The Role Of The Emperor In Meiji Japan Essay, Research Paper

The Role of The Emperor in Meiji Japan

Japan is a society whose culture is steeped in the traditions and

symbols of the past: Mt. Fuji, the tea ceremony, and the sacred objects of

nature revered in Shintoism. Two of the most important traditions and symbols in

Japan; the Emperor and Confucianism have endured through Shogunates,

restorations of imperial rule, and up to present day. The leaders of the Meiji

Restoration used these traditions to gain control over Japan and further their

goals of modernization. The Meiji leaders used the symbolism of the Emperor to

add legitimacy to their government, by claiming that they were ruling under the

“Imperial Will.” They also used Confucianism to maintain order and force the

Japanese people to passively accept their rule.

Japanese rulers historically have used the symbolism of the Imperial

Institution to justify their rule. The symbolism of the Japanese Emperor is very

powerful and is wrapped up in a mix of religion (Shintoism) and myths. According

to Shintoism the current Emperor is the direct descendent of the Sun Goddess who

formed the islands of Japan out of the Ocean in ancient times.Footnote1

According to these myths the Japanese Emperor unlike a King is a living

descendent of the Gods and even today he is thought of as the High Priest of

Shinto. Despite the powerful myths surrounding Japan’s imperial institution the

Emperor has enjoyed only figure head status from 1176 on. At some points during

this time the Emperor was reduced to selling calligraphy on the streets of Kyoto

to support the imperial household, but usually the Emperor received money based

on the kindness of the Shogunate.Footnote2 But despite this obvious power

imbalance even the Tokugawa Shogun was at least symbolically below the Emperor

in status and he claimed to rule so he could carry out the Imperial

rule.Footnote3

Within this historical context the Meiji leaders realized that they

needed to harness the concept of the Imperial Will in order to govern

effectively. In the years leading up to 1868 members of the Satsuma and Choshu

clans were part of the imperialist opposition. This opposition claimed that the

only way that Japan could survive the encroachment of the foreigners was to

rally around the Emperor.Footnote4 The Imperialists, claimed that the Tokugawa

Shogunate had lost its imperial mandate to carry out the Imperial Will because

it had capitulated to Western powers by allowing them to open up Japan to trade.

During this time the ideas of the imperialists gained increasing support among

Japanese citizens and intellectuals who taught at newly established schools and

wrote revisionist history books that claimed that historically the Emperor had

been the ruler of Japan.Footnote5 The fact that the Tokugawa’s policy of opening

up Japan to the western world ran counter to the beliefs of the Emperor and was

unpopular with the public made the Tokugawa vulnerable to attack from the

imperialists. The imperialists pressed their attack both militarily and from

within the Court of Kyoto. The great military regime of Edo which until recently

had been all powerful was floundering not because of military weakness, or

because the machinery of government had broken but instead because the Japanese

public and the Shoguns supporters felt they had lost the Imperial Will.Footnote6

The end of the Tokugawa regime shows the power of the symbolism and

myths surrounding the imperial institution. The head of the Tokugawa clan died

in 1867 and was replaced by the son of a lord who was a champion of Japanese

historical studies and who agreed with the imperialists claims about restoring

the Emperor.Footnote7 So in 1868 the new shogun handed over all his power to the

Emperor in Kyoto. Shortly after handing over power to the Emperor, the Emperor

Komeo died and was replaced by his son who became the Meiji Emperor.Footnote8

Because the Meiji Emperor was only 15 all the power of the new restored Emperor

fell not in his hands but instead in the hands of his close advisors. These

advisers such as Prince Saionji, Prince Konroe, and members of the Satsuma and

Choshu clans who had been members of the imperialist movement eventually wound

up involving into the Meiji Bureaucracy and Genro of the Meiji Era.Footnote9

Once in control of the government the Meiji Leaders and advisors to the Emperor

reversed their policy of hostility to Foreigners.Footnote10 They did this

because after Emperor Komeo (who was strongly opposed to contact with the west)

died in 1867 the Meiji Emperor’s advisors were no longer bound by his Imperial

Will. Being anti-western also no longer served the purposes of the Meiji

advisors. Originally it was a tool of the imperialist movement that was used to

show that the Shogun was not acting out the Imperial Will. Now that the Shogun

and Komeo Emperor were dead there was no longer a reason to take on anti-foreign

policies.

