Satoko Yokoyama

154800233 : H383 Modern Japan

The Japan-British Exhibition in 1910

The Great Exhibition held in London in 1851 is said to be the origin of the international exhibition in world history. Though it was common in Europe to hold internal exhibitions before 1851, the Great Exhibition in 1851 was the first exhibition for which many foreign countries were invited to display their industrial and cultural products.1 Since then, international exhibitions have been held all over Europe and the United States. At the same time Japan, which opened its ports to Western countries in the 1850s, had participated several international exhibitions, and the Japan-British Exhibition was held in London in 1910 by the collaboration of the Japanese government and the British exhibitory company.2 Like Ayako Hotta-Lister‟s and Mamiko Ito‟s works, the analysis of the Japan-British exhibition tend to focus on the diplomatic purpose of the Meiji government at that time. Hotta-Lister and Ito describe the Japanese display and the reaction of the British and Japanese audience.3 However, judging from the Official Guide of the Japan-British Exhibition, it can be said that entertainment played an important role during the exhibition4; therefore this essay aims to analyse the Japan-British Exhibition as part of the history of exhibitions in Britain, and to examine how an exotic race―the Japanese―was represented and

interpreted in the exhibition. This essay is divided into three parts. Firstly it will describe the origin of exhibitions in Britain. Here, it will closely examine how people had been entertained by the foreign and exotic display in the past. Secondly it will illustrate the work of Imre Kiralfy who was the Commissioner General of the Japan-British Exhibition, in order to demonstrate the important role entertainment had played in his exhibitions. Thirdly it will assess the Japan-British exhibition in comparison with other exhibitions to illustrate the position of the Japanese race in the notion of racial hierarchy at that time; here we will assess the idea of racial hierarchy both in Japanese Empire and abroad.

At first, in order to illustrate the origin of exhibitions in Britain, the aspiration for visualisation throughout the nineteenth century has to be described. As M. R. Booth illustrates, since the end of the eighteenth century Britain developed a taste for spectacles. For example, it was popular to enjoy the panorama from several public buildings in London5, and “looking at the world through the medium of pictures became a habit” in the first half of the nineteenth century.6 This realistic movement had a great influence on Victorian theatre. Audiences were no longer satisfied with “the imaginative truth” made by lines and sounds; but they aspired to the “physical truth” created by a spectacle.7 Moreover this aspiration for visualization strongly pointed to foreign exoticism. As Edward Ziter describes, the expansion of the

British Empire had raised people‟s interest in remote lands throughout the nineteenth century.8 In addition, the development of transportation and communication brought a great number of first-hand accounts and images to Britain, which accelerated this enthusiasm for foreign lands. It is important to note that, at that time, both theatre and optional entertainment had fostered “a growing taste for exotic spectacle”.9

In order to better understand the history of exhibitions in Britain, one had to look at how the emerging „human science‟ had influenced the exhibition of native people. According to Michel Foucault, in the nineteenth century, the „human science‟ had made man the object of science,10 and it had influenced the people‟s perception of the world. For example, while exhibitions of African and American Natives were common in London since the sixteenth century, the way of human display had changed gradually. At first they had been valued for their rarity,11 but by the Victorian period they were rearranged by the principle of the representation.12 As coined by Foucault, this principle was a part of the fundamental rearrangements of Western episteme; the categories of knowledge had changed from resemblance to an

„analysis based on terms of identity and difference‟. Furthermore, comparison became a function of order.13 Ethnology seemed to have great influence on human display in particular.14 As ethnography attempts to uncover the “unconscious condition of social life” which exists in relation to people and objects around them, people were depicted in built-out native environments.15 We can clearly see the influence of this method to observe natives living in built-in villages in exhibitions.16 Moreover, as Edward Ziter pointed out, the descriptions of exotic displays began to contain ethnological information, in contrast to merely stressing the object‟s rarity. The review of exotic performances and behaviour began to contain detailed sketches of performance and knowledge about native culture and history in a similar style as ethnologists recorded the behaviour of native people.17

