Talk:Nihon Shoki

Fabricated Foreign Relations in Chronicles of Japan

Nihonshoki fabricated or exaggerated a considerable amount of its contacts with Korea and China - this is a proven fact. There is a list of examples with claims that Gaya (Minama) being a Japanese colony [1], the Korean kingdom of Baekje paying tribute to the Yamato court being prime cases.--Jh.daniell 00:42, 25 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)

Proven by Mr. Choe Yong-shik? Who the heck is he anyway? --Saintjust 16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Proven by Sokichi Tsuda, Namio Egami, Hong Won-tack, Taro Sakamoto, and W.G. Aston. Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some sources: Kojiki and Nihongi, Japanese history chronicles, state that the Yamato kingdom had always influenced events in Korea by sending in troops, sometimes as many as 100,000, and maintained an outpost in Korea. They also state that the Kammu's mother's clan was given the status of a retainer under the emperor after the Baekje kingdom fell. These claims are viewed by many different scholars as unsupported propaganda. Many Koreans, Westeners and some Japanese raise questions about the completeness, objectivity, and reliability of the surviving version of these Japanese sources. They argue early parts of Kojiki and Nihongi were fabricated or exaggerated by the Yamato court to legitimize its rule.

Some Japanese historians and most Korean scholars agree that the Kojiki and Nihongi cannot be read as complete historical truth. Tsuda Sokichi, a Japanese scholar, concluded that the earlier sections of these histories were made up to justify imperial rule. Thus, a myth that Jingu conquered parts of Korea in the Kojiki is rejected as fairy tale inserted by Yamato scholars because of later tense relations between Silla and Yamato. Most scholars agree that the founding date of Japan as 660 B.C.E. and the first thirteen emperors of Japan are mythical and not based on historical fact. Additionally, the Nihongi attributes dates two sexagenary cycles or 120 years of history before they actually happened to make the relatively young Yamato state as respectable as contemporaneous Korean and Chinese states which shows another evidence of bias of the writers. (A sexagenary cycle of sixty years was used to keep a measure of time on a calendar.) [2]. Although the Nihongi and Kojiki state that Korean Kingdoms paid tribute to Yamato, it is not believed by most historians. [3]. [4].

The Nihongi is partly based on Korean history books which have now been lost. [5]. [6]. Korean sources used in the Nihongi are the Baekje-gi (Record of Baekje), Baekje Sinch'an (New Record of Baekje), and Baekje Pon'gi (Original Record of Baekje). Records written in Baekje may have been the basis for the quotes in the Nihongi but textual criticism shows that scholars fleeing the destruction of the Baekje Kingdom to Yamato wrote these histories and the authors of the Nihongi heavily relied upon those sources. [7]. The use of Korean place names in Nihongi is another piece of evidence that the history used Korean sources.

Many of the myths of these two histories also have many similarities with traditions in China, Manchuria, and Korea. [8]. Tortfeasor 17:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nihon Shoki have another known fabricated section on Himiko. Apparently Japanese scholars have removed 200 years from Nihon Shoki to fill out 200 years of non-Yamato factional rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.9.34 (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Chronicles?

While it may be a logical and/or literal translation, I cannot imagine that anyone would find "Chronicles of Japan" to be more recognizable than "Nihonshoki". I looked at the title of this article and I assumed that it concerned either (a) some fictional series called Chronicles of Japan, like a novel series or an anime, or (b) an umbrella article encompassing Nihonshoki, Nihongi, Kojiki, Heike Monogatari, Heiji Monogatari, Taiheiki and a whole bunch of others. I propose moving this to Nihonshoki, the far more common and more recognizable name of this document. LordAmeth 19:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support - move to Nihonshoki. --Endroit 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support move to Nihonshoki. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Nihonshoki is more commonly used. --Sir Edgar 01:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Concur with above. Tortfeasor 03:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support Agree with Sir Edgar's statement --Jh.daniell 13:11, 25 May 2006 (GMT+9:00-Tokyo)
• Support And if only to fight drive-by page moving. ~ trialsanderrors 06:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

