Talk:Gaijin/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Kojien, Heike Monogatari, and 外人 (gaijin)

Heikei Monogatari has been printed and re-printed by more than twenty different publishers over the past two centuries. In Japanese, thankfully, there is a wealth of academic commentary on the book. Two of the more useful features that many academic reprints offer are: (1) furigana, and (2) descriptive footnotes.

You should be careful to spell it Heike Monogatari. Some people may get a good laugh out of Heikei Monogatari (閉経物語). Bendono 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Obviously, the romaji spelling had typos in some places on this talk page despite trying to be careful. When I stare at a document long enough I sometimes miss things. In any case, yes, it should be read as "heike" and not "heikei". Thanks. J Readings 15:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I mention these two features because I consulted most of them over the past few weeks. These commentaries can be very helpful in considering to include any citations from Heike in the WP article’s etymology section, especially when faced with the peculiar (and very much in the minority) Kojien citation in its current form. Kojien, to repeat, claims that the second (though not current) definition of gaijin is the following: 敵視すべき人, followed by a quote from Heike Monogatari. 外人もなき所に兵具をとゝのへ. Then, one of the WP contributing editors claims that this passage should be read as “refer[ing] to potential spies or people who should be regarded as enemies.” I question both of these assertions based on all the evidence. The editor’s interpretation (and inclusion) in this WP article is not persuasive (if not misleading) in the eyes of most commenting Japanese academics and should be re-written (or deleted entirely) because:

1. LEXICOGRAPHERS AND JAPANESE ACADEMICS GENERALLY AGREE THAT 外人 DOES NOT MEAN “ENEMY”

Most (all?) academics agree that 外人 does not mean “enemy” in the Heike Monogatari passage. Rather, it refers to people outside one’s circle. Daijirin interprets the usage to mean people who are not associated with the first party, but it is not pejorative. そのことに関係のない人. Daijisen similarly interprets the passage to mean people outside one’s circle, but it is not pejorative. 仲間以外の人. Both disagree with Kojien. Since these glosses need to come from somewhere, why is there a contradiction? Researching this issue, I discovered the following. Writing in the descriptive footnotes to the Heike Monogatari, Japanese academics generally agree on this point. See, for example, 高木, 市之助 (1959). ：日本古典文学大系: 平家物語. 岩波書店. p. 123. ISBN 4-00-060032-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), Kajihara, Masaki (1991). 平家物語. 東京: 岩波書店. p. 46. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help), and 物集, 高量 (1922). ：日本文学義書刊禽: 平家物語. 東京: 岩波書店. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Where did Kojien get the unusual interpretation of 外人? It appears that they copied it from the one Japanese source (indeed, the only source) that seems to use the phrase--敵視すべき人—in its descriptive footnotes: ：日本古典全書: 平家物語. 東京: 朝日新聞社編. 1948. p. 100. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Notice both the date and editors in the proceeding section. The Asahi Shimbun publication comes in 1948 with an interpretation that is not taken from the earlier interpretations in 1922, for example. So where did the Asahi get it, and why are they the only Japanese publishers interpreting 外人 as such? That remains a mystery to me.

2. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, MOST (ALL?) ACADEMICS AGREE THAT Heike Monogatari’s 外人 IS NOT READ AS GAIJIN PER SE WHEN IT APPEARS AT ALL.

If we are going to have an article about the word gaijin, shouldn’t we be sure that it is about the word pronounced “gaijin”? Think how wrong and misleading it would be to have contributing editors to the word “niggardly” (meaning stingy, coming from Swedish) insist that we include an false etymology of the word that links it to the racial epithet nigger, simply because the two words share similar spellings and may (incorrectly) be pronounced the same.

