2016/10/28

新渡戸文化学園



新渡戸文化学園




■ニトベフレンズセミナー 四季会 冬のセミナー

 寒さはいっこうにやわらぎませんが、皆様にはいかがお過ごしでしょうか。
 今年は新渡戸稲造博士没後149年で、来年はいよいよ没後150年を迎えます。そういう節目の年を迎えるのにあたって、新渡戸博士の業績を見つめなおすのはいかがでしょう。
 冬のセミナーを、下記のとおり開催いたします。皆様お誘い合わせのうえ、ぜひご参加くださいますようご案内申しあげます。




- 概要 -
主 催:財団法人新渡戸基金
日 時:2011年2月22日(火)午前10時より12時まで
会 場:第2 産業会館 4階会議室

講 師:角谷晋次氏(新渡戸稲造研究家、元盛岡大学教授、牧師)
内 容:「新渡戸稲造の成人女子教育」
参加費:1,000円(資料代、通信費、お茶代など)
申込み:2月17日(木)までにFAX、お電話、Eメールでお願いします。

〈お申込、お問合せ先〉(財)新渡戸基金 ニトベ・フレンズセミナー係
〒020-0024 岩手県盛岡市菜園1-4-10-6階
TEL 019-654-3279  FAX 019-652-4213 IP電話 050-3007-8120
          E-mail : fund@nitobe.com

★今年度は角谷先生にすべての講座を担当していただいておりますが、冬のセミナーをもって最後になりますので、セミナー修了後、角谷先生を囲む昼食会を予定しております。
 参加ご希望の方は合わせてお申し込み下さい。



〈角谷先生を囲む昼食会〉
時 間:12:15~1:30
会 場:「銀河離宮」(予定)第2 産業会館 1階

参加費:1,000円(食事代)
申込み:セミナーと合わせてFAX、お電話、Eメールでお願いします。
page top
■これまでの動き


2016年(平成28年)
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(夏のセミナー)ご案内 8月19日
特別展「紙芝居で振り返る 新渡戸稲造からの贈り物」ご案内
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(春のセミナー)ご案内 5月11日
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(冬のセミナー)ご案内 2月 6日
2015年(平成27年)
「生誕の地盛岡で新渡戸稲造・武士道精神を学ぶ」ご案内
もりおか啄木・賢治青春館「新渡戸稲造の青春」展ご案内
新渡戸稲造先生命日祭ご案内 10月15日
新渡戸菊キックオフシンポジウムご案内 10月16日
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(夏のセミナー)ご案内 8月28日
岩手めんこいテレビ・BSフジ「新渡戸稲造の台湾」
特別展:稲造と昌介 ~札幌農學校時代~ ご案内
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(春のセミナー)ご案内 6月 3日
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(冬のセミナー)ご案内 2月 3日
2014年(平成26年)
パンフレット「新渡戸稲造入門」ご案内
盛岡タイムス様のご厚意により全文をPDFでご覧頂けます。
・新渡戸稲造入門・表紙A(PDF)
・新渡戸稲造入門・表紙Bのみ(PDF)
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(秋のセミナー)ご案内 12月3日
2013年(平成25年)
新渡戸稲造を知っていますか-世界が尊敬した真の国際人 ご案内
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(春のセミナー)ご案内 5月25日
藤井茂さん
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(冬のセミナー)ご案内 2月8日
2012年(平成24年)
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(秋のセミナー)ご案内 12月14日
共同企画展「新渡戸氏と花巻」太田時敏(ときとし)ご案内
学園の各所でクリスマス
第9回 お茶の水アカデミアシンポジウムのご案内 11月22日
第1回もりおか武士道サミットのご案内 12月15日
新渡戸稲造博士生誕150年祭のご案内 8月31日
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(夏のセミナー)ご案内 8月30日
新渡戸先生生誕150年
先人記念館企画展「新渡戸稲造のおくりもの」ご案内
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(春のセミナー)ご案内 5月25日
イルカさんが学園に来ました。
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(冬のセミナー)ご案内 2月 8日
2011年(平成23年)
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(秋のセミナー)ご案内11月 9日
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(夏のセミナー)ご案内 8月24日
新渡戸国際塾 公開講演ご案内 6月26日
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(春のセミナー)ご案内 4月23日
札幌市時計台、新渡戸稲造が森本厚吉のために書いた額 2月 23日
特別展「日露戦争に見る武士道」ご案内 2月 15日
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(冬のセミナー)ご案内 2月 4日
2010年(平成22年)
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(秋のセミナー)ご案内 11月30日
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(夏のセミナー)ご案内 8月31日
『一〇〇年前の女の子』(講談社) 船曳由美著
「郵便資料でかえりみる札幌農学校」-スタンプショー2010-
北海道大学附属図書館・企画展示
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(冬の会)ご案内 2月 1日
2009年(平成21年)
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(秋のセミナー)ご案内10月1日
ニトベ・フレンズセミナー(夏のセミナー)ご案内 8月 3日
東京女子経済専門学校 昭和20年度卒業式が昭和53年に 6月30日
雑誌 東京人 7月号 6月12日
思い出のメニュー 新渡戸博士と共に 5月16日
講演会:新渡戸稲造と「武士道」 1月15日
2008年(平成20年)
新渡戸先生の揮毫「学如登山」と「Boys, be ambitious!」写真追加 10月30日
新渡戸稲造命日前夜祭「新渡戸稲造と渋沢栄一」 10月14日
講座「新渡戸塾-国際的な視野から社会に貢献できるリーダーを育てる」 8月 8日
講演「がん哲学と新渡戸稲造~日本肝臓論~」 8月8日
企画展「聞書き 安野の新渡戸物語」 7月10日
新渡戸先生の揮毫「学如登山」と「Boys, be ambitious!」 7月 8日
軽井沢高原文庫・有島武郎・特別展のお知らせ 6月30日
十和田市立新渡戸記念館・特別展のお知らせ 6月10日
新渡戸の洋食を食べる会=ユニオン・イズ・パワーの集い 5月16日
徳富蘇峰記念館に新渡戸稲造書簡が3件あります 5月10日
武士道の志に生きる山形市議-2 4月19日
2007年(平成19年)
講演会:癌哲学と新渡戸稲造 11月10日
「もう一人の太平洋の橋 新渡戸稲造の妻 メリーの生涯」 7月 1日~11月25日
花巻新渡戸記念館(岩手県花巻市)で平成19年度企画展として開催
「新渡戸・南原賞」授賞式 6月4日
新渡戸稲造の足跡をたどる台湾視察旅行 5月27日~31日
武士道の志に生きる山形市議 5月26日
新渡戸の洋食を食べる会=ユニオン・イズ・パワーの集い 5月16日
新渡戸が食した夕食「思い出のメニュー 新渡戸博士と共に」
『幼き日の思い出』の出版を祝し加藤武子さんを励ます会 2月 3日
『幼き日の思い出』の出版(新聞記事)
2006年(平成18年)
新渡戸稲造博士命日前夜祭・懸賞論文授賞式

YMCA全人教育研究会(仮称)第5回研究会--一私学の全人教育の理想と取り組み
異種各討議 90分3本勝負 会計学者 vs. 武士道
もりおかワイズメンズクラブ 設立総会講演
洋食の会 新渡戸稲造も食したメニュー
「日本初の女性弁護士 中田正子」展
2005年(平成17年)
新渡戸稲造博士命日前夜祭 記念講演会
北東北・日本アメリカ協会 講演会
2004年(平成16年)
札幌時計台/新渡戸稲造展
2001年(平成13年)
「日本人の心」継承へ大学連携
1999年(平成11年)
新渡戸書簡(岩手日報)
(新聞記事)

平成25年度の秋山財団賞、新渡戸・南原賞、研究助成、ネットワーク形成事業助成 - 秋山記念生命科学振興財団

平成25年度の秋山財団賞、新渡戸・南原賞、研究助成、ネットワーク形成事業助成 - 秋山記念生命科学振興財団

平成25年度の秋山財団賞、新渡戸・南原賞、研究助成、ネットワーク形成事業助成 - 秋山記念生命科学振興財団




新渡戸稲造と南原繁が取り組んだ国際平和活動と若い世代に対する教育実践の精神に学び、それを受け継ぎ、次世代の育成に貢献された方を顕彰します。特に平和活動と教育実践に取り組む次世代に対する支援を充実させていきます。


受賞者

角谷 晋次(カドヤ シンジ)氏(75歳)


所属役職

学校法人 盛岡キリスト教学園 理事長、盛岡仙北町教会 牧師



受賞理由 

角谷晋次氏は、大学時代に内村鑑三の著作に学び、岩手県山形村(現久慈市)で伝道を始め、同地で1970年「神を愛し、人を愛し、土を愛す」の三愛精神に基づく岩手三愛山村塾を開講し、毎年4泊5日で同塾を開催し、主宰している。開設から43年が経過した本年夏は、新渡戸基金と共催で、「世界の平和と新渡戸稲造の生涯」をテーマに開催する。

また、同氏は、新渡戸基金評議員、新渡戸基金維持会監事などを務めながら、新渡戸基金のフレンズ・セミナーで講師を務めるなど、新渡戸稲造の精神を広く伝えている。

著書、論文に「新渡戸稲造における修養」、「新渡戸稲造とクエーカリズム」「ペンシルヴァニア州におけるフレンド派」、「新渡戸稲造におけるキリスト教精神」など、多数を執筆した。

2016/10/25

かたつむり・つれづれ



かたつむり・つれづれ
カテゴリー

理想の暮らしを語る会(3)
アズワンコミュニテイ暮らし(366)
鈴鹿川流域の暮らし(13)
鈴鹿カルチャーステーション企画に参加して(4)
サイエンズスクールのある暮らし(32)
サイエンズ研究所のある暮らし(20)
家族あれやこれや(58)
わがうちなるつれづれの記(136)
わが健康生きがいづくり三重の会記録(34)
日記(0)

