In Issue 279 of the Journal of Shintō Studies, there is a report of a presentation by Adachi Ryō entitled “A Problem in the Composition of Norito: About the Reading and Usage of the Term Saihō”. I think the immediate content of this is of no interest to my readers (you are not likely to be writing norito), but what it shows about the place of norito in contemporary Shinto might be very interesting.
First, a little bit of background. Norito are formal Shinto prayers. They are written in classical Japanese, ideally following eighth century usage, but they are written for new topics, like commissioning nuclear power plants and launching spaceships. This means that old phrases need to be reused, and it is important that the reuse is appropriate.
The article concerns the use of the two characters “斎奉”, which can be read “saihō”, as in the title. However, in norito they are not. They are read either “iwaimatsuru” or “itsukimatsuru”. There are also two different usages. One is used when kami are protecting the reign of the Tennō, and the other is used when priests are serving the kami.
Adachi carried out a survey of 75 priests. When the usage was about the Tennō, 55 of them read the characters as “iwaimatsuru”, while 20 read them as “itsukimatsuru”. When the usage was about priests, on the other hand, 30 read them as “iwaimatsuru”, while 45 read them as “itsukimatsuru”. Adachi professes disbelief that priests do not read the characters consistently in the same context. He then argues that all the examples of “iwaimatsuru” in eighth century texts concern protection, while all the examples of “itsukimatsuru” refer to serving the kami. After some further consideration of the meaning and usage of the terms, and of “iwau” and “itsuku”, the verbs that form part of the compounds, he concludes that the word should always be read “iwaimatsuru” when it concerns protection, and “itsukimatsuru” when it concerns sacred service.
He concludes by arguing that writing and offering norito before the kami is the fundamental part of a priest’s activity, and that not getting the words wrong is the minimum level of competence required.
I think his claims about the importance of norito, and the importance of getting them right, are widely shared in the Shinto community. On the other hand, if his survey is representative, about half of all priests get this word wrong. (It is very likely that there are some who read it the same way in both contexts, so that some who get the first one wrong get the second one right. That pushes the number who are wrong in at least one case over thirty, which is very close to half of 75.)
Adachi claims that priests should be more careful about this, and study norito composition more thoroughly, and that the problems with this word are only the tip of the iceberg. He is probably right about the existence of more problems, but given all the other pressures on working priests, I cannot see where they are going to find time for even more norito composition study.