Professional Documents
Culture Documents
#
( Y,#+,
#+ &#+Z #,
Hitoshi YAMADA
(Translated by Drake L ANGFORD)
Introduction
This paper uses the ethnology of religion to examine the following five points:
1. Who were the pioneering individuals that introduced the Western world to Japanese myth prior
to Siebold?
2. How was Japanese myth recorded by Siebold and Klaproth (a contemporary of Siebold) in the
1830s?
3. What was the impact of the accounts by Siebold and Klaproth?
4. How did a more accurate translation of Japanese myth emerge in the late 19th century? And
lastly,
5. I will provide a tentative report on the miniature books in the Siebold collection in Munich.
First, however, I will provide a brief overview of Japanese myth. “Japanese myth” refers
mainly to myths preserved in two works that were edited in the early 8th century, Kojiki (712) and
Nihon shoki (720). These two works differ in some respects. Specifically,
・ Kojiki is more story-like and includes episodes that are absent from Nihon Shoki, for instance,
The White Hare of Inaba.
・ Nihon shoki is more historiographical in orientation and presents various alternative accounts
using expressions like “According to one text....”
That said, much of the material in the two works overlaps, which is why we also often use the
expression Kiki myth.
1. Pioneering Individuals
1-1) Gaspar Vilela (1524 –72)
Certainly one of the earliest pioneers of this field was the Portuguese Jesuit Gaspar Vilela,
who resided in Japan from 1556 to 1571. On April 27, 1563, while in Sakai (present-day Osaka
Prefecture), he wrote a letter to colleagues in Europe describing three Japanese creation myths. The
following is an English translation of his account made by the Jesuit George Schurhammer.
Opinions which those of Miaco have concerning the Beginning of this World.
The first is: They say that this world was, at first, a round egg. A strong and stormy wind
which struck the egg, broke it. The white of the egg became the sky, whilst the yolk with the
shell became the sea and the land. Then the creatures came and multiplied as they are now.
The second is: In the beginning was a void and, simply by the agency of the force of Nature all
we now see came forth.
The third view is peculiar to the Japanese. It is as follows: The world was originally a great
While this account about Japan’s creation is based entirely on Nihon shoki, some of the names
(e.g. the kami Yanamim [Izanaki] and Yanangui [Izanami]) and expressions (e.g. trident) it uses are
different. Vilela’s letter, however, was apparently read by no more than a small circle of Jesuits.
Das Werk, zu dessen Bearbeitung ausser der Titsing’schen Handschrift auch der japanische
Originaltext und viele andere Materialien J. Klaproth zu Gebote standen, erschien auch bald
darauf unter dem Titel Nippon o daï itsi ran [...]; ein stattlich ausgerüstetes Buch, das viel
Verdienst, aber auch mit andern Arbeiten des sel. Klaproth den Fehler gemein hat, dass
es oberflächlich bearbeitet ist, und die dazu anderwärts entlehnten Materialien so fein mit
eingewebt sind, dass man es ihnen nicht ansieht, ob und woher sie entlehnt sind. Klaproth
verstand so recht den Kunstgriff, auch die reinsten Quellen, woraus er schöpfte, im Auge
seiner Leser als trübe erscheinen zu lassen. So säuberte Klaproth denn auch Titsingh’s
Handschrift und benutzte den Satz zu seinem Commentar darüber (Siebold [1832–51]:
537-538).
Be this as it may, these works by Siebold and Klaproth were used almost exclusively as
sources of Japanese myth.
Klaproth, indeed, has summarised in his introduction to “Les Annales des Dairi [Nipon o
daï itsi ran],” the first three books of the Nihongi [Nihonshoki], but the value of his work is
considerably diminished by the absence of a correct interpretation of the names of gods and
heroes, without which the real import of the stories in which they figure cannot be properly
appreciated. But he was apparently altogether ignorant of the “Notices of Ancient Things
[Kojiki],” which is of peculiar interest both to the student of mythology and to the philologist,
[...] (Satow 1878: 31).
If small people may be allowed to criticise giants, we would here note that the only weakness
discoverable in the German school of investigators, as represented by Kaempfer, Siebold,
und Rein, is a certain insufficiency of the critical faculty in questions of history and language.
Surely it is not enough to get at the Japanese sources. The Japanese sources must themselves
be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. It was reserved for the English school, represented by
Satow and Aston, to do this ̶ to explore the language with scientific exactness, and to prove,
step by step, that the so-called history, which Kaempfer and his followers had taken on trust,
Numerous European scholars have in fact referred to Brauns’s book when comparing the myths and
folktales of Japan and with those of other places. Frobenius was mentioned above, so a few other
examples should suffice.
Friedrich W. K. Müller (1863–1930), a German orientalist, was the first to compare folkloric
myths of Umisachi, Yamasachi, and lost fishhook with similar stories from Sulawesi (Celebes),
Indonesia (Müller 1893). In addition to Chamberlain’s Kojiki, he also relied on Brauns’s book.
Between 1896–1907, the little-known independent/unofficial German scholar Eduard
Stucken (1865–1936) published his five-volume Astralmythen (Stucken 1896–1907). His research
on comparative mythology examined the motif of magische Flucht (magical escape). He, too, relied
mainly on Chamberlain and Brauns as sources for kindred Japanese stories that he included in his
comparisons and distribution maps.
Conclusion
Siebold’s accounts of Japanese myth published in his Nippon come from his pupil Mima’s
dissertation. Although his accounts remained far from accurate, they lacked that kind of information
at the time and, at the very least, were an improvement over earlier works such as Kaempfer’s.
Thus, Siebold’s writings were often used along with Klaproth’s contributions.
By the late 19th century, however, more accurate translations of Japanese myth were made
by Chamberlain, Aston, and Florenz, a development that contributed to the growth of comparative
mythology in the 20th century.
Research remains to be done on miniature books in Munich and other places, and on their
significance within the Siebold collection as a whole.
If I may, I will close this paper with a brief personal reminiscence. I began living in Munich
in 1998 to begin writing my doctoral thesis. One day I happened to visit Siebold’s grave at the
Southern Cemetery. At the time, I had no idea I would ever be involved in research on Siebold. I am
very grateful to have had this opportunity and would like to express my appreciation to everyone
involved. I look forward to continuing this research in the future.
(Tohoku University)