Kokugaku in Meiji-period Japan: The Modern Transformation of 'National Learning' and the Formation of Scholarly Societies 9004235302, 9789004235304

Citation preview

Kokugaku in Meiji-period Japan

Kokugaku in Meiji-Period Japan The Modern Transformation of ‘National Learning’ and the Formation of Scholarly Societies

By

Michael Wachutka

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2013

Cover illustrations: Detail from the opening pages of Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi 大八洲学会雑誌 no. 127 of 10 January 1897, the only issue showing a photograph of the journal’s four editors: Kimura Masakoto 木村正辭  (1827–1913) Kosugi Sugimura 小杉榲邨 (1835–1910)

Motoori Toyokai 本居豊頴  (1834–1913) Iida Takesato 飯田武郷  (1828–1900)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wachutka, Michael. Kokugaku in Meiji-period Japan : the modern transformation of ‘national learning’ and the formation of scholarly societies / by Michael Wachutka. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-23530-4 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Kokugaku--History. 2. Shinto and state--History. 3. Religion and state--Japan. 4. Nationalism--Japan--History. 5. Universities and colleges--Japan. 6. Learned institutions and societies--Japan. 7. Japan--Intellectual life. I. Title. B5243.K6W34 2012 299.5’617509034--dc23 2012028324

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface. ISBN 978 90 04 23530 4 (hardback) ISBN 978 90 04 23633 2 (e-book) Copyright 2013 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS Preface 

ix

1. Kokugaku at the Dawn of the Meiji Period   1.1. Introductory Remarks  1.2. Two Sides of the Same Coin: The Jinmu-tennō Revival and New Foreign Relations  1.3. Yano Harumichi’s Manifesto Kenkin sengo

1 1

2. Kokugaku Scholars and Religious Administration  2.1. Early Meiji Institutions for Religious Administration  2.2. Kokugaku Scholars as Popular Educators and Shinto Proselytizers  2.3. The Shift from Shinto as the State Religion to the Imperial Way as public Morality 3. Kokugaku Scholars and Higher Education  3.1. The Early Stage of Meiji Kokugaku Academic Activities in Kyoto  3.2. Success and Conflicts at the Early Academic Institutions in Tokyo  3.3. The Gakushinsai, Increasing Antagonism and the Closing of the First University 4. New Venues for Kokugaku Training and Research  4.1. The Founding of Tokyo University  4.2. The Ise Centre of Imperial Studies Jingū kōgakukan  4.3. The Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo 5. The Boundless Society Yōyōsha  5.1. Members of Diverse Backgrounds  5.2. The Aim of Establishing Yōyōsha  5.3. Monthly Meetings and the Journal Yōyōsha-dan  5.4. Retrospection as a Core Concern and the Transition to Specialized Scholarly Circles

11 21 27 27 41 52 71 71 91 96 115 115 128 136 147 147 149 152 155

vi

contents

6. The Historiological Association Shigaku-kyōkai  6.1. The Aim of Establishing the Shigaku-kyōkai  6.2. The Opening Ceremony and the Subjects of Historical Study  6.3. The Inaugural Speech on Motives and Goals  6.4. Compilation Procedures, Monetary Problems and Venue Changes  6.5. Staff Changes and Broadened Interest in the Association’s Journal  6.6. An Almost Modern Discourse on History 7. The Great-Eight-Island Academic Society Ōyashima-gakkai  7.1. The Aim of Establishing the Ōyashima-gakkai  7.2. The Ōyashima-gakkai’s Regulations  7.3. The Society’s Journal and Expanding Membership  7.4. Emperor Meiji, Imperial-style Education and Links to the Ōyashima-gakkai  7.5. Other Kokugaku Organizations Promoting Japaneseness 8. The Great-Eight-Island School Ōyashima-gakkō  8.1. The Aim of Establishing the Ōyashima-gakkō and its Beginnings  8.2. The School’s Regulations and Curriculum  8.3. The Specialized Course on Poetry and Literary Texts  8.4. The School’s Teachers and Staff  8.5. Transition to the Second Semester and the Students at the Ōyashima-gakkō  8.6. Everyday Life at the Ōyashima-gakkō  8.7. Some Internal Problems, a Countrywide Expansion and Long-term Success 9. Further Developments in Taishō and Shōwa Japan  9.1. Using Folktales and the Rise of ‘New Kokugaku’  9.2. Haga Yaichi and Kokugakuin University’s Anthem  9.3. Yamada Yoshio and the Zealous Nationalistic Use of Kokugaku  9.4. Emperor Shōwa’s Allusive Retrospection and the Post-War Interest in Kokugaku

157 157 159 162 168 172 174 179 180 184 185 189 193 199 199 202 206 208 212 219 221 227 227 230 233 235

Conclusion239

contents

vii

Appendix I: The Members of Yōyōsha Appendix II: Main Members of Shigaku-kyōkai Appendix III: Main Members of Ōyashima-gakkai

245 255 265

Bibliography

289

Index of Names

303

PREFACE Since the year 2000, a renewed academic interest has been taken in Japan for kokugaku 国学 or ‘national learning’. This interest is evident in many ways. At the end of 2004, for instance, the National Museum of Japanese History (Kokuritsu rekishi minzoku hakubutsukan) hosted an extensive three-month exhibition on ‘The Meiji Restoration and Hirata National Learning’ (Meiji ishin to Hirata-kokugaku 明治維新と平田国学) and published a detailed catalogue entitled likewise. Of course, also, the founder of that school of ‘national learning’, Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤 (1776–1843), was a central figure in the exhibition. But much of it was devoted to his disciples and the ‘kokugaku network’ that was led by Atsutane’s son-in-law and intellectual heir Hirata Kanetane 平田鉄[銕/鐵]胤 (1799–1880), and the latter’s son Hirata Nobutane 平田延胤 (1828–1872), who continued to cultivate the school’s ideas throughout the late Edo and into the Meiji period. In 2002, the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (Monbukagaku-shō) decided to sponsor a programme called, in its official English translation, the ‘Establishment of a National Learning Institute for the Dissemination of Research on Shinto and Japanese Culture’ (Shinto to Nihon bunka no kokugaku-teki kenkyū hasshin no kyoten keisei 神道と日本文化の国学的研究発信の拠点形成), although a more precise translation, however, would be ‘Formation of a Base for the Dissemination of Kokugaku-style Research on Shinto and Japanese Culture’. This programme was part of the Ministry’s large-scale effort to establish, sponsor and reward academic ‘Centres of Excellence for the twenty-first Century’ (COE). The aim of the governmental COE initiative—planned in 2001 and launched in the fiscal year of 2002—was to cultivate a competitive academic environment among Japanese universities by providing considerable budgetary support, with targeted funds, to create bases for world-standard research and education in various academic disciplines. The centre for kokugaku-style research was supported with more than 260 million yen until April 2007, a period of five years. The centre is located, nomen est omen, at Kokugakuin 國學院 University in Tokyo, whose name translates as the Institute of National Learning. Just the name of this university, established in 1890, shows that kokugaku continues to be relevant today. In accordance with the concept of COEs for

x

preface

the twenty-first century, kokugaku and its characteristic approach to research on Shinto and Japanese culture is not seen here as something exclusively related to a distant past—300 to 150 years ago—but rather as something very immediate and still present in modern and contemporary Japan. This is true to the extent of it again being sponsored by the state, and this with underlying assumptions of its relevance for the future. In scholarly research outside Japan, however, kokugaku or ‘national learning’ is still treated almost exclusively as a phenomenon that emerged and only existed in a particular temporal, social and intellectual setting: namely, Edo-period Japan of the early eighteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries. While a number of important studies on different characteristic aspects of kokugaku have appeared in the West in recent years, they are exclusively concerned with its features during the Edo period and there is not a single comprehensive monograph on kokugaku’s fate in the Meiji period. It seems that in the West, kokugaku is commonly understood as a phenomenon only of the Edo period, and thus, a phenomenon that is pre-modern or, at best, ‘early’ modern. Moreover, given that ‘modern Japan’ is almost unequivocally considered to have begun with the Meiji period, the question arises whether there is an inherent dichotomy at work, a dichotomy that, by necessity, separates ‘kokugaku’ from ‘modernity’ and hence from the Meiji period.1 It is generally acknowledged that kokugaku scholars played a significant role in bringing about the so-called Meiji Restoration of 1868. Less well known, however, is the fact that a great number of these scholars later held influential positions in society as a whole, including politics and education. For example, they continued their work and careers as government officials, shrine priests, popular educators, journalists, authors of textbooks, compilers, novelists and poets, high-ranking scholars, or as academic lecturers at Japan’s newly-established institutions of higher learning. It goes without saying that they did not discard the influence of their scholarly and intellectual upbringing in a kokugaku environment. 1 Burns (2003) and McNally (2005) do address a few Meiji-period aspects in their concluding chapters. However, their actual studies are concerned solely with Edo-period kokugaku. Specific aspects related to kokugaku in the Meiji period are dealt with in articles by Breen (2000), Eschbach-Szabo (2000), Wachutka (2001, 2002, 2004), and Walthall (2000). The major studies of Antoni (1998), Walthall (1998), and Hardacre (1989) must be mentioned as relating in part to the theme under examination here. There are also several Japanese works, listed in detail in the bibliography, that deal with aspects of Meiji kokugaku. Sakamoto (1993) is still valuable, but more recent articles are those by Fujita (2002, 2004, 2004a, 2005), which resulted in a monograph (2007). It was published shortly after the research for the present book had been concluded.

prefacexi Hence, as this study will show, the above hypothesis that a dichotomy exists between kokugaku and modernity must certainly be considered incorrect. Indeed, in addition to the common concept of ‘Westernization’ occurring in the Meiji period, kokugaku thought, paired with a new national consciousness through targeted education, was actively disseminated within the population. Thus, by restoring subjectivity to the experience of modernity, in Meiji period Japan, kokugaku played an important role in the process of nation-building and identity formation. Consequently, it helped to nurture a new generation of citizens who had a particular understanding of the concept of ‘national identity’. The question that actually needs to be asked, therefore, is not ‘whether’ kokugaku could or did occur in the context of modern Japan, but rather ‘how and where’ it expressed itself. In other words, what is ‘modern’ or Meiji-period kokugaku? Indeed, this investigation should be extended even further; it should ask what happened to kokugaku during the Taishō and Shōwa period. And finally—in view of the above-mentioned COE programme—the timely question must be asked: What are the characteristics of national learning or kokugaku-style research in the twenty-first century? An overarching inquiry into the role of kokugaku throughout the history of modern Japan up to the present, while certainly necessary, is unfortunately beyond the scope of a single ‘groundbreaking’ study. This is surely true if sufficient thoroughness is given to hitherto unexplored matters. For this reason, this investigation will focus on the fate and transformation of national learning during the Meiji period. The first four chapters deal with the early and mid-Meiji involvement of kokugaku scholars in the ‘public sphere’, defined here as the collec­ tive   political, administrative, religious and educational fields in their official and state-enforced dimensions. After a general introduction (chapter one), the changes regarding institutions and those involved will be traced. These changes can be seen in two parallel strands, strands however that are often intertwined. Chapter two first examines aspects of proselytization through various administrative government agencies for religious affairs. Chapters three and four deal with the education at the newly-founded institutions of higher learning. The activities of the various kokugaku scholars covered in these chapters reveal the gradual re-evaluation of kokugaku and its liberation from an image of being a group primarily involved in what was known as Restoration Shinto or fukko shintō 復古 神道. The first official use of the expression fukko shintō was in April 1868, immediately after the Meiji Restoration, in a document of the newlyestablished Jingi jimukyoku 神祇事務局, the Office of Divinity. It states

xii

preface

that ‘the religion of our imperial country is to be declared as fukko shintō’ (KDNBK 1999: 442). While the Hirata school of kokugaku in particular, with its strong religious-theological character, refers in a narrow sense to fukko shintō, the activities described in the first chapters of this book expose the changing perceptions and varying concerns of the people who adopted and utilized the term kokugaku for their specific agenda in the new era. During roughly the first half of the Meiji period, the focus of a nation-oriented discourse commonly labelled ‘kokugaku’ gradually shifted from a politico-religious movement to an educational and academic discipline. Chapters five to eight present four different case studies to illustrate what might be called the ‘private sphere’ of Meiji kokugaku, namely, the private initiatives of various people to form influential scholarly nationallearning associations and special interest networks. These chapters offer the first examination that has ever been undertaken—not only in the West but also in Japan—of the activities and participants of three successive Meiji-period kokugaku organizations: the ‘Boundless Society’ Yōyōsha 洋々社, established in 1875 (chapter five), the ‘Historiological Association’ Shigaku-kyōkai 史學協會 founded in 1883 (chapter six) and the ‘Great-Eight-Island Academic Society’ Ōyashima-gakkai 大八洲學會, which started its activities in 1886 (chapter seven). The name of the last refers to an ancient poetic appellation for Japan, the ‘great eight islands’. This society also established a highly successful private educational institution, the ‘Great-Eight-Island School’ Ōyashima-gakkō 大八洲學校, which opened its gates in 1891 (chapter eight). The scholastic ambitions of these pioneering academic societies and national-learning networks aspired to a true popular education, and gradually helped to endow kokugaku with a modern scholarly character. Over time, national learning (koku-gaku) underwent a restructuring and transformative process. Its lasting legacy is found in today’s stand-alone academic disciplines of national literature studies (koku-bun-gaku 国文学), national language studies (koku-go-gaku 国語学) and national history studies (koku-shi-gaku 国史学). It will also be shown that these three national-learning societies brought together people who had a broad variety of backgrounds and outlooks. Together with chapters three and four, which discuss the evolution of the teaching of classical literature and history in various institutions, the examples of the Yōyōsha, Shigaku-kyōkai and Ōyashima-gakkai shed new light on the educational interactions between kokugaku scholars, as well as on socio-political relations in Meiji Japan. It is hoped, therefore, that

prefacexiii this study will provide a solid foundation for further research on Meiji intellectual networks, and will also pave the way for further studies on modern kokugaku and the shaping, up to the present day, of modern notions of Japanese traditions. Some years ago, a publication on the religious policies of the early Meiji period lamented the shortcomings of earlier studies, stating ‘that their interest is not sufficiently people-focused. We need to know more about the people involved than we do. […] Only when we know more about the people involved can we refine our understanding of motive’ (Breen 2000: 231). Although Meiji religious policy per se only plays an auxiliary role in this study, the criticism broached at that time is still valid today. With regard to the focus of this volume, already in 1994 it was deemed essential to conduct an ‘investigation of individual Meiji-period kokugaku scholars and the scholarly, ideological, political and social activities of kokugakuscholar groups’ (Sakamoto 1994: 13). Nearly two decades have passed, yet still almost nothing is known about the individual kokugaku scholars who ventured to transmit their intellectual outlook onto their new era and spread it among the populace. Who were the people involved in Meiji kokugaku? What did they seek to accomplish? How were they linked in scholarly networks? What texts and methods did they use in their teaching? To answer these questions, this study’s approach has been explicitly conceived as very ‘peoplefocused’. Extensive biographical details of more than a hundred leading Meiji national-learning scholars—the most important members of the three scholarly associations—are provided in respective appendices. Additionally, dozens of other kokugaku-related people who were active during the Meiji period are introduced throughout the text. The characters for each name, as well as dates of birth and death, are provided when a person is mentioned the first time; in later references these are omitted. This can be seen as a useful indication that someone has already been referred to under different circumstances, helping to draw attention to that individual’s various activities and, consequently, to connections between events. The index lists all occurrences of individual names that are mentioned. Thus, this study can be seen as breaking new ground, providing the first prosopography to examine the individuals involved in Meiji national learning as well as their collective experiences. Prosopography, defined as ‘the investigation of the common background characteristics of a group of actors in history’ (Stone 1972: 107), studies the biographical details of individuals as a group, yet also preserves the uniqueness of each actor.

xiv

preface

The focus thus shifts from anonymous institutions to specific people. By posing questions about ‘who’ and ‘how’ with regard to the actual actors involved, it is possible to achieve a deeper understanding of the institutions or groups to which they belonged. Moreover, the true objectives behind their activities can be revealed, collective achievements better understood, and any available documents interpreted more correctly. Prosopography is most effective when it is applied to an easily-defined and manageable group of people acting within a limited timeframe. The group investigated in this study is composed of kokugaku scholars who were born and educated in the late Edo period and who helped to transmit their scholarship into the Meiji period. Indeed, it is clear that values and behaviour patterns are always strongly influenced by both a person’s upbringing and their experiences. The same is true, of course, for the individuals found in the following pages. They collaborated to transform and foster national learning, and their scholarly legacy passed on into the modern era. Kokugaku was far from merely being a special Edo-period phenomenon. Without knowledge of the significant role kokugaku scholars continued to play during the Meiji period and beyond, it will remain difficult to adequately understand later developments in modern Japanese history. Acknowledgements Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Iida Yukisato 飯田幸郷 (*1918), the grandson of the national-learning scholar Iida Takesato, who generously gave me access to his family archive. During numerous visits, in a lively way he shared many family anecdotes with a good dose of humour and helped me to better grasp the personal dimension of kokugaku in the Meiji period. Many colleagues and friends have lent their time and expertise throughout the years. I owe a special debt to Klaus Antoni (University of Tübingen, Germany) and Kate Wildman Nakai (Sophia University, Tokyo) for their guidance and many valuable suggestions. A word of thanks also to John Breen (International Research Center for Japanese Studies, Kyoto), Mark McNally (University of Hawai’i at Mānoa) and Sakamoto Koremaru (Kokugakuin University, Tokyo) for insightful comments and stimulating conversations. In addition, I extend a heartfelt appreciation to Malcolm Campbell, and to the editorial team at Global Oriental—Paul Norbury and Nozomi

preface

xv

Goto—for their interest in my work and their patient support in the completion of this book. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife Jackie for her unyielding optimism and faith in my work. Note on Names and Transliteration In accordance with standard Japanese practice, Japanese names are rendered with the family name preceding the given name. In the case of Japanese words which have entered the English language, such as shinto, shogun and daimyo, these appear in roman type; otherwise italics. The long Japanese vowel is rendered with a macron, as in Ōkuni Takamasa, except in the case of common place names, such as Tokyo and Kyoto. For presentational reasons and in the interests of simplicity, the word ‘kokugaku’ and its variants appear in roman type throughout, except in the case of Japanese language references.

CHAPTER ONE

KOKUGAKU AT THE DAWN OF THE MEIJI PERIOD 1.1. Introductory Remarks Kokugaku and kokugakusha—today commonly translated, respectively, as ‘nativist studies’ and ‘nativists’, despite literally meaning ‘national learning’ and ‘national-learning scholars’—are useful umbrella terms. How­ ever, most early-modern kokugaku scholars, as we would call them today, did not use this term for themselves or the studies they conducted.  Rather, Edo-period kokugaku scholars usually called their approach kogaku 古学 (ancient learning or classical studies) and wagaku 和学 (Japanese learning). Other analogous concepts were kodo 古道 (ancient way or ancient moral teachings), hongaku 本学 (true learning or original study), kōgaku 皇学 (imperial studies), or honkyō 本教 (original teachings). Late Tokugawa national learning was also by no means homogeneous. It consisted of, to name only the most influential factions, followers of Kamo no Mabuchi’s 賀茂真淵 (1697–1769) poetry studies, Motoori Norinaga’s 本居宣長 (1730–1801) philological approach to classical literature, Hirata Atsutane’s Shintoist–theological school, Ban Nobutomo’s 伴信友 (1773–1846) and Kariya Ekisai’s 狩谷棭齋 (1775–1835) evidential scholarship and commentaries on Japanese classics, and also the strongly Confucian-inclined Mito 水戸 group. Early-modern national learning, therefore, was clearly not a monolithic body that was based on a comprehensive and shared vision of a common enterprise and that spoke with a single voice. As will be shown below, internal strife and division into sometimes competing factions were also part of the modern period, at least initially. Nonetheless, some of these factional contenders gradually found certain shared beliefs and were able to form personal connections in private scholarly societies. Fukuba Bisei 福羽美静 (1831–1907) for instance, a disciple of Ōkuni Takamasa 大國隆正 (1793–1871) and thus part of the Tsuwano 津和野 faction of kokugaku, was a government official. He clashed with his colleague and leading Hirata school proponent Yano Harumichi 矢野玄道 (1823–1887) regarding the proper restoration of the ancient Bureau of Divinity, the Jingikan 神祇官, and how to conduct its

2

chapter one

ceremonies. But later, the two became leading active members of Ōyashima-gakkai. This was also the case between Tanaka Yoritsune 田中頼庸 (1836–1897) and Senge Takatomi 千家尊福 (1845–1918), despite the fact that owing to their backgrounds in Ise Shinto and Izumo Shinto, respectively, the two were the main opponents in the famous saijin-ronsō 祭神論争 or Pantheon Dispute of 1880. Due to these various factions, if one speaks in general terms about Meiji-period ‘kokugaku’ or ‘kokugakusha’, this might be a more Weberian ‘ideal type’ than reality. Nontheless, these umbrella terms will be used here, despite the range of positions that existed among those who can be identified as kokugaku scholars. The term kokugaku was conventionally already used in Meiji Japan; indeed, the people who have been examined  for this volume already applied the term to themselves. The term kokugakusha was used for Japanese scholars and intellectuals who, despite  following a variety of ideological persuasions, concerned themselves in a broad sense with ‘Things Japanese’—to use the title of the wellknown book by Basil Hall Chamberlain. For instance, the Kokugakusha denki shūsei 國學者傳記集成 (KDS), a large compilation of biographies of national-learning scholars first published in two volumes in 1904 by Ōkawa Shigeo 大川茂雄 and Minami Shigeki 南茂樹 and a few years later expanded with a third volume by Ueda Kazutoshi 上田萬年 (1867–1937) and Haga Yaichi 芳賀矢一 (1867–1927), summarizes under this title about 1,200 biographies of scholars from a broad range of fields, including Shinto studies, rituals, classical literature, legal codes, ceremonial etiquette, linguistics, history, ancient court and military practices, poetry and so on. This book and its editors thus made a great contribution to the modern definition of what, since the Meiji period, has been subsumed under the term ‘kokugaku’. Accordingly, in the Japanese secondary literature the designation ‘kokugaku’, or national learning, is usually applied to the whole array of Japan-centred scholarship that was conducted since the early Edo period. Consequently, the term has a wide definition, describing a broad range of scholarly and ideological endeavours. In its somewhat narrower and more usual sense of elucidating the ancient original Japanese way through philological methods and trying to enhance it from an ethnocentric and particularistic point of view, kokugaku is usually thought to have originated in the circle of Kada no Azumamaro 荷田春満 (1669–1736), the son of a Shinto priest at the Fushimi Inari-taisha, who pushed for the creation of a school of national learning. However, research on ancient Japanese texts had already been conducted still earlier by the Buddhist monk



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period3

Keichū 契沖 (1640–1701). Following the research done by Kamo no Mabuchi, this field of scholarship reached a cohesive form with Motoori Norinaga. Motoori had about four hundred disciples. They branched out to form different ‘schools’ that concentrated on different disciplines, such as poetry or evidential historical research (kōshōgaku 考證学) on ancient literature. His most famous disciple was Hirata Atsutane, who followed a Shintoist approach. Atsutane understood his scholarship as ‘original studies’ (hongaku; mototsu manabi) or ‘original teachings’ (honkyō; mototsu oshie). He also radicalized kokugaku’s sense of purpose. Coupled with the rapid decline of the feudal society at the end of the Tokugawa period and the growing tension in foreign relations during and after the Kaei era (1848–1854), Atsutane’s school expanded and became linked with pragmatic and political activism. However, although Hirata Atsutane utilized the term honkyō, ‘original teachings’, vividly and with resolve, he was not the only person to recognize this ancient word anew, nor the first. The earliest notion of honkyō appears in Ō no Yasumaro’s 太安麻呂 (?–723) preface to the Kojiki 古事記 dated 712, where the term is used to explain the central content of this text. Most commentators see honkyō here as indicating the original tradition of Japanese antiquity. The term honkyō was also used by the Shintoist and kokugaku scholar  Kagami Mitsuaki 加賀美光章 (1711–1782). He went to Kyoto and studied Confucianism with Yamazaki Ansai’s 山崎闇斎 (1619–1682) disciple Miyake Shōsai 三宅尚斎 (1662–1741) and kokugaku under Kara­suya Nagatsune 烏谷長庸. Under the guidance of Tamaki Masahide 玉木正英 (1671–1736), he immersed himself in the study of suika shintō 垂加神道, a form of Confucianist Shinto advocated by Yamazaki Ansai, and kikke shintō 橘家神道, sometimes also referred to as Tachibana Shinto, which was founded by Tachibana Mitsuyoshi 橘三喜 (1635–1703) and theo­ logically is related to the Yoshida school. Kagami Mitsuaki had an enormous number of disciples of whom the most famous is Yamagata Daini 山縣大貳 (1725–1767). It is said that Kagami saw honkyō as his family’s scholarly tradition. He was later designated as a honkyō reijin 本教靈神 or ‘miraculous wonder-working deity of the original teaching’ by the Shirakawa family, the chief officials of the original Council of Shinto Affairs Jingikan. Another example of the term being used is in the work ‘Elucidation of the Original Teachings’ Honkyō senmei 本教闡明, written by Kodera Kiyosaki 小寺清先 (1748–1827), a kokugaku scholar trained in Urabe Shinto 卜部神道.

4

chapter one

Although two examples are not a representative survey, it seems that in early modern times the term and concept of honkyō was usually closely connected to the various Shinto traditions. Thus, it might be no coincidence that it was Hirata Atsutane, one of the most Shinto-inclined among his contemporary kokugaku scholars, who emphasized the use of this term for his form of scholarship. Ōkuni Takamasa, who inherited the scholarly tradition of Atsutane, later used the term in his ‘Theory of the Divine Logic of the Original Teachings’ Honkyō shinri setsu 本教神理説, as did Motoori Uchitō 本居内遠 (1792–1855) in 1854 in his ‘Outline of the Original Teachings of Classical Studies’ Kogaku honkyō taii 古学本教大意. Thus, at the end of the Edo period the concept of honkyō or original teachings became quite generally used among kokugaku scholars. Indeed, due to the regular use of this concept of honkyō, one of the main characteristics of kokugaku that is particularly identifiable in the late Edo- and early Meiji-period endeavours of various Hirata school disciples was a strong aspiration to return to the ‘original’ way of Japanese life and to revive Japan’s ancient governmental institutions.  The Hirata Faction and the Transition from Edo to Meiji In the nineteenth century, the Hirata school of kokugaku was by far the most widespread and popular form. Already before his death in 1843, Atsutane had 553 disciples. Two decades later, his posthumous disciples numbered no fewer than 1,330. In 1868, at the dawn of the Meiji period, the Hirata school had 2,830 followers, and by 1876, a total of 4,283 people were enrolled.1 The posthumous success of Atsutane’s school was mostly due to the determination and organizational skills of his son-in-law and familysuccessor, Hirata Kanetane, the son of Midorikawa Emon’ya 碧川衛門八 (?–1819), a retainer of Niiya Domain in Iyo Province, today’s Ehime Prefecture. Kanetane married Hirata Atsutane’s daughter Chieko 千枝子 and later became Atsutane’s adoptive heir. After Atsutane’s death, it was 1 McNally (2005: 210) adopts these numbers from Walthall (1998: 104), who refers to Itō (1982: 3–4) as her source. For the years 1843 and 1863, see also KDNBK 1999: 528. KDS (2: 1549) speaks of 1,424 Hirata school disciples in July 1869 and of at least 4,000 if including all applicants not yet formally enrolled. Volume 1 of the six-volume registry called Monjin seimeiroku 門人姓名録 contains the name, date of entry, and introducer of all followers from the year 1804 until Atsutane’s death. Volumes 2 to 6 record all subsequent disciples. The last entry is in October 1872 (KRMH 2004: 42). It is thus not clear where the numbers for the year 1876 stem from. In any case, the number of Hirata disciples during the early Meiji period was impressively high, making it by far the most popular and influential kokugaku faction.



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period5

Kanetane who took over the family tradition and became the leader of the Hirata school, which during his lifetime expanded greatly and became, to an overwhelming extent, the dominating force in kokugaku. Kanetane refused to count those students who enrolled after his father-in-law’s death as his own and instead listed them in the Hirata school records as Atsutane’s posthumous disciples. Among the Hirata school followers most prominently active in the initial restoration and subsequent Meiji period who will be described in this volume, only Ōkuni Takamasa, Hatano Takao 羽田野敬雄 (1798–1882), Kusakado Nobutaka 草鹿砥宣隆 (1818–1869), Matsudaira Tadatoshi 松平忠敏 (1818–1882), Gonda Naosuke 權田直助 (1809–1887), Nakane Sekkō 中根雪江 (1807–1877), Godaiin Mihashira 後醍院真柱 (1806–1879) and Ishiguro Chihiro 石黒千尋 (1804–1872) actually enrolled during Hirata Atsutane’s lifetime. All others are posthumous disciples and in reality studied under Hirata Kanetane. Kanetane was clearly successful in dedicating himself to the consolidation and spread of his adoptive father’s scholarship. Throughout the Bakumatsu period, the closing days of the Tokugawa shogunate, Hirata school learning, with its spiritual devotion, permeated every stratum of society and appealed to the hearts and feelings of people throughout Japan. It is largely due to Kanetane’s vigour that Hirata kokugaku thus became a driving force in the Restoration movement. Combined with the ever-growing activism among so-called loyal retainers, who advocated reverence for the Emperor and the expulsion of foreign barbarians, and based on a new perception of Japan as a divine land, the earlier study of the original style of Japanese antiquity (hongaku) now shifted towards the study of national polity (kokutai-gaku 国体学) and of superior conduct and action (kōdō gaku 行動学), studies that were oriented towards contemporary society. At the latest with Ōkuni Takamasa, who in 1855 wrote ‘Quintes­sence of Original Studies’ Hongaku kyoyō 本学挙要, this prominent form of kokugaku had almost completely become a practically applied ‘kannagara no michi 惟神道’—a rather complex concept that may be best translated as Japan’s pure and characteristic way that has been handed down since the age of the gods according to divine will. The term ‘kannagara’, in its original ancient form ‘kamu-nagara’, can first be found in the mytho-historical court annals Nihonshoki 日本書紀 of 720. On the 29th day of Kōtoku-tennō’s 3rd year and 4th month of reign (7 June 647), an edict was issued that contains the following quote accredited to the sun-deity Amaterasu: ‘My children, in their capacity as Deities [kamu-nagara], shall rule’. This phrase is then directly followed by an interlinear gloss explaining that kamu-nagara means ‘to follow the way of

6

chapter one

the Gods [Shinto], or again to possess in oneself the way of the Gods [Shinto]’ (Iida 1922, 5: 3257–3259; Aston 1993, II: 226). The doctrine of kannagara, whereby the Emperor is a direct descendent of Amaterasu and acts in his capacity as a god, and whereby the people as a whole should act in conformity and according to the will of the gods, was the fundamental principle of fukko shintō and thus, one of the motivating forces of the Meiji Restoration. During the early Meiji years, several edicts were issued that contained the phrase kannagara no michi. The new government obviously placed great emphasis upon this ideal of a ‘divine imperial way’, in which, according to Hirata Atsutane, everyone implicitly follows the divine will and the people reverently obey the laws that the Emperor has established in accordance with the sacred intentions of the ancestral deities (Miyaji/ Saeki 1990: 389–399). In 1807, at the age of fourteen, Ōkuni Takamasa entered the school of the still relatively unknown Hirata Atsutane. He later studied for a short time at the Confucian shogunate school Shōheikō 昌平黌. In 1818, after having become the head of his family, he travelled to Nagasaki to pursue Western learning. Ten years later, in 1828, Ōkuni withdrew from the register of retainers in his home domain Tsuwano in today’s Shimane Prefec­ ture, to pursue his studies as a masterless samurai. He became active as a scholar of national learning and gradually became known for his approach to imperial studies. After 1835, he confined his activities to the area around Kyoto, and in 1841, he opened his own private academy, Hōhon-gakusha 報本学舎, the True Learning School. In 1853, he returned to the Tsuwano Domain at the request of its lord, Kamei Koremi 龜井茲監 (1825–1885), himself an influential kokugakusha in the early Meiji administration and political circles. Back in Tsuwano, Ōkuni Takamasa taught at the local academy of the domain, and Fukuba Bisei became one of his disciples. In the final days of the Edo period and shortly after the Meiji Restoration, he submitted several works to the imperial court, includ­ ing  ‘The Original Meaning of the Bureau of Divinities’ Jingikan hongi 神祇官本義. He thus strongly contributed to the new government’s Shinto education efforts. The result of these and other efforts was a new form of national learning that was quite different from the earlier philological studies. From this time onwards, kokugaku scholars began to redirect their attention, moving away from the elucidation of ancient texts and the composition of poetry and towards theological explanations of current affairs. Starting with regional Shinto priests and wealthy farmers, national learning spread and permeated the broader population profoundly. In part this was due to



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period7

its new theological superstructure, which was based on the kannagara no michi of the Hirata school. In its late-Tokugawa blend, kokugaku presented a firm scholarly foundation for the period’s increasingly well-defined popular volition and fierce activism that had arisen due to the reality of an outside threat. The notion grew of the countryside as Japan’s ‘spiritual home’, in which the rural lifestyle and customs were in harmony with nature, and where the divine kami had best preserved Japan’s pure and indigenous traditions. This created for many people a tangible alternative to the menacing uncertainties that were appearing in a time of rapid and radical changes. In this way, at the dawn of the Meiji period, national learning as kannagara no michi functioned as a spiritual mainspring within the societal upheaval of the Restoration. It was the fundamental principle and guiding power for the many Shintoists and kokugaku scholars who actively took part in the Restoration movement and the fight for the imperial cause alongside the royalist samurai. Later, during the Meiji period itself, this emperor-centred spirit of acting according to divine will was systematically universalized. Initially, the attempts to revive Japan’s allegedly pure and characteristic ancient way provided a spiritual foundation for the new government’s education policies; the revival then developed into a guiding principle in the efforts to construct a unifying ‘national’ ideology. Simultaneously, however, due to the strong Western influx during the Meiji period, kokugaku had to modernize and reorganize in order to survive. However, not everyone could follow this prerequisite. For some of the more temperamental and erratic loyal retainers, as well as for the more religiously inclined kokugaku followers of the Hirata school, the ‘restoration’ stopped short of fulfilling their dreams. They had risked their lives and made every effort to realize this dream, but soon they saw an irreconcilable gap between the ideal they had aspired to and the apparent reality. In particular, the second part of their slogan sonnō jōi 尊王攘夷—the expulsion of foreign barbarians—obviously could not be realized. In the end, many of them turned away in anger and disappointment, and became, for instance, priests at small rural shrines. Perhaps the best-known example of such disillusionment is the figure of Aoyama Hanzō 青山半蔵, the protagonist in Shimazaki Tōson’s 島崎藤村 (1872–1943) historical novel Yoake mae 夜明け前 (Before the Dawn). It is well known that Aoyama was based on the author’s own father, Shimazaki Masaki 島崎正樹 (1831–1886). An ardent admirer of the Hirata school, in 1863 Shimazaki Masaki became a posthumous disciple and studied under Hirata Kanetane. At that time, Masaki was the head of an

8

chapter one

officially-appointed inn for high-ranking travellers along the Nakasendō highway in Magome, a post station in the Kiso Valley of today’s Nagano Prefecture. After the restoration of imperial rule was realized, like many of his senior fellow-Hirata disciples and kokugaku friends throughout the country, Masaki began to work as a Shinto priest, in his case at the Minashijinja 水無神社, the most important provincial shrine in Hida, in today’s Gifu Prefecture. A few years later, frustrated and disillusioned, Masaki returned to his beloved Magome, but never found ‘home’ again. He finally died insane, overwhelmed by thoughts of despair due to the crushing tide of uncertainties in his ‘modern’ times. When looking at the fate of people like Shimazaki Masaki, or Sakakibara Yoshino 榊原芳野 (1832–1881) who also died insane, it might be said that the situation in the early Meiji era echoes the famous sentence of the French revolutionary Pierre Vergniaud (1753–1793), who on his way to the guillotine stated: ‘The revolution, like Saturn, is devouring its own children’.  Kokugaku Scholars and Meiji Politics In order to survive and become a ‘modern’ nation-state, Japan had to give up her legacy of feudal structures. A natural priority for the new Meiji government was to negate the ‘pre-modern’ feudal system it was attempting to supersede. While a union of the imperial court and the shogunate was proposed as a compromise during the decay of the shogunate’s political authority in the late Edo period, this was never realized, perhaps for the above reason. In order to deal with the new reality and to free the nation from a nearly seven-hundred-year feudal tradition, the government first had to establish a new order, and then move forward by means of connections to the more advanced Western nations. Socially, this involved the destruction of the old political organization to make way for direct rule by the emperor. Unavoidably, this was accompanied by the construction of a new economic system and the forming of political, economic and cultural links with the Western nations that had formerly been barred from the country. Culturally, it also led to the emancipation of the emperor’s subjects from certain feudalistic restraints on class and mobility, accompanied by the creation of a new political culture and the establishment of a new national system of beliefs to legitimize this new imperial rule. The guiding principles for integrating these various structures were expressed in the so-called ‘Grand Order for the Restoration of Imperial Rule’ Ōseifukko no daigōrei 王政復古の大號令, issued on Keiō 3/12/9 (3 January 1868),



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period9

and the ‘Five-Article Imperial Oath’ Gokajō no goseimon 五箇條御誓文 of Meiji 1/3/14 (6 April 1868). The Grand Order is steeped in this pragmatic spirit, with part five explicitly stating that ‘the evil customs from old times shall be thoroughly washed away’ (Meiji jingū 1991: 13). Despite the unsuccessful examples mentioned above, many kokugakusha collaborated actively in founding the Meiji state. Indeed, while national-learning scholars only occasionally had any power during the early modern period, and that only marginally, now for the first time this scholarly tradition fully entered the political and public stage. It must be remembered that while some kokugakusha had enjoyed a certain amount of recognition at the shogunal or regional domanial level, Hirata Atsutane was the only kokugaku scholar to receive approval from the imperial court. In 1823, Emperor Ninkō 仁孝 (1800–1846) pronounced favourable words about Atsutane, words that could be seen as a kind of imperial sanction for his scholarship (McNally 2005: 167, 170). As will be elucidated in more detail below, after the 1868 restoration of imperial rule, many kokugakusha, especially those from the Hirata-school faction, occupied central administrative positions in the new government’s various ministries, sometimes even holding more than one post concurrently. To give a few examples, Ōkuni Takamasa, Hirata Kanetane, Yano Harumichi, Tamamatsu Misao 玉松操 (1810–1872) and Nakane Sekkō were all employed by the Office of Internal Affairs (Naikoku jimukyoku 内国事 務局). Nakane Sekkō also worked for the Office of Finance (Kaikei-kan 会 計官) and along with Inoue Mizue 井上瑞枝 (1839–1905) for the Executive Office of the Lord President of the Council (Gyōsei-kan 行政官). Iwashita Masahira 岩下方平 (1827–1900) worked for the Office of External Affairs (Gaikoku jimukyoku 外国事務局). Gonda Naosuke, Morooka Masatane 師 岡正胤 (1829–1899) and Miyawada Mitsutane 宮和田光胤 (1816–1888) were all employed by the Office of Justice (Keihō-kan 刑法官). And a little later, Ishiguro Nabuchi 石黒魚淵 (1817–1890) worked for the Ministry of Civil Affairs (Minbushō 民部省) and Maruyama Sakura 丸山作樂 (1840–1899) was employed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Gaimushō 外務省) that was founded in August 1869 (Ueno 1939: 373). There are differing opinions about the role played by the kokugaku scholars in the formation of the Japanese state or in the concept of a national identity. Some historians suggest that from the outset, the new Meiji leadership merely used figures such as Hirata Kanetane, together with his popular fukko or ‘restoration’ Shinto, to legitimate the creation of an imperial ideology supporting their programme of institutional change

10

chapter one

for the new nation-state (Yasumaru/Miyachi 1988: 501–502). Others, however, consider their role to have been much more important. Despite the fact that large numbers of national-learning scholars were involved in the central government for only a few years, their conception of the imperial system as a unity of worship and rule, saisei-itchi 祭政一致, remained the framework of the imperial state until 1945 (Sakamoto 1992: 2–3). In the system of saisei-itchi, which can also be translated as the unity of ritual and politics, the Emperor, as a Shinto high priest, performs state rituals (sai) while simultaneously overseeing the government (sei) as a political sovereign. In short, the imperial office is thus defined by the unity (itchi) of these two functions. In ancient times, the religious rites and rituals performed by the emperor were political; politics were reaffirmed by religious rites. Thus, the concept of sei 政, or matsurigoto, was originally a designation for both ‘ritual’ and ‘politics’ (Maruyama 1988). Following the restoration of direct imperial rule, ritual and politics, which had long been separated under the feudal shogunal system, again became one. For Sakamoto Koremaru, a professor at Kokugakuin University and one of the leading contemporary authorities on Meiji-period kokugaku, the characteristic feature of the modern Emperor-system state ‘was its creation and gradual formation as a “state that unites ritual and politics”, rarely met in [other] modern nation-states. Its consolidation as well as its creation and formation cannot be told without acknowledging the national-learning scholars’ (Sakamoto 1993: iii). Regarding the ideal of saisei-itchi, it is, furthermore, important to remember that this was not only an ideal expressed by national-learning scholars, but a fundamental principle of the Confucian Mito school as well. It thus had broad support among the various groups that together created the new Japanese nationstate and formed its ideological basis. Sakamoto additionally notes that not all kokugaku scholars were overly interested in a return to antiquity (fukko 復古). Many ‘knew the ancient works and could apply them to the new social climate’ (Sakamoto 1993: 15), including Konakamura Kiyonori 小中村清矩 (1822–1895), Iida Takesato 飯田武郷 (1828–1900), Kimura Masakoto 木村正辭 (1827–1913) and Kurokawa Mayori 黒川眞頼 (1829–1906). Although Iida Takesato, for instance, was a long-term disciple of Hirata Atsutane, he was also one of these more moderate scholars of national learning, who in their ideological standing did not have strong links to religious Shinto. As this study will show, it was precisely these scholars—all leading members of the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society Ōyashima-gakkai or its predecessors—who ultimately sustained kokugaku in the course of the Meiji period and transformed it from a



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period11

politico-religious movement to an academic discipline focused on Japanese matters. 1.2. Two Sides of the Same Coin: The Jinmu-tennō Revival and New Foreign Relations In addition to annihilating the feudal system by ‘washing away evil customs from old times’, as mentioned above, the Grand Order on the Restoration of Imperial Rule—issued as the first pronouncement of the new Meiji government—also stated explicitly, with regard to the basis of the Restoration that ‘everything is based on Jinmu’s establishment [of the empire] (shoji Jinmu sōgyō ni motozuki 諸事神武創業に基づき)’ (Meiji jingū 1991: 13).2 This prominent sentence, found in the preamble containing the basic outline of the new government’s goals, was clearly a result of the strong kokugaku influence on early Meiji politics. Other proposals had been made. For example, Nakayama Tadayasu 中山忠能 (1809–1888), Senior Councillor of State and Emperor Meiji’s maternal grandfather, together with other officials in the new Meiji government, was of the opinion that the restoration of imperial rule should be modelled on Emperor Go-Daigo’s 後醍醐 (1288–1339) Kenmu-period restoration of the 1330s. In the end, however, it was the proposals of Tamamatsu Misao that were strongly supported by Iwakura Tomomi 岩倉具視 (1825–1883), who was one of the most powerful courtiers and politicians in the early Meiji government, and who had strong ties to several kokugaku scholars (Tokutomi 1932: 1; KDS 2: 1476). Tamamatsu Misao’s scheme of reviving the legacy of Emperor Jinmu was clearly inspired by his teacher Ōkuni Takamasa, although, as we will see below, the same idea also received strong backing in Yano Harumichi’s manifesto Kenkin sengo 献芹詹語. Iwakura believed it better not to focus narrowly on the failed examples of the medieval Jōkyū and Kenmu periods as models for the dawning restoration, as proposed by Nakayama, but rather on the success of the ancient Emperor Jinmu (MTK 1: 560).3 2 Interestingly, this important and noteworthy passage has been omitted in the proclamation’s English translation, published by the Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies (1969–72, vol. II, part IV-A: 66–68). 3 In 1221, the third year of the Jōkyū 承久 era, court nobles under the retired emperor Go-Toba 後鳥羽 (1180–1239) tried to seize the opportunity of internal strife among Kamakura shogunate vassals and issued a decree that called for chastisement of the shogunal regent Hōjō Yoshitoki 北条義時 (1163–1224). Hōjō forces, however, attacked Kyoto and defeated the court supporters. As a consequence, the retired emperors Go-Toba and

12

chapter one

The existence of Emperor Jinmu as an individual is more than doubtful. According to the legends found in the Kojiki, the Records of Ancient Matters compiled by the court in 712, as well as in the Nihonshoki, the Chronicles of Japan compiled a few years later in 720, Jinmu was the greatgreat-grandson of the sun goddess Amaterasu-ōmikami. Calculated from the lunar calendar dates given in the Nihonshoki, Jinmu reigned officially from 660 to 585 bc, although these dates must be seen as arbitrary. After growing up in the Takachiho Palace in Hyūga, probably what is now Miyazaki Prefecture in Kyushu, Jinmu resolved at the age of forty-five to conquer the Yamato region. In an expedition that lasted several years, he made his way along the Inland Sea and landed his forces northwest of Yamato. At first defeated by local chieftains, he ultimately subdued the area with the aid of a golden kite and subsequently was enthroned as Japan’s first emperor. Using Jinmu as an example for the new restoration was, as mentioned above, proposed by Tamamatsu Misao and other kokugaku scholars. Tamamatsu was the second son of the imperial chamberlain Yamamoto Kinhiro 山本公弘. In his youth, he entered the Buddhist temple Daigo-ji south of Kyoto. He did not get along with the other monks, however, and soon returned to the secular life, calling himself Yamamoto Kiken 山本毅軒 and later, Tamamatsu Misao. He was introduced to Iwakura Tomomi by San-no-miya Yoshitane 三宮義胤 (1844–1905), who used the alias Mikami Hyōbu 三上兵部 as Iwakura at the time was still confined to seclusion outside the court in a village north of Kyoto. Tamamatsu was received for an audience on 20 March 1867, and from then on, Iwakura continued to seek his counsel. Beginning with Tamamatsu, Iwakura’s original group of advisers for the Restoration’s construction mainly consisted of people considered at the time leading authorities in kokugaku. The group included Hirata Kanetane, Juntoku 順徳 (1197–1242) were exiled, Emperor Chūkyō 仲恭 (1218–1234) was replaced by Emperor Go-Horikawa 後堀河 (1212–1234), and special shogunal deputies, the Rokuhara tandai 六波羅探題, were established in Kyoto to keep the court under close surveillance. During the Kenmu 建武 era of 1333–36, the shogunate generals Ashikaga Takauji 足利尊 氏 (1305–1358) and Nitta Yoshisada 新田義貞 (1301–1338) switched allegiance to Emperor Go-Daigo, who attempted to restore direct imperial power. Nitta defeated shogunate forces in Kamakura and Ashikaga took over Kyoto in Go-Daigo’s name. However, after the emperor refused to comply with Takauji’s request of making him Shōgun, the conflict finally led to the overthrow of the restoration government, Go-Daigo fled to Yoshino, and Ashikaga Takauji established the new Muromachi shogunate in Kyoto. The subsequent war (1337–1392) pitted the southern court in Yoshino against the northern court in Kyoto supported by Ashikaga, resulting in the only major dynastic schism in Japanese history. For a detailed account of these events, see Goble (1990).



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period13

Yano Harumichi, Gonda Naosuke and Iida Takesato, among others (Sakamoto 1944: 71–76). They provided suggestions for the Restoration as well as broader policies concerning its structure, and, as occasion called for it, responded to questions about general external and internal politics. Furthermore, Maruyama Sakura and Tsunoda Tadayuki 角田忠行 (1834– 1918) were consulted about the ancient system of organization and Fukuba Bisei about a new enthronement ceremony. Gonda Naosuke’s disciple Itaki Shizue 板木下枝 was Iwakura’s steward. The influence of national-learning scholars was not confined to Iwakura. As noted earlier, many kokugakusha later became officials holding ministerial posts in the new Meiji government. Nevertheless, the links between Iwakura Tomomi and kokugaku were indeed manifold. For example, in addition to the members of his advisory group, his poetry teacher Takatsukasa Masamichi 鷹司政通 (1789–1868)4 was a disciple of the kokugakusha Ōkuni Takamasa. Prior to that, Iwakura Tomomi’s adoptive grandfather Iwakura Tomoai 岩倉具集 (1778–1853) was on familiar terms with the kokugaku scholars residing in Kyoto, of whom his closest acquaintance was Ōkuni Takamasa. From 1841, Tomoai studied classical literature and waka poetry in Ōkuni’s academy, Hōhon-gakusha 報本学舎, and also visited Ōkuni’s home frequently.5 Iwakura Tomoai lamented the decline of the imperial household and told the young Tomomi of his hopes of imperial authority being restored. Thus, from his boyhood, Iwakura Tomomi was ideologically profoundly influenced by his adoptive grandfather (KDS 2: 1469–1470; Tokutomi 1932: 12–14). Basing the imperial restoration on Jinmu-tennō’s ancient establishment of the Japanese empire, as advocated by Iwakura, was thus an idea that seems to have developed naturally out of his kokugaku environment.  The Inception of History: Emperor Jinmu There were also earlier activists who were pro-imperially inclined and who supported a discourse based on a revival of Jinmu’s times (Tani 1966– 68: 145). Nostalgia and feelings of admiration towards Japan’s legendary 4 From 1823 Takatsukasa was the kanpaku 関白, or chief adviser, to Emperor Ninkō. After the latter’s death in 1846, he became the sesshō 摂政, or regent, for the young Emperor Kōmei 孝明 (1831–1867), Meiji’s father. 5 The name of Ōkuni’s school, hōhon, literally ‘recompense the roots’, refers to compensating the ancestors for their blessings. In the Book of Rites Li-ji 礼記 it refers to a special and often animal sacrifice to honour one’s ancestors (Morohashi 1984–86, 3: char. 5275– 158). It is important to note that the ideal of hōhon was a fundamental principle of the Mito scholars as well. The phrase hōhon hanshi 報本反始, recompense the roots by returning to

14

chapter one

first sovereign Jinmu found an initial climax during the turbulent final years of the Edo period. For instance, Arima Shinshichi 有馬新七 (1825– 1862), in a text written in 1857, stated that politics should be based on the good examples of the ancient emperors Jinmu and Sujin 崇神. A Satsuma Domain samurai who was active in the movement to overthrow the Tokugawa shogunate, in 1860 Arima helped plot the assassination of chief minister Ii Naosuke 井伊直弼 (1815–1860) during the so-called Sakurada Gate Incident. In 1862, Arima was involved in plans to organize an anti-shogunate army and to assassinate high Tokugawa officials in Kyoto during a visit of the Satsuma daimyo’s father and de facto ruler, Shimazu Hisamitsu 島津久光 (1817–1887). Hisamitsu sent men to persuade Arima and his cohorts to abandon their plans, but they resisted. In the ensuing fight of 21 May 1862, Arima and six others were killed in their hideout, the Teradaya 寺田屋 inn outside Kyoto. A similar fate befell Sakura Azumao 佐久良東雄 (1811–1860), who in 1860 composed poems in which he expressed his longing for a return to the glorious age of Emperor Jinmu’s Kashihara palace.6 Sakura studied kokugaku under Hirata Atsutane and was in close contact with loyalist pro-imperial retainers from the Mito Domain. In 1860, he was arrested for giving shelter and hiding to Takahashi Taichirō 高橋多一郎 (1814–1860), one of the loyalists who, together with Arima Shinshichi, had helped plan the assassination of Ii Naosuke. Sakura died while imprisoned (KDS 3: 206–213). Moreover, the anti-shogunate activist Maki Izumi 真木和泉 (1813–1864) repeatedly emphasized that the nation’s renovation must be based on the reign of Jinmu-tennō. In August 1864, Maki lead an army of pro-imperial loyalists from Chōshū Domain in an unsuccessful attempt to retake Kyoto, known as the Hamaguri Palace Gate rebellion. The insurgents retreated and Maki Izumi committed suicide. He wrote several pamphlets for the anti-shogunate cause under the name Yasuomi 保臣. His best-known the beginning, appears in their writings regularly. Thus, Ōkuni’s reference clearly reflects a Mito-Confucian influence. 6 According to Kojiki and Nihonshoki, Unebi no Kashihara no miya 畝傍橿原宮 was Jinmu-tennō’s palace at Mt Unebi in Nara. The word miya can mean either a Shinto shrine or an imperial palace. Today’s Kashihara shrine—situated on the southeast slope of the mountain Unebiyama and dedicated to the spirits of Emperor Jinmu and his consort Himetatara-isuzu-hime 媛踏鞴五十鈴媛—was constructed in 1889 on the presumed ruins of this palace to commemorate the founding of the Japanese nation. In 1940, the shrine was refurbished and expanded to celebrate the 2,600th anniversary of Jinmu’s supposed accession to the throne. Its annual festival is held on 11 February, the traditional date of Jinmu’s enthronement, which today is still a national holiday.



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period15

treatise, Keii gusetsu 経緯愚説 of 1861, contains a number of references to Emperor Jinmu (Maki 1976: 361, 363, 365). And on 5 December 1862, Meiji’s father, Emperor Kōmei, urged the shogunate to repair the dilapidated tombs of Jinmu and other former emperors. Toda Tadayuki 戸田忠至 (1809–1883) was appointed as sanryō bugyō 山 陵奉行, a magistrate for imperial tombs, to oversee the repairs (MTK 1: 310). Similarly, during the late Edo and early Meiji periods, several kokugakusha proposed that counting the years according to nengō 年号, or era names, be abolished and instead, to use Emperor Jinmu’s accession as the starting point of the calendar. As early as 1840, Fujita Tōko 藤田東湖 (1806–1855) celebrated the 2,500th anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s accession to the throne. A leading Confucianist of the Mito school, in 1827 he succeeded his father Fujita Yūkoku 藤田幽谷 (1774–1826) as the master of Mito Domain’s Shōkōkan 彰考館 academy. Two years later, Tōko, along with Aizawa Seishisai 会沢正志斎 (1781–1863) and others, successfully campaigned for Tokugawa Nariaki 徳川斉昭 (1800–1860) to become the new lord of Mito in a succession dispute. The shogunate, however, reprimanded Nariaki for his open disagreement with shogunate policies and in 1844 placed him and Tōko under house arrest. During this period, Fujita Tōko concentrated on writing, composing, for example, his two-volume Kōdōkan-ki jutsugi 弘道館記述義. This became a fundamental book for the Mito school and its ideology, which called for strengthening the imperial institution and defying foreign powers. After Nariaki was pardoned in 1849, Tōko enjoyed a great reputation as his adviser and as an exponent of Emperor-centred nationalist views (Kracht 1975: 22–68). The national-learning scholar Katagiri Harukazu 片桐春一 (1818–1866), a member of the Hirata faction, also advocated abolishing the use of era names and replacing them with the numbering of years since Jinmutennō’s founding of the empire. Katagiri is also known for establishing a circle of like-minded men and building the Hongaku reisha 本學靈社 or Spirit Hall for the Fundamental Teaching, a shrine in the Ina Valley dedicated to the spirits of the four great kokugaku masters Kada no Azumamaro, Kamo no Mabuchi, Motoori Norinaga and Hirata Atsutane (Walthall 2000: 212). But even proponents of Western enlightenment like Tsuda Mamichi 津田真道 (1823–1903) were interested in this idea. In May 1869, he also proposed a new calendar system based on Jinmu-tennō. Tsuda had studied in Europe and later argued in the journal Meiroku zasshi 明六雑誌 that ‘nothing now excels Christianity in promoting universal enlightenment to

16

chapter one

people all over the world’ (Braisted 1976: 39). Thus, by proposing the abolishment of the traditional system of counting by era, he very likely wanted to emulate the convenience of the Western Anno Domini. However, promoting the idea of basing the reckoning of years on Emperor Jinmu was probably due to his early kokugaku background. At the age of twentytwo, Tsuda had entered the Hirata school as a posthumous disciple. Furthermore, his later son-in-law was Dōka Hirokado 道家大門 (1830– 1890), a Hirata faction kokugaku scholar and Shinto priest who in 1868 had been one of the founders of Sakura-jinja 作楽神社 in Tsuyama in Okayama Prefecture (Tani 1966–68: 148; KDS 3: 293–294). Finally, after several such proposals were made that considered the Japanese nation as beginning with the enthronement of Jinmu-tennō, in 1870 a system of counting historical time based on his accession to the throne was begun (Hardacre 1989: 103).  A New Commemorative Day In the kokugaku worldview of kannagara no michi, Emperor Jinmu is a crucial component. He symbolizes, as the alleged first human emperor, an important transitional phase and the ancestral link to the Age of Gods. In the new government’s effort to strengthen the imperial household’s sanctity as the central pivot point for national unity, on 4 January 1873 the Great Council of State issued an ordinance in which it announced the decision to make the day of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement (Jinmu-tennō sokuibi 神武天皇即位日), along with the Emperor’s birthday (tenchō-setsu 天長節), a national holiday. Also among the new national rites was the Jinmu-tennō sai 神武天皇祭, which commemorated the day of Emperor Jinmu’s death. New cult centres linked to Ise—the shrine of the Emperor’s ancestor Amaterasu—were built around the country, where ‘all provincial officials were to perform worship from afar [yōhai 遥拝] on the annual festival for Emperor Jinmu, April 3’ (Hardacre 1989: 89). After the Meiji Restoration, there was also a high demand among lay people for commissioned painted scrolls featuring Jinmu’s portrait, which were incorporated into domestic rites. Simultaneously with the announcement of these new national holidays, the Western solar calendar was adopted and Meiji 5/12/2 was followed by Meiji 6/1/1, making it coincide with 1 January 1873 (Lokowandt 1978: 301–302, doc 63; Hardacre 1989: 75–76, 101, 181 fn. 71). According to Japan’s first official imperial annals, the Nihonshoki, Jinmu’s enthronement had taken place on the first day of the first month of a ka-no-to tori 辛酉 year. Thus, corresponding to the old lunisolar



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period17

calendar’s first day of the first month of the year, on 29 January 1873 a festival celebrating Emperor Jinmu’s accession was held. When converted into the newly-adopted solar calendar, however, the day of Jinmu’s enthronement turned out to correspond to 11 February 660 bc. Thus, it was determined by imperial decision that, henceforth, starting with the follow­ ing year, 1874, the accession anniversary would take place each 11 February as kigensetsu 紀元節 or ‘Empire Day’ (MTK 2: 78; 3: 49, 139). The reason for establishing Jinmu-tennō’s enthronement in the form of a national holiday was clearly to display at home and abroad the ancient legitimization for the new national rule centred on the Emperor. With deliberate calculation, the kigensetsu was later also used, for instance, in 1889 to proclaim the Meiji Constitution and again in 1890 for the creation of the ‘Order of the Golden Kite’ Kinshi kunshō 金鵄勲章, the highest Japanese military award named after the legendary kite that is said to have come flying from heaven and perched on Emperor Jinmu’s bow, aiding him in his eastward campaign. According to the ancient chronicles, its golden shine blinded the approaching enemies, who therefore lost the battle. In the militarized 1920s and 1930s, events were held on 11 February by war veteran associations, youth associations and in schools all over the country to celebrate the nation’s founding by Emperor Jinmu. This climaxed in the widespread celebrating of the nation’s supposed 2,600th anniversary in 1940. Also in that year, an order was implemented forcing Koreans to change their names to Japanese ones in order to create a single nation by uniting the colonizer with the colonized. The day of Jinmu’s alleged founding of the Japanese nation is furthermore well known as the target date of the capture of Singapore during the Pacific War. Thus, from its beginning at the dawn of the Meiji period, kigensetsu or Empire Day on 11 February had an important role in propagating nationalism and militarism. It is thus understandable that directly after the war, the National Holidays Law Shukujitsu-hō 祝日法 of 20 July 1948 abolished kigensetsu and its explicit reference to the nation’s mythical founding. It was seen as inappropriate for the new conception of Japan’s post-war constitution. However, based on a revision of this law in 1966, a de facto revival of the pre-war kigensetsu was accomplished, when in February 1967 the Cabinet, under Prime Minister Satō Eisaku 佐藤栄作 (1901–1975), ordered 11 February from then on to be officially celebrated as ‘National Foundation Day’ or kenkoku kinenbi 建国記念日. This national holiday is still observed today, although not many younger Japanese are aware of its mythological and, to a certain extent, militaristic origin. In most people’s minds, celebrations on 11 February refer to the proclamation day of the Meiji

18

chapter one

Constitution, and it is disregarded that at that time the reason for the date of the proclamation and the origin of the underlying holiday were related to Emperor Jinmu’s founding of the Japanese nation according to the interpretation and influence of kokugaku scholars in early Meiji.  The Five-Article Imperial Oath With the revival of Jinmu-tennō as the fundament upon which everything should be based, the first step in putting kokugaku ideology into applied practice is visible. At this early stage, the worldview of kannagara no michi was realized to a high degree in concrete political measures. The simultaneous adoption in January 1873 of the Western solar calendar and the creation of the Empire Day, however, also vividly shows the two sides of the same coin known as the Meiji Restoration, namely revival and progress. In addition to the focus on ancient times, we must, therefore, also heed another policy that was simultaneously taken up by the new government: the country’s opening to foreign relations. After the Restoration, the government promptly arranged for foreign trade—a sudden change in attitude that until then had not only opposed the shogunate and advocated ‘reverence for the Emperor’ (sonnō), but also advocated the ‘expulsion of barbaric foreigners’ ( jōi). The opening was by no means an easy move; it was not unvaryingly accepted and indeed caused vehement internal turmoil. Despite this, it certainly indicated a major shift from times that could be considered early modern to true modernity. In part it was an attempt to avoid conflicts similar to the opium wars being experienced in China. It was also natural for a government that was bearing the burden of managing the country’s quick (re-)construction to adopt a friendly policy towards Western countries interested in the opening of trade markets. Realistically assessing the situation, the ruling elite also recognized that the national reforms they were attempting to implement would be close to impossible if Japan’s markets remained closed. After this requisite opening to foreign relations, and the connected positive avowal of links to external cultures, an invigorated internal spirit of community became an essential fundamental policy. Thus, on 6 April 1868, a few months after the Grand Order of the Restoration of Imperial Rule, the Five-Article Imperial Oath was proclaimed in a religious ceremony. The ceremony is said to have been planned by Mutobe Yoshichika 六人部是愛 (1840–1869), who was the son of the prominent kokugaku scholar Mutobe Yoshika 六人部是香 (1806– 1864). Yoshichika interestingly was a shrine priest at Mukō-jinja 向日神社



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period19

southwest of Kyoto that is dedicated to Emperor Jinmu (KDNBK 1990: 701). A say in the ceremony’s planning was also had by Kido Takayoshi 木戸孝允 (1833–1877), who not only played a critical role in creating the text of the Oath, but also, to a decisive extent, in coordinating its ritual performance. In the presence of officials, court nobles and princes, and directly led by the emperor, the Oath was pledged by Sanjō Sanetomi 三條實美 (1837– 1891) before the shinza 神座, or divine seat for the deities of heaven and earth, in the imperial palace’s hall for state ceremonies Shishinden 紫宸殿. The ritual effectively turned the then sixteen-year-old Mutsuhito, or Meijitennō, into a politically-active emperor with sacred authority in the image of his mythical ancestor Jinmu-tennō (Breen 1996: 408, 417; Sakamoto 1993: 77 fn. 44). The many high officials and politicians attending this Shinto ceremony announcing the government’s basic principles clearly demonstrated the religious foundation of the state and the unity of ritual and politics. Among other things, during the ceremony, it was proclaimed that ‘our country is about to perform unprecedented reforms and we [the Emperor] ourselves will go ahead of [our subjects]’ (Meiji jingū 1991: 29). The spirit of negating the attitudes of earlier times and establishing ‘modernity’ flows through each of its five articles (MTK 1: 654; Breen 1996: 410): 1. We shall determine all matters of state by public discussion, after assemblies have been convoked far and wide. 2. We shall unite the hearts and minds of people high and low, the better to pursue with vigour the rule of the realm. 3. We are duty bound to ensure that all people, nobility, military and commoners too, may fulfil their aspirations and not yield to despair. 4. We shall break through the shackles of former evil practice and base our actions on the principles of international law. 5. We shall seek knowledge throughout the world and thus invigorate the foundations of this imperial nation. Not everyone, however, consented to the notion of basing actions on the principles of international law and seeking knowledge throughout the world. Many lamented the opening to foreign relations and a friendly policy towards the West. One such dissenter was Tamamatsu Misao, who, as a result, stepped down from office in 1871. He severely criticized Iwakura Tomomi regarding the proactive support, after the restoration of imperial rule was realized, of friendly relations with various foreign nations. Tamamatsu’s personal opinion was that foreigners should be expelled, and when resigning from his post, he accused the new Meiji leaders of

20

chapter one

committing mistakes for the benefit of sly, mephistophelian men, announcing that ‘Alas, because of wicked leaders, this place [Japan] gets sold!’ (KDS 2: 1484). Due to Tamamatsu Misao’s major service during the Restoration, Iwakura later reminisced in gratitude: ‘My enterprises in the early years were all due to his [Tamamatsu’s] strength’ (KDS 2: 1477). Nevertheless, for realists like Iwakura there was no way to ease the minds of idealists like Tamamatsu, who were unable to adapt to the requirements of a dawning new era. Tamamatsu Misao’s early retirement, in despondency and resentment, shows that in the Meiji era, it had become impossible to preserve the entire range of the diverse worldview of early-modern kokugaku. More and more, it became evident that the only means of survival was modifying and adapting to the incontestable advent of a new age. Kannagara no Michi and Kokutai as Unifying Contradictory Principles Like two sides of the same coin, the new government’s two major policies—the restoration of Jinmu’s imperial rule and opening to foreign relations—were the fundamental principles in its task of founding a new era. The first was a principle for new internal organization based on the spirit of medieval mysticism involving the revival of the kami or deities, whereas the other was a policy for adopting external culture in the spirit of modern pragmatism. The question of how to deal with both policies was the most important and difficult task to confront the Meiji government in its early days. The latent contradiction between these two principles cannot be overlooked. However, in the eyes of the government they were harmonized, so to speak, by Japan’s kokutai, its alleged ‘eternal’ and fundamental national character. As mentioned above, the Meiji Restoration initially materialized by negating all things feudalistic. Furthermore, the notion of kanna­ gara no michi had been elaborated according to the social organization of ancient times. It was based on a careful investigation documenting the sanctity of the imperial household. This, in turn, was based on the notion of the ‘sacred intention of the deities’, which had been handed down since the Age of Gods. Pointing to antiquity, kannagara no michi was thus venerated by national-learning scholars in the later Edo period as an ideal means for discarding the structures of the early-modern period. From a political point of view, the development of restoring imperial rule meant freedom from feudalistic restraints. The conscious foundation of this worldview was the imperial household’s lofty sanctity over all



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period21

shogunal authority. This was combined with the dogmatic claim of Japan’s supremacy as a divine country, a claim that supported the initial aim of expulsing foreigners. It was of course utopian to implement this last point within the reality of Meiji politics. This notwithstanding, the new government, while advancing the imperial household’s sanctity, chose a course of promulgating the restoration of Jinmu’s imperial rule based on the notion of kannagara no michi as the fundamental source of its administrative policy. This worldview expressed itself in the early Meiji period in the shape of several reforms based on the ideals of radical intellectuals and their impassioned fervour for a new national morality. In particular, attention must be paid to the principles of saisei-itchi, the unity of ritual and politics, and seikyō-itchi 政教一致, the unity of politics and religious doctrine. Both had kannagara no michi as their pivotal concept. Especially, the kokugaku scholars of the Hirata school were a driving force behind these two principles. At the same time, they impelled the revival of the Bureau of Divinity Jingikan and sustained the movement for establishing a new, unifying state religion. 1.3. Yano Harumichi’s Manifesto Kenkin sengo Immediately after the restoration of imperial rule was proclaimed on 3 January 1868, Yano Harumichi completed his manifesto Kenkin sengo 献芹詹語, Humble Petition of a Fool, in order to memorialize the government. Yano first studied philology under Ban Nobutomo and later, in 1844, became an early posthumous disciple of Hirata Atsutane. He also studied Confucianism at the government school Shōheikō 昌平黌 under Koga Dōan 古賀侗庵 (1788–1847). In addition to the school’s new head Hirata Kanetane himself, Yano was probably the greatest paragon of Hirata kokugaku in the late Tokugawa and early Meiji years. Both men came originally from Iyo, today’s Ehime Prefecture, which was perhaps yet another reason why, following Atsutane’s death, Yano became one of Kanetane’s closest and most esteemed colleagues. In 1862, Yano Harumichi became the academic instructor or gakushi 学師 for the Shirakawa family, which since the Heian period had held the hereditary position of jingi-haku 神祇伯, the chief official of divine affairs. In 1867, he also lectured on kokugaku as the academic head or gaku-kashira 学頭 of the Yoshida Shinto school. He was thus the supervisor of the two most traditional—and due to being entrusted with licensing priests, most influential—official Shinto

22

chapter one

schools. Already from the days of Atsutane, both schools had increasingly been taken over by the Hirata faction. After the Restoration, it was also Yano who edited and finished writing the final ten volumes of Hirata Atsutane’s monumental work Koshi-den 古史傳, a detailed commentary on his earlier work Koshi seibun 古史成文. Thus, Yano was irrefutably one of the most influential national-learning scholars in the Meiji period. He was often consulted by different gov­ ernment officials for his advice on current matters. A letter sent on 23 November 1879 to his close friend Tsunoda Tadayuki, for instance, clearly shows that Yano was a leading figure among the advisers of Iwakura Tomomi who were responsible for investigating the imperial household system and its possible reorganization (Sakamoto 1993: 251–306; 1994: 18).  Divine Assistance for the Restoration As one of Iwakura’s advisers in the years before the Restoration, Yano Harumichi was able to present his opinion, via Iwakura, directly to the court and the highest ranks of government. Joyous over the newly restored Emperor-centred political power, he writes in the second sentence of the Kenkin sengo, ‘by returning the supreme authority to the imperial court, noble-minded men of virtue throughout the realm cannot help but to jig in jubilation about this momentous event after more than six hundred years’. He sees divine aid as the foremost cause of the restoration of imperial authority, and a few sentences later states that ‘primarily because of the amulets that dropped down on the capital from the last part of the tenth month and by the multitude of singing and dancing due to these auspicious signs, the profound gift of the heavenly imperial ancestor deity’s divine assistance granted out of the other world (yūmeikai 幽冥界) was foretold. Such auspicious signs occasionally also occurred at the time of the ancient sages’ (Yano 1971: 548). It is thus clear that Yano Harumichi saw socio-religious phenomena such as the carnivalesque and subversive ee janai ka (‘It’s ok, why not?’) outbreaks of merrymaking, as well as the o-kage mairi thanksgiving pilgrimages, as manifestations of divine assistance for the Restoration. By emphasizing the profound gift of grace awarded by the gods (mitama no fuyu 恩頼), combined with proper edification and proselytization, it was thus possible, in his eyes, to cope with the current situation and to restore peace and order to the world. Thirty-three articles follow the manifesto’s preface. Therein, Yano deals basically with the three fundamental aspects, as he sees them, of honkyō, the original teaching of ancient times so esteemed by the kokugaku of



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period23

the Hirata school: religious rites (saishi 祭祀), benevolent politics (jinsei 仁政) and forceful authority (bui 武威) through the Emperor’s divinely granted, august virtue (miitsu 御稜威). Yano emphasizes that conducting religious rites was the primary form of government in antiquity. The successive dynasties since antiquity loved their subjects mercifully and nurtured them with affection, since they were the country’s wealth. Through benevolent politics of this kind, which were due to the heavenly imperial ancestor-deity’s teachings as passed on by kannagara no michi, the people’s hearts were at ease and life was peaceful. By granting harmony to those who earnestly obeyed and punishing those who were hostile, as already seen in the example of Jinmu-tennō’s reign, forceful authority was exercised due to the Emperor’s virtuouseness. There is, however, a clear hierarchy among these three elements. Most important for proper imperial rule are religious rites; the other aspects are subordinate to this. Hence, if the emperor returns to the ancient original teaching by conducting rites of this kind, the realm will be at peace and disobedient subjects will have no option but to yield to the emperor’s forceful authority as granted through divine will. Thus, to deal with his turbulent times, Yano’s manifesto advocates the unity of ritual and politics based on the example of Emperor Jinmu (Yano 1971: 548, 556, 572).  The Taika Model and Social Proposals Like other kokugaku scholars before him, Yano notes the failure of Emperor Go-Daigo’s medieval Kenmu Renovation, and considers it an inappropriate model for the present situation. He is furthermore extremely concerned with the trends of popular sentiment, writing: Please, all orders on state affairs should be profoundly elaborate, concerning courtesy as well as matter and word; [then] each member of the populace will offer proper loyalty and admiration. [If they are however] hastily dealt with and frequently undergo development, something that is called ‘ordered in the morning and modified by the evening’, with all due respect, the people of the realm will conjecture on the court’s merits and faults, amounting to far and wide discussions about plots. The incubus of Kenmu’s previous failure never will procure loyalty. Hence, the ancient sages’ great way [of moral principles] should be granted consideration. (Yano 1971: 569–570)

Rather than the failed Kenmu Renovation, Yano values the politics of the Taika reform of 645 and considers all of its measures as appropriate. In his eyes, the court should always make judgments with the people in mind and follow the imperial way by taking proper measures. Then, ‘like the

24

chapter one

grass bends and the clouds yield to the wind, there is absolutely no reason for the people of the realm not to follow, just as at the time of the newly proclaimed Taika laws and ordinances’ (Yano 1971: 570). In his manifesto, Yano gives a detailed analysis of the institutions and customs of the ritsuryō state that was initiated at that time. For instance, he describes the ancient clothing of the court and the cultivating of silkworms by the Empress to weave fabric for making it. Furthermore, Yano advocates the revival of honorary titles (songō 尊号) and laudatory posthumous names (shigō 諡号), as well as the reinstating of ancient state ceremonies such as the tsuki-nami no matsuri 月次祭, a monthly ritual for the country and its sovereign’s peace and good fortune, or the yearly niinamesai 新嘗祭, an offering by the Emperor of newly-harvested rice to the deities (Yano 1971: 555). Yano’s work was criticized as seemingly much ‘is justified and necessitated for Yano entirely by the fact of their existence in the utopian Ritsuryō age’ (Breen 1998: 130) without considering their real relevance for the present. However, other parts of his manifesto do touch upon political and social questions of the new era. With regard to external policy, for instance, he advocates strengthening the coastal defence. And Yano also offers some surprising social proposals, including the establishment of poorhouses for helpless people such as widows and widowers, orphans and childless elders, of institutions for raising infants and abandoned children, of schools for educating young delinquents, and of infirmaries for the disabled and sick (Yano 1971: 551).  Jingikan and Jinmu as the Basis for the New Government Evident throughout the text are also Confucian concepts based on Yano’s Mito school background. Generally, however, his manifesto shows the revisionist kokugaku groups’ unique concepts and political plans for the new government. In order of frequency, the manifesto contains twelve references relating to kannagara no michi; eight to internal edification; seven to administration; six to the imperial court, three to external political measures; two to the revival of the Jingikan, Dajōkan and various other governmental offices; two to the revival of the ancient system of court ranks and traditional court dress; two to the military system; two to the social class system; two to the selection of men of talent; and one reference to the calendar (Ueno 1939: 374). These references show Yano’s main tendency of emphasizing how to cope with the condition of his day according to the kokugaku ideals current at the time. For Yano Harumichi,



kokugaku at the dawn of the meiji period25

the all-encompassing factor is naturally the divine will of kannagara no michi, which unifies ritual and politics. This divine will is best expressed in the revival of the Jingikan, the Bureau of Divinity originally created after the Taika reform that institutionalized the rituals for the deities and their worship.7 In Yano’s opinion, even the daijōsai 大嘗祭, the great rice-tasting ritual performed by the Japanese sovereign following his accession ceremony, should be delayed until the reinstating of the Jingikan (Yano 1971: 556). Furthermore, Yano seeks to use his profound knowledge of ancient classical texts to educate the people of his day. Supported by textual references to ancient examples, he clearly sketches an ideal state dependent on a bequeathed divinity that is put into practice through proselytization and the edification of the people. In his eyes, Jinmu-tennō’s rule over the realm, based solely on kannagara no michi, had been a model government that unified ritual and politics. Likewise, the present return to this ancient form of virtuous and benevolent imperial reign is the manifestation of this special divine providence.8 In conclusion, he paints an ideal picture, writing that ‘when the fountainhead of religious politics is celebrated, the people mercifully fostered, the country enriched and forceful authority exercised […] all surrounding barbarian nations will come to pay tribute’ (Yano 1971: 585). Yano moreover proposed the dedication of national holidays for commemorating the first emperor Jinmu and the imperial ancestors, as well as the present emperor’s birthday (Yano 1971: 567). As mentioned above, this was realized a few years later by the Great Council of State ordinance of 4 January 1873. His manifesto also contains several other tangible means for realizing national unification under imperial rule, as for instance, establishing a national school in Kyoto or reviving the Jingikan. 7 The original Jingikan, literally meaning Bureau for the Affairs of Deities, is first mentioned in Nihonshoki during the reign of Empress Jitō on 3/8/2 (22 August 689) [NKBT 68: 498–499; Aston 1993, II: 394]. On the establishment, origins, and administrative duties of the original Jingikan, see Naumann 2000: 48–51. 8 Ueno Akira quite interestingly sees this kokugaku scholarly tradition of an ‘eternal divine will’ as an Oriental form of yotei chōwa 予定調和 (Ueno 1939: 374). This philosophical term, mentioned only in passing, is actually a translation of Leibniz’ concept of a pre-established harmony (prästabilierte Harmonie; harmonie préétablie). The German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Freiherr von Leibniz (1646–1716) considered this type of harmony to be eternally established between all monads—in Leibnizian philosophy, the spiritual beings, substances, or souls that are unextended, indivisible, indestructible, impenetrable, and a centre of force from which all the physical properties of matter are derived. This pre-established harmony is the synchronous operation of all monads since their simultaneous creation, in accordance with the pre-existing plan of God.

26

chapter one

In the end, however, the measures advocated by Yano failed to form an organized system or a systematic solution for modern administrative needs. Nevertheless, comparing the concrete points outlined in Kenkin sengo with those actually undertaken in later political measures, the sociopolitical significance and function of kokugaku in the early Meiji era is clearly visible. Although the basis of the new government was of course not only triggered by Yano’s proposals but also, for instance, by those of Tamamatsu Misao, Iwakura Tomomi and others, essential parts of Yano’s recommendations were in fact realized.

CHAPTER TWO

KOKUGAKU SCHOLARS AND RELIGIOUS ADMINISTRATION 2.1. Early Meiji Institutions for Religious Administration Yano Harumichi was not the only person who fervently advocated a return to ancient practices, with the revival of the Bureau of Divinity the most tangible expression of unifying ritual and politics. Although his Kenkin sengo was the most detailed and comprehensive manifesto of these ideas, in the closing years of the Edo period several other people suggested similar revivals. In one way or another, the majority were related to Hirata school national learning, and some had direct links to the highest circles at court. For instance, already a decade earlier, in February 1858, Sawatari Hiromori 猿渡容盛 (1811–1884) advocated the revival of the Jingikan. Sawatari was the son of the kokugaku scholar Sawatari Moriaki 猿渡盛章 (1790–1863) and a disciple of Oyamada Tomokiyo 小山田與清 (1783– 1847), a follower of Kamo no Mabuchi’s tradition of national learning. However, he also had close contact to Hirata Kanetane (KDS 2: 1553, 3: 590). Mutobe Yoshika, who from 1823 was a direct disciple of Hirata Atsutane, made similar proposals in 1862. In his later years, Mutobe opened the private academy Jinshūsha 神習舎 in Kyoto, where he regularly gave lectures, in addition to other members of the nobility, to Meiji’s father, Emperor Kōmei (KDS 2: 1185–1186, 3: 577). Also Shirakawa Sukenori 白川資訓 (1841–1906) urged the revival of the Jingikan in June 1867. At that time, Sukenori was the head of the jingi-haku family, the hereditary leaders of the Department of Shinto Rites since the Heian period, and thus he obviously had strong interests in such a revival. Already in February 1864, Yano Harumichi wrote Haku-ke mondō 伯家問答, ‘Dialogue on the Jingikan’s Head Family’, describing among other things the origin of this office, its organization and its service for the repose of the deceased. Moreover, in January 1865, he wrote the treatise Jingikan-kō 神祇官考, ‘Thoughts about the Jingikan’. At the time these works were written, Yano Harumichi was the academic instructor of the Shirakawa family, as mentioned above. Thus, it was actually Yano who

28

chapter two

drafted and submitted the 1867 memorandum for the revival of the Jingikan on Shirakawa Sukenori’s behalf (Tani 1966–68: 149–150). And, finally, at about the same time as Yano Harumichi’s Kenkin sengo was completed, Ōkuni Takamasa finished, on 19 January 1868, his Jingikan hongi 神祇官本義 or ‘Basic Principles of Jingikan’. He presented it to Tokudaiji Sanetsune 徳大寺實則 (1840–1919), the grand chamberlain of Emperor Meiji, a Senior Councillor of State in the new government, and the older brother of Japan’s later prime minister Prince Saionji Kinmochi 西園寺公望 (1849–1940). In his text, Ōkuni repeatedly emphasizes Emperor Jinmu’s worshipping of the deities and proposes that everything has a precedent in Jinmu. He advocates the revival of the Jingikan and insistes on its independence from other government institutions (KDS 2: 1477; Brüll 1966: 17–18). These various proposals finally found favour with the court, resulting in an internal court resolution to revive the Jingikan and to make Tokudaiji its highest executive officer. Hence, the activities of the Hirata faction, especially of Yano Harumichi, entailed a great part of the driving force behind the Jingikan’s revival. However, it still took some time before this intellectual trend was completely implemented in real government politics. On 10 February 1868, the new government set up seven administrative departments1 forming the main governmental organization below the three highest governmental executive posts that already existed: the Prime Minister and the Senior and Junior Councillors of State (Lokowandt 1978: 243–246, docs. 1, 2). The establishment of the Department of Divinity Jingi-jimuka, at least nominally the primary department of the seven, was the first major step towards reviving the Jingikan. At that time, Prince Arisugawa-no-miya Taruhito-shinnō 有栖川宮熾仁親王 (1835–1895) became the first prime minister, the government’s chief executive. He was assisted by the two deputy chief executives Sanjō Sanetomi, who concurrently was head of the Department for Foreign Affairs, and Iwakura Tomomi, who was concurrently head of the Departments of the Navy and Army as well as of Finance. The three head officials of the Department of Divinity were Taruhito-shinnō’s father, Prince Arisugawa-no-miya

1 The seven departments (shichika 七科) were the Department of Divinity (Jingijimuka 神祇事務科), of Home Affairs (Naikoku-jimuka 内國事務科), of Foreign Affairs (Gaikoku-jimuka 外國事務科), of the Navy and Army (Kairikugun-jimuka 海陸軍事 務科), of Justice (Keihō-jimuka 刑法事務科), of Finance (Kaikei-jimuka 会計事務科), and of Institutions (Seido-jimuka 制度事務科).



kokugaku scholars and religious administration29

Takahito-shinnō 有栖川宮幟仁親王 (1812–1886), Emperor Meiji’s maternal grandfather and Senior Councillor of State, Nakayama Tadayasu, and the above-mentioned jingi-haku family head Shirakawa Sukenori. Fur­ thermore, three national-learning scholars—Mutobe Yoshichika, who had planned the Five-Article Imperial Oath’s proclamation ceremony,  Juge Shigekuni 樹下茂国 (1822–1884) and Tanimori Yoshiomi 谷森善臣 (1818– 1911)—were appointed to Jingi-jimuka as special consultants (Lokowandt 1978: 245–246, doc. 2; Asakura 1969: 325, Asakura 1981–82). Tanimori Yoshiomi originally studied under Ban Nobutomo, but in 1869 entered the Hirata school. He was an excellent evidential historian, with many achievements in revising classical works. In the closing years of the Edo period, he devoted himself especially to research on the imperial tombs. He contributed greatly to their repair being undertaken, which was conducted in the early 1860s. Tanimori’s disciple Juge Shigekuni came from a hereditary shrine-priest family in Hiyoshi-taisha 日吉大社, in today’s Shiga Prefecture. Both national-learning scholars had lectured on Japanese studies or wagaku at the Peers’ School Gakushūin in Kyoto since its establishment in 1847 and thus, had close relations with the nobles of the court. Juge, for instance, persuaded San-no-miya Yoshitane, one of his Gakushūin students, to introduce Tamamatsu Misao to Iwakura Tomomi. Tanimori moreover was a courtier to Sanjō Sanetsumu 三条実萬 (1802– 1859), Gakushūin’s first mediator to the throne. Both Tanimori and Juge later also worked at the Historiographical Institute Shūshikan 修史館, where Juge contributed to the Koshin-keizu 皇親系図, a genealogy of the imperial family (KDS 3: 391–392; KDNBK 1990: 351; Mehl 1992: 61).  The Personnel at the Office of Divinity Jingi-jimukyoku On 25 February 1868, only two weeks after their founding, these seven administrative departments together with the three executive posts were reformed into eight governmental offices.2 This minor transitional reorganization saw only a slight change in actual contents. For the reformed Office of Divinity, for instance, it was now more specifically stipulated that it oversee all matters related to the deities of heaven and earth ( jingi 神祇), 2 The eight offices (hakkyoku 八局) were the presiding Office of the Prime Minister (Sōsai-kyoku 総裁局), as well as the Office of Divinity (Jingi-jimukyoku 神祇事務局), of Home Affairs (Naikoku-jimukyoku 内國事務局), of Foreign Affairs (Gaikoku-jimukyoku 外國事務局), of Defence (Gunbō-jimukyoku 軍防事務局), of Justice (Keihō-jimukyoku 刑法事務局), of Finance (Kaikei-jimukyoku 会計事務局), and of Institutions (Seidojimukyoku 制度事務局).

30

chapter two

religious ceremonies and rites (saishi 祭祀), religious personnel (hafuribe 祝部), and parishioners (kanbe 神戸). In addition, its staff members were reshuffled and a number of new people were introduced (Lokowandt 1978: 246–248, doc. 3; Takeoka 1927: 298; Asakura 1969: 325; Asakura 1981–82). Prince Arisugawa-no-miya Taruhito-shinnō presided over the new Jingi-jimukyoku’s personnel as its head official or supervisor (kami 督). However, he also held the post of Prime Minister and maybe it is for this reason that Shirakawa Sukenori replaced him as supervisor on 20 March 1868. Before that date, Shirakawa had served as vice-supervisor (suke 輔) alongside Yoshida Nakayoshi 吉田良義 (1837–1890). Shirakawa himself was replaced in his former position by Kamei Koremi, who until 20 March had been an executive ( jō 判事) alongside Yano Harumichi and Hirata Kanetane. On 27 March, Hirata transferred to the Office of Home Affairs and was replaced by Fukuba Bisei. In addition, Tanimori Yoshiomi, Mutobe Yoshichika, Juge Shigekuni and Uematsu Masakoto 植松雅言 (1826–1876) served at the Office of Divinity as deputy executives (gon no jō 権判事). Most significant among the readily visible changes in this adminis­ trative reorganization was an increasing number of newly-appointed kokugaku personnel. Almost all of them stemmed from the Hirata sphere of influence. During the closing years of the Edo period, the Hirata school of national learning had permeated all strata of society and became a driving force in the restoration movement. This was largely due to the vigour of Kanetane. The strong kokugaku presence in the early Meiji administration could be especially seen, therefore, in Kanetane’s appointment to the Office of Divinity and his later transfer to the Office of Home Affairs. Kanetane’s influence and that of the Hirata school reached in many directions. The court noble Uematsu Masakoto, son of Uematsu Masataka 植松 雅恭 (1815–1855), the former head of the office charged with the upkeep of the imperial palace, had studied under Kanetane. Yano Harumichi, Tanimori Yoshiomi, Juge Shigekuni and Mutobe Yoshichika were also of Hirata school background. As well, due to Yano’s involvement as their instructor, Shirakawa Sukenori and Yoshida Nakayoshi can certainly be included in the Hirata faction. And as a young man, Yoshida Nakayoshi decided to change the scholarly direction of his family and entered the Hirata school, becoming an attendant to the emperor and the person who invited Yano Harumichi to lecture on kokugaku as the academic head at the Yoshida academy (KDS 3: 289). On the other hand, the so-called Tsuwano faction of national learning, which centred on Ōkuni Takamasa, was also influential, especially through the work of Kamei Koremi and Fukuba Bisei. Kamei, the lord of Tsuwano



kokugaku scholars and religious administration31

Domain in today’s Shimane Prefecture, had studied diligently under Ōkuni since around 1850. Fukuba Bisei, a retainer of the Tsuwano Domain, had a close relationship to Kamei. In 1853, Fukuba had gone to Kyoto to enter Ōkuni Takamasa’s private academy Hōhon-gakusha, but soon thereafter returned with him to Tsuwano. In 1858, Fukuba then enrolled in the Hirata school, having been introduced by the Hirata disciple Nishikawa Yoshisuke 西川吉輔 (1816–1880), who later was involved in the famous beheading of the Ashikaga-Shogun statues in Kyoto.3 Nontheless, Fukuba maintained his great esteem for Ōkuni. On Kamei’s orders, Fukuba returned to Kyoto in February 1868 to take advantage of the propitious events taking place. On 27 September 1868, Fukuba Bisei and Kamei Koremi were appointed as government officials to help organize Emperor Meiji’s new enthronement ceremony, which was then conducted on 12 October. Due to their deliberations, a globe once presented to Emperor Kōmei by Tokugawa Nariaki 徳川 斉昭 (1800–1860) was placed in front of the imperial throne. This globe, upon which the Japanese islands were painted in gold, was understood as symbolizing the glory of the new Emperor’s reign (KDS 3: 366–368; Keene 2002: 157–158; MTK 1: 805). In addition, another disciple of Ōkuni, Tamamatsu Misao, was engaged as Iwakura Tomomi’s adviser. At the time, Ōkuni Takamasa was already seventy-five years old; the aged scholar must have been highly pleased that his students occupied such leading positions in the Meiji court. Mostly due to the activities of these four Tsuwano scholars, the group had considerable influence in the initial stages of the Meiji period. The significance of Tsuwano Domain in the history of the Meiji Restoration and achievements of Tsuwano scholars as a distinct kokugaku group have only recently been treated in more detail (particularly Sakamoto 1993: 11–16, 104–110). It has become clear that in the late Edo period, kokugaku thought was a shaping force in the academic tradition of the Tsuwano Domain. Another important Tsuwano figure was Hirata Atsutane’s disciple Oka Kumaomi 岡熊臣 (1783–1851), the author of Nihonshoki-shiden 日本書 紀私伝. Oka had taught at the Tsuwano Domain school Yōrōkan 養老館 3 On 9 April 1863, a group of nine imperialists, all disciples of the Hirata school of kokugaku, went to Tōji-in on the western outskirts of Kyoto and decapitated the wooden statues of the first three Ashikaga shoguns, who in their eyes had been and still were traiters to the throne. They carried the heads to the banks of the Kamo River and pilloried them ‘in the name of vengeance of Heaven’ near Sanjō Bridge. This deed served as a warning that ignoring the emperor’s wishes would bring retribution. It effectively created a polemic that both reflected and advanced the state of public opinion at the time. For a detailed description of the events, see Walthall (1995).

32

chapter two

since 1849 and had endeavoured to promote Shinto-style funerals or shinsō 神葬. Another influential person responsible for spreading kokugaku in the greater Shimane area was Oka’s other teacher, Senge Toshizane 千家 俊信 (1764–1831), a disciple of Motoori Norinaga of the famous family of Izumo Shrine priests (KDS 2: 656, 1279–1280; 3: 564). Thus, it is often difficult to draw a clear line distinguishing these various factions. As will be seen throughout this study, during the Meiji period and often before, there was plenty of cooperation between the members of different kokugaku factions.  Revival of the Bureau of Divinity Jingikan With all these national-learning scholars as a pivot, the movement for the revival of the ancient way advanced steadily, resulting in the following government proclamation of 5 April 1868: Concerning the present restoration of imperial rule (ōsei fukko 王政復古), the reformation of various matters by turning back to [the fundamental principle of] Jinmu’s establishment, and the reinstatement of the system of a unity of ritual and politics (saisei-itchi), the imperial words have been recently received that the foremost priority is the revival of the Jingikan. After its creation, various festivals should be gradually revived as well. (Lokowandt 1978: 248, doc. 4)

The next day, the Five-Article Imperial Oath Gokajō no goseimon was pledged to the deities of heaven and earth. On 9 May, Emperor Meiji visited Ikasuri-jinja 坐摩神社 in Osaka, accompanied by Sanjō Sanetomi, Iwakura Tomomi and Nakayama Tadayasu. After paying his respect to the venerated deities, the emperor also attended a lecture by Fukuba Bisei on the ancient chronicle Kojiki. Due to the exceptional history of Ikasuri-jinja, the emperor’s visit to this Shinto shrine shortly after gaining political power was certainly not a coincidence. In June 1852, prayers for the birth of an imperial crown prince were conducted at Osaka’s Sumiyoshi-taisha 住吉大社 and—at the request of the Nakayama family—also, in particular, at Ikasuri-jinja. It was claimed that it was due to these prayers that Nakayama Yoshiko 中山慶子 (1836– 1907), the daughter of Nakayama Tadayasu, gave birth to her son Mutsuhito 睦仁, who was destined to become Emperor Meiji. The Nakayama family had a special relation to Ikasuri-jinja, since it held the post of tensō 伝奏 or mediator to the throne. At the time of the prayers for the royal birth in 1852, the above-mentioned Hirata disciple Sakura Azumao, who wrote loyalist poems longing for a return to Emperor Jinmu’s glorious reign at



kokugaku scholars and religious administration33

Kashihara, was serving at Ikasuri-jinja. And the shrine priest at the time of Emperor Meiji’s visit, Watanabe Sukemasa 渡辺資政 (1813–1892), was a disciple of both Sakura Azumao as well as Mutobe Yoshika, who had given lectures to Meiji’s father, Emperor Kōmei, several times (MTK 1: 675; KDNBK 1990: 791). The Emperor returned from Osaka to Kyoto on 29 May. The Seitaisho 政体書, which laid out the general outline of politics and the system of official posts, was then proclaimed on 11 June 1868 and distributed a few days later. Also known as the Organic Act or the Constitution of 1868, this document on the structure of government refers to the Five-Article Oath already in its first item. The essence of this document was to be the sole basis and objective in building the country’s new political system. Drafted among others by Soejima Taneomi 副島種臣 (1828–1905), later chairman of the Historiological Association Shigaku-kyōkai, it moreover regulated the organizational structure of the Jingikan as being responsible for all state rituals and the political conduct. With this, the Office of Divinity was reformed as the new Bureau of Divinity (MTK 1: 708; Lokowandt 1978: 254– 258, doc. 13). At first, the Jingikan was put under the jurisdiction of the newly-established Great Council of State Dajōkan 太政官, the Meiji government’s central organ for practical politics and all ministries until its replacement by the Cabinet system in 1885. The next year, on 15 August 1869, however, the Jingikan was promoted to the highest governmental level, positioned outside and at least nominally above the Dajōkan system. Again, Iwakura Tomomi was influenced by kokugaku scholars in his support for this reconstruction of the ancient Jingikan, just as he had been in taking Jinmu’s foundation of the realm as model for the Meiji Restoration. Iwakura had already consulted Hirata Kanetane at the end of 1867 concerning his opinion on the present situation. Hirata strongly suggested reviving the Nara period Bureau of Divinity (Antoni 1998: 208–209). And as seen above, also Yano Harumichi, in his influential manifesto Kenkin sengo, had fervently advocated the revival of the Jingikan.  The Personnel at the Bureau of Divinity Amid these kaleidoscopic changes of government organization, with the revival of the ancient Bureau of Divinity the anticipated restoration of imperial rule seemed now nearly complete. Unsurprisingly, the people appointed to high posts at the Jingikan again were for the most part from the Hirata faction and the Tsuwano group of kokugaku scholars.

