Talk:Kujiki

about the mentioned dates

William George Aston mentions in the introduction to the Nihongi, that Kujiki was:

• compiled in 620
• a great portion of it was destroyed in 645 in a fire, ----Erkan Yilmaz 18:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bentley's theory

I reverted the insertion again. My removal had nothing to do with Monumenta Nipponica, a journal I hold in high esteem, but with the fact that devoting half the text of this article to what is essentially a fringe theory is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. In fact, if the use of the reference in that place is appropriate, MN must be specifically stating that this is not the majority academic viewpoint. I also don't think User:Shii's edit was appropriate in that he undid my correcting a reference and changing the non-standard romanization "ou" to "ō", with no explanation. Twice. In fact, the edit summary christ on a pike, would it KILL you to do a cursory survey of google books or google scholar before you remove facts about a discussion you know nothing about? seems to be a WP:NPA violation: Shii knows nothing about my academic credentials, but given that the latter's userpage says "I have a BA in religion", I can guess I probably know more about ancient Japanese literature. I'll post a copy of my degree and my graduate dissertation (a comparative analysis between five early poems from the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu with their most recent English translation) if anyone doesn't believe me. Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You may have expertise in other areas of ancient Japanese literature, but you neglected to fix an obvious error in the description of the Kujiki, which I just noticed and will correct. I've actually written a book-length literary analysis of ancient Japanese literature with a chapter on the Kujiki, which is due out next year. In the MN article (can you access it?) Mark Teeuwen helpfully informs us that Bentley may or may not be right, but it doesn't matter because... um... something about Foucault, if I recall correctly. There was also a Japanese review of Bentley's book in Kokugakuin's trade journal. The two reviews show that this is not a violation of WP:WEIGHT, it's simply a new thesis with a lot of data behind it, which has been considered by other academics but has neither been rejected nor accepted yet. Shii (tock) 12:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't come here to fix all the errors in the article. Anyway, if Teeuwen informs us that Bentley may or may not be right, then as far as we are concerned he should be considered wrong by default. If his opinion was "controversial" and evidence could be located that a lot of scholars have actually adopted his view, then we should discuss it in the article without stating whether it is right or wrong. But as the article was until I edited it, he was the only post-1700 scholar mentioned by name, with about a third of the text in the article (and more than half the opening paragraph) devoted to him. Further, if the not-a-forgery view of the Kujiki becomes mainstream, we still shouldn't be crediting it to Bentley unless the majority of scholarly opinion credits him: if someone else presents the argument in a more convincing way and that scholar's view gains acceptance, we should credit it to them. And at present Bentley clearly isn't so widely accepted as the father of a new theory, it seems. Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Should we also mention W.G. Aston and G. Walter Robinson? They both believed the same thing as Bentley (see the quote on this talk page) but they didn't present their theories in full. Shii (tock) 16:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I read Aston (where can I get his translation online? It's in the public domain...) but I'm fairly certain he was talking about a different Kujiki, which was lost in a fire in the seventh century. As far as I know virtually all scholars accept that that existed at some point, but is different from the work this article is discussing. Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh... geez. Aston's translation is available in the Internet Archive, and if you look it up, you might be a little embarrassed by that comment. Anyway, I realize now that the description I had didn't describe the importance of Bentley's work in full, so I've readded it now with a slight twist. Shii (tock) 10:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Why should I be embarrassed? I checked Aston, and he specifically says (1) there was a work compiled early in the seventh century called Kyūjiki/Kujiki, (2) it was completely or almost completely destroyed by fire, (3) there is a surviving work also called by this name and (4) it may or may not be the same work. Not only is this not necessarily agreeing that the extant Kujiki is an ancient (as opposed to classical, in Keene's terms) work, but it explicitly disagrees with your current wording of "eighth century" (Aston considered the "true" ancient Kujiki to have been written by Shōtoku Taishi). Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No, he didn't say "it may or may not be the same work". He said "I incline to the position that the Kiujiki... is authentic" and explains that it appears to predate the Nihon Shoki. [1] He also used it to correct or amend the text of his Nihon Shoki translation in various places. That's why I was asking if that opinion, and the opinion of another Kujiki researcher, should appear in the article. Shii (tock) 01:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't wrong in interpreting the phrase "whether the present Kiujiki is authentic or not" (xiv) as indicating that there may have been an original work by this name which may or may not be the same as the extant work. The note you above cite appears to claim there is a "positive statement" that a large part of the Kujiki was lost in the fire, but checking the cited page (at least in Aston's own translation) showed no positive mention whatsoever of the Kujiki -- Aston appears to have read the Kujiki into a passage in the Nihon Shoki where it is not there. It seems he took the premise that there was an ancient Kujiki as a given, but he saw the position that the extant Kujiki is by-and-large the same as his own scholarly opinion. Anyway, adding a list of scholars who consider the work to be authentic would further violate NPOV unless we included an equally exhaustive list of scholars (going all the way back to the 1890s??) who consider it to be a forgery... Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

