Yes, I think that in Japan, as in China, the emperors were Sons of Heaven from an early point in time. My impression is that there are significant overlaps between Chinese and Japanese history and that Japanese cultural historians lack enthusiasm for exploring these links. I was very interested to read, from your link, that the Japanese imperial family is giving archaeologists access to the imperial tombs which throw light on the origin of the imperial family. The Chinese also have unexcavated imperial tombs. So there must be a lot of eastern history waiting to be ‘uncovered’.

However, understanding Shinto, even though it is still followed today is quite difficult. For example in the Japanese text ‘Nihon Shoki’ (The Chronicles of Japan) the word shinto is only used in three sentences:

1. The emperor [Yomei] believed in the teachings of Buddha and revered Shinto.
2. The emperor [Kotoku] revered the teachings of Buddha but scorned Shinto. (He cut down the trees at Ikukunitama shrine.)
3. The expression ‘as a kami would’ means to conform to Shinto. It also means in essence to possess oneself of Shinto.
(source: ‘Shinto in the history of Japanese Religion’, Tashio, Gobbins & Gay in the Journal of Japanese Studies (1981).)

Although I have no experience of a theocracy, my sense is I would only want to live in one where the ruler was benevolent. It would be interesting to research the relationship between good temporal and spiritual rulers and good art and urban projects!

It does not seem beneficial for the state to run the church (as in China) nor for the church to run the state (as in Iran). At times the state running the church has seemed to have resulted in beneficial outcomes, ie. Holy Roman Empire and at times the church running the state seemed to be beneficial in outcome, ie. Tibet.

However, the Dalai Lama, has himself chosen to separate the temporal power as head of state from the spiritual power as the head of religion. Although, in the Vatican State the Pope obviously retains both roles, he is ex officio head of state. Perhaps Lhasa should be given the same status as the Vatican city?

That is a very good analogy, but bone-chilling. Despite the fact that bringing church and state together is good for the arts, I think it much better to keep them apart. Luckily the world has few theocratic states left, but Iran is enough to remind us that they are a bad idea, leading to injustice and militarism. I am beginning to wonder if this discussion has strayed too far off topic. But maybe not: Greenwich Park and its chestnuts would not exist if Charles II had not had theocratic tendencies and my bones are also chilled by the reflection that many of the world’s best urban design projects have come about when church and state are aligned if not unified. But I still don’t think Popes should have temporal power.

It is not for me to judge, or to make suggestions, but the traditional Christian policy was to ‘go to the stake’ for matters of high principle and high import – as the author of Utopia did.