Public Properties by Noriko Aso

7/27/2019 Public Properties by Noriko Aso

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/public-properties-by-noriko-aso 1/40

Noriko Aso

museums iNimperiAl

jApAN

PublicProperties



ASIA-PACIFIC: CULURE, POLIICS, AND SOCIEYEDIORS: Rey Chow, Michael Dutton,

H. D. Harootunian, and Rosalind C. Morris

A SUDY OF HE WEAHERHEAD EAS ASIAN INSIUE,

COLUMBIA UNIVERSIY



Public Properties

• • •

MuseuMs in

iMPerial JaPan

noriko aso

ue niversity ress

urham and ondon 2014



© 2014 ue niversity ress

ll rihts reserved

rinted in the nited tates o merica on acid-ree paper ♾

esined by eather ensley

ypeset in rno ro by sen normation ystems, nc.

ibrary o onress ataloin-in-ublication ata

so, orio.

ublic properties : museums in imperial Japan / orio so.

paes cm—(sia-acic) (tudy o the eatherhead

ast sian nstitute)

ncludes biblioraphical reerences and inde.

ISBN 978-0-8223-5413-0 (cloth : al. paper)

ISBN 978-0-8223-5429-1 (pb. : al. paper)

1. useums—Japan—istory—19th century. 2. rt, Japanese—

eiji period, 1868–1912. 3. Japan—ntellectual lie—estern

infuences. . itle. . eries: sia-acic. . eries: tudies o the eatherhead ast sian nstitute, olumbia niversity.

AM77.A2A75 2013

069.0952′09034—dc23 2013018958

SUDIES OF HE WEAHERHEAD EAS ASIAN INSIUE,COLUMBIA UNIVERSIY

Te Weatherhead East Asian Institute is Columbia University’s center or

research, publication, and teaching on modern and contemporary

East Asia regions. Te Studies o the Weatherhead East Asian Institutewere inaugurated in 1962 to bring to a wider public the results o signicant

new research on modern and contemporary East Asia.



contents

ILLUSRAIONS i

ACkNOWLEDgMENS i

INRODUCION 1

CHAPER 1

tatin the ublic 13

CHAPER 2 mperial roperties 63

CHAPER 3 olonial roperties 95

CHAPER 4 Te rivate ublics o Ōhara,

hibusawa, and anai 127

CHAPER 5 onsumin ublics 169

EPILOgUE 203

NOES 223

BIBLIOgRAPHY 279

INDEx 297



illustrations

F i.1: isitors to the Shōsōin Imperial reasures Special Exhibit 2

F 1.1: ihteenth-century aichō 17

F 1.2: ataloue o museum displays, zooloical section, 1877 22

F 1.3: Te ienna world’s air o 1873 24

F 1.4: Te Japan ehibit at the ondon world’s air o 1862 26

F 1.5: ronze paoda displayed at the hicao world’s air o

1893 29

F 1.6: Japanese marble displayed at the hicao world’s air o

1893 29

F 1.7: econd ational position o 1881 34

F 1.8: ith ational position held in saa, 1903 38

F 1.9: ransportation uildin at the ith ational position(saa) in 1903 41

F 1.10: alace o ine rts at the hicao world’s air o 1893 41

F 1.11: ichi reecture azaar at the ith ational position

(saa) in 1903 42

F 1.12: ormosa uildin at the ith ational position (saa)

in 1903 42

F 1.13: ushima eidō in 1872 52

F 1.14: amashita-monnai museum 53



F 1.15: Viewing Art at the 1877 First National Exposition by ndō

iroshie 57

F 1.16: hibit cases on the second foor o the eno museum 58

F 1.17: ommemorative photoraph o those involved in preparin or

the ienna world’s air o 1873 60

F 2.1: Kyoto museum ates 79

F 2.2: oyo mperial useum in 1938 81

F 2.3: Te oyo mperial useum with elementary schoolchildren

helpin with landscapin 81

F 3.1: Government-General useum o aiwan 98

F 3.2: Korean ehibit at the hicao world’s air o 1893 111F 3.3: Government-General useum o Korea 113

F 4.1: Ōhara useum o rt 134

F 4.2: ttic useum artiacts 142

F 4.3: Japan ol rats useum 156

F 4.4: nterior o the Japan ol rats useum 157

F 5.1: ihombashi (main) branch o itsuoshi 170

F 5.2: isplay cases and counters at the ihombashi branch o

itsuoshi 176

F 5.3: itsuoshi central hall 177

F 5.4: odel dauhter o the house 182

F 5.5: otice o art ehibit published in Mitsukoshi 195



acknowledgMents

th m j h bf h: h y

no way to adequately epress my thans to the many people andinstitutions that have helped me while pursuin this project.

Edwin Mclellan’s advice sent me to the niversity o hi-cao, where this project bean as a doctoral dissertation. illiam

ibley, Norma ield, arry arootunian, etsuo Najita, andeora uslander ave wise and warm uidance as well as onoin

inspiration. ill has let us, but the community he nurtured willalways remember his great indness, dry wit, and deceptively

casual brilliance. In oyo, many scholars, including Kano Ma-sanao, atō Kenji, Kinoshita Naoyui, Kobayashi Mari, Igarashi

Aio, Narita Ryūichi, and Yoshimi hun’ya, have been bound-lessly generous and patient with me over the years. Yoshimi’s

Hakurankai no seijigaku redefned the feld just as I was gettingstarted. hile aliated with the niversity o oyo’s wonderulproram in cultural resource studies, was urther introduced to

the fne work and riendship o the then students Park Sohyun and

in ei- u and the ellow ze . oo. would also lie to epress

my deep appreciation or the open doors and unorgettable ex-periences made possible by uiyama aeshi and his colleaues

at the Japan ol rats Museum. hibusawa Masahide, Koidezumi, Kusumoto aao, and noue Jun o the hibusawa ii-

chi emorial oundation, and Kitsuawa oshitada and Katsui ōichirō o the nstitute or the tudy o Japanese ol ulture



ACkNOWLEDgMENS• ii •

at Kanaawa niversity, have urther etended etraordinary indness andassistance. ellow students in hicao, oyo, and elsewhere were and are

my teachers as well as riends. very partial list includes ob dams, Kimrandt, usan urns, lan hristy, Kevin and Terese oa, Gerald ial,

aron Gerow, eth arrison, aahio ayashi, oulas owland, oshi-uni arashi, elen Koh, Kim Kono, om amarre, om ooser, ebbie

Lunny, Bill Marrotti, Janice Matsumura, Elizabeth Mcweeney-obb, Valerie Mendoza, Martin and Jacqueline Messic, Abe Marus Nornes,

amoto Koichi, Leslie incus, uzanne Ryan, Barbara ato, atsuehinohara, Kentaro omio, Gennier eiseneld, aqin an, arcia o-

nemoto, and da oshinaa. ndrew are’s perspective on the world o artconservation is warmly witty and always illuminatin. tean anaa n-

ished up at hicao beore arrived, but he has been a enerous mentor. While fnishing the dissertation and ater, I was honored to have the

opportunity to teach and pursue research at the hio tate niversity

(OSU), ortland tate niversity (PSU), an rancisco tate niversity (SFSU), and the niversity o aliornia, anta ruz (UCSC), all proud

public institutions. I would lie to convey my deepest gratitude and ad-miration toward my ormer colleaues at OSU, PSU, and SFSU, includin

Angela Brintlinger, hilip Brown, teven onn, Michael ogan, David Johnson, arry Kominz, aji hee, atricia chechter, ary cott, Julie

mith, inda alton, and atricia etzel. s or the wonderul colleaues,sta, and students wor with in the istory epartment at UCSC, reu-

larly have to pinch mysel to mae sure this is not just a dream. would lieto ive urther thans to my aculty mentor, uchanan harp, and to themembers o the ast sian readin roup—Gail ershatter, mily oni,

Alan hristy, Minghui u, Alice Yang, atherine hang, Rebecca or-

bett, and u-Kyoung wang—who suered through multiple iterationso each chapter. heryl arey, aae ujita, Jennier Gonzalez, yn Jery,Kate Jones, tacy Kamehiro, at amirez, hiho atsua, and anita eth

ept nudin me orward with conviviality and practical advice. Te Japa-nese Arts and Globalization research group, ounded by Miriam Wattles

or the niversity o aliornia system and beyond, has been a wonderuletended community that ave me ecellent eedbac on the nal chapter

or this boo. Te anonymous reviewers or my midcareer and tenure les,as well as Kathy hetovich and Mar elden, urther provided invalu-

able suestions or the project. inally, would lie to epress my deepappreciation or the patience and support o Ken issoer, Jade roos,



ACkNOWLEDgMENS• iii •

and everyone who helped brin this boo to ruition at ue niversity ress, includin the thouht-provoin yet enerous anonymous readers.

Te boo greatly benefted rom this process, and any shortcomings aresolely my own.

Te okyo National Museum, National Diet Library, Mitsukoshi-Isetanoldins, the Japan ol rats useum, the hibusawa iichi emorial

Foundation, the Ōhara Museum o Art, and the David M. Rubenstein Rare

oo and anuscript ibrary, ue niversity, were all eceedinly ra-

cious in rantin permission to reproduce imaes or this boo.Tis project was pursued and completed with the enerous support o

the ommittee on Institutional ooperation, the Japanese Ministry o Education, the Ohio State University Humanities Fellowship Program, the

toh cholarship oundation, the ocial cience esearch ouncil’s Japanociety or the romotion o cience ellowship, the UC resident’s e-search ellowship in the umanities, the UCSC ommittee on esearch,

and the UCSC nstitute or umanities esearch.

n a more personal note, I would lie to than my very frst and be-loved teachers, my parents, aenori and arol so. ichitae so is my brother, dear riend, and (secretly) hero. lan hristy has been a true part-

ner in lie as well as wor. cherish our time rowin toether. ur chil-dren, eter and amuel hristy, eep my joints movin and my heart and

mind open to the world’s wonders. am rateul.



introduction

a grnd stircse nchors the center of sttely, high- ceilinged

oyer. wo lon queues o patiently intent visitors ll a broad hall- way on the riht, channeled by wooden ates and esturin o-

cials. Tere are almost as many women as men, the ormer in ele-gant imonos with ur-collared wraps and the latter in Western

suits and hats, a ew in uniorm. mother tihtly clasps the hando her youn son as they turn around a corner to o up the stairs,

which are divided rom top to bottom by a rope. ncomers tihtly pac the riht side, but those on the let have a bit more room on

their way out. wo schoolboys pause to lean over the banister toaw as small roups wait at the base or stralin members o their parties. eanwhile, another crowd hovers at a separate en-

trance, waiting to be directed in small numbers past and under the

staircase. Te overall mood is lively but orderly, good- humored but contained.

