KKS 1 - Revision history

Jchristo at 18:50, 6 May 2026

2026-05-06T18:50:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 6 May 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Kokin ~~wakashu~~\|Contents]] \| [[KKS 2\|Next poem]]		[[Kokin wakashū\|Contents]] \| [[KKS 2\|Next poem]]

	== Text ==		== Text ==

Jchristo: /* Notes */

2026-05-04T20:12:55Z

Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:12, 4 May 2026
Line 32:		Line 32:
	Other sources:		Other sources:

	* ''[[Kokin waka rokujō]]'' ''[[Wakan rōeishū]]''		* ''[[Kokin waka rokujō]]'' \| ''[[Wakan rōeishū]]''
	* ''[[Go rokuroku shū]]'' ''[[Korai futeishō]]'' ''[[Teika hachidaishō]]''		* ''[[Go rokuroku shū]]'' \| ''[[Korai futeishō]]'' \| ''[[Teika hachidaishō]]''

	== Analysis ==		== Analysis ==

Jchristo at 20:12, 4 May 2026

2026-05-04T20:12:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:12, 4 May 2026
Line 29:		Line 29:
	;One year		;One year
	:Although ''hitotose'' means "one year," it's not entirely clear what the reference is, and there is a surprising amount of disagreement as to exactly what period of time is referred to here. Takeoka and Katagiri both explain the meaning in this way: Spring, which should only come once in a year, has come twice. So do I refer to this entire year as "this year" or "last year" (since a new spring has come). On the other hand, the newer ''Kokinshū'' commentary in the ''Waka bungaku taikei'' series interprets the "one year" as the period up to the previous day (before the start of this spring).		:Although ''hitotose'' means "one year," it's not entirely clear what the reference is, and there is a surprising amount of disagreement as to exactly what period of time is referred to here. Takeoka and Katagiri both explain the meaning in this way: Spring, which should only come once in a year, has come twice. So do I refer to this entire year as "this year" or "last year" (since a new spring has come). On the other hand, the newer ''Kokinshū'' commentary in the ''Waka bungaku taikei'' series interprets the "one year" as the period up to the previous day (before the start of this spring).

			Other sources:

			* ''[[Kokin waka rokujō]]'' ''[[Wakan rōeishū]]''
			* ''[[Go rokuroku shū]]'' ''[[Korai futeishō]]'' ''[[Teika hachidaishō]]''

	== Analysis ==		== Analysis ==

Jchristo: /* Analysis */

2026-05-04T20:10:23Z

Analysis

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 4 May 2026
Line 47:		Line 47:
	But many other commenters see the power of this poem in its implied longing for the coming spring. Kubota considers the poem dry except for the anticipation of spring that lies behind it. Kaneko explains the poet's confusion as childish (although not necessarily in a deprecating way), but it's no more childish than other feigned confusions (e.g. between plum blossoms and snow) found in the collection. Takeoka notes that the poem contains no seasonal imagery, and thus functions largely as a "prelude" to the spring volume and the collection as a whole. He praises the construction of the poem, noting the "strength" of the first two lines contrasted with the weakness and doubt of the remainder. The poem progresses from a "scene" to a "reason." He finds the poem in stark contrast to both the Chinese style as well as that of the ''Man'yōshū''. However, he quotes another scholar, Kojima Noriyuki, who considers this a mediocre poem by a mediocre poet, but one that served its purpose at the start of the volume.		But many other commenters see the power of this poem in its implied longing for the coming spring. Kubota considers the poem dry except for the anticipation of spring that lies behind it. Kaneko explains the poet's confusion as childish (although not necessarily in a deprecating way), but it's no more childish than other feigned confusions (e.g. between plum blossoms and snow) found in the collection. Takeoka notes that the poem contains no seasonal imagery, and thus functions largely as a "prelude" to the spring volume and the collection as a whole. He praises the construction of the poem, noting the "strength" of the first two lines contrasted with the weakness and doubt of the remainder. The poem progresses from a "scene" to a "reason." He finds the poem in stark contrast to both the Chinese style as well as that of the ''Man'yōshū''. However, he quotes another scholar, Kojima Noriyuki, who considers this a mediocre poem by a mediocre poet, but one that served its purpose at the start of the volume.

