The Kojiki E-Book

no O Yasumaro

• Herausgeber: Sanzani
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

Kojiki ("Record of Ancient Matters") is the oldest extant chronicle in Japan, dating from the early 8th century (711-2) and composed by O no Yasumaro at the request of Empress Gemmei. The Kojiki is a collection of myths concerning the origin of the four home islands of Japan, and the Kami. Along with the Nihon Shoki, the myths contained in the Kojiki are part of the inspiration behind Shinto practices and myths. O no Yasumaro (died August 15, 723) was a Japanese nobleman, bureaucrat, and chronicler. He is most famous for compiling and editing, with the assistance of Hieda no Are, the Kojiki, the oldest extant Japanese history. Empress Genmei (r. 707-721) charged Yasumaro with the duty of writing the Kojiki in 711 using the various clan chronicles and native myths. It was finished the following year in 712. Yasumaro became clan head in 716, and died in 723.

Leseprobe

TRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTION.

Of all the mass of Japanese literature, which lies before us as the result of nearly twelve centuries of book-making, the most important monument is the work entitled "Ko-ji-ki"1 or "Records of Ancient Matters,” which was completed in A. D. 712. It is the most important because it has preserved for us more faithfully than any other book the mythology, the manners, the language, and the traditional history of Ancient Japan. Indeed it is the earliest authentic connected literary product of that large division of the human race which has been variously denominated Turanian, Scythian and Altaic, and it even precedes by at least a century the most ancient extant literary compositions of non-Aryan India. Soon after the date of its compilation, most of the salient features of distinctive Japanese nationality were buried under a superincumbent mass of Chinese culture, and it is to these "Records" and to a very small number of other ancient works, such as the poems of the "Collection of a Myriad Leaves", and the Shinto Rituals, that the investigator must look, if he would not at every step be misled into attributing originality to modern customs and ideas, which have simply been borrowed wholesale from the neighbouring continent.

It is of course not pretended that even these "Records" are untouched by Chinese influence: that influence is patent in the very characters with which the text is written. But the influence is less, and of another kind. If in the traditions preserved and in the customs alluded to we detect the Early Japanese in the act of borrowing from China and perhaps even from India, there is at least on our author's part no ostentatious decking out in Chinese trappings of what he believed to be original matter, after the fashion of the writers who immediately succeeded him. It is true that this abstinence on his part makes his compilation less pleasant to the ordinary native taste than that of subsequent historians, who put fine Chinese phrases into the mouths of emperors and heroes supposed to have lived before the time when intercourse with China began. But the European student, who reads all such books not as a pastime but in order to search for facts, will prefer the more genuine composition. It is also accorded the first place by the most learned of the native literati.

Of late years this paramount importance of the “Records of Ancient Matters" to investigators of Japanese subjects generally has become well known to European scholars; and even versions of a few passages are to be found scattered through the pages of their writings. Thus Mr. Aston has given us, in the Chrestomathy appended to his “Grammar of the Japanese Written Language,” a couple of interesting extracts; Mr. Satow has illustrated by occasional extracts his elaborate papers on the Shinto Rituals printed in these "Transactions,” and a remarkable essay by Mr. Kempermann published in the Fourth Number of the “Mittheilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Natur und Völkerkunde Ostasiens,” though containing no actual translations, bases on the accounts given in the "Records" some conjectures regarding the origines of Japanese civilization whith are fully substantiated by more minute research. All that has yet appeared in any European language does not, however, amount to one-twentieth part of the whole, and the most erroneous views of the style and scope of the book and its contents have found their way into popular works on Japan. It is hoped that the true nature of the book, and also the true nature of the traditions, customs, and ideas of the Early Japanese, will be made clearer by the present translation, the object of which is to give the entire work in a continuous English version, and thus to furnish the European student with a text to quote from, or at least to use as a guide in consulting the original. The only object aimed at has been a rigid and literal conformity with the Japanese text. Fortunately for this endeavour (though less fortunately for the student), one of the difficulties which often beset the translator of an Oriental classic is absent in the present case. There is no beauty of style, to preserve some trace of which he may be tempted to sacrifice a certain amount of accuracy. The “Records" sound queer and bald in Japanese, as will be noticed further on; and it is therefore right, even from a stylistic point of view, that they should sound bald and queer in English. The only portions of the text which, from obvious reasons, refuse to lend themselves to translation into English after this fashion are the indecent portions. But it has been thought that there could be no objection to rendering them into Latin,—Latin as rigidly literal as is the English of the greater part.

After these preliminary remarks. it will be most convenient to take the several points which a study of the "Records" and the turning of them into English suggest, and to consider the same one by one. These points are:

I.—Authenticity and Nature of the Text, together with Bibliographical Notes.

II.—Details concerning the Method of Translation.

III.—The "Nihon-Gi" or “Chronicles of Japan.”

IV.—Manners and Customs of the Early Japanese.

V.—Religious and Political Ideas of the Early Japanese. Beginnings of the Japanese Nation, and Credibility of the National Traditions.

I.

THE TEXT AND ITS AUTHENTICITY, TOGETHER WITH BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES.