The choice of the imperial thrown by the imperialists as a point for

Japan to rally around could not have been more wise. Although the imperial

institution had no real power it had universal appeal to the Japanese public. It

was both a mythic and religious idea in their minds.Footnote11 It provided the

Japanese in this time of chaos after coming in contact with foreigners a belief

in stability (according to Japanese myth the imperial line is a unbroken lineage

handed down since time immortal), and it provided a belief in the natural

superiority of Japanese culture.Footnote12 The symbolism of the Emperor helped

ensure the success of the restorationists because it undercut the legitimacy of

the Shogunate’s rule, and it strengthened the Meiji rulers who claimed to act

for the Emperor.

What is a great paradox about the Imperialist’s claims to restore the

power of the Emperor is that the Meiji rulers did not restore the Emperor to

power except symbolically because he was both too young and his advisors to

power hungry.Footnote13 By 1869 the relationship between the Emperor and his

Meiji bureaucracy and the Emperor and the Tokugawa Shogun before the restoration

were very similar. Both the Meiji Bureaucrats and the Shogun ruled under the

authority of the Emperor but did not let the Emperor make any decisions. In

Japan the Emperor reigned but did not rule. This was useful for the new Meiji

bureaucrats, it kept the Emperor a mythic and powerful symbol.Footnote14

The traditions and symbols of Confucianism and the Imperial Institution

were already deeply ingrained in the psyche of the Japanese but the new Meiji

rulers through both an education system, and the structure of the Japanese

government were able to effectively inculcate these traditions into a new

generation of Japanese. The education system the Meiji Oligarchy founded

transformed itself into a system that indoctrinated students in the ideas of

Confucianism and reverence for the Emperor.Footnote15 After the death of Okubo

in 1878; Ito, Okuma, and Iwakura emerged as the three most powerful figures

among the young bureaucrats that were running the government in the name of the

Meiji Emperor. Iwakura one of the only figures in the ancient nobility to gain

prominence among the Meiji oligarchy allied with Ito who feared Okuma’s

progressive ideas would destroy Japan’s culture.Footnote16 Iwakura it is thought

was able manipulate the young Emperor to grow concerned about the need to

strengthen traditional morals. Thus in 1882 the Emperor issued the Yogaku Koyo,

the forerunner of the Imperial Rescript on Education.Footnote17 This document

put the emphasis of the Japanese education system on a moral education from 1882

onward.

Previous to 1880 the Japanese education system was modeled on that of

the French education system. After 1880 the Japanese briefly modeled their

education system on the American system.Footnote18 However, starting with the

Yogaku Koyo in 1882 and ending with the 1885 reorganization of the department of

Education along Prussian lines the American model was abolished. The new

education minister Mori Arinori after returning from Europe in 1885 with Ito was

convinced that the Japanese education system had to have a spiritual foundation

to it.Footnote19 In Prussia Arinori saw that foundation to be Christianity and

he decreed that in Japan the Education system was to be based on reverence for

the Imperial Institution. A picture of the Emperor was placed in every classroom,

