PROVISIONAL TRANSLATION(December 2018)
Only significant errors of English in the translation
have been corrected––the content will be checkedagainst the original Japanese for accuracy at a later
date.

Characteristics of Political Thoughts

MATSU’URA Mitsunobu

In the case of discussing the political thoughts of kokugaku, usually its point has tended to focus on
the relationship between bakumatsu kokugaku and Meiji Restoration. In this regard, while various
discussions have taken placed from prewar days to this day, discussion of prewar days and post war
days largely differ. If we simplify and sum it up, in the academic world of prewar days, kokugaku
was evaluated that it actively contributed to the Meiji Restoration more or less, whereas in theacademic world of postwar days, kokugaku viewed that it hardly contributed to the Meiji
Restoration. However, the author of this chapter, in the past, regarded these discussions as rough,and discussed how greatly different between the political thoughts from Nobunaga to Takamasa
and the political thoughts of following scholars of classical literature in detail (Matsu’ura
Mitsubnobu, “Bakumatsu kokugakusha no henkaku shisō,” Kikan nihon shisō shi, vol.43, 1994). 1
In short, the author’s conclusion is that the political thoughts of kokugaku from Norinaga to
Takamasa do not largely go beyond the framework of taisei inin ron (the theory that political powerof the Imperial Court was entrusted to the Shogunate by the Imperial Court), but scholars of
kokugaku of later generations went beyond this framework and crystalized the thoughts ofoverthrow of the Shogunate. For details, please refer to the article of the previous.
The first section of this chapter examines Takamasa’s thought called tennō sōtei ron. This is a theory
meaning that tennō is “sōtei” who governs other emperors oversea and that Japan is superior toother empires, i.e., “sōteikoku.” It has been unclear how to situate this thought in the history ofideas. The author understands that this thought is a form of political ideas responding to thepolitical situation of the end of the Edo period. In other words, Takamasa, who assumed that
Western powers would eventually raise a question of who was the Japanese ruler either tennō or
Shogun, tried to rationally explain the reality of the two-tiered rule by this theory that Shogun was
the rule of Japan while tennō was the ruler of the world.
The second section analyzes Takamasa’s political thought before and after Restoration.
Takamasa has been regarded as so-called “the ideological leader of loyalists,” but in reality, he was
not that. At the end of the Edo period, he claimed the theory of supporting the Shogunate andwas looked on as an enemy by the group of people advocating reverence for the Emperor and theexclusion of foreigners. Thus, there was a period when he was separated from his disciples who
were engaged themselves in overthrowing the bakufu. Takamasa, after the Restoration, presented
his assertion to the new government that they should “promulgate” Shinto in entire Japan. Mostly,
Takamasa’s political thought is marked by a tendency that while accepting the politics in reality, hetheorized it by his narratives of Shinto. In this respect, it can be said that he belongs to the
1 THE AUTHOR is professor of Japanese history in the Japanese History Department in the Faculty of Letters at

Kōgakkan University. This supplemental chapter was originally published in Japanese in Ōkuni Takamasa no kenkyū [AStudy of Ōkuni Takamasa] (Tokyo: Daimeidō, 2001).

1

academic lineage of “ideology of accepting the reality” since Norinaga.
Section One: The Political Thought of Tennō Sōtei Ron
Takamasa made his unique claim regarding the tennō’s position in the international society. It isthe claim that while there were some emperors in the world, the rank of those emperors and theemperor was not equal; tennō was superior to those emperors and was the “sōtei” who governed
the entirety.
Not few of prior scholarly works on Takamasa and kokugaku of the end of Edo period havetouched on his claim in some form or another. In this case, the name of his claim has been written
in various forms depending on scholars or scholarly works. To take an example, “tennō sekai sōteikan,” 2 “heiwateki sekai tennō sei,” 3 “nihon shikō setsu,”4 “tennō bankoku sōtei setsu,” 5 “tennō
chikyū sōtei setsu,” 6 “bankoku sōtei setsu,” 7 etc. The disunity of a term for a historicalphenomenon has been quite inconvenient to pursue research. Therefore, this article defines
Takamasa’s claim as “tennō sōtei ron” and proceeds with its examination.
To begin with, prior scholarly works on Takamasa’s tennō sōtei ron is mentioned. As one canimagine based on the existence of various terms for that, its number is quite high. Yet, most of
those works merely summarize or introduce tennō sōtei ron. There are few works that properly
analyze or investigate it. What are noteworthy among them are the works of Itō Tasaburō andTahara Tsuguo.
At first, Itō points out “a group of scholars of western studies or a circle of economists” as therepresentative of “shinshu kaikoku ron” (progressive discipline to open the country) and states:
In the field of kokugaku, the unique and progressive theory developed along with kokugaku.
[omit] Combined with the belief that Japan is a divine country, this theory places its baseupon a standpoint which can be called pan-Japanism. Namely, it is the standpoint viewingthat our country is the land created by the imperial ancestral deity as a suzerain of manynations and that other nations should be subordinate to Japan. This view already appearedin Norinaga’s Gyojūkaigen, but it was Atsutane’s time that this view typically developed most.
[omit] Moreover, during the following era of Atsutane, this trend was increasingly strong,and such examples in particular were the opinions of Date Chihiro and Ōkuni Takamasa.
Second, Tahara quotes Takamasa’s Shinshinkōhōron (Keiō 3, Takamasa at the age of 76) and states:8
Here it became clear that Takamasa’s idea of Japan’s supremacy does not include his
intention to change the reality. [omit] Thus, in terms of Ōkuni’s argument on foreign
relations, we came to know that he approved the entire diplomatic reality accepting the
diplomatic system of Tokugawa Shogunate at the end of its rule despite his sense of statism.
2 Ōsaki Katsusumi, Ōkuni Takamasa (Tokyo: Dainihon yūbenkai kōdansha, 1943), p. 357.
3 Hattori Shisō, vol. 6, Hattori Shisō chosakushū (Tokyo: Rironsha, 1955), p. 135.