隣人エクハルト・ハーンさん - かたつむり・つれづれ



隣人エクハルト・ハーンさん - かたつむり・つれづれ




隣人エクハルト・ハーンさん
2014-05-31 14:46:36 | アズワンコミュニテイ暮らし


(一)遠い国の隣人

隣人といったら"近所の人"という意味だけど、エクハルト・ハーン

さんはドイツのベルリンで住んでいる。近所とは言えない。

70歳をこえて、一人暮らし。一人息子が近くに暮らしている。

ドイツというのは、ずいぶん離れた近所だ。





循環共生社会システム研究所(KIESS)の内藤正明氏の

友人であり、学問的なつながりがあった。

ハーンさんとは7年前ぐらいから、内藤さんの縁で日本に

やってきたとき、出会いができた。



4年ほど前から、来日すると、先ずアズワンコミュニテイ鈴鹿に

落ち着いて、それから全国各地に講演に出かける流れが

できてきた。



ハーンさんと気楽に呼んでいる。でも、どう呼ぶのかいいのか

迷うときもある。

講演の案内には、ハーン博士とかドルトムント大学名誉教授と

肩書きがつく。

ハーンさんは、20代から都市生態学の研究をし、環境調和型の

都市の再生のプロジェクトなどにも関わってきた。

国際的な研究機会にも参加してきている。

今はドルトムント大学で、ドイツの内外を問わず、環境調和型

の都市計画や再生の実務に当たっている人たち向けに

インターネットによる講座も受け持っている。

若き人材育成にも楽しそうに取り組んでいる。そんなに感じる。



ハーンさんは日本語は話さない。

ドイツ語と英語。英語は簡潔でシンプルで発音は聞きやすいが

それでも英語が堪能でないぼくらは、ちょっと込み入った会話を

するのは、難しい。

アズワンに暮らしながら、KIESSの活動をしている片山弘子さんが

通訳をしてくれている。



通訳があるから、通じ合っているかといえば、ちょっと

もどかしいところもある。コトバでなく、通じ合っていると

感じるときもある。



ハーンさんにとって、あたらしい発見があると、満面に笑みをうかべて

「やあー、それはおもしろい!」と子どものように感動する。

世間話のような場面でも、相手の話には、じっと耳を傾け、話が終わる

まで聞き取ろうとする。ハーンさんの気さくな人柄が現われている。




     (二)”ハートセンタ”ーとヨット転覆

今年は5月14日朝、セントレアに着いた。

北川道雄さんと片山弘子さんの二人がフェリーで来るハーンさんを

迎えに津なぎさ港に行った。



その夜、コミュニテイハウス江口宅で食事をしながら、一年ぶりの

旧交を温めた。



「何が驚いたって、弘子さんが北川さんと結婚したというのにびっくり

するやら嬉しいやら」とハーンさん。

ハーンさんの話を聞いていると、熟年の「結婚」ということもあるが、

弘子さんの変わりぶりに、何かを感じているようだった。



「アズワンコミュニテイにある、”ハートセンター”、これが大きかった

んだね。コミュニテイで”こころ”を大事にする仕組みがあるという

のが分かった。素晴らしい」

鈴鹿に向かう車中で、弘子さんが”ハートセンター”(アズワンでは

コミュニテイCOCOROセンターと呼んでいる)で話を聞いてもらい

ながら、結婚にまでいたった経過を聞いているらしかった。

ハーンさんは、来日して各地を回るときは弘子さんが通訳と

して同行することが多かった。

ハーンさんとして、弘子さんの内面に迷いのようなものがある

のを感じていたんだろうか。

すっかり晴れ晴れとした弘子さんを目の前にして、弘子さん

個人のこの一年の変わり映えとともに、アズワンコミュニテイと

いうものどんなものかに関心が向いたようだった。




「一年で変わったといえば、ぼくの場合、息子と話ができる

ようになったんだ」とその顛末を語ってくれた。嬉しそうだった。

ハーンさんは、若いときからヨットに乗ってきた。ヨットに息子を

誘ったら、「行く」というのでバルト海に出たのはいいが、嵐に

遭い、島の近くでヨットが転覆。

たまたま島から見ていた人がいて、危ういところを救助された。

「冷たい海で息子と生死のあいだを彷徨った」

ハーンさんと息子さんのあいだに、それまでどんなドラマが

あったか、分からない。それぞれの内面世界で氷解するもの

があったのか・・・

こんなしっとりと胸の内を明かしてくれたハーンさんは初めて

だった。





    (三)来年は息子と訪ねたい

鈴鹿で一泊した翌日、アズワンコミュニテイの見学をした。

ハーンさんを迎えて、アズワン見学は恒例の行事になっている。

今回の見学では、”ハートセンター”というような仕組みを

暮らしの中に根付かしているコミュニテイがどんな背景のもとに

営まれているか、そこを知りたいと焦点がはっきりしているよう

だった。

小野雅司さんがサイエンズ研究所のリーフレットを見せながら、

アズワンコミュニテイの社会的なベースの説明をした。






○サイエンズ研究所・・・本来の人間性の探究・社会構成の探究。

   やってみて、どうか。本来の目的から外れていないか観察・

   検討・研究・検証。

○サイエンズスクール・・・一人ひとりが自分の内面を観察して、

   自分の中にある本来の人間性に気づき、人生の目的を

   知り、そういう自分として日々の暮らしやコミュニテイを

   営んでいったら、どんな社会が現われてくるか。

   人と人の間柄がやさしく、シンプルになっていかないか。

 ○コミュニテイ・・・一人ひとりが幸福に成り合っていき易い仕組み・

    運営を研究所の研究成果をそれぞれの自由意志で汲み取り

    ながら、日々の暮らし、産業活動、文化活動など営んでいく。

    最近では、コミュニテイオフィス・ファミリー・贈り合いの

    コミュニテイストアが一人ひとりの間で息づいて、きつつある。








ハーンさんはときどき質問しながら、じっと聞き取ろうとしていた。

「すばらしい!」と感嘆の声。

「来年は息子といっしょにアズワンを訪ねたい」とハーンさん。

アズワンの仕組みについて、これまで説明してこなかったわけ

ではない。

今回はハーンさんの心の奥のほうに響いたように見えた。



    (四)セイリングシップモデル

ハーンさんと出会ったはじめから、これからの人類の進むべき

方向について、「タンカー」と「ヨット」の画像を示して、どっちに

向かっていくのでしょう、と問いかけをしていた。



5月24日にあったHUB Kyoto & KESS主催の「Community

Makes SusutenableScietyーー鈴鹿で、ドイツで、そして私たち」

フォーラムでも、ハーンさんはこの観点から切り出していた。

ハーンさんは「セイリングシップモデル」と表現して、未来の

都市の姿が今に現われている先進的な事例を丁寧に紹介して

くれた。

「セイリングシップモデル」の要点は

  ・人間性 

  ・人間と自然との関係 

  ・人と人との関係

だという。

都市生態学とか都市空間の再生とか、ハーンさんが長年

取り組んできた研究は、机上の理論にとどまらず、実際に

ドイツ各地で起きてきたまちづくりプロジェクトに、行政・

市民とともに、話し合い、理解しあって、その実現に努力して

きている。



そのときのハーンさんの心している核心のようなものが

そのコトバのなかにあるのではないか。



   (五)集合住宅暮らしの行方

「ドイツでは市民の手で、未来にむかっての都市空間の外観は

見通しがよくなってきています。ただ、心の面を取り上げている

コミュニテイの活動は見当たりません。アズワンさんがこれからの

モデルになるのではないでしょうか」

講演の最後に、そんなことを付け加えることがあった。



帰国前日、コミュニテイハウス江口宅で送り出し晩ごはんを

食べながら、日本滞在のよもやま話に花が咲いた。



「夕方の温泉は最高だった!」と第一声。

「ハーンさん、温泉好きなの。2時間、平気で入っている」

と弘子さん。






「温泉に行く前に、オフィスとファミリーの話をじっくり聞けた。

ファミリーが一つの経済でいとなまれる仕組み。すばらしい。

先進的だし、人間性に適っている。」とハーンさん。

その話合いに参加していないので、内容は分からないが、

ハーンさんの中では、これまで研究してきたことの、その先が

さらにはっきり見えてきている、そんな喜びがあるようだった。

これは、ぼくの感想。




「ドイツで集合住宅のプロジェクトにかかわってきている」

とハーンさん。

「日本では、江戸期にあった長屋みたいなもの?」

「200人が住める規模の住宅というイメージ」

「マンションみたいな?」

「その建設をする前から、それを出資して、作ろうとする住民が

先ずいる。その人たちが、どんな住宅にするか、それぞれが

描いていることを出し合いながら、それぞれの願いが実現

できるように設計・建設していく」

「そこの人たちで、人間関係でトラブルはないのだろうか?」

「まだ、出来てから7年ぐらいで、一応自分たちで作ってきた

というのがあるので、問題はないようだ。でも、この先は、

分からない。観察してるんだあ」とハーンさんが、ニッコリ。

ぼくらも、聞いて和やかな気持ちに・・・。






日本にもコレクテイブハウスという試みがある。

先ずそういう仕組みや施設があり、そこを希望する

人たちが入居して、個人や家族の自由をベースに

コミュニテイの暮らしを営めるという。

人と人が規則や取り決め、当番制などが無くて、円滑に

社会生活が営めるか。とても面白い社会実験だろう。





実をいうとハーンさんの都市生態学や空間計画の研究と

アズワンの「やさしい社会の試み」が何処で接点ができる

のだろう、とこの数年、思い続けてきた。

今回、なにか手がかりが出来たんではないか。

いま、ブラジルにいるスイス・ドイツ生まれの人たちが

ポルトガル語に訳してある「やさしい社会」の本を

ドイツ語に訳して、ハーンさんに贈る計画が進んでいる。

「やあ、楽しみだ」ハーンさんの弁。

エコロジーと歴史にもとづく地域デザイン




エコロジーと歴史にもとづく地域デザイン



プロローグ

 21世紀は「環境の時代」といわれる。だが例えば、実際の東京を見ると、大規模開発のプロジェクトが続々と実現し、高層ビルが建ち並ぶ風景が出現している。一方、地方の多くの町では、田園を潰し市街地がますます外へ虫食い的に広がる一方、本来、歴史の厚みがあり魅力的だった都心部が寂れ、元気がない。今、日本の都市づくりはどこを目指すべきなのか。
 
 それを根本から問うべく、本書が企画された。その基をなすのは、法政大学主催の国際シンポジウム「エコロジーと歴史に基づく地域デザインへの挑戦」(2003年6月7、8日の2日間にわたって市ヶ谷キャンパスで行われた)である。参加した講師、コメンテーター全員に、シンポジウムでの討論の成果を踏まえ、今回の出版を目的として新たに原稿を執筆していただいて、この本が生まれた。

 工業化を推進した20世紀が科学技術力と経済力にものをいわせ、エネルギーを大量消費し、海辺や山河の自然を破壊し、効率と機能性を追求する非人間的な都市空間を生み出してきたのに対し、「環境の時代」における地域づくりは、〈エコロジー〉と〈歴史〉の視点に立って、その場所の環境・文化資源を生かし、真にサステイナブルな方向を目指す必要がある。その理念と手法を世界的な広がりの中で比較・展望するのが本書の目的である。



 過去を振り返るなら、世界のどの地域にも、生態系を生かし、歴史を蓄積した魅力的な都市の風景がつくられてきた。川沿いや海岸の水辺に、また丘陵の頂や斜面に、あるいはその裾の里に、地形や自然環境を生かし、地元で調達できる建築材料を用いて、それぞれに特徴のある生活空間と都市の風景を形成してきた。京都や江戸東京をはじめとする日本の都市では、とりわけ、豊富な地下水が都市づくりに生かされ、湧水が産業・経済活動ばかりか、信仰や文化を育むのにも重要な役割を果たしてきた。都市はエコロジーの体系を十分に踏まえて発展し、独自の歴史を重ねてきた。

 しかし、科学技術力と経済力にものいわせた近代の巨大開発は、都市における環境のバランスと文化的アイデンティティの喪失をもたらした。都市は歴史と文化を象徴する中心を失って空洞化し、またかつて存在した都市と田園の明確な境界線を喪失して、捉え所のない状況を呈してきた。都市の内部を流れていた河川、運河を埋め水辺を喪失したのは、何も日本だけではない。例えば、イタリアを代表するミラノ、ボローニャ、パドヴァなど、魅力ある都市でも、実は同じ経験をした。自動車等、陸の交通への対応もあったが、当時の衛生思想によるところが大きい。ヨーロッパでは、こうした近代的な開発、改造のもたらす問題について1960年代に自覚され、都市の近代の歩みを批判的に捉え直す動きへとつながった。

