The Miracles of the Kasuga Deity

The Miracles of the Kasuga Deity

Number XCVIII of the Records of Civilization:

Sources and Studies

The Miracles of the Kasuga Deity

ROYALL TYLER

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

NEW YORK

The author and publisher gratefully acknowledge the support toward publication given them by the Norwegian Research Council and the Institute for Medieval Japanese Studies, Columbia University.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

NEW YORK    OXFORD

cup.columbia.edu

Copyright © 1990 Columbia University Press

All rights reserved

E-ISBN 978-0-231-53476-5

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Tyler, Royall.

The miracles of the Kasuga deity / Royall Tyler.

p. cm.—(Records of civilization, sources and studies : no. 98)

Includes translation of the Kasuga Gongen genki.

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 978-0-231-06959-5 (pbk. : alk. paper)

1. Kasuga Gongen genki. 2. Kasuga Jinja (Nara-shi, Japan) in literature. 3. Legends, Shinto—History and criticism. 4. Legends, Buddhist—Japan—History and criticism. 5. Japanese literature—1185—1600—History and criticism. I. Kasuga Gongen genki. English. 1990. II. Title. III. Series.

PL790.K35T95 1990

895.6’32209—dc20     89-22237

CIP

A Columbia University Press E-book.

CUP would be pleased to hear about your reading experience with this e-book at cup-ebook@columbia.edu.

Book design by Charles Hames

For my father

and in memory of my mother

Contents

Acknowledgments

Conventions and Official Titles

Introduction

Part I

Chapter 1: The Work

Saionji Kinhira

Mototada and His Sons, and Kakuen

Possible Precursors to the Genki

A Mockup of the Genki

The Genki Through the Centuries

Wider Knowledge of the Genki

Copies of the Genki

Chapter 2: The Text

The State of the Genki Text

The Content and Organization of the Genki

The Genki as Literature

The Genki and setsuwa Literature

The Genki and engi Literature

Chapter 3: The Shrine

The Shrine and Its Deities

The Legendary Origins of the Kasuga Shrine

The Modern Understanding

A History of the Kasuga Shrine

Rites, Festivals, and Offerings

The Organization and Administration of the Shrine

Problems That Cropped Up in the Life of the Shrine

Chapter 4: The Temple

The Origins of Kōfukuji and of Its Buddhism

The Rise of Kōfukuji

Fujiwara Monks and the Rise of the inke

The Yuima-e

The Organization of Kōfukuji

The Nan’endō

Kōfukuji after the Genki

Chapter 5: The Cult

The Head of the Clan

The Spiritual Guide

The Master of Paradise and Hell

The Kasuga Faith of Gedatsu Shōnin

Gedatsu Shōnin, the Genki, and Shaka

The Divine Land

The Fourth Sanctuary as gohō

Chapter 6: Forms and Dreams

The Sex and Number of the Kasuga Deity

The Deity’s Manifestations in the Genki

Recognized honji and suijaku Forms

Honji or Other Single Figures That Stand for the Whole Shrine

Final Remarks

Chapter 7: Poems and Plays

The Kasuga Landscape

Themes in Kasuga Poetry: The Meadows

Themes in Kasuga Poetry: The Mountain

The Kasuga Noh Plays

Final Remarks

Chapter 8: The Sakaki Leaf Diary

Part II

The Miracles of the Kasuga Deity

Contents and Preface

Scroll 1

Scroll 2

Scroll 3

Scroll 4

Scroll 5

Scroll 6

Scroll 7

Scroll 8

Scroll 9

Scroll 10

Scroll 11

Scroll 12

Scroll 13

Scroll 14

Scroll 15

Scroll 16

Scroll 17

Scroll 18

Scroll 19

Scroll 20

Bibliography

Index

Maps

1. The Kasuga-Kōfukuji Area

2. The Kasuga Shrine

3. Kōfukuji

Acknowledgments

I thought of this project while in Kyoto on a Japan Foundation grant in 1978—79, but began it only in 1980. Most of the work was done outside Japan, but the necessary research would have been impossible without another year in Kyoto, 1982—83, thanks to a Fulbright grant. Hiroyoshi Hisahiko, the director of the Nara Prefectural Library, deserves special thanks for his help. Early on, John Keenan explained little passages from Hossō writings that to me were impenetrable. Toward the end, Robert Sharf, who has trained as a priest of Kōfukuji, supplied useful materials and information on present Kōfukuji as well.

The late Kageyama Haruki kindly introduced my wife and me to Kasanoin Chikatada, the present head priest of the Kasuga Shrine, and to Ōhigashi Nobukazu, the Shrine’s adviser on cultural affairs. Mr. Ōhigashi generously allowed me to copy his transcriptions of the shrine documents, which have since been published in vol. 13 of Shintō taikei, and discussed Kasuga history with us on several occasions. One spring morning he led us up Mikasa-yama, and as we neared the top a brilliant sun burst through the clouds. Shimizu Yoshiko of Kansai Daigaku took us to the Yōmei Bunko where the director, Nawa Osamu, spent days showing us the Yōmei Bunko copy of Kasuga Gongen genki. Once when rain was threatening, Mr. Nawa teased us that the weather might keep him from bringing that day’s portion of precious scrolls in from the storehouse; but then he appeared anyway, carrying them under a big, black umbrella.

Finally, this book would have been poorer without the insight and knowledge of my wife, Dr. Susan C. Tyler, who also made the maps and traced the pictures. Her own work on Kasuga devotional art makes her an expert on the shrine. We chose to study Kasuga entirely independently of one another, but being together has allowed us to hold a Kasuga seminar whenever we wish. All mistakes and shortcomings, however, are my own. They are certainly there. I hope the work’s overall value will outweigh them.

Conventions and Official Titles

In all translated passages in this book, and of course particularly in Kasuga Gongen genki itself (hereafter simply "the Genki"), I have liberally capitalized names, titles, and other words; whereas in the introductory chapters and glosses I have followed current practice and kept to lowercase initials. Capitalization is a useful device in English to mark respect. If it gives these translations a slightly old-fashioned air, no harm will have been done. The book distinguishes between shrine and sanctuary, since the Kasuga Shrine consists of several subshrines (sanctuaries) for which a separate word was needed. As for divine beings, Myōjin (resplendent deity), Daimyōjin (great resplendent deity), Gongen (avatar), and Kami are retained wherever they occur in the original. Otherwise, I resorted to Deity or, occasionally, God.

The major translations (Sakakiba no nikki and the Genki) are intended to be easy to pick out from the glosses and other accompanying material, so that anyone wishing to skip the glosses should be able readily to do so. The comments and notes follow each section of translated text.

Dates in the translations are spelled out, but elsewhere are noted schematically: Kenkyū 7.9.27 (1196). Intercalary months are indicated thus: Ten’ei l.int7.12. Premodern Japanese years do not correspond exactly to modern ones, so that a date like Jishō 4.12.28 (when the Taira forces burned Nara) technically belongs in 1181. However, since Jishō 4 corresponds in the tables to 1180, this date would be given here as Jishō 4.12.28 (1180).

In the notes to the Genki, the date when the incident related would have occurred (if it really happened) is given first. Dates given in the original are repeated here, with their year equivalent in the modern calendar. After the dates come sections entitled Possible Source, Related Materials, Background, and so on. Historical background material for the stories fills out the often rather sketchy Genki accounts. These sections are followed by the notes proper. For items that recur, I have not each time referred the reader back to the original note, which can always be located in the index. In a few cases, the notes to a Genki story are followed by a section entitled Significant Variants. Further comments on this item will be found in chapter 2, under "The state of the Genki text."

