from Chinese models. Japanese history begins in the fifth century A.D.,
whereas Chinese history goes back to about 2,000 B.C., or at any rate to
somewhere in the second millennium B.C. This was galling to Japanese
pride, so an early history was invented long ago, like the theory that
the Romans were descended from Æneas. To quote Professor Chamberlain
again:--

The first glimmer of genuine Japanese history dates from the
fifth century _after_ Christ, and even the accounts of what
happened in the sixth century must be received with caution.
Japanese scholars know this as well as we do; it is one of the
certain results of investigation. But the Japanese bureaucracy
does not desire to have the light let in on this inconvenient
circumstance. While granting a dispensation _re_ the national
mythology, properly so called, it exacts belief in every iota of
the national historic legends. Woe to the native professor who
strays from the path of orthodoxy. His wife and children (and in
Japan every man, however young, has a wife and children) will
starve. From the late Prince Ito's grossly misleading _Commentary
on the Japanese Constitution_ down to school compendiums, the
absurd dates are everywhere insisted upon.

This question of fictitious early history might be considered
unimportant, like the fact that, with us, parsons have to pretend to
believe the Bible, which some people think innocuous. But it is part of
the whole system, which has a political object, to which free thought
and free speech are ruthlessly sacrificed. As this same pamphlet says:--

Shinto, a primitive nature cult, which had fallen into discredit,
was taken out of its cupboard and dusted. The common people, it