	The next question that has been the topic of centuries of debate is why Motokata’s poem was chosen as the first one. Early scholars who were still active poets in the Heian court assumed that there must be some deep reason for this. One explanation was that Motokata was being honored as Ariwara no Narihira’s grandson. Another was found in the ''Kokin denjū'' teachings which explained that this poem contains “old” (in “last year”) and “new” (in “this year”) and thus linked to the title of the collection itself.		The question of why this poem was placed first is one that has also been addressed throughout the history of ''Kokinshū'' criticism. Later Imperial collections assigned the first poem of the collection typically to a high-ranking or prestigious person, and it seems to have been an honor to be placed first in a collection, or first in a book. It's not clear at all that the ''Kokinshū'' compilers intended this by their choice of the first poem, considering the still somewhat doubtful status of Japanese poetry. But many early commenters assumed that there had to be some reason why Motokata was chosen. One explanation was that Motokata was the grandson of [[Ariwara no Narihira]]. Other commenters tried to read the poem as a summing up of the title of the collection: Sōgi thought the poem contained both ''old'' (implicitly in "last year") and ''new,'' thus reinforcing the title of the collection. This was the teaching of Tō no Tsuneyori, the founder of the ''Kokin denjū'' secret teachings. He goes on to suggest that the ''old'' and ''new'' are somehow representative of heaven and earth, and thus good government. In this he was following Chinese precedent, which connected poetry to virtuous living.

	However, it is not certain that the ''Kokinshū'' compilers had such deep consideration for their choice – in the end it may simply be that because this poem is about the coming of the new year, it made sense for it to be placed first in the collection, before all the poetry about specific early spring images. Considering that this was the first Imperial collection produced at a time when the status of Japanese poetry was still uncertain, it may be anachronistic to think that Motokata's position was one of honor.

	The question of why this poem was placed first is one that has also been addressed throughout the history of ~~Kokinshu~~ criticism. Later Imperial collections assigned the first poem of the collection typically to a high-ranking or prestigious person, and it seems to have been an honor to be placed first in a collection, or first in a book. It's not clear at all that the ~~KKS~~ compilers intended this by their choice of the first poem, ~~but~~ many early commenters assumed that there had to be some reason why Motokata was chosen. One explanation ~~wast~~ that Motokata was the grandson of ~~Ariawara~~ no Narihira. Other commenters tried to read the poem as a summing up of the title of the collection: ~~{{Denju\|Sogi}}~~ thought the poem contained both 古 (implicitly in "last year") and 今, thus reinforcing the title of ~~古今和歌集~~. He was ~~following~~ the ~~teachings~~ of To no Tsuneyori, the ~~force behind~~ the Kokin ~~Denju~~ secret teachings. ~~The suggestion is~~ that the 古 and 今 are somehow representative of heaven and earth, and thus good government. In this he was following Chinese precedent, which connected poetry to virtuous living.

	The Confucian-inspired readings were rejected by Keichu and commentators after him. Modern commentators see this as simply the best place to put this poem about the calendar vs. nature, and that there is no particular honor to Motokata. Matsuda sees the poem as providing a keynote to the "start of spring" poems, which commonly evoke the difference between spring on the calendar, and what the world actually looks like.		The Confucian-inspired readings were rejected by Keichu and commentators after him. Modern commentators see this as simply the best place to put this poem about the calendar vs. nature, and that there is no particular honor to Motokata. Matsuda sees the poem as providing a keynote to the "start of spring" poems, which commonly evoke the difference between spring on the calendar, and what the world actually looks like.

Jchristo at 20:06, 4 May 2026

2026-05-04T20:06:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:06, 4 May 2026
Line 39:		Line 39:
	Matsuda (''Shinshaku'') sees the MYS poem as simplistic, in contrast to Motokata's "complex and splendid" poem.		Matsuda (''Shinshaku'') sees the MYS poem as simplistic, in contrast to Motokata's "complex and splendid" poem.

	The prominent placement of this poem at the beginning of Japan's most prestigious poetic anthology has resulted in a great deal of commentary and analysis.		The prominent placement of this poem at the beginning of Japan's most prestigious poetic anthology has resulted in a great deal of commentary and analysis, not all of which has much to do with the poem itself.