OFFICIAL TITLES

Official titles are a great problem. For the translations (though not necessarily for the glosses or introductory chapters) I felt obliged to translate them all, with three exceptions explained below. One wonders how valuable it is to do so. On the one hand, many titles could be eliminated or somehow diluted for a general audience, while for a scholarly audience they could simply be left in the original. On the other hand, the existing English equivalents for the civil titles, admirably worked out by other scholars, were too familiar and too convincing to ignore. William and Helen McCullough (1980:2:789—831) have explained them so well that there was no need to do so here.

The religious titles were another matter. The main ones have been explained by the McCulloughs (1980:1:396—97), but previously worked out equivalents are less consistent, less satisfactory, and less complete. The most difficult were hōin, hōgen, and hokkyō. I finally gave up on them and left them in the original. For instance, the translation of Genki 11.1 speaks of Hōin Egyō.

The main group of ecclesiastical titles is that of the sōgō ranks. Kōfukuji monks were normally appointed to the lowest of these after serving as lecturer (kōji) for the Yuima-e. The sōgō ranks appear in these translations as follows (from lowest to highest); provisional preceding any of them translates the Japanese gon.

The names of the various roles played by monks at the Yuima-e, as explained in chapter 4 under The Yuima-e, appear as follows:

Another set of titles, prominent particularly in Genki 11.4, alludes to certain important ceremonies including the Yuima-e.

Otherwise, there is a scattering of other titles:

Titles of offices at the Kasuga Shrine are translated as follows:

Introduction

One easily gathers from well-known commonplaces about Japanese history that the Heian world ended in the late twelfth century, and that the old court, if not extinguished thereafter, at least faded into insignificance. But this is not quite true. Minamoto no Yoritomo (1147-99), who established the Kamakura Bakufu, seems not to have wished to offend the Kyoto nobles, who took him on the whole for a loyal supporter. The system of rule by retired emperors (insei) survived, according to some scholars, at least until the Jōkyū Rebellion of 1221; while others hold that although weakened, it lasted until Go-Daigo put a stop to Go-Uda’s insei in 1321 (Uwayokote 1975:36, 57). Certainly the Kyoto court remained politically alive, and throughout the thirteenth century, even as its authority slipped away, could nourish dreams of the Bakufu’s end from its own faith in the eternal collaboration of the emperor and his Fujiwara regent.

Some of the old and wealthy religious establishments associated with the court did even better. Kōfukuji and the Kasuga Shrine in Nara continued to control vast estates and powerful populations of armed monks and shrine servants (jinnin); and Yamato province remained, as it had been before, under the temple’s sway.

Kōfukuji was the senior clan temple of the Fujiwara aristocracy. Although it was peopled by the sons of the highest nobles, its interests and those of the great houses in Kyoto did not always coincide. There was one thing, however, upon which Kōfukuji and the Fujiwara of the court could certainly agree, and that was devotion to the Kasuga Shrine. The Kasuga deity was the tutelary deity (ujigami) of the Fujiwara, while for Kōfukuji he was not only a protector but also the source of legitimacy for the temple’s power. In the first years of the fourteenth century, this convergence of enthusiasm produced one of the major artistic achievements of the Kamakura period: the superb emakimono (set of painted handscrolls) entitled Kasuga Gongen genki (The Miracles of the Kasuga Deity).

This book is a study of the text of Kasuga Gongen genki. It comprises eight chapters on the Genki and its world, and a fully annotated translation of the Genki’s stories. The work has not been approached this way before. Most of the secondary writing about it concerns one of two issues: what the paintings tell us about the architecture, costume, and manners of the time, and how the Genki was conceived and executed. Some historians have cited specific passages of the text to support one point or another. However, no one has written more than a few paragraphs on the content of the Genki, and no one has glossed its text.

This is not really surprising. The Genki belongs to a large, and still ill-defined, class of medieval works that include temple or shrine origin legends (engi) and collections of miracle stories (reigenki). These have not received the same attention as medieval tale literature (setsuwa bungaku), the best-known examples of which have been carefully studied and figure in standard collections of classical Japanese literature.

