古事記ビューアー

古事記の最新のテキストを見ることができます。
諸分野の学知を集めた
注釈・補注解説とともに
古事記の世界へ分け入ってみましょう。

目次を開く 目次を閉じる

ここに、天神あまつかみもろもろみことちて、 伊耶那岐命・伊耶那美命二柱の神に、「多陀用弊ただよへ国を修理つくろかたせ」とみことのりして、 あめ沼矛ぬぼこたまひて言依ことよさし賜ひき。 かれ、二柱の神、あめ浮橋うきはしたして[訓立云多々志]、 其の沼矛を指しおろしてけば、 塩許々袁々呂々迩こをろこをろに[此七字以音]し[訓鳴云那志也]て 引き上げし時、其の矛のさきよりしただり落つる塩の、かさなりつもりて、嶋と成りき。 これしまなり[自於以下四字以音]

○天神諸 この「天神諸」がどの神を指すのかで昔から見解が分かれている。「諸」とある点から見て、単独の神とは取れない。最初に出現した五柱を殊更「別天神」と言っているので、その五柱を指す可能性は高い。次に、身を隠した神を抽象神・司令神的存在と考えるならば、別天神+クニノトコタチとトヨクモノとなる。また、ここまで出現した神は皆高天原に成った神であり、皆天神でありうるゆえ、司令を受けるキ・ミ二神を除く全ての神を指すという見方もあり得る。はじめの五柱ならば何故「別天神」の称を使用しないのかが問題となるし、トヨクモノまでを含めるというのは基準が不明瞭である。「隠身」の神であることは文脈上保証されない。「諸」という言い方は、『日本書紀』や風土記に見られる「諸神」「諸人」「人諸」などからすれば、敬意を含まない語である。従ってキ・ミ二神以前の全ての神を含むと見て良いのではなかろうか。但し、「命以」「言依」の主体であることを考えるならば、その中心にはタカミムスヒの存在があるということは言えよう。
○命以(―言依) 「命以」は「お言葉で」、の意。『日本書紀』には使用されない、『古事記』独自の表現。基本的には後の「言依」と合わせて一つの神話文脈を形成する。『古事記』中に十三例。スサノヲの会話文の中の例と、イナバノシロウサギの会話文の中の二例を除けば、後は基本的に天照大御神高御産巣日神(高木神)の司令の言葉に用いられる。太田善麿は、高天原の存立の根拠を支える秩序と、この「命以」の論理が深く関わると説く(『古代日本文芸思潮論』Ⅱ桜楓社一九六二・一)。コトヨサスは委任するということだが、後の三貴子分治条の三例が「事依」となっている以外はすべて「言依」であり、言葉が深く関わることが理解される。「命以―言依」とセットとなって、言葉によって委任するという文脈となる。この場合、依頼された側は、依頼した側と同じ立場・資格を持って行動する、言い替えれば、依頼した存在そのものが行動しているのと同じと見なされると捉えられる(西田長男『日本神道史研究』二、講談社一九七八・四参照)。なお、『日本書紀』(第四段)では第一の一書のみ、「天神」によって地上の統治を命じられる展開を持つが、本書並びに他の一書では、キ・ミ二神が相談して国生み・国作りを行うことになっている。
○詔 「詔」は本来天皇の発話に際して使用される語。天皇の発言には「詔」の他に「勅」もある。律令の規定では、臨時の大事や宣命には「詔書」を使用し、尋常の小事その他には「勅旨」を用いる等の使い分けがあるようだが、六国史等の文献にみえる「詔」「勅」は両者相通じて用いられている例もあるという。『日本書紀』では「詔」字の使用は天皇の発言に限られているので、神代巻には「詔」は一例もない。その代わりに皇祖神等の神の発言には「勅」字が使われており、その使用場面は『古事記』の「詔」字使用場面と共通する場合が多い。『古事記』では「勅」字は序文の二例を除けば、下巻安康記の根臣のセリフの中で、安康天皇の命令を示す「勅命」という言い回しがあるのが唯一の例である。『古事記』では神から天皇へという繋がりの中で「詔」による発話者の流れを示している面がある故に、「詔」に一元化しているものと思われるが、その上でなお皇祖神〜天皇という直系に限らず、例えばスサノヲや、ヤマトタケル等、アマテラスや天皇と連なる神・人にも「詔」を使用するところに特質がある。『古事記』その他上代の「詔」の使用状況については、古賀精一・横田健一・谷口雅博などの論に詳しい。
○修理固成 延佳本・西宮修訂・思想「ヲサメカタメナセ」、訂正古訓古事記「ツクリカタメナセ」、校訂古事記・全註釈「ヲサメツクリカタメナセ」、注釈「ツクリカタメヨ」、注解「ツクロヒカタメナセ」等、訓が定まっていない。「修理」二字を合わせて訓む場合、「ツクル」「ヲサム」のいずれかになるが、一方で一文字ずつ「ヲサメツクル」(または「ツクリヲサム」)と訓む立場もある。【→補注八】「国土の修理固成」
○天沼矛 『日本書紀』に「天之瓊[瓊玉也此云努]矛」とある。玉で飾った矛。 ○天浮橋 『古事記』ではこの箇所を含めて三例見られるが、いずれも高天原から葦原中国に降る際に立つ場所として提示される。高天原から葦原中国に降る神は、伊耶那岐・伊耶那美の他、スサノヲ・アメノホヒ・アメワカヒコ・タケミカヅチ・アメノトリフネ・オシホミミ・ニニギ等がいるが、途中で天浮橋に立つのは今回の他にはオシホミミ・ニニギの場合である。皇統に列なる重要な神の降臨に限られる描写とも見られるが、それだけではなく、地上に対して何らかの働きかけをする場所として位置付けられているように見られる。この場面ではアメノヌボコで地上をかき回す。オシホミミの場合は地上の喧噪を窺う。ニニギの場合は明確ではないが、ウキジマリソリタタシテという特殊な表現からすれば、地上降臨への段階として必要な要素であったと思われる。なお、『播磨国風土記』賀古郡の「八十橋」、「丹後国風土記逸文」の「天梯立」のように、天上界と地上界とを繋ぐ通路であると取る説もあるが、『古事記』内部ではそのような機能を有しているとは考えづらい。あくまでも降る際に「立つ」場所であり、昇天の際に登場することはない。【→補注九】天の浮橋
○立[訓立云多々志]  「立つ」の未然形に尊敬「す」の 連用形「し」が付いた形。お立ちになって。古史伝は出発の意とするが、『古事記』の出発は「発」で「立」は使わない。訓注では文脈に合わせた活用の形を示していることになる。次の「鳴[訓鳴云那志也]」も同じ。天之常立神のところには[訓立云多知]とあった。前項に記した他の二箇所では、国譲り神話の冒頭部に「天忍穂耳命於天浮橋多々志[此三字以音]而」、天孫降臨条に「於天浮橋宇岐士摩理蘓理多々斯弖[自宇以下十一字以音]」とあっていずれも訓みを明示する形をとっている。なお、注解はタツで訓むことを指示することで、天浮橋を立てたのではなく、天浮橋に立ったのだという理解を保証すると説く。そうした配慮があったことは充分に考えられる。次の「見立」に訓注がないこととも絡む問題であるかも知れない。
○淤能碁呂嶋 日本紀私記に「自凝之嶋也」といい、自ずから凝り固まった島と理解されている。これを実在の島として、淡路島の南の沼島、紀淡海峡の友ヶ島、淡路市の絵島など複数の地が比定地とされている。しかしこれは神話世界における島として捉えるべきであろう。仁徳記の天皇の歌に、「押し照るや難波の崎よ出で立ちて我が国見れば淡島おのごろ島あじまさの島も見ゆさけつ島見ゆ」とあり、大阪湾のいずれかの島がオノゴロ島と呼ばれていた可能性も示すが、国見歌の型を持つこの歌は元来儀礼の場などで歌われたものと思われ、「淡島」も歌われていることからすれば、世界の始まり、神話のはじまりの情景を幻視し、歌っているものと考えるべきであろう(詳細は仁徳記にて)。

