Talk:The Tale of Genji

Can someone fill in the three gradual stages part? There are only two listed and they only cover 54 chapters, while 56 are listed just below.

---

If the book was written in kana, why are kanji used in the chapter headings? - Montréalais 03:04, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good point. The original book was in kana with an occasional chinese character, kanjis came later. What is the source of the kanjis? I think they should be last, not first. They are interesting, but most people can't read them. Asereje 02:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kanji came first, then kana developed from them. The script in use at the time of Genji's writing was sort of an amalgam -- multiple kanji simplifications were used for each kana (some of which are nearly identical to modern kana).

No surviving manuscript of the Tale of Genji is written in "all kana", and I think this is more of a legend than actual fact, especially since one of the few things we know about Murasaki Shikibu is that she knew Chinese characters well. (-Chris Kern)

Mursaki wrote in kana because she was a woman writing for women, and Chinese characters was a masculine pursuit. While women could study them and write them, and Murasaki's calligraphy and writing were known to be particularly good, it was deemed feminine to be discreet. Murasaki criticized her literary rival Sei Shonagon on showing off her ability to write Chinese, calling her Chinese poems "garish" or something like that. Jealousy, one wonders. The The earliest known manuscripts for the Genji date from 400 years after Murasaki's death, and would most likely use Chinese characters.

Also the chapters are known by traditional names, but it's uncertain that these were the names Murasaki used, or even that she used any chapter names at all. I could be wrong about this last point, but it is well known that the characters in the Genji are not named. They have names of course but Heian yokibito society deemed it impolite to actually use them. This practice survives today: the emperor is never ever referred to by name (Akihito) nor will he ever. After he passes away, he will be known as the Heisei emperor, as Hirohito is known as the Showa emperor. Vincent 10:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is a theory that suggests the "standard names" we have now for the characters were in use even during Murasaki's life. This is due to a comment in her diary that refers to Murasaki the character. However, this is not conclusive because the character is actually called "Murasaki no Ue" or "Waka Murasaki" in the tale itself.

Commenting on the above discussion made me read the article over again. It was in need of a major rewrite. Vincent 11:59, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The division into 56 chapters rather than 54 is strange; I don't believe I've ever seen it divided that way before. The author of the page for some reason divided Yuugiri into two chapters, and Kumogakure was given a number (usually even when it appears in a text of the tale the chapter is not numbered).

Perhaps someone should also give the "official" translations of the chapter titles used by Waley, Seidensticker, and Tyler. (The translations appearing in the article are rather odd.)

Speaking of that, I guess there should be a section on the English translations as well. - Chris Kern

World's first novel

Currently the article implies Japanese scholars dispute the term "first", but I think the main objection that Japan scholars have is with calling Genji a "novel." The novel is a Western (and quite modern) concept. It implies certain conventions and notions that just don't apply to Genji. The classic examples people raise:

1) in Genji the protagonist dies in the middle of the book (that's if you agree Genji is the "protagonist")

2) it's extremely episodic; there isn't a clear narrative arc

3) it was also read mainly by arisocrats, whereas the Western novel emerged as a popular artform

4) in Genji poetry and prose are perfectly fused, and it was first read mainly for its poetry really

I'm sure more knowledgeable people have more nuanced things to say about this, but while I think it's okay to CALL it a novel for lack of a better word, I believe it is important to caution the reader the problems with this. -- Dec 7, 04 Alex

I reverted the deletion of the claim that many consider Genji to be the world's first novel. This is a widely-held belief and it shouldn't be expunged from the article.

• Publishers Weekly and Amazon both claim that Genji is the first.
• Britannica claims that it's first.
• Web-japan.org, although admittedly not a neutral source, concurs.
• Encarta doesn't pass judgment but does note that it "has been called" the first.

