Sacred Space in the Modern City Brill’S Japanese Studies Library

Sacred Space in the Modern City Brill’s Japanese Studies Library

Edited by Joshua Mostow (Managing Editor) Caroline Rose Kate Wildman Nakai

VOLUME 43

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/bjsl Sacred Space in the Modern City

The Fractured Pasts of Meiji Shrine, 1912–1958

By Yoshiko Imaizumi

Leiden • boston 2013 Cover illustration: A crowd descends upon Omotesandō for the celebration of the completion of the Meiji shrine, 1920 (Reprinted from Meiji Jingū oshashinchō, ed. Teikoku gunjin kyōikukai, 1920, unpaginated).

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Imaizumi, Yoshiko. Sacred space in the modern city : the fractured pasts of Meiji shrine, 1912–1958 / By Yoshiko Imaizumi. pages cm. — (Brill’s Japanese studies library ; volume 43) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-24819-9 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-25418-3 (e-book) 1. Meiji Jingu (Tokyo, Japan) 2. Architecture and society—Japan—Tokyo. 3. Nationalism and architecture—Japan—Tokyo. 4. Nationalism—Religious aspects—Shinto. 5. Tokyo (Japan)—Buildings, structures, etc. I. Title.

BL2225.T62M455 2013 299.5’61350952135—dc23 2013016355

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.

ISSN 0925-6512 ISBN 978-90-04-24819-9 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25418-3 (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

Acknowledgements ...... vii List of Figures and Tables ...... ix

Introduction ...... 1

1 The Creation of Meiji Shrine 1912–1920 ...... 15 1.1 Concepts: Shrine and Emperor ...... 16 1.2 Movements: Negotiated Construction ...... 23 1.3 Events: Spatial Practices on 3rd November ...... 39

2 A Mnemonic Space: The Construction of the Memorial Art Gallery 1912–1936 ...... 61 2.1 The Practice of History and Memory ...... 62 2.2 The Discursive Construction of the ‘History of Meiji’ ...... 68 2.3 Exhibiting History and the Sublimation of Memory in the Gallery...... 78 2.4 A Case Study: Commemorative Operations and a Painting on Iomante ...... 103

3 Shrine Approaches: To the 1923 Earthquake and beyond ...... 121 3.1 The Space and Practice of Dwelling ...... 122 3.2 Internal/External: Spanning the City Border ...... 128 3.3 Space and Class Creation: Seismic Shocks of 1923 ...... 145

4 Imagined Discipline: The 1940 Meiji Shrine Sports Meet ...... 163 4.1 The Body-Community Relation and its Development ...... 164 4.2 National Unity through Callisthenics ...... 172 4.3 Local Realities: United in Their Diversity ...... 182

5 The Re-Creation of Meiji Shrine 1945–1958 ...... 197 5.1 The Dawn of the Post-War ...... 200 5.2 Meiji Shrine during the Occupation ...... 214 5.3 difference and Repetition: Shrine Reconstruction ...... 232 vi contents

Conclusion ...... 257 Glossary ...... 267 Bibliography ...... 271 Index ...... 325 Acknowledgements

I must express gratitude for the help I have received in completing this book. Firstly, I should like to express my heartfelt thanks to the late president of Kokugakuin University, Dr. Abe Yoshiya, who sadly passed away on 1st December 2003. Dr. Abe encouraged me to conduct my PhD research at the School of Oriental and African Studies and, without his support, this book would not have been started. I am extremely grateful to my professors, lecturers and advisors, Dr. Brian Bocking, Dr. Stephen Dodd, Dr. Angus Lockyer and Dr. John Breen. Their advice and expertise have been hugely valuable to me in my studies at SOAS, and will continue to be so in my future endeavours. I would like to extend a special thanks to my personal supervisor, Dr. John Breen. Without his guidance and dedication, this book would never have been finished. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Hirakawa Sukehiro, emeritus professor of Tokyo University, Professor Shimazono Susumu, Department of Religious Studies at Tokyo University, and Dr. Ogawa Masahito, Hokkaido Ainu Culture Research Centre. The suggestions and insights of these scholars, made to me in both formal and informal settings, were invaluable in enabling me to refine the arguments in my research. I would also like to express my appreciation to Neil Raven and Simon Breen, both of whom helped polish my English writing. Without their friendship and commitment, this book would have been far less readable. Nevertheless, if mistakes remain, they are mine and mine alone. Finally, my studies at SOAS would not have been possible without the assistance of Meiji shrine. I would like to record my deepest gratitude to the staff at the shrine, in particular Emeritus Chief Priest Toyama Katsushi, Chief Priest Nakajima Seitarō, and the staff of the Meiji Shrine Research Institute. They have provided endless support, advice, and guidance throughout my studies, and I am forever grateful.

List of Figures and Tables

Figures

1 The inner precinct today ...... 2 2 The spatial structure of Meiji shrine, 1926 ...... 11 3 Youth groups engaged in shrine construction work ...... 26 4 The Honden at the time of completion ...... 33 5 Plan for Meiji shrine forest ...... 36 6 Sumō wrestling and horse racing (keiba) in the outer precinct, 2nd–3rd November 1920 ...... 49 7 Festival to celebrate the completion of Meiji shrine in Hibiya Park, 1st–3rd November, 1920 ...... 50 8 A crowded Omotesandō, 1920 ...... 53 9 Flying postcards, around 3rd November 1920 ...... 59 10 Postcard depicting the pre-war outer precinct and the Memorial Art Gallery ...... 62 11 Paintings of the imperial funeral ...... 86 12 Paintings of the imperial visit to a silver mine ...... 88 13 The Memorial Art Gallery in the outer precinct. Earlier plan made in 1916 and the final plan in 1918 ...... 92 14 Exhibition rooms: The Galerie des Batailles in the Palace of Versailles; the Galerie des Rubens in the Louvre Museum; the Japanese Painting Room of the Memorial Art Gallery ...... 95 15 Memorial statues depicted in a picture scroll ...... 98 16 A preview of the gallery ...... 99 17 Mitsuoka Shin’ichi’s sketch ...... 107 18 Variations of the Hokkaido tour related pictures ...... 109 19 Harajuku and Omotesandō today, thronging with young people ...... 122 20 Yoyogi, and the inner precinct beyond the Tokyo City border of 1921 ...... 125 21 Omotesandō in 1920 ...... 131 22 Map showing Urasandō and the planned and final routes for road I-3-3 ...... 133 23 Urasandō upon its completion in 1928 ...... 136 24 Shibuya in July 1911 ...... 139 x list of figures and tables

25 Yoyogi in its orignal state prior to the construction of Meiji shrine ...... 140 26 Aoyama Dōjunkai apartments in the 1950s ...... 157 27 The closing ceremony of the 11th Meiji Shrine Sports Meet, 3rd November 1940 ...... 173 28 School boys and students of women colleges performing callisthenics ...... 176 29 Group callisthenics performed as part of zenkoku issei taisō in the outer precinct ...... 179 30 Yokohama City’s commemorative ceremony for the 2600th anniversary ...... 186 31 Hanno City’s sports meet on 3rd November 1940 ...... 188 32 ‘Sacred pike relay’ (seihoko keisō) held in Shimane Prefecture ...... 192 33 The Honden of Meiji shrine, destroyed by bomb attacks in 1945 ...... 198 34 Memorial Art Gallery under the Occupation ...... 223 35 The Definitive Plan (Seigenzu) for the layout of buildings in major state shrines ...... 239 36 The Chūmon before and after its transformation into the Naihaiden ...... 241 37 Worshippers watching the shrine rite on 31st October 1958 ...... 248 38 A crowded inner precinct on 1st November 1958 ...... 249 39 Events held and structures built for celebrating the reconstruction of Meiji shrine ...... 251 40 Mikoshi parading in the inner precinct of Meiji shrine ...... 252

Tables

1 Meiji shrine celebratory performances in the inner and outer precincts and Hibiya Park ...... 51 2 Members of gallery committees and editorial bureaux ...... 70 3 Variations in topic proposals ...... 75 4 Visitors to the Meiji Shrine Memorial Art Gallery ...... 100 5 Changes in topics related to Emperor Meiji’s Hokkaido tour ...... 106 6 Major imperial visits to Shiraoi and related commemorative activities during the Meiji and Taisho periods ...... 119 7 Callisthenics held at the 11th Meet in 1940 ...... 177 list of figures and tables xi

8 Instructions for zenkoku issei taisō at the 11th Meiji Shrine Sports Meet ...... 183 9 Sports-related events commemorating the 2600th anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement ...... 187 10 A breakdown of the 622 sport-related events held in November 1940 ...... 190

Introduction

There is no place that is not haunted by many different spirits hidden there in silence, spirits one can ‘invoke’ or not. Haunted places are the only ones people can live in. —Michel de Certeau1 90 years have passed. Structures for the veneration of the deceased emperor and empress, and the 700,000 m2 of forest-land enveloping them, took their place in the Tokyo landscape. The year was 1920. Six years later, Paul Claudel, poet and French ambassador to Japan, reflected on this site in his essay “Meiji”: It is both vestige and support of the spirit. Its name summons the enshrined presence, and so gives life to a memory between that presence and us; a dialogue is formed; a shared knowledge and understanding are born.2 A decade later in 1936 another Frenchman, Jean Cocteau, visited Japan on his round the world voyage. He left these impressions of the very first site he saw in Tokyo. I thought Japan was over-Americanised, but that was too hasty a conclusion. The presence of a deep-rooted Japanese spirit is to be felt here in this place. This is the hall-mark of Japan. France has none. How pitiable the European writer who cannot depict such things!3 The name of this place to which they refer is Meiji shrine [Fig. 1]. Dedicated to the spirits of Emperor Meiji and Empress Shoken, it is renowned as one of the most popular shrines in all Japan, not least because it plays host to more visitors during the three days of the New Year celebrations than any other site in the country.4 In February 2009, Hillary Clinton arrived in Tokyo on her first overseas tour as Secretary of State in the Obama administration, and visited Meiji shrine. When a reporter asked her

1 Michel de Certeau, The Practice of Everyday Life, trans., Steven Rendall, 108. 2 Paul Claudel, “Meiji,” in L’oiseau Noir dans le Soleil Levant, 118. 3 Yomiuri shinbun (19th May 1936). Nishikawa Masaya, Kokutō, 1936 nen no Nihon o aruku, 45–48. 4 During the first three days of 2009 around 3 million people visited Meiji shrine (Yomi- uri shinbun, 9th January 2009). 2 introduction

Figure 1. The inner precinct today. (Meiji Shrine Archives). why, she responded, “To show respect toward the history and culture of Japan.”5 What then are the lingering “vestiges,” the palpable “spirit” and this respect-commanding “history” that attach to this site less than a hundred years old? This book lends an ear to the harmonies and disharmonies voiced by the many spirits that haunt this place, and attempts to explore the machinations that enable a place—this place—to be articulated in terms of lingering “vestiges,” of “spirit” and of “history.” Meiji shrine was constructed between 1912 and 1920, and became a major state shrine (kanpei taisha). In the final stages of World War II its buildings were almost completely destroyed by U.S. bombing. In 1946 the shrine was recognised and registered as a religious corporation, following a series of GHQ (General Headquarters) reforms, such as the Shinto Directive. From then it took a further 12 years for the shrine to be rebuilt.6

5 Sankei shinbun (18th February 2009). 6 General accounts on Meiji shrine are drawn from: Naimushō, Meiji jingū zōeikyoku, Meiji jingū zōeishi; Meiji jingū hōsankai, ed., Gaienshi, reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho, vol. 14, Zōei hen, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū; Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Meiji jingū gojūnenshi; Meiji jingū gaien nanajūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Meiji jingū gaien nanajūnenshi. introduction 3

The purpose of this study is to illuminate the production of the shrine as a contested space. The 46-year period from 1912, when movements for the construction of a shrine to memorialize Emperor Meiji began, to 1958, the year in which the shrine facilities were completed in their present form, is taken as the span for this study. Throughout the period under consideration, circumstances surrounding Meiji shrine evolved constantly in line with the changing nature and meaning of ‘Shinto,’ ‘religion’ and ‘shrine.’ My research begins with an understanding that the only unchanging element was the actual physical location of the shrine, its ‘place.’ I examine the mechanisms by which complex fissures appeared and disappeared within the conceptualised space of Meiji shrine, and by which the shrine managed to keep re-shaping itself as one distinctive place. The spatial analysis adopted here challenges the received ‘logic’ that holds a ‘shrine’ to be a ‘Shinto’ institution, and ‘Shinto’ in turn to be a ‘religion.’ In recent studies, the concept and category of ‘religion’ itself has come under scrutiny as a mode of knowledge. For example, McCutcheon in his provocative work Manufacturing Religion, argues against the pervasive assumption that religion is, sui generis, to be seen anywhere in the world at any time in history. For McCutcheon religion is nothing but a schol- arly manufacture.7 Masuzawa expands McCutcheon’s argument in her investigation into the discursive formation of ‘world religions.’ According to Masuzawa, ‘world religions’ is a conceptual framework developed in European academia which swiftly became useful in “differentiating, varie- gating, consolidating and totalizing a large portion of the social, cultural, and political practices observable among the inhabitants of regions elsewhere in the world.”8 Similarly, in the case of the Japanese concept of religion, scholars have made attempts to re-examine the mode of knowledge of what is termed ‘religion,’ and have suggested that there is a need to analyse how the Japanese themselves have dynamically situated within modern Japanese society various discourses on religion, originating in the West.9 Catherine Bell’s insight is apposite here: “That we construct ‘religion’ . . . is not the main problem; that we forget that we have constructed

7 Russell T. McCutcheon, Manufacturing Religion, 26. 8 Masuzawa Tomoko, The Invention of World Religions, 20. 9 Yamaguchi Teruomi, Meiji kokka to shūkyō; Isomae Jun’ichi, Kindai Nihon no shūkyō gensetsu to sono keifu; Timothy Fitzgerald, “Japanese Religion as Ritual Order”; The Ideology of Religious Studies. 4 introduction

[it] in our own image—that is a problem.”10 Bell’s statement prompts a reconsideration of one particular constructed Japanese category, namely that of State Shinto (kokka Shinto). The State Shinto theories of Murakami Shigeyoshi have had an enor- mous influence on all subsequent understandings of the development and nature of State Shinto.11 Murakami links the state, the people, Shinto, and the emperor-system as follows: State Shinto was a state religion which was created by the modern nation state, and based itself on the emperor-system. State Shinto manipulated the psychology of the Japanese people for over 80 years, from the time of the Meiji restoration to the end of World War II.12 Current theories concerning State Shinto may be divided into three main streams.13 First, there are those like Shimazono who share with Murakami an understanding of State Shinto as a total system affecting all aspects of people’s lives, including religion, thought and education.14 A second stream is more sceptical of Murakami, maintaining that State Shinto should be examined in the context of the government’s regulation of shrines, which stated that Shinto was ‘not a religion.’15 The third group of theories suggests that it is neither relevant nor useful to apply the term State Shinto to the pre-war relationship between state and religion.16 Nitta, in particular, rejects the term ‘State Shinto,’ and maintains that it was an “illusion” invented by post-war scholars as a kind of “masking-ideology.”17 Thus, even the existence of State Shinto itself is still being debated.

10 Catherine Bell, “Modernism and Postmodernism in the Study of Religions,” 188. 11 Murakami Shigeyoshi, Kokka Shintō. For Murakami’s influence, see Haga Shōji, Meiji ishin to shūkyō and Shimazono Susumu, “Kokka Shintō to kindai Nihon no shūkyō kōzō.” 12 Murakami S., Kokka Shintō, 1. 13 The distinction made in State Shinto discourse between State Shinto in the broad sense and State Shinto more narrowly defined is well known. E.g., Nitta Hitoshi, “ ‘Kokka Shintō’ kenkyū no seiri”; Shimazono S., “Shintō to kokka Shintō · shiron: Seiritsu e no toi to rekishi teki tenbō.” 14 Shimazono S., “Jūkyūseiki Nihon no shūkyō kōzō no henyō”; “Kokka Shintō to meshianizumu”; “Kokka Shintō · kokutai shisō · tennō sūkei: Kōdō · kōgaku to kindai Nihon no shūkyō jōkyō.” 15 Sakamoto Koremaru, Kokka Shintō keisei katei no kenkyū; “The Structure of State Shinto”; Kinsei · kindai Shintō ronkō. Isomae claims that State Shinto should only be considered as a means for the government to regulate shrines, and should be redefined as one component in the entire system of ideologies which supported the emperor-centred nation-state (Shūkyō gensetsu, 99). 16 Yamaguchi T., “Meiji Kenpōka no jingikan setchi mondai”; Meiji kokka to shūkyō. 17 Nitta H., “Arahito gami” “kokka Shintō” to iu gensō. introduction 5

Following Bell’s argument, I contend that it has been forgotten that State Shinto is a created category.18 The failure to acknowledge the genesis of this category has given rise to a number of theoretical issues regarding the existence of State Shinto. For this reason, far from treating religion, Shinto or even State Shinto as predetermined or static, one must be aware of their continual transformation and reinterpretation. Yamaguchi stresses the extent to which the definition of ‘religion’ varied depending on the agent and historical period; if ‘religion’ was interpreted variably by individuals and groups, we may anticipate that other related terms, such as ‘Shinto’ and ‘shrine,’ have also had variable meanings across time and space.19 Some scholars, such as Shimazono, do not take account of these subtleties, tending to ignore or downplay the significance of differences between definitions of morality and religion, for example. Shimazono argues that State Shinto was merely a new phase in the development of Shinto, one which encompassed education, teaching, and mass media.20 However, whether morality and teaching can be viewed as part of the Shinto domain is unclear, and here it will be necessary to consider the various relevant historical and social contexts in which categories of religion, Shinto and State Shinto were formed and transformed. Furthermore, in order to develop our understanding of the religious state of affairs in modern Japan (from the 1868 Meiji Restoration onwards), we must look beyond the dichotomy of the state and the people, or ‘the sup- pressing’ and ‘the suppressed.’ Some academics, basing their arguments on an examination of shrine regulations and policies, maintain that no ideological manipulation of the public was attempted by the government, but as Isomae points out, studying regulations tells us little about the impact of these rules on society and the common people.21 Yasumaru, describing

18 Bell, “Modernism,” 188. With regard to terminology, Hayashi points out that ‘State Shinto’ is not a historical source-based term; it is rather a term coined by post war historians to reflect their understanding. He insists that “it should be deployed as a second best strategy until someone comes up with an alternative.” Hayashi Makoto, “Kindai bukkyō to kokka Shintō,” 95–96. 19 Yamaguchi T., Meiji kokka to shūkyō, 29–55. See also, Inoue Hiroshi, Nihon no jinja to ‘Shintō.’ 20 Shimazono S., “Messianizumu,” 248. 21 Nitta insists that the idea of the emperor as a living kami, considered to be one of the main ideological bases of State Shinto (e.g. Murakami S., Kokka Shintō), was invented by the Taisho and Showa scholar Katō Genchi. Nitta suggests that, before Katō, the emperor was not regarded as a living kami but merely as a descendant of kami; he then concludes that there was not much ideological manipulation. It is important to note that Nitta’s analysis of the pre-Katō Japanese situation was based on an examination of the ‘state regulated’ 6 introduction the suppressed masses as historically ‘heterodox,’ considers the religious state of pre-war Japan to have consisted of an antagonistic relation between popular belief and the state shrine system. Here, Shimazono’s problematisation of the Orthodoxy/Heterodoxy dichotomy is instructive. He highlights the shortcomings of Yasumaru’s argument and emphasises the need to understand the dynamics of a relationship in which opposing viewpoints are negotiated and appropriated.22 Other research, taking a broader view, has looked at state shrines and state monuments; discussions have focused on issues such as the ‘invention of tradition’ or the top-down manipulation of ideology.23 However, further work needs to be carried out in order to ascertain how these newly invented systems of meaning, as well as a great variety of ideological agents, elaborated and articulated the highly distinctive space of the shrine.24 While the aforementioned academic debates on religion and State Shinto have been dynamic, research on Meiji shrine in particular has remained relatively limited. Several trends are apparent nonetheless in the research that there is. First of all there is the work by Date and Daimaru et al.25 In 1970, Date published an essay entitled “Meiji Jingū no sōken to hatten” (The establishment and development of Meiji shrine). This and subsequent research tends to emphasise the importance of Meiji shrine in the context of Shinto tradition, but historical differences in the understanding of certain key concepts, such as ‘shrine’ and ‘tradition’ remain to be problematised. In another vein, there are multiple studies of Meiji shrine conducted within such specialized fields as architecture and forestry.26 For example,

textbooks for elementary schools. See Nitta H., “Arahito gami,” 22–30; 54–61. For Isomae’s argument, see Isomae J., Shūkyō gensetsu, 98. 22 Yasumaru Yoshio, Kindai tenno zō no keisei, 226. Shimazono S., “Jūkyūseiki,” 31. 23 Haga S., Shiseki ron; “Tennō to junkō”; H. D. Harootunian, “Memory, Mourning, and National Morality.” Fujitani’s Splendid Monarchy follows Hobsbawm’s idea of the invention of tradition. Eric J. Hobsbawm, “Introduction: Inventing Tradition.” Hobsbawm’s idea and its problems are below. I have learned much from Takagi’s works on ‘sacred’ space creations in modern Japan, but he overemphasises the top-down manipulation of ideology. Takagi Hiroshi, Kindai tennōsei no bunkashi teki kenkyū; “Kindai shin’en shiron”; “Kinsei no dairi kūkan”; “Kindai ni okeru shinwa teki kodai no sōzō.” 24 Fujita’s observations on State Shinto are suggestive. Fujita Hiromasa, “Kokka Shintō taisei seiritsu ikō no saisei itchi ron,” 356–7. 25 Date Tatsumi, “Meiji Jingū no sōken to hatten.” Daimaru Masami, “Meiji jingū no chinzachi sentei ni tsuite”; “Meiji jingū no mori no sonzaiigi.” 26 For shrine architecture, e.g., Fujioka Hiroyasu, “Meiji jingū no kenchiku,” no. 1; “Meiji jingū no kenchiku,” no. 2. Fujiwara Keiyō, “Meiji jingū sōken ni miru nagare zukuri ishō introduction 7

Fujioka and Fujiwara are architectural scholars who have conducted surveys on the structural design and techniques employed in the construction of the shrine buildings. The merit of their research is that it situated Meiji shrine architecture within the broader historical context of modern Japanese architecture. Shinji is one researcher who has explored how the Meiji shrine forest came to be developed, and he has illuminated its importance within the historical contexts of forestry and landscape engineering in Japan. Nonetheless, there has to date been no attempt to integrate these separate debates on Meiji shrine into an interdisciplinary approach. The result is that there exists as yet no analytical perspective on Meiji shrine in its entirety. Special mention is needed here of the recent research accomplished by Yamaguchi. Focusing on the construction of the shrine in the Taisho period, Yamaguchi has examined how Yoyogi came to be selected as the site for the shrine.27 Much is to be learnt from his wide-ranging studies of official documents and newspapers relating to domestic movements influencing the eventual construction of the shrine in Yoyogi. However, his research disappoints in its failure to take advantage of the plethora of material preserved in the Meiji Shrine Archives; and although he inquires into the shrine’s creation, he does not address the key question of how people actually used the shrine and its spaces. Moreover, Yamaguchi’s research is confined to the creation process of the shrine in the Taisho period. This shortcoming is one which Yamaguchi’s work shares with many of the studies that qualify for inclusion in both the first and second categories above as well. Noticeably, there has been no attempt to trace Meiji shrine history through to the postwar period. The present examination of Meiji shrine thus distinguishes itself from extant studies in both its interdisciplinary approach and its temporal span. It also takes full advantage of valuable archival records relating to the shrine’s establishment. This study combines material in the Meiji Shrine Archives with a wide range of official documents and newspaper articles available in national and Tokyo-based archives to construct a more comprehensive overview of Meiji shrine. Additionally, it addresses one vital issue that Yamaguchi overlooks, namely people and their use of the space of the shrine. As regards the methodology employed here, I no seiritsu katei.” On the shrine’s forest, see Matsui Mitsuma et al., Daitokai ni tsukurareta mori: Meiji jingū no mori ni manabu; Shinji Isoya, “Nō” no jidai. 27 Yamaguchi T., “Meiji jingū no seiritsu o megutte”; “Jinja hōshi chōsa kai ni tsuite 1”; “Nanitozo gochinzachi ni gosentei ainaritaku”; Meiji jingū no shutsugen. 8 introduction have learned much from Ono’s recent examination of the performativity of space.28 Ono’s approach towards parks is of incalculable worth in that he seeks to elucidate the meaning of those spaces through a focus on how people experienced them. Furthermore, he contextualises the utilisation of the single space of the park through association with other spaces. This book employs a threefold analysis of spatial production in Meiji shrine. Firstly, I show how the discursive nature of space at the shrine is articulated into a distinctive place through the separation of place from space. The social production of space has been analysed in theoretical terms by scholars such as Lefebvre, whose ideas have in turn influenced the post-modern geographical approaches of thinkers like Harvey and Soja.29 Lefebvre argues that space is not a vessel to be filled with contents, but rather a socially conceptualised product, which “overlays physical space, making symbolic use of its object.”30 The importance of Lefebvre’s argument is that it focuses on the distinction between conceptualised space and physical space, which I interpret as implying a distinction of place from space.31 Here I am mindful of Harvey’s point that the separation of place from space is an essential precondition for any discussion of the spatial production.32 For example, in his discussion of ‘heterotopia’ Foucault was able to introduce his analysis of the power relations between actually lived ‘real places’ and heterogeneous ‘unreal spaces’ by focusing on the contradiction between them.33 The lack of

28 Ono Ryōhei, Kōen no tanjō. 29 Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space. David Harvey, Consciousness and the Urban Experience; The Urban Experience; The Condition of Postmodernity; Justice, Nature & the Geography of Difference. Edward W. Soja, Post-modern Geographies; “Post-modern Geogra- phies: Taking Los Angeles Apart.” 30 Lefebvre, The Production, 39. 31 Lefebvre, ibid. For Lefebvre, contrary to physical space “as defined by practice- sensory activity and the perception of ‘nature’ ” (27), conceptualised space is “the space of scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers, as of a certain type of artist with a scientific bent—all of whom identify what is lived and what is perceived with what is conceived” (38). 32 Harvey, Justice, Nature & the Geography of Difference, 261–4. Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 18–19. On the separation of place from space, see also: Homi Bhabha, “DissemiNations”; also Soja, “Taking Los Angeles Apart,” 133. 33 For Foucault, ‘heterotopia’ is “capable of juxtaposing in a single real space several spaces, several sites that are in themselves incompatible” (“Of Other Spaces,” 25. For Fou- cault’s observations on space: “Questions of Geography”; “Space, Knowledge, and Power.” For Foucault’s spatialisation of power, see also Soja, “Taking Los Angeles Apart,” 132–139. On Foucault’s power relations: “Panopticism”; “Afterword: The Subject and Power.” As for Foucault’s theory of power relations and power as productive, Dreyfus and Rabinow, for example, suggest that for Foucault “power is exercised upon the dominant as well as on introduction 9 such a place-space distinction is the reason why Habermas’ discussion of the public sphere is often problematised.34 My aim in this book is to explore the social production of the apparently constant and unchanging space that was Meiji shrine. I discuss how various players, involved in making the history of Meiji shrine, shaped their own understandings of the space and how these understandings were in turn articulated into a distinctive place. The second key to my spatial analysis of Meiji shrine involves an understanding of the interaction between space formation and time formation; neither can be examined separately. Giddens’s argument for “the active articulation of time and space together” is especially relevant here.35 He proposes that there were three stages to the formation of modern time- space. Firstly, pre-modern local time, which had previously held sway in each particular locale, was disembedded from local place; this was the separation of time and space. In the second stage, time and place were distanced from each other, and from other times and other places (time-space distanciation). Finally, modern social systems reordered and recombined time and space through the standardisation of time-space measurement.36 Space formation (and modification) thus necessarily effected, and affected, the process of time formation itself; they are mutually constitutive. I apply Giddens’ insights to explore how the changing meanings of space and time can be integrated into one distinctive time- space. This book will shed light on the time and space of the shrine’s feast day, held on 3rd November to commemorate Emperor Meiji’s birthday. The third and final point in my analysis of Meiji shrine space involves a reconsideration of the performance dimension of space creation in order to understand exactly how the time-space was experienced and manipulated from within. In particular, I aim to explore the celebratory performances enacted on the shrine’s feast day. I am concerned with how ordinary people experienced the time-space of Meiji shrine on

the dominated: there is a process of self-formation or self-colonisation involved.” (Michel Foucault, 186). 34 For Habermas, the public sphere is “the realm of social life in which public opinion is formed” in which “access is guaranteed to all citizens.” See The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, 33. On the problematisation of Habermas’ argument, and following Lefebvre’s The Production of Space, Bartolovich argues that “Habermas’ ‘public sphere’ is, of course, a space and that all spaces—as all ‘publics’—are produced.” See Crystal Bar- tolovich, “Inventing London,” 16. See also Nancy Fraser, “Rethinking the ‘public sphere’.” 35 Roger Friedland and Deirdre Boden, “NowHere.” 36 Giddens, The Consequences, 1–53. 10 introduction

3rd November, and how from their experiences the shrine space of Meiji shrine was constituted. De Certeau’s discussion is useful here in several respects: he carefully delineates place from space, he discusses the process of social production of time and space, and he analyses the dynamics of movement in spatialisation.37 For example, re-examining Foucault’s panoptic power production, de Certeau asks, “What popular procedures manipulate the mechanisms of discipline and conform to them only in order to evade them?”38 De Certeau shows that these popular procedures are not merely reactions by ‘consumers’ of the space, but are spatial practices through which “places are reconverted into spaces.”39 This insight opens the way for us to comprehend the ever-evolving space-place-space dynamic.40 One important fact that often goes unexamined is that the space of Meiji shrine consists of various component parts [Fig. 2]. Moving outwards from the centre of the shrine, there are the shrine’s inner precinct, the outer precinct, which itself includes different sites such as the Memorial Art Gallery and sports stadium, and finally the shrine’s approaches. Each of the chapters that follows sheds light on these separate yet inter-linked places and spaces, and frames Meiji shrine as a whole. The first chapter focuses on the creation of the inner and outer precincts, tracing the process of their construction from Emperor Meiji’s death in 1912 to the drama of their inauguration in November 1920. I explore the complexity of the religious situation in which the place for the deified Emperor Meiji was narrated and conceptualised as a ‘non-religious’ ‘Shinto’ ‘shrine.’ The fact that the inner precinct was built with central government funding, while the outer precinct was funded by the Meiji Shrine Support Committee (Meiji jingū hōsankai), hints at the multiplicity of motivations and movements behind the shrine’s creation. I discuss the

37 De Certeau, The Practice. On de Certeau’s observations of space, see also: “The Imagi- nary of the City” and “Conclusion: Spaces and Practices”; “Ethno-Graphy.” 38 De Certeau, The practice, xiv. On de Certeau’s re-examination of Foucault’s panopticism, see also “The Black Sun of Language,” “Micro-techniques and Panoptic Discourse.” On de Certeau and Foucault, C. Colebrook, “Certeau and Foucault: Tactics and Strategic Essentialism.” 39 Buchanan, “Extraordinary Spaces in Ordinary Places,” 4. Buchanan’s works are interesting in that he pays particular attention to de Certeau’s theory of space: e.g., “Heterophe- nomenology, or de Certeau’s Theory of Space.” 40 I have learned much from de Certeau’s work. For example, with reference to everyday time-space de Certeau asks about ‘doing’ as opposed to ‘being,’ and looks for spatial practices. introduction 11 Figure 2. T he spatial structure of Meiji shrine, 1926. (Meiji Shrine Archives). 12 introduction ways in which diverse understandings of the shrine were contested, negotiated and finally visualised and presented as reality. Academic modes of knowledge, adapted by specialists engaged in Meiji shrine’s creation, were utilised to integrate various concepts of the ideal shrine into one physical shrine. I examine too the layers of events, occurring on and around 3rd November 1920, that were held to commemorate the shrine’s establishment, in order to shed light on the dynamic role of the populace in the developing the identity of the shrine space itself. The second, third and fourth chapters approach the shrine through the themes of memory, city and body respectively. Chapter 2 focuses on the Meiji Shrine Memorial Art Gallery (Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan), constructed in the outer precinct. The purpose of the gallery was to provide a historical narrative of the Meiji period through 80 paintings depicting Emperor Meiji’s life. It was forever to serve the shrine as a mnemonic space. This chapter discloses the dynamic interaction between this mnemonic space and the commemorative practice it was intended to pro- voke, namely, the act of remembering. It took over 20 years from the initial planning of the gallery to its completion in 1936, and throughout the course of its creation different acts of remembering took place, both inside and outside the space of the shrine. Officials concerned with the documentation of Meiji period history carried out investigations in order to determine the most representative events of the Meiji period, and the events most appropriate as a record for posterity; these were not necessarily the same. Painters aimed to represent the realities of the events, while the physical constructors of the gallery strove to perfect the gallery’s narrative structure, such as the spatial arrangement of the pictures, and the building’s architectural details. The making of the gallery was a process of creating what was to be remembered. The space of Meiji shrine includes several approaches to the inner and outer precincts, which link the shrine to people’s residential spaces. The creation of new precincts and road space necessarily involves the transformation either of the pre-existing space or of its use; the practice of residing both causes this transformation and is part of it. The residents in the area themselves contributed to the shaping of the spatial identity of the shrine, and Chapter 3 expands discussion of this issue. The present shrine land covers parts of three Tokyo metropolitan wards, namely Shibuya, Minato and Shinjuku. However, when the shrine was constructed, most of its area fell outside the ward boundaries of the time. The boundaries of the shrine were continually redefined through the interplay between changing notions of the city and its suburbs. The evolution of city planning and the introduction 13 consequences of the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake are examined here as two important factors which transformed both people’s modes of residing and the spatial identity of the shrine. I trace the process through which the shrine’s approaches and the surrounding residential areas were designated in 1926 as Japan’s first conservation zone, known as a fūchi chiku. It was the process of negotiation between city planners and residents that defined the boundaries of Meiji shrine space. The focus of Chapter 4 is the athletics ground located in the outer precinct and the Meiji Shrine Sports Meets (Meiji jingū taiiku taikai) held there. These meets worked as a nexus linking the shrine to people’s bodies nationwide. Previous scholars have critically examined the role of these meets, proposing that central government used them to manipulate and mobilise bodies throughout the nation. However, these propo- sitions have not been backed up with evidence of how actual bodies and communities responded to the governments’ use of the meets. Here I analyse a wide range of local documents and newspapers, and reach a conclusion that is at odds with previous scholarship. Focusing on the 11th Meet, organised by the Ministry of Health and Welfare (Kōseishō) in 1940, I argue that the supposed unity and consistency of local and national bodies was a pretence on the part of central government. This particular occasion merits consideration because it was held in association with both the 20th anniversary of Meiji shrine and the 2600th anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement. It thus provides an opportunity to examine how the shrine and the public were linked through sports activities. The ministry not only organised the meet at Meiji shrine on 3rd November, but also expected every local prefecture, city, town and village to hold its own simultaneous Meiji Shrine Sports Meet. An analysis of the meet therefore also promises to reveal how local people ‘lived’ the space of Meiji shrine on 3rd November. The fifth and final chapter discusses the post-war re-creation of the inner and outer precincts. The shrine’s post-war circumstances were quite different from those of the Taisho and early Showa periods. The shrine was reconstructed in the same ‘place’ but its spatial nature was quite distinct. I begin with an examination of how Western wartime policy-making regarding post-war Japan understood Meiji shrine, religion and Shinto, and how such policies affected GHQ’s treatment of Shinto. I then examine the negotiations between GHQ and various Shinto-related parties to determine the future status of Meiji shrine. The present status of the shrine was chosen from a number of possibilities discussed in these negotiations. An often neglected problem in considerations of post-war 14 introduction

Shinto is the treatment of state-owned shrine land after state sponsorship was prohibited. The questions of who should own the outer precinct land and whether the precinct was a religious facility became issues of public controversy. The problem and its solution illustrate the fact that the shrine has always embodied Shinto’s religious/non-religious dichotomy. Finally, the chapter investigates the physical reconstruction of the shrine buildings and the commemorative performances for the celebration of the shrine’s reestablishment. The forms of the buildings and of the celebratory events, although they were realised as re-presentations of original forms, were both materialisations of the ‘new’ space and time of the shrine. Meiji shrine has always been a space both of, and in, unceasing contestation. Chapter One

The Creation of Meiji Shrine 1912–1920

The Japanese practice of worshipping humans as kami has long been a subject of discussion and debate. The origin of human deification in Japan can be traced back to before the early modern period, and it is generally agreed that the worship of the living as kami began soon after.1 Shrines and monuments dedicated to the souls of historical personages became widespread from the modern period onwards.2 Meiji shrine and the deification of Emperor Meiji as kami can be firmly situated within this genealogy. My use of the term ‘genealogy,’ incidentally, should not be taken to imply some smooth and ordered progression; rather, I use it to refer to a process shaped by both difference and repetition. It has embraced frequently-recurring shared understandings of the practices of the deification and worship of men, and yet has also managed to incorporate within it ideas of complex divergence. For example, although Kozawa argues that the idea and practice of worshipping men as kami took root in Japanese society in ancient times, he also notes that we must recognise it took various styles, its social function was not uniform, and it was dependent on historical circumstances.3 The enshrinement of Emperor Meiji can be seen as precisely such a process of ongoing reiteration and variables. This chapter examines the formation of Meiji shrine’s inner and outer precincts, tracing the process from Emperor Meiji’s death (30th July 1912) to the inaugural events held to celebrate the shrine’s foundation in November 1920. The chapter is divided into three sections. The first section explores the various discourses concerning the shrine of the deified emperor, thus revealing the discursive nature of concepts such as Shinto, religion and shrine, through which the shrine was narrated and identified. The second section traces the stages through which various movements and organisations became involved in the process of shrine formation, and analyzes the concerns, ideas and motivations that physically constituted the shrine. I will consider the substance of domestic debates as

1 Kozawa Hiroshi, Ikigami no shisōshi; Miyata Noboru, Ikigami shinkō. 2 Haga S., Shiseki ron. 3 Kozawa H., Ikigami, 197. 16 chapter one engaged in by individuals involved both in campaigns for Meiji shrine and in its physical construction. The purpose of this section is to make clear how the shrine physically materialised as one distinctive place. The final section of this chapter discusses the performance dimension of the shrine’s creation, and examines the ways in which events occurring there were institutionalised, understood and situated in society. Following its foundation, commemorative events were held annually on 3rd November at the shrine, and I focus especially on these events and examine how people physically experienced the congratulatory shrine feast festivities.

1.1 Concepts: Shrine and Emperor

The complexity of the situation through which Meiji shrine emerged can be considered through the following aspects: firstly, the shrine as a product of the Taisho period; secondly, the shrine as sōken jinja (a state shrine dedicated to the spirits of imperial family members, loyal retainers and national heroes); and thirdly, as the site where Emperor Meiji was enshrined as kami. Regarding the first of these, a comprehensive understanding of the shrine is in fact only realisable through an appreciation of the social and religious context of the Taisho period. Enshrining historical personages at state shrines had been a distinctive feature of the Japanese shrine system from the Meiji period onwards. Later in the period, the government developed a legal and institutional argument which held that ‘a shrine’ was not a religious institution. This principle was seen as having been officially confirmed in 1900 when a Shrine Bureau (Jinjakyoku) was set up quite distinct from the Bureau for Religions (Shukyōkyoku).4 However, as Sakamoto suggests, questions pertaining to the religious quality of shrines only surfaced in the late Meiji and early Taisho periods: they led inevitably to the government creating, in 1929, a Commission for Shrine Research (Jinja seido chōsakai).5 The second significant aspect to Meiji shrine’s creation is that it was a sōken jinja shrine.6 I point to the particularities of a shrine built specifically for an emperor, in this case Emperor Meiji, and ask whether it is

4 Sakamoto K., Kokka Shintō keisei katei no kenkyū, 284–335. 5 Ibid., 317–324; idem, “The Structure of State Shinto,” 280–85. 6 Murakami argues that Meiji shrine is the most representative of all the sōken jinja shrines developed under Kokka Shinto (Kokka Shintō, 182–92.) the creation of meiji shrine 17 possible to interpret the meaning of sōken jinja shrines built for emperors differently than those built for loyal retainers or subjects. This question relates to the third significant aspect of Meiji shrine’s creation, namely that it was the site where Emperor Meiji was venerated as kami. Can we read the constructing of a shrine for Emperor Meiji in the same way as we can other emperors’ shrines? Indeed, are we even comparing like with like? Meiji shrine had been preceded by other state shrines, such as Kashihara shrine for Emperor Jinmu (founded in 1890) and Heian shrine for Emperor Kanmu (founded in 1895), but it was only in 1940 that the spirit of Emperor Kōmei (1831–1866) was enshrined, also in Heian shrine. Key here is the difference in the length of time taken, following an emper- or’s death, to establish a shrine; Emperor Kōmei was enshrined 74 years after his death, whereas Emperor Meiji’s enshrinement came only eight years after he died. Crucially, the enshrinement of Emperor Meiji was not that of some mythical or historical figure; the shrine was established by people who had known him personally.

1.1.1 “The Invention of a New Religion” The publication of The Invention of a New Religion, Basil Hall Chamberlain’s provocative 1912 work on Japan, coincided precisely with the commence- ment of the Meiji shrine creation project, and it may serve here as a point of reference.7 Exploring the historical context in which Chamberlain’s argument and various counter-arguments were situated, and through which Meiji shrine was established, I suggest that the particular intellectual discourse that emerged in reaction to Chamberlain’s work affected the development of the understanding of Meiji shrine. Chamberlain’s argument was that Japanese religion had been manufactured in the twentieth century. He termed it “Mikado-worship and Japanese-worship,” or elsewhere as “the religion of loyalty and patriotism,” in which “pre- existing ideas have been shifted, altered, freshly compounded, turned to new uses, and have found a new centre of gravity.”8 According to Chamberlain, Shinto was originally a primitive nature cult, which had already fallen into discredit. He argued that it had been rejuvenated as the nation’s new religion; vital support was lent it, he argued, by “high- minded chivalry called Bushidō.” He further posited that the invention of

7 Basil Hall Chamberlain, The Invention of a New Religion; reprinted in appendix of Things Japanese, 5th ed., rev. 8 Chamberlain, Things Japanese, 5th ed., rev., 560. 18 chapter one this religion of loyalty and patriotism was as yet an incomplete project: “It is still in the process of being consciously or semi-consciously put together by the official class, in order to serve the interests of that class, and, incidentally, the interests of the nation at large.”9 Scholars have long argued, and indeed are still arguing, about just what made Chamberlain write the article. Some have found an explanation in Chamberlain’s abhorrence of Japan’s 1910 annexation of Korea, and others in his hostility towards Lafcadio Hearn’s sympathetic understanding of Shinto, especially towards Hearn’s 1904 publication, Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation. Still others have found the origin of Chamberlain’s ideas in his disagreement with the idea of Bushidō as advocated by such Japanese intellectuals as Nitobe Inazō in his Bushidō, The Soul of Japan (1899).10 My interest lies in the fact that Chamberlain’s understanding of Japanese religion became a focal point for the arguments of those who shaped the intellectual discourses on religion, Shinto and Meiji shrine. The primary concern for Japanese intellectuals was how to solve the discrepancy between the government’s view that the shrine was not a religious institution and Chamberlain’s idea of Shinto as a new Japanese religion. Isomae emphasises the transformation ongoing at the time, pointing out that an understanding of the shrine as part of the domain of national morality had been dominant in the second half of the Meiji period, but that from around the 1890s a new kind of discourse was being developed and drawing support.11 In an attempt to overcome problems with the theory of the non-religious shrine, this new discourse saw the shrine as participating in the domains of both religion and morality. Similarly, Sasaki points out that the term ‘non-religious’ had different meanings when applied to ‘shrines’ and to ‘Shinto,’ and that the religiosity or lack thereof of the kami of the state shrines was continually transformed throughout the period.12 Regardless of his own supposedly non-political interest, Chamberlain’s ideas, and Chamberlain himself, became embroiled in the constant manufacturing of religious and non-religious discourses in Japan.

9 Ibid. 10 Lafcadio Hearn, Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation; Nitobe Inazō, Bushidō. For Cham- berlain’s understanding of Shinto and Japanese culture in general, see Hirakawa Sukehiro, Yaburareta yūjō; “Hān to Kurōderu ga mita ‘kami no kuni’.” Kusuya Shigetoshi, Igirisujin Japanologisuto no shōzō; Nezumi wa mada ikiteiru. Ōta Yūzō, B.H. Chenbaren: Nichiōkan no ōfuku undō ni ikita sekaijin; Basil Hall Chamberlain: Portrait of a Japanologist. 11 Isomae J., Shūkyō gensetsu, 55–64. 12 Sasaki Kiyoshi, “Shintō hi shūkyō yori Jinja hi shūkyō e”; “Kokka Shintō ni okeru “kami” kannen no seiritsu.” the creation of meiji shrine 19

Meiji shrine emerged from the debate centring on the discrepancies and contradictions of the concepts of ‘religion,’ ‘Shinto,’ and ‘shrine’ in Taisho Japan.

1.1.2 Meiji Shrine and the Discourse on National Morality For the shrine’s foundation celebrations in November 1920 various commemorative magazines were published, containing the views and com- ments of Home Ministry (Naimushō) staff and various thinkers. Tokyo City sponsored a series of commemorative lectures dedicated to Emperor Meiji and published them in anthology form, and commentators and lecturers probed and expounded upon the nature of Meiji shrine.13 Among them were Haga Yaichi and Inoue Tetsujirō, the most renowned propagators of the theory of national morality (kokumin dōtoku). An examination of the general opinion as articulated in these magazines, of Haga’s criticism of Chamberlain’s view of Japanese religion, and of Inoue’s morality- oriented understanding of the shrine, suggests how Meiji shrine came to be portrayed as the place for the propagation of national morality. The language employed in commemorative magazines shows a remarkable uniformity when referring to Emperor Meiji and his enshrinement. He is portrayed as the embodiment of the great achievements of Meiji civilisation. Tsukamoto Seiji, the head chief of the Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine (Meiji jingū zōeikyoku) in the Home Ministry, argued that the foundation of the shrine was in accord with the will of Emperor Meiji and of his age, and was the nation’s recompense for the great debt owed to its emperor.14 In addition, the deified emperor was depicted not only as an ideal figure, profoundly devoted to the kami and his ancestors, but also as a guide who taught, and could still teach, the way to worship kami. Indeed, more than a few writers at the time quoted poems composed by Emperor Meiji, such as: “Our country has been created by kami / Let us, descendants of those kami / Never forget the dutiful way / To display our indebtedness.”15 Nishimura Tamenosuke, a Home Ministry bureaucrat,

13 For example, Kishida Makio, ed., Meiji jingū; Teien kyōkai, ed., Meiji jingū; Special issue on the establishment of Meiji shrine, in Jinja kyōkai zasshi 19, no. 11; and the Tokyo City edited volume, Meiji tennō seitoku hōshō kōenshū. 14 Tsukamoto Seiji, “Meiji jingū zōei no yurai,” 6–7; “Meiji jingū to kokumin no sekisei,” 204. 15 Yoshida Kumaji, “Gyosei ni arawaretaru goseitoku,” 486. Chiba Taneaki, “Seikun ippan,” 564. 20 chapter one emphasised that these poems were manifestations of the imperial will, and that they were highly instructive as well as being fine literature.16 Rather than dwelling on whether or not such kami worship was religious in nature, all the above authors tended to emphasise its moral implications. Yoshida Kumaji, a philosopher of education at Tokyo University, posited that there were three modes of kami worship, ‘religious,’ ‘philosophical’ and ‘moral’; he argued that it was the third of these three, the moral, which carried most weight.17 He made a strong case for the emperor’s mode of worshipping kami as constituting respect to those who had devoted themselves to the country, rather than religious reverence; this is Emperor Meiji as moral exemplar rather than devout worshipper. Yoshida argued that imperial morality was manifest in the emperor’s manner of worship; it was therefore the moral ideal for the nation as a whole. Therefore, for Yoshida, Meiji shrine’s emperor could be interpreted in two ways. It was firstly a moral place, in which people learned how to revere kami in the way Emperor Meiji did, and where they remembered his great deeds and his era in general. But it was at the same time a place which could display before the Japanese people the ideal way to be Japanese, so that they might learn from it and follow. In a lecture celebrating the shrine’s foundation, Haga Yaichi proclaimed Chamberlain’s The Invention of a New Religion to be a superficial observation of Japanese history.18 For Haga, the fact that the Japanese people deeply lamented the death of Emperor Meiji and had established Meiji shrine proved that emperor worship was not something acquired through learning; rather, emperor worship came naturally to the Japanese, and Chamberlain erred in his insistence that it was a modern invention promulgated through school education. Haga first made this observation in 1912 and frequently repeated it, even after his 1920 lecture.19 Indeed, from 1907, following the publication of his most representative work, Kokuminsei jūron, Haga consistently argued that neither emperor worship nor the shrine had anything to do with religion. As Haga made clear in his English presentation to the London Japan Society in 1917, Shinto was for him above all a national cult serving a national morality; what distinguished

16 Nishimura Tamenosuke, “Meiji tennō gyosei o haishite,” 25. 17 Yoshida K., “Gyosei,” 102–104. 18 Haga Yaichi, “Meiji tennō.” 19 Haga Y., Nihonjin, 158; “Ōmigokoro.” the creation of meiji shrine 21

Shinto from Western religions was that in Shinto “there existed no prayers offered for the private or selfish interests of individuals.”20 Inoue Tetsujirō, who was a scholar of religious studies at Tokyo University, had begun from the end of the Meiji period onwards to investigate the functions of religion and Shinto.21 His theory of national morality differed relatively little from Haga’s argument, although he did not gainsay the religiosity of Shinto or shrines.22 Inoue was interested in an evaluation of Shinto and religion in terms of their relative contribution to the development of a national morality, and had theorised that Bushidō served to strengthen national morality; he now sought to use Shinto in the same way.23 An important point to note is that Inoue’s enthusiastic discourse on national morality had been the stimulus for Chamberlain to alter his stance regarding Shinto. His first edition of Things Japanese, in 1880, had provided a fairly neutral account, but by the time of the third revised edition in 1898 Chamberlain had enlarged the section on Shinto and added some rather more sceptical views regarding its new uses. To the original portrayal of Shinto was now added the critical comment that “some private scholars . . .—Dr. Inoue Tetsujirō, for example—have recently attempted to infuse new life into Shinto by decking it out in ethical and theological plumes borrowed from abroad.”24 His 1912 work, The Invention of a New Religion, was an extension of this revision. In a lecture dedicated to the shrine’s establishment, Inoue portrayed Emperor Meiji as an ideal, an embodiment of ‘Japanese spirit’ (nihon shugi).25 Japanese shrines were usually places of ‘social education’ (shakai kyōiku); and Meiji shrine in particular was a place for people to learn of the great achievements of Emperor Meiji and so develop their spirits within the ‘national polity’ (kokutai).26 Furthermore, he argued that shrines should place more emphasis on the principle and practice of Shinto, and should be educational institutions where the meaning of ‘Japanese spirit’ could be imparted to the nation. In arguing that Shinto

20 Haga Y., Kokuminsei jūron. His London lecture, “The Spirit of Japan,” is reprinted in Haga senshū, vol. 6, 173–4. 21 Shimazono S. and Isomae J., eds., Nihon no shūkyōgaku, vol. 2, Inoue tetsujirō shū, no. 9. 22 Dōchōshi (pseud.). “Jinja tai shūkyō mondai no kansatsu hitotaba”; Inoue Tetsujirō, “Dōtokujō yori mitaru jinja mondai,” 225–9. 23 Inoue T., Bushidō. 24 Chamberlain, Things Japanese, 3rd ed., rev., 862–3. 25 Inoue T., “Meiji tennō no goseitoku,” 556. 26 See also Inoue T., “Meiji jingū to kyōiku.” 22 chapter one should aim towards becoming ‘true’ Shinto and that Meiji shrine should become a ‘true’ shrine, Inoue was showing how the adoption of his view of Shinto could enable shrines to contribute to the development of a national morality.27

1.1.3 Meiji Shrine and the Religion of Loyalty Katō Genchi, a lecturer in religion at Tokyo University, contributed an article entitled “A view of Meiji shrine with reference to religious studies” to a commemorative magazine for the shrine’s enshrinement.28 While he agreed with Inoue’s assertion that national morality was of great importance, Katō’s aspiration was rather to gain worldwide recognition for Shinto as “one of the world’s living religions,” as an equal to Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.29 Katō is central to a full understanding of Meiji shrine for several reasons. Firstly, on 3rd November 1912 he established an academic society called the Meiji Japan Society (Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai), which was dedicated to Emperor Meiji and exists to this day as an organisation affiliated to Meiji shrine. Secondly, in the society’s journals and in other works he published numerous religious studies on Shinto, both in English and Japanese. Finally, his English works such as A Study of Shinto, the Religion of the Japanese Nation deeply influenced the formation of the Western understanding of Shinto (especially State Shinto), and therefore necessarily affected Western attitudes to Meiji shrine, as well as to Shinto, even in the post-war period.30 In his March 1912 work, Waga kenkoku shisō no hongi, Katō was also sensitive to Chamberlain’s proposition that Shinto was an invented new religion.31 Rather than denying Chamberlain, Katō proposed that it should be the task of Japanese scholars to propagate Shinto as a Japanese religion of filiality. For Katō the core aspect of Bushidō was emperor worship, which was religion, and thus Bushidō and Shinto should be considered one integrated religion of loyalty. Katō argued that Shinto was from very ancient times a theanthropic religion in which emperors were regarded as ‘Deus=Homo,’ in the same way as Western religions regarded God. For this reason Katō was keen to find evidence that Emperor Meiji had been

27 Dōchōshi (pseud.). “Jinja tai shūkyō,” 196; Inoue T., “Dōtokujō,” 227. 28 Katō Genchi, “Shūkyōgaku yori mitaru Meiji jingū,” 43–47. 29 Katō G., A Study of Shinto, the Religion of the Japanese Nation, ii. 30 For Katō and the Meiji Japan Society, see Kobayashi Kenzō, “Katō Genchi hakase no gyōseki,” 23–45. Katō G., A Study of Shinto; Katō G., ed., A Bibliography of Shinto. 31 Katō G., Waga kenkoku shisō no hongi, 21–7. the creation of meiji shrine 23 enshrined as kami during his lifetime. This would allow him to suggest that a theanthropic religious tradition had re-evolved in modern Japan.32 Katō’s insistence that only Japanese scholars could uncover the truth of Shinto was inspired by Chamberlain and was developed as a founding principle of the Meiji Japan Society.33 His potrayal of Emperor Meiji as the ideal manifestation of a Deus=Homo existence necessarily implied that Meiji shrine was the centrepiece of this religion of loyalty. The shrine was expected to be a place of the utmost significance for the national integration of Japan, since Emperor Meiji was himself an embodiment of the elements composing the national polity, and an ideal for the Japanese people. The shrine-related discourses examined above were not necessarily compatible, and Meiji shrine is best understood in terms of its capacity to encompass different interpretations, albeit interpretations with many common features; differences and similarities coexisted within the frameworks (both physical and metaphysical) constructed around the shrine. In addition, this capacity emerged (and could only emerge) precisely because of Taisho period policies which decreed shrines to be irreligious. Shinto and Bushidō, both of which were seen by Chamberlain as modern inventions, were integrated by Katō into his theory of Shinto. He argued that although some Japanese did not consider Shinto to be a religion, in fact that was exactly what it was.34 Although Katō’s aim was to make Shinto understandable for Western academics, his Shinto studies actually stimulated further Shinto-centred argument and criticism in the West.35

1.2 Movements: Negotiated Construction

On 1st May 1915 the Home Ministry announced that a shrine to be known as Meiji jingū was to be dedicated to the spirits of Emperor Meiji and his consort, Empress Shoken; it was to be built in Yoyogi, Tokyo, and ranked as a major state shrine, or kanpei taisha.36 In order to achieve these aims the Home Ministry set up the Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine. Although the government clearly played a huge role in establishing the shrine, its

32 Katō G., Honpō seishi no kenkyū; “Meiji tennō no goseishi to goshintoku,” 734–53. 33 Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai, Meiji seitoki kinen gakkai shuisho, 3rd November 1912. 34 Katō G., A Study of Shinto, 2. 35 Katō’s influence on the understanding of Shinto in the West is discussed in Chapter 5. 36 Home Ministry Announcement No. 30, 1915; Naimushō, Meiji jingū zōeikyoku. Zōeishi, 62–64. 24 chapter one formation is often depicted as the result of a national non-governmental movement, since in many ways the shrine was a product of private groups and individuals.37 My argument stresses the importance of the interactions between these two blocs, those inside and those outside government. In order to grasp the shrine and its space as fully as possible, it is crucial to appreciate the ways in which governmental pronouncements concerning Meiji shrine influenced, and were influenced by both private individuals and by Japanese society in general. How then did the interplay of these multiple actors and movements with their various ideologies work together to form Meiji shrine?

1.2.1 Petition Campaigns and Youth Associations The government decided to create a shrine dedicated to Emperor Meiji partly at least because a number of petitions for such a shrine had been submitted by local groups to the Home Ministry and to members of the Diet. The home minister, Hara Takashi, proposed petitioners postpone submissions until after the mourning period so as to be sure of their long- term commitment. Many were made within one month of Emperor Meiji’s death on 30th July 1912.38 For example, on 12th August a petition was submitted to Hara by a party that included Imaizumi Sadasuke. On 23rd August another petition was presented to the upper and lower houses, and on 29th September yet another was handed to the prime minister and his cabinet by associates of the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Tokyo shōgyō kaigisho).39 As well as these Tokyo-based requests, there were other groups, such as one based in Hakone, which submitted petitions asking for a shrine in their town. As a result a proposal to construct a shrine was passed in 1913, firstly by the upper house on 27th February and then by the lower house on 26th March. The Home Ministry charged the Shrine Feasibility Committee (Jinja hōshi chōsakai) with carrying out a feasibility study on 22nd December.40

37 For example, the forest around the shrine was planted with over 95,000 trees, some eighty percent of them donated by individuals. Meiji jingū keidai sōgō chōsa iinkai, ed., Meiji jingū keidai sōgō chōsa hōkoku, 14–15. See also, Nunokawa Hiroshi,“Nichiro sengo ni okeru kōkyō kūkan no kōzō,” xviii. 38 Jingiin, Jinjakyoku jidai o kataru, 112. 39 Shibusawa seien kinen zaidan ryūmonsha, ed., “Jingū gozōei hōsan yūshi iinkai,” 514–29; Naimushō, Zōeishi; Tokyo asahi shinbun (22nd August 1912). See also Daimaru M., “Meiji jingū no chinzachi sentei ni tsuite.” 40 With reference to these petitions and requests, Yamaguchi notes that immediately after the emperor’s death different commemorative ideas, such as founding a museum, the creation of meiji shrine 25

Local agents now began to launch campaigns to bring the shrine to their respective towns and villages. The Home Ministry reported that 40 different shrine petitions were submitted before the Feasibility Committee finally determined on 15th June 1914 to locate the shrine in Tokyo.41 The campaign of Hanno in Saitama Prefecture, for example, promoted the scenic area around Mt. Asahi as most suitable for the shrine. Hanno’s campaign took into account construction plans for the Musashino railway line, and included a new mountain resort to exploit the potential synergy of the railway, scenery and shrine.42 Similarly, 22 local petitions were submitted from villages and towns around Mt. Fuji. But the role of local players was not confined to these regional campaigns. As Yamaguchi has recently made clear, the Meiji shrine project was at least partly motivated and organised by agents of the capital itself. Indeed, the proposal of the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry advanced through the elimination rounds, and became the basis for the plan that was ultimately adopted.43 Considering that the two main figures in the Chamber, the influential industrialist Shibusawa Eiichi (discussed in detail later) and the mayor of Tokyo Sakatani Yoshirō, were also members of the Feasibility Committee, it can be seen that the ideas and schemes behind the shrine evidently had considerable input from Tokyo itself, as well as from the national government.44 In order to understand the involvement of ‘ordinary people’ in the formation of Meiji shrine, it is important to study the activities of the youth associations, or seinendan. Indeed, the process of Meiji shrine’s formation was itself partly responsible for developing activities of youth associations across Japan.45 Tazawa Yoshiharu (1885–1944), already well known

a library or an Emperor Meiji award, were also proposed in the newspapers. Besides the petitions mentioned above, various wards in Tokyo also organised petition movements. See Yamaguchi T., “Meiji jingū no seiritsu o megutte”; “Jinja hōshi chōsa kai ni tuite 1”; “Nanitozo”; Meiji jingū no shutsugen. As regards Tokyo-based movements, objections were made that these were attempting to create a shrine for the people of Tokyo alone; the point was made that such a shrine should be created for the whole nation (e.g. Ōoka’s commentary in Kokumin shinbun 4th Aug 1912). 41 Naimushō, Zōeishi, 10–13. 42 Yamaguchi T., “Nanitozo,” 17–19. 43 Yamaguchi T., “Jinja hōshi chōsa kai,” 13. 44 Naimushō, Zōeishi, 19. For example Honda Seiroku, the renowned forestry scholar engaged in the shrine forest’s creation, suggested that Shibusawa convinced him to agree to creating the shrine in Tokyo; Honda’s original idea was to position the shrine to make more use of ‘natural’ landscape, such as at the foot of Mt. Fuji. See Honda S., “Meiji jingū chinza sanjūnen, zōei no koro o kataru,” 21–23. 45 Takeda Kiyoko, Nihon liberalisumu no ryōsen, 186. 26 chapter one

Figure 3. Youth groups engaged in shrine construction work. (Reprinted from Meiji Jingū oshashinchō, ed. Teikoku gunjin kyōikukai, 1920, unpaginated). as an advocate of youth groups and education for the young and later appointed a member of the Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine, played an important role in linking the youth associations with the formation of the shrine. Indeed, it was Tazawa who first put forward the idea of involving young volunteers in the construction work. Between 1919 and 1922 youth groups from all over Japan sent along about 100,000 of their 18–25 year-old male members to assist in the construction of both the inner and outer precincts [Fig. 3].46 It was this cooperation between members of youth groups from all over Japan that inspired the declaration in 1920 to create a national association for young people.47 Celebrating the completion of shrine construction and the development of the youth association network, the representatives of over 11,500 different groups jointly formed a nationwide campaign capable of independent fund-raising, under the slogan “One yen each.”48 Finally, with Tazawa playing a leading role, the

46 Ibid.; Naimushō, Zōeishi, 425–8. 47 Tazawa Yoshiharu, “Seinendan no shimei,” 310. 48 Takeda K., Nihon liberalisumu, 186. the creation of meiji shrine 27

Japan Youth Centre (Nihon seinenkan) was founded, and took its place within the outer precinct.

1.2.2 Ideological Interaction How might these movements be situated in relation to government policies? After all, neither the campaigns nor the youth groups developed independently from each other, or of their own volition. Here two members of the Home Ministry, Mizuno Rentarō and Inoue Tomokazu, prove to have been pivotal. Mizuno and Inoue were members of both the Shrine Feasibility Committee and the Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine, and they also played important roles in developing joint policy for the Bureau for Local Affairs and the Shrine Bureau, in particular relating to the Local Improvement Movement (chihō kairyō undō) and the so-called ‘theory of the shrine as centre of community’ (jinja chūshin setsu). It was through these joint policies that the two movements (local agent campaigns and youth group activities) first came to be related to the establishment of Meiji shrine. The dynamics of the relationships of such movements as the shrine petition campaigns and the youth associations with the creation of the shrine should be re-examined in comparison with, and in contrast to, the dynamics of the relationships that the government had with shrines, the regions, and youth education. As Miyachi notes, the Local Improvement Movement was founded by central government to encourage the development of self-governing local communities. Having established a degree of self-awareness, these communities were to be welcomed into the embryonic national community.49 It was Inoue who promoted this policy when he was head of the Bureau for Local Affairs. Similarly, soon after he became head of the Shrine Bureau in 1904, Mizuno began to stress the importance of autonomy for each local community, an autonomy that could be furthered by choosing one shrine, and only one, as its community-centre.50 Mizuno also pressed for an ideal shrine/community-centre relation that could serve as a theoretical and practical model for communities. He emphasised the local shrine as the central institution of the local community in

49 Miyachi Masato, Nichiro sengo seijishi no kenkyū, 4. 50 Mizuno Rentarō, “Jinja o chūshin to seru chihō jichi,” 1–6; “Jinja ni tsuite,” no. 1–2. Mizuno was also known as a strong promoter of shrine mergers (jinja gōshi). As Nitta suggests, Mizuno needed to promote mergers in order to ensure that all the shrines in the nation could be sure of sufficient financial support. See Nitta H., “Arahito gami” “kokka Shintō” toiu gensō, 184–5. 28 chapter one the same way that state shrines were the pillars of the nation.51 One must consider the possibility that the local village campaigns aimed at luring Meiji shrine to their communities were developed under the influence of such policies, or were even pitched so as to highlight the incorporation of such policy into their respective village administrations. Furthermore, given that Inoue succeeded Mizuno as the head of the Shrine Bureau in 1908 and that soon afterwards Mizuno become head of the Bureau for Local Affairs, it seems inevitable that government policies influenced the process of shrine formation. As for governmental influence on youth groups, a key directive of the Local Improvement Movement was the development of education and associations for young people. When invited by the Bureau for Local Affairs, Tazawa delivered a series of lectures on the methods and techniques of youth education at several Local Improvement seminars.52 In 1915, the home affairs and education ministers made their first official references to youth associations, declaring that central government should encourage their development throughout Japan.53 Thus, through the support of government members and their involvement in campaigns and youth groups, the government played a vital, albeit indirect, role in the formation of Meiji shrine. The focus of my analysis now shifts towards the process of ideological negotiation and reinterpretation and its role in the intricate relationship between national government, local agents and young people. The appropriation of central government ideology by local agents supporting Tokyo’s campaign illustrates the degree to which ideology could be flexibly interpreted on the ground. Indeed, the interrelationship between the national government and Tokyo as a local agent was reflected in the shrine itself, in the relative positions of the inner precinct and the outer precinct. The inner precinct was to be built with central government funds, while the outer precinct was to be funded by public donations.54 While the Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine oversaw the project on behalf of the national government, a Meiji Shrine Support Committee (Meiji jingū hōsankai) was set up by interested Tokyo parties in order to attract money to build the outer precinct. The parties were Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture (Tokyofu), Tokyo City and the Tokyo Chamber

51 Mizuno, “Shinshoku no tame ni,” 4; “Jinja chūshin,” 5; “Jinja ni tsuite,” no. 2, 2–6. 52 Miyachi M., Nichiro sengo, 74; Tazawa Y., “Seinendan no shimei,” 375. 53 Takeda K., Nihon liberalisumu, 192–193. 54 Meiji jingū hōsankai ed., Gaienshi, 47. the creation of meiji shrine 29 of Commerce and Industry.55 As we shall see, these Tokyo parties played a significant role in the creation of the shrine space. As a sponsor of the outer precinct, the Support Committee was responsible for constructing the Memorial Art Gallery and the shrine approaches which linked the outer precinct with the inner precinct; the same trinity of Tokyo parties also separately became key figures in the hosting and organising of celebratory events for the shrine following its inauguration, and later established a similar organisation to the Support Committee, namely the Meiji Shrine Celebration Committee (Meiji Jingūsai hōshukukai), to “promote kami nigiwai” (festive activities to entertain kami).56 The role of the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry was vital as it coordinated the trinity of Tokyo parties and thus the Support Committee. Indeed, the aforementioned proposal made by the Chamber to site the shrine in Tokyo on 29th September 1912 had already included a proposition to convene a support committee.57 It is worth noting here how Shibusawa Eiichi, a leading member of the Chamber, situated himself and the Tokyo petition campaign with respect to the national government. As one of the most influential industrialists of the period, Shibusawa was often asked to join the government, but he refused such requests and spent most of his life in independent business. His self-assigned objective was to defeat the elevation of public officials above the people (kanson minpi), and thus to promote entrepreneurship in Japanese society. During his lifetime, Shibusawa built up and aided some 500 different business organisations; the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry itself was established in 1891 largely through Shibusawa’s efforts.58 Through their coordinated actions and petitions, Shibusawa and the Tokyo parties thus aimed to contribute to the shrine creation independently of central government.

55 Shibusawa seien kinen zaidan ryūmonsha, ed., “Jingū gozōei hōsan yūshi iinkai,” 514–29, “Zaidan hōjin Meiji jingū hōsankai,” 543–87. 56 Tokyo shōgyō kaigisho, Meiji jingū chinzasai, Tokyo jitsugyō ka hōshuku ni kansuru hōkokusho; Meiji jingū, Chōsashitsu, Meiji jingūsai hōshukukai ni kansuru kiroku. 57 Naimushō, Zōeishi, 56. Although the original idea made by the Chamber was for a Support Committee that would fund the outer precinct through the donations of Tokyo citizens only, Home Minister Hara’s suggestion influenced their decision to fund it from nationwide public donations. See Unoki Tadashi, Hakuraku Shibusawa ō, 6–60. 58 Shibusawa kenkyūkai, ed., Kōeki no tsuikyūsha • Shibusawa Eiichi. This book includes various useful discussions on Shibusawa. Esp., Katagiri Nobuo, “Gaikan: Shibusawa Eiichi, 91 nen no shōgai to sono jiseki,” 3–24; Kimura Masato, “Jinteki nettowāku no keisei: Kigyō o torimaku kokusai kankyō no sōshutsu,” 88–103; Okita Yukuji, “Kokusai kōryū o suishin suru heiwa shugi kyōiku kōsō,” 243–61. 30 chapter one

Tazawa’s primary concern was to exploit the opportunity presented to him by the Meiji shrine project and to demonstrate how eager and skilful his youth group members were. When Tazawa’s idea of involving young volunteers in the construction work was summarily rejected by the head of the Foundation Bureau, Tazawa complained that members of the bureau were ignorant of the skills of his young people.59 Through his negotiation and persuasion, however, a trial was arranged for the Abeno County Youth Group, with which he was involved, and it was the success of this group’s work that triggered the great rise in work applications from other groups and enabled the project’s completion.60 Furthermore, it must be noted that the youth associations themselves were constantly appropriat- ing and re-interpreting Tazawa’s original intentions. The reports issued by those who took part in voluntary youth work note that volunteers did of course set out for Yoyogi because “it was something expected by their community”; at the same time, however, such journeys were a “wonderful opportunity to satisfy their curiosity and interest.”61 The complex multiple interrelationships binding together each of the major actors in the Meiji shrine project must be examined in the round, with reference to the political and social background of Taisho Democracy.62 For example, Takeda maintains that Tazawa’s practice of encouraging the young in personal self-development through his youth association activities should be considered in the context of Japanese lib- eralism. Matsumura also suggests that Tazawa’s motivation was distinct from that of educators promoting a military-oriented youth education. Certainly, Tazawa himself strongly criticised the political and military manipulation of the youth associations.63 Tazawa’s motivations and aims, and the tactics he employed to achieve them, placed him firmly within the milieu of the times. Similarly, Shibusawa Eiichi was, in many ways, typical of the era. Indeed, it could be argued that he shaped Taisho Democracy just as much as it shaped him. He was able to appropriate and interpret flexibly whatever it was

59 Tazawa Y., “Meiji jingū gozōei bidan,” 71–80; “Kaku chihō seinendan no gozōei hōshi,” 96–100. 60 Tazawa, Y., “Seinendan no shimei,” 376–7. 61 Nihon seinenkan, Taikyū hōkōkai no ayumi. 62 Akazawa suggests the friction between the theory of the shrine as centre and actual experienced social reality may have stimulated the birth of the movements of the Taisho Democracy era. See Akazawa Shirō, Kindai Nihon no shisō dōin to shūkyō tōsei, 53–66. 63 Takeda K., Nihon liberalizumu, 218; Matsumura Ken’ichi, “Shakai kyōiku ni okeru kokumin kyōka no tenkai,” 221–2; Tazawa. Y., “Seinendan no shimei,” 320–24. the creation of meiji shrine 31 he needed to achieve his goals; he was involved with a huge variety of causes, pursuing the shrine’s creation while maintaining interests in other religious and philanthropic movements. For example, Shibusawa was deeply involved in the foundation and development of Association Concordia (Kiitsu kyōkai) in Japan. The express aim of this group was to create a synthetic religion that united all existing religions. Founded in 1912, Association Concordia gathered various thinkers, including religious leaders, scholars and industrialists, and stimulated debate between them on such topics as how Japan’s political and religious relationships with foreign countries could be improved.64 Shibusawa’s motivations for creating Meiji shrine were complex and comprised multiple influences and intentions. As with Tazawa, Shibusawa was at times in direct confrontation with national government, at other times in league with them. Any single interpretation of a process concerned with ideas must fail to elucidate the substance of a particular ideological form; any specific reason for the creation of Meiji shrine could easily have covered an entire spectrum of positions and motivations that were based upon the ‘fit,’ or lack of ‘fit,’ of multiple elements. In the conception of Meiji shrine, a number of priorities as well as schema were at times in conflict with one another.

1.2.3 Construction and Academia The preceding arguments have shown the variety of agenda and actions authored by the different actors in the shrine’s process of creation. I now proceed to ask how such complexities were integrated into one distinctive entity. I will focus on three important figures, all members of both the Shrine Feasibility Committee and the Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine: Itō Chūta, Doctor of Engineering, Honda Seiroku, Doctor of Forestry, and Miyachi Naokazu, Doctor of Literature. They employed different modes of knowledge for understanding shrine tradition, and finally produced the physical components of the shrine: its architecture, forest, and regalia, respectively. Various studies of their contributions to their academic fields have been made.65 As Aoi suggests, many of these studies are based on the

64 For the association, see Nakajima Kuni, “Kiitsu kyōkai shōkō 1–2.” For the association and Shibusawa, see Shibusawa E., Seien hyakuwa, 406–730; George Ōshiro, “Shibusawa Ei’ichi and Christian Internationalisation,” 1–17. 65 For Itō, e.g. Igarashi Tarō, “Chokusen ka, kyokusen ka”; Maruyama Shigeru, “Itō Chūta to jinja kenchiku”; Suzuki Hiroyuki, ed., Itō Chūta o shitte imasuka. For Honda, e.g. Uchida 32 chapter one

‘invention of tradition’ mode of analysis. It seems to me self-evident that the creation of Meiji shrine was an attempt to manifest ‘tradition’ through (re)invention of the shrine.66 However, I would like to emphasise the inter- active process of this invention, in order to shed light both on the genesis and development of ideas relating to what the shrine should be and on the roles of negotiation and elaboration in stimulating further modes of knowledge. The question to consider with regards to Itō Chūta (1867–1954) is how he envisaged the final appearance of the shrine. Itō is regarded as the architect who established the history of Japanese architecture as a viable academic field; he became the first professor of this new academic discipline, at Tokyo University.67 From 1902 to 1905 he researched foreign architecture, travelling widely throughout Asia, the Middle East and Europe, aiming to locate Japanese architecture firmly within the framework of world architectural history. Although he was also the architect of Yasukuni shrine, Heian shrine and Tsukiji Honganji, Itō sought to establish the architecture of Meiji shrine as the standard for all shrines in Japan.68 The 6th meeting of the Shrine Feasibility Committee on 2nd July 1914 approved the proposals of its Consultative Group (Tokubetsu iinkai) regarding the shrine’s architecture: the Main Sanctuary (Honden) was to be built in the nagare zukuri style, and its building material was to be Japanese cypress [Fig. 4].69 Itō, who had been charged with responsibility for determining such matters, saw nagare zukuri as the most suitable due to its realisation of ‘genuine’ Japanese taste. He considered the taisha zukuri style to be too old and local in style, shinmei zukuri also as too old and furthermore unsuitable for broad-leaved trees, and gongen zukuri to be too gaudy.70 Itō sought to understand first and foremost what was required to turn architecture into a shrine; once this was accomplished, structures, styles and materials would ‘naturally’ fall into place. It is important to touch on Itō’s process of thought, since some historians assume

Masayoshi, “Mori wa kōshite tsukurareta,” 27–48. For Miyachi, e.g. Endō Jun, “Shintō Kenkyūshitsu no rekishiteki hensen,” 9–20; “Miyachi Naokazu,” 98–109. 66 Aoi Akihito, “Shinden to yūkyo no jidai,” 107–118; Eric J. Hobsbawm, “Introduction: Inventing Tradition,” 1–14. 67 Suzuki H., ed., Itō Chūta, 4. 68 Itō Chūta, “Jinja kenchiku ni tsuite,” 3. 69 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Jinja hōshi chōsakai keika yōryō, vol. 1, 15th August 1913–29th August 1914. 70 Itō C., “Jinja kenchiku,” 7–8; “Jingū no shaden ni tsuite,” 57; “Jinja kenchiku no keishiki wa ittei subeki mono nariya,” 10–12. the creation of meiji shrine 33

Figure 4. The Honden at the time of completion. (Reprinted from Meiji jingū shashinshū, ed. Kōyōsha, 1930, unpaginated). the Feasibility Committee neglected his initial plans to construct Meiji shrine in a new style; this is a view which presents Itō as a mere pawn of the committee.71 The historians are partially correct, for at the beginning of the project he did propose the creation of a new shrine in a new style.72 However, he soon abandoned the idea. It is interesting to note though that, according to the proceedings from the first meeting of the Consultative Group on 1st May 1914, Itō’s proposal of the nagare zukuri style was contested by some who advocated a new ‘Meiji style’ shrine; their concern was to identify which aspects of the ‘spirit’ of the Meiji period should be made visible as shrine architecture.73 What, then, did Itō require of a shrine? ‘Authentic’ shrine architecture should, he claimed, keep harmony (chōwa) between straight and curved lines, between ‘indigenous’ and ‘Buddhist’ styles, and between ‘ceremony’ and ‘structure.’ For Itō, the ‘genuine’ Japanese taste of nagare zukuri

71 E.g., Fujiwara K., “Meiji jingū sōken ni miru nagare zukuri ishō no seiritsu katei,” 79–84. 72 Kokumin shinbun (6th August 1912). 73 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Tokubetsu iinkai, Jinja hōshi chōsakai tokubetsu iinkai kaigiroku (daiikkai), 1st May 1914, 22–43. 34 chapter one

“adapted and coordinated Chinese style most properly.”74 Xu highlights the significance of Itō’s consciousness of ‘Oriental’ identity, which he had developed on his travels through Asian countries.75 His experiences in Asia convinced Itō that by linking Japan’s culture firmly to this broader Oriental identity, Japan’s traditions, and thus its architecture, could be expressed in contrast to Western identity. Western cultures and their architecture were, for Itō, mirrors, reflecting what Japan and its architecture must become. This was to be accomplished by establishing a ‘native’ view of Japanese architecture, and by opposing the Western view of Japanese architecture propounded by Japan-resident architects such as John Conder and Bruno Taut.76 It may be appropriate to see Itō’s ‘precise definition’ of the shrine as having been formed through the prism of his Oriental identity. Honda Seiroku (1866–1952) was charged with responsibility for determining how best to develop the landscape of Meiji shrine. Honda had studied forestry abroad and created over 100 parks, including Hibiya Park, the first in the Western-style (seiyō kōen) in Japan. Many of his students were also involved in the creation of Meiji shrine. Honda and his followers, while drawing on Honda’s studies of foreign forestry, were concerned to differentiate and define Western-type park landscapes and the Japanese- style shrine landscapes they were creating. Their definitions of what made a park ‘Western’ and a shrine forest ‘Japanese’ were to shape the development of the field of landscape design for many years to come. One of Honda’s students, Uehara Keiji, established the first technical school of landscape engineering in 1924 (and later the first such department in a Japanese university, at Tokyo University of Agriculture). It is therefore often claimed that the creation of Meiji shrine actually gave birth to a new academic discipline, that of landscape engineering.77 The creation of a ‘sacred’ and ‘solemn’ shrine forest was desired by all those involved with planning the shrine and its surroundings. However, exactly what constituted a shrine forest’s ‘sacredness’ and ‘solemnity,’

74 Itō C., “Jinja kenchiku,” 9. See also, “Jinja kenchiku no yōshiki to dennai hosetsu ni tsuite,” 1–5; “Jingū no shaden,” 54–62; “Meiji jingū shaden no kenchiku ni tsuite,” 533–540. 75 Xu Subin, “Itō Chūta no sekai ryokō,” 139. 76 Kurakata Shunsuke, “Nōto no rakugaki: Kondoru, Tatsuno Kingo, Itō Chūta,” 222. 77 For Honda and the history of the Western-style park in Japan, e.g. Honda Seiroku hakase kenshō jigyō jikkō iinkai, ed., Honda Seiroku no kiseki; Shibuya Katsumi, “Shiryō kara mita seinenki no Honda Seiroku,” 1–8. For Honda and Uehara, Uehara Keiji, Hito no tsukutta mori; Shinji I., “Nō”no jidai. For the creation of Meiji shrine and the birth of a new academic discipline, see Shinji I., “Nō”no jidai,” 156–66. the creation of meiji shrine 35 and how to differentiate it from the ‘park,’ became topics of considerable debate in the planning stage. Uehara criticised as regrettable the then current tendency for shrine precincts to be ‘park-like,’ and noted how many shrine precincts were veering towards profanity through the incorporation of parks within their precincts.78 However, the distinction between the two had been unclear ever since the introduction of the Western concept of the ‘park.’ Analysing the history of Japanese gardens, Shirahata suggests that the ‘park experience’ began for Japan in 1873, when the government proclaimed that this Western import was the ideal place for popular recreation. But rather than creating new parks, the government frequently re-designated existing shrine and temple precincts, as these were often the most appropriate sites for parks; indeed, even at the end of the twentieth century, many parks were in former shrine grounds and other familiar scenic places. Finally, with Honda’s creation of Hibiya Park in 1903, ‘the park’ was redefined in a new, government-authorised system: ‘proper’ parks had henceforth to be distinguished from, and created outside, shrine precincts, in contrast to most earlier parks which were nothing more than extensions to them.79 The boundary between the two thus shifted according to a redefinition of what constituted a ‘proper’ park or shrine precinct, so that the inner and outer precincts of Meiji shrine respectively stand for the relation between the ‘real’ shrine precinct and the ‘proper’ park. The 8th meeting of the Feasibility Committee, on 3rd November 1914, approved Honda’s plan for the shrine forest.80 The main objective was to create an ‘appropriate’ shrine forest, with ‘solemn’ and ‘sacred’ scenery, that was as close to a ‘natural’ forest as possible. The authorisation and creation of an ‘appropriate’ shrine forest thus became crucial to the committee. The aim was to create a forest capable of natural reproduction, which necessitated the planting of suitable trees. A careful study of the land allocated for Meiji shrine proved that broad-leaf evergreens, such as oaks, were the most suited to the soil; planning was long-term, with projections made for 100 to 200 years into the future [Fig. 5].81

78 Uehara K., “Jinja fūchi rin no zōsei ni tsuite,” 3–8. 79 Shirahata Yōzaburō, “Nihon bunka to shitemita kōen no rekishi,” 5–9; “Toshi to teien,” 51–52. 80 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Jinja hōshi chōsakai keika yōryō, vol. 2, 30th September– 30th November 1914, p. 47. 81 Honda S., “Naien no kenboku,” 113–121; Hongō Takanori, “Naien ni okeru rin’en sekkei,” 87. 36 chapter one

Figure 5. Plan for Meiji shrine forest. (Reprinted from Meiji Jingū gaienshi, ed. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1937, 53). the creation of meiji shrine 37

Miyachi Naokazu (1866–1949) was, as both a committee and Consultative Group member, responsible for determining such Meiji shrine regalia as the ‘sacred object’ (mitamashiro). What then was to be decided about the Meiji shrine regalia? This was his responsibility. Miyachi had studied national history at Tokyo University and began to work in the Shrine Bureau of the Home Ministry in 1909.82 His administrative work since then was mostly concerned with shrines and the preservation of cultural treasures. In preparation for the construction of Meiji shrine, Miyachi carried out investigations of different shrines around the country. His task was to assemble a ‘correct history’ of shrines from the multiple histories he had encountered in his travels. Having prised open the doors of previously secret Main Sanctuaries (Honden) and carefully recorded the sacred objects he found displayed there, Miyachi reported that no standard style of regalia was to be found.83 Miyachi recommended to the committee that a set of sacred objects such as garments, swords and mirrors should be enshrined in Meiji shrine to reflect their importance in Japanese shrine history.84 For Miyachi, as for Itō, the Chinese question loomed large. He deemed the style of the Heian period to be “historically correct,” as items from this period had “dispelled Chinese influence.”85 Miyachi considered the Heian style to be particularly suitable for a ‘Meiji style’ shrine, to make visible the ‘spirit’ of the Meiji period. Both the Heian and the Meiji were, for him, periods of restoration in which, and through which, Japan could refine its tradition. For the design of the shinza, the physical place where the kami were to reside, Miyachi chose the rectangular chōdai structure with curtains draped on each side, rather than the octangular, canopied takamikura. Miyachi argued that the Chinese influence on the latter made it unsuitable. This, he insisted, accorded with ‘historical evidence’ that Emperor Meiji had rejected Chinese-influenced ceremonial and used the chōdai style in his enthronement ceremony. The committee finally approved Miyachi’s proposal on 2nd July 1914.86 Miyachi’s career illustrates the interrelationship of the shrine’s creation with two developments, those of shrine research in the Home Ministry and

82 Endō J., “Miyachi Naokazu,” 98–109. See also, Isomae J., Shūkyō gensetsu, 238–41. 83 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, keika yōryō, vol. 1, 41. 84 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, keika yōryō, vol. 1. Miyachi N., “Shinza ni chōdai no kamae o oku o datō to suru ni tsuki iken,” 14–26. 85 Ibid. 86 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, keika yōryō, vol. 1. 38 chapter one the academic study of Shinto. Suggesting that there had been no specialist research on shrine history prior to that made for Meiji shrine, Miyachi argued one of the epoch-making outcomes of the shrine project was the emergence of a major “new science.”87 He held successive posts in the Shrine Bureau, becoming first a research officer in 1919 and then head of the research section in 1924. He was also appointed to teach shrine history at Tokyo University when the university established Japan’s first academic course in Shinto studies in 1920, and was the only scholar of Shinto studies in the university throughout the whole pre-war period.88 The study of shrine history thus became a ‘new science.’ Miyachi’s aim was to develop this field and to integrate shrine history into national history. The role played by Miyachi in the establishment of academic Shinto studies was considerable, but it was his investigations for Meiji shrine that enabled him to contribute to the establishment of this ‘new science.’ The formation of Meiji shrine was a process within which the ‘genuine,’ ‘solemn’ and ‘correct’ traditions of the shrine were questioned, debated and finally made manifest. However, these traditions were in no way axiom- atic or uniform; rather, the ‘invention of tradition’ was, in fact, a process of contestation and reconstruction of these self-same ‘traditions.’ Itō’s notion of ‘harmony’ found reflection in the way that the nagare zukuri style, for example, complemented the chōdai style; they were both developed from, and influenced by, Heian period styles and tastes. However, the traditions they ‘saw’ were quite different although both Itō and Miyachi drew upon Heian style. For Itō, the importance of this style was its harmonious coordination of Japanese and Chinese tastes, while Miyachi appreciated the Heian mode because it had removed Chinese influence. Itō himself commented that the many styles of architecture proposed for Meiji shrine, representing extremes of old and new, made plain the fact that there was no unified idea or understanding of the shrine.89 Indeed, general understandings were fragmentary and in flux. Another reading of tradition has been noted by Uehara.90 He relates how a disagreement between Honda and Home Minister Ōkuma Shigenobu, concerning the ideal ‘solemnity’ of the shrine forest, escalated into a serious dispute. Ōkuma stubbornly insisted on creating a ‘solemn’ and

87 Meiji jingū, Chinza nijūnensai shorui, vol. 5. Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, keika yōryō, vol. 1, 41. 88 Endō J., “Miyachi Naokazu,” 98–109. See also, Isomae J., Shūkyō gensetsu, 238–41. 89 Itō C., “Meiji jingū no kenchiku ni tsuite,” 205–206. 90 Uehara K., Hito no tsukutta mori, 15–18. the creation of meiji shrine 39

‘magnificent’ cedar forest, instead of an ‘oak thicket,’ until Honda persuaded him otherwise, using scientific forestry research. For Honda, the ‘solemnity’ of a shrine forest was related to its natural ability to flourish. Making use of knowledge acquired through his studies of Western forestry, Honda assembled data to prove that a broad-leaf evergreen forest, for example of oak, was far better suited to the soil and climate of the Kanto region than one of cedar. Miscellaneous understandings of the shrine were contested, negotiated and finally visualised as reality. The creation of the shrine itself prompted the development of new modes of knowledge. Through their involvement with the Meiji shrine project Itō, Honda and Miyachi laid the foundations of their respective academic disciplines, namely the history of Japanese architecture, landscape design and the study of Shinto. Our understanding of the shrine should rest not on the presumption of some shared concept of ‘shrine,’ and therefore of Meiji shrine as being a typical example of this, but rather it should be based on its inherent capacity to become a “new vehicle of new aspirations in new historical contexts”.91

1.3 Events: Spatial Practices on 3rd November

There are several reasons why an analysis of the time and space of Meiji shrine on 3rd November is important. Firstly, the commemorative character of 3rd November is relevant not only to the formation of Meiji shrine, but also, it might be claimed, to the formation of the Japanese state itself. The date of 3rd November, Emperor Meiji’s birthday, was first designated as a national holiday in 1868. It was declared a day of commemoration and entitled tenchō setsu.92 National holidays were first regulated and institutionalised during the Meiji period, serving to eliminate various folk festivals as holidays and stress the importance of imperial commemoration days.93 This designation of national holidays was an important part of the process of Meiji time formation. In the next few years almost all time measurement systems were drastically changed: the one-emperor one-era system was adopted (issei ichigensei, 1868), the calendar changed from the

91 Stuart A. Hall, “Religious Ideologies and Social Movements in Jamaica,” 293. 92 This account of the Japanese formulation of a time system is drawn from the following: Okada Yoshirō, Meiji kaireki. Tsunoyama Sakae, Tokei no shakaishi. Tokoro Isao, Nihon no shukusaijitsu; Nengō no rekishi; Uchida Masao, Koyomi to Nihonjin. 93 Okada Y, Kaireki, 260–269. 40 chapter one lunar to solar calendar, and the 24 hour system was introduced (both 1873). The resultant uniformity of the time system in the Meiji period has been associated with uniformity of power.94 In this sense, as Narita suggests, it may be possible to say that a specific time (3rd November) was disembedded from the preceding cultural context and was situated as ‘nation-time’ at the beginning of the Meiji period.95 This does not mean, however, that this emergent structure of 3rd November became fixed once it was integrated into the context of Meiji period. The date became Meiji setsu in 1927, and was again renamed Bunka no hi under the 1948 National Holiday Law. The meaning and content of 3rd November have continuously evolved in association with the formation of the nation and Meiji shrine. It is for this reason that I emphasise the significance of a genealogical analysis of the time and space formation of Meiji shrine on 3rd November. In particular, I stress that the change of time measurement necessitated changes to the cycle of annual festivals and to people’s experiences of them. The second important reason for analysing Meiji shrine’s time and space of 3rd November is that the date was designated as the shrine’s main feast day (reisai) at the moment of its establishment. The shrine’s records indicate that around 3rd November 1920 about 1.5 million people visited the inner precinct to celebrate the shrine’s inauguration.96 Various events have been held on and around 3rd November ever since for the purpose of commemorating the shrine’s establishment. According to the shrine’s own statistics, there were two significant peaks in the number of annual visitors to the shrine in its first fifty years, one in 1940 and the other in 1958.97 The former was the 20th anniversary of the shrine (and, importantly, the 2600th anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement), and the latter was the year in which the shrine’s ‘rebirth’ was celebrated, following its wartime destruction by U.S. bombing. In both these years, 3rd November was particularly important. Thus, an exploration of the development of the shrine’s feast day provides a case study of how the shrine interacted with society through the pre-, intra- and post-war periods. Writing on the formation and function of various shrines in Japan, Grapard, following Lefebvre, also outlines the importance of the separation of place from

94 E.g., Narita Ryūichi, “Jikan no kindai: Kokumin = kokka no jikan,” 3–51. Okada Y., “Nihon ni okeru koyomi,” 5–22. Kawawada Akiko, “Meiji kaireki to jikan no kindaika,” 213–40. 95 Narita R., “Jikan no kindai,” 5. 96 Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Gojūnenshi, 662. 97 Ibid., 662–3. the creation of meiji shrine 41 space, and emphasises historical trajectory in the social production of Japanese sacred geography.98 I, in turn, follow Grapard and further examine this combination of the formation processes of time and space, noting how the establishment of 3rd November, Emperor Meiji’s birthday, as the shrine’s feast day became closely associated with the establishment of the shrine as the place for the commemoration of the emperor. It is crucial to appreciate that what Catherine Bell refers to as ‘the ritual body’ of the feast day was not limited to the bodies of shrine priests, and the ritual environment was not limited to the shrine’s precinct.99 On and around 3rd November many activities were held by various interested individuals and groups at different locations in Tokyo. By analysing the performative acts and dynamic relations between these different groups, I reveal how seemingly uniform celebratory practices were understood and experienced differently, and then discuss how the locations of these practices were appropriated by the very acts of performance.

1.3.1 Time-Space Formation of 3rd November On 2nd July 1914, fully six years before the shrine’s inauguration, the Shrine Feasibility Committee determined that Meiji shrine’s feast day was to be 3rd November. According to the proceedings of the committee, some major state shrines (kanpei taisha) had determined their feast days according to Chinese astrology, whereas others had simply used the date of their designation as state shrines.100 This meant that there was no precedent for Meiji shrine choosing the emperor’s birthday as its feast day, and a new consensus was needed; to the members of the committee, 3rd November seemed the most relevant date for a shrine dedicated to Emperor Meiji because it had already been celebrated for 46 years as the emperor’s birthday (tenchō setsu). It is important at this stage to clarify the institutionalisation process of 3rd November as implemented by the Committee. It is the inter-related processes of determining the time (date) and place (shrine) for the commemoration of Emperor Meiji. His commemoration place was conceptualised at the same time as the place for celebrating the Meiji period itself. In

98 Allan G. Grapard, “Geosophia, Geognosis, and Geopiety,” 372–41. In this article Grapard deals with Japan’s sacred geography, whilst noting that his thinking on the topic is informed by Lefebvre’s work on the production of space (372). A more recent account is “Geotyping Sacred Space,” 215–49. 99 Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 94–117. 100 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Keika yōryō, vol. 1, 3–4. 42 chapter one particular, this conceptualisation was made possible by a series of naming processes which saw the very name of his era (Meiji) being given posthumously to the emperor and also to the place of his remembrance (Meiji shrine). Treating the emperor’s life as analogical to his era may have led to an understanding that the beginning of his life (3rd November) was the beginning of the Meiji period itself, and thus enabled the conclusion that 3rd November was the most appropriate day for the shrine’s feast day. As de Certeau and others have noted with reference to the act of naming and its power to confer authenticity, this naming process shows once again how conceptualised time could become disembedded from its original context and recombined with space to take on a new meaning.101 Immediately after the emperor’s death on 30th July 1912, there was widespread support for the establishment of a place (shrine) and a date (3rd November) to commemorate the late emperor. Notably, in many cases the establishment of these two memorials was proposed together. Kokumin shinbun, for example, ran a special series of 15 articles (13th–27th August 1912) entitled “How should we preserve 3rd November?”102 The preservation itself was taken for granted; the question “Should we preserve 3rd November?” was never asked. The series included over 350 commentators’ opinions on how best to celebrate the day, many commentators suggesting that 3rd November should become a national holiday along the lines of Meiji commemoration day (Meiji setsu or Meiji kinenbi), and that the day should become an annual festival associated with a shrine dedicated to the emperor. The novelist Natsume Sōseki proposed Meiji setsu as the day’s name, and a kabuki actor, Nakamura Utaemon, suggested calling the day Meiji shrine feast day (Meiji jingū gosaijitsu).103 Kokumin shinbun argued that a commemorative shrine and day should not be considered separately.104 Furthermore, the acts of naming both the place and the date ‘Meiji’ played an important role in the process of forming the emperor’s commemorative time-space. It is significant that when in 1914 the annual feast day was being debated, the shrine was as yet un-named.105 Furthermore,

101 On naming, see de Certeau, The Practice, 103–104; Harvey, Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference, 221. On time/space, see Narita R., “Jikan no kindai,” 5–6. 102 “Ika ni jūichigatsu mikka o hozon subeki ka,” Kokumin shinbun (13th–27th August 1912). 103 Natsume Sōseki, Kokumin shinbun (20th August 1912); Nakamura Utaemon, Kokumin shinbun (17th August 1912). 104 Kokumin shinbun (20th January 1927). 105 This is why the Shrine Feasibility Committee was named Jinja hōshi chōsakai, and not Meiji jingū hōshi chōsakai, from its inception in 1914. The committee’s aim was to the creation of meiji shrine 43 we must not overlook the fact that Emperor Meiji himself was given the name ‘Meiji’ posthumously.106 The practice of giving the name of an era to an emperor was instigated after his death; it was not possible previously, as one emperor reigned through several eras. The process of institutionalising Meiji shrine’s feast day is closely connected with that of the emperor’s posthumous name, as well as with the shrine’s name. The name ‘Meiji shrine’ had been appearing in the shrine petition campaigns of various groups ever since the emperor’s death in 1912.107 However, the second meeting of the Shrine Feasibility Committee (15th March 1914) still reserved judgement on the matter of the shrine’s name, and left the decision to its Consultative Group.108 The proceedings of the first meeting of the Consultative Group (1st May 1914), which discussed prospective names for the shrine and annual festival, finally began to deal with the issue.109 The chief concern of the group’s members with choosing ‘Meiji shrine’ was that no other major state shrines dedicated to emperors had shrine names derived from posthumous names; most of these shrines were named for their location, whilst others were named for the emperors’ virtues and accomplishments. It seems that names based on the shrine’s location, such as ‘Chiyoda shrine’ and ‘Yoyogi shrine,’ as well as ‘Yamato shrine,’ named for Emperor Meiji’s achievement in establishing the ‘Yamato state,’ were indeed raised and discussed in this meeting. In actual fact, the deliberations over the emperor’s posthumous name served as a model for choosing the new shrine’s name.110 When on 27th August 1912 the Home Ministry decided on the Emperor Meiji’s posthumous name, there seem to have been several concerns. No emperor before had been posthumously named according to the era; as with state shrines, in most cases place names or virtues were used. Furthermore,

assess the feasibility of constructing a “shrine dedicated to the spirit of Emperor Meiji,” and the naming of the shrine was to be one of its tasks. 106 The term ‘Meiji’ was chosen as a posthumous name (tsuigō), by the Home Ministry, and the new emperor in the Taisho period presided over a dedication rite inside the palace on 27th August 1912 (Kokumin shinbun, 27th August 1912). 107 For example, a petition made by the mayor of Koiwa Village, Nakagawa Kisaku, on 28th October 1913, entitled “a petition to construct Meiji shrine at Kokufudai,” and a petition made by the chief priest of Tsukubasan shrine, Sugiyama Tomoaki, on October 1912, entitled “a petition to construct Meiji shrine at Mt. Tsukuba.” See Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Tokubetsu iinkai, “Meiji tennō hōshi ni kansuru kengi narabini seigansho,” in Jinja hōshi chōsakai tokubetsu iinkai hōkoku, June 1914. 108 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Keika yōryō, vol. 1, 10–12. 109 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Tokubetsu iinkai, Kaigiroku, 10–21. 110 Ibid., 12–15; Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Keika yōryō, vol. 2, 4–7. 44 chapter one the term ‘Meiji’ had been so commonly used during the era that many believed using it would make light of the emperor’s dignity.111 Many other commentators at the time, however, reacted positively to the decision. They argued that the emperor should indeed be celebrated in this new way, that is by taking his posthumous name from the era, because the Meiji period had been a period without parallel in Japan, both in the great changes that had taken place in the country and also in the introduction of a one-era one-emperor system.112 The name of Meiji shrine was thus determined in a similar way to that employed for choosing the emperor’s name, and, through this series of naming processes, the commemoration place for Emperor Meiji came to be seen as the place for celebrating the Meiji period itself. According to the proceedings of the Consultative Group, one of its members, a Dr. Mikami, maintained: I suppose that one of the main concerns for those who disagree with using the name of Meiji for the shrine is that there is no precedent as such. However, I have heard that Emperor Meiji’s posthumous name was determined in spite of similar concerns. We should be proud of such a new naming method. . . . In the naming of the shrine as well, the most important thing is to establish a new method of naming.113 Sakatani Yoshirō, as the chairman of this meeting, concluded the discussion as follows: “How we and our contemporary scholars debated this issue will be well remembered for the following thousand years of Japanese history.”114 3rd November was finally designated as a national holiday, named Meiji setsu, in 1929.115 It is thus appropriate to consider the process of naming as an important factor in the conceptualisation of the shrine. The next question that arises is why the emperor’s birthday, that is 3rd November, was regarded as being of greater relevance than the date of his death (30th July).116 The official gazette proclaiming new legislation for national holidays at the beginning of the Taisho period noted that 30th July was to be Emperor Meiji’s day (Meiji tennō sai), superseding Emperor

111 Tokyo asahi shinbun (27th August 1912). 112 Kuroita Katsumi’s “Senrei no nai gotsuigō” in Tokyo asahi shinbun (27th August 1912). 113 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Keika yōryō, vol. 1, 12–16. 114 Ibid., 20–21. 115 Meiji jingū, Chōsashitsu, Meiji setsu ni tsuite. For the Meiji setsu petition movement and Tanaka Chigaku, see also Ōtani E., Nichiren shugi undō and “Nichiren shugi saikō,” 140–149. 116 Imperial Announcement No. 19, 3rd September 1912. the creation of meiji shrine 45

Kōmei’s death anniversary, and that 31st August was to be a new tenchō setsu, celebrating the new emperor’s birthday.117 If this is the case, why was the newly instituted anniversary of Emperor Meiji’s death eventually considered unsuitable for the shrine’s feast day? My view is that the beginning of Emperor Meiji’s life was considered particularly worthy of commemoration because of its linkage with the beginning of the Meiji period. For instance, while discussing the new national holiday legislation, Osaka asahi shinbun regretted that 3rd November had been deleted from the list of prospective holidays, and argued the case for designating the date as a new national holiday, using as its name the ‘day of national revival’ (chukō setsu).118 The name chukō setsu needs consideration here, as it was also often found in the proposals of Kokumin shinbun commentators.119 These proposals argued the Meiji period marked the nation’s rebirth, and Emperor Meiji was the key figure. 3rd November was understood and explained through association with kigen setsu, the commemoration day of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement, on 11th February. The date of 3rd November was introduced as the date of Japan’s re-foundation, in the same way as kigen setsu was commemorated as the day of Japan’s original foundation. This analogous reasoning can also be seen in the report made by the Shrine Feasibility Committee.120 Taking Kashihara shrine’s feast day as an example, the committee suggested that because the date celebrated in Kashihara shrine, dedicated to Emperor Jinmu, was kigen setsu and not the day of his death ( Jinmu tennō setsu, the national holiday of 3rd April), Meiji shrine could employ 3rd November as its feast day. We can find similar proposals in Kokumin shinbun’s special series of articles.121 Dr. Anesaki Masaharu, for example, proposed calling 3rd November Meiji setsu and celebrating it as the shrine’s annual feast day, suggesting it should be like a ‘second kigen setsu’ because “Emperor Meiji’s birth is tantamount to the birth of Meiji Japan.” A member of the Mitsui zaibatsu family, Mitsui Innosuke, similarly proposed the name ‘new kigen setsu,’ arguing that “the emperor is the kami of the Japanese revival.” Finally, and as mentioned previously, it must always be borne in mind that the one-emperor one-

117 Jiji shinpō (5th September 1912). 118 Osaka asahi shinbun (5th September 1912). 119 Kokumin shinbun (13th–27th August 1912). 120 Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Keika yōryō, vol. 1, 32–33. 121 Anesaki Masaharu, Kokumin shinbun (13th August 1912); Mitsui Innosuke, Kokumin shinbun (14th August 1912). 46 chapter one era system itself was first introduced at the beginning of the Meiji period, and that the Meiji period represented not only a new era, but also a new structure for time.122 It may be that this was the determining factor in deciding that Emperor Meiji’s life was representative of the period itself, and that the beginning of his life and his era were felt to be particularly important and worthy of commemoration.

