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
是ここに、天神あまつかみ諸もろもろの命みこと以もちて、 伊耶那岐命・伊耶那美命二柱の神に、「是この多た陀だ用よ弊へ流る国を修理つくろひ固かため成なせ」と詔みことのりして、 天あめの沼矛ぬぼこを賜たまひて言依ことよさし賜ひき。 故かれ、二柱の神、天あめの浮橋うきはしに立たたして［訓立云多々志］、 其の沼矛を指し下おろして画かけば、 塩許々袁々呂々迩こをろこをろに［此七字以音］画かき鳴なし［訓鳴云那志也］て 引き上げし時、其の矛の末さきより垂しただり落つる塩の、累かさなり積つもりて、嶋と成りき。 是これ淤お能の碁ご呂ろ嶋しまなり［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）。
「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〕 “Put in order, solidify, and complete this drifting land!” ( tsukuroi katame nase 修理固成) As the above note indicates, commentators differ as to whether the two graphs 修 and 理 are to be understood as expressing two separate actions or one. The Kojiki has two other examples of these graphs used in combination, one in the chronicle of Emperor Suinin 垂仁, and the other in the chronicle of Emperor Nintoku 仁徳. In both the combination refers to the repair of a building.1 The context in the current passage, on the other hand, is the new production of the land. It may thus be questioned whether the use of 修理 here is the same as in the two cases where it means the “repair” of something that already exists. Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, who read 修理 as the single term tsukuroi (“adjust,” “repair,” “put in order”), seek to coordinate the three usages by postulating that in the passage at hand the heavenly deities have in mind what the land should be and command Izanaki and Izanami to bring about that proper form (in other words, the land already “exists” in the heavenly deities’ mind).2 Would it not be more plausible, however, to focus on the point that the heavenly deities command Izanaki and Izanami to “put in order” the “land” that is still in a state of “drifting about like a jellyfish” ( kurage nasu tadayoeru; see chapter 1)? In other words, they are to correct that “drifting” condition. From this perspective, too, the most appropriate reading would seem to be tsukurou. As for the two following graphs 固 and 成, the graph 固 does not appear elsewhere in the Kojiki. Further, the Shinpukuji-bon 真福寺本 manuscript has in its place the graph 因 ( yoru, “accordingly”).3 For these reasons Kanda Hideo 神田秀夫 and Ōta Yoshimaro construe the four-graph phrase as shūri shite . . . nasu ni yorite 修理して . . .成すに因りて (“in that [Izanaki and Izanami] are to put in order and complete . . .”).4 Such a reading, however, does not fit smoothly with the phrasing that follows. It also is possible that the graph 因 is a copying error, since in a number of instances the Shinpukuji-bon uses it in place of another graph, such as “to say” 曰. We have thus retained the graph 固. The meaning of the combination 固 and 成 is not clear. As Motoori Norinaga has pointed out, however, similar expressions found in the section on Ōkuninushi’s 大国主 formation of the land offer some suggestions.5 There Ōkuninushi (Ōanamuji 大穴牟遅) is described as having acted together with Sukunabikona 少名毘古那 to “form and solidify this land” ( kono kuni o tsukuri katameki 作堅此国). Ōkuninushi also receives a pronouncement from the deity of Mt. Mimoro 御諸 that if he worships the deity properly, “together . . . we will be able to form and complete the land” ( aitsukuri nasamu 相作成), but otherwise it will be difficult for “the land to be made complete” (kuni narikatakemu 国難成).6 These latter phrases suggest a sequence from “solidify” (固) → to “completion” (成) and indicate that 成 means “completion.” Commentators have proposed various hypotheses regarding the concrete content of “put in order, solidify, and complete” and as to when the command was fulfilled. Those who hold to the interpretation most limited in scope focus on the point that the heavenly deities are said to set forth a “command,” bestow the heavenly jeweled halberd on Izanaki and Izanami, and “charge them with the mission.” Commentators who take this approach emphasize also the use of the term “solidify,” and on these grounds they see the command as fulfilled with the formation of Onogoroshima island. Another line of interpretation emphasizes the dimension of the digraph 修理 as tsukuru (“to make,” “to create”) and takes Izanaki and Izanami’s creation of the land to mark the command’s fulfillment. (Some who adopt this line of reasoning would see the procreation of the land as the key event in fulfilling the command; others would see fulfillment as achieved with the following bearing of deities.) Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori carry this perspective a step further, noting that when Izanaki seeks out Izanami in the Land of Yomi (Yomotsukuni 黄泉国), he declares, “The land you and I were making is not yet finished ( imada tsukuri oezu 未作竟).”7 This, Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi argue, suggests that the process of formation ( tsukuru) signified by the digraph 修理 was still incomplete at that stage. Formation of the land would be continued by Ōkuninushi, and the entire process of “putting in order” (修理), “solidifying” (固), and “completing” (成) the land would be fully realized only through his joining with Sukunabikona to “form and solidify” (作堅) the land and offering rites to the deity of Mimoroyama 御諸山 mountain to secure “completion of the land” (国成).8 Commentators who emphasize the aspect of osamu (“bring under control,” “govern”) in 修理, such as Yamada Yoshio, take another approach. He sees the scope of the heavenly deities’ command as extending as far as the rule of the successive emperors.9 The Kojiki myth narrative, however, does not really support such a perspective. Since the command was given to Izanagi and Izanami, its scope should be weighed within the context of their activities. As their carrying out of the command to “put in order, solidify, and complete” takes the form of “giving birth,” should not the end of the process of giving birth mark the command’s fulfillment? Izanami’s “departure” from this world ( kamusari 神避) might be held to terminate that process. After producing the “three noble children,” however, Izanaki declares, “I have borne child after child, and at the end of giving birth, I have obtained three noble children.”10 Izanaki’s production of Amaterasu and the other two noble children would seem to demarcate the full compass of the command to “put in order, solidify, and complete this drifting land!”11 Taniguchi Masahiro, Ancient Japanese Literature Notes 1：Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, pp. 206–207, 286–87. 2：Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol. 2, pp. 60–65. 3：The Shinpukuji-bon (1371–1372) is the oldest extant manuscript of the Kojiki. (TN) 4：See Kanda and Ōta, Kojiki, vol. 1, p. 176. 5：Motoori Norinaga, Kojiki den, MNZ 9, p. 159. 6：See chapter 34. 7：See chapter 9. 8：Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol. 2, pp. 60–65. 9：Yamada, Kojiki jōkan kōgi, pp. 95–103. 10：See chapter 14. 11：For further discussion, see Taniguchi Masahiro, “Kojiki shinwa ni okeru kuni no ‘seisei.’”
『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〕 “Heavenly floating bridge” ( ame no ukihashi 天浮橋) Overseas scholars who approach the issue from the standpoint of comparative mythology or comparative religious studies have interpreted the heavenly 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. He remarks that the heavenly floating bridge calls to mind the Bifröst bridge in Germanic mythology.1 The Bifröst (sometimes called Billröst) appears in the mythological poem Grímnismál of the Poetic Edda and the book Gylfaginning of the Prose Edda (both compiled in the thirteenth century), where it is depicted as an unsteady bridge between the earth (Midgard) and the realm of the gods (Ásgard). It has been identified with the rainbow.2 Writing in 1905, William G. Aston also argued that “the ‘floating bridge of Heaven’ is no doubt the rainbow.”3 Raffaele Pettazzoni, a scholar of the history of religions, compares the heavenly 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. He sees these depictions as reflecting ancient mythical notions that clearly derive from the rainbow and suggests that the same notion can be found in the substratum of Japanese mythology.4 Ōbayashi Taryō 大林太良 introduces additional legendary and literary examples from different parts of the world and argues that the idea of the rainbow as a bridge can be found as well in Japan, with the heavenly floating bridge being one instance. He also introduces the views of the German ethnologist Paul Ehrenreich, who identifies the descent of a hero from heaven to earth via a bridge or a rainbow as a common element in ancestral foundation legends. Ōbayashi connects this thesis to the myth of the imperial ancestor Ninigi, who descends to earth via the heavenly floating bridge.5 Indeed, in addition to Izanaki and Izanami, Oshihomimi and Ninigi use the heavenly floating bridge to descend from heaven. As all may be described as ancestral founders, the tendency in foundation legends described by Ehrenreich may be said to be also present in Japanese mythology. Hirafuji Kikuko, Comparative Mythology Notes 1：Florenz, Japanische Mythologie, p. 13. 2：Taniguchi Yukio, Edda to saga, pp. 30–33. 3：Aston, Shinto, p. 87. 4：Pettazzoni, La mitologia giapponese, p. 42n1. 5：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固①成是多陀②用弊流之国 賜天沼矛③而言依賜也 故二柱神立［訓立④云多々志］天浮橋而 指⑤下其沼矛⑥以畫⑦者 塩許々袁々呂々迩［此七字以音］畫鳴［訓鳴云那志々］而 引上時自其矛末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 heavenly deities together (1) set forth a command (2) to Izanaki no mikoto and Izanami no mikoto, proclaiming (3): “Put in order, solidify, and complete (4) this drifting land!” They bestowed a heavenly jeweled halberd (5) on the two deities and charged them with this mission. Standing (6) on the heavenly floating bridge (7), the two deities thereupon plunged the halberd into [the sea] and stirred the brine round and round, making a kōro kōro sound. When they pulled up the halberd, the salt that dripped from its tip piled up and formed an island. This is Onogoroshima island (8).