34

chapter two

Even Ōkuni Takamasa served at the Bureau of Divinity, albeit for only a short time (KDS 2: 1477; Brüll 1966: 17). But, as will be shown below, the Jingikan employed a still broader range of national-learning scholars than its temporary predecessors had done: now a few disciples of Oyamada Tomokiyo were among its staff. Together with Hirata Atsutane and Ban Nobutomo, Oyamada Tomokiyo is considered one of the san-taika 三大家, the three kokugaku masters or expert scholars of the Tenpō era of 1830 to 1844. The three are admired, respectively, for theological studies on Shinto, ‘evidential’ historical investigations and categorized compilations of ancient documents. Oyamada Tomokiyo was the author of many works, the best known being his Gunsho sōsaku mokuroku 群書捜索目録, a ‘Search-Catalogue of Various Books’, consisting of over a hundred volumes. By invitation from Lord Tokugawa Nariaki, he worked at the Historiographical Institute Shōkōkan 彰考館 in the Mito Domain, the ‘place for clarification (of the past) und consideration (of the coming)’ that had been established in the middle of the seventeenth century by Lord Tokugawa Mitsukuni 徳川光圀 (1628–1700). Oyamada was a student of Murata Harumi 村田春海 (1746– 1811), a national-learning scholar born in Edo who had studied under Kamo no Mabuchi and who, together with Motoori Norinaga, succeeded him as the mainstay of early-modern kokugaku. Murata Harumi was one of the leading figures of the Edo school of waka poetry. Disagreeing with the anti-Confucian views of the eminent kokugaku scholar Motoori Norinaga, Murata infused his work with a broad appreciation of the literary traditions of both Japan and China. He is also noted for his rediscovery of the long-lost Shinsen jikyō 新撰字鏡, the oldest extant Chinese–Japanese dictionary. It was written around 900 in the Man’yōgana script and explains the meaning of about 20,000 characters as well as many Japanese words (KDS 1: 738–778, 2: 1227–1242, 3: 578). With Oyamada Tomokiyo’s disciples at the Bureau of Divinity, we thus have the first glimpse of the steady shift of kokugaku from a religious– theological approach towards one that is philologic–hermeneutical, a shift that became ever more prominent during the Meiji period. In short, as the following overview will show, the staff of the Bureau of Divinity Jingikan was comprised of a few prominent court nobles and a broad variety of kokugaku scholars (Asakura 1969: 325; Asakura 1981–82; Tani 1966–68: 160–161; Ueno 1939: 376–377). Its first head official or supervisor (kami 伯) was the court noble Takatsukasa Sukehiro 鷹司輔煕 (1807–1878), the son of Takatsukasa Masamichi, the former chief adviser to Emperor Ninkō and regent for the



kokugaku scholars and religious administration35

young Emperor Kōmei. In 1857, Sukehiro became Minister of the Right, but due to his opposition to the shogunate with regard to the United States–Japan Treaty of Amity and Commerce that was signed on 29 July 1858 and the question of shogunal succession, he resigned soon thereafter during the Ansei-period purge (1858–60) of opponents to the shogunate’s opening to the Western powers. Later, like his father before him, he became the chief adviser to the Emperor, but again resigned after the coup d’état of 30 September 1863. After the Meiji Restoration, he became a Senior Councillor of State. On 27 October 1868, Takatsukasa Sukehiro was replaced as the Jingikan’s supervisor by the court noble Konoe Tadafusa 近衛忠房 (1838–1878), the son of Konoe Tadahiro 近衛忠煕 (1808–1898). A relative by marriage to the Shimazu family of Satsuma, he and his father also had been involved in the coup d’état of September 1863. In 1867, Konoe Tadafusa had become Minister of the Left. On 24 June 1869, Emperor Meiji’s maternal grandfather Nakayama Tadayasu, in turn, replaced Konoe as head official and on 15 August 1869, the day the Jingikan became independent from Dajōkan, Sanjō Sanetomi was added as a second supervisor. Shirakawa Sukenori, as already been mentioned above, was Jingikan’s senior vice-supervisor (dai-suke 大副). Kamei Koremi was its junior vicesupervisor (shō-suke 少副) until, on 24 June 1869, being replaced in this position by Fukuba Bisei. The Jingikan’s senior executive (dai-jō 大祐) was Kitakōji Yorimitsu 北小 路随光 (1832–1916), a specialist on the customs and etiquette of the court and military households, and the uncle of Inokuma Asamaro 猪熊浅麻呂 (1870–1945), a student of the Nihonshoki expert Iida Takesato. Employed to assist Kitakōji were three deputy senior executives (gon no dai-jō 権大祐): Maruyama Sakura, who on 15 August 1869, however, transferred to the new Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Uematsu Masakoto, and Hirata Nobutane 平田 延胤 (1828–1872), the oldest son of Hirata Kanetane. Nobutane had studied kokugaku under his father and military sciences under Yamaguni Hyōbu 山国兵部 (1793–1865). On 31 March 1869, he held a lecture on Nihonshoki for Emperor Meiji (MTK 2: 415). It was anticipated that Nobutane would become the successor and new head of the Hirata school, but he died before his father at the early age of forty-four. The Jingikan additionally employed four junior executives (shō-jō 少祐): Hagiwara Kazumitsu 萩原員光 (1821–1902), Aoyama Kagemichi 青山景通 (1819–1891), Hagiwara Itsuo 萩原厳雄 (?–1886) and Kabe Izuo 加 部厳夫 (1849–1922). Hagiwara Kazumitsu was a court noble, born on 14 February 1821 into a branch of the Yoshida family. He later worked,

36

chapter two

among other things, as Minister of Criminal Punishment Gyōbu-kyō 刑部卿 and at the Imperial Household Ministry. Aoyama was a posthumous disciple of Hirata Atsutane who had close relations to Fukuba Bisei and Maruyama Sakura. He is said to have murdered the kokugaku scholar Suzuki Shigetane 鈴木重胤 (1812–1863) on 29 September 1863 on the doubtful charge of supporting the shogunate. He is, furthermore, the father of Aoyama Tanemichi 青山胤通 (1859–1917), a famous doctor of internal medicine (Ichimura 1929: App. ‘Jinbutsu ryakushi’, p. 1). It is possible that Hagiwara Itsuo was related to Hagiwara Kazumitsu, or Itsuo might be another name for Hagiwara Hisanori 萩原久訓 (1815–1886), a kokugaku scholar of the Hirata school (KDNBK 1990: 549). Kabe Izuo was a retainer of the Tsuwano Domain and a disciple of Ōkuni Takamasa (KDNBK 1990: 187). The Jingikan’s senior clerk (dai-sakan 大史), Iida Toshihira 飯田年平 (1820–1886), had been a student of Motoori Ōhira 本居大平 (1756–1833), Ban Nobutomo and Kanō Morohira 加納諸平 (1806–1857). From 1860, he lectured on kokugaku at the Tottori Domain school Shōtokukan 尚徳館 (KDNBK 1990: 61). At his side at the Jingikan were two deputy senior clerks (gon no dai-sakan 権大史), Fujiki Tsunehisa 藤木常久 and Mamiya Nagayoshi 間宮永好 (1805–1872), the latter a retainer of the Mito Domain and a disciple of Oyamada Tomokiyo (KDS 2: 1481–1482, 3: 586). The Jingikan also employed Toda Tadayuki, the nephew of the lord of Utsunomiya Domain Toda Tadanari 戸田忠翰 (1761–1823). Toda Tadayuki was the head official or supervisor for the imperial mausolea (shoryō kami 諸陵頭). Together with Agata Nobutsugu 県信緝 (1824–1881), in the early 1860s he had conducted investigations and undertaken the repair of the imperial mausolea in the Kinai area around the capital. Thereafter, he had become the first lord of the newly-established Kōtoku 高徳 Domain. At his side as deputy supervisor for the imperial mausolea (shoryō gon no kami 諸陵権頭) was Chūjō Nobuhiro 中条信礼 (1812–?) who around 1850 wrote Yamato-damashii chikaki oshie 和魂邇教 (KDNBK 1990: 446). The vicesupervisor for the imperial mausolea (shoryō suke 諸陵助) was Tanimori Yoshiomi, and the deputy vice-supervisor (shoryō gon no suke 諸陵権助) was Nishino Nobuaki 西野宣明 (1802–1883), a retainer of the Mito Domain and a disciple of Oyamada Tomokiyo (KDNBK 1990: 526). The two executive posts for the imperial mausolea (shoryō jō 諸陵允) were held by the Oyamada disciple Sawatari Hiromori, already mentioned above, and by Ōsawa Sugaomi 大沢清臣 (1833–1892). Ōsawa was a Shinto priest at several



kokugaku scholars and religious administration37

shrines and a disciple of Tanimori Yoshiomi, under whom he had studied national history (KDNBK 1990: 150). Nakayama Tadayasu, one of the two Jingikan supervisors, concurrently held the post of supervisor for the Shinto mission (senkyō kami 宣教長官). He was assisted by Fukuba Bisei as vice-supervisor (senkyō suke 宣教次官), who, as mentioned above, also held the post of the Jingikan’s junior vicesupervisor. The Jingikan’s deputy senior executive Hirata Nobutane concurrently acted as executive for the Shinto mission (senkyō jō 宣教判官). He was assisted by the deputy executive (senkyō gon no jō 宣教権判官) Ono Nobuzane 小野述信 (1824–1910), a kokugaku scholar and retainer of the Hagi Domain (KDNBK 1990: 135). This concurrent holding of posts at the highest levels clearly shows how Shinto proselytizing was an integral part of the revived Office of Divinity. This was jointly administered by representatives of the Hirata school, the Tsuwano faction and court nobles. The Jingikan’s operations in the early years of the Meiji period were largely centred on the supervisor Nakayama Tadayasu (Haga 1994: 39). However, it cannot be ignored that he was closely advised and assisted by a number of kokugaku scholars. A closer look at the personnel reveals that the organizational transition from Jingi-jimuka via Jingi-jimukyoku to Jingikan saw a gradual diversification of the kokugaku faction members being appointed to posts within the office. Already observable at this early point in time is the steady progression of reciprocal merging of various strands of kokugaku traditions. Moreover, we see here early mutual activities for a common cause. Later, this was more fervently insisted upon by the three scholarly organizations described below. The Jingikan provided a stage for opposing national-learning factions to combine, although, due to its religious emphasis and theological outlook, it was a combination that was occasionally still uncomfortable and ultimately, unstable.  Two Amendments: The Imperial Mausolea and the Shinto Mission In accordance with the ancient Ritsuryō system and the demands of prominent kokugaku scholars, on 15 August 1869 the Jingikan became independent from and nominally superior to the Dajōkan jurisdiction. Overall, its supervisory responsibilities included the administration of religious ceremonies and rites, the imperial mausolea shoryō 諸陵, the religious mission senkyō 宣教, the shrine parishioners and the shrines’ religious personnel (Lokowandt 1978: 105, 262–264 doc. 19). However, compared to the Jingikan’s responsibilities under the Ritsuryō system and the

38

chapter two

duties stipulated for the Office of Divinity Jingi-jimukyoku mentioned above, two significant amendments had been made: the proselytization or popular Shinto education, and the administration of imperial tombs. It is noteworthy that in modern times these two tasks were added. As mentioned above, on 5 December 1862, already in the final days of the Tokugawa shogunate, Emperor Kōmei expressed his desire that the dilapidated imperial tombs of Jinmu and others be repaired and restored. At that time, Toda Tadayuki was appointed by the shogunate as the magistrate to oversee these repairs of the imperial tombs (MTK 1: 310). As part of the Jinmu-tennō revival movement, many adherents of an imperial restoration based on ancient times considered the matter of the Unebi 畝傍 tomb—the tomb of Jinmu—and, by extension, of the various imperial mausolea, to be an urgent question that was as important as the reinstating of the Jingikan. Hence, including the various imperial tombs in the Jingikan’s administrational duties was again most likely based on the influence of contemporary kokugaku scholars. In the history of the concept of reverence for the Emperor, earlymodern research on the imperial tombs merits some attention as a backdrop for the general historical process of restoring imperial rule. The importance of these tombs is hinted at, for instance, in Yano Harumichi’s short seventeen-page work of 1863, Shōhō yashi 正保野史, ‘Private History of the Shōhō Era [1644–48]’. Here, in connection with Emperor GoKōmyō’s achievements and virtues, Yano pays tribute to Oka Hachibe 奥八兵衛 (?–1669). It is said that Oka Hachibe was a special supplier of fish to the court. In 1654 he insisted that Emperor Go-Kōmyō 後光明 (1633–1654), before his death, had stated that cremation is not appropriate. This claim was accepted and thus, from this time on, the emperors were again buried (Tani 1966–68: 159). Although Buddhist cremation rites continued to be performed, the coffins were no longer burned, as had been done since the cremation of Empress Jitō in 703, but buried at the Buddhist temple of Sennyū-ji. This new practice sparked a renewed interest in the old imperial tombs. In 1658 and 1668, local governors restored the tombs of the two exiled emperors Go-Toba and his son Juntoku on Oki Island and Sado Island, respectively. Moreover, Shogun Tokugawa Tsunayoshi 徳川綱吉 (1646–1709), who in 1692 placed all of the imperial tombs under shogunal supervision, at that time also ordered their repair. However, it was much later that this huge task was undertaken with any speed, with the restoration of all the tombs completed only in 1865 (Shillony 2005: 100–101).



kokugaku scholars and religious administration39

Regardless of whether Oka Hachibe was truly the initiator of the new burial practices or not, his story was first orally transmitted and later taken up by the Mito school Confucianist Gamō Kunpei 蒲生君平 (1768–1813) in his work Sanryō-shi 山陵志, ‘History of the Imperial Tombs’ (Gamō 1979). Convinced that religious services at the imperial mausolea were the basis for a monarch’s peaceful reign, Gamō investigated the location of ninetytwo tombs, mainly in the Kinai region, by examining their actual sites based on old chronicles and maps. In 1801, he asked Motoori Norinaga for his comments, and the following year, 1802, Sanryō-shi was published in two volumes. Gamō’s epoch-making research on the ancient burial mounds, or kofun 古墳, used for the first time the now common description of ‘keyhole form’, tombs that were ‘square at the foot and rounded at the head’, or zenpō kōen 前方後円 (Anzu/ Umeda 1968: 354). His work had a major influence on subsequent movements to identify all the imperial tombs, and then to repair and restore them. Others who criticized the imperial mausolea’s desolate conditions were Tanimori Yoshiomi, already mentioned above, and Tomobayashi Mitsuhira 伴林光平 (1813–1864), whose family name is often also read as Hanbayashi. The imperial tombs lay deserted, most not even identifiable as such. Woodcutters or shepherds often used the overgrown land above and around them. Made aware of this situation, Tomobayashi started a private investigation, travelling around the Yamato and Kinai regions. He had studied kokugaku under Nakamura Yoshiomi 中村良臣 (1795–1850), Kanō Morohira and Ban Nobutomo. In 1862, he published the results of his fieldwork in his Noyama no nageki 野山のなげき, ‘Lamentations of Hills and Fields’ (KDS 2: 1413–1415; 3: 583). Amid this spirit of reverence for the emperor, many kokugaku scholars were of the opinion that respect also had to be shown to the preceding ancestral generations whose graves had been neglected since ancient times. Hence, on 21 October 1869, the Bureau of Imperial Mausolea Shoryōryō 諸陵寮 was established within the Jingikan (MTK 2: 194). The many leading kokugaku scholars working at the Jingikan, despite their minor differences, essentially had the same strong feelings concerning the imperial tombs as had been expressed by Gamō, Tomobayashi and Tanimori. They generally promoted Shinto funeral rites, classified tombs according to particular former emperors, and even confirmed the existence of sovereigns, and their tombs, who had not been considered in the official lineage. After the Restoration, several kokugaku scholars were engaged in investigating the imperial pedigree. An especially important figure in this

40

chapter two

respect was Yokoyama Yoshikiyo 横山由清 (1826–1879), who studied kokugaku under Honma Yūsei 本間游清 (1781–1850) and Inō Hidenori 伊能頴則 (1805–1877). The Mito school’s Dai-Nihon-shi 大日本史, in its innovative handling of imperial legitimacy, deals, in one of its three key articles, with the historical status of Prince Ōtomo 大友 (648–672).4 Also Yano Harumichi, in his influential manifesto Kenkin sengo of January 1868, quite assertively refers to him as Ōtomo-tennō (KDS 2: 1539–1540, 3: 588; Webb 1960: 141; Yano 1971: 561). On 14 January 1871, the government officially appointed clerks for genealogical investigations, employing Fukuba Bisei, Ogō Kazutoshi 小河一敏 (1813–1886), the Motoori school scholar Kadowaki Shigeaya 門脇重綾 (1826–1872) and Yano Harumichi as special consultants (Sakamoto 1994: 16; KDNBK 1990: 128, 206). Due to these national-learning scholars’ continued investigations and research, in 1871 Prince Ōtomo was inscribed on the official list of sovereigns and received the posthumous name Kōbun 弘文. Since this time he is considered the thirty-ninth emperor of Japan. On 2 December 1873, the post of shuko 守戸 was abolished. The shuko were civil guards for the imperial mausolea in ancient times, appointed from among law-abiding citizens if there was a shortage of official watchmen, ryōko 陵戸. Their duites included guarding cremation sites, dispersing and burying certain remains, and taking care of the ash mounds at the imperial mausolea. Together with abolishing this post, the fence surrounding these areas was removed and the spread remains of the emperors were combined in a single tomb (MTK 3: 169). Two weeks after the Bureau of Imperial Mausolea was established, on 2 November 1869 the Senkyōshi 宣教使, the Bureau for proselytization and popular Shinto education, was also added to the Jingikan (MTK 2: 202). The Bureau of Shinto Proselytizing had already been established in August 1869 by the Great Council of State, but now the Jingikan took over its jurisdiction. From early on, many kokugaku scholars who were in the role of advising the government deemed the propagation of Shinto thought and rites necessary for the populace, as it was largely rooted in Buddhism and now prone to being drawn toward the spreading Western lifestyle, ideas

4 Begun in 1657 under the auspices of Tokugawa Mitsukuni 徳川光圀 (1628–1700), the lord of Mito, the Dai-Nihon-shi (History of Great Japan) was finally completed in 1906. It consists of 73 volumes of annals, 170 volumes of biographies, 26 volumes of topographies, and 28 volumes of tables. In addition to the treatment of Prince Ōtomo, two other historiographical innovations are the discussions on the active role of Jingū-kōgo and the legitimacy of the southern court at Yoshino.



kokugaku scholars and religious administration41

and Christianity. In contrast to the Bureau of Imperial Mausolea and its retrospection of uncovering the ancient ancestors, this Jingikan bureau shows the national-learning scholars’ proactive attitude towards the needs of the new era. Hence, the Jingikan also clearly exemplifies the Meiji period’s two sides: revival and progress. 2.2. Kokugaku Scholars as Popular Educators and Shinto Proselytizers For many centuries, Shinto and Buddhism, in the form of shinbutsu-shūgō

神仏習合 syncretism, did not merely exist alongside each other, but they

were deeply merged. Shinto deities were seen as incarnations of Bodhisattvas and were worshipped with Buddhist statues representing them. Buddhist monks, as shasō 社僧, were in charge of Shinto shrines in temple-shrine complexes. One of the first political measures taken to revive the ancient way after the Restoration—even before the complete reestablishment of the Jingikan—was the implementation of a policy separating and clearly distinguishing between Shinto deities and Buddhas, known as shinbutsu bunri 神仏分離, or as it was called at the time, shinbutsu hanzen 神仏判然. On 20 April 1868, the Grand Council of State Dajōkan, the highest executive organ of the Meiji government in this preJingikan period, issued the order for this separation. It demanded, among other things, the removal of Shinto objects of veneration from Buddhist temples, the elimination of Buddhist statues or icons from Shinto shrines, and the renaming of shrines that had been given Buddhist names. The aim of the authorities was the complete separation of the Japanese kami, which, owing to various syncretistic teachings over nearly a millennium, had been ‘vulgarized’ and ‘decayed’ by being merged with the Buddhas. The order of 20 April to remove all ‘non-Japanese’ influence was decisively carried out all over the country, at times exceeding the government’s intentions in its vigour. This included much disorder. Buddhist icons, statues and sutras were destroyed, temple bells were melted down and some buildings were even set on fire. Two weeks later, on 2 May, the government proclaimed a new order admonishing that this Shinto purification be conducted more cautiously (Lokowandt 1978: 250–251 docs. 7, 8). Nevertheless, due to a longstanding animosity, this ‘purification of Shinto’ developed into a fierce and destructive anti-Buddhist movement. This was mainly based on the Hirata faction’s fukko or ‘restoration’ Shinto programme, but also in part on Mito-school ideology as well as on the disproportionate

42

chapter two

execution of part five of the Grand Order of the Restoration of Imperial Rule: that ‘the evil customs from old times shall be thoroughly washed away’ (Meiji jingū 1991: 13). In addition to the revival of kannagara no michi and amid an ongoing process of unifying ritual and politics (saisei-itchi), the government’s aims quite naturally also led towards the establishment of Shinto as the state religion. Simply purifying Shinto by removing Buddhist elements was deemed insufficient: supposed ancient rites were ‘recovered’, shrines and rituals were revived, and all the organs of Shinto were consolidated into the imperial system, forming a unity of politics and religious doctrine that was called seikyō-itchi. For ordinary people, after centuries of leadership as well as shogunal support, faith in Buddhism was far deeper than the knowledge and belief in Shinto deities, rites and ceremonies. In order to elevate Shinto to its planned state level, the government thus had to embark on a course of civil education. Furthermore, deeply suspicious of Christianity, which was being reintroduced into Japan, the Meiji government deemed the creation of its own missionary system necessary. In May 1869, an Office for the Investigation of Education, the Kyōdō torishirabe kyoku 教導取調局, was established within the Dajōkan’s executive administration. Among others, the kokugaku scholars Hirata Kanetane, Fukuba Bisei and Maruyama Sakura participated in an analysis of effective methods for national religious education and Shinto proselytization. After a few months, this office was disbanded, and its employees were appointed to the new Bureau of Shinto Proselytizing, the Senkyōshi (MTK 2: 91; KDS 2: 1649, 3: 367). On 2 November 1869, this Bureau was transferred and became a new sub-section of the Jingikan, which, in the meantime, had become an independent entity. Adding this propaganda institution to the Jingikan, which was involved in strengthening the unity of ritual and politics, the government now entered a stage of unifying national religious education through the proselytization of its planned state religion.  The Personnel at the Bureau of Shinto Proselytizing Senkyōshi The Senkyōshi appointed personnel for the central Mission Bureau as well as officers in charge of the local missions in every domain, thus attempting to build a systematic network of proselytizers across the country (Tokoyo 188: 368–369; Haga 1994: 50, 163). Obviously, kokugaku scholars and Shinto priests were natural candidates for becoming missionaries of this cause.



kokugaku scholars and religious administration43

Looking at the make-up of the staff at the time the Senkyōshi was added to the Jingikan, it is clear that Fukuba Bisei had become kokugaku’s advance guard, having been promoted from junior (shō 少輔) to senior vice-supervisor (taifu 大輔). In addition to the national-learning scholars listed above, other administrative officials were added after November 1869, including Hazama Hidenori 間秀矩 (1822–1876) as a junior clerk (shōshi 少 史). Hazama had pursued Chinese and Japanese studies under Majima Toshinari 馬島穀生 (1794–1851) and poetry under Fukuzumi Kiyokaze 福住清風 (1778–1848), before entering the Hirata school (KDS 3: 260). Tatsuno Yoshimichi 立野良道 (1792–1876) was employed as an assistant clerk (shishō 史生). He had first studied Confucianism under Ōhashi Ban’ya 大橋盤谷 and kokugaku under Shimizu Hamaomi 清水浜臣 (1776–1824). Later he became a disciple of Hirata Atsutane and Oyamada Tomokiyo (KDS 3: 261). Another assistant clerk was Mozume Takami 物集 高見 (1847–1928), who, in his youth, had studied Confucianism under Motoda Chikukei 元田竹渓 (1800–1880) and later concentrated on studying the Japanese language. In 1865, he went to Nagasaki to study Western knowledge, but a year later returned to Kyoto, where he studied kokugaku under Tamamatsu Misao. In 1869, after three years under Misao, Mozume Takami entered Hirata Kanetane’s school. Later he continued his Chinese and Western training, and guided by the famous linguist Kondō Makoto 近藤眞琴 (1831–1886), he studied the English language (KDS 3: 491–492). Ueda Shikibuchi 上田及淵 (1819–1879) became a clerical assistant (yatoi 僱). He had studied Chinese, Japanese and some Western medicine under the medic Ueda Kōtei 上田公鼎 (1802–1841), whose adopted son he later became. Influenced by writings of Kamo no Mabuchi and Motoori Norinaga, he admired Hirata Atsutane’s scholarship and, with ardent zeal, studied the Japanese classics (KDS 2: 1536–1537, 3: 588). Ōkuni Takamasa was employed by the Bureau of Shinto Proselytization as an advising commissioner (KDS 2: 1477; 3: 490). In addition to the administrative personnel, many other kokugaku scholars were appointed by this new Mission Bureau as sekkyō-kan 説教官, or officers responsible for preaching. Among these proselytizers were Morooka Masatane, appointed in 1870 as a deputy middle expert (gon no chū-hakase 権中博士), Sawatari Hiromori, appointed in December 1869 as a junior expert (shō-hakase 少博士), as was Nishikawa Yoshisuke on 17 June 1870, and Mozume Takayo 物集高世 (1817–1883), appointed on 27 February 1870 as a deputy junior expert (gon no shō-hakase 権少博士). Morooka Masatane first studied under Ōkuni Takamasa, but later entered the Hirata school and, in close contact with Hirata Kanetane,

44

chapter two

conducted in-depth research on the Japanese classics. He was a member of the group on nine imperialists who on 9 April 1863 executed the famous beheading of the Ashikaga wooden statues in Kyoto. Nishikawa Yoshisuke was born in Ōmi-hachiman in today’s Shiga Prefecture. He was not only a scholar and book collector, but also had a lively exchange with many of the Restoration movement’s ‘noble-minded’ royalists and was a good friend of Fukuba Bisei. He was first a student of Ōkuni Takamasa, but, on 2 September 1847, he entered the Hirata school. Like Morooka, he participated in the beheading of the Ashikaga statues. Mozume Takayo studied Confucianism under Motoda Chikukei, as did his son Takami. Later, he turned to the study of poetry and Shinto scripts under Sadamura Naotaka 定村直孝 (1791–1863) and Hirata Kanetane (KDS 2: 1549–1551, 1553; 3: 265–271, 330–331, 589). All over the country, kokugaku scholars, particularly those of the Hirata faction, participated in the government’s proselytization efforts. They were hired as missionaries or senkyōshi 宣教師 to teach the essence of kokutai directly to the populace in various provinces. Among them were Tanaka Matatarō 田中亦太郎 (1843–1873) of the Takasaki Domain in today’s Gunma Prefecture, the Edo native Akiyama Terue 秋山光條 (1843–1902), Hagiwara Masahira 萩原正平 (1839–1891) from Izu in today’s Shizuoka Prefecture, Ohara Sanekaze 小原實風 (1828–1898) from Mutsu in today’s Aomori and Iwate Prefectures, and Suzuki Masayuki 鈴木雅之 (1837–1871) from Shimōsa in today’s Chiba and Ibaraki Prefectures (Ueno 1939: 376–377). Tanaka Matatarō, also called Masatane 正胤, studied kokugaku under Suzuki Matoshi 鈴木眞年 (1831–1894) and Hirata Kanetane. He is best known for his research on the Kojiki and the ancient family register Shinsen shōjiroku 新撰姓氏録. Akiyama Terue studied under Maeda Natsukage 前田夏蔭 (1793–1864) and Hirata Kanetane, but many other famous kokugaku scholars, including Yano Harumichi, Morooka Masatane, Gonda Naosuke, Tsunoda Tadayuki, Motoori Toyokai 本居豊頴 (1834–1913), Inoue Yorikuni 井上頼圀 (1839–1914), Kubo Sueshige 久保季茲 (1830–1886) and Ochiai Naoaki 落合直亮 (1827–1894), were his teachers and close friends. Hagiwara Masahira studied under Gonda Naosuke and Hirata Kanetane. From May 1871 to January 1872, he travelled all over the province of Izu, including the seven islands off the peninsula, to conduct a detailed investigation of all its old shrines. This research, which was commissioned by the government, was published in April 1872 in the six-volume work Izu kuni shikisha kōshō 伊豆國式社考證, ‘Historical Investigation of Izu Province Shrines as Described in (Engi)shiki’. Later he opened up his own



kokugaku scholars and religious administration45

academy for imperial studies, teaching several hundred people. Ohara Sanekaze studied under the leading Hirata disciple Kikuchi Masahisa 菊池正古 (1811–1867), head teacher of Hirata Atsutane’s private academy. Ohara was also a follower of the Yoshida school of Shinto and received training in Western medicine. Suzuki Masayuki was a student of Inō Hidenori and was the author of many exegetical works on the Japanese and Chinese classics and on poetry (KDS 2: 1465, 1594–1597; KDS 3: 258, 326–329, 334–338, 599). During these years, the main force of kokugaku scholars was thus concentrated in the Jingikan, particularly the Bureau of Shinto Proselytizing, which was directly responsible for national religious education. Hence, in the early Meiji period, this Bureau, with its many missions all over the country, was a stronghold of kokugaku-style civil development. The most important task of its head organization, the Jingikan, fostered by means of comprehensive national edification and Shinto proselytization, was to achieve and coordinate the two kokugaku policies of saisei-itchi, the unity of ritual and politics, and seikyō-itchi, the unity of politics and religion.  Imperial Ancestor Worship On 3 February 1870, the Imperial Edict on the Ritual to Appease and Consolidate the Divine Spirits and Imperial Ancestors (shinrei oyobi kōrei chinsai no mikotonori 神霊及び皇霊鎮祭の詔) and the Edict on the Promulgation of the Great Teaching (taikyō-senpu no mikotonori 大教宣布 の詔) were simultaneously issued. As is clear from its title, the first edict governed ceremonies for appeasing and consolidating both the deities and the imperial ancestors. Traditionally, the deities of heaven and earth had been placed under the care of the Yoshida family and the emperor’s eight guardian deities5 under the custody of the Shirakawa family. Worship of these deities, together with the souls of the previous generations of emperors, was now to be conducted at the Jingikan. The order also directed the new enshrining of these deities in a provisional sanctuary established on the Jingikan’s premises (MTK 2: 662). 5 The eight guardian deities (hasshin 八神) of the emperor are: Kami-musubi no kami 神産日神, Taka-mimusubi no kami 高御産日神, Tamatsume-musubi no kami 玉積産日 神, Iku-musubi no kami 生産日神, Taru-musubi no kami 足産日神, Ōmiya-no-me no kami 大宮売神, Miketsu no kami 御食津神, and Kotoshiro-nushi no kami 事代主神. From 1872 onwards, they were worshipped together with the deities of heaven and earth at a new shrine at the imperial court (Meiji jingū 1991: 41).

46

chapter two

This transfer of the worship of the heavenly and earthly deities and the eight guardian deities hints at there having been a struggle for power between the new appointees to the Jingikan—dominated as we have seen by Hirata faction kokugaku scholars, but also staffed by Tsuwano faction personnel—and the traditional world of Shinto represented by the Yoshida and Shirakawa families. It should be remembered that already in 1862, Yano Harumichi had been the academic instructor for the Shirakawa family, and in 1867 he additionally became the academic head of the Yoshida school. Through Yano’s supervision, including the education and licensing of priests, the late Edo and early Meiji Shinto world was influenced significantly by Hirata-school thinking. This shift in view, especially of the afterworld and the strong emphasis on the deity Ōkuni-nushi 大國主 as its ruler, later became a source of clashes during the so-called Pantheon Dispute. In the Imperial Edict on the Ritual to Appease and Consolidate the Divine Spirits and Imperial Ancestors, the emperor states that ‘the base of the unity of ritual and politics (saisei-itchi), worshipping the deities and benevolence towards the people, has beeen handed down since the establishment of the nation in antiquity by Our ancestor [i.e. Jinmu-tennō]’ (Lokowandt 1978: 265–266, doc. 23). As Meiji-tennō became emperor in his early youth, at first this task seemed to overwhelm him. Now however, the edict continues, through the ordered worshipping of the deities at the Jingikan, ‘reverence [for their support] shall be expressed’. A day after the edict’s issue, it was specified that the deities be worshipped in three separate rooms within the Jingikan’s sacred hall for the deities called Shinden 神殿: Those of heaven and earth at the eastern divine seat or altar, the emperor’s eight guardian deities at the central altar, and the souls of the imperial ancestors at the western altar (Tokoyo 1988: 365–366; Lokowandt 1978: 266–267, doc. 25). Due to illness, Emperor Meiji had to cancel a visit to the Jingikan scheduled for the day of the edict’s proclamation. Ten days later, on 14 February, he personally went to the Jingikan to conduct some initiatory rites. Afterwards, the Emperor received a lecture by the deputy middle missionary (gon no chū-senkyōshi 権中宣教使) Motoori Toyokai at the Hall of the Great Teaching Taikyō-den 大教殿 (MTK 2: 254). At the time of this lecture to Emperor Meiji, Motoori Toyokai was only thirty-six years old, but he was already the head and main pillar of the Motoori school. He thus represented his family’s philological and literary tradition of kokugaku in the early Meiji religious administration. Very significantly, Motoori’s lecture was about the fourth year of Jinmu-tennō’s



kokugaku scholars and religious administration47

reign as described in Nihonshoki. In this section of the text, Emperor Jinmu is said to have worshiped the ‘heavenly imperial ancestor deities’ at Mt Tomi 鳥見 near Nara to show and develop his filial piety for their assistance in subduing the enemies, bringing peace to the world, and thus establishing the Empire. The above edict resembles this directly. In the eyes of kokugaku scholars, Emperor Jinmu’s worshipping of his heavenly ancestors—at the time also announced in an imperial edict—formed the basis of the unity of ritual and politics that was being proclaimed by the new Meiji government. The carrying out of saisei-itchi as the overall concept in Meiji politics and Shinto as the state’s religion was, of course, not done by a single person or kokugaku group—be it the Motoori, Hirata, Ōkuni or Mito faction. Rather, at the time, it was the shared belief among those people who can be placed under the umbrella term of kokugaku scholars and Shintoists. They used this ‘ancient and natural’ unity of ritual and politics as the basis for their arguments and developed their discourse on imperial restoration accordingly. It is primarily from this vantage point that early Meiji-period kokugaku scholars understood the basic contents of the Grand Order for the Restoration of Imperial Rule of 6 April 1868 and its statement that all things are ‘based on the beginnings of Jinmu’s establishment of the nation’. Indeed, saisei-itchi seems to be one of the most tangible results brought about by early modern and modern kokugaku thinking. This opinion is shared by Sakamoto Koremaru (1992: 2–3, 1993: iii), who sees the unity of ritual and politics as probably the most important feature of the Japanese state that was inspired by kokugaku. This was not only the case during the Meiji period, but indeed also during the Taishō period and the Shōwa period until the end of the Second World War.  Confronting the Spread of Western Modernity In 1869, the government and its administrative bodies moved from Kyoto to Tokyo, the land and people being thereby ‘returned’ from the feudal lords to the emperor. At the same time, a modern university system was launched, as will be described below. Thus, while the restoration of imperial rule in the form of a unity of ritual and politics was gradually realized during this early period, at the same time, a current of modernization was flooding into the country. Already in the late years of the Tokugawa shogunate, an oft-heard opinion proclaimed that the West might have, in general, advantages in technical and practical knowledge, but that Japan was clearly superior

48

chapter two

in the spiritual and moral sphere. The notion of ‘Japanese spirit’ versus ‘Western knowledge’—Japanese mental culture versus European material civilization—was typically expressed by the popular term seiyō gijutsu tōyō dōtoku 西洋技術東洋道徳, meaning Western technology and Eastern morals, coined by the Confucian scholar Sakuma Shōzan 佐久間象山 (1811–1864). Another popular term was wakon yōsai 和魂洋才, Japanese spirit and Western knowledge. This term had been adapted and modified in the Meiji period from the expression wakon kansai 和魂漢才, Japanese spirit and Chinese knowledge, which was traditionally attributed to the statesman Sugawara no Michizane 菅原道真 (845–903). The new phrase advocated the use of ancient moral values and native cultural traditions as guiding principles for the inevitable adoption of Western knowledge. Of course, the readily-adopted modern Western institutions and technologies also had, in their own way, a long history and background of thought.6 Slowly and yet inevitably, Christianity, democracy and the natural sciences influenced people’s minds and livelihoods. With this spreading Western modernity, conservative circles were confronted with an important and fundamental problem: the menace of both the unity of ritual and politics and of politics and religious doctrine being rejected. This problem was met at the political level with the promulgation of the ‘great teaching’ (taikyō 大教), that is, the indigenous way of the deities. Of course, this emerged from the conception of reviving and restoring ancient practices. However, its form had definitely not been known ‘since times immemorial’. As one kokugaku scholar and ‘missionary’ noted in 1885, it was clear that due to the present interaction with foreign nations, ‘Christianity cannot be banned and therefore there is nothing else to do than to promote our national teaching to its heights […] and maintain our national polity’ (Tokoyo 1988: 363). The promulgation of Japan’s great teaching was a national edification policy for promoting ‘kannagara no michi’ ideas among the populace. It considered itself based on a state system that unified ritual and politics. The Imperial Edict on the Promulgation of the Great Teaching, issued on 3 February 1870 together with the Edict on the Ritual to Appease and Consolidate the Divine Spirits and Imperial Ancestors described above, reads as follows:

6 On this aspect of material culture being adopted, exemplified in the introduction of electric light to Japan and the perceived threat to the imperial system, see also Wachutka (2002, 2004).



kokugaku scholars and religious administration49 When We [the Emperor] reverentially reflect upon it, the heavenly deities and the heavenly ancestors established the primordial principle and showed the path to follow. The successive Emperors obeyed, followed it, and handed it down. With ritual and politics in unity (saisei-itchi) and the masses of one will, the political doctrines (jikyō 治教) above were bright and clear and the manners below were unspoiled. However, since the Middle Ages, there were times of decay and of progress where the right path was manifest or concealed. Now that the cycle of destiny has renewed all order, the political doctrines are to be made clear, and by this, the way of divine will (kannagara no michi) is to be enhanced. Thus, new missionaries are appointed and ordered to disseminate the teachings throughout the realm. All you officials and common people, comply with this command. (Yamazumi 1990: 19; Lokowandt 1978: 266, doc. 24)

Although the edict does not use the word kokutai, it is full of expressions pertaining to the Japanese national character and polity. Notwithstanding its shortness, its connection to the way of divine will, kannagara no michi, is obvious. Lokowandt (1978: 59) summarizes the kokutai ideas contained in these few sentences as: a) the divine origin of Japan and b) of the imperial dynasty; c) the unbroken line of the imperial house that d) ruled and rules according to the will of the divine ancestors, and that e) is manifest in the unity of ritual and politics, in which however f) the religious side has more weight; as a result of this proper conduct g) the political doctrines of the rulers as well as manners of the masses are preserved in their original purity and h) the people are of one will. As observed by Muraoka Tsunetsugu 村岡典嗣 (1884–1946) in his classic study on Shinto thought, the dogmas of this governmental campaign to promulgate a ‘great teaching’ to the people—part of the state’s endeavor to create a unified state religion—were basically the same as those of the Hirata school’s Restoration Shinto (Muraoka 1988: 205).  The Dajōkan’s Declaration on the Core Concepts of the Promulgation During the months following the proclamation of the Imperial Edict on the Promulgation of the Great Teaching, the government concentrated on restructuring the regulations and hierarchy of major and minor shrines, as well as the ranks of their priests. It also had to deal with the Japanese Christians of Urakami near Nagasaki. Already during the Tokugawa shogunate, how to handle Christianity had been a difficult matter and a long-term problem. After the Restoration, the continued suppression by the new Meiji government was firmly criticized and frequently protested by the foreign diplomatic missions. The events that occurred after the discovery of the Urakami Christians in

50

chapter two

June 1868 marked the government’s first experience of the power of Christianity as a unifying religion for the Western nations.7 Amidst the rapid influx of Western ideas during those days, Japan’s Westernization movement, with its call for bunmei kaika or ‘civilization and enlightenment’, was also fuelled by Christianity’s appeal and the energy of its dissemination by European and American missionaries. Disruptions of this type seemed best countered by widescale popular education about indigenous ‘traditional’ values. Thus, the Meiji government perceived the Jingikan’s role, as well as that of the Senkyōshi, of major importance for forming and securing national unity. To further establish the broad policy of religious promulgation and to expound on the education project, on 19 August 1871 the Great Council of State Dajōkan sent a declaration to the proselytizers at the Bureau of Shinto Proselytizing explaining the great teaching’s dissemination, its significance and the general role of the missionaries. It supplemented the above edict on the great teaching’s promulgation by explaining some of its core concepts in more detail: The great teaching’s significance is to serve the imperial court by respecting the deities, clarifying morality, rectifying the hearts of the masses and fulfilling one’s duties. If [the people] are not guided by [religious] teaching (oshie, kyō 教), it is impossible for them to rectify their hearts. If they are not governed by administrative politics (matsurigoto, sei 政), it is impossible that they fulfil their duties. Therefore, politics are conducted in unity with religious doctrine (seikyō-itchi). However, since the great teaching at present—at this time of restoration based on the great deeds of Jinmutennō, who deigned to establish, and of Sujin-tennō,8 who deigned to evolve

7 In 1868, a French priest discovered that many villagers of Urakami, an area in the northern part of Nagasaki, were ‘hidden Christians’ (kakure kirishitan). After the expulsion of the Catholic clergy in the seventeenth century, some Japanese believers had continued to practise their faith in secret. After being discovered, they began to openly preach the Gospel in defiance of the government’s ongoing prohibition. During the early Meiji years, over 3,600 of the Urakami Christians had been scattered throughout the country and 650 died as martyrs during their exile until the laws on banishing Christianity were lifted in 1873. Strongly criticized by the Western powers for this continued persecution, the new government for the first time was thus confronted with the issue of religious freedom, an issue that turned out to be a major stumbling block in the achieving of the main goal of Japanese diplomacy at that time, that is, the revision of the treaties of 1858. 8 Emperor Sujin, according to legend the tenth emperor of Japan, is said to have ruled 97–30 bc. His reign is the first about which the ancient chronicles give any extended details. His was a period in which the realm was organized, taxes were fixed, lakes and canals dug, boats built, and a census of the population taken. According to Nihonshoki, in 92 bc Sujin built a shrine dedicated to Amaterasu. The mirror and sword, part of the



kokugaku scholars and religious administration51 the realm—[…] is still not yet common knowledge, the folk is not of a unified mind and staggers in its goals. Therefore, missionary work is an urgent matter. (Lokowandt 1978: 279–280, doc. 33)

It continues by stating that although over the ages there had been changes and fluctuations in the government, from the time Ninigi no mikoto de­scended to earth, the successive emperors, in accordance with kannagara no michi, all adopted Amaterasu’s divine will to rule and foster the country. Those who are proselytizing should be deeply aware of this fact and, correspondingly, should promote national morality and fill the people with enthusiasm. Hence, through their work they should: open the understanding for the divine knowledge, clarify the grand way of morality, respect the deities, induce the people to gratefully accept the court’s benevolence and thus lead them towards the restoration’s prosperous rule. This is the meaning of a unity of politics and religious doctrine.

On the same day as the pronouncement was made, 19 August 1871, the recording of shrine parishioners was officially begun. The entire population was required to register at a shrine near their residence, whereupon they received a mamori-fuda, a paper amulet, that they were required to carry as a token of their integration into the new Shinto-based state system (Takeoka 1927: 340 and n. 11; Lokowandt 1978: 277–279, doc. 32). A few days earlier, on 13 August 1871, Sanjō Sanetomi, the Great Chancellor (dajō-daijin), the highest ‘secular’ official in the Meiji State, took on the additional posts of jingi-haku, or chief ‘spiritual’ official of divine affairs, and of senkyō-chōkan, or chief of the Shinto mission. We should not forget that Sanjō Sanetomi was the person who had actually read the Five-Article Oath to the deities during its proclamation ceremony on 6 April 1868 (MTK 1: 648; 2: 484, 511). Thus, at this stage in early Meiji, the unity of ritual, politics and religious doctrine (saiseikyō-itchi 祭政教 一致), as imagined and fostered by many national-learning scholars, was finally completely formed. However, this Jingikan-centred ideal state of a Shinto-based ternary unity was only short-lived.

three imperial regalia that until then had been kept at the palace, were taken to this shrine, at which Sujin’s daughter Toyosuki-iribime no mikoto 豐鍬入姫命 served as the highpriestess. She thus was the first to hold the post of saigū 斎宮. This shrine is seen as the direct predecessor of Ise-jingū. It is, furthermore, said that in the seventh month of the sixty-fifth year of his reign, thus supposedly in the autumn of 33 bc, the first envoy from the Korean country of Mimana (Kor. Imna) 任那 arrived in Japan to bring tributes.

52

chapter two 2.3. The Shift from Shinto as the State Religion to the Imperial Way as Public Morality

The period around the year 1872 saw many internal changes in Japan, and after this time, the country clearly entered into a new and what perhaps can be considered a truly modern phase. Among other things, the famous Iwakura mission was dispatched to the US and Europe in this period, travelling from December 1871 until September 1873. In addition to Iwakura Tomomi, the Minister of the Right and the government delegation’s ambassador plenipotentiary, the group included, inter alios, the vice-envoys Kido Takayoshi, Ōkubo Toshimichi 大久保利通 (1830–1878), Itō Hirobumi 伊藤博文 (1841–1909) and Yamaguchi Naoyoshi 山口尚芳 (1839–1894). The difficult tasks being faced at home compelled the government to reorganize in such a way as to recognize the dominant foreign powers. The main goals of the Iwakura mission were preliminary negotiations for revising treaties, and investigations into the culture, civilization and organization of various Western nations. The mission, however, faced rigorous opposition due to Japan’s continued prohibition of Christianity and persecution of its believers. Wherever the mission went, this was one of the biggest hindrances in Japan’s urgent agenda of revising the various unequal treaties. In the US, the first country they visited, treaty revisions failed early on. Subsequently, the group limited itself to investigating Western civilization when it toured Europe, visiting eleven countries, including England, Germany and France. Due to their hands-on experiences during this observation visit to the West, the political outlook of most participants shifted from their initial idealism, inspired by kokugaku, to more realist attitudes. It has already been mentioned that Iwakura Tomomi had close ties to kokugaku scholars. Another early Meiji oligarch with an interesting but little-known kokugaku background was the mission’s vice-envoy Kido Takayoshi. Kido, who in his youth had studied under the imperialist Yoshida Shōin 吉田松陰 (1830–1859), was the author of the introductory book Kokugaku nyūmon 國學入門, ‘A Kokugaku Primer’, published in 1869 under the pseudonym Shōgiku Yoshio 松菊禎夫. This text describes, from a Shintoist kokugaku point of view, Japan’s history from the Age of Gods until its fiftieth tennō, Kanmu 桓武 (737–806). Kido was also the driving force behind the Five-Article Imperial Oath. He made significant amendments to early drafts of the Oath, and thus had a decisive influence on its final form. Furthermore, it was he who insisted that when the Oath was



kokugaku scholars and religious administration53

declared, the emperor was to lead the assembled nobles and lords personally. Kido thus had a critical and decisive role on the Oath’s text as well as on the ritual that was conducted when it was proclaimed to the deities of heaven and earth. Upon the Iwakura mission’s return to Japan in 1873, the Westernization faction within the government gained more influence after it won the seikan-ron 征韓論, a dispute about invading Korea as had been advocated by Saigō Takamori 西郷隆盛 (1828–1877), Itagaki Taisuke 板垣退助 (1837–1919) and Etō Shinpei 江藤新平 (1835–1874). The envoys realized, from what they had witnessed during their travel through the US and Europe, that Japan was not in any position to challenge the Western powers in its present state. Accordingly, this failed first attempt at participation in contemporary imperialist power-play thus resulted in intensified Westernization policies by the Ōkubo administration and a leaning towards stronger Westernized institutional organization. Western-style modernization had already begun, however. The army had been organized according to European models, and in 1872, eighteen miles of train tracks between Tokyo and Yokohama opened as the first part of a railway system. Newspapers and a modern postal system appeared during this time, former outcasts were given full citizenship, the dignity of commoners was enhanced through the long-desired right to register family names, restrictions on profession and residence were removed and a modern university system was established. On 1 January 1873, the Western solar calendar was adopted. A few weeks later, the official ban on Christianity was lifted. In March, the Japanese Christians of Urakami were released from prison or exile and legally reinstated in their original family registers. Also in 1873, general conscription was introduced and land surveys were conducted in order to prepare a basis for a predictable tax income that would permit budgetary planning. Also the establishment of the first (Western) academic associations in Japan should be mentioned, namely, in 1872 the English ‘Asiatic Society of Japan’, and in 1873 the German ‘Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens’ (OAG).  Expansion into the Ministry of Public Indoctrination Kyōbushō Following the abolition of the old feudal clans with their domains, and the establishment, on 29 August 1871, of the nation’s present division into prefectures, another step in this phase of Japan’s internal change was the consolidation of the government’s administrative organization. In September

54

chapter two

1871, the Dajōkan system was revised, creating the new Central House (Sei-in), the House of the Right (U-in) and the House of the Left (Sa-in), which was the highest advisory organ of the early Meiji government until its replacement by the Senate or Chamber of Elders (Genrō-in) in April 1875. In this administrative revision, internal ranks and appellations were unified. On 22 September 1871, also the Bureau of Divinity Jingikan was consolidated into the Ministry of Divinity Jingishō and again placed under the jurisdiction of the Dajōkan (Lokowandt 1978: 282, doc. 37). While this lowered the political status of the Jingishō, its most fundamental transformation came about half a year later. In early December 1871, the House of the Left proposed that the government also establish a Ministry of Buddhist Temples, Jiinshō 寺院省, but it was soon decided that the greater need was coping with the recent great influx of Christian and Western ideas into the country. It was deemed that this situation could be better dealt with by creating a more comprehensive national edification project, with Buddhists working together with the existing Shinto missionaries who already were in place. This echoed developments at the early educational institutions, which will be described below, where conflicting factions were distinguishing between Western learning and learning that was Japanese and Chinese. Thus, in February 1872, the House of the Left proposed the establishment of a Ministry of Public Indoctrination, Kyōbushō 教部省. On 21 April 1872, the Jingishō was abolished completely, and in its place the Kyōbushō established. Its general purpose remained the same as the former Jingishō, but now the circle of mobilization was extended to include Shintoists, Buddhist and Confucianists alike. By broadly turning to all three belief systems for its edification policy, the government was clearly following a quite practical path (Lokowandt 1978: 286, doc. 43; Takeoka 1927: 338–339 and 358–359 fn. 8–9). Four years after the edict of 20 April 1868 separating kami and Buddhas, the state’s missionary project had become an even further reaching movement due to the changed political awareness of the contemporary situation in Japan. Especially Buddhism had a long tradition of great influence among the common populace. By expanding the scale of the mission edification project to all religious groups, which were supervised by a single organization, it was thus easier to reach a unified public attitude (Kōten kōkyūjo 1932: 9). When the Ministry of Divinity was dissolved, all matters relating to religious rites and ceremonies were transferred to the Office of Ceremonies



kokugaku scholars and religious administration55

Shikibu-ryō 式部寮 (Lokowandt 1978: 291–292, doc. 46). This office had also been newly founded within the Imperial Household Ministry Kunaishō. It succeeded the former Shikibu-kyoku 式部局, which had been established the previous year as part of the Great Council of State to administer religious ceremonies and related documents. Later, in 1884, the Shikibu-ryō was renamed Shikibu-shoku 式部職 and further expanded to administer imperial festivals, ceremonies, court music, hunting, translations and relations to the outside. On 27 October 1871, the provisional shrine at the Jingishō for the kōrei or souls of the imperial ancestors was relocated, and together with the divine mirror, a new sanctuary was established within the imperial court, the Kashiko-dokoro 賢所. However, the enshrinement at the Kashiko-dokoro of the souls of the imperial ancestors was only temporary; their own shrine, the Kōrei-den 皇靈殿, was erected later. On 25 April 1872, four days after the Jingishō’s abolition, the deities of heaven and earth and the emperor’s eight guardian deities were also relocated to the Kashikodokoro. Again, this was to be only temporary (Lokowandt 1978: 285 doc. 40, 288 doc. 44). Generally speaking, the transfer of rites and ceremonies to the Imperial Household Ministry’s Office of Ceremonies as well as the establishment of the three sanctuaries within the imperial palace—the Kashiko-dokoro for the divine mirror, the Kōrei-den for the imperial ancestors and the Shinden for the eight guardian deities and the deities of heaven and earth—was closely related to the consolidation of religious services at the imperial court. It was a necessary step, in a strongly pro-Western environment, to secure and foster the unity of ritual and politics within the imperial office. At this stage, a number of contending views among kokugaku scholars emerged. In the early Meiji period, Shintoists were still drawn to remnants of late Edo ideas that tried to repudiate foreign doctrines completely and to elucidate the purity of Shinto. A coexisting standpoint was slightly more attuned to the reality of the situation: an attempt to show the preeminence of Japanese traditions and ideas in relation to their foreign counterparts. This later stance was not an outcome of ‘modern’ Meiji ideas, however. Hirata Atsutane himself, for example, had used Christian sources in his research. Nonetheless, the advanced reform attitude of less religious and more pragmatic national-learning scholars now became somewhat more defensive due to new diplomatic considerations of foreign affairs. Creating both a ‘modern’ political system and finding a suitable position in the international arena was impossible if religious freedom

56

chapter two

continued to be rigorously rejected. In order for Japan to continue its project of modernization, and in view of its need for revising the unequal treaties, ultimately Christianity had to be tolerated. Increasingly, Christianity was also recognized as the fundamental power behind Western civilization. A national counterpart, to be at the core of an indigenous Japanese culture, had to be found and developed—or newly created if must be. Acknowledging these points definitely helped push forward the Kyōbushō being established with a broader religious base and a diversity of people taking part in the national edification project. In a way, the pressure of Westernization forced the various systems of thought to create a joint self-defence so to speak. The principle of Shinto as the state religion yielded its place to the principle of the Imperial Way, kōdō shugi 皇道主義, which was based on a mixture of Shinto, Confucianist and Buddhist thinking.  The Imperial Way as a Substitute for an Outright State Religion The lowering of Jingikan’s political status as well as its later transformation into the Kyōbushō was, of course, also an answer to outside pressure. In part, this had come from Buddhists and others who had been shocked by the Jingikan’s fierce anti-Buddhist movement and who had continuously blamed these measures as partisanship. It was also, however, due to considerable internal conflicts. These concerned the idea of revival, fukko shisō and that of renewal, ishin shisō (Kōten kōkyūjo 1932: 9), the two sides of the ‘Meiji political coin’. Only through compromise could the ideal of reviving and restoring Jinmu’s imperial rule, as expressed in the Grand Order on the Restoration of Imperial Rule of 3 January 1868, be made compatible with the need for modern renewal by opening to foreign relations, as expressed in the FiveArticle Imperial Oath of 6 April of the same year. Some sort of conflict and disorder was unavoidable if an attempt was made to give concrete forms to both. The Jingikan’s transformation was the first indication of the government abandoning its comprehensive polity of a ternary unity of ritual, politics and religion, as well as its withdrawal, on a political level, from the principle of Shinto as a standardized state religion, as initially planned. It seemed the only thing able to unite both sides of this coin was the sanctity of the imperial household. Indeed, reverence for the emperor was the one thing in common between the various factions of conservative and progressive kokugaku scholars as well as Shintoists. For some, like



kokugaku scholars and religious administration57

Ōkuni Takamasa, in this new age even diplomacy was a principal of modern kokugaku. In Ōkuni’s eyes, when heaven and earth were created, the sun was made the centre of heaven. In a similar way, Japan was made the centre of the world, and the emperors of the imperial line, coeval with heaven and earth, were made the head of all people. The essential point of contact and connecting factor with the foreign nations was thus the Japanese emperor, who, in Ōkuni’s theory, some day would be acknowledged by all peoples of the world as their ruler. In Ōkuni’s theory of bankoku sōtei 万国総帝 (supreme emperor of all nations), the Japanese emperor was the master of the globe, and one day Japan would be acknowledged by all peoples as the founding nation of the earth (Ōkuni 1973: 416–417; Brüll 1966: 59–60; Breen 1998: 131–132). Utilizing this common denominator of the various kokugaku groups as a means for the nation’s cohesion laid the foundation for an imperial ideology that ultimately was destructive, although this hubris, of course, only took full effect some decades later. In lieu of Shinto as an outright state religion, the broader credo of the ‘Imperial Way’ (kōdō shugi), roughly based on a combination of ideas and ethics, was thenceforth promoted to raise the sanctity of the imperial household in the people’s minds. While this was a departure from the government’s original ideals, these changes show a tangible progress in the government’s policies for public edification. They denote the first shift from a belligerent stance of separation, promulgation and indoctrination, to a more subtle stance of education and induction. After the Jingishō’s closure on 21 April 1872, everything related to missionary work was taken over by the new Ministry of Public Indoc­ trination Kyōbushō. Under the multitude of internal and external pressures, however, it was soon realized that Shinto forces alone would be too weak for the government’s grand proselytization project. Thus, on 31 May 1872, the post of Shinto proselytizer, senkyōshi, was replaced with the broader post of doctrinal instructor or evangelist, kyōdōshoku 教導職, which was divided into fourteen ranks (Lokowandt 1978: 293, doc. 49). These positions were no longer only held by Shinto priests, but now the doctrinal instructors being appointed were also Buddhist monks, provincial leaders, soothsayers, professional storytellers, actors and other volunteers, who were accustomed to preaching and engaging in public speaking. At this time, the House of the Left proposed the following three fundamental principles for these evangelists (Takeoka 1927: 341):

58

chapter two

1. Veneration of the deities of heaven and earth (bukyō jingi sōrō koto 奉敬 神祇候事) 2. Elucidation of the principle of morality in sovereign–subject relations (kunshin no tairin o akiraka ni subeki koto 君臣の大倫を明にすべき事) 3. Patronizing the nation and retaining a loyal spirit (kokka o hōgi shi, chūai no kokoro o sonsubeki koto 國家を保議し、忠愛の心を存す べき事) Hence, this new Ministry of Public Indoctrination was no longer concerned exclusively with Shinto affairs, priests and shrines, but with religion and public morals in general. Unlike the Bureau of Divinity, the Jingikan, its administration dealt with every creed. The proselytization movement, centred on Shintoists and kokugaku scholars alone, had reached a dead end; in contrast, the Kyōbushō aimed at concerted ‘indoctrination’.  The Three Great Teachings and Twenty-Eight Themes for Sermons Soon thereafter, on 3 June 1872, three main principles of instruction were officially announced by the government. They were simply referred to, in combination, as great teachings (daikyō 大教). These three basic moral teachings for the public instructors to promulgate were (Anzu/ Umeda 1968: 349): 1. Compliance with the principles of piety and patriotism [respect for the gods and love of the country] (keishin aikoku no shi o tai subeki koto 敬神愛国ノ旨ヲ体スヘキコト) 2. Elucidation of the principles of heaven and the way [duty] of man (tenri jindō o akiraka ni subeki koto 天理人道ヲ明ニスヘキコト) 3. Reverence for the emperor and obedience to the will of [his] court (kōjō o hōtai shi chō shi o junshu seshimubeki koto 皇上ヲ奉戴シ朝旨ヲ遵 守セシムヘキコト) This was the first tangible step taken by the Ministry of Public Indoc­ trination to prepare for the promulgation of a national doctrine that now was to include Confucianist and Buddhist elements as well. In order to concretize these three rather vague principles, in early 1873 the government issued chapbooks with eleven themes for lectures when evangelizing the great teachings. Later, the Kyōbushō added seventeen more themes for educating people employed as public instructors and for focussing their mission (Anzu/ Umeda 1968: 167–168). The initial eleven subjects, which combine Shinto and Confucian elements, were:



kokugaku scholars and religious administration59

1. Divine virtue and imperial favour (shintoku kōon 神徳皇恩) 2. The immortality of the human soul (hitodama fushi 人魂不死) 3. The creativity of the heavenly kami (tenjin zōka 天神造化) 4. The difference between the visible and the concealed [secular and sacral] worlds (ken’yū bunkai 顯幽分界) 5. Patriotism (aikoku 愛國) 6. Kami worship (shinsai 神祭) 7. The pacification of souls (chinkon 鎭魂) 8. [The relationship between] sovereign and subject (kunshin 君臣) 9. [The relationship between] father and son (fushi 父子) 10. [The relationship between] husband and wife (fūfu 夫婦)  11. The great purification ceremony (ōharai 大祓) The additional seventeen themes encompassed issues from Western civilization, but still, quite significantly, excluded Buddhist concepts: Imperial country and national polity (kōkoku kokutai 皇國々體) The renewal of imperial rule (ōsei isshin 皇政一新) The immutability of the Way (michi fukahen 道不可變) The adjustment of organizations or the system as occasion calls for it (seika zuiji 制可隨時) 5. The difference between man and animals (jin’i kinjū 人異禽獸) 6. The necessity to teach (fuka fukyō 不可不教) 7. The necessity to learn (fuka fugaku 不可不學) 8. The association with foreign countries (gaikoku kōsai 外國交際) 9. Rights and duties (kenri gimu 權利義務) 10. The use of mind and body (yakushin yakukei 役心役形) 11. The various types of political institutions (seitai kakushu 政體各種) 12. Civilization and enlightenment (bunmei kaika 文明開化) 13. The development of law (rippō enkaku 律法沿革) 14. National and civil law (kokuhō minpō 國法民法) 15. Rich nation and strong army (fukoku kyōhei 富國強兵) 16. Taxation and labour levies (sozei fueki 租税賦役) 17. The production and control of goods (sanbutsu seibutsu 産物製物) 1. 2. 3. 4.

When looking at the Ministry of Indoctrination’s three main principles of instruction, it is clear that they follow, to a large extent, the three fundamental principles for evangelists that had been proposed earlier by the House of the Left. Yet, in a slight shift from general to specific, they are more based on an emperor-centred kannagara no michi—especially with regard to the demand for direct reverence for the emperor and obedience

60

chapter two

to his will. Yet, even more noticeable in the eleven and seventeen themes, is that the ‘great teaching’ no longer expresses the one-sided radicalism of the earlier Jingikan era, with its Bureau of Shinto Proselytization. Nevertheless, several of these twenty-eight official sermon topics represent tenets of the Hirata school of Shinto-oriented kokugaku (Muraoka 1988: 206). Especially, the first eleven themes are largely based on these ideals. In particular, numbers two, three, four and seven—which deal with souls, the creativity of kami and the invisible or sacred world—clearly reflect topics that were emphasized by the Hirata school. Notably, however, it is exactly these more religious themes that drop out of later discussions on moral teachings and the ‘Imperial Way’. Other topics, such as numbers eight to ten, obviously represent Confucian elements. And most of the other seventeen themes demand the revising of past habits through ‘enlightenment’. Several kokugaku scholars wrote interpretative works and manuals about these twenty-eight themes for public indoctrination. Among them were Urata Nagatami 浦田長民 (1840–1893), the founder of the Ise Teaching Institute Jingū-kyōin 神宮教院 in 1872 and the main force behind the later Shinto sect Jingū-kyō 神宮教, Gonda Naosuke’s disciple Ban Masaomi 阪正臣 (1855–1931), the Shintoist Hozumi Kōun 穂積耕雲 (1824–1892), the Hirata followers Mozume Takayo and Yoshioka Noriaki 吉 岡徳明 (1829–1898), who as a Tendai monk returned to secular life to become a kokugaku scholar after reading Atsutane’s works during the tumultuous late-Edo period, and Sakurai Yoshikata 桜井能監 (1844–1898), who was later also involved in founding the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo 皇典講究所 (Anzu/ Umeda 1968: 167–168).  The Great Teaching Institute Daikyōin The government’s campaign for promulgating a great teaching to the people—originally initiated on 3 February 1870, as mentioned above— now consisted of a body of evangelists or teachers of ethics, and ‘three great teachings’ for these evangelists to lecture on to the general populace. The third major component was the Great Teaching Institute Daikyōin 大教院 for the training and education of evangelists, established in 1873 in Tokyo. Adjunct to it were ‘Middle’ and ‘Small’ Teaching Institutes in the provinces, where mostly local shrines and temples were assigned as centres for propagation work. The Great Teaching Institute thus was the head of a national network of teaching institutes, with 62 Middle Institutes in



kokugaku scholars and religious administration61

each prefecture and an additional 227 Small Institutes all over the country (Antoni 1998: 204; Hardacre 1986: 47). In the corresponding decree of 9 December 1872, modern and traditional values are again both praised: ‘the dominion of civilization (bunmei) should be strengthened and the true meaning of the unity of ritual and politics (saisei-itchi) grasped in its depth’ (Lokowandt 1978: 298, doc. 60). Furthermore, in the mix of religious, moral and political topics, the concept of the unity of state and religion is still visible. The various traditional and recently founded confraternities, pilgrims’ clubs and religious splinter groups based on Shinto and Buddhism now had to be transferred into religious associations in accordance with the newly-regulated Outline for Religious Associations Kyōkai taii 教會大意 of May 1873. They, too, had to embark on the mission of popular indoctrination following the three great teachings (Lokowandt 1978: 308–310, doc. 72). The Great Teaching Institute itself, although a bureaucratic agency, was inherently a religious institution as well. Its building was fitted with an altar in a sanctuary where rites and worship for the central state pantheon deities were performed. On 20 October 1873, the enshrinement ceremony for the four central deities Ame-no-minaka-nushi no ōkami 天御中主大神, Taka-mimusubi no ōkami 高皇産霊大神, Kami-musubi no ōkami 神皇産 霊大神 and Amaterasu-ōmikami 天照大御神 was conducted, and a series of lectures was inaugurated. In order to provide proper training for the many evangelists it needed, the Daikyōin was in need of people well versed in the Japanese Classics. Hence, many national-learning scholars were invited as lecturers and teachers. One of them was Iida Takesato, an expert on the Nihonshoki as well as on ancient court rituals, ranks and laws. During his approximately two years of service, he not only lectured many prospective evangelists about the Japanese Classics, but also put an emphasis on practical training (MTK 2: 671; Lokowandt 1978: 311–312, doc. 74; Wachutka 2001: 73).  Ministry Personnel and National Evangelists Throughout the period of its existence, several other kokugaku scholars served within the Ministry of Public Indoctrination itself or as national evangelists in various places all over the country. Employed at Kyōbushō’s Great Teaching Institute were, for instance, Inoue Yorikuni, Mozume Takami, Watanabe Ikarimaro 渡邊重石丸 (1837–1915) and Kume Motobumi 久米幹文 (1828–1894). All of them, like Iida Takesato, were later among the leading members of the scholarly societies that will be described below. In

62

chapter two

addition, Oyamada Tomokiyo’s disciple Sawatari Hiromori, and Hirata Atsutane’s direct disciple Godaiin Mihashira were employed as senior clerks (dai-sakan 大録). A large number of national-learning scholars held the post of senior preceptor (daikyōsei 大教正), the highest of the fourteen ranks of Shintoist doctrinal instructors in this early Meiji national edification movement. Most of them have already been named in the pages above and will again be encountered as instructors at the new educational institutions or as members of the scholarly societies described below. The senior preceptors were well-known individuals, such as Hirata Kanetane, Hirata Atsutane’s direct disciples Gonda Naosuke and Hatano Takao, Inō Hidenori, Nishikawa Yoshisuke, Morooka Masatane, Yoshioka Noriaki, Inaba Masakuni 稻葉正邦 (1834–1898) and Matsuno Isao 松野勇雄 (1852–1893). Lesser-known figures among the senior preceptors were Ueda Shikibuchi, Ohara Sanekaze, Kojima Moriyoshi 小島盛可 (1846–1886), Watanabe Harukane 渡邊玄包 (1833–1905), Ishiko Masakai 石河正養 (1821–1891), Saitō Tasuku 齋藤多須久 (1835–1893), Gonda Naosuke’s disciple Ban Masaomi, Furukawa Toyosaka 古川豐彭 (1831–1880), Utsumi Masao 内海 政雄 (1838–1890), Saitō Masashi 齋藤眞指 (1822–1904), Yano Harumichi’s disciple Kinoto Katsutaka 木野戸勝隆 (1854–1929), Tanaka Tomokuni 田中知邦 (1844–?) and Kanda Yasutane 神田息胤, who founded some thirty-six Ise-jingū confraternities when preaching in the Niigata region and, in 1879, claimed that he had 200,000 followers in that area (Tokoyo 1988; Ueno 1939: 385; Hardacre 1989: 88). Obviously, in its earlier campaigning effort, the Bureau of Shinto Proselytizing had already employed many of these senior preceptors as well as lower-ranking instructors and local evangelizers as missionaries. Thus, the preferential treatment of Shinto by the Ministry of Public Indoctrination is still recognizable within the Great Teaching Institute Daikyōin.  Shimaji Mokurai and the Buddhist Detachment from the Concerted Promulgation By taking part as doctrinal instructors and national evangelists in this project of public edification, many leaders of the various Buddhist denominations had initially hoped for a significant improvement in their status after the violent anti-Buddhist outbreaks in the early Restoration years. However, they soon realized that their expectations did not match reality and, thus, they began to fight for more change.



kokugaku scholars and religious administration63

Before long, a movement led by Shimaji Mokurai 島地黙雷 (1838–1911) emerged within the Jōdo-shinshū sect, which wanted to separate from the government’s promulgation effort and its Great Teaching Institute. Already in January 1873, Shimaji had sent a memorandum criticizing the three principles of instruction from Europe, where he had been since February 1872 and had met with members of the Iwakura mission. From early on, he stressed a separation of politics and religion. On one hand, this was the result of his nearly year-long overseas stay during which he studied religion and religious history, and on the other hand, it was based on his understanding of the political circumstances in the West and Japan. In my own opinion, China and Japan have frequently confused government and religion. Europeans have also erred on this point. As a result, they have harmed their culture greatly. There have been many improvements in the Western world, however. I had hoped that the same improvements would take place in Japan, but apparently, just the opposite is happening. Let me mention briefly one or two points on which I disagree. The first of the Three Doctrines enjoins reverence toward the gods and patriotism. Reverence toward the gods is religion. Patriotism is government. Is this not confusing religion and government? (Kishimoto 1956: 73)

After his return to Japan in July 1873, Shimaji immediately involved himself in the movement for detaching the Jōdo-shinshū sect from the Great Teaching Institute. From the beginning, many Buddhist leaders were deeply concerned about their loss of official patronage immediately after the Restoration, their clear under-representation in the Ministry of Public Instruction and about the main doctrines and additional themes its missionaries were required to spread among the people. The Jōdo-shinshū representatives—based on their experience in the West—now recommended the other Buddhist sects to detach themselves as well, and thus, many finally began to demand religious freedom and the separation of politics and religion. They saw this as a simple means of protecting their faith against the state’s formation of a new national religion and moral system. Despite the government’s initial opposition, this separation movement persisted, and finally, on 30 April 1875, the Great Councillor of State, Sanjō Sanetomi, ordered the Ministry of Public Indoctrination to refrain henceforth from joint Shinto–Buddhist education. The mutual teaching institutions were to be closed, and instead, the different denominations were to spread the three great teachings individually. On 3 May, the Kyōbushō forwarded this order to the leaders of Shinto and various Buddhist groups

64

chapter two

and also stipulated that they each establish their own teaching institutes (Lokowandt 1978: 317–318, doc. 80; Haga 1994: 197–198). Not only was the Jōdo-shinshū sect detached from the Kyōbushō, but also the entire concerted propagation through Shinto and Buddhist missionaries was abolished. The central concept of the Great Teaching Institute—unified proselytization—was over time washed away by the strong current of cultural modernization along Western lines. The Institute had to relinquish its original aims in the face of a perception of ‘civilization and enlightenment’ that became ever more confident among Japanese intellectuals, a perception that also triggered their claims for religious freedom and the separation of politics and religious doctrine (seikyō-bunri 政教分離).  Shinto Demands for a National Doctrine Perhaps portending the Buddhist separation, on 27 March 1874, a number of Shinto leaders—faced with analogous demands and ever stronger pressure by the European nations—presented the government with an application that it declare Shinto a ‘state teaching’ or national doctrine (kokkyō 国教) instead of a religion. To make this concept clear, they requested the re-establishment of the Bureau of Divinity Jingikan (Hardacre 1988: 303–309). Among the signatories of this memorandum were the luminaries of the early Meiji Shinto world, including Maruyama Sakura, Motoori Toyokai, Tanaka Yoritsune, Inaba Masakuni, Sanjōnishi Suetomo 三条西季知 (1811–1880) and Hirayama Seisai 平山省齋 (1815– 1890). Sanjōnishi was a vice-chief councillor of state, Lord-in-waiting of the ‘Musk Hall’ Shakō-no-ma at the imperial palace in Kyoto, and the head priest of Ise Shrine. Hirata Atsutane’s disciple Inaba Masakuni later became first head of the umbrella organization Shinto honkyoku 神道本局. Tanaka Yoritsune, in addition to Senge Takatomi the main protagonist in the Pantheon Dispute of 1880–1882, later formed and was the first head of Jingū-kyō, Ise Shrine’s proselytizing arm. Hirayama Seisai, sometimes also called Takatada 敬忠, had served as a magistrate of foreign affairs in the late Edo period. He had thus gained diplomatic experience and held a quite positive view of the West. After the Restoration, he was a shrine administrator, and in 1876 was appointed high priest at Hikawa Shrine in Ōmiya, Saitama Prefecture. There, he held a great amount of influence on other Shinto priests and followers. In 1879, he founded Shinto Taiseikyō 神道大成教 and was also fundamental in forming and leading



kokugaku scholars and religious administration65

Ontakekyō 御嶽教, both belonging to the thirteen independent sectarian Shinto groups that were officially recognized by the Meiji government (KDS 3: 323, 536–539; KDNBK 1990: 87, 332). With the exception of Sanjōnishi Suetomo, all of these individuals later became members of the scholarly societies Shigaku-kyōkai and Ōyashima-gakkai, which will be described below. The basis of their request for an official shift away from Shinto as a religion towards its being a national doctrine was the following: National Teaching (kokkyō) is teaching the codes of national government to the people without error. Japan is called the divine land because it is ruled by the heavenly deities’ descendants, who consolidate the work of the deities. The Way of such consolidation and rule by divine descendants is called Shinto. […] The Way of humanity in the age of the gods is nothing other than Shinto in the world of humanity. Ultimately, Shinto means a unity of government and teaching (seikyō-itchi). [… The Jingikan should be restored in order to make clear that] the National Teaching of the imperial house is not a religion, because religions are theories of their founders. The National Teaching consists of the traditions of the imperial house, beginning in the age of the gods and continuing throughout history. Teaching and consolidating these traditions for the masses are inseparable from government, related as two wheels of a cart or the wings of a bird. The National Teaching is Shinto […] and Shinto is nothing other than the National Teaching. (Hardacre 1988: 303, 1989: 66)

Instead of re-establishing the Jingikan, however, the Shinto jimukyoku 神道事務局, a new Office of Shinto Affairs, partially funded by an imperial monetary grant, was set up two month later in May 1974 (MTK 4: 265). This partially state-controlled Shinto organization recruited Shinto priests as religious evangelists and Shintoist public educators. To a large extent, its organization was similar to the various nation-wide edification institutions for the Promulgation of the Great Teaching. A Shintoist Great Teaching Institute (Shintō taikyōin 神道大教院) was created, and several ‘middle’ and ‘small’ teaching institutes were established throughout the country. Thus, despite the fact that in 1875 the state abandoned the Great Teaching Institute Daikyōin, in reality its activities did not cease, but were transferred to its unofficial successor, the newly-established Office of Shinto Affairs. In substance, the Shinto jimukyoku inherited the business and operations of Daikyōin, in spirit following its example and its structure of public proselytization. Simultaneously that year, the Imperial Household’s Office of Cere­ monies, the Shikibu-ryō, to which all matters related to religious rites and ceremonies had been transferred after the dissolution of the Jingikan,

66

chapter two

completed a fifty-two-page work on shrine rituals, the Jinja saishiki 神社 祭式. Published in April 1875, it specified shrine rituals and ceremonies

and was the first major step in developing and consolidating the state rites which, in the Meiji period, were in a continual process of being rearranged, adjusted, and gradually brought to a fixed and binding form (Shinto bunkakai 1966–68, 3: 341–408). Thus, although it had become already impossible to stop the strong current pushing for a separation of politics and religious doctrine, seikyō-bunri, by no means did the basic official standpoint of the unity of ritual and politics collapse. As can also be seen by the statements made in the above-mentioned Shinto memorandum of 1874, many high shrine priests and leaders of later Shinto sects held the view that Shinto was not like other belief systems subsumed under the term ‘religion’. For them, Shinto transcended ordinary religion, since it was not based on a human founder but had its origin in sacred times. It was eternally linked to the imperial line and thus, to the whole nation. Such thinking made it easy to allow ‘politics and religion’ to be separated—at least on the surface—and to have a national ideology based on an emperor who performed unified ‘rituals and state politics’.  The Pantheon Dispute, sectarian Shinto and the Separation of Ritual and Religious Doctrine

In 1876, the Ministry of Public Indoctrination divided the Shinto jimu­ kyoku’s jurisdiction into four districts, appointing a supervisor for each and grouping the public instructors at will. Soon thereafter, on 11 January 1877, the Kyōbushō was abolished and its affairs transferred to the Bureau of Shrines and Temples, the Shaji-kyoku 社寺局, which was established on 19 January within the Ministry of Home Affairs (Lokowandt 1978: 325, docs. 89–90). Later in 1900, based on Imperial Order No. 163, this Bureau of Shrines and Temples was split up into an independent Bureau of Shrines, Jinja-kyoku 神社局, and a Bureau of Religion, Shūkyō-kyoku 宗教局. When this was done, at the latest, state Shinto—and the shrines as an integral organ where its rituals were performed—was officially established as a separate and non-religious entity. However, the division in 1876 of the jurisdiction of the Office of Shinto Affairs already triggered a process of fragmentation and schism within Shintoist and kokugaku circles that led to a power struggle within the Shinto world. High-ranking instructors endeavoured to expand the influence of the shrines to which they were assigned. Of these, the most prominent were Tanaka Yoritsune, chief priest of the Grand Shrine at Ise, and



kokugaku scholars and religious administration67

Senge Takatomi, chief priest of the Grand Shrine of Izumo. Both had been influential actors in Shinto affairs since the time of the Daikyōin. In 1879, both were selected as vice-superintendent priests of the Shintoist public instructors, and, thus, were given a hold on the real power of the edification project. However, by now the idealization of and zeal for national edification had become somewhat lost. Rather than scholarly theories and doctrines, what was being emphasized were questions concerning the expansion of ordinary power. This internal power struggle culminated in the so-called Pantheon Dispute or saijin-ronsō of 1880, a major watershed for Meiji kokugaku. It originated in opinions that had ben advocated by Senge Takatomi since about 1878 (Fujii 1977; Hardacre 1986: 51; 1989: 48–51; Antoni 1998: 206– 208). Essentially, Senge demanded that the Izumo deity Ōkuni-nushi, a descendent of the deity Susanoo, be venerated at the Shinto taikyōin’s sanctuary together with the four other deities worshipped there—those mentioned above for the original Daikyōin. The basis for this demand can be found in the Hirata school’s interpretation of the afterlife. They considered Ōkuni-nushi lord of the invisible world and thus, the counterpart of Amaterasu-ōmikami, the ruler of the present world. Although the dispute was submitted to an imperial decision, it was never really settled and rather, was simply silenced. Shinto priests above a certain level were simply not allowed to become national evangelists and were forbidden to perform funeral rites in which the name of the deity of the underworld might have to be stated. Due to the antagonism between the two sides of this debate, the Shinto world faced an unprecedented division. The disorder that erupted during the Pantheon Dispute finally calmed down, but it caused a momentum for other questions to be asked, and thus the concepts of the unity of ritual and politics, saisei-itchi, and the separation of ritual and religious doctrine, saikyō-bunri 祭教分離, were seriously reexamined. Maruyama Sakura, who had tried to mediate and reconcile the Shinto schism, was asked for his advice by the Office of Shinto Affairs (KDS 2: 1652). To preserve the sanctity of various shrines, and maintain the unity of ritual and politics, the aim was to separate ‘ritual’, as the quintessence of shrine-worship, from Shinto, as ‘religious faith’ in the form of doctrines spread by national evangelists. Thus, on 24 January 1882, the Ministry of Home Affairs prohibited Shinto priests from also holding posts as doctrinal propagandists. The shrines as sites of state rites now were officially separated from the spreading of doctrinal faith, which was ceded to sectarian Shinto groups that

68

chapter two

obtained official recognition of being independent sects on 15 May of the same year (Lokowandt 1978: 334, docs. 99–100; Inoue 2002). In 1884, the Shinto jimukyoku became the Shinto honkyoku 神道本局. This honkyoku or ‘main office’ in Tokyo functioned as an umbrella organization of numerous affiliated Shinto-based religious associations that had branches and sub-offices in the provinces. In August 1884, the Great Council of State moreover also ordered the abolishing of the post of national evangelist. The three great teachings or principles of instruction were renounced and the act of Shintoist education of the people was, henceforth, completely entrusted to the various newly-established sectarian Shinto groups. In 1886, the Shinto honkyoku itself was recognized as one of these Shinto sects, with Inaba Masakuni as its first head. In 1940, it was renamed, quite significantly, as Shinto Great Teaching or Shinto taikyō 神道大教. It worshipped the divine spirits enshrined at the imperial court’s three sanctuaries mentioned above, and its goal was the exaltation of kannagara no taidō 惟神の大道—the great way according to divine will or in other words: State Shinto. In 1889, article twenty-eight of the new imperial constitution finally gave religious freedom to the Japanese—within the limits of it not disrupting the peace and order or their duties as subjects, as the article explicitly states. It is noteworthy that already in 1876, 1878 and 1880, three constitutional drafts had been produced by the Chamber of Elders that all touched on religious freedom. Nevertheless, in these cases an implicit requirement was that the practice of a religion should not hinder the government’s functioning or disturb social customs. Significantly, one of the four appointed constitutional committee members was Fukuba Bisei (Hardacre 1989: 115–116). With the ratifying of the constitution, the government’s endeavour since the days of the Restoration to create a standardized Shinto-based ‘state religion’ was officially ended. In contrast to the new Christian influences, which held morality to be an individual’s private concern resulting from internal communion with God, the Meiji government had hoped to create a strong public commitment to morality in the service of the state. In accordance with the ideas of leading kokugaku scholars and Shintoists, it had thus tried to elevate Shinto to the status of a national doctrine. However, rising demands for religious freedom from both domestic and foreign forces forced a necessary distinction between the public realm of the people’s moral duties and a new private realm, in which religion was left to the discretion of the individual. The necessary solution was seen in the ‘separation of state and religious doctrine’ so that the ‘unity of state



kokugaku scholars and religious administration69

and ritual’, with participation as a citizen’s moral duty, could be maintained. Thus, under the impetus of the ‘universal’ religion Christianity, especially in its Protestant form as was at that time dominant in Japan, individual faith-based religiosity became dissociated from and also subordinated to, ritual-based practices directed towards a larger outside entity, be it one’s ancestors or, ultimately, the nation and its sovereign. The abolition of the system of national evangelizers in 1884 and the promulgation of the imperial constitution in 1889 finalized the trend towards this separation. From this point in time onwards, the ‘teaching sphere’ of belief-based denominational Sect Shinto and the ‘ritual sphere’ of practice-oriented Shrine Shinto were divided. In other words, the division between privatized religion and public national morality was complete. At the latest, the government’s earlier endeavour fully evolved into promoting and upholding public morality and an emperor-centred state ideology with the publication, on 30 October 1890, of the highly important Kyōiku chokugo 教育勅語 (Meiji jingū 1991: 150; Monbushō 1909), the Imperial Rescript on Education, which had to be bowed to and revered as a sacred text symbolizing the spiritual unification of the Japanese people. The Imperial Rescript on Education functioned as one of the most important texts for this state ideology, not only during the Meiji period, but also at least until Japan’s defeat at the end of the Second World War. Even today it is sometimes mentioned reverently and leaflets with its text are handed out, as for instance to visitors of Tokyo’s Meiji Shrine.

CHAPTER THREE

KOKUGAKU SCHOLARS AND HIGHER EDUCATION 3.1. The Early Stage of Meiji Kokugaku Academic Activities in Kyoto In addition to its Shinto and partially Confucian-based ‘ethical’ background, the Imperial Rescript on Education—as its name implies—can also be seen as a parallel yet oft-intertwined endeavour of the emperorcentred state ideology that had emerged in the early Meiji period: statecontrolled education. Consistent with article five of the Imperial Oath of 6 April 1868 described above, from the very beginning the new Meiji government emphasized new structures of national education within the country, as well as the pursuit of knowledge abroad. As we have seen, shortly after the Grand Order for the Restoration of Imperial Rule was proclaimed on 3 January 1868, Yano Harumichi, in his treatise Kenkinsengo, had advocated the establishment of an educational institute called Daigakkō 大學校 (Yano 1971: 551). The proposed college was mainly to instruct the great principles of the deities and sovereigns, that is, the divine sovereigns, the jinnō no daidō 神皇の大道. As will be described below, such a college was then established in July 1869—its predecessor being the former shogunate school Shōheikō. With its strong emphasis on kokugaku national learning, however, the college was highly criticized by the kangaku faction of experts in Chinese Studies, and so in December of the same year it was restructured, becoming the Daigaku honkō or, simply, Daigaku. Yano had proposed the establishment of a college not only in his aidemémoire to Iwakura Tomomi, but also in another independent memorandum on this subject presented to the court about a month later. His aim was to realize, at the level of the central government, what he and Mutobe Yoshika had earlier jointly advocated at the level of the domain. In 1853, they had urged for the establishment of a school for national learning, kokugakkō 国学校, in a memorandum presented to the Shimazu clan, and again in 1865, to the lords of the Satsuma 薩摩 and Chōshu 長州 Domains. Indeed, already from the first beginnings of the national-learning movement, kokugaku scholars had frequently expressed their wish that an

72

chapter three

officially-sanctioned, exclusively kokugaku-oriented school be opened. Probably the earliest example of such a petition, submitted to the shogunate in 1728, was Kada no Azumamaro’s Sōgakkōkei 創學校啓. And an example of another Meiji national-learning scholar to advocate this idea was Maruyama Sakura, who, in June 1868, proposed the establishment of such a school in Nagasaki (Ochi 1971: 95; Ōkubo 1987: 134). In view of these many proposals as well as his above-mentioned kokugaku background and advisory group, on 14 March 1868 vicepresident (fuku-sōsai) Iwakura Tomomi thus commissioned his adviser Tamamatsu Misao, together with Yano Harumichi and Hirata Kanetane, to examine the educational system. On 5 April, the three national-learning scholars submitted a draft entitled Gakusha-sei 学舎制, the System of Academic Institutions (MTK 1: 675; Sakamoto 1944: 160; Ōkubo 1987: 70–76). Their proposed educational system outlined in this draft was based on the organization of the original Institute of Higher Learning, the Daigakuryō 大学寮. The Daigakuryō was a very early imperial university for the education and training of government officials. It was first established during the reign of Emperor Tenji 天智 (626–671) and then reorganized into its final form under the Taihō Code of 701. Attached to the Ministry of Rites and Ceremonies Shikibushō 式部省, this early Institute of Higher Learning was modelled on Chinese institutions whose purpose was to teach politics and morality. Originally, the Institute only offered a honka 本科 or ‘regular course’ in Confucianism as well as a special course in arithmetic called sanka 算科. The Institute continued to be reorganized and expanded further, however, and by the late ninth century it was comprised of four educational branches: the way of the Chinese classics (myōgyō-dō 明經道)1; the way of arithmetic (san-dō 算道); the way of law (myōbō-dō 明法道); and the way of writing (monjō-dō 文章道). The way of the Chinese classics, myōgyō-dō, was established as a subject of study in the middle of the ninth century. It was based on the course on Confucianism that had existed since the opening of the Daigakuryō in 701. At the end of the tenth century, scholarship in and the teaching of this subject became the heredity task of the Nakahara 中原 and Kiyohara 清原 1 This course used eleven classical Chinese works as textbooks. In addition to the obligatory Kōgyō 孝経 and Rongo 論語, these were the ‘greater classics’ Raiki 礼記 and Shunjū-sashiden 春秋左氏伝 the ‘middle ranking classics’ Shikyō 詩経, Shurai 周礼 and Girai 儀礼; and the ‘lesser classics’ Shūeki 周易 (also known as Ekigyō 易経), Shōsho 尚書 (also known as Shokyō 書経), Shunjū-kuyōden 春秋公羊伝 and Shunjū-kokuryōden 春秋 穀梁伝.



kokugaku scholars and higher education73

families. Hence, from the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, myōgyō-dō gradually lost its general appeal and substance. San-dō, which also arose in the middle of the ninth century, emerged from the original special course on arithmetic. It used nine volumes as textbooks, among them the work on mathematics Kyūshō sanjutsu 九章 算術 and that on astronomy Shūhi sankei 周髀算経, which still in the Edo period were both influential and used for study. Graduates in san-dō were, for instance, employed at the government’s budget office Shukeiryō 主計寮 and the tax office Shuzeiryō 主税寮. From the middle of the Heian period onwards, teaching this subject also emerged as a hereditary task, in this case of the Ozuki 小槻 and Miyoshi 三善 families. The hermeneutics and teaching of law, myōbō-dō, as a subject of study was formed in the middle of the ninth century based on a course regarding the elucidation of laws (myōbō-ka 明法科) that had been added to the original two courses in 730 to allow for the state-managed training of jurists. From the Heian period onwards, law specialists took positions, for instance, as judiciaries at the Ministry of Criminal Punishment Gyōbushō 刑部省. Several experts developed their own distinct scholarly traditions and formed hereditary legacies on the hermeneutics of law. The famous Sakanoue 坂上 family, for instance, brought forth important texts such as the Hossō shiyōshō 法曹至要抄 and the Saiban shiyōshō 裁判至要抄. The term monjō-dō for the way of writing is actually a misapplication, since before the Meiji period a subject with this name did not exist. In 728, a specialized course in Chinese literature and history, the monjō-ka 文章科, was added to the original two courses at the Daigakuryō. Later, in the mid- ninth century, this subject was revised into the ‘way of historical writing’ kiden-dō 紀傳道. In the Heian period, this was the second most popular subject of study after the way of the Chinese classics. The textbooks used for this course were the three Chinese chronicles Shiki 史記, Kansho 漢書 and Go-Kansho 後漢書, as well as the prose and poetry collection Monzen 文選. This course prospered greatly and turned out a large number of literati ministers, reaching a peak in the late tenth century. From the Kamakura period, like the other courses, it also gradually became a hereditary subject, losing thereby its general appeal and substance. Now, however, for the anticipated new purpose of education in a ‘modern’ state following the Meiji Restoration, the draft of Yano, Tamamatsu and Hirata proposed significant alterations in the subjects of study (Ōkubo 1987: 70–76; Ochi 1971: 98). They opted for the following five courses: the study of the original teachings (honkyō-gaku 本教学); the study of national administration (keisei-gaku 経世学); the study of poetry

74

chapter three

and prose (jishō-gaku 辞章学); the study of [traditional] skills (hōgi-gaku 方伎学); and the study of external relations (gaiban-gaku 外蕃学). If com-

paring the Daigakuryō’s original four ‘ways’ with these newly-proposed five subjects of study, the way of elucidating the Confucian classics can be roughly equated with the study of the (Japanese) original teachings, the way of elucidating the law with the study of national administration, the way of writing with the study of poetry and prose, and the way of arithmetic was part of the study of traditional skills. It is clear that the focus of these subjects had shifted from a Chinese to a Japanese content that was ‘national’. The study of external relations, however, was a completely novel subject that was introduced in response to the new Meiji reality. It was divided into seven topics dealing with the countries China, Russia, Britain, France, Holland, India (Tenjiku 天竺) and Korea (Sankan 三韓),2 including the Ryūkyū Islands.  Kokugaku Concepts in the ‘System of Academic Institutions’ The original Daigakuryō was strongly modelled on Chinese Confu­ cian  ideas. While the new Institute of Higher Learning proposed by Yano, Tamamatsu and Hirata, in its outer form, still adopted the ancient system, it had, however, a distinct indigenous kokugaku touch. The Gakusha-sei, the draft on the System of Academic Institutions, deals, in order, with the school’s buildings, its administrative structure, the subjects of study and the classification of students and staff. It is worth noting that the first item advocates erecting a Shinto shrine within the school, the Kōsotenjin-sha 皇祖天神社, dedicated to the ‘heavenly imperial ancestor deity’ Amaterasu. Four times a year, once each season, all of the students and the staff were to hold ritual festivities at this shrine (Ōkubo 1987: 72). In effect, these ceremonial rites performed for the Japanese deities simply replaced the traditional Confucian sekiten 釈奠, a festival in honour of Confucius that had been held twice a year at the original Daigakuryō. However, emphasizing this characteristic feature of kokugaku thinking within the educational system was a major reason for a large number of subsequent problems at the first university and 2 Sankan (Kor. Sanhan) is actually a term describing the three ancient Han states that existed at the southern end of the Korean peninsula previous to the fourth century: Bakan (Kor. Mahan 馬韓), Shinkan (Kor. Chinhan 辰韓), and Benkan (Kor. Byeonhan 弁韓). The term often also refers to the later three Korean kingdoms of Kudara 百済 (which emerged out of Bakan), Shiragi 新羅 (which emerged out of Shinkan and Benkan), and Kokuri 高句 麗, which developed in the north.



kokugaku scholars and higher education75

the animosity that developed between the kangaku and kokugaku factions. Another major kokugaku concept is already visible in the first proposed subject, the study of original teachings. As mentioned above, the term ‘original teachings’, honkyō or mototsu oshie, is found in the preface of the Kojiki. The term came into general use among national-learning scholars, especially those of the Hirata school, at the end of the Edo period. In the Gakusha-sei, the purpose of honkyō-gaku is explained as overseeing that the students are taught ‘to observe the principles of the sacred deities, the gist of morals and wise government of one’s family as well as of the difference between the worlds of the visible and the concealed, and the patriotic noble cause of heaven and earth’ (Ōkubo 1987: 73 and 133; Ochi 1971: 98). According to the Gakusha-sei, the first subject of ‘study of the original teachings’ honkyō-gaku at the proposed Institute was to be based on five topics: sacred scriptures (shinten or mifumi 神典), imperial books (kōseki 皇籍), miscellaneous histories (sesshi 雑史), topographies (chishi 地志) and Confucian classics and their interpretations (keiden 経伝). The draft unfortunately does not specify which sacred scriptures and imperial books were to be used, but we can assume that the intended works were basically the same as those listed in the regulations for the later Institute of Imperial Studies, described below. The draft does, however, provide additional remarks on the other three topics. For chishi, which echoes the ancient Japanese topography works called fudoki 風土記 involving the study of an area’s natural features, products, culture and history, it adds the words ‘Western lands’. For the miscellaneous histories it also mentions that ‘simultaneously the Western lands’ so-called unfathomable scholarship (gengaku 玄学) together with the kind of historical writings of its philosophers should also be studied’. Seen from the Japanese geographic perspective, the term ‘Western lands’ clearly refers to countries such as China and India, and the expression ‘unfathomable scholarship’ means esoteric or oracular scholarship and refers specifically to the philosophy of Lâo-zi 老子 (570–490 bc) and Zhuang-zi 荘子 (369–286 bc), i.e. Daoism. Although the writings of the various philosophers (shi [-zi] 子) and historical writings (shi 史) are two distinct categories in Chinese scholarship, here the combined term shishi 子史 is used to refer to the ‘historical writings’ of these Chinese esoteric philosophers. However, the nationallearning authors who drafted this ‘System of Academic Institutions’ were not particularly concerned with ‘proper’ Chinese scholarship, as is also made clear by an additional remark on the topic of Confucian classics

76

chapter three

and their interpretations, namely, that ‘this should be undertaken at a separate office’. For the study of traditional skills, the Gakusha-sei specifies six subjects: astronomy (tenmon 天文), calendar making (ritsureki 律暦), arithmetic (sansū 算数), music (ongaku 音楽), divination (bokuzei 卜筮) and the art of healing (ijutsu 医術). Interestingly, however, the term hōgi, under which these skills are subsumed, commonly also includes esoteric arts and ‘sorcery’ practised by hermits or mountain wizards (shinzen 神仙). This clearly positions this draft within Hirata kokugaku scholarship (Tani 1966–68: 177). Indeed, the authors were Hirata Kanetane, at that time the head of Atsutane’s school, and Yano Harumichi, one of its most prominent followers. Moreover, the special mention of ‘unfathomable scholarship’, gengaku, to be pursued as part of the miscellaneous histories in the study of the original teachings is also clearly a Hirata school kokugaku concept. Already over a century earlier, Kamo no Mabuchi had clearly identified Shinto with Daoism, seeing them as nearly identical. Although Motoori Norinaga later rejected this notion firmly, Hirata Atsutane did intense research on the afterlife and supernatural phenomena. Scholars of his intellectual lineage also pondered the differences and connections between the ‘concealed’ or spiritual and the ‘visible’ or secular worlds as part of their study of Japan’s original teachings. They thus considered Daoist thought and the esoteric ascetic practices of ‘immortal’ mountain wizards as profound and unfathomable oracular scholarship or gengaku. This, however, is peculiar to Atsutane’s scholarly realm and is all but nonexistent in other kokugaku traditions. Interestingly, in his youth, Yano received a great amount of instruction in Daoist thought and later collected a vast amount of material and many legends on the Daoist immortals and their esoteric skills (Fukui 1985). He even expressed the ideas of this scholarship’s profound ‘unfathomable way’ in his adopted personal name: Harumichi 玄道, which is also read Gendō.  The Primacy of Imperial Studies, Augmented by Chinese and Western Scholarship On 4 April 1868, the day before Yano, Hirata and Tamamatsu submitted their Gakusha-sei draft to the government, the Office of Internal Affairs ordered the revival of the former Gakushūin 学習院, the Peers’ School originally established in 1847 in Kyoto for the education of court nobles. Lectures were scheduled to start on 11 April. On 7 April, only three days after the school’s establishment, however, the Gakushūin was renamed



kokugaku scholars and higher education77

Daigakuryō-dai 大学寮代 meaning ‘substitute’ Daigakuryō—the name of the above-mentioned ancient institute for the education and training of government officials (MTK 1: 675). In part, this was probably due to the draft by the three national-learning scholars that had been submitted in the meantime. Notwithstanding this change of name, the other proposals in the Gakusha-sei that were kokugaku inclined were realized to a lesser degree than hoped for by the draft’s authors. Politically, the issue of educational administration was treated quite neutrally. The Institute existed in this form, however, for only a few months. On 31 October 1868, the government announced that the institution would not continue as a single entity, but would be divided into an Institute of Imperial Studies, the Kōgakujo 皇学所, and an Institute of Chinese (Confucian) Studies, the Kangakujo 漢学所. In this way, the state tried to alleviate the antagonism that had developed between the kokugaku faction pressing for the ideals of the Gakusha-sei, and the kangaku faction supporting the structure of the earlier Gakushūin. The October regulation stated that ‘imperial studies and Chinese studies together are to mutually dispute right and wrong, and there shall be no obstinate, selfish bigotry’ (Ōkubo 1987: 88; MTK 1: 836). In short, it aimed at a compromise, whereby the Kōgakujo was to put the ideas of the Gakusha-sei into practice, and the Kangakujo was to succeed the Gakushūin.3 In a way, the regulation also fulfilled one of the proposals in the draft of Yano, Tamamatsu and Hirata, namely, that Chinese Confucian studies should be undertaken at a separate institution. Important at this early stage is the distinction between imperial and Chinese Studies. The setting up of a separate Institute of Chinese Confucian Studies and the new establishing and expanding of the Institute of Imperial Studies occurred just around the time that the anti-Buddhist movement, instigated by the Jingikan and its predecessors, was underway. Corresponding to the promotion of Shinto as the state religion, in the educational field the principle of imperial studies was the basic policy. Despite the fact that the division of the Daigakuryō-dai seemed to have created equivilant institutions, the government’s October announcement clearly gave higher status to emperor-centred national scholarship, as seen in the first two regulations dealing with this subject. The first states that ‘the national polity (kokutai) should be discerned and moral duties 3 Later, in 1877, the Gakushūin was reestablished in Tokyo for the education of the general nobility. In 1884, it became a governmental school under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Household Ministry.