1.3.2 The Institutionalisation of the Feast Day On 22nd October 1920 the Home Ministry announced details of the celebratory shrine rites (jinja saishiki) to be held to mark the foundation of Meiji shrine (Meiji jingū chinzasai shiki), and on 29th October details of the annual shrine rites were released (Meiji jingū reisai shiki).123 These were to be performed by priests on 1st November (08:15–13:30) and 3rd November (09:00–11:00) respectively, in the presence of members of the Shrine Feasibility Committee and government officials.124 This three day period was a grand occasion, as can be seen in the Taisho emperor’s dis- patch of imperial emissaries (chokushi) to convey his greetings to the deities and by the visit to the shrine of the crown prince as imperial proxy on 2nd November.125 The home minister, Tokonami Takejirō, who was also present, wrote: One of the great achievements of Emperor Meiji was his foundation of con- stitutionalism. . . . The Japanese nation was able to revive its great spirit by his deeds, and the great restoration was made possible by it. . . . On the occasion of the establishment of Meiji shrine, we, the nation, should promise to develop the great spirit entrusted to us by the emperor.126 As discussed above, this kind of narrative clearly indicates how the date of the emperor’s birth was celebrated in association with the rebirth of the nation, and indeed with the birth of the place for commemoration itself. The question here is whether these shrine rites, informed by the Home Ministry’s regulations, were alone in constituting the performance dimension of Meiji shrine. During these three days ordinary people were afforded no opportunity to observe or participate in these rites, as they

122 Okada Y., Kaireki, 55–69. 123 Home Ministry Announcements 34 and 35. Jinja kyōkai zasshi, Meiji jingū chinza kinengō, 19 (11), 30th November 1920, 44–45, 50–51. 124 Meiji jingū, ed., Sōsho, vol. 15, 151–329, 367–342. 125 Ibid., 331–360. 126 Tokonami Takejirō, “Meiji jingū to kokumin no kakugo,” 5. the creation of meiji shrine 47 were not allowed access to the inner precinct before 1 pm.127 What then was the attraction for the 1.5 million people? I suggest that it was the celebratory events (hōshuku gyōji), as distinct from shrine rites, that were held in and around the shrine’s inner and outer precincts and Hibiya Park. The nature of the festival places and their relationships with each other were therefore effectively determined through the distribution of the various events. In this way, the different types of performance were integrated and hierarchised within this one festive occasion. It was this very process of ordering which served to construct the ideal form of the time-space of the Meiji shrine festival. From the early 1920s onwards, independent plans for celebratory events were being put forward by various groups in competition with one another. The number and variety of these plans greatly bothered members of the Foundation Bureau, particularly those concerning inner precinct celebratory events. Chūgai shogyō shinbun noted on 1st August 1920 that many proposals had been submitted to the Foundation Bureau by groups keen to display their prowess through demonstrations and performances, such as archery (both standard and horseback) and flower arranging. The same newspaper also reported the bureau’s comment that “the Foundation Bureau does not have any criteria for judging the suitability of these events, and whether each event is relevant to the inner precinct is still under consideration.”128 It was not only the Home Ministry and the Foundation Bureau that ultimately brought order to the various proposals. Other interested parties were also involved, namely the trinity of Tokyo groups, Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture, Tokyo City and the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry.129 Together with the Home Ministry these Tokyo groups set up the Joint Council for Meiji Shrine Celebrations (Meiji jingu chinzasai hōshuku kyōgikai) on 1st September 1920 in order to “resolve the appearance of a disordered situation” and to establish the criteria for “relevance.”130 The council chose and organised the celebrations to be held, thus shaping a significant part of the performance dimension of the shrine’s feast day.

127 Meiji jingū, ed., Sōsho, vol. 12, 62. 128 Chūgai shōgyō shinbun (1st August 1920). 129 Tokyo shōgyō kaigisho, Meiji jingū chinzasai, Tokyo jitsugyō ka hōshuku ni kansuru hōkokusho. 130 Meiji jingū hōsankai, Tsūshin, vol. 58, 1920, 6–7. The Joint Council was ultimately re-organised in 1927 as an independent association, the Meiji Shrine Celebration Commit- tee (Meiji jingū hōshukukai). 48 chapter one

It is important to note that there were a number of disagreements among the council members regarding the “relevance” of this or that event, and that the subsequent spatial distribution of these events was the result of a process of negotiation. From the very beginning the interested parties contested the Home Ministry’s policies. An interesting example of such contestation concerned the suitability or otherwise of parades of portable palanquins (mikoshi). An original plan drawn up and proposed by the Meiji Shrine Support Committee at the 1st September meeting indicates that participants advocated festive mikoshi parades.131 As Miyako shinbun reported, parishioners of many shrines in Tokyo City had formalised plans to parade their own mikoshi locally and then head to the inner precinct.132 On 16th September the Jiji shinpō reported, however, that the authorities did not approve of any mikoshi entering into the inner precinct.133 The Home Ministry’s opinion was that Meiji shrine’s feast day should differ from those of local shrines, and that typical local shrine events such as mikoshi parades were not suitable for Meiji shrine because it was to be the national shrine.134 A comment made by the deputy chief priest, Suzuki Matsutarō, on the occasion of the shrine’s first anniversary in 1921 is also highly revealing of the division between the nation/government on the one hand and the local/private on the other.135 Suzuki suggested that celebratory events held in the inner precinct ought to be considered ‘government festivals’ (kansai) and those outside the precinct ‘private festivals’ (minsai). Kokumin shinbun, amongst others, frowned upon the Home Ministry’s decision, since the local Tokyo authorities “were not functioning properly as representatives of Tokyo’s people.” They further declared that “The festive mood of the people had better not be interfered with.”136 The strategy the council deployed involved a spatial reordering of various celebratory events. Thus, in the inner precinct, the Home Ministry hosted the aforementioned shrine rites according to its own regulations; meanwhile, in the outer precinct (and the grass area of the inner precinct) the Tokyo Metropolitan District and other groups jointly hosted ‘traditional’ performances such as sumō, and, finally, in Hibiya Park, Tokyo City

131 Sakatani Yoshirō, Sakatani shorui, vol. 3, 1920. 132 Miyako shinbun (8th September 1920). 133 Jiji shinpō (16th September 1920). 134 Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Gojūnenshi, 190–204. 135 Sakatani Y., Sakatani shorui vol. 3, 1921. 136 Kokumin shinbun (26th September 1920). the creation of meiji shrine 49

Figure 6. Sumō wrestling and horse racing (keiba) in the outer precinct, 2nd– 3rd November 1920. (Reprinted from Meiji Jingū, ed. Kishida Makio, 1920, unpaginated). hosted festive entertainments such as kigeki comedies. Table 1 shows how the various activities and events were divided between the three venues. It seems then that the further removed the place was from the core shrine building, the more the Meiji shrine celebratory performances shifted from the ‘formal’ to the ‘festive.’137 Celebratory performances for the shrine were

137 On the discussion of the Hibiya Park as a space for festive occasions, see Ono R., Kōen no tanjō, 168–169. 50 chapter one

Figure 7. Festival to celebrate the completion of Meiji shrine in Hibiya Park, 1st–3rd November, 1920. (Meiji Shrine Archives). geographically hierarchised, and in this process different places were also hierarchically combined together as a single performative space. I would also argue that the spatial distribution of celebratory performances and the differentiation of spaces by these performances worked as mutually legitimating mechanisms. The formation of Meiji shrines’ ritual time and space should be understood as a process of legitimisation. The entertainment companies which performed for the general public in Hibiya Park to celebrate the enshrinement were very popular at the time; many of them were re-inventions performed in recently imported Western styles.138 For example, the Shōkyokusai Company, which presented magic shows, was popular from the end of Meiji into the Taisho period. The company specialised in “great Western magic shows,” and introduced vaudeville style attractions they had mastered when on tour in America and Europe in 1901 and 1905. Unprecedented in Japan, their

138 Niroku shinbun (1st November 1920). the creation of meiji shrine 51

Table 1. Meiji shrine celebratory performances in the inner and outer precincts and Hibiya Park Inner precinct Shrine rites Meiji jingū chinzasai, 1 November Meiji jingū reisai, 3 November Sponsor: Home Ministry Celebratory events Japanese fencing and judō demonstrations, 2–3 November Japanese archery demonstration, 2–4 November Co-sponsors: Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture, Tokyo City, Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry Outer precinct Celebratory events Sumō, 2nd–3rd November [Fig. 6] Horseback archery (yabusame), 2–3 November Horse racing (keiba), 2–3 November [Fig. 6] Horse riding performance (horohiki), 3 November Co-sponsors: Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture, Tokyo City, Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry Hibiya Park [Fig. 7] Ceremony Celebration party with 2,500 guests, 2 November Sponsor: Tokyo City Celebratory events Meiji shrine celebration festival with comedy skits (kigeki), magic shows, puppet shows, daikagura performances, sumiyoshi and other dance performances, amateur sumō bouts, Japanese fencing demonstrations, katsudō shashin film presentations, chrysanthemum exhibition, 1–3 November. Sponsor: Tokyo City

Sources: E.g., Tokyo shōgyō kaigisho, Meiji jingū chinzasai, Tokyo jitsugyō ka hōshuku ni kansuru hōkokusho, Meiji Shrine Archives; Meiji jingū hōsankai, Tsūshin, vol. 49–60, 1920; Sakatani Yoshirō, Sakatani Yoshirō Meiji jingū kankei shorui vol. 2–3, Meiji Shrine Archives. variety show was well-known for various tricks with electrical devices and Western music.139 Another group performing in Hibiya Park was the comedy company Rakutenkai, which began in Kansai and had become renowned throughout Japan by the end of Meiji. Unlike traditional kabuki, Rakutenkai’s

139 Shosei Shōkyokusai Tenkatsu, “Tenkatsu ichidaiki,” 153–246; Horikiri Naoto, Asa- kusa: Taishō hen, 116–7; Ozasa Yoshio, Nihon gendai engekishi, vol. 2, 41–5. 52 chapter one comic shows had much popular appeal.140 Puppet shows were also influenced by the West, in this case by marionette theatre. The popularity of these shows had been growing ever since the 1890s, when an English promoter introduced them into Japan. Soon after this, Japanese promoters developed new styles of puppet show, such as those at the Hanayashiki amusement ground in Asakusa. One of the puppeteers there was Yūki Magosaburō, whose success derived from his adaptation of marionette theatre; he also performed at the Meiji shrine festival. Although he liked to be known as Yūki the ninth, legitimate heir of the Edo puppet theatre tradition, he was actually the son of a portrait artist.141 Many of these new styles were developed by travelling performers or those who had settled in slum areas. For example, daikagura, acted by Kagami Sen’ichirō and his Maruichi Company, and sumiyoshi dance, by the Kunimatsu Group of the Sumiyoshi Company, had originated as street performances. The sites for such performances had in fact been moved from the streets to designated areas such as Asakusa, under strict regulation of street performances during the Meiji and Taisho periods.142 The ‘festive’ space of Hibiya Park in November 1920 should be located within a process of continual spatial ordering of these popular performances. It should finally be noted that large festivals, such as the Meiji shrine celebration events, became occasions for the performers to legitimate their popularity and ability. The nature of the performances themselves was reordered through the power of spatialisation, each finding its own position along a continuum from ‘formal’ to ‘festive.’

1.3.3 The Multi-Accentual Commemoration of 3rd November How then were these seemingly well-ordered time-space performances understood and appropriated by ordinary people in their own contexts? Visiting the inner precinct was for many people an occasion of great excitement, but also confusion. Many newspapers reported the hustle and bustle of the scene: “The desperate first visit,” and “Meiji shrine inferno” (abi kyōkan) [Fig. 8].143

140 Ibid., 124–32. 141 Kawajiri Yasuji, Nihon ningyōgeki hattatsushi kō, 218–9, 258; Waseda daigaku, Tsub- ouchi hakase kinen engeki hakubutsukan, ed., Engeki hyakka daijiten, vol. 5, 473–4. 142 Ishizuka Hiromichi and Narita R., eds., Hyaku nen, 153–164. 143 Yomiuri shinbun (2nd November 1920); Niroku shinbun (3rd November 1920). the creation of meiji shrine 53

Figure 8. A crowded Omotesandō, 1920. (Reprinted from Meiji Jingū, ed. Kishida Makio, 1920, unpaginated). The torii on the left was one of the two celebratory green arches covered with cedar leaves, constructed in Omotesandō by Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture and Tokyo City. 54 chapter one

Crowds who could not wait for the 1p.m. opening time on 1st November turned into a mob and broke through the entry gate of the shrine, causing over 130 injuries and one death.144 On one day alone, it was reported that over 4,000 pairs of geta or waraji sandals were handed in to the police as lost articles.145 So many shrine visitors wanted shrine amulets that the crowds became unmanageable, and the shrine staff had to abandon distributing them.146 The city’s traffic system was seriously affected. During the three days from 1st to 3rd November the number of city trams in operation set a new record, with passenger numbers exceeding 4.3 million. People thronging to the tram stops from early in the morning, heading for the shrine, caused a number of accidents and more than 20 people were seriously injured. Train lines such as the Yamanote and Chūō lines carried more than 1.5 million passengers over the three days, 1.2 million higher than during the same three days in the previous year. Yoyogi and Harajuku Stations sometimes had to stop selling tickets to control passenger numbers. Many of those using the over-crowded trams and trains were tourists from the regions.147 Tokyo asahi shinbun reported that on the 31st of October alone more than 40,000 people arrived at Ueno Station, mostly in families and small groups, and that three times as many passengers as usual came from the Narita area on the Sōbu line. Similarly, a large number of people arrived at Tokyo Station from the Kansai area. Interestingly, however, there were also many vacationers who headed out of the city from Tokyo Station and Shinjuku towards local resorts. Because many private enterprises as well as government offices granted three days holiday for the celebrations, these days became the best time for them to get away.148 Even after the inner precinct closed for the night, the bright lights of the evening entertainments continued to attract many people.149 In fact, from 31st October, illuminations covered much of Tokyo, from the Meiji shrine approaches over Nijūbashi Bridge and through the Ginza area down to Asakusa. The lively atmosphere sometimes continued to

144 Tokyo asahi shinbun (2nd November 1920). 145 Ibid. 146 Miyako shinbun (2nd November 1920). 147 Tokyo asahi shinbun (2nd, 4th November 1920); Miyako shinbun (2nd, 4th November 1920). 148 For the three day holiday for workers in the Home Ministry and public offices, see Jinja kyōkai zasshi, 19 (11), 30th November 1920, p. 53. For the holiday for private workers, see Tokyo asahi shinbun (1st November 1920). 149 Tokyo asahi shinbun (1st November 1920). the creation of meiji shrine 55 midnight. Newspaper reports used the word “fuyajō,” the “city that never sleeps.”150 On the evening of 2nd November the police, worried about the disorder, took drastic measures and without notice turned off the lights around Omotesandō. Many newspapers the next morning reported how people disapproved of the authorities’ behaviour; perhaps because of this, the police never repeated their action.151 People found great enjoyment in watching the sideshows and acrobatic performances, sampling the food and shopping at the miscellaneous stalls. Through their walking, parading, and purchasing, those who lived the space of the shrine’s festivals transformed the “spatial signifier into something else,” and constituted it by their own experiences.152 The main locations for these shows and stalls were not the inner and outer precincts but the shrine approaches and paths around the shrine. In particular, the area from outside the west torii gate of the inner precinct along the tertiary shrine approach to the Yoyogi parade ground seems to have been very congested with tents and stalls, as well as with people.153 Tokyo asahi shinbun reported that people were intoxicated with the festivities, suggesting that the events which attracted most people were indeed the entertainments, such as the Yoyogi circus troop and puppet shows.154 An awareness of these street performances, many of them held in the evening, is important in appreciating how the authorities’ spatial and temporal regulations were experienced by ordinary people. Although it is possible to say that the spatiotemporal restrictions were imposed on ordinary people from above, and that popular entertainments were relegated to a relatively low position in the hierarchy, at the same time the people themselves clearly did not see the streets and evenings as some kind of degraded space. It is evident that this distributed space was reordered through peoples’ own festive experience. Writing on the ‘multi-accentual character’ of ideology, Hall argues that “the same repertoire of concepts, symbols, imagery . . . can articulate a variety of meanings and positions, depending on how the elements are combined and accented.” Applying Hall’s argument, it is clear that the space of the Meiji shrine festival was articulated with a differently-accentuated commemoration.155

150 Miyako shinbun (2nd November 1920). 151 Tokyo nichinichi shinbun (4th November 1920). 152 De Certeau, Practice, 93–98. 153 Tokyo asahi shinbun (1st November 1920). 154 Ibid. 155 Hall, “Religious Ideologies,” 293. 56 chapter one

Interestingly, it was not only in the 1920s but also in the wartime 1930s that such back alley amusements were enjoyed by the common people around the time of the Meiji shrine festival. For example, according to the recollections of ex-pupils of San’ya Elementary School in Yoyogi, the most fascinating of the 1936 festival performances were motorcycle tricks, snake women and monkey shows.156 Girls enjoyed receiving colouring books, origami and artificial flowers that opened when placed in water. A 1943 graduate from Seinan Elementary School, in Aoyama, has recorded how attractive were the sideshows and street stalls on the days of Meiji shrine’s festival.157 The days on and around 3rd November were the most exciting time in the year, especially for children who lived near the shrine. Each of the 15 Tokyo wards exploited the space of the Meiji shrine festival as an expansion of their own mode of festival space and a celebration of their own locale. Take, for example, mikoshi parades; even after the Home Ministry forbade them to enter the inner precinct, wards and towns continued to compete in building new mikoshi and indeed organised mikoshi parades during Meiji shrine’s festival period.158 Interestingly, local organisers reinterpreted 3rd November by orchestrating the festival days of their own local shrines with that of Meiji shrine, although the date of 3rd November bore no relation to that of their local shrine’s original establishment.159 For instance, worshippers of Kameido Tenjin shrine in Honjo Ward paraded their 24 mikoshi while clad in happi coats bearing Meiji shrine’s crest, and at Hikawa shrine in Akasaka people also celebrated their own festival with floats.160 Meanwhile, those who lived in Harajuku and Aoyama were only permitted to parade along Omotesandō before and after 1st to 5th November, although newspaper reports indicate that some parades were in fact held during this time. In one case, more than 20 onlookers assisted the progress of a parade, by first blocking the representatives of the authorities intent on dispersing it, and then knock- ing them down and hurling them into a ditch.161

156 Shibata Yūji, ed., Tokyoshi san’ya kokumin gakkō sotsugyō gojūshūnen kinenshi. 157 Ieki Sadako, Harajuku no omoide. See also, Watanabe Nagisa, ed., Kanreki: Seinan shōgakkō daisanjūsankai sotsugyōsei kanreki kinen shi; Seinan shōgakkō sanjūrokukai dōkikai, Anokoro Aoyama • seinan jidai. 158 Miyako shinbun (24th September 1920). 159 Tokyo asahi shinbun (23rd October 1920). 160 Kokumin shinbun, Niroku shinbun (2nd November 1920). 161 Miyako shinbun (1st November 1920); Yomiuri shinbun (6th November 1920); Niroku shinbun (2nd November 1920). the creation of meiji shrine 57

Asakusa is a good example of how Meiji shrine’s festival worked to appropriate time and space. In his 1920 novel Kōjin, Tanizaki Jun’ichiro characterises contemporary Asakusa through three observations, namely that it was visited by people of every class, occupation and age, that the entertainments enjoyed by these people ranged from opera, through merry- go-rounds and noodle shops, to visiting prostitutes, and that finally, the diversity of both visitors and amusements was ever increasing, integrating and metamorphosing.162 The Asakusa rokku area was the most popular theatre district in the country from the end of the Meiji period into the Taisho period.163 Even before 31st October 1920, this well-known amusement quarter had decorated itself even more gaudily than usual, enticing more visitors than ever before. Special film shows to celebrate Meiji shrine’s inauguration proved immensely popular, and were frequently advertised in the press. The Asakusa Opera Theatre for example, advertised a film entitled “Meiji Shrine and the Memoirs of General Nogi” under the ban- ner: “Don’t miss this chance in a million, a special occasion.”164 In advertisements on 4th November, the Fujikan cinema promoted its newsreels of the celebratory performances and new shrine buildings; the titles of the feature were “The Bustle of the Day” and “Mountainous Crowds and a Sea of People.” In other cinemas, such as Denkikan and Chiyodakan, films of Meiji shrine were shown as extras to Western movies, such as “Dare Devil Jack” starring Jack Dempsey and “The Walk-Offs” starring May Allison.165 Cinema companies such as Shōchiku and Nikkatsu filmed the commotion and energy of the shrine and its surroundings, and the chaotic situation itself became the object of an exhibition in Asakusa.166 Interestingly, the same advertisements informed the passer-by that “Our films enable ladies, children and senior citizens to ‘visit’ the shrine safely.” In fact, as Miyako shinbun reported on 3rd November, many people gathered in Asakusa in order to escape the crush, which actually killed and injured quite a number of shrine visitors. For many enterprising merchants as well as Asakusa showmen, the Meiji shrine feast day was above all a good business opportunity. By late October 1920, more than 500 stalls had begun to prepare for the inaugural events.

162 Tanizaki Jun’ichirō, “Kōjin,” 81–2. 163 Horikiri N., Asakusa, 17–26. 164 Miyako shinbun (4th November 1920); Yomiuri shinbun (1st, 3rd November); Koku- min shinbun (1st, 2nd November); Niroku shinbun (1st November). 165 Miyako shinbun (1st, 4th November 1920). Kokumin shinbun (1st November 1920). 166 Niroku shinbun (3rd November 1920). 58 chapter one

They were able to make huge profits, charging prices two or three times greater than usual.167 Tokyo asahi shinbun (4th November) criticised the incompetence of the police, who took no action against these merchants. Among the cheapest souvenirs were post cards, which had become very popular collectors’ items from the end of Meiji into the beginning of the Showa period.168 Celebratory post cards for Meiji shrine completely out- sold cards for the national art exhibition, which usually sold very well during November. Over 40 different sets of post cards featuring Meiji shrine were marketed by individual merchants as well as by the Home Ministry, and over 100,000 sets were sold in total.169 Particularly popular were the wide variety of cards made by individual sellers, as these were cheaper than those produced by the Home Ministry, and had more up-to-date pictures; the most sought-after cards were always those portraying the latest festive events.170 Furthermore, post cards made excellent advertisements: Kokumin shinbun, for example, released post cards in the sky over the Meiji shrine area during celebratory fly-passes [Fig. 9].171 Newspaper advertisements indicate how diversely the occasion was utilised for commercial activities. Shops such as Kubohama gofuku- ten and Chirimen shōten advertised sales, imploring passers-by: “Don’t miss our special bargains after your visit to the shrine.”172 Tenshōdō sold gold and silver cups for the limited period of 1st to 15th November; these were copies of trophies from the shrine, designed by “the foremost artists.” Similarly, Tokyo Bijutsu Company used mail-order promotion to sell commemorative medals which portrayed Emperor Meiji and Meiji shrine buildings side by side.173 Companies producing portraits of Emperor Meiji or pictures of Meiji shrine looked for local franchises: the agency Kokumin kyōikukai, which sold memorial sets of Meiji shrine photos, enticed local dealers with the promise of healthy profits, and the Chūgiaikai agency similarly sought distributors around the country for its Meiji shrine hanging scrolls.174 What people actually experienced during the Meiji shrine feast day of 1920 was far from the planned uniformity. People not only consumed

167 Yomiuri shinbun (2nd November 1920); Niroku shinbun (1st November). 168 Hashizume Shinya, Ehagaki hyakunen, 4. 169 Fujii Eijirō, “Meiji jingū chinza kinen ehagakikō,” 190–92. 170 Miyako shinbun (4th November 1920). 171 Kokumin shinbun (1st November 1920). 172 Yomiuri shinbun (1st November 1920). 173 Miyako shinbun (1st November 1920); Kokumin shinbun (5th, 7th November 1920). 174 Kokumin shinbun (1st, 2nd November 1920). the creation of meiji shrine 59

Figure 9. Flying postcards, around 3rd November 1920. (Author’s collection). the ordered space but also re-ordered it, in their own mode of appropriation. Miyakawa has compared space with a mirror; the space of Meiji shrine may indeed be imagined as if it were a looking-glass, a device for reflection.175 Although the shrine is surely one distinctive place, our acts of seeing never offer us the same image; where we are, physically and metaphysically, cannot be separated from this act of seeing. It was within this dynamic process of space production that the events of Meiji shrine in 1920 unfolded.

175 Miyakawa Atsushi, Kagami • Kūkan • Imāju.

Chapter Two

A Mnemonic Space: The Construction of the Memorial Art Gallery 1912–1936

The Meiji Shrine Support Committee (Meiji jingū hōsankai) was established in September 1915 in order to facilitate the planning of the shrine’s outer precinct. A preparatory group had already made clear their purpose in a provisional plan issued in May 1914: “Our project aims to create a vast outer precinct. . . . On the one hand it will serve to commemorate Emperor Meiji’s great deeds; and on the other to pass down the achievements of the Meiji and Taisho periods from generation to generation.”1 To realise their aim they planned to build a Memorial Art Gallery (Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan) at the core of the outer precinct, and to permanently exhibit historical paintings depicting Emperor Meiji’s life in the gallery [Fig. 10].2 It took over 20 years from the establishment of the Meiji Shrine Support Committee to the completion of the gallery in 1936.3 This chapter focuses on the creation of what was to be remembered there, a process through which the gallery was constructed as a mnemonic space for the emperor and his era. I examine the gallery’s process of formation from two aspects, historiographical and spatial. The former concerns the processes of selection and historical investigation behind each painting topic, and the latter is the process through which the place for exhibiting history was activated. My approach treats both aspects as practices of commemoration. This chapter asks the following three questions: How, and to what extent, were the respective formations of the gallery and recorded history intention- ally correlated? How was history portrayed and displayed in the gallery in

1 Meiji jingū hōsankai, ed., Gaienshi, 4. 2 The Meiji Shrine Support Committee repeatedly stressed that the gallery was to be the centre of the outer precinct. See, for example, a report by Minakami Hiromi, a committee director, in the appendix of “Hekigadai sentei no keika oyobi sono seika,” Meiji jingū hōsankai tsūshin vol. 66 (1921). 3 The major sources cited for descriptions of the gallery are: Meiji jingū hōsankai, Tsūshin, vol. 4–86; Hōsankai, ed., Gaienshi; Hōsankai, ed., Hekiga gadai shiryō; Hōsankai, ed., Gadai kōshōzu, 366–84; Hōsankai and Meiji jingū gaien kanrisho, eds., Hekiga kinsei kiroku, 447–901; Sakatani Y., Meiji jingū kankei shorui, vol. 4 and 9. 62 chapter two

Figure 10. Postcard depicting the pre-war outer precinct and the Memorial Art Gallery. (Author’s collection). order to make it a place of remembering? And how was the act of commemoration actually put into practice, both by those who created the gallery and those who visited it? I shall argue it was the lengthy process of formation of the gallery, rather than the place itself, that was critical to memory construction. Some research on the gallery has already been carried out, but this has been limited to specialised fields of study, such as architectural history or art history. For the purpose of examining the gallery in the light of its association with Meiji shrine, a broader analysis is necessary, encom- passing for example not only architectural history or art history, but the construction of history itself.

2.1 The Practice of History and Memory

The questions of how history was exhibited in the gallery and how the gallery was shaped as a mnemonic space necessarily concern the contradictory relationship between history and memory, or between individual and collective memory. However, it is important not to deal with such relationships as binary oppositions. Attention to the historiographical process as the practice of history and to commemorative activities as practices a mnemonic space 63 of memory enables us to overcome such dichotomous problems.4 Both practices are in fact inseparable.

2.1.1 Historiographical and Commemorative Operations It was de Certeau who first illustrated how the ‘historiographical operation’ can function as an act of history-making, arguing that “envisaging history as an operation would be equivalent to understanding it as the relation between a place, analytical procedures and the construction of a text.”5 He thus divides historical operations into three practices: 1) an elaboration in an institution of knowledge where historiographers are based, implying also their institutional behaviour; 2) analytical procedures denoting archivist activities such as collecting, classifying and preserving; and 3) the construction of a text, which is, quite simply, writing. Ricoeur’s recent work, largely following de Certeau’s historiographical approach, further expands it into a wider discussion of memory.6 Considering the problem of representation of the past, Ricoeur modifies de Certeau’s three practices and introduces the ‘historian’s threefold commitment’ into the discussion.7 His form assumes three phases, namely a ‘documentary phase’ running from the declarations of eyewitnesses to the constituting of archives, taking as its epistemological program the establishing of documentary proof; an ‘explanation/understanding phase’ related to the multiple uses of ‘because’ in response to ‘why’; and a ‘representation phase’ in which the discourse is recorded and offered to those interested. Ricoeur takes pains to establish and explain his use of the term ‘phase.’8 Firstly, each phase can overlap or be found in reverse order, and can be any other’s cause and effect, for chronological succession is not the issue. Every phase includes writing as, for Ricoeur, making history is writing. Indeed, he adds that all of de Certeau’s three operations concern writing, and that every phase interprets the past: “There is interpretation at all levels of the historiographical operation.”9

4 De Certeau, The writing of history; “Ethno-Graphy”; “History: Science and Fiction”; Paul Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting; Paul Connerton, How Societies Remember. 5 De Certeau, Writing, 57. 6 De Certeau, “The Historiographical Operation,” in Writing, 56–113; Ricoeur, “History, Epistemology” in Memory, 136–280. 7 Ricoeur, Memory, 136. 8 Ibid., 137. 9 Ibid., 185. 64 chapter two

Making history necessarily involves the act of commemoration, and the reverse is also true: acts of commemoration entail the making of history. It is important also to note that the phrase ‘the practices of history and of memory’ does not imply that these practices are separate and distinct, rather, that they are indistinguishable. Connerton has proposed a way to solve the contradictory dichotomy between individual and collective memory. He does not deny Halbwachs’ collective memory argument, namely that individuals acquire and recall their memories through membership of social groups.10 Rather than problematising what Halbwachs makes clear, Connerton asks what Halbwachs does not illuminate, focusing particularly on the question of ‘how?.’ “Given that different groups have different memories which are particular to them, how [he asks] are these collective memories passed on within the same social group from one generation to the next?”11 Furthermore, according to Connerton, Halbwachs does not notice that the images and recollected knowledge of the past are “conveyed and sustained by (more or less) ritual performances.”12 Importantly, Connerton suggests that rather than starting by asking what the content of collective memory is, any analysis of memory should begin with the question of how commemorative performances are instigated, so that the process of formation of the object being commemorated can be understood. Furthermore, he points out a key weakness of Hobsbawm’s discussion of ‘the invention of tradition’ (with particular reference to ‘ritual tradition’).13 According to Connerton, the emphasis on the invention of tradition results from “an inability to see the performativity of ritual.” If commemorative activity is considered to be a ritual performance, the important point of analysis is not to seek the symbolic meaning of such a ‘ritual’ in substantive terms, but to focus on the interrelationship between the performativity of rituals and the society in which its rituals are invented. The idea of invention of tradition provided Nora, whose long-term project was to dissect and explain “realms of memory,” with the starting point of his argument, as it did for Connerton, but it did not provide its

10 Connerton, How Societies Remember, 36–7; Maurice Halbwachs, The Collective Memory. 11 Connerton, How Societies Remember, 37. 12 Ibid. 13 Connerton, How Societies Remember, 102–104. I have learnt much from Ivy’s works regarding problems with the ‘invention of tradition’ argument. Marilyn Ivy, Discourse of the Vanishing: Modernity, Phantasm, Japan, 21–22. a mnemonic space 65 conclusion.14 Both Connerton and Nora felt frustrated by the limitations of Hobsbawm’s argument; this is why they, and I, prefer to focus on process and manner, rather than content. Exploring memory construction is to understand the mechanism by which past events were passed on to the present through constant use, misuse and appropriation of what really happened.15 It is thus essential to take account of the processes and practices through which memories were formed and sustained.

2.1.2 Historiographical Operations in Creating the Gallery The Meiji Shrine Memorial Art Gallery includes 80 different paintings. These range from number 1, “The birth of Emperor Meiji,” on 3rd November 1852, through to number 80, “The imperial funeral of the emperor,” which took place on 14th September 1912. The first 40 paintings are in a Japanese style, whilst the last 40 are Western style. Following Ricoeur, I divide the historiographical practices in creating the gallery into the following three phases: 1) a documentary phase, meaning the collecting, categorising and selecting of topics for the paintings; 2) an explanation/understanding phase of investigating the legitimacy of the subjects for the paintings; and 3) a representation phase, or the act of painting itself. As Ricoeur suggests, these phases are not necessarily in a fixed chronological order; in the gallery’s case they sometimes operated together and sometimes reacted with one another. Furthermore, all phases involved practices of interpretation and of writing (painting).

1) Documentary Phase: Topic Selection The Meiji Shrine Support Committee first broached the subject of the selection of painting topics on 10th January, 1916.16 On that day the vice- chief director of the committee, Sakatani Yoshirō, visited Kaneko Kentarō seeking topic proposals. On 4th March, Sakatani made a speech explaining the gallery project as follows:

14 Pierre Nora ed., Kioku no ba, 3 vols. On Nora, I pay heed to the views of Tanigawa, who supervised a Japanese translation of Nora’s works. See Tanigawa M., “Kioku no ba no kanatani,” 1–13. 15 It is indisputable that Nora’s concept of ‘realms of memory’ is in itself not consistent; one need only compare his 1984 introductory remarks to his ‘From “lieux de mémoire” to “realms of memory” ’ (1996). See Nora, “ ‘Kioku no ba’ kara ‘kioku no ryōiki’ e,” 29–56. 16 Sakatani Y., Sakatani shorui, vol. 9, 10th January 1916. 66 chapter two

When we enter into the memorial hall, we must be able to understand how the achievements of the Meiji period were made possible through the late emperor’s great effort. Nowadays, Japan can be proud of herself as an advanced nation, however we should not forget the hardship which the emperor endured. The Memorial Art Gallery is to be created in order for the Japanese nation to commemorate his achievements.17 Although at this time Sakatani suggested some topics, such as “Commodore Perry’s arrival at Uraga” and “the Russo-Japanese War,” the fundamental questions of who was to determine the topics and of how many paintings would be needed were still under consideration.18 It was only later that the ten members of the gallery Committee (Kaigakan iinkai), convened within the Support Committee on 25th May 1917, were charged with responsibility for determining the topics; the new committee’s chairman was Kaneko Kentarō.19 On 25th January 1918, the 11th meeting of the gallery Committee selected 85 possible topics. On 4th August 1921 Kaneko submitted the final 80 choices to the Support Committee, which finally gave its approval on 17th July 1922.20 The six and a half years spent on this phase, from Sakatani’s visit to Kaneko through to final approval of the picture topics, demonstrates the importance of topic selection in the creation of the gallery.

2) Explanation/Understanding Phase: Investigation of Topics The historiographical practices constituting this phase were several: the validity of historical events had to be investigated, their appropriateness as topics had to be examined, and explanatory notes had to be made. Following the determination of the initial proposal in January 1918, the Gallery Committee organised its five member special sub-committee on 21st September.21 The purpose was to visit the location of each event, to collect local documents and evidence, to create a set of provisional paintings based on local investigations, to compose explanatory texts for each, and finally to establish the veracity and suitability of the topics. In order

17 Meiji jingū hōsankai, “Meiji jingū hōsankai keika,” appendix to Tsūshin 4 (10th April 1916): 9–14. 18 In the early stages, it seems that about 50 paintings were planned; Minakami H., “Hekigadai sentei no keika oyobi sono seika,” appendix to Tsūshin 66 (10th November 1921). 19 Hōsankai, Tsūshin, vol. 18 (10th June 1917). 20 Hōsankai, Tsūshin, vol. 27 (10th March 1918), 3–6; vol. 66 (10th November 1921), 2; vol. 69 (10th August 1922), 1. 21 Ibid., vol. 34 (10th October 1918). a mnemonic space 67 to make the provisional paintings, the sub-committee invited the painter, Goseda Hōryū II, to become a member. Goseda and other members of the sub-committee traveled widely throughout Japan, including to Kyushu, Tohoku and Hokkaido. Their investigation also required them to consider the temporal and spatial distribution of the topics, and to place them in an ‘appropriate’ order. This seems to fit precisely with the concern of the explanation/understanding phase to answer the ‘why’ through the use of ‘because.’22 Composing explanatory texts led to the compilation of a reference book for historical topics; both the action, and its product, were nothing if not historiography. By the summer of 1918, the first explanatory notes for the 85 proposed topics were completed and submitted to the members of the gallery and Support Committees.23 The original purpose of writing these was to display them in the gallery as explanation boards. However, the Support Committee soon determined to print the collected notes with a view to distributing them, insisting that “painting commentary was not only for visitors, but should record precise facts in order to clarify uncer- tainties of history and to offer a comprehensive guideline to painters.”24 The sets of provisional paintings and explanatory notes were submitted to the Support Committee when the final list of picture topics was proposed in August 1921, and later printed and supplied to painters and others.25 We need to reconsider these published historical references, as well as the paintings, as outputs of the historiographical operation in the gallery.

3) Representation Phase: Act of Painting Even though the topics for pictures had been determined, painting was not ready to begin. The selection of artists and the regulations for those sponsoring the paintings and guidelines relating to painting materials were still in abeyance. A Picture Selection Consultative Committee (Senga kyōgi iinkai) was convened in October 1922, and in July the next year was divided into two groups.26 There was a Picture Committee (Kaiga iinkai) which included eight members, and coordinated painters with picture

22 Ricoeur, Memory, 185. 23 [Kunaishō, Rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku] ed., Seitoku kinen kaigakan gadai setsumei, 2 vols. 24 Hōsankai, Tsūshin, vol. 35 (10th November 1918), 7. 25 Hōsankai, ed., Gadai kōshōzu, 99–180, 366–84. 26 Hōsankai, Tsūshin, vol. 70 (10th November 1922), 97; vol. 73 (10th December 1923), 5, 18–9. 68 chapter two sponsors, and a Committee for Selecting Painters (Hekiga chōsei iinkai), which was mainly composed of representative painters from both Western and Japanese schools. The fact that the Support Committee needed so many different sub-committees implied that procedures did not go smoothly. There were various conflicts between the Picture Committee and the artists and, indeed, among the artists themselves. The conflicts became one of the major causes of the delay in the creation of the gallery, which was not completed until 1936. In the act of painting, artists themselves worked as historiographers; they themselves carried out historical investigations for the purpose of reproducing past events in their pictures, thus interpreting the past at two stages of its representation. The final stage of representation concerns the question of how the paintings were exhibited in the gallery space.

2.2 The Discursive Construction of the ‘History of Meiji’

Section 2.2 focuses on the first and second historiographical operations at play in the gallery: those of documentation and explanation/understanding. These operations constituted a process through which discussions regarding ‘history’ were initiated, carried forward and concluded, historical ‘correctness’ was determined, and the relative importance of events was judged. The particular virtues of Emperor Meiji deserving of remembrance were not self-evident. Rather, the practice of recording and representing history, in creating the gallery itself, determined what and how to remember. No methodological research has yet been carried out on these paintings from an historiographically analytical perspective, despite the fact they were not painted before the gallery’s construction or at the time of the events they depict, but later, as a crucial part of the process of gallery formation. Even more significantly, the creation of the paintings began with the selection of topics.

2.2.1 Topic Selection and National Historiographical Projects There were strong historiographical relations between the Memorial Art Gallery and the nation state, and so the creation of the gallery and the writing of national historiographies were closely intertwined. Two large- scale compilation projects of national history were initiated at the end of the Meiji period. One was entitled Dainihon ishin shiryō (Records of the Meiji Restoration), begun on 10th May 1911 by the Editorial Bureau for the Records of the Meiji Restoration, and located in the Ministry of Education (Ishin shiryō hensankai). The other was Meiji tennōki (The Chronicles of a mnemonic space 69

Emperor Meiji), undertaken by the Extraordinary Editorial Bureau (Rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku) of the Imperial Household Agency (1st December 1914). I argue that these both played a part in determining picture topics for the gallery, and suggest that their interaction legitimated the ‘history’ that was to be recorded. Table 2, below, lists the members of the Gallery Committee and its sub-committees. It seems that topic selection and its investigation were mainly entrusted to members of the two editorial bureaux. Furthermore, the chairman and council member of the Gallery Committee, Kaneko Kentarō, wielded great influence in both bureaux, and I shall discuss his role in some detail later.27 Kaneko became vice-governor of both bureaux on 7th July 1915 and was later designated governor of the Editorial Bureau (for Dainihon ishin shiryō) (October 1915) and governor of the Extraordinary Editorial Bureau (for Meiji tennōki) (April 1922). This was because the Support Committee wished the members of the national bureaux to join the gallery project. Sakatani, who was to become the chief director of the Support Committee, visited Akatsukasa, the director general of the board of the Editorial Bureau for Dainihon ishin shiryō, on 20th August 1915.28 The purpose of his visit is unclear, but it is perhaps significant that it was made two months before the establishment of the Support Committee. Sakatani followed this up by meeting Kaneko on 10th January 1916, asking for the submission of topic proposals.29 This was over one year before the organisation of the gallery Committee. It is obvious that the Support Committee intended from the very beginning to make contact and build relationships with the national bureaux.

2.2.2 Searching for a Legitimate ‘National History’ Certain individuals participating both in the historiographical project and in selection of pictures clearly wielded some influence. It would be rash, however, to conclude that their opinions were directly reflected in the process of topic selection because the national trajectory being followed in the compilation of ‘national history’ was in itself an intricate process. Topic selection became embroiled in the negotiations over perceptions of ‘national history.’ This in turn demands an examination of the context

27 For Kaneko’s biographical background, see Takase Nobuhiko, “Kaneko Kentarō nenpu” and “Kaneko Kentarō chosaku hyō.” For Kaneko and historiography, see Horiguchi Osamu, “Meiji tennōki henshū to Kaneko Kentarō,” 1–19. 28 Sakatani Y., Sakatani shorui, vol. 9, 20th August 1915. 29 Ibid., 10th January 1916. 70 chapter two

Table 2. Members of gallery committees and editorial bureaux Organisations Gallery Sub-Committee of Editorial Bureau Extraordinary Editorial Committee Gallery Committee For Dainihon ishin Bureau for Meiji tennōki Members shiryō Kaneko Kentarō Chairman/ Governor Vice-governor (later council governor) member Fujinami Kototada Council Committee member Commission member member Mikami Sanji Committee Committee member member Akatsukasa Committee Director general Takaichirō member Tokugawa Yorimichi Committee member Masaki Naohiko Committee member Hagino Yoshiyuki Committee Committee member member Komaki Masanari Committee Committee Commission member member member Nakahara Kunihei Committee Committee Commission member member member Ikebe Yoshikata Committee Committee member Editorial officer member Minakami Hiromi Committee member Kurosawa Tsuguhisa Committee member Director general Commission member

Sources: Meiji jingū hōsankai, ed., Meiji jingū gaienshi, 718–9; Hakoishi Hiroshi, “Ishin shiryō hensankai no seiritsu katei,” 48–86; Iwakabe Yoshimitsu, “Meiji tennōki hensan to shiryō kōkai • hozon,” 13–27.

of, and the positions adopted by, the editorial bureaux of the Imperial Household Agency and the Ministry of Education.

The Awakening of Interest in National History In the middle of the Meiji period (1868–1912) the government began to review the general history of the late Edo period and the Meiji Restoration.30 It has been suggested that the formation of historical views in modern Japan was the product of an antagonism between two opposite perspec-

30 Konishi Shirō, “Monbushō ishin shiryō hensankai • Monbushō ishin shiryō hensan jimukyoku shōshi,” 19. a mnemonic space 71 tives, that of former domain lords, whose political influence had waned (kyūhan shikan), and that particular to the new generation of leaders, who played important roles in the Meiji Restoration (hanbatsu shikan).31 It was from the late 1880s that the former domain lords began to put forward their views of history. The new leaders, on the other hand, didn’t seek to pro- mulgate their own interpretations of history until the end of Meiji, when their supremacy, in turn, began to decline. For both groups, historiography, as the process of synthesising particulars into narratives which they hoped would withstand the test of time, presented a chance to inscribe their achievements in the ‘public’ history of the Meiji Restoration.32 In July 1890, after the promulgation of the Meiji Constitution, Kaneko Kentarō proposed to the prime minister the establishment of an editorial bureau for national history.33 Kaneko had made several research trips to the West and elsewhere, and wanted the West to understand what kind of a country Japan was. The creation of an ‘authorised’ national history would be, for Kaneko, the purpose of the bureau; without it, “Western people could never pay respect to our nation.” It is interesting to reflect on the reaction of government leaders towards Kaneko’s proposal. Itō Hirobumi, whose chief concern in 1890 was to ensure the smooth launch of a constitutional government, wrote back to Kaneko suggesting that the time was not yet ripe. He was particularly concerned to avoid rupturing the Satsuma-Chōshū alliance, a distinct possibility if their long-term historical rivalry and recent conflict became issues: “How can we portray the clash between Satsuma and Chōshū in July 1864?” he wrote.34 It was therefore former domain leaders who were responsible for the first wave of historical compilation in Japan; it was they who institutionalised historiographical associations, during this mid-Meiji period, rather than the new leaders of government. The Shidankai Association, established in April 1888, was one such association. Shidankai was an association for historical investigation of the end of the Edo period and the Meiji Restoration, and was organised by such former daimyō domain leaders as Shimazu Hisamitsu and Mōri Sadahiro. Their declared aim was to judge the past “with justice”

31 In Satsuma domain for example, Ōkubo Toshimichi and Kuroda Kiyotaka were emergent whereas Shimazu Hisamitsu’s power had declined; in Chōshū, Itō Hirobumi and Inoue Kaoru were ascendant but Mōri Motonori had lost power. See Ōkubo T., “Ōsei fukko shikan to kyūhan shikan • hanbatsu shikan,” 346–75. 32 Tanaka Akira, Meiji ishin kan no kenkyū, 236–43. 33 Kaneko Kentarō, “Kokushi hensankyoku o mōkuru no gi,” 32. 34 Konishi S., “Monbushō,” 21–3. 72 chapter two and to describe it “as it was.”35 In the opinions of such leaders, the past had not previously received such treatment.

The Establishment of National Historiography Bureaux From around 1907 the ‘new’ leaders of government, by now in power for several decades, initiated the second wave of the national compilation of history. This resulted in the establishment of two national editorial bureaux. In June 1910, leading government figures formed a historical investigation association called Shōmeikai. This led in 1911 to the foundation of an Editorial Bureau for Dainihon ishin shiryō. According to Konishi, Miyachi and others, two major factors contributed to the establishment of the bureau at this time. Firstly, members of the government such as Itō and Yamagata, who were now over 65 years old, wished to record the history of their achievements. Secondly, these same members sought to counter the activities of radical movements and associations, such as the Shidankai, and the “excessive” commemoration plans for Ii Naosuke.36 Members of the Shidankai group presented a proposal to the Upper and Lower Houses of the Diet in 1907, insisting that the government enshrine certain individuals in Yasukuni shrine and, by so doing, improve their reputations in the eyes of the public.37 Candidates for enshrinement proposed by the Shidankai included those who had assassinated Ōkubo Toshimichi and Mori Arinori. Elder government members opposed the proposal, arguing that it would profane national history. Similarly, the 1909 plan of Ii Naosuke’s former vassals, to erect a statue of him to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the opening of the port of Yokohama, caused great controversy.38 The Shidankai issue and the Ii statue were both problems that centred around commemoration and the validity of ‘history.’ The Editorial Bureau was established to create one authorised history. However, the attitudes of government members were not always uniform. The question for them was whether it was ‘governmental’ history or ‘imperial’ history that should be commemorated.39 This distinction was crucial, as it would determine the location of the editorial bureau

35 Ōkubo T., “Ōsei fukko,” 363. 36 Konishi S., “Monbushō,” 24; Miyachi M., “Seiji to rekishigaku,” 114–8; Hakoishi Hiro- shi, “Ishin shiryō hensankai no seiritsu katei,” 48–86. 37 This issue is discussed in detail by Miyachi Masato in “Seiji to rekishigaku,” 114–5. 38 Ibid., 116. See also, Abe Yasunari, “Yokohama rekishi to iu rireki no shohō,” 25–80. 39 Hakoishi H., “Seiritsu katei,” 66. a mnemonic space 73 charged with the compilation of recorded history. Inoue Kaoru suggested that the editorial bureau should belong to the Imperial Household Agency. Yamagata Aritomo on the other hand insisted that the Ministry of Education should control the bureau, arguing that if the Imperial Household Agency compiled such a history its readers would suspect that Satsuma-Chōshū members had made use of the emperor to laud their own achievements.40 This view ultimately triumphed, and the editorial bureau was established within the Ministry of Education.41 The other bureau, the Extraordinary Editorial Bureau, would later be established within the Imperial Household Agency. The relation between the two editorial bureaux was inevitably both cooperative and competitive. Integrating the great national historiographical projects often caused arguments which, at one stage, resulted in Inoue Kaoru threatening to resign as the first president of the Extraordinary Editorial Bureau.42 Inoue’s repeated proposals to unify the bureaux were never entirely accepted by either the agency or the ministry, although partial agreements between the two bureaux were later made, firstly in July 1915 and again in October 1917.43 Horiguchi, examining the history of the Extraordinary Editorial Bureau, suggests that what Inoue sought was “consistency” in carrying out the process of national historiography.44

The Disputed Arena: The Making of Meiji Gallery Disputes relating to the production and content of the one authorised national history were duplicated in the making of the gallery. I suggest here three points of importance to be considered regarding the process of topic selection and its negotiations. The first concerns unsolved problems of coherence with the process of historiography and how they influenced the determination of picture topics. Significantly, members of different

40 Ibid., 66–7. Indeed, a member of the Shidankai group, Takagi Masutarō, strongly objected that it could not be a ‘fair and sincere’ treatment of history if Satsuma-Chōshū groups used national money to record their own history (see Ibid., 70–2). 41 Tanaka argues that the Dainihon ishin shiryō were legitimated according to what was judged to be historically ‘fair’ according to the ‘winners’ of the Restoration, that is, the new leaders of the Meiji government. Tanaka A., Ishin kan, 242. 42 Inoue Kaoru, “Ishin shiryō hensankai • Rinji henshūkyoku gappei ikensho,” 711–6; “Oboegaki, hi,” 711–10. See also, Tokyo daigaku shiryō hensanjo, ed., “Monbushō shokan ishin shiryō hensan jigyō.” 43 For detailed discussions on this issue, see Horiguchi O., “ ‘Rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku’ to ‘ishin shiryō hensankai’,” 84–88; “Tennōki to Kaneko,” 1–19. For other articles by Horiguchi which have indirectly influenced my arguments, see bibliography. 44 Horiguchi O., “ ‘Henshūkyoku’ to ‘hensankai’,” 87. 74 chapter two editorial bureaux were initially united into one Gallery Committee for the purposes of topic selection. Further examination needs to be made of Kaneko’s attempts to integrate the various strands and versions of national history, as he concurrently held governmental posts in both bureaux when the first partial agreement between them was made in 1915, and the tim- ing of further agreements up to 1917 coincided with the selection of topics by the Gallery Committee. The second point to make regarding the process of topic selection and its negotiations is that the differences in the expected historical outputs of the gallery project and the editorial bureaux demand consideration. The latter originally had no intentions of making their work available to the public, in contrast to the former, whose goal was a public exhibition. It has been argued that one reason why the minister of education suddenly required the publication of a general history in 1935 was in order to cope with the ‘radical’ organ-theory of the imperial institution.45 However, the Editorial Bureau for Dainihon ishin shiryō, which finally completed 4215 volumes of manuscripts in 1938, did not intend to publish them. Similarly, the original 260 volumes of Meiji tennōki, completed in 1933, existed in only three copies; one was offered to Emperor Showa, one to the director general of the Imperial Household Agency and the other to the Editorial Bureau.46 Indeed it was not until 1967 that Meiji tennōki was first published. In brief, the historical paintings in the gallery (completed in 1936) represented the first form of national historiographical output made available to the public. The third and last point is that we should not neglect the differences between history as painted pictures and history as written texts. In other words, an examination is needed of how different ways of publishing history influence the very compilation of history.

2.2.3 Topic Changes and Evolution of Proposals There were at least eight different lists of topic proposals made between Sakatani’s first visit to Kaneko in January 1916 and the presidential approval of topic selection in July 1922 [Table 3].47 Among those, only lists 6 and 8 were publicly disseminated: the former was approved by the Gallery

45 Ōkubo T. et al., “Zadankai ishinshi kenkyū no ayumi no.1,” 1–29. 46 Ōkubo T. et al., “Zadankai ishinshi kenkyū no ayumi no.6,” 99–100. 47 It seems that Kaneko Kentarō submitted a proposal of 55 topics, although the contents are as yet unknown. As he was the Gallery Committee chairman his opinions can be inferred and understood from developments throughout the entire course of topic selection. a mnemonic space 75

Table 3. Variations in topic proposals List no. and Date Topics Proposals and Notes 1 27/01/1917 54 Submitted by Fujinami Kototada on behalf of Extraordinary Editorial Bureau 2 25/06/1917 64 Later submitted by Editorial Bureau for Dainihon ishin shiryō at Gallery Committee’s first meeting (20th July), after three bureau meetings and consideration of list 1. 3 29/11/1917 75 Topics categorised by theme and region by the Editorial Bureau 4 25/01/ 1918 105 Proposal of topics for paintings, made at Gallery Committee’s 11th meeting; hand-written notes 5 25/01/1918 123 Bound book of explanatory text; handwritten commentary by various writers; several topics not included in 1–4 6 25/01/1918 85 First publicly-released proposal; based on list 4 and handwritten notes made thereon 7 Spring 1918 85 Draft of picture commentary; two volumes, supervised by Ikebe 8 05/08/1921 80 Second, and final, publicly released proposal

Sources: 1–4 Sakatani Y., Meiji jingū kankei shorui, vol. 4, Meiji Shrine Archives. 5 Meiji jingū hōsankai, Seitoku kinen kaigakan setsumei gen’an sōkō, Meiji Shrine Archives. 6 and 8 Hōsankai, ed., Gaienshi, 682–6. 7 [Kunaishō, Rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku] ed., Seitoku kinen kaigakan gadai setsumei, 2 vols. Collection of Kunaichō, Shoryōbu, 明-560.

Committee as a first and provisional list; the latter was the list that finally received Support Committee approval. Here I explore the various agendas behind the process of historiography as they involved the selection and investigation of picture topics, and illuminate the criteria used for choosing topics.

Topic Elimination and Inclusion There are several trends apparent in topic selection. Firstly, the main theme shifted from the life history of Emperor Meiji to the history of his age, the Meiji period. To be more specific, more importance was attached to matters of state than to the emperor himself, moving the project from a bio-narrative of biography to a national history narrative. For example, topics such as “the emperor hunting rabbits” (in lists 1 and 5), “the emperor’s first reading of texts” (2 and 4) and “the Empress’ dream of Sakamoto Ryōma” (4) featured in some proposals but were subsequently eliminated. Similarly, topics which portrayed close ties between the emperor and the 76 chapter two wider public were preferred to topics which stressed his relation to particular government leaders. Over time, therefore, the emperor for elderly statesmen became an emperor for subjects. Topics such as “The emperor’s visit to Sanjō Sanetomi” (lists 1 to 6 inclusive) and “The imperial legation visiting the graves of elderly statesmen during the opening session of the Imperial Diet” (1 and 5) were excluded. In addition to the first trend mentioned above, a second was the concern of the Gallery Committee to produce paintings showing a sufficiently wide range of topics that every citizen could find a point of contact with the exhibition and with the emperor. The topics were sorted by region and theme. For example, list 3 categorised topics according to government ministry: palace and imperial affairs; foreign affairs; home affairs; financial affairs; army; navy; juridical affairs; education; commerce; and transporta- tion. The final candidates for inclusion were further thematically divided: home affairs for example were separated into worship, patriotism, bene- faction, virtue and literature. Sub-committee member Minakami Hiromi reflected that the Gallery Committee was committed to including paintings depicting events of a varied nature that had occurred across the length of the country, and beyond to the new colonies.48 Furthermore, in order to emphasise matters of national importance, the committee sanc- tioned the inclusion of topics illustrating the national achievements of the Meiji period even if the resultant pictures did not always feature the figure of the emperor.49 The committee’s desire to serve the wider public with a more comprehensive history can be seen in the attitude they took with regard to domestic historical conflicts. From an early meeting in 1917 onwards, the committee discussed whether such conflicts were admissible.50 Ultimately, the fighting at Toba Fushimi in 1868 was adopted as a representation of the development of national fortunes, while the civil war in Aizu was eliminated. As for the Satsuma rebellion, the siege of Kumamoto castle was selected but the battle at Tabaruzaka hill was

48 Minakami H., “Hekigadai sentei no keika oyobi sono seika,” 12–18. 49 Some scholars have argued that this guideline may reflect the taboo relating to imperial portraits. However, for me this instruction seems to be more simply concerned with justifying the nomination of picture topics whose main object is not the emperor. E.g., Hayashi Yōko, “Meiji seitoku kinen kaigakan ni tsuite,” 82–110; Yamamoto Yōko, “Tennō o egaku koto o habakaru hyōgen no shūen,” 21–35. See also Kashiwagi Hiroshi, Shōzō no nakano kenryoku; Taki Kōji, Tennō no shōzō. 50 Sakatani Y., Sakatani shorui, vol. 9, 28th September 1917. a mnemonic space 77 omitted. Careful consideration was given by the committee in order to achieve a ‘less violent’ representation of domestic conflict.51

The History of Meiji: From Emperor to Era How then did the historiographical operation undertaken by the Gallery Committee relate to the editorial bureaux in the national projects? The shift in Kaneko’s position from 1916 to 1918 offers some clues. It was Kaneko and Fujinami who made the fundamental shift in the editorial principle governing Meiji tennōki. Kaneko insisted that the chronicles be compiled as a record of the Meiji age, rather than as a mere biography of Emperor Meiji.52 This is exactly the same shift that occurred with regard to the topic selection for pictures; it is not hard to see the influence of both bureaux filtering through the medium of Kaneko and others and affecting the decisions made by the committees and its members. The Extraordinary Editorial Bureau made at least three major modifications in its editorial principles. Initially, in 1915, the bureau set out to compose a life history of Emperor Meiji. They specifically stated that it was not to be a national historical compilation, but in October 1918 Kaneko partially overturned this. Kaneko finally established the general principle governing the compilation of Meiji tennōki in 1920, insisting that the emperor’s biography should necessarily be a record not only of events directly involving the emperor but also of his age and his realm, since the state itself could be regarded as his ‘house.’53 The consistency of Kaneko’s desire is apparent in his repeated suggestion for publication of a general Japanese history to be available to foreign countries. In 1918, he asked his friend, Theodore Roosevelt, for suggestions for institutionalising the ideal editorial principle. In his reply on 6th November 1918 Roosevelt wrote that “emperors are so important when they amount to anything at all that the life worth reading must necessarily be a study of all the social phenomena

51 This was one of the guidelines for determining topics for list 2. 52 Takebe Toshio, “Meiji tennōki no henshū kōsō,” in Nihon rekishi bessatsu: Denki no miryoku, ed. Nihon rekishi gakkai, 68. 53 Horiguchi O., “Danwa kiroku ni tsuite,” 487. Because of the delay in compilation, in 1926 the Extraordinary Editorial Bureau needed to refine its editorial principles from being general history oriented to being biography oriented. However, Kaneko’s attitude toward historiography was clearly consistent, as can be understood from the fact that he offered the completed volumes of the Chronicle to Emperor Showa in 1933 proclaiming that Meiji tennōki is nothing but the “History of the empire state of Japan” (Kaneko K., “Meiji tennōki o susumuru no hyō,” 42–43). 78 chapter two of their times.”54 It can be assumed that this response further encouraged Kaneko’s eagerness for a comprehensive history. The national narrative of history portrayed in the 80 topics and their pictures was a product of the unceasing quest for the legitimacy of their past by various historiographical actors. I believe that the relentless desire for a ‘fair’ history itself worked as the motivational force behind the construction of institutional groups and the determination of the gallery’s historical appearance. Historiographical work should not be reduced simply to the artefacts which it finally turns out (books, papers, programs and so on), but should rather be envisaged as an ongoing process of social practice.55

2.3 Exhibiting History and the Sublimation of Memory in the Gallery

The third section in this chapter explores the third practice of history, the representation phase. It is in this phase that attempts to visualise history and constitute a space for history were most dynamically combined with the practice of memory. Again, there is a need to appreciate that the three operations of historiography present in the gallery’s formation often took place together. For example, soon after historical investigation started into provisional picture topics, an art journal published a critical editorial of the gallery project, claiming that “the procedure for making the gallery is akin to a cook preparing dishes before determining which styles of food he will serve, sashimi, Western or Chinese food.”56 The writer argued that it was unreasonable to discuss possible topics for pictures without determining which styles they would be painted in, Western or Japanese. Similar complaints were aired even after the picture topics were finally determined.57 One of the reasons why the creation of the Memorial Art Gallery attracted so much attention was that the gallery was expected to become the first museum to display permanent exhibitions of modern pictures by Japanese artists. There were indeed only a few public museums built in pre-war Japan, Tokyo Metropolitan Museum (1916), Kyoto City Museum

54 Theodore Roosevelt, New York, to Kaneko Kentarō, Tokyo, 2nd November 1918. 55 Jeremy Ahearne, Michel de Certeau, 22. 56 Nakajō Seiichirō, “Seitoku kinen kaigakan no hekiga ni tsuite,” 1. 57 “Meiji jingū hekiga mondai,” Hōchi shinbun (11th August 1920); Sakai Saisui, “Seitoku kinenkan no hekiga,” no. 1–2, Bijutsu geppō 4, no. 4 (February 1923): 61 and no. 5 (March 1923): 77. a mnemonic space 79

(1933) and Osaka City Museum (1936), while most private museums were not interested in modern pictures painted by Japanese.58 It was against this background that further actors were motivated to participate in the creation of the gallery. In this section I investigate the following: 1) how the effort of making history visible impacted on the forms of pictures and ultimately of history in itself; 2) how the physical space of the gallery was constructed to “commemorate the virtues of Emperor Meiji”; and finally 3) how audiences experienced the time-space, in other words, how the gallery was used.

2.3.1 Between ‘Real’ History and ‘Realistic’ Painting Scholars of art history have discussed individual paintings in the gallery as ‘emperor’s portraits’ or as ‘war paintings.’ Some scholars also categorise the gallery pictures as ‘history paintings.’59 Kawata and Tan’o importantly point out the distorted interpretation of Japanese art history by Japanese scholars. They note, for example, with regard to the development of Western-style painting in Japan, students tend to focus on new artistic trends, such as the Hakuba school; and that history paintings and war paintings, mainly produced by old schools, have long been disregarded.60 This is also the case with Japanese-style paintings. Work by ‘conservative’ groups, which after all dominated most state sponsored exhibitions before and during wartime, have yet not been evaluated.61 The great majority of paintings in the gallery fall into this neglected category. Research needs therefore to go beyond this distorted interpretation of art history, and to examine more closely why this period required the production of paintings belonging to such neglected categories.

58 Satō Dōshin, “Nihon bijutsu” tanjō, 213. For the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum, see Saitō Yasuyoshi, “Satō Keitarō to Tokyofu bijutsukan,” no. 1–3. Idem., “Geijutsu bunkagaku kara mita Tokyofu bijutsukan no rekishi,” no. 1–2. 59 For discussions of the emperor’s portraits, see the previous footnote. For the gallery and war paintings, see for example Tanaka Hisao, Nihon no sensōga, 90–100. Kawata Aki- hisa and Tan’o Yasunori discuss war paintings in Japan in general: Kawata A., “Sensōga to wa nanika?”; Tan’o Y. and Kawata A., Imēji no nakano sensō. As for the gallery and history paintings, see for example Hayashi Y., “Hekiga kinsei kiroku ni miru bijutsukai to ‘rekishi’ no deai”; Takayanagi Yukiko, “ ‘Rekishiga’ toshite no Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga”; Kobori Keiichirō, “Bijutsushi jō no ‘kinenhi teki kaiga’ no ichi.” For the development of history paintings in Japan, see also Satō D., Meiji kokka to kindai bijutsu, 235–41; Hyogokenritsu kindai bijutsukan and Kanagawakenritsu kindai bijutsukan, eds. Kindai Nihon bijutsu ni miru dentō to shinwa; Yamanashi Toshio, Egakareta rekishi. 60 Tan’o Y., “Rekishi no kamishibai,” in Imēji no naka no sensō, 26. 61 Kunaichō, Sannomaru shōzōkan, ed., Kan’ten o irodotta meihin • wadaisaku, 4. 80 chapter two

Hayashi argues that the Memorial Art Gallery is the place which demonstrates the history of the Meiji period, and in which the history of Meiji- style paintings, those that survived the Meiji period, finally came to an end. In the same manner, Takayanagi concludes that the gallery reveals Japanese history painting to have come to a premature end.62 Rather than repositioning the gallery paintings within art history, I aim to uncover the expectations of those who created the gallery and what they could or could not achieve by displaying history paintings, paintings which had developed in a context that demanded historiography.

The Painting of ‘Real’ History According to Kitazawa and Satō, scholars of the politics of fine arts, the categorisation of art into Japanese-style painting (nihonga), Western-style painting (seiyōga) and history painting (rekishiga) developed around the Meiji 20s (1887–1896).63 This point becomes crucial when it is noted that demands for historiographical yield also grew from the late 1880s into the 1890s, and that the very terms used as categories for paintings were re- examined in the process of gallery creation. The word nihonga was first used in a speech in 1882 by the American educator, Ernest Fenollosa, as a Japanese equivalent of the English phrase ‘Japanese painting.’ Prior to this there had been no standard Japanese term used to denote Japanese painting.64 Knowledge of Western oil painting and then of Western history painting in turn inspired the creation of new concepts of painting in Japan. According to Satō, classifications such as ‘Japanese paintings’ and ‘history paintings’ appeared within the context of the Meiji 20s, at the same time that Japanese national identity was coming into existence.65 Although large-scale historical compilations finally began at the end of the Meiji period, it was earlier, in the Meiji 30s, that history paintings were in full flourish.66 Yamanashi interestingly points out why Japanese artists came to feel estranged from history painting (especially that done in a Western-style), suggesting that “there is no history sufficient for realistic reproduction in art.”67 For Yamanashi, it was a lack not of the painters’

62 Hayashi Y., “Kaigakan ni tsuite,” 101; Takayanagi Y., “ ‘Rekishiga’ toshite no kaigakan,” 26. See also Kawai Tomoko, “Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan kenkyū,” 45–58. 63 Kitazawa Noriaki, “Nihonga” no ten’i, 9–10; Satō D., Bi no seijigaku, 239. 64 Kitazawa N., “Nihonga,” 37. 65 Satō D., Bi no seijigaku, 239. 66 Takashina Shūji, “Meijiki rekishiga ron josetsu,” 106–109. 67 Yamanashi T., Egakareta rekishi, 341–3. a mnemonic space 81 abilities to produce ‘realistic’ history, but of the historians’ skills to supply ‘real’ history. The difference in definition of the ‘real’ employed in the fields of history and the arts surfaced in a well known controversy over history painting around the turn of the century, and was later also one of the reasons for the declining reputation of history painting around the end of the Meiji period. Disagreement over what was ‘real’ ultimately caused discord between those involved in the creation of the gallery. The first of the above points, the history painting controversy, comprised a series of disputes between Takayama Chogyū and Tsubouchi Shōyō which centred upon whether history should be subordinate to the arts or not.68 The idea of ‘real’ was common to their arguments: for them the problem was how ‘real’ history can be represented as ‘realistic’ painting. Furthermore, to be ‘real’ became the key factor in overcoming the ambivalent difference between Western and Japanese painting: “To serve the idea of realism was one’s duty as a citizen” for both Western-style and Japanese-style painters.69 What the gallery revealed was not so much the “demise of history painting,” as Takayanagi put it, but the eternal problem of representing history as ‘real.’70

The Dispute over Painting Styles On 4th May 1918 the National Fine Art Society, whose membership consisted of Western-style painters, met to discuss the Memorial Art Gallery.71 Nakajō Seiichirō and Sakai Saisui, respectively the president and a director of the society, subsequently visited Sakatani and submitted a proposal on behalf of the society. Their view was that all paintings in the gallery should be Western-style; for them, Western-style was superior to Japanese-style because its ‘exact’ expression could exactly represent what Emperor Meiji achieved, and because its up-to-date and long-lasting materials would enable pictures to commemorate the emperor “permanently.”72

68 Their essays are reprinted in Nihon bijutsuin hyakunen shi, vol. 2, no. 1, 486–543. As for their disputes, see Kobori Keiichirō, “Rekishiga no fukken.” 69 Kitazawa N., “Nihonga,” 40. 70 Takayanagi Y., “ ‘Rekishiga’ toshite no kaigakan,” 26. 71 Tokyo nichinichi shinbun (6th May 1918). 72 Nakajō S., “Seitoku kinen kaigakan no hekiga ni tsuite,” Bijutsu shunpō 165 (29th July 1918): 1; “Futatabi kaigakan no hekiga ni tsuite,” Bijutsu shunpō 166 (9th August 1918): 1. The National Fine Art Society began to publicise their opinions from the end of 1917, maintaining that Japanese-style painters who worked with outdated picture scrolls could 82 chapter two

However it was not only Western-style painters who were lobbying for their interests. On 22nd February 1923, 32 Japanese-style painters submitted a joint proposal, as the Gallery Committee began to draw up a candidates’ shortlist.73 Among them were leading painters such as Yokoyama Taikan, Shimomura Kanzan, Kawai Gyokudō and Kobori Tomoto. Surprisingly, they recommended discontinuing the project and insisted that an outstanding collection of fine art of the Meiji and Taisho periods should instead be exhibited in the gallery so as to demonstrate permanently the development of Japanese fine arts. For them, the current plans for the gallery would disgrace the emperor’s honour, as well as the painters themselves, because it was impossible to depict the emperor’s great deeds ‘precisely.’ Although their detailed intentions were unclear, their demands were not met; Sakatani rejected their proposal in his reply on 12th March 1923.74 The problem of historical ‘realness’ was often dis- cursively appropriated and applied to problems of degree of precision or accuracy: painters’ attitudes toward ‘realness’ were sometimes used by them as a practical and expedient means of defending their own methods of representation. The importance of the various painters’ recommendations was that they brought about an urgent change of the decision-making system in the Gallery Committee. The committee was worried by the painters’ charge that they (the committee) had unilaterally agreed on the topics for paintings and a shortlist of painters, and that some picture sponsors favoured employing ‘unskilled’ painters. It was because of the painters’ lobbying that the committee established the Committee for Selecting Painters (Hekiga chōsei iinkai), comprised of both Western-style and Japanese-style painters. Unfortunately, this solution produced further complications in painter selection, ultimately leading to the resignation on 23rd April 1925 of several painters, including Yokoyama and Kawai. It was indeed highly embarrassing for all concerned that there were only five pictures on exhibition in the gallery (four Western, one Japanese) when the dedication ceremony of the outer precinct to Meiji shrine was held, on 22nd October 1926.75 The rupture in relations between the painters and those committee members who were concerned with historiographical procedures was

not represent what was happening in the modern age; Sakai S., “Meiji jingū kaigakan no kaiga,” Bijutsu shunpō 147 (29th December 1917): 1. 73 Sakatani Y., Sakatani shorui, vol. 4. 74 Ibid. 75 Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Gojūnenshi, 65. a mnemonic space 83 one of the major causes of the delay in the project, which was not finally completed until 1936.

History and Negotiation A great variety of forms of historical ‘realness’ were mobilised in the space of the 80 framed tableaux. As a matter of course, the pursuit of a ‘precise’ description of ‘proper’ history was carried out by both painters and historical investigators. In order to generate provisional pictures and commentary, Goseda, Minakami and other members spent around three years making research trips around the country. Goseda’s sketches provided blueprints in minute detail for painters, who then undertook their own investigations.76 The Gallery Committee advised them to examine actual settings and authentic materials, such as costumes worn. Painters’ interpretations were modified over and over again at meetings in which committee members and painters discussed their rough sketches. How then did negotiations over the portrayal of ‘real’ history constitute the forms both of painting and of history? Many painters adhered to the spatial reconstruction of things as they were. For Komura Taiun, the painter who took charge of a tableau of the emperor attending the opening ceremony of the Tokyo-Yokohama railway line (no. 25), an obvious difficulty was that Shinbashi Station no longer existed.77 He resolved to collect as much evidence as possible of the station’s appearance, such as photographs and plans of the building, and to create a miniature in clay scaled down to a tenth of its original size which even included participants and horse carriages. Furthermore, Komura ordered full-size copies to be made of all the clothes worn by participants at the ceremony and took photographs of models wearing them. He testified as follows: “I did not put any of my imagination into the represented reality.”78 The obses- sion of another painter, Kojima Torajirō, charged with reproducing the “Council held in the presence of the emperor to discuss the declaration of war with Russia” (no. 68), ultimately led to tragedy.79 With the permission of the Imperial Household Agency, Kojima replicated the Imperial Office

76 For Goseda, see Aoki Mariko, “Ibarakiken kindai bijutsukan shozō, Nisei Goseda Hōryū saku seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga gadai kōshōzu shitae ni tsuite”; Yoneda Yūsuke, “Meiji tennōki fuzu to Nisei Goseda Hōryū”; Yamaguchi Masahiko, “Nisei Goseda Hōryū no gagyō.” 77 Hōsankai and Gaien kanrisho, eds., Kinsei kiroku, 576–9. 78 Ibid., 579. 79 Ibid., 825–7. 84 chapter two building (Omote gozasho) in full-scale on his premises, with fittings such as fan lights carved in minute detail, but sadly his great efforts ended in his death from exhaustion; he was succeeded by another painter. Disagreement between painters and those concerned with historical research sometimes resulted in ‘reality’ as compromise. For instance, in his painting of the imperial funeral (no. 80), Wada Sanzō’s idea of historical exactitude was to symbolise atmospherically his nation’s mourning.80 Wada’s ‘objective’ expression was totally at variance with the committee members’ preference for a ‘direct’ description of reality, and so the two parties were obliged, as Wada put it, to “blend realistic and objective styles together [Fig. 11].” A second example of the way in which negotiations over ‘real’ history influenced the final form of the gallery was the decisive role of the picture sponsors, who chose a particular topic and paid for all the fees essential to its production. For picture number 43, “The emperor’s visit to a silver mine during the imperial tour of Yamagata and Akita,” the composition was modified following a request from the mine owners, the Furukawa family, who also became the sponsors of the painting.81 If we compare Goseda’s provisional plan, which depicted miners working outside the tunnels, with Gomi Seikichi’s final solution, which focused on the emperor entering the tunnels, the purpose of this modification is apparent. According to Gomi, the Furukawa family preferred the close-up picture of the emperor because it was a great honour for the miners themselves that he had bothered to enter the mine at all [Fig. 12]. “The promulgation of the Imperial Prescript on Education” (no. 55) was similar.82 The final version of this tableau shows the prime minister and the minister of education leaving the Imperial Office after a meeting with the emperor. The painter, Atake Yasugorō, had earlier tried to show a head teacher reading the prescript to the students of Tokyo Imperial University, but the setting was eventually changed due to a protest from the alumni association of the teachers college which had sponsored the picture. They failed to understand why “a teachers college should sponsor a painting which depicted Tokyo Imperial University.”83 Finally, in order to understand how the process of historiography and history painting are co-generative, let us examine an example which

80 Ibid., 894–901. 81 Ibid., 656–64. 82 Ibid., 762–3. 83 Ibid., 763. a mnemonic space 85 reveals that two conflicting ‘realities’ about one particular event were placed before the public. This is “The Empress viewing the planting of rice seedlings” (no. 32), a depiction of Empress Shoken’s visit to the imperial rice fields to see farmers planting rice on 18th June 1875. The commentary, composed in 1921, went as follows: “Because it was cloudy and began to rain when the empress arrived, court ladies suggested that they return to the Imperial Palace. The empress, however, replied that ‘It was rather pleasurable to see farmers working hard regardless of the rain, as it is often said they do,’ and Her Majesty was willing to continue the visit and to get wet herself.”84 Both Goseda’s blueprint and the provisional plan (by Kondō, the artist appointed to paint the final work) showed the empress viewing the planting while holding her umbrella.85 However, when Kondō brought his draft to the meeting on 20th May 1926, he was surprised at the modifications that had been made to the history of the event. Investigations by members of the Extraordinary Editorial Bureau had clarified that it had stopped raining by noon, so that it was not raining when the empress visited at 2pm.86 An earlier draft of the explanatory notes, made by the same bureau before the first topic proposal had been determined, had certainly recorded rain when the empress visited.87 Furthermore, this earlier version added that “court ladies were moved to tears by the Empress’s benevolence.” Considering that this earlier version had yet to identify the precise date of the event, we can surmise that the practices of pictorial and epistemological historic citation developed together. After consultation with committee members on the issue, Kondō finally submitted the painting on 29th January 1927. Although rain was no longer visible the empress and others still held on to umbrellas, and the explanatory comment noted that “the rain, that had been falling since the previous night, stopped by noon.”88 In the meantime the description in Meiji tennōki, completed in 1933, no longer mentioned rain itself, even though the sources for this event were the same as those used for the final commentary.89 Interestingly, a variety of pictures both with and without rain had already been published before the gallery was opened in 1937.

84 Hōsankai, ed., Kōshōzu, 373. 85 Ibid., 132; Hōsankai and Gaien kanrisho, eds. Kinsei kiroku, 607. 86 Ibid., 607–8. 87 Hōsankai, Seitoku kinen kaigakan setsumei gen’an sōkō. 88 Hōsankai, Seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga kaisetsu. 89 Kunaichō, ed., Meiji tennōki, vol. 3, 460. 86 chapter two

Figure 11. Paintings of the imperial funeral. Page 86: The provisional painting by Goseda Hōryū II, 1921. Size unknown, watercolour on paper. (Reprinted from Hekiga gadai kōshozu, ed. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1921, 180). Page 87: The final painting by Wada Sanzō, 1933. 270×210 cm, oil on paper. (Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan). a mnemonic space 87 88 chapter two

Figure 12. Paintings of the imperial visit to a silver mine. Page 88: The provisional painting by Goseda Hōryū II, 1921. Size unknown, watercolour on paper. (Reprinted from Hekiga gadai kōshozu, ed. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1921, 143). Page 89: The final painting by Gomi Seikichi, 1926. 270×250 cm, oil on canvas. (Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan). a mnemonic space 89

For example, Meiji jingū hekiga shi (the History of Meiji Shrine Memorial Arts), a book published around 1933 by the Aichi Shinbunsha, offered the ‘rainy’ version of history. The publisher adopted the 1921 commentary, along with the draft painting which Kondō produced for the preparation stage of the painting.90 By emphasising that the imperial couple carried out their duties regardless of rain, the publisher sought to highlight their devotion to duty.91

90 Aichi shinbunsha, Meiji jingū hekiga shi. 91 Painting no. 54, of the emperor inspecting joint military manoeuvres in the rain, was another example of this devotion. 90 chapter two

2.3.2 The Pursuit of the Eternal The painters strove to integrate historical balance into ‘realistic’ pictures, but another frequently mentioned quality was ‘the eternal.’ This desire for the eternal also played an important role in the construction of the gallery itself. I consider here how the physical space of the gallery was constructed as a mnemonic space in which to remember the emperor forever.

The Gallery as Monument Why was a picture gallery, in the first place, considered to be an important monument to Emperor Meiji? When the emperor died, innumerable ideas were proposed for his commemoration, in addition to the aforementioned plan of establishing a shrine. As Yamaguchi has skilfully argued, the coexistence of a number of memorial plans was now feasible, due to the fact that the argument had shifted from whether to establish a shrine or memorials to that of establishing both.92 The shrine, particularly its outer precinct, became a receptacle for the accommodation of various monuments and memorials. For example, the original plan for the outer precinct submitted by the Meiji Shrine Support Committee did not include memorial sports facilities like the swimming pool and baseball stadium; these were added later, in response to the proposals of interested parties. Conversely, a proposal to create a music hall in the outer precinct was not realised quite as its supporters intended. Watanabe Tetsuzō, amongst others, submitted a plan to the committee in March 1920 for a music hall along the lines of Queen Elizabeth Hall, with a 6000-person capacity.93 However, the music hall plan was merged with the proposal for a Japan Youth Centre (Nihon seinenkan), which was duly established within the grounds of the outer precinct.94 What made the gallery unusual or even unique amongst the great variety of memorials in the outer precinct was its spatial identification. According to Sakatani, because the outer precinct was the site of the funeral at which the people had mourned Emperor Meiji, the Support Committee primarily wanted a monumental statue or building to remind the Japanese nation

92 Yamaguchi T., Meiji jingū no shutsugen, 72–4. 93 “Meiji jingū no gaien ni daiongakudō no kensetsu,” Tokyo asahi shinbun (16th January 1920); “Meiji jingū gaien ni sekaiteki no ongakukan,” Hōchi shinbun (20th March 1920). 94 Sakatani Y., Sakatani shorui, vol. 9, 7th February 1920. a mnemonic space 91 that they had bid the emperor farewell there.95 The earliest layout plan for the outer precinct, which was made in March 1916, located a monumental column on the very point where the emperor’s mortal remains had lain during his funeral [Fig. 13]. Sakatani insisted that the committee should establish the outer precinct site itself as a monument, and “make the site speak for itself.”96 The issue was settled with the next draft plan (October 1917), which proposed siting the gallery over the prospective site for the monumental column; this eventually became the basis for the final construction [see also [Fig. 13]]. The gallery was intended to be a representative monument, capable of speaking by, and for, itself.

The Spatial Structure of the Gallery I have discussed above what the committee members and others sought to make the gallery ‘speak’ of. Here let us see how they planned to achive this. How could they construct the gallery so as to exhibit efficiently a sequence of 80 history paintings? Duncan’s idea of ‘the art museum as ritual’ is useful here.97 For Duncan, the museum’s narrative structure, such as its sequenced spaces and arrangements of objects, and its lighting and architectural details, “stands as a frame and gives meaning to individual works.” The structure itself tells the visitor how to see the arts, learn from them and behave in the museum. In Duncan’s words, the museum provides the visitors with a ‘ritual task.’98 I approach the question of how the gallery’s narrative structure was formed through a consideration of the role of a Western-style painter, Terasaki Takeo. The reason for focusing here on Terasaki is that he was despatched abroad as a contracted staff member of the Support Committee in order to inspect foreign ways of constructing museums and of conserving fine arts.99 Although his opinions were not adopted in their entirety, a careful analysis of Terasaki’s proposals, and his reaction to their partial adoption, can suggest the manner in which the gallery’s narrative structure aimed

95 Meiji jingū hōsankai “Hōsankai keika,” 9–10. 96 Ibid., 13–4. 97 Carol Duncan, Civilizing Rituals, 7. 98 Ibid., 12, 27. For discussions on the museum display, see also Mieke Bal, Double Exposures; Tony Bennett, The Birth of the Museum; Didier Meleuvre, Museum Memories; Steven D. Lavine and Ivan Karp eds., Exhibiting Cultures. 99 On 6th April 2005 I interviewed Terasaki Takeo’s son, Hironori, and obtained biographical and bibliographical information on his father. See also Tateyama shiritsu hakubutsukan, ed., Terasaki Takeo no sekai. 92 chapter two

Figure 13. The Memorial Art Gallery in the outer precinct. Page 92: Earlier plan made in 1916 (Meiji Shrine Archives). Page 93: The final plan in 1918 (Reprinted from Meiji Jingū gaienshi, ed. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1937, unpaginated). to provide visitors with the ritual task to be enacted.100 For Terasaki, the pursuit of ‘the eternal’ was most closely unified with the quest for durability, of the history paintings themselves and their materials, and of the gallery. After graduating from Tokyo Art College in 1907, Terasaki studied fine art in Venice for eight years, where he was inspired by Renaissance mural painters. He dedicated his artistic life to Japanese history painting,

100 Terasaki T., “Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga ‘Gunjin chokuyu kashi’,” manuscript handwritten on 10th July 1928. a mnemonic space 93

both to his own work and to the study and development of the genre. Even after the expiry of his contract with the Support Committee, he continued to produce history paintings for places as various as Awa shrine and Hōryūji. As an inspector for the gallery, Terasaki submitted detailed surveys to the Support Committee on at least eight occasions. It can be assumed that Terasaki’s suggestions influenced the decision making of the committee, since his reports were reprinted each time in the Support Committee Journal.101

101 Terasaki T., “Parasodoukare no hekiga kenkyū,” Tsūshin, vol. 58 (10th October 1920): 7–10; “Hekiga ni taisuru hōkoku oyobi iken,” vol. 65 (10th August 1921): 17–32; “Hekiga no kyōka et al.,” vol. 66 (10th November 1921): 12–34; “Shitajiban ni tsuite et al.,” vol. 68 (10th May 1922): 28–39; “Hekiga hozonhō ni taisuru hōkoku,” vol. 69 (10th August 1922): 4–13; 94 chapter two

I take up three points that emerge from a comparison of his reports with the gallery as it actually materialised. The first concerns the spatial arrangement of pictures. The opening page in issue 66 of the Support Committee Journal, published 10th November 1921, showed two photos: the Galerie des Batailles in the Palace of Versailles and the Galerie des Rubens in the Louvre, both of which formed part of the Terasaki report [Fig. 14]. It is apparent that the interior arrangement of the two exhibition rooms in the gallery followed that employed in these rooms. The Terasaki report in the same issue suggested that mural paintings started in Greece and climaxed in France, where Napoleon the First triumphantly appropriated them as an instrument to arouse national identity.102 Terasaki thus argued that the gallery, if it was created in the French manner, could establish a national art to enlighten citizens. Clearly Terasaki was well aware of the ritual efficacy of museum space, and to some extent the attention he paid to the art spaces in the Palace of Versailles and the Louvre was shared by others involved with the gallery, such as Minakami Hiromi and Itō Chūta.103 The ultimate aim of Terasaki’s investigation was to understand fully the construction of “model” museums, including such details as the size of paintings relative to their “containers,” that is, the museums themselves. For example, when comparing the Galerie des Batailles with the Galerie des Rubens, Terasaki pointed out that the latter, which developed out of the former, was superior to it and was, furthermore, the most outstanding exhibition room in Paris.104 For Terasaki, the narrowly spaced arrangement of similarly-sized paintings in the Galerie des Batailles made differentiation of one picture from another somewhat challenging, and consequently reduced their impact on visitors. The pictures were displayed in such a long and narrow corridor like room that it was difficult for visitors to keep sufficient distance from a painting to view it as a whole. Moreover, the showy colours of the walls in the Galerie des Batailles overpowered the tones used in the pictures, further detracting from their value. In the

“Hekiga hōkokusho,” vol. 71 (20th February 1923): 11–21; “Tōyō hekiga ni tsuite,” vol. 72 (10th May 1923): 28–35, “Chōsa hōkoku,” vol. 73 (10th December 1923): 21–35. 102 Terasaki T., “Hekiga no kyōka et al.,” 21. 103 Duncan, Civilizing Rituals, 12; Minakami H., “Kaigakan hekiga no shōsoku,” 3; Itō C., “Meiji jingū no kaigakan ni tsuite,” 1. 104 Terasaki T., “Hekiga no kyōka et al.,” 21–25. a mnemonic space 95

Figure 14. Exhibition rooms: The Galerie des Batailles in the Palace of Versailles (top); the Galerie des Rubens in the Louvre Museum (middle); the Japanese Painting Room of the Memorial Art Gallery (bottom). (Meiji Shrine Archives). 96 chapter two

Galerie des Rubens, by contrast, the ratios of the picture, viewer and room were carefully harmonised. Terasaki’s suggestions were pioneering indeed, considering the relative dearth of museums in Japan, although it must be noted that despite his influence, the final word remained with the committee. For example, the materials for picture frames and for walls were chosen with reference to Terasaki’s suggestions on standardisation and differentiation.105 The committee members and painters prepared samples of various materials and experimented with them in order to achieve a satisfactory combination of picture, frame and surrounding. The ceiling colours in the gallery’s two exhibition rooms, for example, were determined in accordance with the tones of the pictures, yellow for the Japanese-style paintings room and grey for the Western-style paintings room. The second point that arises from a comparison of his reports with the gallery relates to the durability of the picture materials. Terasaki’s intention was that “the gallery pictures should ‘forever’ teach the emperor’s virtue, so the gallery’s pictures should be made with durable materials.”106 He conducted his own experiments on the durability of colourings and canvas, and made model paintings with selected materials sent from abroad. The committee studied Terasaki’s models in order to find “eter- nally unchangeable materials and colourings,” and they consulted directors and relevant experts for advice.107 The development of a particular type of drawing paper was, for Terasaki, “one of the outcomes of his great hardships.”108 This Tosa washi paper was specially ordered by the committee as the official material for the gallery paintings, although not all painters chose to use it. The committee later proudly recorded their efforts to preserve the gallery’s pictures for eternity.109 In this way, the durability of the painting materials used became associated with the perpetuity of the emperor’s deeds. The third matter for consideration is the attention paid to the preservation of the paintings, as part of the overall quest for eternity for the gallery and its contents. It was no coincidence that when in Venice, Terasaki inspected the ongoing restoration of paintings there. With the permis-

105 Tsūshin 82 (10th March 1926): 4–6. 106 Terasaki T., “Gunjin chokuyu kashi,” 684. See also “Meiji jingū no hekiga,” 9–14. For other articles by Terasaki which have indirectly influenced my arguments, see bibliography. 107 Tsūshin 65 (10th August 1921): 32; “Kohekiga, Itari kara hōsankai e,” Tokyo asahi shinbun (20th July 1921). 108 Terasaki T., “Kaigakan ‘Gunjin chokuyu kashi’,” 9. 109 Hōsankai, ed., Gaienshi, 736–45. a mnemonic space 97 sion of the Venetian authorities, Terasaki earned the opportunity to join restoration projects and to study the techniques used.110 The problem of how to sustain in perpetuity ‘everlasting’ paintings displayed in the ‘model’ manner was a perennial one. In fact, as early as April 1928 the gallery was ashamed to discover that some of its paintings had already become mouldy, and this at a stage when less than 30 paintings were on exhibition: “Masterpieces covered with mould, in forever splendid gallery” reported Hōchi shinbun on 28th December 1928. This must have infuri- ated Terasaki, as the mouldy pictures were those using French canvas in preference to his painstakingly developed made-to-order Japanese paper. Terasaki lodged protests with the committee several times, pleading for adequate maintenance. It was following this that yet another committee was established, the Gallery Maintenance Committee (Kaiga hozon iinkai), by the gallery and the painters concerned.111 The empty space in the central hall of the gallery tells us of another never accomplished commemorative space. There was in fact a plan to erect here statues of the emperor, the empress and senior government members. This plan had been backed by several members of the Support Committee as well as by non-members ever since the decision to construct the gallery was first taken. On 11th October 1917 members of the committee decided to commission statues of ten senior leaders; Sanjō Sanetomi, Iwakura Tomomi, Ōkubo Toshimichi and Kido Takayoshi were among those chosen in February 1921.112 As already discussed, the selection and commemoration of elderly government leaders often caused disagreement, and such was the case in this instance. The plan was consequently abandoned, and this un-materialised statue space was instead represented in a picture scroll, depicting a variety of statues erected in the central hall of the gallery [Fig. 15]. This episode shows how the actual gallery was only realised through ceaseless negotiation and compromise. The devotion of the gallery’s creators to such ideals as ‘the real’ and ‘the eternal’ somewhat perversely only highlighted their difficulties in realising those ideals.

110 Terasaki T., “Parasodoukare,” 7. 111 Terasaki T., “Kaigakan hekiga hozon ni taisuru iken.” Meiji jingū gaien nanajūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Nanajūnenshi, 52–3. 112 Sakatani Y., Sakatani shorui, vol. 9, 11th October 1917. 98 chapter two

Figure 15. Memorial statues depicted in a picture scroll. Itō Kōun, 1935. 59×71 cm, watercolour on paper, hanging scroll. (Meiji Shrine Archives).

2.3.3 Acts of Remembering and Objects of Remembrance What did people ‘remember’ through and from their visits to the gallery? Duncan’s ‘museum as ritual’ analysis is outstanding in its dissection of visitor practice in museums, but unfortunately does not explore the problem of visitor experience; her study concludes with a discussion of how museum creators expect visitors to behave.113 Kawai has suggested that gallery audiences were presented with the paintings as “linear history,” but this is questionable because the gallery did not admit ‘ordinary’ people on a full-time basis until it was officially opened to the public on 21st April 1937.114 How did people sense the space during the 22-year period stretching from the inauguration of the Support Committee in 1915 to the official opening day?

The ‘Empty’ Gallery Following the single open day of 23rd October 1926, one day after the dedication of the outer precinct and with only five paintings included, the

113 Duncan, Civilizing Rituals. 114 Kawai T., “Kaigakan kenkyū,” 47. Meiji jingū gaien nanajūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Nanajūnenshi, 57–8. a mnemonic space 99

Figure 16. A preview of the gallery. (Tokyo nichinichi shinbun, 31st September 1927). next public admission was 1st October 1927, with a preview the evening before. From this date, the gallery was open on Saturdays, Sundays and national holidays. Furthermore, only around one-eighth of the 80 paintings were exhibited at the time this admission scheme started [Fig. 16]. The fact that there were still less than 40 paintings completed even in Meiji shrine’s 10th anniversary year (1930) was the subject of criticism by various newspapers: “An empty gallery” wrote Tokyo nichinichi shinbun on 30th July 1930; “A lonely gallery” reported Tokyo maiyū shinbun on 8th November 1930. The question is, how could people view a “proper linear history” when the paintings were so irregularly viewable and when so few of them were on display? A further issue to be explored is the relationship of ordinary people with the gallery during the 22 years they were unable to gain free access.

