Downloaded from Brill.Com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM Via Free Access 2 Van Goethem

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26

brill.com/jrj

Heian Jingū Monument or Shintō Shrine?

Ellen Van Goethem Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan [email protected]

Abstract

The founding of Heian Jingū 平安神宮 in 1895 is usually explained in very simple terms: it was established to commemorate the 1100th anniversary of the move to the Heian capital and was, therefore, dedicated to the city’s founder, Kanmu Tennō 桓武天皇. A closer look at the shrine’s founding story, however, reveals a much more complex account that illustrates the fits and starts of State Shintō in the third decade of the Meiji period. By disentangling the standard narrative of Heian Jingū’s founding, this article touches not only on doctrinal issues such as the deification of past emperors, but also on material aspects such as early attempts at reconstructing long-lost structures and the Meiji government’s creation of a set of plans that regulated the appearance of newly erected shrines. Doing so will help explain how the design of this major imperial shrine could deviate so significantly from the stipulated template and be so replete with Chinese influences at a time when the relationship between the two countries was one of outright hostility.

Keywords commemoration – shrine architecture – Chinese-style architecture – reconstruction – deification – State Shintō

1 Introduction

When Heian Jingū 平安神宮 was consecrated in Kyoto in 1895, the city was struggling to find a new purpose. Even though its role had already been mostly symbolic for several centuries, Kyoto had officially served as the capital since its founding in 794. However, with the departure of the new Meiji 明治 Emperor

(1852–1912, r. 1867–1912) and most of his retinue to Tokyo in 1868, the city had lost what was left of its age-old prestige. The population dwindled from about 350,000 in the late Edo period (1600–1868) to less than 240,000 by 1873, with many of Kyoto’s most affluent citizens moving away to Tokyo (Seiin Chishika 1877, vol. 1: 10). This unprecedented emigration dealt a severe blow to the city’s economy and threatened the livelihoods of its remaining crafts- men, entrepreneurs, and merchants. In the 1890s, these businessmen started to petition the local government to plan festivities to commemorate the founding of Kyoto eleven centuries earlier in the hopes that these events—and the resulting tourism—would reinvigorate the city’s fortunes. In that sense, the establishment of Heian Jingū was indeed a “business proposition” (Hardacre 2017: 413), especially because its inauguration took place two weeks before the opening of the Fourth National Industrial Exhibition (Naikoku Kangyō Haku- rankai 内国勧業博覧会) and the shrine was located adjacent to the exhibition grounds. Heian Jingū was thus intended as a testimony to Kyoto’s bygone days as the nation’s capital and was classified as a major imperial shrine (kanpei taisha 官幣大社), the highest category in the Meiji government’s hierarchic classifi- cation of Shintō shrines (shakaku seido 社格制度) of 1871.1 Yet in spite of its grandeur, Heian Jingū’s own founding narrative is surprisingly simple:

The year 1895 happened to be the 1100th year since the Heian Capital came into existence. Marking this commemorative year, the citizens of Kyoto decided to praise the virtues of Emperor Kanmu and deify him as the ancestral god of Kyoto. To this end, they restored the style of Chodo-in [sic], the main edifice of the Heian Capital, …2

In other words, Heian Jingū was established to commemorate the move to Heiankyō 平安京 in 794 and was, therefore, dedicated to the city’s founder, Kanmu Tennō 桓武天皇 (737–806, r. 781–806).3 Moreover, the shrine’s design was modeled after part of Kanmu’s eighth-century government office compound or Chōdōin 朝堂院, which accounts for the rather unusual blend of

1 Only Ise Jingū 伊勢神宮 ranked higher because this complex was considered to surpass all other shrines and was, therefore, not included in the hierarchy. 2 Quoted from the “平安神宮 Heian Jingu Shrine” pamphlet available at Heian Jingū.The pamphlet may also be downloaded from http://www.heianjingu.or.jp/print/heianjingu.pdf (last accessed 26 September 2018). 3 At the time of its establishment only Kanmu was venerated at Heian Jingū. In 1940, Kōmei

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 3

Japanese- and Chinese-style architecture, with the latter being the most visible, at this important shrine. If we reflect on the contents of founding stories such as this more deeply, however, several questions come to mind. Why was the commemoration held in 1895 rather than in 1894? Why was a replica of Chinese-style vernacular buildings imbued with references to the guardian deities of the four directions (shijin 四神)4 deemed suitable for one of the country’s highest-ranking shrines when two decades earlier the Meiji government had issued clear instructions on what newly erected shrines (so-called sōken jinja 創建神社) should look like? How was it even possible to reproduce these long-lost structures? Beyond being the founder of the capital, what qualified Kanmu for elevation to the status of deity (kami 神) and becoming the subject of public veneration? In what follows I will explore each of these questions in further detail and in so doing address a number of ideological and material aspects related to Shintō shrines and shrine worship in the mid-Meiji period.

2 The Commemoration of the Founding of Kyoto and the Fourth National Industrial Exhibition

As noted, the establishment of Heian Jingū was in commemoration of the founding of the Heian capital over a millennium earlier. This assertion imme- diately leads us to the rather nitpicky issue of the date of the shrine’s establishment, which, strictly speaking, took place 1101 years after Heian was founded, and not 1100 as is claimed. The one-year discrepancy is sometimes explained away by stating that even though Kanmu Tennō moved to the Heian capital in the fall of 794 (Nihon kiryaku 日本紀略, entry dated Enryaku 延暦 13

Tennō 孝明天皇 (1846–1867, r. 1847–1867), the last sovereign to rule from Kyoto, was also deified and enshrined there. See below for further details. 4 References to the four deities—i.e., theVermilion Bird (suzaku 朱雀), theWhiteTiger (byakko 白虎), the Black Turtle-Snake (genbu 玄武), and the Azure Dragon (seiryū 青竜)—may be found in many Shintō shrines, but their presence at Heian Jingū is particularly strong. For example, they appear on the lanterns suspended from the roof ridges, crown the two ablution basins in the courtyard, and were used to distinguish the four volumes of records on the shrine’s establishment kept by the Cooperative for the Commemoration of the 1100th Anniversary of the Transfer of the Capital to Heian (Heian Sento Senhyakunen Kinensai Kyōsankai 平安遷都千百年紀念祭協賛會) (Wakamatsu 1896). The four deities and related practices were introduced to the Japanese archipelago as early as the Kofun period (3rd–6th c.) and could thus be considered as having been fully assimilated by the nineteenth century when they were most likely seen as symbols of imperial authority.

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 4 van goethem

(794).10.22), his first NewYear’s audience (chōga 朝賀) in the new audience hall (Daigokuden 大極殿) would have been on the first day of the first lunar month of Enryaku 14 (795) (e.g., Kasuga 2013: 61). It is well known from contemporaneous written records, however, that the 795 New Year’s audience was cancelled because construction on the Daigokuden was ongoing (Nihon kiryaku, entry dated Enryaku 14.1.1) and it was not until 796 that Kanmu held his first New Year’s audience in the new capital.5 Other sources justify the discrepancy as resulting from the fact that the commemorative events, and thus the shrine’s inauguration, were made to coincide with another major event taking place in the nation’s old capital in 1895: the hosting of the Fourth National Industrial Exhibition, a four-month-long exposition where modern technology, new industrial developments, fine art, prod- ucts, and resources of different regions were presented to the public. Up until that time the National Industrial Exhibitions had taken place in Tokyo’s Ueno Park, but after three exhibitions there (in 1877, 1881, and 1890), other areas in the country had started to vie for the privilege and financial gain of hosting the next exhibition. Although there was vigorous competition with Osaka and Kōbe (Kudō 2009: 17), the commission was officially given to Kyoto in August 1892. Based on visitor numbers of the previous editions, expectations were that once again more than one million people, including a few hundred foreigners, would attend the event. For a city struggling to find a new purpose now that it no longer served as the nation’s political and ceremonial center, this potential boost to the economy and its confirmation as a worthy sight-seeing destination were more than welcome. In contrast to the current prevailing narrative that both the exhibition and the commemorative events were planned for 1895 from the outset, a closer look at available Meiji-period records reveals that they were, in fact, originally to be