The latter portion of the Preface to the “Records of Ancient Matters" is the only documentary authority for the origin of the work. It likewise explains its scope. But though in so doing the author descends to a more matter-of-fact style than the high-sounding Chinese phrases and elaborate allusions with which he had set forth, still his meaning may be found to lack somewhat of clearness, and it will be as well to have the facts put into language more intelligible to the European student. This having already been done by Mr. Satow in his paper on the “Revival of Pure Shinto,”2 it will be best simply to quote his words. They are as follows: "The "Emperor Tem-mu, at what portion of his reign is not men- "tioned, lamenting that the records possessed by the chief "families contained many errors, resolved to take steps to "preserve the true traditions from oblivion. He therefore had "the records carefully examined, compated, and weeded of "their faults. There happened to be in his household a person "of marvellous memory named Hiyeda no Are,* who could "repeat without mistake the contents of any document he had "ever seen, and never forgot anything that he had heard. "Tem-mu Tennô3 took the pains to instruct this person in the "genuine traditions and 'old language of former ages,' and to "make him repeat them until he had the whole by heart. "'Before the undertaking was completed,' which probably "means before it could be committed to writing, the Emperor "died, and for twenty-five years Are's memory was the sole "depository of what afterwards received the title of Kojiki4 or "Funi-koto-bumi as it is read by Motoori. At the end of this "interval the Empress Gemmio ordered Yasumaro to write it "down from the mouth of Are, which accounts for the completion of the manuscript in so short a time as four months "and a half. Are's age at this date is not stated, but as he "was twenty-eight years of age some time in the reign of "Tem-mu Tenno, it could not possibly have been more than "sixty-eight, while taking into account the previous order of "Tem-mu Tenno in 681 for the compilation of a history, and "the statement that he was engaged on the composition of the "Kojiki at the time of his death in 686, it would not be un" reasonable to conclude that it belongs to about the last year "of his reign, in which case Are was only fifty-three in 711."

The previous order of the Emperor Tem-mu mentioned in the above extract is usually supposed to have resulted in the compilation of a history which was early lost. But Hirata gives reasons for supposing that this and the project of the “Records of Ancient Matters" were identical. If this opinion be accepted, the "Records," while the oldest existing Japanese book, are, not the third, but the second historical work of which mention has been preserved, one such having been compiled in the year 620, but lost in a fire in the yeàr 645. It will thus be seen that it is rather hard to say whom we should designate as the author of the work. The Emperor Tem-mu, Hiyeda no Are, and Yasumaro may all three lay claim to that title. The question, however, is of no importance to us, and the share taken by Are may well have been exaggerated in the telling. What seems to remain as the residue of fact is that the plan of a purely national history originated with the Emperor Tem-mu and was finally carried out under his successor by Yasumaro, one of the Court Nobles.

Fuller evidence and confirmatory evidence from other sources as to the origin of our "Records" would doubtless be very acceptable. But the very small number of readers and writers at that early date, and the almost simultaneous compilation of a history (the "Chronicles of Japan”) which was better calculated to hit the taste of the age, make the absence of such evidence almost unavoidable. In any case, and only noticing in passing the fact that Japan was never till quite recent years noted for such wholesale literary forgeries (for Motowori's condemnation of the "Chronicles of Old Matters of Former Ages" has been considered rash by later scholars),—it cannot be too much emphasized that in this instance authenticity is sufficiently proved by internal evidence. It is hard to believe that any forger living later than the eighth century of our era should have been so well able to discard the Chinese "padding” to the old traditions, which, after the acceptance by the Court of the "Chronicles of Japan,” had come to be generally regarded as an integral portion of those very traditions; and it is more unlikely still that he should have invented a style so little calculated to bring his handiwork into repute. He would either have written in fair Chinese, like the mass of early Japanese prose writers (and his Preface shows that he could do so if he were so minded); or, if the tradition of there having been a history written in the native tongue had reached him, he would have made his composition unmistakably Japanese in form by arranging the characters in the order demanded by Japanese syntax, and by the consistent use of characters employed phonetically to denote particles and terminations, after the fashion followed in the Rituals, and developed (apparently before the close of the ninth century) into what is technically known as the "Mixed Phonetic Style" (Kana-mazhiri), which has remained ever since as the most convenient vehicle for writing the language. As it is, his quasi-Chinese construction, which breaks down every now and then to be helped up again by a few Japanese words written phonetically, is surely the first clumsy attempt at combining two divergent elements. What however is simply incredible is that, if the supposed forger lived even only a hundred years later than A.D. 712, he should so well have imitated or divined the archaisms of that early period. For the eighth century of our era was a great turning point in the Japanese language, the Archaic Dialect being then replaced by the Classical; and as the Chinese language and literature were alone thenceforward considered worthy the student's attention, there was no means of keeping up an acquaintance with the diction of earlier reigns, neither do we find the poets of the time ever attempting to adorn their verse with obsolete phraseology. That was an affectation reserved for a later epoch, when the diffusion of books rendered it possible. The poets of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries apparently wrote as they spoke; and the test of language alone would almost allow of our arranging their compositions half century by half century, even without the dates which are given in many instances in the "Collection of a Myriad Leaves" and in the "Collection of Songs Ancient and Modern,”—the first two collections of poems published by imperial decree in the middle of the eighth, and at the commencement of the tenth, century respectively.

