Talk:Fujiwara no Nakamaro

Misinformation Misprints

These are probably mistakes? misprints? --Tenmei (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

1. 740 (Tenpyō 12): Moroe put down a revolt by Fujiwara no Nakamaro.<:ref>Nussbaum, Louis-Frédéric. (2005). "Tachibana no Moroe" in Japan Encyclopedia, p. 921, p. 921, at Google Books.</ref>
2. 740 Rebellion of Fujiwara Oshikatsu (Nakamaro)<:ref>Sansom, George. (1932). Japan: A Short Cultural History, p. 178., p. 178, at Google Books</ref>

I believe they are misprints. The first link (Frédéric) does not work for me, but I am surprised that Sansom got it wrong. Anyway, the Cambridge History of Japan (and other sources I saw as well) has a rebellion by Fujiwara no Hirotsugu in 740 and Nakamaro's rebellion crushed in 764. Given that Nakamaro was executed immediately after the rebellion, it is strange (if the rebellion had happened in 740) that he is still alive in Sansom's book in 761 (see pages 176, 177) of the book linked above. bamse (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Overview

According to Sansom,

"[T]he chronicle of the period after the accomplishment of the [ritsuryō] reforms is disfigured by the succession disputes .... [I]t must be noted that these disputes were mainly the work of disaffected nobles who were hostile to the new measures, and that the administration, in the face of great difficulties, seems to have done its best to cary out a constructive policy in many fields." -- Sansom, George Bailey. (1958). A History of Japan to 1334, p. 91.

Is it reasonable to suggest that key phrase may be "mainly the work of disaffected nobles who were hostile to the new measures"? If so, then this establishes a context for Nakamaro's career in the Daijō-kan. This perspective is more nuanced than a focus on personal conflicts with others -- for example, this suggests a wider-point-of-view than an explanation based on antipathy with Dōkyō.

Also according to Sansom,

"... "no doubt the failure of these bold undertakings contributed to his [Nakamaro's] downfall." -- Sansom, p. 91.

At some future time, is it possible that this may be useful in an expanded version of this article? --Tenmei 19:05, 22 October 2012 --Ansei (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC) →

Misattribution to translation of a primary source

7/18 of the citations in this article are to "Brown (1979)" pages 274-5. But if we check the actual pages we see that "Brown (1979)" didn't actually write the things being attributed to him: he was only translating the medieval historiographical work Gukanshō. Footnote 44 is the only statement cited that he was actually the author of. I know his notes correct errors in the text, but surely we can't just attribute to him all the claims of a 13th-century text he happened to translate just because he doesn't refute them? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)