4 Tahara Tsuguo, “Bakumatsu kokugaku shisō no ichiruikei- Ōkuni Takamasa nit suite no danmenteki kōsatsu-,” Shirin

44 (1961).
5 Kokugaku undō no shisō, vol. 5, Nihon shisō taikei (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971): 498.
6 Ibid.
7 Haga Noboru, “Ōkuni Takamasa no gakumon to shisō-sono shakaiteki kinō o chūshin toshite-,” Hirata Atsutane; Ban
Nobutomo; Ōkuni Takamasa, vol. 50, Nihon shisō teikei (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1973).
8 Itō Tasaburō, vol. 2, Kinsei shi no kenkyū (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kōbunshokan, 1982), pp. 350-1.

2

Conclusively, his opinion is quite moderate and too serene from the viewpoint of the ruleror Tokugawa Shogunate.9
The main points of these two scholars’ views can be summarized as follows:
1) Takamasa’s tennō sōtei ron is the pattern of development of the world view of
kokugaku since Moto’ori Norinaga.
2) Takamasa’s tennō sōtei ron is not an opinion of political innovativeness.
Based on the results of the prior scholarly works, the following research subjects should be newly
raised:1) How did Takamasa receive the world view of kokugaku since Norinaga; in what process
or what occasion did that develop as tennō sōtei ron?
2) What kind of political objectivity was behind tennō sōtei ron? Also, how did such claim
link to the political situation at the Restoration period at the Edo period?
While investigating these questions, the characteristics of ideas of Takamasa’s tennō sōtei ron areempirically elucidated.
Moto’ori Norinaga’s “Tennō ōkimi ron”
What is the world view of kokugaku since Norinaga? This section overviews it. Norinaga’s
Naobitama written in the Meiwa 8 describes as follows:
Japan is the country where the ancestral deity Amaterasu Ōmikami is present, which isthe primary reason why Japan is superior to other countries. There is no country which is
not received Amaterasu Ōmikami’s divine virtue.10
Also, the same text describes that “the land from the utmost ends of the floating heavenly clouds
to the utmost ends of the earth where toads crawl around.”11
Logics embedded in this Norinaga’s view can be organized as follows:(A) All countries are received Amaterasu Ōmikami’s virtues. Therefore, the sovereign ofevery country is in the hands of the emperor who is the offspring of AmaterasuŌmikami.
(B) It is Japan that Amaterasu Ōmikami was born. Therefore, Japan is the most supreme
country in the world.
The logics of (A) and (B) basically continued to be claimed without any changes. However, as for(B), its developed form was also observed. In other words, while the claim of (B) is that Japan issuperior to other foreign countries, another claim that Japan holds the higher position different
from that of other countries. Tamakushige written in Kanei 1 states that “As Japan is the country
where Amaterasu Ōmikami is present, the emperor governs, and the leading country of all nations;
9 “Bakumatsu kokugaku shisō no ichiruikei- Ōkuni Takamasa nit suite no danemnteki kousatsu-.”
10 Naobitama, vol. 9, Motoori Norinaga zenshū (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobou, 1968-1993), p.49.
11 Ibid.

3

thus, every country should respect Japan, and people in the world should follow the true path.”12This means that all nations should “obey” Japan. In short, Japan is the country of the emperor,
while other countries are the country as the emperor’s subjects.
The theological ideational is strongly observed in Norinaga’s claim on the emperor and Japan
while the political reality is weak. His claim can be categorized as an idea of Shinto rather thanpolitical one. Norinaga’s claim like this was inherited to scholars of kokugaku of later generations.
For example, Hirata Atsutane stated in Tamadasuki:
One should know that our country is the mother country of every country and that theemperor is our sovereign lord taking care of the world. One should know that through one
can understand the essential matters of the world through kogaku (kokugaku). Otherwise, itcannot be said to be true kogaku.13
Similarly, Tachibana Moribe’s Shintōben describes:
There are no two suns illuminating in the sky. A country does not hold two emperors. Aslong as the Sun Goddess illuminates in Japan, it is the coutnry of the sovereign lord. All
rulers of the world are our emperor’s retainers.14
Comparing to Norinaga, this view seems to be more logical; however, the views of Atsutane andMoribe are basically same as that of Norinaga. In this line, how did Takamasa accept the priorclaims of those scholars? The author has investigated in the second section of chapter 1 of thisbook Ōkuni Takamasa no kenkyū [the study on Ōkuni Takamasa] his early works which were notincluded in his complete works. Among them, there is a work completed by Takamasa in Bunsei 4
at the age of 30, titled Ametsuchi uta o tsukureru ge.15 The following passage from it indicates a way inwhich Takamasa received Norinaga’s claim clearly:
Based on writings about Japan and foreign countries, this country resembles a sovereign
while foreign countries resemble his retainers. Its reason is that the emperor has notchanged from the age of kami over many generations whereas kings of other countries havebeen fluctuating over a period of time. This marks the difference between sovereign andsubject. (omit) Our emperor is the emperor of all the countries on earth. Japan is the mothercountry of the world.
Takamasa uses the comparison of the relationship between sovereign and subject to assert therelationships between the emperor and kings of other countries or between Japan and other nations.
This is exactly same as what Norinaga asserted. The fact that Takamasa at that time loyally
inherited Norinaga’s ideas was already written. 16 However, as long as the aforementioned
quotation is concerned, in terms of Takamasa’s claim on the emperor and Japan, it can be said
that Takamasa faithfully followed Norinaga’s claim. If the opinion of scholars of kokugaku since
Norinaga up to this time of Takamasa can be summarized based on its expression, it would be“tennō wa bankoku no ōkimi (the emperor is the ōkimi of all nations).” We can name it as “tennō
12 Tamakushige, vol. 8, Motoori Norinaga zenshū (Tokyo: Chikuma Shobou, 1968-1993), p.312.

13 Tamadasuki, vol. 6, Shinshuu Hirata Atsutane zenshū (Oosaka: Meicho Shuppan, 1977-1981), p. 543.
14 Shintouben, vol. 2, Tachibana Moribe zenshū (Tokyo: Kokusho Kankoukai, 1920-1922), p. 378.
15 Ametsuchiuta o tsukureru ge (Tokyo: Llibrary of Gakushuuin University).
16 See Section 2 of Chapter 1.

