PROVISIONAL TRANSLATION(December 2018)
Only significant errors of English in the translation
have been corrected––the content will be checkedagainst the original Japanese for accuracy at a later
date.

The Formation of the Nihonshoki and Multiple SourcesENDŌ KeitaB

ecause it begins with the creation of heaven and earth, the Nihonshoki has both characteristics
of a historical chronicle and a creation tale––one that tells about the origin of Japan
centering on the emperor. This is why there has been much debate about how reliable thecontent in it is. Comparing it with the other works of history compiled by imperial order, the
Rikkokushi (The Six National Histories of Japan), the Nihonshoki is distinct in terms of theestablishment of the age of kami, the counting using a sexagenary cycle based on taisai (animaginary star directly opposite Jupiter), and the inclusion of many ballads and songs, whichhighlight how different it is from later history books beginning with the Shoku Nihongi (Chronicles
of Japan Continued). The inclusion of many bunchū is also another distinct feature. Bunchū used
to be regarded as “loose notes,” and there was a view that such notes did not exist at the time ofcompletion of the Nihonshoki.1 However, Sakamoto Tarō concludes that based on the fact that thestyles of the main text and of bunchū are identical, the bunchū were not added in a later period
but existed from the time of completion. Today the mainstream understanding is that the bunchū
versions are the main notes which existed from the time of the text’s completion in the 4th year of
Yōrō (720).2
Yet it can be said that the contents of bunchū are “loose” and have a wide range of Japanesereadings for phrases (kunchū), citations with the titles of references, and presentations of different
versions, which cannot be classified as one. If all these bunchū have existed from the time of thecompletion of the Nihonshoki, then the Nihonshoki could be understood as a text that that has quite
a complicated structure from the beginning of its creation. Why would that be so? Furthermore,
the first and second volumes of the Nihonshoki describe the age of kami. In terms of the structure,
there is a convergence of multiple versions of mythology and lore with the opening “a book (issho)
says.” Frankly speaking, the complexity of a main text coexisting with the sections identified by “abook says” make readers today perplexed.
In addition, a section with “a book says” is actually a bunchū. In the fragments of the volumeof the age of kami in the Sasaki and Shitennōji manuscript versions, the “a book says” passages in
the age of kami volumes have interpolations in the form of “nigyōwari komaji,” and it has been
THE AUTHOR is professor of Japanese history in the Japanese History Department in the Faculty of Letters at
Kōgakkan University. This chapter was originally published in Japanese in Endō Keita, Nihonshoki no tanjō (2018).
1 Iwahashi Koyata, “Nihonshoki kochūron,” Zōho Jōdaishieki no kenkyū vol.1 (Tokyo: Yoshikawakōbunkan, 1973). First

edition 1953.
2 Sakamoto Tarō, “Nihonshoki no bunchū nit suite,” Sakamoto Tarō chosakushū vol.2: Kojiki to nihonshoki (Tokyo:
Yoshikawakōbunkan, 1988). First edition 1955. Kojima Noriyuki, Jōdai nihon bungaku to chūgoku bungaku vol.1 (Tokyo:
Haniwa Shobō, 1962), pp. 297-313.

1

said that this structure must be the original form of the Nihonshoki.3 For that, there is an opinion
that the mythology of the Nihonshoki should be understood by reading through the so-called maintext. Kōnoshi Takamitsu values the main text over sections with the “a book says” phrase, which isconsidered to be notes.4 On the other hand, there are opinions that differ from his. Matsumae
Takeshi states that the main text itself lacks the continuity in the mythology; Harada Toshiaki
regards main text as the compiled sentences by an editor of the Nihonshoki based on multiple
versions of a book.5 Overall, it is still not clear how the main text and “a book says” phrase in theage of kami should be read.
Why did the volume of the age of kami of the Nihonshoki need the “a book says” phrase in theformat of bunchū in addition to “honsho,” or main text, in the first place? The history books in theancient period, especially those books compiled by imperial order, are the history books compiled
as the emperor’s annals. In particular, the Nihonshoki reaches back the age of kami and describes
the origins of the imperial house and its rule. Because of that, it has been thought that compilationof history books by the ancient nation was conducted by delineating multiple transmissions andintegrating materials into one systematic description along the line of the main theme of thecompilation (the origin of imperial rule). Moreover, it has been understood that the process ofcompilation including the deletion of some records was made possible by the authority of Emperor
Tenmu’s will.6 Being the starting point in the history of a study on kokugaku, Tsuda Sōkichi’s viewof the essence of the history of the age of kami as “the narrative of the origin of the imperial
house centering on the imperial ancestor as the Sun Goddess” is accurate. 7 What will bereexamined here is Tsuda Sōkichi’s approach, claiming that transmissions were modified orchanged freely. If that was the case, it comes with the premise that compilers were in control of theprocess in terms of the compilation of the history. However, would it really be possible that those
who edited the history book could write the history as they liked?
For instance, Sekine Atsushi noted in his review of Miura Sukeyuki’s Kojiki no himitsu that“miscellaneous traditions and lineage were collected and dissolved into a narrative called national
history through establishment of the ‘state;’ there is a meaning of producing a history book inorder to invent this logic and expression.”8 Sekine situates the compilation of the history book in
the context of forming the ancient state, which must support the creation of a national history(imperial annals) by the government during the eighth century. However, an appropriate literarysource would be the Kojiki not the Nihonshoki. The first volume of the Kojiki unfolds along a single
line, which greatly contrasts with the volumes of the age of kami of the Nihonshoki. In general, whenmyths in the Kojiki and Nihonshoki are mentioned, the image that appears is from stories in the Kojiki.
Although the Kojiki also has notes such as onchū, kunchū, and chūki on founders of clans, those notes
are only explanatory notes to support the main text. Whereas, the Nihonshoki presents various anddifferent stories and accepts the divergent myths.9
3 See explanatory notes and charts of Yamamoto Shinkichi, “Nihonshoki,” Kokushidaijiten 11 (Tokyo:

Yoshikawakōbunkan, 1990).
4 Kounoshi Takamitsu, Kojiki no sekaikan (Tokyo: Yoshikawakōbunkan,1986), pp.28-30.
5 Matsumae Takeshi, “Nihonshoki no shinwa,” Matsumae takeshi chosakushuu vol.1 koten soushuuhen (Tokyo: Oufuu,1997). First edition 1991. Harada Toshiaki, “Nihon shinwa no tokuchou,” Kojiki to nihonshoki to no hikaku by Harada
Toshiaki (Tokyo: Yamato Shobou, 1978). Yamada Hideo, “Nihonshoki jindaikan no issho nit suite 1-3,” Manyoushuu
oboegaki (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1999). First appeared for each in 1982, 1987, 1988.
6 Naoki Koujirou, Nihonshinwa to kodaikokka (Tokyo: Koudansha Gakujutsu Bunko, 1990).
7 Tsuda Soukichi, Nihon koten no kenkyuu vol. 1 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1948), 587.
8 Sekine Atsushi, “Nihon kodai ‘shishoshi’ o megutte,” Jouchi shigaku 52 November 2007.
9 Emura Hiroyuki, “Hasseiki no ouken to shinwa,” Kirisuto kyou bunka kenkyuusho nenpou 37 by Miyagi Gakuin
Joshidaigaku, March 2004.

