騎腳踏車由景美, 淡水, 富貴角, 金山, 萬里, 由基隆回台北

騎腳踏車由景美, 淡水, 富貴角, 金山, 萬里, 由基隆回台北景美全程約7小時130公里!

日本年度轉西元(Vice Versa)

● 昭和X年+1925=（昭和X年的）公元年号如：昭和30年=30+1925=公元1955年 昭和52年=52+1925=公元1977年 ● 大正X年+1911=（大正X年的）公元年号如：大正5年=5+1911=公元1916年大正12年=12+1911=公元1923年( _4 _2 X( a6 X. F8 _+ K' A" m+ Q- P8 c4 W 
● 明治X年+1867=（明治X年的）公元年号如：明治15年=15+1867=公元1882年 明治23年=23+1867=公元1890年 ● 平成X年+1988=（平成X年的）公元年号如：平成14年=14+1988=公元2002年

日本殖民統治下的文學顏色

日本殖民統治下的文學顏色 


I. 日本殖民統治的背景 
日人統治者於治理台灣時，難脫「經濟台灣，壯大本土」和南進戰略的基本心態，但與治理香港、朝鮮等等其他次殖民地心態不同，某程度上，日本政府是把經營台灣的成就視做帝國主義宣傳品與教化成同類的心態來經營（早熟帝國主義的帝國主義實踐）；這情形尤其在中期同化階段最為明顯。加上這階段的大正民主與軍國主義未主導日本政治情形情況下，在1922－1937年間，台灣社會肇始不少改善人民生活的新制度、新知識、新觀念與新價值。而這種蓬勃的日治黃金時期在的台灣博覽會達到頂峰。其中鐵路路線擴建、米糖產量增加、郵信電信普及等等經濟成果也導致台灣社會人口增加、公學校普及和放足的徹底實施、現代衛生環境建立與守時守法觀念養成等重大民生改革。 但是另一方面，以搜括殖民地資源概念引導下，台灣總督府也頒布了許多與各項產業發展相關的法令及限制，涵蓋了礦業、糖業及樟腦業。這些規定的頒布造成了一些民眾的權益損失，並且或多或少地限制了台灣民眾對這些產業的投資，使得一部分民眾感到不滿。1912年發生的林杞埔事件，就是由於日本當局強制徵收南投竹山一帶的公有林地，並轉交給日本企業「三菱造紙所」而引發的。


II. 文章分析 
基本上賴和的 (一桿稱仔)和楊逵的 (送報伕)其文章架構是屬於平鋪直訴形的， 如一首宣敘調般，沒有太多的轉折，而維持低吟般的控訴。 日據時期批判的文學傳統中，賴和與楊達是兩名重要的作家，他們以充滿人文闗懷的筆觸， 和悲天憫人的胸懷， 共同的關懷的是當時台灣農民和一般平民的處境。 賴和在 (一桿稱仔) 主要描繪的對象是底層人物在殖民統治的困境， 這些悲劇性人物以個人的方式，走向必然自毀性的悲劇; 而楊逵在 (送報伕) 中透過主角楊君及其父的故事所展示出的，就不只是底層人物所面臨的這種必然的困境，而且是它的突破之道，相對的不同於賴和描繪的那般灰色和悲觀。 貳篇文章的基調彩度是很低的，像是個悲悽的慢板樂章，讓人讀來有一份揮不去的感傷，貳篇文章的基調彩度是， 賴和 (一桿稱仔)的基調 – 灰色的 賴和透過菜販秦得參的故事，描繪出日本在臺殖民體制的剝削本質。賴和在文中有如下的描述， 最底層的貧農(「尤其是窮困的慘痛．‥」， 底層人物秦得參的困境:「貧窮」+「強權行使的地上．‥」，「人不像個人，畜生，誰願意做。這是什麼世問?活著倒不若死了快樂。．‥」。 最底層的農民的基本困境來自「地主」與「殖民者」的雙重剝削， 而日本殖民統治所推行的現代化，並未使台灣成為一個「人民福祉」，普遍獲得保障，而真正的問題實際上是殖民者自身不文明的本質。 楊逵 (送報伕) 的基調 – 白色的 文中對悲慘的被殖民者有如下的敘述， 「家中土地被糖公司強行廉價收購，父親因此憂憤而死;二十歲，至東京尋求半工半讀的機會，‥」， 殖民母國(東京人日本);「全國失業者三百萬，‥」， 「故鄉也沒有什麼不同．‥」 ，「那同樣的是和派報所老闆似地逼到面前，吸我們底血，‥」，「使你們吃苦也使我們吃苦的是同一種類的人!‥」，「當了巡查，糟塌村子底人們」，「村子底發展」今變成「村子底離散」，「故鄉也沒有什麼不同」。 楊逵透過「殷，悟」的敘事模式，以及故事主角的故鄉與東京兩地的對照，一方面道出殖民統治所造成的臺灣農村的離散，一方面叉勾勒出台灣農民脫困的前景與途徑 - 光明面，是故，和賴和 (一桿稱仔) 相比，楊逵 (送報伕) 的基調是較有希望的，但依然是慘白的。