Popularity and Familiarity First of all, it is clear that even though the gallery may have appeared “empty” or “lonely,” people nonetheless visited the exhibition in large numbers during the years it was only open on a part time basis (see Table 4). The outer precinct and its gallery were major tourist attractions, as was the inner precinct of Meiji shrine. From around 1920, the outer precinct was listed as one of the most popular tourist sites in Tokyo in tourist handbooks such as Yūran Tokyo annai.115 The Tokyo Travel Bureau’s Dai Tokyo annai (Great Tokyo Handbook, 1936) offers tourists sightseeing courses according to the length of time

115 Daitōsha, ed., Yūran Tokyo annai. 100 chapter two

Table 4. Visitors to the Meiji Shrine Memorial Art Gallery Fiscal Year Visitors Fiscal Year Visitors 1927* 97,371 1933** 221,734 1928 121,750 1934 268,789 1929 142,095 1935 308,765 1930 150,299 1936*** 456,824 1931 166,769 Part of Fiscal 1937**** 141,053 1932 183,750

Source: Meiji jingū, Gaien, Daikyūkai Meiji jingū gaien keika hōkoku, Meiji Shrine Archives. The Japanese fiscal year runs from 1st April to 31st March; “Fiscal 1930” thus runs from 1st April 1930 to 31st March 1931. * 1st October 1927 open at weekends/national holidays from this date ** December 1933 Distribution of ‘Picture Commentary’ booklet *** 21st April 1936 Ceremony for the completion and hanging of all 80 paintings **** 21st April 1937 officially open available for a visit, all of which included the gallery.116 The Handbook presents all its model tours as being “convenient, economical and interesting.” For example, one tour consisted of the following route: Imperial Palace → Meiji shrine → outer precinct of Meiji shrine → Nogi shrine (where Admiral Nogi committed suicide) → Sengakuji (where the forty seven masterless samurai of Akō (akō rōshi) were buried) → Ginza Matsuzakaya department store. Shinpan dai Tokyo annai, by Kon Wajirō, indicates in its inclusion of Nogi shrine how the death place of a famous person could become a popular place to visit, and such was the case with the outer precinct.117 Furthermore, a popular Tokyo tour bus (the Blue Bus) operated a route to the capital and the gallery from the provinces, visiting around 30 typical tourist sights in the space of eight hours. According to Kon, around 90 to 100,000 people used this bus service per year, many of whom were students on excursions and other groups from the provinces.118 Although the number of history paintings on view constituted less than half of the total commissioned, the pictures which the sightseers encountered in the gallery were not completely ‘new,’ as they had ‘already’ seen some of them. As various scholars have pointed out, this was due to the close connections between painting and history education. Especially since the 1931 Manchurian incident, history paintings were expected to

116 Tokyoshiyakusho, Dai Tokyo annai, 16–20. 117 Kon Wajirō, Shinpan dai Tokyo annai, vol. 2, 314. 118 Ibid., 66–73. See also Tokyoshiyakusho, Dai Tokyo annai, 20. a mnemonic space 101 be effective tools in the teaching of national history. History paintings in the gallery were inserted into school text books and some of the paintings were even used in their draft stages, before the gallery had been opened to the public.119 Various entertainment media played significant roles in the interpretation of the history presented in the gallery, both before and after the gallery opened its doors to the public. Goseda Hōryū II was a significant figure here.120 He had originally been engaged in the painting of panoramic pictures, an art form which was highly popular during the Meiji period. His approach to history was not only to draw it as if it were a museum painting but also to perform it in the form of travelling picture shows, which exhibited his own pictorial adaptations of Emperor Meiji’s life. As Kinoshita conclusively shows, the viewing of paintings was for ordinary people a kind of spectacle, as indeed was the panoramic show.121 Goseda encouraged and enabled people to encounter two editions of history, a more popularised account in their home region or town on the one hand and the gallery version in Tokyo on the other. The historical narration in the gallery had also become familiar to people through popular publications, sometimes before the gallery’s official opening, albeit often in abbreviated or simplified form. Even six years before the opening, a pictorial magazine for girls called Shōjo kurabu issued a supplement featuring the gallery paintings, including most of them in full colour (1st April 1931). The popular picture magazine, Kōdansha no ehon, entitled one of its issues “Pictorial History of Emperor Meiji” to coincide with the public opening of the gallery in November 1937. The full colour paintings in this work were all by Goseda, with different pictorial adaptations from those of the gallery. Both Shōjo kurabu and Kōdansha no ehon were issued by Kōdansha, the publisher responsible for a great variety of entertainment magazines. They were particularly popular amongst young people, and the total circulation of the Kōdansha no ehon series rose to 70 million by 1969 (first published December 1936).122 Even if history paintings had become somewhat devalued by the end of the Meiji period in

119 E.g., “The union of Korea and Japan,” used in a government-approved elementary school textbook from 1935. As for history paintings during the 15 year wartime period (1931–1945), see Tan’o and Kawata, Imēji no naka no sensō. 120 Yamaguchi M., “Nisei Goseda,” 23–36; Yokota Yōichi, “Meiji tennō jiseki o megutte,” 104–106. 121 Kinoshita Naoyuki, Bijutsu to iu misemono, 174–9. I also learned much from another of his works, Yo no tochū kara kakusareteiru koto. 122 Kanō Yūichi, “Kōdansha no shuppan katsudō,” 229–41. 102 chapter two the field of fine arts, they nonetheless played a crucial role in building the popularity of various forms of popular entertainment, and they were used extensively as educative tools. When people entered the gallery, they ‘remembered’ familiar pictures with ‘already acquainted’ historical interpretations, although the images and stories had originally emanated from that same gallery. The familiarity felt by ordinary people with the gallery’s narration of history was not only visual, it was auditory. The output of the gallery’s historiographical investigations was occasionally made available to the public, in the form of public lectures. Tokyo City sponsored a lecture in 1921 in celebration of the first anniversary of Meiji shrine, in which Kaneko Kentarō and Fujinami Kototada spoke about the progress of their historiographical research and Emperor Meiji’s life story.123 The Support Committee attempted to establish a regular lecture series on the emperor, stressing it would serve not only to make the picture themes more widely known but also to develop national education.124 Remarkably, these lectures were even delivered to two emperors. Kaneko, Fujinami, and Mikami Sanji, who had succeeded Kaneko as governor of the Extraordinary Editorial Committee, taught both Emperor Taisho and Emperor Showa about Emperor Meiji, telling them just what their father and grandfather respectively had really accomplished.125

Local Practices of Commemoration Finally, I turn to the “Siege of Kumamoto castle during the Satsuma Rebellion” (no. 37) as an example of how the painter’s quest for ‘reality’ was interrelated with local practices of commemoration. In order to aid Kondō Shōsen, the painter, to deliver a representation of ‘real’ history, Kumamoto citizens took part in a mock battle on 1st December 1922.126

123 Fujinami Kototada, “Meiji tennō gojiseki ni tsuite”; Kaneko K., “Meiji tennō to kenpō seitei.” 124 Tsūshin 68 (10th May 1922); 20–26. 125 For their lectures to emperors, see Horiguchi O., “Jijū Fujinami Kototada to Shutain kōgi”; Takahashi Katsuhiro, “Mikami sanji no shinkō to Showa tennō”; “Shiryō shōkai”; Kawata Keiichi, “Kōshitsu seido keisei to Fujinami Kototada”; Shibata Shin’ichi, “Fujinami Kototada den.” 126 General accounts on the mock battle are drawn from “Kaigakan no hekiga, Seinan sensō: Kumamoto jō ya Hanaokayama no shasei o shini kaetta Kondō Shōsen gahaku,” Kyushu shinbun (27th November 1922); “Kondō gahaku no tame ni Seinan eki no mogisen o raigetsu tsuitachi Fujisakidai de okonau,” Kyushu shinbun (28th November 1922); “Seinan no eki no mogisen: Meiji jingū kinenkan ni kishin suru senzu sakusei,” Kyushu nichinichi shinbun (2nd December 1922); “Kondō gahaku no tame ni Seinan no eki no mogisen,” a mnemonic space 103

This project was assisted by the army’s Kumamoto division as well as by the picture sponsor, Hosokawa Moritatsu. Some of those who had actually been among the besieged testified to their experiences. Troops as well as artillery (some of which was used in the original battle) were set ‘as they were,’ even firing guns using blanks for effect. The further importance of this ‘authentic event’ is that people took documentary photographs of it as ‘historical records,’ and that a tremendous number of locals viewed the battle, including over one thousand school children and students. This young audience, who had obviously not been there when the battle occurred 45 years earlier, were able to experience, view and memorise an ‘exact’ copy of the Satsuma Rebellion at its precise original location. The process of historical investigation for the gallery pictures, in other words the historiographical operation itself, was one with which the prospective audiences of the paintings became intimately associated, as wit- nesses, recorders and historiographers. Memory in the space of the gallery emerged from its interrelations with local places where the events illustrated had taken place.

2.4 A Case Study: Commemorative Operations and a Painting on Iomante

I have examined the dynamics of the relation between the selection of the picture topics and the visualisation of history in the formation of the shrine’s Memorial Art Gallery, in an attempt to reconsider the creation of the mnemonic space as an interrelation between the practices of historiography and of commemoration. This last section of Chapter 2 further discusses this mechanism through a case study. Here I explore a specific painting from the viewpoint of those represented in the work. My aim is to understand how the event of the gallery’s formation was involved in the creation of local memory on the one hand, and how the locals were involved in the gallery’s creation on the other. I follow Sherman’s method of investigation, as seen in his examination of the Louvre.127 Sherman focuses on the twinned and intertwined dimensions of national and local French museums. Although accepting that the Louvre and its various adjuncts were “almost exclusively the work of the state,” Sherman

Kyushu shinbun (2nd December 1922); Hōsankai and Meiji jingū gaien kanrisho, eds., Hekiga kinsei kiroku, 619–24. 127 Daniel J. Sherman, Worthy Monuments. 104 chapter two importantly points out that “a focus on the national level would exclude the other political and social forces . . . operating largely outside the national capital, that contributed to shaping the museum.”128 Umemori’s thoughts on the ‘central’ and ‘local’ in the field of critical history are equally suggestive.129 If an ‘authorised’ history exists through the appropriation of each individual memory, Umemori asks how we can critically analyse the process of appropriation. One potential approach is to pluralise history by gathering up alternative histories. However, Umemori carefully suggests that this plurality strategy does not always succeed in enabling us to view an authorised history objectively; he questions whether critical historians can take part in the representing of history as if it were a series of concentric circles of ‘national,’ ‘local’ and ‘individual’ histories.130 Reflecting on Umemori’s caution, I consider the local not as a place where individual history synchronises with national history, but as a place where the national and the individual experience a confrontation. My interest is in examining the interplay between local and national histories, through which the discursive ‘reality’ of history and the sublimated object of memory take place.

2.4.1 From the Ainu Bear Festival to Farmer-Soldiers As a model I explore the creation of a gallery picture, “The emperor inspecting the farmer soldiers during the imperial tour in Hokkaido” (no. 42). The picture sponsor, the Hokkaido Development Agency, commissioned a Western-style painter, Takamura Masao, to produce a painting which was then submitted to the gallery on 23rd August 1928.131 It depicts Emperor Meiji’s visit to settlers (tondenhei, or farmer-soldiers) in Yamahana Village (the present Sapporo City) on 1st September 1881 as part of his summer and autumn tour around Tohoku and Hokkaido. Because Yamahana had been under cultivation since 1876, following Meiji government policy, the emperor visited to encourage the settlers in their farming. The emperor’s Tohoku and Hokkaido tour is designated as one of the six great imperial journeys, and the gallery includes many pictures depicting him meeting with ordinary people. As has been noted by a number of scholars, the emperor’s tours were seen as important for achieving

128 Ibid. 129 Umemori Naoyuki, “Rekishi to kioku no aida.” 130 Ibid., 180–81. 131 Hōsankai and Meiji jingū gaien kanrisho, eds., Hekiga kinsei kiroku, 646 and 654. a mnemonic space 105 national integration; the gallery’s creators were no doubt conscious of the effect of imperial inspections and of representing them, which would explain why the Hokkaido Development Agency sponsored the painting.132

The Initial Hokkaido Picture Topic Initially, the Hokkaido tour-related topic selected as a potential subject for painting was actually “The emperor inspecting the Ainu bear festival,” not his inspection of the Yamahana farmers. Meiji tennōki describes his visit to the Ainu village of Shiraoi to inspect the Ainu bear festival on 3rd September 1881 as follows: Emperor Meiji and his party arrived at 5:50pm in Shiraoi Village, where he stayed in a prepared local house, the house of Ōsawa Shūjirō. In the evening the emperor invited local Ainu people to the house and watched their ceremony for the bear festival, the Ainu performing it with three bears. Afterwards the Ainu showed him their dances: 40 Ainu persons danced in a circle while clapping their hands. The emperor offered them cloth, cigarettes, and rice wine. . . . An interpreter informed the Ainu of the emperor’s words and served them, and three elderly Ainu bowed in a line and received drinks.133 The change in topic was made after approval of the first 85 topics on 27th January 1917 and before the determination of the final 80 topics on 5th August 1920; during this period historical and pictorial investigation was conducted both in the ‘centre,’ that is in Tokyo, and in the ‘locale,’ in other words in Hokkaido. This change to the Hokkaido-related picture topic (see Table 5) is the issue I would like now to take up. A local newspaper, Otaru shinbun, reported the picture topics that the gallery had chosen, listing all 85 topics included in the first list of proposals (1st March 1918).134 Among the topics, the newspaper report highlighted one topic title which would interest readers, “The emperor’s inspection of the Ainu bear festival at Shiraoi.” People living in Hokkaido took note of this news. In his diary, a settler from the Japanese mainland, Yoshida Iwao, a keen supporter of

132 E.g., Sasaki Suguru, “Meiji tennō no junkō to ‘shinmin’ no keisei”; “Meiji tennō no imēji keisei to minshū”; Hara Takeshi, Kashika sareta teikoku. 133 Kunaichō, ed., Meiji tennōki, vol. 5, 474. Original sources cited for the Shiraoi description in Meiji tennōki include Kodama Gennojō, Kohitsu nichijō, 828; Kawada Take- shi, Zuiran kitei, 896. 134 “Goseitoku gokontoku hōshō no Meiji jingū no gadai: Daiikkai seian to shite happyō serumono,” Otaru shinbun (1st March 1918). 106 chapter two

Table 5. Changes in topics related to Emperor Meiji’s Hokkaido tour List no. and Date Hokkaido Topics 1 27/01/1917 None 2 25/06/1917 None 3 29/11/1917 “The emperor inspecting the Ainu bear festival” 4 25/01/1918 “The emperor inspecting the Ainu bear festival during the imperial tour in Hokkaido (Shiraoi Station)” 5 25/01/1918 “The emperor inspecting the Ainu bear festival at Shiraoi Train Station during the imperial tour in Hokkaido” 6 25/01/1918 “The emperor inspecting the Ainu bear festival during the imperial tour in Hokkaido” 7 Spring 1918 “The emperor inspecting the Ainu bear festival during the imperial tour in Hokkaido” 8 05/08/1921 “The emperor inspecting the farmer-soldiers during the imperial tour in Hokkaido” Sources: Same as for Table 3.

Ainu education, gratefully noted the newspaper article and wrote of the pleasure it gave him, his wife and friends.135

Mitsuoka Shin’ichi’s Sketch Records in the Support Committee’s journal suggest that the committee and its Gallery Committee had initiated local investigations by May 1918. On 3rd May the Support Committee contacted the chief of their Hokkaido branch to ensure their cooperation in the investigation, and also wrote to the Muroran branch of the Hokkaido Development Agency to ask for cooperation for the field trip on 8th June.136 On 10th June, Minakami and Goseda left for Tohoku and Hokkaido. Interviewed by a paper before his departure, Goseda discussed the Hokkaido plan as follows: “Shiraoi is the locus where the late emperor inspected the Ainu bear festival. We hope that we can watch an authentic performance of the bear festival through the good offices of the local authorities and of influential persons around the village. If, however, we can not, we shall recall the situation as it was through the use of materials such as photos.”137 The “local authorities” referred to by Goseda seems to mean those requested to cooperate with the Support Committee, such as the local

135 Yoshida Iwao, Yoshida Iwao nikki, vol. 9, 101–102. 136 Tsūshin 30 (10th June 1918): 1. 137 Ibid., 31 (10th July 1918): 17. a mnemonic space 107

Figure 17. Mitsuoka Shin’ichi’s sketch. Mitsuoka Shin’ichi, c. 1918–1922. Size unknown, ink on paper. (Reprinted from Ainu no sokuseki by Mitsuoka Shin’ichi, privately printed, 1922, unpaginated). branch of the Hokkaido Development Agency, but who were the “influential persons” around Shiraoi? One man of consequence was Mitsuoka Shin’ichi, the president of the Shiraoi Native Ainu Association (Shiraoi dojin kyōkai).138 At the request of these “local authorities,” Mitsuoka conducted an historical investigation into the events of the day of 3rd September 1881, and indeed produced a tentative picture of the event for the tentative painting which Goseda would paint [Fig. 17]. Among Mitsuoka’s various works on Ainu culture, a book entitled Ainu no sokuseki (The Path of the Ainu, 1922) includes a chapter entitled “The Shiraoi Ainu bear festival, dignified by the presence of Emperor Meiji.”139 Mitsuoka records what he found during his historical investigation under

138 A librarian in Shiraoi Library, Ms. Honma Keiko, has done me a great service by collecting information on Mitsuoka and his works in Shiraoi. I especially appreciate the steady support of Ogawa Masahito, a research fellow in Hokkaido Ainu Culture Research Centre. 139 Mitsuoka Shin’ichi, Ainu no sokuseki (Shiraoi, privately printed, 1922), unpaginated. 108 chapter two twelve headings, for example “participant numbers,” “appearance” and “location.” Furthermore, his own sketch of the emperor’s inspection was inserted into the book along with the following commentary: I produced this sketch based on the verbal evidence of Ōsawa Shūjirō and those Ainu who had participated in the performance on that occasion. . . . I gathered this evidence into an imaginative draft. After consulting those who were there at that time and modifying it several times, the draft resulted in this sketch.140

Revising Representation: The Hokkaido Tour The series of paintings in Fig. 18 give an overview of the transformation from Mitsuoka’s draft [Fig. 17], via Goseda’s provisional paintings, right up to Takamura’s final work. As far as I can understand, Goseda had been portraying the emperor’s visit to Yamahana Village, rather than the bear festival, ever since his first draft. A curious point to note is that the Goseda versions of Yamahana Village depicted several Ainu welcoming the emperor, while Takamura’s picture only showed farmer soldiers. Goseda’s is an implausible image, as the Ainu had not yet settled in Yamahana Village; nor is there any record which shows that Ainu people met the emperor on that occasion, although this fact would have been evident if Goseda and the gallery historiographers had thoroughly investigated the historical ‘reality’ of the situation.141 Although it is beyond doubt that an Ainu group called Karafuto Ainu, from the southern part of Sakhalin, emigrated from their land to the Hokkaido mainland when the Japanese government gave up the southern part of Sakhalin in exchange for the Kuril Islands in 1875, they settled not in Yamahana Village but in Tsuishikari Village, the present Ebetsu City.142 Moreover, although the emperor certainly did meet Ainu individuals at Yamahana, this was on 1st September at Seikatei, a guesthouse; it was on this occasion that the Karafuto Ainu were taken to the guesthouse to give their dance performance.143 The question arising here is why those investigators and painters who clung to the desire for ‘real’ history and ‘exact’ painting adhered to a fictional representation of the emperor’s visit to

140 Mitsuoka S., Ainu no sokuseki, 4th ed., enl. (Shiraoi: Tanabe Masao, 1932), 151. 141 Kunaichō, ed., Meiji tennōki, vol. 5, 470–2. 142 Hokkaido kaitaku kinenkan, ed., Kindai no hajimari, 45–6. See also Hirakeyuku daichi, ed. Hokkaido Kaitaku kinenkan, 42–44. 143 Kunaichō, ed., Meiji tennōki, vol. 5, 470–2. a mnemonic space 109

Figure 18. Variations of the Hokkaido tour related pictures. Top-left: Goseda Hōryū II, completed by August 1921. Size unknown, watercolour on paper. (Reprinted from Hekiga gadai kōshozu, ed. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1921, 142). Top-right: Goseda Hōryū II, date unknown. 31×23.4 cm, watercolour on paper. (Reprinted by permission of Ibarakiken kindai bijutsukan). Bottom: Takumura Masao, Hokkaido junkō tondenhei goran, 1928. 270×250 cm, oil on canvas. (Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan). 110 chapter two

Hokkaido when they could have made use of Mitsuoka’s carefully investigated picture.

2.4.2 Iomante: ‘Dying Tradition’ One crucial factor contributing to the change in painting subject was the problem of how best to treat the Ainu bear festival. One of the grounds for this assertion comes from the fact that there was correspondence at the time between Sakatani and an Ainu expert, John Batchelor (1854–1944), a missionary of the British Christian Missionary Society (CMS) who had devoted 60 years to studying and working with the Ainu in Hokkaido.144 They exchanged views on the bear festival while the local investigations were progressing. A letter from Sakatani to Batchelor, dated 18th July 1918, clearly indicates both their positions: A friend of mine in Sapporo wrote to [my friend in Tokyo that] you protested against the bear festival “which was about to take place” in the Exhibition [of Sapporo]. I did not know that the festival is so cruel, and very much appreciate your cordial protest. Many, many years ago our late Emperor Mutsuhito visited Hokkaido and the people showed him the festival, and we wished to paint it for his memory in Hokkaido [for] our society, Meiji jingū hōsankai. How [sic] do you think of this? I think this painting will not be of any subject as to be protested [sic] if properly painted.145 Unfortunately Batchelor’s direct reply to this remains unknown, but a consideration of the situation surrounding the Ainu bear festival around 1918 may afford us a clue as to why the gallery eventually chose not to exhibit the Ainu bear festival. I owe much here to Ogawa’s critical research of Ainu history in the modern period.146 In particular, his use of Iomante as a lens through which to appreciate the Ainu has provided a new perspective on the modern history of the Ainu. Iomante, in the Ainu language, means “ceremonies for sending divine beings to the other world,” and is in many cases used to denote those ceremonies taking place during the Ainu bear festival.147 Most previous research has focused on viewing modern Ainu history within a dichoto-

144 For Batchelor, see Imogen Reeves, “John Batchelor”; Hans D Ölschleger, “John Batch- elor’s Contributions to Ainu Ethnography”; Nitami Iwao, Ainu no chichi, Jon Bachelā; idem, Ikyō no shito. 145 Sakatani Y., Sakatani shorui, vol. 4. 146 Ogawa Masahito, “Iomante no kindaishi,” 241–304. 147 For Iomante, see Sasaki Toshikazu, “Iomante kō”; Mitsuoka S., Ainu no sokuseki, 4th ed., enl., 124–30. a mnemonic space 111 mous framework, with dominant Japanese discrimination and assimilation on one side and native Ainu subordination and resistance on the other. For Ogawa however, things are not so simple. He posits that an analysis over dependent on “dominant Japanese” and “antagonistic Ainu” inevitably reduces any discussion of post-Meiji Ainu culture down to the destruction or recovery of an ‘original’ Ainu culture.148 Ogawa suggests rather that we should reconsider the idea of ‘original’ Ainu culture itself, from which the antagonistic view of Ainu history first appeared; his problematising of ‘original’ seems to be closely associated with my problematising of ‘real.’ What must be untangled now is just how the problems surrounding the ‘originality’ of Iomante worked to determine attitudes towards the bear festival picture.

The Ainu Assimilation Policy In order to understand how the dominant Japanese viewed the bear festival, it is worth noting that since the 1890s an Iomante dance show had become increasingly popular as entertainment, both on the mainland and in Hokkaido. It was also in 1890 that the Kyū dojin hogohō (Hokkaido Former Native Protection Law) was passed, as part of the government’s policy of assimilation. To follow Siddle, the policy of assimilation (dōka) aimed to transform the Ainu “into imperial subjects through the eradica- tion of their former language, customs and values.”149 The odd term used for the Ainu, ‘former native’ (kyū dojin), clearly illustrates the attitude of the dominant Japanese toward them. Even as it denies any difference between the Japanese and the Ainu through its acceptance of the ‘present’ identity of the Ainu as ‘Japanese,’ the name takes trouble to distinguish them from mainland Japanese by terming them ‘former’ native.150 This is the logic of affirmation through the double negation of Ainu identity. This logic is further reflected in the behaviour of the dominant Japanese toward the Ainu bear festival; while government policy tried to assimilate the Ainu into one uniform Japanese nation, the general public wanted to see the Ainu performance as a dying tradition. The same self-contradictory attitude of the dominant Japanese can be seen in Emperor Meiji’s inspection of the Ainu bear festival in 1881. In fact, earlier assimilation policy had already prohibited the Ainu from performing

148 Ogawa M., “Iomante,” 246–60. 149 Richard Siddle, Race, Resistance and the Ainu of Japan, 70. 150 Hokkaido kaitaku kinenkan, ed., Kindai no hajimari, 44. 112 chapter two the bear festival and related ceremonies.151 According to Ogawa, the way in which the Ainu were presented or even exhibited to the imperial family at the time was characterised by a central contradiction: on the one hand the imperial inspection highlighted the ‘otherness’ of Ainu ethnicity and its difference from that of the Japanese, but it also spotlighted their ‘same- ness’ as proof of the success of the assimilation policy.152 If the event was truly being displayed in the gallery “for his [Emperor Meiji’s] memory in Hokkaido,” as Sakatani wrote in his letter, could the emperor’s viewing of the bear festival really be said to be drawing on the memory of Hokkaido locals, or of the Ainu?

Batchelor and Ainu Activists The exhibition Sakatani mentioned in his letter to Batchelor was the Hokkaido Exposition, held from 1st August to 19th September 1918 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Hokkaido government.153 Because of the popularity of such exhibitions and expositions, they serve as useful gauges with which to assess the various attitudes held regarding the Ainu and their bear festival. Batchelor for example was consistent in his opposition to displaying the Ainu from the time of the Fifth Industrial Exhibition at Osaka in 1903, which was well known for the first ever display of Ainu in a ‘native village.’ When some of Batchelor’s Ainu acquaintances were tricked and taken to Osaka by merchants and forced to exhibit their bear dance publicly, he severely criticised the contorted structure of the relationship that existed between the Ainu and the mainland Japanese, in which the former were used by the latter to earn money.154 More importantly, however, Batchelor objected not only to the exhibiting of the bear festival but also to the ‘original’ bear festival itself, because of its ‘cruelty’ and ‘heresy.’ I do not like to see the men and women beastly intoxicated. It is not pleas- ant to look upon the wild eyes and flushed faces of the dancing and singing guests. . . . I am very happy to say that the government authorities have at length forbidden the people to kill cubs by strangling, so that the ceremony is now more humane and in some other ways modified.155

151 Hokkaido chō, ed., Shinsen Hokkaido shi, vol. 3, no. 2, 647. 152 Ogawa M., “Kotan eno ‘gyōkō’ ‘gyōkei’ to ainu kyōiku,” 50–65. 153 For the Exposition, see Yamada Shin’ichi, “Takushokukan no Ainu minzoku shiryō ni tsuite no oboegaki,” 179–198. 154 “Ainu dojin, takyō ni naku,” Hokkai taimusu (8th–9th July 1903). 155 John Batchelor, “The Bear Festival,” 205 and 209. a mnemonic space 113

Batchelor’s opinion was clearly expressed in his two-part contribution to a local paper, entitled “Kumamatsuri ni tsuite hantai suru kōen na riyū” (Principal reasons why I am against the bear festival).156 Batchelor had become aware that there was a plan to perform the bear festival for foreign researchers on the occasion of the world congress of the Pan-Pacific Science Association in 1926. In his articles, he proclaimed it would be disgraceful for the Japanese to display to researchers such “barbarous,” “savage” and “inhuman” bear killing. For Batchelor, “Ainu polytheism” was “the religion almost always found among the barbarous, uncivilised, or semi-civilised races of the world,” and this was why he saw it as his mission to enlighten the heathen.157 Reeves, in her discussion of Batchelor as a “Victorian Briton,” argues that his view of the Japanese assimilation policy in Hokkaido was “very much in keeping with general 19th century British attitudes towards Imperialism and the role of missionaries therein,” and suggests that Batchelor regarded himself as being “the handmaiden of the Imperialists.”158 It is beyond the remit of this book to evaluate Batchelor’s life history fully, but he merits a degree of attention because his opinions regarding the Ainu were highly influential among both mainland Japanese and Hokkaido locals, and even among the Ainu themselves, as evidenced by Sakatani’s concern over Batchelor’s reaction. The activists in Ainu social movements, which began around 1918, were made up of a new generation of young Ainu who had been inspired by Batchelor. Siddle suggests that Batchelor’s influence on these activists eventually determined the nature of Ainu activism itself, and argues that the purpose of Ainu activism of this period was to impact on the structures through which they were controlled or “to accommodate themselves to changing circumstances.”159 However, we also need to be aware that their view of the bear festival was not necessarily equivalent to Batchelor’s. The circumstances surrounding the bear festival cannot simply be resolved into an antagonistic relation, either for or against. The behaviour of those protesting against the Ainu bear festival was by no means uniform, as can be demonstrated by taking as an example the case of a young Ainu, Ega Torazō. Ega was a leading Ainu activist and schoolteacher, and

156 Hokkai taimusu (7th–8th October 1925). 157 John Batchelor, “Ainu polytheism,” 239. 158 Reeves, “Batchelor,” 27. 159 Siddle, Race, Resistance, 123, 113. 114 chapter two he had been baptised by Batchelor.160 In 1918 he was delegated to the Hokkaido Exposition by the Hokkaido authorities, whose purpose was to enlighten further the Ainu younger generation by giving a display of modern civilisation. Ega came across a bear festival show held in an entertainment space beside the Exposition, and reported his impression in one word: “Shameless.”161 For Ega, it was not the “old-time” festival itself, but its exhibition, which brought nothing but dishonour to all Ainu. Ogawa observes that Ega and some other Ainu were capable of pen- etrating insights into the circumstances in which they and their culture were situated.162 Neither Ega nor other activists sought to prevent the ongoing modernisation of the Ainu. Indeed, their aim was to ‘renew’ the bear festival in accordance with the mores of modern civilisation. Ega’s “shameless” statement was, therefore, directed at the manipulative and hypocritical treatment of the Ainu, encouraging them to be enlightened on the one hand whilst requiring them to remain uncivilised for the purpose of exhibition. Had the gallery proceeded with its initial plan to exhibit the bear festival picture, this would surely also have been seen as “shameless” by Ega and other Ainu activists. As for the mainland intellectual view of the bear festival at the time of the Hokkaido Exposition in 1918, the writer Miyamoto Yuriko, who stayed at the Batchelor house from March to August 1918, can perhaps serve as a good example.163 Two months after her stay she wrote: Certain Ainu singing of an artistic inclination is used by disgraceful entre- preneurs entirely for personal profit. . . . there would be no problem if people genuinely understood Ainu songs . . . but to take advantage for purposes of display is shameful. Given the absence of a written Ainu language and the lack of a culture adequate to express their lives, they will inevitably vanish; the loss of this race is deeply to be regretted. The Ainu activist movement triggered the mainland Japanese view of the Ainu exhibition as “pitiful.” Consequently, on 10th September 1924, the Hok kaido Development Agency prohibited both the exhibition of the Ainu

160 Ogawa M., “Ega Torazō kankei shiryō.” 161 Ogawa M. “ ‘Hokkaido kyū dojin hogohō’ ‘kyū dojin jidō kyōiku kitei’ ka no ainu kyōin,” 112–3. 162 Ibid., 107. 163 Née Nakajō Yuriko; her visit to Sapporo was reported in Hakodate shinbun (24th July 1918). See also Nitami I., Ikyō no shito, 109. a mnemonic space 115 performances and the “cruel convention of bear killing”; the gallery took notice and finally gave up on producing a bear festival painting.164

Vanishing: Iomante and its Depiction The one understanding of the Ainu culture shared both by proponents and opponents of the Ainu exhibition was that the bear festival was a dying tradition, and that the Ainu were a dying race. It is because Mitsuoka regretted the vanishing of the Ainu’s “footsteps” that he became interested in “the path of the Ainu” and became determined to recreate the emperor’s viewing of the bear festival. Furthermore, just as the Ainu themselves referred to performing the bear festival as a ‘remaking’ of the old ceremony, they also perceived the ‘traditional’ way of life to be different from their ‘present’ lives.165 As a matter of fact there were many ‘traditional’ bear festival shows held on the occasion of the Hokkaido Exposition, regardless of the ‘principal’ objections of Batchelor and others. As the Hokkaido authorities did not allow Ainu performances in the official exhibition area, local people created a special entertainment space in which popular Ainu shows were acted out, in addition to acrobatics and performances with horses and elephants.166 The bear festival was marketed as a re-presentation of “the Ainu spirit which existed from the past to the early Meiji era.”167 As Siddle has established, competing versions of Ainu identity were created and recreated by both the dominant Japanese and the Ainu themselves.168 The identity of the Ainu, as well as of their bear festival, was a process of constant shifting between the ‘same’ and the ‘other,’ and between the ‘no-more’ and the ‘already.’ Although we cannot be certain why Sakatani and the Gallery Committee gave up on their quest for a ‘properly’ painted picture of the bear festival, I believe it was because the committee could not find a historically proper way to treat this sensitive topic.

164 Ogawa M., “Iomante,” 272–3. 165 E.g., Takekuma Tokusaburō, Ainu monogatari. 166 “Baiten wa jōjō keiki: Mōshikomi wa jūbun no ichi mo mitasarenai,” Hokkai taimusu (2nd June 1918); “Ainu no kuma matsuri,” Otaru shinbun (5th August 1918); “Hakurankai to kōgyō,” Hokkai taimusu (2nd August 1918). 167 “Hakurankai to kōgyō,” Hokkai taimusu (2nd August 1918). 168 Siddle, Race, Resistance, 2. 116 chapter two

2.4.3 Mechanisms of Commemoration in the Making of History The selection, investigation and rejection of the emperor’s inspection of the bear festival as a gallery picture topic demands close examination; after all, these processes affected the relationships of the local people of Shiraoi towards the events that took place in their village 40 or so years earlier, when the emperor came to observe their bear festival. I argue that the commemorative operations behind the making of the gallery served to shape local operations of historiography and of commemoration in the village of Shiraoi. In the following discussion, a series of mechanisms of ceremony and of commemoration for the emperor is reviewed from the point of view of the local place of memory, that is, the village of Shiraoi.

The Evolution of Local Historiography As mentioned earlier, Mitsuoka interviewed those present on the occasion of the imperial visit to Shiraoi and recorded their evidence carefully. Even though Mitsuoka’s fact-finding was not ultimately to bear fruit in a gallery picture, it did play a major role in developing Shiraoi historiography. In fact, his recording of events was the first historiographical operation at Shiraoi. In 1923, only one year after Mitsuoka published Ainu no sokuseki, the first written record of Shiraoi history was published, supervised by a chief of the village.169 Although it was a rather small booklet less than 80 pages long, it devoted almost half of its entire length to the emperor’s visit and a description of the village monuments subsequently erected to commemorate the event. The records it contained included, for example, the public announcements made by the county authorities concerning the event, and testimonies given by Ōsawa Shūjirō and some Ainu people. There are several reasons to suggest that the booklet was an enlarged version of Mitsuoka’s work, Ainu no sokuseki, in which Mitsuoka noted that his sketch of the bear festival was merely a part of what he had collected for the gallery’s historical representation; the other materials perhaps became a source for the booklet’s historical records.170 The initials SM, written on the front cover next to a drawing of a village landscape, signified Mitsuoka Shin’ichi, and suggest that Mitsuoka had at least something to do with the publication.171 In addition, the booklet detailed what

169 Shiga Kenji, ed., Shiraoi. 170 Mitsuoka S., Ainu no sokuseki (Shiraoi, privately printed, 1922), unpaginated. 171 The importance of Mitsuoka’s initials was pointed out to me by Ogawa Masahito. a mnemonic space 117

Mitsuoka had heard from the local Ainu, and included the following remark several times: “You ask me for period photos or painted materials, but I do not have any.” These words were precisely those used in conversation with Mitsuoka. The historical records of the emperor’s visit that were assembled by Mitsuoka were later inherited by the publications Shiraoi (Shiraoi History) and Shin Shiraoi chōshi (New Edition of Shiraoi History), showing again how the historiographical practice of gallery creation served to shape the formation of local histories.172 Mitsuoka’s historiographical output was not only assembled within the town of Shiraoi, but was also carried to the mainland by those who had come to inspect Shiraoi Ainu life. Mitsuoka’s work was introduced to these Shiraoi visitors almost as a textbook for the understanding of Shiraoi history, and he himself guided them as researcher and middle- man.173 Compared to other Ainu villages, Shiraoi developed earlier as a site for ‘Ainu viewing,’ a place with easy access from Sapporo City where visitors from the mainland could experience Ainu traditions. Throughout the Taisho period, the interplay of influence and counter-influence with the memory of Ainu life and culture continued in the village of Shiraoi. A further point to mention is that it was not only the Taisho period historiographical research visits of Goseda and others that stimulated interest in Shiraoi and Ainu life. Emperor Meiji’s original visit of 1881 itself was also responsible for initiating the practice of visiting Shiraoi to inspect Ainu culture; Shiraoi had become known as a place where Ainu lived.174 As the village infrastructure, including its roads and water supply, had been greatly improved in preparation for welcoming the emperor, the village became, almost by default, the destination for a variety of visitors, such as other members of the imperial family, researchers and intellectuals, and even children on school excursions. In this sense, it is understandable that a chapter entitled “History of Shiraoi Sightseeing” in the Shin Shiraoi chōshi begins with the statement that the history of Shiraoi sightseeing began with Emperor Meiji’s visit. The emperor’s visit had become an episode used to present the village as the premier site for the viewing of a dying or even dead culture.

172 Shiga K., ed., Shiraoi; Shiraoi chōshi hensan iinkai, ed., Shin shiraoi chōshi, 2 vols. 173 Ibid., vol. 2, 3. 174 Ibid. 118 chapter two

The Making of Local History through Commemorative Practices While the emperor’s visit was indeed the decisive event in transforming the nature of Shiraoi Village, this did not mean that it was forever at the forefront of the locals’ minds; indeed, they tended to forget it. It was the mechanism of commemorative performance that recalled this past event again and again, bringing it back from historical oblivion. It is practices of commemoration that activate the practice of remembering, rather than the objects to be remembered activating the commemorative practices. Table 6, below, shows the major imperial visits to Shiraoi and related commemorative activities during the Meiji and Taisho periods. It is clear that all four monuments of Shiraoi Village, which were located at the sites where Emperor Meiji had stayed (seiseki), were established just before the visit of the Crown Prince (later Emperor Taisho) to Shiraoi in 1911; none of them were present before this time. When in 1922 the succeeding Crown Prince (later Emperor Showa) visited, some locals reconstructed one of the four monuments, and initiated a Memorial Association of Emperor Meiji’s Visit. According to Shiraoi, the locals regretted they had “no special events to commemorate the emperor’s visit” and so decided to hold an annual meeting on 3rd September to visit the monuments and “remember that day through historical documents.”175 Publications of Shiraoi’s history were also supposedly inspired by the Crown Prince’s visit. Finally, it should be noted that a publisher of Mitsuoka’s work, Miyoshi Chikuyū, was also a leading figure in the establishment of the monuments.176 From the sixth edition onwards of Mitsuoka’s Ainu no sokuseki (1941), some sentences referring to Mitsuoka’s collaboration with the gallery’s picture creation were eliminated, and more importantly his sketches were removed.177 At that point a historical fact vanished into the past, namely that Emperor Meiji’s inspection of the Shiraoi Ainu bear festival had at one time been nominated and later dismissed as a potential topic for a painting in the Meiji Shrine Memorial Art Gallery. While some events were being forgotten by erasure from historical descriptions of Shiraoi history, others were added into the documents, even if their historical realities were ambiguous. One example of this is the following legend, associated with a real tree in Shiraoi known as the “pine tree of honour”:

175 Shiga K., ed., Shiraoi, 43. 176 Miyoshi Chikuyū, who was a friend of Mitsuoka and lived on the former Ōsawa Shūjirō’s land, re-established the Shiraoi monument and hosted a commemoration ceremony on 3rd September 1936. See, Taniguchi Asao, “Meiji tennō to kinenhi,” 103–108. 177 Mitsuoka S., Ainu no sokuseki, 6th ed., rev. (Shiraoi: Miyoshi Chikuyū, 1941). a mnemonic space 119

Table 6. Major imperial visits to Shiraoi and related commemorative activities during the Meiji and Taisho periods Monuments and Imperial Visits Events Publications 03-04/09/1881 Ainu at station, emperor Emperor Meiji inspecting bear festival 05/09/1911 Ainu at station, Imperial June/July 1911 Crown Prince delegation to Shiraoi Monuments established (later Emperor elementary school for where Emperor Meiji stayed Taisho) inspection of Ainu education (Shadai, Shiraoi, Shikibu, Kojōhama – all Shiraoi) August 1918 Exhibiting Ainu materials at Crown Prince and the station Princess Kan’in no miya 22/07/1922 Ainu at Shiraoi Station July 1922 – Reconstruction of Crown Prince Shadai monument; (later Emperor Publication of Mitsuoka Showa) Shin’ichi’s Ainu no sokuseki, 1st edition 03/09/1923 Establishment of Memorial Association of Emperor Meiji’s visit to Shikibu; Publication of Shiraoi, Shiraoi Village Sources: Shiga K., ed., Shiraoi; Shiraoi chōshi hensan iinkai, ed., Shin shiraoi chōshi, 2 vols.; Ogawa M., “Kotan eno ‘gyōkō’ ‘gyōkei’ to ainu kyōiku,” 53.

There was a magnificent pine tree in Ōsawa Shūjirō’s garden. When Emperor Meiji stayed at his house there was a nest built in the tree, and a warbler perched there. Impressed, the emperor wrote a tanka poem on an oblong card and hung the card in the tree. The emperor’s poem card became Ōsawa’s family treasure, although it unfortunately burnt to ashes along with his house in 1896. The tree survived and was later transplanted to the precincts of a shrine, Shiraoi Hashiman Jinja. Nowadays, only the ‘pine tree of honour,’ named for the emperor’s admiration, survives to tell its story.178 This story was recorded in Ainu no sokuseki and subsequently in such publications as Shiraoi and Shin Shiraoi chōshi. The Hokkaido government’s

178 Mitsuoka S., Ainu no sokuseki, 1st ed., 90–91; Shiga K., ed., Shiraoi, 42; Shiraoi chōshi hensan iinkai, ed., Shin shiraoi chōshi, vol. 2, 94–5. 120 chapter two

1924 report on historical and natural monuments in Hokkaido, on the other hand, added the following comment: “Further investigation should be made as to whether or not the ‘legend’ of Shiraoi was real history.”179 Interestingly, almost exactly the same story is found in association with Emperor Meiji’s visit on 20th August to Morioka, Iwate Prefecture, about two weeks prior to his visit to Shiraoi.180 The Morioka story also concerns a tree, called “pine tree with a view of the emperor.” The story tells how the emperor admired the tree and gave the local house owner a poem card. Contrary to the Shiraoi story however, the Morioka version was recorded in the Meiji tennōki.181 Historical documents do not tell us whether it was legend or real history. The gallery’s creation as a mnemonic place became the catalyst for the Shiraoi locals’ historiographical operations. Forgotten events were recollected, redistributed and remembered in the village of Shiraoi, and thus became worthy objects of local commemoration. Any single practice of commemoration produced new objects of remembrance which in turn initiated further practices of commemoration. This created a mechanism of commemoration in the making of history.

179 Hokkaido chō, ed., Hokkaido shiseki meishō tennen kinenbutsu chōsa hōkokusho, 2. 180 Hakodate shinbun (9 September 1981); Kamei Chūichi. ed., Seitoku yobun, 1, 21. 181 Kunaichō, ed., Meiji tennōki, vol. 5, 447. Chapter Three

Shrine Approaches: To the 1923 Earthquake and beyond

The other chapters in this book are concerned with the inner and outer precincts as spaces of Meiji shrine. Chapter 3 however considers the shrine from a different perspective, namely as a space made up of streets and dwellings. The space of the shrine includes several approaches to the inner and outer precincts; these physical connections link it to local people’s places of dwelling, indicating the two are not independent of each other [Fig. 19]. Here I explore how people’s ways of living were elaborated through the development of the shrine, and in doing so I further examine the ways in which the shrine space made itself distinctive. This analysis leads me to re-examine the understanding of the shrine as a festive space. In other words, unlike other chapters which focus on the shrine on the feast day of 3rd November, this chapter seeks to shed light on the space of the everyday at Meiji shrine. For this exploration there are two important focal points to bear in mind: one is the emergence of and evolution in city planning, and the other is the 1923 Great Kanto Earthquake and the resultant plans for recovery. The first city planning law in Japan was ratified in 1919, one year before the completion of the shrine’s inner precinct, and Meiji shrine was constructed in line with it. Furthermore, when the earthquake hit Tokyo on 1st September 1923, the outer precinct and several approaches to the inner precinct were still under construction. It is often said that the basic foundations of modern Tokyo can be dated to the metropolitan reconstruction projects undertaken since 1923, which succeeded pre- earthquake city planning.1 The question to be asked in this chapter is how the space on normal days at the shrine was made manifest within the more general developments in city planning, with particular reference to the consequences of the Great Earthquake.

1 For the history of city planning in modern Japan, see Koshizawa Akira, Tokyo toshi keikaku monogatari; Watanabe Shun’ichi, “Toshi keikaku” no tanjō; André Sorensen, The Making of Urban Japan. 122 chapter three

Figure 19. Harajuku and Omotesandō today, thronging with young people. (Photo by Endō Takaya).

Suburbia was formed, expanded and transformed within the set of historical circumstances resulting from the 1919 City Planning Law and from the Great Earthquake and subsequent recovery. I thus employ the idea of suburbia as a method through which to discuss city planning and the earthquake with respect to the formation of space in the shrine. Meiji shrine, its development, and its transformation must all be situated within the tension between city and suburbia.

3.1 The Space and Practice of Dwelling

3.1.1 Suburbia and Tokyo’s Growth Fishman’s influential arguments on suburbia, Imahashi’s skilful formula for understanding the city/suburb relationship, and Sand’s detailed analysis of housing problems in Japan all suggest why the idea of suburbia is worth applying to an examination of Meiji shrine.2 Firstly, a suburbia-

2 Robert Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias; Imahashi Eiko, ed., Toshi to kōgai; Jordan Sand, House and Home in Modern Japan. shrine approaches 123 centred argument provides the scope with which to review an uncon- sciously employed concept of the city. Fishman, in his Bourgeois Utopia, points this out as follows: “Suburbia can never be understood solely in its own terms. It must always be defined in relation to its rejected opposite: the metropolis.”3 Following Fishman, Imahashi examines Paris’ formation and suggests that its very existence as a city is indeed due to the presence of the Parisian suburbs.4 The relationship of city to suburbia is not simply complementary or oppositional. Rather, for Fishman and Imahashi, it is suburbia that enables a city to be itself: they submit that an examination of the city without any consideration of suburbia would miss certain crucial elements of the city. More specifically, Imahashi’s illumination of the strengths and weaknesses of Walter Benjamin’s understanding of Paris is stimulating.5 For Imahashi, Benjamin’s contribution to the problems of Paris is magnificent in the sense that Benjamin assembled fragmented and trivialised images into a collectively imagined topos, a city of Paris, rather than presenting a “bird’s-eye view” of Paris. However, Imahashi sus- pects that when Benjamin saw Paris as surrounded by city walls, he did not take into account the suburban Paris outside the walls; she argues that Benjamin’s suppression of the suburbs enabled the collectively imagined Paris to emerge.6 This is similarly the case for an understanding of Tokyo. As Wakabayashi argues, in many discussions of Tokyo its suburbia still remains a blind spot, the seemingly known but in fact unseen space of the city. Wakabayashi proposes a conceptual shift from a sociology of Tokyo as seen from its suburbs towards a sociology of Tokyo suburbia.7 Wakabayashi maintains that as long as suburbia is examined as a variation of or addition to Tokyo, a student of sociology would fail to grasp the nature of the city of Tokyo, as well as of the suburbia surrounding it. There have been many changes in the definition and borders of Tokyo in the last hundred years or so, and my discussion of the topic reflects this. Just as Tokyo has evolved geographically through its history, so the Tokyo I refer to in my argument shifts with it. Take Shibuya Ward as a case for

3 Fisherman, Bourgeois Utopias, 27. 4 Imahashi E., “ ‘Pari shashin’ no seiki,” in Toshi to kōgai, 213. See also, Imahashi E., Ito dōkei Nihonjin no Pari. 5 Imahashi E., ed., Toshi to kōgai, 120–3; Walter Benjamin, “Passāju ron,” 125–41. 6 Imahashi E., ed., Toshi to kōgai, 121, 213. 7 Wakabayashi Mikio, Toshi e no/kara no shisen, 118–22. 124 chapter three consideration.8 The inner precinct is situated in Yoyogi, which is presently incorporated in Shibuya Ward and is one of the busiest areas in Tokyo. Yoyogi was chosen as the site for the inner precinct in 1912. At this time the map of Tokyo looked quite different from the way it looks today. Most of Japan was divided into prefectures (ken), as it is today, but the three great cities of Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto, were classed as metropolitan prefectures ( fu). The latter two cities are still fu, but Tokyo has since become Tokyoto. At the time Tokyo (Tokyofu) was then subdivided into the city proper (Tokyoshi), which was made up of a number of wards (ku), and an outlying area (gunbu) made up of a number of counties (gun) which were then further subdivided into towns and villages (machi and mura). Yoyogi lay within Yoyohata Village in Toyotama County. It was therefore within the metropolitan prefecture of Tokyo, but beyond the borders of Tokyo city proper [Fig. 20]. It was not until 1932 that Toyotama County, which included Shibuya, Sendagaya and Yoyohata Villages, was designated part of Tokyo City. On 1st October of that year, certain areas surrounding Tokyo City were incorporated into it, and a reorganised city area of 35 wards emerged, one of which was Shibuya. To borrow Wakabayashi’s words, the site of the shrine at its establishment was a “suburb itself.”9 I begin with this fact, then trace the historical context in which the spatial identity of Meiji shrine was transferred across the internal/external border of the city.

3.1.2 Suburbia or Banlieue: Two Models for Growth Much work has been done on the worldwide growth of city planning in the light of the expansion of suburbs.10 It is said that the term ‘town planning’ was first used in 1906 by J.S. Nettlefold in the UK, and was officially employed in 1909 when the first such law was enacted.11 The purpose of this law was to control suburban development by ensuring the standardisation of development schemes. The idea of town planning was from the very start developed as a suburban control technique. Watanabe, who suggests that the 1919 Japanese City Planning Law was also enacted for the purpose of suburban control, shows how the Japanese pioneers in the

8 General accounts on the development of Shibuya are drawn from: Shibuyaku, Shinshū Shibuyaku shi, 3 vols.; Kusei nanajūshūnen kinen, Zusetsu Shibuyaku shi. 9 Wakabayashi M., Toshi e no, 122. 10 E.g., Fisherman, Bourgeois Utopias; Peter Hall, Cities of Tomorrow; Watanabe S., “Toshi keikaku” no tanjō; Sorensen, Urban Japan. 11 Watanabe S., “Toshi keikaku” no tanjō, 62. shrine approaches 125 Tokyo toshi keikaku chizu , 1921). I chiji, T okyo City border of 1921. ( R eprinted, by permission E ndō A rchives, from T okyo Metropolitan of Figure 20. Y oyogi, and the inner precinct beyond the 126 chapter three field were influenced by Western methods and made use of them to create a Japanese style.12 According to Watanabe, the Industrial Revolution played an important role in the evolution of planned development in the West. Industrialisation resulted firstly in new forms of urban space such as the factory, slum and suburb, and secondly in the emergence of the suburban middle classes; these were respectively the targets of, and major players in, city planning. Sorensen has called the process of formation in Japan a “planning dilemma.”13 This dilemma was a result of, and was played out within, the specific historical and material circumstances pertaining at the time, indeed the same conditions under which Meiji shrine was being developed. Any analysis of the creation of the shrine should therefore be carried out in tandem with a study of the targets of city planning and the emergence of a suburban middle class in modern Japan. Through looking at planning comparatively, Fishman makes clear that the ideas and practices of suburbia are not one and the same. He maintains that “suburbia proved to be neither a universal middle-class phenomenon, nor a localised English housing type. It was instead an Anglo-American phenomenon.”14 Fishman suggests that, unlike the bourgeois utopian suburbia of the Anglo-American middle class, the idea of suburbia for the continental middle class was something different. The different conceptions of suburbia are well expanded by Imahashi, who differentiates between the forms found outside Anglo-American cities and the banlieue lying beyond continental cities such as Paris, which were surrounded by city walls.15 The distinction between the two concepts derives from the different forms of private life desired by the respective bourgeois elements of these industrial societies. While English suburbia created an ideal of bourgeois life termed “the marriage of city and country,” in Paris the poor working classes were obliged to relocate to the fringes of the city so that the wealthy could enjoy their inner-city lives.16 Different suburban structures led to different suburban images. In short, suburbia became associated with the middle-class dream of a single-family house with its own garden, whilst banlieue implied a perilous periphery infected with

12 Ibid., 32. 13 Sorensen, Urban Japan, 84. 14 Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias, 107. 15 Imahashi E., ed., Toshi to kōgai, 15–6. 16 Yamada Toyoko, Rizōto seikimatsu, 22–3. English suburbia was idealised by Ebenezer Howard in the term ‘the marriage of city and country’; Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow. shrine approaches 127 poverty, crime and immigrants.17 Notably, Imahashi argues that academic discussions of Japanese suburbs have to date only used Anglo-American concepts and practices of suburbia.18 As she suggests, the complicated fusion of suburbia/banlieue development in Japan needs consideration. ‘Suburban Meiji shrine’ should be discussed as part of this phenomenon.

3.1.3 A Space for Dwelling and Habitus City planning, and more specifically discussions of suburbia and its control, necessarily concern the problem of the relation between spatial structure and class structure. A series of questions arises here, namely who lived where, what they did, and how they lived in the area surrounding the shrine’s access space. To respond to these questions I choose to focus on housing. As has been well noted, one of the major consequences of the Great Earthquake of 1923 was fundamental shifts in domestic space, in the spatial distribution of housing, in housing structure and in life style.19 To borrow Fishman’s words, “housing choices not only created different kinds of residential areas but ultimately also created different kinds of cities.”20 The importance of Fishman’s suggestion is that there are no stable social classes such as ‘middle class’; rather there was simply a desire for class segregation itself which required the separation of residential areas: “Distance alone sufficed to isolate the bourgeoisie.”21 Those who most earnestly yearned for and supported Eugene-Georges Haussmann’s Paris rebuilding project were not the already-established upper classes, who had luxurious homes, or the lower classes settled in urban slums. Rather, they were the emergent ‘bourgeoisie’ who had risen from the industrial or manufacturing classes during the Industrial Revolution and were searching now for a new form of housing capable of marking their ‘arrival’ and differentiating them from the class they had so recently left behind. The middle classes were the new promoters of city planning: they themselves were created by the Industrial Revolution.22

17 Imahashi E., ed., Toshi to kōgai, 256. 18 Ibid., 385, 16. 19 E.g., Koshizawa A., Monogatari; Yamaguchi Hiroshi, ed., Kōgai jūtakuchi no keifu; Matsumoto Kyōji, “Shūgō jūtaku no seikatsushi teki kōsatsu,” 115–28; Matsumoto K., ed., “Seikatsushi: Dōjunkai apāto,” 6–62. 20 Fishman, Bourgeois Utopias, 107. 21 Ibid., 119. 22 Ibid., 112–5; Matsui Michiaki, Furansu daini teisei ka no Pari toshi kaizō, 386; Watanabe S., “Toshi keikaku” no tanjō, 30. For Haussmann’s rebuilding of Paris, see also David H. Pinkney, Napoleon III and the Rebuilding of Paris; Uda Hideo, Dare ga Pari o tsukutta ka. 128 chapter three

Bourdieu, in his theory of habitus, explores the dialectic between social class and social place.23 According to Bourdieu, habitus is “both the generative principle of objectively classifiable judgements and the system of classification (principium divisionis) of these practices.”24 What habitus generates is not a social class but social spaces in which classes virtually exist, “not as something given but as something to be done.”25 Habitus is an invisible “assumed reality”; it is the dwelling that gives habitus the appearance of reality and “its form but not a content.”26 Following Bourdieu, Sand argues that discourse and design related to habitus tended to encourage the development of certain differentiated types of dwelling, from which emerged conceptions of class culture which in turn further reinforced habitus.27 Sand sheds light on the material manifestation of the ideas and practices centring on ‘culture life’ (bunka seikatsu) in 1920s Japan. A newly developed ‘culture life’ in the new suburban areas and such terms as ‘culture village’ and ‘culture house’ served those who were enthusiastic for bourgeois ideals. As Sand has argued, the language of ‘culture’ worked as a strategy both for suburban developers and consumers; they could mask their aspiration for bourgeois class identity by claiming the realisation of Western housing ‘culture’ was an issue of national ‘culture.’28 The idea of ‘culture life’ thus worked in a practical way to realise personal dreams of attaining class-based dwellings.

3.2 Internal/External: Spanning the City Border

In June 1914 a proposal for creating two approaches to Meiji shrine was adopted by the Shrine Feasibility Committee (Jinja hōshi chōsakai).29 These two approaches are the present main approach, named Omotesandō, and the secondary approach, called Urasandō. The former runs from Minami Aoyama 4-chōme to the main gate of the inner precinct, and the latter runs between the north gate of the inner precinct and the northwest end of the outer precinct, and is otherwise called Naien gaien renraku dōro.

23 Pierre Bourdieu, “The Economy of Practices.” 24 Ibid., 170. 25 Ibid.; idem, “Social Space and Symbolic Space,” 637. 26 De Certeau, The Practice, 59. 27 Sand, House, 3. 28 Ibid., 18, 206. 29 Naimushō, Meiji jingū zōeikyoku, Zōeishi, 54–55. shrine approaches 129

The two approaches emerged out of the city construction and reconstruction projects, and served to transform the preceding space and its use.

3.2.1 Access Space in the Tokyo Road System To understand the shrine’s access space, the construction of the two approaches must be resituated within the historical development of the Japanese city planning system, and so I begin with an outline of how urban road systems developed. The first significant attempts at city planning in Japan began with the Tokyo City Improvement Ordinance (Tokyo shiku kaisei jōrei) in 1888. The Meiji government’s primary concern was to construct what amounted to a new capital, and so the ordinance included plans for improving such dimensions of physical infrastructure as water and sewer systems. But the improvement of the road system was central to government plans, and they instigated a large number of projects across the city. A Taisho period home minister, Gotō Shinpei, held various influential positions and was responsible for a number of key developments during the Taisho and the subsequent Showa periods.30 In 1918 Gotō established the City Planning Section (Toshi keikaku ka) within the Home Ministry and the following year saw through a planning law which provided the first “comprehensive planning system” in Japan.31 According to Sorensen, one of the key characteristics of the 1919 plan was a drastic concentration of city planning power in the Home Ministry.32 In May 1921, under the 1919 Law and in line with the 1888 Ordinance, a comprehensive plan for a Tokyo road system was announced.33 The plan represented in detail a vision of a future Tokyo road layout: city planning roads were called Toshi keikaku gairo and numbered according to their primary, secondary and tertiary positions in a road hierarchy. The Home Ministry was even able to extend its power over the designation and building of the planning roads through control of the City Planning Commissions (Toshi keikaku iinkai). The new system had only just been introduced when the Great Earthquake hit Tokyo in 1923. A reconstruction project was soon initi-

30 General accounts on Gotō and his contribution to the rebuilding of Tokyo are drawn from: Koshizawa A., Monogatari; Mikuriya Takashi, ed., Jidai no senkakusha. 31 Sorensen, Urban Japan, 84; Watanabe S., “Toshi keikaku” no tanjō, 6. 32 Sorensen, Urban Japan, 121–2. 33 Koshizawa A., Fukkō keikaku, 37. 130 chapter three ated by Gotō, who established the Imperial Capital Reconstruction Department (Teito fukkōin) on 19th September under the direction of the Home Ministry, with himself as president. Although the department’s work was delegated to a new City Reconstruction Board (Fukkōkyoku) the following year, this board was effectively an annex of the Home Ministry. Through the board, the ministry succeeded in maintaining its control over city planning via the Special City Planning Commissions (Tokubetsu toshi keikaku iinkai), which succeeded the pre-earthquake City Planning Commissions. The reconstruction project superseded the 1921 road system plan, and finally established 52 major new arterial roads each over 22 metres in width, totalling 114 kilometres in length. The creation of the Meiji shrine approaches was deeply associated with this road system development. In 1916 the Feasibility Committee’s proposal for Omotesandō had been approved under the 1888 Ordinance, and in 1920 Urasandō was approved by the Tokyo City Planning Commission under the 1919 Law. Both shrine roads were then included in the government’s new road system plan of 1921. Omotesandō was listed as a primary road (I-1-11) and Urasandō as a secondary road (II-2-1); they were completed in 1921 and 1928 respectively [Fig. 21]. The creation of Meiji shrine’s approaches was thus from the very beginning considered as a part of the Tokyo road network.

3.2.2 The Creation of the Meiji Shrine Boulevards Both of the shrine’s approach roads were trials, carried out as city construction projects in order to materialise the modern ideal of street space. There were various major players in this creation. The local Tokyo City government, for example, took charge of and financed construction. The Home Ministry and the Reconstruction Board in central government played important roles; for example, Tokyo City had to submit its detailed construction plan for approval by central government through its local City Planning Commission. Local government was not the only actor required to submit plans to the Home Ministry. The Meiji Shrine Support Committee (Meiji jingū hōsankai) and technical specialists in the Foundation Bureau for the shrine (Meiji jingū zōeikyoku) were also deeply involved in the process, and proposed their own visions of how the approaches should be laid out. The form and layout of the shrine roads were designed and eventually materialised through these players’ interactions. Here I consider the role of a technical specialist, Orishimo Yoshinobu, whose career began with the construction of the Meiji shrine shrine approaches 131

Figure 21. Omotesandō in 1920. (Reprinted from Meiji Jingū oshashinchō, ed. Teikoku gunjin kyōikukai, 1920, unpaginated). outer precinct. Orishimo was both an engineer in the Foundation Bureau and chief of the park engineering section in the Reconstruction Board.34 He is sometimes described as the founder of modern park administration in Japan, and almost all of those who carried out the reconstruction and administration of Japanese parks before and after the war were his successors.35 It is also interesting to note that it was through Orishimo that the shrine’s Foundation Bureau and the City Reconstruction Board were linked, in the planning carried out for the approaches. Cooperation was not always easy between the Tokyo City authorities on one side and the Support Committee and Foundation Bureau on the other. Rivalry between them over certain aspects of planning was the main reason why neither of the two approaches was completed in time for the opening of the inner precinct on 3rd November 1920. In the case of Urasandō in particular, negotiations dragged on for over seven years until they were resolved in February 1927 in favour of the Support Committee

34 Maeshima Yasuhiko ed., Orishimo Yoshinobu sensei gyōseki roku; Koshizawa A., Monogatari, 98–99. I am grateful to Koshizawa Akira for his suggestions on Orishimo’s contribution to the construction of Meiji shrine’s approaches. 35 Koshizawa A., Monogatari, 98. 132 chapter three and Foundation Bureau. The argument related to the plans for Urasandō (road II-2-1) to connect to another new road, I-3–3, planned in 1911 to run along the west side of the outer precinct (the present Gaien nishi dōri). An urgent meeting was held in January 1921, soon after the committee and the bureau noticed that ongoing road construction would interfere with the plans for Meiji shrine. Some members of the Support Committee attended a meeting of the City Planning Commission on 19th January and insisted the Tokyo City changed its plans.36 The committee and the bureau contested several aspects of the Tokyo City government road development plans, all of which related to the new city planning road, I-3–3. They objected to this road being constructed on the north-west land of the outer precinct, and to its construction along the east side of Shibuya River, right behind the stadium in the outer precinct. Furthermore, they were against the plan for roads II-2-1 and I-3-3 to meet in a normal cross-shaped intersection [Fig. 22]. Petitions were submitted on several occasions to all the authorities concerned, including the president of the Special City Planning Commission, the director of the Reconstruction Board, the governor of Tokyo Prefecture and the mayor of Tokyo. Regarding construction on the north-west land of the outer precinct, the bureau and committee members argued that “the site in question was acquired with individual donations made for the purpose of buying private properties and incorporating them into public property. It would be improper to use the site for any purpose other than ours, even if it were for public use.” As for the east side of Shibuya River, it was “instinctively obvious” that it would be part of the “sacred space”; funeral processions or dirty vehicles passing by would desecrate the kami.37 The members argued that road I-3-3 should run along the west side of the Shibuya River, not the east side.38 The objection submitted by the committee and bureau to the proposed intersection was that it would be dangerous on those occasions when many people were using the road, for example during festivals and events in the inner and outer precincts. They could only accept a flyover crossing, and only if the Meiji shrine access road II-2-1, which was to link the sacred sites of the inner and outer precincts, ran above road I-3-3.

36 Toshi keikaku chūō iinkai, “Toshi keikaku chūō iinkai giji sokkiroku,” 19th January 1921. 37 Meiji jingū hōsankai, ed., “Toshi keikaku rosen no henkō,” in Gaienshi, 581–98; Minakami H., “Gaiennai toshikeikaku dōro henkō no tenmatsu ni tsuite,” December 1926. 38 Ibid. shrine approaches 133

Figure 22. Map showing Urasandō and the planned and final routes for road I-3-3. (Reprinted from Meiji Jingū gaienshi, ed. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1937, unpaginated). 134 chapter three

The explanations given by the Tokyo City authorities for not employing the above proposals in the first place were technical and economic, namely the engineering difficulty of constructing a two-level crossing and the cost of purchasing new land. Orishimo was a key figure in ending the stalemate. Because he belonged both to the central government’s Reconstruction Board, and thus had strong links with many of the key decision-makers in the debate, and to the Foundation Bureau, he was able skilfully to direct the argument against Tokyo City. Orishimo’s report, showing that the problems were not as intractable as the local authorities maintained and were in fact solvable, was approved by central government.39 Of note here is that the Support Committee/Foundation Bureau’s insistence on the road surrounding the shrine as ‘sacred’ was not the shared understanding of those concerned with the road planning projects. The shrine roads were for many of them nothing but a part of the city road network. The Meiji shrine roads served as a model form of street space for Tokyo’s city planning. According to Koshizawa, the concept and design of modern Japan’s roads were established by Tokyo reconstruction: the post- earthquake projects standardised the separation of driveway from pavement, the planting of roadside trees and paving with asphalt.40 If this is the case, the pre-earthquake creation of Omotesandō was pioneering: the 22-metre wide driveway and the 7-metre wide pavements (on each side) were clearly separated; the pavements were built with concrete and paved with asphalt; the driveway was re-made as a gravel road; and zelkova trees were planted at the roadsides. The pioneering creation of the approaches can be clearly understood in the case of Urasandō, where Orishimo’s commitment is more apparent. As is often pointed out, one of the main contributions of the post-earthquake reconstruction project to the space of Tokyo City was that it enormously increased the stock of park space, including three large parks (Sumita Park, Kinshi Park and Hamachō Park) and 52 small community parks which were created adjoining elementary schools. Orishimo was a leading architect of these parks. One of his achievements, Sumita Park (1930),

39 Meiji jingū hōsankai, ed., Gaienshi, 582–7. There was also a similar conflict between the local government and the Support Committee when creating Omotesandō. See Naimushō, Meiji jingū zōeikyoku, Zōeishi, 55–59; “Omotesandō no chūō ni yūhodō o mōkeyo,” Yamato shinbun (15th December 1920). 40 Koshizawa A., Monogatari, 50. shrine approaches 135 was epoch-making in that it was the first Japanese riverside park in which the spaces of promenade and park were conjoined.41 The key point here is that he derived his ideas and techniques for city planning from his inspection tour of Western countries, made between May 1919 and January 1920. This had been commissioned by the Meiji Shrine Support Committee for the very purpose of enabling the study of methods that might be useful in the outer precinct’s construction. Orishimo’s research on Western city planning was utilised later in his contributions to Tokyo’s reconstruction. His main aim throughout was to find an appropriate balance between public space, meaning parks and gardens, and city planning, and this aspiration for a harmonious marriage of the two was made manifest in the shrine’s Urasandō, as well as in Sumita and some other parks. After his inspection tour, Orishimo gave an address in which he argued that the planning of parks was the most important aspect of city planning.42 He pointed out how few parks there were in Tokyo in comparison to the number of parks in various Western cities. His solution however was not simply to import some standard Western system and apply it to Tokyo or even to Japan, as he saw weaknesses as well as strengths in Western methods. For Orishimo, the Paris “boulevard system” was superior to London’s “scattered park system”: the boulevard system distinguished driveways from pavements and allowed for splendid roadside trees for walkers to enjoy, and furthermore its intersecting structure produced an organic combination in which public park spaces were linked. For this reason, Orishimo also referred to the boulevard system as a “park combination system.” In contrast, the squares and circuses of London complemented their surroundings but were not connected to each other. Orishimo’s ideal of the boulevard system was realised for the first time in Japan with the construction of the access road between the inner and outer precincts, namely Urasandō.43 Following his Western research, the original plan for Urasandō was modified and approved, so that the 36.4 metre wide access road included 2.7 metres of roadside trees and 3.6 metres of pavement on both sides of a 23.6 metre wide driveway. A 12.7 metre wide riding road was also added [Fig. 23].

41 Koshizawa A., Monogatari, 68–73. 42 Orishimo Y., “Toshi keikaku to kōen,” 60–64; see also “Toshi no kōen keikaku,” 195– 223. 43 Koshizawa A., Monogatari, 96. 136 chapter three

Figure 23. Urasandō upon its completion in 1928 (Reprinted from Nihon chiri taikei. Vol. 3, Dai Tokyo hen, ed. Kaizōsha, 1930, 186).

Furthermore, four rows of ginkgo trees in the main avenue of the outer precinct were planted by Orishimo to combine the main plaza of the precinct with Aoyama street, which lead to the main approach to the inner precinct. “As if it were a park itself,” the Meiji shrine inner precinct was linked by Orishimo’s boulevards to the outer precinct and then on to a further 50 parks.44

3.2.3 Between City and Suburbia The creation of the shrine’s access space necessarily involved the elimination or transformation of the preceding space or of its use. Consideration should therefore be given to the characteristic changes in space brought to bear on both the former and new users’ ways of living. I thus re- examine the formation of the approaches with respect to dwelling space. This re-examination also provides an opportunity to take into account the changing character of ‘suburban Tokyo’ beyond the boundaries of the city’s 15 wards. Kawamoto’s formulation of the relation between the

44 Orishimo Y., “Toshi no kōen,” 212. shrine approaches 137 changing idea of suburbia and the movement of population is suggestive here.45 In his masterly work Kōgai no bungakushi (Anthology of Suburban Literature), he argues that the idea and space of suburbia are created as people migrate out from an overcrowded inner city. When these suburbs become overcrowded, people move further out, so that what was once suburbia becomes city, or even inner city. The location of Meiji shrine can be understood with reference to this shifting internal-external boundary. The shrine space (the inner and outer precincts and the approaches to them) covers the present three wards of Shibuya, Minato and Shinjuku. While analysing various descriptive images of suburbia, I illuminate the shifting spatial identity of four specific areas before and after the creation of the approaches: Harajuku and Yoyogi (Shibuya), Aoyama (Minato) and Shinanomachi (Shinjuku). The creation of the shrine in a suburb actually served to accelerate further suburbanisation around the area and consequently contributed to a shift in spatial identity, from suburbia to inner city. Recalling Harajuku from the end of Meiji to the beginning of the Taisho period, the cartoon- ist Kawamura Minoru describes how, when he moved from Kanda in the inner city to Harajuku in order to enter an elementary school attached to Aoyama Teachers College, he felt as if he had moved from “central Edo to a remote village”: There was a dim forest in the Asano family’s huge county estate, and foxes and racoon dogs often appeared there. . . . The Harajuku hill commanded views of the whole rice plain and the Yoyogi fields, over which looked Mt. Fuji. . . . Waterwheels were turning in water mills beside the Onden Bridge.46 During the Edo and Meiji periods there were many waterwheels in and around Harajuku, often on the country estates of former daimyō such as the Asano family.47 Indeed one of the works in Hokusai’s 36 Views of Mt. Fuji (c.1830) was entitled “A Waterwheel in Onden.” Interestingly, it was at the end of the Meiji era that dairy farms began to appear in the district, due in part to a 1903 police regulation which obliged them to move from the inside to the outside of the city. The overflow into suburban space involved farms and cows as well as human beings.

45 Kawamoto Saburō, Kōgai no bungakushi, 30. 46 Onden was an area in Harajuku. Kawamura Minoru, “Sanjūnen mae no Harajuku,” 317. 47 For the history of Harajuku, especially the Onden area, see for example Shibuyaku jingūmae shōgakkō, Jingumae chiiki jittai chōsa. 138 chapter three

From the beginning of the Meiji period new government leaders began to settle in former daimyō estates, and military leaders such as Ōyama Iwao and Anami Korechika later settled there after achieving success in the Russo-Japanese War. By the Taisho period, the marked increase in the movement of people from the city wards out to the more suburban areas of Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture had become obvious, and the flow of population further escalated when the construction of Meiji shrine started. Omotesandō was built over the Asano family’s huge forest, enabling the beginning of housing and land development.48 The new main street displaced the former main road (the present Old Onden Street) and Tokyo City started an Omotesandō tram service in time for the shrine’s inauguration in 1920 [Fig. 24].49 All these developments affected the flow, volume and direction of traffic. Waterwheels finally disappeared at the end of the Taisho era, and the last surviving Tashiro farm, which had been in front of Harajuku Station, was eventually sold up in early Showa. New types of building emerged, such as the three-storied Shimazu science display hall, which stood just across from the shrine and showed films.50 The development of Yoyogi tells us how local residents discovered an ideal suburb in which to realise their dreams of country life, and then how Yoyogi came to lose this suburban identity around the time of Meiji shrine’s construction [Fig. 25]. Kawamoto, in his instructive formulation on the changing idea of suburbia, also suggests that local residents themselves participate in creating counter-images between the inner city and its exterior, or between Yamanote and suburbia. These residents use such counter-images to identify the areas where they live as suburbs; they then ‘discover’ new suburbs even further out from the city centre; finally, they transform the spatial identity of their neighbourhoods, from suburbia to Yamanote. Suburbia is always relative.51 In the widely-known 1912 song Haru no ogawa (A Spring Stream) the songwriter Takano Tatsuyuki, who had lived in Yoyogi since 1909, depicted Yoyogi scenery with the words “a murmur of a spring stream.”52 Yoyogi was often described as typical countryside. Its relatively inexpensive rents

48 Ibid., 32. 49 Ibid., 49. 50 Ibid., 32–35, 101. 51 Kawamoto S., Bungakushi, 100. 52 Takano Tatsuyuki, “Haru no ogawa.” shrine approaches 139 Toyotamagun Naitōshinjuku chō · Sendagaya chō zenzu ). I have superimposed on the map the later proposed route for Figure 24. Shibuya in July 1911. O motesandō. ( R eprinted, by permission of Jinbunsha, from 140 chapter three

Figure 25. Yoyogi in its orignal state prior to the construction of Meiji shrine. (Meiji Shrine Archives). attracted city residents; literary artists came to fulfil their dreams of a tranquil and beautiful ‘suburban life.’ In 1916 Tayama Katai described Yoyogi as Tokyo no kinkō (The Outskirts of Tokyo). Tayama had moved there in 1906 from the adjacent, but metropolitan, Ushigome Ward, to fulfil his dream of a life in the country.53 For Tayama, Ushigome was no longer the place for his literary life. This did not mean, however, that Yoyogi’s rural life was ideal for the many writers who moved to the area. The writer Suzuki Miekichi, who lived in Yoyogi between 1913 and 1926, wrote to a friend that although the landscape was beautiful, rustic Yoyogi was an inconvenient place to live: “I treated myself to two houses with a cheap rent of 6.50 yen per month by way of compensation for the inconvenient rural life.”54 For Suzuki, Yoyogi was a suburb to which he unwillingly moved, for reasons of economy. In addition to writers, the number of office workers increased in Yoyogi. Odauchi Michitoshi’s Teito to kinkō (City and its Outskirts), published in 1918, reported that an extended tram service and

53 Tayama Katai, Tokyo no kinkō. 54 Suzuki Miekichi, from a letter on 24th September 1913. shrine approaches 141 the opening of several private train lines such as the Tamagawa and Keio lines enabled ‘middle-class’ commuters to live in Yoyogi and Harajuku and commute to the inner city.55 The shrine construction both stimulated population growth in Yoyogi and encouraged the discovery and development of new suburban areas further out. In 1921 Shiraishi Jitsuzō described the impact of the shrine creation as follows: “The scenery of Yoyogi has been transformed with the construction of Meiji shrine, and the area has come to life.”56 Araragi, the literary circle, transferred its base to Yoyogi in 1921: “Yoyogi, notable for Meiji shrine, became one of the most distinguished areas for suburban residents, acquiring many members of the intelligentsia.”57 At the same time, the increase in ‘middle-class’ residents dismayed the intelligentsia, who came to suburbia to fulfil their dreams of a tranquil life. While more and more people came to Yoyogi in search of beautiful surroundings and peace, their arrival inevitably accelerated the disappearance of such rural qualities: “Those who once achieved their ideal of a still life at Yoyogi, now had to discover the next quiet suburbia.”58 Yoyogi became a new Yamanote, and the cycle began to repeat itself. For one elderly man, speaking in 1924, Yoyogi was losing its identity; it was outside of the city, a part of Toyotama County, but not a genuine suburb. He described the area as follows: Nowadays, Yoyogi is no more a true suburb; it is part of Greater Tokyo, closely facing the city area, as Shibuya and Shinjuku also do. We can only see the culture houses (bunka jūtaku) with red roofs whose sites were once fields. . . . When Yoyogi and Shibuya are further developed, there will only remain Meiji shrine and Yoyogi drill ground, as if oases in the desert.59 Similarly Aoyama, surrounding the area from the edge of Omotesandō to the outer precinct, experienced great expansion during the Meiji and Taisho periods. The opening of the Meiji shrine tram station at Aoyama, along with the establishment in 1920 of the shrine itself, transformed the identity of the location through the effect it had on traffic and population movement. Kawamoto alludes to Aoyama’s identity shift, noting how the

55 Odauchi Michitoshi, Teito to kinkō, quoted in Shibuyaku shi, vol. 2, ed. Shibuyaku, pp. 1945–6. 56 Shiraishi Jitsuzō, Musashino junrei, quoted in Kawamoto S., Bungakushi, 25. 57 Kawai Suimei, Tokyo Kinkō meguri, quoted in Kawamoto S., Bungakushi, 35. 58 Shibuyaku, Shibuyaku shi, vol. 2, p. 1944. 59 Ibid. 142 chapter three locations of cemeteries, which had always marked the border between the city and suburbia, shifted during the period: from Aoyama cemetery’s creation in 1874 up to the opening of Tama cemetery in 1923, the boundary between city and suburbia continually moved further westward.60 Another interesting example is that of Aoyama Mental Hospital. The hospital’s second director was the writer Saitō Mokichi, who succeeded his father, and the hospital later became the setting for the novel Nireke no hitobito (The Nire Family), by Mokichi’s son Kita Morio.61 When Mokichi’s father built the hospital in Aoyama minami-machi in 1903, the area was for him a simple suburb, “with a huge cemetery, scattered houses and rambling open spaces.”62 The hospital contributed to the growth of mer- chant families around Aoyama and became a landmark.63 The creation of Meiji shrine and its Omotesandō, however, developed Aoyama as a shrine- centred space and changed the residents’ understanding of the area and of the hospital.64 When Mokichi’s father aimed to reconstruct the hospital in 1924, the plan met with strong opposition from locals who held that mental patients were potentially dangerous for the Aoyama residents. A new hospital was built instead in Setagaya, west of Aoyama. Viewing a stretch of wheat field at Setagaya, Mokichi’s father reasoned as follows: “[Some staff in the hospital] are obsessed with Aoyama land, but that is because they are blind to the trends of the times. Aoyama you know will be packed full with residences. Tokyo will go on developing apace; I have no doubt that one day soon Setagaya will be incorporated into Tokyo City. I will build my great hospital in the suburbs!”65 Suburbia at the end of the Taisho period was, for Mokichi’s father, no longer to be found in Aoyama; now, suburbia was to be found in Setagaya. As Setagaya was designated a suburb, Aoyama could transfer its identity from ‘no longer suburbia’ to ‘already inner city.’ Suburbia has always been a transient idea. The fact that both population and buildings of various types increased in Shibuya and Aoyama also implies a decrease or degrading in quality or quantity of some other aspects of existence in these areas. To begin with, the public street market was driven away from the shrine’s Aoyama

60 Kawamoto S., Bungakushi, 86. 61 Sources cited for the description of the hospital are Saitō Mokichi’s 1925 diary in Saitō Mokichi zenshū, vol. 29; an essay by Saitō Shigeta (Mokichi’s first son), Seishinkai sandai; and a novel by Kita Morio (Mokichi’s second son), Nireke no hitobito, 2 vols. 62 Kita M., Nireke no hitobito, vol. 1, 39, 307. 63 Ibid., 39. 64 Kawamoto S., Bungakushi, 97. 65 Kita M., Nireke no hitobito, vol. 1, 298. shrine approaches 143 entrance to the outer precinct.66 Private property was eliminated from around the Yoyogi entrance on the grounds that “miscellaneous stands and kiosks in front of the entrance would undermine the sacred appearance of the shrine.”67 Following the Support Committee’s proposal on 13th May 1921, the Foundation Bureau for the shrine purchased over 2870 square metres of private property and reformed it as an entrance plaza. In addition, as part of the construction of road I-3-3, the Shibuya riverside was assessed by the Support Committee for “proper appearance” and found wanting; its “lower and unclean residences” led to its reform.68 Following Harajuku, Yoyogi and Aoyama, Shinanomachi was also covered, at least partially, by the shrine and its precincts. It illustrates how an area’s development could be influenced by inclusion and exclusion in the plans associated with the construction of Meiji shrine. In 1893 the journalist Matsubara Iwagorō published Saiankoku no Tokyo (In Darkest Tokyo), reporting from “Samegabashi, the worst Yamanote slum.”69 Another slum journalist, Yokoyama Gennosuke, published his Nihon no kasō shakai (Japan’s Lower Societies) in 1898, and described Samegabashi as the most miserable of the three worst slums in Tokyo (Samegabashi, Shin’ami (Shiba) and Mannenchō (Shitaya).70 The site for the outer precinct was originally the Aoyama drill ground, created in 1886. One of the reasons for the slum’s development was the ready availability of unwanted leftovers from military facility meals, which were considered by the poor to be the most delicious food in the city.71 According to Yokoyama, the Samegabashi slum consisted of around 5,000 people in 1898, which would have made it the largest in Tokyo.72 We must not forget that amongst the residents of suburban areas were slum residents, the poorest of the poor, as well as intellectuals and salaried commuters. How then was Samegabashi modified through the unceasing identity shifts of suburbia, and through the shrine’s creation? In 1917 Kagawa Toyohiko pointed out the rapid spread of Tokyo’s slums towards ever-more remote suburbs, and noted that despite the decline of areas

66 Sakatani Y., Meiji jingū kankei shorui, vol. 9, 14th March 1920; 8th December 1921. 67 Meiji jingū hōsankai, ed., Gaienshi, 553–5. 68 Ibid., 590. 69 Matsubara Iwagorō, Saiankoku no Tokyo, 38. 70 Yokoyama Gennosuke, “Tokyo hinmin no jōtai,” 27, 30. 71 Tokyoshi, Shakaikyoku, “Furōsha oyobi zanshokubutsu ni kansuru chōsa,” March 1923, in Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei, vol. 2, ed. Yasuoka Norihiko, 156; Kida Jun’ichirō, Tokyo no kasō shakai, 55–56. 72 Yokoyama G., “Tokyo hinmin,” 28–30. 144 chapter three such as Samegabashi, new slums were appearing in the outskirts of Tokyo.73 The disappearance of the Samegabashi slum from the end of the Meiji era seems to have been accelerated by the development of Meiji shrine. The decline of the established slums did not necessarily mean a decrease in poverty, but rather relocation of the poor to other parts of Tokyo.74 The changing character of Samegabashi and its relation to the shrine site can be appreciated through an understanding of the term hiyoke chi, which literally means ‘a space for fire prevention’; it refers to the space around Akasaka Imperial Palace, where Emperor Meiji began to live after the Meiji Imperial Palace fire of 1873.75 Between 1876 and 1879 the space was cleared of private property and left empty, other than for a few weeds; it then passed into the ownership of the Imperial Household Agency. As has often been pointed out, the space was not only for keeping fire away but also for keeping the poor away.76 The essayist Nagai Kafū visited the hiyoke chi one early summer evening and was inspired to write his essay “Kanchi,” or ‘Open Space.’77 Enjoying the sun’s evening glow from the hiyoke chi, Nagai looked down at “the typical Yamanote-style” huts of the poor and commented as follows: “Those who live in such hollow and dirty areas can not receive the natural blessings which even the weeds enjoy.”78 On the establishment of the outer precinct, the ownership of some 11,800 square metres in the entire hiyoke chi was transferred from the Imperial Household Agency to the Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine (Home Ministry). Combining the hiyoke chi space with the other 6,000 square metres of the outer precinct, the Support Committee aimed to create of it a botanical space.79 The original arrangements for this “Samegabashi botanical garden” included facilities such as hothouses and offices. Budget problems prevented the construction of the garden, but the levelled and expanded open space remained as a buffer zone for keeping both danger and dirt away from the outer precinct.80

73 Kagawa Toyohiko, Hinmin shinri no kenkyū, 87. 74 The development and decline of Samegabashi slum is well covered by Yasuoka Nori- hiko in such works as Kindai Tokyo no kasō shakai. 75 Yasumoto Naohiro, Yotsuya sanpo, 151. 76 Yasuoka N., Kasō shakai, 23; Murano Kaoru, “Teito no chūshin ni nokosareta fushigi na kūkan! ‘hiyokechi’ Samegabashi no himitsu,” 95–104. 77 Nagai Kafū, “Kanchi.” 78 Ibid., 70–1. 79 Meiji jingū hōsankai, ed., Gaienshi, 363–5, 146. 80 Recorded by Yasuoka in 1977, an elderly resident of Samegabashi, Nagao Yasujirō, recalled that the hiyoke chi was called torihara during the Taisho period. Nagao explains that torihara meant the place from which the slum was removed (toriharawareta hara). shrine approaches 145

In the same essay, “Kanchi,” Nagai also recorded a slum clearance plan drawn up by the city as part of their aim to hold a Japan Exposition in 1917.81 According to Nagai, the Tokyo authorities were concerned that “if Western visitors saw the slums it would be a disgrace to the nation.”82 In the event, neither the 1917 Expo nor the slum clearance was realised, because of the emperor’s death in 1912. Nagai ridiculed the authorities: “If they worry about the appearance of the nation, the things to be removed are not slums but the ugly bronze statues which are scattered around the city.”83 However, it is unclear whether Nagai Kafū noticed that the grounds which had been prepared for the Expo were instead chosen in 1914 to be used for Meiji shrine; certainly, this was the time during which Nagai was writing his essay. In the planning for the Expo, its main hall was intended to be an Imperial Household Agency property in Yoyogi, and Aoyama drill ground was chosen as the location for the second main hall; between the two halls an access road was planned.84 These Expo sites were later appropriated by the shrine for the inner precinct, outer precinct, and the access road between the precincts, respectively. It was the construction of Meiji shrine, not the planning for the Japan Expo, that was expected to change “the appearance of the nation”.85

3.3 Space and Class Creation: The Seismic Shocks of 1923

At 11:58 a.m. on 1st September 1923, an earthquake registering a magni- tude of 7.9 on the Richter scale rocked the Kanto district. The huge fire caused by this Great Kanto Earthquake continued for over three days, and the death toll from the disaster climbed to 100,000.86 The low-lying

I had an opportunity to speak directly to Nagao’s son, Nagao Yūsei, on 23rd July 2005. Interestingly, the younger Nagao, who grew up in the pre-war to war period, recollects that torihara meant a place to which birds flocked (tori ga atsumau hara), showing that the origins of place names can sometimes be explained differently. 81 Nagai K., “Kanchi.” 71. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Meiji jingū hōsankai, ed., Gaienshi, 119–38, 147. 85 Yasuoka, taking Samegabashi as his case study, analyses slum suburbanisation in relation to industrialisation. According to Yasuoka, a special education programme for Samegabashi poor children promoted hierarchisation amongst the poor by differentiating between them on the basis of job opportunities and living place; this resulted in the dispersion of the poor. 86 General descriptions of the Kantō Earthquake are drawn from, for example: Tokyofu, Tokyofu taisho shinsaishi; Naimushō, Shakaikyoku, Taisho shinsaishi: Nai hen; Taiheiyō sensō kenkyūkai, ed., Zusetsu Kantō daishinsai. 146 chapter three

‘shitamachi’ area of the city, the main traditional working-class area, suffered particularly great losses. There were 2.5 times as many collapsed houses in the area as in the better-off Yamanote area, and over 90 percent of Nihonbashi, Kanda, Asakusa and Honjo Wards was razed to the ground. The damage on the west side of Tokyo was not nearly as serious, according to those in Shibuya, who saw the dark red blaze rising up from Shitamachi.87 One of the notable consequences of the earthquake was large-scale migration out from the city and a massive expansion of suburbia. The rate of increase in population from 1920 to 1928 was four times as fast in the non-ward areas as in the 15 wards of the inner city, and the non-ward population more than trebled from 804,900 to 2,503,000 in the same period.88 In the Shibuya area for example, taking 1920 as a base of 100, the increase in population was as follows: 139 in 1925, 156 in 1930, and 171 in 1935.89 The shrine’s creation and its relation to dwelling space following the earthquake need to be considered against the backdrop of this drastic rise in population. A day after the earthquake, Gotō Shinpei took up his new post as president of the Imperial Capital Reconstruction Department (later Reconstruction Board, Fukkōkyoku), and soon initiated what became known as the Tokyo Reconstruction Project (Teito fukkō keikaku). Although Gotō’s initial restoration plan was reduced in scale by disagreements within government, his ideas left a lasting legacy to modern Tokyo. Along with the Reconstruction Project, which basically covered road and park reconstruction, the centrepiece of the housing policy was a housing association called Dōjunkai.90 In the following three parts of this section, Section 3.3, I explore the post-earthquake relation of the shrine to dwelling space by tracing Dōjunkai policy development. This exploration of the association between shrine space and post-earthquake housing policy is useful for several reasons. Firstly, it clarifies how Omotesandō developed its identity as a model of city life for ‘middle-class’ residents through Dōjunkai’s construction of apartment houses, and secondly, it shows how the shrine’s space was used to alleviate the housing problems of refugees and the poor, and how the resultant problems led to the instigation of

87 E.g., Fujita Kayo, Shibuya Dōgenzaka; Taisho · Shibuya Dōgenzaka; Oyama Masataka, Kankyū ryokō oboegaki. 88 Kon Wajirō, Tokyo annai, vol. 2, 24. 89 Shibuyaku, Shibuyaku shi, vol. 3, 2160. 90 General accounts on Dōjunkai are drawn from, for example: Miyazawa Kogorō, ed., Dōjunkai jūhachi nen shi; Uchida Seizō, Dōjunkai ni manabe; Marc Bourdier, Dōjunkai apāto genkei; Matsumoto K., “Dōjunkai apāto wa komyunitī keisei no jikkenjō datta.” shrine approaches 147

Dōjunkai’s slum clearance policy. Finally, the exploration shows how Dōjunkai housing around the shrine caused problems in the alignment of spatial identity with class identity, and resulted in the reinterpretation of the shrine as a representative space of inner-city Tokyo.

3.3.1 ‘Culture Life’ and Middle-Class Aspirations in Aoyama On 3rd September 1923, the government established the Extraordinary Remedy Bureau (Rinji shinsai kyūgo jimukyoku) and on 30th March 1924 the cabinet council determined to create a semi-public body, the aforementioned Dōjunkai, to solve Tokyo’s immense housing problems.91 Based on 10 million yen in donations, some of which came from abroad, this association was finally initiated on 23rd May. It survived until 1941, when it was succeeded by a new housing authority. During the 17 year span of its life, Dōjunkai supplied a total of 12,076 dwellings; although not a massive number, it did exert a huge influence on housing culture. Previous research has shown that Dōjunkai operated the first comprehensive housing policy in modern Japan, that it offered various styles of housing not only to earthquake sufferers but also to the wider public, and that its housing both pioneered and promoted new modes of urban life.92 The association itself diversified its activities through the course of its 17 years. Uchida separates its history into three stages: 1) relief work: building temporary housing, permanent detached houses and apartment houses (1924–1929); 2) commercial construction: the expansion of housing policy and building houses for sale (1930–1938); 3) the build-up to war: enlarg- ing the target area from Kanto to all parts of the country in the pre-war period (1939–1941).93 The Dōjunkai attempt, although innovative in many respects, in fact drew upon various pre-earthquake endeavours to create new housing and new residential areas. The terms ‘garden city’ (den’en toshi) and ‘culture life’ (bunka seikatsu) are key to understanding the concepts and practice of house creation from the Taisho period onwards. The garden city owes its origin to Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City Association and its experiment in Letchworth, England.94 Howard’s aim was to retreat from overcrowded

91 Miyazawa K, ed., Dōjunkai, 1. 92 Marc Bourdier, Genkei, 215; Uchida S., Manabe, 29; Satō Takenobu, “Āban laifu no tanjō: Dōjunkai setsuritsu,” 27–31. 93 Uchida S., Manabe, 16–29. 94 Howard, Garden Cities of Tomorrow. 148 chapter three

London and instead to realise a cooperative suburbia: “the marriage of city and country,” as he put it. Howard’s idea was transplanted to the U.S. suburbs and became, as Fishman terms it, the Anglo-American model of suburbia, in which bourgeois utopia was attained firstly by including urban middle-class residences/residents, and secondly by excluding the lower classes. Unlike English suburbia, however, which aimed to satisfy in one utopia both the living and working habits of the urban middle classes, in the Americanised type of garden city the bourgeoisie commuted between their suburban residences and their work places in the cities.95 The concepts of the Anglo-American garden city were taken on board by Japanese city planners and their practices influenced the development of Japanese suburbia. In 1908 the Home Ministry, following Howard’s formulation, published a book called Den’en toshi, and in early 1915 Shibusawa Eiichi launched a private enterprise to create ideal garden cities in the Kanto suburbs.96 Shibusawa’s Garden City Company, established in 1918, planned and built three suburban areas. One of these was Tokyo’s most famous planned suburb, Den’en Chōfu, which was opened to the market in October 1923, only one month after the earthquake. However, the images of the garden city embraced by the Home Ministry and the Garden City Company were quite different from Howard’s original idea, and even further removed from each other. For the Home Ministry, the garden city was a suburb to which lower-working-class people should move, but the Garden City Company’s garden city, no doubt derived from bourgeois aspirations, adopted a plan clearly based on the American style. What allegedly inspired Shibusawa Eiichi’s son, Hideo, during his round the world research trip in 1919–1920, was not the original garden city in Letchworth but St. Francis Wood in San Francisco. According to Watanabe, the garden cities of the Company met none of Howard’s original ideals of organi- sational independence and communal ownership.97 The ideal ‘culture life’ was materialised in ferroconcrete high-rise apartments, whose market was the urban middle class. Morimoto Kōkichi, who organised the Culture Life Research Group and began its journal Bunka seikatsu in 1920, built the Culture Apartment Building in central Tokyo in

95 Fisherman, Bourgeois Utopias, 107, 119–22; Imahashi E., ed., Toshi to kōgai, 161–2; Azuma Hideki et al., “Asu no den’en toshi” e no sasoi, 167–8, 96 For the idea of the garden city in Japan, see Azuma H. et al., “Asu no den’en toshi,” 192–224; Fujimori T., “Den’en chōfu tanjō ki,” 191–206. 97 Watanabe S., “Toshi keikaku” no tanjō, 216. shrine approaches 149

1925.98 Morimoto aspired to create an “apartment-house movement” so as to introduce the “most efficient and newest Western standards of living” into Japanese culture life, and to solve “housing problems for the middle class.” As Sand argues, the 1920s campaign for ‘culture life’ was aimed at attaining a Western standard of living, but “ ‘culture’ was ahistorical, since as an idea it spoke the language of universalism, and as a label it implied being up-to-the minute”: the very claim made by ‘culture life’ promoters and suburban developers, that they represented the ‘middle class,’ was thus a way of claiming to represent the national interest, and was entan- gled as such with competitive claims of class identity.99 The Dōjunkai housing plans started with twin aspirations, namely to realise suburban garden cities and to build culture apartment buildings, both on the grounds of national demand. However, the course of Dōjunkai’s activities was in fact a sequence of compromise. On 3rd May 1924, before the institutionalisation of the association, a newspaper had already reported that its aim was to counter the housing squeeze problem by providing apartment buildings within the city and garden cities in suburbia.100 In the first council meeting on 28th June the initial Dōjunkai plan took shape; during fiscal 1924 and 1925 the association aimed to create 7,000 permanent dwellings in suburban areas and 1,000 flats in apartment buildings in central Tokyo.101 Unlike Shibusawa’s garden cities or Morimoto’s culture apartments, which were in the end directed at a certain limited segment of the middle class, the Dōjunkai plan attempted to widen ‘middle-classness’ and to provide housing to the wider public. In this, they did not succeed. Newspapers related how Dōjunkai was “disappointed with thousands of houses still vacant,” and that its housing was “unpopular, contrary to expectations.”102 As Uchida suggests, the reasons for the unpopularity were that the new garden cities consisted of terraced houses (renketsu nagaya) rather than detached houses with gardens (niwatsuki ikkodate), so that those with money considered the association’s housing to be for those of “relatively low class”; secondly, for “relatively low-income” groups suburban life was not suitable because of its inconvenience and related travel expenses.103 After the creation of

98 Sand, House, 194–8; Uchida S., Manabe, 61, 75. 99 Sand, House, 204, 233, 327. 100 Hōchi shinbun (3rd May 1924). 101 Uchida S., Manabe, 18. 102 Yomiuri shinbun (12th April 1925); Chūgai shōgyō shinbun (21st December 1925). 103 Uchida S., Manabe, 22, 102–103. 150 chapter three

3,420 dwellings in fiscal 1924, Dōjunkai finally gave up on its suburban development plan. In place of the failed policy of garden city creation, Dōjunkai devoted itself to apartment construction. It revised upwards the original esti- mate for the total number of flats required from 1,000 to 2,000, maintaining as follows: “The most urgent necessity for nationwide housing policy is to make model apartment buildings for the middle class,” rather than “creating suburban houses which incur travel expenses.”104 Among the 15 Dōjunkai apartment blocks (with 2,508 flats in total), one of the earliest to be completed “fully-equipped with the up-to-date style” was an Aoyama apartment house, built along Omotesandō.105 Advertising and media coverage of the new building was extremely successful in attracting the general public’s attention. An advertisement on the construction site’s wall caught pedestrians’ eyes; it illustrated “modern boys and girls dressed Western-style and walking around” and “a rather stout lady with a skirt walking a pig-like puppy.”106 A newspaper reported that “a flood of applicants rushed to the Aoyama and Nakanogo apartments” and that there were over 1,000 applicants for the 137 flats in the Aoyama building.107 What must have appealed to applicants was the “new standard” of “culture life.”108 Dōjunkai stressed the following features of their apartment buildings as outstanding:

1) earthquake-proof, thanks to reinforced concrete construction 2) fire-door protection 3) solid fittings, offering security against burglary 4) choice between Japanese and Western style furniture 5) fully-equipped with running water, electricity, gas heater and oven 6) flush toilet 7) clothes-drying space on the building’s roof 8) self-contained kitchen, including a rubbish chute 9) appliances such as washbasin, closet, hat rack, shoe cupboard and doorplate109

104 Miyazawa K, ed., Dōjunkai, 69, 71. 105 Ibid., 82, 106 Oyama Masataka, Kankyū ryokō oboegaki, 138. 107 Tokyo nichinichi shinbun (24th June 192); Miyazawa K, ed., Dōjunkai, 82. 108 Ibid. 109 Miyazawa K, ed., Dōjunkai, 73. shrine approaches 151

Although the Dōjunkai authorities claimed to be supplying the model for middle-class apartments and life, they nonetheless worried whether their housing was affordable for “the general public.” The target market was in fact those working in such institutions as “public offices, banks, private companies and industries.”110 Statistics suggest that the majority of family heads in the apartments were indeed public officials, bankers, office workers and military personnel.111 As with the ‘modern’ Omotesandō avenue, the Aoyama apartments asserted their creators’ aspirations and those of their tenants for a middle-class identity through an idealised culture life. It is often argued that the Dōjunkai apartments promoted a new way of urban community life. These newly developed dwellings, as well as Meiji shrine approach, indeed emerged as spaces representing this ideal city space and urban life.

