[Feature: On the Imperial Household] Roundtable Discussion: Interpreting the Symbolic Emperor System through "On the Imperial Household"

On May 1st, the current Emperor (Emperor Akihito, now Emperor Emeritus; hereafter referred to by his title as of the roundtable date, March 15th) will abdicate, Crown Prince Naruhito will ascend the throne, and the era name will change. In this context, I would like to discuss with everyone Fukuzawa Yukichi's "On the Imperial Household," which is said to have had a significant influence on how we think about the role of the Imperial Family in modern Japan, particularly the symbolic emperor system.

It is well known that after the war, Shinzo Koizumi, the former President of Keio University, used "On the Imperial Household" while serving as the Education Advisor to the Crown Prince for Crown Prince Akihito. In 2008, an exhibition titled "120th Anniversary of His Birth: Shinzo Koizumi Exhibition" was held at the Mita Campus, which Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress visited, and I was part of the group that guided them. From their demeanor at that time, I felt the immense impact that Koizumi's presence had on Their Majesties.

"On the Imperial Household" was serialized in 1882 in the Jiji Shinpo, which Fukuzawa had recently founded, and was later published as a book. Regarding the historical background of when this book was written, Mr. Kimizuka, what are your thoughts?

There was a political upheaval in 1881, the year before "On the Imperial Household" was published. At that time, there was a debate in Japan over whether to adopt a Prussian-style constitutional system or a British-style one. Those who advocated for the British style, such as Shigenobu Okuma, were ousted from power, and the government moved toward the Prussian style, centered around Hirobumi Ito.

Ito traveled to Prussia and Austria starting in 1882, studying under Stein to lay the foundations for what would become the Constitution of the Empire of Japan.

While the timing of the book's publication in 1882 is important for understanding how the Imperial Household should be, reading it again now reveals a broad and long-term perspective. I think we can see the intention behind Shinzo Koizumi's use of it as a text for the education of the then-Crown Prince Akihito after the war.

Of course, Fukuzawa could not have known what the future would hold when he wrote it, but I feel that he had a modern constitutional monarchy quite clearly in his sights. I have the impression that the things Fukuzawa absorbed when he went to America and Europe at the end of the Edo period are scattered throughout the work.

The actual role of the Emperor as defined by the Meiji Constitution took a different form from what Fukuzawa envisioned. Mr. Inoue, how do you perceive the relationship between Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household" and the domestic political situation in Japan?

On October 12, 1881, the year before "On the Imperial Household" was published, the Imperial Rescript on the Establishment of a National Diet was issued. It was decided that the Diet would be established in 1890. In "On the Imperial Household," Fukuzawa predicted that the establishment of the Diet would bring the misfortune of political party friction and lead to partisan politics.

In 1882, when "On the Imperial Household" was actually published, the Constitutional Progressive Party and the Constitutional Imperial Rule Party were formed. Meanwhile, in April of that year, Taisuke Itagaki of the Liberal Party was attacked while on a speaking tour. Signs of the misfortune of party friction were appearing even before the Diet opened.

Amid the rising momentum for the establishment of the Diet, it was unavoidable that party politics would become central. I believe that in "On the Imperial Household," the importance of the Imperial Household is repeatedly pointed out as the entity that integrates the nation of Japan beyond political parties.

This is clearly expressed from the beginning, where he states, "The Imperial Household is something outside of political society," and "The Imperial Household is that which governs all affairs, not that which handles all affairs." In this book, Fukuzawa says that the politics of a nation is extremely bleak, but when considering how to coordinate the confusion accompanying party politics, he points out the importance of the existence of the Imperial Household above it. I felt that if we are thinking about solving the unavoidable problems inherent in party politics, then this is also a contemporary issue.

Fukuzawa used expressions like "eternal spring" or "(the Imperial Family is) the mitigating force of a nation" to emphasize that the Emperor should be a patron of culture, such as scholarship and the arts. Was there actually a possibility for Fukuzawa's argument to take root in Meiji Japan at that time?

As you all have mentioned, the main point of "On the Imperial Household" was to argue against the movement to expand power by incorporating the Imperial Family into one's own political party, at a time when party politics was beginning and the establishment of the Diet was becoming a reality. He argued that such actions would damage the dignity of the Imperial Family.

And he considered how to separate the Imperial Family from politics so that it would not be co-opted. I believe one of the things created at that time was the cultural aspect.

In the 1880s, there were still many people who had memories of the pre-modern era when the relationship between the Imperial Family and politics was thin, so this argument might have been relatively easy to accept. What Fukuzawa was saying was not that eccentric; for those who knew the Imperial Family from the Kyoto era, the cultural aspect was likely quite convincing.