 今、世界各地で、近代の都市開発への反省に立ち、歴史と生態系を大切にしながら持続可能で、かつ個性豊かな地域づくりを実現することが大きな課題となっている。近年、よく耳にする「都市再生」という言葉も、本来はそう位置づけられるべきであろう。経済再活性化の切り札として、もっぱらこの言葉が使われるわが国の状況からは早く脱したい。

 また、グローバリゼーションが進むほど、実は逆に、それぞれの地域の個性、文化的なアイデンティティがますます強く求められるようになっている。



 本書のねらいは、まず、〈エコロジー〉と〈歴史〉の結合にある。この二つのキーワードを結ぶ発想は、実はこれまで、日本のみならず海外にもあまりなかった。今の学問や技術は、専門ごとに分断され、力をもてないでいるのだ。

 特に、日本では、〈エコロジー〉と〈歴史〉を一緒に考えることは、従来あまりなかった試みといえよう。関西の人々にとっては、都市の歴史が長いだけに、生活環境を考えると自ずとそこに歴史的なセンスが入ってくるという感覚もあるようだが、特に、東京を中
心とする関東では、歴史的に物事を考えようという発想は乏しい。

 ランドスケープの歴史は従来からあるし、環境史という新たなジャンルへの挑戦も生まれつつあるが、まだ明確な姿は見えていない。建築史の領域からの都市史に関する研究はだいぶ活発になっているが、エコロジーの視点となると、まだまだ弱いと言わざるを得ない。逆に、エコロジーを専門とする方々には、地域の歴史、都市の歴史にもっと関心をもっていただければと日頃から思ってきた。

 実際のまちづくりや地域づくりにおいては、学問の世界ほどの垣根はないかもしれないが、それでも、歴史的な町並みの保存再生の分野とエコロジーの視点に立った地域再生の活動との間の交流は、まだ不十分に見える。いずれのアプローチも、市民、住民にとって、自分の身の回りの価値を発見し、魅力ある地域づくりを目指す点では共通している。歴史的環境からのアプローチと、水・緑、動物や昆虫などの自然生態系の環境からのアプローチとを重ね合わせると、豊かな地域像をより多角的に描けるに違いない。

 自分の身近なところで考えてみたい。私は法政大学の建築学科の中に、「東京のまち研究会」というグループを1977年につくり、以来、東京のまちを主に建築と都市の歴史の観点からフィールド調査してきた。古い建物ばかりか、敷地、街区の歴史性、道や坂のでき方、宗教空間の立地などを調べるのがベースだが、地形とか緑の分布にも大いに関心をもち、やがて産業や文化を育んだ都心の川や掘割の存在の重要性をも視野に入れて研究してきた。しかし、自然河川、地下水、湧水などの視点にまで深い関心を向けることはできなかった。

 一方、本書の筆者の一人であり、法政大学で「建築生態学」を講ずる建築家、神谷博氏は、ライフワークとして、東京のエコロジーの調査研究に取り組み、地下水、湧水や川の生態系に関する研究で大きな成果を挙げてきた。その神谷氏と、やはり法政大学建築学科で教鞭をとり、地元の小金井を中心に武蔵野の地域研究を行う永瀬克己氏らと一緒に、2年前に、進士五十八氏、石川幹子氏、小倉紀雄氏、倉田直道氏など、他大学の方々にも呼びかけて「東京再生研究会」を設立し、今〈エコロジー〉と〈歴史〉を重ねながら、東京研究を精力的に進めている。実際にやってみると、立場は違うとはいえ、お互いの発想、アプローチには共通性が大きいことを知って、驚かされたのである。

 我々をこのような方向に導いてくれたのは実は、法政大学建築学科で長年、教鞭をとられた河原一郎氏であった。若い頃、イタリア、スウェーデンで学び、実務の経験を積んだ建築家、河原氏は1970年代から一貫して、東京の特質を歴史と生態学から捉え、その成果を都市づくりに生かすべきことを、いくつものケーススタディを通じて示し、多くの提言をされてきた。大きな視野からの壮大なビジョンをもった河原氏の魅力溢れる研究成果が、著書『地球環境と東京─歴史的都市の生態学的再生をめざして』(筑摩書房、2001年)に集大成されたのを受けて、まさにこうした21世紀にとっての重要課題について、我々の世代が、さらに深く掘り下げ、発展的に取り組んでいこうと考えるようになった。〈エコロジー〉と〈歴史〉を結びつける発想に立つ本書は、このような経緯の中から生まれたと言える。



 もう一つの本書の特徴は、ヨーロッパ、アメリカ、アジア、そして日本の専門家が一堂に会し、〈西〉と〈東〉の知を融合させる試みにチャレンジする、という点にある。

 環境観や歴史観には、欧米とアジア・日本で大きな違いがあり、互いの経験から学び合うことができるのに、グローバリゼーションの時代といわれる今も、地域や国を越えた交流は案外乏しい。

 今、都市・環境の領域で日本が世界に向けて主導権をもつ意義は大きい。近年の欧米のエコロジーに基づく都市計画には、人間中心に自然を支配・征服し管理してきた西欧の考え方を反省し、自然と共に生きる存在として人間を見る日本・東洋の世界観から学ぼうとする発想が見られる。実際、4年前に日本国際賞を受賞し、来日したアメリカ人の都市計画家、イアン・L・マクハーグ氏は、まさにそうした日本やアジアの自然観、環境観から得た大きなインスピレーションをもとに、生態学的都市計画の分野を切り開き、先駆的な役割を果たした『デザイン・ウィズ・ネーチャー』(下河辺淳・川瀬篤美総括監訳、集文社、1994年、原著は1969年刊行)を著したのである。その後、惜しくも亡くなられた彼が残したこの著作は、今後の日本でこそもっと読まれてほしい本である。今回のシンポジウムでドイツよりお招きした、本書の著者の一人、エクハルト・ハーン氏も、かつて中国の都市、地域に入り込み、調査研究をした経験からエコロジカル・プランニングの発想を得たという。

 他方、都市や地域での歴史、環境、文化を尊重し、経済優先の開発を抑制するヨーロッパの成熟社会から、日本やアジアが学ぶことは多い。豊かな時代を迎えたはずの日本なのに、いまだ経済開発のために、歴史的に価値のある建築や都市の貴重な緑はどんどん失われているのが現状である。斜面緑地等での大規模なマンション開発で、湧水、地下水に大きなダメージが及ぶということが後を絶たない。開発のまさに途上にあるアジアの諸都市では、経済活動の競争力をつけながらも、持続的な発展をいかに実現するか、大きな問題を抱えている。それだけに、ヨーロッパにおける、社会的公正を欠く利益追求型の大規模開発を厳しく制御する一方で、時代を切り開く創造性に満ちた質の高い都市づくりや地域づくりを次々に展開する知恵と技術の豊かな蓄積は、とりわけ成熟社会を迎えた今の日本の我々には大いに参考になる。

 このような意図のもと、本書は、異なる文化背景をもつ世界の西と東の知恵や技術を交流、融合させる試みとして編まれているのである。

 その意味でも、ヨーロッパ、アメリカとアジアの専門家とともに、東京を比較の視点から論ずることに大きな価値があると考える。この点も本書の大きな特徴となっている。

 10年ほど前、デンマークのコペンハーゲンで開かれた、ヨーロッパの日本研究者の学会におけるアーバン・セッションで、「東京は21世紀の都市モデルか? アンチモデルか?」という刺激的な議論がなされたことがある。ヨーロッパの人々も、次の時代の都市イメージを切り開くのに、日本からインスピレーションを大いに得ようとしていることを物
語っていた。

 東京は、ここでのテーマである〈エコロジー〉と〈歴史〉の視点から見ると、様々な特徴をもち、豊かな可能性を秘めていると言える。東京は、まさにヴェネツィアと同様、「水の都」であった。永井荷風も、東京徘徊の名エッセイ『日和下駄』の中で、水の風景を描写し、多様な川、水辺、湧水が東京の環境をいかに豊かにしているかを論じている。実際、本書を執筆いただいた外国人の方々も、シンポジウムでの東京滞在の間に、小舟による東京の水路巡りを堪能し、本来水と密接に結びついて形成されたこの都市独特の在り方に大きな関心をもったようだ。

 こうした資源を生かし、うまく育て、ハイテク都市、先端都市と組み合わせて環境を再生すれば、西欧モデルとは異なるユニークな魅力ある都市空間を実現できる可能性が確かにあるだろう。

 シンポジウムが行われた法政大学市ヶ谷キャンパスのすぐ近くに、歴史が現代にうまく生かされた代表例、神楽坂の町がある。外国人筆者の方々も、夕方、この界隈を徘徊し、石畳の路地に面した雰囲気のある店で食事を楽しんだ。

 最近の『週刊現代』の調査では、住んでみたい町として、関東では神楽坂が一番に挙がった。便利でいて、風情豊かな落ち着いた雰囲気に包まれた町の佇まいに引かれる人が多いという。もともと、料亭や待合の並ぶ花柳界の町で、石畳の迷宮が不思議な魅力を醸し出している。最近では、その路地的な雰囲気やスケール観を壊さずに、新しい趣向の洒落た店も増え、若者や女性にも開かれた界隈になっている。

 ここには、懐かしさや粋な遊び心だけでなく、もっと普遍性をもつ現代的な価値がある。地形も道も変化に富み、多彩な機能、活動が詰まった神楽坂は、仕事場としても最高の環境を提供してくれるのだ。ベンチャービジネスの小さめのオフィスも多いという。歴史がたっぷり感じられるいいスケールの変化に富んだ場所が、今の文化をつくりだすというのは何とも素敵な話だ。ようやく日本も成熟した社会になった、と言いたいところだが、実は問題もある。この地域にも、その人気が高まるほど、高層マンションによる環境破壊が増えるという難しい状況がある。



 本書では特に、水の都市、臨海部の環境、そして内陸の河川流域や湧水など、近代の都市開発でダメージを受け続けた「水の環境」の復権に向けた議論にこだわっている。東京の失われた水辺空間を再生するシナリオを描くためにも、まずはヴェネツィア、中国江南の水郷都市、バンコクという世界に名高い「水の都」との比較考察が行われる。世界を代表するこれらの都市から専門家が一堂に会し、真正面から比較研究に取り組むというのは、
これまでにない初めての試みである。

 ヴェネツィアについては、水との共生を実現し、水害から守り、独自の豊かなイメージをもつ「水の都」をつくりあげたその形成の諸相について、ヨーロッパを代表する都市史研究者のD・カラビ氏が論じている。その歴史の重みを背負ったヴェネツィアが、新たな時代に向けて、都心居住のための快適な集合住宅を供給し、交通インフラの導入を探るなど、真の「都市再生」に努力する姿を、都市計画が専門で、ウォーターフロント問題の第一人者R・ブルットメッソ氏が描き出している。