5 In all fairness, references to a supposed 795 New Year’s ceremony only start to appear in later sources. The contemporaneous records correctly identify the 796 ceremony as the first one to have been held in the Heian capital, and, following the traditional system of reckoning years, 1895 marked the 1100th anniversary. Even so, the individuals behind the shrine’s creation and the establishment of its ritual calendar made free use of the opportunities offered by the various calendrical systems circulating in the late nineteenth century, at times adher- ing to the traditional system, converting lunisolar dates to the new Gregorian calendar, or not converting lunisolar months and days at all. A case in point is the date on which the shrine’s Festival of the Ages ( Jidai matsuri 時代祭) is held in commemoration of the official transfer to the Heian capital. Although this move took place on the 22nd day of the 10th lunar month of Enryaku 13 (i.e., 18 November 794 according to the Gregorian calendar), the decision was made to hold the festival on 22 October instead.

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 5 held in 1894 and thus truly were to coincide with the city’s 1100th anniversary (Dai yonkai naikoku kangyō hakurankai jimukyoku 1896: 1; and Kyōtoshi San- jikai 1896a: 1). Soon after Kyoto’s nomination as host of the National Industrial Exhibition, however, concerns rose about the timing of the event, as it would open only a few months after the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago (May–October 1893). Japan had invested heavily in this event and hoped to assert itself as a country on par with Western nations (Conant 2006: 255–258). The organizing committee worried that the resources of potential exhibitors would be stretched too thinly and that new state-of-the-art crafts and technology would not be available in time for the national exhibition (Dai yonkai naikoku kangyō hakurankai jimukyoku 1896: 1). After entertaining a few alter- natives, the dates of the exhibition were finally set in Imperial Ordinance No. 16 (chokurei jūrokugō 勅令十六號) of April 1893; the fourth installment of the National Industrial Exhibition would be held from 1 April until 31 July 1895. Around the time that Kyoto had first started lobbying for the right to host the exhibition, a number of local businessmen had also started to press the city council to plan events and erect a monument to commemorate the anniversary of the founding of the capital.6 The Kyoto City Council responded by establishing a Commemoration Committee (Kinensai Iinkai 紀念祭委員會; hereafter Iinkai)7 in May 1892. The decision was made that both events—the exhibition and the commemoration—should be held concurrently and, when the order was given to postpone the former, it only followed that the latter should be delayed as well, in spite of the fact that by then the movement to celebrate the founding of the capital had become a national one. That is, almost imme- diately after setting up the Iinkai, three of its committee members traveled to Tokyo to seek approval and support from members of the imperial family, min- isters, and other prominent figures. Their mission was so successful, even in monetary terms, that a second committee was set up (Wakamatsu 1896, vol. 1: 3–23). The president (総裁 sōsai) of this Cooperative for the Commemora-

6 At the forefront of this initiative was local historian and textile manufacturer Usui Kosaburō 碓井小三郎 (1865–1928). He headed Kyoto’s Textile Business and Commerce Association (Itomono Shōkōgyō Kumiai 糸物商工業組合) and, incidentally, his work was exhibited at the World Exposition in Chicago. Usui had recently been appointed to the city council and was seemingly the first to officially suggest that a commemoration be held. In recent years, it has become clear that Usui actually acted on a suggestion from fellow historian Taguchi Ukichi 田口卯吉 (1855–1905) (Kudō 2009: 18; and Yoshioka 2011: 183–186). 7 The committee’s original name was Commemoration Investigation Committee (Kinensai Chōsa Iinkai 紀念祭調査委員會); less than a year after its establishment it was replaced by the Commemoration Committee under the same chairman, Usui Kosaburō, but with expanded membership.

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 6 van goethem tion of the 1100th Anniversary of the Transfer of the Capital to Heian (Heian Sento Senhyakunen Kinensai Kyōsankai 平安遷都千百年紀念祭協賛會, hereafter Kyōsankai) was Prince Arisugawa no miya Taruhito 有栖川宮熾仁 (1835– 1895); other supporters included such political and financial heavyweights as Inoue Kaoru 井上馨 (1836–1915), the Minister of Home Affairs (naimu daijin 内務大臣), and Shibusawa Eiichi 渋沢栄一 (1840–1931), founder of Japan’s first bank. Moreover, with head offices in Kyoto and Tokyo, as well as branch offices operated by dozens of people in each prefecture, the activities and goals of the Kyōsankai became widely known and a countrywide fund-raising campaign for costs related to the commemoration started.

3 Reconstructing the Heian-era Chōdōin

The three committees—the Iinkai, the Kyōsankai, and the one in charge of the National Industrial Exhibition, some of whose members overlapped—worked closely together in the months following their establishment. Although they sometimes came up with different proposals, ultimately the decision was made to construct an ‘imitation’ (mozō 模造) of the Kanmu-era audience hall and other structures of the compound in which it stood (e.g., Wakamatsu 1896, vol. 3: 1). Although Japan is home to some of the oldest wooden structures in the world and has quite a long history of periodically replacing existing buildings and creating near-identical replicas as, for example, in the relocation and rebuilding of shrines (sengū 遷宮), the attempt to make a faithful reproduc- tion of structures that were lost centuries earlier was a novel undertaking in the Meiji period and some of the buildings at Heian Jingū may be considered as among the earliest attempts to do so. Even today there remains discus- sion as to what constitutes a historically authentic recreation of buildings long after their destruction and whether such practice is even possible, desirable, or acceptable. It would be foolish to uphold this late nineteenth-century attempt at reconstructing the eighth-century Chōdōin to our current standards and expectations, but what process was followed to create the replicas erected for Heian Jingū?To answer this question, we need to investigate the people respon- sible for the reconstruction as well as the (re)sources on which they based their design. Most histories of Heian Jingū identify Itō Chūta 伊東忠太 (1867–1954) as its creator, but again the reality is a bit more complicated as he was neither the first nor the only designer behind the project. The first design (see figure 1-a), commissioned by the Iinkai and created by Minakuchi Jirō 水口次郎 (d. 1906),

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 7

figure 1 Various design proposals for the commemorative project. 1-a. Design by Mina- kuchi (May 1892); 1-b. First design by Kiko and Itō (May 1892); 1-c. August 1893 design by Kiko and Itō Redrawn and adapted from Heian Jingū Hyakunenshi Hensan Iinkai 1997: 298–299

