The Role of the Emperor in Meiji Japan

Within this historical context the Meiji leaders realized that they needed to harness the concept of the Imperial Will in order to govern effectively. During the Age of Imperialism, members of the Satsuma and Choshu, two of the very powerful clans in Japan, were parts of the opposition to foreign imperialism. This opposition believed that the only way that Japan could survive the encroachment of the foreigners was to rally around the Emperor. The supporters of the imperial government, known as 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. The fact that the Tokugawa’s policy of opening up Japan to the western world ran counter to 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 Japanese public and the Shogun’s supporters soon felt that they had lost the Imperial Will. 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.In 1867, the new shogun handed over all his power to Emperor Komeo in Kyoto.

Shortly after handing over power to Emperor Komeo, the Emperor died and was replaced by his son who became the Meiji Emperor, which officially started the Meiji period (1868-1911).The Meiji Emperor was only 15, and so all the power of the new restored Emperor fell not in the Emperor’s hands but in the hands of his close advisors. Once in control of the government, the Meiji leaders and advisors to the Emperor reversed their policy of hostility to Foreigners.The reason for doing this was because after Emperor Komeo, who strongly opposed contact with the west, died in 1867 the Meiji Emperor’s advisors were no longer bound by his Imperial Will. They realized that opposing western powers was impossible, and 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 wiser. 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.In this time of chaos after coming in contact with foreigners, the imperial thrown provided the Japanese with a belief of stability (according to Japanese myth the imperial line is a unbroken lineage handed down since time immortal), and the natural superiority of Japanese culture.The symbolism of the Emperor helped ensure the success of the Meiji leaders, 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 only restored the Emperor to power symbolically, because he was both too young and his advisors too power hungry. By 1869, relationship between the Emperor and his Meiji bureaucracy were very similar to the Emperor and the Tokugawa Shogun before the restoration. Both the Meiji Bureaucrats and the Shogun ruled under the authority of the Emperor but did not let the Emperor make any decisions. In other words, the Meiji Emperor reigned but did not rule. This was useful for the new Meiji bureaucrats, because it kept the Emperor a mythic and powerful symbol. The teachings and symbols of Confucian beliefs and the Imperial Institution were already deeply carved into the minds 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.

Japan, as a nation close to China, was greatly influenced by the teachings of Confucius, the greatest teacher in China.Japanese people believe in integrity, uprightness, respect for superiors, filial loyalty, and they also believe that a virtuous man must have culture and manners, which is being humble and benevolent.These exactly resemble the teachings of Confucianism to act as an individual. The education system the Meiji rulers founded transformed itself into a system that indoctrinated students in the ideas of Confucianism and reverence for the Emperor.After the death of Okubo, a very important figure in Meiji government, 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 that Okuma’s progressive ideas would destroy Japan’s culture. Iwakura’s thought was able to 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.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.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.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.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 taught what to think instead of how 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.”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 aspects from Confucianism, especially loyalty and filial piety or respect for the constitution and readiness to serve the government.

It also exalted the Emperor as the coeval between heaven and earth. 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.This Imperial Oath was referred to as a constitution at the time but it only vaguely laid out the structure of government. The constitution promulgated by the Emperor in 1889 did much more than lay out the structure of Japanese government. It also affirmed that the Emperor was the supreme sovereign over Japan.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.

The ceremony itself evoked both the past and present and was symbolic of the Meiji government’s shift toward the right and the government’s use of the Emperor as supreme ruler. Emperor Meiji signed the constitution, which affirmed the sanctity of the Emperor’s title (Tenno Taiken), and his right to make or abrogate any law.The constitution also set up a bicameral legislature.The constitution codified the power of the Emperor and helped the Meiji rulers justify their rule, because they could point to the constitution and say that they were carrying out the will of the Emperor. Even after the Constitution of 1889, the Meiji Emperor 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. Therefore, even after the Meiji Constitution, the Emperor was still predominantly a symbol.The Constitution ingrained in Japanese society the idea that the government was being run by higher forces that knew better than the Japanese people did. It also broadened the base of support of the Meiji Rulers who now had a document to prove they were acting on Imperial Will and their decisions were imperial decisions instead of those of normal mortals.