The above remarks are meant to apply more especially to the occasional Japanese words,—all of them Archaic,—which, as mentioned above, are used from time to time in the prose text of the "Records," to help out the author's meaning and to preserve names whose exact pronunciation he wished handed down. That he should have invented the Songs would be too monstrous a supposition for any one to entertain, even if we had not many of the same and other similar ones preserved in the pages of the “Chronicles or japan," a work which was undoubtedly completed in A.D. 720. The history of the Japanese language is too well known to us, we can trace its development and decay in too many documents reaching from the eighth century to the present time, for it to he possible to entertain the notion that the latest of these Songs, which have been handed down with minute care in a syllabic transcription, is posterior to the first half of the eighth century, while the majority must be ascribed to an earlier, though uncertain, date. If we refer the greater number of them in their present form to the sixth century, and allow a further antiquity of one or two centuries to others more ancient in sentiment and in grammatical usage, we shall probably be making a moderate estimate. It is an estimate, moreover, which obtains confirmation from the fact that the first notice we have of the use of writing in Japan dates from early in the fifth century; for it is natural to suppose that the Songs believed to have been composed by the gods and heroes of antiquity should have been among the first things to be written down, while the reverence in which they were held would in some cases cause them to be transcribed exactly as tradition had bequeathed them, even if unintelligible or nearly so, while in others the same feeling would lead to the correction of what were supposed to be errors or inelegancies. Finally it may be well to observe that the authenticity of the "Records" has never been doubted, though, as has already been stated, some of the native commentators have not hesitated to charge with spuriousness another of their esteemed ancient histories. Now it is unlikely that, in the war which has been waged between the partisans of the "Records" and those of the “Chronicles,” some flaw in the former's title to genuineness and to priority should not have been discovered and pointed out if it existed.

During the Middle Ages, when no native Japanese works were printed, and not many others excepting the Chinese Classics and Buddhist Scriptures, the “Records of Ancient Matters" remained in manuscript in the hands of the Shintō priesthood, They were first printed in the year 1644, at the time when, peace having been finally restored to the country and the taste for reading having become diffused, the great mass of the native literature first began to emerge from the manuscript state. This very rare edition (which was reprinted in fac-simile in 1798) is indispensable to any one who would make of the "Records" a special study. The next edition was by a Shintō priest, Deguchi Nobuyoshi, and appeared in 1687. It has marginal notes of no great value, and several emendations of the text. The first-mentioned of these two editions is commonly called the “Old Printed Edition"印本), but has no title beyond that of the original work,— "Records of Ancient Matters.” The name of the other is "Records of Ancient Matters with Marginal Readings"(徹古事記). Each is in three volumes. They were succeeded in 1789-1822 by Motowori’s great edition, entitled "Exposition of the Records of Ancient Matters"(古事記傳). This, which is perhaps the most admirable work of which Japanese erudition can boast, consists of forty-four large volumes, fifteen of which are devoted to the elucidation of the first volume of the original, seventeen to the second, ten to the third, and the rest to prolegomena, indexes, etc. To the ordinary student this Commentary will furnish all that he requires, and the charm of Motowori's style will be found to shed a glamour over the driest parts of the original work. The author's judgment only seems to fail him occasionally when confronted with the most difficult or corrupt passages, or with such as might be construed in a sense unfavourable to his predilections as an ardent Shintoist. He frequently quotes the opinions of his master Mabuchi, whose own treatise on this subject is so rare that the present writer has never seen a copy of it, nor does the public library of Tōkiō possess one. Later and less important editions are the "Records of Ancient Matters with the Ancient Reading" (古節古事言), a reprint by one of Motowori's pupils of the Chinese text and of his Master's Kanareading of it without his Commentary, and useful for reference, though the title is a misnomer, 1803; the "Records of Ancient Matters with Marginal Notes” (古事記標註), by Murakami Tadanori, 1874; the "Records of Ancient Matters in the Syllabic Character” (假名古事記), by Sakata no Kaneyasu, 1874, a misleading book, as it gives the modernKanareading with its arbitrarily inserted Honorifics and other departures from the actual text, as the ipsissima verba of the original work; the "Records of Ancient Matters Revised” (校正古事記), by Uye-matsu Shigewoka, 1875. All these editions are in three volumes, and the “Records of Ancient Matters with the Ancient Reading” has also been reprinted in one volume on beautiful thin paper. Another in four volumes by Fujihara no Masaoki, 1871, entitled the “Records of Ancient Matters in the Divine Character" (神字古事記), is a real curiosity of literature, though otherwise of no value. In it the editor has been at the pains of reproducing the whole work, according to its modernKanareading, in that adaptation of the Korean alphabetic writing which some modern Japanese authors have supposed to be characters of peculiar age and sanctity, used by the ancient gods of their country and named "Divine Characters" accordingly.