The relative obscurity of works like the Genki seems not entirely to be explained either by their subject matter (though nowadays secular works often seem to be more attractive than religiously inspired ones) or by their literary quality. The Genki itself may not have the exceptional appeal of Uji shūi monogatari, perhaps the best of the setsuwa collections, but as long as one understands a little of its world, it makes better reading than Kojidan, for example, which since 1981 has been available in an annotated edition with modern Japanese translation. In fact, the Genki is very interesting. It is true that Kojidan and the other setsuwa collections cover a wider range of material and so are more generally useful, if not always more appealing. However, something else seems to have kept scholars away from such works as the Genki.

Perhaps the first problem is that the Genki and many other works like it mingle text and painting. The paintings being immediately attractive and impressive, the work as a whole tends to end up being left to art historians, and abandoned by those who represent literature—that is, the study of written compositions. And since art historians understandably do not consider it their business to study texts, the texts associated with their artifacts continue to be neglected. Historians of religion too may value such works, but they feel no greater urge to study texts. Meanwhile beautiful books filled with reproductions of engi or reigenki paintings continue to be published with, in the back, the same raw transcriptions of the kotobagaki—a term suggesting that the text accompanies the paintings as prose passages accompany the poems in an imperial anthology.

Another reason for relative neglect in the case of the Genki, especially, may be the work’s aristocratic character. Gorai Shigeru (1978b) left no doubt that to one whose sympathies lie with the common people, the Genki is simply offensive. Even to one less passionately committed, the Genki may seem anomalous in an age of warrior rule; and the religion it represents was actively opposed to the new Buddhism that arose in Kamakura times. The Genki paintings have been mined for images of folk life, but the deeper interests of the gentlemen and monks who worked on the Genki may appear obsolete. So may the religion of the Genki. By the standards of those who study Buddhist doctrine it is not Buddhism, and it falls into precisely the twilight zone proscribed by Shinto since the Meiji Restoration.

These considerations help explain why the Genki, as text, has been rather neglected. Yet taking it up was like opening a window onto a world whose periphery one has glimpsed here and there, but whose center one has never seen before. Surely there is no more vivid expression of Fujiwara pride—a nostalgic one, of course, since by the time the Genki was made, Fujiwara glory was less lived than remembered. The work’s very insistence that the Kasuga deity lives on, like his children, with undiminished vigor, evokes the lengthening shadows of decline. But above all, one looks through the Genki onto the living pattern of honji-suijaku religion: a mode of faith that held the deities of Japan were traces manifested below (suijaku) by the eternally enlightened, original ground (honji) buddhas.

I have tentatively suggested elsewhere (R. Tyler 1987:46-47) that the mode of faith this pattern belongs to deserves better acknowledgment as a distinct phase of Japanese religion. The phase involved a particular understanding not only of Buddhism and the native deities, but also of geography. Its intense interest in place and landscape, as demonstrations of the deepest truth, is as obvious in the Kasuga cult as in honji-suijaku religion as a whole. Jacqueline Pigeot’s meticulous analysis of the treatment of place names in classical poetry led her to the interesting conclusion (1982:162, n. 193) that the classic notion of uta-makura (like the classic notion of honji and suijaku deities) did not become clear until the twelfth century. Kasuga, one of the geat uta-makura, supported a complex body of religious and poetic lore that tells a great deal about the conservative side of Kamakura religion.

