spacestationtrustfund's review against another edition
4.0
This review is of the translation, not the actual text itself. There are three English-language translations of the Kojiki (古事記), as far as I'm aware.
Seeing as this translation was completed several centuries prior to the technological advancement in translation studies that is the internet, Chamberlain's translation, while important in its own way, has many major inaccuracies that could far more easily be fact-checked in a more modern translation. I wouldn't suggest reading Chamberlain's translation unless you genuinely have no other option available, in which case it's best taken with a grain of salt; Chamberlain did his best, but he was still a British academic in the 19th century writing about an Asian culture, so mistakes were bound to be made.
One downside of this translation is that it's much more difficult to get ahold of than either of the two others. I believe it's no longer in print, meaning the price for a used copy will be much higher than it would be for the others. However, to quote Philippi himself, "The glossary, footnotes, additional notes, and cross-references have been provided in order to help the reader gain a sophisticated, accurate, and (it is hoped) up-to-date understanding of the Kojiki." While the translation isn't necessarily up-to-date, perhaps, it's still by far the most sophisticated and accurate English-language version available.
It must needs be noted that Heldt's translation of these names does not adhere to any scholarly consensus (arguably because there isn't one, given the dearth of English-language scholarship related to the translation). Even Chamberlain doesn't go so far, noting instead that, "In the succeeding Volumes he has not [...], except in a very small number of instances, translated the Proper Names of places in any of the three volumes. In order, however, to convey all the needful information both as to sound and as to sense, the Japanese original is always indicated in a Foot-note when the translation has the name in English, and vice versa, while all doubtful etymologies are discussed." Being worse at translating than a British guy from the 19th century is embarrassing.
First, from Chamberlain:
Philippi:
Just for the sake of comparison I've also included the original Japanese text:
BASIL HALL CHAMBERLAIN (1882)The first English-language translation of the Kojiki was by Basil Hall Chamberlain, a man who could never be anything but British, what with a name like that. Chamberlain's translation is obviously in the public domain, making it by far the most accessible English version, but its age is obvious: Chamberlain mentions in his introduction that "the original has been followed, character by character, with as great fidelity as was attainable," but he does away with all honourifics (by his own admission, "none of the Honorifics ... have been taken any notice of") and domesticates names and titles, although he does at least seem a bit self-conscious about it ("It must be understood that no special significance is to be attached to the use of such words as 'Duke,' 'Suzerain' etc. They are merely, so to speak, labels by which titles that are distinct in the original are sought to be kept distinct in the translation").
Seeing as this translation was completed several centuries prior to the technological advancement in translation studies that is the internet, Chamberlain's translation, while important in its own way, has many major inaccuracies that could far more easily be fact-checked in a more modern translation. I wouldn't suggest reading Chamberlain's translation unless you genuinely have no other option available, in which case it's best taken with a grain of salt; Chamberlain did his best, but he was still a British academic in the 19th century writing about an Asian culture, so mistakes were bound to be made.
DONALD L. PHILIPPI (1968)Because of the relative lack of English translations—the Dao De Jing, for example, has seen several dozen discrete English translations produced in the same time period as the Kojiki's three—there isn't really a landmark academic edition. The closest is, without a doubt, the Philippi translation, which comes nearest to being considered a scholarly translation. While all three translations have contextualising notes to varying extents, Philippi's has the most both quantitatively and qualitatively speaking. In terms of accuracy Philippi's is also by far the best version to read. It's a bit more slow going than the more recent Heldt translation, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
One downside of this translation is that it's much more difficult to get ahold of than either of the two others. I believe it's no longer in print, meaning the price for a used copy will be much higher than it would be for the others. However, to quote Philippi himself, "The glossary, footnotes, additional notes, and cross-references have been provided in order to help the reader gain a sophisticated, accurate, and (it is hoped) up-to-date understanding of the Kojiki." While the translation isn't necessarily up-to-date, perhaps, it's still by far the most sophisticated and accurate English-language version available.
GUSTAV HELDT (2014)The major issue I have with Heldt's translation is the fact that Heldt translates personal and place names into English, i.e., instead of saying "they went to Izumo," Heldt has, "they went to Bellowing Clouds." This sort of thing is a dealbreaker for me, but it might not be for you; apart from frustrating decisions like that, the prose overall reads very smoothly in English, and is quite easy to read. Heldt's is certainly a domesticating translation. Furthermore, Heldt doesn't include any foot-or endnotes, only a glossary of personal and place names—all of which have been translated, by Heldt, making cross-referencing nigh impossible for someone without another edition readily on hand.