2

The structure of including both main text and “a book says” passages side by side marks theunique characteristics of the Nihonshoki. This style was not inherited after the Shoku-Nihongi (secondof the six classical Japanese history texts) even among the six history texts compiled by the imperial
order. Concerning the Nihonshoki, Sekine regards the “a book says” passages consisting of varioustransmissions as subordinate to the honsho; however, if that is the case, would it not have been that,with the authority of the imperial order, the compilers could have discarded various kinds of “abook says” passages, or different transmissions, and discarded the plurality of myths andtransmissions? To respond to this question, an examination that closely approaches the Nihonshoki
itself is needed in terms of its text structure. The reason why the bunchū of the Nihonshoki is focusedon is because they are necessary to complete such a study.
In the rest of sections, centered on the adaption of bunchū of the Nihonshoki, the relationshipbetween the main text and bunchū of the Chinese official history is first examined. Next, factors
to form the history text which preserves the different transmissions by bunchū are analyzed.
Explanatory Notes of the Nihonshoki and Chinese Official Histories
The Sources of Bunchū for March of the Second Year of Emperor Kinmei’s Era
One of the reasons why the Nihonshoki has a complicated text structure comes from the format ofChinese history texts, which were used as a model. As the Nihonshoki is a history text written in
Chinese characters, we can expect that Chinese official history, in particular, the dynastic history
texts, which were categorized as “official history,” were regarded as a model for description. Thiscan be verified by the sources of the main text of the Nihonshoki, and according to Kojima Noriyuki’s
study on sources, Shiki (also known as Shiji, the Chinese historical records), Kanjo (historical recordsof the Han dynasty), or Tōkan kanki (historical records of eastern Han dynasty), and Sangokushi (thehistory of the three kingdoms) were the sources.10
In particular, Kanjo was thought to be a main source for the entire Nihonshoki, and it is often
mentioned discussing the title of the Nihonshoki. The following bunchū of March of the 2nd year ofEmperor Kinmei’s era are the sections which were compared with “jorei” of Kanjo by Ōta Shōjirō.11
P.79
a. The Nihonshoki: Bunchū of March of the 2nd year of Emperor Kinmei
In the original record of the Emperors there are many old characters, which underwent
frequent alterations in the hands of the compilers. Later men, in learning to read them,
modified them to suit the meaning, and, owing to their being handed down by repeatedcopying, errors eventually arose, by which the order was disturbed, and elder and younger
mistaken for one another. We have now investigated old and new, and restored the truth.
In cases where it was difficult to ascertain it, we have selected and followed one (MS.?) andnoted down carefully the variants. All other (passages) follow the same rule. (English
translation from W. G. Aston, Nihongi)b. Kanjo: jorei
As ancient sentences of kanjo use many old letters, after explanation on them, they often
10 Kojima Noriyuki, Joudai nihon bungaku to chuugoku bungaku vol.1 (Tokyo: Haniwa Shobou, 1962), pp.322-358.
11 Ōta Shōjirō, “Nihonshoki hennshuu no sankousho no ichi,” Outa Shoujirou chosakushuu vol.1 (Yokkyo:

Yoshikawakōbunkan,1991). First appeared in 1948. Tsuda Soukichi, Nihon koten no kenkyuu vol.1 (Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten, 1948), 49.

3

changed. When people of later periods read and learnt the text, they changed the letters intheir opinion, and they made errors upon copying it. Because of these problems, now we
attempt to re-examine this ancient text and correct errors; however, it is very difficult toknow things of the ancient time. Everyone follows the interpretation...many charts havelists, but there are many letters and complicated. Many letters of before and after are mixed
up. Because they are out of order, names and what the names signify do not match, which
is not right.
The Jorei of Kanjo signifies explanatory notes of commentaries, which were added by Gan Shiko(Yan Shigu) of Tang (581-645) to Han Ko (Ban Gu)’s Kanjo. As the underlined phrases of “a” and“b” show, most of words of bunchu of the former correspond to jorei of Kanjo. Ōta, whodemonstrated this, not only pointed out the source of bunchu but also discussed that the Nihonshoki
had been influenced by the trend of the first historiography of Tang.12
Besides this, there is a possibility that the phrase at the very end of a bunchū “ta wa mina kore ni
narae” might be the words adopted from Chinese classics. Taniguchi Kosuke has pointed out thatfor the phrase specific in bunchū of Sandai jitsuroku “ta wa mina kore ni narae,”
Shunjūsashikeidenshikkai (the Compiled Annotations of the Spring and Autumn Classic and its
Commentary) written by To Yo (Du Yu) of the Western Jin Dynasty was used as a reference.13 Ifthat is the case, it can be thought that the source of this phrase of the Nihonshoki should be alsosame.
The phrase “ta wa mina kore ni narae” is found in three places in the Nihonshoki, and all of themappear in bunchū.
c. The Nihonshoki: March of the first year of Emperor Keitai
The Emperor took to him eight concubines. Some of the eight concubines whom he took
to him were earlier, others later. When it is said that they were taken on this day (the 14th),
it is meant that then for the first time they were lodged in the after palace, a lucky day
having been selected by divination, in consequence of the accession to the Imperial Dignity.
Thus the facts are glossed over. Other cases are to be understood similarly.
d. The Nihonshoki: March of the 2nd year of Emperor Kinmei (same as “a” shown above)e. The Nihonshoki: July of the 2nd year of Emperor Kinmei
Pekche, hearing that the (Japanese) authorities of Ara were intriguing with Silla, sent
Pirimakko, Nasol of the Senior division, the Nasol Syon-mun, the Nasol of the middle
division, Mok-hiop Me-syun, and Ki no Omi,
The Nasol Ki no Omi was probably the son of Ki no Omi by a marriage with a
Corean woman, who therefore remained in the country and was made Nasol by
Pekche. It is not clear who his father was. Other cases all follow this rule.
Besides this, there are similar phrases such as “shita mina kore ni narae” (cited from the first andfourth sections of the main text of the first volume of the age of kami) and “yo mina kore ni narai”(the passage of May of the 6th year of Emperor Bidatsu’s era). These are the sections where there
12 Yoshikawa Tadao, “Gan shiko no ‘kanjo’ chuu,” Rikuchou seishin shi kenkyuu (Tokyo: Dōhōsha, 1984), first

appeared in 1979.
13 Taniguchi Kousuke, “‘Nihon sandai jitsuroku’ no hanrei-tenbun kiji o chuushin ni” Presented at Wakan hikaku
bungaku kai taikai on September 30, 2007.

4

are comments like introductory notes in bunchū. It is likely that those words were selected whilereferring to Shunjūsashikeidenshikkai. It is not in the main text of Kanjo, but in Gan Shiko’scommentary and explanatory notes that Ōta Shōjirō’s words “the trend of the first historiographyof Tang” are typically manifested. For example, according to Taniguchi Kosuke,
Shunjūsashikeidenshikkai is not a mere commentary but equivalent to Shunju written by To Yo of theWestern Jin Dynasty; thus, it has its own value.14 This indicates that the relationship between themain text and its commentary cannot be understood by a conventional dominant-subordinate
relationship.
A similar example from the Nara period is the case of Monzen (Ch: Wen Xuan; ancient Chinese
poems), which was examined by Tōno Haruyuki. Tōno paid attention to the five pieces of thechips of the wooden strips excavated from the outer compound of the Imperial Palace of Heijō
Palace and pointed out that the words of the beginning of Jōyōbun (the memorial to the Chinese
Emperor annotated by Li Shan) were copied to learn and discussed the spread of Monzen among
government officials.15 It was not the Monzen itself but the memorial of its annotation that were
copied to learn on the five pieces of chips.
Texts with authority that should be read by everyone have been read for a long time, and theircommentaries have been also made. Those texts highly valued have both the main part and theircommentary as a package such as Gan Shiko’s commentary on Kanjo, To Yo’s commentary on
Shunjūsashiden, Li Shan’s commentary on Monzen. Furthermore, commentary gives a new meaning
to ancient texts, and in case of highly regarded commentary, the commentary, which was thesecondary interpretation, comes to have authority. Above all, in case of Confucianism documents,
the authorship of commentary is important. For example, the Gokyōseigi (Correct interpretation
learning of five classics), for which Gan Shiko was one of the compilers, firmly established its
prestige because of its nature as a commentary of the Tang Dynasty. This text exemplifies the factthat a commentary actually regulated the readings of the main text.
According to one of the ritsuryō codes about the Bureau of Education, because texts and theircommentaries that were to be taught at the Bureau of Education were assigned, perhaps most of
Chinese ancient texts brought to Japan during the Nara period were main texts includingcommentary with an established reputation. Needless to say, the extant Kanjo and Shiki which arecopies from the Nara period are books in scroll style with fine-print double-line notes.16
When the first compiled historiography by imperial command was created, it can be thought that
there were no such texts of Shiki or Kanjo used for reference which had only the main body without
any commentary. Therefore, considering the prestige of the texts, when historiography wascompiled in Japan while referring to Chinese historiographies, would not it be natural that history
was described with notes from the beginning of compilation? If the view that ancient texts meant
those texts including notes was widely permeated at that time, the Nihonshoki can be seen as
historiography with its own notes from the beginning.
The bunchū of the Nihonshoki and Hai Shōshi’s notes on the Sangokushi

14 Yoshikawa Kōjirō, “Sashi hanrei ben” “sashi hanrei ben (translation),” Yoshikawa Kōjirō zenshū vol.7 (Tokyo:

Chikuma Shobō, 1968), first appeared in 1934.
15 Tōno Haruyuki, “Nara jidai ni okeru ‘Monzen’ no fukyū,” Shōsōin monjo to mokkan no kenkyū (Tokyo: Haniwa
Shobō, 1977), first appeared 1976. See charts and explanatory notes of Mokkan gakkai hen, Nihon kodai mokkan sen(Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1990).
16 See Shiki vol. 96 and 97 owned by Ishiyama dera (Haiin’s notes) and kōteiki vol.2 and retsuden vol.4 of Kanjo (Gan
Shiko’s notes). Charts were published in Bunkach, Kokuhō 9 Shoseki I (Tokyo: Mainichi Shimbunsha, 1984).