So if it ain't true, it needs to be explained, at least. - Sekicho 14:13, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. We had a discussion of the Genji-is-1st-novel theory elsewhere, not here. Please see Talk:Japanese literature for why it isn't the first novel. Vincent 14:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This still needs to be at least mentioned in the article. Any student of Japanese literature has heard, at some point in their life, that Genji is the world's first novel. Whether you agree with that assertion or not, it's a very common claim and it needs to be either stated or debunked so that people understand why Genji is important. Sekicho 20:40, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. When I put in the reference to it being the "first novel," I tried to make it clear that this was a disputed claim, though maybe I didn't put in enough weasel words. The point is that people who take Japanese literature classes "learn" that it is, so the article should at the least have a link to some where that people can here why it is or isn't considered to be the first novel. --Carl 05:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

False claims do not need to be mentioned. To summarize the long argument in Talk:Japanese Literature:

1. Genji isn't the world's first novel the same way Shakespeare isn't the first English playright;

2. Japanese people don't even call it a novel (shosetsu) they call it a monogatari (a tale) and it isn't the first of those.

3. It might not even be the most influential work of Japanese lit, e.g. few roman-fleuve are published today but thousands of Pillow-Book type essays are published each month in Japan.

That your Japanese lit teachers said it was so doesn't make it so. It is an opinion first published heaven knows when, probably in a 19th century memoir of Japan, and has been parrotted ever since, the same way biology textbooks always mention Lamarck when they introduce Darwin even though it's a now anachronistic and useless comparison.

To call it the first novel is a POV opinion that depends on a fuzzy definition of what a novel is, and on a subjective evaluation of whether or not the Genji fits that definition. This doesn't belong in Wikipedia. If it's to be written up at all, it could be placed under the heading "Reading the Genji today". Cheers,Vincent 13:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Since this is a commonly parroted "falsehood" it deserve a mention-- if only to debunk it. For example, in an article about human ribs, it would make sense to say, "Males and females have the same number of ribs, although a common wives tale purports otherwise and assigns the difference to God's taking a rib from Adam in the Biblical story of creation."

Do men and women have a different number of ribs? Hell no! Do a lot of people think they do? Sadly, yes. Is it worth mentioning, if only to disprove it? Again, yes.

You yourself admit that a number of Japanese professors continue to parrot some old 19th century book about "Genji" being the first novel. So why not stop the parroting by letting people know that it isn't?--Carl 16:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(PS. I checked Rib: "There is a legend that male humans have one rib fewer than female humans. This is false, and originates from the Bible's description of the creation of Eve (from the rib of Adam." Go, theoretical examples that turn out to be true. :) )--Carl

<sigh> Japanese lit professors, often white people who haven't been to Japan and speak no Japanese. If a falsehood must be mentioned at all, it should not be given the prominence it gets when placed in the introductory paragraph.

I read the article again and you'll find that the first novel argument is mentioned under the "Literary context" heading, at the end. :

Murasaki was neither the first or the last writer of the Heian period, nor was the Genji the earliest example of a "monogatari". Rather, the Genji stands above other tales of the time much as Shakespeare's plays stand above other Elizabethan drama.

I think I wrote that a couple of months of ago when I reworked the article. Cheers Vincent 17:40, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, Vincent, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 so far. If nobody agrees with you within the next day or two, I'm going to add a more clear note stating that "while many people think Genji is the world's first novel, it really isn't" or something to that effect. If we don't explicitly debunk this, people are going to put it in. Sekicho 22:03, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Off topic, but for the record, my Japanese literature professor was Japanese. However, the first time I learned about Genji was in my Japanese Art class, taught by a white man-- in Japan. I can't honestly recall where I first heard Genji called the first novel, but it got stuck in my head at some point. I think this article should make an explicit attempt to dislodge it from the heads of others. How about we have the head of the article say something like, "Though Genji is sometimes called the first novel, this claim is not generally accepted (see "Literary context" for more)." and then a link to the part of the entry where the first novel claim is debunked.--Carl 05:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

re: "It might not even be the most influential work of Japanese lit": For just one measure of the influence, look at the number of film adaptations: Genji monogatari (1951) aka "The Tale of Genji", Shin Genji monogatari (1961), Genji monogatari (1966) aka "The Tale of Genji" (anime), Murasaki Shikibu: Genji monogatari (1987) (anime), Sennen no koi - Hikaru Genji monogatari (2002), Desejado, O (1988) [Portuguese / French]. How many movies did I find with any connection to Sei Shōnagon's Makura Sōshi? One. Pillow Book, The (1996)