本文に戻る

「国土の修理固成」(Further comment)

「修」「理」をそれぞれに「作る」「治める」という二つの内容を示すと見るのか、「修理」でひとまとまりの意味を示すと取るのかで理解が異なる。「修理」は『古事記』中では他に二例見られる。垂仁記「修理我宮如天皇之御舎者」、仁徳記「悉雖雨漏都勿脩理」の二例で、いずれも建物の修繕を意味する文脈で使われている。この場面では、新たに国の生成を命じているのであるから、すでにあるものを修繕する意味用法であるならばそぐわないということで問題とされる。注解は、天神が思い描く(天神の思惟の中に存在する)「あるべき姿」に整え正す意味であるとし、他の「修理」の用例との整合をはかるが、むしろこの場合、「クラゲナスタダヨヘル」という状態の「国」を「修理」するように命じているのであるから、「タダヨヘルクニ」を修理せよという理解で良いのではないかと思われる。そうすると、意味的には「ツクロフ」が最も妥当か。「固」「成」のうち、「固」については同じ文字が『古事記』中になく、また真福寺本には「因」となっていることから、朝日古典全書のように「修理して・・・成すに因りて」と訓むものもあるが、後文との繋がりが悪い点と、真福寺本には「因」と他の字(「固」の他、「曰」など)との異同が多く、誤字の可能性が高いので、「固」を取る。「固」「成」の意味は明らかではないが、既に宣長も指摘しているように、大国主神の国作りの場面に「作堅此国」「相作成・国難成」とあるのを参考とするならば、「固」→「成」という流れがあって、「成」は完成を意味するものと思われる。
 この「修理固成」が具体的にどの行為に繋がるのか、またこの命令がどの段階で果たされたのかについては諸説がある。「命以」ちて天沼矛を授けて「言依」したこと、「固」という語との関連などから、オノゴロ島生成までを指すとするのが一番文脈上短い把握の仕方である。後は「修理」の「ツクル」という意味から、キ・ミ二神の国作りがその内容にあたるとする見方(この場合、島生みのみとするか、神生みをも含むかで見解が分かれよう)。その見方の延長線上で、黄泉国神話冒頭の伊耶那岐命の言葉「吾と汝と作れる国、未だ作り竟へず」との関わりから、「修理」(ツクル)ことは終了しておらず、国作りは大国主神へと受け継がれると考え、スクナビコナとの国作り(作堅)、御諸山神の祭祀(国成)を経て「修理」「固」「成」が終了するという説もある(注解)。一方「修理」の「ヲサム」の語義を重視する説では、この天神の命以が歴代天皇の統治にまで及んでいるとする(講義)。『古事記』の神話文脈で捉えた場合に、歴代天皇にまで及んでいるとする説は取りがたい。またここでも命以はあくまでキ・ミ二神になされたものであるのだから、キ・ミ二神の活動の範囲内で考えるべきであろう。この二神は「生む」ことで「修理固成」の命以を果たして行くのだから、「生む」行為が終わるところと考えるべきではないか。「生む」行為は伊耶那美命の神避りによって終わったように見受けられるが、実は伊耶那岐命が三貴子を出現させた場面において、「我は子を生み生みて生みの終に三貴子を得たり」と宣言しており、ここを「修理固成」の及ぶ範囲として考えたい(谷口雅博「古事記神話における国の生成―「国生」「国作」の意義―」『古事記年報』40、一九九八・一参照)。〔谷口雅博〕