Te setting was the oyo Imperial ousehold Museum

(oyo eishitsu aubutsuan), now nown as the oyo a-tional Museum (oyo Kouritsu aubutsuan; kH). Te

event was the Shōsōin Imperial reasures Special Exhibit (Shōsōin gyobutsu tokubetsu tenrankai), which opened on November 5,

1940, in conjunction with the commemoration o the 2,600thanniversary celebration o the Japanese empire (Kien 2600-nen

Kinen Gyōji). ttendance or the twenty-day ehibit—417,361—eceeded all previous annual totals or the museum. Te chared



INRODUCION• 2 •

atmosphere was captured by oma eirou (1902–66), a member o themuseum’s arts division, in a series o illustrations titled Snake Story: Te

Shōsōin Imperial reasures Exhibit Picture Scroll ( Kuchinawa monogatari:

Shōsōin gyobutsu tenran emaki).

Tis setch (ure .1) by oma portrays an imperial era (1868–1945)

museum as a crowd scene, in contrast to the more common practice at thetime o representin museums as architecture, artiacts, or a place or indi-

viduals to commune with a particular wor or display. too aim to ore-round the public nature o late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century

Japanese museums—not to celebrate the eistence o museum crowds assuch, but to trace how they came to be imained in relation to the central

state. I examine museums—whether established by the central govern-ment, Japanese colonial administrations, commercial institutions, or pri-

vate individuals—as sites specically desined to call imperial publics intoeistence.

Large crowds gathering in the oyo National Museum to view dis-

plays o Japanese art-historical heritage are common today, but this has not

always been the case. oma recorded the mass enthusiasm or the hōsōinehibit o 1940 as a moment o institutional triumph. oreover, the par-ticular conuration o class, ender, nation, popular appeal, and orderly

behavior that he vividly portrayed was the ruit o decades o eort to rootmuseums within the modern Japanese cultural landscape. Te question

is how such cultural practices came to be seen as a desirable norm. orexample, since the treasures o hōsōin had been saeguarded in sacred

F i.1: Illusraio by Noa Seiroku of visiors o he Shōsōin Imperial Treasures

Special Exhibit, held a he Tokyo Iperial Household Museu i 1940. Repried wih

perissio fro he Tokyo Naioal Museu; his iage ay o be reproduced wihou

tnm perissio.



INRODUCION• 3 •

storage or centuries until the Meiji era (1868–1912), why did the mod-ern Japanese state ris brinin them out to put on view? hy was access

given to anyone who could purchase a ticket? While popular displays o the

marvelous and strane had drawn lare street crowds since the ouawa

period (1600–1867), they were oten raucous aairs and certainly not statesponsored. ow did the museum audience come to be so respectable and

well behaved? hat is more, standin in queues or lon periods to even-tually et the chance to peer over someone else’s shoulder to catch a par-

tial limpse o a lassed-in object is not necessarily an obvious source o pleasure. Granted the opportunity, why did these people choose to spend

their leisure time in this manner? What sense o connection to the arti-acts, more academic than amusin, were these men, women, soldiers, and

schoolchildren all supposed to share? nswers to these questions were closely entwined with the cultivation

o a modern national identity in Japan rom the mid-nineteenth century.

Te oranizational role perormed by nation (kokka) and Japan (ihon) inthe eiji establishment o the elds o art and art history has been subject

to critical scrutiny in a series o major wors by atō ōshin. lso in theeld o art history, lice sen has analyzed the role o Japanese imperial

museums as sites o national sel-representation. n this contet, the im-pressive attendance ures or the hōsōin ehibit can be seen as evidence

o successul nationalist indoctrination. rtiact and viewer were supposedto share a “Japaneseness” that transcended other social identities.

owever, museums in the imperial era can oer more than a case study

in the imagining o a national community. pecifcally, this boo juxta-

poses central-government museums with colonial and privately estab-lished museums to explore elasticity, expansiveness, and divisions in the

creation o imperial publics, whose denition and redenition in relationto the Japanese state were ongoing. Displaying so-called heritage arti-acts in national museums was certainly meant to bolster state and im-

perial prestie. Te question o what this leacy was and what objects andimaes should be used to represent it, however, had to be answered anew

in Japanese colonial museums, precisely because their chare was to culti-

vate a sense o shared imperial identity within dierent ethnic populations.

oreover, even as museums promoted popular investment in such ideasas imperial heritae, they opened the door to assessment rom outside the

state. Te very possibility o creatin alternative aesthetic canons in privatemuseums emered rom this productive tension. n short, onoin neo-



INRODUCION• 4 •

tiation o who ehibits, why, and to whom, all o which in turn prooundly aect what is ehibited, was and is critical to the epansion o the museum

orm. ithout a viewin public, a museum is simply a collection, not a cul-tural institution.

Te ougawa era (1600–1867) boasted a lively domestic culture o popular display, but it did not enjoy ocial state sponsorship. Accord-

inly, the rst chapter, “tatin the ublic,” beins by looin at the newly established eiji reime’s translation o estern eposition and museum

practices or a domestic Japanese audience, characterized rom the start by multiplicity, eperimentation, and neotiation. Te most eective terms to

convey the nature and unction o these modern cultural institutions were by no means obvious: early Japanese observers at rst relied on vocabulary

that emphasized the sheer multitude o objects in sites such as the mith-sonian beore they wored toward denitions pointin at the critical unc-tion o public outreach. Tis was not seen in Japan as merely an academic

eercise. olitical and economic actors drove the eiji overnment romthe early 1870s to actively engage in “exhibitionary” culture, which was

then approaching its zenith in Europe and America. Most immediately,the state’s oal was to raise Japan’s international prole to ain a share in

lobal marets and to harness or its own ends the symbolic tools o uro- merican imperial power. Te eiji overnment wored to chane classi-

cation o Japanese entries in estern world’s airs rom primitive handi-crats to civilized art, even as it adapted estern eposition methods or

asserting civilizational superiority in Asia, with neoclassical architecturereserved or central-overnment pavilions, traditional Japanese styles or

reional pavilions, and eotic structures or imperial colonies. eanwhile,the rst overnment museum was established to serve as both a way sta-

tion and permanent eposition. onceived as a tool or mass education inan nlihtenment vein, the museum initially emphasized natural scienceand technoloy. t was a mechanism to mobilize the populace or indus-

trialization. or this reason, carnivalesque elements in ougawa display culture were suppressed to create a modern museum- going public. New

measures raned rom epandin days o operation, in order to encouraeattendance by members o the worin class, to rules or appropriate be-

havior, such as prohibitin clos and dos.

From the 1880s, however, the encyclopedic museum model began to lose

round in the course o reworin the overnment museum, its properties,and its nascent public as “imperial” in policy and practice. As chap ter 2,



INRODUCION• 5 •

“Imperial roperties,” explores, this meant placing the original museumunder mperial ousehold inistry control, reconstitutin the collection

in an art-historical rather than scientic vein, and constructin new mu-seums with ates, entrances, and rooms eclusively reserved or imperial

amily members. Te cateory o imperial was itsel bein redened at thetime to serve as a mediatin buer in neotiatin the boundaries between

state and society and public and private. particular relevance to mu-seums were the bureaucratic debates on how to create the general cate-

ory o imperial property, which resulted in a major transer o land andother resources rom various sectors o society to possession by the im-

perial amily, a orm o privatization in the name o public ood. ith theshit o overnment museums into the emperor’s portolio, state cultural

authority was personalized in the ure o the emperor and his immedi-ate relations, veilin an emerent canon under majesty not to be impoli-ticly scrutinized. ven as these museums crated narratives o an aesthetic

nation, imperialization ept the publicness o these institutions in chec. isitors were ranted a it o access, not a riht.

urn-o-the-century export o the government-museum orm to Japan’s

colonies raised new questions regarding the why, how, and who in con-

stituting an imperial public, as examined in chapter 3, “olonial roper-ties.” By the mid- 1930s, the Japanese museum system had established or

absorbed institutions in aiwan, Korea, ahalin, and anchuria. hand-ul more were taen over when the Japanese state captured various est-

ern colonial possessions early in the sia-acic ar. hapter 3 ocuses onaiwan and Korea, where Japanese colonial museums set down the deep-

est roots and were most active in engaging the local population. Dier-ences in colonial contet had a dramatic impact on the nature o the col-

lections and collection processes, ivin rise to variant visions o Japaneseimperial identity. Te Government-General useum o aiwan (aiwanōtouu aubutsuan), established in 1908, emphasized natural history

and anthropoloy, portrayin the island as rich in resources or etraction but in need o Japanese tutelae to rise above a primitive cultural state. n

contrast, the i oyal amily useum (i Ōe aubutsuan) in eoul,opened in 1909, represented a comple maneuver on the part o the colo-

nial government-general: established in the name o the Korean royalamily to cloa Japanese rule, the museum was also intended to under-

mine the royal amily by appropriatin private palace rounds or a pub-lic museum. (Japanese interest in destabilizin the Korean royal line was



INRODUCION• 6 •

no secret ater the assassination o mpress yeonseon, commonly re-erred to as Queen Min, in 1895.) In the Yi Royal amily Museum, an-

cient—not modern—Korean art on display was co-opted or the Japa-nese empire. Tese colonial institutions cultivated aiwanese and Korean

publics to serve Japanese interests, but the institutions also let a leacy o practices and materials that ramed local identity in ways that later were

turned aainst Japan itsel, while bein redeployed within a comple anddivided postcolonial landscape.