78

chapter three

(meibun 名分) rectified’ and the second, that ‘both Chinese studies and Western studies should assist the imperial way (kōdō 皇道)’ (MTK 1: 836; Ōkubo 1987: 88; Yamamoto/ Watanabe 1939: 157). An eternal and unchangeable kokutai was one of the core concepts of kokugaku ideas, whereas the rectification of meibun, a fundamentally Confucian notion, was emphasized by the Mito school. Thus, once again, different strands of thought gradually developed and merged to create a new form of kokugaku in the Meiji period. Despite stipulating the primacy of Japanese and imperial studies, understanding the policies and capabilities of foreign countries was also deemed necessary. While wanting to promote and recreate traditional, indigenous scholarship, there was a simultaneous desire to pursue the practical knowledge of the outside world. At the early educational institutions in Kyoto, these two sides of early Meiji policy can again be observed. As mentioned above, the foundation for these two ideas—a retrospective revival of supposedly ancient, emperor-centred moralities on the one hand, and the simultaneous expression of the spirit of modern realism on the other—was the Five-Article Imperial Oath of 6 April 1868. The Meiji government used this dichotomous stance for a new cultural construction. These, and later regulations, show that the government’s aim was to put their two-pronged concept into practice also with regard to education. After all, ‘proper’ education was the door to a new cultural discourse.  Possible Reasons for the Establishment of Two Juxtaposed Institutions Conciliating and compromising by juxtaposing an Institute of Imperial Studies with an Institute of Chinese Studies was, of course, a political decision that was taken to balance the strong demands and claims of the two opposing scholarly groups. The government had made various inquiries on how to deal with the matter, consulting among others Iwashita Masahira and Hasegawa Akimichi 長谷川昭道 (1816–1897). Both men had close connections to Iwakura Tomomi. The first, Iwashita, had direct relations with Iwakura as a junior councilor at the Legislative Council Giseikan 議政官. Hasegawa, originally a retainer of the Matsushiro Domain in Shinshū, today’s Nagano Prefecture, met Iwakura in 1864 when he was ordered to move to Kyoto as representative of his domain. Hasegawa greatly influenced the decision to create separate institutions. In his discussions with Iwakura, Hasegawa stated his opinions concerning state affairs several times, especially with regard to the school problem. Despite Hasegawa’s kokugaku and Mito



kokugaku scholars and higher education79

school background, he criticized the narrow viewpoints of other kokugaku scholars, seeing them as only concerned with partial aspects of the ‘way’ and thus constricting it. Early in the Meiji period, he wrote: The kokugaku scholars greatly expound the imperial way, model the imperial laws, revere the imperial country, venerably receive the imperial deities, and desire to be loyal subjects of the imperial country. […] However, instead of primarily elucidating the imperial way’s substance (hontai 本体), fully dealing with the imperial way’s essence (jittai 実体), and perfecting themselves in the great classics and fundamental laws of all things [the three powers: heaven, earth and man], they only take a part of the imperial way and stubbornly insist only on one piece [of it]. (Ōkubo 1987: 84–85)

In a way, therefore, Hasegawa was a precursor to the later trend of shifting towards and shaping a broadly-based imperial ideology for the new Japan. Already in the closing days of the Edo period, he wrote a related work, Kōdō jutsugi 皇道述義, The Significance of the Imperial Way. He repeatedly recommended establishing imperial studies at a ‘Divine Imperial Academy’ or jinnō no daigaku 神皇の大学, an institute that in addition to national learning was also to include military, Chinese and Western learning. This idea was most clearly stated in his text Gakuryō 学寮, Institutes of Learning, written in response to Iwakura’s inquiries. It was published on 13 October 1868, about two weeks before the government announced the establishment of two separate institutes. He furthermore advocated the establishment of a Bureau of Imperial Studies Kōgakukan 皇学官, as an adjunct to the Bureau of Divinity Jingikan. Naming the independent national-learning institute ‘Kōgakujo’ was not based on the earlier proposal of Yano, Tamamatsu and Hirata. In their Gakusha-sei, they simply speak of a Daigakkō, a school of higher learning or a college. Moreover, their form of scholarship, as we have seen above, was ‘original studies’ (honkyō-gaku), not ‘imperial studies’ (kōgaku). Thus, this separate institution’s new appellation most likely can also be traced back to Hasegawa Akimichi (Ōkubo 1987: 84–88; KDNBK 1983: 341; 1990: 547; Tani 1966–68: 177–178). It is worth noting how little the concept of ‘imperial’ had been disseminated at this early stage, and that for most people in the general contemporary state of affairs, the concept was still unusual and difficult to comprehend. Ōkubo Toshiaki remembers an interview he held in October 1935 with the Shinto priest Nomura Shikiharu 野村敷明, who in his youth had been a student at the Kōgakujo Institute. Nomura told him that at that time, nobody used the official title Kōgakujo, but everyone only spoke of the ‘Kokugakujo’—the Institute of National Learning (Ōkubo 1987: 94).

80

chapter three  The Teaching Staff at the Institute of Imperial Studies

In keeping with the Institute of Imperial Studies in Kyoto being commonly called ‘Kokugakujo’, its initial staff was mostly comprised of leading kokugaku scholars. The two court nobles Nijō Nariyuki 二條薺敬 (1816– 1878) and Higashizono Mototaka 東園基敬 (1820–1883), who in addition to Iwakura Tomomi had been among the so-called eighty-eight loyal imperial courtiers during the Ansei-period disturbances of the late 1850s, were appointed as supervising government officials. Also employed from the opening of the Institute on 30 October 1868, and thus forming the core kokugaku group, were Hirata Kanetane, Yano Harumichi and Tamamatsu Misao. Also among the Institute’s founding members are several other national-learning scholars who shortly thereafter were employed as instructors (Ōkubo 1987: 139; Sakamoto 1944: 132). One of the first was Yamada Aritoshi 山田有年 (003F–1891), who became an instructor on 25 November. He was born in Kyoto as the grandson of the national-learning scholar and Yoshida Shrine priest Yamada Mochifumi 山 田以文 (1762–1835). Other names that Aritoshi used were Awa-no-kami 安 房守 and Awa-no-suke 阿波介. He was educated in his family tradition of yūsoku kojitsu 有職故實, the customs and etiquette of the court and military households. As had members of his family in the generations before him, he initially served as an archivist for the Yoshida family. In the course of his career, he worked at the Jingikan, served as a court ritualist at the Office of Ceremonies, was employed as a teacher at several of the early educational institutions, and later was awarded the junior fifth court rank (KDS 3: 294). Three days later, on 28 November, Nishikawa Yoshisuke and Hatta Tomonori 八田知紀 (1799–1873) were employed. As noted above, Nishikawa Yoshisuke had been involved in the famous beheading of the AshikagaShogun statues in Kyoto. At the time of the restoration of imperial rule, he was released from confinement in his home and from 17 January until 21 April 1868, had been an accounting official for money and grain expenditures. Hatta Tomonori was a Satsuma retainer who after the restoration served at the Imperial Household Ministry as an expert on poetry. His waka teacher was Kagawa Kageki 香川景樹 (1768–1843), and one of his students was the later Ōyashima-gakkai member Takasaki Masakaze 高崎正風 (1836–1912) who, in 1888, became the founding director of the Imperial Office for Poetry O-uta dokoro 御歌所 (KDS 3: 265–271, 1496–1501).



kokugaku scholars and higher education81

On 11 December, about two weeks after Nishikawa and Hatta had been employed, Seta Norimi 勢多章甫 (1830–1894), Hirata Taneo 平田胤雄 (1843–1886) and Yano Naomichi 矢野直道 (1847–1898) were added to the Institute’s staff. The first, Seta Norimi, was a well-known expert on law hermeneutics and a descendent of the Kamakura-period law expert Nakahara Norifusa 中原章房 (?–1330). The second, Hirata Taneo, at the time still called Kumanosuke 熊之助, was Hirata Kanetane’s fourth son. He later became a member of Shigaku-kyōkai. And the third, Yano Naomichi, at the time called Seiroku 清六, was the younger brother of Yano Harumichi. He had studied Confucianism under Takeda Yukitaka 武田敬孝 (1820–1886) and later, in Kyoto, national learning under his older brother (KDNBK 1990: 378, 730; KRMH 2004: 10). Again about a week later, on 19 December 1898, Nasu Nui 那須縫殿 (?–?), Okamoto Tsuneharu 岡本経春 (1819–1880), Uematsu Aritsune 植松有経 (1839–1906) and Kakimoto Kōsetsu 垣本江雪 (?–?) were also employed. Nothing is known about Nasu and Kakimoto. The original family name of the second of these instructors, Okamoto Tsuneharu, was Kamo 賀茂. He had studied kokugaku under Kamo no Suetaka 賀茂季鷹 (1754–1841) and Hirata Kanetane, and was a Shinto priest at both the Kamigamo and the Shimogamo Shrines in Kyoto. He was also called Ikino-kami 壱岐守. The third, Uematsu Aritsune, at the time called Keigorō 柱五郎, was part of the Motoori tradition of kokugaku, as were his immediate forebears. His grandfather, Uematsu Arinobu 植松有信 (1759–1813), had studied directly under Motoori Norinaga and his father, Uematsu Shigetake 植松茂岳 (1795–1876), under Motoori’s sons Haruniwa 春庭 (1763–1828) and Ōhira. Aritsune served at the Imperial Household Ministry as an official for literature, and later at its Office for Poetry (KDNBK 1990: 108, 174). A month later, on 20 January 1869, the Hirata school veterans Hatano Takao, Kusakado Nobutaka and Takeo Masatane 竹尾正胤 (1833–1874) were added to the Institute’s staff. The first, Hatano Takao, was a shrine priest at Shinmeisha 神明社 and Hachimangū 八幡宮, both in Yoshida in the Mikawa region of today’s Aichi Prefecture. A student of Suzuki Shigeno 鈴木重野 (1766–1834), Motoori Ōhira, and Hirata Atsutane, Hatano is most famous for having collected more than ten thousand books in his library, the so-called Hata bunko 羽田文庫. The second was Hatano’s friend Kusakado Nobutaka, who was a shrine priest at Mikawa’s Toga-jinja 砥鹿神社. He had studied kokugaku under Hirata Atsutane, Ishizuka Tatsumaro 石塚竜麿 (1764–1823) and Yagi Yoshiho 八木美穂 (1800–1854).

82

chapter three

And the third, Takeo Masatane, at the time called Tōichirō 東一郎, was also from the Mikawa region, where he worked as a Shinto priest also at Toga-jinja and at the Hachiman shrine in Maigi. In the early Meiji period he also served as an inspector at the police institution Danjōdai 弾正台, which existed between 1869 and 1871, and as a Shinto proselytizer and national evangelist. Takeo is best known for his comparative work Daiteikoku ron 大帝国論, Treatise on the Grand Empire (KDS 2: 1548; 3: 589; KDNBK 1990: 254, 426, 545). Two days later, on 22 January, Iida Takesato, another prominent kokugaku scholar and later Ōyashima-gakkai member, joined the Institute. A month passed and on 22 February Watanabe Ikarimaro joined as well. Watanabe had first studied under the Confucianist Nomoto Hakugan 野本 白巌 (1797–1856), but later became a disciple of Hirata Kanetane and concentrated solely on national learning. Watanabe also later became an Ōyashima-gakkai member and was the author of Kōgakujo mondō shidai 皇学所問答次第, The Dialogues at the Institute of Imperial Studies (KDS 2: 1661–1662; 3: 419–421, 599; Wachutka 2001: 67–81). Five more teachers were later added to the Institute’s staff, but the specific date these people joined is not certain. Godaiin Mihashira was a disciple of Hirata Atsutane and the chief priest at Kibitsu-jinja 吉備津神社 in Okayama. Tenbō Sachū 天坊左仲 (?–?), who was also called Kakuhei 愨平, had served the Iwakura family. Horiuchi Yasufusa 堀内保房 (1821– 1876) was a Shinto priest at Kyoto’s Kamigamo shrine. Nakayama Shigeki 中山繁樹 (1839–1878) was also from Mikawa in today’s Aichi Prefecture and had studied under Motoori Uchitō and Hirata Kanetane. The fifth of these was a certain Inoue 井上 of whom nothing further is known (KDS 2: 1535–1536; KDNBK 1990: 501). With this impressive group of leading kokugaku scholars as its staff, Kōgakujo’s actual operations and series of lectures commenced on 20 February 1869 (Ōkubo 1987: 98). It is noteworthy but not surprising that most of the Institute’s instructors were simultaneously engaged as Shinto proselytizers and national evangelists. Also, many were elders and leading figures of the Hirata school. For example, Hatano Takao was the Hirata faction’s most senior member at the time. He had been a direct disciple of Hirata Atsutane, as had been Godaiin Mihashira and Kusakado Nobutaka. Now in early Meiji, they could finally pursue their national-learning ambitions at the government level. Hirata Kanetane, Yano Harumichi, Iida Takesato and Watanabe Ikarimaro continued to have leading roles in the following years. The Institute’s underlying kokugaku ambitions can moreover be sensed in the



kokugaku scholars and higher education83

Institute’s regulations Kōgakujo-kisoku 皇学所規則, which were solidified and enacted during this early period. Article nine of these regulations, for instance, clearly states that ‘concerning scholarship, Hagura [= Kada no] Azumamaro 羽倉東麿, Okabe [= Kamo no] Mabuchi 岡部真淵, Motoori Norinaga and Hirata Atsutane are to be taken as the main essence. In addition, expositions and exegetical works of various scholars should be blended in’ (Ōkubo 1987: 132–133). Hence, the ‘imperial studies’ at the Institute, evident also in its curriculum and the books used for teaching listed below, was seen as national learning in the scholarly tradition of the ‘four great masters’ of kokugaku. This was to be supported by other traditional Japanese and Chinese studies, as well as a certain amount of modern Western scholarship.  The Deities at the Institute’s Shinto Shrine It cannot be said with certainty who was responsible for the Institute’s regulations. Most evidence, however, points to Yano Harumichi being the author. The first regulation deals with the Institute’s Shinto shrine, the Kōsotenjin-ōmiya 皇祖天神大宮, where the deities of heaven and earth were to be venerated, as well as the spirits of the successive generations of imperial ancestors and of famous ancient families. Incidentally, the shrine’s name, ‘Grand Shrine of the Heavenly Imperial Ancestor Deity’, is the same as that commonly used for Ise-jingu. The regulation lists the individual deities to be enshrined, either in the central altar or in one of the two auxiliary altars to its left and right (Ōkubo 1987: 99, 104–105). The deities to be enshrined at the central altar were Ame-no-minakanushi no ōkami 天御中主大神, Taka-mimusubi no ōkami 高皇産霊大神, Kami-musubi no ōkami 神皇産霊大神, Izanagi no ōkami 伊邪那岐大神, Izanami no ōkami 伊邪那美大神, Amaterasu-sumera no ōmikami 天照皇 大御神 and Susanoo no ōkami 須佐之男大神. As well as all of the emperors, empresses and princes of the [former] imperial generations (miyomiyo tennō no mikoto oyobi ōkisaki miko no mikoto 御代々々天皇命及大后 御子命). The deities of the left auxiliary altar were Kaze no kami 風神, Hi no kami 火神, Kane no kami [Konjin] 金神, Mizu no kami 水神, Tsuchi no kami 土神, Ōrai no kami 大雷神, Ōyama-tsumi no kami 大山祇神, Takaokami no kami 高龗神, Harae no kami 秡戸神, Wata no kami 海神, Toyouke-hime no ōkami 豊受毘売大神, Ōnanji no kami 大汝神, Konanji no kami 小汝神 and Kotoshiro-nushi no kami 言代主神, as well as the myriad gods of heaven and earth (tenjin-chigi yaoyorozu no kami 天神地祗八百 万神). The deities venerated at the shrine’s right auxiliary altar were

84

chapter three

Takemikazuchi no kami 武御雷神, Futsunushi no kami 経津主神, Yagokoro Omoikane no kami 八意思兼神, Itsu tomo-no-o no kami 五伴緒神, Futo no mikoto Inbe no kami 太命斎部神, Ōe no kami 大江神 and Kuebiko no kami 久延比古神, as well as the many families that had been employed by the ancient imperial court, including the Ōtomo, Saeki and Mononobe (Ōtomo Saeki Mononobe yaso tomo-no-o no kami 大伴佐伯物部八十伴 緒神). The first five deities mentioned for the left auxiliary altar correspond to the five agents (gogyō 五行) in Chinese cosmology: the elements of wind, fire, metal, water and earth. This again shows a certain affinity between Shinto and Daoism, thus also pointing to Yano Harumichi as the likely author of the regulation. The name of the deity Ōnanji can also be read Ōnamuji, which is another appellation for the deity Ōkuni-nushi. Here, however, it denotes, together with the following deity, the brotherly combination Ōnanji-konanji—known in different regions as Ōman-koman 大 満小満 or Banji-banzaburō 磐司磐三郎—the tutelary deities of hunting. The right auxiliary altar deities Yagokoro Omoikane no kami and Kuebiko no kami will be described in more detail below. They were the new deities of wisdom and learning that were part of the Hirata scholarly tradition. This is a further indicator that the author of the Institute of Imperial Studies’ regulations was Yano Harumichi, or at least someone with a strong Hirata kokugaku background. The right altar’s Itsu tomono-o no kami is a combinatory appellation for the five deities Ameno-koyane no mikoto 天児屋根命, Ama-no-futodama no mikoto 天太玉命, Ama-no-uzume no mikoto 天鈿女命, Ishikoridome no mikoto 石凝姥命 and Tama-no-oya no mikoto 玉祖命, who descended to earth together with the heavenly grandchild Ninigi no mikoto. It is interesting to note that at the Institute of Imperial Studies, the tutelary deities of ancient Japanese families were worshipped. The Inbe family, for example, had been responsible for rituals and ceremonies at the ancient Japanese court. Their supposed ancestor was Ama-nofutodama no mikoto, one of the above-named Itsu tomo-no-o no kami. The Ōe, which had been set up as branch family in 790 by Kanmu-tennō, was an ancient family of scholars, literati and statesmen. Ōtomo no Yakamochi 大伴家持 (718–785) was significantly involved in compiling Japan’s oldest anthology of classical poetry Man’yōshū, and the Mononobe family is known for their resistance against the introduction of Buddhism in the sixth century. The many other powerful families also mentioned all had significant roles as the court’s guards and police forces. When comparing the deities enshrined at the Great Teaching Institute Daikyōin with



kokugaku scholars and higher education85

those at Kōgakujo, it is noteworthy that at the latter, much more emphasis was placed on relationships to the imperial court and, in extension, on loyalty to the ‘imperial way’. The former merely enshrined the deities of Shinto theology. On 7 January 1869, the Shintoist ground-breaking ceremony jichinsai 地鎮祭 was performed for the Kōgakujo in the presence of the Jingikan’s executive, Otagi Michimasu 愛宕通祐 (1799–1875), as well as other members of its staff. The construction of the altar or divine seat was finished on 24 January, and the following day, the actual enshrinement ceremony senza-shiki 遷座式 was held in the presence of the Jingikan’s supervisor, Konoe Tadafusa, and all of its other officials, of whom many were part of the Institute’s teaching staff (Ōkubo 1987: 96–97). At this governmental institution we see a close combination of actual education, Shinto-based religious rituals, and the veneration of various deities as well as of ancient literati and statesmen families who had defended the court and the emperor. This again was part of the official objective of the early Meiji government to implement an emperor-centred unity of ritual, politics and religious doctrine, backed by the strong support of kokugaku scholars.  The Curriculum at the Institute of Imperial Studies As can be clearly seen by the establishment of a Shinto shrine within the Institute of Imperial Studies, the religious and educational aspects of kokugaku’s development in the Meiji period were closely intertwined and chronologically related. While separate chapters are devoted to these aspects in order to examine them in more depth, this interrelatedness is also made evident by certain facets of the curriculum. In many ways, the regulations of the Kōgakujo echo the earlier proposals of Yano Harumichi, Hirata Kanetane, and Tamamatsu Misao. The Institute’s curriculum divided imperial studies into four subjects of study, each consisting of several elements: the study of the original teachings (honkyō-gaku), comprising sacred scriptures, imperial history (kōshi 皇史), topography and genealogies (keifu 系譜); the study of political economy  (keizai-gaku 経済学), comprising etiquette (reigi 礼儀), laws and ordinances (ritsuryō 律令), the military system (heisei 兵制), and foods and currency (shokka 食貨); the study of poetry and prose (jishō-gaku), comprising wordplay and song lyrics (utakotoba 歌詞), poetry and prose (shibun 詩文), penmanship (shohō 書法) and drawing (zuga 図画); and the study of technical skills (geigi-gaku 芸伎学), comprising astronomy,

86

chapter three

medicine, divination, music, calendar laws and arithmetic (Ōkubo 1987: 100, 132). With Yano Harumichi very likely the author of both documents, the curriculum as given in the regulations of the Institute of Imperial Studies resembles in many ways the list of subjects already found in the earlier Gakusha-sei. It is clear that the study of the original teachings and of poetry and prose were directly adopted from the earlier proposal of the three kokugaku scholars. The content is nearly the same, although the subject ‘imperial history’ has replaced the former ‘imperial books’ and ‘miscellaneous histories’, and the interpretation of the Confucian classics as an independent object of study has been dropped and in its place ‘genealogies’ has been added. ‘National administration’ and ‘traditional skills’ have been renamed ‘political economy’ and ‘technical skills’, respectively, although the individual subjects they cover remain exactly the same as before. Only the study of external relations is not seen as part of imperial studies, as is obvious. This subject was established separately at a specialized College for Western Sciences, which opened its doors in Tokyo the same year. Important for understanding Meiji-period national learning is the detailed itemizing in the Kōgakujo’s regulations of several of its subjects. The ‘sacred scriptures’ or ‘imperial books’, which formed the core study of original teachings, have not so far been precisely identified. Thus, an interesting and significant aspect is the long and detailed list of books that were to be used for teaching at the Institute of Imperial Studies.  Books and Texts for the Imperial Education After mentioning essential works for newly enrolled students, the Institute’s regulations divide the texts into three grades of difficulty to be used, respectively, in beginner, intermediate and advanced classes (Ōkubo 1987: 103–104; Ochi 1971: 99–100). This extensive selection of texts clearly heralds the formation of an educational canon as well as the collections and anthologies that leading Meiji kokugaku scholars edited and published in subsequent years. Knowing exactly which textbooks were used at this and later institutions, how they were categorized, and the order of importance they were given tells a lot about the anticipated canon of normative texts for a ‘true citizen’ of this newly-emerging nation-state. The Kōgakujo’s regulations, for the first time in the early Meiji period, clearly define which works were deemed essential for an imperial and kokugaku education, an education that was to form the basis for moulding



kokugaku scholars and higher education87

the populace into ‘imperial’ subjects. Due to its significance, the list of ‘sacred scriptures’ and ‘historical works’ as found in the Kōgakujo’s regulations is given below in its entirety. For the non-specialist Western audience, additional information about lesser-known texts, such as the author and date of composition, and a few interspersed comments are provided here in square brackets: Concerning the particulars necessary to be taught to enrolled children in the beginning, the readings should consist, side by side, of works written in kana [ancient texts in the Japanese syllabic language recorded by means of Chinese characters used phonetically] and in kanbun [classical Chinese]. Their sequential order is: For the kana works: Man’yō shinsai hyakushu kai 万葉新采百首解 [Kamo no Mabuchi, 1752]; Man’yō yamato hyakushu 万葉山常百首 [Motoori Ōhira, 1820]; Jindai seiro 神代正路; Kojiki 古事記; [Engi]shiki norito [延喜]式祝詞; Shokki [=ShokuNihongi] Senmyō 続紀宣命; Man’yōshū 万葉集. For the kanbun works: Dōmō nyūgaku mon 童蒙入学門 [Hirata Atsutane, 18??; printed 1879]; Kodō kunmōshō 古道訓蒙頌 [Kubo Sueshige, 1858]; Keiko mōryaku 稽古要略 [Midorigawa Yoshihisa 碧川好尚 (1807–?), 1856]; Kada-shi 荷田氏 Sōgakkōkei 創学校啓 [Kada no Azumamaro, 1728]; Kōten buni 皇典文彙 [Hirata Atsutane, 1837]; Hōken taiki 保建大記 [Kuriyama Senpō 栗山濳鋒 (1671– 1706), 1716]; Chūkō gangen 中興鑑言 [Miyake Kanran 三宅觀瀾 (1674–1718), 1784]; Kōchō shiryaku 皇朝史略 [Aoyama Nobuyuki 青山延于 (1776–1843), 1823]; Rongo [Chin. Lúnyǔ] 論語 [the Confucian ‘Analects’]; Daigaku [Chin. Dàxúe] 大学 [the ‘Great Learning’]; Chūyō [Chin. Zhongyong] 中庸 [the ‘Doctrine of the Mean’]; Shokyō [Chin. Shujing] 書経 [the ‘Scripture of Documents’]; Eki[kyō] [Chin. Yìjing] 易[経] [the ‘Book of Change’]; Kōkyō [chin. Xìaojing] 孝経 [the ‘Book of Filial Piety’]. In addition to these works, there are a variety of possibilities, which are: Sacred scriptures (shinten 神典): For the beginner classes (katō 下等): Kōten buni 皇典文彙 [Hirata Atsutane, 1837]; Kogaku nisenmon 古学二千文 [Ikuta Yorozu 生田万 (1801–1837), printed 1849]; Tamaboko hyakushu 玉鉾百 首 [Motoori Norinaga, 1787]; Kodō kunmōshō 古道訓蒙頌 [Kubo Sueshige, 1858]; Iken fūji 意見封事; Kodō taii 古道大意 [Hirata Atsutane, 1824]; Jindai seiro 神代正路; Tama kushige 玉久志計 [Motoori Norinaga, 1787–89]; Gyojū gaigen 馭戎慨言 [Motoori Norinaga, 1796]; Sōen wagen 草偃和言 [Aizawa Seishisai, 1852]. For the intermediate classes (chūtō 中等): Kojiki 古事記; Jindai-ki 神代紀; Norito-shiki 祝詞式; Ryōgū gishikijo 両宮儀式 帳 [= Kōtaijingu gishikijo 皇太神宮儀式帳 (Ōnakatomi Masatsugu 大中臣真

88

chapter three 継, 804) and Toyouke daijingū gishikijo 豊受大神宮儀式帳 (Watarai Satsu­ki­ maro 度会五月麿)]; [Shinsen] seishiroku [新撰]姓氏録; Wamyō ruijusho 倭 名類聚抄; Kogoshūi 古語拾遺; Kōchō shiryaku 皇朝史略 [Aoyama Nobuyuki, 1823]; Soku Kōchō shiryaku 続皇朝史略 [Aoyama Nobuyuki, 1826].

(All of the above works should be studied together.) Norito kō 祝詞考 [Kamo no Mabuchi, 1768]; Koshi[chō] kaidaiki 古史[徴] 開題記 [Hirata Atsutane, 1819]; Daitōka 大統歌 [Shionoya Tōin 塩谷宕陰 (1809–1867), 1859]; Tama no mihashira 霊真柱 [Hirata Atsutane, 1813]; Tamadasuki 玉襷 [Hirata Atsutane, 1832]; Shinron 新論 [Aizawa Seishisai, 1825]; Kinsho 今書 [Gamō Kunpei]; Gakushō ruigoshō 楽章類語抄 [Oyamada Tomokiyo]; Ōharae kotoba goshaku 大祓詞後釈 [Motoori Norinaga, 1795]; Kōninreki unkikō 弘仁暦運記考 [Hirata Atsutane, 1836]; Semi no ogawa 瀬見 小川 [Ban Nobutomo, 1821]; Kokushi jingishū 国史神祗集 [Umezono Koretomo 梅園惟朝, late seventeenth century]. For the advanced classes (jōtō 上等): Nihongi 日本紀; Shaku-Nihongi 釈日本紀; Man’yōshū 万葉集; Ruijū kokushi 類聚国史 [Sugawara no Michizane]; [Sankō] Atsuta [daijin] engi [参考]熱田 [大神]縁起 [Itō Nobutami 伊藤信民, 1769]: [Engi] jingishiki [延喜]神祗式; [Ruijū] Sandaikyaku [類聚]三代格; Ryō no gige 令義解; Saikyūki 西宮記 [Minamoto no Takaakira 源高明 (914–983)]; Gōke tsudai 江家次第 [Ōe Masafusa 大江匡房 (1041–1111)]; Ōyashima-ki 大八洲記 [Kamo no Sukeyuki 鴨祐之 (1660–1724), 1723]; all the Fudoki 風土記 [= ancient topographies of Izumo, Harima, Hitachi, Bungo, Hizen and the fragments of others]; [Ruijū] jingi hongen [類聚]神祗本源 [Watarai Ieyuki 度会家行 (1256–1351), 1320]; Honchō monzui 本朝文粋 [Fujiwara Akihira 藤原明衡 (989–1066), ca. 1040]; Honchō gatsuryō 本朝月令 [Ichijō Kaneyoshi 一条兼良 (1402–1481), 1469]; Nenjūgyōji hishō 年中行事秘抄 [1334]; Kojiki-den 古事記伝 [Motoori Norinaga, 1798]; Koshi seibun 古史成文 [Hirata Atsutane, 1823]; Koshi-chō 古史徴 [Hirata Atsutane, 1819]; Koshi-den 古史伝 [Hirata Atsutane, 1825]; Gishiki chōkai 儀式長解 [= Naikū gishiki-chō geshō 内宮儀式帳解抄 ?]; [Nihon]shoki-tsūshō [日本]書紀通証 [Tanikawa Kotosuga 谷川士清 (1709– 1776), 1762]; all sorts of genealogies following the [Honchō kōin] jōunroku [本 朝皇胤]紹運録 [Tōin Mitsusue 洞院満季 (1390–?), 1426]; all sorts of provincial topographies following the Gokinai-shi 五畿内志 [Seki Sokō 関祖衡, 1735–36; finally edited and published after Seki’s death by his friend Namikawa Seisho 並河誠所 (1668–1738), this work is also called Nihon yochi tsūshi 日本輿地通志 and contains accounts of the ‘five home provinces’ around the capital Kyoto: Izumi-shi 和泉志, Yamato-shi 大和志, Sattsu-shi 摂津志, Yamashiro-shi 山城志 and Kawachi-shi 河内志]; the various works of the three masters Agatai 県居 [= Kamo no Mabuchi], Suzu-no-ya 鈴屋 [= Motoori Norinaga] and Ibuki-no-ya 気吹舎 [= Hirata Atsutane]. Historical [works] (rekishi 歴史):m For the beginner classes: Jinnō shōtōki 神皇正統記 [Kitabatake Chikafusa 北畠親房 (1293–1354), 1339]; Kokushi-ryaku 国史略 [Iwagaki Matsunae 岩垣松苗 (1774–1850),



kokugaku scholars and higher education89 1826]; San-kagami 三鏡 [= Ōkagami 大鏡, Mizu-kagami 水鏡, Masu-kagami 増鏡]; Hōken daiki 保建大記 [Kuriyama Senpō, 1689]; Washi kōhen 和[=倭] 史後編 [Kuriyama Senpō, around 1700]; [Kōchō seiyō] chūkō kengen [皇朝政 要]中興鑑言 [Miyake Kanran]; Seiseki gairon 西籍慨論 [Hirata Atsutane, 1811]; Tokushi yōron 読史余論 [Arai Hakuseki 新井白石 (1657–1725), 1712]; Jūhasshi-ryaku [Chin. Shíbashî lüè) 十八史略 [Zeng Xianzhi 曾先之 and Chén Yin 陳殷, ca. 1320]; Gentsuki shiryaku 元月史略; Sanchō jitsuroku 三朝 実録 [= the Chinese work Shin sanchō jitsuroku (Chin. Quing sancháo shílù câiyào) 清三朝実録採要, a history of the first three Quing dynasty Emperors that comprises the books Quing Tài Zû-Gao[= Wû] húangdì shílù câiyào 清太 祖高[=武]皇帝實録採要, Quing Tài Zong-Wén húangdì shílù câiyào 清太宗文 皇帝實録採要 and Quing Shì Zû-Zhang húangdì shílù câiyào 清世祖章皇帝 實録採要]. For the intermediate classes: Rikkokushi 六国史 [= Nihonshoki; Shoku Nihongi 続日本紀; Nihon goki 日本 後紀; Shoku Nihon goki 続日本後紀; Nihon Montoku-tennō jitsuroku 日本文 徳天皇実録; Nihon sandai jitsuroku 日本三代実録]; Ruijū kokushi 類聚国史 [Sugawara no Michizane]; Nihon-kiryaku 日本紀略 [early twelfth century]; Fusō-ryakki 扶桑略記 [Kōen 皇円 (?–1169)]; Hyakurenshō 百練抄 [late thirteenth century]; Tsūron 通論; Eiga-monogatari 栄華物語; Shoku-yotsugi 続世継 [= Ima-kagami 今鏡, 1170]; Hōgen-monogatari 保元物語; Heijimonogatari 平治物語; Genpei jōsuiki 源平盛衰記; Azuma-kagami 東鑑; Heike-monogatari 平家物語; Jōkyū-ki 承久記; Taiheiki 大平記; Ike no mogusa 池藻屑 [Arakita Rei 荒木田麗 (1732–1806), 1771]; Shiki [Chin. Shîjî] 史記 [Simâ Qian 司馬遷 (ca. 135–87), 91 bc]; Kanjo [Chin. Hànshu] 漢書 [Ban Gù 班固 (32–92), 82; this work contains the earliest description of the Japanese islands, its people and its political structure]. In addition, the Nanbokushi-yakushi 南北史訳史 and the Nijūni-shi sakki [Chin. Nìanèr-shî zhájî] 廿二史箚記 [Zhào Yì 趙翼 (1727–1814)] should also be perused. For the advanced classes: Dai-Nihon-shi 大日本史 [1657–(1906)]; Shikan-ki 史官記 [= Honchō seiki 本朝世紀; Fujiwara no Michinori 藤原通憲 (1106–1160), 1159]; Nihon gaishi 日本外史 [Rai San’yō 頼山陽 (1780–1832), 1827]; Nihon isshi 日本逸史 [Kamo no Sukeyuki 鴨祐之 (1660–1724), 1692]; Kokushi senron 国史纂論 [Yamagata Taika 山県太華 (1781–1866), 1846]; Shichō 史徴 [Matsuzaki Rankoku 松崎蘭谷 (1674–1735)]; Shōyūki 小右記 [Fujiwara no Sunesuke 藤 原実資 (957–1046), 1032]; Chūyūki 中右記 [Fujiwara no Munetada 藤原宗忠 (962–1041), 1038]; Hinami-ki 日次記 [Nijō Yoshimoto 二条良基 (1320–1388); there are also other books with this title, since hinami-ki is a generic name for Chinese-style diaries]; Shiji tsugan [Chin. Zizhì tongjîan] 資治通鑑 [Simâ Guang 司馬光 (1019–1086), 1084]; Shiji tsugan kōmoku [Chin. Zizhì tongjîan gangmù] 資治通鑑綱目 [Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200) and Zhào Shi-Yuan 趙師淵 (ca. 1150–1210)]; Sōgen tsugan [Chin. Sòngyúan tongjîan] 宋元通鑑 [Xue Yìng-Qí 薛應旂 (1535–?)]; Meiki kōmoku 明記綱目; Tōkaroku [Chin. Donghualù] 東華録 [Jîang Líang-Qí 蔣良騏 (1723–1789)]; Kōkan ichiroku

90

chapter three [Chin. Gangjîan yìzhilù] 綱鑑易知録 [Wú Chû-Cái 呉楚材]; Tōjo [Chin. Tángshu] 唐書 [= Ku-Tōjo 旧唐書, 945; Shin-Tōjo 新唐書, Ouyáng Xiu 欧陽修 (1007–1072), 1060]. In addition, the Minshi [Chin. Míngshî] 明史 [Zhang Tíng-Yù 張廷玉 (1672– 1755), 1739] and the Hakka-shū 八家集 [= a 1834 collection of the eight Chinese works Dongmíng wénjiànlù 東明聞見録, Yùeyóu jiànwén 粤游見聞 (both by Qú Gòng-Mêi 瞿共美), Jiadìng túchéng jìlyùe 嘉定屠城紀略, Sèwáng hézhùan 四王合傳 (both by Qùe Míng 闕名), Xíngzài yángqiu 行在陽秋 (Líu Xiang-Kè 劉湘客), Yêshìlù 也是録 (Dèng Kâi 鄧凱), Qíuyêlù 求野録 (Kèxi Qíaoyîn 客溪樵隱) and Yángzhou shírìjì 揚州十日記 (Wáng Xìu-Chû 王秀楚)], as well as the historical knowledge of China and of the various Western countries should be widely and fervently read as far as is possible. Now, [we] spare [ourselves] from deeper complication and do not specially record them here.

From this long list we can see that the major Confucian classics were required for the primary studies. Also several Chinese historical works as well as books by strongly Confucian-inclined Mito scholars were taught in the upper classes. However, the vast majority of texts used both for basic reading and for more advanced classes were taken from a broad range of national classics and the works of leading kokugaku scholars. Many of these authors were contemporary kokugaku advocates and some, as for example Kubo Sueshige, later became members of the scholarly societies that will be introduced below. The crucial historical significance of this list thus lies in the integral role played by kokugaku and imperial studies in the unification of scholarship in early Meiji. For the Hirata kokugaku school, this meant the original studies, or hongaku, and the original teachings, or honkyō. From the beginning, the basic pillars of the government’s project of national construction were the religious-moral edification and academic education of the entire populace. While Chinese and Western scholarship was assigned a minor role and appeared in official declarations as ancillary knowledge—‘both assist the imperial way’ (Ōkubo 1987: 88; Yamamoto/ Watanabe 1939: 157)—the major educational content consisted of imperial studies. Hence, in addition to the religious and moral sector dominated by the Jingikan and Kyōbushō, scholarly education opened up another stage for kokugaku activities in this period.  The Closing of the Kyoto Institutes When the capital was transfered from Kyoto to Tokyo in 1869, the centre of education was also moved to the former centre of the Tokugawa shogunate. In light of transformations to the academic institutions in Tokyo due to the government’s relocation, which will be described in the next



kokugaku scholars and higher education91

section, the need was soon felt to change the earlier established educational structures entirely. Consequently, on 6 October, 1869, the imperial government staying in Tokyo castle informed the rusu no tsukasa 留守官 or absence caretaker4 in Kyoto, in a five-items notice, that due to the recent founding of a unified College of Higher Learning in the new capital, the Kōgakujo and Kangakujo were to be abolished (Ōkubo (1987: 149). The two rival schools in Kyoto thus had to close their gates less than a year after they had been founded. Nevertheless, while the Institute of Imperial Studies was, for the time being, closed, it had played a significant role as an initial stepping stone in the concerted—if not always perfectly coordinated—Meiji movement to create a unified ‘national’ togetherness by means of broad popular education. 3.2. Success and Conflicts at the Early Academic Institutions in Tokyo In August 1868, soon after the Meiji Restoration, Edo was renamed Tokyo. Nonetheless, Kyoto remained the official capital of Japan until 1869, when the emperor moved his entire court to the new ‘Eastern Capital’. At the same time as the Institute for Imperial Studies had been established in Kyoto, the former ‘three seats of learning’ of the late Tokugawa period had been revived in Tokyo: the Igakujo 医学所 was restored under the name I-gakkō 医学校 or Medical College on 14 August 1868; the former Shōheikō as Shōhei-gakkō 昌平学校 or Shōhei College on 17 August; and finally the Kaiseijo 開成所 was revived as Kaisei-gakkō 開成学校 or College for Western Sciences on 27 October. The Igakujo was originally a school for Western medicine run by the shogunate in Edo. It stemmed from Japan’s first Institute for Vaccinations, the Shutōjo 種痘所, which opened in 1849 in Nagasaki and later had branches all over the country. One of these branches was opened in Edo in 1858 by means of donations from more than eighty doctors trained in Western medicine. Most had received training in Nagasaki at the academy of the German physician Philipp Franz von Siebold. In 1860, the shogunate

4 The absence caretaker was an ancient office mentioned for the first time in the year 658 under Emperor Saimei 斉明 (Aston 1993, II: 255). This official was in charge of jurisdiction and safety in the capital when the emperor was absent on a visiting tour, or when the capital was being transferred.

92

chapter three

took direct control of this institute, and a year later renamed it Seiyōigakujo 西洋医学所. In 1863 the name was shortened to Igakujo. The Shōheikō was an academic institution originally founded by the Confucian scholar Hayashi Razan 林羅山 (1583–1657). Its name refers to the alleged birthplace of Confucius, Changpíng 昌平 (Jap. Shōhei), today a village incorporated into the city of Qufù 曲阜 in Shandong Province. In 1797, the Shōheikō came under direct shogunal control and was used for the education of administrative elites. The Kaiseijo was a late Edo-period shogunate institute of Western learning. Originally it was the Institute for the Investigation of Foreign Books, the Bansho shirabejo 蕃書調所, which was founded in 1856. In 1862, this Institute was renamed Yōsho shirabejo 洋書調所 and a year later, Kaiseijo. In addition to language training in Dutch, English, French, German and Russian, scholars at the Institute also conducted research and did some teaching in other fields, as for instance astronomy, geography, mathematics, instruments and appliances, agricultural products and commodities, the refining of metals, perspective drawing, and the art of movable-type printing. After the philosopher Nishi Amane 西周 (1829– 1897) and the above-mentioned legal scholar Tsuda Mamichi returned from their studies in Europe, they advanced the study of cultural and social sciences at the Institute. Based on their respective focuses, the purpose of reopening these three shogunal schools was to educate people who were competent for the new era. Their revival clearly pointed to the eventual founding of a unified university—a plan already proposed in the Gakusha-sei of Yano Harumichi, Tamamatsu Misao and Hirata Kanetane, where it was recommended that a single school of higher learning called Daigakkō be established. In early 1869—along with the enforced ‘return of the land and people’ from the feudal lords to the emperor and the policy of unifying the ‘two centres of power’ in the east and west by completely transferring all public institutions to the new capital Tokyo—the Great Council of State decided that a single College of Higher Learning should be created. Thus, on 23 July 1869, the Shōhei-gakkō was reorganized and renamed Daigakkō, which functioned as an umbrella institution for three sub-branches, which were the Kaisei-gakkō, I-gakkō and the new Hei-gakkō 兵学校 or Military Academy (MTK 2: 139). With the creation of this unified college in Tokyo, we see the first appearance in Japan of something in the style of a modern university. However, although the three sub-branches of the College of Higher Learning taught Western learning, which had practical applications, it is nevertheless unclear to what degree this combination of various



kokugaku scholars and higher education93

fields at one institution—which actually continued their former path under new names—can already be considered a modern prototype.  The New College’s Regulations The Tokyo College of Higher Learning inherited and systematized the attitude that had been found in the regulations of the Institute of Imperial Studies in Kyoto, which in the meantime had been closed. The new regulations reveal the government’s aim, in this period, of nation building, and here too, the principle of imperial centredness is quite evident. However, although the regulations clearly express the superiority of the ‘imperial way’, assisted by Chinese and Western learning, the real nature of this ‘way’—maybe quite intentionally—remains ambiguous. Embodiment of the way is absent without matter and non-existent without time. Its grandness has no external or its minuteness an internal. That is, the natural reason of heaven and earth provides a place for the people. Its essence is based on the three human relations and five cardinal virtues; its matter is based on administrative and penal institutions as well as on moral edification and transformation. […] The vital point of the sacred scriptures and national classics lies in venerating the imperial way and discerning the national polity (kokutai), which should be the most important task of the Empire’s purposed scholars. China’s teaching of ‘the moral way of filial piety and brotherly love’ as well as ‘the way of governing the country to keep the world at peace’ assist the imperial way. Furthermore, the Western scholarship of ‘researching things to penetrate the highest principle’ and the skill of daily revision of former bad habits should be properly researched and adopted at the school as a place where this [imperial] way exists. (Ōkubo 1987: 213)

Despite mentioning Japan’s sacred scriptures and its kokutai, the tone of this introductory first section is basically Confucian. It refers to the three fundamental bonds in human relations of lord–vassal, father–son and husband–wife, and invokes the five cardinal virtues of justice, politeness, wisdom, fidelity and benevolence. The ‘administrative and penal institutions’ and ‘moral education’ which are mentioned are the two wings of Confucian governance. Moreover, the Chinese teachings on ‘the moral way’ and ‘the way of governing’ are sentences quoted from Confucius’ Dàxúe 大学, his ‘Great Learning’, which was originally part of his ‘Book of Rites’ Lîji 礼記. Even the concept of the ‘investigation of things and exhaustion of principle’ alluded to when describing the Western scholarship is in fact taken from the Neo-Confucian Shushigaku school, where this was seen as a way to perfect the self. Thus, the concept of the ‘imperial way’

94

chapter three

was an amalgamation of various ideas, and was not restricted to mere Shintoistic views. To prepare for the opening of the new college, on 14 March 1869 Tamamatsu Misao and Hirata Kanetane were ordered to Tokyo to undertake some preliminary investigations of the school system. Although their kokugaku ideals were implemented judiciously, these ideals can nevertheless be clearly sensed throughout the College’s regulations. For instance, the first specific item states that ‘discerning national polity based on the sacred scriptures (of Shinto) and national classics, while simultaneously elucidating the Chinese classics, is pivotal to accomplishing practical learning and utility’ (Ōkubo 1987: 204, 213). Nonetheless, it is significant that Chinese studies now seem to stand side by side with imperial studies in the task of carving the national spirit and imperial way. Indeed, it seems that one aim in establishing the new College was to overcome the antagonistic scholarly traditions of ‘imperial’ Kyoto and ‘Confucian’ Edo by combining them at a single institution, i.e. a true universitas. However, the anticipated harmony between the two educational systems and their respective strivings for modernization turned out to be short-lived. It is quite noteworthy that in the course of this educational consolidation and the Shōhei-gakkō’s transformation into the Daigakkō, the former Confucian sanctuary or seidō 聖堂 was closed. This stirred already existing animosity and preluded its later intensification. Headed by restoration kokugaku or national imperial studies, backed by kangaku or Confucian studies, formerly state supported, and appended by future prospects in the form of yōgaku or practical Western studies, this unified three-legged College of Higher Learning represented a rather explosive mixture of traditional and modern ideas and ideologies.  The College’s Teaching Staff The teaching staff of the college, too, was a combination of key people brought from the two now-abolished institutes in Kyoto, the Kokugakujo and Kangakujo. In addition, staff were also recruited from the three earlier institutions in Tokyo and among leading private scholars. Takahashi Katsuhiro 高橋勝弘 (?–1917), a Daigakkō student, was a statistics officer for more than forty years at the Cabinet’s Statistics Bureau Naikaku tōkeikyoku 内閣統計局. In 1912, he published his memoir Shōhei ikyō 昌平遺響 or ‘Reverberations of the Shōhei [School]’, which gives a list of twenty-one officials and fifty-five instructors working at the college. While the most senior positions were occupied by Hirata-school scholars, quite a number were of non-Hirata background (Sakamoto 1993: 15–16).



kokugaku scholars and higher education95

Leading national-learning scholars were again prominently represented in various functions and positions. On the administrative side, Fukuba Bisei and Maruyama Sakura were supervising government officials, while Miwada Mototsuna 三輪田元綱 (1828–1878) and Toyooka Zuishi 豊岡随資 (1814–1886) were appointed as junior inspectors (shō-jō). On the academic side, Hirata Kanetane was appointed as the College’s senior expert (dai-hakase). Yano Harumichi, Tamamatsu Misao, Gonda Naosuke, Tanimori Yoshiomi and Kariya Ekisai’s leading disciple Okamoto Yasukata 岡本保孝 (1797–1878) were all employed as middle experts (chūhakase). Another middle expert was Kawada Ōkō 川田甕江 (1830–1896), who despite being a Confucianist had strong connections to Shinto and kokugaku circles and later was one of the fifty leading members of Ōyashima-gakkai. Yamada Aritoshi, Nishikawa Yoshisuke, and Kimura Masakoto were all junior experts (shō-hakase). Inō Hidenori and Kubo Sueshige were employed as senior assistant instructors (dai-jokyō 大助教). Kokugaku scholars who worked as middle assistant instructors (chū-jokyō) at the College were Inoue Yorikuni, Konakamura Kiyonori, Kurokawa Mayori, Sakakibara Yoshino, Godaiin Mihashira, Shimizu Hamaomi’s disciple Inoue Yoshikage 井上淑蔭 (1804–1886), Yokoyama Yoshikiyo, Sawatari Hiromori and Usuki Akifusa 臼杵秋房 (1813–1869), who was a disciple of Motoori Norinaga’s collaborator Nagase Masaki 長瀬真幸 (1765–1835). Employed as junior assistant instructors (shō-jokyō) were Suzuki Masayuki, Hanawa Tadatsugu 塙忠韶 (1832–1918), Ino Chūkō 猪野中行 (?–1888), Koike Sadakage 小池貞景 (1810–1879) and Ōhata Harukuni 大畑春国 (1818–1875). Aoki Sachimi 青木幸躬 (1834–1908) was employed as a senior teaching assistant (dai-tokugōshō 大得業生). Kanda Yasutane and Hirata Kanetane’s disciple Ogawa Nagaaki 小川長秋 (1840–1884) were middle teaching assistants (chū-tokugōshō). And finally, employed as a junior teaching assistant (shō-tokugōshō) was Wada Shigeo 和田重雄, who had studied under the kokugaku scholars Okabe Haruhira 岡部東平 (1794– 1854) and Hirata Kanetane (Ōkubo 1987: 222–224; Ueno 1939: 380; KDS 2: 1520–1533, 1545–1546; 3: 587, 589; KDNBK 1990: 127, 218, 326, 561, 786). Not counting the aside Confucianists, the scholars of Western studies, and those who could not definitely be identified,5 still nearly fifty per cent

5 The people whose scholarly affiliation could not be identified are: Asano Shigenori 浅 野重成, Fujita Toshikatsu 藤田利勝, Higaki Sadaoki 檜垣貞興, Hirayama Yoshizō 平山 義蔵, Hoshino Junhei 星野寿平, Ishimaru Shisō 石丸師曹, Okada Tadanari 岡田忠成, Ōno Naomasa 大野尚誠, Sawatari Hirotaka 沢渡広孝, Soeda Takashi 副田節, Tanaka Nobumasa 田中信雅, Tanaka Sadaaki 田中定秋, Tomi Satake 臣佐武, and Usami Norimasa 宇佐見則正.

96

chapter three

of the college’s personnel mentioned in Takahashi Katsuhiro’s memoirs, belonged to the kokugaku faction. Assuming the possibility, albeit unlikely, that all unidentifiable people were also national-learning scholars, this ratio would even rise to sixty-three per cent. Noteworthy in this respect is the significant number of private and ‘grass-root’ kokugaku scholars who joined forces at this institution. Of the new actors entering the educational stage at this point, many later became leading figures in the academic world and figured among the fifty main members of Ōyashima-gakkai. 3.3. The Gakushinsai, Increasing Antagonism and the Closing of the First University On 18 January 1870, the College of Higher Learning Daigakkō was renamed Daigaku 大学, but it was commonly called Daigaku honkō 大学本校, or university ‘main school’. However, shortely thereafter, in August 1870, the Daigaku was closed due to a number of reasons that will be described below. But despite its relatively short existence of only about a year, during this transformative time, Tokyo’s early university played a major role as mediator between late Edo and Meiji kokugaku and was a breeding ground for later national literature circles. Despite its anticipated scholarly harmony, from the beginning this early university, with its strong emphasis on kokugaku, was highly criticized by the kangaku faction. Kokugaku scholars were not only dominant in the administrative and teaching staff, also the Confucian sanctuary for conducting rituals related to learning had been eliminated during the reorganization from Shōhei-gakkō to Daigakkō. Due to the anti-Confucian standpoint of kokugaku, an indigenous ‘deity of learning’ ideology had formed over the years, and now, in the midst of the competitive spirit over which path the new educational institution should take, a new ceremony for the deity of learning, the gakushinsai 学神祭, was established and performed. It replaced the traditional Confucian ceremony, sekiten 釈奠. In ancient China, sekiten (Chin. shì diàn) was a general term used for festivals honouring the ancient sages and one’s deceased teachers. After the Later Han period (25–220), it received the special meaning of a state ceremony worshiping Confucius. This festival was introduced in Japan on 27 March 701 (Taihō 1/2/14), a day with the cyclical sign hinoto-mi 丁巳. Since that time, at educational institutions it had been held each year on



kokugaku scholars and higher education97

the first ‘hinoto’ day of the second and eighth months. This tradition was discontinued in the Muromachi period, but later restored by the Edo shogunate and various domains (Morohashi 1984–86, 11: char. 40129–64; Toshihiko 1988; Nakano 1935). Based on an order by the Grand Council of State, on 7 September 1869 a ceremony was held in preparation of the College’s opening three days later. As mentioned above, the imperial ancestors and various deities of heaven and earth had already been enshrined at the Institute of Imperial Studies in Kyoto. Two of them—Omoikane no kami 思兼神 as the main deity of learning, together with his vice-deity, Kuebiko no kami 久延比 古神—were now even more specifically worshipped as the new official deities of learning. Omoikane, who, according to the Kojiki, was a son of Taka-mimusubi no kami, is considered a deity who is endowed with the ability to ‘think simultaneously’ about various things. A deity of wisdom and good counsel, it was he who considered various measures to lure the sun-goddess Amaterasu out of the heavenly rock cave where she was hiding. Sent down from heaven as an additional escort for the ‘Heavenly Grandson’ Ninigi no mikoto and entrusted with the enshrining of the mirror that served as Amaterasu’s spiritual vessel, he is now enshrined at the inner shrine of Ise as an aidono 合殿, an auxiliary deity, to Amaterasu. The deity Kuebiko also possesses a broad knowledge of the things in the world, but he is incapable of walking and thus is usually identified with a scarecrow. Motoori Norinaga, in his Kojiki-den, interprets his name as ‘crumbling’, which is connected to his shabby appearance after being exposed to the elements in the field so long. According to the Kojiki, Kuebiko, in his omniscience, was the only one who could reveal the identity of Sukuna bikona to Ōkuni-nushi when the former arrived at Cape Miho in Izumo. Especially in Hirata kokugaku, Kuebiko is venerated as a deity of wisdom and thus of learning (KDNBK 1999: 58–59, 60–61; KRMH 2004: 54). For the purpose of this new gakushinsai, the spirit of both deities was transferred the previous day from the Jingikan. During the ceremony, norito ritual prayers were recited by Akizuki Tanetatsu 秋月種樹 (1833– 1904) and an imperial edict was read out loud by the imperial messenger Aya-no-kōji Takamasa 綾小路俊賢 (1824–?). When the Daigakkō commenced its operations on 10 September 1869, it was quite significant for emphasizing the kokugaku scholars’ prestige that Hirata Kanetane held the inaugural lecture, choosing as his subject the ancient imperial edicts called senmyō (MTK 2: 166; Okubo 1987: 219–221).

98

chapter three  A New Ceremony for the Deity of Learning

The concept of a deity of learning had long existed in kokugaku circles, but only now, as a response to their many new opportunities in early Meiji, was this idea shifted from an intellectual-religious discourse to a concrete political and administrative issue. Although the gakushinsai was only performed once, it symbolized Meiji kokugaku’s claim of exalting all things Japanese in all areas of society. And indeed, as they saw it, at a Japanese educational institute, the patrons of learning should be indigenous deities. The ceremony was held on 7 September 1869, beginning at around eight o’clock in the morning. The imperial messenger Aya-no-kōji took part in the rites, as did the Jingikan’s vice-minister Fukuba Bisei. The senior educational deputy Sengoku Masakata 仙石政固 (1844–1917), who attended the ceremony, wrote about the events in his diary. Among others, he mentions the participation of the kokugaku scholars Nishikawa Yoshisuke, Toyooka Zuishi, Miwada Mototsuna and Yamada Awanosuke 山田阿波介 (Okubo 1987: 367). It has not been possible to clearly identify the last. While the kokugaku scholar Yamada Mochifumi who also used the name Awanosuke, died in 1835 and thus could not have participated in the gakushinsai in 1869 (KDS 2: 999). It is probable that Sengoku miswrote this participant’s name in his diary and that he is actually referring to Mochifumi’s son, Yamada Aritoshi. Another account of the gakushinsai is found in the memoirs of the above-mentioned Takahashi Katsuhiro, Shōhei ikyō, written in 1912. Having been one of the attending students, he describes the ritual performance as follows: The Shōhei-daigaku originally was established by the old feudal government mainly for the pursuit of Chinese (Confucian) knowledge and also after the Restoration, it at first had that same objective. Before long, however, due to the restoration of the momentum of imperial rule, people from the faction called kokugaku (national learning) or also kōgaku (imperial studies) entered that school and were among its teachers. Hirata Kanetane and the Shinto priest of Sōshū-Ōyama 相州大山, Gonda Naosuke, and many others became professors, while Sakakibara Yoshino and Kurokawa Mayori and others became assistant instructors. Due to this faction’s energetic and tremendous boom, at last imperial studies were taken as the basis. Designating an auxiliary status to Chinese studies was made explicit in the school regulations of the kōgo 庚午 year [1870]. The sacred image [a statue of Confucius] in the Confucian sanctuary (taiseiden 大成殿) was draped in spider webs, left unattended and [instead] the deity of learning had to be worshipped. Therefore, on 10 August 1869 this ceremony was conducted, Yagokoro Omoikane no kami was worshipped in the newly constructed great lecture hall, and Lord



kokugaku scholars and higher education99 Aya-no-kōji took part as imperial messenger dispatched from the imperial court. Incidentally, Professor Hirata [Kanetane], with waving white hair, wore a traditional ceremonial [court and Shinto] outfit (ikan 衣冠) and very joyfully awaited [the ceremony]. The educational officials all wore longsleeved clothing of blue silk, and those of deputy rank or above also were in solemn attire. When the offerings, piled on three trays, were sacrificed, all covered their mouths with white paper and it looked quite bizarre, as on that occasion they slid on their knees to deliver them. A coarse straw mat was spread out in front of the deity of learning, above which a sacred taboorope was stretched. In that way, also the ancient Chinese [Confucian] school (kangakkō 漢学校) suddenly turned into a shrine office (shamusho 社務所). (Okubo 1987: 368)

Although Takahashi made some minor mistakes when writing this memoir more than forty years later—the ceremony for instance was not held in August but in September 1869, and Gonda Naosuke became the chief priest of Oyama-afuri-jinja 大山阿夫利神社 in Sagami Province, today’s Kanagawa Prefecture, only in 1873 after the school had already been closed—this is an important and impressive detailed account of this Shinto-style ceremony. A similar ceremony for Omoikane no kami and Kuebiko as the new deities of learning was held at the Jingikan about a month later, on 14 October, during which the norito prayers were recited by the emperor’s maternal grandfather, Nakayama Tadayasu (MTK 2: 189). This is still another example of the striving for a unification of religious ritual and educational politics in the early Meiji period.  Parallel Trends at Domain Schools Parallel to the events at the central institute in the capital of Tokyo, similar trends towards national learning and imperial studies can be observed in domain schools all over the country. Throughout the Edo period, following popular elementary education at temple schools, higher education traditionally involved, for the most part, Chinese–Confucian studies taught either at private academies or the official domain schools. While such domain schools werer originally set up exclusively for the domain’s retainers, during the 1850s and 1860s some were also opened for commoners. But more significant than this diversification of students was the fact that during the closing days of the Edo period and in early Meiji, several domains switched to kokugaku-based imperial learning. As mentioned in the Introduction, Edo-period national learning was by no means a homogeneous, unified entity. At different domain schools

100

chapter three

different names were applied. In earlier times, the term wagaku (Japanese studies) was usually used, although sometimes the term kokugaku (national studies) was applied. In the late-Edo period as also the Meiji period, however, the term kōgaku (imperial studies) was favoured. Nevertheless, although the actual name might have differed, for the vast majority of schools the contents of study seem to have been rather similar. In some domains the study of kokugaku themes had already been conducted since the early acceptance of the concept in the mideighteenth century. One such early example is Meirin-kan 明倫館, the Date-clan school of Iyo Domain in today’s Ehime Prefecture, home to Hirata Kanetane and Yano Harumichi. Upon its establishment in 1748, not only was Confucianism taught, but also kokugaku. The school Yōrōkan 養 老館 in the Mutsu region’s Moriyama 守山 Domain, an offshoot of Mito Domain, started to teach wagaku in the 1750s. Wagaku was also taught at Kagoshima Domain’s Zōdokan 造土館 from 1773. In 1777, the Saeki 佐伯 Domain school Shikyōdō 四教堂 in today’s Ōita Prefecture adopted kokugaku. And a well-documented example for the relation of domain schools and koku­gaku in the late Edo and early Meiji periods is the influence of the national-learning scholar Yoshioka Nobuyuki 吉岡信之 (1813– 1874) at the Odawara Domain school in today’s Kanagawa Prefecture (Minami 1992: 74–108). At some domain schools there were separate courses on these various related subjects. Nisshinkan 日新館 for instance, the Matsudaira-clan school of Aizu 会津 Domain in today’s Fukushima Prefecture originally established in 1678, set up three parallel courses in 1788 that show some conceptual distinctions in the early modern roots of what later developed into the Meiji-period national learning. The names and topics of these three courses were: ‘Japanese studies’ (wagaku), which exclusively involved composing poetry in the Nijō-family style; ‘imperial studies’ (kōgaku), which was taught at meetings every afternoon and used as its primary texts the Ryō no gige, [Tō]ritsu sogi [唐]律疎義, [Ruijū] Sandaikyaku [類聚]三代格 and Engishiki, as the lower level texts the six imperial histories Rikkokushi, and the upper level comprising the composition of stylistic prose and poetry; and ‘Shinto’, which in the style of the Urabe 卜部 (= Yoshida) family, meeting every morning, used the textbooks Nakatomi harae 中臣祓 and the Jindai-maki 神代巻 section of the Nihonshoki, as well as the Kojiki and Kujiki 旧事紀 as works of reverence (Minami 1992: 76). This type of strict separation, however, was not common. Corresponding to the general trend of kokugaku concepts spreading throughout the



kokugaku scholars and higher education101

populace, during the 1850s and 1860s more and more schools offered such training, either as a compulsory subject in their regular course of study, or as an optional subject in elective courses. This trend can be seen clearly in the table below, which shows the establishment of kokugaku training, either as a compulsory or an optional subject of study, at 143 domain schools from the early eighteenth century until the abolishing of the domains in 1872: Time period 1711–1751 1751–1781 1781–1804 1804–1844 1844–1868 1868–1871 Total

As regular course As elective course —      1   2      1   9      1  21  11  31     3  21   42 84   59

Total     1    3   10   32   34   63 143

Several schools in the early Meiji period essentially followed the model set by the College of Higher Learning in Tokyo (Okubo 1987: 370–371). For instance, in 1816, a school was established in Komono 菰野 Domain in Ise, today’s Mie Prefecture. In 1869, this school, which had been until then a Confucian institute, was renamed Kendōkan 顕道館. The first character of this new name reveals Kendōkan’s link to the kokugaku and, in particular, Hirata school concept of contrasting matters of the visible and present world (the genkai 顕界) and those pertaining to the concealed world of spirits (the yūkai 幽界). Along with the change of name, it also changed its regulations, following those of Tokyo’s Daigakkō. It abolished the Confucian ceremony sekiten and instead every year in September conducted a ceremony worshipping Homutawake no mikoto 誉田別尊—the legendary fifteenth Emperor Ōjin 應神 who is supposed to have reigned between the years 270 and 310—as well as the spirit of the domain’s founder, Hijikata Katsuuji 土方雄氏 (1583–1638). Another example is the new school established in 1868 in Naegi 苗木 Domain in Mino, today’s Gifu Prefecture. It was called Nisshinkan, a name signifying the daily correction of past bad habits. Incidentally, the abovementioned school in the Aizu Domain also bore this name. Initially based on Confucianism, the domain school in Naegi also switched entirely to kokugaku and in its yearly rites worshipped not only the deity of learning Omoikane no kami, but also Kada no Azumamaro, Kamo no Mabuchi, Motoori Norinaga and Hirata Atsutane.

102

chapter three

Takada 高田 Domain in Echigo, today’s Niigata Prefecture, which belonged to a Tokugawa family branch, established its school in 1866 under the name Shūdō­kan 修道館. After the Meiji Restoration, it continued to teach Confucianism, but added imperial studies and every December performed rituals for the Shinto deity of learning. Other domain schools that also started to worship Omoikane no kami were those in Mineyama 三根山 Domain in Echigo; Himeji Domain in Harima, today’s Hyōgo Prefecture; Fukuyama 福山 Domain in Bingo, today’s Hiroshima Prefecture; Matsue Domain in Izumo, today’s Shimane Prefecture; and Tanabe 田辺 domain in Kii, today’s Wakayama Prefecture. A well-documented case is the school in Takashima 高島 Domain in Shinano, today’s Nagano Prefecture, which had existed there since 1803. In September 1869, however, it was newly established and reopened under the name Kokugakkō 國學校, the National Learning School. Ceremonies were held every spring and autumn on the opening days of the school, as well as on every first and fifteenth day of the lunar month to worship Takeminakata no kami 建御名方神, Yagokoro Omoikane no kami, Ameno-koyane no mikoto 天児屋根命 and the spirits of the four kokugaku masters Kada no Azumamaro, Kamo no Mabuchi, Motoori Norinaga and Hirata Atsutane. The textbooks that were used included old Japanese classics as well as newer treatises by prominent national-learning scholars. Most of these texts have already been mentioned above. Their choice was directly based on the three levels of sacred scriptures and historical works taught at Kyoto’s Institute of Imperial Studies Kōgakujo. The textbooks used were: Kojiki, Kōten buni, Norito-shiki, Rekichō-shōshi 歴朝詔詞 (the senmyō of the successive emperors), Jindai-maki (the Nihonshoki’s first two books on the divine age), Kada’s Sōgakkōkei, Man’yōshū, Naobi no mitama 直毘霊, Kodō taii, Tamadasuki, Engishiki, Kogoshūi, Ritsuryō-kyakushiki 律令格式, Kokinshū 古今集, Tosa nikki 土佐 日記, Ise-monogatari, Kōchō shiryaku, Soku Kōchō shiryaku, Jinnō shōtōki, Tokushi yōron, Kishin shinron 鬼神新論, Gyojū gaigen, Nihonshoki, other volumes of the Rikkokushi and Dai-Nihon-shi (Sakamoto 1944: 138). In addition to these works, a survey of the textbooks used at ten domain schools showed that other commonly used texts included the Genjimonogatari 源氏物語, Ryō no gige, (Ruijū) Sandaikyaku, Kojiki-den, Kamiyo no masagoto 神代正語, Dōmō nyūgakumon, Nihon gaishi, Tamaboko hyakushu and Naobi no mitama (Minami 1992: 76). Also the regulations of Takashima Domain’s Kokugakkō were copied more or less directly from the Institute of Imperial Studies. This is evident in borrowed phrases such as ‘the scholarship of the four great masters is to



kokugaku scholars and higher education103

be taken as main essence with works of various other scholars blended in’, ‘to investigate the mysteriousness of the concealed and the visible’s penetralia’, or ‘to carefully examine the gist of morals and wise government’ (Sakamoto 1944: 137). Such sentences can also be found nearly verbatim in the Kōgakujo-kisoku and in Yano Harumichi’s original draft to these regulations as described above. The reason for these similarities becomes clear if one knows that the kokugaku scholar Iida Takesato—a retainer of Takashima-han, a very close friend of Yano Harumichi, and, from 22 January 1869, a lecturer at the Kōgakujo in Kyoto—was appointed by his lord to be the academic head of this domain school, a position he held for three years (Wachutka 2001: 71–72; Sakamoto 1944: 136–138; Ōkubo 1987: 370).  Antagonistic Voices and the Proposed Amalgamation of Imperial and Chinese Studies This educational shift did not affect all of the domains in the same way. The more powerful and independent larger domains seem to have maintained their traditional educational systems longer than the smaller domains, which were more dependent on the central government and usually followed its endeavours. However, in August 1871, the feudal clan domains were abolished and the system of prefectures was established. This, and the introduction of the new Educational Law Gakusei 学制 in September 1872, resulted in all domain schools being closed and education all over the country following the governments’s central policies. The problems associated with the celebration of the gakushinsai were not confined to the college in Tokyo, but spread throughout the country. It is clear that it was difficult to dispense with the sekiten and begin to worship a Shinto deity of learning without offending traditional Confucian scholars. Indeed, it caused fierce resistance. From the beginning, a mood of confrontation existed between the kokugaku scholars and the Confucianists, who felt a subordinate position beneath their dignity. There was little space for compromise. This was not only an internal school problem, but also involved many intellectuals in the populace as well as government members, who at that time had generally had a Confucian education. By performing the gakushinsai, the new ceremony for the Shinto deity of learning, the internal dispute between the kangaku faction, which opposed it, and the kokugaku faction, which supported it, was aggravated considerately.

104

chapter three

As early as 12 October 1869, the senior educational deputy Sengoku Masakata advised the imperial superintendant for higher learning, Matsudaira Yoshinaga 松平慶永 (1828–1890), to enforce strict regulations in order to avoid further confrontations between imperial and Confucian scholars. Four days later, Matsudaira forwarded an enquiry to the deliberative organ Shūgiin 集議院, which had been established in August 1869 as the successor of the Kōgisho 公議所. Consisting of a representative from each domain, the Shūgiin’s main purpose was to submit recommendations on political issues.6 Matsudaira’s enquiry was subsequently presented to the Shūgiin’s assembly on 21 October. His proposed regulations on the ‘Amalgamation of Imperial and Chinese Studies’ contained the following four articles, of which the first touches already upon the question of the deity of learning: • The imperial country’s deity of learning is to be worshipped; the mausoleum enshrining Confucius (kōbyō 孔廟) and the sekiten are to be abolished. • The sound-reading (sodoku 素読) of Chinese books is to be discontinued; solely national literature is to be used. • Lectures and inquiries are to be institutionalized; studies are to be divided into four sections; experts in imperial and Chinese studies are to be made professors, each in charge of one of these [sections], to teach the students. • As for [those] parts in [works by the Chinese philosopher] Mencius dealing with one’s moral duties, there are some paragraphs conflicting with national polity (kokutai); these should not be included in the regular course, [but] self-study is not prohibited. (Ōkubo 1987: 281, 369) The ‘sound-reading’ mentioned in the second item refers to a method of reciting the sounds of classical Chinese texts aloud to memorize passages without actually comprehending the meaning of their words. Such ‘meaningless endeavours’ were to be discontinued and only national literature was to be studied. This article was followed by an ‘Abbreviated list of works with punctuation’, which contained only kokugaku-related texts such as 6 The Kōgisho had been established only in January 1869, in the former residence of the Himeji Domain, as the successor of the ‘Lower Office’ of the executive council Gyōseikan. Most of the functions of its successor Shūgiin were later transferred to the government’s ‘House of the Left’, which was established in August 1871. The Shūgiin as such was abolished in June 1873.



kokugaku scholars and higher education105

the Kogoshūi or Jinnō shōtōki, as well as books by national-learning scholars such as Kada no Azumamaro, Motoori Norinaga and Hirata Atsutane. It is clear that although these articles were called an ‘amalgamation’ of imperial and Chinese studies, they actually entail a stricter separation and boldly represent the claims of the kokugaku faction. In certain aspects, they even amount to the partial or even complete prohibition of ChineseConfucian studies. Even earlier, on 10 September 1869, the opening day of the College, Maruyama Sakura had caused a great deal of commotion by pasting a piece of paper on one of the gate’s pillars that contained many of the same demands, including a ban on reading Chinese books and the sole use of national literature and works by kokugaku scholars (Ōkubo 1987: 267). These early Meiji initiatives by certain kokugaku hardliners to abolish Confucianism in education must be seen in close conjunction to the religious aspects described above, as, for instance, the government’s decree to separate the ‘foreign’ Buddhist elements from indigenous kami worship (shinbutsu bunri), which amounted virtually to an officially sanctioned abolishing of Buddhism. It fuelled the anti-Buddhist movement and led to the ensuing destruction of Buddhist temples, statues, Sutra scrolls, etc. The two were part and parcel of the ideal of a complete imperial restoration according to the ‘ancient and eternal’ kannagara no michi. However, considering the scholarly tradition with its strong roots in Confucianism of most of the Shugiin’s domain representatives, it comes as not much of a surprise that an overwhelming majority were against the draft, with only those from Karatsu 唐津 Domain in today’s Saga Prefecture approving its general points (Ōkubo 1987: 283). Susan Burns has described the presentation to the Shūgiin of this proposal to abandon all Confucian aspects and solely study Japanese texts as ‘a strategy [by the Meiji leaders] to disavow their former support [of the institutionalization of kokugaku]. […] As expected, the members of the Shūgiin […] rejected this proposal’. Due to the subsequent ‘frequent, often violent confrontations between Confucian scholars and the nativists, the Meiji government responded by dissolving the institution [Daigakkō] itself’ (Burns 2003: 191). However, this view of the proposal—as a planned scheme that anticipated its own rejection—is most probably inaccurate, especially as it does not make clear who these ‘Meiji leaders’ were. As a direct consequence of the unexpected blow of the proposal regarding regulations on the ‘amalgamation of imperial and Chinese studies’ being rejected by the Shūgiin, twenty members of the kokugaku faction’s teaching staff jointly composed and signed a note of protest to the school’s

106

chapter three

intendant, but in the end, their efforts were in vain (Ōkubo 1987: 287–288). A lengthy dispute about the new ceremony for the deity of learning ensued, the gakushinsai-ronsō 学神祭論争, which perhaps also exemplified the ongoing resistance of the domains against the ubiquitous power encroaching from the new central government. Throughout the country, the early plans of the kokugaku and imperialist circles within the government’s ranks were met with opposition by kangaku scholars and their supporters. After this first, albeit still minor defeat of the kokugaku faction at the Shūgiin, the struggle for a compromise and more balanced regulations for the College of Higher Learning as well as for general popular education continued for about another six months. Shortly after the proposal was rejected at the Shūgiin, on 19 October Soejima Taneomi was appointed as the new official responsible for the college. It is not entirely clear if this was done due to a request from the side of the college or was merely a governmental decision. Soejima, who had both a political and strong scholarly background, was probably best suited to bring about calm and to mediate the dispute. Serving later as the acting chairman of Shigaku-kyōkai, he was clearly a supporter of national learning, but being more moderate and realistic, he probably did not advocate or emphasize kokugaku to the extent of the hardliners. Finally, on 18 January 1870, the Daigakkō, or college, was renamed Daigaku, or university. To differentiate it from its sub-branches, it was commonly also called Daigaku-honkō, or University Main School. Due to their location, the branches Kaisei-gakkō and I-gakkō were renamed Daigaku-nankō 大学南校, or Southern School of the University, and Daigaku-tōkō 大学東校, or Eastern School of the University (Ōkubo 1987: 289–290; MTK 2: 139).  Amended Regulations and a New Curriculum at the Renamed University In March 1870, two months after the College of Higher Learning was renamed ‘University’, new amended regulations were issued. Significantly, the passage ‘The vital point of the sacred scriptures and national classics lies in venerating the imperial way and discerning the national polity (kokutai), which should be the most important task of the Empire’s purposed scholars’ (Ōkubo 1987: 213)—the backbone of the original regulations and the marker of the College’s kokugaku and imperial studies focus—was deleted. Thus, it seems that due to the strong resistance, for the moment, less emphasis was placed on imperial content in the area of



kokugaku scholars and higher education107

academic and education. In its stead, the concentration shifted towards popular edification through religious proselytization. As described above, at this time, the Jingikan had just been placed outside the jurisdiction of the Dajōkan, and on 3 February 1870, together with the Imperial Edict on the Ritual to Appease and Consolidate the Divine Spirits and Imperial Ancestors, the Imperial Edict on the Promulgation of the Great Teaching was issued. Moreover, a new curriculum was created that also abolished the former separate designations of ‘imperial studies’ and ‘Chinese studies’. Instead, five specialized courses were formed, with their contents described in the university’s curriculum. The first of these new areas of study was the ‘Department of (Religious) Teachings’ (kyōka 教科), comprising the study of divine teachings or deism (shinkyō-gaku 神教学) [= the teachings of Shinto doctrine] and the study of (confucian inclined) morals or ethics (shūshin-gaku 修身学). Next came the ‘Department of Law’ (hōka 法科), comprising national law (kokuhō 国法), civil law (minpō 民法), commercial law (shōhō 商法), criminal law (keihō 刑法), procedural law (shishōhō 詞訟法) and public international law (mankoku kōhō 万国公法), as well as the study of applied public welfare (riyō kōseigaku 利用厚生学), of rituals (tenreigaku 典礼学), of administration (shiseigaku 施政学) and of statistics (kokuseigaku 国勢学). This was followed by the ‘Department of Science’ (rika 理科), comp­ris­ ing physics (kakuchigaku 格致学), astronomy (seigaku 星学), geology (chishitsugaku 地質学), mineralogy (kinsekigaku 金石学), zoology (dō­butsugaku 動物学), botany (shokubutsugaku 植物学), chemistry (kagaku 化学), mechanics (chōgaku 重学), mathematics (sūgaku 数学), the studies of instruments and appliance (kikaigaku 器械学), the study of weights and measures (doryōgaku 度量学) and construction (chikusōgaku 築造学). The ‘Department of Medicine’ (ika 医科) divided its studies into preparatory courses (yoka 予科) on mathematics, including weights and measures, on physics, and on chemistry, including mineralogy and botany (kōdo-shokubutsugaku 鉱土植物学). This propaedeutic training of science course subjects then lead up to the medical department’s regular course of study (honka 本科), which included anatomy (kaibōgaku 解剖学), innate illnesses (genseigaku 原生学), the cause of illnesses (genbyōgaku 原病学), pharmacology (yakubutsugaku 薬物学), toxicology (dokubutsugaku 毒物学), hands-on training in autopsy (byōshi-bōkengaku 病屍剖験学), including medical forensic law (ika danshōgaku 医科断訟法), and internal, external and various medical therapeutic methods (chiryōgaku 治療学), as well as hygienic laws (sesseihō 摂生法).

108

chapter three

Finally the ‘Department of Literature’ (bunka 文科) comprised the study of biographical histories and written records (kiden-gaku 紀伝学), the study of composition and written style (monjō-gaku 文章学), and philosophy (seiri-gaku 性理学) (Ōkubo 1987: 327–329). Certain ‘national’ and ‘Chinese’ themes—such as the teaching of Shinto doctrine and seiri-gaku, which usually refers to Neo-Confucian philosophy—were still maintained as part of the curriculum. Nevertheless, the names and the respective content of these five new areas of study clearly show a gradual move towards the structures of a Western university, with its five traditional core faculties of theology, jurisprudence, medicine, natural sciences and philosophy, which included literature.  Criticism of the New Regulations However, despite the revision of the university’s regulations, the deadlock between the kokugaku and kangaku factions was not resolved. Shortly after the changes, Yano Harumichi and Tamamatsu Misao wrote a memorandum criticizing the new regulations from the perspective of kokugaku. Submitted in May 1870, it states that the collapse of the educational institutions in Kyoto and Tokyo was brought about by the government’s makeshift measures, and the lack of understanding towards the imperial way by the people in charge. From the beginning, Yano and Tamamatsu had been against the capital being transferred to Tokyo. In their eyes, the only proper place to establish a university would have been in the imperial capital, i.e. in Kyoto, and in the east something like a prefectural school or fukō 府黌 should have been opened. With regard to Kyoto, the memorandum states that although Hirata Kanetane, Yano Harumichi and Tamamatsu Misao were asked for their advice, the changes that were actually implemented were inconsistent and lacked principles. With regard to Tokyo, it points out that the spirit of exalting Shinto—which had been the aspired goal according to the imperial edict read during the opening ceremony of the college— immediately crumbled due to the supplementary study of Chinese and Western subjects. With regard to the new university regulations, the two kokugaku scholars sharply attack the five courses, seeing it as inconsistent to jointly include the study of divine teachings and of morals within the ‘teachings course’, and rejected the study of neo-Confucian philosophy within the course on literature. On this point, their memorandum argues: In the Office of the Lord President of the Council’s (Gyōseikan) ordinance regarding the opening of the school in the dragon year (tatsudoshi 辰年, i.e. 1868), it said:



kokugaku scholars and higher education109 – National polity (kokutai) shall be discerned and moral duties (meibun) rectified. – The scholarships of China and the West both should assist the imperial way. Provided that from the Middle Ages, the warrior class seized supreme authority and many people mistook their moral duty, surely, proper meaning and deep feeling were given [towards the above two items]. However, this time, in the regulations the manifestation of the way is mere talk and the imperial way’s grand principle is nowhere present. Furthermore, the study of divine teachings stands side by side with the study of morals. The matter of morals has no place within divine teachings. Besides, what is called seiri-gaku 性理学 within the subject of literature also has an exceedingly questionable meaning and is it [not rather] referring to Confucianism (jugaku 儒学)?! Supposing that morals, [which are] nothing but Confucianism, achieve a momentum of coexistence of the imperial way and Chinese studies, this is in our opinion contrary to the imperial command that we received the other day. (Tani 1966–68: 182–183)

The government’s efforts to find a compromise between imperial and Chinese studies by means of the new university’s regulations can be seen in the striving for a balance of subjects as shown above, but the antagonism between the kokugaku and the kangaku faction still did not cease. Nontheless, many heated exchanges continued to be had with the kangaku factio, which disputed the new Shinto deity of learning ceremony that had replaced the former Confucian sekiten, as well as the roster of influential kokugaku membersbeing employed as the main personnel at the university. In addition, there was antagonism between the administration officials and the instructors, and dissatisfaction among the students. Moreover, on all sides could be felt the growing confrontation between factions supporting ‘traditional’ imperial and Chinese studies and the faction promoting ‘progressive’ Western learning.  A Shift to Pure Western Education and Imperial Princes Studying Abroad The positioning of the revived Bureau of Divinity outside and above the Great Council of State and the issuing of the imperial edict on the promulgation of the three great teachings seemed to secure the long-hoped-for central position for kokugaku scholars and Shintoists in the academic and educational world. However, the authorities saw no way of solving the fundamental conflicts between the various scholarly factions, as described above, and in the end decided to close the University on 8 August 1870, a little more than a year after it had been established as college. While the tar­geted state system of a ternary unity of ritual, politics and religious

110

chapter three

doctrine had been set on its way with the national Shinto edification programme of promoting kannagara no michi, when the university closed, one of this unity’s supporting pillars in academic education suddenly collapsed. It is said that when two people argue, a third benefits. The heated conflict between imperial and Chinese studies allowed the growing power of Europeanization to develop into an internal Western-style educational system. In spite of the university’s closure, the two sub-branches for Western learning at the main school, Daigaku-nankō and Daigaku-tōkō, stayed open as independent entities. Thus, from this time on, official academic education was only pursued in a strictly ‘Western style’. Although similar sounding intellectual history subjects were revived again in the regulations for the Daigaku-nankō that were proclaimed in December 1870, the courses no longer had any explicit emphasis on kokugaku, imperial learning, or Shintoism as before. From rhetoric to philosophy, the content was now completely Western. Already in 1868, the last item of the Five-Article Oath had read: ‘We shall seek knowledge throughout the world and thus invigorate the foundations of this imperial nation’ (Meiji jingū 1991: 29). At that time, it was perhaps not clear to the general populace how the two sides of this statement—pursuing knowledge throughout the world and encouraging the emperor’s great deeds—were to be combined in concrete terms. However, with the trend of the times focusing more or less completely on Western education, even members of the imperial family were permitted to study abroad. Prince Kachō-no-miya Hirotsune-shinnō 華頂宮博経親王 (1851–1876) was the first aristocrat who requested to pursue his education in the US, where he studied navy affairs. His request was granted on 18 August 1870. A month earlier, on 8 July, Prince Komatsu-no-miya Akihito-shinnō 小松宮彰仁親王 (1846–1903), who later in 1882 changed his name to the today better-known Higashifushimi-no-miya Yoshiaki-shinnō 東伏見宮嘉彰親王, had successfully petitioned to the emperor to be allowed to study foreign languages. Following Hirotsune, Akihito asked for the privilege to study abroad, and on 31 October 1870 he was granted permission to go to England (MTK 2: 309).  The Arrest of Hirata Faction Members and Fukuba Bisei’s Resignation An incident relating to this opening towards the West must be mentioned, namely, the arrest of some members of the Hirata faction on 11 May 1871. Variously called Yokohama repellence incident or the Hirata faction



kokugaku scholars and higher education111

incident of political offence, a number of kokugaku scholars were involved. The incident reveals certain aspects of the Hirata faction’s ideological stance at the time. On 14 April 1870, it was announced to the people of Kyoto that the emperor’s return and the performance of the daijōsai, the great rice-tasting ritual performed by the Japanese sovereign following his accession ceremony, would be postponed. National-learning scholars had long insisted on Kyoto being the centre of the realm and on important  court events such as enthronement rituals being conducted there. Indeed, this was a common demand, involving not only traditional court nobles and grassroots kokugaku followers, but also most people in the greater Kyoto area, who opposed the capital’s transfer to Tokyo. After the announcement, the demands of kokugaku scholars—especially those with a Hirata school background—that Kyoto remain the political and educational centre of Japan became even more intense and furious towards the ruling oligarchs. Hardly anything is known about the actual reason for the 11 May 1871 arrests, but at their root was the planned relocation of the capital. A plot to take the emperor back to Kyoto by force was discovered, giving the government a convenient excuse to round up a large number of dissidents. In total 257 people were punished. Nine were executed, and two nobles were allowed to commit suicide. Maruyama Sakura, Yano Harumichi, Gonda Naosuke, Tsunoda Tadayuki, Miwada Mototsuna and Miyawada Mitsutane were among those taken into custody on suspicion of high treason. In the end, however, only Maruyama was given a longer prison sentence for this ‘conspiracy’ (Sakamoto 1993: 234, 249 n. 82, 251; Sakamoto 1944: 193; Antoni 1998: 151; Walthall 1998: 300). It is noteworthy that on 22 September 1871, shortly after this purge of dissidents, the Bureau of Divinity Jingikan, run by several of those who had participated in the incident, lost its exalted position and was transformed into a normal ministry, the Ministry of Divinity, and was placed under jurisdiction of the Dajōkan like any other ministry. About half a year later, on 21 April 1872, it was replaced completely by the newly-formed Ministry of Public Indoctrination Kyōbushō, thus ending for the time being the pre-eminence of Shinto that had been particularly supported by the more religiously inclined Hirata school kokugaku scholars. At the same time, the educational policy of concentrating on imperial studies also crumbled and the various ‘traditional’ subjects were abandoned. This remained the state of affairs for about five years, until the establishment of Tokyo University in 1877. Hence, the kokugaku faction lost its main stage for academic activities. But it was the events with regard to religion,

112

chapter three

namely the great promulgation campaign mentioned above, that needed their full concentration. Another quite symbolic event that happened at this time was the resignation, on 29 June 1872, of Fukuba Bisei from the post of Vice-Minister of Public Instructions. Fukuba had been officially part of the emperor’s inner circle since May 1869, serving as the imperial tutor and giving lectures to Emperor Meiji, above all, on the Nihonshoki (MTK 2: 98). Even a year earlier, the emperor had attended a lecture on the Kojiki held by Fukuba at Ikasuri-jinja during a royal visit to this Shinto shrine in Osaka (MKT 1: 675). After resigning as vice-minister, from August onwards Fukuba continued to teach at the imperial court, being shortly employed as a minor thirdrank officer at the Imperial Household Ministry. He then withdrew completely from the political stage and later pursued a second career in private scholarly associations. Since the closing days of the Edo period, Fukuba had been continually active in Shinto-related reforms and was a vital central figure, having in early Meiji a great deal of influence on the establishment of various institutions and on administrative decisions. His retreat clearly shows how the focus of the society had shifted. Fukuba’s frustration, as poignantly explained in one source, primarily stemmed from him and his ideals ‘not fitting the times’ (KDS 3: 368). To summarize, the struggle with regard to the location of the capital and state conduct that even lead up to arrest, long-term imprisonment and executions shows that there was a sharp divide between a conservative group, which began to be discontented with regard to the trends of the times, and a progressive group, which was interested in modernism. No doubt, a similar divide between progressive and retrospective factions was also present among kokugaku scholars. Fukuba Bisei, a representative of the Tsuwano kokugaku faction, is usually seen as belonging to the progressive faction that was preoccupied with modernist reforms. Yano Harumichi and Maruyama Sakura are thought to have been part of the conservative faction that was fixated on antiquity. However, Fukuba’s retreat in frustration from politics at this time indicates that this division and its assessment may not be so simple. Moreover, it is important to note that despite their seemingly fierce disagreements, all of these people later came together and became members of the same scholarly organization, as will be described below.  A New Nation-Wide Education Law Also in 1872, on 5 September shortly after the central university had been closed, the Ministry of Education Monbushō announced a new



kokugaku scholars and higher education113

educational law, the Gakusei (MTK 2: 734–738; Monbushō 1992: 14–27). Although it was later replaced in 1879 by the Education Ordinance Kyōikurei 教育令, the Gakusei was quite significant as it was the first education law that truly applied nationwide. Only the previous year had the individual domains been abolished and a centralized system of prefectures established. Shortly after this step towards national unification, the Monbushō was established. A pyramid school district system was organized, with the country divided into eight high school areas. Each of these was divided into thirty-two districts with middle schools, which in turn were fed by 210 districts with elementary schools. Altogether eight universities, 256 middle schools and 53,760 elementary schools were set up. One of the goals was to overcome the gap in gender and the social stratification within academic education, which until then had exclusively been a matter for males of higher standing. Education was to be available to every national subject. The law asserts the importance of education for developing a modern nation and everybody’s right to obtain it. In relation to higher learning, it states that ‘the University is a specialized school that teaches various advanced scholarships. Its subjects are the four fields of natural science, literature, jurisprudence and medicine’ (MTK 2: 736). The Western-style composition of these fields corresponded to the subjects at the university’s still existing Southern School and Eastern School, i.e. the former Colleges for Western Sciences Kaisei-gakkō and for Medi­ cine I-gakkō, respectively. In the following years, both schools assembled a number of talented instructors—Japanese as well as foreign—and students. It steadily solidified the foundation for a modern educational establishment, and in 1877 it became the basis for the establishment of Tokyo University.

CHAPTER FOUR

NEW VENUES FOR KOKUGAKU TRAINING AND RESEARCH 4.1. The Founding of Tokyo University Although the Meiji Restoration is customarily dated to the year 1868, it actually took Japan at least a decade longer to fully consolidate. Both major and minor upheavals continued to occur at various places, culminating in 1877 in the so-called Satsuma Rebellion, or War of the Southwest, lead by Saigō Takamori, who had formerly been an influential government member but who by that time had been ousted. The rebellion was finally put down by September of the same year, proving to many the superiority of a Western-style trained and equipped modern state army over samurai armed only with traditional weapons and a warrior ethos. As we have seen above, in the same year the Ministry of Public Indoctrination, Kyōbushō, was also closed, and the concept of unified proselytization was washed away by the strong current of cultural modernization along Western lines. Emphasis was now placed again on the educational sphere. It took, however, a few more years—until the Pantheon Dispute of the early 1880s was more or less settled—before most of the national-learning scholars completely re-aligned their joint active focus to academia. Also in 1877, Tokyo University was founded. This was done by merging the two institutes that had in 1870 been renamed and made part of the Daigaku, but that survived its closing. Thus, Tokyo University’s departments of law and of sciences were based on the Tokyo Kaisei-gakkō, and the department of medicine was taken from the Tokyo I-gakkō. Although English, geography, history and morals, among other things, had been taught in the preparatory course of Tokyo Kaisei-gakkō, its regular course of study had no discipline suitable for a literature department. Accordingly, a new Department of Letters was created to stand alongside the disciplines of science, jurisprudence and medicine that are mentioned in the Educational Law of 1872. This seems to suggest a partial return to the academic and intellectual structures that formed the Main School of the former university, which had been abolished in August 1870 after heated internal disputes between the kokugaku and kangaku factions. But initially, the literature and history

116

chapter four

taught at this Department of Literature dealt solely with Europe and America. This caused some heavy lobbying by national-learning scholars for the establishment of a department dealing with Japanese studies. The purpose of such a department can be seen in a written appeal to the Ministry of Education by Katō Hiroyuki 加藤弘之 (1836–1916), the then head of the Department of Literature and later the university’s president: The reason for especially adding now a course on Japanese and Chinese literature in the Department of Literature is that if this academic subject, rare as stars at dawn, is not set up within the University curriculum now, not only is it impossible in the currents henceforth to permanently preserve it, but also those who call themselves Japanese academics are indeed not allowed to obtain the highest cultural progress if they vainly are only well versed in English and straggling in the national literature. However, if there is the worry that with only Japanese and Chinese literature, [an education] stubbornly sticking to old ways cannot be avoided, [I respond that] my desire is to raise competent people of value by the simultaneous study of English, philosophy and Western history. (Tokyo teikoku daigaku 1932, 1: 686)

In short, according to Katō the necessity for creating courses for Japanese and Chinese literature was to cultivate well-bred Japanese people who would be useful for the state in these new times. To this end, a vast knowledge of the various modern liberal arts that was based on a nucleus of Japanese and Chinese literature was indispensable. Thus, in addition to a primary division with courses on history, philosophy and political sciences, a second division teaching Japanese and Chinese literature, the wakan-bungakka 和漢文学科, was set up within the Department of Literature.  Personnel at the New Department of Literature The initial teaching staff of this new literature department consisted of Edward W. Syle (1817–1890) as professor of history and moral philosophy; William Addison Houghton (1852–1917) as professor of English literature; and Toyama Masakazu 外山正一 (1848–1900) as professor of psychology and the English language. In addition, Nakamura Masanao 中村正直 (1832–1891) and Shinobu Joken [= Tsubara 粲] 信夫恕軒 (1835–1910) were lecturers in Chinese literature, and Yokoyama Yoshikiyo, in Japanese literature. The distinction between full professor (kyōju) and mere lecturer (kōshi) already shows the importance attached to the individual subjects and thus it is clear that the emphasis on imperial and Chinese studies of the former university was not retained. History and the ‘traditionally



new venues for kokugaku training and research117

Confucian’ subject of moral philosophy, for instance, were both taught by the English missionary Edward W. Syle, who had spent most of his career at the American Episcopal Mission in Shanghai and obviously only taught their specific Western form. It is also noteworthy that Nakamura Masanao, of all people, was made lecturer for Chinese literature. Unlike Shinobu Joken, who was a disciple of the Confucianist Yoshino Kin’ryō 芳野金陵 (1803–1878), who had lectured at both the Shōheikō and the former University Main School, Nakamura was not a staunch Confucianist. Not only had Nakamura translated the works Self Help by Samuel Smiles (1812–1904) and On Liberty by the English philosopher and national economist John Stuart Mill (1806–1873),1 but he was also a baptized Christian and a member of the progressive Meiji Six Society Meirokusha, which will be described below. Moreover, the department had only a single lecturer for Japanese literature. The following year, in September 1878, Konakamura Kiyonori was hired as a second lecturer for Japanese literature as well as Japanese ancient law, with a concurrent post at the Department of Law (KDS 2: 1622). However, only half a year later, in April 1879, Konakamura requested to be relieved of his post in order to concentrate on the just-commenced editing of a monumental encyclopaedia of historic sources, the Kojiruien 古事類苑. Only in 1882 did he return as a professor. He was replaced in 1879 by Kurokawa Mayori, who took over as the lecturer for the same subjects at the same two departments (KDS 3: 359). That December, the first lecturer in Japanese literature, Yokoyama, fell ill and passed away, whereupon in 1880 Kimura Masakoto, then a government official at the Education

1 Smiles’ work Self help is a collection of biographies of successful, self-made men of all ages, originally written in 1859. Nakamura’s translation was published in 1871 under the title Saigoku risshi hen 西国立志編 (A Book of Edifying Western Examples). It found a very wide readership. It was translated from the standpoint of how the conduct of these people, based on knowledge and virtue, determined the power of the state. The opening sentence of chapter one states the well-known aphorism ‘Heaven helps those who help themselves (ten wa mizukara tasukuru mono o tasuku 天はみずから助くるものを助く)’. Nakamura’s translation is available as volume 527, published 1981, of the series Kōdansha gakujutsu bunko 講談社学術文庫. The prefaces of its different editions are reprinted in Itō Sei 伊藤整 (ed.): Meiji shisōka shū 明治思想家集. [Nihon gendai bungaku zenshū 日本現代文学全集; 13] 1968. Mill’s On Liberty was originally written in 1859. Nakamura’s translation was published in 1872 under the title Jiyū no kotowari 自由之理 (The Reason for Liberty). It discusses the relation between the influence of the state and the liberty of the individual. This translation was a best-seller that also influenced the early Meiji Freedom and People’s Rights Movement. It is contained in Meiji bunka kenkyūkai 明治文 化研究会 (ed.): Meiji bunka zenshū 明治文化全集 [vol. 5] 1992.

