For decades there has been a seeming compaign in the haiku establishment to, for some odd reason, virtually obliterate hokku from history and from language. The result has been that when I first began pointing out on the Internet, many years ago, the basic fact that what was written from the time of Onitsura and Bashô up to Shiki at the end of the 19th century was hokku, not “haiku,” the public reaction was often surprise and even initial disbelief, because the disinformation had penetrated so thoroughly.
Fortunately the historical facts are clear, and it is a simple matter to determine that the term hokku is in fact the correct and proper term, and that “haiku” began to be popularized by Shiki, who had an agendum of his own, near the end of the 19th century. But think how many have been ignorant of that basic historical fact for decades!
If one reads the book A Haiku Path, which details the founding period of the Haiku Society of America from 1968 to 1988, it is clear where some of the obfuscation originated. There was a concerted effort in that society to declare the term “hokku” obsolete! (the Society even actively worked to get its new definitions adopted by “editors of encyclopedias and dictionaries”).
A similar revisionism has taken place in other originally Japanese verse forms. What was for centuries called waka (literally “Japanese verse” to distinguish it from Chinese verse) is now, again after the revisionistic influence of Shiki, called “tanka” (literally “short verse”). But if I were to write modern verse in English that preserved the essence of waka, I would want to call it waka, because tanka has come to mean almost any kind of free verse written in approximately five lines, and generally it has virtually nothing in common with the aesthetics of the old waka. Again, as in the case of the pushing of “haiku” instead of the accurate “hokku” by various haiku societies and individuals, there appear to be modern agenda involved in these linguistic obfuscations.
We find the same thing in the move to replace the centuries old term “renga” with “renku” in the English-speaking world.
Generally those most vocal in supporting such confusing linguistic revisionism are those who are involved in writing or promoting revisionistic forms of these verses — those who, for example, want to see the modern “free verse” haiku take the place of the standards and aesthetics of the old hokku, or see the free verse tanka take the place of the old and more challenging waka, or to see whatever is currently promoted as renku take the place of the standards of the centuries-old renga.
There is something very distasteful in all this. In practice, by erasing the term “hokku” through declaring it obsolete, one would also simultaneously erase, in modern practice, the principles and standards of the hokku as applied from the 17th to the 20th century, replacing them with the near complete lack of principles and standards and generally quite different aesthetics of modern haiku. And in fact that is what nearly happened — hokku nearly disappeared.
The same happens when one replaces the term “waka” with tanka. Modern tanka is generally nothing like the old waka, and so removing the correct term also commonly removes, in actual practice, the traditional standards and aesthetics. And of course the same may be said of erasing “renga” in favor of “renku.”
It is time to end such historical obfuscation and linguistic manipulation. Whether intentional or unintentional, an agendum behind pushing revisionistic terms not only confuses historical fact but also destroys the traditions, principles and standards behind these centuries-old verse forms, replacing them with modern ersatz English forms that are simply not the English-language equivalents of the old forms.
What can one do about this problem? Often we need only point out the easily verifiable historical facts. Bashô wrote hokku, not haiku; the modern tanka in English is essentially a Westernized free verse form that has virtually nothing in common with the waka; renku today is often not at all like the traditional renga. People inherently want to be accurate, and when shown the incontrovertible and obvious facts they will generally accept them, given time and the prevalence of common sense. But it requires a willingness to be careful with language, to avoid careless and sloppy and inaccurate approximations (no misrepresenting hokku as ”haiku,” for example); it requires accuracy with definitions, and certainly great reluctance in foolishly declaring any accurate and meaningful term “obsolete.” Above all, it requires a willingness to stand up to propagandistic manipulation of language by this or that movement or individual.
Whenever I read the accounts of the Haiku Society of America trying to convince editors of encyclopedias and dictionaries that the word “hokku” is “obsolete,” I always think of Mark Twain’s response after he was mistakenly thought to be dead — “The report of my death is an exaggeration.”
The solution to all this is simple. If we are talking about hokku, we call it hokku; if we are talking about waka, we call it waka; if we are talking about renga, we call it renga. Do not confuse these traditional forms with what today is being written and presented in books, journals, and online sites as haiku, tanka and renku, which are, for the most part, simply modern Western accumulations of free verse presented, for reasons best known to their promoters, under those titles.
David