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 8 van goethem a technical official in the employ of Kyoto prefecture and descendant of a lineage of carpenters affiliated with Nishi Honganji 西本願寺, was an almost complete replica—albeit at reduced scale—of the entire Kanmu-era central government compound (Inaba 1980: 2083). Only a few days later, the consid- erably more powerful Kyōsankai presented another design for which they had commissioned Kiko Kiyoyoshi 木子清敬 (1845–1907), a descendant of a family that for centuries had been in the service of the court as master carpenters in charge of palace construction and repairs. Following in the footsteps of his ancestors, Kiko was a master carpenter within the Imperial Household Min- istry (Kunaishō 宮内省) where he had been overseeing the construction of the new imperial palace for Emperor Meiji in Tokyo. He was also the first professor of traditional Japanese architecture at the recently established College of Engi- neering of Tokyo Imperial University. It was Kiko who enlisted the help of Itō (Tseng 2012: 157). At that time, Itō was still a graduate student working on his doctoral thesis on Hōryūji 法隆寺, but he would become one of the most influ- ential architects and architectural theorists of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The three men continued to collaborate and brought in other experts later in the design and construction process, most notably carpenter (daiku 大工) Sasaki Iwajirō 佐々木岩次郎 (1853–1936) who was behind the realization of the shrine’s main entrance gate, Ōtenmon 応天門, as well as the extravagant turrets flanking the audience hall. In Kiko and Itō’s plan (see figure 1-b), the number of buildings to be (re)constructed was reduced drastically, likely in order to lower expenses.8The number of gates was cut from five to one with only the main entrance gate remaining. An earthen ridge replaced the original compound corridor ( fukurō 複廊) that encompassed the entire complex. At about mid-distance on either side of Ōtenmon gate, the ridge branched off for a few meters, ending in the Perching Phoenix Tower (Seihōrō 栖鳳楼) to the left and the Hovering Ran-bird Tower (Shōranrō 翔鸞楼) to the right. Within the compound, the Kaishōmon 会昌門, an inner gate, was replaced with a raised platform, and only the two morning assembly halls (Chōshūden 朝集殿), the audience hall, as well as the Azure Dragon Tower (Sōryūrō 蒼龍楼) and White Tiger Tower (Byakkorō 白虎楼), both connected to the audience hall by means of a passageway, remained. Only one new element was added in Kiko and Itō’s design: a raised terrace known as the Dragon Tail Platform (Ryūbidan 竜尾壇), a Heian-era feature of the state halls compound.9

8 A more detailed treatment in English of the design process, complete with reproductions of Kiko and Itō’s original drawings may be found in Tseng (2018: 54–56). 9 Prior to the move to the Heian capital, the audience hall stood in its own enclosed com-

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 9

How did Minakuchi, Kiko, and Itō, arrive at their proposals? In those days, there were no existing ruins nor archaeological excavations that could provide information;10 moreover, after its destruction in the Great Angen Fire (Angen no taika 安元の大火) of 1177, the audience hall, the most important structure of the complex, had never been rebuilt (Unno 2017: 180), so any memories of this grand building were long forgotten. Fortunately, the Edo period had seen a growing interest in text-based historical research (kōshō 考証) on customs and ceremonies from the past, and from this developed an attentiveness to reconstructing the buildings in which these ceremonies had been held (Unno 2017: 3 and Katō 2017). In addition to efforts focusing on the Ise and Izumo shrines, the attention of the kōshō scholars quickly turned to research on the Heian- era imperial palace, ultimately resulting in Uramatsu Kozen’s 裏松固禅 (alt. Uramatsu Mitsuyo 裏松光世, 1736–1804) Daidairi zu kōshō 大内裏図考証 (His- torical Research on Drawings of the Greater Imperial Palace) of 1797. In this meticulously researched work, Uramatsu provided not only a description of all buildings within the Heian-period Greater Imperial Palace (daidairi 大内裏), he also supplied accompanying floor plans. Although Uramatsu’s drawings thus provided a starting point, it goes without saying that these did not suffice to reconstruct actual three-dimensional buildings. For this, extant Nara- and Heian-period architecture as well as surviving artwork were consulted; Itō undoubtedly drew on the abundant fieldwork he had done for his research on Hōryūji, whereas Sasaki was clearly inspired by the late twelfth-century Illus- trated Scroll of Annual Court Events (Nenjūgyōji emaki 年中行事絵巻) for the roof design of the Azure Dragon and White Tiger Towers. Even so, the reconstruction amounted to educated guesswork at best, and numerous concessions had to be made.11

pound, the Daigokuden’in 大極殿院, and was separated from the state halls by means of a compound corridor pierced by a gate. For details on the layout of the eighth-century central government compound, see Van Goethem (2008: esp. 148–174). 10 More than one hundred years later this situation has hardly improved. Kyoto is too densely populated to allow for large-scale, long-term excavations and concrete archaeological data on the earliest stages of the Heian-era central government compound is extremely limited. Our best source of information on the early Heian palace may be found a few kilometers southwest of Kyoto where archaeologists have been excavating its immediate predecessor, the Nagaoka palace (Nagaokakyū 長岡宮, 784–794). It is known from written records that when Kanmu decided to abandon Nagaoka and relocate the capital to Heian, he ordered the dismantling and transfer of numerous buildings in order to accelerate construction and reduce expenses. For an overview of the most recent research on the Nagaoka palace and capital, see Van Goethem (2008) and Kunishita (2013). 11 Later, Itō would voice his disappointment at the project, citing, among others, his unhap- piness at not having been able to maintain the audience hall’s proportions because the

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 10 van goethem

The ideal scenario, suggested by historian and Iinkai member Yumoto Fumi- hiko 湯本文彦 (1843–1921), would have been to build the project on the original site of the Heian-era Chōdōin in the vicinity of present-day Senbon-Maruta- machi intersection (Kobayashi 2007: 11–12), but this was a densely populated area and it seemed unlikely that people would put up with more than the erec- tion of a simple stone stele indicating the presumed location of the audience hall.12 Because of the commemorative project’s link with the Industrial Exhi- bition, farmland east of the exhibition grounds (the area where we now find Kyoto Municipal Zoo) seemed a good compromise and the acquisition of this land was completed by August 1893 when Kiko and Itō, in collaboration with Minakuchi, also presented a further simplified proposal (see figure 1-c). Attentive readers familiar with the layout of ancient Chinese-style capitals and palaces will have noticed the important concession in terms of orientation that was made in order to fit the project on the intended site. Minakuchi’s audience hall was facing east, away from the exhibition grounds, whereas Kiko and Itō’s proposals were facing west, likely to improve the project’s relationship with the Fourth National Industrial Exhibition and make it more accessible to the thousands of visitors that would pass through each day. Be that as it may, both orientations completely ignored historical reality in which the emperor faced south to govern his subjects.13 This glaring error was finally rectified later in August 1893, when preparations for the ground-breaking ceremony ( jichin- sai 地鎮祭) were already being made (Heian Jingū Hyakunenshi Hensan Iinkai 1997, vol. 2: 7; and Kobayashi 2007: 14–16). After some fast-paced lobbying, the Ministry of Agriculture and Commerce (Nōshōmushō 農商務省), which organized the National Industrial Exhibition, consented to a partial site swap and the reconstruction project was relocated to the northern sector of the exhibition grounds thus allowing the construction of a south-facing Daigokuden. Kiko and Itō’s design proposal was rotated ninety

pillars were too slender and the fact that most green-glazed roof tiles had cracked even before the shrine was inaugurated. See, for example, Itō’s comments at a 1940 symposium held at Heian Jingū where he called it an “utterly failed project” (are wa mattaku shippai no saku de arimashita あれは全く失敗の作でありました) and labeled the audience hall a “pseudo-Daigokuden” (ese Daigokuden 似而非大極殿) (Kawashima 2010: 100; and Unno 2017: 6). On the various design issues facing Kiko and Itō, see also Tseng (2018: 54–56). 12 This stele was erected in 1895 as part of the commemorative events, but later excavations have revealed that the audience hall stood more to the southeast than what was assumed then. 13 Given that so many concessions—including the impossibility of reconstructing the complex in its original location—had already been made, Kiko and Itō appear not to have attached too much importance to the orientation of the structures (Tseng 2018: 59–60).