It was the time that „exhibitionary disciplines‟―such as history, art history, archaeology, geology, biology and ethnology―began to constitute the space of representation18; the period of „rational amusement‟ had begun.19 As Tony

Bennett illustrates, in the second half of the nineteenth century the state increased its involvement in the provision of amusement. It began to consider museums, galleries and exhibitions as a „set of educative and civilized agencies‟. It is important to note that, at that time, the „educational aspect‟ of exhibitions was highly emphasised.20 However, exhibitions were not always accepted in accordance with the presenter‟s intention. For example, in spite of the ethnological instruction, the human display in the course of the Great Exhibition of 1851 gave the impression of exoticism and sensuality that has characterized the Orient as portrayed in the West End entertainment.21 Moreover parallel to this educational object, Freak Shows, which made a show of „peculiar people‟ in grotesque way, had continuously existed.22 As Tony Bennett points out, in spite of the state‟s effort to abolish the earlier tradition of popular exhibitions, exotic and grotesque side-shows had continued to attract audience.23 This link between official expositions and unofficial fair zones, and tension between educational exhibitions and frivolous fairs requires an expansion of the notion of „rational amusement‟.

Next, the work of Imre Kiralfy, the Commissioner General of the

Japan-British exhibition, will be examined. This will demonstrate the important role entertainment played in his exhibitions.

Firstly we will examine the work of Kiralfy in relation to the history of exhibitions in Britain. In this part, it will be illustrated how Kiralfy‟s career coincided with the rise of exhibition. Imre Kiralfy was born on 1 January, 1845 in Pest, and had strolled in Europe and the United States as a dancer with his younger brother and sisters.24 It is important to note that Kiralfy had taken part in exotic entertainments throughout his career. For example, at a young age, his performance had been composed of traditional Hungarian folk dances with contemporary arrangements, and as a manager he had continuously produced entertainment characterised the exoticism.25 Next, Kiralfy‟s gradual change in productions clearly reflected the demand for spectacles. As he moved his business to the United States, he began to transform his performances from a specific emphasis on ballet towards a “more spectacular type” of dance entertainment.26 Also, as Brendan Esward Gregory describes, one of Kiralfy‟s strategies was to increase the scale of the show considerably. The profits and reputation earned by his successful show enabled him to realize this project.27 Moreover Kiralfy did not miss the chance to legitimize his spectacle shows by turning them into official exhibitions. As we have seen, the second half of the nineteenth century was

the time that the state had strengthened the regulation of fairs and transformed them into official exhibitions. In accordance with the rise of international exhibitions, Kiralfy had transformed his productions gradually. He participated in the Columbus Ceremony in Chicago in 1893, and visited several exhibitions in the 1890s to the 1900s.28 Finally, he opened the exhibitory land named “the White City” in London, 1908. In contrast to the one he had built in Earl‟s Court in 1894, the White City was considered as the space for legitimate exhibitions. 29 Here, Kiralfy had established the place for what the state called „rational amusement‟. The coincidence of Kiralfy‟s change of productions with the rise of exhibition demonstrates the legitimacy of analysing one of his works, the Japan-British Exhibition in 1910, as part of the history of exhibitions in Britain.

Next, this essay will illustrate the Kiralfy‟s connection with the aristocracy, the British government, and important private companies. In his show business career, two productions staged at Olympia, the exhibitory hall built in London in 1884,30 were important factors for Kiralfy in order to gain a reputation in England. The Visit of the Prince and the Princess of Whales to Olympia demonstrated the legitimacy of his production, and it helped him to enter society. As a member of influential societies, such as the Savage Club,

Freemasonry and the British Empire League, Kiralfy broadened his connections with the upper class.31 It is important to note that these connections with the notable people enabled him to gain “quasi-governmental support” and famed patrons for exhibitions. The prestige given to exhibitions helped to secure loan displays and promote the participation of private firms.32 In this way, Kiralfy succeeded to broaden his connection with the authorities, and legitimated his spectacle shows into official exhibitions.