III. 文章的變奏 -小鎮 、家人、 離散 
楊逵的 (送報伕)中對殖民者所造成的小鎮， 家人， 離散有深刻的描寫和控訴， 「從前吃三碗飯，現在卻一碗都吃不下，倒床了以後的第五十天，終於永逝。」， 「同時，母親也病倒了，找帶著一個一歲、一個二歲、一個四歲的三個弟妹，是怎樣地窘迫呀! 叔父叔母一有空就跑來照應，否則，恐怕我們一家都完全沒有了罷。」， 「因為父親底病、母親底病以及父親底葬式等，差不多用光了，到母親稍稍好了的時候，就只好出賣耕牛和農具糊口。」，「我立志到東京來的時候，耕牛、農具、家裹的庭園都賣掉了，剩下的只有七十多圓。」，「好好地用功‥‥．」母親站在門口送我，哭聲地說了鼓勵的話。那情形好像就在跟前。」， 「這慘狀不只是我一家。」，「和父親同樣地被拖到警察分所去了的五個人，都遇到了同樣的命運。就是不做聲地蓋了圖章的人們，失去了耕田，每月三五天到製糖公司農場去賣力，一天做十二個鐘頭，．頂多不過得到四十錢，大家都非靠賣田的錢過活不可。錢完了的時候，村子裏的當局者們所說的「村子底發展」相反，現在成了「村子底離散」了。」。 賴和在(一桿稱仔)對小鎮、 家人、 離散的描述如下， 「糖的利益大，雖農民們受過會社刻虧(刻薄待遇)、剝奪，不願意種蔗，會社就加「租聲」提高租聲，業主們若自己有利益，那管到農民的痛苦，田地就多被會杜撲去了。」， 「有幾家說是有良心的業主，肯撲給農民，亦要同會社一樣的「租聲」，得參就撲不到田地。若做會社的勞工呢，有同牛馬一樣，他母親又不肯，只在家裹，等著做些散工。」 ，「但二十年來的勞苦，使她有限的肉體，再不能支持。亦因責任觀念已弛，精神失了緊張，病魔遂乘虛侵入，病臥幾天，她面上現著十分滿足、快樂的樣子歸到天國去了。」，「當得參病的時候，他妻子不能不出門去工作，只有讓孩子們在家裏啼哭，和得參呻吟聲相和著，一天或兩餐或一餐，雖不至餓死，一家人多陷入營養不良，尤其是孩子們，猶幸他妻子不再生育」。 


IV. 人物制度的描寫 - 對殖民者和被殖民者的描繪 
賴和在(一桿稱仔)對殖民者的描繪， 「「汝曾犯過罪嗎?」法官。 「小人生來將三十歲了，曾末犯過一次法。」參。 「以前不管他，這回違犯著度量衡規則。」法官。 「唉!冤枉啊!」參。「什麼?沒有這樣事嗎?」法官。 「這事是冤枉的啊!」參。 「但是，巡警的報告一總沒有錯啊!」法官。 「實在冤枉啊!」參。 「既然違犯了，總不能輕恕，只科罰汝三塊錢，就算是格外恩典。」官。「可是，沒有錢。」參。 「沒有錢，就坐監三天，有沒有?」官。「沒有錢!」參說，在他心裏的打算：新春的閒時節，監禁三天，是不關係什麼，這是三塊錢的用處大，所以他就甘心去受監禁。」，「鄉下人，一見巡警的面，就怕到五分，況是進衙門裹去，又是不見世面的婦人，心裹的驚恐，就可想而知了。她剛跨進郡衙的門限，被一巡警的「要做什麼」的一聲呼喝，已嚇得倒退到門外去，幸有一十四來歲的小使︵日語，工友︶，出來查問，她就哀求他，替伊探查，難得那孩子，童心還在，不會倚勢欺人，誠懇地，替伊設法，教她拿出三塊錢，代繳進去。」。 楊逵的 (送報伕)中對殖民者和被殖民者的描繪， 「在臺灣的時候，總以為日本人都是壞人，但田中君是非常親切的!」，「不錯，日本底勞動者大都是和田中君一樣的好人呢。」， 「日本底勞動者反對壓迫臺灣人，糟蹋臺灣人。」 ，「使臺灣人吃苦的是那些傢把你底保證金搶去了以後再把你趕出來的那個老闆一樣的畜生。」 ，「到臺灣去的大多是這種的人和這種畜生們底走狗! 但是，這種畜生們，不僅是對於臺灣人，對於我們本國底窮人們也是一樣的」，「日本底勞動者們也一樣地屹他們底苦頭呢‥總之，在現在的世界上，有錢的人要掠奪窮人們底勞力，為了要掠奪得順手，所以壓住他們‥‥。」，「故鄉底村長雖然是臺灣人，但顯然地和他們勾在一起，使村子底大眾吃苦」。 




V. 結語 
賴和的 (一桿稱仔)和楊逵的 (送報伕)二篇文章，其中對於殖民主義的控訴和描寫基本上是持同一批判和控訴的立場，但賴和的 (一桿稱仔)表現出來的是絕望的，無助的。 而楊逵的 (送報伕)相對的是稍具希望，至少在文章的背後還有如下的描述，「 我滿懷著確信，從巨船蓬萊丸底甲板上凝視著臺灣底春天，那兒表面上雖然美麗肥滿，但只要插進一針，就會看到惡臭逼人的血膿底迸出。」 至於是否象徵希望， 我還是持懷疑的看法。 


VI. Reference 1. 日據時代殖民主義http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E7%B6%93%E6%BF%9F%E5%8F%B2#.E6.97.A5.E6.B2.BB.E6.99.82.E6.9C.9F

Servant or Musician - A study of social status changes in 19th century

Servant or Musician - A study of social status changes in 19th century (Proposal and Outline)

Servant or Musician - A study of social status changes in 19th century

I. Purposes of study 

After the Industrial Revolution, new materials and construction techniques were invented. Some of the new technologies applied upon the modification of musical instruments which cause great changes in music composition and performing. The newer instruments, such as new piano, organ, horn, and string, changed the face of 19th century music. The newer instruments used by the newer generation of composers and players makes the music far much vivid and expressive than ever before, which extending the limitation of music, enabling the listeners to appreciate a wider range of music characters and performing styles. The structure of society changed drastically and dramatically in 19th century. The fall of noble class and the rise of prosperous middle class led the art and music market growing and sparkling. The artist and musician is not just the servant of noble class and/or royal family, they had a booming market, and a social status they never experienced before. The purpose of this study is to find out the social status changes of musician during this specific period of time. The specific objectives are: 1. To determine the major points of why the society changed so rapidly during this period of time. 2. To determine the position of musician prior and in 19th century. 3. To determine and analyze how this issue will impact to the music professionals and changed the face of music market. 