	The poem is found in a number of “good poetry” collections, and Fujiwara no Shunzei wrote “This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem.” A later pseudo-Teika work called the ''Sangoki'' included the poem as an example of the "pine style," which was defined as a poem that can be appreciated no matter how many times you hear it, and that has strength and propriety, with no extraneous matter. Some of this fulsome praise it received may have been simply out of respect for its place as the first poem in the most prestigious waka collection.		The poem is found in a number of “good poetry” collections, and Fujiwara no Shunzei wrote in the ''Korai Futeishō'' “This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem.” A later pseudo-Teika work called the ''Sangoki'' included the poem as an example of the "pine style," which was defined as a poem that can be appreciated no matter how many times you hear it, and that has strength and propriety, with no extraneous matter. Some of this fulsome praise it received may have been simply out of respect for its place as the first poem in the most prestigious waka collection.

	~~This~~		In modern times, the poet Masaoka Shiki made a famous attack on the Kokinshu in 1898, where he wrote that this poem was "disgustingly insipid" and "so silly that it fails to rise even to the level of vulgar wit." McCullough also describes the poem as having “sterile wit” and agrees with some other commenters that his poetry is not especially good but served a useful purpose in the structure of the Kokinshu’s organization. These interpretations seem to predicated on the idea that the poem is only about a joking comment on what to call something, with no deeper meaning.

	~~Modern~~ commenters ~~have also~~ see ~~value~~ in the ~~poem~~. ~~It may be that the question at the end of~~ the poem ~~is arising out of the longing~~ for the ~~warmth~~ of spring – the poet ~~hopes that we can say it’s “this year”~~ (i.e. the ~~year of~~ the ~~new~~ spring~~) rather than “last year” (i.e~~. the ~~year~~ of the ~~cold winter we are moving away from). In this sense we are not dealing~~ with ~~a simple witty comment about~~ the ~~lunar vs~~. ~~solar calendars~~.		But many other commenters see the power of this poem in its implied longing for the coming spring. Kubota considers the poem dry except for the anticipation of spring that lies behind it. Kaneko explains the poet's confusion as childish (although not necessarily in a deprecating way), but it's no more childish than other feigned confusions (e.g. between plum blossoms and snow) found in the collection. Takeoka notes that the poem contains no seasonal imagery, and thus functions largely as a "prelude" to the spring volume and the collection as a whole. He praises the construction of the poem, noting the "strength" of the first two lines contrasted with the weakness and doubt of the remainder. The poem progresses from a "scene" to a "reason." He finds the poem in stark contrast to both the Chinese style as well as that of the ''Man'yōshū''. However, he quotes another scholar, Kojima Noriyuki, who considers this a mediocre poem by a mediocre poet, but one that served its purpose at the start of the volume.
	~~Another possibility is that~~ the poem ~~seeks~~ to ~~contrast~~ the ~~human-created calendar with the movement~~ of ~~time in~~ the ~~natural world~~. ~~A number~~ of ~~KKS poems have~~ the ~~contrast between humans and nature, and it is possible to see that theme here too~~.

	~~There have~~ been ~~varied reactions to~~ the ~~poem. One~~ of ~~the most famous~~ is ~~Masaoka Shiki’s attack on~~ the ~~Kokinshu~~ in ~~1898, where he wrote~~ that this ~~poem~~ was ~~“disgustingly insipid” and “so silly~~ that ~~it fails to rise even to the level of vulgar wit~~.~~” McCullough also describes~~ the poem ~~as having “sterile wit”~~ and ~~agrees with some other commenters that his poetry is not especially good but served a useful purpose~~ in the ~~structure~~ of the ~~Kokinshu’s organization~~.		The next question that has been the topic of centuries of debate is why Motokata’s poem was chosen as the first one. Early scholars who were still active poets in the Heian court assumed that there must be some deep reason for this. One explanation was that Motokata was being honored as Ariwara no Narihira’s grandson. Another was found in the ''Kokin denjū'' teachings which explained that this poem contains “old” (in “last year”) and “new” (in “this year”) and thus linked to the title of the collection itself.

	In contrast, pre-modern reception of the poem was generally positive. It is included in a number of “good poetry” collections, and Fujiwara no Shunzei wrote “This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem.” Some of the fulsome praise it received may have been simply out of respect for its place as the first poem in the most prestigious waka collection.		However, it is not certain that the ''Kokinshū'' compilers had such deep consideration for their choice – in the end it may simply be that because this poem is about the coming of the new year, it made sense for it to be placed first in the collection, before all the poetry about specific early spring images. Considering that this was the first Imperial collection produced at a time when the status of Japanese poetry was still uncertain, it may be anachronistic to think that Motokata's position was one of honor.



