Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Gaye Rowley
(Waseda University)
Send message to Convenor
- Stream:
- Pre-modern Literature
- Location:
- Torre B, Piso 1, Auditório 1
- Sessions:
- Thursday 31 August, -
Time zone: Europe/Lisbon
Short Abstract:
This panel focuses on unexplored aspects of the Edo afterlife of Murasaki Shikibu's oeuvre. Taking translation, broadly conceived, as their locus point, the panelists will explore commentary, pictorialization, and vernacularization in the reception of Genji monogatari and Murasaki Shikibu nikki.
Long Abstract:
This panel will focus on certain unexplored aspects of the Edo-period afterlife of Murasaki Shikibu's oeuvre. Niimi Akihiko will examine the pictorial translation of Genji monogatari by the celebrated ukiyo-e artist, Okumura Masanobu, which accompanied his vernacular translation of the first eight chapters of Genji, published 1707-1710. Recent scholarship has begun to explore the vernacular translations of Genji that appeared during the Edo period, however little has as yet been done on the illustrations that were published with these works. Niimi's presentation is a step towards remedying this deficit. The second speaker will be Rebekah Clements, who will present on Ban Kōkei's eighteenth-century attempts to create a national prose for Japan by means of translation from classical Japanese into the vernacular. Clements will examine Kōkei's thought and methodology, drawing upon the examples of translation contained in his Utsushibumi warawa no satoshi (1794), which include a translated section of Genji monogatari. Lastly, Ogawa Yōko will present on Kokugakusha interpretations of Murasaki Shikibu nikki, in particular, Murasaki Shikibu nikki shaku (1834) by Shimizu Noriaki of the Owari-Tokugawa domain. This work was held in high regard and reprinted through the Showa era. Of particular note is Noriaki's inclusion of numerous translated passages, and the fact that he quotes from a wide variety of works. Ogawa will examine Noriaki's references to the late twelfth-century tale, Torikayabaya, which have thus far been overlooked when studying his commentary.
Accepted papers:
Session 1 Thursday 31 August, 2017, -Paper short abstract:
In my presentation I shall look first at the distinctive features of the vernacular versions of Genji by "Baiō," the ukiyoe artist Okumura Masanobu (1686-1784), before moving on to consider the originality of Masanobu's illustrations and their relationship to the text.
Paper long abstract:
In the seventeenth century, complete texts of The Tale of Genji were published in E-iri Genji monogatari (1650), Shusho Genji monogatari (1673), and Kogetsushō (1673). At about the same time, digests of Genji, such as Genji kokagami (1657), Jūjō Genji (1661), and Osana Genji (1665), were published in illustrated form. Knowledge of Genji and its iconography was beginning to spread more widely, and by the eighteenth century, vernacular translations and rewritings of Genji began to be produced in great numbers. These illustrated translations and rewritings were the culmination of the process by which The Tale of Genji came to be regarded as a "classic" of the early modern era, and also prepared the way for the fusion of text and image in Nise murasaki inaka genji (1829-42), the quintessential Tale of Genji of its time.
The first vernacular translation of Genji to be published was Miyako no Nishiki's Fūryū Genji monogatari (1703). Thereafter, "Baiō" (the pen name of the ukiyo-e artist Okumura Masanobu, 1686-1784) published four vernacular translations of chapters of Genji: Wakakusa Genji monogatari (1707), Hinazuru Genji monogatari (1708), Kōhaku Genji monogatari (1709), and Zokuge Genji monogatari (1710). As illustrator of his own versions of Genji, Okumura Masanobu made many original contributions to the ukiyo-e genre, which are clearly to be seen in his illustrations for his vernacular versions of Genji. In my presentation I shall look first at the distinctive features of these vernacular versions of Genji, before moving on to consider the originality of Masanobu's illustrations and their relationship to the text.
Paper short abstract:
This paper examines the scholar Ban Kōkei’s (1733-1806) advocacy of translation as a means of cultivating a national Japanese prose style, drawing upon examples that include a translated section of Genji monogatari in Kōkei’s 1794 work, Utsushibumi warawa no satoshi (Translation for the Enlightenment of Little Children).
Paper long abstract:
Ban Kōkei (1733-1806) is best known for his published collection of biographies of eccentrics, Kinsei kijinden (Eccentrics of our Times, 1790), which was one of the best-selling books of Japan’s late eighteenth century, and for his Japanese-style poetry (waka). However, Kōkei was also an ardent proponent of writing what he called kunitsubumi (prose in the national style). At a time when most prose writing in Japan used either the medium of written literary Chinese, or a hybridized mixture of Chinese and Japanese elements, Kōkei advocated a move towards a purer Japanese style that drew upon precedents in Japan’s literary past while incorporating contemporary linguistic developments. Much like the well-known European example of Cicero, who developed his rhetorical Latin language centuries earlier by translating from classical Greek, the main methodology advocated by Kōkei for cultivating his ideal prose style was translation, or as he called it utsushibumi (“transferred” or “translated” text).
This paper examines what Kōkei meant by utsushibumi, and looks in particular at his use of translation from classical Japanese into the vernacular, drawing upon examples that include a translated section of Genji monogatari in his 1794 work, Utsushibumi warawa no satoshi (Translation for the Enlightenment of Little Children). I will put Kōkei’s efforts at language reform in the context of eighteenth century developments in intralingual translation from classical into vernacular Japanese, and explain the role of translation in his attempts to develop a “national” prose language for Japan nearly one hundred years before the national language advocacy of the genbun itchi movement of the Meiji period.
Paper short abstract:
In my presentation I shall examine Murasaki Shikibu nikki shaku, a commentary by the Kokugakusha Shimizu Noriaki, focusing on the texts he quotes in order to highlight the distinctive features of his vernacular translation and the importance of research on tales and diaries by Kokugakusha.
Paper long abstract:
During the eighteenth century, many vernacular translations of The Tale of Genji were published, and by the nineteenth century, commentaries on Murasaki Shikibu nikki (ca. 1008-1010) that included vernacular translation had begun to appear. Murasaki Shikibu nikki shaku, a commentary by Shimizu Noriaki (1793-1868), a Kokugakusha from the Owari-Tokugawa domain, was first published in 1834, and subsequently was held in such high regard that it was reprinted numerous times down through the Showa era. Of particular note was its inclusion of numerous translated passages, and that the author quotes from a wide variety of works, carefully evaluating each one. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Edo-period glossary Gago yakkai (Translations and Interpretations of Classical Japanese, 1821) and the late twelfth-century tale Torikaebaya are among the texts the author cites. Torikaebaya was copied and annotated by many Kokugakusha nativists, but so far no attention has been paid to Shimizu Noriaki’s interest in the work.
In my presentation, I shall first look at the distinctive features of the vernacular translation included in Murasaki Shikibu nikki shaku. Then, I shall use evidence provided by the texts the author quotes to examine the cultural world into which Murasaki Shikibu nikki shaku emerged, and to illuminate aspects of the research on tales and diaries done by Kokugakusha. Hitherto, research has tended to focus on the commentarial traditions and reception of individual works. I would suggest, however, that by treating several works together, we can bring into clearer focus the commentary on and reception of those works.