APPENDIX
Note A
(From Clement’s “Handbook of Modern Japan”)
PROVINCES BY CIRCUITS
The following list gives in detail the divisions of Japan into Provinces (Kuni), according to “Circuits”:
Go-Kinai (Five Home Provinces). Yamashiro, Yamato, Kawachi, Izumi (or Senshiu), Settsu (or Sesshiu).
Tōkaidō (Eastern Sea Road). Iga, Ise, Shima, Owari, Mikawa, Tōtōmi, Suruga, Kai, Izu, Sagami, Musashi, Awa (or Bōshiu), Kazusa, Shimōsa, Hitachi.
Tōsandō (Eastern Mountain Road). Ōmi, Mino, Hida, Shinano (or Shinshiu), Kōzuke (or Jōshiu), Shimozuke, Iwaki, Iwashiro, Rikuzen, Rikuchū, Mutsu, Uzen, Ugo.
Hokurikudō (North Land Road). Wakasa, Echizen, Kaga, Noto, Etchū, Echigo, Sado Island.
Sanindō (Mountain Shade Road). Tamba, Tango, Tajima, Inaba, Hōki, Izumo, Iwami, Oki Islands.
Sanyōdō (Mountain Sunlight Road). Harima (or Banshiu), Mimasaka, Bizen, Bitchū, Bingo, Aki, Suwō, Nagata (or Chōshiu).
Nankaidō (Southern Sea Road). Kii (or Kishiu), Awaji Island, Awa, Sanuki, Iyo, Tosa (or Toshiu), of which the last four are in the island of Shikoku.
Saikaidō (Western Sea Road). Chikuzen, Chikugo, Buzen, Bungo, Hizen, Higo, Hyūga, Ōsumi, Satsuma (or Sasshiu), Iki Island, Tsushima Island, of which all except the last two are on the island of Kyūshiu.
Hokkaido (Northern Sea Road). Ōshima, Shiribeshi, Iburi, Ishikari, Hitaka, Tokachi, Teshio, Kushiro, Nemuro, Kitami (all on the island of Yezo), and Chishima, or the Kurile Islands.
Ryūkyū (Loo Choo or Lew Chew) Islands.
Note B
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Murray: “The Story of Japan” in the “Stories of the Nations” series.
Bird (Miss): “Unbeaten Tracks in Japan.”
Griffis: “Japanese Fairy World”; “Japan in History, Folk-lore and Art”; “Honda the Samurai”; “The Religions of Japan.”
Hearn: All his books, but especially “Glimpses of Unfamiliar Japan” (2 vols.); “Kokoro”; “Japan—An Interpretation.”
Lowell: “Noto, An Unexplored Corner of Japan”; “The Soul of the Far East.”
Nitobe: “Bushido—The Soul of Japan.”
Gulick: “The Evolution of the Japanese.”
Mitford: “Tales of Old Japan.”
Knox: “Japanese Life in Town and Country.”
Bacon (Miss): “Japanese Girls and Women” (illustrated edition).
Scherer: “Young Japan.”
Knapp: “Feudal and Modern Japan.”
Shigemi: “A Japanese Boy.”
Bramhall (Mrs.): “The Wee Ones of Japan.”
Chaplin-Ayrton (Mrs.): “Child Life in Japan.”
Riordan and Takayanagi: “Sunrise Stories.”
Ozaki (Miss): “The Japanese Fairy World.”
Morse: “Japanese Homes.”
Hartshorne (Miss): “Japan and her People” (2 vols.).
Reed: “Japan” (2 vols.).
Dickson: “Japan.”
Aston: “History of Japanese Literature.”
Chamberlain: “Classical Poetry of the Japanese.”
McClatchie: “Japanese Plays.”
Maclay: “Mito Yashiki.”
Kitchin: “Parli, the Last of the Missionaries.”
Gruy: “A Captive of Love.”
Suyematsu: “Genji Monogatari.”
Purcell: “A Suburb of Yedo.”
Harris (Mrs.): “Log of a Japanese Journey.”
Dickins: “Chiushingura, the Loyal League.”
Asakawa: “Early Institutional Life of Japan.”
Mackay: “From Far Formosa.”