	Why was Motokata’s poem chosen as the first one? Early scholars who were still active poets in the Heian court assumed that there must be some deep reason for this. One explanation was that Motokata was being honored as Ariwara no Narihira’s grandson. Another was found in the Kokin denju teachings which explained that this poem contains “old” (in “last year”) and “new” (in “this year”) and thus linked to the title of the collection itself.

	However, it is not certain that the ~~KKS~~ compilers had such deep consideration for their choice – in the end it may simply be that because this poem is about the coming of the new year, it made sense for it to be placed first in the collection, before all the poetry about specific early spring images.




	~~Opinions on~~ this ~~poem's quality have varied through~~ the ~~ages. {{Oldest\|Fujiwara no Shunzei}} wrote "This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem." The "logic" perhaps refers to question~~ at ~~the end about which year to call it. The pseudo-Teika writings {{Teika\|Kirihioke}} and {{Teika\|Teika Jittei}} assign the poem to the 麗歌 category, as~~ a ~~"pine style" poem [add definition], and another pseudo-Teika writing {{Teika\|Sangoki}} includes~~ the ~~poem as an example~~ of ~~a style the reader should imitate. Teika himself included~~ it ~~in his {{Teika\|Teika hachidaisho}} collection of good poems.~~

	The Meiji period includes the poet Masaoka Shiki's famous criticism of this poem, which he calls (in McCullough's translation) "disgustingly insipid" and "silly." However, we must remember that Shiki was trying to ~~go against the received wisdom~~ that ~~all waka had to follow the Kokinshu. McCullough herself describes~~ Motokata's ~~poetry in general as containing "sterile wit," and seems to implicitly accept that the poem is not very good, but that it works very well in its~~ position ~~in the anthology. But these criticisms seem to come from a surface reading of the poem, where the only purpose of the poem is a witty question about what term to use.~~

	But many other commenters see the power of this poem in its implied longing for the coming spring ({{Modern\|Kubota}}, {{Modern\|Matsuda}}, Katagiri). Kubota considers the poem dry except for the anticipation of spring that lies behind it. {{Modern\|Kaneko}} explains the poet's confusion as childish (although not necessarily in a deprecating way), but it's no more childish than other feigned confusions (e.g. between plum blossoms and snow) found in the collection. Takeoka notes that the poem contains no seasonal imagery, and thus functions largely as a "prelude" to the spring volume and the collection as a whole. He praises the construction of the poem, noting the "strength" of the first two lines contrasted with the weakness and doubt of the remainder. The poem progresses from a "scene" to a "reason." He finds the poem in stark contrast to both the kanshi style as well as that of the MY. However, he quotes another scholar, Kojima Noriyuki, who considers this a mediocre poem by a mediocre poet, but one ~~that served its purpose at the start~~ of ~~the volume~~.

	The question of why this poem was placed first is one that has also been addressed throughout the history of Kokinshu criticism. Later Imperial collections assigned the first poem of the collection typically to a high-ranking or prestigious person, and it seems to have been an honor to be placed first in a collection, or first in a book. It's not clear at all that the KKS compilers intended this by their choice of the first poem, but many early commenters assumed that there had to be some reason why Motokata was chosen. One explanation wast that Motokata was the grandson of Ariawara no Narihira. Other commenters tried to read the poem as a summing up of the title of the collection: {{Denju\|Sogi}} thought the poem contained both 古 (implicitly in "last year") and 今, thus reinforcing the title of 古今和歌集. He was following the teachings of To no Tsuneyori, the force behind the Kokin Denju secret teachings. The suggestion is that the 古 and 今 are somehow representative of heaven and earth, and thus good government. In this he was following Chinese precedent, which connected poetry to virtuous living.		The question of why this poem was placed first is one that has also been addressed throughout the history of Kokinshu criticism. Later Imperial collections assigned the first poem of the collection typically to a high-ranking or prestigious person, and it seems to have been an honor to be placed first in a collection, or first in a book. It's not clear at all that the KKS compilers intended this by their choice of the first poem, but many early commenters assumed that there had to be some reason why Motokata was chosen. One explanation wast that Motokata was the grandson of Ariawara no Narihira. Other commenters tried to read the poem as a summing up of the title of the collection: {{Denju\|Sogi}} thought the poem contained both 古 (implicitly in "last year") and 今, thus reinforcing the title of 古今和歌集. He was following the teachings of To no Tsuneyori, the force behind the Kokin Denju secret teachings. The suggestion is that the 古 and 今 are somehow representative of heaven and earth, and thus good government. In this he was following Chinese precedent, which connected poetry to virtuous living.
Line 71:		Line 55:
	The Confucian-inspired readings were rejected by Keichu and commentators after him. Modern commentators see this as simply the best place to put this poem about the calendar vs. nature, and that there is no particular honor to Motokata. Matsuda sees the poem as providing a keynote to the "start of spring" poems, which commonly evoke the difference between spring on the calendar, and what the world actually looks like.		The Confucian-inspired readings were rejected by Keichu and commentators after him. Modern commentators see this as simply the best place to put this poem about the calendar vs. nature, and that there is no particular honor to Motokata. Matsuda sees the poem as providing a keynote to the "start of spring" poems, which commonly evoke the difference between spring on the calendar, and what the world actually looks like.