children read about the myths surrounding the Emperor in school, and they

learned that the Emperor was the head of the giant family of Japan.Footnote20 By

the time the Imperial Rescript on Education was decreed by the Emperor in 1889

the Japanese education system had already begun to transform itself into a

system that did not teach how to think but instead what to think. The Imperial

Rescript on Education in 1889 was according to Japanese scholars such as Hugh

Borton , “the nerve axis of the new order.”Footnote21 Burton believes that the

Imperial Rescript on Education signaled the rise of nationalistic elements in

Japan. The Imperial Rescript on Education was the culmination of this whole

movement to the right. The Rescript emphasized loyalty and filial piety, respect

for the constitution and readiness to serve the government. It also exalted the

Emperor as the coeval between heaven and earth.Footnote22

The Constitution of 1889 like the changes in the education system

helped strengthen reverence for the Imperial Institution. The 1889 constitution

was really the second document of its kind passed in Japan the first being the

Imperial Oath of 1868 in which the Emperor laid out the structure and who was to

head the new Meiji government.Footnote23 This Imperial Oath was refereed to as a

constitution at the time but it only very vaguely laid out the structure of

government. The constitution promulgated by the Emperor in 1889 did much more

then lay out the structure of Japanese government it also affirmed that the

Emperor was the supreme sovereign over Japan.Footnote24 The signing ceremony

itself was an auspicious event on the way to it Mori Arinori one of the moderate

leaders of the Meiji government was attacked and killed by a crazed

rightist..Footnote25 The ceremony itself evoked both the past and present and

was symbolic of the Meiji governments shift toward the right and the governments

use of the

Emperor as supreme ruler. Before signing the document Emperor Meiji prayed at

the palace sanctuary to uphold the name of his imperial ancestors he then signed

the constitution which affirmed the sanctity of the Emperor’s title (Tenno

Taiken), and his right to make or abrogate any law.Footnote26 The constitution

also set up a bicameral legislature.Footnote27 The constitution codified the

power of the Emperor and helped the Meiji oligarchy justify their rule because

they could point to the constitution and say that they were carrying out the

will of the Emperor. The Meiji Emperor even after the Constitution of 1889

enjoyed little real power. The Meiji Emperor did not even come to cabinet

meetings because his advisors told him if the cabinet made a decision that was

different then the one he wanted then that would create dissension and would

destroy the idea of the Imperial Institution. So even after the Meiji

Constitution the Emperor was still predominantly a symbol.Footnote28 The

Constitution ingrained in Japanese society the idea that the government was

being run by higher forces who new better then the Japanese people, it also

broadened the base of support of the Meiji Rulers who now had a document too

prove they were acting on Imperial Will and their decisions were imperial

decisions not those of mere mortals.Footnote29

The symbolism of the Emperor and use of Confucianism allowed the Meiji

rulers to achieve their goals. One of their goals was the abolishment of the

system of fiefs and return of all land to the Emperor. At first the new Meiji

Rulers allied themselves with the Daimyo clans in opposition to the Tokugawa

Shogun. But once the Meiji leaders had gained a control they saw that they would

need to abolish the fief system and concentrate power in the hands of a central

government. The Meiji rulers achieved their goals by having the Choshu, Satsuma,

Tosa, and Hizen clans give up their lands, granting the Daimyos large pensions

if they gave up their clans, and by having the Emperor issue two decrees in July

1869, and August 1871.Footnote30 The role and symbolism of the Emperor although

not the sole factor in influencing the Daimyo to give up their fiefs, was vital.

The Meiji Oligarchs said that not turning in the fiefs to the Emperor would be

disloyal and pointed to the historical record which Meiji scholars claimed

showed that historically all fiefs were the property of the Emperor.Footnote31

They showed this by claiming that the Shogun would switch the rulers of fiefs

and this proved that the Daimyos did not control the title to their land but

merely held it for the Emperor. Imperial decrees and slogans of loyalty to the

Emperor also accompanied the abolishment of the Samurai system.Footnote32 In the

abolishment of both these feudal systems the symbolism of the Emperor as both

the director of the initiative and recipient of the authority afterwards played

a vital role in ensuring there success.Footnote33

The abolishment of fiefs and the samurai class were essential for the

stability and industrialization of Japan.Footnote34 Without the concentration of

land and power in the hands of the Meiji oligarchs and the Emperor the Meiji

oligarchs feared they would receive opposition from powerful Daimyos and never

gain control and authority over all of Japan. Historical examples bear out the

fears of the Meiji Oligarchy; in 1467 the Ashikaga Shogun failed to control many

of the fiefs and because of this a civil war raged in Japan.Footnote35 The

centralization of power allowed the Meiji government to have taxing authority

over all of Japan and pursue national projects.Footnote36 The unity of Japan

also allowed the Meiji Oligarchs to focus on national and not local issues.

