sign in sign up
<<
Home , Amaterasu, Basil Hall Chamberlain, Hare of Inaba, Izanagi, Japanese folklore, Okuninushi

Panel 1: The “” Depicted by Siebold: History and Culture

#(Y,#+, #+&#+Z#,

Hitoshi YAMADA (Translated by Drake LANGFORD)

Introduction This paper uses the ethnology of to examine the following five points: 1. Who were the pioneering individuals that introduced the Western world to Japanese 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 preserved in two works that were edited in the early 8th century, (712) and (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 . ・ 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 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 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 gradually took its origin. Therefore they are of the opinion that the man called Yanamim and his wife Yanangui [] 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 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 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 , who are mentioned in the Japanese Histories, as the first Monarchs and Governors of that Empire” ・ Book III, Chapter I, “Of the 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 Company factory in (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 , Jinmu, through the 16th century. The manuscript of Titsingh’s translation survived his 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 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 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. Even after more accurate translations of Japanese myth were produced in the early 20th century, German ethnologist Leo Frobenius (1873–1938) continued to cite Siebold as a source in his Das Zeitalter des Sonnengottes, a classic of comparative mythology (Frobenius 1904: 417, 418). Incidentally, Brauns’s book was also an important source of Japanese for Frobenius, as I touch on below.

4. More Accurate Translations 4-1) (1843–1929) In the late 19th century, three U.K. Japanologists made important contributions to research on Japanese myth. The first of these was diplomat Ernest Satow, an associate of Alexander von Siebold during the early years of Satow’s residency in Japan. A quick study when it came to Japanese, Satow criticized Klaproth’s writings for the following reason, namely, that his interpretation of personal names was inaccurate and his work ignored the importance of Kojiki.

Klaproth, indeed, has summarised in his introduction to “Les Annales des Dairi [Nipon o daï itsi ran],” the first three books of the Nihongi [Nihonshoki], but the value of his work is considerably diminished by the absence of a correct interpretation of the names of gods and heroes, without which the real import of the stories in which they figure cannot be properly appreciated. But he was apparently altogether ignorant of the “Notices of Ancient Things [Kojiki],” which is of peculiar interest both to the student of mythology and to the philologist, [...] (Satow 1878: 31).

4-2) Chamberlain (1827–1893) Similarly negative views were cast upon Siebold and other pioneering Japanologists as well. One figure who shared such views was , a U.K. scholar of language who was professor of Japanese at Imperial University from 1886–1890. As he wrote,

If small people may be allowed to criticise giants, we would here note that the only weakness discoverable in the German school of investigators, as represented by Kaempfer, Siebold, und Rein, is a certain insufficiency of the critical faculty in questions of history and language. Surely it is not enough to get at the Japanese sources. The Japanese sources must themselves be subjected to rigorous scrutiny. It was reserved for the English school, represented by Satow and Aston, to do this ̶ to explore the language with scientific exactness, and to prove, step by step, that the so-called history, which Kaempfer and his followers had taken on trust,

218 International Symposium Proceedings ̶ Siebold’s Vision of Japan was a mass of old wives’ fables (Chamberlain [1882]).

4-3) (1841–1911) Next, in 1896, diplomat and Japanologist William George Aston translated Nihon shoki into English as well (Aston [1896]), including with it numerous interesting footnotes of a comparative nature. His introduction mentions Chamberlain, Satow, and Florenz, but not Siebold or Klaproth. By this time, the linguistic facets of Japanese myth had already outgrown the older summaries.

4-4) Karl Florenz (1865–1939) German scholars also contributed to such growth. Karl Florenz, who was professor at Tokyo Imperial University and then The University of Hamburg, translated the entire Nihon shoki, as well as sections of Kojiki and other classical sources, into German in 1901. In 1919, he published complete German translations of the two most important sources of Japanese myth (Florenz 1901, 1919).

4-5) David August Brauns (1827–1893) No less important is German geologist David August Brauns. He taught at Tokyo Imperial University from 1879 to 1881. He had some fluency in spoken Japanese, which enabled him to collect Japanese folk tales in his spare time. He was interested in Japanese ethnic identity and sought to understand it through folk tales. He also had an interest in comparative mythology, a field of study still in its early stages at the time. In 1885 he published Japanische Märchen und Sagen, a German-language introduction to 168 examples of . He divided the stories into eight categories, as follows.

