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
其その嶋しまに天降あもり坐まして、 天あめの御柱みはしらを見立みたて、八尋やひろ殿どのを見み立たつ。 是ここに其その妹いも伊耶那美命に問とひて曰いはく、 「汝なが身みは如何いかにか成なれる」といふ。 答こたへて白まをさく、「吾あが身みは成々なりなりて成なり合あはざる処ところ一処ところあり」とまをす。 尒しかして、伊耶那岐命詔のらさく、「我が身みは成々なりなりて成なり余あまれる処ところ一処ところあり。 故かれ、我あが身みの成なり余あまれる処ところを以もて汝なが身みの成なり合あはざる処ところを刺さし塞ふたぎて、 国土くにを生うみ成なさむと以為おもふ。生うむこと奈何いかに［訓生云宇牟下效此］」とのらす。 伊耶那美命答こたへて曰いはく、「然しか善ゑけむ」といふ。 尒しかして、伊耶那岐命詔のらさく、「然しからば吾あと汝なと是この天あめの御柱みはしらを行ゆき廻めぐり逢あひて、 美斗能麻具波比みとのまぐはひ［此七字以音］せむ」とのらす。 如か此く期ちぎりて、乃すなはち「汝なは右みぎより廻めぐり逢あへ。我は左より廻めぐり逢あはむ」と詔りて、 約ちぎり竟をへて廻めぐる時ときに、 伊耶那美命先まづ「阿那迩夜志愛あなにやしえ上袁登古袁をとこを［此十字以音下效此］」と言いひ、 後のちに伊耶那岐命、「阿那迩夜志愛あなにやしえ上袁登賣袁をとめを」と言いふ。 各おのおの言いひ竟をへし後のちに、其その妹いもに告つげて「女人をみなの先まづ言いへるは良よくあらず」と曰いふ。 然しかあれども、久美度くみど迩に［此四字以音］興おこして生うめる子こは、水蛭子ひるこ。 此この子こは葦舩あしふねに入いれて流ながし去うつ。 次つぎに淡あは嶋しまを生うむ。 是こも亦また、子この例かずに入いれず。 是ここに、二柱ふたはしらの神議かみはかりて云いはく、「今いま吾あが生うめる子こは良よくあらず。 猶なほ天あまつ神かみの御所みもとに白まをすべし」といひて即すなはち共ともに参まゐ上のぼりて、天あまつ神かみの命みことを請こふ。 尒しかして、天あまつ神かみの命以みこともちて、 布斗麻迩尒ふとまにに上［此五字以音］卜相うらなひて詔のらさく、 「女おみな先まづ言いへるに因よりて良よくあらず。亦また還かへり降くだりて改あらため言いへ」とのらす。 故尒かれしかして、降くだりて、更さらに其その天あめの御み柱はしらを往ゆき廻めぐること先さきの如ごとし。
○天降坐而 「天降」は、『万葉集』の「安ア母モ理リ座マシ而テ」（巻二）、「安ア母モ理リ麻マ之シ」（巻三）、「安ア麻マ久ク太ダ利リ」（巻十八）などの例によれば、「アモリ」「アマクダリ」両方の訓があり得る。「アモリ」は「アマオリ」の略。本澤雅史は『万葉集』の用例を調査し、オルは結果的、クダルは経過的という傾向があると指摘し、『古事記』の「天降」は経過的な「アマクダル」「アマクダス」で訓んだほうが良いとした（「古事記における『降』『向』の訓読について」『古事記年報』26 、一九八四・一）。自動詞「アマクダル」に対して他動詞「アマクダス」という訓みはあり得るが、「アモル」に対する「アモロス」という訓は存在しない点からも、「アマクダル」が妥当。兼方本日本書紀の訓点に「アマクタシマツラム」の訓もある。なお、毛利正守は、キミ二神・オシホミミ・ニニギ等の場合には「天降」と記されるのに対し、スサノヲやアメワカヒコが降臨する場合には「自天降」と記されるというように、皇統に連なる神とそれ以外の場合とで使い分けがあると説いている（「古事記の表記をめぐって―「自天降」と「天降」と―古事記研究大系 10 『古事記の言葉』高科書店一九九五・七）。 ○天之御柱 この「天之御柱」を、次の「八尋殿」の柱とする見方と、「八尋殿」とは別に立てられたものとする見方とに分かれている。『日本書紀』の一書に「八尋之殿を化作し、又天柱を化堅す」とある。この場合は別物と捉えられる。「天の御柱」を廻るという言い方からするならば、別々のものと考えるべきか。八尋殿は後に「ミト（聖所）ノマグハヒ」をするその「ミト」に該当する場所、若しくは「クミ（クム＝籠もる）ド（所）」に該当する場所か。【→補注十】天の御柱 ○見立 諸説あって定説を見ない。天なる御柱になぞらえて立てる（古史伝・注釈）。よく見とどけて立てる意（新講・評釈・標註）。現実に立てて。「見」は「現」の略（全書・新注）。「見」は「御」の借字（校注）。確かに見定めて立てる意か（全注・全註釈）。（紀の「化作」「化竪」を参考に）無から現実に存在させるように立てる意（旧全集）。何もないところにぱっと出現させて立てること（角川新訂・新版）。適当な木を前もってよく見選んでおいて、それを立てる意（集成）。発見する・見出すの意（注解・新編）。諸説を見ると、折口信夫は、現実に柱を建てたのではなく、あるものを柱と見立てて祝福したとし、昔の日本人は物事を連想的に見、譬喩的にものを見させていた、というように、民族の思想として「見立て」を説く（「神道に現れた民族論理」『折口信夫全集』三巻、中央公論社一九六六・一）。西田長男は折口説を受けた上で『日本書紀』一書の「化作」「化堅」を参考とし、漢訳仏典において「化作」と翻訳された原語は無いものを有るとみたり考えたりすること、逆にあるものをないものと見たり考えたりすることという意味をもつ、とする（「『見立て』の民族論理―折口信夫博士の偉大さ―」『國學院雑誌』 69 ― 11 、一九六八・十一）。次に毛利正守は、建立の場合、「見」を冠することはないため、見は御であって、「御立て」と考えられると説く（「古事記の『見立て』について」『古事記年報』 13 、一九六九・十二）。また中村啓信は、記紀は同一内容の記事であるから原史料が一つである可能性が高いとし、漢語「化作・化竪」を国語として表現したものが「見立」であり、なにもないところに柱や御殿をぱっと出現させたと見る（「ミタテ（化作・化竪）」『國文學 解釈と教材の研究』 32―２、一九八七・二）。更に矢嶋泉は、諸説整理ののち、注解の「発見」説を否定。「見る」行為には事物を出現させる呪力があり、「見立つ」の場合も同様に、見ることを通じて天之御柱と八尋殿を出現させたとする（「古事記『見立』小考」『青山学院大学・文学部紀要』 40 、一九九九・一）。『古事記』中の「見」は「見る」、「立」は人や物が立つ、若しくは「現れる」であるゆえ、「見たところに立っている」即ち注解が説くように「発見する」意、または矢嶋説の説くような「見ることで顕し出す（見る力で出現させる）」などといったニュアンスか。 ○八尋殿 広い・大きな御殿（家屋）の意。八は実数ではなく、広さ・大きさを示す観念的数字であろう。ただし『古事記』の八をすべてそのように見る必要はあるまい。「尋」は両手を広げた長さといわれる。「千尋縄」「一尋和迩」「八尋和迩」「比比羅木之八尋矛」「八尋白智鳥」など。先述の通り、「クミド」「ミト」などの結婚のための籠もりの場と見られる。 ○汝身 「汝」は、「ナ・ナレ・イマシ」などの訓があり得る。注解は、平安初期の訓点資料ではナムヂが中心で、他にイマシ・キミが用いられるが、ナ・ナレは用いられない（小林芳規「古代の文法Ⅱ」『講座国語史４文法史』大修館書店一九八二・一二）との指摘を受け、ナ・ナレは上代でも訓読系の言語としては用いられなかった可能性があるのでナムチがよいとするが、「ア・アレ」「ワ・ワレ」との対応を考え、ここでは「ナ」若しくは「ナレ」で訓むことにする。 ○国土を生み成さむ 記伝は「國土は久邇と訓べし」と指摘する。「国土」の語は当該箇所以外に、「議安河而平天下、論小浜而清国土」（序文）、「山川悉動、国土皆震」（上巻）、「登高地見西方者、不見国土」（中巻）以上の三例がある。この国土生成神話が大地の創世神話とは言えず、国土の範囲が天皇の支配領域であるということは、既に津田左右吉に指摘があり、肯われる（津田左右吉『日本古典の研究』上、岩波書店一九四八・八）。「生成」については記伝が「唯生ことなり」といい、諸注釈書に大きな見解のゆれはない。 ○行廻逢是天之御柱而 柱を巡る行為について、松本信広は、『貴州通史』に春の野に木を立てて男女が躍り廻り、配偶者を選ぶ風俗があると指摘。高くそびえるもののまわりを廻ることが結婚の重要な儀式だったと説く（「我が国の天地開闢神話にたいする一管見」『日本神話の研究』平凡社、一九三一年初出。東洋文庫 180 、一九七一・二による）。松村武雄も、『苗族史』に『貴州通史』と類似の記述があると指摘し、天御柱は神霊（特に祖霊）を降ろすものあるいは象徴であり、廻ることは神霊招降（あわせて婚姻への加護を授かる）ための行為とした。さらに天御柱には性的標徴の意味もあると述べている（「國生み神話」『日本神話の研究』二、培風館一九五五・一）。津田左右吉は、メイポールに比す。