---

• Comment - If you search "nihonshoki" in Google Scholar or Google Books, Goolge suggests "nihon shoki" as an alternative spelling. The number of hits for "nihon shoki" is greater than that of "nihonshoki" in Google web search, Google Scholar, Google Books. --Kusunose 06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • So, shall we take a vote as to one or the other? Nihonshoki vs Nihon Shoki? LordAmeth 11:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The title of this article has always been "Nihonshoki" until May 24, when somebody moved it to "Chronicles of Japan". I believe that we should move it back to "Nihonshoki" first before discussion the move to "Nihon shoki".--Endroit 17:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, well I'm moving it back then. Certainly seems to me there's enough consensus here. LordAmeth 20:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move, obviously. —Nightstallion (?) 12:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nihon Shoki

As I have commented above, Nihon Shoki is more common than Nihonshoki; about 41,600 hits vs about 30,300 hits on Google Web Search, 2520 pages vs 525 pages on Google Books, about 626 vs about 206 on Google Scholar. Also note that when you search "nihonshoki", Google says "Did you mean: nihon shoki". I propose moving this page to Nihon Shoki per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --Kusunose 07:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. If you exclude 'wikipedia' from Google Web Search, results are about 37,000 vs about 13,700 --Kusunose 08:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

While I myself have edited "Nihon Shoki" to "Nihonshoki", I can agree with your point. "Nihon Shoki" appears to be the more common usage. Even though I have always known it as "Nihonshoki" that doesn't make it right. In addition, there is the common use of "Samguk Sagi", not "Samguksagi". In reality, "Nihon" and "Shoki" are two kanji words, but placed together. But then again "Nihonjin" is not "Nihon Jin", is it? And what about "Nihonjinron"? I would say it should remain at "Nihonshoki" until conclusive evidence shows it should be moved.--Sir Edgar 05:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on the evidence presented by Kusunose, I support moving this article to Nihon Shoki. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Per Kusunose & Nihonjoe. Also, in Google Book Search, a search for "nihon shoki" gives 2520, and a search for "nihonshoki" gives you 525.--Endroit 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you put a notice for this proposed move? It must follow proper procedures. The article was just moved to "Nihonshoki". There must be good reasoning for another move to "Nihon Shoki".--Sir Edgar 00:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have formally requested this move. --Kusunose 02:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Nihonshoki → Nishon Shoki – The latter is more common than the former, see above. --Kusunose 02:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support (above discussion) Tensaibuta 02:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per what I said above.--Endroit 02:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above and evidence below. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Can we get a list of credible, major sources that use the two different forms and compare? My research so far indicates:

"Nihonshoki"

Akita prefecture: http://www.pref.akita.jp/tiiki/wg2001/eng/sports/sumo.html

Embassy of Japan (in Morocco): http://www.ma.emb-japan.go.jp/francais/donnes_historiques.html not in English

National Diet Library of Japan: http://ndl.go.jp/koyomi/e/history/02_index1.html

"Nihon Shoki"

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1684975.stm

Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9319650

Encarta: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefEdList.aspx?refid=210027407.

Columbia Encyclopedia: http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/J/Japan-lit.asp

National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Nara http://www.nabunken.go.jp/english/chr.html

I think this is important as we've already moved the article once recently and to do it again so soon would, in my opinion, require careful research and judgement. Please add to above list. No need to sign. --Sir Edgar 01:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a unilateral move from "Nihonshoki" to "Chronicles of Japan" and we voted to move it back. But that's irrelevant to the currently proposed move to "Nihon Shoki".--Endroit 15:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added National Diet Library of Japan, Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia and National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Nara. --Kusunose 07:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Was there any notice given to time period of this poll?

