Sent to a woman without much sentiment, when he had not visited her for a long time:
伊勢の海のあまのまてかたいとまなみながらへにける身をぞ恨むる
ise no umi no
ama no madekata
itoma nami
nagaraFenikeru
mi wozo uramuru
By the sea at Ise
A diver-girl does work
Without surcease
Endlessly
I hate myself!
Minamoto no Hide’aki
The latest scholarship suggests that the expression should be read madekata (classical Japanese was written without voicing indicators, so there was no orthographic distiction between te and de – both would have been written て) and utilises a Man’yō expression meaning ‘left and right’ referring to the constant side-to-side movement of the ama girls’ hands and shoulders as they worked – hence the translation above – but it is unlikely that the Roppyaku-ban Uta’awase poets would have had this understanding of it. Matekata did not just cause controversy in this competition – it was discussed extensively in many other premodern critical works, none of which came to a definitive conclusion.
The Right state that it should be kuyuru in the Left’s poem – and that they are not accustomed to hearing kuyuri. The Left state that, ‘while the rain falling on a roof of reeds would make no sound, once it became drops dripping through, it would. In addition, while it “makes no sound”, how can it be love?’
Shunzei’s judgement: The gentlemen of the Right’s claim that the Left’s poem should be kuyuri is incorrect. This is simply a case of the same diction as in utsuru-utsuri, todomaru-todomari – I should not have to give more examples. In form the poems do have good and bad points [utazama zen’aku arubeki]. I have the feeling I have recently seen something similar to the Right’s metaphorical use of a roof of reeds. Or maybe it was not that recently. The Left’s ‘has yet to rise’ seems better. I shall make it the winner.