Besides these actual editions of the “Records of Ancient Matters,” there is a considerable mass of literature bearing less directly on the same work, and all of which cannot be here enumerated. It may be sufficient to mention the “Correct Account of the Divine Age”申代正語)’ by Motowori, 3 Vols. 1789, and a commentary thereon entitled”Tokiha-Gusa” (神代正語常'盤草) by Wosada Tominobu, from which the present translator has borrowed a few ideas; the “Sources of the Ancient Histories" (古史) and its sequel entitled “Exposition of the Ancient Histories" (古史專),by Hirata Atsutane, begun printing in 1819,—works which are specially admirable from a philological point of view, and in which the student will find the solution of not a few difficulties which even to Motowori had been insuperable5 the "Idzu no Chi-Waki" (稷威道別),by Tachibana no Moribe, begun printing in 1851, a useful commentary on the "Chronicles of Japan”; the "Idzu no Koto-Waki" (稷威語別)’by the same author, begun printing in 1847, an invaluable help to a comprehension of the Songs contained in both the "Records" and the "Chronicles”; the “Examination of Difficult Words" (難語考, also entitled山 子), in 3 Vols., 1831, a sort of dictionary of specially perplexing terms and phrases, in which light is thrown on many a verbal crux and much originality of thought displayed; and the “Perpetual Commentary on the Chronicles of Japan" (曰本書記通證), by Tanigaha Shihei, 1762, a painstaking work written in the Chinese language, 23 Vols. Neither must the "Kō Gan Shō" (厚顏抄),a commentary on the Songs contained in the “Chronicles" and “Records” composed by the Buddhist priest Keichiu, who may be termed the father of the native school of criticism, be forgotten. It is true that most of Keicniū's judgments on doubtful points have been superseded by the more perfect erudition of later days; but some few of his interpretations may still be followed with advantage. The"Kō Gan Shō"which was finished in the year 1691, has never been printed. It is from these and a few others and from the standard dictionaries and general books of reference, such as the "Japanese Words Classified and Explained"(和名類聚鈔), the “Catalogue of Family Names" (姓氏), and (coming down to more modern times) Arawi Hakuseki's “Tōga” (東雅), that the translator has derived most assistance. The majority of the useful quotations from the dictionaries, etc., having been incorporated by Motowori in his ”Commentary," it has not often been necessary to mention them by name in the notes to the translation. At the same time the translator must express his conviction that, as the native authorities cannot possibly be dispensed with, so also must their assertions be carefully weighed and only accepted with discrimination by the critical European investigator. He must also thank Mr. Tachibana no Chi mori, grandson of the eminent scholar Tachi-bana no Moribe, for kindly allowing him to make use of the manuscript of the unpublished portions of the “Idzu no Chi-Waki" and the"Idzu no Koto-Waki,"works indispensable to the comprehension of the more difficult portion of the text of the “Records" To Mr. Satow he is indebted for the English and Latin equivalents of the Japanese botanical names, to Capt. Blakiston and Mr. Namiye Motokichi for similar assistance with regard to the zoological names.

Comparing what has been said above with what the author tells us in his Preface, the nature of the text, so far as language is concerned, will be easily understood. The Songs are written phonetically, syllable by syllable, in what is technically known asMauyō-Gana, i.e.entire Chinese characters used to represent sound and not sense. The rest of the text, which is in prose, is very poor Chinese, capable (owing to the ideographic nature of the Chinese written character6), of being read off into Japanese. It is also not only full of “Japonisms,” but irregularly interspersed with characters which turn the text into nonsense for a Chinaman, as they are used phonetically to represent certain Japanese words, for which the author could not find suitable Chinese equivalents. These phonetically written words prove, even apart from the notice in the Preface, that the text was never meant to be read as pure Chinese. The probability is that (sense being considered more important than sound) it was read partly in Chinese and partly in Japanese, according to a mode which has since been systematized and has become almost universal in this country even in the reading of genuine Chinese texts. The modern school of Japaneseliterati,who push their hatred of everything foreign to the bounds of fanaticism, contend however that this, their most ancient and revered book, was from the first intended to be read exclusively into Japanese. Drawing from the other sources of our knowledge of the Archaic Dialect, Motowori has even hazarded a restoration of the Japanese reading of the entire prose text, in the whole of which not a single Chinese word is used, excepting for the titles of the two Chinese books (the “Confucian Analects” and the Thousand Character Essay”) which are said to have been brought over to Japan in the reign of the Emperor Ō-jin, and for the names of a Korean King and of three or four other Koreans and Chinese. Whatever may be their opinion on the question at issue, most European scholars, to whom the superior sanctity of the Japanese language is not an article of faith, will probably agree with Mr. Aston7 in denying to this conjectural restoration the the credit of representing the genuine words into which Japanese eighth century students of history read off the text of the Records."

II.

METHOD OF TRANSLATION.

To the translator the question above mooted is not one of great importance. The text itself must form the basis of his version, and not any one's,-not even Motowori's,—private and particular reading of it. For this reason none of the Honorifics which Motowori inserts as prefixes to nouns and terminations to verbs have been taken any notice of, but the original has been followed, character by character, with as great fidelity as was attainable. The author too has his Honorifics; but he does not use them so plentifully or so regularly as it pleases Motowori to represent him as having intended to do. On the other hand, Motowori's occasional emendations of the text may generally be accepted. They rarely extend to more than single words; and the errors in the earlier editions may frequently be shown to have arisen from careless copying of characters originally written, not in the square, but in the cursive form. The translator has separately considered each case where various readings occur, and has mentioned them in the Notes when they seemed of sufficient importance. In some few cases he has preferred a reading not approved by Motowori, but he always mentions Motowori's reading in a Footnote.

The main body of the text contains but little to perplex any one who has made a special study of the early Japanese writings, and it has already been noticed that there is an admirable exegetical literature at the student's command. With the Songs embedded in the prose text the case is different, as some of them are among the most difficult things in the language, and the commentators frequently arrive at most discordant interpretations of the obscurer passages. In the present version particulars concerning each Song have, except in a very few cases where comment appeared superfluous, been given in a Foot-note, the general sense being usually first indicated, the meaning of particular expressions then explained, and various opinions mentioned when they seemed worthy of notice. Besides one or two terms of Japanese grammar, the only technical knowledge with which the readers of the Notes are necessarily credited is that of the use by the Japanese poets of what have been styled Pillow-Words, Pivots, and Prefaces; and those Pillow-Words which are founded on a jeu-de-mots or are of doubtful signification form, with the one exception mentioned below, the only case where anything contained in the original is omitted from the English version.8 After some consideration, it has been deemed advisable to print in an Appendix the Japanese text of all the Songs, transliterated into Roman. Students will thus find it easier to form their own opinion on the interpretation of doubtful passages. The importance likewise of these Songs, as the most ancient specimens of Altaic speech, makes it right to give them as much publicity as possible.