5However, regarding such texts as Shikishikkai with notes by Hai In and Gokanjo with notes by Shokai
Taishi, their notes are basically explanatory notes on words and authentic precedents; thus, in termsof the form, these texts do not completely correspond to the Nihonshoki which quotes even different
transmissions from the main text. The main text of Sangokushi is comparable with the form of the
Nihonshoki. In the biographical introduction of Shaku Nihongi, there is a passage explaining the quoteof “issho issetsu” as “this is an example of Hai Shōshi’s notes on the Sangokushi.” Moreover, as thefollowing example indicates, the Sangokushi is quoted with its title in the Nihonshoki, and it is one of
the Chinese historiographies that compilers of the Nihonshoki certainly used as a reference.
f. The Nihonshoki: from the 39th to 43rd year of Empress Jingū’s era
39th year: This year was the year Tsuchinoto Hitsuji (56th) of the Cycle.
The History of Wei says:-“In the reign of the Emperor Ming Ti, in the thirdyear of the period King-chu (A.D. 239) the Queen of Wa sent the highofficer Nan-teu-mi and others to the province, where they begged
permission to proceed to the Emperor and offer tribute. The Tai-sheu,
Tang-hia, sent an officer to escort them to the capital.”
40th year: The History of Wei says:-“In the first year of Cheng-Shih, Kien Chung-kiao,
Wei Ti-hi and others proceeded to the Wa country charged with an Imperial
rescript and a seal and ribbon.”
43rd year: The Ruler of Wa again sent high officers as envoys with tribute names
All three passages are included in the annals of Empress Jingu and are famous as the section in the
Niohonshoki that depicts Emperor Jingu as the empress of Japan, along with the quote of “ShinKikochu of the Jin Dynasty” in the passage of the 66th year. To clarify it, the relevant part ofSangokushi is cited here:g. Sangokushi
In June of the 2nd year of Keisho (238), the queen of Wa (Japan) sent her messenger to the
Daifang Commandery and requested that she would like to offer gifts to the Chineseemperor. Ryūka, governor of the Daifang Commandery, provided an offical and guards
and made them take the messenger to the capital.
In the 1st year of Shōji (240), Governor-General Kyōjun of the Daifang Comandery
dispatched Teishun, a commandant of the Imperial Guard, with the imperial rescript andribbon seal to Wa, conferring upon the ruler of Wa, along with other gifts such as gold, silk,
swords, mirros, etc. The ruler of Wa expressed her gratefulness through the messenger. In
the 4th year, the ruler of Wa made eight messengers and offered gifts like slaves, cotton, etc.
The messengers received the imperial rescript.
In principle, the Nihonshoki indicates, except a few, a sexagenary cycle of taisai after the year ofeach emperor’s enthronement. One of the exceptions is the annals of Empress Jingu, where taisai
is indicated at three places: the section of the years of the first, 39th, and 69th of the Sesshō era.
Taisai signifies an imaginary star directly opposite to Jupiter, and the fact that the Nihonshoki usedtaisai for kinen, or the counted year is closely related to the theory of the counted year or the6establishment of the title as an emperor. 17 In the year when Emperor Jinmu set off for his
expedition to the east, it was written that “since the descent to earth of the grandson of the sun
goddess, now 1,792,470 plus years have passed.” “The sexagenary cycle of taisai is kinoe-tora, andthe age of kami without the count year (volumes 1 and 2) and the annals of successive emperors(from volume 3) are connected by the kinoe-tora a year prior to Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement.
However, the indication of the sexagenary cycle of taisai is not found in Chinese official
historiographies, and as the bunchū of the 25th year of Emperor Keitai of the Nihonshoki directly
quotes “Kudarahongi” saying “this passage states that taisai is the third month of kanotoi,” there isa possibility that the count year by taisai was imported from the method of the counting systemused in Kudara.
As we have seen, taisai, which shows the uniqueness of the Nihonshoki, basically marks the reignof the emperor. As shown, in the case of the examples of the annals of Empress Jingū, the firstyear and 69th year (Empress Jingu’s death) of Sesshō era make sense. However, the aforementioned
example of the taisai of the 39th year in “f ” indicates that it functions differently. As it has been
discussed, its purpose is to correspond the time of the establishment of the Empress Jingū’s annals
to the article of “Gishi” as the former’s bunchū suggests.18
In the case of the articles of the 40th and 43rd years followed by the article of the 39th year, there
is no main text in the Nihonshoki but only the bunchū of “Gishi” is shown. Even this only suggeststhat the bunchū is not applied to a conventional relationship between the main text and its notes.
The article of the annals of Empress Jingū quoting “Gishi” functions to extend the era of theChinese historiographies to the count year of the Nihonshoki; thus, it is not the main text but thebunchū that has primary importance. The compilers of the Nihonshoki who read Sangokushi well andwere familiar with the history of Japan documented there, provided such bunchū that presents
Empress Jingū as the Queen of Yamato.19
Besides this, there are the following examples Kojima Noriyuki examined, which suggest that thesentences of the Nihonshoki were composed in reference of Sangokushi.20
h. The Nihonshoki: Emperor Kōtoku, before the enthronement
Nakatomi no kamako no Muraji cherished the most sincere loyalty, Trusting to his poweras ruling Minister, he took place over the various functionaries. In respect therefore, toadvancements and dismissals, taking measures or abandoning them, everything was donein accordance with his counsel, etc.
17 Yamada Hideo, Nihonshoki (Tokyo: Kyōikusha rekishi shinsho, 1979), 39. Tōno Haruyuki, “Tennōgō noseiritsunendai nit suite,” Shōsōin monjo to mokkan no kenkyū (Tokyo: Haniwa Shobō, 1977), first appeared in 1969.
Kobayashi Toshio, “Nihonshoki no kinenron vol.1,” Nihonkodaikokka keiseishikō (Tokyo: Azekura shobō, 2006), first
appeared in 2002.
18 Hirata Toshiharu, “Jingū kōgōki to nihonshoki no kinen,” Nihonkoten no seiritsu no kenkyū (Tokyo: Nihonshoin, 1959),
first appeared in 1951.Tanaka Takashi, “Jingū kōgō o meguru ki ki no shoden,” Tanaka Takashi chosakushū 10 kotenzeki
to shiryō (Tokyo: Kokusho kankōkai, 1993), first appeared in 1972.
19 As for the bunchū of the annals of Empress Jingū shown as f, Kawamura Hidene states in Shoki shikkai that “theold text and seike bon are not existent” and it was excluded from the main text of Nihonshoki. It is not usual that f has
only nenki and bunchū but does not have the main text. There is a firm view among some scholars that it was a resultthat personal notes were mistakenly included, and they should not have been present in the original text of
Nihonshoki. Nitō Atsushi, “Wakoku to higashi ajia,” Iwanami kōza nihon rekishi vol.1 genshi kodai 1, (Tokyo: Iwanami
Shoten, 2012). As for the manuscript of the annlas of Empress Jingū, there are its copies of Kitano bon and Atsuta bon,and both have the bunchū of gishi. Today scholars follow these prior scholary works of copies and the modified main
text and do not adopt a view that the gishi of the bunchū of the annlas of Empress Jingū is included mistakenly. See
Naitō Konan, “Himiko kō,” Naitō Konan zenshū, vol.7 (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobō, 1970), first appeared in 1910.
20 Kojima Noriyuki, Jōdai nihon bungaku to chūgoku bungaku vol.1, (Tokyo: Haniwa Shobō, 1962), pp.347-353.