Did the starter of this poll inform everyone that there was a deadline for voting? No. I resent the fact that there was all this uproar about no time period given for the poll in Talk:Dokdo and yet nobody is screaming foul here. Personally, I thought we were still looking at the list of credible sources using "Nihonshoki" and "Nihon Shoki". I was waiting to see conclusive results prior to casting my vote. Five votes (two of which were placed in an improper fashion) hardly forms a "consensus", in my opinion.--Sir Edgar 01:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothingness

I find this part completely unnecessary: "This does not necessarily imply that the persons referred to did not exist, merely that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that they existed or can be assigned to a particular period of history. It is much more likely that they were chieftains, or local kings, and that the polities they ruled would not have encompassed all, or even most, of Japan." Huh? Not only are there no evidence but to believe that someone lived 100+ years and was born from a Sun goddess doesn't seem credible to me. It is not even likely they were chieftains that ruled all or even most or even remotely most or even more than a household. It is like saying "even though there is absolutely no evidence for King Arthur, he probably existed but was more like a regional ruler than a king". Complete garbage. 66.171.76.237 04:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I would love to know who keeps placing this junk everywhere. Angry bee (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Grounds for Caution Notes on Mythological Characters and All Historical Records

In the Korean Samguk Sagi, there is very little mention of Goguryeo or Baekje. This is because the author, Kim Bu-sik wrote the record as that of the successor state to Silla, a traditional rival of both Goguryeo and Baekje. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that some bias has taken place in the Samguk Sagi with regards to the two other nations, and this is an example of bias in historical documents, and it is not the only bias.

The veracity of the Book of Song is disputed because of its missing sections and the tone with which it is written, as well as its treatment of surrounding nations and ethnic groups. In addition, at the time when the record was written, the Liu Song dynasty was on friendly terms with Baekje only; when it established ties with Yamato Japan, the nations listed (except for Baekje) are diplomatically unknown entities.

Namio Egami (I will use the first name, last name format for all names) notes in 1964 that it may look very strange that the names of six or seven states listed in the self-claimed titles included Chin-han and Ma-han which had preceded, respectively, the states of Silla and Paekche. Perhaps the King of Wa had included the names of six or seven south Korean states in his title merely to boast of the extent of his rule. But Wa Kings could not have included the names of nonexistent states. One may then conclude that the remnants of Chin-han or Ma-han existed as other members of the Kaya Federation by the time Wa Kings sent their embassies to China in the fifth century, because according to the Samguk Sagi, Silla established the first contact with the Southern Chinese Dynasties in A.D. 521 by sending an envoy to the Court of Liang along with the Paekche envoy.

In Nihongi book 1, page 263, in the 16th year of Ojin's reign, King Ahwa (same as King Asin) died. King Ahwa reigned in Baekje from AD 392-405 (i.e. he was in his 14th year when he died), so this means Ojin's reign begins in AD 390 (two years before King Ahwa of Baekje, although because of Nihongi's time system Ojin's reign is listed as starting in AD 270, exactly 120 years, or two 60-year cycles, before it actually began). In that record, Emperor Ojin sends Baekje Prince Työnchi (Cheonji) back to Baekje, saying to effect: "return to your country and continue the royal line." Then Ojin granted the prince the territory of the Eastern Han. This record indicates that Ojin formally renounced all claims to Baekje territory. This record also shows that Yamato Japan and Baekje were very close.

Aston says about Nihongi: "Even so late as the beginning of the 5th century the chronology can be shown to be wrong in several cases by no less an interval than 120 years.... The first date in the Nihongi which is corroborated by external evidence is A.D. 461, but the chronology is a little vague for some time longer. Perhaps if we take A.D. 500 as the time when the correctness of the Nihongi dates begins to be trustworthy, we shall not be very far wrong."

In addition, Sokichi Tsuda wrote that when writing of matters related to Paekche, Silla and Kara, they (referring to the authors of the Japanese histories, in this case Nihongi and Kojiki) applied the writing method of uplifting the current authority in the fashion of Chinese and Confucian ideologies. Tsuda states that those were the authors’ ideologies, and had nothing to do with realities. It is possible that they were written in this way because of the tensions between Silla and Yamato at the time they were written.

All of this shows that historical texts and what they say must be considered carefully and what they say, especially in the print versions (as they were all written by one or a limited number of individuals) cannot all be taken as literal truth.

