In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter Four EXPOSING THE SECRETS OF THE AUTHOR’S BRUSH 81 Fiction [ fabula] is a form of discourse, which, under guise of invention , illustrates or proves an idea; and as its superficial aspect is removed, the meaning of the author is clear. If, then, sense is revealed from under the veil of fiction, the composition of fiction is not idle nonsense. —Giovanni Boccaccio, Genealogy of the Gentile Gods Chapter 3 examined Hiromichi’s treatment of previous scholarship on Genji, focusing on his efforts to overcome the limitations inherent in dominant critical theories of the Edo period to emphasize the importance of interpretive function over ideology in Genji criticism. To accomplish this goal he crossed boundaries that had previously divided two opposing ideologies, Confucianism and national learning, or nativist scholarship. Having established the scope and content of Hiromichi’s criticism of previous Genji scholarship, our discussion moves on to examine the interpretive techniques and insights that he brought to the field from other scholarly traditions. Specifically this chapter will examine Hiromichi’s attempt to move beyond the limitations he pointed to in Tameakira’s reading of Genji as a Confucian allegory and Norinaga’s reading of the work in terms of his mono no aware theory. In introducing his own interpretive theory, Hiromichi hoped to bring the literary qualities of Genji to life in a way that could be understood and appreciated by any reader—from the Confucian scholar or nativist to the common reader wishing to discover “why Genji has received so much praise.”1 The method he introduces in the Hyōshaku for achieving this goal provides a key to reading the text. This key, called the “principles of composition,” functions as a system of interpretive concepts designed to unlock the complexities of Genji’s long, elaborate narrative and to provide access to the compositional elements that define its greatness as a work of literature. In his application of these interpretive principles to Genji Hiromichi often sums up his analysis by reminding the reader that it is meant to draw attention to yet 82 APPRAISING GENJI another example of “the author’s remarkable use of the brush” (sakusha no imijiki fudezukai nari).2 This expression clearly distinguishes Hiromichi from his predecessors who ultimately sought to legitimize their analysis in terms of larger moral, didactic, or political concerns. H ISTOR ICA L SOURCES FOR THE “PRINCIPLES OF COMPOSITION” Hiromichi acquaints readers with the general scope of his interpretive theory in a section of the “General Remarks” to the Hyōshaku titled, “The Presence of Principles of Composition in This Monogatari.” This section presents the historical and theoretical information necessary to appreciate Hiromichi’s innovative approach to the interpretation of Genji. He begins the discussion by drawing a close connection between the “principles of composition,” which he believes give shape to the narrative, and the literary sophistication that has come to be associated with the text: Praise for this monogatari requires no exaggeration on my part.The more one reads [Genji] the more difficult it becomes to express how exceptional it is. Therefore, I believe this monogatari is not written in any ordinary style, but rather it has been thought out and composed with various “principles of composition” [nori] in mind from the very beginning.3 These opening lines are noteworthy because they address the composition of Genji without direct reference to the personality or intentions of the author. As we saw in chapter 3, Hiromichi was critical of commentaries that attempted to interpret Genji based on the intentions of the author. He believed that such an analysis could only result in “idle speculation” because the author lived such a long time ago that it was impossible to know her mind with any certainty .4 Hiromichi introduces his own interpretive theory by drawing our attention away from areas of speculation to the realm of observable phenomena . Specifically he begins by discussing Genji’s merits in terms of what was written, how it differs from other written works, and how his analysis of these facts has led him to conclude that certain techniques were used to construct the text. This establishes the empirical tone of his interpretive approach by focusing on the evidence available to both reader and commentator as it appears in the text. Because the focus of inquiry remains on the text, the commentator becomes an active guide in directing the reader’s attention to those places in the text that reveal the literary accomplishments...

Share