II. Methods of research 

A descriptive study will be carried out by a systematic investigation of various media. The library tools will be essentially employed for the research. The study will be summarized and the findings, conclusions will also be formalized. III. Delimitation of study 1. The study will be limited to the amount of research materials available at the National Taiwan University and through the inter-library loan, and the reachable electronic data upon the Web. 2. The author of this paper has limited language capabilities. Only English, Chinese, and some Deutsche materials will be used. 3. The whole society change in Europe at this specific period of time will not be a part of this study. 4. The time and length limitation of this term-paper will constrain the in-depth research of this study. IV. Preliminary order of presentation I.. Introduction II. The rise of middle class 

III. The social status change of musician

 

IV. Case study-Felix Mendelssohn(1809-1847)

 

V. Conclusion

法國大革命之社會背景與成因(SOCIAL CAUSES OF FRENCH REVOLUTION)

法國大革命之社會背景與成因(SOCIAL CAUSES OF FRENCH REVOLUTION)

SOCIAL CAUSES OF FRENCH REVOLUTION A leading cause of social stress in France during the Revolution was its large population. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, France had 20 million people living within its borders, a number equal to nearly 20 percent of the population of non-Russian Europe. Over the course of the century, that number increased by another 8 to 10 million, as epidemic disease and acute food shortages diminished and mortality declined. By contrast, it had increased by only 1 million between 1600 and 1700. Also important, this population was concentrated in the rural countryside: of the nearly 30 million French under Louis XVI, about 80 percent lived in villages of 2,000 or less, with nearly all the rest in fairly small cities (those with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants). The foremost exception, of course, was Paris, which was home to about 600,000 by 1789. Only a handful of other cities—notably Lyons, Bordeaux, and Marseilles—had more than 100,000 within their limits. These demographics had an enormous impact, both inside and outside France. In addition, the eighteenth century saw the intrusion of capitalism into everyday life. Thanks to a large expansion of overseas trade and a longer-term development of domestic trade, the money economy experienced continued growth. Although self-sufficiency or local exchange remained the preponderant way of economic life, these incursions of capitalism began drawing everyone into some form of regional and even international exchange. Amid these broad economic and population shifts, daily life in the countryside remained much the same, particularly on small family farms. Their owners and workers were known as peasants, although they differed considerably in wealth and status. A few could claim to be "living nobly," meaning they rented their land to others to work, but many were day-laborers desperate for work in exchange for a place to stay and food to eat. In the middle were others, including independent farmers, sharecroppers, and renters. Historians have estimated that in lean years 90 percent of the peasants lived at or below the subsistence level, earning only enough to feed their families. Others inhabited the countryside, most notably small numbers of noble and non-noble owners of manors, conspicuous by their dwellings, at the least. Consequently, documents on life in the countryside at this time reflect the omnipresence of poverty. One of the most well-known observers of the late-eighteenth-century French countryside, the Englishman Arthur Young, considered these small farms the great weakness of French agriculture, especially when compared with the large, commercial farms he knew at home. Others commenting on the lot of impoverished peasants before 1789 blamed the tensions between rich and poor on the country's vast social differences. Although home to the wealthy and middling, cities tended to be even more unsavory places to live than the countryside. Exposed daily to dirty air and water, urban dwellers could expect to have a shorter life span than their country brethren. Louis-Sébastien Mercier, a writer who adored life in Paris and wrote extensively about all aspects of it, often lamented not only the poor health of city workers but also the strict conditions governing their employment. Guilds regulated almost every sector of the economy and thus limited the number who could enter a trade as an apprentice, become a journeyman, or set up a workshop and retail store as a master. With experience, a worker could theoretically move up the social hierarchy, but in practice such ascent was extremely difficult to achieve, as the limited number of masterships in any given industry tended to be passed down within a family. Thus in some trades and in some cities journeymen complained of feeling restricted and expressed greater solidarity toward their counterparts in other trades than toward their own masters. Bread constituted the staple of most urban diets, so sharp price increases were felt quickly and were loudly protested at grain markets or at local bakers' shops. Most people directed their anger at bread suppliers rather than political authorities, although it was often the municipal and royal authorities who tried to alleviate shortages and prevent such protests. As a result, the credibility and popularity of government officials came to be linked to the functioning of the grain and bread markets. In addition to economic differences, early modern French society was legally stratified by birth. Its three traditional divisions, or "orders," were the clergy, the nobility, and the common people. Nobles ruled over commoners, but even among commoners, specific individuals (such as officeholders) or groups (such as a particular guild or an entire town) enjoyed privileges unavailable to outsiders. Because these privileges were passed on primarily through inheritance, they tended to constrain social mobility—although without preventing it, since they could also be bought or sold. Thus individuals and groups constantly negotiated with one another and with the crown for more and better privileges. Even as these privileges maintained a close grip on eighteenth-century imaginations, writers of the Enlightenment found them too rooted in tradition and proposed that talent supersede birth as the main determinant of social standing. Even when based on merit, they argued, social differences should not be defined by law, as they were in the old regime's orders. Traditionalists countered that a hierarchy of social orders was necessary to hold society together. When the King called for an Estates-General in 1789, the social tensions plaguing the old regime emerged as a central issue of the Revolution. Traditionally, estates representatives had belonged to one of the three orders of society, and in principle each order had an equal voice before the King. Because nobles dominated the clergy, however, the majority of representatives actually came from the two privileged orders, even though they stood for only 5 percent of the population at most. Because each voter actually would exercise one vote in the assembly, this configuration allowed the nobility two of the three votes. The King subsequently agreed to double the size of the delegation of the Third Estate, but this move failed to appease critics of the political system. Many pamphlets appeared suggesting that representatives should vote by "head" rather than by "order" (meaning all representatives should vote together as a single assembly, rather than as three separate bodies representing three separate orders). The purpose of such pamphlets was not merely to win greater representation for the Third Estate. Their authors were making the case for a new concept of society, in which commoners, especially the educated middle classes, had the same value as the other orders. Despite the social rifts surrounding the political debate of mid-1789, most contemporaries fervently sought social unity. This suggests that social unrest may not necessarily have been the basic cause of the outbreak of the Revolution. Indeed, one wonders if the nobility's fear of losing its privileges, rather than the assertiveness of the middle classes, might have been the most important factor in the events that followed. Far beyond the deputies' meeting hall in Versailles, another kind of