Left.
かくこそは長柄の橋も絶えしかど柱ばかりは名殘やはなき
kaku koso wa
nagara no hashi mo
taeshikado
hashira bakari wa
nagori ya wa naki |
And so it is that
The bridge at Nagara
Has ceased to be, yet
Are there not even pillars
In remembrance of what’s gone? |
Lord Ari’ie
1013
Right (Win).
今も猶長柄の橋は作りてんつれなき戀は跡だにもなし
ima mo nao
nagara no hashi wa
tsukuriten
tsurenaki koi wa
ato dani mo nashi |
Even now is
The bridge at Nagara
Being built?
Of this cruel love
Not even a trace remains… |
Nobusada
1014
The Right state: it is certainly possible to say that the ‘bridge at Nagara’ has ‘rotted’ (kutsu), but there are, we think, no other examples of it ‘ceasing’ (tayu). The Left state: we wonder about the appropriateness of saying ‘love not a trace’ (koi ni ato nashi).
In judgement: both poems refer to ‘the bridge at Nagara’ and, as has been mentioned by the Gentlemen of the Right in their criticism, the Left uses ‘has ceased to be, yet’ (taeshikado); there are many poems using ‘rotted’, because this is what happens to the pillars of bridges. After this bridge ceased to be, the pillars would still be rotting away. If you have the bridge ‘being built’ (tsukuru nari), why would you not then have it ‘ceasing’? That being said, I am only accustomed to hearing ‘bridge pillars’ (hashibashira), and having only ‘pillars’ (hashira) sounds completely lacking in logic. The Right’s poem uses ‘love not a trace’ (koi ato nashi): it is entirely natural for a variety of different things not to leave a trace. The current criticism must be due to there not being a prior example of this usage, but it is particularly difficult to say this about the initial section of the poem. The Right wins.