The Formation of Hirata Atsutane's Kannahifumiden: Focusing on its Relationship with Sato Nobuhiro's Kannahifumikou

This paper examines the relationship between Hirata Atsutane's Kannahifumiden and his disciple Sato Nobuhiro's Kannahifumikou. Kannahifumiden is a significant work in the history of early modern Japanese studies on jindai moji(神代文字-“characters of the Age of the Gods”). Kannahifumikou bears such a strong resemblance to Kannahifumiden that it has been suspected of being a plagiarized work. However, no definitive evidence has been presented to establish the chronological order of the two texts, and it cannot be ruled out that Kannahifumikoumay have served as the source material for Kannahifumiden rather than being a mere copy. Thus, this study critically reviews the existing view that Kannahifumikouis a plagiarized work, while also addressing various questions surrounding the formation of Kannahifumiden. In Section 2, “Previous Studies on the Alleged Plagiarism of Kannahifumikou,” prior research on the plagiarism controversy is summarized, highlighting the need for a detailed analysis of Nobuhiro's work. Section 3, “Overview of Kannahifumiden and Kannahifumikou,” provides essential information on Kannahifumikou to lay the groundwork for further discussion. It confirms that while the two texts share many similarities overall, there are significant differences in the arrangement of the jindai moji source materials. Section 4, “Kantei's Kouwajindaijisyu,” points out the existence of texts that could be classified as part of the “texts of the Kouwajindaijisyu lineage” and suggests, based on inconsistencies between the references to Kouwajindaijusyu in Kannahifumiden and Kannahifumikou and the actual content of the Kouwajindaimoji, that the textual errors likely originated in Kannahifumikou. Lastly, Section 5, “Regular Script Jindai moji Materials in Kannahifumiden,” raises questions about the sources of what this paper refers to as the “regular script jindai moji materials,” analyzing how these jindai moji materials were reconstituted and suggesting that Kannahifumikou may have been composed first. Additionally, it highlights the differences in how the two authors described the relationship between the Yoshikawa family, the Shintō authority of the Edo shogunate, and the jindai moji.