|
does justice to the amount of original matter in the mythological chapters, and the similarities between it and the "Kojiki" and "Nihongi" may be accounted for by supposing that all three drew their materials from a common stock, viz. the recitals of the "Kataribe" and the written documents compiled from them. It is quite true that the "Kiujiki" gives in many cases two versions of the same legend, but the clumsiness with which they have been dovetailed together is rather a proof that the writer could not have had the more consistent narrative of the "Nihongi" before him. This part ought to be translated. It contains material which is necessary for a complete study of Shintoism. From Jimmu Tennō on the question assumes a different aspect. Here either the author of the "Nihongi" has incorporated the whole "Kiujiki," or the author of the "Kiujiki" has made a selection from the "Nihongi." So far as the former goes it is identical word for word with the latter. From the circumstance that the additional matter contained in the "Nihongi" is very largely of a romantic or poetical nature, it seems more probable that the "Kiujiki" is the original work. Its general style is eminently consistent with the statement ("Nihongi," vol. ii. p. 122) that the reputed author was a thorough proficient in both Chinese and Buddhist learning. Without a more exhaustive examination it is impossible to say more, but there is, I feel sure, sufficient internal evidence available to solve the question with certainty. It would afford an interesting subject of critical inquiry to some of our younger students.' | ||
| Page | 352, | l. 9. For '11th' read '10th.' |
| l. 12. Omit 'you who accepted our rule and also to,' and add at end of sentence 'of your emigration hither.' |
For most of the above corrections I am indebted to the kindness of Dr. Florenz, Professor of Philology in the Imperial University of Tokio.
