[p. 29]

II. CHRONOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF ARCHITECTURE IN JAPAN

Japanese architectural history is divided into the following three great periods:—

(I) THE FIRST PERIOD (660 B. C.–651 A.D.)

This period may be called the “Protohistoric Age.” It extends from the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Zinmu to the thirteenth year of the Emperor Kinmei’s reign, when Buddhism was first introduced into Japan from the Continent. The style of architecture of this period reflects the characteristics of the time. In those remote days, no distinction was made in the style of buildings for shrines, palaces and commoners’ dwellings.

(II) THE SECOND PERIOD (552–1867)

This period begins with the year when Buddhism was first introduced into Japan and ends in the year 1867, the last year of the Tokugawa Syōgunate. Generally speaking, the styles of architecture and other arts in this period are said to be continental, that is to say, of “Buddhist Style.” But this period extends over too long a span of time to be identified with any consistent style of architecture; and it is, therefore, usually subdivided into seven periods as follows:—

[p. 30]

1. Asuka Period (552–644)

In this period, foreign (Oriental) arts, together with Buddhism, were introduced into Japan, and architecture was, therefore, quickly revolutionized. In the course of this era, the focal point of the architectural industry was transferred from palaces to Buddhist temples, and such great temples as the Sitennō-zi, Hōryū-zi, and Hōkō-zi were erected in succession as well as a number of Buddhist buildings, with their accompanying pagodas, belfries, and so forth. The characteristics of the architecture of this period are to be found in the beauty of proportions achieved in every part of the buildings.

2. Nara Period (645–783)

In this period, Chinese arts came to predominate and, due to much encouragement, produced a glorious era, resulting in a remarkable development in the arts and crafts. During this period, there was erected the Heizyō Capital at Nara, in imitation, as much as possible, of the style of the Changan Capital in China. The ancient custom of changing the capital and its site with every reign of succeeding Emperors was abolished. The Capital and Imperial Palace became permanent, and the arrangement of temple buildings was changed from Korean style to Chinese.

3. Heian Period (784–1185)

With the founding of the Heian Capital (Kyōto) in the reign of the Emperor Kanmu, the centre of civilization shifted from Nara to Kyōto and a change of artistic tastes

[p. 31]

in architecture took place. In short, in the reigns preceding the Nara Period, arts and crafts were all imported direct from China, and nothing but exact copies of Chinese masterpieces were made; Chinese arts then were adopted without modification. In the middle of the Heian Period, however, intercourse with China became less frequent, and this gave a chance to attend with increasing assiduity to the adaption of the arts in general to native taste. As an illustration, it may be mentioned that it was at this period that the curvature of the roof became lower pitched and more subdued and graceful than before. The buildings of the Heizyō and Heian Palaces influenced the design of dwelling-houses, causing the development of the so-called “Sinden-zukuri” style.

The Heian Period lasted about 400 years. During this period the changes which took place in architectural history were startling. In the first stage, following the examples of the previous generation, the timber used was mostly massive, and the general atmosphere inspired a feeling of awe and veneration. After entering the second stage, the timber was cut smaller and smaller, and increasing attention was paid to technical skill, grace and refinement which had been notably lacking in the previous period.

4. Kamakura Period (1186–1392)

The sudden rise of the samurai (military) class and the weakening of the nobility gave rise to the establishment of the Syōgunate at Kamakura, which brought about some change in the architectural style. Simultaneously, the intercourse with China of the Sung Dynasty

[p. 32]

had been renewed and a new architectural style of “Kara-yō” was introduced. Another new style “Tenziku-yō” which also developed in this period, is a variation of the “Kara-yō” style. In the latter part of this period, these new styles merged with the styles of the former periods.

5. Muromati Period (1393–1572)

Architecture in this period was merely the continuation of that of the previous generation, except that the growth of the “Kara-yō” style was rather rapid and caused considerable progress in skill and workmanship. Much attention was paid to ornamentation, and the timber used was of smaller dimensions than in previous periods.

6. Momoyama Period (1573–1614)

In this period, the architectural interest gradually shifted back from shrines and temples to palaces and castles, paintings and carvings still predominating. The sculptural work on ranma (transom windows) and kibana (beam ends) reached the peak of its development. Every available space on the face of walls was lavishly adorned with carvings and paintings. This period corresponds to the Renaissance period in European architecture.

7. Edo Period (1615–1867)

In this period, isolation from the outer world led to effeminacy and apathy in architectural style. At the beginning of the period there remained in the architectural design the bold spirit which was prevalent in the crafts of the previous period; then Genroku Era (1688–1703) came and went; and interest in the work of construction

[p. 33]

and the arts in general decreased, leading architecture and the arts step by step to the brink of degeneration. This period corresponds to the Baroque or Rococo period in European architecture.

(III) THE THIRD PERIOD (1868– )

From the year 1868, the first year of the Meizi Era (1868–1912), Western style buildings began to be erected in Japan by foreign and Japanese architects. At last, architecture in Japan became not only Oriental, but international.

Changes of style in architecture usually coincide with changes in social or political conditions, but the transition in the former case is not so clearly marked or sudden as in the latter, so that chronological classifications of architectural development are apt to differ in detail according to the writer. However, the above is based on lines generally supported by the best authorities.