40 before the international military tribunal in

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: aside everything in the way of adulation, [and] bring into being our original condition.36 Japan was a sacred land, ruled by a godlike (though isolated and nonacting) emperor. Its citizens were the members of a great family headed by the emperor, and they were expected to serve the state with unquestioning loyalty. The military, in particular, was not to be criticized, for it had the holy mission of expanding Japanese influence abroad and it was, in any case, answerable only to the emperor (which meant, for practical purposes, that it was answerable to no one). The suppression in the 1930s not only of proletarian authors and 298 The Fruits of Modernity playwrights but even of professors with scholarly views that were deemed incompatible with the national polity effectively muted much of the literary and academic worlds. The cause célèbre in the elimination of freedom of expression was the attack in 1935 on Professor Minobe Tatsukichi (1873–1948) and his so-called Emperor-Organ theory of the Meiji Constitution. Years earlier, Minobe, a scholar of constitutional law at Tokyo Imperial University, had advanced the interpretation that the emperor should be regarded, under the Meiji Constitution, as the highest organ of state, an organ analogous to the head of the human body. Although strongly criticized by some other scholars at the time for presuming to define an emperor whose august authority was beyond definition and who should be mystically regarded as one with the state itself, Minobe’s theory was generally accepted in academic circles, and later he was even honored by appointment to the House of Peers. In 1935 a fellow member of Peers attacked Minobe in a speech in the House, claiming that the Emperor-Organ theory, about which the average Japanese knew nothing, was a grave offense against the imperial institution. The following week Minobe, also in a speech to the House of Peers, readily exposed his accuser’s argument as nonsensical and was warmly applauded by the House. The matter seemed closed, but before long there arose a ground swell of opposition to Minobe from veterans’ organizations and other groups throughout the country. Army leaders and polit...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online