social unrest was brewing in the countryside. Upon hearing about the taking of the Bastille, peasants decided they, too, could press for social change through drastic actions. In the summer of 1789 hundreds of thousands mobilized to attack lords' manors and destroy the bitter symbols of seigneurialism: weather vanes, protective walls, and especially property deeds setting forth feudal dues that peasants were required to pay the lord. When news of this rural unrest reached the newly renamed National Assembly in Paris, its deputies, feeling pressured to stay ahead of events in the countryside, responded by announcing the "abolition of feudalism." Their decrees of 4 August represented the first step toward the destruction of the theoretical basis of old regime's system of privileges. Within the year, the assembly would do away with the whole concept of nobility, setting off a vigorous anti noble propaganda campaign in the press. Urban workers, too, found an opportunity to express their discontent, through elections to the Estates-General. Elections were held in the form of neighborhood gatherings, at which participants collectively designated a representative and compiled cahiers de doléance (lists of grievances) to present to the King, who would communicate them to guide the representatives. Many of these petitions expressed opposition to the privileges of nobles and officeholders. The National Assembly decrees of August 1789 against privilege—which had been the centerpiece of the French social order—were no doubt cheered by the populace. For all its momentousness, however, the elimination of privilege did not bring an end to the social conflicts underlying the Revolution. Instead, it marked the beginning of another system of social distinctions, set forth in a new constitution introduced by the National Assembly. The most notable of these was the distinction between "active" citizens, who were granted full rights to vote and hold office, and "passive" citizens, who were subject to the same laws but could not vote or hold office. Membership in one class or the other was determined by one's income level, gender, race, religion, and profession. With the Le Chapelier Law of 1791, the National Assembly further differentiated workers from property owners and banned worker associations as being harmful to national unity. The National Assembly seemed unwilling to grant workers full political and social participation in the new society. One reason for this reluctance was the widespread fear of further unrest. Another was the strong belief among spokespersons for the Enlightenment that only those with a propertied stake in society could be trusted to exercise reason, or to think for themselves. Furthermore, many reform-minded revolutionaries argued that economic-based "combinations" formed by workers too closely resembled corporate guilds and would impinge on the freedom of the individual. Whatever the assembly's motives, its actions were met with strong opposition. Workers were not untrustworthy or retrograde traditionalists, they retorted, but hard-working, uncomplicated, and honest citizens, unlike the effete and "feminized" rich. Calling themselves sans-culottes to indicate that they wore pants, not knee breeches (a symbol of luxury), they glorified direct action, strength, candor, and patriotism, ideals that radical journalists associated with artisanal work and found lacking in property ownership alone. The fact that such radicals as Elisée Loustallot, Jacques Roux, and Jacques-Réné Hébert were educated men who did not exactly work with their hands for a living led some to question whether their discussions of sans-culottes expressed ideas held by workers themselves. Moreover, one may wonder whether the views associated with the sans-culottes extended much beyond Paris. All the same, the sans-culotte concept took on increasing political significance, because those in authority saw reflected in it the genuine working man. Thus the use of the sans-culotte in radical rhetoric led contemporaries to believe that rich and poor were in conflict throughout the Revolution. How this perception influenced the course of revolutionary events may be seen in the case of Gracchus Babeuf. Before the Revolution, Babeuf had been an agent for seigneurial lords, but after 1789, he became increasingly attracted to the idea of social and political egalitarianism. By 1795, he was leading a conspiracy, although his goals and plans remained vague. Nevertheless, the political authorities worried about class war; they considered him a dangerous egalitarian revolutionary and arrested him. At his trial, Babeuf delivered an inspiring attack on private property and endorsed a system of property sharing that many see as a forerunner of socialism. In rural areas, social cleavages were as deeply rooted as in the cities. Peasants, in their lists of grievances of 1789, expressed hostility to noble landlords; and, as noted earlier, this hostility intensified after Bastille Day. From July through September 1789, word of the National Assembly's decisions and of the popular revolts in Paris and other cities spread across the French countryside. It was also rumored that frightened nobles were sending groups of armed "brigands" to burn fields, steal crops, and attack villages in order to keep down the peasantry in this moment of crisis. Propelled by what became known as "the great fear," peasants in various regions of France took matters into their own hands, forming armed groups to defend their fields and their villages. The 4 August decrees, largely a response to this upheaval, initially quieted the countryside and soon cemented the peasants to the revolutionary cause. Like the workers and small property owners in cities, peasants questioned the settlement reached by the National Assembly in 1791. In contrast to Parisian artisans, however, who began pushing for a more far-reaching revolution in 1792–94, large numbers of cultivators hankered for a return to stability in their villages. But this seemed a remote possibility as the Revolution and its wars expanded. For the peasantry, the foremost cause of instability during the Revolution was the Civil Constitution of the Clergy of 1790. The Civil Constitution, like the Revolution itself, originated in the fiscal crisis that the National Assembly inherited from the crown. Needing substantial revenues, the assembly targeted church lands, which accounted for 10 percent of all landed wealth in France. The legislature divested the church of its property and in exchange took charge of its expenses and administration. The revolutionaries, imbued with the Enlightenment's criticism of the Catholic religion, suspected bishops and archbishops of resisting all change. To ensure the loyalty of parish priests, the assembly (in whose employ the priests now found themselves) added to the Civil Constitution a requirement that all clergy swear an oath of allegiance to the nation. However, almost half refused to do so. Because most "refractory priests" (those who refused the oath) lived in the countryside, the Civil Constitution—designed to promote national unity and prevent religion from becoming a source of resistance to the Revolution—instead generated considerable resentment among the peasantry. This resentment increased with the decree of 9 March 1792, authorizing the confiscation of grain to prevent "hoarding." Chapter 7 shows how this early hostility developed into an armed counterrevolution. Thus in both towns and countryside, it seemed that the Revolution was not producing the hoped-for results. Instead of bringing unity and a quick, political resolution to the questions of 1789, as intended by its originators, the Revolution was producing further conflicts. What had happened? Had the revolutionaries expected too much? Did the fault lie with the new political elite, because they excluded the lower classes from the optimistic prospects for change? Or did the leaders, despite their commitment to social equality, find it impossible to avoid making private property (and the differences in wealth it necessarily generated) the cornerstone of the new society? The events of the 1790s brought France no closer to determining how and whether social equality could be achieved through political measures. This very issue continues to vex modern society—long after the social stresses of 1789 have dissolved into the dustbin of history. Indeed, it remains one of the most vibrant legacies of the French Revolution.