It must needs be noted that Heldt's translation of these names does not adhere to any scholarly consensus (arguably because there isn't one, given the dearth of English-language scholarship related to the translation). Even Chamberlain doesn't go so far, noting instead that, "In the succeeding Volumes he has not [...], except in a very small number of instances, translated the Proper Names of places in any of the three volumes. In order, however, to convey all the needful information both as to sound and as to sense, the Japanese original is always indicated in a Foot-note when the translation has the name in English, and vice versa, while all doubtful etymologies are discussed." Being worse at translating than a British guy from the 19th century is embarrassing.
ACTUAL COMPARISONBut don't take it from me: I happen to have copies of all three of these translations. I'll compare the opening three paragraphs of the first book (after the preface and whatnot).
First, from Chamberlain:
The names of the Deities¹ that were born² in the Plain of High Heaven³ when the Heaven and Earth began were the Deity Master-of-the-August-Centre-of-Heaven,⁴ next the High-August-Producing-Wondrous Deity,⁵ next the Divine-Producing-Wondrous-Deity.⁶ These three Deities were all Deities born alone, and hid their persons.⁷ The names of the Deities that were born next from a thing that sprouted up like unto a reed-shoot when the earth,⁸ young and like unto floating oil, drifted about medusa-like, were the Pleasant-Reed-Shoot-Prince-Elder Deity,⁹ next the Heavenly-Eternally-Standing-Deity.¹⁰ These two Deities were likewise born alone, and hid their persons.Chamberlain has some lengthy footnotes, but they're relevant enough that I'll include them as well:
The five Deities in the above list are separate Heavenly Deities.¹¹
1 For this rendering of the Japanese word kami see Introduction, pp. xix-xx.This is a lot and I'm sorry.
2 Literally, "that became" (成). Such "becoming" is concisely defined by Motowori as "the birth of that which did not exist before."
3 In Japanese Takama-no-hara.
4 Ame-no-mi-naka-nushi-no-kami.
5 Taka-mi-musu-bi-no-kami. It is open to doubt whether the syllable bi, instead of signifying "wondrous," may not simply be a verbal termination, in which case the three syllables musubi would mean, not "wondrous producing," but simply "producing," i.e., if we adopt the interpretation of the Verb musubu as "to produce” in the Active sense of the word, an interpretation as to whose propriety there is some room for doubt. In the absence of certainty the translator has followed the view expressed by Motowori and adopted by Hirata. The same remark applies to the following and other similar names.
6 Kâmi-musu-bi-no-kami. This name reappears in later Sections under the lengthened form of Kami-masu-bi-mi-oya-no-mikoto, i.e., His Augustness the Deity-Producing-Wondrous-August-Ancestor, and also in abbreviated forms.
7 I.e., they all came into existence without being procreated in the manner usual with both gods and men, and afterwards disappeared, i.e., died.
8 Here and elsewhere the character 國, properly "country" (regio), is used where "earth" (tellus) better suits the sense. Apparently in the old language the word kuni (written 國), which is now restricted to the former meaning, was used ambiguously somewhat like our word "land."
9 Umashi-ashi-kabi-hiko-ji-no-kami. For hiko here and elsewhere rendered "prince" see Introduction p. xviii; ji is rendered "elder" in accordance with the opinion expressed by Motowori and Hirata, who say that it is "an Honorific designation of males identical with the ji meaning old man."
10 Or, the Deity-Standing-Eternally-in-heaven, Ame-no-toko-tachi-no-kami. The translation of the name here given follows the natural meaning of the characters composing it, and has the sanction of Tanigaha Shisei. Motowori and Hirata take toko to stand for soko, "bottom," and interpret accordingly; but this is probably but one of the many instances in which the Japanese philologists allow themselves to be led by the boldness of their etymological speculations into identifying words radically distinct.
*Might not this mean: the Deity by whom Heaven stands for ever? —W.G.A.