Some versions using furigana insist, such as 日本文学義書刊禽 (1922), that 外人 should be read as ことびと (kotobito), others, like 山田(1938), say that 外人 is read as うどきひと(udokihito), whereas others still suggest that it might be read as ぐわいじん (guwaijin). All agree that the word is not read as がいじん (gaijin). Indeed, in some re-printings of 平家物語, such as the 1960 Tomikura Tokujiro version (there are others), the word 外人 does not appear at all! Rather than seeing the phrase （然るに、その恩を忘れて、外人もなき所に兵具をとゝのへ、軍兵を語らひおき、其営みの外は他事なし）we read things like (しかるに今、その恩を忘れて、同志の者たちの間で武器を調達し、軍兵を語らい集めるということに専心しているのである。Notice how there is no reference to the word 外人.

ぐわいじん is merely a historical spelling of がいじん. And it should be romanized as "gwaijin" (or even gwaizin). Subscript kana is a fairly new typographical practice. Consonant cluster <kw> becomes <k> in MJ. They are both the same lexical word.

Kanji are a major source of problems in Japanese lexicography. Unless a specific reading is given in the source, it is generally impossible to be sure how a word should be pronounced. So while the term 外人 certainly appears in Heike, we can not be sure how it should be read. And we never will. Bendono 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

3. MY THOUGHTS

I come away with this preliminary overview of the Heike Monogatari study thinking that the situation is far more complicated than the simple Kojien gloss allows for. Questions that we will need to ask are: (1) how much weight should we give the Kojien on this issue, in light of the evidence? And (2) should we cite Heike Monogatari at all?

WP guidelines states that we should not give undue weight to extreme minority views on any given topic. Considering that most dictionaries and Japanese academics do not consider the word 外人 in the prewar period to be (1) pejorative, (2) read as “gaijin” and (3) even always appearing in the Heike Monogatari text, I’m beginning to wonder what we should do about that sentence.

I'll have much more to report on other topics when I get the chance to type them up over the next few days. Thanks for reading. J Readings 14:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read significant portions of the original. And just now I have re-read the section in question. I shall summarize it now. Fujiwara no Moronaga resigns as Major Captain (大将). Several people desire the post including Sanesada, Kanemasa, and Narichika. Narichika puts a lot of effort into getting the post, however the ruling Heike ignore rank and protocol and decides to put their own in power. Shigemori (Kiyomori's eldest son) becomes Major Caption of the Left and Munemori (second son) becomes Major Caption of the Right. There is much insult and outrage with this decision. Narichika says:

徳大寺・花山院に超られたらむはいかゞせむ。平家の次男に超らるゝこそやすからね。是も万づおもふさまなるがいたす所なり。いかにもして平家をほろぼし、本望をとげむ。

. He is insulted to be passed over by a Heike of lower rank, and he vows to destroy the Heike. This is followed by the quote in question:

しかるに其恩をわすれて、外人もなき所に兵具をとゝのへ、軍兵をかたらひをき、其営みの外は他事なし。

He forgets his obligations (to Shigemori who once saved his life) and spends his time gathering weapons and charming warriors in places without any gaijin. The Heike are not his friends. He vowed to destroy them. They are his enemy.

I do not think that Kōjien's interpretation is necessarily wrong. It fits well with the context. However, I think the distinction is not really necessary. Someone who is outside your circle is not your friend. Does that mean they are your enemy? Maybe, maybe not. It's really splitting hairs. The literal meaning should be sufficient.

There are better quotes for gaijin than Heike. Fusōshū (扶桑集) (circa 995) uses the word 外人.

外人傾耳猶添愛、况是堂中父母心

It is Japanese 漢詩, so it is expected to be read as gaijin rather than a typical Japanese reading such as utoki hito etc. Of course, the exact reading can not be known for sure. Other sources include Kokon Chomonjū (古今著聞集) (1254), Renri Hishō (連理秘抄) (1349) and others. There are several important sources that include irrefutable data. First is Nippo Jisho (1603) which includes an entry for "Guaijin" (-> gwaijin). Next is Kagakushū (下学集) (1617) which states:

外人 グヮイジン 他人也

. And finally Shikidō Ōkagami (色道大鏡) (1678):

おほくは郭中の名目にて、外人（グハイジン）のいひこなさぬ詞なり

.

