Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 1996 23/1–2

An Otogizõshi in Context
Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex
in the Late Sixteenth Century
Lone TAKEUCHI

This article presents a multiple reading of Saru no sõshi: as a piece oflighthearted entertainment describing the marriage of the daughter of themonkey head-priest of Hiyoshi Shrine to a monkey from Yokawa; as an
exposition of religious beliefs symbolizing the union of buddhas and kami
in the Sannõ deity; and as a ritual representing a sequence of ceremonies
belonging to the contemporary Yayoi sairei. It is suggested that the production of Saru no sõshi reµects and may indeed have been directly occasioned by the vigorous reconstruction efforts at Hiyoshi Shrine, led by thehead priest Hafuribe Yukimaru, following the shrine’s destruction by Oda
Nobunaga in 1571.

SARU NO SÕSHI áuu{1 [Opusculum about monkeys] is one of several
hundred fourteenth- to seventeenth-century short narratives, often
illustrated, that are known as otogizõshi :8u{ (companion tales),Nara ehon ¹d…û (illustrated books from Nara), Muromachi monogatari Ñ‰]B (Muromachi [period] tales), or chðsei shõsetsu _›·ß
(medieval short stories). The multiple designations reµect past tendences either to reduce the narratives to fairy tales for women andchildren (thus the Edo-period connotation of otogizõshi) or to focus
on only their text or their pictures (e.g., chðsei shõsetsu). Recent
research, however, generally agrees that most otogizõshi were situatedat the interface of entertainment and religious ritual, that they were
1 Unless speci³ed otherwise, references to Saru no sõshi are to the annotated edition by
SAWAI Taizõ (1987) in the SNKBT edition. I am grateful to Professor Sawai for elucidating
details of the transmission and explaining several problems of reading and interpretation,and to Mr. Timothy Clark of the British Museum for ssuggesting that I look into the historical background ofthe text. I am also grateful to Professor Minobe Shigekatsu of Nanzan
University for his suggestions concerning this article. The illustrations are reproduced bycourtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

30

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

performed or read in such a way that text and pictures interacted, andthat they were intended for, and in fact reached, wide and varied
audiences.2
The remarkable feature of Saru no sõshi is the extent to which it displays in a single work the general characteristics of the otogizõshi
genre. An attentive reading of this scroll allows us, perhaps, to establish what might be called its discursive momentum: the epistemological structures and the historical references that the producer(s), thenarrator, and the contemporary audience brought to bear on it when it
was produced in the late sixteenth century, probably in Sakamoto*û, the market town (monzenmachi –2‰) that developed in conjunction with the Hie-Enryaku-ji multiplex3 of the Tendai ú× sect. By
the same token, Saru no sõshi contributes to our understanding of thecult at Hiyoshi Shrine ÕŸØç4 at the time.
In the most general terms, the narrative, which describes the auspicious wedding of the daughter of the monkey head priest (kannushiPü) at Hiyoshi Shrine to a monkey from Yokawa ôë (one of thethree major compounds of Enryaku-ji ×”±), functions as a pivot for
both dramatic and religious signi³cations. In Saru no sõshi the dual
text-picture structure of the monkey’s wedding at Hiyoshi Shrine
meets, so to speak, a unifying Tendai-Shinto ritual.
Any reading of Saru no sõshi, whether religious or otherwise, must
therefore refer to the janus-faced concept of the monkey, which wasregarded in medieval Japan as simultaneously higher and lower thanthe human being (OHNUKI-TIERNEY 1987). In the context of Hiyoshi
Shrine, the dichotomy is ultimately between the monkey as a manifestation of the Sannõ [÷ Deity (the mountain-god protector of Mt Hiei
and the Tendai doctrine) and as the Trickster (the monkey appearing
in performances of sarumawashi án^ [saruhiki á», sarukai á¨]).
The conceptual con³gurations in which these two aspects of the monkey occur are different, and both are used in Saru no sõshi.
The Trickster connotes a dualism. The performing monkey, in all
its contorted familiarity, probably impresses upon us more than any
other animal the inevitability and the humor of the human condition
caught between ideals and reality. This is used to full effect in Saru no2 Kokubungaku kaishaku to kanshõ 10 (1985) and Kokubungaku 39/1 (1994) accurately present the breadth of recent research on otogizõshi. The next issue of Kokubungaku kaishaku tokanshõ (May 1996) is scheduled as another special issue on otogizõshi.
3 The term multiplex—a uni³ed Shinto-Buddhist cultic center—is from GRAPARD 1992, p. 1.
4 Hiyoshi Taisha. “Hiyoshi” is said to be a modern variant of “Hie,” which is the older
reading of the same characters. According to the Kokugo daijiten, the shift to “Hiyoshi” took
place during the Kamakura-Muromachi periods; the hokku nI in text passage 5 of Saru nosõshi quoted below (see n. 16 and text) certainly assumes that reading.

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

31sõshi, where the head priest inside the text-picture structure controls
events, such as the preparations for the marriage ceremonies, until
the reality of the celebrations in the pictures takes over. The result isthat this slight and predictable narrative motif is cleverly twisted,turned to surprise, and used to entertain the audience.
The narrative of the wedding is embedded in a larger tripartite
structure of religious signi³cance, where Sannõ is ultimately the allencompassing unifying force. The first part comprises the account of
the origin of Mt Hiei (Hiei engi ²µâ|), culminating in the revelation of Sannõ; the second part comprises the marriage, understood asa case of shinbutsu shðgõ P[H§, the associations between buddhas
and kami that are at the foundation of the Hie-Enryaku-ji cult;5 andthe third comprises a prayer to the Seven Shrines of Hiyoshi ÕŸÌçfor their continued rule of the land. The scroll thus resembles shinbutsu shðgõ in that it is a union of human drama and divine ritual.
The lines of association between the monkey head priest and thedeity Sannõ are as complex as they are central to medieval Tendai
Shinto6 and to the religious reading of Saru no sõshi. The direct association of Sannõ with the monkey is based on the graphic paranomastic
explanation found in the Tendai Shinto tradition. According to this
explanation, the monkey of Hiyoshi Shrine is the manifestation of theSannõ deity because the character for kami P consists of the two elements, M, “monkey” (of the zodiac), and ½, “to show” (Yõtenki,
HANAWA 1936, pp. 613–14 and 620; GRAPARD 1987, p. 219).
Another line of association between the head priest and Sannõ isthrough shinbutsu shðgõ. Associations between buddhas and Hiyoshi
Shrine kami are thought to have been established gradually during
the Heian period (see OGASAWARA 1987, KURODA 1990, and SATÕ 1985
for historical references), although systematic records of the pantheon of associations date from the Kamakura period (MURAYAMA
1974, pp. 313 ff.). During this period kami gradually came to be seen
as possessed of salvi³c power, and their function as divine protectors
was widened to encompass the Buddhist realm. The idea of kami asgohõjin DÀP (guardian deities of the Buddhist doctrine, and of theTendai teaching in particular) had, however, already been encoun5 I prefer the term shinbutsu shðgõ, which, unlike honji suijaku ûGs), does not connotea hierarchy between buddhas and kami (see, for instance, Jien’s [1155–1225] views in
OGASAWARA 1987, p. 296). In Saru no sõshi the historical primacy of the buddhas is upheld in
the quoted version of the Hiei engi, but the thrust of the narrative invests Hiyoshi, and therefore presumably the kami, with more authority over events.
6 The two terms “Tendai Shinto” and “Sannõ Shinto” are both used to distinguishmedieval Tendai honji-suijaku thought from the Sannõ Ichijitsu Shinto of the early Edo
period (see KUBOTA 1964).

32

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

tered in China by Ennin Ò_ (794–864) and Enchin Ò£ (814–891)
and brought to Japan in the form of the cult of Matara-shin #−øP(also called Sekizan Myõjin Ó[gP and Shinra Myõjin GøgP)(KAGEYAMA 1978, pp. 285ff.). The Sannõ tradition similarly refers tothis deity in non-Japan settings, as the protector of Tiantai-shan ú×[
in China and the Vulture Peak ‘Ð[ in India (see, e.g., Hie-sha shintõ
himitsu-ki, HANAWA 1932, p. 94).
The head priest of Hiyoshi Shrine was speci³cally in charge ofÕmiya Ø·, in which Õnamuchi no kami Ø÷{P was enshrined.
According to the most widely accepted tradition, Õnamuchi no kami
is identical to Õmononushi no kami Ø]üP of Õmiwa Shrine ØP
Pç on Mt Miwa Xs[; Õmononushi no kami was invited to act as
the guardian deity of the new imperial residence—and thereby of theimperial house—by Emperor Tenji úJ when the latter moved thecapital to Õtsu in the seventh century (SAGAI 1977, p. 68; Hie-sha shintõ
himitsu-ki, HANAWA 1932, p. 85). Historically, the advent of this kami
was probably instrumental in transforming Hiyoshi Shrine from a
local shrine to one of national importance and in retaining the religio-political inµuence of the Hie-Enryaku-ji multiplex during themedieval period (GRAPARD 1987, p. 214). From this fact the association between Õmiya (Õnamuchi no kami)and Shakamuni would havefollowed naturally: Shaka(muni) was after all effectively credited withthe creation of the Hie-Enr yaku-ji multiplex (according to, forinstance, the Hiei engi).
The association in Saru no sõshi of the monkey head priest of
Hiyoshi Shrine/Õmiya (Õnamuchi no kami) with Shaka turns full circle in the concluding passage of the Hiei engi as quoted in the scroll.
According to this text, Saichõ è˜, the founder of the Tendai sect, waswalking on Mt Obie ·²µ (alternative names Ushio ÈÅ, Hamo #ª,
Hachiõji k÷{) within the Hiyoshi Shrine boundaries, when thethree main buddhas of Enryaku-ji—Yakushi, Shaka, and Amida—
appeared in the sky before him. When Saichõ requested their names,
they answered:“Draw one horizontal stroke along the side of three verticalstrokes, and to three horizontal strokes add one verticalstroke. We/I have come to this mountain in order to keep theteaching of the law of the Perfect [=Tendai] Sect within thesect, and to further the means of salvation for those outside.”With these words the Great Master [Saichõ] set this up in characters. Drawing one horizontal stroke along the side of threevertical strokes he got the character san [ [mountain], andwhen he added one vertical stroke to three horizontal strokes

