthorne could be viewed as a forerunner―one who invented thestrategy of creating a public image for a presidential candidate specifically in terms of gender and sexuality.
Another discovery by Pierce is a coincidence between the author’s actual life and his literary description regarding acompanion on one’s deathbed : at the end of his life Hawthorne asked Pierce to drive him to New Hampshire, and during thisjourney he died in a hotel room next to that of his dear friend, while in The Blithedale Romance the author-narrator Coverdale
exclaims “Happy the man that has such a friend beside him, when he comes to die !”（The Centenary Edition 3 : 42）. In
Hawthorne’s days such an intimate friendship was not considered to be so queer as would be at present. Jordan Alexander
Stein’s “The Blithedale Romance’s Queer Style,” which is carried in the special issue of ESQ entitled “Come Again ? New
Approaches to Sexuality in Nineteenth-Century U. S. Literature,” focuses on the gap in readers’ reactions between the midnineteenth century and the present day.
The Blithedale Romance represents not only male homoerotic bonds but also female same-sex affections, the free-loveclimate, and the burgeoning nuclear-family fantasy. Regarding the intricate human relations depicted in this novel, Michael
Colacurcio’s “Nobody’s Protest Novel : Art and Politics in The Blithedale Romance,” appearing in the 2008 combined issue of
NHR, provides an insightful analysis. According to Frederick Newberry, editor of this issue（by which he concluded his sixteen-year editorship of this journal）, “He［Colacurcio］argues that sex and family, along with Coverdale’s culpability in Zenobia’s

14

初【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Book News校

death, have more to do with the novel than we thought we knew”（iii）. It seems to me that another term, “Desire,” might well
be added to the subtitle of his article, since Colacurcio sees a dynamic drama of loves and failures taking place in a turbulent
era when the pre-modern sexual regime was replaced by a modern nuclear-family formation, entailing intense but short-lived
experimental reform movements and free-love communities. Keiko Arai’s article on The House of Seven Gables, carried in thesame issue, treats a similar topic, but from a different perspective. Arai focuses on the domestication of a young girl as she
becomes a middle-class woman in a newly-born democratic nation, which, she argues, rendered obsolete the “aristocracyplebeian” class conflict that had occupied both the Pynchons and the Maules for two centuries.
Another suggestive perspective, that of eugenics, is presented by Dana Medoro’s “‘Looking into their Inmost Nature’ : The
Speculum and Sexual Selection in ‘Rappaccini’s Daughter.’” Strictly speaking, as pointed out by Medoro, what could be exploredin Hawthorne’s texts is proto-eugenics, since the idea of eugenics was first proposed in 1865, one year after Hawthorne’s death,by Francis Galton, who coined the term itself nearly twenty years later in his 1883 book on this topic. But many eugenicaldiscourses can be found in Hawthorne’s fiction, including “Rappaccini’s Daughter,” “The Birth-mark,” “Dr. Heidegger’s
Experiment,” and “Earth’s Holocaust.” These stories often have been discussed in terms of an individual’s egotism or a male
Pygmalion complex. But they could also be reexamined in light of eugenics or, in a larger sense, of biopolitics, which emergedin mid-nineteenth century America, contributing to the construction and selection of “ideal citizens.”
The eugenics project is conducted not only in gender terms but also in racial terms, as Hawthorne’s “The Birth-mark” isinterpreted as illustrative of “the consequences of eugenic efforts to perfect and purify race and gender characteristics”（The
Cambridge Introduction to Nathaniel Hawthorne 58, italics mine）. Hawthorne’s interest in the idea of eugenics may have beenconnected with his ambivalent attitude toward racial matters, which was co-influenced by that of his wife. Sophia was not acommitted abolitionist, even though she was surrounded by members of the Boston Female Anti-Slavery Society, including her
own sisters. Before their marriage, however, Sophia Peabody Hawthorne visited Cuba from 1833 to 1835 with her sister Mary
Peabody, and described, in letters to her family, the misery of slaves as well as her romanticized impressions of plantation life.
These letters were “circulated continually among many family members, friends, and acquaintances”（Valenti 97）and were“eventually collected in bound volumes”（Scholl 23）as Cuba Journal by her daughter Rose Hawthorne Lathrop. The 2009
spring issue of NHR includes Diane G. Scholl’s examination of Sophia’s artistic imagination and its negative effect upon her
husband’s characterization of female artists in his stories. There is also a shorter report by Patricia Dunlavy Valenti about the
recent digitalization of Cuba Journal housed in the Berg Collection of the New York Public Library. The increased accessibilityof this document, as well as Scholl’s article and recently-published biographies of Sophia and her sisters―such as Patricia
Dunlavy Valenti’s Sophia Peabody Hawthorne : A Life, Vol. I, 1809―1847 （2004）and Megan Marshall’s The Peabody Sisters（2005）―will contribute to shedding new light on the relationship between Nathaniel and Sophia―a husband who became asuccessful artist and a wife who never fully realized her artistic potential.
Note :
1. I am grateful to Nozomi Fujimura for information of the publication of this work and lending a copy to me in digital format.
Books on N. Hawthorne published in 2009 in the U. S.
Cecere, Gregory. Nobles and Savages : Hierarchic Organization and Restoration in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The House of the Severn Gables.
Saarbrücken, Germany : Verlag Dr. Müller.
Lynch, Jack. Critical Insights : Nathaniel Hawthorne. Ipswich : Salem P.
Milder, Robert, and Randall Fuller. The Business of Reflection : Hawthorne in His Notebooks. Columbus : Ohio State UP.
Robertson, Ben P. Inchbald, Hawthorne and the Romantic Moral Romance : Little Histories and Neutral Territories. Pickering & Chatto Ltd.
Journal essays published in 2009 in the U. S. to the best of my knowledge
Claybaugh, Amanda. “The Consular Service and US Literature : Nathaniel Hawthorne Abroad.” Novel : A Forum on Fiction. 42.2 : 284―89.
Gollin, Rita. “Review of Hawthorne, Gender, and Death : Christianity and Its Discontents by Roberta Weldon.” NHR 35. 1 : 87―90.
Hunt, Constance C. T. “The Persistence of Theocracy : Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter.” Perspectives on Political Science. 38.1 : 25―32.
Idol, John. “Review of How Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Narratives Are Shaped by Sin : His Use of Biblical Typology in His Four Major Novels by Jason
Charles Courtmanche.” NHR 35.1 : 91―93.
Medoro, Dana. “‘Looking into their Inmost Nature’ : The Speculum and Sexual Selection in ‘Rappaccini’s Daughter.’” NHR 35.1 : 70―86.
Otten, Thomas J. “Hawthirne’s Twisted Letters.” Modern Language Quarterly. 70.3 : 363―86.
Person, Leland S. “A Man for the Whole Country : Marketing Masculinity in the Pierce Biography.” NHR 35.1 : 1―22.
Reynolds, Larry J. “Review of The Arbiters of Reality : Hawthorne, Melville, and the Rise of Mass Information Culture by Peter West.” NHR 35.1 : 93―96.
Scholl, Diane G. “Fallen Angels : Sophia Hawthorne’s Cuba Journal as Pièce de Résistance.” NHR 35.1 : 23―45.
Smith, Andy. “Sensitive Emulsions : Hawthorne’s Proto-Photography. ” NHR 35.1 : 46―69.
Stein, Jordan Alexander. “The Blithedale Romance’s Queer Style.” ESQ : A Journal of the American Renaissance 55.3―4 : 211―36.
Valenti, Patricia Dunlavy. “New York Public Library Digital Version of Sophia Peabody Hawthorne’s Cuba Journal.” NHR 35.1 : 97―99.