On the other hand, during the Meiji era, there was a shared sense of national crisis regarding the need to revise the unequal treaties signed at the end of the Edo period. To that extent, even if political parties had different policies, I believe there was a shared awareness that they had to cooperate, centered around the Emperor, to ensure national independence.

The idea was that the Imperial Household stands above the nation, and by uniting under a single symbolic figure—specifically Emperor Meiji—Japan could assert its independence against the West. In the subsequent Taisho and pre-war Showa periods, reaching such a consensus became difficult. However, I don't think this way of thinking was impossible during that era.

There is still much debate over how to interpret Fukuzawa's discourse in the Jiji Shinpo. Was "On the Imperial Household" written with the intention of being read far into the future, or was it addressing the current events of the time?

When viewed as a commentary on current affairs, the Constitutional Imperial Rule Party (formed in 1882, dissolved the following year) emerged as a pro-government party to counter the Liberal Party and the Progressive Party. They advocated for imperial sovereignty and claimed that their party valued the dignity of the Imperial Household most, while other parties were essentially disloyal. Fukuzawa was directly criticizing the way these factions borrowed the authority of the Emperor.

However, in addition to that, he was also trying to use this opportunity to explain a theory of the Imperial Household that would be valid from a relatively long-term perspective. I have the impression that Fukuzawa had a kind of trauma or physiological aversion—a fear of the authority of the Emperor being utilized as something that cannot be denied. I believe this was backed by his actual experience of being exposed to the terrifying storm of the "Revere the Emperor, Expel the Barbarians" movement and the danger of assassination at the end of the Edo period.

Fukuzawa has another work, "On Reverence for the Emperor" (1888), which is often used as critical material to point out Fukuzawa's shift toward conservatism. In this book, Fukuzawa asks where the sanctity of the Emperor comes from, and he says it is solely due to "antiquity." He argues that the Imperial Family is important because it is the oldest house. He says that most things called national treasures are useless but are valued simply because they are old, and the Imperial Family is the same. As a commentary on current affairs, this seems to be a check against the Meiji Constitution, whose promulgation was imminent.

When considering "On the Imperial Household" and "On Reverence for the Emperor" as a set, the consistent point is that he does not explain the authority of the Emperor from a theocratic or religious perspective derived from myths, but rather tries to grasp it materialistically, so to speak. I think Fukuzawa had an intuition about the danger of the Emperor's divinity becoming an absolute authority that could sway politics.

Besides that, this book is often discussed in terms of how to position a monarch in the history of political thought, especially in relation to Bagehot (Walter Bagehot, a British journalist and thinker).

In the beginning of "On the Imperial Household," there is a passage: "A Western scholar discussed the dignity and power of an emperor and described it as the mitigating force of a nation. The meaning seems profound." This "Western scholar" is likely Bagehot. He distinguished between the "dignified" part of a country, which is the monarch, and the "efficient" part, which is the government and parliament. The dignified part is the mitigating force of a nation and an important part of politics.

Regarding this "dignified" part, in modern times, it translates to the soft power of political diplomacy conducted by the royal family. In contrast, what the government does is hard diplomacy—actually defining borders, handling the TPP, or Brexit—which are clearly the hard parts.

However, hard and hard parts tend to clash. In such cases, the introduction of something soft can ease the tension. I believe such things can be seen in various forms and places from that era to the present day. I think Fukuzawa adopted what Bagehot was saying in that regard.

Later in the book, it says, "As stated in Mr. Bashio's theory of the English constitution," and this "Mr. Bashio" is also Bagehot. Fukuzawa seems to have been influenced in various ways by Bagehot's original work, "The English Constitution." He probably bought it when he went to Europe.

At that time, the Diet had not yet been established in Japan, but Bagehot also pointed out that the Imperial Family should be a fair, neutral, and transcendent entity that does not belong to any political party, so I think he used this as a reference.

Did Bagehot's influence persist in Japan after that?

Ultimately, Japan adopted a Prussian-style constitution, but it is also said that while Hirobumi Ito believed Japan could not adopt a British-style parliamentary system, party politics, and constitutional system at that time, he held the British model as an ideal for the future.

In that way, Bagehot's influence was certainly present among those who actually built the constitutional system, like Hirobumi Ito, but they did not adopt it immediately. However, Ito did refer to it considerably regarding the bicameral system and the creation of the House of Peers and the House of Representatives.

However, in the world of thought, people like Chomin Nakae were probably more influenced by French thought.

Even in Ito's "Commentaries on the Constitution," the role of the monarch is framed to establish a fairly constitutional reality. Although Fukuzawa's plan was not literally incorporated into the constitution, there was an attempt to be restrained regarding the relationship between the monarch and politics even under the Meiji Constitution, and there was a possibility for such a form to take root.