1. Märchen: Momotaro, Saru-kani gassen, Kachikachi yama, etc. 2. Fabeln: Nihiki no kaeru, etc. 3. Göttersagen: myths of and Izanami, , and Susano’o, Susano’o and Inadahime, Okuninushi, etc. Includes myths of the Ryukyuans and Ainu. 4. Heldensagen: Emperor Jinmu, etc. 5. Geschichtliche Sagen: Crossings to Japan by Chinese emigrants, etc. 6. Legenden: Shotoku Taishi, , etc. 7. Lokalsagen: Mt. Fuji, Lake Biwa, etc. 8. Gespenstersagen und Verwandtes

Numerous European scholars have in fact referred to Brauns’s book when comparing the myths and folktales of Japan and with those of other places. Frobenius was mentioned above, so a few other examples should suffice. Friedrich W. K. Müller (1863–1930), a German orientalist, was the first to compare folkloric myths of Umisachi, Yamasachi, and lost fishhook with similar stories from Sulawesi (Celebes), Indonesia (Müller 1893). In addition to Chamberlain’s Kojiki, he also relied on Brauns’s book. Between 1896–1907, the little-known independent/unofficial German scholar Eduard Stucken (1865–1936) published his five-volume Astralmythen (Stucken 1896–1907). His research on comparative mythology examined the motif of magische Flucht (magical escape). He, too, relied mainly on Chamberlain and Brauns as sources for kindred Japanese stories that he included in his comparisons and distribution maps.

Siebold and Studies of Japanese Mythology in the 19th Century 219 Brauns’s work was used outside the German-speaking world as well. In his still popular 12-volume Coloured Fairy Books (1889–1910), U.K. anthropologist Andrew Lang (1844–1912) took several Japanese folk tales from Brauns’s collection. As this makes clear, the older works by Siebold and Klaproth were increasingly replaced during the late 19th century by newer, more accurate translations of Japanese myth. Moreover, there was also a growing interest in Japanese folk tales.

5. Miniature Books in the Siebold Collection in Munich In this context it is interesting that Japanese folk tales are recorded in four miniature books in the Siebold collection of the State Museum for Ethnology in Munich (S2029a-d). As is well known, there were many miniature books produced during the and early periods. A number of illustrations show striking resemblances. One illustration in the Munich collection shows a scene from Sarukani gassen (The Monkey and the Crab). The mean-spirited monkey is saying to the gentle crab, “Trade me for this seed.” This illustration bears a very strong resemblance to another miniature book in the Shirayuri College Library in Tokyo (Kato 2004: 41), though the animals’ dialog is slightly longer. Monkey: “Say, Crab, trade me your grilled -ball for this persimmon seed.” Crab: “Okay, fine with me. Let’s trade.” The Munich and Tokyo books also have very similar illustrations at the end of their stories; both show the monkey with the mortar on top of his head. The following points need further research. ・ Dating these miniature books is difficult. It is unknown when either book, even the Shirayuri book, was printed. ・ The miniature books in Prof. Yasuko Kato’s collection (Baika Women’s University) are bigger than the Munich ones. The former are approximately 10cm, what the latter are 3cm long by 2.4cm wide. Were there different formats? This question is still unresolved. ・ Another interesting question is whether Siebold had an interest in the contents of these miniature books, or if it was also the object itself (quality, materials) that interested him.

Conclusion Siebold’s accounts of Japanese myth published in his Nippon come from his pupil Mima’s dissertation. Although his accounts remained far from accurate, they lacked that kind of information at the time and, at the very least, were an improvement over earlier works such as Kaempfer’s. Thus, Siebold’s writings were often used along with Klaproth’s contributions. By the late 19th century, however, more accurate translations of Japanese myth were made by Chamberlain, Aston, and Florenz, a development that contributed to the growth of comparative mythology in the 20th century. Research remains to be done on miniature books in Munich and other places, and on their significance within the Siebold collection as a whole. If I may, I will close this paper with a brief personal reminiscence. I began living in Munich in 1998 to begin writing my doctoral thesis. One day I happened to visit Siebold’s grave at the Southern Cemetery. At the time, I had no idea I would ever be involved in research on Siebold. I am very grateful to have had this opportunity and would like to express my appreciation to everyone involved. I look forward to continuing this research in the future.

