Talk:Emperor Shōmu

This is the discussion page for Emperor Shōmu. Though the main page has since been deleted, this talkpage remains for archival purposes. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

The Japanese ruler mentioned in Dynasty

It's not entirely clear that the ruler mentioned in Abe no Nakamaro's letter as receiving Bodhisattva precepts from Master Jianzhen was Emperor Shōmu. The main problem is that while Abe no Nakamaro mentions that it was the tennō, i.e. the Japanese monarch, who received the precepts, Jianzhen's Wikipedia article expressly says that this individual was "former Emperor Shōmu" and his consort. He was not the reigning tennō at the time. In fact, the reigning tennō was Empress Kōken. If not for the uncited line in the Wikipedia article specifying that it was the retired Emperor Shōmu, taken at face value, the letter would have been referring to Empress Kōken. Since tennō is technically a gender-neutral term, it's hard to know for sure. Either the author made a mistake, Abe no Nakamaro made the mistake, or the idea was that Abe no Nakamaro didn't bother with the technicality that Emperor Shōmu had retired. In any case, I fear that it may be premature of us to create this article. I would be comfortable with it if we have an authoritative source that retired Emperor Shōmu historically received the Bodhisattva precepts from Master Jianzhen at Tōdai-ji in 755 instead of just an uncited line on Wikipedia and if we can verify that Empress Kōken didn't also receive the precepts there in 755 as well (that the Wikipedia article didn't happen to omit this...). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

For what is worth, the French used "l'empereur" (masculine form for emperor) instead of "monarque" (direct translation of monarch, both masculine and feminine forms are identical). On the other hand, the wikipedia page for Tōdai-ji says that both Shōmu and Kōken received the ordination: "In 754 CE, ordination was given by Ganjin, who arrived in Japan after traveling over 12 years and six attempts of crossing the sea from China, to Empress Kōken, former Emperor Shōmu and others." I should also point out that our translation also uses "Emperor", but if it's monarch, we should change that there too. - Soranin (talk) 02:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I just checked an article used as a source in Jianzhen's Wikipedia page, "Ganjin: From Vinaya Master to Ritsu School Founder" by Zhou Yujin, and it indeed mentions:

When he arrived in the Nara capital in 754, he constructed a temporary ordination platform in front of the Great Buddha Hall, where he conferred the bodhisattva precepts on Shōmu Tennō 聖武天皇 (701–756), then retired; his consort Kōmyō Kōgō 光明皇后 (701–760), the reigning empress, Kōken Tennō 孝謙天皇 (718–770), and 440 monks.

So it is confirmed then that Shōmu and Kōken received the precepts. That the French publication uses the masculine l'empereur has no bearing since the original source always takes precedence, and we know that the translated material can be mistaken. For my translation of the letters, I actually initially wrote "Empress" and linked to Kōken until I had second thoughts upon reading Jianzhen's Wikipedia page. Somehow, I missed that the Tōdai-ji does mention Kōken also receiving the ordination. So it was my bad in the first place.

If we have certified that Empress Kōken was there to receive the precepts, and the letter says tennō, then taken at face value, the individual referred to is Empress Kōken (unless the author clarifies otherwise) since she was the actual tennō at the time. Having determined that, we should not translate tennō to "monarch". That would be inaccurate because the word used is the specific Japanese title for their ruler, not "monarch" in a general sense. A stronger case might be made to just leave it as tennō, but the convention in the real-world is to always translate it as "Emperor of Japan" not tennō, just as we always say "Emperor of China" instead of huángdì despite huángdì also technically being gender-neutral. Gender agreement in the target language of translation is then applied as appropriate given the context. It would seem like a double standard to me if we always translate tennō as "Emperor" when the tennō is male, but then have to avoid translating it to "Empress" when the tennō is female.

So, I would say we should change the link in the letter back to Empress Kōken. Although the retired emperor Shōmu was also historically present, the letter only mentions one individual, and if we say that individual was Empress Kōken, then there's no reason to also have an article about Emperor Shōmu at this time. So I would recommend moving this article to Empress Kōken or deleting it. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I looked a little further into the wikipedia references, namely Richard Bowring's "The Religious Traditions of Japan 500-1600" (2005) Bowring says:

"[Jianzhen] arrived in Jaoan in 754 with a party of twenty-four men and women, many of them ordained members of the sanga. On his arrival, Jianzhen was installed at Tōdaiji without delay and given the job of instituting the correct ordination procedures for Japanese monks. He set up the required platform (kaidan [kanji]) in the fourth month of that year and at the initial ceremony admnistered a number of different rites. To Shōmu Tennō and his immediate family he conferred the 'bodhisattva precepts' (bosatsukai [kanji]) (page 87).