 続いて、人々の暮らしと密接に結びつき、生き生きと使われ続けるアジアの水辺空間の魅力と環境上の諸問題が論じられる。中国江南には、水を制御しつつ、水と実に近しい町の形態とライフスタイルが長い歴史の中で確立した。中国における歴史都市再生の分野を精力的に切り開いてきた阮儀三氏は、こうした水の町を対象に、モータリゼーションの問題、近代に向けての住宅改善などを視野に入れつつ、保存再生をいかに実現するかが問われていることを論ずる。一方のバンコクは、歴史的にもより水との直接的な共生を実現してきた都市であり、陸の価値を重視する近代化の中で、いかにその「水の都市」としての魅力、アイデンティティを大切にした都市づくりに取り組むか、大きな岐路に立たされている。そう論ずるのは、タイきっての都市研究および地域計画の理論家、S・タダニティ氏である。

 東京の水辺空間の破壊と再生については陣内が論じているが、外国人筆者の論考はどれも、本来「水の都市」だったこの東京の再生を考えるのに、大きな示唆を与えてくれるものばかりである。

 同時に比較の視点から、やや歴史は新しいが、すでに水辺都市の形成、そして衰退から再生へ豊富な経験をもつアメリカの事例が取り上げられ、時代を切り開くプロジェクトが紹介されている。東海岸のウォーターフロント再生の分野に精通する神田駿氏が論ずる、ボストンの古い町を分断していた高速道路を地下に埋めて人間の手に取り戻す「Big Dig」と呼ばれる都市再生のプロジェクトに関する話は、東京でも日本橋の上を走る高速道路を撤去する可能性が十分あることを示し、我々を勇気づけてくれる。一方、西海岸の湾を望むサンフランシスコの環境に配慮した質の高いウォーターフロント開発については、その事情に詳しい都市計画家、倉田直道氏が報告する。

 東京は、「水の都市」であると同時に、山の手から武蔵野の郊外にかけて、本来は、湧水に恵まれ、多くの中小河川や上水がめぐる緑に包まれたエコ・シティであった。開発からそれを守り、また再生するための道筋が神谷博氏によって示される。それと発想を一にするのが、ベルリンを中心にEU全体でエコロジカルな都市再生の分野で活躍するE・ハーン氏の論考であり、環境に負荷を与えず、水と緑を取り込んで魅力溢れる地域の住環境を創出するドイツのエコロジカル・プランニングの実践は示唆に富む。一方、イタリアの歴史都市の保存・再生の第一人者、P・ファリーニ氏は、旧市街の外側に広がる歴史的田園地域におけるアクティブな保存の理念と計画手法を取り上げ、歴史とエコロジーを尊重する今日の最も進んだ地域づくりの考え方を示している。

 また、それぞれの論考の後には、様々な専門分野の方々から、コメントを寄せてもらっている。分量は短いが、示唆に富む指摘、考え方が続々と登場する。

 〈エコロジー〉と〈歴史〉のキーワードを中心に、色々な分野の専門家が会し、〈学際的な研究交流〉の中で本書が成立しているのが、おわかりいただけると思う。同時に、世界各地から第一線で活躍する方々が集まり、異なる地域相互の〈比較研究〉にチャレンジしているところに本書の特徴があるのだ。

 本書の外国人筆者たちが、シンポジウムを終えるにあたり、豊かな資源や素材に恵まれた東京の将来に大いに期待したい、と口々に発言していたのが心に残っている。シンポジウムが実施された2003年は折しも、江戸開府400年にあたる。まさに江戸の遺産を生かし、新たな東京のまちづくりへと発想を大きく転換させるのにふさわしい時代に我々はいるのである。

2004年5月
陣内秀信















20151027環境先進国ドイツに学ぶ持続可能な社会のヒント どこでもGAIA〜地球に暮らす



20151027環境先進国ドイツに学ぶ持続可能な社会のヒント どこでもGAIA〜地球に暮らす

20151027環境先進国ドイツに学ぶ持続可能な社会のヒント
20151027環境先進国ドイツに学ぶ持続可能な社会のヒント
ベルリンのエクハルト・ハーン博士に、ドイツの再生可能エネルギーの取り組みや、
ベルリンで行われている「新しい都市・街、ご近所づくり」の事例などをお聞きしました。
世界のあちこちで、町の住民がつながって町を緑豊かにしている事例が増えてきているんなだな、と実感しました。
会場には、学芸大の学生や他の大学生も多く、熱心に聞いていらっしゃいました。
ハーン博士をつないだ、アズワン鈴鹿の弘子さんと小野さんもいらっしゃって、久しぶりに会えて嬉しかったです。
TT小金井のみなさん、つながりの杜Enのみなさんが用意してくださったご馳走が、嬉しかったです。
ご飯をみんなで食べることって、大好きです。

*****

アズワン・コミュニティと毎年交流している独ドルトムント大学都市生態学教授の
エクハルト・ハーン博士をお招きして
、学芸大 環境教育研究センター主催で、
講演会を開催します。

〇2015年度 環境教育セミナー
――環境先進国ドイツに学ぶ持続可能な社会のヒント
主催:東京学芸大学 環境教育研究センター
 環境先進国ドイツでは、昔から住民自らが「まちづくり」を担ってきました。
東日本大震災を契機として、日本でもエネルギーや食糧等を地域で生み出し、
ネットワーク化を進めて行こうという動きが活発化しています。
 今回は、環境先進国ドイツのエクハルト・ハーン博士をお招きし、ドイツで
行われている持続可能なまちづくりの先進事例を、日本からは三重県鈴鹿市と
東京都小金井市で実践されているコミュニティづくりの実践事例をご紹介いた
だきます。
 本セミナーを通して、大きな転機を迎えた私たちの暮らしを、足元から見つ
め直し、自分たちで持続可能な社会を産み出していくためのヒントを探ってい
きたいと思います。
・日時  2015年10月27日(火)15:00~17:30
・会場  東京学芸大学 環境教育研究センター 多目的室
・対象  一般の方(参加申込不要) 参加費:無料 問合せ:042-329-7665
・講演1 ドルトムント大学 エクハルト・ハーン博士
・講演2 アズワンコミュニティ 小野雅司氏・片山弘子氏
・講演3 トランジションタウン小金井 梶間陽一氏

詳しくは  http://www.u-gakugei.ac.jp/news/2015/09/2015-1.html






















スポンサーサイト在宅副業で最低年収860万円稼ぐ方法を1から学ぶチャンス♪ いつでも引き出し可能な現金300万円が詰まったATMをもらう! 恐ろしいほど当たる運命占い鑑定

ドイツから来日されたハーン博士のお話を伺って : Visioning

イツから来日されたハーン博士のお話を伺って : Visioning
2012年 06月 21日


ドイツから来日されたハーン博士のお話を伺って

ドイツから来日されたエクハルト・ハーン博士から
ドイツやヨーロッパのエコタウン事情を伺う機会がありました。

写真の建物は、太陽に合わせて360℃動く建物だそうです。

「見た目はあんまり格好良くないかもしれないけど、最先端技術の組合せだけでなく、自然とダイレクトに繋がる、自然に対して人間の感覚を内面から引き出すようにも考えられていて、僕が好きな建物なんだ」と紹介してくださってました。

その考え方は、モーラの家設計時に私たちも留意した点だったので共感を覚えた次第です。

再生エネルギーへ移行し始めたドイツを中心に、各地でのエネルギーシフトの事例を紹介しているドキュメンタリー映画『第4の革命』を見た後に、ドイツで出来たこと(原発廃止路線の政策)が、あれほどの事故があった日本でなぜ未だに出来ないんだ、と思っていました。

しかしドイツでも40年に渡る反原発運動があって、市民が闘いの末に勝ち取った政策だったということをおっしゃってました。世論が自然エネルギーに動いたのは大体3年ぐらい前で、それまでは大企業・商業主義が根強かったと。

何十年にもわたる市民運動での闘いあっての結果だったんですね。

そのことは伺って、日本はこれから、というか今まさに渦中なんだろうな、と思いました。私たちはホントに重要な時期にいるんだという自覚を改めて持ちました。

こういった本で、内容が日本バージョンになってヨーロッパで出版されることを目指したいです。

박범신 - 나무위키

박범신 - 나무위키



박범신

최근 수정 시각 : 
주의. 이 문서는 현재 논란이 되고 있는 국내 인물을 다룹니다.

이 문서는 현재 논란이 되고 있는 국내의 인물을 다루고 있습니다. 감정적인 서술로 인해 편향적인 시점으로 작성되었거나 다른 사람에게 불쾌감을 주는 욕설을 포함한 비하적 내용이 등장할 수 있으니 주의하시기 바랍니다.

또한, 명예훼손 혐의로 형사처분을 받을 수 있으니 출처가 분명하지 않거나 주관적인 서술은 자제하시고 고소의 위험이 없도록 논리적 · 중립적으로 작성하시기 바랍니다. 자세한 사항은 인물 관련 정보의 지켜야 할 사항을 참고하시기 바랍니다.

http://image.kmib.co.kr/online_image/2014/0901/201409010337_13150922776776_1.jpg
1. 개요2. 성희롱 논란

1. 개요[편집]

대한민국의 소설가1946년 8월 24일 충청남도 논산에서 태어났다. 영원한 청년 작가로 불리고는 한다. 종교는 천주교이며, 세례명은 아우구스티노이다. 1973년에 중앙일보 신춘문예에서 '여름의 잔해'로 등단했다. 대표작으로는 '겨울환상', '소금', '겨울 강 하늬바람' ,'더러운 책상'[1]등이 있다. 1995년부터 명지대학교에서 문예창작학과 교수로 지냈으며, 2007년에는 한국방송공사 이사장까지 맡았다. 현재는 상명대학교 국어교육학과와 대학원 소설창작학과에서 석좌교수로 지내며 후학을 양성 중이다.

최근에 갈망 3부작 (촐라체, 고산자, 은교)을 발표하였는데, 세 작품 모두 대중적으로 크게 흥행했다. 네이버에 연재했던 촐라체의 경우는 누적 방문 100만을 돌파하였고, 은교는 영화화되어 여러 의미로 엄청난 반향을 일으켰다. 고산자의 경우도 강우석 감독에 의해 영화화가 확정되었다.

카카오페이지에 신작 장편소설 <유리> 를 연재하였으며 완결되었다.

16년 10월 20일, 방송작가, 여성팬 등을 성희롱, 성추행했다는 주장이 나와 논란이 되고 있다.

2. 성희롱 논란[편집]

주의. 사건·사고 관련 내용에 대해 설명합니다.

이 문서는 실제로 발생한 사건·사고에 대해 자세한 내용과 설명을 포함합니다. 불법적이거나 따라하면 위험한 내용도 포함할 수 있으며, 일부 이용자들은 불쾌감을 느낄 수 있으므로 열람에 주의하셔야 합니다.

또한, 실제 사건·사고를 설명하므로 충분히 검토 후 사실에 맞게 수정하셔야 하며, 경솔한 수정 혹은 삭제 시 비생산적인 논쟁을 야기할 수 있습니다. 일부 사건사고 문서는 유머성 서술 및 취소선을 사용할 수 없도록 제한될 수 있습니다.

또한, 이 틀을 적용하시려면 적용한 문서의 최하단에 해당 사건·사고에 맞는 분류도 함께 달아주시기 바랍니다. 분류 목록은 분류:사건사고 문서에서 확인하실 수 있습니다.