Campbell: “Formosa under the Dutch.”
Davidson: “The Island of Formosa.”
Batchelor: “The Ainu of Japan”; “The Ainu and their Folk-lore.”
Kinos[h]ita: “The Past and Present of Japanese Commerce.”
Huish: “Japan and its Art.”
Regamey: “Japan in Art and Industry.”
Okakura: “The Ideals of the East.”
Dresser: “Japan, Its Architecture, Art and Art Manufactures.”
Jarves: “A Glimpse at the Art of Japan.”
Hartman: “Japanese Art.”
Dick: “Arts and Crafts of Old Japan.”
Anderson: “The Pictorial Arts of Japan.”
Audsley and Bowes: “Keramic Art of Japan.”
Alcock: “The Capital of the Tycoon” (2 vols.).
Adams: “History of Japan” (2 vols.).
Black: “Young Japan” (2 vols.).
Dixon: “The Land of the Morning.”
Mossman: “New Japan.”
Hecr: “The Narrative of a Japanese” (2 vols.).
Official: “History of the Empire of Japan”; “Japanese Education.” “Kojiki,”—English version by Chamberlain, Vol. X, Appendix, of the “Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan.”
Note C
USE OF FIRE-ARMS IN THE EAST
Even the inhabitants of southern India, notwithstanding the long intercourse carried on with them by Arab traders from the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea, and the invasions of their country by Mahometans from the north, seem to have been mainly indebted for their first possession of fire-arms to Europeans; as witness the following extract from Rickard Eden’s translation, first published in 1576, of the “Navigations and Voyages of Lewis Vertomanus, Gentleman, of the city of Rome, to the Regions of Arabia, Egypt, Persia, Syria, Ethiopia, and East India, both within and without the river Ganges, &c., in the year of our Lord, 1503,” contemporary, that is, with the earliest Portuguese expeditions: “Entering into the city of Calicut, we found there two Christians, born in the city of Milan; the one named John Maria, the other Peter Antonio. These were jewellers, and came from Portugal with the king’s license to buy precious stones. When I had found these men I rejoiced more than I am able to express. At our first meeting them, seeing to be white men (for we went naked, after the manner of the inhabitants), I asked them if they were Christians. They said yea. Then said I that I was also a Christian, by the grace of God. Then, taking me by my hand, they brought me to their house, where, for joy of our meeting, we could scarcely satisfy ourselves with tears, embracing and kissing; for it seemed now to me a strange thing to hear men speak mine own language, or to speak it myself. Shortly after, I asked them if they were in favor with the king of Calicut. We are, said they, in great favor with him, and very familiar. Then again I asked them what they were minded to do. We desire, said they, to return to our country, but we know not the means how. Then, said I, return the same way that you came. Nay, said they, that may not be; for we are fled from the Portugals, because we have made many pieces of great ordinance and other guns for the king of Calicut, and therefore we have good cause to fear; and now especially, for that the navy of Portugal will shortly be here. I answered that if I might escape to the city of Canonor, I doubted not but that I would get their pardon of the governor of the navy. There is small hope of mercy, said they, we are so famous and well known to many other kings in the way, which favor the Portugals, and lay wait to take us. In which their talk I perceived how fearful a thing is a guilty conscience, and called to remembrance the saying of the poet:
‘Multa male timeo, qui feci multa proterve.’
That is, ‘I fear much evil because I have done much evil.’ For they had not only made many such pieces of artillery for the infidels, to the great damage of Christians, and contempt of the holy name of Christ and his religion, but had also taught the idolaters both the making and use of them; and at my being there I saw them give a model or mould to certain idolaters, whereby they might make brazen pieces, of such bigness that one of them may receive the charge of a hundred and five tankards (cantoros) of powder. At the same time, also, there was a Jew, which had made a very fair brigantine, and four great pieces of artillery of iron. But God shortly afterwards gave him his due reward; for, when he went to wash him in the river, he was drowned.”
Nor did the two Christians escape much better. The Portuguese commander agreed to pardon them; but, in attempting to escape to him, they were killed. Maffei, in his Indian History, refers to the aid which the native princes derived from these and other Christian renegadoes.