However, it ultimately collapsed. Events like the Incident of the Infringement of the Prerogative of Supreme Command and the Emperor Organ Theory Incident seem to prove that the dangers Fukuzawa saw in the Constitutional Imperial Rule Party were correct. Mr. Inoue, what are your thoughts on this progression?

Since I try to pick up the possibilities of the pre-war Showa era as much as possible, I don't view it that pessimistically.

Even under the pre-war Constitution of the Empire of Japan, they aimed for a constitutional monarchy along the broad framework shown in "On the Imperial Household," and through interaction with the international situation of the time, they were likely trying to create an "Imperial Household as a center for winning people's hearts that transcends political parties." To put it somewhat hyperbolically, I think that has continued to this day.

Earlier, there was a question about whether Fukuzawa wrote from a long-term perspective or as a commentary on current affairs, but a classic is a classic because it is worth reading even now, transcending such perspectives. I believe "On the Imperial Household" remains an important historical clue when thinking about the current imperial succession in Japan.

Once national independence was achieved through the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese Wars, the historical role of the Meiji era ended, and the Taisho era began. In the Taisho era, even if they wanted to continue the Meiji-style era, they could not due to interaction with the international situation. In the Taisho era, a movement was born to create a more proactive and new constitutional monarchy. I believe the ideals of "On the Imperial Household" were utilized there.

Party politics began to function in earnest during the era of the two-party system in pre-war Showa. While the military bears responsibility for the collapse of the two-party system, I believe the political parties also bear a very heavy responsibility. I think the failure to create a pre-war Showa version of the constitutional monarchy as shown in "On the Imperial Household" led to the catastrophe. Furthermore, in the sense that the Emperor himself was forced to become involved as a political actor, which eventually led to the catastrophe, it is exactly as "On the Imperial Household" pointed out ahead of its time.

I believe Fukuzawa's arguments are rich in suggestion even when separated from the situational context around 1882 when "On the Imperial Household" was published.

After World War I, monarchies collapsed in Germany, Austria, and elsewhere, leading to a global crisis of monarchy. This spread to Japan, and a movement emerged to reorganize the Japanese emperor system.

Sakuzo Yoshino was one such figure, but one person I focused on was Hidejiro Nagata, who was the Mayor of Tokyo. He wrote a best-selling book titled "A Simple Theory of the Imperial Household." It explained and advocated for the reform of the Imperial Household, and it contained passages like, "Even Fukuzawa says this in 'On the Imperial Household'." In this way, "On the Imperial Household" was used as a theoretical basis during the movement to reform the Imperial Household in the Taisho era.

The fact that such a book became widely known and was used as an authority by people in the Taisho period, saying "Fukuzawa also wrote this," suggests that "On the Imperial Household" had a certain potential and influence.

This reorganization of the emperor system in the Taisho era was based on the idea that if party politics worked well, the Emperor himself would basically not be involved in politics much and would instead engage in social charitable activities, continuing in a different form from the fallen monarchies of Europe. I believe this was actually working well until a certain point.

How do you view the aspect of the Emperor as a patron of culture under the Meiji Constitution?

I see it as something close to the prototype of the current symbolic emperor system. The symbolic emperor system did not necessarily emerge suddenly after the war; rather, I think what emerged during the post-WWI reorganization blossomed after the war. The fact that "On the Imperial Household" is referenced there makes me feel that this book also has significance as a prototype for the symbolic emperor system.

People like Tetsuro Watsuji and Sokichi Tsuda also spoke of the Emperor as a cultural center before the war, and there are instances where they mentioned Fukuzawa in that context.

Even in the world of Fukuzawa research, "On the Imperial Household" was relatively well-recognized before the war, and the "Biography of Fukuzawa Yukichi" (written by Motoaki Ishikawa) published in 1932 devoted a section to explaining it. Although the expression is a bit vague, it is positioned as Fukuzawa advocating for the Emperor as an existence transcending political issues.

However, later, in the 1930s and 40s, "On the Imperial Household" was included in the supplementary reader for Keio students, "Selected Works of Fukuzawa," but censorship demanded its removal as it was deemed unsuitable for the times.

On the other hand, there aren't many records of what Fukuzawa himself thought about "On the Imperial Household," but it is interesting that Fukuzawa wrote a Chinese poem when he wrote "On the Imperial Household." One of them says that while everyone calls Kusunoki Masashige a loyalist, I have now written "On the Imperial Household" consisting of 12 chapters; which of us, Kusunoki or I, is the true loyalist? It ends with, "Alas, the pen of the loyal subject Fukuzawa" (laughs). This poem was kept secret by those involved and was not made public until after the war.