220 International Symposium Proceedings ̶ Siebold’s Vision of Japan 5% Aston, William George. [1896] 1972. Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing. Bastian, Adolf. 1881. Die heilige Sage der Polynesier. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Brauns, David August. 1885. Japanische Märchen und Sagen. Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Friedrich. Chamberlain, Basil Hall. [1882] 1981. The Kojiki: Records of Ancient Matters, 2nd ed. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing. ––––––––. 1891. Things Japanese, being Notes on Various Subjects connected with Japan. 2nd ed., revised and enlarged. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co. Florenz, Karl. 1901. Japanische Mythologie. Nihongi “Zeitalter der Götter.” (Supplement der Mittheilungen der deutschen Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens). Tokyo: Hobunsha. ––––––––. 1919. Die historischen Quellen der -Religion. (Quellen der Religionsgeshichte; Bd. 7). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Frobenius, Leo. 1904. Das Zeitalter des Sonnengottes. Berlin: Georg Reimer. Ishiyama, Yoshikazu & Katsunori Miyazaki. 2012. Shīboruto no shōgai to sono gyōseki kankei nenpyō, II (1833–1855). Seinan Gakuin Daigaku Kokusai Bunka Ronsh\, 26(2): 195-408. Kaempfer, Engelbert. [1777–79] 1964. Geschichte und Beschreibung von Japan. Hrsg. von Christian Wilhelm Dohm. Mit einer Einführung von Hanno Beck, 2 Bde. (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Geographie und der Reisen; 2). Stuttgart: F. A. Brockhaus. Kanamoto, Masayuki. 1977. Nihonshi: tenchi kaibyaku shinwa, nihon jōko shi, Jinmu Tennō ni hajimaru tennō ōchō no sōsō. In: Iwao, Seiichi, Tomio Ogata, Toshikane Okubo, Makoto Saitō, Kenji Yanai (eds.), Sh?boruto Nippon no Kenk\ to Kaisetsu: 156-167. Tokyo: Kōdansha. Katō, Yasuko. 2004. Bakumatsu Meiji Mamehon sh\sei. Tokyo: Kokusho Kankōkai. Lang, Andrew. 1889–1910. Coloured Fairy Books, 12 Vols. London: Longmans & Co. Mima, Zunzoo. [n.d.] 1936. Oudeste Geschiedenis, Mythologie, van het Japansche Rijk en Levensbeschrijving van den ersten Mikado. Tokyo: Shīboruto Bunken Kenkyūshitsu. Müller, Friedrich W. K. 1893. Eine Mythe der Kêi-Insulaner und Verwandtes. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 25: 533- 537. Obayashi, Taryō. 1972. Jūkyū seiki Yōroppa gakusha no Nihon shinwa kenkyū. Hitotsubashi RonsP, 66: 248-264. Satow, Ernest Mason. 1878. The Mythology and Religious Worship of the Ancient Japanese. The Westminster Review, 54: 27-57. Schurhammer, Georg. 1923. Shin-tô, der Weg der Götter in Japan. Der Shintoismus nach den gedruckten und ungedruckten Berichten der japanischen Jesuitenmissionare des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Bonn: Kurt Schroeder. Screech, Timon. 2006. Secret Memoirs of the Shoguns: Isaac Titsingh and Japan, 1779–1822. London: Routledge. von Siebold, Philipp Franz. [1832–51] 1975. Nippon. Archiv zur Beschreibung von Japan. Vollständiger Neudruck der Urausgabe, 2 Bde. Tokyo: Kōdansha. Stucken, Eduard. 1896–1907. Astralmythen. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, 5 Teile. Leipzig: Verlag von Eduard Pfeiffer. Titsingh, Isaac. 1834. 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. Paris: Printed for the Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland. Tylor, Edward Burnett. 1877. Remarks on Japanese mythology. Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 6: 55-60. Walravens, Hartmut. 2002. Julius Klaproth (1783–1835) . Briefwechsel mit Gelehrten, großenteils aus dem Akademiearchiv in St. Petersburg. (Orientalistik Bibliographien und Dokumentationen; Bd. 18). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ––––––––. 2006. Julius Klaproth: His Life and Works with Special Emphasis on Japan. Japonica Humboldtiana, 10: 177-191. Yamada, Hitoshi. 2012. Kan Taiheiyō no Nihon shinwa: 130 nen no kenkyūshi. In: Maruyama, Akinori (ed.), Kojiki: Kan TaiheiyP no Nihon shinwa: 6-24. Tokyo: Bensei Shuppan.

Siebold and Studies of Japanese Mythology in the 19th Century 221 Yanai, Kenji. 1936. Nihon kodaishi kō kaisetsu. In: Shīboruto Bunken Kenkyūshitsu (ed.), Sh?boruto Sensei Bunken Sh\ei: 50-54. Tokyo: Shīboruto Bunken Kenkyūshitsu ––––––––. 1938. Mima Junzō yaku Nihon Kodaishi. In: Nichidoku Bunka Kyōkai (ed.), Sh?boruto Kenky\: 202- 214. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. (Tohoku University)

222 International Symposium Proceedings ̶ Siebold’s Vision of Japan