In addition the Americans too have…adopted imperialism and are gradually extending their power into the Pacific. They have taken Hawaii and the Philippines and are trying to expand their commercial rights even in China and Manchuria.
Viewed in this way world history is the history of rivalry and contention between the yellow and white races…. The whites shout about the yellow peril and we are angry about the white peril.26
To counter the rhetoric of racial strife, a rhetoric of racial harmony was suggested. “The ideal of humanity could be realized,” Sugiura continued in his lecture on “Race,” if the different races of the world cooperated with one another and advanced civilization. Unfortunately:
the Europeans and Americans…are apt to look down on the yellow race with preconceived notions. I think it will be very difficult to abolish racial prejudice. Looking at our country, equality of the people has been our principle ever since the restoration of imperial rule. Yet even today there is a tendency to look down on the eta and hinin [despised hereditary status groups27] of former times….
Regardless of whether we can achieve our stand to abolish racial discrimination, it is most important to resolutely maintain our own principles. If we put benevolence and justice thoroughly into practice, then the Europeans and Americans cannot help but admire us. If we can do that, we will not have to be concerned about abolishing racial prejudice.28
Such ethics lessons may inadvertently have raised questions in Hirohito’s mind about what exactly he was supposed to do as a benevolent monarch.
Sugiura’s lectures elevated the ideal of the imperial house based on Confucianism and Japanese hegemonism; denounced foreign thinkers who talked about liberalism, individualism and socialism; and encouraged a conventional, social-Darwinian view of international relations in terms of conflict between the white race, led by Europeans and Americans, and the yellow race, led by Japan.29 Essentially Sugiura taught that the emperor’s authority derived from the teachings of his ancestors, going back in time to the sacred progenitor of the imperial line. This view connected with Japanese expansionism, as well as with the we-they distinction in “race relations” and the notion that Japan—and the Japanese spirit—was superior to the West and to Western things. It also assumed that for the emperor to lay burdens on his subjects was entirely natural because they existed to sacrifice themselves for him, not the other way around.
III
Another formative influence on young Hirohito’s life was Shiratori Kurakichi, who brought him Japanese and Western history. Shiratori had studied in Germany. In 1909 he published articles in the journal Ty jih (Oriental review) debunking the Confucian legends of the Chinese sages Yao, Shun, and Yu, thereby highlighting the irrationality of traditional Chinese culture.30 His attitude toward China can be understood as compounded of an impatient “escape from Asia” way of thinking (associated with the noted Meiji educator Fukuzawa Yukichi) and attitudes of contempt toward others that welled up in his generation after the Sino-Japanese War. A liberal, positivist historian in the tradition of the nineteenth-century German Leopold von Ranke, and a recognized expert on Asian and Western history, Shiratori was fifty when he became a court official and took charge of general academic affairs and the teaching of history at the Ogakumonjo.31
To instruct the crown prince and his five classmates, Shiratori wrote five volumes of “national history,” titled simply Kokushi. The first chapter of volume 1 of the Kokushi, or “General Introduction,” addresses the racial origins of the Japanese and begins by stating the essence of his views on the national ideology:
The imperial house unified our land and people and created the empire. Not only did it rule as the head of state, it also became integrated with the people and the head of their religion. Because of the ineffable feeling of intimacy between the throne and the people, the imperial house was able to create an extremely firm foundation for a state. However, just as the imperial house is a line of emperors unbroken for ages eternal; the people too, from generation to generation, father to child, have propagated down to today. Not once has there been a change in the race. Therefore we, descendants of the people who assisted the founder at the time of her creation of the state, have carried out the will of our ancestors and become eternally loyal subjects. The successive imperial families have loved the loyal subjects of their progenitor and always trusted in the people’s cooperation in carrying out their grand plans. This indeed is the essence of our kokutai…. There is no mistake…in saying that we have been a homogeneous race since antiquity.32
Shiratori’s unusually clear statement of the national ideology starts with the exceptional nature of the Japanese “race” and ends with the theme of its homogeneity. In between it entrenches myth and the sacred at the point of origin. It stresses the unbroken line of imperial succession from the divine “foundress,” implying that Japan has been under the continuous control of a descendant of the gods. The uniqueness of the polity lies also in the inexpressible connection between the imperial house and the people. Japanese subjects have been, and will continue to be, “eternally loyal,” always serving successive emperors “in carrying out their grand plans.”