How many recent manga have been based on Genji? At least 5 [1]. The number of manga for the Pillow Book? None that I could find. But those are just modern examples. As Donald Keene put it in his Seeds in the Heart, "...it would not be possible to list all the other works of Japanese literature that it has inspired."

The Tale of Genji may not be the "first" anything, but like Shakespeare, Murasaki Shikibu borrowed and adapted what had been written before her time, but ended up writing something that transended them, and not only survived, but thrived for a millenium. Serious students of Japanese Literature might have other favorites (for example, Ihara Saikaku's Kōshuku Ichidai Otoku (The Life of an Amorous Man), but for the average Literature student, or even just the average person in general, The Tale of Genji may be the only Japanese literature that they know about. It is a shame that somewhere down the line someone felt that they needed to embellish the reputation of Genji by calling it the "first novel", but since this misconception is so widespread, it is best to deal with it quickly and at the top of the article. gK 05:28, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This issue seems to have been settled but I want to throw in my opinion as an amateur observer. I and all non-literature majors who have heard of Genji only know about because it is widely called the first novel. From the first time I heard that claim I thought it sounded suspicious, but it has definitely become "common knowledge". I wasn't aware that there was any scholarly controversy until I read the first paragraph of this article. I think failing to mention anything will only further the ignorance, and even cause people to question Wikipedia's accuracy (gyaku kōka?). Remember that an encyclopedia is basically a place to learn more about something you have heard about, often for the purpose of getting facts straight. There is no better place to discount common misconceptions, I think. Sometimes we get so consumed with being right that they forget why these articles are here in the first place. (See also Incandescent light bulb#History of the light bulb) Ken6en 05:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I definitely think there is a place for the rebuttal at the top of the article -- a number of relatively authoritative (or at least authoritative-seeming) reference works refer to Genji as the first novel, therefore we cannot simply state baldly and without qualification that Genji is not the first novel. But we shouldn't say that it *is* the first novel either since not everyone agrees with that. I think the best way is to simply state the facts -- that while it is sometimes referred to as the first novel, not everyone agrees with that description.

Greatest work of Japanese literature?

Why was my statement in the beginning edited out? The Tale of Genji *is* widely considered to be the greatest work of Japanese literature. Not universally, but it's a widely held opinion.

Because it is an opinion, hence POV. It's also a very debatable opinion, which I think is wrong, even though Genji is a personal favourite. The best selling translation of a Japanese novel is Yoshikawa's samurai epic "Musashi". The most visible writer is Natsume Soseki because his face is on the 1000 yen bill. More people today write quick personal essays following Sei Shonagon's style, while few write romantic large scale psychological novels. Japanese lit is a rich field and it's a disservice to stick a simplistic superlative label on any one work on any one author. Vincent 11:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However, something of that nature needs to be said even if qualified as an opinion. Currently there's nothing in the article to suggest Genji's stature in Japan -- it certainly is *one* of the pieces of literature that's commonly mentioned as Japan's greatest work of literature. It occupies a major place in the popular mindset that is different from that enjoyed by other works of literature (almost every person I talk to about it feels like they should read Genji, and no other classic has had so many anime, manga, and modern novel versions of it.) Note that the original note did not say "Genji is the greatest work of Japanese literature". It said "widely considered to be the greatest work". Feel free to reword that if you wish, but acknolwedging Genji's place in the Japanese literature canon is not just classed as "POV". If you think that, then you might want to go edit out the similar statements that are found in the articles on Bach, Beethoven, Shakespeare, Einstein, and others.

