@article{oai:rekihaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00001856,
 author = {市川, 秀之 and Ichikawa, Hideyuki},
 journal = {国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History},
 month = {Mar},
 note = {application/pdf, 肥後和男は『近江に於ける宮座の研究』『宮座の研究』の二書において宮座研究の基礎を築いた人物として知られる。同時に水戸学や古代史・古代神話などの研究者でもあり、肥後の宮座論はその研究全体のなかで位置づける必要があるが、これまでそのような視点から肥後の宮座論を評価した研究はない。肥後が宮座論を開始したのは、宮座の儀礼のなかに古代神話に通じるものを感じたからであり、昭和一〇年前後に大規模な宮座研究を開始したのちも肥後のそのような関心は衰えることはなかった。肥後の宮座に対する定義は数年におよぶ調査のなかで揺れ動いていく。調査には学生を動員したため彼らに宮座とはなにかを理解させる必要があったし、また被調査者である神官や地方役人にとっても宮座はいまだ未知の言葉であったため、その明確化が求められたのである。肥後の宮座論の最大の特徴は、村落のすべての家が加入するいわゆる村座を宮座の範疇に含めたことにあるが、この点が宮座の概念をあいまいにする一方で、いわば宮座イコールムラ、あるいは宮座はムラを象徴する存在とされるなど、後の研究にも大きな影響を与えてきた。現在の宮座研究もなおその桎梏から逃れているとは言い難い。肥後が宮座研究に熱中した昭和一〇年前後は、彼が幼少期から親しんできた水戸学に由来する祭政一致がその時代を主導する政治的イデオロギーとしてもてはやされており、神話研究において官憲の圧力を受けていた肥後の宮座論もやはりその制約のなかにあった。すなわち祭政一致の国家を下支える存在としての村落の組織としての宮座は、全戸参加すべきものであり、それゆえ村座は宮座の範疇に含まれなければならなかったのである。肥後の宮座研究は昭和一〇年代という時代のなかで生産されたものであり、時代の制約を受けたものとして読まれなければならない。宮座の定義についてもそのような視点で再検討が是非必要であろう。, Kazuo Higo built the foundation of miya-za studies in his two books titled “Study of Miya-za in Omi” and “Study of Miya-za,” and was a researcher of Mitogaku, ancient history, ancient mythology, etc. His miya-za theory has to be positioned in his entire work, but conventional studies have not evaluated his miya-za theory from such viewpoint. Higo started developing his miya-za theory because he felt something common to ancient myths in the rituals of miya-za. His interest in miya-za did not weaken even after he started large-scale investigations on miya-za around 1935 (Showa 10) . His definition of miya-za changed a lot through his years of research. He had to clarify its definition because he needed to make students gathered for his research understand what miya-za was, and also because the word miya-za was still unclear even for Shinto priests and local government officials who were the target of his research. The most distinctive feature of Higo's miya-za theory is that it included so-called muraza ( where all houses in a village are its members) in the category of miya-za. While this obscured the concept of miya-za, his theory had a large impact on subsequent studies, making the ideas of “miya-za equals a village” or “miya-za symbolizes a village.” Current miya-za studies are not free from those fixed ideas. Around 1935 ( Showa 10) when Higo was absorbed in miya-za studies, theocracy ( unity of religion and politics) derived from Mitogaku, with which he had been familiar from his childhood, was hailed as a political ideology to lead the time, and the miya-za theory of Higo, who was under the pressure of government officials in his mythological studies, was also in such restriction. In other words, miya-za as an organization of a village to support the theocratic nation required the participation by all houses, and for that reason, mura-za had to be included in the category of miya-za. Higo's miya-za theory was produced in the specific era of Showa 10s. Therefore, it must be read as something subject to the restraints of that time. The definition of miya-za will also need to be reexamined from such viewpoint.},
 pages = {61--75},
 title = {肥後和男宮座論の再検討},
 volume = {161},
 year = {2011},
 yomi = {イチカワ, ヒデユキ}
}