Japan

by David Murray

Chapter III. Myths And Legends.

The art of writing and printing was not introduced into Japan until a.d. 284, when it was brought from China. Up to that time therefore no written accounts existed or could exist of the early history of the country. Oral tradition was the only agency by which a knowledge of the events of that epoch could be preserved and transmitted. That such a method of preserving history[28] is uncertain and questionable no one can doubt. We may expect to find therefore in the accounts which have come down to us of those centuries which transpired before written records were introduced, much that is contradictory and unintelligible, and much out of which the truth can be gleaned only by the most painstaking research.

The oldest book of Japanese history which has come down to us is called Kojiki,[29] or Records of Ancient [pg 033] Matters. This work was undertaken by the direction of the Emperor Temmu (a.d. 673-686), who became impressed with the necessity of collecting the ancient traditions which were still extant, and preserving them in a permanent record. Before the work was ended the emperor died, and for twenty-five years the collected traditions were preserved in the memory of Hiyeda-no-are. At the end of that time the Empress Gemmyō superintended its completion, and it was finally presented to the Court in a.d. 711. By a comparison of this work with Nihongi, or Chronicles of Japan, which was completed a.d. 720, only nine years after the other, we are convinced that the era of Chinese classicism had not yet fallen upon the country. The style of the older book is a purer Japanese, and imparts to us the traditions of Japanese history uncolored by Chinese philosophical ideas and classic pedantry which shortly after overwhelmed Japanese literature. But in many particulars these two works, almost equally ancient, supplement and explain each other. The events given in the two are in most respects the same, the principal difference being that the Chronicles is much more tinctured with Chinese philosophy, and the myths concerning the creation especially show the influence of that dual system which had been introduced to give a philosophical aspect to the Japanese cosmogony.

The Kojiki[30] has been translated into English, to [pg 034] which have been added a valuable introduction and notes. The Nihongi (Chronicles of Japan) has never been translated entire into English, but has been used by scholars in connection with the Kojiki. Among the Japanese it has always been more highly esteemed than the Kojiki, perhaps because of its more learned and classical style.

Besides these two historical works the student of early times finds his chief assistance in the Shintō rituals[31] contained in a work called Yengishiki (Code of Ceremonial Law). They have been in part translated by Mr. Satow, who for many years was the learned Japanese secretary of the British legation, and who read two papers on them before the Asiatic Society of Japan, and afterward prepared an article on the same subject for the Westminster Review.[32]

It will be apparent from these circumstances that the knowledge of the earlier events, indeed of all preceding the ninth century, must be derived from tradition and cannot claim the same certainty as when based on contemporaneous documents. Not only the whole of the so-called divine age, but the reigns of the emperors from Jimmu to Richū, must be reckoned as belonging to the traditional period of Japanese history, and must be sifted and weighed by the processes of reason.

Relying on the narratives of the Kojiki and the Nihongi, Japanese scholars have constructed a table of the emperors which has been accepted by the great [pg 035] mass of the readers, both foreign and native. It will be found in the Appendix.[33] It must be remembered that the names of these early emperors, their ages at the time of accession and at the time of death, and the length of reign, must have all been handed down by tradition during almost a thousand years. That errors and uncertainties should have crept in seems inevitable. Either the names and order of the successive emperors, or the length of time during which they reigned would be liable to be misstated. If we examine the list of emperors[34] we find that the ages at death of the first seventeen, beginning with Jimmu and ending with Nintoku, sum up 1853 years, with an average of 109 years[35] for each. The age of Jimmu is given as 127 years; of Kōan 137 years, of Kōrei 128 years, of Keikō 143 years, of Nintoku, the last, 110 years, etc. Then suddenly the ages of the emperors from Richū onward drop to 67, 60, 80, 56, etc., so that the ages of the seventeen emperors, beginning with Richū, have an average of only 61-½ years. This reasonable average extends down through the long series to the present time. It is plain that up to this time there must have existed a different system of reckoning the ages than that which pertained afterwards. Either the original epoch of the Emperor Jimmu has been rendered more remote and [pg 036] the lives of the emperors have been prolonged to fill up the space, or, if we assume the epoch of Jimmu to be correct, we must suppose that a number of the emperors have been dropped from the count.

The sudden depression in the ages occurs about the time of the introduction of writing from China, which occurred in a.d. 284. Wani, who came from Korea to Japan bringing continental culture with him, was appointed tutor to the heir-apparent who became the Emperor Nintoku. During his and subsequent reigns a knowledge of Chinese writing gradually spread, so that the annals of the Imperial court were kept in regular and stated order. This will account without difficulty for the sudden change and for the irregularity of the early chronology.

Notwithstanding the almost absolute certainty of error which exists in the received Japanese chronology, it is by far more convenient to accept it in the form it is presented to us, and use it as if it were true. The early history must be treated as traditional and only the later period from the beginning of the fourth century can be accepted as in any sense historical. Yet the events of the earlier period which have been preserved for us by oral tradition are capable with due care and inspection of furnishing important lessons and disclosing many facts in regard to the lives and characteristics of the primitive Japanese.