Aynuitak Huskokampi Aomarepu アイヌ語古記録データベース Early Records Database of the Ainu Language

蝦夷方言藻汐草

えぞほうげん もしおぐさ · Ezo hōgen moshiogusa · 上原熊次郎・阿部長三郎 · 1792 · Lexicon · Place names · Characters · Catalogue record

Tags: Ainu

Composition, transmission and study of the yukar

A history of Moshiogusa’s copies and closing epic, identifying kana editions, reconstructed readings, translations and editions of related works.

Download history (JSON) · Bibliography

  1. inferred

    Composition

    Compilation of Moshiogusa

    Moshiogusa is thought to have been compiled by Uehara Kumajirō in 1792. The epic’s narrator is unknown. This is an inferred composition date. Tangiku 2021, p. 30 ↧

  2. Publication

    A printed copy with an 1804 preface

    Waseda’s one-volume copy (ホ02 05038) is catalogued with Uehara as interpreter, Abe as administrator, and a preface dated 1804. The catalogue also identifies it as a retitling of Ezo hōgen, whose postface dates to 1792. Preface, postface and inferred composition dates need to be distinguished. Waseda catalogue, catalogue record ↧

  3. Bibliographical study

    Kindaichi on authorship and editions

    Kindaichi Kyōsuke published a study of Uehara and his writings. As quoted by Tomomi Satō, Kindaichi used the one-volume copy’s postface to establish Uehara’s and Abe’s involvement, and inferred its priority from the clarity of its printing. This is evidence about authorship and editions. Kindaichi 1913 — catalogue, 藝文 4-10 (continuation) ↧; Tomomi Satō 2007, pp. 157–159 ↧

  4. Kana transcription

    Yamamoto Tasuke and Yamamoto Fumitoshi: Ainu Mosiri 4

    The complete epic appeared in its original kana spelling, without a Japanese translation. It occupies pp. 90–99 of the 1998 Kushiro Ainu Bunka Konwakai reprint. This coverage is reported by Tangiku. Tangiku 2021, p. 2, note 1 ↧

  5. Facsimile

    Kokushokankōkai facsimile

    Kokushokankōkai reproduced Moshiogusa in its Ainu-language source series. The facsimile made the printed text more accessible and later served as Tangiku’s base text. Kokushokankōkai 1972, catalogue record ↧; Tangiku 2021, p. 30 ↧

  6. Bibliographical study

    Tanaka Satoko and Sasaki Toshikazu on printed variants

    Their study distinguished two forms within the one-volume edition. Satō (2007) checked these observations against identifiable library copies. The essay was also collected as chapter 12 of Sasaki’s Ainu-shi no jidai e (2013). Tomomi Satō 2007, pp. 167–168, §2.5 ↧; Sasaki 2013 — contents, contents, chapter 12 ↧

  7. Edition of a related text

    Tomomi Satō’s edition of Ezo chiyaranke narabini jōruri kotoba

    Satō edited three texts from the Kindaichi copy of a former Shōkōkan manuscript, collating the University of Tokyo’s Nanki copy, and supplied kana, reconstructed Roman-script Ainu and literal Japanese. Text 2 parallels Moshiogusa’s charanke speech; Satō inferred transmission through manuscripts of the same lineage. Text 3, the heroic epic, is a different work. Tomomi Satō 2003, pp. 33–35; text 3, pp. 42–48 ↧

  8. Bibliographical study

    Tomomi Satō on one-volume copies

    Satō reported one-volume copies at Hakodate and Tomakomai, examining misprints, ink loss, insect damage and textual variants. Priority of edition does not guarantee the legibility of individual characters; two-volume copies also matter. The article’s subject is bibliographical comparison. Tomomi Satō 2007, pp. 160–169 ↧

  9. Kana transcription

    Facsimile and transcription of the Mori-family manuscript

    The Hokkaido University project published photographs, transcription and commentary for a manuscript identified by Honda Yūko at Kisakata in September 2003. Sasaki Toshikazu and Tanimoto Akihisa collated and edited it; Honda and Saitō Kazuki contributed commentary. Preserved by the Mori family, whose members worked at Futoro, it contains vocabulary and examples absent from the print. Tangiku used its epic variants. Mori manuscript edition 2013, catalogue record; 300 pp. ↧; Tanimoto & Sasaki 2018, pp. 41–43 ↧; Tangiku 2021, pp. 30–31 ↧

  10. Archival lead

    Chiri Mashiho’s annotated handwritten copy

    Inoue Takaaki’s account of the Hokkaido University Library collection illustrates a copy handwritten, bound and annotated in red pencil by Chiri himself. The report does not establish whether its notes cover the epic or include a full reconstruction or translation. The date here belongs to the report; the copying date is unverified. Inoue 2014, p. 7 ↧

  11. Collation, reconstruction and translation

    Tangiku Itsuji’s 546-line reconstruction and provisional translation

    Using the 1972 facsimile, Hakodate images and Kisakata variants, Tangiku supplied kana, reconstructed Ainu and a provisional translation. “Ruwesaniunkur epic” is his supplied title. The report appeared in 2021; “2020年度” identifies its fiscal year. Tangiku 2021, pp. 3, 30, 34–77; colophon ↧