 As the above note indicates, the interpretation of this passage differs depending on whether the two characters 修 and 理 are understood as two separate terms or a single compound. The Kojiki has two other examples of these characters used as a compound, one in the Chronicle of Emperor Suinin 垂仁,(1) and the other in the Chronicle of Emperor Nintoku 仁徳.(2) In both it occurs in reference to the repair of a building. By contrast, in the case of the command to Izanaki and Izanami, the expression is used in regard to creating the land anew. It thus does not make sense to interpret the term in the same manner as the other two examples as referring to the “repair” of something that already exists. Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi try to align the different instances by postulating that in the case of the command to Izanaki and Izanami the expression means to bring the land into conformity with its ideal form as conceived by the Celestial Deities (in other words, the land already “existed” in the Celestial Deities' imagination).(3) In the case of Izanaki and Izanami, however, the command pertains to the land that was still “drifting about like a jellyfish” (kurage nasu tadayoeru; see chapter 1). It thus seems most straightforward to understand the expression 修理 as meaning “to consolidate” that “drifting land.”(tadayoeru kuni). If this interpretation is adopted, the reading tsukurou would seem to be the most appropriate.
 As for the two following characters 固 and 成, the graph 固 does not appear elsewhere in the Kojiki. Further, the Shinpukuji-bon 真福寺本 manuscript uses the character 因 instead.(4) Some thus construe the four-character phrase as shūri shite… nasu ni yorite 修理して・・・成すに因りて.(5) However, such a reading does not fit smoothly with the following phrasing. It also is possible that the graph 因 is a copying error, since the Shinpukuji-bon often confuses it with another character (for instance, the character“to say”曰). We have thus retained the graph 固. The meaning of the combination 固 and 成 is not clear. We may interpret it, nevertheless, as Norinaga did, in the light of similar expressions found in the section on the formation of the land (kunizukuri 国作り) by Ōkuninushi.(6) If, following this line of interpretation, we consider these two graphs as forming the sequence 固→成, the character 成 can be understood as meaning “completion.”
 Opinions diverge as to what concrete actions the command“consolidate, solidify, and complete”refers, or as to when the command was fulfilled. Focusing on the fact that the Celestial Deities give a“command,”bestow the celestial jeweled halberd on Izanaki and Izanami, and“charge them with the mission,”the interpretation most limited in scope sees the command as pertaining to the stage up to the creation of Onogoro island. The term “solidify”(固) is also held to fit this hypothesis. Drawing from the reading of the digraph 修理 as tsukuru (“to create”), another thesis sees the command as extending to Izanaki and Izanami's subsequent creation of the land. (Some who adopt this line of interpretation see the command as covering up through the procreation of the land; others hold that it encompasses the following bearing of deities as well.)
 Carrying this line of interpretation a step further, Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori point to Izanaki's declaration when he seeks out Izanami in the realm of the dead (Yomi no kuni 黄泉国) that “the land that we were creating is not yet fully created.”(7) This, Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi argue, suggests that the process of creation (tsukuru) signified by the digraph 修理 was still incomplete at that stage. It would be continued by the deity Ōkuninushi, as recounted in the passage where he and his partner Sukunabikona are directed by the Celestial Deity Kamimusuhi to “form and solidify this land”(作堅).(8) The process would only be finished and the “land completed”(国成) with the worship of the deity of Mount Mimoro called for in the same passage.(9) This would constitute the realization of the ongoing process of consolidating (修理), solidifying (固), and completing (成) the land.(10)
 On the other hand, commentators who adopt the reading osamu (“bring under control”) for 修理, such as Yamada Yoshio, see the scope of the Celestial Deities' command as extending as far as the reigns of the emperors. (11) Seen within the context of the Kojiki myths, however, this proposition presents difficulties. Further, in that the command was given to Izanagi and Izanami, we ought to consider it within the sphere of this pair of deities' activities. Since their carrying out of the command to “consolidate, solidify, and complete” culminates with their giving birth to the land and deities, should not we see the end of this process of giving birth as marking the fulfillment of the command? The passing away (kamusari 神避り) of Izanami might be held to terminate that process. In the episode of the creation of the “three noble children,” however, Izanaki declares “I have borne one child after another, and at the end of these bearings, I obtained three noble children.”(12) We thus see these acts of bearing by Izanaki alone as also falling within the compass of the command to “consolidate, solidify, and complete this drifting land!”(13)
Taniguchi Masahiro

(1) A ga miya o tsukuroite sumeramikoto no miaraka no gotoku seba 修理我宮如天皇之御舎者. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.206–207.
(2) Kotogotoku ame moredomo katsute tsukurou koto nashi 悉雖雨漏都勿脩理. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.286–87.
(3) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, pp.62–65.
(4) The Shinpukuji-bon (1371–1372) is the oldest extant manuscript of the Kojiki. (TN)
(5) See Kanda and Ōta, Kojiki, Nihon koten zensho, vol.1, p.176.
(6) See such expressions as kono kuni o tsukuri katameki 作堅此国 (“[Ōnamuji and Sukunabikona] created and solidified this land”), or aitsukurinasamu 相作成 … kuni naru koto katakemu 国難成 (“I [Sukunabikona] will create [it] together [with you] but … [if you do not worship me] it will be difficult to make the land complete”). Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.94–97; Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.159.
(7) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.44–45.
(8) Sono kuni o tsukuri katamemu 作堅其国. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.94–95.
(9) See endnote 6 above.
(10) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.4, p.190-91.
(11) Yamada, Kojiki jōkan kōgi, pp.95–97.
(12) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.52–53.
(13) See Taniguchi“Kojiki shinwa ni okeru kuni no‘seisei,’” pp.23–40.

天の浮橋(Further comment)

『古事記』、『日本書紀』の天の浮橋については、比較神話学、比較宗教学の立場に立つ海外の研究者から、虹を意味するという解釈がなされてきた。古くはカール・フローレンツが『日本書紀』のドイツ語訳の注で、天の浮橋について虹を意味する可能性を指摘し、ゲルマン神話のビフレストを想起すると述べた(Karl Florenz, Japanische Mythologie. 1901)。
 ビフレスト(ビルレストとも)とは、神々が地上から天上へとかけたもので、ぐらつく道で、虹であるとされる(「グリームニルの歌」、「ギュルヴィたぶらかし」谷口幸男訳『エッダ―古代北欧歌謡集』新潮社一九七三・八)。
その後、アストンも天の浮橋は、「虹であることは疑いない」(W.G. Aston, Shinto, 1905 )と述べている。宗教史学者のペッタツォーニは、天の浮橋を考えるにあたって、ビフレストのほかにゾロアスター教の聖典アヴェスタにみられるチンヴァットという生者の国と死者の国にかかる橋にも触れ、それが明らかに虹からきた古い神話的な観念であるとし、日本神話の基層にも見られるものだと述べた(Raffaele Pettazzoni, La Mitologioa Giapponese secondo il I libro del Kojiki, N. Zanichelli, 1929.)。大林太良は、これらの説にさらに後世の伝説や文学の例を加え、虹は橋であるという考えが日本に存在することを論じ、天の浮橋を「虹の橋」の観念の現れとした。また、ドイツの民族学者エーレンライヒが、始祖伝説の傾向として、天から英雄が橋や虹を通って地上に下ることがあるとしたことを挙げ、天の浮橋も天孫降臨の始祖ともいえるホノニニギに利用されていることに注目した(大林太良『銀河の道 虹の架け橋』小学館一九九九・六)。天から降る神のなかで、天の浮橋を利用するのは、イザナキ・イザナミのほか、オシホミミ、ホノニニギである。いずれも始祖と位置づけられる存在であることから、エーレンライヒのいう始祖伝説の一般的傾向を日本神話も持つということもできるだろう。〔平藤喜久子〕