Note D
FERNAM MENDEZ PINTO
The ill fortune of which Pinto complained as having pursued him through life did not spare him even after he was laid in the grave, the narrative of his adventures which he left behind him having been assailed by the wits and critics with hardly less ferocity than poor Pinto himself was while alive by the corsairs, infidels, and barbarians, with whom he came in contact. He is indeed chiefly known to English readers by an ill-natured fling of Congreve, who, in his “Love for Love,” makes one of his characters address another in those oft-quoted words: “Ferdinand Mendez Pinto was but a type of thee, thou liar of the first magnitude!” It is said also that Cervantes, three or four years before whose death Pinto’s book was published, speaks of him somewhere as the “prince of liars.” I have not been able to find the passage; but likely enough Cervantes might have been a little vexed to find his “Persiles and Sigismunda,” a romance, under the guise of a book of travels, first published about the time with Pinto’s book, so much outdone by what claimed to be a true narrative of real adventures.
As Pinto, however, in spite of all his ill luck, found, in writing his memoirs, some topics of consolation, so also his character as an author and a narrator has by no means been left entirely in the lurch. Though little read now, he has enjoyed, in his day, a popularity such as few authors attain to. To the first edition of his “Peregrinations,” in the original Portuguese, succeeded others in 1678, 1711, and 1725; and second, third, and fourth editions are compliments which Portugal very rarely pays to her authors. A Spanish translation appeared at Madrid in 1620, in which, however, great and very unwarrantable liberties were taken by the translator. A French translation was published at Paris in 1628, and an English translation in 1663. To the Spanish and French translations defences of Pinto’s veracity are prefixed, and both passed through several editions. Purchas, who gives a synopsis of that part of Pinto’s book relating to China and Japan, strongly defends his credibility, observing that he little spares his own company and nation, but often and eagerly lays open their vices. “I find in him,” says Purchas, “little boasting, except of other nations, none at all of himself, but as if he intended to express God’s glory, and man’s merit of nothing but misery. And, however it seems incredible to remember such infinite particulars as this book is full of, yet an easy memory holdeth strong impressions of good and bad, especially new-whetted, filed, furbushed, with so many companions in misery, their best music in their chains and wanderings being the mutual recounting of things seen, done, and suffered. More marvel is it, if a liar, that he should not forget himself and contradict his own relations.
“I would not have an author rejected for fit speeches framed by the writer, in which many historians have taken liberty; nor if sometimes he doth mendacia dicere (say false things), so as that he doth not mentiri (lie); as I will not sware but of himself he might mistake, and by others be misled. The Chinese might, in relating their rarities to him, enlarge and de magnis majora loqui (exaggerate things really great), so as he still might be religious in a just and true delivery of what himself hath seen, and belei not his own eyes.... All China authors, how diversified in their lines, yet all concur in a certain centre of Admiranda Sinarum (admirable things of the Chinese)[131], which if others have not so largely related as this, they may thank God they paid not so dear a price to see them; and, for me, I will rather believe, where reason evicts not, ejectione firma (with a firm ejection), than seek to see at the author’s rate; and if he hath robbed the altars of truth, as he did those of the Calumplay idols, yet, in Pekin equity, we will not cut off his thumbs (according to Nanquin rigor), upon bare surmise, without any evidence against him.”
The countries in which Pinto’s adventures chiefly lay, still remain, for the most part, very little known; but the more they have been explored, the more has the general correctness of Pinto’s statements been admitted. The editor of the great French collection, “Annales des Voyages,” who gives a full abstract of Pinto, remarks that, having had occasion, in preparing the volume of that work on China, to consult all accessible works about that country, he had been more and more confirmed in his opinion of the reality of Pinto’s adventures and the general correctness of his memory. Rémusat, the eminent Chinese scholar, cites Pinto as good authority for facts, and it was, I believe, by his procurement, or that of the “Société Asiatique,” that the French translation of his travels was reprinted at Paris in 1830.
