久米邦武筆禍事件と「国家神道」再々考

• Material Type: 記事
• Title: 久米邦武筆禍事件と「国家神道」再々考
• Author Heading: 木村 悠之介
• Publication Date: 2024
• Publication Date (W3CDTF): 2024
• Alternative Title: 帝国憲法制定直後における「宗廟」と「宗教」をめぐって; Visions of the ‘Mausoleum’and ‘Religion’ shortly after the promulgation of the Meiji Imperial Constitution
• Periodical title: 史学雑誌
• No. or year of volume/issue: 133 7
• Volume: 133
• Issue: 7
• Pages: 47-73
• Publication date of volume/issue (W3CDTF): 2024
• ISSN (Periodical Title): 00182478
• Publication (Periodical Title): The Historical Society of Japan
• Text Language Code: ja
• Target Audience: 一般
• DOI: 10.24471/shigaku.133.7_47; https://doi.org/10.24471/shigaku.133.7_47
• Data Provider (Database): 国立情報学研究所 : CiNii Research; https://cir.nii.ac.jp/
• Original Data Provider (Database): Japan Link Center; https://japanlinkcenter.org/top

• Summary, etc.: In 1891, Kume Kunitake (1839-1931), a historian and faculty member at Tokyo Imperial University, published his article “Shinto is the Ancient Custom of Heaven-Worshipping Rituals” (<i>Shintō wa saiten no kozoku</i>). This publication led to Kume’s expulsion from the university the following year and contributed to the interruption of the government’s historiographical project in 1893. Initial research by Miyachi Masato traced writings by Shintoists published in various journals both before and after the Incident, placing the event in the context of conflict between “State Shinto” (<i>kokka shintō</i>) and historiography. However, Miyachi’s conclusions have been criticized by subsequent scholars, who argue that the concept of State Shinto was not appropriate for analyzing the case.<br> Although previous scholarship has identified several factors as causes of the Kume Incident, most of these were already in place before Kume’s article or persisted afterward, making it difficult to assert that they were the primary causes of the incident. Following studies by Ono Motonori and Liu Linlin, this article attempts to reexamine the incident, focusing on various usages of the term “State Shinto”. To begin with, before the incident, a serious controversy arose around the question of whether prefectural and township shrine priests could be teachers of “Sect Shinto” (<i>kyōha shintō</i>). There was even a debate among Shintoists regarding whether Shinto in its entirety should be unified under “State Shinto” as an ethical system (cf. Yamazaki Taisuke, 1840-98) or be reformed into “the most perfect and splendid religion” (cf. Isobe Mushagorō, 1865-1911). Despite their differences, both sides agreed that ancestral rituals, represented by the Ise Jingū shrine─contemporarily called as the “Mausoleum” (<i>sōbyō</i>) ─were the basis of Shinto.<br> Kume wrote his article with the local shrine priests’ issue and treaty revision in mind, referring to a study “On the Ancient Religion of China” by Tanimoto Tomeri (1867-1946). Kume argued that Shinto could not be considered a “religion”, while also noting it was originally a monotheistic custom. This monotheist theory, which cut off ancestral rituals such as those of the “Mausoleum” from Shinto, was, we argue, the major cause of the incident.<br> Following the incident, both Shinto groups above endeavored to reform themselves and construct a new type of “Shintology” (<i>shintōgaku</i>), with Kume as their common anathema. Meanwhile, scholars in religious studies began to explore Shinto through the lenses of “nature worship” and “ancestor worship.” Researchers like Tanimoto Tomeri and Torii Ryūzō (1870-1953) reevaluated Kume’s article within these emerging contexts. In essence, this shift in debates surrounding “State Shinto” reveals a quest for repositioning “religion(s)”, in general, with a particular focus on the concept of “nature worship”.; 1891年に帝大教授・久米邦武が発表した論文「神道は祭天の古俗」は、翌年に久米が大学を追われる事件を招き、1893年に修史事業が停止される一因にもなった。事件前後の神道界における諸雑誌の議論を跡づけた宮地正人は、“国家神道”と歴史学の対決として事件を描いたため、以降の研究者によって繰り返し批判されてきた。特に山口輝臣と阪本是丸は、この事件の分析に“国家神道”概念を用いるべきではないと主張し、再考を求めた。<br> では、久米事件はなぜ起こったのか。多くの研究者によって指摘されてきた様々な要因は、祭天論文以前も存在したか、筆禍事件以後も温存された点で、他ならぬ祭天論文によって発生した事件の主因とは言いがたい。本稿は、特に小野祖教や劉琳琳などの指摘を踏まえつつ、史料用語としての「国家神道」にも着目し、事件の再々考を試みた。<br> 事件以前の神道界では府県社以下神官教導職分離問題が懸案となり、倫理としての「国家神道」への一本化（山崎泰輔）や「完全無比立派な宗教」の構築（磯部武者五郎）という選択肢までもが争われた。しかし両者は、「宗廟」こと伊勢神宮を中心とする祖先祭祀を神道の根幹に据える点で一致していた。久米は分離問題と条約改正への意識に基づいて、谷本富「支那古宗教論」なども参照しながら祭天論文を書き、神道が「宗教」たりえないこと、他方で本来の神観念は唯一神教であったと主張した。この唯一神教説が「大廟」など祖先崇拝の切り捨てを伴ったことが主因となり、筆禍事件が起こる。<br> 事件後の神道界は、久米を共通の敵としながら自己改革を説き、二つの路線を融和させつつ「神道学」の理論化を模索していく。一方、神道に関する宗教学説では「天然崇拝」と「祖先崇拝」が軸となり、谷本や鳥居龍蔵のように、新たな文脈で祭天論文を再評価する者も出た。「国家神道」用例の変化からは、「宗教」、特に「天然崇拝」の位置づけへの模索が窺える。
• DOI: 10.24471/shigaku.133.7_47
• Access Restrictions: インターネット公開
• Data Provider (Database): 科学技術振興機構 : J-STAGE; http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp