Page:TASJ-1-3.djvu/133

 fourteen centuries older must have been purely Japanese. Jimmu Tennô is represented as making use of such expressions as the following, “It is the part of a good general not to be haughty after conquering in battle,” and, “I am the descendant of the sun-deity, and to march in the sun’s face to conquer barbarians is contrary to Heaven’s way,’” [sic] and, “Relying on the prestige of supreme Heaven, the evil horde has been cut to pieces”; in all of which the true Chinese ring is clearly heard. All reference to Heaven as an intelligent acting power is of Chinese origin, while in Japan heaven is merely the region where the heavenly gods have their abode. In the same way the allusions to eating beef in the Book of Jimmu, to divination by means of a tortoise’s shell in the Book of Sûjin, and to the use of such weapons as battle-axes in the Book of Keikô, are borrowed from the Chinese, aa is also the title of Kôtaikô applied to the consort of Suizei (B.C. 581–549?), Motoöri has by no menus exhausted his criticisms upon the Nihongi, but is of opinion that he has said enough to show that it must be rend with careful discrimination.

There is another book, of considerable age, which professes to give an original account of the divine age and of the early history down to Suiko Tennô (593–628), it is called the Kujiki, and its authorship is attributed to Shôtoku Taishi and Soga no Umako, and the preface by the latter states that it was completed in 622; it purports, in fact to be the non-extant compilation already mentioned. Motoöri condemns it as a forgery, compiled at a much later date chiefly from the Kojiki and Nihongi. It further contains passages from the Kogo-Shiui, composed in 807, and even mentions Saga Tennô, who reigned as late as 810-823. Parts of it, however, seem to be based upon other sources than those abovementioned, and are of considerable value.

Motoöri speaks of two editions of the Kojiki which were in existence when he commenced his own. One which was printed in the period Kuanyei (1624-1644), contains many omissions, erroneous readings, and