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

33

he got the character õ ÷ [king]. Thinking it must be a name,since mountain expresses a form both large and immovableand king expresses the virtues in the three fundamentals [sanzai Xî] of heaven, earth, and man, he worshipped the deity
there as Sannõ. As Mt Hiei expresses the three teachings [sangaku X¿]7 he built three temples,8 and because human beings
can perceive three thousand realms in one thought [ichinensanzen sçXæ] he made three thousand the number ofmonks [shuto L6]. (SNKBT, p. 440)

The seven major shrines of Hiyoshi are divided into two major traditions: Nishi-hongð-kei »û·˜, clustered around Õmiya, and Higashihongð-kei Xû·˜, whose principal shrine is Ninomiya (SAGAI 1979
and 1980). It is worth noting that Obie, where the above encounterfrom the Hiei engi takes place, is the location of Ninomiya, in whichÕyamakui no kami Ø[8P is enshrined. Ninomiya is thought to represent the older tradition of local tutelary deities (jinushi no kami
GüuP) within Hiyoshi Shrine (KAGEYAMA 1978, p. 279), and the factthat it is mentioned can be read as an acknowledgement of the historical primacy and importance of these local deities. In a wider perspective, the presence of the three central buddhas, rather than merely
Yakushi (who is traditionally associated with Ninomiya), indicates thatSannõ is conceived here in the widest possible terms: the three buddhas are associated with the most important kami of Hiyoshi Shrine,
the so-called sansei X¸ (Õmiya, Ninomiya, and Shõshinshi), and soon, presumably, for lesser buddhas and kami. Furthermore, in thisparanomastic explanation Sannõ, as the overarching syncretizing
concept, informs not only the Tendai pantheon but Tendai doctrine
as well (cf. GRAPARD 1987, p. 215, KURODA 1990, p. 150). The Monkey–Sannõ association is therefore a truly powerful one.
The Scroll
I will now brieµy introduce the scroll itself. Very little is certain about
its transmission. It is described as Saru no e, Tosa-hitsu, ikkan áî…
FÕÙsñ [Pictures of monkeys, painted by a Tosa master, one scroll]on the box in which it is stored in the Japanese collection of the
British Museum.9 The box is probably not the scroll’s original, nor
7 That is, precepts concerning what is forbidden (kinkai 8w), Samadhi meditation (zenjõ
7Ï), and wisdom (chie FŠ).
8 That is, the santõ XO, namely the temple precincts of Tõtõ, Saitõ, and Yokawa.
9 The scroll is 30.8 cm long and and is in ink and colors on paper. Its registration at the
British Museum is Saru no sõshi (1902.6–6.01, Japanese painting 59). The present account of
the transmission is based mainly on SNKBT, p. 435.

34

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

perhaps is the title. The initial part of the scroll is missing, and thepresent title, Saru no sõshi, may have been taken from an accompanying guarantee of authenticity (kiwamegaki )–), stating that thepainter Sumiyoshi (Hiroyuki) Naiki WŸ (b‘) »z in 1806 (Bunka
6) identi³ed the paintings as the work of Tosa Mitsuzumi FÕM„.10
Purchased in Europe by Sir A. W. Franks, Keeper of British andMedieval Antiquities in the British Museum during the second half ofthe nineteenth century, the scroll was bequeathed to the museum in1902 (SMITH et al. 1990, pp. 54–55). On internal grounds, there is little doubt that Saru no sõshi was produced by and for someone connected with the religious multiplex of the Hiyoshi Shrine and
Enr yaku-ji. Unfortunately, details of its Japanese provenance areunknown. What we do know is that the Hiyoshi Shrine, where thestor y is set, was ravaged and all Buddhist statues, writings, etc.
destroyed in 1868 by local people and Yoshida Shinto fanatics from
Kyoto, who were angry at what they saw as reluctance to comply withthe edict bringing an end to the combination of buddhas and kami. It
was not until 1978 that Saru no sõshi attracted scholarly attention,
when it was recognized at a conference on Nara-ehon in London as aunique work without known variants in Japan. It has since appeared in
two typeset editions (OKAMI 1981, SAWAI 1987) as well as a complete
color reproduction (HIRAYAMA 1992).
The scroll consists of six text passages, ranging from a few lines tofour or ³ve pages in length, pictures alternating with dialogues (alsoof varying length). The fragmented opening picture may have beenpreceded by an introductory passage giving the setting, etc., which,
had it been transmitted, might have directed and perhaps modi³ed
our reading of the scroll. For lack of other evidence, however, I haveassumed that the scroll began with the picture that presently opens
the series, showing a conversation between three monkeys (Kuribayashi Shibuzane, head priest of Hiyoshi Shrine and governor of Iga
Province, and his two retainers). As mentioned, the main motif ofSaru no sõshi is ostensibly a marriage of monkeys, the daughter of
10 This identi³cation appears in Sumiyoshi-ke kantei-hikae WŸBCÏj [Notes on
identi³cations by the Sumiyoshi family], vol. 1, in Bijutsu kenkyð 38, p. 42 (1935), where thetitle is given as Saru no sõshi. According to Zõho Nihon shoga kottõ daijiten †¢Õû–c¿lØÂø (1915), various biographies (den )) agree that Mitsuzumi, a painter (monjin –^) ofthe Tosa school, was active in the second half of the sixteenth century: during the Tenshõ
(1573–92) and Keichõ (1596–1615) eras, according to Kõchõ meiga shði y†ecBˆ, andduring the Bunroku (1592–96) era, according to Sumiyoshi edokoro WŸ…‹. It may also havebeen the British Museum scroll that the scholar Furukawa Miyuki in 1874 perused anddescribed as “Saru no sõshi, one volume, identi³ed by Sumiyoshi Naiki as Tosa Mitsuzumi’swork” (TZKG, vol. 5, p. 204).

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

35

Shibuzane to a monkey named Yasaburõ, from Yokawa. The following
presents an overview of the scroll, divided into pictures with dialogue(gachðshi c_Ÿ) on the one hand, and text passages on the other. For
each picture, the occasion and/or the characters are noted as well as
the topics of the dialogue. Each text passage is divided into description (ji no bun Guk), and dialogue, again with topics and interlocutors noted.
Outline of Saru no sõshi
PICTURE 1
Shibuzane & two retainers
dialogue : none
Text passage 1
dialogue : Shibuzane talks about:marriage of daughter;suitable son-in-law;origin of Mt Hiei;
description of the groom Yasaburõ;—retainers agree with Shibuzane’s
choice of Yasaburõ
description:
decide date for yomeiri (bridal
procession);list of things in dowry
PICTURE 2
yomeiri procession from Hiyoshi
dialogue :beans; appearance; marriage
Text passage 2
description:
Himegimi (the lady); love of the Lady
and Yasaburõ; birth of Wakagimi(Young Master); arrangements formukoiri (groom’s procession)dialogue : (continued in text passage 3)
Shibuzane summons retainers

The yomeiri procession; Saru no sõshi, picture 2 ( The British Museum).

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

37

PICTURE 3
Shibuzane and retainers
baby monkey picking chestnuts
dialogue :picking chestnuts
Text passage 3
dialogue : Shibuzane orders:
preparations for mukoiri;banquet (16th Day in 9th Month);decoration of room;
lists of food: ³sh; game;
vegetables; relishes; saké
PICTURE 4
procession
mukoiri = miyamairidialogue :appearance; quivers;
Yasaburõ’s splendid appearance;
fatigue
Text passage 4
description:
description of servants and retainersin-waiting
PICTURE 5
seventeen dishes/exchanges of cups(jðshichikon) (an exchange of saké [kon]consisting of three cups)
dialogue :drink; Shibuzane presenting
Yasaburõ with a horse and a sword;
fatigue; service; Wakagimi
Text passage 5
description:
Shibuzane summons retainers
dialogue : Shibuzane gives orders:
to prepare for a renga gathering;admonishes the retainers who areuninterested in renga

The miyamairi procession led by Wakagimi carried on the shoulders of an older monkey
approaches the beach of Karasaki; Saru no sõshi, picture 4 ( The British Museum).