Although triggered by current events, it makes me feel that Fukuzawa had a kind of conviction in realizing the independence of Meiji Japan and the healthy coexistence of the Imperial Household.

After the defeat in the war, the constitution changed, and Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household" began to attract attention again. In your understanding, Mr. Kawanishi, how do you see it reappearing in post-war political history?

During the period of creating the post-war symbolic emperor system, the people in charge of politics were those who had experience from the Taisho era. They were the people who had been pushed away from the center of politics by the military and others during the war. They had a critical eye toward the wartime "national polity." They thought the Taisho-era mechanism for restraining the Emperor's authority was good. Also, there was a possibility that Emperor Showa would be prosecuted as a war criminal. It was necessary to erase the Emperor's political nature as much as possible.

So, radically—that is, by emphasizing the cultural parts written in the latter half of "On the Imperial Household" both domestically and internationally—they likely wanted to say, "The Emperor is not involved in politics or military affairs."

On the other hand, politicians did not necessarily think that the Emperor should have no involvement in politics at all. This is Bagehot's way of thinking. And I think the first half of "On the Imperial Household" influenced conservative politicians in that regard.

That's right. I feel that Bagehot's influence, including "On the Imperial Household," has flowed like a basso continuo through to the post-war Emperor Showa and the era of the current Emperor. When Emperor Showa was Crown Prince, just after World War I ended and while Europe was still scarred, he toured Europe starting in May 1921. He first visited Britain and was treated warmly by George V. At that time, George V introduced Crown Prince Hirohito to J.R. Tanner, a professor of constitutional history at Cambridge University.

George was the second son of Edward VII, but in 1892, during Queen Victoria's reign, his older brother Eddy (Albert Victor), who was one year older, passed away, so the position of second-in-line to the throne suddenly fell upon him. So, he and Professor Tanner read Bagehot together to understand what it was all about.

The meeting with Emperor Showa was in 1921, about a quarter-century later, but Tanner was still active at Cambridge. Since Crown Prince Hirohito received an honorary doctorate in law from Cambridge University, he asked Tanner for a commemorative lecture, but since there was no time for the lecture on the day, only an outline was presented. A Japanese translation of that outline remains in the Imperial Household Archives today.

In the middle of it, there is a passage that Crown Prince Hirohito seems to have marked in red. It describes what Bagehot said about the current state of the British constitutional monarchy.

During this visit to Britain, he was treated warmly by George V and received a lecture from Mr. Tanner, making George V an important figure for whom Emperor Showa had great affection.

George V visited Japan in 1881 when he was still in his teens. It happened to be just after the political upheaval of 1881, about six months before "On the Imperial Household" was written, and he also met with Emperor Meiji.

Mr. Kawanishi, what are your thoughts on the influence that the existence of George V had on the current form of the symbolic emperor through Emperor Showa?

As you mentioned, George V had a very strong influence on Emperor Showa. After returning from Britain, which he visited as Crown Prince, he became conscious of the British-style constitutional monarchy, and I think that sense remained even when the Emperor became a symbol after the war.

Emperor Showa seems to have believed that advising and encouraging politicians was the proper role of a monarch, and he appears to have acted based on the strong influence of Bagehot and George V.

Speaking of the Emperor as a constitutional monarch, it is famous that the pre-war Emperor Showa stated in "The Emperor Showa's Monologue" that he was strongly conscious of it himself. In particular, shortly after his accession in 1929, he forced Prime Minister Giichi Tanaka to resign over the assassination of Zhang Zuolin, which is said to have left him with much to reflect upon. Was the influence of his interaction with George V and the nature of the British Imperial Family significant in this?

What interests me from the perspective of pre-war Showa history is that even a monarch like George V, who believed he had to be fair and neutral, became involved in party politics during the crisis of the 1930s. Emperor Showa, living in the same era, likely saw George V's actions and thought about them.

Reading the "Veritable Records of Emperor Showa," it says that after reprimanding Tanaka over the assassination of Zhang Zuolin, he returned to his room, canceled his golf plans, and fell asleep at his desk out of exhaustion. Even then, he was likely agonizing over whether that was the right behavior for a constitutional monarch.

During the subsequent February 26 Incident, the outbreak of the war between Japan and the U.S., and the so-called "Sacred Decision" at the end of the war, he never thought it was enough to just act like a robot. I believe he learned from the contemporary figure of George V in Britain how a monarch should behave in order for a constitutional monarchy to survive. I think the pre-war Emperor Showa always struggled with the idea that when turning the country in one direction or another, the monarch might have to be involved, even if through indirect methods.