15

３【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／Book News校

Books to be added to my 2008 list
Courtmanche, Jason Charles. How Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Narratives Are Shaped by Sin : His Use of Biblical Typology in His Four Major Novels.
Lewiston, NY : The Edwin Mellen P., 2008.
Essays contained in the 2008 spring/fall issue of Nathaniel Hawthorne Review
Arai, Keiko. “‘Phoebe is no Pyncheon’ : Class, Gender, and Nation in The House of the Seven Gables.” NHR 34.1+2 : 40―62.
Clark, Richard M. “Current bibliography.” NHR 34.1+2 : 117―23.
Colacurcio, Michael J. “Nobody’s Protest Novel : Art and Politics in The Blithedale Romance.” NHR 34.1+2 : 1―39.
Einboden, Jeffrey. “Composing a Persian Letter : Simin Daneshvar’s Rendition of Hawthorne.” NHR 34.1+2 : 81―102.
McLeod, Glen. “Review of The Temple and the Forum : The American Museum and Cultural Authority in Hawthorne, Melville, Stowe, and Whitman
by Les Harrison.” NHR 34.1+2 : 113―16.
Sbriglia, Russel. “Review of America’s Gothic Fiction : The Legacy of Magnalia Christi Americana by Dorothy Z. Baker.” NHR 34.1+2 : 117―23.
Stich, Klaus P. “‘Cap’n Hathorne’ : Hawthorne’s Reconnection to Ancient Deeds during Bowdoin’s Fiftieth Anniversary Celebration of Its First
Graduating Class.” NHR 34.1+2 : 103―112.
Traisnel, Antoine. “The Temptation of Kitsch : The Fall of Hawthorne.” NHR 34.1+2 : 63―80.
The following publication information was obtained from Richard M. Clark’s “Current Bibliography” (2008) and Jessica Chainer Nowacki’s “Current Bibliography” (2007).
Journal Essays to be added to my 2008 list.
Anseko, Michael. “Is James’s Hawthorne Really James’s Hawthorne ?” Henry James Review 29 : 36―53.
Journal Essays to be added to my 2007 list.
Alkana, Joseph. “Disorderly Histroy in ‘My Kinsman, Major Molineux.’” ESQ : A Journal of the American Renaissance（which henceforth will be referred to just as ESQ）
53 : 1―30.
Hewitson, James. “‘To Despair at the Tedious Delay of the Final Conflagration’ : Hawthorne’s Use of the Figure of William Miller.” ESQ 53 : 89―111.
Loman, Andrew. “Cosmopolitan Detachment in Hawthorne’s ‘Prophetic Pictures.’” ESQ 53 : 57―88.
Matheson, Neill. “Intimacy and Form : James on Hawthorne’s Charm.” The Henry James Review 28 : 120―39.
Meyer, Priscilla. “Life as Annotation : Sebastian Knight, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Vladimir Nabokov.” Cycnos 24.1 : 183―91.
Pringle, Michael. “The Scarlet Lever : Hester’s Civil Disobedience.” ESQ 53 : 31―55.
Roggenkamp, Karen. “The Short Story Cycle and Western Gothic in The Pastures of Heaven.” Steinbeck Review 4 : 19―31.
Journal Essays to be added to my 2006 list.
Barton, John Cyril. “The Anti-Gallows Movement in Antebellum America. ” REAL 22 : 145―78.
Beauchamp, Gorman. “Dancing on the Puritans’ Grave.” Midwest Quarterly 48.1 : 37―49.
Ben-Zvi, Yael. “Clinging to One Spot : Hawthorne’s Native-Born Settlers.” ESQ 52 : 17―44.
Brennan, Matthew C. “Simms, Hawthorne, and ‘The Inutile Pursuit’ of ‘The Artist of the Beautiful.’” Simms Review 14 : 14―21.
Blythe, Hal, and Charlie Sweet. “Using Active Learning to Teach Hawthorne’s ‘My Kinsman, Major Molineaux.’” Eureka Studies in Teaching Short Fiction（which