4ōkimi ron.” If that is the case, how did Takamasa’s claim develop from “tennō ōkimi ron” which
was commonly accepted by scholars of kokugaku at that time to his unique “tennō sōtei ron”? The
formation process of his idea is examined next.
The structure of the idea of “tennō sōtei ron”
To this day, articles relating to the topic of this section have not been found in Takamasa’s worksof twelve years from the following year of the completion of Ametsuchi uta o tsukureru ge, i.e., Bunsei
5 to Tenpō 4. This is partially related to the fact that Takamasa’s early stage of his academic
thoughts were centered upon the studies on waka poetry. 17 However, during those days, hisacademic thoughts began to uniquely develop marked by theological nature.18 Takamasa left someworks in Tenpō 5 at the age of 43 on “the age of kami” which had not been found before.19 Alongwith his development of his thoughts, a new development was observed in his claim on the emperor.
Hanakurabe no sōshi written in Tenpō 5 states as follows:
Japan is the country of master. It has not come yet, but during coming ages, kings of all
countries will respect Japan as the country of their sovereign, adore the emperor as thesovereign of the world, and loyal to the emperor (2:282).
This article succeeded to the conventional view of “tennō ōkimi ron” followed by the passage witha new concept:
p.175
The trend has been seen in the fact that the six countries were selected among all nations
and called the empire. It has been indicated that these empires would rule the world. (omit)
The fact that Japan is included in these six countries suggests that Japan is an excellent
country. It is puzzling that while Chinese people are proud of themselves without knowing
the outside, Japanese people are too humble without knowing the outside. The six countries
are Japan, China, India, Turkey, Germany, Russia, and Jews (2:282-3).
It is noteworthy that Takamasa presents the concept of “the empire” for the first time. However,according to the aforementioned article above, the conventional concept of “tennō ōkimi ron” andthat of “the empire” separately exist, and the latter merely strengthens the former. Perhaps, “tennō
sōtei ron” must consist of those two concepts integrated into one. Yet, it ca be said that Takamasa’s
claim at this point lacks the particular uniqueness. It is in his works of Tenpō 7 at the age of 45
that his uniqueness of his claim was found more or less. Renbakusha of that year states:
The Japanese empire is the first nation in the world, and our emperor is not just the emperorof Japan but also sōou or the king of all the countries on earth. This was the secret promise
made to the gods during the age of gods. After ten million years, its sign has appeared, andJapan will become a country to receive tribute and conquer foreign countries (2:197-8).
Similarly, Sandō sanyoku shōkō zusetsu written in the same year describes:

17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.

5Each country has its king in the world, but sōshu or a head lord has not been fixed. A promise
was made to the god that the emperor of Japan would be the one; however, people of theworld have not realized the divine intention, it has not been decided. This should be
realized by the efforts of many years by Japanese scholars. The promise should be fulfilled
after ten million years, and the Japanese scholars should be aware of it and continue towork hard (2:299).
In these works, the terms “sōou” and “sōshu” were used for the first time. However, “sōou” meansa king who governs kings of the world while “sōshu” means a lord who governs lords of the world;
thus, although these expressions were rather new, his view was not logically much different fromthe common view of “tennō ōkimi ron.” Further discussion will be made later, but there is anapparent difference logically between “tennō ōkimi ron” and “tennō sōtei ron.” Takamasa’s viewof this period was still within the scope of “tennō ōkimi ron.” His first works where he explicitly
asserted “tennō sōtei ron” were completed in Ansei 2 at the age of 64 and 21 years after Renbakusha
or Sandō sanyoku shōkō zusetsu had been written in Tenpō 7. One of such works Hongaku kyoyō describes
as follows:
When the people of our country Japan meet with the people of foreign countries, theyshould teach them this. As Japan is superior and different from the other usual empires,Japan holds the national polity as the great empire. Later when the rank of each country is
decided, and the great empire should be established, Japan would get the highest rank.
Kings of other empires would offer tribute to our emperor as their ruling king and receive
the ranks given by the Japanese Imperial Court (1:18-9).
Similarly, Gyojūmondō written in the same year explains as follows:
After the ranks of countries in the West were established, speaking of the empire, kingdom,or marquisate, Japan should be included as the empire. In my opinion, the way to establish
the ranks of the countries has not met requirement of the heaven and earth. There is noempire outside of Japan existing without much change since the ancient times. Therefore,among empires in the world, Japan should be selected as the great one (1:90).
Furthermore, Naobitamahochū of the same year states the similar assertion (2:116-7). The logics
embedded in those articles are organized as follows:(a) Some revered kings selected from all kingdoms in the world would be the kings of thehigher rank. Among those selected kings, the most respectful king to be chosen would
be “sōtei,” which should be tennō.
(b) Some revered nations selected from all nations in the world would be the nations ofhigher rank. Among those nations, the most respectful nation to be chosen would be
the nation of the great empire, which should be Japan.
The usual view of “tennō ōkimi ron” was merely selecting the tennō from all kings in the worldand similarly selecting Japan among all countries. However, in the case of Takamasa’s “tennō sōteiron,” first some empires were selected, from which Japan was finally selected, and similarly, firstsome kings were selected, from which tennō was finally selected. In other words, as for a method
for selection, “tennō ōkimi ron” takes one step while “tennō sōtei ron” takes two steps, which is
6logically different. However, why was such an act of logically restructuring “tennō ōkimi ron” andadding new presentation conducted? Its theory embedded in “tennō sōtei ron” is analyzed next,
and the objectivity behind it is explored.
The Political Thought of “Tennō Sōtei Ron”
As mentioned before here, “tennō sōtei ron” first appeared in the 2nd year of the Ansei period.
Therefore, it is almost sure that its formation was somewhat influenced by the change of theexternal political situation such as the Kanagawa treaty concluded in the previous year.
Yet, as clarified by the conventional study on it, “tennō sōtei ron” did not demand the immediatechange towards the political situation at that time. For instance, Gyojū mondū of Ansei 2 states that
“Our emperor is wanted not by power but righteousness (1:103).” Takamasa states in Shinshinkōhōronof Keiou 3 at the age of 76 as follows:
Among emperors in the world, only the emperor in Japan has been the imperial descendantfrom the age of gods. Therefore, it is only natural that the emperor in Japan should be
respected as the head emperor of the world by every nation. However, this view has notprevailed in every nation. Under such situation, then first this view should be kept as apersonal opinion specific to Japan, and we should wait for the time when every nation
would follow this view (3:214-5).
Like this, Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron” did not present any concrete demand superficially towards
the political situation at that time. However, as far as his view was formed in response to the changeof the political situation, there should have been a sense of political purpose in his mind. If that isthe case, then what would be “a sense of political purpose”? The author pays attention to
Takamasa’s descriptions such as the following [I] and [II].
[I] Now I establish of discernment Japan and assert that as our tennō is the tennō who has
been the imperial descendent without break since the age of gods, he is the head kind of
all of the nations in the world. There is no comparison with the kings of China or Russia.
He is a superior and revered ōkimi. The Shogunate family is the one who acts as guardian
for the tennō. In ancient Japan, there were “kokuzō” or regional administrators. Now there
are “kokushu and daimyō” or feudal lord. The kings of China or Russia should beequivalent to “kokuzō” or “kokushu.” This view should be the discernment of the Japanesepeople.
[omit][II] Its conformity is quite important. This should be prepared in advance in mind. Whenforeigners ask us about tennō or shogun, we should be able to correctly answer. Those
officials who act as translators should be especially aware of this. If the discernment ofJapan is established by making the Shogunate family equivalent to kings of foreign countries,
how should tennō be situated? Similarly, if the discernment of Japan is established bymaking tennō equivalent to kings of foreign countries, how should the Shogunate family
be situated? After all, Japan is different from other countries in terms of national polity;
thus, Japan cannot simply present its conformity by comparing with other foreign countries.
Therefore, when the conformity is mentioned based on the discernment of Japan, it should
be fine (1:156-8).

