江户的地震，怎样变成新闻？

Online sources consulted 16 September 2026. Works are discussed through identified catalogue texts and scholarly interpretation; no claim is made to have independently deciphered every original inscription or examined the physical prints. The earthquake's Japanese tenth-month date is not converted into Gregorian October.

1. [1]

   University of Tokyo Library, Ishimoto Collection, “諸職吾沢銭,” object I-04-020, 1855, catalogue commentary by 富澤達三. The published commentary identifies the news seller's speech and the occupations giving thanks. The speech is paraphrased as dialogue in a satirical print, not a real interview. Original-image access was unsuccessful, so no independent observation of color, placement, or composition is offered. https://da.dl.itc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/portal/assets/7ee7c078-65aa-49e6-9425-e310c278d3b1

   返回引用 ↑
2. [2]

   National Museum of Japanese History, “Woodblock Prints Depicting a Giant Catfish: Reflection of Edo People's Imagination (Archived at the Ōjaku Bunko Library),” 2021 exhibition, outline and introduction, which distinguish broadsides, disaster maps, illustrated prints, and longer accounts. The substantive exhibition text was retrieved through the indexed official page; a subsequent direct opening failed. Used for the event date and variety of publications, not contemporary visitor information, precise total sales, or an assertion that all residents shared one response. https://archive.rekihaku.ac.jp/english/exhibitions/project/old/210713/index.html

   返回引用 ↑
3. [3]

   Disaster Prevention Library, “安政江戸地震,” catalogue entries 193-11, 193-12, and 393-11. The first includes “十月廿八日極改”; the latter titles emphasize detail or investigation. Catalogue transcriptions read, not complete original-sheet text. The dates and claims in headings are evidence of presentation, not independent verification of each location reported. https://city-net.or.jp/htmls/pages/aned_index.html

   返回引用 ↑
4. [4]

   Same catalogue, entry 193-5, “大江戸類焼地震所附,” note beginning “御救御小屋三ケ所　浅草廣小路.” Only the shelter information actually reproduced in the catalogue is used. No full reconstruction of the three sites, shelter capacity, or measured effect of the sheet on relief-seeking is claimed.

   返回引用 ↑
5. [5]

   Printing Museum, Tokyo, “鯰絵『地震のまもり』,” object 26918, introductory explanation of the Kashima deity, catfish, and restraining stone. This is a description of religious imagery used by the prints, not an adopted physical explanation of earthquakes. https://www.printing-museum.org/collection/looking/26918.php

   返回引用 ↑
6. [6]

   Gregory Smits, “The Ansei Edo Earthquake and Catfish Prints,” Digital Meijis (2019), introductory paragraphs on catfish symbolism, different explanatory traditions, and coded commentary. Its linked monographs were not. Its stronger generalizations about what nearly all Edo residents believed are not adopted. The article's argument here concerns the capacities of the symbol, not a reconstructed survey of belief. https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/meijiat150/chapter/the-ansei-edo-earthquake-and-catfish-prints/

   返回引用 ↑
7. [7]

   National Museum of Japanese History, 2021 exhibition page, URL in note 2, catalogue description “A Catfish Startled by the Courtesan's Haunting Beauty—Death and Resentment from the Earthquake.” The museum identifies the parody of Keisei Asamagatake and its substitution of an earthquake victim for the dramatic ghost. The full original play and print were not independently examined. The explanation of accusation and familiarity is a limited reading of that identified adaptation, not testimony from actual purchasers or an account of a historical ghost.

   返回引用 ↑
8. [8]

   National Archives of Japan, Tenkataihen, “安政見聞録（けんもんろく）,” call number 166-0404. The exhibit description covers: 1856 publication, three volumes, compiler Hattori Yasunori, illustrations, and the two named filial-duty episodes. The underlying three-volume book was not read in full; the episodes remain narratives selected by that work, not independently verified case histories. https://www.archives.go.jp/exhibition/digital/tenkataihen/earthquake/contents/01/index.html

   返回引用 ↑
9. [9]

   National Archives of Japan, “安政見聞誌（けんもんし）,” call number 166-0534. It identifies Kanagaki Robun, completion in the earthquake year, publication during the Ansei era, and the range of accounts, including supposed precursors. Completion and publication are not silently assigned the same precise date. The exhibit's favorable wording about prediction is not taken as scientific validation of the reported signs. https://www.archives.go.jp/exhibition/digital/tenkataihen/earthquake/contents/02/index.html

   返回引用 ↑
10. [10]

    印刷博物馆，藏品26918，说明末段，网址见注5。该段解释鲶鱼的道歉，以及剪下神圣文字、置于房屋东、西、南、北四方的做法。图片获取失败；本文说明规定用途与所承诺的保护，未确认家庭实际照做或保护确实有效，也未独立看图解释。

    返回引用 ↑
11. [11]

    National Archives of Japan, “地震紀聞（『視聴草』続4集の4）,” call number 217-0034. It identifies 宮崎成身, the long-running compilation Mikikigusa, the Kagurazaka setting, reserved funds, his account of the family's survival, and rapid repair. These remain his reported preparations and outcomes as presented by the archive, not proof of weather-based earthquake prediction. The whole compilation and original manuscript pages were not inspected. https://www.archives.go.jp/exhibition/digital/tenkataihen/earthquake/contents/03/index.html

    返回引用 ↑
12. [12]

    Smits，在线文章，网址见注6。采用单幅版画分析之前的象征讨论，以及图15—16之后的结尾讨论，说明隐语评论、匿名出版与后来执法的关系。具体禁制日期、每位制作者的动机及是否每幅版画都主张政权更替，均未确定。国立博物馆的展览纲要也另有此类作品受限的记录，网址见注2。

    返回引用 ↑
13. [13]

    University of Tokyo Library, “石本コレクション,” collection introduction. Used to identify the later collector and the collection's disaster-related material, not as evidence that all surviving designs were equally popular in 1855. The complete archive was not surveyed. https://www.lib.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ja/library/general/collectionall/ishimoto

    返回引用 ↑