3.3.2 Spatial Identity and Slum Clearance My discussion now moves on to the questions of how the earthquake affected those poorer people who had settled in or been driven to the fringes of the city, how the afflicted in the devastated downtown areas dealt with their housing problems, and how the creation of the shrine connected to these people and their lives. Here I draw on Kusama Yasoo’s comprehensive survey of the conditions of the lower classes during the 1920s and 1930s.112 Kusama began his investigations in 1921 in the Home Ministry as a researcher of the poor (saimin chōsakan), and after the Great Earthquake played a leading role in the Bureau for Social Affairs (Shakaikyoku) in Tokyo City.113 Kusama conducted thorough investigations into the lives and conditions of refugees and the homeless, and his surveys laid the foundation for the social services which the bureau assumed charge of. The word ‘saimin’ was used in investigations by the Meiji government to refer to the dispersed poor, both within and outside slum areas. The Home Ministry’s 1921 saimin statistical survey, in which Kusama was involved, defined saimin as having one or more of the following characteristics:

110 Ibid., 82. 111 Ibid., 85. 112 Kusama Yasoo, Kindai kasō minshū seikatsushi, vol. 1; Yasuoka N., ed., Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei: Kusama Yasoo 1921–1937 chōsa, vol. 1, 2. 113 Yasuoka N., “Kyōdo taiken · hito · shigoto,” 744, 758–61. 152 chapter three

1) those who live in saimin buraku, or slums; 2) those living in dwellings whose monthly rent is below5 yen; 3) those working as day labourers or low-skilled workers, such as rick- shaw men; 4) those in homes with 3 to 6 members; 5) those whose household monthly income is around 50 yen or less; and 6) those with unavoidable difficulties, such as handicapped relatives to support.114

However, the Great Earthquake struck before the Home Ministry or Tokyo City had initiated any concrete relief operations for the poor. In the two days after the earthquake the number of evacuees camped in open spaces such as the Ueno and Hibiya Parks amounted to around 1,570,000.115 Soon after the disaster, Kusama found that the earthquake had reduced the number of cheap hotels (kichin yado) that remained usable by day labourers from 393 to 193, but that some non-profit suppliers of food leftovers had begun to aid refugees and the poor. Kusama also reported that 70 days after the earthquake large numbers of ‘new’ vagrants had emerged.116 Many of the refugees, including these ‘new’ vagrants, were to spend over one and a half years in both public and private shanty camps, one of which was created in the outer precinct of Meiji shrine. Just a day after the earthquake, the Extraordinary Remedy Bureau had written to the Support Committee to ask them to open the precinct to create a public refugee camp.117 The committee acceded to the request and the precinct became home to the largest of six camps (23,000 square metres); others were in such places as Hibiya Park and Shiba Park. The construction of temporary shelters began in the precinct on 15th September and refugees began to use them on 8th October. The stadium was opened to refugees and the Memorial Art Gallery was used as a first-aid station, although both were still under construction, and members of the Support Committee and the Foundation Bureau for the shrine devoted themselves to relief services. Furthermore, Tokyo City constructed a public bus garage within the space of the precinct, the South Manchurian Railway

114 Kusama Y., “Saimin seikei jōtai chōsa,” 429; see also Yamaguchi H., “Tokyo no Kōgai jūtakuchi,” 23. 115 Fukkō jimukyoku, ed., Teito fukkō jigyōshi, vol. 4, 7–9. 116 Kusama Y., “Kichinyado ni kansuru chōsa,” 447; “Zanshokubutsu jukyū ni kansuru chōsa,” 417; “Nojuku furōsha ni kansuru gaikyō chōsa,” 171. 117 For the construction of temporary shelters in the outer precinct, see for example Meiji jingū hōsankai, Tsūshin, vol. 73 (10th December 1923). shrine approaches 153 built a clinic, Tokyo District Government opened a public market, and the Salvation Army built a church. With the setting up of various other facilities, such as a public bath and cookhouse, the precinct camp developed as if it were a ‘real’ community. Notably, many of those who stayed longest in the camp were former Shitamachi residents, especially those classed as saimin. Here again detailed surveys, directed by Kusama as the head of the refugee camps, were invaluable to the authorities in their relief plans; they also served as highly effective records of the sheer scale of the aid operation in the outer precinct. In November 1923 1,882 households, a total of 6,758 people, remained in the camp, the majority of them having evacuated from Shitamachi areas such as Kyōbashi, Fukagawa and Honjo.118 The pre- earthquake occupations of the household heads were recorded and counted by Kusama: day labourers 237, factory hands 163, and sales clerks 117, for example. The earthquake had deprived the household heads of their earnings, and there were over 700 unemployed. The number of day labourers (among 1,882 household heads) amounted to 523. Daily income statistics for the 1,882 households suggest that most of them fell into the 1921 definition of saimin, as described above: 697 households had no income; 220 earned 0.01–1.00 yen per day; 295 earned 1.01–1.50 yen per day; and 405 earned 1.51–2.00 yen per day. One year after the earthquake, the situation of the camp had changed little. According to a survey on 25th September 1924, 1,363 households with 4,217 people were still settled in the camp.119 Indeed of all the 62 private and public camps, with a grand total of 13,713 households, the largest number of refugees was in the precinct camp. This survey also records that 561 of the 1,363 households in the outer precinct, and 4,887 of the 13,713 households in all 62 camps, had “no place to go.” It can be assumed that those who remained in the precinct camp were mostly newly-poor people who had lost their occupations and homes, as well as those who had already been classified as saimin before the earthquake. In the aftermath of the earthquake, the precinct inevitably suffered considerable delays in its construction. The postponements meant that engineers on permanent contracts were being paid full wages without having any work to do. To make matters worse, some of the all but uncompleted

118 Tokyo shiyakusho, Chōsaka, Tokyoshi hijōsaigai jimu sōmubu, “Kyōdō barakku ni kansuru chōsa, no. 23, Meiji jingū gaien barakku,” 24th November 1923. 119 Kusama Y., “Shūdan barakku chōsa,” 174–97. 154 chapter three facilities in the outer precinct were severely damaged through use in the camp. The Support Committee however did not simply wait for the situation to be resolved; rather, along with other institutions that had offered space for refugees, the committee demanded the break-up of the camp and the removal of its occupants. That finally prompted the Dōjunkai authorities to initiate its housing projects and led to slum clearance. The first stage in the removal of the outer precinct’s ‘residents’ was taken by the Support Committee on 15th January 1924, when they wrote to the Foundation Bureau. The committee asked the bureau to tell Tokyo City to speed up the removal of the occupants, and also to transfer as quickly as possible responsibility for the land back from the city to the bureau.120 On 6th February, dates were provisionally fixed: Tokyo City should remove its bus garage by the end of June 1924, and the gradual removal of the shanties should be begun by the end of May and finished by the end of October. Following the decision to break up the camp, the Bureau for Social Affairs offered the refugees a number of new housing locations, including a farm village in Hokkaido.121 On 5th March, the outer precinct branch office of the bureau presented Kusama with a sample memorandum of the Hokkaido Migration Refugees Association. According to the memorandum, the purpose of the association was “to organise those refugees who were in hope of migration and to encourage them to make their living by farming in Hokkaido.”122 The aim was to recruit refugees into the association during a forthcoming event in the camp. The general inner to outer trend of post-earthquake migration was thus taken to the extreme, and to its logical conclusion; for these migrants the suggested destination, Hokkaido, was the very furthest one could go, the mainland’s ‘outside space.’ However, it seems that the Hokkaido migration program did not run smoothly, as a few weeks later, on 31st March, the cabinet council resolved to establish Dōjunkai “to solve the housing problems of sufferers.”123 On 29th September, as the extended deadline for the clear- ing of the public camps (by the end of October) approached, the government altered the initial Dōjunkai housing policy once more, instructing Dōjunkai urgently to build enough temporary houses and camps for the

120 Hōsankai, Tsūshin 74 (10th March 1924): 7–11. 121 Tokyoshi, Shakaikyoku, Meiji jingū gaien barakku jimusho, “Kantō shinsaichi risai min ijūdan kiyaku ni kansuru ken,” 5th March 1924. 122 Ibid. 123 Miyazawa K, ed., Dōjunkai, 1–2. shrine approaches 155 poor by November at the latest.124 These ‘temporary houses’ were actually therefore second temporary houses for those who had nowhere to go following the camps’ closures. The original Dōjunkai policy was targeted at the middle class; it had failed to take sufficiently into account the housing problems of saimin people. Unfortunately, there was to be little improvement in the situation. The removal deadline was not met, and, in fact, it was March 1925 before all settlers finally left the precinct.125 Both during and after the transitional period there were continuous struggles between those who clamoured for removal, those who protested against removal, and the authorities, who sought to solve the situation through their housing policies; there were also disputes within each of these three groups. This atmosphere of conflict was both a cause and a consequence of the slum clearances carried out following the Great Earthquake.126 On 8th February 1925, representative settlers in different camps organised an Anti-Eviction Order Union and proclaimed their intention to extend the life of the camps.127 A heated meeting of 46 participants was held on 10th February, chaired by a Mr. Nukaga from the outer precinct camp; another meeting was held the next day. Police investigators reported that representative members from the outer precinct, Kudan and Shiba camps agitated against the authorities. Their goal was to attain approval for the extension of their stay through public agitation and lobbying of the authorities. The Bureau for Social Affairs had decided to carry out compulsory removal on 31st March 1925, and had informed settlers of it. The bureau’s letter included the following sentence of notification: “Those who have no place to go, please do not hesitate to ask us for assistance; associations such as Dōjunkai can help you with accommodation.”128 The letter

124 Ibid., 11–2. 125 Hōsankai, Tsūshin, vol. 79 (10th June 1925): 7. 126 For the Great Earthquake and the slum clearances, see Yasuba Kōichirō, “Kantō daishinsai go no fukkō jigyō ni okeru ōpun supēsu keikaku ni taisuru jūmin undō no kenkyū”; “Shinsai fukkō gojūni shōkōen no keikaku shisō ni kansuru kenkyū”; “Kantō daishinsai go no Tokyo no fukkō toshi keikaku o meguru gensetsu no hensei ni kansuru kenkyū”; “Kantō daishinsai go no Tokyo no fukkō kukaku seiri o meguru gensetsu no hensei”; “Kantō daishinsai go no ōpun supēsu ni okeru risaisha shūyō no tenkai.” 127 Eguchi [no first name given], chief of the Shitaya police station, “Shūdan barakku jūmin sonota dōsei ni kansuru ken hōkoku,” Zassho, vol. 13. 128 Tokyoshi, Shakaikyoku, “Shūdan barakku tettai enki undō ni kansuru ken,” 24th February 1925; “Tachinoki kijitsu no oshirase,” 13th February 1925; “Dainiki tettai shūryō, barakku kyojūsha ni taishi zaidan hōjin Dōjunkai fukushi shisetsu kankei tō sendenkata ni kansuru ken,” 6th March 1925. 156 chapter three makes clear that Dōjunkai had once more changed their policy, now offering suburban properties with reductions in price to the very poorest in society. For destitute people, the aftermath of the earthquake had nothing to do with the development of ‘culture life’ or an ‘up-to-date way of living’: for them, it was simply the spatial relocation of the poor, or of poverty. In addition to temporary housing, Dōjunkai created ferroconcrete apartments as part of a scheme for improving working-class residential areas; this anticipated by two years the 1927 enactment of the Improvement Act of Inferior Housing Areas (Furyō jūtaku chiku kairyō hō). The Sarue area of Fukagawa, in which the Dōjunkai housing improvements were made, was one of the slums which developed after the decline of older established slums such as Samegabashi. Dōjunkai maintained that the construction of the Sarue apartments “accomplished the first slum improvement in Japan,” arguing that “the unfortunate disaster [of the earthquake] was the perfect opportunity to improve inferior housing areas.”129 However, as noted by Yasuoka, the destitute able to benefit from the improvement programs were extremely limited in number, and furthermore the improvements were directed at housing and housing areas, not at the relief or eradica- tion of poverty itself.130 The anti-eviction movements being led by the people with ‘nowhere-to-go,’ now in their second temporary homes, continued still; it was not until the end of 1927 that all temporary housing was finally demolished.131 In the view of the authorities, excessive help was not useful for “people with no self-help,” who “depended on social mercy and compassion too much.”132 The city process of reconstruction was one of segregation and reorganisation of the space of the city according to one simple criterion, namely whether a person, class or area was, to borrow from Yasuba, “wholesome” or “unwholesome.”133

3.3.3 The Tactical Employment of Sacred Space Finally I recount how the space of Meiji shrine became an archetype in the reconstructed space of Tokyo. Omotesandō and the adjoining Aoyama Dōjunkai apartment block was a space in which city planning and hous-

129 Miyazawa K, ed., Dōjunkai, 89–90. 130 Yasuoka N., Kasō shakai, 109. 131 Miyazawa K., ed., Dōjunkai, 29–30. 132 Ibid., 31. 133 Yasuba K., “Risaisha shūyō no tenkai,” 449–52. shrine approaches 157

Figure 26. Aoyama Dōjunkai apartments in the 1950s. (Photo by Matsuda Kazutoshi). ing policy collided [Fig. 26]. While Omotesandō and the apartments were created as models of ‘up-to-date,’ ‘middle-class’ ‘culture life,’ such ideals were not necessarily shared by those who were now using the space. Rather, the ideals themselves highlighted the pressing matter of who was eligible to become residents, or indeed model neighbours. The desire for class segregation can not be satisfied with simple spatial differentiation: it needs substantial distance. The culmination of such a desire was a movement against Aoyama apartment construction led by the residential community group, Harajuku Mutsumikai. Its organiser was Lt. Gen. Nagaoka Gaishi, who lived close to the Asano family estate, on which the Aoyama apartment block was to be built.134 Nagaoka was a military resident, a man of some influence in the area, who had moved to Harajuku after the Russo-Japanese War. Some of his neighbours described him as sporting a Caesar moustache and riding on a horse around Omotesandō.135 Hori records Dōjunkai member Tsuge Yoshio, the designer of various buildings including the Aoyama apartments, as commenting, “One day Nagaoka suddenly visited the Dōjunkai office and complained about the creation of

134 For Nagaoka’s life in Harajuku, see for example Nagaoka Gaishi, “Taishin taika no koro,” 363–406. 135 E.g., Kawamura M., “Sanjūnen mae no Harajuku,” 317. 158 chapter three

Aoyama apartment block.”136 Although Nagaoka’s complaints have been cited by several scholars, the details of his complaints have until now remained unclear.137 My investigation reveals that Nagaoka and his group submitted a petition to the Meiji Shrine Support Committee in February 1925, half a year before the conclusion of the land purchase for the Aoyama apartments (7th September 1925). It was submitted “on behalf of the more than 2,800 residents of the south Harajuku area.”138 The principal reason Nagaoka protested against the construction of the Aoyama apartment building was that it would “undermine the sacred nature of the space which was closely connected to Meiji shrine.” In the petition submitted by Harajuku Mutsumikai, the harm the apartments’ construction would cause is detailed in a number of examples; through considering these examples, we can begin to grasp the meaning of ‘sacred space’ as understood by Nagaoka and his group. Firstly, the petition argued that an appreciation of the sacred space of Meiji shrine demanded the creation of parks or upper-middle class dwellings, not “tenement houses” (kashi nagaya), as Nagaoka disparagingly termed the Aoyama apartments; the group accused Dōjunkai of money-grabbing and attempting to spoil the sacredness of the space by creating something so ‘unsightly’ ( futeisai). A second example also touched on class: it contended that if children from the Aoyama apartments joined the schools their children attended, serious problems in ‘public morals’ ( fūki) would result, because of the differences in standards of life. The next two examples were concerned with air and water quality. The petition asserted that air quality damage, and so risks to group members’ health, would surely follow the loss of the trees on the Asano family estate and the new construction; the ‘quality of space’ ( fūchi) would also suffer. The current poor supplies of water were also pointed out; if the new apartments caused further water problems, how might the new residents compensate existing residents for this? Having dealt with class and environmental issues, the final example of potential damage to the ‘sacred space’ of the shrine given in the petition sought to present Nagaoka and his Harajuku Mutsumikai group as a community, an extended family: “We have . . . carried out communal work together. The presence of strangers would disrupt our quality of life.”139

136 Hori Kaoru, “Tsuge Yoshio hakase to Dōjunkai,” 10. See also Tsuge Yoshio, “Dōjunkai no omoide,” in appendix of Genkei by Marc Bourdier. 137 E.g., Matsumoto K., ed., “Seikatsushi,” 29; Uchida S., Manabe, 111–4. 138 Nagaoka G., president of Minami Harajuku mutsumikai, “Omotesandō ni kensetsu no Dōjunkai kashinagaya ni kansuru ken,” February 1925. 139 Ibid., 1–5, translated from the original and summarised by myself. shrine approaches 159

Words such as futeisai and kashi nagaya, which the petition employed to describe the future residents of the apartments, were pejorative terms commonly applied to saimin and their housing. For Nagaoka and the other well-heeled inhabitants of Harajuku, those coming to the Aoyama apartments to enjoy the ‘newest’ ‘middle-class’ ‘culture life’ stood on the lowest rung of the social ladder. Although their petition problematised the potential damage to the sacredness of Meiji shrine (Meiji jingu no shin’iki no sōgonsa) and to its quality ( fūchi), a more detailed reading reveals that the petitioners’ real aim was to protect their own vested interests from newcomers. The ideal of a ‘sacred space’ was seized upon by the group as a means to justify their attempts to maintain their neighbourhood in its current state, without having to give up or share its advantages with any more new residents. It is important to note the use of words such as fūchi and sōgonsa (sacredness), not because these words expressed petitioners’ concerns but because they were utilised tactically to appeal to the authorities.140 Interestingly the authorities (both the city planners and Dōjunkai) responded to the petitioners’ calculated use of fūchi with their own tactical deployment of the same word. In August 1926 Omotesandō, Urasandō and the residential areas surrounding both approaches were designated as Japan’s first conservation zone, known as a ‘quality space’ or fūchi chiku, by way of response to the petitioners.141 Some scholars argue that government authorities manipulated the idea of fūchi in order to dignify emperor-related lands and buildings and thus to legitimate the imperial system.142 Whilst not denying the related development of fūchi and Meiji shrine, I would suggest rather that the term was variously exploited to mediate the discordance between spatial identity and class identity. The reason that the Special City Planning Commission so quickly approved of designating Meiji shrine area as fūchi chiku was that local residents, that is, Nagaoka and others, had begun

140 In response to Nagaoka’s petition, the Support Committee promptly replied on 23rd February 1925 that it had nothing to do with the creation of the Aoyama apartment building; it was actually the Special City Planning Commission (Tokubetsu toshi keikaku iinkai) that was responsible. See Hōsankai, “Omotesandō ni kensetsu no Dōjunkai kashinagaya ni kansuru ken, Harajuku mutsumi kaichō e kaitō,” 23rd February 1925, in Shomu kankei shorui, 1925. 141 Meiji jingū, Gaien, Meiji jingū naigaien renraku dōro kankei shorui, fu jōbadō · fūchi chiku kankei, n.d. For the fūchi chiku areas, see also Nakajima Naoto, “Yōgo ‘Fūchi kyōkai’ no seisei to sono denpa ni kansuru kenkyū,” 853–58; Taneda Moritaka et al., “Senzenki ni okeru fūchi chiku no gainen ni kansuru kenkyū,” 300–305; Yanagi Gorō, “Fūchi chiku ni ataeta sōken jinja no eikyō,” 49–54. 142 Itō Takashi, “Showa senzenki ni okeru bikan shichō to sono kinō seikaku · kinō,” 295–300. 160 chapter three to protest against the Dōjunkai apartment buildings.143 The commission urgently needed to clear away any ongoing or potential obstacles to city reconstruction through the control of fūchi. The idea of a fūchi chiku was first established in the 1919 City Planning Law, which allowed for some of the city’s planning areas to be specifically for the protection of the ‘quality of space’ ( fūchi) and ‘public morals’ ( fūki).144 Meiji shrine’s access space and residential areas were to be upgraded to conservation space, because of their ‘quality.’ While recognising the worth of Nagaoka’s claims, the city planning authorities found a negotiating tool, namely fūchi chiku, that enabled them to continue with the Aoyama apartment construction. For the Dōjunkai authorities, the designation of land as fūchi became the means thorough which Nagaoka’s appeal for ‘sacredness’ and Dōjunkai’s quest for middle-class housing were mediated. The planners made a number of modifications to the design of the Aoyama apartments “for the protection of quality and of sacredness around the apartment building.” They used taller parapets on the roof to conceal drying laundry; they planted trees between the apartments and the pavement to hide the building from sight; and they set the apartment block back and opened up a buffer zone in which further trees were planted.145 Although the demands made by Nagaoka in his petition were not in fact met in full, these modifications enabled the Aoyama apartment building to receive final approval for construction. In response to the questions of ‘fūchi’ and ‘sacredness,’ Dōjunkai had answered in kind, with skilful reinterpretations of the terms. The idea of the shrine space as an archetype for Tokyo also persuaded the city planners to control the chaotic increase of facilities in Meiji shrine’s space. In addition to several restrictions on building construction, a new directive enacted by the local authority (4th October 1926) empowered the Tokyo governor to remove, as he saw fit, inappropriate signboards, bills and other structures which might “spoil the fūchi.”146 The model city planning space around the shrine attracted new residents from the regions. Yasuoka Shōtarō, who moved from Hirosaki City in Aomori Prefecture in 1931, when he was in the fifth grade, describes Aoyama at the time as follows: “Omotesandō, with its roadside trees, is the

143 Naimushō, Fukkōkyoku, “Tokubetsu toshi keikaku iinkai, dainanakai jōmu iinkai gijiroku,” 20th December 1926. 144 Taneda Moritaka et al., “Fūchi chiku no gainen,” 300–305. 145 Hori K., “Tsuge hakase,” 10. 146 Meiji jingū, Gaien, Meiji jingū naigaien renraku dōro kankei shorui. shrine approaches 161 only truly magnificent tree-lined boulevard in Tokyo, and the three-floor apartment blocks facing the road are made of ferroconcrete. The apartments are fully-equipped with modern appliances, such as flushing toi- lets. Living there is a matter of pride for the intelligentsia and elite office workers.”147 For many residents from the regions, one of the aims, if not the aim, of living in Aoyama was to establish their class identity in the capital city, Tokyo. Yasuoka recalls that his mother was most attracted to Aoyama by Seinan shōgakkō, its famous elementary school, and wrote that “because the school was well known around Hirosaki as one of the best elementary schools in Tokyo, my mother had insisted before we came to Tokyo that I, her only son, should enter there.”148 The school, founded in 1908, had gained a good reputation by the beginning of the Showa period, in 1926, as a “model school” whose students had education- conscious parents.149 Aoyama parents tended to place considerable stock in a quality education for their children, and the reputations of these parents in turn attracted more newcomers. Some Tokyo residents living outside Aoyama would even move to Aoyama, or simply register an address there, in order to fulfil the requirements for entering their children into Seinan shōgakkō.150 As that elderly Yoyogi man had noted in 1924, the former Yoyogi space of waterwheels and milk farms had become an “oasis” which should be conserved in the middle of the Tokyo desert. A prospectus published by the mayor of Tokyo when Shibuya, Sendagaya and Yoyohata were united into Shibuya Ward in 1932 explained why this unification was necessary: “Meiji shrine’s inner precinct occupies both Yoyohata and Shibuya Towns, and the outer precinct stands in the centre of Sendagaya; indeed these three towns form one united area containing the shrine at its heart.”151 This does not mean that the shrine had worked as some centripetal force, forging various spatial identities into ‘one united area’ in which the various residents lived. The boundaries between city and suburbia, inferior and superior, high quality and low quality, were all inscribed and rein- scribed by specific actors in specific circumstances. Into this place, the space of Meiji shrine was situated.

147 Yasuoka Shōtarō, Boku no Tokyo chizu, 133. 148 Ibid., 83. 149 Watanabe Nagisa, ed., Kanreki: Seinan shōgakkō daisanjūsankai sotsugyōsei kanreki kinen shi, 24, 52. 150 Ibid., 64. Seinan shōgakkō sanjūrokukai dōkikai, Anokoro Aoyama · seinan jidai, 106–107. 151 Shibuyaku, Shibuyaku shi, vol. 3, 2215.

Chapter Four

Imagined Discipline: The 1940 Meiji Shrine Sports Meet

The Meiji Shrine Sports Meets (Meiji jingū taiiku taikai) were the best- known athletics competitions in Japan from the end of the Taisho era to the wartime period. Held 14 times from 1924 to 1943 in the athletics ground in the shrine’s outer precinct, these meets came to play an important role in the development of ideas and administration relating to the physical body in Japan. In addition, they helped to shape people’s understandings of Meiji shrine, and particularly of its feast day on 3rd November, because they were held on and around that date in commemoration for the shrine’s anniversary. This chapter explores how sports activities in the meets worked as a nexus associating and dissociating the shrine with the body and bodies of the nation, and considers how the meets contributed to the formation of people’s understanding of the space (shrine) and time (3rd November) of Meiji shrine. My examination largely concentrates on the wartime 11th Meet of 1940, which had the greatest level of participation of all the meets. Some scholars, such as Irie, have provocatively claimed that the meets were “the worst blemish in the history of Japanese sports.”1 According to Irie, they were “created by imperial absolutism. . . . They controlled thousands of people by following Japanese fascistic ideology. . . . The meets were the biggest national system drawing many young Japanese into aggressive wars such as the Asian and Pacific Wars, and which crushed other nations and ethnicities.”2 However, these and other similar charges are not backed up with details of the lives of real people, that is of actual bodies, nor of their relationships with collective bodies, or communities. My exploration is intended to help clarify the relationship between individual bodies and communities through an analysis of the various activities of the 11th Meet.

1 Irie Katsumi, Showa supōtsu shiron, 5. 2 Ibid., 3–4. 164 chapter four

4.1 The Body-Community Relation and its Development

4.1.1 Theoretical Reflections In this analysis of how the sports activities of the meets connected individual bodies with collective bodies, that is, with communities, I am informed by certain theoretical reflections made by Asad, Blanchot and Bell. I employ their ideas, in a series of three discussions below, because their examinations seem to take the separation of space from place into consideration, which as I pointed out in my introduction is an essential precondition for the discussion of the production of time-space. Asad’s analysis of the body is suggestive in exploring how power is exercised when the human body is socially constructed; Blanchot usefully argues that the problems of community are those of the relations between self and other; and Bell, in her Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, clearly demonstrates how to analyse the interactions between the body and community and between self and society by seeing them as part of the process of ritualisation.3 The first theorist I draw on is Asad. He argues we cannot see the body as an independent meaning-carrying object or as a closed system of symbols. Rather, we need to make clear the specific historical and social contexts in which, and by which, a symbolic meaning of the body works, or seems to work.4 Asad questions studies of symbolism which assert that we can understand the human mind by ‘disembodying’ it from the human body, and then interpreting the symbolic meaning of the body. He does not deny the existence of the symbolic meaning itself; he questions rather a methodology which does not consider systems of symbolic meaning as dependant on historical and social contexts, he takes issues too with an approach which does not look for the particular forms of knowledge, discipline and power that have initially brought about such a method of symbolic interpretation. He writes: “True, signs are necessary to the social processes by which the human body (external and internal) is cultivated. But signs are not sui generis; they are intrinsic to the social practices of

3 Asad, “Remarks on the Anthropology of the Body,” 42–51; Genealogies of Religion. Mau- rice Blanchot, Akashienu kyōdōtai. Georges Bataille, Theory of Religion; “General Economy,” 165–219. Jean-Luc Nancy, Mui no kyōdōtai. Bell, Ritual theory. 4 Asad, “The Body,” Genealogies of Religion, 55–79. Asad is consistently sceptical of scholars such as Geertz, who aim only to decode what religion, ritual and the body represent as meaning-carrying objects. For Asad’s thoughts on Geertz, see also “Anthropological Conceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz,” 237–259. imagined discipline 165 human bodies, and acquire their interpreted sense and reference as part of the historicity of those practices.”5 This is why Asad suggests questioning the “self-evident” categories of religious or secular symbols and of sacred or common-sense rituals and, instead, seeking an answer in terms of the range of “historical conditions,” such as movements, institutions, and ideologies, within which dispositions are formed.6 Asad, re-evaluating Mauss’ concept of habitus, seeks to analyse the body as follows: “This concept of habitus is not about the body as symbol of something, or about things that symbolize the body. Of course it presupposes human communica- tion regarding models of appropriate/inappropriate behaviour, but the concept of habitus invites us to analyse ‘the body’ as an assemblage of embodied aptitudes not as systems of symbolic meanings.”7 The second set of theoretical reflections I examine are taken from the work of Blanchot and others, who are concerned with how we can situate the body within a community. For Blanchot and others, community is not outside the body, or a total system of individual bodies. Rather, our investigation should ask how a seemingly substantial relationship between the body and community itself was imposed on and exposed to those individual bodies.8 For these writers, community is not something which can be realised through a process of ‘communion’ enabling a self and another self to grow together, as was dominant in Christian narrative; nor is community something which can be accomplished through a process of integration in which the one is sublated into the total, as was dominant in the narratives of dialectic thinkers. ‘Community’ is something that happens to the self and within the self, because the self is not a closed being and being oneself necessarily requires another similarly unclosed self. According to this argument, ‘community’ takes the form of events or actions. The purpose of the discussions of Blanchot and others is to seek out the ways in which such an imaginary community itself became necessary and was

5 Asad, “The Body,” 43–44. 6 Asad, “Geertz,” 252. 7 Asad, “The body,” 47. Marcel Mauss, “Techniques of the Body.” Asad, pointing out that Douglas’s self-commitment to ‘symbolic analysis’ has caused our misunderstanding of Mauss’ ‘techniques of the body,’ explains Mauss’ habitus as follows: “By talking about ‘body techniques’ he [Mauss] sought to focus attention on the fact that if we conceptualized human behaviour in terms of learned capabilities, we might see the need for investigating how these were linked to authoritative standards and regular practice.” (Asad, “The Body,” 46–47). 8 Nancy, Mui no kyōdōtai. Bataille, “General,” Blanchot, Akashienu kyōdōtai. For the relationships between Nancy, Bataille and Blanchot, see also Nishitani Osamu’s explanatory notes: “Buransho to kyōdōtai.” 166 chapter four created, and how it functioned.9 It may therefore be more important to ask how being in a ‘community’ was lived by individual bodies, rather than to look for an imagined community as a substantial entity. Here, I aim to find a way of examining what the body really reveals to itself and to its ‘communities’ at the very moment when narratives insist on intimacy between the body and the community. How then can we analyse the dynamics of the relations between the body and community? To answer this, my third key theoretical approach appropriates Bell’s analysis of the dynamics of ritualisation. By considering ritualisation as a “strategic arena for the embodiment of power relations,” Bell enables us to see the dynamics at play between the body and social conditions, as indicated by Asad.10 Furthermore, her argument follows Blanchot and others in considering how to break free from the trap of viewing the relationship between the body and community as a simple circular system. Bell re-examines the contributions made by, and the weaknesses of, various theoretical understandings of that relationship, and develops her own method by juxtaposing these understandings. She considers there to be four influential theses supported by Durkheim’s ideas on ritual as a means of social control: the social solidarity thesis, the channelling of conflict thesis, the repression thesis, and the definition of reality thesis.11 However, she points out that each approach has limitations in its notions of social control, because each applies a simple Durkheimian tension between self and society. Bell emphasises that ritualisation should be examined in its three operations: first, the physical construction of schemes of binary oppositions; second, the orchestrated hierarchisation of these schemes produced through their mediation by a third term; and third, the generation of a loosely integrated whole in which each element “defers to another in an endlessly circular chain of reference.”12 Bell argues that the first and second operations are not sufficient, since these operations grasp the body-community relations only in their circularity, or see the body and community fundamentally as only a conflict of binary opposition, or see their relationship in a dialectic of resolution through a mediation of

9 See for example, Nancy, Mui no kyōdōtai, 22–23. 10 Bell, Ritual Theory, 170. 11 Bell, “The Ritual Body,” 94–117, and “Ritual Control,” 171–181, in Ritual Theory. Bell credits the social solidarity thesis to Evans-Pritchard and Bellah, the channelling of conflict thesis to Gluckman and Victor Turner, the repression thesis to Girard and Burkert, and the definition of reality thesis to Geertz and Terence Turner. 12 Bell, Ritual Theory, 101. imagined discipline 167 oppositions by a third term. What is distinctive in Bell’s argument is that she emphasises the need for a third operation, and that this operation is “Derrida’s process of différence.”13 [Derrida’s process of différence] is a process of ‘free play’ in which the drawing of distinctions endlessly defers signification, meaning, and reference from the present signifier to a potentially infinite number of signifiers. Not only is ‘meaning’ never arrived at; it is never present in any sense at all. However, in such a system of endless deferral of reference, meaning may never be given but is always implied. When Bell attempts to make clear that “ritual does not control; rather, it constitutes a particular dynamic of social empowerment,” it is this third operation of différence that enables us to see the dynamics of body- community relations.14 The further importance of Bell’s suggestion is in her stresses on ritualisation as comprising the three operations of circularity together with deferral. In this chapter I thus analyse the operations of ritualisation, and aim to clarify the dynamics of relations between the body and community through the events that took place at Meiji shrine on and around 3rd November 1940. I start by following Asad’s suggestion, and examine the historical and social conditions within which the 11th Meet was held. A historical view requires examining the development of the Meiji Shrine Sports Meets from 1924, while social analysis involves studying the social context of 1940.

4.1.2 Historical Development of the Meets What is important when taking a historical perspective on the meets is that their very role and character shifted in tandem with the development of state systems of bodily control. The role and character of the meets were modified along with the development of administration of the body in Japan. It is indeed instructive to note how the responsibility for organising the meets was passed from one organisation to another over the years: the 1st and 2nd meets (1924–1925) were held by the Home Ministry; the 3rd to the 9th (1926–1938) were held biennially by a private association, namely the Association of Meiji Shrine Sports Meets (Meiji jingū kai); and finally the Ministry of Health and Welfare took over for the 10th to 14th meets (1939–1943).15

13 Bell, ibid., 105. 14 Bell, ibid., 181. 15 Ōta Yoriyasu and Nagase Satoko, “Meiji Jingū taiiku taikai ni kansuru kenkyū.” The reports I have examined are: Naimushō, Eiseikyoku, Daiichi, nikai kyōgitaikai hōkokusho; 168 chapter four

It was the Public Health Bureau (Eiseikyoku) in the Home Ministry that organised the 1st Meet, a fact that shows the meets were expected, from the start, to promote both the issue and the practice of public heath.16 Tanaka, for example, points out that Public Health Exhibitions (Eisei tenrankai) were frequently held during the Taisho and Showa periods. He suggests it was necessary for the government to organise such meets or similar physical demonstrations, that is—not just give lectures or distribute printed material—so as to enable the population to grasp what eisei was, and to understand fully its importance.17 Seki examines the development of people’s physical education (shimin taiiku) in Tokyo City and demonstrates the shift in the points being stressed, away from Meiji period-type physical education aimed at preventing epidemics and towards a physical education intended to create stronger and healthier bodies, especially after World War One.18 It may well be as part of this shift in priorities that the Public Health Bureau began to organise the meets. The Naimushōshi (History of the Home Ministry) records the establishment of the meets under the chapter heading “nutrition” (eiyō).19 According to the Home Ministry, they began the meets with the purpose of improving the populace’s physical constitution, the better to resist disease and hygienic disorder. The establishment of the first Meiji Shrine Sports Meet was not the only notable sporting policy development of 1924, as in the same year the government decreed 3rd November a National Sports Day (zenkoku taiiku no hi) and decided to fund a Japanese delegation to attend the 8th Olympics.20 On 23rd August 1924 the Home Ministry announced the establishment of the meet, noting it was to be held in the stadium in Meiji shrine’s outer precinct on the shrine’s feast day, 3rd November.21 Although the meets were held on and around this date in order to mark the shrine’s anniversary, the shrine’s office and its priests played no part as organisers

Meiјi Jingū taiikukai, Daigo, rokkai Meiјi Jingū taiiku taikai hōkokusho; Kōseishō, Daijū, jūichi, jūnikai Meiji Jingū kokumin taiiku taikai hōkokusho. 16 Taikakai, Naimushōshi, vol. 3, 315. 17 Tanaka Satoshi, Eisei tenrankai no yokubō. 18 Seki Naoki, “Senkanki Nihon ni okeru toshi jūmin no ‘shintai’ no mondaika to shakai taiiku seisaku no tenkai,” 67–76. 19 Taikakai, Naimushōshi, vol. 3, 313–5. 20 Kaga Hideo, “Wagakuni ni okeru kindai supōtsu no tenkai katei ni kansuru jisshō teki kenkyū: ‘Meiji Jingū kyōgi taikai’ no setsuritsu o megutte.” See also, “ ‘Meiji Jingū kyōgi taikai’ no henshitsu katei ni tsuite”; “Wagakuni ni okeru kindai supōtsu no tenkai katei ni kansuru jisshōteki kenkyū: ‘Meiji Jingū kyōgi taikai’ no seiji taiseika o megutte.” 21 Naimushō, Eiseikyoku, Daiichikai kyōgitaikai hōkokusho, 1–4. imagined discipline 169 or sponsors. The same Home Ministry notification also hints at the purpose of the meets, when it argues that “gathering the public across the country and holding national sports competitions in front of kami, that is, Meiji shrine, will be a great occasion not only for the commemoration of Emperor Meiji’s great virtue, but also for disciplining the bodies and spirits of the public.”22 Before the construction of the stadium, which was finally completed only one month before the 1st Meet, there were no national competitions in Japan. The birth of national sports meets in Japan thus also witnessed the beginning of the association between the shrine and national bodies. Meiji shrine’s office was not involved in the Home Ministry’s process of decision-making.23 Rather, it was the Meiji Shrine Celebration Committee (Meiji jingūsai hōshukukai) that played the central role in sponsoring the meets.24 This committee was organised in 1927 for the express purpose of producing commemorative events for Meiji shrine. The committee consisted of the trinity (‘sanmi ittai’) of Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture, Tokyo City and the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry.25 From the committee’s point of view, the meets seemed worth supporting financially as one of the celebratory events for the shrine’s feast day. Meiji Shrine Sports Meet was an important arena within which the shrine, Emperor Meiji and the feast day were efficiently utilised in the formation of the body in Japan. The shift from the Home Ministry to the Ministry of Health and Welfare meant more than a simple jurisdictional change. The Ministry of Health and Welfare (Kōseishō) had itself only been created in 1938, but nevertheless they took over the organisation of the meets from the following year. Within the ministry it was the Bureau for Physical Strength (Tairyokukyoku) which was responsible for coordinating the meets.26 Fujino has examined the creation of the ministry and the importance of the kōsei campaign which developed around 1938, and suggests that the government began to impose ‘healthy leisure’ on the public by insisting that more public leisure time should be spent on disciplining their bodies,

22 Ibid. 23 For Meiji Jingū hōsankai and the Meiji shrine outer precinct: Meiji Jingū hōsankai, ed. Gaienshi; Meiji Jingū gaien nanajūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed. Nanajūnenshi. 24 Naimushō, Eiseikyoku, Daiichikai kyōgitaikai hōkokusho, 58, 420. Also see Tokyo shōkō kaigisho, Tokyo shōkō kaigisho hachijūgonenshi, vol. 1, 1426–28. 25 Meiji Jingū hōshukukai, Meiji Jingū chinza nijūnensai hōshuku jigyō gaiyō, 1. 26 Kōseishō, Daijukkai hōkokusho. 170 chapter four rather than on recreation.27 It is against this backdrop that the 11th Meet was planned and held.

4.1.3 Events of 1940 We should pay due heed to the year of 1940 itself. Various celebratory events were scheduled and carried out in this year for two reasons, firstly for the 20th anniversary of Meiji shrine, and secondly for the 2600th anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement. These two celebrations made the year special and became key features of the 11th Meet. According to the shrine’s attendance statistics for the 50 years from 1920 to 1970, 1940 saw the largest number of people visiting the shrine, a total of 10,150,771.28 Every 10th year following its establishment, a particularly large and significant commemoration festival was held (shikinen sai). The days around 3rd November took on special importance and were celebrated through performances and activities of various kinds.29 Although the events held for the 1940 anniversaries largely followed those for the enshrinement in 1920, their range and variety expanded to include such things as radio programs and department store exhibitions. During the whole five days, a total of 1,640,774 people visited the shrine30 The 20th anniversary records identify three independent groups involved with the determination of the program: the Meiji Shrine Office; the Shrine Bureau (Jinjakyoku); and the Meiji Shrine Celebration Committee.31 The shrine rites were controlled and performed by priests from the shrine office, following the Shrine Bureau’s suggestions. Though the deputy chief priest and other priests also attended every board meeting in order to voice their own opinions, the administrative organ charged with over- seeing and coordinating all the events and the entirety of their content, whether they were shrine rites or celebratory events, was the Celebration Committee board, not the shrine office or the Home Ministry.32 In July 1936, the government established national committees within the cabinet, such as the Secretariat of the 2600th Anniversary (Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku), which were responsible for

27 Fujino Yutaka, Kyōsei sareta kenkō. 28 Meiji Jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Gojūnenshi, 662–3. 29 Meiji Jingū, Chinza nijūnensai shorui, vol. 2–3, 1940. Tokyo yomiuri shinbun (16th November 1940). 30 Meiji Jingū, Nijūnensai shorui, vol. 2. 31 See especially, Meiji Jingū, “Hōshuku kanjikai kiroku,” in Nijūnensai shorui, vol. 1. 32 Meiji Jingū, “kanjikai kiroku.” imagined discipline 171 organising national celebratory events for the anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement. In addition to central government, various private enterprise bodies and local governments around the country carried out celebratory events during the year. According to the 2600th anniversary secretariat’s report, the number of events held during the year was 12,822, the total costs were 9,542,114 yen, and the participants numbered 49,423,963.33 The idea of celebrating the 2600th anniversary in 1940 was originally developed in order to assist the bid to hold the Olympics in Tokyo, as the International Olympics Committee (IOC) was known to look favourably upon applications from cities or countries in which other anniversaries were to take place simultaneously with the proposed Olympics.34 The mayor of Tokyo, Nagata Shūjirō, had begun to organise a Tokyo Olympics bid committee in 1930, and it was he who proposed that the year of 1940 was the most suitable year because it would be the 2600th anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement.35 According to Furukawa, Nagata was the first to seek to attach a major event to the 2600th anniversary.36 Indeed, when on 31st July 1936 the IOC decided that the 12th Olympiad would be held in Tokyo in 1940, it was the prospective 2600th anniversary commemoration celebrations that were judged to have been instrumental in enabling Tokyo to ‘defeat’ its rivals for the honour, the cities of Rome and Helsinki.37 The potential of the 2600th anniversary was fully exploited as the reason to hold various other events in 1940, in addition to the Olympics. The main purpose of these plans was to promote economic development.38 For example, those who launched the World Exposition campaign frequently argued that 1940 would be the best year for such an event because it could also become a national celebration of the 2600th anniversary, and because the Tokyo Olympics would be held in the same year. Many of those in the cabinet who organised the national committee for the 2600th

33 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten kiroku, 26–27. 34 Furukawa Takahisa, Kōki · banpaku · orinpikku. Also see Yamano Eiji, “Kigen nisenroppyakunen bijutsu tenrankai to sono shūhen,” 179–96. For the Tokyo Olympics, see Ikei Masaru, Orinpikku no seijigaku; Hashimoto Kazuo, Maboroshi no Tokyo orinpikku; Yoshimi Shun’ya, “Maboroshi no Tokyo orinpikku o megutte,” 19–36. 35 Hashimoto K., Maboroshi, 8–17. 36 Furukawa T., Kōki, 62. 37 Furukawa T., ibid., 106–107. Ikei, Seijigaku, 89–110. Yoshimi S., “Orinpikku o megutte,” 29. Also see, Tokyoshi, Tokyoshi kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshuku kinen jigyōshi. 38 Furukawa T., Kōki, 126. 172 chapter four anniversary commemorative events were also involved in campaigning to host the Expo.39 Thus a variety of factors and agents, in addition to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, contributed to the planning for the 11th Sports Meet.

4.2 National Unity through Callisthenics

4.2.1 Nationwide Participation The 11th Meet was held from 27th October to 3rd November 1940, with over 58,000 people participating as athletes [Fig. 27].40 Section 4.2 asks how various actors and factors combined to shape the meet, which was expected to strengthen ‘national unity’ by realising the nationwide participation of people’s bodies. With the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s takeover of the meets, the government strengthened its control over the event as well as over the participants; the title of the meet itself was modified in 1939, for the 10th Meet, to Meiji Shrine National Sports Meet (Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai).41 Kaga has suggested the character of the meets from the 10th Meet onwards differed markedly from that of previous meets, and that it became an important national activity in line with wartime policy.42 This revised character was further stressed in new guidelines that reinterpreted the roles of Meiji shrine and Emperor Meiji. Meiji Shrine Sports Meets were presented as divine services (shinji hōshi) to commemorate Emperor Meiji’s great virtue. The significance of the meets was now explained in terms of the offerings (hōnō) to the shrine and the enshrined emperor of the public’s bodies and minds fashioned by everyday disciplining.43 The meets were now portrayed as “principal national activities to realise the general mobilisation of the nation throughout the year.”44 Furthermore, the ministry attempted to utilise the 11th Meet itself as an occasion for disciplining people’s bodies; indeed, it is no coincidence that events held at sports meetings are typically referred to as “disciplines.” The changing combination of disciplines held at the meets was very revealing in this sense. In addition to the established events such

39 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, Shukuten kiroku, vol.1, 61–70. 40 Kōseishō, Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 104. 41 Kōseishō, Daijukkai hōkokusho. 42 Kaga H., “Henshitsu katei ni tsuite,” 103. 43 Kōseishō, Daijukkai hōkokusho, 15. 44 Ibid. imagined discipline 173

Figure 27. The closing ceremony of the 11th Meiji Shrine Sports Meet, 3rd November 1940. (Reprinted from Daijūichikai Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai gahō, ed. Asahi supōtsu, 1940, unpaginated). as track and field, volleyball, and swimming, a series of national defence events (kokubō kyōgi) was created in 1939. Here, military activities such as carrying sandbags and throwing grenades were added to the athletics competition. Conversely, professional baseball and sumō were removed from the schedule because “the purpose of the meets is the physical education of the public.”45 The idea of a truly nationwide participation of people’s bodies was further stressed in the guidelines for the 11th Meet by the close association with the events of the 20th anniversary of Meiji shrine’s establishment and the 2600th anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement.46 The guidelines stressed the particularity of this year, proclaiming that the meet should be held on a wider scale than in other years for the purpose of celebrating these two special anniversaries. However, the organisations involved soon became rivals. The Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Meiji Shrine Celebration Committee and the Secretariat of the 2600th Anniversary

45 Ibid., 12–15. 46 Kōseishō, Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 3–4. 174 chapter four all aimed to make the most of the close association of the shrine’s anniversary, the 2600th anniversary and the 11th Meet for their own purposes. The Celebration Committee, for example, asked for the Secretariat’s collaboration, emphasising that “the aim of the shrine’s events are the same as those for Emperor Jinmu, considering that Emperor Jinmu’s equivalent in the present day is Emperor Meiji and Emperor Meiji’s equivalent of old is Emperor Jinmu.”47 However, the Secretariat declined the committee’s offer to cooperate in or co-sponsor some events, maintaining that “the point of celebrating the 2600th anniversary is that celebrating Emperor Jinmu and the present [Showa] emperor is the same thing.”48 In addition, the committee and the ministry scrambled to claim the right to host particular events for the 3rd November, such as horse riding and martial arts. The ministry sought to host these events for the 11th Meet as two recognised disciplines, while the committee aimed to host horseback archery (yabusame) and comprehensive martial arts (budō gata) as celebratory events for the shrine’s anniversary, as they did every year.49 Although the express purpose of the 11th Meet was to celebrate the shrine’s anniversary, the ministry, nonetheless, opposed the committee’s idea of holding such events concurrently with the meet. The ministry considered that the committee’s plans would weaken the significance of the meet at a time when nationwide attention should be focused on the meet. Negotiation between the two parties continued until October 1940.50 Ultimately, there was a compromise of sorts: the committee hosted the horseback archery on, and the martial arts after, 3rd November. In addition, the 11th Meet was expected to function as a substitute for what turned out to be the “lost Tokyo Olympics,” after the Tokyo Olympics Organising Committee finally gave up their attempt to host the 1940 Olympics (16th July 1938) due to Japan’s deepening wartime involvement.51 Those who had been planning the Olympic project now aimed to actualise the meet on a national scale, thereby drawing Olympic- scale participation and audiences. There was in fact another international athletics competition held in June 1940 as an alternative to the Tokyo Olympics, namely the East Asian Athletics Competition. However, as Furukawa points out, this competition struggled to attract attention and

47 Meiji jingū, “Kanjikai kiroku.” 48 Ibid., See also, Sakatani Y., Meiji jingū kankei shorui. Vol. 9. 49 Meiji jingū, “Kanjikai kiroku,” and “Kōshō jikō,” in Chinza nijūnensai shorui, vol. 1. 50 Ibid. 51 Daijūnikai orinpikku, ed., Hōkokusho, 44. imagined discipline 175 pull in an audience because of insufficient preparation. Unlike the East Asian Athletics Competition, the 11th Meet was carried out to actualise the concept of the Olympics as well as of the 2600th anniversary; it was on a greater scale, and thus drew larger audiences.52 For example, the meet included two special events: a long-distance race between Miyazaki and Unebi (Miyazaki-Unebi ekiden kyōsō), and a celebratory relay race (hōshuku keisō).53 Miyazaki-Unebi ekiden kyōsō was a 1000 kilometre relay between Miyazaki shrine (Miyazaki Prefecture) and Kashihara shrine (Nara Prefecture) in which eight teams representing the eight regions of the country competed together for ten days. In commemoration of the 2600th anniversary, this race followed the mythological route along which Emperor Jinmu journeyed on his eastern expedition to Kashihara; Miyazaki was said to be the area in which Emperor Jinmu was born, and Kashihara where his enthronement ceremony was held.54 Interestingly, as Hashimoto points out, a similar kind of race had already been planned for the Tokyo Olympics as a torch relay, following Emperor Jinmu’s journey.55 Similarly, the second relay, hōshuku keisō, was inspired by, and served as a substitute for the Olympics fire torch relay. From 16 starting points around the country representative teams were to set off for Meiji shrine stadium, where the opening ceremony of the meet was conducted.56 Instead of a blazing torch, the representative runners carried congratulatory letters from local mayors.

4.2.2 The Discipline of Group Callisthenics Competitive group callisthenics (shūdan taisō) played a significant role in the drive for nationwide participation. The event was important for a number of reasons. Firstly, group callisthenics was a discipline which directly involved not only the bodies of the professional athletes, but also those of a large number of other people. Furthermore, it was a discipline that worked to associate these bodies with the meet, and more specifically with Meiji shrine. Finally, the group callisthenics in the meet required the participation of individual bodies in other regions of the country, as well as those in Tokyo.

52 Furukawa T., Kōki, 181–5. 53 Kōseishō, Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 553–64. 54 Ibid. 55 Hashimoto K., Maboroshi, 194–203. 56 Kōseishō, Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 553–4. 176 chapter four

Figure 28. School boys and students of women colleges performing callisthenics. (Reprinted from Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshuku, daijūichikai Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai hōkokusho, ed. Kōseishō, 1941, unpaginated). imagined discipline 177

Table 7. Callisthenics held at the 11th Meet in 1940 Date Callisthenics Groups Participants 27/Oct Kōkōku undō/ Danshi sen’mon gakkō 400 Dai nihon kokumin taisō Kōshin/ Joshi chūtō gakkō rengō 2,160 Dai nihon joshi seinen taisō Dai nihon kokumin taisō Kanchōdan rengō 2,600 Joshi kōa taisō/ Zenkoku joshi taisō 400 Dai nihon joshi seinen taisō shidōsha dan [Fig. 28] Kōa kihon taisō/ Saitamaken kyōin dan 650 Dai nihon seinen taisō Dai nihon kokumin taisō Marubiru taisō dan 500 28/Oct Dai nihon kokumin taisō/ Toka shōgyō dan 1,000 Kokumin-ka, 2600 nen Jōdō kihon engi Dainihon jōdōkai 500 29/Oct Taisō Shōgakkō jiō rengō 1,800 Danshi chūtō gakkō gōdō taisō Danshi chūtō gakkō rengō 1,800 Dai nihon joshi seinen taisō/ Jishi sen’mon gakkō rengō 1,500 Kōshin yūgi 30/Oct Taisō Shōgakkō danji rengō 1,800 Kenkoku taisō Kenkō taisō dan 1,200 Aoge miitsu Jishi taiiku sen’mon gakkō 150 Sumō taisō [see also Fig. 28] Sumō taisō dan 500 1/Nov Dai nihon kokumin taisō Zenkoku danshi taiiku 700 shidōsha dan Dai nihon seinen taisō/ Nihon taiikukai taisō 400 Tenkai taisō/Kumitate undō gakkō Nihon sangyō taisō Toka sangyō dan 1,500 Dai nihon joshi seinen taisō Joshi chūtō gakkō/ 2,140 Joshi taiiku sen’mon gakkō 2/Nov Dai nihon seinen taisō Zenkoku kakufuken 1,000 senbatsu seinendan Toshu taisō/ Kasumigaura kaigun 500 Chōyaku tenkai kōkūtai hikōyoka renshūsei 3/Nov Kikai taisō mohan engi Kikai taisōdan 25 Zenkoku issei taisō Zenkoku issei taisō 2,600 (Kokumin taisō/ Dai nihon kokumin taisō) Kōa Taisō Zenkoku shidōsha dan Tokyo-shi seinen gakkō taisō Tokyoshi seinen gakkō 1,000 rengō Source: Kōseishō, ed., Daijūichikai Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai hōkokusho, 263–4. 178 chapter four

The act of performing callisthenics itself merits consideration as an important bodily activity in modern Japan. Table 7 lists the many kinds of callisthenics performed by different groups over seven days at the 11th Meet. Participants included not only students but also various other bodies such as the Association of Commercial Industries in Tokyo (Toka shōgyō dan) and the Marunouchi Building Workers’ Callisthenics Group (Marubiru taisō dan). Previous research has suggested that the variety of callisthenics prac- tised in the Taisho and Showa periods are proof of a ‘health boom’ (kenkō būmu), and that it was through callisthenics that the concept of the body was developed from the Meiji period onwards.57 For example, Miura suggests that group activities, such as marching, were introduced from the West during and after the Meiji period. Importantly, he argues it was exactly because Japanese bodies were not accustomed to walking and exercising in a group that these Western activities needed mastering.58 A callisthenics instructor, who was particularly proud of his contribution to the exercise, described the 11th Meet as follows: “When we saw how the marching style in the opening ceremony had gradually improved, we could feel that our efforts towards disciplining the style of walking by means of group callisthenics were not useless at all.”59 Just as group callisthenics were important events in the meets, the meets themselves played a vital part in the national development of callisthenics. Kawabata, and others who have investigated callisthenics activities in the meets as part of the history of Japanese physical education, point out that group callisthenics were performed publicly for the first time anywhere at these meets.60 Callisthenics became a competitive event from the 2nd Meet of 1925, a year later than for other sports. In 1926 Matsubara reflected on their influence: since the 2nd Meet, callisthenics activities had been “introduced into most sports meets held outside as well as inside Tokyo.”61 It is clear that, of all the events in the meets, the group callisthenics exercise was the one that by far the largest number of people participated in. As was indicated above in Table 7, more than

57 Tamura S., Eisei tenrankai, 162–6. Seki N., “Senkanki Nihon,” 68. 58 Miura Masashi, Shintai no reido. 59 Kōseishō, Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 266. 60 Kawabata Akio et al., “Meiji Jingū taiiku taikai ni okeru shūdan taisō (masu gēmu) ni kansuru kenkyū.” Kawabata A. et al., “Meiji Jingū taiiku taikai no shūdan taisō ni kansuru kenkyū.” 61 Naimushō, Eiseikyoku, Dainikai hōkokusho, 539–40. imagined discipline 179

Figure 29. Group callisthenics performed as part of zenkoku issei taisō in the outer precinct. (Reprinted from Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshuku, daijūichikai Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai hōkokusho, ed. Kōseishō, 1941, unpaginated).

25,000 people took part in group callisthenics at the 11th Meet, over 40% of the total participants (58,115). The further significance of group callisthenics for both the Meiji Shrine Sports Meets and public bodies was that they were held not only for the participants in the stadium, but also for local residents around the country as part of a group activity called zenkoku issei taisō (‘statewide simultaneous callisthenics’; see also Table 7 and Fig. 29). Zenkoku issei taisō was made possible through the concurrent popularity of callisthenics, the holding of the meets, and the development of radio, the most popular broadcasting system of the era. Even in present-day Japan, NHK (Japanese Broadcasting Association) radio callisthenics (rajio taisō) are a popular form of exercise in Japan.62 Bodies come to master their movements, in a way which Takahashi refers to as “bodily resonance,” through multiple performances at schools and colleges, in the local community and even at work in the office. It is this mastery of the body through repetition that makes radio callisthenics so relevant to this study. Following Asad, one might say that radio callisthenics is a practice in which bodies do not “symbolise mind” but rather “remember” how to move in time and coordination with radio music.63 I argue that this was very much the case

62 Takahashi Hidemine, Subarashiki rajio taisō. 63 Asad, “The body,” 47. 180 chapter four in 1940. The forms of callisthenics known as Kokumin taisō and Dai nihon kokumin taisō, both of which were held as part of zenkoku issei taisō in the 11th Meet, were two of the three most popular routines of radio callisthenics as that time, and were called “Radio Callisthenics 1” and “Radio Callisthenics 3” respectively.64 Radio callisthenics itself was first established in 1928 by combining various steps from already popular callisthenics routines.65 The growth in popularity of radio callisthenics then contributed to the development of new forms; the group callisthenics held at the meets from 1925 should be seen as part of this process. It is important to consider how radio callisthenics and the meets worked together to build up “a mutually constituting relationship between body-sense and body-learning.”66 When a second program of callisthenics was introduced in 1932, it was named “Radio Callisthenics 2” and the original program became known as “Radio Callisthenics 1”; “Radio Callisthenics 3” was added in 1939. According to Takahashi, “Radio Callisthenics 1 and 2” were created as joint projects by the Association of Life Insurance Companies and NHK, and both were handled by the Ministry of Telecommunication. The purpose was to pop- ularise both radio and health insurance by making use of the popularity of callisthenics.67 “Radio Callisthenics 3” was developed by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. Dai nihon kokumin taisō was one of four exercises which the ministry created, the others being Dai nihon seinen taisō, Dai nihon joshi hoken taisō, and Dai nihon kōsei taisō.68 However, the ministry was not the only group that attempted to create new forms of radio callisthenics. Those who mastered radio callisthenics themselves then developed their own new styles, and tried to disseminate them to the public. There were over 50 variations in 1940, for example “Bonito-Fishing Callisthenics” (Katsuo tsuri taisō) from a fishing village in Omaezaki, radio callisthenics performable inside a kotatsu heater (Kotatsu radio taisō), and “National-Founding Callisthenics” (Kenkoku taisō), as developed by a member of the Ministry of Education.69 If we refer back to the variety of callisthenics listed in Table 7, it is clear that the Meiji

64 Kōseishō, Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 263–4. 65 For radio callisthenics, see Takahashi H., Subarashiki, Kuroda Isamu, Rajio taisō no tanjō; Shimizu Satoshi, “Media toshite no shintai ‘josetsu’,” “Shintai no kindai.” 66 Asad, “The body,” 49. 67 This is why Rajio taisō daiichi, ni were called Kokumin hoken taisō daiichi, ni at the time, literally meaning ‘National Health Insurance Callisthenics 1 and 2.’ 68 Takahashi H., Subarashiki, 166–180. 69 Ibid. imagined discipline 181

Shrine Sports Meets were a site within which various callisthenics were exhibited and disseminated, and where they competed with each other for the public’s attention. We should also note the importance of radio in relation to the way it connected the body, community, and callisthenics, in particular because Japanese radio broadcasting itself began in 1925. Yoshimi, for example, examines the formation of “voice culture” by the sound media (including gramophones, telephones and radio) during the 1920s and 30s, and highlights the importance of seeing how these sound media modified the character of communities in similar ways to the change effected by print media from the 17th century onwards.70 Kuroda tries to clarify the nature of radio callisthenics in terms of the issue of Japanese bodies and time.71 He argues that radio callisthenics was born at a time when a new concept of the body was being created, and that this concept was further developed through the very act of performing radio callisthenics. According to Kuroda, the new concepts were created through the “rationalisations of the body and time” by which the body learned to make fixed movements at a prescribed time.72 I will return to Kuroda’s argument in the third section of this chapter, when I investigate the degree to which this notion of “rationalisation” was reasonable or unreasonable.

4.2.3 Imagined Unity: Local/Central The ministry guidelines for the 11th Meet stress the importance of developing sufficient coordination between the central and local authorities and associations concerned, in order to realise national unity.73 After taking over the organisation of the meets, the Ministry of Health and Welfare proclaimed that one of their guiding principles was to seek nationwide participation. The relationship between the central (chūō) and the local (chihō) was stressed by organising ‘local’ as well as ‘central’ Meiji Shrine Sports Meets, thus highlighting both distinction and integration. This idea was discussed by the advisory committee for the Ministry of Health and Welfare from 1939 onwards: “The most earnest desire of the advisory committee is to enable all cities, towns and villages to hold their own sports

70 Yoshimi S., “Koe” no shihon shugi. 71 Kuroda I., Tanjō, 9. 72 Ibid., 62. 73 Kōseishō, Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 3–4. 182 chapter four meets.”74 They added however that even if all these locations took part in the 10th Meet, this would not be enough to realise nationwide participation. They hoped that “every prefecture will also organise its own Meiji Shrine Sports Meets in the future.”75 The 11th Meet therefore was expected to be a combination of events held not only in the metropolis, but also in local prefectures, cities, towns, and villages, which were to host their own simultaneous Meiji Shrine Sports Meets. Zenkoku issei taisō was seen as essential to the success of the local meets. The central orginiser issued guidelines on how to conduct the events, and they sent these to the heads of the registrar’s departments in every prefecture.76 The guidelines stated that any type of bodily practice chosen locally was acceptable, and the specific contents were generally left to local organisers to decide according to local circumstances. However, the one event for which no local flexibility was allowed was the zenkoku issei taisō, for which the 11th Meet guidelines issued detailed instructions. They proclaimed that “each local meet should perform the zenkoku issei taisō for 20 minutes from 11:00 on 3rd November” by following the radio programme which was to be broadcast from the ‘centre,’ in other words the stadium in the shrine’s outer precinct.77 Furthermore, the instructions stressed that zenkoku issei taisō should be carried out, at the same time in the same way, even in those local areas beyond the reach of radio waves.78 For this reason the central organiser prepared a timetable and the basic script of the radio program for that day [Table 8].

4.3 Local Reality: Unity in Diversity

How were the imagined “simultaneous bodily performances throughout the country” then imposed immediately on, and exposed to, the very bodies that performed zenkoku issei taisō? For some scholars, such as Kuroda, the meets were symbolic national ceremonies which allowed the government to imagine all the bodies around the country being manipulated and mobilised by radio, and more specifically by radio callisthenics.79 My intention in this section is to interrogate this imagining, and to enquire

74 Kōseishō, Daijukkai hōkokusho, 10. 75 Ibid., 14. 76 Kōseishō, Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 50–53. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid., 205. imagined discipline 183

Table 8. Instructions for zenkoku issei taisō at the 11th Meiji Shrine Sports Meet Item Time Address Directions 1 Trumpet Turn radio on and tune in at 11:00 2 Opening 11:03 “We now open zenkoku “Attention”: Trumpet issei taisō of the 11th blown three times Meiji Shrine National Sports Meet, for the commemoration of the 2600th anniversary” 3 Bowing to Meiji 11:03 “Facing in the direction Follow the directions shrine of Meiji shrine, please given bow” “Hats off” “Salute” “Return to the original position” 4 The meet song 11:04 “Song of the Meiji Practice in advance, and Shrine Sports Meet” follow the radio chorus 5 Address by the 11:07 minister of health and welfare 6 Kokumin hoken 11:10 “Taisō exercise” At the radio command taisō daiichi “Rajio taisō 1, twice” (Rajio taisō 1) “Ready?” 7 Dai nihon 11:15 “Rajio taisō 3, once” Follow the radio kokumin taisō “Ready?” commands and music (Rajio taisō 3)

Song of the 2600th 11:19 “Song of the 2600th Begin after the 4th anniversary anniversary” passage 8 Closing (trumpet 11:23 “Zenkoku issei taisō is blown) finished” Source: Kōseishō, ed., Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 50–53. as to the nature of the individual bodies in regional communities on 3rd November 1940. Recent discussions on wartime events and culture in Japan also provide us with some useful perspectives for this argument. Akazawa and Kitagawa emphasise the complexity of the cultural situation from 1937 to 1945, and the variety of cultural creation.80 They suggest we need to review how

80 Akazawa S. and Kitagawa Kenzō, eds., Bunka to fashizumu, 4. See also, Akazawa S., “Senden to goraku,” 243–322. 184 chapter four this creation developed in contestation with a controlling government.81 Tsuganesawa and Ariyama expand the arguments of Akazawa and others, and attempt to answer the question of how we can examine the relation between a power mobilising from above and a power competing from below.82 They contend that an examination of the oppositional power at play between the controller and the resistant, as suggested by Akazawa and Kitagawa, is not sufficient to explain the complicated power relations of the war period. Rather, according to Tsuganesawa and Ariyama, further analyses should be made of the mechanism of relations by which the two sides could mobilise each other.83 I attempt here to develop Tsuganesawa and Ariyama’s argument to examine what local bodies were actually revealing at the very moment when the ‘central’ community was insisting on their unity. This examination will serve to refute Irie’s critical conclusion, referred to above, that the meets were the “biggest national system” which “controlled thousands of people by following Japanese fascist ideology.”84 Though Irie critically analysed the manipulation of national bodies thorough the Meiji Shrine Sports Meets, he did not follow this up with details of actual bodies and communities in local areas.85

4.3.1 An Inventory of Local Experience The first important data to be released on how local bodies and communities experienced 3rd November 1940 is contained within the 27 volumes of Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten kiroku (the 2600th Anniversary Report), which was published by the cabinet in 1943. Though Shukuten kiroku was clearly an official document, it is useful for my research as it includes valuable material relating to the broader circumstances of the 11th Meet. This material is most relevant to this study in its emphasis on the mutually constituting social contexts of 1940.86 One of the most informative items in the report is an inventory of the celebratory events organised by various areas.87 Although those events held by central government are not listed, it includes

81 Akazawa S. and Kitagawa K., Bunka to fashizumu, 6–7. 82 Tsuganesawa T. and Ariyama T., Senjiki Nihon, vii. 83 Tsuganesawa T. and Ariyama T., Senjiki Nihon, viii–ix. 84 Irie K., 5. 85 Ibid. 86 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, Shukuten kiroku, vol. 1–27. Although only 12 copies were made at the time, the report was finally reprinted in 2002, providing us with priceless information on the period in general and 1940 in particular. 87 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, “sonota naigai kakuchi ni okeru hōshuku gyōji ichiran,” in Shukuten kiroku, vol. 22–23. imagined discipline 185 events which were hosted all over Japan and even in foreign countries, and which were organised by such different groups as private enterprises and local governments. In his explanatory notes on the reprinted report, Furukawa stresses the importance of this inventory: “No other sources, including historical records of local areas, contain as much information on each event. Furthermore, no previous publication on these events, at least in Japan, has recorded in so much detail what happened in local areas.”88 My examination therefore deals with what the inventory reveals in terms of local bodily performances, and explores how local Meiji Shrine Sports Meets, especially zenkoku issei taisō, were (or were not) carried out. According to the inventory, a total of 2,081 sports meets were held to celebrate the 2600th anniversary. Of all the celebratory events, sports meets were second only in number to formal ceremonies, whose number totalled 7,196. Most of these ceremonies were held on 10th November because central government required local governments to celebrate the anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s succession on this date.89 One example was Yokohama City’s ceremony [Fig. 30]. The relevant question then becomes how the 11th Meiji Shrine Sports Meet, held to celebrate both Emperor Jinmu’s anniversary and the 20th anniversary of Meiji shrine, was positioned amongst the 2,081 sports events. Somewhat surprisingly, the report’s breakdown indicates that the number of sports events related either to the 11th Meet or the East Asian Athletics Competition totalled a mere 17 [Table 9].90 The criterion used by the report was that a given sports event should clearly include ‘Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai’ in the title of its event. The 17 cases thus comprised three categories of event. The first were those local sport meets held on 3rd November, which were linked with the main Meiji Shrine Sports Meet. An example of this would be Meiji jingū taiiku taikai Akō taikai, organised by Akō Town in Hyogo Prefecture on the bank of the Chigusa River and which attracted 10,000 participants.91

88 Furukawa T., ‟‛Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten kiroku’ kaidai,” in Shukuten kiroku, vol. 27, 193. The report defines jigyō as an enterprise which bequeaths something physical and long-lasting, such as a baseball ground or public hall, and gyōji as an event which leaves nothing permanent behind (Furukawa T., Kōki, 152–3). 89 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, “hōshuku gyōji ichiran,” in Shukuten kiroku, vol. 22–23. The report suggests the actual number of events may have exceeded those listed, because the inventory was created in 1941 from returned local government forms. 90 Ibid. The report does not distinguish between the two sports events. 91 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, “kakuchi gyōji ichiran” in Shukuten kiroku, vol. 22, 367. 186 chapter four

Figure 30. Yokohama City’s commemorative ceremony for the 2600th anniversary. (Reprinted from Tengyō hōshō, ed. Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshukukai, 1943, 240).

Interestingly, the second category of events were local sports meets associated with the main Meiji Shrine Sports Meet, but held on a day other than 3rd November. An example of this would be Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai chihō taikai, which was held in Higashimata Village in Kochi Prefecture on 11th November and was attended by 2,400 people.92 A third category were those preliminary meets held before 3rd November; their purpose to select local representatives to participate in the Meiji Shrine Sports Meet on 3rd November. An example of this would be Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai yosenkai, which was held by Ninomiya Town in Chiba Prefecture on 24th October and had 30 participants.93 The second and third categories above, neither of which took place on 3rd November, clearly demonstrate that locally there was considerable divergence from central government’s imagined simultaneity of physical events.

92 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, “kakuchi gyōji ichiran” in Shukuten kiroku, vol. 23, 149. 93 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, “kakuchi gyōji ichiran,” in Shukuten kiroku, vol. 22, 415. imagined discipline 187

Table 9. Sports-related events commemorating the 2600th anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement Events Number of events Expense (yen) Participants Events related to Meiji Shrine Sports Meet or East Asian 17 561,167 1,758,935 Athletics Competition Other athletics competitions 1,173 329,009 2,870,814 Swimming competitions 14 1,023 27,404 Martial arts competitions 266 152,767 263,918 Relays (including Miyazaki- 5 38,661 3,810 Kashihara Relay) Other sporting activities 606 193,925 1,464,462 Totals 2,081 1,276,552 6,389,343 Source: Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, “hōshuku gyōji ichiran,” in Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten kiroku, vol. 22–23.

The following three points can be made about the events held on 3rd November. Firstly, there were more than 110 instances of sports activities on 3rd November, such as Sonmin taiiku taikai, in Yamaguni Village, Kyoto Metropolitan Prefecture, and Hikone shimin taikai, in Hikone City, Shiga Prefecture.94 Most of these celebrated Meiji setsu and the 2600th anniversary. As was discussed in Chapter 1, Meiji setsu was declared a national holiday in 1927 in order to celebrate Emperor Meiji’s birthday, 3rd November. In 1924 the same date had also been made a National Sports Day (Zenkoku taiiku no hi), by the Home Ministry. It might be argued that the association between sports activities, Meiji celebratory events and 3rd November had rather deepened since Meiji shrine had first celebrated its annual festival on 3rd November in 1920. However, and somewhat ironically, the holders of the local events seemingly cared relatively little about their relations with the shrine and the shrine-related sports meets. The fact that a great majority of local sports-related events were not held on 3rd November suggests that most sports activities were not linked with the Meiji Shrine Sports Meet. Secondly, although some celebratory events on 3rd November carried out zenkoku issei taisō in accordance with the guidelines of the 11th Meet, these events did not necessarily publicise or make explicit their relation

94 Yamaguni Village: “kakuchi gyōji ichiran,” in Shukuten kiroku, vol. 22, 319. Hikone City: “kakuchi gyōji ichiran,” in vol. 22, 565. 188 chapter four

Figure 31. Hanno City’s sports meet on 3rd November 1940. (Reprinted from Shashinshū: Meiji Taisho Showa Hannō, ed. Akada Kimio, 1985, 52–53). with the meet. For example, a physical education association in Hanno City organised a sports meet on 3rd November.95 The inventory records that radio callisthenics were held on that occasion [Fig. 31], but does not mention any linkage with the 11th Meet. In addition, some private enterprises also made use of zenkoku issei taisō as one of the programs in their company’s celebrative events. For example, Fukushima Jinken Corporation in Bōfu City, Yamaguchi Prefecture, started its ceremony and sports meet at 8:00 in order to celebrate the 2600th anniversary.96 It is recorded that during the sports meet, joint radio callisthenics (gōdō rajio taisō) were held. Thirdly, there were some local events which had nothing to do with the 11th Meet and did not organise zenkoku issei taisō, but which were independently associated with Meiji shrine. A youth association in Nishinakadōri Village organised not only a village sports meet on 3rd November, but also carried out a bicycle excursion to Meiji shrine (Meiji jingū jitensha sanpai) in order to celebrate the 2600th anniversary.97 According to the inventory, five members of the youth group headed for the shrine on 29th October, returning to their village on 5th November.

95 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, “Kakuchi gyōji ichiran” in vol. 22, 414. Akada Kimio, ed., Shashinshū: Meiji Taisho Showa, Hannō, 52–53. 96 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku, “Kakuchi gyōji ichiran” in vol. 23, 105. 97 Ibid., “Kakuchi gyōji ichiran” in vol. 22, 399. imagined discipline 189

There were undoubtedly many local communities which hosted sports meets, and many local bodies participated in them. However, the inventory in the 2600th Anniversary Report indicates that the local situation on 3rd November was far from being a case of “nationwide participation in the 11th Meet through the combination of the central and the local sports meets”; participation was patchy across the country, and even where there were activities, the local people often made little connection with the events at Meiji shrine or the simultaneous radio broadcasts.

4.3.2 The Media and Local Experience Local newspaper reports during the period from 1st to 5th November 1940 prove a valuable source for investigating how local communities experienced the 11th Meet. Newspaper reports of sports-related events from 40 prefectures fell into two groups: The first reported those events already held on 1st to 5th November 1940; the second previewed sports events yet to take place, that is, those events scheduled from 5th to the end of November.98 Although the second set of events had not yet been held, the reports provide a useful perspective on the number of sports activities and the way they were presented in the media at the time. There were 622 November sports-related events in total; the following inventory shows their distribution by date and other variables [Table 10]. Of the 622 events, 392 were held on 3rd November. This shows that many local communities considered this day to be eminently suitable. However, only 39 of the 392 had any connection with the 11th Meet, and only 52 included callisthenics, which the national organisers had most wanted to see included. In fact, only 17 of the 392 were local Meiji Shrine Sports Meets that both included group callisthenics and were held on 3rd November.99 In the case of Tottori City, which hosted one of these 17, their events began at 11:00 and ended at 11:30.100 This very short time period shows that the content of the Tottori meet must have consisted of, and only of, the obligatory zenkoku issei taisō (11:03–11:23); after all, the people of Tottori City had another, bigger sports meet to look forward to on 10th November, when they would celebrate the 2600th anniversary and

98 I read 53 different newspapers, of which 23 were local newspapers; the rest were local editions of national newspapers, such as Yomiuri, Asahi and Mainichi. 99 For example, Matsuyama City and Ehime Prefecture co-hosted a sports meet in which, according to a local newspaper report, 30,000 local residents participated. Asahi shinbun, Ehime edition (1st, 3rd November 1940). 100 Nihonkai shinbun (2nd, 5th November). 190 chapter four

Table 10. Breakdown of the 622 sport-related events held in November 1940 Sporting Sporting Sporting Sporting events events events events related to on 3rd related to including the 2600th November Meiji Shrine callisthenics anniversary Sports Meet Sporting events 392 39 52 63 on 3rd November Sporting events 45 20 12 related to Meiji Shrine Sports Meet Sporting events 69 13 including callisthenics Sporting events 105 related to the 2600th anniversary Sources: Data assembled from local Japanese newspaper records falling between 1st and 5th November 1940, National Diet Library. participate in such events as relays and tugs-of-war.101 It may also be that some of the 17 meets that involved callisthenics on 3rd November as local Meiji Shrine Sports Meets, like that of Higashi Yodogawa Ward in Osaka, were not as closely coordinated nationally as central government imagined. The fact that the starting time in Yodogawa was 13:00 shows that its callisthenics event was held independently from the national zenkoku issei taisō. The sports-related events held on 3rd November for the celebration of the 2600th anniversary were greater in number than those held for the 11th Meet. Of the 622 sports-related activities held during November, 105 were for the 2600th anniversary while events relating to the 11th Meet numbered only 45. Many of the sports activities held on days other than 3rd November, merely 230 of the total 622 events, included the word hōshuku in their title. Hōshuku might best be rendered as ‘celebration,’ but the

101 Nihonkai shinbun (1st, 10th, 12th November). imagined discipline 191 objects of this celebration were unclear. As Furukawa suggests, obligatory events were exploited as convenient occasions to promote enterprises and activities in local communities.102 Hino District in Tottori established its sports ground to celebrate the 2600th anniversary; on 5th November the town marked both the opening of its sports ground and the anniversary.103 In the case of Iwasa Iron Foundry in Ibaraki, about 300 workers went hiking on 3rd November “to commemorate Meiji setsu and the 2600th anniversary.”104 Members of Sapporo Fishermen’s Union gathered at 6:15 in the morning on 3rd November, and held a fishing competition.105 In Nishinomiya City, major film companies such as Nikkatsu and Shōchiku co-hosted an actors and actresses baseball game on 3rd November under the motto “healthy bodies for healthy films.”106 Famous actors such as Kataoka Chiezō and Bandō Kōtarō participated in the game. Interestingly, the Osaka jiji shinpō reported that the game was advertised as a show and that a charge could be made for watching. It is uncertain whether or not the actors and their audience performed zenkoku issei taisō, although baseball did apparently start at 9:00 am. The effect of simultaneously holding the meet during the same period as the 2600th anniversary and various celebratory activities, plus the idea of the meet serving as some form of substitute for the cancelled Tokyo Olympics, was that 3rd November became associated with these other events. Through this association, the original meaning of the date was, to a certain extent, lost. The people of Shimane Prefecture were linked to the 11th Meet not by the date of 3rd November, or by zenkoku issei taisō, but rather by their preliminary meet.107 Shimane’s events were held over two days (22nd and 23rd September), in five different grounds and stadiums. Various sports were included, such as basketball, judo, and national defence competitions (kokubō kyōgi), and 1,700 people took part. However, the highlight of this meet was a relay race from 19th to 23rd September, involving not a baton but a sacred pike (seihoko). This was Shimane’s adaptation of the centrally organised long-distance relay between Miyazaki and Unebi, and the celebratory relay,

102 Furukawa T., Kōki, 151–2. 103 Nihonkai shinbun (3rd–7th November 1940). 104 Shimotsuke shinbun (2nd November 1940). 105 Hokkai taimusu (1st November 1940). 106 Osaka jiji shinpō (1st, 2nd November 1940). 107 This preliminary meet was named “Daijūichikai Meiji Jingū kokumin taiiku taikai shimane ken yosen taikai”; San’in shinbun (14th, 19th, 24th September), Shōyō shinpō (2nd– 4th September). 192 chapter four

Figure 32. ‘Sacred pike relay’ (seihoko keisō) held in Shimane Prefecture. (San’in shinbun, 24th September 1940). themselves both originally based on the Olympic fire relay. According to San’in shinbun, the sacred pike was delivered from Matsue shrine, by way of Tsuwano and 25 other shrines, and finally arrived in the main stadium in which the special ceremony was conducted [Fig. 32]. It is said that around 10,000 young boys participated in the relay as runners.108 Given that Shimane Prefecture also participated in the central meet’s relay from Miyazaki to Unebi, and in the celebratory relay, Shimane inhabitants were involved in various parts of the Meiji Shrine Sport Meet from 19th to 23rd September, on 21st October, on 3rd November, and from 25th November to 6th December.109 Ironically, central government’s idea of nationwide participation in the 11th Meet on 3rd November was weakened and diluted by its own plans; when national and local schedules clashed, the former took precedence, and many locally-held events were pushed to other days to suit local circumstances.

108 San’in shinbun (2nd–4th September). 109 For Miyazaki-Unebi ekiden kyōsō, Shōyō shinpō (23rd October). For hōshuku keisō, San’in shinbun (22nd October), Shōyō shinpō (22nd October) and Shimane asahi shinbun (10th September, 22nd October). imagined discipline 193

4.3.3 Body and Community It is clear that bodies in local communities mobilised (or were forced to mobilise) to participate in the physical activities in the 11th Meiji Shrine Sports Meet for the purpose of achieving one ‘national body’ (kokutai). However, local attitudes towards the meet were not uniform. The dynamics of association and dissociation of the local/central itself merits consideration in order to analyse the time-space construction and modification of Meiji shrine in 1940. In other words, following Bell’s three dynamics of social empowerment, we must explore how the hierarchised opposition of the local and the central was loosely integrated, and how each element “deferred” to another in a continuous chain of meaning. For this analysis I turn to the discourse on hōnō in the meets. The introduction of the idea of hōnō into the meet guidelines was one of the important changes made after 1939, when the Ministry of Health and Welfare began to host the meets. In his opening address at the 11th Meet, the minister at the time, Kaneko, expounded upon the narratives of a “sacred service” (shinji hōshi) and hōnō, proclaiming that “Meiji Shrine National Sports Meet is a sacred service in which the outcome of the everyday discipline of national bodies and spirits is offered in front of Meiji shrine, so as to commemorate Emperor Meiji’s great value.”110 Similarly, one of the athletes, Kinoshita, made a pledge on behalf of all the participants in which he declared: “It is a great honour for us to have been selected and to be able to offer here that which we have daily disciplined.” He was of course referring to his body, and those of the other athletes.111 Irie argues that the meets had developed and reinforced what he called “hōnō-ism” (hōnō shugi) from the time of the 1st Meet, and that it was this “hōnō-ism” that mobilised the public.112 The justification given for this line of argument seems to be that these meets were held as offerings to celebrate Meiji shrine’s anniversary. However, Irie does not explain what hōnō was, and how exactly “hōnō-ism” worked as an ‘ism.’ Such an unclear understanding of hōnō ultimately leads him to the extreme conclusion that the fascist ideology of the Meiji Shrine Sports Meets controlled thousands of Japanese people. My interest is in how the idea of hōnō grew

110 Kōseishō, Daijūichikai hōkokusho, 20. 111 Ibid., 21. 112 Irie K., “Jingū taikai no hōnō shugi” (1st Meet), “Kaikaishiki to hōnōshugi no teijōka” (2nd Meet), “Meiji Jingū taiikukai no hōnō shugi teki saihen” (9th Meet) in Showa Supōtsu. 194 chapter four and worked towards developing the complicated relationships between those making and those receiving offerings. In her recent examination of gift-giving in Japan, Rupp indicates that there is no one way of giving, nor is there one attitude towards it; the action of giving should be examined in its “ritual efficacy,” because the action of giving itself is “an instantiation not so much of a particular person or self, but of the relationship between giver and recipient.”113 It is in this context that I reconsider the physical acts of the meets in their ritual efficacy. Undoubtedly, it is Mauss’ theories that have most inspired scholars in their critical thoughts on gift-giving.114 Mauss studied varieties of “exchange-through-gift” and argued that gift-giving establishes hierarchy: “To give is to show one’s superiority.”115 Godelier suggests it was Mauss who first set out the analytic principle that gift-giving cannot be studied in isolation, but should be seen as part of a set of relations between individuals and groups.116 According to Godelier, Mauss’ analysis of the act of gift-giving shows “a double relationship between donor and recipient”: “Giving reduces the distance and creates distance between two parties.”117 Harvey has questioned Mauss’ hierarchical relationship, problematising it by noting that “there is something lacking in Mauss’ explanation of how objects become active in relation to people.”118 Harvey sees the act of gift-giving as a “value-production process” in and through which a space-time of self-other relationships is socially extended and expanded. He suggests that the act of gift-giving constitutes different levels of relation between each space-time, by mediating between and valuing them.119 Furthermore, Harvey argues this process of valuation should be seen in two realms: “space-time came to be socially constructed both in the realms of discourses [of gift-giving] as well as in the realms of practices [of gift- giving].”120 The process of valuing, according to Harvey, firstly requires gifts as mediators that can “bear the message of one’s fame across space and time”; at the same time, the circulation of information and the construction of discourses constitute a “vital facet not only in the construc-

113 Katherine Rupp, Gift-giving in Japan, 197. 114 Marcel Mauss, The Gift. 115 Ibid., 95. 116 Maurice Godelier, “Some Things you Give, Some Things You Sell, but Some Things You Must Keep for Yourselves,” 19–37. 117 Ibid., 22. 118 Harvey, “The Social Construction of Space and Time,” 221. 119 Ibid., 215–218. 120 Ibid., 220–221. imagined discipline 195 tion of space-time relations but also the constitution of the value” of both people and gifts themselves.121 The importance of Harvey’s suggestion here is that only when the material practice of gift-giving is considered in association with the discursive practice of gift-giving can we “unpack the composite problem of how it is that things become imbued with social relations,” and how these “things” operate with such a force as to appear to govern people.122 What Mauss missed in his theory of gift-giving is, for Harvey, exactly this discursive realm. How might Harvey’s examination serve to elucidate the nature of hōnō at the Meiji Jingū Sports Meets? Discourse on hōnō, such as made by central government in its meet guidelines, disseminates the idea that because one’s body was a gift from the kami, it should be returned to the kami in its most disciplined form, as a divine service. This discursive practice of hōnō facilitated self-justification and so enabled its material practice to operate as an obligation. Bodies in each time-space, each local community, were as if hierarchically integrated into united bodies in the time-space of the central community. It was indeed through the very acts of hōnō (both discursive and material) that the time-space difference between the local and the central itself was stressed in order to be integrated. There is a need to question whether those who offered these local bodies and the actual ‘owners’ of the bodies were one and the same, and whether those to whom the bodies were offered were actually kami or not. In other words, we need to reconsider who gained value through the process of valuation in this act of hōnō. It becomes clear that it is not the relationship between kami and those who participated in the physical activities of the meets that was constructed through the act of hōnō. Rather, the act of hōnō worked as a mechanism through which the giver and the recipient were both developed as subjects to be evaluated: firstly, central government forced local communities to organise certain events; then local communities in turn reinterpreted the meaning of the obligatory events, and appropriated them for their own modes of celebration. The objects of celebration were not so much their concern. To return to Bell, the act of hōnō not only reveals a circular process in which the drawing of distinctions, both between local and central and between giver and recipient, worked hierarchically; but it also reveals the

121 Ibid. 122 Ibid., 222. 196 chapter four process of différence, in which such distinctions defer their references from their signifiers. The act of hōnō did not create a uniform national time-space, but rather a certain time lag and physical distance from the shrine. In the temporal dimension, the symbolic meaning of 3rd November became blurred precisely because the events of the 1940 meet were frequently planned and held in association with the 2600th anniversary activities and the events substituted for the lost Tokyo Olympics. In the spatial dimension, the centripetal force of Meiji shrine and its central sports meet was weakened by the fact that local meets were organised at various sites around the country. The uniformity of celebration that was ‘imagined’ in the outer precinct was realised as events held throughout the nation, in its cities, towns and villages, but these events were differently interpreted and appropriated according to local conditions. A unity of sorts was achieved, but it was a unity in diversity. Chapter Five

The Re-Creation of Meiji Shrine 1945–1958

At 10:00 p.m. on 13th April 1945, air-raid warnings sounded through Tokyo. During the following three and a half hours some 170 B-29s attacked the city, with Meiji shrine receiving a direct hit.1 Around 00:40 a.m. on 14th April, incendiary bombs hit the shrine buildings, including the Hon- den (Main Sanctuary); shrine priests endeavoured to save the sacred objects of worship (mitamashiro) by moving them from the Honden to the Treasure House. Over 1,300 M69-type incendiary bombs were dropped on the inner precinct during this attack and ultimately many other shrine buildings were obliterated [Fig. 33]. The post-war re-creation of the shrine, the theme of this chapter, means the literal re-building of the shrine after the onslaught; Meiji shrine was created for a second time, at the same site. The shrine’s post-war situation was inevitably quite different from that of the Taisho period. The Occupation period, the seven years from Douglas MacArthur’s arrival in Japan on 30th August 1945 to the implementation of the San Francisco Peace Treaty on 28th April 1952, saw the introduction of a large number of reforms and regulations. I begin my discussion on the shrine’s re-creation with an examination of the Allied forces’ wartime policy on the post-war shrine and Shinto, as it ultimately determined the form of the post-war Meiji shrine. The process of shrine re-creation can be divided into three stages. The first stage saw the formulation of Allied wartime policy designed to circumscribe Meiji shrine (approximately 1941–1945). The U.S. Department of State began to prepare basic plans for post-war Japan soon after the outbreak of World War II.2 Various Western intellectuals and journalists as well as Japan experts in the department participated in policy making, and their understanding of Shinto greatly influenced the post-war status

1 General accounts on the damage to the shrine are drawn from Gojūnenshi, ed., Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, 160–171. 2 General accounts on policy making in the U.S. Department of State for post-war Japan are drawn from Iokibe Makoto, Beikoku no Nihon senryō seisaku, 2 vols.; Hugh Borton, American Presurrender Planning for Postwar Japan; Spanning Japan’s Modern Century. Christopher Thorne, Allies of a kind. 198 chapter five

Figure 33. The Honden of Meiji shrine, destroyed by bomb attacks in 1945. (Meiji Shrine Archives). of Meiji shrine. In April 1944, the department’s Committee of Post-War Programs (PWC) prepared a memorandum regarding freedom of worship in Japan. The memorandum, PWC 115, made specific reference to Meiji shrine and became the basis for the Occupation policy of Allied General Headquarters (GHQ) regarding the shrine and Shinto. The second stage in the process of re-creation (1945–1952) aimed to transform and reposition the identity of Meiji shrine. Here the interrelation between GHQ and those Japanese concerned with Shinto’s future was crucial.3 Negotiations between these groups resulted in a number of new measures, including GHQ’s Shinto Directive (15th December 1945), the Religious Corporations Ordinance (2nd February 1946), and the creation of the Association of Shinto Shrines (Jinja honchō) (3rd February 1946). Furthermore, it was through these negotiations that the post-war

3 Sources for this stage are Jinja honchō, ed., Jinja honchō jūnenshi; Jinja shinpō, ed., Shintō shirei to sengo no Shintō, 3rd ed., rev.; Jinja shinpō, Seisaku kenkyūshitsu, ed., Kindai jinja shintōshi, 7th ed., rev. and enl.; Okada Yoneo, ed., Jingiin shūsen shimatsu; Shinshūren chōsashitsu, ed., Sengo shūkyō kaisō roku; GHQ/SCAP, “Shinto: Staff Study.” the re-creation of meiji shrine 199 status of Meiji shrine as a religious corporation was ultimately determined on 15th May 1946.4 The shrine reshaped its spatial identity too. Dealing with shrine land was a national problem, and led to the government passing legislation on 12th April 1947 to address the use of state-owned land by religious institutions. In the case of Meiji shrine the use of the outer precinct caused public controversy. At issue was access to and control of the land and facilities; this turned on whether the outer precinct had been, was and should be part of a religious institution or not. In September 1952, government authorities ultimately determined that the outer precinct was indeed owned by Meiji shrine.5 The third stage of re-creation (1952–1958) was the physical rebuilding of the shrine. The shrine’s reconstruction was initiated when the shrine office and the Meiji Shrine Worshippers’ Association (Meiji jingū sūkeikai) organised a preliminary panel for shrine re-creation on 3rd November 1952. The Support Committee for Meiji Shrine Reconstruction (Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai) was then established on 27th July the following year, and finally the Meiji Shrine Reconstruction Bureau (Meiji jingū zōei iinkai) was created on 1st March 1955. Rebuilding took 13 years from the destruction of 1945; the completion of the building work was then marked by celebrations from 31st October to 4th November 1958.6 One purpose of this chapter is to make a comparison between the Taisho creation and the post-war re-creation of Meiji shrine through the use of spatial analysis. Chapter 1 illuminated the multilayered understanding of the shrine: various intellectual discourses provided the conceptual definitions of the shrine space; engineers and constructors defined the meaning of the shrine through physical construction; and, furthermore, ordinary people experienced and understood the space in their own mode through their performative use of the space. Following the threefold analysis of the spatial creation, in this chapter I discuss firstly how individuals at home

4 Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Gojūnenshi, 204–208. 5 Sources cited for the ownership problem of the shrine are, for example, Meiji shrine archival sources such as Keidaichi kankei shorui, 1946–1953; Keidaichi jōyo sankō shiryō, 1950–51; Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken, 1952. Ōkurashō, Kanzaikyoku, ed., Shaji keidaichi shobunshi. GHQ/SCAP, “Meiji Shrine Athletic Meets.” 6 Sources for this stage are Meiji shrine archival sources such as Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai, Gofukkō junbi iinkai • fukkō hōsankai sōritsu sōkai kankei shorui, May 1952–July 1953; idem., Meiji jingū fukkō jigyō kansei hōkokusai • Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai kaisanshiki kankei shorui, September 1960; Meiji jingū zōei iinkai, Zōei iinkai kiroku, 1955–1961; Meiji jingū, Honden senzasai hōshuku gyōji kankei tsuzuri, keigai no bu, vol. 3, November 1958; idem., Meiji jingū fukkō zōei kōji no gaiyō, 1961. 200 chapter five and abroad came to understand Meiji shrine, and how their conceptions were articulated into the physical space of the post-war shrine. I then consider the interaction of space formation (Meiji shrine) and time formation on 3rd November. Finally, my examination addresses how the use of shrine areas by ordinary people actually influenced its spatial creation. It is through the space-place-space dynamics that the history of Meiji shrine has always been activated.

5.1 The Dawn of the Post-War

Many intellectual discourses on post-war Shinto serve to problematise the Shinto Directive’s impact on post-war shrines. My investigation points to the value of studying Allied wartime policy in order, firstly, to understand how the directive derived from the Allied forces’ understanding of Shinto and, secondly and more importantly, to enable an analysis of Meiji shrine in its post-war manifestation. How was the conceptual understanding of the post-war Meiji shrine shaped not only by the Japanese but importantly, too, by people outside Japan? This re-creation of the post-war shrine had its origins in wartime Japan.

5.1.1 The Ideological Basis of Occupation Shinto Policy GHQ delivered the Shinto Directive, officially entitled “Abolition of govern mental sponsorship, support, perpetuation, control, and dissemination of state Shinto (kokka Shinto, jinja Shinto)” to the Japanese government on 15th December 1945.7 Its purposes were “to prevent a recurrence of the per- version of Shinto theory and beliefs into militaristic and ultra-nationalistic propaganda,” and “to separate religion from the state, to prevent misuse of religion for political ends.”8 In the directive, GHQ defined State Shinto as a branch of Shinto, and noted that the Japanese government had differentiated State Shinto from Sect Shinto classifying it as a “non-religious cult commonly known as State Shinto, National Shinto, or Shrine Shinto.”

Intellectual Discourses on Post-War Shinto and the Shinto Directive A particular feature of the Shinto authorities’ discourses on the directive was their charge that the Occupation vacillated, treating State Shinto by

7 Gaimushō, Nihon senryō jūyō monjo, vol. 2, 175–8. 8 Ibid. the re-creation of meiji shrine 201 turns as religious and non-religious.9 An influential Shinto activist, Ashizu Uzuhiko, has pointed out contradictions in the statements of occupiers such as William K. Bunce, chief of the Religions and Cultural Resources Division, Civil Information and Education Section (CIE).10 According to Ashizu, Bunce claimed that the directive did not interfere with religion in occupied Japan, because the Japanese government had asserted that Shrine Shinto was not a religion. Ashizu and others argued the CIE was employing double standards, by recognizing Shinto as a religion only when it came to freedom of worship.11 Ōhara Yasuo, among numerous contemporary Shinto scholars, agrees with Ashizu, problematising the opinions of Bunce and William P. Woo- dard as well.12 The most recent edition of Shinto shirei to sengo no Shinto (The Shinto Directive and Post-War Shinto), edited by the Shinto opinion paper Jinja shinpō, criticises the directive for attempting to address the religion of the shrine, but failing to appreciate its religiosity.13 Despite this failure, the definition of State Shinto in the Directive was duly imposed on Japan and used as justification for the Japanese Constitution’s extremely strict separation of state and religion.14 This is why Ōhara and others view the directive as the root of all evil.15 In contrast, Koyasu in a recent publication criticises the line taken by some of these same Shinto academics as “revisionist.”16 Koyasu’s critique of revisionists was of this order: that they were brandishing their persecu- tion complexes in insisting Shinto was misunderstood in the Occupation- imposed constitution; that their purpose all along was to seek constitutional revision; and that their goal was to rescue Shrine Shinto from its separation from the state, which in their view was an unfortunate, illegitimate separation.17

9 Ashizu Uzuhiko, Jinja to shūkyō ni tsuite. Ōhara Yasuo, Shintō shirei no kenkyū. 10 Jinja shinpō, ed., Sengo no Shintō, 3rd ed., rev., 184–5. 11 Ibid., 179–81. 12 E.g., Ōhara Y., Shintō shirei; Nitta H., Kindai seikyō kankei no kisoteki kenkyū. William P. Woodard, The Allied Occupation of Japan, 1945–1952, and Japanese Religions. 13 Jinja shinpō, ed., Sengo no Shintō, 3rd ed., rev. 14 Jinja shinpō, ed., “Shintō shirei no nokoshita mondaiten,” in Sengo no Shintō, 3rd ed., rev., 169–232. 15 Ōhara Y., “Shintō shirei to sengo no seikyō mondai,” 10–102. 16 Koyasu Nobukuni, Kokka to saishi. 17 Ibid., 129. For counter arguments to Koyasu, see Sakamoto K.,ed., Kokka Shintō saikō; Kinsei • kindai Shintō ronkō; Nitta H., “Koyasu Nobukuni shi ni okeru ‘jiko hitei’ to ‘inpei’ no katari ni tsuite,” 2–34. 202 chapter five

In my view, the debate regarding the post-war status of Shinto is stag- nant. Both Shinto scholars and those who criticise them tend to focus only on GHQ and its directive’s treatment of Shinto. Although some research on the U.S. Department of State’s policy from 1944 regarding Shinto has been carried out, no examination has been made of how the department shaped its own views of Shinto.18 Discussions on the relationship between post-war Shinto and the directive need to be rooted in a detailed study of the formation of the Allied forces’ understanding of, and policy towards, Shinto.

