Historical Significance of Nihonshoki-tsūshō by Tanikawa Kotosuga and Kojikiden by Motōri Norinaga

Abstract

Tanikawa Kotosuga (1709-1776) and Motōri Norinaga (1730-1801) were from the same region and lived in the same era, exchanging letters and having close academic exchanges. As Shintoists, they recognized Nihonshoki and Kojiki as the sacred book of Shintoism, a perception that was by no means unique to them, but was universal at the time. In addition, although there was a general trend of emphasis on Nihonshoki and disregard for Kojiki, Tanikawa Kotosuga began to write Nihonshoki-tsūshō and Motōri Norinaga began to write Kojikiden as commentaries. Thus, Tanikawa Kotosuga completed the 35th volume of Nihonshoki-tsūshō in 1751 and published it in 1762, while Motōri Norinaga completed the 44th volume of Kojikiden in 1798 and published it in its entirety between 1790 and 1822. Tanikawa Kotosuga's scholarly contributions include, firstly, that Nihonshoki-tsūshō spans the entire Nihonshoki epidemic, and is honored as a pioneer of Nihonshoki studies in the modern era. Second, it can be pointed out that he was well versed in Japanese and Chinese scholarship and was not obscured by Buddhist scriptures, so he took a rational and empirical method. On the other hand, Motōri Norinaga's scholarly contributions include the fact that he wrote Kojikiden, reflecting the relatively good representation of the old style in the first Kojiki. Second, it can be acknowledged that this led to a new appreciation of Kojiki, and that Kojikiden was able to be both a commentary and a study of history. However, it is pointed out as a flaw that they strongly advocated the spiritualism of Shintoism by recognizing Nihonshoki and Kojiki as Shintoists and working on their commentaries, recognizing them as sacred books of Shintoism. In particular, in the case of Motōri Norinaga, there is also an assessment that Kojikiden itself is not an academic study of an objective nature, but merely a commentary based on his own religion, Shintoism. On the other hand, there is a view that he is the best historian. Therefore, I think it is persuasive to point out that when citing the two books, one must distinguish between facts and narratives through rigorous fodder criticism.