Foreign scholars who approach the issue from the standpoint of comparative mythology or comparative religious studies have interpreted the celestial floating bridge of the Kojiki and the Nihon shoki as a rainbow. An early example is Karl Florenz (1865–1939), who points out this possibility in a note to his 1901 German translation of the Nihon shoki and remarks that the celestial floating bridge calls to mind the Bifröst bridge in Germanic mythology.(1) In the mythological poem Grímnismál of the Poetic Edda and the book Gylfaginning of the Prose Edda (both compiled in the thirteenth century), this Bifröst (sometimes called Billröst) is described as an unsteady bridge between the earth (Midgard) and the realm of the gods (Ásgard), and it has been identified with the rainbow.(2)  
Shortly thereafter, in 1905, William G. Aston (1841–1911) also argued that “the‘`floating bridge of Heaven’is no doubt the rainbow.”(3) Raffaele Pettazzoni (1883–1959), a scholar of the history of religions, compares the celestial floating bridge not only to the above-mentioned Bifröst bridge but also the Chinvat bridge depicted in the Zoroastrian sacred text Avesta, where it serves to connect the land of the living and that of the dead.(4) He holds that these are ancient mythical notions that clearly derive from the rainbow and suggests that this idea can also be found in the substratum of Japanese mythology.(5)
 Ōbayashi Taryō introduces additional legendary and literary examples from different parts of the world and argues on this basis that the conception of the rainbow as a bridge can be found as well in Japan, with the celestial floating bridge being one manifestation. He also notes that the German ethnologist Paul Ehrenreich (1855–1914) deemed the presence of a hero who descends from heaven to earth via either a bridge or a rainbow to be a common element in foundation legends. According to Ōbayashi, the fact that the imperial ancestor Ninigi stops on the celestial floating bridge during his descent to earth fits this pattern.(6) Indeed, apart from Izanaki and Izanami, Oshihomimi and Ninigi are the deities who used the celestial floating bridge to descend from heaven. As all may be ranked as founders, it may be said that the common trend in foundation legends described by Ehrenreich is also present in Japanese myths.
Hirafuji Kikuko

(1) Florenz, Japanische Mythologie, p.13.
(2) Taniguchi, Edda to saga, pp.30–33.
(3) Aston, Shinto, p.87.
(4) “Bridge of judgment”or“beam-shaped bridge.”(TN)
(5) Pettazzoni, La mitologia giapponese, p.42n1.
(6) Ōbayashi, Ginga no michi, niji no kakehashi, pp.688–89.

「国土の修理固成」(Further comment)

「修」「理」をそれぞれに「作る」「治める」という二つの内容を示すと見るのか、「修理」でひとまとまりの意味を示すと取るのかで理解が異なる。「修理」は『古事記』中では他に二例見られる。垂仁記「修理我宮如天皇之御舎者」、仁徳記「悉雖雨漏都勿脩理」の二例で、いずれも建物の修繕を意味する文脈で使われている。この場面では、新たに国の生成を命じているのであるから、すでにあるものを修繕する意味用法であるならばそぐわないということで問題とされる。注解は、天神が思い描く(天神の思惟の中に存在する)「あるべき姿」に整え正す意味であるとし、他の「修理」の用例との整合をはかるが、むしろこの場合、「クラゲナスタダヨヘル」という状態の「国」を「修理」するように命じているのであるから、「タダヨヘルクニ」を修理せよという理解で良いのではないかと思われる。そうすると、意味的には「ツクロフ」が最も妥当か。「固」「成」のうち、「固」については同じ文字が『古事記』中になく、また真福寺本には「因」となっていることから、朝日古典全書のように「修理して・・・成すに因りて」と訓むものもあるが、後文との繋がりが悪い点と、真福寺本には「因」と他の字(「固」の他、「曰」など)との異同が多く、誤字の可能性が高いので、「固」を取る。「固」「成」の意味は明らかではないが、既に宣長も指摘しているように、大国主神の国作りの場面に「作堅此国」「相作成・国難成」とあるのを参考とするならば、「固」→「成」という流れがあって、「成」は完成を意味するものと思われる。
 この「修理固成」が具体的にどの行為に繋がるのか、またこの命令がどの段階で果たされたのかについては諸説がある。「命以」ちて天沼矛を授けて「言依」したこと、「固」という語との関連などから、オノゴロ島生成までを指すとするのが一番文脈上短い把握の仕方である。後は「修理」の「ツクル」という意味から、キ・ミ二神の国作りがその内容にあたるとする見方(この場合、島生みのみとするか、神生みをも含むかで見解が分かれよう)。その見方の延長線上で、黄泉国神話冒頭の伊耶那岐命の言葉「吾と汝と作れる国、未だ作り竟へず」との関わりから、「修理」(ツクル)ことは終了しておらず、国作りは大国主神へと受け継がれると考え、スクナビコナとの国作り(作堅)、御諸山神の祭祀(国成)を経て「修理」「固」「成」が終了するという説もある(注解)。一方「修理」の「ヲサム」の語義を重視する説では、この天神の命以が歴代天皇の統治にまで及んでいるとする(講義)。『古事記』の神話文脈で捉えた場合に、歴代天皇にまで及んでいるとする説は取りがたい。またここでも命以はあくまでキ・ミ二神になされたものであるのだから、キ・ミ二神の活動の範囲内で考えるべきであろう。この二神は「生む」ことで「修理固成」の命以を果たして行くのだから、「生む」行為が終わるところと考えるべきではないか。「生む」行為は伊耶那美命の神避りによって終わったように見受けられるが、実は伊耶那岐命が三貴子を出現させた場面において、「我は子を生み生みて生みの終に三貴子を得たり」と宣言しており、ここを「修理固成」の及ぶ範囲として考えたい(谷口雅博「古事記神話における国の生成―「国生」「国作」の意義―」『古事記年報』40、一九九八・一参照)。〔谷口雅博〕