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 feudalism (taxes paid by peasants to landowners) and return of all land to the Emperor. At first the new Meiji Rulers allied themselves with the Daimyo clans, which are the strongest samurais just below the shogun and own a great deal of lands, in opposition to the Tokugawa Shogun. However, once the Meiji leaders had gained control, they saw that they would need to abolish the feudal 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.

The role and symbolism of the Emperor, although not the sole factor in influencing the Daimyo to give up their land, was vital. The Meiji rulers said that not turning in the fiefs to the Emperor would be disloyal and pointed to the historical records, which Meiji scholars claimed, showed that historically all land were the property of the Emperor.They showed this by claiming that the Shogun would switch the rulers of lands 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.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. The abolishment of feudalism and the samurai class were essential for the stability and industrialization of Japan.Without the concentration of land and power in the hands of the Meiji rulers and the Emperor, the Meiji rulers 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 rulers. In 1467, the Ashikaga Shogun failed to control many of the lands. As a result, a civil war raged in Japan.The centralization of power allowed the Meiji government to have taxing authority over all of Japan and pursue national projects.The unity of Japan also allowed the Meiji rulers 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 was enough to convince the public of the safety or goodness of the Meiji rulers’ industrial policy. In one famous instance, the Japanese Emperor appeared in a train car. Since then, train became a common transportation 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. However, on March 3rd, 1873, the Empress appeared in public wearing her own eyebrows and with unblackened teeth.

From that day on, most women in Tokyo and around Japan stopped shaving their eyebrows and blackening their teeth.The Imperial institution provided both a key tool to change Japanese culture and feelings about industrialization while providing stability to Japan, which was critical to allowing industrialists to invest in factories and increase exports and production. 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.This caused some to turn toward the west for the “enlightenment” the Meiji era promised.

As a result, Okuma was eventually forced out of the increasing nationalist Genro, advisors of the Emperor.For others it led 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 were violating the Imperial Will by negotiating and trading with the west.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 having 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. Like the Shogunate, the idea that Meiji governments claim to rule for the Emperor was full with problems.

The Imperial Will was a fluid idea that could be adopted by different parties under changing circumstances. 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.From this perspective, the Meiji ruling class, built 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. The symbols of the Emperor and the tradition of Confucianism did not disappear with the end of the Meiji era or World War II. Nowadays, the idea of filial piety is still strong, and multiple generations of a family still usually live together even in cramped Japanese housing. The religion of Shinto, traditional Japanese animism or nature worship, 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.But the most striking symbol to survive is that of the Emperor, stripped after World War II of all power, 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 that the Showa Emperor was sick, 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 wish 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 than four hundred and fifty thousand people travel annually to the isolated grave site of Emperor Showa. The traditions and symbolism of Confucianism and the Emperor were critical to the Meiji rulers gaining control of power and goals of industrialization. The rulers implanted 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 peacefully gain control of Japan by appealing to history and the restoration of the Emperor.

However, the Meiji rulers never restored the Emperor to a position of real political power. Instead, he was used as a tool by the government to achieve their modernization plans in Japan, such as the abolishment of feudalism, the end of the samurai class, the propagation of new cultural practices, and pubic acceptance of the Meiji government’s 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.