While they say Britain "reigns but does not rule," the monarch was actually involved in the political process, and I think that is what a constitutional monarch looks like in an era of crisis.

Exactly. Tanaka resigned in 1929, and that year the Great Depression began, the aftermath of which reached Europe in '30 and '31. The MacDonald Labour government eventually resigned en masse in August 1931.

MacDonald was the person George V trusted most. At this time, George V took the initiative to form a national unity government to respond to the Great Depression with MacDonald as the head. He summoned Baldwin of the Conservative Party and Samuel of the Liberal Party, and in front of a reluctant Baldwin, at an Imperial Council, he decided to go with this, and a national unity government headed by MacDonald was formed.

But at that time, MacDonald had been expelled from the Labour Party. When the debate arose over whether such a person should be made the head, George V immediately said to hold a general election and ask for the will of the people. When the general election was held two months later, the national unity government side held 90% of the total seats.

In this way, when the time comes, the King, who has the longest experience, steps forward. I think George V was also conscious that the monarch must step forward in times of need.

So the British model is that a constitutional monarch is someone who is actually deeply committed to politics in practice.

On the other hand, Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household," while drawing on Bagehot, repeatedly denies direct political involvement, stating that it must be "outside of political society." I think that is precisely why it was able to come into the spotlight again after the war.

After George V passed away in 1936, the British Royal Family asked the diplomat Harold Nicolson to write a biography. "The Life of King George V" was completed in 1952. That same year, George V's granddaughter, Queen Elizabeth, ascended the throne.

The following year, on June 2, 1953, was the coronation of Elizabeth II, and the then-Crown Prince Akihito went there representing Japan as the proxy for Emperor Showa. There, Shinzo Koizumi, who was accompanying him as the Education Advisor to the Crown Prince, received the newly completed "The Life of King George V" from the then-Ambassador to the UK, and he and Crown Prince Akihito decided to "read it together."

They finished reading it one week before his marriage in April 1959. Regarding this, in a press conference during his first official visit to Britain as Emperor in May 1998, His Majesty said, "I read the biography of George V together with Dr. Koizumi. George V learned Bagehot's constitutional theory—that the King is consulted, encourages, and warns. The way George V walked steadily and with sincerity for his country and people is deeply impressive."

The reason Shinzo Koizumi chose "The Life of King George V" was likely because George V was a monarch faithful to duty. Regarding constitutional monarchy, he read Bagehot, and after ascending the throne in 1910, he accumulated various experiences, and his life as a monarch was fair and neutral. He did not lean toward any political party and navigated World War I together with the people. I think he sensed such an attitude while reading the biography with Mr. Koizumi.

Of course, there are many differences between the Emperor under the Constitution of Japan and the British King of that era, but I feel that Crown Prince Akihito and Shinzo Koizumi were thinking together about what a constitutional monarch is, especially what a monarch is in modern times.

The current Emperor also made a statement at a press conference during his time as Crown Prince to the effect that "it is necessary for me to be a robot, but I must not be only that." He seems to be conscious that an Emperor is someone who encourages people somewhere and advises politics somewhere, and I think one of the factors for that is likely reading "The Life of King George V" with Shinzo Koizumi. This is an issue that should be clarified further, but I believe the influence is significant.

Today, I have brought the actual copy of "The Life of King George V" that Shinzo Koizumi owned. It is said that during his visit to the UK in 1953, the British Ambassador presented two copies, and the Crown Prince and Koizumi each held one while conducting their lessons. The date of completion mentioned earlier is written at the end of this book as "April 3 1959 (for the second time)." When His Majesty visited the "Shinzo Koizumi Exhibition," this topic came up, and he emphasized that he "did not read it through from beginning to end the first time."

In addition, there are records of Shinzo Koizumi having the King's letters found in this book translated in the form of reports. Through this book, we can see how he carefully attempted to consider the ideal nature of a "monarch."

Shinzo Koizumi first became involved with the Imperial Family in 1946. Initially, he served as a Consultant for the Education of the Crown Prince, and in February 1949, he became a Full-time Consultant for the Education of the Crown Prince. However, the circumstances of how Shinzo Koizumi became involved with the Imperial Family in this capacity are not necessarily backed by documentation. Mr. Kawanishi, what are your thoughts on this point?

This is a difficult one (laughs). Last year, I read the diary of Tadatsune Sakaki, a former Chamberlain to the Crown Prince who was close to the current Emperor, which was broadcast by NHK. In it, there was a concept regarding the Crown Prince's educational office during the war, and among several names mentioned as candidates for the role of educator, the name Shinzo Koizumi appeared.

When I saw that, I thought, I see, even during the war, those close to the Crown Prince intended to have a liberal figure educate him, rather than a fanatic shouting about the national polity. This was likely because Koizumi was considered to be a person of excellent character.