Wartime and Post-War Shinto Policy An examination of the background to the Shinto Directive is thus imper- ative for an understanding of Meiji shrine’s post-war manifestation. Firstly, the diversity of basic plans for Shinto and the organisations which prepared them need consideration. In February 1941 the U.S. Department of State organised a Division of Special Research, and by August 1942 a territorial subcommittee had been established for Far Eastern affairs. Finally, in January 1944, the department created the Committee on Post- War Programs (PWC).19 The Office of Strategic Studies (OSS) and the Office of War Information (OWI), both organised in June 1942, were also important as propaganda agencies, crucial in shaping and disseminat- ing understandings of Shinto.20 A study of how propaganda policy and PWC strategy were interrelated promises to provide a new perspective on the debate surrounding the Occupation’s treatment of Meiji shrine and of Shinto. In addition, the ways in which Japan experts contributed to the understanding of Shinto requires scrutiny; the degree and style of collaboration amongst these ‘Japan hands,’ whether within the department and other organisations or not, was crucial to the shaping and reshaping of post- war Shinto policy. The key experts directly or indirectly contributing to State Department policy on Japan were George H. Blakeslee and Hugh

18 Takahashi Shirō, “Shintō shirei no seiritsu katei ni kansuru ichi kōsatsu,” 52–77; Nakano Tsuyoshi, “Amerika no tainichi shūkyō seisaku no keisei,” 27–72. 19 On the PWC, Iokibe M., Beikoku no Nihon senryō seisaku, 2 vols.; Borton, American Presurrender Planning; idem, Spanning Japan; Thorne, Allies of a kind. 20 John Dower, War Without Mercy. Allan M. Winkler, The politics of Propaganda. Katō Tetsurō, Shōchō tennōsei no kigen: Amerika no shinrisen “Nihon keikaku.” Although Dower and others have investigated the wartime politics of propaganda, it is only recently that a wide range of official documents on this matter have been opened to the public. the re-creation of meiji shrine 203

Borton, both leading planners in the Inter-Divisional Area Committee on the Far East; Joseph Grew, American ambassador to Japan for ten years, and a supporter of Blakeslee and Borton before becoming director of Far Eastern Affairs in the Department of State in May 1944 (he became Under Secretary in November 1944); and finally Sir George Sansom, a scholar of Japanese studies working in the British Embassy in Japan who had a close relationship with both Grew and Japan experts in the department, and assisted their planning.21 Borton and Blakeslee sought out San- som’s assistance in 1943 with the formulation of a draft of basic principles to be applied to Japan after its surrender.22 Sansom began working in the British Embassy in Washington in 1943 in order to glean information on U.S. planning and put forward the British point of view. He played a decisive role in the process of policy formation, and often met Bolton and Grew and offered suggestions, some of which were incorporated into the final version of the Potsdam Declaration in May 1945.23 The many experts on Japan in Western academia and journalism who worked either as Japanese policy planners in the PWC or advised these same planners include anthropologists and journalists such as Geoffrey Gorer, John F. Embree and Hugh Byas.24 Working at the OWI, Gorer authored Japanese Character Structure (March 1942), which became the bible for the OWI’s white propaganda towards Japan. Japanese studies by Embree, such as Suyemura (1939) were important OSS and OWI sources, and Embree’s The Japanese, was widely used by the U.S. Army and Navy as a textbook.25 Byas, correspondent for the New York Times and London Times for 28 years, influenced public opinion towards Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbor with both his second work, Government by Assassination, and his best-selling book, The Japanese Enemy (both 1942).

21 Biographical accounts on the key ‘Japan hands’ are drawn from, for example, Marlene J. Mayo, “American Wartime Planning for Occupied Japan,” 3–51; Borton, Spanning; Joseph Clark Grew, Turbulent Era; Waldo H. Heinrichs, Jr., American Ambassador; Hosoya Chihiro, “George Sansom,” 113–9. 22 Hosoya C., Nihon gaikō no zahyō, 150. 23 George B. Sansom, “Policy Towards Japan,” Memorandum by Sansom, 20 June 1945. For detailed discussion on this issue, see Hosoya C., “George Sansom,” 113–9; Iokibe M., Beikoku, vol. 2, 200–203. 24 Geoffrey Gorer, “Themes in Japanese Culture”; “The Special Case of Japan.” John F. Embree, The Japanese; The Japanese Nation. Hugh Byas, The Japanese Enemy; Government by Assassination. See also Katō T., “Nihon keikaku,” 217–20. 25 John F. Embree, Suye Mura; The Japanese; “Military Occupation of Japan.” 204 chapter five

The OSS reference list featuring his books reflects that the authorities also studied Byas’ arguments on Shinto and the Japanese emperor.26 Holtom is frequently acknowledged to have been influenced by the Shinto studies of his Japanese supervisor, Katō Genchi; Holtom’s works on Shinto greatly influenced the Shinto Directive.27 Abe has suggested that Occupation policy toward Shinto outlined in the directive was based on Basil Hall Chamberlain’s 1912 work, The Invention of a New Religion.28 Although I concur with these conclusions on the general development of the Western view of Shinto, my interest is rather in disentangling the process, the better to understand how this view developed from that of Chamberlain in 1912 to that of the Occupation in the 1940s.

Pre-War Western Knowledge of Shinto New interpretations of Shinto as a religion of loyalty and national morality were developed by Katō Genchi, Inoue Tetsujirō and other Japanese scholars to improve international understanding of Shinto.29 These interpretations became targets for Western thinkers, who argued Shinto was an invented religion, and led at least in part to the critical understandings of Shinto produced by Chamberlain, Holtom and other Western experts. Embree’s books, which were used as background information by the U.S. government, listed the works of Katō and Holtom as sources for information on modern religion in Japan. The various Shinto-centred plans and arguments of the occupying powers can thus be situated within this process of the ever-evolving reinvention of Shinto. Byas too, in his discussions of Shinto, took Chamberlain and Katō as authorities on Japanese religion.30 However, Byas was not an unquestion- ing follower. He evaluated Chamberlain and Katō’s arguments, pointing out their weaknesses; Chamberlain’s explanation, for example, was “too rational.” Nevertheless, Byas held Katō to be the greatest authority on Japanese religion. Byas went on to observe critically that the Japa- nese emperor was a figurehead and new Shinto was a fake religion. In his

26 Hugh Byas, The Japanese Enemy; Assassination. See also Katō T., “Nihon keikaku,” 217–20. 27 Ōhara Y., “Seikyō mondai,” 15–6. Nitta H., “Arahito gami” “kokka Shintō” to iu gensō, 123–35. Maeda Takakazu, “Shintō (‘Shintō shirei’) no tantōsha kenkyū,” 322–74 28 Chamberlain, The Invention of a New Religion. Abe Yoshiya, “Hirugaette Heisei jidai no shūkyō no kadai o tou,” 42–51. 29 For a discussion of Katō Genchi et al., see chapter 1. 30 Embree, The Japanese, 41–2; The Japanese Nation, 289–294. Byas, Government, 307–310. the re-creation of meiji shrine 205 examination of the “newer forms” of Shinto, unseen by Katō, Byas opined that Shinto was “a new paganism whose inherent barbarism plunged Asia into bloody wars.”31 The point of Byas’ observation was to suggest that the U.S. victory should kick-start the process of the Japanese people liberating themselves from a figurehead emperor and a fake form of Shinto. The interpretations of Shinto by Japanese scholars such as Katō were not blindly followed by Holtom either. It is therefore too simplistic to conclude that Holtom adhered to the same concept of State Shinto as his teacher, Katō. In an earlier work, The Political Philosophy of Modern Shinto (1922), Holtom delineated the characteristics of the fundamental philosophical explanations of Shinto by contemporary Japanese scholars, and categorised them into two general classes: one was the national-ethical interpretation of Shinto, and the other was the national-religious interpretation of Shinto.32 Thinkers on national morality, including Inoue Tetsujirō and Haga Yaichi, were identified as belonging to the former group, while Katō belonged to the latter. Holtom differentiated his position from both the groups, arguing that State Shinto was a “thorough-going religion,” and that “thanks to a systematic, governmental supervision and reinterpretation, [State Shinto] now appears as a unified system of belief and practice relative to sacred things.” His assertion of Shinto as a state religion was nothing but an adaptation of Durkheim’s famous definition of religion.33 Because he believed that Shinto was a religion in a Durkheimian sense, Hol- tom disagreed with interfering with freedom of religion through restrict- ing Shinto, insisting instead on controlling the Japanese education system, which had served to reinforce Shinto doctrine and emperor worship.34 If we review the trajectory of Shinto ever since construction on Meiji shrine started, it emerges as an unceasing generative process through which Shinto was expediently narrated, disseminated and appropriated by and for those who interpreted Shinto. The next part of this section goes on to show how the survival of Meiji shrine in post-war Japan depended on the new theories of Shinto developed by these foreign Japan specialists.

31 Ibid., 311–2. 32 Holtom, The Political Philosophy of Modern Shinto, 69. As for Holtom’s review on Katō’s work, see also Holtom, “Dr. Genchi Katō’s Monumental Work on Shinto,”210–203. 33 Holtom, Modern Japan and Shinto Nationalism, 307. 34 When preparing the Shinto Directive, CIE staff asked Holtom for his recommendations on how to treat Shinto. Holtom pointed to the importance of controlling the education system. See “Holtom’s View on Shinto and the Schools,” 22nd September 1945. GHQ/SCAP Records. 206 chapter five

5.1.2 Wartime Evolution in Shinto Policy During the period 1942 to 1944, the U.S. Department of State prepared its basic plan regarding the post-war Meiji shrine and Shinto. My discussion starts with an analysis of the treatment of Shinto in a series of U.S. Propa- ganda plans in 1942–1943, then focuses on a speech made by Grew in 1943, in which he commented publicly on Shinto’s post-war status. The Allied strategy for Shinto was developed in association with that for the Japanese monarchy; neither can be examined separately. I call attention to Grew’s identification of Shinto as an “asset,” because this term was also used by many other Western experts in their discussions on post-war policy regarding Shinto and the Japanese monarchy. Occupation policy makers, whether sympathetic or hostile, were well aware of the strategic utility of Shinto and the emperor for controlling both wartime and post-war Japan.

Shinto and Propaganda: 1942–1943 Katō Tetsurō has recently revealed the process through which Anglo- American propaganda strategy, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, created a framework for dealing with Japan.35 Building on this research, Katō has discovered even earlier sources: a series of drafts of basic propaganda plans for Japan. The first draft was prepared by the Office of the Coordina- tor of Information (a precursor of the OSS and OWI) on 15th April 1942.36 After Military Intelligence Service revisions on 13th and 23rd May, it was finalised as a “Japan plan” on 3rd June.37 According to Katō, these plans are the earliest official declarations discovered that deploy the idea of the emperor as a “symbol.”38 What is interesting here is that these drafts discussed the treatment of Shinto together with that of the emperor, and proposed the strategic use of both to control the Japanese people.

35 Katō T., “Nihon keikaku.” 36 Ibid., 137–57. 37 U.S. War Department, Military Intelligence Service, Psychological Warfare Branch, “Basis for a Detailed Plan for Propaganda into the Japanese Empire,” 13th May 1942. “Japan Plan (Final Draft),” 3rd June 1942. 38 Katō T., “Nihon keikaku.” Nakamura proposes that the first time the Allied forces officially declared that the Japanese could keep the emperor as a “symbol” was in a State Department memorandum of December 1942. Fujitani has since found an even earlier memorandum by Reischauer on policy towards Japan, dated 14th September 1942, in which Reischauer suggested keeping the emperor “available as a valuable ally or puppet in the post-war ideological battle.” See Nakamura Masanori, Shōchō tennō sei e no michi; Fujitani Takashi, “The Reischauer Memo,” 379–402. the re-creation of meiji shrine 207

The drafts hinted at the importance of admiring the virtues of ancient Shinto as a Japanese tradition in order to highlight the recent misuse of Shinto by the Japanese military. U.S. officials clearly saw advantages in sustaining the emperor in order to serve U.S. national interests. For example, the purpose of using the emperor as “a peace symbol” was to make Japanese people suspect Japanese military authorities of having used him for belligerent purposes. The 13th May draft, in particular, professed its aim as being “to undermine belief in practices connected with State Shinto (emperor worship), while appealing to the Throne (but not the name Hirohito) as a symbol to weaken the Japanese war effort.” Significantly, the 13th May draft was suspended following suggestions emanating from the Department of State, Sansom in the British Embassy, and elsewhere. Critical amendments appeared in the subsequent revision, advising careful treatment of Shinto and the emperor in Allied war propaganda. “Special and cautionary suggestions,” such as “Shintoism, religious questions, even of emperor worship, are to be avoided altogether for the present,” were added to this final draft.39

Grew’s Chicago Address, December 1943 Grew made a speech in Chicago on 29th December 1943, which was important in that it aroused public debate.40 It represented the general consensus of opinion on Shinto and the emperor among Japan experts at the time, and therefore public objections to the address affected the PWC’s official decisions on post-surrender policy towards Shinto.41 Grew’s explanation of Shinto here is very close to that asserted in OSS propaganda plans. Grew categorises Shinto as having two forms, one being a Japanese indigenous religion in the form of primitive animism, and the other being a cult. According to Grew, it was the latter form of Shinto that the military leaders of Japan had long used to “inculcate in the Japanese a blind following of their doctrines as allegedly representing the will of the emperor.” However, Grew disagreed with those believing that Shinto was to blame

39 U.S. War Department, Military Intelligence Service, Psychological Warfare Branch, “Basis for a Detailed Plan for Propaganda into the Japanese Empire,” “Japan Plan (Final Draft).” 40 Joseph Clark Grew, address at the Annual Banquet Celebrating the 90th Anniversary of the Illinois Education Association, Chicago, Illinois, at 8:00 p.m., 29th December 1943. 41 For the importance and impact of Grew’s address, see Heinrichs, Ambassador, 365–6; Iokibe M., Beikoku, vol. 2, 37. 208 chapter five for all that had gone wrong in Japan, and instead argued that “Shintoism can become an asset, not a liability,” at least once Japan was under the aegis of a peace-keeping ruler and not controlled by the military. It was Grew’s provocative portrayal of Shinto as an asset rather than a liability that drew public attention, and he returned to this theme time after time.42 In order to reinforce his assertions, he noted Byas’ and San- som’s theories on Shinto, mentioning that on most Far East issues he and they saw eye to eye. Twice quoting Byas’ declaration in Government by Assassination that “the Japanese people must be their own liberators from a faked religion,” Grew insisted the task was not to demolish Shinto but to guide the Japanese towards its correct use.43 For support, Grew quoted a paper by Sansom delivered to the Eighth Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations in Canada in December 1942. I have seen draft plans for the post-war settlement in the Pacific which pos- tulate the deposition of the emperor, the revision of the constitution, and the abolition of what is called State Shinto. But these are features of Japa- nese life which have been determined by past history, and planning of the future must take the past into account.44

Shinto as an ‘Asset’ Grew’s view of Shinto is of note because of his use of the pregnant and ambiguous term, ‘asset.’ This term was used by many other Western experts in their discussions on post-war policy regarding Japan. Furthermore, the same experts described the emperor as an ‘asset’ (or potential asset) when discussing his utilisation in post-war Japan. For Western experts, the term was sufficiently vague to leave unanswered the question of whether Shinto was seen as an asset for the Japanese people or for the occupying forces. In the same way that U.S. policy successfully established the status of the emperor as a symbol of peace and of national unity, the idea of Shinto as an ‘asset’ was effectively employed by the policy planners in shaping Shinto’s post-war functions. Tracing the use of this term serves as a key to understanding how Japan experts simultaneously built up their knowledge of Shinto and the Japanese monarchy.

42 Grew, Chicago address. 43 Byas, Government, 361–2. 44 Sansom, “Postwar Relations with Japan,” Eighth Conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations, Mont Tremblant, Quebec, Canada December 1942, 11. It seems that one of the draft plans for the post-war settlement which Sansom mentioned in the 1942 paper was the propaganda plan made in May 1942. the re-creation of meiji shrine 209

In his 1938 work The National Faith of Shinto, Holtom used the term ‘asset’ in analysing Shinto’s contribution to the cultural wealth of Japan.45 For Holtom, Shinto’s strengths were that it had engendered nationalistic solidarity in the Japanese and promoted a sense of self-confidence and worth.46 Holtom’s opinion on post-war treatment of Shinto is more apparent in a later article, “Shinto in the post-war world,” published in the Far Eastern Survey in February 1945.47 In this article, ‘asset’ alludes to the wisdom of preserving the emperor’s role in the post-war period. The Occu- pation should begin with “the people where they were”; it should “make room for the expression of those national assets” the people lay claim to and whose violation by the Allied forces would make Japan “a smoulder- ing volcano of resentment.”48 Holtom’s intention was to assure the Allied forces they could count on the Japanese people to carry out their own renovations, both of shrines and ideologies, once Japanese militarism was defeated and state support for Shinto removed. In contrast to Holtom’s view of Shinto and the emperor as assets of the Japanese people themselves, Gorer propounded the merits of utilis- ing the emperor to achieve the goals of the United Nations more quickly and efficiently than through any other means: “At present the symbolic power of the emperor is the chief device for promoting aggression; wisely used, on the other hand, it can be the greatest single asset in the hands of the United Nations.”49 Gorer highlighted ‘losing face’ as a major motiva- tor of Japanese behaviour, and warned the occupying powers to avoid the delicate issues of the emperor and Shinto, as such interventions risked enraging the Japanese. Gorer’s warning was highly regarded by U.S. officials, and the Office of the Coordinator of Information incorporated his suggestions into their 1942 plans for Japan.50 The above, brief analysis of the term ‘asset’, is an outline of the views of Grew, Holtom and other Japan experts, all of whom were in favour of retaining Shinto and the Japanese monarchy. Although he did not employ the term ‘asset,’ Borton too believed such assets could be valuable in post- war Japan in helping to establish a stable and moderate government.51 Shinto and the emperor were often presented as both symbols and assets

45 D. C. Holtom, The National Faith of Shinto, 314. 46 Ibid., 316. 47 Holtom, “Shinto in the Postwar World,” 29–33. 48 Ibid., 30. 49 Gorer, “Special Case,” 576. 50 Gorer, “Themes,” 114–5; Katō T., “Nihon keikaku,” 157. 51 Mayo, “The Role of the Experts,” 20. 210 chapter five by the authorities in order to prescribe their post-war statuses, enabling the occupying powers to justify accommodating the emperor and Shinto for their own use in the same way that the Japanese military powers had used them as a means to a different set of ends.

5.1.3 The Survival of Meiji Shrine The final part of this section discusses a document detailing the possibilities of post-war Occupation policy regarding Japanese religion. Prepared by the Committee on Post-War Programs (PWC) on 14th April 1944, this was entitled “PWC 115, Japan: Freedom of Worship.”52 The importance of PWC 115 is that it became the basis for GHQ’s Occupation policy, and so this part clarifies how the PWC defined Meiji shrine and proposed a future for it.53 Interestingly, although the leading planners in the PWC were ‘Japan hands’ such as Borton who favoured retaining all shrines, they left open the option of abolishing Meiji shrine. Why did the Japan hand planners produce such an ambiguous recommendation for the post-war Meiji shrine?

PWC 115 On 18th February 1944, John H. Hilldring, chief of the Civil Affairs Division, and Harry L. Pence, chief of the Occupied Area Section, presented a set of 47 outstanding problems on post-war Far East policy to the Department of State.54 Memorandum PWC 115 was a response to one of these concerns, namely “whether or not the occupying forces should permit freedom of worship in Japan, in view of the difficulty of differentiating Shintoism, as a religion, from extreme Nationalism.” The memorandum was divided into two parts, “Discussion” and “Recom- mendations.” “Discussion” began with a confirmation of principle, declaring that “the United Nations are committed to the principle of freedom of religious worship,” and went on to examine the meaning of Shinto. The conclusion it drew was that Shinto had two aspects, the first being the “original,” “ancient” Shinto which was “harmless, primitive animism” and was “in itself not injurious” to American interests. The second aspect was, however, National Shinto, which was “a nationalistic emperor worshipping cult” of “extreme militant nationalism.” It had been superimposed on “the

52 “Japan: Freedom of Worship,” PWC-115, CAC-117. 53 Takahashi S., “Shintō shirei no seiritsu katei,”52–77; Nakano T., “Amerika no tainichi shūkyō seisaku no keisei,” 27–72. See also Abe Y., “GHQ no shūkyō seisaku, no. 1.” 54 Iokibe M., Beikoku, vol. 2., 13. the re-creation of meiji shrine 211 harmless original Shinto,” and represented a “distinct source of danger to the peace.” Based on this understanding of Shinto, the U.S. State Department categorised the 100,000 existing Shinto shrines into the three groups outlined below.

(a) the largest group of shrines, these are of ancient origin and dedicated to local tutelary deities. They host local festivities and can be con- strued as strictly religious. (b) these are ancient religious shrines which have an over-layer of nationalistic symbolism, such as the Grand shrine at Ise, dedicated to the Sun Goddess. (c) this group includes more recent shrines dedicated to national heroes, such as Yasukuni, Meiji, and Togo. They are not places of religious worship as we understand the term, but are nationalistic shrines dedicated to the veneration of military heroes and to the fostering of a militant national spirit.

“Ancient religious” Shinto was thus composed of groups (a) and (b). Meiji shrine however was identified as a nationalistic group (c) shrine. The last part of the “Discussion” section of PWC 115 went on to argue that Meiji shrine and other group (c) shrines “could be closed without any violation of the principle of freedom of religious worship” on the grounds that the Japanese government itself had asserted that “National Shinto is not a religion.” The memorandum at the same time implied that military defeat and the demobilisation of the Army could weaken the National Shinto cult just as effectively as the forcible closing of such shrines. Finally, the PWC’s analysis of Shinto provided several “Recom mendations,” in which it was suggested that not only group (a) and (b) shrines but also “the strictly nationalist shrines” of group (c) should be permitted to remain open for individual worship, except in instances where ceremonies or gatherings appeared to be contrary to public order and security. The existence of the PWC plan suggests that there was some debate during the wartime period that Meiji shrine, as a nationalist shrine, should be closed by the occupying forces.

The Shinto Policy Compromise Attention must be paid to the complexity and ambiguity of PWC 115’s structure. The “Discussion” section highlights the distinctiveness of the nationalistic shrines, differentiating them from ancient shrines, and suggests the 212 chapter five possibility of closing the former. However, the “Recommendations” section proposes that even these strongly nationalistic shrines should remain open. This internal contradiction in PWC 115 was itself suggestive of the compromise among policy makers, of concessions made to the hard liners by the ‘Japan hands.’ Two points support my observation of compromise in PWC 115. Firstly, it was the idea of Shinto as an ‘asset’ that ultimately forced the ‘Japan hands’ to compromise. Grew’s Chicago address, and the counter-arguments to it, persuaded the leading planners of PWC 115, such as Borton, to yield to their opponents in certain areas in order to gain final approval for their plans from the PWC. As Waldo Heinrichs, the author of Grew’s biography, has suggested, Grew’s speech in Chicago accelerated and developed the debate among those scholars, writers, and policy-makers who were concerned with the post-war treatment of Shinto and the emperor.55 Bisson advocated that State Shinto be banned as a constituent, or perhaps the constituent, of Japanese aggression, and his opinions were considered at a meeting attended by members of the National Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations.56 Furthermore, Borton and other Japan hands were embarrassed by an editorial in the New York Times, usually a supporter of Grew, criticising his speech and his theme of Shinto as an ‘asset.’57 Grew’s usage of the term became a major point of contention for his critics; his response to their criticism involved further development of the theme, inflaming the debate. The developing situation clearly suited ‘hard-liner’ members of the State Department, the so-called ‘China hands’ such as Stanley K. Hornbeck and J.C. Vincent, who demanded that the occupying powers take the initiative in abolishing Shinto and the emperor because the Japanese would not do so themselves.58 For Borton and Blakeslee, PWC 115 was the best measure available at the time to sidestep the hard liners’ intransigence and avoid the complete destruction of Shinto institutions. The future of nationalist shrines, including Meiji shrine, which according to the PWC had fostered ‘extreme militant nationalism,’ was left ambiguous. The second point to be made to support my observation of compromise in PWC 115 is that the PWC ‘Japan hands’ managing shrine policy also dealt with issues relating to the emperor, and their recommendations in a

55 Heinrichs, Ambassador, 365–6. 56 Thomas A. Bisson, “The Price of Peace for Japan,” 20. 57 “Policy Toward Japan,” New York Times (1st January 1944). 58 Nakano T., “Amerika no seisaku,” 45. the re-creation of meiji shrine 213 document dealing with his post-surrender status have a similarly ambiguous structure. Iokibe and others have analysed this document, PWC116, and concluded that it represented a compromise between the planners and the hardliners.59 The ‘Japan hands’ aimed to insert two points into the document; firstly, that they disagreed with the Occupation abolishing the imperial institution and, secondly, discussion of Japanese military control of the emperor should be distinguished from the debate on the monarchy’s fundamental nature. The Japan hands, however, had to make allowances, because their planned treatment of the emperor was so strongly resisted by the hardliners; straightforward recommendations on the matter were thus impossible. Instead, PWC 116 proposed three possible solutions to the ‘problem’ of the post-war emperor. These were the total abolition of the imperial system, its partial abolition, and its maintenance.60 The Japan hands could merely indicate their preference for the second solution. Their aim at the time was at the very least to retain the emperor, irrespective of whatever reforms were made to the imperial institution. The parallels between documents PWC 115 and PWC 116 are close. The three groups of Shinto shrines categorised by PWC 115 correlated to a considerable degree to the three possible statuses of the post-war emperor as delineated in PWC 116. Just as the ‘Japan hands’ hoped to ensure the continuation of the imperial institution but were prepared to allow some changes to be made to the system, so did they hope for the continued existence of all Shinto shrines while leaving open the option of changing the status of nationalistic shrines. PWC 115’s basic argument for retaining all Shinto shrines was effective even after the secretary of state, Edward Stettinius, was replaced by the hardliner James F. Byrnes, who influenced all subsequent post-surrender Japan policy.61 Thus did the hands’ proposals find their way into the Shinto Directive. Just as the treatment of Meiji shrine in PWC 115 was ambiguous, however, its treatment during negotiations between the CIE and the Japanese side was similarly vague. These negotiations, and the shrine’s ambiguous status, are the subject of the following section.

59 Iokibe M., Beikoku, vol. 2, 50. For PWC116, see Yamagiwa Akira, Nakamura M., eds., Shiryō Nihon senyrō, vol. 1, Tennōsei. 60 Iokibe M., Beikoku, vol. 2, 42. 61 Takemae Eiji, The Allied Occupation of Japan, 217. 214 chapter five

5.2 Meiji Shrine during the Occupation

Between the Japanese acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration and GHQ’s announcement of the Shinto Directive, there were a number of skirmishes between CIE staff and those Japanese concerned with the future of Shinto. These debates contributed to the position eventually occupied by Meiji shrine and post-war Shinto. Although CIE staff designated State Shinto as a religion, it was by no means the case that all Japanese concerned with Shinto believed shrines should be classed as religious.62 Among Japa- nese involved in negotiations with the CIE on Shinto matters, the familiar problem of whether or not to consider Shinto a religion, and Meiji shrine a religious institution, surfaced again. The first part of this section investigates this process of negotiation. The second and third parts then go on to explore how the problem materialised with respect to Meiji shrine.

5.2.1 Options for the Future Leading groups concerned with the future of Shinto joined the negotiation table during the CIE’s drafting of the directive, both officially and unofficially. These groups were the Shrine Board (Jingiin) of the Home Ministry, the Steering Committee (Shūsen renraku jimukyoku) within the Foreign Ministry, and three private shrine-related institutions, the Insti- tute for the Study of Imperial Writings (Kōten kōkyūjo), the Association of Shrine Priests (Dainihon jingikai) and the Ise Worshippers’ Association (Jingū hōsankai). A basic policy for shrines was prepared by the Shrine Board and approved in a cabinet council on 20th November.63 Based on this policy, the Steering Committee formulated various recommendations relating to Shinto and Shinto shrines (27th November) as a basis for direct negotiations with the CIE.64 Finally, the outcome of these talks was integrated into the Rules and Regulations for the Association of Shinto Shrines (23rd January 1946), the establishment of which engaged the three shrine-related institutions. The provisions and actions of the Shrine Board, in which members of the former Shrine Bureau in the Home Ministry such as Mizuno Rentarō played a key role, and the government in general on Shinto matters always

62 GHQ/SCAP, CIE,“Shinto: Staff Study,” 3rd December 1945. 63 Jingiin, “Jinja seido sasshin yōkō,” 20th November 1945, 50–51. 64 Jingiin and Gaimushō, Shūsen renraku jimukyoku, “Measures Concerning Shintoism and Shinto Shrines,” 28th November 1945, 60. the re-creation of meiji shrine 215 came too late to have much effect; it was the individual members of the three shrine-related organisations, along with some outsiders, that directed the government behind closed doors, and decided the situation affecting Meiji shrine and Shinto.65 During the four months between the Japanese acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration and GHQ’s announcement of the Shinto Directive, the status possibilities of Shinto shrines were discussed and debated. The key issues were whether or not Shinto should be a religion, who should have jurisdiction over shrines, and whether or not some form of central administration of shrines should be established. In relation to Meiji shrine, three possibilities were posited. In chronological order, they were as follows: 1) Meiji shrine could be a ‘non-religious’ shrine; 2) it could become Imperial House property; or 3) it could participate in a centralised religious organisation overseen by a single head priest and adhering to a single Shinto doctrine. Although in actual fact none of these possibilities were realised, they nevertheless serve to illustrate the range of options that were being considered for Meiji shrine’s future. The following discussion investigates the contexts in which these alternative forms of Meiji shrine were presented, in order to illuminate the varying ways in which the ‘self-evident,’ ‘genuine’ and ‘ideal’ types of shrine were considered.

The Non-Religious Option There was a possibility of Meiji shrine belonging to non-religious Shinto. On 4th October, the Potsdam Declaration and SCAPIN 93 announced the “removal of restrictions on political, civil and religious liberties.” The Foreign Ministry and Shinto activists recognised the inevitability of an end to state control of shrines, so as not to interfere with the principle of the freedom of worship. On 5th October, a Foreign Ministry-produced analysis of U.S. policy made clear the possibility that the occupying powers would intervene considerably in Shinto administration. On 11th Octo- ber the Steering Committee prepared a draft of basic policy for GHQ, in which they acknowledged the need to surrender government sponsorship of Shinto shrines. In a draft on 14th October, they took the situation more seriously, pointing out the regrettable necessity of making the greatest and most fundamental shift in government Shinto policy since the Meiji period “in order to satisfy the U.S. side.”66 Consequently, the

65 Jinja shinpō, ed., Sengo no Shintō, 3rd ed., rev., 12–33. 66 Gaimushō, Seisakukyoku, “Kokutai oyobi kyōsanshugi ni kansuru beikoku no hōshin,” 216 chapter five

general policy which the Japanese government submitted to GHQ on 28th November affirmed that the Japanese were finally ready to accept reforms to Shinto policy.67 Each of the three main shrine-related institutions exerted influence on the Steering Committee’s direction; however, of the Shinto intellectuals who contributed to the reconstruction of post-war Shinto, of particular importance were Yoshida Shigeru, secretary general of the Institute for the Study of Imperial Writings, Miyagawa Munenori, a member of the Ise Worshippers’ Association, and Ashizu Uzuhiko.68 Ashizu regarded central government as unreliable, and so helped to organise these institutions into one joint body. At the first meeting of these institutions on 25th October, Ashizu proposed basing any plans for the future status of shrines on his prediction that the Allied powers would demand the institutional separation of shrines from State. Ashizu indicated counter measures which Shinto supporters should prepare to take.69 Indeed, Ashizu’s ideas provided the basis for subsequent arguments on Shinto.70 In contrast, the Shrine Board did not, and could not, re-adjust itself to cope with the occupiers’ demands, holding on to the idea of the shrine as non-religious to the very last.71 According to the board, the explanation which they thought would satisfy GHQ was that Shinto as a national religion did not exist in Japan; shrines were not religious but governmental institutions. When they finally submitted to the cabinet their proposals for the future policy of the shrine system, they prevaricated over whether or not Shinto should henceforward be regarded as a religion, although they did advocate freedom of worship.72 This does not mean the Shrine Board was not concerned with the question; rather, it suggests a lack of unanimity.73

5th October 1945, 4–6. Gaimushō, Shūsen renraku jimukyoku, “Jinja mondai taisakuan,” 11th October 1945, “Jinja mondai taisakuan,” 14th October 1945. 67 Jingiin and Gaimushō, Shūsen renraku jimukyoku, “Measures,” 60. 68 For biographical backgrounds, see: Yoshida Shigeru denki kankō henshū iinkai, ed., Yoshida Shigeru; Miyagawa Munenori ushi denki kankō kai, Miyagawa Munenori; Ashizu Isoo hyakunensai jikkō iinkai, Eushiotouma. 69 Ashizu U., “Jinja seido henkaku ni taisuru shiken,” 249–52. 70 Sone Eki, who was engaged in drafting the foreign minister’s plan and negotiated with the CIE, later recalled that they also referred to Ashizu’s plan. Jinja shinpō kikaku and Ashizu jimusho, eds., Jinja Shinpō gojūnenshi, vol. 1, 157. 71 Jingiin, “Shintō ni taisuru beikokugawa no ninshiki oyobi ni sore ni motozuki kaihai seshimen to suru ten” and “Shireibu to kōshō suru tame no hōshin oyobi setsumeian,” 6–8. 72 Jingiin, “Jinja seido sasshin yōkō, 20th November 1945,” 50. 73 Okada Y., ed., Shimatsu, 40–42. the re-creation of meiji shrine 217

It is notable that neither the Foreign Ministry nor Shinto leaders clearly classed shrines as religious in these proceedings. Furthermore, although the Japanese government agreed to abide by the principle of freedom of worship and declared shrines no longer state-owned institutions, they did not necessarily consent to the designation of shrines as religious institutions. It is through such nuanced distinctions regarding the status of shrines in general that the post-war status of Meiji shrine was constructed.

The Imperial Property Option The possibility that Meiji shrine and certain other shrines could survive as properties of the Imperial House was eagerly pursued by the Japanese side, and Bunce and some CIE staff had also argued for it. Various plans were put to the CIE by such Japanese authorities as the Steering Commit- tee and the Shrine Board. Serious discussions on the matter between the CIE and the Japanese side continued throughout October and November, but ultimately ended with its dismissal. Ashizu suggested in his proposal the transfer of imperial shrines like Ise and Meiji to the jurisdiction of the Imperial Household Agency; remaining shrines would then pass to the control of a new central body.74 Ashizu reasoned such a segregation of shrines would find favour with GHQ; even those Western constitutional monarchies which observed the separation of religion from state, such as the UK, gave their royal families state back- ing. Ashizu’s proposal was supported by the representatives of the three shrine-related institutions. Similarly, the Steering Committee suggested on 11th and 14th October that shrines connected to the imperial family should fall under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Household Agency, and listed more than twenty to be subsumed into this category, including Meiji shrine.75 In the plan, the committee proposed that if the post-war survival of the nation’s shrines could only be assured by them becoming religious institutions, then those connected with the imperial family should be treated separately, and as non-religious. Shinto leaders were unsure of GHQ’s objectives, so they asked Japa- nese scholars of religious studies such as Kishimoto Hideo, appointed by the Ministry of Education to work with the CIE/SCAP (Supreme Com- mander of the Allied Powers), to imply Ise shrine and certain others were

74 Ashizu U., “Shiken,” 249–52. 75 Gaimushō, Shūsen renraku jimukyoku, “Jinja mondai taisakuan,” 19–21. 218 chapter five not shrines at all but rather mausolea, dedicated to the imperial family.76 It is indeed true that, owing to Kishimoto’s negotiation with the CIE, the CIE at once concluded that certain shrines intimately connected with the imperial family could be permitted to become private properties of the imperial house, thus entitling them to receive financial support.77 Later, however, Ashizu and other Shinto leaders changed their minds in response to the CIE’s position. Indeed, the CIE position was that religious and other ceremonies at Ise and other imperial shrines were to be conducted only for members of the imperial household and that other persons would be allowed to go to those shrines only as visitors and not as worshippers.78 What concerned Ashizu and other Shinto leaders most was that GHQ sought to prohibit the Japanese people from visiting imperial shrines for the purposes of worship. It was for this reason that he, and other Shinto leaders, reluctantly insisted upon the religious classification of all shrines including Ise and of course Meiji shrine.79 Yoshida, secretary general of the Institute for the Study of Imperial Writings, reported the shift in the Shinto leaders’ position at a meeting held on 8th November with Bunce.80 Following this meeting, Bunce and CIE staff stopped suggesting special treatment for certain shrines in their staff reports, and the Shinto Direc- tive in turn included no such suggestions.

The ‘Religious Sect’ Option A third possibility for the future of Meiji shrine was that it could become a member of a hierarchical organisation, following a single Shinto doctrine and watched over by a head priest. This was the Jinja kyō or ‘Religious Sect’ plan. Whether it was to be hierarchical or not, the establishment of a new central religious administration to which Shinto shrines might belong was the task of the Institute for the Study of Imperial Writings, the Asso- ciation of Shrine Priests, and the Ise Worshippers’ Association. However, during their early discussions no unanimous view emerged. There were in fact two competing visions regarding the most appropriate form of shrine administration: the Jinja kyō plan, and the Jinja renmei plan, which envisaged establishing a less hierarchical association. Major promoters of the

76 Kishimoto Hideo, “Arashi no nakano jinja Shintō,” 245–6. 77 GHQ/SCAP, CIE, “Shinto/Staff Study,” 3rd November 1945. 78 Woodard, Allied Occupation, 65. 79 Ashizu U., “Ise jingū to senryō seisaku: Ko Kishimoto hakase no kaikoroku o mite,” Jinja shinpō (21st March 1964). 80 GHQ/SCAP, CIE “Shinto/Staff Study,” 17th November 1945. the re-creation of meiji shrine 219

Jinja renmei plan included Ashizu, Yoshida and Miyagawa; indeed, on 25th October Ashizu had proposed the Jinja renmei plan. Many advocates of the Jinja kyō plan however were belonging to the Association of Shrine Priests, and others were members of the Shrine Board.81 For example, Ichikawa Toyohei, who had been a member of the Association of Shrine Priests and a member of a Shinto sect called Shinto Taikyō, supported the Jinja kyō plan as a strategy of shaping the prospective shrine organization along Sect Shinto lines. On 13th November their plan to establish a religious sect was proposed by the organisers of a joint meeting of the three institutions.82 The organisers argued for a fixed doctrine, the appointment of a head priest charged with its interpretation, and the identification of Ise shrine as the sect’s holiest of holies. It is clear the proposal’s aim was to organise shrines around the country into a new Shinto-oriented religion, on a par with religions such as Buddhism and Christianity. In order to dissuade them from this aim, Ashizu, supported by Yoshida and others, distributed a provocative leaflet to the meeting’s members explaining why the shrine sect plan was not appropriate.83 The issues it raised are worthy of attention because his arguments ultimately formed the basis of post-war Shrine Shinto. In the leaflet, Ashizu pointed out the reasons for his opposition as follows:

i) there are no fixed doctrines or written dogmas: this is one of the most essential features of Shrine Shinto. To establish now “a superficial and shallow doctrine” would be a profanity. ii) Shrines are in their very nature sites for veneration by all Japanese, no matter what faiths they adhere to. To transform shrines into ‘mere’ religious organisations like Buddhism and Christianity would be contrary to principle. iii) Shrines are traditionally independent. There is no periphery-centre relationship between shrines: that is their distinguishing feature. By contrast, Buddhism and Christianity are hierarchically structured faiths. The new shrine administration should guarantee all shrines’ independence and status parity.84

81 Jinja shinpō kikaku and Ashizu jimusho, eds., Shinpō gojūnenshi, vol. 1, 166. See also Okada Yoneo, Okada Yoneo sensei Shintō ronshū, 228. 82 “Jinja kyō (kashō) kyōki taikōan,” in Sengo no Shintō, 3rd ed., rev., Jinja shinpō, 252–8. 83 Ashizu U., “Jinja kyō an ni hantai su,” in Sengo no Shintō, 3rd ed., rev. Jinja shinpō, 258–60. 84 Ibid. 220 chapter five

What was consistent in the Jinja renmei plans expounded by Ashizu and others is that shrines should no longer be government-sponsored institutions for state rituals, that Shrine Shinto worship should not interfere with individual freedom of worship, and that shrines and Shinto were different from other religions. It should also be noted that Ashizu’s understanding did not gain anything like a consensus. Even after the distribution of the leaflet, more than a few priests still supported the Jinja kyō plan. Discus- sions continued in joint meetings during November; the disagreement and confusion inevitably contributed to the unstable identity of Meiji shrine, but ultimately Ashizu’s Jinja renmei plan triumphed. The Association of Shinto Shrines was duly established, in accordance with the Jinja renmei plan, on 3rd February 1946.85 The question of Meiji shrine’s affiliation was answered. On 15th May 1946, Meiji shrine was re-born as a religious corporation.

5.2.2 The Ownership of Meiji Shrine The first problem with which the Association of Shinto Shrines had to cope was the legal status of the state-owned shrine precincts.86 Shrine lands had been under state sponsorship and control ever since 1921. At the end of the war 109,862 shrines occupied 72,280 acres of land, but more than half of that total was claimed by only 206 shrines, one of which was Meiji shrine.87 What concerned the Japanese government, GHQ and the association was how to treat this state-owned shrine land after state sponsorship was abolished. The problem is worthy of examination, as it illuminates how the conceptual question of shrines’ religiosity was once again discussed. The directive “SCAPIN 1334: Disposition of State-owned Land used by Religious Institutions,” released by GHQ on 13th November 1946, addresses precisely this problem. Its key points may be excerpted as follows: Article 3(a) the title to all public land presently utilised by religious institutions and necessary for their religious functions shall . . . be given to such institutions free of charge: 1. provided the religious institution was in possession of the land prior to 1868 and the State gave no compensation to the religious institutions when it assumed title to the land, or,

85 Jinja honchō, Kenshūjo, Jinja honchōshi kō, 5th ed, 20–7. 86 Sengo no Shintō, 3rd ed., rev. Jinja shinpō, 72. 87 Woodard, Allied Occupation, 120–21. the re-creation of meiji shrine 221

2. provided the land was obtained by the religious institution from non-governmental sources and without the expendi- ture of public funds. Article 3(d) religious institutions may be permitted to purchase such other land now in their possession or custody at one-half market value if it is essential to religious functions, but in no case if it is primarily revenue-producing land.88 On the basis of the directive, the Japanese government in April 1947 amended the law governing state-owned properties used by shrines and temples. GHQ’s view on the issue was clear from Bunce’s suggestion that freedom of religion required religious institutions to be permitted to control land necessary for their religious functions, and in which they had “more than a possessory interest.”89 However, as Woodard argued, making these changes was “easier said than done.”90 In fact, when the Diet discussed the amendment of the law, there was bitter criticism of the trans- ferral of titles of shrine lands from the state to individual shrines.91 Some members of the Diet argued that shrines had enjoyed absolute power under the umbrella of the imperial institution and state, and strongly objected to the change in land title. Miyagawa, who became director of the association, later recalled the “anti-Shinto climate” of the time.92 The climate of public opinion became more apparent when it came to the status of Meiji shrine.

Legal Transfer Managing the land issue was indeed the first important task for Meiji shrine following its release from state control and establishment as an independent religious organisation. The Ministry of Finance organised one central and eight local consultative committees in order to carry out the transfer of tens of thousands of titles.93 The case of Meiji shrine fell under the remit of the Central Consultative Committee, which consisted of members of the Finance Ministry, some from other ministries, and several experts on religion. At the request of the Ministry of Finance the shrine submitted

88 GHQ/SCAP, “Disposition of State-Owned Land Used by Religious Institutions,” 13th November 1946, SCAPIN 133. See also Donald K. Nugent, “Disposition of State- Owned Land Currently Used by Religious Institutions.” 89 Woodard, Allied Occupation, 121–2. 90 Ibid. 91 Miyagawa Munenori ushi denki kankō kai, Miyagawa Munenori, 39–43. 92 Ibid. 93 Togami Muneyoshi, “Shajiryō kokuyūchi shobun no igi to eikyō,” 239–63. 222 chapter five the necessary application forms on 27th April 1948.94 The aim of the shrine was to take possession of land deemed essential for religious functions: to obtain the inner precinct of around 740,000 square metres free of charge; and to purchase the outer precinct of around 460,000 square metres at half the market value. It took more than four years from the submission of the application forms for the shrine finally to receive consent from the ministry. Negotiations between the shrine and the Central Consultative Committee tended to focus on the inner precinct during the first half of the period, and on the outer precinct during the second. The transfer of the inner precinct progressed rather more smoothly than that of the outer precinct because there was consensus among the committee members that the land was being utilised by the shrine and was necessary for religious functions. In contrast, the outer precinct was “revenue-producing land” for the shrine, so the shrine office had to show that Article 3(d) of SCAPIN 1334 applied to the case of the outer precinct; in other words, the shrine office needed to give evidence that the outer precinct was “necessary for” the shrine’s religious functions and not “primarily” revenue-producing land. According to Woodard, the reason why the CIE distinguished shrines established prior to 1868 from latter creations such as Meiji shrine was that they believed many of the latter shrines to have been created “for definite political purposes,” and that these shrines had neither any historically “valid” claims to the land nor the “connection with folk Shinto possessed by the shrines of earlier origin.”95 Although Meiji shrine’s claim to the inner precinct was accepted by the committee as “valid,” the historical and religious validity of the claim to the outer precinct became an issue. GHQ/SCAP’s official report on non-military activities during the occupation of Japan, 1945–1951, notes that Meiji shrine and some other shrines quizzed themselves on the extent to which exclusive land possession was essential.96 Difficulties in land transfers were the primary reason why the consultative committees suspended their judgement until the end of 1952. A complicating factor was that the outer precinct was a place of recreation for GHQ itself [Fig. 34]. On 4th September 1945, soon after the arrival of MacArthur and the Occupation forces, officials arrived to examine the shrine’s Memorial Art Gallery.97 On the 15th, more than

94 Meiji jingū, “Shoshō naien oyobi gaien,” in Keidaichi kankei. 95 Woodard, Allied Occupation, 123. 96 GHQ/SCAP, ed., GHQ Nihon senryō shi, vol. 21, 19–20. 97 For the Occupation use of the outer precinct, see Meiji jingū gaien nanajūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Nanajūneshi, 81–7. the re-creation of meiji shrine 223

Figure 34. Memorial Art Gallery under the Occupation. (Meiji Shrine Archives).

500 members of the U.S. Forces began to take over the land, and the precinct was completely under Occupation possession by 18th September. The precinct was utilised by them for their entertainment; GHQ renamed the central plaza in front of the gallery ‘Meiji Recreation Field,’ and changed the name of the stadium to ‘Nile Kinnick Stadium.’ For GHQ, which had appropriated the outer precinct, the question inevitably arose of the release of that land at the end of the Occupation.

Religiosity and the Outer Precinct It is clear from documents in the archives of Meiji shrine, the Ministry of Finance and GHQ, that GHQ officials were involved to a considerable degree in the precinct’s ownership problem. Various sports associations, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and Welfare and Meiji shrine itself independently delivered proposals to SCAP for the purpose of gaining title to the precinct, while SCAP officials aimed to solve the problem their way, through negotiation with these independent parties and with the Ministry of Finance. A memorandum concerning the status of the outer precinct prepared by the ministry on 18 June 1951 notes that 224 chapter five the CIE unofficially suggested it would be inappropriate for Meiji shrine to own the outer precinct due to the public character of this area.98 The CIE’s view seems to have been formed against the background of the many proposals submitted to them by different sports associations during May. These associations were the Japan Hockey Association, the Japanese Rubber Baseball Association, the Japan Soft Ball Association, the Amateur Swimming Federation of Japan, the Football Association of Japan, and the Amateur Athletics Federation of Japan.99 These organisations uniformly objected to the shrine’s ownership of the precinct as “improper” and “inconvenient” for their “sportsmen.” In his proposal to D. R. Neugent, chief of the CIE, Asano Kin’ichi, chief director of the Japan Amateur Athletics Association, argued that the precinct should be a “public institution,” not the “private property of a Shinto shrine.” For Asano, all the sports facilities in the precinct were constructed by contributions from people across Japan and by the “devotional efforts of sportsmen,” and the precinct had always been a centre for sports and recreational activities in Japan. Although these sports may have been dedicated to Meiji shrine as “Shinto festivities,” they were in practice “solely for sports and recreational purposes” and “without any connection to Shintoism.” If the shrine authorities took possession of the land, they would utilise the precinct for “money-making enterprises” or would even sell the land. Therefore, the land should henceforth be controlled by a national organisation, or more appropriately be managed by a controlling board consisting of members of relevant sports associations and concerned government officials.100 It is important to note that the sports associations’ proposals were submitted to the CIE partly at the instigation of the National Sports Commit- tee of the Ministry of Education, to which these associations belonged. Just before the first proposal was submitted in November 1950, the CIE carried out their own intensive research on Meiji shrine.101 From 1951,

98 Ōkurashō, Kanzaikyoku, “Meiji jingū gaien no shobun mondai,” 18th June 1951. 99 Japan Amateur Athletic Association, “JAAA’s View on Release of Nile Kinnick Stadium [sic]”(7th May); Amateur Swimming Federation of Japan, “An Opinion on Release of the jingū Stadium [sic]” (4th May); Japan Hockey Association, “An Opinion on Release of the Sports Stadia in Gaien [sic]”(3rd May); Japan Rubber Baseball Association and Japan Soft Ball Association, “The Opinion on Release of Sports Stadia in the Gaien Area [sic]”(4th May); Amateur Athletic Federation of Japan, “An opinion of the Amateur Athletic Federation of Japan on Release of Nile Kinnick Stadium [sic]” (11th May); Football Association of Japan, “Re: Nile Kinnick Ground (Formerly the Meiji Shrine Ground)[sic]” (9th May), GHQ/SCAP Records. 100 Japan Amateur Athletic Association, “JAAA’s View.” 101 GHQ/SCAP, GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, Box nos. 5932, 5933. Folder Titles: Meiji Shrine, Meiji Shrine Publications. the re-creation of meiji shrine 225 they focused on the outer precinct, translating its historical documents, and also conducting interviews with former members of the Home Min- istry who had administered all of the sports facilities located in the outer precinct.102 It may well be the case that CIE officials were in contact with members of these associations and that there was an implicit agreement on the treatment of the precinct between CIE officials and the Ministry of Education. On 27th June, the ministry unofficially assembled a number of sports associations and worked with them on a joint proposal draft, named “The Ministry of Education Plan.”103 Their idea was that the ministry would own the land, and a new governing board, to comprise the ministry and various sports associations, would manage the sports facilities. Dur- ing negotiations between shrine officials and the ministry on 30th July, ministry officials strongly objected to the shrine’s ownership of the outer precinct, maintaining that GHQ had already approved the ministry’s proposal. The ministry confirmed the joint proposal in a meeting with the sports associations on 29th August, and finally made their views public.104 They problematised the religiosity of sports activities in the precinct, especially sports meets held as a dedication to the kami of Meiji shrine. According to the ministry, if the sports facilities in the precinct became the shrine’s property, it would violate the religious freedom of those participating in activities there.105 The chaotic situation developed further when the Ministry of Health and Welfare independently submitted their proposal to the Ministry of Finance, assisted by Crawford F. Sams, chief of the Public Health and Welfare Section of SCAP.106 They suggested the precinct should be a quasi-national park under the control of the Min- istry of Health and Welfare, to be managed and conserved by a special juridical person.

102 GHQ/SCAP, “Research on the Outer Garden of Meiji Shrine,” (31st January 1951); “Interview with Mr. Yuzawa on the Contribution for Construction of Meiji Shrine Baseball Ground,” (20th March); “Interview with Matsumoto,” (22nd March), GHQ/SCAP Records. 103 Mainichi shinbun, Asahi shinbun (28th June 1951). 104 “Jingū kyōgijō o kokuritsu ni,” Naigai taimusu (29th August 1951); “Gaien kyōgijō o kokuritsu ni,” Tokyo shinbun (29th August); “ ‘shoyūken ni gigi,’ jingū kyōgijō mondai, taikyō de rongi,” Mainichi shinbun (30th August). 105 Meiji jingū, “Gaien un’ei ni kanshi Monbushō, Shakai kyōikuchō to kaidan no yōshi,” 6th September 1951, in Sesshō no ikken. 106 Meiji jingū, “Meiji jingū gaien no shobun mondai ni tsuite Ōkurashō, Kokuyū zaisan daiikka to kaidan yōshi,” 25th June 1951, in Sesshō no ikken. 226 chapter five

A Public Controversy The controversy about the precinct attracted the attention of the mass media. Public interest intensified when the Ministry of Education and various sports associations joined in opposition to the shrine. Newspa- per correspondence columns carried contributions from members of the public.107 A Nikkan supōtsu editorial of 17th July 1951 suggested the precinct’s sports facilities be governed by the National Sports Association.108 Newspaper coverage reached a climax when the Ministry of Education presented its plans to the public on 29th August, and Meiji shrine hosted a press conference in response to it on 1st September. A Jiji shinpō report noted several issues contributing to the controversy, in particular the unseemly desire of the parties concerned to possess the land, and the intricate relationship between Shinto and sports. Some papers inferred that Tokyo Metropolis and the Ministry of Construction were also claiming ownership of the precinct.109 In the meantime, the Ministry of Finance held frequent meetings with shrine officials. At a meeting on 17th September, the ministry dissuaded shrine officials from purchasing the precinct at one-half market value, and encouraged them to accept the establishment of an alternative foundation. This suggests that both CIE officials and public opinion considered the shrine’s plan to be unfeasible. Meiji shrine, however, never accepted the ministry’s suggestion, and instead convened a board meeting on 24 September confirming their determination to defend their plan resolutely.110 The Ministry of Finance invited representatives of Meiji shrine, along with officials from the Ministries of Education, Health and Welfare, and Con- struction, to the negotiation table, in an offer to mediate. At this meeting, the shrine persevered with its objections to the Ministry of Education. A newspaper report on 22nd October described the situation as a great battle for control over the outer precinct.111

107 E.g. Mainichi shinbun, evening (2nd July 1950). 108 “Jingū gaien no kanri,” Mainichi shinbun, evening (2nd July 1951); “Jingū kyōgijō wa taikyō kanri ni seyo,” Nikkan supōtsu (17th July). 109 “Meiji jingū ga kanri shuchō,” Jiji shinpō (2nd September 1951); “Gaien kyōgijō wa doko e? Mada kimaranu kanri hōhō,” Asahi shinbun (8th September 1951). 110 Soejima H., Watashi no showashi, 79. 111 “Jingū gaien ubaiai: Tōzengao no Meiji jingū, Ōkura • Monbu nado yonshō ‘kenri’ shuchō,” Tokyo shinbun, evening (22nd October 1951). the re-creation of meiji shrine 227

5.2.3 The New Status of Meiji Shrine The shrine presented four papers to those concerned. These played crucial roles in shifting the argument in favour of Meiji shrine. Two papers dealt with the outer precinct’s future administration and its sports. How- ever, more important were “Meiji Jingū gaien no seikaku ni tsuite” (The character of the Meiji shrine outer precinct) and “Meiji jingū gaien keidaichi haraisage no gi ni tsuki chinjō” (A petition for the transfer of the title of the precinct to Meiji shrine).112 The latter, especially, was decisive, as it was penned jointly by 20 men of influence, among them Iinuma Issei, Itō Chūta, Orishimo Yoshinobu, and Kodama Kyūichi. All had been concerned with the original construction of the precinct, and they had jointly formed the Meiji Shrine Memorial Society (Meiji jingū zōei kinenkai). Their petition, initiated at the behest of the society’s officer, Yoshida Shigeru, ran as follows: We, members of the Meiji Shrine Memorial Society, have full knowledge of the character of the outer precinct and its ideals because we had direct involvement in its construction. Hence we are persuaded that Meiji shrine should own and govern the outer precinct in association with the inner precinct, for as long as the shrine exists.113 [my italics] There is no doubt the petition put pressure upon those officials concerned with decision making, especially when copies were handed to Ikeda Hayato, the minister of finance, and all the members of the aforementioned Central Consultative Committee. What, then, were the precise “character” (seikaku) and “ideals” (risō) of the outer precinct which the petition affirmed, and which finally convinced the opposition groups of the legitimacy of the shrine’s claim? These key terms, “character” and “ideals,” were also used in the other of the two more important papers, “Meiji jingū gaien no seikaku ni tsuite,” which furnished the shrine and the Memorial Society with the basis of their argument.

112 Meiji jingū, “Meiji jingū gaien no seikaku ni tsuite,” March 1951, in Sankō shiryō; “Meiji jingū gaien no un’ei ni tsuite,” 25th July in Sesshō no ikken; “Gaien ni okeru undō kyōgi ni tsuite,” 25th July in Sesshō no ikken; Meiji jingū zōei kinenkai, “Meiji jingū gaien keidaichi haraisage no gi ni tsuki chinjō,” 5th December 1951, in Keidaichi kankei. 113 Meiji jingū zōei kinenkai, “Chinjō.” For the society and their appeal, see Soejima H., Watashi no Showashi, 79. 228 chapter five

The New Shinto Ideal The paper “Meiji jingū gaien no seikaku ni tsuite” came with an attach- ment in the form of an essay. The argument presented in the former built upon an earlier memorandum entitled “Gaien shōrai no kibō” (Prospects for the future of the outer precinct). This had been proposed to the shrine by the Meiji Shrine Memorial Society on 22nd October 1926.114 The memorandum observed that “The outer precinct was constructed by way of recompense for favours received from Emperor Meiji and the Empress; to enhance reverence for Meiji shrine; and to ensure all Japanese awoke to the virtues of the national polity. Our hope is that henceforth Meiji shrine might keep such ideals in mind when governing, maintaining, and repairing the precinct.” The memorandum asserted the necessity of the outer precinct for the shrine’s purposes, as well as for its park and sports facilities. The inclusion of direct quotations from the 1926 memorandum was an attempt by Meiji shrine to justify its petition by publicising the intentions of the shrine’s founders. However, the shrine also had to illustrate how and why the founders’ ideals were still valid in the post-war context. Orikuchi Shinobu attempted to do so in his essay “Shin Shinto no kengen” (A new Shinto and its manifestations), attached as an appendix to the main paper. This supplied an academic basis for the shrine to assert the necessity of the outer precinct for the shrine’s religious purposes, and was intended to prove the precinct’s traditional legitimacy and future importance in Shinto history.115 Beginning with Orikuchi’s offer to discuss “a manifestation of new Shinto in Meiji shrine,” his ideas are worthy of notice because they helped determine the direction of Meiji shrine’s future. In his essay Orikuchi affirmed the shrine’s raison d’être, arguing that “Meiji shrine embodies both an ending and a new beginning for Shinto.”116 Meiji shrine was, for him, a manifestation of a new Shinto, a product of the effort of predecessors who had pursued Shinto ideals during the Meiji and Taisho periods. Orikuchi went on to outline how the outer precinct was inseparable from the inner precinct, and how it was both traditional and modern. He noted that traditional shrines had riding grounds, in which horse racing and horseback archery were held as sacred ceremonies. Ori- kuchi argued that the outer precinct performed a similar, yet modernised,

114 Meiji jingū hōsankai, “Gaien shōrai no kibō,” 100–103. 115 Orikuchi Shinobu, “Shin Shintō no kengen,” 1951, in Sankō shiryō. 116 Orikuchi S., “Shin Shintō.” the re-creation of meiji shrine 229 role for Meiji shrine. Just as horse riding had played a religious function, serving to pacify, console and give pleasure to the kami, so did the sports activities in the outer precinct. He further compared the shrine’s Memo- rial Art Gallery with buildings traditionally called emaden, in which votive tablets (ema) were presented to shrines, arguing that the gallery’s marriage of traditional and modern had in this respect achieved the ‘ideal’ Shinto aspired to by earlier generations. It was the task of those who lived in post-war Japan, he suggested, to develop in concert the characteristics of the outer precinct and the ideals of new Shinto.117 Throughout the negotiations over the precinct, shrine officials repeatedly distributed the Orikuchi essay so as to influence the participants, and affirm to themselves the idea of the shrine as a manifestation of a new Shinto.

The Transfer Problem and its Solution The deadlock in the talks began to break when the shrine accepted the establishment of a governing body for the precinct, although it insisted on control of the governing body.118 The shrine found a way out of the impasse with the Ministry of Education through direct negotiations with representatives of the sports associations which had previously submitted their proposals to the CIE.119 On 1st February 1952, representatives of the shrine, the Ministry of Education and the sports associations had a final joint meeting, and they then held a press conference. They announced that a governing board of the precinct would be formed, but it would be subordinate to the shrine; the chief priest of the shrine would be the chairman of the board; sports association representatives, intellectuals, relevant experts and others would become members of the board; while the administration of the outer precinct would be supervised by the board, the shrine would retain ultimate authority.120 The board was established on 22nd March, and the precinct released from GHQ to the shrine on

117 To support Orikuchi’s argument, the shrine also provided a survey of traditional games held as sacred ceremonies in various shrines around the country. The survey was prepared by Okada Yoneo, a staff member of the Association of Shinto Shrines. Okada Y., “Kyōgi ni kansuru shinji shirabe.” 118 Meiji jingū, “Meiji jingū gaien ni tsuite,” 23rd October 1951, in Keidaichi kankei. 119 Meiji jingū, “Gaien un’ei ni kansuru kyōgikai kiroku,” 17th January 1952, in Sesshō no ikken. “Gaien kyōgijō, Jingū ga un’ei: Monbushō nado sansha de kyōdō seimei,” Mainichi shinbun, evening (1st February 1952). “Gaien shisetsu mondai, un’ei wa Jingū no te ni,” Supōtsu Nippon (2nd February). “Gaien kyōgijō henkan monogatari: Yoku ga fukai Jingū an, supōtsu man mo ‘kamisama’ ni katezu,” Naigai taimusu, evening (5th February). 120 Meiji jingū, “Meiji jingū gaien un’ei kikō (an),” 1st February 1951 in Sesshō no ikken. 230 chapter five

31st March. The Central Consultative Committee finally enacted the legal transfer of the outer precinct to the shrine on 29th September 1952. It should be noted, however, that the legal agreement did not necessarily resolve the question of the religiosity of the sports to be held in the outer precinct, which the Ministry of Education had long problematised. Even after the governing board was established, in April the ministry demanded that the shrine officially confirm their observance of the principle of separation of religion and state, and also that they make some amendments to the board’s rules. Discussion on these matters continued until Septem- ber, and the board’s regulations were finally amended in several areas. For example, a reference to planning “hōnō games and events for the purpose of enhancing the veneration of shrine’s kami ” was eliminated, and it was determined that representatives from relevant ministries would become board members.121 In addition, representatives of the shrine, the Minis- try of Education, and the sports associations agreed to exchange memo- randa with each other.122 One of these declared: “We swear to cooperate to realise appropriate public use of the facilities, without the compulsion of religious events or rituals.” The statement obviously went against Ori- kuchi’s ideas, which the shrine had long supported. Inevitably, the relation between the shrine and sports activities remained delicate and complex. If we reconsider the language of hōnō, used to define Meiji Shrine Sports Meets, it was always unclear to whom participants were really dedicating their activities. As discussed in Chapter 4, central government and local communities took advantage of the rhetoric to develop and solidify their control and promote a sense of unity. Arguably, the post-war intervention of religion in sports was problematised in the same way as the intervention of the government in sports activities had been during the pre-war and wartime period; they were two sides of the same coin.

Flexible Interpretations Although Orikuchi’s essay on post-war Shinto was highly influential, this does not imply that all his ideas met with approval. His understandings of post-war Shinto and Meiji shrine, and those of men like his contemporary, Yanagita Kunio, were the objects of bitter criticism by Ashizu and other

121 Soejima H., Watashi no Showashi, 86. 122 Meiji jingū, “Meiji jingū gaien kyōgijō shisetsu ni tsuite no oboegaki,” in Sesshō no ikken. the re-creation of meiji shrine 231

Shinto intellectuals.123 Ashizu himself recalled he had made every effort to reduce Orikuchi and Yanagita’s influence on Shinto under the Occupa- tion.124 In fact, when Orikuchi gave a commemoration address on Shinto, entitled “From a National Religion to a Religion for Humankind,” for the 1st anniversary of the Association of Shinto Shrines in February 1947, Ashizu immediately reacted. He made the association state, in the shrine opinion newspaper, Jinja shinpō, that Orikuchi’s Shinto argument was not its official view.125 Furthermore, when the CIE, through the Ministry of Educa- tion, asked Orikuchi to join the consultations on amending the Religious Corporations Ordinance before the end of the Occupation, Ashizu and others persuaded Orikuchi to decline the offer. Orikuchi and Yanagita’s treatment of Shinto was, for Ashizu, nothing but performances to “profit the enemy”; he accused them of creating theories that dislocated shrines from the imperial institution, reducing Shinto to a local folk religion, and of diluting and destroying national unity.126 Ashizu continued to warn against their theories even after the Occupa- tion, as he wrote in a letter to Shibukawa Ken’ichi in 1977.127 Ashizu was correct in the sense that the aims of the Occupation regarding Shinto had been to divide it into two religions, one old and indigenous and the other new and nationalistic, and then to emphasise the former at the expense of the latter.128 This explained why Orikuchi’s Shinto argument was so appealing to the CIE; it reinforced GHQ Shinto policy. The fact that Ashizu had continually to repeat his criticisms of Orikuchi implies, in itself, that Orikuchi’s theories of Shinto were welcomed by many shrine priests. Orikuchi himself frequently gave lectures and papers on Shinto during the Occupation period, for example “A New Direction for Shinto” (an NHK radio program in June 1946), “The Significance of Shinto as a Religion” (a lecture on the training program for shrine priests, in August 1946), “For my Shinto Friend” (a contribution to Jinja shinpō in January 1947), and “On the Non-Equivalence of Emperor and Kami” (a contribution to a

123 One document suggests that Meiji shrine officials asked Yanagita, as well as Orikuchi, for suggestions to solve the ownership problem of the outer precinct. Meiji jingū, “Gaien shisetsu ni kanshi Yanagita Kunio shi no danwa,” 31st January 1951, in Keidaichi kankei. 124 Ashizu U., Shinkoku no tami no kokoro, 21. 125 Ashizu U., ed., Jinja shinpō henshūshitsu kiroku, 18. Suzuki Mitsuo, “Ashizu Uzuhiko shokan kō, no.3,” 80. 126 Ashizu U., “Shintō kyōgaku ni tsuite no shokan,” 27 May 1977. 127 Ibid. 128 Ibid. 232 chapter five

newspaper, January 1947).129 As Andō and others suggest, Orikuchi’s post- war Shinto theory was a project designed to awaken the religious qualities of Shinto.130 He anticipated the birth of a religious leader for Shinto, with a similar character to the founders of new religions, someone full of aspiration to take Shinto in a new direction and make it ever more religious. Orikuchi favoured a new direction for Shinto, an escape from the yoke of close connection with the imperial family and a departure from the idea of national morality towards a religion for all humankind.131 Nakamura argues that Orikuchi modelled his new Shinto on Christianity, and that his plan was to achieve a Japanese religious rebirth, as Christianity had experienced in the Reformation.132 Orikuchi’s arguments about ‘new Shinto’ and its manifestation in Meiji shrine are reminiscent of Chamberlain’s idea of the invention of new religion.133 Orikuchi, like Chamberlain, was sceptical of Japanese aspirations to integrate Shinto into emperor worship or national morality. While Cham- berlain negatively criticised the use of Shinto in manufacturing a new religion, Orikuchi advocated inventing a more religious Shinto. The genealogy of Meiji shrine was a process of self-activation through the invention and further reinvention of ‘the character of Shinto.’ The shrine in itself has always been the embodiment of both a new Shinto, and of the dilemma inherent in the ambiguous nature of Shinto’s religious / non-religious status.

5.3 Difference and Repetition: Shrine Reconstruction

The Honden (Main Sanctuary) and the Haiden (Hall of Worship), along with most of the shrine’s other facilities like the shrine office (shamusho), were razed to the ground in successive bomb attacks between April and May 1945.134 The sacred objects of worship (mitamashiro), evacuated to the treasure gallery, were next moved to a house behind where the Honden had been; daily rites were held there until the end of the war.

129 Orikuchi S., “Shintō no atarashii hōkō,” “Shintō shūkyōka no igi,” “Shintō no yūjin yo,” “Tenshi hisokushinron.” 130 Andō Reiji, Kamigami no tōsō, 213. As for the Orikuchi’s post-war Shinto theory: e.g., Nakamura Ikuo, Orikuchi Shinobu no sengo tennō ron; Motegi Sadasumi, “Orikuchi Shinobu no sengo Shintō ron”; Uchino Gorō, Shinkokugaku ron no tenkai. 131 Orikuchi S., “Atarashii hōkō,” 463; “Minzokukyō yori jinruikyō e,” 440–41. Suzuki M., Yanagita • Orikuchi igo, 228–9. 132 Nakamura I., Orikuchi no tennō ron, 28. 133 Chamberlain, The Invention of a New Religion. 134 Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Gojūnenshi, 157. the re-creation of meiji shrine 233

Shrine officials built a Provisional Hall for the sacred objects soon after the war ended, and here they were kept and daily shrine rites performed until the Honden and other structures were finally rebuilt in 1958.135 From 31st October to 4th November 1958 the priests performed shrine rites for the transfer of deities from the Provisional Hall to the new Honden. The shrine celebrated its rebirth with various events. These rites and events were very similar to those of the 1920 inauguration, consisting as they did of a series of rites for the commemoration of emperor Meiji’s birth on and around 3rd November, and various celebratory performances throughout the period. However, the climate surrounding the post-war shrine and its rites/performances was completely different from that of pre-war days, as the sponsorship and formal link with the state had evaporated, and the meaning of 3rd November itself had also undergone change. This section examines the post-war processes of repetition and difference in the shrine, and the shrine’s organisation, reconstruction movements, architecture, and celebratory performances.

5.3.1 Constituents and Constructors Officials hosted a meeting to consider Meiji shrine’s future on 12th Febru- ary 1946.136 The participants included Meiji shrine priests; certain individuals involved in the shrine’s activities since its establishment, such as Miyachi Naokazu and Yoshida Shigeru; officials of the Association of Shinto Shrines and Tokyo Metropolis; and representatives from local authorities, such as the heads of Shibuya Ward and Yoyogi police office. Surprisingly, it was the first comprehensive meeting since the foundation of the shrine at which priests were able to air their concerns. There were seven items on the agenda tabled by the priests: 1) shrine rites; 2) inspir- ing people’s reverence for the shrine; 3) annual ceremonies and events; 4) shrine architecture; 5) shrine precincts and forest; 6) organising worshippers; and 7) the outer precinct and its management. Discussion concentrated mostly on items 1, 2, 3 and 6, in other words, on the fundamental questions of how to configure the shrine’s services and organisations to attract worshippers and visitors in general.137

135 Ibid., 209–210. 136 Miyachi N. et al., “Meiji jingū no shōrai ni kansuru kondankai,” 15th February 1946 in Gojūneshi, 190–204. 137 Regarding points 5 and 7, the transfer of the precincts was not, at the time, expected to cause much problem; when the precincts were discussed, argument concentrated on issues such as the growing of sufficient vegetables for offerings. As for 4, because the 234 chapter five

From a Shrine for the State to a Shrine for Individuals Under the Religious Corporations Ordinance, Meiji shrine became a religious corporation. There surfaced now for the first time the question of banding shrine worshippers together into a single body. There had earlier been an organisation called the Meiji Shrine Celebration Commit- tee which had sponsored the shrine’s celebratory events, but in contrast to local shrines, Meiji shrine had not had anything like an organisation of parishioners (Ujikokai), living within parish boundaries and grouped together for the purpose of shrine upkeep.138 The shrine’s rationale had been that the parish boundary was synonymous with the whole country, so that all Japanese were worshippers at the shrine. It was a matter of the utmost urgency that a solution be found to the problem of who should run the shrine, and for whom. This fundamental question caused considerable argument amongst participants at the meeting. Date Tatsumi, an official of the Association of Shinto Shrines and later Meiji shrine’s sixth chief priest, declared in the meeting that it should reform itself as “a shrine for individual visitors,” although he suggested that it was “ideally for the whole nation.”139 There was a consensus that the shrine should appeal more to the individual than to the state, yet when it came to ways of realising the same, the suggestions of those involved had little in common. For example, Nakagawa Tetsuji, head of Shibuya Ward, argued that establishing an association of believers should take priority. He held that the future shrine, with its private religious nature, should belong first of all to its believers, who should determine its rituals, events and other activities. In response, Deputy Chief Priest Tanaka Kiyoshi, while accepting the need for a worshippers’ association, expressed his fears about the possible exclusive tendencies of association members. For Tanaka, Meiji shrine should be open to anyone, even believers in other religions, because shrines were to some extent beyond the category of religion. He suggested that too much emphasis on Shinto as a private religion and on the religious qualities of the shrine would undermine support. Various possibilities and problems concerning

Provisional Hall was still under construction, full reconstruction was not discussed in the meeting (see Gojūnenshi, 190–204). 138 The Meiji Shrine Celebration Committee had been independent of the shrine, being composed of the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture and Tokyo City. However, the committee was dissolved in December 1945 following the post-war separation of religion and government. 139 Miyachi N. et al., “Kondankai,” 193. the re-creation of meiji shrine 235 the association were discussed: whether it should exist to raise financial support or to organise the worshippers’ own activities. If it was to be the former, there was also the issue of whether income should be used for the day-to-day running of the shrine or set aside for its reconstruction. Finally, there was debate over whether the association should be insti- tutionally subordinate to the shrine or not.140 For the priests, the creation of a worshippers’ association was for the sake of the shrine’s maintenance, not for the sake of the worshippers themselves. Their only concern was with making a choice between an association whose members themselves would become financially responsible for the daily upkeep of the shrine, and one whose members would lead local or national campaigns for contributions towards its rebuilding. Akioka Yasuji, chief priest of Hie shrine and the former deputy chief priest of Meiji shrine, also argued the need to rely on worshippers’ financial help, at least for daily management. He suggested that monetary offerings (saisen) from visitors alone would be insufficient to sustain the future of the shrine. Miyachi Naokazu’s compromise option was adopted: the association would serve above all to generate worship for the enshrined kami, and not to raise money. But for the time being the shrine might depend for its upkeep on an annual membership fee. Some discussants suggested that worshippers could manage the association from outside the shrine, enabling priests to devote their energies to serving parishioners. However, there was serious concern that the organisation would take the initiative for shrine affairs away from the priests. For example, Katori Shigeyo, an official of the Association of Shrine Priests and a priest at Katori shrine, noted from personal experience that worshippers’ associations, when removed from a shrine’s control, could make any use of the shrine they liked. Similarly, a great deal of support was expressed for Date’s opinion that the association should be subordinate to the shrine, and not court the masses for the sake of money. The meeting established the framework for the worshippers’ association. It determined that any person could enter the shrine in their private capacity to worship the enshrined kami. The association would support the shrine’s daily running and be subordinate to the shrine. The Meiji Shrine Worshippers’ Association (Meiji jingū sūkeikai) was duly set up in June 1946, soon after the establishment of Meiji shrine as a religious corporation. The relationship of the shrine to the association was similar to

140 Miyachi N. et al., “Kondankai,” 200–203. 236 chapter five that of the shrine with the pre-war Celebration Committee, in that it was concerned with financial issues rather than matters relating to worship.141

The Shrine Reconstruction Organisations With the ownership problem of the shrine precinct settled, the shrine’s rebuilding project could start in earnest. The project marked the beginning of what I call the third stage of the process of shrine re-creation. The Support Committee for Meiji Shrine Reconstruction (Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai) was established on 27th July 1953, and the Reconstruction Bureau (Meiji jingū zōei iinkai) on 1st March 1955.142 The aims and roles of this committee and bureau were very similar to those of the two organisations engaged in the shrine’s original establishment, the Meiji Shrine Support Committee (Meiji jingū hōsankai) and the Foundation Bureau for Meiji shrine (Meiji jingū zōeikyoku) in the Home Ministry. In addition, the members were drawn from the same circles, and on occasion were even the same people. For example, the members of the post-war support committee were mostly business professionals; the president of the committee, for example, was the chief director of the Tokyo Industry Club, Miyajima Seijirō. Sunami Takashi, the architect who directed the reconstruction, had participated in the shrine’s design and construction in his youth, and many of the engineers and experts in the Reconstruction Bureau were members of the former Home Ministry. There were important differences between the pre- and post-war organisations, however: the members of the latter participated in the project in their private capacities and, contrary to both of the pre-war organisations which were created as subordinate organisations within the Home Ministry, it was the shrine priests, not the Home Ministry, who took the initiative in the rebuilding project.

5.3.2 The Transformation of Spatial Identity In the same way that those involved in the original Taisho creation of the shrine had debated fiercely the most appropriate shrine architecture for “a new age,” the post-war re-creators were just as interested in realising a shrine most suitable for their own ‘new age.’ The Meiji shrine space had from the start accommodated different ideas of the shrine. While the

141 Miyachi N. et al., “Kondankai,” 203. 142 Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai, Gofukkō junbi iinkai • fukkō hōsankai sōritsu sōkai kankei shorui, May 1952–July 1953; Meiji jingū zōei iinkai, Zōei iinkai kiroku, 1955–1961. the re-creation of meiji shrine 237

Taisho process of creation was one in which various conceptual spaces were materialised into a particular place, post-war creation started with a place that had vanished, then developed discourses on ideal spaces, and finally made them visible as a new—and yet the same—place. Hav- ing earlier discussed the ideas of the architect Itō Chūta, I now focus on the contribution of Sunami Takashi. Sunami joined the shrine construction team in 1915, after graduating from the department of architecture at Tokyo University.143 As an engineer in the Home Ministry’s Shrine Bureau, Sunami had contributed to shrine construction around the country and in the Japanese colonies. He had inherited the human and technical resources which Itō Chūta had developed, and further expanded them under his own leadership. Sunami was one of the most important of shrine architects, responsible for modernising its principles.144 Despite this, very little investigation has been made of Sunami; similarly, the process of reconstruction has attracted scant attention, although many scholars have written about the construction of Meiji shrine. This examination will hopefully serve, at least partly, to redress this imbalance.

The Revision of Architectural Styles The earliest proposals for the shrine’s reconstruction can be traced back to the beginning of 1948, when Deputy Chief Priest Tanaka raised the need for such a plan at the board meeting of the Worshippers’ Association.145 Miyachi, Yoshida and various business leaders were installed as directors in September 1947, and thereafter played significant roles in shaping and driving forward the reconstruction project. This board of directors of the Worshippers’ Association provided many of the personnel for the two other key organisations, the Support Committee and the Reconstruction Bureau. On 30th March, at the fifth board meeting, a proposal was tabled

143 Sunami Takashi, “Keirekisho,” unpublished, collection of Nihon kenchiku kogei sekkei jimusho, 1966. 144 Aoi A., “Sunami Takashi,” 76–81; Shokuminchi jinja to teikoku Nihon, 224. Fujioka H., “Meiji jingū no kenchiku,” no.1, 70. See also, Fujioka H., “Naimushō, Jinjakyoku • Jingiin jidai no jinja kenchiku,” 460–83. 145 Meiji jingū, Chōsa shitsu, Meiji jingū sūkeikai ni kansuru kiroku. The Worshippers’ Association had amended its board of directors’ regulations and invited new directors from outside the shrine in 1947; before then only the shrine’s priests had served as board directors. The board of directors in the Worshippers’ Association is different from the group of representatives entrusted with the shrine’s management by the chief priest. The former is called yakuinkai, and the latter is sōdaikai. 238 chapter five by Miyachi Naokazu.146 This was the first written general proposal for reconstruction, and it quickly gained the agreement of the other directors. Even at this early stage, the scheme advised adopting new principles. From the beginning Miyachi highlighted a simple but direct choice: “We first need to clarify which route we should take, as the decision is fundamental in constructing the shrine: either a simple recovery of the original shrine structures or a fundamental shift, to meet the needs of a new age.”147 Miyachi then firmly asserted the desirability of the latter, arguing that the reconstruction project should take account of changes in the shrine services and activities necessary for the times; the shrine was a living structure, not a mere historical monument. The new age required the opening of the shrine to a wider public, through changing the form and distribution of the shrine’s structures. Of note here is that Miyachi’s idea of transforming the shrine structures originated from Sunami. Sunami had made several pioneering attempts to construct new types of shrine with a wider public appeal before and during the wartime period. From 1929 onwards, Sunami had criticised the ‘Meiji’ method of shrine construction, and had argued that, in architecture at least, it was as if the Meiji period had lasted until the construction of Meiji shrine in 1920.148 In pre-war shrine construction, Sunami sought to overcome the Meiji method, and the new, post-war Meiji shrine became for him the summation of all his experiences. His criticisms had centred on the regulation system used in shrine construction, which ever since Meiji had been based on the so-called Definitive Plan (Seigenzu) method. This was a plan developed by the government in 1873 in order to standardise construction methods, for the purpose of cost reduction.149 The government aimed to standardise the style, scale and arrangement of all shrine architecture across the country, according to shrine rank. Regard- ing the major state shrines (kanpei taisha), the Definitive Plan suggested building a Middle Gate (Chūmon) to separate the Honden, where the kami resided, from the Haiden [Fig. 35]. The government viewed this separation as appropriate for a ‘traditional’ shrine arrangement, and contrasted it to that of early modern shrines, which it saw as syncretic structures, halfway between shrines and temples.

146 Date T., “Meiji jingū no sōken to hatten,” 223. 147 Ibid. 148 Sunami T., “Jinja kenchiku ni tsuite.” For other articles by Sunami which have indirectly influenced my arguments, see the bibliography. 149 Fujiwara K., “Meiji ki seigenzu no seitei keii to ishō kisei ni kansuru kōsatsu,” 54. Aoki Yūsuke, “Seigenzu no sakusei katei to sono seiritsu jiki ni tsuite,” 266. the re-creation of meiji shrine 239

Figure 35. The Definitive Plan (Seigenzu) for the layout of buildings in major state shrines. (Reprinted, by permission of Jinja Honchō, from Tani Shigeo kizō shiryō).

However, the plan did not prove to be binding; in the second half of the Meiji period shrines were built which did not follow the restrictions. When constructing Meiji shrine, Itō Chūta had also sought a compromise between the old style and a design for a new age.150 The design for the Taisho period Meiji shrine generally adhered to the Definitive

150 Itō C., “Nihon jinja kenchiku no hattatsu,” 418. 240 chapter five

Plan method of the Meiji period, but it also departed from it in certain aspects.151 Nevertheless, the original Meiji shrine was, as Sunami suggested, the last shrine to be constrained, at least in part, by the old ‘definitive’ method. In Sunami’s view, it was unreasonable to apply a particular plan and regulation system to every shrine across Japan, given the great variation in climate and land conditions.152 Sunami also problematised the hierarchisation of shrine space, that is, the separation of the Haiden from the Honden. Reconsidering the role of the Haiden, he preferred to diversify its functions in accordance with each shrine’s needs and to increase the number of its functions to allow worshippers a greater share of the available space. In his pre-war shrine constructions, Sunami challenged the Defini- tive Plan in a number of ways. For example, he removed the Chūmon and connected the Honden and the Haiden, and by building new corridors he united the Honden with other structures too, such as the hall where food offerings were prepared (shinsenjo). Finally, in some large shrines such as Kashihara and Heian shrines, he divided the Haiden into an Inner Hall of Worship (Naihaiden) and Outer Hall of Worship (Gehaiden). Sunami’s plans for the post-war Meiji shrine, which he began in 1949 at the request of the Worshippers’ Association, made the most of his earlier investigations. His decided to change fundamentally the idea of the Haiden. In his words, the purpose of this change was the “democratisation of the shrine.”153 According to Sunami, previous Meiji shrine structures had permitted only persons of high rank to enter through the Chūmon and to take part in shrine rites; ordinary people were excluded. To persevere with such a design was, for him, no longer appropriate in an age when the shrine, separated from the state, had become a place for individuals from all ranks of society. Providing people with closer contact to the kami and a direct view of the shrine rites was, in Sunami’s words, developing Meiji shrine “from a kami-centred shrine to a shrine for people.” Sunami’s decisive innovation was to transform what had been the Chūmon into a Haiden and in so doing realise two Haiden, the Naihaiden (the former Chūmon) and the Gehaiden (the existing Haiden) [Fig. 36]. This transformation was followed by a new arrangement of the shrine’s

151 Fujiwara K., “Sōken jinja no ishō tokusei to fukko shugiteki ishō no sōshutsu ni kansuru kōsatsu,” 66. Fujioka H., “Meiji jingū no kenchiku,” no. 1, 66. 152 Sunami T., “Meiji jingū shaden no fukkō keikaku ni tsuite,” 25. 153 Sunami’s ideas on how to reconstruct Meiji shrine are in “Meiji jingū shaden no fukkō keikaku ni tsuite,” 41–3; Meiji jingū no fukkō zōei ni tsuite. the re-creation of meiji shrine 241

Figure 36. The Chūmon before (top) and after (bottom) its transformation into the Naihaiden. Top: Celebratory post card (Author’s collection). Bottom: Photo by Ōnaka Masanori and Endō Takaya. buildings. The Naihaiden, Gehaiden and Honden were connected by corridors and newly built structures, like the offering hall. The existence of the two Haiden enabled functional diversification: the Naihaiden was for priests and guests, such as officials of the Worshippers’ Association, and the Gehaiden was for ordinary worshippers. More than 1,000 participants could now be accommodated for shrine ceremonies. 242 chapter five

One Shinto dictionary categorises shrine buildings into three groups by function. According to this classification, buildings are either for enshrining the kami, such as the Honden; for worshippers, such as the Haiden; or for priests, such as the shrine office.154 Applying such a classification to Meiji shrine, it is clear that the democratisation of the shrine caused a shift in spatial signification, from a space for kami to a space for worshippers and priests. In addition, as Aoi suggests, opening the space for shrine rites to a much larger group of participants necessarily entailed changes in certain rites; more consideration was now paid to the visitors and worshippers.155 Shrine structures thus re-emerged in the original locations, but with different spatial identities.

Adherence to Taisho Ideals: Rebuilding Materials The choice made regarding the rebuilding of the Haiden was for a thorough revision of the architectural styles of the original Taisho model. Concerning the choice of materials for use in the rebuilding, the opposite applied and the Taisho ideal would be adhered to. The question of whether wood or concrete was more suitable for the shrine in the new post-war age provoked much heated discussion, just as it had in the Taisho period. This can be understood from the fact that the problem of construction material was only solved in 1955, seven years after confirming the transformation of the worshippers’ hall.156 The Support Committee struggled to reach agreement, and a decision was postponed to the second meeting of the Reconstruction Bureau, on 6th April 1955. The problem had surfaced for the first time two years earlier, when architect Sano Toshikata, raised the first objections to wooden construction.157 Sano, one of the engineers who had participated in the Taisho construction of the shrine, forcefully countered by proposing a concrete shrine building. Among those on the Support Committee and Reconstruction Bureau who agreed with Sano were influential architects, such as Uchida Yoshikazu and Kobayashi Masakazu. They had argued for concrete buildings after the Great Kanto Earthquake, and pleaded now for the committee to have the wisdom to rebuild the future shrine with concrete, for the sake of the Japanese people,

154 Shimonaka Yasaburō ed., Shintō daijiten, 767–8. 155 Aoi A., “Sunami Takashi,” 78–9. 156 Meiji jingū zōei iinkai, Zōei iinkai kiroku, 1955–1961. 157 “Gofukkō daiikkai kondankai gijiroku,” 5th June 1952, in Gofukkō junbi shorui, ed. Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai, May 1952-July 1953; “Meiji jingū fukkō junbi iinkai gijiroku,” 20th October 1952, in Gofukkō junbi shorui. the re-creation of meiji shrine 243 who had suffered earthquakes and bomb attacks. Takahashi Ryūtarō, the chairman of the Worshippers’ Association and of a corporation promoting fire-proof buildings, also supported the use of concrete. Shrine priests, on the other hand, adhered to the original wooden design. For example, the then deputy chief priest, Date Tatsumi, told his opponents about an episode involving Emperor Meiji. The emperor, it seems, had once talked about the ceremonial rebuilding of Ise shrine every twenty years, and suggested that the shrine should always be rebuilt with wood, even if new building methods and materials were developed.158 Date called for the shrine’s creators to follow what the enshrined kami, that is, the emperor, had suggested. Sano and others did not change their minds at this point, but rather proposed to conduct experimental research in order to provide evidence that the new materials would not undermine the dignity of the shrine. Sunami was in a difficult position, for Sano, Uchida and others were his seniors, and highly influential in the world of architecture. Although Sunami supported the priests, during the discussions he confessed the issue was troubling him.159 He suggested the ideal materials depended on the shrine; some shrines could be constructed with new materials, while others, like Meiji shrine, could not. Sunami’s opinions were based on his own experience, as he had been, and was still, engaged in the construction of concrete shrines, such as Kanda Myōjin and Minatogawa.160 The main argument for concrete was firstly that these shrines were, in comparison with Meiji shrine, so close to private houses that there was a danger of fires spreading from the town to the shrine, and secondly that their funds did not permit building with wood. Sunami further confessed he was never fully satisfied with concrete shrines; he believed that wooden- looking concrete shrines and genuine wooden shrines were as different as chalk and cheese.161 For the Meiji shrine priests, concrete shrines were unacceptable. Date inspected Minatogawa shrine and criticised it severely, arguing it was far from equal to a wooden shrine. On the other hand, Sano spoke highly of the Imperial Treasure House (Shōsōin), which was under reconstruction with concrete, and maintained that decent results were

158 Hinonishi Sukehiro, “Meiji tennō no gonichijō,” excerpt, in Gojūnenshi, 288–9. 159 “Dainikai Meiji jingū fukkō junbi senmon iinkai gijiroku,” 13th December 1952, in Gofukkō junbi iinkai. 160 Morita Kōnosuke, Minatogawa jinja shi, vol. 2. 161 Meiji jingū zōei iinkai, “Daiikkai Meiji jingū zōei iinkai kaigi yōroku,” 11th March 1955, in Zōei iinkai kiroku. 244 chapter five attainable if creators made the best use of the newest technologies.162 The impasse was left to the Reconstruction Bureau to resolve. The situation improved in March 1955, when those who favoured wood were presented with two developments favourable to their cause.163 The first was the admission of another architect, Kishida Hideto, as a member of the Reconstruction Bureau. Kishida, one of Itō Chūta’s students, described himself as a faithful follower of Itō’s theory of the wooden shrine, and strongly advocated the use of wood in the construction.164 What prompted Kishida’s entry into the controversy was that Date and others had begged him to help convince their opponents. Their strategy went well, and Kobayashi later recalled that Kishida’s enthusiastic speech changed the tide.165 In the first meeting of the Reconstruction Bureau on 11th March 1955, Kishida attacked Uchida and others with great vigour. He argued that creating shrines with concrete was an absurd idea, which prioritised the means over the end; shrines were, in Kishida’s view, characterised by their wooden materials before everything else, while houses could differ as a matter of convenience. His opinions were highly thought of by the participants; his argument, after all, had derived from the ideas of the great Itō.166 The second development was a strategic ploy, organised by the bureau directors. Priests frequently marshalled events from Emperor Meiji’s life, as well as his poems, to their cause; imperial discretion was for them their strongest card. This is why Miyajima Seijirō, chairman at the first meeting, proposed asking the Home Ministry to approach members of the imperial family for their opinions.167 It emerged during the second meeting, on 6th April, that some members of the imperial family were indeed “in favour of a wooden shrine.” Chief Priest Takatsukasa had solicited these opinions from meetings with members of the imperial family, such as Matsudaira

162 Ibid. 163 Meiji jingū zōei iinkai, “Dainikai Meiji jingū zōei iinkai kaigi yōroku,” 6th April 1955, in Zōei iinkai kiroku. 164 Kishida wrote Itō Chūta’s biography in 1945, while Itō was still alive. Kishida Hideto, Kenchiku gakusha Itō Chūta. 165 Kishida Hideto henshū iinkai, ed., Kishida Hideto, vol. 1, 221–2. For Kishida’s position, see Kishida H., “Ki ka konkurīto ka,” 46–47; “Meiji jingū naru,” 44–45. Maeshima Yasuhiko, ed., Orishimo Yoshinobu sensei gyōseki roku, 139–40. 166 Kishida H., “Ki ka konkurīto ka,” 46–47; “Meiji jingū naru,” 44–45. 167 Uchida and others had been insisting on a majority decision. Meiji jingū zōei iinkai, “Daiikkai zōei iinkai kaigi yōroku,” 11th March 1955. the re-creation of meiji shrine 245

Nobuko.168 In light of these two developments, the bureau finally reached agreement. Shrine structures inside the tamagaki fence, including the Hon- den and the Haiden, should be built with wood, while structures outside the fence, such as the shrine office, might be built with concrete. To re-create Meiji shrine according to the needs of a new age was easier said than done. Although in one sense the ‘democratisation’ of the Haiden and other main structures transformed them, it was nevertheless deemed that the construction material itself should be wood, as it was for the original shrine. The building of the new structures with the materials of the original construction was a curious arrangement; a certain democratisation of the shrine had been built into the new Meiji shrine, but the suggestions of imperial family members had also played their part. The post-war Meiji shrine was established in the same location, with the same materials, as the original shrine; however, the same site contained within it fundamental transformations and contrasting ideas.

Meiji Shrine as Architectural Model The reproduction of the Taisho period Meiji shrine space also involved productions of space outside the shrine. Just as the Taisho creation of the shrine became the impetus for developing new technologies and studies, so the post-war re-creation was a generative process which saw the pool- ing of knowledge by engineers and other experts and the concomitant development of a new style of post-war shrine architecture. The key figure here was Sunami. He was the leading post-war shrine architect, and it was he who established Meiji shrine as the norm for post-war shrine architecture. The role of the Japan Shrine Architecture and Crafts Com- pany is relevant here. The company was established in 1947 as a result of cooperation between shrine priests and engineers in the former Home Ministry, for the purpose of training engineers after the ministry had been abolished.169 Sunami was the first company director, and all five of the earliest staff of the company were engineers from the former ministry.170 Although the company was independent of the Association of Shinto Shrines, in practice it took advantage of its privileged position; its office

168 Meiji jingū zōei iinkai, “Dainikai Meiji jingū zōei iinkai kaigi yōroku,” 6th April 1955. 169 Nihon kenchiku kōgei sekkei jimusho, Nihon kenchiku kōgei sekkei jimusho. 170 Shibata Yoshiharu, “Naimu gishi (Jingiin gishi) Sunami Takashi no jinja kenchiku kan,” 100. 246 chapter five was located within the association offices, and it developed and grew in association with the Meiji shrine re-creation project. Both the second director, Kobashi Hideo (the president at the time of writing), and the third and incumbent director, Kawamura Akio, were involved in the shrine’s re-creation project under the leadership of Sunami, and played important roles. Kobashi had worked in the Home Ministry under Sunami’s direction since 1935 and assisted him in the Meiji shrine project, eventually succeeding him. Kawamura worked in Meiji shrine as a permanent member of the engineering staff after the Reconstruction Bureau was dissolved, and he developed closer coordination between the shrine and the company.171 Through building and rebuilding many shrine structures, the company’s, and by extension, Sunami’s ideas about and methods for shrine construction came to be known as the standard in the field. In particular, Sunami had worked on separating the inner and outer Haiden of many local shrines. The fact that Meiji shrine adopted Sunami’s radical idea of separation, which had only been employed by a limited number of shrines before the war ended, assured other, smaller shrines of the merits of the new design. While Sunami originally proposed the democratisation of the shrine as the antithesis of the regulation system, in effect his methods became the new standard. Another interesting architect was Takezawa Kaname, the president of the Takezawa Classic Architecture Corporation. He was also linked to Sunami and the Japan Shrine Architecture and Crafts Company, but unlike many other architects that influenced the development of Meiji shrine, he was neither a Home Ministry engineer nor a graduate of Tokyo University. When the Reconstruction Bureau was established in 1955, he was a 20-year-old carpenter in Shimane Prefecture, working towards his dream of becoming a master builder. After reading a Meiji shrine classified advertisement in March 1956, he decided to go to Tokyo.172 The shrine put adverts in newspapers on several occasions, because the post- war reconstruction project could no longer rely on the government for the recruitment of workers. By 1956 almost 170 workers were working for the shrine, and Takezawa was one of them. They lived in the shrine’s dormi- tories together, working and learning under the direction of Sunami.

171 Kobashi Hideo and Kawamura Akio, president and director respectively of Nihon kenchiku kōgei sekkei jimusho, interview by the author, 13th, 20th January 2006, Tokyo. Tape recording. 172 Takezawa Kaname, Watashi no kokorozashi, 8–9; interview by the author, 15th December 2005, Tokyo. Tape recording. the re-creation of meiji shrine 247

When the reconstruction was completed, Takezawa formally entered the Japan Shrine Architecture and Crafts Company and continued to work under Sunami. In 1967 Takezawa finally left and opened an office in Tokyo, at Sunami’s suggestion. Along with Kobashi, Takezawa was one of two main post-war shrine architects who followed the Sunami method. Indeed, it is safe to say that the mainstream in shrine architecture in the post-war period was shaped by Sunami and his successors.173 In the recent construction of Samukawa Shrine, Takezawa, the director, explained that he had “followed the style of Meiji shrine’s reconstruction, as carried out by my master, Sunami.”174 Meiji shrine, which emerged out of a process of constant dialogue, discussion and debate, served as a standard, or even the standard, for various shrine creations, and further spurred shrine architects on to new levels of excellence in shrine design.

5.3.3 Transformation and Celebration on 3rd November On 31st October 1958, at 7:00 p.m., the solemn transfer of kami (senzasai sengyo no gi) started with a roll of drums. The shrine rite entailed priests relocating the kami from the Provisional Hall to the new Honden. While the lights were extinguished and all was dark, the sacred objects were brought in.175 It is said that about 6,400 members of the Worshippers’ Association, from all around the country, participated in the ceremony. The shrine celebrated its rebirth over the course of about two weeks with events held in a variety of locations.176 Through an examination of this period and the post-war situation in general, I will discuss here the post- war development of Meiji shrine’s time-space on 3rd November.