The Genki leaves no doubt that this faith was upheld and nurtured not only by the greatest nobles at court but by their sons and brothers at Kōfukuji as well. In this sense, the Kasuga cult as seen through the Genki casts doubt on the popular in popular religion, at least as the expression applies to the Kamakura period. Bernard Faure (1987:48), to take a recent example, wrote of Keizan (1268-1325), the third-generation successor to Dōgen, that he "had since his youth been influenced by popular religion and the shugendō of the Hakusan branch of Tendai. Popular religion" and shugendō are here placed in the same class. Yet considering those who upheld the Kasuga cult and the kenmitsu bukkyō (esoteric-exoteric Buddhism) of Kōfukuji—which included shugendō—one may ask whether popular is a useful word. The conventional distinction between aristocratic (or possibly orthodox) and popular may not necesarily apply to the religion represented by the Genki, however lofty its patrons. Kuroda Toshio suggested that honji-suijaku religion is inseparable from kenmitsu bukkyō, the form Buddhism took in Heian times, and he specifically included provincial shrines in his appraisal. Kuroda wrote (1980:152):

In the medieval period, the divine virtue of almost all [local deities] was represented, directly or indirectly, as the salvation of sentient beings by the buddhas and bodhisattvas. In terms of faith, therefore, this is shintō less as a distinct faith in the kami (jingi shinkō), than as one aspect of kenmitsu bukkyō.

In his study of Daijōin jisha zōjiki, the vast diary of the Kōfukuji superintendent Jinson (1430-1508), Suzuki Ryōichi concluded (1983:61) that the only focus of Jinson’s complex religious devotion was the Kasuga deity. Jinson, a son of the regent and man of letters Ichijō Kanera (1402—81), inherited a tradition to which the Genki gives elegant and at times moving expression.

One should not call Jinson foolish, Buddhist prelate that he was, if he looked ultimately to Kasuga rather than, for example, Amida. Chapters 5 and 6 below, and the Genki text itself, help explain why. Instead, one should admire in the Kasuga cult a mode of religious faith that was more important and distinct in its time than many now recognize, and that was worthy to sustain such great monks as Gedatsu Shōnin (1155—1212) and Myōe Shonin (1173—1232). This study will have done well if it contributes to a better understanding not only of the Genki as a work but of all that the Genki represents.

Part One

1

The Work

Kasuga Gongen genki is one of the rare Kamakura-period emakimono to be written and painted on silk. Consisting of twenty scrolls, with a twenty-first for the table of contents and preface, it opens with an introduction (1.1); presents ninety-three sections of text illustrated by the same number of paintings (1.2—20.1); and closes with a final summation (20.2). The table of contents lists fifty-six story titles, apart from the introduction and conclusion. This translation, on the other hand, divides the text into seventy-two numbered tales that celebrate the enduring potency of the Kasuga deity, his readiness to chastise those who displease him, and above all the zeal with which he protects those who trust in him. The criterion for this division into seventy-two has generally been to consider each discrete dream, oracle, or other act of communication by the deity as a separate item, except where narrative continuity in the original made it unreasonable to establish a break.

The preface to the Genki provides the basic information about the work. Takashina Takakane (fl. 1309—30), the head of the imperial office of painting (edokoro), did the paintings. The stories were compiled by the Kōfukuji monk Kakuen (1277—1340), in consultation with two senior monks of the same temple: Jishin (1257—1325) and Hanken (1247—1339). The text was written out by the Former Regent Mototada and his three sons. These personages were Takatsukasa Mototada (1247-1313); Fuyuhira (1275-1327); the Kōfukuji monk Ryōshin (1277-1329); and Fuyumoto (1285-1309). The Genki was dedicated in Engyō 2.3 (1309) by The Minister of the Left.

SAIONJI KINHIRA

This last gentleman was Saionji Kinhira (1264—1315). The point is not quite self-evident because two men were minister of the left during Engyō 2.3. Takatsukasa Fuyuhira resigned the post on Engyō 2.3.14, while Kinhira replaced him on 3.19. However, according to Kugyō bunin for Tokuji 3 (Engyō 1), Fuyuhira had already been appointed regent (sesshō), and also head of the Fujiwara clan, on Engyō 1.11.11. His relinquishing the post of minister of the left on Engyō 2.3.14 was simply the second announcment (dainido hyōji) of this step. Wada Eishō (1917) proved the case by citing Kanmon gyoki for Eikyō 10.2.27 (1438), which mentions that the Genki was commissioned by Chikunai no Sadaijin, together with the Tenshōera (1573—92) Eishun o-kikigaki (by Eishun, d. 1596, the author of Tamon’in nikki), which names the man who commissioned it as Chikurin’in no Sadaijin Kinhira. Chikunai and Chikurin’in are both known as names for Kinhira. As Miya Tsugio suggested (1983:19), the Chikurin-den of Genki 1.3 may intentionally allude to him.

