| Part ofa series on the |
| Culture of Japan |
|---|
 |
Organisations |
Thehistoriography of Japan (日本史学史Nihon shigakushi) is the study of methods and hypotheses formulated in the study and literature of thehistory of Japan.
The earliest work of Japanese history is attributed toPrince Shōtoku, who is said to have written theTennōki and theKokki in 620 CE. The earliest extant work is theKojiki of 712. TheNihon Shoki followed by 720. These two works formed the base of a history of the nation based in great part onJapanese mythology, in particular that of theShinto religion. The works were inspired byChinese historiography and were compiled with the support of the Japanese state. Five more works between 797 and 901 completed what had begun with theNihon Shoki; the six are known as theRikkokushi ("six national histories").
An abandonment of Chinese inspiration and state support marks the historiographical writings of the period from the 9th to 16th centuries. A great number of historical tales calledrekishi monogatari and war tales calledgunki monogatari appeared, and works such as theshikyō "four mirrors" of the 12th to 14th centuries andThe Tale of the Heike of 1371 enjoyed widespread popularity. Other art forms such asNoh theatre andemaki scrolls added to these written works.
Neo-Confucian schools became preeminent at the beginning of theEdo period (1603–1868). They brought a methodology very critical of works such as theKojiki, but did not contradict theMandate of Heaven. The most prominent representatives of this are theHayashi clan and theMitogaku school. The nativistkokugaku school, inspired by Shinto, returned in the 18th century, driven by the work ofMotoori Norinaga. It opposed the Neo-Confucians by seeking to demonstrate the veracity ofShinto mythology, especially of theAge of the Gods and the early emperors, whose existence is doubted.
Japanese historiography opened to Western influences at the end of the 18th century.Rangaku ("Dutch learning"), translations of European works in the mid-19th century, and then the introduction ofGerman historiography of Ludwig Riess in 1887 brought new analytical tools to the various Japanese schools of history. During the period of theEmpire of Japan (1868–1947), historians questioned, at the peril of their academic freedom, one of the ideological foundations of the new regime: the place of national myths in the national history.
Marxist ideas were introduced in the 1920s and renewed in the post-World War II period with the work ofHisao Ōtsuka. Themes and research diversified from the 1970s, soon accompanied by a resurgence of conservative andnationalist approaches.
The earliest extant works aiming to present theHistory of Japan appeared in the 8th century CE. TheKojiki of 712 and theNihon Shoki of 720 looked to similar Chinese models,[1] at a time whenChinese culture had a great influence on Japan.[a] These works were compiled following a decree in 681 fromEmperor Tenmu, who sought to set a stable version of what appeared in theTeiki andKyūji, no longer extant, possibly non-existent works of which numerous contradictory editions were said to have circulated.[2] TheKojiki andNihon Shoki were compiled by functionaries of the imperial administration and centred on the reigns and deeds of past emperors, seeking to legitimize their actions. The emergence of this type of publication became possible through the strengthening of centralized authority within a strong state.[1]
The authors of theKojiki of 712 trace the first work of this type to 620, whenPrince Shōtoku is said to have written the first historical books, theTennōki andKokki. The existence of these works is debated, though modern historians trace the first historical writings to the mid-7th century. The form is unknown, but they are likely to have copied Chinese chronicles with Korean influences due to their transmission through the kingdom ofBaekje on theKorean Peninsula.[3]
TheKojiki was intended essentially for use within the court and is written in a mixture ofClassical Chinese andphonetic readings of Chinese characters.[4] It takesImperial China as its model[4] and depicts the territory of Japan as extending historically to territorial claims as far back as the Korean kingdom of Baekje. Japan is presented as a sovereign country, and China is never mentioned.[5] The writings focus on theImperial House of Japan and the genealogy of the great families of the court.[4]
TheNihon Shoki departs from the form of theKojiki. It is written entirely in a classical Chinese and designed to be presented to foreign envoys.[4] Unlike theKojiki, it gives only a small place to thecreation myths of Japan, and Chinese writings (such as theBook of Wei and theBook of Jin) and above Koreans are widely cited in it.[5] The chronology of the chronicles of the kingdom of Baekje serves as reference by which to weave Japanese history, and links are also made with Chinese chronology.[b] It also borrows the Chinese idea of theMandate of Heaven, but differs from it to legitimize the entire Japanese imperial lineage. TheKojiki andNihon Shoki also differ from Chinese models by including a large number ofpoems.[5]
