Paper short abstract:

Inter- and extra-textual evidence reveals how value was assigned to individual poems. This paper considers a contentious round in Roppyakuban uta'awase (Spring III: 22 on Frogs) to analyse the assertion of differing visions of poetic value and quality.

Paper long abstract:

The importance of the poetry competition (uta'awase) as a forum for poetic composition and critical debate in Japan is well-known. They were sites of collaborative criticism, where teams would provide assessments of each other's poems, before leaving the final judgement to an experienced senior poet. Judgements were reached on the bases of the key criteria for uta'awase poetry: adherence to the essential meaning of the set topic, appropriate formality, and ease of aural apprehension, and could range from brief remarks of approbation to detailed criticisms. However, it became increasingly common for participants who disagreed with judgements against their poems to produce 'Appeals' (Chinjō), in which they produced their own evidence and argued their poem's case. An analysis of poetry competition judgements and appeals, therefore, has much to tell us about the formation of formation of critical opinion, the weight given to different types of intertextual and extra-textual evidence, and how aesthetic value was assigned to individual poems.

The 'Poetry Contest in Six Hundred Rounds' (Roppyakuban uta'awase) (1193-94) is the largest extant poetry competition judged by a single judge, Fujiwara no Shunzei. As such, taken together his judgements form one of the largest and most detailed statements of critical appreciation of poetry of the time. The value of the competition is increased, however, by the existence of an extensive Chinjō written by one of the participants, Kenshō, in which he provides detailed rebuttals of Shunzei's negative judgements of many of his poems.

This paper will conduct an analysis of one particularly contentious round in the competition: Spring III: 22 on Frogs. Shunzei is highly critical of Kenshō's poem in this round on the grounds of his understanding of diction, grasp of the topic and resulting lack of formality. Kenshō responds with detailed poetic and real-world evidence to negate this judgement. Through the interplay between these two poets we can see the assertion of differing visions of poetic value and quality - visions which would become increasingly entrenched as poetic opinion became increasingly polarised in the thirteenth century.