However, in order to gain the approval of higher classes, the taste of exhibitions also had to change. It was the time that Kiralfy adopted the notion of „rational amusement‟. Analysing the rise of legitimate exhibitions, Richard D. Altic notes that the division between amusement produced by profit makers and education sponsored by the government had been prominent.33 Similarly, Mamiko Ito introduces the Japanese view of Kiralfy as merely a commercial entrepreneur, and of his amusement production in the Japan-British exhibition as a vulgar „side show‟.34 On the other hand, Brendan Edward Gregory opposed this division between entertainment and education. He describes whole “the White City” as an educational exhibition expressed in “a large and well-ordered amusement place...with the addition

of a large degree of political context and considerable unofficial governmental support”35. However the link between official expositions and unofficial fair zones, and tensions between educational exhibitions and frivolous fairs require further consideration in regards to Kiralfy‟s work. While it is certain that he had legitimated his exhibitions to gain authority, it is also important to examine Kiralfy‟s limitations as a commercial entrepreneur. The large scale of investment in the White City made it significant to secure a great number of visitors, and individual shows for which additional fees had to be paid in order to enter played an important role for the success of revenue. For example Kiralfy had expanded the amusement area in the White City during 1908-1911. In addition, it is important to note that one of the most popular exhibitions was the display of native people mainly imported from the colonies. Under the principle of deepening the understanding of foreign countries, the audience was entertained by seeing the natives who lived in built-in villages in the exhibitions. Kiralfy tried to intersperse amusement halls in between colonial pavilions, though he had to give up the plan because of political protests from the Dominion and Colonial Governments.36 It is not certain that, as Ayako Hotta-Lister states, Kiralfy used the patriotic theme celebrating British imperialism and prosperity merely to make money37. However the example clearly demonstrates Kiralfy‟s ambivalence; on one hand, he had to

legitimise the exhibition in order to gain the authority; on the other hand, he had to attract a large number of visitors through entertainment to make profits.

Finally this essay will examine the Japan-British Exhibition of 1910 in comparison with the other exhibitions held by Imre Kiralfy. It will aid us in examining the unique character of the Japan-British Exhibition in 1910, and will help us to understand the position of the Japanese race in accordance with the notion of racial hierarchy at that time.

In order to do so, the initial objectives of Imre Kiralfy and the Japanese government will be described. Originally the idea for the Japan-British Exhibition was suggested by Kiralfy to Jutaro Komura when Komura stayed in London as an ambassador in 1908.38 It is important to note that the victory of the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese War in 1895 and the Russo-Japanese War in 1905 had raised people‟s interest in Japan.39 While the expansion of the Japanese Empire caused the Yellow Peril in Britain, the Anglo-Japanese Alliance of 1902 demonstrated the deep relationship

between Japan and the British Empire.40 However, according to Ayako Hotta-Lister, Japan was still a “remote, mysterious and even primitive” country for Western people.41 Therefore it is certain that Japan was the preferred theme for Kiralfy to draw a large crowd to the exhibition. Next, this essay will explain the reason why Japanese government decided to participate in the exhibition. As Mamiko Ito notes, the shift from a cabinet of Kinmochi Saionji to a cabinet of Taro Katsura in Japan on July 14, 1908, might be one of the reasons. Katsura‟s government was led mainly by the Foreign Minister, Jutaro Komura, towards improving the relations between Britain and Japan.42 Especially, the revision of Japan‟s commercial tariffs and the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance had been great concerns.43 Although the expansion of trade was one of the exhibition objectives, for Komura, who was afraid to fan the fear of the Yellow Peril, it was more important to establish a friendship between Japan and Britain.44 As a result, it can be said that the Japanese commissioners had a „double message‟ to convey to the British public; in order to be acknowledged as an ally, Japan needed to appeal as a country of modernization; on the other hand, to ease the fear of the Yellow Peril in Britain, they tried to show Japan‟s peaceful civilization and culture.