11 This is a note in the original, where such notes are indented, as has also been done in the translation. The author's obscure phrase is explained by Motowori to mean that these Heavenly Deities were separate from those who came into existence afterwards, and especially from the Earthly-Eternally-Standing-Deity (Kumi-no-toko-tachi-no-kami) who in the "Chronicles" is the first divine being of whom mention is made. These five were, he says, "separate" and had nothing to do with the creation of the world. It should be stated that the sentence will also bear the interpretation "The five Deities in the above list are Deities who divided Heaven" (i.e., presumably from Earth); but this rendering has against it the authority of all the native editors. As the expressions "Heavenly Deity" and "Earthly Deity" (lit., "Country Deity") are of frequent occurrence in these "Records," it may be as well to state that, according to Motowori, the "Heavenly Deities" were such as either dwelt in Heaven or had originally descended to Earth from Heaven, whereas the Earthly Deities were those born and dwelling in Japan.
Philippi:
At the time of the beginning of heaven and earth,¹ there came into existence in Takama-nö-para a deity named Amë-nö-mi-naka-nusi-nö-kamï; next, Taka-mi-musubi-nö-kamï; next, Kamï-musubi-nö-kamï. These three deities all came into existence as single deities,² and their forms were not visible.³The footnotes:
Next, when the land was young, resembling floating oil and drifting like a jellyfish, there sprouted forth something like reed-shoots.⁴ From⁵ these came into existence the deity Umasi-asi-kabï-piko-di-nö-kamï; next, Amë-nö-tökö-tati-nö-kamï.⁶ These two deities also came into existence as single deities,⁶ and their forms were not visible.³
The five deities in the above section are the Separate Heavenly Deities.⁷
1 See Additional Note 1 for a discussion of the cosmogony of the chapter. For discussions of proper names see Glossary.Then, of course, there's Heldt:
2 Pitöri-gamï; unlike the pairs of male and female deities who came into existence later, these deities came into being one by one and had no counterparts. However, it later becomes apparent that both Kamï-musubi-nö-kamï and Taka-mi-musubi-nö-kamï had children (cf. 30:4; 38:5).
3 Or 'they hid their bodies.'
4 Asi-kabï; the word forms part of the name of the next deity.
5 Or 'by, by means of.'
6 The first two sentences of this verse are written phonetically, for the most part, and must have originated in oral tradition. Kanda Hideo surmises that the section from 1:2 through 2:2 was originally a poem depicting the birth of all things from reed-shoots springing up in the muddy water of some primeval period. Kojiki no közö (Meiji Shoin, 1959), pp. 246-47.
7 Kötö-ama-tu-kamï. For some reason which is unclear to us today, these five deities were distinguished from the other heavenly deities and were set apart in a special category.
When heaven and earth first appeared, the names of the spirits who came about in the high plains of heaven are these:Heldt does not include footnotes.
First was the spirit Master Mighty Center of Heaven.
Next was the spirit Lofty Growth.
Next was the spirit Sacred Growth.
All three spirits were single and concealed themselves.
Next are the names of the spirits who appeared when the young land was floating like tallow on water, drifting like a jellyfish, and something like a reed shoot sprouted forth.
First was the spirit Fine Budding Reed Lad.
Next was the spirit Ever-Standing Heaven.
Again, these two spirits were single and concealed themselves.
All five of the above spirits are single and separate from the other spirits of heaven.
Just for the sake of comparison I've also included the original Japanese text:
天地の初發の時、高天原に成りませる神の名は、天御中主の神。次に高御産巣日の神。次に神産巣日の神。この三柱の神は、みな獨神に成りまして、身を隱したまひき。In conclusion I'd recommend Philippi's translation over the others, although I can see the appeal of both Chamberlain's and Heldt's versions.
次に國稚く、浮かべる脂の如くして水母なす漂へる時に、葦牙のごと萠え騰がる物に因りて成りませる神の名は、宇摩志阿斯訶備比古遲の神。次に天常立の神。この二柱の神もみな獨神に成りまして、身を隱したまひき。
上の件、五柱の神は別天つ神。
bookdragona's review against another edition
4.0
Las primeras dos partes fueron las mejores, la tercera es más densa y no tan amena. La Era de los Dioses fue mi favorita. Me encantó mucho ver la construcción de la mitología y como se conecta con la familia imperial de Japón. Pero lo que más me llamó la atención de todo el texto fue el prólogo, es una de las partes que merecen ser leídas varias veces y analizar con más profundidad.
More...