issued to the effect that reigns and year-names shall so coincide in future. Either way, the confusion introduced into the study of history may be easily imagined. Hardly any Japanese knows all the year-names even of his own country. The most salient ones are, it is true, employed in conversation, much in the same way as we speak of the sixteenth century, or of the Georgian and Victorian eras. Such are Engi (A.D. 901—923), celebrated for the legislation then undertaken; Genroku (1688—1704), a period of great activity in various arts; Tempo (1830—1844), the last brilliant period of feudalism before its fall. But no one could say offhand how many years it is from one of these periods to another. In 1872 an attempt was made to introduce, as the Japanese era from which all dates should be counted, the supposed date of the accession of Jimmu Tennō, the mythical founder of the Imperial line; and this system still has followers. Jimmu's reign being held to have commenced in the year B.C. 660, all dates thus reckoned exceed by the number six hundred and sixty the European date for the same year. Thus, 1905 is 2565.
The following is a list of the year-names of the past century:
| Kyōwa, | 1801—1804.[1] | Ansei, | 1854—1860. |
| Bunkwa, | 1804—1818. | Man-en, | 1860—1861. |
| Bunsei, | 1818—1830. | Bunkyū, | 1861—1864. |
| Tempō, | 1830—1844. | Genji, | 1864—1865. |
| Kōkwa, | 1844—1848. | Keiō, | 1865—1868. |
| Kaei, | 1848—1854. | Meiji, | 1868— |
The present year, 1904, is the thirty-seventh year of Meiji. Astrologically speaking, it is Ki no E Tatsu, "Wood—Elder Brother, Dragon."
Books recommended. Japanese Chronological Tables, by William Bramsen. This work has an elaborate introduction to the whole subject; and the tables are so arranged as to show, not only the European year, but the exact day to which any Japanese date, from A.D. 645 onwards, corresponds. Shorter tables, sufficient for most purposes, will be found in the Introduction to Murray's Handbook for Japan.
- ↑ It may be asked: Why not take Kyōwa as equivalent to 1801—3, Bunkwa as equivalent to 1804—17, and so on in every case, instead of counting the final and initial years of each period twice? The reason is that no new name ever came into force on the 1st January. In most cases the year was well-advanced before it was adopted.