Even as the Japanese state expanded its exhibitionary inrastructureat home and abroad, private museums began to dot the early twentieth-

century landscape. hapter 4, “Te rivate ublics o Ōhara, hibusawa,and Yanagi,” taes a more individualized loo at three museum projects

that directly criticized the state or representin the nation only in termsdened by a central elite. Ōhara aosaburō (1880–1943) challened thecultural heemony o oyo by transormin Kurashii in ayama re-

ecture into a “ew lysium.” Te crown jewel o his eorts was the Ōharauseum o rt, which provided unprecedented access to oriinal wors

by such contemporary estern artists as laude onet and aul Gauuin.hibusawa Keizō’s (1896–1963) proposal or a “ol” museum o economic

history presented a detailed plan or a public institution to honor nonelitecontributions to national development. hile this project was never com-

pleted, it was to include such eatures as a showcase or portraits o ordi-nary businessmen, industrialists, scholars, inventors, and armers, whose

contributions were not acnowledged within the “great man” school o history. n a comparable manner, anai uneyoshi (1889–1961) ounded

the Japan ol rats Museum (Nihon Mingeian) to oer a vision o national aesthetic heritae that valorized the everyday, commonplace, and

useul. osed as a counterpoint rather than a supplement to the imperialcanon, the museum also sought to attract the same metropolitan bour-eois public that earnestly attended the hōsōin ehibit. ll three o these

private-sector museums represented early twentieth-century attemptsto shit some degree o government authority over to nongovernmental

hands, and to serve social interests that the central state was seen as havinailed to acnowlede.

Japanese department stores provide an institutional, in contrast to individual, window into this broader eort to stae “private” claims to a “pub-

lic” orm o authority throuh ehibition. hapter 5, “onsumin ublics,”traces the early twentieth-century emerence o department stores as cul-



INRODUCION• 7 •

tural showcases, in the process revisitin various aspects o modern Japa-nese exhibitionary culture. While inormed by such Western retailers as

Harrods, Japanese department stores developed in a particularly close rela-

tionship with national epositions and museums. oon department stores

positioned themselves alonside—and sometimes in competition with—state cultural institutions. hile loyally fyin the national fa and maret-

ing such patriotic goods as Russo- Japanese War handkerchies, department

stores established their own credentials by holding art and art- historical

exhibitions; organizing research associations with prominent intellectu-als, politicians, and bureaucrats o the day; and sponsorin public lectures,

roundtables, and publications. n the process, the department stores’ con-sumer publics—which included women and children as ull-feded citi-

zens—merged with broader conceptions o society, nation, and empire.Te triumphal claims o Japanese department stores did not go unchal-lenged in the colonies: the Korean authors h’ae Man-si and Yi ang

savaely portrayed the eoul branch o the itsuoshi epartment toreas a second-rate shrine to estern consumerist capitalism. oreover, the

wartime crisis o the late 1930s and early 1940s provided the state a chanceto requisition private sites o publicness. Department stores were trans-

ormed into government ration-distribution centers and uniorm manu-acturers, while shelvin and escalators were dismantled or war materiel.

Tis reassertion o direct state control underscores the act that the im-perial era’s epansion o publicness had always been subject to strict his-

torical limits. War had brought both material scarcity and new (conquered) acili-

ties to the state museum networ, but deeat in 1945 meant Japanese sur-render o its colonial possessions. Te epilogue oers a loo at how the

public nature o the national museum system was redened at the end o the war, during the long postwar era, and in the present. nder Ameri-can occupation (1945–52), the national museum system was transerred

rom the emperor to the inistry o ducation. ubsequent reorms weretouted as democratization but were administered by bureaucrats who

sought to rebrand but not necessarily reimagine Japan as a “cultural na-tion” (bunka kokka). Tis ew Japan—reliant on rather than resistant to

merican heemony—was placed on display in overnment museums as well as sports acilities durin the well-received oyo lympics o 1964,

ater which the security and prestie o the postwar state’s cultural appara-

tus seemed unassailable. However, as part o a series o sweeping neoliberal



INRODUCION• 8 •

transormations, the national museums were redened in 2001 as indepen-dent and, eventually, sel-undin entities. resh round o heated debate

reardin the roles, boundaries, and responsibilities o state and society is well under way.

tae up the introduction and entrenchment o the modern museumorm in Japan because it is ounded on historically shiting conceptual-

izations o publicness, loosely stitchin toether state and society, nationand individual, authority and audience. inicantly, Jüren abermas in-

cluded museums, alon with coee houses and salons, as ormative loca-tions in his classic study o the rise o the “public sphere” (Öfentlichkeit ) as

boureois practice and ideal in estern urope in the eihteenth century.n particular, abermas hihlihted the way in which museums “institu-

tionalized the lay judgment on art: discussion became the medium through which people appropriated art.” Tis characterization alls in line with his

basic narrative o the public sphere as a space o sel-determination; yet the

state remains lurin in the bacround, ready to emere in later chaptersas a crucial entity aainst which, and with which, the public sphere had to

dene itsel. hile abermas emphasized ealitarianism in estern uropean con-

ceptualizations o the public sphere, various scholars have since pointed to ways in which this orum was deeply riven by tensions between eclusion

and inclusion. stablishin a public sphere did not necessarily, and cer-tainly not automatically, move historical practices toward more universal

participation.2 Accordingly, although the public sphere has been a produc-

tive concept in museum studies, contemporary practice has moved toward

oregrounding diverse and requently opposed viewpoints in museum-community ormation. Te erce political and social conficts embedded

within postwar museum ehibits on the sia-acic ar have, moreover,inspired various scholars in sian studies to tae a closer loo at the role

o such institutions in shaping historical memories.4 Japanese museums o

the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries can also be said to haveopened up room or claims—such as those made by Ōhara aosaburō,

hibusawa Keizō, and anai uneyoshi—to the leitimacy o lay jud-ment and appropriation. et the modern state was the drivin aent be-

hind imperial-era establishment and rowth o this institutional orm. tthe same time, this state was neither monolithic nor uncontested, so multi-

plicity and riction are central elements in my account. While abermas has played a oundational role in contemporary de-



INRODUCION• 9 •

bates on the emerence, potential, and limits o modern publics, and thiseld has in turn shaped the present wor, am not attemptin to read a

abermasian public sphere bac into late nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century Japan. Instead, I have chosen to use such capacious

terms as publics and publicness rather than the more codied public sphere.volvin notions o publicness became ermane to imperial Japan because

a new orm o overnance had been established, one that required increas-inly hiher levels o participation on the part o the eneral population,

even as the new state souht to curb and quell its potential. ublicness—neither an exact equivalent or an idealized Western European public

sphere nor a neatly bounded alternative—in Japanese museums emered

during this era as a hierarchically structured space o conversation between

the state and the general population, eventually including the colonies, which was at the same time part o a hierarchically structured conversation with contemporary estern discourse and practice.

Tis boo addresses publicness in the historically specic orms o kō (公) and kōkyō (公共), Japanese terms oten used today as equivalent to

the nlish public or public sphere. n a process that did not oriinate inthe Meiji Restoration o 1868 but accelerated with it, kō and later kōkyō

were two amon a host o rewored and invented terms that emered orrethinking relations between those who governed and those who were gov-

erned. ne particularly dense not o Japanese words and phrases col-lectively constituted what we miht call nation , includin the proper name

ihon (Japan), the more abstract kuni (“domain” in the ouawa period,and “country” in the Meiji period), kokka (nation-state), and kokumin-

kokka (ethnic nation-state), and a host o related words and concepts suchas kokutai (national essence). A well-established, rich, and interlaced

body o scholarship has thorouhly eplored how the discourse and prac-tice o nation and nationalism too shape in the modern period. ore-over, the central state and its bureaucracy—kan , seifu , seidō—have been

closely analyzed or their active role in structurin this political terrain, be-innin with the new overnment’s harter ath o 1868. Te emperor

(tennō), “restored” as modern head o state, has been similarly scrutinizedas a ocal point or modern Japanese nationalism. Yet, as various Japa-

nese and estern scholars have noted, the question o whether the mod-ern state truly represented the nation has been raised since the late nine-

teenth century. t is not surprisin, then, that terms rom the imperial eradesignating the people—including jinmin , shūsho (衆庶), hitobito , tami/



INRODUCION• 10 •

min , minshū , kokumin (national subjects), and later taishū (the masses)— were also diverse, layered, and laden. hile some political ures called

or people’s rihts (minken) and others celebrated obedience as the hih-

est virtue o imperial subjects (kōmin), bureaucrats were reconceptualiz-

in overnance in biopolitical terms, as the manaement o an areatepopulation.25Society— yo , seken , sōtai , and shakai—was in turn increasingly

invoked both inside and outside o government circles, sometimes as a sec-

tor distinct rom the state, sometimes as an interal element o a totality

most oten presumed to be the nation, but on occasion pointin beyond,to humanity or the world. Ten, as the outlines o an overseas Japanese

colonial empire (teikoku) became clearly visible by the early twentieth cen-tury, the already multivalent host o terms or nation , people , emperor , state ,

and society had to be reneotiated aain and aain. ddin kō and kōkyō to the cluster o terms is intended to underscore

the interconnectedness o this conceptual networ. Kō should not be

understood as a transcendent concept that hovered over and eplained theothers; rather, it perormed a bridin unction or orein and domestic

conceptions o emperor, nation, state, and society. Te chapters that ollow

loo at modern claims to publicness in liht o how they opened up a par-

ticular space or onoin neotiations o such concepts as nation, empire,state, and people as they collectively came to dominate discourse in the late

nineteenth and early twentieth century. Sometimes these interactions were

raught, and sometimes they strengthened conceptual associations and the

comple as a whole.t is also worth eepin in mind that, althouh publicness was reneoti-

ated rom the nineteenth century in conversation with estern and mod-ern strands o thought, it had a longer genealogy. In the seventh and

eighth centuries, gong and si (公/私; now generally translated as publicand private) were introduced along with many other hinese governingterms, concepts, and social technoloies as part o the establishment o a

centralized bureaucratic state headed by the Japanese imperial clan.29 Gong

brided the ap between hinese ruler and ruled in the sense o “commu-

nal matters,” as it was incorporated into character compounds or popularopinion as well as overnment oces. n Japan, gong was mapped onto the

native term ōyake , which had hitherto reerred to the governing sphereso the great clans o the archipelago. Redefned as equivalent to kō (the

hinese-style readin o the character or gong ), ōyake came to orm a bi-nary with watakushi or shi (newly coined as Japanese ways o readin the




character si , 私). Kō came to encompass both the imperial line miyake (御ヤケ) and the aristocracy (kōmin , 公民), while shi desinated matters

outside o overnmental interest.owever, a law passed in 743 that allowed permanent, private posses-

sion o newly opened lands initiated a lon-term process o redenition.ntended to encourae temples, shrines, and aristocrats to invest in brin-

in new elds under cultivation, this imperial policy paved the way or therise o shōen estates, dened by their eemption rom havin to pay trib-

ute or taes to the central overnment. uch eceptions came to riddle thetheoretically whole cloth o the imperial realm with so many holes that

mperor Go-anjō (1034–73) introduced reorms that allowed memberso the imperial amily (with the sole eception o the reinin emperor) to

join other members o the elite in divertin “private” revenue streams romthe central sc. Te result was that the terms ōyake and kō shited romequivalence with the state apparatus and its ocials to the desination o

obligations organized by the state across various levels o society, whilethe terms watakushi and shi were reormulated to reer to matters that ell

outside such specied duties. n the process, ōyake and kō and watakushi and shi came to be more tihtly interdependent: even as public lands were

moved into private status throuh commendation, state law provided the very oundation or private rights and legitimization or drawing peripheral

territory into a centralizin system. Tere was no sinular site or eitherōyake or watakushi , which together cut through, and united, each tier o

society even ater the establishment o the ouawa shounal (warrior)reime in the seventeenth century.