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 11 degrees and was simplified even more by eliminating the towers flanking Ōten- mon gate as well as the two morning assembly halls.Then, on 3 September 1893, only a few days after the site change was approved, a grand ground-breaking ceremony that was attended by about 300,000 people was held. The sudden change in location was not the last pitfall in the somewhat disor- ganized planning process. Next, someone pointed out that the Nishitennōzuka 西天王塚, a small hillock on the construction site, was in fact Go-Sanjō Tennō’s 後三条天皇 (1034–1073, r. 1068–1073) cremation mound (godabisho 御茶毗所), and that it would be obliterated should plans be executed as scheduled (Hinode shinbun 日出新聞, 18 October 1893). As a result, the central north- south axis of the project was shifted approximately thirty meters to the west, resulting in the skewed alignment of Ōtenmon gate with the southern access road to the exhibition grounds, a misalignment in Kyoto’s street grid that remains visible today.

4 Commemorative Monument or Shrine?

Only a year and a half remained before the complex would become the abode of the deified Kanmu, but, except for some written recommendations accompanying Minakuchi’s original plan,14 none of the later design proposals and discussions hinted at the presence of any shrine buildings. All proposed structures were scale models of historical, administrative buildings erected in Chi- nese style and had been labeled as such; there was no indication that any of these was to function as a shrine facility. Moreover, if one studies a photograph taken at the time of the ground-breaking ceremony closely, the inscription on the white pillar erected for that occasion read “ground-breaking ceremony of the commemorative hall” (kinendenjichinsai 紀念殿地鎮祭) (Wakamatsu 1896, vol. 1). One would assume that if the structures were going to function as a grand shrine dedicated to a former emperor, this would at least be acknowl- edged in some form during the preparations or at the ceremony marking the start of construction.

14 Minakuchi’s plan was titled “Proposal and Illustration for the Construction of Heian Palace, namely Kanmu Tennō Jingū” (Heiankyū sunawachi Kanmu tennō jingū kensetsuan narabi zu 平安宮即桓武天皇神宮建設案幷圖) and in the notes he suggested that four gates within the compound could be replaced with torii, that the Daigokuden could serve as “kami hall” (shinden 神殿), and that one of the morning assembly halls could function as the shrine office (Kyōtoshi Sanjikai 1896a: 37–38).

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 12 van goethem

Whereas a proposal to erect a shrine in Kyoto where historical emperors would be enshrined had been made decades earlier,15 it is not until four days after the ground-breaking ceremony that Viscount Sano Tsunetami 佐野常民 (1822–1902), former minister of Agriculture and Commerce and vice chair of the Kyōsankai, proposed to expand the plan for the construction of the Daigokuden and turn it into a Heian jinja (Daigokuden kensetsu no keikaku o kakuchō shite Heian jinja to nasu no gi 大極殿建設ノ計画ヲ拡張シテ平安神社ト為スノ議) (Wakamatsu 1896, vol. 4: 16). Already anticipating concerns about the rise in costs such an expansion would bring, Sano suggested that the construction of this “kami hall” (shinden 神殿) could be paid for by using funds that were originally set aside for the creation of a replica of the imperial throne (takamikura 高御座).16 By the end of the month, just before actual construction on the Daigokuden got underway, additional land was purchased by the Kyōsankai to accommo- date the expansion and soon thereafter Hinode shinbun, predecessor of Kyōto shinbun 京都新聞, started to report on plans to construct an imperial retiring room (Shōanden 小安殿)17 behind the audience hall (Hinode shinbun 19 Octo- ber 1893).

15 For example, in 1879 the Kyoto prefectural government had submitted a petition to erect a shrine within the grounds of the Kyoto Gosho 御所 where all historical rulers from Kanmu until Kōmei were to be enshrined. No further action was undertaken until 1883 when Iwakura Tomomi 岩倉具視 (1825–1883) presented a proposal to preserve the Kyoto Imperial Palace (Kyōto kōgū hozon ni kansuru kengi 京都皇宮保存に関する建議) and in which he advocated the establishment of a shrine dedicated to Kanmu. However, the plan seems to have come to an abrupt halt with Iwakura’s demise a few months later (Aki- moto 1976; and Tseng 2018: 49–51). In 1889, Hinode shinbun published an article about a group of Kyoto aristocrats who were intent on establishing a “Heian jinja” dedicated to Kanmu on Mt. Yoshida 吉田山 (Hinode shinbun 22 October 1889 as quoted in Yoshioka 2011: 176–177), but this project too failed to materialize. 16 The fact that Sano assumed that the funds for a replica of the throne would suffice to cover both the acquisition of extra land and the construction of a kami hall indicates that, even at this moment, he must still have had a very modest shrine structure in mind. 17 This retiring room was a building within the central government compound that first appeared in the late eighth-century Nagaoka palace. It is assumed that the need for such a facility arose because the private living quarters (dairi 内裏) of Kanmu were no longer attached directly to the back of the compound; instead his residence had been constructed to the east, on a terrace located several meters lower than the terrace on which the Chōdōin stood. Rather than return to his private quarters, this extra room thus func- tioned as a kind of antechamber where Kanmu could withdraw when his presence in the audience hall was not required for a while (Van Goethem 2008: 173).The retiring room was present in Minakuchi’s original proposal, but had been eliminated in subsequent versions submitted by Kiko and Itō.

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 13

Then, on 25 October, the Iinkai decided that the construction of a shrine (now called Heiangū 平安宮) would not be part of the commemorative festival and its related activities (Heian Jingū Hyakunenshi Hensan Iinkai 1997, vol. 2: 9), a clear indication that to the municipal and prefectural authorities the reconstructed buildings were to function as commemorative monuments. Nev- ertheless, according to Hinode shinbun, in the months that followed a debate started on the architectural style of the structure behind the audience hall. Should it be a Chinese-style roof-tiled retiring room with white walls and vermilion pillars set on foundation stones, thus replicating the eighth-century Shōanden, or should it be a plain-wood nagarezukuri 流造 structure, an architectural style often seen in Shintō shrines?18 In any case, if any of the committees wished to add shrine facilities to the commemorative buildings, they could not decide to do so unilaterally. Per- mission to found a new shrine had to be obtained from the government and, so far, no such request had been made despite the fact that members of the highest political levels had been involved in the planning of the memorial events for over a year and construction was already underway. Moreover, the debate on constructing a plain-wood main sanctuary (honden 本殿) versus a Chinese-style retiring room—in other words, the choice between erecting a Shintō shrine or building what could have been a strictly commemorative monument—was not resolved quickly and continued until the end of 1893. Then, in January 1894, the Kyōsankai submitted the official request to establish a new shrine, called Heian jinja, to the prefectural government (Yamazaki 1894). This request was granted in February and in March construction on the honden started. Given the slow planning process of the rest of the project, one may won- der how it was possible to plan, design, and complete the most sacrosanct part of the complex so swiftly. As mentioned earlier, the founding of new shrines after the Meiji Restoration was, in principle, subject to strict regulation. Not only was permission from the government required, the shrine complex itself also needed to conform to a set of drawings known as the “restrictive plans” (seigenzu 制限図). These restrictive plans were jointly developed as a cost-

18 In its Heian jingū hyakunenshi 平安神宮百年史, a two-volume history of Heian Jingū published by the shrine after the celebration of its centenary in 1994, the illustration presented as Kiko and Itō’s August 1893 proposal already includes an outline of the shrine’s main sanctuary (honden 本殿) at the back of the Daigokuden (Heian Jingū Hyakunen- shi Hensan Iinkai 1997: 299). This contrasts with Kiko and Itō’s own narrative on how the design evolved and which makes it clear that they did not provide for any shrine structures until after the ground-breaking ceremony was held (Tseng 2018: 54).

