彫刻史における平安後期は、仏師定朝が新たな様式を確立するとともに、定朝の仏像を理想とし、それに倣ったいわゆる「定朝様」の仏像が盛んに造像された時代である。その意味で、定朝様の仏像とは、平安後期の仏像の典型とも位置づけられるが、一口に定朝様と言っても、時代や仏師系統などによって特に細部においては違いが認められる。そうした変化を改めて仔細に検証することで、時に形骸化の意味も込められる定朝様の仏像について新たな視点から積極的な再評価を図り、ひいては平安後期の彫刻史の展開を改めて跡付けていきたいと考える。
当該期の研究を困難にしている要因として、特に十一世紀半ばから十二世紀にかけての作者名等が判明する基準作の不足が挙げられるが、定朝とその弟子による工房作として確実な平等院鳳凰堂の群像が遺存しており、またその弟子筋による作例が鳳凰堂像以降各時期に点在している。
本研究では、鳳凰堂群像を中心に、これまで先行研究でなされてきた作風、形式、その他特徴から分類、整理することに加え、作者系統の特徴が現れやすいとされる服制形式の面からも検討を行った。その結果、鳳凰堂群像には平安後期の菩薩形に典型となっていく要素が服制や装身具に確かに多く認められた一方で、特に襞の数など服制の表現方法については、平安後期の典型とは全く同じものが無いことが新たに確認された。
以上の知見は翻って、定朝以後の仏師が定朝様の範囲内で必要に応じて変化を加えたという事実を示すが、それがいつ、どのように、なぜ行われたかが今後の問題となってくる。定朝その人から直接指導を受けた第二、三世代による仏像と、定朝を直接知らないそれ以降の世代による仏像では、同じ定朝様の仏像でも当然違いがあるだろう。「定朝様」を細分化することで、平安後期の仏像の展開がこれまで以上に具体的に見えてくる可能性がある。今後は今回調査が及ばなかった定朝第二、三世代の仏師による作例を中心に調査を重ね、追考を加えていきたい。
The late Heian period in the history of sculpture was a time when Buddhist sculptor Jocho established a new style, and so-called "Jocho-style" Buddhist statues were actively created based on and following Jocho's ideals. In this sense, the Jocho-style Buddhist statues can be regarded as typical of the Buddhist statues of the late Heian period, but even within the term "Jocho-style", slight variations can be recognized depending on the period and lineage of the Buddhist sculptor. By carefully examining these variations once again, I would like to actively reevaluate from a new perspective the Buddhist sculptures of the Jocho-style, which are sometimes considered a formalization, and by extension, review the development of the history of sculpture in the late Heian period.
One of the factors that make research on this period difficult is the lack of standard works, especially from the mid-11th century to the 12th century, for which the names of authors and other details are known. However, there is a group of Byodo-in Hoo-do statues that are certain to have been made by Jocho and his pupils, in their workshops, and examples of their pupils' work are scattered throughout the period after the Hoo-do statues.
In this study, in addition to classifying and organizing the Hoo-do statues based on style, form, and other characteristics, which have been discussed in previous studies, I also examined them from the aspect of clothing style. As a result, it was confirmed that many elements typical of the form of bodhisattvas of the late Heian period were found in the clothing and accessories of the Hoo-do statues, as has been pointed out previously. In addition, it was newly confirmed that there is nothing similar to the typical bodhisattva forms of the late Heian period, especially in the number of folds and the way the clothing is expressed.
The above findings, in turn, point to the fact that Buddhist sculptor after the Jocho made changes, but the question becomes how, when, and why these changes were made. There would naturally be a difference between Buddhist statues made by the second or third generation of pupils who received direct instruction from Jocho and those made by later generations of pupils who did not know Jocho directly, even if they are the same statues of the same Jocho-style. By subdividing the "Jocho-style", it is possible that the development of Buddhist statuary in the late Heian period will become more concrete than ever before. I would like to conduct further research and add further considerations.