この柱もしくは木は万物の生成繁殖の力を象徴し、柱を廻って唱和する行為がおこなわれ、男女の結合を誘う機会になることも考えられ、そのような風習の反映がこの物語に見えているかという（「神代の物語」『日本古典の研究 上』岩波書店一九四八・二）。その他、安田尚道は、岐美の御柱めぐりは近親相姦のタブー解消のための清めの儀式だったかとした上で、正月のハダカマワリは原初に於いて人類の始祖イザナキ・イザナミが行ったことの再現であるとし、いろりまわりは原初のカオスに立ち返ること、いろりに燃える火は焼畑耕作で重要なものであり、すべてを焼き尽くしてカオスを生じさせ、新たな生命の誕生を準備するものであると説く（「イザナキ・イザナミの神話とアワの農耕儀礼」『民俗学研究』 36 ―３（一九七一・二）『日本神話研究２国生み神話・高天原神話』学生社一九七七・八による）。丸山顕徳はこの神話は兄妹結婚の弊害を除去する呪術儀礼と、生命体の復活という意味での男女交代の宗教的儀礼の原理とが結合して作られたのではないかとする（「『記紀』イザナキ神とイザナミ神の天の御柱巡りの意味」『古事記・日本書紀論叢 太田善麿先生追悼論文集』続群書類従完成会一九九九年）。 ○美斗能麻具波比 「美斗」は御所とする説（記伝）、陰部とする説（標註）がある。麻具波比について記伝は麻は宇麻であるとし、具波比は久比阿比の約言であるとする（ただし、『古事記』中の「目合」の表現から麻を目の意に解する可能性も指摘している）。六人部是香の説に「美斗は眞處の義にて、（注略）男女の陰處の總名なるべし」という。麻具波比について諸説は交合と理解し、その点に揺れはない。ただしその語構成の問題については評釈が、マグハヒの麻は接頭語、くはひは「咋ふ」に「合ふ」意味の語尾「ふ」が添って活用した物で、「咬はふ」と同源の語「交はふ」の名詞形、また「目交せ」の意からきた言葉ともいい、また、「枕く」の活用した「まぐはふ」の名詞形か、という。三谷栄一は、ミトノマグハヒは男女が夫婦となり共寝をすることによって自然の生殖力を刺戟する儀礼を神話化したものと説く（「説話文学の冒頭第一話と農耕儀礼―イザナキ・イザナミのミトノマグハヒをめぐって―」（『國學院雑誌』 84 ―５、一九八三・五）。 ○汝者自右廻逢我者自左廻逢 記伝は、師説によって「後世には美岐といへども、美岐理なるべし（中略）伊勢が亭子院歌合日記に、かむだちべは、階のひだりみぎりに、みな分て侍ひたまふとあり、美岐理と訓べし」という。左右の問題について記伝は諸説を批判するが、現行諸説においては次のように指摘がある。南面すれば左は東にあることから、東は本にして西は末という（標註）。古い結婚式の反映で、元来は神降しの柱の周囲を男女が宗教的恍惚状態に入って躍り廻る習慣からでたもの（評釈）。『新撰亀相記』に「男女の福、左右はこれに由るなり」とし、附会しているが、卜兆の右廻（右にまわり割れる吉兆）・左廻（左にまわり割れる凶兆）とも関係して説いているようにも思われる（全講）。女が右回り、男が左回りというのは「天左旋、地右旋」（『春秋緯』元命包）や「北斗之神有雌雄…雄左行、雌右行」（『淮南子』天文訓）など、中国の思想に見える（集成）。 ○先言 記伝は『万葉集』の「事先立之」（巻十・一九三五）を参照して許登佐伎陀知弖の訓を提示したが、注解は「先」には順序をいう場合と、時間的な指示語として過去をさす場合があるという。思想の同訓異字一覧の指摘を参照し、この場合は先後の対になっていることから、マヅ（「後」はノチニ）の訓がしかるべき、という。 ○不良 「不良」の訓について記伝は、「余訶良受」「佐賀那志」「布佐波受」の三訓を挙げ、「さて右の三をならべて今一度考るに、なほ布佐波受と訓ぞまさりて聞ゆる」と述べるが、その明確な根拠は示されない。全註釈は「ヲミナサキイヘルハヨクアラズ」と訓むのが無理のない訓みだろう、という。ここにおいて「不良」とされることの理由については、諸説ある。集成は『万葉集』（巻十・一九三五）から求婚に際しては男の方から先に声を掛けるのが通例であったとし、評釈は夫唱婦和の考えが見えると述べる。また、「男尊女卑は支那の影響の多いことは見逃せない。左尊右卑は我が国に見えたが、支那では右尊左卑」とも指摘する（思想も同様）。 ○久美度 記伝は「久美度は、夫婦隱り寢る處を云」と指摘する。「隱み處」の意味で夫婦の寝所とする説の多くは隅処で奥まった夫婦の寝所とする。全註釈・新版は夫婦聖婚の場所とする。他に『日本書紀』の「奇御戸」を参考として、寝所を称える語とする説（講義）や、神秘な場所の意とする説（旧大系）がある。旧全集・注釈は、久美度が八尋殿そのものであるかとする。諸注、婚姻の行われる場所という解釈に揺れはない。「クム」は「隠む」「交む」かと言われるが、未詳。 ○興而 須佐之男命の段には「久美度迩起而所生」とある。記伝は「淤許斯弖と訓べし、【多弖々とも、多知弖とも訓は、ひがごとなり、】此は女男交合することを如此言るなり」と述べる。「此言は、かならず御子を生坐ことの端にのみ云て、たゞに交合することのみに云る例なし」という指摘は注意される。「興而」は始める意で、諸注にゆれはない。 ○水蛭子 記伝は「水蛭子」は御子の名ではなく、水蛭に似た子をいう称であるとする。その意として二つの考え方を述べており、一つは手足が無く外見の水蛭に似るかとし、もう一つに『日本書紀』の「雖已三歳脚猶不立」を参照して、手足の萎々としている様が似るかという。『日本書紀』と『古事記』では出生の順序などその扱いに大きな差異がある。「水蛭」を借字とし、元来は「日子」即ち太陽神的性格の持ち主であったとする説があるが（松村武雄『日本神話の研究』二、培風館一九五五・一によれば、日子説ははやく、滝沢馬琴が『玄同放言』のなかで言及しているという）、注釈・講義による批判もある。また思想によれば、兄妹婚の始祖神話には、第一子が不具の子である例が散見されるという。新講は水辺に縁のあるところから水蛭子と伝えるようになったといい、諸説ある。国生み（島の生み始め）で生んだという文脈において、水蛭子は島の失敗作（ヒルで比喩した）と考えられ、山川振作が「島たるべくして島にあらざるもの」と述べている（「記紀『国生み』神話の考察―特に古事記の水蛭子・淡島について―」『比較文化研究』５、一九六四。「古事記『国生み』神話補考」『比較文化研究』６、一九六五）。実体として形が似ているのではなく、島たりえない「ぐにゃぐにゃ」を比喩、と注解・新編が述べるのがよいか。新版は完備しないものの譬喩であり、国土に相応しない子とする。 ○葦船 記伝はこの船について二説挙げる。一つは書紀簒疏の「以二葦一葉一爲レ船也」という記述に基づき（評釈は葦の葉片が舟の形に見えるのでこう云ったのだろう、とする）、または葦を多く集めて作ったものかという。なぜここで「葦」の船なのかという問題については、葦が疫病や災禍を祓う呪力を持つと考えられていたからとする説（全講・集成）、アシ（悪）キ子であるからアシ船に入れて流しすてたといっているという説（注釈）がある。 ○淡嶋 記伝は「親御神の淡め惡み賜し故」に淡嶋と名付けられたという。また、アハはアワと音通で沫嶋の意とする説もあり（評釈・大成）、「アハ」は「アハシ」の語幹「アハ」として、古史伝の「淡は淡薄して實なきを云ならむか。其は蛭子の萎々したる狀など思ひ合すべし。」という説を採るものもある（講義）。実際の地名比定に関しては、『新撰亀相記』に「今在阿波國以東海中無有人居。不入子列」とあり、新注は前掲山川論の明石海峡北岸寄りの粟粒を並べたような暗礁という説を挙げる。角川新訂は阿波方面の名とし、阿波方面に対する悪感情を指摘する。しかしその一方で、「どの島を指すか明らかでなく、又観念上の架空の島であるかも知れない」と全註釈が言うように、特定の島を比定する必要性について懐疑的な注釈書が多い。「淡し」などの語幹「アハ」をその本質とした、神話上の島名として解することに意義があるのであろう。「水蛭子と違って一応嶋をなすにはいたったが、ちゃんとした嶋たりえなかった」（注解）、「国土に値しない子」（新版）という解釈がある。仁徳記の五三番歌謡では、淤能碁呂島・檳榔の島・佐気都島とともに列挙されている。 ○請天神命 天神諸の命によって事を成したという前文と照応する（講義）。天神の主導において物事を為していく『古事記』の姿勢が覗える（全講・新全集）。この箇所の「天神」については、造化三神をさすとする（新講）、別天神五柱とする（旧大系・新全集）、別天神五柱のなかでも特に産霊二神をさすとする（全講）などがある。 ○布斗麻迩尒 「布斗」は称辞（記伝）。記伝は、布斗麻迩は上代の一種の卜であり、「諸卜の中に殊に重く、主とせし卜と聞えたり」という。伴信友『正卜考』は「麻邇は尋常に、麻々と云ふと同じほどの言にて、此にては、神慮に任せ、神慮に隨ふ意」とする。天石屋戸段にみえる「占合」の記述が布斗麻迩の方法であろうとする説もある（旧大系）。全講は、国生み神話に太占があらわれるのには、春の祈年祭における卜事の印象が神話化したものだからであろう。という。