How about "It is widely considered to be one of the greatest works of Japanese literature"? I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who held the honest and reasoned opinion that Genji is not *one of* the greatest works. I think that something like this needs to be said because it's not obvious, especially to people who are not familiar with Japanese literature. Old does not necessarily mean good, and sometimes a work is considered a "classic" merely because it's the only thing that survives from a certain time period. But one of the remarkable things about the Genji is how even 1000 years later it's still held in such high opinion.

Then put under the heading "Reading the Genji today", at the beginning perhaps. It would certainly explain why we're reading the Genji 1000 years after it was written. Although, I would get rit of both "It is considered" and "the greatest". The latter is POV and the former is only pseudo-NPOV. I'd go more for something like this under "Genji today":

The Genji is still widely read in Japan and is one of the best known works of the period. Nearly all Japanese school children study the original, at least in part, and modern adaptations and reworkings are regularly published in a variety of media including film. The Genji first became popular outside Japan with Arthur Waley's translation of the 1920's and has been translated several times since.

Cheers, Vincent 07:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your definition of NPOV doesn't agree with Wikipedia's, to quote from the NPOV article:

Providing an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations or references to notable individuals holding that interpretation, is appropriate. For instance, that Shakespeare is one of the greatest authors of the English language is a bit of knowledge that one should learn from an encyclopedia. Notice, determining how some artist or work has been received publicly or critically might require research; but that reception, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion of the Wikipedia article writer, is an opinion that really matters.

Seriously, how many (informed) people are there who don't believe that Genji is one of the greatest works of Japanese literature? I do think it's a good idea to qualify it with some specific quotes, for instance Yasunari Kawabata's statement in his Nobel Prize speech that "Genji in particular is the highest pinnacle of Japanese literature. Even down to our day there has not been a piece of fiction to compare with it.", or Fujiwara no Shunzei's statement that study of it was indispensable for anyone who wanted to compose poetry.

OK, OK, I admit it. I hate the word "greatest" and the person who wrote the Wikipedia definition of NPOV doesn't hate it. But still, I'm right ;) (Maybe. I think. I'm sure. I think. Perhaps. Somewhat. Definitely maybe. Obviously, if you think about it. A long time. Probably. Certainly. Almost. Unless I'm wrong, which I doubt. Most of the time, anyway.) So how about in the intro paragraph, adding ... and is one of the most important works within Japanese literature.? One of the most important is factual and refers to a fact (we can measure the Genji's impact on Jpn lit) while "considered one of the greatest" is factual but refers to an opinion (I feel it's the greatest).

Anyway, I'm taking this entry off my watchlist. I need a rest from it. Have fun. Cheers. Vincent 16:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I added two sections on debates of authorship and completeness, and I also revised the Uji section of the summary.

Free translation

Free is the right word in this case because a "free translation" is one that puts the emphasis on readability and understanding rather than literalness. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 14:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the convention, but if this is the case, someone should wikify the word "free" to point to the definition of "Free Translation" on Wikipedia if it's there, or Wiktionary if not.

Illustrations

Hello everyone, I have added some illustrations from the Burke albuns. Please let me know if you think some more illustrations can be added or not, or maybe we can try to look for other styles (earlier period and closer to Murasaki Shikibu's time). askewmind 20:24, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I like your added illustrations. I changed the caption format though. For additional illustration it would be nice to link to a wikisource page of all the illustrations we can muster. I think this is worth the time and server space. --Chinasaur 22:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, there are several works containing illustrations based on The Tale of Genji, I just happen to have the print of one from the 17th century known as the Burke Album. I could scan all the images (which is going to take some time). Askewmind 23:35, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