Note E
EARLIEST ENGLISH AND DUTCH ADVENTURERS IN THE
EAST—GOA
Prior to the first Dutch and English India voyages, both Englishmen and Dutchmen had reached India, some by way of Lisbon and the Cape of Good Hope, others over land. Pinto speaks of Christians of various nations as among the adventurers with whom he acted. Hackluyt gives (Vol. II) a letter written by Thomas Stevens, an English Jesuit, dated in 1579, at Goa, which he had reached by way of Lisbon and the Cape of Good Hope. This curious letter was addressed by Stevens, who was attached to that very seminary of St. Paul (or the Holy Faith), of which we have had occasion to make mention, to his father in England. Hackluyt also gives in the same volume some very interesting memorials of the adventures of John Newbury, who, attended by Ralph Fitch, Story, a painter, Leeds, a jeweller, and others, was sent over land in 1583, simultaneously with the first English attempts at exploration and settlement in North America, by some London merchants of the Turkey company, as bearer of letters from Queen Elizabeth to Zelabdim Echabar, king of Cambia (Ackbar, the Great Mogul) and to the king of China—both which letters, proposing trade and commerce, Hackluyt gives at length. Newbury proceeded by way of Ormus, which he had visited before, and where he found merchants of almost all nations, not Portuguese only, but Frenchmen, Flemings, Germans, Hungarians, Greeks, Armenians, Turks, Arabs, Jews, Persians, Muscovites, and especially Italians, who seem by this time to have recovered a great share of the trade to the East. By one of these Italians Newbury and his company were accused as spies of Don Antonio (the claimant as against Philip II, of the Portuguese throne, and at that time a refugee in England). The fact also that Drake, in his recent voyage round the world, had, while at the Moluccas, fired two shots at a Portuguese galleon, was alleged against them. They were sent prisoners to the viceroy at Goa; but, by the good offices of the English Jesuit, Stevens, above-mentioned, and of John Huigen Van Linschoten, a Dutchman in the service of the archbishop, they were released on giving sureties not to depart without leave of the viceroy, which sureties they procured by placing goods in the hands of certain parties who became bound for them.
Story, the painter, had indeed previously procured his discharge by joining the Jesuits of St. Paul, where he was admitted as a probationer, and was employed in painting the church. The others, finding that the viceroy would not discharge their sureties, left secretly, or, as Fitch expresses it, “ran from thence,” April, 1585, and, passing to Golconda, travelled north to Agra, then the capital of the Great Mogul. Here Leeds, the jeweller, entered into the Mogul’s service, who gave him “a house, five slaves, and every day six S. S. (qu. sequins?) in money.” Newbury went from Agra to Lahore, expecting to go thence to Persia, and, by way of Aleppo and Constantinople, to reach England; and he sent Fitch meanwhile to Bengal and Pegu, promising to meet him in Bengal in two years in a ship from England. Fitch passed on to Benares, and thence to Bengal, and November 28, 1586, sailed for Pegu, whence the next year he proceeded to Malacca. Returning again, in 1588, to Pegu, he went thence to Bengal in the following November; whence, in February, 1589, he took shipping for Cochin, touching at Ceylon on the way, a “brave island,” where he spent five days. At Cochin he stayed eight months before he could get a passage to Goa. From Goa he proceeded to Ormus, whence, by way of Basora, Mosul, and Aleppo, he reached England April 29, 1591.
Linschoten, mentioned above, who had arrived at Goa in 1583, from Lisbon, as one of the archbishop’s suite, returned to Holland in 1589, where he published his travels in 1595,—the first Dutch account of the East. From him we learn that Story, the painter, after the departure of his companions, grew sick of the cloister of St. Paul, and, as he had not yet taken the vows, left and set up as a painter in Goa, where he had abundant employment, and, “in the end, married a mestizo’s daughter of the town, so that he made his account to stay there while he lived,”—the first permanent English resident in Hindoostan.
There is in the “Asiatic Journal,” for December, 1838, a very striking description of the present ruinous state of the once splendid and magnificent city of Goa. It has been abandoned for Pongi, now known as New Goa, six miles nearer the sea, and the present seat of the shrunken Portuguese viceroyalty. The only inhabitants of Old Goa are a few hundred monks, nuns, and their attendants, attached to the splendid churches and monasteries still standing, among which towers conspicuous the church of the Jesuits, in a beautiful chapel attached to which is the monument of St. Francis Xavier. His body, removed thither from the college of St. Paul, in which it was first placed, reposes upon a sarcophagus or bier of Italian marble, faced with bronzes, representing his missionary labors, and enclosed in a shrine of brass and silver. It is alleged still to be in as good preservation as ever, and is occasionally exhibited in public. The last of these exhibitions was in 1783.
Note F
JAPANESE DARING AND ADVENTURE EXTERIOR TO THE LIMITS
OF JAPAN
The same Davis who had been Houtman’s pilot in the first voyage to the East Indies sailed from England in 1604, as master of the “Tiger,” a ship of two hundred and forty tons. While on her course from Bantam to Batavia, the “Tiger” encountered a little junk of seventy tons, with ninety Japanese on board, “most of them in too gallant a habit for sailors.” They had left home, as it turned out, in a larger vessel, which had been “pirating along the coast of China and Cambodia,”—much the same business, by the way, in which the “Tiger” was herself engaged,—but, having lost their vessel by shipwreck, they had seized upon this little junk, laden with rice, and were trying to reach Japan in it. In hopes to get some information out of them, they were entertained for two days with “gifts and feasting”; but, at the same time, their junk was searched for treasure which might be concealed under the rice. While part of the “Tiger’s” men were employed in this search, the Japanese made a desperate attempt to get possession of that ship. Davis himself was killed in the first surprise, but the Japanese were finally forced into the cabin, where, by breaking down a bulkhead, some of the ship’s guns, loaded with bullets and case shot, were brought to bear upon them. They disdained to ask quarter, and all perished from effects of the shot except one, who jumped into the sea. The narrative of this affair, given by Purchas (Pilg., Part 1, p. 137), and apparently written by an officer of the “Tiger,” winds up as follows: “The Japanese are not suffered to land in any port of India with weapons, being accounted a people so desperate and daring that they are feared in all places where they come.”
In conformity to this character of the Japanese is the account given by Floris, cape merchant of the “Globe,” an English ship, which touched at Siam in 1612, while performing the voyage mentioned Vol. I, p. 207 of the text. A short time previously, two hundred and eighty Japanese, the slave-soldiers of a principal Siamese noble, who had been put to death by the royal authority, had revenged their master by seizing on the king of Siam, whom they compelled to subscribe to such terms as they dictated, “after which, they had departed with great treasure, the Siamese not being able to right themselves.”[132]
The good service rendered to the Portuguese by Japanese mercenaries at the siege of Malacca, in 1606, is mentioned in the text, Vol. I, p. 182. It appears, from a curious tract concerning the Philippines, preserved by Thevenot, that when De Silva, governor of those islands, undertook, in 1608, to drive the Dutch from the Moluccas, he was obliged to send to Japan for saltpetre, metal, and even for founders to cast cannon. A body of Japanese formed, in 1619, a part of the Dutch garrison in their fort at Jacatara (named about that time Batavia), while besieged by the natives on the island, and blockaded at the same time by an English squadron, as mentioned Vol. I, p. 237 of the text. Of the Japanese settled on the island of Amboyna, and involved with the English in the massacre there, mention is made Vol. I, p. 240. Haganaar, who was at Cambodia in 1637, found among the inhabitants of that city seventy or eighty families of Japanese, whom he describes as not daring to return to their own country, with which, however, they carried on trade, by means of Chinese ships. They were in great favor with the king of Cambodia, to whom they had rendered valiant assistance in suppressing a dangerous rebellion, and were greatly feared by the other inhabitants of the city, whether Chinese or Malays. To this day one of the channels of the great river of Cambodia is known as “Japanese river”—a name given, indeed, on some maps, to the main river itself, and probably taking its origin from this Japanese colony.
The conquest of the Lew Chew [Riūkiū] Islands, by the king of Satsuma, took place about 1610; and, much about the same time, some Japanese made an establishment on the island of Formosa, for the purpose of trading with the Chinese; but in this they were soon superseded by the Dutch. The narrative of Nuyts’ affair, as given in the text (Vol. I, p. 252), is derived from a detailed account appended in “Voyages au Nord,” Tom. IV., to Caron’s Memoir, addressed to Colbert, on opening an intercourse with Japan; but, from a paper embodied in the Voyage of Rechteren (“Voyages des Indes,” Tom. V.), and written, apparently, in 1632, by a person on the spot, it would appear that the conduct of Nuyts, instead of being prompted by personal antipathy, was merely an attempt to exclude the Japanese from the trade with the Chinese, and to engross it for the Dutch East India Company; “a desire good in itself,” so this writer observes, “but which should have been pursued with greater precaution and prudence.”
