What are “Kojiki” and “Nihon-Shoki”? A simple explanation of the differences between the “Kiki”

In this article, I will write about the differences between “Kojiki(古事記)” and “Nihon-Shoki(日本書紀)”.

The two history books are also called “Kiki(記紀)”, taking the letter “Ki” from both.
Both “Kojiki” and “Nihon-Shoki” are Japanese history books that begin with myths.
It’s amazing that myths are also considered history.

Both are valuable ancient books, but they are often mentioned side by side, and it is difficult to explain the difference between them.
However, even though they were written in the same period of time, there are considerable differences in their contents and roles.

What are “Kojiki” and “Nihon-Shoki” in the first place?
In this page, we will explain the differences between them in an easy-to-understand manner.

What are “Kojiki” and “Nihon-Shoki” in the first place? 〜A Brief Explanation〜

What are the two history books about, anyway?
Let’s start with a brief description of each.

“Kojiki(古事記)”

The “Kojiki(古事記)” is Japan’s oldest extant history book, completed in 712 (Wado 5).
On the orders of the 40th emperor, Emperor Tenmu(天武天皇), a Toneri(舎人, those who serve at the side) named Hieda-no-Are (稗田阿礼) compiled the “Teiki(帝紀)” and “the Kyuji(旧辞)”, which had been handed down to the imperial court, and under the direction of the third emperor, Emperor Genmei(元明天皇), Oono-Yasumaro(太安万侶) recorded them and compiled this three-volume work.

“Nihon-Shoki(日本書紀)”

The “Nihon-Shoki” is the oldest existing authentic history of Japan, which is said to have been completed in Yoro 4 (720).
Like the Kojiki, it was compiled as a national project by order of Emperor Tenmu, and after the death of Emperor Tenmu, Toneri Shinno(舎人親王) took charge of the work, which took about 40 years to complete and consisted of 30 volumes.
Volumes 1 and 2 are the Age of God, and volumes 3 to 30 are the Chronicles of the Emperors.

Differences between “Kojiki” and “Nihon-Shoki”

So what are the differences between the “Kojiki” and the “Nihon-Shoki”, which are often mentioned side by side?
Here is a summary of what they have in common and what they do not.

Common parts

・It is a history book.
・It was written by the decree of the 40th emperor, Emperor Tenmu(天武天皇).
・Written around the same time.

Different parts

Let’s take a look at the different parts.

①：”Purpose”

“Kojiki”

Created as a historical story
For domestic use
Conveying the legitimacy of the emperor

“Nihon-Shoki”

Created as the official canonical history of the Imperial Court
For foreign countries
To be made as the official history of the country

Actually, the “purpose” of the “Kojiki” and the “Nihon-Shoki” are very different.
Both were started by the order of Emperor Tenmu, but at that time, Japan was in need of national unification due to the development of the neighboring military power, “Tang Dynasty (唐, today’s China)”, and they were created as one of the measures to achieve this goal.
And it is likely that two different books were produced, each with a different purpose order.

As the official history of the national project, the “Nihon-Shoki” was completed after 40 years of work to compile miscellaneous historical events.
In addition to this, however, the creation of a historical narrative book was also promoted, and the first to be completed was the “Kojiki”.

In contrast to the “Nihon-Shoki”, which was created with the aim of creating an official historical book “for overseas”, the “Kojiki” can be said to be “for domestic”.
The purpose was to convey the legitimacy of the emperor to the people.
Emperor Tenmu and the others who conceived of the “Kiki” had deep thoughts.

②：Volume

“Kojiki”

3 volumes.
Upper volume [Birth of Sky and Earth – Umisachi-Hiko and Yamasachi-Hiko]
Middle volume [Emperor Jinmu’s Eastern Expedition – Age of Emperor Ojin]
Lower volume [Emperor Nintoku’s era – Emperor Suiko’s era]

“Nihon-Shoki”

30 volumes + 1 volume of genealogy.
Volumes 1 and 2 – Jindai(神代, Age of the Gods) [Creation of Sky and Earth – Birth of Emperor Jinmu]
Volumes 3 to 30: Chronicles of the Emperors [Emperor Jinmu to Emperor Jito]
Genealogy

The two books are very different in volume.
While the “Kojiki” is a 3 volume work, the “Nihon-Shoki” is a 30 volume work.

While the  “Kojiki” was written by a single author, Oono-Yasumaro(太安万侶), the “Nihon-Shoki” was written by several scholars of the time in addition to Toneri Shinno(舎人親王), who took charge from the middle of the book.
Therefore, the volume and the content of the book, which was intended to summarize the miscellaneous history, would have been different.

③：Scope

“Kojiki”

Up to the 33rd “Emperor Suiko(推古天皇)”

“Nihon-Shoki”

Up to the 41st “Emperor Jito(持統天皇)”

The scope of the text is also different.
In the “Kojiki”, the 33rd Emperor Suiko (reigned 592-628) was the first female emperor.
On the other hand, the “Nihon-Shoki” covers the 41st emperor, Emperor Jito (reigned 690-697), who was also the wife of Emperor Tenmu.

④：Words

“Kojiki”

It is written in the “Yamato language(やまと言葉)” used by the ancient Japanese.
This is a method of writing Japanese in Chinese classics, called Waka-Kanbun(和化漢文).
There are many Waka(和歌) poems (112 poems).

“Nihon-Shoki”

It is written in Chinese classics.
It can be said that it was written in a foreign language, not Japanese.
This is because it was meant to be a national project for diplomacy.
There are also Waka poems, but fewer than in the Kojiki (128 poems).

Both are written in Chinese classics, but the “Kojiki” uses the method of writing the “Yamato language” in Chinese classics.
On the other hand, the “Nihon-Shoki” is purely in Chinese classics, which is like writing in English, the universal language of today.

One of the characteristics of the “Kojiki” is that it contains many Waka poems.
Although the total number of volumes in the “Nihon-Shoki” is larger, the difference in proportion can be seen when you consider that the number of volumes is ten times larger.

⑤：Contents

“Kojiki”

・Mythology accounts for a large percentage of the total. (One whole volume out of three volumes -> one third)
・Mythological episodes of the Izumo lineage are depicted.
→The White Rabbit of Inaba. Okuninushi(大国主神), who is put to the test by his brothers. And so on.
・It is a book that summarizes the history of the emperor’s family (“Teiki(帝紀)”, “Kyuji(旧辞)”), and thus aims to show the legitimacy of the emperor.
→Many of the stories are heroic and narrative in tone.

“Nihon-Shoki”

・More than mythology, the history of the emperor’s successive generations is a large part of the story.
→Summary of historical events.
・Many of the mythological episodes of the Izumo lineage are omitted.
→There are no episodes of the White Rabbit of Inaba, or of Okuninushi, the god who is put to the test by his brothers.
・In order to appeal to foreign countries like the Tang Dynasty (China), the author is aware of the historical books of the Tang Dynasty.
→There are quotations not only from events in Japan, but also from Tang Dynasty and Korean literature.

⑥：Names of characters (gods, etc.)

The names of the characters (gods, etc.) are also often changed in each of the “Kiki”.
The following table is an example.

The readings and other aspects are generally similar, but the Kanji characters are very different, perhaps because of the difference in language.
Some of them, such as Emperor Jinmu, have aliases that differ greatly between the “Kojiki” and the “Nihon-Shoki”, which is interesting.

As shown in the table, there are two types of “Mikoto” at the end of a person’s name: “命” and “尊”.
If you look closely, you can see that “命” is used in the “Kojiki” and “尊” is used in the “Nihon-Shoki”.
The word “Mikoto” is an honorific title given to a person of high rank, and in the “Kojiki”, only “命” is used.
In the “Nihon-Shoki”, the word “尊” is used for those who are particularly precious.

Beyond the differences

We have seen the differences between the “Kojiki” and the “Nihon-Shoki”.
I think the first difference between the two is that they have different purposes.
While the “Kojiki” was written for the domestic, the “Nihon-Shoki” was written for the international, so it is natural that their perspectives would be different.

The “Nihon-Shoki” has the characteristic of writing history objectively from a broader perspective by referring to many documents, while the “Kojiki” has the aspect of telling the thoughts of the ancient Japanese more densely in the Yamato language for the “domestic”.
Each has its own merits and differences in content, but I don’t feel that either is superior to the other, or that one should be read without the other.
That is why the indispensability of both is beyond their differences, and why they have been cherished until now.