I have access to a few interesting sets of illustrations as well, but like you not a lot of free time at the moment. Might it be good enough to use a digital camera? That would save time; I'll give it a try. I didn't mean for you to go it alone though. It was more a suggestion to the community behind this article that a wikisource entry with illustrations from this would be a good project. We could coordinate with japanese WP too I'm sure. --Chinasaur 00:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be fantastic! I'm new to wikipedia (only a few weeks old but I'm starting to get well into it). I dont have a prob with scanning the 52 images from the Burke Album but like I said a) it could take me a few weeks and b) not sure about the public domain status. Also... how does wikisource work? Askewmind 21:20, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

---

Someone questioned in the history whether Ivan Morris' book was influental on Japanese scholarship. No, it was influental on the Western understanding of the time period -- it was essentially the first book that provided a real look at that time period of Japan's history and culture, and it remained so for a long time. It's still considered a classic work of English language Japanese history.

how about a separate chapter summary page?

Hi, I'm currently reading The Tale of Genji, and it occurred to me that a separate chapter summary page would be a good idea. I'd do it myself, but I've never read the book before, and I'm only up to chapter 8 right now in the Royall Tyler translation.

What are your thoughts on this? Would it be better to make separate pages for each chapter, or make one long page with sections? I personally think that separate pages would be better, from the standpoint of trying to limit the size of each article.

I would be glad to contribute towards this, but it'll just take time. I find that reading Genji takes more effort than the average novel. --Tachikoma 21:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. My plan was always to either start a Wikiproject on the Tale of Genji, however that work would take years and I don't know if there are enough who would be willing to do it. I read the Seidensticker version, so I am curious how the Tyler version differs. I would like a chapter summary, don't have much time at the moment, but this would be a great idea. Gryffindor 17:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm really wishing right now that I had taken notes when I had first started to read The Tale of Genji. That would have made both reading and writing about it that much easier.

I bought the Seidensticker version too, so that I could compare and clarify points of confusion. In brief, the Seidensticker version seems more straightforward, while the Tyler version is more indirect. Depending on the passage, the Tyler version might be more nuanced or simply just more verbose. The Tyler version uses very few names in the main text; however, each chapter has a character list that mentions their titles (e.g. His Excellency), their functions (e.g. gentlewoman to Fujitsubo), and their traditional nickname (e.g. Aoi). Some of the extensive footnotes also clarify the characters' names. --Tachikoma 19:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've done some preliminary work on a chapter summary in my sandbox. I don't know whether to "go live" and just start the actual chapter summary page, or leave it in my sandbox for further work.

One problem is that working on the chapter summaries takes away time from actually reading the book, and vice versa.

Let me know what you think. --Tachikoma 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean, I was looking the other day for my old class-notes, of course I can't find them which means I would have to go again chapter through chapter. saiyaku. But your sandbox looks good, I would tweak a bit more with style etc. but I can help you with that one if you want. I'm also thinking about setting up a table to show how the character's names are different in the Japanese original, Seidensticker version, etc.... for example it's either Nyōsan or Onna San no Miya (capitalised can change) or Third Princess... very confusing to those who might not be familiar, so we should work on that as well. I don't have much time for this project here unfortunately, but I'll keep an eye open and try to come back to it later. Gryffindor 18:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The stuff in my sandbox is merely an attempt to get something down in text, nothing like a finished piece.

I'm getting to think that the each chapter will eventually have to have its own page, because I was planning to have an introductory section about the chapter title, then the chapter summary, then a character list, and maybe something about the relationship with other chapters. For example, Asagao is introduced pretty early on, and then she isn't mentioned for a while, and then she pops back up.

I like your idea about a table (a concordance?) that shows the differences in names.