사건 관련 글 국민일보 기사

2016년 10월 20일 트위터에 박범신 작가를 고발하는 글이 올라왔다. 작가가 방송작가, 팬, 자신에게 성추행을 했다는 내용이다. 글쓴이는편집자였으며, 작가의 수필을 편집했었다고 한다.

글쓴이는 은교(영화) 촬영 당시, 작가가 여성 팬과 방송작가의 허벅지를 쓰다듬고 '늙은 은교' '젊은 은교' 등의 표현으로 자신에게 모욕감을 줬다고 밝혔다. 심지어 은교를 연기한 배우에게도 '은교는 남자를 알아야 한다.'며 성 경험 여부에 대해 묻다가 제지 당했다고 말했다. 여기에 지금은 편집 쪽에 몸 담고 있지 않기 때문에 고발할 수 있다고 덧붙이기도 했다. 그 결과 김고은 팬들은 분노하는 중. 또한 은교 여주인공을 고사했던 박민지 쪽은 다행으로 여겨야 할 지경.

논란이 불거진 후 작가는 트위터에 '스탕달이 그랬듯 살았고 썼고 사랑했다.' '나이 든 내 죄이다. 누군가 상처 받았으면 미안하다.'라는 내용의 사과를 올렸다. 사과문의 어투는 '해요~' 정도로 가벼운 편이었다. 이후 '나이 든 죄'라는 표현을 지운 글을 다시 올렸으나, 그럼에도 비판 여론이 지속되자 글을 내렸다. 현재 '나로 인해 기분이 불쾌했다면 내 불찰이다.' 라며 계속 사과의 태도를 비추고 있다.

그러나 동시에 사건의 진의가 왜곡됐다고 항변하고 있다. 손을 만진 적은 있으나 허벅지를 쓰다듬는 추행은 하지 않았다고. 또한 '은교'의 의미는 '갈망의 대상'일 뿐, 성적인 대상은 아니라고 말했다.

이후 편집자의 글에서 피해자로 언급된 방송작가가 SNS에 글을 남겼다. '성추행으로 느낄 일은 없었다. 오히려 아이템을 위해 성추행을 참는 사람으로 몰려 모욕감을 느낀다.'는 요지의 내용이다. 원문 해당 페이지는 현재 삭제된 상태인데 이유는 알 수 없다. 현재는 해당 방송작가의 글에 대해서 최초 폭로자의 피드백이 나온 상태이다.

현재 작가의 주장과 전직 편집자의 주장 중 어느 쪽도 확실하지 못하다. 교차 증언이나 물증이 아직 나오지 않았기 때문이다. 섣부른 판단은 삼갈 필요가 있다.

그런데 이후 방송작가말고도 술자리에 있었던 여성팬도 박범신이 성추행을 하지 않았다는 진술을 했고, 이를 전직 편집자가 반박하자 재반박했다. 이들은 자신들은 성추행으로 느끼지 않았는데 제3자인 전직 여성 출판인이 자신들이 성추행당한 것으로 단정했다고 이의를 제기했다. 이에 여성 출판인이 재차 자신의 뜻을 굽히지 않음을 밝히자 여성 방송작가는 성추행으로 몰고가는 사람들에 의해 자신들이 더 큰 피해를 당한다는(2차가해) 취지의 말을 하면서 이들을 비판했다. 다만 아직 이들말고 다른 여성 동석인들은 입장을 내놓지 않고 있다. 2016년 10월 23일 네이버-뉴스1 '성희롱 논란' 박범신 술자리 동석자들 '성추행은 없었다'

박범신 작가 페이스북 사과문 과 반응 | 취미정보게시판 | 루리웹 모바일

박범신 작가 페이스북 사과문 과 반응 | 취미정보게시판 | 루리웹 모바일

박범신 작가 페이스북 사과문 과 반응
이나ds | 추천 2 | 조회 4290 일시 2016.10.23125.188.***.***

원본출처 | https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1276736505710981&id=100001239314731&pnref=story

--
내 일로 인해~상처받은 모든 분께 사과하고 싶어요. 인생-사람에 대한 지난 과오가 얼마나 많았을까, 아픈 회한이 날 사로잡고 있는 나날이에요.팩트의 진실여부에 대한 논란으로 또 다른분이 상처받는 일 없길 바래요. 내 가족~친구-지인~동료작가들~날 사랑해준 모든 독자들께도 사과드려요. 나는 얼마나 많은 결함을 지닌 인간인가, 그런 맘이에요.생애를 통해 나로인해~맘 다친 모든 분들께도 아울러 사과드려요.본의는 그것이 아니란 말조차 부끄러워 못 드려요. 부디, 나의 철모르는-뜨거운 생에 대한 갈망을 접으면서 드리는 진정한 맘으로 받아주세요.






















댓글 | 총 14 개
1
------------


BEST
노벨문학상 못 받는 건 역시 수준미달이라서 못 받는 거였음
★샤우드★ | 220.89.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:08
1 35

BEST
음 메갈작가 쉴드 치던 짹짹이 그대로 옮겨놓은거 같네요 서브컬쳐랑 순문학이랑 작가와 팬관계가 놀랍도록 닮아 있네요
토쓰 | 112.150.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:17
1 29

BEST
정몽주니어 의문의 1승 할 댓글들이 많이 보이네
수미래 | 125.137.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:07
1 15

BEST
안 좋은 기억 지우시고 < ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 웃고 간다 진심
수미래 | 125.137.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:07
1 15

BEST
작가들이 트위터에다가 4과문쓰는거 아무래도 지가 잘했건 잘못했건 듣고싶은말만 트위터에서 해줘서 그런듯 아이고 ㅜㅜ 우리자까님 ㅜㅜ 이래주는데도 반론하나없는게 트위터니 이런 답정너만 보고싶다면 트위터가 최고지
망사표콘돔 | 211.36.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:15
1 15



정몽주니어 의문의 1승 할 댓글들이 많이 보이네
수미래 | 125.137.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:07
답글
1 15

수미래
안 좋은 기억 지우시고 < ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 웃고 간다 진심
수미래 | 125.137.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:07
답글
1 15

노벨문학상 못 받는 건 역시 수준미달이라서 못 받는 거였음
★샤우드★ | 220.89.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:08
답글
1 35

★샤우드★
님 팩트폭력 자제욧...!
코사인 | 183.101.***.*** | 16.10.23 16:08
답글
0 3

무슨 노래 부르나? '~'가 엄청 들어가네
조잘 | 211.36.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:13
답글
0 2

평소에 병맛이라는 소리를 듣는 작자들이 오히려 이런 사태때 정상이라는거 ㅋㅋㅋ
Maria- | 1.221.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:14
답글
0 4

작가들이 트위터에다가 4과문쓰는거 아무래도 지가 잘했건 잘못했건 듣고싶은말만 트위터에서 해줘서 그런듯 아이고 ㅜㅜ 우리자까님 ㅜㅜ 이래주는데도 반론하나없는게 트위터니 이런 답정너만 보고싶다면 트위터가 최고지
망사표콘돔 | 211.36.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:15
답글
1 15

음 메갈작가 쉴드 치던 짹짹이 그대로 옮겨놓은거 같네요 서브컬쳐랑 순문학이랑 작가와 팬관계가 놀랍도록 닮아 있네요
토쓰 | 112.150.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:17
답글
1 29

토쓰
사실 말이 순수문학이지, 마이너리티라는 점에서는 그냥 서브컬쳐잖아요.
포광의 메시아 | 222.101.***.*** | 16.10.23 17:02
답글
0 4

팩트의 진실여부에 대한 논란으로: 다 내가 한 짓이라고 인정한 적 없다. 나의 철모르는-뜨거운 생에 대한 갈망을: 철없고 발정나서 한 짓이니 넘어가달라.
맥모닝먹고옴 | 61.74.***.*** | 16.10.23 15:23
답글
0 6

한국인 수준에 딱 맞는 문학인^^
새드스틱디자이어 | 124.254.***.*** | 16.10.23 16:37
답글
1 1

시발 존나 답답하네 이게 한국인의 정인가? 잘못해도 부둥부둥하는게
튜르리 | 220.85.***.*** | 16.10.23 17:11
답글
0 4

저딴 글을 사과문이라고 싸갈기는게 이 나라 문인이라니, 내가 이제 앞으로 한국 문학을 보나 봐라.
만렙대위아무로 | 121.124.***.*** | 16.10.23 21:04
답글
0 1

저새끼들은 헬조선 운운할 자격 없음. 남의.인생에.커다란 트라우마를 남길 악마짓을 비판하기는 커녕 옹호하는데.지옥에 살 사람들이 아니면 무엇이랴
Co2QQQ | 110.47.***.*** | 16.10.23 21:07
답글

2016/10/24

Howard Brinton - Wikipedia

Howard Brinton - Wikipedia


Japan and later years[edit]

In 1949, Anna Brinton left Pendle Hill to work with AFSC. Howard continued until 1952, when he retired and the couple moved to Japan, in AFSC service. They returned to Pendle Hill in 1954. Howard's Japanese secretary, Yuki Takahashi, a widow, returned with them to help her employer write his memoirs, which have never been published. In May 1972, the nearly blind and aged Brinton, having obtained consent from his adult children, surprised everyone by marrying Takahashi.

Howard Brinton died on 9 April 1973.[7] He is buried with his wife at the Oakland Friends Cemetery, West Chester, Chester County, Pennsylvania.[8]
Publications[edit]incomplete list
A Religious Solution to the Social Problem (1934)
Quaker Education in Theory and Practice (1940)
Guide to Quaker Practice (1943)
The Society of Friends (1948)
Friends for 300 years (1952)
Pendle Hill pamphlets by Howard Brinton[edit]
A Religious Solution To The Social Problem by Howard Brinton, Pendle Hill pamphlet #2, available as a free download as .pdf file
The Quaker Doctrine of Inward Peace by Howard Brinton, Pendle Hill pamphlet #44, available as a free download as .pdf file
The Nature of Quakerism by Howard Brinton, Pendle Hill pamphlet #47, available as a free download as .pdf file
The Society of Friends by Howard Brinton, Pendle Hill pamphlet #48,available as a free download as .pdf file
Prophetic Ministry by Howard Brinton, Pendle Hill pamphlet #54,available as a free download as .pdf file
Reaching Decisions by Howard Brinton, Pendle Hill pamphlet #65,available as a free download as .pdf file
How They Became Friends by Howard Brinton, Pendle Hill pamphlet #144, available as a free download as .pdf file

Quaker Theology #22 - Cover & Contents



Quaker Theology #22 - Cover & Contents

An Excerpt from Howard and Anna Brinton: Re-inventors of Quakerism In the Twentieth Century, An Interpretive Biography, forthcoming from FGC Quakerbridge, by Anthony Manousos

-----

Growing Up in “Brinton Country”

To tell the story of the Brintons or of the Beans and the Coxes, Anna’s family, is to tell the story of Quakerism as it developed in America. Anna and Howard both took pride in the fact that they could trace their ancestry to the early days of Quakerism. Quakers are not ancestor worshipers, but old Quaker families like the Brintons and the Coxes reverence, and draw inspiration from, their ancestors to a greater degree than do members of most other religious groups. To understand Howard and Anna, and many other Quakers of their generation, one must appreciate the role that ancestry played in their moral and spiritual development.