He actually calls Shōmu the Tennō in that case, so I wouldn't think it was a mistake, considering this wouldn't be someone unfamiliar with Japan's history. - Soranin (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that even if tennō can still plausibly refer to the retired emperor, it still also can refer to Empress Kōken. If it can refer to either, there's no particular reason why we have to assume it refers to the retired emperor instead of the reigning ruler. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 03:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Just make pages for both? If both were present at the IRL ordinations then both are technically being referenced by the manhua. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I understand the logic, but the letter itself says "for the tennō and members of the imperial house". Only the tennō is referred to specifically and that can only be a single individual and therefore only warrant a single article. We can make a case that "members of the imperial house" includes the retired tennō, but then why not create pages for other members of the imperial house as well? It seems then that the only reason to keep an article for Emperor Shōmu is that it has already been written. To be clear, I'm perfectly willing to just keep this article and create another one for Empress Kōken. I don't usually mind having a greater plethora of articles or being looser with restrictions against page creations as you guys do. But since I know you guys do tend to be disagree with creating pages for "one-off" things, I'm just double-checking at this point if you guys really want to keep this page, having determined that tennō more appropriately refers to Empress Kōken. (Another safer option would have been to just link the Wikipedia article on the position of Emperor of Japan with the term tennō). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 11:36, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Since we can't determine who Dynasty refers to, I vote for this page to be deleted, our translation to be amended from "emperor" to either "monarch" or "tennō" and we should link it to tennō instead. - Soranin (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

What is your rebuttal against tennō here referring to Empress Kōken? In any other case, if we are presented with another position like pope, the King of England, the President of the United States or whatever, we would have mapped it to the individual based on. I don't think this would have been a question had I not changed the redlink to Empress Shōmu in the first place and you happened to create this page instead of Empress Kōken.

I will also reiterate that monarch here would be a mistranslation for reasons already explained above. Voting for tennō, however, is valid. My vote is for our wiki to have a page on Empress Kōken and link the word in the letter to her. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

References to "Shōmu-tennō" in scholarship after his abdication does not necessarily mean much. Shōmu-tennō is technically one whole honorific name, much the same as "the Jiajing Emperor", where it is incorrect to say "Jiajing" alone despite some writers continuing to make this mistake. But even if a retired emperor is referred to by their honorific name, a statement like "He gave this to the emperor/empress" would be referring to the incumbent ruler, not their predecessor. The burden of proof is on the party seeking to show that such a plain statement is apparently not referring to the actual emperor/empress and/or is referring to the predecessor instead.

The most valid argument against referencing Empress Kōken is that we would only know this by drawing from real-world sources. Hence, if our standards prohibit this, then we cannot do it here. But to my understanding, our practice has always hitherto been lenient enough to permit this. Why should there suddenly be a greater demand for proof in this case? At risk of being too incisive, I would hypothesize that if this were another party in this situation, misconstruing a reference to a incumbent female state leader to actually mean their male predecessor instead—or even demonstrating a particular reluctance to reference the female leader—could be read by the public as sexist. Imagine if it was Ubisoft making this mistake. Obviously, I know none of us are sexist, and I'm not insinuating that on anyone here at all, but I wish to put into perspective how preposterous this is to me. I do wonder if this were not such an obscure and specialized piece of lore that most Assassin's Creed fans would never notice, if our decision here could be misconstrued in that light.

It's not preposterous if we really have a common rule against using real-world sources to verify the identity of a state leader mentioned in an Assassin's Creed source at a certain period of time. If we decide against doing that here, then I will see this as setting a precedent and have to ask that we hold ourselves accountable to this going forward or else return here to agree to reference Empress Kōken.

For the sake of transparency, I will also share my own bias in this matter. There are few female rulers in the history of Japan, and when given the opportunity to actually spotlight—even with the briefest of mention—a powerful empress who has a unique story but is virtually unknown to Western audiences and who otherwise would almost certainly never be featured in Western media, I feel really disappointed to pass up that opportunity. This is especially since there is a clear, logical case to do so, and it would actually be anomalous to our usual practice not do. I also feel extra stupid for mistakenly changing my own redlink from Empress Kōken to Emperor Shōmu on a misreading of Wikipedia articles, and then to lose this opportunity just because you happened to decide that this would be the next redlink you fill out in advance but then take a stand against correcting my mistake having also become your mistake. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. Then we should make the page for her. - Soranin (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)