How did Kinhira come to conceive so ambitious an offering to the Kasuga deity? He wrote in his preface: Unable to restrain my zeal to honor the Deity, I have gathered this collection together to the best of my ability, so as to increase the faith of all men. One need not disbelieve his sentiments to look for something more precise. Koresawa (1963:16) suggested that Kinhira was directly inspired by the prodigy of the spirit fires on Kagen 2.9.28 (1304), as related in Genki 20.1. The alarming oracle of 1306, mentioned in Sakakiba no nikki (ch. 8) but apparently not recorded anywhere, might also have played a part. Most writers have speculated that the conception of the project had to do with Kinhira s political fortunes. The following account of these fortunes relies principally on Kondō Kihaku (1952, 1958), Nagashima Fukutarō (1963), and Miya Tsugio (1983).

The Saionji house had prospered ever since the time of its founder Kintsune (1171-1234), the second son of Fujiwara no Sanemune. Having married the niece of Minamoto no Yoritomo, Kintsune had close ties to Kamakura. After a brief eclipse at the time of the Jōkyū Rebellion he rose to be chancellor, and he also functioned as kantō mōshitsugi, the court official in charge of liaison with Kamakura. Kintsune’s son Saneuji (1194—1269) became still more powerful, serving like his father as chancellor and kantō mōshitsugi. After 1246 the latter office belonged permanently to the Saionji house.

Since the Saionji were a cadet Fujiwara line, a Saionji could not become regent or head the Fujiwara clan. That remained the privilege of the five regent houses (go-sekke), which arose during the thirteenth century from splits in the Fujiwara northern house (hokke): the Konoe, Kujō, Ichijō, Nijō, and Takatsukasa. Mototada and his sons who wrote out the Genki text were of course Takatsukasa, and by the time the Genki was dedicated it was Mototada’s eldest son, Fuyuhira, who bore both the above titles. However, the Saionji achieved something just as impressive. Thanks to Saneuji, they captured from the regents the right to supply imperial consorts. Saneuji’s daughter became Go-Saga’s empress, and the mother of Go-Fukakusa and Kameyama.

Kinhira therefore had every reason to be proud of his line, and to value his own position as the senior Saionji. His younger sister by the same mother became the consort of Emperor Fushimi, and another was loved by Retired Emperor Kameyama. Kinhira himself rose quickly, as might be expected, and was named minister of the right in Einin 7 (1299). Then trouble came. In Kagen 3.int12 (1305) Kinhira was punished by Retired Emperor Go-Uda, who confiscated his two proprietary provinces, dismissed him as head of the left imperial stables, and had him confined to his home. Go-Uda’s reasons are unclear, but they may have had to do with his displeasure over attempts to make Tsuneakira, Kinhira’s grandson, crown prince.

Kinhira must have felt this affront deeply. He was apparently moved to address himself to Kasuga, because on Kagen 4.2.8 (1306) he completed a copy of the Fukūkenjaku shinju shingyō (Taishō 20/ 402, no. 1094), which is now in the Tokyo National Museum (Kondō 1952). The copy is in gold on dark blue paper. Fukūkenjaku (Skt. Amoghapāsa) is a major honji for the Kasuga deity, and the sutra in question often appears in the diaries of Fujiwara courtiers.