Reflecting these objectives, the display in the exhibition introduced industrial and cultural products of both Japan and Britain. While there were exhibitions of the Japanese government, displays of various Japanese and British private companies, and areas of entertainment in the White City, this essay is focusing on the exhibition‟s entertainment concerning Japan in order to examine the representation and interpretation of Japan in the exhibition. At first, the Japanese Historical Palace is a good example to demonstrate this Japanese „double message‟. In this pavilion, Japanese history was explained in twelve tableaus from the period of Emperor Jimmu to the Meiji period. As the Official Report notes, “[The Japanese Historical Palace is aimed ] to show to Japan‟s Western ally that Japan‟s civilization has not been of modern acquisition, as is often believed in the West, but that she has had a long and varied history of her progress.45” In contrast, the description of the final tableau―the Meiji period―stressed the rapid progress and achievement of modernization in Japan.46 Similarly, in the Palace of Orient, the Japanese colonial display―especially the display of Taiwan―demonstrated Japanese achievements.47 It is important to explain the character of Japanese colonialism in Taiwan. According to Yosihiro Kajii, the Japanese rule in Taiwan was regarded as a “model colony” by

Western countries, because the Japanese authorities followed the Western model of colonial government.48 Consequently, the display of Taiwan as a Japanese colony was a good example of “the Eastern Empire”, which seemed sufficiently developed to be recognised as “a colonizing power.” The Official Guide described how efficiently the Japanese colonial government had turned the primitive land, Formosa, into a productive colony. 49 In the exhibition, the character of the savage natives in Formosa was underlined in several occasions,50 because the more barbaric they were, the more the achievement of Japanese civilization could be emphasized. Also the exhibition of the War Department might be an interesting factor to assess the ambivalent position of Japan. It was the first time for the Japanese Army and Navy to exhibit their military activities51, and the visit of over 800 sailors on the battleship Ikoma entertained the British public.52 Those military exhibitions illustrate that, in spite of the Japanese intention to ease the Yellow Peril, the exhibition of military power was crucial to show the „national power‟ at a time of Imperialism. However the lack of display of the Russo-Japanese war in the tableau of four significant battles in Japanese history illustrates the governmental effort not to remind the British of the

Japanese victory over a „white nation‟.53 In addition, the comparison between the Japanese and the British industrial exhibition spaces demonstrated the difference of national identity. In contrast to the British magnificent machinery, the aesthetic skill of Japanese artefact was emphasised.54 The popularity of the Japanese Fine Arts Section and the Japanese gardens fostered this tendency. In the British comments on the Japan-British exhibition, we can see that many people viewed the Japanese as the artistic nation in contrast to the British industrial nation.55 In this way, a closer look at the Japanese display demonstrates the „double message‟ of the Japanese government; to appeal as a modernized nation, and to show Japan‟s peaceful and artistic civilization.

Considering the display of the Japan-British Exhibition in 1910, it is necessary to examine the space of amusement. For the Japanese authorities, the main anxiety was that the expansion of entertainment would disgrace the exhibition.56 As we have seen, however, in Kiralfy‟s exhibition business, entertainment played an important role to make profits. After Kiralfy‟s request to build an area of amusement in the exhibition, the Japanese commissioners decided to allow it with the permission of the Japanese government for each show. The reason to permit entertainment was explained by Kato Takaaki, the Japanese ambassador in Britain at that time,

that the success of exhibition was judged by the number of visitors and that it was significant to attract public attention.57 Speeches of Hikojiro Wada and Hirokichi Mutsu, the Japanese committees of exhibition, clearly demonstrated that they saw entertainment as merely a side show.58 In contrast to the official Japanese position, the size of the entertainment area on the map and the explanation given for entertainment in the Official Guide demonstrated the significance of the entertainment aspect.59 Moreover, as Brendan Edward Gregory describes, it is difficult to divide the official exhibition and the entertainment aspects because the whole of the White City was the „exhibitory complex‟. In Kiralfy‟s land of „rational amusement‟ the legitimate official exhibition and amusement fed each other to produce a space of representation and interpretation. Furthermore, it is important to consider the display of human beings in relation to entertainment, in order to examine the Japanese criticism on it. The typical example of human display in the Japan-British Exhibition was “Formosan Sha” and “The Ainu Home”. In those areas, native Taiwanese and Ainu inhabited built-in villages and were observed in their „daily lives‟. There was also the „Uji Village‟ where Japanese were observed in a built-out Japanese rural area. Even according to the principle of understanding Japanese culture, those displays demonstrated the vulgar amusement which reflected the aspiration for

