23736
I had been wondering about this for a while. Consider the spelling of he names
of _Izanagi_ and _Izanami_ in the 古事記:

> ![enter image description here](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jPmfM.png)
>
> 伊邪那岐神【いざなぎのかみ】 and (妹【いも】)伊邪那美神【いざなみのかみ】
>
> ([source](http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/772088/1))

Both of their names use the _kanji_ 邪, which, at least today, is associated
with a negative connotation such as よこしま.

There are several theories regarding the meaning and origin of their names:

  * 「誘【いざな】う」の語根 + ぎ・み(男性・女性を表す語)
  * 功【いさを】の語根
  * サンスクリットの「伊舎那天【いしゃなてん】」、「伊舎那后【いしゃなくう】」

But at any rate, the _kanji_ would appear to be _ateji_ used mainly for their
phonetic value. Still, there are many possible _kanji_ candidates and I would
expect their semantics would at least e taken into consideration.

If we take a look at [a list of
_man'yōgana_](http://www1.kcn.ne.jp/~uehiro08/contents/kana/1ran.htm), we find
some with a rather negative connotation, eg. 恥【ぢ】 or 愚【ぐ】, albeit most of them
do not strike as negative as 邪.

Moreover, _Izanagi_ and _Izanami_ are amongst the more important _kami_ (I
would think), and 射 seems to be the [most common transcription of _za_
](http://www1.kcn.ne.jp/~uehiro08/contents/kana/dza.htm) in the _Man'yōshū_ ,
compiled only about 50 years after the _Kojiki_ , at a frequency of 85/99.

There is an answer [at
_chiebukuro_](http://detail.chiebukuro.yahoo.co.jp/qa/question_detail/q1160498971)
hypothesizing that this choice had been China's way of making fun of Japan and
demonstrating their superiority. While this might be a possible explanation
for the names 卑弥呼【ひみこ】 and 邪馬台国 (やまたいこく・やばたいこく・やまとこく), which appear in the
魏志倭人伝【ぎしわじんでん】 written in the late 3rd century in China; this seems to be an
implausible explanation for the names in the 古事記 written in the early 8th
century not in China but in Japan.

I looked up 邪 in a _kanji_ dictionary and apparently, it originally referred
to the place name 琅邪【ろうや】. However, we can find for example the following
passage in the 古事記 proving that 邪 had already been associated with a negative
meaning.

> [〔原文〕](http://www.seisaku.bz/kojiki_index.html) 爾速須佐之男命答白「 **僕者無邪心**
> 、唯大御神之命以、問賜僕之哭伊佐知流之事。故、白都良久三字以音、僕欲往妣國以哭。爾大御神詔、汝者不可在此國而、神夜良比夜良比賜。故、以爲請將罷往之狀、參上耳。無異心。」
>
> [〔文語訳〕](http://ja.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%8F%A4%E4%BA%8B%E8%A8%98)
> ここに速須佐の男の命答へ白したまはく、「 **僕(あ)は邪(きたな)き心無し。**
> ただ大御神の命もちて、僕が哭きいさちる事を問ひたまひければ、白しつらく、僕は妣(はは)の國に往(い)なむとおもひて哭くとまをししかば、ここに大御神汝(みまし)はこの國にな住(とど)まりそと詔りたまひて、神逐(かむやら)ひ逐ひ賜ふ。かれ罷りなむとする状(さま)をまをさむとおもひて參ゐ上りつらくのみ。異(け)しき心無し」とまをしたまひき。
>
> [〔現代語訳〕](http://radicaldiscovery.net/study/kojikia.htm) すると速須佐之男の命は、「
> **私に邪悪な心はありません。** 伊邪那岐の大御神から泣き喚く理由を問われましたので、
> 『私は母の国に行きたいと思って泣いているのです』と申し上げました。
> すると伊邪那岐の大御神は、『お前はこの葦原中国に住んではならない』と言って、私を追放されたので、
> 母の国に参ろうとする事情を申し上げようと思い、高天原に参上したのです。邪心などありません」と答えた。

Interestingly, the spelling was changed to 伊弉諾尊 and 伊弉冉尊 in the
[日本書紀](http://www.seisaku.bz/shoki_index.html), 弉=>大きく堂々としている and 冉=>しなやかなさま),
yet as illustrated above, the significance of 邪 must have been known.

