权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

On Censorship of Literature in the Pre-March Period

论三月以前的文学审查

基本信息

批准号：
11610539
负责人：
IKUTA Masato
金额：
$ 1.34万
依托单位：
Kyoto Sangyou University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
1999
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
1999 至 2001
项目状态：
已结题

项目摘要

My study examines the unique charakteristics of the civil culture in the pre-March period of Vienna which developed due to the distinction between censorship and freedom of speech and press. I realized, first, in the process of my research that the oppositional structure of censorship and resistance appears quite obviously in the conflict between the theatre-policy of the so called "Metternich system" and the activities of those associated with theatre, who contributed mainly to the production of dramas and to their performance under the reign of Emperor Franz II (I). As a result of the analysis of this conflict, I then came to examine the development and breakdown of the theater culture of Vienna. Emperor Franz announced long before the beginning of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) various kinds of laws, which essentially consisted of regulations and bans related to the theater and performance. However, the contents of the regulations that were made known before the notorious "Resol … More ution of Karlsbad"(1819), are similar to those of bans. For example, the "theatrerules" (1800) and the "regulations for policemen working in the theatre"(1803) consist of closer qualifications, which have a main aim of restriction of freedoms concerning the running of theater and the behavior and manners of audience. This tendency of censorship was intensified further resulting in a ban on improvised theater and the ballet of children (1821). This type of censorship reached its highest level from the year 1826, when even the politically moderate literary circle "Ludlamshohle" was forced to dissolve, till 1829, just before the July Revolution in Paris. In this period, various kinds of operas or dramas of Schubert, Bauernfeld and Grillparzer were often prohibited.On the other hand, it is also an historical fact that the oppressive measures of the government represented by censorship propelled many intellectuals into emigration to, for example North-America. This brought a positively ironical result that some of them contributed to the cultural intercommunication between Europe and America. (e. g., Charles Sealsfield and Nikolaus Lenau) Less

我的研究考察了维也纳前三月时期公民文化的独特特征，这种特征是由于审查制度与言论和新闻自由之间的区别而发展起来的。首先，在我的研究过程中，我意识到，在所谓的“梅特涅体系”的戏剧政策与那些与戏剧有关的人的活动之间的冲突中，审查和抵制的对立结构表现得相当明显，这些人主要对弗朗茨二世（一世）统治时期的戏剧创作和表演做出了贡献。通过对这一冲突的分析，我开始审视维也纳戏剧文化的发展和崩溃。早在维也纳会议（1814-1815年）召开之前，弗朗茨皇帝就颁布了各种法律，其中主要包括与戏剧和表演有关的规定和禁令。然而，在臭名昭著的“Resol”之前公布的规定内容 ...更多信息 Karlsbad的”（1819年），是类似的禁令。例如，《剧院规则》（1800年）和《警察在剧院工作条例》（1803年）就包含了更接近的限制，其主要目的是限制有关剧院经营和观众行为举止的自由。这种审查的趋势进一步加剧，导致禁止即兴戏剧和儿童芭蕾舞（1821年）。这种审查制度从1826年达到最高水平，当时甚至政治上温和的文学界“Ludlamshohle”也被迫解散，直到1829年，就在巴黎七月革命之前。在这一时期，舒伯特、鲍恩菲尔德和格里尔帕策的各种歌剧或戏剧经常被禁止。另一方面，以审查制度为代表的政府压迫措施迫使许多知识分子移民到北美也是历史事实。这带来了一个具有积极讽刺意味的结果，其中一些人促进了欧洲和美国之间的文化交流。（e.例如，在一个实施例中，Charles Sealsfield and Nikolaus Lenau）减