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

39

description:
decorations;provenance of two cha-no-yu utensils:
Tsukumo GYG and Kateki Y¼11
PICTURE 6
the renga gatheringmonkeys peeling chestnuts
dialogue :renga;
Shibuzane asleep
Text passage 6
description:
conclusion of renga gathering
recitation:chõka ˜H on the view of Õmi
Province seen from Shiga District
The scroll in the British Museum is collated in such a way that therenga gathering precedes the banquet, i.e., text passage 5/picture 6
precede text passage 4/picture 5. The reordering in the SNKBT edition, as presented above, is made on the basis of internal textual evidence, such as dates of events. It does not, I believe, affect thefollowing arguments concerning the structure of the scroll.
Marriage of Monkeys at Hiyoshi Shrine
In most illustrated otogizõshi, especially those in which the pictures
include dialogue (gachðshi), there exists a characteristic dual structure(e.g., M INOBE 1985, p. 62): the text passages with their narrativedescription, neutral style, and literary language, and the dialogue ofthe pictures with its playful (kokkei) style and vernacular language that
directly expresses the character’s mind. For instance, the simple but
effective illustrations of the Tenri-bon ú7û (Tenri manuscript) of Kootoko no sõshi ·Cu{ are interspersed with humorous, equally simple
asides and exclamations, such as ana chiisa ya, “How small he is!”(TOKUDA 1991). Saru no sõshi belongs to a minority of otogizõshi inwhich pictures relate to text passages in more than one way: appositionally, as illustrations proper, and predicatively, forming narrative
11 The account of the two tea utensils is in accordance with what is mentioned inter alia
in Yamanoue no Sõji-ki [î;Ìz from 1589 (Tenshõ 17); see ZNE, p. 28.

The renga gathering; Saru no sõshi, picture 6 ( The British Museum).

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

41

sequences with the text passages.12 In fact, the central pictures—theprocession of the bride (yomeiri A×™), the visit of the son-in-law(mukoiri b×™), the banquet, and the renga gathering (pictures 2, 4, 5,6)—are all sequentially linked to their adjacent text passages, andonly the two smaller pictures of Shibuzane planning with his retainers
illustrate the text as such. By and large, then, the events unfold on the
two levels of text passage and picture-with-dialogue, along a single
straight story line in time. The effect is a repeated shift between arather solemn mode and a light comical mode, altogether not unlike
the interchange between Nõ and Kyõgen.
The dual text-picture structure is exploited almost dialectically inthe narrative part of Saru no sõshi. The point should not be missed
that, despite the yomeiri narrative motif, the protagonist in the text is
not the bride but the bride’s father. Thus it is Shibuzane who acts andis in charge throughout (or so he thinks). Several passages readalmost entirely as Shibuzane’s speech acts: deliberating, planning,ordering, and admonishing. This is particularly true of passage 1,
which opens with a long passage of Shibuzane’s direct speech as hedeliberates the pros and cons of prospective sons-in-law. Passage 3
takes up directly from the descriptive passage 2, relating Shibuzane’sorders concerning the mukoiri. The long lists of things (monozukushi]eU^), mostly in ³ve-seven morae verses (shichigo-chõ Ì2“), are notinterpreted as Shibuzane’s direct speech in the SNKBT edition, but inmy view the passage illustrates the blurring of Shibuzane and the roleof the narrator: the rhetorical questions at the beginning of two of thelists ([m:Ë]v7/e, “Now, what food would be good?” and0u‰v7/e, “What side dishes are there?”; SNKBT, pp. 449–50),13
suggest that this is the direct rendering of the workings of a mind,
presumably Shibuzane’s, followed by a shift to indirect speech as witnessed by sentence-³nal nari.
Arguably, the lists of things with their pleasing rhythm, as illustatedin the list of the bride’s books (Genji Sagoromo è’òh, ShinkokinGòÄ, Kokin Man’yõ òÄDè, Ise monogatari Q¤]B; SNKBT, p. 442),
show Shibuzane to possess the special gift for verbal artistry that
so often in otogizõshi enables the protagonist to achieve his or her
12 The distinction obviously relates to the actual narration or performance of the scroll,e.g., MINOBE 1985, KANNOTÕ 1985, and TOKUDA et al. 1994.
13 It should be noted that the lists in Saru no sõshi very much reflect the lavish entertainment at contemporary banquets, such as described in Asai Bizen no Kami shukusho kyõõ-ki,
1534 (Tenbun 3; see ZNE, p. 28; HANAWA 1931): after the formal banquet followed by tea
and the inspection of horses, the party would proceed to seventeen dishes (sakana) accompanied by seventeen exchanges of saké, while being entertained to Nõ (and Kyõgen?) performances, one for each dish starting from the third.

42

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

aim.14 In both passages 5 and 6, the action in the preceding picture isrounded off by a brief description (a single sentence) before returning to Shibuzane’s direct speech (passage 5) and the chõka ˜H (passage 6), respectively.
As already mentioned, most of the pictures (2, 4, 5, and 6) actually
move the story along, from the preparations to the celebrations. At
the same time they signal a change of mode. If Shibuzane’s orders
and plans in the text passages essentially function on the level ofmarked modal expression, of imperative or optative, these plans andorders are actually carried out in the pictures, which may therefore beinterpreted as representing the unmarked mode of factuality. As
opposed to the text passages, where only Shibuzane and a few retainers are present, the pictures are densely populated. Judging from thefact that the higher-ranking monkeys are all identi³ed with a nearby
locality, we are here presented with the strati³ed society of contemporary Shiga. Each and every monkey is given a name,15 and social status
is consistently expressed by name, dress, and by topic of conversation.
The pictures of the celebrations—yomeiri, miyamairi ·Z™, mukoiri, andthe renga gathering—are all focused centrally and in such a way that
Shibuzane and others of high status are in the central portion of thepicture and the lowest servants are on the margins. The result is that
if the scroll is “read” linearly from right to left, the down-to-earth comments by servants tend to be juxtaposed to the text passages, often
effectively puncturing Shibuzane’s digni³ed posture. For instance,passage 4 praises the retainers and servants in attendance, but theimmediately following picture 5 opens with one guard commenting:“He has fallen asleep drunk, because he was requested to exchange somany cups. He looks as if he can’t hold his drink” (SNKBT, p. 455).
In the text passage preceding the renga gathering, Shibuzane’s sudden eloquent misgivings about the poetic skills of his retainers makeone wonder if this is not the author’s direct admonition to the audience: “We have absolutely no practitioners of renga. It was for occasions like this that I would always tell young people to have a monthly
renga gathering for practice. Accomplishment is not attained overnight.
They never practiced once, but foolishly spent their days climbing
trees, crawling among bushes, going up on the mountain to crack
chestnuts or down to the valley to take persimmons. We should reµect
14 Shibuzane shares his propensity for lists with the nun in O-yõ no ama (NISHIZAWA 1978;
SKORD 1991, pp. 205–20.
15 The rats in Nezumi no sõshi (manuscript from Suntory Bijutsukan) are also all named,
however insigni³cant they are for the plot, and even when the picture otherwise has notext. Perhaps this was to make for easy reference, should the narrator choose to improvise.

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

43

on this now” (SNKBT, p. 459). As it turns out, Shibuzane is right. His
own hokku nI, “Trees still standing with chestnuts / offerings / togods of Hiyoshi” (fmqR˜ k“ÕŸr #Tu) is competent,16 and so
are those of the invited renga master and Yasaburõ. The other participants, however, turn to comical haikai ,!~ such as, “The reddest
faces / the groom, the father-in-law” (ÓUqšWvb*+*; SNKBT, p.
462). Shibuzane falls asleep. Even so, the following text passage openswith what can only be characterized as an inversion of critical judgement: “Thus one renga and yet another passed, their minds all different expressed in many golden words and wonderful phrases”(¸ m¦ H s ˆ , ç Š ‘° ™s›wD /à /r^m, D í U I p‘− Q™W™;SNKBT, p. 465). At this point, the comical nucleus of Saru no sõshi, thecontrast between what ought to be and what is, fades away as the vantage point abruptly widens to a panoramic view across Õmi Province.
Yet even this provides a last surprise: the unexpected change of poetic
expression to a chõka.
The dual signi³cation of “monkey,” Sannõ versus Trickster, is actualized in the contrast between Shibuzane (who is in command in the
text-passages) and the lowliest servants (who appear in the pictures).
Shibuzane’s religious and ritual function is invariably stressed: as headpriest he knows the order of the past, makes divinations, and controls
the celebrations and offerings (tamukegusa), as suggested in his hokku.
He refers to his son-in-law Yasaburõ as saru and mashira “monkey”;17
his own name as it appears in the margin of picture 1, Iga no kami
Kuribayashi Qg!kn (Shibuzane) ^}]t, “(Sour-Grape) of the
Chestnut Wood, Governor of Iga,” is also suggestive. So is the placename Iga, which is a pun on iga, “prickled skin of chestnuts,”18 andpossesses phonetic associations with Shiga District, where Hiyoshi
Shrine is located. However, when Shibuzane compares himself to thehuman daimyõ he is considering as a possible son-in-law, the distinctions he draws are primarily of social or religious rank, that is, kannushi Pü versus gekan 4ö (lowly of³cial). His love of splendor andinsistence on his own dignity as head priest give Shibuzane a comical,
conceited air. This tends to highlight his monkey identity, yet there isno confrontation: he is unmasked only by the pictures.
In the pictures there is endless talk about red faces, but the low
monkey nature reveals itself only through the suggestive names of
16 SNKBT, p. 459. This hokku is, in fact, by the historical poet Sõseki ;Ö (1473–1533),
who is mentioned in the text as a source of inspiration for the (³ctitious?) renga master
invited by Shibuzane.
17 Among several possible etymologies of mashira, one relates it to masaru, “excel,” andanother to the Sanskrit makata, “monkey.”
18 I thank Professor Sawai for bringing this point to my attention.