Twelve days later Kinhira was pardoned, thanks to the intervention of Kamakura. Perhaps he took it that his devotion to the Kasuga deity had worked. At any rate, on Tokuji 2.1.16 (1307), he began a seven-day retreat at the shrine. He probably prayed that his daughter Neishi, who had been Go-Fushimi’s consort since the first month of the previous year, should bear a son, and that in this and other ways the fortunes of the Saionji house should be fully restored. And perhaps this is when he conceived the Genki, which was dedicated only two years later. One can understand in this way his statement in the Genki preface, After I conceived this gesture of devotion, great good fortune blessed my house

For good fortune did come his way. First, in Engyō 2.1 (1309), Neishi was awarded the title (ingō) Kōgimon’in and named titular mother (junbo) of Hanazono, who had just become emperor on Engyō 1.11.16 (1308). Then in Engyō 2.2 his son Sanehira (1290-1326) was appointed provisional middle counselor. The following month Kinhira himself was named minister of the left, as already noted. He resigned on Engyō 2.6.15, apparently feeling no need to press the point further. Yoshida Kenkō wrote in Tsurezuregusa 83 (Keene 1967:70):

Nothing stood in the way of the lay priest of Chikurin’in and minister of the left rising to be prime minister [i.e., chancellor, dajōdaijin], but he said, I doubt that being prime minister will make much difference. I’ll stop at minister of the left.

However, these things did not happen before another round of difficulties, one discussed particularly by Nagashima (1963). Kinhira, like his forebears, was kantō mōshitsugi. Late in Tokuji 2 (1307) there erupted one of Kōfukuji’s many quarrels with Kamakura. Caught between Kōfukuji and Kamakura, Kinhira aroused the temple’s hostility. The affair was not settled until Engyō 1.7 (1308). Nagashima (1963:22) suggested that Kinhira may have commissioned the Genki as a gesture of thanks, and consequently that work on the Genki may not have begun until after that date. Whether this is plausible or not depends on one’s understanding of how long it would have taken to complete the Genki. Kondō Kihaku maintained in several articles that two years would have been only barely enough.

One can imagine too that the idea of honoring the Kasuga deity in this manner might have been in the air at the time. Kinhira could have sought the deity’s favor in other ways, some of them even more expensive, as many Fujiwara had done before him. It was not yet wholly clear that the days of Fujiwara glory were over. The clan had reason to feel like affirming the vitality of their ancient role. Moreover, the Mongol threat had heightened court interest in Kasuga as in other important shrines; and the teachings of great monks like Gedatsu and Myōe Shōnin had given a new intensity to Kasuga faith. The overall message of the Genki—that the full Teaching is present at Kasuga—is a stirring one, of much broader significance than the political fortunes of a man, a family, or even the Fujiwara nobility as a whole. There is no need to deny Kinhira and his collaborators the imagination to be inspired by such thoughts.

Certainly, Kinhira may have known about other recent, ambitious picture-scroll projects. Ippen Shōnin eden had been completed in 1299, and Sannō reigenki, a set of nine scrolls celebrating the miracles of the deity of Mt. Hiei, had been completed ca. 1288 (Nakano 1975:42). Given the vigorous rivalry (quite visible in the Genki) between Kasuga-Kōfukuji and Mt. Hiei, Kinhira may have felt it was high time to go Hiei one better in honor of Kasuga. Moreover, the Genki may not have been his only gift to Nara. Nagashima Fukutarō (1977) argued that the twelve-scroll Genjō Sanzō e, a beautifully illustrated life of the great Chinese pilgrim and translator Hsüan-tsang (600—64), was painted by Takakane on Kinhira’s order, and presented by Kinhira to Kōfukuji when he offered the Genki to Kasuga.

MOTOTADA AND HIS SONS, AND KAKUEN

According to the Genki preface, Mototada and his sons, zealous to honor the Deity, vowed that in order to ensure the efficacy of their work, no outside brush should be involved. As the tutelary deity of the Fujiwara, the Kasuga deity preferred not to be served by persons outside the Nakatomi or Fujiwara clans. Moreover, it was the head of the Fujiwara clan who had overall responsibility for the Kasuga cult, so that the approval and participation of the head of the clan (Fuyuhira when the Genki was dedicated, but formerly Mototada) was no doubt essential. Fuyumoto’s participation followed.