The use of Confucianism and the Emperor also brought a degree of

stability to Japan during the tumultuous Meiji years. The Emperor’s mere

presence on a train or in western clothes were enough to convince the public of

the safety or goodness of the Meiji oligarchy’s industrial policy. In one famous

instance the Japanese Emperor appeared in a train car and after that riding

trains became a common place activity in Japan. The behavior of the Imperial

family was also critical to adoption of western cultural practices. Before 1873

most Japanese women of a high social position would shave their eyebrows and

blacken their teeth to appear beautiful. But on March 3rd 1873 the Empress

appeared in public wearing her own eyebrows and with unblackened teeth.

Following that day most women in Tokyo and around Japan stopped shaving their

eyebrows and blackening their teeth.Footnote37 The Imperial institution provided

both a key tool to change Japanese culture and feelings about industrialization

and it provided s tability to Japan which was critical to allowing

industrialists to invest in factories and increase exports and

production.Footnote38

The symbols and the traditions the Meiji leaders inculcated Japanese

society with helped the Meiji government maintain stability and pursue its

economic policies but it also had severe limitations that limited the

revolutionary scope of the Japanese government and helped bring about the

downfall of the Meiji era. The use of Confucianism and the Emperor to bolster

the Imperial restoration laid the foundation for a paradox of state affairs. The

system that sought to strengthen Japan through the use of modern technology and

modern organization methods was using traditional values to further its

goals.Footnote39 This caused some to turn toward the west for the

“enlightenment” the Meiji era promised this was the case with Okuma who was

eventually forced out of the increasing nationalist Genro.Footnote40 For others

it lead them to severe nationalism rejecting all that was western. This was such

the case of Saigo who believed till his death on his own sword that the Meiji

leaders were hypocritical and we re violating the Imperial Will by negotiating

and trading with the west.Footnote41 The Meiji government used the same symbols

and traditions that the Tokugawa used and like the Tokugawa gave the Emperor no

decision making power. The Meiji Emperor although he had supreme power as

accorded in the constitution never actually made decisions but was instead a

pawn of the Meiji Genro who claimed to carry out his Imperial Will. This

Imperial Will they decided for themselves. Like the Shogunate the Meiji

governments claim to rule for the Emperor was fraught with problems. The

Imperial Will was a fluid idea that could be adopted by different parties under

changing circumstances. And just like the Meiji rulers were able to topple the

Shogun by claiming successfully that they were the true administrators of the

Imperial Will; the militarist elements in the 1930’s were able to topple the

democratic elements of Japan partially by claiming the mantle of ruling for the

Emperor.Footnote42 From this perspective the Meiji O ligarchs building up of the

Imperial Myth was a fatal flaw in the government. The constitution which says in

article I, “The empire of Japan shall be governed over by a line of Emperors

unbroken for ages eternal” gave to whoever was acting on the Imperial Will

absolute right to govern.Footnote43

The symbols of the Emperor and the tradition of Confucianism did not

end with the end of the Meiji era or world war two. Today the idea of filial

piety is still strong, multiple generations of a family still usually live

together even in cramped Japanese housing. The religion of Shinto that the Meiji

leaders rejuvenated during their rule in order to help foster the imperial cult

is still thriving as the thousands of Tori gates and Shrines around Japan

attest.Footnote44 But the most striking symbol to survive is that of the Emperor

stripped after world war two of all power the Emperor of Japan is still revered.