諸説、「布斗」が美称であり、「麻迩」が従順であること（ひいては「神意」に従うこと）、とする点に大差はなく、また亀卜以前の占いが鹿骨によるものであった点に触れるものが多い。注釈は布斗麻迩が「宮廷の公式の卜法」であったことを推定する。現行諸注釈でそれ以上の見解はない。 ○卜相而 『万葉集』に「足卜」の表記があり、「アシウラ」とよまれている。（巻四・七三六）観智院本『類聚名義抄』の「卜」字に「ウラナフ」の訓がみえる。訓みの問題について注解は、「ウラヘテ」説と「ウラナヒテ」説を挙げ、前者において記伝が唱えた「アハセの約言」説を否定し、「ウラアフ」説は「ウラ（卜）＋アフ（合・下二）」の約と考え、その実例として鴨脚本日本書紀（嘉禎二年点）、北野本日本書紀（南北朝期点）を挙げる。しかし、上代にまで遡るか不安が残るとし、「確実性という点からウラナヒテと訓んでおきたい」と結論づけた。標註は「卜相の卜は「心（ウラ）」。相は合の略」という。神の心を問う行為。ここにおいて「卜相」は「天つ神の命以ちて」行われており、神によって「卜相」がなされることの理由について和辻哲郎は「天つ神の背後にはもう神々はない。しかもこれらの神々がなお占卜に用いられるとすれば、この神々の背後になお何かがなくてはならぬ。それは神ではなくしていわば不定そのものである」と述べた（『尊皇思想とその伝統』（『和辻哲郎全集』十四巻、岩波書店一九六二・一二による））。 ○故尒 小野田光雄「古事記の助字『尓』について」（『古事記年報』２、一九五五・一）によれば「尒」は記中に 254 例（上巻 82 例、中巻 102 例、下巻 70 例）あり、「於是」によっ て総括される文章中の一節の冒頭をなす。「尒」字をこのような文脈進展に参与する承上の詞として用いるのは漢籍に例がなく、日本の上代文献では『古事記』と『播磨国風土記』のみに見られる用法であるという。小島憲之は、あるいは漢文に習熟した結果自ら案出した用字とも考えられるという（「古事記の文学性」『上代日本文学と中国文学』上、塙書房一九六二・九）。また「故尒」は28例見受けられるが、その使用には著しい偏在があり、上巻20例、神武記６例、景行記２例であって下巻には用いられない。全講は「故尒」について「一種の発語で、口誦のあとがうかがわれるようである。従って、漢文の『故に』の意ではない」と述べているが、右の偏在と関わるかも知れない。なお、伊土耕平「『古事記』の「故尒」について」（『国語国文』 65 ―１、一九九六・一）は、「故」に叙述内容を確認・強調する副詞的機能があること、また「尒」は単純継起的に文をつなぐ働きがあると指摘したうえで、『古事記』の「故尒」は「編者の思い入れが強い段」に集中しており、もと「尒」だけであったところへ「故」が付加されたのではないかと論じている。訓は宣長以来「ココニ」と訓むものが多かったが、「ココニ」であれば『古事記』中には「於是」があるという点や、「尒」はＳ音で訓まれるという小野田光雄の指摘（前掲論文）もあって「シカシテ」の訓でほぼ定着している。なお、注解は訓点資料の用例をもとに「シカクシテ」と訓んでいる（参照、築島裕「古事記の訓読」『解釈と鑑賞』 31― 10 、一九六六・八）。
国生みのきっかけともいえるこの柱について、どのようなものか詳しい描写はなされていない。松前健はその柱の意味について、天地をつなぐ「宇宙の中心」であり、「宇宙軸」を象徴していると説明した（松前健『謎解き日本神話』大和書房、一九九四・六）。この研究には、ミルチァ・エリアーデが『聖と俗』で展開した「世界の柱」「宇宙の柱」についての論の影響が明瞭である。エリアーデはこの中で、世界中のさまざまな地域に、聖柱を立てたり、崇拝したりする例があることに注目した。エリアーデによれば、それらの柱は、その周囲に居住可能な世界を生み出す中心点の象徴であるという（ミルチャ・エリアーデ『聖と俗』風間敏夫訳、法政大学出版局一九六九・一〇。第一章 聖なる空間と世界の浄化）。また、こうした聖なる木の柱は、ゲルマン神話に登場するユグドラシルのように世界を支える宇宙軸という意味も持つ（ミルチャ・エリアーデ『豊饒と再生』久米博訳、せりか書房一九七四・七）。 「天の御柱」もその周囲で国生み、神生みが為されるわけであるから、そうしたエリアーデのいう世界を生み出す中心点、宇宙軸の象徴であると考えられるということであろう。こうした比較宗教史的な観点から、その象徴性を明らかにするだけではなく、樹木信仰との関わりや心御柱、諏訪の御柱祭、杖立て伝説と言われる一連の伝承など、広く日本の民俗との関連も調べてみる必要がある。〔平藤喜久子〕 This pillar can be considered as the starting point for procreation of the land, but the text does not describe it precisely. Matsumae Takeshi 松前健 (1922–2002) understands it as a“cosmic center”that connects heaven and earth and explains that it symbolizes the“axis of the universe.”(1) This thesis clearly has been influenced by the concepts of “Cosmic Pillar” or “Universal Pillar” (axis mundi) developed by Mircea Eliade in his book The Sacred and the Profane. Eliade notes that in many regions of the world people plant sacred stakes and worship them. He sees in all these pillars the symbolism of a “Central Point” that produces a habitable world around itself.(2) Eliade also argues that these sacred wooden pillars carry as well the meaning of an axis mundi supporting the world, as with the Yggdrasil tree in German mythology.(3) In the case of the Kojiki, the procreation of the land and deities takes place in the vicinity of the celestial pillar. For that reason scholars such as Matsumae Takeshi have seen it as an example of Eliade's symbolism of the axis mundi, the central site that gives birth to the world. The comparative standpoint of the history of religions not only makes it possible to clarify the symbolism of the pillar, but also calls attention to the need to explore the celestial pillar's relationship to various aspects of Japanese folklore, such as tree worship, the ritual of the sacred pillar (shin no mihashira 心御柱) performed at some Shinto shrines, the “pillar-riding ritual” (onbashira sai 御柱祭) of the Suwa Shrine 諏訪神社, or the series of oral traditions known as “legends of planting a walking stick” (tsuetate densetsu 杖立て伝説). Hirafuji Kikuko 平藤喜久子 Notes (1) Matsumae, Nazotoki Nihon shinwa, pp.54–55. (2) Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane, pp.32–47. (3) Eliade, Traité d’histoire des religions, pp.238–39.