But the fact of the matter is that after 御巫清直 and especially 鎌田純一 the establishment view has been more open to revision. Even if Bentley's 2006 translation is not yet widely read, G. W. Robinson's 1955 article is, and it occupies an uncontroversial place in the literature. Shii (tock) 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Wikipedia does not "revise" the establishment view, no matter how open said view is to revision. Your above comment is an admission that the establishment view is that the work is a forgery. Further, if you're going to cite Japanese scholars, especially ones with names as impossible to read as the former, it would be nice if you would WP:SPEAKENGLISH. Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, when I cite Monumenta Nipponica you want to refer to the Japanese literature, but when I cite Japanese scholars suddenly I have to "speak English". It's pointless to talk about this with you any further. Academic credentials, indeed. Shii (tock) 23:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words. I did not ask you to cite Japanese scholars instead of Monumenta Nipponica. I asked you to cite some reliable source that actually states that the not-a-forgery view is mainstream enough to be included in the article. I never mentioned anything about Monumenta Nipponica not being "reliable" or "Japanese" enough. (Besides, isn't MN a publication of Sophia University??) Please stop insulting me -- you have taken an aggressive tone in your edit summaries and throughout this discussion you have gone from passive-aggressive to stubbornly trying to change the subject back to my credentials. And I did not say you shouldn't cite Japanese scholars -- I merely asked that you write those scholars' names in a romanized form. Especially with Edo-period scholars whose names are impossible to read without a pronunciation guide, and who I can't just look up on Japanese Wikipedia because even they give a non-standard pronunciation ("Mikannagi" instead of "Mikanagi"). You're equating your specific violation of a talk-page guideline with being open to discussion of non-English sources on a non-English topic? That seems really disingenuous to me. Also, you cited both of these Japanese scholars out-of-context, giving no indication whether they buy into one view or the other, or state one way or the other what the consensus viewpoint is. And even if Mikanagi support's "Bentley's view" and the subject has been up for debate ever since the 19th century, you are still supporting a version of the article that unambiguously refers to the view that the work is not a forgery as "Bentley's argument". You can't have it both ways -- either Bentley is the first noteworthy scholar to argue that the work is not a forgery, and his views are not yet standard in the academic community, or Bentley was just arguing a position that has been common since Mikanagi's time. Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Break for convenience

I thought the discussion above was getting a little too heated, so I dropped Shii an email explaining my position, and we've basically worked our differences out as far as I can establish.

Basically, it seems to me that all scholars (authors of secondary sources) have their own points of view, so with an issue like this secondary sources are basically useless for establishing the academic consensus (and therefore establishing due weight). Therefore, it's probably wise to figure out what kind of due weight we should give by using tertiary sources. This is actually how WP:PSTS tells us to use tertiary sources: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

I have consulted the Japanese reference works MyPedia, Britannica Kokusai Dai-Hyakkajiten and Digital Daijisen. With the exception of MyPedia, all three stated that the work is a forgery composed after 806, and make no mention whatsoever of any modern scholarship that questions this. MyPedia states that the work on the whole dates to the early ninth-century, but that the preface (and therefore the attribution to Shotoku Taishi and and Soga no Umako) was probably a later addition. Under these circumstances, like the canonical gospels of first-century Christendom, it wouldn't technically qualify as a "forgery", as it was originally written anonymously.

Sekai Dai-Hyakkajiten, which I do not have in an offline copy but found while accessing the online versions of the others, gives the date as "9th or 10th century" and states that "while Shinto scholars of the middle ages treated it with reverence, it has been established as a forgery since the Edo period. However, Book 5 does contain older traditions of the Owari and Mononobe clans, and Book 10 is based on the older record Kokuzō Hongi." The latter article is attributed to Kazuo Aoki, professor of ancient Japanese history at Ochanomizu University and later at the Open University of Japan. The encyclopedia's other articles on gisho (forged books) and Shinto also seem to mention the work, with the former giving it as an example of a forgery, and the latter stating that in the middle ages (but not anymore) it was revered by Shintoists along with the Kojiki, Nihon Shoki, Kogo Shui and Fudoki.

I mentioned it to Shii in my email, but Bentley, surely, also accepts the work as at least being a forgery. I don't have upwards of 11,000Y to drop on Bentley's book itself, but the article currently claims that Bentley considers the Kujiki to be an early eighth-century work, which means that it surely could not have been the work of its claimed compilers, both of whom died in the 620s. It's possible Bentley (and whoever else) takes the stance given in MyPedia and so take it as an anonymous work rather than a pseudonymous forgery.