  12. Edition of a related text

    Tomomi Satō’s Handbook appendix

    Chapter 3’s appendix presents a sample from the Shōkōkan epic previously edited in Satō (2003), with kana, morphological glosses and English translation. Its mention of Moshiogusa concerns another text preserved in the same document. It does not identify the two epics as the same work. Tomomi Satō 2022, pp. 89–95, appendix ↧

  13. Translation history

    Miki Sato on Uehara’s translations

    Miki Sato examines Uehara’s interpreting and translation. Table 1 compares the epic’s opening kana, Uehara’s Chinese-character glosses and Tangiku’s reconstruction and Japanese translation, adding a literal romanization of the kana and English renderings. The excerpt depends on Tangiku. Miki Sato and Tomomi Satō are different scholars. Miki Sato 2023, pp. 154–156, especially table 1, p. 155 ↧

What comparison of copies establishes

In Satō’s example, the voicing mark in ビヱー “to grow fat” (19 verso) is illegible in the Hakodate copy and absent in the 1972 facsimile, yet clear in Kobe University’s two-volume copy. Printing conditions affect the evidence available in individual copies. A damaged character must be distinguished from a recorded sound difference before the spelling is used for phonological history. Tomomi Satō 2007, pp. 168–169, §2.6 ↧

The shared speech and the separate epics

Satō explicitly identifies the correspondence in text 2 and reports finding no related material for texts 1 and 3. The third text concerns Ishikari and a narrator raised by an elder brother. This distinction helps explain why the edition is missed in searches for Moshiogusa’s yukar. The proposed relationship between the documents does not establish identity between their epics. Tomomi Satō 2003, p. 34; pp. 42–48 ↧; Tomomi Satō 2022, pp. 89–90 ↧

Transcription, reconstruction and translation

The historical Japanese glosses cover only the first 51 of 546 lines. Typesetting kana, collating witnesses, reconstructing Ainu and translating it are distinct editorial operations. Tangiku labels his translation provisional and qualifies his statement about earlier translations. The publications listed here cannot establish the absence of unpublished readings or annotations. Tangiku 2021, pp. 2–3, 30 ↧; Inoue 2014, p. 7 ↧

Bibliography and access

Page citations refer to printed pagination. Direct PDF links account for covers and other preliminary pages. Entries identify evidence obtained from catalogues or later studies.

  1. 阿部長三郎 · 上原熊次郎 (1804). 藻汐草. 早稲田大学図書館古典籍総合データベース、ホ02 05038
  2. 金田一京助 (1913). 蝦夷語学の鼻祖上原熊次郎と其著述（承前）. 藝文（京都文学会）4-10: 67–93。国文学研究資料館論文データベース掲載書誌。
  3. 上原熊次郎 (1972). 藻汐草. 国書刊行会、アイヌ語資料叢書。NDL書誌ID 000001271767。
  4. 佐藤知己 (2003-02-28). 彰考館旧蔵アイヌ語テキスト「蝦夷チヤランケ並浄瑠理言」について. 北海道大学文学研究科紀要 109: 31–58
  5. 佐藤知己 (2007). 『藻汐草』の「一冊本」について. 北海道大学文学研究科紀要 121: 157–170
  6. 北海道大学アイヌ・先住民研究センター古文書プロジェクト (2013-03). にかほ市象潟郷土資料館所蔵 森家旧蔵「蝦夷方言藻汐草 全」翻刻・解題. 北海道大学アイヌ・先住民研究センター、古文書プロジェクト報告書、300頁。NDL書誌ID 024530167。
  7. 佐々木利和 (2013). アイヌ史の時代へ―余瀝抄. 北海道大学出版会。第12章「近世アイヌ語資料について―とくに『もしほ草』をめぐって」（田中聖子との共著、初出1985）。
  8. 井上高聡 (2014-08-01). 先人未踏の分野で独自の境地―知里真志保文庫―. 「よりよい生活と平和のために」353号、7頁。「図書館へ行こう」第13回。
  9. 谷本晃久 · 佐々木利和 (2018-09-20). 歴史学（古文書プロジェクト報告）. 『アイヌ・先住民研究センターの10年―2007～2017』北海道大学アイヌ・先住民研究センターブックレット10、39頁以降（象潟本：41–43頁）。
  10. 丹菊逸治 (2021-03-25). 18世紀アイヌ押韻文―ルウェサニウンクㇽ叙事詩その頭脚韻と不完全韻. 2020年度科学研究費補助金研究成果報告書、77頁。
  11. Tomomi Satō (2022). Major old documents of Ainu and some problems in the historical study of Ainu. In Anna Bugaeva (ed.), Handbook of the Ainu Language, chapter 3, pp. 79–98. De Gruyter Mouton.
  12. Miki Sato (2023). Ezo-tsūji (Japanese–Ainu Interpreters) in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries: The Case of Uehara Kumajirō. In Mino Saito and Miki Sato (eds.), Tsūji, Interpreters in and Around Early Modern Japan, chapter 7, pp. 141–166. Palgrave Macmillan.