於其嶋天降坐而 見立天之御柱見立八尋殿 於是問其妹伊耶那美命曰 汝身者如何成 答白吾身者成々不成合處一處在 尒伊耶那岐命詔我身者成々而成①餘處一處在 故以此吾身成餘處刺塞汝身不成合處而 以為生成国土生奈何［訓生云宇牟下效此］ 伊耶那美命答曰然善 尒伊耶那岐命詔然者吾与汝行廻逢是天之御柱而 為美斗能麻具波比［此七字以音］ 如此之期乃詔汝者自右廻逢我者自左廻逢 約②竟以廻時 伊耶那美命先言阿那迩夜志愛上袁登古袁［此十字以音下效此］ 後伊耶那岐命言阿那迩夜志愛上袁登賣袁③ 各言竟之④後告其妹曰女人先言不良 雖然久美度迩［此四字以音］興而生子水蛭子 此子者入葦舩而流去 次生淡嶋 是亦不入子之例 於是二柱神議云今吾所生之子不良 猶宜白天神之御所即共参上請天神之命 尒天神之命以 布斗麻迩尒上［此五字以音］卜相而詔之 因女先言而不良亦還降改言 故尒降更往廻其天之御柱如先 【校異】 ① 真 ナシ 道果本以下による。 ② 真 「幼」 兼永本以下による。 ③ 真 ナシ 兼永本以下による。 ④ 真 「云」 道果本以下による。
伊耶那岐・伊耶那美の二神はその嶋に天降りなさって、 天の御柱を見顕し、八尋殿を見顕す。 そこで、その妹の伊耶那美命に質問して言うことには、 「おまえの身体はどのように成っているのか」という。 伊耶那美命が答え申し上げることには、「私の身は出来上がり出来上がりしてなお出来上がっていないところが一箇所あります」と申し上げる。 すると伊耶那岐命が仰ることには、「私の身体は出来上がり出来上がりして出来上がり過ぎたところが一箇所ある。 そこで、私の身体の出来上がり過ぎたところで、おまえの身体の出来上がっていないところを刺し塞いで、 国土を生んで生成しようと思う。生むことはいかがであろうか」と仰る。 伊耶那美命が答えて言うことには、「それが良いでしょう」と言う。 そこで、伊耶那岐命が仰ることには、「それならば私とおまえとでこの天の御柱を別々に廻って逢って、 聖所での婚姻を成そう」と仰る。 このように約束をして、それで「おまえは右から廻って私に出逢いなさい。私は左から廻っておまえに出逢おう」と仰って、 約束をし終えて廻った時に、 伊耶那美命が先ず「まあ、なんと素敵な男性なんでしょう」と唱え、 その後に伊耶那岐命が、「ああ、なんて美しい女性なんだろう」と唱える。 それぞれに唱え終わった後に、伊耶那岐命はその妹に告げて、「女人が先に唱えたのは良くなかった」という。 そうではあるが、男女の籠もり場で生んだ子は、ヒルコである。 この子は葦船に入れて、流しやってしまった。 続いて淡島を生む。 これもまた、子として数えることはなかった。 そこで、伊耶那岐・伊耶那美の二柱の神が相談をして言うことには、「今私が生んだ子は良い子ではなかった。 やはり天つ神の御所に参上して申し上げよう」と言って、一緒に天に参上して、天つ神のお言葉を請うた。 そこで、天つ神のお言葉で、 フトマニに占いをして仰ることには、 「女人が最初に唱えたのが原因で良くない結果となった。再び還り降って改めて唱えなさい」と仰る。 そうして降って、再びその天の御柱を各々行って廻る様は、先の通りである。
[The two deities Izanaki no mikoto 伊耶那岐命 and Izanami no mikoto 伊耶那美命] descended from the heavens to that island, discerned a celestial pillar, and [also] discerned a broad-spanned palace. Thereupon, [Izanaki] questioned his sister-spouse Izanami, saying: “How is your body formed?” Izanami replied:“My body is formed, indeed it is formed, yet there is one place that is not completely formed.” Then Izanaki said: “My body is formed, indeed it is formed, yet there is one place that is formed in excess. Thus, I would like to insert the part of my body that is formed in excess into the part of your body that is not completely formed so as to fill it up and thereby give birth to the land. How would it be if we gave birth [to the land together]?” Izanami answered:“That would be good.” Then Izanaki said:“So let us, you and me, go around this celestial pillar, meet, and celebrate conjugal intercourse in a sacred place.” They agreed, whereupon [Izanaki] said:“You go around from the right and meet me; I will go around from the left and meet you.” Having made this promise, they went around [the pillar], and Izanami spoke first, saying:“Oh, what a handsome man!” After this, Izanaki said:“Oh, what a beautiful woman!” After each had spoken, Izanaki said to his sister-spouse:“The woman spoke first; this is not good.” Nevertheless, they went into a place to seclude themselves and began procreation. But the child that was born was a leech-child. They put this child on a reed boat and let it float away. Next they gave birth to the island of Awa. This is not counted among their children either. Thereupon Izanaki and Izanami took counsel together and said:“The children we have given birth to are not good. Let us go up and report this to the Celestial Deities.”They went up to attend on the Celestial Deities and seek their command. At the command of the Celestial Deities a futomani divination was performed, and the Celestial Deities declared: “It was because the woman spoke first that the result was not good. Descend again and speak anew.” Izanaki and Izanami then descended and once again went around the celestial pillar as before.
“Descend from the heavens”(amorimashite 天降坐而) Other ancient texts suggest various possibilities for reading the two graphs 天降. The Man'yōshū includes the phrases amorimashite 安母理座而 (second book), amorimashi 安母理麻之 (third book), and amakudari 安麻久太利 (eighteenth book). Based on these examples, both the readings amori and amorimashite would be possible in this instance. Amori is an abbreviation of amaori. From his examination of the examples in the Man'yōshū, Motozawa Masafumi 本澤雅史 concludes that it tends to use the verb oru when emphasizing the result of the act of descending and kudaru when emphasizing the process of that act. He thus argues that for the Kojiki it is best to read 天降 as amakudaru or amakudasu, both verbs conveying the process of descending.(1) Since this verb has both transitive and intransitive forms, a transitive reading of the compound 天降 as amakudasu is theoretically possible. Given that the alternative choice of amoru exists only as an intransitive verb and there is no transitive form amorosu, the intransitive form amakudaru seems more appropriate. However, the Kanekata-bon 兼方本 manuscript of the Nihon shoki glosses these two graphs as amakutashimatsuramu. Mōri Masamori 毛利正守 points out that the usage of this verb varies depending on whether or not it refers to deities linked to the imperial lineage: it is written 天降 to describe the descent of imperial antecedent deities such as the Izanaki-Izanami pair, Oshihomimi, and Ninigi, but 自天降 in the case of other deities such as Susanoo and Amewakahiko.(2) “Celestial pillar”(ame no mihashira 天之御柱) Opinions are divided as to whether the celestial pillar is part of the broad-spanned palace mentioned subsequently or a separate entity. The first variant of the fourth episode of the Nihon shoki states that the two deities “built”(kasaku 化作) a broad-spanned palace and then “erected”(kaken 化堅) a celestial pillar.(3) In that instance the pillar is regarded as a separate element. Judging from the statement that the two deities go around the pillar, it would seem that in the Kojiki, too, the palace and the pillar are seen as two separate objects. There is also the issue of whether the broad-spanned palace should be identified as the mito 美斗 (“sacred place”) mentioned later in the phrase mito no maguwai 美斗能麻具波比, or as the “place to seclude themselves”(kumido 久美度) where they begin procreation. Further comment “Discerned [a pillar]”(mitatsu 見立) There are many theories about the meaning of this term, but none are recognized as fully established. Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤 and Saigō Nobutsuna 西郷信綱 interpret it as erecting a pillar on the model of a celestial one.(4) Tsugita Uruu 次田潤, Nakajima Etsuji 中島悦次, and Shikida Toshiharu 敷田年治 take it to mean to erect the pillar after having surveyed the situation.(5) Kanda Hideo 神田秀夫 and Ōta Yoshimaro 太田善麿, as well as Kanda Hideo in his Shinchū Kojiki 新注古事記 commentary, hold that the character 見 is an abbreviation of 現 (“actual”) and that the term means to actually erect a pillar.(6) Maruyama Rinpei 丸山林平 interprets 見 as a phonetic substitution for the honorific 御.(7) Ozaki Satoakira 尾崎知光 and Kurano Kenji 倉野憲司 take it to mean erecting a pillar after carefully selecting the place.(8) Referring to the first variant of the fourth episode of the Nihon shoki, which uses the graphs 化作・化堅, Ogihara Asao 荻原浅男 interprets it as erecting a pillar where nothing previously existed.(9) Takeda Yūkichi 武田祐吉 and Nakamura Hirotoshi 中村啓信 interpret it as bringing a pillar suddenly into existence where there was nothing previously.(10) Nishimiya Kazutami 西宮一民 sees it as meaning to carefully select an appropriate tree and make it into a pillar.(11) Kōnoshi Takamitsu 神野志隆光 and Yamaguchi Yoshinori 山口佳紀 think of it as meaning to discover or find.(12) Orikuchi Shinobu 折口信夫 examines and rejects various earlier hypotheses; he concludes that it is not that the two deities actually erected a pillar, but that they celebrated something by likening it to a pillar. According to him, in antiquity the Japanese viewed things associatively and made metaphoric use of objects. He sees this passage as exemplifying the ethnic perspective of metaphoric association (mitate 見立て).(13) Adopting Orikuchi's hypothesis, Nishida Nagao 西田長男 draws further evidence from the graphs 化作 and 化堅 used in the first variant of the fourth episode of the Nihon shoki. He points out that the word transliterated as 化作 in Chinese translations of Buddhist texts originally carried the sense of thinking of a nonexistent object as if it really exists and, conversely, thinking of an existent object as if it did not exist.(14) Then, there is the approach of Mōri Masamori, who argues that the word “to see” or “to view” would not be attached to a word signifying the erection of a pillar and that thus the character 見 must be a substitution for the honorific 御.