Now to the five secondary sources given by Shii in the section above, in order of when they appeared in the discussion:

1. Bentley is the modern-day translator to whom both the article and Shii appeared to be giving sole credit for the "pre-Heian" theory until last week. But while his book is only seven years old, it is already obscure enough that for me and any other curious Wikipedians to check it we would have to fork out a very large sum of money for a 400-page book (I bought Keene's 4,000-page History for less).
2. Aston is a scholar from over a century ago who (mistakenly?) read the Kujiki into a passage in the Nihon Shoki where it was not mentioned even in his translation. Regardless of where he got his views, he cannot be used to establish a 2013 academic consensus.
3. Robinson is also sorely dated, although otherwise I can find no problem at this time. I will admit that I have not read the essay in question, although Googling his name along with the Kojiki brought up some possibilities -- can I get a title, or perhaps a quote or a summary? Whatever he says, though, he is one scholar whose writing is 60 years old, and cannot possibly be taken as representative of any consensus.
4. Mikannagi (whose name was cited with no context or elaboration on his views) is at least as old as Aston. From what I have read (Akira Fujiwara's 2004 Nihon no Gisho, admittedly -- see below) he was a 19th-century Shinto priest. He was therefore both sorely outdated and (again according to Fujiwara) biased based on his religious views. He should probably only be mentioned as an example of one of the Edo-period Shinto scholars who refused to give in on the authenticity of the text. However, he also seems to have considered the work to be completely authentic, compiled in the early seventh century by Prince Shotoku et al., putting him at odds with Bentley's (apparent) admission that at least the preface is a forgery.
5. Kamata ... is as Kamata does. Unlike most of the other participants here, he at least appears to still be alive, which is a plus. However, an examination of his bibliography indicates that he is a religious scholar rather than a literary historian. Which brings me to...

...how a good-faith Wikipedian who is clearly well-read in this area can have failed to notice that the academic consensus is fully against the "pre-Heian, not a forgery" view of the work, allowing at most only that a small portion of the text might preserve earlier traditions. I therefore believe that Shii has been basing his work on this page on the work of religious scholars rather than literary or historical ones. Nothing wrong with that: it's an honest mistake. But now we've clearly seen that the academic consensus is along the following lines:

• The work almost certainly dates from between 806 and 936,
• with some scholars dating the preface and the (false) attribution to a later period,
• and many taking some parts of the work as preserving earlier traditions.
• A small minority of scholars, including some devout Shintoists, date the work to the 8th century,
• but nevertheless consider the attribution to Prince Shotoku and Soga no Umako to be false -- either a later interpolation or a forgery of the original author.

Can the article, therefore, be fixed to represent this consensus and give WP:DUEWEIGHT to the obvious minority view of Bentley? (I don't want to hear anyone say "You only cited Japanese sources, but English Wikipedia is based on English-language reliable sources" -- the vast majority of literature on this subject is in Japanese only, so the academic consensus cannot possibly be represented by two or three Anglophone scholars.[2][3][4][5][6][7])

Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I discussed Akira Fujiwara's book Nihon no Gisho (Japanese Forged Books) with Shii in our email exchange. Both of us are in agreement that his opinions don't matter as much as those of the professional historians and literary/religious scholars: Shii because of problems with his methodology, me because he is a freelance writer whose cover-blurb mentions no academic credentials. However, because I have only cited his statements of fact when they fit with the stated consensus in reliable tertiary sources, and not his opinions, he can probably still be used as a source in conjunction with other more trustworthy ones. 13:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Before making the blanket proclamation that the view expressed by the encyclopedias has not seen any significant challenge, I would ask you read at least one of four recent summaries of what's happened since those encyclopedia articles were written: (1) the Rekishi Dokuhon issue I cited in my most recent edit to the article, (2) the book 「奇書『先代旧事本紀』の謎をさぐる」, (3) Bentley's book which is an academic source and furthermore summarizes 20th century research on the subject, or even (4) 「日本の神々―『先代旧事本紀』の復権」 by Kamata, obviously not an unbiased work, but one that does have a literature summary. During my research these sources all informed me, although I don't have quotes and may have been generous in my own readings, that there is not a "small minority" of scholars placing the book in the 7th or 8th century, but a significant 20th century revision. By the way, Robinson wrote in Japanese and has subsequently been cited by Japanese scholars.

In the Japanese academy it's very difficult to change a thesis once it's been grounded, but I think in this case there is ample evidence that the establishment view is wanting and that it has seen plenty of scholarly, reliable challenges. Other than your characterization of the revisionist view, I think your list of points is entirely accurate. Shii (tock) 08:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be late: I was delayed. The secondary sources you cite still don't say anything except about the POV of those particular authors. Widely-used, respected tertiary sources that went through several rounds of review are a more accurate representation of the current academic consensus -- we can't simply say "it's very difficult to change a thesis once it's been grounded in the Japanese academy, and therefore the minority view is probably still right".

It's also still unclear what you want the article to say: the sentence "Since the early 20th century, the bulk of academic research on the Kujiki has proposed that it contains genuine elements" implies you want the article to indicate that the work is in some way "genuine" (not a forgery? authentically written by Shotoku Taishi?), but the final paragraph implies you want the article to support Bentley's view that the work dates to the eighth century and therefore at least the preface is a forgery.

Sarumaru the Poet (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

It's embarrassing to see a pocket dictionary cited on Wikipedia in this way, but I don't have any objection to what you wrote so I will leave the text as you wrote it. Shii (tock) 01:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)