7

These are partly quoted from Bunbukyojitsuron of Kaei 6 (1853) when Takamasa was 62 years old.
The author divided them into [I] and [II] in the order of descriptions, but it would be easier tounderstand if we reverse the order and view that [I] raises a question while [II] is its response.
The section [II] asserts that if we regard kings of other nations as equivalent to shogun, theposition of tennō would be obscure, and if we regard kings of other nations as equivalent to tennō,
the position of shogun would be obscure. Therefore, Japan should establish its own unique
discernment and confront foreign countries. It is the section of [I] that shows Japan’s unique
discernment concretely. In the section [I], a new element which was missing in the previous “tennōōkimi ron.” In short, the new element is the presence of shogun and its position. Shogun, alongwith tennō, is situated as being superior to the kings of foreign countries, and daimyō or a feudal
lord is presented as an equivalent to the kings of other countries.
What urged to raise the question of [II] is, needless to say, the visit of Perry in June of the same
year. In this year, Takamasa already faced the question of how the double rule of the politicalsystem by tennō and shogun should be rationally interpreted from an international standpoint.
Furthermore, in his writings two years later of Ansei 2, “tennō sōtei ron” is clearly presented. It isapparent from the article of Gyojūmondō that his political critical mind behind “tennō sōtei ron” issomething like [II]. As this text has the format of hypothetical questions and answers with aWesterner, the section of a Westerner’s hypothetical remark is quoted here:
As kubō or shogun is not a real king, from now on, we will make kinrisama or emperor anequivalent to our king, make kubō an equivalent to a minister of our country, and send an
official letter (1:109).
In the case that this kind of remark was made, Takamasa suggested responding as follows:
Upon receiving an official letter from a king of other nation, as tennō is too deeply revered
to administer the affairs of state, he will entrust kubō to administer them and won’t respondto such a letter. While kubō is tennō’s subject, he is equivalent to kings of other countries
because kubō administers national politics. This is “daiteishaku no kokutai” or the national
polity of Japan. If other countries are not happy about it, they had better not interact withJapan. Even if they regard Japan as same as them, Japan is different from other countries
in many ways because of “daiteishaku no kokutai.” When they deliver a letter to Japan,
they must ask for something. Then, they should respect Japanese national polity; however,if they do not respect it and try to drop the status of kubō, it is disrespectful to our national
polity. All of the national politics are entrusted to kubō, and tennō sustains his status.
Therefore, kubō is equivalent to a king of other country. If they understand it and want tointeract with Japan, they may (1:110).
Furthermore, Takamasa explained as follows: “If a response is made as such, it should be finebecause kubō’s authority won’t be lost, and the extreme reverence towards tennō will be expressed(1:110).” At the time of Kaei 6, daimyō was regarded as an equivalent being, and both tennō andshogun were placed superior to daimyō. However, at this time of Ansei 2, this view was modified.
In other words, shogun became equivalent too foreign kings while only tennō became superior toforeign kings. It is this political structure that Takamasa viewed as “daiteishaku no kokutai.” By
establishing such a view, Takamasa logically solved the issue raised at Kaei 6.20
20 The change of Takamasa’s idea up to Ansei 2 can be summarized by chart as follows:8At this point, it has been clear that Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron” was established in order tologically integrate both existences of the Imperial Court and Shogunate from the standpoint offoreign relations. In short, apparently, such intention was the essential meaning of his “tennō sōteiron.” Certainly, his view was useful to some extent until the beginning of the Ansei era when the
split of a relationship between the Imperial Court and Shogunate was not yet definite over theissue of whether a commercial treaty should be concluded or not. However, after all, the politicaland ideological characteristics of his view did not expand a general theory of kokugaku, i.e., taisei
inin ron (the theory that political power of the Imperial Court was entrusted to the Shogunate by
the Imperial Court). Therefore, after this when political situation shifted to the defeat of the
Shogunate at the end of the Edo period, if “tennō sōtei ron” continued to be same as that of thefirst year of the Ansei period, it would certainly become a theory losing touch with realities of that
period.
Takamasa’s Shinrishōgen written in Bunkyū 1 at the age of 70 documents a question and an answer
between Takamasa and “a scholar from the royal family.” This person states as follows:
When some empires were selected in the West, Japan was selected as one of them. Recently,
after the commercial treaty was entered, the status of Japan was lowered as a kingdom notan empire. It is very disappointing. Japan should continue to be an empire, but due to theadministration of politics by the Shogunate, Japan has lost its respectful status. How should
Japan be able to restore its status as the empire like before? (supplementary chapter:118-9)
Takamasa responds:
The reason why the status of Japan was dropped as a kingdom was because of letters sentby kings of other countries. Those letters did not reach Kyoto. It is natural that the
Shogunate family should treat those letters. As our tennō is deeply revered, he is not equal
to foreign kings (supplementary chapter:119-20).
Also, Takamasa stated in Sonnō jōi isetsu ben written in Bunkyū 2 at the age of 71 that “a foreign
envoy did not come to Kyoto. The envoy went to the Shogunate family and did not interact with
our tennō, which is very good because the tennō’s revered truth revealed (2:343-4).”
Furthermore, he stated in Shinshin kouhouron written in Keiou 3:

