"She knew that for much of her nation's history Emperors had been cloistered symbols rather than rulers, recluses whose role was mainly to exist as a link between the world and the spirits. Revered, godlike, theoretically omnipotent but practically powerless, seldom glimpsed by ordinary folk. And very separate from the aristocracy of the sword, the bushi whose warlord masters had held the powers of State in their iron fists."
-SM Stirling, The Desert And The Blade (New York, 2016), Chapter Two, p. 30.
The Emperor is descended from the Goddess whereas the Roidhun is elected by the Hands.
In Britain, we have:
a head of state, the Queen;
a head of church, the Archbishop of Canterbury; (But see Comments)
a head of government, the Prime Minister.
The Queen is "Defender of the Faith" but, under the Revolutionary Settlement, no longer rules by divine right.
The Japanese Emperor's life sounds idyllic:
cloistered;
symbolic;
reclusive;
linking the world and the spirits;
revered;
godlike;
far away from all the swords, except the mystical sword used in the Imperial Enthronement.
17 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'm back! But I will need time to catch up here. And I also have other things I will be doing today.
Yes, I agree, the Japanese Emperors do resemble in some ways, the Merseian Roidhuns. Revered, symbolic, having religious functions, etc. Some differences, of course, such as the Japanese Imperial succession being hereditary while the Roidhuns were elected from the Vach Urdiolch.
Sean
Sean,
Welcome back! I have tried to get so far ahead that you won't catch up - but I will not succeed.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Ha, ha!!! I don't think I will entirely catch up, but I will try to MOSTLY do so!
Sean
Note that the Imperial succession in Japan was rather complex before the modern era. Collateral inheritance and abdication or "retirement" were common, often compelled by the warlord cliques who held actual political power. And retired Emperors (often becoming Buddhist monks) might retain control of the Imperial Court.
There were also several attempts, all failures, to restore the political power of the Imperial institution, which was always the ultimate source of political legitimacy.
The "Nanboku-chō jidai" (Northern and Southern Courts period), in the 1300's, saw a 50-year struggle between the supporters of the Muromachi shoguns, successors of the who controlled the northern branch of the Imperial family, and warriors loyal to the Southern Court, who wanted to make the Emperors actual rulers again.
Comment on the illustration: the Western-derived formal dress there is almost as detached from what people actually wear as the Japanese versions, which are fairly close to Heinan models and had become utterly "archaic" even in medieval times.
(Roman Catholic clerical vestments are essentially gentleman's street wear from Late Antiquity.)
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Because of your interesting comments about Japanese history, I've done some reading of my own in that subject. Yes, the politics of the Imperial succession in Japan was often COMPLEX. One of those complexities being that an heir to the throne was sometimes adopted by a preceding Emperor from another branch of the Imperial family (usually if the reigning Emperor had no son to succeed him).
And I will need to read up more about the period when Japan had two rival Imperial lines.
And I did notice the formal, Western derived court attire worn by Emperor Heisei and his family. However stiff and uncomfortable, it was a pleasant contrast to how slovenly so many people are these days!
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Another point I should have made about traditionally "secluded" existence led by most Japanese Emperors was that it gave them the time needed to pursue their private interests. Both the late Emperor Hirohito and his son Emperor Akihito were fully qualified marine biologists and made genuine contributions to that science. Which would not have been possible if they had an "active" role in the day to day governing of Japan.
Sean
And a brother of the Emperor read a paper at a conference on religions at Lancaster University. He had to stay in a hotel in the next county that met criteria laid down by the Japanese Embassy.
Formal wear usually signals status, among other things precisely by being archaic, impossible to use for any other purpose, or both; for example, Heinan court wear included long sleeves and hems that used up cloth (and wore it out) and made any physical activity outdoors impossible.
What we think of as very formal clothing -- tuxedos -- was actually -casual- semi-formal wear in the 19th century, an alternative to the frock coat... which in turn replaced the knee-breeches and embroidered open-fronted coats of the 18th century. The three-piece suit-and-tie that's now the next step down in formality was a casual-wear alternative to tailcoat and top-hat -- the equivalent of wearing yoga pants.