The text of the "Records" is, like many other Japanese texts, completely devoid of breaks corresponding to the chapters and paragraphs into which European works are divided. With the occasional exception of a pause after a catalogue of gods or princes, and of notes inserted in smaller type and generally containing genealogies or indicating the pronunciation of certain words, the whole story, prose and verse, runs on from beginning to end with no interruptions other than those marked by the conciusiou of Vol. I and by the death of each emperor in Vols. II and III. Faithfulness however scarcely seems to demand more than this statement; for a similarly continuous printing of the English version would attain no end but that of making a very dry piece of reading more arduous still. Moreover there are certain traditional names by which the various episodes of the history of the so-called "Divine Age" are known to the native scholars, and according to which the text of Vol. I may naturally be divided. The reigns of the emperors form a similar foundation for the analysis of Vols. II and III, which contain the account of the “Human Age.” It has been thought that it would be well to mark such natural divisions by the use of numbered Sections with marginal headings. The titles proposed by Motowori in the Prolegomena to his Commentary have been adopted with scarcely any alteration in the case of Vol. I. In Vols. II and III, where his sections mostly embrace the whole reign of an emperor, and the titles given by him to each Section consists only of the name of the palace where each emperor is said to have resided, there is less advantage in following him; for those Sections are often inordinately long, and their titles occasionally misleading and always inconvenient for purposes of reference, as the Japanese emperors are commonly known, not by the names of their places of residence, but by their "canonical names." Motowori, as an ardent nationalist, of course rejected these “canonical names,” because they were first applied to the Japanese emperors at a comparatively late date in imitation of Chinese usage. But to a foreigner this need be no sufficient reason for discarding them. The Sections in the translation of Vols. II and III have therefore been obtained by breaking up the longer reigns into appropriate portions; and in such Sections, as also in the Foot-notes, the emperors are always mentioned by their "canonical names."9 The Vol. mentioned in brackets on every right-hand page is that of Motowori's Commentary which treats of the Section contained in that page.

The Notes translated from the original are indented, and are printed small when they are in small type in the Japanese text. Those only which give directions for pronouncing certain characters phonetically have been omitted, as they have no significance when the original tongue and method of writing are exchanged for foreign vehicles of thought and expression. The Songs have likewise been indented for the sake of clearness, and each one printed as a separate paragraph. The occasionally unavoidable insertion in the translation of important words not occurring in the Japanese text has been indicated by printing such words within square brackets. The translator's Notes, which figure at the bottom of each page, do not aim at anything more than the exegesis of the actual text. To illustrate its subject-matter from other sources, as Motowori does, and to enlarge on all the objects connected with Japanese antiquity which are sometimes merely alluded to in a single phrase, would require several more volumes the size of this one, many years of labour on the part of the investigator, and an unusually large stock of patience on the reader's part. The Notes terminate with the death of the Emperor Ken-zo, after which the text ceases to offer any interest, except as a comment on the genealogies given in the "Chronicles of Japan."

Without forgetting the fact that so-called equivalent terms in two languages rarely quite cover each other, and that it may therefore be necessary in some cases to render one Japanese word by two or three different English words according to the context, the translator has striven to keep such diversity within the narrowest limits, as it tends to give a false impression of the original, implying that it possesses a versatility of thought which is indeed characteristic of Modern Europe, but not at all of Early Japan. With reference to this point a certain class of words must be mentioned, as the English translation is unavoidably defective in their case, owing to the fact of our language not possessing sufficiently close synonyms for them. They are chiefly the names of titles, and are the following:

It must be understood that no special significance is to be attached to the use of such words as “Duke,”“Suzerain,"etc. They are merely, so to speak, labels by which titles that are distinct in the original are sought to be kept distinct in the translation. Many of them also are used as that species of hereditary titular designation which the translator has ventured to call the "gentile name,”10 Where possible, indeed, the etymological meaning of the Japanese word has been preserved. Thusomiseems to be rightly derived by Motowori fromoho-mi,“great body";and grandee" is therefore the nearest English equivalent. similarly murashi, "chief," is a corruption of two words signifying "master of a tribe.” On the other hand, both the etymology and the precise import of the title ofwake*are extremely doubtful.Hikoandhimeagain, if they really come fromhi k,"sun-child” andhi me,"sun-female" (or “fire-child” and “fire-female”), have wandered so far from their origin as, even in Archaic times, to have been nothing more than Honorific appellations, corresponding in a loose fashion to the English words prince and princess," or lord and lady," — in some cases perhaps meaning scarcely more than” youth and maiden.”

The four wordskami, ma, mikoandmikotoalone call for special notice; andmamay be disposed of first. It is of uncertain origin, but identified by the native philologists with the perpetually recurring honorificmi,rendered "august.” As, when written ideographically, it is always represented by the Chinese character旗,the translator renders it in English by true"; but it must be understood that this word has no force beyond that of an Honorific.