 As the above note indicates, the interpretation of this passage differs depending on whether the two characters 修 and 理 are understood as two separate terms or a single compound. The Kojiki has two other examples of these characters used as a compound, one in the Chronicle of Emperor Suinin 垂仁,(1) and the other in the Chronicle of Emperor Nintoku 仁徳.(2) In both it occurs in reference to the repair of a building. By contrast, in the case of the command to Izanaki and Izanami, the expression is used in regard to creating the land anew. It thus does not make sense to interpret the term in the same manner as the other two examples as referring to the “repair” of something that already exists. Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi try to align the different instances by postulating that in the case of the command to Izanaki and Izanami the expression means to bring the land into conformity with its ideal form as conceived by the Celestial Deities (in other words, the land already “existed” in the Celestial Deities' imagination).(3) In the case of Izanaki and Izanami, however, the command pertains to the land that was still “drifting about like a jellyfish” (kurage nasu tadayoeru; see chapter 1). It thus seems most straightforward to understand the expression 修理 as meaning “to consolidate” that “drifting land.”(tadayoeru kuni). If this interpretation is adopted, the reading tsukurou would seem to be the most appropriate.
 As for the two following characters 固 and 成, the graph 固 does not appear elsewhere in the Kojiki. Further, the Shinpukuji-bon 真福寺本 manuscript uses the character 因 instead.(4) Some thus construe the four-character phrase as shūri shite… nasu ni yorite 修理して・・・成すに因りて.(5) However, such a reading does not fit smoothly with the following phrasing. It also is possible that the graph 因 is a copying error, since the Shinpukuji-bon often confuses it with another character (for instance, the character“to say”曰). We have thus retained the graph 固. The meaning of the combination 固 and 成 is not clear. We may interpret it, nevertheless, as Norinaga did, in the light of similar expressions found in the section on the formation of the land (kunizukuri 国作り) by Ōkuninushi.(6) If, following this line of interpretation, we consider these two graphs as forming the sequence 固→成, the character 成 can be understood as meaning “completion.”
 Opinions diverge as to what concrete actions the command“consolidate, solidify, and complete”refers, or as to when the command was fulfilled. Focusing on the fact that the Celestial Deities give a“command,”bestow the celestial jeweled halberd on Izanaki and Izanami, and“charge them with the mission,”the interpretation most limited in scope sees the command as pertaining to the stage up to the creation of Onogoro island. The term “solidify”(固) is also held to fit this hypothesis. Drawing from the reading of the digraph 修理 as tsukuru (“to create”), another thesis sees the command as extending to Izanaki and Izanami's subsequent creation of the land. (Some who adopt this line of interpretation see the command as covering up through the procreation of the land; others hold that it encompasses the following bearing of deities as well.)
 Carrying this line of interpretation a step further, Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori point to Izanaki's declaration when he seeks out Izanami in the realm of the dead (Yomi no kuni 黄泉国) that “the land that we were creating is not yet fully created.”(7) This, Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi argue, suggests that the process of creation (tsukuru) signified by the digraph 修理 was still incomplete at that stage. It would be continued by the deity Ōkuninushi, as recounted in the passage where he and his partner Sukunabikona are directed by the Celestial Deity Kamimusuhi to “form and solidify this land”(作堅).(8) The process would only be finished and the “land completed”(国成) with the worship of the deity of Mount Mimoro called for in the same passage.(9) This would constitute the realization of the ongoing process of consolidating (修理), solidifying (固), and completing (成) the land.(10)
 On the other hand, commentators who adopt the reading osamu (“bring under control”) for 修理, such as Yamada Yoshio, see the scope of the Celestial Deities' command as extending as far as the reigns of the emperors. (11) Seen within the context of the Kojiki myths, however, this proposition presents difficulties. Further, in that the command was given to Izanagi and Izanami, we ought to consider it within the sphere of this pair of deities' activities. Since their carrying out of the command to “consolidate, solidify, and complete” culminates with their giving birth to the land and deities, should not we see the end of this process of giving birth as marking the fulfillment of the command? The passing away (kamusari 神避り) of Izanami might be held to terminate that process. In the episode of the creation of the “three noble children,” however, Izanaki declares “I have borne one child after another, and at the end of these bearings, I obtained three noble children.”(12) We thus see these acts of bearing by Izanaki alone as also falling within the compass of the command to “consolidate, solidify, and complete this drifting land!”(13)
Taniguchi Masahiro

(1) A ga miya o tsukuroite sumeramikoto no miaraka no gotoku seba 修理我宮如天皇之御舎者. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.206–207.
(2) Kotogotoku ame moredomo katsute tsukurou koto nashi 悉雖雨漏都勿脩理. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.286–87.
(3) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, pp.62–65.
(4) The Shinpukuji-bon (1371–1372) is the oldest extant manuscript of the Kojiki. (TN)
(5) See Kanda and Ōta, Kojiki, Nihon koten zensho, vol.1, p.176.
(6) See such expressions as kono kuni o tsukuri katameki 作堅此国 (“[Ōnamuji and Sukunabikona] created and solidified this land”), or aitsukurinasamu 相作成 … kuni naru koto katakemu 国難成 (“I [Sukunabikona] will create [it] together [with you] but … [if you do not worship me] it will be difficult to make the land complete”). Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.94–97; Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.159.
(7) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.44–45.
(8) Sono kuni o tsukuri katamemu 作堅其国. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.94–95.
(9) See endnote 6 above.
(10) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.4, p.190-91.
(11) Yamada, Kojiki jōkan kōgi, pp.95–97.
(12) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.52–53.
(13) See Taniguchi“Kojiki shinwa ni okeru kuni no‘seisei,’” pp.23–40.

天の浮橋(Further comment)

『古事記』、『日本書紀』の天の浮橋については、比較神話学、比較宗教学の立場に立つ海外の研究者から、虹を意味するという解釈がなされてきた。古くはカール・フローレンツが『日本書紀』のドイツ語訳の注で、天の浮橋について虹を意味する可能性を指摘し、ゲルマン神話のビフレストを想起すると述べた(Karl Florenz, Japanische Mythologie. 1901)。
 ビフレスト(ビルレストとも)とは、神々が地上から天上へとかけたもので、ぐらつく道で、虹であるとされる(「グリームニルの歌」、「ギュルヴィたぶらかし」谷口幸男訳『エッダ―古代北欧歌謡集』新潮社一九七三・八)。
その後、アストンも天の浮橋は、「虹であることは疑いない」(W.G. Aston, Shinto, 1905 )と述べている。宗教史学者のペッタツォーニは、天の浮橋を考えるにあたって、ビフレストのほかにゾロアスター教の聖典アヴェスタにみられるチンヴァットという生者の国と死者の国にかかる橋にも触れ、それが明らかに虹からきた古い神話的な観念であるとし、日本神話の基層にも見られるものだと述べた(Raffaele Pettazzoni, La Mitologioa Giapponese secondo il I libro del Kojiki, N. Zanichelli, 1929.)。大林太良は、これらの説にさらに後世の伝説や文学の例を加え、虹は橋であるという考えが日本に存在することを論じ、天の浮橋を「虹の橋」の観念の現れとした。また、ドイツの民族学者エーレンライヒが、始祖伝説の傾向として、天から英雄が橋や虹を通って地上に下ることがあるとしたことを挙げ、天の浮橋も天孫降臨の始祖ともいえるホノニニギに利用されていることに注目した(大林太良『銀河の道 虹の架け橋』小学館一九九九・六)。天から降る神のなかで、天の浮橋を利用するのは、イザナキ・イザナミのほか、オシホミミ、ホノニニギである。いずれも始祖と位置づけられる存在であることから、エーレンライヒのいう始祖伝説の一般的傾向を日本神話も持つということもできるだろう。〔平藤喜久子〕