7

i. The Sangokushi: the annals of Emperor Butei, Hai Shōshi’s notes
Gisho includes sentences of refusal written by Taiso to Ōfun. The abolition of the emperor
is the worst event to the society. Among people in the past, there are people who weighsuccess and fuel and who consider the importance of the events that iin and kukou. They are
Iin and Kakukō. Iin was truly royal and superior to other government officials based on theauthority of premier minister. Therefore, he could succeed in the abolition of the emperor
as he planned.
j. The Nihonshoki: February of the 2nd year of Taika
The Emperor proceeded to the Eastern Gate of the Palace, where, by Soga, Oho-omi of
the Right, he decreed as follows:-‘The God Incarnate, the Emperor Yamato-neko, whorules the world, gives command to the Ministers assembled in his presence, to the Omi,
Muraji, Kuni no Miyakko, Tomo no Miyakko, and subjects of various classes, saying:…Kwan-Tsze said:-“The Emperor Hwang, by establishing the Conferences of the BrightHall, observed the opinions of the wise on the upper hand, while the Emperor Yao, having
the inquiries of the street-houses, listened to the people on the lower hand. Shun again had
flags to proclaim merit and thus secure publicity; and Yu set up a drum at his Court, thus
providing for the investigation into expectations. Tang had the Court of the general control
of Districts, whereby he observed the faults of the people. King Wu had the park of theSpirit terrace, and therefore the wise had advancement. Thus the sage Emperor andIllustrious Sovereigns of antiquity possessed and did not lose; they gained and did not
destroy.” The object of hanging up a bell, of providing a box, and of appointing a man toreceive petitions, is to make those who have grievances or remonstrances deposit theirpetitions in the box. The receivers of petitions are commanded to make their report to Us
every morning. When We received this report We shall draw the attention of the Ministers
to it, and cause them to consider it, and We trust that this may be done without delay. But
if there should be neglect on the part of the Ministers, and a want of diligence or partisan
intrigues, and if We, moreover, should refuse to listen to remonstrance, let the complainantstrike the bell.
k. The Sangokushi: Gisho, the annals of Emperor Buntei Hai Shōshi’s notes
Kwan-Tsze said:-“The reason why the Emperor Hwang established the Conferences of theBright Hall was to observe the opinions of the wise, while the Emperor Yao had theinquiries of the street-houses in order to listen to the people. Shun had flags to proclaim
merit and thus secure publicity; and Yu set up a drum at his Court, thus providing for theinvestigation into expectations. Tang had the Court of the general control of districts,
whereby he observed the faults of the people. King Wu had the park of the Spirit terrace,and therefore the wise had advancement. Thus the sage Emperor and Illustrious Sovereignsof antiquity possessed and did not lose; they gained and did not destroy.”
The “h” passage is about Nakatomi no Kamatari, and it was composed from the sentences ofGisho (compiled by Seishin Ōchin and others) by replacing “Iin” with “Nakatomi no Kamako no
Muraji.” This is stated in Nihonshokitsūshō by Tanikawa Kotosuga, who wrote “[i]t appears in Gisho.
There are words to praise Iin of Soso.” The records about Nakatomi no Kamatari in the Nihonshoki

8are based on the image of Iin and Kakukō.21
The article of the second year of the Taika era (646) in “j” is about the establishment of litigation
system, which was based on the Confucianism principle that a monarch listens to the people. Its
original source is the passage of Kankōmon-hen of Kanshi; however, it is quoted in Hai Shōshi’s
notes of Sangokushi of “k” and in Teiōbu 1 (Sōsaiteiō) of Geimonruijū. Based on differences in theirwording, Kojima concluded that Hai Shōshi’s note is the source.
It is interesting that the two articles “h” and “j” of the Nihonshoki refer to not the main text ofSangokushi but the notes added by Hai Shōshi (372-451) in the fifth century. Hai Shōshi’s notes ofSangokushi include commentary on the words and authentic precedents and present the different
versions of stories in reference of numerous literary sources, which were not included in the maintext.22 This format is like the format of the Nihonshoki that quotes abundant primary sources with
their titles. The list of catalogs of books which were quoted in the bunchū of the Nihonshoki is shownas follows:23
Gishi (the 39th, 40th, and 43rd years of Empress Jingū’s reign)
Shinkikochū (the 66th of Empress Jingū’s reign)
Teiōhongi (March of the 2nd year of Emperor Kinmei’s reign)
Kudaraki (the 47th and 62nd years of Empress Jingū’s reign, March of the 8th year and25th year of Emperor Ōjin’s reign, the 20th year of Emperor Yūryaku’s reign)
Kudara hongi (February of the 3rd year, June of the 7th year, February of the 9th year, andDecember of the 25th year of Emperor Keidai, and July of the 2nd year, February, March,and October of the 5th year, the 6th, 7th, April of 11th year, and July of the 17th year ofEmperor Kinmei)
Nihonkyūki (March of the 21st year of Emperor Yūryaku)
Fudai (a chronicle of the prior enthronement of Emperor Kenzō)
Koma no shamon dōken nihon seiki (July of the 6th year, April and November of the 7th year ofEmperor Saimei, and October of the 8th year of Emperor Tenchi)
Iki no muraji hakatoko no fumi (February of the 5th year of Hakuchi, July of the 5th year, Julyof the 6th year, and May of the 7th year of Emperor Saimei)
Naniwa no kishi ohito no fumi (ar of Emperor Saimei)
Hi (October of the 8th year of Emperor Tenchi)
The number of the catalog of books was not as much as that of the notes by Hai Shōshi of
Sangokushi, but as there are those sources without specific titles in the case of the Nihonshoki such as“a book says,” “according to the document,” etc., the quantity of the bunchū bears comparison
with that of Sangokushi.
Thus, quoting other literal sources in seeking for heresies is characteristic of commentary ofhistoriography that appeared during the Six Dynasties, and one such example is in the notes by
Hai Shōshi. His way of making notes was stated in a specific kind of written document given to
21 Kishi Toshio, “Tamakiharu uchi no ason,” Nihon kodai seijishi kenkyū,” (Tokyo: Haniwa Shobō, 1966), first

appeared in 1964.
22 Imataka Makoto, “Hai Shōshi chū inyō shomoku,” trans., by Kominami Ichirō Sangokushi vol. 3 (Tokyo: Chikuma
Shobō, 1989).
23 For citations of bunchū, see Kokusho itsubun kenkyū kai hen, Shintei zōho kokusho itsubun, compiled by Wada
Hidematsu and edited by Mori Katsumi (Tokyo: Kokusho kankōkai, 1995) and Kinoshita Reijin, “‘Kudara shiryō’
no shiryōteki kachi ni tsuite,” Nihonshoki and Nihonshoki to kodai chōsen (Tokyo: Haniwa Shobō, 1993), first appeared in
1961.

9

the emperor in the 6th year of the Genka era (429).
l. Jōsangokushi chū hyō (Sangokushi of Chūkashokyokuhon, p.1471)
Hai Shōshi was ordered to make notes by the emperor. The Sangokushi already existed,which depicted differences of the three countries written by Chinju, so Hai Shōshi wascommanded to make notes for that. Chinju’s Sangokushi was made very well, and it is worth
looking at it. One can enjoy reading it, and it is a great text and recently completed
wonderful historiography. Yet, some part is too simplified. Missing infromation issporadically found. Therfore with the emperor’s command, I have attempted to search formore detailed explanatory information. I listened to old stories and collected remaining
information. Although the periods of three countries are not far from each other,differences about Kan and Shin have been already found. Various kinds of notes are also
existant, which have errors or out of order. This is why Chinju did not include them in his
Sangokushi. However, I think that he should have included them; thus, I collected all of themand included them to suppy a dificiency. Those variations depict the same things, but
expressions by words are different. Or some contradict each other, but it is difficult to judge
which is correct. In such a situation, to copy them just in case and include them to show
the presence of different views. Therefore, due to many versions included, it may be difficult
to read the text, but its reason is explained here. Chinju’s errors of excluding the variations
is tiny, and I made up for it in my opinion. Here my explanatory notes with variations havebeen completed, and a copy has been made as well as proofreading. I humbly present thework.
Hai Shōshi highly regarded the main text of Sangokushi compiled by Chinju as well-written
historiography, but pointed out that “its fault is cuts and omission in some parts.” He stated that
Chinju documented various kinds of transmissions in order to compensate for it.
When different variations were widely collected, it happened that some of them contradicted themain text; Hai Shōshi stated: “Sometimes despite the same event, the gap of its description of
between some variations and the main text exists; sometimes common or different aspects of thedescriptions about the same event are presented, and it is not possible to judge them…. Allvariations are included as preparation to respond to heresies” and hd intentionally did not try tointegrate them into one. As a result, the Sangokushi with commentary by Hai Shōshi ended up
including many variations, whereas from a standpoint of valuing the formation of the integrated
historiography as the main text, Hai Shōshi was criticized, with people writing that “he amusedhimself by collecting different variations without identifying legitimate one. It is not proper to avoid
integrating them into one. The text is too complicated.”
However, the Sangokushi was spread through Hai Shōshi’s commentary, and during the Tō period,
the situation was like this: What is called Sangokushi in society became a book with Hai Shōshi’scommentary. His version became the representative version of Sangokushi. As the usage of bunchūsuggests, as expected, the compilers of the Nihonshoki also read the Sangokushi with Hai Shōshi’scommentary. Although the copy of the Sangokushi of the same period as the compilation of the
Nihonshoki is not extant, we can imagine what it should have, based on such manuscripts as Shiki
and Kanjo created during the Nara period, the format of interpolations with Hai Shōshi’scommentary.
Therefore, it is not that the Nihonshoki uniquely created the format of quoting heresies in thebunchū. One of the reasons why the structure of the main text is complex is that the compilers
10followed the Sangokushi, which almost all scholars think should be used as a reference for quotation,and extended the reference even to the Sangokushi with Hai Shōshi’s commentary. Having said that
the Sangokushi with Hai Shōshi’s commentary, where both the main text and notes coexist, was used
as a reference, a question of why the Nihonshoki imitated such a style should be asked. This question
cannot be answered by just comparing the Nihonshoki and Chinese historiographies but should be
examined from the perspective of the situation in Japan that demanded the creation of the
Nihonshoki. The next section attempts to examine the situation before and after the creation of the
Nihonshoki and explore the reason why the Nihonshoki was created as a historiography with its own
notes.
Being “A Historiography to Be Recited”
The Position of the Nihonshoki’s Compilation
Another reason why the compilers of the Nihonshoki included the bunchū from the beginning canbe thought that they were aware of its readers. In other words, there was an immanent demand at
the time of compiling the first official historiography in Japan. This matter can be verified by theformation of compilers and lectures of the Yōrō period.
In addition, as for the compilation of historiographies during the seventh century, it is difficult toseparate the issues on the two texts Nihonshoki and Kojiki. Both texts are often referred as one term
“Kiki,” and in fact both texts have many common aspects. However, as the established texts,
dealing with each text separately without mixing their characteristics is the proper way. Referring
to both texts as one term has a danger of overlooking important points for discussion. This chapter
places an importance on the Nihonshoki as the first and official historiography and limits thecomparison with the Kojiki to a minimum.
Regarding the compilers of the Nihonshoki, Matsumae Takeshi examined the differences between
the Nihonshoki and Kojiki and stated that as the Kojiki was “compiled by only a few,” and so it gained“uniformity and integrity.” By contrast, he thought that the Nihonshoki was created by many
compilers.24 Since the thirty volumes of the Nihonshoki can be categorized by characteristics of eachvolume, or classification about each volume, there is no question about the formation of the
Nihonshoki by multiple compilers. In the first place, in terms of the act of two or more people writinga book such as a historiography, it is thought dangerous by scholars to deepen a review on the literalworks by extracting characteristics of compilers. Matsumae’s explanation tries to understand thedifference between the Nihonshoki and Kojiki from the process of formation and places animportance upon the fact that compilers of the Nihonshoki formed a group.
As for the formation of compliers, historiographies after the Shoku Nihongi can be comparedwith the Nihonshoki, but the unique features of the Nihonshoki among historiographies initiated byimperial order are found. The Nihonshoki was completed in the fourth year of the Yōrō period (720)
and was reported to the emperor.
m. Shoku Nihongi: the article of mizunoto tori of May of the 4th year of the Yōrō period
Before this, Prince Toneri who has been provided the rank of ippon received the emperor’sorder and compiled the Nihonshoki. At this point, the entire Nihonshoki was completed, so it
24 Matsumae Takeshi, ““Nihon shoki” no shinwa,” Matsumae Takeshi chosakushū 1 koten soshūhen (Tokyo: Ōfū 1997), first

appeared in 1991.

11

was humbly presented to the emperor. The Nihonshoki consists of thirty volumes and one
volume of genealogy of the clans descended from the emperor.
n. Kōninshikijo (Shaku Nihongi vol.1, introductory and explanatory notes omitted)
The Nihonshoki was compiled by Prince Toneri with the rank of ippon and Ōno Yasumaro
with the rank of jushiige and kungotō after they received the emperor’s command. When
Empress Kiyotarashihime (Genshō) governed the country, both Prince and Yasumaro
finished compiling the thirty volumes and one volume of imperial genealogy as the
Nihonshoki.
On the 21st of May of the 4th year of the Yōrō period, the Nihonshoki was completed andgiven to the office. As for its content, the oldest part is about the creation of heaven andearth. After that, it covers the establishment of the order of the world. Kami’ descendants
or the imperial descendent are apparent by looking at this. Things about people fromoversees who settled in early Japan and various miraculous and strange things or somethingdifficult to believe are all included in order to understand them. This covers comprehensive
and wide knowledge.
As “n” shows, whether Ōno Yasumaro was a compiler or not, it is sure that Prince Toneri was
not the only compiler of the Nihonshoki. The way of compilation by placing Prince Toneri as theprimary compiler is not seen in the later historiographies of the imperial order. In the case of the
Shoku Nihongi, during the era between the 13th year of the Enryaku period (794) when the volumes
were completed and the 16th year of the same period (797), Sugawara no Mamichi, whose title
was minbudaisuke, was the compiler. Although there were members of the Imperial Family who wereclose to Emperor Kanmu such as Prince Ichishino among governmental officers, they were notengaged in compiling historiography. Even under the similar situation where royal family members
were valued, only for the compilation of historiography, the way of appointing a prince to theprimary compiler was not chosen.
There was no example in which a prince played the primary role of compilation in later
historiographies by imperial order, and as for the “shūkokushi no koto” of the Shingishiki, theformation of compilers which placed the first minister as the primary compiler was documented.
In terms of a principle of forming compilers, a discontinuity should be accepted between the
Nihonshoki and the Shoku Nihongi.
At the time of May in the 4th year of the Yōrō period, Prince Toneri’s position was as therepresentative of the royal family. When Fujiwara no Fuhito passed away in August of the same
year, Prince Toneri was appointed to Chidajoukanji (The article of August of the fourth year of
the Yōrō period). Therefore, in the case of the Nihonshoki, it can be assumed that Prince Toneri of
the highest ranking was placed as the primary compiler.
When we think about the number of compilers who were involved in compilation and pay
attention to their qualifications, it can be understood that the following article of the 10th year ofEmperor Tenmu’s era (681) of the Nihonshoki indicated the beginning of the compilation.
o. March of the 10th year of Emperor Tenmu’s era
The Emperor took his place in the Great Hall of Audience, and there gave orders to theImperial Princes Kahashima and Osakabe, to Prince Hirose, Prince Takeda, Prince
Kuhada, and Prince Mino, to Michichi, Kamitsukenu no Kimi, of Lower Daikin rank,
Kobito, Imbe no Muraji, of Middle Shōkin rank, Inashiki, Adzumi no Muraji, of Lower
12