Mikoto,rendered "Augustness,” is properly a compound,mi koto,"august thing.” It is used as a title, somewhat after the fashion of our words "Majesty” and Highness,” being suffixed to the names of exalted human personages, and also of gods and goddesses. For the sake of clearness in the English translation this title is prefixed and used with the possessive pronoun, thus:Yamato-Take-no-Mikoto,His August-ness Yamato-Take.

With regard to the title readmikoby the native commentators, it is represented in two ways in the Chinese text. When ayoungprince is denoted by it, we find the characters御子,"august child," reminding us of the Spanish title ofinfante.But in other cases it is written with the single character王,"King,” and it may be questioned whether the reading of it asmikois not arbitrary. Many indications lead us to suppose that in Early Japan something similar to the feudal system, which again obtained during the Middle Ages, was in force; and if so, then some of these “kings," may have been kings indeed after a fashion; and to degrade their title, as do the modern commentators, to that of” prince” is an anachronism. In any case the safest plan, if we would not help to obscure this interesting political question, is to adhere to the proper signification of the character in the text, and that character is王,"King.”11

Of all the words for which it is hard to find a suitable English equivalent,Kamiis the hardest. Indeed there is no English word which renders it with any near approach to exactness. If therefore it is here rendered by the word "deity" ("deity" being preferred to "god" because it includes superior beings of both sexes), it must be clearly understood that the word “deity" is taken in a sense not sanctioned by any English dictionary; forkami,and "deity" or "god," only correspond to each other in a very rough manner. The proper meaning of the word"kami" is "top,” or “above”; and it is still constantly so used. For this reason it has the secondary sense of "hair of the head;" and only the hair on thetopof the head,—not the hair on the face,—is so designated. Similarly the Government, in popular phraseology, isO Kami,literally “the honorably above”; and down to a few years agoKamiwas the name of a certain titular provincial rank. Thus it may be understood how the word was naturally applied to superiors in general, and especially to those more than human superiors whom we call "gods.” A Japanese, to whom the origin of the word is patent, and who uses it every day in contexts by no means divine, does not receive from the wordKamithe same impression of awe which is produced on the more earnest European mind by the words "deity" and "god,” with their very different associations. In using the word “deity," therefore, to translate the Japanese termKamiwe must, so to speak, bring it down from the heights to which Western thought has raised it. In factKamidoes not mean much more than "superior.” This subject will be noticed again in Section V of the present Introduction;but so far as the wordKamiitself is concerned, these remarks may suffice.

To conclude this Section, the translator must advert to his treatment of Proper Names, and he feels that he must plead guilty to a certain amount of inconsistency on this head. Indeed the treatment of Proper Names is always an embarrassment, partly because it is often difficult to determine whatisa Proper Name, and partly because in translating a text into a foreign tongue Proper Names, whose meanings are evident in the original and perhaps have a bearing on the story, lose their significance; and the translator has therefore first of all to decide whether the name is really a Proper Name at all or simply a description of the personage or place, and next whether he will sacrifice the meaning because the word is used as a name, or preserve the original name and thus fail to render the meaning,—a meaning which may be of importance as revealing the channels in which ancient thought flowed. For instanceOho-kuni-nushi-no- kami,” the Deity Master of the Great Land,” is clearly nothing more than a description of the god in question, who had several other names, and the reason of whose adoption of this special one was that the sovereignty of the "Great Land,”i.e.of Japan (or rather of Idzumo and the neighbouring provinces in north-western Japan), was ceded to him by another god, whom he deceived and whose daughter he ran away with.12 AgainToyo-ashi-hara-no-chi-aki-no-naga-i-ho-aki-midzu-ho-no-kuni,which signifies “the Luxuriant Reed-Moors, the Land of Fresh Rice-ears,—of a Thousand Autumns, —of Long Five Hundred Autumns" cannot possibly be regarded as more than an honorificdescriptionof Japan. Such a catalogue of words could never have been used as a name. On the other hand it is plain thatTemawas simply the proper name of a certain mountain, because there is no known word in Archaic Japanese to which it can with certainty be traced. The difficulty is with the intermediate cases, —the cases of those names which are but partly comprehensible or partly applicable to their bearers; and the difficulty is one of which there would seem to be no satisfactory solution possible. The translator may therefore merely state that in Vol. I of these "Records,” where an unusual number of the Proper Names have a bearing on the legends related in the text, he has, wherever feasible, translated all those which are borne by persons, whether human or divine. In the succeeding Volumes he has not done so, nor has he, except in a very small number or instances, translated the Proper Names of places in any of the three volumes. In order, however, to convey all the needful information both as to sound and as to sense, the Japanese original is always indicated in a Foot-note when the translation has the name in English, andvice versa,while all doubtful etymologies are discussed.

III.

THE "CHRONICLES OF JAPAN."

It will have been gathered from what has been already said, and it is indeed generally known, that the Records of Ancient Matters do not stand alone. To say nothing of the "Chronicles of Old Matters of Former Ages,” whose genuineness is disputed, there is another undoubtedly authentic work with which no student of Japanese antiquity can dispense. It is entitled “Nihon-Gi,"i.e., "Chronicles of Japan,” and is second only in value to the Records," which it has always excelled in popular favour. It was completed in A.D. 720, eight years after the” Records of Ancient Matters” had been presented to the Empress Gem-miyo.