Foreign scholars who approach the issue from the standpoint of comparative mythology or comparative religious studies have interpreted the celestial floating bridge of the Kojiki and the Nihon shoki as a rainbow. An early example is Karl Florenz (1865–1939), who points out this possibility in a note to his 1901 German translation of the Nihon shoki and remarks that the celestial floating bridge calls to mind the Bifröst bridge in Germanic mythology.(1) In the mythological poem Grímnismál of the Poetic Edda and the book Gylfaginning of the Prose Edda (both compiled in the thirteenth century), this Bifröst (sometimes called Billröst) is described as an unsteady bridge between the earth (Midgard) and the realm of the gods (Ásgard), and it has been identified with the rainbow.(2)  
Shortly thereafter, in 1905, William G. Aston (1841–1911) also argued that “the‘`floating bridge of Heaven’is no doubt the rainbow.”(3) Raffaele Pettazzoni (1883–1959), a scholar of the history of religions, compares the celestial floating bridge not only to the above-mentioned Bifröst bridge but also the Chinvat bridge depicted in the Zoroastrian sacred text Avesta, where it serves to connect the land of the living and that of the dead.(4) He holds that these are ancient mythical notions that clearly derive from the rainbow and suggests that this idea can also be found in the substratum of Japanese mythology.(5)
 Ōbayashi Taryō introduces additional legendary and literary examples from different parts of the world and argues on this basis that the conception of the rainbow as a bridge can be found as well in Japan, with the celestial floating bridge being one manifestation. He also notes that the German ethnologist Paul Ehrenreich (1855–1914) deemed the presence of a hero who descends from heaven to earth via either a bridge or a rainbow to be a common element in foundation legends. According to Ōbayashi, the fact that the imperial ancestor Ninigi stops on the celestial floating bridge during his descent to earth fits this pattern.(6) Indeed, apart from Izanaki and Izanami, Oshihomimi and Ninigi are the deities who used the celestial floating bridge to descend from heaven. As all may be ranked as founders, it may be said that the common trend in foundation legends described by Ehrenreich is also present in Japanese myths.
Hirafuji Kikuko

(1) Florenz, Japanische Mythologie, p.13.
(2) Taniguchi, Edda to saga, pp.30–33.
(3) Aston, Shinto, p.87.
(4) “Bridge of judgment”or“beam-shaped bridge.”(TN)
(5) Pettazzoni, La mitologia giapponese, p.42n1.
(6) Ōbayashi, Ginga no michi, niji no kakehashi, pp.688–89.

於是天神諸命以 詔伊耶那岐命伊耶那美命二柱神修理①成是多②用弊流之国 賜天③沼矛而言依賜也 故二柱神立[訓④云多々志]天浮橋而 下其⑥沼矛以⑦ 塩許々袁々呂々迩[此七字以音]畫鳴[訓鳴云那志々]而 引上時自其矛⑧垂落塩之累積成嶋 是淤能碁呂嶋[自於以下四字以音] 【校異】
①  真「因」  兼永本以下による。
②  真「院」  道果本以下による。
③  真「治弟」  道果本以下による。
④  真「並」  道果本以下による。
⑤  真「杇」  道祥本・春瑜本右傍書、兼永本による。
⑥  真「治弟」  ②に同じ。
⑦  真「盡」   道果本以下による。
⑧  真「未」  道果本以下による。

天つ神諸々のご命令で、 伊耶那岐命・伊耶那美命の二柱の神に、「この漂っている国を整え固めて完成させなさい」と仰って、 天の玉矛をお与えになってご委任なさった。 それで、二柱の神は、天の浮橋にお立ちになって、 その玉矛を指し下ろしてかき回しなさって、 海水をコオロコオロとかき鳴らして引き上げなさった時に、 その矛の先から滴り落ちた海水が重なり積もって島となった。 これがオノゴロ島である。

At this time, the Celestial Deities together gave a command to Izanaki no mikoto and Izanami no mikoto, declaring:“Consolidate, solidify, and complete this drifting land!” They bestowed a celestial jeweled halberd on the two deities and charged them with this mission. Thereupon, the two deities, standing on the celestial floating bridge, plunged the halberd into [the sea] and stirred the brine, making a kōro kōro congealing sound. When they pulled up the halberd, the salt that dripped from its tip piled up and formed an island. This is Onogoro island.