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 14 van goethem saving measure by the Ministry of Finance (Ōkurashō 大蔵省) and the Ministry of Religion (Kyōbushō 教部省) during the early 1870s and were to be applied— again in principle—to any shrine newly erected after 1875. Depending on a shrine’s position within the hierarchic ranking of Shintō shrines, the drawings imposed restrictions on site size, required buildings and their distribution, as well as each building’s architectural style and scale (Fujihara 1992; and Aoki 2001). Irrespective of the hierarchical ranking of a shrine, however, the seigenzu stipulated that the main sanctuary should be constructed in plain wood using the nagarezukuri style. In this style, the gable roof is asymmetric in that it has an extended front slope that also covers the veranda and stairs. In addition, the roof ridge of the main sanctuary should remain undecorated, i.e., without crossbeams (chigi 千木) or billets (katsuogi 鰹木). In terms of layout, the plans called for a clear separation of the main sanctuary from all other shrine facilities by means of a surrounding wall pierced by a gate. Outside this inner precinct lay the worship hall (haiden 拝殿) and the treasure house ( jinko 神庫) which were enclosed within a fence, the tamagaki 玉垣.A torii 鳥居, rather than a gate, provided access to this precinct, which was in turn enclosed by yet another fence. The outer precinct, also accessed through a torii, contained the shrine office (shamusho 社務所), the hall of offerings (shinsensho 神饌所), and the ablution pavilion (temizuyakata 手水屋形). Although many sōken jinja would deviate from the stipulated norm, at least some of the basic parameters were set and this may have facilitated the swift planning of the shrine facilities that now needed to be added to the memorial structures that were already under construction in Kyoto. The sudden request to found a shrine was not the final unexpected devel- opment in this narrative as the shrine’s name and its ranking in the shrine hierarchy had yet to be announced. Both the Kyōsankai’s official request to establish a shrine (Heian jinja sōritsu no gi ni tsuki negai 平安神社創立ノ儀ニ付願, dated 13 January 1894) and the Imperial Household Ministry’s permission to do so (Heian jinja sōritsu no kyoka 平安神社創立ノ許可, dated 10 February 1894) contained the words ‘Heian jinja,’ but in July 1894 the Home Ministry announced that the shrine would be known as Heian Jingū and that it was classified as a kanpei taisha (Yamazaki 1894). Permission was also given to pre- pare for a grand enshrinement ceremony (chinzashiki 鎮座式) equivalent to the one that had been organized for the enshrinement of Jinmu Tennō 神武天皇 at Kashihara Jingū 橿原神宮 in 1890. Thereafter, construction progressed swiftly and the honden was completed in January 1895, well in time for the enshrinement of Kanmu’s deified spirit on 15 March and the opening of the Fourth National Industrial Exhibition on 1 April.

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 15

Upon its inauguration in 1895, the Heian Jingū complex consisted of a main sanctuary in the requisite nagarezukuri style (see figure 2).19 In front of this sanctuary stood a ritual prayer hall (noritoya 祝詞屋), a structure not provided for in the seigenzu. A see-through fence (sukibei 透塀) with a back gate, rather than a wall with a front gate, extended from both sides of the prayer hall to encompass the main sanctuary. Outside the fence and on the same level as the main sanctuary and the prayer hall stood the hall of offerings and the treasure house. Flights of stairs took the visitor/worshiper down to the level of the Dragon Tail Platform on which the Daigokuden (now also designated the haiden) and its flanking turrets stood. Unlike the previously mentioned buildings which were one-storied and constructed in plain wood, those on the Dragon Tail Platform were much higher and vibrantly colored. Repli- cating Chinese-style vernacular architecture, the pillars and beams of these structures were painted vermilion, providing a sharp contrast with their white walls and green-glazed roof tiles. Further to the south stood another impressive Chinese-style structure, the 19-meter-high Ōtenmon gate. Finally, in the courtyard between the Dragon Tail Platform and Ōtenmon gate stood the shrine office and two ablution basins. Even though the architectural style of the shrine facilities at the back followed the basic seigenzu stipulations, the rest of the complex deviated significantly from the requirements set out in the restrictive plans. Not only was the ornate Chinese style unsanctioned, the entire compound was enclosed by an earthen ridge lined with trees instead of the requisite tamagaki fence. Moreover, despite its professed importance Heian Jingū would not have a torii until 1928 (Takeuchi 1929: 1). All this is a further indication that the creation of a shrine was a last-minute change in the objectives of the various committees involved.

19 Anyone wishing to admire Heian Jingū’s 1895 honden should make a short trip to the Nagaoka Tenmangū 長岡天満宮 shrine located just outside Kyoto as this is where the sanctuary now stands. In the late 1930s, when the decision was made to apotheosize Kōmei Tennō and venerate his spirit at Heian Jingū, the shrine underwent a major transformation and it was deemed appropriate to house each of the two kami in its own honden. In an interesting reversal of the past, Kanmu’s 1895 sanctuary was dismantled and relocated to the area from which he had reigned prior to settling in Kyoto.

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 16 van goethem Daiyonkai naikoku kangyō hakurankai oyobi Heian jingū daigokuden no zu Author’s collection figure 2 Heian shrine in 1895. Detail of Kawai Senrō’s

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 17

5 The Deification of Kanmu

By the mid-nineteenth century a renewed awareness of and changed involve- ment with past rulers developed. In the early 1860s, during the reign of Kōmei Tennō 孝明天皇 (1846–1867, r. 1847–1867), the process of identifying and determining the location of the imperial tombs started; soon thereafter entry to these mausolea was prohibited and they became sacred sites with a place for worship established in front of each. Tombs were now due appropriate care “so that these ancestral gods can be comfortable and [are] willing to offer protec- tion to living humans” (Zhong 2011: 41). Moreover, after the Meiji Restoration, an unprecedented number of historical figures was suddenly elevated to the status of kami and venerated at shrines specifically erected for that purpose. While, strictly speaking, that was not entirely new,20 it was a novel develop- ment that certain reigning emperors—as opposed to rulers who had never reigned but had been elevated to kami status out of fear for their vengeful ghost—were selected for more public worship in shrines throughout the country, rather than in the limited context of the Imperial Palace’s Kōreiden 皇霊殿 (Hall of Imperial Spirits). The first former emperor to receive this honor in the Meiji period was Sutoku Tennō 崇徳天皇 (1119–1164, r. 1123–1142) who came to be enshrined in Kyoto’s Shiraminegū 白峰宮, a middle imperial shrine (kanpei chūsha 官幣中社). Within the next few years, several more followed (see table 1) and according to scholars such as Okada Yoneo (Okada 1966) and Murakami Shigeyoshi (Murakami 1970: 182–192), the emperors who became venerated as enshrined deities (saijin 祭神) during the Meiji period were mainly those connected to the fourteenth-century Southern Court or those who had preserved and restored imperial rule. Kanmu belongs to neither of these categories and Murakami jus- tified his deification as resulting from him being the founder of the ancient Heian state (Murakami 1970: 190). While this might be a good reason, it does beg the question why no other founders or initiators of historical periods were accorded the same privilege. Moreover, why was his shrine granted the highest possible rank, whereas several other shrines dedicated to former emperors were classified as much lower-ranking prefectural shrines (kensha 県社) or vil- lage shrines (sonsha 村社) (Murakami 1985: 190)?

20 The Edo period had seen a rise in the deification of historical figures, some of whom were deified even while they were still alive. On the deification of historical figures, see, for example, Miyata (1970) and Kozawa (1988). On the deification of Toyotomi Hideyoshi 豊臣秀吉 (1536–1598) and Tokugawa Ieyasu 徳川家康 (1542–1616), in particular, see Boot (2000).