It is not clearly understood how Koizumi actually became the educator after the war. Given the influence Koizumi held at the time, I believe there was a sense among the public that they could feel at ease if he were the one providing the education.

In Mr. Sakaki's diary that you mentioned, I believe it said that Kiyoshi Hiraizumi would not do.

Yes, it says so. Names like Yoshishige Abe and Shinzo Koizumi were listed as candidates.

Shinzo Koizumi was the President of Keio during the war and was in the position of sending students off to the front lines. On the other hand, his name appeared in the selection of personnel looking toward the postwar era, and that expectation persisted after the war. A document discovered during the "Shinzo Koizumi Exhibition" is a letter from Takehtora Ogata to Koizumi dated August 1945, which shows he was approached to be an advisor to the Higashikuni Cabinet. It seems it was not known that Koizumi's injuries from the air raids were quite severe.

In the postwar period, Koizumi became a standard-bearer for anti-communism, making his stance clear and standing at the forefront of the conservative discourse. Furthermore, he became involved with the Imperial Family. I feel that the significance of all these circumstances coexisting—or rather, Shinzo Koizumi's positioning—has not yet been fully depicted.

Shinzo Koizumi also had a deep relationship with Shigeru Yoshida, and about 80 letters remain. What do you think Yoshida was seeking from Koizumi during the reconstruction of postwar Japan?

Important figures of that time all had their hands dirty in some way under the wartime regime. Among them, the number of people who could continue into the postwar era through a process of elimination was truly limited. Also, human relationships at the time were extremely narrow in a way unimaginable today; everyone knew each other personally. Therefore, from a contemporary perspective, Shigeru Yoshida and Koizumi were likely psychologically close.

The fact that Yoshishige Abe's name was also there is very interesting. During the war, Abe was the principal of the First Higher School, and while he had complex feelings about the student mobilization, there were parts of him that sent them off gallantly.

When considering social status, Keio must have been exceptionally famous even then, so I don't think there was much of a sense of incongruity about its head, Koizumi, taking on the role.

Basically, Michiji Tajima, the first Grand Steward of the Imperial Household Agency, was the one who persuaded him, so in that sense, Tajima held Koizumi in high regard. I believe they had a desire to steer the symbolic emperor system in a certain direction. Tajima was initially a proponent of abdication, and he likely had a strong desire to change things significantly from the prewar era.

So he persuaded Koizumi. Although Koizumi had been involved in the Crown Prince's education before then, it was Tajima who made Koizumi a full-time consultant, so that influence was significant.

During the Hitoshi Ashida Cabinet (1948), Koizumi was first invited by the Director-General of the Imperial Household Office. Later, he was also asked to be the Grand Master of the Crown Prince's Household and the Grand Chamberlain to the Crown Prince. Tajima's diary records that Koizumi declined, saying that as a disciple of Yukichi Fukuzawa, he could not take a government post.

Regardless of the title, he deepened his level of involvement. In what areas do you see Shinzo Koizumi's presence as particularly influencing the design of the postwar Imperial Family?

I think the fact that they read "The Life of King George V" together was very significant. Later, the current Emperor clearly stated in a press conference that the three people who influenced him were Yoshishige Abe, Shinzo Koizumi, and Chuji Tsuboi. It wasn't Mrs. Vining.

The current Emperor's remark during his time as Crown Prince that "being a robot is no good," which I mentioned earlier, likely came from reading the part in "The Life of King George V" about "giving advice (to the government)."

In Japan's case, the understanding of Bagehot is slightly mistaken, with many interpreting Bagehot as meaning no involvement in politics at all. Instead, I get the impression that the current Emperor interprets Bagehot more accurately.

By reading "The Life of King George V," he was exposed not to the theorist Bagehot himself, but to George V, the man who put it into practice. I think this allowed him to properly grasp the true intent of Bagehot even more effectively.

Besides that, it is said that Koizumi paid close attention to the Crown Prince's personal matters and greatly influenced the formation of his character.

Even when the Crown Prince toured from Europe to America for Queen Elizabeth's coronation (1953), Koizumi was not a member of the entourage, but he would occasionally meet up with the Crown Prince's party to talk.

What he was doing there was reviewing what they had seen and sharing what the Crown Prince had felt. He didn't follow him around to take care of him the whole time, but he certainly maintained a skillful relationship by listening to what the Crown Prince saw and felt on his first trip abroad, rather than leaving him to his own devices.

Shinzo Koizumi was very much an educator and seemed to emphasize the Crown Prince's own proactive realizations.