In 718Yōrō Code commissioned theMinistry of the Centre to compile a national history; the resultingNihon Shoki of 720 served as a basis for similar works.[6] Other historical chronicles were published over the following century: theShoku Nihongi in 797, theNihon Kōki in 840, theShoku Nihon Kōki in 869, theNihon Montoku Tennō Jitsuroku in 871, and theNihon Sandai Jitsuroku in 901. With theNihon Shoki, they form theRikkokushi—the "six national histories". Beginning in the 11th century, in the mid-Heian period, state power weakened, and this sort of great chronicle was abandoned. Their form later served as inspiration during theEdo period of the 17th–19th centuries, when theshōguns sought to legitimize their power by having historical works of this type written.[1]
The writing of theShoku Nihongi, the first successor to theNihon Shoki began about 760 byFujiwara no Nakamaro, but suffered several setbacks before its publication in 797, such as Nakamaro's death in theFujiwara no Nakamaro Rebellion in 764; the thirty draft volumes drew criticism for concentrating on anecdotal facts and ignoring some major events.[6]Emperor Kōnin had the project revived, but it still remained in draft form. Edicts in 794 and 797 made it possible to complete the project. The forty volumes of theShoku Nihongi cover the period from 697 to 791. The final work stands out for its use of new sources, such as Buddhist temple registers or tax revenue reports.[7] Like theKojiki it is written in a language based onclassical Chinese and on a phonetic use of Chinese characters. TheShoku Nihongi also describes certain aspects of Japanese society of the time, such as the conditions of the workers at construction sites in the capitalHeijō-kyō (modernNara).[8] In keeping with Chinese models, the place of poetry is greatly reduced.[9]
Emperor Saga had the compilation of theNihon Kōki begun in 819, but the project soon came to a stop due to the deaths of several of its coordinators. It was finally completed in 840, its 40 volumes chronicling the period 792 to 833. Biographies of the main figures of theImperial Court in Kyoto were included at the time of their deaths for the first time.[10] The three following books, theShoku Nihon Kōki, theNihon Montoku Tennō Jitsuroku, and theNihon Sandai Jitsuroku, were compiled following the codes established by the earlier three, but focusing on shorter periods: theShoku Nihon Shoki andNihon Montoku Tennō Jitsuroku each focus on a single imperial reign. Seeking still to get closer to Chinese models, they include references to natural disasters. They focus less on the court. TheFujiwara clan, which dominated the court, displayed its power in other genres of writing, such asrekishi monogatari ("historical tales"). The imperial lineage was sufficiently legitimized by different historical writings and no longer needed to order such works to assert its authority.[11] The closure in 969 of the office charged with writing the next of these works, theShinkokushi, marked the end of this style.[11]
New forms of historical account flourished from the 11th to 16th centuries. They drew inspiration from court literature such asThe Tale of Genji then in fashion among the nobility. In contrast to earlier chronicles, these texts take a more subjective approach, concentrating on narrative to attract the interest of the reader,[12] and were written in Japanese rather than classical Chinese.[13] They focus more on historical figures, in particular ingunki monogatari "warrior tales".[14]
The earliest of these accounts, theEiga Monogatari, follows theRikkokushi, as it begins in 887 and completes theNihon Sandai Jitsuroku.[13] It contains numerous dating errors (about 20% of the dates are incorrect), and many embellishments and fabrications. Four works known together asShikyō ("Four Mirrors") were written following this firstmonogatari. Using the image of the historical mirror used by the Chinese historianSima Qian in 2nd century, and use anarrator to tell a story through the lives of important characters. The emphasis is still is on the lives of court nobles in the capital.[15] The first three appeared in the 12th century: theŌkagami ("The Great Mirror", 1119), theImakagami ("Today's Mirror", 1170), and theMizukagami ("The Water Mirror", 1195). The fourth,Masukagami ("The Clear Mirror"), appeared between 1368 and 1376.[16] and covers Kyoto court life during theKamakura period (1185–1333).[17]
Gunki monogatari "warrior tales" were in a style meant to be recited by itinerant monks. The earliest of these is theHōgen Monogatari, which deals with theHōgen Rebellion of 1156.[17] TheHeiji Monogatari followed, describing theHeiji Rebellion of 1159–1160. Where the former keeps to describing events, the second distills the principles of good governance, inspired byConfucian theory to explain events. The most prominent of this sort of book, theHeike Monogatari, covers the conflicts between theMinamoto andTaira clans. It is deeply influenced by Buddhist themes, but is limited in political analysis.[18]
