Page:Kojiki by Chamberlain.djvu/81

Rh we have before us a word whose journeyings consist of many stages, it having been first brought from India to China, then from China to Korea, and thirdly from Korea to Japan, where finally the ingenuity of philologists has discovered for it a Japanese etymology (hito ke, “human spirit”) with which in reality it has nothing whatever to do.

These introductory remarks have already extended to such a length that a reference to the strikingly parallel case of borrowed customs and ideas which is presented by the Ainos in this same archipelago must be left undeveloped. In conclusion, it need only be remarked that a simple translation of one book, such as is here given, does not nearly exhaust the work which might be expended even on the elucidation of that single book, and much less can it fill the gap which still lies between us and a proper knowledge of Japanese antiquity. To do this, the co-operation of the archæologist must be obtained, while even in the field of the critical investigation of documents there is an immense deal still to be done. Not only must all the available Japanese sources be made to yield up the information which they contain, but the assistance of Chinese and Korean records must be called in. A large quantity of Chinese literature has already been ransacked for a similar purpose by Matsushita Ken-rin, a translation of part of whose very useful compilation entitled “An Exposition of the Foreign Notices of Japan” would be one of the greatest helps towards the desired knowledge. In fact there still remains to be done for Japanese antiquity from our standpoint what Hirata has done for it from the standpoint of a Japanese Shintoist. Except in some of Mr. Satow’s papers published in these “Transactions,” the subject has scarcely yet been studied in this spirit, and it is possible that the Japanese members of our Society may be somewhat alarmed at the idea of their national history being treated with so little reverence. Perhaps, however, the discovery of the interest of the field of study thus only waiting to be investigated may reconcile them to the view here propounded. In any case if the early history of Japan is not all true, no amount of make-believe can make it so. What we would like to do is to sift the true from the false. As an eminent writer on anthropology has recently