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 18 van goethem table 1 Newly established shrines (sōken jinja) where Tennō were apotheosized

Datea Tennō Shrine Rank

1868 Sutoku Shiraminegū kanpei chūsha 1871 Go-Daigo Yoshinogū kanpei chūsha 1873 Go-Toba, Tsuchimikado, Juntoku Minasegū kanpei taisha 1873 Jinmu Miyazaki Jingū kanpei taisha 1875 Antoku Akamagū kanpei taisha 1890 Jinmu Kashihara Jingū kanpei taisha 1894 Kanmu Heian Jingū kanpei taisha 1915 Meiji (and his consort, Shōken) Meiji Jingū kanpei taisha 1939 Kōmei Heian Jingū kanpei taisha

Adapted from Fujihara 1992: 62 a The date given is that of the official permission to establish a shrine. Sometimes several years, or even decades, would pass between this approval and the kami’s enshrinement. A case in point would beYoshinogū 吉野宮 where Go-Daigo 後醍醐天皇 (1288–1339, r. 1318–1339) was enshrined and which was not completed until 1892.

It almost appears as if Kanmu is (re)discovered in the second half of the 1890s as one of Japan’s illustrious rulers and virtuous paragons. In early Meiji- period elementary school history textbooks, Kanmu’s name was hardly mentioned. For example, up until the year before the inauguration of Heian Jingū, late Nara- and early Heian-period history was typically organized using head- ings that reference other role models such as “The Nara Capital: Wake no Kiyomaro,” “Kyoto: Sakanoue no Tamuramaro,” and “Kūkai” (Kinkōdō Shoseki Kabushikigaisha Henshūjo 1894: 14–18). In another history textbook published three years later, however, Kanmu has clearly been given a more prominent role. The chapter was now named after him and descriptions of the achieve- ments of his general Sakanoue no Tamuramaro 坂上田村麻呂 (758–811) and Shingon 真言 school founder Kūkai 空海 (774–824) were incorporated within the Kanmu chapter (Yamagata 1897: 19–22).21 This tendency of attaching greater importance to Kanmu is also visible in the English-language guidebook produced about Kyoto and its neighboring prefectures on the occasion of the Fourth National Industrial Exhibition:

21 The lack of interest in Kanmu, in contrast to that in other rulers and historical figures, in the decade leading up to his deification may also be gleaned from Hinode shinbun, Kyoto’s leading newspaper at the time (Yoshioka 2011: 181).

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 19

The Emperor Kwammu [sic], with his rare ability and genius for vast undertakings, inaugurated a new epoch in the history of Japan. Notwith- standing the energy and sagacity of his predecessors, the country had been in an unsettled condition …When [he] permanently established the capital in Kyoto, the breadth of his plans were [sic] shown by the magnif- icent palace and other public buildings that he erected … He also sent out his general, [Sakanoue no] Tamura[maro] … to subjugate the Ainos [sic] … and thus permanently settled the boundaries of the country. Dur- ing his reign various institutions were firmly established, and a new era of peace and prosperity commenced. Thus it may properly be said that the great work begun by the Emperor Jinmu was completed by the Emperor Kwammu [sic]. It is but natural that the people of Kyoto and the nation at large should desire to commemorate the illustrious deeds of such a sovereign. The City Council of Kyoto 1895: 56

Here, Kanmu was directly linked with the imperial ancestor Jinmu22 and even placed on the same level. He is presented as the great instigator of culture, peace (through conquest), and stable government even though the ritsuryō 律令 system was experiencing a decline by the time Kanmu became sovereign and he put in place various retrenchment policies, in the context of this article perhaps best illustrated through the need to relocate the Nagaoka palace structures to his new capital in Heian/Kyoto. The portrayal of Kanmu as instigator of culture became a recurrent theme after his deification. As the founder of the Heian capital, he came to be seen as the ancestral deity (oyagami 祖神) of the so-called kokufū bunka 国風文化, the mid- and late Heian-period “native culture” that developed and flourished after the suspension of official embassies to China in 894, an attribution that is somewhat surprising because Kanmu’s reign was so strongly influenced by Chi- nese rituals and practices (e.g., Van Goethem 2008: 56–68). In the same vein, Heian/Kyoto was identified as the birthplace ( furusato 故郷) of this native, Japanese culture. According toTakagi Hiroshi, the establishment of Heian Jingū and the creation of its Festival of the Ages ( Jidai matsuri 時代祭) should thus be considered visualizations of this kokufū bunka (Takagi 2006: 155).

22 Jinmu Tennō had only just undergone an important transformation himself, having been reshaped from a fairly plump deity associated mainly with abundant harvests during the Edo period to a bearded conqueror and founder of the state at the start of Meiji’s rule. See Takagi (2012: 51–54).

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 20 van goethem

In any case, construction on all buildings in the complex was completed in February 1895 and all that remained was the formal installation of Kanmu as deity in Heian Jingū. On 10 March, the imperial envoy, Viscount Takeya Mi- tsuaki 竹屋光昭 (1836–1906), brought the mitamashiro 御霊代, a mirror provided by the Imperial Household Ministry, to Kyoto by train. There he was met by Heian Jingū’s first chief priest (gūji 宮司) Count Mibu Motoosa 壬生基修 (1835–1906),23 Kyoto governor Watanabe Chiaki 渡辺千秋 (1843–1921), and a host of other dignitaries. After temporarily residing in a shrine on the Imperial Palace grounds, the mirror embodying Kanmu’s spirit was finally enshrined on 15 March in a grand ceremony attended by 2500 people (Ponsonby-Fane 1963: 189–190; and Kasuga 2013: 63). Henceforward, the now deified Kanmu would again oversee Kyoto from what was said to be a faithful replica of his eighth- century government compound.

6 Conclusion

The haphazard planning process and the many twists and turns in the establishment of Heian Jingū clearly illustrate that the complex was originally con- ceived as a commemorative monument. Its opening was made secondary to that of the Fourth National Industrial Exhibition and in the absence of a grand masterplan, an assortment of actors at various levels (municipal, prefectural, and national) made a variety of proposals. Different interests and visions thus intersected to create a complex that only at the very end became one of the most important shrines within the national hierarchy of shrines. Heian Jingū’s founding history also demonstrates that despite the involve- ment of individuals at the highest levels of government, there was as yet no concrete vision, neither for the shrine itself, nor for what direction Shintō was supposed to take after its separation from Buddhism (shinbutsu bunri 神仏分離). The story illustrates the fact that although state-sponsored shrines were seen as non-religious sites of reverence for the emperor and the state since 1882, the government’s interpretation of Shintō in relation to the state and the imperial institution was still in flux during the third decade of the Meiji era (Maxey 2014: 183–209).

23 Mibu Motoosa (also Motonaga) is perhaps best known for being one of seven court nobles loyal to the restoration movement who fled from Kyoto after a failed coup in 1863 (Shichi kyō ochi 七卿落ち) and as having served as governor of Tokyo prefecture from 1869 until 1871.