Contemporary usage o the term kō certainly draws on a legacy o strong

association with the state, which is why various scholars have discounted

the authenticity o a Japanese publicness. Te modern Japanese state wasalso unquestionably an important agent in the account o museums as pub-

lic institutions in the imperial era. n the other hand, such concepts as the

state, the emperor, subjects, and the people have lon ormed a tihtly nitand mutually constitutive cluster, albeit one characterized by redenition

rom the eihth throuh the twenty-rst centuries. ithin this constella-tion, ōyake and kō can serve as a useul barometer or shitin relations be-

tween state and society.n the modern imperial era, publicness continued to demarcate a some-

what amorphous and certainly malleable boundary area that partoo botho state and society: it was the ace the state turned to society, and vice




versa. Tis publicness should not be seen as equivalent to democracy insome abstract and idealized sense, yet it provided some ground or the

emerence o a surae movement in the late nineteenth century. hileits modern conceptualization was larely born o the eiji state and its at-

tempt to mobilize the eneral population, it was also switly turned aainstthe state in nationalist and imperialist as well as liberal and proressive cri-

tiques. ounded by government and private entities on the undamentalpremise that publicness was sinicant, modern museums oer a concrete

case throuh which we can eamine these productive tensions at wor inimperial Japan.



notes

irduc

1. Attendance gures rom “Kanranshasū ichiranhyō,” in kH, ky Kkursu

Hkubusuk ykues (oyo: oyo Kouritsu aubutsuan, 1973),663.

2. oma eirou, Kuchinawa monogatari , image no. N87197 in the oyo ationaluseum (kH) archives.

3. Tis is not to say that oma’s emphasis was without precedent: his choice o the term emaki (picture scroll) clearly signaled that he was drawing on an older visual tradition in Japan. oreover, depicting crowds at museum exhibits be-came more common in the postwar period, underscoring their eventulness.


Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 663.5. mong atō ōshin’s major wors are “Nihon bijutsu” tanjō: Kindai Nihon no

“kotoba” to senryaku (oyo: Kōdansha, 1996); Meiji kokka to kindai bijutsu: Bino seijigaku (oyo: Yoshiawa ōbun, 1999); and Bijutsu no aidentitii: Dare notame ni, nan no tame ni (oyo: Yoshiawa ōbunan, 2007).

6. Alice seng, Te Iperl Museus Mej Jp: Arcecure d e Ar

e N (Seattle: University o Washington Press, 2008). See also seng’s“rt in lace: Te isplay o Japan at the mperial useums, 1872–1909” (hdiss., arvard niversity, 2004). For an earlier introduction in nglish to Japa-nese museums, see Masatoshi Konishi, “Te Museum and Japanese Studies,”Curre Arply 28: 4 (August/October 1987). See also the important wor by the art historian hristine Guth in, or example, Art, ea, and Industry:

Msud ks d e Msu Crcle (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1993); and Ellen Conant, ed., Clle Ps d Prese: Te Merp-

sis o Nineteenth-Century Japanese Art (onolulu: niversity o awai‘i ress,2006). For a dierent approach to some o these issues, see Kim randt’s close



NOES O INRODUCION• 224 •

analysis o the Japanese olcrat movement in Kingdom o Beauty: Mingei andthe Politics o Folk Art in Imperial Japan (urham: ue niversity ress, 2007).eslie incus provides an intellectual history o imperial-era aesthetic discoursein Authenticating Culture in Imperial Japan: Kuki Shūzō and the Rise o National

Aesthetics (ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 1996). current loo at therole o the Japanese state in relation to national culture is oered by Kuniyuiomooka, Sachiko Kanno, and Mari Kobayashi in “Japanese Cultural Policy andthe nfuence o estern nstitutions,” in Global Culture: Media, Arts, Policy, andGlobalization , edited by iane rane, obuo Kawashima, and Ken’ichi Kawa-sai (ew Yor: outledge, 2002).


Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 663.8. Jürgen abermas, Te Structural ransormation o the Public Sphere: An Inquiry

into a Category o Bourgeois Society , translated by Tomas urger (ambridge:MI ress, 1994).

9. abermas, Te Structural ransormation o the Public Sphere , 40.10. See, or eample, Habermas’s chapters “Political Functions o the Public Sphere”

and “Te olitical ublic phere and the ransormation o the iberal onsti-tutional tate into a ocial- elare tate” in his Te Structural ransormationo the Public Sphere , 57–88, 222–35. abermas even warns, “Te democratic pro-cedures and arrangements that grant united citizens the chance or collectivesel-determination and political control over their own social eistence can only

diminish as the nation-state loses its unctions and capabilities, unless someequivalent or them emerges at the supra-state level.” abermas, “oward aosmopolitan urope,” Journal o Democracy 14: 4 (ctober 2003): 92.

11. Nancy Fraser summarizes and extends various critiques o a abermasianpublic sphere, while acnowledging the concept’s analytic uses. Fraser, “Re-thining the ublic phere: ontribution to the ritique o ctually xistingemocracy,” Social ext 25/26 (1990).

12. lthough will not rehearse here the major debates in the rich and still-growing Japanese- and nglish-language literature on the public sphere and civil society,they have, o course, propelled the very conception o this boo in its presentorm. abermas’s wor, already mentioned, not only has played a oundationalrole in the Western scholarly debates on this topic but also has been widely reerenced in Japanese discussions. annah Arendt’s wor along these lines,particularly in Te Hu Cd (Chicago: University o Chicago Press,1989), has been equally i not more infuential in Japanese circles. ee, or ex-ample, aitō Jun’ichi, Kōkyōsei: Publicness (oyo: wanami, 2000). aitō uses

Arendt’s ormulations as a oundation or his consideration o publicness in

contemporary Japan. Te Public Culture special issue “ew maginaries” (win-ter 2002), edited by ilip Gaonar and enjamin ee, and eaturing contribu-tions by Arjun Appadurai, Craig Calhoun, Mary Poovey, Charles aylor, andichael arner, provides a useul introduction to approaches that to a greater




or lesser degree begin to grapple with publicness as an issue that extends beyond estern urope. Kuan-sin hen taes a hard and critical loo at civilsociety theory and practice within ast sia in his Asia as Method: oward De-imperialization (urham: ue niversity ress, 2010).

13. useum studies is a rich and still growing eld; will note here only a ew o the works that have inormed this study: ony Bennett, Te Birth o the Museum:Hsry, Tery, Plcs (New Yor: Routledge, 1995); James Cliord, Te Pre-

dicament o Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988); Steven Conn, Museums and American Intellectual Lie, 1876–1926 (hicago: niversity o hi-cago ress, 1998); arol uncan, Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums (ew Yor: outledge, 1995); helly rrington, Te Death o Authentic PrimitiveCulure d Oer les Prress (Bereley: University o Caliornia Press,1998); van Karp et al., eds., Museum Frictions: Public Cultures/Global ransor-

mations (urham: ue niversity ress, 2006); van Karp, hristine ullenKreamer, and Steven Levine, eds., Museus d Cues (Washington,..: mithsonian nstitution ress, 1992); van Karp and teven evine, Ex-hibiting Cultures: Te Poetics and Politics o Museum Display (ashington, ..:Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991); Jim McGuigan, Culure d e Publc

Sphere (ew Yor: outledge, 1996); aniel herman, Worthy Monuments: Art Museus d e Plcs Culure Neee-Ceury Frce (Cambridge:arvard niversity ress, 1998).

14. For eample, ze Loo oers a sharp historical analysis o the museumifcation o

huri astle in her article, “huri astle’s ther istory: rchitecture and m-pire in Okinawa’s History,” Te Asia- Pacifc Journal: Japan Focus (2009), accessed January 21, 2013, http://japanocus.org/-tze _ m _ -loo/3232. ee also the variouschapters that critically examine merican and Japanese memory maing withregard to the sia-acic ar in aura ein and ar elden, eds., Living withthe Bomb: American and Japanese Cultural Conicts in the Nuclear Age (rmon:M.E. Sharpe, 1997). Also o interest is the proposed but ultimately rejectedscript or the mithsonian exhibit o the nola Gay, published in hilip obile,ed., Jude e Ss (New Yor: Marlowe and Co., 1995). Cross-cultural comparisons can also be ound in ichael J. ogan, ed., Hiroshima inHistory and Memory (ew Yor: ambridge niversity ress, 1996). touch on Japanese peace and war museums once more in the epilogue.

15. While the question o whether abermas’s ormulation o the public spherecan be extended to analyze specic developments in sia is not central to this boo, there are a growing number o wors that pursue this issue in a nuancedand detailed ashion, such as io egami, Bonds o Civility: Aesthetic Networksand the Political Origins o Japanese Culture (ambridge: ambridge niversity

ress, 2005); and Jeong- oo Koo, “Te rigins o the ublic phere and ivilSociety: Private Academies and Petitions in Korea, 1506–1800,” Scl Scece

History 31: 3 (all 2007).16. abermas and others have, o course, noted potential problems in the very




multiplicity o meanings and uses o publc and its cognates; abermas, Te

Srucurl rsr e Publc Spere , 1–2. Michael Edwards providesa succinct discussion o the orms and norms o the public sphere in his CivilSociety (ambridge, .K.: olity ress, 2004), 54–71.