(15) Nakamura Hirotoshi holds that since both the Kojiki and the Nihon shoki share a common content, they likely derive from a single source. He posits that this source probably used the Chinese words 化作 and 化堅 (which appear in the Nihon shoki variant mentioned above) and that the word mitate 見立 was used in the Kojiki as the Japanese equivalent. This he takes to mean to bring the pillar and palace suddenly into existence where there had been nothing.(16) Having reviewed these theories, Yajima Izumi 矢嶋泉 rejects the abovementioned point of view of Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori that 見立 means to discover or find. The act of looking, he asserts, carries a magic power to make things materialize, and this is the case here. Izanaki and Izanami produced the celestial pillar and the broad-spanned palace through the very act of looking.(17) It appears that in the Kojiki the Chinese character 見 means “to see,” while 立 is used in reference to a person or object standing, or else to mean “to emerge” or “to make an appearance.” Thus two interpretations are plausible for the combination 見立. One, as posited by Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, is “to discover”(in other words,“when they looked, [a pillar] was standing there”). The other interpretation is that proposed by Yajima Izumi, namely, “to bring something into being by the act of looking.” “Broad-spanned palace”(yahirodono 八尋殿) This means a spacious, large palace (house). The word ya 八 (“eight”) here does not mean an actual number, but is a figurative expression intended to convey spaciousness and largeness. This is not to say that the number eight always has this meaning in the Kojiki. Hiro 尋 is said to mean the span between a person's two outstretched arms.(18) As already stated in the celestial pillars note, it is possible to think of this palace as a mito or a kumido, that is to say, a sacred and hidden place to celebrate conjugal union. “Your body”(na ga mi 汝身) Various readings of the character 汝 are possible, such as na, nare, or imashi. According to Kobayashi Yoshinori 小林芳規, reading glosses from the early Heian period largely give namuji as the reading for this character; there are also examples of the readings imashi or kimi, but none for the readings na or nare.(19) Accepting Kobayashi's point, Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori argue that na or nare likewise may not have been used as kundoku 訓読 readings (native Japanese words used to read Chinese graphs of equivalent meaning) in the preceding ancient period as well. They hold that it is thus better to read the character 汝 as namuchi in this context.(20) However, considering the parallel with the terms a/are and wa/ware (all meaning “I,”“my”), we have chosen here to read this character as na or nare (“you,”“your”). “Thereby give birth to the land” (kuni o uminasamu 国土を生み成さむ) In his Kojiki den 古事記伝, Motoori Norinaga 本居宣長 indicates that here the digraph 国土 should be read kuni.(21) The digraph occurs in three other places in the Kojiki: the first is in the preface, in the sentence “A council was held by the Yasu 安 River and the realm was pacified; debate occurred on the beach, and the land (国土) was purified.”(22) The second occurrence is in the first book, in the narration of the ascension of Susanoo to Takamanohara to meet his sister Amaterasu: “The mountains and rivers all moved, and the entire land (国土) shook.”(23) The third instance occurs in the second book in the declaration of Emperor Chūai 仲哀 that an oracle indicated that land lay to the west. However, Chūai continues, “I have climbed to this tall place, but when I looked to the west, I did not see any land (国土).”(24) Tsuda Sōkichi 津田左右吉 has pointed out that this “formation of the land” cannot be said to be a myth of the creation of the world. The “land” here, he argues, means the territory within the boundaries of the emperor's rule, a theory with which we concur.(25) As for the verb “give birth”(literally “give birth and form,” uminasamu 生み成さむ), Norinaga states that “this means simply to give birth.”(26) No significant disagreement with this interpretation is to be found in subsequent commentaries. “ Go around this celestial pillar [and] meet”(kono ame no mihashira o yukimeguriaite 行廻逢是天之御柱而) Regarding the act of going around a pillar, Matsumoto Nobuhiro 松本信広 notes that the Chinese text Guizhou tongshi 貴州通史 (A Comprehensive History of Guizhou [1741]) describes a local custom in which a tree is erected in a field in spring, and men and women dance around it to choose a spouse. Matsumoto asserts that circling a towering object was an important marriage ritual.(27) Matsumura Takeo also points out that Miao zu shi 苗族史 (History of the Miao) contains the description of a custom similar to that found in Guizhou tongshi. He sees the celestial pillar as an object or a symbol through which the spirits (especially those of the ancestors) are summoned down to earth. The act of going around the pillar served to invite the spirits to descend (as well as to call upon their divine protection of the marriage). Matsumura sees the celestial pillar as possessing as well a sexual symbolism.(28) Tsuda Sōkichi compares the celestial pillar to the maypole found in European traditions. He states that such a pillar or tree symbolizes the vital and reproductive force found in all beings and that the act of going around it and calling out to each other serves as an occasion to encourage the union of the man and woman. Tsuda postulates that the Kojiki story likely reflected an actual custom of this sort.(29) Apart from such interpretations, Yasuda Naomichi 安田尚道 suggests that Izanaki and Izanami's circling the pillar was a rite of purification intended to remove an incest taboo. He further holds that the New Year's ritual of a “naked rotation”(hadaka mawari) around the hearth is intended to reenact the primordial dance of Izanaki and Izanami, ancestors of humankind. This ritual, Yasuda argues, epitomizes the return to chaos. The fire in the hearth is linked to slash-and-burn agriculture, where fire is a crucial element, producing chaos by burning everything and thereby preparing the way for the birth of new life.(30) Maruyama Akinori 丸山顕徳 holds that this myth may fuse representations of two different rites: a magic ritual performed to remove the evil effects engendered by a sibling marriage and a religious ritual intended to regenerate life through the reversal of female and male roles.(31) “Celebrate conjugal intercourse”(mito no maguwai 美斗能麻具波比) A gloss specifies that the seven graphs 美斗能麻具波比 are to be read phonetically as mito no maguwai. Motoori Norinaga interprets the term mito 美斗 as a palace,(32) whereas Shikida Toshiharu explains it as “the genitals.”(33) Commentators agree that maguwai 麻具波比 means sexual intercourse, but diverge regarding the term's morphology. Norinaga understands ma 麻 to be the same as uma 宇麻 (the stem-word for the adjective umashi 可美:“successful, nice”), and guwai 具波比 as an abbreviated form of kuiai 久比阿比, namely, “join together.”(34) He points out as well, however, that the term 目合 (“eye meet”) occurs elsewhere in the Kojiki and holds that it, too, should be read as maguwai. Ma 麻 might thus mean me 目 (“eye”).(35) Nakajima Etsuji considers many possibilities, such as ma being a prefix and kuwai a conjugated word resulting from combination of the stem of the verb kuu 咋ふ (to eat) with the inflection fu ふ, which carries the meaning of the term au 合ふ (to meet). He suggests that [as kuu is close to kuwau 咬はふ (to chew)], kuwai here can be considered equivalent to the nominal form of the verb kuwau 交はふ (“to conjoin”or“to lie with”), which is related etymologically to kuwau 咬はふ. Alternatively, he notes, maguwai might derive from the term mekubase 目交せ (“meet the eyes of another”). It might even be the nominal form of one of the conjugations of the verb maku 枕 (“to sleep together”).(36) Mitani Eiichi 三谷栄一 interprets the act of mito no maguwai as the mythological representation of a ritual in which the reproductive powers of nature are stimulated by a man and a woman becoming spouses and sleeping together.