In Keio terms, this is exactly "independence and self-respect," encouraging him to think for himself. Even in tennis practice, Koizumi's disciples would go to teach the Crown Prince, and if the ball flew behind him, they wouldn't let the chamberlain pick it up. They would guide him by waiting until he went to get it himself. Then, after a while, he would naturally pick it up himself. Eventually, if he lost a match, he would also act as the "losing umpire."

In that way, I think it was significant that he nurtured the common sensibilities and behaviors of a human being before those of a monarch. In that sense, he was truly an educator. I believe the fact that Koizumi was someone conscious of such things had a major impact on the formation of the Crown Prince's character.

Among these experiences, the visit to the UK for the coronation must have had a very large impact on his character formation.

It was about seeing the actual state of Britain. Just a few years prior, it was an opponent Japan had been at war with. And his father, Emperor Showa, had seen the same country 32 years earlier.

Another important point is that during World War II, there were many instances in Europe where constitutional monarchs took leadership to save their countries. In countries overrun by Nazi Germany—Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg—monarchs took leadership, though circumstances varied.

King Haakon VII of Norway, who was recently featured in the film "The King's Choice." Or Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. Or Grand Duchess Charlotte of Luxembourg. These people went into exile in London and other places, coordinating with the resistance to liberate their countries from the Nazis.

In fact, after the 1953 coronation in Britain, while Crown Prince Akihito was traveling through various countries and returning via the United States, he met Haakon VII in Norway. In 2005, when Their Majesties the Emperor and Empress made an official visit to Norway to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Norway's independence from Sweden, he spoke of this at the state banquet.

Also, the young princes and princesses he met in 1953 later became Queen Beatrix or King Albert II of Belgium. They are all of his generation. Beatrix and Albert abdicated in 2013, and seeing that may have led to his 2016 address.

In this way, this visit was extremely significant, as it allowed him to see in person what he could previously only follow in text, while also building the foundation for his friendships as acquaintances after his accession.

I believe Shigeru Yoshida also made various considerations during that tour. What are your thoughts on Shigeru Yoshida's intentions?

In his memoirs, Yoshida clearly states, "All advanced democratic countries are constitutional monarchies; Japan will also become an advanced democratic country as a constitutional monarchy." From that perspective, he brushed off criticism by arguing that "Your servant, Shigeru" and democracy are compatible.

Yoshida did not believe the Emperor was precious simply because he was the Emperor; rather, he likely concluded that Western constitutional monarchies were desirable as a functional form of the state, and therefore Japan should become a constitutional monarchy in Asia. He did not see it as sacred and inviolable, but rather judged it best to proceed in the form of a symbolic emperor system while creating a constitutional monarchy that was manageable for him.

I believe Shinzo Koizumi also sought grounds in Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household" to explain that the Imperial Family does not contradict democracy and can coexist with it.

While Shinzo Koizumi is currently receiving relatively high attention regarding the formation of the symbolic emperor system, are there other people whose involvement or influence you, Mr. Kawanishi, consider important?

There are various people. Some formed theories in the manner of Tsuda or Watsuji, and some say that the symbol is precisely the traditional form, and because the Emperor was too committed to politics before the war, the current form is ideal.

I think Yoshida and others thought about various things within the framework of the symbol. The private audiences (naisou) that Yoshida conducted were a natural right and duty of a monarch in a constitutional monarchy, and that is why he actively performed them in response to the Emperor's requests. Rather than returning to the prewar era, as a politician, he was likely engaged in how to interpret the symbol.

And I believe conservative politicians in Yoshida's lineage inherited that in subsequent postwar politics.

Crown Prince Akihito's visit to the UK was in 1953, only eight years after the war ended. At the time, due to the issue of the mistreatment of British prisoners of war in Southeast Asia, there was quite strong opposition within Britain to inviting the Japanese Crown Prince to the important ceremony for the Queen.

Prime Minister Churchill held a welcome luncheon for the Crown Prince and selected the guests himself. Attendees included former Labour Prime Minister Attlee, trade union leaders, and heads of the media that had been attacking Japan, such as the famous Lord Beaverbrook, who was the owner of the "Daily Express."

At this time, Churchill suddenly gave an unscheduled speech. He said, "The people gathered here today hold various opinions. There are trade union leaders, the opposition, and the ruling party. We often have heated debates and sometimes split, but Britain is a place that can overcome that, and at its root is precisely the constitutional monarchy."

This also probably made a great impression on the Crown Prince at the time. It's a speech I'd like the current British politicians to hear (laughs). He also received the influence of Churchill, who was very close to Yoshida, in Britain.

On the other hand, regarding the issue of the war, it seems the Crown Prince found things in Britain and the Netherlands to be quite shocking. And he spoke to Koizumi about what he actually felt.