十九世紀歐洲城市居民的活動

十九世紀歐洲城市居民的活動 (Course work at NTU) 


前言 十九世紀的歐洲在思想上受啟蒙運動的衝擊, 在物質上受工業革命所帶來的新材料和技術的影響, 全然改變了生活的面貌。一些新技術的運用導致作曲和樂器的巨大變化。改良的樂器, 譬如新鋼琴, 管風琴, 和弦樂器, 改變了十九世紀音樂的表現。新一代的作曲家和演奏家, 把音樂變得更生動和傳神, 遠遠擴大音樂的局限和樣式(Form)。在十九世紀, 社會結構猛烈和顯著的改變。貴族的沒落和興旺的中產階級, 是這個時代的特色。 社會地位不斷上升的中產階級, 帶領了藝術和音樂市場的快速成長和需求。藝術家和音樂家不再僅是貴族或者皇家的僕人, 他們有一個興旺的市場, 足以維生和穩定的收入, 還有前所未有的社會地位。這個研究的目的是發現這個時期音樂家社會地位的變動。 十九世紀歐洲城市居民的活動 十九世紀歐洲的劇院是城市生活的重心。 許多千奇百怪的表演皆在劇院中舉行, 最受歡迎的有, 馬戲團、腹語術者、催眠術師、詩人、喜劇演員、唱詩班和樂隊,再者就是傳統的嚴肅音樂—今日的古典音樂。 參預的人們遍佈各階層, 十九世紀的歐洲, 經過工業革命的洗禮, 一般城市民眾的經濟情況已有結構性的改變, 除了工作外, 適當的娛樂也普及到普羅大眾, 比如說馬戲團來了,在鎮裡的公園和公共場所表演, 總可吸引無限中產階級的參與。其它如各地區舉辦的祝宴、狂歡節、畫展、唱歌, 跳舞和烹調表演, 亦是這一時期的重要活動。根據個人的社會階層, 即能參加各種各樣的社會小社團, 譬如互助會、 義賣、祝宴、 醫院和教會舉辦的慈善活動。但是, 在十九世紀, 依然有許多人因工作時間長和薪水不充分, 無法參預上述的活動。 總之十九世紀歐洲城市居民的活動, 代表的是在工業革命和啟蒙運動洗禮下, 階級變動, 貧富重新分配的結果。 在這樣的變化下,改變的不只是觀眾的社會階層, 而表演者的社經地位亦大幅提昇, 它們可獨立維生無需依附在貴族之下! 音樂家就是這個社會變動下的獲利者。 十九世紀音樂界的變動 十九世紀這個大時代帶來了西方社會的巨大變動。 民主理想和工業革命橫掃歐洲,改變公民日常生活。許多人在舊世界和新思潮衝突中奮鬥。從紐約, 巴黎 倫敦, 到維也納, 全世界的容顏, 思考, 和文化全然改變了。 音樂家, 作曲家, 和樂器製作者, 由於社會和科技的進步, 大大地改變他們生活型態。在早期, 音樂家的生活是環繞在教會或貴族間的小圈子, 音樂家的地位僅僅是僕人(對貴族圈子而言, 如巴哈之於教會, 莫札特之於奧地利皇室)。作曲家為教會或貴族寫他們喜好的音樂, 樂器製作商生產的樂器由富裕的貴族購買, 再由他們的僕人音樂師演奏。由於中產階級的上升, 更多人民想要接近音樂, 一個新而大的藝術市場於焉誕生! 音樂家由教會或貴族間的小圈子解放開來, 新藝術性的審美觀, 浪漫主義, 替換了秩序、對稱, 和形式 (指刻板的教會音樂), 情感和藝術性更被音樂家所重視。浪漫主義, 與新機會, 大劇院,和客廳成為音樂家或作曲家的新舞台,他們不再是教會或貴族的僕人。 藝術消費助長音樂家社經地位 在十九世紀, 一向由貴族包辦的古典音樂市場產生了結構性的變化。 古典音樂的欣賞在十八世紀是財富和聲望的象徵。由於新中產階級的革命, 這一批新中產階級, 他們的目標是仿效貴族 (但不替換它), 他們渴望創造如豪華貴族一樣的生活(如老師於課堂中舉Wedgwood 消費的例子), 以新中產階級的道德和概念古典音樂消費成為了一個社會工具, 亦是無容置疑的社交活動。 人們去結識新的朋友, 談論閒話和新聞, 很少真正去欣賞音樂或戲曲。But who care!(真正的音樂愛好者會直接地靜坐在樂隊之後欣賞), 富裕的新中產階級則集中在包廂中暢所欲言。 在此, 音樂是社交的工具不是目的! 社會階層的改變, 也影響了劇院觀眾的組成。 中產階級使用古典音樂的社交活動, 支撐他們想要的 “貴族氣息” (想像一下十九世紀並無唱片和錄音) 這一大批新中產階級的藝術消費無疑的助長 音樂家的社經地位, 使他們可以脫離貴族牽絆, 獨力創作無虞生活, 音樂家的地位也由貴族的 “僕人” 而一躍為 “音樂家”, 這種的改變無疑的是十九世紀社會階層變動下的產物。 工業革命對樂器製作的衝擊 十八世紀鋼琴的前身, 大鍵琴(Harpsichord)被發明了。 十九世紀初, 音樂會的聽眾大量增加, 大型音樂廳紛紛建立, 大音樂廳需要更大的音量(Volume)和動態(Dynamic range)的樂器才能滿足! 原始的大鍵琴, 卻因技術的限制, 遲遲無法改善。 因為工業革命新材料和科技的改良, 促成了 “鋼琴” 的發明。貝森朵芙(Bosendorfer), 史坦威(Steinway) 二大鋼琴製造商即是這一時期崛起的新秀。 除了鋼琴之外, 管樂器如法國號, 橫, 直笛等銅管,木管樂器也因工業革命帶來的新材料和科技, 使樂器更生動和富含表情。 這些轉變除了讓聽眾有更精采的感受外, 同時也讓音樂家在表演和作曲中有更大的揮灑空間, 這是一個奇特的例子—由生硬的科技改變了多情的藝術。 


