The Epistemological Critique of Postwar Folkloristics and Potential of the Comparative Research Methods : Experiments in Deciphering Regional Differences in Bon Festival Events and the Significance Thereof

application/pdf本稿は，近年の戦後民俗学の認識論批判を受けて，柳田國男が構想していた民俗学の基本であっ た民俗の変遷論への再注目から，柳田の提唱した比較研究法の活用の実践例を提出するものであ る。第一に，戦後の民俗学が民俗の変遷論を無視した点で柳田が構想した民俗学とは別の硬直化し たものとなったという岩本通弥の指摘の要点を再確認するとともに，第二に，岩本と福田アジオと の論争点の一つでもあった両墓制の分布をめぐる問題を明確化した。第三に，岩本が柳田の民俗の 変遷論への論及にとどまり，肝心の比較研究法の実践例を示すまでには至っていなかったのに対し て，本稿ではその柳田の比較研究法の実践例を，盆行事を例として具体的に提示し柳田の視点と方 法の有効性について論じた。その要点は以下のとおりである。（1）日本列島の広がりの上からみる と，先祖・新仏・餓鬼仏の三種類の霊魂の性格とそれらをまつる場所とを屋内外に明確に区別して まつるタイプ（第3 類型）が列島中央部の近畿地方に顕著にみられる，それらを区別しないで屋外 の棚などでまつるタイプ（第2 類型）が中国，四国，それに東海，関東などの中間地帯に多い，また， 区別せずにしかも墓地に行ってそこに棚を設けたり飲食するなどして死者や先祖の霊魂との交流を 行なうことを特徴とするタイプ（第1 類型）が東北，九州などの外縁部にみられる，という傾向性 を指摘できる。（2）第1 類型の習俗は，現代の民俗の分布の上からも古代の文献記録の情報からも， 古代の8 世紀から9 世紀の日本では各地に広くみられたことが推定できる。（3）第3 類型の習俗は， その後の京都を中心とする摂関貴族の觸穢思想の影響など霊魂観念の変遷と展開の結果生まれてき た新たな習俗と考えられる。（4）第3 類型と第2 類型の分布上の事実から，第3 類型の習俗に先行 して生じていたのが第2 類型の習俗であったと推定できる。（5）このように民俗情報を歴史情報と して読み解くための方法論の研磨によって，文献だけでは明らかにできない微細な生活文化の立体 的な変遷史を明らかにしていける可能性がある。In view of recent epistemological critique of postwar folkloristics, this paper presents practical examples of application of the comparative research method advocated by Kunio Yanagita from again giving attention to the changes in folklore theory that formed the basis of folkloristics as conceptualized by Yanagita. Firstly, in terms of postwar folkloristics having disregarded changes in folklore theory, we reconsider the main points identified by Michiya Iwamoto, which were established separately from folkloristics as conceptualized by Yanagita. Secondly, we have clarified problems relating to the distribution of the Double Grave System, which was a point of controversy between Iwamoto and Ajio Fukuta. Thirdly, the paper discusses practical examples of Yanagita's comparative research method by looking at Yanagita's views and the effectiveness of his method through specific examples of Bon Festival events, since Iwamoto referred to Yanagita's changes in folklore theory but failed to suggest practical examples of this fundamental comparative research method. The main points of this are as follows. (1) Looking at the extension of the Japanese islands from above, we can identify trends showing that festivals and locations that clearly differentiated the features of three types of spirits (ancestor spirits (such as those worshipped in the home), shinbotoke (the newly dead), and unrelated spirits (such as muen-botoke, the spirits of those who died without known relatives, and gaki-botoke, the ‘hungry’ spirits of those who sinned while alive)) indoors and outdoors (type 3) are remarkable in the central parts of the Kinki region; that festival types without such differentiation using outdoor stands, etc. (type 2) are popular in central regions such as Chugoku, Shikoku, Tokai and Kanto; and that festival types with features of no differentiation, held in graveyards with stands established for exchanges with the spirits of the deceased and senzo (ancestors) by giving food and drink, etc. (type 1) are seen around the outer edges of Tohoku, Kyushu, and elsewhere. (2) Both from the distribution of modern-day folk customs and information gleaned from ancient document records, it can be assumed that type 1 folklore was seen throughout ancient Japan from the eighth century to ninth century. (3) Type 3 folklore is thought of as being a new form of folklore in which there were changes to ideas regarding spirits, such as the effects of Kyotocentered aristocrat advisers' notions of impurity, etc. (4) From facts regarding the distribution of type 3 and type 2 folklore, it can be assumed that type 3 was preceded by type 2. (5) In this way, by refining the methodology for reading and understanding folklore information as historical information, it is possible to clarify historical transitions of life and culture in three dimensions and in great detail, which literature alone cannot clarify.departmental bulletin pape