I: Kaei 6 and formation of “tennō ōkimi ron;” II: Kaei 6 and the formation of “tennō sōtei ron;” III after
Ansei 2 and completion of “tennō sōtei ron.” After III, much change was not seen until the Meiji Restoration.
However, while there is an article investigating the relationship between shogun and “kings of other countries,”
as long as the author knows, there is no article discussing the relationship with “kōtei” of foreign countries.
In this sense, the chart of III is partly based on the author’s assumption.
I Tennō-foreign kings-foreign kings
II Tennō-shogun-foreign kings-daimyō-foreign kings
III Tennō-teishaku ōshaku kōshaku=foreign kings-shogun- teishaku ōshaku kōshaku=foreign kings

9

If those countries with which Japan entered the treaty want to interact with Japan while
regarding Japan’s tennō and their kings as equivalent and lowering the status of shogun asa subject, the Japanese people should not follow it. It is appropriate that they should revere
the tennō as a revered being and interact with us while considering their kings to beequivalent to shogun (3:215).
Even at the time of Keiō 3, Takamasa’s tendency toward defeat of Shogunate or sentiment ofanti-Shogunate was not found. Yet, he still continued to evaluate the form of diplomacy as mostideal that shogun who was situated after tennō interacted with kings of other countries. Perhaps,
Takamasa must have believed that tennō would become “sōtei” in the world as historicalinevitability and that opening the port and diplomatic situation formed after that were part ofprocess of development toward his ideal. However, due to his belief, Takamasa’s assertion lost
political realities and faced the Meiji Restoration without modifying the rigidity of his logics.
After the Meiji Restoration, the Shogunate was demolished, and a unitary political system basedon the reverence of tennō appeared. As Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron” is a concept of rationalizing
the double rule, its claim could not avoid logically collapsing. Takamasa stated in Tōseiyōgo written
in Meiji 3 at the age of 79:21
The West talked about kokushaku. There are three teishaku and fifteen ōshaku in Europe.
England is an excellent and strong country, but its royal lineage is not superior; thus, itcannot be counted as an empire. It is said that there are three empires in Asia. Despite its
small size, Japan is counted as one of the three empires because its imperial line is superior
and righteous.
Japan has not been found in the world yet and regarded as a usual empire; however, once
our country’s ancient wisdom, the truth of 50 syllables are known to the world, Japan will
be selected as the great empire among other empires and revered as the country where theimperial line has continued without break since time immemorial. This is very clear likelooking at the mirror.
However, the time has not come yet. Until the time will come, ministers should respecttennō as ōkimi and continue to be proud of his virtue. This should be understood as theduty of his subjects. [Underlined by the author.]
Even after the Meiji Restoration, Takamasa continued to claim that one day the time would comethat Japan should be acknowledged as “the great empire” by the world. On the other hand, in his
writings after the Meiji restoration, the phrase “daiteishaku no kokutai” and his claim that such
polity exists in Japan today completely disappeared. He must have fully recognized that“daiteishaku no kokutai” collapsed by the Meiji Restoration and that by the demolition of the
Shogunate, tennō became “tsune no ōkimi” or a usual emperor, and Japan became “tsune noteikoku” or a usual empire. Therefore, it can be viewed that Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron” logicallyfailed in its essence.
Although his idea about “tennō ōkimi ron” was still sustained, its logic was distorted between
ideal and reality and lost its much clarity. While his poetry says, “I am happy to live seven plus
seventy years in this world and to be able to see the new era (7: 482),” he stated that “Today’ssociety has not opened yet” or “The time has not come yet.” It is possible to grasp his complex
21 Tōseiyōgo (Tokyo: Library of Kokugakuin University). Reprinting of Tōseiyōgo is included in Hōkōjiseki (supplementary

chapter: 183-5).

10feelings from his latter remarks about the change brought by the Meiji Restoration.22
To Takamasa, the new era meant that he would continue to believe that the time would comewhen Japan should be acknowledged as “the great empire” by the world and to wait “until whenthat time would come,” returning to the starting point. In Meiji 4, the following year after thecompletion of Tousei yougo, Takamasa passed away at the age of eighty.
The Undercurrent of “Tennō Sōtei Ron”
In this final section, the relationship between kokugaku and other schools is analyzed. Even if thescope is specified to Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron,” there are various schools about it. What isparticularly important is Western learning.
As is well known, there were not a few in a society of kokugaku who actively absorbed thewestern knowledge and ideologically applied it at the end of the Edo period. It is generally said
that Takamasa was in particular one of such. 23 However, there are only a few studies whichempirically elucidated Takamasa’s way of absorbing the studies of the West.24 As mentioned before,
it is Hanakurabenosōshi that first presented the concept of “teikoku.” This text states that “the best
six nations selected among all nations in the West are called the country of teishaku (2:282),” whichclearly shows that the concept originated in Western learning. In the rest of this section, while
exploring change of the concept of “teikoku,” the process of Takamasa’s adoption of Westernlearning is clarified.
Perhaps, the figure who first introduced the concept of “teikoku” of the West was Arai Hakuseki.
Hakuseki stated in the first section “Europa (Europe)” of Sairanigen written in Shōtoku 3:
There are six kinds of titles of ruler. Rome Pope holds the highest title. Next is mikado.
Next is ō. Then a king of a small kingdom follows. A lord of a smaller territory follows.
Daishōgun, shōgun, and shōkou follow.25
Similarly, Seiyōkibun written in Shōtoku 5 states:
There are several ranks of titles of ruler. Rome Pope has the highest title. Rome Pope isrespected by people of nations of Christianity. After that, “inperadōru” like an emperor of
China or a ruler of Germany comes. Next comes “rekisu” like a king of China, France, orEngland. Next comes “furensu” who is the lower rank of “rekisu” and a general of China.