17. Publicness as a concept in Japan beore 1945 has not constituted a major topic inthe English-language literature, the eceptions being M. E. Berry’s incisive essay “ublic ie in uthoritarian Japan,” Daedalus 17: 3 (1998); ouglas owland’sranslating the West: Language and Political Reason in Nineteenth-Century Japan (onolulu: niversity o awai‘i ress, 2002), and Personal Liberty and the Pub-lic Good: Te Introduction o John Stuart Mill to Japan and China (oronto: ni-

versity o oronto Press, 2005); and Iegami’s sweeping Bds Cvly. In Japan, however, studies o kōkyōsei (today used as a translation or the publicsphere) have recently increased exponentially, to the point that they can claim

their own shel or two within various boostores. Te ten- volume University o oyo series Kōyō etsugau (Public Philosophy) provides an organiza-tional core to the eld by drawing together prominent scholars and publish-ing their presentations with transcriptions o ollow-up roundtable discussions.ee asai aeshi and Kim ae-hang, eds., Kōkyō tetsugaku , 10 vols. (oyo:oyo Daigau Shuppanai, 2001–6). Sasai aeshi, Yamawai Naoshi, andMurata Yūjirō, eds., Hs Aj keru kōkyōw sōsusu: Kk, ez,

r (oyo: oyo: oyo Daigau Shuppanai, 2003), raise the topic in acomparative ramewor. “Kōyōen no haen,” Gendai shisō 30: 6 (ay 2002),

and “Kōyōsei o tō,” Gendai shisō 33: 5 (ay 2005), are only two o a numbero recent special issues in major journals on publicness. irata riza examinesnancial support o the arts in light o publicness in Geijutsu rikkokuron (oyo:hūeisha, 2001). no yōhei explores public spaces in the late nineteenth cen-tury in Kōen no tanjō (oyo: Furuawa Kōbunan, 2003).

18. roawa aiichi, Te Culture o the Meiji Period (rinceton: rinceton niver-sity Press, 1985); and Carol Gluc, Jp’s Mder Mys: Idely e Le

Meiji Period (rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 1985), are classic wors thatexamine active engagement in the nineteenth century with new political con-cepts and practices among both central elites and rural citizens.

19. onrad otman provides a close loo at ougawa tensions embodied in the word kuni and transormation in the Meiji period in “Ethnicity in the Meiji Res-toration: An Interpretive Essay,” Mue Nppc 37: 3 (autumn 1982).aashi Fujitani examines the maing o the modern emperor as a ocal pointor a national communal imaginary in Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantryin Modern Japan (ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 1996).

20. Kevin Doa provides an incisive overview o the eld in “What Is a Nation

and ho elongs? ational arratives and thnic magination in wentieth-Century Japan,” Te American Historical Review 102: 2 (pril 1997). Major workspublished since oa’s essay include essa orris-uzui’s Re-inventing Japan:ime, Space, Nation (ew Yor: .. harpe, 1998); and tean anaa’s New




imes in Modern Japan (rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 2004). oth au-thors bring resh attention to temporality as an integral dimension o the mod-ern Japanese nation.

21. ee, or example, ernard . ilberman, “Te ureaucratic tate in Japan: TeProblem o Authority and Legitimacy,” in Cfc Mder Jpese Hs-

tory: the Neglected radition , edited by etsuo ajita and J. Victor Koschmann(rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 1982). ore recently, he has placed hisanalysis o the Japanese bureaucracy in a comparative ramewor. ee ilber-man, Cages o Reason: Te Rise o the Rational State in France, Japan, the UnitedSes, d Gre Br (Chicago: University o Chicago Press, 1993). E. .orman’s classic wor was republished in Origins o the Modern Japanese State ,edited by John . ower (ew Yor: antheon, 1975). yōsue shii providesan overview o Japanese governing structures in A History o Political Institutions

Jp (oyo: University o oyo Press, 1980). Chalmers Johnson’s miti d e Jpese Mrcle: Te Grw Idusrl Plcy, 1925–1975 (Stanord:Stanord University Press, 1982), while more ocused on the postwar era, has been extremely infuential; a urther loo at the state’s impact and urther ap-plication is available in Meredith Woo-Cumings, ed., Te Develpel Se (thaca: ornell niversity ress, 1999). uramatsu ichio provides an overview with attention to central-regional administrative relations in Nihon no gyō-sei (oyo: hūō ōron, 1994). translation o the harter ath o 1868 can be ound in . Teodore de ary, ed., Sources o Japanese radition , vol. 2 (ew

Yor: olumbia niversity ress, 1958), 136.22. Te emperor system has been a ey point o Japanese historiographical debate.

n nglish, prominent wors range rom the early postwar wor o aruyamaasao, available in Tought and Behavior in Modern Japanese Politics , edited by van orris (ondon: xord niversity ress, 1963), to more recently aroldBix’s Hr d e Mk Mder Jp (New Yor: arper Collins,2000). Te infuential volumes by Iroawa (Te Culure e Mej Perd),Gluc ( Jp’s Mder Mys), and Fujitani (Spledd Mrcy) have beencited above.

23. oa, “hat s a ation and ho elongs?,” 287.24. ee in particular owland’s nuanced examination o the impact o translation

as a historically situated practice on conceptions o the “people” in ranslating the West and Personal Liberty and the Public Good.

25. Fujitani analyzes the Japanese imperial state in light o the Foucauldian concepto biopolitics in “ight to Kill, ight to ae ive: Koreans as Japanese and Japanese as mericans in WWII ,” Representations 99 (summer 2007).

26. Wors that closely examine conceptions o society (sk) in the late nine-

teenth and early twentieth centuries include . D. arootunian, Overceby Modernity (rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 2000); and arilyn vy,“Formations o ass ulture,” in Postwar Japan as History , edited by ndrew Gordon (ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 1993). n ranslating the West ,




owland devotes a chapter to this topic, “Representing the People, Imagin-ing ociety,” 153–82. Germaine ouston ocuses on how arxist theorists andactivists in sia approached the question in Te State, Identity, and the NationalQuestion in China and Japan (rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 1994).

27. Andrew Gordon’s Lbr d Iperl Decrcy Prewr Jp (Bereley:niversity o aliornia ress, 1991) directly conronts the intertwining o na-tionalism, colonialism, and surage in the early twentieth century. iji guma’s

A Genealogy o “Japanese” Sel- Images , translated by avid sew (elbourne:rans-acic ress, 2002), provides an encyclopedic overview o multiple andoten clashing positions in the imperial era. Te literature on Japanese colonial-ism in English has rapidly grown in recent years: an early overview was providedin Ramon Myers and Mark Peattie, eds., Te Japanese Colonial Empire, 1895–1945 (rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 1984); tean anaa analyzes the con-

struction o “hina” (hina) in the imperial Japanese academy in Japan’s Ori-ent: Rendering Pasts into History (ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 1993);ouise Young’s Japan’s otal Empire: Manchuria and the Culture o Japanese Im-

perialism (ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 1999) has led a reassessmento colonialism as a social project; and eter uus’s Te Abacus and the Sword:Te Japanese Penetration o Korea, 1895–1910 (ereley: niversity o aliorniaress, 1995) and yun ar’s wo Dreams in One Bed: Empire, Social Lie, andthe Origins o the North Korean Revolution in Manchuria (urham: ue niversity ress, 2005) directly engage with the question o capitalism and private

property in Japanese colonial expansion to the sian continent. Tere is a largeliterature in Japanese, with Ōe hinobu et al., eds., Kindai Nihon to shokuminchi , vols. 1–8 (oyo: wanami, 1992–93), oering a comprehensive introduction.

28. Mizubayashi aeshi, “Nihon-tei ‘ō-shi’ annen no genei to tenai,” in N keru kō s , vol. 3, Kōkyō esuku , edited by Sasai aeshi andKim ae-hang (oyo: ōyō aigau huppanai, 2002).

29. Te Chinese binary gong-si (public-private) initially emerged as a means o dierentiating between the concerns (particularly land) o a chie as the heado a community and those o individual members o said community. Fromthe ourth century BCE , guan (bureaucracy) and min (the people) began to bedeployed within an emerging imperial state apparatus in hina to distinguish

between state and society. In this context, the term bridged the gap be-tween ruler and ruled—incorporated into character compounds or popularopinion as well as government oces—in its sense o “communal matters”;s was that which was not relevant to the community. Gong-si and guan-minoverlapped but were not equivalent, until, in the seventh century CE, imperialocials began to substitute gong-si or guan-min in order to avoid reerence to

the ang dynasty’s own min origins. izubayashi, “ihon-tei ‘ō-shi’ annenno genei to tenai,” 7–8. lso see Joan iggot, Te Emergence o Japanese King-ship (tanord: tanord niversity ress, 1997), or a detailed discussion o thestate- building project.



NOES O CHAPER 1• 229 •

30. Ōyake had previously been complemented by the term woyake , designating aclan possessed o a lower level o status. ince woyake had never demarcated aspace outside o governance (that is, both ōyake and woyake reerred to rulingstructures, distinguishable only in terms o scale), woyake soon aded into irrele- vance with the rise o a more totalizing orm o imperial hegemony. izubaya-shi, “ihon-tei ‘ō-shi’ annen no genei to tenai,” 6.