(1) “The heavenly deities together” (amatsukami moromoro 天神諸) Opinion has long divided as to which deities this phrase designates. The term moromoro 諸 (“several,” “various”) indicates that it cannot be one deity alone. One possibility is that the phrase refers to the five deities who appeared first and are named as the “set-apart heavenly deities” (koto amatsu kami 別天神). If the deities described as having “hid their bodies” are seen as the abstract commanding deities of the heavenly realm, “the heavenly deities together” might be taken to be the “set-apart heavenly deities” in combination with Kuninotokotachi and Toyokumono. 1 Or, as all the deities that have appeared heretofore came into existence in Takamanohara, all might be considered heavenly deities. In this case “the heavenly deities together” might be seen as designating all the deities mentioned so far apart from Izanaki and Izanami, who are described as receiving the command of the “heavenly deities.” If “the heavenly deities together” is interpreted as the first five deities, the problem arises why they are not specifically referred to here as the “set-apart heavenly deities.” Similarly there is no clear basis for taking the phrase to refer to the “set-apart heavenly deities” plus Kuninotokotachi and Toyokumono. The text does not offer a solid rationale for equating the deities who “hid their bodies” with the “heavenly deities together.” Usage of the element moro in the Nihon shoki and Fudoki 風土記 in terms such as morogami 諸神 (“the various deities”) or morohito 諸人 (“the multitudes”) suggests that it does not convey any particular mark of respect. Is it thus not best to see “the heavenly deities together” as comprising all the deities that have appeared hitherto apart from Izanaki and Izanami? If we focus on the question of a primary actor behind the “command” (mikoto mochi 命以) charging Izanaki and Izanami with the “mission” (koto yosashi 言依) of land consolidation, the deity Takamimusuhi would seem to be the logical candidate. 1：For the “set apart heavenly deities” and deities who “hid their bodies,” see chapter 1, text notes 7 and 10. For Kuninotokotachi and Toyokumono as deities who also hid their bodies, see chapter 2. (2) “Set forth 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 often occurs as a set phrase in combination with the term koto yosashi (“charge with a mission”; “entrust with a charge”). Of the twelve instances of mikoto mochi in the Kojiki, one is in a declaration by Susanoo and another in a speech by the “unrobed rabbit of Inaba” (Inaba no shirousagi 稲羽の素兎).2 Otherwise it serves largely to describe commands by the deities Amaterasu and Takamimusuhi (or Takagi no kami 高木神). Ōta Yoshimaro 太田善麿 argues that the logic of mikoto mochi is closely connected to the authority structure supporting the existence of Takamanohara.3 In the later episode where Izanaki directs his “three noble children”) to rule over different realms, koto yosashi is transcribed three times as 事依 (with the first graph suggesting that what is being entrusted is a “matter”).4 Otherwise it is always transcribed as 言依 (with the first graph implying speech). The combination of mikoto mochi and koto yosashi is thus understood to express a situation in which a command is given orally.5 Nishida Nagao 西田長男 holds that in the present instance the entity receiving the command and the entity issuing it act with the same rank and competence. In other words, the entity issuing the command is in effect enacting it.6 In the first variant of the corresponding episode in the fourth section of the Nihon shoki Age of Deities chapter, the heavenly deities command Izanaki and Izanami to rule the land. Only in this variant, however, do the heavenly deities figure. In the main text and nine other variants, Izanaki and Izanami consult together and give birth and form the land on their own initiative.7 2：For the latter instance, see chapter 25, text note 10. 3：Ōta, Kodai Nihon bungaku shichōron, vol. 2, pp. 166–70. 4：The “three noble children” (mihashira no tōtoki ko / sankishi 三貴子) are Amaterasu, Tsukuyomi, and Susanoo; see chapter 14. (TN) 5：On these points, see also chapter 14, note 3. 6：Nishida, Nihon shintōshi kenkyū, vol. 2, pp. 16–23. 