Shiratori implanted in Hirohito’s mind the very same ideas about the “national polity” that had been taught in the public school system ever since Emperor Meiji, in the early 1880s, had ordered that history instruction start with the meaning of the foundation myths.33 By highlighting the notion of the divine origin of the imperial line, and linking it to the myth of the racial superiority and homogeneity of the Japanese, Shiratori impeded anything near an objective discussion of Japanese history. These two key elements of prewar emperor ideology became a critical part of Hirohito’s intellectual inheritance.
Kokushi does not explicitly distinguish between myth and history. It narrates myths about the emperor’s divinity in the spirit of the Imperial Rescript on Education—the document that placed the emperor at the center of the nation’s spiritual life and guided the Japanese people in worshiping him as a god. In “Emperor Jimmu” Shiratori continues “the story” of the founding of the state as narrated in the Nihon shoki. Although the Nihon shoki projected an idealized, fictional “Jimmu” (the direct descendant of Amaterasu mikami) rather than historical fact, Shiratori nowhere indicates the difference in his text.
[Emperor Jimmu]…fought battles in many places, lost soldiers and imperial brothers, but never was beaten by disasters. Each time he met difficulty, he renewed his courage, became ever stronger…and suffered together with his own soldiers. With the divine protection of his imperial ancestors and the assistance of loyal subjects, he finally accomplished his great purpose. Thereupon he built a palace in the land of Kashiwara at the southeast foot of Unebi Mountain, where he stored the imperial regalia and was enthroned as emperor.34
Shiratori went on to observe that Jimmu had been able to accomplish his great project because of “the people’s love and affection for the imperial house, their loyalty and courage, their perseverance in difficulties, and their mutual cooperation and assistance of the emperor.” After his enthronement Jimmu rewarded those who had made contributions by appointing them as local governors, “thereby treating the people with boundless affection.”35
Shiratori wrote his “national history” to harmonize with the modern “emperor system,” of which he was a loyal servitor. He neither applied his critical skills to Japan’s legendary beginnings nor insisted that the old stories related events that had never occurred and therefore constituted myth rather than fact. His textbook helped shape the religious imagination of the emperor every bit as much as Sugiura’s ethics lectures did. We cannot know what Shiratori may have communicated verbally to Hirohito in discussions, but he certainly did not write a more nuanced interpretation of the manifest deity concept until much later.36
Every single chapter of all five volumes of Kokushi, from Emperor Jimmu onward, is (as historian Tokoro Isao noted) named after an emperor. In the course of his narrative, Shirat
ori describes how the sacred mirror and sword came to be enshrined at Ise and Atsuta, how the imperial household compelled local rulers to surrender their sacred objects—the mirrors, jewels, and swords that were once the symbols of their authority; and how these “regalia” became the symbol of legitimacy of the imperial household. 37
Through his examination of the “sacred virtues” of the leading emperors in Japanese history, Shiratori (like Sugiura) came to believe and to teach that emperors were often a driving force in the modernization of the country. The idea of the emperor as a promoter of progress had its roots in the early Meiji period and was another of the key concepts of modern emperor ideology. It meant the monarch’s active promotion of the nation’s material and spiritual culture and not simply the notion, common to all monarchies, of noblesse oblige, or the monarch’s concern for his people. It is precisely this “modernizing” side of imperial leadership that Shiratori emphasized.
