Introduction: A Turbulent Era of Historiography and National Identity
In the late 19th century, Japan was undergoing a profound transformation. The Meiji Restoration had ended centuries of feudal rule, dismantled the Tokugawa shogunate, and initiated rapid modernization and Westernization. Amid this political upheaval, a fierce ideological battle erupted over how Japan’s history should be written and understood, a debate deeply intertwined with the nation’s emerging identity and the role of the emperor.
At the heart of this conflict was Kume Kunitake, a prominent historian and scholar, whose critical approach to Japan’s ancient religious traditions challenged the newly established official narrative centered on the emperor and State Shinto. His controversial scholarship ignited a backlash from conservative political factions and Shinto ideologues, exposing the tensions between academic freedom and political orthodoxy in Meiji Japan.
Kume Kunitake: Scholar, Samurai, and Chronicler of Japan’s Modernization
Kume Kunitake was born in the late Edo period as a samurai of the Hizen domain , a Japanese delegation sent to study Western political, economic, and social systems.
As secretary to Iwakura Tomomi, the mission’s plenipotentiary ambassador, Kume meticulously documented the delegation’s extensive travels across Europe and America. His magnum opus, “Records of Observations in America and Europe,” spanned five volumes and 100 chapters, offering a detailed account of Japan’s first encounters with the modern world. This work remains invaluable, especially since many official reports from the mission were lost in a devastating fire.
After returning to Japan, Kume devoted himself to historiography. In 1879, the government appointed him as an editor at the newly established Historiographical Institute . At the age of 40, Kume was at the forefront of efforts to construct a national history that would unify the Japanese people under the restored imperial order.
The Meiji Government’s Challenge: Rebuilding Imperial Authority Through History
The Meiji Restoration had restored the emperor as Japan’s symbolic and political center after centuries of shogunal rule. However, the challenge was immense. During the Tokugawa period, the shogunate wielded real power, while the emperor remained a largely ceremonial figure. Many commoners identified more with their local domains or the shogunate than with the imperial institution.
To forge a modern nation-state, the Meiji leadership sought to elevate the emperor’s status and cultivate national loyalty. One key strategy was the official compilation and dissemination of a national history that emphasized the emperor’s divine origins and rightful sovereignty. Historical scholarship was thus harnessed as a political tool to legitimize the new regime.
In 1875, the government established the National History Editorial and Correction Bureau, which was reorganized in 1877 into the Historiographical Institute. Their mission was to compile a comprehensive, continuous history of Japan following the model of the ancient “Rikkokushi” , classical chronicles dating to the 8th century. The new “Chronological History of Great Japan” was to highlight the emperor’s central role and trace an unbroken imperial lineage from the divine Sun Goddess Amaterasu, a cornerstone myth underpinning Japan’s national identity.
The official historiographical edicts emphasized the need to eradicate the abuses of military governments since the Kamakura period, restore proper imperial authority, and reinforce hierarchical social norms. This vision reflected traditional Confucian values adapted to support the Meiji state’s political agenda.
The Intellectual Shift: Emergence of Critical and Empirical Historiography
Despite the government’s intentions, the intellectual climate of the Meiji period was rapidly evolving. The slogan of “Civilization and Enlightenment” inspired many Japanese scholars to embrace Western scientific methods and critical inquiry. This new generation of historians, often educated in classical Chinese scholarship but increasingly influenced by Western historiography, sought to reexamine Japan’s past with a more empirical and evidence-based approach.
Kume Kunitake was among these progressive scholars. While working at the Historiographical Institute, he and his colleagues conducted rigorous historical research, scrutinizing primary sources and questioning legendary narratives long accepted as fact. Their work increasingly challenged the mythologized imperial history promoted by the state.
This growing tension between truth-seeking historiography and political dogma became most apparent in the debate over State Shinto .
State Shinto and the Politicization of Religion
Central to Meiji ideology was State Shinto, a system that elevated Shinto rituals and the emperor’s divine status as foundational to Japan’s national identity. In 1889, the promulgation of the Meiji Constitution formally separated religion from the state but paradoxically declared State Shinto not a religion but a set of national rituals and ceremonies. These rites were mandatory public affairs designed to unify the populace and reinforce loyalty to the emperor.
State Shinto portrayed the emperor as a living deity, descended from Amaterasu, and positioned Shinto shrines—most notably the Ise Grand Shrine—as sacred sites of imperial worship. This ideology sought to create a sacralized nation-state, blending governance and religious observance in a way that made dissent difficult.
Kume Kunitake’s Controversial Critique of Shinto
In 1891, Kume published a lengthy article in the Journal of the Historical Society , entitled “Shinto is an Ancient Custom of Heaven Worship.” In this seminal work, Kume argued that Shinto’s core was not a unique divine revelation but a form of ancient communal rites centered on the emperor and the Ise Shrine. He posited that these rituals were essentially “ancient customs of heaven worship,” comparable to other East Asian traditions like the Chinese worship of the Jade Emperor.
Kume’s analysis stripped State Shinto of its purported exclusivity and divine grandeur, framing it instead as a cultural practice rooted in primitive communal religion. His use of the term “swaddling clothes” to describe these early rites carried a subtle tone of condescension, suggesting their origins were humble and not inherently sacred.
This academic perspective directly contradicted the government’s narrative that State Shinto was a unique, eternal, and divine institution central to Japan’s national polity. Kume’s scholarship threatened to undermine the ideological foundation of the Meiji state.
Political Backlash and the Suppression of Dissent
Kume’s critique provoked a fierce response from conservative factions within the government and Shinto clergy. Unable to refute his arguments on scholarly grounds, his opponents launched a politically charged campaign to discredit him. The media attacked Kume as a traitor who insulted the emperor, defiled the national polity , and undermined Japan’s sacred history.
Accusations of irreverence toward the imperial institution and historical defamation became common refrains. Kume was portrayed as a dangerous figure whose views threatened the cohesion of the nation. Under mounting pressure, Kume was forced to resign from the Historiographical Institute in 1892, effectively ending his official academic career.
This episode highlights the precarious balance between intellectual freedom and state authority in Meiji Japan. The government’s insistence on a sacralized imperial narrative left little room for critical historiography that challenged official ideology.
Cultural and Historical Legacy
The controversy surrounding Kume Kunitake’s scholarship reveals much about the nature of nationalism and historical memory in modern Japan. His experience illustrates how history can be weaponized by political powers to construct and maintain social order.
Despite his forced retirement, Kume’s work laid important groundwork for later historical studies that approached Japanese history with critical scrutiny. His insistence on empirical research and comparative analysis influenced the gradual development of academic history independent of state ideology.
Meanwhile, State Shinto remained a powerful force shaping Japanese identity until the end of World War II, when it was officially disestablished by the Allied occupation. The legacy of the Meiji historiographical project, with its fusion of myth, politics, and ritual, continues to inform debates about nationalism and cultural heritage in contemporary Japan.
Conclusion: Kume Kunitake’s Enduring Relevance
Kume Kunitake’s story is a compelling chapter in the complex history of Japan’s modernization. It underscores the challenges of reconciling scholarly inquiry with political agendas, especially when history serves as a foundation for national identity.
His courageous efforts to apply critical methods to Japan’s past, even in the face of fierce opposition, exemplify the vital role historians play in questioning dominant narratives and expanding our understanding of cultural heritage. Kume’s legacy invites us to reflect on the power of history—not only to unite societies but also to constrain and contest the meanings we assign to our collective past.