(37) “ You go around from the right and meet me; I will go around from the left and meet you” (na wa migi yori meguriae / a wa hidari yori meguriawamu 汝者自右廻逢我者自左廻逢) Referring to the views of his master Kamo no Mabuchi 賀茂真淵 (1697–1769), Norinaga states that “in later ages [the character 右] was read migi, but here it should be read migiri. … [The poetess] Ise 伊勢 (ca. 9th–10th century) writes in her Teiji-in uta-awase nikki 亭子院歌合日記 (Record of the Poetry Contest Held at the Residence of His Highness Teiji-in) that the nobles participating divided themselves into two groups and took positions on the hidari (“left”) and the migiri (“right”) sides of the stairs. [The character 右] thus should be read migiri.” Holding that the implications between choosing whether to circle from the right or left cannot be known, Norinaga criticizes previous interpretations for asserting reasons for the choice.(38) Subsequent interpretations have made points such as the following: Shikida Toshiharu notes that when one faces south, the east is at your left; this is why the east is said to be the foundation and the west secondary.(39) Nakajima Etsuji holds that this scene reflects an ancient marriage ritual wherein a man and woman fell into a state of religious trance and danced around a pillar erected to invite a deity to descend.(40) Ozaki Nobuo 尾崎暢殃 notes that the ancient divinatory text Shinsen kisō ki 新撰亀相記 (830) connects circling to the left and right with dress customs:“This is why men fold their robes with the left [lapel overlapping the right] and women fold theirs with the right [overlapping the left].” Ozaki suggests that the authors of Shinsen kisō ki may also have in mind the Kojiki's subsequent reference to a futomani divination and may be alluding to the practice of interpreting cracks in a tortoise plastron that run to the right as a good omen and those that run to the left as a bad omen.(41) Nishimiya Kazutami points out that the idea that a woman should turn to the right and a man turn to the left is found in Chinese thought, where it is expressed, for instance, in the statement in the Chunqiuwei 春秋緯 that heaven revolves to the left and earth revolves to the right. Similar statements are also found in the Huainanzi 淮南子.(42) “Spoke first”(mazu ieru 先言) Referring to the phrase koto sakidachishi 言先立之 that appears in poem 1935 of the Man'yōshū (vol.10), Norinaga proposes that the characters 先言 here should be read in the same way.(43) However, Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori point out that the character 先 is read differently depending on whether it indicates sequence or serves as a temporal marker pointing to the past. Referring to the chart of variant characters included in Aoki Kazuo's edition of the Kojiki, Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi hold that here the reading mazu is appropriate because there is a paired sequence of “first” and “after.”(44) “This is not good” (yoku arazu 不良) Motoori Norinaga provides three readings for this expression: yokarazu, saganashi, and fusawazu. He says that “after careful consideration of these three readings, fusawazu sounds to me as the most appropriate,” but he does not provide any clear evidence for his choice.(45) Kurano Kenji states that the reading omina saki ni ieru wa yoku arazu is a reasonable choice.(46) Many hypotheses have been advanced as to why “it is not good [that the woman spoke first].” Referring to the abovementioned Man'yōshū 1935, Nishimiya Kazutami argues that the common custom was for the man to propose marriage.(47) Nakajima Etsuji says this phrase expresses a set of values in which a wife should defer to her husband. He notes as well that “we should not overlook the fact that the notion that men should take precedence over women (danson johi 男尊女卑) owes much to Chinese influence.”(48) (Aoki Kazuo also sees Confucian influence in the emphasis that the wife should follow the husband’s lead.(49)) “A place to seclude themselves” (kumido 久美度) Norinaga points out that “the word kumido indicates a place where husband and wife can seclude themselves and sleep together.”(50) Most of the theories that take the phonetic reading kumido 久美度 to mean “a place to hide” interpret it as a secluded sleeping place for husband and wife. Kurano Kenji in the Kojiki zenchūshaku edition and Nakamura Hirotoshi hold that it means the place where the two deities are wed.(51) Referring to the counterpart expression kumido 奇御戸 in the Nihon shoki, Yamada Yoshio 山田孝雄 sees the term as meant to exalt the sleeping place.(52) Kurano Kenji in the NKBT edition of Kojiki takes it to mean a mystical spot.(53) Ogihara Asao and Saigō Nobutsuna presume that the kumido is in fact the broad-spanned palace (yahirodono; see the note on Broad-spanned palace").(54) All commentators share the view that the kumido is the place where the conjugal union of the two deities takes place. Some hold that the lexeme kumu means to hide (隠む) or mingle (交む), but this is as yet unestablished. “Began [procreation]” (okoshite 興而) In the episode where Susanoo takes Kushinadahime 櫛名田比売 as a spouse, the text states “they began [procreation] in a secluded place, and there was born...”(55) Norinaga notes: “The term 興而 should be read okoshite. The readings tatete or tachite both are mistaken. This word here carries a meaning similar to sexual intercourse between man and woman.” He also notes, however: “This word okoshite always connotes the start of [the process] of procreation of a child. There are no examples where it is used to mean just sexual intercourse.”(56) All commentators agree that okoshite means “to begin.” “Leech-child” (hiruko 水蛭子) Norinaga holds that hiruko 水蛭子 is not the name of one of Izanaki and Izanami's children, but serves to designate a child who looks like a leech. He notes that the term may be interpreted in two ways: one is that the child had no arms or legs and looked like a leech. The other, in line with the statement in the Nihon shoki that the child could not stand even at the age of three, is that its arms and legs had atrophied.(57) The Kojiki and the Nihon shoki differ markedly in their accounts of the order of birth of the hiruko and Izanaki and Izanami's other children.(58) Matsumura Takeo argues that the characters hiru 水蛭 are used simply for their phonetic equivalence with what he thinks was the original word meaning “sun-child”(日子). In other words, in his view, the hiruko had the character of a solar deity.(59) Commentators such as Saigō Nobutsuna and Yamada Yoshio have criticized this hypothesis, however.(60) Aoki Kazuo notes that there are various examples in flood-type sibling marriage and first-founder myths where the first-born child is deformed.(61) There are various other hypotheses as well, such as that of Tsugita Uruu that the idea of a leech-child came from somewhere connected with a waterside.(62) Noting that the hiruko is born at the initial stage of the procreation of the land, consisting of a number of different islands, Yamakawa Shinsaku 山川振作 suggests that the leech-child is a metaphor for an island that failed to take proper shape.(63) Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori make the plausible hypothesis that it is not an issue of actual resemblance; rather, the hiruko is a metaphor for a floppy entity that cannot function as an island.(64) Nakamura Hirotoshi sees the hiruko as a metaphor for something incomplete, a child not suitable to be part of the land.(65) “Reed boat”(ashifune 葦船) Norinaga provides two possible interpretations of the term “reed boat.” One is that found in Ichijō Kaneyoshi's 一条兼良 (1402–1481) commentary Nihon shoki sanso 日本書紀纂疏, which states “they made a boat from a single reed leaf.” (Nakajima Etsuji postulates that Kaneyoshi derived this idea from the fact that a reed leaf has a boat-like shape.(66)) Norinaga's second interpretation is that the boat was made by bundling reeds together.(67) As to why the boat is characterized as a “reed boat,” both Ozaki Nobuo and Nishimiya Kazutami suggest that reeds were believed to have the power to repel epidemics and disasters.(68) Saigō Nobutsuna proposes that it was because ashi meaning “reed” is a homonym for ashi 悪 meaning “bad.” Since the hiruko was a “bad child” (ashiki ko アシキ子), Izanaki and Izanami put it in an ashifune and floated it away.(69) “Island of Awa”(Awashima 淡嶋) Norinaga holds that the name reflects the fact that Izanaki and Izanami “disdained (awame 淡め) and despised” this child.