22 Katsurajima Nobuhiro pointed out the similarity on the view of emperor between Takamasa and his disciple Fukuba

Bisei: “Takamasa’s view on tennō was characterized enough to be sustained as “discernment of the country” up to themodern period without contradicting the demolition of the feudal system and the Shogunate (Bakumatsu minshū shisū nokenkyū, Tokyo: Bunrikaku, 1992, p.73). It is an interesting point, but the author does not agree with Katsurajima thatthe ideological inheritance took place between Takamasa and Bisei in such a way. It is because, as this section has
demonstrated, Takamasa’s unique view on tennō or “tennō sōtei ron” aims to logically integrate the relationshipbetween the Imperial Court and the Shogunate in its essence; thus, this view had a setback once along with thetermination of the Shogunate. The process of the inheritance of Takamasa’s view should be carefully explored in the
future.
23 See “Kokugaku to Yōgaku,” in Part 3 of vol. 2, Kinsei shi no kenkyū.
24 See Arakawa Kusuo, “Ōkuni Takamasa no chūkō kigenron ni tsuite-sono rangaku tono kakawariai-” Kōgakukan ronsō
3:6 (1970). This discusses the influence of Western learning upon Takamasa’s historical ideas based on literature indetail.
25 Sairanigen, vol. 4, Arai Hakuseki zenshū (Tokyo: Kokusho Kankoukai, 1905-7), p. 819.

11

[omit] Next is “dōkusu.” [omit] Each has the name of the title.26
About these two texts, the title of Sairanigen is seen in Takamasa’s Sekijubutsu (4:186). Rome Pope issituated in the rank of “mikado,” and Interestingly, its position was recognized in a similar way as
a position of tennō held by scholar of kokugaku. In Hakuseki’s two books, the numbers of “teikoku”
in the world or their names were not explicitly written, but in some books about the West publishedlater, they were clearly written. One such example is Sakokuron written in Kyōwa 1. This book is atranslation of part of Nihonkenbunkiji (Nihonshi) written by Engelbert Kaempfer who was a German
medical doctor of Holland:
There are six titles meaning “keizuru” or titles of emperor allowed by Holland: our tennōor kubō, emperor of China, sultan of Turkey, czar of Russia, “Mogoru of Indosutan,” andkaiser of “Zerumania.”27“Mogoru of Indosutan” signifies the Mughal Empire of India, 28 and “Zerumania” means
Germany. 29 These six countries are same as the six countries that Takamasa presented in
Hanakurabenosōhi, and the title Sakokuron also appears Kodentsūkai (6:204), which suggests that
Sakokuron was likely one of the references that Takamasa used at that time. In addition, the concrete
names of countries as “teikoku” were written in Yamamura Saisuke’s Teiseizōyaku sairanigen30 of
Kyōwa 3 and Satō Nobuhiro’s Seiyōrekkokushiryaku31 of Bunka 5.
As for the Mughal Empire, although it was the mentioned as “teikoku” in those books Teiseizōyaku
sairanigen or Seiyōrekkokushiryaku since Sakokuron, the name was excluded as “teikoku” in books at theend of the Edo period. It was because the information that the Mughal Empire had been almost
demolished was widely conveyed among Japanese intellectuals. In the section of “tenjiku” ofKonyozushiki written in Kōka 3 by Mitsukuri Shōgo states:32
During a last hundred years, this Empire was disturbed by England, and it fought against
Persia. After it was defeated, this Empire continuously faced civil wars. Those countries in
the West such as England, France, Holland, Portugal, and Germany invaded the Empire
and occupied it.
Takamasa stated in his Hongakukyoyō of Ansei 2 that “In the west, three ranks of nations teishaku,ōshaku, and kōshaku, were established, and Japan is counted as the first title teishaku. China,
Russia, Germany, and Turkey were also countries of teishaku (1:17).” In this, there is no descriptionof the Mughal Empire, which must have been a result of receiving the information about the
26 Seiyōkibun, vol. 4, Arai Hakuseki zenshū (Tokyo: Kokusho Kankoukai, 1905-7), p. 762.
27 Sakokuron, vol. 5, Nihon bunko (Tokyo: Hakubunkan, 1891), p. 50.

28 In Yamamura Sasuke’s Teisei zōyaku Sairanigen written in Kyōwa 3, different Chinese characters were used for“indosutan.” vol. 2, Rangakushiryōsōsho (Tokyo: Seishisha, 1979), p. 813.
29 In the section of “Zerumania,” vol. 1, Rangakushiryōsōsho: “Holland is called ‘doitsu rando” or “ho’ogo doitsu” (Tokyo:
Seishisha, 1979), p. 194.
30 Vol. 1, Rangakushiryōsōsho, p. 135: “it is written that inperatoraru is Latin. In French, it is enpereuru. In Dutch, keizuru.
These mean “teisha.” If they are not emperors of great countries which govern other countries, this title is not given.
In Europe, there are only two such countries: Zerumania and Musukobia. Other than these, the West regard Shina,
Toruko, and Mogoru as same as those. Furthermore, according to the books on Western learning, Perushia, Abishini,
Marokko, Shamu, Nihon, and Jawa are powerful and independent. The West call them “teikoku.
31 One of references of Seiyōrekkokushiryaku is Teiseizōyaku sairanigen. See Sakokujidai nihonjin no kaigaichishiki, Reprint (Tokyo:
Hara Shobou,1978). Therefore, the names of “teikoku” of both texts are almost same.
32 Konyozushiki, printed book (Toyohashi: Public Central Library of Toyohashi).