In 1935, Howard gave a talk about the importance of Quaker “ancestor worship” at a family reunion. As often was the case when discussing a serious topic, Howard began with a joke: “An old saying is that a man who has nothing to boast about but his ancestors is like a potato vine– the only good belonging to him is underground.” Howard went on to argue that giving reverent attention to one’s ancestors is not “to be despised” since ancestors can be extremely important in influencing how we develop as individuals:


“A common modern American way of thinking which holds that every tub stands on its own bottom, that every man is an isolated individual and responsible for his own ability and character is not true biologically, psychologically, nor spiritually. Those who have preceded us are bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh, and we can no more separate ourselves from them than a plant can separate itself from its roots.”

For Quakers like Howard and Anna, ancestry was significant because it linked them to a “pattern of life,” a religious culture, that could not be reduced to a theological system. This Quaker culture was, paradoxically, conservative and radical at the same time. Quakers were active in the great reform movements while at the same time preserving a way of life rooted in tradition modes of dress, speech, and outlook that could not be taught in school, but which were transmitted through the family. . . .

Howard saw himself as part of a tradition, rooted in an inward spiritual experience, that went back to the beginning of the Quaker movement, and which linked him with other Quaker families. Old Quaker families did not have ancestral busts, like the Romans, or ancestral altars, like the Chinese, but they did have genealogical records that functioned in a similar fashion to link the present and the past. Howard reflected:


“As I take down from my library shelves the Smedley Book, the Sharpless Book, the Brinton Book, the Kirk Book, the Darlington Book, and the Cox Book and look at these solid, serene, strong faces expressing a simple but carefully worked out mode of life, I feel that I can understand them, but my children never will.”

One of the reasons that Howard dictated his Autobiography during the last year of his life was in hopes of conveying something about this Quaker way of life not only to his descendants, but to posterity.

To tell the story of Howard and Anna one must also tell the story of their ancestors, and of Quakers in America – a story that Anna and Howard spent a lifetime exploring, explaining and “reinventing” . . . .

Howard traced his family’s lineage back eight generations to the founders of the American line, William Brinton, Sr. (1635-1699):


“William and Ann Brinton, our first American ancestors, came early into the Society of Friends. They were married in 1659 by Friends’ ceremony seven years after the Quaker movement began. William, in his testimony regarding his deceased wife, says she “received the Truth from the first publishers of it” in 1656 and that her mother was a Friend. We do not know when William joined the Society of Friends, but, as his later life indicated, he was the kind of independent person who would join [an] outlawed radical movement. He did not hesitate to be a non-conformist even towards his fellow Quakers.”

Like most of the Quakers who settled in Pennsylvania, William came to America to escape persecution. According to “records of suffering” that Quakers scrupulously kept, “William was twice fined for attendance at a Quaker meeting and since, like other Quakers, he refused to pay, his goods were sold for five times the value of the fine.” Deprived of his property and hopes of any livelihood, he left England with his wife and son William, Jr, and arrived in America in the spring of 1684.

Upon his arrival in Philadelphia, he found a temporary residence for his wife and son and went into the wilderness to scout out the best land. “Crossing a small creek, after a journey of about 30 miles, he found just what he wanted,” wrote Howard, “fertile soil watered by small streams and abounding in springs of clear, cold water.” William returned to Philadelphia and purchased 1,000 acres of land for 10 cents per acre so that there would be enough land for his extended family.

During the first winter he lived in a cave and was kept from starving by friendly Indians. The Brintons soon moved from a cave to a log cabin. They cleared the forest, farmed the land, and held meeting for worship in their home until Concord Meetinghouse was built in 1697. Nearby, in 1704, William Brinton, Jr. (1670-1751), who is referred to by the family as “William the Younger” or “William the Builder,” built a two-story brick house in a medieval English style. This home was restored and became a National Historic Landmark in 1968. Today the Brinton family has not only a Book, but also a Website.

The Brinton family flourished in America and so did the Religious Society of Friends until the American Revolution polarized the Colonies and left Quakers marginalized. Because Friends generally did not take sides during the Revolutionary War, they lost a great deal of political and social influence. In the decades after the Revolution, Friends began to drift apart theologically and socially. Those in urban areas became increasingly influenced by evangelical Protestantism while those in the country tended to keep to the traditions and doctrines of what they called “primitive Quakerism.”

In the 1820s, these difference came to a head and American Quakers split into two camps, the Orthodox and the Hicksites. “Orthodox” refers to Quakers who emphasized the outward historical events in Scripture while Hicksites (named after Elias Hicks) referred to those who emphasized inward mystical experience. In the 1840s Orthodox Quakerism also split between those who emphasizing the inward and those emphasizing the outward aspects of religion. The Orthodox- Hicksite separation was the beginning of a series of schisms that eventually divided American Quakerism into four main branches and numerous twigs. As a result of this separation, many Orthodox Friends did not consider Hicksites to be “true Quakers” and vice versa.

Howard was a product of this separation. Born 24 July 1884, Howard grew up in a “peaceful, happy home” in a community consisting of both Orthodox and Hicksite Quakers. His hometown was West Chester, which is located 35 miles west of Philadelphia. The historian Henry Seidel Canby called Chester county “Brinton country” since this area along the Brandywine contains “two Brinton mills, Brinton’s island, Brinton’s dam, Brinton’s bridge, Brinton’s run, Brinton’s road, and Brinton’s quarry.” Howard noted that “others besides Brintons settled here of course, but most of these others sooner or later married Brintons; so we claim them all.”

Howard’s father, Edward G. Brinton, was a prominent Orthodox Friend whose Quaker genealogy was meticulously documented by his son. As Howard explained, “My ancestors for eight or nine generations were nearly all Friends. I know this because I have looked up the names and religion of some 400 of them, all settlers in early Pennsylvania. But I myself was not technically a birthright Friend, for my father was Orthodox and my mother Hicksite.”

Up until this time, being a “birthright” Friend conferred status since it meant that both one’s parents were bona fide Quakers.. . . Nowadays no distinction is usually made between birthright and “convinced” (converted) Friends.

Howard’s mother Ruthanna Brown was a Hicksite Friend whose family suffered a fall in fortune when her father, a prosperous businessman named Jeremiah Brown, made a poor investment and lost all his property. When Edward Brinton met Ruthanna at one of the gatherings of Hicksite and Orthodox Friends that took place at this time, she was an “impecunious teacher at the Hicksite Friends School in West Chester.”

Even though Howard’s mother was Hicksite and his father Orthodox, the tensions that had once characterized these two Quaker factions had largely subsided. As Howard points out, “The Hicksite and Orthodox meetings had little to do with each other religiously, but they were united through the Home Cluster” a kind of club or “social society which met monthly with a literary program.” Howard noted that “some marriages of Hicksite and Orthodox took place as a result of these gatherings, including that of my parents.”

Although Howard’s parents were married in the manner of Friends in the presence of the Mayor of Philadelphia, and their marriage certificate was worded like any other Quaker marriage certificate, some Orthodox Friends considered young Howard to be a Hicksite (and hence not a “true” Quaker). Others argued that the somewhat isolated Hicksite group to which his mother belonged was never actually “disowned” by the Orthodox Yearly Meeting, so that Howard could still be considered a birthright Friend. Eventually both Howard and his mother were received into the Orthodox meeting.

These arcane distinctions did not prevent Howard’s father from going into the farm equipment business with a prominent Hicksite named Herbert Worth. “Together they arranged many joint undertakings of the two meetings,” wrote Howard, “including such occasions as picnics on the Brandywine and boat trips on the Delaware.”

Quakers of different theological persuasions were not only able to work together, they were also able to laugh about their differences. As Howard recalled, “On one occasion my father went to a wealthy Hicksite, Philip Sharpless, to beg money for the new Y.M.C.A., which was to be open only to members of evangelical churches. They became so bogged down in a theological argument that the interview ended in a laugh and a contribution.”

Given this “mixed” background, it is not surprising that Howard eventually felt drawn to help heal the divisions that had separated Hicksite and Orthodox Friends since 1827. As he recalled later, “At the turn of this century Friends had neither sufficient religious insight nor enough humility to create a genuine synthesis. The Hicksites claimed that the separation was caused by a difference of opinion on church government. The Orthodox held that the difference was caused by a lack of agreement in theology. We young people in the Orthodox meeting in West Chester in the eighteen nineties had a vague idea that the Orthodox believed in the divinity of Christ while the Hicksite did not, but we were not at all clear what the word ‘divinity’ might mean.” It was not until 1955 that the Hicksites and Orthodox branches of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting united.

The Brintons had four children three boys (Howard, George, Edward) and a girl (Marguerite) who arrived when Howard was twelve (he says that his cousin Nan “served as a sister until then”). The Brinton household was “well supplied with pets, including rabbits and crows as well as cats, dog, and chickens.” Edward Brinton’s business ventures thrived – he started a successful creamery and later opened a farm equipment warehouse and the family was well off enough to have a servant, an attractive Irish girl whom the children called “Aunt Annie.”

A family crisis occurred when Edward Brinton showed symptoms of tuberculosis. Edward’s brother Ralph (Nan’s father) had died of TB, so the matter was considered quite serious. The doctor recommended that Edward go to New Mexico for a cure. It was at this time that Herbert Worth became Edward’s business partner. He took care of the warehouse while Edward took time off to regain his health. Edward left his three sons to the care of his wife and ended up spending a year in New Mexico. There he enjoyed the high desert landscape, rode on horseback and had some interesting adventures that he reported in letters to his family. One of his most memorable experiences was visiting the Indians call Penitentes who tortured themselves and caused one of their members to hang on the cross in the imitation of Christ. By hiding his camera under his coat, Edward photographed this ritual, even though taking pictures was forbidden.

The firm of Brinton and Worth sold carriages and agricultural equipment from a large warehouse. Howard and his brothers often played there, and it made such an impression that at age ten he wrote one of his first poems, called “Pop’s Warehouse.” Howard learned how to ride a horse and also how to harness a horse to a carriage, a “very complicated operation.”

Howard prided himself on the practical skills that he learned from his father. “When I reflected on the whole course of my education from its beginning to my doctoral dissertation,” wrote Howard, “I consider the most important part of it to be the time when I received a complete set of carpenter’s tools from my father. I had a shop in our attic where I spent several hours each day. I made and repaired almost everything that was make-able or repairable.”

Howard’s skills as a handyman and carpenter proved extremely useful when he eventually became the director of Pendle Hill. There he not only taught courses, wrote books, advised students, planned curriculum, and did administrative work, he also did plumbing and repairs. Howard proved similarly adept at constructing lab equipment when he taught physics at Earlham College.

According to Howard, his first religion was “nature worship.” He experienced “a kind of religious ecstasy” in exploring the meandering tributaries and streams of West Chester. “Of all the streams, the Brandywine received the most reverence.” At Haverford College, he wrote a rather flowery essay celebrating the river that had been to him “a friend and companion.” In the spirit of Wordsworth and Coleridge, he bemoaned the “cold hand of science” that caused him to “wander, wonderless, amid the great mysteries of nature.”