Perhaps considering _Izanami_ 's fate does contribute some insight into this
naming choice:

>
> イザナミは火神を生んだために女陰を焼かれてこの世を去ったとなっている。この病臥中にイザナミの嘔吐や糞，尿から木，火，土，金，水(五行)の神が生じたとあるが，これらの神々は同時に焼畑農耕の発生を暗示しているともいえる。
>
> [...]
>
> 最後には黄泉国【よみのくに】との境において対立し，男神は人間の生をつかさどる神として，女神は人間の死をつかさどる冥界の神として互いに絶縁する。
>
> 「世界第百科事典 第二版 平凡社」より

* * *

The question is thus: Are there any insights or explanations as to why 邪 was
chosen to spell the names 伊邪那美神 and 伊邪那岐神? Or was it used merely for its
sound?
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-11T21:55:35.963
23734
2016-07-19T18:56:25.050
2015-04-11T22:34:15.883
3275
3275
question
kanji etymology culture classical-japanese manyōgana
Why was 邪 chosen to spell the names of 伊邪那岐神 and 伊邪那美神 in the 古事記?
Actually 邪 has a long history of being used for its sound alone, going back at
least to the [Warring States Shakespeare,
Zhuangzi](http://ctext.org/zhuangzi):

> 天之蒼蒼、其正色 **邪** 。其遠而無所至極 **邪** 。
>
> The sky looks very blue. Is that its real color, or is it because it is so
> far away and has no end? [tr. Burton Watson]

Here the character 邪 is twice used simply to represent the sound of asking a
question, corresponding nicely to the Japanese か.

In a proper Chinese dictionary like [this one from
Taiwan](http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/) there is not one but several
definitions of 邪 that simply represent a sound.

[Motoori
Norinaga](http://www.norinagakinenkan.com/norinaga/shiryo/about.html), a
Japanese scholar of _Kokugaku_ active during the Edo period and who would have
possessed a formal education in the Chinese classics, would have known all of
this and therefore did not even mention that 邪 is also used to mean よこしま. He
identified 邪 as one of two ways that the Nara period Japanese indicated the
sound _za_ , and said the following about it:

> The kana 邪 _za_ is also often written as 耶, and, while it is not a mistake
> in Chinese writing, as well, these two graphs are often used
> interchangeably; in the _Yupian_ , it states that 耶 is the common way of
> writing 邪, we should treat 邪 as correct. [tr. Ann Wehmeyer, p. 99]

Actually, from Motoori we might get a hint of why 邪 was used. As I said, there
is one other way of writing _za_ , which is 奢. Motoori says that this is used
to write the word _iza_ 伊奢, which means "come!" This is the "come!" that
Yamato-takeru says to his rival, and the same kanji is used when a prince
under enemy fire invites his men to drown themselves. Like Motoori, I regard
the _Kojiki_ as a very consciously produced book, and I think it is possible
that a different ateji was chosen for 伊邪那岐神 and 伊邪那美神 to show that the action
they were known for was something different the beckoning these human
characters do.

By the way, it is wrong to assume that the _Nihon Shoki_ began being compiled
after the _Kojiki_ was finished. There is no evidence for this other than the
chronological sequence of their presentation to the Emperor, but we do not
know why multiple books were requested, when this request was made, etc.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-04-11T23:36:54.430
23736
2015-04-12T07:09:34.173
2020-06-17T08:18:27.500
-1
583
23734
answer
To complement Avery's answer, one thing that may be worth investigating is
that the _Nihon Shoki_ has a particular phonetic orthography for Japanese (so-
called _Man’yōgana_ or _ateji_ , which are directly based on Chinese and
Korean phonetic use of kanji). Whereas the _Kojiki_ and _Man’yōshū_ phonograms
are based on Early Middle Chinese (also the source of Japanese _go-on_ kanji
readings), the _Nihon Shoki_ phonograms are based on Chang'an Late Middle
Chinese (the source of _kan-on_ ). The _Nihon Shoki_ system is also of note
because apparently it tried to encode Old Japanese pitch accent with Middle
Chinese tones. The notation didn't caught. For details see Miyake, _Old
Japanese: A Phonetic Reconstruction_.

So anytime you find a difference in phonetic orthography between the _Kojiki_
and _Nihon Shoki_ , the first thing I'd do is to check out the Chinese
reconstructions for them, in Old/Early Middle for _Kojiki_ and Chang'an Late
for the _Shoki_. Sadly, I can't find a reconstruction for 弉/奘; but its modern
Mandarin reflex, _zàng_ , has a tone 4, with suggests that at least the tone
was different from 邪 _xié_ < MC * _zjæ_ with a level tone (Baxter/Sagart).

So possibly they changed the phonogram because, in a notation based on
Chang'an Late Middle Chinese phonology, the pronunciation of 奘 was a better
match for Old Japanese ざ, and possibly even for the pitch accent of the words
_Izanagi/Izanami_.
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-01-17T17:59:22.333
30484
2016-07-19T18:56:25.050
2016-07-19T18:56:25.050
622
622
23734
answer