henceforth will be referred to just as ESTSF）7 : 6―16.
Burgauer, Deb. “Reading Hawhtorne’s ‘Rappaccini’s Daughter”―With Envy and Suspicion.” Eureka Studies 7 : 62―65.
Cording, Sue. “Hawthorne’s ‘TheMinister’s Black Veil’ : A Tale of a Heart Imprisoned.” Eureka Studies 7 : 56―61.
Gustafson, Sandra M. “Historicizing Race in Early American Studies : A Roundtable with Joanna Brooks, Philip Gould and David Kazajian.” Early American Literature 41.2 :305―11.
Jaynes, Michael. “Moving Toward an Understanding of ‘Evil’ : ‘Young Goodman Brown,’ University Freshmenand Semiotics.” Eureka Studies 7 : 66―77.
Logsdon, Loren. “Hawthorne’s ‘Wakefield’ : The Teaching Potential of a Flawed Story.” Eureka Studies 7 : 108―19.
McKenna, John J. “Lessons About Pygmalion Projects and Temperament in Hawthorne’s ‘The Birth-mark.’” Eureka Studies 36―43.
Merrill, Jason. “Plagiarism or Russian Symbolist Intertexuality ? Hawthorne’s ‘The Snow Image’ and Sologub’s ‘Snegurochka.’” Slavonica 12.2 : 107―28.
Smith, Barbara. “The Mysterious and the Human in ‘The Murders in the Rue Morgue’ and ‘Young Goodman Brown.’” Eureka Studies 7 : 44―55.
Thrailkill, Jane F. “The Scarlet Letter’s Romantic Medicine.” Studies in American Fiction 34.1 : 3―31.
Wilson-Jordan, Jacqueline. “‘Paint it Black’ : Teaching Hawthorne’s ‘Rappaccini’s Daughter’ as a Gothic.” Eureka Studies 7 : 17―35.
Journal Essays to be added to my 2005 list.
Baym, Nina. “Hawthorne for the Twenty-First Century ?” Resources for American Literary Study 30 : 331―35.
Bross, Kristina. “Antinomian Impulses in the Undergraduate Survey.” Early American Literature 40 : 343―49.
Deines, Tim. “Hawthorne, Sacrifice, Sovereignty.” Discourse 27 : 179―97.
Guillain, Auréie. “Discolouring : The Power of Ascetic Ideals in Hawthorne’s Fiction.” Revue Française d’Etudes Américaines 105 : 44―52.
Lustig, T. J. “Sunspots and Blindspots in The Europeans.” EREA 3.2 : 6―18.
McDowell, Marta. “Verdant Letters : Hawthorne and Horticulture.” Arnoldia 63.3 : 28―33.
Morgan, Elizabeth. “Mary and Modesty.” Christianity and Literature 54 : 209―33.
Obenland, Frank. “Intertextuality and History : America’s Colonial Past in The Scarlet Letter（1995）.” Zeitschrift fur Anglistik und Amerikanistic : A Quarterly of Language,
Literature and Culture 53.3 : 211―23.
Stecker, Robert. “The Interaction of Ethical and Aesthetic Value.” British Journal of Aesthetics 45.2 : 138―50.
Sutherland, Helen. “Varieties of Protestant Experience : Religion and the Doppelganger in Hogg, Brown, and Hawthorne.” Studies in Hogg and His World 16 : 71―85.
Journal Essays to be added to my 2004 list.
Downes, Paul. “Democratic Terror in ‘My Kinsman, Major Molineax’ and ‘The Man of the Crowd.’” Poe Studies/Dark Romanticism History, Theory, Interpretation（which
henceforth will be referred to just as Poe Studies）37 : 31―35.
Elbert, Monika. “Poe and Hawhtorne as Women’s Amanuenses.” Poe Studies 37 : 21―27.
Doddu, Teresa. “Integrating Hawthorne.” Poe Studies 37 : 36―38.
Herbert, T. Walter. “Different from Himself : Hawthorne and the Masks of Masculinity.” ESQ 50 : 269―82.
Kopley, Richard. “Periodicals as Key in Poe and Hawthorne.” Poe Studies 37 : 28―30.
Williams, Susan S. “Daguerreotyping Hawthorne and Poe.” Poe Studies 37 : 14―20.

