A Note on Translation and Japanese Names

A NOTE ON TRANSLATION AND JAPANESE NAMES

Historians dealing with foreign cultures and languages face the challenge of making their works accessible through adequate translations while not distorting the meaning of the original terms. Though some scholars prefer to use a large number of Japanese terms to avoid the problem, I find this custom self-defeating, since it not only makes the work complicated to nonspecialists, but it also excuses the author from making sufficient effort to grasp the meaning of words. Therefore, I have attempted to find English equivalents that convey the proper meaning to all historical con- cepts in this study, and only the most important and unique terms are occasionally noted in Japanese. One of the central terms in this study, for example, is “gòso,” which literally means “forceful appeal.” Although an acceptable translation, it can also be mislead- ing since it omits two important connotations; gòso were demon- strations in the capital staged by a few monasteries with the help of divine symbols. Thus, I prefer the term “divine demonstra- tions,” frequently also using the Japanese word “gòso,” since it is central not only for this study but also for the understanding of religious institutions in premodern Japan in general. To further assist the reader, Japanese terms and names that appear frequently in the text are explained and listed with their Chinese characters in a separate glossary. With the exception of cloisters within the main monasteries, names of temples, which are always Buddhist in this study, are consistently given as proper nouns. Thus, I speak of Enryakuji, not “the Enryaku temple,” “the Enryaku-ji,” or “the Enryakuji temple.” In the case of Kûkai’s monastic complex on Mt. Kòya, properly known as Kongòbuji, I frequently refer to it as Kòyasan,

xv xvi Translation and Japanese Names since it is more commonly known under that name. Religious centers primarily dedicated to the native gods are called shrines, whose names present more of a problem since they varied more than temples not only over time but also depending on their rank. The terms “yashiro,” “jingû,” “taisha,” and the suffixes “-sha” and “-gû” all refer to shrines whose differences are hard to discern even by specialists. I prefer to retain the pronunciation of shrines as they are presented in the sources of the Heian and Kamakura eras. Therefore, although Enryakuji’s shrine affiliate is known today as Hiyoshi taisha, it was known as Hiesha in the pre-Muro- machi period. Since Western scholars have accepted the habit of referring to shrines in their translated version (e.g., the Kasuga shrine) I will occasionally use such terminology, although most shrines, technically speaking, consisted of a number of smaller shrines. The divine entities of Buddhism and the native cults (Shintò) present another problem. In Buddhism, I talk about deities or buddhas and bodhisattvas, and give their names exclusively in Japanese. Shintò deities are referred to either as the native gods or under the Japanese term “kami.” The term “deities” is applied across the board, becoming in this case the terminological link between the two systems of belief. In distinguishing between the members of temples and shrines, I prefer the term “monk” for Buddhist clerics, since it implies membership in a particular order and the taking of specific vows. The term “priest” is re- served for performers of Shintò rituals, as its meaning is broader, reflecting adequately the different duties of the servants of the kami. There were also a wide variety of lay followers of temples and shrines who are simply called “supporters,” “service people,” or “attendants” in this study. Japanese names are given with the surname first, and, as with the names of religious institutions, I have tried to retain the prac- tices of the premodern era. Thus, the genitive “no” is retained in names of large and high-ranking families (e.g., Fujiwara no Michi- naga), since that was the practice during the Heian and Kama- kura eras. For years and dates, I have ignored the differences between the lunar calendar, which was employed in Japan at the time, and our Gregorian calendar for two reasons. First, it is accepted praxis among virtually all Western historians to use the hybrid form—giving the Western year followed by the month and day of the lunar calendar—in academic works. Second, it is Translation and Japanese Names xvii simply not worth the trouble to translate every single date into our calendar, as it would create severe inconveniences for other scholars attempting to refer to Japanese works. Only when the original era name is of outstanding importance have I included it in the main text. The Japanese era names are, however, consistently listed in the footnotes in order to facilitate locating entries in diaries that are cited in this study. Map 1. The provinces of premodern Japan. Reprinted from The Origins of Medieval Japan, edited by Jeffrey P. Mass, with the permission of the publishers, Stanford University Press. © 1997 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. ¯

Map 2. The Kinai region. Adapted from Nihon no rekishi, volume 4: Ritsuryò kokka (Tokyo: Shògakkan, 1974). Map 3. The Kyoto area. Adapted from Nihon no rekishi, volume 8: Òchò kizoku (Tokyo: Shògakkan, 1974). Map 4. Eastern Nara. Adapted from Nagashima Fukutarò, Nara-ken no rekishi (Tokyo: Yamakawa shuppansha, 1980), 77. Map 5. Estates in Kii Province and Kòyasan’s Goshuin engi domain. Adapted from Kòyasan ryò shòen no shihai to kòzò, edited by Toyoda Takeshi (Tokyo: Gannandò shoten, 1977), 500.