(70) Nakajima Etsuji and Kurano Kenji note that 淡 (“thin”), traditionally transcribed aha, had the same pronunciation as awa (沫) meaning “bubbles” or “foam.” The name thus meant “an island of foam.”(71) Hirata Atsutane states:“Might not awa here mean something faint and without substance. This possibility should be considered along with the wilted state of the hiruko.”(72) Adopting this hypothesis, Yamada Yoshio says that awa must derive from the stem of the word awashi (“thin, faint”).(73) Others identify the island of Awa with an actual place. The divinatory text Shinsen kisō ki states “At present, this island is located in the sea east of Awa 阿波 Province. Nobody lives there. It is not counted among the offspring [of Izanaki and Izanami].”(74) Kanda Hideo cites the hypothesis of Yamakawa Shinsaku that this island corresponds to a group of sunken rocks spread out like grains of millet (awa 粟) along the northern shore of Akashi Strait.(75) Takeda Yūkichi and Nakamura Hirotoshi suggest that it refers to the Awa region (present-day Tokushima Prefecture) and reflects a negative view of that area.(76) Many commentators, on the other hand, express doubts about the need to identify this island with an actual place. Kurano Kenji, for instance, states that “it is not clear what island is meant by this name; it may be an imaginary place whose name is intended to convey a certain idea.”(77) Indeed, it makes sense to assume that the name has a mythological character, drawing from the implications of awa as the stem of words meaning thin or insubstantial. Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori argue that “contrary to hiruko, this island somehow managed to take the shape of one, but it nonetheless could not be considered a proper island.”(78) Nakamura Hirotoshi similarly states: “It was a child not worthy of being counted as a proper part of the land.”(79) This island is mentioned in the fifty-third song (kayō 歌謡) in the section on Emperor Nintoku 仁徳, along with Onogoro island 淤能碁呂島, Ajimasa island 檳榔の島, and Saketsu island 佐気都島, as islands that the emperor saw while rowing in into Naniwa Bay (see note on Onogoro island in chapter 3 for a discussion of this issue.) “Seek the command of the Celestial Deities” (amatsukami no mikoto o kou 請天神命) According to Yamada Yoshio, this phrase fits with that from the preceding episode where Izanaki and Izanami are described as acting in accord with the “command” of the Celestial Deities “to consolidate, solidify, and complete this drifting land.”(80) Ozaki Nobuo as well as Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori likewise hold that one can see here the Kojiki's stance that things were carried out under the guidance of the Celestial Deities.(81) Theories vary as to which of the Celestial Deities are meant here. Tsugita Uruu holds that they are the Three Deities of Creation (zōka sanshin 造化三神), in other words, Amenominakanushi, Takamimusuhi, and Kamumusuhi.(82) Kurano Kenji posits that it is the five Special Celestial Deities (koto amatsukami 別天神).(83) Ozaki Nobuo argues that, among these Special Celestial Deities, the word (amatsukami here specifically designates the two musuhi 産霊 deities.(84) Futomani ni 布斗麻迩尒 According to Norinaga, futo 布斗 is a eulogistic particle and futomani 布斗麻迩 was a type of divination performed in antiquity. He states:“I have heard that among all types of divination, this was the main form and that great weight was placed on it.”(85) The Kokugaku scholar Ban Nobutomo 伴信友 (1773–1846) asserts in his Seiboku kō 正卜考 (Thesis on Divination, 1844):“Mani is an expression that usually means almost the same as mama (“just as it is”). Here it has the meaning of‘to leave up to divine will, to follow the divine will.’”(86) Kurano Kenji and Takeda Yūkichi postulate that the divination (uranai 占合) described in the Celestial Rock Cave (ame no iwaya to 天石屋戸) episode probably exemplifies a futomani divination.(87) Ozaki Nobuo hypothesizes that the appearance of this futomani divination in the myth of the birth of the land probably reflects a mythologization of the divinations conducted as part of the spring Kinensai 祈年祭 rite to pray for a bountiful harvest.(88) Commentators are largely agreed that futo is an eulogistic particle and that mani means “to be obedient to” (or, by extension,“submission to the divine will”). Many also note that divination using deer bones was performed in the Japanese islands prior to adoption of the practice of tortoise-shell divination (kiboku 亀卜). Saigō Nobutsuna postulates that futomani divination was the official form used at the court.(89) The above represents the range of interpretations found in current commentaries. “A divination was performed” (uranaite 卜相而) Regarding the reading of the graph 卜, the digraph 足卜 appears in poem 736 of the Man'yōshū (book 4), where it is read ashiura.(90) The Kanchiin-bon 観智院本 manuscript of the late-Heian dictionary Ruiju myōgishō 類聚名義抄 gives the reading uranau for the graph 卜. Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori consider two readings that have been proposed for 卜相而:uraete (Norinaga's preferred reading) and uranaite. As for the former, they reject on the ground of phonetic evolution Norinaga's hypothesis that uraete could be a contraction of uraae, with the lexeme ae in turn a contraction of awase (“join,”“meet”).(91) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi think that a reading of uraete would more likely result from a contraction of ura 卜 and the lower bigrade (shimo nidan 下二段) transitive verb au 合. As examples of such a reading, they cite the Ichō-bon 鴨脚本 (reading marks [kunten 訓点] dated 1236) and Kitano-bon 北野本 (ca.1336–1392) manuscripts of the Nihon shoki. However, as it remains uncertain whether these readings can be traced to the ancient period, they conclude that “in terms of likelihood, uranaite is the preferable reading.”(92) Shikida Toshiharu, who follows the reading uraete, states that the element ura 卜 of the compound 卜相 has the same meaning as ura 心 (“heart, mind, intention”) and that e 相 is an abbreviation of ae 合 (“join,”“meet”). The compound 卜相 refers to the act of inquiring about the intentions of the deities.(93) The text states that the divination took place at the command of the Celestial Deities. As to why deities should engage in divination, Watsuji Tetsurō 和辻哲郎 (1889–1960) observes, “There is no deity whatsoever beyond the Celestial Deities. If it is to be assumed that these Celestial Deities engage in divination, the necessary implication is that there is an entity above them. That entity would not be a deity but the epitome of indeterminacy.”(94) “Then”(kare shikashite 故尒) According to Onoda Mitsuo 小野田光雄, there are 254 occurrences of the character 尒 in the Kojiki (82 in the first book, 102 in the second, and 70 in the third). Typically it serves to set off a clause within a passage demarcated by the combination 於是 (“thereupon”).(95) It is said that use of the character 尒 for this purpose is not seen in Chinese texts and occurs in ancient Japanese texts only in the Kojiki and the Harima no kuni fudoki 播磨国風土記. According to Kojima Noriyuki 小島憲之, however, it may be an innovation resulting from familiarity with Chinese writing.(96) The combination 故尒 occurs 28 times in the Kojiki, but with an uneven distribution: 20 times in the first volume, 8 times in the second book (6 times in the chronicle of Emperor Jinmu 神武, 2 times in the chronicle of Emperor Keikō 景行), and not once in the third book. Ozaki Nobuo asserts that the combination 故尒 is a kind of introductory phrase that likely is a legacy of oral recitation. Consequently it does not have the same meaning as the ordinary kanbun expression yue ni 故に (“therefore”).(97) This point may be related to the term's uneven distribution. Ido Kōhei 伊土耕平 notes that the particle 故 has an adverbial function of confirming and emphasizing the narrative content, whereas the morpheme 尒 serves simply to connect a sequence of clauses. Instances of the combination 故尒 are concentrated, he argues, “in episodes where the compilers have strong views.” It is thus possible that the 故 is a later emphatic addition to a phrase that originally had only the particle 尒.(98) From the time of Norinaga, the character 尒 has been often read koko ni, but such a reading raises the question of how the binomial 於是 should be read in the context of the Kojiki. Further, Onoda Mitsuo has pointed out that this character should be read with an initial S sound.