16

２【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／支部研究会だより他

校

支部研究会だより
東京支部研究会
東京支部研究会は年６回を予定し，そのうち１回を読書会としています。開催月・曜日は原則として，２，３，７，１
０，
１
１，１
２月の土曜日で，時間は３
：
０
０〜５
：
０
０p.m. です。
△２
０
０
９年２月２
８日
（土）
：２月例会
司 会：成田 雅彦 氏（専修大学）
発表者：藤村 希 氏（立教大学）
題 目：“The Story-Teller” と American subject の形成
△２
０
０
９年３月２
８日
（土）
：３月例会（ワークショップ）
司 会：高尾 直知 氏（中央大学）
報 告：大野 美砂 氏（東京海洋大学）
大場 厚志 氏（東海学園大学）
齋藤 幸子 氏（川村学園女子大学）
題 目：いま大学で，ホーソーンをいかに教えるか
△２
０
０
９年７月２
５日
（土）
：７月例会
司 会：高尾 直知 氏（中央大学）
発表者：矢作 三蔵 氏（学習院大学）
題 目：ホーソーンとふたりの女性――「ラパチーニの娘」をめぐって
△２
０
０
９年１
０月２
４日
（土）
：１
０月例会
司 会：高尾 直知 氏（中央大学）
発表者：谷岡 朗 氏（日本大学）
題 目：Nathaniel Hawthorne と John Neal――Rachel Dyer をめぐって
△２
０
０
９年１
２月１９日
（土）
：１
２月例会（読書会）
司 会：川村 幸夫 氏（東京理科大学）
発表者：川村 幸夫 氏
冨樫 壮央 氏（麗澤大学・非）高瀬 祐子 氏（成蹊大学・院）
長島 万里世 氏（日本大学・院）
T e x t：Lauren Gail Berlant,
The Anatomy of National Fantasy:
Hawthorne, Utopia, and Everyday Life.
（University of Chicago Press,１
９
９１）（高橋利明記）17

３【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／支部研究会だより他

校

中部支部研究会
中部支部では，研究会を年３回（原則７月・１
１月・３月）開催しております。
△２
０
０
９年３月１
４日
（土）
：午後２時から
場 所：東海学園大学名古屋キャンパス
発表者：進藤 鈴子 氏（名古屋経済大学）
題 目：アンテベラムの黒人文学とハイチ革命
司会者：大場 厚志 氏（東海学園大学）△２
００
９年９月２日（水）：午後１時から
場 所：名城大学 名駅サテライト
発表１
発表者：大場 厚志 氏（東海学園大学）
題 目：ポーの映像化について
発表２
発表者：中村 文紀 氏（日本大学）
題 目：交錯するアイデンティティ――フラナリー・オコナー「森の景色」にみられる
南部の現実
司 会：横田 和憲 氏（金城学院大学）
△２
０
０
９年１
１月１
４日
（土）
：午後２時から
場 所：名城大学 名駅サテライト
発表者：横田 和憲 氏（金城学院大学）
題 目：『ホーソーンとその苔』の波紋：『認識の衝撃』――花子とロダンと鴎外――
司 会：小久保 潤子 氏（愛知淑徳大学）（倉橋洋子記）関西支部研究会
△２
０
０
９年３月２
８日
（土）
：１
４
：
３
０〜
場 所：関西大学百周年記念会館
研究発表
司 会：西谷 拓哉 氏（神戸大学）（１）近澤 邦子 氏（関西大学大学院博士前期課程）
Evangeline 執筆の背景――ロングフェローとホーソーン（２）藤沢 徹也 氏（大阪国際大和田高校）「イーサン・ブランド」における読むことのアレゴリー
研究会後，「すっぽん」にて懇親会
△２
０
０
９年１
２月２
５日
（金）
：１
５
：
０
０〜
場 所：関西大学文学部英文合研
研究発表
司 会：藤田 佳子 氏（奈良女子大名誉教授）
橋本 安央 氏（関西学院大学）
追憶のなかの南海――Typee と Omoo をめぐって
研究会後，関西大学レストラン「チルコロ」にて懇親会（入子文子記）18