1. "Book of Song." Wikipedia. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Book_of_Song
2. "Five Kings of Wa." Baekche of Korea and the Origins of Yamato Wa of Japan. http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi5-5.pdf p.255
3. "Five Kings of Wa." Baekche of Korea and the Origins of Yamato Wa of Japan. http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi5-5.pdf p.256
4. Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to A.D. 697, translated from the original Chinese and Japanese. W.G. Aston. http://books.google.com/books?id=1IJrNAKBpycC&dq=aston+nihongi&pg=PP1&ots=MHQwccyV_A&sig=R1mo5I2d7VSgLrkEcrJNxdkEejQ&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Aston+nihongi&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPR16,M1 p.xvii-xviii
5. "History Texts." ML (Machine-Learning) Shopping. http://www.ml-shopping.com/wiki/Yamato_period.html
6. "History Texts." ML (Machine-Learning) Shopping. http://www.ml-shopping.com/wiki/Yamato_period.html

Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

More justification, if you care to read it

Records written in Baekje may have been the basis for the quotes in the Nihongi but textual criticism shows that scholars fleeing the destruction of the Baekje Kingdom to Yamato wrote these histories and the authors of the Nihongi heavily relied upon those sources. [See Sakamoto, Tarō. (1991). The Six National Histories of Japan, p. 40.]

This, in and of itself, is a perfect reason why Nihongi and other old (not just Japanese either, but Korean and Chinese too) records must not be assumed to always be the literal truth. It is clearly a conflict of interest for Yamato, later a rival of Silla, to rely upon the historical records of Baekje, a vanquished rival of Silla, as the major source for a history of northeast Asia. --Ecthelion83 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sakamoto, Tarō. (1991). The Six National Histories of Japan, John S. Brownlee, tr. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. 10-ISBN 0-774-80379-7; 13-ISBN 978-0-774-80379-3 (cloth) ... Click link for limited preview of text

• Sakamoto, Tarō. (1991). The Six National Histories of Japan. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 10-ISBN 4-130-27026-5; 13-ISBN 978-4-130-27026-7 (cloth)

I modified the in-line citation and bibliographic notes for improved clarity. I'm interested in the translator's work in historiography; and therefore, I'm interested in a discussion of issues related to Rikkokushi, which he translated. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Exaggeration of reign lengths

This thread thread began in response to a minor edit by Elvenscout742, whose attention was drawn to the first sentence in the first paragraph of the "Exaggeration of reign lengths" section:

"Most scholars‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  agree that the purported founding date of Japan (660 BCE) and the first thirteen emperors of Japan are mythical."

• (cur) (last) 16:27, 31 January 2008 User:Elvenscout742 (Talk | contribs) (12,256 bytes) (→Exaggeration of reign lengths - [[This certainly wasn't true a hundred years ago, and I have seen few primary or secondary sources cited to say it's true today.) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 17:19, 31 January 2008 User:Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (12,248 bytes) (Undid revision 188172863 by Elvenscout742 (talk) not "wrong" in context of sentence) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:12, 31 January 2008 User:Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (12,476 bytes) (→Exaggeration of reign lengths - adding in-line citation -- 660 BC is generally believed to be legendary or mythical date) (undo)

Elvenscout742 -- I think you mis-construed the reference to 660 BC. The gravamen of this section explains that what was once assumed to be "fact" is now believed to be mythical. Your mis-reading suggests that this paragraph was not written well enough, but I don't quite see how an in-line citation will help. What did you have in mind? Maybe I'm the one who's missing the point?

As I understand it, in 1872, the Meiji government proclaimed that February 11, 660 BC in the Gregorian calendar would be considered the foundation day of Japan. This mythical date was commemorated in the holiday Kigensetsu ("Era Day") from 1872 to 1948. The concept was resurrected in 1966 as the national holiday Kenkoku Kinen no hi ("National Foundation Day").