31. Te law is nown as the Konden inen hizaihō (墾田永年私財法). izubaya-shi, “ihon-tei ‘ō-shi’ annen no genei to tenai,” 12.

32. A new ormal basis or shōen in the eleventh century was established by re-quiring up-to-date documentation to enjoy tax-ree status. Many improperly or undocumented shōen were then converted to “imperial edict elds” (choku-shiden), essentially private estates possessed by members o the imperial line.See Tomas Keirstead, Te Gerpy Pwer Medevl Jp (Princeton:

rinceton niversity ress, 1992), or an extended discussion.33. izubayashi, “ihon-tei ‘ō-shi’ annen no genei to tenai,” 13.34. For the ougawa period, atanabe iroshi employs the image o a series o

nested boxes, the enclosing one labeled ōyke and the enclosed labeled w-

kushi; those lower down at any point o the social pyramid under the shogun would reer to matters above their level as ōyae and matters at their own levelas wataushi. Meanwhile, superiors drew ineriors into publicness with theappellation o ōyae or ō or aairs subject to regulation in the name o so-cial order, such as marriage alliances within the ruling elite. atanabe iroshi,

“ihon shisōshitei myaurau ara mita ō-shi mondai,” in hōrai sedai sōgōenyūjo, ed., Hikaku shisōshiteki myakuraku kara mita kō-shi mondai: Dai ikkaikōkyō tetsugaku kyōdō kenkyūkai (Japan: hōrai sedai ousai zaidan, 1998), 121;quoted in Mizubayashi, “Nihon-tei ‘ō-shi’ annen no genei to tenai,” 19. atanabe also provides a comparative loo at hinese, Japanese, and nglishconceptions o publicness in “‘Ōyae’ ‘wataushi’ no gogi,” in asai and Kim,eds., Kō to shi no shisōshi , 145–74.

35. Deep septicism regarding modern Japanese civil society, let alone aber-masian public sphere, is justifably engrained in Japanese- and Western-languagestudies o modern Japan. ee, or example, heldon Garon’s Molding Japanese

Minds: Te State in Everyday Lie (rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 1997);and Gregory Kasza, Te Cscrp Scey: Adsered Mss Orzs (New aven: Yale University Press, 1995). Saitō Jun’ichi emphasizes that thethree-character-compound kōkyōsei reerring to a abermasian public sphereonly came into common use in Japan in the 1990s. Saitō, Kōkyōse: Publcess (oyo: wanami, 2000), 1–2.

1. sag h Publcranslations o published Japanese texts are mine, except in cases that note when have ound a published nglish translation already in circulation.

1. ee, or example, ashizume hin’ya, Meiji no meikyū toshi (oyo: eibonsha,




1990); Kinoshita Naoyui, Bjusu u se (oyo: eibonsha, 1993);eter Kornici, “ublic isplay and hanging Values: arly eiji xpositionsand Teir Precursors,” Mue Nppc 49: 2 (summer 1994); Andrew arus, “Te arnival o do: isemono pectacles rom ontemporary c-counts,” Harvard Journal o Asiatic Studies 452 (1985); imon creech, Te Lenswithin the Heart (onolulu: niversity o awai‘i ress, 2002).

2. s ouglas owland points out, “Japanese eorts to translate the est must be understood both as problems o language—the creation and circulation o new concepts—and as problems o action—the usage o new concepts in debates about the policies to be implemented in a westernizing Japan.” owland,ranslating the West: Language and Political Reason in Nineteenth-Century Japan (onolulu: niversity o awai‘i ress, 2002), 2.

3. Kitazawa Noriai, Me sde (oyo: Bijutsu shuppansha, 1989), 115. Te

nstitute or the tudy o arbarian oos (ansho hirabesho), an expandedand revitalized version o the ougawa Shogunate’s translation bureau, wasestablished in 1856 not only to shore up the long-standing shogunal monopoly on oreign inormation but also to train young intellectuals to conront the na-tional crisis precipitated by the arrival o ommodore atthew erry in 1853.For more, see owland, ranslating the West , 9–10.

4. Kitazawa, Me sde , 112–15; Shiina Noritaa, Mej kubusuk k-

jime (Kyoto: hibunau, 1989), 17–30. For a detailed nglish-language accounto the mission o 1860, see asao iyoshi, As We Saw Tem: Te First Japanese

Embassy to the West (ew Yor: Kodansha nternational, 1994).5. Kitazawa, Me no shinden , 112–14; hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 23.6. hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 21–23.7. Kitazawa, Me no shinden , 112.8. ony Bennett, Te Br e Museu: Hsry, Tery, Plcs (New Yor:

outledge, 1995), 19. lso see teven onn, Museums and American Intellectual Lie, 1876–1926 (hicago: niversity o hicago ress, 1998); and aniel her-man, Worthy Monuments: Art Museums and the Politics o Culture in Nineteenth-

Century France(ambridge: arvard niversity ress, 1998).

9. Tis ormulation draws rom the wor o owland, who engages with einhartKosellec’s theories o language, ideas, and history to explore the complexity o introducing Western philosophical and political concepts to a nineteenth-century Japanese context in ranslating the West .

10. oth hiina and Kitazawa analyze Fuuzawa’s denition and its impact. Kita-zawa, Me sde , 117; Shiina, Mej kubusuk kje , 31–36. Aliceseng oers a complete translation in “rt in lace: Te isplay o Japan at themperial useums, 1872–1909” (h diss., arvard niversity, 2004), 25–26.

11. hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 29.12. Reprint o Seiyō jijō in Fukuzawa Yukichi, Fukuzawa Yukichi , in Nihon no meicho:

33 , edited by agai ichio (oyo: hūō ōron, 1969), 376.13. Kitazawa, Me no shinden , 117.




14. Shiina, Mej kubusuk kje , 31–35. Te Jardin des Plantes is now adepartment in the French ational useum o atural istory (uséum na-tional d’histoire naturelle).

15. hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 25.16. hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 29–30.17. ennett, Te Birth o the Museum , 20.18. am borrowing the phrase rom John erger’sWays o Seeing (ew Yor: Viing

ress, 1973).19. rominent, but not the sole, representatives o this eld are Kinoshita, Bijutsu

to iu misemono; Kornici, “ublic isplay and hanging Values”; arus, “Tearnival o do”; and creech, Te Lens within the Heart .

20. Kitazawa, Me no shinden , 116–17; hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 43–47;kH, ky Kkursu Hkubusuk ykues (oyo: oyo Kouritsu

aubutsuan, 1973), 2–7.21. Te visits o a handul o uropeans with an interest in Japanese botany during

the ougawa period are also oten mentioned as a stimulating infuence. kH,okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 3–4.

22. For detailed inormation on major gures in zōku (medicinal-plantstudies), see eno asuzō, Hakubutsugakusha retsuden (oyo: Yasaa shobō,1991).

23. iraga was a scholar and popular writer who studied kokugaku (native studies),rangau, bussku (study o man-made and natural products), and honzō-

gau. e is well nown both or having invented a machine to generate staticelectricity or therapeutic purposes and or his satirical wors o ction. nor-tunately, he died in jail ater going insane and illing one o his students.

24. hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 44–45.25. See, or eample, Ueno’s account in Nihon hakubutsugaku-shi (okyo: Kōdansha

gaujutsu buno, 1989), 166–80.26. eno, Hakubutsugakusha retsuden , 53–55.27. kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 5.28. See Amino Yoshihio’s classic Mue•ku•rku or a detailed study o the

concept o this spatial expression o Otherness as it developed in the medi-eval period. Amino also addressed these issues in his wor N reks

yominaosu (okyo: Chikuma shobō, 1991) and Zoku Nihon no rekishi o yominaosu (okyo: Chikuma shobō, 1996) aimed at a more general audience. See also lanhristy’s translation o the latter two as Rereading Japanese History (nn rbor:enter or Japanese tudies, 2012).

29. mino Yoshihio, Zoku Nihon no rekishi o yominaosu , 51–55. ee also the discus-sion in io egami, Bonds o Civility: Aesthetic Networks and the Political Ori-

gins o Japanese Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 88–90.30. See, or example, Michael Smita, ed., Te Jpese Ecy e kuw

Era, 1600–1868 (ew Yor: outledge, 1998), particularly the chapters by avidowell, “roto-industrial rigins o Japanese apitalism,” 112–30, and by o-




buhio aai and James . clain, “ommercial hange and rban Growthin arly odern Japan,” 131–208. For more in-depth discussion o the complex economic intersections in the ougawa period o local, domainal, and sho-gunal interests lining protoindustrialization with the emergence o capitalism,see avid owell, Capitalism rom Within: Economy, Society, and the State in a

Japanese Fishery (ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 1995).31. Kornici, “ublic isplay and hanging Values,” 179.32. . . erry, Japan in Print: Inormation and Nation in the Early Modern Period

(ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 2006), 231.33. erry, Japan in Print , 231.34. erry, Japan in Print , 230.35. egami, Bonds o Civility , 366.36. erry, Japan in Print , 211–13.

37. hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 48–50.38. Quoted in hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 48.39. Michel Foucault, “Governmentality,” in Te Essel Fucul , edited by Paul

abinow and iolas ose (ew Yor: Te ew ress, 2003), 244.40. eno gives a synopsis o the eiji government’s steps toward establishing an

educational system, which began with taking over the shogunate’s Kaiseijo (or-merly the nstitute or the tudy o arbarian—then estern—oos) in 1868.eno, Hakubutsugakusha retsuden , 154.

41. kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 42–47.

42. anaa was o samurai bacground and born in Owari Domain. e was in-fuenced by his ather and brother, who were physicians, and studied with tōKeisue (1803–1901), an eminent scholar o medicine and rangau. anaa wasemployed by the nstitute or the tudy o arbarian oos and helped prepareand oversee the shogunate’s natural-history exhibits or the aris exposition o 1867. ter the establishment o the eiji regime, anaa was employed in theuniversity and dispatched to the Vienna exposition o 1873. e was closely involved in the ounding o the rst permanent government museum and instru-mental in opening a government zoo in eno ar. e was the second directoro the national museum in eno, ollowing achida isanari, with whom hehad clashed. ee the biography provided by eno, Hakubutsugakusha retsuden ,151–60. For an account that highlights his confict with achida, see Kuresawaaemi, Bijutsukan no seijigaku (oyo: eiyusha, 2007), 78–81.

43. Te proposal rom February 1871 is quoted in kH, ky Kkursu Hku-

butsukan hyakunenshi , 28–29. n the end, credit as the rst domestic exposition went to the Kyoto exposition o 1871. ee aruyama iroshi, “eiji shoi noKyoto Hakurankai,” in Bankoku hakurankai no kenkyū , edited by Yoshida Mitsu-

uni (Kyoto: hibunau, 1986).44. kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 22–36.45. Quoted in kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 29.46. kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 32–34.