The People and Their Shrine The structural transformation of the shrine for the purpose of its ‘democratisation’ inevitably changed people’s relationship with it. As Sunami had hoped, 1,000 members of the Worshippers’ Association took reserved seats in the Gehaiden and corridors around the Honden, so that they could watch the transfer ceremony. A further 7,000 or so spectators were provided with seats inside the tamagaki fence to observe the procession of

173 “Jinja kenchiku no seitō o mamoru: Takezawa shachō, kōkeisha ikusei ni jōnetsu,” Chūgai nippō (29th April 1985). 174 Takezawa kaname, “Samukawa jinja gozōei kōji o sekkei shite,” 106–7. 175 Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Gojūnenshi, 278–9. 176 Ibid., 290–294. 248 chapter five priests transferring the sacred objects, although the objects themselves were hidden behind curtains [Fig. 37]. Ordinary visitors could approach the Gehaiden and pay individual homage, even when the priests conducted ceremonies in the Honden.177 According to the shrine’s own report, 1,037,303 people visited the inner precinct from 1st to 3rd November 1958; this was the highest number at this time of year since the war ended [Fig. 38].178 It was the shrine’s objective to host as many visitors as possible during the three days. The situation could hardly have been more different from that of 1920, when ordinary people were completely absent from the ceremonies, unable to see or attend anything at all. In the new post-war environment, it was the priests who took the initiative in planning festive events. On 1st January 1958, the shrine entrusted

Figure 37. Worshippers watching the shrine rite on 31st October 1958. (Meiji Shrine Archives).

177 Meiji jingū, Senzasai jimukyoku, Meiji jingū honden senzasai kankei jimu yōkō, October–November 1958, 8, 47–8. Unusually, the shrine official forbade entrance to ordinary visitors after 3:40 p.m. on 31st October in order to avoid congestion (ibid., 31). 178 Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Gojūnenshi, 662. the re-creation of meiji shrine 249

Figure 38. A crowded inner precinct on 1st November 1958. (Meiji Shrine Archives). to its new Festive Events Division overall responsibility for the events.179 The division’s task was to equal or, if possible, surpass the events which marked the shrine’s inauguration a generation earlier.180 From August the division had frequent meetings with representatives of business and with neighbourhood associations in Shibuya Ward, with officials of the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, and with Tokyo Metropolitan Government officials. The division’s purpose was to seek of these different bodies their cooperation and financial support. Their efforts bore fruit. One challenge that both sides first had to overcome was the establishment of an acceptable relationship between the shrine as religious organisation and these public organisations. For example, an official of the metropolitan government, expressing his concern, mentioned that his office was searching for a way to cooperate with the shrine without infringing upon Articles 20 and 89 of the constitution.181 As with other cases throughout the country, there was confusion here too over the extent to which Meiji shrine

179 For the bureau and the preparation of the re-establishment festival, see Meiji jingū, Senzasai jimukyoku, Senzasai kankei shorui tsuzuri, no. 1, October 1955; no. 2. 180 Meiji jingū, Honden senzasai hōshuku gyōji kankei tsuzuri, keigai no bu, vol. 3. 181 Meiji jingū, Senzasai jimukyoku, “Tokyoto kankei bukyoku tantōsha zōei jōkyō shisatsu narabi ni kondankai yōroku,” in Senzasai kankei shorui tsuzuri. 250 chapter five was to be bound by the principle of the separation of religion and state. Aware of the dangers of constitutional infringement, the shrine and public organisations agreed that there would be no co-hosting of commemorative events. As a result, organisations like Japan National Railways and the Metropolitan Bus and Metropolitan Tram Companies went ahead and marketed their own commemorative tickets. The Public Tobacco Monop- oly too produced, quite independently, its own commemorative “Peace” cigarettes, selling a million packets in the Tokyo area. The fact that the shrine had lost its state-owned status enabled it to build closer relationships with local government, civil agencies and private enterprise.182 For these groups, the shrine’s festival events were perfect occasions to promote their own commercial and tourist businesses [Fig. 39]. The tourist associations in both Shinjuku and Shibuya Wards, the neighbourhood associations in Minato Ward and other groups constructed ‘celebratory towers’ and decorated the local streets. A shopkeep- er’s association in Shinjuku organised a parade around the outer precinct. Shinjuku Ward itself organised a “Shinjuku commerce and tourist festival” at the Westside plaza in front of Shinjuku Station, in “commemoration of the shrine’s reestablishment.” Private businesses sponsored diverse exhibitions and events. For example, Mainichi shinbun sponsored a special exhibition on Emperor Meiji in Mitsukoshi department store, and held a Meiji shrine photo contest. In cooperation with Meiji shrine, Asahi shinbun co-sponsored an exhibition at Tōkyū department store on the architecture of Meiji and other shrines. An exhibition entitled “Sporting Memory” was held under the joint auspices of Yomiuri shinbun, Hōchi shinbun and the shrine. The Japan Broadcasting Corporation (NHK) broadcast a special song and talk show to commemorate the shrine’s re-creation, which was filmed at the Japan Youth Centre. In the inner and outer precincts, celebratory performances, such as yabusame, nō and sumō, were hosted by the Support Committee, just as they had been in 1920, but this time mikoshi parades, prohibited in pre-war days, were permitted to enter into the inner precinct [Fig. 40]. The shrine was thus able to hold various celebratory events and to realise a measure of ‘democratisation’ of the shrine’s ceremonies and events, just as had been hoped for by Sunami and shrine priests. As if to underscore

182 General accounts on events held to celebrate the Meiji shrine re-establishment festival are drawn from: Meiji jingū, Chōsa shitsu, Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan shiryō, fukkō no Meiji jingū, Senzasai jimukyoku, Meiji jingū honden senzasai kankei jimu yōkō; Meiji jingū honden senzasai saigi teiyō. the re-creation of meiji shrine 251

Figure 39. Events held and structures built for celebrating the reconstruction of Meiji shrine. (Meiji Shrine Archives). 252 chapter five

Figure 40. Mikoshi parading in the inner precinct of Meiji shrine. (Meiji Shrine Archives). this change, the pre-war spatial demarcation of events according to their relative degrees of ‘solemnity’ or ‘festiveness’ was disregarded.

Reordering the Temporal Identity of 3rd November In the same way, the temporal significance of 3rd November, of which the pre-war shrine had made much, was now modified and downgraded. Post- War National Holiday Law No. 178 (20th July 1948) changed the title of the day from Meiji Day (Meiji setsu) to Culture Day (Bunka no hi). The temporal identity of 3rd November was thereby also transformed from the birthday of Emperor Meiji into a day on which “the nation appreciates peace and freedom, and develops culture.”183 This fundamental change in national holidays stemmed from one of GHQ’s recommendations. For GHQ, pre-war national holidays were nothing but a reinforcement of “the aggressive nationalistic doctrines of State Shinto.”184 Bunce and other CIE staff believed that these days

183 Tokoro I., Nihon no shukusaijitsu, 51–2. 184 Bunce, “National Holidays—Official Documents, Prepared by Dr. W. K. Bunce, 27th May 1948,”164. the re-creation of meiji shrine 253 should be abolished, along with “certain undesirable Shinto terminology in the naming of new holidays.”185 They were well aware of the importance of 3rd November for the pre-war Japanese nation. A CIE study noted the day commemorated not only the emperor’s birthday but also “the achievements of Japan in the Meiji era.” Meiji Day should be abolished, argued GHQ, because it had functioned and would continue to function as a “favourite occasion for acclaiming the glorious expansion of the empire under the divine guidance of one of the most remarkable emperors in Japanese history.”186 Interestingly, 3rd November had experienced an identity shift even before the Japanese government renamed the day Culture Day, for it was the day on which the Japanese Constitution had been promulgated (3rd November 1946). According to a public opinion poll in January 1948, the understanding of 3rd November among those who desired its reten- tion as a national holiday had already split into two: those who favoured commemorating the Meiji era, and those who wanted to commemorate the promulgation of the constitution.187 It remains unclear whether it was GHQ or the Japanese government that determined the day would serve to commemorate the promulgation of the constitution. Either way, the meaning of the day changed for Japanese people, and the practice of commemorating Emperor Meiji’s birthday on 3rd November began to slip way.

The Changing Meaning of the Feast Day As the 1958 festival period in Meiji shrine was loosely extended up to 14th November, 3rd November began to lose its force as a feast day of significance. This progressive downgrading of the date was a consequence of the shrine’s policies, namely its assumption of a new identity as a “shrine for individual persons” “in accordance with a new age.” In 1946 the shrine had recorded its lowest number of annual visitors since its establishment (440,000); the result was a sense of crisis among the priests concerning the shrine’s future.188 In order to increase visitor numbers, shrine officials established a new department, the Department of Cultural Affairs within the shrine office.189

185 Bunce, “National Holidays,” 164. See also Woodard, Allied Occupation, 143–7. 186 Ibid., 162. 187 Tokoro I., Shukusaijitsu, 46. 188 Meiji jingū gaien nanajūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Nanajūnenshi, 662–5. 189 Date T., “Meiji jingū no hatten,” 221–223. 254 chapter five

The department was charged with developing new strategies that would draw to the shrine an ever-wider variety of visitors, including those who felt no immediate association with Emperor Meiji. To this end, the department implemented three key innovations.190 The first was the introduction of new services. From 1st January 1947 the shrine began selling fortune slips, or omikuji, to visitors. Heretofore, the shrine had only ever sold talismans, or ofuda, since it understood its mission was to serve the state and imperial family and not individuals; after all, talismans were understood to be a means of distributing far and wide Emperor Meiji’s virtue. In addition, in June 1948 the shrine prepared a box to receive monetary offerings from individual visitors. Again, this was the first time the shrine had accepted offerings for private prayers, although this had long been common practice at local shrines. Equating itself with other shrines, in particular local shrines, was in itself a fundamental shift for an erst- while government shrine. The second innovation was the inventive use to which the shrine put waka poems composed by Emperor Meiji and Empress Shoken. Poems were first exploited as messages from the enshrined kami to visitors in the form of fortune slips, but live performances using the poems were also initiated; the shrine was aiming to establish attractions which could only be experienced at Meiji shrine.191 For example, on 30th July 1947 the priests for the first time publicly sang musical compositions for poems written by the emperor for the commemoration of his death.192 In the following year the shrine produced and performed in public an original Kagura dance, named Yamato mai, which was based on a poem by the Meiji Emperor: “The spacious sky / Spans severe and clear / So blue above / Oh, that our soul could grow / And become so expansive.” The poem, which the shrine maidens (miko) performed on 30th July, duly became one of the shrine’s most popular annual attractions. Similarly, one of the empress’s poems was then the inspiration for the Kuretake no mai of 1950: “We pray that people / Be just unassuming / Like the bamboo / Which grows without pretension / Or unsightly gnarls.” Since 1950, this dance has been performed every year on 11th April, to commemorate the empress’s death. The third and final major innovation the department made was the introduction of an annual feast day on 3rd May for the Worshippers’

190 “Meiji jingū kankei kotohajime sakuin,” in Nanajūnenshi, 722–7. 191 Ibid., 215–22. 192 Ibid., 653–4. the re-creation of meiji shrine 255

Association, the first of which was held on 3rd May 1947. The shrine chose this day because it was exactly half a year before (or after) 3rd Novem- ber. In so doing, the shrine could develop both annual festive events in tandem, as spring and autumn festivals. The ceremonies and celebratory events of the spring festival have tended to mirror those of the autumn festival.193 The shrine’s innovations were highly successful, and shrine visitor numbers recovered to a total of 7,388,383 in 1958.194 Meiji shrine yielded the temporal significance of 3rd November to other days.

193 Ibid., 221–2. 194 Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, ed., Gojūnenshi, 662.

Conclusion

This book has argued that, from the beginning of its construction in 1912 to the completion of its reconstruction in 1958, Meiji shrine was always a contested space in which various groups struggled to realise an ideal shrine, and through which various interpretations of Shinto and religion were shaped, reshaped and acquired meaning. The discussions in this book, I contend, make a number of useful contributions. The key contribution is in the introduction of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of Shinto and so of Meiji shrine. Such an approach has informed my analysis of the history and development of Meiji shrine, and allowed me to locate and examine the players, ideas and experiences that formed and continually re-formed it. Rather than applying uncritically the established methodologies of religious and Shinto studies, I began by asking what the shrine’s space itself told us. The premise here has been that the shrine should be considered the sum of its diverse component parts, those parts being its inner and outer precincts, the various facilities found therein, and the physical approaches linking both precincts together. Spatial analysis has informed this study throughout and has made possible my interdisciplinary approach. The book is the first study either in Japanese or English to delineate the history of the shrine from its foundation in the Taisho period through to the Showa period. The five chapters have dealt chronologically with the foundation and development of Meiji shrine but they have also focused on specific aspects of shrine history. I began with the process of creation of the shrine’s inner and outer precincts, from Emperor Meiji’s death in 1912 to the completion of the shrine in 1920, then proceeded in chapter 2 to examine the establishment of the Memorial Art Gallery in the outer precinct, from the initiation of the plan in 1915 to the gallery’s public opening in 1936. The third chapter explored the way in which the shrine’s approaches were developed in tandem with the growth of Tokyo during the Taisho period, taking the evolution of city planning and the aftermath of the 1923 Great Earthquake as focal points. I next traced the history of the Meiji Shrine Sports Meets, held fourteen times in total from 1924 to 1943 at the outer precinct stadium, and focused on the 11th Sports Meet, 1940, to locate the shrine in wartime Japan. In my final chapter, I considered the shrine in its post-war manifestation. After an examination of Allied 258 conclusion wartime policy on post-war Shinto and of the reshaping of the shrine’s status during the Occupation, I discussed the process of the shrine’s post- war reconstruction and the events that marked the completion of this reconstruction in 1958. Each chapter in the book has explored the threefold production of shrine space at Meiji shrine and worked to weave them into a genealogy of the shrine. Firstly I have discussed how various players, involved in making the shrine history, shaped their own understandings of the space and how these understandings were in turn articulated into a distinctive place. Secondly, I have given consideration to the interaction of space formation with time formation. Thirdly, my examination has reflected on how ordinary people experienced the time-space of the shrine, and how from their experiences the shrine was constituted. I refer to this involvement of people in the shrine’s creation as ‘spatial practice,’ and to my consideration of people’s practices as ‘performance analysis.’ Chapter 1 began, then, with a discussion of the complexity of Taisho period intellectual discourses on religion, Shinto and Meiji shrine. Although these discourses portrayed Emperor Meiji as an ideal for the Japanese people, and the shrine as a place of significance for the national integration of Japan, this does not necessarily imply that they were compatible. For propagators of the theory of national morality (kokumin dōtoku) such as Inoue Tetsujirō, the shrine was an educational institution at which to instruct people. For the religious scholar, Katō Genchi, Meiji shrine was the centrepiece of the religion of loyalty. Meiji shrine was for these intellectuals a solution to the discrepancy between government policy that “the shrine was not a religious institution” on the one hand, and the criticism of Western scholars like Basil Hall Chamberlain, on the other, that Shinto was an “invented new religion.” The argument in this chapter exposed the layers of movements that effected the physical construction of the shrine. Various local campaigns set in motion the initial shrine creation plan. The Home Ministry responded by setting up the Foundation Bureau. While central government provided the funding to build the inner precinct, it was private enterprise, namely the Meiji Shrine Support Committee, that funded the outer precinct. Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture, Tokyo City and the Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and Industry, provided the major players on the Support Committee, from the shrine’s planning through to its completion. The role of scholars in the shrine’s physical construction was particularly significant, because they applied their professional skills to spatial definitions, and finally produced the physical components of the shrine: its conclusion 259 architecture, its forest, and its regalia. For the shrine builders, the creation of the shrine was an attempt to manifest what they supposed to be an ‘authentic’ shrine, one which followed the precepts of ‘traditional’ Shinto. The very definition of ‘shrine’ became a central issue. The formation of Meiji shrine was thus a process within which the ‘authentic’ traditions of shrines were questioned, debated and finally made manifest. The same chapter shed light on the time and space of 3rd November, Emperor Meiji’s birthday, as the shrine’s feast day, and examined celebratory performances held for the shrine’s inauguration on and around that day in 1920. What constituted the events of 3rd November were not only the shrine rites performed by priests but also various celebratory events organised and ordered by local Tokyo groups. They distributed various events geographically through the inner precinct, the outer precinct and Hibiya Park. Celebratory performances for the shrine were geographically hierarchised, and in this process different places were also hierarchically combined together as a single performative space. It is clear that the far- ther a place was set apart from the core shrine building, the more the celebratory performances moved from the ‘formal’ to the ‘festive.’ The well-ordered space of the shrine was reordered by people as an extension to their own festivities. People invested greatly in the shrine’s feast day, enjoyed watching sideshows and acrobatic performances. Popular too were the special dramas shown by many cinemas in the Asakusa rokku area to celebrate the shrine’s inauguration. For many enterprising merchants as well as Asakusa showmen, the shrine’s festival was above all a good business opportunity. Chapter 2 contended that the Memorial Art Gallery was constructed as a mnemonic space and that its construction concerned the making of history. The gallery project took over 20 years before its completion in 1936, its aim being to exhibit historical paintings depicting the history of Emperor Meiji and his era. I argued that the process of rendering history visible impacted on the forms of pictures and ultimately on history itself. It was the lengthy process of gallery construction, rather than the place itself, that shaped what was to be remembered. The main players in the creation of the Memorial Art Gallery were historiographers and painters, as well as members of the Support Committee. The historiographers were responsible for compiling two national historiographies, Dainihon ishin shiryō (Records of the Meiji Restoration) in the Ministry of Education and Meiji tennōki (Chronicles of Emperor Meiji) in the Imperial Household Agency, and for investigating historical facts and determining the gallery’s picture topics. Painters’ activities were also decisive in the process of gallery 260 conclusion creation as they, no less than the historiographers, were the interpreters of the history to be represented. Both the historiographers and painters strove to portray ‘real’ history in the gallery’s paintings, because they believed that only legitimatised history was worthy of exhibition and remembrance in the shrine. For historiographers, the paintings in the gallery constituted the first form of national historiography made available to the public. Their task was to choose the picture topics that would represent the national narrative of the Meiji era rather than merely narrate a biography of Emperor Meiji. For painters, a challenge lay in determining ‘realistic’ styles of painting adequate to the representation of ‘real’ history. The discussions and negotiations concerning procedures continued among the historiographers and painters, as the latter lobbied the former to oppose the appointment of certain painters to the project, and the ensuing ruptures became a major cause of the delay in the project. The contrast between the expectations of the gallery’s creators and the experience of the visitors, in terms of how the gallery was viewed as well as how it was meant to be viewed, was also the subject of the second chapter. During its ten years of limited opening, from 1927 to 1937, a large number of people visited the gallery. However, what they saw, and perhaps what they went to see, was not the structured linear history the creators intended, because during this period the gallery exhibited less than half of the total number of history paintings. Rather, visitors flocked to the gallery simply because it had become one of the most popular sightseeing sites in Tokyo. In chapter 2, I also examined a painting of Emperor Meiji inspecting farmer soldiers in Hokkaido. This work interested me because locals intervened to effect a change in topic: the original intention had been to depict the emperor inspecting the Ainu bear festival. Using this case study, I suggested how the making of a mnemonic space, in the form of the gallery, became the catalyst for local people, in this case those of Hokkaido, to recall their own past, investigate the historical ‘facts’ and finally renew their memories. Chapter 3 considered the shrine’s approaches as a space of the everyday at Meiji shrine. The main approach (Omotesandō) and the secondary approach (Urasandō) were the shrine’s access space, and also the physical connections which linked the shrine to local people’s spaces of dwelling. I argued the construction of the shrine and its approaches transformed people’s practice of residing, and further suggested this practice itself rendered the shrine space distinctive. The players involved in city planning were influential in shaping the development of the shrine and its environs. conclusion 261

When the Great Earthquake hit Tokyo in 1923, the shrine approaches were still under construction. In fact, the city’s planners saw Omotesandō as an experiment in road planning; it introduced such innovations as separate driveways and pavements, roadside trees, and asphalt paving. Similarly, Urasandō became Japan’s first boulevard, linking the inner and outer precincts. Other creators were responsible for the residential environment surrounding the shrine’s approaches. One of the results of the 1923 earthquake was the creation of the semi-public organisation, Dōjunkai, to solve Tokyo’s immense housing problems after the earthquake. Through their construction, along Omotesandō, of apartment buildings intended as model apartment houses for the ‘middle class,’ Dōjunkai had a great influence upon the environment of the shrine. The shrine’s approaches and residential surroundings were meant by their creators to provide the public with masterpieces of city planning and models of ‘up-to-date’ middle-class living. At the same time, the creation involved the modification or elimination of the preceding space or of its use. I argued that the shrine and its access space, built in suburbia, served to accelerate further suburbanisation around the area and consequently contributed to a shift in spatial identity, from suburbia to inner city. For those made homeless by the earthquake, many of whom were already destitute, the Dōjunkai policy and its model apartment houses meant little; for them, the aftermath of the earthquake was the spatial relocation of the poor, and thus of poverty. Chapter 3 also showed that it was the residents’ desire to upgrade their residential areas in order to achieve class segregation that necessitated their use of the shrine’s ‘sacredness.’ The process through which the shrine’s approaches and the surrounding residential areas were defined as a conservation zone, known as fūchi chiku (quality space), was central in shaping the development of Meiji shrine. While the Aoyama apartment house was expected to be a space for the ‘up-to-date’ ‘middle class,’ such ideals were not shared by the Harajuku locals, for whom the newcomers stood on the lowest rung of the social ladder. It was the protests of these established residents against the construction of the apartment buildings that prodded the city planners into designating the area as fūchi chiku. Neither spatial identity nor class identity was stable; the discordance between the two was mediated by residents and city planners, using the idea of fūchi chiku as a tool. Chapter 4 illuminated the role played by the Meiji Shrine Sports Meets as a nexus between the shrine and the bodies of the nation. Although the meets were always held on the shrine’s feast day of 3rd November, it 262 conclusion is instructive to note how the responsibility for organising them passed from one player to another over the years. The Public Health Bureau in the Home Ministry hosted the first two meets, a private association called the Association of Meiji Shrine Sports Meets hosted the 3rd to 9th, and the 1939 to 1943 meets were hosted by the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The meets were utilised for the administrative formation of the body in Japan; through this formation, Meiji shrine was directly associated with governmental policy regarding the body. In the case of the 11th Meet in 1940 a complex array of organisations was involved, as the occasion also marked the shrine’s 20th anniversary and the 2600th anniversary of Emperor Jinmu’s enthronement. The 11th Sports Meet was to be held not only in the outer precinct but also simultaneously across the country, its main objective being to strengthen ‘national unity’ through nationwide participation. I focused on the discipline known as group callisthenics (zenkoku issei taisō). For the organisers, the inclusion of group exercise was particularly important in realising national participation. By following radio instructions broadcast from the shrine’s central stadium, the whole nation was required to perform coordinated callisthenics. My investigation then revealed how local bodies and communities actually experienced 3rd November 1940, and clarified some important facts relating to the meet. For example, although many local communities carried out sports-related activities on the day, some of them did not include zenkoku issei taisō, and some were not conscious of any association with the Meiji Shrine Sports Meet; indeed, some sports-related activities were held on days other than 3rd November, even if they did include callisthenics. I also suggested the obligatory nature of the event was exploited in various local celebrations as a convenient occasion to promote local enterprises or activities. The situation in towns and villages around the country was far from the ‘nationwide participation’ the central government wanted. The meaning of 3rd November became somewhat blurred, because the events of the 1940 meet frequently were held in association with those of the 2600th anniversary and other celebrations. The fifth and final chapter of this book explored the process through which Meiji shrine transformed its status, physically rebuilt and reshaped its time-space of celebration on 3rd November. I began with an examination of the Allied forces’ wartime policy on the post-war Meiji shrine and Shinto. In 1944 the U.S. Committee of Post-War Programs (PWC) drew up a basic plan, officially designating a post-war framework for dealing with conclusion 263

Meiji shrine. Some within the Allied forces argued during the war that the ‘nationalist shrine’ should be closed. It was the Japan experts’ understanding of Shinto as an ‘asset,’ a useful tool to control occupied Japan, that ultimately determined the post-war survival of Meiji shrine. The new status of the shrine as a religious corporation was established through negotiations between the Civil Information and Education Section of GHQ and Shinto activists in Japan. It was only after these negotiations were settled that the shrine priests for the first time began to play key roles in shrine management. The ownership of the outer precinct had caused public controversy, and so became the first important issue for the priests to solve. The problem was whether the precinct had been, was and should be part of a religious institution or not. I suggested that Orikuchi Shinobu’s argument about new Shinto and its manifestation in Meiji shrine was decisive in solving the ownership problem and in framing the future shrine. Finally, I examined the processes of repetition and difference in the shrine, its post-war architecture and its celebratory performances. As in the Taisho, so in the post-war, the role of architects was crucial in defin- ing the status of the shrine through the erecting of new buildings. The architects’ concern was to create a ‘democratised’ shrine in conformity with a ‘new age,’ even as they adhered to Taisho ideals. The post-war Meiji shrine was established in the same location, and built with the same materials, as the original shrine; however, the same site contained within it some fundamental alterations. The transformation in the shrine’s policies, particularly the shift in identity from a shrine for the state to a shrine for individuals, and the transformation of structures for the purpose of opening the shrine up to the wider public, changed people’s relationship with the shrine and its annual feast day. In 1958, people were able for the first time to enter the inner precinct to view the rites taking place in the Honden. This was a marked difference from the situation in 1920, when ordinary people were not permitted to see the shrine rites. Other relationships were being transformed too. Shrine priests established new strategies in an attempt to balance the number of visitors throughout the whole year. The new forms of services provided to this end also affected people’s experiences of the shrine. Individual visitors could now buy ritual objects such as fortune slips (omikuji), and they could watch the shrine’s original kagura dances, invented by the shrine priests by choreographing poems written by the Emperor and Empress Meiji. Finally, shrine priests set up a new feast day on the 3rd May, exactly half a year before the key celebration of 3rd November. As a consequence the temporal significance 264 conclusion of 3rd November, of which the pre-war shrine had made so much, was downgraded and lost to other days. From the outset the interdisciplinary approach deployed here has made clear the sheer diversity of players who acted out significant roles in shaping the shrine’s history. Many who participated in the development of the shrine, and in the contestations that arose over the form the shrine should take, were seeking to realise their own ‘ideal’ shrine. My intention was to explore the nature of the ideas nurtured by these players, such as the creation of a ‘historically correct’ shrine, and the realisation of ‘nationwide participation.’ I also sought to show that many of these aims were, literally, ‘ideals.’ Detailed examination has revealed that there was no one ‘ideal’ shrine; rather, discussions concerning the future nature of the shrine often caused conflicts. It was the very processes of discussion and negotiation that ultimately legitimatised the supposed authenticity of the shrine, of Emperor Meiji’s life and reign, and other issues. The space of Meiji shrine was embodied as a product of negotiated and compromised ideals, and was variously appropriated and exploited by the people who experienced it. Furthermore, applying performance analysis to the content and context of these experiences allowed me to reconsider how the intentions and ideas of the ‘formal’ creators of the shrine, such as the various government agencies, architects and business people, were appropriated by the shrine’s ‘informal’ (re)creators, such as shrine visitors, gallery viewers, and local residents. Meiji shrine was constituted of a number of understandings. These understandings originated from different conceptualisations of Shinto, based on contrasting ideologies, and from different attitudes towards the shrine. Indeed, the word ‘shrine’ does not have a singular, unified meaning. While the reading of ‘shrine,’ indeed of any word, may be based on the premise of a shared understanding, it is most likely to be interpreted quite differently according to actor and circumstance, with the result that each interpretation achieves its own ‘place.’ The interdisciplinary approach applied here to the spatial analysis of Meiji shrine provides a new perspective on the study of State Shinto, and on the relationship between the state and Shinto. State Shinto is a cat- egorical creation, an academic device for the analysis of state and Shinto during the period from the Meiji Restoration to World War II. The term ‘State Shinto’ can be misleading, as it may refer both to the social circumstances of the state and to a specific period in the history of Shinto. One scholar has insisted that “Meiji shrine, the largest state shrine created under the emperor-system . . . was a religious institution which embodied conclusion 265 the dogma of State Shinto.”1 Another scholar has argued that Meiji shrine was a “monument of State Shinto.”2 I do not deny that the space of the shrine was carefully utilised by a number of players as a device with which to integrate the nation. However, I contend that it is simplistic to draw a direct relation between the shrine and State Shinto. The genealogy of the shrine reveals the ever-evolving process of invention and reinvention of Shinto; in this process Shinto was expediently appropriated by, and for, those who interpreted the shrine. Rather than simply equating Shinto with the state, I suggest that the spatial analysis of a specific shrine, in this case Meiji shrine, can open the way towards a reconsideration of how shrines are created, and continuously re-created, through cycles of contested negotiation amongst multiple players operating within ever-changing circumstances and environments. Our understanding of Meiji shrine itself should be based on its intrinsic ambiguity and on its inherent capacity to encompass new interpretations of Shinto in new historical contexts.

1 Murakami S., Kokka Shintō, 189. 2 Helen Hardacre, Shinto and the State, 1868–198, 38.

Glossary

Association of Shrine Priests Dainihon jingikai 大日本神祇会 Association of Shinto Shrines Jinja honchō 神社本庁 Bureau for Religions Shukyōkyoku 宗教局 Bureau for Social Affairs Shakaikyoku 社会局 Chronicles of Emperor Meiji Meiji tennōki 明治天皇紀 Celebratory Events Hōshuku gyōji 奉祝行事 Ceremony Shukuten 祝典 City Planning Commissions Toshi keikaku iinkai 都市計画委員会 City Planning Law Toshi keikakuhō 都市計画法 City Planning Road Toshi keikaku gairo 都市計画街路 City Reconstruction Board Teito fukkōkyoku 帝都復興局 Commission for Shrine Research Jinja seido chōsakai 神社制度調査会 Committee for Selecting Painters Hekiga chōsei iinkai 壁画調成委員会 Definitive Plan Jinja seigen zu 神社制限図 Editorial Bureau for Records of the Ishin shiryō chōsakai Meiji Restoration 維新史料調査会 Extraordinary Editorial Bureau rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku 臨時帝室編修局 Feast Day Reisai (bi) 例祭（日） Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine Meiji jingū zōeikyoku 明治神宮造営局 Gallery Committee Kaigakai iinkai 絵画館委員会 Group Callisthenics Shūdan taisō 集団体操 Hall of Worship Haiden 拝殿 Hokkaido Development Agency Hokkaido chō 北海道庁 Imperial Capital Reconstruction Teito fukkōin 帝都復興院 Department Inner Hall of Worship Naihaiden 内拝殿 Institute for the Study of Imperial Kōten kōkyūjo 皇典講究所 Writings Ise Worshippers’ Association Jingū hōsaikai 神宮奉斎会 Local Bureau Chihōkyoku 地方局 Main Sanctuary Honden 本殿 Meiji Shrine Celebration Meiji Jingūsai hōshukukai Committee 明治神宮祭奉祝会 Meiji Shrine Inner Precinct Meiji jingū naien 明治神宮内苑 Meiji Shrine Main Approach Meiji jingū omotesandō 明治神宮表参道 268 glossary

Meiji Shrine Memorial Art Gallery Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan 明治神宮外苑聖徳記念絵画館 Meiji Shrine Memorial Society Meiji jingū zōei kinenkai 明治神宮造営記念会 Meiji Shrine Outer Precinct Meiji jingū gaien 明治神宮外苑 Meiji Shrine Reconstruction Meiji jingū zōei iinkai Bureau 明治神宮造営委員会 Meiji Shrine Sports Meet Meiji jingū taiiku taikai 明治神宮体育大会 Meiji Shrine Secondary Approach Meiji jingū urasandō 明治神宮裏参道/ Naien gaien renraku dōro 内苑外苑連絡道路 Meiji Shrine Support Committee Meiji jingū hōsankai 明治神宮奉賛会 Meiji Shrine Worshippers’ Meiji jingū sūkeikai Association 明治神宮崇敬会 Middle Gate Chūmon 中門 National Morality Kokumin dōtoku 国民道徳 National Polity Kokutai 国体 Outer Hall of Worship Gehaiden 外拝殿 Picture Committee Kaiga iinkai 絵画委員会 Picture Selection Consultative senga kyōgi iinkai Committee 選画協議委員会 Public Morals Fūki 風紀 Quality of Space Fūchi 風致 Quality Area Fūchi chiku 風致地区 Records of the Meiji Restoration Dainihon ishin shiryō 大日本維新史料 Religious Corporations Ordinance shūkyō hōjinrei 宗教法人令 Sacred Object of Worship Mitamashiro 御霊代 Secretariat of the Kigen 2600nen shukuten jimukyoku 2600th Anniversary 紀元二千六百年祝典事務局 Shrine Board Jingiin 神祇院 Shrine Bureau Jinjakyoku 神社局 Shrine Feasibility Committee Jinja hōshi chōsakai 神社奉祀調査会 Special City Planning Tokubetsu toshi keikaku iinkai Commissions 特別都市計画委員会 Shrine Rites Jinja saishiki 神社祭式 Steering Committee (in the Gaimushō shūsen renraku jimukyoku Foreign Ministry) 外務省終戦連絡事務局 Support Committee for Meiji Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai Shrine Reconstruction 明治神宮復興奉賛会 Tokyo Chamber of Commerce Tokyo shōkō kaigisho and Industry 東京商工会議所 Tokyo City Tokyoshi 東京市 glossary 269

Tokyo Metropolis Tokyoto 東京都 Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture Tokyofu 東京府 Tokyo City Improvement Tokyo shiku kaisei jōrei Ordinance 東京市区改正条例 Tokyo Reconstruction Project Teito fukkō keikaku 帝都復興計画

Bibliography1

Meiji Shrine Archival Sources

Published Materials Akioka Yasuji 秋岡保治, Tanaka Kiyoshi 田中喜芳 et al. “Jingū chinza 10•20•30 nensai tōji no omoide o kataru 神宮鎮座 10•20•30 年祭当時の思い出を語る.” Yoyogi 代々木, 20th November 1960, 4–7. Asahi supōtsu アサヒスポーツ, ed. Daijūichikai Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai gahō 第十一回明治神宮国民体育大会画報. Asahi shinbunsha, 1940. Chiba Taneaki 千葉胤明. “Seikun ippan 聖訓一斑.” In Meiji tennō seitoku hōshō kōensh 明治天皇聖徳奉頌講演集, ed. Tokyoshiyakusho, 100–122. Tokyoshiyakusho, 1921. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho 明治神宮叢書 Vol. 3, Seitoku hen 聖徳編, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū, 560–582. Kokusho kankōkai, 2002. Haga Yaichi 芳賀矢一. “Meiji tennō 明治天皇.” In Meiji tennō seitoku hōshō kōenshū, ed. Tokyoshiyakusho, 38–54. Tokyoshiyakusho, 1921. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 3, Seitoku hen, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū, 498–514. Kokusho kankōkai, 2002. Hongō Takanori 本郷高徳. Meiji jingū gokeidai rin’en keikaku 明治神宮御境内林苑計画. 1921. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 13, Zōei hen 造営編, no. 2, ed. Meiji jingū, 463–718. Kokusho kankōkai, 2004. Hoshino Takeo 星野武男, ed. Meiji tennō gyōkō shiroku 明治天皇行幸史録, Ushio shobō, 1932. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 11, Gyōkō hen 行幸編, ed. Meiji jingū. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎. “Meiji tennō no goseitoku 明治天皇の御聖徳.” In Meiji tennō seitoku hōshō kōenshū, ed. Tokyoshiyakusho, 75–99. Tokyoshiyakusho, 1921. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 3, Seitoku hen, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū, 535–559. Kokusho kankōkai, 2002. Kamei Chūichi 亀井忠一, ed. Seitoku yobun 聖徳余聞. Sanseidō henshūjo, 1906. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 1, Seitoku hen, no. 1, ed. Meiji jingū, 1–210. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. Katō Genchi 加藤玄智, ed. Meiji tennō seitoku yokō 明治天皇聖徳余光. Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai, 1937. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 3, Seitoku hen, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū, 633–842. Kokusho kankōkai, 2002. ——. “Meiji tennō no goseishi to goshintoku 明治天皇の御生祠と御神徳.” In Meiji tennō seitoku yokō, ed. Katō Genchi, 102–111. Meiji jingū seitoku kinen gakkai, 1937. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 3, Seitoku hen, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū, 734–53. Kokusho kankōkai, 2002. Kawada Takeshi 川田剛. Zuiran kitei 隨鑾紀程. 1885. Reprinted in Meiji tennō gyōkō shiroku, ed. Hoshino Takeo. Ushio shobō, 1932; Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 11, Gyōkō hen, ed. Meiji jingū, 860–952. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. Kodama Gennojō 児玉源之丞. Kohitsu nichijō 扈蹕日乗. 1885. Reprinted in Meiji tennō gyōkō shiroku, ed. Hoshino Takeo. Ushio shobō, 1932; Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 11, Gyōkō hen, ed. Meiji jingū, 811–859. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. Kōseishō 厚生省. Daijukkai Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai hōkokusho 第十回明治神宮国民体育大会報告書. Kōseishō, 1940.

1 Unless otherwise stated all Japanese books are published in Tokyo. 272 bibliography

——. Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshuku, daijūichikai Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai hōkokusho 紀元二千六百年奉祝第十一回明治神宮国民体育大会報告書. Kōseishō, 1941. ——. Daijūnikai Meiji jingū kokumin taiiku taikai hōkokusho 第十二回明治神宮国民体育大会報告書. Kōseishō, 1942. Kōyōsha 洪洋社, ed. Meiji Jingū shashinshū 明治神宮写真集. Kōyōsha, 1930. Meiji jingū 明治神宮. Meiji jingū kiroku 明治神宮記録, 1920–1922. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 12, Zōei hen, no. 1, ed. Meiji jingū, 1–844. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. ——. Meiji jingū meisaichō 明治神宮明細帳. 1922. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 12, Zōei hen, no. 1, ed. Meiji jingū, 845–938. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. ——. Meiji jingū saiten kiroku 明治神宮祭典記録, 1915–1923. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 15, Saigi hen 祭儀編, no. 1, ed. Meiji jingū. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. ——. Meiji jingū ni kansuru bidanshū 明治神宮に関する美談集. Meiji jingū, 1924. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 16, Hōsan hen 奉賛編, ed. Meiji jingū, 761–892. Kokusho kankōkai, 2005. ——. Meiji jingū seitoku kinen hekigashū 明治神宮聖徳記念壁画集. Meiji jingū shamusho, 1961. ——. Nisei Goseda Hōryū to Kindai yōga no keifu: Kindai no rekishiga no kaitakusha 二世五姓田芳柳と近代洋画の系譜: 近代の歴史画の開拓者. Meiji jingū, 2006. ——. ed. Ruisan shinshū Meiji tennō gyoshū 類纂新輯明治天皇御集. Meiji jingū, 1990. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 1, Seitoku hen 聖徳編, no. 1. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 11, Gyōkō hen 行幸編, Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 12, Zōei hen 造営編, no. 1. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 20, Zuroku hen 図録編. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 15, Saigi hen, no. 1. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 3, Seitoku hen, no. 3. Kokusho kankōkai, 2002. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 18, Shiryō hen 資料編, no. 2. Kokusho kankōkai, 2003. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 14, Zōei hen, no. 3. Kokusho kankōkai, 2003. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 13, Zōei hen, no. 2. Kokusho kankōkai, 2004. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 16, Hōsan hen. Kokusho kankōkai, 2005. ——. ed. Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 19, Shiryō hen, no. 3. Kokusho kankōkai, 2006. ——. Gaien 外苑. Seitoku kinen kaigakan, Kaiga no hanashi: (Zukai iri) goseitoku 聖徳記念絵画館絵画の話: (図解入り) 御聖徳. Meiji jingū, Gaien, 1992. ——. Gaien, ed. Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga 明治神宮聖徳記念絵画館壁画. Meiji jingū, Gaien, 1986. ——. Gaien kanrisho 外苑管理署. Seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga shū: Nihonga 聖徳記念絵画館壁画集: 日本画. 1941. ——. Gaien kanrisho. Seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga shū: Yōga 聖徳記念絵画館壁画集: 洋画. 1941. Meiji jingū gaien nanajūnenshi hensan iinkai 明治神宮外苑七十年誌編纂委員会, ed. Meiji jingū gaien nanajūnenshi 明治神宮外苑七十年誌. Meiji jingū, Gaien, 1998. Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai 明治神宮五十年誌編纂委員会, ed. Meiji jingū gojūnenshi 明治神宮五十年誌. Meiji jingū, 1979. Meiji jingū hōsankai 明治神宮奉賛会. Meiji jingū hōsankai tsūshin 明治神宮奉賛会通信. Vol. 4–86. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1916–1927. ——. “Meiji jingū hōsankai keika 明治神宮奉賛会経過,” Meiji jingū hōsankai tsūshin. Vol. 4 (10 April 1916), appendix. ——. Kaigakan shitae chō 絵画館下絵帖. 1921. ——. “Gaien shōrai no kibō 外苑将来ノ希望,” 22nd October 1926. In Meiji jingū gaienshi 明治神宮外苑志, ed. Meiji jingū hōsankai. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1937, 88–91; Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 14, Zōei hen, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū, 1–762. Kokusho kankōkai, 2003, 100–103. bibliography 273

——. ed. Meiji jingū gaien hōken gaiyō hōkoku 明治神宮外苑奉献概要報告. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1926. ——. Gaien shashinchō 外苑写真帖. 1927. ——. Seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga shū 聖徳記念絵画館壁画集, vol. 1. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1932. ——. Seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga kaisetsu 聖徳記念絵画館壁画解説. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1933. ——. Meiji jingū gaien seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga kansei kinenshiki shashinchō 明治神宮外苑聖徳記念絵画館壁画完成記念式写真帖. 1936. ——. Seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga shū 聖徳記念絵画館壁画集, vol. 2. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1936. ——. ed. Meiji jingū gaienshi 明治神宮外苑志. Meiji jingū hōsankai, 1937. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 14, Zōei hen, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū, 1–762. Kokusho kankōkai, 2003. ——. ed. Hekiga gadai shiryō 壁画画題資料. 1937. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 18, Shiryō hen, no. 2, ed. Meiji jingū, 1–446. Kokusho kankōkai, 2003. ——. ed. Gadai kōshōzu 画題考証図. 1921. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 20, Zuroku hen, no. 2, 99–180, 366–84. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. Meiji jingū hōsankai and Meiji jingū gaien kanrisho, eds. Hekiga kinsei kiroku 壁画謹製記録, 1934–1945, never completed. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 18, Shiryō hen, no. 2, ed. Meiji jingū, 447–901. Kokusho kankōkai, 2003. Meiji jingūsai hōshukukai 明治神宮祭奉祝会. Meiji jingū chinza jūnensai hōshuku jigyō gaiyō 明治神宮鎮座十年祭奉祝事業概要. Meiji jingū hōshukukai, 1930. ——. Meiji jingū to chinza jūnensai 明治神宮と鎮座十年祭. Meiji jingūsai hōshukukai, 1930. ——. Meiji jingū chinza nijūnensai hōshuku jigyō gaiyō 明治神宮鎮座二十年祭奉祝事業概要. Meiji jingūsai hōshukukai, 1940. Meiji jingū sūkeikai 明治神宮崇敬会. Meiji jingū sūkeikai shuisho narabini kiyaku 明治神宮崇敬会趣意書並ニ規約, amended in September 1947. Meiji jingū taiikukai 明治神宮体育会. Daigokai Meiji jingū taiiku taikai hōkokusho 第五回明治神宮体育大会報告書. Meiji jingū taiikukai, 1930. ——. Dairokkai Meiji jingū taiiku taikai hōkokusho 第六回明治神宮体育大会報告書. Meiji jingū taiikukai, 1932. Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai 明治聖徳記念学会. Meiji seitoki kinen gakkai shuisho 明治聖徳記念学会趣意書, 3rd November 1912. Meiji seitoki kinen gakkai, 1912. Meiji tennō gyoshū henshū iinkai 明治天皇御集委員会, ed. Shinshū Meiji tennō gyoshū 新輯明治天皇御集, vol. 1. Meiji jingū, 1964. Minakami Hiromi 水上浩躬. “Hekigadai sentei no keika oyobi sono seika 壁画題選定の経過及其成果.” Meiji jingū hōsankai tsūshin 66 (10th November 1921), appendix. ——. “Kaigakan hekiga no shōsoku 絵画館壁画の消息.” Meiji jingū hōsankai tsūshin 80 (10th September 1925), appendix. ——. “Zoku hekiga no shōsoku 続壁画の消息.” Meiji jingū hōsankai tsūshin 83 (10th June 1926), appendix. Mine Genjirō 峰源次郎. Tohoku jūyū shiroku 東北従遊私録. Reprinted in Meiji tennō gyōkō shiroku, ed. Hoshino Takeo. Ushio shobō, 1932; Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 11, Gyōkō hen, ed. Meiji jingū, 953–971. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. Miyachi Naokazu 宮地直一 et al. “Meiji jingū no shōrai ni kansuru kondankai 明治神宮の将来に関する懇談会,” 15 February 1946. In Meiji jingū gojūnenshi, ed. Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan iinkai, 190–204. Meiji jingū, 1979. Naimushō 内務省, Eiseikyoku 衛生局. Daiikkai Meiji jingū kyōgitaikai hōkokusho 第一回明治神宮競技大会報告書. Naimushō, Eiseikyoku, 1925. ——. Eiseikyoku. Dainikai Meiji jingū kyōgitaikai hōkokusho 第二回明治神宮競技大会報告書. Naimushō, Eiseikyoku, 1926. 274 bibliography

Naimushō, Jinjakyoku 神社局, shidōka 指導課, ed. Meiji tennō no gokeishin 明治天皇の御敬神. Meiji jingūsai hōshukukai and Meiji jingū shamusho, 1940. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 5, Seitoku hen, no. 5, ed. Meiji jingū, 1–259. Kokusho kankōkai, 2002. Naimushō, Meiji jingū zōeikyoku 明治神宮造営局. Meiji jingū zōeishi 明治神宮造営誌. Meiji jingū zōeikyoku, 1923. Soejima Hiroyuki 副島廣之. Shin’en zuisō 神苑随想. Meiji jingū sūkeikai, 1988. ——. Watashi no ayunda Showa shi 私の歩んだ昭和史. Meiji jingū sūkeikai, 1989. Soejima Jirō 副島次郎 and Igarashi Haruo 五十嵐治夫, eds. Meiji jingū gozōei to seinendan no hōshi 明治神宮御造営と青年団の奉仕. Hōshi kiroku henshūbu, 1923. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 16, Hōsan hen, ed. Meiji jingū, 1–760. Kokusho kankōkai, 2005. Takanashi Yoshitarō 高梨由太郎, ed. Meiji jingū gashū 明治神宮画集. Tokyo Kōyōsha, 1920. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 20, Zuroku hen, no. 2, ed. Meiji jingū, 255–296. Kokusho kankōkai, 2000. Teikoku gunjin kyōikukai 帝国軍人教育会, ed. Meiji jingū oshashinchō: fu gozōeikiroku 明治神宮御写真帖: 附御造営記録. Teikoku gunjin kyōikukai shuppanbu, 1920. Terasaki Takeo 寺崎武男. “Gunjin chokuyu kashi 軍人勅諭下賜.” In Hekiga kinsei kiroku, 1934–1945, ed. Meiji jingū hōsankai and Meiji jingū gaien kanrisho; reprinted in Meiji jingū Sōsho. Vol. 18, 676–85. Tokyoshiyakusho 東京市役所, ed. Meiji tennō seitoku hōshō kōenshū 明治天皇聖徳奉頌講演集. Tokyoshiyakusho, 1921. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 3, Seitoku hen, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū, 461–631. Kokusho kankōkai, 2002. Tokyo shōgyō kaigisho 東京商業会議所. Meiji jingū chinzasai, Tokyo jitsugyō ka hōshuku ni kansuru hōkokusho 明治神宮鎮座祭東京実業家奉祝に関する報告書, 1921. Yoshida Kumaji 吉田熊次. “Gyosei ni arawaretaru goseitoku 御製に現はれたる御聖徳.” In Meiji tennō seitoku hōshō kōenshū, ed. Tokyoshiyakusho, 18–37. Tokyoshiyakusho, 1921. Reprinted in Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 3, Seitoku hen, no. 3, ed. Meiji jingū, 478–497. Kokusho kankōkai, 2002.

Unpublished Materials Katō Genchi 加藤玄智. “Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai setsuritsu ‘Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai shuisho 明治聖徳記念学会設立「明治聖徳記念学会趣意書」,” 3rd November 1912. Kōseishō 厚生省, Kokuritsu kōenbu 国立公園部. “Meiji jingū gaien no un’ei ni kansuru ken (an) 明治神宮外苑の運営に関する件 (案),” 12nd October 1951. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken 外苑運営機構接渉の一件. 1952. Meiji jingū. Taisho kyū nen sanpai nin hyō 大正九年参拝人表. n.d. ——. Meiji jingū nai • gaien renraku dōro kankei shorui, fu･jōbadō • fūchi chiku kankei 明治神宮内外苑連絡道路関係書類, 付・乗馬道・風致地区関係. 1925–1926. ——. Chinza jūnensai kiroku 鎮座十年祭記録, 5 vols. 1930. ——. Chinza nijūnensai shorui 鎮座二十年祭書類, 8 vols. 1940. ——. Chinza nijūnensai Arima gūji kinen hōsō genkō 鎮座二十年祭有馬宮司記念放送原稿. 1940. ——. Meiji jingū no goseitoku o aogitatematsurite 明治神宮の御聖徳を仰ぎ奉りて. 1940. ——. Meiji jingū chinza nijūnensai keikaku sho 明治神宮鎮座二十年祭計画書. 1940. ——. Meiji jingū chinza nijūnensai, reisai, meiji-setsu sai shidai 明治神宮鎮座二十年祭、例祭、明治節祭次第. 1940. ——. Meiji jingū sūkeikai shuisho narabini kiyaku 明治神宮崇敬会趣意書並ニ規約, amended in September 1947. ——.“ ‘Meiji jingū chinzachi taito no ken’ Ikeda Hideyoshi shi no chōsa shiryō 「明治神宮鎮座地貸渡の件」池田秀吉氏の調査資料,” 11th February 1950. In Keidaichi kankei shorui. bibliography 275

——. “Meiji jingū gaien no shobun mondai ni tsuite Ōkurashō, Kokuyū zaisan daiikka to kaidan yōshi 明治神宮外苑の処分問題について大蔵省国有財産第一課と会談要旨,” 25th June 1951. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——. “Moto minamitoshima goryōchi chū Ii ke teichi no kaiagehi ni tsuite shōkai no ken 元南豊島御料地中井伊家邸地の買上費について照会の件,” 10th June 1950. In Keidaichi kankei shorui. ——. “Meiji jingū gaien un’ei hōshin 明治神宮外苑運営方針,” 1951. In Keidaichi kankei shorui. 1946–1953. ——. “Gaien shisetsu ni kanshi Yanagita Kunio shi no danwa 外苑施設に関し柳田国男氏の談話,” 31 January 1951. In Keidaichi kankei shorui. ——. “Meiji jingū gaien un’ei kikō (an) 明治神宮外苑運営機構(案),” 1st February 1951. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——. “Meiji jingū gaien un’ei iinkai kiyaku gen’an 明治神宮外苑運営委員会規約原案,” March 1951. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——. “Meiji jingū gaien no un’ei ni tsuite 明治神宮外苑の運営について,” 25th July 1951. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952 ——. “Gaien ni okeru undō kyōgi ni tsuite 外苑における運動競技について,” 25 July 1951. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——.“Gaien un’ei ni kanshi Monbushō, Shakai kyōikuchō to kaidan no yōshi 外苑運営に関し文部省社会教育局長と会談の要旨,” 6th September 1951, in Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——. “Meiji jingū gaien ni tsuite 明治神宮外苑について,” 23rd October 1951. In Keida- ichi kankei shorui. 1946–1953. ——. “Meiji jingū gaien no seikaku ni tsuite 明治神宮外苑の性格に付いて,” 1951. In Keidaichi jōyo sankō shiryō. 1950–51. ——. “Meiji jingū gaien kanri keikaku sho 明治神宮外苑管理計画書,” 15th December 1951. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——. “Gaien un’ei ni kansuru kyōgikai kiroku 外苑運営に関する協議会記録,” 17 Janu- ary 1952. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——. “Meiji jingū gaien kyōgijō shisetsu ni tsuite no oboegaki 明治神宮外苑競技場施設についての覚書.” In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——. Keidaichi kankei shorui 境内地関係書類. 1946–1953. ——. Keidaichi jōyo sankō shiryō 境内地譲与参考資料. 1950–51. ——. Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken 外苑運営機構接渉の一件. 1952. ——. Meiji jingū fukkō kihon keikakusho 明治神宮復興基本計画書. March 1955. ——. Honden senzasai hōshuku gyōji kankei tsuzuri, keigai no bu本殿遷座祭奉祝行事関係綴 (境外の部), vol. 3, November 1958. ——. Meiji jingū sengū hōshuku gyōji haikan ken 明治神宮遷宮奉祝行事拝観券, November 1958. ——. Meiji jingū fukkō zōei kōji no gaiyō 明治神宮復興造営工事の概要. 1961. Meiji jingū, Chōsashitsu 調査室. Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan shiryō, fukkō no Meiji jingū: Shu to shite Meiji jingū fukkō no zenpan ni tsuite 明治神宮五十年誌編纂資料復興の明治神宮:主として明治神宮復興の全般に付いて. 1976. ——. Chōsashitsu. Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan shiryō, fukkō no Meiji jingū: Shu to shite fukkō zōei no shaden tō shosai ni tsuite 明治神宮五十年誌編纂資料復興の明治神宮: 主として復興造営の社殿等諸祭について. 1976. ——. Chōsashitsu. Meiji jingū gojūnenshi hensan shiryō: Meiji jingū chinzasai ni tsuite 明治神宮五十年誌編纂資料: 明治神宮鎮座祭について. 1979. ——. Chōsashitsu. Meiji jingū sūkeikai ni kansuru kiroku 明治神宮崇敬会に関する記録. 1976. ——. Chōsashitsu. Meiji jingū to supōtsu 明治神宮とスポーツ. 2 vols. 1978. ——. Chōsashitsu. Meijikai ni kansuru kiroku 明治会に関する記録. 1979. ——. Chōsashitsu. Meiji setsu ni tsuite 明治節について. 1979. 276 bibliography

——. Chōsashitsu. Kokumin shukujitsu kaisei zengo ni okeru Meiji jingū saiten henkaku 国民祝日改正前後における明治神宮祭典変革. 1979. ——. Chōsashitsu. Meiji jingūsai hōshukukai ni kansuru kiroku 明治神宮祭奉祝会に関する記録. 1979. Meiji jingū, Gaien 外苑. Meiji jingū naigaien renraku dōro kankei shorui, fu jōbadō • fūchi chiku kankei明治神宮内外苑連絡道路関係書類付乗馬道・風致地区関係. n.d. ——. Gaien. “Meiji jingū gaien kanri hyōgi iinkai gijiroku 明治神宮外苑管理評議委員会議事録,” 26th September 1927. In Meiji jingū gaien kanri hyōgi iinkai gijiroku 明治神宮外苑管理評議委員会議事録. 1932. ——. Gaien. “Dairokkai hyōgi iinkai gijiroku 第六回評議委員会議事録,” 9th March 1932. In Meiji jingū gaien kanri hyōgi iinkai gijiroku. 1932. ——. Gaien. “Dainanakai hyōgi iinkai gijiroku 第七回評議委員会議事録,” 19th March 1936. In Meiji jingū gaien kanri hyōgi iinkai gijiroku. 1936. ——. Gaien. Daikyūkai Meiji jingū gaien keika hōkoku 第九回明治神宮外苑経過報告. 1937. Meiji jingū, Zōeibu 造営部, Sōmuka 総務課. Zōeibu kankei shorui tsuzuri 造営部関係書類綴. April 1955. Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai 明治神宮復興奉賛会. Gofukkō junbi iinkai • fukkō hōsankai sōritsu sōkai kankei shorui 御復興準備委員会・復興奉賛会創立総会関係書類. May 1952–July 1953. ——. Meiji jingū fukkō jigyō kansei hōkokusai • Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai kaisanshiki kankei shorui 明治神宮復興事業完成奉告祭・明治神宮復興奉賛会解散式関係書類. September 1960. ——. Hōsan katsudō genkyō hōkokusho 奉賛活動現況報告書. February 1959. ——. Meiji jingū fukkō hōsankai kaimu no gaiyō • Meiji jingū fukkō kōji no gaiyō 明治神宮復興奉賛会会務の概要・明治神宮復興工事の概要. 1960. Meiji jingū hōsankai 明治神宮奉賛会. Seitoku kinen kaigakan setsumei gen’an sōkō 聖徳記念絵画館説明原案草稿. 1918. ——. “Meiji jingū toshokan setsuritsu ni kanshi Tokugawa kaichō yori iken shingen 明治神宮図書館設立ニ関シ徳川会長ヨリ意見進言,” 15th April 1922. In Kaimu ippan ni kansuru zakken shorui 会務一般ニ関スル雑件書類. 1922–1928. ——. “Omotesandō ni kensetsu no Dōjunkai kashinagaya ni kansuruken, Harajuku mutsumikaichō e kaitō 表参道に建設の同潤会貸長屋に関する件原宿睦会長へ回答,” 23rd February 1925. In Shomu kankei shorui 庶務関係書類. 1925. ——. “Yotsuyakuksi kyōgikai, gaien nai toshi keikaku dōro no ken chinjō 四谷区会協議会外苑内都市計画道路の件陳情,” 4th October 1926. In Shomu kankei shorui 庶務関係書類. 1926. Meiji jingū zōei kinenkai 明治神宮造営記念会. “Meiji jingū gaien keidaichi haraisage no gi ni tsuki chinjō 明治神宮外苑境内地払下の儀に付き陳情,” 1952. In Keidaichi kankei shorui. 1946–1953. Meiji jingū zōei iinkai 明治神宮造営委員会. Zōei iinkai kiroku 造営委員会記録. 1955–1961. Minakami Hiromi. “Gaiennai toshikeikaku dōro henkō no tenmatsu ni tsuite 外苑内都市計画道路変更の顛末について,” December 1926. In Shomu kankei shorui, 1927. Monbushō 文部省. “Meiji jingū gaien kyōgi shisetsu no kanri ni tsuite 明治神宮外苑競技施設の管理について,” 21st January 1952. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——. “Meiji jingū gaien kyōgi shisetsu no kanri ni tsuite, Monbushō an 明治神宮外苑競技施設の管理について文部省案.” In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. Nagaoka Gaishi 長岡外史, president of Minami Harajuku mutsumikai. “Omotesandō ni kensetsu no Dōjunkai kashinagaya ni kansuru ken 表参道に建設の同潤会貸長屋に関する件,” February 1925. In Shomu kankei shorui 庶務関係書類. 1925. Naimushō 内務省, Jinja hōshi chōsakai 神社奉祀調査会. Jinja hōshi chōsakai keika yōryō 神社奉祀調査会経過要領. 15th August 1913–6th June 1914. National Archives of Japan, 公文雑纂-2A-14-纂 1333. bibliography 277

——. Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Tokubetsu iinkai 特別委員会. Jinja hōshi chōsakai tokubetsu iinkai kaigiroku (daiikkai) 神社奉祀調査会特別委員会会議録 (第一回), 1st May 1914. ——. Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Tokubetsu iinkai, ed. Jinja hōshi chōsakai tokubetsu iinkai hōkoku 神社奉祀調査会特別委員会報告, June 1914. ——. Jinja hōshi chōsakai, Tokubetsu iinkai. Meiji tennō hōshi ni kansuru kengi narabini seigansho 明治天皇奉祀ニ関スル建議並請願書. In Jinja hōshi chōsakai tokubetsu iinkai hōkoku. June 1914. Okada Yoneo 岡田米夫. “Kyōgi ni kansuru shinji shirabe 競技に関する神事調,” appendix of “Meiji jingū gaien no seikaku ni tsuite,” 1951. In Keidaichi jōyo sankō shiryō. 1950–51. Ōkurashō 大蔵省, Kanzaikyoku 管財局. “Meiji jingū gaien no shobun mondai 明治神宮外苑の処分問題,” 18th June 1951. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. ——. Kanzaikyoku. “Meiji jingū gaienchi no shori ni tsuite 明治神宮外苑地の処理について,” 11th October 1951. In Gaien un’ei kikō sesshō no ikken. 1952. Orikuchi Shinobu 折口信夫. “Shin Shintō no kengen 新神道の顕現,” appendix of “Meiji jingū gaien no seikaku ni tsuite,” 1951. In Keidaichi jōyo sankō shiryō. 1950–51. Sakatani Yoshirō 阪谷芳郎. Meiji jingū kankei shorui 明治神宮関係書類. Vol. 1, Meiji Tennō kinen jigyō keikaku･ Meiji jingū hōsankai junbi iinkai ni kansuru shorui 明治天皇紀念事業計画・明治神宮奉賛会準備委員会に関する書類. 1912–5. ——. Meiji jingū kankei shorui. Vol. 2–3, Meiji jingū hōsankai ippan ni kansuru shorui 明治神宮奉賛会一般に関する書類, no. 1–2. 1915–1940. ——. Meiji jingū kankei shorui. Vol. 4, Meiji jingū hōsankai kaigakan gadai ni kansuru shorui 明治神宮奉賛会絵画館画題に関する書類. 1917–1923. ——. Meiji jingū kankei shorui. Vol. 5, Jinja hōshi chōsakai oyobi Meiji jingū zōeikyoku ni kansuru shorui 神社奉祀調査会及び明治神宮造営局に関する書類. 1914–1914. ——. Meiji jingū kankei shorui. Vol. 9, Meiji jingū hōsankai nikki (narabini jinja hōshi chōsakai) 明治神宮奉賛会日記(並神社奉祀調査会). 1912–1941. Sunami Takashi 角南隆. Meiji jingū no fukkō zōei ni tsuite 明治神宮の復興造営について. [1958]. Terasaki Takeo 寺崎武男. “Kaigakan hekiga hozon ni taisuru iken 絵画館壁画保存に対する意見,” 28th February 1929. In Kaiga hozon iinkai gijiroku 絵画保存委員会議事録. 1928–1929.

Other Japanese-Language Sources

Abe Yasunari 阿部安成, Miichi Masatoshi 見市雅俊, Morimura Toshimi 森村敏己, Koseki Takashi 小関隆and Mitsunaga Masaaki 光永雅明, eds. Komemoreishon no bunkashi: Kioku no katachi コメモレイションの文化史: 記憶のかたち. Kashiwa shobō, 1999. Abe Yoshiya 阿部美哉. “Senryōgun niyoru Kokka Shintō no kaitai to tennō no ningenka: GHQ niyoru wagakuni kokutai no henkaku占領軍による国家神道の解体と天皇の人間化: ＧＨＱによる我国国体の変革.” In Senryō to nihon shūkyō 占領と日本宗教, ed. Ikado Fujio 井門富二夫, 73–125. Miraisha, 1993. ——. “Hirugaette Heisei jidai no shūkyō no kadai o tou 翻って平成時代の宗教の課題を問う.” In Shinpojiumu gendai tennō to Shintō シンポジウム現代天皇と神道, ed. Tamaru Noriyoshi 田丸徳善, 38–77. Tokuma shoten, 1990. ——. “GHQ no shūkyō seisaku: Shūkyōgaku seikyō bunri ron no kokoromi, no. 1 GHQ の宗教政策: 宗教学政教分離論の試み(上).” In Shūkyōgaku to daigaku kenkyū 宗教学と大学研究. Privately printed, 2004. Akada Kimio 赤田喜美男, ed. Shashinshū: Meiji Taisho Showa Hannō 写真集: 明治大正昭和飯能. Kokusho kankōkai, 1985. Akada Mitsuo 赤田光男 and Fukuda Ajio 福田アジオ, eds. Kōza nihon no minzokugaku 講座日本の民俗学. Vol. 6, Jikan no minzoku 時間の民俗. Yūzankaku, 1998. 278 bibliography

Akazawa Shirō 赤沢史朗. Kindai nihon no shisō dōin to shūkyō tōsei 近代日本の思想動員と宗教統制. Azekura shobō, 1985. ——. “Sensō giseisha no tsuitō to Yasukuni jinja 戦争犠牲者の追悼と靖国神社.” Reki- shi hyōron 歴史研究 628 (2002): 2–14, 40. Akazawa Shirō and Kitagawa Kenzō 北河賢三, eds. Bunka to fashizumu: Senjiki nihon ni okeru bunka no kōbō 文化とファシズム: 戦時期日本における文化の光芒. Nihon keizai hyōronsha, 1993. Aichi shinbunsha 愛知新聞社. Meiji jingū hekiga shi 明治神宮壁画史. Nagoya: Aichi shinbunsha, 1933. Ainu bunken mokuroku henshūkai アイヌ文献目録編集会, ed. Ainu bunken mokuroku アイヌ文献目録. Hokkaido ritsu Ainu minzoku bunka kenkyū sentā kenkyū kiyō 北海道立アイヌ民族文化研究センター研究紀要 11 (2005): 143–76. Andō Reiji 安藤礼二. Kamigami no tōsō: Orikuchi Shinobu ron 神々の闘争: 折口信夫論. Kōdansha, 2004. Andō Tadao 安藤忠雄 et al. “Kenchiku taiken o tōshite Itō Chūta no tayō na miryoku ni semaru 建築体験を通して伊東忠太の多様な魅力にせまる.” In Itō Chūta o shitte imasuka 伊東忠太を知っていますか, ed. Suzuki Hiroyuki 鈴木博之, 63–84. Ōkokusha, 2003. Anesaki Masaharu 姉崎正治. “Jinja Shintō mondai taisaku 神社神道問題対策,” 30th October 1945. In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō 神祇院終戦始末:神社の国家管理分離資料, ed. Okada Yoneo. Jinja honchō, 1964: 16. Aoi Akihito 青井哲人. Shokuminchi jinja to teikoku nihon 植民地神社と帝国日本. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2005. ——. “Shinden to yūkyo no jidai: Bakumatsu ishinki no jinja to ‘gensetsu’ no fukusōsei 神殿と遊興の時代: 幕末維新期の神社と「言説」の複層性.” 10+1 20 (2000), 107–118. ——. “Sunami Takashi 角南隆.” Kenchiku bunka 建築文化 55, no. 639 (2000): 76–81. Aoki Mariko 青木麻理子. “Ibarakiken kindai bijutsukan shozō, Nisei Goseda Hōryū saku seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga gadai kōshōzu shitae ni tsuite 茨城県近代美術館所蔵二世五姓田芳柳作聖徳記念絵画館壁画画題考証図下絵について.” Ibarakiken kindai bijutsukan kenkyū kiyō 茨城県近代美術館研究紀要 10 (2003): 37–77. Aoki Nobutsuna 青木伸剛, ed. Meiji tennō gojunkō ki 明治天皇御巡幸記. Sapporo: Hok- kaido jingū, 2002. Aoki Tamotsu 青木保. “Nihon bunka ron” no henyō: Sengo nihon no bunka to aidentitī 「日本文化論」の変容: 戦後日本の文化とアイデンティティー.” Chūō kōron shinsha, 1999. Aoki Yūsuke 青木祐介. “Seigenzu no sakusei katei to sono seiritsu jiki ni tsuite 制限図の作成過程とその成立時期について.” Nihon kenchiku gakkai keikakukei ronbunshū 日本建築学会計画系論文集, no. 546 (2001): 261–67. Aoyama Hideyuki 青山英幸. “Nihon ni okeru ākaibuzu no ninshiki to ‘shiryōkan’ • ‘monjokan’ no secchi 日本におけるアーカイブズの認識と「史料館」・「文書館」の設置.” In Kiroku shiryō no kanri to monjokan 記録史料の管理と文書館, ed. Andō Masato 安藤正人 and Aoyama Hideyuki, 243–93. Sapporo: Hokkaido daigaku tosho kankōkai, 1996. ——. Ākaibuzu to ākaibaru saiensu: rekishiteki haikei to kadai アーカイブズとアーカイバル・サイエンス: 歴史的背景と課題. Iwata shoin, 2004. Arakawa Shōji 荒川章二 “Kiritsuka sareru shintai 規律化される身体.” In Iwanamikōza kindai nihon no bunkashi 岩波講座近代日本の文化史. Vol. 4, Kansei no kindai 1870– 1910 nendai 感性の近代1870–1910 年代, no. 2, ed. Komori Yōichi 小森陽一, Sakai Naoki酒井直樹 and Shimazono Susumu 島薗進, 169–204. Iwanami shoten, 2002. Ariyama Teruo 有山輝雄. “Senjiki to media ibento 戦時期とメディア・イベント.” In Senjiki nihon no media • ibento 戦時期日本のメディア・イベント, ed. Tsugane- sawa Toshihiro 津金澤聡廣 and Ariyama Teruo 有山輝雄, vi–x. Kyoto: Sekai shisōsha, 1998. bibliography 279

Asahi Supōtsuアサヒ・スポーツ, ed. Daijukkai Meiji jingū taiiku taikai gahō 第十回明治神宮体育大会画報. Osaka: Asahi shinbunsha, 1939. Ashihara Yukio 芦原由紀夫. Tokyo ākaibusu: Yomigaeru “Kindai Tokyo” no kiseki 東京アーカイブス: よみがえる「近代東京」の軌跡. Sankaidō, 2005. Ashizu Isoo hyakunensai jikkō iinkai 葦津磯夫百年祭実行委員会. Eushiotouma: Ashizu ke no reitō 兄牛弟馬: 葦津家の霊統.” Hakata: Ashizu Isoo hyakunensai jikkō iinkai, 2002. Ashizu Uzuhiko 葦津珍彦. “Jinja seido henkaku ni taisuru shiken神社制度変革ニ対スル私見,” 1945. In Shintō shirei to sengo no Shintō 神道指令と戦後の神道, 3rd ed., rev. Jinja shinpō, 249–52. Jinja shinpōsha, 1996. ——. “Jinja kyō an ni hantai su 神社教案ニ反対ス,” 1945. In Shintō shirei to sengo no Shintō, 3rd ed., rev. Jinja shinpō, 258–60. Jinja shinpōsha, 1996. ——. ed. Jinja Shinpō henshūshitsu kiroku 神社新報編集室記録. Jinja shinpōsha, 1956. ——. “Yasukuni jinja to senryō seisaku: Shakaitō seisaku shingikai no ayamari 靖国神社と占領政策: 社会党政策審議会の誤り.” Jinja shinpō (14th March 1964). ——. “Ise jingū to senryō seisaku: Ko Kishimoto hakase no kaikoroku o mite 伊勢神宮と占領政策: 故岸本博士の回顧録を見て.” Jinja Shinpō (21st March 1964). ——. Jinja to shūkyō ni tsuite: GHQ to Jinja Shinpō shain no tōgi keika 神社と宗教について: GHQ と神社新報社員の討議経過. Jinja shinpō seisaku kenkyū shitsu, n.d. ——. Shintō teki nihon minzoku ron 神道的日本民族論. Jinja shinpōsha, 1969. ——. “Shintō kyōgaku ni tsuite no shokan 神道教学についての書簡,” 27th May 1977. In Ashizu Uzuhiko senshū 葦津珍彦選集. Vol. 1, Tennō • Shintō • kenpō 天皇･神道･憲法, ed. Ashizu Uzuhiko senshū henshū iinkai 葦津珍彦選集編集委員会. Jinja shinpōsha, 1996. ——. Shinkoku no tami no kokoro 神国の民の心. Shimazu shobō, 1986. Ashizu Uzuhiko, Nishida Hiroyoshi 西田広義 and Shibukawa Ken’ichi渋川謙一, eds. Woodard “Shintō shirei shi” hihan hōkoku Woodard 「神道指令史」批判報告. Jinja shinpō seisaku kenkyū shitsu, 1973. Ashizu Uzuhiko sensei tsuitōroku henshū iinkai 葦津珍彦先生追悼録編集委員会, ed. Ashizu Uzuhiko sensei tuitōroku 葦津珍彦先生追悼録. Kamakura: Shōnipponsha, 1993. Azuma Hideki 東秀紀, Kazami Shōzō 風見正三, Tachibana Yūko 橘裕子 and Murakami Akinobu 村上暁信. “Asu no den’en toshi” e no sasoi: Hawādo no kōsō ni hasshita sono rekishi to mirai 『明日の田園都市』への誘い: ハワードの構想に発したその歴史と未来. Shōkokusha, 2001. Batchelor, John. “Kumatatsuri ni tsuite hantai suru kōen na riyū 熊祭りについて反対する高遠な理由,” Hokkai taimusu 北海タイムス(7th, 8th October 1925). ——. Jon Bathelā no tegami ジョン・バチェラーの手紙. Trans. and ed. Nitami Iwao 仁多美巌. Yamamoto shoten. 1965. ——. Waga jinsei no kiseki わが人生の軌跡. Trans. and ed. Nitami Iwao and Iida Yūsuke 飯田洋右. Sapporo: Hokkaido shuppan kikaku sentā, 1993. Benjamin, Walter. “Passāzyu ron パッサージュ論.” In Toshi to kōgai: Hikaku bunka ron e no tsūro 都市と郊外: 比較文化論への通路, ed. Imahashi Eiko 今橋映子, trans. Imamura Hitoshi 今村仁司 et al., 125–41. NTT shuppan, 2004. Blanchot, Maurice. Akashienu kyōdōtai 明かしえぬ共同体. Trans. Nishitani Osamu 西谷修. Chikuma shobō, 1997. Bourdier, Marc. Dōjunkai apāto genke: Nihon kenchikushi ni okeru yakuarii 同潤会アパート原景:日本建築史における役割. Sumai no toshokan shuppankyoku, 1992. Breen, John. “Yasukuni: Rekishi kioku no keisei to sōshitsu 靖国: 歴史記憶の形成と喪失.” Sekai 世界 756 (September 2006), 147–158. Bresc, Genevìeve. Lūburu bijutsukan no rekishi ルーヴル美術館の歴史. Trans. Endō Yukari 遠藤ゆかり. Sōgensha, 2004. Bunakachō 文化庁, ed. Meiji ikō shūkyō seido hyakunenshi 明治以降宗教制度百年史. Bunkachō, 1970. 280 bibliography

Bunakachō, shūkyōkyoku 宗教局, shūmuka 宗務課, ed. Meiji igo shūkyō kankei hōrei ruisan 明治以後宗教関係法令類纂. Daiichi hōki shuppan, 1968. Constans, Claire. Verusaiyu kyūden no rekishi ヴェルサイユ宮殿の歴史. Trans. Endō Yukari 遠藤ゆかり. Sōgensha, 2004. Daijūnikai orinpikku Tokyo taikai soshiki iinkai 第十二回オリンピック東京大会組織委員会. ed. Hōkokusho 報告書. Daijūnikai orinpikku Tokyo taikai soshiki iinkai, 1939. Daimaru Masami 大丸真美. “Meiji jingū no chinzachi sentei ni tsuite 明治神宮の鎮座地選定について.” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō 明治聖徳記念学会紀要, n.s., 17 (1996): 38–66. ——. “Meiji jingū no mori no sonzai igi 明治神宮の森の存在意義.” Shintō Shūkyō 神道宗教, 173 (1998): 1–29. Dainihon yūbenkai大日本雄弁会. Kōki nisenroppyakunen hōshuku kinen kokushi emaki 皇紀二千六百年奉祝記念国史絵巻. Dainihon yūbenkai, 1940. Daitōsha 大東社, ed. Yūran Tokyo annai 遊覧東京案内. Daitōsha, 1922. Date Tatsumi 伊達巽. “Meiji jingū no sensai fukkō zoei to Kishida Hideto hakase 明治神宮の戦災復興造営と岸田日出刀博士.” In Kishida Hideto 岸田日出刀 vol. 1, ed. Kishida Hideto henshū iinkai 岸田日出刀編集委員会, 176–8. Sagami shobō, 1972. ——. “Meiji jingū no sōken to hatten 明治神宮の創建と発展.” Shintōshi kenkyū 神道史研究 13, no. 5–6 (1965): 214–35. Dōchōshi 道聴子 [pseud.]. “Jinja tai shūkyō mondai no kansatsu hitotaba 神社対宗教問題の観察一束,” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō 5 (1916): 187–97. Eguchi [no first name given] 江口. chief of the Shitaya police station. “Shūdan barakku jūmin sonota dōsei ni kansuru ken hōkoku 集団バラック住民その他動静に関する件報告.” Zassho: shinsai kankei shorui 雑書・震災関係書類. Vol. 13, Barakku kankei narabini sono jimu バラック関係並びにその事務. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 大市 12•63 (6•886). Ema Nakashi 江馬修. Ichisakka no ayumi 一作家の歩み. Nihon tosho sentā, 1989. Endō Ichiji 遠藤市次. Tokyo toshi keikaku chizu 東京都市計画地図, map, 1921. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, U519.8-え-1646. Endō Jun 遠藤潤. “Shintō Kenkyūshitsu no rekishiteki hensen 神道研究室の歴史的変遷.” In Tokyo teikoku daigaku Shintō kenkyūshitsu kyūzōsho mokuroku oyobi kaisetsu 東京帝国大学神道研究室旧蔵書目録および解説, ed. Shimazono Susumu 島薗進 and Isomae Jun’ichi 磯前順一, 9–20. Tokyodō shuppan, 1996. ——. “Miyachi Naokazu 宮地直一.” In Tokyo teikoku daigaku Shintō kenkyūshitsu kyūzōsho mokuroku oyobi kaisetsu, ed. Shimazono Susumu and Isomae Jun’ichi, 98–109. Tokyodō shuppan, 1996. Fujii Eijirō 藤井栄次郎. “Meiji jingū chinza kinen ehagakikō 明治神宮鎮座記念絵葉書考.” Kitte Shumi 切手趣味2, no. 5 (1930): 190–92. Fujimori Terunobu 藤森照信. “Den’en chōfu tanjō ki 田園調布誕生記.” In Kōgai jūtakuchi no keifu: Tokyo no den’en ūtopia 郊外住宅地の系譜: 東京の田園ユートピア, ed. Yamaguchi Hiroshi 山口広, 191–206. Kajima shuppankai, 1987. ——. Meiji no Tokyo keikaku 明治の東京計画. Iwanami shoten, 1990. ——. Nihon no kindai kenchiku 日本の近代建築, 2 vols. Iwanami shoten, 2004. Fujinami Kototada 藤波言忠. “Meiji tennō gojiseki ni tsuite 明治天皇御事蹟に就て.” In Meiji tennō no gojiseki to teikoku kenpō no seitei 明治天皇の御事蹟と帝国憲法の制定, ed. Tokyoshi, Shakai kyōikuka 東京市社会教育課, 3–35. Tokyoshi, 1922. Fujino Yutaka 藤野豊. Kyōsei sareta kenkō: Nihon fashizumu ka no seimei to shintai 強制された健康: 日本ファシズム下の生命と身体. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2000. Fujioka Hiroyasu 藤岡洋保. “Meiji jingū no kenchiku 明治神宮の建築,” no. 1. Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō, n.s., 32 (2001): 59–71. ——. “Meiji jingū no kenchiku,” no. 2. Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō, n.s., 33 (2001): 26–43. ——. “Naimushō, Jinjakyoku • Jingiin jidai no jinja kenchiku 内務省神社局･神祇院時代の神社建築.” In Kindai no jinja keikan: Jinjakyoku jidai ni satsuei sareta jinja bibliography 281

近代の神社景観: 神社局時代に撮影された神社, ed. Shintō bunkakai sōritsu gojūshūnen kinen shuppan iinkai 神道文化会創立五十周年記念出版委員会, 460– 83. Chūō kōron bijutsu shuppan, 1998. Fujita Hiromasa 藤田大誠. “Kokka Shintō taisei seiritsu ikō no saisei itchi ron: Jingi tokubetsu kanga setchi undō o megutte 国家神道体制成立以降の祭政一致論: 神祇特別官衙設置運動をめぐって.” In Kokka Shintō saikō: Saisei icchi kokka no keisei to tenkai 国家神道再考: 祭政一致国家の形成と展開, ed. Sakamoto Koremaru 阪本是丸, 355–409. Kōbundō, 2006. ——. Kindai kokugaku no kenkyū 近代国学の研究. Kōbundō, 2007. Fujita Kayo 藤田佳世. Shibuya Dōgenzaka 渋谷道玄坂. Yayoi shobō, 1977. ——. Taisho • Shibuya Dōgenzaka 大正・渋谷道玄坂. Aseibō, 1978. Fujiwara Keiyō 藤原惠洋. “Meiji jingū sōken ni miru nagare zukuri ishō no seiritsu katei 明治神宮創建に見る流造意匠の成立過程.” Dezaingaku kenkyū デザイン学研究 89 (1992): 79–84. ——. “Meiji ki seigenzu no seitei keii to ishō kisei ni kansuru kōsatsu 明治期制限図の制定経緯と意匠規制に関する考察,” Dezaingaku kenkyū 91 (1992): 53–60. ——. “Sōken jinja no ishō tokusei to fukko shugiteki ishō no sōshutsu ni kansuru kōsatsu: Seigenzu yōshiki to sōken jinja no ishō ni kansuru kōsatsu 創建神社の意匠特性と復古主義的意匠の創出に関する考察,” Dezaingaku kenkyū 91 (1992): 61–68. Fukkō jimukyoku 復興事務局, ed. Teito fukkō jigyōshi 帝都復興事業誌, vol. 4, Kenchiku hen･ Kōen hen 建築篇・公園篇. Fukkō jimukyoku, 1931. Fukuda Katsuji 福田勝治. Jingū gaien 神宮外苑. Nihon shashin kōgeisha, 1942. Fukuda Shigeru 福田繁. “Kenshō, GHQ no shūkyō seisaku 検証、GHQ の宗教政策.” In Senryō to nihon shūkyō, ed. Ikado Fujio, 521–60. Miraisha, 1993. Fukushima Nobuyoshi 福島信義. Jishoi: Fukushima Nobuyoshi ken’ei shū 時処位: 福島信義献詠集. Meiji jingū shamusho, 2004. Fukuyama Toshio 福山敏男. “Jinja kenchiku shi ni okeru nagare zukuri 神社建築史における流造り.” Shin kenchiku 新建築34, no. 3 (1959): 46–47. Furukawa Takahisa 古川隆久. “Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshuku kinen jigyō o meguru seiji katei 紀元二千六百年奉祝記念事業を巡る政治過程.” Shigaku Zasshi 史学雑誌 103, no. 9. (1994): 1573–1608. ——. Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshukukai kaisai ibento to sandai shinbunsha 紀元二千六百年奉祝会開催イベントと三大新聞社.” In Senjiki nihon no media • ibento, ed. Tsuganesawa Toshihiro and Ariyama Teruo, 161–78. Kyoto: Sekai shisōsha, 1998. ——. Kōki • banpaku • orinpikku: Kōshitsu burando to keizai hatten 皇紀・万博・オリンピック: 皇室ブランドと経済発展. Chūō kōronsha, 1998. ——. “ ‘Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten kiroku’ kaidai 「紀元二千六百年祝典記録」解題.” In Kingen nisenroppyakunen shukuten kiroku 紀元二千六百年祝典記録, a supplementary volume, 182–98. Yumani shobō, 1999. Gaimushō 外務省. Nihon Senryō Jūyō bunsho 日本占領重要文書, Vol. 2. Nihon tosho sentā, 1989. ——. Seisakukyoku 政策局. “Kokutai oyobi kyōsanshugi ni kansuru beikoku no hōshin 国体及共産主義ニ関スル米国ノ方針, 5th October 1945.” In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 4–6. Jinja honchō, 1964. ——. Shūsen renraku jimukyoku 終戦連絡事務局. “Jinja mondai taisakuan 神社神道問題対策案,” 11th October 1945. In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 17. Jinja honchō, 1964. ——. Shūsen renraku jimukyoku. “Jinja mondai taisakuan,” 14th October 1945. In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 19–21. Jinja honchō, 1964. ——. Shūsen renraku jimukyoku. “Jinja mondai taisakuan,” 11th November 1945. In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 53–55. Jinja honchō, 1964. 282 bibliography

General Headquaters, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, ed. GHQ nihon senryō shi GHQ 日本占領史, vol. 21, shūkyō 宗教. Translation of History of the Non-military Activities of the Occupation of Japan, 1945–1951 by Sasagawa Norikatsu 笹川紀勝and Honma Nobunaga 本間信長. Nihon tosho sentā, 2000. Gotō Keiji 後藤慶二. “Bijutsukan kensetsu shiken 美術館建設私見” Bijutsu shunpō 美術旬報 179 (25 December 1918): 2. Haga Shōji 羽賀祥二. Meiji ishin to shūkyō 明治維新と宗教. Chikuma shobō, 1994. ——. Shiseki ron: Jūkyūseiki nihon no chiiki shakai to rekishi ishiki 史蹟論: 19 世紀日本の地域社会と歴史意識. Nagoya: Nagoya daigaku shuppankai, 1998. ——. “Tennō to junkō 天皇と巡幸.” In Tennō to ōken o kangaeru 天皇と王権を考える. Vol. 10, Ō o meguru shisen 王を巡る視線, ed. Amino Yoshihiko 網野善彦 et al., 111–34. Iwanami shoten, 2002. Haga Yaichi 芳賀矢一. Kokuminsei jūron 国民性十論, 1907. Reprinted in Haga Yaichi senshū 芳賀矢一選集, vol. 6, ed. Haga Yaichi senshū henshū iinkai 芳賀矢一選集編集委員会. Kokugakuin daigaku, 1989. ——. Nihonjin 日本人, 1912. Reprinted in Haga Yaichi senshū, vol. 6, ed. Haga Yaichi senshū henshū iinkai. Kokugakuin daigaku, 1989. ——. “Ōmigokoro 大御心.” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiy 17 (1922): 27–45. Hakoishi Hiroshi 箱石大. “Ishin shiryō hensankai no seiritsu katei 維新史料編纂会の成立過程.” Tochigi shigaku 栃木史学 15 (2001): 48–86. Hamada Tatsuo 濱田辰雄. Shintō gakusha, Orikuchi Shinobu to kirisuto kyō 神道学者・折口信夫とキリスト教. Ageo: Seigakuin daigaku shuppankai, 1995. Hamaguchi Ryūichi 浜口隆一. “Toshi to mori to jinja 都市と森と神社.” Shin kenchiku 34, no. 4 (1959): 48. Hara Takeshi 原武史. Kashika sareta teikoku: Kindai nihon no gyōkōkei 可視化された帝国: 近代日本の行幸啓. Misuzu shobō, 2001. ——. Kōkyomae hiroba 皇居前広場. Kōbunsha, 2003. Harada Keiichi 原田敬一. Nihon kindai toshishi kenkyū 日本近代都市史研究. Kyoto: Shibunkaku shuppan, 1997. Hasegawa Kai 長谷川櫂. “Saijiki no jikan 歳時記の時間.” In Chikoku no tanjō: Kindai nihon ni okeru jikan ishiki no keisei 遅刻の誕生: 近代日本における時間意識の形成, ed. Hashimoto Takehiko 橋本毅彦and Kuriyama Shigehisa 栗山茂久, 241–66. San- gensha, 2001. Hashimoto Kazuo 橋本一夫. Maboroshi no Tokyo orinpikku 幻の東京オリンピック. NHK, 1994. Hashimoto Manpei 橋本万平. Nihon no jikoku seido 日本の時刻制度. Hanawa shobō, 1966. Hashimoto Takehiko 橋本毅彦and Kuriyama Shigehisa 栗山茂久, eds. Chikoku no tanjō: Kindai nihon ni okeru jikan ishiki no keisei 遅刻の誕生: 近代日本における時間意識の形成. Sangensha, 2001. Hashimoto Yorimitsu 橋本順光. “Lafukadio Ha-n no kōka ron: Ha-n no jiji hihyō to sono juyō o megutte ラフカデォオ・ハーンと黄禍論: ハーンの時事批評とその受容をめぐって.” Herun へるん, special ed. (2004): 50–52. Hashizume Shinya 橋爪紳也. Attakamo shirenai nihon: Maboroshi no toshi kenchikushi あったかもしれない日本: 幻の都市建築史. Kinokuniya shoten, 2005. ——. Ehagaki hyakunen: Kindai nihon no bijuaru media 絵はがき100 年: 近代日本のビジュアル・メディア. Asahi shinbunsha, 2006. Hatsuda Tōru 初田亨. Mohō to sōzō no kūkan shi: Seiyō ni mananda nihon no kin • gendai kenchiku 模倣と創造の空間史: 西洋に学んだ日本の近・現代建築. Shōkokusha, 1999. Hayashi Makoto 林淳. “Shinbutsu shūgō kenkyūshi nōto: Hasseiron no sobyō 神仏習合研究史ノート: 発生論の素描.” Shintō Shūkyō 117 (1984): 21–45. ——. “Koyū shinkō ron no gakushi teki igi ni tsuite 固有信仰論の学史的意義について.” In Ajia no shūkyō to seishin bunka アジアの宗教と精神文化, ed. Tamaru Nori- yoshi 田丸徳善 and Wakimoto Tsuneya 脇本平也, 367–86. Shinyōsha, 1997. bibliography 283

——. “Kindai bukkyō to kokka Shintō: Kenkyū shi no sobyō to mondai ten no seiri 近代仏教と国家神道: 研究史の素描と問題点の整理.” Zen kenkyūjo kiyō 禅研究所紀要 34 (2005): 85–103. Hayashi Yōko 林洋子. “Meiji seitoku kinen kaigakan ni tsuite 明治聖徳記念絵画館について.” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō, n.s., 11 (1994): 82–110. ——. “Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan no setsuritsu keii o megutte 明治神宮聖徳記念絵画館の設立経緯をめぐって.” Kindai gasetsu 近代画説 8 (1999): 99–101. ——. “Hekiga kinsei kiroku ni miru bijutsukai to ‘rekishi’ no deai 『壁画謹製記録』に見る美術界と「歴史」の出会い.” In Meiji jingū sōsho. Vol. 18, Shiryō hen, no. 2, 911–18. Kokusho kankōkai, 2003. Hiraide Kōjirō 平出鏗二郎. Tokyo Fūzokushi 東京風俗志. Nihon tosho sentā, 1983. Hirakawa Sukehiro 平川祐弘. Yaburareta yūjō: Hān to Chenbaren no nihon rikai 破られた友情: ハーンとチェンバレンの日本理解. Shinchōsha, 1987. ——. “Hān to Kurōderu ga mita ‘kami no kuni’ ハーンとクローデルが見た「神の国」.” Hikaku bungaku kenkyū 比較文学研究 85 (2005): 4–37. Hisamoto Yakichi 久元弥吉. Kōki nisenroppyakunen hōshuku undōkai shiryō 皇紀二千六百年奉祝運動会資料. Keibunsha, 1940. Hokkaido chō 北海道庁, ed. Hokkaido shiseki meishō tennen kinenbutsu chōsa hōkokusho 北海道史蹟名勝天然紀念物調査報告書. Sapporo: Hokkaido chō, 1924. Reprint, Meicho shuppan, 1974. ——. ed. Shinsen Hokkaido shi 新撰北海道史. Vol. 3, Tsūsetsu 通説, no. 2. Sapporo: Hok- kaido chō, 1936–1937. Hokkaido kaitaku kinenkan 北海道開拓記念館, ed. Hirakeyuku daichi 開けゆく大地. Sapporo: Hokkaido kaitaku kinenkan, 2000. ——. ed. Kindai no hajimari 近代のはじまり. Sapporo: Hokkaido kaitaku kinenkan, 2000. Honda Seiroku 本多静六. “Jinja keidai shokurin ni kansuru chūi 神社境内植林に関する注意,” no. 1–2. Jinja Kyōkai zasshi 神社協会雑誌 11, no. 5 (1912): 15–17; 11, no. 6 (1912): 26–29. ——. “Shaji keidai no fūchi to Nikko kaidō namiki no hozon 社寺境内の風致と日光街道並木の保存.” Jinja Kyōkai zasshi 11, no. 7 (1912): 12–20. ——. “Naien no kenboku 内苑の献木.” In Meiji jingū 明治神宮, ed. Teien kyōkai 庭園協会, 113–121. Kōzanbō, 1920. ——. “Meiji jingū chinza sanjūnen, zōei no koro o kataru 明治神宮鎮座三十年造営の頃を語る.” Shūkyō kōron 宗教公論 20, no. 8 (1950): 21–23. ——. Honda Seiroku taiken hachijūgo nen 本多静六体験八十五年. Privately published, 1952. Reprint, Okayama: Hashimoto Jinichi 橋本甚一, 1978. Honda Seioku hakase kenshō jigyō jikkō iinkai 本多静六博士顕彰事業実行委員会, ed. Honda Seiroku no kiseki 本多静六の軌跡. Honda Seioku hakase kenshō jigyō jikkō iinkai, 2002. Hongō Takanori 本郷高徳. “Meiji jingū no gaien 明治神宮の外苑.” In Meiji jingū 明治神宮, ed. Kishida Makio, 8–13. Dōbunkan, 1920. ——. “Naien ni okeru rin’en sekkei 内苑における林苑設計.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Teien kyōkai, 80–87. Kōzanbō, 1920. Hori Kaoru 堀薫. “Tsuge Yoshio hakase to Dōjunkai 柘植芳男博士と同潤会.” Meiji daigaku daigakuin kiyō, kō • nōgaku hen 明治大学大学院紀要工・農学編 20, no. 5 (1982): 1–21. Horiguchi Osamu 堀口修. “Jijū Fujinami Kototada to Shutain kōgi: Meiji tennō e no shinkō ni kanren shite 侍従藤波言忠とシュタイン講義: 明治天皇への進講に関連して.” Shoryōbu kiyō 書陵部紀要 46 (1994): 35–53. ——. “Suematsu Kenchō no eikoku teishitsu shorei chōsa ni tsuite: Kunaishō ni yoru kindai kōshitsu seido chōsa ni yosete 末松謙澄の英国帝室諸礼調査について: 宮内省による近代皇室制度調査によせて.” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō, n.s., 28 (1999): 63–96. 284 bibliography

——. “Jijū Fujinami Kototada to ōshū tei (ō) shitsu seido chōsa 侍従藤波言忠と欧州帝 (王）室制度調査.” In Ōnakatomi saishu Fujinami ke no kenkyū 大中臣祭主藤波家の研究, ed. Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo 国学院大学日本文化研究所, 243–77. Zoku gunsho ruijū kansei kai, 2000. ——. “ ‘Rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku’ to ‘Ishin shiryō hensankai’ 「臨時帝室編修局」と「維新史料編纂会」.” Komonjo kenkyū 古文書研究 54 (2001): 84–88. ——. “Meiji tennōki henshū to Kaneko Kentarō 「明治天皇紀」編修と金子堅太郎.” Nihon rekishi 日本歴史 661 (2003): 1–19. ——. “ ‘Rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku shiryō Meiji tennōki danwa kiroku shūsei ni tsuite: ‘Meiji tennōki’ no henshū to kanren sasete 『臨時帝室編修局史料「明治天皇紀」談話記録集成』について: 「明治天皇紀」編修と関連させて.” In Rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku shiryō “Meiji tennōki” danwa kiroku shūsei 臨時帝室編修局史料『明治天皇紀』談話記録集成, vol. 9, ed. Horiguchi Osamu, 479–531. Yumani shobō, 2004. ——. ed. Rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku shiryō “Meiji tennōki” danwa kiroku shūsei 臨時帝室編修局史料『明治天皇紀』談話記録集成, 9 vols. Tokyo; Yumani shobō, 2003. Horikiri Naoto 堀切直人. Asakusa: Taishō hen 浅草: 大正篇. Yūbun shoin, 2005. Hosoya Chihiro 細谷千博. Nihon gaikō no zahyō 日本外交の座標. Chūō kōronsha, 1979. Hyogokenritsu kindai bijutsukan 兵庫県立近代美術館 and Kanagawakenritsu kindai bijutsukan 神奈川県立近代美術館, eds. Egakareta rekishi: Kindai nihon bijutsu ni miru dentō to shinwa 描かれた歴史: 近代日本美術にみる伝説と神話. Kobe and Kamakura: “Egakareta rekishi ten” jikkō iinkai, 1993. Ieki Sadako 家城定子. Harajuku no omoide 原宿の思い出. Kōdansha shuppan sābisu sentā, 2002. Igarashi Masaru 五十嵐卓. Dōtoku • Shūkyō no katarite to shite: Dōtoku keizai gōitsu setsu no tanjō 道徳･宗教観の語り手として: 道徳経済合一説の誕生.” In Kōeki no tsuikyūsha • Shibusawa Eiichi 公益の追求者・渋沢栄一, ed. Shibusawa kenkyūkai 渋沢研究会, 351–63. Yamakawa shuppansha, 1999. Igarashi Tarō 五十嵐太郎. “Chokusen ka, kyokusen ka: Itō Chūta to Kishida Hideto o chūshin ni 直線か、曲線か: 伊東忠太と岸田日出刀を中心に.” 10+1 20 (2000): 119–29. ——. Kindai no kamigami to kenchiku: Yasukuni Jinja kara Sorutoreikushitī made 近代の神々と建築: 靖国神社からソルトレイクシティまで. Kōsaidō shuppan, 2002. Ikei Masaru 池井優. Orinpikku no seijigaku オリンピックの政治学. Maruzen, 1992. Imahashi Eiko 今橋映子. Ito dōkei nihonjin no Pari 異都憧憬日本人のパリ. Heibonsha, 2001. ——. ed. Toshi to kōgai: Hikaku bunka ron e no tsūro 都市と郊外: 比較文化論への通路. NTT shuppan, 2004. Imanishi Hajime 今西一. “Kindai tennōsei kokka to ‘toki no shūzoku’ 近代天皇制国家と< 時間( とき) の習俗>.” Ritsumeikan daigaku 立命館大学 521 (1991): 917–28. Inoue Hiroshi 井上寛司. “ ‘Shintō’ no seiritsu: Jinjashi kenkyū josetsu 「神道」の成立: 神社史研究序説.” Osaka kōgyō daigaku kiyō, jinbun shakaihen 大阪工業大学紀要人文社会編 461, no. 1 (2001): 80–15. ——. Nihon no jinja to ‘Shintō’ 日本の神社と「神道」. Azekura shobō, 2006. Inoue Kaoru 井上馨. “Ishin shiryō hensankai • Rinji henshūkyoku gappei ikensho 維新史料編纂会・臨時編修局合併意見書,” 1914. Inoue Kaoru documents 井上馨関係文書, 711–6, National Archives. ——. “Oboegaki, hi 覚書秘,” 1915. Inoue Kaoru documents, 711–10, National Archives. Inoue Shōichi 井上章一. Senji ka Nihon no kenchikuka: Āto • kitchu • japanesuku 戦時下日本の建築家: アート・キッチュ・ジャパネスク. Asahi shinbunsha, 1995. Inoue Shun 井上俊. Budō no tanjō 武道の誕生. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2004. Inoue Tetsujirō 井上哲次郎. Bushidō 武士道. Heiji zasshisha, 1901. ——. Kokumin dōtoku gairon 国民道徳概論. Sanseidō, 1912. bibliography 285