(99) As a result, today it is standardly read shikashite. However, Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori, drawing from examples of Heian-period reading glosses, read it as shikakushite.(100) Endnotes (1) Motozawa,“Kojiki ni okeru ‘kō’‘kō’ no kundoku ni tsuite,” p.124. (2) Mōri,“‘Kojiki’no hyōki o megutte:‘Jitenkō’to‘tenkō,’” pp.95–109. (3) See, for instance, Kojima et al., Nihon shoki, SNKBZ 2, pp.28–29. (4) Hirata Atsutane, Koshiden, SHAZ 1, p.160; Saigō, Kojiki chūshaku, vol.1, p.108. (5) Tsugita, Kojiki shinkō, p.30; Nakajima, Kojiki hyōshaku, p.35; Shikida, Kojiki hyōchū, p.309. (6) Kanda and Ōta, Kojiki, vol.1, p.177n10; Kanda, Shinchū Kojiki, p.14n9. (7) Maruyama, Kōchū Kojiki, p.6n5. (8) Ozaki, Zenchū Kojiki, p.23n9; Kurano, Kojiki zenchūshaku, vol.2, p.93. (9) Ogihara, Kojiki, Jōdai kayō, p.53n12. (10) Takeda and Nakamura, Shintei Kojiki, p.22n6; Nakamura, Shinpan Kojiki, p.24n6. (11) Nishimiya, Kojiki, p.28n3. (12) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, p.98; Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, p.32n22. (13) Orikuchi, “Shintō ni arawareta minzoku ronri,” pp.32–33. (14) Nishida, “‘Mitate’ no minzoku ronri: Orikuchi Shinobu-hakase no idaisa,” p.143. (15) Mōri, “Kojiki no ‘mitate’ ni tsuite,” p.105. (16) Nakamura, “Mitate,” p.126. (17) Yajima, “Kojiki ‘mitatsu’ shōkō,” p.30. (18) Other examples of the word hiro can be found in the Kojiki, such as chihiro nawa 千尋縄 (“a thousand-hiro-long rope”), hitohiro wani 一尋和迩 (“a one-hiro-long [namely, small] sea monster”), yahiro wani 八尋和迩 (“a large sea monster”), hiiragi no yahiro hoko 比比羅木之八尋矛 (“a long spear made of holly [Osmanthus heterophyllus] wood”); yahiro no shirochidori 八尋白千鳥 (“a large plover [charadriinae]”); Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, pp.112–13; 132–33; 134–35; 222–23; 234–35, respectively. (19) Kobayashi, “Kodai no bunpō II,” p.163. (20) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, p.102. Although Kobayashi adopted the reading namuji, Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi presume that in the ancient period people used the unvoiced form namuchi (TN). (21) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.169. (22) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, pp.16–17. (23) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, pp.54–55. (24) Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, pp.242–43. (25) Tsuda, Jindai no monogatari, pp.342–44. (26) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.170. (27) Matsumoto, Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, pp.183–84. (28) Matsumura, Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, pp.203–15. (29) Tsuda, Jindai no monogatari, pp.352–54. (30) Yasuda Naomichi, “Izanaki-Izanami no shinwa to awa no nōkō girei,” pp.87–88. The rite referenced by Yasuda is a ritual blessing of crops such as millet or barnyard millet in which a naked man and woman circle a hearth. In the 1970s, when Yasuda wrote this article, the custom was still found in some areas, such as the Agatsuma 吾妻 district in Gunma 群馬 Prefecture. Yasuda, pp.73–74. (TN) (31) Maruyama,“‘Kiki' Izanaki-kami, Izanami-kami no ame no mihashira meguri no imi,” p.252. (32) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.172. (33) Shikida, Kojiki hyōchū, p.310. (34) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.172. (35) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.173. Examples of “eye meet” occur, for instance, in the passage of the deity Ōnamuchi's first encounter with Suseribime 須勢理毘売, or that of Hoori 火遠理命 and Toyotamabime 豊玉毘売. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, pp.80–81; 128–29. It should be noted, however, that in some instances, Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi do not follow Norinaga's reading of 目合 as maguwai, on the ground that this reading should only be used to refer to conjugal intercourse. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, pp.80n12 (TN). (36) Nakajima, Kojiki hyōshaku, p.37. (37) Mitani, “Setsuwa bungaku no bōtō daiichiwa to nōkō girei.” (38) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.173. The poetry contest took place in 913; Teiji-in was the retirement name of Emperor Uda 宇多(867–931). (TN) (39) Shikida, Kojiki hyōchū, p.311. (40) Nakajima, Kojiki hyōshaku, p.37. (41) Ozaki, Kojiki zenkō, p.37. (42) Nishimiya, Kojiki, p.29n10. (43) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.176. (44) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, p.107. See Aoki, Kojiki, NST 1, p.565. (45) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.177. (46) Kurano, Kojiki zenchūshaku, vol.2, p.106. (47) Nishimiya, Kojiki, p.29n11. (48) Nakajima, Kojiki hyōshaku, p.37. (49) Aoki, Kojiki, NST 1, p.22. (50) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.177. (51) Kurano, Kojiki zenchūshaku, vol.2, pp.106–107. Nakamura, Shinpan Kojiki, p.26n5. (52) Yamada, Kojiki jōkan kōgi, pp.178–79. (53) Kurano and Takeda, Kojiki, Norito, NKBT 1, p.54n5. (54) Saigō, Kojiki chūshaku, p.113; Ogihara, Kojiki, Jōdai kayō, NKBZ 1, p.53n19. (55) Kumido ni okoshite umeru 久美度迩起而所生. Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, pp.72–73. (56) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.178. (57) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.178. (58) The main text of the Nihon shoki has the hiruko born after Amaterasu (named there as Ōhirume no muchi) and the moon deity and before Susanoo, all of whom it has as being produced jointly by Izanaki and Izanami. See Kojima et al.,Nihon shoki, SNKBZ 2, pp.36–37. (59) According to Matsumura, Takizawa Bakin 滝沢馬琴(1767–1848) already developed the hypothesis that hiruko meant “sun child” in his essay Gendō hōgen 玄同放言. Matsumura, Nihon shinwa no kenkyū, vol.2, pp.239–41. (60) Saigō, Kojiki chūshaku, vol.1, p.114; Yamada, Kojiki jōkan kōgi, p.182. (61) Aoki, Kojiki, NST 1, pp.320–21n14. (62) Tsugita, Kojiki shinkō, p.31. (63) Yamakawa, “Kiki ‘kuniumi’ shinwa no kōsatsu,” p.7; “Kojiki ‘kuniumi’ shinwa hokō,” p.253. (64) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, pp.107–10; Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, p.33n1. (65) Nakamura, Shinpan Kojiki, p.26n6. (66) Nakajima, Kojiki hyōshaku, p.38. (67) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, pp.178–79. (68) Ozaki, Kojiki zenkō, p.39; Nishimiya, Kojiki, p.29n12. (69) Saigō, Kojiki chūshaku, vol.1, p.114–15. (70) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p.179. (71) Nakajima, Kojiki hyōshaku, p.38; Kurano, Kojiki taisei, vol.6, p.53. (72) Hirata Atsutane, Koshiden, SHAZ 1, p.184. (73) Yamada, Kojiki jōkan kōgi, p.184. (74) See Okimori et al., Kodai ujibumi shū, p.207. (75) Kanda, Shinchū Kojiki, p.15n18. (76) Takeda and Nakamura, Shintei Kojiki, p.23n13. (77) Kurano, Kojiki zenchūshaku, vol.2, p.109. (78) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, pp.112–13. (79) Nakamura, Shinpan Kojiki, p.26n7. (80) Yamada, Kojiki jōkan kōgi, p.191. (81) Ozaki, Kojiki zenkō, p.42; Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, SNKBZ 1, p.33n5. (82) Tsugita, Kojiki shinkō, p.33. (83) Kurano and Takeda, Kojiki, Norito, NKBT 1, p.55n13. (84) Ozaki, Kojiki zenkō, p.42. (85) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, pp.180–81. (86) Ban Nobutomo, Seiboku kō, p.467. (87) Kurano and Takeda, Kojiki, Norito, NKBT 1, p.55n16. 285 (88) Ozaki, Kojiki zenkō, p.43. (89) Saigō, Kojiki chūshaku, vol.1, pp.117–18. (90) Kojima et al., Man'yōshū, SNKBZ 6, p.359. (91) Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, pp.181–82. (92) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, pp.120–22; Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, pp.181–82. (93) Shikida, Kojiki hyōchū, p.312. (94) Watsuji, Sonnō shisō to sono dentō, p.173. (95) Onoda, “Kojiki no joshi ‘ni’ ni tsuite,” pp.18–19. (96) Kojima, “Kojiki no bungakusei,” p.251. (97) Ozaki, Kojiki zenkō, pp.42–43. (98) Ido, “‘Kojiki’ no ‘koko ni’ ni tsuite,” pp.42–43. (99) Onoda, “Kojiki no joshi ‘ni’ ni tsuite,” pp.23–24. (100) Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol.2, pp.102–103. For a further discussion of this issue, see Tsukishima, “Kojiki no kundoku,” pp.207–14.