| Abstract |
Historical description must be made through the following two procedures. The first is the textual criticism, and the second is the reconstruction of history by making use of the sources which can sta...nd the criticism. The textual criticism must be strict. Among the several sources which deal with the same contents, there are differences of the periods in which the texts were written. Therefore it is extremely important to decide the periods of the sources themselves. But the textual criticism is the condition to grasp the history, but is not all of historical studies. The textual criticism of Nihonshoki (日本書紀) was prompted by Dr. Sokichi Tsuda (津田左右吉). The achievements of Dr. Tsuda in this field of study must be inherited by the later historians. But as far as the ancient history of Japanese Buddhism is concerned, I think, Dr. Tsuda did not pay attention to the reconstruction of its history, though he advanced the textual criticism of Nihonshoki. In other words, the unified and comprehensive understanding of the ancient Buddhist history has not been accomplished. Dr. Tsuda established the distinction between the legends and the facts among the records in Nihonshoki, and discarded the legends as unrelated to the historical facts. But I presume that the legends also reflected, directly or indirectly, the historical facts, It is wrong to argue that as the account of the Buddhist introduction to Japan in the 13th year of Emperor Kinmei's (欽明) reign was the creation by the editors of Nihonshoki, the fact of the introduction of Buddhism was a fiction. The task to reconstruct the history of Buddhism in ancient Japan through the textual criticism of Nihonshoki is still remained to be done.show more
|
Export Mendeley
p001