——. “Dōtokujō yori mitaru jinja mondai 道徳上より観たる神社問題.” In “Jinja mondai ni kansuru seron ichibetsu 神社問題に関する世論一瞥,” by Kurihara Kōkaku 栗原廣廓. Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō 7 (1917): 225–9. ——. “Meiji jingū to kyōiku 明治神宮と教育.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Kishida Makio, 37–42. Dōbunkan, 1920. Iokibe Makoto 五百旗頭真. Beikoku no nihon senryō seisaku, 米国の日本占領政策, 2 vols. Chūō kōron, 1985. ——. Nichibei sensō to sengo nihon 日米戦争と戦後日本. Kōdansha, 2005. ——. “ ‘Gyōkō’ toshite no nihon senryō 「僥倖」としての日本占領.” Kan 環22 (2005): 112–136. Irie Akira 入江昭. “Amerika no sekai senryaku to nihon senryō アメリカの世界戦略と日本占領.” Kan 環22 (2005): 148–57. Irie Katsumi 入江克己. Showa supōtsu shiron: Meiji jingū kyōgi taikai to kokumin seishin sōdōin undō 昭和スポーツ史論: 明治神宮競技大会と国民精神総動員運動. Fumaidō shuppan, 1991. ——. “Kindai no tennōsei to Meiji jingū kyōgi taikai 近代の天皇制と明治神宮競技大会.” In Undōkai to nihon kindai 運動会と日本近代, by Yoshimi Shun’ya 吉見俊哉 et al., 157–98. Seikyūsha, 1999. Ishihara Makoto 石原誠. “Jon Bachelā no Nihongo chosaku ジョン･バチェラーの日本語著作.” Ainu bunka アイヌ文化 14 (1989): 37–45. Ishizuka Hiromichi 石塚裕道 and Narita Ryūichi 成田龍一, eds. Tokyoto no hyaku nen 東京都の百年. Yamakawa shuppansha, 1986. Isomae Jun’ichi 磯前順一. Kindai nihon no shūkyō gensetsu to sono keifu: Shūkyō • kokka • Shintō 近代日本の宗教言説とその系譜: 宗教･国家･神道. Iwa- nami shoten, 2003. ——. Sōshitsu to nosutarujia: Kindai nihon no yohaku e 喪失とノスタルジア: 近代日本の余白へ. Misuzu shobō, 2007. Itō Chūta 伊東忠太. “Nihon jinja kenchiku no hattatsu 日本神社建築の発達,” 1901. In Itō Chūta kenchiku bunken 伊東忠太建築文献, vol. 1, ed. Itō Chūta kentiku bunken hensankai 伊東忠太建築文献編纂会. Ryūginsha, 1937. ——. “Jinja kenchiku no keishiki wa ittei subeki mono nariya 神社建築の形式は一定すべき者なりや.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 1 (March 1902): 5–12. ——. “Meiji jingū no kenchiku 明治神宮の建築.” Kokumin shinbun 国民新聞 (6 Aug. 1912). ——. “Shōrai no jinja kenchiku 将来の神社建築.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 11, no. 1 (1912): 8–10. ——. “Dennai hosetsu no yōshiki ni kansuru iken 殿内舗設ノ様式ニ関スル意見,” appendix of Jinja hōshi chōsakai keika yōryō 神社奉祀調査会経過要領, vol. 2, 30th September–30th November 1914, ed. Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai 内務省神社奉祀調査会, 34–36. National Archives of Japan, 公文雑纂-2A-14-纂1333. ——. “Jinja kenchiku no yōshiki to dennai hosetsu ni tsuite 神社建築の様式と殿内舗設に付いて.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 13, no. 12 (1914): 1–5. ——. “Jinja kenchiku ni tsuite 神社建築に就て.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 14, no. 7 (1915): 3–12. ——. “Meiji jingū no kaigakan ni tsuite 明治神宮の絵画館について.” Bijutsu shunpō 161 (19th June 1918): 1. ——. “Meiji jingū no shaden 明治神宮の社殿.” Bijutsu shunpō 163 (9th July 1918): 1. ——. “Jingū no shaden ni tsuite 神宮の社殿に就いて.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Teien kyōkai, 54–62. Kōzanbō, 1920. ——. “Meiji jingū shaden no kenchiku ni tsuite 明治神宮社殿の建築に就て.” Kenchiku zasshi 建築雑誌 409 (1920): 533–540. ——. “Meiji jingū no kenchiku ni tsuite 明治神宮の建築に就て,” 1921. Reprinted in Itō Chūta kenchiku bunken 伊東忠太建築文献, vol. 2. Ryūginsha, 1936. ——. “Meiji jidai no kenchiku no shinpo 明治時代の建築の進歩.” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō 21 (1924): 75–96. 286 bibliography

——. “Jinja to sono seishin 神社と其の精神.” Shintōgaku zasshi 神道学雑誌 3 (1927): 75–90. ——. “Jinja kenchiku ni taisuru kōsatsu 神社建築に対する考察.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 25, no. 7 (1926): 6–21. ——. “Meiji jingū chinza sanjūnen, zōei no koro o kataru 明治神宮鎮座三十年造営の頃を語る.” Shūkyō kōron 20, no. 8 (1950): 23–24. Itō Takashi 伊東孝. “Shōwa senzenki ni okeru bikan shichō to sono kinō seikaku • kinō: Shu toshite Tokyo ni okeru bikan chiku • Fūchi chiku no shitei to toshibi undō ni yoru kōsatsu 昭和戦前期における美観思潮とその機能性格・機能: 主として東京における美観地区・風致地区の指定と都市美運動による考察.” Toshi keikaku 都市計画, no. 13 (1978): 295–300. Itō Takashi 伊藤隆 and Toriumi Yasushi 鳥海靖. “Taidan, Meiji tennō to kindai nihon: Meiji tennōki no fukkan ni atatte 対談明治天皇と近代日本: 『明治天皇紀』の復刊にあたって.” Hongō 本郷 31 (2001): 2–9. Itō Tasaburō 伊東多三郎. “Nihon no shiryō hensan jigyō 日本の史料編纂事業.” In Kin- seishi no kenkyū 近世史の研究. Vol. 3, Bunkaron • seikatsuron • gakumonron • shigakuron 文化論・生活論・学問論・史学論. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1983. Iwakabe Yoshimitsu 岩壁義光. “Meiji tennōki hensan to shiryō kōkai • hozon 明治天皇紀編纂と資料公開・保存.” Hiroshima daigaku kiyō 広島大学紀要6 (2004): 13–27. Jingiin 神祇院. Jinjakyoku jidai o kataru 神社局時代を語る. Tokyo; Jingiin, 1942. ——. “Shintō ni taisuru beikokugawa no ninshiki oyobi ni sore ni motozuki kaihai sesim- entosuru ten 神道ニ対スル米国側ノ認識及ソレニ基キ改廃セシメントスル点.” In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 6. Jinja honchō, 1964. ——. “Shireibu to kōshō surutame no hōshin oyobi setsumeian 司令部と交渉するための方針及び説明案,” 9th October 1945. In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 7–8. Jinja honchō, 1964. ——. “Jinja no kokka bunri no hōshin oyobi sono taisakuan 神社の国家分離の方針及びその対策案,” 12th October 1945. In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 9–13. Jinja honchō, 1964. ——. “Jinja Shintō mondai taisaku (an) 神社神道問題対策( 案),” 16th November 1945. In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 55–58. Jinja honchō, 1964. ——. “Jinja seido sasshin yōkō 神社制度刷新要綱,” 20th November 1945. In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 50–51. Jinja honchō, 1964. Jinja honchō 神社本庁, ed. Jinja honchō jūnenshi 神社本庁十年史. Jinja honchō, 1956. ——. Kenshūjo 研修所. Jinja honchō shikō 神社本庁史稿, 5th ed. Jinja honchō kenshūjo, 1989. Jinja shinpō 神社新報, ed. Shintō shirei to sengo no Shintō 神道指令と戦後の神道, 3rd ed., rev. Jinja shinpō, 1996. ——. Kikaku 企画 and Ashizu jimusho 葦津事務所, eds. Jinja Shinpō gojūnenshi 神社新報五十年史. 2 Vols. Jinja shinpō, 1996. ——. Seisaku kenkyūshitsu 政策研究室, ed. Kindai jinja shintōshi 近代神社神道史, 7th ed., rev. and enl. Jinja shinpō, 2003. Kaga Hideo 加賀秀雄. “ ‘Meiji jingū kyōgi taikai’ no henshitsu katei ni tsuite 「明治神宮競技大会」の変質過程について.” Sōgō hoken taiiku kagaku 総合保健体育科学 19, no. 1 (1996): 97–105. ——. “Wagakuni ni okeru kindai supōtsu no tenkai katei ni kansuru jisshōteki kenkyū: ‘Meiji jingū kyōgi taikai’ no setsuritsu o megutte わが国における近代スポーツの展開過程に関する実証的研究:「明治神宮競技大会」の設立をめぐって.” Nagoya bunri daigaku kiyō 名古屋文理大学紀要 2 (2002): 135–43. ——. “Wagakuni ni okeru kindai supōtsu no tenkai katei ni kansuru jisshōteki kenkyū: ‘Meiji jingū kyōgi taikai’ no senji taiseika o megutte わが国における近代スポーツの展開過程に関する実証的研究:「明治神宮競技大会」の戦時体制化をめぐって.” Nagoya bunri daigaku kiyō3 (2003): 117–25. bibliography 287

Kagawa Toyohiko 賀川豊彦. Hinmin shinri no kenkyū 貧民心理の研究. Keiseisha, 1915. Kaizōsha 改造社, ed. Nihon chiri taikei 日本地理体系. Vol. 3, Dai Tokyo hen 大東京篇. Kaizōsha, 1930. Kaneko Kentarō 金子堅太郎. “Raihin ni taisuru aisatsu 来賓に対する挨拶.” Shidankai sokkiroku 史談会速記録 40 (1896): 23–26. Reprint, Hara shobō, 1972. ——. “Meiji tennō to kenpō seitei 明治天皇と憲法制定.” In Meiji tennō no gojiseki to teikoku kenpō no seitei 明治天皇の御事蹟と帝国憲法の制定, ed. Tokyoshi, Shakai kyōikuka 東京市社会教育課. Tokyoshi, 1922. ——. “Kokushi hensankyoku o mōkuru no gi 国史編纂局ヲ設クルノ議.” In Kaneko kentarō chosaku shū 金子堅太郎著作集, vol. 3, ed. Takase Nobuhiko 高瀬暢彦. Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo, 1997. ——. “Kokushi hensan wa genji no kyūmu 国史編纂ハ現時ノ急務.” In Kaneko kentarō chosaku shū, vol. 3, ed. Takase Nobuhiko. Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo, 1997. ——. “Meiji tennō ki o susumuru no hyō 明治天皇紀ヲ進ルノ表.” In Kaneko kentarō chosaku shū, vol. 3, ed. Takase Nobuhiko. Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo, 1997. ——. “Ishinshi kankō no gi o susumuru hyō 維新史刊行ノ議ヲ進ル表.” In Kaneko kentarō chosaku shū, vol. 3, ed. Takase Nobuhiko. Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo, 1997. ——. “Ishinshi o aguru hyō 維新史ヲ上ル表.” In Kaneko kentarō chosaku shū, vol. 3, ed. Takase Nobuhiko. Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo, 1997. ——. “Kenpō seitei to ishin shiryō hensan 憲法制定と維新史料編纂.” In Kaneko kentarō chosaku shū, vol. 3, ed. Takase Nobuhiko. Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo, 1997. ——. “Meiji ishinshi hensan no yurai 明治維新史編纂の由来.” In Kaneko kentarō chosaku shū, vol. 3, ed. Takase Nobuhiko. Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo, 1997. Karatani Kōjin 柄谷行人. Nihon kindai bungaku no kigen 日本近代文学の起源. Kōdansha, 1988. Kanō Yūichi 狩野雄一. “Kōdansha no shuppan katsudō 講談社の出版活動.” In Bi no nagare: Kōdansha Noma kinenkan meihin zuroku 美のながれ: 講談社野間記念館名品図録, ed. Kōdansha Noma kinenkan 講談社野間記念館. Noma bunka zaidan, 2005, 229–41. Kashihara jingū 橿原神宮. Kashihara jingū shi 橿原神宮史, vol. 2. Kashihara: Kashihara jingū chō, 1981. Kashiwagi Hiroshi 柏木博. Shōzō no nakano kenryoku: Kindai nihon no gurafizumu o yomu 肖像のなかの権力: 近代日本のグラフィズムを読む. Kōdansha, 2000. Katagiri Nobuo 片桐庸夫. “Gaikan: Shibusawa Eiichi, kyūjūichinen no shōgai to sono jiseki 概観: 渋沢栄一, 九十一年の生涯とその事績.” In Kōeki no tsuikyūsha • Shibusawa Eiichi, ed. Shibusawa kenkyūkai, 3–24. Yamakawa shuppansha, 1999. ——. “Minkan gaikō no paionia 民間外交のパイオニア.” In Kōeki no tsuikyūsha • Shibu- sawa Eiichi, ed. Shibusawa kenkyūkai, 104–117. Yamakawa shuppansha, 1999. Katō Genchi 加藤玄智. Waga kenkoku shisō no hongi 我建国思想の本義. Meguro shoten, 1912. ——. “Gendai shisō to jinja mondai 現代思想と神社問題,” in “Jinja mondai ni kansuru seron ichibetsu 神社問題に関する世論一瞥,” by Kurihara Kōkaku 栗原廣廓. Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō 7 (1917): 236–7. ——. Waga kokutai to Shintō 我が国体と神道. Kōdōkan, 1919. ——. “Shūkyōgaku yori mitaru Meiji jingū 宗教学より見たる明治神宮.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Kishida Makio, 43–47. Dōbunkan, 1920. ——. “Shintō no kenkyū ni kanshite shokan o nobu 神道の研究に関して所感を述ぶ.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 9 (January 1910): 4–9. ——. “Shintō no kenkyu ni tsuite 神道の研究に就て.” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō 16 (1921): 9–16. ——. Shintō no shūkyōgaku teki shin kenkyū 神道の宗教学的新研究. Daitōkaku, 1922. ——. “Jinja tai Shūkyō Mondai yori mitaru Shintō no ichikōsatsu 神社対宗教問題より見たる神道の一考察.” In Kokugaku sōsho 国学叢書, vol. 2. Kōten kōkyūjo, 1931. 288 bibliography

——. Honpō seishi no kenkyū: Seishi no shijitsu to sono shinri bunseki 本邦生祠の研究: 生祠の史実と其心理分析. Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai, 1931. ——. Jinja mondai no saikentō: Shintō no hongi to wagakuni no kyōiku 神社問題の再検討: 神道の本義と我が国の教育. Yūzankaku, 1933. ——. Shintō no shūkyō hattatsu shi teki kenkyū 神道の宗教発達史的研究. Chūbunkan shoten, 1935. Katō Tetsurō 加藤哲郎. Shōchō tennōsei no kigen: Amerika no shinrisen “nihon keikaku” 象徴天皇制の起源: アメリカの心理戦「日本計画」. Heibonsha, 2005. Kawabata Akio 川端昭夫, Araki Tatsuo 荒木達雄, Kimura Kichiji 木村吉次and Hamada Seiichi 浜田精一. “Meiji jingū taiiku taikai ni okeru shūdan taisō (masu gēmu) ni kansuru kenkyū: Taikai de kaisaisareta shūdan taisō no engi naiyō o chūshin ni 明治神宮体育大会における集団体操（マスゲーム）に関する研究: 大会で開催された集団体操の演技内容を中心に.” Chūkyō daigaku taiiku kenkyūjo kiyō 中京大学体育研究所紀要 14 (2000): 15–54. Kawabata Akio, Araki Tatsuo and Haruyama Kunihiro 春山国広. “Meiji jingū taiiku taikai no shūdan taisō ni kansuru kenkyū: Shūdan taisō no masu gēmu ni kanrensuru yōin no bunseki 明治神宮体育大会の集団体操に関する研究: 集団体操のマスゲームに関連する要因の分析. Chūkyō daigaku taiiku kenkyūjo kiyō 18 (2004): 11–30. Kawai Suimei 河井酔茗. Tokyo kinkō meguri 東京近郊めぐり. Hakubunkan, 1922. Reprint, Ōzorasha, 1992. Kawai Tomoko 川合知子. “Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan kenkyū 明治神宮聖徳記念絵画館研究.” Tetsugakukai shi 哲学会誌 21 (1997): 45–58. Kawajiri Taiji 川尻泰司. Nihon ningyōgeki hattatsushi･kō 日本人形劇発達史・考. Ban- sei shobō, 1986. Kawamura Kunimitsu 川村邦光. Genshi suru kindai kūkan: Meishin, byōki, zashikirō, aruiwa rekishi no kioku 幻視する近代空間: 迷信、病気、座敷牢、あるいは歴史の記憶. Seikyūsha, 1997. Kawamura Minoru 川村稔. “Sanjūnen mae no Harajuku 30 年前の原宿.” Edo to Tokyo 江戸と東京 6, no. 2 (July 1940). Reprint, Fukkoku Edo to Tokyo 復刻江戸と東京, vol. 4, editied by Ogi Shinzō 小木新造, 317. Akashi Shoten, 1991. Kawamoto Saburō 川本三郎. Kōgai no bungakushi 郊外の文学誌. Shinchōsha, 2003. Kawata Akihisa 河田明久. “Jūgonen sensō to ‘daikōzu’ no seiritsu 十五年戦争と『大構図』の成立.” Bijutsushi kenkyū 美術史研究 32 (1994): 81–98. ——. “Sensōga to wa nanika? 戦争画とは何か?” Geijutsu shinchō 芸術新潮46, no. 8 (1995): 78–85. ——. “Meijiki sensō bijutsu chōkan 明治期戦争美術鳥瞰.” Kokubungaku 国文学 49, no. 6 (2004): 20–32. Kawata Keiichi 川田敬一. “Kōshitsu seido keisei to Fujinami Kototada 皇室制度形成と藤波言忠.” In Ōnakatomi saishu Fujinami ke no kenkyū, ed. Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo, 279–301. Zoku gunsho ruijū kansei kai, 2000. Kawawada Akiko 川和田晶子. “Meiji kaireki to jikan no kindaika 明治改暦と時間の近代化.” In Chikoku no tanjō: Kindai nihon ni okeru jikan ishiki no keisei, ed. Hashimoto Takehiko and Kuriyama Shigehisa, 213–40. Sangensha, 2001. Kawazoe Yū 川添裕, Kinoshita Naoyuki 木下直之and Hashizume Shinya 橋爪紳也. Bessatsu taiyō 123: Misemono wa omoshiroi 別冊太陽123 : 見世物はおもしろい. Hei- bonsha, 2003. Kida Jun’ichirō 紀田順一郎. Tokyo no kasō shakai: Meiji kara shūsen made 東京の下層社会: 明治から終戦まで. Shinchōsha, 1990. Kido Kōichi 木戸幸一. Kido Kōichi nikki 木戸幸一日記, 2 vols. Tokyo daigaku shuppankai, 1966. Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshukukai 紀元二千六百年奉祝会, ed. Kannagara no ishizue 惟神の礎. Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshukukai, 1941. ——. ed. Tengyō hōshō: Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten yōroku 天業奉頌: 紀元二千六百年祝典要録. Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshukukai, 1943. bibliography 289

——. ed. Kigen nisenroppyakunen: Jinja gō 紀元二千六百年: 神社号. Kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshukukai, 1941. Kigen nisenroppyakunen kinen nihon bankoku hakurankai jimukyoku 紀元二千六百年記念日本万国博覧会事務局, ed. Kigen nisenroppyakunen kinen nihon bankoku hakurankai gaiyō 紀元二千六百年記念日本万国博覧会概要. Kigen nisenroppyakunen kinen nihon bankoku hakurankai jimukyoku, 1938. Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten jimukyoku 紀元二千六百年祝典事務局. Kingen nisenroppyakunen shukuten kiroku 紀元二千六百年祝典記録, 1941. Reprint, Kingen nisenroppyakunen shukuten kiroku, 26 vols and a supplementary volume. Yumani shobō, 1999. Kikuta Ryūtarō 菊田龍太郎. “Shintōshi ni tsuite no kenkyūshi: Miyachi Naokazu o chūshin to shite 神道史についての研究史: 宮地直一を中心として.” Shintō Kenkyū Shūroku 神道研究集録 17 (2003): 1–33. Kimura Kichiji 木村吉次. “Jingū taikai kara kokutai o kangaeru 神宮大会から国体を考える.” Taiiku no kagaku 体育の科学 37, no. 8 (1987): 587–90. Kimura Masato 木村昌人. “Jinteki nettowāku no keisei: Kigyō o torimaku kokusai kankyō no sōshutsu 人的ネットワークの形成: 企業をとりまく国際環境の創出.” In Kōeki no tsuikyūsha: Shibusawa Eiichi, ed. Shibusawa kenkyūkai, 88–103. Yamakawa shuppansha, 1999. Kinoshita Naoyuki 木下直之. Bijutsu toiu misemono 美術という見世物. Chikuma shobō, 1999. ——. Yo no tochū kara kakusareteiru koto: Kindai nihon no kioku 世の途中から隠されていること: 近代日本の記憶. Shōbunsha, 2002. Kinoshita Seizō 木下清蔵. Kindai Shiraoi kotan no ayumi, Shiraoi kotan: Kinoshita Seizō isaku shasinshū 近代白老コタンのあゆみシラオイコタン: 木下清蔵遺作写真集. Shiraoi: Ainu minzoku hakubutsukan, 2001. Kishida Hideto 岸田日出刀. Kenchiku gakusha Itō Chūta 建築学者伊東忠太. Kengen- sha, 1945. ——. “Ki ka konkurīto ka 木かコンクリートか.” Bungei shunjū 文芸春秋 (May 1960): 46–47. ——. “Meiji jingū naru 明治神宮成る.” Shin kenchiku 新建築 34, no. 3 (1959): 44–45. Kishida Hideto henshū iinkai「岸田日出刀」編集委員会, ed. Kishida Hideto 岸田日出刀, 2 Vols. Sagami shobō, 1972. Kishida Makio 岸田蒔夫, ed. Meiji jingū 明治神宮. Dōbunkan, 1920. Kishimoto Hideo 岸本英夫. “Arashi no naka no jinja Shintō 嵐の中の神社神道.” In Sengo shūkyō kaisōroku 戦後宗教回想録, ed. Shinshūren chōsashitsu 新宗連調査室, 195–281. PL Shuppan, 1963. ——. “Bansu hakase to ichimon ittō バンス博士と一問一答.” In Sengo shūkyō kaisōroku, ed. Shinshūren chōsashitsu, 288–94. PL Shuppan, 1963. ——. Kishimoto Hideo shū 岸本英夫集. Vol. 5, Sengo no shūkyō to shakai 戦後の宗教と社会. Keiseisha, 1976. Kita Morio 北杜夫. Nireke no hitobito 楡家の人びと, 2 vols. Shinchōsha, 1971. Kitamura Masami 北村昌美. “Gendai shakai ni okeru Meiji jingū no mori no sonzai igi 現代社会における明治神宮の森の存在意義.” In Daitokai ni tsukurareta mori: Meiji jingū no mori ni manabu 大都会に造られた森: 明治神宮の森に学ぶ. By Mat- sui Mitsuma 松井光瑤, Uchida Masayoshi 内田方彬, Tanimoto Takeo 谷本丈夫and Kitamura Masami 北村昌美, 120–137. Daiichi pulanningu, 1992. Kitazawa Noriaki 北沢憲昭. Me no shinden: “Bijutsu” juyō shi nōto 眼の神殿: 「美術」受容史ノート. Bijutsu shuppansha, 1989. ——. Kyōkai no bijutsushi: “Bijutsu” keiseishi nōto 境界の美術史: 『美術』形成史ノート. Buryukke, 2000. ——. “Nihonga” no ten’i 「日本画」の転位. Buryukke, 2003. Kiyasu Akira 喜安朗 and Kawakita Minoru 川北稔. Daitokai no tanjō: Dekigoto no rekishizō o yomu 大都会の誕生: 出来事の歴史像を読む. Yūhikaku, 1986. 290 bibliography

Kobashi Hideo 小橋英雄 and Kawamura Akio 川村昭夫, Nihon kenchiku kōgei sekkei jimusho 日本建築工芸設計事務所, interview by author, 13rd, 20th January 2006, Tokyo. Tape recording. Kobayashi Kenzō 小林健三. “Katō Genchi hakase no gyōseki 加藤玄智博士の業績,” Shintō Kenkyu kiyō 神道研究紀要 1 (1976): 23–45. Kobayashi Mango 小林萬吾. “Hekigakan no yōga 壁画館の洋画.” Kokumin bijutsu 国民美術 2, no. 4 (April 1925): 58. Kobori Keiichirō 小堀桂一郎 “Rekishiga no fukken: Rekishi to monogatari no kakawariai ni tsuite 歴史画の復権: 歴史と物語の関わりあひに就て.” Nihon no bigaku 日本の美学8 (1986): unpaginated. ——. “Rekishiga no fukken: Rekishi to monogatari no kakawariai ni tsuite.” No. 2. Nihon no bigaku 9 (1986): unpaginated. ——. “Bijutsushi jō no ‘kinenhi teki kaiga’ no ichi 美術史上の「記念碑的絵画」の位置.” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō, n.s., 20 (1997): 15–35. ——. “Batsu: Kaidai ni kaete 跋: 解題に代えて.” In Meiga ni miru kokushi no ayumi: Tokyo • Yōjōkan kyūzō/ Ise • Jingū chōkokan genzō 名画にみる国史の歩み: 東京・養正館旧蔵/ 伊勢・神宮徴古館現蔵, ed. Tokoro Isao 所功, 97–101. Kindai shuppansha, 2000. Kobori Tomoto 小堀鞆音. “Nihonga zatsudan 日本画雑談.” Kokumin bijutsu 国民美術 2, no. 4 (April 1925): 59. Kogishi Akira 小岸昭, Ikeda Hiroshi 池田浩, Ukai Satoshi 鵜飼哲and Wada Tadahiko 和田忠彦, eds. Fashizumu no sōzōryoku ファシズムの想像力. Jinbun shoin, 1997. Kojita Yasunao 小路田泰直. Nihon kindai toshishi kenkyū josetsu 日本近代都市史研究序説. Kashiwa shobō, 1991. Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo, ed. Shaji torishirabe ruisan: Shintō • kyōka hen 社寺取調類纂: 神道･教化編. Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyujo, 1990. Komori Yōichi 小森陽一. “Nēshon to negoshiēshon ネーションとネゴシエーション.” In Iwanami kōza bungaku 岩波講座文学. Vol. 13, Nēshon o koete ネーションを超えて, ed. Komori Yōichi et al., 1–14. Iwanami shoten, 2002. Kon Wajirō 今和次郎. Shinpan dai Tokyo annai 新版大東京案内, 2 vols. Chikuma shobō, 2001. Konishi Shirō 小西四郎. “Monbushō ishin shiryō hensankai • Monbushō ishin shiryō hensan jimukyoku shōshi 文部省維新史料編纂会・文部省維新史料編纂事務局小史.” In “Ishinshi” to ishin shiryō hensankai 『維新史』と維新史料編纂会, by Ōkubo Toshiaki and Konishi Shirō. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1983. Kōno Motomichi 河野本道 Ainu shi shinbun nenpyō: “Otaru shinbun” (Taisho ki 1) hen アイヌ史新聞年表: 『小樽新聞』（大正期I）編. Kokugakuin tanki daigaku, komyunitī karejji sentā, 2006. Kōsaka Morihiko 高坂盛彦. Aru Meiji riberarisuto no kiroku: Kokō no sentōsha Takekoshi Yosaburō den ある明治リベラリストの記録: 孤高の戦闘者竹越與三郎伝. Chūō kōron shinsha, 2002. Ko Sakatani shishaku kinen jigyōkai 故阪谷子爵記念事業会, ed. Sakatani Yoshirō den 阪谷芳郎伝. Ko Sakatani shishaku kinen jigyōkai, 1951. Koshimizu Hajime 輿水肇, et al. “Zōen ni okeru ‘mori zukuri’ no rinen to gijutsu: ‘Meiji jingū no mori zukuri’ no senkensei to kagakusei o manabi genzai ni ikasu 造園における「森づくり」の理念と技術: 「明治神宮の森づくり」の先見性と科学性を学び、現在に活かす.” Landosukēpu kenkyū ランドスケープ研究 65, no. 2 (2001): 143–50. Koshizawa Akira 越澤明. Tokyo toshi keikaku monogatari 東京都市計画物語. Chikuma shobō, 2001. ——. Manshūkoku no shuto keikaku 満州国の首都計画. Chikuma shobō, 2002. ——. Fukkō keikaku: Bakumatsu • Meiji no taika kara Hanshin • Awaji dai shinsai made 復興計画: 幕末･明治の大火から阪神･淡路大震災まで. Chūō kōron shinsha, 2005. bibliography 291

Koyasu Nobukuni 子安宣邦. “Ikkoku minzokugaku no seiritsu 一国民俗学の成立.” In Iwanami kōza gendai shisō 岩波講座現代思想. Vol. 1, Shisō toshite no nijūseiki 思想としての 20 世紀, ed. Nitta Yoshihiro 新田義弘. Iwanami shoten, 1993. ——. Kokka to saishi: Kokka Shintō no genzai 国家と祭祀: 国家神道の現在. Seidosha, 2004. Kozawa Hiroshi 小沢浩. Ikigami no shisōshi: Nihon no kindaika to minshū shūkyō 生き神の思想史: 日本の近代化と民衆宗教. Iwanami shoten, 1988. Kunaichō 宮内庁, ed. Meiji tennōki 明治天皇紀, vol. 3, 5. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1969–1971. Kunaichō, Sannomaru shōzōkan 三の丸尚蔵館, ed. Kan’ten o irodotta meihin • wadaisaku: Taisho—Showa shoki no kaiga to kōgei 官展を彩った名品・話題作: 大正～昭和初期の絵画と工芸. Kunaichō, Sannomaru shōzōkan, 2005. [Kunaishō 宮内省, Rinji teishitsu henshūkyoku 臨時帝室編修局], ed. Seitoku kinen kaigakan gadai setsumei 聖徳記念絵画館画題説明, 2 vols. 1918. Collection of Kunaichō, Shoryōbu. 明-560. Kurakata Shunsuke 倉方俊輔. “Itō Chūta no saishoki no sōsaku katsudō ni tsuite: Meijiki no zumenrui ni miru Itō Chūta no sekkei katsudō sono ichi 伊東忠太の最初期の創作活動について: 明治期の図面類にみる伊東忠太の設計活動その１.” Nihon kenchiku gakkai keikakukei ronbunshū 日本建築学会計画系論文集558 (2002): 279–84. ——. “Itō Chūta no Nishi honganji no keikaku ni tsuite: Meijiki no zumenrui ni miru Itō Chūta no sekkei katsudō sono ni 伊東忠太の西本願寺関連の計画について: 明治期の図面類にみる伊東忠太の設計活動その２.” Nihon kenchiku gakkai keikakukei ronbunshū 566 (2003): 169–76. ——. “Meiji chūki no miteikō kara mita Itō Chūta no nihon kenchiku kenkyū 明治中期の未定稿からみた伊東忠太の日本建築研究.” Nihon kenchiku gakkai keikakukei ronbunshū 574 (2003): 201–207. ——. “Itō Chūta to sekkei shisō: Yōkai toshite no kenchiku 伊東忠太と設計思想妖怪としての建築.” In Itō Chūta o shitte imasuka, ed. Suzuki Hiroyuki, 85–136. Ōkokusha, 2003. ——. “Nōto no rakugaki: Kondoru, Tatsuno Kingo, Itō Chūta ノートの落書き: コンドル、辰野金吾、伊東忠太.” In Itō Chūta o shitte imasuka, ed. Suzuki Hiroyuki, 219–23. Ōkokusha, 2003. ——. “Itō Chūta no Taishō • Showa ki ni okeru zumen shiryō no kōsatsu: Taisho • Showa ki no zumenrui ni miru Itō Chūta no sekkei katsudō sono ichi 伊東忠太の大正・昭和期における図面史料の考察: 大正・昭和期の図面類にみる伊東忠太の設計活動その１.” Nihon kenchiku gakkai keikakukei ronbunshū 578 (2004): 177–84. ——. “ ‘Kenchiku shinka no gensoku yori mitaru Wagakuni kenchiku no zento’ no shushi ni tsuite: Itō Chūta ‘kenchiku shinka ron’ no tokushitsu ni kansuru kenkyū sono ichi 「建築進化の原則より見たる我邦建築の前途」の主旨について: 伊東忠太「建築進化論」の特質に関する研究その１.” Nihon kenchiku gakkai keikakukei ronbunshū 581 (2004): 191–95. ——. “ ‘Kenchiku shinka ron’ to sekkei katsudō no kankei ni tsuite: Itō Chūta ‘kenchiku shinkaron’ no tokushitsu ni kansuru kenkyū sono ni 「建築進化論」と設計活動との関係について: 伊東忠太「建築進化論」の特質に関する研究その２.” Nihon kenchiku gakkai keikakukei ronbunshū 589 (2005): 193–99. Kuroda Hideo 黒田日出男. Ō no shintai, ō no shōzō 王の身体王の肖像. Heibonsha, 1993. Kuroda Isamu 黒田勇. Rajio taisō no tanjō ラジオ体操の誕生. Seikyūsha, 1999. Kusama Yasoo 草間八十雄. “Nojuku furōsha ni kansuru gaikyō chōsa 野宿浮浪者に関する概況調査,” 13rd November 1923. In Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei: Kusama Yasoo 1921–1937 chōsa, 都市下層民衆生活実態資料集成: 草間八十雄 1921 年－1937 年調査, vol. 2, ed. Yasuoka Norihiko 安岡憲彦, 168–71. Akashi shoten, 1993. ——. “Shūdan barakku chōsa 集団バラック調査,” 13rd December 1924. In Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei: Kusama Yasoo 1921–1937 chōsa, vol. 2, ed. Yasuoka Norihiko, 174–97. Akashi shoten, 1993. 292 bibliography

——. “Zanshokubutsu jukyū ni kansuru chōsa 残食物需給に関する調査,” 30rd March 1923. In Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei: Kusama Yasoo 1921–1937 chōsa, vol. 2, ed. Yasuoka Norihiko, 121–65. Akashi shoten, 1993. ——. “Zanshokubutsu jukyū ni kansuru chōsa 残食物需給ニ関スル調査,” July 1930. In Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei: Kusama Yasoo 1921–1937 chōsa, vol. 2, ed. Yasuoka Norihiko, 400–437. Akashi shoten, 1993. ——. “Kichinyado ni kansuru chōsa 木賃宿に関する調査,” 15th July 1930. In Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei: Kusama Yasoo 1921–1937 chōsa, vol. 2, ed. Yasuoka Norihiko. Akashi shoten, 1993. ——. Kindai nihon no donzoku shakai 近代日本のどん底社会. Edited by Yasuoka Nori- hiko. Akashi shoten, 1992. ——. Donzoko no hitotachi どん底の人達. Genrinsha, 1936. Reprinted in Kindai kasō minshū seikatsushi 近代下層民衆生活誌. Vol. 1, Hinmingai 貧民街, by Kusama Yasoo 草間八十雄. Edited by Isomura Eiichi 磯村英一, 179–696. Akashi shoten, 1987 Kusunoki Ayako 楠綾子. “Tainichi senryō seisaku no hensen to chinichiha 対日占領政策の変遷と知日派.” Kan 環22 (2005): 137–47. Kusuya Shigetoshi 楠家重敏. Igirisujin Japanolojisuto no shōzō: Satou, Asuton, Chenbaren イギリス人ジャパノロジストの肖像: サトウ、アストン、チェンバレン. Nihon tosho kankōkai, 1998. ——. Nezumi wa mada ikiteiru: Chenbaren no denki ねずみはまだ生きている: チェンバレンの伝記. Yūshōdō, 1986. Maeda Ai 前田愛. Toshi kūkan no nakano bungaku 都市空間のなかの文学. Chikuma shobō, 1992. Maeda Munemasa 前田宗正. “Kasuga Tokitarō: Meiji jingū gozōei ni sasageta zōengyō no ōoyakata 春日時太郎: 明治神宮御造営に捧げた造園業の大親方.” Landosukēpu kenkyū 60 (1996): 5–8. Maeda Takakazu 前田孝和. “Shintō (‘Shintō shirei’) no tantōsha kenkyū: Kaisetsu to shi- yaku 神道（「神道指令」）の担当者研究（「Shinto-Staff Study」）: 解説と試訳.” Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 59 (1987): 322–74. Maeshima Yasuhiko 前島康彦, ed. Orishimo Yoshinobu sensei gyōseki roku 折下吉延先生業績録. Orishimo sensei kinen jigyō kai, 1967. Maruyama Shigeru 丸山茂. “Jinja kenchiku no keisei katei ni okeru kansha sei no igi ni tsuite 神社建築の形成過程における官社制の意義について.” Kenchikushigaku 建築史学 33 (1999): 2–45. ——. “Itō Chūta to jinja kenchiku: Meiji ikō no jinja kenchiku ni miru kokumin yōshiki no kōbō 伊東忠太と神社建築: 明治以降の神社建築に見る国民様式の興亡.” In Nihon no kenchiku to shisō: Itō Chūta shōron 日本の建築と思想: 伊東忠太小論. Dōbun shoin, 1996. Masaki Naohiko 正木直彦. Kaiko nanajūnen 回顧七十年. Gakkō bijutsukyōkai shuppanbu, 1937. Matsuba Kazukiyo 松葉一清. Pari no kiseki: Media toshite no kenchiku パリの奇跡: メディアとしての建築. Kōdansha, 1990. ——. Teito fukkō seri!: “Kenchiku no Tokyo” o aruku, 1986–1997 帝都復興せり！: 「建築の東京」を歩く1986–1997. Asahi shinbunsha, 1997. Matsubara Iwagorō 松原岩五郎. Saiankoku no Tokyo 最暗黒の東京. Minyūsha, 1893. Reprint, Iwanami shoten, 1988. Matsui Michiaki 松井道昭. Furansu daini teisei ka no Pari toshi kaizō フランス第二帝政下のパリ都市改造. Nihon keizai hyōronsha, 1997. Matsui Mitsuma 松井光瑤, Uchida Masayoshi 内田方彬, Tanimoto Takeo 谷本丈夫 and Kitamura Masami 北村昌美. Daitokai ni tsukurareta mori: Meiji jingū no mori ni manabu 大都会に造られた森: 明治神宮の森に学ぶ. Daiichi pulanningu sentā, 1992. Matsui Ryūgo 松居竜五. “Shoki rainichi seiyō gakusha to ‘nihon’ to iu gensetsu: Asu- ton • Chenbaren • Mōsu • Hān to Minakata Kumagusu • Yanagita Kunio no taihi no kokoromi 初期来日西洋学者と「日本」という言説: アストン・チェンバレン・モ bibliography 293

ース・ハーンと南方熊楠・柳田国男の対比の試み.” Surugadai ronsō 駿河台論叢 12 (1996): 89–104. Matsumoto Kyōji 松本恭治. “Shūgō jūtaku no seikatsushi teki kōsatsu 集合住宅の生活史的考察.” Jūtaku kenchiku kenkyūjohō 住宅建築研究所報 2 (1975): 115–28. ——. “Dōjunkai apāto wa komyunitī keisei no jikkenjō datta 同潤会アパートはコミュニティ形成の実験場だった.” Kenchiku jānaru 建築ジャーナル 1044 (2003): 26–29. ——. ed. “Seikatsushi: Dōjunkai apāto 生活史: 同潤会アパート.” Toshi jūtaku 都市住宅 7207 (1972): 6–62. Matsumura, Ken’ichi 松村憲一. “Shakai kyōiku ni okeru kokumin kyōka no tenkai 社会教育における国民教化の展開.” In Nihon no fashizumu 日本のファシズム. Vol. 1, Keiseiki no kenkyū 形成期の研究, ed. Waseda daigaku shakai kagaku kenkyūjo, Pure- fashizumu kenkyūbukai 早稲田大学社会科学研究所プレ・ファシズム研究部会, 199–253. Waseda daigaku shuppanbu, 1970. Matsuo Takayoshi 松尾尊兌. Taisho demokurashī 大正デモクラシー. Iwanami shoten, 1974. Miichi Masatoshi 見市雅俊. London, Honō ga unda sekai toshi: Taika • pesuto • han kasorikku ロンドン炎が生んだ世界都市: 大火･ペスト･反カソリック. Kōdansha, 1999. Mikami Sanji 三上参次. “Teikoku daigaku shiryō hensan jigyō no genkyō 帝国大学史料編纂事業の現況.” Shidankai sokkiroku 史談会速記録 88 (1900): 57–66. Reprint, Hara shobō, 1972. ——. Meiji jidai no rekishi gakkai: Mikami Sanji kaikyūdan 明治時代の歴史学会: 三上参次懐旧談. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1991. Mikuriya Takashi 御厨貴, ed. Jidai no senkakusha: Gotō Shinpei 1857–1929 時代の先覚者: 後藤新平 1857–1929. Fujiwara shoten, 2004. Minami Hiroshi 南博 and Shakai shinri kenkyūjo 社会心理研究所, eds. Taisho bunka 大正文化. Keisō shobō, 1987. Minatoku 港区. Minatoku shi 港区史, vol. 2. Minatoku, 1960. Misawa Jun 三澤純. “ ‘Toki’ no kindaika to bunmei kaika ronja 時間（とき）の近代化と文明開化論者.” Bungakubu Ronsō 文学部論叢 69 (2000): 1–20. Mitsuoka Shin’ichi 満岡伸一. Ainu no sokuseki アイヌの足跡. Shiraoi, privately printed, 1922. ——. Ainu no sokuseki. Shiraoi: privately printed, 1923. ——. Ainu no sokuseki, 1st ed. Shiraoi: Tanabe Masao, 1924. ——. Ainu no sokuseki, 2nd ed. Shiraoi: Tanabe Masao, 1926. ——. Ainu no sokuseki, 3rd ed., enl. Shiraoi: Tanabe Masao, 1931. ——. Ainu no sokuseki, 4th ed., enl. Shiraoi: Tanabe Masao, 1932. ——. Ainu no sokuseki, 5th ed. Shiraoi: Tanabe Masao, 1934. ——. Ainu no sokuseki, 6th ed., rev. Shiraoi: Miyoshi Chikuyū, 1941. ——. Ainu no sokuseki, 7th ed., rev. Shiraoi: Miyoshi shoten, 1962. ——. Ainu no sokuseki, 8th ed., rev. and enl. Edited by Mitsuoka Akira 満岡章. Shiraoi: Shiraoi minzoku bunka denshō hozon zaidan, 1987. ——. Ainu no sokuseki, 9th ed., rev. Edited by Ainu minzoku hakubutsukan アイヌ民族博物館. Shiraoi: Ainu minzoku hakubutsukan, 2003. ——. Kuma no ashiato 熊の足跡. Kōgakusha, 1944. Miura Masashi 三浦雅士. Shintai no reido: Naniga kindai o seiritsu sasetaka 身体の零度: 何が近代を成立させたか. Kōdansha, 1994. Miyachi Masato 宮地正人. Nichiro sengo seijishi no kenkyū: Teikoku shugi keiseiki no toshi to nōson 日露戦後政治史の研究: 帝国主義形成期の都市と農村. Tokyo daigaku shuppankai, 1973. ——. “Seiji to rekishigaku: Meiji ki no ishinshi kenkyū o tegakari to shite 政治と歴史学: 明治期の維新史研究を手掛りとして.” In Gendai rekishigaku nyūmon 現代歴史学入門, ed. Nishikawa Masao 西川正雄 and Kotani Hiroyuki 小谷汪之, 92–123. Tokyo daigaku shuppankai, 1987. 294 bibliography

Miyachi Naokazu 宮地直一. “Shinza ni chōdai no kamae o oku o datō to suru ni tsuki iken 神座ニ帳臺ノ構ヲ置クヲ妥当トスルニ付意見,” appendix of Jinja hōshi chōsakai keika yōryō 神社奉祀調査会経過要領, vol. 2, 30th September–30th November 1914, ed. Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai 内務省神社奉祀調査会, 15–20. National Archives of Japan, 公文雑纂-2A-14- 纂 1333. ——. “Gozōei ni tomonau shosaishiki ni tsuite 御造営に伴う諸祭式に就て.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Kishida Makio, 51–59. Dōbunkan, 1920. ——. Jingishi 神祇史. Kōten kōkyujo Kokugakuin Daigaku Shuppanbu, 1910–1912. ——. Jingishi kōyō 神祇史綱要. Meiji shoin, 1919. ——. Jinja kōyō 神社綱要. Tōyō tosho, 1938. Miyagawa Eiko 宮川英子. “Shūkyō kenkyū no naka no shūkyōgaku: Jirenma karano dasshutsu 宗教研究の中の宗教学: ジレンマからの脱出,” Gendai shisō 現代思想 30, no. 9 (2002): 28–44. Miyagawa Munenori ushi denki kankō kai 宮川宗徳大人伝記刊行会. Miyagawa Munenori: Sono denki to ikō 宮川宗徳: その伝記と遺稿. Miyagawa Munenori ushi denki kankō kai, 1964. Miyajima Seijirō ō den kankō kai 宮島清次郎翁伝刊行会. Miyajima Seijirō ō den 宮島清次郎翁伝. Miyajima Seijirō ō den kankō kai, 1965. Miyakawa Atsushi 宮川淳. Kagami • Kūkan • Imāju 鏡･空間･イマージュ. Suiseisha, 2002. Miyamoto[née Nakajō] Yuriko 宮本[ 中條] 百合子. “Shitashiku kenbun shita Ainu no seikatsu 親しく見聞したアイヌの生活,” Jyogaku sekai 女学世界, October 1918. Reprinted in Miyamoto Yuriko zenshū 宮本百合子全集, vol. 17. Shinnihon shuppansha, 1981. Miyata Noboru 宮田登. Ikigami shinkō: Hito o kami ni matsuru shūzoku 生き神信仰: 人を神に祀る習俗. Hanawa shobō, 1970. Miyazawa Kogorō 宮沢小五郎, ed. Dōjunkai jūhachinenshi 同潤会十八年史. Seishisha, 1993. Miyoshi Nobuhiro 三好信浩. Kagerō no shōgyō kyōiku o sasaeta hito 陽炎の商業教育を支えた人.” In Kōeki no tsuikyūsha • Shibusawa Eiichi, ed. Shibusawa kenkyūkai, 212–226. Yamakawa shuppansha, 1999. Mizuno Rentarō 水野錬太郎. “Shinshoku no tame ni 神職の為めに.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 神27 (May 1904): 1–6. [ ______]. “Jinja o chūshin to seru chihō jichi 神社を中心とせる地方自治.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 6, no. 7 (1907): 1–6. ——. “Jinja ni tsuite 神社に就て,” no. 1–2. Jinja kyōkai zasshi 7, no. 4 (1908): 1–6; 7, no. 5 (1908): 1–7. ——. “Kansha to minsha ni tsuite 官社と民社に就て.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 9, no. 3 (1910): 1–4. Morioka Kiyomi 森岡清美. Kindai no shūraku jinja to kokka tōsei: Meiji makki no jinja tōsei 近代の集落神社と国家統制: 明治末期の神社統制. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1987. Morita Yasunosuke 森田康之助. Minatogawa jinja shi 湊川神社史, vol. 2, chinza hen 鎮座篇. Kobe: Minatogawa jinja shamusho, 1987. Motegi Sadasumi 茂木貞純. “Orikuchi Shinobu no sengo Shintō ron 折口信夫の戦後神道論.” Kokugakuin zasshi 国学院雑誌 87, no. 11 (1986): 409–425. Murai Osamu 村井紀. “Gizō sareta kioku: Shinwa seisakusha Orikuchi Shinobu 偽造された記憶: 神話制作者折口信夫.” Gendai shisō 23, no. 1 (1995): 194–202. ——. Han Orikuchi Shinobu ron 反折口信夫論. Sakuhinsha, 2004. Murakami Shigeyoshi 村上重良. Kokka Shintō 国家神道. Iwanami shoten, 1970. Murano Kaoru 村野薫. “Teito no chūshin ni nokosareta fushigi na kūkan! ‘hiyokechi’ Samegabashi no himitsu 帝都の中心に残された不思議な空間！‘火避地’鮫ケ橋の秘密.” Teito Tokyo 帝都東京, Bessatsu takarajima series, 24th March 1995: 95–104. bibliography 295

Muraoka Tsunetsugu 村岡典嗣. “Nihon gakusha toshite no ko Chanburen kyōju 日本学者としての故チャンブレン教授,” 1935. In Zoku nihon shisōshi kenkyū 続日本思想史研究. Iwanami shoten, 1939. Nagai Kafū 永井荷風. “Kanchi 閑地.” In Kafū zuihitsu 荷風随筆, vol. 2. Iwanami shoten, 1981. Nagao Yasujirō 長尾保二郎. “Yotsuya • Samegabashi hōdan 四谷・鮫ケ橋放談.” In kijin 帰仁. Privately published, 1964–76. Nagaoka Gaishi 長岡外史. “Taishin taika no koro 大震大火の頃.” In Nagaoka gaishi monjo: Kaikoroku hen 長岡外史文書回顧録編, ed. Nagaoka gaishi monjo kenkyūkai 長岡外史文書研究会, 363–406. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1989. Nagayama Sadatomi 永山定富. Naigai hakurankai sōsetsu 内外博覧会総説. Suimei shoin, 1933. Naimushō 内務省, Fukkōkyoku 復興局. “Tokubetsu toshi keikaku iinkai, dainanakai jōmu iinkai gijiroku 特別都市計画委員会第七回常務委員会議事録,” 20th Decem- ber 1926. Tokubetsu toshi keikaku iinkai jōmu iinkai sokkiroku 特別都市計画委員会常務委員会速記録, no. 4. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 093.22/ と/2. ——. Fukkōkyoku. “Tokubetsu toshi keikaku iinkai, daijyūgokai sōkai giji 特別都市計画委員会第十五回総会議事,” 23rd February 1927. Tokubetsu toshi keikaku iinkai giji sokkiroku 特別都市計画委員会議事速記録, no. 8. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 193/22/ と/2. Naimushō, Jinja hōshi chōsakai 神社奉祀調査会. Jinja hōshi chōsakai keika yōryō 神社奉祀調査会経過要領, vol. 1, 15th August 1913–29th August 1914. National Archives of Japan, 公文雑纂-2A-14- 纂1333. ——. Jinja hōshi chōsakai. Jinja hōshi chōsakai keika yōryō 神社奉祀調査会経過要領, vol. 2, 30th September–30th November 1914. National Archives of Japan, 公文雑纂-2A- 14-纂 1333. Naimushō, Shakaibu 社会部. “Saimin seikei jōtai chōsa 細民生計状態調査,” November 1921. In Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei: Kusama Yasoo 1921–1937 chōsa, vol. 1, ed. Yasuoka Norihiko. Akashi shoten, 1993. ——. Shakaikyoku 社会局. Taisho shinsaishi: Nai hen 大正震災志内編. Naimushō, Shakaikyoku, 1926. ——. Shakaikyoku. Taisho shinsaishi shashinchō 大正震災志写真帖. Tokyo, Naimushō, Shakaikyoku, 1926. Nakabayashi Keiji 中林啓治. Kioku no nakano machi Shibuya 記憶のなかの街渋谷. Kawade shobō shinsha, 2001. Nakagawa Takeshi 中川武, Fujimori Terunobu 藤森照信and Suzuki Hiroyuki 鈴木博之. “Itō Chūta no dairyokō o megutte, soshite kenchikushika to siteno hyōka 伊東忠太の大旅行をめぐって、そして建築史家としての評価.” In Itō Chūta o shitte imasuka, ed. Suzuki Hiroyuki, 40–62. Ōkokusha, 2003. Nakajima Hisato 中嶋久人. “Tokyo kaigisho no seiritsu to jigyō tenkai: Toshi kindaika no kaishi 東京会議所の成立と事業展開: 都市近代化の開始.” Rekishi hyōron 歴史評論 511 (1992): 61–80. Nakajima Kuni 中嶌邦. “Kiitsu kyōkai shōkō 1: Sono seiritsu o chūshin ni 帰一協会小考(一): その成立を中心に.” Nihon joshi daigaku kiyō 日本女子大学紀要 36 (1987): 53–64. ——. “Kiitsu kyōkai shōkō 2: Sono shoki no katsudō o chūshin ni 帰一協会小考(二) : その初期の活動を中心に.” Nihon joshi daigaku kiyō 37 (1988): 47–76. Nakajima Naoto 中島直人. “Yōgo ‘fūchi kyōkai’ no seisei to sono denpa ni kansuru kenkyū 用語「風致協会」の生成とその伝播に関する研究.” Toshi keikaku ronbunshū 都市計画論文集38, no. 3 (2003): 853–58. Nakajō Seiichirō 中条精一郎. “Seitoku kinen kaigakan no hekiga ni tsuite 聖徳紀念絵画館の壁画に就いて.” Bijutsu shunpō 165 (29th July 1918): 1. ——. “Futatabi kaigakan no hekiga ni tsuite: Mondai no konpon o kiwamu beshi 再び絵画館の壁画に就いて: 問題の根本を極むべし.” Bijutsu shunpō 166 (9th August 1918): 1. 296 bibliography

Nakamura Giichi 中村義一. Zoku nihon kindai bijutsu ronsō shi 続日本近代美術論争史. Kyūryūdō, 1982. Nakamura Ikuo 中村生雄. Orikuchi Shinobu no sengo tennō ron 折口信夫の戦後天皇論. Hōzōkan, 1995. ——. “Katō Genchi no Shintō gaku to seishi kenkyū: Kokutai ron to fīrudo shikō no aida de 加藤玄智の神道学と生祠研究: 国体論とフィールド志向のあいだで.” Shūkyō kenkyū 宗教研究 325 (2000): 121–44. ——. Saishi to kugi: Nihonjin no shizen kan • dōbutsu kan 祭祀と供犠: 日本人の自然観・動物観. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2001. Nakamura Masanori 中村政則. Shōchō tennō sei e no michi: Beikoku taishi Gurū to sono shūhen 象徴天皇制への道: 米国大使グルーとその周辺. Iwanami shoten, 1989. Nakano Tsuyoshi 中野毅. “Amerika no tainichi shūkyō seisaku no keisei アメリカの対日宗教政策の形成.” In Senryō to nihon shūkyō, ed. Ikado Fujio, 27–72. Miraisha, 1993. Nancy, Jean-Luc. Mui no kyōdōtai: Tetsugaku o toinaosu bunyū no shikō 無為の共同体: 哲学を問い直す分有の思考. Trans. Nishitani Osamu 西谷修, Yasuhara Shin’ichirō 安原伸一朗. Ibunsha, 2001. Narita Ryūichi 成田龍一. “kokyō” toiu monogatari: Toshi kūkan no rekishigaku「故郷」という物語: 都市空間の歴史学. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1998. ——. “Rekishigaku toiu gensetsu 歴史学という言説.” Ekkyō suru chi 越境する知. Vol. 3, Gensetsu: Kirisaku 言説: 切り裂く, ed. Kurihara Akira 栗原彬 et al., 195–230. Tokyo daigaku shuppansha, 2000. ——. “Jikan no kindai: Kokumin = kokka no jikan 時間の近代: 国民＝国家の時間.” In Iwanami kōza kindai nihon no bunkashi. Vol. 3, Kindaichi no seiritsu, 1870–1910 nendai 近代知の成立, 1870–1910 年代, no. 1, ed. Komori Yōichi et al., 3–51. Iwanami shoten, 2002. ——. Kindai toshi kūkan no bunka keiken 近代都市空間の文化経験. Iwanami shoten, 2003. Narusawa Akira 成澤光. Gendai nihon no shakai chitsujo: Rekishiteki kigen o motomete 現代日本の社会秩序: 歴史的起源を求めて. Iwanami shoten, 1997. Nihon bijutsuin 日本美術院, ed. Nihon bijutsuin hyakunen shi 日本美術院百年史. Vol. 2, no. 1, Zuroku hen 図録編. Nihon bijutsuin 1990. Nihon kenchiku kōgei sekkei jimusho 日本建築工芸設計事務所. Nihon kenchiku kōgei sekkei jimusho: Kaisha annai oyobi sakuhin shashinchō 日本建築工芸設計事務所: 会社案内及び作品写真帳. Nihon kenchiku kōgei sekkei jimusho, 2005. Nihon seinenkan 日本青年館. Taikyū hōkōkai no ayumi 大九報光会の歩み. Nihon seinenkan, 1988. Nihon taiiku kyōkai 日本体育協会, ed. Kokumin taiiku taikai no ayumi 国民体育大会の歩み. Todōfuken taiiku kyōkai renraku kyōgikai, 1979. Nihon tosho kankōkai 日本図書刊行会, ed. Meiji jingū hekiga shi 明治神宮壁画史. Nihon tosho kankōkai, 1931. Nishida Takeshi 西田毅. “Takekoshi sansa to tennōsei ninshiki 竹越三叉と天皇制認識.” In Kindai tennōsei no keisei to kirisutokyō 近代天皇制の形成とキリスト教, ed. Tomisaka kirisutokyō sentā, 133–88. Shinkyō shuppansha, 1996. Nishikawa Masaya 西川正也. Kokutō, 1936 nen no nihon o aruku コクトー、1936 年の日本を歩く. Chūō kōron shinsha, 2004. Nishikawa Nagao 西川長夫 and Matsumiya Hideharu 松宮秀治, eds. Bakumatsu • meijiki no kokumin kokka keisei to bunka henyō 幕末・明治期の国民国家形成と文化変容. Shinyōsha, 1995. Nishimura Tamenosuke 西村為之助. “Meiji tennō gyosei o haishite 明治天皇御製を拝して.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 19, no. 11 (1920): 19–25. Nishimura Tōru 西村亨. Orikuchi meii to Orikuchi gaku 折口名彙と折口学. Ōfūsha, 1985. Nishitani Osamu 西谷修. “Buransho to kyōdōtai ブランショと共同体.” In Akashienu kyōdōtai 明かしえぬ共同体 by Maurice Blanchot, trans. Nishitani Osamu, 167–220. Chikuma shobō, 1997. bibliography 297

Nitami Iwao 仁多見巌. Ainu no chichi, Jon Bachelā アイヌの父ジョン・バチェラー. Sapporo: Nire shobō, 1963. ——. Ikyō no shito: Eijin Jon Bachilā den 異境の使徒: 英人ジョン･バチラー伝. Sapporo: Hokkaido shinbunsha, 1991. Nitta Hitoshi 新田均. Kindai seikyō kankei no kisoteki kenkyū 近代政教関係の基礎的研究. Taimeidō, 1997. ——. “ ‘Kokka Shintō’ ron no keifu 「国家神道」論の系譜,” no. 1–2. Kōgakukan ronsō 皇學館論叢 32, no. 1 (1999): 1–36; 32, no. 2 (1999): 23–59. ——. “ Yamaguchi Teruomi cho Meiji kokka to shūkyō o hihansuru: Tokuni gakusetsu no seiri to mondai settei ni okeru gakumonteki rinrisei ni tsuite 山口輝臣著『明治国家と宗教』を批判する: 特に学説の整理と問題設定における学問的倫理性について.” Kōgakukan ronsō 皇學館論叢 32, no. 3 (1999): 1–31. ——. “Arahito gami” “kokka Shintō” to iu gensō: Kindai nihon o yugameta zokusetsu o tadasu 「現人神」「国家神道」という幻想: 近代日本を歪めた俗説を糺す. PHP kenkyūsho, 2003. ——. “ ‘Kokka Shintō’ kenkyū no seiri 「国家神道」研究の整理.” Shintōshi kenkyū 53, no. 1 (2005): 2–15. ——. “Koyasu Nobukuni shi ni okeru ‘jiko hitei’ to ‘inpei’ no katari ni tsuite: ‘Kokka Shintō’ ron tono kanren de 子安宣邦氏における‘自己否定’と‘隠蔽’の語りについて: 「国家神道」論との関連で.” Shintōshi kenkyū 54, no. 1 (2006): 2–34. Nogawa Yasuharu 能川泰治. “Senkanki ni okeru ‘teito’ Tokyo no demokuracī to bunka 戦間期における「帝都」東京のデモクラシーと文化.” Nihonshi kenkyū 日本史研究475 (2002): 142–172. Nora, Pierre. “ ‘Kioku no ba’ kara ‘kioku no ryōiki’ e‘記憶の場’から‘記憶の領域’へ.” In Kioku no ba: Furansu kokumin ishiki no bunka = shakaishi 記憶の場: フランス国民意識の文化= 社会史, Vol. 1, ed. Pierre Nora, trans. Tanigawa Minoru 谷川稔, 15–28. Iwanami shoten, 2002–2003. ——. “Kioku to rekishi no hazama ni 記憶と歴史のはざまに.” In Kioku no ba: Furansu kokumin ishiki no bunka = shakaishi 記憶の場: フランス国民意識の文化, Vol. 1, ed. Pierre Nora, trans. Tanigawa Minoru 谷川稔, 29–56. Iwanami shoten, 2002–2003. Nunokawa Hiroshi 布川弘. “Nichiro sengo ni okeru kōkyō kūkan no kōzō 日露戦後における公共空間の構造.” In Shiryōshū, kō to shi no kōzō: Nihon ni okeru kōkyō o kangaeru tameni 史料集公と私の構造: 日本における公共を考えるために. Vol. 5, Nihon dai hakurankai to Meiji jingū 日本大博覧会と明治神宮, ed. Kojita Yasunao 小路田泰直, xiii–xx. Yumani shobō, 2003. Odauchi Michitoshi 小田内通敏. Teito to kinkō 帝都と近郊. Ōkura kenkyūjo, 1918. Ōe Shintarō 大江新太郎. “Shaden no kenchiku ni tsuite 社殿の建築に就て.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Kishida Makio, 14–27. Dōbunkan, 1920. Ogawa Masahito 小川正人. “Kotan e no ‘gyōkō’ ‘gyōkei’ to Ainu kyōiku コタンへの「行幸」「行啓」とアイヌ教育.” Nihon no kyōiku shigaku 日本の教育史学 34 (1991): 50–65. ——. “ ‘Hokkaido kyū dojin hogohō’ ‘kyū dojin jidō kyōiku kitei’ ka no Ainu kyōin: Ega Torazō to Takekuma Tokusaburō o chūshin ni 「北海道旧土人保護法」「旧土人児童教育規定」下のアイヌ教員: 江賀寅三と武隈徳三郎を中心に.” Hokkaido ritsu Ainu minzoku bunka kenkyū sentā kenkyū kiyō 北海道立アイヌ民族文化研究センター研究紀要 2 (1996): 97–122. ——. “Iomante no kindaishi イオマンテの近代史.” In Ainu bunka no genzai アイヌ文化の現在, ed. Sapporo gakuin daigaku jinbun gakubu 札幌学院大学人文学部, 241–304. Sapporo: Sapporo gakuin daigaku jinbun gakubu, 1997. ——. “Ega Torazō kankei shiryō: Mokuroku to shōkai 江賀寅三関係資料: 目録と紹介.” Hokkaido ritsu Ainu minzoku bunka kenkyū sentā kenkyū kiyō 3 (1997): 171–193. ——. “ ‘Muroran mainichi sinbun’ keisai Ainu kanren kiji: Mokuroku to shōkai 『室蘭毎日新聞』掲載アイヌ関連記事: 目録と紹介,” no. 1. Ainu minzoku hakubutsukan kenkyū hōkoku アイヌ民族博物館研究報告8 (2004): 75–120. 298 bibliography

Ogura Yūji 小倉裕児. “Shōchō tennōsei no seiritsu: Tainichi senryō seisaku to kenpō seitei katei 象徴天皇制の成立: 対日占領政策と憲法制定過程.” Kan 環8 (2002): 192–205. Ōhara Yasuo 大原康男. “Shintō shirei to sengo no seikyō mondai 神道指令と戦後の政教問題.” In Kokka to shūkyō no aida: Seikyō bunri no risō to genjitsu 国家と宗教の間: 政教分離の理想と現実, by Ōhara Yasuo, Momochi Akira 百地章 and Sakamoto Koremaru 阪本是丸, 10–102. Nihon kyōbunsha, 1989. ——. Shintō shirei no kenkyū 神道指令の研究. Hara shobō, 1993. Oka Mari 岡真理. Kioku/ monogatari 記憶/ 物語. Iwanami shoten, 2000. Okada Yoneo 岡田米夫. Okada Yoneo sensei Shintō ronshū 岡田米夫先生神道論集, ed. Okada Yoneo sensei ikō kankō kai 岡田米夫先生遺稿刊行会. Okada Yoneo sensei ikō kankō kai, 1981. ——. ed. Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō 神祇院終戦始末: 神社の国家管理分離資料. Jinja honchō, 1964. Okada Yoshirō 岡田芳朗. Meiji kaireki: ‘Toki’ no bunmei kaika 明治改暦: 「時」の文明開化. Taishūkan shoten, 1994. ——. “ Nihon ni okeru koyomi: Koyomi to kenryoku 日本における暦: 暦と権力.” Nihon rekishi 635 (2001): 5–22. Okano Hirohiko 岡野弘彦. Orikuchi Shinobu no bannen 折口信夫の晩年. Chūō kōronsha, 1977. ——. “Sengo no shūkyōron 戦後の宗教論.” In Hito to shisō: Orikuchi Shinobu 人と思想: 折口信夫, ed. Tanigawa Kenichi 谷川健一, 146–65. Sanichi shobō, 1974. Ōkata Jun’ichirō 大方潤一郎. “Kyūhō seitei • jissi katei ni okeru tochi riyō keikaku teki hassō no yōsetsu 旧法制定・実施過程における土地利用計画的発想の夭折.” Toshi keikaku 都市計画, no. 15 (1980): 13–18. ——. “Kyūhō seiritsu katei ni okeru chiku pulan no ichi: Kenchiku sen pulan kara kukaku seiri e, nihonteki toshi keikaku paradaimu no keisei ni kansuru kenkyū 旧法成立過程における地区プランの位置: 建築線プランから区画整理へ、日本的都市計画パラダイムの形成に関する研究, no. 2.” Toshi keikaku, no. 22 (1987): 115–20. Okita Yukuji 沖田行司. “Kokusai kōryū o suishin suru heiwa shugi kyōiku kōsō 国際交流を推進する平和主義教育構想.” In Kōeki no tsuikyūsha: Shibusawa Eiichi, ed. Shi- busawa Eiichi kenkyūkai, 243–261. Yamakawa Shuppansha, 1999. Ōkubo Takaki 大久保喬樹. Shinra henyō: Kindai nihon bungaku to shizen 森羅変容: 近代日本文学と自然. Ozawa shoten, 1996. Ōkubo Toshiaki 大久保利謙. “Honpō hakubutsukan jigyō sōgyōshi kō 本邦博物館事業創業史考.” Museion 17 (1971): 1–45. ——. Ōsei fukko shikan to kyūhan shikan • hanbatsu shikan 王政復古史観と旧藩史観・藩閥史観. In Ōkubo Toshiaki rekishi chosaku shū 大久保利謙歴史著作集. Vol. 7, Nihon kindai shigaku no seiritsu 日本近代史学の成立. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1988. ——, Ozawa Eiichi 小沢栄一, Konishi Shirō 小西四郎, Fujii Sadafumi 藤井貞文, Moriya Hidesuke 森谷秀亮 and Yoshida Tsunekichi 吉田常吉. “Zadankai ishinshi kenkyū no ayumi no. 1: Ishin shiryō hensankai no hatashita yakuwari 座談会維新史研究の歩み第一回: 維新史料編纂会の果した役割.” Nihon rekishi 246 (1968): 1–29. ——, Inada Masatsugu 稲田正次, Konishi Shirō 小西四郎, Suzuki Yasuzō 鈴木安蔵 and Fukaya Hakuji 深谷博治. “Zadankai ishinshi kenkyū no ayumi no. 6: Meiji kenseishi o chūshin to shite 座談会維新史研究の歩み第六回: 明治憲政史を中心として.” Nihon rekishi 251 (1969): 78–103. Ōkurashō 大蔵省, Kanzaikyoku 管財局, ed. Shaji keidaichi shobunshi 社寺境内地処分誌. Ōkura zaimu kyōkai, 1954. Ono Ryōhei 小野良平. Kōen no tanjō 公園の誕生. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2003. Ōoka Shōhei 大岡昇平. Yōnen 幼年. Bungei shunjūsha, 1975. ——. Shōnen: Aru jiden no kokoromi 少年: ある自伝の試み. Shinchōsha, 1980. bibliography 299

Orikuchi Shinobu. “Shintō no yūjinyo 神道の友人よ.” Jinja shinpō 神社新報 (6th Janu- ary 1947). Reprinted in Orikuchi Shinobu zenshū 折口信夫全集. Vol. 20, Shintō shūkyō, 431–437. Chūō kōronsha, 1992. ——. “Minzokukyō yori jinruikyō e 民族教より人類教へ.” Jinja shinpō (10th Febru- ary 1947). Reprinted in Orikuchi Shinobu zenshū. Vol. 20, Shintō shūkyō, 438–41. Chūō kōronsha, 1992. ——. “Shintō shūkyōka no igi 神道宗教化の意義,” 1947. Reprinted in Orikuchi Shinobu zenshū. Vol. 20, Shintō shūkyō, 442–60. Chūō kōronsha, 1992. ——. “Shintō no atarashii hōkō 神道の新しい方向,” 1949. Reprinted in Orikuchi Shinobu zenshū. Vol. 20, Shintō shūkyō, 461–72. Chūō kōronsha, 1992. ——. “Tenshi hi sokushinron 天子非即神論.” Yūkan shin Osaka (16–18th January 1947). Reprinted in Orikuchi Shinobu zenshū. Vol. 20, Shintō shūkyō, 62–69. Chūō kōronsha, 1992. Orishimo Yoshinobu 折下吉延. “Toshi keikaku to kōen 都市計画と公園.” In Orishimo Yoshinobu sensei gyōseki roku 折下吉延先生業績録, ed. Maeshima Yasuhiko 前島康彦, 60–64. Orishimo sensei kinen jigyō kai, 1967. ——. “Toshi no kōen keikaku 都市の公園計画.” In Orishimo Yoshinobu sensei gyōseki roku, ed. Maeshima Yasuhiko, 195–223. Orishimo sensei kinen jigyō kai, 1967. Ōsaka Akira 大坂彰. “Senzoku den’en toshi wa kietaka 洗足田園都市は消えたか.” In Kōgai jūtakuchi no keifu: Tokyo no den’en ūtopia, ed. Yamaguchi Hiroshi, 175–90. Kajima shuppankai, 1987. Ōta Saburō 太田三郎. “Meiji jingū hekiga no gadai ni tsuite 明治神宮壁画の画題に就て.” Bijutsu shunpō 153 (9 March 1918): 1. Ōta Yoriyasu 太田順康and Nagase Satoko 長瀬聡子. “Meiji jingū taiiku taikai ni kansuru kenkyū: Meiji jingū taiiku taikai to Showa shoki no supōtsu ni tsuite 明治神宮体育大会に関する研究: 明治神宮体育大会と昭和初期のスポーツについて.” Osaka kyōiku daigaku kiyō 大阪教育大学紀要 4, Kyōiku kagaku 教育科学 51, no. 2 (2003): 485–99. Ōta Yūzō 太田雄三. B.H. Chenbaren: Nichiōkan no ōfuku undō ni ikita sekaijin B.H. チェンバレン: 日欧間の往復運動に生きた世界人. Liburopōto, 1990. Ōtani Eiichi 大谷栄一. Kindai nihon no Nichiren shugi undō 近代日本の日蓮主義運動, Kyoto: Hozōkan, 2001. ——. “Nichiren shugi no saikō, Tanaka Chigaku no shisō to undō 7: Meiji tennōron to meiji setsu no seitei 日蓮主義の再興・田中智学の思想と運動７: 明治天皇論と明治節の制定.” Fukujin 福神 8 (2002): 140–149. Oyama Masataka 小山正孝. Kankyū ryokō oboegaki 感泣旅行覚え書. Chōryūsha, 2004. Ōzasa Yoshio 大笹吉雄. Nihon gendai engekishi 日本現代演劇史. Vol. 2, Taisho • Showa shoki hen 大正・昭和初期編. Hakushuisha, 1986. Saitō Mokichi 斉藤茂吉. Saitō Mokichi zenshū 斉藤茂吉全集, vol. 29. Iwanami shoten, 1973. Saitō Rei 斉藤勵. “Chenbaren shi “Shin shūkyō no hatsumei o yomu チェンバレン氏「新宗教の発明」を読む.” Shigaku zasshi 23, no. 11 (1912): 40–80. Saitō Shigeta 斉藤茂太. Seishinkai sandai 精神科医三代. Chūō kōronsha, 1971. Saitō Yasuyoshi 斉藤泰嘉. “Satō Keitarō to Tokyofu bijutsukan 佐藤慶太郎と東京府美術館,” no. 1–3. Tokyoto bijutsukan kiyō 東京都美術館紀要 11 (1987): 18–25, 12 (1988): 13–22, 13 (1989); 8–18. ——. “Geijutsu bunkagaku kara mita Tokyofu bijutsukan no rekishi 芸術文化学から見た東京府美術館の歴史,” no. 1–2. Tsukuba daigaku geijutsu nenpō 筑波大学芸術年報 1999: 19–32, 2000: 2–8. Sakai Naoki 酒井直樹. Nihon Shisō to iu mondai 日本思想という問題. Iwanami shoten, 1997. ——. “Seiyō no dakkyū to jinbun kagaku no chii 西洋の脱臼と人文科学の地位.” Traces 1 (2000): 106–130. 300 bibliography

Sakai Saisui 坂井犀水. “Meiji jingū kaigakan no kaiga 明治神宮絵画館の絵画.” Bijutsu shunpō 147 (29th December 1917): 1. ——. “Seitoku kaigakan no hekiga, futatabi 聖徳絵画館の壁画 (再び).” Bijutsu shunpō 149 (29th January 1918): 1. ——. “Seitoku kinen kaigakan kenchiku zuan no boshū 聖徳紀念絵画館建築図案の募集.” Bijutsu shunpō 162 (29th June 1918): 1. ——. “Seitoku kinen kaigakan ni taisuru kokumin bijutsu kyōkai no shingen 聖徳紀念絵画館に対する国民美術協会の進言,” no. 1. Bijutsu shunpō 164 (19th July 1918): 1. ——.“Seitoku kinen kaigakan ni taisuru kokumin bijutsu kyōkai no shingen,” no. 2. Bijutsu shunpō 165 (29th July 1918): 1. ——.“Seitoku kinen kaigakan ni taisuru kokumin bijutsu kyōkai no shingen,” no. 3. Bijutsu shunpō 166 (9th August 1918): 1. ——. “Bijutsukan shisetsu no bigaku 美術館私設の美学.” Bijutsu shunpō 179 (25th December 1918): 1. ——. “Seitoku kinenkan no hekiga 聖徳紀念館の壁画.” Bijutsu geppō 美術月報 4, no. 4 (February 1923): 61. ——. “Seitoku kinenkan no hekiga 聖徳紀念館の壁画.” Bijutsu geppō 4, no. 5 (March 1923): 77. ——. “Seitoku hekigakan mondai: Seitoku hekiga sungen 聖徳壁画館問題: 聖徳壁画寸言.” Kokumin bijutsu 国民美術 2, no. 4 (April 1925): 58. Sakamoto Koremaru 阪本是丸. Kokka Shintō keisei katei no kenkyū 国家神道形成過程の研究. Iwanami shoten, 1994. ——. Kindai no jinja Shintō 近代の神社神道. Kōbundō, 2005. ——. ed. Kokka Shintō saikō: Saisei itchi kokka no keisei to tenkai 国家神道再考: 祭政一致国家の形成と展開. Kōbundō, 2006. ——. Kinsei • kindai Shintō ronkō 近世・近代神道論考. Kōbundō, 2007. Sakatani Yoshirō 阪谷芳郎. Tokyo shichō nikki 東京市長日記, ed. Shōyū kurabu 尚友倶楽部. Fuyō shobō, 2000. Sakaue Yasuhiro 坂上康博. Kenryoku sōchi toshite no supōtsu 権力装置としてのスポーツ. Kōdansha, 1998. Sakurai Haruo 櫻井治男. Yomigaeru mura no kamigami 蘇るムラの神々. Taimeido, 1992. Sakurai Toshio 櫻井敏雄. “Dentō teki yōshiki kara mita kindai no jinja: Sono kūkan to zōkei karano shiten 伝統的様式からみた近代の神社: その空間と造形からの視点.” In Kindai no jinja keikan: Jinjakyoku jidai ni satsuei sareta jinja, ed. Shintō bunkakai sōritsu gojūshūnen kinen shuppan iinkai, Chūō kōron bijutsu shuppan, 1997. Sano hakushi tsuisōroku henshūiinkai 佐野博士追想録編集委員会, ed. Sano hakushi tsuisōroku 佐野博士追想録. Sano hakushi tsuisōroku henshūiinkai, 1957. Sano Toshikata 佐野利器. “Seitoku kinen kaigakan no tōsenzu ni tsuite 聖徳記念絵画館の当選図に就て.” Bijutsu shunpō 172 (9th October 1918): 1. ——. “Bijutsukan no kenchiku shiken 美術館の建築私見.” Bijutsu shunpō 176 (19th November 1918): 1. Sasaki Kiyoshi 佐々木聖使. “Shintō hi shūkyō yori Jinja hi shūkyō e 神道非宗教より神社非宗教へ.” Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 日本大学精神文化研究所紀要16 (1985): 87–128. ——. (2002) “Kokka Shintō ni okeru ‘kami’ kannen no seiritsu 国家神道における「神」観念の成立.” Meiji seitoku kinen gaggai kiyō, n.s., 35 (2002): 56–91. Sasaki Suguru 佐々木克. “Meiji tennō no junkō to ‘shinmin’ no keisei 明治天皇の巡幸と「臣民」の形成.” Shisō 思想 845 (1994): 95–117. ——. “Meiji tennō no imēji keisei to minshū 明治天皇のイメージ形成と民衆.” In Bakumatsu • Meijiki no kokumin kokka keisei to bunka henyō, ed. Nishikawa Nagao and Matsumiya Hideharu, 117–142. Shinyōsha, 1995. Sasaki Toshikazu 佐々木利和. “Iomante kō: Shamo ni yoru Ainu bunka rikai no kōsatsu イオマンテ考: シャモによるアイヌ文化理解の考察,” Rekishigaku kenkyū 歴史学研究 613 (1990): 111–120. bibliography 301

——. “Hokkaido Sapporo kaitaku emaki ni egakareta ainu fūzoku 『北海道札幌開拓絵巻』に描かれたアイヌ風俗.” Museum 574 (2001): 91–94. ——. Ainu e shi no kenkyū アイヌ絵誌の研究. Sōfūkan, 2004. Satō Dōshin 佐藤道信. “Nihon bijutsu” tanjō: Kindai nihon no “kotoba” to senryaku < 日本美術> 誕生: 近代日本の「ことば」と戦略. Kōdansha, 1996. ——. Meiji kokka to kindai bijutsu: Bi no seijigaku 明治国家と近代美術: 美の政治学. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1999. ——. “Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan no nihonga ni tsuite 明治神宮聖徳記念絵画館の日本画について.” Kindai gasetsu 8 (1999): 101–103. Satō Eisuke 佐藤栄祐, ed. Arima Ryōkitsu den 有馬良橘伝. Arima Ryōkitsu den hensankai, 1974. Satō Kazunori 佐藤一伯. “Meiji tennō ‘seitoku roku’ no tanjō 明治天皇「聖徳録」の誕生,” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō, n.s., 39 (2004): 66–92. ——.Meiji seitokuron no kenkyū: Meiji jingū no shingaku 明治聖徳論の研究: 明治神宮の神学. Kokushokankōkai, 2010. Satō Shigeru 佐藤滋 et al. Dōjunkai no apātomento to sono jidai 同潤会のアパートメントとその時代. Kajima shuppankai, 1998. Satō Takenobu 佐藤武信. “Āban laifu no tanjō: Dōjunkai setsuritsu アーバンライフの誕生: 同潤会設立.” Shin toshi 新都市 54, no. 3 (2000): 27–31. Sawano Masaki 沢野雅樹. Kioku to hanpuku: Rekishi e no toi 記憶と反復: 歴史への問い. Seidosha, 1998. Seinan shōgakkō sanjūrokukai dōkikai 青南小学校三十六回同期会. Anokoro Aoyama・seinan jidai: Sotsugyō gojūshūnen kinen bunshū あの頃青山･青南時代卒業五十周年記念文集. Seinan shōgakkō sanjūrokukai dōkikai, 1994. Seki Naoki 関直規. “Senkanki nihon ni okeru toshi jūmin no ‘shintai’ no mondaika to shakai taiiku seisaku no tenkai: Tokyoshi no ‘shimin taiiku’ jigyō o chūshin ni 戦間期日本における都市住民の「身体」の問題化と社会体育政策の展開: 東京市の「市民体育」事業を中心に.” Nihon shakai kyōiku gakkai kiyō 日本社会教育学会紀要 36 (2000): 67–76. Senda Tomoko 千田智子. Mori to kenchiku no kūkanshi: Minakata Kumagusu to kindai nihon 森と建築の空間史: 南方熊楠と近代日本. Tōshindō, 2002. Shibata Shin’ichi 柴田紳一. “Fujinami Kototada den 藤波言忠伝.” In Ōnakatomi saishu Fujinami ke no rekishi 大中臣祭主藤波家の歴史, ed. Fujinami ke monjo kenkyū kai 藤波家文書研究会, 235–77. Zoku gunsho ruijū kanseikai, 1993. ——. “Mikami Sanji hakushi itsuji kō 三上参次博士逸事考.” Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 国学院大学日本文化研究所紀要 76 (1995): 63–74. ——. “Fujinami Kototada to Makino Nobuaki: ‘Jinbutsu futtei’ ka no tennō sokkin 藤波言忠と牧野伸顕: 「人物払底」下の天皇側近.” In Ōnakatomi saishu Fujinami ke no kenkyū, ed. Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo, 1–15. Zoku gunsho ruijū kansei kai, 2000. Shibata Yoshiharu 芝田義治. “Naimu gishi (Jingiin gishi) Sunami Takashi no jinja kenchiku kan 内務技師（神祇院技師）角南隆の神社建築観.” MA. diss., Tokyo Insti- tute of Technology, 1996. Shibata Yūji 柴田裕治, ed. Tokyoshi san’ya kokumin gakkō sotsugyō gojūshūnen kinenshi 東京市山谷国民学校卒業五十周年記念誌. San’ya shō, Showa jūhachi kai, 1995. Shibukawa, Ken’ichi 渋川謙一. “Senryōseisaku to Shintō kai no taiō 占領政策と神道界の対応.” In Senryō to nihon shūkyō, ed. Ikado Fujio, 497–520. Miraisha, 1993. Shibusawa seien kinen zaidan ryūmonsha 渋沢青淵記念財団竜門社, ed. “Jingū gozōei hōsan yūshi iinkai 神宮御造営奉賛有志委員会.” In Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō 渋沢栄一伝記資料, vol. 41, 514–29. Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō kankōkai, 1962. ——. “Jinja hōshi chōsakai 神社奉祀調査会.” In Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō, vol. 41, 530–42. Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō kankōkai, 1962. ——. “Zaidan hōjin Meiji jingū hōsankai 財団法人明治神宮奉賛会.” In Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō, vol. 41, 543–87. Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō kankōkai, 1962. 302 bibliography

——. “Meiji jingū zōeikyoku 明治神宮造営局.” In Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō, vol. 41, 588–90. Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō kankōkai, 1962. ——. Seien hyakuwa 青淵百話. 1912. Reprinted in Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō. Vol. 46, 406–730, ed. Shibusawa Seien kinen zaidan ryūmonsha. Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō kankōkai, 1962. Shibuya Katsumi 渋谷克美. “Shiryō kara mita seinenki no Honda Seiroku 資料から見た青年期の本多静六.” Honda Seiroku tsūshin 本多静六通信 4 (1994): 1–8, 1994. Shibuyaku 渋谷区. Shinshū Shibuyaku shi 新修渋谷区史, 3 vols. Shibuyaku, 1966. ——. Kusei nanajūshūnen kinen, zusetsu Shibuyaku shi 区制七十周年記念図説渋谷区史. Shibuyaku, 2003. ——. Kyōiku iinkai 教育委員会. Shin Shibuya no bungaku 新渋谷の文学. Shibuyaku, Kyōiku iinkai, 2005. Shibuyaku jingūmae shōgakkō 渋谷区神宮前小学校. Jingūmae chiiki jittai chōsa 神宮前地域実態調査. Shibuyaku jingūmae shōgakkō, 1981. Shiga Kenji 志賀兼治, ed. Shiraoi 白老. Shiraoi: Shiga Kenji, 1923. Shimazono Susumu 島薗進. “Katō genchi no shūkyōgaku teki Shintō gaku no keisei 加藤玄智の宗教学的神道学の形成.” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō, n.s., 16 (1995): 71–93. ——. “ ‘Seizon kyōsō’ to minshūteki shūkyō undō: 1930 nen zengo no nihon ni okeru fuhen- shugi to chōetsu「生存競争」と民衆的宗教運動: 1930 年前後の日本における普遍主義と超越.” Tenridaigaku oyasato kenkyujo nenpō 天理大学おやさと研究所年報 3 (1996): 103–112. ——. “Jūkyūseiki Nihon no shūkyō kōzō no henyō 19 世紀日本の宗教構造の変容.” In Kindai nihon no bunkashi. Vol. 2, Kosumorogī no kinsei, jūkyūseiki sekai コスモロジーの近世, 19 世紀世界, no. 2, ed. Komori Yōichi et al., 3–53. Iwanami shoten, 2001. ——. “Kokka Shintō to kindai nihon no shūkyō kōzō 国家神道と近代日本の宗教構造.” Shūkyō kenkyū 75, no. 2 (2001): 319–344. ——. “Kokka Shintō to meshianizumu 国家神道とメシアニズム.” In Tennō to ōken o kangaeru. Vol. 4, Shūkyō to ken’i 宗教と権威, ed. Amino Yoshihiko et al., 247–270. Iwa- nami shoten, 2002. ——. “Iyasu chi” no keifu: Kagaku to shūkyō no hazama「癒す知」の系譜: 科学と宗教のはざま. Tokyo, Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2003. ——. “Shintō to kokka Shintō • shiron: Seiritsu e no toi to rekishi teki tenbō 神道と国家神道・試論: 成立への問いと歴史的展望. Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō, n.s., 43 (2006): 110–31. ——. “Kokka Shintō • kokutai shisō • tennō sūkei: Kōdō • kōgaku to kindai nihon no shūkyō jōkyō 国家神道・国体思想・天皇崇敬: 皇道・皇学と近代日本の宗教状況.” Gendai shisō 35, no. 10 (2007): 211–29. ——, and Isomae Jun’ichi, eds. Nihon no shūkyōgaku 日本の宗教学. Vol. 2, Inoue testujirō shū 井上哲次郎集, no. 9. Kuresu shuppan, 2003. Shimizu Satoshi 清水諭. “Media toshite no shintai ‘josetsu’: Toshi ni okeru shintai to supōtsu, soshite kiritsu kunrenka sareru shintai no rekishi kara メディアとしての身体<序説>: 都市における身体とスポーツ、そして規律訓練化される身体の歴史から.” Taiiku no kagaku 体育の科学 48, no. 8 (1998): 618–22. ——. “Shintai no kindai: Shōhi shakai ni okeru toshi to gakkō no shintai, soshite supōtsu 身体の近代: 消費社会における都市と学校の身体、そしてスポーツ.” Poliro- gosu ポリロゴス 2 (2000): 158–172. Shimonaka Yasaburō 下中弥三郎, ed. Shintō daijiten 神道大辞典. Kyoto: Rinsen shoten, 1986. Shinji Isoya 進士五十八. “Nō”no jidai「農」の時代. Gakugei Shuppansha, 2003. Shinjukuku 新宿区, Kyōiku iinkai 教育委員会. Chizu de miru Shinjuku ku no utsurikawari: Yotsuya hen 地図で見る新宿区の移り変わり: 四谷編. Shinjukuku, Kyōiku iinkai, 1983. bibliography 303

——. Kyōiku iinkai. Shinjukuku no bunkazai 新宿区の文化財. Vol. 7, Kenchiku 建築. Shinjukuku, Kyōiku iinkai, 1983. ——. Kyōiku iinkai. Shinjukuku no bunkazai. Vol. 8, Keikan 景観. Shinjukuku, Kyōiku iinkai, 1983. Shinjuku rekishi hakubutsukan 新宿歴史博物館, ed. Tokkū densha to ensen fūkei: Odakyū • Keiō • Seibu no ayumi to chiiki no hensen 特急電車と沿線風景: 小田急･京王･西武のあゆみと地域の変遷. Shinjukuku shōgai gakushū zaidan, 2001. ——. ed. Shinjuku rekishi hakubutsukan jōsetsu tenji zuroku 新宿歴史博物館常設展示図録. Shinjukuku, 2002. Shinshūren chōsashitsu 新宗連調査室, ed. Sengo shūkyō kaisō roku 戦後宗教回想録. PL shuppan, 1963. Shintō bunkakai sōritsu gojūshūnen kinen shuppan iinkai 神道文化会創立五十周年記念出版委員会, ed. Kindai no jinja keikan: Jinjakyoku jidai ni satsuei sareta jinja 近代の神社景観: 神社局時代に撮影された神社. Chūō kōron bijutsu shuppan, 1997. Shirahata Yōzaburō 白幡洋三郎. “Nihon bunka to shite mita kōen no rekishi 日本文化としてみた公園の歴史.” In Nihon bunka toshite no kōen 日本文化としての公園, by Shirahata Yozaburō and Iinuma Jirō 飯沼二郎, 1–42. Yasaka shobō, 1993. ——. Kindai toshi kōenshi no kenkyū: Ōka no keifu 近代都市公園史の研究: 欧化の系譜. Kyoto: Shibunkaku shuppan, 1995. ——. “Toshi to kōen: Kinsei, kindai no renzoku 都市と公園: 近世、近代の連続.” In Kindai nihon bunkaron 近代日本文化論. Vol. 5, Toshi bunka 都市文化, ed. Aoki Tamotsu et al., Iwanami shoten, 1999. ——. Teien no bi • Zōen no kokoro 庭園の美･造園の心. Nihon hōsō shuppan kyōkai, 2000. Shiraishi Jitsuzō 白石実三. Musashino junrei 武蔵野巡礼. Daidōkan shoten, 1917. Shirane kinen Shibuyaku kyōdo hakubutsukan • bungakukan 白根記念渋谷区郷土博物館･文学館. Kaikan kinen tokubetsu ten “Hachikō no mita Shibuya” ten 開館記念特別展「ハチ公のみた渋谷」展. Shirane kinen Shibuyaku kyōdo hakubutsukan • bungakukan, 2005. Shiraoi chōshi hensan iinkai 白老町史編纂委員会, ed. Shin shiraoi chōshi 新白老町史, vol. 2. Shiraoi: Shiraoi chō yakuba, 1992. Shosei Shōkyokusai Tenkatsu 初世松旭斎天勝. “Tenkatsu ichidaiki 天勝一代記.” In Nihon no geidan 日本の芸談. Vol. 7, Zōgei 雑芸, ed. Sakuragawa Chūshichi 桜川忠七, 153–246. Kyūgei shuppan, 1979. Sunami Takashi 角南隆. “Jinja to konkurīto no rōmansu 神社とコンクリートのローマンス.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 25, no. 2 (1926): 23–32. Sunami 寸南弥. [Sunami Takashi]. “Jinja to konkurīto no rōmansu, no. 2.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 25, no. 5 (1926): 18–22. Sunami Takashi. “Jinja no shisetsu to shin zairyō no shiyō ni tsuite 神社の施設と新材料の使用について.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 26, no. 9 (1927): 6–12. ——. “Jinja no shisetsu to shin zairyō no shiyō ni tsuite.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 26, no. 10 (1927): 6–25. ——. “Jinja kenchiku ni tsuite 神社建築に就いて.” In Shintō kōza 神道講座. Vol. 1, jinja hen 神社編, ed. Shintō kōkyū kai 神道攻究会, 1–30. Shikai shobō, 1929. Reprint, Hara shobō, 1981, 257–86. ——. “Manshū ni hōsai subeki jinja no kenchiku yōshiki ni tsuite 満州に奉斎すべき神社の建築様式について,” 1934. In Kaigai jinjashi 海外神社史, vol. 1, ed. Ogasawara Shōzō 小笠原省三, 136–40. Kaigai jinja shi hensan kai, 1953. ——. “Jinja kenchiku to kannagara no michi 神社建築と神ながらの道.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 29, no. 5 (1930): 3–20. ——. “Keirekisho 経歴書.” unpublished, Nihon kenchiku kōgei sekkei jimusho 日本建築工芸設計事務所, 1966. ——. “Meiji jingū shaden no fukkō keikaku ni tsuite 明治神宮社殿の復興計画について.” Shin kenchiku 34, no. 3 (1959): 41–43. 304 bibliography

Suzuki Hiroyuki 鈴木博之, ed. Itō Chūta o shitte imasuka 伊東忠太を知っていますか. Ōkokusha, 2003. Suzuki Kazuhisa 鈴木一久. “Seijuku shakai ni okeru sentanteki sakariba “Harajuku” no tokushitsu to sonritsu kōzō 成熟社会における先端的盛り場「原宿」の特質と存立構造.” Chiiki kenkyū 地域研究 27, no. 1 (1986): 1–14. Suzuki Miekichi 鈴木三重吉. Letters 24th September 1913. In Suzuki Miekichi zenshū 鈴木三重吉全集, vol. 6. Iwanami shoten, 1938. Suzuki Mitsuo 鈴木満男. Yanagita • Orikuchi igo 柳田･折口以後. Sekai shoin, 1991. ——. “Ashizu Uzuhiko shokan kō, no. 1, Ken’i shugi o koeru kyōgaku mezashite: Jinja kai no saiken ni jinryoku shita ichi Shintōsha to no kōkan 葦津珍彦書簡考( 上) 権威主義を超える教学目指して: 神社界の再建に尽力した一神道者との交歓,” Nihon oyobi nihonjin 日本及日本人 1631 (1998): 62–9. ——. “Ashizu Uzuhiko shokan kō, no. 2, Dozoku shintō wa ka, jinja Shintō wa fuka: Senryō gun no ‘nihon kokumin’ ishiki kaitai saku ni tachimukau Ashizu 葦津珍彦書簡考(中) 土俗神道は可、神社神道は不可: 占領軍の「日本国民」意識解体策に立向ふ葦津,” Nihon oyobi nihonjin 1632 (1998): 87–95. ——. “Ashizu Uzuhiko shokan kō, no. 3, ‘Shishijinjin’ niwa oyobazariki: Senryō gun ni dōyō shita minzokugaku no kyoshō tachi 葦津珍彦書簡考 (下)「志士仁人」には及ばざりき: 占領軍に動揺した民俗学の巨匠たち,” Nihon oyobi nihonjin 1633 (1999): 72–81. ——. “Teikoku no chi” no sōshitsu: Sengo nihon • saikō, higashi ajia no genchi kara 「帝国の知」の喪失: 戦後日本･再考－東アジアの現地から. Tentensha, 1999. Suzuki Ryō 鈴木良. “Kindai nihon bunkazai mondai kenkyū no kadai 近代日本文化財問題研究の課題.” In Bunkazai to kindai nihon 文化財と近代日本, ed. Suzuki R., and Takagi Hiroshi, 3–30. Yamakawa shuppansha, 2002. Taguchi Michiko 田口道子. Tokyo Aoyama 1940: Hi ga ochitemo asa wa kuru 東京青山 1940 : 陽が落ちても朝は来る. Gakuyōsha, 2002. Taiheiyō sensō kenkyūkai 太平洋戦争研究会, ed. Zusetsu Kantō daishinsai 図説関東大震災. Tokyo, Kawade shobō shinsha, 2003. Taikakai 大霞会. Naimushōshi 内務省史, 4 vols. Chihō zaimu kyōkai, 1971. Tajima Sakae 田嶋栄. Harajuku 原宿. Onden omotesandō chōkai, 1994. Takada Torao 高田寅雄. Takada Torao ikō shū: Furusato ayoro 高田寅雄遺稿集: ふるさとアヨロ, vol. 1, ed. Shiraoi chiiki bunka kenkyūkai 白老地域文化研究会. Shiraoi: Takada Mitsue, 2003. Takagi Hiroshi 高木博志. “Hatsumōde no seiritsu: Kokumin kokka keisei to Shintō girei no sōshutsu 初詣の成立: 国民国家形成と神道儀礼の創出.” In Bakumatsu • meijiki no kokumin kokka keisei to bunka henyō, ed. Nishikawa Nagao and Matsumiya Hideharu, 429–254. Shinyōsha, 1995. ——. Kindai tennōsei no bunkashi teki kenkyū: Tennō shūnin girei • nenchū gyōji･bunkazai 近代天皇制の文化史的研究: 天皇就任儀礼・年中行事・文化財. Azekura shobō, 1997. ——. “Kindai shin’en shiron: Ise jingū kara Kashihara jingū e 近代神苑試論: 伊勢神宮から橿原神宮へ.” Rekishi hyōron 歴史評論 573 (1998): 16–27. ——. “Kinsei no dairi kūkan: Kindai no Kyoto gyoen 近世の内裏空間: 近代の京都御苑.” In Kindai nihon no bunkashi. Vol. 2, Kosumologī no kinsei, jūkyūseiki sekai, no. 2, ed. Komori Yōichi et al., 275–310. Iwanami shoten, 2001. ——. “Kindai ni okeru shinwa teki kodai no sōzō 近代における神話的古代の創造.” In Bunkazai to kindai nihon, ed. Suzuki Ryō and Takagi Hiroshi, 111–42. Yamakawa shuppansha, 2002. ——. “Kindai tennōsei to kodai bunka: ‘Kokutai no seika’ toshite no Shōsōin • Tennōryō 近代天皇制と古代文化:「国体の精華」としての正倉院・天皇陵.” In Tennō to ōken o kangaeru. Vol. 5, Ōken to girei 王権と儀礼, ed. Amino Yoshihiko et al., 245–72. Iwanami shoten, 2002. bibliography 305