exoticism. Moreover the Japanese craftsmen demonstrating their work and even the Japanese audience could be the object of observation. For example, Kurahara Korehiro, one of the Japanese members of the Diet, mentioned that the Sumo wrestlers and some artisans, as well as Ainu and Native Taiwanese, showed their humble life style and would give the impression of Japanese backwardness to the British public.60 In addition, exotic visitors from all over the world had been the object of curiosity in exhibitions since the age of the Crystal Palace61; Hasegawa Nyozekan, the journalist of Osaka Asahi Shinbun, lamented seeing the Japanese visitors talking with the Ainu in the Japan-British exhibition.62 Here we can see that the Japanese journalists were conscious about Western eyes observing the Japanese audience as well.63 Although human displays―natives inhabited built-in villages―in exhibitions were common all over Europe and even in Japan, many Japanese viewers questioned their legitimacy especially in the Japan-British Exhibition in 1910. This criticism will be examined in the following part.

Next this essay will examine the criticism made by Japanese journalists and politicians to the exhibition in the comparison with other exhibitions―such

as the Franco-British exhibition in 1908 and the Anglo-American Exhibition in 1914―held in the White City. As Mamiko Ito summed up, the Japanese criticism was centred on three points. Firstly they questioned the position of Kiralfy as merely a commercial entrepreneur and pointed out that there was hardly any official support from the British government. Secondly they criticised that the exhibition might be recognized as Japanese exotic amusement by the British public because the popularity of Japanese „side-shows‟ seemed to overwhelm the official exhibitions. Here the criticism of human display played an important role. Thirdly the image of Japan as a small and beautiful country emphasised in the display was questioned. These criticisms demonstrated the Japanese frustration to be looked down upon by the British public as an exotic, second-class country while the Japanese assumed that Japan had achieved modernization and civilization equal to Great Britain.64 However, in order to analyse the representation and interpretation of the Japan-British Exhibition 1910, we need to examine these criticisms in comparison with the other exhibitions. Firstly, it was a British custom that exhibitions were held by private companies;65 the achievement of private enterprise was even praised in terms of the development of liberalism.66 Moreover, as the list of participants showed in the case of the Franco-British Exhibition in 1908,67 “a great deal of quasi-governmental support was called for in the form of notable or

influential people”.68 While there was hardly any „official support‟, „unofficial support‟ from the British government was significant in the White City. Next, while it is certain that exotic amusement had attracted the British audience, this was not only the case of the Japan-British Exhibition in 1910. For example, Kiralfy tried to expand the French and British colonial pavilions in the land of amusement in the Franco-British Exhibition in 1908.69 Also, in spite of the commercial and political objectives of the Anglo-American Exhibition in 1914, the public was attracted by arts and geographical displays along with the amusement.70 These generalizations demonstrate the ambivalence of the notion of „rational amusement‟ in the White City. Though commercial and political objectives lay at the heart of the display, aspirations to attract a large crowd could change the taste of an exhibition reflecting the public eagerness for exoticism.

However a close look at human display in the Japan-British Exhibition in 1910 will demonstrate the crucial difference from other exhibitions. In the Franco-British Exhibition in 1908 and in the Anglo-American Exhibition in 1914, the objects of exotic display were natives in their colonies and Native Americans; such as the Senegal Village in 1908 and the Wild West show in 1914 which was produced on a large spectacle stage including an Indian Village and scenery representing of the Grand Canyon.71 In the

