dard of uniformity of style and method which we are accustomed to look for in historical compositions.
Materials for the Nihongi.—The remains of the Kiujiki must have formed a very important element of the authors' material. Indeed I lean to the belief that whether the present Kiujiki is authentic or not, much of the earlier part of the Nihongi (except the first two books) is practically the composition of the illustrious Shōtoku Daishi, its reputed author. It is recorded that he was a profound student of Buddhism and of Chinese classical literature, and internal evidence shows that the writer of this part of the Nihongi was well versed in these subjects. The Kojiki is not directly referred to, and little use seems to have been made of it. But it was well known to the authors. Indeed one of them, Yasumaro, was the very person who took down the Kojiki from the lips of Hiyeda no Are, a man (or woman) who had a remarkable memory, well stored with the ancient traditions of the Japanese race. That no community of style can be traced between the two works is easily explained by the circumstance that Yasumaro was in the first case little more than an amanuensis, and in the second a compiler. It is possible, too, that his associate, Prince Toneri, was the guiding spirit of the undertaking, and that Yasumaro simply carried out his directions.
The Nihongi contains a few phrases which show that the Norito or Rituals of the Shinto cult were familiar to the authors, but nothing of importance is drawn from this source.
Another stock of information which was probably at their disposal is referred to in the History of the reign of Jitō Tennō (A.D. 694), where it is stated that orders were given to eighteen of the principal noble Houses to deliver to the Government their genealogical records. Other historical works, notably a certain Kana Nihongi have been spoken of as in existence before the date of the Nihongi, and that there was a copious historical or legendary literature accessible to the authors cannot be doubted. The work itself, as we have it, contains ample evidence of this in the numerous quotations from other writings, added, as most Japanese critics think, by the authors themselves, or, as I prefer to believe, by subsequent scholars soon after its appearance. These extracts are always referred to in later times as if they formed part of the Nihongi, and