Shiratori’s historical survey put at Hirohito’s disposal numerous examples of activist emperors who had combined power and authority in their own person. Although his lectures teemed with examples of ancient and medieval emperors who embodied moral goodness and benevolence, Shiratori concluded that some medieval emperors, for all their virtues, were unable to rectify long-standing political evils and so “the sufferings of the people steadily increased.”38 Even when regents for child, adult, and abdicated emperors took the initiative, the deadlock of politics and economics remained unresolved until Japan entered the Kamakura period (1193–1336), when the bakufu (military government) controlled the country. Having brought his narrative forward into the age of the warriors, Shiratori set out to show how the Imperial House continued to play an important role in government long after it had delegated political and military affairs to the bakufu.
He also cast a positive light on the northern dynasty, which had been neglected since the Meiji restoration, and from which Hirohito was descended. Only a few years earlier, in 1911, the old historical controversy over the question of imperial legitimacy during the period of the northern and southern courts (1336–92) had been resolved when the government of Prime Minister Katsura Tar “decided in favor of southern legitimacy and decreed that henceforth the [primary school history] texts should deal with the years 1336 through 1392 as ‘The Period of the Yoshino [that is, southern] court.’”39 Thus, at a time when Japanese general education deliberately obfuscated the existence of a major dynastic schism in the national history, fearing it might undermine popular belief in imperial sovereignty, Shiratori acknowledged the schism and treated the northern line of emperors sympathetically.40
Finally Shiratori reviewed the foreign wars of the Meiji era, explaining to Hirohito and his classmates how the modern empire was won through a process of constantly seeking “peace in the Orient,” taking into account the interests of other nations, and always acting toward neighbors benevolently and justly. Shiratori acknowledged Chinese resistance to the colonization of Taiwan after the war of 1894–95, but he was silent about the injustice involved in Korea’s loss of sovereignty, presenting what occurred as of benefit not only to Koreans but to the “Orient” in general.
Of all the countries in the world, only our empire was able to secure peace in the Orient. Because Korea was the original reason why our empire had to fight earlier with China and later with Russia, the empire tried to destroy the root of this problem forever. As soon as the war of 1904–5 [against Russia] began, we made Korea promise to listen to our advice and concluded a type of treaty with it. When it came to 1905, our empire made a new treaty in which it took control of Korea’s diplomacy [that is, stripped it of its diplomatic rights], established a resident-general in Seoul, and had him manage Korean affairs.
After taking charge of Korea’s diplomacy in order “to protect it” from threats by “other strong countries,” Japan encountered obstruction from the Korean court, which “turned its back on this agreement in 1907.” This led to a new treaty, by which the resident-general obtained the right to “supervise Korea’s domestic politics” and “Korea became our protectorate.”
Nevertheless, this system proved insufficient for improving the institutions of Korea and enhancing the peace and welfare of that nation. So, in 1910, we made a treaty with Korea and permanently annexed it. Thus the root of the problem in the Orient, which had troubled the empire for many years, was completely removed.41
Shiratori’s interpretation of Japanese-Korean relations reflects the moral complacency and hypocrisy of Japanese popular attitudes toward Korea at the time of its annexation. He also implies that the imperial project itself was sensible and rational, for annexing Korea established peace in the region and meant progress for Koreans.
Having reached the end of the Meiji era, Shiratori concluded by describing in superlative detail Crown Prince Hirohito’s grandfather, Emperor Meiji. From early childhood Meiji was active and courageous but also subdued, self-disciplined, frugal, benevolent, and wise, and always generous to his subjects. Meiji learned from the lectures of his entourage and listened attentively to those who brought him information. Moreover, “The emperor had a deep fondness for waka poetry and day and night recited verse. By writing his own poetry he naturally gained a benevolent heart [migokoro].”42
Shiratori was successful in his main aims of furnishing Hirohito with examples of imperial benevolence, explaining the process of development of Japanese history, and stimulating his interest in history in general.43 In later years Hirohito acquired more detailed knowledge of the Meiji era from reading Meiji tenn-ki [Chronicles of Emperor Meiji], which was edited and completed by officials of the Imperial Household Ministry in 1933 but kept hidden in the Imperial Household Ministry until the centennial year of the Meiji Restoration, 1968, when the first volumes began to be published. Even today scholars are not allowed to examine the primary materials on which it is based.44
Western history was also introduced to Hirohito by Professor Mizukuri Genpachi, whose Seiyshi kwa (Lectures on Western history) became one of his favorite textbooks.45 Hirohito devoured all of Mizukuri’s major works: Napoleon jidaishi (History of the age of Napoleon), Furansu daikakumei shi (History of the great French revolution) (1919, 1920) in two volumes, and Sekai taisenshi [History of the great world war) (1919), which appeared right after the Bolshevik Revolution and the collapse of monarchies all across Europe. These books presented revolution and war as the greatest threats to monarchy, and underscored the importance of a strong middle class as a bulwark against revolution.
