御子みこは、かくてもいと御覧ぜまほしけれど、かかるほどにさぶらひたまふ、例れいなきことなれば、まかでたまひなむとす。何事なにごとかあらむとも思したらず、さぶらふ人びとの泣きまどひ、主上うへも御涙のひまなく流れおはしますを、あやしと見たてまつりたまへるを、よろしきことにだに、かかる別れの悲しからぬはなきわざなるを、ましてあはれに言ふかひなし。

[The Emperor] wished very much to see the prince despite this, but since there was no example of someone being [in the palace] in a time like this, the child made to leave the palace. [The child] could not discern what was occurring, and he looked with wonder on the serving people’s confused crying, and even His Highness’ endlessly falling tears. Even in a normal situation, such a parting could not be not sad, and even more so the pathos [now] is impossible to describe.

• 思したらず　　　　おもほしたらず（大系）

語釈

御子は

The Emperor was unable to save Kiritsubo, but he wants “at least” (は) Genji to be there.

さすらひたまふ

This RT form could be seen as acting as a noun (…給ふことは例なき) or as a modifier for 例 (in either case the general meaning is the same).

例なきこと

The concept of 例 as a precedent from history has previously occurred in the context of the worried courtiers bringing up the 例 of Yáng Guìfēi. Here, there is no 例 that will allow Genji to stay in the palace — this seems to be another 限り blocking the Emperor from carrying out his wishes. かかるほど seems to refer to Genji having to wear mourning clothes, which would bar him from palace attendance.

まかで　たまひ　なん　と　す

The use of なん + と + す here normally indicates one’s own intention to do something, but here it must refer to what those around him are going to have him do (『解読』).

見たてまつりたまへるを

The たてまつり is humble (for Genji towards the Emperor) and the たまへる is honorific towards Genji (from the narrator).
The grammar of the を at the end of this clause is difficult to parse since it seems to have no verb to connect to. One possibility is that the を acts like に対して and that the next part is an affective response to what has gone before (『注釈』). Older commentaries suggested textual emendations (and some variant manuscripts have readings that are cleaner from a grammatical standpoint). The most common explanation in modern sources is that there is an omitted verb, or else this is a sentence-ending 詠嘆 (emphasis/emotion) particle. The latter explanation is a common one to deal with these unusual を usages, but most of the clear examples of its use come from poetry. My personal preference is for the に対して reading. See also the article 源氏物語における助詞「を」について by 西宮一民 in the book 『源氏物語の探究 第1輯』which discusses not only this を but a number of other unusual を in the Kiritsubo chapter.

よろしきことにだに…

Exactly what the よろしきこと and かかる別れ refer to is a subject of debate. The interpretation that occurs most commonly is “A parting between a parent and child would be sad in any case, but here when Genji has no idea what is going on, it’s even more sorrowful.” Other interpretation of the “parting” are “A parting of parent and child when both parents are living” (『注釈』,『広道評釈』) and “The parting of husband and wife” (『玉上』). Another option for the second part is “Given the unusual nature of Kiritsubo’s death” (『新全集』). Additionally, 『新大系』suggests the Emperor may fear that Genji will never come back to the palace.

なきわざなるを

わざ here is similar to MJ というわけ providing an explanation (『解読』). The を seems to be “but”/”however.”

評

In this section we see Genji come into the narrative as an actual character, and the first situation he appears in will “break the reader’s heart,” in the words of Hagiwara Hiromichi (『広道評釈』,1854). In many ways Genji’s future trajectory is defined by his mother’s situation and her early death, but as of yet he doesn’t understand what is happening. Meanwhile the Emperor hopes to keep Genji with him, but just as with Kiritsubo, his desires are thwarted by the social and cultural pressures that even the Emperor cannot go against.

The かかるほどにさぶらひたまふ、例れいなきことなれば phrase has a long commentary history. There is broad agreement on what this means (that there is no precedent for a child wearing mourning clothes to stay in the palace), but it seems to have been widely known that very young children normally did not wear mourning clothes. One possibility given in 『注釈』is that this is some kind of mistake — either by Murasaki Shikibu herself, or by the sources (which might be describing idealized rites that were not actually followed in practice). Or, a deliberate narrative device to heighten the pathos of the scene.

At the same time, the dominant interpretation of this phrase has to do with secret teachings. The upshot is that (according to the commentaries), the rule about children not wearing mourning clothes was solidified in 907, therefore Murasaki Shikibu must be consciously setting her tale prior to that. 『鑑賞』points this out as a small detail that would have made the readers realize when the tale was taking place. The secret teachings (found in sources like Ichijo Kanera’s 1497『源語秘訣』) have more to do with analyzing the particular sources that prove the claim rather than the bare claim itself (that the tale takes place prior to 907). However, as late as 1673, Kitamura Kigin still regarded this as something that he could not state openly in his 『湖月抄』.