EPTPoll: Would you be interested in reading this awesomeness??
GoGoGo!! Gimme sumthin to read. (11)
85%
No, not really. (2)
15%
Other - Explained in post. (0)
0%
13 total votes
No, not really. (2)
Other - Explained in post. (0)
13 total votes
Your vote: Would you be interested in reading this awesomeness??
(Vote): GoGoGo!! Gimme sumthin to read.
(Vote): No, not really.
(Vote): Other - Explained in post.
My MA project is on Miyamoto Musashi's "Book of Five Rings," the Gorinsho, a medieval document where Musashi critiques Edo-period Japanese martial ways and explains key points of his own school, Niten-ichi-ryu.
The HMK (Harima Musashi Kenkyukai) is a research group in Japan doing amazing work on the Gorinsho. Their great addition to Gorinsho scholarship lies in their comparative analysis of existing manuscripts (MS) and the conclusions they've come to as a result. The most critical of which is their separation of MS lines. They are the only ones to even consider comparing the existing manuscripts.
I'm not an expert at all this yet, but the largest and most important distinction is between the Chikuzen-line and Higo-line manuscripts. The Chikuzen-line follows the transmission history of MSs based on the historical documentation of the Gorinsho's transmission from the colophon at the end of each scroll, which is why this line follows the people whom received and transmitted the text. Early on in its transmission, this follows the heads of the 二天一流 (Niten-ichi-ryu) sword school.
The Higo-line, according to the HMK's comparative textual analysis, is the product of a leaked early Chikuzen-line MS. It was subsequently copied, and recopied, and these MS's tracing is based on the HMK's comparative analysis of those MS which all share similar characteristics (lack of transmission documentation, clear copy errors, peculiar omissions). The Hosokawa MS appears late on in this line.
This Hosokawa MS, treated and annotated, appears in the Japanese collection of martial writings, the Bushido Zensho (writings on Bushido, 1942-43). It also appears in another collection of Japanese writings, the Nihon Shisou Taikei (related works of Japanese thought, 1972). It is, as I understand it, the source text for all the modern Japanese translations. Out of the 15 English Gorinsho translations and interpretations, 4 (possibly 6) of them, I believe, were translated from the classical Japanese, and all of these used the Hosokawa MS as their source text (Harris, Wilson, Ochiai, Tokitsu, Cleary?, Bradford Brown?, Ashikaga?).
The rest of these English "translations" purport themselves to be modern-day interpretations, translations, or something in between. I've found that later published books draw from earlier translations/interpretations in making their own new, but different, interpretation. I believe there is a scandal here, a gross distortion of meaning, that I can trace starting from the HMK's genealogy and going through the English translations and interpretations. For example, I have evidence showing that Kaufman borrowed from Harris and Cleary (and likely the other two available to him) in creating his "martial artist's definitive interpretation," and that Krause's "Book of Five Rings for Executives" used Kaufman and Cleary. I also have evidence of Moore and Gough borrowing (at least) from Harris. I won't go into the rest or in more detail here, but the result is essentially a 365 year old game of "telephone."
The point is I can trace the genealogy of these English translations back to their classical routes, which is then found out to be a leaked and copied MS full of mistakes. I can expose this scandal of translation while simultaneously offering my own translation of the HMK's MS (the rough version of which I'm posting here), which was compiled through comparative analysis of Higo and Chikuzen MSs (though with obvious weight given to the Chikuzen-line). My project is thus to expose the scandal while offering my own translation of the HMK's manuscript.