Mizukuri’s writings provided Hirohito with rational explanations for the fall of the Romanov dyanasty in Russia and the Hohenzollern dynasty of Prussia. They deepened his interest in history and European politics, and may have helped him to think in broader terms and to look for elements of general relevance in particular events. Shiratori’s writings on the other hand, left him with a rich store of historical narratives to draw on when confronting policy decisions. Yet they were also intellectually constraining insofar as they followed the official line, transmitted the Japanese obsession with racial origins, and indoctrinated Hirohito to think in terms of emperors as developers of national power, prestige, and empire.
IV
Shimizu Tru, a professor of law at Peers’ School, unlike Sugiura and Shiratori, was definitely not recognized in academic circles as an outstanding scholar. The choice of Shimizu as Hirohito’s teacher of constitutional law may simply have reflected the opinion of Ogasawara and the genr that the leading scholars of the constitution at that time—Hozumi Yatsuka, Uesugi Shinkichi, and Minobe Tatsukichi—were entirely too controversial to be instructing the crown prince. Shimizu belonged to no school and had spelled out his constitutional doctrine in a massive tome, published in 1904. In 1915 Shimizu became an Imperial Household Ministry official and took up his duties at the Ogakumonjo. There, and later at court, he instructed Hirohito on the two dominant accounts of the Meiji constitution that defined the parameters of constitutional government.46 On
e, the direct imperial rule theory of Hozumi Yatsuka and Uesugi Shinkichi, affirmed imperial absolutism and taught that the emperor had responsibility for arranging the various organs of state and directly exercising his power to appoint and dismiss his officials. This was the view favored by many army officers (with the notable exception of General Ugaki), and by navy officers such as Fleet Admiral Tg and Captain Ogasawara. The other interpretation was the liberal “emperor organ theory” of Minobe, who sought to rein in the emperor’s autocratic powers by making the cabinet his single highest advisory organ and curbing the power of extraconstitutional bodies to advise the emperor.
Shimizu, an eclectic, contradictory thinker outwardly eschewed both of these positions, though his writings were, overall, much closer to Hozumi’s than Minobe’s. Shimizu considered the main point at issue in constitutional interpretation to be the locus of sovereignty [tchiken], which he situated in both the emperor and the state. For him the state represented “an indissoluble combination of the land, the people and sovereignty,” while in a legal sense it “is a person and the subject of sovereignty.”47 He continued: “In our country sovereignty resides at one and the same time in the state and in the emperor. On this point state and emperor are assimilated to one another. They have become not two but one. In other words the emperor is the subject of sovereignty.”48
This kind of argument meant that Shimizu was utterly unable to clarify the relationship between the monarch and the state. Constitutional scholar Uesugi, Hozumi’s disciple in the law department of Tokyo Imperial University, argued that the emperor is the state and anything he does, no matter how arbitrary, is justified. Shimizu regarded the state as an independent moral personality [jinkaku] and claimed that the emperor always acts, by definition, in its interests. The two were never in conflict because the emperor was, at all times, thinking and acting in the interests of the state. For Shimizu the question of priority could never arise. On this point, Shimizu reinforced Sugiura’s teaching that, historically, emperors have always acted in the interest of the state.
Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan Page 9