Shōkin rank, Ohogata, Naniha no Muraji, Ohoshima, Nakatomi no Muraji, of Upper
Daisen rank, and Kobito Heguri no Omi, of Lower Daisen rank, to commit to writing achronicle of the Emperors, and also of matters of high antiquity. Ohoshima and Kobito
took the pen in hand themselves, and made notes.
Writing about a chronicle of the Emperors and matters of high antiquity was ordered to twelve
people starting with the Imperial Princes Kahashima and Osakabe. From a viewpoint of theformation of the number of the compilers, this should be understood as the start of writing of ahistoriography of the imperial order leading to the Nihonshoki. Among six princes who made analliance in Yoshino in May of the eighth year of Emperor Tenmu’s era (679), there were theImperial Princes Kahashima and Osakabe, and they were appropriate and influential members of
the Imperial Family.
There was another project of compilation for which a prince was placed as a primary compiler.
It was for the ritsuryō codes. Compilation of Taiho ritsuryo codes was often attributed to Fujiwara
no Fuhito (“Honchō hōka bunsho mokuroku” introduction of Ruijūsandaikaku), whereas for the
Shoku Nihongi, Prince Osakabe was presented as the primary compiler (the article of mizunoto u ofAugust of the first year of the Taihō period). Prince Osakabe was appointed to Chidajōkanji in
January of the third year of Taihō period (703) and was provided a qualification to participate inpolitics as the representative of the imperial household. A code of laws such as ritsuryō adopted asystem of compilation by placing a prince as a primary compiler, and at the time of the first yearof the Taihō period, Prince Osakabe was qualified. It can be said that the system of compiling ofa historiography was the same.
According to the Nihonshoki, in February of the tenth year of Emperor Tenmu’s era, “Imperial
Princes, Princes without imperial proclamation, and Subjects” were called to make ritsuryō. The
fact that an imperial edict to compile ritsuryō was made in the previous month when writing about
the imperial annals and events of the age of kami was ordered verifies that the two projects ofcompiling the national history and the ritsuryō were given high importance as official projects.25
This phenomenon that the compilations of the historiography and a code of laws were
simultaneously conducted can be compared with the case of Shiragi on the Korean Peninsula.
During the fifth century, Shiragi which faced the pressures from Kōkuri established the name of
the country and the title of a king and began to adopt its original era name. According to thedescriptions of “Shiragihongi” of the Sangokushi, Shiragi made ritsuryō open to the public in theseventh year of King Hōkō’s era (520), while Kokushishūsen in the sixth year of King Shinkō’s era(545). The fact that both the code of laws and the historiography were established during the time
when Shiragi greatly gained power is hardly coincidence. The case of Shiragi is a good example
to make us think what the two projects of compiling both the historiography and the code of laws
starting in the tenth year of Emperor Tenmu’s era meant to Japan of the seventh century.
If the writing of the imperial annals and events of the age of kami signify the start of thecompilation of the historiography, it means that its completion took time until the fourth year of
Yōrō period; however, the completed Nihonshoki covers the period until Empress Jitō’s era, and there
is no doubt that it places high importance on the periods of Emperor Tenmu and Empress Jitō.
But the Nihonshoki is the first historiography of the imperial order without its precedent, andbecause it also documents the origin of Japan centering upon an emperor, its topics of compilation
are broad in comparison with its later historiographies of the imperial order. If the members who
25 Sakamoto Tarō, “Nihonshoki no senshū,” Sakamoto Tarō chosakushū 2 kojiki to nihonshoki (Tokyo: Yoshikawakōbunkan,1988), first appeared in 1951.

13

participated in compilation of the tenth year of Emperor Tenmu’s era are examined, their highstatus appropriate to the topics of the compilation can be verified.
We can assume that during the time when Prince Osakabe and Prince Hozumi made themembers of the Imperial Family with the highest ranking, there was a possibility that they wereinvolved in creating the historiography. As for Prince Toneri, it was not his personal capacity but
his position as a member of the Imperial Family with the highest rank that meant he played a roleof the primary compiler of the Nihonshoki. The fact that the Nihonshoki was created by such a systemof compilation should function to enhance the authority of the content.
Yōrō Kōsho (lecture of the Yōrō period) on the Nihonshoki
Furthermore, the authority of the Nihonshoki can be found not only in the system of compilation
but also in its treatment after the completion. The question of target readers for the Nihonshoki uponits completion will be examined here. Prior studies on ancient histories hardly explored a questionof what readers had been targeted for the compilation. Most scholarly works that have exploredthe reception of the Nihonshoki highly evaluate the meaning of a lecture of the fourth year of the
Kōnin period (813), and several excellent articles on that topic were recently published.26 If wefollow such a view, then was not the Nihonshoki read until the Kōnin period? Was the first official
historiography created for the purpose of the compilation? It was probably not. As a matter of fact,
in the fifth year of the Yōrō period (721), which was the following year of the completion of the
Nihonshoki, a lecture on the Nihonshoki was conducted.
However, as for this lecture, it was not documented in the Shoku Nihongi, and some scholars ofboth Japanese literature and history doubt its existence.27 Yet their reason is a view that conducting
a lecture in the following year of the completion is not natural; thus, their claim is not built on athe
grounds of an argument. The records of lectures on the Nihonshoki conducted during the ancient
times had been left as “shiki” (lecture notes), which were in the Shaku Nihongi compiled by the Urabe
family. As for this matter of the Shaku Nihongi, the gekikanjin (report written by a court official) of thesecond year of the Kōhō period (965) documents “the fifth year of the Yōrō period,” and the
Nihongi kyōen waka documents that “in the 5th year of the Yōrō period, the lecture was held by Ōno
Yasumaro.” These indicates that the first lecture on the Nihonshoki was held in the fifth year of the
Yōrō period.
Besides, the records of the imperial annals of the Nihonshoki shiki kōhon and Honchō shojaku
mokuroku suggest that the lecture notes titled “Yōrō gonen shiki” (lecture notes of the fifth year of the
Yōrō period) existed. Based on these, Sakamoto Tarō thinks that due to the Japanese language
written by Chinese characters, the readings were difficult; thus, the lecture on it was required rightafter the completion of the Nihonshoki.28 Kasuya Okinori assumed that the Nihonshoki shiki kōhon is
identical with the Kōninshiki, and the fact that the latter documents the existence of the Yōrō lecutres
is significant.
In fact, such notes on the native Japanese readings of Chinese characters and commentaries
26 Tsuda Hiroyuki, “Nihonkikō no chi,” Seisei suru kodaibungaku (Tokyo: Shinwasha, 2014), first appered in 1998.

Masuo Shinichirō, “Nara heian shoki no nihongi to sonoshūhen,” Kokubungaku kaishaku to kanshō vol. 814 titled
Tokushū nihongi no kyōju kodai kara kinsei e (Tokyo: Shinbundō, March 1999). Hasebe Masashi, “‘Shoku nihongi’
seiritsu ikō no ‘Nihonshoki,’” Rekishigakukenkyū vol. 826, April 2007.
27 Takeda Yūkichi, “Kojiki no bungaku kachi,” Takeda Yūkichi chosakushū 2 kojiki hen I (Tokyo: Kadoawa Shoten, 1973),
456. First appeared in 1929. Yamada Hideo Nihonshoki (Tokyo: Kyōikusha shinsho, 1979), pp.196-197.
28 Sakamoto Tarō, “Rikkokushi,” Sakamoto Taro chosakushū 3 rikkokushi (Tokyo: Yoshikawa kōbunkan 1989), pp.90 and
96, first appeared in 1970.

14

cited as “Yōrō,” “Yōrō setsu,” and “Yōrō Nihon shiki” are found; thus, fragments of the lecture notesof are extant.29
Ōno Susumu, Nishimiya Kazutami, and Kuranaka Susumu examined these notes on thereadings of Yōrō setsu from the viewpoint of the use of kana and confirmed that despite themodification to katakana, the readings of Yōrō setsu hardly contradict the language of the Nara
period. 30 In particular, Kuranaka Susumu further examined the purpose of Yōrō lecture andconcluded that the lecture on the Nihonshoki was conducted during the Yōrō period in order to“show the official and unified view by the group of compilers.”
The content of the Yōrō setsu focuses on the Japanese readings, while there are a few
exceptions such as the note for “keiri”: “according to the Yōrō shiki, ‘the clothes and shoes of theimperial court are not torn even after being worn out’” and “tatazumai”: “according to yōrōshiki,‘it is about the state of mai or dance. One dances while standing and sitting. The current azuma
asobi is this one.” Based on these examples, it is appropriate to think that the lecture on the Nihonshoki
was truly conducted in the fifth year of the Yōrō period.
Unlike the Heian period, it is not apparent how the lecture of the Yōrō period was conducted,
but the fact that an issue on the native Japanese readings was central at that time means that the
Nihonshoki was read out in front of the attendees. Moreover, as Yōrō setsu is found from the volumeof the age of kami through that of Empress Jitō, lectures were given about all the volumes of the
Nihonshoki. This signifies something very important in understanding the characteristics of the
Nihonshoki.
I think that reading aloud in public was crucially important for the history of the imperial orderto gain authority differentiated from other literal sources and texts. The fifth year of the Yōrō
period is the year following the submission of the Nihonshoki to the emperor; thus, the final goal of
the compilation was not the submission but the conduct of the lecture. In short, was not thecompilation pursued on the basis of the plan to “read aloud” the “written” historiography? I thinkthat the Nihonshoki should have been, from the beginning, decided to be lectured upon its
completion and have been compiled accordingly. Similarly, Hosoi Hiroshi made a comment basedon his attention to “the target readers” (aristocrats consisting of officials of the government) of the
Nihonshoki in the context of history of the compilation of histories.31 His view is an important pointof discussion for considering the features of the Nihonshoki as “history to be recited.”
To return to the topic of bunchū of the Nihonshoki, it follows that “the target readers,” in Hosoi’sterm, accepted the Nihonshoki with numerous quotations of heresies. The format of the Nihonshoki
is far different from the narrative of the preface of the Kojiki which integrated heresies into one andestablished an official histories. Its reason is the difference of the target readers of each text.
Mitani Eiichi’s argument on the completion of the Kojiki was made by restricting the target