As I said before, I'm trying to spend more time reading the book than thinking about the chapter summary project. --Tachikoma 14:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Take your time, no rush. I think as well each chapter will have to be separate, on top of that each character could have their own article, I once wrote the Suetsumuhana, some stuff obviously still missing. Maybe for each chapter there can be a "Genji" template at the bottom or on the side, sort of like a "ring" system where one can click and jump to each chapter. We could use some nice Heian-jidai graphic or image in small size to add to that template. Gryffindor 15:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's seven colons now. I imagine that you're talking about a chapter box much like the United States National Parks box that appears at the bottom of (for example) Yosemite National Park. I don't yet know how to make anything like that. --Tachikoma 19:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, something along those lines. Well I think we should focus on the chapters first, then worry about templates and stuff later. Gryffindor 20:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Genji and Novels WikiProject

I've added the Novels WikiProject template to this talk page in an attempt to draw interest in expanding this article. At the same time, I don't believe that the format proposed by that WikiProject quite fits the Tale of Genji, because the work doesn't revolve around a simple A->B->C plot progression.

I'm slowly working on a chapter summary page, currently in my sandbox.

While an infobox as proposed by the Novels WP would be useful, I don't want to be the one to add it and thereby disrupt the current look of the page through my inexperience with wiki software. --Tachikoma 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be upset that I've tagged a lot of things in the article as needing a citation - I was really impressed by the article, but if we want to get it to Good Article, (which is the least it deserves) then we do need inline citations. I'm not a Genji buff, so I'll have to rely on all of youse to help find appropriate citations. Thanks :) - Malkinann 11:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a good thought but you may have gone overboard on the citation placeholders. I don't think inline citations on that magnitude are necessary for a good article. There are several different types of referencing that Wikipedia accepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources I do agree that the references section is lacking. -Mizi 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but each of those points was something that I read, and wanted to know more about. They're all things that a person could be curious about. Even if we just cited the major translations, then that'd be something. - Malkinann 07:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mizi. More references are certainly needed for the article, but the current number of citation placeholders is quite excessive. The point can be made without going that far - the article looks kind of ridiculous at the moment, and it doesn't deserve that. That's not a productive strategy for improving the article. Gorilla Jones 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the fact tags with a single not verified tag at the top of the page, and cited the differing manga translations of the Genji. Hope this is more to everyone's satisfaction. -Malkinann 23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This page [2] might be handy for source-mining. Gorilla Jones 07:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little bit concerned because I don't think my source for the historical copies section is entirely appropriate. http://www.f.waseda.jp/mjewel/jlit/archives/archives2001.html The webpage is reliable but the oldest surviving copy is only mentioned as an aside in a news blurb about a newer manuscript. I have looked on the internet for a better source but I can't seem to find anything at all. I'd appreciate some help. - Mizi 19:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Structure

As for the structure, is there any good reason not to mention the two series theory proposed by 武田宗俊 (Munetoshi Takeda?), based on statistical analysis? His theory is very known in Japan and widely accepted by the academics in this field[3], so I suppose you have a good reference to in English. --Aphaia 10:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tag section for POV because of strongly judgmental statements

The two paragraphs about Hikaru Genji’s exploits with women, describing how he “raped” them and discussing how women in medieval Japan were helpless against male dominance prevents several problems, aside from the absence of anything to balance its judgmental and POV nature of applying 19–20th-century moral ideas to 11th century Japan (and attitude usually construed as cultural imperialism):

1. First, it is not even clear from the original Japanese text that Genji entered the woman’s room without her permission.
2. Further, since the norm in that period of Japan’s history among the aristocracy (at least) was for relationships to be initiated and carried on in this way, and relationships were often not monogamous, there is little reason assume that this was a rape.
3. Genji’s “power” that motivated the women to acquiesce was not necessarily physical strength—given the context of (again) 11th century Japanese aristocracy, it was probably something else, like physical attractiveness. The whole point of the Hikaru Genji’s name was that he was supposed to have been extremely attractive and desirable, not only for his physical characteristics but also for his empathy towards women.
4. Mary Arnold’s statement about women in medieval Japan in problematic for three major reasons:
   • The Tale of Genji takes place in the 11th century or earlier; that is not “medieval Japan”—she’s off by two or three hundred years at the least.
   • It is debatable whether Genji’s actions typify the impunity of men committing rape at that time, because it is unlikely that his actions were contemporarily perceived of as rape, even if they were by today’s definition.
   • In fact, women’s social position in the Heian period and even thereafter, into Japan’s medieval period, was not as weak as Arnold seems to think. Though it differed by region and class, in general women owned, inherited, and could pass on property separately from their husbands, for example, and they could initiate divorce and take their property with them when they left. The shift towards the downtrodden image people entertain today did not start until much later in Japanese history, and it started with the warrior class and in some aspects did not necessarily extend to the merchant and farming classes until as recently as the 19th century when warrior-class values were imposed directly on the whole population, in the process of post-Edo nation-building, as the “essence” of Japaneseness.

