Fleeing the Imperial capital, the Heike(1) clan ran ever westward. Having lost their position both in the government and Imperial court, they fell victim to traitors.

At least one cause of this was the betrayal of the Heike by the Sanuki general.

It is said that the general himself kept his government and Imperial court positions, and engaged in shameful behavior ‘attempting to ensure his own safety.’

The above is a passage from Masuji Ibuse’s(2) Sazanami Gunki (1930–1938).

What did the Sanuki general do to ensure his own safety?

According to rumors written down by a fleeing Heike youth, the Sanuki general “went hunting in the mountains of Saga and Ohara every day with a white falcon on his arm, with an intention to show that he was retired from the world.”

Perhaps he adopted “senior citizen” character to give the strong impression that he was just a privative, detached drifter like: “Ho ho! I’m just a humble, shabby fellow who knows nothing of the world at all! My, that cloud has an interesting shape. Maybe I’ll try my luck over there today.”

The general probably hoped to stave off execution by getting others to believe that he was completely retired from the world, and not worth the bother of killing. Am I the only one who feels that the wording here—“with an intention to show that he was retired from the world” indicates that the author, the Heike youth was trying to show with anger against the Sanuki general that this facade crumbled?

However, from the point of view of the Sanuki general, in order to save his life, he would do anything—put on “senior citizen” characters for example—whether their facade crumbled or not. This is understandable.

*

On a totally different topic, a “lively person” is, from her point of view, just acting normally, but her behavior appears from the outside to be lively. Similarly, a “kind person” is a person whose normal actions are kind. If these people’s intentions to act in a certain way in order to be thought of as “lively” or “kind” were to be detected, the judgment conferred on them by others as “lively” or “kind” would fall apart. Our judgments of people do not accept intentionality. As I have written before, character must not be intentionally controlled beyond the context of play (see part 2).

I have also touched on judgments of products, for example: “that restaurant’s limoncello is tasty.” I stated that even if the restaurant’s chef were to dash from the kitchen and shout: “It is, isn’t it? I wanted everyone to tell me that it’s ‘tasty’ so I worked really hard on this limoncello!” thus laying bare his intentions, would it harm my judgment of the product? Certainly not.

However…

My humble shabby self was perhaps too hasty in asserting that judgments of people, unlike judgments of works, a type of natural judgment, akin to “that’s a beautiful mountain.” This is because we do sometimes expect works to be unintentional and natural.

How many things are there in this world that are completely separate from nature? There are plenty of products over which the creator had no control and which, although made by human hands, we feel, or try to feel, are natural. Ho ho! My, that cloud has an interesting shape.

*　*　*