Doesn’t it seem strange that we find no open criticisms by once-independent local powers of the blatant myths of legitimation found in the Kojiki and Nihon Shoki?
When nobles not directly related to the Yamato clan read these two domestic histories, what did they think? Did they know they were reading a largely fabricated text?
If the Yamato polity constructed a domestic history text that supported heavenly origins and was filled with supernatural events out of the blue, this would seem rather ridiculous and unbelievable. However, the polity drew upon already existent sources—ranging from myth-history to diaries to genealogy lists. Therefore, much of the Yamato Sun Line tradition could have been simply copied from these older texts giving the compilers’ imaginations a nice holiday—the affair would then have become rather plug-and-chug. If the main audience of the Nihon Shoki was the aristocratic court, would the writing of the legitimatory text, itself, be considered bloviation? Were the intended readers simply reading falsified claims they knew to be false—this knowledge a given due to their lofty court positions, hereditary stories passed through griots of sorts, and personal and regional histories?
There are actually some sources like that. Local histories that seem like competing mythologies, thought they are somewhat similar. The one I’m thinking of specifically is the Izumo no kuni fudoki.
See. Aoki, Michiko Y. Izumo no kuni fudoki. Tokyo: Sophia U press, 1971.
Comment by japonesque — January 27, 2009 @ 5:26 am |
japonesque, thank you for your comment. Yes, I am familiar with the various Fudoki and have found them quite enjoyable to read.
However, I would not call the content of the Fudoki *critical* of that in the Nihonshoki and Kojiki. A sharp eye and careful reading can lead to a good analysis of them, however, and we can surely arrive at such a conclusion.
Thanks for your comment!
Comment by nagaeyari — February 13, 2009 @ 7:23 am |