Research for this article was supported by the Japan Foundation. The author is greatly indebted to Professor Sakamoto Koremaru of Kokugakuin University, and Takeda Hideaki, one time graduate student of Kokugakuin, for their invaluable assistance, encouragement and friendship.

¹ Kanbōchō, Naikaku (ed.), Hōrei Zensho (Tōkyō, Hara Shobō, 1974), vol. 1, p. 6.Google Scholar

² On the leading role of Fukuba and the Ōkuni Takamasa faction see the recent research by Hideaki, Takeda: ‘Kindai Tennōsaishi Keisei Katei no Ichikōsatsu’ in Nobutaka, Inoue and Koremaru, Sakamoto (eds.), Nihongata Seikyō Kankei no Tanjō (Tōkyō, Daiichi Shobō, 1987).Google Scholar

³ Jingishō—gokaikaku shorui gairyaku basshō in Kyōkai, Nihon Shiseki (ed.), Iwakura Tomomi Kankei Monjo (Tōkyō, 1927), vol. 7, pp. 439–40.Google Scholar

⁴ Ibid., pp. 440–1.

⁵ Ibid., p. 439.

⁶ Yoshio, Yasumaru, Kamigami no Meiji Ishin (Tōkyō, Iwanami Shinsho, 1979), p. 206.Google Scholar

⁷ The most recent assertion is by Miyaji Masato in his otherwise very useful Nihontsūshi 3—Kokusai Seijika no Kindai Nihon—Kingendai (Tōkyō, Yamagawa Shuppansha, 1987), p. 42.Google Scholar

⁸ Shōji, Haga, ‘Meiji Jingikan no Seiritsu to Kokkasaishi no Saihen’ (ge), Jinbungakuhō, 51, p. 74.Google Scholar

⁹ Shōji, Haga, ‘Shintō Kokkyōsei no Keisei’, Nihonshi Kenkyū, 264, pp. 2 and 30.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Yasumaru, , op. cit., p. 48.Google Scholar

¹¹ The religious nature of ‘restoration Shinto’ is dwelt on especially in Haga Shōji, ‘Shintō Kokkyōsei no keisei’, passim, and Nagao, Nishida, ‘Meiji Shintōshijosetsu’; ‘Meiji Shinseifu no Shūkyō Kaikaku’ in Nihon Shintōshi Kenkyū, vol. 7, Kinseihen (ge) (Tōkyō, Kodansha, 1978).Google Scholar

¹² One reason for the confusion may be that Okuni went to considerable trouble on occasions to argue his claims to the position vacated by Hirata Atsutane in the Kokugaku lineage. He wrote his Gakutō Benron (Ōkuni Takamasa Zenshū (hereafter Zenshū) (Tōkyō, Yūkōsha, 1939, vol. 4) for this purpose.Google Scholar

¹³ The memorial, Kenkin Sengo (‘Humble Ramblings’), is published in Noboru, Haga, Sannosuke, Matsumoto et al. (eds), Nihon Shisō Taikei, 51: Kokugaku Undō no Shisō (hereafter Kokugaku Undō) (Tōkyō, Iwanami Shoten, 1971), pp. 548–85.Google Scholar

¹⁴ On the Jingikan revival see Shōji, Haga, ‘Meiji Jingikan no Seiritsu to Kokkasaishi no Saihen’ (jō, Jinbungakuhō, 49.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Hongaku Kyoyō, Zenshū, 1, p. 20.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Takeda, op. cit., p. 117. For the coronation plans, see ibid., pp. 117–21.

¹⁷ Fukuba's handling of the Meiji Daijōsai is another example. His innovative approach was attached by Yanō and others, and Fukuba responded by accusing them of being kaika no bōgai or ‘obstacles to enlightenments’ (Ehimeken, Ōzu Chūgakkō Yōshōkai, Yano Gendō Sensei Ryakuden (Ehime, 1915), p. 45).Google Scholar On the Meiji Daijōsai see Hiroshi, Takagi, ‘Meiji Ishin to Daijōsai’, Nihonshi Kenkyū, 300.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For a contemporary account of the Hasshinden controversy see Nagatane, Tokoyo, Shinkyō Soshiki Monogatari in Kokugakuin Daigaku Nihon Bunka Kenkyūjo Kiyō, vol. 52, pp. 184–5. See also Yasumaru, op. cit., pp. 120–1.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Shinkyō Soshiki Monogatari, p. 185.Google Scholar

²⁰ Nagatane, Tokyo, Jingikan Senakaku Monogatari, in Kōkoku, 355, 6, pp. 88–9.Google Scholar

²¹ Takeda, , op. cit., pp. 139–41.Google Scholar

²² See, for example, Hongaku Kyoyō, p. 60.Google Scholar

²³ Ibid., p. 3.

²⁴ Amatsu Norito Futonoritoko, in Zenshū, vol. 7, pp. 227–8.Google Scholar

²⁵ Bunbu Kyojitsuron, in ibid., vol. 1, pp. 156–7.