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 21

The unplanned trajectory also explains why the architecture of Heian Jingū is so unusual. Only the structures at the back of the Daigokuden, added at the very last moment of the complex’s construction, were erected in a style that is typically associated with traditional shrine architecture. In contrast, the shrine’s most accessible parts were built in the Chinese style typical for ancient government facilities. The fact that such a style manifested itself in one of the country’s most important Shintō shrines is a direct result of the original goal of the project: to create a monument in commemoration of the founding of the city. If the original intention had been to construct a shrine dedicated to a former emperor it is highly unlikely that replicas of Chinese-style buildings would have been put up. After all, the stipulations set forth in the seigenzu were quite clear on preferred building style for Shintō shrines. This tension between the shrine’s Chinese-style architecture on the one hand and its function as a site for conducting state rituals in honor of a past emperor on the other was not resolved until 1939–1940 when Kōmei was enshrined alongside Kanmu. As part of the grand redevelopment of Heian Jingū, a number of new structures was built between the honden and the Daigokuden. These consisted of an inner worship hall (naihaiden 内拝殿), accessible only to shrine employees and the most distinguished guests,24 and two wing buildings (yokusha 翼舎).The most striking aspect of these three new structures was the fact that they had two very different façades. Their southern façade (i.e., the one across from the Daigokuden) followed the grandiose and colorful style of the Chōdōin replicas, whereas their northern façade was erected in plain wood just like the honden it was facing. The dualism expressed by these buildings may be interpreted as an indication that the ornate Chinese style was deemed unsuited for the solemn character of the shrine. Although requirements of the restrictive plans could not be applied to the entire complex—for the decision to establish a shrine was made too late and construction on many of the buildings had already advanced greatly—the fact that such blueprints existed undoubtedly facilitated the planning process of the various shrine facilities at Heian Jingū. On the other hand, the seigenzu also imposed several constraints upon the shrine’s designers and it is clear that from the start of his career as an architect, Itō Chūta struggled with these restrictions. Although he conceded in his 1937 book on shrine architecture that some form of standardization in the construction process was desirable, he insisted that, rather than a fixed plan, site conditions such as topography, size, and ori-

24 Regular worshipers were restricted to the Daigokuden, which was now designated the outer worship hall (gehaiden 外拝殿).

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 22 van goethem entation should be the determining factors in deciding on shrine layout and building distribution. Moreover, he expressed bewilderment at the designa- tion of nagarezukuri as the preferred building style for the honden, because he could see no historical precedent (Itō 1937). Perhaps more crucial, however, is the question of what constituted a ‘shrine’ in the mid-1890s. Not only was Heian Jingū an architectural hybrid, the natural outcome of its founding story, it also comes as somewhat of a surprise that for decades one of the most char- acteristic features of shrine architecture was entirely missing from this major imperial shrine. One simply entered the shrine through Ōtenmon gate and no torii could be found along the approach. Heian Jingū continued to grow in importance in the decades that followed its establishment. By the late 1920s, what started as perhaps a somewhat forced kanpei taisha had become so crucial in the shrine hierarchy that finally funds were raised to add a majestic torii. In 1936 the shrine hosted a visit from Puyi 溥儀 (1906–1967), the last emperor of the Qing dynasty (1644–1912) and then ruler of Japan’s puppet state Manchukuo, and in 1940 it became the site of major festivities celebrating the 2600th anniversary of the founding of the Empire of Japan. Moreover, with the related deification and enshrinement of Kōmei around that time, the inner sanctuary underwent radical change because it was deemed necessary to house the kami of each of the two former emperors in its own honden. For the general public, however, the shrine became much less accessible.The inner sanctuary was more carefully screened from view because of the addition of the inner worship hall and visitors could catch only a glimpse of what is traditionally considered to be shrine architecture. For them, Heian Jingū remained a testimony—accurate or not—to the city’s heydays as Japan’s ancient capital.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Kyushu University’s Qdai-jump Research Pro- gram. I would like to thank Yūki Katō and Alice Tseng, my collaborators in this project, for their suggestions and advice. I also wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for the insightful comments.

References

Akimoto, Nobuhide 秋元信英. 1976. “Meiji jūrokunen no Heian jingū sōken’an” 明治16年の平安神宮創建案. Kokugakuin Daigaku Nihon bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 国学院大学日本文化研究所紀要 38: 53–121.

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 23

Aoki, Yūsuke 青木祐介. 2001. “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 ron- bunshū 日本建築学会計画系論文集 546: 261–267. Boot, Wim J. 2000. “The Death of a Shogun: Deification in Early Modern Japan.” In Shinto in History: Ways of the Kami, eds. John Breen and Mark Teeuwen, London: Curzon, 144–166. Conant, Ellen P. 2006. “Japan ‘Abroad’ at the Chicago Exposition, 1893.” In Challenging Past and Present: The Metamorphosis of Nineteenth-century Japanese Art, ed. Ellen P. Conant, Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 254–280. Dai Yonkai Naikoku Kangyō Hakurankai Jimukyoku 第四回内国勧業博覧会事務局. 1896. Dai yonkai naikoku kangyō hakurankai jimu hōkoku 第四回内国勧業博覧会事務報告. Tokyo: Dai Yonkai Naikoku Kangyō Hakurankai Jimukyoku. NDL Digital Col- lections (ndljp/pid/801927). Dai yonkai naikoku kangyō hakurankai ni kansuru shokisoku 第四回内国勧業博覧会ニ関スル諸規則. 1894. Kyoto: Nakanishi Kasuke. NDL Digital Collections (ndljp/pid/ 801953). Fujihara, Keiyō 藤原恵洋. 1992. “Sōken jinja no ishō tokusei to fukkoshugiteki ishō no sōshutsu ni kansuru kōsatsu: Seigenzu yōshiki to sōken jinja no ishō ni kansuru kenkyū (2)” 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–制限図様式と創建神社の意匠に関する研究（2）. Dezaingaku kenkyū デザイン学研究 91: 61– 68. Hardacre, Helen. 2017. Shinto. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Heian jingū 平安神宮 (Nihon no jinja 日本の神社, vol. 82). 2015. Tokyo: DeAgostini. Heian Jingū Hyakunenshi Hensan Iinkai 平安神宮百年史編纂委員会. 1997. Heianjingū hyakunenshi 平安神宮百年史, 2 vols. Kyoto: Heian Jingū. Heian Sento Kinensai Iin 平安遷都紀念祭委員. 1892. Heian sento senhyakunen kinensai shuisho 平安遷都千百年紀念祭趣旨書. Tokyo: Meikyōsha. Hinode shinbun 日出新聞. Kyoto: Hinode Shinbunsha. Imaizumi, Yoshiko. 2013. Sacred Space in the Modern City: The Fractured Pasts of Meiji Shrine, 1912–1958. Leiden: Brill. Inaba, Nobuko 稲葉信子. 1980. “Heian jingū no kenkyū” 平安神宮の研究. Nihon Ken- chiku Gakkai taikai gakujutsu kōen kōgaishū 日本建築学会大会学術講演梗概集 55: 2083–2084. Itō Chūta 伊東忠太. 1937. Nihon jinja kenchiku no hattatsu 日本神社建築の發達. Tokyo: Ryūginsha. Kasuga, Kazuo 春日和夫. 2013. Heian jingū ni ikō 平安神宮に行こう ( Jinja kikō sereku- shon 神社紀行セレクション, vol. 4). Tokyo: Gakken Publishing. Katō, Yūki. 2017. “Knowledge of Japanese Architecture of The Past in the Edo and Early Meiji Periods.” Unpublished conference paper presented at the International Con- ference on East Asian Architectural Culture, Tianjin University, 15 October 2017.