12

Mughal Empire.
Instead of the Mughal Empire, a country which was newly recognized as “teikoku” was France.
In Seimiya Hidekata’s Shinsennenpyō 33 of Ansei 2 documents “Japan, China, Germany, Turkey,
Russia, and France” as “six empires.” The background situation that France was recognized as“teikoku” was related to the fact that information about Napoleon was widely known among
Japanese intellectuals.34 In the section of “the West” of 1803 of Shinsennenpyō states that “Napoleon
declared himself as an emperor.” The section of “France” of the second volume of Konyozushiki
describes the history from French Revolution to the fall of Napoleon:
In the last fifty years before, civil wars have continued to take place over the entire country,
and the king was not able to control them. Republican government became dominant inEurope. Consequently, Napoleon became a leader. He claimed that he was the first emperor
and attempted to control the entire Europe. However, in the end, he failed without fulfilling
his ambition.
In the aforementioned Tōseiyōgo, there was a passage that “there are three teishaku,” which would
signify Germany, Russia, and France. Additionally, like the quotation of Shinrishōgen, sometimes
after opening the port, the information that the status of Japan dropped from “teikoku” to “ōkoku”
in the West seemed to spread among Japanese intellectuals. What can be thought as source of thisinformation is translation of oversea newspaper.
Takamasa’s Kyūjōichiran of Bunkyū 2 states that “Japan released the information about what had
taken place on March 3 of Ansei 6 on newspaper of France dated on intercalary March 12 andspread the news in the world (supplementary section:160).” As “what had taken place on March 3”
should indicate the Sakuradamon incident, “Ansei 6” must be a mistake of Ansei 7 or Manen 1,
while France must be perhaps a mistake of England. There was a newspaper titled Eikokushinbunshi
shouyaku35 translated by Tezuka Ritsuzō, which documented this incident of intercalary March
12 of Manen 1, which must be source of information. In this article, there is an expression “Ōkoku
Nihon.” 36
Of course, as Takamasa often read newspaper of oversea such as Rikugōsōdan or Chūgaishinbun,
there could be other sources of information.37 Saying that, the information of “ōkoku nihon” thatgave an impact on Japanese intellectuals at the end of the Edo period must have disappeared before
it became a common theory because the aforementioned Tōseiyōgo of Meiji 3 stated that “there arethree empires in Asia. Despite its small size, Japan is selected as one of three.” Up to this point, thechanges of “teikoku” have been explored from books of Western learning. By doing it, even withina scope of his formation of “tennō sōtei ron,” it has become clear that Takamasa always adopted
the newest knowledge of Western learning and integrated into his ideas.38 As for the concept of
33 Shinsennenpyō, printed book (Toyohashi: Public Central Library of Toyohashi).

34 See “Ōkuni Takamasa no chūkō kigenron ni tsuite-sono rangaku tono kakawariai-” Kōgakukan ronsō.
35 Vol. 1, Nihon shoki Shimbun zenshū, (Tokyo: Perikansha, 1986), pp. 128-9.

36 Takeo Masatane who was from Mikawa and belonged to Hirata school was said to get information from Eikoku

shimbunshi shōyaku. See Haga Noboru, Bakumatsu shishi no seikatsu (Tokyo: Yūzankaku, 1982), p. 244.According to Tazaki
Tetsurō, Chihō chishikijin no keisei (Osaka: Meicho Shuppan, 1990), it could be Masatane’s grandfather, not Masatane,
who got information from Eikoku shimbunshi shōyaku (p. 115).
37 Rikugōsōdan is found in Kyūjōichiran (Supplementary chapter: 160) while Chūgaishinpō is found in Sonnō jōi isetsu ben(2:352).
38 It seems that both a term “teiō” used in the writings of Tenpō 7 and a term “sōtei” used in the writings after Ansei
2 were not Takamasa’s own idea. In Hakuseki’s Sairanigen, tennō was referred as “sōtei” of Japan (note 24, p.848). In

13

“teikoku,” in terms that many nations can be selected and distinguished based on the authenticity,that Japan was one of the selected nations, and that the concept of “teikoku” was one of theuniversal concepts at that time, this concept was quite appropriate in order to apply it to theformation of ideas to scholars of kokugaku who tried to re-establish the worldview since Norinaga.
Therefore, it is not strange that such a person like Takeo Masatane appeared after Masataka,
who applied the concept of “teikoku” more actively than Takamasa in order to develop the ideaof kokugaku, Takeo published Daiteikokuron,39 and it is known among scholars that Takamasa’s“tennō sōtei ron” greatly influenced the field of kokugaku at that time. Lastly, the author wants tomake a remark on a relationship between Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron” and other schools otherthan Western learning. It is about later Mito-gaku (the scholarship and academic traditions that
arose in the Mito Domain). In later Mito-gaku, there is a theory called “udai itteiron.” 40 For
instance, Fujita Yūkoku stated that “In Japan, there is a revered emperor. All nations respect theimperial empire of Japan.”41 Aizawa Seishisai stated that “The divine land of Japan is the headnation of the world. The emperor of Japan is the ruler of the world.”42
These views immediately show the resemblance with Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron,” which has
been already pointed out by a few prior scholarly works.43 However, the author pays attention towhat has not been pointed out yet by other scholars, i.e., the fact that the internalized views of
Takamasa and scholars of other schools on the relationship between the Imperial Court and the
Shogunate are also similar. As mentioned before, in Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron,” the theory ofaccepting the system of the Shogunate while respecting the emperor, was embedded. That is why
the manifestation of the emperor’s political power by his individual intention should be entirely
negated. Takamasa stated in Gaku’unron written in Kaei 6 that “the emperor who tried to restore
the emperor’s direct administration like the medieval period might not get the intention of kami
(4:17).” He stated that “as long as the emperor observes the imperial lineage, his duty toward hisancestral spirits and kami should be fulfilled (4:17).” Also, Takamasa stated in Yamatogokoro written
in Kaei 1 that “our tennō’s status is not for being proud of it like that of kings of foreign countries.
As long as the tennō exists in order to fulfill the oracle that is as eternal as heaven and earth, thedivine intention will be realized (3:91).” The text of a different version Yamatogokoro ihon states that
“if conducting politics and ruling the society as like is viewed as the work of the emperor, it is amatter about foreign countries, which is a polluted view (3:110).”
Honda Toshiaki’s Keiseihisaku, Roman emperor or Roman Pope was referred as “sōtei” of Europe. Honda Toshiaki; Kaiho
Seiryō, vol. 44, Nihon shisō taikei (Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1970), p. 29). Therefore, it is likely that those words were alsoborrowed from books on Western learning.
39 Daiteikokuron written in Bunkyū 3 is included in Kōno Seizō, Hirata Atsutane, Kokugaku undō no sekai, vol. 51, Nihon shisō
taikei (Tokyo: Shinchōsha, 1943). Masatane contacted with Takamasa in Ansei 4. See Takeo Masatane, Rosōkōkyūben(Toyohashi: Public Central Library of Toyohashi).
40 See section 2 of chapter 3 “Udai itteiron,” in Arakawa Kusuo, Udai no tairi (Tokyo: Shikai Shobō, 1944).
41 Yūkokushisan, Kikuchi Kenjirō ed., Yūkoku zenshū (Tokyo: Yoshida Yahei,1935), p. 499.
42 Kagakujigen, vol. 2, Kokumin dōtoku sōsho (Tokyo: Hakubunkan, 1911), p. 511.
43 Haga Noboru stated that “Takeo Masatane’s view is close to Ōkuni Takamasa’s “daijōi ron” or principle of
excluding foreigners. [omit] In Ōkuni’s daijoui ron, the characteristics of physiocracy held by Fujit Yūkoku or Touko
of later Mito-gaku was not found.” Furthermore, it was different from Yūkoku’s Seimei ron, but similar to “unaiichitei
ron. Yet “guminkan” was not shared by Ōkuni Takamasa. See Haga Noboru, Bakumatsukokugaku no tenkai (Tokyo:
Haniwa Shobō, 1963), p. 100. Katsurajima Nobuhiro stated that “I think that the theory on tennō of later Mito-gaku
and that of Ōkuni Takamasa are very much alike. [omit] It is apparent that characteristics of Takamasa’s theory on
tennō marked by his political intention compared to that of Hirata school. It should be said that the combination
between his theory and the theory of “kuni no kenshiki (national discernment)” is quite close to the theory of later
Mito-gaku. With this scope, the commonality between “jinmin kyōka rosen” and “guminkan” can be understood.”
See Katsurajima Nobuhiro, Bakumatsu minshuu shisō no kenkyū, p. 81.