Howard is probably referring to his decision to major in mathematics and physics, but he never really lost his love for the natural world. When he eventually married and started a family of his own, they were known for their numerous pet animals, including rabbits that Howard loved to have nearby, especially when writing. One of his Howard’s deeply felt concerns in his final years at Pendle Hill was that Highway 476 (known locally as the “Blue Route”) would pave over nearby Crum Creek.

Howard compares this early stage of his life to that of the romantic child described in Wordsworth’s “Ode: Intimations of Immortality” (which Howard had memorized along with numerous other poems). Howard wrote: “I was Nature’s priest’ and attended by the vision splendid,’ but it was many years before it faded into the light of common day.’ I remembered clearly the vivid colors in nature pervaded by a kind of supernatural glow.”

Howard apparently inherited his love of poetry from his grandmother, Deborah Garrett Brinton. She was a “very strict Quaker, who wore a plain bonnet and shawl” and sometimes took Howard to Meeting in West Chester. She also read him verses out of a book called Original Poems. As a child, Howard once asked: “Why does Grandmother read such sad poetry?” Later, however, Howard himself would write “sad poetry” as an outlet for feelings that he could not otherwise express.

Howard’s father was an outgoing and friendly man who loved to arrange picnics and other social events for both Hicksite and Orthodox Friends. One of these monthly events, called the Home Cluster, included a literary program with something called “spice,” which entailed making fun of various members. “Father was a very successful ‘spice’ writer,” recalled Howard, who carried on this tradition with Log Nights at Pendle Hill.

Howard also showed an early interest in science. When he visited his Grandmother, he “spent most of the time reading and illustrating a book about astronomy.” Howard also recalled that Charles Chester, “a weighty [i.e. influential and well- respected] Quaker farmer who was clerk of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,” would discuss scientific topics with the boys “the constellations in the sky and the minerals in the earth” and once he showed them “an Indian arrowhead he found in his field.”

Another important aspect of Howard’s development was his religious upbringing. He declares the Quaker faith “the most mature in existence” and it clearly made a profound impression on his mind, but many of his childhood memories of Quaker meeting for worship are tinged with humor. He describes several melodious Quaker preachers on the facing bench who would chant in the old Quaker style, a “medley of Scripture texts set to the Gregorian chant.” (As liberalism took hold in the first decades of the 20th century, this style of singsong preaching would largely disappear among Friends.)

Howard also recalled those who gave rather odd, quaint messages, such as that of a farmer who stood up and intoned: “Dear Friends, I would advise you to keep sheep. Their wool is wearable, the flesh is eatable, and even their horns are good for making buttons.’ This was sung in the usual chant.”

Another memorable visiting Friend turned to a member of meeting and said, “Thou art a speckled bird” (an allusion to Jeremiah 12: 9).

“As he went on, his sermon became more peculiar and a Friend stood up beside him and asked him to discontinue his remarks immediately,” recalled Howard. “The speaker left the room, went downstairs, and preached up through the hot air register so he could still be heard.”

Howard observed that most meetings were “without any unusual happenings.” He attended meeting for worship twice a week (once on First Day and once in midweek at school) and found them generally “inspiring.”

“It might seem that the silent worship is too mature for a young boy,” observed Howard, “but I did not find it to be the case. The sermons were very simple. There was no theology or social problems; only a simple appeal to follow the inward light wherever it might lead. It was accordingly an appeal to feeling and not to the intellect.”

Another important influence on Howard’s upbringing was the West Chester Friends School, which, he later recalled, “influenced [him] more than any other school of the many that [he] attended.”

All his life Howard was able to quote from memory a poem about the school written when he was a little boy a poem he was exceedingly proud of when he first wrote it:

In West Chester down on Church Street Is the school to
which I go.
It isn’t much for beauty And it isn’t much for show.
But I tell you it’s a dandy. It’s the place to learn the rule.
And generally people call it Church Street Friends
School.

In a letter he wrote at Mills College in 1932, Howard reminisced about the importance of this school and expressed the wish that his own children could have the benefit of such an education:


“My most important habits, both good and bad, were formed within its walls. There are four young and tender Brintons in this house, all eager to learn, and their education in this un-Quakerly land presents a real problem. I would, if I could, conjure up out of the past that red brick building, even though it is not an architectural marvel, and those boys and girls of all kinds who were in it, and more important than anything else I would have Teacher Abbie, Teacher Julia, and Teacher Elizabeth teach it, and then I would send my children to this school rather than to any other that I know.”

Much of Howard’s childhood was spent not in the school or meetinghouse, but in the outdoors. He reminisces at length about the times that he and his “gang” of friends spent trekking about the “Barren Woods” and following various streams. They made tree-houses, built dams, cooked dinners outdoors, caught frogs and fish and butterflies. Howard confesses that he later went out to shoot rabbits and concludes, “I always have been very glad that I did not hit any.”

One of his most memorable activities was helping to form a society of boys called the Boys’ Sporting League.


“We made for it a very elaborate constitution which was never followed,” he recalled. The League required an oath of membership, which all the boys were eager to take except for one who presumably adhered to the Quaker testimony against oath taking. The League meant so much to Howard that he kept the minutes of this quaint, quasi-Quaker society.
“The society met at the home of Joseph Cope. There being no business on hand, the society adjourned to play with the turtles and give them a bath. Signed: George Comfort, Secretary.”

Howard includes several more pages of minutes, which seem like a Lilliputian version of those kept by adult Quaker Meetings. . . .

Camping and hiking on the banks of the Brandywine was “one of the most important undertakings” of Howard’s childhood. Howard and a group of friends once went on a weeklong walking tour about 100 miles to the Susquehanna River and back. Another time Howard and his friends walked from Harper’s Ferry down the Shenandoah Valley to the Luray Caverns a trip of around 100 miles. These excursions meant so much to Howard and company that they took detailed notes, which Howard preserved and included in his Autobiography.

Reading Howard’s recollections of his childhood, it is easy to see why he placed so much emphasis on “organic community” in his later life. Howard grew up in a close-knit Quaker community with ties of friendship and family that were interwoven with a love of nature and a sense of God’s presence in everyday affairs. From this community he learned to be both practical and mystical. He acquired a love of science as well as of poetry. He also learned to appreciate those of different religious background – an important trait since he ended up working for nearly every branch of Quakerism, including the Orthodox, Hicksite, Gurneyite, Wilburite/Conservative, “pastoral” (i.e. meetings led by paid pastors, as in conventional Christian churches) and “unprogrammed” (worship without prearranged liturgy, as were the early Friends’ meetings).

Dreamy, introspective, and highly intelligent, Howard was still quite immature when he left “Brinton Country” at age sixteen and entered the turbulent world of Haverford College. Here his faith would be deepened by new discoveries in science and philosophy, and he would find a mentor in one of modern Quakerism’s greatest thinkers and writers, Rufus Jones.

Meanwhile, three thousand miles away, Anna Shipley Cox, the grand daughter of one of Quakerism’s most controversial figures, was growing up in a very different Quaker environment the world of independent Western Friends.

Growing Up a Western Quaker: Anna Shipley Cox

Like Howard, Anna’s life was profoundly influenced by her forebears, particularly her grandparents, Joel Bean (1825-1914) and his wife Hannah Elliot Shipley Bean (1830-1909). When Anna and Howard retired to Matsudo (their cottage at Pendle Hill, whose name means “Pine Door” in Japanese), Anna placed a painting of Grandmother Bean, in her Quaker cap and kerchief, in a prominent place.

Howard deeply admired the Beans. In recounting the life of this important Quaker couple, he noted that both were equally “gifted and consecrated” ministers:


“[Joel Bean] was born of Quaker parents in 1825 in New Hampshire and died in Hawaii in 1914. In 1859 he married, in Philadelphia, Hannah E. Shipley, sister of Samuel R. Shipley, who founded the Provident Life and Trust Company, and daughter of Thomas Shipley, a well known abolitionist. She was as gifted and consecrated as he and, like him, a highly acceptable minister. Under a sense of Divine Guidance they went to Hawaii in 1861, where they traveled for nine months in the ministry. Ten years later, they traveled extensively with a similar concern in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and in 1882 Joel Bean accompanied Isaac Sharp in his visits to American meetings.”

Joel and Hannah were what Quakers called “weighty” or “public” Friends, highly respected both in the United States and in England. During their stay in England they became friends with the leading lights of British Quakerism, such as Bevan Braithwaite, Isaac Sharp, and others, who visited them in Iowa and kept up a lifelong correspondence. Though the Beans were conservative in their outward behavior and lived like the “Quaker of the Olden Time,” according to Augustus Murray, they were open to the intellectual currents of their era – evolution, “Higher Criticism” of the Bible, and the latest scientific discoveries.
Like the Brintons, the Beans were a two-career couple. Hannah was a school teacher. Joel taught school and later became vice president of a bank. Both served as clerks of Iowa Yearly Meeting.

Their lives changed dramatically when they returned from England in 1877. The revival movement which was spreading like wildfire throughout the West reached Iowa and radically transformed Iowa Yearly Meeting. “The Revival spread,” wrote Bean. “As it gained power it became intolerant of dissent. Opposition was suppressed and resistance silenced. It was thus that unity was claimed. West Branch was the main point of attack and Revival aggression.They regarded themselves advanced to an experience and knowledge of truth to which no others had attained. Elders of sound judgment and discernment, were powerless to stem the stem the tide. Few could know what we passed through in that, and a few subsequent years, of desertion of friends, of charges of unsoundness, and of heresy.”

The Beans did their best to reconcile the differences among Friends, but their efforts were in vain. Iowa Yearly Meeting split into evangelical and Conservative branches.

“The strain wore me down,” wrote Joel, “and preyed upon my health.” The Beans decided to “remove in 1883 to California and to retire if possible from the conflict.” In San Jose, the Beans formed a worship group which met without a pastor. Because California Yearly Meeting hadn’t yet been formed, the Beans asked for recognition as a monthly meeting from Honey Creek Quarterly Meeting in Iowa, but were refused, even though the Friends Church in San Jose was faltering and the Beans’ meeting was flourishing with an attendance of over forty, including many well-known and respected Friends.

In 1885 the Beans built a meetinghouse and in 1889 formed a non-profit organization called the College Park Association of Friends, independent of any quarterly or yearly meeting. Finally, in 1893, Iowa Yearly Meeting withdrew its recognition of Joel as a recorded minister after he failed to answer doctrinal questions “soundly.” In 1898, the entire Bean family (including Anna), along with other San Jose Friends, was removed from membership by New Providence Monthly Meeting in Iowa. This removal stirred international controversy among Friends.

In 1884, a year after the Beans moved to San Jose, Charles Cox, a mathematics instructor who graduated from Haverford College, moved to California to marry their daughter Lydia. He had met her while he was principal of the Friends Academy at Le Grande, Iowa. (Lydia taught there after graduating from Penn College.) Charles was a professor of mathematics at the College of the Pacific from 1886-1891, and then was a member of the mathematics department at Stanford University from 1891-1900. Charles then left academia and turned to selling insurance through the Provident Life and Trust Company of Philadelphia. He was a deeply committed Quaker. For fourteen years he served as president of the College Park Association, which was founded by his father-in-law.