２【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／支部研究会だより他

校

九州支部研究会
第３
４回
△２
０
０
９年３月２
８日
（土）
：１
４
：
０
０〜１
７
：
３
０
会 場：福岡大学文系センター９階学部共通室 B＜シンポジウム＞
コーディネーター：大島 由起子 氏（福岡大学）（１）高橋 勉 氏（九州大学）「ホーソーンとニューイングランドの作家達」（２）竹内 勝徳 氏（鹿児島大学）「ホーソーンとメルヴィル」（３）乘口 眞一郎 氏（北九州市立大学特任教授）「ホーソーンとジェイムズ」
第３
５回
△２
０
０
９年６月２
７日
（土）
：１
３
：
３
０〜１
７
：
０
０
会 場：北九州市立大学 E 棟−５１２号室（本館５階のエレベーター前）（１）川下 剛 氏（筑紫女学園大学・非）（発表３０分，質疑応答３０分）“The Wedding-Knell” におけるイメージの美学
司 会：青井 格 氏（近畿大学九州工学部）（２）高野 泰志 氏（九州大学）（発表３
０分，質疑応答３０分）
Work in Progress in The Marble Faun
司 会：乘口 眞一郎 氏（西南女学院大学・非）
第３
６回
△２
０
０
９年９月２
６日
（土）
：１
３
：
０
０〜１
５
：
３
０
会 場：九州大学伊都キャンパス センター１号館 第２会議室
●総会 １
３
：
０
０〜１
３
：
１
５（事務局場所の変更の件他）●研究発表（１）田島 優子 氏（九州大学大学院人文科学府）
（１
３
：
１
５〜１
４
：
１
５）
神聖化された Motherhood――母親としてのダークレディ，Hester Prynne
司 会：稲富 百合子 氏（福岡大学）（２）青井 格 氏（近畿大学九州工学部）
（１
４
：
３
０〜１
５
：
３
０）
ジャック・ラカン「『盗まれた手紙』についてのゼミナール」について，
およびホーソーン読解へのその応用の可能性
司 会：川下 剛 氏（筑紫女学園大学・非）
第３
７回
△２
０
０
９年１
２月５日
（土）
：１
４
：
０
０〜１
６
：
０
０
会 場：北九州市立大学 E−５１２（本館５階）講演者：丹羽 隆昭 氏
演 題：
『七破風の家』――「家」あれど「家庭」なし――

19

２【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／支部研究会だより他

校

編集室だより今まで編集委員長でいらした成田雅彦先生の後を引き継ぐ形で，２００
９年度より２年の任期で佐々木が担当することとなりました。なにぶんにも当方はこの種の仕事が初めてでありまして，成田先生をはじめ，業務をよくご存じの先生方にサポートしていただきながら，何とかこなしております。
ご存じのように事務局は日本大学から関西学院大学を主体とする体制に移行いたしました。これを機に，投稿原稿の提出方式を変更し，原則的に電子提出によることといたしました。投稿論文の匿名性を確保し，査読作業の効率化をはかる意味での変更です。この変更に伴う投稿規定の一部改定と会員への通知に際しては，関西学院大学事務局の先生方に一方ならぬお力添えをいただき，あらためてお礼申し上げます。
念のため，新投稿方式の要点を繰り返しお知らせいたします。
（１）事務局宛（hawthorne@c01.itscom.net）に電子ファイル（WORD ファイル形式［.doc］）を添付して送る。
（２）論文本体に投稿者氏名等を記載しない。
（３）メールの件名は「フォーラム投稿」とする。メール本文には，氏名，所属，連絡先（メールアドレス，住所，電話番号），口頭発表した旨の注記等を記す。
（４）投稿者はメールにて提出後，事務局から送信された受領メールを確認する。
（５）電子ファイルの提出が困難である場合は，事務局に問い合わせる。
（６）問い合わせ先
ノートルダム聖心女子大学 英語英文学学科合同研究室気付 中村善雄（投稿受付担当者）
〒７
０
０―８
５
１
６ 岡山市北区伊福町２−１
６−９
Fax ０
８
６−２
５
２−５
７
３
４
『フォーラム』１４号会計報告（２
０
０
８．
９−２
０
０
９．
８）
収

入

繰越金

支
７
５
０，
７
３
９

『フォーラム』１
４号費用
利息

５
０
０，
０
０
０
３
９
３

収支合計

１，
２
５
１，
１
３
２

出

『フォーラム』１
４号発行費
! 内訳
"
"
"
"
"
#

バックナンバー送付代
振り込み手数料
領収書送付代
支出合計
残

高

５
４
７，
０
７
９

４
８
７，
２
０
０$
%
封入手数料
６，
９
１
９%
郵送費（２
１
７件）
３
９，
９
４
０%
%
封入印刷料（１
７
０枚） １
２，
６
０
０%
振り込み手数料（１件） ４
２
０&
印刷費

１
１，
９
１
０
４
２
０
１
７
０
５
５
９，
５
７
９

６
９
１，
５
５
３

編集委員：川窪啓資，倉橋洋子，増永俊一，大場厚志，中村栄造，佐々木英哲（編集長）
編 集 室：〒５９４―１１９８ 大阪府和泉市まなび野１番１号 桃山学院大学 国際教養学部
佐々木英哲研究室気付 日本ナサニエル・ホーソーン協会編集室（佐々木英哲記）