(Source: The La Guardia and Wagner Archives, La Guardia Community College/The City University of New York) http://www.laguardiawagnerarchive.lagcc.cuny.edu/curriculums/steinway2001/ 個案研究---孟德爾頌(Felix Mendelssohn(1809-1847) 


I. 所屬時期與樂派--- 浪漫樂派時期 (The Romantic Era)：西元1820年～1900年 
II. 孟德爾頌生平 1809 年出生於德國漢堡, 父親是銀行家, 母親的家境也非常優渥, 彈得一手好鋼琴並精通四國語言。由於這樣的家庭, 孟德爾頌自幼便學習音樂, 且專心的以音樂為職業, 為初期浪漫派的音樂發展有著非常大的功勞。三歲時, 全家遷居柏林, 他便在這裡長大。 孟德爾頌自小便顯露出音樂才華。 9 歲第一次公演, 11 歲開始作曲。(Source:高雄空大講義 http://www3.ouk.edu.tw/wester/composer/composer010.htm) 
III. 孟德爾頌的階級特色 孟德爾頌是傳統音樂界中相當特殊的人物, 他出身歐洲城市運動後的中產階級, 並不是靠教會或貴族支持才能過活的音樂家, 因此形成了他在音樂創作上較為自然灑脫, 卻不失中產階級為人處事的特色：高雅、嚴謹、明晰、邏輯、 安適、自在、保守、謹慎；孟德爾頌是百年僅見的全能型音樂天才, 身兼作曲家、指揮家、鋼琴家、教師、行政人員等多重身份, 加上銀行家後裔的背景(銀行家亦是十九世紀新興的階層), 使得孟德爾頌有足夠的財力周遊歐洲各國, 成為一位名符其實的旅行家。
IV.分析孟德爾頌和傳統音樂家的階級差異 
 a. 出身富裕的中產階級, 不同於傳統音樂家。
 b. 富裕的家庭開始會讓子女學習音樂並以此為業。
 c. 音樂的特質富個人色彩, 不投客戶喜好。
 d. 以音樂家的身份擠身上游社會。
 e. 音樂家開始主導劇團的管理不僅是樂匠。


 Reference 陳淑眞, 孟德爾頌 : 臺北市: 名人, 民1980 劉岠渭, 孟德爾頌 -- 音樂史上美麗的偶然, 臺北市 : 臺英雜誌, 1998 石井宏/著, 古典音樂意外史, 臺北市 : 世界文物, 1996 Alf Carrington, East Dereham, Norfolk A proposal: Giovanni of all trades: an Italian musician working in early nineteenth century England . Sixth Biennial Conference on Music in 19th-Century Britain Hosted by the University of Birmingham at the University Conference Park 5–8 July 2007 Michael Allis, University of Leeds Performance in public and private: ‘The Working Men's Society' and the progressive agenda Sixth Biennial Conference on Music in 19th-Century Britain Hosted by the University of Birmingham at the University Conference Park 5–8 July 2007 Barber, Elinor G. The Bourgeoisie in 18th Century France. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.1955 Bernier, Olivier. Pleasure and Privilege: Life in France, Naples and America 1770-1790. Doubleday & Company, Inc.: New York, 1981 Harrisson, Carol. The Bourgeois Citizen in Nineteenth-Century France. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England. 1999. Johnson, James, H. Listening in Paris. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA. 1995. Kavanagh, Thomas. Enlightenment and the Shadows of Chance. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1993. Lacombe, Herve. The Keys to French Opera in the Nineteenth Century. Trans. by Edward Schneider. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, 2001.