47. kH, ky Kkursu Hkubusuk ykues, sryōe (oyo: oyoKouritsu aubutsuan, 1973), 605. For an illuminating comparison, seethe succinct but ar-reaching account o the turn represented by nineteenth-century estern scientic archival philosophy by Georey ower in Memory

Practices in the Sciences (ambridge: MI ress, 2005), 71.48. Te process by which the state developed its educational arm was not at all

smooth, and the main branch o the university had actually been dismantledin 1870. For more details, see kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi ,23–24. For the establishment o the xhibition ureau, see kH, okyo Koku-ritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 42–43.

49. atō ōshin, “Kindai shigau to shite no bijutsu shigau no seiritsu to tenai,”in Nihon bijutsushi no suimyaku , edited by suji adao-sensei chirei inenai(oyo: eriansha, 1993), 152.

50. Robert Rydell’s landmar studies All e Wrld’s Fr (Chicago: University o Chicago Press, 1984) and Wrld Frs (Chicago: University o Chicagoress, 1993) provide a critical overview o this era, with particular attention torepresentations o nation, race, and ethnicity. Yoshimi hunya analyzes uro-

American world’s airs, with a critical discussion o Japanese participation inexposition culture, noting how the twin orces o the state and capital used theairs to visualize an imperial nation that was disciplinary in nature, in his classicHkurk sejku: Mzs kd (oyo: Chūō ōronsha, 1992).cial and unocial records and albums rom these expositions abound, in-

cluding Paris illustré: 1889 exposition universelle (aris: . ahure, 1889); John J.Flinn, Ofcial Guide to the World’s Columbian Exposition in the City o Chicago,State o Illinois, May 1 to October 26, 1893 (hicago: olumbian Guide ompany,1893); and Plan and Scope o the International Exposition at St. Louis (t. ouis:ouisiana urchase xposition, 1903).

51. Last public address o William McKinley at the Pan- American Exposition,Bualo, New Yor, September 5, 1901, recording by Tomas A. Edison, Inc.Tomas . dison, President McKinley’s Speech at the Pan- American Exposition ,35 mm paper pos. (ew Yor: Tomas . dison, 1901), nited tates ibrary o ongress aper rint ollection (LC 1811).

52. ydell, All the World’s a Fair , 3.53. eter oenberg, An Empire on Display: English, Indian, and Australian Exhibi-

tions rom the Crystal Palace to the Great War (ereley: niversity o aliorniaress, 2001).

54. obert ydell, “ ultural Franenstein? Te hicago orld’s olumbian x-position o 1893,” in Grand Illusions: Chicago’s World’s Fair o 1893 , edited by eilarris, im de it, James Gilbert, and obert ydell (hicago: hicago is-

torical ociety, 1993).55. Rutherord Alcoc had assiduously collected close to nine hundred pieces o

lacquerware, pottery, copperware, cloisonné, paintings, armor, swords, lanterns,straw coats, ootwear, Japanese clocs, and mechanical dolls. For an account o




lcoc’s time in Japan, see his Te Capital o the ycoon: A Narrative o a TreeYears’ Residence in Japan , vol. 1 (ondon: ongman, Green, ongman, oberts,and Green, 1863).

56. Yoshimi, Hakurankai no seijigaku , 112.57. Tese were probably the rst Japanese women in urope, and the rst on gov-

ernment boos in Japan as “employees.” One Western observer wondered atthe composure o these women beore the throngs o curious onlooers, sub- jected to requests or the very clothing o their bacs. Te writer doubts thatmany uropean ladies could have held up as well under the pressure o beingso displayed. course, as high-class geisha, -sumi, -ato, and -Kane wereaccustomed to spending their lives on stage. O-sumi was probably the same-sumi who accompanied the second ougawa mission to the est in 1862 as“companionship” or the thirty-eight delegates. As Shibusawa anao points

out, this is an early example o using national monies to “provide” or govern-ment ocials, later put in practice on a large scale as the “comort women”(ianu) system during the sia-acic ar. hibusawa anao, Shibusawa Eiichi,

Pari banpaku e (oyo: Kabushii gaisha ousho anōai, 1995), 87–89. eealso Yoshida Mitsukuni, ed., Bankokuhaku no Nihonkan (okyo: INAx, 1990), 11.

58. yao otta-ister provides a close examination o various aspects, includingeconomic, o Japanese participation in both major and minor overseas exhibi-tions in Te Jp- Brs Exb 1910 (Richmond, U.K.: Japan Library,1999).

59. ee the discussion o this in kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi ,13–18.

60. achida isanari was born in atsuma omain to a very prominent samuraihousehold. e went at age nineteen to do to study kokugaku (native studies).e was later called bac to atsuma and directed to study nglish and est-ern matters. t the young age o twenty-six, he was appointed ōmetsuke (highinspector). achida was sent by his domain in 1865 to ondon, and in 1867 he was ased to help with the atsuma presentation in aris. n 1868 the new gov-ernment employed achida in what was to become the Foreign inistry. n1870 he was moved rom oreign aairs to the university with particular respon-sibility or the division that represented the legacy o the nstitute or the tudy o arbarian oos. From the beginning, achida promoted the establishmento a permanent museum along the lines o the British and South Kensington(Victoria and lbert) museums, and he headed various incarnations o exposi-tion and museum bureaus. e was also a major private-art collector and a orcein beginning a program or government preservation o antiquities. e wored with anaka Yoshio to bring the museum to Ueno Park, but clashed with anaka

regarding the museum’s direction. achida was ousted as museum director in1882 and replaced by anaa. Machida soon ater departed rom governmentservice and too Buddhist vows at a temple on Mount iei. Machida guresprominently throughout much o kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyaku-




nenshi; or initial bacground inormation, see pages 18, 24–28, and or his de-parture, see pages 226–29. Kuresawa also discusses achida in some detail in

Bjusuk sejku , 75–82. Christine Guth oers a short English-languageintroduction to achida’s career in Art, ea, and Industry: Masuda akashi andthe Mitsui Circle (rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 1993), 106–7.

61. eno, Hakubutsugakusha retsuden , 151.62. Yamataa Nobutsura was born in Shizuoa Domain o samurai bacground,

and was appointed as a shogunal metsuke (inspector). n this capacity, he wassent to the Paris exposition o 1867. Yamataa later joined the Meiji govern-ment’s Ministry o Finance, and in 1872 he was appointed to the Expositionce to help prepare or Vienna. n 1876 he was placed in charge o general a-airs (shōmugakari) or the exhibition division, rising to a level o responsibility just below achida and anaa, in charge o the crats division (kōgei). e be-

came director o the eno museum rom 1885 to 1889. e later became directoro the Kyoto and Nara imperial museums in 1894. In addition, Yamataa wasa noted buj (literati style) painter. kH, ky Kkursu Hkubusuk

hyakunenshi , 18, 70, 175, 177, 225, 229–30, 262. For a recent biography, see hibaKōshi, Yamataka Nobutsura to sono shinzoku (Yoohama: hiba Kōshi, 2005).

63. ano sunetami is most widely nown or his role in helping establish the a-uaisha, orerunner to the Japanese ed ross. e was born in aga omaino samurai bacground, and rst went to do in 1837, or training in medicineand the sciences. e returned to aga several times, and in 1857 he got involved

in building up a navy. e was dispatched to the aris exposition o 1867 on the basis o his scientic expertise. n 1870 he was appointed by the eiji govern-ment to help establish a navy but was circulated out due to various conficts.Sano helped prepare or, and was sent to, the Vienna exposition o 1873. econtinued to serve the government, but in the 1880s he also became closely involved with the establishment o the auaisha. n addition, ano was very active in the art world: he was dispatched on an ocial survey o uropean artschools and museums and drated a report in 1875; he was president o the yū-chiai and the ihon bijutsu yōai (Japan rt ssociation); he helped insti-tute a system o creating imperial household appointments and patronage orartists. For a ull biography o ano, see Yoshiawa yūo, Nisseki no sōshishaSano sunetami (oyo: Yoshiawa Kōbunan, 2001). Various reerences to hisactivities in the art and museum world can be ound in kH, okyo KokuritsuHakubutsukan hyakunenshi , such as on 19, 115–17, 122–28; and in llen onant,Steven D. Owyoung, and J. Tomas Rimer, eds., nihonga: rsced e

Ps; Jpese-Syle P, 1868–1968 (New Yor: Weatherhill, 1995), 20, 22,80–81, 92.

64. Ōuma is so well-nown that I will not include biographical details here. Innglish, see Joyce ebra-hapman, Okuma Shigenobu: Statesman o Meiji Japan (anberra: ustralian ational niversity ress, 1973). t is also worth notingthat both Shibusawa Eiichi (1840–1931), traveling as an advisor to ougawa




itae and about to ound a nancial empire, and the uture textile magnateGodai omoatsu (1835–85), who managed the atsuma displays, would returnto Japan stressing the importance o adopting the corporation orm o businessorganization. aaoa etsurō, Hakurankai (oyo: sahi shimbunsha, 2005),195–96.

65. For a close analysis o the problem o recruitment and continuity in the eiji bureaucracy, see ernard . ilberman, “ureaucratization o the eiji tate:Te roblem o uthority and egitimacy,” in Conict in Modern Japanese His-tory: Te Neglected radition , edited by etsuo ajita and J. Victor Koschmann(rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 1982), 421–30.

66. Rydell, All e Wrld’s Fr , 55–56; see also imothy Mitchell, “Egypt at thexhibition,” in Colonising Egypt (ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 1991),1–33; and oenberg, “errae ullius? ustralia and ndia at verseas xhibi-

tions,” in An Empire on Display , 129–65.67. For a stimulating account o exico’s struggles or recognition at international

expositions, see auricio enorio-rillo, Mexico at the World’s Fairs: Crating a Modern Nation (ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 1996).