²⁶ Shinshin Kōhōron, in Tsuguo, Tahara et al. (eds.), Nihon Shisō Taikei, 50: Hirata Atsutane, Ban Nobutomo, Ōkuni Takamasa (hereafter Ōkuni Takamasa) (Tōkyō, Iwanami Shoten, 1973), p. 501.Google Scholar

²⁷ Gyoju Mondō, in Zenshū, vol. 1, p. 79. Ōkuni writes that Norinaga and Hirata Shinto ‘may be enough to convince Japanese people, but to convince foreigners they are insufficient.’ (ibid., p. 119).

²⁸ Ibid., p. 112. See also Shinshin Kōhōron, pp. 495–6 for a variation.

²⁹ Bunbu Kyojitsuron, p. 128.Google Scholar

³⁰ The following is based on his ‘New True International Law’ (Shinshin Kōhōron) in Ōkuni Takamasa, pp. 493–511.Google Scholar

³¹ Gakuunron, in Zenshū, vol. 4, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar

³² Sonnōjōi Shinsakuben, in Zenshū, vol. 3, p. 390.Google Scholar

³³ Sonnōjōi Isetsuben in Zenshū, vol. 2, p. 362. On shōjōi and daijōi see also his Shinshin Kōhōron, pp. 504–5.Google Scholar

³⁴ Sonnōjōi Isetsuben, p. 358.Google Scholar

³⁵ Quoted in Ōkuni Takamasa, p. 646.Google Scholar

³⁶ Kyūjō Ichiran, not paginated (I have used the Kokugakuin Daigaku manuscript copy).Google Scholar

³⁷ Gyoju Mondō, p. 75. See also p. 97.Google Scholar

³⁸ Sonnōjōi Isetsuben, p. 358.Google Scholar

³⁹ Shinshin Kōhōron, p. 504.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Hiroyuki, Tamagake, ‘Bakumatsu ni okeru “Shūkyō” to “Rekishi”—Ōkuni Takamasa ni okeru shūkyōron to rekishiron to no kankei o megutte’, Tōhoku Daigaku Bungakubu Kenkyu Nenpō, 31, p. 90.Google Scholar

⁴¹ This translation of a passage in Hirata Atsutane's Honkyō Gaihen is by Donald Keene, who points out that Hirata lifted the passage almost verbatim from a work by Matteo Ricci.Google Scholar See Keene, Donald, ‘Hirata Atsutane and Western Learning’, T'oung Pao, 42, p. 308.Google Scholar

⁴² Koshiden, quoted in Kokugaku Undō, p. 529.Google Scholar

⁴³ Satow, E., ‘The Revival of Pure Shintau’, Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan, vol. 2, p. 72.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ On this point see Harootunian's stimulating study of Tokugawa, Kokugaku: Things Seen and Unseen: Discourse and Ideology in Tokugawa Nativism (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1988), pp. 32 and 167.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Nagata, Hiroshi, ‘Fukko Shintō no Tokushitsu’ in Nihon Hōkensei no Ideorogī (Tōkyō, Hakuyōsha, 1960), pp. 276–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid.Nagata questions whether these religious aspects of Hirata Shinto are really attributable to Christian influence, as many scholars have suggested.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Kyōikukai, Mitoshi (ed.), Tōko Sensei no Hanmen (Tōkyō, 1909), p. 72Google Scholar, and Toko, Fujita, Jutsugi, Kōdōkanki, in Usaburō, Imai et al. (eds.), Nihon Shinsō Taikei, 53: Mitogaku (Tōkyō, Iwanami shoten), 1973, p. 322.Google Scholar Interestingly, Fujita saw the influence of Christianity in Hirata's Kokugaku,

ibid., p. 265 and note.

⁴⁸ In addition to the introductory section of Yano's Kenkin Sengo, see also his Zen'aku Ōhōron quoted in Nishida, op. cit., pp. 338–9. Yano's biographer informs us that in the early Meiji period his Shinto ideas led to his being branded as a Christian (Yano, Tarō, Yano Gendō Okina Ryakuden (Matsuyama, Matsuyamadō shoten, 1933), p. 140).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Hongaku Kyoyō, p. 451.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Shintō Michishirube, in Zenshū, vol. 1, p. 333. This statement is highly reminiscent of Confucius' ‘You are born into this world, so devote yourself to it’ (also quoted by the Mito scholar Fujita Toko (Kōdōkanki Jutsugi, p. 331).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Shigo Anshinroku, in Zenshū, vol. 5, p. 335.Google Scholar

⁵² Naobi no Tama Hochū, in Zenshū, vol. 2, p. 126.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., pp. 100–1.

⁵⁴ Ibid.

⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 117. The best piece on Amaterasu in Ōkuni Shinto is Tamagake, op. cit., pp. 102–10.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Koden Tsūkai, in Zenshū, vol. 6, p. 91.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Yamatogokoro Ihon 1, in Zenshū, vol. 2, p. 127.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Jingikan Hongi, in Zuishi, Inoue (ed.), Ishin Zengo Tsuwanohanshi Hōkō Jiseki (Tōkyō, Aoyama Kiyokichi, 1900), p. 38.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Hongaku Kyoyō, vol. 1, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Quoted in Ōkuni Takamasa, p. 550.Google Scholar

⁶¹ My interpretation of Ōkuni Shinto differs fundamentally from that of Professor Harootunian who writes, for example (op. cit., p. 346), that Ōkuni ‘eliminated the sharp differentiation between ruler and ruled;…[and] had manoeuvred to displace the perceived differences between social classes necessitated by politics, and their consequences for order.’ My understanding, however, is that his ethical Shinto aimed precisely at reinforcing the traditional social structure. He does not consider Ōkuni's own definition of Shinto as consisting essentially in the hierarchical principles of chūkōtei. Again he writes: ‘Ōkuni saw the Imperial Office as secondary in significance to the creation deities and the community.’ (op. cit., p. 356). While this judgement applies to Hirata Kokugaku, it does not do so to Ōkuni Kokugaku, Professor Harootunian arrives at his understanding here, without considering Ōkuni's Bankoku Sōtei theory in which the Imperial Office is primary.Google Scholar

⁶² See Takeda, , op. cit., pp. 131–8.Google Scholar

⁶³ See above n. 48.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Gokui Zonnensho, in Kansaikō Hōmu Yōsho Zanpen (not paginated) (Iwanami Shoten copy).Google Scholar

⁶⁵ See for example Haga, Shōji, ‘Shintō Kokkyōsei no keisei’, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The pronouncement is translated in full in Shōzō, Kōno, ‘Kannagara no Michi’, Monumenta Nipponica, vol. 3, no. 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Sonnōjōi Isetsuben, p. 348.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Gyoju Mondō, p. 112.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Sekijubutsu, in Zenshū, vol. 4, p. 164.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Yamatogokoro, in Zenshū, vol. 3, p. 90.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Sandōsanyoku Shōkuzusetsu, in Zenshū, vol. 2, p. 299.Google Scholar

⁷² Sonnōjōi Isetsuben, p. 347.Google Scholar

⁷³ Sekijubutsu, pp. 166–7.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Yasumaru, , op. cit., p. 86.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Shaji Onkaisei OnshuigakiGoogle Scholar, in Iwao, Kabe (ed.), Otoroganaka (Tōkyō, 1908), pp. 464–5.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Satoshigaki, in ibid., p. 474.

⁷⁷ Shaji Onkaisei Onshuigaki, p. 464.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Kansaikō Hōmu Yōsho Zanpen.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid.

⁸⁰ Ibid.

⁸¹ See for example Yasumaru, op. cit., pp. 52–4. For further evidence of Hirata followers' involvement in local haibutsu activities see Yasumaru op. cit., pp. 98–100Google Scholar, and Tasaburō, Itō, Kinseishi no Kenkyū, vol. 1 (Tōkyō, Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, 1982), p. 59.Google Scholar

⁸² Kenkinsengo, in Kokugaku Undō, p. 582.Google Scholar

⁸³ See above n. 3.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Tsunetugu, Muraoka, ‘Meiji Ishin no kyōkatosei to Hirata Shintō’, in Ken, Ishikawa (ed.), Hatano Sensei Kentei Ronbunshū— Tetsugaku oyobi Shūkyō to Sono Rekishi (Tōkyō, Iwanami Shoten, 1938), p. 582.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ For Aizawa's views of Christianity, echoed closely by Ōkuni, see Wakabayashi, Bob Tadashi, Anti-Foreignism and Western Learning in Early Modern Japan: The New Theses of 1825 (Harvard East Asian Monographs 126, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1986), esp. pp. 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁶ Bunbu Kyojitsuron, p. 400.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Ibid.

⁸⁸ Kyūjō Ichiran (not paginated).Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Shinri Shōgen is one example. I have again used the Kokugakuin Daigaku manuscript copy (not paginated) of this work.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Shinri Shōgen.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ibid.

⁹² Ibid.

⁹³ On this see, for example, Hongaku Kyōyō, p. 15.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid., p. 30.

⁹⁵ See my ‘The Restoration Government's Anti-Christian Measures: The Question of Motive’ (paper presented to the European Association of Japanese Studies Conference (Durham 1988)). The standard account of the Nagasaki affair is Wasaburō, Urakawa, Urakami Kirishitanshi (Tōkyō, Zenkoku Shobō, 1943).Google Scholar

⁹⁶ See Dajōruiten, 1, 21, 28.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ In Kansaikō Hōmu Yōsho Zanpen.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ibid.

⁹⁹ Ibid. We have seen Ōkuni equate Amenominakanushi with Tenshu, (the Christian God), but despite his identification of Amenominakanushi with Amaterasu, Amaterasu and Tenshu are here equated for the first time.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid.

¹⁰¹ Kamei Koremi Kaki (Hensanjo, Shiryō, Tōkyō Daigaku).Google Scholar

¹⁰² Ōkuma Monjo A4 151, 15 (Waseda University).Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Iwao, Kabe (ed.), Mokuen Fukuba Bisei Shoden (Tōkyō, Yōrōbunko, 1908), p. 73.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ The Restoration government had declared the Christian proscription to be such a law (eisei no teihō) in the Gobō no Keiji published on April 7th 1868. See above n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ See above. n. 3.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ibid.