7：Kojima et al., Nihon shoki, SNKBZ 2, pp. 24–35. (3) “Proclaiming” (mikotonori 詔) This term is fundamentally an honorific used to refer to an imperial declaration. Apart from the graph shō 詔, the graph choku 勅 is also used to describe an imperial utterance. The ritsuryō 律令 legal codes of the Nara period appear to distinguish between the term shōsho 詔書, employed for extraordinary major matters and imperial edicts, and the term chokushi 勅旨, employed for ordinary minor matters. The Six National Histories ( rikkokushi 六国史), however, seem to use the two characters shō and choku interchangeably. The Nihon shoki (the first of the Six National Histories) uses the graph shō solely for imperial proclamations, and the Age of Deities chapter contains no examples of it. It uses the graph choku for the utterances of the ancestral deities of the imperial lineage. Many of the instances where it uses choku correspond to Kojiki passages that employ shō. Except for two instances in the preface, the Kojiki contains only one occurrence of the graph choku, in the last book, in the chronicle of Emperor Ankō 安康天皇. There the minister Neomi 根臣 refers to an imperial command as 勅命 ( ōmikoto).8 The Kojiki tends to treat deities and emperors as a continuum, and it may be for this reason that it refers to the utterances of both as shō. It does not, however, limit use of the term to deities who are direct imperial ancestors. It applies it also to Susanoo, a deity linked to Amaterasu, and Yamatotakeru, a prince who stands in a similar relation to the emperor.9 8：Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, pp. 328–29. 9：For detailed analyses of use of the graph shō in the Kojiki and other ancient texts, see Koga, “Kojiki ni okeru kaiwa inyō”; Yokota, “Kojiki to Nihon shoki ni okeru shō to choku”; Taniguchi Masahiro, “Kojiki ni okeru ‘shō’ ji no shiyō igi.” (4) “Put in order, solidify, and complete this drifting land!” ( tsukuroi katame nase 修理固成) Commentators have read the four-graph sequence 修理固成 in a variety of ways. Watarai Nobuyoshi 度会延佳 (1615–1690) adopted the reading osame katame nase (“oversee, solidify, and complete”) in his edition of the Kojiki, published in 1687.10 Nishimiya Kazutami 西宮一民 and the editors of the Nihon shisō taikei 日本思想大系 edition do so as well.11 Motoori Norinaga reads it as tsukuri katame nase (“form, solidify, and complete”) in his Teisei kokun Kojiki 訂正古訓古事記 (1799),12 while Tanaka Yoritsune 田中頼庸 and Kurano Kenji read it as osame tsukuri katame nase (“oversee, form, solidify, and complete”).13 Saigō Nobutsuna 西郷信綱 reads it as tsukuri katame yo,14 and Kōnoshi Takamitsu and Yamaguchi Yoshinori read it as tsukuroi katame nase (“put in order, solidify, and complete”).15 Most of those who take the two graphs 修理 to represent a single word opt for either the reading tsukuru (“form,” “make”) or osamu (“oversee,” “govern”); those who read the graphs individually combine them as osame tsukuru (or tsukuri osamu). 10：Watarai Nobuyoshi, Gōtō Kojiki, p. 21. 11：Nishimiya, Kojiki shūteiban, p. 27; Aoki Kazuo et al., Kojiki, p. 21. 12：Motoori Norinaga, Teisei kokun Kojiki, MNZ 8, p. 537. 13：Tanaka, Kōtei Kojiki, vol. 1, p. 2; Kurano, Kojiki zenchūshaku, vol. 2, p. 73. 14：Saigō, Kojiki chūshaku, vol. 1, pp. 100–101. 15：Kōnoshi and Yamaguchi, Kojiki chūkai, vol. 2, pp. 62–65. Further comment 1 (5) “Heavenly jeweled halberd” ( ame no nuboko 天沼矛) The Nihon shoki transcribes the corresponding item as 天之瓊矛 and inserts a gloss after the graph 瓊, stating that it “means jewel; here this graph is read as nu.”16 In line with this gloss, nuboku may be interpreted as a halberd decorated with jewels. 16：Kojima et al., Nihon shoki, SNKBZ 2, pp. 24–25. (6) “Standing” ( tatashi 立) The Kojiki’s compilers include here a gloss: “The graph 立 should be read tatashi” ( tatsu o yomite tatashi to iu 訓立云田多々志). This reading adds shi (the connective ren’yōkei 連用形 form of the honorific auxiliary verb su) to the imperfective mizenkei 未然形 form tata of the verb tatsu (“to stand”). Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤 (1776–1843) interprets the graph 立 as meaning “to set off,”17 but the Kojiki typically uses the graph 発, not 立, to convey this idea. The reading gloss indicates the use of a conjugated form appropriate to the context. The same is true for a gloss in the same sentence indicating that the graph 鳴 (“make a sound”) should be read here in the conjugated honorific form nashi. In the first chapter, a gloss of the graph 立 in the name of the deity Amenotokotachi 天之常立 indicates that there it should be read tachi.18 References to standing on the heavenly floating bridge appear in two other Kojiki passages apart from this one. The first occurs at the beginning of the cession of the land ( kuniyuzuri 国譲り) episode: “[Amaterasu’s son] Ame no oshihomimi no mikoto 天忍穂耳命, standing on the heavenly floating bridge ( ame no ukihashi ni tatashi 天浮橋多々志) . . .” Here a gloss specifies that “the last three graphs are [to be read] phonetically.”19 The second reference occurs in the episode of the descent of the Heavenly Grandson, Ninigi no mikoto 邇々芸命, where he is described as “alighting and standing firmly on the heavenly floating bridge” ( 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.”20 Yamaguchi Yoshinori and Kōnoshi Takamitsu hold that the specification of the intransitive form tatsu serves to confirm that the phrase should be understood to mean “standing on the heavenly floating bridge,” not “erecting” it.21 That indeed may be the case. This issue may also be connected to the absence of a gloss for the digraph 見立 that occurs in the next passage (on this point, see chapter 4, text note 2). 17：Hirata Atsutane, Koshiden, vol. 1, p. 151. 18：See chapter 1. 19：Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, pp. 98–99. 20：Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, pp. 116–17. The precise meaning of ukijimari and sori remains uncertain, and the translation is tentative. (TN) 21：Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, p. 31n14. (7) “Heavenly floating bridge” ( ame no ukihashi 天浮橋) As mentioned in the preceding text note 6, the term “heavenly floating bridge” occurs three times in the Kojiki, and in each instance it is presented as a place to stand when descending from Takamanohara to Ashihara no nakatsukuni 葦原中国, the “central land of reed plains.” Apart from Izanaki and Izanami, deities who descend from Takamanohara to Ashihara no nakatsukuni include Susanoo, Amenohohi, Amewakahiko, Takemikazuchi, Amenotorifune, Oshihomimi, and Ninigi. Of these, the only ones who stand on the heavenly floating bridge other than Izanaki and Izanami are the imperial ancestors Oshihomimi and Ninigi. Standing on the heavenly floating bridge might thus be seen as specific to the depiction of the descent of important deities of the imperial lineage. It does not function solely as that, however; the heavenly floating bridge is also a place where something concerning the land below occurs. In the case of Izanaki and Izanami, it is the stirring of the brine with the heavenly jeweled halberd. In the case of Oshihomimi, it is the detection of an unsettling noise emanating from the land.22 In the case of Ninigi, the precise nature of what happens remains unclear, but the specification through a gloss that the action at issue should be read ukijimari soritatashite suggests that it was seen as a requisite element of Ninigi’s descent to assume authority over the land below.23 Some hold that the heavenly floating bridge was conceived of as a corridor connecting the heavenly realm with the earthly one, as with yasohashi 八十橋, mentioned in the section on Gako 賀古 district in the Harima no kuni fudoki 播磨国風土記, or ama no hashitate 天梯立, mentioned in the Tango no kuni fudoki 丹後国風土記.24 The Kojiki text itself, however, does not provide evidence to support such a supposition. There the heavenly floating bridge functions solely as a place to stand when descending to earth; it does not figure in references to ascension to heaven. 22：Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, pp. 98–99. 23：Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, pp. 116–17. See text note 6 and footnote 30 above. 24：Uegaki, Fudoki, pp. 26–27, 472–73. Further comment 2 (8) Onogoroshima 淤能碁呂嶋 The Heian commentary Nihongi shiki 日本紀私記 indicates that the name Onogoroshima island was understood to mean an island that solidified by itself.25 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, the Tomogashima 友が島 islands, located in the Kitan 紀淡 strait between Wakayama 和歌山 and Awaji island, or the tiny island of Eshima 絵島, in the municipality of Awaji-shi 淡路市 in the northern part of Awaji island. It is best regarded, however, as part of the world of the myths. In the Kojiki chronicle of Emperor Nintoku, the emperor recites a song in which he mentions seeing Awashima 淡島 island and Onogoroshima island when he rows into Naniwa 難波 bay to view the land.26 This song might be held to indicate that one of the islands in today’s Osaka bay was called Onogoroshima. Its form, however, is that 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 Awashima 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. 25： Nihon shoki shiki, p. 205. Nihongi shiki (Private Records of Chronicles of Japan; also known as Nihon shoki shiki) 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) 26：Yamaguchi and Kōnoshi, Kojiki, p. 290.