These weaknesses need to be balanced or removed. They could even be seen as off-topic for the article, given that they seem more designed to present the Japanese in an unfavorable light with respect to women rather than tell us anything about The Tale of Genji. Even assuming that these statements do tell us something about the article’s subject, they should be presented in a separate section—one on the significance and implications of the work—rather than in a section describing or summarizing the narrative. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 07:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, at least for Utsusemi and Murasaki-no-ue, he raped them and so described. According to the text, both women felt uncomfortable, insulted and thought their will was ignored. But I don't think it cannot be summarized or generalized as "women's weakness". In the cultural context, Utsusemi is not a noble and Genji had no reason to treat her as the equal to her. On the contrary, if I recall correctly, he said to Utsusemi "I am the person any of whose desires are permissible". The similar can be said to Murasaki-no-ue. While she is in a loyal lineage, her social status is very weak and not different from the other lower women with whom Genji had love affairs. It should be summarized "lower-ranked people's weakness" rather than "women's weakness", I suppose. --Aphaia 10:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This page—and much less so the article—is not the place to be editorializing about what may or may not have been, but rather a place for discussing and reaching consensus on how the article should be written. For that to happen, understanding Wikipedia’s objectives and policies is prerequisite; I’d like to suggest that the two of you check out WP:ATT and work from there to familiarize yourselves with concepts such as WP:MPOV as they are used on Wikipedia: The issue here should not be how things really were in Heian Japan, but what scholars of the era/document writing in secondary sources think, and how to present all of their thinking fairly—that means including opposing views without prejudice or bias to one or the other—in the article.

Arnold is not an expert on Japan, Japanese literature, or Genji Monogatari, and it appears that an earlier editor inserted her views to push a POV that is basically irrelevant to the article (if the article were on women’s issues in ancient Japan, I’d have nothing to object to), taking them out of their original context. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 11:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Bilge

"Mary Arnold points out that, '...The customs of the time expected women to be submissive to men, even to the point of rape. Men had no fear that they would be punished for rape, as evidenced in Genji's attitude.'"