Anna was born in 1887 in San Jose, California, to the Beans’ daughter Lydia and her husband Charles Cox. Anna grew up next door to her famous grandparents and visited them often. Traveling Friends frequently came to her grandparent’s home and shared stories of their travels to exotic places. An English Friend named Isaac Sharp was one of Anna’s favorites: he told her about going to Japan to a house where the walls were paper-thin and noticing little holes in the wall where “black eyes” peered through to see what the Englishman had underneath his clothes when he went to bed. He also told Anna about a Norwegian Friend who trained his parrot to say: “Dear Isaac Sharp’s again in Norway.”

During the summer the Beans went on vacation to their cottage in Pacific Grove, not far from Monterey. There the Chautauqua Assembly pitched its tents and speakers held forth on a variety of inspiring and stimulating topics. (Chautaquas were an educational movement popular in the late 19th and early 20th century, with speakers, preachers, teachers, musicians and various forms of entertainment for the whole family.) Children played in the grove and on the seashore. The Beans held meetings for worship at the beach, in which little Anna no doubt took part. One participant recalled what it was like: “Imagine the outward setting of the meeting, the semicircular beach, the protecting blue cliffs, the glorious blue sky, the softly breaking waves, the peaceful silence. Presently the sweet voice of Hannah Bean broke the silence with the words of prayer: ‘Beside thy sea, O God, we turn to the light of Thy presence like that of the Master on the shores of Galilee.’”

The Beans’ cottage at Pacific Grove became a place for family holidays where “grand children learned the possibilities of sand and rocks and sea.” Birthdays, honeymoons and other celebrations took place there. (Howard and Anna spent time in Pacific Grove on their honeymoon.) There were family picnics in the grove and poetry readings at “Organ Rock.” This scenic place was where little Anna spent many of the happiest times in her childhood.

She also enjoyed attending meeting for worship at San Jose Meeting, which she later called her favorite meeting, no doubt because it was thriving and lively. As a British Friend observed, “The Friends’ Meeting in San Jose, attended by Joel Bean, contains many Friends known even in this country – the family of Samuel Brun and Anna Valley, from Nimes; Augustine Taber and his family (he is a brother to Susan T. Thomas recently in England; Elizabeth Shelley, and some of the Professors of the neighbouring Stanford University. They have an ordinary attendance of about forty, and are growing.”

The Beans were conservative in their dress and behavior, but open to new ideas. They didn’t drink, smoke, dance or go to plays, but Joel published dozens of poems in Quaker publications and was very fond of the Quaker poet John Greenleaf Whittier. Hannah did not wear any jewelry, not even a wedding ring, but she wore a lovely white silk bonnet when she was being courted by Joel. (Anna wore a wedding ring, but Howard never would – it seemed un-Quakerly to him.) Despite the Quaker testimony against play acting, Joel took Anna to see her first play, Antigone, in the original Greek, when she was only ten years old.
“The main figure was a revered minister in the Society of Friends,” recalled Anna, “so grandfather thought he’d take a chance on it, and he got me interested in Greek for the rest of my life. I’d never seen a play before, and it was a great experience.”

Anna also learned about “traveling in the ministry” through her grandparents. Having met Hawaiian kings as well as the British Quaker aristocracy, the Beans had many tales to tell of their far-flung and sometimes perilous travels.
“Grandfather went out to the Hawaiian islands because he wanted to see what the New England missionary enterprise there meant for Friends,” recalled Anna.


“After staying there a year he decided that it wasn’t our way and he came back. The king tried to persuade him to stay and offered him a school, and [even] offered him a strip of land from the mountain top to the sea. It came right down through what is now the business district of Honolulu. If Grandfather stayed, we might have been in the fix of those missionary children it tells about in [James Michener’s novel] Hawaii – where you see how the big plantations and the monetary interests are in the same names as grandfather’s friends, the first generation of missionaries. . .”

Voyaging across the Pacific could be very risky in those days, particularly for parents with infants. Recalled Anna: “When Grandfather and Grandmother went to Hawaii in 1862, they took my mother who was a little baby. Someone had the idea of giving Grandmother a tin box it was the size of a breadbox, and we used it as a cake box. The label said it could be used for a bathtub for the baby on the boat, and if she died at sea to bury her. That was a relic of my grandmother’s early explorations.”

Like Howard, Anna spent her early years in a secure, close-knit, semi-rural Quaker community that adhered to traditional ways: “[Anna’s parents] Charles and Lydia Bean Cox lived in College Park, a suburb of San Jose, California, and here their two daughters grew up in a redwood shingled house on a large corner lot. The streets, unpaved and without sidewalks, were lined with beautiful poplar trees. Yellow leaves raked into heaps in the autumn made lovely bonfires. There were few homes near them. But the little Friends’ meeting house was less than two blocks down the street. Here Anna and her younger sister, Catharine, learned to sit quietly, which they felt deeply and pondered.”

Anna described her birthplace as a “transplanted village of mostly New Englanders who lived like [their] forebears in a Quaker community where everybody did everything together, and looked out for each other.”
Since both their parents were school teachers, the Cox girls received their elementary education at home. They attended a local intermediate school.
In her declining years Anna observed that her early training helped her in her work at Pendle Hill.

“I had a good experience in my childhood,” she recalled. “[I was] initiated into things I was going to have to do afterwards in my life, and one was begging money from people. I learned to write not by the copy book but by writing letters to the older Friends to help in the autumn with the California Indians, and in the spring in helping on the Friends School in Ramallah in Palestine.”

An eager and able student, Anna was sent to Westtown, a co-ed prep school located in West Chester, Howard’s hometown. To enter Westtown at that time, students were required to be members of an officially recognized meeting. Since the San Jose meeting her grandfather started was unaffiliated and therefore unrecognized, Anna applied at age twelve for membership in Twelfth Street meeting in Philadelphia. (She remained a member of that meeting for the rest of her life.) At Westtown she encountered excellent teachers and memorized her Latin grammar, thanks to Hannah Pennell, a woman whose toughness Anna remembered with fondness: “She was the best drill master I ever had.”

Discipline and hard work were key to Anna’s academic success as well as a mark of her character. And her diligence paid off. In 1906, she was admitted to Stanford University. During the spring of her freshman year the great San Francisco earthquake shook San Jose and Northern California. According to her sister, Anna was unfazed: “It was characteristic that Anna went off on her bicycle about two hours after the quake to catch her usual train to Palo Alto. Riding with her friends to the University, she and they were shocked by the devastation: deep cracks in the stone walls, and many of the recently constructed buildings reduced to rock heaps. The front walls of the church and the tall entrance tower lay shattered on the ground.”

Classes at Stanford were cancelled for the rest of that semester, but resumed in the fall.

Anna majored in Classics and had the opportunity to study with the famous Quaker Classicist Augustus Taber Murray who would in 1928 take a leave of absence to become the religious advisor of America’s first Quaker president, Herbert Hoover.

Anna completed her four years at Stanford with honors and went on to complete her doctorate in Classics in 1917 at age thirty – no mean achievement, especially for a woman. (Howard did not complete his doctorate until he was over forty.)

Anna’s grandmother did not live to see her beloved granddaughter graduate. Hannah Bean died in San Jose on January 31, 1909, at age 78, after a “slight indisposition” and “without a moment’s suffering.” According to her daughter Catharine, “the sad news went like a flame over San Jose and every one had a word of love; the wires carried it east and west and kindred and friends arose to call her blessed.’”

Not long after Hannah’s death, Joel moved to Hawaii to be with Catharine and her family. There he spent his final years enjoying a much deserved rest. In 1914 he passed away peacefully at age 89 in a tropical paradise that most New Englanders only dream about.

Like her grandparents, Anna loved traveling to exotic places.

“It runs in families, this taste for travel,” Anna once observed. “Friends have a great propensity for going about doing good, especially when doing good involves going about.”

During her summer vacations, Anna often traveled abroad with her legendary Aunt Catharine Shipley, also known as Aunt Kate. The colorful and eccentric Quaker matriarch came from a wealthy Philadelphia family and did pretty much as she pleased.

“It was Aunt Kate who got me over being excessively timid,” Anna confided to Eleanor Price Mather, who could not imagine Anna ever being fearful. “At Westtown, I was so timid I could hardly brace up to anything,” Anna insisted. “It was Aunt Kate and her trips that cured me. I carried luggage and bought tickets, and waited on Aunt Kate and Cousin Sue Shipley. Once in Switzerland a hotel manager said to them, ‘These are your rooms. The maid can go downstairs.’ ‘There is no maid,’ said Aunt Kate frostily.”

Copyright © by Anthony Manousos.
Reprinted by permission.

<< Contents

Howard and Anna Brinton: Anthony Manousos: 9781937768102: Amazon.com: Books



Howard and Anna Brinton: Anthony Manousos: 9781937768102: Amazon.com: Books
A Beautiful Portrait of a Powerful Quaker Couple
ByJim F. Wilsonon August 19, 2015
Format: Paperback

This is a beautifully written biography of a Quaker couple whose powerful presence pervasively influenced the Quaker community for much of the 20th century. Their lasting influence can be found in organizations and essays and through their life example as well. They were the catalysts for the founding of the Pacific Yearly Meeting on the West Coast, and for the flourishing of Pendle Hill (a Quaker community devoted to study and practice) on the East Coast.

Writing a biography of a couple is not easy. The biographer has two foci and if not handled well it can become somewhat confusing. Manousos strikes just the right balance. It helps that Manousos is writing about a married couple so that their lives overlap. I was impressed that Manousos was able to balance their lives so that the reader gets a good portrait of Howard and Anna as individuals, and Howard and Anna as a couple. Manousos does this by devoting some chapters to Howard, some chapters to Anna, and other chapters, or sections of chapters, about their life as a married couple. Taken together the reader gets a multi-faceted portrait of these two powerful personalities and their interactions.

Reading this book also gives us insight into the struggles and schisms that pervaded the Quaker community during the period covered. The Brinton’s knew, and worked with, Quakers of different persuasions, while retaining a strong commitment to their own understanding. The Brinton’s were a significant force in the emerging Liberal Quaker perspective and their legacy is strongest among those who align themselves with that tradition (that would be the ‘Independent’ Yearly Meetings, such as the Pacific Yearly Meeting, and more broadly those affiliated with Friends General Conference).

If there is a weakness in the book, I would say it is in the way that Evangelical Quakers are characterized. The book frequently uses the term ‘fundamentalist’ to describe the Evangelical Quaker tradition. The term is being used loosely and, I think, somewhat inaccurately. Most Evangelicals are not fundamentalists. Fundamentalism is a particular tradition or perspective in Conservative Christianity with specific doctrines and formulations that do not necessarily map onto the Evangelical tradition. To be fair to the author, it appears that the Brintons used the term in this loose, and I would argue misleading, way; so Manousos is reflecting that usage. Still, I think it would have been helpful to point out that distinction. This, however, is a minor point and does not undermine the efficacy of the biography.

For those who, like me, are Liberal Quakers, this book will open a significant chapter of that history. For those who are Quakers of other persuasions, this book has many thoughtful insights regarding the Quaker tradition and its overall place in Christianity and World Religions. And if you want to be inspired by a couple that embodied the Quaker Spirit in their lives, their marriage, and their work, this book is highly recommended.