References

1. 1. Nagata, Hidejero. (1921). A Simplified Treatise on the Imperial House of Japan. Tokyo: Hakubunkwan.
2. 2. Kuwasaburo, Takatsu. (1893). The History of the Empire of Japan. Tokyo: Dai Nippon Tosho Kabushiki Kwaisha.
3. 3.Reischauer, Edwin O. (1987). Japan Past and Present. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing.
4.  McLaren, Walter. (1916). A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912.New York: Scribner and Sons.
5. Sato, Shusuke. (1916). Some Historical Phases of Modern Japan. New York: Japan Society.
6. Allen, Louis. (1971). Japan the Years of Triumph. London: Purnell and Sons.
7. Duus, Peter. (1976). The Rise of Modern Japan.
8. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. 8. Large, Stephen. (1989). The Japanese Constitutional of 1889.
9. London: Suntory-Toyota International Centre. 9. Best, Ernest. (1966).
10. Christian Faith and Cultural Crisis the Japanese Case. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 10.
11. Borton, Hugh. (1955). Japan’s Modern Century. New York: Ronald Press.
12. Murphey, Rhoads. (1997.) East Asia: A New History. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
13. Endnotes 1 Nagata, Hidejero. (1921). A Simplified Treatise on the Imperial House of Japan. Tokyo: Hakubunkwan. p.47. 2 Kuwasaburo, Takatsu.
14. (1893). The History of the Empire of Japan. Tokyo: Dai Nippon Tosho Kabushiki Kwaisha. p.206. 3 Ibid. p.17. 4
15. Reischauer, Edwin O. (1987). Japan Past and Present. Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing. p.112.
16. 5 McLaren, Walter. (1916). A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867- 1912. New York: Scribner and Sons. p.32. 6 Sato, Shusuke.
17. (1916). Some Historical Phases of Modern Japan.New York: Japan Society. p.4. 7 McLaren.
18. A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912. p.44. 8 Allen, Louis. (1971). Japan the Years of Triumph. London: Purnell and Sons.
19. p.8. 9 Duus, Peter. (1976). The Rise of Modern Japan.
20. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. p.73. 10 Nagata. A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan. p.142. 11 Ibid.
21. p.35. 12 Large, Stephen. (1989). The Japanese Constitutional of 1889.London: Suntory- Toyota International Centre.
22. p.27. 13 McLaren. A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912. p.70. 14 Murphey, Rhoads. (1997).
23. East Asia: A New History. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. p.44. 15 Ibid.
24. p.45. 16 Duus. The Rise of Modern Japan. p.116.
25. 17 Best, Ernest. (1966). Christian Faith and Cultural Crisis the Japanese Case. 18 Leiden: E.J.
26. Brill. p.108. 19 Ibid. p.105. 20 Ibid.
27. p.105. 21 Ibid. p.106. 22 Ibid. p.106.
28. 23 Ibid. p.106. 24 Ibid. p.106.
29. 25 Duus. The Rise of Modern Japan. p.117. 26 Borton, Hugh.
30. (1955). Japan’s Modern Century. New York: Ronald Press. p.524.
31. 27 Duus. The Rise of Modern Japan. p.118. 28 McLaren. A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912.
32. p.69. 29 Nagata. A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan. p.60.
33. 30 Large. The Japanese Constitutional of 1889. p.9. 31 McLaren.
34. A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912. p.193. 32 Ibid. p.192. 33 Large.
35. The Japanese Constitutional of 1889. p.27. 34 Nagata. A Simplified Treatise on The Imperial House of Japan. p.89. 35 McLaren.
36. A Political History of Japan During the Meiji Era 1867-1912. p.77. 36 Ibid. p.78. 37 Ibid.
37. p.77. 38 Ibid. p.83. 39 Ibid.
38. p.82. 40 Reischauer. Japan Past and Present. p.66.
39. 41 Duus. The Rise of Modern Japan. p.117. 42 Allen. Japan the Years of Triumph. p.41.
40. Duus. The Rise of Modern Japan. p.84.
41. Ibid. p.119.
42. Ibid. p.88.
43. Ibid. p.94-95.
44. 47 Reischauer. Japan Past and Present. p.166. 48 Ibid. p.167.
45. 49 Ibid. p.13. 50 Large. The Japanese Constitutional of 1889. p.20. History