20

２【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／支部研究会だより他

校資料室だよりこれまでに以下の論文・書籍の寄贈がありましたので報告します。論文・書籍執筆の際には資料室にご一報いただけますとありがたく存じます。なお，今後，寄贈論文・書籍は資料室で一括管理する予定です。論文・書籍を寄贈される際には，資料室宛にお送り下さるようお願いいたします。
（資料室宛）（１）大場厚志「チャップリン『モダン・タイムス』の冒頭１８分を「読む」」『研究紀要』第７５号（日本大学文理学部人文科学研究所，２
００
８年３月）（２）鈴木元子「カルチュラル・スタディーズで読むホーソーンの My Kinsman, Major Molineux”―『夏の夜の夢』，
五月祭，祝祭の笑いから」『静岡文化芸術大学研究紀要』第９巻（静岡文化芸術大学，２
０
０
９年３月）
（３）高橋利明「ホーソーンの「赦されざる罪」―イーサン・エイハブ・ヨブをめぐって」『東海学園大学研究紀要』第１３号（シリーズ B）（東海学園大学，２００８年３月）（４）増永俊一「ホーソーンのポリティックス―権力転位と眼差しの行方」『エクス言語文化論集』第６号（関西学院大
学経済学部研究会，２
０
０
９年４月）
（事務局宛）（１）市川美香子・水野尚之・舟阪洋子訳『ある青年の覚え書・道半ば―ヘンリー・ジェイムズ自伝 第二巻，第三巻』（大阪教育図書，２００９年）（２）伊藤詔子書評『月下の自然―夜の散歩と思索のエッセイ』ヘンリー・ソロー（小野和人訳）日本ソロー学会編『ヘンリー・ソロー研究論集』第３５号（日本ソロー学会事務局，２
００９年）（３）入子文子「「ある鐘の伝記」を読む―ホーソーンにおける歴史と詩学の交錯―」入子文子・林以知郎編著『独立の時代―アメリカ古典文学は語る―The Age of Independence』（世界思想社，２００９年）（４）齊藤昇・日本ソロー学会編『ヘンリー・ソロー研究論集』第３５号（日本ソロー学会事務局，２００９年）（５）齊藤昇「北米毛皮交易の原風景―アーヴィングの『アストリア』の意義をめぐって―」入子文子・林以知郎編著『独立の時代―アメリカ古典文学は語る―The Age of Independence』（世界思想社，２００９年）（６）白川恵子「売れる偉勲，憂うる遺訓―ウィームズの『ワシントン伝』再考―」入子文子・林以知郎編著『独立の時代―アメリカ古典文学は語る―The Age of lndependence』（世界思想社，２００９年）（７）巽孝之「建国の父たち―ワシントン，アダムズ，モンロー―」入子文子・林以知郎編著『独立の時代―アメリカ古典文学は語る―The Age of Independence』（世界思想社，２００９年）（８）橋本賢二『アメリカ短篇小説の構造』（大阪教育図書，２００９年）（９）福岡和子「「継承」と「革命」のはざまで―メルヴィル作『ピエール』を読む―」入子文子・林以知郎編著『独立の時代―アメリカ古典文学は語る―The Age of Independence』（世界思想社，２００９年）（１０）水野尚之「ジェイムズ家とアメリカ独立期」入子文子・林以知郎編著『独立の時代―アメリカ古典文学は語る―TheAge of Independence』（世界思想社，２００９年）
ご協力ありがとうございました。資料室を充実させていきたいと考えております。今後とも皆様方のご協力をお願いい
たします。
住所：２
７
８―８
５
１
０（郵便物は郵便番号のみで届きます）
千葉県野田市山崎２６４
１ 東京理科大学理工学部教養科 川村（幸）研究室内
日本ナサニエル・ホーソーン協会資料室
電話：０
４―７
１
２
２―９
２
１
９（研究室直通）
０
４―７
１
２
２―９
１
５
８（事務室直通）
e-mail: kawmyuk@rs.noda.tus.ac.jp（川村幸夫記）21

３【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／支部研究会だより他

校

国際渉外室だより発行の遅れていた Nathaniel Hawthorne Society の機関誌 Nathaniel Hawthorne Review（２
０
０
８年，第３
４巻第１号）が発刊され，新井景子氏（武蔵大学）の ‘Phoebe is no Pyncheon’: Class, Gender, and Nation in The House of the Seven
Gablesが掲載されています。新井氏は２０
０
８年本協会全国大会のシンポジウムでも発表いただいた気鋭の研究者です。

来年度，Nathaniel Hawthorne Society の Summer Meeting が６月１０日〜１３日にかけて開催されます。今回の会場はマサチューセッツ州コンコードの Concord’s Colonial Inn で，テーマも Hawthorne in Concord: Eden and Beyond と題されています。１
８
４
２年から１
８
４
５年にかけてのオールド・マンス時代，そして１
８
５
２年から１
８
５
３年とさらに帰国後１
８
６
０年
から１
８
６
４年までのウェイサイド時代についてのホーソーンを，家族や友人たちとの関係，政治との関わり，南北戦争への応答などさまざまな側面から考察するということです。これにあわせて，研究発表も募集が始まっています。このニューズレターが出るころには締め切られているかもしれませんが，２００語程度のプロポーザルを Sam