29 Kasuya Okinori, “Nihonshoki shiki kōhon no kenkyū,” Geirin 19-2, April 1968.

30 Ōno Susumu, “Kundoku,” Nihonbungakutaikei Nihonshoki vol.1 (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten 1967). Nishimiya Kazutami,“Nihonshoki no kundaoku,” Nihonjodai no bunshō to hyōki (Tokyo: Kazama Shobō, 1970). Kuranaka Susumu,“‘Nihonshoki’ yōrō kōsho, Kōbe gaidai ronsō 26-1, August 1985. Citations of a theory of yōrō are as follows: Shakunihongi: Sonkeikaku zenpon eiin shūsei Shaku nihongi vol. 2 and 3 (Tokyo: Yagi Shoten 2004); Urabe ken natsuhon(Inui genpon) : Tenri toshokan zenpon sōsho Kodaishisekishū (Tokyo: Yagi Shoten, 1972); Urabe ken uhon
(Tenmonbon): Tenri toshokan zenpon sōsho Nihonshoki vol.1 (Tokyo: Yagi Shoten, 1983); Maedake bon: Sonkeikaku
zenpon eiin shūsei Nihonshoki (Tokyo: Yagi Shoten 2002); Ozuki Masahisa bon: Jingūkotenzeki eiin sōkan Kojiki
Nihonshoki vol.1 (Tokyo: Yagi Shoten 1982); Tankakusōshobon: Tankakusōsho I Nihonshoki shunki (Tokyo:
Kokushokankōkai, 1976); Nihonshokishiki (kōhon): Shintei zōho kokushitaikei Nihonshokishiki; Shaku Nihongi; Nihonisshi(Tokyo: Yoshikawakōbunkan, 1932).
31 Hosoi Hiroshi, Kodai no tenbun ihen to shisho (Tokyo: Yoshikawakōbunkan, 2007), 328.

15

readers to the emperor’s consorts and officers of ritsuryo system in charge of Shinto.32 His claimthat “the target readers” of the Kojiki was restricted is to the point. On the contrary, it suggeststhat the Nihonshoki was the literal text meant to the wider range of readers. Yet it was not that all
officers had to attend the lecture, and if the process of lecturing was once taken, the text wasprobably recognized as an official historiography. “The target readers” of the Nihonshoki were those
officers who were able to understand sentences written in the Chinese language. As a supplement,
just in case, despite the opportunity of reciting the text, it is difficult to think that the history was
written in the native Japanese language. To compose the first history by the government, it was
natural to choose classical Chinese which was used to write governmental and official records.
Descriptions of a history were first written, and they were lectured next.
The formation of the compilers setting the Prince as the primary one and the Yōrō lecture as
Yōrō setsu with its extant readings of the Japanese language clearly signify the official features of
the Nihonshoki. Because it was to be widely read as the text with the official features, was not it
difficult for the Nihonshoki to eliminate heresies and show the integrated historiography? A different
way of looking at this is that each heresy shown by bunchū was a legend that had certain authority
at the time of compilation. This point will be examined next based on important topics of the
Nihonshoki, which are mythology and lineage.
Heresies on mythology and lineage
Among “a book says” passages in the volumes of the age of kami, some suggest those clans who
sustained transmissions cited there or contain the name of place. The following example is, as oneof many, “a book says” passages describing the birth of four deities from the first volume of theage of kami.
p. The Nihonshoki: The first volume of the age of kami, 5-1-5
In one writing it is said:- “When Izanami no Mikoto gave birth to the Fire-God, she wasburnt, and died, She was, therefore, buried at the village of Arima in Kumano, in theprovince of Kii. In the time of flowers, the inhabitants worship the spirit of this Goddess
by offerings of flowers. They also worship her with drums, flutes, flags, singing and dancing.”
Section five of the first volume of the age of kami (the birth of four deities) includes eleven “a booksays” passages against the main text. The episode that Izanami no mikoto gave birth to a god offire and passed away was written in “issho” 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 but not in the main text. The fifth “abook says” passage documents a specific place “Arima in Kumano of the province of Kii” anddescriptions of a ritual by “kunihito,” which drew attention, and Okada Seiji assumed that thisvariation was transmitted by fishermen from Kii province.33
Hence as for a specific tradition, if there was a group of people who sustained it with connection
to its place name and ritual and conducted the ritual, it means that “a site of transmission” (Sitz im
Leben) functioned. Therefore, it was not easy for “the historiography to be recited” to ignore
completely its different versions transmissions in the imperial court, which was a public space.
Among people who participated in compilation of the imperial annals and descriptions of theevents of the ancient times conducted in March of the tenth year of Emperor Tenmu’s era in the
32 Mitani Eiichi, Kojiki seiritsu no kenkyū vol.1 (Tokyo: Yūseidō Shuppan, 1980).

33 Okada Seiji, “Kuniumi shinwa ni tsuite,” Kodai ōken no saishi to shinwa (Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō, 1970), first appearedin 1956. Okada Seiji, “Hana no iwaya o megutte,” Fubito vol.50, January 1998.

16

example “o”, some “took a brush and wrote,” one of whom was Nakatomi no Ōshima who wasdeeply related to Shinto rituals. Ōshima was identified as the author of a Shinto prayer called
Amatsukami no yogoko (Nakatomi no yogoto), which was recited at Senso Daijōsai. From this, we
can assume that a reason why Nakatomi was chosen to write the imperial annals and the events of
the ancient times was because a way of selection placed importance upon those who wrote
mythology and traditions.34 In the case of Arimamura of the first volume of the age of kami in
the example “p,” it was the ritual of “kunihito,” but how about the case of imperial court rituals
for which a clan to serve was decided? In the Nihonshoki, ancestral deities of clans appear in many
myths, which suggests a close link with rituals of the ritsuryō codes.35 To eliminate many stories inorder to establish an “authentic historiography” among the traditions being the base of rituals
means to re-organize the entire system of rituals; thus, it would have been extremely difficult. At
the time of compilation of the first national historiography, was not the way of treating “issho”
equal to “honsho” an appropriate way of description to acknowledge the existence of heresies?
Genealogy is another big topic of the Nihonshoki. In the Nihonshoki, notes about the founders ofclans often appear, and importantly a volume of lineage was attached to it. This marks thecharacteristics of the Nihonshoki, which differentiates from other historiographies of the imperial
order and Chinese historiographies. The material recognized as the foremost one for the Nihonshoki
is the genealogy called “teiki (the imperial annals)” in the citation “o,” the article of March of thetenth year of Emperor Tenmu, and it has been thought that “teiki” was based on “hitsugi” (theimperial throne), which was read aloud at a funeral (December of the first year of Emperor
Kōgyoku’s era and November of the second year of Empress Jitō’s era).36
As for the missing “volume of the genealogy,” it is viewed that it was related to the emperors.
Sonoda Kōyū paid attention to the notes on comparison and matching such as “it identifies with
the Nihonshoki,” “it is missing in the Nihonshoki,” “it is not found in the Nihonshoki,” etc. Because thesenotes appear only in the genealogy of the clans branched out from the Imperial Family, Sonoda
pointed out the possibility that “the volume of the genealogy” of the Nihonshoki was the genealogyof the emperors including the clans branched out from the Imperial Family.37 This is important,
as a study closely examining the concrete content of “the volume of the genealogy,” which enables
us to understand that such articles on the genealogy that are found not in the Nihsonshoki but in the
Kojiki are not the result of a mistake of omission but simply exclusion as those were included in“the volume of the genealogy.” One of such examples is the genealogy of a clan
Takeshiuchinosukune’s descendants.
However, in the main text of the Nihonshoki, even different versions relating to the genealogy ofthe emperors are not eliminated. For example, in the section of March of the second year ofEmperor Kinmei, the main text lists his empresses and princesses, while bunchū covers different
versions. This is the bunchū quoted in “a” of March of the 2nd year of Emperor Kinmei’s era
following the introductory notes of Kanjo. “Teiō hongi,” which required a long period and
34 Tsuchihashi Yutaka, “Nakatomi no yogoto to jitōchō,” Nihon kodai no jubaku to setsuwa (Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō,1989), first appeared in 1986.
35 See Okada Seiji, Kodai ōken no saishi to shinwa (Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō, 1970) and essays in Matsumae Takeshi,
Matstumae Takeshi chosakushū 6 ōken saishiki ron (Tokyo: Ōfū, 1998).
36 Sakamoto Tarō, “Nihonshoki no zairyō ni tsuite,” Sakamoto Tarō chosakushū 2 kojiki to nihonshoki (Tokyo:
yoshikawakōbunkan, 1988), first appered in 1949. Wada Atsumu, “Kōtō denshō kirokuka no shojōken,” Nihon kodai
bunka no tankyū moji edi. Ueda Masa’aki, (Tokyo: Shakai Shisōsha, 1975). Kikuchi Teruo, “Teiki to kyūji,” Kojiki
nihonshoki hikkei ed. Kōnoshi Takamitsu (Tokyo: Gakutōsha, 1995).
37 Sonoda Kōyū, “‘Nihonshoki’ no keizu ni tsuite,” Nihon kodai zaiseishi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō, 1981), first
appeared in 1967. Ibaraki Yoshiyuki, “‘Nihonshoki’ ‘keizu ikkan’ sairon,” Kiki to kodai shiryō no kenkyū (Tokyo:
Kokushokankōkai, 2008) first appeared in 2002.

