Motor de BBDD MySQL

This section consists of three subsections. Subsection 3.1.1 first examines the definition of sōshiji proposed by Hagiwara. It then reaches a new interpretation of sōshiji by investigating the examples selected as sōshiji by commentary editors and scholars. Subsection 3.1.2 explores the definitions of interior monologue proposed by Akita and Suzuki and redefines interior monologue based on their studies. Subsection 3.1.3 examines taiken wahō and other theories, and proposes a new category named free direct discourse, as defined by Prince.

5 _{Kai 1980. Noguchi 1987.}

3.1.1 Sōshiji

According to Higashihara Nobuaki, the term sōshiji, which he regards as intervention by the narrator, was established in Sairyū shō.6 Hagiwara Hiromichi, praised by Noguchi Takehiko as an Edo-period structuralist,7 first defined the term by studying the structure of the tale in the light of grammatical principles (bunpō genri 文法原理) and categorisation of discourse in terms of tsumajirushi つまじるし (marks placed beside a line in the text). He defines sōshiji in his general remarks and in his explanatory notes. His definitions can be summarised as follows. (1) Sōshiji is an utterance of the narrator, through which the author expresses her thoughts. (2) Some sentences/passages of sōshiji express a character’s mind. (3) Some sentences/passages of conversation function similarly to sōshiji. Examples related to his definitions (1) and (2) are selected from his Genji monogatari hyōshaku, in examples 1(1)-(2) and 2 (1)-(2), below. An example corresponding to his definition (3) cannot be found in his study, so it cannot be tested.

1. (1)をかしき御贈物などあるべきをりにもあらねば、ただかの御形見にとて、かかる 用もやと残したまへりける、御装束一領、御髪上の調度めく物、添へたまふ。

(NKBZ 1: 108) (SNKBT 1: 15)

This was no time for pretty parting gifts, and she gave Myōbu instead, in her daughter’s memory, some things that she had saved for just such an occasion: a set of gowns and some accessories that her daughter had used to put up her hair. (T: 10) (Chapter 1)

草子地也。

[The sentence belongs to] sōshiji. (Hagiwara 1909, pp.94-95)

(2)いとおし立ちかどかどしきところものしたまふ御方にて、ことにもあらず思し消 ちて、もてなしたまふなるべし。(NKBZ 1: 112) (SNKBT 1: 17)

The offender, willful and abrasive, seemed determined to behave as though nothing had happened. (T: 11) (Chapter 1)

草子地也。

[The sentence belongs to] sōshiji. (Hagiwara 1909, p.99.)

6 _{Higashihara 1994, p.168.}

2. (1)ほのかなりし御けはひありさまは、げになべてにやはと、思ひ出できこえぬには あらねど、(a)をかしきさまを見えたてまつりても、何にかはなるべき、(b)など思ひ 返すなりけり。君は思しおこたる時の間もなく、心苦しくも恋しくも思し出づ。

(NKBZ 1: 184-185) (SNKBT 1: 74)

Not that she failed to recall his figure and manner, extraordinary as these had been that one time when she had made him out through the gloom, but she concluded that nothing could come of her seeking to please him. Genji thought of her endlessly, with mingled consternation and longing. (T: 13) (Chapter 2)

草子地にて空蝉の心をいひ次に源氏君の心をいへり。

[First, the sentence/discourse shows] Utsusemi’s mind as sōshiji and next, [the sentence/discourse explains] Genji’s mind. (Hagiwara 1909, p.220.)

(2)心地ぞなほ静かなる気を添ヘばやと、ふと見ゆる。かどなきにはあるまじ。

(NKBZ 1: 194) (SNKBT 1: 86)

----although it occurred to Genji that her manner could do with a little restraint. She did not seem to be dull either,--- (T: 48-49) (Chapter 3)

源氏君の心になりて草子地より評じたる也。

This critique shows Genji’s mind in terms of sōshiji. (Hagiwara 1909, p.233.)

Even though the passages underlined in 1(1) and 1(2) consist of narratorial explanation of circumstances [1(1)] and remarks on Kokiden’s personality [1(2)], respectively, there is actually no difference between sōshiji and narratised discourse. These sōshiji passages therefore appear to be integrated into narratised discourse. However, the matter requires further scrutiny.

The subject of 2(1)(a) is a hidden ‘I’, Utsusemi, while in 2(1)(b) there is a latent ‘she’, Utsusemi, as conveyed by the narrator. Thus the underlined passage in example 2(1), which Hagiwara called sōshiji, can be divided into two categories of discourse: discourse from the viewpoint of the character, Utsusemi, and discourse from the viewpoint of the narrator.

The underlined phrase in 2(2) conveys Genji’s impression of Nokiba no ogi, as mentioned in Hagiwara’s annotation. It expresses the character’s thoughts without any narratorial mediation; in other words, the narrator does not intervene. Such discourse then should not be categorised as sōshiji. Since it seems similar to the taiken wahō proposed by Nishio, it will be examined in subsection 3.1.3.