“The Celestial Deities together”(amatsukami moromoro 天神諸)  Opinions have long been divided as to which deities this compound term designates. Judging from the element moromoro 諸(“several,”“various”), it cannot be regarded as meaning one single deity. Insofar as the five deities that appeared first are specifically referred to as Special Celestial Deities (koto amatsu kami), amatsukami moromoro might be held to refer to these five deities. On the other hand, if we consider the deities who hid their bodies as the abstract commanding deities of the celestial realm (for the deities “who hid their bodies,” see text note 7 in chapter 1), amatsukami moromoro might also be taken to designate the ensemble formed by the Special Celestial Deities together with Kuninotokotachi and Toyokumono. Or, in that all the deities that have appeared heretofore were born in Takamanohara and thus might be considered Celestial Deities (amatsukami), it is also possible to see the term as designating all the deities mentioned so far apart from those identified in the following words as entrusted with the mission, namely Izanaki and Izanami.  If the term is interpreted as referring to the first five deities, the problem arises why they were not then designated here specifically as the Special Celestial Deities. There also is not firm ground for taking the term to refer to the Special Celestial Deities plus Kuninotokotachi and Toyokumono. The narrative context does not justify seeing “hid their bodies” as the criterion for identifying this group as the Celestial Deities of this passage. Judging from usage found in the Nihon shoki or the Fudoki 風土記, such as morogami 諸神 (“the various deities”) or morohito 諸人 (“the multitudes”), the element moromoro does not convey any particular mark of respect. It thus seems best to think of amatsukami moromoro as including all the deities that have appeared hitherto, with the exception of Izanaki and Izanami. However, if we focus on the specific issue of the primary actor behind the “command”(mikoto mochi 命以) charging Izanaki and Izanami with the “mission”(koto yosashi 言依), the deity Takamimusuhi appears to play the central role among the Celestial Deities.
“Give a command”(mikoto mochi 命以) and “charge with a mission”(koto yosashi 言依)  The term mikoto mochi, an honorific meaning“by their words,”does not appear in the Nihon shoki and is specific to the Kojiki. It is usually found as a set phrase in combination with the term koto yosashi (“entrust to”). The term mikoto mochi occurs thirteen times in the Kojiki. Except for one instance where it appears in relation to a statement by Susanoo and another where it occurs in relation to a speech by the White Rabbit of Inaba (Inaba no shirousagi 稲羽の素兎), it is found largely to describe a command by the deities Amaterasu and Takamimusuhi (or Takagi no kami 高木神). According to Ōta Yoshimaro 太田善麿, the logic of mikoto mochi is closely connected to the structure assumed to support the existence of Takamanohara.(1)  In one instance, the later episode of the “three noble children” (sankishi 三貴子), the term koto yosashi is rendered by the digraph 事依 (with the first character suggesting a matter that is the object of the second). Otherwise it is always transcribed as 言依 (with the first character implying speech). For that reason the combination of mikoto mochi and koto yosashi are understood to depict a context where a command is given orally. According to Nishida Nagao 西田長男 (1909–1981), in this instance the entity receiving the command and the entity issuing it share the same rank and competence. In other words, the two can be seen effectively as one and the same.(2) In the Nihon shoki (episode 4), only in the first variant are Izanaki and Izanami commanded to rule the land by the Celestial Deities. In the main text (honsho 本書) and all the other variants Izanaki and Izanami act on their own initiative, first discussing together and then undertaking to give birth and form to the land.
“Declaring”(mikotonori 詔)  This term is fundamentally an honorific used to refer to a declaration by an emperor. Apart from the graph shō 詔, the graph choku 勅 is also used for an emperor's verbal utterance. The ritsuryō 律令 legal codes of the Nara period appear to distinguish between the compound shōsho 詔書, used to designate extraordinary and serious matters or imperial edicts, and the word chokushi 勅旨, employed to refer to ordinary, minor matters. However, the Six Official Annals of the Country (rikkokushi 六国史) and other works of the time seem to use the two characters shō and choku interchangeably. The Nihon shoki (the first of the Six Official Annals) uses the character shō solely to refer to speeches by the emperors, and thus there are no examples of it within the section on the Age of Deities (jindaikan 神代巻). On the other hand, it uses the character choku in reference to the utterances of deities such as the ancestral deities of the imperial lineage (kōsoshin 皇祖神).  In many of the corresponding passages of the Kojiki, by contrast, these speeches by deities are introduced by the character shō. Except for two instances in the preface, the Kojiki contains only one occurrence of the character choku, and that is in the last volume of the book, in the chronicle of Emperor Ankō 安康天皇, where the minister Ne no omi 根臣 refers to an order of the emperor as ōmikoto, transcribed by the graphs 勅命. The Kojiki tends to emphasize the continuum between the deities and the emperors, and for this reason it may use the term shō for the utterances of both. However, the usage is not limited to the deities who were the direct ancestors of the emperors. It also is used of Susanoo, a deity parallel to Amaterasu, and Yamatotakeru, a prince who stands in a similar relation to the emperor. Detailed analyses of use of the character shō in the Kojiki and other archaic texts may be found in works by Koga Seiichi 古賀精一, Yokota Ken'ichi 横田健一, and Taniguchi Masahiro 谷口雅博.(3)
“Consolidate, solidify, and complete this drifting land!”(tsukuroi katame nase 修理固成)  These four characters have been read in many different ways, and a standard reading is still not established. Watarai Nobuyoshi 度会延佳 (1615–1690), for instance, reads it as osame katame nase in the earliest published edition of the Kojiki (1687).(4) The modern scholar Nishimiya Kazutami 西宮一民 does so as well,(5) as does Aoki Kazuo 青木和夫.(6) However, Motoori Norinaga reads it as tsukuri katame nase in his Teisei kokun Kojiki 訂正古訓古事記 (1799), (7) while Tanaka Yoritsune 田中頼庸 (1836–1897) reads it as osame tsukuri katame nase,(8) as does Kurano Kenji.(9) Saigō Nobutsuna 西郷信綱 (1916–2008) reads it as tsukuri katameyo,(10) whereas Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori read it as tsukuroi katame nase. (11) If the two characters 修理 are interpreted as a compound transcribing a single word, that compound might be read as either tsukuru or osamu, but it would also be possible to read the characters separately as osame tsukuru (or tsukuri osamu). Further comment
“Celestial jeweled halberd”(ame no nuboko 天沼矛)  As for the meaning of the morpheme nu, in the Nihon shoki this halberd appears as 天之瓊矛, and a gloss inserted between the third and the fourth characters states:“瓊 means jewel; here this character is read as nu.”(12) Following this gloss, nuboko may be interpreted as a halberd decorated with jewels. “Celestial floating bridge”(ame no ukihashi 天浮橋)  This word occurs three times, including this instance, in the Kojiki, and each time it is depicted as a place to stand when descending from Takamanohara (the High Celestial Plain) to the Central Land of Reed Plains (Ashihara no nakatsukuni 葦原中国). A number of deities descend from Takamanohara to the Central Land of Reed Plains other than Izanaki and Izanami; they include Susanoo, Amenohohi, Amewakahiko, Takemikazuchi, Amenotorifune, Oshihomimi, and Ninigi. However, the only ones who stand on the celestial floating bridge apart from Izanaki and Izanami are the imperial ancestors Oshihomimi and Ninigi. Standing on the celestial floating bridge might thus be thought of as something limited to the depiction of the descent of important deities of the imperial lineage. It does not function solely as that, however; it is also a place where something happens in regard to the land below. In the case of Izanaki and Izanami, it is the stirring of the brine with the celestial jeweled halberd. In the case of Oshihomimi, it is the detection of an unsettling noise emanating from the land.(13) In the case of Ninigi, the precise nature of what happens remains unclear, but the use of the special phrase ukijimari soritatashite 宇岐士摩理蘇理多々斯弖 to describe standing on the celestial floating bridge suggests that this act was seen a requisite element of Ninigi's descent to assume authority over the land below.(14)  Some hold that ame no ukihashi was conceived of as a corridor connecting the celestial world with the earthly one, as with yasobashi 八十橋, mentioned in the section on Kako 賀古 district in the Harima no kuni fudoki 播磨国風土記,(15) or ama no hashitate 天梯立, mentioned in the Tango no kuni fudoki 丹後国風土記.(16) Within the context of the Kojiki, however, it is difficult to sustain the assumption that ame no ukihashi had such a function. It functions solely as a place to stand when descending to earth and does not appear in cases of ascension to heaven. Further comment “The character 立 should be read tatashi”(立 o yomite tatashi to iu 立訓立云田多々志)  The original contains this gloss (kunchū 訓注) inserted in small characters after the graph 立; it indicates that this character should be read tatashi (“standing”). The reading tatashi is formed by adding the ending shi (the connective form of the honorific auxiliary verb su) to the imperfective form tata of the verb tatsu (“to stand”). In Koshiden 古史伝, Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤 (1776–1843) interprets this character 立 as meaning “to set off,”(17) but in the Kojiki this idea is conveyed by the graph 発, not 立. The reading gloss indicates the use of a conjugated form that matches the context. The same is true for the character 鳴 (“make a sound”). Another gloss similarly indicates that this should read in the conjugated honorific form nashi.(18) In the first chapter, a gloss of the character 立 in the name of the deity Amenotokotachi 天之常立 indicates that there it should be read tachi (“appear”).(19)  As mentioned in the preceding text note 6, references to standing on the celestial floating bridge appear in two other passages apart from this one. The first occurs at the beginning of the episode of cession of the land (kuniyuzuri 国譲り), where we find the phrase “Oshihomimi, standing on the celestial floating bridge”(ame no ukihashi ni tatashi 天浮橋多々志) followed by the gloss “the last three graphs are [to be read] phonetically.”(20) The second reference occurs in the episode of Ninigi's descent, where, as mentioned in text note 6, we find the phrase ame no ukihashi ni ukijimari soritatashite 於天浮橋宇岐士摩理蘇理多々斯弖. Here a gloss states that“the eleven graphs from 宇 are [to be read] phonetically.”(21) In both instances, the gloss specifies that the conjugated, honorific form tatashi is to be used. Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori note that the specification of the reading tatsu for the character 立 serves to confirm that the sentence should be understood to mean “standing on the celestial floating bridge,” not “building the celestial floating bridge,”(22) an interpretation that might arise if the character 立 were read otherwise. Indeed it may well be that there was such a consideration. This issue may be connected to the fact that there is no gloss for reading the combination 見立 that occurs in the next passage. Onogoro island (Onogoro shima 淤能碁呂嶋)  Nihongi shiki 日本紀私記 indicates that the name Onogoro was understood to mean an island that solidified by itself.(23) Attempts have been made to identify it with a number of actual islands, such as the small Nushima 沼島, located south of Awaji 淡路 island, or the Tomogashima 友が島 islands, located in the Kitan 紀淡 strait between Wakayama 和歌山 and Awaji island, or even the tiny island of Eshima 絵島, in the municipality of Awaji-shi 淡路市 in the northern part of Awaji island. However, it should rather be considered as part of the world of the myths. In the section of the Kojiki on Emperor Nintoku, the emperor sings a song in which he mentions seeing Awa 淡 island and Onogoro island when he rows into Naniwa bay to view the land.(24) This song might be held to indicate that one of the islands in the present Osaka bay 大阪湾 was called Onogoro. However it takes the form of a song of praise of the land (kunimi uta 国見歌), a genre thought to have been recited originally on ceremonial occasions. This factor, as well as the mention in the song of Awa island, whose actual existence is also open to question, suggests that the names of these islands are meant to evoke the scene at the beginning of the world as depicted in the myths and imagined by Emperor Nintoku (for details, see the section on Emperor Nintoku below).