118

chapter four

Ministry, was additionally appointed to the post of extraordinary professor. In 1881, he became a lecturer in charge of Japanese ancient law as well as Japanese literature (KDS 3: 407). As mentioned above, at the Main School of the former university, Kimura had been a ‘junior expert’, and Yokoyama, Konakamura and Kurokawa had all been ‘middle assistant instructors’. It, therefore, seems that as far as Japanese literature was concerned, the former university’s spirit and stance indeed was revived. Nonetheless, it is notable that at this stage, no eminent Hirata school scholar was appointed. Due to the contemporary developments in the religious sphere described above, there was simply no demand for staff members with a strongly Shintobased ideological outlook. It is true that nearly a decade earlier, on 9 March 1871, Kimura, in his function as national proselytizer, had given a lecture to the emperor on the Nihonshoki, explaining the conceptional difference between the worlds of the visible and the concealed (MTK 2: 395). Other than that, however, he and the other appointed lecturers had no deeper connection to religious Shinto as such. Kurokawa was a student and the adopted heir of the philologist Kurokawa Harumura 黒川春村 (1799–1867), and the other scholars were disciples of Inō Hidenori, a follower of Kamo no Mabuchi’s teachings. Inō was a native of Katori district in Shimōsa. He studied under the poet Kamiyama Natsura 神山魚貫 (1788–1882) and the kokugaku scholar Oyamada Tomokiyo. At the end of the Tokugawa period, Inō was employed at Katori-jingū, but, after the Meiji Restoration, he worked for the Bureau of Divinity, Jingikan, and in 1869, as mentioned above, became a senior assistant instructor at the College of Higher Learning. In 1872, he returned to Katori-jingū as a senior lecturer and in 1875 became a junior chief-priest. He died on 11 July 1877 at the time of Tokyo University’s opening, knowing that his disciple Yokoyama had been appointed as its first lecturer of Japanese literature (KDS 2: 1510–1511; 3: 587). The educational tradition of Konakamura, Kimura and Kurokawa, who all later became prominent members of Ōyashima-gakkai, as well as that of Yokoyama was clearly part of the moderate kokugaku faction, whose academic methods focused primarily on evidence-based historical research. Hence, the subject of Japanese and Chinese literature at Tokyo University’s Department of Literature was quite different from the imperial and Chinese studies at the former College of Higher Learning, which had a stronger religious-ideological orientation towards Shinto and Confucianism.



new venues for kokugaku training and research119  Establishment of Koten Kōshūka, the Training Course for the Classics

In December 1879, the year in which Konakamura Kiyonori resigned from his post as lecturer, the head of the literature department, Katō Hiroyuki, proposed establishing a training course in Japanese texts called Washo kōshūka 和書講習科 to the Minister of Education. His proposal was, however, not followed at that time. Two years later, in December 1881, Katō— who in the meantime had been named president of Tokyo University (MTK 5: 383)—again submitted such a proposal. The following May it was finally decided to establish a training course for classic texts called Koten kōshūka 古典講習科. It is very likely that the government had begun to feel the necessity of having and cultivating experts in classical Japanese sources, not least due to the official work being done on the Kojiruien encyclopaedia, among other things. Moreover, Katō, in his proposal, vividly emphasizes the urgency of such a training course by pointing out that at the present time, people engaged in national learning were almost extinct. The training course thus mainly came into being due to Katō’s zealous advocacy, but Konakamura Kiyonori was also of great help (Ōnuma 2002). Both within the government and without, the idea emerged that the Japanese people lacked a sense of nation and must somehow be transformed into ‘citizens of the nation’, or kokumin.2 The establishing of courses in Japanese and Chinese literature also indicates that a new selfreflection had occurred regarding the Westernization process and that a Japanese self-awareness was taking place, based on the gradually growing idea of kokusui hozon 国粹保存, the ‘preserving of national characteristics’. Thus, in 1882, the study of traditional literature was taken up again for the first time since it had been abandoned in August 1870 when the former university was closed. With the establishment of these courses, philological and evidential kokugaku once again had a place in the state’s highest institute of learning.  The Objective of Koten Kōshūka and Konakamura Kiyonori’s Opening Address In the face of strong Westernization currents, the objective of the new Training Course for the Classics, the Koten kōshūka, was to protect and 2 In her book on late Meiji ideology, Carol Gluck describes what occurred in the aftermath of two decades of bureaucratic nation as ‘ideological eruption’ (Gluck 1985: 25).

120

chapter four

promote, in particular, the knowledge of Japanese and Chinese history, politics and prose. Among the various areas in this type of scholarship, these were seen as being the basis for self-awareness of national polity (Tokyo teikoku daigaku 1932, 1: 731–732). According to the address Koten kōshūka kaigyō enzetsu an 古典講習科開業演説案, read by Konakamura at the Koten kōshūka’s opening ceremony in 1882, the course was going to ‘solely investigate the facts of our imperial country’s successive reigns, the development of its institutions, as well as the ancient and modern transitions of its language’ (Konakamura 1898: 1). In his speech, he identified various approaches and currents within conventional kokugaku, as for instance the study of classical literature, poetry, history, ancient court and warrior rules of ceremony and etiquette, Nara- and Heian-period laws and ordinances, genealogy, as well as the eighth-century poetry anthology Man’yōshū (Konakamura 1898: 7–8). In the pre-Meiji era, often marked by rivalry and factionalism, only some of those people conducting classical studies and involved with poetry were actually called kokugaku scholars. In contrast, Konakamura strongly advocated that in this new period the ‘traditionally divergent schools named above must congregate and conduct research together’ (Konakamura 1898: 8). Konakamura moreover explained that kogaku, that is, scholarship in the traditional line of Kada no Azumamaro, Kamo no Mabuchi, Motoori Norinaga and Hirata Atsutane: […] takes the traces of the Age of Gods as its basis. It collates and compares solely ancient circumstances and accordingly, is called classical studies (kogaku). In general it does not investigate subsequent ages comprehensively. Moreover, [scholars of this kind] feel it also beneath their dignity even to be acquainted with [those later ages]! (Konakamura 1898: 7)

In his view, if one were merely to continue to follow this path of national learning and be only concerned with the divine age of Japanese antiquity, it would be difficult to respond to the current of the times. With the commotion of the Pantheon Dispute, which split up the Shinto world, still tangible, he called for a modernized and theologically more neutral scholarly approach, arguing that: Although discerning the origin that brought our great-eight-island country (Ōyashima-kuni 大八洲国) into existence, illuminating the cause for the imperial throne’s reign to be as eternal as heaven and earth, and bearing in mind the love for one’s country is not entirely different from what the former classical scholars applied themselves to, it is not necessary to spend time scrutinizing the Plain of High Heaven from the underworld against one’s better judgment. (Konakamura 1898: 9–10)



new venues for kokugaku training and research121

Konakamura, himself a follower of Motoori Norinaga’s school, thus, clearly rejects the Hirata faction’s form of kokugaku, with its orientation to the otherworld. More generally and presumably in view of the recent Pantheon Dispute, which also disrupted some of kokugaku’s public advances, in order to unite the different strands of national learning he discards a theological–religious Shinto approach to the classics in favour of historical investigations that, while patriotic and emperor-centred, are evidencebased. The gist of the speech is the promotion of academic patriotism. It is interesting to note the close similarity between Konakamura’s propositions, referring to Japan with its poetic name ‘great-eight-island country’, and the later aims of the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society, Ōyashimagakkai, of which he became a prominent and very active member. Already at this stage, a change in kokugaku’s subject-matter is clearly being encouraged. In his opening address, Konakamura mentions new fields that national learning should explore, and to give it a modern academic touch and applicability, demands that it abandon its narrow-minded focus. One aim was to move kokugaku away from an approach based on Shintoism. Indeed, at this time, as politics and religion gradually separated, religious endeavours were being relinquished to new sectarian groups. Konaka­ mura also emphasizes the practical uses and contemporary applicability of kokugaku within the various government ministries. By ‘using authentic precedents of ancient events as a reference’ new insight could be gained, as for instance by applying research on ‘the history of taxation and of coinage at the Ministry of Finance; materials for a constitution at the Ministry of Justice; [and] the history of carriers or documents on agriculture and commerce at the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce. Furthermore, ancient military organization at both the Ministries of Navy and Army as well as the kinds of diplomatic history at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should provide a lot of knowledge to lower rank clerks’ (Konakamura 1898: 9). About seven years later, in August 1889, Konakamura presented a lecture entitled ‘Future Prospects of National Learning’ Kokugaku no zento 国学の前途. While his thoughts here correspond to those of his earlier speech, he is even more critical, stating that ‘with the exception of taking national polity (kokutai) as a basis, the methods of the traditional classical scholars are fairly wrong’ (Konakamura 1898a: 22–23). Nonetheless, he is not saying that the Age of Gods should not be dealt with at all. Rather, with kokutai as the starting point, he states:

122

chapter four The custom of revering the kami, the presently conducted state rites of the great rice-tasting daijō 大嘗, the new rice tasting niiname 新嘗 and the great purification ōharai 大祓, as well as the origin of government positions, literature and crafts, clothes and food, the use of utensils, music and poetry: there are many things that have their roots in the Age of Gods. What differs from the classical scholars, however, is not to deeply scrutinize things like the plain of high heavens, the underworld, or the names of the deities. [(Modern) kokugaku] does not have the intention to repeat explanations that merely describe how in our country’s antiquity it has been handed down like this or was written like that. (ibid.: 23)

Contemporary national learning ‘intends to leave the plain of high heavens and the underworld to Shinto teachers’ (ibid.). Again, rejecting a characteristic Hirata school concept and corresponding to the progressive separation of politics and religion seikyō-bunri, for him modern kokugaku should not deal with theological questions and matters of faith. Instead, to illuminate Japanese national polity, kokugaku should concentrate on the historical examination of classical texts for a variety of contemporary purposes. Konakamura even believed that the eminent early-modern kokugaku scholars Kada no Azumamaro, Kamo no Mabuchi, Motoori Norinaga and Hirata Atsutane would have had a different approach in his time: ‘Also the four great masters […], if they were here in these Meiji days, would certainly swim with the current of the times and not do things merely in a way as [in the old days mentioned above]’ (ibid.: 28).  Personnel at the Training Course for the Classics The recollections in interviews of two former students, Sasaki Nobutsuna 佐佐木信綱 (1872–1963) and Wada Hidematsu 和田英松 (1865–1937), paint a vivid picture of the reasons for the Koten kōshūka being established, of the subjects taught and the texts used, as well as of the background of its instructors and some of its graduates. The following fifteen kokugaku scholars were in charge of lecturing at the Training Course for the Classics: Iida Takesato, Kimura Masakoto, Konakamura Kiyonori, Kosugi Sugimura 小杉榲邨 (1835–1910), Kume Motobumi, Kurita Hiroshi 栗田寛 (1835–1899), Kurokawa Mayori, Matsuoka Akiyoshi 松岡明義 (1826–1890), Motoori Toyokai, Mozume Takami, Naitō Chisō 内藤耻叟 (1827–1903), Ōsawa Sugaomi, Ōwada Takeki 大和田建樹 (1857–1910), Sasaki Hirotsuna 佐々木弘綱 (1828–1891) and Satō Nobuzane 佐藤誠實 (1839–1908). In addition, the philosopher Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎 (1856–1944), the historian Tsuboi Kumezō 坪井九馬三 (1859–1936) and the social scientist Toyama Masakazu were



new venues for kokugaku training and research123

appointed as affiliated lecturers for the new subjects of psychology and logic. (Sasaki 1934: 1153, 1155; Wada 1934: passim; Machida 1992; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 249–250; KDNBK 1998: 369–370). By assembling people from different scholarly factions, the selection of teaching staff clearly shows compliance with Konakamura’s aims for the training course as stated in the inaugural address. Scholars of the modern period ‘have to congregate and conduct research together’ (Konakamura 1898: 8). The kokugaku scholars who were employed had diverse backgrounds, coming from the various national-learning factions, including that of Motoori Norinaga, Hirata Atsutane, Inō Hidenori, and Kariya Ekisai. It is also noteworthy that fourteen of the full-time lecturers later became leaders at the Ōyashima-gakkai. Although Ōwada Takeki, the sonin-law of Iida Takesato, was only a normal member of Ōyashima-gakkai, he had a leading role at its predecessor organization, the Shigaku-kyōkai. The only exception was Satō Nobuzane, who had studied kokugaku under Kurokawa Harumura and Confucianism under Asaka Gonsai 安積艮斎 (1791–1861). He later also became one of the editors compiling historic sources for the Kojiruien (KDS 3: 369–370; KDNBK 1990: 312). Wada (1934: 1165) also recounted that Ōwada Takeki not only taught the Japanese classical works, he was also well versed in English studies and thus his lectures readily caught the students’ attention. The philosopher Inoue Tetsujirō only taught for two years, until 1884, when he left to study abroad in Germany. In his later autobiography, Inoue (1973: 14) mentions that shortly before his departure, several of his national-learning colleagues, namely Konakamura Kiyonori, Kume Motobumi, Mozume Takami, Iida Takesato, Sasaki Hirotsuna and Ōwada Takeki, presented him with their poetry and prose as a token of farewell. While the two courses of Japanese and Chinese literature were continued, it is clear that the special Training Course for the Classics added a more comprehensive ‘kokugaku-style’ education to the Department of Literature. Although the course on Japanese literature was called the ‘second section’ and the one on Chinese literature was known as the ‘third section’, there was no real hierarchy between them or in relation to the ‘first section’ on philosophy. By this time, the awareness of a common cause of passing on one’s traditions had more or less transcended the former antagonism between the kokugaku and kangaku factions, especially as no section employed outright ideological hardliners.3 3 Several teachers in the ‘second section’ for Japanese literature also specialized in Chinese literature. Among others, these were Akizuki Kazuhisa 秋月胤永 (1824–1900),

124

chapter four

During revisions in 1884, the second and third sections were renamed ‘Division of National Literature’, Kokushoka 國書課, and ‘Division of Chinese Literature’, Kanshoka 漢書課, respectively. In 1886, Tokyo University was renamed Imperial University or Teikoku daigaku 帝国大学. Later, in 1889, the Division of National Literature was turned into a ‘Course for National Literature’, Kokubun-gakuka 國文学科. Already in 1885, however, most likely due to a lack of resolve and the high cost of financing two parallel courses, the Training Course for the Classics stopped recruiting new students. Its last class of students graduated in 1888, whereupon it was closed. Several instructors at the Training Course had, in the meantime, become the most prominent members of the scholarly association Ōyashima-gakkai, which had already come into existence. The closure of the course was one of the reasons that triggered the idea of opening a private school dedicated to national learning. Three years later, in 1891, this was realized with the founding of the Ōyashima-gakkō, which will be described in detail below.  Graduates of the Training Course for the Classics Despite the fact that the Koten kōshūka existed for only a relatively short period, about six years, it turned out a large number of well-qualified students of national learning. Many of them later became educators themselves or became highly-esteemed scholars in their respective fields of expertise. There were a number of prominent graduates who began in the first term. Hagino Yoshiyuki 萩野由之 (1860–1924) later held the professorship for National History at Tokyo Imperial University and was also lecturer at the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo. Another graduate was Hattori Motohiko 服部元彦 (1863–1933), Iida Take­ sato’s fourth son, who is mostly known as a linguist and grammarian. Besides works on kana usage and classical poetry, in 1890 he published one of the first dictionaries of the classical and colloquial styles, the Nihon shōjiten: gazoku zokuga 日本小辞典: 雅俗俗雅.4 Hirata Moritane

Mishima Chūshū [= Kowashi 毅] 三島中洲 (1831–1919), Nakamura Masanao, Nanma Tsunanori 南摩綱紀 (1823–1909), Okamatsu Ōkoku 岡松甕谷 (1820–1895), and Shimada Shigenori 島田重礼 (1838–1898). More information about these people, of whom some were also members of the scholarly societies described below, can be found in Nagasawa (1979). 4 The revised and extended edition of Hattori Motohiko’s 1892 work is included as vol. 11 in Meiji-ki kokugo-jisho taikei 明治期国語辞書大系. Most of his works are



new venues for kokugaku training and research125

平田盛胤 (1863–1945), whose original family name was Tozawa 戸沢, was the adopted son of Hirata Taneo. He was a priest at Kanda-jinja and later chairman of the Tokyo Prefecture Shinto Priest Association Tokyo-fu shinshoku-kai 東京府神職会. Ochiai Naobumi 落合直文 (1861–1903), the adopted son of Ochiai Naoaki, became well-known at several institutions and universities as one of the pioneers in the education of linguistics, and in 1896 was also the founder of the Institute of National Language Kokugo denshūsho 国語伝習所. Ikebe Yoshikata 池辺義象 (1861–1923), together with Hagino Yoshiyuki and Ochiai Naobumi, edited the twenty-four volume work ‘A Complete Collection of Japanese Literature’ Nihon-bungaku zensho 日本文学全書, which was published in April 1890. With its thirtyeight classical works ranging from Taketori monogatari 竹取物語 to Masukagami 増鏡, it was a major pioneering contribution to modern research on the Japanese Classics and the new academic field of Japanese literature studies. He was later temporarily adopted by Konakamura Kiyonori and thus is also known as Konakamura Yoshikata. Imaizumi Sadasuke 今泉定介 (1863–1944) was a disciple of the Hirata school scholars Yamada Nobutane 山田信胤 (1820–1889) and Maruyama Sakura. He later was chairman of Jingū hōsaikai 神宮奉斎会, which in 1946 was absorbed into the Association of Shinto Shrines Jinja honchō 神社本庁. Imaizumi was furthermore the editor of the multi-volume Kojitsu sōsho 故実叢書, the Library of Ancient Customs and Practices. Maruyama Mahiko 丸山正彦 (1859–1914), whose original family name was Egami 江上, was a disciple of the kokugaku scholar Sakamoto Akisato 坂本 秋郷 (1820–1885) and later became the adopted son of Maruyama Sakura. Matsumoto Yorishige 松本愛重 (1857–1935) later was vice-head-editor of the Kojiruien and a professor at Kokugakuin University. He was especially close to Iida Takesato, received many favours, and even lived in Iida’s home while he was studying. Sekine Masanao 關根正直 (1860–1932) was a specialist in Japanese literature and a very close friend of Hagino Yoshiyuki. After graduation, he contributed for a time to the editing of the Kojiruien. Later, he became a professor at Gakushūin University and the Women’s Higher Normal School, the predecessor of today’s Ochanomizu Women’s University, as well as a lecturer in history at Tokyo Imperial University. Another first-term graduate was Imai Hikosaburō 今井彦三郎 (1868–?), who among other things wrote works on Japanese grammar and on preserved at the Hattori Archive at Waseda University (Waseda daigaku toshokan 1984: 15–20). For exam questions, a list of books used, and lecture notes of the Training Course for the Classics, see items i イ 17: 2253–2255.

126

chapter four

kagura, the Shinto ceremonial music and dance performance (Sasaki 1934: 1153, 1155; Wada 1934: passim; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 245–257, 259–270; Machida 1992; KDNBK 1990: 90, 589, 669; KDNBK 1998: 365–377, 379–390, 391–402; KDS 2: 1678–1687; 3: 416–419, 459–460, 466–468, 523– 524, 528–529; Akatsuka 1993; Sakamoto 1944: 163). Among the second-term graduates of 1888 was Hiraoka Yoshifumi 平岡 好文 (1867–1933), a shrine priest who also taught at the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics. Iwamoto Masakata 岩本正謙 (1849–1910) was a disciple of the kokugaku scholars Chino Masayoshi 千野方義 (1828–1899) and Iida Takesato, who both, like Iwamoto, were of the Suwa region and affiliated with its famous shrine. Koshiishi Yumio 輿石弓雄 (1865–1888) was a disciple of Kurita Hiroshi and a Shinto priest at Tateoka-jinja 建岡神社. Kurokawa Mamichi 黒川真道 (1866–1925), Kurokawa Mayori’s third son, after graduating was commissioned with editorial work on the Kojiruien encyclopaedia. Following his father’s scholarly tradition, he later lectured at the Philological Department of Tokyo Imperial University as well as at Kokugakuin University, and for many years was employed in various functions at the Imperial Museum, the predecessor of today’s National Museum in Ueno. Nishida Keishi 西田敬止 (1861–1929) was an educationalist who is particularly known for his efforts in women’s education in his function as supervisor of the Tokyo Educational Institute for Women Tokyo jogakukan 東京女学館 that was founded in 1888. Namatame Tsunenori 生田目経徳 is known for many works on Japanese history and poetry, as well as editions of classical texts and his efforts in preserving old manuscripts. Akabori Matajirō 赤堀又次郎 was later a very prolific writer on Japanese history and language, an editor of the ‘Annotated Catalogue of Works on Japanese Philology’ Kokugogaku shomoku kaidai 國語學書目解題, and an assistant to Ueda Kazutoshi in his university seminars. Kashima Noriyasu 鹿島則泰 (1868–?), oldest son of the Ise Shrine priest Kashima Noribumi 鹿島則文 (1839–1901), later became the head of the Ibaraki Prefecture branch office of the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics. Ōkubo Hatsuo 大久保初男 assisted the philologist Ōtsuki Fumihiko 大槻文彦 (1847–1928) for many years in compiling the influential Japanese dictionary Genkai 言海, and was pivotal in completing its five-volume successor Dai-Genkai 大言海 after Ōtsuki passed away. Satō Kyū 佐藤球, at the time still known under his original family name Sunaga 須長, later published several copiously annotated editions of classical works. He taught Japanese for many years at Ochanomizu Women’s University. Among the second-term graduates were also Wada Hidematsu 和田英松



new venues for kokugaku training and research127

(1865–1937) and Sasaki Nobutsuna 佐佐木信綱 (1872–1963), who in 1934 both wrote memoirs about the Training Course for the Classics. Wada Hidematsu was a historian, and, as an editor at the Historiographical Institute, worked among other things on the Dai-Nihon shiryo 大日本史料. He later taught at Gakushūin University. In 1918, he received the Imperial Award of the Japan Academy for his ‘Annotated Bibliography of Books Compiled by the Imperial House’ Kōshitsu gyosen kaidai 皇室御撰解題. Sasaki Nobutsuna, son of Sasaki Hirotsuna, is best known as a tanka poet and scholar. In October 1890, he published together with his father Hirotsuna ‘A Complete Collection of Japanese Poetry’ Nihon kagaku zenshū 日本歌学全書. In 1898, he founded the poetry society Chikuhakukai 竹柏会 and was editor of the society’s magazine Kokoro no hana こゝろ の華, which is still issued today under the slightly changed name 心の花. Sasaki was the author of twelve volumes of poetry, including Omoigusa 思草, published in 1903, and Yama to mizu to 山と水と, published in 1952. As a scholar, he is known for his research on traditional poetry, such as a commentary on the eighth-century anthology Man’yōshū entitled Kōhon Man’yōshū 校本万葉集 published in 1924−25, and Waka-shi no kenkyū 和歌 史の研究, a study on the history of Japanese poetry published in 1915, for which he received the Imperial Award of the Japan Academy. Sasaki Nobutsuna moreover was awarded the first Order of Cultural Merit, Bunka kunshō 文化勲章 upon its establishment in 1937. Unfortunately, not much is known about Inoue Kinejirō 井上甲子次郎, Miyajima Yoshifumi 宮島善文 and Ōzawa Kogenda 大澤小源太 (Sasaki 1934: 1153, 1155; Wada 1934: passim; KDNBK 1990: 99, 296, 587; KDS 3: 471). When looking at the later careers of its graduates, the Training Course for the Classics, despite its brief existence, clearly epitomizes an important moment of introspection amid a strong preference for Westernized civilization and enlightenment that, for the most part, neglected traditional scholarship. The Koten kōshūka was one of several examples—and indeed also one of the causes—of a new trend that began to reconsider indigenous traditions. This became ever more tangible during the 1880s and 1890s. Simultaneously, however, the concept of kokugaku responded and adapted to this ‘modern’ civilization and the new ‘enlightened’ society in Japan. As a result, already alluded to in Konakamura Kiyonori’s inaugural remarks, the graduates of the Training Course of the Classics became bearers of a new type of kokugaku and education that overcame the classicistic and feudalistic character of traditional kokugaku. According to Ueno (1939: 390, 391 fn. 9), until the late 1880s the focus of kokugaku was primarily ancient history, institutions, authoritative

128

chapter four

precedents, evidence-based analysis of the customs and etiquette of the court, the collation of documents, and the study of poetry and prose. Encompassing these various aspects, it had performed its task sufficiently and met the practical needs of the time, but in general, kokugaku— especially the ‘mysticism’ and ‘dogmatism’ of the Hirata school—lacked an awareness of the position literary culture could take within a scholarly system. Thus, as described by Ueno, earlier kokugaku was classicistic and feudalistic in contrast to the style of literary studies that emerged after the late 1880s. Together with other young scholars who received their education at the Department of Literature’s Course of Japanese Literature—such as Mikami Sanji 三上参次 (1865–1939), Takatsu Kuwasaburō 高津鍬三郎 (1864–1921) and Ueda Kazutoshi5 and Haga Yaichi, introduced above as the two scholars who revised and enlarged the original Kokugakusha denki shūsei—the graduates of the Training Course for the Classics played a major contributing role in the adaptation and diversification of national learning by establishing the modern academic subjects of ‘national history’ kokushi-gaku, ‘national language’ kokugo-gaku and ‘national literature’ kokubun-gaku (Brownstein 1987; Eschbach-Szabo 1997, 2000). 4.2. The Ise Centre of Imperial Studies Jingū Kōgakukan Along with the Training Course for the Classics at Tokyo University, the same year, 1882, also saw the opening of the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics, Kōten kōkyūjo 皇典講究所, the predecessor of today’s Kokugakuin University, as well as of the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies, Jingū kōgakukan 神宮皇学館, the predecessor of today’s Kōgakkan University. These two institutions clearly show the renewed interest in traditional scholarship that began in the early 1880s. As mentioned above, after the failure of the Great Teaching Institute Daikyōin and in spite of the creation of the Office of Shinto Affairs, the tendency for people in the government, as well as those within Shinto circles, was to proceed in the direction of saikyō-bunri, the separation of ‘ritual’ or ceremonial worship, and ‘doctrine’ or religious teaching. The socalled Pantheon Dispute of 1880 added momentum to this course. Both saikyō-bunri and the Pantheon Dispute are sometimes considered the 5 Ueda was a student of the famous Japanologist Basil Hall Chamberlain. He later became the director of Kokugakuin University as well as of Kōgakkan University.



new venues for kokugaku training and research129

direct reason for the Kōten kōkyūjo and Jingū kōgakukan having been established (Sakamoto 1944: 163). Even conservative hardliners like Maruyama Sakura advocated the separation of ritual and doctrine as the best means for maintaining state rituals and thus preserving the idealized form of saisei-itchi, the unity of ritual and politics. For this, the concept of a ternary unity of ritual, politics and religious doctrine—saiseikyō-itchi— as had been envisioned and yearned for at the time of the restoration, had to be dropped. It was unavoidable that the conservative image of Shinto’s role in the Meiji state had to change, with one symbol of this change being the opinion that Shinto was not a religion. The view that Shinto transcends religion, is separate and above it, began to be popularized at this time, although it had occasionally even been voiced somewhat earlier, as the above-mentioned memorandum of 27 March 1874 declaring Shinto the national teaching or state doctrine has shown. This view was taken, among many others, by Sasaki Takayuki 佐佐木高行 (1830–1910), a disciple of the kokugaku scholar Kamochi Masazumi 鹿持雅澄 (1791–1858) and a close aide of Emperor Meiji. Sasaki was also a member of the Iwakura Embassy to America and Europe and later became the head of Kokugakuin University (Sakamoto 1944: 163; KDNBK 1990: 306; 1998: 59–79). On 24 January 1882, after the Pantheon Dispute, a Ministry of Home Affairs Notification declared that Shinto priests serving at prefectural or national shrines were to refrain from conducting funeral rites. This order intended to solve—or rather avoid a clear settlement of—the Pantheon Dispute. If funerals, at which the name of the deity reigning over the underworld might have to be mentioned, were not performed at prefectural or state shrines, the doctrinal questions being heavily disputed were avoided at the state level. In addition, all such priests were no longer allowed to function as public instructors or proselytizers. This decision annulled the Great Council of State Ordinance No. 220 of 10 September 1872, which had ordered all Shinto priests also to function as national evangelists (Lokowandt 1978: 297 doc. 58; 334 doc. 99). On 4 March 1882, Prince Arisugawa-no-miya Takahito-shinnō was dismissed as the president of the Shinto evangelists and became a government official for those rites personally conducted by the emperor (Nihon shiseki kyōkai 1976, 2: 491; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 28; KDNBK 1998: 28). National evangelism was finally abolished completely in 1884. Already earlier, Buddhist public instructors like the Jōdo shinshū priest Shimaji Mokurai had repeatedly called for its abolition on claims of religious freedom, which no doubt was one force that pushed ahead the demand that Shinto priests merely

130

chapter four

conduct rituals. Likewise, at the Training Course for the Classics at Tokyo University religious Shinto as such was kept at a distance. In the 1880s, a Western lifestyle clearly took the lead, as did Western thinking, not only with regard to religious freedom. A symbol of the times was the Western-style dance hall Rokumei-kan 鹿鳴館, which was built in 1883.6 Against this background, the opening of the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics and the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies were significant since these two institutions not only laid the foundations for academic research on Shinto, but also paved the way for systematic training in kokugaku. The two institutions were seen by some as the last chance to hand on the torch that was ‘yet still burning’. Some of the eminent scholars of the earlier generation were of course still present and active, as for instance Iida Takesato, who was a specialist on the Nihonshoki and ancient history, or Tsunoda Tadayuki, who in 1863, together with other Hirata school patriots, deplored the times by beheading the wooden Ashikaga statues at Kyoto’s Tōji-in and who later, for many years, was the head priest at Atsuta-jingū 熱田神宮 in Nagoya. However, many of those who would have been able to transmit what they had received directly about early modern kokugaku during the Edo period had by this time already passed away (Tani 1966–68: 194), and the remaining kokugaku scholars who had been trained in ‘authentic’ national learning were already quite advanced in age. Among the more active and prominent national-learning scholars who had died shortly after the Restoration were, in chronological order: Suzuka Tsuratane 鈴鹿連胤 (1795–1871), Suzuki Masayuki and Ōkuni Takamasa died in 1871; Hirata Nobutane, Tamamatsu Misao and Ishiguro Chihiro died in 1872; Senge Takahiko 千家尊孫 (1796–1873), Kishima Hirokage 鬼島広蔭 (1793–1873) and Hatta Tomonori died in 1873; Ōhata Harukuni died two years later, in 1875; Uematsu Shigetake died in 1876; Date Chihiro 6 The Rokumei-kan or ‘Deer-Cry Pavilion’ was a two-storey brick building designed by the British architect Josiah Conder (1852–1920) and built in 1883 in the Hibiya section of Tokyo, near the present location of the Imperial Hotel. It was the site of numerous balls and other social events attended by prominent Japanese and foreigners and came to symbolize the period of rapid Westernization during the early Meiji years. This period is thus often called the Rokumei-kan era. One of the reasons for its construction was to demonstrate Japan’s advancement and equal position towards the Western powers, and thus was among the endeavours to revise the so-called Unequal Treaties. After the failed attempts in the mid-1880s of Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru 井上馨 (1835–1915) to revise these treaties, a reaction against Westernization set in throughout the country and in 1890, the Rokumeikan was renamed Kazoku kaikan 華族会館 or Peers’ Hall. The building was finally torn down in 1940.



new venues for kokugaku training and research131

伊達千広 (1802–1877) and Inō Hidenori both died in 1877; Okamoto Yasukata died the following year; Godaiin Mihashira and Yokoyama Yoshikiyo died in 1879; Kondō Yoshiki 近藤芳樹 (1801–1880), Nishikawa Yoshisuke and Hirata Kanetane died in 1880; Watanabe Shigekage 渡辺重 蔭 (1792–1881) and Sakakibara Yoshino died in 1881; and Hatano Takao had died in 1882. For many observers it was only a question of time for it to be ‘too late’ for their legacy to be conveyed. Hence, the establishing of the Kōten kōkyūjo and of Jingū kōgakukan was all the more significant when seen in the light of the widely-held perception that this was the ‘last opportunity’ to pass on a true and proper national learning.

 Shikida Toshiharu and the Ise Teaching Institute Jingū-kyōin A major force in establishing the Jingū kōgakukan, the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies, was Shikida Toshiharu 敷田年治 (1817–1902). He was born into a family of hereditary shrine priests at Hachiryū no miya 八龍宮 near Usa in Buzen province, today’s Ōita Prefecture. In 1853 he went to Edo and worked closely with the national-learning scholars Suzuki Shigetane and Kurokawa Harumura. From 1863 he gave lectures at Kurokawa’s centre for the study of Japanese classics Wagaku kōdansho 和学講談所 and was active in the imperialist movement. In 1868, soon after publishing his Meimeiron 明々論, in which he expounded the sanctity of Japan’s national polity, he moved to Osaka where he lectured on the Kojiki and Nihonshoki at the National Learning Training School Kokugaku kyōshūjo 国学教習所. In 1869 he was hired by Shimazu Tadahiro 島津忠寛 (1828–1896), the lord of Sadowara Domain in today’s Miyazaki Prefecture, to create a domain school in Osaka and to teach kokugaku. Although the school was closed in 1871 due to the abolition of domains and establishment of prefectures, he gained a high reputation in these two years. After this, he lived a secluded life, immersing himself in writing. On 1 September 1881, at the age of sixtyfive, he went to Ise at the special request of the head priest of the Iseshrine, Prince Kuni-no-miya Asahiko-shinnō 久邇宮朝彦親王 (1824–1891), to become a professor at the Ise Teaching Institute Jingū-kyōin. Twentythree years earlier, Shikida had been allowed to attend study meetings held at Prince Asahiko’s villa in Kyoto, where he voiced his opinions on scholarship and had thus caught the prince’s attention (KDS 3: 333–334; Kamata 1966–68: 407). Other distinguished scholars at the Institute at this time were Hori Hidenari 堀秀成 (1820–1887) and his disciple Ochiai Naozumi 落合直澄 (1840–1891).

132

chapter four

From January 1882—as an outcome of the Pantheon Dispute as mentioned above—Shinto priests at prefectural or national shrines were no longer allowed to function simultaneously as evangelist public instructors. The Ise Shrine and the Ise Teaching Institute therefore had to be separated. Due to this development, the Institute’s Hall of Original Teaching or Jingū-kyōin honkyōkan 神宮教院本教館 was closed on 9 December 1881. At this time, ‘non-religious’ shrine or state Shinto was set apart from religious sectarian or popular Shinto and Jingū-kyōin, which originally had been established as a branch institute of the Great Teaching Institute Daikyōin at Ise, declared itself independent from the official Ise Shrine administration office and took the name Jingū-kyō. In the turmoil that followed, Tanaka Yoritsune—one initiator of the Pantheon Dispute—resigned from his post as high priest at Ise Shrine, a post he had held since 1874, and became the first head of Jingū-kyō, which in 1882 was recognized as an independent Shinto sect. Also incorporated into Jingū-kyō at the time was the Divine Wind Association, Shinpūkōsha 神風講社, an organization formed in 1873 out of several local Ise confraternities around the country by Urata Nagatami, who had established the Ise Teaching Institute Jingū-kyōin in 1872. The name shinpū or kamikaze was a poetic epithet for Ise. In 1899, Jingū-kyō became a secular juridical group and reorganized as a service organization for the grand shrines at Ise. At the time of Tanaka’s resignation as the high priest in 1882, Shikida Toshiharu temporarily considered his own resignation as well.  The Creation, Regulations and Opening Ceremony of the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies On 20 April 1882, Prince Kuni-no-miya Asahiko-shinnō came to Ise for the Mountain-foot-ritual yamaguchi-sai 山口祭—a celebration praying for the safe felling of trees to the deity at the foot, or yamaguchi, of the wooded mountain where the timber used to rebuild Ise Shrine every twenty years is taken. The prince had been appointed Ise Shrine’s head priest on 12 July 1875 and thus took charge of the ritual, which was to be conducted that May (MTK 3: 476; 4: 327). Prince Asahiko admonished Shikida not to resign, saying that, although the Teaching Institute had been handed over to the Office of Shinto Affairs, he desired Shikida to be in charge of instructing young Shinto priests and others. He stated that this place of learning should be created in the library of the inner Ise Shrine,



new venues for kokugaku training and research133

the Hayashizaki-bunko 林崎文庫.7 On 30 April 1882, a few days after his meeting with Shikida and most likely with the precedence of Kyoto’s Institute of Imperial Studies Kōgakujo in mind, Prince Asahiko, in his function as head priest, issued an official order to ‘create a Centre of Imperial Studies (Kōgakukan) at the Hayashizaki Library’ in Ise (Jingū kōgakukan 1932: unnumbered exordium [p. 1]; Kamata 1966–68: 408). The focus of this institute can be seen in its regulations, which were attached to a letter of inquiry sent for approval to the Minister of Home Affairs Yamada Akiyoshi 山田顕義 (1844–1892) on 6 July 1882 by the associate chief priest Fujioka Yoshifuru 藤岡好古 (1846–1917), a disciple of Hori Hidenari and later a member of Ōyashima-gakkai. The regulations state, among other things, that: The shrine’s old legends should be elucidated and also, the students should master Shinto’s sacred scriptures (shinten), national history, the [ancient] codes of laws and ethics, geography, the country’s produce, ethnicity (minzoku) and linguistics. […] Based on our country’s ancient customs and manners, the way of devotion for the deities and reverence for the emperor should be exalted and with such a mind, one’s debt to one’s country recompensed. (Kamata 1966–68: 409)

Shikida became the head teacher of this new Ise Centre of Imperial Studies Jingū kōgakukan. However, Prince Asahiko had a further important expectation from him: he was asked to be a special tutor for the education of Asahiko’s second son, Prince Iwamaro 巌麿 (1867–1909), who since January of that year had resided in Ise to study at the Ise Teaching Institute Jingūkyōin (KDS 3: 333; Jingū kōgakukan 1932: 268). The opening ceremony of the Jingū kōgakukan was held the following year, on 28 April 1883. Iwamaro took part in the ceremony, on the order of his father, as did the associate chief priest Fujioka Yoshifuru, all five senior Shrine priests, the five managers,8 the six associate junior priests, one teacher, four assistant instructors and other related officials. The participants gathered at noon and the ritual ceremonies were conducted in front of the altar from two o’clock onwards. Being worshipped were the 7 In 1907, the Hayashizaki-bunko was combined with the outer shrine’s library Miyazakibunko 宮崎文庫 to form the Jingū-bunko 神宮文庫 or Ise-shrine Library, which was connected to the Board for the Ise Grand Shrines Jingū-shichō 神宮司庁. In addition to documents and records relating to the Ise shrines and Shintō, it contains a large collection of old Japanese and Chinese books. 8 The managers or shuten 主典 were government officials at national shrines, engaged in rituals and general affairs. Ranked below the senior priests, they belonged to the clerical staff and were considered ‘junior officials’.

134

chapter four

‘ancestors of learning’, Prince Toneri-shinnō 舎人親王 (676–735) and Ō no Yasumaro 太安萬侶 (?–723), who were both involved in the compilation of the ancient court chronicles, the Nihonshoki and Kojiki, respectively. Shikida Toshiharu wrote the ritual prayer norito that was recited. After the ceremony, an attending teacher gave a lecture on national history and an assistant instructor, on Chinese documents (Kamata 1966–68: 413). This opening ceremony displays a significant shift away from the earlier focus on Omoikane no kami and Kuebiko no kami as the deities of learning, as had been in the ceremonies held at the Jingikan or in the gakushinsai performed at the first university in Tokyo. As described above, these two were especially venerated in the Hirata school’s Shintoist form of kokugaku as deities of wisdom. It is significant that now, the new ‘role models’ for scholarship were two actual historical figures who were associated with the earliest extant mythic-historical writings and national annals, which had been compiled in order to legitimize imperial rule. This again shows a shift within national learning from a theological approach to one that was more historiological. Although the opening ceremony had already been held, the official accreditation for the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies was only gained on 26 May 1883, after a petition by Fujioka Yoshifuru sent on 21 May to the Minister of Home Affairs, Yamada Akiyoshi, was approved. The teaching itself commenced on 11 January 1885, after Kashima Noribumi—who since taking up his post as Ise Shrine’s chief priest in April 1884 had initiated several internal reforms—had revised the earlier regulations. Rather than emphasizing at the beginning that ‘the shrine’s old legends should be elucidated’, this focus on specific Ise Shrine studies was dropped and the sole scholarly objective became the more general topics of Shinto’s sacred scriptures, national history, the ancient codes of laws and ethics, geography, the country’s produce, ethnicity and linguistics (Jingū kōgakukan 1932: 188; Kamata 1966–68: 413–414; KDS 3: 332). Also in 1883, Shikida Toshiharu resigned from his job as Shinto priest and special lecturer to Prince Iwamaro due to health problems and returned to Osaka. With the exception of the three years he spent in Ise, Shikida lived in reclusion in Osaka from 1872 until his death in 1902 at the age of eighty-five. In these thirty years, he wrote a vast number of commentaries on ancient classics, including Kojiki-hyōchū 古事記標註 (1878), Nihongi-hyōchū 日本紀標註 (1891) and Norito-benmō 祝詞辨蒙 (1895). Among these works, the extensive and detailed indices to national literature and Chinese classics, such as the fifty-five-volume Kokuten jichō 國典 字徴, display his scholarly character best (KDS 3: 334). Prince Iwamaro



new venues for kokugaku training and research135

continued his studies at the Institute. After his wedding in 1892, he assumed the name Kaya-no-miya Kuninori-ō 賀陽宮邦憲王, became president of the Jingū kōgakukan, and in 1895, the ceremonial head priest of Ise Shrine (Jingū kōgakukan 1932: 189; MTK 5: 805; 8: 668).  Personnel at the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies When comparing their respective staff and personnel, a close relationship can be noticed between the Course of Japanese Literature at Tokyo University’s Department of Literature, its Training Course for the Classics, the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics and the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies—the latter three moreover having been established the same year, in 1882. Although the Training Course for the Classics Koten kōshūka and the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo concentrated on academic training and research, while the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies Jingū kōgakukan focused more on the education of future Shinto priests, the transfer of affiliation as well as consecutive or simultaneous holding of posts at several of these institutions seems to have been common. The festschrift for the fiftieth anniversary of the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies contains photos with the names of its first ten directors, of whom many have already been mentioned above. In chronological order, this office was held by Nakata Masamoto 中田正朔 (1841–1913), followed by Kashima Noribumi and Reizei Tamemoto 冷泉 爲紀 (1854–1905). All three were also shrine priests at Ise. The fourth director was Kuwabara Yoshiki 桑原芳樹 (1861–1943), a graduate of the Kōten kōkyūjo, a shrine priest and a co-editor of the encyclopaedia of historic sources Kojiruien. He was followed by Kinoto Katsutaka, a disciple of Yano Harumichi, who in turn was followed by Takeda Chiyosaburō 武田千代三 郎 (1867–1932), Matsuura Torasaburō 松浦寅三郎 (1866–1947), Ueda Kazutoshi, Morita Minoru 森田實 and Hirata Kan’ichi 平田貫一 (1883– 1971). Its last director, until the end of the Second World War, was the linguist and nationalist historian Yamada Yoshio 山田孝雄 (1873–1958), one of the main theoreticians of the kokutai ideology of the time. When the institution reopened as Kōgakkan University in 1962, once again Hirata Kan’ichi became its director (Jingū kōgakukan 1932: unnumbered exordium; KDS 3: 502–507; KDNBK 1990: 191, 492, 230, 784). Of the administrative staff and academic instructors during Jingū kōgakukan’s initial years, some were employed, then after a while retired for various reasons, and later were again appointed, in some cases at a different post. Where the information is available, the festschrift lists the

136

chapter four

dates of employment or retirement, but early sources are incomplete and not all personnel can be clearly identified. In addition to the directors Kashima Noribumi and Kinoto Katsutaka, who also taught some classes at the institute, the better-known professors and lecturers were Mikanagi Kiyonao 御巫清直 (1812–1894), an Ise Shrine priest and disciple of Motoori  Haruniwa, the linguist Satō Nobuzane, Ban Masaomi’s brother Ban Masahiro 阪正裕, Suzuki Shigetane’s disciple Yoshida Toyobumi 吉田 豊文 (1871–1922), the later editorial director of the Kojiruien Hosokawa Junjirō 細川潤次郎 (1834–1923), and Iida Takesato. Others were Imaizumi Kazumune 今泉一致 (1848–1923), Matsuki Mitsuhiko 松木光彦 (1858– 1920), Kamo no Mabuchi’s direct descendant Okabe Yuzuru 岡部讓 (1849–1937), Gonda Naosuke’s disciple and Ise Shrine priest Shimoda Yoshiteru 下田義照 (1852–1929), Aoki Nobuzane 青木陳實 (1854–1918) who had studied under Hori Hidenari and Mikanagi Kiyonao, Ōkubo Kataiwa 大久保堅磐 (1859–1927), a fellow student and close friend of Ochiai Naobumi and Ikebe Yoshikata, Ise Shrine priest Jūmonji Shigemitsu 十文 字重光 (1842–1904), who in 1864 had participated in the Hamaguri Gate rebellion at Kyoto’s imperial palace, and Ise-born Hashimura Kiyokaze 橋 村淳風 (1835–1901), who was praised by Motoori Toyokai as one of the country’s most brilliant contemporary poets. Hashimura later published several works in the Ōyashima-gakkai journal (Jingū kōgakukan 1932: 209– 211; KDS 2: 1667–1669; 3: 307–313, 461–464; KDNBK 1990: 12, 90, 146, 172, 350, 351, 551, 623, 654, 684). It goes without saying that over the years, many of those affiliated with the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies also had close relations to other public and private institutions, groups, and individuals concerned with kokugaku. This close-knit scholarly network, which was comprised of people who formerly had had differing opinions and at times were part of competing factions, is a hitherto neglected but significant aspect that should be kept in mind when investigating Meiji-period kokugaku. 4.3. The Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo On the whole, perhaps more significant than the endeavours at the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies were the attempts to ensure the dissemination of knowledge on the Japanese classics at institutions not affiliated to a specific Shinto shrine. Various kokugaku scholars collaborated to develop Japan-centred education by using as momentum the contemporary trend



new venues for kokugaku training and research137

of kyōgaku bunri 教学分離, the separation of religious doctrine and scholarship. Concerned with founding a national polity, several influential figures sought a breakthrough in the deadlock that had developed between the Shintoist and educational spheres. The head of the Bureau of Shrines and Temples, Sakurai Yoshikata, for instance, deplored the situation in an 1881 petition to the then Minister of Finance and later Prime Minister Matsukata Masayoshi 松方正義 (1835–1924), stating: Of all the established nations, is there a single one that does not study its own classics and scriptures? Yet in our land, in the aftermath of the turmoil of the Restoration, we have made progress our goal and have not had time to study the classics and the scriptures. However, more than ten years have passed, and there is the fear that our children will not know the uniqueness of our good institutions and beautiful customs and [thus] will fall into the bad habit of despising the old and competing over the new. Therefore, we should establish a school to study the classics and make it a place where the ceremonies, imperial rites and the ancient way will be studied and illuminated. (Kokugakuin daigaku kōshi shiryōka 1994: 20–21)

In response, on 21 July 1881, Matsukata submitted a memorandum to Grand-chancellor of State, Sanjō Sanetomi, that suggested the creation of an Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics along these lines. Already on 6 February 1881, several kokugaku scholars and Shintoists, including Motoori Toyokai, Kashima Noribumi, Tsunoda Tadayuki, his younger brother Tsunoda Nobuyuki 角田信道 (1846–1884), Akiyama Terue, Honjō Munetake 本庄宗武 (1846–1893) and others, had submitted a plan for establishing a higher teaching institute to Iwashita Masahira, president of the Office of Shinto Affairs who, since 1856, had been a posthumous disciple of Hirata Atsutane (Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 10, 285; KDNBK 1998: 10, 418; KDNBK 1990: 97; KDS 2: 1698). Some months later, on 10 November 1881, Iwashita presented a similar petition to Prince Arisugawa-no-miya Takahito-shinnō, the president of the national evangelists (Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 19–31; KDNBK 1998: 19–31; Nihon shiseki kyōkai 1976). The proposed institute, in accordance with the separation of doctrine and scholarship, was to teach and do research on the national classics and, together with elucidating the kokutai, should consequently become a mediator for cultivating its students’ moral character. In short, in response to the general trend of propagating an imperial moralism, dōtoku shugi, among the populace, these petitions proposed the reestablishment of national education ranging between the study of the national polity and of moral philosophy. Again, we see here steps being taken to abandon the former feudalistic character

138

chapter four

of kokugaku and, especially, the Hirata faction’s mystic interests, in a similar manner as had been done in the Training Course for the Classics, described above. This was combined with a comeback of the spirit of kannagara no michi or honkyō-gaku in the form of strong concern for a particularistic and eternal national polity. The old forms were transforming into a comprehensive modern scholarship, albeit in service of the state. After considering Iwashita’s petition, on 1 December, Prince Takahito had an audience, lasting about an hour, with Emperor Meiji. In his report to the emperor, he stated quite resolutely that since Western studies had been introduced, the Japanese kokutai or national polity had not only been criticized, but even sometimes rejected. In some cases this already amounted to opinions pronouncing equal rights between sovereign and subjects and the disregard of proper loyalty. He continued that from time immemorial, the imperial realm had had Shinto as its base, and that it is reverence to the deities with which the emperor has traditionally shown his filial piety. It is most likely that here, Arisugawa-no-miya had in mind the example of the legendary Emperor Jinmu, who in his fourth year of reign is said to have worshipped the heavenly imperial ancestor deities to show and develop his filial piety. This episode was used to justify the much-idealized unity of ritual and politics. Although unfortunately some have interpreted this as stubbornness in light of the general Western enlightenment, in the prince’s eyes the preservation of national polity could not exist without reverence to the deities. To this end, it was necessary to know and understand the relevant sacred scriptures and national classics (MTK 5: 581, 625).  Creation of an Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics In February 1882, the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics was granted an annual sum of 2,400 Yen over a span of ten years by an endowment from the Emperor’s Privy Purse through the Imperial Household Minister Tokudaiji Sanetsune. With this money, on 6 June, the manor of a former direct shogunal vassal located at Iida-chō 5–8 in Tokyo’s Kōjimachi district was bought, and a lecture hall, classrooms, dormitory, library and office were erected. Managerial posts were decided on 15 August. Prince Arisugawa-no-miya Takahito-shinnō became the institute’s first president, with Iwashita Masahira functioning as vice-president. Sakurai Yoshikata was appointed as the head manager, and Shishino Nakaba 宍野半 (1844– 1884) as managing secretary, with Matsuno Isao as his assistant (Kamata 1966–68: 407; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 11; KDNBK 1998: 11).



new venues for kokugaku training and research139

The aim of establishing Kōten kōkyūjo—in a way an expansion on the Seitoryō 生徒寮, which until its closure had existed within the Office of Shinto Affairs for the training of Shinto priests—can be found in many sources, such as Iwashita Masahira’s request for establishing the institute sent to the Minister of Home Affairs Yamada Akiyoshi on 21 August 1882 (Kamata 1966–68: 410). Another example is a lengthy appeal to the deities, a kōmon 告文, that was presented in September and jointly signed by the seven kokugaku scholars Shishino Nakaba, Inoue Yorikuni, Miyazaki Tominari 宮崎富成, Kubo Sueshige, Matsuno Isao, Furukawa Toyochika 古川豐彭 (1831–1890) and Ishigaki Jinnai 石垣甚内 (Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 286–288; KDNBK 1998: 419–421). The aims behind establishing the institute were also stated in the official proclamation given by the institute’s first director, Prince Arisugawa-no-miya Takahito-shinnō, at the opening ceremony on 4 November. At this ceremony, more than a hundred dignitaries were present, indicating the great significance placed on the institute by the state. Among them were Grand-chancellor of State Sanjō Sanetomi, Minister of Justice Ōki Takatō 大木喬任 (1832–1899), Minister of Education Fukuoka Takachika 福岡孝悌 (1835–1919), Minister of Public Works Sasaki Takayuki, Minister of the Imperial Household Tokudaiji Sanetsune, as well as several prefectural governors and high priests of national shrines. Everyone at the ceremony, including the students, wore hitatare 直垂 or ancient ceremonial court robes (Kamata 1966–68: 411–412; Kokugakuin daigaku hachijūgonenshi hensan iinkai 1970: 28–33). In his address, Prince Takahito explicitly explained the scholarly path that the institute was to take. He stated that the school’s fundamental spirit was ‘to strengthen the nation’s basic foundation by elucidating the national polity (kokutai) and to fulfil the duty of one’s existence by cultivating moral character; these are regulations inviolable throughout posterity’ (Kamata 1966–68: 412; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 29, 288; KDNBK 1998: 29, 421). In order to live up to the intention of its founding, throughout the 1880s, the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics established branches in every prefecture, with the only exception being Okinawa.9 By the end of 1883, fourteen branch institutes, the so-called Kōten kōkyū bunsho 皇典 講究分所, already existed all over the country, thus allowing for the 9 However, as noted in chapter seven below, Okinawa as well as Hokkaidō later were explicitly included in Ōyashima-gakkai’s educational efforts, which intended to include the ‘whole’ of Japan. This was part of the ongoing nation-building.

140

chapter four

education and cultivation of talented people in every region. Later, certificates of graduation issued by the head institute in Tokyo and those of examinations at the branches were used by the Ministry of Home Affairs as requirements for appointments as Shinto priests at both prefectural and lower shrines (Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 13; KDNBK 1998: 13; Kamata 1966–68: 412).  Curriculum and Personnel at Kōten Kōkyūjo Although the official opening ceremony of the Kōten kōkyūjo was conducted on 4 November, teaching itself had already commenced on 1 September 1882 with seven instructors and twenty-seven students. The institute’s scholarly subjects were divided into two departments: productive work (sagyō 作業), which included music, ceremonial etiquette (reishiki 礼式) and physical exercise (taisō 体操), and literature, which included history, morals (shūshin 修身), laws and ordinances (hōrei 法令) and prose composition (bunshō 文章) (Kamata 1966–68: 411–412). A document held in the archives of Kokugakuin University, entitled Kōten kōkyūjo kiroku 皇典講究所記録, Records of the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics, gives a list of the institute’s staff and related personnel. Among its thirty-nine supporters were, for instance, Kunishige Masabumi 國重正文 (1840–1901), a later director of Kokugakuin, and Kawabata Sanefumi 河鰭實文 (1845–1910), the younger brother of Sanjō Sanetomi. Among the thirty names of imperial representative aides were the court noble Kujō Michitaka 九條道孝 (1839–1906), Emperor Meiji’s maternal grandfather Nakayama Tadayasu, Tokudaiji Sanetsune, Yamada Akiyoshi, Matsukata Masayoshi, Iwashita Masahira, Yoshikawa Akimasa 芳川顕正 (1842–1920), the former daimyo of Saga Domain Nabeshima Naohiro 鍋島直大 (1846–1921), who later became the institute’s director and was a member of Shigaku-kyōkai, Kaieda Nobuyoshi 海江田信義 (1832–1906), who also was a member of Shigaku-kyōkai, Sugi Magoshichirō 杉孫七郎 (1835–1920), who had taken part in the shogunate delegation to Europe in 1861, and Takasaki Masakaze, who later was the first director of the court’s Imperial Office for Poetry, O-uta dokoro, and a member of Ōyashima-gakkai. Among the professors, instructors and assistant teachers at Kōten kōkyūjo in its early period were all the leaders of the contemporary kokugaku world. Most of them were also members of the scholarly society Ōyashima-gakkai described below. The institute’s teaching staff consisted of Ban Masaomi, Gonda Naosuke, Hayashi Mikaomi 林甕臣 (1844–1922),



new venues for kokugaku training and research141

Iida Takesato, Inoue Yorikuni, Kawada Ōkō, Kinoto Katsutaka, Konakamura Kiyonori, Kurita Hiroshi, Maruyama Sakura, Matsuno Isao, Motoori Toyokai, Mozume Takami, Ōzeki Isoshi 大關克 (?–1891), Yano Harumichi and Yamada Aritoshi (Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 12; KDNBK 1998: 12). Moreover, Yano Harumichi—who following the death of Hirata Kanetane was probably the most dedicated Hirata school adherent—became the head of its Literature Department. Significantly, a major part of the institute’s academic personnel had a Hirata school background. Here again, also within this faction of national learning, this can be seen as a sign of the shift from endeavours that were originally more spiritual and religious to those that were academic and educational.  Publications, Compilations and the Origin of the Historical Encyclopaedia Kojiruien The Kōten kōkyūjo not only functioned as a teaching and research institute, it is also known for its publications. It issued the journal Nihon bungaku 日本文學, later renamed Kokubungaku 國文學, which was the predecessor of the still existing Kokugakuin zasshi 國學院雜誌. It also published the Kōten kōkyūjo kōen 皇典講究所講演, a repository of high-level research. Moreover, it published Hōsei ronsan 法制論纂, Kokushi ronsan 國史論纂 and Kokubun ronsan 國文論纂, which already indicate the various directions that modern kokugaku was eventually to take. Another major contribution to scholarship, of great value still today, was the longterm project of compiling historical sources on pre-modern Japan, the Kojiruien 古事類苑, ‘A Classified Compilation of Ancient Matters’. The Kojiruien project was initially proposed by Nishimura Shigeki 西村 茂樹 (1828–1902), who at the time worked as a ‘greater clerical official’ at the Ministry of Education, the Monbushō. Sakakibara Yoshino and Nishimura’s close friend Naka Michitaka 那珂通高 (1828–1879) participated in early meetings and planning work. Editorial work finally commenced in spring 1879, with Konakamura Kiyonori also enlisted to participate. As mentioned above, Konakamura requested to be relieved from his post as lecturer on Japanese literature at Tokyo University in April 1879 in order to concentrate on editing this monumental encyclopaedia. The Kojiruien was directly related to an earlier Ministry of Education undertaking—and in some way might even be called a counter-product to balance out this earlier enterprise—that reflected the general trend of enlightenment according to Western models. Since its establishment in September 1871, the Ministry of Education Monbushō for several years had

142

chapter four

supported a translation of the popular encyclopaedia Chambers’ Infor­ mation for the People, edited by William Chambers (1800–1883) and his younger brother Robert (1802–1871), whose fifth edition had been printed in London in 1874–75. This Monbushō translation project was initiated by Mitsukuri Rinshō 箕作麟祥 (1846–1897), a legal scholar who had attended the World Exhibition in Paris in 1867 as a representative of Japan and who, after his return, among other things had translated the Napoleonic Laws into Japanese. The large-scale enterprise of translating the Chambers work was finally published in twenty volumes between 1877 and 1883 under the title Hyakka zensho 百科全書, meaning simply encyclopaedia. Its translators were, however, not limited to people working at the Ministry of Education, but also comprised many contemporary scholars of Western learning (Fukukama 1968; Matsunaga 2005). In addition to completing the translation, a major component was its final proofreading. Among the translators were Ōi Kenkichi 大井鎌吉, Ōtsuki Fumihiko, as well as Nishimura Shigeki himself. Among the proofreaders were Sakakibara Yoshino, Ōi Kenkichi, Hirano Chishū 平野知秋 (1814–1883), Iijima Hanjūrō 飯島半十郎 (1841–1901) and Konagai Hachirō 小永井八郎 (1829–1888). All of these men were also members of the Boundless Society Yōyōsha (Wáng 2005: 202). The work of the proofreaders did not merely involve checking to see if the translated sentences were correct. They had to have an understanding of the original, but also had to be well versed in their own traditions in order to find suitable Japanese terms and arrange them in a comprehensible manner for the reader. As Nishimura, in his memoirs Ōji-roku 往事録, states: Scholars of Western learning were made members of the section staff [at the Monbushō]. Furthermore, Western books suitable for education were translated. At that time, however, the majority of those able to read a Western book were not at all versed in the writings of Japan and China. Thus, each time something was translated, someone versed in Chinese literature had to proofread those texts. (Nihon kōdōkai 1976, 3: 622)

One characteristic of the Yōyōsha was that its members, with their individual skills, were as a group well informed about Japanese, Chinese and Western things alike, and hence their accumulated knowledge about kokugaku, Confucianism and Western studies could function as a mediator of Western culture. The challenge during this mediation was to locate or, in some case, create an equivalent in the conventional and traditional knowledge of the receiver. Knowledge of one’s own traditions was thus an indispensable prerequisite.



new venues for kokugaku training and research143  The Editors and the Essence of the Kojiruien

On 8 March 1879, Nishimura Shigeki proposed the compilation and classification of historical matters and traditional knowledge prone to get lost in the current of the times. The Ministry of Education responded by commissioning Konakamura Kiyonori, Naka Michitaka and Sakakibara Yoshino as the officials in charge of this compilation, with Konakamura as the chief editor and Nishimura Shigeki as the head of its report division (Miyaji/ Saeki 1990: 546). In 1890, the Ministry of Education entrusted the project to the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics, obviously the most appropriate place for such a venture. Most of the research and compilation work was done at the Kōten kōkyūjo, involving nearly all of its members in one way or another. In 1895, however, the final editing and printing was handed over to the Board for the Ise Grand Shrines Jingū shichō 神宮司庁, and thus the later editorial membership of the project was also affiliated with the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies, described above. The Kojiruien was published between 1896 and 1913 in 351 Japanesebound volumes. From 1927 on, it was reprinted in a second edition. A third, revised edition in sixty Western-bound volumes was issued by the Kojiruien kankōkai, or Committee for the Publication of the Kojiruien in 1931–36. A fourth, fifty-one-volume pocket edition in smaller print-type was published in 1967–71 by Yoshikawa kōbunkan, while a fifth edition came out in 1981–85 and a sixth in 1995–98, both also in fifty-one volumes and from the same publisher. The Kojiruien is the only governmentcompiled encyclopaedia in Japan and is still the largest Japanese encyclopaedia of historic sources, spanning about a thousand maki, a Japanese unit for counting scrolls or book parts, of text. Its information is arranged in thirty categories based on traditional Chinese encyclopaedic conventions, with sections including: celestial bodies, tenbu 天部; provinces, chibu 地部; offices and ranks, kan’ibu 官位部; sovereigns, teiōbu 帝王部; and seasonal ceremonies, saijibu 歳時部. The largest section, however, with about a hundred maki or four printed volumes, deals with deities and shrines, jingibu 神祇部. An introductory essay on each topic is followed by extensive citations of relevant primary and early secondary documents, all by pre-1867 Japanese authors. Over its thirty-five years of genesis, the editorial directorship of the Kojiruien was held by Kawada Ōkō, and after his death, by Hosokawa Junjirō. Editor-in-chief was Satō Nobuzane and Matsumoto Yorishige was the vice editor-in-chief (Miyaji/ Saeki 1990: 546). Naturally, the normal compilers and editors changed over time as well. Most of them were

144

chapter four

related either to the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics or the private scholarly associations discussed below. In addition to the original commissioners Konakamura, Naka and Sakakibara, other people who were involved included the Shinto scholar Saeki Ariyo­shi 佐伯有義 (1867– 1945), who studied under Inoue Yorikuni and in 1937 co-authored an encyclopaedic dictionary of Shinto, and the historian and moralist Hiroike Chikurō 広池千九郎 (1866–1938), who had originally studied at the Beppu branch of the Kōten kōkyūjo and, after being introduced by Wada Hidematsu, later also became a disciple of Inoue. Others were Kimura Masakoto, Kosugi Sugimura, Kurokawa Mayori, Naitō Chisō, Ōsawa Sugaomi, Ōtsuki Fumihiko, Sano Hisanari 佐野久成 (1840–1907) and Wada Hidematsu. In April 1890, Konakamura, Kurokawa, Kimura, Motoori Toyokai and Inoue Yorikuni were furthermore appointed as members of the censorship committee, ken’etsu iin 検閲委員, which was chaired by Kawada Ōkō (Wáng 2005: 203; Nishikawa 1973; KDNBK 1990: 302; , 25 May 2011). The underlying idea behind amassing this huge categorized collection of Japanese historic sources can be seen in a statement by its initiator, Nishimura Shigeki, found in a document on the background of the Kojiruien’s compilation entitled Kojiruien hensan jireki 古事類苑編纂事歴: In China, books with classification by similarity already existed at the time of the six courts.10 Since the Táng dynasty, they increased more and more. […] In the West, since the Arabic scholar Abū’l [al-]Fārisī [?] (Abyuru Haryūsu アビュル・ハリュース) around the year 1200 for the first time compiled scientific words and thus laid the basis for what is called an encyclopaedia (ensaikurōpadia エンサイクローパヂア), throughout modern times this kind of book was compiled in increasing abundance in various countries, such as England, France and Germany. However, in our country, being for an exceedingly long time not concerned with the fountainhead of [our] culture, books that classify ancient matters by similar subjects are extremely rare. […] After the Meiji Restoration, at a time heading towards gradually developing cultural progress, and moreover foreign things being imported in great amounts, they and we mutually desire reciprocal comparative research, [but] it is difficult to encounter. People roam about [in confusion] and lament that truth is as hard to find as a sheep lost on a vast plain (taki bōyō 多岐亡羊) [i.e. too many options make the selection difficult]. While not knowing and not being able to discriminate, for not a few the feeling of 10 This is a generic name for the six Chinese kingdoms of Wú 呉 (Jap. Go), the Eastern Jìn 晉 (Jap. Shin), Sòng 宋 (Jap. Sō), Qúi 齊 (Jap. Sei), Líang 梁 (Jap. Ryō), and Chén 陳 (Jap. Chin), which had their capital in Jìankang 建康, today’s Nanjing, from the third to the sixth century.



new venues for kokugaku training and research145 reference for the foreign and denial of the own is in all probability deepened. For artistic and literary circles, this is a major imperfection and makes intellectuals suffer deeply. (Wáng 2005: 203–204)

It is clear that its proponents intended the Kojiruien encyclopaedia to provide an overall explanation of Japanese history and culture, supplying a convenient repository of traditional arguments in contrast to the ‘cultural others’, and, hence, to do away with the blind adoration of everything Western. A similar strong activity in the area of compiling historic sources and publishing of scholarly commentaries is found within the three private scholarly groups, the Yōyōsha, Shigaku-kyōkai and Ōyashima-gakkai. It is therefore not surprising that many of the names encountered above appear again as members of these academic associations, in both influential managerial or supportive positions. These scholarly groups are described in the following chapters.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE BOUNDLESS SOCIETY YŌYŌSHA 5.1. Members of Diverse Backgrounds Many people involved in the initial stages of compiling the historical ency­ clopaedia Kojiruien were not only connected through their work at the Institute for Research in Japanese Classics, but were also members of the same scholarly association, the Yōyōsha 洋々社, the ‘Boundless Society’ [of a Bright Future]. As we have seen above, Yokoyama Yoshikiyo, Kon­aka­ mura Kiyonori, Kimura Masakoto and Kurokawa Mayori—the first lecturers for Japanese literature, and later also ancient law, at the newlyestablished Tokyo University—in their educational tradition belonged to the moderate kokugaku faction whose academic methods focused primar­ ily on evidence-based historical investigation. With the exception of Kurokawa Mayori, the adopted heir of Kariya Ekisai’s disciple Kurokawa Harumura, all of the scholars had studied under Inō Hidenori. Another close disciple of Inō was Sakakibara Yoshino. As a middle assistant instruc­ tor at the former college, Sakakibara was thus not only a fellow student but also a long-term colleague and friend of the lecturers in charge of Japanese literature at Tokyo University. He, in turn, was also one of the central fig­ ures at the Yōyōsha academic society, of which a further leading figure was the moral ideologue Nishimura Shigeki. It is well known that Nishimura was concurrently a member of Meiroku­ sha, the Meiji Six Society, a short-lived intellectual group organized in 1873 by Japan’s former diplomatic representative to the United States, Mori Arinori 森有禮 (1847–1889). Other associates of the Meirokusha among the members of the Yōyōsha included the statistician Sera Taichi 世良太一 (1838–1919) and the Confucianist Sakatani Shiroshi 阪谷素 (1822–1881). In comparison to the abundant research that has been done on the Meirokusha (Tozawa 1991; Fujiwara 1995; Braisted 1976) and despite their obvious connections, until now the Yōyōsha has had a rather shadowy existence in research on early Meiji history, with only a few short articles (Honjō 1969; Wáng 2005) devoted to this important scholarly group. The same can be said of the Shigaku-kyōkai and Ōyashima-gakkai, which have been nearly completely neglected, both within Japan and abroad.

148

chapter five

Other than the overall progressive enlightenment of Meirokusha, which intended to introduce and popularize Western ideas and whose members included many bureaucrats, for the most part the Yōyōsha avoided current affairs. Instead of political issues, its members concentrated conserva­ tively on evidential scholarship, historical discussions, linguistic research and the natural sciences. Nevertheless the society also had a strong educa­ tional stance. A contemporary comparison was published in an article in the newspaper Chōya shinbun 朝野新聞 in its issue of 13 June 1876,1 in which the differing approach of the two societies is described in the fol­ lowing way: ‘Meirokusha’s lectures have much in common with climbing the elevated seat of a comic story teller while the [discussions in the jour­ nal] Yōyōsha-dan indeed resemble an assembly of scholars’ (Wáng 2005: 183). Whereas the activities of the Meirokusha focused on introduction of Western civilization and enlightenment, the Yōyōsha in comparison expressed in their discussions a much broader range of topics, encompass­ ing Japanese, Chinese and Western matters alike. Scholars with a kangaku background were the majority. In addition to those mentioned above, there were several other prominent Confucianist scholars, such as Shimada Shigenori 島田重礼 (1838–1898), the theatre cri­ tique Yoda Gakkai 依田学海 (1834–1909) and the conservative philosopher and ideologue Inoue Tetsujirō. Yōyōsha is therefore sometimes wrongly labelled a Confucianist group. However, as the name Boundless Society clearly suggests, it was rather an assembly of people from various aca­ demic backgrounds, including proponents of Western enlightenment and those concerned with Japanese traditions and scholarship. Tran­scending intellectual divisions, it thus was also joined by prominent kokugaku scholars such as Konakamura Kiyonori, Kimura Masakoto, Kurokawa Mayori, Sakakibara Yoshino and Itō Keisuke 伊藤圭介 (1803–1901), by the national philologists Ōtsuki Fumihiko and Nanbu Yoshikazu 南部義籌 (1840–1917), by the Shintoist Ōsawa Sugaomi, and by the scholar of Oriental history Naka Michiyo 那珂通世 (1851–1908). 1 The Tokyo-based Chōya shinbun was the successor of Kobun tsūshi 公文通誌, ‘Official News’, founded in 1872. In September 1874, it was renamed Chōya shinbun, ‘Official and Unofficial News’. The newspaper won popularity for the human interest stories written by its publisher Narushima Rūhoku 成島柳北 (1837–1884) and editorials by Suehiro Tetchō 末広鉄腸 (1849–1896). Around the time of the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877, it already had a circulation of about 10,000 copies. When the Press Law Shinbun-shi jōrei 新聞紙条例 and the Slander Law Zanbō-ritsu 讒謗律, both instated in 1875, were attacked in several arti­ cles, the newspaper was ordered to suspend publication a number of times. It gradually lost ground and ultimately closed in November 1893. It was re-launched seven years later, in July 1900.



the boundless society yōyōsha149

Many of the Yōyōsha’s members had already been exceptional scholars at the end of the Edo period, and now in early Meiji they continued to conduct research and instructional campaigns in their respective fields of expertise. As a mixed assembly of intellectuals, the Yōyōsha quite natu­ rally attracted the moderate factions of the various traditional scholar­ ships. The current of the times and its inherent necessities largely helped overcome the former antagonism between Chinese studies, national learning and the study of Western knowledge, moulding these various directions into a practical academic unit. At the same time, it is clear that the earlier gathering of knowledge into distinct traditional strands also affected the attitude of this period. Not only in academics but also in many other areas, this generally helped smooth and ease the transition, or rather, the internal development and continuation from the ‘old’ Tokugawa into the ‘modern’ Meiji period. 5.2. The Aim of Establishing Yōyōsha The Yōyōsha was founded and held its first meeting in March 1875. At its monthly meetings, research was exchanged and individual papers pre­ sented. From April of the same year, those contributions that triggered the most discussion were published in the Society’s journal Yōyōsha-dan 洋々 社談. In an announcement and advertisement for the society and its jour­ nal, published on 28 April 1875 in the above-mentioned newspaper Chōya shinbun, after giving a few names of the leading members it was stated that [They] meet once a month and the things discussed at these meetings— from editorials and articles on Japanese, Western and Chinese topics up to Japanese poetry and poetic essays—are gathered and published by this soci­ ety. These will be made available to interested people, circulated each time according to newspaper practice. (Wáng 2005: 185)

This newspaper article refers to the Yōyōsha-dan, which in its first issue of April 1875 published an introductory address by Sakatani Shiroshi. Under the title Bunkai enzetsu 文会演説, Lecture on [this] Scholarly Association, his essay described the aims and reasons for establishing the Yōyōsha: Like-minded people came together to form this association […that] in speech is indiscriminate of past and present, Japan, China, Europe, or America and in form is irrespective of poetic prose, epic narration, or argu­ mentative dispute. Solely those [contributions] of excellence are officially selected and presented, if in the least they contain some truth in refined

150

chapter five words. […] That is to say, friends are assembled by means of the literary arts (bun 文) and not virtue (jin 仁) promoted by means of friends! Spend­ ing  time as enjoyable as a spring morning and an autumn night (kashin gesseki 花晨月夕),2 every month has one meeting at which excelling matters are pursued [further] and others not determined [anymore]. Assistance replaces [mere] merrymaking, interest sustains the times, this kind of pas­ sion is harmonized, and this kind of spirit cheerfully nurtured. The sole objective is to be of mere mutual benefit. Drinking until dead drunken­ ness and to the point of losing harmony and disturbing dignity is a barbaric evil custom. Let us not behave like that in the presence of important guests. (YSD 1: 2)

For exchanging knowledge, Yōyōsha thus on the one hand strove to tran­ scend the traditional boundaries of countries as well as scholarly faction­ alism. On the other hand, however, it drew a clear line of demarcation from more traditional forms of literary societies. For a large number of kokugaku followers during the Edo period, academic pursuits were sec­ ondary to their real interest, which involved composing and exchanging poetry and improving their own writing by studying Japan’s literary tradi­ tion. At the grassroots level, kokugaku generally consisted of small, local gatherings of poetry lovers who did not usually engage in scholarly dis­ putes (Teeuwen 1997: 296). Instead, at their gatherings, poetry and prose were exchanged and the beauty of nature was enjoyed. Evident from sev­ eral sources, on many such occasions, saké was as essential a tool as the brush. As one student of a local kokugaku school of poetry style in Ise described, very often alcohol and general frolic actually seemed more important than anything else: We who amused ourselves at the Zelkova school went out in groups to the mountains or the fields, wherever our master would take us, and praising the flowers we would get so drunk that we would not even notice that the long spring day had come to an end, out of sheer joy in the pleasure of composing poems. (ibid.: 308)

The school’s head, Arakida Hisaoyu 荒木田久老 (1747–1804), later some­ what ruefully and frustrated reminisced, ‘I got caught up carousing with 2 This four-character idiomatic compound generally describes a joyous time. Its first part, kashin (lit. flower morning), is a variation of kachō 花朝, which is another name for the second month in the traditional lunar calendar. The second part, gesseki (lit. moon evening), on the other hand, indicates the lunar calendar’s fifteenth night of the eighth month. Incidentally, the festivities of cherry blossom flower viewing and of moon viewing are also held in spring and autumn, respectively. With regard to the criticism of traditional literary circles, still today these ritualized events are accompanied by heavy drinking by the majority of their participants.



the boundless society yōyōsha151

my friends and ended up neglecting my studies. In that way I lost many precious years’ (ibid.: 299). Now, however, aware of the rapid changes that were occurring through­ out Japanese society, it seemed there was no longer any time to be wasted. Thus, although established to strengthen and perpetuate tradition, Yōyōsha, in sharp contrast to such traditional literary circles, saw itself as a modern and distinctly scholarly society with a practical mission. In this respect, it seems worthwhile to mention the first Western modern schol­ arly societies in Japan, which were founded in Tokyo slightly before the Yōyōsha. These academic associations were the English ‘Asiatic Society of Japan’ and the German ‘Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens’ (OAG), established in 1872 and 1873, respectively. With their regular meetings and publication of the papers that were discussed, they may have served as a model not only for the Yōyōsha itself, but also for the Meirokusha. After its founding, the influence of the Yōyōsha gradually expanded. Some of the reasons for its growing influence already during its first year of existence, which also shed some light on the focus of its activities, were expressed at a lecture given at the Society’s New Year’s meeting in January 1876: This year’s spring, all of a sudden a year has passed since the establishment of Yōyōsha. Today, that is, 11 January 1876, this society assembles and, in extending the invitation to celebrate the beginning of a new year, prays for the increasing prosperity of its radiating light. What a magnificent auspi­ cious event! After all, only a few people gathered at the first opening of this society, [but] through its steadfastly held discussions, this society has unex­ pectedly spread widely. We should know [our] insignificance. However, the wise men joining the society increased monthly and the journal’s circulation gradually extended as well. Its printing [now] is nearly three times that of issue one. This is [due to] our united spirit at this society, of not pursuing hasty progress, [but instead] of incessant diligence of patronage and [con­ stant] growth like the vegetation. (YSD 10: 1)

What is rendered here as ‘patronage’ also includes the meaning of ‘protec­ tion’ and ‘conservation’, as for instance of art or literature. The word ‘growth’, on the other hand, also implicitly means ‘to excel in’ or ‘to master­ fully accomplish’. Thus, in their aim of preservation and patronage, in some way Yōyōsha tapped the pulse of the age. A deep awareness of the rapid change the country was undergoing and of the underlying danger of losing a spiritual anchor was a common link for its diverse members. Within the continued preparation for organizing a modern state based on a European–American model and the widespread Westernization of large

152

chapter five

parts of society, the intention of this group, like the ones described below that dealt more strictly with kokugaku, was to influence the common, blind adoration of everything Western through sound scholarly research and discussion, and through the dissemination of Japanese traditions. While the other groups concentrated more particularly on Japanese his­ tory, language and literature, at the Yōyōsha, the focus was a broad and somewhat indistinct concept of tradition combined with the awareness that the current trends needed to be opposed. 5.3. Monthly Meetings and the Journal Yōyōsha-dan The Yōyōsha’s activities were centred on the monthly meetings held in dif­ ferent venues, as well as the subsequent publication in their journal, the Yōyōsha-dan, of those papers presented at the meetings that triggered the most discussion and that were deemed suitable for a broader audience. Whereas the meetings were mostly internal and only for members, the aim of publishing a journal—publicly available and advertised in newspa­ pers—was clearly to spread the Yōyōsha’s ideas and to strengthen their influence in society at large. The Confucian scholar Yoda Gakkai, in his diary Gakkai nichiroku 學海日録, mentions some of the society’s early meetings. They seem to have been rather informal gatherings at various locations, since a fixed, regular meeting place did not exist. Members presented their own papers or various aspects of their research, which were then thoroughly debated: 11 May 1875: […] I went to the Yōyōsha meeting at [the restaurant Chōdatei 長駝亭 at] Shinobazu-no-ike 不忍池.3 Nishimura [Shigeki], Hirano [Chishū], Konagai [Hachirō], Kurokawa Mayori, Naka Michitaka and others took part. […] 11 September 1875: […] I went to the Yōyōsha meeting. That day’s meeting was held at [the restaurant] Suishin’ō 水心櫻 in [Tokyo’s] Ryōgoku 国國 [dis­ trict]. [The social activist and legal scholar] Ōi Kentarō 大井憲太郎 (1843– 1922) passionately discussed his views. Nishimura Shigeki presented on Sōgorō’s 宗五郎 (?–1653)4 petitions to the authorities. […]

3 Shinobazu-no-ike is a lake located at the southwestern part of Tokyo’s Ueno Park. Known for its many lotus flowers, since the construction of the Tendai-temple Kan’ei-ji in 1625, the lake has also been famous for the worship of the Buddhist deity Benzaiten on a small island in the lake. 4 Other names for this locally famous village headman from Sakura Domain in today’s Chiba Prefecture are Sakura Sōgorō 佐倉惣五郎, Sakura Sōgo 佐倉宗吾, and Kiuchi Sōgorō 木内宗五郎.



the boundless society yōyōsha153 21 December 1875: […] Since today was a meeting of Yōyōsha, I went to Suishin’ō in Ryōgoku. Nishimura [Shigeki] and Ōtsuki [Fumihiko] both were already there. Nishimura expounded on national enrichment (fukoku 富國). Ōtsuki presented two books on modern literature. I myself presented a text discussing the peerage. Since [we] already beforehand had been invited by the lord of the junior fifth court rank of [Tokyo’s] Fukagawa 深川 [district], after all was finished, I went there together with Nishimura and Hirano [Chishū]. (Gakkai nichiroku kenkyūkai 1990–93, 3: 313, 320, 334)

The first issue of the Yōyōsha-dan appeared in April 1875. The comparable journal Meiroku zasshi ceased to be published after only two years in November 1875, but the Yōyōsha-dan continued to be published for about nine years, with its final issue, number ninety-five, in March 1883. It was not formally announced that the publication would stop and no clear reason was ever given, but the Yōyōsha itself also seems to have been dis­ solved around the same time. It is, however, quite significant that this was exactly the time that the Shigaku-kyōkai, which will be described below, was formed. The Yōyōsha’s kokugaku members became members of the Shigaku-kyōkai and a journal was then inaugurated in June of the same year. During its existence of nine years, the Yōyōsha-dan contributed a great deal to the exchange of knowledge, but it never offered active guidance regarding the development of Western-style civilization and enlighten­ ment. While at times it was filled with patriotic lamenting over the Zeitgeist, overall its leaning was rather conservative and only slightly nationalistic. The journal’s first few issues do not mention its editor. From Issue 4, however, the editorial bears the name Iijima Hanjūrō. Later, this position was taken over by Oka Yukitaka 岡敬孝, who was affiliated with the Chōya shinbun, which served as the journal’s publishing office. The printing was later changed to Hōchisha 報知社 and finally, to Gangandō 巌 々堂. Published twice a month, each issue had an average of about sixteen pages and was sold for 3.5 Sen. The articles published covered a broad range of topics, including national history, customs, geography, national literature, economy, politics, flora and fauna, astronomy, food and cloth­ ing, law, theatre, linguistics and the natural sciences. Combined, they had an encyclopaedic breadth. On the one hand, this might be explained by the involvement of quite a few members in the Ministry of Education’s translation project of the Hyakka zensho encyclopaedia, and on the other, by the compilation of the encyclopaedia of historic sources, the Kojiruien. Although in some cases different people spoke and wrote about top­ ics within the same category of scholarship, and in other cases, a single person dealt with themes of various categories in different articles, the

154

chapter five

articles in Yōyōsha-dan usually represent the individual author’s charac­ teristic field of expertise and, at times, contain truly pioneering research. Itō Keisuke, for instance, wrote about pharmacognosy, flora and fauna (YSD 27, 31, 32, 33, 47, 48, 67); Ōtsuki Fumihiko about Japanese grammar and language (YSD 7, 19, 36, 83); Inoue Tetsujirō about philosophy (YSD 75); Konakamura Kiyonori about literature (YSD 27, 40, 41, 48, 49, 51, 73, 75, 88); Yoda Gakkai about Japanese history (YSD 12, 25, 29, 46, 47, 49); and Ōkawa Tsūkyū 大川通久 (1847–1897) dealt with geography and topograph­ ical surveys (YSD 52, 68, 69, 82, 84, 85, 92). Most of the articles were the result of the author’s own evidence-based historic and linguistic research, but some introduced such modern objects as clocks, photographs and the telephone (YSD 28, 43). Also published were translations, such as works by the English poet, literary critic and playwright John Dryden (1631–1700), and a section of Commodore Matthew Perry’s (1794–1858) account of his journeys to Japan (YSD 8 and 2, respectively). As was mentioned in the speech held at the Society’s first New Year’s meeting quoted above, within only a year of publication the circulation of the Yōyōsha-dan increased almost threefold. Concrete data is unfortu­ nately only available for the first six years of the journal’s existence. In 1875, a total of 2,784 copies were printed. A year later this number rose to 7,081, while in 1877 the print run was back to 2,329. For both of the years 1878 and 1879, the number of copies printed was 2,026. In 1880, the jour­ nal’s circulation went down still further to 1,025 copies.5 There is no satisfactory explanation for the enormous peak in 1876, but despite the initial steep rise, in later years the number of printed copies slowly but steadily declined, likely due to the progress of interests becom­ ing more diversified. Before the founding of more specialized journals dealing with particular scholarly fields, as for instance the emergence of the Historiological Association and its journal Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi 史学協会雑誌, which will be described below, the Yōyōsha-dan offered a broad encyclopaedic collection of articles. In this respect, it pioneered a

5 Wáng (2005: 193) compiled these numbers by using the seventeen-volume collection of the Meiji Ministry of Home Affairs’ yearbooks and written reports: Obinata Sumio 大日 方純夫 et al. (ed.): Naimushō nenpō/ hōkusho 内務省年報報告書. Tokyo: San’ichi shobō 三一書房, 1982–84. However, it is unclear why Wáng presents the first circulation number as dating to the year Meiji 7, i.e. 1874, since the Yōyōsha-dan was published from April 1875. Furthermore, the first volume of his source, the collection of Meiji-period yearbooks, begins only with July 1875. Although Wáng (p. 209 fn. 18) also mentions that the last data available is for the year Meiji 12, i.e. 1879, it is more plausible that these circulation numbers refer to the first six years of the journal’s publication, i.e. 1875 to 1880.



the boundless society yōyōsha155

‘boundless’ approach that, at least in its initial stage, obviously helped satisfy the strong curiosity for all kinds of knowledge among the more educated parts of society. It thus triggered—and, at least initially, also fulfilled—a great deal of expectation, which lead to a wide circulation. The later decline in interest and circulation probably indicates a shift in the attention of readers due to the availability of other journals published by groups that focused on specific concerns or fields of scholarship. 5.4. Retrospection as a Core Concern and the Transition to Specialized Scholarly Circles Overall, the leaning of the Yōyōsha was quite conservative and retrospec­ tive. Sakatani Shiroshi, in his address given at the New Year’s meeting in January 1876 quoted above, already considered the reason for Yōyōsha’s success to be its continual diligence of patronage and the conservation of traditional arts and literature, instead of the hasty seeking of progress. About two years later, in his article ‘Shadan kaishū no ki 社談会集の記’ of October 1877, Konakamura Kiyonori expressed the group’s core concerns in a similar way, writing that ‘unlike other associations who make nothing but the new their sole principle, to a large extent we take ancient matters into consideration’ (YSD 35). At a time of progressing Westernization under the slogan bunmei kaika, this ‘cultural enlightenment’ in early Meiji began to raise concerns about the heterogeneous aspects of tradition and modernity. The Yōyōsha was founded on the background of constantly changing politics, as well as the meandering antagonism, fusion, and coexistence of Eastern and Western forms of scholarship, knowledge and morals. While Buddhism tradition­ ally had also played a major role in people’s lives, it was still affected in the 1870s by the aftermath of the forced, and at times destructive, separation of kami and Buddhas, described above. Thus, the guiding spirits of Japan’s traditional society were the leading representatives of Confucianism and kokugaku. They were no doubt filled with a retrospective lament over the Zeitgeist and felt a need to directly confront its negative sides. One extreme example of this might be the society’s central figure Sakakibara Yoshino, who throughout his life never wore Western-style clothes, considered it beneath himself to have his hair bobbed in the popular Western way, and finally sank into madness similar to Aoyama Hanzō, i.e. Shimazaki Masaki, in the novel Yoake mae (KDS 2: 1545). In general, however, the Yōyōsha group as a whole must be regarded as a breeding ground for a new group of patriotic scholars on Japanese

156

chapter five

literature, history and language, who adapted to the spirit of the times. During the heyday of Westernization, the Yōyōsha aimed at a thorough inquiry into Japan’s traditional culture and its (re-)consideration. While clearly using the knowledge it obtained as its foundation, the Boundless Society also maintained an attitude of assimilating all kinds of new things. Thus, here again, the dualistic retrospective and progressive sides that per­ vaded so many aspects of the Meiji period are also visible in this scholarly society. These years, however, also saw the rapid foundation of a vast number of associations, societies and advocacy groups. To name but a few examples, these included the Confucianist group Kyūusha 舊雨社 (Association of Old Friends, 1872); the political coalition Risshisha 立志社 (Self-Help Society, 1874) and its successor Aikokusha 愛国社 (Society of Patriots, 1875); societies for Westernization such as Kōjunsha 交詢社 (Association of Social Intercourse, 1880) and Tokyo kurabu 東京倶楽部 (Tokyo Club, 1884); the moralist circle Tokyo shūshin gakusha 東京修身學舍 (Tokyo School of Morals, 1876) and its successor Nihon kōdōkai 日本弘道会 (Society of Spreading the Japanese Way, 1887); the cultural and political associations Minyūsha 民友社 (Citizen Friendship Society, 1887) and Seikyōsha 政教社 (Society for Political Education, 1888); the Shinto asso­ ciation Shinkan dōshikai 神官同志会 (Fellowship of Shinto Priests, 1889); the Christian morals group Nihon Kirisutokyō fujin kyōfūkai 日本基督教夫 人矯風会 (Japan Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, 1893, whose pre­ decessor, the local Tokyo Union was formed in 1886); the poetry and liter­ ary group Asakasha 浅香社 (Asaka Association, 1893); the association of artists Nihon bijutsuin 日本美術院 (Japan Academy of Art, 1898); the ultra-nationalist Kokuryūkai 黒竜会 (Armur Society, often wrongly called the Black Dragon Society, 1901); and the socialist organization Heiminsha 平民社 (Society of Commoners, 1903). Against this background, the Yōyōsha marks an important early transi­ tional stage in an emerging ‘knowledgeable society’, preceding the forma­ tion of scholarly circles that were more specialized and more distinctly focused on ‘kokugaku’, ‘Confucian’ or ‘Western’ questions.

CHAPTER SIX

THE HISTORIOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION SHIGAKU-KYŌKAI Compiling historic sources, as exemplified by the long-term project Kojiruien, which was finally commenced in the spring of 1879, was a high priority not only within academic circles, but also for the state. Since its early days, among the many endeavours of the Meiji government one was the official task of creating a national history. The government understood the need to unify its diverse people into a nation with a common language and background and thus, historiography had always been closely connected to politics. Between 1872 and 1888, the Office of Historiography Shūshi-kyoku 修史局—from 1877 to 1886 called the Historiographical Institute Shūshi-kan 修史館—was an integral part of the highest governmental institutions, first of the Dajōkan and then, from 1885, of the new Cabinet, the Naikaku 内閣. Already earlier, on 29 April 1869, the kokugaku scholars Kimura Masakoto, Konakamura Kiyonori, Yokoyama Yoshikiyo and Hanawa Tadatsugu, grandson of the Gunsho ruijū’s famous editor Hanawa Hokiichi 塙保己一 (1746–1821), were appointed as government officials for collecting materials and revising the six ancient official national histories, the imperial annals collectively called the Rikkokushi (Mehl 1992: 31, 34–35). The official historiography projects of the Meiji period, with their various fluctuations, are relatively well researched (Mehl 1992, 1998; Brownlee 1983, 1997). It is, therefore, sufficient only to mention that in 1882, it was decided that the new official historiography, the work Dai-Nihon hennenshi 大日本編年史, was to continue the form of the Mito School’s early modern Dai-Nihon-shi, rather than following the model of the six ancient imperial annals as had been earlier planned. At least from this date, more and more criticism arose concerning how the official historiography was being put together. Its use of Sino-Japanese kanbun was highly criticized, and it was also denounced as being a mere collection of sources that did not take a guiding moral stance (Mehl 1992: 47, 138–39). 6.1. The Aim of Establishing the Shigaku-kyōkai As a result of the state-sponsored historiography following this path, the private Historiological Association Shigaku-kyōkai 史学協会 was founded

158

chapter six

in December 1882 on the initiative of the two prominent kokugaku scholars Inoue Yorikuni and Iida Takesato. The latter’s second son Iida Nagao 飯田永夫 (1854–?) and Kurokawa Mayori’s disciple Suzuki Hiroyasu 鈴木弘恭 (1844–1897) served as intermediaries and they gathered many like-minded supporters, including Kume Motobumi, Kosugi Sugimura, Hanawa Tadatsugu, Matsuno Isao, Maruyama Sakura and Yoshioka Noriaki (SKZ 7: 81). News about the organization, however, was not limited to the circle of scholars contacted by its initiators. The Shigaku-kyōkai and its goals also received widespread publicity among the general populace through the appearance of several articles in the newspaper Tokyo nichinichi shinbun 東京日日新聞.1 On 6 December 1882, the following article about its founding described its overall purpose: The purpose of Shigaku-kyōkai, recently established on the suggestion of the two gentlemen Soejima Taneomi and Tani Tateki 谷干城 (1837–1911), is [portrayed as]: Although since ancient times there have been numerous historical works in our country, the words handed down from olden times for generations are too elevated and not easy to grasp. Moreover, legends have become contradictory and their reality blurred; translated into Chinese prose they both frequently lose their truth and discard the essence. Therefore, while not clearly knowing our country’s political development and the customs and manners of our people, the only [feasible] thing is to broadly research the annals of past and present. Furthermore, with considerations such as that the lack of a correctly recorded history revealing the facts from ancient times through the early modern period should be termed today’s biggest fault, this society was established to gather like-minded people and elucidate these matters. Indeed [such a history book is] a prosperous undertaking for an enlightened era, and should be called a good standard [work] for future reference.  Supporters of this society should visit the two gentlemen Inoue Yorikuni, Kōchimachi-ku Yamamoto-machi 1–8, or Iida Takesato, Kōjimachi-ku Kioichō 3, for approval and to be informed about the regulations and particulars. (MNJ 2: 292)

While there is no doubt that the Shigaku-kyōkai was proposed and initiated by the two scholars Inoue Yorikuni and Iida Takesato, mentioned at 1 Tokyo nichinichi shinbun was launched on 29 March 1872 as the first daily newspaper in Japan. It focused mainly on the two areas of governmental announcements, kansho kōhō 官署公報, and general news, kōko sōdan 江湖相談. Particularly in the 1910s and 1920s, its literary section also flourished, with serial works by such renowned authors as Mori Ōgai 森鴎外 (1862–1922) and Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 芥川竜之介 (1892–1927). Affiliated to the Osaka mainichi shinbun from 1911, the two newspapers merged completely after the Second World War to form the still existing Mainichi shinbun.



