Types and Notation Formats of Character Form Notes #

This section explains the types of annotations such as ‘正’ (standard), ‘通’ (common), and ‘俗’ (popular/vulgar), as well as the notational relationship between these annotations and the characters they annotate. It also examines the recorded content using ‘滴’ as an example, providing material for considering how annotations should be created.

Form Classification Tags and Notation Formats #

Lee Kyeong Won¹ refers to annotations such as ‘正’ (standard), ‘通’ (common), and ‘俗’ (popular/vulgar) as a Form Classification Tag (字級, zìjí).

Regarding the notation formats of Notes on Character Form and the types of Form Classification Tags, there is a study by Zhang Xinfang². That study narrows its focus to six notation formats and seven Form Classification Tags, and organizes their patterns of occurrence.

Here, let us introduce the figures surveyed in the Kanchi-in manuscript. The scope of the survey is the “水” (water), “冫” (ice), and “言” (speech) radical sections, which are common to both the Zushoryō and Renjō-in manuscripts.

In the revised compilation of the Ruiju Myōgishō, the character forms appearing within the Original Glosses are divided into the following six types according to their notation format. Here, ‘○’ indicates a character form and ‘★’ indicates a Form Classification Tag.

1. ○★
2. ★○
3. ★為○
4. ★作○
5. ★○字
6. ★為○字

The Form Classification Tags are considered to be of the following seven types.

1. 正 (standard)
2. 俗 (popular/vulgar)
3. 通 (common)
4. 今 (current/present form)
5. 或 (alternative)
6. 古 (archaic)
7. 俗通 (popular/vulgar & common)

Notation Status in the Kanchi-in Manuscript (Water, Ice, Speech Radicals) #

Summarizing the notation status of character forms appearing within the Original Glosses, for the scope of the “水” (water), “冫” (ice), and “言” (speech) radical sections in the Kanchi-in manuscript, produces the table below. The classification and figures are based on Zhang Xinfang’s survey.

‘滴’ and Its Related Items #

The Kanchi-in Manuscript’s Record of ‘滴’ #

Let us take up ‘滴’ (Kanchi-in manuscript, Hōjō 23), the example cited by Zhang Xinfang, and examine the state of its notation format and Form Classification Tag. Notes on Character Form are shown in bold.

二正 或 二俗 俗滳字

Since Zhang Xinfang’s presentation is simplified, the full text of the Original Glosses is given below. Line breaks have been inserted as appropriate, and numbers have been assigned.

1. 二正　丁狄反　シタヽル(LL__)　音的　アマツヒ
2. 或
3. 二俗
4. 音商　阿懸名
5. 音帝　音テイ(LH)　シタヽル(LLLVL)　アマツヒ　水ツミ　又都歴反　俗滳字

Items 1, 2, and 3 are all in the ‘○★’ notation format. Based on the Phonetic Gloss ‘丁狄反’ and the Japanese Native Reading (wakun) ‘シタヽル’ in item 1, this is presumably . ‘滴’ is also given the glyph form in both the Tenrei Banshō Meigi and the Shinsen Jikyō, which can be confirmed via a CHISE search. ‘滴’ is not included in HNG (Hanzi Normative Glyphs Database), but ‘適,’ which has ‘啇’ as one of its constituent components, is written with the ‘啇’ portion in the form of ‘商’ in Japanese manuscripts (the Miroku Jōshō, Inseidaikyō, and Bussetsu Daikyō).

Meanwhile, item 4 has the same glyph form as item 1’s , but its Original Glosses read “音商　阿懸名,” suggesting it should be understood as ‘滳.’

Item 1 has wormhole damage and is difficult to decipher, but Masamune’s Index reads item 1’s , item 3’s , and item 4’s as the same glyph form.

The Renjō-in Manuscript’s Record of ‘滴’ #

Among the revised-compilation manuscripts other than the Kanchi-in manuscript, this passage survives only in the Renjō-in manuscript, where it appears as follows (Middle volume, fascicle 1, folio 12 verso).

