Left (Tie).
遠ざかる人の心は海原の沖行く舟の跡の潮風
tōzakaru
hito no kokoro wa
unabara no
oki yuku funa no
ato no shiokaze |
Ever more distant grows
His heart:
Into the sea-plains of
The offing goes a boat,
Wake touched by the tidewinds… |
Lord Sada’ie
981
Right.
わたつ海の浪のあなたに人は住む心あらなん風の通ひ路
wata tsu umi no
nami no anata ni
hito wa sumu
kokoro aranan
kaze no kayoiji |
The endless sea:
Beyond its waves
Does my love live;
Had they any pity,
The winds would make my path to her! |
Nobusada
982
The Gentlemen of the Right state: there are too many uses of no. Would it not have been better to reduce their number with, for example, ‘o, sea-plains!’ (unabara ya)? We also wonder about the use of ‘wake touched by the tidewinds’ (ato no shiokaze). The Gentlemen of the Left state: ‘does my love live’ (hito wa sumu) is grating on the ear.
In judgement: saying that the Left’s poem has too many identical words is clearly relying upon the long-established hornet-hip or crane-knee faults. In today’s poetry there are countless poems in which these faults can be identified. In addition, ‘into the sea-plains’ (unabara no) and ‘o, sea-plains’ (unabara ya) are the same. I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that in this poem, it has to be ‘into the sea-plains’. Finally, ‘wake touched by the tidewinds’ is elegant. As for the Right’s ‘beyond its waves does my love live’ (nami no anata ni hito wa sumu), this is not grating, is it? It seems that the Gentleman of the Right, being so well-read in Chinese scholarship, has required revisions to the faulty poem of the Left in the absence of the judge. Thus, what can a grand old fool do but make the round a tie.