	~~Man'yoshu 4492, by Otomo no Yakamochi, is a precursor to this poem. Matsuda sees the MY poem as simplistic, in contrast to Motokata's "complex and splendid" poem.~~		Finally, this poem appears in an anecdote in the 1283 ''setsuwa'' collection ''Shasekishū'' 沙石集. A monk who knows nothing about poetry is presented with this poem by his disciples. His only takeaway is that it reflects the fleeting nature of life as in Buddhism -- thus showing that people like him view everything as a Buddhist lesson.

	~~:: 月数めばいまだ冬なりしかすがに霞たなびく春立ちぬとか~~
	~~:: When we count the months, it is still winter. And yet the mist is rising, and spring has come.~~

	~~Other poems clearly borrow Motokata's language, such as [[GSS 1100]], by [[大河内躬恒\|Mitsune]]:~~

	~~:: 昼なれや見ぞまがへつる月影を今日とや言はむ昨日とや言はむ~~
	~~:: The brightness of the moon looks like daytime; is it today, or yesterday?~~

	Finally, this poem appears in an anecdote in the 1283 setsuwa collection Shasekishū (沙石集). A monk who knows nothing about poetry is presented with this poem by his disciples. His only takeaway is that it reflects the fleeting nature of life as in Buddhism -- thus showing that people like him view everything as a Buddhist lesson.

	[[Kokin wakashu\|Contents]] \| [[KKS 2\|Next poem]]		[[Kokin wakashu\|Contents]] \| [[KKS 2\|Next poem]]

Jchristo at 17:10, 4 May 2026

2026-05-04T17:10:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:10, 4 May 2026
Line 86:		Line 86:

	[[Category:Spring]]		[[Category:Spring]]
	~~[[Category:Poetry Competition]]~~
	[[Category:Calendar]]		[[Category:Calendar]]

Jchristo at 15:47, 4 May 2026

2026-05-04T15:47:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 4 May 2026
Line 38:		Line 38:

	Matsuda (''Shinshaku'') sees the MYS poem as simplistic, in contrast to Motokata's "complex and splendid" poem.		Matsuda (''Shinshaku'') sees the MYS poem as simplistic, in contrast to Motokata's "complex and splendid" poem.

			The prominent placement of this poem at the beginning of Japan's most prestigious poetic anthology has resulted in a great deal of commentary and analysis.

			The poem is found in a number of “good poetry” collections, and Fujiwara no Shunzei wrote “This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem.” A later pseudo-Teika work called the ''Sangoki'' included the poem as an example of the "pine style," which was defined as a poem that can be appreciated no matter how many times you hear it, and that has strength and propriety, with no extraneous matter. Some of this fulsome praise it received may have been simply out of respect for its place as the first poem in the most prestigious waka collection.

			This

			Modern commenters have also see value in the poem. It may be that the question at the end of the poem is arising out of the longing for the warmth of spring – the poet hopes that we can say it’s “this year” (i.e. the year of the new spring) rather than “last year” (i.e. the year of the cold winter we are moving away from). In this sense we are not dealing with a simple witty comment about the lunar vs. solar calendars.
			Another possibility is that the poem seeks to contrast the human-created calendar with the movement of time in the natural world. A number of KKS poems have the contrast between humans and nature, and it is possible to see that theme here too.

