copying texts in japan 127
(1643–1724), who was the lord (daimyō ) of the Kaga domain, showed strong
interest in all kinds of old documents and writings, and his collection project
extended to the Sanjōnishi Bunko. Tsunanori supported Kinfuku financially and
his daughter married Kinfuku; at the same time Tsunanori started researching
the Sanjōnishi Bunko, made title lists, and copied several texts by hand. Later, in
exchange for the access he was granted, Tsunanori offered to repair deteriorating
rare books. In the process of Tsunanori’s research, one of his largest discoveries
in the Sanjōnishi Bunko was Sanemikyō-ki manuscripts, numbering about sev-
University of Tokyo. Photograph from the collection of the Historiographical Institute.
Compare with a traced copy of the same text shown in figure 6 below.
128 hiroki kikuchi
enty scrolls. At first members of the Sanjōnishi family could not even determine
whose diary record these manuscripts were. Tsunanori borrowed them, identified
them as Sanemikyō-ki, compiled a list of these manuscript scrolls, and repaired
damaged scrolls. The list he made attracted many aristocrats to the texts because
only a very small part of the copy of Sanemikyō-ki had been known previously.
As an adult Kinfuku became interested in his ancestor’s diary record and copied
a part of Sanemikyō-ki, which was gradually recopied and spread among other
aristocractic houses. (See figure 5.)
About one hundred years later, in the early nineteenth century, a remarkable
project to copy the
Sanemikyō-ki was begun in the Tebori-Sanjō family. This family
was the main branch of the Kan’in clan, under which the Sanjōnishi family also
fell. Although the Tebori-Sanjō already possessed a recopied version of Kinfuku’s
Sanemikyō-ki copy, the set was still incomplete. Tebori-Sanjō Saneoki (1756–1823)
borrowed the remaining sixteen scrolls of Sanemikyō-ki manuscripts directly from
the Sanjōnishi. Under Saneoki’s management, his son Kimiosa (1774–1840) and
grandson Sanetsumu (1802–1859) were engaged in the copy work. Hino Suke-
naru (1780–1846) also cooperated with the Tebori-Sanjō’s copying project. Later
Sukenaru introduced Kuze Michiaya (1782–1850) into the work as well. Thus,
the copy in the Tebori-Sanjō was carried out as a group project. (See figure 6.)
Furthermore, at this time, the Tebori-Sanjō copied not only the text, but
also the whole style of manuscripts, which included the exact shape of each letter
with its calligraphic character and even drew the shape of the worm-eaten holes
found in the paper of the original. Such a copy style is called eisha (traced copy).
Since Sanjō Sanemi was not known as an excellent calligrapher, the exact copy
would be of no use as a calligraphic sample. If the main goal were to research
court ritual, only the text of Sanemikyō-ki without the calligraphic imitation would
have been sufficient. Why, then, did Saneoki make an eisha copy of Sanemikyō-
ki. (Compare figures 4 and 6.) Here we can confirm that, in the early modern
period, the main point of research for diary records had drifted into philological
(shoshi-gaku) issues in the aristocracy. The word “philology” or “philological” might
not seem to be appropriate for use in this essay since in Western scholarship this
concept has come to imply the study of classical texts and translation. However,
in this essay these words will be used as the translation of shoshi-gaku, which has
been developed as komonjo-gaku (diploma study or paleography) or shiryō-gaku
(historiography), all of which imply careful consideration of the material aspects
of manuscripts and their transmission or function. In Japanese scholarship this
copying texts in japan 129
field is not only appreciated as the basis for the writing of history, but it is also
anticipated that it will develop into an independent field of study.
Before the Tebori-Sanjō copying project started, another copy of
Sanemikyō-ki had been completed by Ōgimachi-Sanjō Kin’nori (1774–1880).
Though this copy has not been found, it is supposed that it was produced as an
eisha copy as well, because some parts of Tebori-Sanjōs’ second version, which
was copied from Kin’nori’s copy, have kept the style of the traced copy. Aristo-
crats who were interested in diary records very much appreciated Tebori-Sanjō’s
and Ōgimachi-Sanjō’s eisha-style versions. For example, Takatsukasa Masahiro
(1761–1849) borrowed these eisha versions soon after their completion.
17
The common admonition among the aristocracy was, “don’t let [the
copy] out of the window” (Sōgai ni idasu bekarazu), which means that a text
should be kept within a collection, out of sight, and thus maintained for use in
a certain house exclusively. Nevertheless, despite the prohibition against giving
a copy to other families and lineages, once a set of copies was produced from an
original, it was in turn recopied by many other houses in order to build their
own libraries for research on ritual and for other purposes. For example, Kajūji
Tsuneitsu (1748–1805) recopied the Ōgimachi-Sanjō version because Tsuneitsu
was Kin’nori’s father-in-law. In spite of the fact that Kin’nori asked Tsuneitsu
never to show the copy to others, Tsuneitsu secretly showed this copy to the
Takatsukasa family, as mentioned above. Later, the Tebori-Sanjō also borrowed
the Ōgimachi-Sanjō copy and made another version. It is not difficult to assume
that Hino Sukenaru, who cooperated with the Tebori-Sanjō’s copying project,
mediated between the Ōgimachi-Sanjō and the Tebori-Sanjō because Sukenaru’s
wife and Kin’nori’s wife were sisters and both were Tsuneitsu’s daughters. Thus,
Sukenaru not only gave advantage to the Tebori-Sanjō, but also benefitted from
association with that clan. Sukenaru is thought to have introduced the Tebori-
Sanjō version to the Yanagiwara family because Sukenaru’s mother came from
the Yanagiwara.
18
Thanks to Sukenaru’s cooperation, the Yanagiwara, by gathering
material from the various versions, was able to complete one of the best copies
of Sanemikyō-ki.
Thus while interest in texts such as Sanemikyō-ki increased more and more
over time, diary records were not published in printed form in the premodern era.
19
Though many were produced in the Edo period, they were always copied by hand
through connections to relatives and other relationships in accord with the con-
straints of the traditional precedent of “not letting the copy out of the window.”
20