Okay, aside from the obvious point that Genji was written, by a woman, as an entertainment rather than a sociological description, let's put this statement to the test. We know from her diary that Murasaki Shikibu was a lady in waiting on the Empress. And we know that both Murasaki and the Empress were women. Now suppose a palace guard, low ranking, but still a man, had raped Murasaki and the Empress. Now, according to Arnold's statement, both Murasaki and the Empress would have submitted to this. And the guard wouldn't have had any fear of punishment. Does anyone believe this? This statement is bilge, and should be removed. I'll do it myself unless someone has a convincing reason not to. Shirokuma1 05:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Shirokuma1, I don't know Arnold and wonder who did such a generalization. In the court and noble's houses, noble men had no fear that they would be punished for rape, it was included their "noblehood". There is another Japanese researcher, whose name I don't recall for now, who pointed out rapes in Genji. Other major rape in the story made by Niounomiya, a grandson of Genji and prince. Genji is based on their socially acceped wisdom "nobles are allowed to do anything - even rapes"; as long as we limit the topic for our protagonists, I think Mary Arnord rightly points out that element. It doesn't mean it is the message of this work, though. --Aphaia 09:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Aphaia, the idea stated clearly in Arnold's quote is that Heian era men could do whatever they wanted with women without fear. This gives a really distorted view of Heian Japan to any reader of this article. You have amended Arnold's nonsensical statement by saying it applies only to "noblemen." That's an improvement, but I still don't buy it. Suppose Genji raped the Empress. Don't you think the Tenno would have done something? How about if someone raped one of Genji's wives, would Genji not have taken some action? I think action would have been taken, which is why noblemen didn't rape the Empress or the wives of Genji. They feared, at the very least, social sanctions. I'm sure rape happened in Heiankyo, but similar things have been known to happen in modern times at the Kennedy compound and in the hotel suites of NBA stars. That doesn't mean the society accepts it, or that all NBA stars think they can do it and get away with it. Shirokuma1 11:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You missed the point.I didn't think you would miss the point, so for readers like you, my words should be refined "allowed to do anything toward the lesser people in dignity". As for the cases you mentiond, the Empress (Fujitsubo) was 1) in the higher rank and 2) his mother-in-law, so it was not acceptable. "anything is allowed" is only applied when they were going to the lesser people. Not to the higher, or even to the equal. Same can be said to the relation between Onna-sannomiya and Kashiwagi: then Genji was ranked as quasi-ex-Emperor-in-the-cloister, so he had no reason to allow the lesser ranked officer to have an affair with his wife.

Also as self-conscious of Genji, I would point out Genji was not described to feel guilty for his relation to the Empress & mother-in-law. It could suggest Murasaki shikibu portrated her hero not feeling guilty. It accords his statement to Utsusemi in Hahakigi which I quoted on the above. --Aphaia 11:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope you guys will keep this civil... <g> Jim_Lockhart 11:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Aphaia, the last point you make, about Genji not feeling guilt over his affair with his stepmother (not mother-in-law) seems extraneous to this discussion, because it was a consensual affair, as i recall, and not rape. And Genji knew it was something to be concealed--shame vs. guilt I suppose. Like in the "Yugao" chapter he wears a mask when visiting the girl--these noblemen maybe didn't feel guilt over what they were doing, but they recognized society would sanction them over inappropraite behavior.

Anyway your formulation, noblemen were "allowed to do anything toward lesser people in dignity" is better than Arnold's unqualified statement that "the customs of the time expected women to be submissive to men, even to the point of rape." How about deleting Arnold's statement and replacing it with your own formulation? Shirokuma1 11:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Here’s why not: It would be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Arnold’s supposition (quoted) is just plain wrong, because that's not what the customs of the period required of women. Wikipedia has conventions for dealing with these problems; I suggest the two of you observe them if you’re going to deal with this. You will have to do some research and find either a refutation of Arnold’s claim (good luck) and balance it with that refutation, or remove her claim because (1) it taken out of context here, since the full context in which she made the statement was not about Genji Monogatari but another subject; and (2) no other research can be found to substantiate her claim. This will require you to really hit the books and do your homework; if you’re not willing to or cannot do that (I’m willing but don’t have the time), then perhaps you shouldn’t fiddle with it. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Shirokuma1, no ... at least now. I think I read something like I stated in books (not in papers perhaps, but it could be). Regretfully I cannot cite the source exactly. So it looks like original research, and it isn't welcome nowadays, isn't it? I admit Arnold simplified the issue too much, so it is okay with me to have it gone per se, but I would be more than happy to see mention to feminism criticism standpoints.--Aphaia 07:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Arnold's comment is gone, for reasons cited in the above posting. Shirokuma1 12:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)]]

names

I changed a few names on the name list: "Kaoru Genji" -> Kaoru (he is never referred to as a Genji in the tale) "Prince Niou Genji" -> Prince Niou ("Prince Niou Genji" is an impossibility; "Genji" specifically indicates a person who was removed from the imperial succession and made a commoner, which does not apply to Niou.)