	There have been varied reactions to the poem. One of the most famous is Masaoka Shiki’s attack on the Kokinshu in 1898, where he wrote that this poem was “disgustingly insipid” and “so silly that it fails to rise even to the level of vulgar wit.” McCullough also describes the poem as having “sterile wit” and agrees with some other commenters that his poetry is not especially good but served a useful purpose in the structure of the Kokinshu’s organization.		There have been varied reactions to the poem. One of the most famous is Masaoka Shiki’s attack on the Kokinshu in 1898, where he wrote that this poem was “disgustingly insipid” and “so silly that it fails to rise even to the level of vulgar wit.” McCullough also describes the poem as having “sterile wit” and agrees with some other commenters that his poetry is not especially good but served a useful purpose in the structure of the Kokinshu’s organization.
Line 43:		Line 52:
	In contrast, pre-modern reception of the poem was generally positive. It is included in a number of “good poetry” collections, and Fujiwara no Shunzei wrote “This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem.” Some of the fulsome praise it received may have been simply out of respect for its place as the first poem in the most prestigious waka collection.		In contrast, pre-modern reception of the poem was generally positive. It is included in a number of “good poetry” collections, and Fujiwara no Shunzei wrote “This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem.” Some of the fulsome praise it received may have been simply out of respect for its place as the first poem in the most prestigious waka collection.

	But some modern commenters also see value in the poem. It may be that the question at the end of the poem is arising out of the longing for the warmth of spring – the poet hopes that we can say it’s “this year” (i.e. the year of the new spring) rather than “last year” (i.e. the year of the cold winter we are moving away from). In this sense we are not dealing with a simple witty comment about the lunar vs. solar calendars.
	Another possibility is that the poem seeks to contrast the human-created calendar with the movement of time in the natural world. A number of KKS poems have the contrast between humans and nature, and it is possible to see that theme here too.

	Why was Motokata’s poem chosen as the first one? Early scholars who were still active poets in the Heian court assumed that there must be some deep reason for this. One explanation was that Motokata was being honored as Ariwara no Narihira’s grandson. Another was found in the Kokin denju teachings which explained that this poem contains “old” (in “last year”) and “new” (in “this year”) and thus linked to the title of the collection itself.		Why was Motokata’s poem chosen as the first one? Early scholars who were still active poets in the Heian court assumed that there must be some deep reason for this. One explanation was that Motokata was being honored as Ariwara no Narihira’s grandson. Another was found in the Kokin denju teachings which explained that this poem contains “old” (in “last year”) and “new” (in “this year”) and thus linked to the title of the collection itself.

Jchristo at 15:24, 4 May 2026

2026-05-04T15:24:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 4 May 2026
Line 31:		Line 31:

	== Analysis ==		== Analysis ==

			The ''Kokinshū'' begins with a poem that does not contain any explicit spring imagery, but simply comments on the conflict between the lunar and solar calendars. This theme had already appeared in the ''Man'yoshū'', [[MYS 4492\|poem 4492]] by [[Ōtomo no Yakamochi]]:

			:: 月数めばいまだ冬なりしかすがに霞たなびく春立ちぬとか
			:: When we count the months, it is still winter. And yet the mist is rising, and spring has come.

			Matsuda (''Shinshaku'') sees the MYS poem as simplistic, in contrast to Motokata's "complex and splendid" poem.

			There have been varied reactions to the poem. One of the most famous is Masaoka Shiki’s attack on the Kokinshu in 1898, where he wrote that this poem was “disgustingly insipid” and “so silly that it fails to rise even to the level of vulgar wit.” McCullough also describes the poem as having “sterile wit” and agrees with some other commenters that his poetry is not especially good but served a useful purpose in the structure of the Kokinshu’s organization.

			In contrast, pre-modern reception of the poem was generally positive. It is included in a number of “good poetry” collections, and Fujiwara no Shunzei wrote “This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem.” Some of the fulsome praise it received may have been simply out of respect for its place as the first poem in the most prestigious waka collection.

			But some modern commenters also see value in the poem. It may be that the question at the end of the poem is arising out of the longing for the warmth of spring – the poet hopes that we can say it’s “this year” (i.e. the year of the new spring) rather than “last year” (i.e. the year of the cold winter we are moving away from). In this sense we are not dealing with a simple witty comment about the lunar vs. solar calendars.
			Another possibility is that the poem seeks to contrast the human-created calendar with the movement of time in the natural world. A number of KKS poems have the contrast between humans and nature, and it is possible to see that theme here too.