14

After reading these articles, it is apparent to understand what kind of view that Takamasa held
about the relationship between the Imperial Court and the Shogunate. In other words, the tennō
should sustain both the authentic traditions and ritual, entrusts all real matters of politics to the
Shogunate, and exist as a symbol with his highest position in the world.
On the other hand, as for the theory on tennō of the later Mito-gaku, Yamaguchi Muneyuki
stated: “Both Fujita Yūkoku and Tokugawa Nariaki held the fundamental premise that tennō wasa manifestation of the national polity anf the incomparable revered figure, and they believed thattennō should neither express his opinion outside nor become the political constituent forcing the
subject to obey him. It can be viewed that in reality it was understood that the tennō should quietly
sit in a closed corner of the imperial palace, become the object of reverence of the Shogunate
family, and ultimately serve the legitimacy of the rule of the Tokugawa family.44 If we accept
Yamaguchi’s view, there was almost no difference of idea on the relationship between the Imperial
Court and the Shoguante held by Takamasa and scholars of other schools beyond the differencesof schools.
It is known among scholars that after the incidence of Yamatogokoro of Kaei 1, Takamasa wasreceived in audience with Tokugawa Nariaki in Kaei 6. In the same year, Takamasa gave Nariaki
his book titled Bunbukyojitsuron. Also, it is known that Takamasa was acquainted with Fujita
Nariaki.45 the fact that Takamasa’s book Yamatogokoro received Nariakik’s great admiration might
indicate the commonality of their ideas. 46
Conclusion
What has been examined can be summarized as follows:(1) Since Norinaga, his worldview based on kokugaku, i.e., “tennō ōkimi ron,” was passed
down to Takamasa before Bunsei 4 at the age of thirty-four. At that time, the ideologicalinfluence other than Norinaga was not especially found in Takamasa’s view.
(2) Takamasa adopted the concept of “teikoku” before Tenpō 5 at the age of forty-three frombooks on Western learning. Those books are Sairanigen, Sakokuron, etc. However, the conceptof “teikoku” was merely supplementary to “tennō ōkimi ron.”(3) The event that would enhance the formation of “tennō sōtei ron” by integrating “tennōōkimi ron” into the concept of “teikoku” was his political awareness about an issue raised
by Perry’s visit to Japan in Kaei 6 when he was six-two years old. The issue was how
rationally they should explain from the external viewpoint the double rule by Japaneseemperor and Shogun.
(4) Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron” was formed after Kaei 6 and by Ansei 2 when he was sixtyfour years old. Through this theory, Takamasa was able to make the status of shogun
equivalent to kings of other countries and the status of emperor superior to those kings. As
a result, he was able to logically make much sense of the double rule of tennō and shogun
as the Japanese unique system of “daiteishaku no kokutai.” In this theory, there is an
essential meaning of his “tennō sōtei ron,” but its political and ideological features do not
go beyond the theory of “taisei inin ron,” which was a common view of kokugaku.
(5) Takamasa’s “tennō sōtei ron” was sustained without any change since its formation until
44 Yamaguchi Muneyuki, “Bakumatsu no tennō kan,” vol. 13, Kikan nihon shisōshi, (1980).

45 See Hōkōjiseki (Supplementary chapter: 251-3, 265-6). See also Kyūjō ichiran (Supplementary chapter: 186).

46 According to Hōkōjiseki, Nariaki, who read Yamatogokoro in Kaei 1, said that “this is the quintessence of kōgaku (native

studies)” (Supplementary chapter).

15

Keiō 3 at the age of seventy-six. However, along with the termination of the Shogunate by
the Meiji Restoration its logics had a setback. Yet, part of the idea of “tennō ōkimi ron”
continued to be sustained after the Meiji restoration.
Furthermore, the following two points are noteworthy:(1) Even if we limit to “tennō sōtei ron,” Takamasa’s ideas always were formed while
adopting latest information from oversea and developed.
(2) There is a strong commonality between later Mito-gaku and “tennō sōtei ron” in termsof the political idea on the relationship between the Imperial Court and the Shogunate.
From these conclusions, a question is newly raised. It is the relationship between Takamasa andthe Meiji Restoration. Although he continued to support the feudal system of the Shogunate anddomains until right before the Meiji Restoration, he occupied an important status in terms of thereligious policy of the new government. How should we interpret such a fact? What kind of process
took place behind its situation? The next section will investigate these questions.

16