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai159

the end of this article, the affiliation of Soejima Taneomi and Tani Tateki, two well-known politicians and public figures, and the prominent display of their names gave the association additional weight. The organization of the group, including making it public and starting activities, took somewhat longer than expected. About half a year later, on 10 June 1883, an official opening ceremony was held (SKZ 7: 81). To attract people, a few days earlier, on 6 June, the schedule of the inaugural meeting, with a quite extensive programme of lectures, was announced in the Tokyo nichinichi shinbun: Shigaku-kyōkai: On the upcoming tenth, in the afternoon from one o’clock, the first meeting will be held at the Shigaku-kyōkai’s principal residence in Kanda-ku Sarugaku-chō 4. At the meeting there will be addresses, inter alios, by the acting chairman Soejima Taneomi, the acting vice-chairman Tani Tateki, and Maruyama Sakura from the management. Furthermore, the compilation committee member Kimura Masakoto will lecture on the history of criminal law (keihō-shi 刑法志), Konakamura Kiyonori on the history of civil service (shokkan-shi 職官志) and on music, and Kurokawa Mayori on the history of founding [the empire] (kaibyaku-shi 開闢志) and on court administration (chōkō 朝綱).  This is an undertaking for the promotion of historical sciences to be delighted about. People with such ambitions should attend. (MNJ 3: 329)

6.2. The Opening Ceremony and the Subjects of Historical Study The general trend in society at this time still leaned strongly towards Europeanism. Yet in the early to mid-1880s, at the latest, the initial enthusiasm for the West slowly began to wane, and public interest began to rise for supposedly ancient and special Japanese traditions that were prone to being forgotten if the West continued to be blindly admired. This kind of impending loss was feared by many, not least by more critical and conservative intellectuals. Quite significantly, these years also witnessed the opening, as described above, in May 1882 of the Training Course for the Classics, Koten kōshūka, at Tokyo University, in November of the same year, the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics, Kōten kōkyūjo, and in April 1883, the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies, Jingū kōgakukan. Thus, the establishment of the Historiological Association Shigaku-kyōkai in December 1882—with many of its main members also closely involved in the founding of these other three institutions—clearly was not only supported by the retrospective and conservative tendencies emerging at this time, but it also re-enforced and, to a great extent, even initiated them.

160

chapter six

The public announcements in one of Japan’s leading newspapers as well as the word-of-mouth advertising among the scholarly circles soon seemed to bear tangible fruits. Before the first issue of the association’s journal appeared, already 138 people had become members (SKZ 1: 48). The opening ceremony and inaugural meeting was held on 10 June 1883. A short description published in the first issue of the association’s journal Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi 史学協会雑誌 (SKZ), which came out on 12 July 1883, paints a vivid picture of the day’s events: seats were finally taken at two o’clock in the afternoon, an hour later than originally announced. Ninety members, consisting of people living in the capital as well as regional supporters, were present. The head manager, Maruyama Sakura, gave an address on the motives for establishing the association, followed by a speech on the spirit of compiling historic scripts entitled ‘On 恩’ (Debt of Gratitude), presented by the acting chairman, Soejima Taneomi. The next scheduled lecture by the vice-chairman, Tani Tateki, on the topic of ‘how contemporary policy must be known in the preparation for drawing up a history’, only received a summary due to limited time, with the complete lecture postponed for another day. This lecture, a statement against very recent history being described in too black-and-white terms, was later printed under the title ‘Tokugawa-shi hensan no chūi 徳川史編纂の注意’ (Due Care in Compiling a History of the Tokugawa Era; SKZ 3: 1–20). Next, proceeding according to the planned programme, Kimura Masakoto gave an address on the history of criminal law, followed by Konakamura Kiyonori on the history of music and Kurokawa Mayori on the history of the imperial court’s laws and guiding principles. After these various historical topics, the first meeting of the Shigaku-kyōkai came to an end at about half past five in the evening (SKZ 1: 1–2). From then on, fortnightly lecture meetings were held on the second and fourth Saturday of every month from about one o’clock in the afternoon. They were held at the association’s interim office in Sarugaku-chō. The second meeting, on 14 July 1883, was again made known two days earlier in a short newspaper article in the Tokyo nichinichi shinbun. The announcement included the date, time and meeting place, and also stated that ‘there will be lectures on the history of music and of court administration in continuation of the first meeting, as well as [new ones] by Kume Motobumi on the Ōkagami [the “Great Mirror” of History] and by Iida Takesato on the history of public offices’ (MNJ 3: 329). The text of the lectures held at the meetings, in addition to other articles, were usually then printed in the association’s journal, the Shigakukyōkai zasshi, which appeared in thirty-four issues between 12 July 1883



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai161

and 30 June 1886. It was intended as a general reference source, as well as a platform for scholarly contact and exchange. In the preface to the first issue, the editorial committee appealed to the association members to support its task to the degree they were individually able: people who are skilful in using words by writing, people who had the financial means by contributing funds, and people who had historical sources by submitting old documents or items from oral traditions, which the committee would then endeavour to categorize and gradually report about. In the preface to the inaugural issue, a list of twenty-four areas of historical interest that needed to be studied and that ‘conform[ed] to the member’s deliberations’ was published as well (SKZ 1: n. p.): History of the world’s creation (kaibyaku-shi 開闢史) History of the gods of heaven and earth (jingi-shi 神祇史) History of the court’s administration principles (chōkō-shi 朝綱史) History of civil service (shokkan-shi 職官史) History of ceremonies (tenrei-shi 典禮史) History of official ranks (shafuku-shi 車服史)2 History of music (ongaku-shi 音樂史) History of literature (bungaku-shi 文學史) History of the military system (heisei-shi 兵制史) History of weaponry (heiki-shi 兵器史) History of law (hōritsu-shi 法律史) History of foods and worldly goods (shokka-shi 食貨史) History of agriculture (nōgyō-shi 農業史) History of commerce (shōgyō-shi 商業史) History of manufacturing industries (kōgyō-shi 工業史) History of the fine arts (bijutsu-shi 美術史) History of medicine (ijutsu-shi 醫術史) History of mathematics (sūgaku-shi 數學史) History of astronomy (seigaku-shi 星學史) History of feudalism (hōken-shi 封建史) History of geography (chiri-shi 地理史) History of manners and customs (fūzoku-shi 風俗史) History of diplomacy (gaikō-shi 外交史) History of Buddhism (bukkyō-shi 佛教史)

In the years that the journal existed, these diverse historical topics were indeed frequently taken up and often carefully analysed in lectures and articles, which makes this journal still today a valuable repository of

2 The literal meaning of shafuku is ‘carriages and clothes’, which in former times were given by the emperor to retainers for distinguished services. In a transferred sense, therefore, it means ‘offices and ranks’.

162

chapter six

information that has hardly been tapped. In addition to research on these individual topics, however, one of the major goals of the Shigaku-kyōkai — explicitly described in the first sentences of the preface to the first issue of its journal—was to compile historical texts that ‘preserve the form and style of the nation’s founding’ and eventually, to publish a history of Japan in Japanese. In other words, the Historiological Association aimed at compiling a proper Japanese history based on kokutai, or national polity, a term that by then had become part of a ‘trendy’ discourse describing the country’s allegedly sempiternal national structure and fundamental character. 6.3. The Inaugural Speech on Motives and Goals At the opening ceremony on 10 June 1883, in his above-mentioned speech as the association’s manager, Maruyama Sakura explained the motive for founding the Shigaku-kyōkai in no unmistakable terms: the generally prevailing feeling of dissatisfaction with existing works on Japan’s history. Not only considering politico-historical records, it was deemed equally important to examine literary sources to find out more about ancient social circumstances, customs and traditions. The speech emphasizes that the classical Chinese style must be rejected and instead history should be compiled in the spirit and literary style of the medieval Japanese Jinnō shōtōki. Also the style of historical presentation in Europe should be examined. If one considers Maruyama’s background as a leading scholar of Hirata kokugaku, it is interesting to note that now, even he, of all people, could not help but also see Europe as a model for inspiration. The speech was printed under the title ‘Shigaku-kyōkai sōritsu no shushi 史學協會創 立ノ主旨’ (The Motives for Establishing the Historiological Association) in the first issue of Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi. Maruyama’s speech, while concise, offers an in-depth glimpse at representative Meiji-period kokugaku thought—not only with regard to national history and this association, but also as a basis for later broader developments in the Ōyashima-gakkai and other academic circles. It is thus worthwhile to present it here in its entirety: The fact that chairman Soejima Taneomi, vice-chairman Tani Tateki, as well as the élite of society3—being all present today at the opening of the 3 The term chōya no meiken 朝野の名賢, used here as a respectful direct adress for the assembled audience, literally means ‘men of distinction both in and out of the government’ or ‘renowned people from the entire nation’.



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai163 Historiological Association’s first lecture meeting—together support and devote their energy to this association is indeed its distinct honour, and I myself earnestly desire nothing more than this association’s prosperity. For many years I read extensively on our country’s history. In investigating and elucidating it, perusing at least those works that attain a form of truthful history, it is hard to hold back feelings of dissatisfaction. Hence—by presuming that you, the members, share these impressions—this association, as it is today, had to be established. That thing called history, the traces of a nation’s times in peace and war and rise and fall [i.e. a country’s political history], completely comprises all the conditions and transformations of contem­ porary habits, customs and society, and must not leave anything behind. Like in the West, every matter of society [must be] thoroughly discussed historically, and things that are not based on annals [should be] dismissed as mere theory and extravagant debate. Everything, including authority, duty, government systems, the state, apparatuses, music, etc., needs to be examined historically. For this reason [people in the West] also regard their Bible as a history. Whether at the time of compiling a history [it is] like the Chinese [political history] Tsugan 通鑑 or like the Western History of Civilization,4 it is all private opinion [i.e. it does not much matter whether the resulting work focuses on politics or on aspects of society, as long as the proper spirit is represented]. Although the gist of the draft, in the end, is not the same in various instances, when opening the [finished] volume, a nation’s times of peace and war and rise and fall [described therein] should of course accurately realize the conditions and transformations of contemporary manners, customs and society. As for our country’s history, it is still in a stage of infancy and indeed, is almost not furnished with a form of a history. In short, doing this imperfectly without differentiating between particulars and fundamental principles or setting up regulations must be considered extremely unsatisfactory. Further, although there is the Dai-Nihon shi, which has been compiled by using facts, and the Kojiki, which

4 Tsugan is short for Shiji-tsugan ‘The Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government’, a Chinese history book in 294 volumes by Simâ Guang that was already used as a history text in the advanced classes at Kyoto’s Institute of Imperial Studies. Concerning the History of Civilization, it is ambiguous whether the term bunmei-shi 文明史 refers to a general concept or to a specific book with this title. However, as the Chinese counterpart Tsugan is the short form of a specific book that was a model for later Japanese political historic works (i.e. the Honchō tsugan 本朝通鑑, completed by Hayashi Razan and his son in 1670), the term should probably also be seen as an abbreviation for a specific work that simultaneously describes a ‘genre’ of historic writing. It could, for instance, refer to A History of British Civilization (translated as Eikoku bunmei-shi 英国文明史) by the English historian Henry Thomas Buckle (1821–1862), or to Histoire d’Civilisation de Europe (translated as Yōroppa bunmei-shi ヨーロッパ文明史) by the French historian and statesman François Pierre Guillaume Guizot (1787–1874). Both books were models for one of the most representational historical works throughout the period of Meiji Japan’s bunmei kaika movement of Westernization: Nihon kaika shōshi 日本開化小史, written 1877–82 by Taguchi Ukichi 田口卯吉 (1855–1905).

164

chapter six has been composed using classical language,5 their sentences are Chinese sentences and their style is Chinese style. Discussing this from now on, and—although it is probably impossible to avoid the charge of presumptuousness—arriving at the dispute’s conclusion, it must [first and foremost] be said that by using these [methods], getting something that arrives absolutely at the style of this country’s history is impossible. Although following the Kojiki are the [six works collectively called] Rikkokushi, these [texts] also continuously use classical Chinese. Although among them, the imperial edicts in the Shokki6 are composed in [an] early [form of] classical words,7 the rest consists entirely of classical Chinese. Alas, having a pure and refined national language that is enviously praised by foreign scholars, the fact that hitherto, in the some thousand years until today, the successive reigns did not compile annals consistently using the national language perhaps truly ought to be called an eternity of defective volumes! Being like this, our country’s history, [a history that] describes our own country’s status quo using its unpretentious national language, is in an unpresentable form. Consequently, historical works of calibre must be compiled. With this as the reason for founding the Historiological Association, I believe it may be justly asserted that having the continuing support of all you like-minded gentlemen is not only an honour and the fortune of this individual association, but also an opportunity to retrieve the cultural progress (keiun 奎運)8 for the welfare of our Great Japanese Empire. If so, how can we obtain an integral historical form and somehow repay our debt to our country when compiling this [kind of work] by means of style? Its form is most difficult. How, when emulating style, do we embrace all the things of society [such as] habits, organizational systems, laws and so on, and obtain accuracy for their development? This must be called the hardest thing of all and an ambitious task. The format must be carefully considered. Therefore, deliberating this and with the consultation of you, the members, and the various professors of the compilation committee, it was decided that first of all, noting down the facts and publishing the essentials should emulate Ryo Soken’s 呂祖謙 Daijiki 大 事記.9 By emulating it here, the desire is to make the subtle and profound

5 The word gagen or miyabi-goto 雅言 used here can also mean ‘elegant phraseology’ or ‘literary diction’. 6 This is the abbreviated title of the Shoku Nihongi 続日本紀, the second work of the six Rikkokushi. 7 The word gago or miyabi-gatari 雅語 used here can also mean ‘elegant (poetical, refined) word’ or ‘polite expression’. 8 More specifically, the word keiun means the advance of the arts, or the growth and development of scholarship. Kei is the name of a star that watches over education, literature, and culture. It is one of the twenty-eight ‘houses’ into which the Chinese divided the astronomical sky and lies in the western part of the Andromeda constellation. It is said that when this star shines, the world is at peace. 9 Ryo Soken (1137–1181), Chin. Lû Zûquian, was a Confucianist historian from Zhejiang Province during the Southern Sung Dynasty (1127–1279). The Daijiki (Chin. Dàshìjî), in its first twelve volumes, touches upon important matters from the thirty-ninth year of King Jîng-Wàng 敬王 of the Zhou 周 Dynasty to the year Zhenghè 征和 3 of Emperor Wû-dì 武 帝 of the earlier Han 漢 Dynasty (482–90 bc), categorizing them by year and month of the



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai165 tenor of the Rinkei 麟經 succinct and, without loss, to abbreviate it and [still] compliantly communicate it.10 The literary style furthermore should be taken from Lord Kitabatake’s Jinnō shōtōki. The reason is that although to some extent the San-kagami11 as well as other medieval historical works em­brace [a literary] style, there is nothing that exceeds the Jinnō shōtōki with regard to its spirit. This Chronicle of Direct Descent records an abundance of marvellous matters. Although it extends to absurd Buddhist matters— at that time the principle of the heavenly bodies’ revolution [i.e. the order of heaven] and the connection among people, being awaited at the gate of a lion’s den (korō-mon 虎狼門) and obstructed by the path of a brood of vipers (kiki-ro 鬼虺路),12 almost became obsolete and their corruption was carried to extremes—in due course of time, the lord took a stand, and with a brilliant and powerful brush clearly defined the highest principles of one’s moral obligations [i.e. the true relationship between sovereign and subject]. Although it expands its scope by including both China (shintan 震旦)13 and India (chikuto 竺土), it made our country paramount, and truly achieved the style of a national history. This association, adoring this distant lord’s pious act, is emulating both his literary style and spirit, is recording national affairs via the national language, is gradually connecting the particulars by including only reliable general features, and is perfecting [our] history greatly. By all this, it is accomplishing this great task and [thus] is going to compensate the debt to our country of the glorious Meiji era. The Professors Soejima and Tani, elders of the state (genkun 元勳),14 together will preside over the association’s duties. Renowned people from the entire nation, according to their

event. Three additional volumes of commentary describe the main points, and another twelve volumes of annotations give detailed biographies. 10 Rinkei is another name for the book Shunjū 春秋 (Chin. Chunqiu), i.e. the Confucian ‘spring and autumn’ annals, the Chronicles of Lu. It covers the time from 722 to 481 bc, the year in which a rin 麟, a kind of Chinese unicorn, an imaginary animal that is considered an omen for joyous events, was spotted. It is also said that a verse about hunting the rin was the last text Confucius wrote just before his death. 11 San-kagami are the narrative-style ‘three mirrors’ of history Ōkagami, Mizu-kagami, and Masu-kagami. They were already used as history texts for the beginner classes at Kyoto’s Institute of Imperial Studies. 12 Korō, literally meaning ‘tigers and wolfs’, is a metaphor for greedy and cruel people or bandits. Kiki, literally meaning ‘demons and venomous snakes’, is a metaphor for rebels and traitors. 13 These characters transcribe the Sanskrit word Cīna-sthāna, an ancient Indian name for China. 14 Genkun is the word used to refer to the veteran statesmen from different clans who played a major role in the Restoration of 1868 and who became part of the centre of the new government. For their meticulous service they were bequeathed with an imperial honour, the Genkun-yūgū no chokugo 元勲優遇の勅語, from which this name was taken. Once the parliament was established, this group of elder statesmen—later called genrō 元 老—continued to assert political power in the Cabinet or the Privy Council. In addition to Saigō Takamori, Kido Takayoshi, and Ōkubo Toshimichi, other well-known genkun/ genrō were Itō Hirobumi, Yamagata Aritomo 山県有朋 (1838–1922), Ōyama Iwao 大山巌 (1842– 1916), and Kuroda Kiyotaka 黒田清隆 (1840–1900).

166

chapter six scholarly profundity, will engage in the compilation. We must wait in anticipation for the day when this association has accomplished this great task and compensated the debt to the state’s contingent extraordinary favours. However, it takes some time to accomplish great tasks. Things that take time are in danger of making people weary. Although there should be no tedium for you members of this association, we fear this the most [and so we are going to] deliberate dialectically and improve our knowledge, add to the stock of information, furthermore seek sympathizers throughout the nation and appeal for support in this task, hold a lecture meeting every other week, and entreat all of you distinguished experts to compare [and weigh] Europe and China and to elucidate history. Notes of this will be printed in booklets and are going to be collectively distributed to all members. I am convinced that there will be many gains. Today, in opening this first lecture meeting, besides thanking the chairman, the vice-chairman and all the professors, I also bid [thanks] to you members!

This inaugural speech expounded the fundamental task of the Shigakukyōkai, namely, of creating a fitting and truly national history for modern Japan. However, according to Maruyama Sakura, the form of this proposed new history seemed secondary to the content, as long as the language of the resulting history as well as its innate spirit was distinctly Japanese. Despite the fact that he does not explicitly mention the Historiographical Institute, the Shūshi-kan, in his speech, it is clear that Maruyama is indirectly targeting his criticism of the lack of proper historical works at this governmental institution and its official manner of writing history. In particular, the exalted position of Kitabatake Chikafusa’s Jinnō shōtōki, which had been the first text on the list of historical works taught in the beginner classes at the Institute of Imperial Studies Kōgakujo, should be kept in mind with regard to later developments. A few months later, in October 1883, the association embarked on its goal of compiling the Dai-Nihon rekishi, the Great History of Japan. Although it was planned to announce the general outline and the members in charge at a later date, Mozume Takami, Ōwada Takeki and Yajima Kinzō 矢島錦藏 (1836–1895) had agreed to be part of the compilation committee (ZKS 5: 45). Yajima additionally became the journal’s new editor from Issue 6 on, which at this time also received a new format, being printed on slightly larger pages. In the end, however, perhaps because he was preoccupied as the journal’s editor, Yajima did not appear on the list of nineteen prominent members in charge of the ambitious task of compiling the planned history, a work that was to have an integral historical form and a style fitting to a true national history. The final committee consisted of Hanawa Tadatsugu, Hirata Taneo, Iida Takesato, Ikehara Kawaka 池原香穉 (1830–1884), Kimura Masakoto,



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai167

Konakamura Kiyonori, Kosugi Sugimura, Kubo Sueshige, Kume Motobumi, Kurokawa Mayori, Matsuno Isao, Motoori Toyokai, Mozume Takami, Suzuki Hiroyasu, Takahira Mafuji 高平眞藤 (1831–1895), Tanaka Yoritsune, Ōsawa Sugaomi, Ōwada Takeki and Yano Harumichi. This impressive compilation committee, comprising the leading kokugaku scholars of the day, was decided upon in a general assembly on 8 December 1883 at Kandajinja. The meeting was held to celebrate the association’s first anniversary, to discuss its future prosperity, to decide on amendments to the existing regulations, and to elect representatives (SKZ 6: 43; 7: 82). A short account of this general assembly appeared on 10 December in the Tokyo nichinichi shinbun: The day before yesterday, on the 8th, an assembly was held at Kaika-ryō 開化 楼 [Enlightenment/ Civilization Hall] in Kanda for the first anniversary of the Shigaku-kyōkai. The two chairmen Soejima and Tani could not attend due to hindrances, but more than sixty members from the capital region gathered and had various discussions. To begin with, having now existed a full year, this society has more than 250 members, including those in the provinces. Since, on this day, items were discussed ranging from the procedure of compiling historiographical materials to materials that are going to be published from now, the period needed to reach the goal should finally not be too long. (MNJ 3: 392)

A longer report appeared on 25 December in Issue 7 of the association’s own journal. Among other things, it specified that the Kaika-ryō is inside Kanda-jinja. More importantly from the association’s point of view was the note that the absence of the chairman Soejima Taneomi was due to some government business he had had to deal with, of Tani Tateki due to his daughter’s indisposition, and of Maruyama Sakura as he was on a journey (SKZ 7: 81). In addition, one more very prominent person and honorary member of the Shigaku-kyōkai did not attend: just one day before the assembly, on 7 December, the former head priest of Izumo Shrine and the leader of Shinto taisha-kyō, Senge Takatomi, had returned to Izumo (SKZ 6: 43). Senge’s absence is quite interesting since the assembly was held at Kanda-jinja. In 1878, a branch office of Izumo Ōyashiro kyōkai was established in the precincts of this Tokyo shrine. In 1882, Ōyashiro kyōkai was accorded independent status as the Shinto taisha-ha, which changed its name to Shinto taisha-kyō in November of the same year. In March 1882, Senge Takatomi had resigned as the head priest at Izumo Shrine to devote himself to his role as the leader of the new movement he had founded (KDNBK 1999: 454). Thus, as a quasi ‘double host’ for the association’s

168

chapter six

assembly, one would expect Senge to have been present at its anniversary celebrationas well. Here, it might be noted that both Senge Takatomi and Tanaka Yoritsune—only two years earlier fierce opponents during the religious ‘Pantheon Dispute’—had become important members of the scholarly inclined Shigaku-kyōkai. On one hand, this might reveal the true quality of their disagreement in the Pantheon Dispute. But on the other hand, in the wake of an officially enforced separation of politics and religion, it might also indicate a strong general trend towards a separation of doctrine and scholarship (kyōgaku bunri), which led to Shinto—or at least certain ritual aspects of it—being declared a non-religious state cult. Although the membership in the association had doubled during its first year, the absence of some of its leading representatives at the first anniversary assembly, whether truly justified or not, might already indicate that things were not as smooth and tranquil as hoped. 6.4. Compilation Procedures, Monetary Problems and Venue Changes Although never directly mentioned, several circumstances hint at internal difficulties within the Shigaku-kyōkai, and maybe even at there still being lingering factional disputes. Already a little more than half a year after the association’s inaugural meeting, for instance, an extraordinary meeting had to be held on 12 February 1884 in order to further deliberate the best method for historical compilation as well as to determine the division of functions within the compilation committee. At this time, Yajima Kinzō resigned from his post of journal editor ‘due to personal circumstances’ (SKZ 9: 167). Two months later, in April 1884, Takeuchi Miyoshi 竹内未譽至 was expelled from the association ‘due to neglecting the society’s duties’. At the same time, Kawanami Manjirō 河南萬次郎 and Katō Hiroyuki announced their temporary withdrawal of membership (SKZ 11: n. p. [after 268]). Unfortunately, no details are given in these three cases. In addition to personal affairs, the detailed financial statement for the year 1884 attached to Issue 20 of Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi indicates a possible other reason for the association’s eventual decline—the members’ poor paying habits. While the mere numbers do not seem so low, with a total of 562 Yen and 64 Sen in income in 1884 and a total of 431 Yen and 16 Sen in expenses, mainly incurred in printing costs and the mailing of the journal,



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai169

leaving 131 Yen and 48 Sen in assets, nevertheless there are several signs that the association had difficulties maintaining a stable revenue. In detail, during its second year the association’s four main sources of income brought 38 Yen in admission fees, 70 Yen and 50 Sen in donations, 84 Yen and 12 Sen in ordinary revenues, and 184 Yen and 88 Sen in proceeds from journal sales. Comparing this last number with the 75 Yen and 77 Sen for the year 1883, the journal revenues rose in 1884 by no less than 144 per cent. A major factor was that the journal fees for this year were not only received from members, but about 3,800 copies were sold to non-members. This clearly indicates that the journal was popular and that there was a general interest in historical topics among the populace. Interest in real membership, however, seems not to have been as high. The admission fees collected in 1884, for instance, included the payments of 28 new members, but also those of 10 members who had already entered in 1883 but paid a year late. And about 15 per cent of the members—forty of the total 269 members at the time—had not yet paid their admission fee at all. Such poor paying habits by its members gave cause for complaint from the first days of the association. Already in Issue 3 of August 1883, it was announced that ‘those who not yet deposited the fee for the journal should transfer it quickly’ (SKZ 3: 47). Similar demands were frequently repeated, with requests for the immediate payment of the previous year’s membership fees, the journal fees plus mailing expenses since the first issues, or the full amount of the year’s running expenses. Through the years, announcements of this kind appeared in SKZ 5 (10 October 1883), SKZ 9 (23 February 1884), SKZ 10 (22 March 1884), SKZ 11 (26 April 1884), SKZ 21 (28 March 1885), SKZ 22 (25 April 1885), SKZ 24 (31 July 1885) and SKZ 27 (31 October 1885). From Issue 21 of March 1885, the announcement was even printed at the beginning of every issue that contained such an admonishment. Already a year earlier, in Issue 10 of March 1884, it was stated that the journal would no longer be sent to those who did not pay their fees—apparently without much effect. Before reverting to such threats, however, positive encouragement was also tried. Already in October 1883, the association’s regulations were amended to include the sentence that ‘those who together with their admission fee pay twenty Sen or more every month, or once five Yen or more, will be [listed as] special members’ (SKZ 5: 45–46). In the beginning, several members were simply marked as such in the printed name lists, as seen for instance in Issue 6, 7 and 8. The first public announcement of a promotion to this type of special membership was the case of Tei Eikei 鄭

170

chapter six

永慶 (1858–1894) in February 1884 (SKZ 9: n. p. [after 166]). Tei was an

interesting figure. In 1874, he went to the US to study at Yale University, working upon his return as an English teacher and at the Foreign Ministry. In 1888, he opened Japan’s first genuine coffee house, called Kahhī chakan 可否茶館, in Tokyo’s Nishikuromon-chō 西黒門町. He later returned to the US and died in Seattle. In April 1884, two months after Tei Eikei, three more members were promoted to special status (SKZ 11: n. p. [after 268]). These were Taketomi Tōtarō 武富藤太郎, Gonda Naosuke’s disciple Aoyagi Takatomo 青柳高鞆 (1840–1892), a Shinto priest and kokugaku scholar who several years earlier had taken part at the infamous beheading of the Ashikaga-Shogun statues in Kyoto, and Shioda Makoto 鹽田眞 (1837–1917), a researcher of traditional arts and crafts who had been among those presenting Japan at the 1873 and 1876 world exhibitions in Vienna and Philadelphia, respectively. Unfortunately, such promotions to the status of special member remained singular cases, since very few members gave the association extra monetary contributions. In January 1886, it was announced that the members Yokota Mitsugi 横田貢 from Miyagi Prefecture and Osaka resident Fujiwara Kumatarō 藤原熊太郎 (?–1902), better known as Yukimori 幸盛, had each donated 5 Yen during the previous year. By then, however, the hoped for positive effect on other members to pay their dues seems to have been too late. Although revenues through rising journal sales were a steady and major source of income, this did not avert the financial troubles that were looming. Already in 1885, several issues could not be printed on schedule, and in January, May and December of that year, no journal was published at all. Although the reason for this was never mentioned, the financial problems described above may have been a probable cause. Only the final gap in December 1885—a few months before the journal ceased to exist—was announced in November with the following terse words: With this issue, the society’s journal will suspend its publication for this year. Furthermore, since next year we are endeavouring to start new publications in rapid succession beginning in January, [we ask] all members and all other subscribers to bestow their unchanged patronage. (SKZ 28: 900)

Frequent changes in the location of the association’s administration offices as well as of lecture dates and venues also hint at internal difficulties. As mentioned above, the lecture meetings were usually held twice a month, every second and fourth Saturday, starting at around half past one



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai171

in the afternoon and lasting until five o’clock in the evening. They were initially held at the association’s interim office in Naka Sarugaku-chō 4, in Tokyo’s Kanda ward. This, however, was the private home of Fukuda Han 福田半 (1849–1888), who was simultaneously an editor and the publisher of the association’s journal. For this reason, the meeting schedule was on occasion inconvenient. For instance, a lecture meeting originally scheduled for 24 October 1883 had to be cancelled due to such circumstances and another regular meeting in March 1884 had to be postponed (SKZ 1: 48; 3: 46–47; 6: n. p. [after 42]; 10: n. p. [after 121]; 20: n. p. [after 602]). As mentioned above, the inaugural lecture meeting on 10 June 1883 was attended by ninety people. Since later, the attendance numbers at all but one regular meeting were unfortunately not recorded, this large audience may of course have been an exception. However, it has been recorded that about fifty people attended the ninth lecture meeting on 26 January 1884, and if we use this as an indicator of attendance, a similar turnout was very likely for other meetings (SKZ 9: n. p. [after 166]). Considering all of Fukuda’s other duties within the association, the additional burden of hosting a crowd of forty to sixty people, or even more, twice a month can only be surmised. Some of Fukuda’s responsibilities were reduced in October 1883, when Yajima Kinzō took over as the editor of the Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi (SKZ 5: 45), although publishing itself stayed with Fukuda. As mentioned above, Yajima resigned from this post a mere four months later, in February 1884, ‘due to personal circumstances’, and the journal’s editorship was taken over by Jō Yoshinori 城慶度 instead. A quite significant solution was finally found a year later in September 1884. From then on, the regular lectures were held at the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo, at Iida-chō 5 in Kōjimachi ward, to which some of the association’s leading members were affiliated as professors (SKZ 16: 470). Due to this arrangement, however, the number of lectures had to be reduced, and thenceforth they were held only once a month. Initially, the lecture meetings were scheduled for every fourth Sunday between one o’clock and four o’clock in the afternoon, but in June of the next year it was announced that two consecutive lectures would be held on the second Saturday of each month (SKZ 16: 470; 24: n. p. [after 752]). While the regular business of the association continued to be conducted at Fukuda’s home as an interim office, about half a year later, the move was completed. From February 1885, the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics simultaneously functioned as the administrative office of the Shigaku-kyōkai (SKZ 20: n. p. [after 602]).

172

chapter six

Both the move of the Historiological Association’s office and lecture venue to the leading institution of kokugaku research, and the double affiliation of a number of its high-ranking staff clearly illustrates the close link between the key kokugaku figures at this time. It symbolizes and reveals the vast intellectual network—sustained by close personal  relations as well as overlapping affiliations at different scholarly organizations—that, ultimately, merged the public and private spheres of national learning in the Meiji period. 6.5. Staff Changes and Broadened Interest in the Association’s Journal These and other major changes were announced at the second general assembly, held on 20 January 1885 at the Jinbō-en 神保園 in Kita Jinbōchō, Kanda ward. Starting at two o’clock in the afternoon, the chairman Soejima Taneomi first addressed the audience concerning the re-election of the association’s executive staff the previous December. There had been an apparent dissatisfaction among the members when casting their votes, since a noticeable number did not participate in the election. Since the view had also been raised that having two nominal head managers was inappropriate, Soejima announced that this post had been abolished and in its place, three managers and five assistant managers had been specially selected. He then presented the new executive staff to the members: the managers were Maruyama Sakura, Inoue Yorikuni and Naitō Chisō. The new assistant managers were Fukuda Han, Yano Mantarō 矢野萬太郎 [= Yano Harumichi?],15 Yamaguchi Shin’ei 山口眞榮, Jō Yoshinori and Takekasa Shōzo 武笠昌藏 (SKZ 20: n. p. [after 602]). The reaction of the members attending the meeting to this change is not known, but when comparing these names with an earlier list of main members given in Issue 7 of December 1883, it is obvious that except for the change in their titles, the association’s executive staff for the most part remained the same (App. III). Soejima furthermore admitted that changes were needed concerning some of the association’s immediate and longer-term goals. Despite the fact that, in addition to their public duties, the entrusted members of the 15 No more information could be found on Yano Mantarō. Most likely this is Yano Harumichi, as the name given here could be a misprint of his original name, Yano Shigetarō 矢野茂太郎. However, it is also possible that they were two different people, though probably somehow related.



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai173

compilation committee had been working on writing a Japanese history since the founding of the Shigaku-kyōkai, it had been realized that ‘the compilation of pure Japanese history is a far-reaching project [that is] not easy to succeed’ (SKZ 20: n. p. [after 602]). Thus, instead of producing a comprehensive historical work—something that was only realized later with the four-volume Ōyashima-fumi 大八洲史 edited by Kume Motobumi and published in 1887–91 by the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society Ōyashima-gakkai—for the time being the focus would be shifted towards the editing of historic accounts such as Kitabatake Chikafusa’s Jinnō shōtōki. Maruyama Sakura’s speech at the Shigaku-kyōkai’s opening ceremony on 10 June 1883, quoted above, had already suggested the high esteem held for Jinnō shōtōki in Meiji-period kokugaku. It is, therefore, not much of a surprise that this work was to initiate the new effort at editing and commenting on historic sources, whereby the association also explicitly wished the public to know its aims. This newly-focused compilation task was entrusted to the four members Yano Harumichi, Inoue Yorikuni, Kurita Hiroshi and Kume Motobumi. After the regular lecture meeting on 10 May 1885, an internal assembly of only the people in charge was held. Slight changes were made regarding the assignment of business matters, but the members who had been chosen for the altered compilation task and for compiling a brief history were explicitly not altered. A new administrative category was mentioned at this meeting for the first and only time, namely, ‘journal censorship’ (zasshi ken’etsu 雜誌檢閲), with Iida Takesato and Kosugi Sugimura being appointed for this task. With no other explanations available, it is not entirely clear what needed to be censored, given the editors’ simultaneous plea for open discourse on a wide range of subjects, as mentioned below. Thus, it probably was meant as a system of quality control of the journal’s articles. The category ‘journal’ lists Inoue Yorikuni, Fukuda Han and Jō Yoshinori. ‘Compilation of history’ (henshi 編史) lay in the hands of Maruyama Sakura, Yamaguchi Shin’ei and Takekasa Shōzo. ‘General affairs’ were now to be handled by Naitō Chisō and Yano Mantarō [Harumichi?]. Finally, the ‘journal publication bureau’ was to be at Yano Mantarō’s [Harumichi’s?] residence at Iida-chō 5–26 in Kōjimachi ward (SKZ 23: 709–710). In July 1885, Yano additionally took over full responsibility of the journal’s management and publishing from Fukuda Han, although Jō Yoshinori continued as its editor (SKZ 24: n. p. [after 752]). Surprisingly, it had only been four months earlier, at the abovementioned second general assembly of 20 January 1885, that Soejima had announced the association office’s relocation from Fukuda Han’s private

174

chapter six

home to the Kōten kōkyūjo, and the establishment of a separate new publication bureau responsible for the journal’s publication and delivery at Kita Jinbō-chō 8 in Kanda ward. Important matters concerning the journal were henceforth no longer referred to the association’s office but to this new publication bureau. After the internal meeting on 10 May, however, this publication bureau was moved again, to the residence of Yano Mantarō [Harumichi?] (SKZ 21: n. p. [before 603], 23: 710). In early 1885, the Shigaku-kyōkai saw some expansion. A branch was established in Ehime Prefecture on the island of Shikoku (SKZ 20: n. p. [after 602]). Regional activities were entrusted to the educationalist Izumikawa Takeru 泉川健 (1850–1915), who was both the head county official of Takamatsu and also served at the prefectural office.16 In addition to this institutional expansion, the association’s journal also seemed to flourish. By July 1884, it ‘had gained the favour of a broad public’ to such an extent that the number of copies being printed was increased significantly and the earlier issues were even reprinted, ‘as had been requested’ (SKZ 14, n. p. [after 396]). The editors regularly appealed for manuscript submissions by members and non-members alike. Even controversial pieces were welcome, because: If anything, [we] publish things that agree on the necessity of historical science. There might not always be identical opinions, but [there is] also disagreement in a discourse. After all, however, amid [these opposite opinions, we] only hope for progress in historiology. (SKZ 6: n. p. [after 42])

As already mentioned above, the journal found such a wide public readership outside and beyond the association’s own members that in 1884 alone, about 3,800 copies were sold to non-members (SKZ 20: n. p.). This broad interest in Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi indicates a general interest in historical scholarship, to which everyone was encouraged and welcomed to contribute their share, however small. 6.6. An Almost Modern Discourse on History Amidst diverse and at times opposing views within the association, Iida Takesato’s second son Iida Nagao on 30 September 1885 tried to bring it back to its original track by publishing an article entitled ‘Shiron 史論’ 16 Toyama Masakazu, who taught at the Training Course for the Classics and at Tokyo University’s Department of Literature, mentions a visit by Izumikawa Takeru in these functions in his speech ‘Kanji yaburi 漢字やぶり’. This speech was held at a special meeting of



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai175

(Historical Discussion) in the journal’s Issue 26.17 From the beginning, Nagao had been active in various organizational ways. In this article he tried to clarify the basic aims and motives of the Shigaku-kyōkai as he saw them. Like Maruyama Sakura, Iida considered the compiling of history based on the prevailing kokutai discourse of a sempiternal national polity to be highly important. However, in this and other articles in the association’s journal, he also most poignantly develops an awareness of the merit of Western historical studies. He points out that a view of history limited to kokutai is prone to drift into simple preaching based on the debate about the relationship between sovereign and subject. This simplification, however, is not history, but rather approaches the sphere of sacred scriptures (Tanaka/ Miyachi 1991: 406). For Iida, the ultimate end of ‘honest’ history is not to concern itself with the morality of the facts, but to reveal their veracity. In literary and poetic compositions, didactic criticism had usually been addressed through the moralizing approach of ‘praising the good and castigating the evil’ (kanzen chōaku). Iida, however, criticizes that concealing the ugly and only presenting the beautiful is not an accurate portrait of history. Such one-sidedness gives rise to suspicion and holds the danger that where ‘there are problematic things such as hiding the ugly and scandalous, in [the absence of] contrast, the good and beautiful is also not enlarged’ (ZKS 26: 820). He continues by praising Western historical works, noting that ‘their form is extremely good and virtuous, their facts extremely accurate’ (ibid.: 820–821). Nevertheless, for Iida it is still not viable to adopt Western historiography as such, since it places so much importance on the subjects rather than on the royalty. In his eyes, due to different customs and habits,

Kana no kai 仮名の会 on 4 November 1884 and is printed in vol. 1 of Sokki sōsho kōdan ensetsu shū 速記叢書講談演説集 (1886). 17 Already on 8 September 1883, in Volume 4, Iida Nagao had published an analytical article introducing Basil Hall Chamberlain’s recent English translation of the Kojiki to the association’s readership. A few years later, in April 1888, Iida published a complete translation of Chamberlain’s long and detailed introductory essay to his Kojiki translation under the title Nihon jōkoshi hyōron: genmei eiyaku Kojiki 日本上古史評論:原名英訳古事記 (A Critique on Japan’s Ancient History: Originally Called English Translation of Kojiki). In the headnotes to Iida’s translation, six leading kokugaku scholars—Tanaka Yoritsune, Konakamura Kiyonori, Kurita Hiroshi, Kimura Masakoto, Kurokawa Mayori, and Iida Takesato—provided comments, analysis, and criticism regarding certain claims and passages. This booklet was reprinted in May 1889, and a revised and corrected second edition appeared in October 1900. In addition to the interaction between Nagao’s father, Iida Takesato, and the German Japanologist Karl Florenz (Wachutka 2001), this shows a very interesting reciprocity between Japanese and Western scholarly traditions and views. An analysis of this booklet has been prepared for a separate publication.

176

chapter six

foreign countries neglect the moral obligation between sovereign and subject. But since Japan has a monarch of a divine line that is coeval with heaven and earth, and a national character that values the emperor’s relationship to his subjects, national history must not stray from this concept. Thus, rather than blindly adopting everything that is Western, inclu­ding its form of historiography, Iida Nagao proposes the following compromise: [One should] be provided with a real form of national history through expounding the imperial household’s achievements based on our country’s ancient system and elucidating the true facts about the people by emulating the Western system. (ZKS 26: 821)

According to Iida, to build a magnificent and splendid palace, an architect first has to choose good timber. Likewise, in compiling a national history, the correct ingredients need to be chosen. He thus presents a general list of items that should be studied, with explanatory specifications (ZKS 26: 822–823): Geography (chiri 地理), including, inter alia: country names (kokumei 國名); positions [longitude and latitude] (keii 經 緯); borders (kyōkai 境界); extent (fukuin 幅員); provinces and districts (shūku 州區); natural surroundings [mountains and rivers] (sanga 山河); harbours (kōwan 港灣); capes (misaki 岬); islands (shima 島); population (jinkō 人口); capital areas (shufu 首府); cities and towns (tofu 都府); climate (kikō 氣候); domestic production (kokusan 國産). Politics (seihō 政法), including, inter alia: political institutions [the state system] (seitai 政体); government service (kanshoku 官職); military system (heisei 兵制); feudal system (hōkensei 封建 制); laws (hōritsu 法律); taxation law (zeihō 税法); currency (kahei 貨幣); degrees (do 度); quantities (ryō 量); measures (kō 衡);18 calendars (koyomi 暦); education (kyōiku 教育). Customs and manners (fūzoku 風俗), including, inter alia: race (jinshu 人種); personal features (yōbō 容貌); innate disposition (tensei 天性); thought [ideology] (shisō 思想); clothes (koromo 衣); food (shoku 食); dwelling (jū 住); birthdays (tanshin 誕辰); matrimony (kon’in 婚姻); banquets (kyōen 饗宴); acquired skills (geinō 藝能);19 funerals (sō 葬); mourning (mo 喪); festival season (saisetsu 祭節). 18 Today, the three items do-ryō-kō taken together mean, in general, ‘weights and measures’. 19 Geinō in the late Heian and medieval period traditionally included such things as dengaku, shirabyōshi, kōwakamai, nō, kyōgen, kabuki, etc. Contemporary Japanese



the historiological association shigaku-kyōkai177 Literature (bungaku 文學), including, inter alia: characters (moji 文字); language (gengo 言語); Japanese studies (wagaku 和 學); Chinese studies (kangaku 漢學); Western studies (yōgaku 洋學); Chinese poetry (shi 詩); Japanese poetry (uta 歌); textual style (bunshō 文章). Fine arts (bijutsu 美術), including, inter alia: calligraphy (sho 書); painting (e 画); sculpture [carving, engraving] (chōkoku 彫刻). Religion (shūkyō 宗教), including, inter alia: Shinto 神道; Confucianism (judō 儒道); Buddhism (butsudō 佛道); Christianity (yasokyō 耶蘇教).  Although it seems Shinto and Confucianism should not belong to the sphere of religion, because they have similar intentions it is probably not wrong to put them in this category. Agriculture (nō 農) Workmanship (kō 工) Trade (shō 商) Diplomacy (gaikō 外交)

Explanations are omitted as there should not be great differences in individual opinions about agriculture, workmanship, trade and diplomacy.

This detailed list falls back on and simultaneously expands the original twenty-four areas of historical interest as listed in the first issue of the Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi. Iida Nagao’s somewhat surprising statement that Shinto and Confu­ cianism belong to the category of religion—at least due to their similar intentions—is a very interesting deviation from the contemporary official position on this matter. Officially, Shinto was separate from, and indeed above, religion. Thus, in the form of national rituals and civil morals, it could legitimize and keep its strong ties to the state without violating the now obligatory principle of religious freedom. Although Nagao had a more traditional kokugaku background as the son of Iida Takesato, this clearly shows his personal as well as modern kokugaku’s progressive scholarly openness. Furthermore, some of the proposed topics of study, such as race, personal features, climate, ideology, or innate disposition, give Iida’s thoughts a distinctly new and modern touch, reflecting, for instance, the historians consider this term to have meant ‘acquired skills’, with perhaps a lower-class association, and thus it is translated here correspondingly. Earlier twentieth-century writers also included the popular ‘-dō’ arts such as chadō (tea ceremony) or kadō (flower arrangement), as well as, for instance, renga (sequential poetic dialogue), etc. Today, this term is usually used for various kinds of ‘performing arts’ or for public/ TV performances.

178

chapter six

disciplines of anthropology, psychology and other contemporary sciences. In several places in his essay, however, he also strictly emphasizes that the Japanese nation only flourishes due to the Japanese value of moral obligations in the relationship between sovereign and subject. For him, when compiling a national history ‘imperial historians have to properly reproduce this spirit on paper.’ (ZKS 26: 824). With regard to his modern approach, Iida Nagao insists that one should not blame earlier scholars for making the main points of their study the rise and fall of great men, the manifestation of auspicious omens, the mysterious change of stars, or the conferring of ranks on appointees. However—with civilization the universal trend and ‘at a time of national prosperity, when the imperial way shines over the four seas [i.e. the whole world]’ (ibid.)—when compiling a national history today, its formal arrangement must be improved and its popular character made clear and distinct. This is what should be seen as ‘the historian’s foremost duty of loyalty to the state’ (ibid.). Thus, in addition to academic openness with regard to subjects and methods of research, an emperor-centred nationalism based on the moral spirit of loyal obligation is still seen as the basic attitude that should be taken by kokugaku scholars. Iida Nagao’s ambitious goal of such all-encompassing scholarship could, however, not be realized by the Shigaku-kyōkai. The Historiological Association’s problems and shortcomings, as described above, were simply too great for it to continue along its planned path. The last five issues of its journal no longer contained announcements of any group activities,20 and for unspecified reasons the journal stopped being published at the end of June 1886, after three years and thirty-four issues. Without further notification, the group also seems to have been dissolved. Far from being a mere anecdote in history, however, many of the articles in its journal, which covered a broad variety of historical topics, are still valuable today. In the end, the Shigaku-kyōkai paved the way for a much larger and more successful organization for which it had clearly been an important prelude: the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society Ōyashima-gakkai.

20 It should be noted that Volume 31 of March 1886 included an advertisement for Kōdōkai 弘道會, the Society for Spreading the Way, with some of its listed supporters also members of the Shigaku-kyōkai. Among them were Aoyagi Takatomo, Shintō Taiseikyō’s organizer Hirayama Seisai, Inoue Yorikuni, Motoori Toyokai, Ōzeki Isoshi, Shikida Toshiharu, Watanabe Ikarimaro’s older brother Watanabe Shigeharu 渡邊重春 (1831–1890), and Yano Harumichi.

CHAPTER SEVEN

THE GREAT-EIGHT-ISLAND ACADEMIC SOCIETY ŌYASHIMA-GAKKAI The more than twenty topics of historical investigation outlined in the first issue of Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi already presented the various interests of its members. Nevertheless, history alone seems to have been an approach that was too narrow; it needed productive expansion. Iida Nagao’s proposals in Issue 26 of this journal, adding for instance specifically linguistic and literary research, even if it included their historical dimensions, was one way of drawing the attention of further circles of like-minded people who had been otherwise excluded. Faced with the continuing Westernization in all aspects of life, broadening the range of topics and scholarly approaches within kokugaku helped unite formerlycompeting factions, since this consolidated their shared interest in Japan’s indigenous traditions and development. What emerged during the Meiji period was an overarching concept of the meaning of kokugaku, namely, the study (gaku) of every aspect related to the country (koku) Japan— a concept of ‘national learning’ that easily also included scholars with a Confucian background and the utilization of seemingly modern or Western methods of research such as anthropology, pharmacognosy, or ethnographic inquiry. As mentioned above, it was in this new Meiji period that the term kokugakusha began to be used to collectively describe those Japanese scholars concerned, in a broad sense, with all ‘Things Japanese’.1 It was used both in retrospect and by Ōyashima-gakkai members to describe themselves. In 1885, the Japanese state again underwent a major reform. In this year, a modern Western-style cabinet system superseded the earlier form of government that had been based on the Great Council of State Dajōkan modelled after the ancient structures implemented during the Taika reform of 645. Twenty ministerial posts were created, headed by Itō 1 The German Japanologist Karl Florenz, professor at Tokyo University from 1889 to 1914, had a close relationship to several Meiji kokugaku scholars, especially Iida Takesato. Interestingly, in his works, he refers to these scholars several times as ‘einheimische Japanologen’ or indigenous Japanologists, thus seeing their scholarship as an all-inclusive branch of knowledge (-ology) concerned with Japan (cf. Wachutka 2001: 167 fn. 460).

180

chapter seven

Hirobumi as Japan’s first prime minister. Due to these reforms, many civil servants and government officials lost their jobs, including many scholars who were affiliated with the private academic societies under examination here. At about the same time, from the end of 1884, a need for reforms arose within the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo. Many members of the Shigaku-kyōkai and the later Ōyashima-gakkai were affiliated with this institute, either as instructors or as staff members. Following an initial consolidation of operations, a revision of the institute’s regulations was finally carried out in February 1886. The intention was to strengthen the objectives upon which the institute had been founded—the separation of doctrine and scholarship as found in modern Western sciences—as well as to eradicate certain religious remnants that were part of the Hirata school of kokugaku. For instance, Yano Harumichi and his disciple Kinoto Katsutaka, who were both orthodox followers of the Hirata school’s central ideas and hence were seen as very religious, were dismissed at this time. Nevertheless, many more ‘moderate’ kokugaku scholars of the Hirata faction, as for example Iida Takesato and Inoue Yorikuni, stayed on. These events, occurring around the end of 1885, may have contributed to the founding of the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society Ōyashimagakkai in 1886, which extended and transformed the work and ideas upon which the private Historiological Association Shigaku-kyōkai had been based. It was likely not merely by chance that Yano Harumichi was among its main supporters, promoting the in-depth research and the subsequent widespread education about the traditions of the ‘Great-Eight-Island nation’ Japan. 7.1. The Aim of Establishing the Ōyashima-gakkai On 29 November 1886, Shimazaki Masaki, who as mentioned above had been the model for Aoyama Hanzō in the historical novel Yoake mae, died insane, haunted by endless anxiety. This event may stand symbolically as the point in time that kokugaku shifted from impetuous and idealistic types of restoration to more rational and academic approaches to learning. On 10 July of the same year, the first issue of Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi 大八洲学会雑誌, the journal of the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society, was published. The Boundless Society Yōyōsha had dissolved in 1883. It was followed by the interlude of the Historiological Association



the great-eight-island academic society ōyashima-gakkai181

Shigaku-kyōkai from 1883 to 1886. The academic society Ōyashima-gakkai, as well as the private school it later established, now became the stronghold for kokugaku, which began to emerge as a truly united and inclusive form of scholarship in Meiji Japan. The society provided a venue for bringing together like-minded scholars from a broad variety of intellectual backgrounds. Overcoming the former factionalism of their respective scholarly lineages, they shared the kind of ‘corporate identity’ that had already been advocated by Konakamura Kiyonori in his opening address for the Training Course for the Classics in 1882. Indeed, the members of the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society conducted research together, exchanged ideas and promoted national learning under the label of ‘kokugaku’, with the self-appellation of ‘we kokugaku scholars (yohai kokugakusha shokun 予輩國學者諸君)’ (OGZ 43: 5) henceforth regularly used. The aim behind the founding of the Ōyashima-gakkai, when compared to that of Shigaku-kyōkai, reveals that while significant aspects were continued, it also expanded on the former institution’s ideas. This is also evident in the memorandum of intent printed in the first issue of the society’s journal. This introductory article, entitled Ōyashima-gakkai setsuritsu no shui 大八洲学会設立之趣意 (The Aim of Ōyashima-gakkai’s Foundation), was dated April 1886 and signed by the society’s three chairmen, Motoori Toyokai, Kume Motobumi and Kosugi Sugimura, as well as its five managing secretaries, Sano Hisanari, Tadokoro Chiaki 田所千秋 (1836–1911), Tamura Toshikado 田村利門 (1826–1889) Nishino Furumi 西野古海 (1832–1898) and Uozumi Nagatane 魚住長胤 (1847–1893). It sets out the society’s ambitions and goals clearly: At the time of advancing benefit of this country’s cultural progress, the desire to understand the essence handed down in the unbroken imperial line and the system’s three-thousand-year-long history of development since the founding of the nation is something everybody should highly sympathize with, in view of today’s serious and urgent business. Reaching knowledge about this development should be based on scientific scholarship. But, alas, why is this fundamental scholarship in a bad condition? This is due to nothing other than everybody’s selfish attitude in not uniting with vigour, as well as being subject to cumbersome circuitous instructions. This is something we here all feel greatly. We came forward with a method and established the Ōyashima-gakkai, and enthusiastically desire to spread this learning in all four directions [i.e. everywhere]. In this way, by means of correspondence concerning this learning [kokugaku], our goal is to understand the past and present development of this country’s system. For instance, for people living in remote areas, without teachers and where books are scarce, it is unavoidable that they regularly depart for the distant city to pursue knowledge. However, people without funds are unable to realize their

182

chapter seven aspirations. Even for those who, by chance, have the funds to cover school expenses, it is difficult [for them] to detach themselves from family duties. Is it not extremely pitiable that their longstanding desire is in vain for the rest of their lives? With today’s freedom of communication, also learning should naturally again become a world of freedom. Consequently, [such] people [may] consult with various experts in the capital and gain support through the methods of an institutionalized place. In spite of living in the countryside, while being there, people have easy access to and can read this or that book. In addition, while being there, they also can ask a teacher for explanations about doubtful matters.  When making inquiries of this society, namely, its specialists, via mail correspondence, swift and cordial answers shall be given. Furthermore, from the beginning, also historical and government-law documents shall be supplemented by kana and be published, for they are clearly not easy to comprehend. Moreover, since there are now many errors and omissions in books such as the traditional ‘three mirror’ kana-histories [Ō-, Mizu-, Masu-kagami] and the Eiga-monogatari, collated editions (kōhon 校本) [authoritative texts based on extensive analysis and comparison] shall be provided. Besides, ancient books that are beneficial shall be successively published and distributed widely.  Further, when the correction of written poems or prose is requested, they shall be refined and returned. Further, a journal shall be compiled that includes, of course, an editorial [article] and historical evidence-based investigation, but also a selection of excellent compositions and splendid poetry. In addition, it shall provide information about circumstances related to this society and communicate the correspondence from all directions. Therefore, when you gentlemen in various parts of the country have ideas for texts that assist in scholarship—a token of antiquarian studies from your area, beginning, as a matter of course, with its geography, products, or language, [or] the development of agriculture, trade, or folkways there—certainly do inform this society and mutually exchange knowledge. If, for argument’s sake, an alliance of a thousand people follows suit, it should not be difficult to successively publish books of whatever extent, beginning with the annotated textbooks of the Six National Histories Rikkokushi. In this way, as well, in addition to having these rare and valuable books at one’s disposal, the rapidly opened path for inquiry and reply no doubt will compensate for the present dearth in teaching staff of this scholarship [kokugaku] at primary and middle schools in every region. And after all, it should open the ears and eyes of the public. Fortunately, we can hope for the support of you sympathetic volunteers from all quarters. (OGZ 1: 1–2)

As did its predecessor, the Ōyashima-gakkai insists that knowledge about Japanese history and institutions be based on academic scholarship. Its members, however, were concerned that basic study and research were currently not being pursued vigorously enough. A clearly visible contrast to the Shigaku-kyōkai is the shift towards the key aim of educating the



the great-eight-island academic society ōyashima-gakkai183

wider populace. The authors of the memorandum point at the lack of access to qualified teachers and resources in more remote areas as being a major factor for the present stagnation in academic research and knowledge. To eliminate disparities between different regions, it was planned that the renowned experts of the academic society would provide corrections and comments on questions or compositions if submitted. Accord­ ingly, it can be said that this aim of the Ōyashima-gakkai was somehow a first example of today’s system of distance learning through core­ spondence courses. In addition to conducting and exchanging scholarly research, the major goal of wider education was later materialized with the opening of Ōyashima-gakkō, a kokugaku-based school that will be described below. The extent to which the education of the populace was also seen as contributing to the ongoing process of nation building is evident in some of Kume Motobumi’s remarks in a text containing his thoughts about the newly-founded association, also published in July 1886. In his article ‘Ōyashima-gakkai no bii 大八洲學會の微意’ (My humble feelings about Ōyashima-gakkai), Kume in the first sentences states: In the olden days of the Age of Gods, the heavenly deity [Amaterasu] gave an order commanding that our emperor’s imperial reign be coeval with heaven and earth. Since it is an august land, it shall progressively flourish, although ups and downs are unavoidable since it is a world of spontaneously living people. Therefore, thinking of this marvellous country, each of you earnestly ought to promote its glory. […] With the present freedom of exchange between people all over this country through the brush, the way of our scholarship is also about to become greater. To preserve the ancient roots [of our glorious country], this Ōyashima-gakkai was established. It goes without saying that the interior homeland proper will join the research and dialogue, but it is a matter of great bliss that the people of Okinawa-ken and Hokkaidō in these days will also [take part]. (OGZ 1: 19)

It must be remembered that Ezo was renamed Hokkaidō in 1869, when it began to be colonized. However, the formerly independent Ryūkyū Kingdom had became Okinawa Prefecture only in 1879. While here the intention is probably not yet completely developed, later, ultimately destructive events seem already foreshadowed when, a few pages later, Kume writes that if everyone supports and helps Ōyashima-gakkai to truly prosper, ‘in a not so distant future the light of an Oriental Civilization will radiate in every direction’ (OGZ 1: 22). Hence, in Kume’s eyes, the divine country’s glory, based on an impe­ rial  reign coeval with heaven and earth, does not necessarily stop at

184

chapter seven

the borders of Japan’s newly-acquired peripheral territories. Remi­ niscent  of the motto ex oriente lux, which also refers to the rising sun, he envisions Japan’s shining light spreading to the surrounding nations and granting them a share of the imperial country’s glorious civilization. 7.2. The Ōyashima-gakkai’s Regulations As mentioned above, the Ōyashima-gakkai published the first issue of its journal Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi in July 1886, but the society was already founded in April of that year (OGZ 19: 1). In the meantime, the Shigakukyōkai had ceased its activities; the last issue of its journal appeared on 30 June. But the moving spirits of the two associations and their principal members overlapped to a great extent. Due to this smooth and uninterrupted transition between the two scholarly societies, the closing stages of the Shigaku-kyōkai have been called an ‘evolutionary dissolution’ (Yamasaki 1956: 300). It was dissolved in order to help create a more comprehensive organization. While it is noticeable that the new organization followed Iida Nagao’s proposed list of research items, the Ōyashimagakkai’s broader approach is evident from the first paragraph of the preface that was printed in nearly every issue of its journal. Entitled ‘Ōyashima-gakkai kisoku gairyaku 大八洲學會規則概略’ (Summary of the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society’s Regulations), this preface presents the following eight items (OGZ 1: n. p.):  1. By mutually answering each other’s questions via correspondence, this society has as its goal the understanding and appreciation of the historical development throughout all ages of such things as the sacred scriptures [of Shinto]; history; institutions; of poetry and prose, i.e. the grammar of poetry and literary texts; of agriculture, craftsmanship and trade; the fine arts; products; geography; and of manners and customs. 2. This society commissions experts in each field as lecturers. 3. Those desiring to become members—irrespective of sex or age— should write down their name and address and send their application together with an entrance fee of fifty Sen to the office, upon which a membership certificate will be provided. In case of moving, [the office] needs to be informed. However, those who are interested but are living an honourable life in poverty need not pay the entrance fee. 4. Those assisting this society by their writings or monetary contributions will become special [honorary] members.



the great-eight-island academic society ōyashima-gakkai185

5. If a member requests the correction of a problem, each question—of less than ten paragraphs, for long poems less than thirty stanza, for short poems less than twenty stanza and for prose less than three sections—can only be considered once. For each type of question, a handling fee of ten Sen must be attached. Moreover, the member asking for correction of a problem must bear the postage of the return envelope. 6. On the tenth of every month, this society will send its journal to its members. For this, a fee of ten Sen per month must be paid to the society. However, concerning the journal fee, we ask for advance payment of a lump sum for several months. It is not a problem if several people together share one journal. 7. If a member purchases [one of the other] publications that are planned to occasionally be issued by this society, they will receive a thirty per cent discount. 8. There is no problem in sending the journal fee as well as the handling fee for corrections by means of postal money order or as one-Senstamps. However, postal money orders should only be made to the Tokyo main post office. Enabling membership for anyone, irrespective of sex or age, as well as waiving the entrance fee for the poor and explicitly mentioning the permission to share journal issues among several people, clearly shows the society’s intent to spread its knowledge as far as possible. Indeed, in addition to scholarly exchange, a central motive in establishing the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society was the education of the common populace. 7.3. The Society’s Journal and Expanding Membership As stated in the society’s aims presented above, the publication of its monthly journal, the Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi, was seen as a means to reach ‘people living in remote areas’ and to expose them to sound scholarship and guided learning. In the beginning, the journal’s publishing house was located at the Ōyashima-gakkai’s interim office (kari-jimusho) at Hongoku-chō 1–1 in Tokyo’s Nihonbashi ward. Later it moved to Uozumi Nagatane’s Keishōkan 稽照館. Finally, after consolidation, it was called Ōyashima-kan 大八洲館. Kosugi Sugimura was the initial editor, but from Issue 48, dated 10 June 1890, the editorship was also transferred to Uozumi Nagatane, who continued to be the publisher. Due to Uozumi’s death on

186

chapter seven

26 January 1893, from Issue 81, dated 10 March of that year, both posts were temporarily held by Miyake Toyojirō 三宅豊次郎. Beginning with Issue 83, dated 10 May 1893, the posts of editor and publisher were taken over by Iida Takeo 飯田武夫 (1851–1899), the eldest son of Iida Takesato. With Issue 90, dated 10 December 1893, the editor changed again, this time to Sugiura Kōtarō 杉浦鋼太郎 (1857–1942), a pioneer in modern commercial and female education. Finally, on 10 July 1896, the editorship was handed to Satō Ryūtarō 佐藤龍太郎, with Sugimura continuing as the journal’s publisher. Overall, Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi dealt with a wide variety of scholarly problems that were in line with the society’s aforementioned objective. It was organized into different sections, including general essays, investigations into historical sources, aspects of language and literature, reports on speeches, inquiries by members, and an anthology of poetry and prose. Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi had a duodecimo format, with a double-framed single-column layout. On average, the journal had approximately sixtyfive pages with thirteen lines of thirty-three characters each. It was issued once a month, and cost 10 Sen per copy. The anthology column, which was sometimes quite extensive, featured prose as well as nagauta and tanka. Most of these poems were written on a given subject and had been submitted for publication. The anthology Ōyashima kashū 大八洲歌集, edited by Motoori Toyokai and published in two volumes in October 1888, presented a collection of the society’s literary and poetic achievements to an even broader readership. In 1910, it was revised and re-published in a combined edition. In addition to scholarly research, poetry as well as literary theory was a major concern. Fukuzumi Masae 福住正兄 (1824–1892) provoked a critical response to his article ‘Gachūron 雅調論’ (Treatise on Elegant Meter), published in Issue 43 of 10 January 1890. The subsequent dis­pute developed into an exchange of arguments between Fukuzumi and Sasaki Hirotsuna, in which also Tadokoro Chiaki, Ōnuki Maura 大貫真浦 (1850–1916), Sakabe Teruko 坂部てる子, Aoyagi Takatomo and others took part. This dispute concerning right and wrong in poetry composition was later summarized and printed in a single volume (Kasuga 1893). With Issue 70 of April 1892, the journal’s title was shortened to Ōyashima zasshi. From then on, the number of pages in the anthology section increased steadily. Some of the special supplements containing poems by the members on given subjects reached up to thirty pages, with often a mixture of both the bad and good. For this reason, a number of measures for selecting qualified poems for publication were adopted. Up until



the great-eight-island academic society ōyashima-gakkai187

the time the journal ceased publication, after some twenty years of existence, it grew steadily, earning an increasingly favourable reputation among contemporary intellectuals. The journal’s broad appeal to general literati and non-members is evident by a two-volume collection of miscellaneaous articles collected in the 1890s by the author and physician Mori Ōgai 森鴎外 (1862–1922). It is preserved at Tokyo University’s Historiographical Institute. In general, the style of the Ōyashima-gakkai was neither extremist nor confrontational, as was the case for certain other conservative or nationalistic groups of the time. In addition to the journal’s articles being comparatively moderate, their contents were usually very reliable, since all of the authors were leading authorities in their respective fields. Thus, the Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi’s value as a source of Meiji-period kokugaku thought as well as a repository of knowledge about ancient and contemporary matters continues to be very high. The journal’s formal end came with Issue 234 in December 1905, with the retirement of its long-term publisher Sugiura Kōtarō. Since over the years it had become increasingly involved with poetry, it was then merged with Fude no hana ふでのはな, the journal of the poetry society Wakabakai わかば会, with the name being changed to Ōyashima 大八洲. Although this name was reminiscent of the former Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi, the numbering was taken over from Fude no hana. On 20 January 1906, the first issue of Volume 21 was published, the new journal concentrating almost exclusively on poetry. Its editor was Hanawa Tadao 塙忠雄 (1862–1923), who had been in charge of Wakaba-kai’s former journal. Hanawa Tadao was the great-grandson of the famous kokugaku scholar Hanawa Hokiichi (KDNBK 1990: 561). He was also the founder of Onko-gakkai 温故学会, the Society for Studying the Past, which still exists today.2 Under Hanawa, Issue 5 of Volume 27 appeared in May 1912, whereupon, with the new Taishō era, the numbering of the journal also started anew with issue one. It is not evident when its publication ceased, although it can be followed until 1932. Incidentally, another magazine in the Taishō and early Shōwa period existed that had the same name, Ōyashima, which was a common poetic epithet for Japan already used in the early classics Kojiki and Nihonshoki. Traceable until 1940, this journal was issued by Hiroshima Prefecture’s

2 Incidentally, its office and auditorium are located near Kokugakuin University.

188

chapter seven

Shinto priest organization, but a direct relationship with the Ōyashimagakkai’s former journal is not apparent. As mentioned above, the Ōyashima-gakkai and its journal saw steady growth and development over the years. Many members worked zeal­ ously to promote the society and its ideas. On 10 April 1887, for instance, it was reported that Kosugi Sugimura had returned to the capital from a short trip along the San’yōdō and Tōkaidō highways to his home province of Awa, on the island of Shikoku. In order to promote the society further, he had held lectures and had fruitful meetings with various local members in Kyoto, Ise, Hiroshima and other cities along the way. As a result, the educationalist Izumikawa Takeru, who since early 1885 had already run a branch group of the Shigakukyōkai in Ehime province, gathered about a hundred people from the Sanuki area and established an Ōyashima-gakkai branch group (OGZ 10: 57). The establishment of several such new groups throughout the country  followed suit. Already a month after the above announcement, on 8 May 1887, another local group was established in Tokushima City’s Kamiya-machi, with Kawada Hidekai 川田秀頴 (1826–1897) functioning as its head. Quite significantly, this branch group was situated within the local branch office of the Kōten kōkyūjo. This fact again shows the close relationship between the Ōyashima-gakkai and the Kōten kōkyūjo, the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics. It is also an example of the tight intellectual network that was maintained by close personal relations and overlapping affiliations of prominent members within various institutions and academic societies. This could already be seen in the earlier move of the Shigaku-kyōkai’s office and lecture venue to the Kōten kōkyūjo in Tokyo. Also in 1887, on 12 June, another branch headed by Murayama Morio 村山守雄 (1818–1890) was established by local members and supporters in Osaka. Two more branch groups later also opened in Hiroshima and Nagoya (OGZ 14: 55–56; KDNBK 1990: 218, 711). On such fertile ground, over the years the society’s membership steadily increased. If counting the new entrants up to the last available numbers of October 1905 and subtracting those people who were reported as having passed away, the membership of the Ōyashima-gakkai had risen to an impressive 3,858 affiliates (Fig. 7.1). It must be remembered, however, that these nearly four thousand people only represent the members who had formally subscribed and were



the great-eight-island academic society ōyashima-gakkai189 Membership development of Ōyashima-gakkai 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000

20.07.1905

10.07.1904

20.07.1903

20.07.1902

20.07.1901

20.07.1900

10.07.1899

10.07.1898

10.07.1897

10.07.1896

10.07.1895

10.07.1894

10.07.1893

10.07.1892

10.07.1891

10.07.1890

10.07.1889

10.07.1888

10.07.1887

0

10.07.1886

500

Fig. 7.1

regularly listed with their names and addresses in the society’s journal upon enrolment. Nevertheless, considering the number of people who usually lived in normal households, as well as the implicit encouragement in the society’s regulations to share journal copies among a number of people, it can logically be assumed that the actual readership per issue was much higher. 7.4. Emperor Meiji, Imperial-style Education and Links to the Ōyashima-gakkai On 10 November 1886, Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi carried in its fifth issue a short notice that Emperor Meiji had visited the Imperial University on 29 October and attended lectures in the different departments. It was also emphasized that he greatly encouraged the promotion of classical and literary studies (OGZ 5: 62). Shortly before the Ōyashima-gakkai was founded, on 1 March 1886, Tokyo University was reformed and re-named as Teikoku daigaku, or Imperial University. In the course of this event, the Minister of Education, Mori Arinori, submitted a petition to the court, inviting the emperor to visit. As described in the society’s journal, this visit finally took place in October of that year. At nine o’clock in the morning, accompanied by head

190

chapter seven

chamberlain Tokudaiji Sanetsune, the emperor’s carriage reached the university’s main gate. Students lined both sides of the route outside the gate. Inside, Mori Arinori, Prince Arisugawa-no-miya Takehito-shinnō 有栖川宮 威仁親王 (1862–1913), as well as all of the teachers and staff, were waiting to welcome the important guest. University President Watanabe Kōki 渡辺 洪基 (1848–1901) lead the emperor around the campus, showing him the laboratories and classrooms of the science, medical, law and literature departments, as well as dormitories, the hospital and the library. Apparently, after a short rest due to light rain, the emperor returned to the palace at two o’clock in the afternoon (MTK 6: 647–648). This visit could have been a rather insignificant addition to the emperor’s many public duties. However, his concern became obvious a week later, as recorded in the thirteen-volume Meiji-tennō ki, the official chronology of events connected to the emperor, of which incidentally one of the main editorial officers for its compilation was Ikebe Yoshikata. On 5 November, Emperor Meiji had a discussion with his Confucian adviser Motoda Nagazane 元田永孚 (1818–1891) about his visit to the Imperial University (MTK 6: 648–649). During their talk, the emperor told Motoda that although the increasing progress of subjects such as physical sciences, chemistry, botany, medicine and law was noticeable, while inspecting the various departments, he could not find anything regarding the subject of morals at this institution, thought to be the nation’s foremost and principle place of study. He had heard that there had once been a Training Course for the Classics, but notwithstanding that the subjects of Japanese and Chinese literature were being taught, the emperor lamented that it was not obvious how morals were taught or formed. According to this officially recorded conversation, the university as the highest place for Japanese education, was in his opinion, above all an institute that should form superior human resources. He saw the need for human resources with training in political affairs and public order. This, however, could hardly be achieved through the present subjects of study alone. He continued by reflecting that while his present Cabinet was made up of meritorious restoration-day retainers who administered the affairs of state, its members could not be maintained in eternity and succeeding well-qualified ministers had to be cultivated. Emperor Meiji continued by stating that even if a person studied physics, chemistry, or medicine and graduated, this would not necessarily make them suitable for becoming a minister. Nonetheless, the subject of Japanese and Chinese morals was not to be found in the university’s present curriculum. These points of view were most likely shared by Motoda Nagazane, whose opinion probably



the great-eight-island academic society ōyashima-gakkai191

can be sensed in this reported conversation as much as that of the emperor. To conclude, the essence of learning must, from the outset, be undertaken in an imperial fashion. One probable reason for these concerns was Emperor Meiji’s own imperial-style education following his accession to the throne in 1867, at the age of only sixteen. It took at least a year, however, for his scholarly education, as appropriate for a modern monarch, to be put in place (Keene 2002: 104). In July 1868, Akizuki Tanetatsu was appointed imperial tutor, a position similar to one he had already held under the late Shogun Tokugawa Iemochi 徳川家茂 (1846–1866). In addition, in February 1869, the kokugaku scholar Hirata Kanetane and the Confucianist Nakanuma Kien 中沼葵園 (1816–1896) were appointed as imperial lecturers (MTK 1: 750; 2: 24). At the beginning, the emphasis was placed on ‘reading canonical works of Chinese thought, along with a few works of Japanese history. Six lectures on the Analects [Lúnyû] and six on the Records of Japan [Nihonshoki] were delivered in his presence each month. Somewhat later the curriculum was expanded to include (among Japanese works) Kitabatake Chikafusa’s Jinnō shōtōki, as well as others of the Four Books of Confucianism’ (Keene 2002: 170). In addition, Emperor Meiji received lectures, inter alios, from Fukuba Bisei, Matsudaira Yoshinaga, Ōhara Shigetomi 大原重徳 (1801–1879), Tama­ matsu Misao, Katō Hiroyuki, Chō Sanshū 長三洲 (1833–1895), Ijichi Shōji 伊地知正治 (1828–1886) and Soejima Taneomi. In addition to Hirata, Fukuba and Tamamatsu, other kokugaku scholars such as Hatta Tomonori, Takasaki Masakaze, Kondō Yoshiki and Kubo Sueshige also served at the Imperial Household Ministry as government officials for either literature or poetry (MTK 2: 97, 180, 188, 343, 367, 669; 3: 459; 4: 584, 598, 651). Already between 1876 and 1878, as a form of practical education about Japan, the emperor had toured the country to inspect its conditions and geography, as well as to present himself to his subjects. Wherever he travelled, his interest in education was evident by the frequency of his visits to schools. Regardless of the subject matter, however, his preference was for a conservative and traditional style of learning. After returning from his journey of 1878, he informed Iwakura Tomomi that it was essential to cultivate traditional Japanese morality in the schools, because while the pupils could deliver fluent speeches in English, they were ignorant of Japanese traditions. This was the fault of the ‘American educational methods’ that had been used since the 1872 change in the school system (Keene 2002: 324). Similarly, during his visit to the Imperial University in 1886, his main concern was for imperial-style national morals. As stated above, the

192

chapter seven

Training Course for the Classics that had caught Emperor Meiji’s interest had already stopped recruiting new students in 1885. Thus, at the time of his visit to the Imperial University, this institute had de facto already been abolished. With the graduation of its last class of students in 1888, it was finally closed down. This closure was one of the reasons that the Ōyashima-gakkai initiated the opening of its own private school for national learning. In 1891, it was finally realized with the founding of Ōyashima-gakkō, where an imperial-style basis for all types of learning, as demanded by the emperor, was evident. Probably through the recommendation of several of his kokugaku tutors who were also members of Ōyashima-gakkai, it seems that Emperor Meiji took a direct interest in the society’s activities. Three months after he had visited the university, a prestigious honour was announced to the society’s members in the journal’s Issue 8, of 10 February 1887. All of Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi’s thus-far published issues had been presented to the court, and the emperor and empress had indicated their desire to read them. Accordingly, the Imperial Household Ministry had, in a private notice, commanded that all further issues were to be presented to the throne upon publication (OGZ 8: 60–61). Unfortunately, it is not known whether any articles were actually read by either Emperor Meiji or Empress Shōken 昭憲 (1849–1914), or which, but the journal was nevertheless delivered to the court. More than seven years later, on 10 August 1894, it was again reported that each issue of the journal, which had meanwhile been renamed Ōyashima zasshi, continued to be presented to the court in order to ‘graciously be read by both the Emperor and the Empress, as it already had been announced to you members’. At this time, moreover, ‘the honour was received to present [the journal also] to His Highness Kuni-no-miya. Our Society can hardly be more dignified’ (OGZ 98: App. 1). The journal’s prominent new reader was of course Kuni-no-miya Kuniyoshiō 久邇宮邦彦王 (1873–1929), at that time the head of the Kuni-no-miya family. Though only the third son, it was he who took over the family headship from his father, Prince Kuni-no-miya Asahiko-shinnō—the above-mentioned Ise Shrine’s head priest who was deeply involved in establishing the Jingū kōgakukan. As had been the case with his older brother Prince Iwamaro, who had studied at the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies and received special lectures from Shikida Toshiharu, Kuniyoshiō was also raised with a background of national learning. Thus, his interest in the Ōyashima-gakkai and its journal—in addition to its ambitions and scholarly content—was



the great-eight-island academic society ōyashima-gakkai193

perhaps also triggered by his earlier personal acquaintance with some of its prominent kokugaku members.3 7.5. Other Kokugaku Organizations Promoting Japaneseness In the early Meiji period, various liberal ideas penetrated Japan’s political  and educational worlds of thought, materializing for instance in the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement and the Education Law of 1872, respectively. While conservative ideas began to reassert themselves against these initial liberal tendencies, the new Education Ordinance issued in 1879 was part of this current. For the first time it made education compulsory—sixteen months over a four-year period, then raised to a full four years in 1886 and to six years in 1907. This new ordinance laid the basis for the pre-war school education system. Further modifications in 1880 allowed for an even more centralized system. From the 1880s, various reformist and even reactionary tendencies against various liberal ideas gradually became visible, generating an opportunity for conservative traditionalists to unite. Particularly the movements for preserving national characteristics and for creating a new national morality based on a mixture of Shinto and Confucianist ideas were quite significant. This trend towards a Shinto–Confucianbased Japanese moralism had culminated and gained a basic form in the sacrosanct Imperial Rescript on Education, which was proclaimed in 1890. In January 1890, the society’s journal featured a joint article by Ochiai Naobumi and Konakamura Yoshikata. The latter is better known as Ikebe Yoshikata, but had been temporarily adopted by Konakamura Kiyonori and during this time he used the last name Konakamura. This joint article, entitled ‘Kaiin shokun ni tsugu 会員諸君に告ぐ’ (The Society’s Members are Hereby Informed), expressed delight over the rise of Nihon-shugi 日本 主義, ‘Japaneseness’ or Nipponism, as compared to six or seven years earlier, when to a large extent Westernization was the only attitude prevailing in politics, law, literature and religion. Ochiai and Konakamura wrote that when imitating Western forms, no distinction had been made between 3 Incidentally, Kuni-no-miya Kuniyoshiō’s direct link to the imperial family later became even closer. In 1899, he married Shimazu Chikako 島津俔子 (1879–1956) and four years later their first daughter Nagako 長子 was born. Nagako came to be known in and outside of Japan as Kōjun-kōgo 香淳皇后 (1903–2000), the wife of Emperor Shōwa.

194

chapter seven

good and evil, or right and wrong. Japan’s own traditions, customs and moral principles had simply been ignored. Slowly, however, as they describe it, a reactionary trend had risen, that was as brilliant as the morning sun. [This was] gained through the assisting efforts of all kokugakusha, regardless of whether they lived in the capital or in the provinces. […] In short, the current Nipponism was created by us kokugaku scholars. […] These last one to two years were the most flourishing and industrious for kokugaku scholars, and indeed should not be forgotten. (OGZ 43: 5)

As an indication of this new Japaneseness throughout society, the authors listed fifteen associations and institutions that had been established in recent years in Tokyo and that were related to national learning. The umbrella term ‘kokugaku’ is explicitly used. The fifteen organizations, with short descriptions of their founding and activities, as given in this article, were (OGZ 43: 5–8): 1. The Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics, Kōten kōkyūjo  Since Count Yamada [Akiyoshi] became the institute’s director, it has undergone a major transformation and gathered reputable people. Besides the Saturday lecture meetings, day-to-day lectures are held on history, legislation, as well as poetry and prose. Indeed, it must be called very diligent. The audience routinely consisted of at least two hundred people. Every issue of the lecture notes also has a print-run of almost ten thousand. Well, since a Department of National Literature will soon be established as well, there are many more splendid things to come. 2. The Meiji Society, Meiji-kai 明治會  It came about through the advocacy of Count Sasaki [Takayuki]. As members are invited based on the three essential principles of respect for the gods, reverence for the emperor, and love of country, likeminded people from everywhere continue to join this society, which is very prosperous. Its journal also has a favourable reputation. Above all, it has even opened branches in Gunma, Ibaraki, Osaka, Shizuoka and so on. Since, in addition, from this year on, visiting members are being dispatched to all areas, and also a school has been opened, and these principles thus are being spread all the more, it gives reason for much hope. 3. The [Japanese] Society for Spreading the Way, [Nihon] Kōdō-kai [日本]弘道會 It was established by court councillor Nishimura [Shigeki], is entirely concerned with advocating morals, and it also has a large number of



the great-eight-island academic society ōyashima-gakkai195

members. Not only debates are held, but in each district [of Tokyo] speeches and lectures are held two to three times a month, which is of great benefit for public morals. They also issue a journal.   4. The Ritual Association, Reiten kyōkai 禮典協會 It was initiated by Maruyama Sakura. Its claim is that Shinto is not a religion, but our nation’s ritual. Since that is not only [Maruyama’s] previous basic argument, but also supported by many scholars, with and without a public office, good results will certainly be gained.   5. The Institute for Investigating Language, Gengo torishirabesho 言語取調所 This institute is administered by Governor Takasaki [Goroku 高崎五六 (1836–1896)]. Under Senator Hosokawa [Junjirō]’s direction, it is at present engaged in compiling dictionaries and grammar books, and soon the completed works will appear.   6. The Kana [Syllabary] Society, Kana no kai かなのくわい Now, this is not an especially remarkable matter, but since this society was set up, its influence on our writing has indeed been great. Even if it is no longer expanding, since it is zealously assisted, especially by Takasaki Masakaze, its glory will increasingly shine.   7. The Society for National Literature, Kokubungaku-kai 國文學會

This is a union of instructors of national language and national literature beginning with the university down to each school. Of course, they discuss methods of instruction. On this matter, they stay in contact with instructors in the provinces. Further, depending on the appropriateness of a matter, the aim is to make proposals along these lines. It is thus an extremely beneficial society.   8. The Historical Society, Shigaku-kai 史學會 This [society] was established by various enthusiasts of historical studies from the university’s Literature Department. It also has a large number of members and publishes a journal as well. Its chairman is the doctor of literature Shigeno [Yasutsugu] 重野安繹 (1827–1910)].   9. The Oriental Society, Tōyō gakkai 東洋學會 Its members are increasing rapidly, and its journal is also extremely profound. 10. The Society for [Good] Writing Style, Bunsho-kai 文章會 Their aim is to thoroughly wash away the current complex style of writing. The members’ writings are successively published. Although at present they possibly bring no huge benefit, since at the year-end’s general assembly they also have decided to expand a great deal, it is definitely worthwhile to keep an eye on them from now on.

196

chapter seven

 11. The Institute of National Language, Kokugo denshūsho 國語傳習所

This is a place for learning the national language, mainly through intensive training. Although still unimportant on the day of its establishment, its students quickly numbered a hundred and sixty. 12. The Training School for National History and Literature, Kokushi kokubun kōshūsho 國史國文講習所 This [school], too, was planned some years ago. Since it is finally managed by Tokyo urban prefecture, it will surely prosper. 13. Japanese Literature, Nihon bungaku 日本文學 They are thriving as usual. 14. National Glory [Society], Kokkō[sha] 國光[社]4 This [society] has the enthusiasm of Nishi Sawanosuke 西澤之助 (1848–1929). Although it might not prosper too well, it indeed brings much benefit. 15. The Orchid-like Association, Joransha 如蘭社5 It is like its fragrant name. Increasingly, many people come together. This list not only shows the growing number of national-learning associations mirroring the general spread of Nipponism throughout society at this time, but it also indicates these groups’ mutual recognition and support. In many ways, the Ōyashima-gakkai was a pioneer and initiator of this new traditionalistic and conservative trend, acting as a hub for a network of like-minded people. With regard to the Oriental Society Tōyō gakkai, already on 10 December 1886 it was announced to Ōyashima-gakkai members that this society had been established in May of that year by professors and students of the Imperial University’s Training Course for the Classics. As mentioned above, many of these professors and students were themselves members of the Ōyashima-gakkai. The description of the Tōyō gakkai continued by 4 Kokkōsha, concerned with traditional education of girls, issued the journal Jokan 女 鑑 and also published many textbooks. In 1900, Nishi Sawanosuke established the Japan Women’s School Nihon jogakkō. Later renamed Imperial Special School for Girls Teikoku joshi senmon gakkō, it is the predecessor of today’s Sagami Women’s University. 5 It is not entirely clear how to best translate this association’s name. As the short description mentions its fragrant name, it has been rendered according to the characters as Orchid-like. It could also indicate something along the lines of ‘Dutch-like’ meaning ‘equal to Western learning’ if seen in relation to the well-known term rangaku 蘭学. There also exists a collection of Chinese poetry, compiled by the Confucianist Koga Kokudō 古賀穀 堂 (1778–1836) and others, with the title Joran-shū 如蘭集. Incidentally, Joran 如蘭 is an alias for the Ming-period Assistant Regional Commander Hu Lîang-pêng 呼良朋 (Morohashi 1984–86, 3: char. 6060–127). However, a possible relationship between this person, the poetry collection, and the association in question is not immediately apparent.



the great-eight-island academic society ōyashima-gakkai197

stating: ‘In its conduct, it combines in kinship the study of Japan and China, or today, the Orient. Including the authorities of the various Indian forms of scholarship, it mutually studies their scholarly principles. Anticipating to convey the generosity of previous emperors for eternity, several of our society’s supporters, beginning with its three chairmen [Motoori Toyokai, Kume Motobumi and Kosugi Sugimura], therefore in great numbers also support this [society]’ (OGZ 6: 61–62). From the included table of contents of the first issue of Tōyō gakkai’s journal, it is evident that indeed other prominent Ōyashima-gakkai members supported the Tōyō gakkai as well. Among them were, for instance, Shimada Shigenori, Katō Hiroyuki, Konakamura Kiyonori, Nanma Tsunanori, Naitō Chisō, Konakamura Yoshikata and Shigeno Yasutsugu. In their joint article, Konakamura and Ochiai moreover point out that Ueda Kazutoshi proposed the establishment of courses on national language at elementary schools. Other indications for the spread of Nipponism and ‘our scholarship of kokugaku’ were the establishment of departments of national history and national literature at the Imperial University, as well as a course on national literature at the First Higher Middle School in 1889. Likewise, in the area of legislation, in their eyes the civil code did not deviate much from Japanese manners and customs and they saw the new Meiji constitution as well as the Imperial Household Law both retracing distant history and being formed in a way that pleased the ancestors (OGZ 43: 9). While it was long neglected, recent research points at the decisive role played by several leading kokugaku scholars—mostly at the Imperial Household Ministry and in the circle of Inoue Kowashi 井上毅 (1844–1895)—in preparing the codification of these two important laws. Among them were the well-known Ōyashima-gakkai members Fukuba Bisei, Yano Harumichi, Iida Takesato, Maruyama Sakura, Inoue Yorikuni and Konakamura Kiyonori (Sakamoto 1994: 16–19). Riding on the new wave of Japanese self-awareness in the 1880s and 1890s, the various types of kokugaku-style cultural scholarship were again taken into consideration. Together with a new awareness of their value, they were gradually given a modern scholarly character. As is evident from the different specialized institutions introduced by Konakamura Yoshikata and Ochiai Naobumi, the result was a transitional process of national learning (koku-gaku) that divided and branched into the study of national literature (koku-bun-gaku), of national language and vernacular (koku-go-gaku), and of national history (koku-shi-gaku). In their article, the two authors proudly continued that among all these trends and manifestations:

198

chapter seven Our academic society [Ōyashima-gakkai] is indeed the pioneer for Nippo­ nism. Our journal is the leader of today’s trend. Our academic society was the first to advance it. Our journal was the first to truly materialize and then, afterwards, a large number of societies and many journals came forth. All of you, our members, are those who first gave support. All of you are foresighted. Today’s Nipponism is due to the advocacy of all of you members. Today’s trend is the result of the invigorated industry and efforts of all of you members. When looking at this Nipponism and facing this trend, one can only raise a large cup and celebrate. (OGZ 43: 10–11)

The opinion has been authoritatively stated that ‘modern kokugaku’s significance lies in the fact that through modern elementary and secondary education, kokugaku’s revivalist and nationalistic view of the classics and history spread among and permeated the general population’ (Abe 1985: 621). This assessment gives an overly negative view of the role carried out by modern national learning, although when seeing it in the wake of the rising ultra-nationalism of the early twentieth century, this seed for the development of revivalism and nationalism cannot be ignored in a discussion of modern Japan. True, ‘nativism, in its more national, political manifestation, began to penetrate all intellectual discourse and social realms in the Meiji period’ (Breen 2000a: 438). It is, however, impossible to set aside the positive value and equally true historic significance of kokugaku’s scholarly and academic activities during this period. Although clearly focusing on differing aspects in their respective fields of study and thus naturally not always holding unanimous opinions, what must be emphasized is the importance of the tight-knit network of national-learning scholars in the Meiji period which was reinforced by various public and private institutions, groups and individuals.

CHAPTER EIGHT

THE GREAT-EIGHT-ISLAND SCHOOL ŌYASHIMA-GAKKŌ 8.1. The Aim of Establishing the Ōyashima-gakkō and Its Beginnings In addition to the exchange of scholarly research, from the beginning, a second important aim of the Ōyashima-gakkai was the education of the broader population. As part of this goal of wide-ranging kokugaku-inspired education, a school dedicated to this, the Great-Eight-Island School Ōyashima-gakkō 大八洲学校, was planned and finally established in the early 1890s. After a passing mention in an earlier issue of the Ōyashimagakkai zasshi, an editorial at the beginning of Issue 62, of 10 August 1891, announced these plans in detail. The society’s management explained to the readers some of the underlying thoughts that had led to this major step, and presented a rough overview of the planned courses and goals (OGZ 62: 1–3): It was a tremendous joy to have received several supporting letters concerning the considered declaration ‘The opening of Ōyashima-gakkō in upcoming September will be a great expansion!’ as stated previously in the appendix to the July [1891] issue of this journal [OGZ 61: App. 16]. Accordingly, we are going to relate our humble opinion in further detail. Due to the academic atmosphere in this nation being for many years now solely inclined towards the West and neglecting our own country, resulting in [Japan] being the subject of scorn by many natives and foreigners, we came to our senses and realized that to abase oneself and revere only the other is a great mistake. [But] in turning back now and cultivating the study of one’s own country, to profit in this field [we ask] which books should be read, and in what order? Moreover, since Japanese works have been thrown away over many years, only a few possess them. And those who are apt to occasionally fathom and try to read them are not used to doing so, and consequently, are not without difficulties in understanding them. What is more, it is only natural to say that many are afflicted [in this way], since teachers [of this kind of national literature] are also scarce. When adding a course on the national language in the capital’s elementary schools, not to mention all the many other provinces, some people can be heard lamenting about how to do this with no teachers. For only a single course in the national language, let alone anything else! [And] one has to consider that such people are rarely found throughout the realm. However, learners in the order of tens of thousands

200

chapter eight are coming from all four directions to study in the capital. Until the prodigies among them, usually by way of a high level middle school, enter a university and graduate, ten years will have passed and a lot of money wasted. And how many are graduating annually? The majority become friendly with the evil customs in the city and many terminate their studies, which is distasteful in public opinion. Even when someone occasionally graduates, looking at official gazettes it can easily be seen that there are very few who are fit for government office. This occurs, because the method used by Western studies, to which cultivation is entrusted, is extremely narrow. If things continue as they are today, our future prospects may well be imagined. However, it is impossible to turn away from learning. Therefore, with only the limited number of national language teachers one cannot do without, the full, detailed structure of the country’s education is not provided for in the manner pronounced in the august imperial instruction [the Imperial Rescript on Education issued on 30 October 1890], which deigns to indicate the imperial will!  Precisely because, from the beginning, our association has taken this [national] learning under its charge, and since we are interested in promoting it throughout, we have thus decided on a course of study from which it ought to be manageable to graduate. It is going to be divided into the three subjects of national history, national literature and the national codes of law. Based on [Kitabatake Chikafusa’s] Jinnō shōtōki and [Kume Motobumi’s four-volume] Ōyashima-fumi 大八洲史 [of 1887–91], ‘national history’ will acquaint [students] with an outline of the successive generations of emperors; using the Kojiki and Nihonshoki, it will acquaint [them] with ancient times; through the Ōkagami and the Eiga-monogatari, it will acquaint [them] with the middle ages; and by using Kinsei-shi 近世史,1 it will acquaint [them] with the period from the Kamakura shogunate onwards. ‘National literature’ will acquaint [them] with the principles of poetry and literary texts by using the Tosa nikki, Tsurezure-gusa 徒然草, Genji-monogatari, Makura-no-sōshi 枕草紙[子], Kokinshū and Man’yōshū. Furthermore, grammar, diction and character pronunciation shall be made comprehensible by means of oral instruction. ‘National codes of law’ will give advice on the essence of the ancient codes of laws and ethics by means of the Nihon seido tsū 日本制度通; will teach the regulations of today’s imperial court by using the Imperial Household Law Kōshitsu tenpan 皇室典範, will give guidance in the laws of the middle ages by using the Hossō shiyōshō, will teach the Kamakura-period organization and laws by means of the Jōei shikimoku 貞永式目, and will give advice on the Tokugawa family’s general politics by

1 Kinsei-shi means ‘early-modern history’ and today is used to refer to the Edo period. Seen from the Meiji period, however, this term also included the Kamakura period, i.e. the entire feudal period in Japan’s history. In 1892, Ōyashima-gakkō jimusho 大八洲學校事務 所 published a book by Hagino Yoshiyuki bearing this title and thus, it is most likely that its manuscript, which had been completed at this time, is being referred to here.



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō201 using the Hundred Article Law Hyakkajō 百ヶ條.2 Because one thus comes to grasp the essence of the cultural civilization and the politics and laws of the fluctuating three thousand years since the age of gods, one understands that our Japanese country is indeed of a noble and propitious national polity (kokutai). Hence, this learning needs to be mastered. Times that do not embrace this aim, certainly, for instance, when leaning towards foreign learning, are good for nothing. Therefore, aware of this and notwithstanding the difficulties of setting up our school, the lectures will also be transcribed, one by one, in the desire that distant people outside the school can read them as well. Nevertheless, since this is a method by which one ought to graduate in barely a year, it is nothing more than ordinary basic learning. Additionally, since there are people intending to probe deep and far into [these subjects], after all, we ought to set up a special advanced course and teach comprehensively. We ask all of you members to persuade people with such intentions to advance towards this path.

Perhaps most notable is the announced division of national learning into the three subjects of national history, national literature and national lawcodes. This is a reflection of the scholarly diversification of kokugaku during the Meiji period, as mentioned above. Also of interest is the reliance on very recent ‘modern kokugaku’ scholarship, evident in the use of Kume Motobumi’s Ōyashima-fumi (1887–91), Hagino Yoshiyuki’s Kinsei-shi (1892) and Hagino Yoshiyuki and Konakamura Yoshikata’s Nihon seido tsū (1889– 90) as textbooks. By the time this editorial announcement was made, the planning was almost complete and it was only about two months later that the Great-Eight-Island School Ōyashima-gakkō opened its gates.

2 The expression ‘ancient codes of laws and ethics’ refers to the Nara-period codes based on T’ang China models. The three-volume Nihon seido tsū, written by Hagino Yoshiyuki and Konakamura Yoshikata, was published in 1889–90 by Yoshikawa Hanshichi 吉川半七 (1839–1928). In 1935, it saw its fourth edition. It was recently republished in October 2004 by Ryūkei shosha 龍溪書舎. The Hossō shiyōshō, written from the end of the Heian to the early Kamakura period by the Sakanoue family of law experts, are annotated editions of the Nara codes that show the changes of imperial court law in medieval times. Jōei shikimoku, enacted in Jōei 1 (1232) and normally called Goseibai shikimoku 御成敗式 目, is the basic feudal code of laws representing the Kamakura shogunate’s judicial norms. It also had a great deal of influence during the Muromachi and Warring States periods. Hyakkajō is short for Osadamegaki hyakkajō 御定書百箇条, the second of the two-volume ‘Official Provisions’ Kujikata osadamegaki 公事方御定書 issued at Shōgun Tokugawa Yoshimune’s 徳川吉宗 (1684–1751) command in 1742. The first part outlines administrative procedures and civil regulations in eighty-one articles; the second sets forth criminal laws and penalties in 103 articles (popularly called the Hundred Articles). It served as a guide for commissioners’ judgements. Directed primarily at commoners in the shogunate’s own domains, some regulations were applicable to lower samurai. Adopted with modifications by many daimyo as their domainal code, it remained in effect until the Meiji Restoration.

