Kojiki-Den [古事記傅] volume 1, Explanation by Itwse (03)
A discussion about the Kujiki
There is a book consisted in ten volumes, which is named Kujihongi.
This is edited by posterity with gathering some deceits, and it is not a true record of The Shoetoku-No-Miko’s editions.
― 序も書紀推古御卷の事に據天後人乃作連る物奈里 ―
― The preface is also made by posterity based on the volume of Suiko (Mikado) of the Shoki. ―
However it is not perfectly a fiction, but merely it has been edited in gathering from this record and shoki.
The fact is to be clear if we browse the volume. Nevertheless, if someone doubts it, he should look at the parts written the things of Kamiyo attentively, because some of the parts have no uniformity. That reason is that the descriptions have taken each texts from the Kojiki and Shoki.
It like a proverb that is, “grafting a bamboo onto an rootstock not bamboos.”
And it takes from the Kojiki and again from the Shoki and wrote the both descriptions for one things with overlaps, so it seems disturbed one.
The Shoki and the Kojiki are entirely different to each other, in the style of their descriptions and the names used to many things, but it directly takes both descriptions therefore we can find easily that there are descriptions which are different to each other.
And even, although it occasionally takes from Kogo-Shui, the differents is clear due to the directly referred descriptions.
― こ連を以天見連ば大同よ里後尓作連る物奈り个里さ連バこそ中に嵯峨天皇と云古と毛見え多れ ―
If we look at the record in this view, it seems to be edited later than the period of Daidou(806 -810) therefore it include the written word Saga-Tennou[嵯峨天皇].
And it solely takes the Shoki as the reference for the periods later than Jinmu-Tennou’s and has been written omitting some matters. This is also written same descriptions to Shoki, then above explanation has no doubt.
it has omitted the poems, but has taken the description even it has taken original text including fully the Japanese pronunciation symbols in the volume of Jinme. I feel “what is why?”
All the titles of the volumes, “(so-and-so)-Hongi” and so on, are not suitable.
The book is almost untrue.
However the matter on that Nigihayahi-No-Mikoto had come from heaven written in the volume three, the genealogy of Owari-No-Muraji and Mononobe-No-Muraji in the volume five and the part titled, “Kuni-No-Miyatsuko-Hongi” are not found out on the existing other old records, and it seem that it is not a story made anew, then it would take the records which was existence in that time.
― いづ連も中に疑ハしき事ど毛ハまじ連りそは事能序阿らむ處々に辯ふべし ―
Each sentences has doubtful points, the points should be examined each time seeing the points.
Hence there have been frequently helping to something by using the sentences as sources.
Because the current book of the Kojiki has a lot of miscopies and the Kuji-Hongi has rarely referred the correct book not including a miscopy, therefore it would help to our studies.
Almost, the book is useless without the precious use.
― ○ There is a material called, “Kuji-Taiseikyo[舊事大成經]”.
That book is edited in a very later era, and wholly the spurious stories.
And the existing books of the maternal called, “Shinbetu Hongi” is also a spurious edition created by a person in later era.
Other texts used by someone called, “Shintō-Sya” have many untrue descriptions.
If you study “Inishie-Manabi” exactly, you will understand of the untrue descriptions clearly. ―