I believe one factor behind why the current Emperor visits former battlefields so earnestly lies there. While the war issue was being forgotten in Japan, it was not so when he went abroad. I think this influence was enormous.

There is a notebook called "Memorandum of Imperial Lectures" that was first made public during the "Shinzo Koizumi Exhibition." In it, Koizumi clearly refers to Emperor Showa's war responsibility, saying, "In terms of responsibility, since Your Majesty was the Generalissimo, it cannot be said that Your Majesty bears no responsibility for the start of the war. I believe Your Majesty feels this more strongly than anyone else." He continues with words to the effect of, "Think carefully about why the Imperial Family survived nonetheless." Before speaking to the Crown Prince, Koizumi consulted with Emperor Showa and discussed their understanding of the war.

Conversely, I believe this is also an expression of Shinzo Koizumi's own awareness of his responsibility during his time as President. He was saying that when the Crown Prince becomes Emperor in the future, that position will not simply continue to exist as a matter of course, but he must constantly continue to seek what it ought to be and be aware of that responsibility. I think Koizumi's value was in saying such things bluntly and without hesitation. He may seem stern, but to his family, he was apparently a father who loved to talk, and at times his spirit of service was almost meddlesome.

Koizumi was someone who was quite vocal about various things even during his time as President. For example, there are lectures and booklets where he gave detailed advice to Keio students, such as saying it is strange to wear a muffler over a stand-up collar or not to eat while wearing a hat, and if he found such a student, he would caution them himself. When talking to alumni of the student mobilization generation, memories of being directly cautioned by the President frequently come up.

The "Memorandum of Imperial Lectures" also says, "Look at people's faces when listening to them, look at people's faces when speaking to them," and "Be a model of Good Manners." There must have been no one around the Imperial Family who was so unhesitatingly vocal, and I think it was the Crown Prince's good fortune to have someone by his side who would point out such unrefined points one by one.

Based on the discussion so far, if you have any thoughts on the current state of the symbolic emperor or the future, please share them.

What will the era after Heisei be like? In such a situation, when rereading "On the Imperial Household," a passage near the end comes to mind: "The Japanese Imperial Household should be sufficient to promote the reputation of valuing scholarship and respecting scholars." This can be read as saying that Japan should be a nation of culture and morality, and the Emperor is the symbol of that.

The next Emperor is also a researcher who obtained a master's degree from the Gakushuin University Graduate School and has been a visiting researcher at the Gakushuin University Museum of History for many years, continuing to decipher a vast amount of pre-modern documents. I thought the fact that someone with significant achievements in scholarship becomes the Emperor, and that valuing culture is the form of Japan, was written in advance in "On the Imperial Household." It is a true classic that is worth rereading even now.

As you said, the next Emperor will be the first in history to have graduated from graduate school and hold a master's degree, and at the same time, the first Emperor in history to have experience studying abroad. Additionally, the Empress is also the first in history to have studied abroad. Therefore, as a couple, there may be new aspects where they themselves promote exchanges with the younger generation.

Also, Her Imperial Highness Princess Masako said during her birthday press conference last December 9th that in recent years she has been interested in child abuse issues, poverty issues, and global environmental issues. In European royal families, queens and princesses also set up foundations for social work and commit to them. I hope that international goodwill from a different angle than the current Emperor and Empress will become possible.

I would like to speak from a different perspective. I believe there are various pieces of advice the Emperor gives to politicians that can only be done because he has continued for a long time, in places we cannot see. There are aspects that the Emperor notices precisely because he is not someone elected but someone who has continued for a very long time. And I think the presence of Koizumi, with whom he read "The Life of King George V," was quite significant in his being able to notice such things.

In 1960, when Crown Prince Akihito and his wife visited the United States, I saw a document at the Diplomatic Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that when the Ministry said they would let the Crown Prince and his wife hear about international politics as well as international exchange in America, Koizumi agreed to it. He was backing him up from behind in that way.

I believe he educated him by thinking about what he should be as a monarch, considering the time when the Crown Prince would later become Emperor, but how is it now? We must consider whether there was someone like Koizumi for the next Emperor. I want to think about whether he has been educated as the Emperor he should be, by someone who can see from a high vantage point.

Thank you. While we call it the "emperor system" as a "system," I think there is an instability that depends on the qualities and personality of the Emperor as an individual, created through the influence of those around him.

Rather than simply continuing to exist, he must recognize proactive value in it and continue to seek how it should be in a way that harmonizes with democracy. Today, I felt that it is meaningful to re-examine at this time the fact that a person like Shinzo Koizumi was involved in the education of the Crown Prince from such a perspective, and that Yukichi Fukuzawa's "On the Imperial Household" was in the background.

Thank you very much.