On the History of Japanese Philological Studies: Shimizu Hamaomi’s Introduction to Kara Monogatari (1809)
Old Japanese manuscripts do not always contain the name of the author and the date of creation of the text, so the first task for the researcher is to understand when a particular text could have been written. Kara Monogatari Teiyō is a short study that precedes the text of the 1809 publication o...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Russian |
| Published: |
Nauka
2021-01-01
|
| Series: | Ежегодник Япония |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.yearbookjapan.ru/images/book/2020/japan_2020_299-323.pdf |
| Summary: | Old Japanese manuscripts do not always contain the name of the
author and the date of creation of the text, so the first task for the researcher is
to understand when a particular text could have been written. Kara Monogatari
Teiyō is a short study that precedes the text of the 1809 publication of Kara
Monogatari, and it was the first attempt to analyze the text. Kara Monogatari consists of 27 separate stories written in the literary Japanese language of the
Heian period. All stories tell about China, and each episode includes one or more
waka poems.
The author of the Introduction, a kokugakusha scholar Shimizu Hamaomi
(1776–1824), elaborates on the problem of dating the text. Analyzing the style and
language of Kara Monogatari, he comes to the conclusion that the text was written
around the time when Minamoto no Toshiyori (1055–1129), Saigyō (1118–1190),
and Teika (1162–1241) wrote their prose and poetry. Shimizu finds lines from a
poem by Fujiwara no Akisuke (1090–1155) cited in the text, which allows him to
determine the lower time limit of the creation of the work. He indicates the upper
time limit comparing the Kara Monogatari with the poetic anthology Kankonji
Wakashū, and comes to the general conclusion that the text of Kara Monogatari
dates back to the end of the Heian period.
The author of the Introduction also lists Chinese sources of individual stories;
writes about the fact that two stories do not have Chinese sources; compares the
content of Kara Monogatari and Kankoji Wakashū; discusses the word tachibana
in Japanese poetry; explains the difference between Kara Monogatari and Mōgyū
Waka. Most of the issues raised by Shimizu Hamaomi are also discussed in modern
research on Kara Monogatari. As for the text dating, not all Shimizu Hamaomi’s
arguments have been adopted by modern philologists. The publication provides
translations of the Introduction by Shimizu Hamaomi and examines its main
provisions. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2687-1432 2687-1440 |