By this term I would designate that period in Japanese history in which mythology and history are so blended as to be inseparable. For almost one thousand years records purporting to be historical are so intermingled with that which is {37} purely mythological as to make it next to impossible to discriminate between them. Japanese historians claim that the authentic history of their country dates from the time of Jimmu Tenno (600 B.C.), and the national records are unbroken from that time to the present. Most European and American historians have accepted these records as true, and yet critical scholars here feel bound to reject them. The oldest Japanese histories were not written until the eighth century A.D., and it does not seem probable that traditions handed down by word of mouth for more than a thousand years would be reliable. The records themselves are contradictory and self-refuting. Contemporary Chinese and Korean history, in which are frequent references to the "land of Wa," i.e., Japan, does not agree with the Japanese records, which bear evidence of having been written for a purpose other than a true statement of historical facts. These and other reasons have led Messrs. Aston and Chamberlain, the scholars who have studied this subject perhaps more than any others, to conclude that Japanese records prior to the date 461 A.D. are unreliable. This period in dispute (from 600 B.C. to 461 A.D.) I have designated the period of mythological history. Even in the Japanese so-called histories the mythology for centuries is narrated along with that which claims to be genuine {38} history; the gods still mingle with men and take part in their affairs. The legends of the gods and those of the emperors are given side by side in the same book, and as much credence attaches to the one as to the other. Orthodox Shinto scholars, while recognizing the fact of the parallelism of the mythology and the history, inconsistently reject the mythological legends of the gods while strenuously holding to those relating to the emperors. My own opinion is that most of the important events related in the records during this period had some basis in fact, but that the accounts of them are exaggerated and perverted. Commencing with the period which native historians assign as the beginning of authentic history, the first important event we find is the accession of Jimmu Tenno to the throne (600 B.C.). But the very existence of Jimmu Tenno as an historical personage is not at all certain. The evidence adduced has never been sufficient to satisfy Western scholars, although the Japanese would consider it almost treason to disbelieve in him. Japanese histories for this period are very meager. They consist, for the most part, of a recital of the names and ages of the mikados, with perhaps a sentence or two concerning the state of the country during their reigns.