44

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

humble ser vants like Yabukuguri (Bush-crawler) no Yoichi and
Kinobori (Tree-climber) no Heihachi, or through comments like thatof the monkey in the yomeiri procession who chooses to walk on four
legs: “I am so tired. It is quicker to crawl on four legs than to stand”(ªu‘Ufz›f™ # Ck—™‘G|RfUK; SNKBT, p. 444). In picture 3,
juxtaposed to Shibuzane and his servants are two “monkey-like” monkeys picking chestnuts in what can be taken as an ironic comment on
the long list of delicacies in the following text passage (SNKBT, p.
448). There is also at least one reference to performing monkeys—
even if it takes the form of a disclaimer of identity—by a monkey
watching the banquet from the top of the roof: “When I am downstairs I am ordered to do all sorts of dif³cult jobs and they order mearound as if I were a performing monkey (saru o mawasu), and so I
have climbed up onto the roof so I can relax” (SNKBT, p. 457).19
Thus the dramatic and comical character of the scroll hinges oncontrasts between the pictures and the textual passages. The reality ofthe pictures clashes with Shibuzane’s attempt in the text to constructand control events. The comical effect is made more poignant, perhaps, by the paradox that in the pictures, where the monkey identity isrevealed, the human audience most clearly recognizes its own society.
Saru no sõshi as Ritual
The motif of marriage at Hiyoshi Shrine is obviously central to thescroll, but it does not exhaust its structure. The marriage celebrations
19 I would like to suggest two other possible associations with groups of people who
made a living from the monkeys: monkey handlers and tanners of monkey hides, both ofwhom may have had special af³liations to Hiyoshi Shrine. In picture 4 two attendants in theson-in-law’s procession discuss the proper way to carry a quiver (yanagui &d): “Your quiver
has slipped to the back. That’s not the way to attach it, let me tell you.” “You are talking
about something you don’t know, because this form is in accordance with the tradition of
the Lord of Ogasawara. Mind your own business” (SNKBT, p. 451). It is known that quivers
at that time had covers of monkey-hide, which was believed to protect the warrior’s horseagainst illness and injuries (OHNUKI-TIERNEY 1987, p. 48). The monkeys’ concern about thecorrect way to carry a quiver could also have been prompted by the fact that the monkey
performer carried sticks and whips for the dressage of the monkey in a quiver on his back(or slung over the back like a quiver; see Sanjðniban shokuin utaawase emaki in MORI 1985, p.
28). The second reference from picture 2 is (even?) less obvious and may be an overinterpretation: two monkeys admonish another that edamame ‹q (green, i.e., unripe, soybeans),
written etamame, is an inauspicious word to use during a yomeiri procession (SNKBT, p. 443).
Etamame could be a partial pun on eta, with its contemporary variant etta, a word that in its
narrow sense referred to people who prepared animal hides, but that also seems to havebeen associated with people in other professions af³liated to the religious multiplexes, suchas monkey performers, picture explainers (etoki …mS), sarugaku no nõ áÁuô actors, andfootmen in processions (NAGAHARA 1992, chapters 12–13), just like the monkeys here.

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

45

are bounded by two narratives differently oriented in time: the Hiei
engi in passage 1 and the ³nal chõka in passage 6. Both are unrepresented in the pictures, and are therefore presumably subordinate
within the main narrative structure. The temporal progression among
them is straightforward: Hiei engi refers to the past, the celebrations to
the present, and the chõka to the future. In the context of the narrative of the marriage, the relationship between the three parts is causal:
just as the account of Mt Hiei’s origins conditions the marriage (or,more speci³cally, Shibuzane’s choice of a son-in-law), the marriage—
by securing the lineage of the head priest—represents the condition
for the divine authority that is sought and established by means of thechõka. More signi³cantly, however, this larger triad structure allows us
an extended symbolic, religious reading of the scroll.
THE ORIGINS OF MT HIEI (TEXT PASSAGE 1)

It is indicative of its significance that the Hiei engi represents by far the
longest passage in Saru no sõshi. It can be summed up as follows. First,
Shaka, while still living in the Tosotsu-ten ÜBú, creates the land inwhich he intends to propagate the Buddhist doctrine after his appearance in this world. Second, at the time of Ugaya Fukiaezu no mikoto
cbuL#§¨ (the father of Emperor Jinmu PD) Shaka obtains theland at the foot of Mt Hiei from the old ³sherman kami at the intervention of Yakushi. Shirahige RÑ, the kami who has to yield his landto Shaka, is none other than Sarutahiko no kami á,ÒP, who in themyths of Kojiki meets Hiko-ho-no-ninigi no mikoto ÒJøø§¨ (thenon his descent from the heavens) and pledges to guide him on his way(PHILIPPI 1968, pp. 137–38). Third, around the year 800 Sannõ isrevealed to Saichõ, the founder of the Tendai sect.
We are dealing here with the complex weave of Buddhist andShinto concepts characteristic of shinbutsu shðgõ ideology. Chronologically the buddhas antedate the kami. Actually the Hiei engi credits
Shaka with the creation of a Japan that is seen as centered aroundHiyoshi Shrine. The fact that the creation is described as happening
in three successive stages is perhaps an indirect reference to the number 3, an important one in Tendai doctrine. The narrative, however,also echoes the sequence of myths in the Kojiki and Nihongi—the creation of the land (kunitsukuri ³6), the yielding of the land (kuniyuzuri ³&), and the descent of the imperial grandson (tenson kõrinú§œr)—thereby (re)con³rming Japan within the shinbutsu shðgõ
ideology as the divine land (shinkoku P³), protected by Sannõ.
Signi³cantly, the present version lacks the details of Shaka’s life andthe list of shinbutsu shðgõ found in the Taiheiki version (GOTÕ 1960,
book 18, pp. 266 ff.), with which it is otherwise identical. The result is46

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

that Sannõ and Hiyoshi Shrine receive the main focus, in line with themain discursive thrust of Saru no sõshi.
THE ASSOCIATION OF BUDDHAS AND KAMI

In the sixteenth century the custom of the bride going to live with her
husband’s family (virilocal marriage or yomeiri-kon) was new and perhaps still con³ned to classes where the transfer of wealth and status
was important.20 Thus as a narrative theme yomeiri probably still possessed the charm of novelty, which would partly justify the emphasison the celebrations culminating in the mukoiri party-cum-miyamairi(the two effectively fall together in Saru no sõshi). In contrast, theromantic aspect of the couple’s love and the birth of their child isplayed down, receiving only three lines (and the whole point of mentioning these events at all is apparently to stress that they are sanctioned by Sannõ). Marriage here is evidently about paternal or divine
authority.
It might be possible to argue in general terms that the “happy marriage” in Saru no sõshi—the fruit of unchallenged paternal judgment
prudently aimed at a union of equals—expresses a new social ideal,
and that it should be seen in contrast to another otogizõshi motif: passionate relationships between unequals (of whom one party is usuallyhuman and the other nonhuman), relationships that are often childless and unsuccessful.21 However, from the perspective of the preceding Hiei engi it is probably more pertinent that the head priest of
Hiyoshi Shrine controls the events (and, in particular, decides upon ason-in-law from Enryaku-ji). This suggests that the scroll was intended
to project the superiority of Hiyoshi Shrine. If so, one might expect awider cosmological reading to be possible.
Interestingly, the only clear pictographic reference to Hiyoshi
Shrine inside Saru no sõshi is the scenery of the beach at Karasaki N2
with a torii and pine tree (picture 4; see illustration above). This is awell-known mythological topos in the Hiyoshi tradition, and is depicted
in a very similar way in the sketches of Hiyoshi’s head priest at the
20 According to Kokugo daijiten, early occurrences of the word yomeiri or yomeri are fromKyõgen and Nisemonogatari _¤]B (section 60). Interestingly, we get a glimpse of the classdifferences inside Saru no sõshi in picture 2 when the servant girls in the yomeiri procession
discuss whether to accept love letters, a custom that would seem to belong to the older marriage system of the man visiting the woman and that apparently still prevailed among thecommon people.
21 A case in point may be Nezumi no sõshi Quu{: just like Saru no sõshi, this scroll contains elaborate pictures of a yomeiri procession, a wedding banquet, and a dowry, and contains illustrated lists (monozukushi) in waka form. However, the relationship is childless andends in the estrangement of the couple.

