KKS 74: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
;old companion | ;old companion | ||
:The exact meaning of ''furusato hito'' is uncertain. Everyone agrees it refers to Henjō, but why this term in particular is used depends on the overall interpretation of the poem. | :The exact meaning of ''furusato hito'' is uncertain. Everyone agrees it refers to Henjō, but why this term in particular is used depends on the overall interpretation of the poem. Scholars have variously placed Koretaka at Urin'in Temple or the Onomiya (where he lived after taking holy orders). Regardless, the interpretation that almost everyone takes is that the ''furusato'' is the capital, and it refers to when Koretaka and Henjō were friends before Koretaka took holy orders. Katagiri rejects this idea, noting that Kyoto (Heian) is typically not referred to in this way -- instead Katagiri explains that Henjō and Koretaka both used to live in the place where Koretaka currently is (wherever that might be). | ||
Other sources: | Other sources: | ||
Revision as of 19:53, 30 August 2026
Text
僧正遍昭によみて送りける
Composed and sent to Bishop Henjō
惟喬親王
桜花散らば散らなん散らずとて故郷人のきても見なくに
|
sakurabana |
Cherry blossoms |
Notes
- old companion
- The exact meaning of furusato hito is uncertain. Everyone agrees it refers to Henjō, but why this term in particular is used depends on the overall interpretation of the poem. Scholars have variously placed Koretaka at Urin'in Temple or the Onomiya (where he lived after taking holy orders). Regardless, the interpretation that almost everyone takes is that the furusato is the capital, and it refers to when Koretaka and Henjō were friends before Koretaka took holy orders. Katagiri rejects this idea, noting that Kyoto (Heian) is typically not referred to in this way -- instead Katagiri explains that Henjō and Koretaka both used to live in the place where Koretaka currently is (wherever that might be).
Other sources:
Analysis
The previous poem lamented the falling of the flowers, while this poem takes a resigned attitude towards their inevitable scattering.
Fujiwara no Shunzei (Korai futeishō) made a cryptic comment about the poem, questioning the sugata (expression) of the poem. Keichū (Yozaishō) felt that since Shunzei selected this as a good poem the comment must be a compliment, and his reading was "How could the Prince have come up with such a good poem in this early age of poetry?" Other scholars have read Shunzei as questioning the appropriateness of the bitter or accusatory tone of the poem.
The latter comment depends on how the poem is read. It does seem to express a certain level of bitterness, and the repetition of chiru (fall/scatter) three times emphasizes this feeling. That being said, it is possible that the bitterness is simply a poetic device and that the poem is really just inviting Henjō to see the blossoms. This is the interpretation of Keichū and Takeoka.
Tō no Tsuneyori (Ryōdō kikigaki)'s interpretation was that Henjō was the only person that could truly understand the blossoms, and so if he was not coming, there was no purpose. He does not specify whether the prince is truly upset with Henjō or not, but the idea that it actually shows anger towards Henjō for not visiting (Norinaga, Kaneko) or that it shows deep bitterness and resignation (Shinshaku, Takeoka) seems to be the dominant view.