In the Chinese writings, the Japanese figure as daring pirates; but, as the appellation bestowed on them is equally applied to other eastern and southeastern islanders, it is not so easy to say to whose credit or discredit the exploits referred to by these Chinese writers actually belong.
Note G
(From Clement’s “Handbook of Modern Japan”)
LIST OF JAPANESE YEAR PERIODS[1]
The names of these periods are made by the various combinations of 68 Chinese words of good omen.
| Name. | Japanese Era[2] | Christian Era |
|---|---|---|
| Taikwa | 1305 | 645 |
| Hakuchi | 1310 | 650 |
| (Blank) | 1315-1331 | 655-671 |
| Sujaku | 1332 | 672 |
| Hakuhō | 1332 | 672 |
| Shuchō | 1346 | 686 |
| (Blank) | 1347-1360 | 687-700 |
| Daihō [Taihō] | 1361 | 701 |
| Keiun | 1364 | 704 |
| Wadō | 1368 | 708 |
| Reiki | 1375 | 715 |
| Yōrō | 1377 | 717 |
| Jinki | 1384 | 724 |
| Tembiō | 1389 | 729 |
| Tembiō shōhō | 1409 | 749 |
| Tembiō hoji | 1417 | 757 |
| Tembiō jingo | 1425 | 765 |
| Jingō keiun | 1427 | 767 |
| Hōki | 1430 | 770 |
| Tenō | 1441 | 781 |
| Enriaku | 1442 | 782 |
| Daidō | 1466 | 806 |
| Kōnin | 1470 | 810 |
| Tenchō | 1484 | 824 |
| Jōwa | 1494 | 834 |
| Kajō | 1508 | 848 |
| Ninju | 1511 | 851 |
| Saikō | 1514 | 854 |
| Ten-an | 1517 | 857 |
| Jōgwan | 1519 | 859 |
| Gwangiō | 1537 | 877 |
| Ninna | 1545 | 885 |
| Kwampei | 1549 | 889 |
| Shōtai | 1558 | 898 |
| Engi | 1561 | 901 |
| Enchō | 1583 | 923 |
| Jōhei | 1591 | 931 |
| Tengiō | 1598 | 938 |
| Tenriaku | 1607 | 947 |
| Tentoku | 1617 | 957 |
| Owa | 1621 | 961 |
| Kōhō | 1624 | 964 |
| Anna | 1628 | 968 |
| Tenroku | 1630 | 970 |
| Ten-en | 1633 | 973 |
| Jōgen | 1636 | 976 |
| Tengen | 1638 | 978 |
| Eikwan | 1643 | 983 |
| Kwanna | 1645 | 985 |
| Eien | 1647 | 987 |
| Eiso | 1649 | 989 |
| Shōriaku | 1650 | 990 |
| Chōtoku | 1655 | 995 |
| Chōhō | 1659 | 999 |
| Kwankō | 1664 | 1004 |
| Chōwa | 1672 | 1012 |
| Kwannin | 1677 | 1017 |
| Ji-an | 1681 | 1021 |
| Manjū | 1684 | 1024 |
| Chōgen | 1688 | 1028 |
| Chōriaku | 1697 | 1037 |
| Chōkiū | 1700 | 1040 |
| Kwantoku | 1704 | 1044 |
| Eijō | 1706 | 1046 |
| Tengi | 1713 | 1053 |
| Kōhei | 1718 | 1058 |
| Jiriaku | 1725 | 1065 |
| Enkiū | 1729 | 1069 |
| Jōhō | 1734 | 1074 |
| Jōriaku | 1737 | 1077 |
| Eiho | 1741 | 1081 |
| Ōtoku | 1744 | 1084 |
| Kwanji | 1747 | 1087 |
| Kahō | 1754 | 1094 |