Japan-British Exhibition in 1910, on the other hand, the aspiration for exoticism was strongly directed towards the Japanese. While it is certain that the Native Taiwanese and Ainu had attracted people‟s curiosity, the history, art, culture and even the lifestyle of Japan were mostly unknown. Consequently, the daily life and behaviour of the Japanese could be the object of display, as well as natives from Japanese domains. In order to analyse the Japanese criticism on the display of Ainu‟s and Native Taiwanese‟, the Japanese disdain towards other Asian races has to be examined. According to Andrew Gordon, Ainu were recognised as „margins of the Japanese‟ during the Edo period: neither fully part of the civilised Japanese, nor of the barbaric foreigners. Even after Hokkaido, the land of the Ainu, became a legitimate domain of Japan, the Ainu were still considered a „second-class‟ race. Also the rapid modernization of Japan, in contrast to the colonised Asian countries, made the Japanese present themselves as leaders of Asia, who were superior to the other Asian races.72 Therefore it was humiliating for the Japanese to be equated with the Ainu and Native Taiwanese in the exhibition. At that time, the fear of being juxtaposed with „inferior‟ races was prominent in various cases. For example, the Chinese ambassador in Britain protested the display of Manchuria showed with the exhibitions of Taiwan and Korea in the Japan-British Exhibition in 1910,73 and the Okinawans were against being exhibited with the Ainu and the Native Taiwanese in the Fifth Internal Exhibition in Japan

in 1903.74

Furthermore, as John W. Dower describes, scientific racism which had dominated the academia in the Western countries since the second half of the nineteenth century, forced Japanese intellectuals to theorise the superiority of the Japanese race against this Western racial thinking.75 For instance, Heigoro Tuboi, one of the most significant anthropologists in Japan in the late nineteenth and in the early twentieth century, tried to position the Japanese race as the subject and other Asian races as the object of the observations. 76 However, in spite of these Japanese efforts to elevate themselves through the idea of racial hierarchy, they still remained in an awkward position in the beginning of the twentieth century. While Japan had achieved a certain degree of modernization and acquired colonies in order to be acknowledged as an „Empire in the East‟,77 the description of the Japan-British Exhibition showed that they were still in a position to be observed and judged by the West. As Timothy Mitchell shows, exhibitions suggested that “the world is divided into two realms, the exhibition and the real world”.78 In this sense Japan could not free itself of the „world of exhibition‟.

Lastly, in order to assess the evaluation Japan received in the exhibition, the image of Japan as a „small and beautiful‟ country requires further consideration. As noted above, it was significant for the Japanese commissioners to ease the fear of the Yellow Peril, while they also aimed to improve relations with Britain by showing Japan‟s modernization. Observing the industrial display which focused on the aesthetic skill of craftsmanship rather than the British impressive machinery, the Fine Arts Section and the two peaceful Japanese Gardens, we can clearly see this double intention of the Japanese Commissioners. Concerning those displays, some Japanese journalists claimed that Japan should get rid of this image as a small and beautiful country and establish a national identity to be recognised as ally of „first class‟ countries like Great Britain.79 Here it is important to examine the British comments on those exhibitions. As Brendan Edward Gregory notes, the Japan-British exhibition was the place to give the Japanese nation a „racial justification‟ as a British allies.80 Therefore it was a natural consequence that not only human display in the amusement area, but also Japanese craftsmen, Japanese audience and even the Japan-British exhibition itself had become the object of observance. Consequently, while the similarity between Japan and Britain was emphasised as allies, the focus on Japanese art, in contrast to British industry, illustrated the ambivalent

notion of racial hierarchy at that period. According to Tony Bennett, since the late nineteenth century, exhibitions had reflected the hierarchy of nations in which white nations occupied the upper position and non-white natives were represented in the lower position in accordance with their level of „progress‟―such as civilization and industrialization. In this hierarchy, the Orient was positioned at an intermediate level. It was represented “either as having at one time been subject to development but subsequently degenerating into stasis or as embodying achievements of civilization which, while developed by their own lights, were judged inferior to the standards set of Europe”.81 Moreover, as Ayako Hotta-Lister points out, rapid progress of the Japanese Empire since the late nineteenth century made it impossible to analyse the Japanese nation in this existent framework.82 As Paul Kramer notes, “no cultural form was ready-made to illustrate or justify empire”. As in the case of the Japan British Exhibition in 1910, “earlier genres [to illustrate empire] were made to comprehend and encase new political realities, in turn, transformed the genres themselves.” 83