The scope of the two histories is the same; but the language of the later one and its manner of treating the national traditions stand in notable contrast to the unpretending simplicity of the elder work. Not only is the style (excepting in the Songs, which had to be left as they were or sacrificed altogether) completely Chinese,—in fact to a great extent a cento of well-worn Chinese phrases,—but the subject-matter is touched up, re-arranged, and polished, so as to make the work resemble a Chinese history so far as that was possible. Chinese philosophical speculations and moral precepts are intermingled with the cruder traditions that had descended from Japanese antiquity. Thus the naturalistic Japanese account of the creation is ushered in by a few sentences which trace the origin of all things toYinandYang (陰陽),the Passive and Active Essences of Chinese philosophy. The legendary Emperor Jim-mu is credited with speeches made up of quotations from the “Yi Ching,13 "the“Li Chi,14 "and other standard Chinese works. A few of the most childish of the national traditions are omitted, for instance the story of the "White Hare of Inaba," that of the gods obtaining counsel of a toad, and that of the hospitality which a speaking mouse extended to the deity Master-of-the Great-Land.15 Sometimes the original tradition is simply softened down or explained away. A notable instance of this occurs in the account of the visit of the deity Izanagi16 to Hades, whither he goes in quest of his dead wife, and among other things has to scale the "Even Pass (or Hill) of Hades.”17 In the tradition preserved in the "Records" and indeed even in the “Chronicles,” this pass or hill is mentioned as a literal geographical fact. But the compiler of the latter work, whose object it was to appear and to make his forefathers appear, as reasonable as a learned Chinese, adds a gloss to the effect that "One account says that the Even Hill of Hades is no distinct place, but simply the moment when breathing ceases at the time of death”;— not a happy guess certainly, for this pass is mentioned in connection with Izanagi's return to the land of the living. In short we may say of this work what was said of the Sep-tuagint,— that itrationalizes.

Perhaps it will be asked, how can it have come to pass that a book in which the national traditions are thus unmistakably tampered with, and which is moreover written in Chinese instead of in the native tongue, has enjoyed such a much greater share of popularity than the more genuine work?

The answer lies on the surface: the concessions made to Chinese notions went far towards satisfying minds trained on Chinese models, while at the same time the reader had his respect for the old native emperors increased, and was enabled to preserve some sort of belief in the native gods. People are rarely quite logical in such matters, particularly in an early stage of society; and difficulties are glossed over rather than insisted upon. The beginning of the world, for instance, or, to use Japanese phraseology, the separation of heaven and and earth” took place a long time ago; and perhaps, although there could of course be no philosophical doubt as to the cause of this event having been the interaction of the Passive and Active Essences, it might also somehow be true that Izanagi and Izanami (the "Male-Who-Invites” and the “Female-Who-Invites") were the progenitor and progenitrix of Japan. Who knows but what in them the formative principles may not have been embodied, represented, or figured forth after a fashion not quite determined, but none the less real? As a matter of fact, the two deities in question have often been spoken or in Japanese books under such designations as the “YinDeity” and the "Yang Deity,” and in his Chinese Preface the very compiler of these Records" lends his sanction to the use of such phraseology, though, if we look closely at the part taken by the goddess in the legend narrated in Sect. IV, it would seem but imperfectly applicable. If again early sovereigns, such as the Empress Jin-go, address their troops in sentences cribbed from the “Shu Ching"18 or. like the Emperor Kei-ko, describe the Ainos in terms that would only suit the pages of a Chinese topographer,—both these personages being supposed to have lived prior to the opening up of intercourse with the continent of Asia,—the anachronism was partly hidden by the fact of the work which thus recorded their doings being itself written in the Chinese language, where such phrases only sounded natural. In some instances, too, the Chinese usage had so completely superseded the native one as to cause the latter to have been almost forgotten excepting by the members of the Shintō priesthood. This happened in the case of the Chinese method of divination by means of a tortoise-shell, whose introduction caused the elder native custom of divination through the shoulder-blade of a deer to fall into desuetude. Whether indeed this native custom itself may not perhaps be traced back to still earlier continental influence is another question. So far as any documentary information reaches, divination through the shoulder-blade of a deer was the most ancient Japanese method of ascertaining the will of the gods. The use of the Chinese sexagenary cycle for counting years, months, and days is another instance of the imported usage having become so thoroughly incorporated with native habits of mind as to make the anachronism of employing it when speaking of a period confessedly anterior to the introduction of continental civilization pass unnoticed. As for the (to a modern European) grotesque notion of pretending to give the precise months and days of events supposed to have occurred a thousand years before the date assigned to the introduction of astronomical instruments, of observatories, and even of the art of writing, that is another of those inconsistencies which, while lying on the very surface, yet so easily escape the uncritical Oriental mind.19 Semi-civilized people tire of asking questions, and to question antiquity, which fills so great a place in their thoughts, is the last thing that would occur to any of their learned men, whose mental attitude is characteristically represented by Confucius when he calls himself "A transmitter and not a maker, believing in and loving the ancients.”20 As regards the question of language, standard Chinese soon became easier to understand than Archaic Japanese, as the former alone was taught in the schools, and the native language changed rapidly during the century or two that followed the diffusion of the foreign tongue and civilization. We have only to call to mind the relative facility to most of ourselves of a Latin book and of one written in Early English. Of course, as soon as the principles of the JapaneseRenaissancehad taken hold of men's minds in the eighteenth century, the more genuine, more national work assumed its proper place in the estimation of students. But the uncouthness of the style according to modern ideas, and the greater amount of explanation of all sorts that is required in order to make the “Records of Ancient Matters” intelligible, must always prevent them from attaining to the popularity of the sister history. Thus, though published almost simultaneously, the tendencies of the two works were very different, and their fate has differed accordingly.