| Eichō | 1756 | 1096 |
| Jōtoku | 1757 | 1097 |
| Kōwa | 1759 | 1099 |
| Chōji | 1764 | 1104 |
| Kajō | 1766 | 1106 |
| Tennin | 1768 | 1108 |
| Ten-ei | 1770 | 1110 |
| Eikiū | 1773 | 1113 |
| Gen-ei | 1778 | 1118 |
| Hōan | 1780 | 1120 |
|
[Note 1. From official sources.] [Note 2. Beginning 660 b.c.] |
||
| Name. | Japanese Era[2] | Christian Era |
| Tenji | 1784 | 1124 |
| Daiji | 1786 | 1126 |
| Tenjō | 1791 | 1131 |
| Chōjō | 1792 | 1132 |
| Hōen | 1795 | 1135 |
| Eiji | 1801 | 1141 |
| Kōji | 1802 | 1142 |
| Ten-yō | 1804 | 1144 |
| Kiū-an | 1805 | 1145 |
| Nimbiō | 1811 | 1151 |
| Kiūju | 1814 | 1154 |
| Hōgen | 1816 | 1156 |
| Heiji | 1819 | 1159 |
| Eiriaku | 1820 | 1160 |
| Ōhō | 1821 | 1161 |
| Chōkwan | 1823 | 1163 |
| Eiman | 1825 | 1165 |
| Nin-an | 1826 | 1166 |
| Ka-o | 1829 | 1169 |
| Jō-an | 1831 | 1171 |
| Angen | 1835 | 1175 |
| Jishō | 1837 | 1177 |
| Yōwa | 1841 | 1181 |
| Ju-ei | 1842 | 1182 |
| Genriaku | 1844 | 1184 |
| Bunji | 1845 | 1185 |
| Kenkiū | 1850 | 1190 |
| Shōji | 1859 | 1199 |
| Kennin | 1861 | 1201 |
| Genkiū | 1864 | 1204 |
| Ken-ei | 1866 | 1206 |
| Jōgen | 1867 | 1207 |
| Kenriaku | 1871 | 1211 |
| Kempō | 1873 | 1213 |
| Jōkiū | 1879 | 1219 |
| Jō-ō | 1882 | 1222 |
| Gennin | 1884 | 1224 |
| Karoku | 1885 | 1225 |
| Antei | 1887 | 1227 |
| Kwangi | 1889 | 1229 |
| Jō-ei | 1892 | 1232 |
| Tempuku | 1893 | 1233 |
| Bunriaku | 1894 | 1234 |
| Katei | 1895 | 1235 |
| Riakunin | 1898 | 1238 |
| En-o | 1899 | 1239 |
| Ninji | 1900 | 1240 |
| Kwangen | 1903 | 1243 |
| Hōji | 1907 | 1247 |
| Kenchō | 1909 | 1249 |
| Kōgen | 1916 | 1256 |
| Shōka | 1917 | 1257 |
| Shōgen | 1919 | 1259 |
| Bun-ō | 1920 | 1260 |
| Kōchō | 1921 | 1261 |
| Bun-ei | 1924 | 1264 |
| Kenji | 1935 | 1275 |
| Kōan | 1938 | 1278 |
| Shō-ō | 1948 | 1288 |
| Einin | 1953 | 1293 |
| Shōan | 1959 | 1299 |
| Kengen | 1962 | 1302 |
| Kagen | 1963 | 1303 |
| Tokuji | 1966 | 1306 |
| Enkiō | 1968 | 1308 |
| Ōchō | 1971 | 1311 |
| Shōwa | 1972 | 1312 |
| Bumpō | 1977 | 1317 |
| Gen-ō | 1979 | 1319 |
| Genkō | 1981 | 1321 |
| Shōchū | 1984 | 1324 |
| Kariaku | 1986 | 1326 |
| Gentoku | 1989 | 1329 |
| Shōkiō [Genkō] | 1992 | 1332 |
| Kemmu | 1994 | 1334 |
| Rekiō | 1998 | 1338[1] |
| Kōei | 2002 | 1342[1] |
| Jōwa | 2005 | 1345[1] |
| Kwan-ō | 2010 | 1350[1] |
| Bunna | 2012 | 1352[1] |