1. 二正　丁狄反　シタヽル(LL__)　アマツヒ　音的
2. 或
3. 二俗
4. 音商　阿懸名
5. 音帝　音テイ(LL)　アマツヒ　シタヽル(LLLVL)　水ツミ　又都歴反　俗滳字

For item 1, the ‘辶’ (shinnyō, motion radical) of has a single dot in the original text, but appears with two dots here for reasons of glyph construction.

In the Renjō-in manuscript, items 1, 3, and 4, which shared the same glyph form in the Kanchi-in manuscript, are distinguished as , , and , respectively.

The content of the Renjō-in manuscript is more consistent and rational than that of the Kanchi-in manuscript. However, it is difficult to determine from this example alone whether the Renjō-in-style content became corrupted into the Kanchi-in form, or whether the Kanchi-in content contained an inconsistency that was subsequently corrected in the Renjō-in manuscript. Further examples of this kind need to be collected and examined.

It should also be noted that the order of the Original Glosses for item 1 differs between the two manuscripts. However, the Kanchi-in manuscript’s Original Glosses for this item are, unusually, written across three lines; it is presumed that they were originally written across two lines, with ‘音的’ at the end. The Renjō-in manuscript also presents this passage across three lines, but there, ‘音的’ appears at the end of the Original Glosses, following the Japanese Native Reading (wakun), which is consistent with the usual practice.

The Longkan Shoujian/Shoujing’s Record of ‘滴’ #

In the Longkan Shoujian/Shoujing (龍龕手鏡／手鑑), the “水” (water) radical is contained in Fascicle 2. While the Korean edition lacks this section, the Song edition gives ‘滴’ as follows (Fascicle 2, “水” radical, No. 3, Entering tone).

1. 俗
2. 今
3. 二正音的水ー也四

These three items all concern ‘滴’. Compared with the revised-compilation manuscripts, there are differences in both the order of presentation and the Form Classification Tags used. The revised compilation presents them in the order “二正” → “或” → “二俗,” with “二正” appearing first. The Longkan Shoujian/Shoujing, by contrast, presents them in the order “俗” → “今” → “二正,” with “二正” appearing last. Looking at the Form Classification Tags, both agree in tagging as “俗” and as “正.” However, the revised compilation tags as “正,” while the Longkan Shoujian/Shoujing tags the similar glyph form as “今.” There is likewise a discrepancy in that the revised compilation tags as “或,” while the Longkan Shoujian/Shoujing tags it as “正.”

Meanwhile, ‘滳’ appears in a different location (Fascicle 2, “水” radical, No. 3, Level tone).

音商ー河縣名又都歴反

For ‘滳,’ a homophone Phonetic Gloss “音商,” a Semantic Gloss in Chinese “ー河縣名,” and a fanqie spelling for an alternate reading, “又都歴反,” are given. The Semantic Gloss in Chinese “ー河縣名” means that “滳河” is the name of a county (縣, xiàn). The Book of Sui states “滳河開皇十六年置” (Dihe was established in the 16th year of the Kaihuang era), a county name established in 596 (Kaihuang 16), corresponding to present-day Shanghe County in Jinan City, Shandong Province. The revised compilation’s “阿懸名” is grammatically unintelligible and questionable, but ‘阿’ may reasonably be regarded as a scribal error for ‘河.’ It is presumed that this error arose from parsing “滳河、縣名” (Dihe, a county name) as “滳、河縣名” instead of correctly as “滳河、縣名.”

Setting that aside, when used as the county (place) name “滳河,” the reading is “音商”; separately from this, there is also the reading “又都歴反.” The Guangyun gives ‘滴’ under the Entering tone (入声), Xi rhyme (錫韻), xiaoyun ‘的’: dūlì qiè (都歴切), with the gloss “水滴也，亦作𤁷” ("[means] to drip water; also written 𤁷"), from which we know that “又都歴反” corresponds to ‘滴.’ In other words, this shows that while ‘滳’ is read “音商” as the county (place) name “滳河,” it is also used interchangeably with ‘滴,’ read as “都歴反.”

‘滴’ and its related items are treated in detail in the Zushoryō manuscript, the original compilation, and various points warrant further examination; for now, this discussion will stop here.