Coale 教授

（samcoale@cox.net）までお送りください。登 録 費 用 は２９５ド ル（２０１
０年５月１
０日 ま で，そ れ 以 降 は３
４
５ド ル）
，ま た
Concord’s Colonial Inn の宿泊費は，シングル一泊１７９ドルからとなります。詳しくは，ペンシルヴァニア州立大学の特設サイト（http://www.outreach.psu.edu/programs/hawthorne/index.html）をご覧ください。
２
０
０
９年１
２月の MLA 全国大会では，ホーソーン関係のセッションとして， Hawthorne and Creative Nonfiction および The Two-Hundredth Anniversary of Sophia Hawthorne のふたつが開かれました。とくに興味深いのは，後者のセッションでソファイアの作家性が単独で論じられている点で，ことに Cuba Journal を中心とした研究が進んでいることです。日本でも今後注目される分野ではないでしょうか。次回の MLA 全国大会は，２
０
１
１年にずれ込んで，１月６日から９日までロサンジェルスで開催される予定ですが，こちらのほうの研究発表募集も始まっています。ホーソーン関係
では， Editing Hawthorneと Hawthorne and Empire というふたつのセッションが開かれる予定。ともに，〆切は２
０１
０年３月２日までに，２０分の発表のための２
５０語のプロポーザルを，上記 Sam Coale 教授までお送りください。
（高尾直知記）事務局だより１．NHSJ Newsletter 第２８号をお届けします。今回も＜Book News＞の原稿を竹村和子氏からお寄せいただきました。
２．今年度より，日本ナサニエル・ホーソーン協会の事務局が日本大学文理学部から関西学院大学を中心とする体制に移行しました。これまで，長きにわたりホーソーン協会事務局の運営を担ってくださった日大事務局の先生方には，心より御礼申し上げます。業務引き継ぎを受けて改めてそのご苦労に感謝すると同時に，とても前事務局のように円滑に運営できないのではないかと案じております。加えて，新事務局ではマンパワーの点から，会計，ホームペー
ジ，ニューズレターなど，それぞれの業務毎に所属大学が異なる者が担う分業体制となっています。各部署間で密に連絡を取り合い事務局運営に当たってゆく所存ですが，不慣れなために何らかの不手際が生じるかも知れません。会員各位のご寛恕を乞うと共に，今後２年間の任期にわたってお支えいただきますよう，よろしくお願い申し
上げます。
３．第２
８回全国大会を無事に終えることが出来ました。この大会もまた，日本大学文理学部のお世話になりました。大
会運営に当たって下さった日本大学の先生方に改めて御礼申し上げます。
４．第２
９回全国大会の日程は２
０
１
０年５月２
８日
（金）
・２
９
（土）
の両日に決定し，大会会場は関西学院大学西宮上ヶ原キャン
パスとなります。奮ってご参加下さい。
５．事務局移転に伴い，学会誌『フォーラム』への投稿と全国大会発表の申込方法が原則として電子メールによることになりました。何れも，業務の合理化と会員の利便性を高めることが狙いです。
次号『フォーラム』（１５号）については投稿の受付がすでに終了していますが，次年度以降も『フォーラム』に投稿される場合は，投稿規定共々ご留意下さい。なお，論文の投稿先である事務局のメールアドレスはホームペー
ジ上でお確かめ下さい。
また，全国大会発表の申込方法と応募先メールアドレスについても，ホーソーン協会のホームページに掲載されていますのでご覧下さい（「第２９回全国大会の発表者募集について」）。応募先メールアドレスは，事務局のものとは異なりますので，ご注意下さい。発表が盛んであってこその全国大会です。奮ってご応募下さい。
６．新入会員を歓迎いたします。ご推薦下さい。