68. ussell ewis, “reace,” in arris et al., Grand Illusions , xii.69. ewis, “reace,” xii.70. Kitazawa, Me no shinden , 136.71. James . uel, ed., Louisiana and the Fair: An Exposition o the World, Its People,

d Ter Acevees , vol. 4 (St. Louis: World’s Progress Publication Com-

pany, 1904), 1399–400.72. ee kH, Seiki no saiten: Bankoku hakurankai no bijutsu (oyo: oyo Kou-

ritsu aubutsuan, 2004); kH, Umi o watatta Meiji no bijutsu: Saiken! 1893-e Sk Krbusu sek kurk (oyo: oyo Kouritsu aubu-tusan, 1997); and oyo-to Edo-oyo aubutsuan, Hkur s Ed

okyo (oyo: do oyo eishi Zaidan, 1993). eproductions o period ma-terials related to expositions in the late nineteenth century can also be ound insunoyama Yukihiro, ed., Uiin banpaku no kenkyū (shiryōhen) (okyo: Dōbōsha,2000). ino iichi notes that

Arita tokkuri(servers or Japanese wine) were a

hit at the exposition in 1867, but they were used or lamp stands rather than ortheir original purpose. Hino, “Bankoku hakurankai to ihon no ‘bijutsu kōgei,’”in Bkku kurk kekyū , edited by Yoshida Mitsuuni (Kyoto: Shi- bunau, 1986), 22.

73. okyo-to Edo-okyo Hakubutsukan, Hakuran toshi Edo okyo , 56. Léon Roches(1809–1901), French envoy to Japan rom 1864 to 1868, promoted trade betweenFrance and Japan. oward this end, he contributed to the construction o acto-ries and similar projects.

74. agener, a German chemist who arrived in oyo in 1868, greatly contributedto developments in the elds o chemistry and crat production in Japan. Ki-tazawa, Me sde , 136; ino, “Banou hauranai to Nihon no ‘bijutsuōgei,’” 23.




75. Kitazawa, Me no shinden , 136–37.76. aaoa, Hakurankai , 200–205.77. Satō Dōshin, “Reishi shiryō to shite no oreushon,” in Kd Gsesu 2

(oyo: eiji bijutsu gaai, 1993), 44.78. For urther accounts o Japonisme, see Kodama anehide, Amerika no japoni-

zumu (oyo: hūō ōronsha, 1995); Kouritsu seiyō bijutsuan, ed., Japoni- zuu e zurku (oyo: Kouritsu seiyō bijutsuan, Kousai ōryū iin,Nihon hōsō yōai, Yomiuri shimbun, 1988); and Salem Peabody and Essex useum, ed., A Pleasing Novelty: Bunkio Matsuo and the Japan Craze in VictorianSalem (alem, ass.: eabody and ssex useum, 1993).

79. ino, “anou hauranai to ihon no ‘bijutsu ōgei,’” 24.80. Te call was circulated or the domestic exposition o 1872 that was intended

to prepare or the world’s air in 1873. auranai jimuyou, “inu (Ōchiri

no miyao) ni oite rai-1873-nen hauranai o moyōsu shidai” (1872), quoted by ino, “anou hauranai to ihon no ‘bijutsu ōgei,’” 24.

81. For visual illustration o such tendencies, see the ocial catalogue or the okyoational useum’s exhibit rom 1997, kH, Umi o watatta Meiji no bijutsu: Sai-ken! 1893-nen Shikago- Koronbusu Sekai Hakurankai. Tis trend is explicitly ana-lyzed on pages 93–94.

82. ierre ehmann also notes the strong resistance on the part o many in or romthe West to non- Westerners reusing the role o the Other. Tus the unindcomments about Japanese in estern dress appearing as moneys. ehmann,

Te Ie Jp: Fr Feudl Isl Wrld Pwer, 1850–1905 (London:George llen & nwin, 1978).

83. Kinoshita, Bijutsu to iu misemono , 16–34; see also aamura enzaburō, “eijiculpture,” in Japanese Arts and Crats in the Meiji Era , edited by yeno aoteru(oyo: an-acic ress, 1958).

84. For a detailed account o the tumultuous ate o Buddhism during the Meijiperiod, see James Ketelaar, O Heretics and Martyrs: Buddhism and Its Persecutionin Meiji Japan (rinceton: rinceton niversity ress, 1990).

85. Kinoshita, Bijutsu to iu misemono

, 29–31.86. Kinoshita, Bijutsu to iu misemono , 30.87. For aamura Kōun’s own recollection on the maing o this statue, see aa-

mura, Bakumatsu ishin kaikodan (oyo: wanami shoten, 1995), 372–77.88. See Hino’s discussion o the classifcation o Japanese works as art in 1893, “Ban-

ou hauranai to ihon no ‘bijutsu ōgei,’” 31–33, and in 1900, 34–38.89. Yoshida, Bankokuhaku no Nihonkan , 22.90. mesao adao, “Chi” no korekutaatachi (oyo: Kōdansha, 1989), 237–38.91. For a critical overview, see Yoshimi, Hakurankai no seijigaku , 122–44. For repro-

ductions o primary materials related to domestic expositions, see the invalu-able series published by the eiji unen hiryō Kanōai, Meiji zenki sangyōhattatsu shi shiryō , 110 vols. (oyo: eiji bunen shiryō anōai, 1973).

92. atō describes the relationship as a “two-tiered transormer” or the economy




in “eiji no shousan ōgyō seisau to Ōbei no ihon bijutsu oreushon,” areport presented as a member o the oyo Kouritsu unazai research group(unpublished, date unnown), 4.

93. Te Cultural Bureau (Bunkachō) eplicitly models categories, in particular withregard to the case o Japanese art. See Bunachō, ed., Wku buk

bunka gyōsei (oyo: Kabushii gaisha gyōsei, 1988), 103–31.94. etailed accounts are oered by hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 54–71;

and kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 49–60.95. urrency denominations ollowed the ew urrency ct o 1871, which estab-

lished the yen, sen, and ri. Te transitional orm o ryō, equivalent to yen, wasalso still employed at the time. ne yen equals one hundred sen, and one senequals ten ri. t the time, one shō (1.8 liters) o rice cost about 42 sen.

96. roposal quoted in kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 49–50.

97. roposal rom 1872, quoted in kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunen-shi , 49.

98. Quoted in kH, okyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan hyakunenshi , 49.99. Kitazawa, Me no shinden , 124.

100. Yoshimi, Hakurankai no seijigaku , 122–23.101. udyard Kipling, From Sea to Sea: Letters o ravel , vol. 1 (ew Yor: ouble-

day & clure ompany, 1899), 331.102. Kitazawa, Me no shinden , 119.103. Stephen Vlastos, “Opposition Movements in Early Meiji, 1868–1885,” in Te

Cambridge History o Japan, Vol. 5: Te Nineteenth Century , edited by arius . Jansen (ambridge: ambridge niversity ress, 1989), 398.

104. Satō, “Meiji no shokusan kōgyō seisaku to ōbei no nihon bijutsu korekushon,” 5.105. Hkurk : Dk kku kyō kurk sōsesu (oyo: Kin-

ōdō, 1903), 1. n everything rom conception to timing, domestic expositions were seen by the government as integrally connected to Japanese participationin world’s airs. ee, or example, Hakurankai annai , 2–3.

106. Inormation on the evolution o the national expositions is rom Hkurk

annai , 2–7. ee also orio so, “ew llusions: Te mergence o a iscourse

on raditional Japanese rts and rats, 1868–1945” (h diss., niversity o hicago, 1997); and Yoshimi, Hakurankai no seijigaku.

107. Hakurankai annai , rontispiece map.108. uel, Louisiana and the Fair , vol. 5, 1692.109. Daigokai naikoku kangyō hakurankai kinen shashinchō oered a particularly rich

visual record o the exposition (saa: Gyoumeiwan, 1903).110. ee eil arris, “emory and the hite ity,” and im de it, “uilding an

Illusion: Te Design o the World’s Columbian Exposition,” in arris et al.,

Grand Illusions.111. Te seven- volume series Dk kku kyō kurk ke ss-

chō provides a rich set o images o various aspects o the exposition. ee, orexample, plate 2 o the azaar o agoya (agoya-an; nglish translation as



given in the original), and plates 7–8 o the Formosa uilding (aiwan-an) in vol. 1, 13–14, 19. ee also plate 7 o the azaar o saa in vol. 3, 41; and plate 11or the azaar o Kyoto in vol. 4, 10.

112. tean anaa, Japan’s Orient: Rendering Pasts into History (ereley: niversity o aliornia ress, 1993), 19.

113. Hakurankai annai , 95.114. Hakurankai annai , 96.115. Hakurankai annai , 95.116. Hakurankai annai , 95–97.117. ee Hakurankai annai , 63.118. atsuda Kyōo, eikoku no shisen: Hakurankai to ibunka hyōshō (oyo: Furu-

awa ōbunan, 2003), 76–77.119. Hakurankai annai , 63.

120. Hakurankai annai , 98.121. atsuda, eikoku no shisen , 82–118.122. Hakurankai annai , 63, 97–99.123. For a discussion o conceptualizing a nation as a “collective actor,” see Craig

alhoun, Nations Matter: Culture, History, and the Cosmopolitan Dream (on-don: outledge, 2007), 48.

124. ccounts o this pavilion may be ound in razato Kinbuu, Ōshiro atsuhiro,and the yūyū shinpōsha, Okinawa no hyakunen , vol. 2 (oyo: aihei, 1971),198–200; Murata Yūjirō, “Chinese Nationalism and Modern Japan: Imitation

and esistance in the Formation o ational ubjects,” in Japanese Civilizationin the Modern World XVI: Nation, State, Empire , edited by . mesao, . Fuji-tani, and . Kurimoto, and translated by orio so (saa: Japanese ationalMuseum o Ethnology, 2000); and Ōta Masahide, Okw sū sk (oyo: hinsensha, 1987), 289–95.

125. urata, “hinese ationalism and odern Japan: mitation and esistance inthe Formation o ational ubjects,” 39, ootnote 9.

126. oenberg, An Empire on Display , 97.127. oenberg,

An Empire on Display , 236.

128. hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 60–65.129. Quoted by hiina, Meiji hakubutsukan kotohajime , 60–61.130. Fujiwara asato, ed., Meiji zenki sangyō hattatsu shi shiryō, kangyō hakurankai

sryō 6: Dk kku kyō kurk ky supp reek ōkku (oyo: Meiji bunen shiryō anōai, 1973), 63–64. See also Hkurk

annai , 167–71.131. Fujiwara, Mej zek syō su s sryō, kyō kurk sryō 6 ,

64–67.

132. Hakurankai annai , rontispiece map.133. ennett, Te Birth o the Museum , 69–75.134. n the ougawa and early eiji periods, rest days were congured in a dier-

Public Properties by Noriko Aso

Documents

Transcript of Public Properties by Noriko Aso