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 24 van goethem

Kawai, Senrō 川井仙郎. 1895. Daiyonkai naikoku kangyō hakurankai oyobi Heian jingū daigokuden no zu 第四回内國勸業博覽會及平安神宮大極殿之圖. Kyoto: Mura- kami Kanbei. Kawashima, Tomoo 川島智生. 2010. “Sōshutsu sareta Heian jingū: Hakken sareta zumen, Itō Chūta no kunō, Koizumi Yakumo no manazashi” 創出された平安神宮– 発見された図面・伊東忠太の苦悩・小泉八雲のまなざし. Cross Sections 3: 94–101. Kinkōdō Shoseki Kabushikigaisha Henshūjo 金港堂書籍株式會社編輯所 (ed.). 1894. Shōgakkōyō Nihon rekishi: Kōhen 小學校用日本歴史後編, vol. 1. Tokyo: Kinkōdō Shoseki Kabushikigaisha. Kobayashi, Takehiro 小林丈広. 2007. “Heian sento senhyakunen kinensai to Heian jingū no sōken” 平安遷都千百年紀念祭と平安神宮の創建. Nihonshi kenkyū 日本史研究 538: 1–28. Kozawa, Hiroshi 小沢浩. 1988. 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. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. Kudō, Yasuko 工藤泰子. 2009. “Kindai meisho annaiki ni miru Kyōto no kankō kūkan” 近代名所案内記にみる京都の観光空間. Kyōto Kōka Joshi Daigaku kenkyū kiyō 京都光華女子大学研究紀要 47: 15–48. Kuni, Takeyuki 國雄行. 2005. Hakurankai no jidai: Meiji seifu no hakurankai seisaku 博覧会の時代–明治政府の博覧会政策. Tokyo: Iwata Shoin. Kunishita, Tamiki 國下多美樹. 2013. Nagaokakyō no rekishi kōkogaku kenkyū 長岡京の歴史考古学研究. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. Kyōtoshi Hensanbu 京都市編纂部. 1895. Kyōka yōshi 京華要誌, vol. 1. Kyoto: Kyōtoshi Sanjikai. NDL Digital Collections (ndljp/pid/765555). Kyōtoshi Sanjikai 京都市参事会. 1896a. Heian sento kinensai kiji 1 平安遷都紀念祭紀事巻上. Kyoto: Kyōtoshi Sanjikai. NDL Digital Collections (ndljp/pid/765921). Kyōtoshi Sanjikai 京都市参事会. 1896b. Heian sento kinensai kiji 2 平安遷都紀念祭紀事巻下. Kyoto: Kyōtoshi Sanjikai. NDL Digital Collections (ndljp/pid/765922). Maxey,Trent E. 2014.The“GreatestProblem”:ReligionandStateFormationinMeijiJapan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center. Miyata, Noboru 宮田登. 1970. Ikigami shinkō: Hito o kami ni matsuru shūzoku 生き神信仰–人を神に祀る習俗. Tokyo: Hanawa Shobō. Murakami, Shigeyoshi 村上重良. 1970. Kokkashintō 国家神道.Tokyo: Iwanami Shinsho. National Diet Library. 2011. Daiyonkai naikoku kangyō hakurankai: Kyōto no makikaeshi 第4回内国勧業博覧会–京都の巻き返し. http://www.ndl.go.jp/exposition/s1/ naikoku4.html (accessed 15 May 2018). Nihon kiryaku 日本紀略 (Abbreviated Japanese Annals). Kuroita Katsumi 黒板勝美 et al. 1965. Shintei zōho kokushi taikei 新訂増補国史大系, vols. 10–11. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. Okada, Yoneo 岡田米夫. 1966. “Jingū, jinja sōkenshi” 神宮・神社創建史. In Shintō Bun- kakai 神道文化会, Meijiishinshintōhyakunenshi 明治維新神道百年史, vol. 2,Tokyo: Shintō Bunkakai, 4–182.

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access heian jingū 25

Ponsonby-Fane, Richard A.B. 1963. The Vicissitudes of Shinto. Kyoto: The Ponsonby Memorial Society. Seiin Chishika 正院地誌課 (ed.). 1877. Nihon chishi teiyō 日本地誌提要, vols. 1–7. Tokyo: Nippōsha. NDL Digital Collections (ndljp/pid/762407). Shimazono, Susumu. 2009. “State Shinto in the Lives of the People: The Establish- ment of Emperor Worship, Modern Nationalism, and Shrine Shinto in Late Meiji.” Japanese Journal of Religious Studies 36(1): 93–124. Shoku Nihongi 続日本紀 (Chronicles of Japan, Continued). Kuroita Katsumi et al. 1985. Shintei zōho kokushi taikei, vol. 2. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. Takagi, Hiroshi 高木博志. 2006. Kindai tennōsei to koto 近代天皇制と古都. Tokyo: Iwa- nami Shoten. Takagi, Hiroshi. 2012. “Fabricating Antiquity in Modern Nara.”Zinbun 43: 51–60. Takeuchi, Takeo 竹内武雄 (ed.). 1929. Heian jingū ōtorii zōei shi 平安神宮大鳥居造營誌. Kyoto: Heian Kōsha. Tanaka, Akira 田中彰. 2003. Meiji ishin to seiyō bunmei 明治維新と西洋文明. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten. The City Council of Kyoto. 1895. The Official Guide-Book to Kyoto and the Allied Pre- fectures: Prepared Specially for the Eleven Hundredth Anniversary of the Founding of Kyoto and the Fourth National Industrial Exhibition. Tokyo: Meishinsha. Tokoro, Isao 所功. 1994. “Heian jingū no sōken zenshi” 平安神宮の創建前史. Shintōshi kenkyū 神道史研究 42(4): 56–87. Toyoda, Takeshi 豊田武. 1973. Nihon shūkyō seidoshi no kenkyū 日本宗教制度史の研究. Tokyo: Daiichi Shobō. Tseng, Alice Y. 2012. “In Defense of Kenchiku: Itō Chūta’s Theorization of Architecture as a Fine Art in the Meiji Period.”Review of Japanese Culture and Society 24: 155–167. Tseng, Alice Y. 2018. Modern Kyoto: Building for Ceremony and Commemoration, 1868– 1940. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Unno, Satoshi 海野聡. 2017. Kokenchiku o fukugensuru: Kako to genzai no kakehashi 古建築を復元する–過去と現在の架け橋. Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunkan. Uramatsu, Kozen 裏松固禅. 1797. Daidairizu kōshō 大内裏図考証. NDL Digital Collec- tions (ndljp/pid/771918/1). Urasaki, Shin’ichi 浦崎真一. 2008. “Meiji ikō sōken no jingū ni okeru kūkan dezain ni tsuite: Kashihara jingū oyobi Meiji jingū no kūkan kōsei ni okeru kōsei ito no kōsatsu” 明治以降創建の神宮における空間デザインについて–橿原神宮および明治神宮の空間構成における構成意図の考察. Dezain riron デザイン理論 53: 100– 101. Van Goethem, Ellen. 2008. Nagaoka, Japan’s Forgotten Capital. Leiden: Brill. Wakamatsu, Masatarō 若松雅太郎. 1896. Heian sento senhyakunen kinensai kyōsanshi 平安遷都千百年紀念祭協賛誌. 4 vols. NDL Digital Collections (ndljp/pid/816050/4, ndljp/pid/816051/1, ndljp/pid/816052/1, ndljp/pid/816053/1).

Journal of Religion in Japan 7 (2018) 1–26 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 05:10:32PM via free access 26 van goethem

Yamagata, Teizaburō 山縣悌三郎. 1897. Shinsen teikoku shōshi: Dai ichini gakunen yō 新撰帝國小史第一二學年用. Tokyo: Bungakusha. Yamazaki, Kasaburō 山崎嘉三郎. 1894. Heian sento senhyakunen kinensai sanpai hik- keizu 平安遷都千百年紀念祭參拜必携圖. Kyoto: Kinensai Kyōsankai Jimusho. Yoshioka, Taku 吉岡拓. 2011. Jūkyūseiki minshū no rekishi ishiki, yuisho to tennō 十九世紀民衆の歴史意識・由緒と天皇. Tokyo: Azekura Shobō. Zhong,Yijiang. 2011. “Ritual, Purity, and Power: Rethinking Shinto in Restoration Japan.” In Politics and Religion in Modern Japan: Red Sun,White Lotus, ed. Roy Starrs, Hound- mills: Palgrave Macmillan, 28–53.

Journal of ReligionDownloaded in Japan from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2018) 1–26 05:10:32PM via free access