22

３【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／支部研究会だより他

校

７．この NHSJ Newsletter とともに振替用紙が同封してある場合は，会費をまだお納め頂いていないことをお知らせするものです。それを用いてご送金下さい。なお，振替用紙をもって領収書に代えさせて頂きます。別途領収書が必
要な方は，事務局までご連絡下さい。
８．会員がご出版になった書籍・論文のご連絡，あるいは寄贈については協会事務局宛ではなく資料室の方にお願いいたします。新事務局は分業体制となっていることもあり，その点ご了解いただきたいと思います。
（増永俊一記）第 29 回全国大会の研究発表者募集について
日 時：２
０
１
０年５月２
８日
（金）
・２
９日
（土）
場 所：関西学院大学西宮上ヶ原キャンパス
大会での研究発表を募集しております。以下の規定をご参照の上，奮ってご応募下さいますようお願いします。
１．発表者は会員であること。
２．①発表要旨として横書きで８００字程度（日本語）にまとめたもの，並びに②勤務先，職名（学生の場合は所属先，身分），連絡先を明記した略歴の２つの文書を大会準備委員会まで E メールに添付してお送りください。
３．研究発表は５月２８日（金），開会後直ちに行います。応募多数の場合は選考による制限を行うことがあります。予
めご承知ください。
４．発表時間は１件２５分とします。
５．応募締め切りは２０
１
０年２月末日です（必着）。
問い合わせ，並びに応募は，成田雅彦（専修大学）
までメールにてお願いします。E―mail: narita@isc.senshu―u.ac.jp
プログラムの概要が決まりましたので，お知らせします。今大会は京都大学名誉教授で日本フェノロサ学会会長の村形明子先生にご講演をお願いしました。ホーソーンと同じセイラムを故郷とし，日本とも関係の深いこの文人と世界文学，またニュー・イングランドとの関係などについてお話を伺えるかと存じます。また，シンポジウムには芥川賞作家の諏訪哲史氏（『アサッテの人』で，２
０
０
７年に第５
０回群像新人文学賞受賞，第１３
７回芥川龍之介賞受賞，近著『ロンバルディア遠景』）をパネリストのお一人としてお迎えします。 文学とエロティシズムの問題についてお話下さる予定です。
どうぞお楽しみに。
特別講演：「フェノロサ夫妻と世界文学」（仮題）
村形明子氏（京都大学名誉教授，日本フェノロサ学会会長）
シンポジウム：「視線，ホーソーン，そしてエロティシズム」（仮題）
司会・講師 中村 栄造氏（名城大学）
講師 諏訪 哲史氏（作家・愛知淑徳大学客員准教授）
講師 大場 厚志氏（東海学園大学）
講師 小久保潤子氏（愛知淑徳大学）
ワークショップ：「The House of the Seven Gables を読む」
司会 入子 文子氏（関西大学）
講師 城戸 光世氏（広島大学）
講師 新井 景子氏（武蔵大学）
講師 妹尾 智美氏（関西大学・非常勤）

23

３【K：】Server／NHSJ Newsletter／第２８号／会計報告

顧 問 阿野文朗（東北大学名誉教授）
島田太郎（昭和女子大）牧田徳元（金沢大学名誉教授）

鴨川卓博
當麻一太郎
（日本大学）
松山信直（同志社大学名誉教授）
役

川窪啓資
萩原 力
（専修大学名誉教授）
師岡愛子（日本女子大学名誉教授）

員
事 務 局 増永俊一 井上久夫（関西学院大学）
竹井智子（京都工芸繊維大学）
中西佳世子（甲子園大学）
中村善雄（ノートルダム清心女子大学）
橋本安央（関西学院大学）
会
計 橋本安央 竹井智子
編 集 室 佐々木英哲 川窪啓資（麗澤大学）
倉橋洋子 増永俊一
中村栄造（名城大学）
大場厚志（東海学園大学）
資 料 室 川村幸夫 大野美砂（東京海洋大学）
奈良裕美子（明治大学・非）
国際渉外室 高尾直知（中央大学）
中村文紀（日本大学）
大会準備委員 西谷拓哉（神戸大学）
成田雅彦
齋藤幸子

会 長 丹羽隆昭（関西外国語大学）
副会長 成田雅彦（専修大学）
矢作三蔵（学習院大学）
監 事 辻 祥子（松山大学）
進藤鈴子（名古屋経済大学）
理 事 入子文子（関西大学）
川村幸夫（東京理科大学）
城戸光世（広島大学）
倉橋洋子（東海学園大学）
齋藤幸子（川村学園女子大学）
佐々木英哲（桃山学院大学）
高島まり子（鹿児島女子短期大学）
高橋利明（日本大学）
竹村和子（お茶の水女子大学）
西前 孝（岡山大学）
西村千稔（札幌学院大学・非）堀切大史（日本大学）
増永俊一（関西学院大学）
松阪仁伺（兵庫教育大学）

2008 年度

校

日本ナサニエル・ホーソーン協会

会計報告

（２
０
０
８．
４．
１〜２
０
０
９．
３．
３
１）
収入
会費
賛助会員
雑収入
利息
計

１，
０
３
２，
０
０
０
７
０，
０
０
０
１
２
６，
１
９
３
６
２
２
１，
２
２
８，
８
１
５

支出
編集室費
５
０
０，
０
０
０
大会費
３
３
１，
４
８
６
大会準備委員会費
０
印刷費
１
８
９，
０
５
０
国際渉外室費
１
０，
０
０
０
謝礼費
０
支部研究会費
７
７，
０
０
０
（東京
４
５，
０
０
０）
（中部
６，
０
０
０）
（関西
２
０，
０
０
０）
（九州
６，
０
０
０）
通信費
６
２，
０
８
３
事務費
１
３，
０
２
４
人件費
１
５，
０
０
０
雑費
０
計
１，
１
９
７，
６
４
３

上記の通り相違ありません
２
０
０
９年３月３
１日

前期繰越金
収入計
計
支出計
次期繰越金

１，
５
０
８，
０
７
０
１，
２
２
８，
８
１
５
２，
７
３
６，
８
８
５
１，
１
９
７，
６
４
３
１，
５
３
９，
２
４
２

キャッシュポジション
郵便貯金
１，
５
３
９，
２
４
２

会計

齋 藤 幸 子

監事
監事

辻
祥 子
進 藤 鈴 子

監査の結果，上記の通り相違ないことを証明します
２
０
０
９年４月１日24