During the illness of Emperor Showa in 1989 every national newspaper and

television show was full of reports related to the Emperor’s health. During the

six months the Showa Emperor was sick before he died all parades and public

events were canceled in respect for the Emperor. Outside the gates of the

Imperial palace in Tokyo long tables were set up where people lined up to sign

cards to wis h the Emperor a speedy recovery. The news media even kept the type

of illness the emperor had a secret in deference to the Emperor. At his death

after months of illness it was as if the Imperial Cult of the Meiji era had

returned. Everything in Japan closed down , private television stations went as

far as to not air any commercials on the day of his death. And now almost six

years after his death more then four hundred and fifty thousand people trek

annually to the isolated grave site of Emperor Showa.Footnote45

The traditions and symbolism of Confucianism and the Emperor were

critical to the Meiji oligarchs gaining control of power and goals of

industrialization. The oligarchy inculcated the Japanese public with these

traditional values through an education system that stressed moral learning, and

through a constitution that established the law of Japan to be that of the

Imperial Will. The values of Confucianism and symbol of the Emperor allowed the

Meiji government to peaceful gain control of Japan by appealing to history and

the restoration of the Emperor. But the Meiji oligarchs never restored the

Emperor to a position of real political power. Instead he was used as a tool by

the oligarchs to achieve their modernization plans in Japan such as the

abolishment of fiefs, the end of the samurai, the propagation of new cultural

practices, and pubic acceptance of the Meiji oligarchs industrialization

policies. The symbols and traditions of Japan’s past are an enduring legacy that

have manifested themselves in the Meiji Restoration and today in Japans

continued reverence for the Emperor.

Footnote1

Hidejiro Nagata, A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan (Tokyo:

Hakubunkwan, 1921) 47.

Footnote2

Takatsu Kuwasaburo, The History of The Empire of Japan (Tokyo: Dai Nippon Tosho

Kabushiki Kwaisha, 1893) 206.

Footnote3

Ibid., 17.

Footnote4

Edwin O. Reischauer, Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing, 1987) 112.

Footnote5

Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New

York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 32.

Footnote6

Shusuke Sato, Some Historical Phases of Modern Japan (New York: Japan Society,

1916) 4.

Footnote7

Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New

York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 44.

Footnote8

Louis Allen, Japan the Years of Triumph (London: Purnell and Sons, 1971) 8.

Footnote9

David Titus, Palace and Politics in Prewar Japan (New York: Columbia University

Press, 1974) 55

Footnote10

Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) 73.

Footnote11

Hidejiro Nagata, A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan (Tokyo:

Hakubunkwan, 1921) 142.

Footnote12

Ibid., 35.

Footnote13

Stephen Large, The Japanese Constitutional of 1889 (London: Suntory-Toyota

International Centre, 1989) 27.

Footnote14

Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New

York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 70.

Footnote15

Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976)

116.

Footnote16

Ernest Best, Christian Faith and Cultural Crisis the Japanese Case (Leiden: E.J.

Brill, 1966) 108.

Footnote17

Ibid., 105.

Footnote18

Ibid., 106.

Footnote19

Ibid., 106.

Footnote20

Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976)

117.

Footnote21

Hugh Borton, Japan’s Modern Century (New York: Ronald Press, 1955) 524.

Footnote22

Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976)

118.

Footnote23

Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New

York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 69.

Footnote24

Hidejiro Nagata, A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan (Tokyo:

Hakubunkwan, 1921) 60.

Footnote25

Ian Nish, The Japanese Constitutional of 1889 (London: Suntory-Toyota

International Centre, 1989) 9.

Footnote26

Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New

York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 193.

Footnote27

Ibid., 192.

Footnote28

Stephen Large, The Japanese Constitutional of 1889 (London: Suntory-Toyota

International Centre, 1989) 27.

Footnote29

Hidejiro Nagata, A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan (Tokyo:

Hakubunkwan, 1921) 89.

Footnote30

Walter McLaren, A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912 (New

York: Scribner and Sons, 1916) 77.

Footnote31

Ibid., 78.

Footnote32

Ibid., 77.

Footnote33

Ibid., 83.

Footnote34

Ibid., 82.

Footnote35

Edwin O. Reischauer, Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing, 1987) 66.

Footnote36

Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976)

117.

Footnote37

Louis Allen, Japan the Years of Triumph (London: Purnell and Sons, 1971) 41.

Footnote38

Peter Duus, The Rise of Modern Japan (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1976) 84.

Footnote39

Ibid., 119.

Footnote40

Ibid., 88.

Footnote41

Ibid., 94-95.

Footnote42

Edwin O. Reischauer, Japan Past and Present (Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing, 1987) 166.

Footnote43

Ibid., 167.

Footnote44

Ibid., 13.

Footnote45

Stephen Large, The Japanese Constitutional of 1889 (London: Suntory-Toyota

International Centre, 1989) 20.

353