The role of Ryōshin is a little less obvious. Older than Fuyumoto, Ryōshin was nonetheless a monk and therefore not in quite the same class as his brothers. In fact, his part may reflect his unusual position. Ryōshin wrote out scrolls 17 and 18, which concern Myōe Shōnin, and this is precisely the section of the text missing from Kasuga goruki (discussed below). At any rate, Nagashima (1963:18) pointed out that Ryōshin was competing for power at Kōfukuji with Jishin, Hanken, and Jishin’s newphew Jinkaku, who was superintendent at the time. No doubt he was glad of his chance to distinguish himself.

Kakuen, the monk formally charged with compiling the Genki text, was Kinhira’s younger brother. At Kōfukuji he was the head of Tōbokuin, a subtemple allied with the powerful Ichijōin headed by Ryōshin. Though far from junior, Kakuen was perhaps not yet senior enough to take sole responsibility for the work. As Nagashima observed (1963:18), it was important that all major factions at Kōfukuji should be represented in he project, to make the effort truly unanimous. Kakuen therefore consulted with Jishin of Daijōin, the great rival of Ichijōin, as well as with Hanken of Sanzōin.

POSSIBLE PRECURSORS TO THE GENKI

All writers on the Genki agree that considering how quickly the work was put together, some sort of collection of Kasuga miracle stories must already have existed. Kondō (1958) insisted particularly on this point. Tale collections of all sorts were known then, and the example of Sannō reigenki has already been mentioned. Moreover, judging from an entry in Daijōin jisha zōjiki (for Kōshō 3.3.12 [1457], discussed by Nagashima [1977:50-51]), a full-scale precursor to the currently known Genjō Sanzō e existed already in the time of Shin’en (1153-1224). The Kasuga Shrine still has accounts of shrine history older than the Genki, and these contain material that appears in the Genki. Some concrete evidence on the subject is available.

The earliest reference to a collection of Kasuga tales is in kan 7 of Kyōkunshō (1233) by Koma no Chikazane (1177—1242) (ZGR: 179—80). Relating the story told in Genki 6.1, Chikazane attributed it to a miyashiro no genki (record of miracles of the shrine) compiled by Gedatsu Shōnin. Eishun o-kikigaki also mentioned this work, saying: "Some items in the [Genki]…are from Gedatsu Shōnin’s old record (kyūki), while some were gleaned from the records of a wide range of families." The content of the Genki suggests that Gedatsu Shōnin’s record did indeed come to form the nucleus of the work. This subject is discussed in chapter 5, under "Gedatsu Shōnin, the Genki, and Shaka."

The diary of the Kasuga Wakamiya priest Nakatomi no Sukekata contains three relevant entries. Nagashima (1963:19) set them forth in convenient form. (1) On Bun’ei 6.4.20 (1269, erroneously cited by Nagashima as Bun’ei 4.4.20), Sukekata noted that Shinshō (1247—86) of Ichijōin had summoned him and asked about the history of the shrine. Shinshō was on retreat at Kasuga at the time. When Sukekata answered as best he could, Shinshō pressed him with detailed questions. Then he ordered Sukekata to submit a written document or documents to him. (2) On Bun’ei 12.1.4 (1275), Sukekata paid a new year visit to Shinshō, then superintendent, at Ichijōin. Shinshō said: "A record of the Daimyōjin’s miracles (daimyōjin no genki) must exist. You will have to send it to me. Sukekata said he would do so. (3) On 8.17 of the same year (now designated Kenji 1), Sukekata wrote that he had sent the old record[s] of this shrine" to Shinshō, as requested.

Noting the persistence of Shinshō’s interest, Nagashima