Notes
(1) Ōta, Kodai Nihon bungaku shichōron, vol.2, pp.166–70.
(2) Nishida, Nihon shintōshi kenkyū, vol.2, pp.16–23.
(3) Koga,“Kojiki ni okeru kaiwa inyō,” pp.29–45; Yokota,“Kojiki to Nihon shoki ni okeru shō to choku,” pp.17–30; Taniguchi,“Kojiki to Nihon shoki ni okeru ‘shō’ ji no shiyō igi,” pp.101–23.
(4) Watarai Nobuyoshi, Kojiki, vol.1, jōkan, folio 2 recto.
(5) Nishimiya, Kojiki shūteiban, p.27.
(6) Aoki et al., Kojiki, NST 1, p.21.
(7) Motoori Norinaga, Teisei kokun Kojiki, MNZ 8, p.537.
(8) Tanaka, Kōtei Kojiki, vol.1, p.2.
(9) Kurano, Kojiki zenchūshaku, vol.2, p.73.
(10) Saigō, Kojiki chūshaku, vol.1, pp.100–101.
(11) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, p.62–65.
(12) Kojima et al., Nihon shoki, SNKZ 2, p.25.
(13) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.98–99.
(14)  A gloss specifies this phonetic reading, the meaning of which is uncertain. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.116–17.
(15) Uegaki, Fudoki, SNKZ 5, p.27.
(16) Uegaki, Fudoki, SNKZ 5, p.472.
(17) Hirata Atsutane, Koshiden, SHAZ 1, p.151.
(18) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.30–31.
(19) Kojiki gaku 1(2015), pp.9–10. For the English translation of this section, see Kojiki gaku 3(2017), pp.296–97,306.
(20) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.98–99.
(21) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, pp.116–17.
(22) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, pp.68–72.
(23) 自凝之嶋也. Nihongi shiki, p.205. The Nihongi shiki (Private Records of Chronicles of Japan) is a record of gatherings at the imperial court between the ninth and tenth centuries where the Nihon shoki was recited and scholars of the time commented on its meaning. (TN)
(24) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKZ 1, p.290.

先頭