Throughout most of its history, the term gaijin referred to other Japanese, not foreigners from other countries. After the Meiji Revolution, Japan opens up to the world and many foreigners enter Japan. As should be expected, around this time the term gaikokujin first appears. An early quote is from 1859 in Zaisei Keizai Shiryō (財政経済資料). In 1875, Fukuzawa Yukichi abbreviates this to gaijin. Now gaijin takes on this new usage to refer to foreigners as is common now. Bendono 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The point all along here, Bendono, is whether these old usages of gaijin and their examples, regardless of its reading—tohito, kotohito/kotobito, etc.—are useful for understanding whether the gaijin of today’s vernacular is by definition or etymology a term of disparagement—an epithet. My argument all along is that they are not, because the current-day term referring to foreigners and the old term referring to the other, another person, other persons, those outside one’s ingroup, strangers, potential enemies (by virtue of not being members of the ingroup), and what have you—despite their surface similarity—are separate words with distinct histories. If I’m not mistaken, your citation from Fukuzawa Yukichi, no xenophobe he, might be what I’ve been looking for all these years to substantiate this point. Can you supply a page–line citation for where Fukuzawa makes a switch from 外国人 to 外人? Or would that be original research since it’s not an observation in a secondary source?

Fwiw, I have read Fukuzawa on and off over the years, but Zaisei Keizai Shiryō is not one of the works I’ve looked at; such is the lot of the amateur scholar, I suppose. I’ve also read swathes of Heike and other classical works in the original, though the gunji monogatari are not my favorites; and I’ve never had structured instruction in them. In any case, I’m really looking forward to anything you can contribute to this. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 14:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For Fukuzawa, look in Bunmeiron no Gairyaku (文明論之概略) (1875). Iwanami publishes it in bunko form. ISBN: 4003310217. Quote:

学者流の人にても少しく見識あるものは外人の挙動を見て決して心酔するに非ず

Bendono 14:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have much more to report over the next few days, but I have one other interesting tidbit on this topic of 外人 etymology, classical Japanese literature, and potential epithets. Donald M. Richardson, editor of A Literary Translator's Japanese-English Dictionary (Winchester, VA: 1998), weighs in on this subject. He tells us that gaijin simply means "a foreigner; a stranger; an alien"; it is not an epithet, nor is it even remotely pejorative. In Richardson's view, the word that *was* considered to be an epithet referring to foreigners in Japanese literature was 東人 (toujin). It can either mean "(1) a Chinese" or "(2) an epithet for foreigners." (pg. 838). I thought that was interesting, and lends more support to the idea that the Kojien gloss of Heike's passage (and its WP interpretation) is either incorrect or potentially misleading in its current form. I would recommend that we point this out to the reader. Best, J Readings 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect on what account? Narichika vowed to destroy the Heike. A threat like that is leveled against ones enemies, someone who you despise. In the Heike context, I think that Kōjien's interpretation is fair. However, not all usages need to be so specific. A more core meaning is "one who is outside your in-group", ie "outsider". The real specifics depend on the context, which is true of all lexical terms. Please note that the "gaijin" being referred to here are other Japanese, not foreign nationals. Bendono 02:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. I understand that 外人 does not mean foreign national in the Heike passage. You're absolutely right. But I would still emphasize three points that are quite relevant to the etymology section. First, I agree with you, Bendono, when you say that "real specifics depend on the context, which is true of all lexical terms." However, if you consult the WP archives, you'll notice that a few WP editors both interpret and extrapolate from the Kojien gloss onto the entire classical period. It's fair to say that this is either incorrect or potentially misleading. To be sure, Richardson believes that 外人 was not an epithet, nor did it carry a pejorative connotation. Full stop. The second point would be that we should simply describe what academics and lexicographers published without injecting our own opinions into the main article. Put differently, while I respect your personal interpretation of the Heike passage, I think that as WP editors, it is far safer to describe (and cite) the various published opinions on that issue without trying to confirm one bias or another. I spent an inordinate amount of time on researching this one small issue, because I believe it’s far safer to describe what the secondary sources say (literally) than rely on one minority interpretation of the Heike passage. Which brings me to the third point: looking over my notes, the 敵視すべき人 gloss is very much in the literal minority of both academic descriptive footnotes and dictionary glosses to interpret the passage term 外人. That’s a fair and factual statement. Naturally, we could spend a lot of time offering personal opinions which try to reconcile the various academics statements (which, yes, is very interesting), but let’s keep in mind that Wikipedia is a tertiary source that is supposed to be citing secondary sources only. That's the best we can hope for in an encyclopedia article. Best, J Readings 09:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Quote: "The second point would be that we should simply describe what academics and lexicographers published without injecting our own opinions into the main article." That has been done. Kōjien is fairly referenced and cited in the article. Saying anything else would be your own opinion. You may disagree with Kōjien, but that is what the reference says. As a side note, Kōjien is probably the single most respected and authoritative Japanese dictionary. Bendono 12:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I neglected to give you a page number as you asked. Assuming you get the Iwanami bunko version (ISBN 4-00-331021-7), it will be on page 18, line 4. He does in fact switch between 外国人 and 外人. It is also available online. Bendono 13:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bendono, thanks for the feedback on Fukuzawa. I have the Iwanami Bunko version and will have a look. Btw, I'm surprised about your comment on Kojien: It certainly used to be the most respected Japanese dictionary, but I think most heavy dictionary users now feel that it is way overrated. Shōgakukan’s monstrous Daikokugo Jiten is considered by many to be the grand-daddy dictionary of them all, and Sanseido’s Daijirin is widely acknowledged as the most useful among the desktop minimonsters. Personally, I find all of Iwanami’s kokugo- and kanwa-level dictionaries to be wanting, although some of their field-specific technical dictionaries are quite good. For dictionaries of interest to the linguist, though, Tōkyōdō Shuppan is the place to go! Jim_Lockhart 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Businesses, newspapers, and magazines will generally always quote Kōjien when needing an authorative reference. That is as true today as it was in the past. Daijirin has made some breakthroughs as it favors modern usage over historical. It often gives better more appropriate definitions as well. The Shōgakukan dictionary that you are thinking of is called Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (日本国語大辞典) and it is currently the pinnacle of Japanese dictionaries. But just like the OED, it is not a common everyday reference for most people. That honor belongs to Kōjien. BTW, if you are looking for a solid, single-volume 古語辞典, I highly recommend Iwanami's. Bendono 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bendono, I'm surprised by your comment. Perhaps I misunderstood what you're trying to say, but are you suggesting that we are not allowed to cite all of the other references (see above) to the Heike passage which offer a different take on the passage simple because you prefer the Kojien? Could you elaborate on your point a little bit more? I'm afraid I don't understand. J Readings 15:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course not. Quote as many references as you like. Bendono 15:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Graph

I created a simple graph of the above source data. Dotted lines indicated sources where the intended reading is unknown. Solid lines are confirmed readings. I left Heike off because it was getting crowded and also "circa 13th century" is quite vague.

Notice that the term "gaijin" starts off with no reference to foreigners. Around the middle of the 19th century, the term "gaikokujin" emerges. It refers to foreigners (ie, non-Japanese). A few decades later "gaikokujin" is abbreviated to "gaijin". Thus, "gaijin" and "gaikokujin" merged, and now "gaijin" can refer to foreigners. That is the purpose of this graph.

I also agree that neither terms are necessarily pejorative.

Artistic design is not one of my strong suites. Feel free to redesign it. Perhaps it can be integrated into the article. Bendono 02:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)