| Embun | 2016 | 1356[1] |
| Kōan | 2021 | 1361[1] |
| Jōji | 2022 | 1362[1] |
| Ōan | 2028 | 1368[1] |
| Eiwa | 2035 | 1375[1] |
| Kōreki | 2039 | 1379[1] |
| Eitoku | 2041 | 1381[1] |
| Shitoku | 2044 | 1384[1] |
| Kakei | 2047 | 1387[1] |
| Koō | 2049 | 1389[1] |
| Engen | 1996 | 1336[2] |
| Kōkoku | 1999 | 1339[2] |
|
(Note 1: Northern Dynasty.) (Note 2: Southern Dynasty.) |
||
| Shōhei | 2006 | 1346[1] |
| Kentoku | 2030 | 1370[1] |
| Bunchū | 2032 | 1372[1] |
| Tenju | 2035 | 1375[1] |
| Kōwa | 2041 | 1381[1] |
| Genchū | 2044 | 1384[1] |
| Meitoku | 2050 | 1390 |
| O-ei | 2054 | 1394 |
| Shōchō | 2088 | 1428 |
| Eikiō | 2089 | 1429 |
| Kakitsu | 2101 | 1441 |
| Bun-an | 2104 | 1444 |
| Hōtoku | 2109 | 1449 |
| Kōtoku | 2112 | 1452 |
| Kōshō | 2115 | 1455 |
| Chōroku | 2117 | 1457 |
| Kwanshō | 2120 | 1460 |
| Bunshō | 2126 | 1466 |
| Ō-nin | 2127 | 1467 |
| Bummei | 2129 | 1469 |
| Chōko | 2147 | 1487 |
| Entoku | 2149 | 1489 |
| Mei-ō | 2152 | 1492 |
| Bunki | 2161 | 1501 |
| Eishō | 2164 | 1504 |
| Dai-ei | 2181 | 1521 |
| Kōroku | 2188 | 1528 |
| Tembun | 2192 | 1532 |
| Kōji | 2215 | 1555 |
| Eiroku | 2218 | 1558 |
| Genki | 2230 | 1570 |
| Tenshō | 2233 | 1573 |
| Bunroku | 2252 | 1592 |
| Keichō | 2256 | 1596 |
| Genna | 2275 | 1615 |
| Kwan-ei | 2284 | 1624 |
| Shōhō | 2304 | 1644 |
| Kei-an | 2308 | 1648 |
| Jō-ō | 2312 | 1652 |
| Meireki | 2315 | 1655 |
| Manji | 2318 | 1658 |
| Kwambun | 2321 | 1661 |
| Empō | 2333 | 1673 |
| Tenna | 2341 | 1681 |
| Jōkiō | 2344 | 1684 |
| Genroku | 2348 | 1688 |
| Hō-ei | 2364 | 1704 |
| Shōtoku | 2371 | 1711 |
| Kiōhō | 2376 | 1716 |
| Gembun | 2396 | 1736 |
| Kwampō | 2401 | 1741 |
| Enkiō | 2404 | 1744 |
| Kwan-en | 2408 | 1748 |
| Hōreki | 2411 | 1751 |
| Meiwa | 2424 | 1764 |
| An-ei | 2432 | 1772 |
| Temmei | 2441 | 1781 |
| Kwansei | 2449 | 1789 |
| Kiōwa | 2461 | 1801 |
| Bunkwa | 2464 | 1804 |
| Bunsei | 2478 | 1818 |
| Tempō | 2490 | 1830 |
| Kōkwa | 2504 | 1844 |
| Ka-ei | 2508 | 1848 |
| Ansei | 2514 | 1854 |
| Man-en | 2520 | 1860 |
| Bunkiū | 2521 | 1861 |
| Genji | 2524 | 1864 |
| Kei-ō | 2525 | 1865 |
| Meiji | 2528 | 1868 |
| (Note 1: Southern Dynasty.) | ||
Note H
(From Clement’s “Handbook of Modern Japan”)
Chronological Table of Emperors and Empresses[1]
|
|
[Note 1: Go is a prefix signifying the second of the name.]