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

47

time (Hie-sha shintõ himitsu-ki, HANAWA 1932, pp. 88 ff). It is also foundin a Muromachi-period Sannõ mandara-zu [÷Rwøo (NARA KOKURITSU HAKUBUTSUKAN 1964, #35, p. 41). It recalls the legend, alreadymentioned above, of Emperor Tenji inviting the deity of Õmiwa
Shrine to act as the guardian of his new imperial residence in Õtsu(SAGAI 1977, p. 68). According to tradition, when the deity descended
to the pine tree at the beach of Karasaki and asked for directions, it
was none other than the ³rst head priest of Hiyoshi Shrine, Koto-nomitachi no Ushimaru 7:I”ƒK, who led the deity to its shrine,Õmiya, inside the Hiyoshi Shrine complex.22 The fact that Karasaki isdepicted in Saru no sõshi at the point when the miyamairi procession
carrying Wakagimi approaches Hiyoshi Shrine suggests that the miyamairi may be interpreted as the coming (or perhaps the return) of akami, most likely a cosmological identi³cation of Wakagimi withÕmiya. I shall return to this below.
As seen in the traditional interpretation of the Sannõ name, thenumber 3 was symbolically applied not only to matters of Tendai doctrine but also to the time and space of Mt Hiei. Thus the three main
Buddhas—Shaka, Yakushi, and Amida—were spacially associated withthe three major temple compounds—Tõtõ, Saitõ, and Yokawa, respectively—and temporally with the period of the Correct Law (shõbõ±À), the period of the Copied Law (zõhõ æÀ), and the period of the
Decline of the Law (mappõ =À), respectively (GRAPARD 1987, pp. 215,
222). Pursuing the cosmological perspective apparently suggested forthe two characters of Shibuzane and Wakagimi, we can see the union
between the daughter of the head priest of Hiyoshi Shrine andYasaburõ of Yokawa as a reenactment of the union of the kami of
Hiyoshi Shrine and the buddhas of Enryaku-ji. The fact that Yasaburõ
is from Yokawa is probably not accidental, since this af³liation would
associate Yasaburõ with Amida and the Present-Future. The possibility
that this association was, in fact, on the minds of the producers is further enhanced, I believe, by the fact that the ³rst character inYasaburõ ¡XÁ is identical with the second character in Amida (or to
the ³rst character if the abbreviated form Mida is used).
Nor does the possibility of identi³cations stop here. Yokawa-Amida
was combined in the shinbutsu shðgõ theory with a kami that in the
medieval sources was most commonly identified as Shõshinshi ¸O{(also read as Shõshinji or Shõjinshi). The historical origins of theShõshinshi shrine are unclear, the ³rst record of its existence dating
22 See SAGAI 1977, p. 55. Koto-no-mitachi no Ushimaru is said to have planted the pinetree at the beach of Karasaki upon arriving in Shiga from his native Hitachi Province (Hiesha shintõ himitsu-ki, HANAWA 1932, p. 85).

48

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

from 979 (Tengen 2). 23 The inclusion of Shõshinshi among theSansei—the triad of major kami—and the association of Shõshinshi
with Amida were presumably justi³ed by the fact that Hachiman wasthe (main?) deity of that shrine. According to Tendai Shinto tradition(Yõtenki, HANAWA 1936, p. 619) and to the contemporary Hie-sha shintõ
himitsu-ki (HANAWA 1932, p. 102), Shõshinshi was identi³ed as thechild of the two main shrine deities, Õmiya and Ninomiya. In Saru nosõshi Ninomiya is mentioned only in connection with the oracle who³xes an auspicious date for the yomeiri; it should be noted, however,that the rituals of this and other Higashi-hongð shrines center on
prayers for fertility and abundant harvest (KAGEYAMA 1978). One is
tempted here to mention another tradition that identifies Shõshinshi
with a female deity named Tagorihime no mikoto ,DÜf, but thisidenti³cation may represent a later tradition.24
Assuming the relevance of the associations Yasaburõ/Amida andHimegimi/Shõshinshi for Saru no sõshi, it follows that Shibuzane, as
Himegimi’s father, is associated with the Õmiya deity. This association
is supported by the fact that the head priest of Hiyoshi Shrine is incharge of Õmiya, as mentioned above. Finally, if Wakagimi’s miyamairi
is, as suggested, seen to echo Õmononushi no kami’s arrival at Õmiya,perhaps in a divine (re)appearance (miare :´›), the association
between Shibuzane and Wakagimi has turned full circle.
One should note the existence of another contemporary text thatapparently promotes the centrality of this complex association in the
Hiyoshi tradition. This is the above-mentioned Hie-sha shintõ himitsu-ki[Secret record of the Shinto of Hiyoshi Shrine], compiled by the key³gure of the association, the head priest of Õmiya, Hafuribe
Yukimaru (1512–1592), who wrote extensively on all matters relating
to Hiyoshi Shrine as part of an energetic effort to restore the shrine
after its destruction by Oda Nobunaga in 1571.25 The Himitsu-ki opens
23 In Jie daisõ seiden ²ˆØR±) from 1031 (Chõgen 4), quoted in SATÕ 1985, p. 25.
24 This association is found, for instance, in the apocryphal Hie-sha negi kuden-shõ, tentatively dated to the late Kamakura–early Edo period in SATÕ 1985, pp. 24–26; the work
appears in the Kokushi daijiten under the heading Hiyoshi Taisha, and in GRAPARD 1987, p.
214. According to the Kojiki and Nihongi, Tagorihime no mikoto was one of the children of
Amaterasu úÑØP and Susanoo no mikoto KSk¨, who in turn were associated with
Hiyoshi deities. Tagorihime no mikoto is mentioned in Kojiki as Tagiribime no mikoto,_Üf.
25 SAGAI (1977) credits Yukimaru with the following works: Hie-sha shintõ himitsu-ki, 1577
(1932); Hie-sha shin’yaku nenjð gyõji ÕŸçP¤æ_‘ª [Annual events of celebrations of thekami at Hiyoshi Shrine], 1588; Hie-sha bukkiryõ no rei ÕŸç]f| [Regulations concerning
puri³cations at Hiyoshi Shrine], 1578; Hie heiran kasai-ki ÕŸo(Józ [An account of thesoldiers’ burning of Hiyoshi Shrine], date unknown; Hie shõshitsu heiran-ki ÕŸÏÏo(z[An account of the burning and ravaging of Hiyoshi Shrine], date unknown; Sannõ shosha

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

49

with the genealogy of the head priest and a lengthy account of thedealings between the Õmiya deity and Koto-no-mitachi no Ushimaru,
Yukimaru’s ancestor and the ³rst head priest. This sequence of eventsis later described as the revelations (yõgõ ¹T) of Sannõ (Himitsu-ki, p.
94). Importantly, this structure allows Yukimaru to draw a historicalparallel between the two legendary ³gures (the ancestor and thekami) and himself. In the very ³rst lines of the text he describes how,following the destruction of Mt Hiei, he returned to Hiyoshi Shrine in
the middle of the third month (sangatsu chðjun X½_y), that is, atthe very time of the rituals of Yayoi sairei ¡´øˆ, just like the Õmiya
deity. He then set out to investigate the shrine buildings and reconstructthem on paper and, by implication, in reality as well, just like hisancestor Ushimaru. Indeed, Yukimaru records that he composed awaka vowing to restore the shrine—“The shrine Ushimaru first built
Yukimaru shall restore at a time when [the tradition] has been broken”(”ƒKu ‹™Šr^ yNuç áfš´Ö fm¥‘K)—and that he recited
it as he retraced the steps of the deity and his ancestor from Karasaki
to the shrine where offerings used to be made (Himitsu-ki, p. 94).
PRAYER FOR THE CONTINUATION OF DIVINE RULE (TEXT PASSAGE 6)

As mentioned above, the chõka that concludes the scroll lacks a narrative introduction and leaves the modern reader in some doubt as towhose voice is being represented. In the context of the wedding celebration it would be very much in line with contemporary Kyõgen (e.g.,
Suehirogari [KOYAMA 1960, SHIBANO 1980]) to read the chõka as a concluding expression of harmony, in which the master joins with theretainers and servants. However, the chõka in Saru no sõshi, though it
might well represent a collective act, is not a humorous or nonsensicalsong but a solemn prayer that obliterates the humor and satire ofwhat precedes. Its purpose is clearly to secure the peace and prosperityof the land.
The opening verses announce the setting: “The time is autumn, theplace is Shiga” (ÃvE ‰vƒgu ªq›w; SNKBT, p. 464). The utamakura of “Shiga” has associations with imperial and divine rule (e.g.,
Shiga no miyako [Emperor Tenji’s capital, 660–71]), and therefore to
the origins of Õmiya. The ³nal verses offer a prayer for the future of
the Seven Shrines of Hiyoshi, while their territory is marked with ashimenawa: “Hanging a shimenawa/ at the Seven Shrines/ of Õmi/ I[we] pray for a future of eight thousand generations” Csqš Ìuçuezu [÷™ç…o [Chart of the shrines of Sannõ], date unknown; Hie sannõ-ki ÕŸ[÷z[Records of the Hie Sannõ] (a collection of letters from Yukimaru to the throne), dateunknown.

50Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2:f¦Å ËWmkæÖu =“t1 (SNKBT, p. 467). The prayer addresses
the seven deities (and thus Sannõ) in their capacity of rulers of theland, and speci³cally of the Province of Õmi encircling Lake Biwa.
Indeed, the verses, as they look across Õmi Province from a mountain or from the shores of Lake Biwa, bring to mind the divine commanding viewpoint of a kunimi poem (PLUTSCHOW 1990, pp. 106 ff).
Such an interpretation is, I believe, suggested by the theme of thechõka: the four seasons (shiki vu), described from early spring until
the end of winter in a largely thematic ordering of places in ÕmiProvince that features mountains in the spring, plains in the summer,
rivers and bays in the autumn, and a variety of natural phenomena in
the winter. This chronological arrangement amounts to an emphatic
negation of the fundamental poetic rules of the renga gathering—
what we recognize instead is the orderly encyclopedist mind that produced the earlier lists of things (monozukushi). Depictions of the four
seasons in mandalas26 and otogizõshi picture sequences have been seen
to represent the land in an ideal and long-lasting peace (TOKUDA et al.
1994, p. 27). This interpretation seems equally appropriate here.
Assuming the not uncommon ambiguity between the person(s) praying and the deity (see PLUTSCHOW, ibid.; PHILIPPI 1990, p. 3), the chõka
should probably be understood as a prayer for the continuation of thedivine rule and, at the same time, as an assertion of it.
Although the chõka is not specifically introduced as a religious ritual, there are several indications that the text dealing with the preparations for the renga gathering is leading up to something ritualistic innature. One notices, for example, that the names of the participants—like Tokihisa ´± and Nobuhisa ×±—denote long and thus
auspicious spans of time (SNKBT, p. 460). The Hie-Enryaku-ji association is consistent on this level, too, as indicated by the identity of thetwo participant monks, Matsu-no-moto-bõ Ichigi of Karasaki N2uÇûÖs• and the renga master Kaki-no-ki-bõ Sõchin of Chðdõ _}u¥…Ö;¥. Although apparently not a historical person, the lattercharacter has strong historical associations: not only is Chðdõ (alternative name Shuryõgon-in /ÖäŠ) the temple in Yokawa where oneof the Sannõ shrines was located (KAGEYAMA 1978, p. 304), but Sõchin
himself derives his credibility as a poet from his ties with the traditionof Jien ²Ò (1155–1225), abbot (zasu ãü) of Enryaku-ji, famous
poet, and author of the historical work Gukanshõ T5¿. Jien wrote
both waka and chõka on the kami of Hiyoshi Shrine, and is known to
26 The Sannõ mandala in the Nara National Museum is a case in point; the summer ofthe foreground contrasts with the winter of the background. Sannõ-gð Mandara-zu (³rst halfof the ³fteenth century) in NARA KOKURITSU HAKUBUTSUKAN 1979, illustration 20.

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

51

have worshipped Sannõ (MANAKA 1974, pp. 258–59). His contemporary centrality in the Hiyoshi tradition can be gleaned from the factthat his name and his poems are mentioned in the Himitsu-ki.
We are fortunate in that we have at least one text relating to religious practice at Hiyoshi Shrine around 1600: the Hie-sha norito kudensho (1601), a collection of norito hŸ ( prayers) used in rituals.27 Other
textual evidence (KAGEYAMA 1978, p. 284) indicates that the wedding
celebrations in Saru no sõshi followed a course similar to that of the
major rituals at Õmiya, particularly the ritual journey of the kami to
Lake Biwa (a ritual that formed part of the Yayoi sairei, corresponding
to the present-day Sannõ Festival [÷ø; see Himitsu-ki, p. 90). Theserituals began on the second day of the monkey (saru) of the third
month. Following a norito for the well-being and wealth of the emperor, his servants, and the people, the divine horse was led in front ofÕmiya and the departure of the portable shrines (mikoshi :Ô) of theSeven Shrines was announced. This was followed by the recitation of
three kamiuta/shinka PH. The journey of the kami was apparently to
Mitsu no Hama at the shore of Lake Biwa and from there by boat to
Karasaki no Ura. Ritual prayers were said and offerings made on or at
the lake and again on the way back at Kasuga no Oka rÕuþ in frontof Õmiya, where the protector stone of the doctrine (gohõseki DÀÍ)was located (Kuden-sho in SAGAI 1980, pp. 47 ff., Himitsu-ki, p. 106).
The Himitsu-ki also mentions music, poetry, and kagura performances.
Returning to Saru no sõshi, we may ³rst note that the date of theyomeiri is ³xed by divination at Ninomiya as the fifteenth day of thethird month. This would be a very likely day for the beginning of the
Yayoi sairei, marked by the departure of the mikoshi (the palanquins of
the ladies in Saru no sõshi). A local audience would, of course, beaware of this date. Second, the picture of Wakagimi at Karasaki—his³rst appearance in the scroll—could be a reference not only to thelegend of the Õmiya deity, but also to the rituals and offerings on thelake and at Karasaki (as could be the juxtaposed picture of a monkey³sherman rowing his boat, hopeful, it seems, of a reward [go-hõbi:ÊË] should he present his catch). Finally, while in this interpretation the chõka’s poetic form recalls the kamiuta, its function is rather
that of a norito; indeed, it is almost like a rephrasing of the terse kanbun line úGÊrv}Â3 found in the norito recited upon the retun toÕmiya (SAGAI 1980, p. 50).
By now it should be evident that very little, if anything, was left tochance in Saru no sõshi. It is a truly ornate, sometimes crudely encyclo27 Quoted extensively in SAGAI 1980, pp. 48 ff.; see KAGEYAMA 1978, p. 280, on kamiuta
and Mt Hiei.

52

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

pedic, edi³ce of meaning, rather like a mandala. There is one major
question left, however: the actual occasion for the production of thescroll. Presumably we have to look for a special moment that encompasses, so to speak, the Yayoi sairei in spring and the mukoiri and chõka
in autumn.
Dating Saru no sõshi
It is quite common for the otogizõshi to contain odd historical references to people and events. Such references are generally nonspeci³c
or oblique, at least to the moder n reader. In Sarugenji no sõshi
áè’u{, for example, the courtesan whom Sarugenji is courting
lives at the address where the shõgun Ashikaga Yoshimitsu(1358–1408) is known to have kept his favorite mistress (RUCH 1971,
p. 597). Such implausible references are obviously intended for their
comic effect. Generally speaking such references are easily picked upby the audience only if they relate to well-known and preferably contemporary events or persons. Thus the better the producer of an otogizõshi knows the audience and the more con³dent (s)he is that it
shares the same knowledge of the world in general, the more effectively (s)he can use historical references. Shibuzane’s inveterate
name-dropping certainly reinforces the impression that the discourse
in Saru no sõshi was directed toward a well-de³ned audience in Shiga,
an impression only strengthened by the string of place-names and theentire tenor of the chõka. As pointed out by OKAMI (see ZNE, p. 29),
this abundance of historical and local references gives Saru no sõshi its
special lively character. It also makes it possible and meaningful tospeculate about the date and the speci³c occasion of its production.
Most if not all of the veri³able historical references in Saru no sõshi
have been dated to the 1530s through the 1560s (ZNE and SNKBT).
The crucial reference upon which most other identi³cations hinge isto the fact that the poet Sõyõ has gone to Iimori and therefore cannot
attend the planned renga gathering. In actual fact, the real-life Sõyõ;ï (1525?–1563) went to Iimori šµ in 1560 at the invitation of thedaimyõ Miyoshi Chõkei XY˜‰, a renga enthusiast, and left two renga
sequences from that visit.28 Sõyõ is also known to have traveled theÕmi route to Echizen Province in 1559, and may even have made anappearance in Sakamoto on the way. In another possible historical reference in the preceding passage, Shibuzane considers an invitation to
28 Eiroku yo-nen Iimori senku ½ÄvæšµæI (1561) and Eiroku go-nen Iimori-jõ Dõmyõ-jihõraku hyaku-in ½Ä2æšµôŠg±ÀÁß‘ (1562), in ZNE, p. 27.

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

53

the Kanze chief actor (Kanze-dayu ?›Ø&),29 but eventually gives it
up, “because the province is in unrest due to the antagonism between
north and south. Furthermore, since I have been on good terms withLord Rokkaku for many years, what would the reaction be if it was
rumored that I had invited Kanze [to perform] for a visit by my sonin-law?” (SNKBT, p. 449). Given the above reference to Sõyõ, theconµict mentioned is perhaps Asai Nagamasa’s òm˜© (1545–1573)
invasion in 1565 of the southern area around Hikone, controlled by
Rokkaku Yoshikata Â¸–Ú (1521–1598), but I am unaware of any satisfactory explanation of this reference in this context.
It seems signi³cant that the more speci³c references in Saru nosõshi 30 relate to renga and sarugaku no nõ. Familiarity with the waka in
the imperial anthologies is quite evident in the chõka, with eleven or
more quotations from these anthologies. Quite likely one or more
people involved in such artistic pursuits participated in the production of the present scroll; they may have been priests from Hiyoshi
Shrine, as suggested by SAWAI (1987, p. 435). One can also speculatethat the skills and knowledge of the kike zB, chroniclers on Mt Hiei
who “specialized in the study and interpretation of documents (kiroku
zÆ)” (KURODA 1990, p. 143) were put to use in a larger cooperative
effort. In either case, there can be no doubt that both the artistic31
and the economic means to produce a scroll like Saru no sõshi were
present in Sakamoto. Sixteenth-century Sakamoto thrived on its geographical position as a monzenmachi and as an entrepôt for goods toand from the Hokuriku provinces. The year after the destruction of
Mt Hiei in 1571 the town’s reconstruction was ordered by Nobunaga
himself. It is also potentially signi³cant that the town’s ties with
Hiyoshi Shrine were not only religious—the head priest would act as
an intermediary (in a secular sense) between the townsmen and theBuddhist establishment on Mt Hiei (TSUJI 1980, p. 22).
On the assumption that the historical references in Saru no sõshi
would be roughly contemporaneous with the production of the scroll,scholars have hypothesized that the scroll was produced between 1565
29 The seventh-generation head (tayu) of the Kanze school, Mototada (1509–1583)(=Sõsetsu), handed over the title to his son in 1565 before taking religious vows. His son
died, however, and in 1571 he returned to serve Tokugawa Ieyasu.
30 These references provide the key to the identi³cations of persons mentioned by familyname only, e.g., Mõri, Nagao, Naoe Ÿs, Õuchi Ø», etc., among which only the reference
to Nagau’s visit to the capital can be dated to 1553 (Tenbun 22) or, perhaps more likely, to1559 (Eiroku 2). See SNKBT.
31 For a reference to contemporary renga in Sakamoto, see TSUJI 1980, p. 21. The of³cialfrom the capital, Ninagawa Chikatoshi DëVp (?–1569), mentions a renga gathering in
Sakamoto in 1542 (Tenbun 11.1.17) during his visit to offer sutras [at Hiyoshi Shrine?](KUWAYAMA 1978, p. 7).