To the European student the chief value of the "Chronicles of Japan" lies in the fact that their author, in treating of the so-called Divine Age,” often gives a number of various forms of the same legend—under the heading of One account says," suffixed in the form of a note to the main text. No phrase is more commonly met with in later treatises on Japanese history than this,—"One account in the Chronicles of Japan "says,” and it will be met with occasionally in the Foot-notes to the present translation. There are likewise instances of the author of the "Chronicles" having preserved, either in the text or in "One account," traditions omitted by the compiler of the "Records.” Such are, for instance, the quaint legend invented to explain the fact that the sun and moon do not shine simultaneously,21 and the curious development of the legend of the expulsion of the deitySusa-no-wo("Impetuous Male"), telling us of the hospitality which was refused to him by the other gods when he appeared before them to beg for shelter. Many of the Songs, too, in the "Chronicles" are different from those in the "Records,” and make a precious addition to our vocabulary of Archaic Japanese. The prose text, likewise, contains, in the shape of notes, numbers of readings by which the pronunciation of words written ideograpically, or the meaning of words written phoneticallyin the "Records" may be ascertained. Finally the "Chronicles" give us the annals of seventy-two years not comprised in the plan of the "Records," by carrying down to A.D. 700 the history which in the "Records” steps at the year 628. Although therefore it is a mistake to assert, as some have done, that the "Chronicles of Japan" must be placed at the head of all the Japanese historical works, their assistance can in no wise be dispensed with by the student of Japanese mythology and of the Japanese language.22

IV.

MANNERS AND CUSTOMS OF THE EARLY JAPANESE.

The Japanese of the mythical period, as pictured in the legends preserved by the compiler of the "Records of Ancient Matters,” were a race who had long emerged from the savage state, and had attained to a high level of barbaric skill. The Stone Age was forgotten by them—or nearly so,—and the evidence points to their never having passed through a genuine Bronze Age, though the knowledge of bronze was at a later period introduced from the neighbouring continent. They used iron for manufacturing spears, swords, and knives of various shapes, and likewise for the more peaceful purpose of making hooks wherewith to angle, or to fasten the doors of their huts. Their other warlike and hunting implements (besides traps and gins which appear to have been used equally for catching beasts and birds and for destroying human enemies) were bows and arrows, spears and elbow-pads,* —the latter seemingly of skin, while special allusion is made to the fact that the arrows were feathered. Perhaps clubs should be added to the list. Of the bows and arrows, swords and knives, there is perpetual mention; but nowhere do we hear of the tools with which they were manufactured, and there is the same remarkable silence regarding such widely spread domestic implements as the saw and the axe. We hear, however, of the pestle and mortar,† of the fire-drill, of the wedge, of the sickle, and of the shuttle used in weaving.

Navigation seems to have been in a very elementary stage. Indeed the art of sailing was, as we know from the classical literature of the country, but little practised in Japan even so late as the middle of the tenth century of our era subsequent to the general diffusion of Chinese civilization, though rowing and punting are often mentioned by the early poets. In one passage of the "Records" and in another of the “Chronicles,” mention is made of a "two-forked boat"‡ used on inland pools or lakes;but, as a rule, in the earlier portions of those works, we read only of people going to sea or being sent down from heaven in water-proof baskets without oars, and reaching their destination not through any efforts of their own, but through supernatural interposition.23

To what we should call towns or villages very little reference is made anywhere in the "Records" or in that portion of the "Chronicles" which contains the account of the so-called "Divine Age.” But from what we learn incidentally, it would seem that the scanty population was chiefly distributed in small hamlets and isolated dwellings along the coast and up the course of the larger streams. Of house-building there is frequent mention,—especially of the building of palaces or temples for sovereigns or gods,—the words "palace" and "temple" being (it should be mentioned) represented in Japanese by the same term. Sometimes, in describing the construction of such a sacred dwelling, the author of the "Records,” abandoning his usual flat and monotonous style, soars away on poetic wings, as when, for instance, he tells how the monarch of Idzumo, on abdicating in favour of the Sun-Goddess's descendant, covenanted that the latter should "make stout his temple pillars on the nethermost rock-bottom, and make high the cross-beams to the plain of High Heaven.”24 It must not, however, be inferred from such language that these so-called palaces and temples were of very gorgeous and imposing aspect. The more exact notices to be culled from the ancient Shintō Rituals (which are but little posterior to the "Records" and in no wise contradict the inferences to be drawn from the latter) having been already summarized by Mr. Satow, it may be as well to quote that gentleman's words. He says:25 The "palace of the Japanese sovereign was a wooden hut, with its "pillars planted in the ground, instead of being erected upon "broad flat stones as in modern buildings. The whole frame- "work, consisting of posts, beams, rafters, door-posts and "window-frames, was tied together with cords made by twisting "tpe long fibrous stems of climbing plants, such as Pueraria "Thunbergiana (kuzu) and Wistaria Sinensis (fuji). The floor "must have been low down, so that the occupants of the "building, as they squatted or lay on their mats, were exposed "to the stealthy attacks of venomous snakes, which were pro- "bably far more numerous in the earliest ages when the "country was for the most part uncultivated, than at the "present day......... There seems some reason to think that the "yuka