長恨歌から観た白氏文集の系統 : 源氏物語の引用に徴して
スポンサーリンク
概要
- 論文の詳細を見る
I found that there is a difference between a passage from Chokonka quoted in the Chapter of Aoi in Genjimonogatari, and one in the present text of Chokonka. Therefore, in order to find out from what text the passage in Genjimonogatari was taken, I made a collation of various texts which can be obtained in Japan, and came to a certain conclusion. Kanazawabunko-bon Monju is Nanzenji Hakushi-monju copied in 844 before the death of Hakurakuten, by Egaku, a priest who studied in China. It originally was consisted of 70 vols. and dated Middle Kamakura Period. This text seems to have been read till the beginning of Muromachi Period, and I think this text should be considered to have acted as an intermediary to Genjimonogatari. Both Kankensho in Naikakubunko and Sanjonishike-bon resemble this text. Chosen-bon was published in 1485 in 71 vols. and was brought to Japan at the time of Bunroku-Keicho Civil War. The reprints of this text are Den-Keichochokuhan-bon-Chokonka, Biwako and Nawa-bon-Hakushi-monju in 71 vols. from which was reprinted Hakushi-Chokeishu (71 vols.) and from this, another reprint Hakushi-Chokeishu (71 vols.) of Shibusokan was made. This text seems to convey the comparatively original foam of the authoritative text in 75 vols. published in 845. So-hon, that is, So-hon-Hakushi-Chokeishu in 71 vols. published before 1160, maintains, as well as Chosen-bon, the appearance of the 75 vols.-Text. Later, however, this was arranged by another hand, and it means that the text shows us a form later than Chosen-bon. Min-pon includes Hakushi-monju in 71 vols. of 1538 and Hakushi-Chokeishu in 71 vols. published by Bagencho in 1606. These are a little corrupted editions of So-hon. The Texts of Early Edo Period are Chokonka and Biwako. These are the revised editions of Minpon with reference to Kanazawabunko-bon. Hakukosan-bon is Hakukosan-shishu in 44 vols. revised by Ritsumei O. This text was accepted to our Hakurakuten-shishu in Kokuyaku-kanbuntaisei. This is a revised edition of Min-pon with reference to Kanazawabunko-bon and Chosen-bon. From the above facts, we come to a conclusion that we should consider Kanazawabunko-bon as an intermediary to Genjimonogatari. It is also clear that Naha-bon is derived from Chosen-bon, and the text by Bagencho which has not been considered as a good text, is, in spite of some rough parts, on the genealogical line of Min-edition, while Hakukosan-bon whicn has been acknowledged as an accurate edition, was edited with the personal view of Ritsumei O. The fact that we have various editions of Chokonka in Japan means that we have faithfully received the texts as they came to Japan, and that shows our attitude of accepting the Chinese literary works as well.
- 東京女子大学の論文
- 1958-02-25