54

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2(or possibly the early 1560s) and 1571, when Oda Nobunaga burnt
the shrines and temples on Mt Hiei (SNKBT, p. 434, SMITH et al. 1990,
p. 55). It is known that in 1570 (Genki 1) all was apparently well at
Hiyoshi Shrine—when the priest Eishun Äp from Kõfuku-ji in Naravisited he was impressed by the buildings, although he also commented
on the almost deserted appearance of the place.32 By and large, however, the late 1560s were hardly times for optimism, let alone celebration: although in 1563 the head priest Yukimaru managed to stage afunding appeal (kanjinchõ ðZy) for repairing the buildings, in 1568
Nobunaga began curtailing the power of the multiplex by con³scatingsome of its landholdings (MCMULLIN 1984, p. 163). In 1570 the antagonism came to a head when the anti-Nobunaga forces of Asai and
Asakura were allowed to take refuge at Mt Hiei, resulting in an ultimatum from Nobunaga to the priests (MCMULLIN 1984, p. 172). Indeed,
no records have been found from the 1560s of the type of major celebration at Hiyoshi that might have occasioned the scroll.
On the other hand, it is well known that the fortunes of Mt Hiei
soon took a turn for the better after 1571. Not only were most of thebuildings eventually rebuilt after the death of Nobunaga in 1582
(Tenshõ 10), but an important alliance was formed between Mt Hiei
and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the master of the new political order, whosanctioned the reconstruction and whose name has been linked to
Hiyoshi Shrine. This was followed by another alliance with Tokugawa
Ieyasu, which culminated in 1615 with the shrine’s conferral upon
Ieyasu of the exalted title Tõshõ Daigongen XÑØÏê (Great
Incarnation [Avatar] Shining over the East)(OOMS 1985, p. 59). Givensuch historical developments, we should at least consider what evidence, if any, supports a post-1571 date for the scroll.
It is, indeed, from this perspective that the contemporary headpriest Hafuribe Yukimaru appears as a credible real-life model forSaru no sõshi’s Shibuzane.33 Almost nothing is known of his life before
1571, but judging from his reaction to Nobunaga’s destruction of
Hiyoshi Shrine he must have been a strong-willed person of unrelenting purpose. In 1575 (Tenshõ 3) he was among the ³rst priests toreturn to Mt Hiei, and became the prime mover in the reconstructionof Hiyoshi Shrine. By then he was already in his sixties, and it is only
natural that he would be anxious to ensure that records of theshrine’s pantheon, rituals, teachings, and buildings would remain
should he die before the reconstruction was completed. As it hap32 In Tamon’in nikki −lŠÕz, quoted in Shiga-ken no chimei ·gÖuGe, p. 201; see
SAGAI 1977, p. 59.
33 The following account of Yukimaru’s life is based mainly on SAGAI 1977.

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

55

pens, Yukimaru achieved all of this, perhaps not without the display ofcertain pragmatic skills of self-promotion, as suggested above.34
In repeated petitions for authorization and support relating to thereconstruction, Yukimaru cleverly used the historical and religious
association of the Hiyoshi Shrine and the imperial house. After Oda
Nobunaga’s death in 1582 the recovery gained pace. In 1583 (Tenshõ
11) the shrine held the ³rst Yayoi sairei since the destruction, and in
the fourth month of 1585 the rebuilding of Õmiya was begun. In the
fourth month [?] of 1589 (Tenshõ 17) new mikoshi for Õmiya andShõshinshi took part in the annual Yayoi sairei; in 1589 Yukimaru
reported the building of the living quarters for the head priest.
Finally, in 1591 (Tenshõ 18) Yukimaru engineered the resumption of
the visits of the imperial messenger to Hiyoshi Shrine after a lapse of
more than a hundred years (SAGAI 1977, pp. 67 ff.).
Although the dates for these historical events do not quite matchthe dates of the celebrations (particularly the miyamairi) in Saru nosõshi, several of them would have presented very suitable occasions forthe production of the scroll. This is particularly true of the 1589 completion of the mikoshi for the two central deities, which effectively
marked the full resumption of the rituals described above and which
would seem to fit the scroll’s auspicious and powerful exposition of
the Hiyoshi Shrine, and of Õmiya in particular.35 By then Hafuribe
Yukimaru must have appeared a truly remarkable ³gure, worthy to be
cast in the role of Shibuzane, the protector of the divine unity of Mt
Hiei. Indeed, as we have seen in Himitsu-ki from 1577, Yukimaru himself may have provided some of the ideological inspiration for Saru nosõshi.36 The scroll would have been a tribute to him, to the restoredÕmiya, and to Hiyoshi Shrine in general. The birth of his grandson
Yukimasa ‘± in 1585 would have added to the overall similarity.
Finally, it should be noted that the later dating of 1585–91 would
match the admittedly inconclusive records of the painter Mitsuzumi,
to whom, as mentioned above, the scroll was attributed at a later
period. An art historical assessment of Saru no sõshi, together with anassessment of Mitsuzumi’s oeuvre, might shed some light on this
aspect of the scroll.
34 SAGAI (1979, pp. 24–25) points out another of Yukimaru’s possible rewritings of tradition.
35 Interestingly, TAJIMA (1974, pp. 50ff.) has suggested a similar backdating of anotherapparently contemporary Tendai Shinto popular “production,” Saru shika zange monogatari[A story of the confessions of a monkey and a deer], for reasons similar to those that I am
suggesting here: the text is internally dated to 1571, but Tajima believes that a date several
decades later is more in keeping with its optimistic joyful poems, etc.
36 The lack of both material and research relating to medieval Tendai Shinto makes it
next to impossible, of course, to assess the extent to which Yukimaru modi³ed tradition.

56

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

This leaves unanswered, however, the question of the historical references in Saru no sõshi. If the scroll dates from the 1580s, why did the
producers choose to refer to people who had, for the most part, beendead for one or two decades? Perhaps the aim was to take the stingout of the satirical aspect—after all, the character of Shibuzane issomewhat conceited and pompous, as indeed Yukimaru might wellhave been. The historical persons and places referred to were by 1590
almost all readily associated with opposition to Nobunaga. In fact,
most, if not all, of the persons mentioned fared badly at his hands:
Rokkaku (Yoshikata) was defeated by Nobunaga in 1570; Asai Nagamasa, under attack by one of Nobunaga’s armies, committed suicidein 1573;37 Matsunaga Hisahide Ç½±D, a vassal, was put to death by
Nobunaga in 1577 for betrayal;38 the Mõri z2 family fought Nobunaga
in sea battles and was defeated in 1578;39 Nagao ˜Å (Uesugi Kenshinî’Ù=) engaged in ongoing conflict with Nobunaga and finallydied of illness in 1578;40 the poet Sõyõ associated with Miyoshi Chõkei
(1523–1564), an anti-Nobunaga daimyõ. The Kanze-dayu Sõsetsu ;Þ
of the 1560s showed some foresight by taking employment with
Tokugawa Ieyasu in 1571. In 1590 these persons would still be remembered, so that referring to them would presumably have had thedesired comic effect.
Still, it may be an oversimpli³cation to read the historical references in Saru no sõshi as a postmortem political statement against
Nobunaga—there was by no means a consensus at the time regarding
the reasons for the destruction of the Hiei multiplex in 1571. Yukimaru,
for one, seems to have been of the opinion that the priests ofEnryaku-ji, by allowing the troops of Asai and Asakura to take refuge
on Mt Hiei, de³led the mountain and thereby brought on the catastrophe (TAJIMA 1974, pp. 54 ff.). Rather, the references appear to be amore general comment on the actions of someone associated withÕmiya. For those who remembered and understood, might not these
old references have brought home all the more forcefully the pointthat only Hiyoshi (and more generally Mt Hiei) had managed to
37 The Lord Asai who presented Shibuzane with a writing table may be identi³ed as Asai

Nagamasa.
38 The Matsunaga mentioned in the account of the tea container Tsukumo has been
identi³ed as Matsunaga Hisahide (1510–1577), who became governor of Yamashina
Province in 1560 (Eiroku 3; see ZNE). Matsunaga is likely to have acquired Tsukumo during
the 1536 attack by Mt Hiei monks on Nichiren temples in Kyoto. It passed through Oda
Nobunaga’s hands before ³nally disappearing for good at Honnõ-ji in 1582.
39 The Mõri mentioned in Saru no sõshi is presumably Mõri Motonari (1497–1571), whoreceived ³efs in Tsukushi (Kyðshð) in the provinces of Buzen and Chikuzen.
40 It is thought that the Nagao referred to in the text is Uesugi Kenshin (1530–1578),
who is known to have visited the capital in 1559.