			Why was Motokata’s poem chosen as the first one? Early scholars who were still active poets in the Heian court assumed that there must be some deep reason for this. One explanation was that Motokata was being honored as Ariwara no Narihira’s grandson. Another was found in the Kokin denju teachings which explained that this poem contains “old” (in “last year”) and “new” (in “this year”) and thus linked to the title of the collection itself.

			However, it is not certain that the KKS compilers had such deep consideration for their choice – in the end it may simply be that because this poem is about the coming of the new year, it made sense for it to be placed first in the collection, before all the poetry about specific early spring images.




	Opinions on this poem's quality have varied through the ages. {{Oldest\|Fujiwara no Shunzei}} wrote "This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem." The "logic" perhaps refers to question at the end about which year to call it. The pseudo-Teika writings {{Teika\|Kirihioke}} and {{Teika\|Teika Jittei}} assign the poem to the 麗歌 category, as a "pine style" poem [add definition], and another pseudo-Teika writing {{Teika\|Sangoki}} includes the poem as an example of a style the reader should imitate. Teika himself included it in his {{Teika\|Teika hachidaisho}} collection of good poems.		Opinions on this poem's quality have varied through the ages. {{Oldest\|Fujiwara no Shunzei}} wrote "This poem has strong logic, is pleasant to the ear, and is a splendidly composed poem." The "logic" perhaps refers to question at the end about which year to call it. The pseudo-Teika writings {{Teika\|Kirihioke}} and {{Teika\|Teika Jittei}} assign the poem to the 麗歌 category, as a "pine style" poem [add definition], and another pseudo-Teika writing {{Teika\|Sangoki}} includes the poem as an example of a style the reader should imitate. Teika himself included it in his {{Teika\|Teika hachidaisho}} collection of good poems.

Jchristo at 15:16, 4 May 2026

2026-05-04T15:16:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:16, 4 May 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:

	;One year		;One year
	:Although ''hitotose'' means "one year," it's not entirely clear what the reference is, and there is a surprising amount of disagreement as to exactly what period of time is referred to here.		:Although ''hitotose'' means "one year," it's not entirely clear what the reference is, and there is a surprising amount of disagreement as to exactly what period of time is referred to here. Takeoka and Katagiri both explain the meaning in this way: Spring, which should only come once in a year, has come twice. So do I refer to this entire year as "this year" or "last year" (since a new spring has come). On the other hand, the newer ''Kokinshū'' commentary in the ''Waka bungaku taikei'' series interprets the "one year" as the period up to the previous day (before the start of this spring).

	Takeoka ~~sums up many of the previous theories. Katigiri~~ and ~~Takeoka~~ both ~~point to other uses of ひととせ~~ in ~~contemporary poetry, including~~ this ~~one from Motokata himself:~~

	~~:: 一年に再び咲かぬ花なればむべ散ることを人はいひけり　（後撰集春下、１０９）~~
	~~:: Because flowers do not bloom twice in one year, that's why people talk so much about them scattering. ([[Gosenshu_3#109\|Gosenshu 109]])~~

	~~:Both Katagiri and Takeoka conclude that the meaning here is~~: Spring, which should only come once in a year, has come twice. So do I refer to this entire year as "this year" or "last year"~~? I think~~ the ~~suggestion may be that this~~ "~~single~~ year" ~~can be referred~~ to ~~in both ways despite it just being one year.~~

	~~;や...む~~
	~~:This structure shows~~ the ~~speaker's doubt~~.

	== Analysis ==		== Analysis ==

Jchristo at 15:04, 4 May 2026

2026-05-04T15:04:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 4 May 2026
Line 28:		Line 28:

	;One year		;One year
			:Although ''hitotose'' means "one year," it's not entirely clear what the reference is, and there is a surprising amount of disagreement as to exactly what period of time is referred to here.

	~~;:Although ''hitotose'' "one year," it's not entirely clear what the reference is.~~ Takeoka sums up many of the previous theories. Katigiri and Takeoka both point to other uses of ひととせ in contemporary poetry, including this one from Motokata himself:		Takeoka sums up many of the previous theories. Katigiri and Takeoka both point to other uses of ひととせ in contemporary poetry, including this one from Motokata himself:

	:: 一年に再び咲かぬ花なればむべ散ることを人はいひけり　（後撰集春下、１０９）		:: 一年に再び咲かぬ花なればむべ散ることを人はいひけり　（後撰集春下、１０９）