天照大神和中國忠烈

天照大神和中國忠烈(A course work at Dept. of History, NTU) 


大概是二十五、 六年前我在林口當兵， 我很喜歡由營區走到虎頭山， 這一段路恰好在祾線上， 中無雜樹滿山盡是芒草， 每當夏末初秋的時分， 一片白茫茫的蘆葦花海隨著風， 隨著陽光， 隨著心情， 展現不同的風情， 但不變的是一樣迷人 ! 一日， 我信步的又走這一段路， 該是早春吧 ! 突然望見路旁的土丘上有一樹嫣紅， 是櫻花 ! 我步上了小山坡， 想一窺這株早到櫻花春的氣息 ，上了土丘， 突然被眼前的景觀震懾住了， 在櫻花樹旁邊是一片荒煙漫草， 後面是一棟保存的尚稱完好的日式建築 ! 是日本神社 ! ! 我告訴自己。 爬上樓梯， 行過鳥居， 來到了一層的平台。 上有一筆直的參道， 參道的左側有手水舍保存的尚稱完好，右側為社務所好像有人居住， 已顯殘破。 手水舍是日式寺廟的標準設施，信眾在進寺廟之前，先在此象徵洗淨身心後 才可至神前敬拜。 手水舍的建築是以四支木柱組成的日式涼亭式，屋頂包覆銅片而成。 銅片因時間久遠已氧化為青銅色，化成一屋古樸典雅。 社務所旁，參道右前方， 有一奔躍的銅馬。 銅馬肚皮上的日本菊花標誌(Symbol of Japanese royal family)已被磨平， 基座 “昭和” 的石刻字也被塗上水泥， 但卻仍依稀可辨 。 再往前走，爬上第三層石階，上方石階旁有一對石獅。 日本人稱之為「高麗犬」，又稱「貊白犬」或「唐獅子」。 Surprise ! 居然還完好保留 ! 但大小和精緻度無法和圓山那一對相比擬， 必竟圓山是 “神宮” 編制要比 “神社” 大得多。 爬上石階， 上有一中門，是「切妻造」式(日本懸山頂式)造型， 屋頂覆之以銅皮瓦。 中門唐突的懸掛著一簇新的匾額， 上面書著斗大的“國魂”兩字。 中門左右則是一排以台灣檜木製成的木造迴廊， 檜木的質感， 典雅的木工， 不禁令人佇足欣賞。 穿過中門，達拜殿前的廣場。 拜殿，是神社範圍內最大的殿宇，廟貌呈T字形，左右各一副殿，為唐朝風格的寺廟遺風， 與中國北方的寺廟風格相似， 線條簡單、樸素而優雅， 給人一種莊嚴、肅穆的感覺。 拜殿前的廣場， 四周環繞著木柵圍籬， 中門與拜殿之間以參道相連， 兩側為一片荒草， 其中夾雜幾樹山櫻花及綠樹， 顯得冷清而幽靜。 一片靜謐之中， 思緒竟掉入沉思之中……… 日本神社 ? 中國忠烈祠 ? 好一個不協調的景象 …………… 一段段令人沉思的歷史場景浮現在心頭。 日本神社 ? 中國忠烈祠 ? 日本天照大神 ? 中國忠烈 ? 不斷在心中激盪，翻滾…久久不能釋懷。 站立柵欄前，望著那幽暗的主殿小閣樓。 日本神社主殿裡的天照皇大帝、豐受大神、大國魂命、大己貴命、少彥名命、明治天皇、還有台灣獨有的北白川宮能久親王等神位(北白川宮為接收台灣的長官)，該早已被丟棄了。 現在閣樓裡放著鄭成功、劉永福、丘逢甲及抗清、抗日、剿匪的先烈牌位。 站在柵欄前，望著幽暗的閣樓。 心想著，每一個政府，無不以景仰、尊崇、虔敬之心， 來祭祀保家衛國而犧牲的軍人或志士， 於法， 於理， 於情， 也該當如此，以褒揚忠烈，激勵志節，告慰亡者，使英靈得以安息。 我漫步於桃園神社，心裡卻一直念著想著，二戰期間數萬名戰歿、病亡或失蹤於南洋的台籍日本兵， 因為時代的變遷， 他們的孤魂未能得到適當的慰藉， 他們既不屬於日本靖國神社， 也不屬於中國忠烈祠， 孤魂只能隨風消散，流浪飄零。 而在此的中國英靈， 又何其無辜! 必需委身在一個廢棄的日本神社， 混居在日本的神鬼之中。 以前的國民黨， 把人民當工具， 多少善良的神明華冑投入國共內戰! 他們犧牲性命，他們燃燒青春， 他們背井離鄉， 幸運的就被祭祀在這裡 ，和日本的神鬼雜居! 更不幸的可能是獨居在天崖海角的退伍老兵! 同樣的日本帝國主義， 把日本的子民或推向太平洋，或化成一股原子塵 ! 而台灣的人民， 則是不斷的換主人， 一會兒荷蘭人， 一會兒日本人， 一會兒又 “回到祖國懷抱” 不斷拼命的學習 “國語” 不斷的被鄙視 ………… 清人， “皇民”，”復興基地堂堂正正的中國人” ………… 台灣人該累了吧 ! 挑起種族情緒的政客們， 人民需要的只是休息而已 ! 他們沒有那麼偉大的理想， 真的 ! Give your people a break !!! Appendix I. 台灣神社歷史背景 日治中期（1912－1925年）台灣總督府已經逐漸完成殖民統治體制，另一方面武裝抗日活動也已經大致結束。台灣人的經濟狀況逐漸改善，民間從事宗教活動日盛，日本政府不但鼓勵，並且親自參與。看起來日本政府的作為與其真正目的似有矛盾，其實主要的考量是，若斷然實施國家神道是唯一的宗教，可能招致強烈的反擊。因此，同時鼓勵國家神道與民間信仰，是總督府不得不運用的手段。日治中期在台興建的神社，計有台中神社、嘉義神社、花蓮港神社、新竹神社、阿里山神社、台南神社等十二處。神社體制發展至此已略具規模，關於神社的行政措施、神官神職的任用、神社的經營管理等，都必須有一完備的法規，因此專門通行於台灣地區的神社規則，也在此時期被制定。 　　