We have examined the Japan-British Exhibition in 1910 in relation to the history of exhibitions in Britain. The origin of exhibitions in Britain and its coincidence with Kiralfy‟s career justified analysing the Japan-British

Exhibition 1910 in this way. Here the origin of human display as „rational amusement‟ was examined in order to consider the representation and interpretation of Japan in the exhibition in 1910. In conclusion, it can be said that the Japan-British Exhibition in 1910 was a place of racial justification for the Japanese, therefore not only the official exhibition and entertainment, but also the White City as a whole―which includes even Japanese audience―was the object of observance. As a result, several factors―the intentions of the producers, the views of the audience and the reviews of newspapers―had influenced each other and changed the meaning of display from the opening to the closing day. The Japan-British Exhibition in 1910, as a place of continuous representation and interpretation, demonstrated the contradicting position of Japan in the ambivalent racial hierarchy of that era.

[Bibliography]

Altick, Richard D., The Shows of London, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London : Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1978

Booth, Michael R., Victorian Spectacular Theater 1850-1910, Boston, Massachusetts, London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1981

Bennett, Tony, The Birth of the Museum: history, theory, politics, London : Routledge, 1995

Dower, John W. War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War, London : Faber, 1986

Gordon, Andrew, A Modern History of Japan: from Tokugawa times to the present, Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2003

Gregory, Brendan Edward, The Spectacle Plays and Exhibitions of Imre Kiralfy, 1887 – 1914, A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Ph. D. in the Faculty of Arts, 1988

Greenhalgh, Paul, Art, Politics and Society at the Franco-British Exhibition of 1908, Art History, Vol. 8, No. 4, December 1985,pp.434-551

Foucault, Michel, The Order of Things, Paris; Editions Gallimard1966/ Enlish Translations, New York; Tavistock/Routledge, 2009/1970

Hotta-Lister, Ayako, The Japan-British Exhibition of 1910: gateway to the island empire of the East, Richmond, Surrey; Japan Library 1999

Ito Mamiko, Chapter 5. Nihondaihakurankaikeikaku to Nitieihakurankai, Meiji Nihon to Bankokuhakurankai, Tokyo : Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 2008

Japan-British Exhibition 1910, Official Guide, Bemrose & Sons : Derby & London, 1910

Japan-British Exhibition 1910, Japan-British Exhibition, 1910 [A map of the Exhibition. Signed : Imre Kiralfy. ] London, 1909

Japan-British Exhibition 1910, Official Report of the Japan British Exhibition 1910, at the Great White City, Shepherd‟s Bush, London. London : Union Brothers, 1911,

Kajii Yoshihiro “Eibeikaramita Nihon no Taiwanshihai; Senjikiryojihokoku wo chushinni”Ritsumeikandaigaku Jinbunkagakukenkyusho Kiyo, No. 80, 2002, pp.83-120

Kramer, Paul, “Making Concessions: Race and Empire Revisited at the Philippine Exposition, St. Louis, 1901-1905”, Radical History Review, Issue 73, 1999, pp74-114

The British Press and the Japan-British Exhibition of 1910 / edited by

Hirokichi Mutsu, London, 1910/ Melbourne, 2001

Lehmann, Jean-Pierre, The Image of Japan : from feudal isolation to world power, 1850-1905, London : Allen & Unwin, 1978

Matsuda Kyoko, Teikoku no Shisen, Tokyo : Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 2003

Mitchell, Timothy, “Orientalism and the Exhibitionary Order”, Colonialism and Culture, Nicholas B. Dirks(ed), Michigan : University of Michigan Press, 1995/1992, pp.289-318

Yoshimi Shunya, Hakurankai no Seijigaku, Tokyo; Chuou Kouron Shinsya, 2000 /1992

Ziter, Edward, The Orient on the Victorian stage, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2003