202

chapter eight

On 28 September 1891, the Tokyo prefectural governor gave the approval for the school to be established. It was originally to be located in the Ōyashima-gakkai’s newly-built office building in Hongō Motomachi. However, due to the large number of matriculating students, this space was too limited and so, for the time being, classes were held in borrowed facilities of Kaneko school 金子學校, an elementary school at Shitaya Nishi-kuromon-chō 下谷西黒門町 5. However, regular business and correspondence concerning the Ōyashima-gakkai’s school continued to be conducted at the society’s office in Hongō, addressed to Shigeno Yasutada 滋野安忠, who functioned as the school’s manager as well as the editor of the lecture transcripts that were later published (OGK first semester 1: App. 8, 19). In spite of the shared office space and the obvious close affiliation at all levels of activities, from the beginning the school and the society handled their financial matters strictly separately (OGK first semester 2: App. 16; 3: App. 90). Under the impact of the unexpected high enrolment numbers as well as large-scale interest of off-campus students, after little more than half a year the shared management was ended and a separate school office was created in the Honda 本多 residence at Morikawa-chō 1 in Hongō ward. From 1 June 1892, all office matters and correspondence concerning the school was referred to this new address (OGK first semester 11: App. 8; 12: App. 18). Classes began immediately after the Tokyo prefectural government’s approval, and on 10 October, a provisional opening ceremony was conducted. On the side of the instructors, Masuda Yukinobu 増田于信 (1862– 1932), Kimura Masakoto, Kume Motobumi, Motoori Toyokai and Ochiai Naobumi each gave a speech concerning the establishment and commencement of teaching at Ōyashima-gakkō. A formal response to these speeches was given by the student representative Sano Ryūji 佐野鉚次, who had matriculated immediately into the second semester, followed by the student body’s congratulatory address in form of a norito (OGK first semester 1: App. 8–19). 8.2. The School’s Regulations and Curriculum The school’s long and detailed regulations indicate the thorough planning beforehand. This was certainly based on the experiences of managing circles at the Shigaku-kyōkai and Ōyashima-gakkai, as well as the everyday application of their respective regulations. In the case of the Great-Eight-Island School, the regulations were divided into general



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō203

rules applicable for everyone, and two special sets of by-laws for external off-campus students and those enrolled in the specialized course on poetry and literary texts. The school’s general regulations, which determined tuition fees, class periods and the overall setup, were (OGK first semester 1: 19–20): • This school is specializing in the subjects of national history, national literature and national codes of law. • The school term is a full year, divided into a first and second semester. • The first semester begins every year on 11 September and ends on 25 December. The days and times are every Wednesday from three to five o’clock and every Saturday from one to five o’clock in the afternoon, in total one hundred hours. • The second semester begins every year on 7 January and ends on 30 June. The days and times are the same as for the first semester. However, the total is one hundred and fifty hours. • First semester students are admitted without examination, second semester students are allowed to enter after an examination. • Students are separated into a boys’ and a girls’ section. • Off-campus students should study by using the lecture transcripts. • Lecture transcripts are published twice a month. • The topic ‘poetry and literary texts’ is established as an extra-curricular specialized subject. • New students, both boys and girls, shall pay a 50 Sen registration fee and 30 Sen monthly tuition fee. Furthermore, off-campus students shall pay a 50 Sen registration fee and 20 Sen monthly tuition fee (that is, the fee for the lecture transcripts). However, members of the Ōyashima-gakkai are exempt from the registration fee and also the fee for the specialized [extra-curricular subject] poetry and literary texts. • Students of the specialized [extra-curricular subject] poetry and literary texts shall pay 30 Sen for registration and 10 Sen monthly tuition. • Graduates receive a certificate. However, off-campus students receive it [only] upon request. As mentioned above, from the very beginning, the aim of the Ōyashimagakkai was both scholarly research and the broad education of the common populace. It is therefore only natural that like the Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi—through which, as stated in the introductory article of OGZ 1, ‘people living in remote areas, without teachers, and where books are scarce’ should be enabled to broaden their knowledge—education at

204

chapter eight

this school was also made available to an audience that was as broad as possible, including those who were not able to attend its classes personally. To this end, lecture transcripts were published and letter correspondence with the instructors was encouraged. The special regulations for off-campus students were (OGK first semester 1: App. 21–22): • People desiring to be off-campus students shall submit the following form together with the registration and monthly tuition fee. […]3 • Off-campus students are allowed to matriculate at any time. • The lecture transcripts start from the first semester and end after the second semester. • The lecture transcripts contain the textbooks’ entire text. • For the lecture transcripts, small books are lectured entirely to the end, while limits are decided for bulky volumes. For instance, the Kojiki is limited to the Age of Gods section, the Nihonshoki to the records from Jinmu onwards and the Genji-monogatari and Man’yōshū to the first three or four tomes from the beginning volume. • Tuition fees shall be paid in advance for either one month or one semester (i.e. half year). • The registration fee as well as the tuition fee shall be transmitted by postal money order to this school, addressed to the Hongō post office. However, a substitution for postage stamps will be charged an additional ten per cent per 1 Sen stamp. • If the monthly tuition fee is not paid, the distribution of lecture transcripts will be stopped immediately. Furthermore, if arrears extend more than two months, [that person] will be expelled from the school. • For those who request an examination at the end of a semester, questions will be mailed. They shall be [answered] in writing and those passing [the examination] will receive a certificate. • Moreover, an advanced course has been established for the graduates, [for which,] likewise, lecture transcripts are published and [where they are] instructed in this school’s innermost core of learning. A further category of off-campus students not attending regular classes were those who merely wanted to concentrate on improving their 3 The text of the ‘Request for Matriculation’ is omitted here. It was to be written on Japanese paper used for calligraphy and submitted together with name, address, and seal stamp.



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō205

poetry and prose composition. Thus, a subsidiary course was set up for them, explained in more detail below. The regulations for students specializing in poetry and literary texts were (OGK first semester 1: App. 22): • Students specializing in poetry and literary texts are those who are offcampus and solely study poetry and literary texts. • [For the subject of] poetry and literary texts, a monthly topic is given by the school that should be [used for a] composition that will be corrected by the lecturer in charge. • Those requesting corrections for a composition different than the given topic shall stay, per month, within the limits of five pieces for long poems, twenty pieces for short poems and three chapters for essays. • Postage for the correction of poetry and literary texts is paid for both ways at [the student’s] own expense. • For the time being, there will be no separate lecture transcripts published for the specialized course on poetry and literary texts. Instead, the explanations concerning [these] poetry and literary texts will be attached to the [normal] lecture transcripts. • The date for payment as well as postal money order formalities for the registration and monthly tuition fees are in every respect the same as the detailed regulations for off-campus students As indicated in the Ōyashima-gakkō’s general regulations, all courses for each semester were separated into sections for boys and girls. The contents and sequence of classes was very similar, the only difference being that there were certain works that boys were taught in addition. Within the subject of national history, male students additionally received lectures on the Kojiki in the first semester and on the Nihonshoki in the second. Within the subject of national codes of law, boys were additionally taught about the Hossō shiyōshō, Jōei shikimoku and Hyakkajō during the second semester. These books are not mentioned in the girls section, but no explanation is given why female students were not familiarized with their content as well. However, nowhere is it indicated that the total amount of learning hours was less for girls, or that other subjects were taught in more detail instead. In any case, the school’s detailed curriculum for all courses and semesters, with the few additional books for boys given in parentheses, (OGK first semester 1: App. 22–23) is shown in Table 8.1.

206

chapter eight Table 8.1 First Semester

Course

(Kojiki); Jinnō shōtōki; early modern history [Kamakura and Muromachi period]; modern history [Edo period] National literature Taketori-monogatari 竹取物語; Tosa nikki; Tsurezure-gusa; Kokinshū; grammar National codes of law Imperial Household Law Kōshitsu tenpan National history

Additional course

writing; poem compo­ sition

Second Semester (Nihonshoki); Ōkagami; Eiga-monogatari

Genji-monogatari; Makura-no-sōshi; Man’yōshū (Hossō shiyōshō; Jōei shikimoku; Tokugawa hyakkajō); Nihon seido tsū writing; poem compo­ sition

8.3. The Specialized Course on Poetry and Literary Texts As stated in the regulations, the transcripts for the specialized course on poetry and literary texts were not published separately, but attached to the school’s regular lecture transcripts. Initially, articles concerning poetry and literary texts were omitted and only longer essays published. From early 1892, however, due to continuing contributions, poetry and literary texts by both the school’s staff and its pupils were selected by the lecturer in charge and attached to the transcripts as well. On 15 February 1892, a list of the year’s monthly topics for the specialized course’s off-campus students for testing their compositional skills was published (OGK first semester 7: n. p. [App.]): Poetry Topics January: February: March:

Snow on a distant mountain (enzan no yuki 遠山雪) Waiting nightingale (matsu uguisu 待鶯) Spring shoots (wakana 若菜) Mist on a distant mountain (enzan no kasumi 遠山霞) Looking for flowers (jinka 尋花) Shō Nankō 小楠公 [(?–1348)]



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō207 Flowers at a famous place (meisho no hana 名所花) Yearning for the approaching birds (yoridori no koi 下鳥戀) The deutzia flowers in one’s hometown (sato no u-no-hana 里卯花) Late night cuckoo (shinya kakkō 深夜郭公) June: The long rainy season (tsuyu hisashi 梅雨久) Dew on summer grass (natsugusa no tsuyu 夏草露) July: Enjoying the evening cool under the shade of a tree (juin nōryū 樹陰納凉) Evening shower at the seashore (umibe yūdachi 海邊夕立) August: Shaved ice (kōri 氷) Yearning for an approaching folding fan (yori-ōgi no koi 下扇戀) Sept.: Flowers on an open field (yagai kusabana 野外草花) Kankō 菅公 [(845–903)] October: Hearing insects late at night (shinya mushi o kiku 深夜聞虫) Autumn trip (aki no tabi 秋旅) Nov.: Evening rain (yūshigure 夕時雨) Hail (arare 霰) Dec.: Waterfowl on a lake (ike no mizutori 池水鳥) Year-end reminiscence (seibo jukkai 歳暮述懐)

April: May:

Essay Topics January: February: March: April: May: June: July: August:

Record of a plum-blossom viewing excursion (tanbai-ki 探梅記) Fellow Kasuga [shrine] members (Kasuga kaiyū 春日会友) Theory of dogs (kensetu 犬説) Record of an outing (noasobi no ki 野遊記) Trees with fresh leaves (shinju 新樹) Steam train (kisha 滊車) Long sword (tachi 太刀) Inquiring after someone’s health (hito no yamai o tou bun 人の病 を訪ふ文) Sep.: Inviting people for viewing the moon (tsukimi ni hito o sasou bun 月見に人を誘ふ文) October: Person sending bent chrysanthemums (ori-kiku okuru hito 折菊 贈人) Nov.: The Emperor’s Birthday (tenchō setsu 天長節) Dec.: Text on a topping-out ceremony (shinchiku o shuku-suru bun 新築を祝する文)4

Whereas the essays were free to be treated more generally and only occasionally were strictly related to a certain time of the year, the predetermined themes for poetry usually consisted of a natural setting, a plant, or 4 This actually refers to celebrating a newly-constructed building. What corresponds to a Western topping-out ceremony is called muneage-shiki or jōtō-shiki, i.e. the ceremony of putting up the ridge-beam.

208

chapter eight

an emotion traditionally associated with that month. May’s topic, for instance, refers to the white flowers of the shrub utsugi 卯木 (Deutzia crenata). The modern solar calendar’s May corresponds to the old lunar calendar’s fourth month, which was traditionally called uzuki 卯月, or deutzia month. April’s yori-dori no koi refers to the feelings in the morning when one is aware that the birds will soon start to sing or, more specifically, the rooster will soon crow, indicating the approaching dawn when one’s lover must leave. This is also one of the topics dealt with by the poet Takeshima Hagoromo 武島羽衣 (1872–1967)—a graduate of the Imperial University’s course on national literature in 1896—in the section on Ōta Dōkan 太田持 資 (1432–1486) in his three-volume work of ‘Commentary to National Poetry’ Kokka hyōshaku 国歌評釈 [3: 133–134]. Related to this is August’s yori-ōgi no koi, which refers to the feelings when someone yearns to receive a folding fan as a token of love. Such fans, inscribed with a personal poem, were often sent between lovers. More unusual and related to the rising nationalism of the Meiji period is March’s poetry topic of Shō Nankō, or ‘Junior Lord Camphor-tree’. This is a honorific name for Kusunoki Masatsura 楠正行 (?–1348), as related to the ‘Senior Lord’, or Ō Nankō 大楠公, which refers to his father, Kusunoki Masashige 楠正成 (?–1336), a national hero for his deeds during Emperor Go-Daigo’s Kenmu period restoration. Similarly, September’s topic, Kankō, is a honorific name for the Heian politician and poet Sugawara no Michizane. Overall, the popularity of this special distant learning course for external students and the general interest in poetry and prose composition, as evident in the increase in the number of pages dedicated to this section in the Ōyashima-gakkai’s journal, indicate the continuation and revitalization of this important activity for many early-modern kokugaku circles in this ‘modern’ period. 8.4. The School’s Teachers and Staff On several occasions, the Ōyashima-gakkai prided itself in the fact that ‘this school was especially proposed and established by the nine famous professors of kokugaku Kimura Masakoto, Motoori Toyokai, Kume Motobumi, Iida Takesato, Kosugi Sugimura, Ochiai Naobumi, Konakamura [Ikebe] Yoshikata, Masuda Yukinobu and Hagino Yoshiyuki for the sake of this field [of study]. This is something to which the other profit-making schools cannot compare’ (OGK second semester 1: App. 2; 2: App. 7). Nearly



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō209

fifty years later, one of the school’s graduates, in a short commemorative article, also mentioned the positive fact that this school, like a non-profit organization today, was based solely on the enthusiastic work of volunteers who received no compensation for their invested time. Accordingly, the school’s ‘teachers undertook the duty of teaching each without receiving any kind of reward or compensation. This is impossible to be seen anywhere else, and present-day people probably can’t even imagine it’ (Inoue 1932: 100). All of the teachers were, of course, leading members of the Ōyashima-gakkai itself and thus, the crème de la crème of contemporary Japan-centred scholarship. The first issue of the lecture transcripts also featured a list of the school’s staff and instructors as well as their respective subjects. (OGK first semester 1: App. 24):  Personnel:

 School Principal:   Kimura Masakoto  Councillors:   Hagino Yoshiyuki, Konakamura [Ikebe] Yoshikata, Masuda Yukinobu; Ochiai Naobumi  Managing Secretary:   Shigeno Yasutada

 Class teachers:

 Hagino Yoshiyuki: Modern history [Edo period]; Jōei shikimoku  Iida Takesato: Kojiki; Nihonshoki  Kimura Masakoto: Man’yōshū  Konakamura Yoshikata: Early modern History [Kamakura/ Muromachi   period]; Tosa nikki; Nihon seido tsū  Kosugi Sugimura: Tsurezure-gusa; Eiga-monogatari  Kume Motobumi: Jinnō shōtōki; Ōkagami  Masuda Yukinobu: Taketori monogatari; Kōshitsu tenpan; Hossō shiyōshō  Motoori Toyokai: Kokin[waka]shū; Genji-monogatari  Naitō Chisō: Tokugawa hyakkajō  Ochiai Naobumi: Grammar; Makura-no-sōshi

Maybe due to this impressive list of teachers and subjects, a continuous stream of applications was received from off-campus students, who required material for distance learning. Accordingly, from Issue 3 the print run of Ōyashima-gakkō kōgiroku suddenly had to be increased, which led to a temporary delay in sending it out (OGK first semester 3: App. 90). Although unexpected, this was no doubt a cause for joy rather than inconvenience. The high demand and flourishing sales of lecture transcripts furthermore had some advantages for the readers as well. In accordance

210

chapter eight

with the Ōyashima-gakkai’s aim of providing methodical and affordable kokugaku education for as much of the common population as possible, from May 1892 on, the price of a copy of their lecture transcripts was reduced. ‘With each passing day, the number of students at our school increases and we head towards a time when this study [i.e., kokugaku] prospers more and more. Thus, […] we are changing the price for one copy from its current 10 Sen to 8 Sen’ (OGK first semester 10: App. 20). In the following issue, this announcement was repeated and ‘8 Sen’ was emphasized by being printed in characters four times the normal size (OGK 11: App. pp. 7–8). On 15 April 1892, in an advertisement for the society’s school that also mentioned that dozens of new pupils had been recruited, the establishment of an additional advanced course was announced, urging those with ambitions in kokugaku to register. It pointed out that due to the high demand for the basic training already offered, this new intensive course had been specially created for those wanting to immerse themselves even deeper into national learning and wishing to master this scholarship’s ‘innermost secrets’, as they were called (OGK first semester 10: App. 20). The same issue carried a new list of subjects and the lecturers responsible for them, now also including those of the new advanced course. Compared to the list in the first issue given above, some lecturers had changed the subjects they taught, and some topics were removed from the first or second semester and made part of the new advanced course. Newly-added subjects were Kogoshūi, Mizukagami, Masukagami, Norito seikun 祝詞正訓 and Shokugenshō 職原鈔. No longer included in this list is the additional course on writing and composition of poems, the Eiga-monogatari, the legal works Hossō shiyōshō, Jōei shikimoku and Tokugawa hyakkajō, as well as the Imperial Household Law Kōshitsu tenpan. Also Naitō Chisō is no longer mentioned as an instructor. This, however, does not mean that these works were suddenly no longer used, or that Naitō had resigned from his post, and in later issues his name and these works continued to appear. The instructors and their subjects, divided into two semesters and an advanced course, were at this time (OGK first semester 10: App. 20–21): First semester: Hagino Yoshiyuki: Jinnō shōtōki; modern history Konakamura [Ikebe] Yoshikata: Nihon seido tsū; early modern history;  Tosa nikki Kosugi Sugimura: Tsurezure-gusa Kume Motobumi: Jinnō shōtōki



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō211 Masuda Yukinobu: Tsurezure-gusa; Taketori monogatari Ochiai Naobumi: Grammar; Kana usage; Kokinshū Second semester: Hagino Yoshiyuki: Nihon seido tsū; Mizukagami Kimura Masakoto: Man’yōshū; Genji-monogatari Konakamura Yoshikata: Nihon seido tsū; Makura-no-sōshi Kosugi Sugimura: Kogoshūi Kume Motobumi: Ōkagami Masuda Yukinobu: Masukagami; Genji-monogatari Ochiai Naobumi: Grammar; Makura-no-sōshi Advanced course: Hagino Yoshiyuki: Nihon seido tsū Iida Takesato: Kojiki; Nihonshoki Kimura Masakoto: Man’yōshū Konakamura Yoshikata: Kojiki Kume Motobumi: Ōkagami Masuda Yukinobu: Shokugenshō Motoori Toyokai: Norito seikun; Genji-monogatari

About a month later, however, on 30 May 1892, it was announced that due to time constraints on the side of Kimura Masakoto, the second semester teaching of the Genji-monogatari would be taken over by Motoori Toyokai (OGK first semester 11: App. 6). And on 15 June 1892, it was announced that Sekine Masanao, due to the increasing amount of work at the school, had henceforth been commissioned to teach courses on national literature (OGK first semester 12: App. 17; second semester 2: App. 7). Inoue Tsunetaru, in his memoirs about being a student of this school, includes a list of the teachers and their subjects, also adding short comments about each of them. These give some interesting insights into their character or appeal to the students. Sekine Masanao, for instance, is described as ‘at that time not yet a Doctor of Literature, but extremely eloquent and the one-hour lectures seemed to pass immediately’. Kume Motobumi was perceived as ‘an idealist as only people from Mito can be’ and Ochiai Naobumi, accordingly, was ‘much loved by the young students and many of his followers became prodigies’. Inoue’s memoirs also reveal that Sekine Masanao had replaced Kosugi Sugimura, who was ‘an authority on the customs and etiquette of the court and military households’, that Iida Takesato ‘was extremely well versed in the Nihonshoki’, that Kimura Masakoto ‘had the reputation of being a Man’yō[shū] expert’, and that Masuda Yukinobu also ‘came from Mito and was a relative of Kume Motobumi’. Inoue, furthermore, lists Sasaki Nobutsuna as being in charge of the correction of poetic texts, and notes that ‘being at that time the

212

chapter eight

youngest of all the teachers, he was not allowed to give lessons at school, but was placed in charge of correcting the student’s poetic texts, with the excellent ones being published in the Ōyashima zasshi’ (Inoue 1932: 100–101). These first-hand descriptions of interesting facts and personal characteristics give a lively picture of the kokugaku scholars at the Ōyashimagakkō, and reveal that while the school was a place for earnest learning, the relations between its teachers and students were cordial. 8.5. Transition to the Second Semester and the Students at the Ōyashima-gakkō The Ōyashima-gakkō’s first semester lecture transcripts ended with the publication of Issue 15 on 15 August 1892. Beginning with the following issue, of 15 September, the transcripts moved on to the subjects of the second semester. This issue received the number one, since with the new semester the numbering of issues again started from the beginning. Whereas the Kokin wakashū had finished with Issue 15, it was announced that the final instalments of Tsurezure-gusa, Taketori-monogatari and the Imperial household law Kōshitsu tenpan would be found as appendices in the following issues (OGK first semester 15: App. 12). The three subjects Kojiki, Jinnō shōtōki and Grammar had not been completed in the first semester and continued as compulsory subjects in the second semester. Thus, they still appeared in the transcript’s main pages. As the editors noted, according to the school’s regulations the summer vacation between the semesters was to be held from 1 July until 10 September, during which the publication of the lecture transcripts naturally were also to be suspended. ‘Since this, however, is regrettable for the readers, […] limited to the rainy months of July and August, one issue each [of the transcripts will be published] to compensate somewhat the readers’ desire’ (OGK first semester 14: App. 15). The high demand for knowledge about kokugaku subjects by ordinary people was not only evident in the wide sale of transcripts, but also in the rising number of people enrolling in the lectures offered at the Ōyashimagakkō. Until now, the classroom of the school had been established inside the Kaneko school building in Shitaya Nishi-Kuromon-chō. However, because of the small size of this classroom, it was announced that with the beginning of the second semester, the Ōyashima-gakkō was moving to the Tanaka school building at Hongō Yumi-chō 2–5. Classes recommenced on



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō213

14 September, with Konakamura Kiyonori and Masuda Yukinobu lecturing on historical topography (OGK first semester 15: App. 12; second semester 1: App. 1–2). Pride was taken in the fact that the high enrolment rate and strong demand for lecture transcripts by off-campus students showed the validity of the Ōyashima-gakkō’s concept. In some ways, it was taking pioneering steps, steps that later were taken up at the official government level as well. In July 1892, the Ministry of Education, in a ministerial ordinance, revised the curriculum of the Jinjō shihan-gakkō 尋常師範學校 or Common Normal Schools. These institutes for the training of teaching staff at primary schools were an excellent means of diffusing state ideology through primary education. Originally established in Tokyo after the educational reforms of 1872, in 1886 the Shihan-gakkō split into a Higher Normal School and several Common Normal Schools of which at least one was established in every prefecture. With the reforms after the Second World War, these teacher-training schools were turned into teachers’ colleges or education departments at state universities. Without neglecting to mention its own considerable success in these areas, the journal of the Ōyashima-gakkō also reported on the contents of the 1892 educational revisions, which accordingly were made […] so that also the subjects ‘national language’ and ‘national history’ are arranged even better. Moreover, the compulsory class reading material and the essentials of instruction have also been pointed out. Our school, as things are, is very energetically providing common people far and wide with the knowledge of national language, national history and the national codes of law. We [thus] would like all our members, as well as sympathizers in the whole country, to unceasingly register. (OGK first semester 15: App. 12)

With regard to the graduation of students, it was announced that there were no examinations after the first semester and the students immediately moved on to the second semester. After the lectures for the second semester’s subjects had ended, topics for a graduation thesis would be distributed, and a graduation examination covering all of the subjects woul be conducted (OGK first semester 14: App. 15). Unfortunately, the graduation thesis topics have not been recorded, and we also have no idea of the form of the final examinations. In December 1892, graduation examinations for those attending classes on campus were held. Those who had passed the examination were later listed, together with where they came from and their social status, in the lecture transcript published on 26 June 1893 (OGK second semester 9: App. 8–9):

214

chapter eight Second Semester Students (Boys’ Section) Horiuchi Sōta 堀内荘太: Itagaki Genjirō 板垣源次郎 (1866–1923): Maruta Kametarō 丸田龜太郎: Okoshi Tatsuo 尾越辰雄: Sasaki Ushin 佐々木得鍼: Sawada Ichirō 澤田一郎: Shimada Kinzan 島田近三: Shinada Morinobu 品田守信: Suzuki Yoshitarō 鈴木好太郎: Tanitagawa Harukichi 谷田川春吉: Yamazaki Umekichi 山崎梅吉:



Kyoto; commoner Gunma Pref.; commoner Niigata Pref.; samurai descendant Kumamoto Pref.; samurai descendant Tokyo; commoner Tokyo; commoner Kagawa Prefecture; commoner Tokyo; commoner Tokyo; samurai descendant Ibaraki Prefecture; commoner Shizuoka Prefecture; commoner

Second Semester Students (Girls Section) Fūtō Saku 風當さく: Shimizu Maru 清水まる: Takahashi Masue 高橋ますえ: Tatsuno Kaku 立野かく:

Ishikawa Prefecture; commoner Tokyo; commoner Gifu Prefecture; commoner Yamaguchi Prefecture; commoner

Advanced Course (Boys’ Section) Akihara Sutegorō 秋原捨五郎: Harada Ryūsaburō 原田鉚三朗: Kaneko Tomitarō 金子富太郎 (1868–1944): Kobayashi Kakuji 小林角次: Kosaka Hanzō 小坂伴三: Sano Ryūji 佐野鉚次: Tanaka Tokimochi 田中時用: Yamada Jūya 山田銃八:

Tokyo; commoner Tokyo; samurai descendant Tokyo; samurai descendant Tokyo; commoner Tokyo; samurai descendant Tokyo; samurai descendant Tokyo; commoner Tokyo; samurai descendant

Advanced Course (Girls Section) Esaki Misa 江崎みさ: Hatakeda Kiku 畠田きく: Koike Toshi 小池とし:

Nagano Pref.; samurai descendant Hyōgo Pref.; samurai descendant Tokyo; commoner

This list of graduates again shows the school’s ideal of providing an excellent kokugaku education for the broad populace, irrespective of whether a student was male or female, lower commoner (heimin) or of privileged



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō215

samurai ancestry (shizoku), or coming from urban or rural areas. Not much more than their names is known about most of these people, but a few later became quite well known. The second semester graduate Itagaki Genjirō, for instance, was later a highly acclaimed local educator. In 1925, his bust was erected in Kezōji 華蔵寺 Park in Gunma Prefecture’s Isesaki City, but it was destroyed during the Second World War to be used as scrap metal.5 His classmate Yamazaki Umekichi may have been the performer of the same name mentioned as part of an acrobat group that toured several Western countries for nearly six years between 1867 and September 1871 (MNJ 1: 132). Advanced course graduate Akihara Sutegorō, together with Yokoi Meijun 横井命順, was the author of the 1888 work Shōgaku shūshin kyōjuan: ichimei ikuji no tomo 小學脩身教授案:一名育兒の友, Teacher’s Manual for Elementary School Moral Training: A Friend of Child Educa­ tion. Kaneko Tomitarō was the childhood name of Kaneko Motoomi 金子 元臣 (1868–1944), a literati and poet who taught at Kokugakuin and Keiō University. Ueda Masaaki (et al. 2002) simply mentions that Kaneko Motoomi studied national literature at a private school, without giving the Ōyashima-gakkō’s name. And as mentioned above, advanced course graduate Sano Ryūji had been the student representative at the school’s opening ceremony in October 1891. Even less is known about most of the female students, although the second semester girls’ section graduate Fūtō Saku may have been Fūtō Sakuko 風當咲子, one of the authors included in the 1905 ‘Excellent Anthology of Lady [Writers]’ Shukujo myōbunshū 淑女妙文集. Moreover, she might be a relative, perhaps the daughter, of the author Futagi Sakurō 風當朔朗, who in 1892 wrote the work Nihon onna-kagami 日本女鑑, A Japanese Mirror for Women. In spite of this uncommon reading, her name may actually be Futagi Saku(ko). Similarly, her classmate Tatsuno Kaku might be a (grand) daughter of the kokugaku scholar Tatsuno Yoshimichi. A year after the first graduation, the second graduation examination for students attending classes at the Ōyashima-gakkō was held in November 1893. Those who had passed the examination were officially certified on 11 January 1894 by the Ministry of Home Affairs and listed on 10 February in the next issue of transcripts. This time, however, no distinctions were made between the courses or genders (OGK second semester 12: n. p. [App.]):

5  (28 May 2011).

216

chapter eight Gunji Hidejirō 郡司秀次郎: Iyama Kiyonobu 井山清脩:

Chiba Prefecture; commoner Toyama Prefecture; commoner Kikuchi Ito 菊地いと: Tokyo; commoner Mizuseki Tsurumaro 水關鶴麿: Tokyo; samurai descendant Narita Yasu 成田やす: Wakayama Pref.; samurai descendant Tokyo; commoner Ogawa Shōichirō 小川昇一郎: Sakata Tama 佐方たま: Tokyo; samurai descendant Suzuki Kaoru 鈴木薫: Tokyo; commoner Takizawa Shinsaku 瀧澤愼作: Ibaraki Prefecture; commoner6 Kamiyama Tsunehisa 上山恒壽 (1872–1947): Yamaguchi Prefecture; samurai descendant Yamamoto Yutaka 山本豊: Okayama Prefecture; commoner

Again, some of the graduates later made a name for themselves. Gunji Hidejirō, for instance, is another name for the sculptor and poet Katori Hotsuma 香取秀真 (1874–1954), whose childhood name was Hidejirō 秀治 郎. Inoue (1932: 100) mentiones Katori in his memoirs, but miswrites Hotsuma as 秀吉. Born in Chiba Prefecture, he later graduated from Tokyo Art School Tokyo bijutsu gakkō, the predecessor of today’s Tokyo University of Fine Arts and Music, where he also taught for many years. During the first half of the twentieth century, Katori was one of the leading artists of metal casting. Furthermore, known as a tanka poet and contributor to the poetry magazine Araragi アララギ, he also wrote extensively on the history of metalworking. In 1953, he was awarded the Order of Cultural Merit. Sakata Tama might be the educationalist Sakata Shizuko 佐方鎮子 (1857– 1929) or one of her relatives. However, as is evident from Inoue Tsunetaru’s memoirs quoted below, this is more likely a misprint for the family name Saichi 佐市. Nothing is otherwise known about most of these graduates, but Inoue, in his memoirs, again adds comments about some of these as well as other classmates he remembers, giving valuable background information on the broad diversity of students at the Ōyashima-gakkō (ibid.: 101–102). Inoue, for instance, mentions Horiuchi Shinsen 堀内新泉 (1873–?), who might be the same person as the Horiuchi Sōta listed above in the second semester boys’ section of the December 1892 graduation examination. Inoue notes that at the time of their joint study at the school, he was still 6 On Takizawa Shinsaku, see Itō (2002).



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō217

called Horiuchi Fumimaro 堀内文麿, occasionally wrote novels, mostly edifying stories, and that his debut work was published with a preface by Ochiai Naobumi. Inoue furthermore refers to a Sasaki Ryūchō 佐々木龍調, who was a Buddhist priest at Tsukiji’s Hongan-ji temple and maybe is the same person as the above Sasaki Ushin. He refers to a Suzuki Shigenobu 鈴 木重信, perhaps the above Suzuki Yoshitarō, as ‘a true Tokyoite (Edokko) and the grandchild of the famous kokugaku scholar Suzuki Arata 鈴木新 (1816–1883).7 Now he has retreated as a Shinto priest to the Hachiman shrine in Ebara-nakanobu 荏原中延’. On Kaneko Motoomi, listed among the December 1892 advanced course graduates, Inoue states that ‘he at that time was called Kaneko Tomitarō. He was a senior at the school and while a student, he issued the magazine Kagaku 歌學, the first full-fledged magazine related to poetry to appear. I was at that time appointed as an assistant, did not refuse to frequent his home at Hongō’s Yumi-chō, and was able to hear lectures on the Kokinshū and so on. Now he is a professor at Kokugakuin University and a clerk at the [Imperial Office for Poetry] O-uta dokoro.’ Yamada Kyokunan 山田旭南, maybe the above-listed Yamada Jūya, is described by Inoue in his memoirs as having been ‘called Asakura Kaoru 朝倉馨. He is a long-time journalist veteran at the Niroku shinbun 二六新聞 and his original works are widely published.’ Niroku shinbun is one of the frequently changing names of the daily newspaper usually known as Niroku shinpō 二六新報, which was published between 26 October 1893 and September 1940. Moreover, Inoue mentions that Kamiyama Tsunehisa was ‘born into a family of Shinto priests in Yamaguchi Prefecture and later became the chief priest at that prefecture’s highest shrine Tama no oya-jinja 玉祖神社’ (cf. SJJ: 104). Several other pupils and classmates mentioned by Inoue have no obvious resemblance to those listed in the school’s lecture transcripts. Like Inoue Tsunetaru himself, the other male students he mentions probably graduated in later years, when Ōyashima-gakkō kōgiroku was no longer published. There was, for instance, Ishii Taijirō 石井泰次郎, who as ‘the head of a traditional family of cooks frequented the Imperial Household Ministry as well as the peers of daimyo descent. A large number of people left the Ishii-school as cooks of Japanese cuisine.’ Furthermore, there were Momozawa Shigeharu 桃澤茂春 and the poet Oka Fumoto 岡麓 (1877– 1951), who at the time was called Oka Saburō 岡三郎 and of whom Inoue recalls that his home in Hongō’s Kinsuke-machi was very magnificent. 7 On Suzuki Arata, see KDS 3: 274–275 and KDNBK 1990: 370.

218

chapter eight

Takizawa Shinsaku 瀧澤慎作, according to Inoue, had studied at that time under harsh economic circumstances, but later made his way and worked at the Yorozu chōhō 萬朝報, a daily newspaper with sensationalist and leftist tendencies that was published between 1 November 1882 and October 1940. On Tamura Torazō 田村虎藏 (1873–1943) Inoue writes that he ‘was a student at the conservatory of music and later became a lecturer at the Pedagogical College for High School Teachers. Now he is a Tokyo municipal school inspector, studied abroad in the West a few years ago, and as a musician is an authority in this field.’ Ōzeki Tsurumaro 大關鶴麿, maybe related to the Ōyashima-gakkai member Ōzeki Isoshi, ‘was from a scholarly home in Koishikawa and especially close to Kume Motobumi, whose writings he also studied. Later he became a middle school teacher, but regrettably died young.’ Furthermore, Inoue remembers that a certain Uematsu 植松 and Kajikawa Keiji 梶川敬治, students of Kokugakuin, also attended the Ōyashima-gakkō. Another student at the Ōyashima-gakkō, appearing neither in the graduation lists nor in Inoue’s memoirs, was the Akita-based primary school educator and scholar of national language Endō Kumakichi 遠藤熊吉 (1874–1952).8 In addition to his short commentaries about the students, a helpful feature is Inoue’s use of Chinese characters for some of the women’s personal names that in Ōyashima-gakkō’s graduate lists are only given with a syllabary reading. Inoue mentions, for instance, Shimizu Maruko 清水丸子, listed above under the second semester graduates of December 1892. On Esaki Misako 江崎操子, he remarks that she later married Kokubu Seigai 國分青崖 (1857–1944), a scholar of Chinese poetry (Nagasawa 1979: 130), and then was called Kokubu Misako 國分みさ子. In one case, Inoue moreover helps to clarify a misprint in the lecture transcript of 10 February 1894. ‘Sakata Tama’ mentioned there is indeed Saichi Tamako 佐市たま子, who ‘was the younger sister of Saichi Tokuko 佐市徳子, a professor at the Pedagogical College for High School Teachers, and later became teacher at a high school for girls.’ Among the women not mentioned in the above graduation lists but described by Inoue was Fukuda Yaeko 福田彌生子, who later became a teacher at a girls’ high school in Saga Prefecture and the wife of General Iguchi. This refers most likely to Iguchi Shōgo 井口省吾 (1855–1925), a staff officer for the 2nd Army in the Sino–Japanese War, staff officer under Kodama Gentarō 児玉源太郎 (1852–1906) for the Manchu­ rian Army in the Russo–Japanese War, and later Army Commander in 8  (28 May 2011).



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō219

occupied Korea. Other female classmates whom Inoue remembers are Kanbayashi Kimuko 上林きむ子, Koike Yoshiko 小池よし子, Momoko Tsuruko 桃子つる子, Nishio Saiko 西尾さい子, Watanabe Ayako 渡邊あや子 and Yoshida Tsugiko 吉田調子. He also mentions having heard the rumour that some of these women became wives of diplomats. In general, he writes, ‘poetesses who attended Professor Ochiai’s Asakasha 淺香社 seemed usually also to have been students at this Ōyashimagakkō.’ Asaka-sha was a poetry association and school, named after Ochiai Naobumi’s residence at Asaka-machi 浅香町 in Tokyo’s Komagome ward. Founded in 1893, among the more famous pupils of this school were Yosano Tekkan 与謝野鉄幹 (1873–1935), husband of Yosano Akiko 与謝野 晶子 (1878–1942), Kaneko Kun’en 金子薫園 (1876–1951), Onoe Saishū 尾上 柴舟 (1876–1957) and Shioi Ukō 塩井雨江 (1869–1913). Inoue Tsunetaru’s memoirs, especially his descriptions of the students attending the school, make it obvious that the Ōyashima-gakkō was visited by people from all walks of life—those with a samurai background and commoners, male and female, artists, journalists, musicians, Shinto and Buddhist priests, wives of diplomats, cooks, novelists, scholars and poets. The school was open for all levels of society. Thus, following its explicit intentions, the Ōyashima-gakkō, through its comprehensive and yet manageable kokugaku training, helped national learning to permeate all sections of the Japanese populace. This ‘snowball effect’ was moreover increased, for instance, by the fact that ‘there were many elementary school principals  and licensed schoolmasters [attending this school] as well’ (Inoue 1932: 102). 8.6. Everyday Life at the Ōyashima-gakkō Driven by ideals, the Ōyashima-gakkō was most unusual. The teachers were a group of fine scholars—university professors and experts in their academic fields—but they all worked voluntarily without any compensation. Why did these experts gather and teach with no remuneration? Again, Inoue Tsunetaru provides valuable information about these circumstances and actual school life. Answering his own rhetorical question, he points out that it was ‘the school’s promoter and founder Kume Motobumi’s heartfelt desire to adequately educate about our country’s classics and, moreover, he attempted to spread that knowledge by means of those who attended this school’ (Inoue 1932: 101). Kume, therefore, petitioned and invited various other professors to open the school. However, it

220

chapter eight

probably was not a one-man venture as described by Inoue, but rather a shared concern for those Ōyashima-gakkai members who felt the urgent need to hand down their own scholarly legacy. Inoue correctly mentions the close relationship between the older experts such as Kimura Masakoto, Motoori Toyokai, Iida Takesato and others, who were long-time friends of Kume. Younger ones, such as Hagino Yoshiyuki, Sekine Masanao, Ochiai Naobumi, Konakamura Yoshikata, Masuda Yukinobu and Sasaki Nobutsuna, had in one way or another been their disciples. And all of them shared a certain vision and ideal, as described Inoue: It could be vividly felt that although teaching, each of them—those who had been educated at the University’s [Training] Course for the Classics as well as the then professors—had the attitude of working for the sake of the way (michi 道). Whatever unreasonable things the students said, they were well and patiently advised, and if one of the teachers had to be absent, Kume himself or [one of] the three younger ones, Ochiai, Konakamura, or Masuda, substituted. All of the teachers went to work paying their own carriage fare. (Inoue 1932: 101)

This kind of school, as emphasized by Inoue Tsunetaru at the beginning of his memoirs, ‘for the present-day youth is impossible to even imagine’. A school like this, based on enthusiastic volunteer work, did not have many expenses. According to Inoue, the monthly sum for brushes, paper, ink and the rent for the school building was less than 20 Yen. The biggest expense was probably the printing and mailing of the lecture transcripts twice a month. Thus, the monthly tuition fee for this truly high-class education was only 30 Sen. In comparison, one issue of Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi cost 10 Sen. If in some cases someone nevertheless was unable to pay, he was exempted and the two managers compensated their monthly tuition. The courses lasted for three hours and usually began in the afternoon at three o’clock every other day, after the elementary school’s classes from which the rooms were rented were over. Although separate courses were set up for male and female students, most topics overlapped and during the actual lectures, coeducation was the norm. Most classes had an even distribution of boys and girls and, as Inoue Tsunetaru remembers, the number of female students attending on some days was even higher than the boys. Poetry meetings were occasionally held. After reading out loud and comparing the poems, a form of a poem-card contest was held as a side entertainment. Of these extra-curricular meetings, one was once held at a certain rented assembly room at Ueno’s Take no dai 竹の臺 restaurant.



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō221

About fifty to sixty students gathered, two sets of poem-cards were put together, and two groups—the Minamoto and the Taira, i.e. the Genji and Heike—competed for power. Ochiai Naobumi and Konakamura Kiyonori were the supervisors at this time, but […] with friendliness, as if they were rather elder companions than teachers. They were comrades to the students. Much merriment was had together, and in the end, there were also cheerful amusements such as a frolic game called ‘General Fool (baka taishō 馬鹿大将)’ on Ochiai’s initiative, where the rest of us had to mimic the things that the person standing in front did.

Of course, Inoue is careful to emphasize that in spite of coeducation and all the frolicking and merry-making, there nevertheless ‘was no improper conduct whatsoever among the students’ (Inoue 1932: 101). 8.7. Some Internal Problems, a Countrywide Expansion and Long-term Success Between 23 October 1891 and 28 August 1895, the Ōyashima-gakkō published fifteen issues of lecture transcripts for each of its first and second semesters, respectively, under the title Ōyashima-gakkō kōgiroku 大八洲学 校講義録. Although an advertisement in October 1895 in the journal of the Ōyashima-gakkai mentions that there would be twenty transcripts for the second semester in total (OGZ 109: App. 3), five issues are missing and seem to have actually never appeared. Moreover, in June 1893, it was announced that ‘although the second semester’s lecture transcripts, the same as for the first semester, will be completed with issue fifteen, the unfinished portion of some lectures will be completed in the appendix of a further journal to be published by this school. All details will be announced after [second semester’s] issue ten’ (OGK second semester 9: App. 10). Accordingly, it could also be surmised that these five issues were somehow published as part of another journal, but no such details appeared in the remaining issues of Ōyashima-gakkō kōgiroku. Other publications by this school—with the exception of complete sets of lecture topics, such as Motoori Toyokai’s lectures on Genji-monogatari’s chapter two ‘Hahakigi 箒木 (The Broom Tree)’—are not known. Initially, it was planned to publish the school’s lecture transcripts twice a month, but soon several delays and gaps occurred, with the biggest being five months between 25 July and 28 December 1893, more than seven months between 7 May and 28 December 1894, and eight months between that issue and the last to appear on 28 August 1895.

222

chapter eight

There were several reasons for these delays. The most obvious reason for the two major gaps at the end being the Sino–Japanese War of 1894–95. However, like the other scholarly journals mentioned above, the editors had the additional problem of the poor paying habits of their subscribers. Already six months after the first issue, it was announced on 15 April 1892 that ‘the tendency to stop the advance payment of the lecture tran­ script  fees hinders their mailing, so we ask for urgent remittance. It is improper to not include the extra fees for postal stamp substitutes and, in extreme cases also to omit postage, so we ask you to transfer the extra fees and postage together with the advance payment’ (OGK first semes­ ter  10: App. 19). The same note was then repeated in the following four issues of 30 May, 15 June, 30 June and 15 July 1892. The last three of these announcements additionally carried the menacing sentence, emphasized by little circles printed to the right of the characters, that ‘the names of defaulters who don’t transfer the money after this request will appear in this paper and thus will be reported to the members all over the country’ (OGK first semester 11: App. 7; 12: App. 17; 13: App. 14; 14: App. 15). Apparently, this had the intended effect on most debtors, as no such list ever appeared. Three issues later, on 15 October 1892, a more subtle method was tried for those who still had not paid their fees on time. It was made known that ‘hereafter, for those not paying the costs, [the transcripts] will be sent with a red ring put on its half-wrapper for posting. Those receiving such a symbol must immediately make a payment’ (OGK second semester 2: App. 7). About a year later, on 28 December 1893, it was finally announced that ‘as affairs have finally been put in order, hereafter these lecture transcripts shall be published once a month without failing to meet the deadline. Therefore, those overdue with their monthly tuition fee should forward it quickly. Moreover, please comply, since from now on, without exception, [the transcripts] will not be sent if this is not done as advance payment’ (OGK second semester 11: n. p. [App.]). Only on rare occasions was it explicitly said why delays occurred. One example was the unexpectedly high demand in early months, as mentioned above, which made it necessary to increase the print-run significantly. Another incident was explained on 26 June 1893, when together with an apology for the delayed publication the news was conferred that ‘during the printing of this school’s second semester’s lecture transcript issue six, Uozumi Nagatane, head of [the publishing house] Keishōkan and until then in charge of printing, died of an illness. With the discontinuation of business, printing for the time being has been commissioned



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō223

to [the publishing house] Katsushima kappansho 勝島活版所, which has given rise to an alteration of the font’ (OGK second semester 9: App. 10). There were no such problems during the publication of the first semester lecture transcripts. From the first issue of 23 October 1891, its publisher as well as editor was Shigeno Yasutada and its printer was Bunden Masaoki 文傳正興. Beginning with the second semester’s second issue of 15 October 1892, however, the editorship went to Kume Washio 久米鷲雄, while Shigeno continued to be the publisher. The new printer was Ōkuma Tamekichi 大熊爲吉. As mentioned in the above quote, from the second semester’s Issue 6 of 4 March 1893 onwards, a new publishing house took over, with Kubota Otojirō 久保田音次郎 as printer. On 28 December 1893, with the second semester’s Issue 11, the split responsibilities of publisher and editor were again unified and taken on solely by Sugiura Kōtarō, who also functioned as the school’s executive secretary. At the same time, both the school and its office moved to Naka-Sarugaku-chō 15 in Tokyo’s Kanda district (OGK second semester 11: n. p. [App.]). Moreover, most likely connected to the ongoing Sino–Japanese War of 1894–95, for each of its last three issues the printer of the lecture transcripts changed. On 7 May 1894, Ishikawa Seitarō 石川清太郎 is listed in second semester’s Issue 13, Sakai Takejirō 酒井竹次郎 in Issue 14 of 28 December 1894 and finally Mishima Kenzō 三島謙三 in Issue 14 of 28 August 1895. The editorship and publishing until this last issue, however, continued to be in the hands of Sugiura Kōtarō. From the beginning, the Ōyashima-gakkō continued to expand and its lecture transcripts were widely read. Thus, in spite of these internal changes and minor financial problems, there were also many events to celebrate. The transition to the second semester, for instance, also marked the school’s first anniversary. The school and the kind of training it provided were, by this time, known virtually all over the country. The exact total number of students who studied at this school can unfortunately not be verified, since enrolment lists were never published. The only comprehensive lists that were published were those of new members in its mother society, the Ōyashima-gakkai. An impressive intermediate figure, however, was published on 15 September 1892, in the second semester’s first issue: This school was established last year in September 1891. Passing now through the first anniversary, the register of those attending the classes lists 130 names, and the off-campus students from all over the country reach more than 2,830 people. As only the four provinces Iga 伊賀, Shima 志摩, Inaba 因

224

chapter eight 幡 and Ōsumi 大隅 are without school members, it can be simply said that this school is present all over the great eight islands (ōyashima) [i.e. Japan].  However, this school’s aspired future prospects are still distant. The school’s personnel, by increased exertion and diligence, expects even more prosperity. We especially announce with this first issue of the second semester lecture transcripts that we earnestly desire that also all students, both those attending classes and those off-campus, are together guided by a common spirit and collaborative study, so that this scholarship [i.e. kokugaku] will increase. (OGK second semester 1: App. 1)

Almost the exact text was again published in the following issue of 15 October 1892 (OGK second semester 2: App. 6). This time, however, the two other provinces mentioned with Iga and Shima as having no students at this school are different. It is not indicated whether the former two had merely been a misprint, or if there were other reasons for this change, but instead of Inaba and Ōsumi now Awaji 淡路 and Tsushima 對島9 are stated as being without students. Nevertheless, after only a year, the school’s teaching was followed by nearly three thousand people from all walks of life, and its kokugaku education was present in almost all of Japan, which indeed gave reason for even more prosperity to be expected. On 7 October 1895, three years later and only half a year after the ending of the Sino–Japanese War with the Treaty of Shimonoseki, an advertisement appeared in the mother organization’s journal Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi to recruit a new batch of off-campus students from its large readership all over the country. Maybe due to the intensified nationalism, pride and new interest in the seemingly superior Japanese matters after the recent victory, Ōyashima-gakkō is now explicitly described as a school specializing in national learning or kokugaku: Announcement to all of the teachers of the various Shinto sects: Recently, the Home Minister, through the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Directive No. 9, admonished all Shinto and Buddhist denominations by announcing: ‘Teachers of every Shinto and Buddhist religious denomination, being in charge of proselytization, should combine both scholarship and virtuous behaviour and [thus] receive reverence and respect from the public. […] Teachers, who besides being versed in their doctrines and tenets are not furthermore endowed with a scholarship that exceeds the one appropriate for normal middle-school [education], are not at all suitable for such a charge’ and so on.  Concerning the criteria stipulated for the official certification of teachers and moreover, the proclamation of the Home Minister’s required approval 9 This little island between Japan and Korea is usually written 對馬, using the character for horse 馬 instead of island 島.



the great-eight-island school ōyashima-gakkō225 by the upcoming 30 September, this school is presently recording [transcribing] and publishing lectures by various well-known experts on kokugaku, namely on the national codes of law, national history, the organizational system, national literature and so on—fields that generally should be studied by our fellow countrymen. Now we have reached twelve issues from the first semester and fourteen issues from the second semester.  Limited to fellow Shinto believers, on this occasion we shall especially allow school enrolment with complete exemption from the matriculation fee of 50 Sen. (OGZ 109: App. 3)

This statement was followed by a list of teachers and their subjects that does not differ substantially from those given above. Some of the lecturers were teaching different subjects, but the only addition was the new topic ‘Nihon bijutsu shi’ or history of Japanese fine arts taught by Kosugi Sugimura. Among the teachers, the advertisement additionally mentions Inoue Yorikuni, who took over the classes on the law code Hossō shiyōshō. In accordance with the promise made at the school’s first anniversary in 1892, the exertion and diligence of its teacher in spreading their kokugaku education did not cease over the years. As before, the goal was to reach as many people in the general populace all over the country as possible. Their enormous success is evident from another advertisement for the Ōyashima-gakkō more than ten years later, on 20 March 1903. This announcement for new recruits states that: [The school] specializes in imperial national learning (kō-kokugaku 皇國学) […] So far, the large number of about 10,000 people have received its training as off-campus students. Extremely many have already passed the Ministry of Education’s licensing examination and now work as teachers at higher education [i.e. at middle schools and above]. (OGZ 201: App. 2)

Additionally describing its specialty as imperial studies, what eight years earlier had only been called a special school on kokugaku, clearly characterizes the changed social attitudes and the heightened imperialism less than a year before the outbreak of the Russo–Japanese War of 1904–1905. This victorious war finally established Japan as a truly modern and imperialist nation on a par with the Western powers of that time. Many of the more than ten thousand students educated both on and off campus at the Ōyashima-gakkō became school teachers, writers, or other types of educators. There is no doubt that these people spread the principles of the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society throughout Japanese society at large and hence, the kokugaku ideals of an attentiveness to the country’s own traditional matters and values. The impact of these kokugaku ideals on the later Meiji period, as well as the following Taishō and early Shōwa periods, could not possibly be ignored.

CHAPTER NINE

FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN TAISHŌ AND SHŌWA JAPAN The Great-Eight-Island Academic Society and its school, the Ōyashimagakkō, clearly aspired to broadening the knowledge of traditional subjectmatter. Their goal of making such knowledge available to the entire population triggered the ambitious task of collecting, comparing, compiling and commenting on ancient and medieval texts. The large-scale encyclopaedia of historic sources, the Kojiruien outlined above, is but one example of such activities. Obviously, it is impossible to mention all of the projects in which Meiji-period kokugaku scholars were involved. However, it is probably not an exaggeration to say that most pre-modern historic and literary sources so readily available today were first published during the Meiji period, appearing in annotated editions with extensive commentary that often provided reading aids for the proper Japanese pronunciation of the characters. As shown by Motoori Norinaga’s monumental commentary work Kojiki-den of 1798, pre-modern kokugaku scholars had already begun the task of making the sometimes inscrutable Japanese classics readable again. Only from the Meiji period onwards, however, were these kinds of works printed with movable typeset and, in many cases, distributed to a mass market in affordable popular editions. Though subsequent scholarship has made a great deal of progress, still today the Japanese classics can often only be examined through the lens of kokugaku interpretations of this era. Thus, if only for this reason, it is necessary to know more about the actual people involved, as well as their intellectual premises and agenda. Indeed, it was Meiji-period kokugaku scholars who paved the way for most of the later research on traditional Japanese subject-matter. 9.1. Using Folktales and the Rise of ‘New Kokugaku’ Like the work done at the Ōyashima-gakkai and its school, philological editorial work was often paired with active dissemination of traditional subject-matter through the population. The aim of creating an awareness of ‘Japanese’ values and morals also expressed itself clearly in the compiling of fairy tales, legends and stories from Japanese mythology. In Meiji

228

chapter nine

Japan, folklore was collected, rewritten and standardized. Editions suitable for children were published with illustrations and supplemented with introductory texts, songs and poems. Emphasized thereby was the creation of a common ‘national’ background for all regions of the archipelago. Soon many such tales also became popular in the West through translations into English, German and French—the best-known translators being Lafcadio Hearn and the two eminent Japanologists Basil Hall Chamberlain and Karl Florenz. The first serialized modern compilation of children’s literature of this kind in Japan was the twenty-four-volume Nippon mukashibanashi 日本昔噺 by Iwaya Sazanami 巌谷小波 (1870– 1933), published monthly between July 1894 and August 1896 (Iwaya 2001). In 1914, several of these stories were collected and published in an English translation as the popular Iwaya’s fairy tales of old Japan, which in 1922 already saw its fifth edition. Iwaya issued his stories during and immediately after the victorious Sino–Japanese War of 1894–1895, a time of intensified nationalism. In addition to other fables, the narratives of heroes from fairy tales and myths like Momotarō, Susanoo, or Ōkuni-nushi were, in particular, intended to inspire pride, patriotism and a sense of virtue and Japaneseness in young readers. Over and above this, Iwaya aimed at standardizing the variant local stories from all of Japan. More interesting in our context, however, is the fact that each story was either introduced or commented upon by a short text or a piece of related poetry. Many first-rate authors were involved in this project, assuming a kind of ‘sponsorship’ for particular stories. Again, most of them were the leading national-learning scholars who have already been encountered above. Table 9.1 lists those Meiji-period kokugaku scholars who participated in Iwaya’s project. Table 9.1 Volume / Date

Story Title

Introduction By

01 / 11 July 1894 02 / 05 Aug. 1894 04 / 24 Oct. 1894 06 / 28 Jan. 1895

Momotarō 桃太郎 Tama no i 玉の井 Matsuyama-kagami 松山鏡 Ōe-yama 大江山

Ōwada Takeki Sasaki Nobutsuna Ochiai Naobumi Nakamura Akika 中邨 秋香 (1841–1910) Yoda Gakkai / Fukuba Bisei Motoori Toyokai Mozume Takami

07 / 20 Feb. 1895 Shitakiri suzume 舌切雀 09 / 11 May 1895 10 / 14 June 1895

Kachikachi-yama 勝々山 Kobu tori 瘤取り



further developments in taishō and shōwa japan229

11 / 25 July 1895 12 / 12 Aug. 1895 13 / 10 Sep. 1895 14 / 11 Oct. 1895 15 / 18 Nov. 1895

Monokusa-tarō 物臭太郎 Bunpuku chagama 文福茶釜 Yamata no orochi 八頭の大蛇 Usagi to wani 兎と鰐 Rashōmon 羅生門

18 / 25 Feb. 1896

Urashima-tarō 浦島太郎

Kurokawa Mayori Konakamura Kiyonori Iida Takesato Kosugi Sugimura Konakamura [Ikebe] Yoshikata Mozume Takami

These activities of collecting and introducing folk tales or stories based on legends and mythology can be seen as a precursor of later folklore studies undertaken by people such as Yanagita Kunio 柳田国男 (1875–1962) and Orikuchi Shinobu 折口信夫 (1887–1953). Their scholarly activities are usually referred to as ‘new (shin-) kokugaku 新国学’. Around the same time as Iwaya was publishing his collection of old stories, the alumni association of the Kokugakuin, in early 1895, began to publish a journal called Kokugaku 國學. Many of its authors were members of the Ōyashima-gakkai. Advertisements for the journal can be found in the Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi, including lists of its articles, which also suggests that there were scholarly affinities and personal connections between the two groups (OGZ 104: App. 3; 105: App. 3). At this time, national learning was in the process of dissolving into the various and more fragmented fields of modern scholarship. Hence, in 1896, the alumni journal Kokugaku was renamed Shin-kokugaku 新國學. With the aim of strengthening the cohesion of kokugaku concepts, the editors emphasized that the function of national learning was to elucidate the country’s basic moral principles and national polity (kokutai), which were considered as eternal as heaven and earth. Before long, however, the Shin-kokugaku was discontinued since another journal, the Kokugakuin zasshi, had been published already since 1894 for reasons of research and the promulgation of national history and literature. In 1908, another Kokugakuin alumni bulletin was renamed Shin-kokugaku, although only two issues of it appeared. It is worth mentioning, however, that Orikuchi Shinobu as a young researcher was engaged in its editing and writing (KDNBK 1999: 400). Educated at an institute where several Meiji kokugaku scholars and Ōyashima-gakkai members worked as professors, the ‘new kokugaku’ that Orikuchi was engaged in was a literary movement that aimed at a modern and living study of antiquities. Another aim of the earlier journal Shin-kokugaku was to create solidarity among national-learning scholars amid new and changed

230

chapter nine

circumstances. Already in 1882, in the address he gave at the opening of Tokyo University’s Training Course for the Classics, Konakamura Kiyonori had called for this kind of solidarity, stating, as shown above, that the ‘traditionally divergent schools […] must congregate and conduct research together’ (Konakamura 1898: 8). He called for a modernized scholarly  approach and listed new fields for national learning to explore. By de­manding that kokugaku’s narrow-mindedness be eliminated, he gave it a modern academic focus and applicability. The changes in kokugaku’s subject-matter that he advocated paved the way, for instance, for folklore studies to emerge. And again, like the aims of the journal Shin-kokugaku, Konakamura, in another essay published in August 1889, explicitly stated that traditional as well as the new ‘modern’ kokugaku he was advocating both take national polity (kokutai) as their basis. In the general surge of academic patriotism, he even believed that ‘also the four great masters […], if they were here in these Meiji days, certainly would swim with the current of the times’ (Konakamura 1898a: 28). 9.2. Haga Yaichi and Kokugakuin University’s Anthem The same year, on 21 February 1889, both the Constitution of the Great Empire of Japan Dai-Nippon teikoku kenpō and the Imperial Household Law Kōshitsu tenpan were officially proclaimed. Also the same year, the later Ōyashima-gakkai member Haga Yaichi entered the Imperial University’s course on national literature, where he was taught, among other lecturers, by Konakamura Kiyonori. In his youth, Haga had attended the private school of his father Haga Masaki 芳賀真咲 (1841–1906), a kokugaku scholar who studied poetry under the promoter of national purity, Tachibana Akemi 橘曙覧 (1812–1868), and who was also one of Hirata Atsutane’s posthumous disciples. At the time his son entered the university, Masaki was serving as a Shinto priest at Minatogawa-jinja 湊川 神社 in Kōbe, a shrine dedicated to Kusunoki Masashige, who in the Meiji period was celebrated as a national hero for his dedication to the imperial cause during Emperor Go-Daigo’s fourteenth-century attempt to recapture political power from the shogunate. From 1891 onwards, Haga Masaki was head of the Shinto Division at the Ministry of Home Affairs (KDS 3: 354, 473–476). Haga Yaichi graduated in 1892, taught at a high school, and later, in 1898, became an assistant professor at Tokyo Imperial University’s Department of National Literature Kokubungaku-ka 国文学科. His significance as one of the next generation of scholars of Japanese literature and his conscious



further developments in taishō and shōwa japan231

transmission of his own kokugaku roots can hardly be overestimated. On 20 August 1900, the Ōyashima zasshi announced that Haga Yaichi, ‘who exhausts himself for the cause of our Society, is now going to Germany to study the history of literature’ (OGZ 170: App. 1). After his return to Japan in 1902, he became a full professor at Tokyo Imperial University. In keeping with his study of German philology, Haga added critical reflection to the methods of kokugaku. With this new understanding of this method and  the appreciation of its merit, he intended to overcome the apparent  impasse in kokugaku research. Haga Yaichi proposed approaching kokugaku as modern ‘Japanese’ philology, or bunkengaku 文献学, along the lines of contemporary German Philologie. At the same time, kokugaku’s own indigenous roots in the national-learning approach of, for instance, Motoori Norinaga was fully acknowledged. He voiced this opinion for the first time in an address entitled Kokugaku to wa nan-zo ya 国学とは何ぞや, What in Fact is Kokugaku, presented at a Kokugakuin alumni meeting in December 1903 and printed in two parts in the journal Kokugakuin-zasshi (Haga 1904; 1904a). Therein, Haga improved on Konakamura Kiyonori’s somewhat passive wakon yōsai or ‘Japanese spirit and Western learning’ attitude, as expressed in his 1882 inaugural speech mentioned above. While fundamentally following kokugaku’s traditional spirit, Haga also proposed that it be part of a strong national ethics. He thus gave kokugaku an active approach that better suited the new modern epoch. Quite significantly, Haga Yaichi later, in December 1918 at the age of fifty-two, became the president of Kokugakuin University. As its president, Haga composed the three verses of Kokugakuin University’s anthem, expressing therein the purpose of his high national-learning ideals. Incidentally, the anthem’s melody was composed by Motoori Toyokai’s second grandson, Motoori Nagayo 本居長世 (1885–1945): 見はるかすものみな清らなる 渋谷の岡に大学たてり 古へ今の書明らめて 国の基を究むるところ

Our prospect broad, pure and refreshed, On Shibuya Hill, our school stands firm. Exploring the writings of long ago and now, Uphold the foundations of our land.

外つ国々の長きを採りて 我が短きを補ふ世にも いかで忘れむもとつ教は いよいよみがかむもとつ心は

In a world where the best of other nations, Makes up for shortcomings in our own, Forget not the fundamental teaching, As we polish the fundamental mind.

学のちまたそのやちまたに 国学院の宣言高く

And after all our study, We will acclaim Kokugakuin, Through the byways of the world

232 祖先の道は見よここにあり 子孫の道は見よここにあり

chapter nine Our ancestors’ way is here, with us today. Our children’s way is here, with us today.

There are some problems with this official translation.1 The third verse’s third line, ‘through the byways of the world’, is actually part of the first line in the original Japanese. Moreover, the second line ‘we will acclaim Kokugakuin’ omits the word sengen 宣言, which means Kokugakuin’s ‘declaration’ or also ‘profession of faith’, and hence in the original puts even more emphasis on ‘our ancestors’ way’ that needs to be transmitted to posterity. In addition, the word mototsu oshie もとつ教, an alternative reading for honkyō 本教, is rendered in this anthem’s second verse as ‘fundamental teaching’, but this word, which is taken directly from the Kojiki, as shown above, is usually translated as ‘original teachings’. Nonetheless, as elucidated in chapter one, these verses once again remind us of the paramount importance held by the concept honkyō or mototsu oshie for nationallearning scholars. Thus, Haga Yaichi’s three verses thoroughly exemplify the essence of Meiji-period kokugaku thought. Like the last item in Emperor Meiji’s FiveArticle Oath of April 1868, to ‘seek knowledge throughout the world and thus invigorate the foundations of this imperial nation’, Kokugakuin University saw this as its self-proclaimed dual mission. As stated in the university anthem, this mission was to be achieved by the scholarly philological elucidation of ancient and contemporary texts. The founding of the nation, in turn, is based on the original teachings, teachings that must never be forgotten and that were already mentioned in the preface to the mythico-historical work Kojiki. Only through these teachings can the fundamental or original mind be (re-)gained and polished. Hence, with the outlook gained in the course of this kind of national learning, one is able to hand down the ever-present way of one’s ancestors to one’s descendants. Throughout the Meiji period, interest in national learning never really ceased. Not only was it practically applied, but its historical development as well as the biographical background of its individual representatives also became the focus of scholarly scrutiny. In other words, the Meiji period not only saw works by, but increasingly also about kokugaku scholars. While Ōkawa Shigeo and Minami Shigeki’s Kokugakusha denki shūsei 國學者傳記集成 (Compilation of Biographies of National Learning 1 See for the anthem’s text. Its official translation is available at: (30 May 2011).



further developments in taishō and shōwa japan233

Scholars), initially published in two volumes in 1904, was not the first of its kind, it surely was the most comprehensive and most inclusive, containing information on more than 650 scholars. As if responding to the question of the time, Kokugakusha denki shūsei was published just after Haga Yaichi had posed the rhetorical question ‘What in fact is kokugaku?’ at a Kokugakuin alumni meeting in December 1903, upon his return from studying abroad in Germany. It was a fundamental work for the reevaluation of earlier national-learning scholars—not least for Haga Yaichi himself, who contributed greatly to the evolution of modern kokugaku into classical and literary studies that hence was more in line with the ideas of Motoori Norinaga, or even Keichū, than the restoration Shintostyle of Hirata Atsutane. Thirty years after the first publication of Kokugakusha denki shūsei, in 1934, Haga Yaichi, together with Ueda Kazutoshi, who was both a colleague and a friend from their days at the Course of Japanese Literature, revised this extensive compilation of biographies of national-learning scholars and expanded it with a third volume. Based on newly-discovered sources, they corrected earlier mistakes and omissions, added more than five hundred new individuals, supplied indices and extended the timeframe of the people being listed into the early Shōwa period. The authors created a true standard reference work, and, with this revised and expanded version, it became a benchmark upon which all subsequent studies on the background of individual kokugaku scholars, or kokugaku as a whole, fell back on. With the inclusion of about 1,200 biographies of scholars from such diverse fields as Shinto studies, rituals, classical literature, legal codes, ceremonial etiquette, linguistics, history, ancient court and military practices, poetry and so on, it effectively defined what national learning was. This book and its editors, those of the original first edition of 1904 as well as those of the revised and enlarged second edition of 1934, thereby greatly contributed to the modern conception of which branches of intellectual endeavour have been subsumed, since the Meiji period, under the umbrella appellation ‘kokugaku’. 9.3. Yamada Yoshio and the Zealous Nationalistic Use of Kokugaku Despite the academic objectivism of modern kokugaku, there is no denying that it could be used for ideological exploitation. After the Meiji period, the Zeitgeist again supported a slowly increasing swing back

234

chapter nine

towards the ideas of the Hirata school and the Shinto elements of kokugaku, although these were still not seen as belonging to the sphere of theology and religion, but simply to the state’s dogma of an encompassing national polity (kokutai). One early indication of this, in 1919, for instance, was the imperial government’s posthumous elevation of Kada no Azumamaro—a Shinto priest and, according to the orthodox ‘fourgreat-masters’ (yon’ushi) tradition, the founder of kokugaku—to the third court rank. He was awarded this honour in recognition of his intellectual  achievements and his service to the throne (Odronic 1967: 11–12). In the following years, both before and during the Second World War, nationalist zealots used kokugaku in the style of Hirata’s radical writings  on the Japanese spirit and the superiority of the Japanese people as the ideological framework for a strong imperial state. The nationallearning scholar and linguist Yamada Yoshio, for instance, rejected the idea that kokugaku is only a philological discipline. In his 1939 work Kokugaku no hongi 国学の本義 (Principle of National Learning) he insists, as did Konakamura Kiyonori and Haga Yaichi before him in similarly unambiguous words (Konakamura 1898a: 22; Haga 1904a: 9), that the principal objective of kokugaku is to clarify the national polity. Following the above-mentioned pattern of the orthodox four-great-masters, this work begins by reproducing Kada no Azumamaro’s petition for the creation of a national-learning school, Sōzō kokugakkō kei 創造國學校啓, and ends with Hirata Atsutane’s Inishie-bumi o erabu toki ni kamitachi ni nominegaeru kotoba 撰古史之時祈願神等詞 (Yamada 1939: 1–12, 217–224). A revised edition of Kokugaku no hongi was published three years later (Yamada 1942). Yamada Yoshio was known as an autodidactic scholar of Japanese philology and literature with a profound knowledge of Shinto. After many years at Tōhoku Imperial University—where, among others, Muraoka Tsunetsugu was one of his younger colleagues—in 1940 he assumed the position of the founding president of the renamed Kōgakkan University at Ise. In 1941, he became a counsellor at the Institute of Divinity Jingiin 神祇院,2 and during the war in 1945 became director of Kokushi henshūin 2 As an external bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Jingiin was an administrative organ that in 1940 replaced the obsolete Bureau of Shrines Jinja-kyoku, which in 1900 had been established together with the Bureau of Religion, Shūkyō-kyoku, when their predecessor, the Bureau of Shrines and Temples, Shaji-kyoku, was divided into two parts due to Imperial Order No. 163. During the war, the Jingiin handled matters of shrines, priesthood and the spread of belief. It was abolished in 1946 upon the forced separation of state and religion.



further developments in taishō and shōwa japan235

国史編修院, the Institute for the Compilation of National History. In addi-

tion to his main area of expertise, Japanese grammar, he concentrated his efforts in particular on studying the Man’yōshū, Kojiki and Hirata Atsutane, but is also well known for his extensive text-critical edition of Jinnō shōtōki published in 1932, Jinnō shōtōki jutsugi 神皇正統記述義 (Wachutka 2012). This strong interest in Jinnō shōtōki was probably not merely by chance. Due to its lucid style and ‘national’ spiritual content, Kitabatake Chikafusa’s work, dealing with the true imperial line from the deities down to the present sovereign, had a high reputation in the eyes of kokugaku scholars throughout the Meiji period, as we have already seen. Yamada furthermore had close connections to a number of ‘second-generation’ Meiji kokugaku scholars, such as Ueda Kazutoshi, Ōtsuki Fumihiko, Orikuchi Shinobu and others mentioned above. An extremely prolific writer, Yamada was the author of hundreds of books, including works on Japanese language and grammar, editions and interpretations of the Japanese classics, a comment on the Imperial Rescript on Education, and works on Shinto ideology, to name but a few. Among these was Kokutai no hongi 國體の本義 (Principle of National Polity), an explanation of the Japanese national essence, written in 1933. Three years later, in 1936, it was reprinted in a popular edition, and thus it reached a broad readership. This work antedates the Ministry of Education’s well-known book published a year later under the same title, of which Yamada was also a member of the compilation committee. It might seem that this kind of ideological effort to determine and propound the essence of the Japanese spirit through national learning, as exemplified by Yamada Yoshio, would have ended with the defeat of Japan’s imperialist expansionism in the Second World War. Indeed, he was among those purged from all public service for his ultranationalist attitudes (kokusui-shugi 国粋主義). Nevertheless, in 1957 Yamada was awarded the Order of Cultural Merit. 9.4. Emperor Shōwa’s Allusive Retrospection and the Post-War Interest in Kokugaku The second dawn of a new era in modern Japanese history was Emperor Shōwa’s famous New Year’s address of 1 January 1946. This speech is usually known for containing the emperor’s renouncement of his divine status. However, this was done in a rather passing and ambiguous statement in the latter half of the speech. In contrast, at the outset of the speech he

236

chapter nine

quoted the Five-Article Oath of Emperor Meiji. Evoking the beginning of the Meiji-period by quoting these famous five articles, Emperor Shōwa’s speech implicitly and very consciously carried all of the oath’s conceptions into the post-war era as well. Hirohito, Emperor Shōwa’s personal name under which he now is often better known in the West, openly stated that this oath is pledged anew at the present dawn of a new modern era—an oath that in its preamble explicitly refers to Emperor Jinmu and states that everything in the construction of a new nation must be based on his example. It has been shown above how this significant statement, which emphasized that the outline of the Meiji government’s goals was based on the example of Emperor Jinmu’s establishing of the nation, was a clear result of the strong kokugaku influence on that government’s early politics. It also must be remembered that this oath was pledged to the deities and thus, was also intended to promote Emperor Meiji’s religious legitimization as Japan’s new political ruler. It must be assumed that by quoting this oath, Hirohito consciously intended to sustain his legitimization in the post-war period. In this dawning era, he thereby bridged the previous darker years by linking himself to the beginning of Emperor Meiji’s celebrated reign and, in implicit extension, to the ‘founding Emperor’ Jinmu, of whom he was still officially the 123rd direct successor. Furthermore, as we have seen, kigensetsu—the memorial day of Jinmu’s alleged accession to the throne on 11 February— was later, in 1967, revived as a national holiday under the new name kenkoku kinenbi, or National Foundation Day. Already in 1963, a Shinto ceremony was celebrated in honour of Hirata Atsutane, commemorating the 120th anniversary of his death, and the entire Issue 64: 11+12 of Kokugakuin zasshi was devoted to articles about him (Odronic 1967: 43). In addition, in 1993, the annual convention  of the Association of Japanese Intellectual History, Nihon shisōshi gakkai, was entitled ‘Kokugaku no genzai 国学の現在’ (The Present Situation of Kokugaku). A special report on the symposium was published in September 1994 in Issue 26 of its journal Nihon shisōshi gaku 日本思想史学. These are, of course, but a few examples of many indications that interest in national learning and its affiliated figures continues to exist today. The legacy of Meiji kokugaku can, for instance, also be seen in the fact that Haga Yaichi’s verses—and with them their inherent point of view—are still used today for the anthem of Kokugakuin University. Moreover, as



further developments in taishō and shōwa japan237

mentioned in the Preface, the state-funded Centre of Excellence (COE) programme established in 2002, clearly attests to the importance still given today to the dissemination of kokugaku-style research on Shinto and Japanese culture, as well as its understood value for the twenty-first century.

CONCLUSION A comprehensive examination of kokugaku’s evolving role through the entire history of modern Japan up to the twenty-first century is beyond the scope of a single study. Hence, this investigation has concentrated its focus on the transformation of kokugaku during the Meiji period. The first chapters of this study examined the involvement of kokugaku scholars in the two broad fields of religious administration and education, looking at them within the framework of certain better-known political cornerstones of modern Japanese history. By concentrating on the individual people involved, the actual dimension of kokugaku became evident, not only with regard to religious proselytization through various government agencies, but also education at new state-sponsored institutions of higher learning. The gradual reaffirmation of a literary and textual past was directly connected to the activities of the large number of leading kokugaku scholars who were engaged, for instance, in the founding and expansion of various institutions dedicated to the teaching of classical literature and Japanese history. Political developments led to edicts that, in effect, defined essential parts of Shinto as being a non-religious messenger of public morals as well as the structuring force for rituals held by the state. Connected to concurrent attempts to re-conceptualize kokugaku as a more modern and practical form of knowledge, this resulted in the more extreme Shinto-oriented kokugakusha, most in line with the theology of Hirata Atsutane, being pushed somewhat to the periphery. Several earlier studies have shown in detail that Hirata Atsutane developed Motoori Norinaga’s legacy by systematizing and propagating the Ancient Way based on religious-ideological concepts rather than philology. For the Hirata school, the most widespread and influential kokugaku faction during the late-Edo period, the objective scholarly reading of ancient Japanese texts became less important. Rather, Atsutane’s thought brought about a resurgence of speculative approaches resembling those of certain medieval Shinto scholars, with a number of Atsutane’s followers striving to develop a Shinto theology. This represented a religious extension of the basic concern of kokugaku: the clarification of indigenous Japanese traditions. During the Meiji period, scholars were confronted with Western academic methods. Thus, the pendulum swung back towards kokugaku being

240

conclusion

again more textual–expository rather than politico–theological. In the new Meiji era, what we find are complex formations involving various  degrees of balance and compromise between formerly disagreeing kokugaku factions. Stripped of most of its religious Shinto aspects, kokugaku returned to focusing on the study of ancient Japanese history as well as national literature, language and traditions. This form of scholarly kokugaku was perceived to best elucidate the roots of a unifying cultural and national identity for the new Meiji Japan. The imperial system was deemed as the core of such national identity that was suited for the nationbuilding process. Although Hirata school followers played a major role in the overthrow of the shogunate, ‘the theological aspects of Atsutane’s scholarship had to compete with views that emphasized the importance of Amaterasu as the divine ancestor of the emperor. Atsutane’s teachings were not the most suitable ideology for supporters of imperial restoration’  (McNally 2005: 238). For modern kokugaku scholars, however, the emperor—the epitome of an allegedly unbroken and eternal line of ancestors—also represented ‘the spiritual axis of the nation’, as astutely formulated in a famous speech by Itō Hirobumi. With Shinto officially declared a state doctrine and not a religion in 1884, and with the enactment of the Imperial  Rescript on Education in 1889 and its subsequent handling as a sacred text in all schools, theological questions concerning official reverence for metaphysical Shinto deities were completely superseded by an all-embracing national ideology that enforced ritualistic state worship by and of the emperor, who was seen more and more as a living human god. Kokugaku thinking had merged with Mito school ideals, the two forces whose fervour had finally brought about the Meiji Restoration. Together they formed the ideological foundation of the new Meiji state. The Shinto doctrine of an unbroken and divine imperial dynasty and the Confucian values of loyalty and filial piety were blended into a patriotic system of loyalty to the emperor as the father of the nation. For most Meiji intellectuals, the imperial institution was a unifying factor. Even leading liberal writers like Fukuzawa Yukichi 福沢諭吉 (1834–1901), who advocated the adoption of Western civilization, first sought to strengthen, with it, Japan’s national polity (kokutai), as well as to increase the prestige of the imperial line and the glory of its succession (Shillony 2005: 136–137). A parallel development to these political trends can be seen in the academic sphere. The separation of religious Shinto from the rest of scholarly kokugaku first became truly tangible at about the same time as emperorcentred shrine rites, defined by the state as non-religious civic duties,

conclusion241 eclipsed Shinto’s religious nature. In 1882, the Training Course for the Classics Koten kōshūka and the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo were established. The same year also saw the founding of the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies Jingū kōgakukan. The latter was founded by a group of primarily Shinto priests with kokugaku backgrounds. In their aim of educating young Shinto priests, they put an emphasis on mastering the sacred scriptures (shinten). The other two institutes, apparent from their names, concentrated on history and classical literature. The supporters and leading figures of these institutes were all national-learning scholars who were less religiously inclined—despite the fact that many were of Hirata school descent. In fact, it was Yano Harumichi and Hirata Kanetane themselves who stressed kokugaku that was based on literary and textual studies. They realized that national learning had to retain its scholarly character if it were to appeal to Meiji policymakers and prove suitable for the modern period. Thus, by abandoning more theological aspects, this faction helped to shape kokugaku into a type of textual scholarship that resembled the kangaku mould (McNally 2005: 237). People like, inter alios, Konakamura Kiyonori, Iida Takesato, Kimura Masakoto and Kurokawa Mayori were among the more moderate national-learning scholars who, in their ideological standing, had no strong links to religious Shinto. It was precisely these scholars who, over the course of the Meiji period, ultimately sustained kokugaku and shifted it from a politico–religious movement to an academic discipline focused on Japanese subject-matter of all kinds. All of these figures were also among the leading members of the Ōyashima-gakkai or its two predecessors, the scholarly groups discussed in the latter half of this study. Neither abroad nor even in Japan have the Boundless Society Yōyōsha, the Historiological Association Shigakukyōkai, or the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society Ōyashima-gakkai been the focus of much research. Thus, in order to understand the workings of these three societies better, details about their everyday organizational and administrative structures were provided. Nonetheless, the overall aim here has again been to focus on the individual people who were involved, including the many minor but vital participants not usually remembered by history. Also the important and influential figures from the earlier chapters were again encountered here, since many became leading members of these scholarly associations. The discussion of these three successive academic societies and their various activities has provided further evidence for the existence of tightly-knit kokugaku networks within the intellectual life of Meiji-period Japan.

242

conclusion

One of the most striking aspects that has come to light is that most relationships between the individual members of these academic associations were based on personal connections rather than ‘school’ affiliation. Such connections—that together form the Meiji kokugaku network— crossed earlier boundaries of ‘lineage’ and scholarly factionalism. They even brought together people seemingly in fierce opposition, as exemplified by the two initiators of the so-called Pantheon Dispute of the early 1880s. Senge Takatomi and Tanaka Yoritsune later both became leading members of the Shigaku-kyōkai as well as the Ōyashima-gakkai. In these associations, which provided a discursive space for scholarship, people from various fields of learning and thought interacted freely with one another and discussed matters of mutual interest. While Shintooriented kokugaku scholars were not excluded from participating, theological concerns did not figure in the agenda of these academic societies. These groups did not focus on religious aspects such as actualizing a divine ancient way, but rather their general intellectual orientation was directed towards a textual and linguistic study of things Japanese. This was combined with Confucian-type morals and emperor-centred nationalism. Notwithstanding the amalgam of interests and diverse scholarly backgrounds, the people partaking in the intellectual network of these academic societies clearly felt as members of a distinct group. At the latest with the founding of the Ōyashima-gakkai, its many participants formed an intellectual entity and explicitly designated themselves as ‘kokugaku’ scholars. It is clear that due to the general Zeitgeist, officially enforced patriotic emperor-centredness as well as a more general Nipponism, Nihon-shugi, were also aspects encountered in the scholarly societies at this time. However, implementing particularistic Japanese notions such as the unity of ritual and politics (saisei-itchi) or the ‘unbroken and eternal’ imperial line in the state institutions of modern Japan—together with the formation of a broad ‘Japanese’ ideology to support them—was only part of the picture. The true and lasting achievement of Meiji kokugaku must be seen in these scholars’ meticulous dedication to the collation, annotation, editing and publication of classical works and documents. Their work is still used as a basis for much of the research being done today. As described above, these efforts are best represented by the multi-volume encyclopaedia of historic sources Kojiruien. Further examples are the series Kojitsu sōsho, the Library of Ancient Customs and Practices, edited by Imaizumi Sadasuke, and the comprehensive six-volume commentary work Nihon­ shoki tsūshaku by Iida Takesato (Wachutka 2001). For research on Japan’s

conclusion243 history and culture, these are still indispensable reference works. In addition to the publication of many edited documents and scholarly monographs, the journals Yōyōsha-dan, Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi, and, above all, Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi advanced the nation-wide spread of knowledge about Japan’s history and traditions. This success in educating the broad populace can hardly be overestimated. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that without the activities and accomplishments of Meiji kokugaku, the ‘new national learning’ shin-kokugaku of Haga Yaichi, Yanagita Kunio and Orikuchi Shinobu would not have come into being (Sakamoto 1994: 20). To summarize, national learning was not merely a pre-modern Edoperiod phenomenon, as it is often thought to be, but it continued to play a significant role in the enormous intellectual vigour of the Meiji period. In the modern period in general, scholarship has been characterized by a fragmentation that has finally led to the establishment of the various independent modern academic disciplines. This was also the case in Japan, with kokugaku developing into the disciplines of national history (kokushigaku), national language (kokugogaku) and national literature (kokubungaku). As part of the transformation of kokugaku in the Meiji years, scholarly factionalism as well as distinct ‘school’ lineages based on teacher–pupil relations, as had been common in the Edo period, were dissipated through the close personal relationships that developed, for instance, in the various academic societies founded in these years. As the examples of the Ōyashima-gakkai and its predecessor organizations have shown, thousands of people from all over the nation took part in this Meiji-period intellectual network. Hence, an explicitly self-labelled umbrella identity of kokugaku was formed by a broadly based national-learning circle. The activities of the main members of these three organizations, the numerous readers of their scholarly journals nation wide, and the many students from all walks of life at the Great-Eight-Island School Ōyashima-gakkō led to kokugaku ideas persisting and permeating throughout society. Thus, kokugaku continued to play a significant influential role in Japan during the Meiji period and beyond.

APPENDIX ONE

THE MEMBERS OF YŌYŌSHA It is obvious that not every Meiji kokugaku scholar mentioned in this study can be treated with the same amount of detail. This is not even possible for the leading members of scholarly associations presented in the following appendices. It is an unfortunate fact that in ‘any historical group, it is likely that almost everything will be known about some members of it, and almost nothing at all about others; certain items will be lacking for some, and different items will be lacking for others’ (Stone 1972: 119). Despite this inevitable incompleteness, the collected information presented here will enable us to better understand who actually represented Meiji kokugaku. A list of thirty-six Yōyōsha members was given for the first time in an appendix to issue 76 of the journal Yōyōsha-dan. However, due to the death of some members, as well as a few new members joining the Boundless Society, from issue 84 the list containes the names of thirty-four members. Altogether, Yōyōsha had thirty-nine members. Their names and short biographies, as far as the information could be found, are presented here in alphabetical order. Those people indicated by an asterisk were later also leading members of Shigaku-kyōkai and Ōyashima-gakkai; information about these figures can be found in Appendix III. Aoyama Isamu 青山勇 (?–1910) Aoyama Isamu, also known as Raigan 雷巖, was born in the Mito Domain as the son of the Confucian scholar Aoyama Nobumitsu 青山延光 (1807–1870), who is also known as Haigensai 佩弦齋. (Nagasawa 1979: 6) Hayashi Noboru 林昇 (1833–1906) Hayashi Noboru, also known as Gakusai 学斎, was a Confucian scholar born in Edo. He held, among other positions, the post of shogunal administrator of temples and shrines, jisha bugyō. After the Meiji Restoration, he was employed as a deputy senior official of legal hermeneutics, myōbō gon no dai-zoku 明法権大属, at the Ministry of Justice. He also served as a managing official and later, as a senior priest at the Tōshōgū shrine in Nikkō. (Takebayashi 1978: 1309–1310; Nagasawa 1979: 243)

246

appendix one

Hirano Chishū 平野知秋 (1814–1883) Hirano Chishū, also known as Shigehisa 重久, was a retainer of the Sakura Domain in Shimōsa Province, today’s Chiba Prefecture. He studied at Shōheikō and later became an instructor in his domain’s school Seitokushoin 成徳書院. During the Bōshin wars of 1868/69 between shogunal and imperial troops, he was actively involved in moving the discourse within his domain towards imperial loyalist ideas. (Nagasawa 1979: 255) Iijima Hanjūrō 飯島半十郎 (1841–1901) Iijima Hanjūro, also known as Kyoshin 虚心, was born in Edo as the son of a shogunal retainer. In the late Edo period, he worked as a cavalry instructor and took part at the Hakodate battles of 1868 as a soldier in a mobile commando unit. After the Meiji Restoration, he was engaged in compiling textbooks at the Ministry of Education’s Editorial Bureau. He is also known as a pioneering researcher of Ukiyo-e woodblock prints. Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎 (1856–1944) Inoue Tetsujirō was born in Chikuzen Province, today’s Fukuoka Prefecture. In 1880, he graduated from Tokyo University. In the early 1880s, he was involved in the attempt to create a new style of poetic expression suitable to the times. To a significant degree, this so-called shintaishi or new-style poetry developed under the influence of Western poetry. From 1884 to 1890 he studied in Germany and after his return, became the first Japanese professor of philosophy. He is credited with introducing German idealism to the Japanese academic world, and he wrote several important volumes on the different Confucian schools of thought. In 1897, he became director of Tokyo Imperial University’s Department of Philology. Despite trying to synthesize Eastern and Western thought, he was an ardent nationalist, severely criticizing Christianity and advocating Japan’s supposedly unique national polity as a divine nation. His pseudonym was Sonken 巽軒. (Inoue 1973; Nagasawa 1979: 19; Nawrocki 1998) Ishibashi Kōichi 石橋好一 (?–?) Ishibashi Kōichi was a scholar and translator of French. One of his translations is a volume on infant rearing entitled Shōni yōikudan 小児養育談. In the late Edo period, he worked as an assistant at the government’s Institute of Western Studies Keiseijō. In the early Meiji period, he became a middleranked assistant instructor of French at the Military Academy Heigakkō. His former name was Yarijirō 鎗次郎. *Itō Keisuke 伊藤圭介 (1803–1901) → App. III



the members of yōyōsha247

Kasugai Yoshifuru 春日井尚古 (?–?) *Kimura Masakoto 木村正辭 (1827–1913) → App. III Konagai Hachirō 小永井八郎 (1829–1888) Konagai Hachirō, also known as Shōshū 小舟, was born in Sakura Domain in Shimōsa Province, today’s Chiba Prefecture. His original family name was Hirano 平野, but he was adopted into the Konagai family of direct shogunate retainers. In Edo he studied under the Confucian scholar Noda Tekiho 野田笛浦 (1799–1859). In 1860, he went as subordinate official attendee to America on board the famous Kanrin-maru 咸臨丸, Japan’s first modern warship that accompanied the ship taking the Tokugawa embassy to the United States to ratify the ‘[Townsend] Harris Treaty’ of 1858. After the Meiji Restoration, he worked as tutor for the Hitotsubashi family and also opened his own private school in Tokyo. (Takebayashi 1978: 1232-1233; Nagasawa 1979: 121) *Konakamura Kiyonori 小中村清矩 (1822–1895) → App. III *Kurokawa Mayori 黒川真頼 (1829–1906) → App. III Makino Terasu 牧野照 (?–1903) Makino Terasu was born in Mimasaka Province, today’s Okayama Prefecture. He studied under the Confucian scholar Yamada Hōkoku 山田 方谷 (1805–1877). Later he studied German and established his own German school, Doitsu gijuku 独逸義塾. He worked for the Ministry of Justice and the Naval Ministry. After contact with Itagaki Taisuke, he quit his public offices and entered Itagaki’s Liberal Party Jiyūto. Masuda San 増田賛 (1839–1902) Masuda San was born in Etchū Province, today’s Toyama Prefecture. He studied under the Confucian scholar Yasui Sokken 安井息軒 (1799–1876). After the Meiji Restoration, he was employed as a magistrate in Ibaraki and Shizuoka. Together with Nishimura Shigeki and others, in 1876 he founded the edification group Shūshi gakusha 修身学舎, School of Morals, that later in 1887 was reorganized into the Nihon kōdōkai 日本弘道会, the Society for Spreading the Japanese Way. Mitsuhashi Jun 三橋惇 (?–?) Mitsuhashi Jun was a translator of English. During the Meiji period, he authored several primary and middle school textbooks on history and geography. In 1879, he published a book on contemporary China entitled Konsei Shina jijō 今世支那事情.

248

appendix one

Miyazaki Michisaburō 宮崎道三郎 (1855–1928) Miyazaki Michisaburō was born in Ise. He graduated from Tokyo University, where he became an assistant professor in 1881. From 1884 to 1888 he studied in Germany. Upon his return to Japan, he became a professor of law at the re-named Tokyo Imperial University, teaching Roman law and the history of legislation. Muraoka Yoshisuke 村崗良弼 (1845–1917) Muraoka Yoshisuke was born in the Katori district of Shimōsa Province, today’s Chiba Prefecture. He studied legal hermeneutics (myōhō 明法) at the shogunal school Shōheikō and later, after the Meiji Restoration, while working at the Ministry of Justice and the Imperial Household Ministry, participated in early legislative preparations. After retirement from office, he studied Japanese history and topography. He is the author of many works on classical texts, such as, among others, the seventy-two-volume collection of geographical sources Nihon chiri shiryō 日本地理志料, as well as the twenty-volume critical edition Shoku-Nihonkōki sanko 續日本後記 纂詁, which received the Imperial Award of the Japan Academy. (KDS 3: 427-429; KDNBK 1990: 705) Murooka Toshinori 室岡俊徳 (?–?) Murooka Toshinori was a contributor to the multilingual dictionary of military and naval terms Gokoku taishō heigo jisho 五國對照兵語字書 that was published in 1881 with entries in French, German, English, Dutch and Japanese. Naka Michitaka 那珂通高 [= Gorō 梧楼] (1828–1879) Naka Michitaka, adoptive father of Naka Michiyo, was born in Odate 大館 in Dewa Province, today’s Akita Prefecture, and became a retainer of Morioka Domain in Mutsu, today’s Iwate Prefecture. After seceding from the Nanbu clan, he studied under the Confucianists Asaka Gonsai, Sakai Gozan 坂井虎山 (1798–1850) and Morita Sessai 森田節斎 (1811–1868). Later he also turned to kokugaku. In 1859, he was pardoned and allowed to return to his domain, where he became an instructor at the domain school Meigidō 明義堂, which later was re-named Sakujinkan 作人館. After the Meiji Restoration, he was employed as a government official at the Ministry of Education, where he participated in compiling primary school textbooks. (KDNBK 1990: 481; Takebayashi 1978: 1198-1200; Nagasawa 1979: 212) Naka Michiyo 那珂通世 (1851–1908) Naka Michiyo’s real family name was Tōson 藤村. The son of a MutsuMorioka Domain retainer, he later was adopted by the above Naka



the members of yōyōsha249

Michitaka. He graduated from Fukuzawa Yukichi’s private school Keiyō gijuku. After the Restoration, he worked, among other things, as a lecturer at the Higher Normal School and Tokyo Imperial University. He was one of the first in Japan to use the term tōyō-shi 東洋史, Eastern or Oriental history, and is known for his research on problems related to the nation’s alleged founding. (Takebayashi 1978: 1316-1320; Nagasawa 1979: 212) Nakagawa Masayuki 中川将行 (1848–1897) From 1876 to 1887 Nakagawa Masayuki taught mathematics as a civil official at the Naval Academy. In 1879, he published, together with Arakawa Jūhei 荒川重平 (1851–1933), Japan’s first book on mathematics that was written horizontally, entitled Kika mondai kaishiki 幾何問題解式, Solu­ tions for Geometric Problems. He played an important role in unifying mathematical terminology in Japan. Nanbu Yoshikazu 南部義籌 (1840–1917) Nanbu Yoshikazu was born in Tosa Domain, today’s Kōchi Prefecture. After reading in the preface of Ōba Sessai’s 大庭雪斎 (1805–1873) 1855 work Oranda bungo 和蘭文語 that it is deeply deplorable that although Japanese originally was a splendid language, its meaning had become distorted by mixing it with Chinese kanji in its written form, he became an advocate for using the Latin script for Japanese. In 1869, he submitted a petition on the proper use of the national language to the University’s head Yamauchi Yōdō [= Toshishige 豊信] 山内容堂 (1827–1872), which is commonly seen as the first treatise for adopting rōmaji in Japan. In 1872, he submitted a memorandum to the Ministry of Education that advocated abolishing Chinese characters and writing Japanese only in Latin script. In articles in volumes 59 and 60 of Yōyōsha-dan, he furthermore compared kana to rōmaji and also insisted on the proper reading of kanbun. He is the author of the Ministry of Education’s original draft of 1874 on how to represent Japanese in Latin script. Among his works are Nihon Bunten Uhi-manabi (1874) and Tosa ni Nikki (1894), both written in Latin script. Nishimura Shigeki 西村茂樹 (1828–1902) Nishimura Shigeki was born in Sakura Domain in Shimōsa Province, today’s Chiba Prefecture. He studied Confucian classics under Yasui Sokken, and Western learning under Sakuma Shōzan. One of the founders of the Meirokusha circle, he was recognized as a progressive social leader and major figure in the movement to teach the essentials of Western civilization. In the circle’s journal Meiroku zasshi, he wrote on subjects

250

appendix one

such as free trade, world political systems, the relevance of ethics to government and the changes occurring in Japanese society. Nishimura was a civil service official of the upper third rank in the Ministry of Education. In 1876, he was employed at the Imperial Household Ministry as an adviser to the imperial court and was a government official for literature. In November 1885, he was appointed to assist in the education of Crown Prince Haru-no-miya Yoshihito-shinnō 明宮嘉仁親王 (1879–1926), the later Emperor Taishō (MTK 6: 504). In 1890, he was selected as an imperial appointee to the House of Peers. In spite of his seemingly enlightened thinking, from early on he showed conservative tendencies and overall clearly had a traditionalist, nationalist and particularistic leaning. For him, morals and virtue, dōtoku 道徳, were to be established by means of secular teachings, i.e. public national morals or civic virtues, and the casting away of any kind of non-worldly teachings, i.e. religion. For these secular teachings, those parts of European philosophy that were suitable should also be included, but with Confucianism and Japanese traditions as their fundamental base. He planned the creation of Confucian civic morals in accordance with a nationalism centred on the imperial household. Nishimura is the author of countless articles and more than a hundred books on education and morals, including Shōgaku shūshin kun 小學 修身訓 or Instructions for Primary School Moral Education of 1880. His pseudonym was Hakuo 泊翁. In March 1876, he founded the Tokyo School of Morals, Tokyo shūshin gakusha 東京修身学社, which in 1884 became the Nihon kōdō kai 日本講道會 or Japanese Society for Promoting the Way. It saw a rapid growth and in 1887 again was re-formed into the Nihon kōdōkai 日本弘道会, Japanese Society for Spreading the Way. On 11, 17 and 26 December 1886, he gave public addresses at an Imperial University lecture hall in Tokyo’s Kanda district. The following spring, his lectures were published as Nihon dōtoku-ron 日本道徳論, Treatise on Japanese Morals, a work that soon became a harbinger of the rising ultra-nationalism and Nipponism of the late 1880s and 1890s. (KDS 3: 539-542; KDNBK 1990: 527; Takebayashi 1978: 1276-1284; Nagasawa 1979: 231; Eisenhofer-Halim 1999, 2001, 2001a). Noguchi Yukinobu 野口之布 (1831–1898) Noguchi Yukinobu was a retainer of the Kaga Domain, today’s Ishikawa Prefecture, and studied at the shogunal school Shōheikō in Edo. He was an imperial loyalist and opposed the shogunate’s attack on the Chōshū army during the so-called Hamaguri Palace Gate rebellion in Kyoto in August



the members of yōyōsha251

1864. During the following suppressions, he was sentenced to lifelong imprisonment. After the Meiji Restoration, he served, among other posts, at the Ministry of Justice. (Nagasawa 1979: 233) Ōi Kenkichi 大井鎌吉 (?–?) Ōi Kenkichi was a translator of English, for instance, of works on moral education and women’s hygiene. He participated in the compilation of dictionaries and also wrote a book on Roman history. Okamoto Kansuke 岡本監輔 (1839–1904) Okamoto Kansuke, also known as Ian 韋庵, was born in Awa Province, today’s Tokushima Prefecture. He studied under the Confucian scholar Iwamoto Zeian 岩本贅庵. In 1863, he went to Karafuto 樺太, Sakhalin, and explored its southern part. In 1864, his request to reside there was granted and in 1865 he went to explore its interior for several months, returning south along the Amur River, the Kokuryū-kō 黒竜江. In 1867, together with Santō Naoto 山東直砥 (1840–1904), he opened the Northern Frontier Society Kitamon-sha 北門社 in Kyoto. After the Meiji Restoration, he worked as a vice-magistrate in Hakodate, and was in charge of colonizing the Northern territories. In 1870, however, due to what he believed the government’s too passive approach in this matter, he resigned. The following year he returned to Sakhalin, and in 1875 he travelled to various places in China, after which he wrote his work Ajia no sonbō 亜細亜の存亡, The Destiny of Asia. Later he also worked, among other things, as a teacher at Taiwan’s Governour-general’s School for National (= Japanese) Language. (Takebayashi 1978: 1299-1303; Nagasawa 1979: 72). Ōkawa Tsūkyū 大川通久 (1847–1897) Trained as a military officer in the Bakumatsu period, after the Meiji Restoration Ōkawa Tsūkyū enrolled in the Numazu clan’s military academy in Shizuoka. In March 1873, he entered the Ministry of Finance’s Office for Public Works. Connected to the grand trigonometrical survey of the eight former provinces of the Kantō region—Hitachi, Shimōsa, Kazusa, Awa, Kōzuke, Shimotsuke, Musashi and Sagami—in 1876 he executed the levelling surveys between Tokyo and Shiogama 塩竈 for the Geographical Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs. In 1881, he entered the Geological Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce, where he, among others, worked with the mineralogist Wada Tsunashirō 和田維四郎 (1856–1920). In September 1893, he quit all of his public offices and opened the publishing house Seikadō 精華堂 in Awajichō of Tokyo’s Kanda district, specializing in maps.

