Siebold and Studies of Japanese Mythology in the 19Th Century 215 Lake Filled with Water
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Panel 1: The “Japan” Depicted by Siebold: History and Culture #(Y,#+, #+&#+Z#, Hitoshi YAMADA (Translated by Drake LANGFORD) Introduction This paper uses the ethnology of religion to examine the following five points: 1. Who were the pioneering individuals that introduced the Western world to Japanese myth prior to Siebold? 2. How was Japanese myth recorded by Siebold and Klaproth (a contemporary of Siebold) in the 1830s? 3. What was the impact of the accounts by Siebold and Klaproth? 4. How did a more accurate translation of Japanese myth emerge in the late 19th century? And lastly, 5. I will provide a tentative report on the miniature books in the Siebold collection in Munich. First, however, I will provide a brief overview of Japanese myth. “Japanese myth” refers mainly to myths preserved in two works that were edited in the early 8th century, Kojiki (712) and Nihon shoki (720). These two works differ in some respects. Specifically, ・ Kojiki is more story-like and includes episodes that are absent from Nihon Shoki, for instance, The White Hare of Inaba. ・ Nihon shoki is more historiographical in orientation and presents various alternative accounts using expressions like “According to one text....” That said, much of the material in the two works overlaps, which is why we also often use the expression Kiki myth. 1. Pioneering Individuals 1-1) Gaspar Vilela (1524–72) Certainly one of the earliest pioneers of this field was the Portuguese Jesuit Gaspar Vilela, who resided in Japan from 1556 to 1571. On April 27, 1563, while in Sakai (present-day Osaka Prefecture), he wrote a letter to colleagues in Europe describing three Japanese creation myths. The following is an English translation of his account made by the Jesuit George Schurhammer. Opinions which those of Miaco have concerning the Beginning of this World. The first is: They say that this world was, at first, a round egg. A strong and stormy wind which struck the egg, broke it. The white of the egg became the sky, whilst the yolk with the shell became the sea and the land. Then the creatures came and multiplied as they are now. The second is: In the beginning was a void and, simply by the agency of the force of Nature all we now see came forth. The third view is peculiar to the Japanese. It is as follows: The world was originally a great Siebold and Studies of Japanese Mythology in the 19th Century 215 lake filled with water. As there was as yet no land nor inhabitants a man named Yanamim [Izanaki] threw a stick with a trident from the sky, and said: “Perhaps there is a river under the sky.” Whilst stirring the water he lifted up a little piece of clay which was under the water. That small piece of clay stuck to the trident, and as it came out of the water, became an island. From it the Empire of Japan gradually took its origin. Therefore they are of the opinion that the man called Yanamim and his wife Yanangui [Izanami] are the first founders of Japan and that from these all the Japanese are descended (Schurhammer 1923: 27-28). While this account about Japan’s creation is based entirely on Nihon shoki, some of the names (e.g. the kami Yanamim [Izanaki] and Yanangui [Izanami]) and expressions (e.g. trident) it uses are different. Vilela’s letter, however, was apparently read by no more than a small circle of Jesuits. 1-2) Engelbert Kaempfer (1651–1716) The next pioneer was Engelbert Kaempfer. A well-known German physician and naturalist, Kaempfer resided in Japan from 1690-92. His History of Japan was first published in English in 1727 and then eventually in German a half-century later. Kaempfer comments on Japanese creation myths and kami in three places. Specifically, ・Book I, Chapter VII, “Of the Origine of the Japanese, according to their own fabulous Opinion” ・ Book II, Chapter I, “Names of the Gods, Demi-Gods, and Emperors, who are mentioned in the Japanese Histories, as the first Monarchs and Governors of that Empire” ・ Book III, Chapter I, “Of the Religions of the Empire in general, and of the Sintos Religion in particular” (Kaempfer [1777–79] I: 111-117, 163-172, 251-257). Unsurprisingly, Kaempfer’s accounts also rely primarily on Nihon shoki. Unfortunately, I do not know what response these Japanese myths received in Europe at the time. 2. Siebold and Klaproth 2-1) Philipp Franz Balthasar von Siebold (1796–1866) Next came Siebold. In Part I (published 1832) of his comprehensive monograph Nippon, Siebold summarizes Japanese myth in a section titled “Mythen von der Schöpfung der Welt Urgeschichte von Japan.” Among Siebold’s most important sources was a Dutch-language dissertation, Oudste geschiedenis, mythologie, van het Japansche rijk en levensbeschrijving van den eersten Mikado, based primarily on Nihon shoki that was submitted by his pupil Mima Junzo (Mima [n.d.]). The process by which Mima’s dissertation manuscript was edited by Siebold and his assistants has already been illuminated through the research of several Siebold scholars. Their findings can be summarized as follows. ・Stage one: Mima’s above-mentioned manuscript was likely written between February 1824 and June 1825. ・Stage two: The manuscript was translated into German in 1826 by Siebold’s assistant, Heinrich Bürger. ・Stage three: Three German manuscripts (each begun in 1832). These manuscripts, which revised and supplemented Bürger’s text, were produced by Siebold’s collaborator, Johann Joseph Hoffmann (1805–1878). ・Stage four: Part I of Nippon (1832). (Yanai 1936 and 1938; and Kanamoto 1977) 216 International Symposium Proceedings ̶ Siebold’s Vision of Japan 2-2) Julius Heinrich Klaproth (1783–1835) Two years after publication of Siebold’s above-mentioned summary of Japanese myth, another important source of related information appeared. The circumstances behind it, however, are somewhat complicated. Isaac Titsingh (1745–1812), who served three times as Opperhoofd (chief factor) of the Dutch East India Company factory in Nagasaki (1779–80, 1781–83, and 1784), had translated Nippon odai ichiran into Dutch. This work, written in 1652 by Confucian scholar Hayashi Gaho (1618–80), was a history of Japan from time of its first emperor, Jinmu, through the 16th century. The manuscript of Titsingh’s translation survived his death and was eventually edited and published in 1834 by German linguist and orientalist, Julius Heinrich Klaproth under the lengthy title Nipon o daï itsi ran, ou annales des empereurs du Japon. Accompagné de notes, et précédé d’un aperçu de l’histoire mythologique du Japon, par Julius Klaproth. This book, however, was not a straight translation of Titsingh’s work; rather, it was a complete re-translation of the text. As he explains in the introduction to the book, Klaproth was critical of the poor quality of Titsingh’s translation and admits that he had to re-translate it himself using Hayashi’s text (Screech 2006: 71-72). As the subtitle also makes clear, the book includes a synopsis of Japanese myth. This was written by Klaproth based on Nihon shoki and portions of Tokugawa Mitsukuni’s Dai Nihonshi (Titsingh 1834: i-xxxvi). As for the personal relationship between Siebold and Klaproth, we know the following. Initially the two scholars exchanged heated arguments in correspondence, but then eventually reconciled in September 1832 (Walravens 2002: 93-110, 2006: 190-191). In the introduction to his above-mentioned work, Klaproth praises Siebold’s Nippon Archiv (i.e. Nippon) (Titsingh 1834: vii) Following Klaproth’s death on August 28, 1835, however, Siebold’s attitude toward Klaproth apparently worsened again. When Part 9 of Nippon was released in September 1841 (Ishiyama and Miyazaki 2012: 291), Siebold once again criticized the work of his deceased fellow researcher as follows. Das Werk, zu dessen Bearbeitung ausser der Titsing’schen Handschrift auch der japanische Originaltext und viele andere Materialien J. Klaproth zu Gebote standen, erschien auch bald darauf unter dem Titel Nippon o daï itsi ran [...]; ein stattlich ausgerüstetes Buch, das viel Verdienst, aber auch mit andern Arbeiten des sel. Klaproth den Fehler gemein hat, dass es oberflächlich bearbeitet ist, und die dazu anderwärts entlehnten Materialien so fein mit eingewebt sind, dass man es ihnen nicht ansieht, ob und woher sie entlehnt sind. Klaproth verstand so recht den Kunstgriff, auch die reinsten Quellen, woraus er schöpfte, im Auge seiner Leser als trübe erscheinen zu lassen. So säuberte Klaproth denn auch Titsingh’s Handschrift und benutzte den Satz zu seinem Commentar darüber (Siebold [1832–51]: 537-538). Be this as it may, these works by Siebold and Klaproth were used almost exclusively as sources of Japanese myth. 3. Siebold’s and Klaproth’s Influence On March 28, 1876, U.K. anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor (1832–1917) read a revolutionary paper in London titled “Remarks on Japanese Mythology” (Tylor 1877). It is considered to be the Siebold and Studies of Japanese Mythology in the 19th Century 217 first academic treatment of Japanese myth (Obayashi 1972: 249-250; Yamada 2012: 8-9). In his paper, Tyler divided Japanese myth into indigenous elements, Buddhist elements, and Chinese elements. He relied on three sources: 1. The opening section of Kojiki, translated for Tyler by Freedom and People’s Rights Movement activist Baba Tatsui (1850–1888) who was in London at the time 2. Siebold’s Nippon 3. Klaproth’s introduction Another example is found in the work of German ethnologist Adolf Bastian (1826–1905). In his work Die heilige Sage der Polynesier (Bastian 1881), he compares Japanese and Polynesian myth. In doing so, he too uses Klaproth’s accounts to compare the creation story in the Hawaiian chant Kumulipo with Japanese creation myths.