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

57

revive? If so, even the date of Wakagimi’s miyamairi may eventually
receive its own interpretation: the sixteenth day of the ninth month is
three (the favorite Tendai number) days after the date Oda Nobunaga
destoyed Hiei, a date that no one on Mt Hiei or in Sakamoto could
possibly have forgotten.41
All in all it seems likely that Saru no sõshi was part of the larger
picture, yet to be established,42 of intense intellectual and politicalactivity spearheaded by Hafuribe Yukimaru that accompanied therebuilding of the Hiyoshi Shrine. Such activity is likely to have formed
in some measure the background for Tenkai’s ú} launching ofSannõ Ichijitsu Shinto [÷s×PŠ (KUBOTA 1964), and hence for thestart of a new era in Tendai Shinto doctrine.43
ABBREVIATIONS OF PRIMARY SOURCES

SNKBT
TZKG

ZNE

Shin Nihon koten bungaku taikei GÕûòøk¿Ø˜, 101
vols. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1989–.
Teisei zõho kõko gafu à±†¢†òE:. Vol. 1 of Kurokawa
Mayori zenshð ¸ëOþ6T (6 vols.), Tokyo: KokushoKankõkai, 1910.
Zaigai Nara ehon $‘¹d…û. Tokyo: Kadokawa Shoten,
1981.
REFERENCES

GOTÕ Tanji 9n#¸ and KAMADA Kisaburõ ß,]XÁ, eds.
1960
Taiheiki °rz. Nihon koten bungaku taikei 34–36. Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten.
GRAPARD, Allan G.
1987
Linguistic cubism: A singularity of pluralism in the Sannõ cult.
Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 14: 211–34.
1992
The Protocol of the Gods: A Study of the Kasuga Cult in Japanese
History. Berkeley: University of California Press.
HANAWA Hokiichi x ˜÷s, ed.
1931
Asai Bizen no kami shukusho kyõõ ki òmÄ2!f‹ûñz. In Zoku
Gunsho ruijð ¡s–{Z 23/2, pp. 263–68. Tokyo: Zoku GunshoRuijð Kanseikai.
41 Yukimaru returns to this date and its events again and again in his writings, e.g., in thevery opening paragraph of Hie-sha shintõ himitsu ki.
42 Indeed, the whole Tendai Shinto tradition and its literary-religious interface is as yet
almost uncharted territory. See TAJIMA 1986.
43 Editor’s note: See the following article on Sannõ Ichijitsu Shinto by Sugahara Shinkai.

58Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

Hie-sha shintõ himitsu-ki ÕŸçPŠ¸O z. In Gunsho ruijð
s–{Z 2, pp. 86–125. Tokyo: Zoku Gunsho Ruijð Kanseikai.
1936Yõtenki çúz. In Zoku Gunsho ruijð 2/2, pp. 581–635. Tokyo:
Zoku Gunsho Ruijð Kanseikai.
HIRAYAMA Ikuo r[q&1992Hizõ Nihon bijutsu taikan ¸‰ÕûËnØ? 2. Tokyo: Kõdansha.
1932

KAGEYAMA Haruki ¹[r51978
Hiei sanji: Sono kõsei to shomondai ²µ[±—dur¨o™“Û.
Kyoto: Dõyðsha.
KANNOTÕ Akio PŸnÅ&1985
Otogizõshi no kõzõ: Bunruiron e no kokoromi o meguru
mondai :8u{ur‹—_{Çƒu¢Š¤ŒVš“Û. Kokubungaku
kaishaku to kanshõ 10: 43–51.
KOYAMA Hiroshi ·[eƒ, annot.
1960
Suehirogari =bR™. In Kyõgenshð ñíT 1, Nihon koten bungaku
taikei 42, pp. 51–60. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten.
KUBOTA Osamu ±˜,91964
Ichijitsu Shintõ to Tõshõgð s×PŠoXÑ·. Shintõ-shi kenkyð
12/6: 130–41.
KURODA, Toshio
1990
Historical consciousness and Hon-jaku philosophy on Mt Hiei.
In The Lotus Sutra in Japanese Culture, G. J. Tanabe and W. J.
Tanabe, eds., pp. 143–58. University of Hawaii Press.
KUWAYAMA Kõnen m[u5, ed. and annot.
1978
Chikatoshi nikki VpÕz. In Zoku shiryõ taisei ¡t[Ø¨ 14.
Tokyo: Rinsen Shoten.
MANAKA Fujiko D_)w{
1974
Jichin kashõ oyobi Shðgyokushð no kenkyð ²¥É¹´zB*TuÓÁ. Hisutoria 88: 1–31.
MCMULLIN, Neil
1984
Buddhism and the State in Sixteenth-Century Japan. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
MINOBE Shigekatsu ËòHb°1985
Otogizõshi no e to shishõ :8u{u…oŸØ. Kokubungaku
kaishaku to kanshõ 10: 58–67.
MORI Tõru I …
1985
Shokunin utaawase e ni tsuite 4^H§…rkJm. Kobijutsu òËn
74: 6–36.
MURAYAMA Shðichi ª[@s1974
Honji suijaku ûGs). Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kõbunkan.

TAKEUCHI: Saru no sõshi and the Hie-Enryaku-ji Religious Multiplex

59

NAGAHARA Keiji ½ã‰Ì
1992
Muromachi sengoku no shakai: Shõgyõ, kahei, kõtsð Ñ‰ì³uçl—¬%, Yq, H°. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kõbunkan.
NARA KOKURITSU HAKUBUTSUKAN ¹d³CN]I
1964
Suijaku bijutsu s)Ën. Tokyo: Kadokawa.
1979
Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan meihin zuroku ¹d³CN]Ieõ
oÆ. Nara: Nara Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan.
NISHIZAWA Masaji »å±Ì, ed.
1978
O-yõ no ama P—LuÍ. In Meihen otogizõshi eŠ:8u{, pp.
92–119. Tokyo: Kasama Shoin.
OGASAWARA Haruo ·Åãr&1987
Shintõ shinkõ no keifu PŠ=þu˜:. Tokyo: Perikansha.
OHNUKI-TIERNEY, Emiko1987
The Monkey as Mirror: Symbolic Transformations in Japanese History
and Ritual. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
OKAMI Masao þØ±Í, ed. and annot.
1981
Saru no sõshi áuu{. ZNE, pp. 2–7, 25–29. Tokyo: Kadokawa
Shoten.
OOMS, Herman
1985
Tokugawa Ideology: Early Constructs, 1570–1680. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
ÕSHIMA Tatehiko ØSÉÒ1974
Nezumi no sõshi Quu{. In Otogizõshi :8u{, Nihon koten bungaku taikei 36, pp. 496–527. Tokyo: Shõgakukan.
PHILIPPI, D., transl. and annot.
1968
Kojiki. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
1990
Norito: A Translation of the Ancient Japanese Ritual Prayers.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
PLUTSCHOW, H. E.
1990
Chaos and Cosmos: Ritual in Early and Medieval Japanese Literature.
Leiden: E. J. Brill.
RUCH, Barbara
1971
Origins of the companion library. Journal of Asian Studies 30:
593–610.
SAGAI Takeshi Ø`m É
1977
Hafuribe Yukimaru: Hie-sha chðkõ no so hH‘K—ÕŸç_öuH. Shintõ shðkyõ 89: 53–82.
1979
Hie-sha himitsu shasan ÕŸç¸OçZ. Shintõgaku 101: 19–52.
1980
Hie-sha norito kudensho: Kõkan to sono kõsatsu ÕŸçhŸS)–—Nîodu†I. Shintõ-shi kenkyð 28/3: 43–66.

60

Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 23/1–2

SANSOM, George
1961
A History of Japan 1334–1615. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
SATO Makoto ÕnO^1985Sannõ shichisha no seiritsu [÷Ìçu¨C. Shintõgaku 125:
16–37.
SAWAI Taizõ åmÂX, ed. and annot.
1987
Saru no sõshi á uu { . In Muromachi monogatari-shð, jõÑ‰]BT î, SNKBT 54, pp. 431–67.
SHIBANO, Dorothy T., trans.
1980
Suehirogari: The fan of felicity. Monumenta Nipponica 35: 77–88.
SKORD, Virginia
1991
Tales of Tears and Laughter: Short Fiction of Medieval Japan.
Honolulu: Hawaii University Press.
SMITH, Lawrence, Victor HARRIS, and Timothy CLARK
1990
Japanese Art: Masterpieces in the British Museum. London: British
Museum.
TAJIMA Kazuo ,Ts&1974
Saru shika zange monogatari ni tsuite: Nobunaga no Eizan yakiuchi to bungaku ni kansuru ichikõsatsu áÄHt]BrkJm—=˜uµ[Ïook¿rQ¥`šs†I. Kokugo to kokubungaku
179/9: 45–57.
1986
Hie Sannõ rishõ-ki no kenkyð ÕŸ[÷2´zuÓÁ. Kokubungaku
kenkyð shiryõkan-hõ 26: 1–2.
TOKUDA Kazuo ”,É&, annot.
1991
Ko-otoko no sõshi ·Cu{. In Muromachi monogatari-shð, jõ,SNKBT 54, pp. 352–37.
TOKUDA Kazuo, CHINO Kaori æŸ¡3, and KURODA Hideo ¸,ÕmC
1994
Otogizõshi no parareru w„rudo (zadankai) P8u{uÙñôó
÷2óÑ (ãDl). Kokubungaku 39/1: 6–29.
TSUJI Hiroyuki ¹ Nî
1980Chðsei ni okeru Õmi Sakamoto no hatten to toshi keikan _›r
PWšCs*ûunûo@}“?. Hisutoria 88: 1–31.