252

appendix one

Ōki Eijun 大木永淳 (?–1883) *Ōsawa Sugaomi 大沢清臣 (1833–1892) → App. III Ōtsuki Bankei 大槻磐溪 (1801–1878) Ōtsuki Bankei, father of the kokugaku scholar Ōtsuki Fumihiko, was born in Edo and studied at the shogunal school Shōheikō as well as under the Confucian scholar Matsuzaki Kōdō 松崎慊堂 (1771–1844). In 1832, he was employed as a Confucian scholar and medical doctor at the Sendai Domain’s Edo residence. From 1841 onwards, he studied Western gunnery under his old friend Takashima Shūhan 高島秋帆 (1798–1866) and at the private school of Egawa Hidetatsu 江川英竜 (1801–1855), where he later also became the academic head. In 1862, he became the academic head of his domain school Yōkendō 養賢堂 in Sendai and advocated Japan’s opening to the West. After the Meiji Restoration, he was imprisoned shortly for supporting the side of the former shogunate. After being pardoned and released, he resided in Tokyo and concentrated on the study of poetry and prose, as well as the refinement of his own literary skills. (Takebayashi 1978: 1065-1068; Nagasawa 1979: 64) Ōtsuki Fumihiko 大槻文彦 (1847–1928) Ōtsuki Fumihiko, the third son of the above Ōtsuki Bankei, was born in Edo. He studied at the Institute of Western Studies, Kaiseijo. In 1872, he was employed by the Ministry of Education. He worked as the chairman of the Committee for Investigating the National Language and also as the director of Miyagi’s Normal School. He is mostly known for his dictionary Genkai 言海, which he began to edit in 1875. Published in 1891, it was the first modern Japanese dictionary. It was later revised and published as Dai genkai 大言海. Interested in developing new structural descriptions of Japanese grammar fusing traditional ‘Yamata 八また style’ with Western forms, he founded the Grammar Society Bunpō-kai 文法會 in September 1878. The last of its altogether fifty-six meetings—in which the participants read each other’s papers and discussed various questions related to grammar—was held on 31 April 1881. Prominent members of this Society were inter alios the kokugaku scholars Yokoyama Yoshikiyo and Satō Nobuzane, the Confucianist Nakane Juku 中根淑 (1839–1913) who was also called Kōtei 香亭, as well as the above-named Nanbu Yoshikazu and Inoue Tetsujirō. The results of their research were published as Nihon bunten 日本文典, Japanese Grammar, and Kō Nihon bunten 廣日本文典, General Japanese Grammar, respectively. (KDS 3: 480-91; KDNBK 1990: 155)



the members of yōyōsha253

Oyama Tomohiro 小山朝弘 (1827–1891) Oyama Tomohiro, also known as Shunzan 春山, was born in Shimotsuke Province, today’s Ibaraki Prefecture. He studied medicine in Edo under Odai Yōdō 尾台榕堂 (1799–1871). He had close contact with several Mito retainers as well as such prominent figures as Aizawa Seishisai, Fujita Tōko and Ōhashi Totsuan 大橋訥庵 (1816–1862). Participating in the imperial loyalist movement, he was imprisoned in relation to the assassination incident outside Edo castle’s Sakashita 坂下 gate on 13 February 1862. While he was released, he later was imprisoned once again for participating in the disturbances of 1864–65 involving the radical imperialist Tengu-tō 天狗党 group. (Ogawa 1977: 136; Nagasawa 1979: 124) Sakakibara Yoshino 榊原芳野 (1832–1881) Sakakibara Yoshino was born in the Mito Domain. He studied under the kokugaku scholar Inō Hidenori. After the Meiji Restoration, he worked for the Ministry of Education. Known for his wide-ranging knowledge, he was engaged in compiling the encyclopaedia of historic sources Kojiruien. Being an ardent traditionalist, he never wore Western-style clothes his entire life and considered it beneath his dignity to have his hair cut in the popular Western way. In the end, he became insane in the manner of Aoyama Hanzō, i.e. Shimazaki Masaki, as decribed in the novel Yoake mae. (KDS 2: 1545-1546; 3: 589; KDNBK 1990: 326) Sakatani Shiroshi 阪谷素 (1822–1881) Sakatani Shiroshi, also known as Rōro 朗廬, was born in Bitchū Province, today’s Okayama Prefecture. He studied under the Confucian scholars Ōshio Heihachirō 大塩平八郎 (1793–1837) in Osaka and Sakaya Seikei 昌谷精溪 (1792–1858) in Edo. After returning to his domain, he became the head of the domain school Kōjōkan 興譲館. After the Meiji Restoration, he worked for the Ministry of War, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Justice. He was a member of Meirokusha and of the Imperial Academy Gakushikaiin in Tokyo. (Takebayashi 1978: 1207-1210; Nagasawa 1979: 140) Sera Taichi 世良太 (1838–1919) Sera Taichi was born in Bingo Province, today’s Hiroshima Prefecture. He studied under the statistician Sugi Kōji 杉亨二 (1828–1917). After the Meiji Restoration, he entered the Statistics Department Seihyōka 政表課 that was established in 1871 within the Great Council of State. Together with Sugi Kōji, in 1876 he founded the Hyōkigakusha 表記学社, a society for statistical research that in 1878 was re-named Sutachisuchikku-sha スタチスチ ック社. In 1883, he opened the Kyōritsu tōkei gakkō 共立統計学校 or Joint

254

appendix one

Statistical School, Japan’s first and only special training school on this subject, and was its director until 1886. Shimada Shigenori 島田重禮 (1838–1898) Shimada Shigenori, also known as Kōson 篁村, was born in the Ebara 荏原 district of Musashi Province, today’s Tokyo Prefecture. He studied under the Confucian scholars Kaibo Gyosan 海保漁村 (1798–1866), Asaka Gonsai and Shionoya Tōin. Later, he became an instructor at the shogunal school Shōheikō. After the Meiji Restoration, he opened his private school Sōkeishōja 双桂精舎 and in 1881, became a professor at Tokyo University. (Takebayashi 1978: 1269-1271; Nagasawa 1979: 151) Uehara Yoshinori 埴原敬徳 (?–?) Yoda Gakkai 依田学海 (1834–1909) Yoda Gakkai, also known as Hyakusen 百川, was born in Sakura Domain in Shimōsa Province, today’s Chiba Prefecture. He studied under the Confucian scholar Fujiwara Tensan 藤森天山 (1800–1862). After the Meiji Restoration, he was employed as an editorial official at the Great Council of State’s Office of Historiography and as a lesser clerical officer at the Ministry of Education. After his retirement in 1885, he participated in the movement for theatre reformation. Supporting and guiding people such as the famous kabuki actor Ichikawa Danjūrō 市川団十郎 IX (1838–1903), he worked for the enlightenment of the theatrical world. Among other works, he wrote the play Yoshino shūi meika no homare 吉野拾遺名歌誉. (Takebayashi 1978: 1327–1329; Nagasawa 1979: 322) Yotsuya Tsuneyuki 四谷恒之 (1831–1906) Yotsuya Tsuneyuki, also known as Suihō 穂峰, was a retainer of the Nobeoka 延岡 Domain in Hyūga Province, today’s Miyazaki Prefecture. In Edo he studied under the Confucian scholars Shionoya Tōin and Morita Sessai. In 1860 he became a tutor to his feudal lord’s heir Naitō Masataka 内藤政挙 (1852–1927). After the Meiji Restoration, he was employed as an editorial official at the Great Council of State’s Office of Historiography and as a clerical officer at the Chamber of Elders. He also worked as a lecturer at Tokyo Imperial University and at the Peers’ School for Girls, Kazoku jogakkō 華族女学校, the predecessor of Joshi Gakushūin.

APPENDIX TWO

MAIN MEMBERS OF SHIGAKU-KYŌKAI This list of the Historiological Association’s main members is given in the appendix to SKZ 7 (25 December 1883). Below the names are given in alphabetical order, but have been left in their respective categories. Those people indicated by an asterisk were later also among the leading members of Ōyashima-gakkai. For information on these figures, see App. III. Acting Chairman (kaicho kokoroe 會長心得): Soejima Taneomi 副島種臣 (1828–1905) Soejima Taneomi was born in Kyushu’s Saga Domain. He was the younger brother of the kokugaku scholar Edayoshi Shin’yo 枝吉神陽 (1822–1862), and himself became a leader of the anti-shogunate movement in Saga. After the Meiji Restoration, Soejima started a political career and first became a Junior Councillor of State. Together with Fukuoka Takachika, he drew up the Seitaisho, the first constitution-like ordinance on the structure and functions of the new Meiji government that was issued on 11 June 1868. While the Iwakura mission was abroad, Soejima served as foreign minister. He supported Japanese expansion in both Korea and Taiwan, and resigned from the government in October 1873 in opposition to the government policy that rejected his proposal to invade Korea. In January 1874 he joined Gotō Shōjirō 後藤象二郎 (1838–1897), Itagaki Taisuke and Etō Shinpei in forming the political association Aikoku kōtō 愛国公党, the Public Party of Patriots. Spearheading the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement, it petitioned the government to establish a national assembly. The group soon disbanded, fearing government suppression after the Saga Rebellion of 1874, although Itagaki revived the Aikoku kōtō in May 1890, and the party later merged with other political groups to form the Liberal Party Jiyūtō 自由党. Soejima was one of the signatories of an 1874 petition to establish a parliament elected by the people. In 1879, he became an official at the Imperial Household Ministry and a first rank imperial tutor. In 1884, he received the rank of count, in 1886 he became Court Councillor, and in 1888 Privy Councillor. Additionally, from April to June 1892, he also served as Home Minister in the cabinet of Matsukata Masayoshi. (Maruyama 1987)

256

appendix two

Acting Vice-Chairman (fuku-kaicho kokoroe 副會長心得): Tani Tateki 谷干城 (1837–1911) Tani Tateki was born in the Tosa Domain, today’s Kōchi Prefecture in Shikoku. After the Meiji Restoration, he occupied various important army posts in the new government, distinguishing himself during the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877 as the commander of Kumamoto Castle’s defence. Tani also served as the head of the Army Academy. After he retired from active duty in 1881, he and other military men like Torio Koyata 鳥尾小弥太 (1847–1905), Miura Gorō 三浦梧楼 (1846–1926) and Soga Sukenori 曽我 祐準 (1844–1935) founded the conservative political group Chūseitō 中正党. Together they petitioned for the creation of a national constitution and the installation of a parliament. In 1884, he became the head of the Peers’ School Gakushūin and in 1885 joined the first Itō Hirobumi cabinet as Minister of Agriculture and Commerce. After returning to Japan from an oversees inspection trip in 1887, however, he resigned in objection to what he considered the insufficiently forceful demands of Foreign Minister Inoue Kaoru for revising the so-called unequal treaties with Western nations. More and more Tani criticized Japan’s too extensive imitation of the West, and rather called for a self-made wealthy and militarily strong country founded on Japanese traditions. His Japanism found further platform through his launching of the newspaper Nihon 日本 and setting up the ‘Japan Club’ Nihon kurabu 日本倶楽部. In 1890, he became a member of the House of Peers. In the parliament, he often criticized the government, called for diligence and thrift, opposed the military expansion after the Sino–Japanese War of 1894–95, and for several years was active in a minority group criticizing the ongoing environmental pollution at the Ashio copper mine. (Hirao 1981) Head Managers (kanji-chō 幹事長): *Inoue Yorikuni 井上賴圀 (1839–1914) → App. III *Maruyama Sakura 丸山作樂 (1840–1899) → App. III Managers (kanji 幹事): Fukuda Han 福田半 (1849–1888) Fukuda Han, also known as Jiken 治軒, was born in Osaka and was the son of Fukuda Riken 福田理軒 (1815–1889), a specialist in indige­ nous  Japanese mathematics. He studied under his father and also received training in Western knowledge under Satō Masayasu 佐藤政養 (1821–1877).



main members of shigaku-kyōkai257

As an instructor at the Institute of Naval Training Kaigun sōrenjo 海軍操練所, set up in 1864, he came into contact with Katsu Kaishū 勝海舟 (1823–1899) and Sakamoto Ryōma 坂本龍馬 (1836–1867). After the Restoration he worked at the Department of People’s Affairs Minbushō 民部省 and at the Railway Bureau, and together with John England (1824– 1877) was involved in the construction of the Shinbashi–Yokohama railway. In 1872, he authored Japan’s first textbook on triangulation surveying called Sokuryō shinshiki 測量新式, which introduced the new methods he had learned from John England. In 1873, he entered the Ministry of War’s Staff Bureau and from 1878 was engaged in extensive measuring surveys of all the provinces. He quit this position in 1884 due to illness and returned to Osaka, where he pursued private studies. *Naitō Chisō 内藤耻叟 (1827–1903) → App. III Tsunoda Nobuyuki 角田信道 (1846–1884) Tsunoda Nobuyuki was a retainer of the Iwamurada Domain in Shinano Province, today’s Nagano Prefecture. He was the younger brother of the well-known kokugaku scholar and Shintoist Tsunoda Tadayuki. Nobuyuki studied under Hirata Kanetane and, among other posts, served as the Shinto chief priest at Yoshida-jinja 吉田神社 in Kyoto. He died of disease on 17 December 1884. (KDNBK 1990: 457) Yajima Kinzō 矢島錦藏 (?–?) Yajima Kinzō, also known under the personal name Yukiyasu 行康, was the author and translator of many works on psychology, ethics and moral philosophy. Yamaguchi Shin’ei 山口眞榮 (?–?) Yamaguchi Shin’ei was, among other works, the author of Jinmu-tennō kōkyū 神武天皇後宮. Assistant Manager (kanji-ho 幹事補): Yanagawa Yasuyoshi 梁川保嘉 (?–?) Yanagawa Yasuyoshi was the author of several books on Shinto rituals, especially on norito prayers, as well as on shrines and their personnel. He also was publisher of the journal Kamunagara 随在天神, which he edited together with the kokugaku scholar Matsuda Totsutari 松田敏足 (1838–1913).

258

appendix two

Secretaries (shoki 書記): Matsumi Bunpei 松見文平 (1861–1943) In his youth, Matsumi Bunpei studied Confucianism and a few years of English before becoming a disciple of the above-mentioned Fukuda Han. In March 1876, he entered Fukuda’s private academy Junten kyūaisha 順天 求合社 in Tokyo, one of the leading institutions on Japanese mathematics, of which Matsumi became an assistant professor in 1880. In September 1881, he opened his own private school Meigen gakusha 明玄学舎, where he taught mathematics and surveying. In 1884, only twenty-three years old, he became the third principal of Junten kyūaisha after Fukuda Han had to resign due to illness and returned to Osaka. Matsumi held this post for over fifty-eight years and is still honoured at this school’s successor, Junten gakuen in Tokyo. From 1892 to 1934, Matsumi was also engaged in local politics, first as a member of the Kanda district board and later in Tokyo’s municipal parliament. In 1924, he received the Order of the Sacred Treasure and the Sixth Order of Merit. ( 30 May 2011) Tani Sonbei 谷孫兵衛 (?–?) No concrete information about Tani Sonbei exists. However, Hirata Atsutane, in his work Katsugoro saisei kibun 勝五郎再生記聞 mentions in one passage, ‘on the twenty-first day of the fourth month [of Bunsei 6, i.e. 31 May 1823] I visited a person called Tani Sonbei 谷孫兵衛, steward of Lord Tamon 多門’ (Koyasu 2000: 374). If Tani was employed by Tamon at a relatively young age and lived a long life, this may indeed be the same person. Compilation Committee (hensan iin 編纂委員): *Hanawa Tadatsugu 塙忠韶 (1832–1918) → App. III Hirata Taneo 平田胤雄 (1843–1886) Hirata Taneo was the fourth son of Hirata Kanetane. *Iida Takesato 飯田武郷 (1828–1900) → App. III Ikehara Kawaka 池原香穉 (1830–1884) Ikehara Kawaka, also known as Nichinan 日南, was born in Hizen Province, today’s Nagasaki Prefecture. He studied under Ueda Shikibuchi. In 1856, he opened an ophthalmology practice in his hometown Nagasaki, but also taught kokugaku as an avocation. After the Meiji Restoration he became, among other things, a government official for literature at the Imperial



main members of shigaku-kyōkai259

Household Ministry. Among various works, he wrote Midomo no kazu 美登

毛濃嘉数 of 1882. (KDS 3: 277; KDNBK 1990: 67)

*Kimura Masakoto 木村正辭 (1827–1913) → App. III *Konakamura Kiyonori 小中村清矩 (1822–1895) → App. III *Kosugi Sugimura 小杉榲邨 (1835–1910) → App. III Kubo Sueshige 久保季茲 (1830–1886) Kubo Sueshige, born in Edo, studied kokugaku under Tsurumine Shigenobu 鶴峯戊申 (1788–1859) and in his family tradition worked as a shogunal medical officer. Influenced by Motoori Norinaga’s Kojiki-den, he nevertheless was deeply committed to the royalist cause. After the Meiji Restoration, he lectured at the first university and later, at the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo. Among several works on Japanese classics, he wrote Amatsu norito shikō 天津祝詞私考 and Norito ryakuge 祝詞略解. (KDS 2: 1554–1556; KDNBK 1990: 251) *Kume Motobumi 久米幹文 (1828–1894) → App. III *Kurokawa Mayori 黒川眞賴 (1829–1906) → App. III *Matsuno Isao 松野勇雄 (1852–1893) → App. III *Motoori Toyokai 本居豊頴 (1834–1913) → App. III *Mozume Takami 物集高見 (1847–1928) → App. III *Ōsawa Sugaomi 大沢清臣 (1833–1892) → App. III Ōwada Takeki 大和田建樹 (1857–1910) Ōwada Takeki was born in Iyo Province, today’s Ehime Prefecture. After studying English at Hiroshima’s Institute of Foreign Languages and Japanese literature in self-study, he went to Tokyo where he continued his kokugaku studies with a special interest in poetry. Over the years, he worked as an instructor and professor at the Imperial University’s Training Course for the Classics, Koten kōshūka, as well as at Tokyo’s Higher Normal School and the Normal School for Girls. He edited Meiji bungakushi 明治文 学史 in 1894, the dictionary Nihon daijiten 日本大辞典 in 1896, and received literary fame by publishing several prose and poetry works, such as the sixvolume Meiji shōka 明治唱歌. Especially his popular railway songs Tetsudō shōka 鉄道唱歌 of 1900 influenced many people. Ōwada Takeki was also the son-in-law of the kokugaku scholar Iida Takesato. (KDS 3: 387–389; KDNBK 1990: 162)

260

appendix two

*Suzuki Hiroyasu 鈴木弘恭 (1844–1897) → App. III Takahira Mafuji 高平眞藤 (1831–1895) Takahira Mafuji was a retainer of the Ichi-no-seki Domain in Mutsu. He first studied poetry under the national-learning scholar Sasaki Ukami 佐々 木親覧 (1791–1868) and later in Edo, ‘evidential learning’ (kōshōgaku) under Maeda Natsukage. After the Meiji Restoration, he served as the head of the kokugaku section at his domain school Kyōseiryō 教成寮 until its closing in 1871. Later he worked for many years as a librarian at the Tokyo shosekikan 東京書籍館, the predecessor of the Imperial Library Teikoku toshokan 帝国図書館. Among his works is Hiraizumi-shi 平泉志. (KDNBK 1990: 420) *Tanaka Yoritsune 田中賴庸 (1836–1897) → App. III *Yano Harumichi 矢野玄道 (1823–1887) → App. III Honorary Members (meiyo kaiin 名譽會員): Fujinami Noritada 藤波教忠 (1823–1891) Fujinami Noritada was a court noble born in Kyoto and was known for his talent in poetry. Supposedly descending from the deity Ame-no-koyane no mikoto, the Fujinami family, a branch of the Nakatomi family, had a long history of relations with the imperial court as well as to the Shinto shrines in Ise as ceremonial mediators and proxy of the emperors during rituals. Noritada, forty-second head of his family, was the last Fujinami family ceremonial head priest at Ise. He later was the higher vice-president for divine affairs. His son Fujinami Kototada 藤波言忠 (1853–1929), who had studied under Hirata Kanetane, worked as a chamberlain for Emperor Meiji. (KDNBK 1990: 609) Inaba Masakuni 稻葉正邦 (1834–1898) Inaba Masakuni was born in Edo and was the son of Niwa Nagatomi 丹羽長富 (1803–1866), the daimyo of Nihonmatsu 二本松 Domain in Mutsu. Later he was adopted by Inaba Masayoshi 稲葉正誼 (1827–1848), the daimyo of the Yodo 淀 Domain in Yamashiro, today’s Kyoto Prefecture, and in 1848 took over as that domain’s twelfth lord. He studied under Hirata Kanetane and in 1863 became the shogunal head magistrate responsible for Kyoto, the imperial court and western Japan. In this position, together with Kyoto’s Military Commissioner Matsudaira Katamori 松平容保 (1836–1893), he opposed the royalist movement. Promoted to the Council of Elders, he served as the president of internal affairs and



main members of shigaku-kyōkai261

was also an adviser to the last shogun, Tokugawa Yoshinobu 徳川慶喜 (1837–1913). Nevertheless, he declared neutrality during the decisive battle of Toba-Fushimi south of Kyoto at the end of January 1868, which was one of the reasons for the new Meiji army’s victory. After the Meiji Restoration, he received the title of viscount and in 1884 became the first superintendent of the umbrella organization Shinto honkyoku. (KDNBK 1990: 87) Kaieda Nobuyoshi 海江田信義 (1832–1906) Kaieda Nobuyoshi was a retainer of the Kagoshima Domain in Satsuma on the island of Kyushu. He studied in Edo under the Mito scholar Fujita Tōko. During the great purge of the Ansei era in the years from 1858 to 1860, he sheltered the monk Gesshō 月照 (1813–1858)—a Buddhist priest from Osaka associated with the movement to overthrow the Tokugawa shogunate and restore imperial rule—and escaped with him and Saigō Takamori to Kagoshima. In 1862, he was involved in the killing of the English merchant Charles Lenox Richardson (1827–1862) at the village of Namamugi in Musashi Province, today’s Tokyo Prefecture. In 1868, he took over charge of Edo castle as a staff officer of the new imperial army. Later he became the governor of Nara Prefecture and a member of the House of Peers. Nabeshima Naohiro 鍋島直大 (1846–1921) Nabeshima Naohiro was born as the second son of Nabeshima Kansō 鍋島閑叟 (1815–1871), the daimyo of Saga Domain in Hizen Province on the island of Kyushu. He succeeded his father as the eleventh daimyo in 1861. After the Meiji Restoration, he became a Senior Councillor of State. In 1871, he went to England to study. In 1879, he became a government official at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and from 1880 to 1882 resided in Italy as Minister Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. He later received the title of marquis and became a member of the House of Peers. From 1911 to 1918, he furthermore served as the fourth director of the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo and as the director of Kokugakuin University. He was directly related to the imperial family through his daughter and granddaughter. (KDNBK 1990: 512) Nabeshima Naoyoshi 鍋島直彬 (1844–1915) Nabeshima Naoyoshi was the oldest son of Nabeshima Naonaga 鍋島 直永 (1813–1855), the daimyo of Kashima 鹿島 Domain in Hizen Province, today’s Saga Prefecture on the island of Kyushu. In 1848, Naoyoshi became the domain’s eleventh daimyo. In 1863, he went to Kyoto as a surrogate for Saga Domain’s former daimyo Nabeshima Kansō and proposed the idea of

262

appendix two

a marital union between the shogunate and the imperial family. After the Meiji Restoration, in April 1879 he became the first governor of the new Okinawa Prefecture into which the formerly independent Kingdom of Ryūkyū had been transformed. He later received the title of viscount, was a member of the House of Peers, and devoted himself to educational work and the establishment of schools. Nagatani Nobuatsu 長谷信篤 (1818–1902) Nagatani Nobuatsu was born in Kyoto and was the son of the court noble Takakura Nagasama 高倉永雅 (1784–1855). He was later adopted by Nagatani Nobuyoshi 長谷信好 (1801–1850) from a branch of the Nishino-tōin 西洞院 family. He was one of the royalist court nobles who in 1858 opposed an imperial sanction of the signing of the Japan–US Friendship and Trade Treaty. He later became government official for national affairs as well as a go-between and rapporteur for the emperor. He temporarily lost his standing due to the coup d’état of 30 September 1863. This coup d’état was an incident in which anti-Western and anti-shogunate activists, for the most part low-ranking samurai, from the Chōshū Domain in today’s Yamaguchi Prefecture were driven from Kyoto by the more moderate forces of the Satsuma and the Aizu Domains in today’s Kagoshima and Fukushima Prefectures, respectively. In 1862, the Chōshū Domain persuaded Emperor Kōmei to demand the expulsion of all foreigners by 25 June 1863. Only Chōshū carried out the ensuing imperial order, firing on Western ships near its shores. Such an extreme anti-foreign stance alarmed moderate samurai and led to the coup on 30 September, which brought the court under the influence of Satsuma. Seven court nobles, of whom Sanjō Sanetomi was the most famous, supported the Chōshū-led anti-foreign and anti-shogunate activists. When the extremists were driven out of Kyoto, these nobles fled with them to the Chōshū port of Mitajiri. In 1864, Chōshū requested the pardon of the seven nobles. Denial of this request contributed to tensions that culminated in an unsuccessful counter-coup by Chōshū that same year. The court nobles remained in exile until the Restoration of 1868. After the Meiji Restoration, Nagatani Nobuatsu became Kyoto Prefecture’s first governor. He later received the title of viscount and was a member of the Chamber of Elders and of the House of Peers. (KDNBK 1990: 509) Seki Shinpei 闌[= 関]新平 (1842–1887) Seki Shinpei was a retainer of Saga Domain in Hizen Province on Kyushu. In 1873, he became councillor in Ibaraki Prefecture, working to relieve poor samurai families of the former Mito Domain. In 1875, he became



main members of shigaku-kyōkai263

a judge and in 1880, governor of Ehime Prefecture on the island of Shikoku. *Senge Takatomi 千家尊福 (1845–1918) → App. III Soejima Taneomi 副島種臣 (1828–1905) [see above at ‘acting president’] Tani Tateki 谷干城 (1837–1911) [see above at ‘acting vice-president’] Yamada Akiyoshi 山田顕義 (1844–1892) Yamada Akiyoshi was a retainer of the Hagi Domain in Nagato, today’s Yamaguchi Prefecture, and studied under Yoshida Shōin. He participated in several battles and campaigns on the imperialist side that called for reverence for the emperor and the expulsion of barbarian foreigners. Following the Meiji Restoration, in 1869 he served as a senior deputy at the Ministry of Military Affairs and, in 1871, became a major general of the army. As a member of the Iwakura Mission to the United States and Europe, he inspected the military systems of Western countries. After his return to Japan, he became the commander-in-chief of Tokyo’s garrison. After successful campaigns during the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877, he was promoted to lieutenant general of the army and became a member of the Chamber of Elders. In 1879, he became both a member of the House of Councillors and the Minister of Public Works. He later also shortly served as Minister of Home Affairs, in whose capacity he was engaged in the compilation of codices such as the civil code and commercial law. In 1884, he received the title of count, and from the first Itō Hirobumi cabinet in 1885 to the first Matsukata Masayoshi cabinet in 1891 he served as Minister of Justice. He also stressed education. He was involved in founding the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo in 1882, taking on the post of director of the Institute in 1889. He furthermore helped to establish, in 1890, the Institute of National Studies Kokugakuin, and, in 1892, the Japan Law School Nihon hōritsu gakkō 日本法律学校, the predecessor of today’s Nihon University. He was also appointed as Privy Councillor shortly before his death while visiting the Ikuno silver mines in 1892. (Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 45–56; KDNBK 1990: 748, 1998: 45–57; Nihon Daigaku 1963; Takanashi 1994) Yoshihara Shigetoshi 吉原重俊 (1845–1887) Yoshihara Shigetoshi was a retainer of the Kagoshima Domain in Satsuma on the island of Kyushu. In 1866, together with Mori Arinori, he went to the United States to study. In 1873, he became the head secretary of the

264

appendix two

Japanese Legation in America. Upon his return to Japan, he became the head secretary at the Ministry of Finance, director of the special bank for international finances, the Yokohama Specie Bank founded in 1880, and vice-minister of Finance. In 1882, he became the first president of the newly-established Bank of Japan.

APPENDIX THREE

MAIN MEMBERS OF ŌYASHIMA-GAKKAI This list of fifty names was published on 10 September 1886 in Ōyashimagakkai zasshi 3, the first and only time such a complete overview was given. Through the years, of course, positions were shuffled, individuals died and new members took over their work. Just to give one example, from volume 44 of 10 February 1890 onwards, the first page—giving as usual a summary of the society’s regulations—lists as item ten the names of not only three, but five people in charge. In addition to Motoori Toyokai, Kume Motobumi and Kosugi Sugimura, the three chairmen since the founding of the Ōyashima-gakkai, it now also included Iida Takesato and Kimura Masakoto. Volume 127 of 10 January 1897 then lists only four names—Motoori, Kimura, Iida and Kosugi—as Kume Motobumi had died in 1894. Included in this issue are also rare early photos of each of the four chairmen. Here, in presenting the complete list of volume 3, the individual names are listed in alphabetical order for clarity. They are however, as in the original, still divided into the three categories of Chairmen, Secretaries and Supporters. Chairmen (kainushi 會主): Kosugi Sugimura 小杉榲邨 (1835–1910) Kosugi Sugimura was a scholar of Japanese history and literature. He was born on 28 January 1835 as a rear vassal (baishin 陪臣) of the Hachisuka 蜂 須賀 family, the lords of the Awa-Tokushima Domain on the island of Shikoku. He became a disciple of the well-known kokugaku scholar Ikebe Mahari 池邊眞榛 (1830–1863). In 1854, Kosugi moved to Edo to enter the school of Motoori Toyokai. There he studied the ancient classics in collaboration with people such as Konakamura Kiyonori and the poet Murata Haruno 村田春野 (1801–1871), and joined the sonjō 尊攘 movement of revering the emperor. Following the Meiji Restoration, in 1874 he was first employed by the Ministry of Public Indoctrination and later transferred to the Ministry of Education, where he worked on compiling the large encyclopaedia of historical sources Kojiruien. In 1877, through the Ministry of Home Affairs’ historical investigation of temples and shrines, he took part

266

appendix three

in work related to the honouring of Inbe-jinja 忌部神社, a middle-rank national shrine in Tokushima. The following year he became a member of the Committee for the Preservation of Old Shrines and Temples, and subsequently published several books aboout his investigation of their architecture and national treasures. In 1892, he became a lecturer at Tokyo University and in 1899, professor at Tokyo Art School, today’s Tokyo University of Arts and Music. He also served at the Imperial Museum inspecting and preserving works of art. Kosugi died on 29 March 1910. His common name was Gorō 五郎. Other names were Meihatsu 明発 and Shinbin 真瓶. His pseudonym was San’en 杉園. (KDS 3: 384–387; KDNBK 1990: 278) Kume Motobumi 久米幹文 (1828–1894) Kume Motobumi was born on 26 November 1828 as a retainer of the Mito Domain in Hitachi, today’s Ibaraki Prefecture. He studied the ancient classics under Hirata Kanetane and poetry under Motoori Uchitō. Although serving his feudal lord Tokugawa Nariaki, Kume somehow incurred the displeasure of the domain authorities and upon the latter’s death, was imprisoned until the Restoration. In 1872, he was employed by the Ministry of Public Indoctrination and served as the chief priest at several shrines. In December 1874, he was transferred, becoming a junior shrine priest at Isejingū and also serving the Shinto sect Jingū-kyō. In June 1882, Kume became a lecturer at the Literature Department at Tokyo University. He subsequently transferred and became a professor at the First Higher Middle School. In addition to his historical scholarship, he was known as an excellent calligrapher and poet. Kume died on 10 November 1894. His real name was Ishikawa 石河, his common name or tsūshō 通称 was Kōzaburō 孝三郎, sometimes also written 幸三郎. Another name for him was Kōhai 公輩. His pseudonyms were Mizunoya 水屋 and Sōen 桑園. He wrote the multi-volume Ōyashima-fumi 大八洲史, published by the Ōyashima-gakkai, a history of Japan explicitly written in the Japanese vernacular and not in Chinese-style kanbun. An anthology of his poems was posthumously published under the title Mizunoya-shū 水屋集. (KDS 2: 1615–1620; 3: 599; KDNBK 1990: 253) Motoori Toyokai 本居豊頴 (1834–1913) Motoori Toyokai was born on 5 June 1834 in Kii’s Wakayama Domain and was the eldest son of Motoori Uchitō. His mother was Fujiko 藤子, daughter of Motoori Norinaga’s adopted heir Motoori Ōhira. Toyokai, as the great-grandson of one of the most eminent kokugaku scholars, followed his family tradition. After his father’s death in 1855 and encouraged by his



main members of ōyashima-gakkai267

mother, he dedicated himself to the continuation of his family’s hereditary learning. He served the lord of his domain as a teacher of national learning. As the head and main pillar of the Motoori school, he represented his family’s philological and literary kokugaku in the early Meiji administration. Just after the restoration of imperial rule, Motoori was dispatched to deal with the Urakami Christians. He later was employed at Hirano-jinja in Kyoto and became a Shinto priest at Kanda-jinja in Tokyo. He furthermore was instrumental in standardizing the rites and ceremonies conducted at the imperial palace. In 1875, Motoori Toyokai was appointed the head of all national evangelists in Tokyo. He also held a high office in the Taisha-kyō, the proselytizing arm of Izumo shrine. After the Pantheon Dispute, in which he supported the Izumo position, he resigned all of his official government post and devoted himself completely to the Taisha-kyō and private teaching. In 1882, he became a lecturer at Tokyo University’s Training Course for the Classics. He later taught the ancient classics as a professor at the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics, at Kokugakuin, at the Higher Normal School, i.e. the Pedagogical College for Middle and High School Teachers, and at the Normal School for Girls, i.e. the Pedagogical College for Female Elementary School Teachers, the predecessor of today’s Ochanomizu Women’s Univer­sity. From 1896, he worked as one of the editors of Kojiruien and the same year also became an imperial tutor of the crown prince, the later Emperor Taishō. In 1906, Motoori became a member of the Imperial Academy Teikoku gakushiin-kai 帝国学士院会 and in 1909, was awarded the title of Doctor of Literature. Motoori died on 15 February 1913. His common names were Nakae 中衛 and Heizō 平造. Another name for him was Yachiho 八千穂 and his pseudonym was Aki-no-ya 秋屋. Among his works is Kokin wakashū kōgi 古今和歌集講義. (KDS 3: 404–406; KDNBK 1990: 716; 1998: 271–284; KDNBK sōritsu hyakushūnen kinen ronbunshū henshū iinkai 1983: 387– 443; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 195–209) Managing Secretaries (kanji 幹事): Nishino Furumi 西野古海 (1832–1898) Nishino Furumi was born on 12 July 1832 in Yamashiro, today’s Kyoto Prefecture, and died on 2 February 1898. Not much is known about him, but he was a specialist in Japanese history. His common name was Yukanosuke 由加之助, also written 牀之助. Among his works are Onnadaigaku hyōron 女大学評論 and Shōgaku nyūmon: shōgaku dokuhon: jibiki: zen 小学入門：小学読本：字引：全. (KDNBK 1990: 526; Mori 1984, 3: 221)

268

appendix three

Sano Hisanari 佐野久成 (1840–1907) Sano Hisanari was born on 14 December 1840 as a retainer of the Mito Domain in Hitachi, today’s Ibaraki Prefecture. He participated in the Boshin War of 1868–69 between troops loyal to the Tokugawa shogunate and those loyal to the new Meiji government. After the Meiji Restoration, in August 1873 he became a shrine official at Toyokuni-jinja 豊国神社 in Kyoto, and in April 1881 at Ikukunitama jinja 生国魂神社 in Osaka. He was also a library clerk at the Imperial Household Ministry. Sano died on 8 March 1907. Among his works is Eiga-monogatari hyōchū 栄花物語標註. (KDNBK 1990: 314; Mori 1984, 2: 408) Tadokoro Chiaki 田所千秋 (1836–1911) Tadokoro Chiaki was born on 4 December 1836 as a retainer of the Himeji Domain in Harima, today’s Hyōgo Prefecture. He studied kokugaku under Akimoto Shōichirō 秋元正一郎 (1823–1862), a student of Ōkuni Takamasa and Ban Nobutomo, and waka poetry under Motoori Toyokai. In 1864, he was placed under house arrest in Kōshi in today’s Nishinomiya City. After the Restoration, he was employed by the Ministry of Justice and later became the chief priest at Ikuta-jinja 生田神社 in Kōbe. Tadokoro died on 28 May 1911. His original name was Miwa 三輪 and his common name was Kichizaemon 吉左衛門. Other names for him were Mitoshi 御年 and Aritoshi 有稔. His pseudonyms were Nichibei-dōjin 日米道人, Rokusui 鹿 水 and Nagao-sanjin 長峡山人. An anthology of his poetry was published under the title Kakitsu no ogusa 垣内の小草. (KDNBK 1990: 394) Tamura Toshikado 田村利門 (1826–1889) Tamura Toshikado, whose personal name can also be read Rimon and is misprinted in this list as 利用, was born on 20 August 1822 in the Sadowara Domain in Hyūga, today’s Miyazaki Prefecture on the island of Kyushu. From a young age he studied the Chinese and Japanese classics. He had especially a profound knowledge of poetry, and had exchanges with various poets, including Itō Sukenobu and Takasaki Masakaze. For many years he also taught at his domain school. Tamura died in December 1889. (KDNBK 1990: 109; Matsuo Uichi 松尾宇一: Hyūga kyōdo jiten 日向郷土 事典. Miyazaki: Bunkadō 文華堂, 1954: 392) Uozumi Nagatane 魚住長胤 (1847–1893) Uozumi Nagatane was born in 1847 as a retainer of the Himeji Domain in Harima, today’s Hyōgo Prefecture. He studied kokugaku under Hirata Kanetane and Motoori Toyokai. He was a priest at Hiromine-jinja 広峰 神社 in Himeji. He was also the head of the publishing house Keishōkan



main members of oyashima-gakkai269

稽照館. Uozumi died on 29 January 1893. His common name was Mikizaburō 幹三郎 and another name for him was Nagataka 長孝. Among his works are Shinobugusa しのふくさ, published in July 1888 by the Ōyashima-gakkai, and Sekigahara gunki: teisei sōchū 関ケ原軍記：訂正 插註. (KDNBK 1990: 109; Mori 1984, 1: 522)

Supporters (sansei shokun 賛成諸君): Abe Masada 阿部眞貞 (?–?) Aruga Nagachika 有賀長隣 (1818–1906) Aruga Nagachika, whose personal name is sometimes also read Chōrin, was born in Osaka in 1818 into a famous family of poets. His father was the poet Aruga Nagamoto 有賀長基 (1777–1833). Aruga died on 1 October 1906. His pseudonyms were Seishinsai 情新斎 and Shikeisai 思継斎. Among his students was the Shinto priest and poet Terai Tanekiyo 寺井種清 (1825–1902). His son was the famous sociologist, legal scholar and military adviser Aruga Nagao 有賀長雄 (1860–1921). It is said that Nagachika above all esteemed the Man’yōshū poet Kaki-no-moto no Hitomaro 柿本人麻呂. (KDS 3: 365; KDNBK 1990: 39) Fujioka Yoshifuru 藤岡好古 (1846–1917) Fujioka Yoshifuru was a Shinto priest and a scholar of Japanese philology. He was born in Edo in February 1846. As a disciple of Hori Hidenari he studied kokugaku and linguistics. Following the Meiji Restoration, in 1872 he was employed by the Ministry of Public Indoctrination Kyōbushō and served as a priest at several shrines. From 1888 onwards, he served as a Shinto priest instructor of the highest rank for the Jingū-kyō, the proselytizing arm of Ise shrine, becoming its administrative leader in 1897. Already in 1886, he became a manager of its affiliated Ise Teaching Institute Jingū-kyōin, which was founded by Urata Nagatami in 1872. Later he became the chairman of the Association of Worshipping the Ise Shrine Jingū hōsaikai 神宮奉斎会, and the chairman of the Tokyo Association of Shinto Priests. For many years, he devoted himself to the world of ancient Shinto and regularly lectured on the dignity of the fundamental character of the imperial household and on national morality. He also pursued research on the Japanese language and its phonology, contributing greatly to its development. He suffered a cerebral hemorrhage while giving a lecture on ‘The Soul (tamashii 魂)’ in Nihon University’s Department for Religion and died on 17 June 1917. His original family name, before he was adopted, was Aoyama 青山. Among his works is Kōtei ongi zensho 校訂音 義全書. (KDS 3: 432–433; KDNBK 1990: 606)

270

appendix three

Fukuba Bisei 福羽美静 (1831–1907) Fukuba Bisei, whose personal name is sometimes read Yoshishizu, was born on 24 August 1831 as a retainer of the Tsuwano Domain in Iwami, today’s Shimane Prefecture. He first studied at the domain school Yōrōkan, and from 1853 with Ōkuni Takamasa and later Hirata Kanetane. In 1860, he returned to his domain to become an instructor at the Yōrōkan, but in 1862 moved to Kyoto to join in the pro-imperial anti-Tokugawa movement. After the coup d’état of 30 September 1863, he returned to Tsuwano along with the famous seven court nobles, including Sanjō Sanetomi, who had supported the Chōshū-led anti-foreign and anti-shogunate activists. From then on, following secret orders from his feudal lord Kamei Koremi, he devoted himself to the political reforms of the late Edo era. After the Meiji Restoration of 1868, he first became a magistrate at the Office of Divinity, and the following year became an imperial tutor. In 1870, he was appointed Vice-Minister of Religious Affairs and dedicated himself to the policy of turning Shinto into a state religion. He thus played an important role in the early Meiji government in the systematization of imperial rites and the promotion of politics for religious edification. In May 1879, he became a member of the Imperial Academy and in 1880, a government official for literature at the Ministry of Education. In 1881, he was decorated with the Second Order of Merit, was appointed as member of the Chamber of Elders, and became an official at the newly-established Legislative Bureau Sanjiin 参事院. Until its abolishment in December 1885 upon the establishment of the Cabinet system, the Sanjiin personnel were responsible for drafting bills and consulting on judicial matters, as well as for reviewing the balance of authority between central and local administrative and judicial officials. In 1886, Fukuba received the junior third court rank. In 1887, he was made viscount, and from 1890 he served as a member of the House of Peers. In 1898, he received the senior third court rank. In 1904, he was promoted to the junior second court rank and simultaneously received the First Order of Merit. On 14 August 1907, already on the verge of death, he was elevated to the senior second court rank. Fukuba died on 14 August 1907. His common name was Fumisaburō 文三郎 and his pseudonyms were Kizono 木園 and Kendō 硯堂. Among his many works are Kojiki jindai keizu 古事記神代系図, Kokumin no hongi 國民の本義 and Kinsei gakusha kajin nenpyō 近世学者歌人年表. (KDS 3: 366–368; KDNBK 1990: 602) Furukawa Toyochika 古川豐彭 (1831–1890) Furukawa Toyochika was born in Kai 甲斐, today’s Yamanashi Prefecture. He was raised by the kokugaku scholar Furukawa Yumiki 古川躬行



main members of oyashima-gakkai271

(1810–1883) and became his heir. He studied under Hirata Kanetane and was a steward for the Shirakawa family, the chief officials of divine affairs. He is said to have been full of reverence for the deities as well as the emperor from early in life. After the Meiji Restoration, he helped to revise the organization of the shrines within the imperial palace. Later he served at Kamo-wake-ikazuchi-jinja 加茂別雷神社, the upper Kamo Shrine in Kyoto and at Tomioka Hachiman-gū 富岡八幡宮 in Tokyo. Furukawa died on 3 July 1890. His original family name, before being adopted, was Maeda 前田. His common names were Shūwa 周輪, Saburō 三郎 and Taitō 帯刀. Another name for him was Giso 義素. (KDS 3: 289; KDNBK 1990: 615) Hanawa Tadatsugu 塙忠韶 (1832–1918) Hanawa Tadatsugu was born in Edo in 1832 and was the son of Hanawa Tadatomi 塙忠宝 (1808–1863) and the grandchild of the famous kokugaku scholar and textual editor Hanawa Hokiichi. Hokiichi had studied under Kamo no Mabuchi and other kokugaku scholars. Blind from the age of five and relying solely on his extraordinary memory, Hokiichi mastered the Chinese and Japanese classics and in 1793 established a centre for the study of Japanese classics, the Wagaku kōdansho 和学講談所. He devoted his life to the editing and publication of classical texts, compiling with Yashiro Hirokata 屋代弘賢 (1758–1841) the monumental 530-volume Classified Collection of Japanese Classics Gunsho ruijū 群書類従 (1779– 1819). In 1863, after his father Tadatomi was assassinated, Tadatsugu became the head of this scholarly family. He taught at the Wagaku kōdansho and was a finance commissioner for the shogunate. After the Meiji Restoration, he worked as a government official in the Office of Historiography. Hanawa died on 11 September 1918. His original first name was Yasutada 保忠 and his appellation was Keitarō 敬太郎 or just Tarō 太郎. (KDNBK 1990: 561) Hayashi Mikaomi 林甕臣 (1844–1922) Coming from a traditional kokugaku family of several generations, Hayashi Mikaomi was born in the Takada Domain in Echigo, today’s Niigata Prefecture, the oldest son of Hayashi Mikao 林甕雄 (?–1862). He studied under Hirata Kanetane and was a priest at Shimo Suwa-jinja 下諏訪神社 as well as at Nukisaki-jinja 貫前神社. He was one of the initiators of the kōgo-ka 口語歌 movement for vernacular poetry that arose around 1887 together with the genbun itchi movement, which strived for the unification of the written and spoken forms of Japanese. Based on the proposals in Hayashi’s influential 1888 work Genbun itchi uta 言文一致歌, poets like Nishide Chōfū 西出朝風 (1884–1943) and Aoyama Kason 青山霞村 started

272

appendix three

to experiment in writing tanka poetry in the colloquial language of the modern day. Hayashi, among others, also taught the Japanese language and Japanese Classics to the famous English diplomat and Japanologist Ernest Mason Satow. He died on 1 January 1922. Another name for him was Kuniomi 国臣. His pseudonym was Maji kaki no sha 真字かきの舎. His alias was Taguchi Mashiki 田口益城. (KDNBK 1990: 568; 1998: 29, 333–351; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 225–243, 288) Iida Takesato 飯田武郷 (1828–1900) Iida Takesato was born in Edo on 22 January 1828 as a retainer of Takashima Domain in Shinano, today’s Nagano Prefecture. He studied waka poetry under Unno Yukinori 海野幸典 (1794–1848) and kokugaku with Hirata Kanetane. Together with Ochiai Naoaki and Gonda Naosuke, he joined the pro-imperial anti-Tokugawa movement in Kyoto and was an adviser to Iwakura Tomomi. After the Meiji Restoration, he refused higher political offices in favour of academics, and became a government official at the Institute of Imperial Studies Kōgakujo. He later became a chief priest at several important shrines, including Suwa-jinja 諏訪神社, a government official at the Historiographical Institute Shūshi-kan 修史館 and a professor at Tokyo University and the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo, the predecessor of today’s Kokugakuin University. His private disciples included Inokuma Asamaro, a scholar of ancient court and military practices, and the legal scholar and Shintoist Kakei Katsuhiko 筧克彦 (1872–1961). Iida died on 26 August 1900. His appellations were Hikosuke 彦介 and Morito 守人. His pseudonym was Hōshitsu 蓬室. His magnum opus is the monumental commentary Nihonshoki-tsūshaku 日本書紀通釈, which took him forty-eight years to complete. A collection of many, though not all, of his writings and poems was published posthumously by his son Iida Sueharu 季治 (1882–1958) under the title Hōshitsu-shū 蓬室集. (KDS 2: 1661–1662; 3: 599; KDNBK 1990: 61; Wachutka 2001; 2004) Inoue Yorikuni 井上頼圀 (1839–1914) Inoue Yorikuni was born in Edo on 1 April 1839. He studied kokugaku under Hirata Kanetane, poetry under Aikawa Kagemi 相川景見 (1811–1875) and medicine with Gonda Naosuke. After the Meiji Restoration he opened the private school Jinshūsha 神習舎. He served at the Ministry of Public Indoctrination Kyōbushō and was a priest at Ōmiwa-jinja 大神神社. Later he transferred to the Imperial Household Ministry and, together with Yano Harumichi, was engaged in the compilation of genealogies. As an authority in the kokugaku and Shinto world, he took part in the



main members of oyashima-gakkai273

planning and establishment in 1882 of the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo. After taking part in the compilation of the encyclopaedia of historical sources Kojiruien, he worked as a professor at the Peers’ School Gakushūin and as the chief of the Imperial Household Ministry’s Compilation Office. In 1898, Inoue was among those who published a revised and enlarged edition of the late Edo Japanese dictionary Wakun no shiori 和訓栞 under the title Zōho gorin wakun no shiori 増補語 林倭訓栞. In 1900, together with the Chinese learning scholar Kondō Heijō 近藤瓶城 (1832–1901), who also had worked on the Kojiruien, he published a revised edition of the Edo-period Japanese dictionary Rigen shūran 俚言 集覧. Wakun no shiori was originally edited by the kokugaku scholar Tanikawa Kotosuga and published posthumously in three parts between 1777 and 1887. Parts one and two contain ancient words and poetic expressions, and part three contains dialectic words and colloquialisms. Its words, together with their interpretation, sources, and examples of usage are arranged in the fifty-syllabary order (a-i-u-e-o). Inoue’s edition revised and enlarged parts one and two of the original work. On the other hand, Rigen shūran was a revised and enlarged version of Ōta Zensai’s 太田全斎 (1759–1829) work Gen’en 諺苑. The dictionary of classical Japanese Gagen shūran 雅言集覧 by the kokugaku scholar Ishikawa Masamochi 石川雅望 (1753–1830) gave the volume its name. In addition to colloquialisms and popular sayings, it contains an abundance of Sino-Japanese words, Buddhist terms and proper nouns, making it a still very valuable collection of Edo-period colloquial vocabulary. The original is only transmitted as a manuscript and arranges the words, together with their interpretation and sources, in the tilted fifty-syllabary order (a-ka-sa…, i-ki-shi…). Inoue, in his enlarged edition, rearranged the words in the formal fifty-syllabary order and published it in three volumes. Inoue died on 4 July 1914. His childhood name was Jirō 次郎. His tsūshō 通称 or common names were Higo 肥後, Daigaku 大学 and Tetsunao 鐵直. His gō 号 or pseudonyms were Kazuyoshi 一賀, Eigyoku-ō 英玉翁, Kuretake-tei 呉竹亭 and Jinshūsha 神習舎. His personal name Yorikuni is also written 頼囶 or 頼國. Among his works are two books on Emperor Chōkei 長慶 (1343–1394), as well as Kōkyū-seido enkaku kō 後宮制度沿革考, Koshi taishō nenpyō 古史對照年表 and Kojiki kō 古事記考. (KDS 3: 409–416; KDNBK 1990: 47; 1998: 299–311; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 73–85; Tanabe 1921) Itō Keisuke 伊藤圭介 (1803–1901) Itō Keisuke was a botanist and pharmacognosist. He was born on 18 February 1803 in the city of Nagoya in Owari, today’s Aichi Prefecture.

274

appendix three

He was the younger brother of Ōkouchi Sonshin 大河内存真 (1796–1883), a physicist and pharmacognosist with whom he later created the studygroup Shōhyakusha 甞百社. He studied natural history and traditional pharmacognosy under Mizutani Toyobumi 水谷豊文 (1779–1833), later the chairman of Shōhyakusha, and Western knowledge under Fujibayashi Fuzan 藤林普山 (1781–1836). When, in 1826, the German doctor Philipp Franz von Siebold (1796–1866) was on his way from Nagasaki to Edo, Itō, together with Mizutani and others, went to meet him at Atsuta 熱田. During their discussions, he was very impressed by Siebold and highly influenced. Siebold presented Itō with a copy of Carl Peter Thunberg’s (1743–1828) Flora Japonica. Besides his medical practice, Itō immersed himself in the study of this book. After he went to Edo the following year, he came in contact with Udagawa Yōan 宇田川榕菴 (1798–1846) and began collecting plants. In 1829, Itō published his two volume Taisei honzō meiso 泰西本草名疏. In this book, as in the Flora Japonica upon which it was based, he used Carl von Linné’s (1707–1778) plant classification system and the Latin names of plants for the first time in Japan. He was a pioneer in modern botany in Japan and helped to modernize the study of pharmacognosy in the late Edo period in various ways. His achievement as a doctor was to propagate vaccinations. He also frequently held meetings on natural history and science, and in 1837 published Kyūkō shokumotsu benran 救荒食物便覧, an effort to spread information and awareness of famine relief. After the Meiji Restoration, he was chosen in 1877 as a professor extraordinary at the scientific department of Tokyo University, becoming a full professor in 1881. A year earlier, he was awarded the silver medal of the Royal Swedish Academy. In 1888, together with the enactment of the law on the system of university degrees, he became the first doctor of science in Japan. Itō died on 20 January 1901. His original name was Nishiyama 西山. His appellations were Mitsutami 舜民 and Kiyotami 清民. His pseudonym was Kinka 錦. Among his works is Koishikawa shokubutsuen honzō zusetsu 小石川植物園草木図説. Itō Sukenobu 伊藤祏命 (1834–1889) Itō Sukenobu was a retainer of the Hamada 浜田 Domain in Iwami, today’s Shimane Prefecture. He studied poetry in Edo under the kokugaku scholars Maeda Natsukage and Katō Chinami 加藤千浪 (1810–1877). After the Meiji Restoration, he worked as the head of the Imperial Household Ministry’s Department of Poetry. Itō died on 16 October 1889. His common appellation was Saburō 三郎 and his pseudonym was Yanagisono 柳園. Among his works is Yanagi no ichiyō 柳の一葉, published in February 1897



main members of oyashima-gakkai275

by Yoshikawa Hanshichi, the founder of the publishing house Yoshikawa kōbunkan. Kan Masatomo 菅政友 (1824–1897) Kan Masatomo was born on 14 February 1824. He was a retainer of the Hitachi-Mito Domain and studied under Fujita Tōko, among others. Originally a physician, from 1858 he worked as a historian for the Mito Domain’s Historiographical Institute Shōkōkan. After the abolition of the domains in 1871, he was employed by the Historiographic Institute of the Great Council of State and took part in historiographical research at the Imperial University. Kan died on 22 October 1897. His common names were Matsutarō 松太郎 and Ryōnosuke 亮之介. Another name or azana 字 was Shikan 子干, his pseudonym or gō 号 was Ōro 櫻廬. Among his works are Nanzan kōin fu 南山皇胤譜, Kojiki nenki kō 古事記年紀考 and Kanseki wajin kō 漢籍倭人考. (KDNBK 1990: 226; Nagasawa 1979: 158) Kawada Ōkō 川田甕江 (1830–1896) Kawada Ōkō, a scholar of the Chinese classics, was born on 1 August 1830 in the Matsuyama Domain in Bitchū, today’s Okayama Prefecture. He studied under the Confucianists Ōhashi Totsuan and Fujimori Kōan 藤森弘庵 (1799–1862), as well as under the poet Ono Tsutomu 小野務 (1787–1854). During the Bakumatsu period, he was active in the political affairs of his domain. After the Restoration, he opened a private academy in Tokyo’s Fukagawa district, teaching countless disciples. He worked for the Office of Historiography, as the director of the Museum, was a professor at Tokyo University, and also was a member of the House of Peers. From 1881, he served at the Imperial Household Ministry, and in 1885 became a doctor of literature. The following year he became a councillor at the imperial court and received the junior third rank of honour. He also was the chief editor of the encyclopaedia of historical sources Kojiruien. Together with the historian Shigeno Yasutsugu and the kangaku scholar Mishima Chūshū, he was known as one of the three great stylists of the Meiji period. Kawada died on 2 February 1896. His common name was Takeshi 剛. Another name was Kikei 毅卿. Ōkō was his pseudonym and is the name by which he is mostly known. Other pseudonyms are Shissai 執斎, Sarusuberi-en 百日紅園 and Kōunryūsui shooku 行雲流 水書屋. Among his works are Zuiran kitei 随鑾紀程, Kinsei meika bunhyō 近世名家文評 and Bunkai shishin 文海指針. The famous poet Kawada Jun 川田順 (1882–1966) was his son. (KDNBK 1990: 218; 1998: 259–270; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 183–193; Takebayashi 1978: 1257–1262; Nagasawa 1979: 93)

276

appendix three

Kimura Masakoto 木村正辭 (1827–1913) Kimura Masakoto was a scholar of Japanese literature and philology. He was born on 1 May 1827 in the city of Narita in Shimōsa, today’s Chiba Prefecture. In addition to poetry and Chinese classics, he studied kokugaku under Inō Hidenori and later mastered phonology under the guidance of Okamoto Yasukata. In 1863, he became the vice-director of the Wagaku kōdansho, a centre for the study of Japanese classics established in 1793 by the kokugaku scholar Hanawa Hokiichi, the textual editor of Gunsho ruijū 群書類従. After the Meiji Restoration, Kimura worked as a professor at Tokyo University’s Department of Literature and at the Pedagogical College for High School Teachers. In 1902, he became a member of the Ministry of Education’s Committee on the Investigation of the National Language. He is best known for his dedication to the evidential historical investigation of the eighth-century anthology of poems Man’yōshū. His achievements in this research excel in precise textual criticism and word exegesis. Kimura died on 14 April 1913. His original family name, before he was adopted, was Seimiya 清宮. His childhood name was Sōnosuke 莊之助 and another personal name was Hanimaro 埴満. His pseudonyms were Tsukinoya 欟斎, Shūkoyōdō 集古葉堂, Sanjūni sōan 三十二艸庵, Enzuya 圓珠屋 and Jikoku 爾谷. Among his works are Man’yōshū mifugushi 万葉集 美夫君志, Man’yōshū shomoku 万葉集書目, Man’yōshū moji benshō 万葉集 文字弁証 and On’in sakkō 音韻雑攷. (KDS 3: 407–408; KDNBK 1990: 234) Konakamura Kiyonori 小中村清矩 (1822–1895) Konakamura Kiyonori was born on 22 January 1822 into an Edo merchant family. He studied under the Confucianist Kameda Ōkoku 龜田 鶯谷 (1807–1881), under the kokugaku scholars Inō Hidenori and Motoori Uchitō, and poetry under Murata Haruno. In 1861, he became the head of the Kii-Wakayama Domain’s school Kogakukan 古学館. After the Restoration, he became an official at the Great Council of State for the investigation of governmental organization, as well as at the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Bureau of Shrines and Temples Shaji-kyoku. In 1886, he became the chairman of the committee for compiling the encyclopaedia of historical sources Kojiruien, as well as professor at Tokyo University. He was a member of the Academy Gakushiin and of the House of Peers. Konakamura died on 11 October 1895. His real name was Harada 原田. His tsūshō 通称 or common names were Einosuke 栄之助, Kinshirō 金四郎, Kanjirō 勘次郎, Kin’emon 金右衛門 and Shōsō 将曹. His pseudonym was Yasumuro 陽春廬. Among his many writings are Ryō-no-gige kōgi 令義解 講義, Tasei kō 田制考, Kanshoku seido enkakushi 官職制度沿革史 and Kabu



main members of oyashima-gakkai277

ongaku ryakushi 歌舞音楽略史. (KDS 2: 1620–1624; 3: 599; KDNBK 1990: 279; 1998: 169–178; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 133–142) Kurita Hiroshi 栗田寛 (1835–1899) Kurita Hiroshi was a historian. He was born on 11 November 1835 as the son of an oil merchant in the city of Mito in Hitachi, today’s Ibaraki Prefecture. From his childhood, he studied under Fujita Tōko, Aizawa Seishisai and Toyoda Tenkō 豊田天功 (1805–1864). He later entered the Mito Domain’s Historiographical Institute Shōkōkan and throughout the rest of his life took part in the compilation of the Dai-Nihon-shi. After the Meiji Restoration, he worked for the Ministry of Public Indoctrination Kyōbushō, at the Historiographic Institute Shūshikan, and in Mito, opened his own academy Honin gakusha 輔仁学舎, a so-called kajuku or government-backed school operated by a scholar out of his home. In 1892, he became a professor of history at the Imperial University’s College of Liberal Arts. Kurita died on 26 January 1899. His childhood name was Yasokichi 八十吉, another name was Yoshikuru 叔栗, and his common name was Toshisaburo 利三郎. His pseudonyms were Ritsuri 栗里, Ginkō 銀巷 and Shōsō 蕉窓. Among his many works are Jingi-shiryō 神祇志料, Dai-Nihon-shi shihyō 大日本史志表, Kogoshūi kōgi 古語拾遺講義, Hyōchū kofūdoki 標註古風土記 and Shinsen shōjiroku kōshō 新撰姓氏録考証. He also wrote Shōen-kō 荘園考, a book highly valued as a pioneering study into the history of Japanese socio-economics. There is a three-volume collection of his writings entitled Ritsuri sensei zatcho 栗里先生雑著, which was published by his son Kurita Tsutomu 栗田勤 (1857–1930) in 1899. (KDS 2: 1629–1645; KDNBK 1990: 263; 1998: 285–298; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 211–224) Kurokawa Mayori 黒川眞賴 (1829–1906) Kurokawa Mayori was born on 7 December 1829 in Kōzuke 上野, today’s Gunma Prefecture. He studied kokugaku under Kurokawa Harumura, became his adopted son-in-law, and after Harumura’s death succeeded his hereditary learning. After the Meiji Restoration, Kurokawa was employed by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Home Affairs. In 1893, he became a professor at the Imperial University in Tokyo. He is best known for his empirical research on Japanese history, literature and fine arts. Together with Kimura Masakoto, he was employed by the Ministry of Education to compile the two-volume work Kokushi-an 国史案 (A Draft on National History) and, together with Yokoyama Yoshikiyo, the two-volume work Sanshū go-keizu 纂輯御系図 (A Collection of Pedigrees). He was also engaged in the compilation of the encyclopaedia of historical sources

278

appendix three

Kojiruien. Kurokawa died on 29 August 1906. His original family name was Kaneko 金子. His common name was Kakichi 嘉吉. Another personal name was Hironaga 寛長. His pseudonyms were Tekisai 荻斎, Bokusui 墨水 and Banri 万里. Among his works are Man’yōshū hongi 万葉集本義 and Wamyō-ruijūshō ichiran 倭名類聚鈔一覧. (KDS 3: 354–365; KDNBK 1990: 265; 1998: 235–245; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 195–209) Maruyama Sakura 丸山作樂 (1840–1899) Maruyama Sakura was a politician. He was born on 11 November 1840 as a retainer of Shimabara Domain in Hizen, today’s Nagasaki Prefecture. He studied kokugaku under Hirata Kanetane. Jailed before the Restoration for his vehement advocacy of overthrowing the shogunate, after the Meiji Restoration, he was appointed to a high office at the Bureau of Divinity and later, to diplomatic service. He was dispatched to Karafuto 樺太, i.e. Sakhalin Island in 1869 to negotiate border disputes with Russia as a civil service official of the upper third rank at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After returning to Japan in 1870, he was a hard-liner in foreign relations against the relinquishing of Sakhalin. In 1872, he was imprisoned as one of the advocates of an invasion of Korea and only released in 1880. Thereafter, in April 1881, he founded, together with Yoshioka Noriaki and others, the Loyalist Society Chūaisha 忠愛社, a group dedicated to suppressing the popular rights movement of the 1870s and 1880s. Between August 1882 and November 1886, he published the conservative newspaper Meiji Nippō 明治日報. In March 1882, he was also one of the three founders of the progovernment Constitutional Monarchy Party Rikken teiseitō 立憲帝政党. His two collaborators were Fukuchi Gen’ichirō 福地源一郎 (1841–1906), chief editor and president of Mainichi shinbun’s predecessor newspaper Tokyo nichinichi shinbun 東京日日新聞 and Mizuno Torajirō 水野寅次郎 (1854–1909), associated with the Tōyō shinbun 東洋新報, the successor of Tokyo akebono shinbun 東京曙新聞. Generally in opposition to the Freedom and People’s Rights Movement, they used their newspapers to attack the Liberal Party Jiyūtō 自由党 and the Constitutional Progressive Party Rikken kaishintō 立憲改進党, while advocating the sovereignty of the ruler and a constitution granted by the emperor. Although having affiliated political associations in various places, such as the Shimeikai 紫溟会 in Kumamoto and the Kōyō rikken seitō 高陽立憲政党 in Kōchi, it was a weakly structured organization, sometimes also called a ‘three-men-party’. Thus, after losing the government’s backing due to its switch to a nonpartisan policy, the Rikken teiseitō was dissolved in November 1883. Its stance however found favour with Itō Hirobumi, who appointed



main members of oyashima-gakkai279

Maruyama to the Imperial Household Ministry. In 1886, Maruyama was appointed assistant librarian under head librarian Inoue Kowashi. Under Inoue’s direction he was sent to study constitutional law in Austria and Germany. From April 1887 throughout June 1888, he travelled to Europe to investigate the governmental systems of various nations. Upon his return to Japan, he took part in the analysis, planning and codification of the Meiji constitution and the Imperial Household Law of 1890. He was later a delegate to the Chamber of Elders and a member of the House of Peers. He is also known as a poet and an advocate for writing Japanese only in syllabary symbols. Maruyama died on 19 August 1899. His common names were Yūtarō 勇太郎, Tarō 太郎 and Ichirō 一郎. Other names were Seiji 正路 and Masatora 正虎. His pseudonyms were Tōka 東華, Kamunaraidoko 神習處, Shimizui 清水居 and Iwanoya 盤之屋. Among his works is Iwanoya kashū 盤之屋歌集. (KDS 2: 1646–1654; 3: 599; KDNBK 1990: 671; 1998: 313–332; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 87–106; MTK 2: 314, 434–435) Matsuno Isao 松野勇雄 (1852–1893) Matsuno Isao was born on 17 May 1852 as a retainer of the Hiroshima Domain in Bingo. He studied kokugaku under Hirata Kanetane and Inoue Yorikuni. He was a Shinto priest at Usa-jingū 宇佐神宮 and the inner shrine at Ise and was also the managing director of the compilation department at the Office of Shinto Affairs Shinto jimukyoku. In 1882, he assisted in establishing the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo and in 1890, of the Kokugakuin, where he lectured on Japanese morals. Matsuno also worked to see the realization of a series of monthly lectures held at the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics. Beginning with Kimura Masakoto’s address on ‘Criminal Law’ on 9 January 1889, they continued until the 180th lecture in August 1896, playing a significant role in public edification. Matsuno furthermore took part in the compilation of the encyclopaedia of historical sources Kojiruien, and the editing of the literary journal Nihon bungaku 日本文学, the predecessor of the Kokugakuin zasshi. Matsuno died on 6 August 1893. His common names were Hideyoshi 秀吉, Eiichi 栄 and Morie 盛枝. Other names for him were Tatsushi 達志 and Naomasa 尚正. His pseudonyms were Tōkai 東海 and Seishin-o 正心男. (KDS 2: 1614–1615; KDNBK 1990: 665; 1998: 93–107) Matsuoka Akiyoshi 松岡明義 (1826–1890) Matsuoka Akiyoshi was born in June 1826 as a retainer of the Kurume 久留米 Domain in Chikugo 筑後, today’s Fukuoka Prefecture. He was the

280

appendix three

son of Matsuoka Yukiyoshi 松岡行義 (1794–1848) and the grandson of Matsuoka Tokikata 松岡辰方 (1764–1840). Due to his family tradition, he was thus an expert in the customs and etiquette of the court and an instructor on etiquette to the shogunate. After the Meiji Restoration, he was employed by the Bureau of Divinity. He was a professor at the Women’s Normal School and the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo. From 1880, he participated in the compilation of the encyclopaedia of historical sources Kojiruien. Matsuoka died on 22 June 1890. His childhood name was Akitada 明忠. His common names were Shigesaburō 重三郎 and Tarō 太郎. Among his works is Sashinuki-kō 差貫考. (KDS 2: 1588–1589; 3: 597; KDNBK 1990: 652) Miwada Takafusa 三輪田高房 (1823–1910) Miwada Takafusa was born on 10 November 1823 as a retainer of the Matsuyama Domain in Iyo, today’s Ehime Prefecture. He was the older brother of Miwada Mototsuna. He studied poetry and pharmacognosy with Sasamura Yoshimasa 笹村良昌 (1832–1909). He was the tutor of his lord Matsudaira Sadaaki 松平定昭 (1845–1872) and lectured at the domain school Meikyō-kan 明教館. After the Meiji Restoration, he became a Shinto-priest at Yoshida-jinja 吉田神社 in Kyoto. Miwada died on 5 November 1910. His common names were Kōjirō 恒次郎 and Toyojirō 豊次郎. Other names for him were Kikō 危行 and Gentō 元統. (KDNBK 1990: 682) Miyaji Izuo 宮地嚴夫 (1846–1918) Miyaji Izuo was born on 22 October 1846. He was adopted into the Miyaji family, the shrine-priests of the Hachiman-gū 八幡宮 located inside the Kōchi castle in Tosa on the island of Shikoku. He studied kokugaku under Hirata Kanetane and poetry under Itō Sukenobu. After the Meiji Restoration, he was a junior priest at Ise-jingū and an evangelist for the Ministry of Public Indoctrination Kyōbushō. In 1888, he became a court ritualist at the Imperial Household Ministry and later a senior officer responsible for court ceremonies. Miyaji died on 15 June 1918. His original family name before his adoption was Teshima 手島. His common names were Takema 竹馬 and Tazaemon 太左衛門. Other names for him were Isao 功 and Shigen 志玄. Among his works is the two-volume Honchō shinsen kiden 本朝神仙記伝. (KDNBK 1990: 695) Morooka Masatane 師岡正胤 (1829–1899) Morooka Masatane was born in December 1829 in Edo. He studied under Ōkuni Takamasa and Hirata Kanetane. He joined the pro-imperial



main members of oyashima-gakkai281

anti-Tokugawa movement, and in 1863, he was arrested after taking part, together with Miwada Mototsuna and others, in the beheading of the wooden statues of three Ashikaga shoguns at Kyoto. After the Meiji Restoration, he became a priest at Matsunoo-taisha 松尾大社 in Kyoto and was also employed as an instructor at the Office of Shinto Affairs. Morooka died on 23 January 1899. His common name was Toyosuke 豊輔. His pseudonyms were Sessai 節斎, Ōgaku 桜岳 and Fushi-no-sha 布志乃舎. (KDS 3: 330–331; KDNBK 1990: 726) Mozume Takami 物集高見 (1847–1928) Mozume Takami was born on 10 July 1847 in Kitsuki 杵築 City in Bingo 豊 後, today’s Ōita Prefecture. He was the first son of the kokugaku scholar Mozume Takayo. After first instructions in the family’s hereditary teachings, he went to Nagasaki to study Western knowledge, and in the closing days of the Tokugawa shogunate studied kokugaku in Kyoto under Tamamatsu Misao and Hirata Kanetane. After the Meiji Restoration, he held positions at the Bureau of Divinity Jingikan, the Ministry of Public Indoctrination Kyōbushō and the Ministry of Education. In 1886, he became a professor at the Imperial University’s College of Liberal Arts and also taught at the Peers’ School Gakushūin and at the Kokugakuin. He is noted chiefly as a Japanese-language scholar and lexicographer. He advocated the necessity of unifying the written and spoken forms of language, as for instance with the 1881 work Genbun itchi 言文一致, or with the compilation in 1888 of the Japanese-language dictionary Kotoba no hayashi こと ばのはやし, the later Nihon daijirin 日本大辞林. After resigning from the post of university professor in 1899, he used his last years for compiling the Gunsho sakuin 群書索引, which he completed in 1916, followed in 1918 by Kōbunko 広文庫. The first was a three-volume index and the second, a twenty-volume encyclopaedic compendium of more than fifty thousand terms and items from more than ten thousand exemplars of Japanese and Chinese classics and Buddhist scriptures. Both works are arranged in the fifty-syllabary order. Their contents can be seen as supplementing the encyclopaedia of historical sources Kojiruien. Mozume died on 23 June 1928. His childhood names were Sotarō 素太郎 and Zengorō 善五郎. His pseudonyms were Ōkoku 鶯谷, Kun’en 薫園 and Risho-koji 理書居士. He was the editor of the twelve-volume series of Shinchū kōgaku sōsho 新註皇 学叢書, Newly Annotated Works on Imperial Studies, published between 1927 and 1931. His oldest son, Mozume Takakazu 物集高量 (1879–1985), later compiled a five-volume collection of his father’s works, Mozume Takami zenshū 物集高見全集. (KDS 3: 491–492; KDNBK 1990: 712)

282

appendix three

Naitō Chisō 内藤耻叟 (1827–1903) Naitō Chisō was a historian and Confucianist. He was born on 22 December 1827 as a retainer of the Mito Domain in Hitachi, today’s Ibaraki Prefecture. He studied under Aizawa Seishisai and Fujita Tōko at the domain school Kōdōkan 弘道館, where in 1865 he also became an instructor. After the Meiji Restoration, he became, in 1878, the ward headman of Koishikawa 小石川 District in Tokyo and in 1886, a professor at the Imperial University. Together with Kishigami Shikken 岸上質軒 (1860– 1907), Komiyama Nanryō 小宮山南梁 (1829–1896) and others, he organized the Edo Society and published its journal, Edo-kai shi 江戸会誌. Naitō died on 7 June 1903. His original family name was Minobe 美濃部. Another name for him was Masanao 正直. Chisō, by which he is mostly known, was his pseudonym. His common name was Yadayū 弥大夫 and another pseudonym was Aoi 碧海. Among his works are Ansei kiji 安政紀事, Edo bungaku shiryaku 江戸文学志略 and Tokugawa jūgo-dai shi 徳川十五代史. (Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 163–181; KDNBK 1998: 213–233; Nagasawa 1979: 213) Nanma Tsunanori 南摩綱紀 (1823–1909) Nanma Tsunanori was an educationalist. He was born on 26 December 1823 as a retainer of the Aizu Domain in Mutsu. He studied at the domain school Nisshin-kan and later at the Shōheikō in Edo. In 1863, he became the territorial governor of Hokkaidō. After the Meiji Restoration, he became a professor at Tokyo University and at the Higher Normal School. Nanma died on 13 April 1909. Another name for him was Shichō 士張. His common name was Hachinosuke 八之丞. His pseudonym was Uhō 羽峰. Among his works are Fukyū kanken-roku 負笈管見録 and Naikoku shiryaku 内国史略. (Ogawa 1977: 369; Takebayashi 1978: 1323–1325; Nagasawa 1979: 227) Ōhata Hirokuni 大畑弘國 (1844–1913) Ōhata Hirokuni was born on 15 April 1844 in Kii, today’s Wakayama Prefecture. He was the eldest son of Ōhata Harukuni, himself a disciple of Ōkuni Takamasa. Not much is known about Ōhata Hirokuni, but he was a priest at Iwashimizu Hachimangū 石清水八幡宮 near Kyoto. Ōhata died on 24 March 1913. Among his works is Zentetsu Hayashi Shihei kashū 前哲 林子平歌集. (KDNBK 1990: 159; Mori 1984, 1: 686) Oka Yoshitane 岡吉胤 (1831–1907) Oka Yoshitane was born on 1 December 1831. He was a retainer of the Saga Domain in Hizen Province on the island of Kyushu. He studied



main members of oyashima-gakkai283

Confucianism under Kusaba Haisen 草場佩川 (1787–1867) and kokugaku under Furokawa Matsune 古川松根 (1813–1871), Oka Izumo 岡出雲, Nanri Arichika 南里有隣 (1812–1864) and Mutobe Yoshika. After the Meiji Restoration, he was employed by the Bureau of Divinity and then became a priest at Ise-jingū. He later founded the Kōso-kyō 皇祖教 and became its superintendent priest. Oka died on 13 July 1907. His common names were Gen’ichirō 源一郎 and Gennoshin 源之進. His pseudonyms were Naraō 楢翁 and Narasha 乃楽舎. Among his works are Seikai-shū 勢海集 and Nihongi-dai shūshaku 日本紀代集釈. (KDNBK 1990: 168) Ōsawa Sugaomi 大澤清臣 (1833–1892) Ōsawa Sugaomi was born on 22 February 1833 in Yamato, today’s Nara Prefecture. He first studied classical Chinese literature under Hashimoto Yūhei 橋本雄平 (1801–1879) and later waka poetry under Tomobayashi Mitsuhira and Mikage Akinari 御影顕成, as well as national history under Tanimori Yoshiomi. He was a household official of the court noble Mibu 壬生 family, and in the early 1860s, together with Tanimori, he conducted several surveys of imperial mausolea. Tanimori Yoshiomi, who had been employed for this task from the beginning of the survey project in 1862, later wrote a work called San’ryō-kō 山陵考, a historical investigation of the sites of the imperial mausolea in Yamashiro and Yamato, today’s southern Kyoto and Nara Prefectures. This voluminous work, originally attached to the report by the magistrate of Yamashiro Province Toda Tadayuki, is based on a broad investigation of historical documents as well as the actual sites conducted with Ōsawa. After the Meiji Restoration, Ōsawa became a superior official of the third rank at the Imperial Household Ministry’s Bureau of Imperial Mausolea Shoryōryō and later also was high priest at Tatsuta-jinja 竜田神社 and Hirota-jinja 広田神社. Ōsawa died on 15 September 1892. His common appellation was Uneme 采女. (KDS 3: 296–297; KDNBK 1990: 150) Ōzeki Isoshi 大關克 (?–1891) Ōzeki Isoshi was a kokugaku scholar from Echigo, in today’s Niigata Prefecture. Together with Konakamura Kiyonori he studied under the Confucianist Kameda Ōkoku. Ōzeki died on 5 December 1891. Among his works is Shintō kyōdōshoku chōkai kiyaku 神道教導職懲戒規約 and the two-volume Kunmō kariji Kojiki 訓蒙仮字古事記. (Ōue 1971: 342; Nagasawa 1979: 62) Sasaki Hirotsuna 佐々木弘綱 (1828–1891) Sasaki Hirotsuna was born in Ise on 26 August 1828. He was the father of the poet and scholar of Japanese literature Sasaki Nobutsuna. Hirotsuna

284

appendix three

studied kokugaku under Ajiro Hironori 足代弘訓 (1785–1856) and Hirata Kanetane, and poetry under Inoue Fumio 井上文雄 (1800–1871). In 1882 he became a lecturer at the Course for Classical Literature at Tokyo University’s Department of Literature. Sasaki died on 25 June 1891. His common names were Shūnosuke 習之輔 and Shigekura 重蔵. His pseudonyms were Suzuyama 鈴山, Kosen 小僊 and Nagisono 竹柏園. Among his works is Man’yōshū kaji warabe no satoshi 万葉集歌辞童喩. (KDS 2: 1597–1607; KDNBK 1990: 307) Senge Takatomi 千家尊福 (1845–1918) Senge Takatomi was a Shintoist and politician born on 7 September 1845 in Izumo. He was the eldest son of Senge Takazumi 千家尊澄 (1816–1878), the 79th hereditary regional administrator or kuni no miyatsuko 国造 of Izumo. He studied with his father as well as with Fukuba Bisei. After the Meiji Restoration, while employed by the Great Council of State he became, in 1872, a high priest at Izumo shrine and at the same time was a Shinto priest public instructor for the government. He also was a superintendent of the Western Shinto Department, taking part in religious administration. In the course of events, he felt the need for Shinto to be filled with religious creed and dogma. He thus founded in 1873 the Izumo ōyashiro keishinkō 出雲大社敬神講, the Association of Devotees to (the Deities of) Izumo Shrine. In 1882, it was acknowledged as an independent Shinto sect under the name Shinto taisha-kyō 神道大社教, with him as its first superintendent priest. In 1951, the sect took the present name Izumo ōyashiro kyō 出雲大社教. Together with Tanaka Yoritsune, Senge was the main protagonist of the Pantheon Dispute of 1880–82. After resigning as superintendent priest of Taisha-kyō in 1888, he became a member of the Chamber of Elders. In 1890, he joined the House of Peers and later worked as a prefectural governor of Shizuoka and Tokyo. From that time he turned nearly entirely to politics and, in 1906, also served as the Minister of Justice in the first cabinet of Saionji Kinmochi. Senge died on 3 January 1918. His common names were Kunimaro 国麿 and Jōyohiko 杖代彦. Among his many works are Taidō yōgi 大道要義, Taidō mondō 大道問答 and Kuni no mihashira 国廼真柱. (KDNBK 1990: 383) Shibata Hanamori 柴田花守 (1809–1890) Shibata Hanamori was born on 21 February 1809. He was a retainer of the Ogi 小城 Domain in Hizen Province on Kyushu. He studied kokugaku under Hirata Kanetane and Nakajima Hirotari 中島広足 (1792–1864). At the age of eighteen, he became a disciple of Kotani Sanshi 小谷三志 (1766–1841), the 8th leader of the Shugendō school Fujidō 不二道 and later



main members of oyashima-gakkai285

Shibata himself became its 10th head under the name of Shōgyō 咲行. He had intense relations with the late Edo-period royalists. He climbed Mt Fuji many times and travelled around the country preaching a faith that added a large hue of restoration Shinto to Fuji beliefs. After the Meiji Restoration, in 1878, he founded the religious organization Jikkōsha 実行社. At that time it was still a splinter faction of Fujidō, but in 1882 it became an independent Shinto sect under Shibata’s head, and the name was changed to Jikkōkyō 実行教. Shibata also had a reputation for his mastery of waka poetry, calligraphy and painting. He died on 11 July 1890. His childhood name was Gonjirō 権次郎. His pseudonyms were Kotooka 琴岡 and Shōen 笑園. Among his many works are Kuni no mihashira 国之真柱, Kodō wakumon 古道或問 and Jikkōroku 実行録. (KDS 3: 289–291; KDNBK 1990: 345) Shichisei Masayasu 七星正泰 (?–?) This is very likely a misprint for the family name Shichiri 七里. There are several kokugaku scholars with the name Shichiri, however no information about a Shichiri Masayasu could be found. Suzuki Hiroyasu 鈴木弘恭 (1844–1897) Suzuki Hiroyasu was scholar of national literature. He was born on 30 January 1844 as a retainer of the Mito Domain in Hitachi, today’s Ibaraki Prefecture. He first studied at the domain school Kōdōkan 弘道館 and later under the kokugaku scholars Tomura Yoshinobu 戸村義暢 (1819–1895), Mamiya Nagayoshi and Kurokawa Mayori. After the Meiji Restoration, he taught at the Women’s Normal School, the predecessor of today’s Ochanomizu Women’s University, and at the Peers’ School for Girls Kazoku jogakkō 華族女学校, a school established in 1885 under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Household Ministry as an educational institution for girls of the imperial family and nobility. In 1906, it merged with the Peers’ School Gakushūin. Suzuki died on 31 July 1897. His pseudonym was Jūhakkōsha 十八公舎. Among his works is Nihon bungaku shiryaku 日本文 学史略. (KDS 3: 323–324; KDNBK 1990: 375) Suzuki Matoshi 鈴木眞年 (1831–1894) Suzuki Matoshi was born in Edo, where he studied under Hirata Kanetane and Kurihara Nobumitsu 栗原信充 (1794–1870), an expert on the customs and etiquette of the ancient court. Suzuki was employed by the Ōtaki 大多 喜 Domain of Kazusa 上総, today’s Chiba Prefecture, and the Kii Domain, today’s Wakayama Prefecture. After the Meiji Restoration, he worked for the Police Institution Danjōdai 弾正台—this institution was established

286

appendix three

in 1869, and in 1871 it was combined with the Ministry of Criminal Punishment Gyōbushō 刑部省 to form the Ministry of Justice. Later, Suzuki worked at the Ministry of War and the Ministry of Justice. He died on 15 April 1894. His original family name was Imai. His common names were Toneri 舎人, Nobutarō 房太郎 and Genta 源太. His pseudonyms were Shōhaku 松柏 and Fuson 不存. Among his works are Seishi zokkai 姓氏俗解 and Kaifūsō senchū 懐風藻箋註. (KDS 3: 303; KDNBK 1990: 375) Suzuki Shigene 鈴木重嶺 (1814–1898) Suzuki Shigene was born in July 1814 as a direct vassal to the shogun. He worked as a jurisdictional magistrate of Sado Island in today’s Niigata Prefecture. He studied waka poetry and kokugaku under Murayama Sokō 村山素行 (1773–1836) and Iba Hidekata 伊庭秀賢 (1800–1872). After the Meiji Restoration, Suzuki became the vice-governor of the newlyestablished Aikawa Prefecture on Sado Island. In 1878, he resigned from this post and organized the poetry association Ōa ginsha 鶯蛙吟社 in Tokyo. Suzuki died on 11 November 1898. His original name was Arisada 有 定. His popular names were Kametarō 亀太郎 and Ōnoshin 大之進 and his pseudonyms were Suien 翠園, Rokudō 緑堂 and Chisokusai 知足斎. The best known of his works is Shinobugusa 志能夫具佐. (KDS 3: 329–330; KDNBK 1990: 372) Takasaki Masakaze 高崎正風 (1836–1912) Takasaki Masakaze was born on 8 September 1836. He was a retainer of the Kagoshima Domain in Satsuma, today’s Kagoshima Prefecture on the island of Kyushu. He studied kokugaku under Wakamatsu Norifumi 若松 則文 (?–1859) and poetry under Hatta Tomonori. He was the eldest son of Takasaki Gorōemon 高崎五郎右衛門 (1801–1850). After the so-called O-Yura disturbance, his father was forced to commit ritual suicide by disembowelment and Masakaze was exiled to Amami ōshima. The O-Yura disturbance was a succession power struggle: O-Yura no kata お由羅の方 (?–1866) was a chambermaid at the Satsuma residence maintained in Edo. She became a concubine of Shimazu Narioki 島津斉興 (1791–1859), the daimyo of the Satsuma-Kagoshima Domain, with whom she had a son, Shimazu Hisamitsu. Succession issues between Narioki’s eldest son, Shimazu Nariakira 島津斉彬 (1809–1858), and Hisamitsu expanded into a power struggle within the domain, which came to be called the O-Yura disturbance. Later, Takasaki Masakaze was pardoned and he went on to live in Kyoto. After the Meiji Restoration, he was head of the imperial chamberlains at the court, as well as an official responsible for poetry contests. In 1888, he became the first head of the imperial Office for Poetry



main members of oyashima-gakkai287

and later, held the position of privy councillor and director of Kokugakuin University. Takasaki died on 28 February 1912. His common names were Satarō 左太郎, Ise 伊勢 and Sakyō 左京. His pseudonyms were Hoshioka 星岡, Tsuruen 鶴園 and Takaragidō-shujin 宝義堂主人. Among his works are Shinkō hikki 進講筆記 and Umoreki no hana 埋木廼花. (KDS 3: 394–397; KDNBK 1990: 410, 1998: 109–124) Tanaka Yoritsune 田中頼庸 (1836–1897) Tanaka Yoritsune was born in August 1836. He was a retainer of the Kagoshima Domain in Satsuma, today’s Kagoshima Prefecture. In 1871, he entered the Ministry of Divinity Jingishō. He became the vice-head at the Office of Shinto Affairs after positions as Shinto priest instructor in the Meiji-period national edification movement and as a priest at Ise-jingū. Together with Senge Takatomi, he was one of the main protagonists in the Pantheon Dispute of 1880–82. In 1882, he became the first superintendent priest of the Ise-affiliated independent Shinto sect Jingū-kyō. Tanaka died on 10 April 1897. His common name was Tōhachi 藤八. His pseudonyms were Unshū 雲岫 and Umeya 梅屋. Among his works is Kōtei Nihongi 校訂 日本紀. (KDS 3: 323; KDNBK 1990: 399) Unagami Tanehira 海上胤平 (1830–1916) Unagami Tanehira was a poet. He was born on 24 January 1830 in the Kaijō 海上 district of Shimosa, in today’s Chiba Prefecture. He studied poetry under Kanō Morohira and fencing under the sword-master Chiba Shūsaku 千葉周作 (1794–1856). Unagami became a fencing instructor in the Kii Domain, today’s Wakayama Prefecture. After the Meiji Restoration, he became a government official and special royal superintendent of Suibara 水原 Prefecture, between 1869 and 1870 the name for today’s Niigata Prefecture. After resigning in 1883, he formed the poetry association Suiboku ginsha 椎木吟社 and devoted himself to the art of poetry, advocating a concentration on the eighth-century anthology Man’yōshū. He was also known as an excellent calligrapher. Unagami died on 29 March 1916. His common name was Mutsurō 六郎. Another name for him was Masatane 正胤. His pseudonym was Shiizono 椎園. Among his works are Chōka kairyō-ron benbaku 長歌改良論弁駁 and the poetry collections Suien kashū 椎園家集 as well as Suien eisō 椎園詠草. (KDS 3: 426–427; KDNBK 1990: 114) Watanabe Ikarimaro 渡邊重石丸 (1837–1915) Watanabe Ikarimaro was born on 12 December 1837 in the city of Nakatsu 中津 in Buzen, today’s Ōita Prefecture. His grandfather Watanabe Shigena 重名 (1759–1831), father Shigekage and older brother Shigeharu were all kokugaku scholars. Ikarimaro first studied Chinese literature under the

288

appendix three

Confucianist Nomoto Hakugan and, in 1864, opened a private academy called Dōseikan 道生館. However, after reading works by Hirata Atsutane he committed himself to kokugaku and in 1867, began to study under Hirata Kanetane. After the Meiji Restoration, he worked as a government official at Kyoto’s Institute of Imperial Studies Kōgakusho, as the vice-chief priest at Katori-jingū, and as the acting director of the Ministry of Home Affairs’s Bureau of Shrines and Temples Shaji-kyoku. In 1877, he quit the government service and began to devote himself entirely to education and writing. Watanabe died on 19 October 1915. His common names were Yokichirō 与吉郎 and Tetsujirō 銕次郎. Another name for him was Shigetō 重任. His pseudonyms were Hōjō 豊城, Ōsuen inshi 鶯栖園 隠士, Monshitsuan shujin 捫虱庵主人 and Tetsujūji 鉄十字. Among his many works are Ame-no-minaka-nushi no kami kō 天御中主神考 (1873), Shinkyō setsugen 真教説源 (1874), Shintenshu kyōsetsu ryaku 真天主教説略 (1874) and Kohonsaku 固本策 (1889). (KDS 3: 419–421; KDNBK 1990: 790) Yano Harumichi 矢野玄道 (1823–1887) Yano Harumichi was born on 18 December 1823. He was a retainer of the Ōzu 大洲 Domain in Iyo, today’s Ehime Prefecture. He was the elder brother of Yano Naomichi. At the age of twenty-four, he went to Edo where he mingled with many scholars and literary figures. He studied at the Shōheikō and became a posthumous disciple of Hirata Atsutane. He also studied under the Confucianist Kusaka Tōkei 日下陶渓 (1785–1866), the poet Hatta Tomonori and the kokugaku scholar Yamada Kiyoyasu 山田 清安 (1794–1850). In 1863, he became the academic instructor of the Shirakawa family and in 1867, the academic head of the Yoshida Shinto school. During the restoration of imperial rule, he was a guest of Iwakura Tomomi in Kyoto. Together with Tamamatsu Misao and others, he thus took part in the government’s planning and produced many memoranda and petitions. After the Meiji Restoration, he worked for the Bureau of Divinity, as a government official for the investigation of genealogies at the Imperial Household Ministry, at the Historiographic Institute Shūshikan, and as the head of Literature Department of the Institute for Research of the Japanese Classics Kōten kōkyūjo. Characteristic of his historical investigative scholarship was an encyclopaedic knowledge and an excellent memory. Yano died on 19 May 1887. His common names were Shigetarō 茂太郎 and Yakurō 谷九郎. Other names for him were Taisei 太清 and Mayumi 真弓. Among his many pseudonyms were Taniguku 谷蟆 (also written 谷倶久), Jinnō-ijin 神皇遺臣 and Tenpō-sanjin 天放散人. Among his many works are, for instance, Shinten-yoku 神典翼 and Kōtenyoku 皇典翼. (KDS 2: 1576–1578; 3: 597; KDNBK 1990: 731; 1998: 179–191; Kokugakuin daigaku 1982: 107–119; Ochi 1971; Yano 1933)

BIBLIOGRAPHY Unless otherwise indicated, the place of publication is Tokyo. In the case of university presses, the place of publication is the city in which the university is located. Abe Akio 阿部秋生: ‘Kokugaku (2) 国学（二）’ in: Kokushi daijiten henshū iinkai 国史大 辞典編集委員会 (ed.): Kokushi daijiten 国史大辞典. [vol. 5] Yoshikawa Kōbunkan 吉 川弘文館, 1985, pp. 619–621. Abe Takeshi 阿部猛: Nihon kodai kanshoku jiten 日本古代官職辞典. Takashina shoten 高科書店, 1995. Akatsuka Yukio 赤塚行雄: ‘Utsukushiki Meiji jūnendai no madoi: Tōkyō daigaku Koten kōshūka to Ochiai Naobumi no shutsugen 美しき明治10年代の惑い:東京大学古典 講習科と落合直文の出現’. Nihon oyobi Nihonjin 日本及日本人 1612 (October 1993), pp. 70–77. Amano, Ikuo: ‘Educational Reforms in Modern Japan before and during World War II: Centering on the Discussions regarding the School System’. Acta Asiatica 54 (1988), pp. 48–74. Antoni, Klaus: Shintō und die Konzeption des Japanischen Nationalwesens (kokutai): Der religiöse Traditionalismus in Neuzeit und Moderne. [Handbuch der Orientalistik; 8] Leiden: Brill, 1998. Anzu Motohiko 安津素彦 / Umeda Yoshihiko 梅田義彦 (ed.): Shintō jiten 神道辞典. Osaka: Hori shoten 堀書店, 1968. Arakawa Kusuo 荒川久寿男: ‘Shintō to kokushigaku no hatten (jōhen) 神道と国史学の 発展 (上編) ’. Shintō bunkakai (1966–1968, vol. 3: 3–111). Asakura Haruhiko 朝倉治彦 (ed.): Meiji kansei jiten 明治官制辞典 (Dictionary of Meijiperiod government-regulated organizations and facilities). Tōkyōdō shuppan 東京堂出 版, 1969. —— (ed.): Meiji shoki kan’inroku shokuinroku shūsei 明治初期官員録・職員録集成 (Aggregation of records of government officials and personnel in the early Meiji period). Kashiwa shobō 柏書房, 1981–1982. —— (ed.): Bakumatsu Meiji nisshi shūsei 幕末明治日誌集成 (Collection of Bakumatsu and Meiji diaries). Tōkyōdō shuppan 東京堂出版, 1986. Aston, William George: Nihongi: Chronicles of Japan from the Earliest Times to a.d. 697. Charles E. Tuttle, 1993 [1972]. Beasley, William G.: The Meiji Restoration. Stanford University Press, 1972. Bock, Felicia Gressitt: Classical Learning and Taoist Practices in Early Japan: With a Translation of Books XVI and XX of the Engi-shiki. [Occasional Papers/ Center for Asian Studies; 17] Arizona State University, 1985. Braisted, William Reynolds (ed. & transl.): Meiroku Zasshi: Journal of the Japanese Enlightenment. Harvard University Press, 1976. Breen, John: ‘The imperial oath of April 1868: ritual, power and politics in restoration Japan’. Monumenta Nipponica 51:4 (1996), pp. 407–429. —— ‘Shintoists in Restoration Japan (1868–1872): Towards a reassessment’. Kornicki, Peter (ed.): Meiji Japan: Political, economic and social history 1868–1912. vol. 1: The emergence of the Meiji state. London: Routledge, 1998, pp. 128–148. —— ‘Ideologues, bureaucrats and priests: on “Shinto” and “Buddhism” in early Meiji Japan’. Breen / Teeuwen (2000: 230–251). —— ‘Nativism Restored’. Monumenta Nipponica 55:3 (2000a), pp. 429–439.