17

compilers to complete, includes many variations and noted that “for such part that is difficult toknow due to ancient times, one episode was selected, and different versions were also included withdetailed notes.” The fact that different versions about the empresses and princesses are included
suggests how difficult it would have been to establish one official historiography relevant to a publicdomain.
The compilers of the Nihonshoki were willing to write different versions with the main text even
about the important topic such as empresses and princesses. Sometimes they wrote that familynames or real names were unknown in bunchū, and their intention to establish an authentic
historiography is hardly indicated.
In addition, there is no example found that Chinese official historiographies attach a genealogy.
This point should not be overlooked when the Nihonshoki is compared with the Chinese official
historiographies. Even if the Nihonshoki imitated the style and sentences of the Chinese
historiographies, adopted the ancient Chinese language and words as the international standard,
and had the name of the country in the title, the Nihonshoki is indeed a national historiography andits real aim was not to be read by the Tang dynasty.
These myths and genealogies should have been controlled not just by the emperors but also by
the ancient clans. Sakamoto Tarō paid attention, earlier than other scholars, to the article ofsubmission of “boki” appearing in the article of the 5th year of Empress Jitō’s era (691) andattempted to analyze the main text by dividing it into different clans’ traditions.38 Hence among
the entire materials used for the compilation of the Nihonshoki, the quantity of materials transmitted
by every clan is large.
q. The Nihonshoki: the eighth month of the fifth year of Empress Jitō
The Empress commanded eighteen Houses [Oho-miwa, Sazaibe, Iso no Kami, Fujihara,
Ishikaha, Kose, Kashihade be, Kasuga, Kamitsukenu, Ohotomo, Ki, Abe, Saheki, Uneme,
Hodzumi, Adzumi, Heguri, and Hata] to deliver to her the records of the tombs of theirancestors.
If the submission of “boki” by the eighteen clans meant the collecting of materials for the
purpose of the compilation, these clans must have been surely interested in the way in which theirown traditions were treated in the historiography of the imperial court. Moreover, as the lectureon the complete historiography was conducted, these eighteen clans must have been part of “thetarget readers” of the Nihonshoki.
It has been repeatedly emphasized that in the ancient times, each clan of every region possessed
their own myth of the origin (myth and genealogy). Recently, Matsuki Shungyō has re-examined
the narratives of the Nihonshoki based on some clans’ way of “oina (names relating to occupations)”
and descriptions of the Fudoki.39 Previous studies have seemed to situate the appearance of the
Nihonshoki as the text source for various traditions. On the other hand, it can be thought that among
the different traditions, especially those included in the form of “a book says” in the volumes of
the age of kami, some of them were transmitted by those clans who were given an important roleto play at specific rituals. The fact that the Nihonshoki preserved the multiple traditions by extending
bunchū indicates that the inherited by the clans and the national historiography cannot be
38 Sakamoto Tarō, “Sanki to nihonshoki,” Sakamoto Tarō chosakushū 2 Kojiki to nihonshoki (Tokyo: Yoshikawakōbunkan,1988), first appeared in 1946.
39 Matsuki Shungyō, Gensetsu kūkan toshiteno yamato seiken nihon kodai no denshō to kenryoku (Tokyo: Yamakawa
Shuppansha, 2006).

18

necessarily understood from the view of conflict only.40
Conclusion
The questions raised by the bunchū of the Nihonshoki, including the “a book says” passages in thevolumes of the age of kami, have been examined here. In the end, the analyses of this article aresummarized into the following two points:(1) The format of the Nihonshoki that heresies are presented in the form of bunchū iscommon with the Sangokushi with the notes of Hai Shōshi. The latter was used for thesentences of the former, and it is apparent that the compilers of the Nihonshoki used theSangokushi with Hai Shōshi’s notes as a reference. Also, an issue of the dominantsubordinate relationship between the main text and the notes is not absolute in termsof the reception (reading) of the text of the Nara period.
(2) The project of the compilation, which started during Emperor Tenmu’s era, as thesystem of the compilation and the Yōrō lecture suggests, had a meaning equal to theritsuryō codes. Also, as the Nihonshoki completed by this project was “the history to berecited” for which the lecture was intended upon its completion, heresies were allowed
to be included in bunchū, and the unification of various traditions was not pursued.
One conclusion to draw from the nature of plurality of traditions shown by bunchū is that thecompilation without establishing “the authentic tradition” is far from the usual impression of the
Nihonshoki, which might bring a counterargument. For example, was not the history compiled by
the emperor’s order freely written as he liked? Despite the compilation being commanded byimperial authority, if the completed contents had not been supported by readers, the history would
not have been never accepted. The fact is that the lecture on the Nihonshoki was given in the next
year of the completion. It is a history that was not hidden but read aloud. This point should be
stressed.
Therefore, a way of thinking that it is easy even to distort facts if it is a book compiled by theemperor’s command is based on such a premise of overconfidence that it is quite possible to write
about history freely. The structure of the main text of the Nihonshoki which resulted in being
complex clearly indicates that writing about history is restricted by any given political situation andthat a history text compiled by the emperor’s order is not an exception. Furthermore, there isanother view that, although notes aim to integrate various interpretations of a main text into theunited one, they end up diversifying the main text. 41 Bunchū of the Nihonshoki are indeed
explanatory notes of the main text, and it can be said that it is an appropriate method to keep
heresies. If these analyses are correct, the compilation of the first national historiography achieved
its task to employ a flexible standard of keeping heresies to some degree without excluding theplurality of traditions. Although the Nihonshoki is the emperors’ annals and have some issues of theextension of kinen (counting year) or repetitions of articles, it is still useful as a historical material
because abundant materials were quoted, and even contradictory stories were equally treated.42
40 Isomae Jun’ichi, “Kiki kaishakushi no tenkai kokushi; shinto; shinwa,” Kiki shinwa to kōkogaku rekishiteki shigen e nonosutarujia (Tokyo: Kadokawa sōsho, 2009), first appeared in 1999-2002.
41 Saijō Tsutomu, “Chūshaku honbun,” Nihonbungaku vol. 47, May 1998.
42 Sakamoto Tarō, “Shihitsu no kyokuchoku,” Sakamoto Tarō chosakushū 2 kojiki to nihonshoki (Tokyo:
Yoshikawakōbunkan, 1988), first appeared in 1947. Ibaraki Yoshiyuki, “Nihonshoki” to sono sekai (Tokyo: Nenshōsha,1994).

19

However, a history as a text, which had been once completed and lectured, became the text tobe followed at the imperial court and greatly showed the norm. To give an example, there is apassage of words uttered toward a messenger from Shiragi (Shilla): “That country was suppressedby Okinagatarashihime (Empress Jingū) for the first time. Since then to this day, this country has
been our country’s bulwark (Day of mizunoetatsu, June, the fourth year of the Tenpyōshōhō period
in the Shku Nihongi).” This history tying into Empress Jingū’s image was shared by aristocrats
through the compilation and the lecture in the Nara period, but it was not shared by the messenger
from Shilla.
Even if plural heresies have been kept, writing down the traditions itself has its great value, which
can be said to be the meaning of the appearance of the first historiography of the imperialcommand. If the Nihonshoki can be regarded as the text with the concept of norm, such a view was
not self-evident from the early stage of the imperial command for compilation but was recognizedat the end through the process of compilation and the lecture upon submission to the emperor.
The first history by imperial command achieved a record of the different traditions, elevating them
to a status of history, and establishing them by the lecture. As a final point, the Nihonshoki attained
special authority and began to function to collate genealogies of clans. As the Shinsenshōjiroku madenotes about collating with the Nihonshoki, the complete text itself restrained further release or spreadof heresies.

20