Two of these works aimed at a comprehensive retelling and interpretation of the history of Japan. TheGukanshō of 1220 gave a Buddhist reading of the nation's history, and theJinnō Shōtōki of 1339 a Shinto one. The latter asserts Japan as a country chosen by the gods and thus superior to all others, which has left a lasting influence on Japanese historiography, politics, and nationalism.[14]
During the Japanese Middle Ages thegunki monogatari remained an important genre of historical narrative.[19] The country underwent numerous periods of civil conflict, such as theNanboku-chō (1336–1392),Sengoku (1467–1603), andAzuchi–Momoyama period (1573–1603), driving the popularity of such works.[20] The 15th-centuryŌninki [ja] covers theŌnin War (1467–1477) and is one of the major representatives of the style of the period.[20] Two other prominent examples appeared at the beginning of the 17th century, both biographical accounts of military leaders: that ofOda Nobunaga in theShinchō kōki and that ofToyotomi Hideyoshi in theTaikōki.[21]
Diplomatic history first appeared in Japan in 1470 with the publication ofZuikei Shūhō [ja]'sZenrin Kokuhōki [ja][21] which traces the nature of international exchanges between Japan, China, and Korea. The work reproduces many diplomatic documents.[22]
The imperial court also produced numerous historical works. For example,Ichijō Kanera published theKuji Kongen [ja] ("Origins of Court Ritual"), which traces the main events affecting court society. It refers to the lunar cycle while detailing the origins and development of these events. In 1455–1457 Ichijō also published theNihon Shoki Sanso [ja], a commentary on theNihon Shoki, evidencing that theNihon Shoki formed part of the readings of the nobles of the time. The work of the Shinto priestYoshida Kanetomo, is also notable, as it shows correspondences between the Japanese calendar and three foreign ones.[22]
| Part ofa series on the | ||||||
| History of Japan | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | ||||||
Prehistoric
| ||||||
Ancient
| ||||||
Classical
| ||||||
Modern | ||||||
The process of compiling awritten history of Japan began in the seventh century. The most important of the early works are theRikkokushi or six national histories which were written in the 9th century.[23] The strategies for writing history changed over time. The earliest works were created by Imperial edict. In 1793, theTokugawa shogunate established the Institute for Japanese Studies (Wagaku Kôdansho).[24] In 1869,Emperor Meiji issued an Imperialrescript which explained the importance ofhistoriography:
Historiography is a for ever immortal state ritual (taiten) and a wonderful act of our ancestors. But after the Six National Histories it was interrupted and no longer continued .... Now the evil of misrule by the warriors since theKamakura period has been overcome and imperial government has been restored. Therefore we wish that an office of historiography (shikyoku) be established, that the goodcustom of our ancestors be resumed ....[25]
In 1929, theMeiji period office of historiography was renamed the Historiographical Institute (Shiryo Hensan-jo).[24]
By the 1960s, Japanese historians were divided between Marxists and Non-Marxists, but they generally agreed on emphasizing the process of modernization as the driving force in Japanese history after 1850. Non-Marxist historians in the United States were specially influential introducing modernization models. However, a younger generation of Japanese scholars in the 1970s rejected modernization models because they obscured class conflict and the social dynamics of society. By the 1980s, Marxism was in disrepute after the fall of Soviet communism, and more complex versions of multi-dimensional modernization came to be used. This led to scholarly debates over gender roles, living standards, domestic economies, agricultural practices, educational programs, and demographic changes. The line of argument is that modernization was not a single simple trajectory toward social economic and political progress, but it also could have authoritarian and statist outcomes, and in some cases it was led by the militarists.[26][27]
The Marxist historians divided in the 1920s and 1930s into two competing schools which debated the nature of Japanese capitalism between the old-line Socialist Rōnō and the more Stalinist and more influential Kōza schools. The Rōnō said the main goal was to nationalize finance andzaibatsu in industry, The Kōza argued the main goal was to end feudalism in terms of large landowners.[28][29] As hard-line Communism weakened following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Marxist historians have increasingly turned away from an emphasis on blue-collar industrial workers and, influenced by French historical theoristLouis Althusser, have focused more on the relationship between power structures and the economy of cultural production. Much of the research looks at late eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Edo.[30]
A Marxist history of science emerged in the 1920s when Ogura Kinnosuke, the second president of the History of Science Society of Japan, criticized Japanese science as an imported product that was imitative and superficial, and lacking a social conscience.[31]