• See ...Rimmer, Thomas et al. (2005). The Columbia Anthology of Modern Japanese Literature, p. 555 n1.
• See also National Foundation Day and Emperor Jimmu

How would you propose we might improve this section of Nihon Shoki? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion was simply to cite a source that states that "most scholars" dismiss the first several Emperors. Most of the sources I have seen (The Japan Encyclopedia, The Story of Japan, to a lesser extent Japan - A Short Cultural History), while somewhat cynical about the dates and even existence of many of the early Emperors, still adhere to the full canonical list starting with Emperor Jinmu, and so seem to disagree with this statement. elvenscout742 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Elvenscout742 -- Yours is a nuanced point of view, but it encompasses a subtle post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Given the current status of Wikipedia and of Nihon shoki, I admit that the informed points I might otherwise want to make are relatively unimportant. However, in a different context -- in a 1940 context, for example -- with much more at stake, the "conservative" point-of-view you would seem to espouse becomes significant, meaningful, worrisome. If you have an interest in issues which have become inextricably linked with any discussion about the legendary founding of the Japanese Imperial dynasty in 660 BC, I'd like to suggest you consider the following:

• National Foundation Day
• Imperial Order of Meiji ... see diploma text: "2,589th year from the accession to the throne of Emperor Jimmu (1929)"

• Brownlee, John S. (1997) Japanese historians and the national myths, 1600-1945: The Age of the Gods and Emperor Jimmu. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. ISBN 0-7748-0644-3 Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. ISBN 4-13-027031-1 ... Click here for limited preview of book's text -- engage book-specific search for "1940"
  • See Brownlee's Chapter 11: "Eminent Historians in the 1930s:The Betrayal of Scientific History," pp. 131-179.
  • See also Brownlee's Chapter 12: "The Commission of Inquiry into Historical Sites Related to Emperor Jimmu, 1940," pp. 180-185.
• Brownlee, John S. (1991). Political Thought in Japanese Historical Writing: From Kojiki (712) to Tokushi Yoron (1712). Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press. ISBN 0-889-20997-9 ... Click here for limited preview of book's text

• Historiographical Institute of the University of Tokyo

By all means, if you would prefer to substitute a different in-line citation for the one I have added, or if you would like to augment this section with other in-line citations, I'm happy to encourage you. If you choose to re-write the entire section, that would be welcome. In due course, perhaps we'll figure out a way to work together to move beyond a plausibly trivial dispute which can only remain unresolved for the time being. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nihon Shoki could be work of Japanese POV, not basis on actual history or recorded texts.Korsentry 03:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Move?

The article was recently moved to The Chronicles of Japan, but I have moved it back because I have never seen that title used except when indicating what the title meant in English. Anyone else want to chime in on this issue? I'm fine with moving it back if there is sufficient evidence to show it is better know by the English title. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I just restored the first sentence too. Personally, I am constantly irritated by superfluous bits of foreign language -- entries like Eikaiwa school, or Kyoyasai, for example -- but when we are giving the proper name of a person or artistic work, then I think the original has to be primary. This was all discussed above (several years ago), and I think this stands.

I also think the second sentence of the introduction is not helpful: having (correctly, and helpfully) said that 日本書紀 (written as two "words" nihon shoki) is often translated as "(the) Chronicles of Japan", and (correctly) that it is also known as 日本紀, (written as one "word" nihongi) to say that this is "literally" "Japan Chronicles" is not helpful. Of course anyone who can read Japanese can skip over it, but anyone who doesn't is not going to understand anything from it. Why is the four character version two "words" and the three character version one "word"? What is the relation between shoki and gi? Doesn't removing a character change the meaning (more than just rearranging the English words)? And so on. I think the text would be improved by removing this second gloss, unless it is explained by a mini-lecture on basic facts about Japanese (or Chinese): that many two-character compounds are formed from characters with largely the same meaning; dakuon; and that Japanese does not have "words", so any spacing in the romanisation is purely conventional. But if I just remove it, experience suggests that someone will replace it and lecture me about not "dumbing down" or similar. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right about Japanese not having spacing. However,itmakesitmucheasiertoreadinEnglishifspacingisadded. That's why there is spacing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 09:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nihon Shoki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050903011203/http://kodaishi-db.hp.infoseek.co.jp:80/ to http://kodaishi-db.hp.infoseek.co.jp/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Classical Chinese

If the book is Classical Chinese, shouldn't the Classical Chinese title and transliteration be in the lead? Or is the title a modern invention? The same about the chapter titles, why are they in Japanese instead of Classical Chinese? --Error (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

See Kanbun. Thibaut (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)