290

bibliography

Breen, John / Teeuwen, Mark (ed.): Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami. Richmond: Curzon Press, 2000. Brownlee, John S. (ed.): History in the service of the Japanese nation. [Joint Centre on Modern East Asia Publications Series; 2–2] University of Toronto–York University, 1983. —— Japanese historians and the national myths, 1600–1945: the age of the gods and Emperor Jinmu. University of British Columbia Press, 1997. Brownstein, Michael C.: ‘From Kokugaku to Kokubungaku: Canon-Formation in the Meiji Period’. Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 47:2 (1987), pp. 435–460. Brüll, Lydia: Ōkuni Takamasa und seine Weltanschauung: Ein Beitrag zum Gedankengut der Kokugaku. [Studien zur Japanologie; 7] Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1966. Burns, Susan L.: Before the Nation: Kokugaku and the Imagining of Community in Early Modern Japan. Duke University Press, 2003. Centre for East Asian Cultural Studies (ed.): The Meiji Japan through Contemporary Sources. Tōyō bunko 東洋文庫, 1969–72. Chamberlain, Basil Hall: The Kojiki: Records of Ancient Matters. Charles E. Tuttle, 1993 [1981]. Dumoulin, Heinrich: Kamo Mabuchi (1697–1769): Ein Beitrag zur japanischen Religions- und Geistesgeschichte: Erster Band: Die Überwindung des Synkretismus. [Monumenta Nipponica Monographs; 8] Sophia University, 1943. Dumoulin, Heinrich / Stolte, Hans / Schiffer, Wilhelm: ‘Die Entwicklung der Kokugaku: Dargestellt in ihren Hauptvertretern’. Monumenta Nipponica II (1939), pp. 140–164. Eder, Matthias: ‘Die japanische Volkskunde: ihre Vorgeschichte, Entwicklung und Gegenwärtige Lage’. Folklore Studies 3: 2 (1944), pp. 1–76. Ehmcke, Franziska: ‘Geistige Führer der Meiji-Zeit: Gründer von Privatschulen’. Oriens Extremus 26 (1979), pp. 1–12. Eisenhofer-Halim, Hannelore (ed.) [et al. transl.]: Kokuminkun: Belehrung für das Volk. Eine Aufklärungsschrift von Nishimura Shigeki. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999. —— ‘Die Nihon kōdōkai—Moralgesellschaft oder Sekte?: Überlegungen zur Geschichte und Organisation einer japanischen Gesellschaft’. Gössmann, Hilaria / Mrugalla, Andreas (ed.): 11. Deutschsprachiger Japanologentag in Trier 1999, Band 1. [Ostasien– Pazifik; 13] Hamburg, London: Lit, 2001, pp. 193–206. —— Nishimura Shigeki (1828–1902) und seine Konzeption einer ‘neuen’ Moral im Japan der Meiji-Zeit. Neuried: Ars Una, 2001. Eschbach-Szabo, Viktoria: ‘Ueda Kazutoshi und die moderne japanische Sprachwissenschaft’. Naguschewski, Dirk / Trabant, Jürgen (ed.): Was heißt hier ‘fremd’?: Studien zur Sprache und Fremdheit. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997, pp. 253–264. —— ‘Die Frühzeit der neueren japanischen Sprachforschung: Vom Kokugaku zum Kokugogaku’. Auroux, Sylvain (ed.): History of the language sciences (= Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften; = Histoire des sciences du langage): An international handbook on the evolution of the study of language from beginnings to the present. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2000, pp. 93–101. Florenz, Karl: Die historischen Quellen der Shinto-Religion: aus dem Altjapanischen und Chinesischen übersetzt und erklärt. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1919. Fujii Sadabumi 藤井貞文: ‘Meiji kokugaku hassei no mondai: senkyōshi o chūshin to shite 明治国学発生の問題:宣教師を中心として’. Kokugakuin zasshi 国学院雑誌 52 (1951), pp. 63–75. —— ‘Senkyōshi ni okeru kōgi 宣教使に於ける講義’. Shintō shūkyō 神道宗教 47 (1967), pp. 17–30. —— ‘Taikyōkan, taireikan no kōsō 大教官・大礼官の構想’. Shintō shūkyō 神道宗教 62 (1971), pp. 1–34.

bibliography291 —— ‘Meiji kokugaku ni okeru koten no rinen 明治国学に於ける古典の理念’. Shintō gaku 神道学 71 (1971), pp. 1–20. —— ‘Meiji kokugaku ni okeru Norinaga to Atsutane 明治国学に於ける宣長と篤胤’. Kokugakuin zasshi 国学院雑誌 74: 11 (1973), pp. 1–11. —— ‘Shintō-teki kyōiku kikai to Daikyōkō 神道的教育機関と大教校’. Shintō shūkyō 神 道宗教 75–79 (1975), pp. 623–639. —— Meiji kokugaku hasseishi no kenkyū 明治国学発生史の研究 (Research into the history of the origins of Meiji kokugaku). Yoshikawa kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 1977. Fujita Hiromasa 藤田大誠: ‘Meiji-ki kokugakusha Yokoyama Yoshikiyo ni kansuru oboegaki: sono gakumon to kyōiku 明治期国学者横山由清に関する覚書:その学問 と教育’. Shintō shūkyō 神道宗教 187 (2002), pp. 53–74. —— ‘Meiji kokugaku to kōtōkyōiku kikan ni kansuru kisoteki kōsatsu: Tōkyō daigaku bungakubu fuzoku Koten kōshūka no setchi katei 明治国学と高等教育機関に関する基 礎的考察:東京大学文学部附属古典講習科の設置過程’. Shintō-shi kenkyū 神道 史研究 52: 1 (2004), pp. 65–88. —— ‘Meiji kokka keisei to kindaiteki kokugaku kōsō: Koten kōshūka no hatten / shūen to Kokugakuin no setsuritu 明治国家形成と近代的国学構想:古典講習科の展開・終 焉と國學院の設立’. Meiji seitoku kinengakkai kiyō: tokushū kinsei / kindai no kokugaku 明治聖徳記念学会紀要:特集近世・近代の国学 40 (2004a), pp. 100–139. —— ‘ “Kindai shintōgaku” seiritsushi kenkyū josetsu: zenshi toshite no Meiji kokugaku no hatten 「近代神道学」成立史研究序説:前史としての明治国学の展開’. Kokugakuin daigaku Nihon bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 国学院大学日本文化研究所紀要 95 (2005), pp. 201–252 —— Kindai kokugaku no kenkyū 近代国学の研究. Kōbundō 弘文堂, 2007. Fujiwara, Ryoichi: International education and the Meirokusha intellectuals’ movement in Japan, 1873–1878. [Ph.D. dissertation] University of Pittsburgh, 1995. Fukui Yoshihiko 福井款彦: ‘Yano Harumichi no seinenki ni okeru gengaku to no kankei 矢 野玄道の青年期における玄学との関係’. Shintō-shi kenkyū 神道史研究 33: 4 (1985), pp. 324–338. —— ‘Ishin zengo no kokugaku shiko: “Yano Harumichi monjin-bo (kō)” no sakusei o megutte 維新前後の国学志向:「矢野玄道門人簿(稿)」の作成をめぐって’. Shintōshi kenkyū 神道史研究 40 1 (1992), pp. 48–71. Fukukama Tatsuo 福鎌達夫: Meiji shoki Hyakka zensho no kenkyū 明治初期百科全書の 研究. Kazama Shobō 風間書房, 1968. Furukawa Kiyohiko 古川清彦: ‘Iida Takesato to sono shūhen 飯田武郷とその周辺’. Kokubungaku-kenkyū shiryōkan kiyō 国文学研究資料館紀要 7 (1981), pp. 33–44. Gakkai nichiroku kenkyūkai 学海日録研究会 (ed.): Gakkai nichiroku 學海日録. [12 vols.] Iwanami shoten 岩波書店, 1990–93 Gamō Kunpei 蒲生君平 [Andō Hideo 安藤英男 (transl. & annot.)]: Sanryō-shi 山陵志 (Records on the imperial tombs). Rikuetsu りくえつ, 1979. Gluck, Carol: Japan’s modern myths: ideology in the late Meiji period. Princeton University Press, 1985. Goble, Andrew Edmund: Kenmu: Go-Daigo’s Revolution. [Harvard East Asian monographs; 169] Harvard University Press, 1996. Haga Noboru 芳賀登: ‘Bakumatsu ishin-ki no kokugakusha no katsudō: toku ni Meiji ishin ni okeru kokugakusha no kinō to kanren sasete 幕末維新期の国学者の活動:とくに明 治維新における国学者の機能と関連させて’. Hogo sensei koki kinen ronbun kankōkai 肥後先生古稀記念論文刊行会 (ed.): Nihon bunkashi kenkyū: Higo sensei kogi kinen ronbunshū 日本文化史研究:肥後先生古稀記念論文集. Kōbundō 弘文 堂, 1969. —— Kokugaku no hitobito: sono kōdō to shisō 国学の人びと:その行動と思想 (The people of kokugaku: their conducts and thoughts). [Nihonjin no kōdō to shisō 日本人の行動 と思想; 42] Hyōronsha 評論社, 1975.

292

bibliography

—— Bakumatsu kokugaku no kenkyū 幕末国学の研究 (Studies on Bakumatsu nativism). [Shigaku sensho 史学選書; 1] Kyōiku shuppan sentā 教育出版センター, 1980. —— ‘Yoake-mae’ no jitsuzō to kyozō 『夜明け前』の実像と虚像 (Reality and pretense in ‘Yoake-mae’). [Shigaku sōsho 史学叢書; 4] Kyōiku shuppan sentā 教育出版センタ ー, 1984. Haga Noboru 芳賀登 / Matsumoto Sannosuke 松本三之介 (ed.): Kokugaku undō no shisō 國學運動の思想 (The ideas of the kokugaku movement). [Nihon shisō taikei 日本思 想大系; 51] Iwanami shoten 岩波書店, 1971. Haga Shōji 羽賀祥二: Meiji-ishin to shūkyo 明治維新と宗教 (Meiji Restoration and Religion). Chikuma shobō 筑摩書房, 1994. Haga Yaichi 芳賀矢一: ‘Kokugaku wa nanzo ya 國學は何ぞや’ [1]. Kokugakuin-zasshi 國學院雜誌 10:1 (1904), pp. 1–13. —— ‘Kokugaku wa nanzo ya 國學は何ぞや’ [2]. Kokugakuin-zasshi 國學院雜誌 10 2 (1904a), pp. 1–16 (= 87–102). Hammitzsch, Horst: ‘Hirata Atsutane: Ein geistiger Kämpfer Japans’. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens XXVII: part E (1936), pp. 1–27. —— Yamato-hime no mikoto seiki—Bericht über den Erdenwandel Ihrer Hoheit der Prinzessin Yamato: Eine Quelle zur Frühgeschichte der Shintō-Religion übersetzt und erklärt. Leipzig: A. Richter, 1937. —— ‘Kangaku und Kokugaku: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Tokugawazeit’. Monumenta Nipponica II (1939), pp. 1–23. —— ‘Japan von 1868 bis 1919’. Historia mundi: ein Handbuch der Weltgeschichte in zehn Bänden [Band X: 19. und 20. Jahrhundert] Bern: Francke, 1961, pp. 359–383. Hansen, Wilburn: When Tengu Talk: Hirata Atsutane’s Ethnography of the Other World. University of Hawai’i Press, 2008. Hardacre, Helen: ‘Creating State Shinto: The Great Promulgation Campaign and the New Religions’. Journal of Japanese Studies 12: 1 (1986), pp. 29–63. —— ‘The Shinto Priesthood in Early Meiji Japan: Preliminary Inquiries’. History of Religions 27:3 (1988), pp. 294–320. —— Shinto and the State, 1868–1988. Princeton University Press, 1989. Harootunian, Harry: Things Seen and Unseen: Discourse and Ideology in Tokugawa Nativism. University of Chicago Press, 1988. Hasegawa Shin 長谷川伸: Sagara Sōzō to sono dōshi 相楽総三とその同志 (Sagara Sōzō and his comrades). Shinshōsetsu-sha 新小説社, [2nd ed.] 1968 [1943]. Henmi Shinzaburō 逸見仲三郎 (ed.): Keichō irai kokugakusha shiden 慶長以来国学者 史伝 (Historical biographies of national learning scholars since the Keichō era). Aoyamadō shobō 青山堂書房, 1926. Hirao Michio 平尾道雄: Shishaku Tani Tateki den 子爵谷干城伝. Shōzansha 象山社, 1981 [1935]. Honjō Eijirō 本庄栄治郎: ‘Yōyōsha ni tsuite 洋々社について’. Nihon gakushiin kiyō 日 本学士院紀要 27:1 (1969), pp. 11–18. Holtom, Daniel C.: The Political Philosophy of Modern Shintō: A Study of the State Religion of Japan. [Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan; XLIX – Part II] The Asiatic Society of Japan, 1922. —— The Japanese Enthronement Ceremonies: With an account of the imperial regalia. Monumenta Nipponica Monograph, 1972. Ichimura Kisaburō 市村其三: ‘Meiji shonen ni okeru kokugaku no tenka 明治初年に於 ける國學の轉化’. Shigaku zasshi 史学雑誌 42:11 (1931), pp. 1299–1332. Ichimura Minato 市村咸人: Ina sonnō shisō shi 伊那尊王思想史. [Shimo Ina gun 下伊 那郡]: Shimo Ina gun kokumin seishin sakkōkai 下伊那郡國民精神作興會, 1929. Iida Takesato 飯田武郷: ‘Shinano-kuni Suwa-jinja kō 信濃國諏訪神社考’ [AMs at Mito Tokugawa hakubutsukan 水戸市徳川博物館—Shōkōkan 彰考館] Keiō 慶応 3 (1867), 14 pp.

bibliography293 —— ‘Shogo shinkyō kō 初後神鏡考’ [TMs at Kokuritsu kokkai toshokan 国立国会図 書館—Kotenseki shiryōshitsu 古典籍資料室] 1875, 26 pp. —— [Iida Sueharu 飯田季治 (ed.)]: Hōshitsu-shū 蓬室集. 1903. —— Nihonshoki-tsūshaku 日本書紀通釋. [6 vols] Daishōkaku 大鐙閣, 1922. Imai Hiroki 今井広亀: ‘Iida Takesato: Hirata-gaku ippa no shidōsha 飯田武郷:平田学一 派の指導者’. Shinano Mainichi-shinbunsha hen 信濃毎日新聞社編: Ishin no Shunshū-jin 維新の信州人. Nagano 長野: Shinano Mainichi-shinbunsha 信濃毎日新 聞社, 1974, pp. 51–93. Inoue Nobutaka: ‘The Formation of Sect Shinto in Modernizing Japan’. Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 29:3–4 (2002), pp. 405–427. Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎 (ed.: Inoue, Masakatsu 井上正勝): Inoue Tetsujirō jiden: gakkai kaikoroku 井上哲次郎自伝:学界回顧録 (Autobiography of Inoue Tetsujirō: Memoirs of the academic world). Fuzanbō 冨山房, 1973. Inoue Tsunetaru 井上經足: ‘Ōyashima-gakkō no omoide 大八洲學校の思出’. Tanka kenkyū 短歌研究 1:3 (1932), pp. 100–102. Ishikawa, Matsutarō: ‘The Meiji Restoration and Educational Reforms’. Acta Asiatica 54 (1988), pp. 24–47. Itō Hideo 伊藤秀雄: ‘Takizawa Shinsaku to Yano Masayo 滝沢慎作と矢野正世’, in: Nihon kosho tsūshin 日本古書通信 67:4 (2002), pp. 24–25. Itō Tasaburō 伊東多三郎: Sōmō no kokugaku 草莽の国学 (Grassroots kokugaku). Meicho shuppan 名著出版, 1982 [1945]. Iwaya Sazanami 巌谷小波 [Ueda Nobumichi 上田信道 (rev.)]: Nippon mukashibanashi 日本昔噺 (Stories of Old Japan). [Tōyō bunko 東洋文庫; 692] Heibonsha 平凡社, 2001 [1894–96]. Jingū kōgakukan 神宮皇學学館 (ed.): Jingū kōgakukan gojūnen-shi 神宮皇學館五十年 史 (Fifty Years of the Ise Centre of Imperial Studies). [Ujiyamada 宇治山田]: Jingū kōgakukan 神宮皇學学館, 1932. Kamata Jun’ichi 鎌田純一: ‘Shintō to kyōiku: Kōgakkan, Kokugakuin no ayumi 神道と教 育:皇学館・国学院の歩み’. Shintō bunkakai (1966–68, vol. 2: 401–445). Kasuga Keizō 春日敬三 (ed.): Ōyashima-gakkai eika jasei-ron 大八洲學會詠歌邪正論 (Dispute about Ōyashima-gakkai poetry). Yoshikawa Hanshichi 吉川半七, 1893. Katō Genchi 加藤玄智: Shintō no shūkyō hattatsushiteki kenkyū 神道の宗教発達史的研 究. [Ajia-gaku sōsho 学叢書; 14] Ōzorasha 大空社, 1996 (1935). [KDNBK] See: Kokugakuin daigaku Nihon bunka kenkyūjo 國學院大學日本文化研究所. [KDS] Ōkawa Shigeo 大川茂雄 / Minami Shigeki 南茂樹 (ed.) [Ueda Kazutoshi 上田萬 年 / Haga Yaichi 芳賀矢一 (rev.)]: Kokugakusha denki shūsei 國學者傳記集成 (Compilation of biographies of kokugaku scholars). [3 vols.] Nihon tosho sentā 日本図 書センター, 1979 [1904, 1934]. Kishimoto, Hideo (ed.) [Howes, John F. (transl.)]: Japanese Religion in the Meiji Era. [Japanese culture in the Meiji Era; 2] Ōbunsha, 1956. Keene, Donald: Emperor of Japan: Meiji and His World, 1852–1912. Columbia University Press, 2002. Kobayashi Hiroshi 小林宏 / Shima Yoshitaka 島善高 (ed.): Meiji kōshitsu tenpan: Meiji nijūninen 明治皇室典範:明治 22年 (The Meiji Imperial Household Law: 1889). [Nihon rippō shiryō zenshū 日本立法資料全集; 16–17] Shinzansha shuppan 信山社出版, 1996–97. Kōgakkan hyakunijūnen kinenshi hensan iinkai 皇學館百二十周年記念誌編纂委員会 (ed.): Kōgakkan hyakunijūnen kinenshi: gunzō to kaiko/ tenbō 皇學館百二十周年記念 誌:群像と回顧・展望 (Festschrift for one-hundred-twenty years Kōgakkan: Its people and recollection/ outlook). Ise 伊勢: Kōgakkan 皇學館, 2002. Kokugakuin daigaku 國學院大學 (ed.): Kōten kōkyūjo: Sōsōki no hitobito 皇典講究所: 草創期の人びと. Kokugakuin Daigaku 國學院大學, 1982.

294

bibliography

Kokugakuin daigaku hachijūgonenshi hensan iinkai 国学院大学八十五年史編纂委員 会 (ed.): Kokugakuin daigaku hachijūgonenshi (honpen) 国学院大学八十五年史 (本編) (The eighty-five-year history of Kokugakuin University [main part]). Kokugakuin daigaku 国学院大学, 1970. —— (ed.): Kokugakuin daigaku hachijūgonenshi (shirōhen) 国学院大学八十五年史 (史料編) (The eighty-five-year history of Kokugakuin University [source part]). Kokugakuin daigaku 国学院大学, 1976. Kokugakuin daigaku kōshi shiryōka 國學院大學校史資料課 (ed.): Kokugakuin daigaku hyakunenshi 國學院大學百年史 (The hundred-year history of Kokugakuin University). [2 vols.] Kokugakuin daigaku 國學院大學, 1994. Kokugakuin daigaku Nihon bunka kenkyūjo 國学院大学日本文化研究所 (ed.): Ishin zengo ni okeru kokugaku no shomondai: sōitsu hyakushūnen kinen ronbunshū 維新前後 に於ける國学の諸問題:創立百周年記念論文集 (Various problems concerning kokugaku around the Restoration: Festschrift for the 100th anniversary of the [Institute’s] founding). Kokugakuin daigaku Nihon bunka kenkyūjo 國学院大学日本文化研究所, 1983. —— (ed.): Wagakusha sōran 和学者総覧 (A comprehensive conspectus of Japanese scholars). Kyūko shoin 汲古書院, 1990. —— (ed.): Kokugakuin reimeiki no gunzō 國學院黎明期の群像. Nihon bunka kenkyūjo 日本文化研究所, 1998. —— (ed.): (Shukusatsuban) Shintō jiten (縮刷版) 神道辞典. Kōbundō 弘文堂, 1999 [1994]. Kokuritsu rekishi minzoku hakubutsukan 国立歴史民俗博物館 (ed.): Meiji ishin to Hirata-kokugaku 明治維新と平田国学 (The Meiji Restoration and Hirata-kokugaku). Sakura 佐倉: Kokuritsu rekishi minzoku hakubutsukan 国立歴史民俗博物館, 2004. Konakamura Kiyonori 小中村清矩: ‘Koten kōshūka kaigyō enzetsu an 古典講習科開業 演説案’. Yasumuro zakkō 陽春盧雑考 [vol. 8]. Yoshikawa Hanschichi 吉川半七, 1898, pp. 1–12. —— ‘Kokugaku no zento 國學の前途’. Yasumuro zakkō 陽春盧雑考 [vol. 8]. Yoshikawa Hanschichi 吉川半七, 1898a, pp. 12–28. Koyasu Nobukuni: ‘Die Aufgaben der “Kokugaku” als Kommentarwissenschaft und deren Entwicklung’. Nachrichten der Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens/ Hamburg 113 (1973), pp. 5–17. Koyasu Nobukuni 子安宣邦 (ed.): Hirata Atsutane 平田篤胤: Senkyō ibu / Katsugorō saisei kibun 仙境異聞・勝五郎再生記聞. [Iwanami bunko; Ao 青 046–3] Iwanami shoten 岩波書店, 2000. Kōsaka, Masaaki (ed.) [Abosch, David (transl.)]: Japanese Thought in the Meiji Era. [Japanese culture in the Meiji Era; 9] Pan-Pacific Press 1958. Kōten kōkyūjo 皇典講究所: Kōten kōkyūjo kōen 皇典講究所講演, No. 1–170 (1889–96). —— Kōten kōkyūjo gojūnen shi 皇典講究所五十年史. Kōten kōkyūjo 皇典講究所, 1932. Kracht, Klaus: Das Kōdōkanki-jutsugi des Fujita Tōko (1806 – 1855): Ein Beitrag zum politischen Denken der Späten Mito-Schule. [Studien zur Japanologie; 12] Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1975. [KRMH] See: Kokuritsu rekishi minzoku hakubutsukan 国立歴史民俗博物館. Kume Motobumi 久米幹文: Ōyashima-fumi 大八洲史 (A History of the Great Eight Islands [Japan]). [4 vols.] Ōyashima-gakkai 大八洲學會, 1887–91. Lokowandt, Ernst: Die rechtliche Entwicklung des Staats-Shintō in der ersten Hälfte der Meiji-Zeit (1868–1890). [Studies in Oriental Religion; 3] Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1978. Machida Saburō 町田三郎: ‘Tōkyō daigaku “Koten kōshūka” no hitobito 東京大学「古典 講習科」の人々’. Tetsugaku nenpō 哲学年報 51 (1992), pp. 59–78.

bibliography295 Maita Katsuyasu 米田勝安/ Aramata Hiroshi 荒俣宏 (eds.): Hirata Atsutane: chi no nettowāku no senkakusha 平田篤胤:知のネットワークの先覚者 (Hirata Atsutane: Pioneer of a network of knowledge). [Taiyō (bessatsu) 太陽（別冊); 128] Heibonsha 平 凡社, 2004. Maki Yasuomi 真木保臣: ‘Keii gusetsu 経緯愚説 (Humble Opinion on the Circumstances)’. Kinsei seidōron 近世政道論. [Nihon shisō taikei 日本思想大系; 38] Iwanami shoten 岩波書店, 1976, pp. 360–368. Marshall, Byron K.: ‘Professors and Politics: The Meiji Academic Elite’. Journal of Japanese Studies 3:1 (1977), pp. 71–97. Maruyama Kanji 丸山幹治: Soejima Taneomi haku 副島種臣伯. Misuzu shobō みすず 書房, 1987 [1936]. Maruyama, Masao: ‘The structure of Matsurigoto: the basso ostinato of Japanese political life’. Henny, Sue / Lehmann, Jean-Pierre (ed.): Themes and Theories in Modern Japanese History: Essays in memory of Richard Storry. London: Athlone Press, 1988, pp. 27–43. Matsumoto Sannosuke 松本三之介 (ed.): Meiji shisōshū 明治思想集 1. [Kindai Nihon shisō taikei 近代日本思想大系; 30] Chikuma shobō 筑摩書房, 1976. —— (ed.): Meiji shisōshū 明治思想集 2. [Kindai Nihon shisō taikei 近代日本思想大系; 31] Chikuma shobō 筑摩書房, 1977. Matsunaga Toshio 松永俊男: Chenbāzu ‘Infomēshon’ to Monbushō ‘Hyakka zensho’ ni tsuite チェンバーズ「インフォメーション」と文部省「百科全書」について. Toyonaka 豊中: Eureka Press, 2005. Matsushima Eiichi 松島栄一: ‘Bakumatsu Meiji-ishin ni okeru kokugaku no shisōshiteki igi 幕末明治維新における国学の思想史的意義’. Tōyōshikai kiyō 東洋史会紀要 5 (1948). —— (ed.): Meiji shironshū 明治史論集 (Collection of Meiji Historical Discourse). [2 vols.] [Meiji bungaku zenshū 明治文学全集; 77–78] Chikuma shobō 筑摩書房, 1965–76. McNally, Mark Thomas: Proving the Way: Conflict and Practice in the History of Japanese Nativism. [Harvard East Asian monographs; 245] Harvard University Press, 2005. Mehl, Margaret: Eine Vergangenheit für die japanische Nation: Die Entstehung des historischen Forschungsinstituts Tōkyō daigaku Shiryō hensanjo (1869–1895). [Europäische Hochschulschriften/ European University Studies, Reihe/ Series 3: Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften/ History and Allied Studies; 528] Frankfurt a.M., Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris, Wien: Peter Lang, 1992. —— History and the State in Nineteenth-Century Japan. London: MacMillan, 1998. —— ‘Chinese Learning (kangaku) in Meiji Japan (1868–1912)’. History 85 (2000), pp. 48–66. —— Private Academies of Chinese Learning in Meiji Japan: The Decline and Transformation of the Kangaku Juku. [Nordic Institute of Asian Studies Monograph series; 92] Copenhagen: NIAS Press, 2003. Meiji bunka kenkyūkai 明治文化研究会 (ed.): Meiji bunka zenshū 明治文化全集. Nihon hyōronsha 日本評論社, 1992–93. Meiji jingū 明治神宮 (ed.): Meiji-tennō no mikotonori: Nihon no inochi o tsuranuku mono 明治天皇のみことのり:日本のいのちを貫くもの Meiji jingū 明治神宮, 1991 [1975]. Minami Keiji 南啓治: Kinsei kokugaku to sono shūhen 近世国学とその周辺 (Early modern kokugaku and its milieu). Miyai shoten 三弥井書店, 1992. Miyaji Naokazu 宮地直一 / Saeki Ariyoshi 佐伯有義 (ed.): Shintō daijiten (Shukusatsuban) 神道大辞典（縮刷版）. Kyoto 京都: Rinsen shoten 臨川書店, 1990 (1937) [facs. repr.]. Miyajima Katsuichi 宮島克一: ‘Kokugaku no fukkō: kokugaku no gendaiteki igi 國學の復 興:國學の現代的意義’. Kokubungaku: Kaishaku to kanshō 國文學 解釋と鑑賞 8:9 (1943), pp. 23–37. Miyamoto Takashi 宮本誉士: O-uta dokoro to kokugakusha 御歌所と国学者. Kōbundō 弘文堂, 2010. Miyazaki Haruyoshi 宮崎睛美: ‘Meiji no kokugaku 明治の國學’. Kokubungaku: Kaishaku to kanshō 國文學:解釋と鑑賞 8:9 (1943), pp. 11–23.

296

bibliography

[MNJ] Meiji nyūsu jiten 明治ニュース事典. [9 vols.] Mainichi komyunikēshonzu 毎日コミ ュニケーションズ, 1986. Monbushō 文部省: Kan Ei Futsu Doku Kyōiku-chokugo yakusen 漢英佛獨教育勅語譯纂 (The Imperial Rescript on Education translated into Chinese, English, French, & German). Monbushō 文部省, 1909. —— (ed.): Gakusei hyakunijūnen-shi 学制百二十年史 (One-hundred-and-twenty years of Educational Law). Gyōsei ぎょうせい, 1992. Mori Shigeo 森繁夫 (ed.) [Nakano Shōji 中野荘次 (rev. and suppl.)]: Meika denki shiryō shūsei 名家伝記資料集成. [5 vols.] Kyōtō 京都: Shibunkaku shuppan 思文閣出版, 1984. [Mori Ōgai 森鷗外] (ed.): Ōyashima-gakkai zassan 大八洲學會雑纂 (Collection of Miscellaneous Ōyashima-gakkai Articles). [2 vols.] [Mori Ōgai 森鷗外], [1890s]. Morohashi Tetsuji 諸橋轍次 (ed.): Dai kanwa jiten 大漢和辞典 (Comprehensive Chinese-Japanese Character Dictionary). [13 vols.] Taishūkan shoten 大修館書店, 1984–86. Motoori Toyokai 本居豊頴 (ed.): Ōyashima kashū: jō, ge 大八洲歌集:上・下. Ōyashimagakkai 大八洲學會, 1888. —— (ed.): Ōyashima kashū: zen 大八洲歌集: 全;. Meiseikan shobō 明誠館書房, [2nd revised ed.] 1910. Motoyama, Yukihiko [Elisonas, J.S.A. / Rubinger, Richard (ed.)]: Proliferating Talent: Essays on Politics, Thought, and Education in the Meiji Era. University of Hawai’i Press, 1997. [MTK] Kunaichō 宮内庁 (ed.): Meiji-tennō ki 明治天皇紀 (Chronicles of Emperor Meiji). [13 vols.] Yoshikawa kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 1968–77. Muraoka, Tsunetsugu [Brown, Delmer M. / Araki, James T. (transl.)]: Studies in Shinto Thought. [Classics of modern Japanese thought and culture; 5] New York: Greenwood Press, 1988 [1964]. Nagasawa Kōsō 長澤孝三 (ed.): Kanbungakusha sōran 漢文学者総覧 (Conspectus of Chinese Literature Scholars). Kyūko shoin 汲古書院, 1979. Nakano Kōkan 中野江漢: Sekiten 釋奠. [Tōa kenkyū kōza 東亜研究講座; 61] Tōa kenkyūkai 東亜研究會, 1935. Nakazawa Nobuhiro 中澤伸弘: ‘Iida Takesato Kansha shiki ni tsuite 飯田武郷『官社私 記』について’. Nippon kosho tsūshin 日本古書通信 65:3 [848] (2000), pp. 29. Naumann, Nelly: ‘Identitätsfindung—das geistige Problem des modernen Japan’. Martin, Bernd (ed.): Japans Weg in die Moderne: Ein Sonderweg nach deutschem Vorbild? Frankfurt/ New York: Campus Verlag, 1987, pp. 173–191. —— ‘The state cult of the Nara and early Heian periods’. Breen / Teeuwen (2000: 47–67). Nawrocki, Johann: Inoue Tetsujiro (1855 – 1944) und die Ideologie des Götterlandes: eine vergleichende Studie zur politischen Theologie des modernen Japan. Hamburg: Lit, 1998. Nihon Daigaku 日本大学 (ed.): Yamada Akiyoshi den 山田顕義伝. Nihon daigaku 日本 大学, 1963. Nihon kōdōkai 日本弘道会 (ed.): Nishimura Shigeki zenshū 西村茂樹全集. [3 vols.] Kyoto 京都: Shibunkaku shuppan 思文閣出版, 1976. Nihon rekishi gakkai 日本歴史学会 (ed.): Meiji-ishin jinmei jiten 明治維新人名辞典 (Biographical Dictionary of the Meiji Restoration). Yoshikawa kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, [2nd ed.] 1982 [1981]. Nihon shiseki kyōkai 日本史籍協会 (ed.): Iwakura Tomomi kankei monjo 岩倉具視関係 文書 (Documents related to Iwakura Tomomi). Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai 東京大学 出版会, 1968–69. —— (ed.): [Arisugawa-no-miya] Takahito-shinnō nikki [有栖川宮]幟仁親王日記 (The Diaries of Prince [Arisugawa-no-miya] Takahito). [4 vols.] Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai 東京大学出版会, 1976 [1936–37].

bibliography297 Nishikawa Masatami 西川順土: ‘Meiji kokugaku no issokumen 明治国学の一側面’. Kōgakkan Daigaku kiyō 皇學館大学紀要 7 (1969), pp. 237–251. —— ‘ “Kojiruien” to Hiroike hakushi 「古事類苑」と広池博士’. Uchida Tomoo 内田智雄 (ed.): Hiroike hakushi kinen ronbunshū: seitan hyakunen 広池博士記念論集:生誕百 年. Kashiwa 柏: Hiroike gakuen jigyōbu 広池学園事業部, 1973. Nishimura Tōru 西村亨: ‘Orikuchi Shinobu no Yamada Yoshio kan 折口信夫の山田孝雄 観’ Geinō 芸能 13:3 (1971): 16–19 and 13:4 (1971): 16–20. Nitta, Hitoshi: ‘Shinto as a “non-religion”: the origins and development of an idea’. Breen / Teeuwen (2000: 252–271). Noguchi Takeshi 野口武司: ‘Iida Takesato 飯田武郷’. Kokugakuin Daigaku (1982: 143–161). —— ‘Iida Takesato 飯田武郷’. KDNBK (1998: 193–212). Nomura Denshirō 野村傳四郎 / Matsuura Akira 松浦光 (ed.): Ōkuni Takamasa zenshū 大国隆正全集 (Collected Works of Ōkuni Takamasa). Kokusho kankōkai 国書刊行会, [enlarged ed.] 2001. Nosco, Peter: Remembering Paradise: Nativism and Nostalgia in Eighteenth-Century Japan. Harvard University Press, 1990. Numazu-shi Meiji shiryōkan 沼津市明治史料館 (ed.): Numazu no kokugaku: kikakuten ‘sōmō no kokugaku to Meiji-ishin’ kaisetsusho 沼津の国学:企画展「草莽の国学と明治 維新」解説書 (Kokugaku in Numazu: a manual for the planned exhibition ‘Grassroots kokugaku and the Meiji Restoration’). Numazu 沼津: Numazu-shi Meiji shiryōkan 沼津 市明治史料館, 1988. Ochi Michitoshi 越智通敏: Yano Harumichi no honkyōgaku: sono shōgai to shisō 矢野玄 道の本教学:その生涯と思想 (Yano Harumichi’s scholarship of original learning: his life and thoughts). Kinseisha 錦正社, 1971. Odronic, Walter John: Kodō taii, an Outline of the ancient Way: An annotated translation with an introduction to the Shinto revival movement and a sketch of the life of Hirata Atsutane. [Ph.D. dissertation] University of Pennsylvania, 1967. Ogawa Kandō 小川貫道: Kangakusha denki oyobi chojutsu shūran 漢學者傳記及著述集 覧 (Compilation of biographies of Confucian scholars and of literary works). Meicho kankōkai 名著刊行会, 1977 [1935]. [OGK] Ōyashima-gakkō kōgiroku 大八洲学校講義録 (Lecture notes of the GreatEight-Island School), No. 1–15 [first Semester] and No. 1–15 [second Semester] (1891–95). [OGZ] Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi 大八洲学会雑誌 (Journal of the Great-Eight-Island Academic Society), No. 1–234 (1886–1905). Okada Yoneo 岡田米夫: ‘Yamada Yoshio 山田孝雄’ Shintō shūkyō 神道宗教 41 (1966): 59–74. Okamoto Isao 岡本勲: ‘Meiji kokugakusha no gikobun 明治国学者の擬古文’. Chūkyō daigaku bungakubu kiyō 中京大学文学部紀要 21 (1986), pp. 207–235. Ōkubo Toshiaki 大久保利謙: Meiji-ishin to kyōiku 明治維新と教育 (The Meiji Restoration and Education). [Ōkubo Toshiaki rekishi chosaku shū 大久保利謙歴史著作集; 4] Yoshikawa kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 1987. Ōkuni Takamasa 大国隆正: ‘Hongaku kyoyō 本学挙要’, in: Haga Noboru 芳賀登 / Saeki Arikiyo 佐伯有清 (ed.): Hirata Atsutane, Ban Nobutomo, Ōkuni Takamasa 平田篤胤・ 伴信友・大國隆正. [Nihon shisō taikei 日本思想大系; 50] Iwanami shoten 岩波書 店, 1973, pp. 403–457. —— ‘Bankoku Kōhō [New True International Law]’. Center for East Asian Studies (ed.): Readings in Tokugawa Thought. [Select Papers; 9] University of Chicago, 1998 [3rd ed.], pp. 247–261. Ōkura seishinbunka kenkyūjo 大倉精神文化研究所 (ed.): Shinten 神典 (Sacred Scriptures of Shintō). Ōkura seishinbunka kenkyūjo 大倉精神文化研究所, 1936.

298

bibliography

Ōnuma Yoshiki 大沼宜規: ‘Koten kōshūka jidai no Konakamura Kiyonori: nikki ni miru katsudō to kōyū 古典講習科時代の小中村清矩:日記にみる活動と交友’. Kindai shiryō kenkyū 近代史料研究 2 (2002), pp. 47–69. Ōtsuka Takematsu 大塚武松 (ed.): Iwakura Tomomi kankei monjo 岩倉具視關係文書 (The Correspondence of Iwakura Tomomi). Nihon shiseki kyōkai 日本史籍協會, 1927–35. Ōue Shirō 大植四郎 (ed.): Meiji kakochō: bukko jinmei jiten 明治過去帳:物故人名辞典 (Meiji death register: biographical dictionary of the deceased). Tōkyō bijutsu 東京美術, [newly-revised edition (shinteiban 新訂版) ed.] 1971 [1935]. Philippi, Donald L. (transl.): Kojiki. Tōkyō University Press, 1968. Pittau, Joseph S. J.: Political thought in early Meiji Japan 1868–1889. [Harvard East Asian Series; 24] Harvard University Press, 1967. Pyle, Kennth B.: The new generation in Meiji Japan: problems of cultural identity, 1885–1895. Stanford University Press, 1969. Saaler, Sven: ‘Die Bedeutung der Epochenmarke 1868 in der Japanischen Geschichte: Restauration, Revolution, Reform’. Saeculum: Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte 56:1 (2005), pp. 69–104. Sakamoto Koremaru 阪本本是丸: ‘Hanawa-sensei to Meiji no kokugaku 塙先生と明治 の国学’. Onko sōshi 温故叢誌 42 (1988). —— ‘Meiji-shoki ni okeru kokugakusha no seijiteki dōkō: Saisei-itchi kokka no kōsō wo megutte 明治初期における国学者の政治的動向:祭政一致国家の構想をめぐっ て’. Kokugakuin zasshi 國學院雜誌 93:8 (1992), pp. 1–22. —— Meiji ishin to kokugakusha 明治維新と国学者 (The Meiji Restoration and Kokugaku scholars). Taimeidō 大明堂, 1993. —— ‘Meiji kokugaku no kenkyū kadai 明治国学の研究課題’. Nihon shisōshi gaku 日本 思想史学 26 (1994), pp. 13–20. —— ‘The structure of state Shinto: its creation, development and demise’. Breen/ Teeuwen (2000: 272–294). Sakamoto Tatsunosuke 坂本辰之助: Iida Takesato okina-den: Ishin no resshi kokugaku no taito 飯田武郷翁傅:維新の烈士國學の泰斗. Meibunsha 明文社, 1944. Sasaki Nobutsuna 佐佐木信綱: ‘Kotenka jidai no omoide 古典科時代のおもひで’. Kokugo to kokubungaku 國語と國文學 [Kaki tokushū: Meiji Taishō bungaku o kataru 夏季特輯:明治大正文學を語る] 11:8 [= No. 124] (1934), pp. 23–31. Satow, Ernest Mason: ‘The Revival of Pure Shiñtau’. Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan 3:1 (1883), Appendix pp. 1–98. —— A Diplomat in Japan: The Inner History of the Critical Years in the Evolution of Japan when the Ports were Opened and the Monarchy Restored, Recorded by a Diplomatist who Took an Active Part in the Events of the Time, with an Account of his Personal Experiences During that Period. New York, Tokyo, London: ICG Muse, 2000 [1921]. Sezai Yoshio 瀬在良男: ‘Yamada Yoshio sensei no hito to shisō 山田孝雄先生の人と思 想’ Seishin kagaku 精神科学 31 (1992): 83–86. Shillony, Ben-Ami: Enigma of the Emperors: Sacred Subservience in Japanese History. Folkestone: Global Oriental, 2005. Shimazaki Tōson [Naff, William E. (transl.)]: Before the Dawn. University of Hawai’i Press, 1987. Shinano kyōikukai Suwa bukai 信濃教育会諏訪部会: Sagara Sōzō kankei shiryō-shū 相 楽総三関係史料集 (Collection of historical records related to Sagara Sōzō). Chiba 千葉: Seishisha 青史社, [reprint ed.] 1975 [1939]. Shintō bunkakai 神道文化会 (ed.): Meiji-ishin shintō hyakunen shi 明治維新神道百年 史 (Hundred years of Shintō history since the Meiji Restoration). [5 vols.] Shintō bunkakai 神道文化会, 1966–68.

bibliography299 Shōgiku Yoshio 松菊禎夫 [= Kido Takayoshi 木戸孝允]: Kokugaku nyūmon 國學入門 (Kokugaku primer). Keijō 亰城 [= Kyoto 京都]: Sōshodō 雙書堂 / Kōto shorin 皇都書 林, 1869. [SJJ] Shintō jinmei jiten 神道人名辞典. Jinja shinpōsha 神社新報社, 1986. [SKZ] Shigaku-kyōkai zasshi 史学協会雑誌 (Journal of the Historiological Association), No. 1–34 (1883–86). Sonoda Minoru 薗田稔 et al.: ‘Nihon kindaika to kokugaku: “Ajia no kindaika to minzokubunka no hakken” ni mukete (shinpojium) 日本の近代化と国学:「アジアの近代 化と民族文化の発見」に向けて(シンポジウム)’. Kokugakuin daigaku Nihon bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 国学院大学日本文化研究所紀要 50 (1982), pp. 1–57. Sonoda Minoru 園田稔 / Hashimoto Masanobu 橋本政宣 (ed.): Shintō-shi daijiten 神道 史大辞典 (Comprehensive Dictionary of Shinto History). Yoshikawa kōbunkan 吉川弘 文館, 2004. Spaulding, Robert Miller Jr.: ‘The Intent of the Charter Oath’. Beardsley, Richard King (ed.): Studies in Japanese History and Politics. [Center for Japanese Studies, Occasional Papers; 10] University of Michigan Press, 1967, pp. 1–36. Stead, Alfred (ed.): Unser Vaterland Japan: Ein Quellenbuch geschrieben von Japanern. Leipzig: E.A. Seemann, [2nd ed.] 1904. Stone, Lawrence: ‘Prosopography’. Gilbert, Felix / Graubard, Stephen R.: Historical Studies Today. New York: W.W. Norton, 1972, pp. 107–140. Sugimoto Kuniko 杉本邦子: ‘Meiji no bungei-zasshi (19): Bungaku sōshi, Ōyashima-gakkai zasshi 明治の文芸雑誌(一九):文学叢誌、大八洲学会雑誌’. Gakuen 學苑 359 (1969), pp. 84–85. —— Meiji no bungei zasshi: sono kiseki o tadoru 明治の文芸雑誌:その軌跡を辿る (Meiji literary journals: tracing their vestiges). Meiji shoin 明治書院, 1999. Takagi Ichinosuke 高木市之助: ‘Yamada Yoshio sensei 山田孝雄先生’ Gobun 語文 8 (1960): 199–201. Takagi Shunsuke 高木俊輔: Meiji-ishin sōmō undō shi 明治維新草莽運動史. Keisō shobō 勁草書房, 1974. —— Bakumatsu no shishi: sōmō no Meiji-ishin 幕末の志士:草莽の明治維新. [Chūkō shinsho 中公新書; 420] Chūkō kōronsha 中央公論社, 1976. —— Sorekara no dōshi: mō hitotsu no Meiji-ishin それからの同志:もう一つの明治維新. Yūhikaku 有斐閣, 1985. Takakura Kazunori 高倉一紀 (ed.): Sasaki Hirotsuna nenpu: bakumatsu/ ishin-ki kagakuha kokugakusha no nikki 佐々木弘綱年譜:幕末・維新期歌学派国学者の日記 (A chronological record of Sasaki Hirotsuna: Diary of a poetry faction kokugaku scholar at the end of Edo/ Restoration period). [Shintō shiryō sōkan 神道資料叢刊; 7] Ise 伊勢: Kōgakkan daigaku shintō kenkyūjo 皇學館大學神道研究所, 1998. Takanashi Masayuki 高梨公之: Yamada Akiyoshi den: Nihon kindaika ni kaketa gojūnen 山田顕義伝:日本近代化にかけた五十年. Pana shuppan kikaku パナ出版企画, 1994. Takebayashi Kan’ichi 竹林貫一 (ed.): Kangakusha denki shūsei 漢學者傳記集成 (Compilation of biographies of Confucian scholars). Meicho kankōkai 名著刊行会, 1978 [1928]. Takeoka Katsuya 竹岡勝也: Kinseishi no hatten to kokugakusha no undō 近世史の發展と 國學者の運動 (Development of modern history and the activities of kokugaku scholars). [Kokushi kenkyū sōsho 國史研究叢書; 3] Shibundō 至文堂, 1927. Tanabe Katsuya 田辺勝哉 (ed.): Inoue Yorikuni-ō shōden 井上頼囶翁小伝. 1921. Tanaka Akira 田中彰 / Miyaji Masato 宮地正人 (ed.): Rekishi ninshiki 歴史認識. [Nihon kindai shisō taikei 日本近代思想大系; 13] Iwanami shoten 岩波書店, 1991. Tani Shōgo 谷省吾: ‘Meiji shoki no kokugakusha 明治初期の国学者’. Shintō bunkakai (1966–68, vol. 5: 141–212).

300

bibliography

Tanigawa Ken’ichi 谷川健一 et al. (ed.): Jinja engi 神社縁起 (Shrine histories). [Nihon shomin seikatsu shiryō shūsei 日本庶民生活史料集成; 26] San’ichi shobō 三一書房, 1983. Teeuwen, Mark: ‘Poetry, Sake, and Acrimony: Arakida Hisaoyu and the Kokugaku Movement’. Monumenta Nipponica 52:3 (1997), pp. 295–396. —— ‘Kokugaku vs. Nativism’. Monumenta Nipponica 62:2 (2006), pp. 227–242. Terasaki, Masao: ‘The Study of Japanese Educational History: A Brief History and Related Problems’. Acta Asiatica 54 (1988), pp. 106–123. Tokoyo Nagatane 常世長胤: ‘Shinkyō soshiki monogatari 神教組織物語’, in: Yasumaru Yoshio 安丸良夫 / Miyachi Masato 宮地正人 (ed.): Shūkyō to kokka 宗教と国家. [Nihon kindaishisō taikei 日本近代思想大系; 5] Iwanami shoten 岩波書店, 1988, pp. 361–422. Tokutomi Iichirō 徳富猪一郎 [= Tokutomi Sohō 徳富蘇峰]: Iwakura Tomomi kō 岩倉具 視公 (Prince Iwakura Tomomi). Min’yūsha 民友社, 1932. Tozawa Yukio 戸沢行夫: Meirokusha no hitobito 明六社の人びと (The People of the Meiji 6 Society). Tsukiji Shokan 築地書館, 1991. Tōkyō daigaku 東京大学 (ed.): Tōkyō daigaku hyakunen-shi 東京大学百年史 (The Hundred-year History of Tokyo University). Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai 東京大学出版 会, 1984. Tōkyō teikoku daigaku 東京帝國大學 (ed.): Tōkyō teikoku daigaku gojūnen-shi 東京帝國 大學五十年史 (The fifty-year history of Tokyo Imperial University). [2 vols.] Tōkyō teikoku daigaku 東京帝國大學, 1932. Ueda Masaaki 上田正昭 et al. (ed.): Nihon jinmei daijten 日本人名大辞典. Kōdansha 講 談社, [3rd ed.] 2002 [2001]. Ueno Akira 上野明: ‘Meiji-zenpanki ni okeru kokugaku no tenkai: Hirata-gakuha no katsudō wo chūshin ni shite 明治前半期における國學の展開:平田學派の活動を 中心にして’, in: Kokugo to kokubungaku 國語と國文學; tokushūgo: Kokugaku kenkyū 特輯號:國學研究 16:10 (1939), pp. 369–391. Wachutka, Michael: Historical Reality or Metaphoric Expression?—Culturally formed contrasts in Karl Florenz’ and Iida Takesato’s interpretations of Japanese mythology. [BUNKA—Tübinger interkulturelle und linguistische Japanstudien/ Tuebingen intercultural and linguistic studies on Japan; 1] Hamburg, London & New Brunswick: LIT Verlag & Transaction Publishers, 2001. —— ‘Matching kami with Modernity: an early Meiji intellectual’s thought on electric light’. Antoni, Klaus / Kubota, Hiroshi / Nawrocki, Johann / Wachutka, Michael (ed.): Religion and National Identity in the Japanese Context. [BUNKA—Tübinger interkulturelle und linguistische Japanstudien/ Tuebingen intercultural and linguistic studies on Japan; 5] Münster, London, New Brunswick: LIT & Transaction Publishers, 2002, pp. 217–234. —— Fiat Lux! Die fatale Beziehung der Glühbirne zum japanischen Kaiserhaus in den Augen eines kokugaku-Gelehrten der frühen Meiji-Zeit. [OAG Taschenbuch; 84] Tokyo: OAG— Deutsche Gesellschaft für Natur- und Völkerkunde Ostasiens, 2004. —— ‘ “A Living Past as the Nation’s Personality”: Jinnō-shōtōki, Early Shōwa Nationalism, and Das Dritte Reich’. Japan Review 24 (2012). [reprint in: Scheid, Bernhard (ed.): Shinto Studies and Nationalism. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, forthcoming] Wada Hidematsu 和田英松: ‘Koten kōshūka jidai 古典講習科時代’. Kokugo to kokubungaku 國語と國文學 [Kaki tokushū: Meiji Taishō bungaku wo kataru 夏季特輯:明治大 正文學を語る] 11:8 [= No. 124] (1934), pp. 32–39. Walthall, Anne: ‘Off with Their Heads! The Hirata Disciples and the Ashikaga Shogunes’. Monumenta Nipponica 50:2 (1995), pp. 137–170. —— The Weak Body of a Useless Woman: Matsuo Taseko and the Meiji Restoration. University of Chicago Press, 1998.

bibliography301 —— ‘Nativism as a social movement: Katagiri Harukazu and the Hongaku reisha’. Breen / Teeuwen (2000: 205–229). Wáng Xîao-Kúi 王暁葵: ‘Meiji-shinki chishikijin-kessha no bunkashiteki igi: Yōyōsha to sono shūhen 明治初期知識人結社の文化史的意義:洋々社とその周辺’. Meijiishinshi gakkai 明治維新史学会 (ed.): Meiji-ishin to bunka 明治維新と文化. [Meiji-ishinshi kenkyū 明治維新史研究; 8] Yoshikawa kōbunkan 吉川弘文館, 2005, pp. 183–210. Waseda daigaku toshokan 早稲田大学図書館 (ed.): Hattori bunko mokuroku 服部文庫 目録 (Catalogue of the Hattori Archive). [Waseda daigaku toshokan mokuroku 早稲田 大学図書館目録; 8] Waseda daigaku toshokan 早稲田大学図書館, 1984. Watanabe Kazuyasu 渡辺和靖: Meiji shisō shi 明治思想史 (History of thought in the Meiji period). Perikan-sha ぺりかん社, 1978. Webb, Herschel: ‘What is the Dai Nihon Shi?’. The Journal of Asian Studies 9:2 (Feb. 1960), p. 134–149. Weber-Schäfer, Peter: ‘Reform als Restauration: Bemerkungen zur Eidescharta von 1868’. Brüll, Lydia / Kemper, Ulrich (ed.): Asien, Tradition und Fortschritt: Festschrift für Horst Hammitzsch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1971, pp. 634–644. Yamada Yoshio 山田孝雄: Kokutai no hongi 國體の本義 (Cardinal principles of the national polity). Hōbunkan 寶文館, 1933 [revised popular edition (fukyūban 普及版) 1936]. —— Kokugaku no hongi 國學の本義 (Cardinal principles of kokugaku). Kokugaku kenkyūkai shuppanbu 國學研究會出版部, 1939. —— Kokugaku no hongi 國學の本義 (Cardinal principles of kokugaku). Unebi shobō 畝 傍書房, 1942. Yamamoto Masahide 山本正秀 / Watanabe Shū 渡邊秀: Kokugaku-ron 國學論 (A treatise on kokugaku). [Nihon rekishi zensho 日本歴史全書; 19] Mikasa shobō 三笠書房, 1939. Yamasaki Setsuko 山崎節子: ‘Iida Takesato 飯田武郷’. Kobayashi Toraji 小林寅次 (ed.): Kindai-bungaku kenkyū sōsho 近代文学研究叢書 [4]. Shōwa Joshi Daigaku 昭和女子 大学, 1956, pp. 283–324. —— ‘Iida Takesato 飯田武郷’. Gakuen 學苑 194 (1956), pp. 15–30. Yamazumi Masami 山住正己 (ed.): Kyōiku no taikei 教育の体系 (The Educational System). [Nihon kindai shisō taikei 日本近代思想大系; 6] Iwanami shoten 岩波書店, 1990. Yano Harumichi 矢野玄道: ‘Kenkin sengo 献芹詹語’. Haga / Matsumoto (1971: 548–585). Yano Tsunemichi 矢野常道: Yano Harumichi 矢野玄道. Ehime-ken 愛媛県, 1933. Yasumaru Yoshio 安丸良夫 / Miyachi Masato 宮地正人 (ed.): Shūkyō to kokka 宗教と国 家 (Religion and State). [Nihon kindai shisō taikei 日本近代思想大系; 5] Iwanami shoten 岩波書店, 1988. Yazawa Toshihiko 矢澤利彦: Shidian, le culte de Confucius / Sekiten (Kōshi sūhai girei) no jittai 釈奠(孔子崇拝儀礼)の実態. [Discussion paper series, Institute of Asian Cultures; III–26] Sophia University, 1988. [YSD] Yōyōsha-dan 洋々社談 (Discussions of the Boundless Society), No. 1–95 (1875–83). Yunoue Takashi 湯之上隆: ‘Tōkyō daigaku bungakubu fuzoku Koten kōshūka 東京大学 文学部附属古典講習科’. Nihon rekishi 日本歴史 613 (1999), pp. 47–49. Zöllner, Reinhard: Japans Karneval der Krise: Ējanaika und die Meiji-Renovation. [Erfurter Reihe zur Geschichte Asiens; 6] München: Iudicium, 2003.

INDEX OF NAMES This index comprises all personal names, including deities and literary figures, mentioned in the text and the footnotes. Authors of secondary sources and bibliographical references are not included unless they have been directly referred to in the main text. The characters for a person’s name as well as dates of birth and death are provided at the first entry. The letter ‘n’ after a page number refers to entries in footnotes. Numbers in bold typeset indicate the place in the Appendices on the three scholarly societies’ leading members where detailed biographical information on a specific person can be found. Abe Masada 269 Abū’l [al-]Fārisī 144 Agata Nobutsugu 36 Aikawa Kagemi 272 Aizawa Seishisai 15, 87, 88, 253, 277, 282 Ajiro Hironori 284 Akabori Matajirō 126 Akihara Sutegorō 214, 215 Akimoto Shōichirō 268 Akiyama Terue 44, 137 Akizuki Ikan. See Akizuki Kazuhisa Akizuki Kazuhisa 123n Akizuki Tanetatsu 97, 191 Akutagawa Ryūnosuke 158n Ama-no-futodama no mikoto 84 Ama-no-uzume no mikoto 84 Amaterasu-(sumera no )ōmikami 5, 6, 12, 16, 50n8, 51, 61, 67, 74, 83, 97, 183, 240 Ame-no-koyane no mikoto 84, 102, 260 Ame-no-minaka-nushi no ōkami 61, 83 Aoki Nobuzane 136 Aoki Sachimi 95 Aoyagi Takatomo 170, 178n, 186 Aoyama Haigensai. See Aoyama Nobumitsu Aoyama Hanzō 7, 155, 180, 253 Aoyama Isamu 245 Aoyama Kagemichi 35, 36 Aoyama Kason 271 Aoyama Nobumitsu 245 Aoyama Nobuyuki 87, 88 Aoyama Raigan. See Aoyama Isamu Aoyama Tanemichi 36 Arai Hakuseki 89 Arakawa Jūhei 249 Arakida Hisaoyu 150 Arakita Rei 89 Arima Shinshichi 14

Arisugawa-no-miya Takahito-shinnō 29, 129, 137–139 Arisugawa-no-miya Takehito-shinnō 190 Arisugawa-no-miya Taruhito-shinnō 28, 30 Aruga Nagachika 269 Aruga Nagamoto 269 Aruga Nagao 269 Asaka Gonsai 123, 248, 254 Asakura Kaoru 217 Asano Shigenori 95n Ashikaga Takauji 12n Aya-no-kōji Takamasa 97–99 Ban Gù 89 Ban Masahiro 136 Ban Masaomi 60, 62, 136, 140 Ban Nobutomo 1, 21, 29, 34, 36, 39, 88, 268 Banji-banzaburō. See Ōnanji-konanji Benzaiten 152n3 Buckle, Henry Thomas 163n Bunden Masaoki 223 Burns, Susan 105 Chamberlain, Basil Hall 2, 128n, 175n17, 228 Chambers, Robert 142 Chambers, William 142 Chén Yin 89 Chiba Shūsaku 287 Chino Masayoshi 126 Chō Sanshū 191 Chūjō Nobuhiro 36 Conder, Josiah 130n Confucius 74, 87, 92, 93, 96, 98, 165n10 Date Chihiro 130 Dèng Kâi 120

304

index of names

Dōka Hirokado 16 Dryden, John 154 Edayoshi Shin’yo 255 Egawa Hidetatsu 252 Emperor Chōkei 273 Chūkyō 12n Go-Daigo 11, 12n, 23, 208, 230 Go-Horikawa 12n Go-Kōmyō 38 Go-Toba 11n2, 38 Jinmu 11–21, 23–25, 28, 32, 33, 38, 46, 47, 50, 56, 138, 236 Juntoku 12n, 38 Kanmu 52, 84 Kōbun 40 Kōmei 13n4, 15, 27, 31, 33, 35, 38, 262 Kōtoku 5 Meiji 11, 13n4, 15, 19, 28, 31–33, 35, 46, 112, 129, 138, 140, 189–192, 232, 236, 260 Ninkō 9, 13n4, 34 Ōjin 101 Saimei 91n Shōwa 193n, 235, 236 Sujin 14, 50, 51n Taishō 250, 267 Tenji 72 Empress Jitō 25n7, 38 Shōken 192 Kōjun 193n Endō Kumakichi 218 England, John 257 Esaki Misa(ko) 214, 218 Etō Shinpei 53, 255 Florenz, Karl 175n17, 179n, 228 Fujibayashi Fuzan 274 Fujiki Tsunehisa 36 Fujimori Kōan 275 Fujinami Kototada 260 Fujinami Noritada 260 Fujioka Yoshifuru 133, 134, 269 Fujita Tōko 15, 253, 261, 275, 277, 282 Fujita Toshikatsu 95n Fujita Yūkoku 15 Fujiwara Akihira 88 Fujiwara Kumatarō. See Fujiwara Yukimori Fujiwara no Michinori 89 Fujiwara no Munetada 89 Fujiwara no Sunesuke 89 Fujiwara Tensan 254 Fujiwara Yukimori 170

Fukuba Bisei 1, 6, 13, 30–32, 35–37, 40, 42–44, 68, 95, 98, 112, 191, 197, 228, 270, 284 Fukuchi Gen’ichirō 278 Fukuda Han 171–173, 256, 258 Fukuda Jiken. See Fukuda Han Fukuda Riken 256 Fukuda Yaeko 218 Fukuoka Takachika 139, 255 Fukuzawa Yukichi 240, 249 Fukuzumi Kiyokaze 43 Fukuzumi Masae 186 Furokawa Matsune 283 Furukawa Toyochika 139, 270 Furukawa Toyosaka 62 Furukawa Yumiki 270 Futagi Saku(ko). See Fūtō Saku(ko) Futagi Sakurō 215 Futo no mikoto Inbe no kami 84 Fūtō Saku(ko) 214, 215 Futsunushi no kami 84 Gamō Kunpei 39, 88 Gesshō 261 Godaiin Mihashira 5, 62, 82, 95, 131 Gonda Naosuke 5, 9, 13, 44, 60, 62, 95, 98, 99, 111, 136, 140, 170, 272 Gotō Shōjirō 255 Guizot, François Pierre Guillaume 163n Gunji Hidejirō 216 Haga Masaki 230 Haga Yaichi 2, 128, 230–234, 236, 243 Hagino Yoshiyuki 124, 125, 200n, 201, 201n, 208–211, 220 Hagiwara Hisanori 36 Hagiwara Itsuo 35, 36 Hagiwara Kazumitsu 35, 36 Hagiwara Masahira 44 Hagura Azumamaro. See Kada no Azumamaro Hanawa Hokiichi 157, 187, 271, 276 Hanawa Tadao 187 Hanawa Tadatomi 271 Hanawa Tadatsugu 95, 157, 158, 166, 258, 271 Hanbayashi Mitsuhira. See Tomobayashi Mitsuhira Harada Ryūsaburō 214 Harae no kami 83 Harris, Townsend 247 Haru-no-miya Yoshihito-shinnō 250 Hasegawa Akimichi 78, 79 Hashimoto Yūhei 283



index of names305

Hashimura Kiyokaze 136 Hatakeda Kiku 214 Hatano Takao 5, 62, 81, 82, 131 Hatta Tomonori 80, 81, 130, 191, 286, 288 Hattori Motohiko 124 Hayashi Gakusai. See Hayashi Noboru Hayashi Mikao 271 Hayashi Mikaomi 140, 271 Hayashi Noboru 245 Hayashi Razan 92, 163n Hazama Hidenori 43 Hearn, Lafcadio 228 Hi no kami 83 Higaki Sadaoki 95n Higashifushimi-no-miya Yoshiaki-shinnō 110 Higashizono Mototaka 80 Hijikata Katsuuji 101 Himetatara-isuzu-hime 14n6 Hirano Chishū 142, 152, 153, 246 Hirano Shigehisa. See Hirano Chishū Hiraoka Yoshifumi 126 Hirata Atsutane ix, 1, 3–6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 21, 22, 27, 31, 34, 36, 43, 45, 55, 62, 64, 76, 81–83, 87–89, 101, 102, 105, 120, 122, 123, 137, 230, 233–236, 239, 240, 258, 288 Hirata Chieko 4 Hirata Kan’ichi 135 Hirata Kanetane ix, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 21, 27, 30, 33, 35, 42–44, 62, 72–74, 76, 77, 79–82, 85, 92, 94, 95, 97–100, 108, 131, 141, 191, 241, 257, 258, 260, 266, 268, 270–272, 278–281, 284, 285, 288 Hirata Kumanosuke. See Hirata Taneo Hirata Moritane 124 Hirata Nobutane ix, 35, 37, 130 Hirata Taneo 81, 125, 166, 258 Hirayama Seisai 64, 178n Hirayama Takatada. See Hirayama Seisai Hirayama Yoshizō 95n Hirohito. See Emperor Shōwa Hiroike Chikurō 144 Hōjō Yoshitoki 11n2 Homutawake no mikoto 101 Honjō Munetake 137 Honma Yūsei 40 Hori Hidenari 131, 133, 136, 269 Horiuchi Fumimaro 217 Horiuchi Shinsen 216 Horiuchi Sōta 214, 216 Horiuchi Yasufusa 82 Hoshino Junhei 95n Hosokawa Junjirō 136, 143, 195 Houghton, William Addison 116

Hozumi Kōun 60 Hu Lîang-pêng 196n5 Iba Hidekata 286 Ichijō Kaneyoshi 88 Ichikawa Danjūrō IX 254 Iguchi Shōgo 218 Ii Naosuke 14 Iida Nagao 158, 174–179, 184 Iida Sueharu 272 Iida Takeo 186 Iida Takesato 10, 13, 35, 61, 82, 102, 122–126, 130, 136, 141, 158, 160, 166, 173, 174, 175n17, 177, 179n, 180, 186, 197, 208, 209, 211, 22o, 229, 241, 242, 258, 259, 265, 272 Iida Toshihira 36 Iijima Hanjūrō 142, 153, 246 Iijima Kyoshin. See Iijima Hanjūrō Ijichi Shōji 191 Ikebe Mahari 265 Ikebe Yoshikata 125, 136, 190, 193, 197, 201, 201n, 208–211, 220, 229 Ikehara Kawaka 166, 259 Ikehara Nichinan. See Ikehara Kawaka Iku-musubi no kami 45n Ikuta Yorozu 87 Imai Hikosaburō 125 Imaizumi Kazumune 136 Imaizumi Sadasuke 125, 242 Inaba Masakuni 62, 64, 68, 260 Inaba Masayoshi 260 Inbe family 84 Ino Chūkō 95 Inō Hidenori 40, 45, 62, 95, 118, 123, 131, 147, 253, 276 Inokuma Asamaro 35, 272 Inoue Fumio 284 Inoue Kaoru 130n, 256 Inoue Kinejirō 127 Inoue Kowashi 197, 279 Inoue Mizue 9 Inoue Ryūzō. See Inoue Mizue Inoue Tetsujirō 122, 123, 148, 154, 246, 252 Inoue Tsunetaru 211, 216–220 Inoue Yorikuni 44, 61, 95, 139, 141, 144, 158, 172, 173, 178n, 180, 197, 225, 256, 272, 279 Inoue Yoshikage 95 Ishibashi Kōichi 246 Ishigaki Jinnai 139 Ishiguro Chihiro 5, 130 Ishiguro Nabuchi 9 Ishii Taijirō 217

306

index of names

Ishikawa Masamochi 273 Ishikawa Seitarō 223 Ishiko Masakai 62 Ishikoridome no mikoto 84 Ishimaru Shisō 95n Ishizuka Tatsumaro 81 Itagaki Genjirō 214, 215 Itagaki Taisuke 53, 247, 255 Itaki Shizue 13 Itō Hirobumi 52, 165n14, 179, 240, 256, 263, 278 Itō Keisuke 148, 154, 246, 273 Itō Nobutami 88 Itō Sukenobu 268, 274, 280 Itsu tomo-no-o no kami 84 Iwagaki Matsunae 88 Iwakura Tomoai 13 Iwakura Tomomi 11–13, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28, 29, 31–33, 52, 71, 72, 78–80, 191, 272, 288 Iwamoto Masakata 126 Iwamoto Zeian 251 Iwashita Masahira 9, 78, 137–140 Iwaya Sazanami 228, 229 Iyama Kiyonobu 216 Izanagi no ōkami 83 Izanami no ōkami 83 Izumikawa Takeru 174, 188 Jîang Líang-Qí 89 Jîng-Wàng 164n9 Jingū-kōgo 40n Jō Yoshinori 171–173 Juge Shigekuni 29, 30 Jūmonji Shigemitsu 136 Kabe Izuo 35, 36 Kachō-no-miya Hirotsune-shinnō 110 Kada no Azumamaro 2, 15, 72, 83, 87, 101, 102, 105, 120, 122, 234 Kadowaki Shigeaya 40 Kagami Mitsuaki 3 Kagawa Kageki 80 Kaibo Gyosan 254 Kaieda Nobuyoshi 140, 261 Kajikawa Keiji 218 Kakei Katsuhiko 272 Kakimoto Kōsetsu 81 Kaki-no-moto no Hitomaro 269 Kameda Ōkoku 276, 283 Kamei Koremi 6, 30, 31, 35, 270 Kami-musubi no (ō)kami 45n, 61, 83 Kamiyama Natsura 118 Kamiyama Tsunehisa 216, 217

Kamo no Mabuchi 1, 3, 15, 27, 34, 43, 76, 83, 87, 88, 101, 102, 118, 120, 122, 136, 271 Kamo no Suetaka 81 Kamo no Sukeyuki 88, 89 Kamochi Masazumi 129 Kan Masatomo 275 Kanbayashi Kimuko 219 Kanda Yasutane 62, 95 Kane no kami 83 Kaneko Kun’en 219 Kaneko Motoomi 214, 215, 217 Kaneko Tomitarō. See Kaneko Motoomi Kankō. See Sugawara no Michizane Kanō Morohira 36, 39, 287 Karasuya Nagatsune 3 Kariya Ekisai 1, 95, 123, 147 Kashima Noribumi 126, 134–137 Kashima Noriyasu 126 Kasugai Yoshifuru 247 Katagiri Harukazu 15 Katō Chinami 274 Katō Hiroyuki 116, 119, 168, 191, 197 Katori Hotsuma 216 Katsu Kaishū 257 Kawabata Sanefumi 140 Kawada Hidekai 188 Kawada Jun 275 Kawada Ōkō 95, 141, 143, 144, 275 Kawanami Manjirō 168 Kaya-no-miya Kuninori-ō. See Kuni-nomiya Iwamaro Kaze no kami 83 Keichū 3, 233 Kèxi Qíaoyîn 90 Kido Takayoshi 19, 52, 53, 165n14 Kikuchi Ito 216 Kikuchi Masahisa 45 Kimura Masakoto 10, 95, 117, 118, 122, 144, 147, 148, 157, 159, 160, 166, 175n17, 202, 208, 209, 211, 220, 241, 247, 259, 265, 276, 277, 279 Kinoto Katsutaka 62, 135, 136, 141, 180 Kishigami Shikken 282 Kishima Hirokage 130 Kitabatake Chikafusa 88, 165, 166, 173, 191, 200, 235 Kitakōji Yorimitsu 35 Kiuchi Sōgorō. See Sōgorō Kiyohara family 72 Kobayashi Kakuji 214 Kodama Gentarō 218 Kodera Kiyosaki 3 Kōen 89 Koga Dōan 21



index of names307

Koga Kokudō 196n5 Koike Sadakage 95 Koike Toshi 214 Koike Yoshiko 219 Kojima Moriyoshi 62 Kōjun-kōgo. See Kuni-no-miya Nagako Kokubu Misako. See Esaki Misako Kokubu Seigai 218 Komatsu-no-miya Akihito-shinnō. See Higashifushimi-no-miya Yoshiaki-shinnō Komiyama Nanryō 282 Konagai Hachirō 142, 152, 247 Konagai Shōshū. See Konagai Hachirō Konakamura Kiyonori 10, 95, 117–123, 125, 127, 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 154, 155, 157, 159, 160, 167, 175n17, 181, 193, 197, 213, 221, 229–231, 234, 241, 247, 259, 265, 276, 283 Konakamura Yoshikata. See Ikebe Yoshikata Konanji no kami 83 Kondō Heijō 273 Kondō Makoto 43 Kondō Yoshiki 131, 191 Konjin. See Kane no kami Konoe Tadafusa 35, 85 Konoe Tadahiro 35 Kosaka Hanzō 214 Koshiishi Yumio 126 Kosugi Sugimura 122, 144, 158, 167, 173, 180, 185, 188, 197, 208–211, 225, 229, 259, 265 Kotani Sanshi 284 Kotoshiro-nushi no kami 45n, 83 Kubo Sueshige 44, 87, 90, 95, 139, 167, 191, 259 Kubota Otojirō 213 Kuebiko (no kami) 84, 97, 99, 134 Kujō Michitaka 140 Kume Motobumi 61, 122, 123, 158, 160, 167, 173, 180, 183, 197, 200–202, 208–211, 218–220, 259, 265, 266 Kume Washio 223 Kuni-no-miya Asahiko-shinnō 131–133, 192 Kuni-no-miya Iwamaro 133–135, 192 Kuni-no-miya Kuniyoshiō 192, 193n Kuni-no-miya Nagako 193n Kunishige Masabumi 140 Kurihara Nobumitsu 285 Kurita Hiroshi 122, 126, 141, 173, 175n17, 277 Kurita Tsutomu 277 Kuriyama Senpō 87, 89 Kuroda Kiyotaka 165n14 Kurokawa Harumura 118, 123, 131, 147, 277

Kurokawa Mamichi 126 Kurokawa Mayori 10, 95, 98, 117, 118, 122, 126, 144, 147, 148, 152, 158–160, 167, 175n17, 229, 241, 247, 259, 277, 285 Kusaba Haisen 283 Kusaka Tōkei 288 Kusakado Nobutaka 5, 81, 82 Kusunoki Masashige 208, 230 Kusunoki Masatsura 208 Kuwabara Yoshiki 135 Lâo-zi 75 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm 25n8 Linné, Carl von 274 Líu Xiang-Kè 90 Lokowandt, Ernst 49 Lû Zûquian. See Ryo Soken Maeda Natsukage 44, 260, 274 Majima Toshinari 43 Maki Izumi 14 Makino Terasu 247 Mamiya Nagayoshi 36, 285 Maruta Kametarō 214 Maruyama Mahiko 125 Maruyama Sakura 9, 13, 35, 36, 42, 64, 67, 72, 95, 105, 111, 112, 125, 129, 141, 158–160, 162, 166, 167, 172, 173, 175, 195, 197, 256, 278 Masuda San 247 Masuda Yukinobu 202, 208, 209, 211, 213, 220 Matsuda Totsutari 257 Matsudaira Katamori 260 Matsudaira Sadaaki 280 Matsudaira Tadatoshi 5 Matsudaira Yoshinaga 104, 191 Matsukata Masayoshi 137, 140, 255, 263 Matsuki Mitsuhiko 136 Matsumi Bunpei 258 Matsumoto Yorishige 125, 143 Matsuno Isao 62, 138, 139, 141, 158, 167, 259, 279 Matsuoka Akiyoshi 122, 279 Matsuoka Tokikata 280 Matsuoka Yukiyoshi 280 Matsuura Torasaburō 135 Matsuzaki Kōdō 252 Matsuzaki Rankoku 89 Mencius 104 Midorigawa Yoshihisa 87 Midorikawa Emon’ya 4 Mikage Akinari 283 Mikami Hyōbu. See San-no-miya Yoshitane

308

index of names

Mikami Sanji 128 Mikanagi Kiyonao 136 Miketsu no kami 45n Mill, John Stuart 117 Minami Shigeki 2, 232 Minamoto no Takaakira 88 Mishima Chūshū 124n3, 275 Mishima Kenzō 223 Mishima Kowashi. See Mishima Chūshū Mitsuhashi Jun 247 Mitsukuri Rinshō 142 Miura Gorō 256 Miwada Mototsuna 95, 98, 111, 280, 281 Miwada Takafusa 280 Miyaji Izuo 280 Miyajima Yoshifumi 127 Miyake Kanran 87, 89 Miyake Shōsai 3 Miyake Toyojirō 186 Miyawada Mitsutane 9, 111 Miyazaki Michisaburō 248 Miyazaki Tominari 139 Miyoshi family 73 Mizu no kami 83 Mizuno Torajirō 278 Mizuseki Tsurumaro 216 Mizutani Toyobumi 274 Momoko Tsuruko 219 Momotarō 228 Momozawa Shigeharu 217 Monokusa-tarō 229 Mononobe family 84 Mori Arinori 147, 189, 190, 263 Mori Ōgai 158n, 187 Morita Minoru 135 Morita Sessai 248, 254 Morooka Masatane 9, 43, 44, 62, 280 Motoda Chikukei 43, 44 Motoda Eifu. See Motoda Nagazane Motoda Nagazane 190 Motoori Fujiko 266 Motoori Haruniwa 81, 136 Motoori Nagayo 231 Motoori Norinaga 1, 3, 15, 32, 34, 39, 43, 76, 81, 83, 87, 88, 95, 97, 101, 102, 105, 120–123, 227, 231, 233, 239, 259, 266 Motoori Ōhira 36, 81, 87, 266 Motoori Toyokai 44, 46, 64, 122, 136, 137, 141, 144, 167, 178n, 181, 186, 197, 202, 208, 209, 211, 220, 221, 228, 231, 259, 265, 266, 268 Motoori Uchitō 4, 82, 266, 276 Mozume Takakazu 281

Mozume Takami 43, 44, 61, 122, 123, 141, 166, 167, 228, 229, 259, 281 Mozume Takayo 43, 44, 60, 281 Muraoka Tsunetsugu 49, 234 Muraoka Yoshisuke 248 Murata Harumi 34 Murata Haruno 265, 276 Murayama Morio 188 Murayama Sokō 286 Murooka Toshinori 248 Mutobe Yoshichika 18, 29, 30 Mutobe Yoshika 18, 27, 33, 71, 283 Mutsuhito. See Emperor Meiji Nabeshima Kansō 261 Nabeshima Naohiro 140, 261 Nabeshima Naonaga 261 Nabeshima Naoyoshi 261 Nagase Masaki 95 Nagatani Nobuatsu 262 Nagatani Nobuyoshi 262 Naitō Chisō 122, 144, 172, 173, 197, 209, 210, 257, 282 Naitō Masataka 254 Naka Gorō. See Naka Michitaka Naka Michitaka 141, 143, 144, 152, 248, 249 Naka Michiyo 148, 248 Nakagawa Masayuki 249 Nakahara family 72 Nakahara Norifusa 81 Nakajima Hirotari 284 Nakamura Akika 228 Nakamura Masanao 116, 117, 124n3 Nakamura Yoshiomi 39 Nakane Juku 252 Nakane Kōtei. See Nakane Juku Nakane Sekkō 5, 9 Nakanuma Kien 191 Nakata Masamoto 135 Nakayama Shigeki 82 Nakayama Tadayasu 11, 29, 32, 35, 37, 99, 140 Nakayama Yoshiko 32 Namatame Tsunenori 126 Namikawa Seisho 88 Nanbu Yoshikazu 148, 249, 252 Nanma Tsunanori 124n3, 197, 282 Nanri Arichika 283 Narita Yasu 216 Narushima Rūhoku 148n Nasu Nui 81 Nijō family 100 Nijō Nariyuki 80 Nijō Yoshimoto 89



index of names309

Ninigi no mikoto 51, 84, 97 Nishi Amane 92 Nishi Sawanosuke 196 Nishida Keishi 126 Nishide Chōfū 271 Nishikawa Yoshisuke 31, 43, 44, 62, 80, 81, 95, 97, 131 Nishikawa Zenroku. See Nishikawa Yoshisuke Nishimura Shigeki 141–144, 147, 152, 153, 194, 247, 249, 250 Nishino Furumi 181, 267 Nishino Nobuaki 36 Nishio Saiko 219 Nitta Yoshisada 12n Niwa Nagatomi 260 Noda Tekiho 247 Noguchi Yukinobu 250 Nomoto Hakugan 82, 287 Nomura Shikiharu 79 Ō Nankō. See Kusunoki Masashige Ō no Yasumaro 3, 134 Ōba Sessai 249 Ochiai Naoaki 44, 125, 272 Ochiai Naobumi 125, 136, 193, 197, 202, 208, 209, 211, 217, 219–221, 228 Ochiai Naozumi 131 Odai Yōdō 253 Ōe family 84 Ōe Masafusa 88 Ōe no kami 84 Ogawa Nagaaki 95 Ogawa Shōichirō 216 Ogō Kazutoshi 40 Ohara Sanekaze 44, 45, 62 Ōhara Shigetomi 191 Ōhashi Ban’ya 43 Ōhashi Totsuan 253, 275 Ōhata Harukuni 95, 130, 282 Ōhata Hirokuni 282 Ōi Kenkichi 142, 251 Ōi Kentarō 152 Oka Fumoto 217 Oka Hachibe 38, 39 Oka Izumo 283 Oka Kumaomi 31, 32 Oka Saburō. See Oka Fumoto Oka Yoshitane 282 Oka Yukitaka 153 Okabe Haruhira 95 Okabe Mabuchi. See Kamo no Mabuchi Okabe Yuzuru 136 Okada Tadanari 95n

Okamatsu Ōkoku 124n3 Okamoto Ian. See Okamoto Kansuke Okamoto Kansuke 251 Okamoto Tsuneharu 81 Okamoto Yasukata 95, 131, 276 Ōkawa Shigeo 2, 232 Ōkawa Tsūkyū 154, 251 Ōki Eijun 252 Ōki Takatō 139 Okoshi Tatsuo 214 Ōkouchi Sonshin 274 Ōkubo Hatsuo 126 Ōkubo Kataiwa 136 Ōkubo Toshiaki 79 Ōkubo Toshimichi 52, 53, 165n14 Ōkuma Tamekichi 223 Ōkuni Takamasa 1, 4–6, 9, 11, 13, 14n5, 28, 30, 31, 34, 36, 43, 44, 57, 130, 268, 270, 280, 282 Ōkuni-nushi 46, 67, 84, 97, 228 Ōman-koman. See Ōnanji-konanji Ōmiya-no-me no kami 45n Omoikane no kami 84, 97–99, 101, 102, 134 Ōnakatomi Masatsugu 87 Ōnamuji 84 Ōnanji no kami 83, 84 Ōnanji-konanji 84 Ōno Naomasa 95n Ono Nobuzane 37 Ono Tsutomu 275 Onoe Saishū 219 Ōnuki Maura 186 Ōrai no kami 83 Orikuchi Shinobu 229, 235, 243 Ōsawa Sugaomi 35, 122, 144, 148, 167, 252, 259, 283 Ōshio Heihachirō 253 Ōta Dōkan 208 Ōta Zensai 273 Otagi Michimasu 85 Ōtomo. See Emperor Kōbun Ōtomo family 84 Ōtomo no Yakamochi 84 Ōtsuki Bankei 252 Ōtsuki Fumihiko 126, 142, 144, 148, 153, 154, 235, 252 Ouyáng Xiu 90 Ōwada Takeki 122, 123, 166, 167, 228, 259 Ōyama Iwao 165n14 Oyama Shunzan. See Oyama Tomohiro Oyama Tomohiro 253 Oyamada Tomokiyo 27, 34, 36, 43, 62, 88, 118

310

index of names

Ōyama-tsumi no kami 83 O-Yura no kata 286 Ōzawa Kogenda 127 Ōzeki Isoshi 141, 178n, 218, 283 Ōzeki Tsurumaro 218 Ozuki family 73 Perry, Matthew 154 Qú Gòng-Mêi 90 Qùe Míng 90 Rai San’yō 89 Reizei Tamemoto 135 Richardson, Charles Lenox 261 Ryo Soken 164 Sadamura Naotaka 44 Saeki Ariyoshi 144 Saeki family 84 Saichi Tama(ko) 216, 218 Saichi Tokuko 218 Saigō Takamori 53, 115, 165n14, 261 Saionji Kinmochi 28, 284 Saitō Masashi 62 Saitō Tasuku 62 Saka Masaomi. See Ban Masaomi Sakabe Teruko 186 Sakai Gozan 248 Sakai Takejirō 223 Sakakibara Yoshino 8, 95, 98, 131, 141–144, 147, 148, 155, 253 Sakamoto Akisato 125 Sakamoto Koremaru 10, 47 Sakamoto Ryōma 257 Sakanoue family 73, 201n Sakata Shizuko 216 Sakata Tama 216, 218 Sakatani Rōro. See Sakatani Shiroshi Sakatani Shiroshi 147, 149, 155, 253 Sakaya Seikei 253 Sakuma Shōzan 48, 249 Sakura Azumao 14, 32, 33 Sakura Sōgo(rō). See Sōgorō Sakurai Yoshikata 60, 137, 138 Sanjō Sanetomi 19, 28, 32, 35, 51, 63, 137, 139, 140, 262, 270 Sanjō Sanetsumu 29 Sanjōnishi Suetomo 64, 65 San-no-miya Yoshitane 12, 29 Sano Hisanari 144, 181, 268 Sano Ryūji 202, 214, 215 Santō Naoto 251 Sasaki Hirotsuna 122, 123, 127, 186, 283

Sasaki Nobutsuna 122, 127, 211, 220, 228, 283 Sasaki Ryūchō 217 Sasaki Takayuki 129, 139, 194 Sasaki Ukami 260 Sasaki Ushin 214, 217 Sasamura Yoshimasa 280 Satō Eisaku 17 Satō Kyū 126 Satō Masayasu 256 Satō Nobuzane 122, 123, 136, 143, 252 Satō Ryūtarō 186 Satow, Ernest Mason 272 Sawada Ichirō 214 Sawatari Hiromori 27, 36, 43, 62, 95 Sawatari Hirotaka 95n Sawatari Moriaki 27 Seki Shinpei 262 Seki Sokō 88 Sekine Masanao 125, 211, 220 Senge Takahiko 130 Senge Takatomi 2, 64, 67, 167, 168, 242, 263, 284, 287 Senge Takazumi 284 Senge Toshizane 32 Sengoku Masakata 98, 104 Sera Taichi 147, 253 Seta Norimi 81 Shibata Hanamori 284 Shichiri Masayasu. See Shichisei Masayasu Shichisei Masayasu 285 Shigeno Yasutada 202, 209, 223 Shigeno Yasutsugu 195, 197, 275 Shikida Toshiharu 131–134, 178n, 192 Shimada Kinzan 214 Shimada Kōson. See Shimada Shigenori Shimada Shigenori 124n3, 148, 197, 254 Shimaji Mokurai 63, 129 Shimazaki Masaki 7, 8, 155, 180, 253 Shimazaki Tōson 7 Shimazu Chikako 193n Shimazu Hisamitsu 14, 286 Shimazu Nariakira 286 Shimazu Narioki 286 Shimazu Tadahiro 131 Shimizu Hamaomi 43, 95 Shimizu Maru(ko) 214, 218 Shimoda Yoshiteru 136 Shinada Morinobu 214 Shinobu Joken 116, 117 Shinobu Tsubara. See Shinobu Joken Shioda Makoto 170 Shioi Ukō 219 Shionoya Tōin 88, 254



index of names311

Shirakawa family 3, 21, 27, 45, 46, 271, 288 Shirakawa Sukenori 27–30, 35 Shishino Nakaba 138, 139 Shō Nankō. See Kusunoki Masatsura Shōgiku Yoshio. See Kido Takayoshi Siebold, Philipp Franz von 91, 274 Simâ Guang 89, 163n Simâ Qian 89 Smiles, Samuel 117 Soeda Takashi 95n Soejima Taneomi 33, 106, 158–160, 162, 165, 167, 172, 173, 191, 255, 263 Soga Sukenori 256 Sōgorō 152 Suehiro Tetchō 148n Sugawara no Michizane 48, 88, 89, 208 Sugi Kōji 253 Sugi Magoshichirō 140 Sugiura Kōtarō 186, 187, 223 Sukuna bikona 97 Sunaga Kyū. See Satō Kyū Susanoo (no ōkami) 67, 83, 228 Suzuka Tsuratane 130 Suzuki Arata 217 Suzuki Hiroyasu 158, 167, 260, 285 Suzuki Kaoru 216 Suzuki Masayuki 44, 45, 95, 130 Suzuki Matoshi 44, 285 Suzuki Shigene 286 Suzuki Shigeno 81 Suzuki Shigenobu 217 Suzuki Shigetane 36, 131, 136 Suzuki Yoshitarō 214, 217 Syle, Edward W. 116, 117 Tachibana Akemi 230 Tachibana Mitsuyoshi 3 Tadokoro Chiaki 181, 186, 268 Taguchi Ukichi 163n Takahashi Katsuhiro 94, 95, 98, 99 Takahashi Masue 214 Takahashi Taichirō 14 Takahira Mafuji 167, 260 Takakura Nagasama 262 Taka-mimusubi no (ō)kami 45n, 61, 83, 97 Taka-okami no kami 83 Takasaki Gorōemon 286 Takasaki Goroku 195 Takasaki Masakaze 80, 140, 191, 195, 268, 286 Takashima Shūhan 252 Takatsu Kuwasaburō 128 Takatsukasa Masamichi 13, 34 Takatsukasa Sukehiro 34, 35

Takeda Chiyosaburō 135 Takeda Yukitaka 81 Takekasa Shōzo 172, 173 Takemikazuchi no kami 84 Takeminakata no kami 102 Takeo Masatane 81, 82 Takeshima Hagoromo 208 Taketomi Tōtarō 170 Takeuchi Miyoshi 168 Takizawa Shinsaku 216, 218 Tamaki Masahide 3 Tamamatsu Misao 9, 11, 12, 19, 20, 26, 29, 31, 43, 72–74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 85, 92, 94, 95, 108, 130, 191, 281, 288 Tama-no-oya no mikoto 84 Tamatsume-musubi no kami 45n Tamura Torazō 218 Tamura Toshikado 181, 268 Tanaka Masatane. See Tanaka Matatarō Tanaka Matatarō 44 Tanaka Nobumasa 95n Tanaka Sadaaki 95n Tanaka Tokimochi 214 Tanaka Tomokuni 62 Tanaka Yoritsune 2, 64, 66, 132, 167, 168, 175n17, 242, 260, 284, 287 Tani Sonbei 258 Tani Tateki 158–160, 162, 165, 167, 256, 263 Tanikawa Kotosuga 88, 273 Tanimori Yoshiomi 29, 30, 36, 37, 39, 95, 283 Tanitagawa Harukichi 214 Taru-musubi no kami 45n Tatsuno Kaku 214, 215 Tatsuno Yoshimichi 43, 215 Tei Eikei 169, 170 Tenbō Kakuhei 82 Tenbō Sachū. See Tenbō Kakuhei Terai Tanekiyo 269 Thunberg, Carl Peter 274 Toda Tadanari 36 Toda Tadayuki 15, 36, 38, 283 Tōin Mitsusue 88 Tokudaiji Sanetsune 28, 138, 139, 140, 190 Tokugawa Iemochi 191 Tokugawa Mitsukuni 34, 40n Tokugawa Nariaki 15, 31, 34, 266 Tokugawa Tsunayoshi 38 Tokugawa Yoshimune 201n Tokugawa Yoshinobu 261 Tomi Satake 95n Tomobayashi Mitsuhira 39, 283 Tomura Yoshinobu 285

312

index of names

Toneri-shinnō 134 Torio Koyata 256 Toyama Masakazu 116, 122, 174n Toyoda Tenkō 277 Toyooka Zuishi 95, 97 Toyosuki-iribime no mikoto 51n Toyouke-hime no ōkami 83 Tsuboi Kumezō 122 Tsuchi no kami 83 Tsuda Mamichi 15, 16, 92 Tsunoda Nobuyuki 137, 257 Tsunoda Tadayuki 13, 22, 44, 111, 130, 137, 257 Tsurumine Shigenobu 259 Udagawa Yōan 274 Ueda Kazutoshi 2, 126, 128, 135, 197, 233, 235 Ueda Kōtei 43 Ueda Masaaki 215 Ueda Shikibuchi 43, 62, 259 Uehara Yoshinori 254 Uematsu Arinobu 81 Uematsu Aritsune 81 Uematsu Masakoto 30, 35 Uematsu Masataka 30 Uematsu Shigetake 81, 130 Umezono Koretomo 88 Unagami Tanehira 287 Unno Yukinori 272 Uozumi Nagatane 181, 185, 222, 268 Urashima-tarō 229 Urata Nagatami 60, 132, 269 Urabe. See Yoshida (family) Usami Norimasa 95n Usuki Akifusa 95 Usuki Teizō. See Usuki Aifusa Utsumi Masao 62 Vergniaud, Pierre 8 Wada Hidematsu 122, 123, 126, 127, 144 Wada Shigeo 95 Wada Tsunashirō 251 Wakamatsu Norifumi 286 Wáng Xìu-Chû 90 Wata no kami 83 Watanabe Ayako 219 Watanabe Harukane 62 Watanabe Ikarimaro 61, 82, 178n, 287 Watanabe Kōki 190 Watanabe Shigeharu 178n, 287 Watanabe Shigekage 131, 287 Watanabe Shigena 287

Watanabe Sukemasa 33 Watarai Ieyuki 88 Watarai Satsukimaro 88 Wú Chû-Cái 90 Wû-dì 164n9 Xue Yìng-Qí 89 Yagi Yoshiho 81 Yagokoro Omoikane no kami. See Omoikane no kami Yajima Kinzō 166, 168, 171, 257 Yajima Yukiyasu. See Yajima Kinzō Yamada Akiyoshi 133, 134, 139, 140, 194, 263 Yamada Aritoshi 80, 95, 98, 141 Yamada Awanosuke 98 Yamada Hōkoku 247 Yamada Jūya 214, 217 Yamada Kiyoyasu 288 Yamada Kyokunan 217 Yamada Mochifumi 80, 98 Yamada Nobutane 125 Yamada Yoshio 135, 233–235 Yamagata Aritomo 165n14 Yamagata Daini 3 Yamagata Taika 89 Yamaguchi Naoyoshi 52 Yamaguchi Shin’ei 172, 173, 257 Yamaguni Hyōbu 35 Yamamoto Kiken. See Tamamatsu Misao Yamamoto Kinhiro 12 Yamamoto Yutaka 216 Yamata no orochi 229 Yamauchi Toshishige. See Yamauchi Yōdō Yamauchi Yōdō 249 Yamazaki Ansai 3 Yamazaki Umekichi 214, 215 Yanagawa Yasuyoshi 257 Yanagita Kunio 229, 243 Yano Harumichi 1, 9, 11, 13, 21–28, 30, 33, 38, 40, 44, 46, 62, 71–74, 76, 77, 79–86, 92, 95, 100, 103, 108, 111, 112, 135, 141, 167, 172–174, 178n, 180, 197, 241, 260, 272, 288 Yano Mantarō 172–174 Yano Naomichi 81, 288 Yano Shigetarō. See Yano Harumichi Yashiro Hirokata 271 Yasui Sokken 247, 249 Yoda Gakkai 148, 152–154, 228, 254 Yoda Hyakusen. See Yoda Gakkai Yokoi Meijun 215 Yokota Mitsugi 170



index of names313

Yokoyama Yoshikiyo 40, 95, 116–118, 131, 147, 157, 252, 277 Yosano Akiko 219 Yosano Tekkan 219 Yoshida family 3, 21, 35, 45, 46, 80, 100, 288 Yoshida Nakayoshi 30 Yoshida Shōin 52, 263 Yoshida Toyobumi 136 Yoshida Tsugiko 219 Yoshihara Shigetoshi 263 Yoshikawa Akimasa 140 Yoshikawa Hanshichi 201n, 275

Yoshino Kin’ryō 117 Yoshioka Nobuyuki 100 Yoshioka Noriaki 60, 62, 158, 278 Yotsuya Suihō. See Yotsuya Tsuneyuki Yotsuya Tsuneyuki 254 Zeng Xianzhi 89 Zhang Tíng-Yù 90 Zhào Shi-Yuan 89 Zhào Yì 89 Zhu Xi 89 Zhuang-zi 75