Page 1 of 1

Senbazuru Orikata 1789??

Posted: Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:03 pm
by Laura Rozenberg
Hi all,
As far as I had it in my records, the Senbazuru Orikata was published in 1797. However, Gershon Legman had a copy of the book (photostats) which was mailed to him by Akira Yoshizawa in 1958. The copy has a note saying that the book was published in 1789. The note was written by Legman,
and I don't know how he got this reference (if the reference was provided by A.Y. or taken from the
book or from someone else).
Can anybody clarify the difference with the date?
Also, Legman notes that the book in Japanese is called "Chiwa tsuru" or Sen U Kaku", he does not
mention Senbazuru Orikata, although the book is Senbazuru Orikata, no doubt about it.

Here is a picture of Legman's notes which I took, and a picture of one or two pages so you can see that this is the Senbazuru Orikata book.

I'll be curious to know more about this.
Many thanks
Laura Rozenberg

Re: Senbazuru Orikata 1789??

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 5:29 pm
by Edwin Corrie
Hi Laura,

I'm not an expert, but all the references I've seen to the Senbazuru orikata give the publication date as 1797, including the following, which should be quite reliable:

David Lister's article ... cranes.php

Tanteidan website (English via Google Translate)

So either 1797 is correct, or Legman was right and it's an error that has somehow been perpetuated - though it's strange that even Japanese sources seem to say 1797. Maybe there was some confusion somewhere when the Japanese date was converted to our Western calendar system.

We'd need a Japanese speaker to comment on the alternative titles, if that's what they are. All I know is that "sen" usually means "1000" and "kaku" usually means "to write".


Re: Senbazuru Orikata 1789??

Posted: Mon Jul 01, 2013 6:20 pm
by Laura Rozenberg
Hi Edwin,
Andrew Dewar replied on my question which I also posted in the O-List. I think he is right when he says that Legman made a reading mistake. Kansei 9 refers to the 9th year after the Kansei dynasty started (1789), not the 9th month (September) of that year. Hence, the year 1797 is correct as the date of publication of this book.
Thanks to everyone for the interest in this topic and for replying so generously.