|
|
|
| An Inquiry into Kyojitsu in the Hokku “Hana” from the Kasen “Ukiyo ni Hana”: With a Concurrent Discussion on the Kanshibun-style Innovation in the Bashō School’s Haikai During the Tenna Period |
| Hu Wenhai |
| School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract As a seasonal word in Haikai poetry, “Hana(花)” , through the refinement of classical Chinese and Japanese literature, has gradually transcended its literal botanical meaning to embody both an expressive device and a conceptual motif. From the Renga era onward, debates have persisted over the placement and frequency of “Hana” within linked-verse poetry. By the time of the Bashō school of Haikai, these conventions were further challenged, especially within Kasen poetry. The placement and number of “Hana” verses broke away from tradition, emphasizing their spatial relationship with another key seasonal word “Tsuki”, thereby shaping the structure of the entire Renku (full linked-verse poetry). While significant research has explored the structure of “Hana no jōza” in Hyakuin (hundred-linked Renku), studies addressing the positional and numerical shifts of “Hana” in Kasen poetry, as well as its deeper semantic layers, remain scarce. Clarifying the placement and frequency of “Hana” within Syoumon Kasen is thus fundamental to understanding the Haikai principles it embodies.This article argues that “Hana” in Syoumon Kasen differs from concrete flower names such as “botan (peonies)” or “shakuyaku (Chinese peonies)” and does not simply symbolize “sakura” as it often does in traditional Japanese poetry. Instead, it encompasses both the aesthetic enjoyment of flowers and the splendor of spring scenes. The formation of this dual meaning is closely related to Bashō’s statement in the postscript to Minashiguri, where he asserts “there is no distinction between the real and the imaginary”. The word “Hana” in the Hokku (opening verse) of “Ukiyo ni hana”is a representative example. This single word “Hana” embodies Bashō’s principle of using virtual scenery to express true emotion. It also serves as a vehicle for his aspiration during the Tenna Period (1681-1684) to inherit the poetic spirit of Chinese poets Li Bai and Du Fu, the Zen essence of Hanshan, the refined elegance of Waka, and the candid expression of romantic sentiment found in Bai Juyi’s poetry all aimed at achieving a fusion of Kyojitsu. Analyzing the inner meaning and expressive function of “Hana” is thus a vital step toward understanding the core poetics of the Bashō school’s Haikai.The Kyojitsu method exemplified by “Hana” is both a continuation of classical Chinese and Japanese literature and a natural outcome of the development of Kanshibun-style (Chinese poetry style) Haikai during the Tenna Period. The “Kyojitsu” concept that Bashō articulated during this time specifically emphasizes the significance of “Kyo”, expanding its functional role in poetic language and expression.Previous scholarship has commonly regarded the Genroku Period (1688-1703) as the time when the concept of Kyojitsu in the Bashō school emerged, viewing the early and the later Bashō schools as ideologically divergent, particularly in contrast to the later interpretations by Shikō. However, this study, through careful textual analysis, re-examined the origins of Bashō’s “Kyojitsu” concept and reaffirmed the consistency between Bashō and Shikō, showing that both derive from the same conceptual root. This research thus revises the established understanding of the Bashō school’s Haikai principles, clarifies the influence of Kanshibun on Bashō’s poetic innovation, and corrects longstanding misconceptions in literary history regarding the overlooked or misunderstood notion of “Kyo” in Bashō’s Kyojitsu theory, ultimately revealing its true meaning and value.
|
|
Received: 01 April 2025
|
|
|
|
1 清崎敏郎：「俳諧月花の座」，『芸文研究』1953年第2期，第31-35页。
2 岩下紀之：「花の座の固定」，『国文学研究』1975年第56期，第25-37页。
3 宮脇真彦：「蕉風俳諧における月の定座—歌仙俳諧の裏の月—」，『連歌俳諧研究』1981年第60期，10-27頁。
4 潁原退蔵校訂：「去来抄?三冊子?旅寝論」，東京：岩波文庫，1993年。
5 前川知賢：「虚実皮膜論（上）－芭蕉及び近松の作品行為論－」，『中京大学教養論叢』1976年第2期，353-370頁。
6 中森康之：「支考虚実論の試み－豊かな俳諧史をめざして」，『雅俗』1999年第6期，81-89頁。
7 岩倉さやか：『俳諧のこころ：支考「虚実」論を読む』，東京：ぺりかん社，2003年。
8 兼載：『梅薰抄』，室町时代（1338—1573）写本。
9 応其：『無言抄』，京都三条通菱屋町：林甚右衛門，庆安三年（1650）刻本。
10 二条良基、一条兼良：『連歌新式/追加並新式今案等』，应安五年（1371）写本。
11 一条兼良：『連歌初学抄』，江户中期写本。
12 帆亭徳元：『誹諧初学抄』，宽永十八年（1641）刻本。
13 松永贞德：『俳谐御伞』，庆安四年（1651）刻行。
14 草间时彦、大冈信、岛津忠夫等編：『俳文学大辞典』，東京：角川書店，1995年。
15 李由、許六：『宇陀法师』，京都：井つゝ屋庄兵衛，江户中期刻本。
16 山岡元隣：『俳諧小式』，宽文二年（1662）刻本。
17 混空：『産衣』，大坂：鳥飼市兵衛，元禄十一年（1698）刻本。
18 小宮豊隆監修：『校本芭蕉全集第3巻：連句篇』（上），東京：角川書店，1963年。
19 白石美鈴：「『連歌至宝抄』の紹介?翻刻」，『国文白目』2015年第54期，61-77頁。
20 鶏冠井令徳：『天水抄』，京都：秋田屋五郎兵衛，寛文十一年（1671）刻本。
21 蒲盧庵蚕臥：『芭蕉新巻』，寛政七年（1795）刻本。
22 谢思炜：《白居易诗集校注》（第3版），北京：中华书局，2006年。
23 信天翁信胤：『笈の底』，宽政七年（1795）写本。
24 寒川鼠骨：『続芭蕉俳句評釈』，東京：大学館，1913年。
25 穎原退蔵：『頴原退蔵著作集17 うきよ名義考』，東京：中央公論社，1980年。
26 岩田九郎：『諸注評釈 芭蕉俳句大成』，東京：明治書店，1967年。
27 伊地知鉄男編：『連歌論新集』第3，東京：古典文庫，1963年。
28 乾裕幸：『ことばの内なる芭蕉』，東京：未来社，1981年。
29 北村季吟：『誹諧之事?誹諧会法』，延宝二年（1674）写本。
30 南信一編：『総釈支考の俳論』，東京：風間書房，1983年。
31 岡西惟中：『俳諧或問』，明治时期（1868—1912）写本。
32 飯田正一、榎坂浩尚、乾裕幸校注：『古典俳文学大系4：談林俳諧集』，東京：集英社，1972年。
33 雪柴：『鳞形』，写本。
34 桃青判、其角編：『田舎之句合』，京都：井つゝ屋庄兵衛，延宝八年（1680）刻本。
35 渡邉裕美子：「每月抄校本—八本対校」，『立正大学文学部論叢』2021年第144期，60-70頁。
36 許六編：『風俗文選』，伊藤松宇校訂，東京：岩波書店，1987年。 |
|
|
|
2026, Vol. 56 