Kaor, Paul!
I assume this was Emperor Akihito's brother, whose name I don't recall. Plainly, the Japanese Embassy was concerned about security. Not unreasonably, alas!
Sean
Dear Mr. Stirling,
I agree, formal wear indicates wealth and status, among other things. And I did notice how COLORFUL 18th century formal wear could be. For reasons I don't understand, black became the color of formal wear in the 19th century.
I think I did know our current "formal" business suit and tie look used to be thought casual wear.
Sean
The shift to black was a signal of greater middle-class prestige; the colorful court garb of the 18th century had been a mark of aristocratic dominance.
Middle-class people had always worn much plainer clothing; partly because they couldn't afford the aristo costume, partly because they had to do things that couldn't be done while wearing clothes that fragile and expensive, and partly because of outright sumptuary laws or strong custom in many places.
The other part of the 19th-century "bourgeois uniform" was taken from the lower classes -- long trousers, loosely cut, rather than skin-tight knee-breeches. (Pants rather than culottes.)
The evolution of pants is a fascinating subject. Pants evolved more than once -- about twice, in Western history.
The original long and either loose or semi-tight pants of the "barbarian" peoples supplanted Roman robes, then gradually got tighter and smaller until they turned into "braes" (underwear); meanwhile "hose" started out as socks, grew into leggings as the braes shrank, became the full-body hose of the late medieval period (roughly like modern pantyhose, but for men), then separated into pants and socks once more...
...whereupon the whole process started over again, with the hose shrinking to knee-breeches and the now-separate socks growing to knee-hose.
Meanwhile the coat or tunic and shirt also underwent various developments -- the contrast of shirt and (buttoned) coat (and sometimes waistcoat) was a late medieval/early Modern development. About the same time, non-clerical men in the West stopped wearing long robes, and male and female dress became much more tightly divided. Previously men and women had usually worn different versions of the same clothes, at least for the upper body (cotte-hardies, for instance), but now they became very distinct.
Then in the early 19th century the urban working-class male garb of loose ankle-length pants was suddenly adopted as general wear for middle and upper-class men, though knee-breeches remained for strict formal wear for some time longer and skin-tight britches were retained for some military uniforms much longer.
Dear Mr. Stirling,
Yes, it can be very fascinating, tracing out the history of formal/informal attire. Yes, I have read of how the colorful court attire of the 18th century became passe during the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars. Yes, I can see how black became the color of formal attire, due to middle class influence. But soldiers of all nations tended to hang on longer to more color and "drama" in at least their dress uniforms. Example, I recall seeing a picture of FDR's first inauguration in 1933 with high ranking Naval officers standing behind him wearing very ornate uniforms complete with fore and aft "covers" holding plumes.
Again, yes, I recall how the Germanic barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire in both East and West wore trousers, not Roman style robes. But I had not realized that male/female dress was at one time not as strictly "defined" as it became in the late Medieval/Early Modern period.
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
I took another look at your blog piece and I belatedly realized you made a mistake. The Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury is not the head of the Church of England, the Queen is! or more exactly, she is "Supreme Governor" of the Established Church.
Sean
Sean,
Yes. The Queen, like the Pope and the Dalai Lama, is both a head of the state and a head of church. The Archbishop, as top clergyman, is the "Primate."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And unlike the authority of the Pope and Dalai Lama, the "supreme governorship" of the Queen has become very nominal, at most.
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
One of the most striking "constitutional" traits of the British is their reluctance to wholly give up anything. E.g., while no one may actually BELIEVE the Queen reigns by divine right, UK documents and coins still has the motto "Dei gratia." That is, Elizabeth II is SAID to reign by "the grace of God." I would call this an example of British caution and conservatism, a desire to avoid too radical OVERT change.
Sean
Post a Comment