Takagi Kiyoko 高木きよ子. “Kishimoto hakushi to senryō jidai no shūkyō seisaku 岸本博士と占領時代の宗教政策.” In Senryō to nihon shūkyō, ed. Ikado Fujio, 423–36. Miraisha, 1993. Takahashi Hidemine 高橋秀実. Subarashiki rajio taisō 素晴らしきラジオ体操. Shōgakkan, 2002. Takahashi Katsuhiro 高橋勝浩. “Mikami sanji no shinkō to Showa tennō: Meiji tennō no seitoku o megutte 三上参次の進講と昭和天皇: 明治天皇の聖徳をめぐって.” Meiji seitoku kinengakkai kiyō, n.s., vol. 15 (1995): 19–44. ——. “Shiryō shōkai: Mikami Sanji ‘shinkō an’ 史料紹介: 三上参次「進講案」.” Koku- gakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 83 (1999): 347–67. Takahashi Motokichi 高橋本吉. “Bijutsukan kensetsu ni tsuite 美術館建設に就て.” Bijutsu shunpō 179 (25th December 1918): 1. Takahashi Shirō 高橋史朗. “Shintō shirei no seiritsu katei ni kansuru ichi kōsatsu 神道指令の成立過程に関する一考察.” Shintō shūkyō 115 (1984): 52–77. Takahashi Tetsuya 高橋哲哉. Gendai shisō no bōkensha tachi: Derida datsukōchiku 現代思想の冒険者たち: デリダ脱構築. Kōdansha, 2003. Takahashi Usaburō 高橋卯三郎. “Meiji jingūki 明治神宮記. ” In Meiji jingū, ed. Teien kyōkai, 1–45. Kōzanbō, 1920. Takano Tatsuyuki 高野辰之. “Haru no ogawa 春の小川.” In Nihon no shiika 日本の詩歌, supplementary vol. Chūō kōronsha, 1968. Takaoka Hiroyuki 高岡裕之. “Kankō • kōsei • ryokō: Fashizumu ki no tūrizumu 観光・厚生・旅行: ファシズム期のツーリズム. In Bunka to fashizumu: Senjiki nihon ni okeru bunka no kōbō, ed. Akazawa Shirō and Kitazawa Kenzō, 9–52. Nihon keizai hyōronsha, 1993. Takase Nobuhiko 高瀬暢彦. “Kaneko Kentarō nenpu 金子堅太郎年譜.” In Kaneko Kentarō chosakushū 金子堅太郎著作集, vol. 1, ed. Takase Nobuhiko. Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo, 1995. ——. “Kaneko Kentarō chosaku hyō 金子堅太郎著作表.” In Kaneko Kentarō chosakushū, vol. 3, ed. Takase Nobuhiko. Nihon daigaku seishin bunka kenkyūjo, 1997. Takashina Shūji 高階秀爾. “Meijiki rekishiga ron josetsu 明治期歴史画論序説.” San- nomaru shōzōkan nenpō • kiyō 三の丸尚蔵館年報・紀要 1 (1991–3): 106–109. ——, and Haga Tōru 芳賀徹, eds. Sekai toshi no jōken 世界都市の条件. Chikuma shobō, 1992. Takayama chogyū 高山樗牛. “Rekishi gadai ron 歴史画題論.” Taiyō 太陽 4, no. 21 (1898). Reprinted in Nihon bijutsuin hyakunenshi 日本美術院百年史, vol. 2, no. 2, Shiryō hen 資料編, ed. Nihon bijutsuin, 486–93. Nihon bijutsuin, 1990. ——. “Rekishiga no honryō oyobi daimoku 歴史画の本領及び題目.” Taiyō 5, no. 23 (1899). Reprinted in Nihon bijutsuin hyakunenshi, vol. 2, no. 2, Shiryō hen, ed. Nihon bijutsuin, 493–99. Nihon bijutsuin, 1990. ——. “Futatabi rekishiteki geijutsu no honryō o ronzu 再び歴史的芸術の本領を論ず.” Taiyō 太陽 5, no. 27 (1899). Reprinted in Nihon bijutsuin hyakunenshi, vol. 2, no. 2, Shiryō hen, ed. Nihon bijutsuin, 515–22. Nihon bijutsuin, 1990. ——. “Tsubouchi sensei ni ataete mitabi rekishiga no honryō o ronzuru sho 坪内先生に与へて三度び歴史画の本領を論ずる書.” Taiyō 6, no. 4 (1900). Reprinted in Nihon bijutsuin hyakunenshi, vol. 2, no. 2, Shiryō hen, ed. Nihon bijutsuin, 539–43. Nihon bijutsuin, 1990. Takayanagi Yukiko 高柳有紀子. “ ‘Rekishiga’ toshite no Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga 「歴史画」としての明治神宮聖徳記念絵画館壁画.” Geijutsugaku gakuhō 芸術学学報 8 (2001): 18–31. Takebe Toshio 武部敏夫. “Meiji tennōki no henshū kōsō 明治天皇紀の編修構想.” In Nihon rekishi bessatsu: Denki no miryoku 日本歴史別冊伝記の魅力, ed. Nihon rekishi gakkai 日本歴史学会, 67–70. Nihon rekishi gakkai, 1986. Takeda Kiyoko 武田清子. Nihon liberalizumu no ryōsen 日本リベラリズムの稜線. Iwa- nami shoten, 1987. 306 bibliography

Takekuma Tokusaburō 武隈徳三郎. Ainu monogatari アイヌ物語. Sapporo: Fūkidō shobō, 1918. Takemae Eiji 竹前栄治. GHQ GHQ. Iwanami shoten, 1983. ——. Sengo senryō shi 戦後占領史. Iwanami shoten, 1992. ——. Nihon senryō: GHQ kōkan no shōgen 日本占領: GHQ 高官の証言. Chūō kōronsha, 1988. ——. GHQ no hitobito: Keireki to seisaku GHQ の人びと: 経歴と政策. Akashi shoten, 2002. Takemura Tamio 竹村民郎. Taisho bunka teikoku no ūtopia: Sekaishi no tenkanki to taishū shōhi shakai no keisei 大正文化帝国のユートピア: 世界史の転換期と大衆消費社会の形成. Sangensha, 2004. Takezawa kaname 竹澤要, “Samukawa jinja gozōei kōji o sekkei shite 寒川神社御造営工事を設計して.” In Heisei gotaiten kinen: Samukawa jinja gozōeishi 平成御大典記念: 寒川神社御造営誌, ed. Samukawa jinja 寒川神社, 106–7. Samukawa: Samukawa Jinja, 1999. ——. Watashi no kokorozashi わたしの志. Takezawa koten kenchiku sekkei jimusho, 2000. ——. president of Takezawa koten kenchiku sekkei jimusho. Interview by author, 15th December 2005, Tokyo. Tape recording. Taki Kōji 多木浩二. Tennō no shōzō 天皇の肖像. Iwanami shoten, 2002. Tanaka Akira 田中彰. Meiji ishin kan no kenkyū 明治維新観の研究. Sapporo: Hokkaido daigaku tosho kankōkai, 1987. Tanaka Hisao 田中日佐夫. Nihon no sensōga: Sono keifu to tokushitsu 日本の戦争画: その系譜と特質. Perikansha, 1985. Tanaka Satoshi 田中聡. Eisei tenrankai no yokubō 衛生展覧会の欲望. Seikyūsha, 1994. Taneda Moritaka 種田守孝, Shinohara Osamu 篠原修 and Shimomura Akio 下村彰男. “Senzenki ni okeru fūchi chiku no gainen ni kansuru kenkyū 戦前期における風致地区の概念に関する研究.” Zōen zasshi 造園雑誌 52, no. 5 (1989): 300–305. Tanigawa Minoru 谷川稔. “Kioku no ba no kanatani: Nihongo ban jobun ni kaete 『記憶の場』の彼方に: 日本語版序文にかえて.” In Pierre Nora ed. Kioku no ba: Furansu kokumin ishiki no bunka = shakaishi 記憶の場: フランス国民意識の文化＝社会史, vol. 1, trans. Tanigawa Minoru 谷川稔, 1–13. Iwanami shoten, 2002–2003. Taniguchi Asao 谷口浅男. “Meiji tennō to kinenhi 明治天皇と記念碑.” Shiraoi kyōdo bungei 白老郷土文芸 7 (1987): 102–183. Tanimoto Takeo 谷本丈夫. “Shokubutsugaku teki ni mita Meiji jingū no mori.” In Dai- tokai ni tsukurareta mori: Meiji jingū no mori ni manabu. By Matsui Mitsuma, Uchida Masayoshi, Tanimoto Takeo and Kitamura Masami, 65–97. Daiichi pulanningu sentā, 1992. ——. “Chinju no mori (Meiji jingū no mori) no hozon • saisei 鎮守の森 (明治神宮の森) の保全・再生.” Midori no dokuhon 緑の読本 64 (2002): 1629–34. ——. “Mori kara no hassō: Mirai e no messēji, daitokai ni tsukurareta Meiji jingū rin ni manabu 森林( もり) からの発想: 未来へのメッセージ大都市につくられた明治神宮林に学ぶ.” Gendai ringyō 現代林業 437 (2002): 42–45. Tanizaki Jun’ichirō 谷崎潤一郎. “Kōjin 鮫人.” In Tanizaki Jun’ichirō zenshū 谷崎潤一郎全集, vol. 7. Chūō kōronsha, 1967, 27–212. Tan’o Yasunori 丹尾保典 and Kawata Akihisa 河田明久. Imēji no nakano sensō: Nis- shin • nichirō kara reisen made イメージのなかの戦争: 日清･日露から冷戦まで. Iwanami shoten, 1996. Tateyama shiritsu hakubutsukan 館山市立博物館, ed. Terasaki Takeo no sekai: Bōshū o aishite yamanakatta nihon kindai kaiga no senkusha 寺崎武男の世界: 房州を愛してやまなかった日本近代絵画の先駆者. Tateyama: Tateyama shiritsu hakubutsukan, 2003. Tayama Katai 田山花袋. Tokyo no kinkō 東京の近郊. Isobe kōyōdō, 1920. bibliography 307

——. “Tokyo no sanjūnen 東京の三十年.” In Katai zenshū 花袋全集, vol. 15. Bunsendō, 1974. Tazawa Yoshiharu 田沢義鋪. “Meiji jingū gozōei bidan 明治神宮御造営美談.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Kishida Makio, 71–80. Dōbunkan, 1920. ——. “Kakuchi seinendan no gozōei hōshi 各地青年団の御造営奉仕.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Teien kyōkai, 96–100. Kōzanbō, 1920. ——. “Seinendan no shimei 青年団の使命,” 1928. Reprinted in Tazawa Yoshiharu senshū 田沢義鋪選集, ed. Tazawa Yoshiharu kinenkai 田沢義鋪記念会, 280–378. Tazazwa Yoshiharu kinenkai, 1967. Tazawa Yoshiharu kinenkai 田沢義鋪記念会, ed. Tazawa Yoshiharu senshū 田沢義鋪選集. Tazazwa Yoshiharu kinenkai, 1967. Teien kyōkai 庭園協会. Meiji jingū 明治神宮. Kōzanbō, 1920. Teikoku bahitsu kyōkai 帝国馬匹協会, ed. Meiji Taisho basei kōrō jūichishi jiseki 明治大正馬政功労十一氏事蹟. Teikoku bahitsu kyōkai, 1937. Teikoku toshi kenkyūkai 帝国都市研究会. Dainihon toshi taikan: Kōki nisenroppyakunen kinen 大日本都市大観: 皇紀二千六百年記念. Teikoku toshi kenkyūkai, 1941. Terasaki Takeo 寺崎武男. “Taii jūnen 滞伊十年.” Kōyūkai geppō 校友会月報 15, no. 7 (1916): 101–106. ——. “Dinamikku to ōkesutorachon ディナミックとオーケストラチョン.” Bijutsu 美術 1, no. 4 (1917): 12–15. ——. “Hekiga no kenkyū 壁画の研究.” Bijutsu shunpō 149 (29 January 1918): 2. ——. “Sensō ni hakai saretaru Itali bijutsu 戦争に破壊されたる伊太利美術.” Chūō bijutsu 中央美術 4, no. 1 (1918): 74–77. ——. “Geijutsuka no geijutsu undō 芸術家の芸術運動.” Kaiga seidan 絵画清談 6, no. 5 (1918): 20–21. ——. “Meiji jingū no hekiga 明治神宮の壁画.” Kōyūkai geppō 17, no. 1 (1918): 9–14. ——. “Bijutsukan ni taisuru risō 美術館に対する理想.” Kōyūkai geppō 17, no. 4 (1918): 68–70. ——. “Bijutsukan ni taisuru risō 美術館に対する理想,” no. 2. Kōyūkai geppō 17, no. 6 (1919): 109–111. ——. “Parasodoukare no hekiga kenkyū パラソオドウカレノ壁画研究.” Hōsankai Tsūshin 奉賛会通信 58 (10th October 1920): 7–10. ——. “Hekiga ni taisuru hōkoku oyobi iken 壁画ニ対スル報告及意見.” Hōsankai Tūshin 65 (10th August 1921): 17–32. ——. “Hekiga no kyōka 壁画の教化” et al. Hōsankai Tsūshin 66 (10th November 1921): 12–34 ——. “Shitajiban ni tsuite 下地板ニ就テ” et al. Hōsankai Tsūshin 68 (10th May 1922): 28–39. ——. “Hekiga hozonhō ni taisuru hōkoku 壁画保存法に対する報告.” Hōsankai Tsūshin 69 (10th August 1922): 4–13. ——. “Hekiga hōkokusho 壁画報告書.” Hōsankai Tsūshin 71 (20th February 1923): 11–21. ——. “Tōyō hekiga ni tsuite 東洋壁画ニ就テ.” Hōsankai Tsūshin 72 (10th May 1923): 28–35. ——. “Chōsa hōkoku 調査報告.” Hōsankai Tsūshin 73 (10th December 1923), 21–35. ——. “Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga ‘Gunjin chokuyu kashi’ 明治神宮聖徳記念絵画館壁画「軍人勅諭下賜」.” Manuscript handwritten on 10th July 1928. Private Collection of Mr. Terasaki Hironori. Tōda Masaru 遠田勝. “ ‘Shinkoku nihon’ kō: Chenbaren tono tairitsu o megutte 『神国日本』考: チェンバレンとの対立をめぐって.” Hikaku bungaku kenkyū 比較文学研究 47 (1985): 24–53. Togami Muneyoshi 戸上宗賢. Shajiryō kokuyūchi shobun no igi to eikyō 社寺領国有地処分の意義と影響.” In Senryō to nihon shūkyō, ed. Ikado Fujio, 239–63. Miraisha, 1993. 308 bibliography

Tokonami Takejirō 床次竹二郎. “Meiji jingū to kokumin no kakugo 明治神宮と国民の覚悟.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Kishida Makio, 5. Dōbunkan, 1920. Tokoro Isao 所功. Nihon no shukusaijitsu 日本の祝祭日. PHP kenkyūjo, 1986. ——. Nengō no rekishi: Gengō seido no rekishiteki kenkyū 年号の歴史: 元号制度の歴史的研究. Yūzankaku, 1988. Tokyo bijutsu 東京美術, ed. Meiji jingū seitoku kinen kaigakan hekiga shū 明治神宮聖徳記念, 絵画館壁画集. Tokyo bijutsu, 1968. Tokyo daigaku shiryō hensanjo 東京大学史料編纂所, ed. “Monbushō shokan ishin shiryō hensan jigyō 文部省所管維新史料編纂事業. In Tokyo daigaku shiryō hensan- joshi shiryōshū 東京大学史料編纂所史史料集. Tokyo daigaku shiryō hensanjo, 2001. Tokyofu 東京府. Tokyofu taisho shinsaishi 東京府大正震災誌. Tokyofu, 1925. Tokyoshi 東京市. Tokyoshi kigen nisenroppyakunen hōshuku kinen jigyōshi 東京市紀元二千六百年奉祝記念事業志. Tokyoshi, 1941. Tokyoshi, Shakaikyoku 社会局. “Furōsha oyobi zanshokubutsu ni kansuru chōsa 浮浪者及残食物に関する調査,” March 1923. In Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei: Kusama Yasoo 1921–1937 chōsa 都市下層民衆生活実態資料集成: 草間八十雄 1921 年-1937 年調査, vol. 2, ed. Yasuoka Norihiko 安岡憲彦. Akashi shoten, 1993. ——. Shakaikyoku. “Tachinoki kijitsu no oshirase 立退期日のお知らせ,” 13th February 1925. Zassho: Shinsai kankei shorui 雑書・震災関係書類. Vol. 13, Barakku kankei narabini sono jimu バラック関係並びにその事務. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 大市 12•63 (6•886). ——. Shakaikyoku. “Shūdan barakku tettai enki undō ni kansuru ken 集団バラック撤退延期運動ニ関スル件,” 24th February 1925. Zassho: Shinsai kankei shorui. Vol. 13, Barakku kankei narabini sono jimu. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 大市 12•63 (6•886). ——. Shakaikyoku. “Dainiki tettai shūryō, barakku kyojūsha ni taishi zaidan hōjin Dōjunkai fukushi shisetsu tō sendenkata ni kansuru ken 第二期撤退終了, バラック居住者に対し財団法人同潤会福祉施設等宣伝方に関する件,” 6th March 1925. Zassho: Shinsai kankei shorui. Vol. 13, Barakku kankei narabini sono jimu. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 大市 12•63 (6•886). ——. Shakaikyoku, Meiji jingū gaien barakku jimusho 明治神宮外苑バラック事務所. “Kantō shinsaichi risaimin ijūdan kiyaku ni kansuru ken 関東震災地罹災民移住団規約に関する件,” 5th March 1924. Zassho: shinsai kankei shorui. Vol. 13, Barakku kankei narabini sono jimu. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 大市 12•63 (6•886). Tokyoshiyakusho 東京市役所. Dai Tokyo annai 大東京案内. Tokyoshiyakusho, 1936. Tokyoshiyakusho, Chōsaka 調査課, Tokyoshi hijōsaigai jimu sōmubu 、東京市非常災害事務総務部. “Kyōdō barakku ni kansuru chōsa 共同バラックに関する調査, no. 23, Meiji jingū gaien barakku 明治神宮外苑バラック,” 24th November 1923. Hijō saigai jōhō 非常災害情報乙第 43 号, Barakku ni kansuru chōsa バラックに関する調査, no. 23. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives. 大市 12•94 (803•819). Tokyo shōkō kaigisho 東京商工会議所. Tokyo shōkō kaigisho hachijūnen no kaiko 東京商工会議所八十年の回顧. Tokyo shōkō kaigisho, 1961. ——. Tokyo shōkō kaigisho hachijūgonenshi 東京商工会議所八十五年史, 2 vols. Tokyo shōkō kaigisho, 1966. Tokyo teishin kanrikyoku 東京逓信管理局. Toyotamagun Naitōshinjuku chō•Sendagaya chō zenzu 豊多摩郡内藤新宿町・千駄ヶ谷町全図, 1911. Jinbunsha. Toshi keikaku chūō iinkai 都市計画中央委員会. Toshi keikaku chūō iinkai gijiroku 都市計画中央委員会議事録, no. 1, 19th January 1921. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 内 2–26 (0350). ——. Toshi keikaku chūō iinkai giji sokkiroku 都市計画中央委員会議事速記録, 15th April 1921. Tokyo Metropolitan Archives, 内 2–26 (0350). Tōyama Shigeki 遠山茂樹. Meiji ishin 明治維新. Iwanami shoten, 1951. ——. Meiji ishin to gendai 明治維新と現代. Iwanami shoten, 1986. bibliography 309

Tsubouchi Shōyō 坪内逍遥. “Geijutsu jō ni iwayuru rekishiteki toiu go no shingi ikan 芸術上に所謂歴史的という語の真義如何.” Taiyō 5, no. 25–26 (1899). Reprinted in Nihon bijutsuin hyakunenshi, vol. 2, no. 2, Shiryō hen, ed. Nihon bijutsuin, 499–510. Nihon bijutsuin, 1990. ——. “Futatabi rekishiga o ronzu 再び歴史画を論ず.” Taiyō 6, no. 2 (1900). Reprinted in Nihon bijutsuin hyakunenshi, vol. 2, no. 2, Shiryō hen, ed. Nihon bijutsuin, 529–39. Nihon bijutsuin, 1990. Tsubouchi Yūzō 坪内祐三. Yasukuni 靖国. Shinchōsha, 1999. Tsuchida Mitsufumi 槌田満文. Tokyo bungaku chizu: Meisaku ni egakareta Tokyo hyakunen no henbō 東京文学地図: 名作に描かれた東京百年の変貌. Toshi shuppansha, 1970. Tsuganesawa Toshihiro 津金沢聡広and AriyamaTeruo 有山輝雄, eds. Senjiki nihon no media • ibento 戦時期日本のメディア・イベント. Kyoto: Sekai shisōsha, 1998. Tsuge Yoshio 柘植芳男. “Dōjunkai no omoide 同潤会の思い出,” in appendix of Dōjunkai apāto genkei 同潤会アパート原景. By Marc Bourdier. Sumai no toshokan shuppankyoku, 1992. Tsukamoto Seiji 塚本清治. “Meiji jingū zōei no yurai 明治神宮造営の由来.” In Meiji jingū, ed. Kishida Makio, 6–7. Dōbunkan, 1920. ——. “Meiji jingū to kokumin no sekisei 明治神宮と国民の赤誠.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi 11 (1920): 204. Tsuji Zennosuke 辻善之助. Nihon bunkashi 日本文化史. Vol. 7, Meiji Jidai 明治時代. Shunjūsha, 1970. Tsunoyama Sakae 角山栄. Tokei no shakaishi 時計の社会史. Chūō kōronsha, 1984. Tsurumaki Takao 鶴巻孝雄. “Kaika to minshū: Mura to minshū no bunmei kaika 開化と民衆: 村と民衆の文明開化. In Kindaika to dentōteki minshūsekai 近代化と伝統的民衆世界. Tokyo daigaku shuppansha, 1992. ——. “Keimōka no tanjō, soshite minzoku no bunmeika: Bunmei kaika to minzoku no henyō 啓蒙家の誕生、そして民俗の文明化: 文明開化と民俗の変容.” Kana- gawa daigaku hyōron 神奈川大学評論 23 (1996): 75–83. Uchida Hoshimi 内田星美. Meiji jidai ni okeru tokei no fukyū 明治時代における時計の普及.” In Chikoku no tanjō: Kindai nihon ni okeru jikan ishiki no keisei, ed. Hashimoto Takehiko and Kuriyama Shigehisa, 267–88. Sangensha, 2001. Uchida Masao 内田正男. Koyomi to nihonjin 暦と日本人. Yūzankakushuppan, 1992. Uchida Masayoshi 内田方彬. “Mori wa kōshite tsukurareta: Zōei no keikaku to keii 森はこうして造られた: 造営の計画と経緯.” In Daitokai ni tsukurareta mori: Meiji jingū no mori ni manabu. By Matsui Mitsuma, Uchida Masayoshi, Tanimoto Takeo and Kitamura Masami, 27–48. Daiichi pulanningu sentā, 1992. Uchida Seizō 内田青蔵. Dōjunkai ni manabe: Sumai no shisō to sono dezain 同潤会に学べ: 住まいの思想とそのデザイン. Ōkokusha, 2004. Uchino Gorō 内野吾郎. “Yanagita Kunio no Shintō • kokugaku kan to shin kokugaku ron no jōsei 柳田国男の神道・国学観と新国学論の醸成.” Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 48 (1981): 2–54. ——. Shinkokugaku ron no tenkai 新国学論の展開. Sōrinsha, 1983. Uchiyama Hideo 内山秀夫. Translator’s explanatory notes and afterword to The Japanese Enemy: His power and his vulnerability, by Hugh Byas, 183–215. Translated by Uchiyama Hideo and Masuda Nobuyo 増田修代. Tōsui shobō, 2001. ——. Translator’s arfterword to Government by Assassination, by Hugh Byas, 341–3. Trans- lated by Uchiyama Hideo and Masuda Nobuyo. Tōsui shobō, 2004. Uda Hideo 宇田英男. Dare ga Pari o tsukuttaka 誰がパリをつくったか. Asahi shinbunsha, 1994. Ueda Kenji 上田賢治. “Orikuchi Shinobu no sengo Shintō ron 折口信夫の戦後神道論.” Orikuchi hakushi kinen kodai kenkyūjo kiyō 折口博士記念古代研究所紀要 5 (1988): 202–218. 310 bibliography

Uehara Keiji 上原敬二. “Jinja fūchi rin no zōsei ni tsuite 神社風致林の造成に就て.” Jinja kyōkai zasshi, no. 7 (1919): 3–8. ——. Hito no tsukutta mori: Meiji jingū no mori zōsei no kiroku 人の造った森: 明治神宮の森造成の記録. Tokyo Nōgyō daigaku, 1971. Reprint, Tokyo Nōgyō daigaku, 2000. Uehara Yūki 上原佑貴, Gotō Haruhiko 後藤春彦 and Sakuma Yasutomi 佐久間康富. “Toshi kūkan ni okeru roten no igi no saikō: Harajuku Omotesandō ni okeru shutten no jittai kara 都市空間における露店の意義の再考: 原宿表参道における出店の実態から.” Toshi keikaku ronbun shū 都市計画論文集 36 (2001): 313–18. Umeda Yoshihiko 梅田義彦. “Katō Genchi 加藤玄智.” Shintō shūkyō 41 (1965): 82–88. Umemori Naoyuki 梅森直之. “Rekishi to kioku no aida 歴史と記憶の間.” In Komemo- reishon no bunkashi: Kioku no katachi, ed. Abe Yasunari et al., 167–88. Kashiwa shobō, 1999. Unno Hiroshi 海野弘. Modan toshi Tokyo: Nihon no 1920 nendai モダン都市東京: 日本の1920 年代. Chūō kōronsha, 1983. Unoda Naoya 宇野田尚哉. “Bushidōron no seiritsu: Seiyō to tōyō no aida 武士道論の成立: 西洋と東洋のあいだ.” In Edo no shisō 江戸の思想 vol. 7, Shisōshi no jūkyūseiki 思想史の十九世紀, ed. Edo no shisō henshū iinkai 江戸の思想編集委員会, 29–50. Perikansha, 1997. Unoki Tadashi 宇野木忠. Hakuraku Shibusawa ō 伯楽渋沢翁. Reprinted in Shibusawa Eiichi denki shiryō 渋沢栄一伝記資料, vol. 41, 6–60, ed. Shibusawa Seien kinen zaidan ryūmonsha, 1962. Urai Sachiko 浦井祥子. “Edo no jikoku to toki no kane ni kansuru ichi kōsatsu 江戸の時刻と時の鐘に関する一考察.” Nihon rekishi 629 (2000): 36–51. Uzawa Yūko 鵜沼優子. “Kokumin dōtokuron o meguru ronsō 国民道徳論をめぐる論争.” In Nihon shisō ronsōshi 日本思想論争史, ed. Imai Jun 今井淳 and Ozawa Tomio 小沢富夫, 356–79. Perikansha, 1982. Wakabayashi Mikio 若林幹夫. Chizu no sōzōryoku 地図の想像力. Kōdansha, 1995. ——. Toshi e no/kara no shisen 都市への/ からの視線. Kōdansha, 1995. Waseda daigaku, Tsubouchi hakushi kinen engeki hakubutsukan 早稲田大学坪内博士記念演劇博物館, ed. Engeki hyakka daijiten 演劇百科大事典, vol. 5. Heibonsha, 1961. Watanabe Ikujirō 渡辺幾治郎. “Meiji tennō ki henshū nijū nen 明治天皇紀編修二十年.” In Meijishi kenkyū 明治史研究. Rakurō shoin, 1934. Watanabe Nagisa 渡辺汀, ed. Kanreki: Seinan shōgakkō daisanjūsankai sotsugyōsei kanreki kinen shi 歓暦: 青南小学校第33 回卒業生還暦記念誌. Privately published, 1988 Watanabe Shun’ichi 渡辺俊一. “Toshi keikaku” no tanjō: Kokusai hikaku kara mita nihon kindai toshi keikaku 「都市計画」の誕生: 国際比較からみた日本近代都市計画. Kashiwa shobō, 1993. Woodard, William P. “Senryō to Shintō 占領と神道,” In 1945 nen ikō no Shintō: Kurea- monto kokusai Shintōgaku kaigi no kiroku 1945 年以降の神道: クレアモント国際神道学会議の記録, ed. and trans. Kokugakuin daigaku Nihon bunka kenkyūjo, 29–38. Kokugakuin daigaku, Nihon bunka kenkyūjo, 1965. Xu Subin 徐蘇斌. “Itō Chūta no sekai ryokō: Chūgoku 伊東忠太の世界旅行: 中国.” In Itō Chūta o shitte imasuka, ed. Suzuki Hiroyuki, 138–54. Ōkokusha, 2003. Yamada Shin’ichi 山田伸一. “Takushokukan no Ainu minzoku shiryō ni tsuite no oboegaki 拓殖館のアイヌ民族資料についての覚書.” Hokkaido kaitaku kinenkan kenkyū kiyō 北海道開拓記念館研究紀要 28 (2000): 179- 198. Yamada Toyoko 山田登世子. Rizōto seikimatsu: Mizu no kioku no tabi リゾート世紀末: 水の記憶の旅. Chikuma shobō, 1998. Yamagiwa Akira 山極晃 and Nakamura Masanori 中村政則, eds. Shiryō nihon senryō 資料日本占領. Vol. 1, Tennōsei 天皇制. Otsuki shoten, 1990. Yamaguchi Hiroshi 山口広, ed. Kōgai jūtakuchi no keifu: Tokyo no denen ūtopia 郊外住宅地の系譜: 東京の田園ユートピア. Kajima shuppankai, 1987. bibliography 311

Yamaguchi Masahiko 山口正彦. “Goseda Horyū no shōzōga 五姓田芳柳の肖像画,” no. 1–2. Museum 407 (1985): 28–36, 408 (1985): 16–22. ——. “Nisei Goseda Horyū no gagyō 二世五姓田芳柳の画業.” Museum 438 (1987): 23–36. Yamaguchi Masao 山口昌男. Shukusai toshi: Shōchō jinruigaku teki apurōchi 祝祭都市: 象徴人類学的アプローチ. Iwanami shoten, 1984. ——. Tennōsei no bunka jinruigaku 天皇制の文化人類学. Iwanami shoten, 2000. Yamaguchi Teruomi 山口輝臣. “Meiji jingū no seiritsu o megutte 明治神宮の成立をめぐって.” Nihon rekishi 546 (1993): 80–96. ——. “Meiji Kenpōka no jingikan setchi mondai 明治憲法下の神祇官設置問題.” Shi- gaku zasshi 102, no. 2 (1993): 1–35. ——. Meiji kokka to shūkyō 明治国家と宗教, Tokyo daigaku shuppankai, 1999. ——. “Jinja hōshi chōsa kai ni tuite 1: Meiji jingū keikaku ni okeru ‘yuisho’ to ‘fūchi’ 神社奉祀調査会について 1 : 明治神宮計画における「由緒」と「風致」.” Kainan shigaku 海南史学 39 (2001): 1–17. ——. “Nanitozo gochinzachi ni gosentei ainaritaku: Meiji jingū no kōhochi ni utsuru Tokyo 何卒御鎮座地に御選定相成度: 明治神宮の候補地に映る東京.” Shien 史淵 139 (2002): 1–36. ——. Meiji jingū no shutsugen 明治神宮の出現. Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 2005. Yamamoto Yōko 山本陽子. “Tennō o egaku koto o habakaru hyōgen no shūen: ‘Kōmei tennōki fuzu’ to ‘Meiji tennōki fuzu’ ni okeru tennō no kao no arawashikata 天皇を描くことをはばかる表現の終焉:『孝明天皇紀附図』と『明治天皇紀附図』における天皇の顔の表し方.” Meisei daigaku kenkyū kiyō 明星大学研究紀要 9 (2001): 21–35. Yamanashi Toshio 山梨俊夫. Egakareta rekishi: Nihon kindai to ‘rekishiga’ no jiba 描かれた歴史: 日本近代と「歴史画」の磁場. Buryukke, 2005. Yamano Eiji 山野英嗣. “Kigen nisenroppyakunen bijutsu tenrankai to sono shūhen 紀元二千六百年奉祝美術展覧会とその周辺.” In Senjiki nihon no media • ibento, ed. Tsuganesawa Toshihiro and Ariyama Teruo, 179–96. Kyoto: Sekai shisōsha, 1998. Yamaoka Keiji 山岡桂二. “Takekoshi sansa no kindai shikan ni tsuite 竹越三叉の近代史観について.” Nihon rekishi 181 (1956): 44–62. Yanagi Gorō 柳五郎. “Fūchi chiku ni ataeta sōken jinja no eikyō 風致地区に与えた創建神社の影響.” Zōen zasshi 53, no. 5 (1990): 49–54. Yanagita Kunio 柳田国男, ed. Meiji bunkashi 明治文化史. Vol. 13, Fūzoku hen 風俗編. Yōyōsha, 1954. ——. Meiji Taisho shi: Sesō hen 明治大正史: 世相編. Chūō kōronsha, 2001. Yasuba Kōichirō 安場浩一郎. “Kantō daishinsai go no fukkō jigyō ni okeru ōpun supēsu keikaku ni taisuru jūmin undō no kenkyū 関東大震災後の復興事業におけるオープンスペース計画に対する住民運動の研究.” Landosukēpu kenkyū 60, no. 5 (1997): 455–58. ——. “Shinsai fukkō gojūni shōkōen no keikaku shisō ni kansuru kenkyū 震災復興 52 小公園の計画思想に関する研究.” Landosukēpu kenkyū 61, no. 5 (1998): 429–32. ——. “Kantō daishinsai go no Tokyo no fukkō toshi keikaku o meguru gensetsu no hensei ni kansuru kenkyū 関東大震災後の東京の復興都市計画をめぐる言説の編制に関する研究.” Toshi keikaku ronbunshū 都市計画論文集 33 (1998): 295–330. ——. “Kantō daishinsai go no Tokyo no fukkō kukaku seiri o meguru gensetsu no hensei 関東大震災後の東京の復興区画整理をめぐる言説の編制.” Toshi keikaku ronbunshū 都市計画論文集 34 (1999): 511–16. ——. “Kantō daishinsai go no ōpun supēsu ni okeru risaisha shūyō no tenkai 関東大震災後のオープンスペースにおける罹災者収容の展開.” Landosukēpu kenkyū 62, no. 5 (1999): 449–52. Yasuda Hiroshi 安田浩. “Kindai nihon ni okeru ‘minzoku’ kannen no keisei: Kokumin • shinmin • minzoku 近代日本における「民族」観念の形成: 国民･臣民･民族.” Shisō to gendai 思想と現代 31 (1992): 61–72. 312 bibliography

Yasukuni jinja 靖国神社. Yasukuni Jinja hyakunenshi 靖国神社百年史, 4 vols. Yasukuni Jinja, 1983–1987. Yasumaru Yoshio 安丸良夫. Kindai tenno zō no keisei 近代天皇像の形成. Iwanami shoten, 1992. ——. and Miyachi Masato 宮地正人, eds. Nihon kindai shisō taikei 日本近代思想体系. Vol. 5, Shūkyō to kokka 宗教と国家. Iwanami shoten, 1988. Yasumoto Naohiro 安本直弘. Yotsuya sanpo: Sono rekishi to bunka o tazunete 四谷散歩: その歴史と文化を訪ねて. rev. ed. Mikuni shobō, 1998. Yasuoka Norihiko 安岡憲彦. “Kyōdo taiken • hito • shigoto: Kusama Yasoo no baai 郷土体験･人･仕事: 草間八十雄の場合.” In Kindai kasō minshū seikatsushi 近代下層民衆生活誌. Vol. 1, Hinmingai 貧民街, by Kusama Yasoo 草間八十雄, ed. Isomura Eiichi 磯村英一, 741–62. Akashi shoten, 1987. ——. Kindai Tokyo no kasō shakai: Shakai jigyō no tenkai 近代東京の下層社会: 社会事業の展開. Akashi shoten, 1999. ——. ed. Toshi kasō minshū seikatsu jittai shiryō shūsei: Kusama Yasoo 1921–1937 chōsa, 都市下層民衆生活実態資料集成: 草間八十雄 1921 年－1937 年調査, vol. 1, 2. Akashi shoten, 1993. Yasuoka Shōtarō 安岡章太郎. Boku no Tokyo chizu 僕の東京地図. Bunka shuppankyoku, 1985. Yatsuka Hajime 八束はじめ. Shisō toshite no nihon kindai kenchiku 思想としての日本近代建築. Iwanami shoten, 2005. Yokohama kokusai kankei shi kenkyūkai 横浜国際関係史研究会, ed. Don Buraun to showa no nihon: Korekushon de miru senji • senryō seisaku ドン・ブラウンと昭和の日本: コレクションで見る戦時･占領政策. Yokohama: Yūrindō, 2005. Yokota Yōichi 横田洋一. “Meiji tennō jiseki o megutte: Nisei Goseda Hōryū to Kishida Ryūsei 明治天皇事蹟をめぐって: 二世五姓田芳柳と岸田劉生.” Kindai gasetsu 8 (1999): 104–106. Yokoyama Gennosuke 横山源之助. “Tokyo hinmin no jōtai 東京貧民の状態.” In Nihon no kasō shakai 日本の下層社会, 1898. Reprint, Iwanami shoten, 1997. Yoneda Yūsuke 米田雄介. “Meiji tennōki fuzu to Nisei Goseda Hōryū 明治天皇紀附図と二世五姓田芳柳.” Shoryōbu kiyō 42 (1990): 19–34. Yoneji Minoru 米地実. “Jinja no shōkohō 神社の称呼法.” In Sonraku saishi to kokka tōsei 村落祭祀と国家統制. Ochanomizu shobō, 1977. Yoshida Iwao 吉田巌. Yoshida Iwao nikki 吉田巌日記, vol. 5, 9, 10, ed. Inoue Hisashi 井上寿. Obihiro: Obihiroshi kyōiku iinkai, 1982–1988. Yoshida Shigeru 吉田茂. “Meiji jingū chinza sanjūnen, zōei no koro o kataru 明治神宮鎮座三十年造営の頃を語る.” Shūkyō kōron 20, no. 8 (1950): 24–25. Yoshida Shigeru denki kankō henshū iinkai 吉田茂伝記刊行編輯委員会, ed. Yoshida Shigeru 吉田茂. Yoshida Shigeru denki kankō henshū iinkai, 1969. Yoshimi Shun’ya 吉見俊哉. Toshi no dramaturugī: Tokyo • sakariba no shakaishi 都市のドラマトゥルギー: 東京・盛り場の社会史. Kōbundō, 1987. ——. Hakurankai no seijigaku: Manazashi no kindai 博覧会の政治学: まなざしの近代. Chūō kōronsha, 1992. ——. “Koe” no shihon shugi: Denwa • rajio • chikuonki no shakaishi 「声」の資本主義: 電話・ラジオ・蓄音機の社会史. Kōdansha, 1995. ——. ed. Nijūichiseiki no toshi shakaigaku 21 世紀の都市社会学. Vol. 4, Toshi no kūkan, toshi no shintai 都市の空間、都市の身体. Keisō Shobō, 1996. ——. “Maboroshi no Tokyo orinpikku o megutte 幻の東京オリンピックをめぐって.” In Senjiki nihon no media • ibento, ed. Tsuganesawa Toshihiro and Ariyama Teruo, 19–36. Kyoto: Sekai shisōsha, 1998. ——. “Neishon no girei toshite no undōkai ネーションの儀礼としての運動会.” In Undōkai to nihon kindai, by Yoshimi Shun’ya et al., 7–54. Seikyūsha, 1999. ——. “Teito Tokyo to modanitī no bunka seiji: 1920 • 1930 nendai e no shiza 帝都東京とモダニティの文化政治: 1920 • 1930 年代への視座.” In Iwanami kōza Kindai nihon bibliography 313

no bunkashi. Vol. 6, Kakudai suru modanitī, 1920–1930 nendai 拡大するモダニティ 1920–1930 年代, no. 2, ed. Komori Yōichi et al., 1–61. Iwanami shoten, 2002. ——. 1930 nendai no media to shintai 1930 年代のメディアと身体. Seikyūsha, 2002. ——. Hirata Munefumi 平田宗史, Irie Katsumi 入江克己, Shirahata Yōzaburō 白幡洋三郎, Kimura Kichiji 木村吉次 and Kamisuki Masako 紙透雅子. Undōkai to nihon kindai 運動会と日本近代. Seikyūsha, 1999. ——. and Wakabayashi Mikio 若林幹夫, eds. Tokyo sutadīzu 東京スタディーズ. Kinokuniya shoten, 2005. Zennihon taiiku shinkōkai 全日本体育振興会. Seika wa higashi e: Kōki nisenroppyakunen no orinpikku taikai ni sonaete 聖火は東へ: 皇紀二千六百年のオリンピック大会に備へて. Meguro shoten, 1937.

English-Language Sources

Ahearne, Jeremy. Michel de Certeau: Interpretation and Its Other. Cambridge and Oxford: Polity Press, 1995. Amateur Athletic Federation of Japan. “An opinion of the Amateur Athletic Federation of Japan on Release of Nile Kinnick Stadium [sic].” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Folder title: Meiji shrine. Box no. 5932. Amateur Swimming Federation of Japan. “An Opinion on Release of the Jingū Stadium [sic].” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Folder title: Meiji Shrine Publications, Box no. 5933. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. London & New York: Verso, 2002. Anesaki, Masaharu. History of Japanese Religion: With Special Reference to the Social and Moral Life of the Nation. London: Kegan Paul, 1930. Aronowitz, Stanley. “History as Disruption: On Benjamin and Foucault.” Humanities in Society 2, no. 2 (spring 1979): 125–47. Asad, Talal. “Anthropological Conceptions of Religion: Reflections on Geertz.” Man 18. no. 2 (1983): 237–259. ——. Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam. London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1993. ——.“Remarks on the Anthropology of the Body.” In Religion and the Body: Comparative Perspectives on Devotional Practices, ed. Sarah Coakley, 42–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ——. “Religion, Nation-state, Secularism.” In Nation and Religion: Perspectives on Europe and Asia, ed. Peter van der Veer and Hartmut Lehmann, 178–96. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1998. ——. Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity. Stanford: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 2003. Ashenden, Samantha and David Owen, eds. Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the Dialogue between Genealogy and Critical theory. London: Sage, 1999. Ashizu, Uzuhiko. “The Shinto Directive and the Constitution: From the Standpoint of a Shintoist.” Contemporary Religions in Japan 1, no. 2 (1960): 16–34. Ashkenazi, Michael. Matsuri: Festivals of a Japanese Town. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994. Australia Department of External Affairs. “Some Views on the Post-War Treatment of Japan.” Current Notes on International Affairs 16 (1945): 6–17. Bal, Mieke. Double Exposures: The Subject of Cultural Analysis. London and New York: Rout- ledge, 1996. Ballou, Robert O. Shinto: The Unconquered Enemy. New York: Viking Press, 1945. Bartolovich, Crystal. “Inventing London.” In Masses, Classes and the Public Sphere, ed. Mike Hill and Warren Montag, 13–40. London and New York: Verso, 2000. Bataille, Georges. Theory of Religion. Trans. Robert Hurley. New York: Zone Books, 1992. 314 bibliography

——. The Bataille Reader, ed. Fred Botting and Scott Wilson. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1997. Batchelor, John. The Ainu of Japan: The Religion, Superstitions, and General History of the Hairy Aborigines of Japan. New York, Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1892. ——. Annual letters (1917–1923), CMS Archive, Special Collection of University of Birmingham. Bates, M. Searles and Kenneth S Latourette. “The Future of Japan.” Pacific Affairs 17, no. 2 (1944): 190–203. Bauerschmidt, F. C. “Walking in the Pilgrim City.” New Blackfriars 77, no. 909 (1996): 504–518. Bauman, Zygmunt. “Postmodern Religion.” In Postmodernity and its Discontents. Cam- bridge: Polity Press, 1997. Bell, Catherine. Ritual theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. ——. “Modernism and Postmodernism in the Study of Religions.” Religious Studies Review 22, no. 3 (1996): 179–190. ——. Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. ——. “Performance.” In Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Mark C. Taylor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 205–224. 1998. Bennett, John W. and Echoes M. Nagai. “Reactions to American Anthropology: The Japa- nese Critique of the Methodology of Benedict’s Chrysanthemum and the Sword.” Ameri- can Anthropologist, n.s., 55, no. 3 (1953): 404–411. Benedict, Ruth. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture, 1946. Reprint, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989. Bennett, Tony. The Birth of the Museum. London: Routledge, 1995. Bhabha, Homi. “DissemiNations: Time, Narrative and the Margins of the Modern Nation.” In The Location of Culture. London: Routledge. 1994. Bisson, Thomas A. “The Price of Peace for Japan.” Pacific Affairs 17, no. 1 (1944): 5–25. ——. “What Program for Japan.” Nation 161 (1945): 28–29. Bloch, Maurice. From Blessing to Violence: History and Ideology in the Circumcision Ritual of the Marina of Madagascar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. ——. “The Ritual of the Royal Bath in Madagascar: The Dissolution of Death, Birth and Fertility into Authority.” In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Soci- eties, ed. David Cannadine and Simon Price, 271–97. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987. Bocking, Brian. The Oracles of the Three Shrines: Windows on Japanese Religion. Surry: Cur- zon, 2001. Borton, Hugh. Japan since 1931: Its Political and Social Developments. New York: Institute of Pacific Relations, 1940 ——. “United States Occupation Policies in Japan since Surrender.” Political Science Quar- terly 62 (1947): 250–57. ——. “Preparation for the Occupation of Japan.” Journal of Asian Studies 25 (1966): 203–12 ——. American Presurrender Planning for Postwar Japan. New York: Columbia University, East Asian Institute, 1967. ——. Spanning Japan’s Modern Century: The Memories of Hugh Borton. New York and Oxford: Lexington Books, 2002. Bourdieu, Pierre. “Symbolic Power.” In Identity and Structure: Issues in the Sociology of Edu- cation, ed. Denis Gleeson, trans. Colin Wringe, 112–9. Chester: Nafferton Books, 1977. ——. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cam- bridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1984. ——. “Social Space and Symbolic Space: Introduction to a Japanese Reading of Distinc- tion.” Trans. Gisele Spiro. Poetics Today 12, no. 4 (1991): 627–38. Bowring, Richard. “An Amused Guest in All: Basil Hall Chamberlain (1850–1935).” In Britain and Japan 1859–1991: Themes and Personalities, ed. Hugh Cortazzi and Gordon Daniels, 128–36. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. bibliography 315

Breen, John and Mark Teeuwen, eds. Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 2000. Buchanan, Ian. “Extraordinary Spaces in Ordinary Places: De Certeau and the Space of Postcolonialism.” Span 36 (1993), available from http://www.mcc.murdoch.edu.au/ ReadingRoom/liserv/SPAN/36/Jabba.html; accessed 3rd November 2006. ——. “Lefebvre and the Space of Everyday Life.” Southern Review 27, no. 2 (1994): 127–37. ——. “Heterophenomenology, or de Certeau’s Theory of Space.” Social Semiotics 6, no. 1 (1996) 111–32. ——. Michel de Certeau: Cultural Theorist. London and Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2000. Buckley, Roger. Occupation Diplomacy: Britain, the United States and Japan 1945–1952. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Bunce, William K. “National Holidays—Official Documents, Prepared by Dr. W. K. Bunce, 27th May 1948.” Contemporary Religions in Japan 2 (1966): 154–165. ——. Religions in Japan: Buddhism, Shinto, Christianity. Tokyo: Tuttle, 1955. Byas, Hugh. The Japanese Enemy: His Power and His Vulnerability. New York: Knopf, 1942. ——. Government by Assassination. New York: Knopf, 1942. ——. “The Japanese Problem.” The Yale Review (March 1943): 453–473. Calhoun, Craig. “Habitus, Field, and Capital: the Question of Historical Specificity.” In Bourdieu: Critical Perspectives, ed. Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma, and Moishe Postone, 61–88. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993. Cannadine, D. “The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the ‘Invention of Tradition.’ ” The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, 101–164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. ——. “Introduction: Divine Rites of Kings.” In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, ed. David Cannadine and Simon Price, 1–19. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 1987. ——. Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire. London: Penguin Books, 2001. Chamberlain, Basil Hall. Things Japanese: Being Notes on Various Subjects Connected with Japan, For the Use of Travellers and Others. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.; Tokyo: Hakubunsha, 1890. ——. Things Japanese: Being Notes on Various Subjects Connected with Japan, For the Use of Travellers and Others, 2nd ed., rev., and enl. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1891. ——. Things Japanese: Being Notes on Various Subjects Connected with Japan, For the Use of Travellers and Others, 3rd ed., rev. London: J. Murray; Yokohama: Kelly and Walsh, 1898. ——. Things Japanese: Being Notes on Various Subjects Connected with Japan, For the Use of Travellers and Others, 4th ed., rev., and enl. London: J. Murray, 1902. ——. Things Japanese: Being Notes on Various Subjects Connected with Japan, For the Use of Travellers and Others, 5th ed., rev. London: J. Murray, 1905. ——. The Invention of a New Religion. London: Watts, 1912. ——. Geneva, to Sugiura Toshirō, London, 28th January 1912. Collection of Aichi University of Education Library ——. Things Japanese: Being Notes on Various Subjects Connected with Japan, For the Use of Travellers and Others, 5th ed., rev., to which two appendices have been added. Lon- don: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., 1927. Claudel, Paul. “Meiji.” In L’oiseau Noir dans le Soleil Levant, 117–20. Paris: Gallimard, 2001. Colebrook, Claire. “Certeau and Foucault: Tactics and Strategic Essentialism.” The South Atlantic Quarterly 100, no. 2 (2001): 541–74. Colegrove, Kenneth W. “What Shall We Do with the Japanese Emperor?” Amerasia 6, no. 9 (1942): 376–81. Conant, James B. “The Effective Disarmament of Germany and Japan.” Vital Speeches 11 (1944): 75–78. 316 bibliography

Conley, Tom. Translator’s introduction to The Writing of History, by Michel de Certeau. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. Connerton, Paul. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Council on Foreign Relations. Problems of the Peace Settlement with Japan. New York: The Council on Foreign Relations, 1944. Creemers, Wilhelmus Helena Martinus. Shrine Shinto After World War II. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Daniels, Gordon. “Sir George Sansom (1883–1965): Historian and Diplomat.” In Britain and Japan 1859–1991: Themes and Personalities, eds. Hugh Cortazzi and Gordon Daniels, 277–88. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. De Certeau, Michel. “Writing vs Time: History and Anthropology in the Works of Lafitav.” Yale French Studies 59 (1980): 37–64. ——. The Practice of Everyday Life. Trans. Steven Rendall. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. ——. Heterologies: Discourses on the Other. Trans. Brian Massumi. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1986. ——. “The Imaginary of the City” and “Conclusion: Spaces and Practices.” In Culture in the Plural, ed. Luce Giard. Trans. Tom Conley. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997. ——. The Writing of History. Trans. Tom Conley. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. ——. “Ethno-Graphy. Speech, or the Space of the Other: Jean de Levy.” In The Certeau Reader, ed. Graham Ward, 129–49. Oxford and Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Pub- lishers, 2000. ——. “The Black Sun of Language: Foucault,” “Micro-techniques and Panoptic Discourse: A Quid Pro Quo” and “The Laugh of Michel Foucault.” In Heterologies: Discourse on the Other. Trans. Brian Massumi, 171–98. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 2000. Derrida, Jacques. “Signature Event Context.” In Margins of Philosophy, trans. Alan Bass. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Press, 1982. ——. Given Time: 1. Counterfeit Money. Trans. Peggy Kamuf. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992. ——. “From Restricted to General Economy: A Hegelianism without Reserve.” In Writing and Difference. Trans. Alan Bass. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Dower, John W. War without Mercy: Race & Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon Books, 1986. ——. Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999. Dreyfus, H. L. and Rabinow, P. “What is Maturity?: Habermas and Foucault on What is Enlightenment?’’ In Foucault: A Critical Reader, ed. David Couzens, 109–122. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Duncan, Carol. Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums. London and New York: Rout- ledge, 1995. Eliade, Mircea. Patterns in Comparative Religion. Trans. Rosemary Sheed. London: Sheed and Ward, 1958. ——. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Trans. Willard R. Trask. New York and London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1959. ——. The Quest: History and Meaning in Religion. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press, 1969. Embree, John F. Suye Mura: A Japanese Village. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939. ——. The Japanese, Smithsonian Institution War Background Studies, no. 7. Washington: Smithsonian Institution War Background Studies, 1943. ——. The Japanese Nation: A Social Survey. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, 1945. bibliography 317

Fabian, Johannes. “Culture, Time and the Object of Anthropology.” In Time and the Work of Anthropology: Critical Essays, 1971–1991. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1996. Fishman, Robert. Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia. New York: Basic Books. 1987. Fitzgerald, Timothy. “Japanese Religion as Ritual Order.” Religion 23 (1993): 315–341. ——. The Ideology of Religious Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Flood, Gavin. Beyond Phenomenology: Rethinking the Study of Religion. London; New York: Cassell, 1999. Flynn, B. “Derrida and Foucault: Madness and Writing.” In Derrida and Deconstruction, ed. Hugh J. Silverman, 201–218. New York and London: Routledge, 1989. Football Association of Japan “Re: Nile Kinnick Ground (Formerly the Meiji Shrine Ground) [sic].” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Folder title: Meiji shrine. Box no. 5932. Foucault, Michel. “Nietzsche, Genealogy, History.” In Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews, ed. Donald F. Bouchard, trans. Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon. Ithaca and New York: Cornell University Press, 1977. ——. “Questions of Geography.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writ- ings 1972–1977, ed. and trans. Colin Gordon, 63–77. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980. ——. “Body/Power.” In Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977, ed. and trans. Colin Gordon, 55–62. New York: Pantheon Books, 1980. ——. “Afterword: The Subject and Power.” In Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, ed. H. L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, 208–226. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1983. ——. “Space, Knowledge, and Power.” In The Foucault Reader, ed. Paul Rabinow, 239–256. London; New York: Pantheon Books, 1984. ——. “Of Other Spaces.” In Diacritics 16, no. 1 (1986): 22–27. ——. “Panopticism.” In Discipline and Punish: Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan, 195–230. London and New York: Penguin Books, 1991. Fraser, Nancy. “Rethinking the ‘public sphere’: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” In Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Con- dition. New York: Routledge, 1997. Friedland, Roger and Deirdre Boden. “NowHere: An Introduction to Space, Time and Modernity.” In NowHere: Space, Time and Modernity, ed. Roger Friedland and Deirdre Boden, 3–29. California: University of California Press, 1994. Fujitani, Takashi. Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan. Berkeley: Uni- versity of California Press, 1998. ——. “The Reischauer Memo: Mr. Moto, Hirohito, and Japanese American Soldiers.” Criti- cal Asian Studies 33, no. 3 (2001): 379–402. Garon, Sheldon M. Molding Japanese Minds: the State in Everyday Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997. Geertz, Clifford. “Religion as a Cultural System.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973. ——. “Ideology as a Cultural System.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973. ——. “Us/Not-Us: Benedict’s Travels.” In Works and Lives: The Anthropologists as Author. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988. General Headquarters, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. “Meiji Shrine Publi- cations.” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Box no. 5933. ——. “Meiji Shrine.” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Box no. 5932. ——. “Meiji Shrine Athletic Meets.” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Box no. 5435. 318 bibliography

——. “Shinto: Staff Study.” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Box no. 5932. Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990. Giebelhausen, Michaela. Introduction to The Architecture of the Museum: Symbolic Struc- tures, Urban Contexts, ed. Michaela Giebelhausen. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003. Gluck, Carol. Japan’s Modern Myths: Ideology in the Late Meiji Period. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. ——. “The Meaning of Ideology in Modern Japan.” In Rethinking Japan, vol. 2, ed. Adriana Boscaro, Franco Gatti and Massimo Raveri. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990. ——. “The Past in the Present.” In Postwar Japan as History, ed. Andrew Gordon. Berkley: University of California Press, 1993. Godelier, Maurice. The Enigma of the Gift. Trans. Nora Scott. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999. ——. “Some Things You Give, Some Things You Sell, but Some Things You Must Keep for Yourselves: What Mauss did not Say about Sacred Objects.” In The Enigma of Gift and Sacrifice, ed. Edith Wyschogrod et al., 19–37. New York: Fordham University Press, 2002. Godshall, Wilson Leon. “How to Deal with Japan.” Social Science 18, no. 3 (1943): 120–24. Gorer, Geoffrey. “Themes in Japanese Culture.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, ser.2, 5 (1943): 106–124. ——. “The Special Case of Japan.” The Public Opinion Quarterly 7, no. 4 (Winter 1943): 567–82. Grapard, Allan G. “Flying Mountains and Walkers of Emptiness: Toward a Definition of Sacred Space in Japanese Religions.” History of Religions 20, no. 3 (1982): 195–221. ——. “Japan’s Ignored Cultural Revolution: The Separation of Shinto and Buddhist Divini- ties in Meiji (Shinbutsu bunri) and a Case Study: Tōnomine.” History of Religions 23, no. 3 (1984): 240–65. ——. “Linguistic Cubism: A Singularity of Pluralism in the Sanno Cult.” In Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, 14, no. 2–3 (1987): 211–234. ——. “Institution, Ritual, and Ideology: The Twenty-Two Shrine-Temple Multiplexes of Heian Japan.” History of Religions 27, no. 3 (1988): 246–269. ——. “Visions of Excess and Excesses of Vision: Woman and Transgression in Japanese Myth.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 18, no. 1 (1991): 3–22. ——. The Protocol of the Gods: A Study of the Kasuga Cult in Japanese History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. ——. “Geosophia, Geognosis, and Geopiety: Orders of Significance in Japanese Represen- tation of Space.” In NowHere: Space, Time and Modernity, ed. Roger Friedland and Deir- dre Boden, 372–401. California: University of California Press, 1994. ——. “Geotyping Sacred Space: The Case of Mount Hiko in Japan.” In Sacred Space: Shrine, City, Land, ed. Benjamin Z. Kedar and R.J. Zwi Werblowsky, 215–49. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1998. ——. “Shrines Registered in Ancient Japanese Law: Shinto or Not?” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 28, no. 3–4 (2002): 209–232. Grew, Joseph Clark. Address at the Annual Banquet Celebrating the 90th Anniversary of the Illinois Education Association, Chicago, Illinois, at 8:00 p.m., 29th December 1943. available from http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/shiryo/01/003/003tx.html; accessed 25 June 2006. ——. Turbulent Era: A Diplomatic Record of Forty Years, 1904–1945. Ed. Walter Johnson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952. Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson, eds. Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthro- pology. Durham: Duke University Press, 1999. Habermas, Jürgen. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992. bibliography 319

Haga, Yaichi. “The Spirit of Japan,” 1917. Reprinted in Haya Yaichi senshū, vol. 7. Ed. Haya Yaichi senshū henshū iinkai. Tokyo: Kokugakuin daigaku, 1989. Halbwachs, Maurice. The Collective Memory. Trans. Francis J. Ditter Jr and Vida Yazdi Dit- ter. New York: Harper and Row, 1980. Hall, Peter. Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the Twentieth Century. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2002. Hall, Stuart A. “Religious Ideologies and Social Movements in Jamaica,” In Religion and Ideology: A Reader, ed. Robert Bocock and Kenneth Thompson, 269–96. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1985. Hardacre, Helen. Shinto and the State, 1868–1988. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. Harootunian, H. D. “Visible Discourse/ Invisible Ideologies.” In Postmodernism and Japan, ed. Masao Miyoshi and H.D. Harootunian, 63–92. Durham: Duke University Press, 1989. ——. “Disciplinizing Native Knowledge and Producing Place: Yanagita Kunio, Origuchi Shi- nobu, Tanaka Yasuma.” In Culture and Identity: Japanese Intellectuals during the Interwar Years, ed. J. Thomas Rimer, 99–127. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990. ——. “Memory, Mourning, and National Morality: Yasukuni Shrine and the Reunion of State and Religion.” In Nation and Religion: Perspectives on Europe and Asia, ed. Peter van der Veer and Hartmut Lehmann, 144–160. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999. ——. Overcome by Modernity: History, Culture, and Community in Interwar Japan. Princ- eton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000. Harvey, David. “Paris, 1850–1870.” In Consciousness and the Urban Experience, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985. ——. “Money, Time, Space, and the City.” In The Urban Experience, Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. ——. “Monument and Myth: The Building of the Basilica of the Sacred Heart.” In The Urban Experience. Oxford: Blackwell, 1989. ——. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. ——. “Space, Time and Place.” In Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Cam- bridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1996. ——. “The Social Construction of Space and Time.” In Justice, Nature, and the Geography of Difference. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1996. Hearn, Lafcadio. Japan: An Attempt at Interpretation. London and New York: Macmillan & Co., 1904. Heelas, Paul. Religion, Modernity, and Postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. Heinrichs, Waldo H., Jr. American Ambassador: Joseph C. Grew and the Development of the United States Diplomatic Tradition. Boston: Little, Brown, 1966. Hobsbawm, Eric J. “Introduction: Inventing Tradition.” In The Invention of Tradition, ed. Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, 1–14. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Holtom, D. C. The Political Philosophy of Modern Shinto: A Study of the State Religion of Japan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1922. ——. “Dr. Genchi Kato’s Monumental Work on Shinto.” Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai kiyō 47 (1937): 210–213. ——. The National Faith of Shinto: A Study of Modern Shinto. London: Kegan Paul, 1938. ——. “Shinto in the Postwar World.” Far Eastern Survey 14 (1945): 29–33. ——. Modern Japan and Shinto Nationalism: A Study of Present-Day Trends in Japanese Religions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, originally published in 1943, two new essays added in the 1947 revised edition. ——. “The Japanese Mind.” New Republic 112 (1945): 742–44. 320 bibliography

——. “Holtom’s View on Shinto and the Schools,” 22nd September 1945. GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Folder title: Shinto: Staff study, Box no. 5932. ——. “New Status of Shinto.” Far Eastern Survey 15 (1946): 17–20. ——. “The ‘New’ Emperor.” Far Eastern Survey 15 (1946): 69–71. Horner, Robyn. Rethinking God as Gift: Marion, Derrida, and the Limits of Phenomenology. New York: Fordham University Press, 2001. Hosoya, Chihiro. “George Sansom: Diplomat and Historian.” In European Studies on Japan, ed. Ian Nish and Charles Dunn, 113–9. Kent: Paul Norbury Publications, 1979. Howard, Ebenezer. Garden Cities of Tomorrow. Ed. F. J. Osborn. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1965. Hozumi, Nobushige. Ancestor-Worship and Japanese Law. Tokyo: Maruya, 1901. ——. Ancestor-Worship and Japanese Law, 3rd ed., rev. Tokyo, Osaka and Kyoto: Maruzen, 1913. Inoue, Nobutaka et al., eds. Shinto: A Short History. London and New York: Routledge Cur- zon, 2003. Iokibe, Makoto, ed. The Occupation of Japan: U.S. Planning Documents 1942–1945. Tokyo: Maruzen, 1987. Ivy, Marilyn. Discourse of the Vanishing: Modernity, Phantasm, Japan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995. Japan Amateur Athletic Association. “JAAA’s View on Release of Nile Kinnick Stadium [sic].” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Folder title: Meiji Shrine Publications, Box no. 5933. Japan Hockey Association. “An Opinion on Release of the Sports Stadia in Gaien [sic].” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Folder title: Meiji Shrine. Box no. 5932. Japan Rubber Baseball Association and Japan Soft Ball Association. “The opinion on release of sports stadia in the Gaien area [sic].” GHQ/SCAP Records, RG331, National Archives and Records Service. Folder title: Meiji shrine. Box no. 5932. Jingiin and Gaimushō, Shūsen renraku jimukyoku. “Measures Concerning Shintoism and Shinto Shrines,” 28th November 1945. In Jingiin shūsen shimatsu: Jinja no kokka kanri bunri shiryō, ed. Okada Yoneo, 60. Tokyo: Jinja honchō, 1964. Katō, Genchi. A Study of Shinto, the Religion of the Japanese Nation. Tokyo: Meiji seitoku kinen gakkai, 1926. ——. ed. A Bibliography of Shinto. Tokyo: Dōbunkan, 1943. Lavine, Steven D. and Ivan Karp, eds. Exhibiting Cultures: The Politics and Politics of Museum Display. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991. Lefebvre, Henri. The Production of Space. Trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith. Oxford: Black- well, 1991. ——. Rhythmanalysis: Space, Time and Everyday Life. Trans. Stuart Elden and Gerald Moore. London and New York: Continuum, 2004. Masuzawa, Tomoko. The Invention of World Religions, or, How European Universalism Was Preserved in the Language of Pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Mauss, Marcel. “Techniques of the Body.” In Right and Left: Essays on Dual Symbolic Clas- sification, ed. Rodney Needham. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. ——. The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Trans. W. D. Halls. London: Routledge, 1990. Mayo, Marlene J. “American Wartime Planning for Occupied Japan: The Role of the Experts.” In American as Proconsuls: United States Military Government in Germany and Japan 1944–1952, ed. Robert Wolfe, 3–51. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977. McCutcheon, Russell T. Manufacturing Religion: The Discourse on Sui Generic Religion and the Politics on Nostalgia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. bibliography 321

McMullin, Neil. “On Placating the Gods and Pacifying the Populace: The Case of the Gion Goryo Cult.” History of Religions 27, no. 3 (1988): 271–93. ——. “Historical and Historiographical Issues: In the Study of Pre-modern Japanese Reli- gions.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 16, no. 1 (1989): 3–40. Mead, Margaret. Ruth Benedict. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1974. Mears, Helen. “The Japanese Emperor.” Yale Review 33 (1944): 238–57. Meleuvre, Didier. Museum Memories: History, Technology, Art. Stanford: Stanford Univer- sity Press, 1999. Mumford, Lewis. The City in History: Its Origins, Its Transformations, and Its Prospects. Har- mondsworth: Penguin. 1966. ——. “ ‘What Is a City’: Architectural Record.” The City Reader, 2nd ed., ed. R. T. Legates and F. Stout, 92–96. London & New York: Routledge, 2000. Nakamura, Masanori. The Japanese Monarchy: Ambassador Joseph Grew and the Making of the “Symbol Emperor System,” 1931–1991. New York and London: M.E. Sharpe, 1992. Nish, Ian. “G. B. Sansom and His Tokyo Friends.” The Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, 4th series, 14 (1999): 87–100. Nitobe, Inazō. Bushido: The Soul of Japan, an Exposition of Japanese Thought. Tokyo: Shokabō, 1899. Nugent, Donald K. “Disposition of State-Owned Land Currently Used by Religious Institu- tions.” Contemporary Religions in Japan 7, no. 3 (1966): 209–16. Ölschleger, Hans D. “John Batchelor’s Contributions to Ainu Ethnography.” In European Studies on Ainu Language and Culture, German Institute for Japanese Studies, Monogra- phy, no. 6, 136–50. Munchen: Ludicium Verlag, 1993. Ōshiro, George. “Shibusawa Ei’ichi and Christian Internationalization: An Exploratory Case Study of a Prewar Elite’s Attitude and Activities Regarding Select Aspects of the International Christian Movement in Early Twentieth Century Japan.” Shibusawa kenkyu 1 (1990): 1–17. Ōta, Yūzō. Basil Hall Chamberlain: Portrait of a Japanologist. Richmond: Japan Library, 1998. Pinkney, David H. Napoleon III and the Rebuilding of Paris. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958. Reeves, Imogen. “John Batchelor: Missionary and Ethnographer. A Critical Biography.” MA. diss., University of London, 1992. Ricoeur, Paul. Memory, History, Forgetting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004. Roosevelt, Theodore, New York, to Kaneko Kentarō, Tokyo, 2nd November 1918. Collection of Kunai chō, Shōryōbu. 明-986. Rosinger, Lawrence K. “People—not Emperor—Hold Key to Peaceful Japan.” Foreign Pol- icy Bulletin 23, no. 12 (1944): 2–3. Royal Institute of International Affairs. Japan in Defeat: A Report by a Chatham House Study Group. London: Humphrey Milford, published for Oxford Univ. Press, 1945. Rupp, Katherine. Gift-Giving in Japan: Cash, Connections, Cosmologies. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003. Sakai, Naoki. “Subject and Substratum: On Japanese Imperial Nationalism.” Cultural Stud- ies 14, no. 3–4 (2000): 462–530. Sakamoto, Koremaru. “The Structure of State Shinto: Its Creation, Development and Demise.” In Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami, ed. John Breen and Mark Teeuwen, 272–94. Honolulu: Hawaii University Press, 2000. Sand, Jordan. “The Cultured Life as Contested Space Dwelling and Discourse in the 1920s.” In Being modern in Japan: Culture and Society from the 1910s to the 1930s, ed. Elise K. Tip- ton and John Clark, 99–118. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2000. ——. House and Home in Modern Japan: Architecture, Domestic Space, and Bourgeois Cul- ture, 1880–1980, Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Asia Center, 2003. 322 bibliography

Sansom, George B. Japan: A Short Cultural History. London: Cresset Press, 1931. ——. “Postwar Relations with Japan.” Eighth Conference of the Institute of Pacific Rela- tions, Mont Tremblant, Quebec, Canada, December 1942, Secretariat Paper. New York: International Secretariat Institute of Pacific Relations, 1942. ——. “Japan in the Postwar World.” U.S. Office of Education Bulletin 7 (1945): 9–16. ——. “Policy Towards Japan.” Memorandum by Sansom, 20th June 1945. British Foreign Office Papers 371/46447. Sansom, Katharine. Sir George Sansom and Japan: A Memoir. Florida: The Diplomatic Press, 1972. Sherman, Daniel J. Worthy Monuments: Art Museums and the Politics of Culture in Nine- teenth-Century France. Cambridge, Mass. and London: Harvard University Press, 1989. ——. The Construction of Memory in Interwar France. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Siddle, Richard. Race, Resistance and the Ainu of Japan. London: Macmillan, 1996. Silberman, Bernard S. and H. D. Harootunian, eds. Japan in Crisis: Essays on Taisho Democ- racy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974. Soja, Edward W. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical Social Theory. London: Verso, 1989. ——. “Postmodern Geographies: Taking Los Angeles Apart.” In NowHere: Space, Time and Modernity, ed. Roger Friedland and Deirdre Boden, 127–62. California: University of California Press, 1994. Sorensen, André. The Making of Urban Japan: Cities and Planning from Edo to the Twenty- First Century. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. Takeda, Kiyoko Cho. “The Dual Image of the Japanese Tenno: Conflicting Foreign Ideas about the Remoulding of the Tennosei at the End of the War.” In Proceedings of the Brit- ish Association for Japanese Studies, vol. 1, ed. Peter Lowe, 110–131. Sheffield: University of Sheffield Centre of Japanese Studies, 1976. Takemae, Eiji. The Allied Occupation of Japan. New York and London: Continuum, 2003. Terdiman, Richard. “Deconstructing Memory: On Presenting the Past and Theorizing Cul- ture in France since the Revolution.” Dialectics 15, no. 4 (1985): 13–36. ——. Present Past: Modernity and the Memory Crisis. Ithaca and London: Cornell Univer- sity Press, 1993. ——. “The Marginality of Certeau.” South Atlantic Quarterly 100, no. 2 (2001): 399–421. Thorne, Christopher. Allies of a Kind: The United States, Britain and the War against Japan, 1941–1945. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1978. Tipton, E. K. and Clark, J., eds. Being Modern in Japan: Culture and Society from the 1910s to the 1930s. Honolulu : University of Hawaii Press, 2000. U.S. War Department, Military Intelligence Service, Psychological Warfare Branch. “Basis for a Detailed Plan for Propaganda into the Japanese Empire,” 13th May 1942. Linebarger Papers, Papers Written During World War II 1–5, Special Collections, Hitotsubashi Uni- versity Library, Qcea-168-1; original in U.S. National Archives. ——. “Japan Plan (Final Draft),” 3rd June 1942. Records of the Office of Strategic Services, Washington Director’s Office Administrative Files, 1941–1945, RG226. U.S. National Archives. Vincent, John Carter. “The Post-War Period in the Far East.” Department of State Bulletin (21st October 1945): 644–48. ——. John H. Hilldring, R. L. Dennison and Sterling Fisher. “Our Occupation Policy for Japan.” Department of State Bulletin (7th October 1945): 538–545. Vlastos, Stephen, ed. Mirror of modernity: Invented Traditions of Modern Japan, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Vogel, Ezra F. Foreword to The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Cul- ture, by Ruth Benedict. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1989. bibliography 323

Ward, Robert E. and Frank Joseph Shulman. The Allied Occupation of Japan 1945–1952: An Annotated Bibliography of Western Languages Materials. Chicago: American Library Association, 1974. Wart, G. “Certeau’s Spiritual Spaces.” South Atlantic Quarterly 100, no. 2 (2001): 501–7. Weinberg, Sydney. “What to Tell America: The Writers’ Quarrel in the Office of War Infor- mation.” The Journal of American History 55, no. 1 (1968): 73–89. Winkler, Allan M. The Politics of Propaganda: The Office of War Information 1942–1945. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1978. Woodard, William P. “Politics and Japan’s National Polity.” In 1945 nen ikō no Shinto: Kurea- monto kokusai Shinto kaigi no kiroku, ed. Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo, 71–80. Tokyo: Kokugakuin daigaku nihon bunka kenkyūjo, 1965. ——. The Allied Occupation of Japan, 1945–1952, and Japanese Religions. Leiden: Brill, 1972. Woodward, Llewellyn. British Foreign Policy in the Second World War, vol. 5. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1976. Wyschogrod, Edith, Jean-Joseph Goux, and Eric Boynton, eds. The Enigma of Gift and Sac- rifice. New York: Fordham University Press, 2002. Yoneyama, Lisa. Hiroshima Traces: Time, Space, and the Dialectics of Memory. Berkeley and London: University of California Press, 1999.

Index

Ainu 104–8, 110–19, 260 as symbol 164–65, 179 Ainu no sokuseki 107–8, 116, 118–19 body-community relations 163–67, bear festival 104–8, 110–16, 118–19, 260 193–96, 262 Akioka Yasuji 235 concepts of 178, 181, 262 Allied forces. See Allied General disciplining of 169, 172, 178–79 Headquarters Borton, Hugh 203, 209–10, 212 Allied General Headquarters (GHQ) boulevards 130, 135–36, 161, 261 and Culture Day 253 Bourdieu, Pierre 128 and ownership of shrine lands 220–23 Bourgeois Utopia 123, 126, 128, 148 and post-war status of Shinto/ bourgeoisie, the. See middle class, the shrines 2, 13, 198–202, 206, 209–10, Buddhism 22, 33, 219 213–18, 231–32, 262–63 Bunce, William 201, 217–18, 221, 253 See also SCAP Bunka no hi 40, 252 Aoyama 136–37, 141–43, 147, 161 bunka seikatsu. See ‘culture life’ Aoyama Dōjunkai apartment Bureau for Local Affairs. See under Home block 150–51, 156–60, 261 Ministry Aoyama Mental Hospital 142 Bureau for Religions. See under Home drill ground 143, 145 Ministry Araragi 141 Bureau for Social Affairs 151, 154–55 architecture 6–7, 32–34, 38–39, 258 Bushidō 17–18, 21–23 Asad, Talal 164–67, 179 Byas, Hugh 203–5, 208 Asakusa and Great Kanto Earthquake 146 callisthenics and popular entertainment 52, 54, and ‘national unity’ 172 57–59, 259 group callisthenics 175–79, 189–90, 262 Asano family estate 137–38, 157–58 radio callisthenics 179–81, 182, 188 Ashizu Uzuhiko 201, 216–20, 231 varieties of 177, 180–81 Association Concordia 31 See also zenkoku issei taisō Association of Meiji Shrine Sports Meets. cemeteries 142 See under Meiji shrine Central Consultative Committee. See Association of Shinto Shrines 198, 214, under Ministry of Finance 220–21, 231, 233–34, 245–46 Chamberlain, Basil Hall 17–23, 204, 232, Association of Shrine Priests 214, 218–19, 258 235 chōdai style 37–38 Atake Yasugorō 84 Christianity 22, 165, 219, 232 CIE. See Civil Information and Education banlieue 124, 126–27 Section Batchelor, John 110, 112–15 cities Bell, Catherine 3, 5, 41, 164, 166–67, 193, city and country 126, 148 195 city and suburbia 123–24, 136–45, 161 Benjamin, Walter 123 inner city 126–27, 137–38, 141, 142, Bisson, Thomas A. 212 146–47, 151, 261 Blakeslee, George H. 202–3, 212 See also Shitamachi; Yamanote; and Blanchot, Maurice 164–66 names of individual cities body, the city planning and ‘national unity’ 182, 193 1919 City Planning Law 121–22, 129–30, and physical education 168, 173, 178 160 as hōnō 193, 195 academic discourses on 12–13, 121–28 326 index city planning (cont.) Editorial Bureau for the Records of the and fūchi 158–60, 261 Meiji Restoration. See under Ministry of and slum clearance 145, 147, 151–56 Education City Planning Commissions 129–30, 132 Edo period 70–71, 137 road planning 129–36, 261 Ega Torazō 113–14 Special City Planning eisei 168 Commissions 130, 132, 159 Embree, John F. 203–4 city reconstruction (following Great Kanto emperor, the Earthquake) 129–35, 145–47, 156 Allied post-war policy on 205–10, City Reconstruction Board. See under 212–13 Home Ministry as kami 15–17, 19, 23, 231 Civil Information and Education Section as symbol/figurehead 204–9 (CIE) 201, 213–14, 217–18, 222–26, 229, emperor worship 20, 22, 205–7, 210, 231, 253, 263 232 class structure/identity 127–28, 145–47, ‘eternal’, pursuit of the 90, 92, 96–97 149, 151, 156, 157–59, 161, 261 Extraordinary Editorial Bureau. See under See also intelligentsia, the; lower class, Imperial Household Agency the; middle class, the; poor, the; Extraordinary Remedy Bureau 147, 152 refugees; saimin; upper class, the Claudel, Paul 1 Fenollosa, Ernest 80 Cocteau, Jean 1 Fishman, Robert 122–23, 126–27, 148 commemoration, practices of 61–62, 64, Foreign Ministry 215, 217 72, 102–3, 116, 118, 120 Steering Committee 214–17 Commission for Shrine Research 16 forestry 6–7, 31, 34–36, 38–39, 258 Committee for Selecting Painters. See Foucault, Michel 8, 10 under Meiji Shrine Memorial Art Gallery Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine. See Committee of Post-War Programs under Home Ministry (PWC) 198, 202–3, 207, 210–13, 262 fūchi 158–60 Connerton, Paul 64–65 fūchi chiku 13, 159–60, 261 Constitution, Japanese 201, 208, 249–50, Fujinami Kototada 70, 75, 77, 102 253 Fukagawa 153, 156 countryside, the 137–38, 140, 148 fūki 158, 160 Culture Day 252–53 Furukawa Takahisa 171, 174, 185, 191 See also Bunka no hi futeisai 38 ‘culture life’ 128, 147–51, 156–57, 159 Gallery Committee. See under Meiji Shrine Dainihon ishin shiryō. See under Ministry Memorial Art Gallery of Education Gallery Maintenance Committee. See Date Tatsumi 6, 234–35, 243–44 under Meiji Shrine Memorial Art de Certeau, Michel 1, 10, 42, 63 Gallery Definitive Plan 238–40 ‘garden city’ 147–48, 150 Department of Cultural Affairs. See under Giddens, Anthony 9 Meiji shrine gift-giving 194–95 Derrida, Jacques 167 GHQ. See Allied General Headquarters différence 167, 196 Godelier, Maurice 194 Dōjunkai 146–47, 149–51, 154–60, 261 Gomi Seikichi 84, 88 Aoyama Dōjunkai apartment block Gorer, Geoffrey 203, 209 150–51, 156–60 Goseda Hōryū II 67, 83–86, 88, 101, Duncan, Carol 91, 98 106–9, 117 Durkheim, Émile 166, 205 Gotō Shinpei 129–30, 146 government, central Earthquake, Great Kanto. See Great Kanto and 2600th anniversary of Emperor Earthquake Jinmu’s enthronement 170–71 East Asian Athletics Competition 174–75, and city planning 129–30, 132, 146–47, 185 151, 153–54, 159 index 327

and foundation of Meiji shrine 23–25, and creation of Meiji shrine 19, 23, 27–29, 48 26–28, 30–31, 47, 236, 258 and Meiji Shrine Sports Meets 13, 168, and Great Kanto Earthquake 152, 154 172, 182, 184–86, 190–92, 195, 262 and planning for Meiji shrine and post-war status of Shinto 214–17, approaches 130–32, 134, 143–44 220–21 Public Health Bureau 168, 262 and religiosity of shrines 16, 18, 27, Shrine Bureau 16, 27–28, 37–38, 170, 199, 238, 258 214, 237 and State Shinto 200–201, 205, 211 Shrine Feasibility Committee 24–25, Great Kanto Earthquake 13, 121–22, 127, 31–33, 35, 41, 42n105, 43, 45–46, 128, 129–30, 145–48, 151–56, 261 130 Grew, Joseph 203, 206–9, 212 Honda Seiroku 25n44, 31, 34–35, 38–39 Honjo Ward 56, 146, 153 Habermas, Jürgen 9 hōnō 172, 193–96, 230 habitus 127–28, 165 Hori Kaoru 157–58 Haga Yaichi 19–21 housing 121–22, 127–28, 141, 146–51, Halbwachs, Maurice 64 153–60, 260–61 Harajuku 122, 137–38, 141, 143, 157–59, 261 Howard, Ebenezer 147–48 Harajuku Mutsumikai 157–58 Harvey, David 8, 194–95 Ichikawa Toyohei 219 Haussmann, Eugene-Georges 127 Ii Naosuke 72 Hearn, Lafcadio 18 Iinuma Issei 227 Heian period 37–38 Imperial Capital Reconstruction Heian Shrine 17, 32, 240 Department 146 Hibiya Park 34–35, 47–48, 50–52, 152, 259 Imperial Household Agency 69–70, 73–74, Hie Shrine 235 83, 144–46, 215, 217–18, 244–45, 259 historiography Extraordinary Editorial Bureau 69–70, ‘historiographical operations’ 72–75, 77, 85 documentary phase of 65–78 Meiji tennōki 68–70, 74, 77, 85, 105, explanatory phase of 66–78 120, 259 intellectual discourses on 63–68, Imperial Palace 144 259 Industrial Revolution 126–27, 145n85 representation phase of 67–68, Inoue Kaoru 73 78–103 Inoue Tetsujirō 19, 21–22, 204–5, 258 history Inoue Tomokazu 27–28 ‘central’ and ‘local’, 102–6, 117–20 Institute for the Study of Imperial ‘national’ 68–75, 77–78, 102, 104 Writings 214, 216, 218 painted pictures as 61–62, 68, 74, Institute of Pacific Relations 208, 212 78–80, 84–85, 89, 100–101, 108, 110, intelligentsia, the 141, 143, 161 259–60 Iomante 103, 110–11, 115 ‘real’ 79–85, 97, 102, 104, 108, 111, 118, Ise Shrine 211, 214, 216–19, 243 120, 260 Ise Worshippers’ Association 214, 216, 218 hiyoke chi 144 Itō Chūta 31–34, 37–39, 94, 227, 237, 239, Hobsbawm, Eric J. 64–65 244 Hokkaido 67, 104–15, 119–20, 260 Itō Hirobumi 71–72 Hokkaido Development Agency 104–7, 114 ‘Japan hands’ 202, 210, 212–13 Hokkaido Exposition 112, 114–5 See also Blakeslee, George H.; Borton, Holtom, D.C. 204–5, 209 Hugh; Grew, Joseph Home Ministry Japan Shrine Architecture and Crafts Bureau for Local Affairs 27–28 Company 245–47 Bureau for Religions 16 Japan Youth Centre 27, 90, 250 City Reconstruction Board 130–32, Japan Broadcasting Association 134, 146 (NHK) 179, 180, 231, 250 Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine Jinja kyō 218–20 328 index

Jinja renmei 218–20 local communities 27, 230 Jinmu, Emperor and creation of Meiji shrine 24–25, 2600th anniversary of enthronement 27–28, 30, 258 of 13, 40, 45, 170–75, 183, 184–91, and local sports meets 181–92, 196, 262 196, 262 and Meiji shrine inaugural enshrinement of 17, 45 celebrations 48, 56 Joint Council for Meiji Shrine Local Improvement Movement 27–28 Celebrations. See under Meiji shrine London 135, 148 lower class, the 126–27, 146, 148, 151, 156 Kagawa Toyohiko 143 kagura 51–52, 254, 263 mass media kami and 3rd November, commemoration and shrine space 238, 240, 242 of 42, 45 and sports 225, 229–30 and 3rd November 1940 189–92 emperor as 5n21, 10, 15–17, 22–23, 45, and city planning 149–50 231 and Meiji shrine inauguration modes of worship of 19–20 celebrations 47–48, 52, 54–58 religiosity of 18 and Meiji Shrine Memorial Art transfer of, to new Honden 247 Gallery 78, 97, 99, 105–6 worshipping humans as 15–16 and Meiji shrine reconstruction Kanda 137, 146, 243 celebrations 250 Kaneko Kentarō 65–66, 69–71, 74, 77, 102 and Meiji Shrine Sports Meets 13 Kanmu, Emperor 17 and ownership of outer precinct 226 kanpei taisha 2, 23, 41, 238 See also NHK See also shrines: state shrines Mauss, Marcel 165, 194–95 Kashihara Shrine 17, 45, 175, 240 Meiji, Emperor Katō Genchi 5n21, 22–23, 204–5, 258 and shrine architecture 243 Kawai Gyokudō 82 as embodiment of ‘Japanese Kawamura Akio 246 spirit’ 19–21, 23, 258 Kawamura Minoru 137 as kami 5n21, 10, 15–17, 22–23, 45 Kigen nisenroppyakunen shukuten birthday of 10, 39, 41–42, 44–46, 187, kiroku 170, 184 233, 252–53, 258 Kishida Hideto 244 death of 10, 15, 17, 20, 24, 42–45, 90–91, Kishimoto Hideo 217–18 145, 257 Kita Morio 142 deeds of, commemoration of 20–21, Kobashi Hideo 246–47 41–46, 61, 66, 96, 264 Kobayashi Masakazu 242, 244 life of 12, 77, 102, 259–60 Kobori Tomoto 82 name of, posthumous 42–44 Kodama Kyūichi 227 paintings depicting 65, 75–77, 79, Kojima Torajirō 83–84 81–84, 101, 104–6, 108 kokumin dōtoku 18–22, 258 poems of 19, 119, 244, 254, 263 See also ‘national morality’ virtues of, commemoration of 96, 169, kokutai. See ‘national unity’ 172, 193, 228, 254 Kōmei, Emperor 17, 45 Meiji Japan Society. See under Meiji shrine Komura Taiun 83 Meiji jingū hekiga shi 89 Kon Wajirō 100 Meiji period Kondō Shōsen 85, 89, 102 achievements of 19, 61, 66, 253 kōsei 169 and government Shinto policy 215 Koshizawa Akira 134 and physical health 168, 178 Koyasu Nobukuni 201 and popular entertainment 50–52, Kusama Yasoo 151–54 57–58 and shrine architecture 238–40 landscape. See forestry and time systems 39–40, 42–46 Lefebvre, Henri 8, 40 art in 80–81, 101–2 index 329

cityscape in 137–38, 144 Picture Committee 67, 68 commemoration of 41–42, 44–46 Picture Selection Consultative history of 12, 70–73, 77–78, 80, 259–60 Committee 67 ‘spirit’ of 33, 37, 46 Meiji Shrine Memorial Society 227–28 Meiji setsu 40, 42, 44–45, 187, 191, 252 Meiji Shrine Reconstruction Bureau. See Meiji shrine under Meiji shrine Association of Meiji Shrine Sports Meiji Shrine Sports Meet Meets 167, 262 and fascism 163, 184, 193 Department of Cultural Affairs 254 and group callisthenics 175–81 Foundation Bureau for Meiji Shrine and hōnō 172, 193–96 and creation of Meiji shrine 19, 23, and local meets 13, 181–92, 196, 262 26–28, 30–31, 47, 236, 258 and ‘national unity’ 172–73, 181–84, and Great Kanto Earthquake 152, 154 189, 192, 196, 262 and planning for Meiji shrine and the body 13, 163, 168–69, 172–73, approaches 130–32, 134, 143–44 178–79, 261 Joint Council for Meiji Shrine disciplines in 172–75, 178 Celebrations 47 establishment of/responsibility Meiji Japan Society 22–23 for 168–69, 262 Meiji Shrine Celebration historical and social contexts of Committee 29, 47n130, 169–70, 167–72, 183, 191, 196 173–74, 185, 234, 236 Meiji Shrine Support Committee. See Meiji Shrine Reconstruction under Meiji shrine Bureau 199, 236–37, 242, 244, 246 Meiji Shrine Worshippers’ Association. See Meiji Shrine Support Committee under Meiji shrine and Aoyama Dōjunkai apartment Meiji tennōki. See under Imperial building 158, 159n140 Household Agency and design of outer precinct 90–91, memory 259 local 103–4, 116–17, 260 and funding of outer precinct 10, mnemonic space 61–62, 90, 103, 119, 28–29, 258 259–60 and Great Kanto Earthquake 152, 154 practices of 62–65, 78 and Meiji shrine approaches See also commemoration, practices of 130–32, 134–35, 143–44 middle class, the 126–27, 141, 146, 147–51, and Meiji shrine inaugural 155, 157–60, 261 celebrations 48 mikoshi 48, 56, 250, 252 and ‘model’ museums Minakami Hiromi 70, 76, 83, 94, 106 research 91–97 Ministry of Construction 226 and tour of Hokkaido 106–10 Ministry of Education 68, 70, 73, 217, establishment of 61, 98 223–26, 229–31 selection of painting topics for Editorial Bureau for the Records of the Memorial Art Gallery 65–69, 75 Meiji Restoration 68–70, 72–75, 77 Meiji Shrine Worshippers’ Dainihon ishin shiryō 68–70, 72, 74, Association 199, 234–35, 237, 259 240–41, 243, 247, 255 Ministry of Finance 221, 223, 225–27 Support Committee for Meiji Shrine Central Consultative Committee Reconstruction 199, 236–37, 242, 250 221–22, 227, 230 Meiji Shrine Celebration Committee. See Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Foreign under Meiji shrine Ministry Meiji Shrine Memorial Art Gallery Ministry of Health and Welfare Committee for Selecting Painters 68, and Meiji Shrine Sports Meet 13, 167, 82 169, 172–74, 181–82, 193, 262 Gallery Committee 66, 69–70, 74–77, and ownership of shrine lands 223, 82–83, 106, 115 225–26 Gallery Maintenance Committee 97 and radio callisthenics 180 330 index

Ministry of Home Affairs. See Home omikuji 254, 263 Ministry Omotesandō mitamashiro 37, 197, 232 and Meiji shrine inauguration 55–56 Mitsuoka Shin’ichi 106–8, 110, 115–19 and road planning 128, 130, 134, 138, Miyachi Naokazu 31, 37–39, 233, 235, 261 237–38 and spatial identity 141–42, 146, 150–51, Miyagawa Munenori 216, 219, 221 156–57, 159–60, 260–61 Miyajima Seijirō 236, 244 Orikuchi Shinobu 228–32, 263 Miyamoto Yuriko 114 Orishimo Yoshinobu 130–31, 134–36, 227 Mizuno Rentarō 27–28, 214 Ōsawa Shūjirō 105, 108, 116, 119 mnemonic space 61–62, 90, 103, 119, OSS. See Office of Strategic Studies 259–60 OWI. See Office of Wartime Information Morimoto Kōkichi 148–49 Murakami Shigeyoshi 4 painters 67–68, 80–84, 96–97, 259 museums 78–79, 91, 94–96, 98, 103–4 See also paintings; and names of Mutsuhito, Emperor. See Meiji, Emperor individual painters paintings Nagai Kafū 144–45 and the ‘eternal’ 90, 92, 96–97 Nagao Yasujirō 144n80 as education 100–101 Nagao Yūsei 144n80 as history. See under history Nagaoka, Lt. Gen. Gaishi 157–60 spatial arrangement of 94–96 nagare zukuri 32–33, 38 sponsors of 67–68, 82, 84, 103, 104–5 Nagata Shūjirō 171 styles of 79–83, 260 National Fine Art Society 81 topic selection of 61, 65–69, 73–77, 82, national holidays 39–40, 42, 44–45, 103, 105–6, 115–16, 118, 259–60 252–53 Paris 123, 126–27, 135 See also Meiji setsu parks 8, 34, 35, 131, 134–36, 146, 152, 158 ‘national morality’ 5, 18–22, 204–5, 232, See also names of individual parks 258 physical education 168, 173, 178 ‘national polity’. See ‘national unity’ Picture Committee. See under Meiji Shrine National Sports Day 168, 187 Memorial Art Gallery ‘national unity’ Picture Selection Consultative Committee. and group callisthenics 172–173, 175, See under Meiji Shrine Memorial Art 181–84, 189, 192, 196, 262 Gallery and Meiji shrine 21, 23, 228, 258, 264 poor, the 126–27, 143–44, 145n85, 146, and Meiji Shrine Sports Meets 13, 193, 151–53, 155–56, 261 230 See also saimin and Shinto 231 population growth and movement nationalism 200, 209–13, 231, 252, 263 137–38, 141–42, 145–46, 154 NHK. See Japan Broadcasting Association Potsdam Declaration 203, 214–15 Nitobe Inazō 18 power relations 8, 10, 164, 166–67, 184, Nora, Pierre 64–65 194 Public Health Bureau. See under Home Occupation, the. See Allied General Ministry Headquarters ‘public morals’ 158, 160 Odauchi Michitoshi 140 public transport 54, 100, 138, 140–41, 152, Office of Strategic Studies (OSS) 202–4, 154, 250 206–7 PWC. See Committee of Post-War Office of the Coordinator of Programs Information 206 Office of Wartime Information ‘quality of space’. See fūchi (OWI) 202–3, 206 Ogawa Masahito 110–12, 114 radio 170, 179–82, 188–89, 231, 262 Olympics, the 168, 171, 174–75, 191–92, 196 rajio taisō 179–81, 182, 188 index 331 refugees 146, 151–55 Shimomura Kanzan 82 refugee camps 152–55 Shinjuku Ward 137, 141, 143, 250 regalia 31, 37, 259 See also Samegabashi religion Shinto academic discourses on 3–6 and Bushidō 17, 21, 23 freedom of 198, 201, 205, 210–11, 215–17, and ‘national morality’ 204–5, 232 220–21, 225 and nationalism 200, 207, 210, 212, intellectual discourses on 17–23, 31, 231, 252 257–58, 264 and sports 224–26, 230 religiosity of Shinto. See under Shinto as ‘asset’ 206–10, 212, 263 religiosity of shrines. See under shrines as indigenous religion 17, 207, 210, separation of, from state 3–6, 200–201, 222, 231 215–17, 230, 250, 264 as invented religion 4, 6, 17–22, 204, Religious Corporations Ordinance 198, 232, 258 231, 234 intellectual discourses on Ricoeur, Paul 63, 65 post-war 197–213, 214–16, 219–20, ritual 231–32, 262–64 and commemoration 64 Taisho period 3–6, 10, 13–15, 17–23, and Meiji shrine 41, 50, 263 38–39, 258 and the body 164–67, 194 ‘new’ Shinto, a 228–29, 231–32, 263 ‘museum as ritual’ 91–92, 94, 98 separation of, from state. See under roads 129–35, 138, 143, 145, 146, 160–61 religion See also boulevards Shinto Directive 2, 198, 200–202, 204, Roosevelt, Theodore 77 205n34, 213–15, 218 Shiraishi Jitsuzō 141 saimin 151–55, 159 Shiraoi Village 105–7, 116–20 Saitō Mokichi 142 Shin Shiraoi chōshi 117, 119 Sakatani Yoshirō Shiraoi 117–19 and Ainu bear festival 110, 112–13, 115 Shitamachi 146, 152–53, 156 and creation of Meiji shrine 25, 44 Shoken, Empress 1, 23, 85, 254, 263 and layout of outer precinct 90–91 Showa, Emperor 102, 118–19, 174 and painting styles 81–82 Showa period 129, 138, 168, 178 and topic proposals for Shrine Board 214, 216–17, 219 paintings 65–66, 69 Shrine Bureau. See under Home Ministry Samegabashi 143–44, 145n85, 156 Shrine Feasibility Committee. See under Sand, Jordan 122, 128, 149 Home Ministry Sano Toshikata 242–43 shrines Sansom, Sir George 203, 207–8 academic discourses on 3–6, 15, 18–22, Sapporo City 104, 110, 117 39, 258, 264 See also Yamahana Village architecture and landscape of 7, SCAP. See Supreme Commander for the 32–35, 38–39, 236–47 Allied Powers as centre of community 27–28 SCAPIN. See under Supreme Commander as educational institutions 21, 258 for the Allied Powers history and traditions of 15–16, 31–32, Secretariat of the 2600th 37–39, 258 Anniversary 170–71, 173–74 ownership of lands of 14, 220–23 Seinan Elementary School 56, 161 religious status of Sendagaya 124, 139, 161 post-war 14, 211–15, 217–20, 222, 234 Shibusawa Eiichi 25, 29–31, 148–49 Taisho period 3, 10, 16, 18–21, 23, 258 Shibuya Ward 123–24, 137, 139, 141–43, separation of, from state 215–16, 220, 146, 161, 233–34, 249–50 240 Shibuya River 132, 143 state shrines 2, 6, 16–18, 23, 28, 41, 43, See also Harajuku; Yoyogi 238 Shidankai Association 71–72 See also names of individual shrines 332 index slums 52, 126–27, 143–45, 151–52, 156 taisō. See callisthenics; zenkoku issei taisō clearance of 145, 147, 151–56 Takamura Masao 104, 108 sōgonsa 159 Takano Tatsuyuki 138 Soja, Edward W. 8 Takezawa Kaname 246–47 sōken jinja 16–17 Tanaka Kiyoshi 234, 237 See also shrines: state shrine Tayama Katai 140 space and time Tazawa Yoshiharu 25–26, 28, 30–31 academic discourses on 3, 6, 8–10, Terasaki Takeo 91–94, 96–97 257–58 Tokyo and class structure 127–28, 147, 156–57 foundations of modern Tokyo 121 and gift-giving 194–96 geographical boundaries of 123–24, and Meiji Shrine Sports Meets 163, 141–42 164, 193, 195–96 parks in 134–36 ‘sacred space’ 132, 134, 143, 158–60 reconstruction of. See city spatial identity 124, 137–38, 141–43, reconstruction 147, 151, 159, 161 road network 129–34 time systems 39–46 Tokyo Chamber of Commerce and See also mnemonic space Industry 24–25, 28–29, 47, 169, 258 sports 224–26, 230 Tokyo City sports associations 223–26, 228–30 and creation of outer precinct 28–29, State Shinto 258 academic discourses on 4–6, 22, and Meiji shrine approaches 130–34, 264–65 138 Allied post-war policy on 200–201, and Meiji shrine inaugural 205, 207–8, 212, 214, 253 celebrations 47 Steering Committee. See under Foreign and Meiji Shrine Sports Meets 168–69 Ministry and the poor 151–52, 154 suburbia geographical boundaries of 124, 142 academic discourses on 122–28 Tokyo Metropolis and ‘culture life’ 148–50 and ownership of Meiji shrine and slums 145n85 lands 226 boundaries of city and 136–43, 146, and rebuilding of Meiji shrine 233, 156, 161, 261 249 Sunami Takashi 236–38, 240, 243, Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture 245–47, 250 and creation of outer precinct 28–29, Support Committee for Meiji Shrine 258 Reconstruction. See under Meiji shrine and Meiji shrine inaugural Supreme Commander for the Allied celebrations 47 Powers (SCAP) 217, 222–23, 225 and Meiji Shrine Sports Meets 169 Instruction notes (SCAPIN) 215, 220, population movement in 138 222 Tokyo Reconstruction Project 146 Suzuki Miekichi 140 See also city reconstruction Tokyo University 20–22, 32, 34, 37–38, Taisho, Emperor 102, 118–19 237 Taisho period tourism 99–100, 117 and city planning 129, 137–38, 141–42, town planning. See city planning 144n80, 147 Toyotama County 124, 141 and physical health 163, 168, 178 traditions 6, 31–32, 34, 37–38, 64 and popular entertainment 50, 52, 57 Tsuge Yoshio 157 and shrine architecture 236–37, 239, Tsukamoto Seiji 19 242, 245, 263 art of 82 Uchida Yoshikazu 242–44 social and religious contexts of 16, 19, Uehara Keiji 34–35, 38 23, 30 United Nations 209–10 index 333 upper class, the 127, 158 Yanagita Kunio 230–31 Urasandō 128, 130, 131–36, 159, 260–61 Yasukuni Shrine 32, 72, 211 U.S. Department of State 197–98, 202–3, Yasuoka Norihiko 145n85, 156 206–7, 210–12 Yasuoka Shōtarō 160–61 Yokoyama Gennosuke 143 Wada Sanzō 84, 86 Yokoyama Taikan 82 Woodard, William P. 201, 221–22 Yoshida Kumaji 20 working class, the 126–27, 146, 148, 151, 156 Yoshida Shigeru 216, 218–19, 227, 233, 237 World Exposition 171 youth associations 24–28, 30, 188 Yoyogi Ward 7, 23, 124, 137–38, 140–41, Yamagata Aritomo 72–73 143, 145, 161 Yamaguchi Teruomi 5, 7, 24n40, 25, 90 Yoyohata 124, 161 Yamahana Village 104–5, 108 Yamanote 138, 141, 143–44, 146 zenkoku issei taisō 179–80, 182, 183, 185, See also cities: inner city 187–91, 262