日治末期（1926－1945年）值此時期日本為實現其「大東亞共榮圈」構想，軍國主義勢力興起，積極侵略中國，對台積極實行「皇民化政策」，為其戰爭侵略的意識型態作前置之準備，神社被利用為推廣侵略思想與軍國主義的教化場所。因此，這一時期對於台灣的本土宗教信仰走向高壓政策，其措施如下：1930年，總督府通令各州廳需加強取締未申請而建立的寺廟、齋堂，已顯示出其排斥台灣本土宗教的決心。1934 年，總督府確立「一街庄一神社」的政策，將神社置於地方教化的中心，促使所有家庭供奉伊勢神宮之大麻。1936年開始寺廟整理的工作，本土寺廟被迫關閉或被改為日本佛教說教所，這種高壓手段到了1937年七七事變以後到了高潮，除強制台灣人民前往神社參拜外，並舉行各種日治中期（1912－1925年）台灣總督府已經逐漸完成殖民統治體制，另一方面武裝抗日活動也已經大致結束。台灣人的經濟狀況逐漸改善，民間從事宗教活動日盛，日本政府不但鼓勵，並且親自參與。看起來日本政府的作為與其真正目的似有矛盾，其實主要的考量是，若斷然實施國家神道是唯一的宗教，可能招致強烈的反擊。因此，同時鼓勵國家神道與民間信仰，是總督府不得不運用的手段。日治中期在台興建的神社，計有台中神社、嘉義神社、花蓮港神社、新竹神社、阿里山神社、台南神社等十二處。神社體制發展至此已略具規模，關於神社的行政措施、神官神職的任用、神社的經營管理等，都必須有一完備的法規，因此專門通行於台灣地區的神社規則，也在此時期被制定。 　　日治末期（1926－1945年）值此時期日本為實現其「大東亞共榮圈」構想，軍國主義勢力興起，積極侵略中國，對台積極實行「皇民化政策」，為其戰爭侵略的意識型態作前置之準備，神社被利用為推廣侵略思想與軍國主義的教化場所。因此，這一時期對於台灣的本土宗教信仰走向高壓政策，其措施如下：1930年，總督府通令各州廳需加強取締未申請而建立的寺廟、齋堂，已顯示出其排斥台灣本土宗教的決心。1934 年，總督府確立「一街庄一神社」的政策，將神社置於地方教化的中心，促使所有家庭供奉伊勢神宮之大麻。1936年開始寺廟整理的工作，本土寺廟被迫關閉或被改為日本佛教說教所，這種高壓手段到了1937年七七事變以後到了高潮，除強制台灣人民前往神社參拜外，並舉行各種戰爭祈願。這個時期最大的特徵，就是各地神社的普建。日治末期在台的神社共計六十八所，幾乎都是1935年以後興建的，最具代表性的就是結合天皇崇拜與軍國主義的建功神社及護國神社。 　　


1945年大戰結束後，為破除日本帝國主義在台的意識及事蹟，台灣神社因而被大量破壞，有點諷刺的是，規模較大的，就改建為現在的忠烈祠，紀念曾經為國捐軀的中國英雄。戰爭祈願。這個時期最大的特徵，就是各地神社的普建。日治末期在台的神社共計六十八所，幾乎都是1935年以後興建的，最具代表性的就是結合天皇崇拜與軍國主義的建功神社及護國神社。 　　


( Source : http://www.sinica.edu.tw/photo/subject/2_temple/index.html) 


台灣神社一覽 台北州 o 台灣神社 o 建功神社 o 台灣護國神社 o 宜蘭神社 o 基隆神社 o 台北稻荷神社 o 瑞芳神社 o 羅東神社 o 汐止神社 o 新莊神社 o 海山神社 o 淡水神社 o 文山神社 o 蘇澳神社 o 黃金神社 o 圓山水神社 • 新竹州 o 新竹神社 o 通霄神社 o 桃園神社 o 苗栗神社 o 中壢神社 o 頭份神社 o 竹南神社 o 大湖神社 o 竹東神社 • 臺中州 o 臺中神社 o 彰化神社 o 員林神社 o 清水神社 o 豐原神社 o 東勢神社 o 竹山神社 o 北斗神社 o 田中神社 o 鹿港神社 o 秀水神社 o 能高神社 o 南投神社 o 魚池神社 • 台南州 o 台南神社 o 嘉義神社 o 開山神社 o 北港神社 o 新營神社 o 五間厝神社 o 南靖神社 o 阿里山神社 o 北門神社 o 東石神社 o 曾文神社 o 新化神社 o 斗六神社 o 林內神社 • 高雄州 o 高雄神社 o 阿緱神社 o 岡山神社 o 潮州神社 o 東港神社 o 鳳山神社 o 里港神社 o 佳冬神社 o 旗山神社 o 恆春神社 • 澎湖廳 o 澎湖神社 • 台東廳 o 台東神社 o 關山神社 o 卑南神社 o 加走灣神社 • 花蓮港廳 o 花蓮港神社 o 吉野神社 o 豐田神社 o 林田神社 o 佐久間神社 o 壽神社 


(Source: http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%E5%8F%B0%E7%81%A3%E7%A5%9E%E7%A4%BE%E5%88%97%E8%A1%A8&variant=zh-tw) 


II. 花蓮慶修院 – A must go 大正5年（1916），釋智猛法師在卅六歲的盛年奉派渡海，抵達吉野移民村創建真言宗布教所，隨後又陸續開辦花蓮港及林田布教所，在花蓮港弘教30年間，娶妻生子，落地生根，把花蓮當作第二故鄉。然而，二次大戰戰敗後遭遣返，布教所由當地的菜姑吳添妹女士接管，改名「慶修院」，由於香火鼎盛，充滿江戶風格的古蹟建築得以留存至今，成為花蓮縣重要的文化資產。


 (Source: http://www.heritage.org.tw/)