著者

中島 和歌子

出版者

国文学研究資料館

雑誌

国文学研究資料館紀要 = The Bulltein of The National Institute of Japanese Literature (ISSN:03873447)

巻号頁・発行日

no.28, pp.1-40, 2002-02-20

---

『枕草子』には陰陽道に関する記事が少なく、仏教関係のそれの多さ、多様さと対照的である。一方『栄花物語』正篇は、『枕草子』と重なる時代・人物を描く部分を含めて、陰陽道に関する記述が多く、禁忌を重視し陰陽師を信頼する様子が描かれている。『枕草子』には、官人の陰陽師は固有名詞が見えないだけでなく、ほとんど描かれていない。その理由としては、視野の問題もあるが、出産を含む定子の危機そのものを一切記していない為に登場の機会がなかった、実際に道隆が兼家や道長・頼通ほどに禁忌を遵守し陰陽師を重用していなかった、験者や法師ほどには身近でなかった、といったことが考えられる。但し、記事は少ないものの、陰陽師に従う小童部や法師陰陽師、更には式神まで、陰陽師の周辺にいるものは取り上げられていた。これらは院政期の説話などには散見するが、陰陽道関係の記事が多様である『字津保物語』を含め、仮名にはあまり見られない。何かの理由で文学作品に取り上げられなかった風俗や言葉が、『枕草子』によって垣間見える一例である。また、『呪詛』の明記も珍しいが、伊周や高階氏による道長方呪詛の史実を考慮すると、記したことに挑発的意味あいが感じられる。物忌・方違については風俗としてそのまま受け入れる様子が見え、口実として利用することもない。しかし、呪誼、凶会日、物忌札や物忌の描き方においては、禁忌意識は薄い。また、これらの記事は連続して出てくることが多い。特定の物忌は、一条天皇四例、村上天皇・伊周・繁子・清少納言各一例で、定子の物忌は無い。伊周や清少納言の物忌は、定子との心の繋がりの確認の契機となっている。『蜻蛉日記』や『和泉式部日記』と愛情の種類は異なるが、表現方法は同じだと言える。 Not a lot of articles regarding Onmyodo in ”Makura-no-soshi”(枕草子) exist. It is in contrast to the varieties of Buddhism ones. On the other hand, in the main part of “Eiga-monogatari”(栄花物語), there were many descriptions about Onmyodo that taboo was taken very seriously and Onmyoji was trusted, included the part which overlaps with the era and the characters of “Makura-no-soshi”. Onmyoji who worked for government official were not only seen but also rarely written in “Makura-no-soshi”. Possible reasons for it were, the crisis of Teishi including her delivery were not written down at all, therefore there was no opportunity of the appearance, actually compared to Kaneie, Michinaga and Yorimichi, Michitaka had not complied with taboo and had not given Onmyoji to the important position, it was not closer than trained Buddhist Priests and Hoshi. However there were few articles about Kowarawabe who served Onmyoji, Hoshi-onmyoji, furthermore, also Shiki-gami around them were taken up. These occasionally appeared in Setsuwa in Insei period, it was uncommon in kana including “Utsuhomonogatari(うつほ物語)” which had various Onmyodo-related articles in it. This is one example to catch a glimpse of the customs and words which were not referred in some reason by “Makurano-soshi”. And specifying imprecation of ‘Juso’ is also rare and when the historical evidence of cursing Michinaga by Korechika or Takashina-uji were considered, it is possible to feel the provocative implications from there. In regards to Monoimi, Katagae, they were accepted as customs as they were, no use for excuse. However, regarding the way of describe Juso, Kuenichi, Monoimi-fuda, or Monoimi, there was less conscious of the taboos. Also these articles were often written repeatedly. As special Monoimi, four examples for Ichijo-tenno, one for Murakami-tenno, Korechika, Shigeko, Sei-shonagon each of them and none of Teishi’s. Monoimi for Krechika or Sei-shonagon became the opportunity to connect with the heart of Teishi. Although the kind of love varied from “Kagero Nikki”, (蜻蛉日記)“Izumishikibu Nikki”(和泉式部日記), this might be the same way of expression.

著者

小川 剛生

出版者

国文学研究資料館

雑誌

国文学研究資料館紀要 = The Bulltein of The National Institute of Japanese Literature (ISSN:03873447)

巻号頁・発行日

no.28, pp.83-118, 2002-02-20

---

南北朝時代の文芸・学問に、四書の一つである『孟子』が与えた影響について探った。『孟子』受容史は他の経書に比し著しく浅かったため、鎌倉時代後期にはなお刺激に満ちた警世の書として受け止められていたが、この時代、次第にその内容への理解が進み、経書としての地位を安定させるに至った。この時代を代表する文化人、二条良基の著作は、そうした風潮を形成し体現していたように見える。良基の連歌論には『孟子』の引用がかなりあり、これを子細に分析することで、良基の『孟子』傾倒が、宋儒の示した尊孟の姿勢にほぼ沿うものであったことを推定し、もって良基の文学論に与えた経学の影響を明らかにした。ついで四辻善成の『河海抄』から、良基の周辺もまた尊孟の潮流に敏感に反応していたことを確認し、『孟子』受容から窺える、この時代の古典学の性質についても考察した。 Regarding the influence that "Moshi"(孟子), one of Yonsho(四書) had an influence on literature and studies in Period of Northern and Southern Courts was explored. Because the History of Reception was extremely superficial compared to other conficianism, it was accepted as a sensational book which rebuked society in the late Kamakura period. The understanding to the contents gradually advanced and came to stabilize the position as the Classics of those days. Writings of Nijo Yoshimoto who was a culture representing of this period seemed to form such a trend and embody it. Renka-ron of Yoshimoto considerably had a quotation of "Moshi". By analyzing this closely it was assumed that his admiration for "Moshi" was almost compiled with an attitude to respect Moshi, then it showed the influence of Confucianism on the literary criticism of Yoshimoto. Next, it was confirmed that the people around Yoshimoto were also reacted to a tide of admiration for "Moshi" sensitively from "Kakaisho"(河海抄) by Yotsutsuji Yoshinari. Also the property of classic studies of this time that was indicated from "Moshi" reception was considered.