Thus definitions (1) and (2) of sōshiji, proposed by Hagiwara, actually contain at least three different categories of discourse. Discourse covered by his definition (1) can be categorised as narratised discourse; discourse corresponding to his definition (2) can be categorised as other categories of discourse, namely interior monologue

and free direct discourse.8 Regarding his definition (3) (some sentences/passages of conversation function similarly to sōshiji), there are two possible interpretations, although no examples are available. One is that conversation sometimes represents the author’s thoughts, and the other is that the narrator intervenes in conversation, thus making her presence in it perceptible, so that there is some extent of narrative representation by the narrator. In the former case, it can be said that Hagiwara employs the term sōshiji only to designate the author’s thoughts, thus implying that some conversations show the author’s thoughts. The former interpretation is beyond the scope of this chapter, because he seems to consider sōshiji to be not a term of category but expression permeated by the author’s thoughts. In the latter case, discourse can be categorised either as conversation or as narratised discourse, and this issue is discussed when the criterion of categorisation is settled in subsection 3.2.2. Regarding the term sōshiji, Hagiwara’s first definition has been adopted by many scholars in the modern period. For example: Nakano Kōichi 中野幸一, who systematically classifies sōshiji on the basis of function/meaning, defines sōshiji as the discourse of the author’s thoughts, annotations, comments and explanations, which come from either the author’s direct utterance or the author’s awareness of the reader:9 Kai Mutsurō categorises types of discourse in terms of the ratio of the activity of the narrator and that of the character, and he defines sōshiji as discourse presented by the narrator at the place of the world narrating differentiated from the world narrated, and discourse that does not reflect the character’s thoughts at all:10 Mitani Kuniaki defines sōshiji as discourse presented by narrators. He also regards it as utterance coming from the space where gentlewomen tell stories, and others listen to them, criticise them, and write and edit them.11

These definitions lack formal criteria, so that it is hard in practice to distinguish sōshiji from narratised discourse, because the former is defined as

8 _{Interior monologue and free direct discourse will be discussed in 3.1.2. and 3.1.3, respectively.} 9 _{Nakano 1971, p.110.}

10 _{Kai 1980, p.37.} 11 _{Mitani 1994, pp.36-45.}

utterance/words of the narrator and the latter as discourse presented by the narrator. Enomoto Masazumi 榎本正純 tries to establish formal criteria by focussing on auxiliary verbs and postpositional particles that appear at the end of sōshiji, but he recognises that these criteria are not sufficient.12 Thus it is hard to establish formal criteria to distinguish between narratised discourse and sōshiji. It can be concluded that when narratised discourse is defined as discourse from the viewpoint of the narrator, sōshiji is included in this category.

This conclusion can be examined by analysing examples selected as sōshiji by commentary editors and modern scholars. The underlined passages in examples 3-5 are regarded as sōshiji by Mitani, commentary editors, the editor of Kogetsu shōand Nakano.

3. いづれの御時にか、女御更衣あまたさぶらひたまひける中に、いとやむごとなき際 にはあらぬが、すぐれて時めきたまふありけり。(NKBZ 1: 93) (SNKBT 1: 4) In a certain reign (whose can it have been?) someone of no very great rank, among all His Majesty’s Consorts and Intimates, enjoyed exceptional favor. (T: 3) (Chapter 1 “Kiritsubo”)

三谷邦明 訝しがりの草子地

Mitani Kuniaki: The underlined phrase is sōshiji, which shows the narrator’s doubt.13

Mitani regards the phrase underlined in example 1 as sōshiji.14 However, there is no difference between it and the rest of the sentence, because the former shows the narrator’s conjecture, and the latter is also depicted from the viewpoint of the narrator. The auxiliary verb keri also implies a latent ‘I’, the narrator. Thus there is no reason to differentiate sōshiji from narratised discourse.

4. まだ中将などにものしたまひし時は、内裏にのみさぶらひようしたまひて、大殿に は絶え絶えまかでたまふ。忍ぶの乱れやと疑ひきこゆることもありしかど、さしも あだめき目馴れたるうちつけのすきずきしさなどは好ましからぬ御本性にて、まれ にはあながちにひき違へ、心づくしなることを御心に思しとどむる癖なむあやにく

12_{Enomoto categorises auxiliary verbs and postpositional particles into four: (1) causative and spontaneous, (2) the} present perfect, (3) conjecture and negative and (4) confirmation and assertion. He states that the degree of sōshiji

increases from category (1) to category (4), but it only shows a relative tendency. (Enomoto 1982, pp.169-193.) 13 _{Mitani 1994, pp.38-39.}

にて、さるまじき御ふるまひもうちまじりける。(NKBZ 1: 129-130) (SNKBT 1: 32) While Genji was still a captain, he felt at home nowhere but in the palace, and he went to His Excellecy’s only now and then. The household sometimes suspected hit thoughts of being “all in a hopeless tangle” over another woman, but actually he had no taste for frivolous, trite, or impromptu affairs. No, his way was the rare amour fraught with difficulty and heartache, for he did sometimes do things he ought not to have done. (T: 21) (Chapter 2 “Hahakigi”)

『弄花抄』『細流抄』『明星抄』『秘抄』『一葉抄』『林逸抄』双紙の詞也／草子 の詞也。

Rōka shō, Sairyū shō, Myōjō shō, Hi shō, Ichiyō shō and Rin’itsu shō: [The underlined part is] sōshi no kotoba (equivalent to the author’s words).15

『紹巴抄』双批判也……うちましりけるまて双地也。

Shōha shō: The critique [underlined] is sōshiji.16 『孟津抄』草子地也。

Mōshin shō: [The underlined part is] sōshiji.17

The commentary editors annotate the sentences underlined in terms of sōshi no kotoba (the author’s words) and sōshiji. The narrator depicts Genji’s personality and circumstances employing these sentences, so they can also be seen as narratised discourse from the viewpoint of the narrator.